The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith [english novels to improve english .TXT] 📗

altered to “if it were.” In the note at vol. i, p. 71, “late disturbances” is substituted for “present disturbances.” The other differences are so trifling that they may be misreadings or unauthorised corrections of the printers.

The fifth edition, the last published in Smith’s lifetime and consequently the one from which the present edition has been copied, is dated 1789. It is almost identical with the fourth, the only difference being that the misprints of the fourth edition are corrected in the fifth and a considerable number of fresh ones introduced, while several false concords⁠—or concords regarded as false⁠—are corrected (see vol. i, p. 108; vol. ii, pp. 215, 249).15

It is clear from the passage at vol. ii, p. 177, that Smith regarded the title “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations” as a synonym for “political œconomy,” and it seems perhaps a little surprising that he did not call his book “Political Œconomy” or “Principles of Political Œconomy.” But we must remember that the term was still in 1776 a very new one, and that it had been used in the title of Sir James Steuart’s great book, An Inquiry Into the Principles of Political Œconomy: Being an Essay on the Science of Domestic Policy in Free Nations, which was published in 1767. Nowadays, of course, no author has any special claim to exclusive use of the title. We should as soon think of claiming copyright for the title “Arithmetic” or “Elements of Geology” as for “Principles of Political Economy.” But in 1776 Adam Smith may well have refrained from using it simply because it had been used by Steuart nine years before, especially considering the fact that the Wealth of Nations was to be brought out by the publishers who had brought out Steuart’s book.16

From 1759 at the latest an early draft of what subsequently developed into the Wealth of Nations existed in the portion of Smith’s lectures on “Jurisprudence” which he called “Police, Revenue and Arms,” the rest of “Jurisprudence” being “Justice” and the “Laws of Nations.” Jurisprudence he defined as “that science which inquires into the general principles which ought to be the foundation of the laws of all nations,” or as “the theory of the general principles of law and government.”17 In forecasting his lectures on the subject he told his students:⁠—

“The four great objects of law are justice, police, revenue and arms.

“The object of justice is the security from injury, and it is the foundation of civil government.

“The objects of police are the cheapness of commodities, public security, and cleanliness, if the two last were not too minute for a lecture of this kind. Under this head we will consider the opulence of a state.

“It is likewise necessary that the magistrate who bestows his time and labour in the business of the state should be compensated for it. For this purpose and for defraying the expenses of government some fund must be raised. Hence the origin of revenue. The subject of consideration under this head will be the proper means of levying revenue, which must come from the people by taxes, duties, etc. In general, whatever revenue can be raised most insensibly from the people ought to be preferred, and in the sequel it is proposed to be shown how far the laws of Britain and other European nations are calculated for this purpose.

“As the best police cannot give security unless the government can defend themselves from foreign injuries and attacks, the fourth thing appointed by law is for this purpose; and under this head will be shown the different species of arms with their advantages and disadvantages, the constitution of standing armies, militias, etc.

“After these will be considered the laws of nations.⁠ ⁠…”18

The connection of revenue and arms with the general principles of law and government is obvious enough, and no question arises as to the explanation on these heads given by the forecast. But to “consider the opulence of a state” under the head of “police” seems at first sight a little strange. For the explanation we turn to the beginning of the part of the lectures relating to Police.

“Police is the second general division of jurisprudence. The name is French, and is originally derived from the Greek πολιτεία, which properly signified the policy of civil government, but now it only means the regulation of the inferior parts of government, viz.: cleanliness, security, and cheapness or plenty.”19

That this definition of the French word was correct is well shown by the following passage from a book which is known to have been in Smith’s possession at his death,20 Bielfeld’s Institutions politiques, 1760 (tom. i, p. 99).

“Le premier Président du Harlay en recevant M. d’Argenson à la charge de lieutenant général de police de la ville de Paris, lui adressa ces paroles, qui méritent d’être remarquées: Le Roi, Monsieur, vous demande sûreté, netteté, bon-marché. En effet ces trois articles comprennent toute la police, qui forme le troisième grand objet de la politique pour l’intérieur de l’État.”

When we find that the chief of the Paris police in 1697 was expected to provide cheapness as well as security and cleanliness, we wonder less at the inclusion of “cheapness or plenty” or the “opulence of a state” in “jurisprudence” or “the general principles of law and government.” “Cheapness is in fact the same thing with plenty,” and “the consideration of cheapness or plenty” is “the same thing” as “the most proper way of securing wealth and abundance.”21 If Adam Smith had been an old-fashioned believer in state control of trade and industry he would have described the most proper regulations for securing wealth and abundance, and there would have been nothing strange in this description coming under the “general principles of law and government.”