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

href="#noteref-967" epub:type="backlink">↩

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.” ↩

Above, here. ↩

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. ↩

Above, here; below, here. ↩

“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. ↩

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. ↩

5 Eliz., c. 12, § 4. ↩

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. ↩

Diligent search has hitherto failed to discover these statutes. ↩

§ 4 incorrectly quoted. The words are “not forestalling