Endnotes 1,501–1,647
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. ↩︎
The first of these is under 1 W. and M., sess. 1, c. 13. ↩︎
1 W. and M., sess. 2, c. 7, § 2. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “portion.” ↩︎
Mémoires, tom. ii, p. 421. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
See Book I, Chap. VIII. ↩︎
1 Geo. III, c. 7. ↩︎
Leather is Decker’s example, Essay on the Decline of the Foreign Trade, 2nd ed., 1750, pp. 29, 30. See also p. 10. ↩︎
See Dowell, History of Taxation and Taxes, 1884, vol. iv, pp. 318, 322, 330. ↩︎
Saxby, British Customs, p. 307. 8 Ann., c. 4; 9 Ann., c. 6. ↩︎
Memoires concernant les Droits, etc. p. 210, 211 and 233. See below, here. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
De Divinatione, ii, 58, “Sed nescio quomodo nihil tam absurde dici potest quod non dicatur ab aliquo philosophorum.” ↩︎
Essay on the Causes of the Decline of the Foreign Trade, 2nd ed., 1750, pp. 78–163. ↩︎
Eds. 1–3 read “was.” ↩︎
Eds. 1 and 2 read “which.” ↩︎
Eds. 1–3 read “was.” ↩︎
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. ↩︎
C. 23. ↩︎
2 and 3 Ann., c. 9; 3 and 4 Ann., c. 5. ↩︎
21 Geo. II, c. 2. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads, more intelligibly, “later.” Another example of this unfortunate change occurs below, here. ↩︎
Eds. 1–3 read “peculiar,” and “particular” is perhaps a misprint. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
Saxby, British Customs, p. 266. ↩︎
Eds. 1–3 read “was.” ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “both upon.” ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “both from.” ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “and from.” ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “£3,314,223 18s. 10¾d.” ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “is not to expose private families to.” ↩︎
Eds. 1–3 read “was.” ↩︎
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 ↩︎
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.” ↩︎
Ed. 1 does not contain “it.” ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “are perhaps.” ↩︎
Ed. 1 does not contain “all.” ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “should.” ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “£5,479,695 7s. 10d.” ↩︎
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 ↩︎
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 ↩︎
See the preceding note. Uztariz’ opinion is quoted by Lord Kames, Sketches of the History of Man, 1774, vol. i, p. 516. ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “rent certain.” ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “the taxes.” ↩︎
Ed. 1 does not contain “the traites.” ↩︎
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. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
Ed. 5 omits “along,” doubtless by a misprint. ↩︎
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 ↩︎
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. ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “unprovident,” as do all editions below, here. ↩︎
James Postlethwayt, History of the Public Revenue, p. 38. Ed. 5 misprints “9½d.” ↩︎
James Postlethwayt, History of the Public Revenue, p. 40. ↩︎
James Postlethwayt, History of the Public Revenue, p. 59. ↩︎
James Postlethwayt, History of the Public Revenue, pp. 63, 64. ↩︎
James Postlethwayt, History of the Public Revenue, p. 68. ↩︎
James Postlethwayt, History of the Public Revenue, p. 71. ↩︎
James Postlethwayt, History of the Public Revenue, p. 311. ↩︎
James Postlethwayt, History of the Public Revenue, pp. 301–303, and see above, here. ↩︎
James Postlethwayt, History of the Public Revenue, pp. 319, 320. ↩︎
The odd £4,000 of the £206,501 13s. 5d. was for expenses of management. See above, here. ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “payment,” perhaps correctly. ↩︎
James Postlethwayt, History of the Public Revenue, p. 305. ↩︎
This Act belongs to 1716, not 1717. ↩︎
In 1717, under the provisions of 3 Geo. I, c. 7. Postlethwayt, History of the Public Revenue, pp. 120, 145. ↩︎
Anderson, Commerce, AD 1717. ↩︎
Anderson, Commerce, AD 1727. ↩︎
This should be 1750. Anderson, Commerce, AD 1749. ↩︎
5 and 6 W. and M., c. 7. ↩︎
4 W. and M., c. 3. ↩︎
Anderson, Commerce, AD 1719. ↩︎
Anderson, Commerce, AD 1720. ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “just as long as.” ↩︎
Anderson, Commerce, mentions these reductions under their dates, and recalls them in reference to the British reduction in 1717. ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “long and short.” ↩︎
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 ↩︎
Anderson, Commerce, postscript ad init. ↩︎
“But the expenses of the war did not cease with its operations.” —Considerations (see a few lines below), p. 4 ↩︎
Considerations p. 5. ↩︎
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.” ↩︎
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. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
Considerations, p. 4. ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “Among.” ↩︎
Eds. 1–3 read “was.” ↩︎
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 ↩︎
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. ↩︎
Eds. 1–3 read the indicative, “destroys.” ↩︎
Misprinted “it” in ed. 5. ↩︎
“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 ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “most.” ↩︎
Eds. 1 and 2 read “seems.” ↩︎
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 ↩︎
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. ↩︎
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 ↩︎
Misprinted “never” in Eds. 2–5. ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “either of.” ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “or.” ↩︎
Eds. 1–3 read “was.” ↩︎
Given in the Continuation of Anderson’s Commerce, AD 1774, vol. iv, p. 178, in ed. of 1801. ↩︎
Eds. 1 and 2 read “West Indian.” ↩︎
Eds. 1–3 read “was” here and five lines below. ↩︎
Eds. 1–3 read “was.” ↩︎
Ed. 1 omits “the.” ↩︎
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 ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “of.” ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “must generally.” ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “paid either.” ↩︎
Ed. 1 reads “gold and silver.” ↩︎
Eds. 1–3 read “was.” ↩︎
In Additions and Corrections this matter is printed in the text, and consequently the reading here is “confirm what is said above.” ↩︎