• 1 A representative figure of this current, David Armitage, who moved from Cambridge in Britain to the (...)
• 2 Muthu, Sankar, Enlightenment against Empire (Princeton, N.J.  : Princeton University Press, 2003); (...)

1Were the British Empire and its colonialism the necessary outcome of the Enlightenment or only a deviation from it? Postmodernist historians, along with the first generation of Frankfurters, tend to prefer the former understanding, while progressivist proponents of modernity — as an “unfinished project”, for instance — emphasise the possibility of the latter. Lately, there appears to have been an increasingly influential third position; global intellectual historians (who have been establishing the history of international political thought, particularly in North America) are now searching for the positive potential of eighteenth-century Enlightenment thought and culture, distinguishing it from the far more imperialistic intellectual currents of nineteenth-century Britain and Europe at large.1 There were more than a few Enlightenment thinkers who strongly criticised the imperialism and colonialism of the European powers that were violently expanding beyond their region with the 'mission of civilisation'. In addition to Immanuel Kant, the author of Zum ewigen Frieden (Toward Perpetual Peace), and Guillaume Thomas Raynal and Denis Diderot, co-authors of the Histoire philosophique et politique des établissements et du commerce des Européens dans les deux Indes, there are several eminent British literati, including Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, Josiah Tucker, and some English radicals who belong to this camp.2 Smith's Wealth of Nations, the pre-eminent magnum opus in the history of economics, is now interpreted by political theorists and global intellectual historians as representing the liberal and anti-Eurocentric tendencies at the core of the Enlightenment.

• 3 Pitts, Jennifer, A Turn to Empire: The Rise of Imperial Liberalism in Britain and France (Princeton (...)
• 4 Before the nineteenth century, Europeans already regarded native Americans (and Africans) as obviou (...)

2 As exemplified by Jennifer Pitts, these global intellectual historians share a general inclination to make the following dichotomy, which contrasts eighteenth-century and nineteenth-century European thought:3 while many intellectuals in the Age of the Enlightenment were rather modest with their skeptical attitude toward the supremacy of Western civilisation over the Orient — even including the Scots and the French who posited the so-called progressivist view of history — those of the nineteenth-century, on the contrary, felt sure of their historically unprecedented attainment of hard as well as soft power, showing no hesitation when it came to 'civilising' or 'enlightening' barbarous and savage nations any longer.4 While the authors of this paper agree with many of their arguments, they also wonder whether such a thesis may be too simplistic to frame the intellectual relations between the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. What historians have to be careful of here is that one would expect too much of the idea of Enlightenment by idealising or aggrandising eighteenth-century thinkers as resolute anti-imperialist fighters. Instead, it is necessary to pay sufficient attention to the complex and subtle posture of the imperial and colonial projects of the West. They judged matters on their own merits, after all, rather than giving unconditional or categorical support to the independence of the colonies and those colonised by European powers.

• 5 Williams, David, 'Adam Smith and Colonialism', Journal of International Political Theory, 10 (2014) (...)
• 6 Campbell, T.D. and I.S. Ross, 'The Utilitarianism of Adam Smith's Policy Advice', Journal of the Hi (...)

3 Influential studies such as those by Pitts and Sankar Muthu have invited several responses from other commentators. Regarding Smith’s critique of the empire, recent scholarship has pointed to its 'ambivalence', meaning that Smith uncritically or more positively assessed the projects for European colonies in some respects than previously thought.5 What is common throughout these studies of Smith’s critical or conciliatory attitude towards the empire is their attention to his idea of justice or morality on the subject. The studies, although not neglected, do not particularly highlight other elements of Smith’s thought, such as public welfare and expediency. Apart from these, scholarship on Smith has paid considerable attention to the 'utilitarian' aspects of his moral philosophy and political economy. More than forty years ago, for example, T.D. Campbell and Ian S. Ross interpreted Smith’s 'policy advice' in the Wealth of Nations as largely 'utilitarian in cast'.6

• 7 Utilitarianism may be the moral theory that has been most consistently misunderstood, particularly (...)
• 8 J. G. A. Pocock alludes only briefly to the common utilitarian ground to Smith and Tucker (and Hume (...)

4 Far from dismissing the fruits of recent discussions on Smith’s critique of the empire, the present article hopes to show that the debate would be improved by drawing attention, once again, to his “utilitarian” position.7 Current scholarship on the Enlightenment attitude toward empire would, the authors believe, be further enriched by exploring the largely neglected figures of the period, such as Josiah Tucker. On this theme, Smith has often been compared to Burke, which has led scholars to the problem of justice; a necessary outcome, chiefly due to Burke’s active engagement with East Indian affairs. However, a comparative study between Smith and Tucker may generate a different scholarly interest, and it will contribute to the Tucker scholarship as well, since it has rightly pointed to the Christian (or 'Butlerian') character of Tucker’s political economy, but often neglected a 'utilitarian' stance in his imperial thought. While Tucker never advanced any 'utilitarian' theory intentionally nor systematically, pointing to Tucker’s utilitarian “stance” reveals an aspect of his thought rather than searching for ideological genealogies within it.8

• 9 To quickly mention the order of our argument, which addresses Smith first and then Tucker: one may (...)
• 10 Several alternatives to be compared with Tucker are surely present in the Scottish Enlightenment in (...)

5 From this perspective, this article investigates, in detail, the argumentative structure of championing the reform of the British Empire on the part of Smith and Tucker, including the conditional justification of American Independence.9 As is well known, they have much in common with regard to several essential issues of the Enlightenment, with their advocacy of American Independence and valuing an international free trade both being at the centre.10 Through analysing the arguments of these two intellectuals, who took the lead in justifying the independence of the colonies, we assert that the Enlightenment in the eighteenth century should not only be understood in opposition to imperial colonialism, but rather has entangled and intricate relations with them. What was at issue then is in general a project of restructuring the British Empire in order to maintain and improve it, and it is therefore no less important to discuss the “imperial” Enlightenment than the Enlightenment against the Empire.

• 11 For recent arguments from the international relations theory, see van de Harr, Edwin, 'Adam Smith o (...)
• 12 Ross, Ian Simpson, The Life of Adam Smith, Second Edition (Oxford : Oxford University Press, [1995] (...)
• 13 Smith, Adam, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, eds. R. H. Campbell an (...)
• 14 Pocock, J. G. A., 'Hume and the American Revolution: The dying thoughts of a North Briton' in his V (...)
• 15 While Hume’s advocacy of American independence tends to chiefly be framed in terms of criticism of (...)

6Compared to Josiah Tucker, whom we will examine in the following section, Adam Smith's politico-economic criticism of the inefficient and unjust structure of the British Empire has been well discussed.11 It is well known that it is because of his avid — and possibly excessive — interest in the American problem that Smith could not publish his masterwork until another three years had passed since his visit to London in 1773. It may also be widely acknowledged that a complaint by David Hume, who was nearing the end of his life, was likely to have forced Smith to abandon further revision of his manuscript and encouraged him to publish the first edition of his second book.12 It is the result of Smith's extreme concern with the contemporary situation of revolutionary North America that we have such a voluminous chapter in Book IV, entitled 'Of colonies', probably much to our benefit.13 While Hume himself was actually interested in the American affair in terms of quite domestic politics,14 his complaint about Smith's persistence in seeing the consequence of this 'turbulence' unexpectedly revealed how essential Smith's concern with the politico-economic structure of the British (and other) Empires was to the argument of The Wealth of Nations. Consequently, in response to Hume’s comment, Smith’s view of the American question crystallised as an indispensable part of his future vision of modern society and international order.15

• 16 Smith, A., Wealth of Nations, IV.vii.b.60, p. 589
• 17 Muthu, Enlightenment against Empire; Muthu, Sankar, 'Adam Smith’s Critique of International Trading (...)

7 In more than a few passages in Chapter 7, Book IV of The Wealth of Nation, we encounter his relentless impeachment of European colonialism. In comparison to the colonial policy of the Ancient Roman and Greek states, all of the modern European powers’ colonial policies were regarded as being marked by 'folly and injustice' as it was a 'chimerical project of finding gold and silver mines' after all.16 The tone of his moral impeachment is striking enough for recent global intellectual historians to recognise Smith as representing the conscience of the Enlightenment against imperial colonialism:17

• 19 Smith, A., Wealth of Nations, IV.vii.a.17, p. 562. He described it as similar to 'the absurd idea o (...)
• 20 While Smith’s distinction between the laws of justice and conveniencies is at the centre of his fra (...)

8Needless to say, his critique of the European colonial project was largely due to his value theory, which revealed mercantilists’ 'sacred thirst of gold'19 groundless and mistaken by reification. However, he described that this 'most disadvantageous lottery in the world' was not only irrational and absurd, but also of immoral quality. His well-regulated moral resentment can be easily read behind his descriptive explanation of the history of the European empires.20

• 21 Skinner, Andrew, 'Adam Smith : the demise of the colonial relationship with America', Cahier d’écon (...)
• 22 Skinner, A., 'Demise', p. 114; Stevens, D, 'Adam Smith and the Colonial Disturbances', in Essays on (...)

9Smith’s harsh criticism of European injustice to natives and settlers embodied the Enlightenment’s liberal and democratic ideals, to some extent. This surely allowed him to defend against resistance and even independence, with quite a sympathetic attitude toward colonial causes. On the other hand, specialist scholarship on Adam Smith and the Scottish Enlightenment has paid more attention to his multiple plans and futurist vision for the British colonies in North America after 1775 than recent historians of international thought. According to Andrew Skinner, one of the most influential experts representing modern scholarship on Smith, his 'consolidation' plan is no less worthy of detailed investigation than his 'separation' or 'independence' plan.21 Skinner and others interpret Smith as preferring the former solution, the incorporating union.22 This does not denote, as shall be demonstrated here, that they attempt to expose his true character as an apologist for the British Empire, demystifying the idealised image of the Enlightenment figure. Rather, by thoroughly investigating his 'unionist' solution, it is possible to understand how and to what extent the Enlightenment thinkers could be 'liberal' without being an unsparing adversary against the Empire. Most conspicuously, behind his thinking of multiple possibilities about the future of Great Britain and North America is an analysis based on the language of utility or expediency, rather than defending political independence as a categorical natural right. His utilitarian and comparative analysis enabled him to weigh the merits and demerits of the two possible visions instead of presuming a single picture as what was unnegotiably right.

• 23 For the details, see Ueno, Hiroki, 'Educating a Young Aristocrat during Grand Tour', Journal of Sco (...)

10 It should be emphasised that Smith had in mind more than one direction for Great Britain and her colonies to go to in terms of public happiness or utility, while no less importantly, the same utilitarian principle prompted him to attack the contemporary structure of the Empire almost without reservation. The main point of his strategy is to define the essence of her imperial trade as a mercantile policy, with monopoly as a central means. According to Smith, mercantilism was in fatal contradiction to the principle of public welfare in two manners: first, a refined form of the mercantile ideology could have this principle in common with Smith’s system, while it misunderstood the essential nature of public wealth (as a material form of public happiness) and therefore the way to reach its maximisation; second, the mercantile policy was actually a disguised pursuit of greedy merchants’ self-interest at the expense of public interest, something that easily deceived politicians who were not enlightened enough to have acquired knowledge of political economy as a science of the legislator — even if they had good intentions to serve the public.23 In both cases, Smith rebuked the contemporary structure of the British Empire and its colonial trade on the grounds that the pursuit of mercantile private interest with unjust political measures severely damaged public wealth:

• 25 Smith, A., Wealth of Nations, IV.vii.c.62, p. 613.
• 26 Smith, Craig, Adam Smith (Cambridge : Polity Press, 2020), pp. 137-138.
• 27 According to Smith, although the American colonies appeared to be free from heavy direct taxes, the (...)

11It should be noted that the mercantile policy and trade structure was condemned because of its harmfulness to 'the general interest of the country',25 while Smith acknowledged the sole, relatively minor advantage it procured to a single class of society. Particular attention should be paid to Smith’s definition of public (material) happiness and welfare. He not only asserted that restructuring an Empire deformed by the mercantile policy would be beneficial to the inhabitants of North America but also emphasised that the same reform would promote the welfare of people in Great Britain as well.26 It is even possible to assert that Smith’s primary focus was on the fact that the reform of the Empire and its colonial trade was required for the happiness of the people in Great Britain above all else. Of course, Smith does not fail to point out that the happiness of the people in British America would improve as well,27 and both of them constitute public happiness as a whole. On the following pages, he states:

• 29 Smith discusses that free trade within the imperial territory is beneficial to the general wealth o (...)

13Smith’s central argument is that, in opposition to the mercantile structure of the current Empire, free trade would best suit the aforementioned 'utilitarian' principle. The reason imperial or international free trade would be far better than the mercantile monopoly, in Smith’s view, is clear; it is the former, rather than the latter, which enhances public or national interest, whose focus would unprecedentedly be on the lower and middle class people.29 What should be kept in mind in our context is that, as a means conducive to the best interests of the British nation as a whole, free trade was considered a feasible project without destroying the Empire. On the contrary, Smith admitted that the free exchange of goods and capital is, in general, much easier to install within a single or united political entity rather than between distinct nations. If the increase in national welfare through free trade was of primary importance to Smith, it would be of secondary importance whether it was implemented through imperial consolidation or separation.

• 30 Keane, J., Tom Paine: A Political Life (London : Bloomsbury, 1995), pp. 257-8.
• 31 Smith, C., Adam Smith, p. 153.
• 32 Dickinson, Harry T., 'The Failure of Conciliation: Britain and the American Colonies 1763-1783', Th (...)

14 In fact, Smith’s consolidation plan, which Smith preferred to the separation, showed his distancing from the logic of the colonists. It would be misleading if one considers that Smith shared such a strong moral commitment to the American cause, as shown by the likes of Thomas Paine (who cited Smith several times though).30 According to Smith, the reasoning behind ‘their complaints about arbitrary and excessive taxation’ is not very compelling.31 It is true that both of them were similarly critical of the enforced oppression of the British mercantile policy in the actual form, and Smith clarified his disagreement with the conservative view on the British side, according to which the 'virtual representation' of the North American colonies in Westminster was already fulfilled.32 However, his assessment of the current financial structure of Britain and its American colonies is quite different from major discussions by colonists, and even somewhat favourable to the British government’s attempt to restructure its Atlantic Empire:

• 34 See Smith, A., Wealth of Nations, IV.vii.c.69-70, pp. 619-620. Cf. Dickinson, H. T., 'Failure of Co (...)

15These statements obviously include Smith’s view that the colonies should pay more tax in order to make reasonable contributions to the ordinary governance and defence of the British Empire. Needless to say, he opposed the taxation contemporarily imposed on American colonies because it currently did not accompany proper representation. However, in Smith’s case, 'no taxation without representation' would rather mean that more taxation should be imposed on the American colonies on the condition that the people in British America were properly represented in the imperial capital and its parliament (namely London and Westminster at the time). Smith did not agree with the colonists who tended to interpret this slogan as demonstrating that British people in North America need not pay taxes or obey decisions by parliament in Westminster, as the American colonies did not send their delegates there. He could not recognise the colonists’ refusal to acknowledge the right of taxation regarding imperial governance belonging exclusively to the integrated imperial parliament.34

• 35 Smith, A., Wealth of Nations, IV.vii.c.77, p. 624.
• 36 Smith understands considerable differences between their logic and his own vision of restructuring (...)
• 37 Pocock, J. G. A., The Discovery of Islands: Essays in British History (Cambridge : Cambridge Univer (...)
• 38 In the consolidation plan, Smith highly recommends the incorporation union modelled out of the new (...)

16 Perhaps most importantly, there was significant ideological divergence between the American colonists and people in Great Britain regarding what proper representation might be, which was proper enough to justify imposing taxes.35 A Hanoverian Unionist, Smith firmly believed that the parliamentary Union was essential for the further development of the British Empire and its American colonies in the same manner as the case of the 1707 Union of England and Scotland. In contrast, American politicians gathering for the Stamp Act Congress in October 1765 did not hesitate to proclaim that the parliament in Westminster did not have the right to impose taxes on the colonies, as it did not accept representatives from North America, but also that each colony in America could have taxes imposed on it only by its own parliament.36 Quite famously, Edmund Burke retrospectively characterised the laissez-faire attitude of the metropole toward the American colonies as 'Salutary Neglect' in early 1775 (March 22), and this traditional policy was what the Americans demanded the Metropolitan government return to. For Smith, this type of Ancien Régime could no longer function well, as the Scots’ past experiences had taught them. The centralised sovereign state with the idea of 'king in parliament' was, for Smith and the majority of the Scottish literati, the almost exclusive conclusion drawn from the seventeenth-century history of unstable relations between England and Scotland that had only partly united by sharing the crown while retaining its own individual parliaments.37 This form of union, the union of not parliaments but crowns, is actually equivalent to the ideal widely shared by American colonists, at least before the publication of Paine’s Common Sense. Rather, they had naturally believed that they were able to share the British crown without sharing a single imperial parliament, meaning that each of the colonies did not need to become entirely independent from Britain in order to keep its independent parliament. Frequently called 'dominion theory', this idea can also be dubbed the 'king in parliaments' (plural), an idea that the mainstream of the Scottish Enlightenment gave up as converts to the Hanoverian Unionists.38

• 39 For qualification, it should be mentioned that there were several plans suggested by the American s (...)

17 It is here that Smith’s main vision of the restructured Empire substantially diverged from the major understanding of the categorical proposition of 'no taxation without representation' on the side of American colonists.39 Proper attention should be paid to the fact that many Americans had considered remaining in the empire justifiable and realistic, even though they refused to admit the supreme authority of the single imperial parliament over self-governing assemblies established by each autonomous province. This is exactly what the Scottish Unionist — even if sympathetic about the colonists’ complaints about mercantile oppression — could not speak for.

• 40 Smith, Adam, Correspondence of Adam Smith, eds. Ernest Campbell Mossner and Ian Simpson Ross (Oxfor (...)

18While the idea of remaining in the British Empire without acknowledging the exclusive right of the Westminster parliament to impose necessary taxes on American colonies was not acceptable for Smith, the new direction of complete independence from the United Kingdom probably appeared to him to be a much more coherent political stance. This would still be so, even if it was the second-best choice in terms of public welfare for all those living in the British Empire. The enduring importance Smith placed in the consolidation plan may be detected from his decision to leave its detailed explanation as it originally appeared in all of the later editions of the Wealth of Nations. However, he explicitly admitted at the same time that this best choice for public welfare became much less realistic as early as 1778, after which he started to pay more heed to the separation plan.40

• 41 According to J. G. A. Pocock, this utilitarian view of American independence is shared with both Tu (...)
• 42 Pocock, J., 'American Revolution', p. 138: 'Like Adam Smith in Scotland and Josiah Tucker in Englan (...)
• 43 Smith, A., Wealth of Nations, IV.vii.c.66, p. 617.
• 44 Smith, A., Wealth of Nations, IV.vii.c.66, p. 617.

19 Of exclusive importance here is the fact that Smith regarded the separation plan as no less beneficial to the welfare of American and British peoples, rather than claiming that American Independence was an absolute natural right of an American people, regardless of whether it was beneficial or harmful to people in Great Britain.41 This line of argument is, as suggested by J. G. A. Pocock, what can be dubbed a 'Tory' advocacy or reasoning of American independence, and one that is shared by David Hume and Josiah Tucker.42 Actually, such an assertion was quite astonishing to contemporaries within the context of the dispute over the American question. In addition to conservative hawks, most British politicians and intellectuals tend to think that they would have no choice but to put down the riot if the colonists declared their independence, because such separation would cause fatal damage to the most significant lifeline for the British Empire: trans-Atlantic trade. The voluntary admission of the colonial separation seemed to Smith no longer realistic by 1788, owing not solely to the existing private interests of the privileged mercantile capitalists and ruling classes in maintaining the current commercial structure, but also to a dominant public opinion obsessed with national pride and dignity rather than national interest.43 Taking this situation into account, it is quite natural to assume that the only possibility of defending this imperial lifeline would be to defeat the American riot. This is because, without the victory of the war, it was supposed that Britain would lose almost every fruit of the trans-Atlantic imperial trade, with this loss being so devastating that the public welfare of those living in Great Britain would be vitally harmed. Surprisingly, the prospect Smith’s depicted in The Wealth of Nations differed from this common view. He considered that, rather than breaking off the economic and social exchanges between the Old and New Worlds, prosperous trans-Atlantic trade between Britain and North America could be maintained and possibly even further developed if the colonies became independent states. The tremendous merit of voluntary separation was not only that Great Britain would 'be immediately freed from the whole annual expence of the peace establishment of the colonies', but also that Britain 'might settle with them such a treaty of commerce as would effectually secure to her a free trade, more advantageous to the great body of the people, though less so to the merchants, than the monopoly which she at present enjoys.'44

• 45 On the relationship between justice and utility in Adam Smith, see also Ueno, H., 'Does Adam Smith’ (...)

20 If people in Great Britain could continue to enjoy international trade with North America without high tariffs after the separation, this prospect had the discursive power to persuade British people to understand and even acknowledge American independence, particularly those in Great Britain, who could not help opposing independence in terms of national wealth and welfare while appreciating the American cause itself. It is of vital importance to be cognizant of the fact that Smith’s scientific analysis was also a practical art of persuasion for the separation plan. Smith attempted to demonstrate the real possibility of free trade between Britain and an independent North America in order to convince others that there was a certain form of separation that would instead promote the public happiness of the British on the East side of the Atlantic Ocean. Smith had to make every effort to demonstrate the compatibility of free trade and separation all the more because most of the people in Great Britain anticipated that their economic prosperity would contradict American independence. Special attention should thus be paid to the fact that this was part of Smith’s strategy of political persuasion, and that it was essentially different from saying that independence was a collective natural right of the American people, particularly as the Lockean right of resistance.45

• 47 Smith, A., Wealth of Nations, IV.vii.c.44, p. 606.
• 48 Smith, Adam, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, eds. D.D. Raphael and A.L. Macfie (Oxford : Oxford Uni (...)
• 49 Smith, A., Wealth of Nations, IV.vii.c.44, p. 606.

22It is within this political realism that Smith’s well-known gradualism regarding reform should be situated.47 Under the separation scenario, it is especially important to consider how to reach free trade as an ideal state. Separation would be likely to cause much more drastic changes than consolidation. Smith severely condemned 'a man of system' because such a radical reform for a free market as implemented by Turgot and Physiocrats in France could incite wide-ranging reactions throughout society.48 Instead of the so-called 'constructivist' way of thinking, Smith employed an incrementalist approach, asserting the need to consider a variety of invested interests formed under the mercantile system. The most important reason for this is that the turbulence, disorder, and political instability that rapid reformation would likely bring about could be fatal to public safety, even when taking into account the increase in public welfare promoted by the introduction of free trade.49 This denotes that his powerful defence of international economic freedom is not necessarily a categorical assertion, but subordinate to, and determined by what Jeremy Bentham would call the 'principle of utility'.

• 50 For example, see Dickinson, H. T., 'Failure of Conciliation'.

24As suggested, Smith’s liberal stance regarding the American question was beyond doubt, and was already apparent by early 1776. At the time, the overwhelming majority of parliamentarians, and public opinion in general, favoured asserting military suppression over the rebel army with the expectation of an easy victory.50 By contrast, Smith took the fact that a colonial uprising came into existence on such a scale much more seriously, as well as understandable reasons and moral causes behind it. However, his liberality and sympathy toward Americans were far from an unconditional moral commitment to their independence. Instead of stressing the unnegotiable right to collective self-determination, Smith assessed the reasonableness of possible American Independence in terms of whether it contributed to public happiness and welfare. This suggests the theoretical possibility that independence would be better avoided if it did not result in the best realisation of public happiness. This is the chief reason why this paper emphasises that a comparison of his consolidation and separation scenarios is indispensable. Smith almost unconditionally criticised the contemporary structure of the British Empire and its colonial trade, while attempting to outline several directions toward its improved future to be chosen from.

• 51 This expression is derived from the title of the following collection of essays: Robertson, John (e (...)

25 His experimental and conditional analysis of the British Empire discussed so far also explains the variety of his stances on different parts of the Empire. At first glance, for example, Smith’s view of Ireland and that of East India appears to be almost contradictory: while his undoubtedly enlightened positioning against the Empire can easily be found when criticising the tyrannical rule of the East India Company over India and other Asian regions, his positive portrayal of good governance in Ireland under the Union implies what can be dubbed his 'Unionism for the Empire'.51 Nevertheless, if the aforementioned utilitarian perspective that belongs to him is well understood, the Smith who was against the Empire would not be incompatible with the Smith who was in favour of the Empire.

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

27Smith’s conclusion, therefore, is not endorsing Irish independence from the British Empire but 'inventing' the single Irish nation via extending the imperial blessing of the centralised government with the rule of law: 'Without a union with Great Britain, the inhabitants of Ireland are not likely for many ages to consider themselves as one people'.53 The thrust of his argument is summarised by Phillipson as follows:

• 55 Smith, A., Wealth of Nations, IV.vii.c.90-91, p. 631; cf. IV.vii.b.22-24, pp. 575-577:'Monopolies o (...)
• 56 Smith, A., Wealth of Nations, IV.vii.c.102-104, pp. 637-638: 'Nothing, however, can be more directl (...)

29 In contrast, Smith’s critique of the East India Company represents another aspect of his Enlightenment: one opposed to empire and imperialism. His attack on the imperial structure of East Indian trade is more explicitly severe than in the case of North America and the West Indies, for two main reasons. The first is that, compared to the exclusion of foreign merchants found in Atlantic commerce, the market monopoly by a single chartered company found in East India trade was regarded by the Smithian economic analysis as having an even worse effect on the welfare of the people. This is because this mercantile structure severely limited competition between capitals by excluding not only foreigners, but also other domestic merchants and manufacturers.55 The second reason is that the total domination of a single trading company over international commerce resulted in the worst kind of political rule: a government of merchants, which would be worse than any tyrannical rule the world had ever seen, in either ancient and modern times.56

• 57 Cooperative aspects of the principles of public utility and natural justice in Smith should be unde (...)

30 Along with his serious investigation of the possible compatibility between American separation and international free trade, Smith’s unsparing criticism of the East India Company shows that he was frequently a real critic of the Empire. Smith’s (restrained) resentment, which is directed toward the atrocities of mercantile imperialism, can also be detected in his renowned criticism of modern slavery, wherein his utilitarian and right-based languages go hand in hand.57 At the same time, however, his thorough consideration of the consolidation scenario and his basic stance on the Irish question no doubt demonstrate that he was far from a categorical anti-imperialist. Rather, he could sometimes be a liberal imperialist without theoretical contradiction who was eager to restructure and improve the British Empire.

• 58 For an overview of Tucker’s engagement with the American affairs, see Shelton, George, Dean Tucker (...)

32Tucker’s engagement with the Empire was mainly seen through three subjects: the American colonies,58 Ireland and international trade, including the issues of exclusive companies (we may add the East India affairs here, although he discussed it only briefly). He structured his discussion by employing several languages of political thought, including the language of religion, history and political economy.

• 59 For Tucker's Christian morality, see Price, Peter Xavier, 'Liberty, Poverty and Charity in the Poli (...)
• 60 On this, see especially, Price, P., 'Liberty, Poverty and Charity in the Political Economy of Josia (...)

33One of the characteristics of his political thought was intellectual coherence: in his view, morality, political institutions and commerce are closely linked, and if one of them become corrupted, it adversely affected the others. England’s pre-eminent constitution, first enacted around 1688-9, and its quickly growing economy could, in that respect, be perfectly compatible with Christian, or more precisely Protestant morality, even though that morality may still have been at the risk of corruption.59 Yet, despite his 'Butlerian' world views,60 Tucker’s critique of the British empire frequently derived from his viewpoints of public welfare. That was most clearly seen in his discussion on the issues of America and Ireland, while a more ethical and religious attitude was seen in his critique of foreign commerce.

• 62 On this see, for example, Kobayashi, N., Collected Works of the History of Economic Thought 4, pp.  (...)
• 63 Tucker, Josiah, A Series of Answers to Certain Popular Objections, against Separating from the Rebe (...)
• 64 Tucker, Josiah, A Letter to Edmund Burke (Gloucester, 1775).

36However, by the mid-1760s, he decided to propose Britain’s separateness from America.62 He looked upon contemporary Americans as republicans, who accepted John Locke’s contractual theory and thus a politically dangerous element, whose influence might subvert Britain’s politics. From another point of view, the American continent was simply too remote to be practically governed by the British. By the mid-1770s, he was insisting that the Rockingham’s repeal of the Stamp Act of 1765 was the main cause of Britain’s war with the colonies.63 He started targeting Edmund Burke, then, for his criticism.64

• 65 Maseres, Francis, Considerations on the Expediency of Admitting Representatives from the American C (...)
• 66 Tucker, Josiah, Four Tracts, Political and Commercial Subjects (Gloucester, 1774), pp. 164-202. On (...)
• 67 Correspondence of Adam Smith, 380-1 ; Tucker, J., Four Tracts, pp. 196-201 (quotation at 197).

37In one of his major works, Four Tracts on Political and Commercial Subjects, which was first published in 1774, Tucker examined five possible solutions to the problem of the colonies that had been proposed by some of his contemporaries, including neglecting the situation, bringing colonists’ representatives to London (proposed by Francis Maseres)65, declaring a war against the colonies, relocating the imperial seat to North America, or Britain’s voluntary separation from the colonists.66 However, he believed that none of these options, except the total separation, could produce a beneficial outcome for Britain. Warfare would foster resentment against Great Britain, which would endanger the future commercial relationship between the two peoples. As was also discussed by Smith, even victory could not secure long-term military supremacy.67

• 68 Tucker, J., Four Tracts, pp. 201-2.
• 69 Tucker, J., Four Tracts, pp. 172-196.

38Practicality was another issue. Turning Britain to be a province of America by moving the imperial seat was a 'wild', fanciful idea, but governing from a remote distance by sending viceroys was practically impossible.68 To Tucker, Maseres’s idea of inviting colonial representatives to Britain seemed harmful and unrealistic. The American principle of consent of the governed would, in his view, confuse the legislative process. At worse, British republicans might even take advantage of that principle. As Maseres himself admitted, the colonists themselves would probably not agree to that idea.69

• 70 Tucker, Josiah, Tract V : The Respective Pleas and Arguments of the Mother Country, and of the Colo (...)
• 71 Tucker, J., Four Tracts, pp. 203, 210-212.

39For Tucker, the most desirable solution would be Britain’s voluntary separation from the colonies, and unlike other thinkers, he believed that that would be feasible (or, as he put it in 1775, 'the only eligible one [measure] for the Mother Country to pursue').70 Despite the worries expressed by some of his contemporaries, he claimed that, neither trade nor navigation would be harmed by the separation. Considering that the colonists had often continued to trade with hostile countries, they would no doubt soon restore their commercial relationship with Britain. Equally absurd, he wrote, was the worry that France would take over the colonies after Britain had left since it was unimaginable that the freedom-loving, or rather unruly, colonists would obey such a tyrannical monarchy as France. That was quite unlikely to happen.71

• 72 Tucker, J., Four Tracts, pp. 218-220.

40According to Tucker, Britain’s influence on the colonies would instead become even greater after the separation. Even if the colonists had so far cooperated with one another while considering Britain their 'common enemy', they would soon plunge into a conflict once they acquired independence. In that regard, his views were similar to those of several contemporaries, including Smith and Burke, but unique in some ways. After the separation, Britain could, then, serve as an 'umpire' or 'referee'. Seeing the chaos in North America, the British colonies in the West Indies would meanwhile become more obedient than before, which would further benefit Britain.72 Judging by that, it seems that he ceased to consider those 'mutual benefits'.

• 73 Tucker, Josiah, An Humble Address and Earnest Appeal to Those Respectable Personages in Great Brita (...)
• 74 Tucker, J., Four Tracts, tract I (esp., p. 28).
• 75 Tucker, J., Humble Address and Earnest Appeal to Those Respectable Personages in Great Britain and (...)

41In contrast to America, Ireland was geographically closer, and that was significant for Tucker when arguing for it to be united with Britain by a union.73 As seen in the case of the American colonies, his knowledge of history played a significant role in developing his views on Ireland. Both England and Scotland had flourished after 1707, and in Tucker’s view, the same would become true for Ireland and Britain.74 This union would thus make the Empire more stable and powerful.75 Clearly, here there are some overlaps with Smith’s idea of the Anglo-Irish union, yet Tucker deviated from the Scotsman in neglecting the problem of justice behind the issue. Tucker’s idea of religious tolerance was similar to Smith’s in many respects, but he did not turn (at least, explicitly) to the problems of the aristocratic and Protestant oppression in Ireland, which Smith believed would be mitigated after the union.

• 76 Tucker, J., Tract V, pp. 16-21.

42Like the American colonies, Ireland had also been threatened by republican conspiracies inspired by William Molyneux’s argument for parliamentary independence. As a disciple of Locke, Molyneux applied a contract theory to the conquest of Ireland by Henry II and his successors, according to which the Irish were granted their own parliament as a distinct nation. Tucker, however, argued that there was no historical evidence to prove that and that the Irish were still required to submit to England’s parliament, even though they were allowed to establish their own parliament. That is to say, England’s law had a supremacy over the Irish law.76

• 77 Hont, I., 'The “Rich Country-Poor Country” Debate in the Scottish Enlightenment', in idem, Jealousy (...)

43Like Scotland, Ireland was a 'poor' country, whereas England and Holland were 'rich'. Tucker shared these views with most of his contemporaries. Yet, he departed from many of them in arguing that both types of countries would benefit from free commerce and that rich countries would maintain their initial advantage over the poor. In that argument, Tucker famously criticised David Hume, who he believed failed to appreciate the long-term superiority of the 'rich' countries.77 Tucker even believed that:

• 79 Tucker, Josiah, The Elements of Commerce, and Theory of Taxes (n.p. ([Bristol?]), 1755), p. 88.
• 80 Hont, I., 'The “Rich Country-Poor Country” Debate in the Scottish Enlightenment', in idem, Jealousy (...)
• 81 On this, see Kobayashi, N., Collected Works of the History of Economic Thought 4, p. 99.

44Indeed, free trade was one of the key strategies that Tucker proposed to improve the conditions of the British Empire. The Revolution of 1688-9 had brought England a constitution of liberty, but another revolution was required for Britain’s commercial system.79 Monopolies had been prevalent in the British commerce since the seventeenth century, and were bad for both countries and individuals. Tucker and Hume were basically held similar views in that respect, but, according to Istvan Hont, Tucker still departed from the Scotsman, in claiming 'for pronounced protectionism and selective tariff policies for poor countries in legitimate self-defense against the rich'.80 Also, Tucker had basically remained uncritical of the Navigation Acts until the mid-1780s,81 by which time he became closer to an anti-imperialist stance (although he never fully embraced it).

• 82 Tucker, J., Elements of Commerce and Taxes, p. 124.
• 83 Smith, A., Wealth of Nations, IV.vii.b.44, p. 582. See also Smith, Adam, Lectures on Jurisprudence, (...)
• 84 Tucker, J., Elements of Commerce and Taxes, passim; idem, Reflections on the Expediency of Opening (...)
• 85 Tucker, J., Reflections on the Expediency of Opening the Trade to Turkey, pp. 6-20.
• 86 Tucker, J., Elements of Commerce and Taxes, pp. 120-123.

46According to Tucker, monopoly was a violation of natural rights, even if the charters granted to exclusive companies were considered almost 'sacred'.82 Note that Smith similarly looked upon free trade as 'the most sacred rights of mankind'.83 Moreover, monopolies were incompatible with public welfare, whereas free trade would promote 'emulation' among the participants, from which all the parties would benefit.84 Cheaper materials for manufacturers would be imported in large quantities, and the government would increase its revenue from free trade. If peripheral areas, like the farthest corners of Scotland, became rich by trade, cities like London would also flourish. The overall population would increase as well, which would be to the advantages of both landed interests and the poor.85 Replacing monopolies like the Hudson’s Bay Company with free trade would benefit both the mother country and her colonies.86

• 87 Tucker, J., Four Tracts, pp. 213-215: 'And this Country in particular would have found the happy Ef (...)
• 88 Tucker, Josiah, Reflections on the Present Matters in Dispute between Great Britain and Ireland (Du (...)

47After 1688-9, Britain’s foreign trade increased thanks to the government’s suppression of most monopolistic foreign trade, funding for new commercial projects and large investments in agriculture, manufacture and commerce. In the eighteenth century, economics became better understood so even more effective measures could be taken. However, further growth was still prevented by futile wars, excessive wealth, and the oppression of natives in places like East India and the surviving monopolies.87 By 1785, Tucker came to believe that even the Acts of Trade and Navigation were harmful to the commercial interests.88

• 89 Tucker, J., A Brief Essay on Advantages and Disadvantages, 1753, p. ii ('Introduction').
• 90 Tucker, Josiah, Cui Bono?: Or, an Inquiry, what Benefits Can Arise Either to the English Or the Ame (...)

48While Tucker often proposed ideas for the British Empire from the perspective of mainly political and economic benefits, his religious faith and concerns with justice and morality also played a great role in the background of the arguments. In his view, international trade was the realisation of the plans of the divine providence, in the sense that God intended a system of mutual dependence to ensure that no civilised society could survive independently of its neighbours.89 As military conquests, economic jealousy was pernicious to the welfare of everyone in the world, and the way world was designed to be so by a heavenly power. As Tucker put it, 'this Demon, the Jealousy of Trade, puts on various Shapes, in order to haunt and terrify Mankind with dreadful Panics, and groundless Fears […] [but] Providence never designed us to be Beasts of Prey, to bite and devour one another'.90

• 91 Tucker, Josiah, A Treatise Concerning Civil Government in Three Parts (London, 1781), pp. 183-184; (...)
• 92 Tucker, Letter to Edmund Burke, p. 23: 'Nay, I think it is demonstrable, that domestic pr predial S (...)

49Following the paths of providence, the British Empire could conceivably have become more virtuous and prosperous, but it had long been not just economically inefficient, but morally corrupt. The most deplorable example is the slave trade. In a passage of his Treatise of Civil Government, Tucker explained how slavery had been introduced into the European colonies in America. According to Tucker’s understanding, Native Americans had been forced to labour in the colonies once they became prisoners following their struggle against the Europeans. The colonists, then, realised that they were useless because of their alleged physical weaknesses and choose Africans as their substitute. However, in Tucker’s view, slavery was not only inefficient but also 'the most inhuman Custom'.91 As he wrote to Burke, 'the Laws of Commerce, when rightly understood, do perfectly co-incide with the Laws of Morality; both originally from the same good Being, whose Mercies are over all his Works'.92

• 93 Tuker, Josiah, Seventeen Sermons on some of the Most Important Points on Natural and Revealed Relig (...)
• 94 Tucker, J., Seventeen Sermons, 1776, pp. 142, 144. See also idem, Letter to Edmund Burke, p. 23.

51As eloquently expressed in one of his sermons, the most fundamental aspect of a community was religion, and human nature based on it, upon which a civil government was built. Morality taught by religion could apply to the commercial arts, and promote 'Industry, Frugality, honest Labour, and useful Employment'.93 By embracing 'the Freedom of Commerce', all men’s industriousness could be encouraged in 'such Ways as will serve himself and the Public together'. This was also dependent on 'sound Religion': lasting prosperity could not be achieved under a commercial system 'subversive of Religion and Virtue, and detrimental to the great Ends of Government'.94

• 95 Tucker, J., A Brief Essay on Advantages and Disadvantages, 1753, pp. 23-36.
• 96 Tucker, J., Humble Address and Earnest Appeal to Those Respectable Personages in Great Britain and (...)

52In Tucker’s view, the British post-1688-9 constitution was far superior to France’s tyranny, even though property rights were secured in France as well; Roman Catholicism and the aristocracy prevented French merchants from free trade.95 However, Tucker’s skepticism towards ancient constitutionalism did not lead him to advocating for any radical reformation of the constitution, as he believed that it would plunge Britain and its empire into a crisis. According to his Burkean views, even though many people in the Empire were not granted the right to vote, their interests were 'virtually' represented.96

• 97 Bourke, Richard, Empire and Revolution: Political Life of Edmund Burke (Princeton : Princeton Unive (...)

53Tucker’s political thought, including his ideas on Empire, was part of his project of advancing, (to apply Richard Bourke’s phrase), 'the spirit of liberty', while restraining 'the spirit of conquest'.97 In this respect, he had much in common with his adversaries, including Burke, Price and Priestley. A question, however, may be to what extent such a project would have been concerned with material benefits, justice, and/or religion.

• 98 Tucker, J., Elements of Commerce and Theory of Tax, p. 107.

56Tucker and Smith were closer to each other in their analyses of Ireland; both believed that an incorporating union would contribute to the increase of welfare for all the parties. Only Smith, however, explicitly maintained that the union would emancipate Irish people from the factional oppression. It is hard to believe, however, that Tucker had been uncritical of the long-standing factionalism in Ireland, even though he mainly commented on the concept of the Irish 'patriot' and the 'republican' campaigns. As acute critics of political liberty, all were also concerned with the problems of justice, and economic benefits from the East India affairs. As he said in 1755, 'it might really be expected, that all the Indian Nations would unite, and rise as one Man […] in order to expel these bloody Tyrants and Usurpers'.98

• 99 Tucker, Josiah, Instructions for Travellers (Gloucester, 1757), p. 36.

57A proposal that both Smith and Tucker made was to establish a free, or freer, system of commerce, which would be effective in resolving Britain’s financial problems. In Tucker’s opinion, taxation had begun to be understood properly in Britain only recently during the Walpole’s era (c. 1721-1742), and the taxation system from that period was superior to those of most other nations in terms of its 'universal distribution and impartiality of the Taxes'.99 In 1755, he emphasised the significance of a liberal government and free commerce as a solution to Britain’s cumulative debt:

• 101 Tucker, J., Elements of Commerce and Theory of Tax, p. 97.
• 102 Tucker, J., Reflections on the Present Matters in Dispute between Great Britain and Ireland, p. 39.

58He also believed that government revenue would increase if to open commerce with India and China.101 However, after 1755, the British finances became even worse, and as late as 1785, he still petitioned for free trade, asking: 'would it tend to the accumulation, or diminution of the burden of the present enormous national debt?'102 His answer was surely the same as in 1755.

• 103 Correspondence of Adam Smith, p. 382.

59Tucker was also aware that prolific intellectuals of the age, including Hume, Smith, Price and Priestley had expressed their great concerns with that problem. Like Smith, he believed that the colonists’ tax payments to Britain were likely constitutional and maintained that American independence would emancipate Britain 'from the great ordinary expense of the military establishment'.103 Smith and Tucker were also alike in insisting that Britain’s taxation system should be extended to Ireland, and this was part of their argument for an incorporating union between the two nations. Both Tucker and Smith argued for free trade and creating the union, in which they were also convinced of the 'rich' England’s superiority over the 'poor' Ireland and that it would remain so in the near future.

• 104 Tucker, J., A Brief Essay on Trade, 1749, p. 36.

60However, equally significant was the fact that they all adopted 'gradualism' in their proposals for the reform. 'After such an Union of the Two Kingdoms', he wrote in 1749, 'to lay the English taxes gradually upon Ireland, and to ease the English of the worse of theirs by the same Gradation'.104 In the 'Appendix' of the same work, Tucker expressed a more generalised view:

• 107 Tucker, Josiah, Reflections on the Expediency of a Law for the Naturalization of Foreign Protestant (...)
• 108 Tucker, Josiah, A Letter to a Friend concerning Naturalizations (London, 1753); idem, A Second Lett (...)

63Tucker’s involvement in the 'naturalization' and immigration debates during the early phase of his career was interesting. Referring to Sir Josiah Child, Tucker claimed that emigration to the colonies could be problematic only when Britain did not welcome immigrants. In his view, as long as Britain’s spirit of the industry remained vigorous and the country brought in industrious foreigners, the migration to the colonies would not lead Britain to depopulation.107 According to him, a pro-immigration policy would maintain Britain’s competitiveness as industrious manufacturers would otherwise move to rival countries like France. He also believed that such a policy would make Britain adhere to Christian morality.108

• 109 Price, Richard, Observations on the Nature of Civil Liberty, the Principles of Government, and the (...)
• 110 Price, Richard, Observations on the Importance of the American Revolution, and the Means of Making (...)

64For Tucker, population was key in considering the public welfare, and like Richard Price and others, he believed that other phenomena, including wealth, profligacy, heavy taxation and sheer tyranny, would lead to depopulation.109 Both Tucker and Price held that the spirit of industry would die out whenever any of those things were introduced to a culture. However, Tucker consciously distinguished himself from Price and Priestley in terms of political theories, and he also saw their views on the American Revolution, a great sign of humankind’s progress, as fallacious.110 In that respect, Tucker was surely closer to Smith and Burke, but still different in his unique application of Christian morality to politics of the age.

• 111 On this, see Oslington, Paul ed., Adam Smith as Theologian (London : Routledge, 2011).
• 112 Smith, A., Theory of Moral Sentiments, I.ii.4, II. Iii.3.2, pp. 36, 105-6 quoted by Hill, Lisa, 'Th (...)

65His views on religious morality, political institutions, and international commerce were so coherent that they helped us to distinguish him from Smith, or even Burke. Indeed, scholars still debated the religious nature of Smith’s moral and social theories,111 and it is not difficult to trace some overlap between their religious sentiments. For instance, Smith, in the Theory of Moral Sentiments, introduced an aspect of the ancient Stoics’ religious notion that 'the world was governed by the all-ruling providence of a wise, powerful and good God, [and] every single event ought to be regarded as making a necessary part of the plan of the universe'. Even 'the vices and follies of mankind, therefore, [are] made as necessary a part of this plan'. After all, however, the divine providence 'intended to promote happiness and to guard against misery'.112 While Tucker’s religious thought could easily agree with these remarks, at least, it is evident that Smith’s expression was less overtly religious than Tucker’s. More importantly, their theories of moral judgement were clearly different. That is to say, where Tucker placed the Christian (Protestant) ethics, Smith introduced his idea of an 'impartial spectator'. Regardless of the extent to which Smith's 'impartial spectator' entailed religious connotations, Tucker did not develop any equivalent moral theory as Smith did.

• 113 On this, for instance, see Fitzpatrick, Martin, 'Joseph Priestley, Political Philosopher', in Josep (...)
• 114 Priestley, Joseph, Letters to the Right Honourable Edmund Burke (third edition; Birmingham, 1791), (...)

66Obviously, Tucker’s appeal to Christian ethics was only one of its applications to the international politics of the age. In 1791, Priestley wrote that 'the prevailing spirit of commerce, aided by Christianity, and true philosophy, cannot fail to effect in time. But it can never take place while mankind are governed in the wretched manner in which they now are'. In Priestley’s view, the American and French Revolutions attempted to eliminate such a 'wretched manner' of government, and also marked the beginnings of the end of European empires.113 'Together with the general prevalence of the true principles of civil government', as Priestley foresaw the future state of world politics, 'we may expect to see the extinction of all national prejudice and enmity, and the establishment of universal peace and good will among all nations'. In other words, 'No part of America, Africa, or Asia, will be held in subjection, to any part of Europe, and all the intercourse that will be kept up among them, will be for their mutual advantage'.114

• 115 For Priestley as a utilitarian, for instance, Canovan, Margaret, 'The Un-Benthamite Utilitarianism (...)
• 116 Smith, A., Wealth of Nations, p. 626-7., IV.vii.c.80, pp. 626-7.

67If here we find a type of 'utilitarianism', it partly derived from his religious faith.115 Also, the above passage may well be compared to Smith’s more secularised vision of the future: 'Hereafter, perhaps, the natives of those countries may grow stronger, or those of Europe may grow weaker, and the inhabitants of all the different quarters of the world may arrive at that equality of courage and force which, by inspiring mutual fear, can alone overawe the injustice of independent nations into some sort of respect for the rights of one another.' Unlike Priestley, Smith did not draw attention to political right principles, but to the balance of power brought about by global exchanges, both intellectual and material. That is to say, 'nothing seems more likely to establish this equality of force than that mutual communication of knowledge and of all sorts of improvements which an extensive commerce from all countries to all countries naturally, or rather necessarily, carries along with it.'116