International Politics https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-024-00589-2 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Adam Smith’s influence on British reform movements of the early‑to‑mid‑19th century Alexandra Digby1 Accepted: 15 June 2024 © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited 2024 Abstract The reception of the Wealth of Nations in the years after its publication reveals a wide range of interpretations of Smith’s ideas. On the one hand, Smith appealed to revolutionaries and subversives; on the other hand, he appealed to ‘conservatives’ who supported the burgeoning laissez-faire movement. By 1800, however, in intellectual circles, the ‘conservative’ Smith had largely won out. Yet, this was not the case for advocates of working-class interests. As this paper will show, reformers of the early-to-mid-19th century emphasized Smith’s sympathetic attitude towards the labouring poor, his labour theory of value and his distinction between productive and unproductive labour. Reformers turned to Smith for intellectual validation of the workers’ right to vote and often to a larger share of the national produce, hailing him as a supporter of the working classes. The backlash against the ‘subversive’ Smith was significant, with protectors of the status quo pointing to the dangers of ‘misrepresenting’ Smith’s ideas. Keywords Wealth of Nations · Adam Smith · Chartism · Invisible hand · Labour theory of value Introduction Three hundred years after his birth, Adam Smith’s reputation as the poster boy for free market capitalism remains stubbornly deep-seated. Portrayed as an ideologue of the modern libertarian political right, Smith is credited with unlocking an important economic truth: markets work best when left alone. More specifically, Smith purportedly discovered, by way of the ‘invisible hand’, that markets work best for everyone when individuals are free to pursue their own self-interest and when competition is allowed to flourish. Yet, this popular image of Smith as an uncomplicated champion of free markets has obscured not only the complexities and inconsistencies in * Alexandra Digby adigby@ur.rochester.edu 1 University of Rochester, Rochester, USA Vol.:(0123456789) A. Digby his writings, but the many different ‘Smiths’ that have been invented and reinvented since the publication of the Wealth of Nations in 1776. Increasing attention has been paid to the reception of Smith’s ideas from 1776 to the present day.1 In ‘Adam Smith and Conservative Economics’ (1992), Emma Rothschild has demonstrated that in the late 18th century, a range of interpretations of Smith’s ideas is perceptible. There was ‘Whitbread’s Smith’2 formulated as part of the debates on minimum wage legislation with labour’s right to the produce of his labour. There was ‘the quasi-French, quasi-atheistical, quasi-revolutionary “oeconomist”’(Rothschild 1992, p. 87). There was also Smith the ‘conservative philosopher’ who favoured economic freedom (p. 74). Yet by 1800, ‘it was as though all the different “Smiths"…had vanished into a simple prescription of economic freedom’ (p. 87). Smith had been transformed into the modern hero of commerce, the ‘conservative’ Smith. Indeed, Richard Cobden, Britain’s foremost free trader at the time proclaimed he had travelled ‘through the length and breadth of this country with Adam Smith in my hand to advocate the principles of free trade’ (Buchnan 2016, p. 11). Yet, the Wealth of Nations’ early reception is not simply a story of the replacement of one version of Smith (the ‘subversive’ Smith) with another (the ‘conservative’ Smith). As Rothschild points out, ‘The old subversive Smith of the early 1790s survived well into the Victorian period in Britain’. Indeed, Rothschild reminds us that as late as 1881, Lord Acton concluded that ‘government with the working class’ was the consequence of Smith’s ideas of freedom of contract, and of labour as the source of wealth: ‘That is the foreign effect of Adam Smith—French Revolution and Socialism’ (1992, p. 88). Nonetheless, the nature and influence of the ‘subversive’ Smith in popular protest have gone largely unnoticed.3 Reformers of the pre-Chartist and Chartist periods4 used Smith’s ideas as intellectual validation 1 See for example, Glory Liu’s Adam Smith’s America: How a Scottish Philosopher Became an Icon of American Capitalist (2022) which explores the ways in which Smith’s popular image as a champion of free markets is a historical invention. See also Chapter 8 of Craig Smith’s Adam Smith (2020) on Smith’s legacy and influence and Stimson and Milgate (2011). After Adam Smith: A Century of Transformation in Politics and Political Economy (Course Book ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press. 2 Here, ‘Whitbread’ refers to Samuel Whitbread, the reform MP who followed the Wealth of Nations closely in his parliamentary presentation on his proposed minimum wage legislation of I795. See Rothschild, E. (1992) Adam Smith and Conservative Economics, The Economic History Review, 45(1): 74–96. 3 The existence of the ‘subversive’ Smith has been acknowledged in Parliamentary debates after 1800, but Smith’s influence on grassroots reformer movements has not been explored in detail. Kirk Willis argued that: ‘When Smith’s ideas began to be introduced into Parliament in earnest during the 1810s and 1820s, they were presented by radical Whigs such as Francis Horner and Henry Brougham…Thus, it is important not simply to equate political economy with laissez-faire or free trade or some other slogan but also to recognize that most of those who employed these ideas were committed to some measure of substantial reform in the British economic system.’ Willis, K. (1979). The Role in Parliament of the Economic Ideas of Adam Smith, 1776–1800. History of Political Economy. 11(4): 517. 4 The Chartist movement was based on the People’s Charter, an act of parliament published in. May 1838. The Charter, drafted by William Lovett (1800–1877), Francis Place (1771–1854), and others, proposed six ‘points’: universal (that is, over 21, adult male) suffrage, secret ballots, annual parliaments, payment of members of parliament, equal electoral. districts, and the abolition of property qualifications as a determinant of voting eligibility. Chartism is usually identified as a movement that occurred between 1838—the year the. Charter was published and 1848—the year in which the final National Chartist Petition was. rejected by parliament. In the main, interpretations of Chartism have tended to place greater weight on Adam Smith’s influence on British reform movements of the… for their political and economic demands. Members of the ‘establishment’ were keen to protect the status quo and responded by launching attacks against those who sought to subvert the political and economic institutions. This paper shines a light on the appropriation of Smith’s ideas by reformers of the early-to-mid-19th century, offering a flavour of the ways in which the ‘subversive’ Smith was sustained throughout this period. Part one reviews existing literature on the so-called ‘progressive’ elements of Smith’s work, with a particular focus on the ways in which the Wealth of Nations calls for greater political and socioeconomic equality. Using this review as context, part two explores the appropriation of Smith’s ideas at the grassroots level of the pre-Chartist and Chartist period, pointing to the various ways in which reformers interpreted the Wealth of Nations and the backlash against those interpretations by members of the ‘establishment’. The investigation reveals that Smith’s writings were a source of intellectual validation for progressive socioeconomic and political reformers who looked up to Smith as ‘the great oracle of the discontented’ (Brodie 1820, p. 3), a ‘leading intellect’ who might even ‘change the whole face of things’ (‘Testimonial of the Working Classes’ published in Sheffield Independent, 1 March 1845). Part one The Wealth of Nations was a best-seller and had significant influence in shaping both popular and parliamentary debates. Initially, the work had its biggest impact in France where proponents of revolution turned to Smith for intellectual validation. This generated considerable concern in Britain, and by 1792, Smith’s ideas ‘were seen as virtually seditious, in the juridical sense of tending to inflame public opinion’ (Rothschild 1992, p.78). Dugald Stewart, whose memoire of Smith (read to the Royal Society of Edinburgh in January and March 1793), attempted to rescue Smith from this association, promoting instead a ‘conservative’ version of Smith (as published in The Life and Writings of Adam Smith, 1829). Smith was concerned only with those ‘speculations... which have no tendency to unhinge established institutions, or to inflame the passions of the multitude’, declared Stewart (1829, p. 52). Redefining Smith’s characterization of political economy as concerned with commercial or economic rather than political freedom was one way Stewart that was able to ‘rescue’ Smith. Thus, he argued that Smith was interested in the establishment of freedom of trade, commerce, and competition rather than ‘political freedom’ which had been associated with ‘revolutionary zeal’. Footnote 4 (continued) economic, ‘bread and butter’, motivations, or on the political/ideological programme. Approaches associated with the former are characteristic of most of the historiography prior to the publication of Gareth Stedman Jones’s essay ‘Rethinking Chartism’ (1983); those associated with the latter and currently dominant interpretation tend to give weight to the political programme (though not necessarily at the expense of economic factors). As will be shown, Smith’s ideas were used to argue both for economic reform and for political reform as an end in and of itself. A. Digby This formulation was later reinforced as part of the debates following the English food crisis of the mid-1790s. Here, Rothschild observes a change in the substance of Smith’s reputation. In 1795, debates on Samuel Whitbread’s proposed minimum wage legislation revealed two clear interpretations of Smith: a ‘subversive’ Smith put forward by Whitbread, and a ‘conservative’ Smith formulated by William Pitt. Taking inspiration from Smith, Whitbread, a reform MP, supported his arguments for minimum wage legislation: To enable the husbandman, who dedicated his days to incessant toil, to feed, to clothe, and to lodge his family with some degree of comfort…by giving him a right to part of the produce of his labour. (Rothschild 1992, p. 85) In contrast, Pitt’s approach prioritized the removal of all restrictions on labour by invoking the ‘general principles’ of political economy. By 1800, ‘Pitt’s Smith’ had ‘won overwhelmingly’ and Smith was transformed from a ‘friend of the poor’ to his ‘19th century renown as an enemy of the poor’ (Rothschild 1992, pp. 85–93). For Rothschild, there is ‘something of Smith on both sides of the parliamentary debates’, but her own interpretation is that Smith is more closely aligned with Whitbread. For Smith, principles of commerce—of free trade, efficiency, and competition—were always circumscribed by other laws of justice and equity, argues Rothschild. Building upon Rothschild’s interpretation, Iain McLean (2007) and Samuel Fleischacker (2016) also note the progressive elements in Smith’s writings. Situating Smith against the backdrop of 18th century conservative versus radical thought, McLean identifies Smith ‘without hesitation as a radical’ (2007, p. 139). According to McLean, a strong egalitarian ethos is discernible in Smith’s work, evidenced by his proposals to curb exploitative governmental practices, his support of government intervention in the pursuit of greater equality (e.g. proposals to fund education for children of the poor) and his belief that the rich should be taxed more heavily than the poor (2007). Ultimately, McLean sees Smith as supporting society’s underdogs. Smith would have been considered radial in his own time. Similarly, in ‘Adam Smith and the Left’ (2016), Fleischacker makes a strong case for why the ‘progressive’ Smith should be taken seriously. Identifying the themes that divided progressives and traditionalists in Smith’s own time—views on religion, aristocracy, slavery, democracy (republicanism) versus monarchy and whether one favoured popular revolution to achieve democracy—he concludes: ‘Smith comes out well toward the progressive end on most of these measures, if not wholly so on all of them’ (2016, p. 483). Indeed, Smith makes clear in both his Lectures on Jurisprudence and the Wealth of Nations that all governments ought to represent the will of their people5 and that class legislation infringed on the workers’ right to bargain effectively for higher wages. Regulations in favour of workers, he wrote, were ‘always just and equitable’ but were ‘sometimes otherwise when in favour of masters’ (Smith, 1776, p. 158). Smith’s views on slavery and colonialism were similarly 5 ‘Any reservations he may have expressed about republics is largely because he believed monarchies would perform a better job of outlawing slavery than republics’ (Fleischacker 2016, p. 483). Adam Smith’s influence on British reform movements of the… progressive, as were his attacks on established institutions including large churches, the East India Company and aristocratic privilege. Smith’s redistributive proposals should be considered particularly progressive for his time, notes Fleischacker (2016). Among these were Smith’s advocacy of public schooling; his suggestion that luxury vehicles pay a higher road toll than freight vehicles, so that ‘the indolence and vanity of the rich [can be] made to contribute in a[n]…easy manner to the relief of the poor’ (1776, p. 725); and his proposal to tax house rents which would fall heaviest on the rich, because it is reasonable to make the rich contribute more in taxes than the poor (1776, p. 846–7). But, Smith’s lasting contribution as a progressive was his portrayal of the poor, argues Fleischacker. Challenging the popular view of the poor as ‘innately lazy, lacking in self-control and addicted to various vices’, Smith presents ‘a remarkably dignified picture of the poor… [in which he] urges his well-off readers to see the average poor person as just like themselves: equal in intelligence, virtue, ambition, and interests with every other human being, hence equal in rights and desert, in dignity’ (Fleischacker 2016, p. 485). Rothschild, McLean and Fleishacker all make cases for why Smith should be considered ‘subversive’, ‘radical’, and ‘progressive’ in his own time. Of course, this does not justify claiming Smith for the modern political Left. Aside from being anachronistic, it neglects the ‘conservative’ readings of Smith that inspired a new generation of statesmen for whom laissez-faire was the foundation of economic progress. But while the conservative Smith may have ‘won overwhelmingly’ in elite intellectual and political circles by 1800, the progressive Smith found new life in the works of early socialists and reformers of the pre-Chartist and Chartist periods who began the process of once again transforming Smith into a friend of the working classes. Part two Smith’s influence on early socialist writers and Owenites of the 1820s and 30s has been well documented6; yet, little attention has been paid to his influence on wider reform movements such as the pre-Chartist and Chartist movements. This was a time in British history of working-class resistance to established political and socioeconomic institutions, marked by periods of intense agitation. Reformers were involved to varying degrees in multiple, often overlapping, movements, and Smith’s ideas feature in many, if not all of them. Of course, Smith was by no means the only political economist to be singled out by reformers during this period—David Ricardo appears from time to time in the working-class press in the context of the 6 See in particular Gregory Claeys’ work including ‘The reaction to political radicalism and the popularization of political economy in early 19th century Britain: The case of “productive” and “unproductive” labour’ in Shinn, T., and Whitley, R. (eds.) (1985), Machinery, Money and the Millennium: From Moral Economy to Socialism, 1815–1860 (1987) and Citizens and Saints: Politics and Anti-Politics in Early British Socialism (1989). Also see J.E. King (1983) ‘Utopian or scientific? A reconsideration of the Ricardian Socialists’ History of Political Economy 15:3. Duke University Press. A. Digby supposed conflict between capitalists and labourers7-yet Smith is quoted frequently enough relative to other thinkers to warrant further investigation. What follows is an analysis of the working-class press including major pre-Chartist and Chartist newspapers from 1800 to 1850. This analysis does not claim to be exhaustive; rather, it offers a flavour of the ways in which interpretations of Smith’s ideas came together to create a version of Smith that was sympathetic to working-class interests.8 Which aspects of Smith’s work appealed to working‑class reformers? A central feature of the Wealth of Nations is Smith’s formulation of a theory of prices that would support his analysis of how markets worked. In the ‘early and rude’ stage of society, prices were equal to ‘labour embodied’; in commercial society, prices were equal to ‘labour commanded’. A labour commanded theory of value proposed that the worth of an object to an individual ‘is equal to the quantity of labour which it enables him to purchase or command’—in other words what it will exchange for in the market (p. 26). Smith conceived of an hour’s labour as requiring at all times and in all places, the same amount of psychological cost, or ‘the toil and trouble of acquiring it’ (p. 26). In his words, the labourer ‘must always lay down the same portion of his ease, his liberty, and his happiness’ (p. 28). Smith’s labour commanded theory was simply a statement of the measurement of relative prices, it was not of course a satisfactory theory of the determination of relative prices. Forty years later, David Ricardo adopted the ‘labour embodied’ theory in his generalization of the surplus theory which he developed in his Essay on Profits (1815). Smith’s somewhat ambiguous theory of relative price made room for alternative interpretations. Those alternative interpretations were taken up and developed in the working-class press and in the speeches of prominent reform leaders. Four key themes emerge. First, Smith’s portrayal of the poor in contrast to prevailing attitudes was used to bolster arguments for extending the franchise as part of the Chartist movement. Second, the central role of labour in Smith’s economic system supported the emergence of the motto used by all the most prominent leaders of the pre-Chartist and Chartist movements: ‘labour is the source of all wealth’. Third, 7 The ‘moral’ interpretation of Ricardo’s inverse profit-wage relationship was familiar to early 19th century reformers. As early as 1818, the Gorgon, a successful weekly periodical, made explicit the inference, taken from Ricardo, that an increase in the capitalist’s share represented a direct transfer from the labourer’s share. It followed that the relationship between capital and labour was naturally antagonistic. Wade, J. (ed.) Gorgon, vol. 1 May–Dec 1818 (London) p. 133. 8 Newspapers during this period enjoyed an immense circulation and influence. Hundreds of regional radical newspapers that covered local issues, as well as supporting the points of the Charter were circulated among the working-classes up and down the country. These included the True Sun, the Birmingham Journal, the Newcastle-based Northern Liberator, the Carlisle Patriot, Sheffield Iris, the Scots Times and Scotch Reformer’s Gazette and many others. The most influential of all publications was the Northern Star, established in 1837, achieving a mass national distribution by autumn 1838. Other important publications included the Scottish Chartist Circular which outsold all other Chartist newspapers except the Star, the English Chartist Circular which sought to merge Chartism with temperance, and the Charter, the paper of record for the National Chartist Convention. For more information on circulation of digitized newspapers, see British Newspaper Archive at the British Library. Adam Smith’s influence on British reform movements of the… Smith’s definition of wealth as strictly ‘material’, combined with his distinction between productive and unproductive labour, encouraged reformers to emphasize the separation between the labourers and the ‘idlers’. Fourth, Smith’s concern with the importance of workers’ remuneration (specifically, his belief that there existed a positive relationship between high wages and economic prosperity) and the role of class legislation in driving down wages suggested a sympathy with workers’ needs. Smith’s portrayal of the poor In the Wealth of Nations, Smith presented a picture of the poor that stood in stark contrast to the prevailing view of workers as indolent, unintelligent, and addicted to vice. For Smith, the poor were independent, intelligent, enlightened, and hardworking. He also set out to counter the contemporary view that increasing wages would inevitably result in workers substituting leisure time for work. This view reinforced the supposed relationship between rising real wages and falling productivity, and it was generally believed that low wages were good for the economy and for wider society (Martin 2015). In contrast, Smith claimed, ‘Where wages are high, accordingly, we shall always find the workmen more active, diligent, and expeditious than where they are low’ (1776, p. 99). Smith’s defence of rising real wages based on increased worker productivity, and his view that ‘equity, besides’ entitled the poor to a reasonable standard of living, was strikingly refreshing and proved useful to reformers. Fleischacker and Christopher S. Martin have both pointed to the importance of the following passage from the Wealth of Nations in offering an alternative vision of the poor: No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, cloath, and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, cloathed, and lodged. (Italics added for emphasis; Smith, 1776, p. 96) This passage was quoted in part and in full time and time again in the workingclass press, in speeches and in parliament as justification for political and socioeconomic reform. In 1818, the one-penny Gorgon, a pioneering weekly, quoted the passage and endorsed the technical aspects in Smith’s writings, including his distinction between ‘natural’ and ‘market’ price and his theory of wage determination, in support of the labourers’ right to negotiate higher wages (Wade 1819). Likewise, an article published in 1833 in the Dublin Weekly Register quoted Smith to reinforce the idea that society could not flourish where poverty existed, stating: ‘There is a desolating poverty which pervades the mass of the Irish population, and therefore, according to the profound Adam Smith, society cannot be flourishing and happy’ (Dublin Weekly Register, 7 September). In 1834, the author of a letter to the editor of the Bradford Observer turned to Smith to expose the injustices of a recent decision by Bradford manufacturers to lower wages. Manufacturers failed to realize that their workers were the main consumers of their goods, argued the author. As such, reducing their wages would simply reduce the manufacturers’ source of revenue. In A. Digby any case, the article concluded, it was ‘equity, besides’ that workers should receive a fair wage (18 September). Smith’s passage was quoted in full in the Bury and Norwich Post as part of an argument against the idea that free movement of labour was a ‘good thing’ because it increased competition and drove down wages. To the contrary, the author argued, Smith showed how it must not be argued that lowering wages was a good thing. Moreover, in protest towards ‘moralists’ who complained of the working classes wearing finer clothes than in previous times, the author quoted Smith’s ‘equity, besides’ passage (5 November 1834). Evidence of the impact of Smith’s portrayal of the poor can also be found in the popular Scottish weekly, the Chartist Circular, which quoted Smith in an article published in 1841: ‘Labour was the first price-the original purchase-money that was paid for all things’…The labourer is therefore the most important, the most useful, and should be the most respected man in society, for from his hands proceeds all that contributes to the real happiness of society and individuals. Should not the labourer, therefore, be made acquainted with this important fact? Should not the world be persuaded of it? (23 January 1841) That labour was deserving of respect, a fair wage and ultimately the right to vote was a common theme in pre-Chartist and Chartist newspapers and speeches. Through his writings, Smith provided an alternative vision of the poor and highlighted the positive relationship between worker remuneration and economic prosperity. These ideas were appropriated by reformers to expose the injustices of the commercial system—a system that protected the political and economic rights of masters over and above the rights of workers. Labour is the source of all wealth ‘Labour is the source of all wealth’ has been a popular rallying cry among reformers and socialists for over 200 years and remains a popular motto of trade unions to this day. While its roots in early socialism and co-operative thinking have been well established, less attention has been paid to its use during the Chartist movement. Here, Smith’s appeal is particularly significant. Chartist newspapers and leaders quoted Smith time and time again as the originator of the claim that labour is the source of wealth. William Carpenter, a prominent reformer of the 1820s and 30s included commentary on Smith’s Wealth of Nations in his famous Political Text Book (1833), finding that Smith had discovered ‘a great truth’ that ‘the materials of all wealth originate primarily in the bosom of the earth; but it is only by the aid of labour that they can ever truly constitute wealth’ (p. 141). An article published in the Coventry Herald in 1839 promoting the importance of labour being protected under the law declared, ‘Adam Smith said that labour was the first price paid for everything. Labour therefore ought above all other things to be protected’ (22 February 1839). Taking inspiration from Smith’s labour theory of value, the Chartist Circular declared: Adam Smith’s influence on British reform movements of the… ‘It was not,’ as Adam Smith justly observes, ‘by gold or by silver, but by labour, that all the wealth of the world was originally purchased; and its value, to those who possess it, and who want to exchange it for some new productions, is precisely equal to the quantity of labour which it will enable them to purchase or command.’ (23 January 1841). Smith was identified as the source of the idea that ‘labour is the only source of wealth’, a ‘fact’ of political economy that derived in part from Smith’s conception of the relationship between labour and exchangeable value (‘Labour must first be employed upon an article, before it will possess an exchangeable value’) (23 January 1841). In an article published in multiple working-class newspapers throughout 1845, Smith was once again identified as the originator of the ‘political axiom which cannot be disputed, that productive labour is the source of all wealth.’9 Here, the axiom was used as direct justification for extending the franchise to the working classes who, as creators of wealth, were said to be deserving of at least the same rights as other members of commercial society. Indeed, the motto became so popular that by the mid-1840s, it was considered by the Northern Star, the most widely-read newspaper at the time, to represent the very essence of Chartism: ‘Chartism was…that as labour is the source of wealth, labour should also be the source of [political] power (07 March 1846, Northern Star).’ The argument that labour needed to be protected under the law was often bolstered by references to Smith during the Chartist movement. In a letter to the editor of the Lloyd’s Weekly Newspaper published in 1848, a reformer invoked Smith’s ideas to validate the idea that labour ‘above all things should be protected by law’. The author pointed out that at one time, according to Smith, ‘the whole produce of labour belonged to the labourer’, yet over time, capital had been accumulated by capitalists and land had been appropriated by landlords who ‘love to reap where they never sowed’ (Lloyd’s Weekly Newspaper, 30 July 1848). The centrality of labour in Smith’s system of wealth creation proved to be a useful source of intellectual ammunition for political and socioeconomic reformers. Yet, while ‘labour is the source of wealth’ was used freely during the Chartist movement often without clarification on what ‘labour’ actually meant—did it mean the labour of the hands or of the mind, or both?—some reformers went a step further by invoking Smith’s distinction between productive and unproductive labour to give a sharpness and clarity to their use of the motto.10 9 This article was published in the following newspapers: Freeman’s Journal on 28 August 1845; the Belfast Commercial Chronicle on 1 September 1845; and the Drogheda Argus and Leinster Journal on 30 August 1845. 10 For more on this observation as it plays out in the context of Owenite Socialism, see Claeys. G. ‘The reaction to political radicalism and the popularization of political economy in early 19th century Britain: the case of “productive” and “unproductive” labour’ in Shinn, T., and Whitley, R. (eds.) (1985) Expository Science: Forms and Functions of Popularisation. Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company. A. Digby Productive versus unproductive labour Smith’s materialist conception of wealth in the Wealth of Nations naturally supported the idea that those who produced material wealth (the manufacturers, for example) were to be considered ‘productive’; whereas those that did not (e.g. ‘churchmen, lawyers, physicians…’ in Smith’s words) (p. 331) were ‘unproductive’. As Smith claimed: ‘the labour of a manufacturer adds, generally, to the value of the materials he works upon, that of his own maintenance, and of his master’s profit’ (1776, p. 330). It has been demonstrated by Gregory Claeys that Smith’s ‘productive/unproductive’ distinction became a hallmark of early socialist writing (1985); yet, his distinction also found its way into the popular press. An article in the onepenny Gorgon stated, for example, productive members of society were ‘those who by their labours increase the funds of the community, as husbandman, mechanics, and labourers’, while unproductive members ‘waste[d] the produce of the country without giving anything in return’. Yet despite producing the material wealth of the country, the labourer enjoyed but ‘a very small proportion…of the produce of his own toil and industry’ (Gorgon, 8 August 1818). Echoes of Smith’s distinction can be found in the speeches of early radicals like ‘Orator’ Henry Hunt. Hunt’s desire to separate the productive from the unproductive was expressed in a speech in September 1819 in which he asserted the workers’ right ‘to reap the amply and substantial fruits of his virtuous and USEFUL TOIL’ (as quoted in Belchem 2004).11 Echoing Smith, an article in the Exeter and Plymouth Gazette declared in 1830: The corn growers—the wool growers—the miners of iron, copper and tin— the shipowners—every class—The silk-throwsters and silk-weavers—The glove manufacturer —The maltsters and brewers—The cotton-weavers—The blanket-weavers —The fancy-shoe-makers—The shipbuilders, and the merchant-sailors and ship-chandlers. These are the leading sufferers, on whom are dependent many thousands in other departments of trade and commerce… On the other hand, the only parties who can be said to be in a flourishing and happy condition are those who exclusively belong to the consuming and unproductive caste. (23 January 1830) As part of an argument for extending the franchise, the Scottish Chartist Circular deduced from Smith’s categorization of wealth and labour that ‘The labourer is, therefore, the most important, the most useful’ (23 January 1841). Likewise, Smith’s productive/unproductive distinction was captured in detail in the Evening Mail on 27 August 1845: … productive labour is the source of all wealth. In proportion, therefore, as the amount of the productive labour of any community, or of any nation, is increased or diminished by any means, must be the proportion of its wealth. 11 It is interesting that, for Smith, unproductive labour was still considered ‘useful’; yet, reformers often used the productive/unproductive distinction to make moral claims about the relative usefulness of different types of labour. Adam Smith’s influence on British reform movements of the… Consequently, everything which tends to promote productive labour in a community tends to the creation of wealth; and everything which tends to paralyze productive labour in a community as certainly insures poverty. ‘The annual labour of every nation,’ says Adam Smith, ‘is the fund which originally supplies it with all the necessaries and conveniences of life which it annually consumes, and which consist always either in the immediate produce of that labour, or in what is purchased with that produce from other nations.’ ‘Labour was the first price, the original purchase-money that was paid for all things.’ In proportion as the produce of the labour of a community is greater than the consumption of the producers, in the same proportion will wealth, the produce of labour, accumulate into capital. Capital again reacts in promoting that industry which was the foundation of its creation. ‘Every increase or diminution of capital,’ says the same author, ‘naturally tends to increase or diminish the real quantity of industry, the number of productive hands, and consequently the exchangeable value of the annual produce of the land and labour of the country, the real wealth and revenue of all its inhabitants.’ Smith’s materialist conception of wealth and his productive/unproductive distinction was used by some reformers in support of manual labour as distinct from mental labour (often used interchangeably with ‘capital’). This invocation naturally supported narratives that exposed the antagonistic relationship between labour and capital. Indeed, the latter became a hallmark of the language of reformers for whom middle class involvement in what was primarily a working-class agitation, was undesirable. In this context, the language used by reformers provides a pretty good indication of whether they advocated political union or not. Those leaders that sought to unite the middle and the lower classes, for example, did not reject the popular idea that the labourers alone created wealth, but rather embraced the motto while leaving ‘labour’ undefined. Worker remuneration and class legislation Smith’s belief that economic prosperity and high wages were a natural consequence of progress caught the attention of the working-class press and Chartist leaders, as did his opprobrium towards unjust laws that served the interests of certain groups over others. Reformers often quoted the Wealth of Nations as evidence that the law sided with capitalists to the detriment of labourers: Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labour above their actual rate…Masters, too, sometimes enter into particular combinations to sink the wages of labour even below this rate. These are always conducted with the utmost silence and secrecy, till the moment of execution, and when the workmen yield, as they sometimes do, without resistance, though severely felt by them, they are never heard of by other people. (Smith, 1776, p. 84) The Lloyd’s Weekly Newspaper wrote, ‘Adam Smith likewise informs us that the law aids and abets the monopolists in conspiring to defraud; rob, and grind down the A. Digby labourer, and that it effectually prevents the latter from going about to do himself justice’, quoting the above passage from Smith as justification. An article against the new Poor Law published in the Sheffield Iris in September 1841 quoted Smith as saying, ‘there is one law for the rich, and another for the poor’, and continued by stating, ‘By this law [the New Poor Law], the rich are not merely defended “against” the poor but the poor are punished by imprisonment for being so.’ The article stated, as Smith had, that ‘laws must protect the weak against the strong.’ (Dunning 1841). Smith’s views on the damaging effects of unequal laws featured prominently in a Testimonial of the Working Classes published in 1845 as part of the agitation for universal (male) suffrage: Adam Smith…[has shown] not only were the men ground down by bad masters, but the merchants exercised a most unfair pressure upon the manufacturers…working men [should be able to] legislate for themselves when others would not legislate fairly for them. (Sheffield Independent, 1 March) Smith’s views also made their way into a public discussion on trade unionism between ‘an MP’ and members of trades unions published in the Sheffield Independent in 1844. Trades delegates insisted upon sending the MP ‘chapters on Smith’ as evidence of the right of the working classes ‘to unite for mutual benefits, and the better protection of their labour, which is their only property’ (Sheffield Independent, 30 November 1844). In a speech delivered to parliament, Smith was referenced in the context of unionization and universal suffrage: SIR,-We know that, as Adam Smith tells us, the masters and capitalists are always and everywhere in combination against the workmen, and that the law encourages them, while it punishes, with the utmost severity, any attempt on the part of the latter to do themselves justice. This is not surprising, considering who make the laws-considering that capital, wealth, property, are represented in Parliament, and that labour is not represented there. Accordingly, the “Times” hinted the other day that the capitalists and landlords would not much like a parliament chosen by universal suffrage, because, in that case, it is obvious that labour would be properly represented, and therefore protected…It shows the spirit of capitalism; it shows how property conspires against labour. (Lloyd’s Weekly Newspaper 27 August 1848a, b) Smith’s beliefs that all under the law should receive equal treatment, and that the state was responsible for curbing vested interests which benefited one group at the expense of another, inspired articles and speeches in the agitation for political reform. Indeed Smith’s ‘radical egalitarianism’12 more generally was a powerful source of inspiration for reformers up and down the country. Acknowledging Smith’s influence in this respect also gives credence to the view among increasing numbers of Smith scholars that Smith’s desire to curb government intervention in 12 McLean, I. (2007) Adam Smith, Radical and Egalitarian: An Interpretation for the 21st Century (pp. 128–131). Adam Smith’s influence on British reform movements of the… the economy (his “laissez-faire approach”) derived not from dogmatism but from his concerns about the negative consequences of class legislation. Conclusion In the Wealth of Nations, Smith portrayed the poor as deserving of fundamental economic, social, and political rights along with the rest of society. He challenged the so-called ‘utility theory of poverty’ by arguing that high wages were justified not only on grounds of economic efficiency but ‘equity, besides’. Moreover, the central role afforded to labour in his system of wealth creation and his concerns about the role of class legislation in driving down wages proved to be a rich source of intellectual validation for socialists and reformers during the pre-Chartist and Chartist period. Smith’s influence on working-class movements did not go unnoticed by members of the ‘establishment’—and the backlash was significant. According to the conservative Morning Post, ‘the ORIGINAL SIN of the great Adam’ was to declare labour as the universal agent in the creation of wealth—Smith had been named ‘a discoverer’ because ‘he distinctly enunciated this position’ (Post, 11 March 1843). French economist J.B. Say was identified by the same newspaper as having ‘grossly misrepresented’ Smith. The point of contention was Say’s view that Smith ‘perceived that the universal agent in the creation of wealth is labour.’ Say was addressed in the following way: Really, Sir, this is too much…in the loose way in which it is put, this phrase is very liable to be mistaken or abused. Labour? Poo! This is not the language of ‘science’, it is the language of visionary poets and vulgar parlance…this great truth is FALSE…Smith does not say that labour, in the production of wealth, is the universal agent. (Morning Post, 11 March 1843) Having lamented in a previous article that ‘the world read Adam Smith…without understanding him’ (16 October 1841), the Weekly Chronicle warned in April 1844 that while ‘“the patrimony of a Poor Man,” (as Adam Smith says) “lies in the strength, and dexterity, of his hands”‘, it did not follow that capital and labour should be treated as naturally antagonistic. The author sought to distance Smith’s views on labour’s right to combine from the view of those who would drive a wedge between masters and men, arguing for capital as the fund ‘out of which [the Working Man’s] Wages are provided’, and criticizing ‘the insane, and suicidal, creed, that Capital is the natural enemy of Labour’. (Weekly Chronicle, 14 April 1844). An article titled ‘Communism and Chartism—False’ published in The Scotsman in 1848 sought to distance Smith from both causes and to reassert capital’s role in the production process: Capital is not the creation of labour simply, but of labour and abstinence jointly… ‘Parsimony’, says Adam Smith, ‘and not industry, is the immediate cause of the increase (and of the existence too) of capital. Industry, indeed, provides the subject which parsimony accumulates. But whatever industry A. Digby might acquire, if parsimony did not save and store up, the capital would never be the greater.’ While some Chartists argued that accumulated wealth was the produce of labour, and capitalists were therefore monopolizing the fruits of labour’s industry, the article continued, it was clear that the ‘gains of the capitalist are as legitimate as those of the labourer’ (The Scotsman, 31 May 1848). Beyond the conservative press, prominent 19th century economists including Samuel Read, George Poulett Scrope, and Friedrich List voiced their disapproval of Smith’s influence on the working classes. In Political Economy, Read claimed that ‘the most important oversight that is to be discovered in the Wealth of Nations’ was the idea that ‘labourers alone feed, clothe, and lodge “the whole body of the people”’ (1829, xxxii).13 Scrope also blamed Smith who declared labour to be an invariable standard of value and thus for dissemination of the idea that labour was the source of wealth (1873).14 In The National System of Political Economy (1841), the German economist, Friedrich List, noted the ‘mistake’ of the ‘popular school’ in ‘regarding mere bodily labour as the sole productive power’, singling out Smith who had ‘evidently been misled into representing labour itself as the “fund” of all the wealth of nations’. Consequently, the people were taught to ‘disregard especially the value of manufacturing power’ (List 1841, p. 132–38).15 During the first half of the 19th century, Smith’s ideas were used as intellectual justification for a range of working-class demands. Smith’s writings appealed to Chartists, trade unionists, co-operatives, and early socialists as well as ‘conservative’ reformers as part of the burgeoning laissez-faire movement in British politics. By the mid-19th century, Smith’s image was in a state of constant invention and reinvention. As one commentator wrote in 1844, ‘There is the most vivacious “discussion” on Adam Smith’: the Rev. Sydney Godolphin Osborne writes to the Times, Anti-Poor-law fashion, quoting Adam Smith; the Chronicle picks up the identical quotation, and launches it generally against anti-free-traders; the Protectionist Post catches the shaft as it flies, and retorts it on the political economist. You would think that it was of the last importance to the whole world to know what Adam Smith ‘says,’ as if that settled everything. Ask any of the controversialists to do what Adam Smith says, and—mercy on us, what a ‘discussion’ it would provoke! (Durham Chronicle, 8 November 1844a, b) 13 Ricardo was also identified as responsible for the growth of the idea that labour produced all wealth— the ‘most mischievous and fundamental error’ which Read ‘hoped [would] be found fully refuted in the following work’ (Read 1829, xxix). 14 While Smith was identified as the originator of the idea that labour was the source of all wealth, Ricardo was seen as responsible for popularizing the idea that wages and profits were inversely related which naturally led people to believe that workers and masters were naturally antagonistic (Read 1829, pp. viii and xxix). 15 List’s hostility to Smith’s theory of value was perhaps a byproduct of his fundamental rejection of free trade. List, F. (1841) The National System of Political Economy. Stuttgart und Tübingen: Cottaschen Verlag. Adam Smith’s influence on British reform movements of the… By 1850, Smith’s reputation as a supporter of the labouring poor had been firmly established among working-class reformers. As the Durham Chronicle stated in 1844, ‘Let those who would benefit the poor consult Adam Smith’ (20 December 1844) and as the Lloyd’s Weekly Newspaper stated in 1848 referring to the Wealth of Nations, ‘these important texts [identified the problem of the condition of the poor] as a conflict of “might and right, of wrong and justice, of power and helplessness.”‘ (30 July 1848). Reformers used Smith’s ideas to support a wide range of demands from universal suffrage to the complete overhaul of the existing social and economic systems. Agitating at least 30 years after the Wealth of Nations was published, such demands were contingent on the specific historical circumstances of their day. To further complicate things, it is not clear whether reformers who cited Smith engaged seriously with his original texts or whether Smith’s ideas came to be known to them via secondary sources.16 Nevertheless, today’s facile interpretation of Smith as an unequivocal champion of free markets neglects not only the complexities and inconsistencies in Smith’s own writings, but the many different versions of Smith that have emerged since the publication of the Wealth of Nations in 1776 For Smith, progress involved both the development of markets and social measures to improve the conditions of the working classes. Markets alone would not achieve the improvements he sought. Yet, he understood and even emphasized that social progress was dependent on the accumulation of capital that drives the economy forward. The fact that Smith’s ideas were met with enthusiasm by radical reformers and socialists in the 19th century and by conservatives in the 20th century demonstrates that the intellectual tug of war over Smith’s ideas has a long and complex history, and is likely far from over. Declarations Conflict of interest On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest. References Belchem, J. 2004. Hunt, Henry [Orator Hunt], 1773–1835. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Brodie, J. 1820. Fair prices for ever! live and let live, or we are all friends. London: Hatchard and son and Longman and Company. Buchnan, J. 2016. Biography of Adam Smith. In Adam Smith: his life thought and legacy, ed. R. Hanley. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Bury and Norwich Post. 1834. Agricultural and Commercial Herald. November 5. Carpenter, W. 1833. The Political Text Book; comprising a view of the origin and objects of government, and an examination of the principal social and political institutions of England. London: Compiled from the best authorities. Claeys, G. 1985. The reaction to political radicalism and the popularization of political economy in early nineteenth-century Britain: The case of productive and unproductive labour. In Expository 16 It is quite possible that more ‘left-leaning’ readings of Smith came from the early socialists of the 1820s and 30s, who themselves quoted Smith. A. Digby science: forms and functions of popularisation, ed. T. Shinn and R. Whitley. Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company. Claeys, G. 1987. Machinery money and the millennium: from moral economy to socialism, 1815– 1860. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Claeys, G. 1989. Citizens and saints: politics and anti-politics in early British socialism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dublin Weekly Register. 1833. The Immediate Improvement of Ireland September 7. Dunning, T.J. 1841. The science of civilization. Sheffield Iris, September 7. Durham Chronicle. 1844a. Discussion. November 8. Durham Chronicle. 1844b. Resumed meetings of the anti-corn-law league in covent garden theatre. December 20. Evening Mail. 1845. The condition of the people of Ireland. August 27. Exeter and Plymouth Gazette. 1830. Impolicy of late measures. January 23. Fleischacker, S. 2016. 28 Adam Smith and the left. In Adam Smith: his life thought and legacy, ed. R. Hanley, 478–493. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Coventry Herald (1839) Anti-Corn Law Meeting February 22. King, J.E. 1983. Utopian or scientific? A reconsideration of the Ricardian socialists. History of Political Economy 15 (3): 345. List, F. 1841. The national system of political economy. Stuttgart und Tübingen: Cottaschen Verlag. Liu, G. 2022. Adam Smith’s America: how a Scottish philosopher became an icon of American capitalist. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Lloyd’s Weekly Newspaper. 1848. A word on strikes. August 27. Lloyd’s Weekly Newspaper. 1848. The labour question. July 30. Martin, C.S. 2015. Equity, besides: Adam Smith and the utility of poverty. Journal of the History of Economic Thought. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1053837215000474. McLean, I. 2007. Adam Smith, radical and egalitarian: an interpretation for the 21st century. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Bradford Observer. 1834. To the editor of the Bradford Observer September 18. Morning Post. 1843. That profound philosopher, Adam Smith. 11 March. Read, S. 1829. Political economy an inquiry into the natural grounds of right to vendible property or wealth. Oliver and Boyd: Edinburg. Rothschild, E. 1992. Adam Smith and conservative economics. The Economic History Review 45 (1): 74–96. Scrope, P. 1873. Political economy for plain people, 2nd ed. London: Longmans, Green, and Co. Sheffield Independent (1845) The testimonial of the working classes to john drury. 1 March. Smith, A. 1991. An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. New York: Random House. Smith, C. 2020. Adam Smith. Cambridge/Medford MA: Polity Press. Stewart, D. 1829. Account of the life and writings of Adam Smith. Cambridge: Hilliard and Brown. Stimson, S.C., Milgate, M. 2011. After Adam Smith: a century of transformation in politics and political economy (Course Book ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press The Chartist Circular. 1841. Politics and Political Economy January 23. The Scotsman. 1848. Communism and Chartism—False. Ideas as to the origin of capital. May 31. Wade, J. 1818. Gorgon No. 1 (23 May 1818)–No. 49 (24 April 1819). British Library. London. Weekly Chronicle. 1841. Meeting in Manchester. October 16. Weekly Chronicle. 1844. The Factory Bill—The “Times”—The “Northern Star,”—And the Rights of Labour. April 14. Willis, K. 1979. The role in parliament of the economic ideas of Adam Smith, 1776–1800. History of Political Economy. 11 (4): 505–544. Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.