Endnotes 501–1,000
Ed. 1 reads “with the tenant” here and omits “of the tenant” in next line. ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “rent at the price of the fiars of each year rather.” ↩︎
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. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
Judicium Pillorie, temp. incert., ascribed to 51 Hen. III, stat. 6. ↩︎
Eds. 1 and 2 read “Rudiman.” ↩︎
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 ↩︎
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.” ↩︎
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.” ↩︎
Eds. 1 to 3 read “variations.” ↩︎
See this table. ↩︎
This appears to be merely an inference from the fact that he does not take notice of fluctuations. ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “that” instead of “because,” here and also two lines above. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
Misprinted “improved” in ed. 5. ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “had they not been agreeable to the popular notion.” ↩︎
This sentence is not in ed. 1. ↩︎
In 1545. Ed. 1 reads “thirty” instead of “twenty.” In ed. 2 the correction is in the errata. See this note and this note. ↩︎
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.” ↩︎
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. ↩︎
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.” ↩︎
For “not” ed. 1 reads “no,” and for “any such” it reads “this.” ↩︎
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 ↩︎
For “debasement” ed. 1 reads “degradation.” ↩︎
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. ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “degraded.” ↩︎
Lowndes, Essay, p. 88. ↩︎
Lowndes’s Essay on the Silver Coin, p. 68. —Smith
This note appears first in ed. 2. —Cannan ↩︎
The meaning is “given a certain area and intensity of cultivation, the bounty will raise the price of corn.” ↩︎
Ed. 1 does not contain “upon the principles of a system which I shall explain hereafter.” The reference is presumably to here through here. ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads here “a notion which I shall examine hereafter.” ↩︎
Doubtless by a misprint ed. 5 omits “first.” The term is used again at the end of the paragraph and also here through here. ↩︎
See the table at the end of the chapter; ¹⁹⁄₃₂ is a mistake for ⁹⁄₃₂. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
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.” ↩︎
Ed. 1 does not contain this parenthesis. ↩︎
Ed. 5, doubtless by a misprint, omits “even.” ↩︎
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. ↩︎
See the table at the end of the chapter. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
“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 “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 ↩︎
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 ↩︎
Ed. 1, perhaps correctly, reads “quantity.” ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “fifth.” ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “fell to a third and then to a fifth, at which rate it still continues.” ↩︎
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 ↩︎
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. ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “In the course of a century.” ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “A hundred years.” ↩︎
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. ↩︎
Below, here. Raynal, Histoire philosophique, Amsterdam ed. 1773, tom. iii, pp. 113, 116, takes the same view of the Peruvians. ↩︎
Voyage to the South Sea, p. 218, but the number mentioned is twenty-five to thirty thousand. ↩︎
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.” ↩︎
E.g., Santiago and Callao, Frezier, Voyage, pp. 102, 202; Juan and Ulloa, Voyage historique, vol. i, p. 468; vol. ii, p. 49. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
“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 ↩︎
Ed. 1 places “in India” here instead of in the line above. ↩︎
Ed. 1 does not contain “or at most as twelve” here and two lines lower down. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “be the principal commodity.” ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “chiefly.” ↩︎
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 ↩︎
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. ↩︎
The 10s. here should be 14s., and two lines lower down the 14s. should be 10s. ↩︎
Misprinted 13,984¹⁸⁵³⁄₆ in ed. 2 and later editions. ↩︎
Raynal, Histoire philosophique et politique des établissemens et du commerce des Européens dans les deux Indes, Amsterdam ed., 1773, tom. iii, p. 310. ↩︎
Raynal, Histoire philosophique, Amsterdam ed., 1773, tom. iii, p. 385. ↩︎
Ed. 1 does not contain “though manuscript.” ↩︎
Ed. 1 does not contain “or one to twelve.” ↩︎
Cantillon gives one to ten for China and one to eight for Japan, Essai, p. 365. ↩︎
Above, here through here. The exact figure given by Magens, Farther Explanations, p. 16, is 1 to ²²¹⁄₁₀. ↩︎
Farther Explanations, p. 17. ↩︎
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 ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “European.” ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “European.” ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “one fifth part of it, or to twenty percent.” ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “European.” ↩︎
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. ↩︎
Ed. 1 places the “indeed” here. ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “that.” ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “It must still be true, however, that the whole mass of American gold comes to the European market at a price.” ↩︎
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.” ↩︎
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.” ↩︎
This paragraph appears first in ed. 2. ↩︎
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.” ↩︎
The last two paragraphs appear first in Additions and Corrections and ed. 3. ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “may besides.” ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “perhaps” here. ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “That the increase of.” ↩︎
Ed. 1 places the “which arises” here. ↩︎
As mentioned above, here. Cicero, In Verr., Act. II, lib. iii, c. 70, is the authority. ↩︎
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 ↩︎
Lib. ix c. 17. —Smith
This and the previous note appear first in ed. 2. —Cannan ↩︎
Eds. 1–3 read “of all commercial.” ↩︎
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 ↩︎
Varro, De re rustica, iii, 2, and Columella, De re rustica, viii, 10, ad fin., where Varro is quoted. ↩︎
Histoire Naturelle, vol. v (1755), p. 122. ↩︎
History, ed. of 1773, vol. i, p. 226. ↩︎
Juan and Ulloa, Voyage historique, 2nde ptie, liv. i, chap. v, vol. i, p. 552. ↩︎
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 ↩︎
See below, here, and Smith’s Memoirs of Wool, vol. i, pp. 159, 170, 182. ↩︎
Eds. 1 and 2 read “importing it from all other countries.” ↩︎
Eds. 1 and 2 read “wool of all other countries.” ↩︎
Chronicon preciosum, ed. of 1707, p. 100, quoting from Kennet’s Par. Ant. Burcester is the modern Bicester. ↩︎
9 Geo. III, c. 39, for five years; continued by 14 Geo. III, c. 86, and 21 Geo. III, c. 29. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
9 Ann., c. 11. ↩︎
This passage, from the beginning of the paragraph, is quoted at length below, here. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
Ed. 1 does not contain “etc.” ↩︎
The arithmetic is slightly at fault. It should be, “happened to lose a fourth, a fifth, or a sixth part of its former value.” ↩︎
Recherches sur la Population, pp. 293–304. ↩︎
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.” ↩︎
Lectures, pp. 159, 164. ↩︎
Ed. 1 does not contain “but.” ↩︎
C. 8. ↩︎
C. 5. The quotations from this Act and from 4 Hen. VII, c. 8, are not quite verbatim. ↩︎
“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 ↩︎
Towards the end of chapter X the same words occur, omitting “very.” ↩︎
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. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
This should be 2s. 7¼d. The mistake is evidently due to the 3s. 4d. belonging to the year 1287 having been erroneously added in. ↩︎
Sic in all editions. More convenient to the unpractised eye in adding up than “½.” ↩︎
“And sometime xxs. as H. Knighton.” —Fleetwood, Chronicon Preciosum, p. 82 ↩︎
Miscopied: it is £2 13s. 4d. in Fleetwood, Chronicon Preciosum, p. 92. ↩︎
Obviously a mistake for £2 11s. 4d. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
Miscopied: it is £2 13s. 4d. in Fleetwood, Chronicon Preciosum, p. 123. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
Wanting in the account for the years 1642–1645. The year 1646 supplied by Bishop Fleetwood. —Smith ↩︎
This should be ⁹⁄₃₂. ↩︎
Lectures, p. 181. ↩︎
Eds. 1 and 2 place the “only” here. ↩︎
“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 ↩︎
But in bk. i, ch. x, the remuneration of improved dexterity is treated as wages. ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “users and consumers” here and eleven lines lower. ↩︎
There seems no reason whatever for supposing that this is necessarily the “natural” action. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
Ed. 1 does not contain “or.” ↩︎
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. ↩︎
Misprinted “contrary” in ed. 5. ↩︎
Adam Anderson, Commerce, AD 1695. ↩︎
See Ruddiman’s Preface to Anderson’s Diplomata, etc. Scotiæ. —Smith
“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. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
Misprinted “remain” in ed. 5. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
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 ↩︎
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. ↩︎
Ed. 1 does not contain “those.” ↩︎
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. ↩︎
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.” ↩︎
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. ↩︎
In Lectures there is an account, apparently derived from Du Verney, which extends over eight pages, 211–218. ↩︎
Money and Trade Considered, with a Proposal for Supplying the Nation with Money, 1705. ↩︎
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 ↩︎
These three lines are not in ed. 1. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
Eds. 1 and 2 read “him.” ↩︎
The Bank of England issued none under £20 till 1759, when £15 and £10 notes were introduced. —Anderson, Commerce, AD 1759 ↩︎
5 Geo. III, c. 49. ↩︎
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 ↩︎
15 Geo. III, c. 51. ↩︎
“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. ↩︎
4 Geo. III, c. 34. ↩︎
Below, this section. See also the “Advertisement” or preface to the 4th ed., above. ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “This account of the Bank of Amsterdam, however, I have reason to believe, is altogether chimerical.” ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “sink the value of gold and silver, or occasion equal quantities of those metals.” ↩︎
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. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
But in the “Introduction and Plan of the Work,” “useful” is coupled with “productive,” and used as equivalent to it. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
Viz., Paris, Toulouse, Grenoble, Bordeaux, Dijon, Rouen, Aix, Rennes, Pau, Metz, Besançon and Douai. —Encyclopédie, tom. xii, 1765, s.v. Parlement ↩︎
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. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
Ed. 1 does not contain “it.” ↩︎
Misprinted “instance” in ed. 5, and consequently in some modern editions. ↩︎
“Impoverished” is here equivalent to “made poor,” i.e., ruined, not merely to “made poorer.” ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “is.” ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “1701.” ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “the next year.” ↩︎
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. ↩︎
This was the Castle Inn at Marlborough, which ceased to be an inn and became Marlborough College in 1843, thus undergoing another vicissitude. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
Ed. 1 does not contain “though.” ↩︎
Ed. 1 does not contain “etc.” ↩︎
Lectures, p. 220. ↩︎
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 ↩︎
In his essay, “Of Interest,” in Political Discourses, 1752. ↩︎
This seems obvious, but it was distinctly denied by Locke, Some Considerations, pp. 83, 84. ↩︎
Ed. 1 does not contain “its.” ↩︎
Ed. 1 does not contain “immediately” here or seven lines lower down. ↩︎
Ed. 1 does not contain “immediately.” ↩︎
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.” ↩︎
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. ↩︎
The second part of this sentence is not in Ed. 1. ↩︎
Bk. iv. ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “belong.” ↩︎
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. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
This passage, from the beginning of the paragraph, may well have been suggested by Cantillon, Essai, pp. 11–22. ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “their.” ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “considerable advantage that it should.” ↩︎
Primogeniture and entails are censured as inimical to agriculture in Lectures, pp. 120, 124, 228. ↩︎
Lectures, pp. 117–118. ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “form.” ↩︎
In Lectures, p. 123, the Roman origin of entails appears to be accepted. ↩︎
This passage follows Lectures, p. 124, rather closely, reproducing even the repetition of “absurd.” ↩︎
Ed. 1 does not contain “supposed to be.” ↩︎
This remark follows Lectures, p. 228. Cp. below, here through here, and here. ↩︎
“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 ↩︎
Pliny, Historia Naturalis, lib. xviii, cap. iv.; Columella, De re rustica, lib. i, præfatio. ↩︎
Politics, 1265a. ↩︎
Raynal, Histoire philosophique (Amsterdam ed.), tom. vi, pp. 368–388. ↩︎
Lectures, pp. 100, 101. ↩︎
Raynal, Histoire philosophique (Amsterdam ed.), tom. i, p. 12. In Lectures, pp. 101, 102, Innocent III appears in error for Alexander III. ↩︎
Probably Quesnay’s estimate; cp. his article on “Fermiers” in the Encyclopédie, reprinted in his Œuvres, ed. Oncken, 1888, pp. 160, 171. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
M. Bacon, New Abridgment of the Law, 3rd ed., 1768, vol. ii, p. 160, s.v. Ejectment; cp. Lectures, p. 227. ↩︎
Blackstone, Commentaries, iii, 197. ↩︎
Lectures, pp. 227–228. ↩︎
Acts of 1449, c. 6, “ordained for the safety and favour of the poor people that labours the ground.” ↩︎
10 Geo. III, c. 51. ↩︎
Lectures, pp. 226, 227. ↩︎
20 Geo. II, c. 50, § 21. ↩︎
Lectures, p. 227. ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “that.” ↩︎
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. ↩︎
Lectures, p. 226. ↩︎
Essays on Husbandry (by Walter Harte), 1764, pp. 69–80. ↩︎
Lectures, p. 233. ↩︎
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 ↩︎
Ed. 1 does not contain “the.” ↩︎
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. ↩︎
An instance is given in Firma Burgi, p. 21. ↩︎
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 ↩︎
Lectures, p. 40. ↩︎
See Madox —Smith
Firma Burgi, pp. 35, 150. The note is not in ed. 1 —Cannan ↩︎
“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. ↩︎
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 ↩︎
See Pfeffel. —Smith
Reference in this note. The note is not in ed. 1. —Cannan ↩︎
Ed. 1 places “in those assemblies” here instead of in the line above; see Lectures, p. 41. ↩︎
Lectures, p. 40. ↩︎
“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.” ↩︎
Misprinted “in” in ed. 5. ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “that were introduced into Venice in the beginning of.” ↩︎
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 ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “being in.” ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “seems.” ↩︎
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.” ↩︎
“Of Commerce” and “Of Luxury” in Political Discourses, 1752, and History, ed. of 1773, vol. iii, p. 400. ↩︎
Evidently from Hume, History, ed. of 1773, vol. i, p. 384. ↩︎
“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.” ↩︎
“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 ↩︎
Eds. 1 and 2 read “appears.” ↩︎
Hume, History, ed. of 1773, i, 224. ↩︎
“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 ↩︎
Lectures, pp. 38, 39. ↩︎
Hume, History, ed. of 1773, vol. iii, p. 400; vol. v, p. 488. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
Ed. 5 omits “who” by a misprint. ↩︎
Eds. 2–5 read “with all,” doubtless a corruption. ↩︎
Ed. 1 does not contain “thither.” ↩︎
Ed. 1 does not contain “the.” ↩︎
18 Car. II, c. 2. ↩︎
32 Geo. II, c. 11, § 1; 5 Geo. III, c. 10; 12 Geo. III, c. 2. ↩︎
Below, here through here, and this section. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
“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 ↩︎
For other definitions of the purpose or nature of political economy see the index, s.v. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “expect least of all.” ↩︎
The words “forth of the realm” occur in (January) 1487, c. 11. Other acts are 1436, c. 13; 1451, c. 15; 1482, c. 8. ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “increase it.” ↩︎
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.” ↩︎
Mun, England’s Treasure, chap. vi. ↩︎
“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. ↩︎
This sentence appears first in ed. 2. Ed. 1 begins the next sentence, “The high price of exchange therefore would tend.” ↩︎
“In” is a mistake for “by.” ↩︎
Here and four lines higher Eds. 1–3 read “if there was.” ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “in.” ↩︎
Eds. 1–3 read “if it was.” ↩︎
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. ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “not only without any inconveniency but with very great advantages.” ↩︎
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. ↩︎
Eds. 1–3 read “was it not.” ↩︎
Eds. 1–3 read “was.” ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “according to the exaggerated computation of Mr. Horsely.” ↩︎
Lectures, p. 199. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
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.” ↩︎
History, chaps. xix and xx, vol. iii, pp. 103, 104, 165 in ed. of 1773. ↩︎
This sentence and the nine words before it are repeated below, here. ↩︎
“Dercyllidas” appears to be a mistake for Antiochus. See Xenophon, Hellenica, vii, i, § 38. ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “thereby increase.” ↩︎
11 and 12 Ed. III, c. 3; 4 Ed. IV, c. 7. ↩︎
6 Geo. III, c. 28. ↩︎
By the additional duties, 7 Geo. III, c. 28. ↩︎
Misprinted “manufactures” in ed. 5. ↩︎
This sentence appears first in Additions and Corrections and ed. 3. ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “certain.” ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “the” here. ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “augmenting,” which seems more correct. ↩︎
Eds. 1–3 read “was” here and six lines lower down. ↩︎
Charles Smith, Three Tracts on the Corn-Trade and Corn-Laws, pp. 144–145. The same figure is quoted below, here. ↩︎
Ed. 1 does not contain the words “in the actual state of tillage.” ↩︎
Eds. 1–3 read “was.” ↩︎
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. ↩︎
Cato, De re rustica, ad init., but “Questus” should of course be “quæstus.” ↩︎
12 Car. II, c. 18, “An act for the encouraging and increasing of shipping and navigation.” ↩︎
§§ 1 and 6. ↩︎
§§ 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. ↩︎
§ 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. ↩︎
§ 5. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
By 25 Car. II, c. 6, § 1, except on coal. The plural “acts” may refer to renewing acts. Anderson, Commerce, AD 1672. ↩︎
Ed. 1 contains the words “malt, beer” here. ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “it is.” ↩︎
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. ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “injury ourselves, both to those classes and to.” ↩︎
12 Car. II, c. 16; 12 Ann., st. 1, § 13; 3 Geo. III, c. 8, gave this liberty after particular wars. ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “Utopea.” ↩︎
Ed. 1 contains no part headings and does not divide the chapter into parts. ↩︎
18 Geo. II, c. 36; 7 Geo. III, c. 43. ↩︎
4 W. and M., c. 5, § 2. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
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.” ↩︎
See Anderson, Commerce, AD 1601, and see above, here through here. ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “a great part.” ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “The course of exchange, at least as it has hitherto been estimated, is, perhaps, almost equally so.” ↩︎
Here and three lines above Eds. 1 and 2 read “it” instead of “that other.” ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “common.” ↩︎
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. ↩︎
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.” ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “standards” here and seven lines lower. ↩︎
This erroneous statement has already been made, here; see below, here, for details. ↩︎
Ed. 2 and later Eds. read erroneously “of the two.” ↩︎
See the preface to the 4th ed., above. ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “Those deposits of coin, or which.” ↩︎
Eds. 1–3 have the more correct but awkward reading “than of those of gold.” ↩︎
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. ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “it” here. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
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.” ↩︎
In place of this part heading (see this note) ed. 1 reads, in square-bracketed italics, “End of the Digression concerning Banks of Deposit.” ↩︎
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. ↩︎
Ed. 1 does not contain “and preparing for the market.” ↩︎
Eds. 1 and 2 read “make.” ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “from either.” ↩︎
Lectures, p. 179. ↩︎
This and the preceding paragraph appear first in Additions and Corrections and ed. 3. ↩︎
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 ↩︎
Eds. 1 and 2 read “go to it.” ↩︎
The next three pages are not in Eds. 1 and 2; see this note. ↩︎
12 Car. II, c. 4. ↩︎
Henry Saxby, The British Customs, Containing an Historical and Practical Account of Each Branch of That Part of the Revenue, 1757, pp. 10, 308. ↩︎
These figures are also quoted above, here, and below, here. ↩︎
Saxby, British Customs, p. 12. ↩︎
British Customs, p. 11. ↩︎
6 Geo. III, c. 28; 11 Geo. III, c. 49. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
Saxby, British Customs, pp. 13, 38. ↩︎
1 Jac. II, c. 3, and continuing Acts: £8 a tun on French and £12 on other wine. ↩︎
7 and 8 W. III, c. 20, § 3; 1 Geo. I, st. 2, c. 12, § 3. ↩︎
18 Geo. II, c. 9; Saxby, British Customs, p. 64: £8 a tun on French and £4 on other wine. ↩︎
? 1762. 3 Geo. III, c. 12: £8 a tun on French and £4 on other wine. ↩︎
18 Geo. III, c. 27: £8 8s. on French and £4 4s. on other wine. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
20 Geo. III, c. 30: £8 a tun on French and £4 on other wine. ↩︎
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.” ↩︎
All this is dealt with in greater detail below, here through here. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
These three sentences beginning with “It has happened in France,” appear first in Additions and Corrections and ed. 3. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
C. Smith, Three Tracts on the Corn Trade, 2nd ed., p. 144. ↩︎
This and the preceding paragraph are not in Eds. 1 and 2. See this note. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
“Homemade” here and in the line above is not in Eds. 1 and 2. ↩︎
“Almost” is not in Eds. 1 and 2. ↩︎
Eds. 1 and 2 do not contain “homemade.” ↩︎
Eds. 1 and 2 read “in the smallest degree.” ↩︎
Neither “much” is in Eds. 1 and 2. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
Eds. 1 and 2 read “not the real but only the nominal price.” ↩︎
Eds. 1 and 2 read “the smallest real service.” ↩︎
Eds. 1 and 2 read “a very real service.” ↩︎
“Homemade” is not in Eds. 1 and 2. ↩︎
Eds. 1 and 2 read “will be merely nominal.” ↩︎
Eds. 1 and 2 read “could be really serviceable.” ↩︎
Eds. 1 and 2 read “a real value which no human institution can alter.” Cp. here. ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “raise it.” ↩︎
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. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
Eds. 1 and 2 read “The encouragements given.” ↩︎
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. ↩︎
“It may be supposed” is not in Eds. 1 and 2. ↩︎
Eds. 1 and 2 read “would be in the actual state of production.” ↩︎
“It must be acknowledged” is not in Eds. 1 and 2. ↩︎
“Tonnage” is not in Eds. 1 and 2. ↩︎
Eds. 1 and 2 read “they may perhaps be defended as conducing to its defence.” ↩︎
Eds. 1 and 2 read “This may frequently be done.” ↩︎
Eds. 1 and 2 read “in time of peace” here. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
In Additions and Corrections the term is “seasteeks,” as in the Appendix. ↩︎
See the accounts at the end of the volume. —Smith
In Additions and Corrections they are printed in the text. —Cannan ↩︎
The ten paragraphs ending here are not in Eds. 1 and 2. See here. ↩︎
Eds. 1 and 2 read “When that form has been altered by manufacture of any kind, they are called bounties.” ↩︎
This heading is not in ed. 1. ↩︎
Not a misprint for “enables.” There are two knowledges, one of the state of the crop and the other of the daily sales. ↩︎