Adam Smith and Josiah Tucker on Restructuring Empire
utilitarisme Empire Lumières indépendance américaine union parlementaire justice morale chrétienne libre-échange mercantilisme Compagnie des Indes orientales utilitarianism Enlightenment American Independence parliamentary union Christian morality free trade mercantilism East India Company
Smith’s critique of empire has recently attracted scholarly attention, but it has mostly been from the perspective of justice. The present article, however, argues that his views on it could also be appreciated by his 'utilitarian' attitude toward it. Combined with a similar line of analysis of Josiah Tucker, another key (though neglected) figure, the authors hope to add to the current trends of scholarship on the Enlightenment critique of empire. Neither Smith nor Tucker appealed merely to political right principles, but rather frequently explored imperial problems from 'utilitarian' viewpoints. A difference between Smith and Tucker derives from the latter's explicit appeal to Christian, or Protestant, ethics, by which Tucker was in a way associated not only with his mentor, Joseph Butler, but also with some of his adversaries, such as Richard Price and Joseph Priestley. The non-welfarist or non-consequentialist concept of justice was a significant element in the Enlightenment critique of the empire, but not the sole one. To fully appreciate the critique, more scholarly attention should be paid to the relationships between justice and other ideas such as divine providence and utility.
https://static.openedition.org/journals/images/favicon.png
Introduction

Adam Smith's Enlightenment: For or Against Empire?

18 Smith, A., Wealth of Nations, IV.vii.b.58-59, p. 588.

The policy of Europe, therefore, has very little to boast of, either in the original establishment, or so far as concerns their internal government, in the subsequent prosperity of the colonies of America. / Folly and injustice seem to have been the principles which presided over and directed the first project of establishing those colonies; the folly of hunting after gold and silver mines, and the injustice of coveting the possession of a country whose harmless natives, far from having ever injured the people of Europe, had received the first adventurers with every mark of kindness and hospitality.

Smith’s Utilitarian Critique of the Current Structure of the Mercantilist Empire

24 Smith, A., Wealth of Nations, IV.vii.c.60, p. 612; cf. IV.vii.b.49, p. 584.

All the original sources of revenue, the wages of labor, the rent of land, and the profits of stock, the monopoly renders much less abundant than they otherwise would be. To promote the little interest of one little order of men in one country, it hurts the interest of all other orders of men in that country, and of all men in all other countries.

28 Smith, A., Wealth of Nations, IV.vii.c.67, p. 618.

[The monopoly] diminishes instead of increasing [the revenue] of the great body of the people; and consequently diminishes instead of increasing the ability of the great body of the people to pay taxes.

12Another emphatic point here is that the current imperial structure influenced by mercantile policy was harmful to the interests of the state (government) because it was harmful to the interests of the nation as a whole. Smith considered public finance part of the national interest. Based on the thesis that the total amount of private revenue is the basis of public revenue, Smith asserted that rendering people wealthy is also essential to ameliorate the source of the national budget.

Consolidation for Making Colonial Trade Free: Smith’s Divergence from the Colonists’ Logic

33 Smith, A., Wealth of Nations, IV.vii.c.67, pp. 617-618.

In order to render any province advantageous to the empire to which it belongs, it ought to afford, in time of peace, a revenue to the public sufficient not only for defraying the whole expence of its own peace establishment, but for contributing its proportion to the support of the general government of the empire. Every province necessarily contributes, more or less, to increase the expence of that general government. If any particular province, therefore, does not contribute its share towards defraying this expence, an unequal burden must be thrown upon some other part of the empire. The extraordinary revenue too which every province affords to the public in time of war, ought, from parity of reason, to bear the same proportion to the extraordinary revenue of the whole empire which its ordinary revenue does in time of peace. That neither the ordinary nor extraordinary revenue which Great Britain derives from her colonies, bears this proportion to the whole revenue of the British empire, will readily be allowed.

'Free Trade' as Part of the Utilitarian Persuasion for the Separation Plan

21 Smith’s future vision for international relations between Britain and North America was thus characterised by a type of political realism rather than economic utopianism. Instead of asserting the a-priori dogma of unconditional superiority of free trade, he tried to show that a free trade area covering the Anglo Atlantic region stood a high likelihood of being established through an empirical analysis of the political and cultural dimensions of the history of Britain and her American colonies:

46 Smith, A., Wealth of Nations, IV.vii.c.66, p. 617.

By thus parting good friends, the natural affection of the colonies to the mother country, which, perhaps, our late dissensions have well nigh extinguished, would quickly revive. It might dispose them not only to respect, for whole centuries together, that treaty of commerce which they had concluded with us at parting, but to favour us in war as well as in trade, and, instead of turbulent and factious subjects, to become our most faithful, affectionate, and generous allies; and the same sort of parental affection on the one side, and filial respect on the other, might revive between Great Britain and her colonies, which used to subsist between those of ancient Greece and the mother city from which they descended.

23 In the cases of both consolidation and separation, what is vitally significant to Smith is to demonstrate the political reality of the actual realisation of free Atlantic trade. His main focus was on the prospect of achieving free trade, grounded not so much in the language of natural rights as the language of national wealth or welfare. In the case of separation, in particular, free trade in the Anglo Atlantic region was, for Smith, not a categorically secure prospect, but something that was likely or unlikely to be established depending on other political factors that were subject to change. What he had to show was not just the normative desirability of free trade, but rather the empirical likelihood of maintaining and developing Atlantic trade. This might suggest that if a friendly relationship that would ensure free trade had hardly been anticipated between the two countries concerned, it might have been more difficult for Smith to admit independence, as his support for it was constituted chiefly in terms of rising standards of living in the British nation. This is exactly the point that differentiates supporting independence based on the categorial natural right of resistance, on the one hand, and Smith’s utilitarian logic for conditional backing of separation on the other.

Smith’s View of Other Parts of the British Empire

26 Smith’s affirmative view of civilising Ireland through the expansion of the British Empire is closely entwined with his understanding of the Scottish Union with England. According to Smith’s explanation, 'By the union with England, the middling and inferior ranks of people in Scotland gained a complete deliverance from the power of an aristocracy which had always before oppressed them.' In the same manner, Smith considers whether Ireland should be incorporated into the British Empire in light of the welfare of the vast majority of Irish people themselves, and that they should require the Empire to be equally represented by each part while remaining within it. This is because 'By an union with Great Britain, the greater part of the people of all ranks in Ireland would gain an equally complete deliverance from a much more oppressive aristocracy'. This oppressiveness is due to the fact that the Irish aristocracy was founded in:

52 Smith, A., Wealth of Nations, V.iii.89, p. 944.

distinctions which, more than any other, animate both the insolence of the oppressors and the hatred and indignation of the oppressed, and which commonly render the inhabitants of the same country more hostile to one another than those of different countries ever are.

54 Phillipson, N., Adam Smith, pp. 235-236.

What, [Smith] asked, had done more to stimulate economic growth and tax takings in Scotland than the free trade with England and the colonies as established by the parliamentary Union of 1707? And would not a similar union between Great Britain, Ireland and the American colonies bring political as well as economic benefits? For it went without saying that this new union would be 'incorporating' in the sense that Ireland and America would be represented in the imperial parliament.

28As suggested here, this line of Unionist thought seems to flow into his consolidation plan regarding the American question. What can be called 'Enlightenment through expanding and improving the Empire' is clearly discernible in Smith’s vision of the United Kingdom as an Atlantic empire composed of England, Scotland, Ireland, and the American colonies. This line of thought can even be dubbed Smith’s 'imperial Enlightenment'.

Tucker’s Critique of the British Empire

31As Smith, Josiah Tucker was not a simple anti-imperialist, no matter how vehement his critique of the British Empire was. He did not appeal to the language of political rights in his critique of the Empire, and rather aspects of his views on it were 'utilitarian', or focusing on public welfare (chiefly, the welfare of Britons). However, a close reading of Tucker’s works makes us realise both similarities and critical differences between him and Smith in their ideas on the British empire. As he was one of the representative critics of the British empire of the age, such comparative research will help uncover, from a novel perspective, the characteristics of Smith’s critique of eighteenth-century views on the British empire as a whole.

34It must also be noted that his views on the British empire had been changing over time during his career. While Tucker’s argument for Britain’s voluntary separation from the American colonies is the most well-known aspect of his thought on empire, he expressed this argument, at least publicly, only after the mid-1760s, when colonial affairs became spotlighted in British politics. Before that period, he believed that British policy on the colonies had to help produce mutual benefits for the colonies and the mother country so that the colonists would not wish to become independent. In the second, enlarged edition of his Essay on Trade, published in 1753, he added the passages including the following one:

61 Tucker, Josiah, A Brief Essays on the Advantages and Disadvantages which respectively attend France (...)

It is a just Complaint, That many of the Provinces have set up several Species of Manufactures, which greatly interfere with the Trade and Prosperity of their Mother Country. Yet how shall we prevent them? ― There is but one Way to do it, that is either just, or practicable: and that is, By an Exchange of Commodities to MUTUAL DEPENDENCE. And this Principle alone will contribute more to the preserving of the Dependency of our Colonies upon their Mother Country, than any other Refinement or Invention. For if we are afraid, that one Day or other they will revolt, and set up for themselves, as some seem to apprehend; Let us not drive them to a Necessity to feel themselves independent of us: ― As they will do, the Moment they perceive, that they can be supplied with all Things from within themselves, and do not need our Assistance. If we would keep them still dependent upon their Mother Country, and in some Respects subservient to her Views, and Welfare; ― Let us make it their INTEREST always so to be.

35Here, the increase in international trade, not commercial restraint, was recommended, and the colonists were obviously the subjects rather than fellow citizens, even if the trade aimed at promoting the 'mutual benefits'.

Implementing a Union with Ireland

78 Josiah Tucker to Lord Kames (26 December 1763), quoted in Hont, I., 'The “Rich Country-Poor Country (...)

I have had the honour of making him [Hume] a convert, in regard to the notion, That cheap countries do not produce cheap manufactures. The more he reflects on the matter, the more he will be convinced, that a rich industrious country can never be overtaken, much less outdone by a poor one; equal industry operating in both.

Monopolies as a Violation of Natural Rights

45Even so, it is doubtless that Tucker was a staunch defender of free trade, as his position on that issue remained mostly consistent throughout almost his entire career. Also, mostly consistent was his idea of justice and religiousness within the problems of international commerce. As to the issues of the Empire and the American and Irish affairs, he placed an emphasis on political and economic benefits, not on justice, but both elements existed along one another in his discussion on international trade.

50What Tucker wished to establish was an Empire that was not just economically efficient, but also politically stable and morally righteous, without which its nations could not flourish for a long time. That was closely linked to the fundamental principle of his political thought: the coherence between morality, political institutions and social welfare.

Restructuring the Empire for What?

54This article attempted to highlight Smith’s and Tucker’s 'utilitarian' stances and their attention to social wellbeing, but other elements of their critiques of the Empire, such as morality and religion, should not be neglected. Apparently, it is a mistake to treat all these factors as separate from one another. For the thinkers, doing justice or being moral frequently meant bringing social benefits to people in general, and at least, for Tucker, doing something religiously right would provide a basis for social prosperity. At the same time, however, the relationship among them varied from issue to issue in subjects related to imperial affairs.

55For Smith and Tucker, the American affairs during the late 1760s onwards were more concerned around the problem of social welfare than with pure justice. However, their analyses and conclusions differed. Smith 'preferred' an incorporating union, but he also saw Britain’s separation from the colonies as desirable, whereas Tucker, after the mid-1760s, regarded the latter as the only possible solution to the problem.

100 Tucker, J., Elements of Commerce and Theory of Tax, p. 134.

The Government and Administration, which, God be praised, no longer proceeds upon the old Maxims of Tyranny and Prerogative, but considers itself as the equal Protector of, and equally related to all its Subjects, would soon find the Effects of its Paternal Care in the growing Industry of the People. The wheels of Government would smoothly on; because the great Subject of repining would be taken away: And it would be neither the Interest, nor Inclination of the great Body of the People to complain of an open Trade, or to wish for any Change in their Commercial system […] Moreover, the Amount of Taxes would be every Day increasing, because the Numbers of the People would increase, and their Abilities to consume taxable Commodities would increase likewise: Consequently the Produce of the Sinking Fund would rise; the National Debt would lessen, and Money, when wanted, might be borrowed at almost any Interest.

105 Tucker, J., A Brief Essay on Trade, 1749, pp. 58-9.

THE foregoing Proposals were endeavoured to be drawn up in such a Manner as pointed out, how the desired Alterations in our Systems of Commerce, and of collecting the Publick Revenue might be brought about as gradually as possible. And no greater Deviations were attempted to be made from the present State of these Affairs, than seemed absolutely necessary; least too precipitate a Shock might prejudice Mankind against Conviction. I did not therefore propose some of the above-mentioned Alterations, as what appeared to me the very best, which could be devised; but the best in our present Circumstances, and the likeliest to succeed. For I am convinced, That what I am now going to offer, is in itself a much more effectual Remedy, if our Constitution is strong enough to admit the Application of it.

61In his work on poverty, published in 1760, he linked to his 'gradualism' to an analysis of human nature:

106 Tucker, Josiah, The Manifold Causes of the Increase of the Poor Distinctly Set forth; together with (...)

The Remedies ought to go to the Root of the Evils here complained of; but they should not proceed with too much Violence, and Precipitance: Nor should their whole Tendency appear at once; except to the judicious few. For the Mass of Mankind are every-where more attached to old Customs than to the Truth and Reason, or the Usefulness of Things. And therefore their deep-rooted Prejudices must be undermined by very great Degrees, instead of being buttered down by Force and Fury, especially in Such a Constitution as ours.

62As seen above, Smith, in Wealth of Nations, displayed a similar principle for policies, although unlike Tucker, drawing attention to the case of international trade. On a textual level, however, an apparent difference between Smith and Tucker can be seen in their attitudes towards Christianity. In Tucker’s view, Christian, more precisely, Protestant ethics would be perfectly compatible with political and economic liberties. That vision of the world reflected his own ideals, but it was also practically oriented (at least in his own view).

68Tucker did not prophesy anything similar, but rather, he shared Priestley’s (and perhaps Smith’s) wishes for world peace. For both Priestley and Tucker, religious truth would generate both justice and utility, but they were divided over the question of how political rights were involved in this triangle of ideas. The ideological differences of these thinkers suggest that not just any one of these ideas (utility, justice and religious faith), but their interrelationships were significant in order to reveal the arguments against Empire of the age. The Enlightenment critique of Empire was the matter of justice, but it was also linked closely to a variety of utilitarian and religious visions, or to those of all these viewpoints combined. The complexity and variations of these visions clearly deserve further exploration.