Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T22:10:06.272Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

GLOBAL COMMERCE AND THE QUESTION OF SOVEREIGNTY IN THE EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY PROVINCES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2004

EMMA ROTHSCHILD
Affiliation:
Centre for History and Economics, King's College, Cambridge

Abstract

The paper is concerned with disputes over sovereignty and global commerce in the 1760s and 1770s. The eighteenth-century revolution in economic science has been identified with agricultural reforms, and with the definition of national economies. The economists of the time, including Turgot, Mirabeau, Dupont de Nemours, Baudeau and Adam Smith, were also intensely interested in the merchant sovereigns of the French, English and Dutch East India companies, and in the new colonial ventures of the post-Seven Years War period. Their writings on global commerce were sometimes extraordinarily detailed (about herrings, for example, or bye-laws) and often untheoretical. Turgot was for a brief period minister of the navy and of the colonies. The older Mirabeau described the “Spaniard” as “the true Mogul of America,” and the cod of the North Atlantic as “the inexhaustible Peru of the Dutch.” But the economists’ writings on global connections were the occasion for some of their most profound reflections on the political consequences of laissez-faire, on theories of sovereignty, on the difficulties of transporting information or instructions over very large distances, and on the changing relationships between power, law and commerce. The disputes over long-distance commerce provide an interesting insight, the paper suggests, into ways of thinking which were at the same time scientific and administrative, global and provincial.

Type
Articles
Copyright
© 2004 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I am most grateful to the librarians of the Sraffa collection in the Wren Library, Trinity College, Cambridge, and the Pryme collection in the Cambridge University Library; and to Bernard Bailyn, Justine Crump, Nicholas Phillipson, Amartya Sen, Rosie Vaughan, and the editors and anonymous referees of this journal for helpful comments. An earlier version of the paper was presented as a lecture at the annual meeting of the Society for the History of European Economic Thought, Paris, January 31, 2003.