The Wealth of Nations

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. ↩

Above, here. ↩

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. ↩

Above, here. ↩

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

Above, here. ↩

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. ↩

See this table at the end of the chapter. ↩

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. ↩

Below, here through here. ↩

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