Endnotes

1. John Rae, Life of Adam Smith, 1895, p. 284. ↩

2. John Rae, Life of Adam Smith, 1895, p. 285. ↩

3. John Rae, Life of Adam Smith, 1895, p. 324. ↩

4. Below, here and here. ↩

5. See here, as well as the passages referred to in the previous note. ↩

6. Here, here, here. ↩

7. Rae, Life of Adam Smith, 1895 p. 362. ↩

8. John Rae, Life of Adam Smith, 1895, p. 323. ↩

9. John Rae, Life of Adam Smith, 1895, p. 362. ↩

10. Edition 4 alters “this” to “the.” ↩

11. Edition 4 omits “present.” ↩

12. They are frequently found at the end of existing bound copies of the second edition. The statement in Rae, Life of Adam Smith, p. 362, that they were published in 1783 is a mistake; cp. the “Advertisement to the Third Edition” above. ↩

13. Rae, Life of Adam Smith, p. 362. ↩

14. Corrected to “Hope” in edition 5. The celebrated firm of Hope, merchant-bankers in Amsterdam, was founded by a Scotchman in the seventeenth century (see Sir Thomas Hope in the Dictionary of National Biography). Henry Hope was born in Boston, Mass., in 1736, and passed six years in a banking house in England before he joined his relatives in Amsterdam. He became a partner with them, and on the death of Adrian Hope the conduct of the whole of the business of the firm devolved upon him. When the French invaded Holland in 1794 he retired to England. He died on 25th February, 1811, leaving £1,160,000 (Gentleman’s Magazine, March, 1811). ↩

15. Most modern editions are copied from the fourth edition. Thorold Rogers’ edition, however, though said in the preface to be copied from the fourth, as a matter of fact follows the third. In one instance, indeed, the omission of “so” before “as long as” here (in the present edition), Rogers’ text agrees with that of the fourth edition rather than the third, but this is an accidental coincidence in error; the error is a particularly easy one to make and it is actually corrected in the errata to the fourth edition, so that it is not really the reading of that edition. The fifth edition must not be confused with a spurious “fifth edition with additions” in 2 vols., 8vo, published in Dublin in 1793 with the “Advertisement” to the third edition deliberately falsified by the substitution of “fifth” for “third” in the sentence “To this third edition however I have made several additions.” It is perhaps the existence of this spurious “fifth edition” which has led several writers (e.g., Rae, Life of Adam Smith, p. 293) to ignore the genuine fifth edition. The sixth edition is dated 1791. ↩

16. Steuart’s Principles was “printed for A. Millar, and T. Cadell, in the Strand”: and the Wealth of Nations “for W. Strahan; and T. Cadell, in the Strand.” ↩

17. Lectures on Justice, Police, Revenue and Arms, delivered in the University of Glasgow by Adam Smith. Reported by a student in 1763, and edited with an Introduction and Notes by Edwin Cannan, 1896, pp. 1, 3. ↩

18. Lectures on Justice, Police, Revenue and Arms, pp. 3, 4. ↩

19. Lectures, p. 154. ↩

20. See James Bonar, Catalogue of the Library of Adam Smith, 1894. ↩

21. Lectures, p. 157. ↩

22. Lectures, p. 154. ↩

23. Lectures, p. 156. ↩

24. Lectures, p. 157. ↩

25. Lectures, p. 163. ↩

26. Lectures, pp. 172⁠–⁠3. ↩

27. Lectures, p. 178. ↩

28. Lectures, p. 182. ↩

29. Lectures, p. 192. ↩

30. Lectures, p. 195. ↩

31. Lectures, p. 195. ↩

32. Lectures, p. 196. ↩

33. Lectures, p. 197. ↩

34. Lectures, p. 199. ↩

35. Lectures, p. 200. ↩

36. Lectures, p. 204. ↩

37. Lectures, p. 204. ↩

38. Lectures, p. 206. ↩

39. Lectures, p. 207. ↩

40. Lectures, p. 209. ↩

41. Lectures, pp. 211⁠–⁠19. ↩

42. Lectures, pp. 219⁠–⁠22. ↩

43. Lectures, p. 222. ↩

44. Lectures, pp. 222⁠–⁠3. ↩

45. Lectures, pp. 223⁠–⁠36. ↩

46. Lectures, p. 253. ↩

47. Lectures, p. 254. ↩

48. Lectures, p. 255. ↩

49. Lectures, p. 256. ↩

50. Lectures, pp. 256, 257. ↩

51. Lectures, p. 258. ↩

52. Lectures, p. 236. ↩

53. Lectures, p. 239. ↩

54. Lectures, pp. 241, 242. ↩

55. Lectures, pp. 242, 243. ↩

56. Lectures, p. 243. ↩

57. Lectures, p. 245. ↩

58. Lectures, pp. 246, 247. ↩

59. Lectures, pp. 247⁠–⁠52. ↩

60. Lectures, p. 261. ↩

61. Lectures, p. 263. ↩

62. There is a reminiscence of them in the chapter on Rent, here through here. ↩

63. See above, here. ↩

64. See below, here and here, for a conjecture on this subject. ↩

65. See this endnote. ↩

66. Dugald Stewart, in his “Account of the Life and Writings of Adam Smith,” read to the Royal Society of Edinburgh in 1793 and published in Adam Smith’s posthumous Essays on Philosophical Subjects, 1795, p. xviii. See Rae, Life of Adam Smith, pp. 53⁠–⁠5. ↩

67. Rae, Life of Adam Smith, pp. 42⁠–⁠5. ↩

68. Stewart, in Smith’s Essays, pp. lxxx, lxxxi. ↩

69. Rae, Life of Adam Smith, pp. 43⁠–⁠4. ↩

70. W. R. Scott, Francis Hutcheson, 1900, pp. 210, 231. In the Introduction to Moral Philosophy, 1747, Civil Polity is replaced by “Œconomicks and Politicks,” but “Œconomicks” only means domestic law, i.e., the rights of husbands and wives, parents and children, masters and servants. ↩

71. System of Moral Philosophy, vol. i, pp. 288, 289. ↩

72. System of Moral Philosophy, vol. i, pp. 319⁠–⁠21. ↩

73. System of Moral Philosophy, vol. ii, p. 58. ↩

74. System of Moral Philosophy, vol. ii, pp. 62, 63. ↩

75. System of Moral Philosophy, pp. 71⁠–⁠2. ↩

76. System of Moral Philosophy, vol. ii, p. 73. ↩

77. System of Moral Philosophy, vol. ii, pp. 318⁠–⁠21. ↩

78. System of Moral Philosophy, vol. ii, pp. 323⁠–⁠5. ↩

79. System of Moral Philosophy, pp. 340⁠–⁠1. ↩

80. System of Moral Philosophy, vol. ii, pp. 341⁠–⁠2. ↩

81. Francis Hutcheson, pp. 232⁠–⁠5. ↩

82. In the preface to Hutcheson’s System of Moral Philosophy, pp. xxxv, xxxvi. ↩

83. Rae, Life of Adam Smith, p. 411. ↩

84. Moral Sentiments, 1759, pp. 464⁠–⁠6. ↩

85. Below, here. ↩

86. Moral Sentiments, 1759, p. 474. ↩

87. Moral Sentiments, 1759, p. 483. ↩

88. Moral Sentiments, p. 485. ↩

89. Moral Sentiments, 1759, p. 487. ↩

90. Fable of the Bees, 1714, preface. ↩

91. Pp. 11⁠–⁠13 in the ed. of 1705. ↩

92. Pp. 427⁠–⁠8 in 2nd ed., 1723. ↩

93. P. 465 in ed. of 1724. ↩

94. Below, here. ↩

95. Lectures, p. 197. ↩

96. Above, here and here. Moreover, before bringing out the second edition of his Discourses, Hume wrote to Adam Smith asking for suggestions. That Smith made no remark on the protectionist passage in the discourse on the Balance of Trade seems to be indicated by the fact that it remained unaltered (see Hume’s Essays, ed. Green & Grose, vol. i, pp. 59, 343 and 344). ↩

97. This word, with “annually” just below, at once marks the transition from the older British economists’ ordinary practice of regarding the wealth of a nation as an accumulated fund. Following the physiocrats, Smith sees that the important thing is how much can be produced in a given time. ↩

98. Cp. with this phrase Locke, Some Considerations of the Consequences of the Lowering of Interest and Raising the Value of Money, ed. of 1696, p. 66, “the intrinsic natural worth of anything consists in its fitness to supply the necessities or serve the conveniencies of human life.” ↩

99. The implication that the nation’s welfare is to be reckoned by the average welfare of its members, not by the aggregate, is to be noticed. ↩

100. Ed. 1 reads “with which labour is generally applied in it.” ↩

101. This second circumstance may be stretched so as to include the duration and intensity of the labour of those who are usefully employed, but another important circumstance, the quantity and quality of the accumulated instruments of production, is altogether omitted. ↩

102. Ed. 1 reads “and.” ↩

103. Only one cause, the division of labour, is actually treated. ↩

104. For the physiocratic origin of the technical use of the terms “distribute” and “distribution” see the Editor’s Introduction. ↩

105. This word slips in here as an apparently unimportant synonym of “useful,” but subsequently ousts “useful” altogether, and is explained in such a way that unproductive labour may be useful; see esp. below here. ↩

106. See the index for the examples of the use of this term. ↩

107. Ed. 1 does not contain “to explain.” ↩

108. Ed. 1 reads “what is the nature.” ↩

109. Ed. 1 reads “is treated of in.” ↩

110. Ed. 1 reads “of the society.” ↩

111. Read in conjunction with the first two paragraphs, this sentence makes it clear that the wealth of a nation is to be reckoned by its per capita income. But this view is often temporarily departed from in the course of the work; see the index, s.v. Wealth. ↩

112. This phrase, if used at all before this time, was not a familiar one. Its presence here is probably due to a passage in Mandeville, Fable of the Bees, pt. ii (1729), dial. vi, p. 335: “Cleo.⁠ ⁠… When once men come to be governed by written laws, all the rest comes on apace⁠ ⁠… No number of men, when once they enjoy quiet, and no man needs to fear his neighbour, will be long without learning to divide and subdivide their labour. Hor. I don’t understand you. Cleo. Man, as I have hinted before, naturally loves to imitate what he sees others do, which is the reason that savage people all do the same thing: this hinders them from meliorating their condition, though they are always wishing for it: but if one will wholly apply himself to the making of bows and arrows, whilst another provides food, a third builds huts, a fourth makes garments, and a fifth utensils, they not only become useful to one another, but the callings and employments themselves will, in the same number of years, receive much greater improvements, than if all had been promiscuously followed by every one of the five. Hor. I believe you are perfectly right there; and the truth of what you say is in nothing so conspicuous as it is in watch-making, which is come to a higher degree of perfection than it would have been arrived at yet, if the whole had always remained the employment of one person; and I am persuaded that even the plenty we have of clocks and watches, as well as the exactness and beauty they may be made of, are chiefly owing to the division that has been made of that art into many branches.” The index contains, “Labour, The usefulness of dividing and subdividing it.” Joseph Harris, Essay Upon Money and Coins, 1757, pt. i, § 12, treats of the “usefulness of distinct trades,” or “the advantages accruing to mankind from their betaking themselves severally to different occupations,” but does not use the phrase “division of labour.” ↩

113. Ed. 1 reads “improvements.” ↩

114. Ed. 1 reads “Though in them.” ↩

115. Another and perhaps more important reason for taking an example like that which follows is the possibility of exhibiting the advantages of division of labour in statistical form. ↩

116. This parenthesis would alone be sufficient to show that those are wrong who believe Smith did not include the separation of employments in “division of labour.” ↩

117. In Adam Smith’s Lectures, p. 164, the business is, as here, divided into eighteen operations. This number is doubtless taken from the Encyclopédie, tom. v (published in 1755), s.v. Épingle. The article is ascribed to M. Delaire, “qui décrivait la fabrication de l’épingle dans les ateliers même des ouvriers,” p. 807. In some factories the division was carried further. E. Chambers, Cyclopædia, vol. ii, 2nd ed., 1738, and 4th ed., 1741, s.v. Pin, makes the number of separate operations twenty-five. ↩

118. Ed. 1 reads “the.” ↩

119. Ed. 1 reads “the lands” here and two lines higher up. ↩

120. Ed. 1 reads “because the silk manufacture does not suit the climate of England.” ↩

121. In Lectures, p. 164, the comparison is between English and French “toys,” i.e., small metal articles. ↩

122. Ed. 1 places “in consequence of the division of labour” here instead of in the line above. ↩

123. “Pour la célérité du travail et la perfection de l’ouvrage, elles dépendent entièrement de la multitude des ouvriers rassemblés. Lorsqu’une manufacture est nombreuse, chaque opération occupe un homme différent. Tel ouvrier ne fait et ne fera de sa vie qu’une seule et unique chose; tel autre une autre chose: d’où il arrive que chacune s’exécute bien et promptement, et que l’ouvrage le mieux fait est encore celui qu’on a à meilleur marché. D’ailleurs le goût et la façon se perfectionnent nécessairement entre un grand nombre d’ouvriers, parce qu’il est difficile qu’il ne s’en rencontre quelquesuns capables de réfléchir, de combiner, et de trouver enfin le seul moyen qui puisse les mettre audessus de leurs semblables; le moyen ou d’épargner la matière, ou d’allonger le temps, ou de surfaire l’industrie, soit par une machine nouvelle, soit par une maneuver plus commode.” —⁠Encyclopédie, tom i (1751), p. 717, s.v. Art. All three advantages mentioned in the text above are included here. ↩

124. In Lectures, p. 166, “a country smith not accustomed to make nails will work very hard for three or four hundred a day and those too very bad.” ↩

125. In Lectures, p. 166, “a boy used to it will easily make two thousand and those incomparably better.” ↩

126. In Lectures, p. 255, it is implied that the labour of making a button was divided among eighty persons. ↩

127. The same example occurs in Lectures, p. 166. ↩

128. Examples are given in Lectures, p. 167: “Two men and three horses will do more in a day with the plough than twenty men without it. The miller and his servant will do more with the water mill than a dozen with the hand mill, though it too be a machine.” ↩

129. Ed. 1 reads “I shall, therefore, only observe.” ↩

130. Ed. 1 reads “machines employed.” ↩

131. Ed. 1 reads “of common.” ↩

132. I.e., steam-engines. ↩

133. This pretty story is largely, at any rate, mythical. It appears to have grown out of a misreading (not necessarily by Smith) of the following passage: “They used before to work with a buoy in the cylinder enclosed in a pipe, which buoy rose when the steam was strong, and opened the injection, and made a stroke; thereby they were capable of only giving six, eight or ten strokes in a minute, till a boy, Humphry Potter, who attended the engine, added (what he called ‘scoggan’) a catch that the beam Q always opened; and then it would go fifteen or sixteen strokes in a minute. But this being perplexed with catches and strings, Mr. Henry Beighton, in an engine he had built at Newcastle-on-Tyne in 1718, took them all away, the beam itself simply supplying all much better.” —⁠J. T. Desaguliers, Course of Experimental Philosophy, vol. ii, 1744, p. 533. From pp. 469, 471, it appears that hand labour was originally used before the “buoy” was devised. ↩

134. In Lectures, p. 167, the invention of the plough is conjecturally attributed to a farmer and that of the hand-mill to a slave, while the invention of the waterwheel and the steam engine is credited to philosophers. Mandeville is very much less favourable to the claims of the philosophers: “They are very seldom the same sort of people, those that invent arts and improvements in them and those that inquire into the reason of things: this latter is most commonly practised by such as are idle and indolent, that are fond of retirement, hate business and take delight in speculation; whereas none succeed oftener in the first than active, stirring and laborious men, such as will put their hand to the plough, try experiments and give all their attention to what they are about.” —⁠Fable of the Bees, pt. ii (1729), dial. iii, p. 151. He goes on to give as examples the improvements in soap-boiling, grain-dyeing, etc. ↩

135. The advantage of producing particular commodities wholly or chiefly in the countries most naturally fitted for their production is recognised below, here, but the fact that division of labour is necessary for its attainment is not noticed. The fact that division of labour allows different workers to be put exclusively to the kind of work for which they are best fitted by qualities not acquired by education and practice, such as age, sex, size and strength, is in part ignored and in part denied below, here and here. The disadvantage of division of labour or specialisation is dealt with below, here through here here. ↩

136. This paragraph was probably taken bodily from the MS. of the author’s lectures. It appears to be founded on Locke, Civil Government, § 43; Mandeville, Fable of the Bees, pt. i, Remark P, 2nd ed., 1723, p. 182, and perhaps Harris, Essay Upon Money and Coins, pt. i, § 12. See Lectures, pp. 161⁠–⁠162 and notes. ↩

137. I.e., it is not the effect of any conscious regulation by the state or society, like the “law of Sesostris,” that every man should follow the employment of his father, referred to in the corresponding passage in Lectures, p. 168. The denial that it is the effect of individual wisdom recognising the advantage of exercising special natural talents comes lower down, p. 17. ↩

138. It is by no means clear what object there could be in exchanging one bone for another. ↩

139. Misprinted “intirely” in Eds. 1⁠–⁠5. “Entirely” occurs a little lower down in all Eds. ↩

140. The paragraph is repeated from Lectures, p. 169. It is founded on Mandeville, Fable of the Bees, pt. ii (1729), dial. vi, pp. 421, 422. ↩

141. Lectures, pp. 169⁠–⁠170. ↩

142. This is apparently directed against Harris, Money and Coins, pt. i, § 11, and is in accordance with the view of Hume, who asks readers to “consider how nearly equal all men are in their bodily force, and even in their mental powers and faculties, ere cultivated by education.” —⁠“Of the Original Contract,” in Essays, Moral and Political, 1748, p. 291 ↩

143. “Perhaps” is omitted in Eds. 2 and 3, and restored in the errata to ed. 4. ↩

144. Lectures, pp. 170⁠–⁠171. ↩

145. The superiority of carriage by sea is here considerably less than in Lectures, p. 172, but is still probably exaggerated. W. Playfair, ed. of Wealth of Nations, 1805, vol. i, p. 29, says a wagon of the kind described could carry eight tons, but, of course, some allowance must be made for thirty years of road improvement. ↩

146. Ed. 1 reads “which is at present carried on.” ↩

147. W. Playfair, ed. of Wealth of Nations, 1805, p. 30, says that equalising the out and home voyages goods were carried from London to Calcutta by sea at the same price (12s. per cwt.) as from London to Leeds by land. ↩

148. Ed. 1 reads “was.” ↩

149. Ed. 1 reads “carry on together a very considerable commerce.” ↩

150. This shows a curious belief in the wave-producing capacity of the tides. ↩

151. It is only in recent times that this word has become applicable especially to artificial channels; see Murray, Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. ↩

152. Ed. 1 reads “break themselves into many canals.” ↩

153. The real difficulty is that the mouths of the rivers are in the Arctic Sea, so that they are separated. One of the objects of the Siberian railway is to connect them. ↩

154. Ed. 1 reads “any one” here. ↩

155. The passage corresponding to this chapter is comprised in one paragraph in Lectures, p. 172. ↩

156. The paragraph has a close resemblance to Harris, Money and Coins, pt. i, §§ 19, 20. ↩

157. Iliad, vi, 236: quoted with the same object in Pliny, Historia Naturalis, lib. xxxiii, cap. i.; Pufendorf, De Jure Naturæ et Gentium, lib. v, cap. v, § 1; Martin-Leake, Historical Account of English Money, 2nd ed., 1745, p. 4 and elsewhere. ↩

158. Montesquieu, Esprit des lois, liv. xxii, chap i, note. ↩

159. W. Douglass, A Summary Historical and Political of the First Planting, Progressive Improvements and Present State of the British Settlements in North America, 1760, vol. ii, p. 364. Certain law officers’ fees in Washington were still computed in tobacco in 1888. —⁠J. J. Labor, Cyclopædia of Political Science, 1888, s.v. Money, p. 879 ↩

160. Playfair, ed. of Wealth of Nations, 1805, vol. i, p. 36, says the explanation of this is that factors furnish the nailers with materials, and during the time they are working give them a credit for bread, cheese and chandlery goods, which they pay for in nails when the iron is worked up. The fact that nails are metal is forgotten at the beginning of the next paragraph in the text above. ↩

161. For earlier theories as to these reasons see Grotius, De Jure Belli et Pacis, lib. ii, cap. xii, § 17; Pufendorf, De Jure Naturæ et Gentium, lib. v, cap. i, § 13; Locke, Some Considerations, 2nd ed., 1696, p. 31; Law, Money and Trade, 1705, ch. i.; Hutcheson, System of Moral Philosophy, 1755, vol. ii, pp. 55, 56; Montesquieu, Esprit des lois, liv. xxii, ch. ii.; Cantillon, Essai sur la nature du commerce en général, 1755, pp. 153, 355⁠–⁠357; Harris, Money and Coins, pt. i, §§ 22⁠–⁠27, and cp. Lectures, pp. 182⁠–⁠185. ↩

162. Plin. Historia Naturalis lib. 33 cap. 3. —⁠Smith

     “Servius rex primus signavit aes. Antea rudi usos Romæ Timæus tradit.” Ed. 1 reads “authority of one Remeus, an ancient author,” Remeus being the reading in the edition of Pliny in Smith’s library, cp. Bonar’s Catalogue of the Library of Adam Smith, 1894, p. 87. Ed. 1 does not contain the note. —⁠Cannan ↩

163. Ed. 1 reads “weighing them.” ↩

164. Ed. 1 reads “with the trouble.” ↩

165. Aristotle, Politics, 1257a 38⁠–⁠41; quoted by Pufendorf, De Jure Naturæ et Gentium, lib. v, cap. i, § 12. ↩

166. The aulnager measured woollen cloth in England under 25 Ed. III, st. 4, c. 1. See John Smith, Chronicon Rusticum-Commerciale or Memoirs of Wool, 1747, vol. i, p. 37. The stampmasters of linen cloth in the linen districts of Scotland were appointed under 10 Ann., c. 21, to prevent “divers abuses and deceits” which “have of late years been used in the manufacturies of linen cloth⁠ ⁠… with respect to the lengths, breadths and unequal sorting of yarn, which leads to the great debasing and undervaluing of the said linen cloth both at home and in foreign parts.” —⁠Statutes of the Realm, vol. ix, p. 682 ↩

167. Genesis 23:16. ↩

168. “King William the First, for the better pay of his warriors, caused the firmes which till his time had for the most part been answered in victuals, to be converted in pecuniam numeratam.” —⁠Lowndes, Report Containing an Essay for the Amendment of the Silver Coins, 1695, p. 4. Hume, whom Adam Smith often follows, makes no such absurd statement, History, ed. of 1773, vol. i, pp. 225, 226. ↩

169. Lowndes, Essay, p. 4. ↩

170. Above, p. 26. ↩

171. The Assize of Bread and Ale, 51 Hen. III, contains an elaborate scale beginning, “When a quarter of wheat is sold for 12d. then wastel bread of a farthing shall weigh 6l. and 16s.” and goes on to the figures quoted in the text above. The statute is quoted at secondhand from Martin Folkes’ Table of English Silver Coins with the same object by Harris, Essay Upon Money and Coins, pt. i, § 29, but Harris does not go far enough in the scale to bring in the penny as a weight. As to this scale see below, here and here through here. ↩

172. Ed. 1 reads “twenty, forty and forty-eight pennies.” Garnier, Recherches sur la nature et les causes de la richesse des nations, par Adam Smith, 1802, tom. v, p. 55, in a note on this passage says that the sou was always twelve deniers. ↩

173. Hume, History of England, ed. of 1773, i, p. 226. Fleetwood, Chronicon Preciosum, 1707, p. 30. These authorities say there were 48 shillings in the pound, so that 240 pence would still make £1. ↩

174. Harris, Money and Coins, pt. i, § 29. ↩

175. “It is thought that soon after the Conquest a pound sterling was divided into twenty shillings.” —⁠Hume, History of England, ed. of 1773, vol. i, p. 227 ↩

176. Pliny, Historia Naturalis, lib. xxxiii, cap. iii.; see below, here through here. ↩

177. Harris, Money and Coins, p. i, § 30, note, makes the French livre about one seventieth part of its original value. ↩

178. The subject of debased and depreciated coinage occurs again below, here, here, here through here, and here through here. One of the reasons why gold and silver became the most usual forms of money is dealt with below, here through here. See Coin and Money in the index. ↩

179. In Lectures, pp. 182⁠–⁠190, where much of this chapter is to be found, money is considered “first as the measure of value and then as the medium of permutation or exchange.” Money is said to have had its origin in the fact that men naturally fell upon one commodity with which to compare the value of all other commodities. When this commodity was once selected it became the medium of exchange. In this chapter money comes into use from the first as a medium of exchange, and its use as a measure of value is not mentioned. The next chapter explains that it is vulgarly used as a measure of value because it is used as an instrument of commerce or medium of exchange. ↩

180. Lectures, p. 157. Law, Money and Trade, 1705, ch. i (followed by Harris, Money and Coins, pt. i, § 3), contrasts the value of water with that of diamonds. The cheapness of water is referred to by Plato, Euthydem. 304 B., quoted by Pufendorf, De Jure Naturæ et Gentium, lib. v, cap. i, § 6; cp. Barbeyrac’s note on § 4. ↩

181. Ed. 1 reads “subject which is.” ↩

182. “La richesse en elle-même n’est autre chose que la nourriture, les commodités et les agréments de la vie.” —⁠Cantillon, Essai, pp. 1, 2 ↩

183. “Everything in the world is purchased by labour.” —⁠Hume, “Of Commerce,” in Political Discourses, 1752, p. 12 ↩

184. “Also riches joined with liberality is Power, because it procureth friends and servants: without liberality not so, because in this case they defend not but expose men to envy as a prey.” —⁠Leviathan, I, x ↩

185. This paragraph appears first in Additions and Corrections and ed. 3. ↩

186. The absence of any reference to the lengthy discussion of this subject in chap. x is curious. ↩

187. Below, here. ↩

188. Ed. 1 reads “there.” ↩

189. Ed. 1 reads “Equal quantities of labour must at all times and places be.” ↩

190. The words from “In his ordinary state of health” to “dexterity” appear first in ed. 2. ↩

191. “Be above all things careful how you make any composition or agreement for any long space of years to receive a certain price of money for the corn that is due to you, although for the present it may seem a tempting bargain.” —⁠Fleetwood, Chronicon Preciosum, p. 174 ↩

192. Above, here through here. ↩

193. Below, here through here. ↩

194. C. 6, which applies to Oxford, Cambridge, Winchester and Eton, and provides that no college shall make any lease for lives or years of tithes, arable land or pasture without securing that at least one-third of “tholde” (presumably the whole not the old) rent should be paid in coin. The Act was promoted by Sir Thomas Smith to the astonishment, it is said, of his fellow-members of Parliament, who could not see what difference it would make. “But the knight took the advantage of the present cheapness; knowing hereafter grain would grow dearer, mankind daily multiplying, and licence being lately given for transportation. So that at this day much emolument redoundeth to the colleges in each university, by the passing of this Act; and though their rents stand still, their revenues do increase.” —⁠Fuller, History of the University of Cambridge, 1655, p. 144, quoted in Strype, Life of the Learned Sir Thomas Smith, 1698, p. 192 ↩

195. Commentaries, 1765, vol. ii, p. 322. ↩

196. Above, here. ↩

197. Below, here through here. ↩

198. Below, here, here, and here. ↩

199. Below, chap. xi, see esp. here. ↩

200. Ed. 1 reads “it.” ↩

201. Ed. 1 places the “for example” here. ↩

202. “In England and this part of the world, wheat being the constant and most general food, not altering with the fashion, not growing by chance: but as the farmers sow more or less of it, which they endeavour to proportion, as near as can be guessed to the consumption, abstracting the overplus of the precedent year in their provision for the next; and vice versa, it must needs fall out that it keeps the nearest proportion to its consumption (which is more studied and designed in this than other commodities) of anything, if you take it for seven or twenty years together: though perhaps the scarcity of one year, caused by the accidents of the season, may very much vary it from the immediately precedent or following. Wheat, therefore, in this part of the world (and that grain which is the constant general food of any other country) is the fittest measure to judge of the altered value of things in any long tract of time: and therefore wheat here, rice in Turkey, etc., is the fittest thing to reserve a rent in, which is designed to be constantly the same for all future ages. But money is the best measure of the altered value of things in a few years: because its vent is the same and its quantity alters slowly. But wheat, or any other grain, cannot serve instead of money: because of its bulkiness and too quick change of its quantity.” —⁠Locke, Some Considerations of the Consequences of the Lowering of Interest and Raising the Value of Money, ed. of 1696, pp. 74, 75 ↩

203. Ed. 1 reads “than one which sells for an ounce at London to.” ↩

204. Below, chap. xi passim. ↩

205. Pliny, lib. xxxiii c. 3. —⁠Smith

     This note is not in ed. 1. —⁠Cannan ↩

206. Eds. 1 and 2 read “always.” ↩

207. Habere aes alienum. ↩

208. Ed. 1 does not contain “sterling.” ↩

209. Ed. 1 places the “originally” here. ↩

210. Ed. 1 places the “only” here. ↩

211. The Act, 19 Hen. VII, c. 5, ordered that certain gold coins should pass for the sums for which they were coined, and 5 and 6 Ed. VI prescribed penalties for giving or taking more than was warranted by proclamation. The value of the guinea was supposed to be fixed by the proclamation of 1717, for which see Economic Journal, March, 1898. Lead tokens were coined by individuals in the reign of Elizabeth. James I coined copper farthing tokens, but abstained from proclaiming them as money of that value. In 1672 copper halfpennies were issued, and both halfpennies and farthings were ordered to pass as money of those values in all payments under sixpence. —⁠Harris, Money and Coins, pt. i, § 39; Liverpool, Treatise on the Coins of the Realm, 1805, pp. 130, 131 ↩

212. Ed. 1 reads “sum.” ↩

213. I.e., if 21 pounds may be paid with 420 silver shillings or with 20 gold guineas it does not matter whether a “pound” properly signifies 20 silver shillings or ²⁰⁄₂₁ of a gold guinea. ↩

214. This happens to have been usually, though not always, true, but it is so simply because it has usually happened that the most precious metal in use as money has been made or become the standard. Gold was already the standard in England, though the fact was not generally recognised; see Harris, Money and Coins, pt. ii, §§ 36, 37, and below, here through here. ↩

215. In 1774. ↩

216. These regulations, issued in 1774, provided that guineas should not pass when they had lost a certain portion of their weight, varying with their age. —⁠Liverpool, Coins of the Realm, p. 216, note ↩

217. Magens, Universal Merchant, ed. Horsley, 1753, pp. 53⁠–⁠55, gives the proportions thus: French coin, 1 to 14⁵⁸⁰³⁄₁₂₂₇₉, Dutch, 1 to 14⁸²⁵⁵⁰⁄₁₅₄₄₂₅, English, 1 to 15¹⁴²⁹⁵⁄₆₈₂₀₀. ↩

218. Full weight silver coins would not remain in circulation, as the bullion in them was worth more reckoned in guineas and in the ordinary old and worn silver coins than the nominal amount stamped on them. ↩

219. Locke, Further Considerations Concerning Raising the Value of Money, 2nd ed., 1695, pp. 58⁠–⁠60. The exportation of foreign coin (misprinted “kind” in Pickering) or bullion of gold or silver was permitted by 15 Car. II, c. 7, on the ground that it was “found by experience that” money and bullion were “carried in greatest abundance (as to a common market) to such places as give free liberty for exporting the same” and in order “the better to keep in and increase the current coins” of the kingdom. ↩

220. Harris, writing nearly twenty years earlier, had said, “it would be a ridiculous and vain attempt to make a standard integer of gold, whose parts should be silver; or to make a motley standard, part gold and part silver.” —⁠Money and Coins, pt. 1., § 36 ↩

221. I.e., an ounce of standard gold would not actually fetch £3 175s. 10½d. if sold for cash down. ↩

222. This erroneous statement is repeated below, here, and also here, where the calculations on which it is based are given. See the note on that passage. ↩

223. The question of seignorage is further discussed at some length in the chapter on Commercial Treaties, vol. ii, pp. 51⁠–⁠57. ↩

224. Ed. 1 reads “in the tear and wear of coin, and in the tear and wear of plate.” ↩

225. Ed. 1 does not contain “the whole produce of labour belongs to the labourer; and.” The words, however, occur in all Eds. here. ↩

226. “The capital annually employed” is the working expenses for twelve months, not the capital in the usual modern sense. ↩

227. Ed. 1 inserts “frequently.” ↩

228. Eds. 1 and 2 read “proportion to it.” ↩

229. Ed. 1 reads “profits of stock are a source of value.” ↩

230. Ed. 1 reads from the beginning of the paragraph: “In this state of things, therefore, the quantity of labour commonly employed in acquiring or producing any commodity is by no means the only circumstance.” ↩

231. Buchanan, ed. Wealth of Nations, 1814, vol. i, p. 80, says: “They do so. But the question is why this apparently unreasonable demand is so generally complied with. Other men love also to reap where they never sowed, but the landlords alone, it would appear, succeed in so desirable an object.” ↩

232. Ed. 1 does not contain “the labourer” and “even to him.” ↩

233. Ed. 1 in place of these two sentences reads: “Men must then pay for the licence to gather them; and in exchanging them either for money, for labour, or for other goods, over and above what is due, both for the labour of gathering them, and for the profits of the stock which employs that labour, some allowance must be made for the price of the licence, which constitutes the first rent of land. In the price therefore of the greater part of commodities the rent of land comes in this manner to constitute a third source of value. In this state of things, neither the quantity of labour commonly employed in acquiring or producing any commodity, nor the profits of the stock which advanced the wages and furnished the materials of that labour, are the only circumstances which can regulate the quantity of labour which it ought commonly to purchase, command or exchange for. A third circumstance must likewise be taken into consideration; the rent of the land; and the commodity must commonly purchase, command or exchange for, an additional quantity of labour, in order to enable the person who brings it to market to pay this rent.” ↩

234. Ed. 1 reads “The real value of all the different component parts of price is in this manner measured.” ↩

235. Smith overlooks the fact that his inclusion of the maintenance of labouring cattle here as a sort of wages requires him to include it in the national income or “wealth of the nation,” and therefore to reckon the cattle themselves as part of the nation. ↩

236. Ed. 1 reads “tear and wear.” ↩

237. The use of “labour” instead of the more natural “wages” here is more probably the result of its use five lines higher up than of any feeling of difficulty about the maintenance of cattle. Here “rent, labour and profit” and “rent, wages and profit” are both used; see here, and note. ↩

238. The fact that the later manufacturer has to replace what is here called the capital, i.e., the periodical expenditure of the earlier manufacturer, does not necessarily require him to have a greater capital to deal with the same produce. It need not be greater if he requires less machinery and buildings and a smaller stock of materials. ↩

239. Below, here. ↩

240. Only true if “commodity” be understood to include solely goods which constitute income. ↩

241. The “whole annual produce” must be taken to mean the income and not the whole mass of goods produced, including those which perish or are used up in the creation of others. ↩

242. Some parts of this “other revenue,” viz., interest and taxes, are mentioned in the next paragraph. It is perhaps also intended to include the rent of houses; see below, here and here. ↩

243. Ed. 1 reads “sale of his work.” ↩

244. Below, here through here. ↩

245. Eds. 1⁠–⁠3 read “was.” ↩

246. The chapter follows Lectures, pp. 173⁠–⁠182, very closely. ↩

247. Below, chaps. viii and ix. ↩

248. Below, chap. xi. ↩

249. The same phrase occurs below, here and here. ↩

250. Above, here and note 237. ↩

251. Ed. 1, beginning three lines higher up, reads “according as the greatness of the deficiency increases more or less the eagerness of this competition. The same deficiency.” ↩

252. Ed. 1 reads “the competitors.” ↩

253. Ed. 1 reads “fall short of it.” ↩

254. See below, here. ↩

255. Repeated below, here. ↩

256. Ed. 1 does not contain “more.” ↩

257. They are called profits simply because all the gains of the master-manufacturer are called profits. They can scarcely be said to have been “considered” at all; if they had been, they would doubtless have been pronounced to be, in the words of the next paragraph, “the effects of a particular accident,” namely, the possession of peculiar knowledge on the part of the dyer. ↩

258. Ed. 1 places “for whole centuries together” here instead of in the line above. ↩

259. See below, here through here. Playfair, in a note on this passage, ed. Wealth of Nations, 1805, vol. i, p. 97, says: “This observation about corporations and apprenticeships scarcely applies at all to the present day. In London, for example, the freemen only can carry on certain businesses within the city: there is not one of those businesses that may not be carried on elsewhere, and the produce sold in the city. If Mr. Smith’s principle applied, goods would be dearer in Cheapside than in Bond Street, which is not the case.” ↩

260. Above, here, and below, here. ↩

261. In Lectures, p. 168, the Egyptian practice is attributed to “a law of Sesostris.” ↩

262. The same nine words occur above, p. 49, in ed. 2 and later Eds. ↩

263. The word “cheaper” is defined by the next sentence as “produced by a smaller quantity of labour.” ↩

264. It would be less confusing if the sentence ran: “But though all things would have become cheaper in the sense just attributed to the word, yet in the sense in which the words cheaper and dearer are ordinarily used many things might have become dearer than before.” ↩

265. I.e., “would in the ordinary sense of the word be five times dearer than before.” ↩

266. I.e., “in the sense attributed to the word above.” ↩

267. If the amount of labour necessary for the acquisition of a thing measures its value, “twice as cheap” means simply, twice as easy to acquire. ↩

268. Ed. 1 reads “of whatever produce.” ↩

269. The provision of tools to work with and buildings to work in is forgotten. ↩

270. Cp. with this account that given at the beginning of chap. vi, pp. 49, 50 above. ↩

271. Ed. 1 reads, “The masters being fewer in number can not only combine more easily, but the law authorises their combinations, or at least does not prohibit them.” ↩

272. E.g., 7 Geo. I, stat. 1, c. 13, as to London tailors; 12 Geo. I, c. 34, as to wool-combers and weavers; 12 Geo. I, c. 35, as to brick and tile makers within fifteen miles of London; 22 Geo. II, c. 27, § 12, as to persons employed in the woollen manufacture and many others. ↩

273. The word is used as elsewhere in Adam Smith without the implication of falsity now attached to it: a pretence is simply something put forward. ↩

274. Ed. 1 does not contain “either.” ↩

275. Essai sur la nature du commerce en général, 1755, pp. 42⁠–⁠47. The “seems” is not meaningless, as Cantillon is unusually obscure in the passage referred to. It is not clear whether he intends to include the woman’s earnings or not. ↩

276. I.e., before completing their seventeenth year, as stated by Dr. Halley, quoted by Cantillon, Essai, pp. 42, 43. ↩

277. Contillon himself, p. 44, says: “C’est une matière qui n’admet pas un calcul exact, et dans laquelle la précision n’est pas même fort nécessaire, il suffit qu’on ne s’y éloigne pas beaucoup de la réalité.” ↩

278. Ed. 1 reads “them.” ↩

279. There is no attempt to define “maintenance,” and consequently the division of a man’s revenue into what is necessary for his maintenance and what is over and above is left perfectly vague. ↩

280. It seems to be implied here that keeping a menial servant, even to perform the most necessary offices (e.g., to nurse the infant child of a widower), is not “maintaining” a family. ↩

281. Above, p. 1, the wealth of a nation was treated as synonymous with its annual produce, and there has been hitherto no suggestion that its stock must be considered. ↩

282. Apparently this is a slip for “occasions high wages.” At any rate the next sentences require this assertion and not that actually made. ↩

283. The method of calculating wealth by the amount of annual produce per head adopted above, in the Introduction and Plan of the Work, is departed from here and below, here, and frequently in later passages, in favour of the calculation by amount of capital wealth. ↩

284. This was written in 1773, before the commencement of the late disturbances. —⁠Smith

     Ed. 1 does not contain this note; Eds. 2 and 3 read “present disturbances.” —⁠Cannan ↩

285. Petty, Political Arithmetic, 1699, p. 18, made the period for England 360 years. Gregory King, quoted by Davenant, Works, ed. Whitworth, 1771, vol. ii, p. 176, makes it 435 years in the past and probably 600 in the future. In 1703 the population of Virginia was 60,000, in 1755 it was 300,000, and in 1765 it was 500,000, “by which they appear to have doubled their numbers every twenty years as nigh as may be.” —⁠The Present State of Great Britain and North America with Regard to Agriculture, Population, Trade and Manufactures, 1767, p. 22, note. “The original number of persons who in 1643 had settled in New England was 21,200. Ever since, it is reckoned that more have left them than have gone to them. In the year 1760 they were increased to half a million. They have therefore all along doubled their own number in twenty-five years.” —⁠Richard Price, Observations on Reversionary Payments, etc., 1771, pp. 204, 205. The statement as to America is repeated below, here. ↩

286. Here we have a third method of calculating the riches or wealth of a country, namely by the amount of produce per acre. For other references to this “wealth” of China see the index, s.v. China. ↩

287. The date of his arrival was 1275. ↩

288. “Les artisans courent les villes du matin au soir pour chercher pratique,” Quesnay, Éphémérides du citoyen, Mars, 1767; in Œuvres, ed. Oncken, 1888, p. 581. ↩

289. “Cependant quelque sobre et quelque industrieux que soit le peuple de la Chine, le grand nombre de ses habitants y cause beaucoup de misère. On en voit de si pauvres, que ne pouvant fournir à leurs enfants les aliments nécessaires, ils les exposent dans les rues, surtout lorsque les mères tombent malades, ou qu’elles manquent de lait pour les nourrir. Ces petits innocents sont condamnés en quelque manière à la mort presque au même instant qu’ils ont commencé de vivre: cela frappe dans les grandes villes, comme Peking, Canton; car dans les autres villes à peine s’en aperçoit-on.

     “C’est ce qui a porté les missionnaires à entretenir dans ces endroits très peuplés, un nombre de catéchistes, qui en partagent entre eux tous les quartiers, et les parcourent tous les matins, pour procurer la grâce du baptême à une multitude d’enfants moribonds.

     “Dans la même vue on a quelquefois gagné des sages-femmes infidèles afin qu’elles permissent à des filles chrétiennes de les suivre dans les différentes maisons où elles sont appelées: car il arrive quelquefois que les Chinois se trouvant hors d’état de nourrir une nombreuse famille, engagent ces sages-femmes à étouffer dans un bassin plein d’eau les petites filles aussitôt qu’elles sont nées; ces chrétiennes ont soin de les baptiser, et par ce moyen ces tristes victimes de l’indigence de leurs parents trouvent la vie éternelle dans ces mêmes eaux, qui leur ravissent une vie courte et périssable.”

     —⁠Du Halde, Description géographique, historique, chronologique, politique et physique de l’empire de la Chine et de la Tartarie chinoise, 1735, tom. ii, pp. 73, 74.

     The statement in the text above that drowning babies is a special business is possibly founded on a mistranslation of “sages-femmes.” ↩

290. Below, here. ↩

291. The difference between England and Scotland in this respect is attributed to the English law of settlement below, here. ↩

292. The inferiority of oatmeal is again insisted on below, here. ↩

293. Authorities are quoted below, here. ↩

294. Hume, History, ed. of 1773, vol. vi, p. 178, quoting Rymer’s Foedera, tom. xvi, p. 717. This was for service in Germany. ↩

295. Sir Matthew Hale. ↩

296. See his scheme for the maintenance of the Poor, in Burn’s History of the Poor-laws. —⁠Smith

     This note appears first in ed. 2. Hale’s Discourse Touching Provision for the Poor was printed in 1683. It contains no internal evidence of the careful inquiry attributed to it above. —⁠Cannan ↩

297. Davenant, Essay Upon the Probable Methods of Making a People Gainers in the Balance of Trade, 1699, pp. 15, 16; in Works, ed. Whitworth, vol. ii, p. 175. ↩

298. Scheme D in Davenant, Balance of Trade, in Works Scheme B, vol. ii, p. 184. See this note. ↩

299. Berkeley, Querist, 5th ed., 1752, qu. 2, asks “whether a people can be called poor where the common sort are well fed, clothed and lodged.” Hume, “On Commerce,” says: “The greatness of a state and the happiness of its subjects, however independent they may be supposed in some respects, are commonly allowed to be inseparable with regard to commerce.” —⁠Political Discourses, 1752, p. 4 ↩

300. Cantillon, Essai, pt. 1., ch. ix, title, “Le nombre de laboureurs, artisans et autres qui travaillent dans un état se proportionne naturellement au besoin qu’on en a.” ↩

301. Ed. 1 reads “If it.” ↩

302. Berkeley, Querist, qu. 62, asks “whether a country inhabited by people well fed, clothed and lodged would not become every day more populous? And whether a numerous stock of people in such circumstances would not constitute a flourishing nation?” ↩

303. Ed. 1 reads “tear and wear” here and in the three other cases where the phrase is used on this page. ↩

304. This is a more favourable view than that taken in Lectures, p. 257. ↩

305. De morbis artificum diatriba 1700, translated into English (A Treatise on the Diseases of Tradesmen) by R. James, 1746. ↩

306. Misprinted “taillies” in Eds. 3⁠–⁠5. ↩

307. Recherches sur la population des généralités d’Auvergne, de Lyon, de Rouen, et de quelques provinces et villes du royaume, avec des réflections sur la valeur du bled tant en France qu’en Angleterre, depuis 1674 jusqu’en 1764, par M. Messance, receveur des tailles de l’élection de Saint-Etienne, 1766, pp. 287⁠–⁠292, 305⁠–⁠308. ↩

308. Ed. 1 reads “continued to do so.” ↩

309. Ed. 1 reads “that the increase of its price does not compensate the diminution of its quantity.” The meaning is that the increase in the amount paid for a given quantity of labour is more than counterbalanced by the diminution in the quantity required. The statement is repeated below, here. ↩

310. This statement is somewhat amplified below, here, where the increasing intensity of the competition between the owners of capital is attributed to the gradually increasing difficulty of finding “a profitable method of employing any new capital.” ↩

311. Defined above, here. ↩

312. But that interest will not always bear the same proportion to profit is recognised below, here through here. ↩

313. C. 9, “an act against usury.” On the ground that previous Acts and laws had been obscure it repeals them all, and prohibits the repurchase of goods sold within three months before, and the obtaining by any device more than 10 percent per annum for forbearing payment of money. Its real effect was to legalise interest up to 10 percent. ↩

314. 5 & 6 Ed. VI, c. 20, forbade all interest, and repealed 37 Hen. VIII, c. 9, alleging in its preamble that that Act was not intended to allow usury, as “divers persons blinded with inordinate love of themselves” imagined, but was intended against all usury, “and yet nevertheless the same was by the said act permitted for the avoiding of a more ill and inconvenience that before that time was used.” ↩

315. On the ground that 5 & 6 Ed. VI, c. 20, “hath not done so much good as was hoped it should but rather the said vice of usury and especially by way of sale of wares and shifts of interest hath much more exceedingly abounded to the utter undoing of many gentlemen, merchants, occupiers and other.” ↩

316. C. 17, which alleges that the fall of prices which had taken place made the maintenance of “so high a rate” as 10 percent prejudicial to agriculture and commerce, and therefore reduces the maximum to 8 percent for the future. It concludes with the very empty proviso that “no words in this law contained shall be construed or expounded to allow the practice of usury in point of religion or conscience.” ↩

317. It had already been so reduced by a Commonwealth Act of Parliament, passed in August, 1651, which adopts the reasons given by 21 Jac. I, c. 17. But of course this, like other Acts of the Commonwealth, had to be ignored by the Restoration Parliament, which, by 12 Car. II, c. 13, remade the reduction on the grounds that the abatement of interest from 10 percent “in former times hath been found by notable experience beneficial to the advancement of trade and improvement of lands by good husbandry, with many other considerable advantages to this nation, especially the reducing of it to a nearer proportion with foreign states with whom we traffic,” and because “in fresh memory the like fall from eight to six in the hundred by a late constant practice hath found the like success to the general contentment of this nation as is visible by several improvements,” while “it is the endeavour of some at present to reduce it back again in practice to the allowance of the statute still in force to eight in the hundred to the great discouragement of ingenuity and industry in the husbandry trade and commerce of this nation.” ↩

318. By 12 Ann. st. 2, c. 16, which speaks of the benefit to trade and agriculture resulting from the earlier reductions, of the burdens which the war had laid on landowners, and of the decay of foreign trade owing to the high interest and profit of money at home, which things made it “absolutely necessary to reduce the high rate of interest” to a nearer proportion with the interest allowed in foreign states. ↩

319. That of 1756⁠–⁠1763. ↩

320. Holders of 4 percent annuities who declined to accept in exchange new stock bearing interest for some years at 3½ and afterwards at 3 percent were paid off by means of money raised by a 3 percent loan in 1750. See Sinclair, History of the Public Revenue, 1785, pt. ii, p. 113. From that time till the beginning of 1755 the 3 percents were usually above par. Then they gradually sank to 63 in January, 1762; rose to 96 in March, 1763; fell again to 80 in October, 1764; after that they were seldom above 90 before the publication of the Wealth of Nations (Sinclair, op. cit., pt. iii, 1790, Appendix iii). The policy of a legal regulation of interest is discussed below, here through here. ↩

321. Below, here through here. ↩

322. Above, here. ↩

323. Below, here. ↩

324. See Denisart, Article Taux des Intérêts, tom. iii. p. 18. —⁠Smith

     J. B. Denisart, Collection de décisions nouvelles et de notions relatives à la jurisprudence actuelle, 7th ed., 1771, s.v. Intérêt, subdivision Taux des Intérêts. This does not go so far as the reduction of 1766. The note appears first in ed. 2. —⁠Cannan ↩

325. Below, here. ↩

326. Postlethwayt, Dictionary of Commerce, 2nd ed., 1757, vol. i, p. 877, s.v. Funds, says that the amount of British funds held by foreigners has been estimated by some at one-fifth and by others at one-fourth of the whole debt. But Magens, Universal Merchant (ed. Horsley), 1753, p. 13, thought it “more than probable that foreigners are not concerned in anything like one-fourth.” He had been informed “that most of the money which the Dutch have here is in Bank, East India and South Sea stocks, and that their interest in them might amount to one-third of the whole.” Fairman, Account of the Public Funds, 7th ed., 1824, p. 229, quotes “an account drawn up in the year 1762, showing how much of the several funds transferable at the Bank of England then stood in the names of foreigners,” which is also in Sinclair, History of the Public Revenue, pt. iii, 1790, p. 366. From this it appears that foreigners held £4,627,858 of Bank stock and £10,328,537 in the other funds, which did not include South Sea and East India stock. Fairman had reason to believe that the South Sea holding amounted to £2,500,000 and the East Indian to more than £500,000, which would make in all about £18,000,000. In 1806, he says, the total claiming exemption from income tax (foreigners were exempt) was £18,500,000, but this did not include Bank stock. ↩

327. Eds. 1⁠–⁠3 read “lands.” ↩

328. Above, here through here. ↩

329. Below, pp. here through here. ↩

330. Below, here through here, and here. ↩

331. Eds. 1 and 2 read “cheaper.” ↩

332. Ed. 1 reads “five and forty,” 8 having probably been misread as 5. ↩

333. Ad Atticum, VI, i, 5, 6. Cicero had arranged that a six-year-old debt should be repaid with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum, the principal being increased by that amount for each of the six years. This would have very nearly doubled the principal, but Brutus, through his agent, kept asking for 48 percent, which would have multiplied it by more than fifteen. However, Cicero asserted that the 12 percent would have satisfied the cruellest usurers. ↩

334. Lectures, pp. 130⁠–⁠134. ↩

335. I.e., the danger of evading the law. ↩

336. Esprit des lois, liv. xxii, ch. 19, “L’usure augmente dans les pays mahométans à proportion de la sévérité de la défense: le prêteur s’indemnise du péril de la contravention. Dans ces pays d’Orient, la plupart des hommes n’ont rien d’assuré; il n’y a presque point de rapport entre la possession actuelle d’une somme et l’espérance de la ravoir après l’avoir prêtée: l’usure y augmente donc à proportion du péril de l’insolvabilité.” ↩

337. Joshua Gee, Trade and Navigation of Great Britain Considered, 1729, p. 128, notices the fact of the Dutch being all engaged in trade and ascribes it to the deficiency of valuable land. ↩

338. See below, here through here. ↩

339. According to the view of the subject here set forth, if the three employers each spend £100 in wages and materials, and profits are at first 5 percent and then rise to 10 percent, the finished commodity must rise from £331 0s. 3d. to £364 2s., while if, on the other hand, the wages rise from £100 to £105, the commodity will only rise to £347 11s. 3d. It is assumed either that profits mean profits on turnover and not on capital per annum, or else that the employers each have their capital turned over once a year. But even when one or other of these assumptions is granted, it is clear that the “simple interest” may easily be greater than the “compound.” In the examples just given we doubled profits, but only added one-twentieth to wages. If we double wages and leave profits at 5 percent, the commodity should rise from £331 0s. 3d. to £662 0s. 6d. ↩

340. This paragraph is not in ed. 1; the epigram at the end, however, did not make its appearance here for the first time in ed. 2, since it occurs in a slightly less polished form here. ↩

341. The general design of this chapter, as well as many of its details, was doubtless suggested by Cantillon, Essai, pt. 1, chaps. vii and viii. The first of these chapters is headed: “Le travail d’un laboureur vaut moins que celui d’un artisan,” and the second: “Les artisans gagnent les uns plus les autres moins selon les cas et les circonstances différentes.” The second ends thus: “Par ces inductions et cent autres qu’on pourrait tirer de l’expérience ordinaire, on peut voir facilement que la différence de prix qu’on paie pour le travail journalier est fondée sur des raisons naturelles et sensibles.” ↩

342. Ed. 1 reads “either evidently.” ↩

343. Above here and here. ↩

344. The foregoing introductory paragraphs would lead a logical reader to expect part 1 of the chapter to be entitled: “Inequalities of pecuniary wages and profit which merely counterbalance inequalities of other advantages and disadvantages.” The rather obscure title actually chosen is due to the fact that nearly a quarter of the part is occupied by a discussion of three further conditions which must be present in addition to “perfect freedom” in order to bring about the equality of total advantages and disadvantages. The chapter would have been clearer if this discussion had been placed at the beginning, but it was probably an afterthought. ↩

345. Below, here through here. ↩

346. See Idyllium xxi. —⁠Smith

     This merely describes the life of two poor fishermen. The note appears first in ed. 2. —⁠Cannan ↩

347. Ed. 1 reads “its.” ↩

348. Below, here. ↩

349. This argument seems to be modelled closely on Cantillon, Essai, pp. 23, 24, but probably also owes something to Mandeville, Fable of the Bees, pt. ii, dialogue vi, vol. ii, p. 423. Cp. Lectures, pp. 173⁠–⁠175. ↩

350. The “ought” is equivalent to “it is reasonable they should be” in the previous paragraph, and to “must” in “must not only maintain him while he is idle” on p. 105. Cp. “doivent” in Cantillon, Essai, p. 24: “Ceux donc qui emploient des artisans ou gens de métier, doivent nécessairement payer leur travail plus haut que celui d’un laboureur ou maneuver.” The meaning need not be that it is ethically right that a person on whose education much has been spent should receive a large reward, but only that it is economically desirable, since otherwise there would be a deficiency of such persons. ↩

351. The treatment of this head would have been clearer if it had begun with a distinction between “day-wages” (mentioned lower down on the page) and annual earnings. The first paragraph of the argument claims that annual earnings as well as day-wages will be higher in the inconstant employment so as to counterbalance the disadvantage or repulsive force of having “anxious and desponding moments.” In the subsequent paragraphs, however, this claim is lost sight of, and the discussion proceeds as if the thesis was that annual earnings are equal though day-wages may be unequal. ↩

352. Below, here through here. ↩

353. Misprinted “effect” in ed. 5. ↩

354. That “stock” consists of actual objects seems to be overlooked here. The constancy with which such objects can be employed is various: the constancy with which the hearse of a village is employed depends on the number of deaths, which may be said to be “the trade,” and is certainly not “the trader.” There is no difference of profits corresponding to differences of day-wages due to unequal constancy of employment, for the simple reason that “profits” are calculated by their amount per annum, but the rural undertaker, liable to long interruption of business in healthy seasons, may just as well as the bricklayer be supposed to receive “some compensation for those anxious and desponding moments which the thought of so precarious a situation must sometimes occasion.” ↩

355. The argument foreshadowed in the introductory paragraphs of the chapter requires an allegation that it is a disadvantage to a person to have trust reposed in him, but no such allegation is made. Cantillon, Essai, p. 27, says: “lorsqu’il faut de la capacité et de la confiance, on paie encore le travail plus cher, comme aux jouailliers, teneurs de compte, caissiers, et autres.” Hume, History, ed. of 1773, vol. viii, p. 323, says: “It is a familiar rule in all business that every man should be paid in proportion to the trust reposed in him and the power which he enjoys.” ↩

356. But some trades, e.g., that of a banker, may be necessarily confined to persons of more than average trustworthiness, and this may raise the rate of profit above the ordinary level if such persons are not sufficiently plentiful. ↩

357. The argument under this head, which is often misunderstood, is that pecuniary wages are (on the average, setting great gains against small ones) less in trades where there are high prizes and many blanks. The remote possibility of obtaining one of the high prizes is one of the circumstances which “in the imaginations of men make up for a small pecuniary gain” (p. 101). Cantillon, Essai, p. 24, is not so subtle, merely making remuneration proportionate to risk. ↩

358. Lectures, p. 175. ↩

359. Eds. 1⁠–⁠4 read “are.” ↩

360. Ed. 1 reads “of it.” ↩

361. Eds. 4 and 5 read “their,” doubtless a misprint. ↩

362. The fact is overlooked that the numerous bankruptcies may be counterbalanced by the instances of great gain. Below, on p. 127, the converse mistake is made of comparing great successes and leaving out of account great failures. ↩

363. Above, here. ↩

364. Doubtless Kirkcaldy was in Smith’s mind. ↩

365. Above, here. ↩

366. Above, here. ↩

367. The illustration has already been used above, here. ↩

368. Under 13 and 14 Car. II, c. 5, § 18. ↩

369. 8 Eliz., c. 11, § 8; 1 Jac. I, c. 17, § 3; 5 Geo. II, c. 22. ↩

370. But 8 Eliz., c. 11, was enacted “at the lamentable suit and complaint” not of the hatters but of the cap-makers, who alleged that they were being impoverished by the excessive use of hats, which were made of foreign wool, and the extension to the colonies of the restriction on apprentices by 5 Geo. II, c. 22, was doubtless suggested by the English hatters’ jealousy of the American hatters, so that this regulation was not dictated by quite the same spirit as the Sheffield bylaw. ↩

371. The preamble of 13 and 14 Car. II, c. 15, says that the company of silk throwers in London were incorporated in 1629, and the preamble of 20 Car. II, c. 6, says that the trade had lately been obstructed because the company had endeavoured to put into execution a certain bylaw made by them nearly forty years since, restricting the freemen to 160 spindles and the assistants to 240. The act 20 Car. II, c. 6, accordingly declares this bylaw void. It also enacts that “no bylaw already made or hereafter to be made by the said company shall limit the number of apprentices to less than three.” ↩

372. “In Italy a mestiere or company of artisans and tradesmen was sometimes styled an ars or universitas.⁠ ⁠… The company of mercers of Rome are styled universitas merciariorum, and the company of bakers there universitas pistorum.” —⁠Madox, Firma Burgi, 1726, p. 32 ↩

373. C. 4, § 31. ↩

374. “It hath been held that this statute doth not restrain a man from using several trades, so as he had been an apprentice to all; wherefore it indemnifies all petty chapmen in little towns and villages because their masters kept the same mixed trades before.” —⁠Matthew Bacon, New Abridgement of the Law, 3rd ed., 1768, vol. iii, p. 553, s.v. Master and servant ↩

375. New Abridgement of the Law, vol. iii, p. 552. ↩

376. New Abridgement of the Law, vol. i, p. 553. ↩

377. Bacon (New Abridgement of the Law, iii, 553), however, says distinctly: “A coach-maker is within this statute,” on the authority of Ventris’ Reports, p. 346. ↩

378. Compagnon. ↩

379. Compagnonnage. ↩

380. Contrast with this the account of the origin of property in the Lectures, pp. 107⁠–⁠127. ↩

381. Of Scotch manufacture, 10 Ann., c. 21; 13 Geo. I, c. 26. ↩

382. 39 Eliz., c. 20; 43 Eliz., c. 10, § 7. ↩

383. The article on apprentices occupies twenty-four pages in Richard Burn’s Justice of the Peace, 1764. ↩

384. The last two terms seem to be used rather contemptuously. Probably Smith had fresh in his recollection the passage in which Madox ridicules as a “piece of puerility” the use of the English word “misterie,” derived from “the Gallic word mestera, mistera and misteria,” as if it “signified something μυστηριῶδες, mysterious.” —⁠Firma Burgi, 1726, pp. 33⁠–⁠35 ↩

385. See Madox Firma Burgi, p. 26, etc. —⁠Smith

     This note appears first in ed. 2. —⁠Cannan ↩

386. “Peradventure from these secular gilds or in imitation of them sprang the method or practice of gildating and embodying whole towns.” —⁠Madox, Firma Burgi, p. 27 ↩

387. The argument is unsound in the absence of any proof that the more numerous successes are not counterbalanced by equally numerous failures; cp. this note. ↩

388. Below, here through here. ↩

389. Descriptions des Arts et Métiers faites ou approuvées par Messieurs de l’Académie Royale des Sciences, 1761⁠–⁠88. ↩

390. Lectures, p. 255. ↩

391. Below, here through here. ↩

392. Ed. 1 reads “single member of it” here and in the next line. ↩

393. Eds. 4 and 5 erroneously insert “a” here. ↩

394. According to Richard Burn’s Ecclesiastical Law, 1763, s.v. Curates, six marks was the pay ordered by a constitution of Archbishop Islip till 1378, when it was raised to eight. ↩

395. See the Statute of labourers, 25 Ed. III. —⁠Smith

     Below, here. The note is not in ed. 1. —⁠Cannan ↩

396. The quotation is not intended to be verbatim, in spite of the inverted commas. ↩

397. Ed. 1 does not contain “or private.” ↩

398. Hume, History, ed. of 1773, vol, iii, p. 403, quotes 11 Hen. VII, c. 22, which forbids students to beg without permission from the chancellor. ↩

399. Eds. 1⁠–⁠3 read “was.” ↩

400. §§ 3, 4. A very free but not incorrect translation. Arbuthnot, Tables of Ancient Coins, Weights and Measures, 2nd ed., 1754, p. 198, refers to but does not quote the passage as his authority for stating the reward of a sophist at four or five minæ. He treats the mina as equal to £3 4s. 7d., which at the rate of 62s. to the pound troy is considerably too low. ↩

401. Plutarch, Demosthenes, c. v, § 3; Isocrates, § 30. ↩

402. Arbuthnot, Tables of Ancient Coins, p. 198, says, “Isocrates had from his disciples a didactron or reward of 1,000 minæ, £3,229 3s. 4d.,” and quotes “Plut. in Isocrate,” which says nothing about a didactron, but only that Isocrates charged ten minæ and had 100 pupils. —⁠§§ 9, 12, 30 ↩

403. This story is from Pliny, Historia Naturalis, xxxiii, cap. iv, who remarks, “Tantus erat docendae oratoriae quaestus,” but the commentators point out that earlier authorities ascribe the erection of the statue not to Gorgias, but to the whole of Greece. ↩

404. It is difficult to discover on what passage this statement is based. ↩

405. Plutarch, Alexander. ↩

406. This is a slip. Carneades was a native of Cyrene, and it was his colleague Diogenes who was a Babylonian by birth. ↩

407. Below, here through here. ↩

408. Above, here. ↩

409. 15 Car. II, c. 15. ↩

410. Ed. 1 does not contain “the.” ↩

411. Ed. 1 places the “is” here. ↩

412. C. 12. ↩

413. This account of the provisions of the Acts regarding settlement, though not incorrect, inverts the order of the ideas which prompted them. The preamble complains that owing to defects in the law “poor people are not restrained from going from one parish to another, and therefore do endeavour to settle themselves in those parishes where there is the best stock,” and so forth, and the Act therefore gives the justices power, “within forty days after any such person or persons coming so to settle as aforesaid,” to remove them “to such parish where he or they were last legally settled either as a native, householder, sojourner, apprentice or servant for the space of forty days at the least.” The use of the term “settlement” seems to have originated with this Act. ↩

414. C. 17, “An act for reviving and continuance of several acts.” The reason given is that “such poor persons at their first coming to a parish do commonly conceal themselves.” Nothing is said either here or in Burn’s Poor Law or Justice of the Peace about parish officers bribing their poor to go to another parish. ↩

415. 3 W. and M., c. 11, § 3. ↩

416. Richard Burn, Justice of the Peace, 1764, vol. ii, p. 253. ↩

417. §§ 6, 8. ↩

418. § 7 confines settlement by service to unmarried persons without children. ↩

419. By 9 Geo. I, c. 7. ↩

420. The Act, 13 & 14 Car. II, c. 12, giving the justices power to remove the immigrant within forty days was certainly obstructive to the free circulation of labour, but the other statutes referred to in the text, by making the attainment of a settlement more difficult, would appear to have made it less necessary for a parish to put in force the power of removal, and therefore to have assisted rather than obstructed the free circulation of labour. The poor law commissioners of 1834, long after the power of removal had been abolished in 1795, found the law of settlement a great obstruction to the free circulation of labour, because men were afraid of gaining a new settlement, not because a new settlement was denied them. ↩

421. C. 30, “An act for supplying some defects in the laws for the relief of the poor of this kingdom.” The preamble recites, “Forasmuch as many poor persons chargeable to the parish, township or place where they live, merely for want of work, would in any other place when sufficient employment is to be had maintain themselves and families without being burdensome to any parish, township or place.” But certificates were invented long before this. The Act 13 & 14 Car. II, c. 12, provides for their issue to persons going into another parish for harvest or any other kind of work, and the preamble of 8 & 9 W. III, c. 30, shows that they were commonly given. Only temporary employment, however, was contemplated, and, on the expiration of the job, the certificated person became removable. ↩

422. Rather by the explanatory Act, 9 & 10 W. III, c. 11. ↩

423. All these statutes are conveniently collected in Richard Burn’s History of the Poor Laws, 1764, pp. 94⁠–⁠100. ↩

424. Burn, Justice of the Peace, 1764, vol. ii, p. 274. ↩

425. Burn, History of the Poor Laws, 1764, pp. 235, 236, where it is observed that “it was the easy method of obtaining a settlement by a residency of forty days that brought parishes into a state of war against the poor and against one another,” and that if settlement were reduced to the place of birth or of inhabitancy for one or more years, certificates would be got rid of. ↩

426. Burn, Justice, vol. ii, p. 209. The date given is 1730. ↩

427. Since the fact of the father having no settlement would not free the parish from the danger of having at some future time to support the children. ↩

428. Some evidence in support of this assertion would have been acceptable. Sir Frederic M. Eden, State of the Poor, 1797, vol. i, pp. 296⁠–⁠298, may be consulted on the other side. William Hay’s Remarks on the Laws Relating to the Poor, 1735, which Eden regards as giving a very exaggerated view of the obstruction caused by the law of settlement, was in the Edinburgh Advocates’ Library in 1776, and Adam Smith may have seen it. ↩

429. History of the Poor Laws, p. 130, loosely quoted. After “limitation” the passage runs, “as thereby it leaves no room for industry or ingenuity; for if all persons in the same kind of work were to receive equal wages there would be no emulation.” ↩

430. 7 Geo. I, stat. 1, c. 13, was passed, according to its preamble, because journeymen tailors had lately departed from their service without just cause, and had entered into “combinations to advance their wages to unreasonable prices, and lessen their usual hours of work, which is of evil example, and manifestly tends to the prejudice of trade, to the encouragement of idleness, and to the great increase of the poor.” It prescribed hours, 6 a.m. to 8 p.m., and wages, 2s. a day in the second quarter and 1s. 8d. for the rest of the year. Quarter sessions might alter the rates. This Act was amended by 8 Geo. III, c. 17, under which the hours were to be 6 a.m. to 7 p.m., and wages a maximum of 2s. 7½d. a day. Masters inside the area were forbidden to pay more to workers outside the area than was allowed by the Act within it. ↩

431. 1 Ann., stat. 2, c. 18, applied to workmen in the woollen, linen, fustian, cotton and iron manufacture; 13 Geo. II, c. 8, to manufacturers of gloves, boots, shoes and other leather wares. The second of these Acts only prohibits truck payments when made without the request and consent of the workmen. ↩

432. C. 29. ↩

433. C. 6. The preamble relates the defect. ↩

434. Above, here. ↩

435. “By” appears first in ed. 3. ↩

436. Eds. 1 and 2 read “The rent of land varies with its fertility, whatever be its produce, and with its situation, whatever be its fertility.” ↩

437. Above, here through here. ↩

438. Vol. i, p. 532, in the French translation of Juan and Ulloa’s work, Voyage historique de l’Amérique méridionale par don George Juan et don Antoine de Ulloa, 1752. The statement is repeated in almost the same words, substituting “three or four hundred” for “two or three hundred,” below, p. 186. ↩

439. See below, here and here. ↩

440. Cicero, De officiis, lib. ii. ad fin. Quoted in Lectures, p. 229. ↩

441. See below, here. ↩

442. The Life of Henry Prince of Wales, by Thomas Birch, D.D., 1760, p. 346. ↩

443. The Life of Henry Prince of Wales, p. 271. ↩

444. A Report from the Committee Who, Upon the 8th Day of February, 1764, Were Appointed to Inquire Into the Causes of the High Price of Provisions with the Proceedings of the House Thereupon. Published by order of the House of Commons, 1764, paragraph 4, where, however, there is no definite statement to the effect that the Virginia merchant, Mr. Capel Hanbury, considered 24s. or 25s. as the ordinary price. ↩

445. Report from the Committee, paragraph 3 almost verbatim. The Committee resolved “that the high price of provisions of late has been occasioned partly by circumstances peculiar to the season and the year, and partly by the defect of the laws in force for convicting and punishing all persons concerned in forestalling cattle in their passage to market.” ↩

446. These prices are deduced from the tables at the end of the chapter. ↩

447. Only if the extra risk deters people from entering the business, and according to pp. 112, 113 above it would not. ↩

448. Ed. 1 reads “thorns.” ↩

449. Columella, De re rustica, xi, 3, but the recommendation of the fence is “Et haec quidem claudendi horti ratio maxime est antiquis probata.” ↩

450. Gesnerus’ edition of Columella in Scriptores rei rusticae in Adam Smith’s library (see Bonar’s Catalogue, s.v. Gesnerus), commenting on the passage referred to above, quotes the opinions of Varro, De re rustica, i, 14, and Palladius, De re rustica, i, 34. ↩

451. De re rustica, iii, 3. ↩

452. Ed. 1 reads “their.” ↩

453. Voyages d’un Philosophe —⁠Smith

     Ou observations sur les mœurs et les arts des peuples de l’Afrique, de l’Asie, et de l’Amérique, 1768, pp. 92, 93. The note appears first in ed. 2 —⁠Cannan ↩

454. The French original says the Cochin-China quintal “équivaut à £150 200 de nos livres, poids de marc,” which cannot possibly bear the meaning ascribed to it in the text. Probably the £150 are pounds equal to 1⅓ of the pounds poids de marc. This would make the cwt. English worth only about seven shillings. ↩

455. Tobacco growing in England, Ireland, and the Channel Islands was prohibited by 12 Car. II, c. 34, the preamble of which alleges that the lords and commons have considered “of how great concern and importance it is that the colonies and plantations of this kingdom in America be defended, maintained and kept up, and that all due and possible encouragement be given unto them, and that not only in regard great and considerable dominions and countries have been thereby gained and added to the imperial crown of this realm, but for that the strength and welfare of this kingdom do very much depend upon them in regard of the employment of a very considerable part of its shipping and seamen, and of the vent of very great quantities of its native commodities and manufactures as also of its supply with several considerable commodities which it was wont formerly to have only from foreigners and at far dearer rates, and forasmuch as tobacco is one of the main products of several of those plantations and upon which their welfare and subsistence and the navigation of this kingdom and vent of its commodities thither do much depend; And in regard it is found by experience that the tobaccos planted in these parts are not so good and wholesome for the takers thereof, and that by the planting thereof Your Majesty is deprived of a considerable part of your revenue.” The prohibition was extended to Scotland by 22 Geo III, c. 73. ↩

456. William Douglass, M.D., A Summary, Historical and Political, of the First Planting, Progressive Improvements and Present State of the British Settlements in North America, 1760, vol. ii, pp. 359, 360 and 373. ↩

457. A Summary, Historical and Political, of the First Planting, Progressive Improvements and Present State of the British Settlements in North America, p. 374, but the phrase is “an industrious man” not “such a negro.” ↩

458. Douglas’s Summary, vol. ii. p. 372, 373. —⁠Smith

     This note appears first in ed. 2. In the text of ed. 1 the name is spelt “Douglass.” —⁠Cannan ↩

459. This saying about the Dutch and spices is repeated below, vol. ii, p. 26, and again p. 135. Douglass, vol. ii, p. 372, in a note to the statement that Virginia and Maryland occasionally produce more than they can sell to advantage, which immediately precedes his account of the occasional burning of tobacco, says: “This is sometimes the case with the Dutch East India spices and the West India sugars.” ↩

460. The inferiority of oatmeal has already been asserted above, here. ↩

461. This “always” is qualified almost to the extent of contradiction here, below. ↩

462. Ed. 1 reads “thither.” ↩

463. Above, here, and below, here. ↩

464. This and the two preceding paragraphs appear to be based on the dissertation on the natural wants of mankind in Lectures, pp. 157⁠–⁠161; cp. Moral Sentiments, 1759, p. 349. ↩

465. Misprinted “labourer” in ed. 5. ↩

466. Ed. 1 reads “if it can conveniently get coals for fewel.” ↩

467. The North Bridge was only made passable in 1772: in 1778 the buildings along Princes Street had run to a considerable length, and St. Andrew’s Square and the streets connected with it were almost complete. A plan of that date shows the whole block between Queen Street and Princes Street (Arnot, History of Edinburgh, 1779, pp. 233, 315, 318, 319). ↩

468. Buchanan (ed. of Wealth of Nations, vol. i, p. 279), commenting on this passage, remarks judiciously: “It is not by the produce of one coal mine, however fertile, but by the joint produce of all the coal mines that can be worked, that the price of coals is fixed. A certain quantity of coals only can be consumed at a certain price. If the mines that can be worked produce more than this quantity the price will fall; if they produce less it will rise.” ↩

469. Ed. 1 reads “depends frequently.” ↩

470. Ed. 1 reads “article in the commerce of Europe.” ↩

471. Natural History of Cornwall, by William Borlase, 1758, p. 175, but nothing is there said as to the landlord sometimes receiving more than one-sixth. ↩

472. “Those who are willing to labour themselves easily obtain of the miner a vein to work on; what they get out of it is their own, paying him the King’s duty and the hire of the mill, which is so considerable that some are satisfied with the profit it yields without employing any to work for them in the mines.” —⁠Frezier, Voyage to the South Sea and Along the Coasts of Chile and Peru in the Years 1712, 1713 and 1714, with a Postscript By Dr. Edmund Halley, 1717, p. 109. For Ulloa see this note. ↩

473. In place of these two sentences ed. 1 reads, “The tax of the King of Spain, indeed, amounts to one-fifth of the standard silver, which may be considered as the real rent of the greater part of the silver mines of Peru, the richest which are known in the world. If there was no tax, this fifth would naturally belong to the landlord, and many mines might be wrought which cannot be wrought at present, because they cannot afford this tax.” ↩

474. The sum of more than £10,000 paid on £190,954 worth of produce is mentioned by Borlase. The duty was 4s. per cwt. —⁠Natural History of Cornwall, p. 183 ↩

475. Ed. 1 reads “is.” ↩

476. The reduction is mentioned again below, here and here. Ed. 1 does not contain this sentence, and begins the next with “The high tax upon silver, too, gives much greater temptation to smuggling than the low tax upon tin.” ↩

477. “Quand un homme témoigne avoir dessein de fouiller dans quelque mine, les autres le regardent comme un extravagant qui court à sa perte, et qui risque une ruine certaine pour des espérances éloignées et très-douteuses. Ils tâchent de le détourner de son dessein, et s’ils n’y peuvent réussir, ils le fuyent en l’évitant, comme s’ils craignaient qu’il ne leur communiquât son mal.” —⁠Voyage historique de l’Amérique méridionale par don George Juan et par don Antoine de Ulloa, 1752, tom. i, p. 379. The statement relates to the province of Quito, and the condition of things is contrasted with that prevailing in Peru proper. For Frezier see this note. ↩

478. Frezier, Voyage, p. 109. ↩

479. Borlase, Natural History of Cornwall, pp. 167, 175. If the land was “bounded” (bounding could only take place on “wastrel or common”) the lord of the soil received only a fifteenth. ↩

480. Ed. 1 reads “It was once a fifth, as in silver, but it was found the work could not bear it.” ↩

481. “It is more rare to see a gold miner rich than a silver miner or of any other metal.” —⁠Frezier, Voyage, p. 108. There seems nothing in either Frezier or Ulloa to indicate that they took the gloomy view of the prospects of the gold and silver miner which is ascribed to them in the text. From this and the curious way in which they are coupled together, here and above (here and here), and also the fact that no mention is made of the title of either of their books, it seems probable that Smith is quoting from memory or from notes which had become mixed. It is possible that he confused Frezier with Ulloa’s collaborator, Don George Juan, but Ulloa is quoted without Frezier above, here, and below, here. ↩

482. The Six Voyages of John Baptista Tavernier, a Noble Man of France Now Living, Through Turkey Into Persia and the East Indies, translated by J. P., 1678, does not appear to contain any such statement. Possibly it is merely founded on Tavernier’s remark that “there was a mine discovered between Coulour and Raolconda, which the King caused to be shut up again by reason of some cheats that were used there; for they found therein that sort of stones which had this green outside, fair and transparent, and which appeared more fair than the others, but when they came to the mill they crumbled to pieces” (pt. ii, p. 138). In Eds. 4 and 5 “yielded” is misprinted “yield.” ↩

483. Ed. 1 reads “seems.” ↩

484. The evidence for this statement, which does not agree with the figures in the table at the end of the chapter, is given in the next eleven paragraphs. ↩

485. Already quoted above, here. ↩

486. It speaks of the Act of 1349, which ordered a continuance of wages at the level of 20 Edward III, and five or six years before (1347 or 1348 to 1353), as having been passed “against the malice of servants which were idle and not willing to serve after the pestilence without taking excessive wages,” and gives as the reason for new provisions “forasmuch as it is given the King to understand in this present Parliament by the petition of the commonalty that the said servants having no regard to the said ordinance, but to their ease and singular covetise, do withdraw themselves to serve great men and other, unless they have livery and wages to the double or treble of that they were wont to take the said twentieth year and before, to the great damage of the great men and impoverishing of all the said commonalty, whereof the said commonalty prayeth remedy.” ↩

487. I.e., four years before the twentieth year. ↩

488. This and the other reductions of ancient money to the eighteenth century standard are probably founded on the table in Martin Folkes, Table of English Silver Coins, 1745, p. 142. ↩

489. E.g., Fleetwood’s prices in the table at the end of the chapter. ↩

490. Fleetwood, Chronicon Preciosum, 1707, pp. 83⁠–⁠85. ↩

491. The date 1262 is wrong, as 51 Hen. III ran from October 28, 1266, to October 27, 1267. But the editions of the statutes which ascribe the statute to 51 Hen. III appear to have no good authority for doing so; see Statutes of the Realm, vol. i, p. 199, notes. The statute has already been quoted above, here, and is quoted again below, here. ↩

492. Ed. 1 reads “very far wrong.” ↩

493. The Regulations and Establishment of the Houshold of Henry Algernon Percy, the Fifth Earl of Northumberland, at His Castles of Wresill and Lekinfield in Yorkshire, Begun Anno Domini MDXII, 1770, pp. 2, 4, but there are not really two estimations. It seems clear that “vs. viijd.” on p. 4 is merely a misprint or mistake for “vis. viijd.,” since 118 qrs. 2 bushels are reckoned at £39 8s. 4d. ↩

494. 15 Hen. VI, c. 2. ↩

495. 3 Ed. IV, c. 2. ↩

496. 1 and 2 P. and M., c. 5, § 7. Licences for exportation, however, are recognised by the Act. ↩

497. 1 Eliz., c. 11, § 11, which, however, merely partially exempts Norfolk and Suffolk from regulations intended to prevent exportation from places where no customhouse existed. ↩

498. 5 Eliz., c. 5, § 17. ↩

499. Neither his Recherches sur la valeur des Monnoies et sur les prix des grains avant et après le concile de Francfort, 1762, nor his Essai sur les Monnoies, ou réflections sur le rapport entre l’argent et les denrées, 1746, contain any clear justification for this reference. ↩

500. From 1446 to 1515 “Le blé fut plus bas que dans les siècles précédents.” —⁠Essai sur la police générale des grains sur leur prix et sur les effets de l’agriculture, 1755 (by C. J. Herbert), pp. 259, 260 ↩

501. Ed. 1 reads “with the tenant” here and omits “of the tenant” in next line. ↩

502. Ed. 1 reads “rent at the price of the fiars of each year rather.” ↩

503. Chronicon Preciosum, 1707, pp. 121, 122. Fleetwood does not “acknowledge” any “mistake,” but says that though the price was not the market price it might have been “well agreed upon.” His “particular purpose” was to prove that in order to qualify for a fellowship a man might conscientiously swear his income to be much less than it was. ↩

504. The statement is too sweeping. See Statutes of the Realm, vol. i, pp. xxiv and 199, notes. Ruffhead’s edition began to be published in 1762. ↩

505. Judicium Pillorie, temp. incert., ascribed to 51 Hen. III, stat. 6. ↩

506. Eds. 1 and 2 read “Rudiman.” ↩

507. See his preface to Anderson’s Diplomata Scotiae. —⁠Smith

     Selectus diplomatum et numismatum Scotiae thesaurus, 1739, p. 82, and in the translation, An Introduction to Mr. James Anderson’s Diplomata Scotiae, by Thomas Ruddiman, M.A., Edinburgh, 1773, pp. 170, 174, 228. The note appears first in ed. 2. —⁠Cannan ↩

508. The manuscript appears to be the Alexander Foulis MS., now 25. 4. 10 in the Edinburgh Advocates’ Library, No. viii of the MSS., described in Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, vol. i. The exact words are “Memorandum quod reliqua judicabis secundum praedicta habendo respectum ad praescripta bladi precium duplicando.” ↩

509. Chronicon Preciosum, p. 78. Fleetwood quotes the author of Antiq. Britan. in Vita Joh. Pecham as saying that “provisions were so scarce that parents did eat their own children.” ↩

510. Eds. 1 to 3 read “variations.” ↩

511. See this table. ↩

512. This appears to be merely an inference from the fact that he does not take notice of fluctuations. ↩

513. Above, here. ↩

514. Ed. 1 reads “that” instead of “because,” here and also two lines above. ↩

515. Voyage historique de l’Amérique méridionale, vol. i, p. 552, where, however, the number of cattle is two or three hundred, as correctly quoted above, here. ↩

516. Narrative of the Hon. John Byron, Containing an Account of the Great Distresses Suffered by Himself and His Companions on the Coast of Patagonia from 1740 to 1746, 1768, pp. 212, 220. ↩

517. Misprinted “improved” in ed. 5. ↩

518. Above, here. ↩

519. Ed. 1 reads “had they not been agreeable to the popular notion.” ↩

520. Above, here. ↩

521. This sentence is not in ed. 1. ↩

522. In 1545. Ed. 1 reads “thirty” instead of “twenty.” In ed. 2 the correction is in the errata. See this note and this note. ↩

523. See this table at the end of the chapter. ↩

524. The deduction of this ninth is recommended by Charles Smith, Three Tracts on the Corn Trade and Corn Laws, 2nd ed., 1766, p. 104, because, “it hath been found tha the value of all the wheat fit for bread, if mixed together, would be eight-ninths of the value of the best wheat.” ↩

525. By 1 W. & M., c. 12, “An act for the encouraging the exportation of corn,” the preamble of which alleges that “it hath been found by experience, that the exportation of corn and grain into foreign parts, when the price thereof is at a low rate in this kingdom, hath been a great advantage not only to the owners of land but to the trade of this kingdom in general.” It provides that when malt or barley does not exceed 24s. per Winchester quarter, rye 32s. and wheat 48s. in any port, every person exporting such corn on an English ship with a crew at least two-thirds English shall receive from the Customs 2s. 6d. for every quarter of barley or malt, 3s. 6d. for every quarter of rye and 5s. for every quarter of wheat. ↩

526. Below, here through here. ↩

527. In place of “How far the bounty could produce this effect at any time I shall examine hereafter: I shall only observe at present that,” ed. 1 reads simply “But.” ↩

528. For “not” ed. 1 reads “no,” and for “any such” it reads “this.” ↩

529. The Act 10 Will. III, c. 3, prohibits exportation for one year from 10th February, 1699. The mistake “nine months” is probably due to a misreading of C. Smith, Tracts on the Corn Trade, p. 9, wheat “growing, and continuing dearer till 1698, the exportation was forbid for one year, and then for nine months the bounty was suspended” (cp. pp. 44, 119). As a matter of fact, the bounty was suspended by 11 & 12 Will. III, c. 1, from 9th February, 1699, to 29th September, 1700, or not much more than seven months and a half. The Act 11 & 12 Will. III, c. 1, alleges that the Act granting the bounty “was grounded upon the highest wisdom and prudence and has succeeded to the greatest benefit and advantage to the nation by the greatest encouragement of tillage,” and only suspends it because “it appears that the present stock and quantity of corn in this kingdom may not be sufficient for the use and service of the people at home should there be too great an exportation into parts beyond the seas, which many persons may be prompted to do for their own private advantage and the lucre of the said bounty.” —⁠Statutes of the Realm, vol. vii, p. 544 ↩

530. For “debasement” ed. 1 reads “degradation.” ↩

531. Lowndes says on p. 107 of his Report Containing an Essay for the Amendment of the Silver Coins, 1695, “the moneys commonly current are diminished near one-half, to wit, in a proportion something greater than that of ten to twenty-two.” But in the text above, the popular estimate, as indicated by the price of silver bullion, is accepted, as in the next paragraph. ↩

532. Ed. 1 reads “degraded.” ↩

533. See above, here. ↩

534. Lowndes, Essay, p. 88. ↩

535. Lowndes’s Essay on the Silver Coin, p. 68. —⁠Smith

     This note appears first in ed. 2. —⁠Cannan ↩

536. Above, here. ↩

537. The meaning is “given a certain area and intensity of cultivation, the bounty will raise the price of corn.” ↩

538. Ed. 1 does not contain “upon the principles of a system which I shall explain hereafter.” The reference is presumably to here through here. ↩

539. Ed. 1 reads here “a notion which I shall examine hereafter.” ↩

540. Doubtless by a misprint ed. 5 omits “first.” The term is used again at the end of the paragraph and also here through here. ↩

541. See the table at the end of the chapter; ¹⁹⁄₃₂ is a mistake for ⁹⁄₃₂. ↩

542. The 25 percent is erroneously reckoned on the £2 0s. 6¹⁹⁄₃₂d. instead of on the £2 11s. old. The fall of price is really less than 21 percent. ↩

543. The date is taken from the heading of Scheme D in Davenant, Essay Upon the Probable Means of Making a People Gainers in the Balance of Trade, 1699, p. 22, Works, ed. Whitworth, 1771, vol. ii, p. 184. Cp. Natural and Political Observations and Conclusions Upon the State and Condition of England, by Gregory King, Esq., Lancaster, H., in George Chalmers’ Estimate of the Comparative Strength of Great Britain, 1802, p. 429; in Davenant, Balance of Trade, pp. 71, 72, Works, vol. ii, p. 217. Davenant says “this value is what the same is worth upon the spot where the corn grew; but this value is increased by the carriage to the place where it is at last spent, at least ¼ part more.” ↩

544. Ed. 1 does not contain this parenthesis. ↩

545. See this note. ↩

546. Ed. 5, doubtless by a misprint, omits “even.” ↩

547. Below, here through here. ↩

548. The references to Dupré de St. Maur and the Essay (see above, p. 181, note), as well as the whole argument of the paragraph, are from Messance, Recherches sur la population des généralités d’Auvergne, etc., p. 281. Messance’s quotations are from Dupré’s Essai sur les Monnoies, 1746, p. 68, and Herbert’s Essai sur la police générale des grains, 1755, pp. ix, 77, 189; cp. below, here. ↩

549. Above, here through here. ↩

550. Examined below, here. ↩

551. See the table at the end of the chapter. ↩

552. This figure is obtained, as recommended by Charles Smith (Tracts on the Corn Trade, 1766, p. 104), by deducting one-ninth for the greater size of the Windsor measure and one-ninth from the remainder for the difference between best and middling wheat. ↩

553. “Tract 3rd,” referred to a few lines farther on, only gives the quantities of each kind of grain exported in each year (here through here), so that if the figures in the text are taken from it they must have been obtained by somewhat laborious arithmetical operations. The particulars are as follows:⁠—

     	Exported		Bounty payable
     	Qr.	Bush.
     Wheat	3,784,524	1	£946,131	0	7½
     Rye	765,056	6	133,884	18	7½
     Barley, malt and oats	3,479,575	2	434,946	18	1½
     	8,029,156	1	£1,514,962	17	4½

     ↩

554. “Years” is apparently a mistake for “months.” “There is such a superabundance of corn that incredible quantities have been lately exported. I should be afraid to mention what quantities have been exported if it did not appear upon our customhouse books; but from them it appears that lately there was in three months’ time above £220,000 paid for bounties upon corn exported.” —⁠Parliamentary History (Hansard), vol. xiv, p. 589 ↩

555. See Tracts on the Corn Trade; Tract 3d. —⁠Smith

     This note appears first in ed. 2. The exports for 1750 are given in C. Smith, op. cit., p. 111, as 947,602 qr. 1 bush. of wheat, 99,049 qr. 3 bush. of rye, and 559,538 qr. 5 bush. of barley, malt and oats. The bounty on these quantities would be £324,176 10s. —⁠Cannan ↩

556. Above, here. ↩

557. Ed. 1, perhaps correctly, reads “quantity.” ↩

558. Ed. 1 reads “fifth.” ↩

559. Above, here. ↩

560. Ed. 1 reads “fell to a third and then to a fifth, at which rate it still continues.” ↩

561. Solorzano, vol. ii. —⁠Smith

     Solorzano-Pereira, De Indiarum Jure, Madrid, 1777, lib. v, cap. i, §§ 22, 23; vol. ii, p. 883, col. 2. Ed. 1 does not contain the note. —⁠Cannan ↩

562. Ed. 1 reads “one and thirty years before 1535.” The date 1545 is given in Solorzano, De Indiarum Jure, Madrid, 1777, vol. ii, p. 882, col. 2. ↩

563. Ed. 1 reads “In the course of a century.” ↩

564. Ed. 1 reads “A hundred years.” ↩

565. Ed. 1 reads “lower” instead of “reduce,” and does not contain “not only to one-tenth, as in 1736, but to one-twentieth.” See this note. ↩

566. Below, here. Raynal, Histoire philosophique, Amsterdam ed. 1773, tom. iii, pp. 113, 116, takes the same view of the Peruvians. ↩

567. Below, here through here passim. ↩

568. Voyage to the South Sea, p. 218, but the number mentioned is twenty-five to thirty thousand. ↩

569. Voyage historique, tom. i, p. 443, 445: “sixteen to eighteen thousand persons of Spanish extraction, a comparatively small number of Indians and half-breeds, the greater part of the population being negroes and mulattoes.” ↩

570. E.g., Santiago and Callao, Frezier, Voyage, pp. 102, 202; Juan and Ulloa, Voyage historique, vol. i, p. 468; vol. ii, p. 49. ↩

571. Originally one ship, and, after 1720, two ships, were allowed to sail between Acapulco in Mexico and the Philippines. For the regulations applied to the trade see Uztariz, Theory and Practice of Commerce and Maritime Affairs, trans. by John Kippax, 1751, vol. i, pp. 206⁠–⁠208. ↩

572. “In order to prevent the great consumption of timber fit for the construction of large ships of war, the East India Company were prohibited from building, or allowing to be built for their service, any new ships, till the shipping in their employment should be reduced under 45,000 tons, or employing any ships built after 18th March, 1772. But they are at liberty to build any vessel whatever in India or the colonies, or to charter any vessel built in India or the colonies, 12 Geo. III, c. 54.” —⁠Macpherson, Annals of Commerce, 1805, AD 1772, vol. iii, pp. 521, 522 ↩

573. Ed. 1 places “in India” here instead of in the line above. ↩

574. Above, here. ↩

575. Ed. 1 does not contain “or at most as twelve” here and two lines lower down. ↩

576. Newton, in his Representation to the Lords of the Treasury, 1717 (reprinted in the Universal Merchant, quoted on the next page), says that in China and Japan the ratio is 9 or 10 to 1 and in India 12 to 1, and this carries away the silver from all Europe. Magens, in a note to this passage (Universal Merchant, p. 90), says that down to 1732 such quantities of silver went to China to fetch back gold that the price of gold in China rose and it became no longer profitable to send silver there. ↩

577. Ed. 1 reads “be the principal commodity.” ↩

578. Ed. 1 reads “chiefly.” ↩

579. The same words are used below, here. ↩

580. Postscript to the Universal Merchant, p. 15 and 16. This postscript was not printed till 1756, three years after the publication of the book, which has never had a second edition. The postscript is, therefore, to be found in few copies. It corrects several errors in the book. —⁠Smith

     This note appears first in ed. 2. The title of the work referred to is Farther Explanations of Some Particular Subjects Relating to Trade, Coin, and Exchanges, Contained in the Universal Merchant, by N. M., 1756. On p. 1 N. M. claims the authorship of the book “published by Mr. Horsley under the too pompous title of The Universal Merchant.” In the dedication of The Universal Merchant, 1753, William Horsley, the editor, says the author “though an alien by birth is an Englishman by interest.” Sir James Steuart, who calls him “Mr. Megens,” says he lived long in England and wrote the Universal Merchant in German, from which it had been translated (Inquiry Into the Principles of Political Economy, 1767, vol. ii, pp. 158, 292). The Gentleman’s Magazine for August, 1764, p. 398, contains in the obituary, under date August 18, 1764, “Nicholas Magens Esq. a merchant worth £100,000.” —⁠Cannan ↩

581. The two periods are really five years, April, 1748, to April, 1753, and six years, January, 1747, to January, 1753, but the averages are correct, being taken from Magens. ↩

582. The 10s. here should be 14s., and two lines lower down the 14s. should be 10s. ↩

583. Misprinted 13,984¹⁸⁵³⁄₆ in ed. 2 and later editions. ↩

584. Raynal, Histoire philosophique et politique des établissemens et du commerce des Européens dans les deux Indes, Amsterdam ed., 1773, tom. iii, p. 310. ↩

585. Raynal, Histoire philosophique, Amsterdam ed., 1773, tom. iii, p. 385. ↩

586. Ed. 1 does not contain “though manuscript.” ↩

587. Above, here. ↩

588. Ed. 1 does not contain “or one to twelve.” ↩

589. Cantillon gives one to ten for China and one to eight for Japan, Essai, p. 365. ↩

590. Above, here through here. The exact figure given by Magens, Farther Explanations, p. 16, is 1 to ²²¹⁄₁₀. ↩

591. Farther Explanations, p. 17. ↩

592. See Ruddiman’s Preface to Anderson’s Diplomata, etc. Scotiæ. —⁠Smith

     Selectus diplomatum et numismatum thesaurus (quoted above, here), pp. 84, 85; and in the translation, pp. 175, 176. But the statement that gold preponderated is founded merely on the fact that the value of the gold coined in the periods 16th December, 1602, to 19th July, 1606, and 20th September, 1611, to 14th April, 1613, was greater than that of the silver coined in the same time, which proves nothing about the proportions in the whole stock of coin. The statement is repeated below, here. The note appears first in ed. 2. —⁠Cannan ↩

593. Ed. 1 reads “European.” ↩

594. Ed. 1 reads “European.” ↩

595. Ed. 1 reads “one fifth part of it, or to twenty percent.” ↩

596. Above, here and here. ↩

597. Above, here. ↩

598. Ed. 1 reads “European.” ↩

599. Ed. 1 places the “it would seem” after “computed,” omits “in the Spanish market,” and puts the whole sentence at the end of the paragraph. ↩

600. Ed. 1 places the “indeed” here. ↩

601. Ed. 1 reads “that.” ↩

602. Above, here. ↩

603. Ed. 1 reads “It must still be true, however, that the whole mass of American gold comes to the European market at a price.” ↩

604. Ed. 1 contains another paragraph, “Were the king of Spain to give up his tax upon silver, the price of that metal might not, upon that account, sink immediately in the European market. As long as the quantity brought thither continued the same as before, it would still continue to sell at the same price. The first and immediate effect of this change, would be to increase the profits of mining, the undertaker of the mine now gaining all that he had been used to pay to the king. These great profits would soon tempt a greater number of people to undertake the working of new mines. Many mines would be wrought which cannot be wrought at present, because they cannot afford to pay this tax, and the quantity of silver brought to market would, in a few years be so much augmented, probably, as to sink its price about one-fifth below its present standard. This diminution in the value of silver would again reduce the profits of mining nearly to their present rate.” ↩

605. Above, here and here. ↩

606. Ed. 1 reads from the beginning of the paragraph, “It is not indeed very probable, that any part of a tax which affords so important a revenue, and which is imposed, too, upon one of the most proper subjects of taxation, will ever be given up as long as it is possible to pay it. The impossibility of paying it, however, may in time make it necessary to diminish it, in the same manner as it made it necessary to diminish the tax upon gold.” ↩

607. This paragraph appears first in ed. 2. ↩

608. Ed. 1 reads from the beginning of the paragraph, “That the first of these three events has already begun to take place, or that silver has, during the course of the present century, begun to rise somewhat in its value in the European market, the facts and arguments which have been alleged above dispose me to believe. The rise, indeed, has hitherto.” ↩

609. The last two paragraphs appear first in Additions and Corrections and ed. 3. ↩

610. Ed. 1 reads “may besides.” ↩

611. Ed. 1 reads “perhaps” here. ↩

612. Ed. 1 reads “That the increase of.” ↩

613. Ed. 1 places the “which arises” here. ↩

614. Above, here ff. ↩

615. Above, here. ↩

616. As mentioned above, here. Cicero, In Verr., Act. II, lib. iii, c. 70, is the authority. ↩

617. Lib. x c. 29. —⁠Smith

     “Scio sestertiis sex candidam alioquin, quod est prope inusitatum, venisse, quae Agrippinae Claudii principis conjugi dono daretur.” “Seius” seems to be the result of misreading “Scio.” —⁠Cannan ↩

618. Lib. ix c. 17. —⁠Smith

     This and the previous note appear first in ed. 2. —⁠Cannan ↩

619. Above, here and here. ↩

620. Above, here, and cp. below, here. ↩

621. Eds. 1⁠–⁠3 read “of all commercial.” ↩

622. Kalm’s Travels, vol. i. p. 343, 344. —⁠Smith

     Travels Into North America, Containing Its Natural History and a Circumstantial Account of Its Plantations and Agriculture in General, with the Civil, Ecclesiastical and Commercial State of the Country, the Manners of the Inhabitants and Several Curious and Important Remarks on Various Subjects, by Peter Kalm, Professor of Œconomy in the University of Aobo, in Swedish Finland, and member of the S. Royal Academy of Sciences. Translated by John Reinhold Forster, F.A.S., 3 vols., 1770. The note appears first in ed. 2. —⁠Cannan ↩

623. Varro, De re rustica, iii, 2, and Columella, De re rustica, viii, 10, ad fin., where Varro is quoted. ↩

624. Histoire Naturelle, vol. v (1755), p. 122. ↩

625. History, ed. of 1773, vol. i, p. 226. ↩

626. Juan and Ulloa, Voyage historique, 2nde ptie, liv. i, chap. v, vol. i, p. 552. ↩

627. See Smith’s Memoirs of Wool, vol. i c. 5, 6, and 7; also, vol. ii c. 176. —⁠Smith

     Ed. 1 does not give the volumes and chapters. The work was Chronicon Rusticum-Commerciale, or Memoirs of Wool, etc., by John Smith, and published 1747; see below, here. —⁠Cannan ↩

628. See below, here, and Smith’s Memoirs of Wool, vol. i, pp. 159, 170, 182. ↩

629. Eds. 1 and 2 read “importing it from all other countries.” ↩

630. Eds. 1 and 2 read “wool of all other countries.” ↩

631. Chronicon preciosum, ed. of 1707, p. 100, quoting from Kennet’s Par. Ant. Burcester is the modern Bicester. ↩

632. 9 Geo. III, c. 39, for five years; continued by 14 Geo. III, c. 86, and 21 Geo. III, c. 29. ↩

633. By 5 Eliz., c. 22; 8 Eliz., c. 14; 18 Eliz., c. 9; 13 and 14 Car. II, c. 7, which last uses the words “common and public nuisance.” See Blackstone, Commentaries, vol. iv, pp. 167⁠–⁠169. ↩

634. 9 Ann., c. 11. ↩

635. This passage, from the beginning of the paragraph, is quoted at length below, here. ↩

636. John Smith, Memoirs of Wool, vol. i, p. 25, explains that the words “It shall be felony to carry away any wool out of the realm until it be otherwise ordained” do not imply a perpetual prohibition. ↩

637. The same words occur above, here. ↩

638. Ed. 1 does not contain “etc.” ↩

639. The arithmetic is slightly at fault. It should be, “happened to lose a fourth, a fifth, or a sixth part of its former value.” ↩

640. Below, here. ↩

641. Above, here. ↩

642. Recherches sur la Population, pp. 293⁠–⁠304. ↩

643. Essai sur les monnoies ou réflections sur le rapport entre l’argent et les denrées, 1746, esp. p. 181 of the “Variations dans les prix.” ↩

644. Above, here. ↩

645. Lectures, pp. 159, 164. ↩

646. Ed. 1 does not contain “but.” ↩

647. C. 8. ↩

648. C. 5. The quotations from this Act and from 4 Hen. VII, c. 8, are not quite verbatim. ↩

649. “Dr. Howell in his History of the World, vol. ii, p. 222, relates ‘that Queen Elizabeth, in this third year of her reign, was presented with a pair of black knit silk stockings by her silk woman, Mrs. Mountague, and thenceforth she never wore cloth ones any more.’ This eminent author adds ‘that King Henry VIII, that magnificent and expensive Prince, wore ordinarily cloth hose, except there came from Spain, by great chance, a pair of silk stockings; for Spain very early abounded in silk. His son, King Edward VI, was presented with a pair of long Spanish silk stockings by his merchant, Sir Thomas Gresham, and the present was then much taken notice of.’ Thus it is plain that the invention of knit silk stockings originally came from Spain. Others relate that one William Rider, an apprentice on London Bridge, seeing at the house of an Italian merchant a pair of knit worsted stockings from Mantua, made with great skill a pair exactly like them, which he presented in the year 1564 to William Earl of Pembroke, and were the first of that kind worn in England.” —⁠Adam Anderson, Historical and Chronological Deduction of the Origin of Commerce, 1764, AD 1561 ↩

650. Above, here through here. ↩

651. Towards the end of chapter X the same words occur, omitting “very.” ↩

652. Above, here. ↩

653. Above, here through here. ↩

654. As is explained above, here, the prices from 1202 to 1597 are collected from Fleetwood (Chronicon Preciosum, 1707, pp. 77⁠–⁠124), and from 1598 to 1601 they are from the Eton College account without any reduction for the size of the Windsor quarter or the quality of the wheat, and consequently identical with those given in this table, as to which see this note. ↩

655. In the reduction of the ancient money to the eighteenth century standard the tabel in Martin Folkes (Table of English Sliver Coins, 1745, p. 142) appears to have been follwed. Approximate figures are aimed at (e.g., the factor 3 does duty both for 2906 and 2871), and the error is not always uniform e.g., between 1464 and 1497 some of the sums appear to have been multiplied by the approximate 1½ and others by the exact 155. ↩

656. This should be 2s. 7¼d. The mistake is evidently due to the 3s. 4d. belonging to the year 1287 having been erroneously added in. ↩

657. Sic in all editions. More convenient to the unpractised eye in adding up than “½.” ↩

658. “And sometime xxs. as H. Knighton.” —⁠Fleetwood, Chronicon Preciosum, p. 82 ↩

659. Miscopied: it is £2 13s. 4d. in Fleetwood, Chronicon Preciosum, p. 92. ↩

660. Obviously a mistake for £2 11s. 4d. ↩

661. This should be 17s. 7d. here and in the next column. Eds. 1 and 2 read “12s. 7d.,” a mistake of £1 having been made in the addition. ↩

662. This should obviously be 10s. ⁵⁄₂₄d. Eds. 1 and 2 read “£6 5s. 1d.” for the total and “10s. 5d.” for the average, in consequence of the mistake mentioned in the preceding note. ↩

663. Miscopied: it is £2 13s. 4d. in Fleetwood, Chronicon Preciosum, p. 123. ↩

664. See this note. ↩

665. Eds. 1 and 2 read £2 4s. 9⅓d., the 89s. left over after dividing the pounds having been inadvertently divided by 20 instead of by 12. ↩

666. The list of prices, but not the division into periods, is apparently copied from Charles Smith (Tracts on the Corn Trade, 1766, pp. 97⁠–⁠102 cp. pp. 43, 104), who, however, states that it had been previously published, p. 96. ↩

667. Wanting in the account for the years 1642⁠–⁠1645. The year 1646 supplied by Bishop Fleetwood. —⁠Smith ↩

668. This should be ⁹⁄₃₂. ↩

669. Lectures, p. 181. ↩

670. Eds. 1 and 2 place the “only” here. ↩

671. “Ce n’est pas cette maison qui produit elle-même ces mille francs.⁠ ⁠… Le loyer d’une maison n’est point pour la société une augmentation de revenu, une création de richesses nouvelles, il n’est au contraire qu’un mouvement, qu’un changement de main.” —⁠Mercier de la Rivière, L’Ordre naturel et essentiel des Sociétés politiques, 12mo ed., 1767, vol. ii, p. 123, or in Daire’s Physiocrates, p. 487 ↩

672. But in bk. i, ch. x, the remuneration of improved dexterity is treated as wages. ↩

673. Ed. 1 reads “users and consumers” here and eleven lines lower. ↩

674. There seems no reason whatever for supposing that this is necessarily the “natural” action. ↩

675. In this paragraph the capital or stock of goods is confused with the goods themselves. The goods of which the stock consists may become revenue, but the stock itself cannot. The maintenance of a stock, even of perishable and consumable goods, does form a charge on the labour of the society. ↩

676. If it were not for the use of the old-fashioned term “circulation” instead of the newer “produce,” the explanation which follows would be unnecessary. No one could be suspected of a desire to add all the money to the annual produce. ↩

677. Ed. 1 does not contain “or.” ↩

678. Above, here through here. ↩

679. Petty’s estimate in Verbum Sapienti is £40,000,000 for the income and £6,000,000 for the coin. Gregory King’s estimate is £43,500,000 for the income and no less than £11,500,000 for the coin, in Geo. Chalmers, Estimate, 1802, pp. 423, 427. ↩

680. Below, here. ↩

681. Misprinted “contrary” in ed. 5. ↩

682. Adam Anderson, Commerce, AD 1695. ↩

683. See Ruddiman’s Preface to Anderson’s Diplomata, etc. Scotiæ. —⁠Smith

     Pp. 84, 85. See this note. —⁠Cannan ↩

684. “The folly of a few misers or the fear that people might have of losing their money, or various other dangers and accidents, prevented very many of the old Scots coins from being brought in,” Ruddiman’s Preface to Anderson’s Diplomata, p. 175. Ruddiman in a note, op. cit., p. 231, says: “The English coin was also ordained to be called in,” but does not include it in his estimate of not less than £900,000, p. 176. ↩

685. From 1766 to 1772 inclusive the coinage averaged about £810,000 per annum. The amount for “ten years together” is stated below, vol. ii, pp. 51, 56, to have been upwards of £800,000 a year, though the average for the ten years 1763⁠–⁠1772 was only £760,000. But the inclusion of the large coinage of 1773, viz., £1,317,645, would raise these averages considerably. See the figures at the end of each year in Macpherson, Annals of Commerce. ↩

686. Misprinted “remain” in ed. 5. ↩

687. But as Playfair (ed. of Wealth of Nations, vol. i, p. 472) points out, the more customers a bank has the more it is likely to know the transactions of each of them. ↩

688. Above, here. ↩

689. The method described in the text was by no means either the most common or the most expensive one in which those adventurers sometimes raised money by circulation. It frequently happened that A in Edinburgh would enable B in London to pay the first bill of exchange by drawing, a few days before it became due, a second bill at three months date upon the same B in London. This bill, being payable to his own order, A sold in Edinburgh at par; and with its contents purchased bills upon London payable at sight to the order of B, to whom he sent them by the post. Towards the end of the late war, the exchange between Edinburgh and London was frequently three percent against Edinburgh, and those bills at sight must frequently have cost A that premium. This transaction therefore being repeated at least four times in the year, and being loaded with a commission of at least one half percent upon each repetition, must at that period have cost A at least fourteen percent in the year. At other times A would enable B to discharge the first bill of exchange by drawing, a few days before it became due, a second bill at two months date; not upon B, but upon some third person, C, for example, in London. This other bill was made payable to the order of B, who, upon its being accepted by C, discounted it with some banker in London; and A enabled C to discharge it by drawing, a few days before it became due, a third bill, likewise at two months date, sometimes upon his first correspondent B, and sometimes upon some fourth or fifth person, D or E, for example. This third bill was made payable to the order of C; who, as soon as it was accepted, discounted it in the same manner with some banker in London. Such operations being repeated at least six times in the year, and being loaded with a commission of at least one-half percent upon each repetition, together with the legal interest of five percent, this method of raising money, in the same manner as that described in the text, must have cost A something more than eight percent. By saving, however, the exchange between Edinburgh and London it was less expensive than that mentioned in the foregoing part of this note; but then it required an established credit with more houses than one in London, an advantage which many of these adventurers could not always find it easy to procure. —⁠Smith

     This note appears first in ed. 2. Playfair observes that the calculation of the loss of 14 percent by the first method is wrong, since “if A at Edinburgh negotiated his bills on London at 3 percent loss, he would gain as much in purchasing bills on London with the money.” —⁠Ed. of Wealth of Nations, vol. i, p. 483, note. —⁠Cannan ↩

690. The index s.v. Bank gives the name, “the Ayr bank.” Its head office was at Ayr, but it had branches at Edinburgh and Dumfries. A detailed history of it is to be found in The Precipitation and Fall of Messrs. Douglas, Heron and Company, Late Bankers in Air with the Causes of Their Distress and Ruin Investigated and Considered by a Committee of Inquiry Appointed by the Proprietors, Edinburgh, 1778. From this it appears that Smith’s account of the proceedings of the bank is extremely accurate, a fact which is doubtless due to his old pupil, the Duke of Buccleuch, having been one of the principal shareholders. Writing to Pulteney on 5th September, 1772, Smith says, “though I have had no concern myself in the public calamities, some of the friends in whom I interest myself the most have been deeply concerned in them; and my attention has been a good deal occupied about the most proper method of extricating them.” The extrication was effected chiefly by the sale of redeemable annuities. See Rae, Life of Adam Smith, 1895, pp. 253⁠–⁠255; David Macpherson, Annals of Commerce, vol. iii, pp. 525, 553; House of Commons’ Journals, vol. xxxiv, pp. 493⁠–⁠495, and the Act of Parliament, 14 Geo. III, c. 21. The East India Company opposed the bill on the ground that the bonds to be issued would compete with theirs, but their opposition was defeated by a vote of 176 to 36 in the House of Commons, Journals, vol. xxxiv, p. 601. ↩

691. Ed. 1 does not contain “those.” ↩

692. Macpherson, Annals of Commerce, vol. iii, p. 525, says the partners were the Dukes of Buccleuch and Queensberry, the Earl of Dumfries, Mr. Douglas and many other gentlemen. ↩

693. Lectures, p. 211. The bookseller’s preface to the 2nd ed. of Money and Trade (see this note) says the work consists of “some heads of a scheme which Mr. Law proposed to the Parliament of Scotland in the year 1705.” ↩

694. These two books are in Bonar, Catalogue of Adam Smith’s Library, pp. 35, 36. Du Tot’s is Réflections politiques sur les Finances et le Commerce, où l’on examine quelles ont été sur les revenus, les denrées, le change étranger et conséquemment sur notre commerce, les influences des augmentations et des diminutions des valeurs numéraires des monnoyes, La Haye, 1754. Du Verney’s is Examen du livre intitulé “Réflections politiques sur les Finances et le Commerce,” La Haye, 1740. ↩

695. In Lectures there is an account, apparently derived from Du Verney, which extends over eight pages, 211⁠–⁠218. ↩

696. Money and Trade Considered, with a Proposal for Supplying the Nation with Money, 1705. ↩

697. James Postlethwaite’s History of the Public Revenue, page 301. —⁠Smith

     History of the Public Revenue from 1688 to 1753, with an Appendix to 1758, by James Postlethwayt, F.R.S., 1759. —⁠Cannan ↩

698. These three lines are not in ed. 1. ↩

699. From “it was incorporated,” here, to this point is an abstract of the “Historical State of the Bank of England,” in Postlethwayt’s History of the Public Revenue, pp. 301⁠–⁠310. The totals are taken from the bottom of Postlethwayt’s pages. ↩

700. In 1745, Magens, Universal Merchant, p. 31, suggests that there may have been suspicions that the money was being drawn out for the support of the rebellion. ↩

701. Eds. 1 and 2 read “him.” ↩

702. The Bank of England issued none under £20 till 1759, when £15 and £10 notes were introduced. —⁠Anderson, Commerce, AD 1759 ↩

703. 5 Geo. III, c. 49. ↩

704. The reference is probably to the passages in the “Discourse of Money,” and the “Discourse of the Balance of Trade,” where Hume censures paper money as the cause of a rise of prices. —⁠Political Discourses, 1752, pp. 43⁠–⁠45, 89⁠–⁠91; cp. Lectures, p. 197 ↩

705. 5 Geo. III, c. 49; referred to above, here. ↩

706. 15 Geo. III, c. 51. ↩

707. “A knavish device of fraudulent debtors of the loan money to pay off their loans at a very depreciated value.” William Douglass, M.D., Summary, Historical and Political, of the First Planting, Progressive Improvements, and Present State of the British Settlements in North America, 1760, vol. ii, p. 107. The author uses strong language in many places about what he calls “this accursed affair of plantation paper currencies,” vol. ii, p. 13, note (s); cp. vol. i, pp. 310, 359; vol. ii, pp. 254⁠–⁠255, 334⁠–⁠335. ↩

708. 4 Geo. III, c. 34. ↩

709. Below, this section. See also the “Advertisement” or preface to the 4th ed., above. ↩

710. Ed. 1 reads “This account of the Bank of Amsterdam, however, I have reason to believe, is altogether chimerical.” ↩

711. Ed. 1 reads “sink the value of gold and silver, or occasion equal quantities of those metals.” ↩

712. Some French authors of great learning and ingenuity have used those words in a different sense. In the last chapter of the fourth book I shall endeavour to show that their sense is an improper one. ↩

713. In the argument which follows in the text the fact is overlooked that this is only true when the manufacturers are employed to produce commodities for sale and when the menial servants are employed merely for the comfort of the employer. A man may and often does grow poor by employing people to make “particular subjects or vendible commodities” for his own consumption, and an innkeeper may and often does grow rich by employing menial servants. ↩

714. But in the “Introduction and Plan of the Work,” “useful” is coupled with “productive,” and used as equivalent to it. ↩

715. It must be observed that in this paragraph produce is not used in the ordinary economic sense of income or net produce, but as including all products, e.g., the oil used in weaving machinery as well as the cloth. ↩

716. The question first propounded, whether profits form a larger proportion of the produce, is wholly lost sight of. With a stock larger in proportion to the produce, a lower rate of profit may give a larger proportion of the produce. ↩

717. Viz., Paris, Toulouse, Grenoble, Bordeaux, Dijon, Rouen, Aix, Rennes, Pau, Metz, Besançon and Douai. —⁠Encyclopédie, tom. xii, 1765, s.v. Parlement ↩

718. In Lectures, pp. 154⁠–⁠156, the idleness of Edinburgh and suchlike places compared with Glasgow is attributed simply to the want of independence in the inhabitants. The introduction of revenue and capital is the fruit of study of the physiocratic doctrines. ↩

719. This paradox is arrived at through a confusion between the remuneration of the labourers who produce the additions to the capital and the additions themselves. What is really saved is the additions to the capital, and these are not consumed. ↩

720. Ed. 1 does not contain “it.” ↩

721. Misprinted “instance” in ed. 5, and consequently in some modern editions. ↩

722. “Impoverished” is here equivalent to “made poor,” i.e., ruined, not merely to “made poorer.” ↩

723. Ed. 1 reads “is.” ↩

724. Ed. 1 reads “1701.” ↩

725. Ed. 1 reads “the next year.” ↩

726. As suggested by Germain Garnier’s note on this passage (Recherches sur la Nature et les Causes de la Richesse des Nations, 1802, tom. ii, p. 346), this was doubtless the Count of Bruhl, Minister and Great Chamberlain to the King of Poland, who left at his death 365 suits of clothes, all very rich. Jonas Hanway (Historical Account of the British Trade Over the Caspian Sea, with a Journal of Travels from London Through Russia Into Persia, and Back Through Russia, Germany and Holland, 1753, vol. ii, p. 230) says this count had 300 or 400 suits of rich clothes, and had “collected all the finest colours of all the finest cloths, velvets, and silks of all the manufactures, not to mention the different kinds of lace and embroideries of Europe,” and also pictures and books, at Dresden. He died in 1764. ↩

727. This was the Castle Inn at Marlborough, which ceased to be an inn and became Marlborough College in 1843, thus undergoing another vicissitude. ↩

728. The innkeeper, Mrs. Walker, a zealous Jacobite, refused an offer of fifty guineas for the bed, but presented it about 1764 to the Earl of Elgin (John Fernie, History of the Town and Parish of Dunfermline, 1815, p. 71), and its remains now form a mantelpiece in the dining-room at Broomhall, near Dunfermline. ↩

729. Ed. 1 does not contain “though.” ↩

730. Ed. 1 does not contain “etc.” ↩

731. Lectures, p. 220. ↩

732. Locke, Some Considerations, ed. of 1696, pp. 6, 10, 11, 81; Law, Money and Trade, 2nd ed., 1720, p. 17; Montesquieu, Esprit des Lois, liv. xxii, ch. vi. Locke and Law suppose that the rate rises and falls with the quantity of money, and Montesquieu specifically attributes the historical fall to the discovery of the American mines. Cantillon disapproves of the common and received idea that an increase of effective money diminishes the rate of interest. —⁠Essai, pp. 282⁠–⁠285; see Lectures, pp. 219, 220 ↩

733. In his essay, “Of Interest,” in Political Discourses, 1752. ↩

734. Above, here. ↩

735. This seems obvious, but it was distinctly denied by Locke, Some Considerations, pp. 83, 84. ↩

736. Ed. 1 does not contain “its.” ↩

737. Ed. 1 does not contain “immediately” here or seven lines lower down. ↩

738. Ed. 1 does not contain “immediately.” ↩

739. Below, here. ↩

740. Possibly the supposed authority for this statement is Montesquieu, Esprit des Lois, liv., xxi, ch. vi.: “L’Egypte éloignée par la religion et par les mœurs de toute communication avec les étrangers, ne faisait guère de commerce au-dehors.⁠ ⁠… Les Egyptiens furent si peu jaloux du commerce du dehors qu’ils laissèrent celui de la mer rouge à toutes les petites nations qui y eurent quelque port.” ↩

741. If this doctrine as to the advantage of quick returns had been applied earlier in the chapter, it would have made havoc of the argument as to the superiority of agriculture. ↩

742. The second part of this sentence is not in Ed. 1. ↩

743. Bk. iv. ↩

744. Ed. 1 reads “belong.” ↩

745. But why may not the labour be diverted to the production of “something for which there is a demand at home”? The “corn, woollens and hardware” immediately below perhaps suggest that it is supposed the country has certain physical characteristics which compel its inhabitants to produce particular commodities. ↩

746. Below, here. The figures 96,000 and 13,500 are given in the continuation of Anderson’s Commerce, AD 1775, ed. of 1801, vol. iv, p. 187. ↩

747. The error that agriculture produces substances and manufacture only alters them is doubtless at the bottom of much of the support gained by the theory of productive and unproductive labour. ↩

748. This passage, from the beginning of the paragraph, may well have been suggested by Cantillon, Essai, pp. 11⁠–⁠22. ↩

749. Ed. 1 reads “their.” ↩

750. Ed. 1 reads “considerable advantage that it should.” ↩

751. Primogeniture and entails are censured as inimical to agriculture in Lectures, pp. 120, 124, 228. ↩

752. Lectures, pp. 117⁠–⁠118. ↩

753. Ed. 1 reads “form.” ↩

754. In Lectures, p. 123, the Roman origin of entails appears to be accepted. ↩

755. This passage follows Lectures, p. 124, rather closely, reproducing even the repetition of “absurd.” ↩

756. Ed. 1 does not contain “supposed to be.” ↩

757. This remark follows Lectures, p. 228. Cp. below, here through here, and here. ↩

758. “A small part of the West of Europe is the only portion of the globe that is free from slavery,” “and is nothing in comparison with the vast continents where it still prevails.” —⁠Lectures, p. 96 ↩

759. Pliny, Historia Naturalis, lib. xviii, cap. iv.; Columella, De re rustica, lib. i, præfatio. ↩

760. Politics, 1265a. ↩

761. Raynal, Histoire philosophique (Amsterdam ed.), tom. vi, pp. 368⁠–⁠388. ↩

762. Above, here; Lectures, p. 225. ↩

763. Lectures, pp. 100, 101. ↩

764. Raynal, Histoire philosophique (Amsterdam ed.), tom. i, p. 12. In Lectures, pp. 101, 102, Innocent III appears in error for Alexander III. ↩

765. Probably Quesnay’s estimate; cp. his article on “Fermiers” in the Encyclopédie, reprinted in his Œuvres, ed. Oncken, 1888, pp. 160, 171. ↩

766. Garnier is certainly wrong in suggesting in his note, “ce nom vient probablement de la manière dont ils étaient autrefois armés en guerre.” —⁠Recherches, etc., tom. ii, p. 428. “Bow” is the farming stock; “steel” is said to indicate the nature of the contract, and eisern vieh and bestia ferri are quoted as parallels by Cosmo Innes, Lectures on Scotch Legal Antiquities, 1872, pp. 245, 266. ↩

767. Gilbert, Treatise of Tenures, 3rd ed., 1757, pp. 34 and 54; Blackstone, Commentaries, vol. ii, pp. 141, 142. The whole paragraph follows Lectures, p. 226, rather closely. ↩

768. M. Bacon, New Abridgment of the Law, 3rd ed., 1768, vol. ii, p. 160, s.v. Ejectment; cp. Lectures, p. 227. ↩

769. Blackstone, Commentaries, iii, 197. ↩

770. Lectures, pp. 227⁠–⁠228. ↩

771. Acts of 1449, c. 6, “ordained for the safety and favour of the poor people that labours the ground.” ↩

772. 10 Geo. III, c. 51. ↩

773. Below, here. ↩

774. Lectures, pp. 226, 227. ↩

775. 20 Geo. II, c. 50, § 21. ↩

776. Lectures, p. 227. ↩

777. Ed. 1 reads “that.” ↩

778. Originally tenths and fifteenths of movable goods; subsequently fixed sums levied from the parishes, and raised by them like other local rates; see Cannan, History of Local Rates, 1896, pp. 13⁠–⁠14, 18⁠–⁠20, 22 note, 23 note. ↩

779. Lectures, p. 226. ↩

780. Essays on Husbandry (by Walter Harte), 1764, pp. 69⁠–⁠80. ↩

781. Below, here through here. ↩

782. Above, here; Lectures, p. 229. ↩

783. Lectures, p. 233. ↩

784. See Brady’s historical treatise of Cities and Burroughs, p. 3, etc. —⁠Smith

     Robert Brady, Historical Treatise of Cities and Burghs or Boroughs, 2nd ed., 1711. See, for the statements as to the position of townsmen and traders contained in these two paragraphs, esp. pp. 16, 18, and Appendix, p. 8. Cp. Hume, History, ed. of 1773, vol. i, p. 205, where Domesday and Brady are both mentioned. The note appears first in ed. 2. —⁠Cannan ↩

785. Ed. 1 does not contain “the.” ↩

786. See Madox Firma Burgi, 1726, p. 18; also Madox, History and Antiquities of the Exchequer, chap. 10 sect. v p. 223, first edition 1711. But the statement in the text above that the farm was in place of poll taxes is not supported by Firma Burgi, p. 251, where Madox says the “yearly ferme of towns arose out of certain locata or demised things that yielded issues or profit,” e.g., assised rents, pleas, perquisites, custom of goods, fairs, markets, stallage, aldermanries, tolls and wharfage. It was only if these fell short of the farm, that a direct contribution from the townsmen would be levied. The note appears first in ed. 2. ↩

787. An instance is given in Firma Burgi, p. 21. ↩

788. See Madox Firma Burgi: See also Pfeffel in the remarkable events under Frederic II and his successors of the house of Suabia. —⁠Smith

     This note appears first in ed. 2. In Pfeffel’s Nouvel Abrégé chronologique de Thistoire et du droit public d’Allemagne, 1776, “Evénements remarquables sous Frédéric II” is a chapter heading, and subsequent chapters are headed in the same way. For the references to the power of the towns, see the index, s.v. Villes at the end of tom. i. —⁠Cannan ↩

789. Lectures, p. 40. ↩

790. See Madox —⁠Smith

     Firma Burgi, pp. 35, 150. The note is not in ed. 1 —⁠Cannan ↩

791. “L’excommunication de Philippe I et son inapplication aux affaires avaient presque ruiné toute son autorité en France.⁠ ⁠… Les plus puissants vassaux de France étaient devenus plus que jamais indociles à l’égard du souverain.⁠ ⁠… Louis le Gros, à qui Philippe son père avait abandonné la conduite de l’état sur les dernières années de sa vie, délibera avec les évêques du domaine royal, des moyens de remédier à ces maux, et imagina avec eux une nouvelle police pour la levée des troupes, et une nouvelle forme de justice dans les villes pour empêcher l’impunité des crimes.” —⁠G. Daniel, Histoire de France, 1755, vol. iii, pp. 512⁠–⁠513. A description of the new institutions follows, pp. 513⁠–⁠514. ↩

792. Possibly Du Cange (who is referred to in the margin of Daniel, p. 514, and by Hume, History, ed. 1773, vol. ii, p. 118), Glossarium, s.v. Commune, communia, etc., “Primus vero ejus modi Communias in Francia Ludov. VII [? VI] rex multiplicavit et auxit.” —⁠Smith ↩

793. See Pfeffel. —⁠Smith

     Reference in this note. The note is not in ed. 1. —⁠Cannan ↩

794. Ed. 1 places “in those assemblies” here instead of in the line above; see Lectures, p. 41. ↩

795. Lectures, p. 40. ↩

796. “The most signal and most durable monument of human folly that has yet appeared in any age or nation,” Hume, History, ed. of 1773, vol. i, p. 292; “this universal frenzy,” ibid., p. 298, of ed. 1770, vol. i, p. 327, but in his 1st ed. Hume wrote “universal madness.” ↩

797. Misprinted “in” in ed. 5. ↩

798. Ed. 1 reads “that were introduced into Venice in the beginning of.” ↩

799. See Sandi Istoria Civile de Vinezia, Part 2. vol. i page 247, and 256. —⁠Smith

     Vettor Sandi, Principj di storia civile della Repubblica di Venezia, Venice, 1755. The pages should be 257, 258. This note and the three sentences in the text which the reference covers, from “They were banished” to “three hundred workmen,” appear first in ed. 2. —⁠Cannan ↩

800. Ed. 1 reads “being in.” ↩

801. Ed. 1 reads “seems.” ↩

802. Ed. 1 (beginning six lines higher up), “When the Venetian manufacture flourished, there was not a mulberry tree, nor consequently a silkworm, in all Lombardy. They brought the materials from Sicily and from the Levant, the manufacture itself being in imitation of those carried on in the Greek empire. Mulberry trees were first planted in Lombardy in the beginning of the sixteenth century, by the encouragement of Ludovico Sforza, Duke of Milan.” ↩

803. Above, here. ↩

804. “Of Commerce” and “Of Luxury” in Political Discourses, 1752, and History, ed. of 1773, vol. iii, p. 400. ↩

805. Evidently from Hume, History, ed. of 1773, vol. i, p. 384. ↩

806. “No less than 30,000 persons are said to have daily lived at his board in the different manors and castles which he possessed in England.” —⁠Hume, History, ed. of 1773, vol. iii, p. 182. In Lectures, p. 42, it had been “40,000 people, besides tenants.” ↩

807. “An Arab prince will often dine in the street, before his door, and call to all that pass, even beggars, in the usual expression, Bismillah, that is, In the name of God; who come and sit down, and when they have done, give their Hamdellilah, that is, God be praised. For the Arabs are great levellers, put everybody on a footing with them; and it is by such generosity and hospitality that they maintain their interest.” —⁠Richard Pococke, Description of the East, 1743, vol. i, p. 183 ↩

808. Eds. 1 and 2 read “appears.” ↩

809. Hume, History, ed. of 1773, i, 224. ↩

810. “The Highlands of Scotland have long been entitled by law to every privilege of British subjects; but it was not till very lately that the common people could in fact enjoy those privileges.” —⁠Hume, History, vol. i, p. 214, ed. of 1773. Cp. Lectures, p. 116 ↩

811. Lectures, pp. 38, 39. ↩

812. Hume, History, ed. of 1773, vol. iii, p. 400; vol. v, p. 488. ↩

813. Histoire généalogique des Tatars traduite du manuscript Tartare D’Abulgasi-Bayadur-chan et enrichie d’un grand nombre de remarques authentiques et très curieuses sur le véritable estat present de l’Asie septentrionale avec les cartes géographiques nécessaires, par D., Leyden, 1726. The preface says some Swedish officers imprisoned in Siberia had it translated into Russian and then retranslated it themselves into various other languages. ↩

814. Above, this note. ↩

815. Ed. 5 omits “who” by a misprint. ↩

816. Eds. 2⁠–⁠5 read “with all,” doubtless a corruption. ↩

817. Cp. above, here. ↩

818. Ed. 1 does not contain “thither.” ↩

819. Ed. 1 does not contain “the.” ↩

820. 18 Car. II, c. 2. ↩

821. 32 Geo. II, c. 11, § 1; 5 Geo. III, c. 10; 12 Geo. III, c. 2. ↩

822. Below, here through here, and this section. ↩

823. It seems likely that Charles VIII is here (though not on the next page) confused with Charles of Anjou, brother of St. Louis. At any rate Hénault (who is quoted below, here) says: “Notre marine aussitôt détruite que créée sous Philippe Auguste, s’était bien rétablie sous S. Louis si, comme le dit un historien, ce prince embarqua soixante-mille hommes à Aigues-mortes⁠ ⁠… quant à la première expédition, Joinville dit qu’au départ de Chypre pour la conquête de Damiette, il y avait dix-huit cents vaisseaux tant grands que petits. S. Louis avait aussi mis en mer une flotte considérable pour défendre les côtes de Poitou contre la flotte de Henri III, et son frère Charles d’Anjou en avait une de quatrevingts voiles, composée de galères et de vaisseaux, lors de son expédition de Naples.” —⁠Nouvel Abrégé chronologique de l’histoire de France, 1768, tom. i, p. 201, AD 1299. This puts the French marine 200 years earlier. ↩

824. “Perchè ridotta tutta in somma pace e tranquillità, coltivata non meno ne’ luoghi più montuosi, e più sterili, che nelle pianure, e regioni sue più fertili, nè sottoposta ad altro Imperio, che de’ suoi medesimi, non solo era abbondantissima d’ abitatori, e di richezze.” —⁠Guicciardini, Della Istoria d’ Italia, Venice, 1738, vol. i, p. 2 ↩

825. For other definitions of the purpose or nature of political economy see the index, s.v. ↩

826. There seems to be a confusion between Plano-Carpini, a Franciscan sent as legate by Pope Innocent IV in 1246, and Guillaume de Rubruquis, another Franciscan sent as ambassador by Louis IX in 1253. As is pointed out by Rogers in a note on this passage, the reference appears to be to Rubruquis, Voyage en Tartarie et à la Chine, chap. xxxiii. The great Khan’s secretaries, Rubruquis states, on one occasion displayed curiosity about France: “S’enquérant s’il y avait force bœufs, moutons, et chevaux, comme s’ils eussent déjà été tous prêts d’y venir et emmener tout.” Plano-Carpini and Rubruquis are both in Bergeron’s Voyages faits principalement en Asie dans les xii, xiii, xiv et xv siècles, La Haye, 1735. ↩

827. There is very little foundation for any part of this paragraph. It perhaps originated in an inaccurate recollection of pp. 17, 18 and 77⁠–⁠79 of Some Considerations (1696 ed.), and §§ 46⁠–⁠50 of Civil Government. It was probably transferred bodily from the Lectures without verification. See Lectures, p. 198. ↩

828. See this note. ↩

829. Ed. 1 reads “expect least of all.” ↩

830. The words “forth of the realm” occur in (January) 1487, c. 11. Other acts are 1436, c. 13; 1451, c. 15; 1482, c. 8. ↩

831. Ed. 1 reads “increase it.” ↩

832. England’s Treasure by Foreign Trade, or the Balance of Our Foreign Trade Is the Rule of Our Treasure, 1664, chap. iv, ad fin., which reads, however, “we will rather accompt him a mad man.” ↩

833. Mun, England’s Treasure, chap. vi. ↩

834. “Among other things relating to trade there hath been much discourse of the balance of trade; the right understanding whereof may be of singular use.” —⁠Josiah Child, New Discourse of Trade, 1694, p. 152, chap. ix., introducing an explanation. The term was used before Mun’s work was written. See Palgrave’s Dictionary of Political Economy, s.v. Balance of Trade, History of the theory. ↩

835. This sentence appears first in ed. 2. Ed. 1 begins the next sentence, “The high price of exchange therefore would tend.” ↩

836. “In” is a mistake for “by.” ↩

837. Here and four lines higher Eds. 1⁠–⁠3 read “if there was.” ↩

838. Ed. 1 reads “in.” ↩

839. Eds. 1⁠–⁠3 read “if it was.” ↩

840. The absence of any reference to the long Digression in bk. i, chap. xi, suggests that this passage was written before the Digression was incorporated in the work. Contrast the reference below, here. ↩

841. Ed. 1 reads “not only without any inconveniency but with very great advantages.” ↩

842. This probably refers to here, though the object there is rather to insist on the largeness of the saving effected by dispensing with money, and here through here. ↩

843. Eds. 1⁠–⁠3 read “was it not.” ↩

844. Present State of the Nation (see this note), p. 28. ↩

845. Eds. 1⁠–⁠3 read “was.” ↩

846. Ed. 1 reads “according to the exaggerated computation of Mr. Horsely.” ↩

847. Lectures, p. 199. ↩

848. The Present State of the Nation, Particularly with Respect to Its Trade, Finances, etc., etc., Addressed to the King and Both Houses of Parliament, 1768 (written under the direction of George Grenville by William Knox), pp. 7, 8. ↩

849. Above, here through here. ↩

850. In place of these two sentences ed. 1 reads “A considerable part of the annual surplus of its manufactures must indeed in this case be exported without bringing back any returns. Some part of it, however, may still continue to bring back a return.” ↩

851. History, chaps. xix and xx, vol. iii, pp. 103, 104, 165 in ed. of 1773. ↩

852. Below, here. ↩

853. This sentence and the nine words before it are repeated below, here. ↩

854. “Dercyllidas” appears to be a mistake for Antiochus. See Xenophon, Hellenica, vii, i, § 38. ↩

855. Ed. 1 reads “thereby increase.” ↩

856. See above, here. ↩

857. See below, here through here. ↩

858. 11 and 12 Ed. III, c. 3; 4 Ed. IV, c. 7. ↩

859. 6 Geo. III, c. 28. ↩

860. By the additional duties, 7 Geo. III, c. 28. ↩

861. Misprinted “manufactures” in ed. 5. ↩

862. This sentence appears first in Additions and Corrections and ed. 3. ↩

863. Ed. 1 reads “certain.” ↩

864. Above, here through here. ↩

865. Ed. 1 reads “the” here. ↩

866. Ed. 1 reads “augmenting,” which seems more correct. ↩

867. Above, here, and below, here through here. ↩

868. Eds. 1⁠–⁠3 read “was” here and six lines lower down. ↩

869. Charles Smith, Three Tracts on the Corn-Trade and Corn-Laws, pp. 144⁠–⁠145. The same figure is quoted below, here. ↩

870. Ed. 1 does not contain the words “in the actual state of tillage.” ↩

871. Eds. 1⁠–⁠3 read “was.” ↩

872. Joseph Van Robais in 1669. —⁠John Smith, Memoirs of Wool, vol. ii, pp. 426, 427, but neither John Smith nor Charles King, British Merchant, 1721, vol. ii, pp. 93, 94, gives the particular stipulation mentioned. ↩

873. Cato, De re rustica, ad init., but “Questus” should of course be “quæstus.” ↩

874. 12 Car. II, c. 18, “An act for the encouraging and increasing of shipping and navigation.” ↩

875. §§ 1 and 6. ↩

876. §§ 8 and 9. Eds. 1 and 2 read “ship and cargo.” The alteration was probably made in order to avoid wearisome repetition of the same phrase in the three paragraphs. ↩

877. § 4, which, however, applies to all such goods of foreign growth and manufacture as were forbidden to be imported except in English ships, not only to bulky goods. The words “great variety of the most bulky articles of importation” occur at the beginning of the previous paragraph, and are perhaps copied here by mistake. ↩

878. § 5. ↩

879. In 1651, by “An act for the increase of shipping and encouragement of the navigation of this nation,” p. 1,449 in the collection of Commonwealth Acts. ↩

880. By 25 Car. II, c. 6, § 1, except on coal. The plural “acts” may refer to renewing acts. Anderson, Commerce, AD 1672. ↩

881. Ed. 1 contains the words “malt, beer” here. ↩

882. Below, here through here. ↩

883. Ed. 1 reads “it is.” ↩

884. The importation of bone lace was prohibited by 13 and 14 Car. II, c. 13, and 9, and 10 W. III, c. 9, was passed to make the prohibition more effectual. By 11 and 12 W. III, c. 11, it was provided that the prohibition should cease three months after English woollen manufactures were readmitted to Flanders. ↩

885. Ed. 1 reads “injury ourselves, both to those classes and to.” ↩

886. Above, here through here. ↩

887. 12 Car. II, c. 16; 12 Ann., st. 1, § 13; 3 Geo. III, c. 8, gave this liberty after particular wars. ↩

888. Ed. 1 reads “Utopea.” ↩

889. Below, here through here. ↩

890. Ed. 1 contains no part headings and does not divide the chapter into parts. ↩

891. 18 Geo. II, c. 36; 7 Geo. III, c. 43. ↩

892. 4 W. and M., c. 5, § 2. ↩

893. 7 and 8 W. III, c. 20; but wine and vinegar were excepted from the general increase of 25 percent as well as brandy, upon which the additional duty was £30 per ton of single proof and £60 per ton of double proof. ↩

894. See below, here through here. ↩

895. Nearly all the matter from the beginning of the chapter to this point appears first in Additions and Corrections and ed. 3. Eds. 1 and 2 contain only the first sentence of the chapter and then proceed, “Thus in Great Britain higher duties are laid upon the wines of France than upon those of Portugal. German linen may be imported upon paying certain duties; but French linen is altogether prohibited. The principles which I have been examining took their origin from private interest and the spirit of monopoly; those which I am going to examine from national prejudice and animosity.” ↩

896. See Anderson, Commerce, AD 1601, and see above, here through here. ↩

897. Ed. 1 reads “a great part.” ↩

898. Ed. 1 reads “The course of exchange, at least as it has hitherto been estimated, is, perhaps, almost equally so.” ↩

899. Here and three lines above Eds. 1 and 2 read “it” instead of “that other.” ↩

900. Ed. 1 reads “common.” ↩

901. This paragraph is absent in ed. 1, but the substance of it occurs in a paragraph lower down, omitted in ed. 2 and later Eds. See below, this note. ↩

902. In place of this paragraph ed. 1 reads, “But though this doctrine, of which some part is, perhaps, not a little doubtful, were supposed ever so certain, the manner in which the par of exchange has hitherto been computed renders uncertain every conclusion that has ever yet been drawn from it.” ↩

903. Ed. 1 reads “standards” here and seven lines lower. ↩

904. See above here. ↩

905. This erroneous statement has already been made, here; see below, here, for details. ↩

906. Already mentioned above, here. ↩

907. Ed. 2 and later Eds. read erroneously “of the two.” ↩

908. See the preface to the 4th ed., above. ↩

909. Ed. 1 reads “Those deposits of coin, or which.” ↩

910. Eds. 1⁠–⁠3 have the more correct but awkward reading “than of those of gold.” ↩

911. The following are the prices at which the bank of Amsterdam at present (September 1775) receives bullion and coin of different kinds:

     Silver
     Mexico dollars	Guilders. B⁠—22 per mark
     French crowns
     English silver coin
     Mexico dollars new coin	21	10
     Ducatoons	3
     Rix dollars	2	8

     Bar silver containing ¹¹⁄₁₂ fine silver 21 per mark, and in this proportion down to ¼ fine, on which 5 guilders are given.

     Fine bars, 23 per mark.

     Gold
     Portugal coin	B⁠—310 per mark
     Guineas
     Louis d’ors new
     Ditto old	300
     New ducats	4	19	8 per ducat

     Bar or ingot gold is received in proportion to its fineness compared with the above foreign gold coin. Upon fine bars the bank gives 340 per mark. In general, however, something more is given upon coin of a known fineness, than upon gold and silver bars, of which the fineness cannot be ascertained but by a process of melting and assaying. ↩

912. Ed. 1 reads “it” here. ↩

913. Lectures, pp. 193, 194. The story is doubtless in Voltaire, Siècle de Louis XIV, chap. x, and is quoted thence by Anderson, Commerce, AD 1672. ↩

914. N. Magens, Universal Merchant, ed. Horsley, pp. 32, 33, who also protests against the common exaggeration, gives 3,000 as a maximum estimate for the number of accounts, and 60,000,000 guilders as the utmost amount of the treasure. ↩

915. Ed. 1 runs on here as follows, “But though the computed exchange must generally be in favour of the former, the real exchange may frequently be in favour of the latter.” ↩

916. In place of this part heading (see this note) ed. 1 reads, in square-bracketed italics, “End of the Digression concerning Banks of Deposit.” ↩

917. In place of this first line ed. 1 reads, “Though the computed exchange between any two places were in every respect the same with the real, it would not always follow that what is called the balance of trade was in favour of that place which had the ordinary course of exchange in its favour. The ordinary course of exchange might, indeed, in this case, be a tolerable indication of the ordinary state of debt and credit between them, and show which of the two countries usually had occasion to send out money to the other. But the ordinary state of debt and credit between any two places is not always entirely regulated by the ordinary course of their dealings with one another, but is influenced by that of the dealings of both with many other countries. If it was usual, for example, for the merchants of England to pay the goods which they buy from Hamburg, Danzig, Riga, etc., by bills upon Holland, the ordinary state of debt and credit between England and Holland would not be entirely regulated by the ordinary course of the dealings of those two countries with one another, but would be influenced by that of England with those other places. England might, in this case, be annually obliged to send out money to Holland, though its annual exports to that country exceeded the annual value of its imports from it, and though what is called the balance of trade was very much in favour of England.

     “Hitherto I have been endeavouring to show.” See this note. ↩

918. Below, here through here. ↩

919. Ed. 1 does not contain “and preparing for the market.” ↩

920. Above, here. ↩

921. Eds. 1 and 2 read “make.” ↩

922. Ed. 1 reads “from either.” ↩

923. Lectures, p. 179. ↩

924. Above, here. ↩

925. Below, here. ↩

926. See below, here. ↩

927. See below, here. ↩

928. This and the preceding paragraph appear first in Additions and Corrections and ed. 3. ↩

929. Above, here; Lectures, p. 207. ↩

930. This paragraph was written in the year 1775. —⁠Smith

     But not exactly as it stands, since ed. 1 reads “the late disturbances” instead of “the present disturbances.” We can only conjecture that Smith thought that the disturbances were past either when he was writing or when he returned the proof to the printers, or that they would be past by the time his book was published. The alteration of “late” to “present” was made in ed. 2, and the footnote added in ed. 3. In vol. ii all Eds. read “present disturbances” on pp. 75, 86 and 115 and “late disturbances” on p. 79. The two expressions could scarcely have been used at the same time, so we must suppose that “late” was corrected into “present” on pp. 75, 86 and 115, or that “present” was corrected into “late” on p. 79, but we cannot tell for certain which of the two things happened. —⁠Cannan ↩

931. Eds. 1 and 2 read “go to it.” ↩

932. The next three pages are not in Eds. 1 and 2; see this note. ↩

933. 12 Car. II, c. 4. ↩

934. Henry Saxby, The British Customs, Containing an Historical and Practical Account of Each Branch of That Part of the Revenue, 1757, pp. 10, 308. ↩

935. These figures are also quoted above, here, and below, here. ↩

936. Saxby, British Customs, p. 12. ↩

937. British Customs, p. 11. ↩

938. 6 Geo. III, c. 28; 11 Geo. III, c. 49. ↩

939. Above, here. ↩

940. 7 and 8 W. III, c. 20; 1 Geo. I, c. 12., § 3; Saxby, British Customs, p. 45; above, here. The first 25 percent was imposed in 1692, the second in 1696. ↩

941. Saxby, British Customs, pp. 13, 22, 39, 46. “The additional duty” was imposed in 1703. For the “impost 1692” and the subsidies see above, here through here, and below, here through here. “The coinage on wine” was the duty levied under 18 Car. II, c. 5, for defraying the expenses of the mint. ↩

942. Saxby, British Customs, pp. 13, 38. ↩

943. 1 Jac. II, c. 3, and continuing Acts: £8 a tun on French and £12 on other wine. ↩

944. 7 and 8 W. III, c. 20, § 3; 1 Geo. I, st. 2, c. 12, § 3. ↩

945. 18 Geo. II, c. 9; Saxby, British Customs, p. 64: £8 a tun on French and £4 on other wine. ↩

946. ? 1762. 3 Geo. III, c. 12: £8 a tun on French and £4 on other wine. ↩

947. 18 Geo. III, c. 27: £8 8s. on French and £4 4s. on other wine. ↩

948. I.e., 5 percent, not on the value of the goods, but on the amount of the previously existing duties, 19 Geo. III, c. 25, and 22 Geo. III, c. 66. ↩

949. 20 Geo. III, c. 30: £8 a tun on French and £4 on other wine. ↩

950. The colonial part of the Act is said in its particular preamble (§ 5) to be for the purpose of “maintaining a greater correspondence and kindness between” the colonies and mother country, and for keeping the colonies “in a firmer dependence.” ↩

951. All this is dealt with in greater detail below, here through here. ↩

952. The framers of the Act were not so sure about Madeira being non-European. They excepted wine of the Madeiras and Azores by special provision, § 7 of 15 Car. II, c. 7, § 13. ↩

953. From the words “duty upon importation” at the end of the first sentence of the third paragraph of the chapter to this point is new matter, which appears first in Additions and Corrections and ed. 3. Eds. 1 and 2 read in place of it simply, “Half the duties imposed by what is called the old subsidy, are drawn back universally, except upon goods exported to the British plantations, and frequently the whole, almost always a part of those imposed by later subsidies and imposts.” The provision of 4 Geo. III, c. 15, taking away drawbacks, is quoted below, here. ↩

954. Below, here through here. ↩

955. Charles Smith (already described as “very well-informed” above, here), Three Tracts on the Corn Trade and Corn Laws, 2nd ed., 1766, pp. 132⁠–⁠138. ↩

956. Above, here through here. ↩

957. Above, here through here, and cp. here. ↩

958. These three sentences beginning with “It has happened in France,” appear first in Additions and Corrections and ed. 3. ↩

959. Above, here. ↩

960. Eds. 1 and 2 read (beginning at the third line of the paragraph) “But it has been thought by many people, that by securing to the farmer a better price than he could otherwise expect in the actual state of tillage, it tends to encourage tillage; and that the consequent increase of corn may, in a long period of years, lower its price more than the bounty can raise it in the actual state which tillage may at the end of that period happen to be in.” The alteration is given in Additions and Corrections. The next two paragraphs appear first in Additions and Corrections and ed. 3. ↩

961. It is really anything but a moderate supposition. It is not at all likely that the increase of demand caused by the offer of a bounty on exportation would raise the price of a commodity to the extent of four-fifths of the bounty. ↩

962. C. Smith, Three Tracts on the Corn Trade, 2nd ed., p. 144. ↩

963. This and the preceding paragraph are not in Eds. 1 and 2. See this note. ↩

964. See above, here through here. It does not occur to Smith that the additional corn might require greater labour to produce it than an equal quantity of the old. ↩

965. In place of this and the preceding sentence Eds. 1 and 2 read only “It is not the real but the nominal price of corn only which can be at all affected by the bounty.” The alteration is given in Additions and Corrections. ↩

966. “Homemade” here and in the line above is not in Eds. 1 and 2. ↩

967. “Almost” is not in Eds. 1 and 2. ↩

968. Eds. 1 and 2 do not contain “homemade.” ↩

969. Eds. 1 and 2 read “in the smallest degree.” ↩

970. Neither “much” is in Eds. 1 and 2. ↩

971. This and the two preceding sentences from “in the purchase” appear first in Additions and Corrections (which reads “of even” instead of “even of”) and ed. 3. ↩

972. Spain’s prohibition of exportation of gold and silver had only been abolished at a recent period. The tax was 3 percent till 1768, then 4 percent. See Raynal, Histoire philosophique, Amsterdam ed. 1773, tom. iii, pp. 290, 291. As to the export of gold from Portugal, see this note. ↩

973. Essay on the Causes of the Decline of the Foreign Trade, Consequently of the Value of the Lands of Britain, and on the Means to Restore Both, 2nd ed., 1750, pp. 55, 171. ↩

974. Eds. 1 and 2 read “not the real but only the nominal price.” ↩

975. Eds. 1 and 2 read “the smallest real service.” ↩

976. Eds. 1 and 2 read “a very real service.” ↩

977. “Homemade” is not in Eds. 1 and 2. ↩

978. Eds. 1 and 2 read “will be merely nominal.” ↩

979. Eds. 1 and 2 read “could be really serviceable.” ↩

980. Eds. 1 and 2 read “a real value which no human institution can alter.” Cp. here. ↩

981. Ed. 1 reads “raise it.” ↩

982. Eds. 1 and 2 read “They loaded the public revenue with a very considerable expense, but they did not in any respect increase.” The alteration is given in Additions and Corrections. ↩

983. In place of this and the two preceding sentences (beginning “It would besides”) Eds. 1 and 2 read only “It has, however, been more rarely granted.” The alteration is given in Additions and Corrections. ↩

984. Eds. 1 and 2 read “The encouragements given.” ↩

985. The whale fishery bounty under 11 Geo. III, c. 38, was 40s. per ton for the first five years, 30s. for the second five years, and 20s. for the third. ↩

986. “It may be supposed” is not in Eds. 1 and 2. ↩

987. Eds. 1 and 2 read “would be in the actual state of production.” ↩

988. “It must be acknowledged” is not in Eds. 1 and 2. ↩

989. “Tonnage” is not in Eds. 1 and 2. ↩

990. Eds. 1 and 2 read “they may perhaps be defended as conducing to its defence.” ↩

991. Eds. 1 and 2 read “This may frequently be done.” ↩

992. Eds. 1 and 2 read “in time of peace” here. ↩

993. The next four pages, to here, are not in Eds. 1 and 2, which read in place of them “Some other bounties may be vindicated perhaps upon the same principle. It is of importance that the kingdom should depend as little as possible upon its neighbours for the manufactures necessary for its defence; and if these cannot otherwise be maintained at home, it is reasonable that all other branches of industry should be taxed in order to support them. The bounties upon the importation of naval stores from America, upon British made sailcloth, and upon British made gunpowder, may perhaps all three be vindicated upon this principle. The first is a bounty upon the production of America, for the use of Great Britain. The two others are bounties upon exportation.” The new paragraphs, with the two preceding paragraphs as amended, are given in Additions and Corrections. ↩

994. In Additions and Corrections the term is “seasteeks,” as in the Appendix. ↩

995. See the accounts at the end of the volume. —⁠Smith

     In Additions and Corrections they are printed in the text. —⁠Cannan ↩

996. The ten paragraphs ending here are not in Eds. 1 and 2. See here. ↩

997. Eds. 1 and 2 read “When that form has been altered by manufacture of any kind, they are called bounties.” ↩

998. Above, here. ↩

999. This heading is not in ed. 1. ↩

1000. Not a misprint for “enables.” There are two knowledges, one of the state of the crop and the other of the daily sales. ↩

1001. Above, here; below, here. ↩

1002. “Any corn growing in the fields, or any other corn or grain, butter, cheese, fish or other dead victuals whatsoever.” But grain was exempted when below certain prices, e.g., wheat, 6s. 8d. the quarter. ↩

1003. This and the preceding sentence are misleading. The effect of the provisions quoted in the preceding paragraph would have been to “annihilate altogether” the trade of the corn merchant if they had been left unqualified. To avoid this consequence 5 and 6 Ed. VI, c. 14, § 7, provides that badgers, laders, kidders or carriers may be licensed to buy corn with the intent to sell it again in certain circumstances. So that the licensing of kidders was a considerable alleviation, not, as the text suggests, an aggravation. ↩

1004. 5 Eliz., c. 12, § 4. ↩

1005. Ed. 1 reads “the consumer or his immediate factors.” It should be noticed that under 5 and 6 Edward VI, c. 14, § 7, the kidder might sell in “open fair or market” as well as to consumers privately. ↩

1006. Diligent search has hitherto failed to discover these statutes. ↩

1007. § 4 incorrectly quoted. The words are “not forestalling nor selling the same in the same market within three months.” Under 5 and 6 Ed. VI, c. 14, a person buying and selling again “in any fair or market holden or kept in the same place or in any other fair or market within four miles” was a regrator, while a forestaller was one who bought or contracted to buy things on their way to market, or made any motion for enhancing the price of such things or preventing them going to market. ↩

1008. 12 Geo. III, c. 71, repeals 5 and 6 Ed. VI, c. 14, but does not mention 15 Car. II, c. 7, which is purely permissive. If 15 Car. II, c. 7, remained of any force in this respect it must have been merely in consequence of the common law being unfavourable to forestalling. ↩

1009. Eds. 1 and 2 read “attends.” ↩

1010. Charles Smith, Three Tracts on the Corn Trade and Corn Laws, 2nd ed., 1766, p. 145. The figures have been already quoted above, here. ↩

1011. “The export is bare one thirty-second part of the consumption, one thirty-third part of the growth exclusive of seed, one thirty-sixth part of the growth including the seed.” —⁠Three Tracts on the Corn Trade and Corn Laws, p. 144; quoted above, here. ↩

1012. This was not the first law of its kind. 3 Ed. IV, c. 2, was enacted because “the labourers and occupiers of husbandry within this realm of England be daily grievously endamaged by bringing of corn out of other lands and parts into this realm of England when corn of the growing of this realm is at a low price,” and forbids importation of wheat when not over 6s. 8d., rye when not over 4s. and barley when not over 3s. the quarter. This Act was repealed by 21 Jac. I, c. 28, and 15 Car. II, c. 7, imposed a duty of 5s. 4d. on imported wheat, 4s. on rye, 2s. 8d. on barley, 2s. on buckwheat, 1s. 4d. on oats and 4s. on peas and beans, when the prices at the port of importation did not exceed for wheat, 48s.; barley and buckwheat, 28s.; oats, 13s. 4d.; rye, peas and beans, 32s. per quarter. ↩

1013. Ed. 1 reads “restrained by duties proportionably.” ↩

1014. Before the 13th of the present king, the following were the duties payable upon the importation of the different sorts of grain:

      Grain		Duties			Duties				Duties
      Beans to	28s. per qr.	19s.	10d.	after till	40s.	16s.	8d.	then	12d.
      Barley to	28s.	19s.	10d.		32s.	16s.			12d.
      Malt is prohibited by the annual Malt-tax Bill.
      Oats to	16s.	5s.	10d.	after					9½d.
      Peas to	40s.	16s.	0d.	after					9¾d.
      Rye to	36s.	19s.	10d.	till	40s.	16s.	8d.	then	12d.
      Wheat to	44s.	21s.	9d.	till	53s. 4d.	17s.		then	8s.
      till 41. and after that about 1s. 4d.
      Buck wheat to 32s. per qr. to pay 16s.

      These different duties were imposed, partly by the 22nd of Charles II in place of the Old Subsidy, partly by the New Subsidy, by the One-third and Two-thirds Subsidy, and by the Subsidy 1747. —⁠Smith

      The table of duties in this note is an exact copy of that in Charles Smith, Three Tracts on the Corn Trade 2nd ed., 1766, p. 83. That author professes to have taken the figures from “Mr. Saxby, in his Book of Rates” (i.e., Henry Saxby, The British Customs, Containing an Historical and Practical Account of Each Branch of That Revenue, 1757, pp. 111⁠–⁠114), but besides rounding off Saxby’s fractions of a penny in an inaccurate and inconsistent manner, he has miscopied the second duty on barley, the first on peas and the third on wheat. The “Old Subsidy” consisted of the 5 percent or 1s. poundage imposed by 12 Car. II, c. 4, on the values attributed to the various goods by the “Book of Rates” annexed to the Act. According to this, imported beans, barley and malt were to be rated at 26s. 8d. the quarter when the actual price at the place of importation did not exceed 28s. When the actual price was higher than that they were to be rated at 5s. the quarter. Oats and peas were to be rated at 4s. the quarter. Rye when not over 36s. was to be rated at 26s. 8d., and when over that price at 5s. Wheat when not over 44s. was to be rated at 40s., and when over that price at 6s. 8d.

      So under the Old Subsidy:⁠—

      • Beans, barley and malt at prices up to 28s. were to pay 1s. 4d., and when above that price 3d.

      • Oats and peas to pay 2·4d.

      • Rye up to 36s. to pay 1s. 4d., and when above, 3d.

      • Wheat up to 44s. to pay 2s., and when above, 4d.

      The Act 22 Car. II, c. 13, took off these duties and substituted the following scheme:⁠—

      • Beans to 40s. to pay 16s., and above that price, 3d.

      • Barley and malt to 32s. to pay 16s., and above, 3d.

      • Oats to 16s. to pay 5s. 4d., and above, 2·4d.

      • Peas and rye the same as beans.

      • Wheat to 53s. 4d. to pay 16s., then to 80s. to pay 8s., and above that price, 4d.

      • Buckwheat to 32s. to pay 16s.

      But 9 and 10 Will. III, c. 23, imposed a “New Subsidy” exactly equal to the Old, so that duties equal to those of 12 Car. II, c. 4, were superimposed on those of 22 Car. II, c. 13. By 2 and 3 Ann., c. 9, an additional third, and by 3 and 4 Ann., c. 5, an additional two-thirds of the Old Subsidy were imposed, and by 21 Geo. II, c. 2, another amount equal to the Old Subsidy (“the impost 1747”) was further imposed. So between 1747 and 1773 the duties were those of 22 Car. II, c. 13, plus three times those of 12 Car. II, c. 4. This gives the following scheme:⁠—

      • Beans to 28s. pay 20s. and after till 40s. pay 16s. 9d. then 1s.

      • Barley to 28s. pays 20s. and after till 32s. pays 16s. 9d. then 1s.

      • Oats to 16s. pay 5s. 11·2d. and then pay 9·6d.

      • Peas to 40s. pay 16s. 7·2d. and then pay 9·6d.

      • Rye to 36s. pays 20s. and after till 40s. pays 16s. 9d. then 1s.

      • Wheat to 44s. pays 22s. and after till 53s. 4d. pays 17s. then 9s. till 80s., and after that 1s. 4d.

      Saxby’s figures are slightly less, as they take into account a 5 percent discount obtainable on all the subsidies except one. The note appears first in ed. 2. —⁠Cannan ↩

1015. Eds. 1 and 2 do not contain “subsequent laws still further increased those duties,” and read “the distress which in years of scarcity the strict execution of this statute might have brought.” ↩

1016. These do not seem to have been numerous. There were cases in 1757 and 1766. See the table in Charles Smith, Three Tracts Upon the Corn Trade and Corn Laws, 2nd ed., pp. 44, 45. ↩

1017. Eds. 1 and 2 read “extend its cultivation.” ↩

1018. Earlier statutes are 15 Hen. VI, c. 2; 20 Hen. VI, c. 6; 23 Hen. VI, c. 6; 1 and 2 P. and M., c. 5; 5 Eliz., c. 5. § 26; 13 Eliz., c. 13; and 1 Jac., c. 25, §§ 26, 27. The preamble of the first of these says “by the law it was ordained that no man might carry nor bring corn out of the realm of England without the King’s licence, for cause whereof farmers and other men which use manurement of their land may not sell their corn but of a bare price to the great damage of all the realm.” Exportation was therefore legalised without licence when grain was above certain prices. ↩

1019. C. 7. ↩

1020. C. 13. ↩

1021. The “Book of Rates” (see this note) rated wheat for export at 20s., oats at 6s. 8d., and other grain at 10s. the quarter, and the duty was a shilling in the pound on these values. ↩

1022. 1 W. and M., c. 12. The bounty was to be given “without taking or requiring anything for custom.” ↩

1023. Because as to inland sale 15 Car. II, c. 7 (above, here), remained in force. ↩

1024. The Acts prohibiting exportation were much more numerous than the others. See above, this note, and the table in Charles Smith there referred to. ↩

1025. Ed. 1 does not contain “of the greater part of which there was no drawback.” ↩

1026. According to the argument above, here. ↩

1027. See above, here. ↩

1028. Above, here through here. ↩

1029. Ed. 1 reads “in one respect.” ↩

1030. Ed. 1 reads only “By this statute the high duties upon importation for home consumption are taken off as soon as the price of wheat is so high as forty-eight shillings the quarter, and instead.” ↩

1031. In place of this sentence ed. 1 reads “The home market is in this manner not so totally excluded from foreign supplies as it was before.” ↩

1032. Ed. 1 reads (from the beginning of the paragraph) “By the same statute the old bounty of five shillings upon the quarter of wheat ceases when the price rises so high as forty-four shillings, and upon that of other grain in proportion. The bounties too upon the coarser sorts of grain are reduced somewhat lower than they were before, even at the prices at which they take place.” ↩

1033. Ed. 1 reads “The same statute permits at all prices the importation of corn in order to be exported again, duty free; provided it is in the meantime lodged in the king’s warehouse.” ↩

1034. Ed. 1 contains an additional sentence, “Some provision is thus made for the establishment of the carrying trade.” ↩

1035. This paragraph is not in ed. 1. ↩

1036. Ed. 1 reads (from the beginning of the paragraph) “But by the same law exportation is prohibited as soon as the price of wheat rises to forty-four shillings the quarter, and that of other grain in proportion. The price seems to be a good deal too low, and there seems to be an impropriety besides in stopping exportation altogether at the very same price at which that bounty which was given in order to force it is withdrawn.” ↩

1037. These two sentences are not in ed. 1. ↩

1038. E.g., in the British Merchant, 1721, Dedication to vol. iii. ↩

1039. With three small exceptions, “British” for “Britons” and “law” for “laws” in art. 1, and “for” instead of “from” before “the like quantity or measure of French wine,” the translation is identical with that given in A Collection of All the Treaties of Peace, Alliance and Commerce Between Great Britain and Other Powers from the Revolution in 1688 to the Present Time, 1772, vol. i, pp. 61, 62. ↩

1040. Joseph Baretti, Journey from London to Genoa, Through England, Portugal, Spain and France, 3rd ed., 1770, vol. i, pp. 95, 96, but the amount stated is not so large as in the text above: it is “often” from “thirty to fifty and even sixty thousand pounds,” and not “one week with another” but “almost every week.” The gold all came in the packet boat because it, as a war vessel, was exempt from search. —⁠Raynal, Histoire philosophique, Amsterdam ed. 1773, tom. iii, pp. 413, 414 ↩

1041. Above, here through here. ↩

1042. Above, here. ↩

1043. Ed. 1 does not contain “way.” ↩

1044. In 1762. ↩

1045. See above, here. ↩

1046. See this note. ↩

1047. See Dictionaire des Monnoies, tom. ii article Seigneurage, p. 489 par M. Abot de Bazinghen, Conseiller-Commissaire en la Cour des Monnoies à Paris. —⁠Smith

      Ed. 1 reads erroneously “tom. i.” The book is Traité des Monnoies et de la jurisdiction de la Cour des Monnoies en forme de dictionnaire, par M. Abot de Bazinghen, Conseiller-Commissaire en la Cour des Monnoies de Paris, 1764, and the page is not 489, but 589. Garnier, in his edition of the Wealth of Nations, vol. v, p. 234, says the book “n’est guère qu’une compilation faite sans soin et sans discernement,” and explains that the mint price mentioned above remained in force a very short time. It having failed to bring bullion to the mint, much higher prices were successively offered, and when the Wealth of Nations was published the seignorage only amounted to about 3 percent. On the silver coin it was then about 2 percent, in place of the 6 percent stated by Bazinghen, p. 590. —⁠Cannan ↩

1048. “An act for encouraging of coinage,” 18 Car. II, c. 5. The preamble says, “Whereas it is obvious that the plenty of current coins of gold and silver of this kingdom is of great advantage to trade and commerce; for the increase whereof, your Majesty in your princely wisdom and care hath been graciously pleased to bear out of your revenue half the charge of the coinage of silver money.” ↩

1049. Originally enacted for five years, it was renewed by 25 Car. II, c. 8, for seven years, revived for seven years by 1 Jac. II, c. 7, and continued by various Acts till made perpetual by 9 Geo. III, c. 25. ↩

1050. Ed. 1 reads “tear and wear.” ↩

1051. Above, here. ↩

1052. Under 19 Geo. II, c. 14, § 2, a maximum of £15,000 is prescribed. ↩

1053. “Chiefly” is not in ed. 1. ↩

1054. Ed. 1 reads “that of Congo, Angola and Loango.” ↩

1055. P. F. X. de Charlevoix, Histoire de l’Isle Espagnole ou de S. Domingue, 1730, tom. i, p. 99. ↩

1056. Histoire Naturelle, tom. xv (1750), pp. 160, 162. ↩

1057. P. F. X. de Charlevoix, Histoire de l’Isle Espagnole, tom. i, pp. 35, 36. ↩

1058. Histoire de l’Isle Espagnole p. 27. ↩

1059. Above, here. ↩

1060. Ed. 1 (in place of these two sentences) reads, “The tax upon silver, indeed, still continues to be a fifth of the gross produce.” Cp. above, here. ↩

1061. “That mighty, rich and beautiful empire of Guiana, and⁠ ⁠… that great and golden city which the Spaniards call El Dorado.” —⁠Ralegh’s Works, ed. Thomas Birch, 1751, vol. ii, p. 141 ↩

1062. P. Jos. Gumilla, Histoire naturelle civile et géographique de l’Orénoque, etc., traduite par M. Eidous, 1758, tom. ii, pp. 46, 117, 131, 132, 137, 138, but the sentiment is apparently attributed to the author, who is described on the title page as “de la compagnie de Jésus, supérieur des missions de l’Orénoque,” on the strength of a mistranslation of the French or possibly the original Spanish. If “Dieu permit” were mistranslated “God permit,” the following passage from pp. 137, 138 would bear out the text: “On cherchait une vallée ou un territoire dont les rochers et les pierres étaient d’or, et les Indiens pour flatter la cupidité des Espagnols, et les éloigner en même temps de chez eux, leur peignaient avec les couleurs les plus vives l’or dont ce pavs abondait pour se débarrasser plutôt de ces hôtes incommodes, et Dieu permit que les Espagnols ajoutassent foi à ces rapports, pour qu’ils découvrissent un plus grand nombre de provinces, et que la lumière de l’Evangile pût s’y répandre avec plus de facilité.” ↩

1063. Eds. 1⁠–⁠4 reads “support.” ↩

1064. Miletus and Crotona. ↩

1065. Ed. 1 reads “its.” ↩

1066. See above, here. ↩

1067. Juan and Ulloa, Voyage historique, tom. i, p. 229. ↩

1068. In Awnsham and John Churchill’s Collection of Voyages and Travels, 1704, vol. iv, p. 508. ↩

1069. C. above, here. ↩

1070. Raynal, Histoire Philosophique, Amsterdam ed., 1773, tom. iii, pp. 347⁠–⁠352. ↩

1071. Histoire Philosophique, tom. iii, p. 424. ↩

1072. Histoire Philosophique, tom. vi, p. 8. ↩

1073. A mistake for 1664. ↩

1074. P. F. X. de Charlevoix, Histoire et description générale de la Nouvelle France, avec le journal historique d’un voyage dans l’Amérique Septentrionnale, 1744, tom. ii, p. 300, speaks of a population of 20,000 to 25,000 in 1713. Raynal says in 1753 and 1758 the population, excluding troops and Indians, was 91,000. —⁠Histoire philosophique, Amsterdam ed., 1773, tom. vi, p. 137 ↩

1075. Ed. 1 reads “the.” ↩

1076. Eds. 1 and 2 read “their.” ↩

1077. Jus Majoratus. —⁠Smith

      Ed. 1 reads “mayorazzo” in the text and “mayoratus” in the note. —⁠Cannan ↩

1078. Above, here through here, and cp. here. ↩

1079. This and the preceding sentence, beginning “The plenty,” are not in ed. 1. ↩

1080. Ed. 1 reads “The engrossing, however, of uncultivated land, it has already been observed, is the greatest obstruction to its improvement and cultivation, and the labour.” ↩

1081. Ed. 1 reads “Its produce in this case.” ↩

1082. All Eds. read “present” here and here, but “late” here. See above, this note, and below, here. ↩

1083. The figures are evidently from the “very exact account” quoted below, here. ↩

1084. Juan and Ulloa, Voyage historique, tom. i, pp. 437⁠–⁠441, give a lurid account of the magnificence of the ceremonial. ↩

1085. Maranon in 1755 and Fernambuco four years later. —⁠Raynal, Histoire philosophique, Amsterdam ed., 1773, tom. iii, p. 402 ↩

1086. Ed. 1 reads “This, however, has.” ↩

1087. Ed. 1 reads “said to be.” ↩

1088. Iron sometimes at 100 écus the quintal and steel at 150. —⁠Juan and Ulloa, Voyage historique, tom. i, p. 252 ↩

1089. Ed. 1 reads “the same as that of Spain.” ↩

1090. The commodities originally enumerated in 12 Car. II, c. 18, § 18, were sugar, tobacco cotton-wool, indigo, ginger, fustic and other dyeing woods. ↩

1091. Above, here through here, here through here. ↩

1092. See this note. ↩

1093. There seems to be some mistake here. The true date is apparently 1739, under the Act 12 Geo. II, c. 30. ↩

1094. Ships not going to places south of Cape Finisterre were compelled to call at some port in Great Britain. ↩

1095. Garnier, in his note to this passage, tom. iii, p. 323, points out that the islands ceded by the peace of Paris in 1763 were only Grenada and the Grenadines, but that term here includes the other islands won during the war, St. Vincent, Dominica and Tobago, which are mentioned below, here. ↩

1096. Rice was put in by 3 and 4 Ann, c. 5, and taken out by 3 Geo. II, c. 28; timber was taken out by 5 Geo. III, c. 45. ↩

1097. Anderson, Commerce, AD 1703. ↩

1098. Details are given below, here through here, in a chapter not contained in Eds. 1 and 2. ↩

1099. 23 Geo. II, c. 29. ↩

1100. 23 Geo. II, c. 29. Anderson, Commerce, AD 1750. ↩

1101. Hats under 5 Geo. II, c. 22; wools under 10 and 11 W. III, c. 10. See Anderson, Commerce, AD 1732 and 1699. ↩

1102. Details are given below, here through here, in a chapter which was not in Eds. 1 and 2. ↩

1103. Above, here through here. ↩

1104. The quotation is not quite verbatim. The provision is referred to above, here, where, however, see note. ↩

1105. Ed. 1 does not contain the words “they approach more nearly to that character; and.” ↩

1106. The Board of Trade and Plantations, in a report to the House of Commons in 1732, insisted on this democratic character of the government of some of the colonies, and mentioned the election of governor by Connecticut and Rhode Island: the report is quoted in Anderson, Commerce, AD 1732. ↩

1107. The story is told in the same way in Lectures, p. 97, but Seneca, De ira, lib. iii, cap. 40, and Dio Cassius, Hist., lib. liv., cap. 23, say, not that Augustus ordered all the slaves to be emancipated, but that he ordered all the goblets on the table to be broken. Seneca says the offending slave was emancipated. Dio does not mention emancipation. ↩

1108. Ed. 1 reads “and industry.” ↩

1109. The West India merchants and planters asserted, in 1775, that there was capital worth £60,000,000 in the sugar colonies and that half of this belonged to residents in Great Britain. See the Continuation of Anderson’s Commerce, AD 1775. ↩

1110. Eds. 1 and 2 do not contain the words “so far as concerns their internal government.” ↩

1111. Ed. 1 reads “persecuted.” ↩

1112. Ed. 1 reads “with equal injustice.” ↩

1113. Raynal, Histoire philosophique, Amsterdam ed., 1773, tom. iii, pp. 323, 324, 326, 327. Justamond’s English trans., vol. ii, p. 442. ↩

1114. Velasquez. ↩

1115. Cortez. ↩

1116. “Salve magna parens frugum, Saturnia tellus, Magna virum.” —⁠Virgil, Georg., ii, 173⁠–⁠174 ↩

1117. Eds. 1 and 2 do not contain the words “so far as concerns their internal government.” Cp. this note. ↩

1118. “Not” appears first in ed. 3 and seems to have been inserted in error. The other countries are only excluded from a particular market, but the colonies are confined to one. ↩

1119. There is an example of revenue being furnished in Xenophon, Anab., V, v, 7, 10. ↩

1120. Above, here. ↩

1121. Above, here. ↩

1122. Above, here. ↩

1123. Above, here through here. ↩

1124. Essay on the Causes of the Decline of the Foreign Trade, Consequently of the Value of the Lands of Britain and on the Means to Restore Both, 2nd ed., 1750, pp. 28⁠–⁠36, et passim. ↩

1125. Ed. 1 reads “rate of the profit.” ↩

1126. This passage is much the same as that which concludes book i, ch. ix, above, here; but this is the original, as the other was not in ed. 1. ↩

1127. Above, here. ↩

1128. Ed. 1 reads “with a neighbouring country.” ↩

1129. Above, here. ↩

1130. Ed. 1 reads “with a neighbouring country.” ↩

1131. These figures are given above, here; here. ↩

1132. These four sentences beginning with “At some of the outports” are not in ed. 1. ↩

1133. Ed. 1 reads “possesses.” ↩

1134. Ed. 1 places “a popular measure” here. ↩

1135. Ed. 1 does not contain “in all future times.” ↩

1136. The date at which the non-importation agreement began to operate. ↩

1137. “For the greater security of the valuable cargoes sent to America, as well as for the more easy prevention of fraud, the commerce of Spain with its colonies is carried on by fleets which sail under strong convoys. These fleets, consisting of two squadrons, one distinguished by the name of the Galeons, the other by that of the Flota, are equipped annually. Formerly they took their departure from Seville; but as the port of Cadiz has been found more commodious, they have sailed from it since the year 1720.” —⁠W. Robertson, History of America, bk. viii.; in Works, 1825, vol. vii, p. 372 ↩

1138. By the treaty of Kainardji, 1774. ↩

1139. In 1773. ↩

1140. Ed. 1 reads “prevent it.” ↩

1141. Eds. 1 and 2 read “and employment.” ↩

1142. Ed. 1 reads “have entirely conquered.” ↩

1143. Ed. 1 reads “own capital.” ↩

1144. Ed. 1 reads “extremely fit for a nation that is governed by shopkeepers. Such sovereigns and such sovereigns only.” ↩

1145. Ed. 1 reads “their subjects, to found and to maintain.” ↩

1146. Ed. 1 reads “is” here and two lines lower down. ↩

1147. Ed. 1 reads “and a great part of that which preceded it.” ↩

1148. Below, here. ↩

1149. Ed. 1 reads “seem.” ↩

1150. “Aucun des règnes précédents n’a fourni plus de volumes, plus d’anecdotes, plus d’estampes, plus de pièces fugitives, etc. Il y a dans tout cela bien des choses inutiles; mais comme Henri III vivait au milieu de son peuple, aucun détail des actions de sa vie n’a echappé à la curiosité; et comme Paris était le théâtre des principaux événements de la ligue, les bourgeois qui y avaient la plus grande part, conservaient soigneusement les moindres faits qui se passaient sous leurs yeux; tout ce qu’ils voyaient leur paraissait grand, parce qu’ils y participaient, et nous sommes curieux, sur parole, de faits dont la plupart ne faisaient peut-être pas alors une grande nouvelle dans le monde.” —⁠C. J. F. Hénault, Nouvel Abrégé chronologique de l’histoire de France, nouv. éd., 1768, p. 473, AD 1589 ↩

1151. Eds. 4 and 5 erroneously insert “to” here. ↩

1152. Eds. 1⁠–⁠3 read “was.” ↩

1153. Eds. 1⁠–⁠3 read “was.” ↩

1154. Ed. 1 reads “nations.” ↩

1155. Raynal begins his Histoire philosophique with the words “Il n’y a point eu d’événement aussi intéressant pour l’espèce humaine en général et pour les peuples de l’Europe en particulier, que la découverte du nouveau monde et le passage aux Indes par le Cap de Bonne-Espérance. Alors a commencé une révolution dans le commerce, dans la puissance des nations, dans les mœurs, l’industrie et le gouvernement de tous les peuples.” ↩

1156. Above, this section. ↩

1157. Ed. 1 reads “distant employment.” ↩

1158. See below, here. ↩

1159. The monopoly of the French East India Company was abolished in 1769. See the Continuation of Anderson’s Commerce, 1801, vol. iv, p. 128. ↩

1160. Raynal, Histoire philosophique, ed. Amsterdam, 1773, tom. i, p. 203, gives the original capital as 6,459,840 florins. ↩

1161. Eds. 1⁠–⁠3 read “if it was.” ↩

1162. Ed. 1 reads “the principal branch.” ↩

1163. Raynal, Histoire philosophique, 1773, tom. i, p. 178. ↩

1164. Above, here through here. ↩

1165. Ed. 1 reads “those.” ↩

1166. Ed. 1 does not contain “are said to.” The statement has already been twice made, here and here. ↩

1167. Ed. 1 reads “barbarous.” ↩

1168. Ed. 1 reads “the.” ↩

1169. Ed. 1 does not contain these four sentences beginning “It is the interest.” ↩

1170. Smith had in his library (see Bonar’s Catalogue, p. 15) William Bolts, Considerations on India Affairs, Particularly Respecting the Present State of Bengal and Its Dependencies, ed. 1772. Pt. i, ch. xiv, of this is “On the general modern trade of the English in Bengal; on the oppressions and monopolies which have been the causes of the decline of trade, the decrease of the revenues, and the present ruinous condition of affairs in Bengal.” At p. 215 we find “the servants of the Company⁠ ⁠… directly or indirectly monopolise whatever branches they please of the internal trade of those countries.” ↩

1171. The interest of every proprietor of India Stock, however, is by no means the same with that of the country in the government of which his vote gives him some influence. See Book V. Chap. i. Part 3d. —⁠Smith

      This note appears first in ed. 3, ed. 2 has the following note: “This would be exactly true if those masters never had any other interest but that which belongs to them as Proprietors of India stock. But they frequently have another of much greater importance. Frequently a man of great, sometimes even a man of moderate fortune, is willing to give thirteen or fourteen hundred pounds (the present price of a thousand pounds share in India stock) merely for the influence which he expects to acquire by a vote in the Court of Proprietors. It gives him a share, though not in the plunder, yet in the appointment of the plunderers of India; the Directors, though they make those appointments, being necessarily more or less under the influence of the Court of Proprietors, which not only elects them, but sometimes overrules their appointments. A man of great or even a man of moderate fortune, provided he can enjoy this influence for a few years, and thereby get a certain number of his friends appointed to employments in India, frequently cares little about the dividend which he can expect from so small a capital, or even about the improvement or loss of the capital itself upon which his vote is founded. About the prosperity or ruin of the great empire, in the government of which that vote gives him a share, he seldom cares at all. No other sovereigns ever were, or from the nature of things ever could be, so perfectly indifferent about the happiness or misery of their subjects, the improvement or waste of their dominions, the glory or disgrace of their administration, as, from irresistible moral causes, the greater part of the Proprietors of such a mercantile Company are, and necessarily must be.” This matter with some slight alterations reappears in the portion of bk. v, chap. i, part iii, art. 1st, which was added in ed. 3 below, p. 243. —⁠Cannan ↩

1172. Ed. 1 reads “ignorance only.” ↩

1173. Ed. 1 reads “have commonly been well meaning.” ↩

1174. Ed. 1 reads “if.” ↩

1175. Eds. 1 and 2 read “were.” ↩

1176. This chapter appears first in Additions and Corrections and ed. 3. ↩

1177. C. 4. ↩

1178. C. 14. ↩

1179. 3 Car. I, c. 4; 13 and 14 Car. II, c. 19. ↩

1180. From Ireland, 12 Geo. II, c. 21; 26 Geo. II, c. 8. Spanish wool for clothing and Spanish felt wool. —⁠Saxby, British Customs, p. 263 ↩

1181. 6 Geo. III, c. 52, § 20. ↩

1182. 4 Geo. II, c. 27. ↩

1183. 8 Geo. I, c. 15, § 10; see below, here. ↩

1184. 9 Geo. III, c. 39, § 1, continued by 14 Geo. III, c. 86, § 11, and 21 Geo. III, c. 29, § 3. ↩

1185. 15 Geo. III, c. 31, § 10. ↩

1186. Above, here. ↩

1187. Smith has here inadvertently given the rates at which the articles were valued in the “Book of Rates,” 12 Car. II, c. 4, instead of the duties, which would be 20 percent on the rates. See below, here. ↩

1188. Above, here. ↩

1189. 10 Geo. III, c. 38, and 19 Geo. III, c. 27. ↩

1190. 3 and 4 Ann, c. 10. —⁠Anderson, Commerce, AD 1703 ↩

1191. Masting-timber (and also tar, pitch and rosin), under 12 Ann, st. 1, c. 9, and masting-timber only under 2 Geo. II, c. 35, § 12. The encouragement of the growth of hemp in Scotland is mentioned in the preamble of 8 Geo. I, c. 12, and is presumably to be read into the enacting portion. ↩

1192. 8 Geo. I, c. 12; 2 Geo. II, c. 35, §§ 3, 11. ↩

1193. 3 Geo. III, c. 25. ↩

1194. Additions and Corrections omits “that.” ↩

1195. The third bounty. ↩

1196. William Hawkins, Treatise of the Pleas of the Crown, 4th ed., 1762, bk. i, chap. 52. ↩

1197. So far from doing so, it expressly provides that any greater penalties already prescribed shall remain in force. ↩

1198. 12 Car. II, c. 32. ↩

1199. 4 Geo. I, c. 11, § 6. ↩

1200. Presumably the reference is to 10 and 11 W. III, c. 10, § 18, but this applies to the commander of a king’s ship conniving at the offence, not to the master of the offending vessel. ↩

1201. 12 Geo. II, c. 21, § 10. ↩

1202. 13 and 14 Car. II, c. 18, § 9, forbade removal of wool in any part of the country between 8 p.m. and 4 a.m. from March to September, and 5 p.m. and 7 a.m. from October to February. 7 and 8 W. III, c. 28, § 8, taking no notice of this, enacted the provision quoted in the text. The provision of 13 and 14 Car. II, c. 18, was repealed by 20 Geo. III, c. 55, which takes no notice of 7 and 8 W. III, c. 28. ↩

1203. All these provisions are from 7 and 8 W. III, c. 28. ↩

1204. 9 and 10 W. III, c. 40. ↩

1205. The quotation is not verbatim. ↩

1206. “It is well known that the real very superfine cloth everywhere must be entirely of Spanish wool.” —⁠Anderson, Commerce, AD 1669 ↩

1207. Above, here. ↩

1208. Chronicon Rusticum-Commerciale; or Memoirs of Wool, etc., 1767, vol. ii, p. 418, note. ↩

1209. Above, here. ↩

1210. Additions and Corrections reads “the wool.” ↩

1211. 12 Car. II, c. 32; 13 and 14 Car. II, c. 18. ↩

1212. 13 and 14 Car. II, c. 18, § 8. The preamble to the clause alleges that “great quantities of fuller’s earth or fulling clay are daily carried and exported under the colour of tobacco-pipe clay.” ↩

1213. The preamble says that “notwithstanding the many good laws before this time made and still in force, prohibiting the exportation of leather⁠ ⁠… by the cunning and subtlety of some persons and the neglect of others who ought to take care thereof; there are such quantities of leather daily exported to foreign parts that the price of leather is grown to those excessive rates that many artificers working leather cannot furnish themselves with sufficient store thereof for the carrying on of their trades, and the poor sort of people are not able to buy those things made of leather which of necessity they must make use of.” ↩

1214. 20 Car. II, c. 5; 9 Ann., c. 6, § 4. ↩

1215. 9 Ann., c. 11, § 39, explained by 10 Ann., c. 26, § 6, and 12 Ann., st. 2, c. 9, § 64. ↩

1216. Above, here. ↩

1217. Except under certain conditions by 4 Ed. IV, c. 8; wholly by 7 Jac. I, c. 14, § 4. ↩

1218. Under 13 and 14 Car. II, c. 18, and 7 and 8 W. III, c. 28; above, p. 147. ↩

1219. See below, here. ↩

1220. 9 and 10 W. III, c. 28, professedly to prevent frauds. ↩

1221. The preamble to the Act next quoted in the text mentions 28 Ed. III, c. 5 (iron); 33 Hen. VIII, c. 7 (brass, copper, etc.), and 2 and 3 Ed. VI, c. 37 (bell-metal, etc.). ↩

1222. This Act is not printed in the ordinary collections, but the provision referred to is in Pickering’s index, s.v. Copper, and the clause is recited in a renewing Act, 12 Ann., st. 1, c. 18. ↩

1223. Under the general Act, 8 Geo. I, c. 15, mentioned immediately below. ↩

1224. 12 Car. II, c. 4, § 2, and 14 Car. II, c. 11, § 35. The 1 percent was due on goods exported to ports in the Mediterranean beyond Malaga, unless the ship had sixteen guns and other warlike equipment. See Saxby, British Customs, pp. 48, 51. ↩

1225. Sixpence in the pound on the values at which they are rated in the Act. ↩

1226. C. 32. ↩

1227. Anderson, Commerce, AD 1758. ↩

1228. As is stated in the preamble. ↩

1229. The facts are given in the preamble to 8 Geo. I, c. 15, § 13. The old subsidy, the new, the one-third and the two-thirds subsidies account for 1s., and the additional impost for 4d. ↩

1230. See above, here. ↩

1231. 8 Geo. I, c. 15. —⁠Smith

      The year should be 1721. —⁠Cannan ↩

1232. I.e. the hatters. ↩

1233. 4 Geo. III, c. 9. ↩

1234. Under the same statute, 5 Geo. I, c. 27. ↩

1235. Above, here. ↩

1236. This chapter appears first in Additions and Corrections and ed. 3, and is doubtless largely due to Smith’s appointment in 1778 to the Commissionership of Customs (Rae, Life of Adam Smith, p. 320). He had in his library W. Sims and R. Frewin, The Rates of Merchandise, 1782 (see Bonar, Catalogue, p. 27), and probably had access to earlier works, such as Saxby’s British Customs, 1757, which give the duties, etc., at earlier periods as well as references to the Acts of Parliament regulating them. ↩

1237. The Économistes or Physiocrats. Quesnay, Mirabeau and Mercier de la Rivière are mentioned below, pp. 171, 177. ↩

1238. Ed. 1 places a full stop at “mercantile system” and continues “That system, in its nature and essence a system of restraint and regulation, could scarce fail.” ↩

1239. But, see below, here, where the usefulness of the class is said to be admitted. In his exposition of physiocratic doctrine, Smith does not appear to follow any particular book closely. His library contained Du Pont’s Physiocratie, ou constitution naturelle du gouvernement le plus avantageux au genre humain, 1768 (see Bonar, Catalogue, p. 92), and he refers lower down to La Rivière, L’ordre naturel et essentiel des sociétés politiques, 1767, but he probably relied largely on his recollection of conversations in Paris; see Rae, Life of Adam Smith, pp. 215⁠–⁠222. ↩

1240. Ed. 1 reads “tear and wear.” ↩

1241. Ed. 1 reads “some other employment.” ↩

1242. Ed. 1 reads “degrades.” ↩

1243. Ed. 1 reads “repay him.” ↩

1244. Ed. 1 reads “above the funds destined.” ↩

1245. Ed. 1 reads “the greater must likewise be its maintenance and employment.” ↩

1246. Misprinted “greater” in ed. 5. ↩

1247. Ed. 1 reads “of their foreign trade.” ↩

1248. See François Quesnay, Tableau Œconomique, 1758, reproduced in facsimile for the British Economic Association, 1894. ↩

1249. Ed. 1 reads “at least to all appearance.” ↩

1250. This chapter. ↩

1251. See here. ↩

1252. Above, here. ↩

1253. Above, here and here. ↩

1254. L’ordre naturel et essentiel des sociétés politiques, 1767, a quarto of 511 pages, seems, as G. Schelle (Du Pont de Nemours et l’école physiocratique, 1888, p. 46, note) remarks, not entitled to be called a “little book,” but Smith may have been thinking of the edition in two vols., 12mo, 1767, nominally printed “à Londres chez Jean Nourse, libraire.” ↩

1255. “Trois grandes inventions principales ont fondé stablement les sociétés, indépendamment de tant d’autres qui les ont ensuite dotées et décorées. Ces trois sont, 1° L’invention de l’écriture, qui seule donne à l’humanité le pouvoir de transmettre, sans altération, ses lois, ses pactes, ses annales et ses découvertes. 2° Celle de la monnaie, qui lie tous les rapports entre les sociétés policées. La troisième enfin, qui est due à notre âge, et dont nos neveux profiteront, est un derivé des deux autres, et les complette également en perfectionnant leur objet: c’est la découverte du Tableau économique, qui devenant désormais le truchement universel, embrasse, et accorde toutes les portions ou quotités correlatives, qui doivent entrer dans tous les calculs généraux de l’ordre économique.” —⁠Philosophie Rurale ou économie générale et politique de l’agriculture, pour servir de suite a l’Ami des Hommes, Amsterdam, 1766, tom. i, pp. 52, 53 ↩

1256. Du Halde, Description Géographique, etc., de la Chine, tom. ii, p. 64. ↩

1257. Ed. 1 reads “Mr. Langlet.” ↩

1258. See the Journal of Mr. De Lange in Bell’s Travels, vol. ii. p. 258, 276 and 293. —⁠Smith

      Travels from St. Petersburg in Russia to Divers Parts of Asia, by John Bell of Antermony, Glasgow, 1763. The mandarins requested the Russians to cease “from importuning the council about their beggarly commerce,” p. 293. Smith was a subscriber to this book. The note is not in ed. 1. —⁠Cannan ↩

1259. Ed. 1 reads “sorts.” ↩

1260. Above, here through here. ↩

1261. Quesnay went further than this: “L’historien dit que le commerce qui se fit dans l’intérieur de la Chine est si grand que celui de l’Europe ne peut pas lui être comparé.” —⁠Oeuvres, ed. Oncken, 1888, p. 603 ↩

1262. Ed. 1 reads “as well as all the other.” ↩

1263. Ed. 1 reads “and in.” ↩

1264. Ed. 1 does not contain “of.” ↩

1265. Below, here. ↩

1266. Ed. 1 reads “from.” ↩

1267. Montesquieu, Esprit des lois, liv. iv, chap. 8. ↩

1268. Ed. 1 reads “that.” ↩

1269. Ed. 1 reads “more rich.” ↩

1270. Lectures, p. 231; Montesquieu, Esprit des lois, liv. xv, chap. 8. ↩

1271. Plin. —⁠Smith

      Historia Naturalis l. ix c. 39. —⁠Cannan ↩

1272. Plin. —⁠Smith

      Historia Naturalis l. viii c. 48. —⁠Smith

      Neither this nor the preceding note is in ed. 1. —⁠Cannan ↩

1273. John Arbuthnot, Tables of Ancient Coins, Weights and Measures, 2nd ed., 1754, pp. 142⁠–⁠145. ↩

1274. Above, here. ↩

1275. Ed. 1 reads “real value.” ↩

1276. Lectures, p. 14. ↩

1277. Ed. 1 reads “is.” ↩

1278. What Thucydides says (ii, 97) is that no European or Asiatic nation could resist the Scythians if they were united. Ed. 1 reads here and on next page “Thucidides.” ↩

1279. Lectures, pp. 20, 21. ↩

1280. Ed. 1 reads “a good deal of.” ↩

1281. Ed. 1 reads “or fifth.” ↩

1282. Ed. 1 reads “so short a.” ↩

1283. VII, 27. ↩

1284. Livy, v, 2. ↩

1285. Livy, iv, 59 ad fin. ↩

1286. Above, here. ↩

1287. Ed. 1 reads “never can.” ↩

1288. Ed. 1 reads “at whose expense they are employed.” Repeated all but verbatim below, here. ↩

1289. Ed. 1 reads “is acquired.” ↩

1290. As ed. 1 was published at the beginning of March, 1776, this must have been written less than a year after the outbreak of the war, which lasted eight years. ↩

1291. The Seven Years’ War, 1756⁠–⁠1763. Ed. 1 reads “of which in the last war the valour appeared.” ↩

1292. “This” is probably a misprint for “his,” the reading of Eds. 1⁠–⁠3. ↩

1293. Ed. 1 reads “which.” ↩

1294. Almost certainly a misprint for “demonstrate,” the reading of ed. 1. ↩

1295. Lectures, p. 29. “Cromwel,” which is Hume’s spelling, appears first in ed. 4 here, but above, here, it is so spelt in all editions. [S.E. Editor’s note: The spelling has been normalized to “Cromwell” across this entire edition.] ↩

1296. Lectures, p. 263. ↩

1297. Hume, History, ed. of 1773, vol. ii, p. 432, says the “furious engine,” artillery, “though it seemed contrived for the destruction of mankind and the overthrow of empires, has in the issue rendered battles less bloody, and has given greater stability to civil societies,” but his reasons are somewhat different from those in the text above. This part of the chapter is evidently adapted from Part iv “Of Arms” in the Lectures, pp. 260⁠–⁠264, and the dissertation on the rise, progress and fall of militarism in Part i, pp. 26⁠–⁠34. ↩

1298. Ed. 1 reads “or.” ↩

1299. Misprinted “their” in Eds. 4 and 5. ↩

1300. Lectures, p. 10. ↩

1301. Lectures, p. 15: “Till there be property there can be no government, the very end of which is to secure wealth and to defend the rich from the poor.” Cp. Locke, Civil Government, § 94, “government has no other end but the preservation of property.” ↩

1302. They are to be found in Tyrrel’s History of England. —⁠Smith

      General History of England, Both Ecclesiastical and Civil, by James Tyrrell, vol. ii, 1700, pp. 576⁠–⁠579. The king is Richard I, not Henry II. —⁠Cannan ↩

1303. Ed. 1 reads “except when they stand in need of the interposition of his authority in order to protect them from the oppression of some of their fellow subjects.” ↩

1304. Iliad, ix, 149⁠–⁠156, but the presents are not the “sole advantage” mentioned. ↩

1305. The extraordinary accent here and seven lines lower down appears first in ed. 2. ↩

1306. Smith was in Toulouse from February or March, 1764, to August, 1765. —⁠Rae, Life of Adam Smith, pp. 174, 175, 188 ↩

1307. Lectures, p. 49. Above, here. ↩

1308. These two lines are not in Eds. 1 and 2. See this note. ↩

1309. Eds. 1⁠–⁠4 read “is”; cp. this note. ↩

1310. Ed. 1 reads “tear and wear.” ↩

1311. Ed. 1 reads “seems to be capable.” ↩

1312. Since publishing the two first editions of this book, I have got good reasons to believe that all the turnpike tolls levied in Great Britain do not produce a neat revenue that amounts to half a million; a sum which, under the management of Government, would not be sufficient to keep in repair five of the principal roads in the kingdom. —⁠Smith

      This and the next note appear first in ed. 3. —⁠Cannan ↩

1313. I have now good reasons to believe that all these conjectural sums are by much too large. ↩

1314. Ed. 1 reads here and two lines lower down “tear and wear.” ↩

1315. Ed. 1 reads “partly in the six days’ labour.” ↩

1316. Here and in the next sentence for “the labour of the country people,” ed. 1 reads “the six days’ labour.” ↩

1317. Voyages de François Bernier, Amsterdam, 1710, can scarcely be said to discredit the ordinary eulogy of Indian roads and canals by an account of any particular works, but it does so by not mentioning them in places where it would be natural to do so if they had existed or been remarkable. See tom. ii, p. 249, “les grandes rivières qui en ces quartiers n’ont ordinairement point de ponts.” ↩

1318. Ed. 1 reads “or.” ↩

1319. Ed. 1 reads “tyranny by which the intendant chastises any parish or communauté which has had the misfortune to fall under his displeasure.” ↩

1320. This section (ending on here) appears first in Additions and Corrections and ed. 3. ↩

1321. Anderson, Commerce, AD 1606. ↩

1322. Commerce, AD 1620, and cp. AD 1623. ↩

1323. Sir Josiah Child, New Discourse of Trade, etc., chap. iii, divides companies into those in joint stock and those “who trade not by a joint stock, but only are under a government and regulation.” ↩

1324. The company or society of the Merchant Adventurers of England. ↩

1325. Additions and Corrections reads “Russian,” probably a misprint, though “Russian,” which is incorrect, appears on the next page. ↩

1326. Eds. 1⁠–⁠3 read “restraints.” ↩

1327. Anderson, Commerce, AD 1643: the fine was doubled in that year, being raised to £100 for Londoners and £50 for others. ↩

1328. Anderson, Commerce, AD 1661, under which the other two years are also mentioned. ↩

1329. Additions and Corrections and Eds. 3 and 4 read “has.” Smith very probably wrote “there has been no complaint.” ↩

1330. The preamble recites the history of the company. ↩

1331. Anderson, Commerce, AD 1672. ↩

1332. New Discourse of Trade, chap. iii, quoted by Anderson, Commerce, AD 1672. This part of the book was not published till long after 1672, but seems to have been written before the closing of the Exchequer in that year. ↩

1333. Anderson, Commerce, AD 1605, 1643, 1753. ↩

1334. Additions and Corrections reads “extensive.” ↩

1335. See the preamble to 26 Geo. II, c. 18. —⁠Anderson, Commerce, AD 1753 ↩

1336. New Discourse of Trade, chap. iii. ↩

1337. Below, here. ↩

1338. Additions and Corrections reads “all the other.” ↩

1339. A joint-stock company here is an incorporated or chartered company. The common application of the term to other companies is later. ↩

1340. Anderson, Commerce, AD 1723. ↩

1341. It stood at this amount from 1746 to the end of 1781, but was then increased by a call of 8 percent. —⁠Anderson, Commerce, AD 1746, and (Continuation) AD 1781 ↩

1342. Anderson, Commerce, AD 1672 and AD 1698. ↩

1343. Anderson, Commerce, AD 1670. ↩

1344. Anderson, Commerce, AD 1698. ↩

1345. 10 Ann., c. 27. Anderson, Commerce, AD 1712. ↩

1346. Anderson, Commerce, AD 1730. The annual grant continued till 1746. ↩

1347. Anderson, Commerce, AD 1733. ↩

1348. 23 Geo. II, c. 31; 25 Geo. II, c. 40; Anderson, Commerce, AD 1750, 1752; above, here. ↩

1349. Anderson, Commerce, AD 1618, 1631 and 1662. ↩

1350. Anderson, Commerce, AD 1743, quoting Captain Christopher Middleton. ↩

1351. Anderson, Commerce, AD 1670. ↩

1352. “Eight or nine private merchants do engross nine-tenth parts of the company’s stock.” Anderson, Commerce, AD 1743, quoting from An Account of the Countries Adjoining to Hudson’s Bay⁠ ⁠… with an Abstract of Captain Middleton’s Journal and Observations Upon His Behaviour, by Arthur Dobbs, Esq., 1744, p. 58. ↩

1353. In his Account, pp. 3 and 58, he talks of 2,000 percent, but this, of course, only refers to the difference between buying and selling prices. ↩

1354. Anderson, Commerce, AD 1743, but the examination is not nearly so comprehensive, nor the expression of opinion so ample as is suggested by the text. ↩

1355. Anderson, Commerce, AD 1713. ↩

1356. Anderson, Commerce, AD 1731, 1732 and 1734. ↩

1357. Anderson, Commerce, AD 1724 and 1732. But there was no successful voyage; the company were “considerable losers in every one” of the eight years. ↩

1358. By 9 Geo. I, c. 6. Anderson, Commerce, AD 1723. ↩

1359. This was done by 6 Geo. II, c. 28. Anderson, Commerce, AD 1733. ↩

1360. Anderson, Commerce, AD 1732 and AD 1733. ↩

1361. Anderson, Commerce, AD 1748 and AD 1750. ↩

1362. “Until this time the English East India trade was carried on by several separate stocks, making particular running-voyages; but in this year they united all into one general joint-capital stock.” Anderson, Commerce, AD 1612. ↩

1363. Anderson, Commerce, AD 1693. ↩

1364. Anderson, Commerce, AD 1676. ↩

1365. Anderson, Commerce, AD 1681 and AD 1685. ↩

1366. The whole of this history is in Anderson, Commerce, AD 1698. ↩

1367. Anderson, Commerce, AD 1701. ↩

1368. Anderson, Commerce, AD 1730. ↩

1369. “This coalition was made on the 22nd of July, 1702, by an indenture tripartite between the Queen and the said two companies.” —⁠Anderson, Commerce, AD 1702 ↩

1370. 6 Ann., c. 17. Anderson, Commerce, AD 1708. ↩

1371. 7 Geo. III, c. 49, and 8 Geo. III, c. 11. ↩

1372. In 1772⁠–⁠3. Additions and Corrections and ed. 3 read “subjects.” ↩

1373. 13 Geo. III, c. 63. ↩

1374. House of Commons Journals, April 27, 1773. ↩

1375. The spelling in other parts of the work is “neat.” The Additions and Corrections read “nett” both here and five lines above. The discrepancy was obviously noticed in one case and not in the other. ↩

1376. Examen de la réponse de M. N —⁠Smith

      Necker —⁠Cannan Au Mémoire de M. l’Abbé Morellet, sur la Compagnie des Indes, par l’auteur du Mémoire, 1769, pp. 35⁠–⁠38. ↩

1377. 6 Ann., c. 22. ↩

1378. At least as against private persons, Anderson, Commerce, AD 1720. ↩

1379. Eds. 4 and 5 insert “it” here, by a misprint. ↩

1380. Additions and Corrections and ed. 3 read “was.” ↩

1381. Above, here through here. ↩

1382. Anderson, Commerce, AD 1690, 1704, 1710, 1711. ↩

1383. This section, beginning here, appears first in Additions and Corrections and ed. 3. ↩

1384. Ed. 1 reads “the youth” as in the first line of the text. ↩

1385. Eds. 1⁠–⁠4 read “is.” ↩

1386. Ed. 1 reads “the year.” ↩

1387. Rae, Life of Adam Smith, p. 48, thinks Smith’s salary at Glasgow may have been about £70 with a house, and his fees near £100. ↩

1388. Eds. 1 and 2 read “in physic.” ↩

1389. Ed. 1 does not contain “the.” ↩

1390. Ed. 1 reads “and they still continue to be so in some universities.” ↩

1391. “Necessarily” and “naturally” are transposed in ed. 1. ↩

1392. Ed. 1 reads “those.” ↩

1393. Ed. 1 reads “Those two chapters were.” ↩

1394. Ed. 1 reads, “What was called Metaphysics or Pneumatics was set in opposition to Physics, and was cultivated.” ↩

1395. Ed. 1 reads “of.” ↩

1396. Above, here. ↩

1397. Repeated all but verbatim from above, here. ↩

1398. Hist., vi, 56; xviii, 34. ↩

1399. Ant. Rom., ii, xxiv to xxvii, esp. xxvi. ↩

1400. Repub., iii, 400⁠–⁠401. ↩

1401. Politics, 1340 a. ↩

1402. Hist., iv, 20. ↩

1403. Esprit des lois, liv. iv, chap. viii, where Plato, Aristotle and Polybius are quoted. ↩

1404. Iliad, xiii, 137; xviii, 494, 594; Odyssey, i, 152; viii, 265; xviii, 304; xxiii, 134. ↩

1405. Ed. 1 places “those parents” here. ↩

1406. Plutarch, Life of Solon, quoted by Montesquieu, Esprit des Lois, liv., xxvi, ch. v. ↩

1407. The words “one of” do not occur in Eds. 1 and 2. They are perhaps a misprint for “some of” or a misreading suggested by a failure to understand that “his own life” is that of Marcus Antoninus. See Lucian, Eunuchus, iii. ↩

1408. Above, here. ↩

1409. Ed. 1 reads “the minds of men are not.” ↩

1410. Ed. 1 reads “from.” ↩

1411. Ed. 1 reads “the.” ↩

1412. Ed. 1 reads “as it is capable of being.” ↩

1413. Ed. 1 reads “the use of those members.” ↩

1414. Eds. 1⁠–⁠3 read “is.” ↩

1415. In Discourses on the First Decade of Titus Livius, book iii, chap. i. ↩

1416. The original reads “finances, armies, fleets.” ↩

1417. Hume, History, chap. xxix, vol. iv, pp. 30, 31, in ed. of 1773, which differs verbally both from earlier and from later editions. ↩

1418. Ed. 1 reads “of each sect.” ↩

1419. Ed. 1 reads “the most numerous sect.” ↩

1420. Ed. 1 reads “of each sect.” ↩

1421. Ed. 1 reads “Roman Catholic church.” ↩

1422. Ed. 1 does not contain “and.” ↩

1423. These nine words are not in ed. 1. ↩

1424. Ed. 1 reads “great and consistorial.” ↩

1425. Daniel, Histoire de France, 1755, tom. vii, pp. 158, 159; tom. ix, p. 40. ↩

1426. “Il ne lui resta que deux domestiques pour le servir et lui préparer à manger, encore faisaient-ils passer par le feu les plats où il mangeait, et les vases où il buvait pour les purifier, comme ayant été fouillés par un homme retranché de la communion des fidèles.” —⁠Daniel, Histoire de France, 1755 tom. iii, pp. 305⁠–⁠306. Hénault’s account is similar, Nouvel Abrégé chronologique, 1768, tom. i, p. 114, AD 996. ↩

1427. Ed. 1 reads “by the general prevalence of those doctrines.” ↩

1428. Eds. 1 and 2 read “take party.” ↩

1429. The “Act concerning Patronages,” 53rd of the second session of the first parliament of William and Mary, is doubtless meant, but this is a separate Act from the “Act ratifying the Confession of Faith and settling Presbyterian Church Government,” Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, 1822, vol. ix, pp. 133, 196. ↩

1430. The preamble of the Act mentions “the great hardship upon the patrons” as well as the “great heats and divisions.” ↩

1431. Ed. 1 reads “small benefice.” ↩

1432. Voltaire’s expression is not quite so strong as it is represented. He says in the catalogue of writers in the Siècle de Louis XIV, “Porée (Charles), né en Normandie en 1675, Jésuite, du petit nombre des professeurs qui ont eu de la célébrité chez les gens du monde. Eloquent dans le goût de Sénèque, poéte et très bel esprit. Son plus grand mérite fut de faire aimer les lettres et la vertu à ses disciples. Mort en 1741.” ↩

1433. Quaere as to Suetonius. Ed. 1 continues here “Several of those whom we do not know with certainty to have been public teachers appear to have been private tutors. Polybius, we know, was private tutor to Scipio Æmilianus; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, there are some probable reasons for believing, was so to the children of Marcus and Quintus Cicero.” ↩

1434. The Lectures leave little doubt that this is a fragment of autobiography. ↩

1435. Ed. 5 reads “expenses,” but this seems to be a misprint or misreading suggested by the fact that several expenses have been mentioned. ↩

1436. See Memoires concernant les Droits & Impositions en Europe: tom. i page 73. This work was compiled by the order of the court for the use of a commission employed for some years past in considering the proper means for reforming the finances of France. The account of the French taxes, which takes up three volumes in quarto, may be regarded as perfectly authentic. That of those of other European nations was compiled from such informations as the French ministers at the different courts could procure. It is much shorter, and probably not quite so exact as that of the French taxes. —⁠Smith

      The book is by Moreau de Beaumont, Paris, 1768⁠–⁠9, 4 vols., 4to. The correct title of vol. i is Mémoires concernant les Impositions et Droits en Europe; vols. ii.-iv are Mémoires concernant les Impositions et Droits, 2nde. Ptie., Impositions et Droits en France. Smith obtained his copy through Turgot, and attached great value to it, believing it to be very rare. See Bonar, Catalogue, p. 10. —⁠Cannan ↩

1437. History of Florence, book viii, ad fin. ↩

1438. Details are given above, here, but that is in a passage which appears first in ed. 3. ↩

1439. Above, here. ↩

1440. See Memoires concernant les Droits & Impositions en Europe; tom. i. p. 73. ↩

1441. The figures are those of the Land Tax Acts. ↩

1442. See on these estimates Sir Robert Giffen, Growth of Capital, 1889, pp. 89, 90. ↩

1443. See Sketches of the History of Man 1774, by Henry Home, Lord Kames, vol. i page 474 & seq. —⁠Smith

      This author at the place quoted gives six “general rules” as to taxation:⁠—

      1. “That wherever there is an opportunity of smuggling taxes ought to be moderate.”

      2. “That taxes expensive in the levying ought to be avoided.”

      3. “To avoid arbitrary taxes.”

      4. “To remedy” inequality of riches “as much as possible, by relieving the poor and burdening the rich.”

      5. “That every tax which tends to impoverish the nation ought to be rejected with indignation.”

      6. “To avoid taxes that require the oath of party.”

      —⁠Cannan ↩

1444. In ed. 1 “as they could contrive” comes here instead of three lines earlier. ↩

1445. Ed. 1 reads “is imposed according to.” For the origin of the stereotyped assessment of the land tax, see Cannan, History of Local Rates in England, 1896, pp. 114⁠–⁠119. ↩

1446. Ed. 2 reads “They contribute.” ↩

1447. Ed. 1, beginning after “the same revenue,” six lines higher up, reads “As the tax does not rise with the rise of the rent, the sovereign does not share in the profits of the landlord’s improvements. The tax therefore does not discourage those improvements.” ↩

1448. Memoires Concernant les Droits tom. i p. 240, 241. ↩

1449. Memoires Concernant les Droits, etc. tom. i. p. 114, 115, 116, etc. ↩

1450. Memoires Concernant les Droits, pp. 117⁠–⁠119. ↩

1451. Memoires Concernant les Droits, etc. tom. i p. 83, 84 and 79. ↩

1452. Memoires Concernant les Droits, p. 280, etc. also p. 287, etc. to 316. ↩

1453. As stated just above. ↩

1454. Mémoires, tom. i, p. 282. ↩

1455. Misprinted “tallie” here and five lines lower down in Eds. 2⁠–⁠5. ↩

1456. Memoires concernant les Droits etc. tom. ii p. 139, etc. pp. 145⁠–⁠147. ↩

1457. 31 Geo. II, c. 12, continued by 5 Geo. III, c. 18. ↩

1458. Genesis 47:26. ↩

1459. Above, here. ↩

1460. Eds. 1⁠–⁠4 read “a fifth.” ↩

1461. Above, here. ↩

1462. Since the first publication of this book, a tax nearly upon the above-mentioned principles has been imposed. —⁠Smith

      This note appears first in ed. 3. The tax was first imposed by 18 Geo. III, c. 26, and was at the rate of 6d. in the pound on houses of £5 and under £50 annual value, and 1s. in the pound on houses of higher value, but by 19 Geo. III, c. 59, the rates were altered to 6d. in the pound on houses of £5 and under £20 annual value, 9d. on those of £20 and under £40, and 1s. on those of £40 and upwards. —⁠Cannan ↩

1463. Ed. 1 reads “the houses.” ↩

1464. Ed. 1 does not contain this sentence. ↩

1465. Memoires concernant les Droits, etc. tom. i p. 223. ↩

1466. Chapter IX. ↩

1467. Above, here through here. ↩

1468. Memoires concernant les Droits, tom. i. p. 74. ↩

1469. The Mémoires only say “La taille consiste dans le quart pour cent que tout habitant, sans exception, est obligé de payer de tout ce qu’il possède en meubles et immeubles. Il ne se fait aucune répartition de cette taille. Chaque bourgeois se cottise lui-même et porté son imposition à la maison de ville, et on n’exige autre chose de lui, sinon le serment qu’il est obligé de faire que ce qu’il paye forme véritablement ce qu’il doit acquitter.” But Lord Kames, Sketches of the History of Man, vol. i, p. 476, says, “Every merchant puts privately into the public chest, the sum that, in his own opinion, he ought to contribute.” ↩

1470. Ed. 1 reads “Underwold.” ↩

1471. Ed. 5 adds “it” here, doubtless a misprint. ↩

1472. Memoires concernant les Droits, tom. i. p. 163, 166, 171. —⁠Smith

      The statements as to the confidence felt in these self-assessments are not taken from the Mémoires. —⁠Cannan ↩

1473. Proposed by Legge in 1759. See Dowell, History of Taxation and Taxes in England, 1884, vol. ii, p. 137. ↩

1474. Ed. 1 does not contain “a.” ↩

1475. Above, here. ↩

1476. Above, here. ↩

1477. Memoires concernant les Droits, etc. tom. ii. p. 17. ↩

1478. Ed. 1 reads “nor to.” ↩

1479. Above, here. ↩

1480. Ed. 1 reads “West India.” ↩

1481. E.g., by Montesquieu, Esprit des lois, liv., xiii, chap. xiv. ↩

1482. 17 Geo. III, c. 39. ↩

1483. This paragraph is not in ed. 1. ↩

1484. Lib. 55 [25] quoted by Burman and Bouchaud. See also Burman De Vectigalibus Pop. Rom. cap. xi in Utriusque thesauri antiquitatum romanarum graecarumque nova supplementa congesta ab Joanne Poleno, Venice, 1737, vol. i, p. 1032B and Bouchaud de l’impôt du vingtieme sur les successions et de l’impôt sur les marchandises chez les Romains, nouv. ed., 1772, pp. 10 sqq. —⁠Smith ↩

1485. See Memoires concernant les Droits, etc. tom. i. p. 225. ↩

1486. All Eds. read “fiftieth,” but the Mémoires say “quinzième” and the “only” in the next sentence shows that Smith intended to write “fifteenth.” ↩

1487. Ed. 1 does not contain “very.” ↩

1488. Memoires concernant les Droits, etc. tom. i. p. 154. ↩

1489. Memoires concernant les Droits, etc. tom. i. p. 157. ↩

1490. Memoires concernant les Droits, etc. tom. i. p. 223, 224, 225. ↩

1491. Ed. 1 reads “or the mortgage.” ↩

1492. Ed. 1 reads “give only.” ↩

1493. Ed. 1 does not contain “neat.” ↩

1494. The word is used in its older sense, equivalent to the modern “pamphlets.” See Murray, Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. ↩

1495. Ed. 1 does not contain “in proportion to the tax.” ↩

1496. Ed. 1 does not contain “in that proportion.” ↩

1497. Memoires concernant les Droits, etc. tom. ii. p. 108. ↩

1498. Memoires concernant les Droits, tom. iii really i p. 87. ↩

1499. Above, here through here. ↩

1500. “Was supposed to be” is equivalent to “was nominally but not really.” ↩

1501. Eds. 1 and 2 read “a real tax of five shillings in the pound upon the salaries of offices which exceeded a hundred pounds a year; those of the judges and a few others less obnoxious to envy excepted.” Under 31 Geo. II, c. 22, a tax of 1s. in the pound was imposed on all offices worth more than £100 a year, naval and military offices excepted. The judges were not excepted, but their salaries were raised soon afterwards. See Dowell, History of Taxation and Taxes, vol. ii, pp. 135⁠–⁠136. The 6d. seems a mistake; the 5s. is arrived at by adding the 4s. land tax (which was “real” in the case of offices) and the 1s. ↩

1502. The first of these is under 1 W. and M., sess. 1, c. 13. ↩

1503. 1 W. and M., sess. 2, c. 7, § 2. ↩

1504. Under 1 W. and M., c. 13, § 4, serjeants, attorneys and proctors, as well as certain other classes, were to pay 3s. in the pound on their receipts. Under 1 W. and M., sess. 2, c. 7, § 2, attorneys and proctors and others were to pay 20s. in addition to the sums already charged. Under 2 W. and M., sess. 1, c. 2, § 5, serjeants-at-law were to pay £15, apparently in addition to the 3s. in the pound. Under 3 W. and M., c. 6, the poundage charge does not appear at all. The alterations were doubtless made in order to secure certainty, but purely in the interest of the government, which desired to be certain of getting a fixed amount. Under the Land Tax Act of 8 and 9 W. III, c. 6, § 5, serjeants, attorneys, proctors, etc., are again charged to an income tax. ↩

1505. Ed. 1 reads “portion.” ↩

1506. Mémoires, tom. ii, p. 421. ↩

1507. Dr. John Arbuthnot, in his Tables of Ancient Coins, Weights and Measures, 2nd ed., 1754, p. 142, says that linen was not used among the Romans, at least by men, till about the time of Alexander Severus. ↩

1508. In Lectures, p. 179, and above in ed. i, vol. i, p. 430, note, beer seems to be regarded as a necessary of life rather than a luxury. ↩

1509. See Book I, Chap. VIII. ↩

1510. 1 Geo. III, c. 7. ↩

1511. Leather is Decker’s example, Essay on the Decline of the Foreign Trade, 2nd ed., 1750, pp. 29, 30. See also p. 10. ↩

1512. See Dowell, History of Taxation and Taxes, 1884, vol. iv, pp. 318, 322, 330. ↩

1513. Saxby, British Customs, p. 307. 8 Ann., c. 4; 9 Ann., c. 6. ↩

1514. Above, here. ↩

1515. Memoires concernant les Droits, etc. p. 210, 211 and 233. See below, here. ↩

1516. Le Reformateur, Amsterdam, 1756. Garnier in his note on this passage, Recherches, etc., tom. iv, p. 387, attributes this work to Clicquot de Blervache, French Inspector-general of Manufactures and Commerce, 1766⁠–⁠90, but later authorities doubt or deny Clicquot’s authorship. See Jules de Vroil, Étude sur Clicquot-Blervache, 1870, pp. xxxi-xxxiii. ↩

1517. De Divinatione, ii, 58, “Sed nescio quomodo nihil tam absurde dici potest quod non dicatur ab aliquo philosophorum.” ↩

1518. Essay on the Causes of the Decline of the Foreign Trade, 2nd ed., 1750, pp. 78⁠–⁠163. ↩

1519. Eds. 1⁠–⁠3 read “was.” ↩

1520. Eds. 1 and 2 read “which.” ↩

1521. Eds. 1⁠–⁠3 read “was.” ↩

1522. Above, here and here. ↩

1523. Gilbert, Treatise on the Court of Exchequer, 1758, p. 224, mentions a Book of Rates printed in 1586. Dowell, History of Taxation and Taxes, 1884, vol. i, pp. 146, 165, places the beginning of the system soon after 1558. ↩

1524. C. 23. ↩

1525. 2 and 3 Ann., c. 9; 3 and 4 Ann., c. 5. ↩

1526. 21 Geo. II, c. 2. ↩

1527. 32 Geo. II, c. 10, on tobacco, linen, sugar and other grocery, except currants, East India goods (except coffee and raw silk), brandy and other spirits (except colonial rum), and paper. ↩

1528. Ed. 1 reads, more intelligibly, “later.” Another example of this unfortunate change occurs below, here. ↩

1529. Above, here, written after the present passage. ↩

1530. Eds. 1⁠–⁠3 read “peculiar,” and “particular” is perhaps a misprint. ↩

1531. Above, here through here. ↩

1532. Above, here through here. ↩

1533. Swift attributes the saying to an unnamed commissioner of customs. “I will tell you a secret, which I learned many years ago from the commissioners of the customs in London: they said when any commodity appeared to be taxed above a moderate rate, the consequence was to lessen that branch of the revenue by one-half; and one of these gentlemen pleasantly told me that the mistake of parliaments on such occasions was owing to an error of computing two and two make four; whereas in the business of laying impositions, two and two never made more than one; which happens by lessening the import, and the strong temptation of running such goods as paid high duties, at least in this kingdom.” —⁠“Answer to a Paper Called a Memorial of the Poor Inhabitants, Tradesmen and Labourers of the Kingdom of Ireland” (in Works, ed. Scott, 2nd ed., 1883, vol. vii, pp. 165⁠–⁠166. The saying is quoted from Swift by Hume in his Essay on the Balance of Trade, and by Lord Kames in his Sketches of the History of Man, 1774, vol. i, p. 474. ↩

1534. Saxby, British Customs, p. 266. ↩

1535. Eds. 1⁠–⁠3 read “was.” ↩

1536. Ed. 1 reads “both upon.” ↩

1537. Ed. 1 reads “both from.” ↩

1538. Ed. 1 reads “and from.” ↩

1539. Ed. 1 reads “£3,314,223 18s. 10¾d.” ↩

1540. Ed. 1 reads “is not to expose private families to.” ↩

1541. Eds. 1⁠–⁠3 read “was.” ↩

1542. Though the duties directly imposed upon proof spirits amount only to 2s. 6d. per gallon, these added to the duties upon the low wines, from which they are distilled, amount to 3s. 10⅔d. Both low wines and proof spirits are, to prevent frauds, now rated according to what they gauge in the wash. —⁠Smith

      This note appears first in ed. 3; ed. 1 reads “2s. 6d.” in the text instead of “3s. 10⅔d.” —⁠Cannan ↩

1543. Political and Commercial Works, ed. Sir Charles Whitworth, 1771, vol. i, pp. 222, 223. But Davenant does not confine the effect of the existing tax to the maltster, the brewer and the retailer. The tax, he says, “which seems to be upon malt, does not lie all upon that commodity, as is vulgarly thought. For a great many different persons contribute to the payment of this duty, before it comes into the Exchequer. First, the landlord, because of the excise, is forced to let his barley land at a lower rate; and, upon the same score, the tenant must sell his barley at a less price; then the maltster bears his share, for because of the duty, he must abate something in the price of his malt, or keep it; in a proportion it likewise affects the hop merchant, the cooper, the collier, and all trades that have relation to the commodity. The retailers and brewers bear likewise a great share, whose gains of necessity will be less, because of that imposition; and, lastly, it comes heaviest of all upon the consumers.” If the duty were put upon the maltster, it would be “difficult for him to raise the price of a dear commodity a full ⅓d. at once: so that he must bear the greatest part of the burden himself, or throw it upon the farmer, by giving less for barley, which brings the tax directly upon the land of England.” ↩

1544. Ed. 1 does not contain “it.” ↩

1545. Ed. 1 reads “are perhaps.” ↩

1546. Ed. 1 does not contain “all.” ↩

1547. Ed. 1 reads “should.” ↩

1548. Ed. 1 reads “£5,479,695 7s. 10d.” ↩

1549. The neat produce of that year, after deducting all expenses and allowances, amounted to £4,975,652 19s. 6d. —⁠Smith

      This note appears first in ed. 2. —⁠Cannan ↩

1550. Above, here. ↩

1551. Memoires concernant les Droits, etc. tom. i. p. 455. —⁠Smith

      “La première branche, connue sous la dénomination de Alcavala y Cientos, consiste dans un droit qui se perçoit sur toutes les choses mobiliaires et immobiliaires qui sont vendues, échangées et négociées: ce droit qui dans le principe avoit été fixé à quatorze pour cent a été depuis réduit à six pour cent.” The rest of the information is probably from Uztariz, Theory and Practice of Commerce and Maritime Affairs, trans. by John Kippax, 1751, chap. 96, ad init. vol. ii, p. 236. “It is so very oppressive as to lay 10 percent for the primitive Alcavala, and the four 1 percents annexed to it, a duty not only chargeable on the first sale, but on every future sale of goods, I am jealous, it is one of the principal engines, that contributed to the ruin of most of our manufactures and trade. For though these duties are not charged to the full in some places, a heavy tax is paid.” —⁠Cannan ↩

1552. See the preceding note. Uztariz’ opinion is quoted by Lord Kames, Sketches of the History of Man, 1774, vol. i, p. 516. ↩

1553. Ed. 1 reads “rent certain.” ↩

1554. Ed. 1 reads “the taxes.” ↩

1555. Above, here. ↩

1556. Ed. 1 does not contain “the traites.” ↩

1557. These estimates seem to have been quoted in England at the time, since the Continuation of Anderson’s Commerce, under the year 1773, mentions “the calculations of the Abbé D’Expilly published about this time in Paris,” which gave 8,661,381 births and 6,664,161 deaths as the number taking place in the nine years, 1754 to 1763, in France, inclusive of Lorraine and Bar. In his Dictionnaire géographique, historique et politique des Gaules et de la France, tom. v (1768), s.v. Population, Expilly estimated the population at 22,014,357. See Levasseur, La Population française, tom. i, 1889, pp. 215 and 216 note. ↩

1558. Sur la législation et le commerce des grains (by Necker), 1775, ch. viii, estimates the population at 24,181,333 by the method of multiplying the deaths by 31. ↩

1559. Above, here through here. ↩

1560. Below, here. ↩

1561. Above, here through here. ↩

1562. Above, here. ↩

1563. Cp. here. ↩

1564. Above, here. ↩

1565. Repeated verbatim from here. ↩

1566. Above, here. ↩

1567. Above, here. ↩

1568. Ed. 5 omits “along,” doubtless by a misprint. ↩

1569. See Examen des Reflections politiques sur les Finances. —⁠Smith

      P. J. Duverney, Examen du livre intitulé Réflections politiques sur les finances et le commerce (by Du Tot), tom. i, p. 225. —⁠Cannan ↩

1570. James Postlethwayt, History of the Public Revenue, 1759, pp. 14, 15, mentions discounts of 25 and 55 percent. The discount varied with the priority of the tallies and did not measure the national credit in general, but the probability of particular taxes bringing in enough to pay the amounts charged upon them. ↩

1571. Ed. 1 reads “unprovident,” as do all editions below, here. ↩

1572. James Postlethwayt, History of the Public Revenue, p. 38. Ed. 5 misprints “9½d.” ↩

1573. James Postlethwayt, History of the Public Revenue, p. 40. ↩

1574. James Postlethwayt, History of the Public Revenue, p. 59. ↩

1575. James Postlethwayt, History of the Public Revenue, pp. 63, 64. ↩

1576. James Postlethwayt, History of the Public Revenue, p. 68. ↩

1577. James Postlethwayt, History of the Public Revenue, p. 71. ↩

1578. James Postlethwayt, History of the Public Revenue, p. 311. ↩

1579. James Postlethwayt, History of the Public Revenue, pp. 301⁠–⁠303, and see above, here. ↩

1580. James Postlethwayt, History of the Public Revenue, pp. 319, 320. ↩

1581. The odd £4,000 of the £206,501 13s. 5d. was for expenses of management. See above, here. ↩

1582. Ed. 1 reads “payment,” perhaps correctly. ↩

1583. James Postlethwayt, History of the Public Revenue, p. 305. ↩

1584. This Act belongs to 1716, not 1717. ↩

1585. Above, here. ↩

1586. In 1717, under the provisions of 3 Geo. I, c. 7. Postlethwayt, History of the Public Revenue, pp. 120, 145. ↩

1587. Anderson, Commerce, AD 1717. ↩

1588. Anderson, Commerce, AD 1727. ↩

1589. This should be 1750. Anderson, Commerce, AD 1749. ↩

1590. 5 and 6 W. and M., c. 7. ↩

1591. 4 W. and M., c. 3. ↩

1592. Anderson, Commerce, AD 1719. ↩

1593. Anderson, Commerce, AD 1720. ↩

1594. Ed. 1 reads “just as long as.” ↩

1595. Anderson, Commerce, mentions these reductions under their dates, and recalls them in reference to the British reduction in 1717. ↩

1596. Ed. 1 reads “long and short.” ↩

1597. See James Postlethwaite’s history of the public revenue. —⁠Smith

      Pp. 42, 143⁠–⁠145, 147, 224, 300. The reference covers the three paragraphs in the text above. —⁠Cannan ↩

1598. Above, here. ↩

1599. Present State of the Nation (above, here), p. 28. ↩

1600. Anderson, Commerce, postscript ad init. ↩

1601. “But the expenses of the war did not cease with its operations.” —⁠Considerations (see a few lines below), p. 4 ↩

1602. Considerations p. 5. ↩

1603. The account is given in the Continuation of Anderson’s Commerce, AD 1764, vol. iv, p. 58, in ed. of 1801. The “¾d.” should be “¼d.” ↩

1604. Considerations on the Trade and Finances of This Kingdom and on the Measures of Administration with Respect to Those Great National Objects Since the Conclusion of the Peace, by Thomas Whately, 1766 (often ascribed to George Grenville), p. 22. ↩

1605. This is the amount obtained by adding the two items mentioned, and is the reading of ed. 1. Eds. 2⁠–⁠5 all read “£139,516,807 2s. 4d.,” which is doubtless a misprint. The total is not given in Considerations. ↩

1606. Considerations, p. 4. ↩

1607. Ed. 1 reads “Among.” ↩

1608. See this note. ↩

1609. Eds. 1⁠–⁠3 read “was.” ↩

1610. It has proved more expensive than any of our former wars; and has involved us in an additional debt of more than one hundred millions. During a profound peace of eleven years, little more than ten millions of debt was paid; during a war of seven years, more than one hundred millions was contracted. —⁠Smith

      This note appears first in ed. 3. —⁠Cannan ↩

1611. Garnier’s note, Recherches etc., tom. iv, p. 501, is “Pinto: Traité de la Circulation et du Crédit,” a work published in 1771 (“Amsterdam”), “par l’auteur de l’essai sur le luxe,” of which see esp. pp. 44, 45, 209⁠–⁠211. But an English essay of 1731 to the same effect is quoted by Melon, Essai Politique sur le Commerce, chap. xxiii, ed. of 1761, p. 296, and Melon seems to be referred to below, p. 412. Cp. Lectures, p. 210. ↩

1612. Eds. 1⁠–⁠3 read the indicative, “destroys.” ↩

1613. Misprinted “it” in ed. 5. ↩

1614. “Les Dettes d’un État sont des dettes de la main droite à la main gauche, dont le corps ne se trouvera point affaibli, s’il à la quantité d’aliments nécessaires, et s’il sait les distribuer.” —⁠Melon, Essai politique sur le Commerce, chap. xxiii, ed. of 1761, p. 296 ↩

1615. Ed. 1 reads “most.” ↩

1616. Above, here. ↩

1617. Eds. 1 and 2 read “seems.” ↩

1618. Raynal says “L’évidence autorise seulement à dire que les gouvernements qui pour le malheur des peuples ont adopté le détestable système des emprunts doivent tôt ou tard l’abjurer: et que l’abus qu’ils en ont fait les forcera vraisemblablement à être infidèles.” —⁠Histoire philosophique, Amsterdam, 1773, tom. iv, p. 274 ↩

1619. Eds. 1 and 2 read “later”; cp. above, here. ↩

1620. This chapter of Roman history is based on a few sentences in Pliny, Historia Naturalis, lib. xxxiii, cap. iii. Modern criticism has discovered the facts to be not nearly so simple as they are represented in the text. ↩

1621. See Du Cange Glossary, voce Moneta; the Benedictine edition. —⁠Smith

      This gives a table of the alterations made in the coin and refers to Le Blanc, Traité historique des Monnoyes de France, 1792, in which the fact that the officers were adjured by their oaths to keep the matter secret is mentioned on p. 218, but the adjuration is also quoted in the more accessible Melon, Essai politique sur le Commerce, chap. xiii, ed. of 1761, p. 177. —⁠Cannan ↩

1622. Misprinted “never” in Eds. 2⁠–⁠5. ↩

1623. Ed. 1 reads “either of.” ↩

1624. Ed. 1 reads “or.” ↩

1625. Above, here, here through here. ↩

1626. Above, here. ↩

1627. Above, here. ↩

1628. Eds. 1⁠–⁠3 read “was.” ↩

1629. Given in the Continuation of Anderson’s Commerce, AD 1774, vol. iv, p. 178, in ed. of 1801. ↩

1630. Above, here. ↩

1631. Ed. 1 reads “late”; cp. above, here. ↩

1632. Eds. 1 and 2 read “West Indian.” ↩

1633. Eds. 1⁠–⁠3 read “was” here and five lines below. ↩

1634. Eds. 1⁠–⁠3 read “was.” ↩

1635. Above, here through here. ↩

1636. Ed. 1 omits “the.” ↩

1637. See Hutchinson’s History of Massachusett’s Bay, Vol. II, page 436 & seq. —⁠Smith

      History of the Colony of Massachusets Bay, 2nd ed., 1765⁠–⁠8. —⁠Cannan ↩

1638. Ed. 1 reads “of.” ↩

1639. Ed. 1 reads “must generally.” ↩

1640. Ed. 1 reads “paid either.” ↩

1641. See this note. ↩

1642. Ed. 1 reads “gold and silver.” ↩

1643. Eds. 1⁠–⁠3 read “was.” ↩

1644. Above, here. ↩

1645. Above, here through here. ↩

1646. See above, here. ↩

1647. In Additions and Corrections this matter is printed in the text, and consequently the reading here is “confirm what is said above.” ↩