Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

 Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow APPENDIX E: NEW LETTERS - Glasgow Edition of the Works and Correspondence Vol. 6 Correspondence of Adam Smith

Return to Title Page for Glasgow Edition of the Works and Correspondence Vol. 6 Correspondence of Adam Smith

Search this Title:

APPENDIX E: NEW LETTERS - Adam Smith, Glasgow Edition of the Works and Correspondence Vol. 6 Correspondence of Adam Smith [1740]

Edition used:

Correspondence of Adam Smith, ed. E. C. Mossner and I. S. Ross, vol. VI of the Glasgow Edition of the Works and Correspondence of Adam Smith (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1987).

Part of: The Glasgow Edition of the Works and Correspondence of Adam Smith, 7 vols.

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.


page 260. At the bottom.11

appendix e NEW LETTERS

a. To DAVID HUME1

Glasgow, 12 Dec. 1763

My Dear Hume

The day before I received your Last letter I had the honour of a letter from Charles Townshend renewing in the most obliging manner his former proposal, that I should travel with the Duke of Buccleugh and informing me that his Grace was to leave Eton at Christmas and would go abroad very soon after that. I accepted the Proposal but at the same time explained to Mr Townshend the Difficulties I should have in leaving the University before the beginning of April and begged to know if my attendance upon his Grace would be necessary before that time. I have yet received no answer to that Letter, which I suppose is owing to this that his Grace is not yet come from Eton and that nothing is yet settled with regard to the time of his going abroad. I delayed answering your letter till I should be able to inform you at what time I should have the Pleasure of seeing you.

Make my most respectful complements to the Baron de Holbac. The second edition of my Book is extremely incorrectly printed.2 I think it necessary however that it should be followed, rather than the first edition which is not quite so incorrect, on account of a very considerable addition which I have made to the third Part in order to obviate an objection of our friend Elliot.3 As soon as I have a months leisure I intend to new cast both the second and third parts of it, of which the form is at present by no means agreeable to me. A months leisure, however, is what I very seldom have in my present situation. It may be a year hence before I am able to execute this, and I should be sorry if the translation we[re] to stop upon this account.4 As soon as I have executed it I shall communicate the alterations to the Baron de Holbac the very day I deliver them to the English Bookseller.

Make my Compliments to all the men of Genius in France who do me the honour to know anything about me: But above all to Mr Helvetius whether he should know anything about me or not. Tell him that my own book was printed tho not published before I had the opportunity of reading his5 which hindered me from giving an account of it among the other systems of Philosophy.

The reception you have met with at Paris is not in the least beyond what I expected. I took the liberty to show part of your letter to some of our female friends notwithstanding your injunction of secresy; We all laughed heartily at your pretending not to be pleased with the flattery you have met with. You see how modesty is rewarded in this world. Are you made Secretary to the Embassy? You are so very proper for the Office that I can scarce believe they will give it you. The ridiculous affair of Wilkes seems at present to be the principal object that occupies the attention of the King, the Parliament, and the Public.6 You will oblige me extremely by letting me hear from you as soon as possible and as often as Possible.

I ever am My Dearest friend Most faithfully yours

Adam Smith

[b. From DAVID HUME1 ]

  • Address: Adam Smith Esqr, Kirkaldy

MS., Kwansei Gakuin Univ., Nishinomiya, Hyogo, Japan, Adam Smith Coll. S–802

Edinburgh, 17 Nov. 1772

Dear Sir

I have heard of an excellent House for you which will probably be empty next Whitsuntide. It consists of five chearful Rooms, three of good Size: It is the first Story of that Land at the Play–house in which my Brother lives.3 It looks along Princes Street; has a Prospect of the Castle and Castle–hill, and all Fields to the West; of the Calton Hill, the Sea, Arthur’s Seat, and even, I believe Kirkaldy to the East: Its rent is 35 pound: Shall I bespeak it for you? Have you Resolution enough to determine Yourself for your good?4

Yours

David Hume

P.S.

You once asked me for an account of the Money imported into Spain:5 I send you the enclosd Scrawl, which is all I can find out about it! But I found at the time it concurd very exactly with an Account I had given of it, I know not where. It was Count Zinzendorf6 gave me this Account!

St Andrews Square

c. To LORD STANHOPE1

  • Address: To The Right Honourable, The Earl Stanhope, Chevening, near Seven Oakes, Kent

MS., Kent Archives Office, Maidstone, File U1590 C15

London, 24 June 1775

My Lord

I obeyed your Lordships commands most exactly in writing to Mr Ferguson2 the moment your Lordship left me that I had something of importance to communicate to him which I was not a liberty to put upon paper. He came to town next morning when I repeated to him as exactly as I could the conversation that had passed between your Lordship and me.

I shall trouble your Lordship no further than to observe that in a conversation which Mr Ferguson and I had with the Sollicitor General,3 he gave it as his opinion that a Court of Equity would oblige My Lord Chesterfield4 to indemnify your Lordship for what you had undertaken as a Guardian for the Education of your Pupil.5

I beg to be remembered in the most respectfull manner to My Lady Stanhope6 and to My Lord7 and Lady Mahone.8 I cannot express to your Lordship how much uneasiness it has given me that I ever had any concern in this very awkward affair.9 I have the honour to be with the highest respect

My Lord Your Lordships Most obedient and most humble Servant

Adam Smith

  • Suffolk Street Charing Cross No 27 [Endorsement] Mr Adam Smith

dated June 24th. recd. June 25th 1775.

d. To LORD STANHOPE

MS., Kent Archives Office, Maidstone, File U1590 C15

London, 29 March 1777

My Lord

I shall be very happy to give every satisfaction in my Power either to Mr Lovell Stanhope1 or Lord Chesterfield concerning everything that I know of the transaction between your Lordship and Mr Ferguson; and I certainly know everything about it, as the whole of it passed thro’ my hands. I kept no copies of my own letters either to your Lordship or to Mr Ferguson: but upon looking over my own papers after my last journey to Scotland I found several of your Lordships and Mr Fergusons Letters to me. These I put up in a Parcel by themselves and they are now in my Bureau2 in Scotland. If they are wanted, however, I can easily get them transmitted to me here. I can with great truth assure your Lordship that no transaction of my life has ever given me more uneasiness than the thought of my having been in any respect instrumental, tho’ it was in consequence of your Lordships own proposal, in bringing, what I have often thought, a most unnecessary burthen upon your family and estate.

I should be glad that the conference between either My Lord Chesterfield or Mr Lovell Stanhope and me should pass in the presence of some person of undoubted probity and truth. If either Sir George Savile3 or Mr. Hewit[t]4 would chuse, or rather would consent to be present I should think myself perfectly secure. I ever am

My Lord Your Lordships most obliged and most humble Servant

Adam Smith

  • Suffolk Street Charing Cross N 27

e. To LORD STANHOPE

  • Address: [Th]e Right Honble, The Earl Stanhope, Chevening, near Seven Oaks, Kent

MS., Kent Archives Office, Maidstone, File U1590 C15

London, 2 April 1777

My Lord

I had a very long conversation with Sir George Savile yesterday morning and another this morning; and I think I have at last fully satisfied him that, tho’ the contingency of Mr Fergusons losing his professorship and thereby, in case of any accident to your Lordship, being left destitute upon the world, was the motive of my desiring your Lordship to grant him some written security;1 that contingency was not understood to be the condition of that security either by Mr Ferguson or by your Lordship. I got from Mr Chalmer,2 Mr Fergusons Agent here, a copy of the letter which your Lordship gave to Mr Ferguson at Paris3 which perfectly satisfied him. He said he would shew it first to Mr Hewitt and that they would go together to Lord Chesterfield and Lovell Stanhope. They are to send to me if there is occasion for me. I shall call upon Sir George tomorrow or next day to enquire what he has done; and what, he thinks, they are likely to do. Sir George told me he had wrote to your Lordship last night.4 I ever am with the highest respect and esteem

My Lord Your Lordships Most obedient and most Obliged Servant

Adam Smith

  • Suffolk Street Charing Cross No 27. [Endorsement] Dr Adam Smith

dated Apr. 2nd. recd. Apr. 4th 1777.

f. To LORD STANHOPE

  • Address: The Right Honble, The Earl Stanhope, Chevening, near Seven Oaks, Kent

MS., Kent Archives Office, Maidstone, File U1590 C15

London, 5 April 1777

My Lord

I shewed to Sir George Savile Mr Fergusons letter to your Lords[h]ip;1 as well as your Lordships to me which enclosed it.2 He shewed them both to Mr Hewitt; and those two Gentlemen went today to wait on Lord Chesterfield; but found that he was gone to Blackheath. I return you Mr Fergusons letter.

I have by this post sent to Mr Ferguson your Lordships letter to me; but have advised him not to trust the original of your Lordships letter3 to him to the common Post; but to some safe and careful hand. The Loss of it, I know well, could be of no consequence to him; but it might be of some to your Lordship. Mr. Fergusons Agent, Mr Chalmer has a copy of this Letter [,] of which copy he favoured me with a copy which is now in the possession of Sir George Savile. Before Monday next I shall get another which I shall transmit to your Lordship. In the mean time, I am with the most Sincere respect and esteem

My Lord Your Lordships most obedient and most obliged, humble Servant

Adam Smith

  • Suffolk Street Charing Cross No 27 [Endorsement] Dr. Adam Smith

dated Apr. 5th recd. Apr. 6th. 1777.

g. From JA[MES] CHALMER

  • Address: Mr. Smith, No 27, Suffolk Street

MS., Kent Archives Office, Maidstone, File U1590 C15

London, 7 April 1777

Sir

I send you another Copy of Earl Stanhopes Letter to Dr Ferguson.1 I have prefixed the date, as I did to the Copy I sent you some days ago, — tho the Copy transmitted to me by the Doctor, from which I take this, has none, presuming it is owing merely to his ommission in transcribing from the original, because in an after Letter of Lord Stanhopes and in Dr Fergusons to Lord Chesterfield of 25. Jany last2 I observe this letter referd to as dated at Paris April 6. 1774.

I am Sr

Your most Obed. he. Sn

Ja: Chalmer

St. Albans Str.

g. (i). From LORD STANHOPE to ADAM FERGUSON

  • Address: To Dr Adam Ferguson, Professor of Moral Philosophy in the University of Edinburgh

MS., Kent Archives Office, Maidstone, File U1590 C15

Paris, 6 April 1774

Sir

(copy)

As I understand that it is not at present in any persons power to make a legal Settlement in your favour of an Annuity of two hundred pounds Sterling a year for life, to commence from the time of the Earl of Chesterfields attaining his age of twenty one years, in consideration of the Benefit which His Lordships Guardians1 have reason to expect will accrue to him from your being appointed his Governor, I do hereby engage myself and my Heirs to make such a Settlement, and to charge with the payment thereof a sufficient part of the real Estates devolved to me by the Death of Philip Dormer Earl of Chesterfield2 who died on the twenty fourth day of March in the Year Seventeen hundred and seventy three, in case neither the present Earl of Chesterfield nor any of those who stand before me in the Entail of the Estates which belonged to the said late Earl of Chesterfield3 shall think fit to secure to you the aforesaid Annuity of two hundred pounds Sterling a year for the term of your natural life after the Earl of Chesterfield’s coming of age.

I am with great truth and regard Sir Your most faithfull humble Servant

Signed—Stanhope

h. To LORD STANHOPE

  • Address: The Right Honble, The Earl Stanhope, Chevening, near Seven Oaks, Kent

MS., Kent Archives Office, Maidstone, File U1590 C15

London, 8 April 1777

My Lord

I send you enclosed the copy of a copy of your Lordships letter to Dr Ferguson.1 I received it last night from Mr Chalmer.

I have given this day to Mr Baron Gordon2 the key of my writing Desk which contains the correspondence between your Lordship, Ferguson and me; that is, it contains your Lordships and Fergusons letters to me;3 for I kept no copies of my own. He will breakfast at my mothers house4 on Monday next so that I expect to receive them on Saturday se’nnight. I beg to be remembered in the most respectful manner to Lady Stanhope and to Lord and Lady Mahone; and that your Lordship would believe me to be with the most sincere respect and esteem

My Lord Your Lordships most faithful humble Servant

Adam Smith

  • Suffolk Street Charing Cross No 27 [Endorsement] Dr. Smith

dated Apr. 8th recd. Apr. 9th 1777.

containing a Copy of my Letter to Dr. Ferguson dated Paris Apr. 6th. 1774.

i. To LORD STANHOPE

  • Address: The Right Honble, The Earl Stanhope, Chevening, near Seven Oaks, Kent

MS., Kent Archives Office, Maidstone, File U1590 C15

London, 19 April 1777

My Lord

I send your Lordship Mr Fergusons letter to me1 and return you at the same time his letter to your Lordship.2 I think he is too scrupulous; but, I suppose, he suspects that Lord Chesterfield and his profound Unkle3 might be disposed to accuse other Governours, as well as Dr Dodd,4 of a forgery, if they could find even the Slightest pretense for doing so.

I sent word to the Sollicitor General this morning that I proposed to dine with him at Mitcham5 tomorrow and to stay with him all night; but he sent me word that Mrs Wedderburne6 and he were engaged on a party to a different part of t[he] country. At Mitcham I should have found him a[t] Leisure for a discussion of the point. My own opinion is different from his.7 I shall endeavour to find an opportunity for this discussion on Monday or tuesday next and you may depend upon my giving him no rest till he has given me a distinct and satisfactory written opinion one way or other.8 I have now got copies of all the papers together with your Lordships and Fergusons original letters to me. I ever am

My Lord Your Lordships Most obliged humble Servant

Adam Smith

  • Suffolk Street Charing Cross No 27. [Endorsement] Dr. Adam Smith

dated Apr. 19th. recd. Apr. 20th. 1777.

j. From ALEXANDER WEDDERBURN

MS., Kent Archives Office, Maidstone, File U1590 C15

29 April 1777

My Dear Smith,

I have very fully considered the Papers you left with me in relation to our Friend Ferguson’s Annuity. I should have been much surprised had Lord Stanhope entertained a doubt upon the conditions of the engagement, his Letter of the 6th of April 1774 is expressed in terms so plain and so distinct that the Person who wrote It must evidently have been incapable of starting a doubt upon the Intention of the Letter. Without any reference to what Mr. Ferguson possessed, what he might, or might not quit, the only consideration mentioned in the Letter is the benefit expected to come to Ld. Chesterfield from Mr. Ferguson’s being appointed his Governor. That appointment took place and consequently the Engagement to secure the Annuity, which certainly is not lessened by the manner in which the appointment ceased.1 I am not surprized however at the Difficulty which you inform me has been suggested; It is not less unjust to suppose a Condition that never existed than to decline performing the engagement, But it may seem less unhandsome to lay hold of that pretext, than plainly to insist that Ld. Stanhope alone is bound by this Letter. That he thinks himself bound ought to be a sufficient Reason for Ld. Chesterfield’s discharging an engagement formed solely upon his account and for his benefit, and I am of opinion that the Law is not so illiberal as to leave this engagement upon Lord Stanhope. The case is new, and I trust It will be a singular one. But should It become necessary to take the Judgment of a Ct. of Justice upon It I cannot allow myself to doubt that the Ward in this instance would be bound by the act of his Guardian. In the strictest line of Law An Infant is bound by Contracts for Necessarys,2 and particularly such articles as relate to his Tuition, even the capital of his fortune may be laid out if the Income is too scanty for the purposes of Education. The Court of Chancery3 takes a still greater latitude in the case of Infants under its care and tho’ the Indolence and Timidity of Guardians has established a sort of fashion of applying to that Court on all occasions to authorize any article of Expence, I have no Idea that any reasonable act of a Guardian for the sole purpose of serving his ward will ever receive a check from that Court. If this matter should not be settled as It ought, It will be proper that Mr. Ferguson commence a Suit in Chancery agt. Ld. Chesterfield and Ld. Stanhope upon the foundation of the Letter of the 6th of April 1774.4 Lord Stanhope’s Probity will not be easily reconciled to the proposal of sufferring a Person to sue for what he admits him entitled to claim, But I think this is the fit course for Ferguson to pursue and no pretext ought to be furnished agt. Ld. Stanhope, of a facility in giving up whatever defence It may be pretended could have been urged agt. the Demand — I ever am My Dear Smith,

Yours most entirely

Al: Wedderburn

k. To LORD STANHOPE

MS., Kent Archives Office, Maidstone, File U1590 C15

London, 20 April [1777] ‘past 9, o’clock at night’

My Lord

Sir George Savile has left me this moment. I understand from him that Lord Chesterfield is disposed to do of his own accord everything that is proper. I would, therefore, wish your Lordship not to take any further step in this affair till I have the honour of writing to you. It would be certainly much better that he should do right of his own accord. I understand that he is desirous of seeing me and I shall certainly wait upon him tomorrow. If I have the honour to be admitted, you shall know the result of our conference by tomorrows Post. I have the honour to be with the highest respect and esteem My Lord, your Lordships

Most obliged humble Servant

Adam Smith

  • Suffolk Street Charing Cross No 27

l. To LORD STANHOPE

  • Address: The Right Honble, The Earl Stanhope, Chevening, near Seven Oaks, Kent

MS., Kent Archives Office, Maidstone, File U1590 C15

London, 8 May 1777

My Lord

In consequence of what I wrote to your Lordship in my Last letter1 I called on Lord Chesterfield the day after the date of that Letter. His servants told me he was dressing; upon which I left my card with a verbal Message that I had called upon him in consequence of Sir George Saviles having told me that he wished to see me. I have heard nothing of him since; and, therefore, presume that he never means to converse with me upon the Subject, if he can avoid it. I am now convinced that the most proper method of bringing this affair to a speedy conclusion, or indeed to any conclusion, is to acquaint, in the civilest and most proper manner, My Lord Chesterfield and Mr Lovell Stanhope with the Sollicitor Generals opinion.2 I mentioned this to Sir George Savile to–day. He said very properly, that he could not give any information of that kind unless he was desired to do so by your Lordship. I think, therefore, you should send him either the original or a copy of the Sollicitor Generals opinion.

I did not, till this day, delivery your Lordships last letter3 to Mr Fergusons agent, Mr Chalmer in order to send a copy of it to his constituent. If your Lordship will give me leave I wish to keep the original, not only to shew it to some of my young friends in the mean time, but to leave it a legacy to my family and Posterity, if it should ever please God to grant me any, as an example of inflexible probity4 which they ought to follow upon all occasions. I am with the highest respect and esteem

My Lord Your Lordships Most Obliged, humbe Servant,

Adam Smith

  • [Endorsement] Dr. Adam Smith

dated May 8th. recd. May 9th. 1777.

m. To LORD MAHON

  • Address: Lord Mahone, Harley Street

MS., Kent Archives Office, Maidstone, File U1590 C15

London, 14 May 1777

My Lord

I had not an opportunity of seeing Mr Wedderburne till today: I did not care to write to him; because it would have given him the trouble of answering my letter. He is perfectly willing that his opinion1 should be laid before Mr Dunning2 or any other person your Lordship and Lord Stanhope wish to show it to. I enclose you his opinion, and have the honour to be with very great respect and esteem Your Lordship[s]

Most obedient humble Servant

Adam Smith

  • Suffolk Street Charing Cross N 27 [Endorsement] Dr. Adam Smith to Ld. Mahon

dated May 14th. recd. May 15th. 1777.

n. To LORD STANHOPE

  • Address: The Right Honble, The Earl Stanhope, Chevening, Near Seven Oaks, Kent

MS., Kent Archives Office, Maidstone, File U1590 C15

London, 24 May 1777

My Lord

Neither Sir George Savile, nor I have yet had any message either from Lovell Stanhope or Lord Chesterfield and I presume we never shall have any. I am obliged to set out for Scotland about the fifteenth or twentieth of next month and shall remain there for eight or ten months to come.1 Whatever information I am capable of giving, therefore, must be given before that time.

It was some days after I received your Lordships last letter before I had an opportunity of seeing Mr Wedderburne, and I did not care to write to him, because it would have given him the trouble of answering my Letter. He was very willing that his opinion should be shewn to Mr Dunning. I wrote this to Lord Mahone and enclosed to him Mr Wedderburnes letter. My Servant carried this little parcel or packet to Harley Street where he left it; but brought me back word that Lord Mahone had left London a few days before; that his letters, however, would be sent to him. I hope he received this letter safe. I ever am with the highest respect and esteem

My Lord Your Lordships Most obliged, humble Servant—

Adam Smith

  • Suffolk Street Charing Cross N. 27 [Endorsement] Dr. Adam Smith

dated May 24th. recd. May 25th. 1777

o. To LADY STANHOPE

  • Address: The Right Honble, The Countess Stanhope

MS., Kent Archives Office, Maidstone, File U1590 C15

London, 14 June 1777

Madam

I received this morning the honour of your Ladyships card. I had received yesterday the enclosed card and letter from Sir George Savile containing exactly the same information.1 The conduct of Lord Chesterfield is exactly what I expected it would be for some weeks past. I propose to set out for Scotland before the end of next week and shal[l] be glad to receive either your Ladyships or Lord Stanhopes commands before that time. Lord Mahone has certainly acted very properly in communicating the Sollicitor Generals Letter to Lord Chesterfield.2 I have the honour to be with the highest respect and esteem Madam

Your Ladyships Most obliged humble Servant

Adam Smith

  • [Endorsement] Dr Smith 14 June 1777

red 15 June

p. To [HENRY HERBERT, LORD PORCHESTER]1

MS., NLS No. 14835, ff.70–1; Scottish Journal of Political Economy, vol. 28 (1981), 206–9.

Edinburgh, 23 Sept. 1788

My Dear Lord

Jardine,2 is after Millar3Longo sed proximus intervallo;4 I have not the least doubt but Mr Herbert5 will be very happy and very well taken care of in his house. Millar is the best manager of young people I ever knew; and has the greatest talent of inspiring them with an ardour for the particular studies which he professes. He has a family of young daughters who are all remarkably well behaved Women, very sensible and very clever, but not very handsome. A cousin of mine,6 Nephew to Miss Douglas,7 and son to Collonel Douglas and my their presumptive was boarded there last winter. He lived very happily in the family and was much pleased with all his Messmates. We propose that he should board in the same place next winter and the winter thereafter, when he will return to Edinburgh to enter Advocate or rather to undergo his examination upon the civil law. He is eighteen years of age, has lived in my house from his infancy, is a very fine scholar, of the purest morals, and of the greatest simplicity and pleasantry of manners. And whether they live in the same or in different houses, will be an excellent companion to your Son. I agree with you in preferring Glasgow to Edinburgh.

It gives me the greatest concern to inform you that Poor Miss Douglas is probably within a very few days, certainly within a very few weeks of her end. Some unknown disease in her Bowels which she concealed for, I believe, many years had gradually wasted her strength, reduced her to a shadow and has for some weeks past confined her to her bed where she is scarce able to turn herself. She still, however, continues to direct the affairs of her family with her usual distinctness and attention; and waits for the great change, which she knows is very near, without any impatience, without any fear, and without much regret. Her humour and raillery are the same as usual. She will leave me one of the most destitute and helpless men in Scotland. Remember me most respectfully to Lady Porchester and believe me,

My Dearest Lord most faithfully and affectionately ever yours

Adam Smith

It gave Miss Douglas great pleasure to hear that she was kindly remembered by you.

q. From DUGALD STEWART

  • Address: Adam Smith Esquire, Custom House, Edinburgh

MS., GUL 1464/9; Rae 426.

[Dover, 6 May 1789]1

Dear Sir

I was so extremely hurried during the very short stay I made in London, that I had not a moment’s time to write to you till now. The day after my Arrival I called on Cadell, and luckily found Strachan2 with him. They both assured me in the most positive terms that they had published no Edition of the Theory since the Fifth, which was printed in 1781, and that if a 6th has been mentioned in any of the newspapers, it must have been owing to a typographical mistake. For your farther satisfaction Cadell stated the fact in his own handwriting on a little bit of paper which I send you enclosed.3

I mentioned also to Cadell the resolution you had formed not to allow the Additions to the Theory4 to be printed separately, which he said embarrassed him much, as he had already in similar circumstances more than once incurred the charge of illiberality with the public. On my telling him however that you had made up your mind on the subject, and that it was perfectly unnecessary to write to you, as the nature of the work made in impossible for you to comply with his proposal, he requested of me to submit to your consideration whether it might not [be] proper for you to mention this circumstance, for his justification, in an advertisement prefixed to the Book.5 This was all, I think, that passed in the course of our conversation.

I write this from Dover which I am just leaving with a fair wind, so that I hope to be in Paris on Thursday. It will give me great pleasure to receive your commands, if I can be of any use to you in executing any of your commissions. I ever am,

Dear Sir you much obliged and most obedient servant,

Dugald Stewart

r. To HON. HENRY GEORGE HERBERT1

  • Address: To the Hon. Henry Herbert, College of Glasgow

MS., Professor H. C. Recktenwald, Friedrich–Alexander–Universität, Erlangen–Nürnberg; Scottish Journal of Political Economy, vol. 28 (1981), 206–9.

Edinburgh, 21 Jan. 1790

Sir

It gave me very great concern that I happened not to be at Home when you did me the honour to call at my house.2 You are so good as to give me hopes of seeing you again in the summer. May I beg the favour of you to take up your quarters at my house. You will be more quiet there than you can be at any Lodging House and Mr Douglas and I will do our best to entertain you. I am very anxious that you should accept of this invitation and you will oblige me extremely by doing so. I have the honour to be Sir

your most obedient humble Servant

Adam Smith

s. To JOHN MACLAURIN1

John Maclaurin, Lord Dreghorn, Works (Edinburgh, 1798), i. xxvii.

[ ]2

I have read your Dissertation3 twice over, with great pleasure; and I so far agree with you, as to be satisfied that there is not one single fact relating to the Trojan war, of which the historical truth can, even in its most essential circumstances, be at all depended on.4 To suppose, however, that it is more probable that Helen was an honest woman, that Hector killed Achilles, and that Troy was not taken, than the opposite events, I suspect is rather a strong conclusion. I am totally unacquainted with the writings of Dion Chrysostom.5

[11 ]Like the first draft amendment, this one received a slight revision here and there, but in addition it received very ample supplementation towards the end when it was actually printed in the second edition. Smith in his letter asks Elliot to pass over paragraphs 3–5 in Part III, Section ii. Two of these deleted paragraphs are in fact reproduced, with slight revision, in the second and third paragraphs of the amendment. In the sixth edition, and consequently in the Glasgow edition, the first two paragraphs of the amendment are printed at III.1.6–7. The third paragraph of the amendment was deleted in ed. 6. Paragraphs 4–7 of the amendment (‘The Great Judge . . . disadvantageous Judgement’) were replaced in ed. 6, at III.1. §§ 31–2, by a revised and condensed statement of their thought. The 8th and 9th paragraphs of the amendment, and part of the 10th paragraph (‘It is only . . . inequality of our sentiments’) are at III.3. §§ 1–3. The remainder of the 10th paragraph of the amendment was amplified in ed. 2, and the amplification appears in ed. 6 at III.3. §§ 4–5, 7–9, 11. The 11th paragraph of the amendment was amplified in ed. 2, but the amplification was omitted in ed. 6, which has itself an extensive addition in this part of the book. The 12th and last paragraph of the amendment, which was of course in ed. 1, is to be found in the 6th (Glasgow edn., III.4.2).

[1 ]This complete text of Letter 78 is derived from the facsimile in J. R. MacCulloch, Sketch of the Life and Writings of Adam Smith, LL.D. (Edinburgh: priv. ptd., 1855), ante p. 43 (EUL, Hodgson Collection, JA 2340). See Letters 76 and 77.

[2 ]TMS ed. 2, printed 1760, published 1761 (Letters 50, 54).

[3 ]Gilbert Elliot; see Letter 40.

[4 ]In their commentary on a transcription: ‘A Forgotten Letter of Adam Smith to David Hume, 12th December, 1763,’ The Journal of Economics of Kwansei Gakuin Univ. xxxix (1985), 124–7, Professor Yoshiaki Sudo and Hisashi Shinohara point out that the translation referred to here (and in Letter 77) cannot be by M. A. Eidous, since his work received its ‘Approbation’ on 7 Sept. 1763 (Metaphysique de l’Ame, 1764, ii. 370), and it was based on TMS ed. 1. They suggest the Abbé Blavet as the translator under d’Holbach’s ‘Eye’ (Letter 77), but he is not known to have been a member of the latter’s coterie and his translation did not appear until 1774. A close associate of d’Holbach noted for his translations from English was J.–B.–A. Suard but nothing seems to be known about him working on TMS.

[5 ]De l’esprit (1758; translated into English, 1759); mentioned in Letter 31 (n. 13) from Hume to Smith, 12 Apr. 1759.

[6 ]Nov.–Dec. 1763 witnessed the climax of the political tumults occasioned when John Wilkes (1725–97; M.P. for Aylesbury, 1757–64; and for Middlesex, 1768–9, 1774–90) arranged for the printing of The North Briton, No. 45, an attack on the Court party, and the Essay on Women, an obscene parody of Pope’s Essay on Man. Parliament condemned the periodical to be burnt by the common hangman on 3 Dec., but a London crowd rescued it from the bonfire and acclaimed its author as a defender of the Constitution: George Rudé, Wilkes and Liberty (1962).

[1 ]This letter in all likelihood is from Hume to Smith. The difficulty is that the address is pasted on to the text of the letter and may not be from the original cover. However, the tone resembles Hume’s other letters to Smith regarding schemes for meetings (see n. 3 below), and the reference to a house having a view of Kirkcaldy suggests Smith who lived there at this period, also the postscript connects with topics Smith discusses in WN.

[2 ]This letter was kindly drawn to the editors’ attention by Professor Toshihiro Tanaka of Kwansei Gakuin Univ. He is studying its provenance and its claims to being addressed to Smith.

[3 ]Hume’s elder brother, John Home of Ninewells and Fairney–castle (1709–86) moved to Edinburgh in 1767 for the sake of his children’s education. After a period at James’s Court in the Old Town, he moved to Butters Land, near the philosopher’s house in St David’s Street, off St Andrew’s Square, in the New Town. The ‘Play–house’ was the old Theatre Royal, whose foundation stone was laid on 16 March 1768. It stood near the site of the present Register House, at the north end of the North Bridge. A ‘Land’ is the Scots term for a building divided into different flats or apartments for different households, all of which have a common staircase.

[4 ]After settling in Edinburgh in 1769, Hume proposed many schemes for visits and meetings with Smith, keeping in mind his friend’s desire for a retired life in Kirkcaldy while writing what became WN (see Letters 121, 123, 124, 129, 131, 134, 136). Hume also wished to have other friends near him: see his letter of 7 Feb. 1776 (NHL 194–5) mentioning he had ‘reserved’ a house in St Andrew’s Square for the physician, Sir John Pringle. On 23 Nov. 1772 (Letter 134), Hume responded to Smith’s ‘Reasoning’ in a lost letter, which possibly dealt with this project of Smith living in the New Town. Hume goes on to say that Adam Ferguson was to occupy ‘next week . . . a house in this neighbourhood.’

[5 ]Presumably as background for WN’s discussion of the ‘Variations in the Value of Silver during the Course of the Four Last Centuries’ (I.xi.d–n), and of the effect on Spain of her proprietorship of the American mines (IV.v.a.18–20). From his Glasgow professorship days, Smith had been examining and disproving the theory that the wealth of nations consists of its holdings of gold and silver (LJ (A) vi. 136 and (B) 251–3). Hume had written an essay ‘Of Money,’ published in Political Discourses (1752), a book which quickly attracted European attention and went through three editions within two years.

[6 ]Ludwig Friedrich Julius, Count von Zinzendorf (1721–80): after an early period in the Saxon Court Lifeguards, he studied law at Leipzig and rose in the Austrian civil service as a protégé of Kaunitz. While an attaché at Versailles in 1750, he interested himself in French and English financial and credit systems and wrote an essay on the founding of a state bank. It is possible that Hume met him when in Vienna from 7 to 26 April 1748 on a diplomatic mission with General St Clair, but Zinzendorf in turn visited Britain in 1753, and may well have sought contact with the author of Political Discourses. From 1762, Zinzendorf was General Controller of Finance in Vienna and President of the Court Treasury. He regarded himself as an expert on finance and commerce, and Hume probably applied to him as such.

[1 ]Philip Stanhope (1717–86), 2nd Earl Stanhope.

[2 ]The letter Smith mentions has not been traced. It was addressed to Adam Ferguson.

[3 ]Alexander Wedderburn.

[4 ]Philip Stanhope (1755–1815), 5th Earl of Chesterfield; son of Arthur Charles Stanhope of Mansfield Woodhouse and Margaret, dau. and coheiress of Charles Headlam of Kerby, Yorks.; cousin and godson of Philip Dormer Stanhope, 4th Earl of Chesterfield, who directed his early education; his tutors included Cuthbert Shaw and Gibbon’s friend J. G. Deyverdun, as well as Ferguson, his successor ‘Mr De Saint Germain,’ and the forger Dr William Dodd; he became a favourite of George III; privy councillor 1784; nominal ambassador to Spain 1784–7; master of the mint 1789–90; joint postmaster–general 1790; master of the horse 1798–1804; K.G. 1805.

[5 ]Stanhope, together with Sir George Savile and John Hewitt, was guardian of the 5th Earl of Chesterfield, on whose behalf he had agreed to provide Ferguson with an annuity of £200 when his ward reached his majority, as a benefit for Ferguson’s services as tutor: see Letter g (i).

[6 ]Grisel (d. 1811), dau. of Charles Hamilton, Lord Binning, sister of Thomas, 7th Earl of Haddington; Hume recognized her as a ‘cousin’ and was on very friendly terms with her: see her letters in the Hume MSS, Royal Soc. Edinburgh (HL ii. 444–5).

[7 ]Charles, Viscount Mahon (1753–1816), F.R.S. 1772; eldest s. of the 2nd Earl Stanhope, whom he succeeded in 1786; educ. Eton 1761–3, Geneva 1764–74, served on the Genevan Council of Two Hundred 1774; M.P. for Chipping Wycombe 1780–6, under the patronage of his friend Shelburne; he opposed North’s American policy and championed commercial interests—gold dealers and soap and glass manufacturers; Pitt relied on his advice in connection with reducing tea duty to limit smuggling in 1784—a project in line with Adam Smith’s thinking; in the House of Lords he continued to support Pitt, until his sympathy for the French Revolution drove him into opposition; he had a deep and lifelong interest in science and mechanical devices, such as the calculating machines he built in the 1770s; his Principles of Electricity (1779) was widely acclaimed.

[8 ]Lady Hester Pitt (d. 1780), dau. of William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham, md. Viscount Mahon, 19 Dec. 1774, and bore him three daus.

[9 ]Securing of the annuity of £200 promised to Adam Ferguson by Stanhope in 1774 as part of the bargain for becoming tutor to Philip Stanhope, later 5th Earl of Chesterfield; Smith recommended Ferguson for this post in 1773, acted as a go–between in the transaction (Corr. 138), and was concerned over the liability Stanhope had assumed: see Letter g (i).

[1 ]Lovell Stanhope (1720–83), of Winchester, Hants.; 4th son of Revd. Michael Stanhope, canon of St Paul’s and later of Windsor, a distant cousin of the 4th Earl of Chesterfield, and Penelope, dau. of Sir Salathiel Lovell, Baron of Exchequer; educ. at Lincoln’s Inn from 1743 and called to the bar 1747; Chesterfield obtained a place for him as law clerk to the secretaries of state 1747–74, a post he gave up to become M.P. for Winchester 1774–83; previously he had served as agent for Jamaica 1757–63, gentleman usher to the Queen 1761, under–secretary of state 1764–5 and Jan.–Mar. 1771; in the Commons he supported North’s Administration and opposed Shelburne’s moves in 1783 to end the American war; he was given a pension of £564 for life on giving up his under–secretaryship in 1771, and a further secret service pension of £100 when he entered Parliament (Sir Lewis Namier and John Brooke, History of Parliament, The Commons 1754–90, H.M.S.O., 1966, iii. 463–4); he became the future 5th Earl of Chesterfield’s guardian, together with the Duke of Chandos, when Lord Stanhope, Sir George Savile, and John Hewitt declined to act in that capacity in or before June 1775.

[2 ]Illustrated in W. R. Scott, Adam Smith as Student and Professor (Glasgow, 1937), Plate xi, facing p. 266.

[3 ]Sir George Savile, 8th Bt. (1726–84), of Thornhill, Yorks, and Rufford, Notts.; M.P. for Yorkshire 1759–83; last male descendant of a family with parliamentary connections dating back to the sixteenth century, and including as a direct ancestor, the great ‘Trimmer’ — 1st Marquess of Halifax, whose independent course in politics he followed; though close to Rockingham, he did not join his Administration; he counselled moderation in the American and other crises of his period, supported the movement to secure Wilkes as M.P. for Middlesex, attacked British intervention in India, opposed North’s Administration for what he regarded as its tyranny and corruption, and warmly espoused the cause of parliamentary reform (Namier and Brooke, History of Parliament, The Commons 1754–90, iii. 405–9); with the 2nd Earl Stanhope, and John Hewitt, he was one of the original guardians selected for the future 5th Earl of Chesterfield by the 4th Earl.

[4 ]John Hewitt (c.1721–87), of Osberton and Shireoaks, Notts, and South Kelsey, Lincs.; M.P. for Nottinghamshire 1747–74; b. John Thornhagh, s. of St Andrew Thornagh of Osberton by Letitia, dau. of Sir Edward Asycough of Stallingborough and South Kelsey, Lincs.; educ. Queen’s College, Cambridge 1739; his sister was the first wife of the father of the 5th Earl of Chesterfield; in 1744 he married Arabella, sister and coheiress of Sir George Savile, 8th Bt.; in 1742 he succeeded his father, inheriting Osberton, and in 1756 under the will of his godfather Sir Thomas Hewitt he adopted his name and inherited Shireoaks; as a large Nottinghamshire landowner, he was connected politically with the Duke of Newcastle and Sir George Savile, whose independent stance he adopted, seeing as his principal concern service to his constituents.

[1 ]Smith’s acknowledgement of his role beginning late in 1773 in the negotiations for securing Adam Ferguson as tutor to the future 5th Earl of Chesterfield; the security was a promise made by Lord Stanhope to fund an annuity of £200 p.a. for life for Ferguson after Chesterfield came of age: see Letter g (i) below.

[2 ]James Chalmer, London attorney.

[3 ]Letter g (i).

[4 ]Kent Archives Office, Maidstone, File U1590 C15, No. 8: letter of 1 Apr. 1777 from Savile to Stanhope about consulting Hewitt and Smith concerning Ferguson’s annuity.

[1 ]Kent Archives Office, Maidstone, File U1590 C15, No. 5, letter dated 10 Mar. 1777 about Chesterfield’s failure to do anything concerning the annuity; Ferguson has no recourse but to apply to Stanhope.

[2 ]Not traced.

[3 ]Letter g (i).

[1 ]Letter g (i).

[2 ]Not traced.

[1 ]At that time Stanhope himself, Sir George Savile, and John Hewitt.

[2 ]Philip Dormer Stanhope (1694–1773), 4th Earl of Chesterfield.

[3 ]Chesterfield’s will was dated 4 June 1772 with a codicil 11 Feb. 1773.

[1 ]Letter g (i).

[2 ]Cosmo Gordon (c.1736–1800), of Cluny, Aberdeenshire, and Kinsteary, Nairn, lawyer, enthusiastic agricultural improver, and leading member of Edinburgh’s intellectual élite; son of the factor to the 3rd Duke of Gordon; educ. Marischal College, Aberdeen, 1749–53; advocate 1758; succeeded fa. 1769, inheriting a large fortune coming in part from the lease of the Spey salmon fishings; M.P. for Nairnshire 1774–7, then appointed by North a Baron of the Scottish Court of Exchequer; md. 1786 Mary dau. of Henry Baillie of Carnbroe, Lanark; a close friend of James Boswell and Lord Monboddo, in politics he was allied with the Campbells of Calder, the 4th Duke of Gordon, and Henry Dundas.

[3 ]For extant letters from Ferguson to Smith, see Nos. 138, 139, 141, 142, and 183.

[4 ]Margaret Douglas Smith’s house was demolished in 1834—its site is marked by a plaque at 220 High Street, Kirkcaldy; for a ground plan, see James Bonar, A Catalogue of the Library of Adam Smith, 2nd edn. (London, 1932), p. xxi.

[1 ]Corr. No. 183, letter of 12 Apr. 1777.

[2 ]Kent Archives Office, Maidstone, File U1590 C15, No. 11, letter of 12 Apr. 1777 dealing with Ferguson’s plan to send Stanhope a copy of the letter of 6 Apr. 1774 and being willing to come to London if Chesterfield will relieve Stanhope of his obligation on seeing the letter.

[3 ]i.e. Stanhope—‘profound’ because of his knowledge of mathematics.

[4 ]Revd. William Dodd (1729–77), educ. Clare Hall, Cambridge; chaplain to George III and prebendary at Brecon 1763; LL.D. 1766; nick–named the ‘macaroni parson’; rector of Hockliffe and vicar of Chalgrove 1772; struck off the list of royal chaplains 1774 for improper solicitation of preferment from Lord Chancellor Apsley (he attempted to bribe Apsley’s wife to secure a living); fled to the Continent where he was welcomed by his former pupil, the future 5th Earl of Chesterfield, who presented him with a living; in 1777 he forged a bond for £4,200 in Chesterfield’s name, was convicted for this crime on 6 June, and hanged on 27 June, despite appeals for clemency from prominent people, including Dr. Johnson; Dodd repaid Chesterfield his money, but the latter did not intercede for him and became known as the ‘man who hanged a parson’; Dodd’s many publications included Beauties of Shakespeare (1752), a translation of the hymns of Callimachus (1754), and Thoughts in Prison (1777).

[5 ]Mitcham, Surrey, now a suburb of Greater London, in Smith’s time a country village, where Wedderburn presumably had his out–of–town house.

[6 ]Wedderburn md. on 31 Dec. 1767 Betty Anne (d. 15 Feb. 1781) dau. and heiress of John Morley, Yorks. He remarried on 12 Sept. 1782, the Hon. Charlotte Courtenay, da. of William, 1st Viscount Courtenay. There were no surviving children of either marriage.

[7 ]Perhaps a reference to Wedderburn’s concluding point in Letter j that Ferguson should bring on a Chancery suit against both Chesterfield and Stanhope. Smith may have felt that Chesterfield could be brought over by family or friendly persuasion to grant the annuity. A second hypothesis, however, suggested by Dr. David Raynor, University of Ottawa, is that Smith refers here not to strategy but to point of law, the prediction of what a court would say. On this view, Smith was not trying to change Wedderburn’s mind by placing the documents before him, but seeking to secure a reliable all–things–considered opinion.

[8 ]Letter j.

[1 ]In June 1775, Ferguson was informed by Lovell Stanhope that he and the Duke of Chandos, Chesterfield’s new guardians, were considering removing him as tutor and appointing a successor; he was in fact discharged from his post on 24 June (Kent Archives Office, Maidstone, File U1590 C15, No. 38, Section 15—part of the Chancery Bill dated 20 Sept. 1777). Ferguson was not keen to go abroad again with Chesterfield.

[2 ]Common law required performance of contracts to secure sustenance for ‘infants,’ persons under 21, and the Court of the King’s Bench, for example, had jurisdiction regarding such matters.

[3 ]This Court had jurisdiction in equity over the guardianship of ‘infants.’

[4 ]The Chancery Bill of 20 Sept. 1777 (with supplements) is cited in n. 1 above.

[1 ]Letter k.

[2 ]Letter j.

[3 ]Not traced.

[4 ]This is the strongest expression by Smith of his estimate of Stanhope’s behaviour in connection with Ferguson’s annuity. It is interesting that in his bachelor state and in his fifty–fourth year, Smith considered it possible he might have children and thus ‘Posterity’.

[1 ]Letter j.

[2 ]John Dunning (1731–83), of Ashburton, Devon; lawyer and M.P. for Calne 1768–82; began his legal career in the office of his father, a country attorney, and rose to be the head of the common law and equity bars; his political patron Shelburne said that the only doubt concerning him was ‘whether he excelled most at equity or common law’ (Namier and Brooke, History of Parliament: House of Commons 1754–90, ii. 367–8); he was solicitor–general 1768–70, but was dismissed for opposing the Court; in Parliament he attacked North’s Ministry and supported the bill for the relief of Roman Catholics; on 6 Apr. 1780 he moved two famous motions: ‘that the influence of the Crown has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished’ (carried by 233 votes to 215), and ‘that it is competent for this House to reform the civil list or any part of the public expenditure’ (carried without division); in 1782 he was created Baron Ashburton, made a privy councillor, also chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster; contemporaries admired his powers of correct reasoning as well as lucid exposition, and regretted that he never became lord chancellor. He agreed with Wedderburn’s opinion regarding Chesterfield’s obligation to pay Ferguson his annuity, responding to two queries about the issue on a copy of Stanhope’s letter of 6 Apr. 1774 (Kent Archives Office, File U1590 C15, No. 1).

[1 ]Smith was appointed a Commissioner for Customs on 30 Jan. 1778, and there is no record of him returning to London until the Summer of 1782.

[1 ]These cards have not been traced, but there is a letter from Savile to Stanhope dated 10 June 1777, mentioning he has tried to see Chesterfield who appears to have had no intention of meeting either Savile or Smith (Kent Archives Office, Maidstone, File U1590 C15, No. 19).

[2 ]There is a draft letter to this effect in Mahon’s hand, c.13 June 1777 (Kent Archives Office, Maidstone, File U1590, C15, No. 20).

[1 ]Identified by internal evidence.

[2 ]Professor George Jardine (1742–1827), one of Smith’s favourite pupils at Glasgow University, where he taught Greek and Logic, 1787–1824; upheld Scotland’s academic system in Outlines of a Philosophical Education (1818, 1825).

[3 ]Professor John Millar.

[4 ]Aeneid v. 320, from an account of a foot race in which Salius is ‘next’ to Nisus ‘but at a long interval’.

[5 ]Hon. Henry George Herbert.

[6 ]David Douglas.

[7 ]Janet Douglas.

[1 ]From the postmark.

[2 ]Andrew Strahan.

[3 ]Not traced.

[4 ]See Letters 244, 276, and 287.

[5 ]This was not done in the Advertisement to ed. 6 (1790), but the first paragraph described the extensive alterations.

[1 ]Enclosed with Letter 291 to David Douglas; see New Letter p.

[2 ]Panmure House, Canongate, Edinburgh.

[1 ]John Maclaurin (1734–96), eldest son of the interpreter of Newton and mathematician, Colin Maclaurin, and Anne Stewart, dau. of Walter Stewart of Stewarthall, Solicitor General for Scotland in George I’s reign; educ. Edinburgh High School (which he criticized severely) and Edinburgh Univ.; admitted advocate 1756; raised to the Bench in 1788 as Lord Dreghorn. His publications, in addition to A Collection of Criminal Cases (1774), included occasional poetry and miscellaneous essays on legal, philosophical, historical, political, and literary topics, one of these being the subject of Smith’s letter. When he became acquainted with Smith is not known, but he accompanied him in 1784 to see Lunardi ascend by balloon from Heriot’s Garden (Works, II, 300).

[2 ]Adam Smith and John Maclaurin were original members of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. Its Literary Class, to which they belonged, first met on 17 Nov. 1783, and at the fourth meeting on 16 Feb. 1784, John Maclaurin read his ‘Dissertation’ (see n. 3), which was published in 1788 in the Transactions of the Society. It seems most likely that Maclaurin would seek Smith’s opinion of his paper prior to delivery, which suggests a date between Nov. 1783 and Feb. 1784 for the letter.

[3 ]‘A Dissertation to prove that Troy was not taken by the Greeks’, RSE Transactions i (1788), II, 43–62, published ‘with additional notes and observations, by the Author’, in his posthumous (Works, II, 352–91).

[4 ]Following classical precedents, critics in the seventeenth and eighteenth century argued against the historicity of the Homeric poems (see Kirsti Simonsuuri, Homer’s Original Genius, Cambridge U.P. 1979).

[5 ]These paradoxes proposed by Maclaurin in his ‘Dissertation’ are coloured by his reading of the Eleventh Discourse of Dio Chrysostom, a sophistic address to the Trojans maintaining that Troy was not captured.