Born in Wales; graduate of St. John’s College, Oxford, rector of St. Stephen’s, Bristol; prebend, 1755; dean of Gloucester, 1758 till his death. He was a thorough student, and careful writer on political economy and subjects pertaining to religion, and published several pamphlets in the beginning of the contest between the English government and its American colonies in favor of the colonists.

General

  A case in which the whole British nation were, in one particular, manifestly puzzle-headed, except one man: who was accordingly derided by all. In the dispute between Great Britain and her American Colonies…. Dean Tucker, standing quite alone, wrote a pamphlet to show that the separation would be no loss at all, and that we had best give them the independence they coveted, at once, and in a friendly way. Some thought he was writing in jest, the rest despised him as too absurd to be worth answering. But now (and for above half a century) every one admits that he was quite right, and regrets that his view was not adopted…. Of all the clever men, then, that at that time existed, and many of whom spoke eloquently on each side, Tucker was the only one who was not puzzle-headed. And he obtained some small share of late credit, but present contempt.

  Josiah Tucker, whose works on Trade anticipated some of the established doctrines on political economy.

  A bitter Tory, but one of the best living writers on all questions of trade.

  Holds a distinguished place among the immediate predecessors of Smith. Most of his numerous productions had direct reference to contemporary questions, and, though marked by much sagacity and penetration are deficient in permanent interest…. The most important of his general economic views are those relating to international commerce. He is an ardent supporter of free-trade doctrines, which he bases on the principle that there is between nations no necessary antagonism, but rather a harmony, of interests, and that their several natural advantages and different aptitudes naturally prompt them to exchange. He had not, however, got quite clear of mercantilism, and favored bounties on exported manufactures and the encouragement of population by a tax on celibacy.

  Tucker was a very shrewd though a rather crotchety and inconsistent writer. He is praised by McCulloch and others who shared his view of the inutility of colonies; and he argued very forcibly that a “shopkeeping nation” would not improve its trade by beating its customers. The war with the colonies would, he said, hereafter appear to be as absurd as the crusades. He retained, as McCulloch complains, a good many of the prejudices which later economists sought to explode. He is not clear about the “balance of trade;” he believes in the wickedness of forestalling and regrating, and wishes to stimulate population by legislation. In spite, however, of his inconsistencies and narrowness of views, he deserves credit, as Turgot perceived, for attacking many of the evils of monopolies, and was so far in sympathy with the French economists and with Adam Smith. He deserves the credit of anticipating some of Adam Smith’s arguments against various forms of monopoly, but, though he made many good points, he was not equal to forming a comprehensive system.