Trade, mores and empire
Another characteristic of the science of commerce is to understand general trade as an element of the international politics of States, including war and peace. Barbon (1690 [1905]: 5) coupled this activity with achieving two political objectives: “Trade is now become as necessary to preserve governments, as it is useful to make them rich.” Hume (1741 [1985]: 88) wrote slightly later: “Trade was never esteemed as an affair of state till the last century.” By affair of state, Hume meant a political concern.
Trade became an affair of state during the seventeenth century as it became a stake for rival nations. If Hume saw in this activity a means of civilisation and refinement, Barbon first noticed the ambivalent means of power: foreign trade strengthens the power of government by financing war, but also diverts it from the objective of territorial expansion and directs it towards peace, as this activity only prospers with peace. The two authors logically emphasised the ties which link trade and freedom (see Hont 2005: 8-11).Child had observed that trade in general was political and was dealt with through political institutions. Consequently, he regarded an assembly of “noblemen, gentlemen, and merchants” as the best constitution “for the carrying on any trade for the publick utility of the Kingdom” (Child 1681 [1995]: 26-7). In the same way, Barbon maintained that foreign trade is better suited to free governments than to absolute monarchies. To that end, he developed a kind of theory of climate and of “doux commerce” - generally associated with the name of Montesquieu - which stated that the warlike people of the cold regions of northern Europe were finally conquered by the trading people of the milder regions of the south that they invaded. Through contact with them, they softened their manners by engaging in trade and preferred to peacefully preserve their possessions (Barbon 1690 [1905]: 37-8).
Trade was profitable for the merchant, the landlord and, by derivation, for any man whom the latter employed, but also for the government, in so far as it increases its revenues and strengthens its power: “if an Universal Empire, or Dominion of a very Large Extent can be raised in the World, It seems more probable to be done by the Help of Trade” (ibid.: 24).What Barbon meant by “universal empire” was an empire of the sea, the only one that it was still possible to achieve. An empire on land corresponded to a plan for the establishment of a universal monarchy, so powerful that it would rule over Europe and would be the only arbiter of conflicts between minor nations. Such a plan was no longer feasible, given that the land had been conquered for a long time, governments had generally been formed on the basis of “liberty and property of land”, populations had become more educated and too numerous to be subdued. Thus, any new conquest of territory became pointless; it would reduce the population, which was the source of wealth, and would destroy the towns. Two forms of government were therefore envisaged, the first was the absolute monarchy, Spanish and French, “best fitted to raise Dominion by Armies”, the other was the English mixed monarchy, “Best for Trade; for men are most industrious, where they are most free, and secure to injoy the Effects of their Labours” (ibid.: 27-8, original emphasis). The latter was also the better adapted to the new form of enrichment and expansion, namely, the empire of the sea (ibid.: 31).
Towards the mid-eighteenth century, Hume rejected the doctrine of the universal monarchy, but also the plan for an empire of the sea. He admitted that international relations had been based on jealousy since the seventeenth century, but that they could also prove to be mutually beneficial. Jealousy could indeed be overcome on condition that the relationship between domestic trade and foreign trade was reversed, which led to a depreciation of the notions of empire and territorial expansion. The most important element in the Essays is the strengthening of the relationship between trade and economic, political and religious freedom. Hume considered that, as truths were drawn from history, the arts, the sciences and trade were born in free nations, that they diminished with the decline of freedom, and that a free nation lived under a popular government - namely, non-absolute government - with trade increasing where property is guaranteed.