Front Page Titles (by Subject) [IV.viii] CHAPTER VIII: Conclusion of the Mercantile System - Glasgow Edition of the Works and Correspondence Vol. 2b An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Vol. 2
Return to Title Page for Glasgow Edition of the Works and Correspondence Vol. 2b An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Vol. 2
The Online Library of Liberty
A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.
Search this Title:
[IV.viii] CHAPTER VIII: Conclusion of the Mercantile System - Adam Smith, Glasgow Edition of the Works and Correspondence Vol. 2b An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Vol. 2 
An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Vol. I and II, ed. R. H. Campbell and A. S. Skinner, vol. II of the Glasgow Edition of the Works and Correspondence of Adam Smith (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1981).
About Liberty Fund:
Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.
The Glasgow Edition of the Works and Correspondence of Adam Smith and the associated volumes are published in hardcover by Oxford University Press. The six titles of the Glasgow Edition, but not the associated volumes, are being published in softcover by Liberty Fund. The online edition is published by Liberty Fund under license from Oxford University Press.
©Oxford University Press 1976. All rights reserved. No part of this material may be stored transmitted retransmitted lent or reproduced in any form or medium without the permission of Oxford University Press.
Fair use statement:
This material is put online to further the educational goals of Liberty Fund, Inc. Unless otherwise stated in the Copyright Information section above, this material may be used freely for educational and academic purposes. It may not be used in any way for profit.
Conclusion of the Mercantile System
1Though the encouragement of exportation, and the discouragement of importation are the two great engines by which the mercantile system proposes to enrich every country, yet with regard to some particular commodities, it seems to follow an opposite plan: to discourage exportation and to encourage importation. Its ultimate object, however, it pretends, is always the same, to enrich the country by an advantageous balance of trade. It discourages the exportation of the materials of manufacture, and of the instruments of trade, in order to give our own workmen an advantage, and to enable them to undersell those of other nations in all foreign markets: and by restraining, in this manner, the exportation of a few commodities, of no great price, it proposes to occasion a much greater and more valuable exportation of others.1 It encourages the importation of the materials of manufacture, in order that our own people may be enabled to work them up more cheaply, and thereby prevent a greater and more valuable importation of the manufactured commodities. I do not observe, at least in our Statute Book, any encouragement given to the importation of the instruments of trade. When manufactures have advanced to a certain pitch of greatness, the fabrication of the instruments of trade becomes itself the object of a great number of very important manufactures. To give any particular encouragement to the importation of such instruments, would interfere too much with the interest of those manufactures. Such importation, therefore, instead of being encouraged, has frequently been prohibited. Thus the importation of wool cards, except from Ireland, or when brought in as wreck or prize goods, was prohibited by the 3d of Edward IV.;2 which prohibition was renewed by the 39th of Elizabeth,3 and has been continued and rendered perpetual by subsequent laws.4
2The importation of the materials of manufacture has sometimes been encouraged by an exemption from the duties to which other goods are subject, and sometimes by bounties.
3The importation of sheep’s wool from several different countries,5 of cotton wool from all countries,6 of undressed flax,7 of the greater part of dying drugs,8 of the greater part of undressed hides from Ireland or the British colonies,9 of seal skins from the British Greenland fishery,10 of pig and bar iron from the British colonies,11 as well as of several other materials of manufacture, has been encouraged by an exemption from all duties, if properly entered at the customhouse. The private interest of our merchants and manufacturers may, perhaps, have extorted from the legislature these exemptions, as well as the greater part of our other commercial regulations. They are, however, perfectly just and reasonable, and if, consistently with the necessities of the state, they could be extended to all the other materials of manufacture, the publick would certainly be a gainer.
4The avidity of our great manufacturers, however, has in some cases extended these exemptions a good deal beyond what can justly be considered as the rude materials of their work. By the 24 Geo. II. chap. 46. a small duty of only one penny the pound was imposed upon the importation of foreign brown linen yarn, instead of much higher duties to which it had been subjected before, viz. of sixpence the pound upon sail yarn, of one shilling the pound upon all French and Dutch yarn, and of two bpoundb thirteen shillings and four pence upon the hundred weight of all spruce or Muscovia yarn.12 But our manufacturers were not long satisfied with this reduction. By the 29th of the same king, chap. 15. the same law which gave a bounty upon the exportation of British and Irish linen of which the price did not exceed eighteen pence the yard, even this small duty upon the importation of brown linen yarn was taken away.13 In the different operations, however, which are necessary for the preparation of linen yarn, a good deal more industry is employed than in the subsequent operation of preparing linen cloth from linen yarn. To say nothing of the industry of the flax–growers and flax–dressers, three or four spinners, at least, are necessary, in order to keep one weaver in constant employment; and more than four–fifths of the whole quantity of labour, necessary for the preparation of linen cloth, is employed in that of linene yarn; but our spinners are poor people, women commonly, scattered about in all different parts of the country, without support or protection.14 It is not by the sale of their work, but by that of the compleat work of the weavers, that our great master manufacturers make their profits. As it is their interest to sell the compleat manufacture as dear, so is it to buy the materials as cheap as possible. By extorting from the legislature bounties upon the exportation of their own linen, high duties upon the importation of all foreign linen, and a total prohibition of the home consumption of some sorts of French linen,15 they endeavour to sell their own goods as dear as possible. By encouraging the importation of foreign linen yarn, and thereby bringing it into competition with that which is made by our own people, they endeavour to buy the work of the poor spinners as cheap as possible. They are as intent to keep down the wages of their own weavers, as the earnings of the poor spinners, and it is by no means for the benefit of the workman, that they endeavour either to raise the price of the compleat work, or to lower that of the rude materials. It is the industry which is carried on for the benefit of the rich and the powerful, that is principally encouraged by our mercantile system. That which is carried on for the benefit of the poor and the indigent, is too often, either neglected, or oppressed.
5Both the bounty upon the exportation of linen, and the exemption from duty upon the importation of foreign yarn, which were granted only for fifteen years, but continued by two different prolongations,16 expire with the end of the session of parliament which shall immediately follow the 24th of June 1786.
6The encouragement given to the importation of the materials of manufacture by bounties, has been principally confined to such as were imported from our American plantations.17
7The first bounties of this kind were those granted, about the beginning of the present century, upon the importation of naval stores from America.18 Under this denomination were comprehended timber fit for masts, yards, and bowsprits; hemp; tar, pitch, and turpentine. The bounty, however, of one pound the ton upon masting timber, and that of six pounds the ton upon hemp, were extended to such as should be imported into England from Scotland.19 Both these bounties continued without any variation, at the same rate, till they were severally allowed to expire; that upon hemp on the 1st of January 1741, and that upon mastingtimber at the end of the session of parliament immediately following the 24th June 1781.
8The bounties upon the importation of tar, pitch, and turpentine underwent, during their continuance, several alterations. Originally20 that upon tar was four pounds the ton; that upon pitch, the same; and that upon turpentine, three pounds the ton. The bounty of four pounds the ton upon tar was afterwards confined to such as had been prepared in a particular manner; that upon other good, clean, and merchantable tar was reduced to two pounds four shillings the ton. The bounty upon pitch was likewise reduced to one pound; and that upon turpentine to one pound ten shillings the ton.21
9The second bounty upon the importation of any of the materials of manufacture, according to the order of time, was that granted by the 21 Geo. II. chap. 30. upon the importation of indigo from the British plantations.22 When the plantation indigo was worth three–fourths of the price of the best French indigo, it was by this act entitled to a bounty of sixpence the pound. This bounty, which, like most others, was granted only for a limited time, was continued by several prolongations, but was reduced to four pence the pound.23 It was allowed to expire with the end of the session of parliament which followed the 25th March, 1781.
10The third bounty of this kind was that granted (much about the time that we were beginning sometimes to court and sometimes to quarrel with our American colonies) by the 4 Geo. III. chap. 26. upon the importation of hemp, or undressed flax, from the British plantations.24 This bounty was granted for twenty–one years, from the 24th June 1764, to the 24th June 1785. For the first seven years it was to be at the rate of eight pounds the ton, for the second at six pounds, and for the third at four pounds. It was not extended to Scotland of which the climate (although hemp is sometimes raised there, in small quantities and of an inferior quality) is not very fit for that produce. Such a bounty upon the importation of Scotch flax into England would have been too great a discouragement to the native produce of the southern part of the united kingdom.
11The fourth bounty of this kind, was that granted by the 5 Geo. III. chap. 45. upon the importation of wood from America.25 It was granted for nine years, from the 1st January 1766, to the 1st January 1775. During the first three years, it was to be for every hundred and twenty good deals, at the rate of one pound; and for every load containing fifty cubic feet of other squared timber at the rate of twelve shillings. For the second three years, it was for deals to be at the rate of fifteen shillings, and for other squared timber, at the rate of eight shillings; and for the third three years, it was for deals, to be at the rate of ten shillings, and for other squared timber, at the rate of five shillings.
12The fifth bounty of this kind was that granted by the 9 Geo. III. chap. 38. upon the importation of raw silk from the British plantations.26 It was granted for twenty–one years, from the 1st January 1770, to the 1st January 1791. For the first seven years it was to be at the rate of twenty–five pounds for every hundred pounds value; for the second, at twenty pounds; and for the third at fifteen pounds. The management of the silk–worm, and the preparation of silk, requires so much hand labour; and labour is so very dear in America,27 that even this great bounty, I have been informed, was not likely to produce any considerable effect.
13The sixth bounty of this kind, was that granted by 11 Geo. III. chap. 50. for the importation of pipe, hogshead, and barrel staves and heading from the British plantations. It was granted for nine years, from 1st January 1772, to the 1st January 1781.28 For the first three years, it was for a certain quantity of each, to be at the rate of six pounds; for the second three years, at four pounds; and for the third three years, at two pounds.
14The seventh, and last bounty of this kind, was cthatc granted by the 19 Geo. III. chap. 37. upon the importation of hemp from Ireland.29 It was granted in the same manner as that for the importation of hemp and undressed flax from America, for twenty–one years, from the 24th June 1779, to the 24th June 1800. This term is divided, likewise, into three periods of seven years each; and in each of those periods, the rate of the Irish bounty is the same with that of the American. It does not, however, like the American bounty, extend to the importation of undressed flax. It would have been too great a discouragement to the cultivation of that plant in Great Britain. When this last bounty was granted, the British and Irish legislatures were not in much better humour with one another, than the British and American had been before. But this boon to Ireland, it is to be hoped, has been granted under more fortunate auspices, than all those to America.
15The same commodities upon which we thus gave bounties, when imported from America, were subjected to considerable duties when imported from any other country.30 The interest of our American colonies was regarded as the same with that of the mother country. Their wealth was considered as our wealth. Whatever money was sent out to them, it was said, came all back to us by the balance of trade, and we could never become a farthing the poorer, by any expence which we could lay out upon them. They were our own in every respect, and it was an expence laid out upon the improvement of our own property, and for the profitable employment of our own people. It is unnecessary, I apprehend, at present to say any thing further, in order to expose the folly of a system, which fatal experience has now sufficiently exposed. Had our American colonies really been a part of Great Britain, those bounties might have been considered as bounties upon production, and would still have been liable to all the objections to which such bounties are liable, but to no other.31
16 The exportation of the materials of manufacture is sometimes discouraged by absolute prohibitions, and sometimes by high duties.
17Our woollen manufacturers have been more successful than any other class of workmen, in persuading the legislature that the prosperity of the nation depended upon the success and extension of their particular business.32 They have not only obtained a monopoly against the consumers by an absolute prohibition of importing woollen cloths from any foreign country;33 but they have likewise obtained another monopoly against the sheep farmers and growers of wool, by a similar prohibition of the exportation of live sheep and wool. The severity of many of the laws which have been enacted for the security of the revenue is very justly complained of, as imposing heavy penalties upon actions which antecedent to the statutes that declared them to be crimes, had always been understood to be innocent. But the cruellest of our revenue laws, I will venture to affirm, are mild and gentle, in comparison of some of those which the clamour of our merchants and manufacturers has extorted from the legislature, for the support of their own absurd and oppressive monopolies. Like the laws of Draco, these laws may be said to be all written in blood.
18By the 8th of Elizabeth, chap. 3.34 the exporter of sheep, lambs or rams, was for the first offence to forfeit all his goods for ever, to suffer a year’s imprisonment, and then to have his left hand cut off in a market town upon a market day, to be there nailed up; and for the second offence to be adjudged a felon, and to suffer death accordingly. To prevent the breed of our sheep from being propagated in foreign countries, seems to have been the object of this law. By the 13th and 14th of Charles II. chap. 18.35 the exportation of wool was made felony, and the exporter subjected to the same penalties and forfeitures as a felon.36
19For the honour of the national humanity, it is to be hoped that neither of these statutes were ever executed. The first of them, however, so far as I know, has never been directly repealed,37 and Serjeant Hawkins seems to consider it as still in force.38 It may however, perhaps, be considered as virtually repealed by the 12th of Charles II. chap. 32. sect. 3.39 which, without expressly taking away the penalties imposed by former statutes, imposes a new penalty, viz. That of twenty shillings for every sheep exported, or attempted to be exported, together with the forfeiture of the sheep and of the owner’s share of the ship. The second of them was expressly repealed by the 7th and 8th of William III. chap. 28. sect. 4.40 By which it is declared that, “Whereas the statute of the 13th and 14th of King Charles II. made against the exportation of wool, among other things in the said act mentioned, doth enact the same to be deemed felony; by the severity of which penalty the prosecution of offenders hath not been so effectually put in execution: Be it, therefore, enacted by the authority foresaid, that so much of the said act, which relates to the making the said offence felony, be repealed and made void.”41
20The penalties, however, which are either imposed by this milder statute, or which, though imposed by former statutes, are not repealed by this one, are still sufficiently severe. Besides the forfeiture of the goods, the exporter incurs the penalty of three shillings for every pound weight of wool either exported or attempted to be exported, that is about four or five times the value. Any merchant or other person convicted of this offence is disabled from requiring any debt or account belonging to him from any factor or other person.42 Let his fortune be what it will, whether he is, or is not able to pay those heavy penalties, the law means to ruin him compleatly. But as the morals of the great body of the people are not yet so corrupt as those of the contrivers of this statute, I have not heard that any advantage has ever been taken of this clause. If the person convicted of this offence is not able to pay the penalties within three months after judgment, he is to be transported for seven years, and if he returns before the expiration of that term, he is liable to the pains of felony, without benefit of clergy. The owner of the ship knowing this offence forfeits all his interest in the ship and furniture. The master and mariners knowing this offence forfeit all their goods and chattels, and suffer three months imprisonment.43 By a subsequent statute the master suffers six months imprisonment.44
21 In order to prevent exportation, the whole inland commerce of wool is laid under very burdensome and oppressive restrictions.45 It cannot be packed in any box, barrel, cask, case, chest, or any other package, but only in packs of leather or pack–cloth, on which must be marked on the outside the words wool or yarn, in large letters not less than three inches long, on pain of forfeiting the same and the package, and three shillings for every pound weight, to be paid by the owner or packer.46 It cannot be loaden on any horse or cart, or carried by land within five miles of the coast, but between sun–rising and sun–setting, on pain of forfeiting the same, the horses and carriages. The hundred next adjoining to the sea coast, out of, or through which the wool is carried or exported, forfeits twenty pounds, if the wool is under the value of ten pounds; and if of greater value, then treble that value, together with treble costs, to be sued for within the year. The execution to be against any two of the inhabitants, whom the sessions must reimburse, by an assessment on the other inhabitants, as in the cases of robbery. And if any person compounds with the hundred for less than this penalty, he is to be imprisoned for five years; and any other person may prosecute. These regulations take place through the whole kingdom.47
22But in the particular counties of Kent and Sussex the restrictions are still more troublesome. Every owner of wool within ten miles of the sea–coast must give an account in writing, three days after shearing, to the next officer of the customs, of the number of his fleeces, and of the places where they are lodged. And before he removes any part of them he must give the like notice of the number and weight of the fleeces, and of the name and abode of the person to whom they are sold, and of the place to which it is intended they should be carried. No person within fifteen miles of the sea, in the said counties, can buy any wool, before he enters into bond to the king, that no part of the wool which he shall so buy shall be sold by him to any other person within fifteen miles of the sea. If any wool is found carrying towards the sea–side in the said counties, unless it has been entered and security given as aforesaid, it is forfeited, and the offender also forfeits three shillings for every pound weight. If any person lays any wool, not entered as aforesaid, within fifteen miles of the sea, it must be seized and forfeited; and if, after such seizure, any person shall claim the same, he must give security to the Exchequer, that if he is cast upon trial he shall pay treble costs, besides all other penalties.48
23When such restrictions are imposed upon the inland trade, the coasting trade, we may believe, cannot be left very free. Every owner of wool who carrieth or causeth to be carried any wool to any port or place on the sea–coast, in order to be from thence transported by sea to any other place or port on the coast, must first cause an entry thereof to be made at the port from whence it is intended to be conveyed, containing the weight, marks, and number of the packages before he brings the same within five miles of that port; on pain of forfeiting the same, and also the horses, carts, and other carriages; and also of suffering and forfeiting, as by the other laws in force against the exportation of wool. This law, however, (1 Will. III. chap. 32.) is so very indulgent as to declare, that “this shall not hinder any person from carrying his wool home from the place of shearing, though it be within five miles of the sea, provided that in ten days after shearing, and before he remove the wool, he do under his hand certify to the next officer of the customs, the true number of fleeces, and where it is housed; and do not remove the same, without certifying to such officer, under his hand, his intention so to do, three days before.”49 Bond must be given that the wool to be carried coastways is to be landed at the particular port for which it is entered outwards; and if any part of it is landed without the presence of an officer, not only the forfeiture of the wool is incurred as in other goods, but the usual additional penalty of three shillings for every pound weight is likewise incurred.
24Our woollen manufacturers, in order to justify their demand of such extraordinary restrictions and regulations, confidently asserted, that English wool was of a peculiar quality, superior to that of any other country; that the wool of other countries could not, without some mixture of it, be wrought up into any tolerable manufacture; that fine cloth could not be made without it; that England, therefore, if the exportation of it could be totally prevented, could monopolize to herself almost the whole woollen trade of the world; and thus, having no rivals, could sell at what price she pleased, and in a short time acquire the most incredible degree of wealth by the most advantageous balance of trade. This doctrine, like most other doctrines which are confidently asserted by any considerable number of people, was, and still continues to be, most implicitly believed by a much greater number; by almost all those who are either unacquainted with the woollen trade, or who have not made particular enquiries. It is, however, so perfectly false, that English wool is in any respect necessary for the making of fine cloth, that it is altogether unfit for it. Fine cloth is made altogether of Spanish wool. English wool cannot be even so mixed with Spanish wool as to enter into the composition without spoiling and degrading, in some degree, the fabric of the cloth.50
25It has been shown in the foregoing part of this work,51 that the effect of these regulations has been to depress the price of English wool, not only below what it naturally would be in the present times, but very much below what it actually was in the time of Edward III.52 The price of Scots wool, when in consequence of the union it became subject to the same regulations, is said to have fallen about one half.53 It is observed by the very accurate and intelligent author of the Memoirs of Wool, the Reverend Mr. John Smith, that the price of the best English wool in England is generally below what wool of a very inferior quality commonly sells for in the market of Amsterdam.54 To depress the price of this commodity below what may be called its natural and proper price, was the avowed purpose of those regulations; and there seems to be no doubt of their having produced the effect that was expected from them.
26This reduction of price, it may perhaps be thought, by discouraging the growing of wool, must have reduced very much the annual produce of that commodity, though not below what it formerly was, yet below what, in the present state of things, it dprobably wouldd have been, had it, in consequence of an open and free market, been allowed to rise to the natural and proper price. I am, however, disposed to believe, that the quantity of the annual produce cannot have been much, though it may perhaps have been a little, affected by these regulations. The growing of wool is not the chief purpose for which the sheep farmer employs his industry and stock. He expects his profit, not so much from the price of the fleece, as from that of the carcase; and the average or ordinary price of the latter, must even, in many cases, make up to him whatever deficiency there may be in the average or ordinary price of the former. It has been observed in the foregoing part of this work, that “Whatever regulations tend to sink the price, either of wool or of raw hides, below what it naturally would be, must, in an improved and cultivated country, have some tendency to raise the price of butchers meat. The price both of the great and small cattle which are fed on improved and cultivated land, must be sufficient to pay the rent which the landlord, and the profit which the farmer has reason to expect from improved and cultivated land. If it is not, they will soon cease to feed them. Whatever part of this price, therefore, is not paid by the wool and the hide, must be paid by the carcase. The less there is paid for the one, the more must be paid for the other. In what manner this price is to be divided upon the different parts of the beast, is indifferent to the landlords and farmers, provided it is all paid to them. In an improved and cultivated country, therefore, their interest as landlords and farmers cannot be much affected by such regulations, though their interest as consumers may, by the rise in the price of provisions.”55 According to this reasoning, therefore, this degradation in the price of wool is not likely, in an improved and cultivated country, to occasion any diminution in the annual produce of that commodity; except so far as, by raising the price of mutton, it may somewhat diminish the demand for, and consequently the production of, that particular species of butchers meat. Its effect, however, even in this way, it is probable, is not very considerable.
27But though its effect upon the quantity of the annual produce may not have been very considerable, its effect upon the quality, it may perhaps be thought, must necessarily have been very great. The degradation in the quality of English wool, if not below what it was in former times, yet below what it naturally would have been in the present state of improvement and cultivation, must have been, it may perhaps be supposed, very nearly in proportion to the degradation of price. As the quality depends upon the breed, upon the pasture, and upon the management and cleanliness of the sheep, during the whole progress of the growth of the fleece, the attention to these circumstances, it may naturally enough be imagined, can never be greater than in proportion to the recompence which the price of the fleece is likely to make for the labour and expence which that attention requires. It happens, however, that the goodness of the fleece depends in a great measure, upon the health, growth, and bulk of the animal; the same attention which is necessary for the improvement of the carcase, is, in some respects, sufficient for that of the fleece. Notwithstanding the degradation of price, English wool is said to have been improved considerably during the course even of the present century. The improvement might perhaps have been greater if the price had been better; but the lowness of price, though it may have obstructed, yet certainly it has not altogether prevented that improvement.
28The violence of these regulations, therefore, seems to have affected neither the quantity nor the quality of the annual produce of wool so much as it might have been expected to do; (though I think it probable that it may have affected the latter a good deal more than the former) and the interest of the growers of wool, though it must have been hurt in some degree, seems, upon the whole, to have been much less hurt than could well have been imagined.
29These considerations, however, will not justify the absolute prohibition of the exportation ofe wool. But they will fully justify the imposition of a considerable tax upon that exportation.
30To hurt in any degree the interest of any one order of citizens, for no other purpose but to promote that of some other, is evidently contrary to that justice and equality of treatment which the sovereign owes to all the different orders of his subjects. But the prohibition certainly hurts, in some degree, the interest of the growers of wool, for no other purpose but to promote that of the manufacturers.
31Every different order of citizens is bound to contribute to the support of the sovereign or commonwealth. A tax of five, or even of ten shillings upon the exportation of every tod of wool, would produce a very considerable revenue to the sovereign. It would hurt the interest of the growers somewhat less than the prohibition, because it would not probably lower the price of wool quite so much. It would afford a sufficient advantage to the manufacturer, because, though he might not buy his wool altogether so cheap as under the prohibition, he would still buy it, at least, five or ten shillings cheaper than any foreign manufacturer could buy it, besides saving the freight and insurance, which the other would be obliged to pay. It is scarce possible to devise a tax which could produce any considerable revenue to the sovereign, and at the same time occasion so little inconveniency to any body.
32The prohibition, notwithstanding all the penalties which guard it, does not prevent the exportation of wool. It is exported, it is well known, in great quantities. The great difference between the price in the home and that in the foreign market, presents such a temptation to smuggling, that all the rigour of the law cannot prevent it. This illegal exportation is advantageous to no body but the smuggler. A legal exportation subject to a tax, by affording a revenue to the sovereign, and thereby saving the imposition of some other, perhaps, more burdensome and inconvenient taxes, might prove advantageous to all the different subjects of the state.
33The exportation of fuller’s earth, or fuller’s clay, supposed to be necessary for preparing and cleansing the woollen manufactures, has been subjected to nearly the same penalties as the exportation of wool.56 Even tobacco–pipe clay, though acknowledged to be different from fuller’s clay, yet, on account of their resemblance, and because fuller’s clay might sometimes be exported as tobacco–pipe clay, has been laid under the same prohibitions and penalties.57
34 By the 13th and 14th of Charles II. chap. 7. the exportation, not only of raw hides, but of tanned leather, except in the shape of boots, shoes, or slippers, was prohibited;58 and the law gave a monopoly to our boot–makers and shoe–makers, not only against our graziers, but against our tanners. By subsequent statutes our tanners have got themselves exempted from this monopoly, upon paying a small tax of only one shilling on the hundred weight of tanned leather, weighing one hundred and twelve pounds.59 They have obtained likewise the drawback of two thirds of the excise duties imposed upon their commodity, even when exported without further manufacture. All manufactures of leather may be exported duty free; and the exporter is besides entitled to the drawback of the whole duties of excise.60 Our graziers still continue subject to the old monopoly. Graziers separated from one another, and dispersed through all the different corners of the country, cannot, without great difficulty, combine together for the purpose either of imposing monopolies upon their fellow–citizens, or of exempting themselves from such, as may have been imposed upon them by other people.61 Manufacturers of all kinds, collected together in numerous bodies in all great cities, easily can. Even the horns of cattle are prohibited to be exported; and the two insignificant trades of the horner and comb–maker enjoy, in this respect, a monopoly against the graziers.62
35 Restraints, either by prohibitions or by taxes, upon the exportation of goods which are partially, but not completely manufactured, are not peculiar to the manufacture of leather. As long as any thing remains to be done, in order to fit any commodity for immediate use and consumption, our manufacturers think that they themselves ought to have the doing of it. Woollen yarn and worsted are prohibited to be exported under the same penalties as wool.63 Even white cloths are subject to a duty upon exportation,64 and our dyers have so far obtained a monopoly against our clothiers. Our clothiers would probably have been able to defend themselves against it, but it happens that the greater part of our principal clothiers are themselves likewise dyers. Watch–cases, clock–cases, and dial–plates for clocks and watches, have been prohibited to be exported.65 Our clock–makers and watch–makers are, it seems, unwilling that the price of this sort of workmanship should be raised upon them by the competition of foreigners.
36By some old statutes of Edward III.,66 Henry VIII.,67 and Edward VI.,68 the exportation of all metals was prohibited. Lead and tin were alone excepted; probably on account of the great abundance of those metals; in the exportation of which, a considerable part of the trade of the kingdom in those days consisted. For the encouragement of the mining trade, the 5th of William and Mary, chap. 17.,69 exempted from this prohibition iron, copper, and mundic metal made from British ore. The exportation of all sorts of copper bars, foreign as well as British, was afterwards permitted by the 9th and 10th of William III., chap. 26.70 The exportation of unmanufactured brass, of what is called gun–metal, bell–metal, and shroff–metal, still continues to be prohibited. Brass manufactures of all sorts may be exported duty free.71
37The exportation of the materials of manufacture, where it is not altogether prohibited, is in many cases subjected to considerable duties.
38By the 8th George I., chap. 15.,72 the exportation of all goods, the produce or manufacture of Great Britain, upon which any duties had been imposed by former statutes, was rendered duty free. The following goods, however, were excepted: Allum, lead, lead ore, tin, tanned leather, copperas, coals, wool cards, white woollen cloths, lapis calaminaris, skins of all sorts, glue, coney hair or wool, hares wool, hair of all sorts, horses, and litharge of lead. If you except horses, all these are either materials of manufacture, or incomplete manufactures (which may be considered as materials for still further manufacture), or instruments of trade. This statute leaves them subject to all the old duties which had ever been imposed upon them, the old subsidy and one per cent. outwards.73
39By the same statute a great number of foreign drugs for dyers use, are exempted from all duties upon importation. Each of them, however, is afterwards subjected to a certain duty, not indeed a very heavy one, upon exportation. Our dyers, it seems, while they thought it for their interest to encourage the importation of those drugs, by an exemption from all duties, thought it likewise for their interest to throw some small discouragement upon their exportation. The avidity, however, which suggested this notable piece of mercantile ingenuity, most probably disappointed itself of its object. It necessarily taught the importers to be more careful than they might otherwise have been, that their importation should not exceed what was necessary for the supply of the home market. The home market was at all times likely to be more scantily supplied; the commodities were at all times likely to be somewhat dearer there than they would have been, had the exportation been rendered as free as the importation.
40By the above–mentioned statute, gum senega, or gum arabic, being among the enumerated dying drugs, might be imported duty free. They were subjected, indeed, to a small poundage duty, amounting only to three pence in the hundred weight upon their re–exportation. France enjoyed, at that time, an exclusive trade to the country most productive of those drugs, that which lies in the neighbourhood of the Senegal; and the British market could not feasily bef supplied by the immediate importation of them from the place of growth.74 By the 25th Geo. II. therefore, gum senega was allowed to be imported, (contrary to the general dispositions of the act of navigation) from any part of Europe. As the law, however, did not mean to encourage this species of trade, so contrary to the general principles of the mercantile policy of England, it imposed a duty of ten shillings the hundred weight upon such importation, and no part of this duty was to be afterwards drawn back upon its exportation.75 The successful war which began in 1755 gave Great Britain the same exclusive trade to those countries which France had enjoyed before. Our manufacturers, as soon as the peace was made, endeavoured to avail themselves of this advantage, and to establish a monopoly in their own favour, both against the growers, and against the importers of this commodity. By the 5th Geo. III. therefore, chap. 37.76 the exportation of gum senega from his majesty’s dominions in Africa was confined to Great Britain, and was subjected to all the same restrictions, regulations, forfeitures and penalties, as that of the enumerated commodities of the British colonies in America and the West Indies.77 Its importation, indeed, was subjected to a small duty of sixpence the hundred weight, but its re–exportation was subjected to the enormous duty of one pound ten shillings the hundred weight. It was the intention of our manufacturers that the whole produce of those countries should be imported into Great Britain, and in order that they themselves might be enabled to buy it at their own price, that no part of it should be exported again, but at such an expence as would sufficiently discourage that exportation. Their avidity, however, upon this, as well as upon many other occasions, disappointed itself of its object. This enormous duty presented such a temptation to smuggling, that great quantities of this commodity were clandestinely exported, probably to all the manufacturing countries of Europe, but particularly to Holland, not only from Great Britain but from Africa. Upon this account, by the 14 Geo. III. chap. 10. this duty upon exportation was reduced to five shillings the hundred weight.78
41In the book of rates, according to which the old subsidy was levied, beaver skins were estimated at six shillings and eight pence a piece, and the different subsidies and imposts, which before the year 1722 had been laid upon their importation, amounted to one–fifth part of the rate, or to sixteen pence upon each skin; all of which, except half the old subsidy, amounting only to two pence, was drawn back upon exportation.79 This duty upon the importation of so important a material of manufacture had been thought too high, and, in the year 1722, the rate was reduced to two shillings and sixpence, which reduced the duty upon importation to sixpence, and of this only one half was to be drawn back upon exportation.80 The same successful war put the country most productive of beaver under the dominion of Great Britain, and beaver skins being among the enumerated commodities, their exportation from America was consequently confined to the market of Great Britain.81 Our manufacturers soon bethought themselves of the advantage which they might make of this circumstance, and in the year 1764,82 the duty upon the importation of beaverskin was reduced to one penny, but the duty upon exportation was raised to seven pence each skin, without any drawback of the duty upon importation. By the same law, a duty of eighteen pence the pound was imposed upon the exportation of beaver–wool or wombs, without making any alteration in the duty upon the importation of that commodity, which when imported by British and in British shipping, amounted at that time to between four pence and five pence the piece.
42Coals may be considered both as a material of manufacture and as an instrument of trade.83 Heavy duties, accordingly, have been imposed upon their exportation, amounting at present (1783) to more than five shillings the ton, or to more than fifteen shillings the chaldron, Newcastle measure; which is in most cases more than the original value of the commodity at the coal pit, or even at the shipping port for exportation.
43The exportation, however, of the instruments of trade, properly so called, is commonly restrained, not by high duties, but by absolute prohibitions.84 Thus by the 7th and 8th of William III. chap. 20. sect. 8.85 the exportation of frames or engines for knitting gloves or stockings is prohibited under the penalty, not only of the forfeiture of such frames or engines, so exported, or attempted to be exported, but of forty pounds, one half to the king, the other to the person who shall inform or sue for the same. In the same manner by the 14th Geo. III. chap. 71.86 the exportation to foreign parts, of any utensils made use of in the cotton, linen, woollen and silk manufactures, is prohibited under the penalty, not only of the forfeiture of such utensils, but of two hundred pounds, to be paid by the person who shall offend in this manner, and likewise of two hundred pounds to be paid by the master of the ship who shall knowlingly suffer such utensils to be loaded on board his ship.
44When such heavy penalties were imposed upon the exportation of the dead instruments of trade, it could not well be expected that the living instrument, the artificer,87 should be allowed to go free. Accordingly, by the 5 Geo. I. chap. 27.88 the person who shall be convicted of enticing any artificer of, or in any of the manufactures of Great Britain, to go into any foreign parts in order to practice or teach his trade, is liable for the first offence to be fined in any sum not exceeding one hundred pounds, and to three months imprisonment, and until the fine shall be paid; and for the second offence, to be fined in any sum at the discretion of the court, and to imprisonment for twelve months, and until the fine shall be paid. By the 23 Geo. II. chap. 13.89 this penalty is increased for the first offence to five hundred pounds for every artificer so enticed, and to twelve months imprisonment, and until the fine shall be paid; and for the second offence, to one thousand pounds, and to two years imprisonment, and until the fine shall be paid.
45 By the former of those two statutes, upon proof that any person has been enticing any artificer, or that any artificer has promised or contracted to go into foreign parts for the purposes aforesaid, such artificer may be obliged to give security at the discretion of the court, that he shall not go beyond the seas, and may be committed to prison until he give such security.
46If any artificer has gone beyond the seas, and is exercising or teaching his trade in any foreign country, upon warning being given to him by any of his majesty’s ministers or consuls abroad, or by one of his majesty’s secretaries of state for the time being, if he does not, within six months after such warning, return into this realm, and from thenceforth abide and inhabit continually within the same, he is from thenceforth declared incapable of taking any legacy devised to him within this kingdom, or of being executor or administrator to any person, or of taking any lands within this kingdom by descent, devise, or purchase. He likewise forfeits to the king, all his lands, goods and chattels, is declared an alien in every respect, and is put out of the king’s protection.
47It is unnecessary, I imagine, to observe, how contrary such regulations are to the boasted liberty of the subject, of which we affect to be so very jealous; but which, in this case, is so plainly sacrificed to the futile interests of our merchants and manufacturers.
48 The laudable motive of all these regulations, is to extend our own manufactures, not by their own improvement, but by the depression of those of all our neighbours, and by putting an end, as much as possible, to the troublesome competition of such odious and disagreeable rivals. Our master manufacturers think it reasonable, that they themselves should have the monopoly of the ingenuity of all their countrymen. Though by restraining, in some trades, the number of apprentices which can be employed at one time, and by imposing the necessity of a long apprenticeship in all trades, they endeavour, all of them, to confine the knowledge of their respective employments to as small a number as possible; they are unwilling, however, that any part of this small number should go abroad to instruct foreigners.
49Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to, only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer.f The maxim is so perfectly self–evident, that it would be absurd to attempt to prove it. But in the mercantile system, the interest of the consumer is almost constantly sacrificed to that of the producer; and it seems to consider production, and not consumption, as the ultimate end and object of all industry and commerce.
50In the restraints upon the importation of all foreign commodities which can come into competition with those of our own growth, or manufacture, the interest of the home–consumer is evidently sacrificed to that of the producer. It is altogether for the benefit of the latter, that the former is obliged to pay that enhancement of price which this monopoly almost always occasions.
51It is altogether for the benefit of the producer that bounties are granted upon the exportation of some of his productions. The home–consumer is obliged to pay, first, the tax which is necessary for paying the bounty, and secondly, the still greater tax which necessarily arises from the enhancement of the price of the commodity in the home market.90
52By the famous treaty of commerce with Portugal,91 the consumer is prevented by high duties from purchasing of a neighbouring country, a commodity which our own climate does not produce, but is obliged to purchase it of a distant country, though it is acknowledged that the commodity of the distant country is of a worse quality than that of the near one. The home–consumer is obliged to submit to this inconveniency, in order that the producer may import into the distant country some of his productions upon more advantageous terms than he would otherwise have been allowed to do. The consumer, too, is obliged to pay, whatever enhancement in the price of those very productions, this forced exportation may occasion in the home–market.
53But in the system of laws which has been established for the management of our American and West Indian colonies, the interest of the home–consumer has been sacrificed to that of the producer with a more extravagant profusion than in all our other commercial regulations. A great empire has been established for the sole purpose of raising up a nation of customers who should be obliged to buy from the shops of our different producers, all the goods with which these could supply them.92 For the sake of that little enhancement of price which this monopoly might afford our producers, the home–consumers have been burdened with the whole expence of maintaining and defending that empire. For this purpose, and for this purpose only, in the two last wars, more than two hundred millions have been spent, and a new debt of more than a hundred and seventy millions has been contracted over and above all that had been expended for the same purpose in former wars.93 The interest of this debt alone is not only greater than the whole extraordinary profit, which, it ever could be pretended, was made by the monopoly of the colony trade, but than the whole value of that trade or than the whole value of the goods, which at an average have been annually exported to the colonies.
54It cannot be very difficult to determine who have been the contrivers of this whole mercantile system; not the consumers, we may believe, whose interest has been entirely neglected; but the producers whose interest has been so carefully attended to; and among this latter class our merchants and manufacturers have been by far the principal architects. In the mercantile regulations, which have been taken notice of in this chapter, the interest of our manufacturers has been most peculiarly attended to; and the interest, not so much of the consumers, as that of some other sets of producers, has been sacrificed to it.a
(At this point in 3 Smith supplies as an ‘Appendix’ various computations relating to IV.v which he had previously incorporated in the text of 2A. This ‘Appendix’ now appears at the conclusion of the present edition, pp. 948–50.)
[a–a]2A–6 [all of Chapter VIII]
[1 ]See above, IV.i.35, where the general outlines of the mercantile policy are given.
[2 ]3 Edward IV, c. 4 (1463).
[3 ]39 Elizabeth I, c. 14 (1597).
[4 ]3 Charles I, c. 5 (1627) in Statutes of the Realm, v.27–30; 3 Charles I, c. 4 in Ruffhead’s edition and 14 Charles II, c. 19 (1662) in Statutes of the Realm, v.412; 13 and 14 Charles II, c. 19 in Ruffhead’s edition.
[5 ]12 George II, c. 21 (1738) allowed the import of wool from Ireland duty free. H. Saxby The British Customs (1757), 143, states that Spanish wool for clothing and Spanish felt–wool was also duty free. 26 George II, c. 8 (1753) permitted the importation of wool and woollen yarn from Ireland to the port of Exeter. See below, V.ii.k.24.
[6 ]6 George III, c. 52 (1766).
[7 ]4 George II, c. 27 (1730). See below, V.ii.k.24.
[8 ]8 George I, c. 15 (1721). See IV.viii.38, where the drugs which may be imported are listed and their significance evaluated.
[9 ]9 George III, c. 39 (1769), continued by 14 George III, c. 86 (1774) and 21 George III, c. 29 (1781). See above, I.xi.m.11.
[10 ]15 George III, c. 31 (1775).
[11 ]23 George II, c. 29 (1749). See above, IV.vii.b.37 and 42.
[b–b]pounds 2A; 4–6
[12 ]24 George II, c. 46 (1750) imposed the duties Smith cites, but the other sums quoted are the values of the various types of yarn in the Book of Rates of 12 Charles II, c. 4 (1660), and not the duties levied on them. The duty on the specified values was increased by various measures to a total of 20 per cent. H. Saxby The British Customs (1757), 264–5.
[13 ]29 George II, c. 15 (1756), continued by 10 George III, c. 38 (1770) and 19 George III, c. 27 (1779). See below, IV.viii.5 and V.ii.k.24. In LJ (B) 232–3, ed. Cannan 180, the bounty was payable when coarse linen was ‘under 12 pence a yard’.
[14 ]See above, I.x.b.51, and IV.vii.b.24 and note 33.
[15 ]18 George II, c. 36 (1744); 21 George II, c. 26 (1747); 32 George II, c. 32 (1758); 7 George III, c. 43 (1766). See also IV.iii.a.1 and IV.iv.7.
[16 ]By 10 George III, c. 38 (1770) and 19 George III, c. 27 (1779). See above, § 4.
[17 ]See above, IV.vii.b.45.
[18 ]3 and 4 Anne, c. 9 (1704) in Statutes of the Realm, viii.354–6; 3 and 4 Anne, c. 10 in Ruffhead’s edition. See above, IV.vii.b.36.
[19 ]First by 12 Anne, c. 9 (1712) in Statutes of the Realm, ix.768–70; 12 Anne, st. 1, c. 9 in Ruffhead’s edition. 8 George I, c. 12 (1721) gave further encouragement to the importation of naval stores and encouraged the growth of hemp in Scotland. The encouragement of imports of masting timber from Scotland was extended further by 2 George II, c. 35, s. 12 (1728).
[20 ]By 3 and 4 Anne, c. 9 (1704) in Statutes of the Realm, viii.354–6; 3 and 4 Anne, c. 10 in Ruffhead’s edition.
[21 ]8 George I, c. 12 (1721) and especially 2 George II, c. 35 (1728).
[22 ]21 George II, c. 30 (1747).
[23 ]21 George II, c. 30 (1747) was continued by 28 George II, c. 25 (1755) and by 3 George III, c. 25 (1763) to the end of the parliamentary session after 25 March 1770, but the bounty was reduced to 4d. per pound. Continued until 1781 by 17 George III, c. 44 (1777).
[24 ]4 George III, c. 26 (1764).
[25 ]5 George III, c. 45 (1765).
[26 ]9 George III, c. 38 (1769).
[27 ]See above, I.ix.11 and I.viii.23.
[28 ]11 George III, c. 50 (1771).
[29 ]19 George III, c. 37 (1779).
[30 ]See above, IV.vii.b.45.
[31 ]Bounties on production are considered at IV.v.a.25.
[32 ]Cf. LJ (A) ii.91: ‘some years ago the British nation took a fancy (a very whimsicall one indeed) that the wealth and strength of the nation depended entirely on the flourishing of their woolen trade, and that this could not prosper if the exportation of wool was permitted. To prevent this, it was enacted that the exportation of wool should be punished with death.’ Cf. I.xi.m.11 and cf. I.xi.p.10, where Smith comments generally on the influence of sectional interests on the legislature.
[33 ]See IV.ii.1.
[34 ]8 Elizabeth I, c. 3 (1566).
[35 ]14 Charles II, c. 18 (1662) in Statutes of the Realm, v.410–12; 13 and 14 Charles II, c.18 in Ruffhead’s edition. See below, IV.viii.35 and V.ii.k.24.
[36 ]In LJ (A) v.64 counterfeiting the coin is cited as a felony, and also in LJ (B) 81, ed. Cannan 57. LJ (A) ii.92 mentioned that at one time the exporting of wool was treated as a felony, but that: ‘No one would consent to the punishment of a thing in itself so innocent, by so high a penalty. They were therefore obliged to lessen the punishment to confiscation of goods and vessel.’ A similar point is made in LJ (B) 182, ed. Cannan 136, where Smith also cites the case of the sentinel condemned to death for falling asleep on duty: a punishment which clearly reflected the need to protect the public good, but which was nevertheless one which ‘mankind can never enter into . . . as if he had been a thief or a robber.’ See TMS II.ii.3.11.
[37 ]8 Elizabeth I, c. 3 (1566) was repealed by 3 George IV, c. 41, s. 4 (1822).
[38 ]‘By some old Statutes, and 13 & 14 Car. 2. 18 the Exportation of Wool was made Felony; but by 7 & 8 W. 3. 28 it is reduced to a Misdemeanour only, and it is subjected to severe Penalties by many late Statutes.’ Hawkins then repeats the terms of 8 Elizabeth, c. 3, which indicates he considered it still in force. W. Hawkins, A Treatise of the Pleas of the Crown (London, 3rd ed. 1739), i.119–20.
[39 ]12 Charles II, c. 32 (1660). See below, IV.viii.20, 32, 33.
[40 ]7 and 8 William III, c. 28, 8. 2 (1695), in Statutes of the Realm, vii.118.
[41 ]14 Charles II, c. 18 (1662) in Statutes of the Realm, v.410–12; 13 and 14 Charles II in Ruffhead’s edition was finally repealed by 19 and 20 Victoria, c. 64 (1856).
[42 ]12 Charles II, c. 32 (1660). See below, IV.viii.33.
[43 ]4 George I, c. 11 (1717).
[44 ]Probably 10 William III, c. 16 (1698) in Statutes of the Realm, vii.524–8; 10 and 11 William, c. 10 (1698) in Ruffhead’s edition. See above, IV.vii.b.43.
[45 ]This illustrates the qualification to the general liberality of trade in England as mentioned at IV.vii.c.54. The restrictions imposed on the wool trade in the colonies are mentioned at IV.vii.b.43.
[46 ]12 George II, c. 21 (1738).
[47 ]7 and 8 William III, c. 28 (1695). See below, IV.viii.35.
[48 ]9 William III, c. 40 (1697) in Statutes of the Realm, vii.421–3; 9 and 10 William III, c. 40 in Ruffhead’s edition.
[49 ]1 William and Mary, c. 32 in Statutes of the Realm, vi.96–8; 1 William and Mary, sess. 1, c. 32 in Ruffhead’s edition. The quotation is not quite verbatim.
[50 ]‘It is well known that the real very superfine cloth everywhere must be entirely of Spanish wool.’ (A. Anderson, Origin of Commerce (1764), ii.137.)
[51 ]See above, I.xi.m.9.
[52 ]In Letter 203 addressed to William Eden, dated 3 January 1780, Smith wrote that ‘The Price of wool is now lower than in the time of Edward III; because it is now confined to the market of Great Britain; whereas then the market of the world was open to it. The low price of wool tends to debase the quality of the commodity, and may thus hurt the woollen manufacture in one way, as much as it may benefit it in another. By this prohibition, besides, the interest of the [grower] is evidently sacrificed to the interest of the manufacturer.’
[53 ]A similar point is made at I.xi.m.13.
[54 ]John Smith refers to the high quality wool of England and in a footnote discusses the term ‘precious fleeces’. He continues: ‘how does this Encomium [precious] agree with the Weight of their Fleeces, (which are but light, like the Spanish) and with the Price at which they are ordinarily sold in England; which is not only below the lowest Wool of Spain, at Amsterdam, but even below the coarse Wools of Germany, and the yet coarser of Tours in France’. (J. Smith, Chronicon Rusticum–Commerciale; or Memoirs of Wool, ii.418, n.)
[d–d]would probably 6
[55 ]See above I.xi.m.12. The passage is quoted verbatim but with some minor changes of punctuation.
[56 ]12 Charles II, c. 32 (1660). See above, IV.viii.19 and 20. See also Hume, History of England (1778), vi.305, for an illustration of the penalties imposed on offenders.
[57 ]14 Charles II, c. 18 (1662) in Statutes of the Realm, v.411; 13 and 14 Charles II, c. 18 in Ruffhead’s edition.
[58 ]14 Charles II, c. 7 (1662) in Statutes of the Realm, v.378–97; 13 and 14 Charles II, c. 7 in Ruffhead’s edition. See above, I.xi.m.11.
[59 ]19 and 20 Charles II, c. 10 (1667) in Statutes of the Realm, v.640; 20 Charles II, c. 5 in Ruffhead’s edition. Provisions confirmed by 9 Anne, c. 6 (1710).
[60 ]9 Anne, c. 12 (1710) in Statutes of the Realm, ix.405–17; 9 Anne, c. 11 in Ruffhead’s edition gave two–thirds of the duty as a drawback. 13 Anne, c. 18 (1713) in Statutes of the Realm, ix.936–60; 12 Anne, st. 2, c. 9 in Ruffhead’s edition gave a drawback of 1½d. for every pound of tanned leather.
[61 ]See above, IV.viii.4 and note 14.
[62 ]4 Edward IV, c. 8 (1464) allowed the export of refuse horns. The Act was repealed by 1 James I, c. 25 (1603); 2 (vulgo 1) James I, c. 25 in Ruffhead’s edition, but 7 James I, c. 14 (1609) introduced a general prohibition.
[63 ]14 Charles II, c. 18 (1662) in Statutes of the Realm, v.411; 13 and 14 Charles II, c. 18 in Ruffhead’s edition. See above, IV.viii.18 and 33. 7 and 8 William III, c. 28 (1695) had similar provisions. See above, IV.viii.21.
[64 ]12 Charles II, c. 4 (1660), re–enforced by 14 Charles II, c. 11 (1662) in Statutes of the Realm, v.393–400; 13 and 14 Charles, c. 11 in Ruffhead’s edition. See below, IV.viii.38.
[65 ]7 and 8 William III, c. 19 (1695) prohibited the export of unwrought plate except on a certificate. 9 William III, c. 28 (1697) in Statutes of the Realm, vii.399–400; 9 and 10 William III, c. 28 in Ruffhead’s edition allowed the export of watches, etc. but prohibited the export of cases without the movement and the maker’s name. The objective was to avoid frauds.
[66 ]28 Edward III, c. 5 (1354).
[67 ]33 Henry VIII, c. 7 (1541).
[68 ]2 and 3 Edward VI, c. 37 (1548), re–enforcing 33 Henry VIII, c. 7 (1541).
[69 ]5 and 6 William and Mary, c. 17 (1694) in Statutes of the Realm, vi.480–1, and in Ruffhead. Exporting of iron, copper, and mundic metal allowed except ‘pot–metal, gunmetal, shriff metal or . . . other metal than what is made of English ore’.
[70 ]9 William III, c. 26 (1697) in Statutes of the Realm, vii.393–7; 9 and 10 William III, c. 26 in Ruffhead’s edition.
[71 ]8 George I, c. 15 (1721). See above, IV.viii.3, and below, IV.viii.38 and 41.
[72 ]8 George I, c. 15 (1721). See above, §§ 3 and 36, and below, § 41.
[73 ]The duties were imposed by 12 Charles II, c. 4 (1660) and 14 Charles II, c. 11 (1662) in Statutes of the Realm, v.393–400; 13 and 14 Charles II, c. 11 in Ruffhead’s edition.
[f–f]be easily 5–6
[74 ]See below, V.ii.k.24.
[75 ]25 George II, c. 32 (1751).
[76 ]5 George III, c. 37 (1765).
[77 ]The enumerated commodities are described at IV.vii.b.35.
[78 ]14 George III, c. 10 (1774) reduced the duty from 30s. to 5s. No duty was imposed on gum senega exported from Great Britain to Ireland under licence. See below, V.ii.k.24.
[79 ]12 Charles II, c. 4 (1660). See above, IV.iv.3, IV.v.b.37, and below, V.ii.k.23.
[80 ]8 George I, c. 15 (1721). See above, IV.viii.3, 36, 38.
[81 ]See above, IV.vii.b.35.
[82 ]4 George III, c. 9 (1763).
[83 ]See below, V.ii.k.12, where Smith comments favourably on granting a bounty on the transport of coal.
[84 ]See above, II.i.14, where Smith refers to ‘machines and instruments of trade’ and cf. §§ 1 and 38 of this section.
[85 ]7 and 8 William III, c. 20 (1695). See above, IV.iii.a.1.
[86 ]14 George III, c. 71 (1774).
[87 ]Smith includes the ‘living instrument’ in the nations fixed capital in II.i.17; the restrictions on the freedom of movement of labour are summarized in I.x.c.
[88 ]5 George I, c. 27 (1718).
[89 ]23 George II, c. 13 (1749).
[f]new ¶ 6
[90 ]See above, IV.v.a.24.
[91 ]See above, IV.vi.3.
[92 ]See above, IV.vii.c.63.
[93 ]See below, V.iii.92, and above, IV.vii.c.64, IV.i.26, II.iii.35.