Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 December 2024
A standard reading of the movement of British political thought from the seventeenth century to the eighteenth century is that the main conceptual development in classical liberal political economy arose from the rejection of the somewhat vulgarised version of the English natural rights theories of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke by the luminaries of the Scottish Enlightenment, including David Hume, Frances Hutcheson and Adam Smith. According to this narrative, the crystallisation of the argument for commerce in eighteenth-century Britain presupposed the transformation from a political theory dominated by the discourse of pre-civil individual rights and a rationalist law of nature framework to a new political vernacular that emphasised natural moral sentiments and the concept of economic interests. In this chapter, I propose an amendment to this familiar account, one that re-situates the genesis of the philosophical defence of commerce earlier historically than typically thought, in the context of the polemical responses to the challenges posed both to law and conventional morality by the Financial Revolution in early eighteenth-century England. By recontextualising the origins of modern thought on commerce in the light of the debate about the new financial structures and institutions that transformed English economic life in this period, I hope to illuminate the rich, but often neglected, site of theoretical reflection about the problems and possibilities of commerce afforded most directly by the controversy surrounding the South Sea Bubble of 1720.
My central argument is that it was in response to the challenges posed by the Financial Revolution in England in the opening decades of the eighteenth-century that we witness the first clear mutual appearance of both the familiar natural rights-based version of liberalism as well as a new kind of argument that would in time come to be associated with the ‘harmony of interests’ philosophy. I focus on the pivotal nexus between the interest-based argument for commerce in Bernard Mandeville's Fable of the Bees and the natural rights-based argument in Cato's Letters authored by John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon. These controversial works were partners in crime, as it were, sharing a fiery fate condemned to the flames as a public nuisance by the Middlesex Grand Jury in 1723, as well as being arguably the most theoretically sophisticated writings on commerce in England in the first decades of the eighteenth century.
To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.
To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.
To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.