Ed. 1 reads “The engrossing, however, of uncultivated land, it has already been observed, is the greatest obstruction to its improvement and cultivation, and the labour.” ↩
Ed. 1 reads “Its produce in this case.” ↩
All Eds. read “present” here and here, but “late” here. See above, this note, and below, here. ↩
The figures are evidently from the “very exact account” quoted below, here. ↩
Juan and Ulloa, Voyage historique, tom. i, pp. 437–441, give a lurid account of the magnificence of the ceremonial. ↩
Maranon in 1755 and Fernambuco four years later. —Raynal, Histoire philosophique, Amsterdam ed., 1773, tom. iii, p. 402 ↩
Ed. 1 reads “This, however, has.” ↩
Ed. 1 reads “said to be.” ↩
Iron sometimes at 100 écus the quintal and steel at 150. —Juan and Ulloa, Voyage historique, tom. i, p. 252 ↩
Ed. 1 reads “the same as that of Spain.” ↩
The commodities originally enumerated in 12 Car. II, c. 18, § 18, were sugar, tobacco cotton-wool, indigo, ginger, fustic and other dyeing woods. ↩
There seems to be some mistake here. The true date is apparently 1739, under the Act 12 Geo. II, c. 30. ↩
Ships not going to places south of Cape Finisterre were compelled to call at some port in Great Britain. ↩
Garnier, in his note to this passage, tom. iii, p. 323, points out that the islands ceded by the peace of Paris in 1763 were only Grenada and the Grenadines, but that term here includes the other islands won during the war, St. Vincent, Dominica and Tobago, which are mentioned below, here. ↩
Rice was put in by 3 and 4 Ann, c. 5, and taken out by 3 Geo. II, c. 28; timber was taken out by 5 Geo. III, c. 45. ↩
Anderson, Commerce, AD 1703. ↩
Details are given below, here through here, in a chapter not contained in Eds. 1 and 2. ↩
23 Geo. II, c. 29. ↩
23 Geo. II, c. 29. Anderson, Commerce, AD 1750. ↩
Hats under 5 Geo. II, c. 22; wools under 10 and 11 W. III, c. 10. See Anderson, Commerce, AD 1732 and 1699. ↩
Details are given below, here through here, in a chapter which was not in Eds. 1 and 2. ↩
The quotation is not quite verbatim. The provision is referred to above, here, where, however, see note. ↩
Ed. 1 does not contain the words “they approach more nearly to that character; and.” ↩
The Board of Trade and Plantations, in a report to the House of Commons in 1732, insisted on this democratic character of the government of some of the colonies, and mentioned the election of governor by Connecticut and Rhode Island: the report is quoted in Anderson, Commerce, AD 1732. ↩
The story is told in the same way in Lectures, p. 97, but Seneca, De ira, lib. iii, cap. 40, and Dio Cassius, Hist., lib. liv., cap. 23, say, not that Augustus ordered all the slaves to be emancipated, but that he ordered all the goblets on the table to be broken. Seneca says the offending slave was emancipated. Dio does not mention emancipation. ↩
Ed. 1 reads “and industry.” ↩
The West India merchants and planters asserted, in 1775, that there was capital worth £60,000,000 in the sugar colonies and that half of this belonged to residents in Great Britain. See the Continuation of Anderson’s Commerce, AD 1775. ↩
Eds. 1 and 2 do not contain the words “so far as concerns their internal government.” ↩
Ed. 1 reads “persecuted.” ↩
Ed. 1 reads “with equal injustice.” ↩
Raynal, Histoire philosophique, Amsterdam ed., 1773, tom. iii, pp. 323, 324, 326, 327. Justamond’s English trans., vol. ii, p. 442. ↩
Velasquez. ↩
Cortez. ↩
“Salve magna parens frugum, Saturnia tellus, Magna virum.” —Virgil, Georg., ii, 173–174 ↩
Eds. 1 and 2 do not contain the words “so far as concerns their internal government.” Cp. this note. ↩
“Not” appears first in ed. 3 and seems to have been inserted in error. The other countries are only excluded from a particular market, but the colonies are confined to one. ↩
There is an example of revenue being furnished in Xenophon, Anab., V, v, 7, 10. ↩
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. 28–36, et passim. ↩
Ed. 1 reads “rate of the
