Life of Adam Smith

By

JOHN RAE

London

MACMILLAN & CO. 

AND NEW YORK

1895

PREFACE

The fullest account we possess of the life of Adam Smith is still thememoir which Dugald Stewart read to the Royal Society of Edinburgh ontwo evenings of the winter of 1793, and which he subsequentlypublished as a separate work, with many additional illustrative notes, in 1810. Later biographers have made few, if any, fresh contributionsto the subject. But in the century that has elapsed since Stewartwrote, many particulars about Smith and a number of his letters haveincidentally and by very scattered channels found their way intoprint. It will be allowed to be generally desirable, in view of thecontinued if not even increasing importance of Smith, to obtain ascomplete a view of his career and work as it is still in our power torecover; and it appeared not unlikely that some useful contribution tothis end might result if all those particulars and letters to which Ihave alluded were collected together, and if they were supplemented bysuch unpublished letters and information as it still remained possibleto procure. In this last part of my task I have been greatly assistedby the Senatus of the University of Glasgow, who have most kindlysupplied me with an extract of every passage in the College recordsbearing on Smith; by the Council of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, who have granted me every facility for using the _HumeCorrespondence_, which is in their custody; and by the Senatus of theUniversity of Edinburgh for a similar courtesy with regard to the_Carlyle Correspondence_ and the David Laing MSS. In their library. Iam also deeply indebted, for the use of unpublished letters or for thesupply of special information, to the Duke of Buccleuch, the Marquisof Lansdowne, Professor R. O. Cunningham of Queen's College, Belfast, Mr. Alfred Morrison of Fonthill, Mr. F. Barker of Brook Green, and Mr. W. Skinner, W. S. , late Town Clerk of Edinburgh. 

CONTENTS

CHAPTER I

EARLY DAYS AT KIRKCALDY

Birth and parentage, 1. Adam Smith senior, 1; his death and funeral, 3. Smith's mother, 4. Burgh School of Kirkcaldy, 5. Schoolmaster'sdrama, 6. School-fellows, 6. Industries of Kirkcaldy, 7. 

CHAPTER II

STUDENT AT GLASGOW COLLEGE

Professors and state of learning there, 9. Smith's taste formathematics, 10. Professor R. Simson, 10. Hutcheson, 11; his influenceover Smith, 13; his economic teaching, 14. Smith's early connectionwith Hume, 15. Snell exhibitioner, 16. College friends, 17. 

CHAPTER III

AT OXFORD

Scotch and English agriculture, 18. Expenses at Oxford, 19. Did Smithgraduate? 20. State of learning, 20; Smith's censure of, 20. Hisgratitude to Oxford, 22. Life in Balliol College, 22. Smith's devotionto classics and belles-lettres, 23. Confiscation of his copy of Hume's_Treatise_, 24. Ill-health, 25. Snell exhibitioners ill-treated anddiscontented at Balliol, 26. Desire transference to other college, 27. Smith's college friends, or his want of them, 28. Return to Scotland, 28. 

CHAPTER IV

LECTURER AT EDINBURGH

Lord Kames, 31. Smith's class on English literature, 32. Blair'salleged obligations to Smith's lectures, 33. Smith's views as acritic, 34. His addiction to poetry, 35. His economic lectures, 36. James Oswald, M. P. , 37. Oswald's economic correspondence with Hume, 37. Hamilton of Bangour's poems edited by Smith, 38. Dedication tosecond edition, 40. 

CHAPTER V

PROFESSOR AT GLASGOW

Admission to Logic chair, 42. Letter to Cullen about undertaking MoralPhilosophy class, 44. Letter to Cullen on Hume's candidature for Logicchair and other business, 45. Burke's alleged candidature, 46. Hume'sdefeat, 47. Moral Philosophy class income, 48. Work, 50. ProfessorJohn Millar, 53. His account of Smith's lectures, 54; of his qualitiesas lecturer, 56. Smith's students, 57. H. Erskine, Boswell, T. Fitzmaurice, Tronchin, 58, 59. Smith's religious views suspected, 60. His influence in Glasgow, 60. Conversion of merchants to free trade, 61. Manifesto of doctrines in 1755, 61. Its exposition of economicliberty, 62. Smith's alleged habitual fear of the plagiarist, 64. Thismanifesto not directed against Adam Ferguson, 65. 

CHAPTER VI

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR

Smith's alleged helplessness in business transactions, 66; his largeparticipation in business at Glasgow, 67. Appointed Quæstor, 68; Deanof Faculty, 68; Vice-Rector, 68. Dissensions in the University, 69;their origin in the academic constitution, 70. Enlightened educationalpolicy of the University authorities, 71. James Watt, Universityinstrument-maker; Robert Foulis, University printer, 71. Wilson, type-founder and astronomer. The Academy of Design. ProfessorAnderson's classes for working men, 72. Smith and Watt, 73. Smith'sconnection with Foulis's Academy of Design, 74. Smith and Wilson'stype-foundry, 77. Proposed academy of dancing, fencing, and riding inthe University, 79. Smith's opposition to the new Glasgow theatre, 80;his generally favourable views on theatrical representations, 81. Hisprotests against Professor Anderson voting for his own translation toNatural Philosophy chair, 83. Joins in refusing Professor Rouet leaveto travel abroad with a pupil, and in depriving him of office for hisabsenteeism, 84. 

CHAPTER VII

AMONG GLASGOW FOLK

Glasgow at period of Smith's residence, 87; its beauty, 88; itsexpanding commerce and industry, 89; its merchants, 90. AndrewCochrane, 91. The economic club, 92. Duty on American iron and foreignlinen yarns, 93. Paper money, 94. The Literary Society, 95. Smith'spaper on Hume's Essays on Commerce, 95. "Mr. Robin Simson's Club, " 96. Saturday dinners at Anderston, 97. Smith at whist, 97. Simson's ode tothe Divine Geometer, 98. James Watt's account of this club, 99. Professor Moor, 99. 

CHAPTER VIII

EDINBURGH ACTIVITIES

Edinburgh friends, 101. Wilkie, the poet, 102. William Johnstone(afterwards Sir William Pulteney), 103. Letter of Smith introducingJohnstone to Oswald, 103. David Hume, 105. The Select Society, 107;Smith's speech at its first meeting, 108; its debates, 109; its greatattention to economic subjects, 110; its practical work forimprovement of arts, manufactures, and agriculture, 112; itsdissolution, 118. Thomas Sheridan's classes on elocution, 119. The_Edinburgh Review_, 120; Smith's contributions, 121; on Wit andHumour, 122; on French and English classics, 123; on Rousseau'sdiscourse on inequality, 124. Smith's republicanism, 124. Prematureend of the _Review_, 124; Hume's exclusion from it, 126. Attempt tosubject him to ecclesiastical censure, 127. Smith's views andDouglas's _Criterion of Miracles Examined_, 129. Home's _Douglas_, 130. Chair of Jurisprudence in Edinburgh, 131. Miss Hepburn, 133. ThePoker Club, 134; founded to agitate for a Scots militia, 135. Smith'schange of opinion on that subject, 137. The tax on French wines, 139. 

CHAPTER IX

THE "THEORY OF MORAL SENTIMENTS"

Letter from Hume, 141. Burke's criticism, 145. Charles Townshend, 146. Letter from Smith to Townshend, 148. Second edition of Theory, 148. Letter from Smith to Strahan, 149. The union of Scotland with England, 150. Benjamin Franklin, 150. 

CHAPTER X

FIRST VISIT TO LONDON

Conversion of Lord Shelburne to free trade, 153. Altercation with Dr. Johnson, 154. Boswell's account, 155; Sir Walter Scott's, 156; BishopWilberforce's, 157. 

CHAPTER XI

LAST YEAR IN GLASGOW

Letter on Rev. W. Ward's Rational Grammar, 159. Letter to Humeintroducing Mr. Henry Herbert, 161. Smith's indignation at Shelburne'sintrigues with Lord Bute, 162. On Wilkes, 163. Letter from Hume atParis, 163. Letter from Charles Townshend about Buccleugh tutorship, 164. Smith's acceptance, 165. Salary of such posts, 165. Smith's pooropinion of the educational value of the system, 166. Smith'sarrangements for return of class fees and conduct of class, 167. Letter to Hume announcing his speedy departure for Paris, 168. Partingwith his students, 169. Letter resigning chair, 172. 

CHAPTER XII

TOULOUSE

Sir James Macdonald, 174. Toulouse, 175. Abbé Colbert, 175. TheCuthberts of Castlehill, 176. Archbishop Loménie de Brienne, 177. Letter to Hume, 178. Trip to Bordeaux, 179. Colonel Barré, 179. Toulouse and Bordeaux, 180. Sobriety of Southern France, 180. Duke ofRichelieu, 181. Letter to Hume, 181; letter to Hume, 183. Visit toMontpellier, 183. Horne Tooke, 183. The States of Languedoc, 183. Theprovincial assembly question, 184. Parliament of Toulouse, 185. TheCalas case, 186. 

CHAPTER XIII

GENEVA

Its constitution, 188. Voltaire, 189; Smith's veneration for, 190;remarks to Rogers and Saint Fond on, 190. Charles Bonnet, G. L. LeSage, 191. Duchesse d'Enville and Duc de la Rochefoucauld, 192. LordStanhope, Lady Conyers, 193. 

CHAPTER XIV

PARIS

Arrival, 194. Departure of Hume, 196. Smith's reception in society, 197. Comtesse de Boufflers, 198. Baron d'Holbach, 199. Helvetius, 200. Morellet, 200. Mademoiselle de l'Espinasse, 201. Turgot andD'Alembert, 202. Question of literary obligations, 203. Allegedcorrespondence, 204. Smith's opinion of Turgot, 205. Necker, 206. Dispute between Rousseau and Hume, 206. Letter to Hume, 208. MadameRiccoboni, 210; letter from her to Garrick introducing Smith, 211. Visit to Abbeville, 212. A marquise, 213. The French theatre, 214. Smith's love of music, 214. The French economists, 215. Dupont deNemours's allusion, 215. Quesnay, 216. Views of the politicalsituation, 217. Mercier de la Rivière and Mirabeau, 218. Activity ofthe sect in 1766, 219. Smith's views of effect of moderate taxation onwages, 220. Illness of Duke of Buccleugh at Compiègne, 222. Letter ofSmith to Townshend, 222. Hume's perplexity where to stay, 225. Deathof Hon. Hew Campbell Scott, 226. Duke of Buccleugh on the tutorship, 226. Smith's merits as tutor, 227. His improvement from his travels, 227; their value to him as thinker, 228. Did he foresee theRevolution? 229. His views on condition of French people, 230. Hissuggestion for reform of French taxation, 231. 

CHAPTER XV

LONDON

Arrival in November 1766, 232. On Hume's continuing his _History_, 233. Third edition of _Theory_, 233. Letter to Strahan, 234. Letter toLord Shelburne, 233. Alexander Dalrymple, hydrographer, 235. Coloniesof ancient Rome, 236. Anecdote of Smith's absence of mind, 237. F. R. S. , 238. 

CHAPTER XVI

KIRKCALDY

Count de Sarsfield, 240. Letter from Smith to Hume, 241. His dailylife in Kirkcaldy, 242. Letter to Hume from Dalkeith, 243. BishopOswald, 243. Captain Skene, 243. The Duchess of Buccleugh, 243. Home-coming at Dalkeith, 244. The Duke, 245. Stories of Smith'sabsence of mind, 246. Letter to Lord Hailes on old Scots Acts abouthostellaries, 247. On the Douglas case, 248. Reported completion of_Wealth of Nations_ in 1770, 251. Smith receives freedom of Edinburgh, 251. Letter to Sir W. Pulteney on his book and an Indian appointment, 253. Crisis of 1772, 254. The Indian appointment, 255; Thorold Rogerson, 256. Work on _Wealth of Nation_ after this date, 257. Tutorship toDuke of Hamilton, 258. Anecdote of absence of mind, 259. Habits incomposing _Wealth of Nations_, 260. 

CHAPTER XVII

LONDON

Letter to Hume appointing him literary executor, 262. Long residencein London, 263. Assistance from Franklin, 264. Recommendation of AdamFerguson for Chesterfield tutorship, 266. Hume's proposal as to Smithtaking Ferguson's place in the Moral Philosophy chair, 266. TheBritish Coffee-House, 267. Election to the Literary Club, 267. Smith'sconversation, 268. His alleged aversion to speak of what he knew, 269. Attends William Hunter's lectures, 271. Letter to Cullen on freedom ofmedical instruction, 273. Hume's health, 280. Smith's zeal on theAmerican question, 281. Advocacy of colonial incorporation, 282. 

CHAPTER XVIII

"THE WEALTH OF NATIONS"

Terms of publication and sales, 285. Letter from Hume, 286. Gibbon'sopinion, 287; Sir John Pringle's, 288; Buckle's, 288. Generalreception, 288. Fox's quotation, 289. Fox and Lauderdale'sconversation on Smith, 289. Quotations in Parliament, 290. Popularassociation of economics with "French principles, " 291. Prejudiceagainst free trade as a revolutionary doctrine, 291. Editions of thebook, 293. Immediate influence of the book on English taxation, 294. 

CHAPTER XIX

THE DEATH OF HUME

Smith and John Home meet Hume at Morpeth, 295. The _Dialogues onNatural Religion_, 296. Letter from Hume, 297. Hume's farewell dinner, 299. Correspondence between Hume and Smith about the _Dialogues_, 300. Hume's death and monument in Calton cemetery, 302. Correspondence ofSmith with Home or Ninewells, 302. Correspondence with Strahan on the_Dialogues_, 305. Copy money for _Wealth of Nations_. Strahan'sproposal to publish selection of Hume's letters, 309. Smith's reply, 310. Clamour raised by the letter to Strahan on Hume's death, 311. Bishop Horne's pamphlet, 312. Was Hume a Theist? 313. Mackenzie's "LaRoche, " 314. 

CHAPTER XX

LONDON AGAIN--APPOINTED COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

Mickle's translation of the _Lusiad_, 316. His causeless resentmentagainst Smith, 317. Governor Pownall, 318. Letter of Smith to Pownall, 319. Appointed Commissioner of Customs, 320. Lord North's indebtednessto the _Wealth of Nations_, 320. Salary of post, 321. Correspondencewith Strahan, 321. 

CHAPTER XXI

IN EDINBURGH

Panmure House, Canongate, 325; Windham on, 326. Sunday suppers, 327. Smith's library, 327. His personal appearance, 329. Work in the CustomHouse, 330. Anecdotes of absence of mind, 330. Devotion to Greek andLatin classics, 333. The Oyster Club, 334. Dr. Black and Dr. Hutton, 336. 

CHAPTER XXII

VARIOUS CORRESPONDENCE IN 1778

Letter from Duc de la Rochefoucauld, 339. Letter to Lord Kames, 341. Sir John Sinclair's manuscript work on the Sabbath, 342. The surrenderat Saratoga, 343. Letter to Sir John Sinclair on the _Mémoiresconcernant les Impositions_, 343. Smith's view of taxes on thenecessaries and on the luxuries of the poor, 345. 

CHAPTER XXIII

FREE TRADE FOR IRELAND

Commercial restrictions on Ireland, 346. Popular discontent, 347. Demand for free trade, 347. Grattan's motion, 348. Smith consulted byGovernment, 349. Letter to Lord Carlisle, 350. Letter from Dundas toSmith, 352. Smith's reply, 353. Smith's advocacy of union, 356. 

CHAPTER XXIV

THE "WEALTH OF NATIONS" ABROAD AND AT HOME

Danish translation, 357. Letter of Smith to Strahan, 357. Frenchtranslations, 358; German, 359; Italian and Spanish, 360. Suppressedby the Inquisition, 360. Letter to Cadell, 361. Letter to Cadell onnew edition, 362. Dr. Swediaur, 362. The additional matter, 363. 

CHAPTER XXV

SMITH INTERVIEWED

Reminiscences in the _Bee_, 365. Opinion of Dr. Johnson, 366; Dr. Campbell of the _Political Survey_, 366; Swift, 367; Livy, 367;Shakespeare, 368; Dryden, 368; Beattie, 368; Pope's _Iliad_, Milton'sshorter poems, Gray, Allan Ramsay, Percy's _Reliques_, 369; Burke, 369; the Reviews, 370. Gibbon's _History_, 371. Professor Faujas SaintFond's reminiscences, 372. Voltaire and Rousseau, 372. The bagpipecompetition, 372. Smith made Captain of the Trained Bands, 374. Foundation of Royal Society of Edinburgh, 375. Count deWindischgraetz's proposed reform of legal terminology, 376. 

CHAPTER XXVI

THE AMERICAN QUESTION AND OTHER POLITICS

Smith's Whiggism, 378. Mackinnon of Mackinnon's manuscript treatise onfortification, 379. Letter from Smith, 380. Letter to Sir JohnSinclair on the Armed Neutrality, 382. Letter to W. Eden (LordAuckland) on the American Intercourse Bill, 385. Fox's East IndiaBill, 386. 

CHAPTER XXVII

BURKE IN SCOTLAND

Friendship of Burke and Smith, 387. Burke in Edinburgh, 388. Smith'sprophecy of restoration of the Whigs to power, 389. With Burke inGlasgow, 390. Andrew Stuart, 391. Letter of Smith to J. Davidson, 392. Death of Smith's mother, 393. Burke and Windham in Edinburgh, 394. Dinner at Smith's, 394. Windham love-struck, 395. John Logan, thepoet, 396. Letter of Smith to Andrew Strahan, 396. 

CHAPTER XXVIII

THE POPULATION QUESTION

Dr. R. Price on the decline of population, 398. Dr. A. Webster's listsof examinable persons in Scotland, 399. Letter of Smith to Eden, 400. Smith's opinion of Price, 400. Further letter to Eden, 400. Henry Hopeof Amsterdam, 401. Letter to Bishop Douglas, introducing Beatson ofthe _Political Index_, 403. 

CHAPTER XXIX

VISIT TO LONDON

Meeting with Pitt at Dundas's, 405. Smith's remark about Pitt, 405. Consulted by Pitt, 406. Opinion on Sunday schools, 407. Wilberforceand Smith, 407. The British Fisheries Society, 408. Smith'sprognostication confirmed, 409. Chosen Lord Rector of GlasgowUniversity, 410. Letter to Principal Davidson, 411. Installation, 412. Sir John Leslie, 412. Letter of Smith to Sir Joseph Banks, 413. Deathof Miss Douglas, 414. Letter to Gibbon, 414. 

CHAPTER XXX

VISIT OF SAMUEL ROGERS

Smith at breakfast, 416. Strawberries, 417. Old town of Edinburgh, 417. Loch Lomond, 417. The refusal of corn to France, 417. "_That_Bogle, " 418. Junius, 429. Dinner at Smith's, 420. At the Royal Societymeeting, 421. Smith on Bentham's _Defence of Usury_, 422. 

CHAPTER XXXI

REVISION OF THE "THEORY"

Letter from Dugald Stewart, 426. Additional matter in new edition of_Theory_, 427. Deletion of the allusion to Rochefoucauld, 427. Suppressed passage on the Atonement, 428. Archbishop Magee, 428. Passage on the Calas case, 429. 

CHAPTER XXXII

LAST DAYS

Declining health, 431. Adam Ferguson's reconciliation and attentions, 433. Destruction of Smith's MSS. , 434. Last Sunday supper, 434. Hiswords of farewell, 435. Death and burial, 435. Little notice in thepapers, 436. His will and executors, 436. His large private charities, 437. His portraits, 438. His books, 439. Extant relics, 440. 

CHAPTER I

EARLY DAYS AT KIRKCALDY

1723-1737

Adam Smith was born at Kirkcaldy, in the county of Fife, Scotland, onthe 5th of June 1723. He was the son of Adam Smith, Writer to theSignet, Judge Advocate for Scotland and Comptroller of the Customs inthe Kirkcaldy district, by Margaret, daughter of John Douglas ofStrathendry, a considerable landed proprietor in the same county. 

Of his father little is known. He was a native of Aberdeen, and hispeople must have been in a position to make interest in influentialquarters, for we find him immediately after his admission to theSociety of Writers to the Signet in 1707, appointed to thenewly-established office of Judge Advocate for Scotland, and in thefollowing year to the post of Private Secretary to the ScotchMinister, the Earl of Loudon. When he lost this post in consequence ofLord Loudon's retirement from office in 1713, he was provided for withthe Comptrollership of Customs at Kirkcaldy, which he continued tohold, along with the Judge Advocateship, till his premature death in1723. The Earl of Loudon having been a zealous Whig and Presbyterian, it is perhaps legitimate to infer that his secretary must have beenthe same, and from the public appointments he held we may furthergather that he was a man of parts. The office of Judge Advocate forScotland, which was founded at the Union, and which he was the firstto fill, was a position of considerable responsibility, and wasoccupied after him by men, some of them of great distinction. Alexander Fraser Tytler, the historian, for example, was JudgeAdvocate till he went to the bench as Lord Woodhouselee. The JudgeAdvocate was clerk and legal adviser to the Courts Martial, but asmilitary trials were not frequent in Scotland, the duties of thisoffice took up but a minor share of the elder Smith's time. His chiefbusiness, at least for the last ten years of his life, was his work inthe Custom-house, for though he was bred a Writer to the Signet--thatis, a solicitor privileged to practise before the Supreme Court--henever seems to have actually practised that profession. A localcollectorship or controllership of the Customs was in itself a moreimportant administrative office at that period, when duties werelevied on twelve hundred articles, than it is now, when duties arelevied on twelve only, and it was much sought after for the younger, or even the elder, sons of the gentry. The very place held by Smith'sfather at Kirkcaldy was held for many years after his day by a Scotchbaronet, Sir Michael Balfour. The salary was not high. Adam Smithbegan in 1713 with £30 a year, and had only £40 when he died in 1723, but then the perquisites of those offices in the Customs were usuallytwice or thrice the salary, as we know from the _Wealth of Nations_itself (Book V. Chap. Ii. ). Smith had a cousin, a third Adam Smith, who was in 1754 Collector of Customs at Alloa with a salary of £60 ayear, and who writes his cousin, in connection with a negotiation thelatter was conducting on behalf of a friend for the purchase of theoffice, that the place was worth £200 a year, and that he would notsell it for less than ten years' purchase. [1]

Smith's father died in the spring of 1723, a few months before hisfamous son was born. Some doubt has been cast upon this fact by anannouncement quoted by President M'Cosh, in his _ScottishPhilosophy_, from the Scots Magazine of 1740, of the promotion of AdamSmith, Comptroller of the Customs, Kirkcaldy, to be Inspector-Generalof the Outports. But conclusive evidence exists of the date of thedeath of Smith's father in a receipt for his funeral expenses, whichis in the possession of Professor Cunningham, and which, as a curiousillustration of the habits of the time, I subjoin in a note below. [2]The promotion of 1740 is the promotion not of Smith's father but ofhis cousin, whom I have just had occasion to mention, and who appearsfrom Chamberlayne's _Notitia Angliæ_ to have been Comptroller of theCustoms at Kirkcaldy from about 1734 till somewhere before 1741. Inthe _Notitia Angliæ_ for 1741 the name of Adam Smith ceases to appearas Comptroller in Kirkcaldy, and appears for the first time asInspector-General of the Outports, exactly in accordance with theintimation quoted by Dr. M'Cosh. It is curious that Smith, who was todo so much to sweep away the whole system of the Customs, should havebeen so closely connected with that branch of administration. Hisfather, his only known relation on his father's side, and himself, were all officials in the Scotch Customs. 

On the mother's side his kindred were much connected with the army. His uncle, Robert Douglas of Strathendry, and three of his uncle'ssons were military officers, and so was his cousin, Captain Skene, thelaird of the neighbouring estate of Pitlour. Colonel Patrick Ross, adistinguished officer of the times, was also a relation, but on whichside I do not know. His mother herself was from first to last theheart of Smith's life. He being an only child, and she an only parent, they had been all in all to one another during his infancy andboyhood, and after he was full of years and honours her presence wasthe same shelter to him as it was when a boy. His friends often spokeof the beautiful affection and worship with which he cherished her. One who knew him well for the last thirty years of his life, and wasvery probably at one time a boarder in his house, the clever andbustling Earl of Buchan, elder brother of Lord Chancellor Erskine, says the principal avenue to Smith's heart always was by his mother. He was a delicate child, and afflicted even in childhood with thosefits of absence and that habit of speaking to himself which he carriedall through life. Of his infancy only one incident has come down tous. In his fourth year, while on a visit to his grandfather's house atStrathendry on the banks of the Leven, the child was stolen by apassing band of gipsies, and for a time could not be found. Butpresently a gentleman arrived who had met a gipsy woman a few milesdown the road carrying a child that was crying piteously. Scouts wereimmediately despatched in the direction indicated, and they came uponthe woman in Leslie wood. As soon as she saw them she threw her burdendown and escaped, and the child was brought back to his mother. Hewould have made, I fear, a poor gipsy. As he grew up in boyhood hishealth became stronger, and he was in due time sent to the BurghSchool of Kirkcaldy. 

The Burgh School of Kirkcaldy was one of the best secondary schools ofScotland at that period, and its principal master, Mr. David Millar, had the name of being one of the best schoolmasters of his day. WhenSmith first went to school we cannot say, but it seems probable thathe began Latin in 1733, for _Eutropius_ is the class-book of abeginner in Latin, and the _Eutropius_ which Smith used as aclass-book still exists, and contains his signature with the date ofthat year. [3] As he left school in 1737, he thus had at least fouryears' training in the classics before he proceeded to the University. Millar, his classical master, had adventured in literature. He wrote aplay, and his pupils used to act it. Acting plays was in those days acommon exercise in the higher schools of Scotland. The presbyteriesoften frowned, and tried their best to stop the practice, but the towncouncils, which had the management of these schools, resented thedictation of the presbyteries, and gave the drama not only the supportof their personal presence at the performances, but sometimes built aspecial stage and auditorium for the purpose. Sir James Steuart, theeconomist, played the king in _Henry the Fourth_ when he was a boy atthe school of North Berwick in 1735. The pupils of Dalkeith School, where the historian Robertson was educated, played _Julius Cæsar_ in1734. In the same year the boys of Perth Grammar School played _Cato_in the teeth of an explicit presbyterial anathema, and again in thesame year--in the month of August--the boys of the Burgh School ofKirkcaldy, which Smith was at the time attending, enacted the piecetheir master had written. It bore the rather unromantic and uninvitingtitle of "A Royal Council for Advice, or the Regular Education of Boysthe Foundation of all other Improvements. " The _dramatis personæ_ werefirst the master and twelve ordinary members of the council, who satgravely round a table like senators, and next a crowd of suitors, standing at a little distance off, who sent representatives to thetable one by one to state their grievances--first a tradesman, then afarmer, then a country gentleman, then a schoolmaster, a nobleman, andso on. Each of them received advice from the council in turn, andthen, last of all, a gentleman came forward, who complimented thecouncil on the successful completion of their day's labours. [4] Smithwould no doubt have been present at this performance, but whether heplayed an active part either as councillor or as spokesman for anyclass of petitioners, or merely stood in the crowd of suitors, asilent super, cannot now be guessed. 

Among those young actors at this little provincial school were severalbesides Smith himself who were to play important and evendistinguished parts afterwards on the great stage of the world. JamesOswald--the Right Hon. James Oswald, Treasurer of the Navy--who issometimes said to have been one of Smith's schoolfellows, could nothave been so, as he was eight years Smith's senior, but his youngerbrother John, subsequently Bishop of Raphoe, doubtless was; and so wasRobert Adam, the celebrated architect, who built the London Adelphi, Portland Place, and--probably his finest work--Edinburgh University. Though James Oswald was not at school with Smith, he was one of hisintimate home friends from the first. The Dunnikier family lived inthe town, and stood on such a footing of intimacy with the Smithsthat, as we have seen, it was "Mr. James of Dunnikier"--the father ofthe James Oswald now in question--who undertook on behalf of Mrs. Smith the arrangements for her husband's funeral; and the friendshipof James Oswald, as will presently appear, was, after the affection ofhis mother, the best thing Smith carried into life with him fromKirkcaldy. The Adam family also lived in the town, though the fatherwas a leading Scotch architect--King's Mason for Scotland, infact--and was proprietor of a fair estate not far away; and the fourbrothers Adam were the familiars of Smith's early years. Theycontinued to be among his familiars to the last. Another of his schoolcompanions who played a creditable part in his time was John Drysdale, the minister's son, who became one of the ministers of Edinburgh, doctor of divinity, chaplain to the king, leader of an ecclesiasticalparty--of the Moderates in succession to Robertson--twice Moderator ofthe General Assembly, though in his case, as in so many others, thepath of professional success has led but to oblivion. Still hedeserves mention here, because, as his son-in-law, Professor Dalzeltells us, he and Smith were much together again in their laterEdinburgh days, and there was none of all Smith's numerous friendswhom he liked better or spoke of with greater tenderness thanDrysdale. [5] Drysdale's wife was a sister of the brothers Adam, andRobert Adam stayed with Drysdale on his visits to Edinburgh. 

A small town like Kirkcaldy--it had then only 1500 inhabitants--is anot unfavourable observatory for beginning one's knowledge of theworld. It has more sorts and conditions of men to exhibit than a ruraldistrict can furnish, and it exhibits each more completely in alltheir ways, pursuits, troubles, characters, than can possibly be donein a city. Smith, who, spite of his absence of mind, was always anexcellent observer, would grow up in the knowledge of all abouteverybody in that little place, from the "Lady Dunnikier, " the greatlady of the town, to its poor colliers and salters who were stillbondsmen. Kirkcaldy, too, had its shippers trading with the Baltic, its customs officers, with many a good smuggling story, and it had anailery or two, which Smith is said to have been fond of visiting as aboy, and to have acquired in them his first rough idea of the value ofdivision of labour. [6] However that may be, Smith does draw some ofhis illustrations of the division of labour from that particularbusiness, which would necessarily be very familiar to his mind, and itmay have been in Kirkcaldy that he found the nailers paid their wagesin nails, and using these nails afterwards as a currency in makingtheir purchases from the shopkeepers. [7]

At school Smith was marked for his studious disposition, his love ofreading, and his power of memory; and by the age of fourteen he hadadvanced sufficiently in classics and mathematics to be sent toGlasgow College, with a view to obtaining a Snell exhibition toOxford. 

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Original letter in possession of Professor Cunningham, Belfast. 

[2]

 A COUNT OF MONEY DEBURSED ABOUT MR. SMITH'S FUNERALL

 To eight bottles of ale £0 12 0 To butter and eggs to the seed cake 1 4 0 To four bottles of ale 0 6 0 To three pounds fresh butter for bread 0 14 0 To one pound small candles 0 4 6 To two pounds bisquet 1 4 0 To sixteen bottles of ale 1 4 0 To money sent to Edinr. For bisquet, stockings, and necessars 25 4 0 To three expresses to Edinburgh 2 14 0 To a pair of murning shous to Hugh 1 10 0 To horse hyre with the wine from Kinghorn 0 15 0 To the poor 3 6 0 To six bottles and eight pints of ale to the beadels, etc. 1 10 4 To pipes and tobacco 0 4 0 To four pints of ale to the workmen 0 12 8 To the postage of three letters 0 6 0 To making the grave 3 0 0 To caring the mourning letters thro' the town and country 1 10 0 To the mort cloth 3 12 0 To Robert Martin for his services 1 4 0 To Deacon Lessels for the coffin and ironwork 28 4 0 To Deacon Sloan for lifting the stone 1 11 0 -------- Summa is £80 16 6

On the back is the docquet, "Account of funeral charges, Mr. AdamSmith, 1723, " and the formal receipt as follows: "Kirkaldie, Apl. 24, 1723. Received from Mr. James of Dunekier eighty pund sexteen shillingsix penes Scots in full of the within account depussd by me. 

MARGRATE DOUGLASS. "

"Mr. James of Dunekier" is Mr. James Oswald of Dunnikier, the fatherof Smith's friend, the statesman of the same name, and he hadapparently as a friend of the family undertaken the duty of lookingafter the funeral arrangements. 

[3] In possession of Professor Cunningham. 

[4] Grant's _Burgh Schools of Scotland_, p. 414. 

[5] Drysdale's _Sermons_, Preface by Dalzel. 

[6] Campbell, _Journey from Edinburgh through North Britain_, 1802, ii. P. 49. 

[7] _Wealth of Nations_, Book I. Chap. Iv. 

CHAPTER II

STUDENT AT GLASGOW COLLEGE

A. D. 1737-1740. _Aet. _ 14-17

Smith entered Glasgow College in 1737, no doubt in October, when thesession began, and he remained there till the spring of 1740. The artscurriculum at that time extended over five sessions, so that Smith didnot complete the course required for a degree. In the three sessionshe attended he would go through the classes of Latin, Greek, Mathematics, and Moral Philosophy, and have thus listened to thelectures of the three eminent teachers who were then drawing studentsto this little western College from the most distant quarters, andkeeping its courts alive with a remarkable intellectual activity. Dr. A. Carlyle, who came to Glasgow College for his divinity classes afterhe had finished his arts course at Edinburgh, says he found a spiritof inquiry and a zeal for learning abroad among the students ofGlasgow which he remembered nothing like among the students ofEdinburgh. This intellectual awakening was the result mainly of theteaching of three professors--Alexander Dunlop, Professor of Greek, aman of fine scholarship and taste, and an unusually engaging method ofinstruction; Robert Simson, the professor of Mathematics, an originalif eccentric genius, who enjoyed a European reputation as the restorerof the geometry of the ancients; and above all, Francis Hutcheson, athinker of great original power, and an unrivalled academic lecturer. 

Smith would doubtless improve his Greek to some extent under Dunlop, though from all we know of the work of that class, he could not becarried very far there. Dunlop spent most of his first year teachingthe elements of Greek grammar with Verney's Grammar as his textbook, and reading a little of one or two easy authors as the sessionadvanced. Most of the students entered his class so absolutelyignorant of Greek that he was obliged to read a Latin classic withthem for the first three months till they learnt enough of the Greekgrammar to read a Greek one. In the second session they were able toaccompany him through some of the principal Greek classics, but thetime was obviously too short for great things. Smith, however, appearsat this time to have shown a marked predilection for mathematics. Dugald Stewart's father, Professor Matthew Stewart of Edinburgh, was aclass-fellow of Smith's at Glasgow; and Dugald Stewart has heard hisfather reminding Smith of a "geometrical problem of considerabledifficulty by which he was occupied at the time when theiracquaintance commenced, and which had been proposed to him as anexercise by the celebrated Dr. Simson. " The only other fellow-studentof his at Glasgow of whom we have any knowledge is Dr. Maclaine, thetranslator of Mosheim, and author of several theological works; andDr. Maclaine informed Dugald Stewart, in private conversation, ofSmith's fondness for mathematics in those early days. For hismathematical professor, Robert Simson himself, Smith always retainedthe profoundest veneration, and one of the last things he everwrote--a passage he inserted in the new edition of his _Theory ofMoral Sentiments_, published immediately before his death in1790--contains a high tribute to the gifts and character of thatfamous man. In this passage Smith seeks to illustrate a favouriteproposition of his, that men of science are much less sensitive topublic criticism and much more indifferent to unpopularity or neglectthan either poets or painters, because the excellence of their workadmits of easy and satisfactory demonstration, whereas the excellenceof the poet's work or the painter's depends on a judgment of tastewhich is more uncertain; and he points to Robert Simson as a signalexample of the truth of that proposition. "Mathematicians, " he says, "who may have the most perfect assurance of the truth and of theimportance of their discoveries, are frequently very indifferent aboutthe reception which they may meet with from the public. The twogreatest mathematicians that I ever have had the honour to be knownto, and I believe the two greatest that have lived in my time, Dr. Robert Simson of Glasgow and Dr. Matthew Stewart of Edinburgh, neverseemed to feel even the slightest uneasiness from the neglect withwhich the ignorance of the public received some of their most valuableworks. "[8] And it ought to be remembered that when Smith wrote thus ofSimson he had been long intimate with D'Alembert. 

But while Smith improved his Greek under Dunlop, and acquired adistinct ardour for mathematics under the inspiring instructions ofSimson, the most powerful and enduring influence he came under atGlasgow was undoubtedly that of Hutcheson--"the never-to-be-forgottenHutcheson, " as he styled him half a century later in recalling hisobligations to his old College on the occasion of his election to theRectorship. No other man, indeed, whether teacher or writer, did somuch to awaken Smith's mind or give a bent to his ideas. He issometimes considered a disciple of Hume and sometimes considered adisciple of Quesnay; if he was any man's disciple, he was Hutcheson's. Hutcheson was exactly the stamp of man fitted to stir and mould thethought of the young. He was, in the first place, one of the mostimpressive lecturers that ever spoke from an academic chair. DugaldStewart, who knew many of his pupils, states that every one of themtold of the extraordinary impression his lectures used to make ontheir hearers. He was the first professor in Glasgow to give uplecturing in Latin and speak to his audience in their own tongue, andhe spoke without notes and with the greatest freedom and animation. Nor was it only his eloquence, but his ideas themselves were rousing. Whatever he touched upon, he treated, as we may still perceive fromhis writings, with a certain freshness and decided originality whichmust have provoked the dullest to some reflection, and in a bracingspirit of intellectual liberty which it was strength and life for theyoung mind to breathe. He was not long in Glasgow, accordingly, tillhe was bitterly attacked by the older generation outside the walls ofthe College as a "new light" fraught with dangers to all acceptedbeliefs, and at the same time worshipped like an idol by the youngergeneration inside the walls, who were thankful for the light hebrought them, and had no quarrel with it for being new. His immediatepredecessor in that chair, Professor Gershom Carmichael, the reputedfather of the Scottish Philosophy, was still a Puritan of thePuritans, wrapt in a gloomy Calvinism, and desponding after signs thatwould never come. But Hutcheson belonged to a new era, which hadturned to the light of nature for guidance, and had discovered by itthe good and benevolent Deity of the eighteenth century, who livedonly for human welfare, and whose will was not to be known frommysterious signs and providences, but from a broad consideration ofthe greater good of mankind--"the greatest happiness of the greatestnumber. " Hutcheson was the original author of that famous phrase. 

All this was anathema to the exponents of the prevailing theology withwhich, indeed, it seemed only too surely to dispense; and in Smith'sfirst year at Glasgow the local Presbytery set the whole University ina ferment by prosecuting Hutcheson for teaching to his students, incontravention of his subscription to the Westminster Confession, thefollowing two false and dangerous doctrines: 1st, that the standardof moral goodness was the promotion of the happiness of others; and2nd, that we could have a knowledge of good and evil without and priorto a knowledge of God. This trial of course excited the profoundestfeeling among the students, and they actually made a formal appearancebefore the Presbytery, and defended their hero zealously both by wordand writing. Smith, being only a bajan--a first year's student--wouldplay no leading part in these proceedings, but he could not have livedin the thick of them unmoved, and he certainly--either then orafterwards, when he entered Hutcheson's class and listened to hislectures on natural theology, or perhaps attended his private class onthe Sundays for special theological study--adopted the religiousoptimism of Hutcheson for his own creed, and continued under itsinfluence to the last of his days. 

In politics also Hutcheson's lectures exercised important practicalinfluence on the general opinion of his students. The principles ofreligious and political liberty were then so imperfectly comprehendedand so little accepted that their advocacy was still something of anew light, and we are informed by one of Hutcheson's leadingcolleagues, Principal Leechman, that none of his lectures made adeeper or wider impression than his exposition of those principles, and that very few of his pupils left his hands without being imbuedwith some of the same love of liberty which animated their master. Smith was no exception, and that deep strong love of all reasonableliberty which characterised him must have been, if not first kindled, at any rate quickened by his contact with Hutcheson. 

Interesting traces of more specific influence remain. Dugald Stewartseems to have heard Smith himself admit that it was Hutcheson in hislectures that suggested to him the particular theory of the right ofproperty which he used to teach in his own unpublished lectures onjurisprudence, and which founded the right of property on the generalsympathy of mankind with the reasonable expectation of the occupantto enjoy unmolested the object which he had acquired or discovered. [9]But it is most probable that his whole theory of moral sentiments wassuggested by the lectures of Hutcheson, perhaps the germs of it evenwhen he was passing through the class. For Hutcheson in the course ofhis lectures expressly raises and discusses the question, Can wereduce our moral sentiments to sympathy? He answered the questionhimself in the negative, on the ground that we often approve of theactions of people with whom we have no sympathy, our enemies forexample, and his pupil's contribution to the discussion was aningenious attempt to surmount that objection by the theory of sympathywith an impartial spectator. 

Hutcheson's name occurs in no history of political economy, but helectured systematically on that subject--as Smith himself subsequentlydid--as a branch of his course on natural jurisprudence, a discussionof contracts requiring him to examine the principles of value, interest, currency, etc. , and these lectures, though fragmentary, areremarkable for showing a grasp of economic questions before his time, and presenting, with a clear view of their importance, some of Smith'smost characteristic positions. He is free from the then prevailingmercantilist fallacies about money. His remarks on value contain whatreads like a first draft of Smith's famous passage on value in use andvalue in exchange. Like Smith, he holds labour to be the great sourceof wealth and the true measure of value, and declares every man tohave the natural right to use his faculties according to his ownpleasure for his own ends in any work or recreation that inflicts noinjury on the persons or property of others, except when the publicinterests may otherwise require. This is just Smith's system ofnatural liberty in matters industrial, with a general limitation inthe public interest such as Smith also approves. In the practicalenforcement of this limitation he would impose some particularrestraints which Smith might not, but, on the other hand, he wouldabolish other particular restraints which Smith, and even Quesnay, would still retain, _e. G. _ the fixing of interest by law. His doctrinewas essentially the doctrine of industrial liberty with which Smith'sname is identified, and in view of the claims set up on behalf of theFrench Physiocrats that Smith learnt that doctrine in their school, itis right to remember that he was brought into contact with it inHutcheson's class-room at Glasgow some twenty years before any of thePhysiocrats had written a line on the subject, and that the very firstideas on economic subjects which were presented to his mind containedin germ--and in very active and sufficient germ--the very doctrinesabout liberty, labour, and value on which his whole system wasafterwards built. 

Though Smith was a mere lad of sixteen at that time, his mind hadalready, under Hutcheson's stimulating instructions, begun to workeffectively on the ideas lodged in it and to follow out theirsuggestions in his own thought. Hutcheson seems to have recognised hisquality, and brought him, young though he was, under the personalnotice of David Hume. There is a letter written by Hume to Hutchesonon the 4th of March 1740 which is not indeed without its difficulties, but if, as Mr. Burton thinks, the Mr. Smith mentioned in it be theeconomist, it would appear as if Smith had, while attendingHutcheson's class, --whether as a class exercise or otherwise, --writtenan abstract of Hume's _Treatise of Human Nature_, then recentlypublished, that Smith's abstract was to be sent to some periodical forpublication, and that Hume was so pleased with it that he presentedits young author with a copy of his own work. "My bookseller, " Humewrites, "has sent to Mr. Smith a copy of my book, which I hope he hasreceived as well as your letter. I have not yet heard what he has donewith the abstract. Perhaps you have. I have got it printed in London, but not in the _Works of the Learned_, there having been an articlewith regard to my book somewhat abusive before I sent up theabstract. " If the Mr. Smith of this letter is Adam Smith, then he musthave been away from Glasgow at that time, for Hutcheson wascommunicating with him by letter, but that may possibly be explainedby the circumstance that he had been appointed to one of the Snellexhibitions at Balliol College, Oxford, and might have gone home toKirkcaldy to make preparations for residence at the EnglishUniversity, though he did not actually set out for it till June. 

These Snell exhibitions, which were practically in the gift of theGlasgow professors, were naturally the prize of the best student ofGlasgow College at the time they fell vacant, and they have been heldin the course of the two centuries of their existence by manydistinguished men, including Sir William Hamilton and Lockhart, Archbishop Tait and Lord President Inglis. They were originallyfounded by an old Glasgow student, a strong Episcopalian, for thepurpose of educating Scotchmen for the service of the Episcopal Churchin Scotland. By the terms of his will the holders were even to bebound under penalty of £500 "to enter holy orders and return to servethe Church in Scotland, " and it has sometimes been concluded from thatcircumstance that Smith must have accepted the Snell exhibition with aview to the Episcopal ministry. But the original purpose of thefounder was frustrated by the Revolution settlement, which made "theChurch in Scotland" Presbyterian, and left scarce any Episcopalremnant to serve, and the original condition has never beenpractically enforced. The last attempt to impose it was made duringSmith's own tenure of the exhibition, and failed. In the year 1744 theVice-Chancellor and the heads of Colleges at Oxford raised a processin the Court of Chancery for compelling the Snell exhibitioners "tosubmit and conform to the doctrines and discipline of the Church ofEngland, and to enter into holy orders when capable thereof by thecanons of the Church of England"; but the Court of Chancery refused tointerfere, and the exhibitioners were left entirely free to choosetheir sect, their profession, and their country, as seemed best tothemselves. It may be added that in Smith's time the Snell foundationyielded five exhibitions of £40 a year each, tenable for eleven years. 

Of Smith's friends among his fellow-students at Glasgow, no names havebeen preserved for us except those already mentioned, ProfessorMatthew Stewart, and Dr. Maclaine, the embassy chaplain at the Hague. He continued on a footing of great intimacy with Stewart, whom, as wehave seen, he considered to be, after Robert Simson, the greatestmathematician of his time, and he seems to have enjoyed occasionalopportunities of renewing his acquaintance with Dr. Maclaine, thoughthe opportunities could not have been frequent, as Maclaine spent hiswhole active life abroad as English chaplain at the Hague. But theremark made by Smith to Dr. William Thompson, a historical writer ofthe last century, seems to imply his having had some intercourse withhis early friend. Thompson, Dr. Watson the historian of Philip II. , and Dr. Maclaine, seem all to have been writing the history of thePeace of Utrecht, and Smith, who knew all three, said Watson was muchafraid of Maclaine, and Maclaine was just as much afraid of Watson, but he could have told them of one they had much more cause to fear, and that was Thompson himself. 

FOOTNOTES:

[8] _Theory of Moral Sentiments_, i. 313. 

[9] Stewart's _Works, _ vii. 263. 

CHAPTER III

AT OXFORD

1740-1746. _Aet. _ 17-23

Smith left Scotland for Oxford in June 1740, riding the whole way onhorseback, and, as he told Samuel Rogers many years afterwards, beingmuch struck from the moment he crossed the Border with the richness ofthe country he was entering, and the great superiority of itsagriculture over that of his own country. Scotch agriculture was notborn in 1740, even in the Lothians; the face of the country everywherewas very bare and waste, and, as he was rather pointedly reminded onthe day of his arrival at Oxford, even its cattle were still lean andpoor, compared with the fat oxen of England. Among the stories told ofhis absence of mind is one he is said by a writer in the _MonthlyReview_ to have been fond of relating himself whenever a particularjoint appeared on his own table. The first day he dined in the hall atBalliol he fell into a reverie at table and for a time forgot hismeal, whereupon the servitor roused him to attention, telling him hehad better fall to, because he had never seen such a piece of beef inScotland as the joint then before him. His nationality, as willpresently appear, occasioned him worse trouble at Oxford than thisgood-natured gibe. 

He matriculated at the University on the 7th of July. ProfessorThorold Rogers, who has collected the few particulars that can now belearned of Smith's residence at Oxford from official records, gives usthe matriculation entry: "Adamus Smith e Coll. Ball. , Gen. Fil. Jul. 7mo 1740, "[10] and mentions that it is written in a round school-boyhand--a style of hand, we may add, which Smith retained to the last. He has himself said that literary composition never grew easier to himwith experience; neither apparently did handwriting. His letters areall written in the same big round characters, connected togethermanifestly by a slow, difficult, deliberate process. 

He remained at Oxford till the 15th of August 1746; after that day hisname appears no longer in the Buttery Books of the College; but uptill that day he resided at Oxford continuously from the time of hismatriculation. He did not leave between terms, and was thus six yearson end away from home. A journey to Scotland was in those days aserious and expensive undertaking; it would have taken more than halfSmith's exhibition of £40 to pay for the posting alone of a trip toKirkcaldy and back. When Professor Rouet of Glasgow was sent up toLondon a few years later to push on the tedious twenty years' lawsuitbetween Glasgow College and Balliol about the Snell exhibitions, thesingle journey cost him £11:15s. , exclusive of personal expenses, forwhich he was allowed 6s. 8d. A day. [11] Now Smith out of his £40 ayear had to pay about £30 for his food; Mr. Rogers mentions that hisfirst quarter's maintenance came to £7:5s. , about the usual cost ofliving, he adds, at Oxford at that period. Then the tutors, thoughthey seem to have ceased to do any tutoring, still took their fees of20s. A quarter all the same, and Smith's remaining £5 would be littleenough to meet other items of necessary expenditure. It appears fromSalmon's _Present State of the Universities_, published in 1744, during Smith's residence at Oxford, that an Oxford education then cost£32 a year as a minimum, but that there was scarce a commoner in theUniversity who spent less than £60. 

Smith's name does not appear in Bliss's list of Oxford graduates, andalthough in Mr. Foster's recent _Alumni Oxonienses_ other particularsare given about him, no mention is made of his graduation; butProfessor Rogers has discovered evidence in the Buttery Books ofBalliol which seems conclusively to prove that Smith actually took thedegree of B. A. , whatever may be the explanation of the apparentomission of his name from the official graduation records. In thoseButtery Books he is always styled Dominus from and after the weekending 13th April 1744. Now Dominus was the usual designation of aB. A. , and in April 1744 Smith would have kept the sixteen terms thatwere then, we may say, the only qualification practically necessaryfor that degree. He had possibly omitted some step requisite for theformal completion of the graduation. 

Smith's residence at Oxford fell in a time when learning lay thereunder a long and almost total eclipse. This dark time seems to havelasted most of that century. Crousaz visited Oxford about thebeginning of the century and found the dons as ignorant of the newphilosophy as the savages of the South Sea. Bishop Butler came thereas a student twenty years afterwards, and could get nothing to satisfyhis young thirst for knowledge except "frivolous lectures" and"unintelligible disputations. " A generation later he could not evenhave got that; for Smith tells us in the _Wealth of Nations_ that thelecturers had then given up all pretence of lecturing, and a foreigntraveller, who describes a public disputation he attended at Oxford in1788, says the Præses Respondent and three Opponents all sat consumingthe statutory time in profound silence, absorbed in the novel of thehour. Gibbon, who resided there not long after Smith, tells that histutor neither gave nor sought to give him more than one lesson, andthat the conversation of the common-room, to which as a gentlemancommoner he was privileged to listen, never touched any point ofliterature or scholarship, but "stagnated in a round of Collegebusiness, Tory politics, personal anecdotes, and private scandal. "Bentham, a few years after Gibbon, has the same tale to tell; it wasabsolutely impossible to learn anything at Oxford, and the years hespent there were the most barren and unprofitable of his life. Smith'sown account of the English universities in the _Wealth of Nations_, though only published in 1776, was substantially true of Oxford duringhis residence there thirty years before. Every word of it is endorsedby Gibbon as the word of "a moral and political sage who had himselfresided at Oxford. " Now, according to that account, nobody was thentaught, or could so much as find "the proper means of being taught, the sciences which it is the business of those incorporated bodies toteach. " The lecturers had ceased lecturing; "the tutors contentedthemselves with teaching a few unconnected shreds and parcels" of theold unimproved traditionary course, "and even these they commonlytaught very negligently and superficially"; being paid independentlyof their personal industry, and being responsible only to one another, "every man consented that his neighbour might neglect his dutyprovided he himself were allowed to neglect his own"; and the generalconsequence was a culpable dislike to improvement and indifference toall new ideas, which made a rich and well-endowed university the"sanctuary in which exploded systems and obsolete prejudices findshelter and protection after they have been hunted out of every cornerof the world. " Coming up from a small university in the North, whichwas cultivating letters with such remarkable spirit on its littleoatmeal wisely dispensed, Smith concluded that the stagnation oflearning which prevailed in the wealthy universities of England wasdue at bottom to nothing but their wealth, because it was distributedon a bad system. 

Severely, however, as Smith has censured the order of things he foundprevailing at Oxford, it is worthy of notice that he never, likeGibbon and Bentham, thought of the six years he spent there as beingwasted. Boswell and others have pronounced him ungrateful for thecensures he deemed meet to pass upon that order of things, but thatcharge is of course unreasonable, because the censures were undeniablytrue and undeniably useful, and I refer to it here merely to point outthat as a matter of fact Smith not only felt, but has publiclyexpressed, gratitude for his residence at the University of Oxford. Hedoes so in his letter to the Principal of Glasgow College in 1787accepting the Rectorship, when in enumerating the claims which GlasgowCollege had upon his grateful regard, he expressly mentions the factthat it had sent him as a student to Oxford. In truth, his time wasnot wasted at Oxford. He did not allow it to be wasted. He read deeplyand widely in many subjects and in many languages; he read and thoughtfor six years, and for that best kind of education the negligence oftutors and lecturers, such as they then were, was probably better thantheir assiduity. 

For this business of quiet reading Smith seems to have been happilysituated in Balliol. Balliol was not then a reading college as it isnow. A claim is set up in behalf of some of the other Oxford collegesthat they kept the lamp of learning lit even in the darkest days oflast century, but Balliol is not one of them. It was chiefly known inthat age for the violence of its Jacobite opinions. Only a few monthsafter Smith left it a party of Balliol students celebrated thebirthday of Cardinal York in the College, and rushing out into thestreets, mauled every Hanoverian they met, and created such a seriousriot that they were sentenced to two years' imprisonment for it by theCourt of King's Bench; but for this grave offence the master of theCollege, Dr. Theophilus Leigh, and the other authorities, had thoughtthe culprits entitled to indulgence on account of the anniversary theywere celebrating, and had decided that the case would be sufficientlymet by a Latin imposition. If Balliol, however, was not moreenlightened than any of the other colleges of the day, it had onegreat advantage, it possessed one of the best college libraries atOxford. The Bodleian was not then open to any member of the Universityunder the rank of a bachelor of arts of two years' standing, and Smithwas only a bachelor of arts of two years' standing for a few monthsbefore he finally quitted Oxford. He could therefore have made littleuse of the Bodleian and its then unrivalled treasures, but in his owncollege library at Balliol he was allowed free range, and availedhimself of his privilege with only too great assiduity, to the injuryof his health. 

His studies took a new turn at Oxford; he laid aside the mathematicsfor which he showed a liking at Glasgow, and gave his strength to theancient Latin and Greek classics, possibly for no better reason thanthat he could get nobody at Oxford to take the trouble of teaching himthe former, and that the Balliol library furnished him with the meansof cultivating the latter by himself. He did so, moreover, to somepurpose, for all through life he showed a knowledge of Greek and Latinliterature not only uncommonly extensive but uncommonly exact. Dalzel, the professor of Greek at Edinburgh, was one of Smith's most intimatefriends during those latter years of his life when he was generallyfound with one of the classical authors before him, in conformity withhis theory that the best amusement of age was to renew acquaintancewith the writers who were the delight of one's youth; and Dalzel usedalways to speak to Dugald Stewart with the greatest admiration of thereadiness and accuracy with which Smith remembered the works of theGreek authors, and even of the mastery he exhibited over the nicetiesof Greek grammar. [12] This knowledge must of course have been acquiredat Oxford. Smith had read the Italian poets greatly too, and couldquote them easily; and he paid special care to the French classics onaccount of their style, spending much time indeed, we are told, intrying to improve his own style by translating their writings intoEnglish. 

There was only one fruit in the garden of which he might not freelyeat, and that was the productions of modern rationalism. A story hascome down which, though not mentioned by Dugald Stewart, is stated byM'Culloch to rest on the best authority, and by Dr. Strang of Glasgowto have been often told by Smith himself, to the effect that he wasone day detected reading Hume's _Treatise of Human Nature_--probablythe very copy presented him by the author at the apparent suggestionof Hutcheson--and was punished by a severe reprimand and theconfiscation of the evil book. It is at least entirely consistent withall we know of the spirit of darkness then ruling in Oxford that itshould be considered an offence of peculiar aggravation for a studentto read a great work of modern thought which had been actually placedin his hands by his professor at Glasgow, and the only wonder is thatSmith escaped so lightly, for but a few years before three studentswere expelled from Oxford for coquetting with Deism, and a fourth, ofwhom better hopes seem to have been formed, had his degree deferredfor two years, and was required in the interval to translate intoLatin as a reformatory exercise the whole of Leslie's _Short and EasyMethod with the Deists_. [13]

Except for the great resource of study, Smith's life at Oxford seemsnot to have been a very happy one. For one thing, he was in poorhealth and spirits a considerable part of the time, as appears fromthe brief extracts from his letters published by Lord Brougham. WhenBrougham was writing his account of Smith he got the use of a numberof letters written by the latter to his mother from Oxford between1740 and 1746, which probably exist somewhere still, but which, hefound, contained nothing of any general interest. "They are almostall, " he says, "upon mere family and personal matters, most of themindeed upon his linen and other such necessaries, but all show hisstrong affection for his mother. " The very brief extracts Broughammakes from them, however, inform us that Smith was then suffering fromwhat he calls "an inveterate scurvy and shaking in the head, " forwhich he was using the new remedy of tar-water which Bishop Berkeleyhad made the fashionable panacea for all manner of diseases. At theend of July 1744 Smith says to his mother: "I am quite inexcusable fornot writing to you oftener. I think of you every day, but always deferwriting till the post is just going, and then sometimes business orcompany, but oftener laziness, hinders me. Tar-water is a remedy verymuch in vogue here at present for almost all diseases. It hasperfectly cured me of an inveterate scurvy and shaking in the head. Iwish you'd try it. I fancy it might be of service to you. " In anotherand apparently subsequent letter, however, he states that he had hadthe scurvy and shaking as long as he remembered anything, and that thetar-water had not removed them. On the 29th of November 1743 he makesthe curious confession: "I am just recovered from a violent fit oflaziness, which has confined me to my elbow-chair these threemonths. "[14] Brougham thinks these statements show symptoms ofhypochondria; but they probably indicate no more than the ordinarylassitude and exhaustion ensuing from overwork. Hume, when about thesame age, had by four or five years' hard reading thrown himself intoa like condition, and makes the same complaints of "laziness oftemper" and scurvy. The shaking in the head continued to attend Smithall his days. 

But low health was only one of the miseries of his estate at Oxford. There is reason to believe that Balliol College was in his day astepmother to her Scotch sons, and that their existence there was madevery uncomfortable not merely at the hands of the mob of younggentlemen among whom they were obliged to live, but even more by theunfair and discriminating harshness of the College authoritiesthemselves. Out of the hundred students then residing at Balliol, eight at least were Scotch, four on the Snell foundation and four onthe Warner, and the Scotch eight seem to have been always treated asan alien and intrusive faction. The Snell exhibitioners werecontinually complaining to the Glasgow Senatus on the subject, and theGlasgow Senatus thought them perfectly justified in complaining. In aletter of 22nd May 1776, in which they go over the whole long story ofgrievances, the Glasgow Senatus tell the Master and Fellows of Balliolplainly that the Scotch students had never been "welcomely received"at Balliol, and had never been happy there. If an Englishundergraduate committed a fault, the authorities never thought ofblaming any one but himself, but when one of the eight Scotchundergraduates did so, his sin was remembered against all the otherseven, and reflections were cast on the whole body; "a circumstance, "add the Senatus, "which has been much felt during their residence atBalliol. " Their common resentment against the injustice of this kindof tribal accountability that was imposed on them naturally provoked acommon resistance; it developed "a spirit of association, " say theSenatus, which "has at all periods been a cause of much trouble bothto Balliol and to Glasgow Colleges. "[15] In 1744, when Smith himselfwas one of them, the Snell exhibitioners wrote an account of theirgrievances to the Glasgow Senatus, and stated "what they wanted to bedone towards making their residence more easy and advantageous";[16]and in 1753, when some of Smith's contemporaries would still be on thefoundation, Dr. Leigh, the master of Balliol, tells the GlasgowSenatus that he had ascertained in an interview with one of the Snellexhibitioners that what they wanted was to be transferred to someother college, because they had "a total dislike to Balliol. "[17]

This idea of a transference, I may be allowed to add, continued to bemooted, and in 1776 it was actually proposed by the heads of Balliolto the Senatus of Glasgow to transfer the Snell foundationersaltogether to Hertford College; but the Glasgow authorities thoughtthis would be merely a transference of the troubles, and not a remedyfor them, that the exhibitioners would get no better welcome atHertford than at Balliol if they came as "fixed property" instead ofcoming as volunteers, and that they could never lose their nationalpeculiarities of dialect and their habits of combination if they camein a body. Accordingly, in the letter of 22nd May 1776, which I havealready quoted, [18] they recommended the arrangement of leaving eachexhibitioner to choose his own college, --an arrangement, it may beremembered, which had just then been strongly advocated as a generalprinciple by Smith in his newly-published _Wealth of the Nations_, onthe broader ground that it would encourage a wholesome competitionbetween the colleges, and so improve the character of the instructiongiven in them all. 

Now if the daily relations between the Scotch exhibitioners at Ballioland the authorities and general members of the College were of theunhappy description partially revealed in this correspondence, thatmay possibly afford some explanation of what must otherwise seem theentirely unaccountable circumstance that Smith, so far as we are ableto judge, made almost no permanent friends at Oxford. Few men wereever by nature more entirely formed for friendship than Smith. Atevery other stage of his history we invariably find him surrounded bytroops of friends, and deriving from their company his chief solaceand delight. But here he is six or seven years at Oxford, at theseason of manhood when the deepest and most lasting friendships of aman's life are usually made, and yet we never see him in all hissubsequent career holding an hour's intercourse by word or letter withany single Oxford contemporary except Bishop Douglas of Salisbury, andBishop Douglas had been a Snell exhibitioner himself. With Douglas, moreover, he had many other ties. Douglas was a Fifeshire man, and maypossibly have been a kinsman more or less remote; he was a friend ofHume and Robertson, and all Smith's Edinburgh friends; and he was, like Smith again, a member of the famous Literary Club of London, andis celebrated in that character by Goldsmith in the poem"Retaliation, " as "the scourge of impostors, the terror of quacks. " Ihave gone over the names of those who might be Smith's contemporariesat Balliol as they appear in Mr. Foster's list of _Alumni Oxonienses_, and they were a singularly undistinguished body of people. Smith andDouglas themselves are indeed the only two of them who seem to havemade any mark in the world at all. 

An allusion has been made to the Scottish dialect of the Snellexhibitioners; it may be mentioned that Smith seems to have lost thebroad Scotch at Oxford without, like Jeffrey, contracting the narrowEnglish; at any rate Englishmen, who visited Smith after visitingRobertson or Blair, were struck with the pure and correct English hespoke in private conversation, and he appears to have done so withoutgiving any impression of constraint. 

Smith returned to Scotland in August 1746, but his name remained onthe Oxford books for some months after his departure, showingapparently that he had not on leaving come to a final determinationagainst going back. His friends at home are said to have been mostanxious that he should continue at Oxford; that would naturally seemto open to him the best opportunities either in the ecclesiasticalcareer for which they are believed to have destined him, or in theuniversity career for which nature herself designed him. But bothcareers were practically barred against him by his objection to takingholy orders, the great majority of the Oxford Fellowships being atthat time only granted upon condition of ordination, and Smithconcluded that the best prospect for him was after all the road backto Scotland. And he never appears to have set foot in Oxford again. When he became Professor at Glasgow he was the medium of intercoursebetween the Glasgow Senate and the Balliol authorities, but beyond theoccasional interchange of letters which this business required, hisrelations with the Southern University appear to have continuedcompletely suspended. Nor did Oxford, on her part, ever show anyinterest in him. Even after he had become perhaps her greatest livingalumnus, she did not offer him the ordinary honour of a doctor'sdegree. 

FOOTNOTES:

[10] Rogers's edition of the _Wealth of Nations_, I. Vii. 

[11] Laing MSS. , Edinburgh University. 

[12] Stewart's _Life of Adam Smith_, p. 8. 

[13] Tyerman's _Wesley_, i. 66. 

[14] Brougham, _Men of Letters_, ii. 216. 

[15] Letter from Senatus of Glasgow College to Balliol College, inLaing MSS. , Edinburgh University. 

[16] Letter of A. G. Ross of Gray's Inn to Professor R. Simson, Glasgow, in Edinburgh University Library. 

[17] Laing MSS. , Edinburgh University. 

[18] Edinburgh University Library. 

CHAPTER IV

LECTURER AT EDINBURGH

1748-1750. _Aet. _ 25-27

In returning to Scotland Smith's ideas were probably fixed from thefirst on a Scotch university chair as an eventual acquisition, but hethought in the meantime to obtain employment of the sort he afterwardsgave up his chair to take with the Duke of Buccleugh, a travellingtutorship with a young man of rank and wealth, then a much-desiredand, according to the standard of the times, a highly-remuneratedoccupation. While casting about for a place of that kind he stayed athome with his mother in Kirkcaldy, and he had to remain there withoutany regular employment for two full years, from the autumn of 1746till the autumn of 1748. The appointment never came; because from hisabsent manner and bad address, we are told, he seemed to the ordinaryparental mind a most unsuitable person to be entrusted with the careof spirited and perhaps thoughtless young gentlemen. But the visits hepaid to Edinburgh in pursuit of this work bore fruit by giving himquite as good a start in life, and a much shorter cut to theprofessorial position for which he was best fitted. During the winterof 1748-49 he made a most successful beginning as a public lecturer bydelivering a course on the then comparatively untried subject ofEnglish literature, and gave at the same time a first contribution toEnglish literature himself by collecting and editing the poems ofWilliam Hamilton of Bangour. For both these undertakings he wasindebted to the advice and good offices of Lord Kames, or, as he thenwas, Mr. Henry Home, one of the leaders of the Edinburgh bar, withwhom he was made acquainted, we may safely assume, by his friend andneighbour, James Oswald of Dunnikier, whom we know to have been amongKames's most intimate friends and correspondents. Kames, though nowfifty-two, had not yet written any of the works which raised himafterwards to eminence, but he had long enjoyed in the literarysociety of the North something of that position which Voltaire laughsat him for trying to take towards the world in general; he was a lawon all questions of taste, from an epic poem to a garden plot. He hadlittle Latin and no Greek, for he never was at college, and theclassical quotations in his _Sketches_ were translated for him by A. F. Tytler. But he had thrown himself with all the greater zeal on thataccount into English literature when English literature became therage in Scotland after the Union, and he was soon crossing steel withBishop Butler in metaphysics, and the accepted guide of the new Scotchpoets in literary criticism. Hamilton of Bangour confesses that hehimself

 From Hume learned verse to criticise, the Hume meant being his early friend, Henry Home of Kames, and nothis later friend, David Hume the historian. [19] Home's place in theliterature of Scotland corresponds with his place in its agriculture;he was the first of the improvers; and Smith, who always held him inthe deepest veneration, was not wrong when, on being complimented onthe group of great writers who were then reflecting glory on Scotland, he said, "Yes, but we must every one of us acknowledge Kames for ourmaster. "[20]

When Home found Smith already as well versed in the English classicsas himself, he suggested the delivery of this course of lectures onEnglish literature and criticism. The subject was fresh, it wasfashionable, and though Stevenson, the Professor of Logic, had alreadylectured on it, and lectured on it in English too to his class, nobodyhad yet given lectures on it open to the general public, whoseinterest it had at the moment so much engaged. The success of such acourse seemed assured, and the event fully justified thatprognostication. The class was attended among others by Kames himself;by students for the bar, like Alexander Wedderburn, afterwards LordChancellor of England, and William Johnstone, who long played aninfluential part in Parliament as Sir William Pulteney; by youngministers of the city like Dr. Blair, who subsequently gave a similarcourse himself; and by many others, both young and old. It broughtSmith in, we are informed, a clear £100 sterling, and if we assumethat the fee was a guinea, which was a customary fee at the period, the audience would be something better than a hundred. It was probablyheld in the College, for Blair's subsequent course was delivered thereeven before the establishment of any formal connection with theUniversity by the creation of the professorship. 

The lectures Smith then delivered on English literature were burnt athis own request shortly before his death. Blair, who not only heardthem at the time, but got the use of them--or, at least, of part ofthem--afterwards for the preparation of his own lectures on rhetoric, speaks as if there was some hope at one time that Smith would publishthem, but if he ever entertained such an intention, he was tooentirely preoccupied with work of greater importance and interest tohimself to obtain leisure to put them into shape for publication. Ithas been suggested that they are practically reproduced in thelectures of Blair. Blair acknowledges having taken a few hints for histreatment of simplicity in style from the manuscript of Smith'slectures. His words are: "On this head, of the general characters ofstyle, particularly the plain and the simple, and the characters ofthose English authors who are classed under them, in this and thefollowing lecture, several ideas have been taken from a manuscripttreatise on rhetoric, part of which was shown to me many years ago bythe learned and ingenious author, Dr. Adam Smith; and which it ishoped will be given by him to the public. "[21] Now many of Smith'sfriends considered this acknowledgment far from adequate, and Hill, the biographer of Blair, says Smith himself joined in their complaint. It is very unlikely that Smith ever joined in any such complaint, forHenry Mackenzie told Samuel Rogers an anecdote which conveys anentirely contrary impression. Mackenzie was speaking of Smith's wealthof conversation, and telling how he often used to say to him, "Sir, you have said enough to make a book, " and he then mentioned that Blairfrequently introduced into his sermons some of Smith's thoughts onjurisprudence, which he had gathered from his conversation, and thathe himself had told the circumstance to Smith. "He is very welcome, "was the economist's answer; "there is enough left. "[22] And if Smithmade Blair welcome to his thoughts on jurisprudence, a subject onwhich he intended to publish a work of his own, we may be certain hemade him not less heartily welcome to his thoughts on literature andstyle, on which he probably entertained no similar intention. Besides, if we judge from the two chapters regarding which he owns hisobligation to Smith, Blair does not seem to have borrowed anything butwhat was the commonest of property already. He took only what hissuperficial mind had the power of taking, and the pith of Smith'sthinking must have been left behind. To borrow even a hat to anypurpose, the two heads must be something of a size. 

We cannot suppose, therefore, that we have any proper representationor reflection of Smith's literary lectures in the lectures of Blair, but it would be quite possible still, if it were desired, to collect anot inadequate view of his literary opinions from incidental remarkscontained in his writings or preserved by friends from recollectionsof his conversation. Wordsworth, in the preface to the _LyricalBallads_, calls him "the worst critic, David Hume excepted, thatScotland, a soil to which this sort of weed seems natural, hasproduced, " and his judgments will certainly not be confirmed by thetaste of the present time. He preferred the classical to the romanticschool. He thought with Voltaire that Shakespeare had written goodscenes but not a good play, and that though he had more dramaticgenius than Dryden, Dryden was the greater poet. He thought little ofMilton's minor poems, and less of the old ballads collected by Percy, but he had great admiration for Pope, believed Gray, if he had onlywritten a little more, would have been the greatest poet in theEnglish language, and thought Racine's _Phædrus_ the finest tragedyextant in any language in the world. His own great test of literarybeauty was the principle he lays down in his Essay on the ImitativeArts, that the beauty is always in the proportion of the difficultyperceived to be overcome. 

Smith seems at this early period of his life to have had dreams ofsome day figuring as a poet himself, and his extensive familiaritywith the poets always struck Dugald Stewart as very remarkable in aman so conspicuous for the weight of his more solid attainments. "Inthe English language, " says Stewart, "the variety of poetical passageswhich he was not only accustomed to refer to occasionally, but whichhe was able to repeat with correctness, appeared surprising even tothose whose attention had never been attracted to more importantacquisitions. " The tradition of Smith's early ambition to be a poet isonly preserved in an allusion in Caleb Colton's "Hypocrisy, " but itreceives a certain support from a remark of Smith's own inconversation with a young friend in his later years. Colton's allusionruns as follows:--

 Unused am I the Muse's path to tread, And curs'd with Adam's unpoetic head, Who, though that pen he wielded in his hand Ordain'd the _Wealth of Nations_ to command; Yet when on Helicon he dar'd to draw, His draft return'd and unaccepted saw. If thus like him we lay a rune in vain, Like him we'll strive some humbler prize to gain. 

Smith's own confession is contained in a report of some conversationsgiven in the _Bee_ for 1791. He was speaking about blank verse, towhich he always had a dislike, as we know from an interesting incidentmentioned by Boswell. Boswell, who attended Smith's lectures onEnglish literature at Glasgow College in 1759, told Johnson four yearsafter that Smith had pronounced a strong opinion in these lecturesagainst blank verse and in favour of rhyme--always, no doubt, on thesame principle that the greater the difficulty the greater the beauty. This delighted the heart of Johnson, and he said, "Sir, I was once incompany with Smith, and we did not take to each other, but had I knownthat he loved rhyme as much as you tell me he does, I should havehugged him. " Twenty years later Smith was again expressing to theanonymous interviewer of the _Bee_ his unabated contempt for all blankverse except Milton's, and he said that though he could never find asingle rhyme in his life, he could make blank verse as fast as hecould speak. "Blank verse, " he said; "they do well to call it blank, for blank it is. I myself even, who never could find a single rhyme inmy life, could make blank verse as fast as I could speak. " The criticwould thus appear here again to have been the poet who has failed, though in this case he had the sense to discover the failure withouttempting the judgment of the public. 

Indeed he had already begun to discover his true vocation, for besideshis lectures on English literature, which he delivered for threesuccessive winters, he delivered at least one winter a course oneconomics; and in this course, written in the year 1749, and deliveredin the year 1750-51, Smith advocated the doctrines of commercialliberty on which he was nurtured by Hutcheson, and which he wasafterwards to do so much to advance. He states this fact himself in apaper read before a learned society in Glasgow in 1755, whichafterwards fell into the hands of Dugald Stewart, and from whichStewart extracts a passage or two, which I shall quote in a subsequentchapter. They certainly contain a plain enough statement of thedoctrine of natural liberty; and Smith says that a great part of theopinions contained in the paper were "treated of at length in somelectures which I have still by me, and which were written in the handof a clerk who left my service six years ago"--that is, in 1749--andadds that "they had all of them been the subjects of lectures which Iread at Edinburgh the winter before I left it, and I can adduceinnumerable witnesses both from that place and from this who willascertain them sufficiently to be mine. "[23] These ideas of naturalliberty in industrial affairs were actively at work, not only inSmith's own mind, but in the minds of others in his immediate circlein Scotland in those years 1749 and 1750. David Hume and James Oswaldwere then corresponding on the subject, and though it is doubtfulwhether Smith had seen much or anything of Hume personally at thattime (for Hume had been abroad with General St. Clair part of it, anddid not live in Edinburgh after his return), it was in those and thetwo previous years that Smith was first brought into real intellectualcontact with his friend and townsman, James Oswald. 

Oswald, it may be mentioned, though still a young man--only eightyears older than Smith--had already made his mark in Parliament wherehe sat for their native burgh, and had been made a Commissioner of theNavy in 1745. He had made his mark largely by his mastery of economicsubjects, for which Hume said, after paying him a visit at Dunnikierfor a week in 1744, that he had a "great genius, " and "would go far inthat way if he persevered. " He became afterwards commissioner of tradeand plantations, Lord of the Treasury, and Vice-Treasurer of Ireland, and would have certainly gone further but for his premature death in1768 at the age of fifty-two. Lord Shelburne once strongly advisedLord Bute to make him Chancellor of the Exchequer. Smith thought ashighly of Oswald as Hume. He used to "dilate, " says Oswald's grandson, who heard him, "with a generous and enthusiastic pleasure on thequalifications and merits of Mr. Oswald, candidly avowing at the sametime how much information he had received on many points from theenlarged views and profound knowledge of that accomplishedstatesman. "[24] Dugald Stewart saw a paper written by Smith whichdescribed Oswald not only as a man of extensive knowledge of economicsubjects, but a man with a special taste and capacity for thediscussion of their more general and philosophical aspects. Thatpaper, we cannot help surmising, is the same document of 1755 I havejust mentioned in which Smith was proving his early attachment to thedoctrines of economic liberty, and would naturally treat ofcircumstances connected with the growth of his opinions. However thatmay be, it is certain that Smith and Oswald must have been incommunication upon economic questions about that period, and Oswald'sviews at that period are contained in the correspondence to whichreference has been made. 

Early in 1750 David Hume sent Oswald the manuscript of his well-knownessay on the Balance of Trade, afterwards published in his _PoliticalEssays_ in 1752, asking for his views and criticisms; and Oswaldreplied on the 10th of October in a long letter, published in the_Caldwell Papers_, [25] which shows him to have been already entirelyabove the prevailing mercantilist prejudices, and to have very clearconceptions of economic operations. He declares jealousies betweennations of being drained of their produce and money to be quiteirrational; that could never happen as long as the people and industryremained. The prohibition against exporting commodities and money, heheld, had always produced effects directly contrary to what wasintended by it. It had diminished cultivation at home instead ofincreasing it, and really forced the more money out of the country themore produce it prevented from going. Oswald's letter seems to havebeen sent on by Hume, together with his own essay, to Baron Mure, whowas also interested in such discussions. The new light was thusbreaking in on groups of inquirers in Scotland as well as elsewhere, and Smith was from his earliest days within its play. 

Amid the more serious labours of these literary and economic lectures, it would be an agreeable relaxation to collect and edit the scatteredpoems, published and unpublished, of Hamilton of Bangour, the authorof what Wordsworth calls the "exquisite ballad" of "The Braes o'Yarrow, " beginning--

 Busk ye, busk ye, my bonny, bonny bride, Busk ye, busk ye, my winsome marrow, Busk ye, busk ye, my bonny, bonny bride, And think no more on the Braes o' Yarrow. 

This ballad had appeared in Allan Ramsay's _Tea-Table Miscellany_ solong ago as 1724, and it was followed by Hamilton's most ambitiouseffort, the poem "Contemplation, " in 1739, but the general public ofScotland only seem to have awakened to their merits after the poetespoused the Jacobite cause in 1745, and celebrated the victory ofPrestonpans by his "Ode to the Battle of Gladsmuir"--the name theJacobites preferred to give the battle. This ode, which had been setto music by M'Gibbon, became a great favourite in Jacobite households, and created so much popular interest in the author's other works thatimperfect versions of some of his unpublished poems, and even of thosewhich were already in print, began to appear. The author was himselfan outlaw, and could not intervene. The ode which had lifted him intopopularity had at the same time driven him into exile, and he was thenliving with a little group of young Scotch refugees at Rouen, andcompletely shattered in bodily health by his three months' hidingamong the Grampians. Under those circumstances his friends thought itadvisable to forestall the pirated and imperfect collections of hispoems which were in contemplation by publishing as complete andcorrect an edition of them as could possibly be done in the absence ofthe author. And this edition was issued from the famous Foulis pressin Glasgow in 1748. In doing so they acted, as they avow in thepreface, "not only without the author's consent, but without hisknowledge, " but it is absurd to call an edition published under thosecircumstances, as the new _Dictionary of National Biography_ calls it, a "surreptitious edition. " It was published by the poet's closestpersonal friends as a protection for the poet's reputation, andperhaps as a plea for his pardon. 

The task of collecting and editing the poems was entrusted to AdamSmith. We are informed of this fact by the accurate and learned DavidLaing, and though Laing has not imparted his authority for theinformation, it receives a certain circumstantial corroboration fromother quarters. We find Smith in the enjoyment of a very rapidintimacy with Hamilton during the two brief years the poet resided inScotland between receiving the royal pardon in 1750 and flying againin 1752 from a more relentless enemy than kings--the fatal malady ofconsumption, from which he died two years later at Lyons. Sir JohnDalrymple, the historian, speaks in a letter to Robert Foulis, theprinter, of "the many happy and flattering hours which he (Smith) hadspent with Mr. Hamilton. " We find again that when Hamilton's friendspropose to print a second edition of the poems, they come to Smith forassistance. This edition was published in 1758, and is dedicated tothe memory of William Craufurd, merchant, Glasgow, a friend of thepoet mentioned in the preface to the first edition as having suppliedmany of the previously unpublished pieces which it contained. Craufurdappears to have been an uncle of Sir John Dalrymple, and Sir John asksFoulis to get Smith to write this dedication. "Sir, " says he, inDecember 1757, "I have changed my mind about the dedication of Mr. Hamilton's poems. I would have it stand 'the friend of WilliamHamilton, ' but I assent to your opinion to have something more toexpress Mr. Craufurd's character. I know none so able to do this as myfriend Mr. Smith. I beg it, therefore, earnestly that he will writethe inscription, and with all the elegance and all the feelingnesswhich he above the rest of mankind is able to express. This is a thingthat touches me very nearly, and therefore I beg a particular answeras to what he says to it. The many happy and the many flattering hourswhich he has spent with Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Craufurd makes me thinkthat he will account his usual indolence a crime upon this occasion. Ibeg you will make my excuse for not wryting him this night, but then Iconsider wryting to you upon this head to be wryting to him. "[26] Itis unlikely that Smith would resist an appeal like this, and thededication bears some internal marks of his authorship. It describesMr. Craufurd as "the friend of Mr. Hamilton, who to that exactfrugality, that downright probity and pliancy of manners so suitableto his profession, joined a love of learning and of all the ingeniousarts, an openness of hand and a generosity of heart that was far bothfrom vanity and from weakness, and a magnanimity that would support, under the prospect of approaching and inevitable death, a mosttorturing pain of body with an unalterable cheerfulness of temper, andwithout once interrupting even to his last hour the most manly and themost vigorous activity of business. " This William Craufurd isconfounded by Lord Woodhouselee, and through him by others, withRobert Crauford, the author of "The Bush aboon Traquair, " "Tweedside, "and other poems, who was also an intimate friend of Hamilton ofBangour, but died in 1732. 

Another link in the circumstantial evidence corroborating DavidLaing's statement is the fact that Smith was certainly at the momentin communication with Hamilton's personal friends, at whose instancethe volume of poems was published. Kames, who was then interestinghimself so actively in Smith's advancement, was the closest survivingfriend Hamilton possessed. They had been constant companions in youth, leading spirits of that new school of dandies called "thebeaux"--young men at once of fashion and of letters--who adornedScotch society between the Rebellions, and continued to adorn many anafter-dinner table in Edinburgh down till the present century. Hamilton owns that it was Kames who first taught him "verse tocriticise, " and wrote to him the poem "To H. H. At the Assembly"; whileKames for his part used in his old age, as his neighbour Ramsay ofOchtertyre informs us, to have no greater enjoyment than recountingthe scenes and doings he and Hamilton had transacted together in thoseearly days, of which the poet himself writes, when they "keptfriendship's holy vigil" in the subterranean taverns of old Edinburgh"full many a fathom deep. "

FOOTNOTES:

[19] Home and Hume, it may be mentioned, are only different ways ofspelling the same name, which, though differently spelt, was notdifferently pronounced. 

[20] Tytler's _Life of Kames_, i. 218. 

[21] Blair's _Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles-Lettres_, i. 381. 

[22] Clayden's _Early Life of Samuel Rogers_, p. 168. 

[23] Stewart's _Works_, ed. Hamilton, vol. X. P. 68. 

[24] _Correspondence of James Oswald_, Preface. 

[25] _Caldwell Papers_, i. 93. 

[26] Duncan's _Notes and Documents illustrative of the LiteraryHistory of Glasgow_, p. 25. 

CHAPTER V

PROFESSOR AT GLASGOW

1751-1764. _Aet. _ 27-40

The Edinburgh lectures soon bore fruit. On the death of Mr. Loudon, Professor of Logic in Glasgow College, in 1750, Smith was appointed tothe vacant chair, and so began that period of thirteen years of activeacademic work which he always looked back upon, he tells us, "as byfar the most useful and therefore by far the happiest and mosthonourable period" of his life. The appointment lay with theSenatus--or, more strictly, with a section of the Senatus known as theFaculty Professors--some of whom, of course, had been his own teachersten years before, and knew him well; and the minutes state that thechoice was unanimous. He was elected on the 9th of January 1751, andwas admitted to the office on the 16th, after reading a dissertation_De origine idearum_, signing the Westminster Confession of Faithbefore the Presbytery of Glasgow, and taking the usual oath _Defideli_ to the University authorities; but he did not begin work tillthe opening of the next session in October. His engagements inEdinburgh did not permit of his undertaking his duties in Glasgowearlier, and his classes were accordingly conducted, with the sanctionof the Senatus, by Dr. Hercules Lindsay, the Professor ofJurisprudence, as his substitute, from the beginning of January tillthe end of June. During this interval Smith went through to Glasgowrepeatedly to attend meetings of the Senatus, but he does not appearto have given any lectures to the students. If he was relieved of hisduties in the summer, however, he worked double tides during thewinter, for besides the work of his own class, he undertook to carryon at the same time the work of Professor Craigie of the MoralPhilosophy chair, who was laid aside by ill health, and indeed died afew weeks after the commencement of the session. This double burdenwas no doubt alleviated by the circumstance that he was able in boththe class-rooms to make very considerable use of the courses oflectures he had already delivered in Edinburgh. By the traditionaldistribution of academic subjects in the Scotch universities, theprovince of the chair of Logic included rhetoric and belles-lettres, and the province of the chair of Moral Philosophy includedjurisprudence and politics, and as Smith had lectured in Edinburghboth on rhetoric and belles-lettres and on jurisprudence and politics, he naturally took those branches for the subjects of his lectures thisfirst session at Glasgow. Professor John Millar, the author of the_Historical View of the English Government_ and other works of greatmerit, was a member of Smith's logic class that year, having beeninduced, by the high reputation the new professor brought with himfrom Edinburgh, to take out the class a second time, although he hadalready completed his university curriculum; and Millar states thatmost of the session was occupied with "the delivery of a system ofrhetoric and belles-lettres. " In respect to the other class, jurisprudence and politics were specially suggested to him as thesubjects for the year when he was asked to take Professor Craigie'splace. The proposal came through Professor Cullen, who was probablyCraigie's medical attendant, and Cullen suggested those particularsubjects as being the most likely to suit Smith's convenience and savehim labour, inasmuch as he had lectured on them already. Smith repliedthat these were the subjects which it would be most agreeable to himto take up. 

 EDINBURGH, _3rd Sept. 1751_. 

 DEAR SIR--I received yours this moment. I am very glad that Mr. Craigie has at last resolved to go to Lisbon. I make no doubt but he will soon receive all the benefit he expects or can wish from the warmer climate. I shall, with great pleasure, do what I can to relieve him of the burden of his class. You mention natural jurisprudence and politics as the parts of his lectures which it would be most agreeable for me to take upon me to teach. I shall very willingly undertake both. I shall be glad to know when he sets out for Lisbon, because if it is not before the first of October I would endeavour to see him before he goes, that I might receive his advice about the plan I ought to follow. I would pay great deference to it in everything, and would follow it implicitly in this, as I shall consider myself as standing in his place and representing him. If he goes before that time I wish he would leave some directions for me, either with you or with Mr. Leechman, were it only by word of mouth. --I am, dear doctor, most faithfully yours, ADAM SMITH. [27]

Smith would begin work at Glasgow on the 10th of October, and beforethe middle of November he and Cullen were already deeply immersed inquite a number of little schemes for the equipment of the College. There was first of all the affair of the vacancy in the MoralPhilosophy chair, which was anticipated to occur immediately throughthe death of Mr. Craigie--referred to in the following letter as "theevent we are afraid of. " This vacancy Cullen and Smith were desirousof seeing filled up by the translation of Smith from the Logic to theMoral Philosophy chair, and the Principal (Dr. Neil Campbell) seems tohave concurred in that proposal, and to have mentioned Smith's namewith approbation to the Duke of Argyle, who, though without any powerover the appointment to any except the Crown chairs, took muchinterest in, and was believed to exercise much influence over, theappointment to all. This was the Duke Archibald--better known by hisearlier title of the Earl of Islay--who was often called the King ofScotland, because he practically ruled the affairs of Scotland in thefirst half of last century, very much as Dundas did in the second. Smith seems to have gone through to Edinburgh to push his views withthe Duke, and to have waited on him and been introduced to him at hislevee. 

Then there was the affair of Hume's candidature for the Logic chair, contingent on Smith's appointment to the other. There was the affairof the Principal's possible retirement, with, no doubt, some plan inreserve for the reversion, probably in favour of Professor Leechman, mentioned in the previous letter, who did in the event succeed to it. Then there was Cullen's "own affair, " which Smith was promoting inEdinburgh through Lord Kames (then Mr. Home), and which probablyconcerned a method of purifying salt Cullen had then invented, andwanted to secure a premium for. At any rate, Lord Kames did speak tothe Duke of Argyle on this subject in Cullen's behalf a few monthslater. 

While immersed in this multiplicity of affairs Smith wrote Cullen thefollowing letter:--[28]

 EDIN. , _Tuesday, November 1751_. 

 DEAR SIR--I did not write to you on Saturday as I promised, because I was every moment expecting Mr. Home to town. He is not, however, yet come. 

 I should prefer David Hume to any man for the College, but I am afraid the public would not be of my opinion, and the interest of the society will oblige us to have some regard to the opinion of the public. If the event, however, we are afraid of should happen we can see how the public receives it. From the particular knowledge I have of Mr. Elliot's sentiments, I am pretty certain Mr. Lindsay must have proposed it to him, not he to Mr. Lindsay. I am ever obliged to you for your concern for my interest in that affair. 

 When I saw you at Edinburgh you talked to me of the Principal's proposing to retire. I gave little attention to it at that time, but upon further consideration should be glad to listen to any proposal of that kind. The reasons of my changing my opinion I shall tell you at meeting. I need not recommend secrecy to you upon this head. Be so good as to thank the Principal in my name for his kindness in mentioning me to the Duke. I waited on him at his levee at Edinburgh, when I was introduced to him by Mr. Lind, but it seems he had forgot. 

 I can tell you nothing particular about your own affair more than what I wrote you last till I see Mr. Home, whom I expect every moment. --I am, most dear sir, ever yours, A. SMITH. 

The event they were afraid of happened on the 27th of November, andSmith was, without any opposition, appointed Craigie's successor onthe 29th of April 1752. It would appear from this letter as if Cullenhad heard from his colleague, Professor Lindsay, of a possible rivalto Smith for that chair in the person of Mr. Elliot--no doubt Mr. Gilbert Elliot, a man of brilliant parts and accomplishments, whoafterwards attained high political eminence as Sir Gilbert Elliot, butwho was at this time a young advocate at the Edinburgh bar, with noliking for law and a great liking for letters and philosophy. Smith, however, who was a personal friend of Elliot's, knew that the latterhad no such designs, and eventually his own candidature was unopposed. But in anticipation of this result, the keenest contest was carried onall winter over the election to the Logic chair, which he was toleave. David Hume came forward as a candidate, and there is anerroneous, though curiously well-supported tradition that Edmund Burkewas a candidate also. One of Burke's biographers, Bisset, states thatBurke actually applied for the post, but applied too late. [29] Anotherof his biographers, Prior, says that Burke being in Scotland at thetime, took some steps for the place, but finding his chances hopeless, withdrew;[30] while Professor Jardine, a subsequent occupier of thechair himself, asserts that Burke was thought of by some of theelectors, but never really came forward. [31] But Smith, who was notonly the previous occupant of the office, but, as Professor of MoralPhilosophy, was one of the electors of his successor, statedexplicitly to Dugald Stewart (as Stewart wrote to Prior[32]) "that thestory was extremely current, but he knew of no evidence on which itrested, and he suspected it took its rise entirely from an opinionwhich he had himself expressed at Glasgow upon the publication ofBurke's book on the _Sublime and Beautiful_, that the author of thatbook would be a great acquisition to the College if he would accept ofa chair. " Had anything been known in Glasgow of Burke's candidaturefor a chair there five years before, it would unquestionably berecollected on the occasion of the publication of so notable a work, but Burke's very name was so unfamiliar to the circle interested inthe election that when Hume first met him in London in 1759, hementions him in a letter to Smith as "a Mr. Burke, an Irishgentleman who has written a very pretty book on the _Sublime andBeautiful_. "[33]

The interest of the contest is sufficiently great from the candidatureof one philosopher of the first rank, and to Smith himself--alreadythat philosopher's very close friend--it must have been engrossing. Itwill be observed that in his letter to Cullen he expresses himselfwith great caution on the subject. He is quite alive to the fact thatthe appointment of a notorious sceptic like Hume might be so unpopularwith the Scottish public as to injure the interests of the University. But when Hume came forward Cullen threw himself heart and soul intohis cause, as we know from Hume's own acknowledgments; and if Cullenand Smith are found acting in concert at the initiation of thecandidature, it is not likely that Smith lagged behind Cullen in theprosecution of the canvass, though nothing remains to give us anydecisive information on the point. Their exertions failed, however, in consequence, Hume himself always believed, of the interference ofthe Duke of Argyle, and the chair was given to a young licentiate ofthe Church named Clow, who was at the time entirely unknown, andindeed never afterwards established any manner of public reputation. 

Smith's preference for the Moral Philosophy chair came mainly no doubtfrom preference for the subjects he would be called upon to teach init, but the emoluments also seem to have been somewhat better, forSmith was expressly required, as a condition of acceptance of theoffice, to content himself until the 10th of October of that year (theopening day of the new session) "with the salary and emoluments of hispresent profession of Logic, " even though he might be actuallyadmitted to the other professorship before that date. It must not besupposed, however, that the emoluments of his new office were by anymeans very lordly. They accrued partly from a moderate endowment andpartly from the fees paid by the students who attended the lectures--aprinciple of academic payment which Smith always considered the best, because it made the lecturer's income largely dependent on hisdiligence and success in his work. The endowment was probably no morethan that of the Mathematical chair, and the endowment of theMathematical chair was £72 a year. [34] The fees probably neverexceeded £100, or even came up to that figure, for Dr. Thomas Reid, Smith's successor in the Moral Philosophy chair, writes an Aberdeenfriend, after two years' experience of Glasgow, that he had morestudents than Smith ever had, and had already touched £70 of fees, butexpected, when all the students arrived, to make £100 thatsession. [35] The income from fees in the Scotch chairs in last centuryseems to have been subject to considerable variations from session tosession. A bad harvest would sometimes tell seriously on theattendance, and a great crisis like that of 1772, when the effects ofa succession of bad harvests were aggravated by ruinous mercantilespeculations, deprived Adam Ferguson in the Edinburgh Moral Philosophychair of half his usual income from fees. It may also be mentioned asa curious circumstance that in those days a professor used to loseregularly many pounds a year by light money. When Lord Brougham, as ayoung student of chemistry in Edinburgh, paid his fee to Black, thegreat chemist weighed the guineas carefully on a weighing machine hehad on the table before him, and observed in explanation, "I amobliged to weigh when strange students come, there being a very largenumber who bring light guineas, so that I should be defrauded of manypounds every year if I did not act in self-defence against this classof students. "[36]

Smith kept an occasional boarder in his house, and would of coursemake a trifle by that, but his regular income from his class workwould not exceed £170 a year. £170 a year, however, was a veryrespectable income at a period when, as was the case in 1750, onlytwenty-nine ministers in all broad Scotland had as much as £100 ayear, and the highest stipend in the Church was only £138. [37]

Besides his salary Smith had a house in the College--one of those newmanses in the Professors' Court which Glasgow people at the timeconsidered very grand; and though the circumstance is trifling, it isa little curious that he changed his house three times in the courseof his thirteen years' professorship. It was the custom when a housefell vacant for the professors to get their choice of it in the orderof their academical seniority. There seems to have been no compulsionabout the step, so that it is not beneath noticing that Smith shouldin so short a term have elected to make the three removes whichproverbial wisdom deprecates. When his friend Cullen was translatedto Edinburgh in 1756, Smith, who was next in seniority, having beenmade professor in Glasgow a few months after the eminent physician, removed to Cullen's house; then he quitted this house in 1757 for thehouse of Dr. Dick, Professor of Natural Philosophy, who died in thatyear; and he left Dick's house in turn for Dr. Leechman's, on thepromotion of that divine to the Principalship in 1762. These housesare now demolished with the rest of the old College of Glasgow, sothat we cannot mark the gradation of comfort that may have determinedthese successive changes; and besides they may have been determined byno positive preference of the economist himself, but by the desires ofhis mother and his aunt, Miss Jane Douglas, who both lived with him inGlasgow, and whose smallest wishes it was the highest ambition of hisaffectionate nature to gratify. 

In Smith's day there were only some 300 students at Glasgow College inall, and the Moral Philosophy chair alone had never more than 80 or 90in the public class and 20 in the private. The public class did notmean a free class, as it does on the Continent; it really was thedearer of the two, the fee in the private class being only a guinea, while the fee of the public class was a guinea and a half. The publicclass was the ordinary class taken for graduation and other purposes, and obligatory by academic authority; the private was a special class, undertaken, with the permission of the Senatus, for those who wishedto push the subject further; and to harmonise this account of themwith what has been previously said of the income Smith drew from fees, it is necessary to explain that many of the students who attendedthese classes paid no fees, according to a custom which still prevailsin Scotch universities, and by which one was considered a _civis_ of aclass he had attended for two years, and might thereafter attend itwhenever he chose without charge. Many in this way attended the MoralPhilosophy class four or five years, and among them, as Dr. Reidinforms us, quite a number of preachers and advanced students ofdivinity and law, before whom, the worthy doctor confesses, he used tostand in awe to speak without the most careful preparation. 

The College session was then longer than it is now, extending from the10th of October to the 10th of June, and the classes began at onceearlier in the morning and continued later at night. Smith commencedhis labours before daybreak by his public class from 7. 30 to 8. 30A. M. ; he then held at 11 A. M. An hour's examination on the lecture hedelivered in the morning, though to this examination only a third ofthe students of the morning class were in the habit of coming; and hemet with his private class twice a week on a different subject at 12. Besides these engagements Smith seems to have occasionally read for anhour like a tutor with special pupils; at least one is led to infer somuch from the remarks of a former pupil, who, under the _nom de plume_of Ascanius, writes his reminiscences of his old master to the editorof the _Bee_ in June 1791. This writer says that he went to GlasgowCollege after he had gone through the classes at St. Andrews, Edinburgh, and even Oxford, in order that he might, "after the mannerof the ancients, walk in the porticoes of Glasgow with Smith and withMillar, and be imbued with the principles of jurisprudence and law andphilosophy"; and then he adds: "I passed most of my time at Glasgowwith those two first-rate men, and Smith read private lectures to meon jurisprudence, and accompanied them with his commentaries inconversation, exercises which I hope will give a colour and asubstance to my sentiments and to my reason that will be eternal. "

There is no difficulty in identifying this enthusiastic disciple withthe eccentric and bustling Earl of Buchan, the elder brother of LordChancellor Erskine, and of the witty and greatly beloved Harry Erskineof the Scotch bar, and the subject of the Duchess of Gordon'swell-known _mot_: "The wit of your lordship's family has come by themother, and been all settled on the younger branches. " We know thatthis Earl of Buchan was a contributor to the _Bee_ under variousfictitious signatures, because he has himself republished some of hiscontributions, and we know that he attended Smith's class at Glasgow, because he says so in a letter to Pinkerton, the historian, mentioninghaving seen in Smith's library at that time a book of which Pinkertoncould not find a single copy remaining anywhere--the memoirs ofLockhart of Lee, Cromwell's ambassador to France, which had beensuppressed (as the Earl had been told by his maternal uncle, Sir JamesSteuart, the economist) at the instance of Lockhart, the famousadvocate, afterwards Lord Covington, because the family had turnedJacobite, and disliked the association with the Commonwealth. [38] TheEarl gives the year of his attendance at Glasgow as 1760, but he musthave continued there more than one session, for he attended Millar'slectures as well as Smith's, and Millar was not there till the session1761-62; and it is on the whole most likely that this is the veryyoung nobleman whom Dr. Alexander Carlyle met in company with Smith ata large supper party in April 1763, and concerning whom he mentionsthat he himself whispered after a little to Smith that he wondered howhe could set this young man so high who appeared to be so foolish, andSmith answered, "We know that perfectly, but he is the only lord inour College. "

It will be observed that Lord Buchan says Smith _read_ privatelectures to him. Smith's public lectures he was not accustomed to readin any of his classes, but he seems to have found it more convenientin teaching a single pupil to read them, and interpose oral commentsand illustrations as he went along. Others of Smith's old studentsbesides Lord Buchan express their obligations to the conversationsthey were privileged to have with him. Dugald Stewart, Broughaminforms us, used to decline to see his students, because he found themtoo disputatious, and he disliked disputing with them about thecorrectness of the doctrines he taught. But Smith, by all accounts, was extremely accessible, and was even in the habit of seeking out theabler men among them, inviting them to his house, discussing with themthe subjects of his lectures or any other subject, and enteringsympathetically into their views and plans of life. John Millar, having occasion to mention Smith's name in his _Historical View of theEnglish Government_, takes the opportunity to say: "I am happy toacknowledge the obligations I feel myself under to this illustriousphilosopher by having at an early period of life had the benefit ofhis lectures on the history of civil society, and enjoying hisunreserved conversation on the same subject. "[39]

Millar, it may be added, was one of Smith's favourite pupils, andafter obtaining the chair of Jurisprudence in his old College, one ofhis chief associates, and Smith held so high an opinion of Millar'sunique powers as a stimulating teacher that he sent his cousin, DavidDouglas, to Glasgow College for no other purpose but to have theadvantage of the lectures and conversation of Millar. Jeffrey used tosay that the most bracing exercises a student in Glasgow underwent inthose days were the supper disputations at Professor Millar's house, and that, able and learned as his works are, "they revealed nothing ofthat magical vivacity which made his conversation and his lecturesstill more full of delight than of instruction. " Though he alwaysrefused to accept Smith's doctrine of free trade, Millar was the mosteffective and influential apostle of Liberalism in Scotland in thatage, and Jeffrey's father could never forgive himself for having puthis son to Glasgow, where, though he was strictly forbidden to enterMillar's class-room, "the mere vicinity of Millar's influence" hadsent him back a Liberal. [40]

Now it is this interesting and famous lecturer from whom we obtain thefullest account of Smith's qualities as a lecturer and of thesubstance of his lectures. 

"In the professorship of logic, " he says, "to which Mr. Smith wasappointed on his first introduction into this University, he soon sawthe necessity of departing widely from the plan that had been followedby his predecessors, and of directing the attention of his pupils tostudies of a more interesting and useful nature than the logic andmetaphysics of the schools. Accordingly, after exhibiting a generalview of the powers of the mind, and explaining as much of the ancientlogic as was requisite to gratify curiosity with respect to anartificial method of reasoning which had once occupied the universalattention of the learned, he dedicated all the rest of his time to thedelivering of a system of rhetoric and belles-lettres. "

In moral philosophy "his course of lectures, " says Millar, "wasdivided into four parts. The first contained natural theology, inwhich he considered the proofs of the being and attributes of God, andthose principles of the human mind upon which religion is founded. Thesecond comprehended ethics, strictly so called, and consisted chieflyof the doctrines which he afterwards published in his _Theory of MoralSentiments_. In the third part he treated at more length of thatbranch of morality which relates to _justice_, and which, beingsusceptible of precise and accurate rules, is for that reason capableof a full and particular explanation. 

"Upon this subject he followed the plan that seems to be suggested byMontesquieu, endeavouring to trace the gradual progress ofjurisprudence, both public and private, from the rudest to the mostrefined ages, and to point out the effects of those arts whichcontribute to subsistence and to the accumulation of property, inproducing correspondent improvements or alterations in law andgovernment. This important branch of his labours he also intended togive to the public; but this intention, which is mentioned in theconclusion of the _Theory of Moral Sentiments_, he did not live tofulfil. 

"In the last of his lectures he examined those political regulationswhich are founded, not upon the principle of _justice_ but that of_expediency_, and which are calculated to increase the riches, thepower, and the prosperity of a state. Under this view he consideredthe political institutions relating to commerce, to finances, toecclesiastical and military establishments. What he delivered on thosesubjects contained the substance of the work he afterwards publishedunder the title of _An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of theWealth of Nations_. "[41]

Under the third part were no doubt included those lectures on thehistory of civil society to which Millar expresses such deepobligation, and of which another pupil of Smith's, ProfessorRichardson of the Humanity chair in Glasgow--a minor poet ofconsiderable acceptance in his day--also speaks with lively gratitude, particularly of those "on the nature of those political institutionsthat succeeded the downfall of the Roman Empire, and which included anhistorical account of the rise and progress of the most conspicuousamong the modern European governments. "[42]

Richardson tells us, too, that Smith gave courses of lectures ontaste, on the history of philosophy, and on belles-lettres, apparentlycontinuing to utilise his old lectures on this last subjectoccasionally even after his translation from the chair to which theyproperly appertained, and that he was very fond of digressing intoliterary criticism from his lectures on any subject. "Those whoreceived instruction from Dr. Smith, " says Richardson, "will recollectwith much satisfaction many of those incidental and digressiveillustrations and discussions, not only in morality but in criticism, which were delivered by him with animated and extemporaneous eloquenceas they were suggested in the course of question and answer. Theyoccurred likewise, with much display of learning and knowledge, in hisoccasional explanations of those philosophical works, which were alsoa very useful and important subject of examination in the class ofmoral philosophy. "[43]

His characteristics as a lecturer are thus described by Millar:--

 "There was no situation in which the abilities of Mr. Smith appeared to greater advantage than as a professor. In delivering his lectures he trusted almost entirely to extemporary elocution. His manner, though not graceful, was plain and unaffected, and as he seemed to be always interested in the subject, he never failed to interest his hearers. Each discourse consisted commonly of several distinct propositions, which he successively endeavoured to prove and illustrate. These propositions when announced in general terms had, from their extent, not unfrequently something of the air of a paradox. In his attempts to explain them, he often appeared at first not to be sufficiently possessed of the subject, and spoke with some hesitation. As he advanced, however, his manner became warm and animated, and his expression easy and fluent. On points susceptible of controversy you could easily discern that he secretly conceived an opposition to his opinions, and that he was led upon this account to support them with greater energy and vehemence. By the fulness and variety of his illustrations the subject gradually swelled in his hands and acquired a dimension which, without a tedious repetition of the same views, was calculated to seize the attention of his audience, and to afford them pleasure as well as instruction in following the same subject through all the diversity of shades and aspects in which it was presented, and afterwards in tracing it backwards to that original proposition or general truth from which this beautiful train of speculation had proceeded. "[44]

One little peculiarity in his manner of lecturing was mentioned to thelate Archdeacon Sinclair by Archibald Alison the elder, apparently asAlison heard it from Smith's own lips. He used to acknowledge that inlecturing he was more dependent than most professors on the sympathyof his hearers, and he would sometimes select one of his students, whohad more mobile and expressive features than the rest, as anunsuspecting gauge of the extent to which he carried with him theintelligence and interest of the class. "During one whole session, " hesaid, "a certain student with a plain but expressive countenance wasof great use to me in judging of my success. He sat conspicuously infront of a pillar: I had him constantly under my eye. If he leantforward to listen all was right, and I knew that I had the ear of myclass; but if he leant back in an attitude of listlessness I felt atonce that all was wrong, and that I must change either the subject orthe style of my address. "[45]

The great majority of his students were young men preparing for thePresbyterian ministry, a large contingent of them--quite a third ofthe whole--being Irish dissenters who were unfairly excluded from theuniversity of their own country, but appear to have been no veryworthy accession to the University of Glasgow. We know of no word ofcomplaint against them from Smith, but they were a sore trial both toHutcheson and to Reid. Reid says he always felt in lecturing to those"stupid Irish teagues" as St. Anthony must have felt when he preachedto the fishes, [46] and Hutcheson writes a friend in the north ofIreland that his Irish students were far above taking any interest intheir work, and that although he had "five or six young gentlemen fromEdinburgh, men of fortune and fine genius, studying law, theseIrishmen thought them poor bookworms. "[47] Smith had probably evenmore of this stamp of law students than Hutcheson. Henry Erskineattended his class on jurisprudence as well as his elder brother. Boswell was there in 1759, and was made very proud by the certificatehe received from his professor at the close of the session, statingthat he, Mr. James Boswell, was "happily possessed of a facility ofmanners. "[48] After the publication of the _Theory of MoralSentiments_, students came even from a greater distance. LordShelburne, who was an enthusiastic admirer of that work, sent hisyounger brother, the Honourable Thomas Fitzmaurice, for a year or twoto study under Smith, before sending him to Oxford in 1761 to read lawwith Sir William Blackstone. Mr. Fitzmaurice, who married the Countessof Orkney, and is the progenitor of the present Orkney family, rose toa considerable political position, and would have risen higher but forfalling into ill health in the prime of life and remaining a completeinvalid till his death in 1793, but he never forgot the years he spentas a student in Smith's class and a boarder in Smith's house. Dr. Currie, the well-known author of the _Life of Burns_, was his medicalattendant in his latter years, and Dr. Currie says his conversationalways turned back to his early life, and particularly to the pleasantperiod he had spent under Smith's roof in Glasgow. Currie has not, however, recorded any reminiscences of those conversations. [49] TwoRussian students came in 1762, and Smith had twice to give them anadvance of £20 apiece from the College funds, because theirremittances had got stopped by the war. Tronchin, the eminentphysician of Geneva, the friend of Voltaire, the enemy of Rousseau, sent his son to Glasgow in 1761 purposely "to study under Mr. Smith, "as we learn from a letter of introduction to Baron Mure which theyoung man received before starting from Colonel Edmonston of Newton, who was at the time resident in Geneva. It was of Tronchin Voltairesaid, "He is a great physician, he knows the mind, " and he must haveformed a high idea of the _Theory of Moral Sentiments_ to send his sonso far to attend the lectures of its author. It was this young manwho, on his way back from Glasgow, played a certain undesigned part inoriginating the famous quarrel between Rousseau and Hume, of which weshall have more to hear anon. He was living with Professor Rouet ofGlasgow, at Miss Elliot's lodging-house in London, when Hume broughtRousseau there in January 1866, and the moment Rousseau saw the son ofhis old enemy established in the house to which he was conducted, heflew to the conclusion that young Tronchin was there as a spy, andthat the good and benevolent Hume was weaving some infernal web abouthim. 

Smith's popularity as a lecturer grew year by year. It was felt thatanother and perhaps greater Hutcheson had risen in the College. Reid, when he came to Glasgow to succeed him in 1764, wrote his friend Dr. Skene in Aberdeen that there was a great spirit of inquiry abroadamong the young people in Glasgow--the best testimony that could berendered of the effect of Smith's teaching. It had taught the youngpeople to think. His opinions became the subjects of generaldiscussion, the branches he lectured on became fashionable in thetown, the sons of the wealthier citizens used to go to College to takehis class though they had no intention of completing a universitycourse, stucco busts of him appeared in the booksellers' windows, andthe very peculiarities of his voice and pronunciation received thehomage of imitation. One point alone caused a little--in certainquarters not a little--shaking of heads, we are told by John Ramsay ofOchtertyre. The distinguished professor was a friend of "Hume theatheist"; he was himself ominously reticent on religious subjects; hedid not conduct a Sunday class on Christian evidences like Hutcheson;he would often too be seen openly smiling during divine service in hisplace in the College chapel (as in his absent way he might no doubt beprone to do); and it is even stated by Ramsay that he petitioned theSenatus on his first appointment in Glasgow to be relieved of the dutyof opening his class with prayer, and the petition was rejected; thathis opening prayers were always thought to "savour strongly of naturalreligion"; that his lectures on natural theology were too flatteringto human pride, and induced "presumptuous striplings to draw anunwarranted conclusion, viz. That the great truths of theology, together with the duties which man owes to God and his neighbours, maybe discovered by the light of nature without any specialrevelation, "[50] as if it were a fault to show religious truth to benatural, for fear young men should believe it too easily. No record ofthe alleged petition about the opening prayers and its refusal remainsin the College minutes, and the story is probably nothing but a morselof idle gossip unworthy of attention, except as an indication of theatmosphere of jealous and censorious theological vigilance in whichSmith and his brother professors were then obliged to do their work. 

In his lectures on jurisprudence and politics he had taught thedoctrine of free trade from the first, and not the least remarkableresult of his thirteen years' work in Glasgow was that before he lefthe had practically converted that city to his views. Dugald Stewartwas explicitly informed by Mr. James Ritchie, one of the most eminentClyde merchants of that time, that Smith had, during hisprofessorship in Glasgow, made many of the leading men of the placeconvinced proselytes of free trade principles. [51] Sir James Steuartof Coltness, the well-known economist, used, after his return from hislong political exile in 1763, to take a great practical interest intrying to enlighten his Glasgow neighbours on the economical problemsthat were rising about them, and having embraced the dying cause ineconomics as well as in politics, he sought hard to enlist them infavour of protection, but he frankly confesses that he grew sick ofrepeating arguments for protection to these "Glasgow theorists, " as hecalls them, because he found that Smith had already succeeded inpersuading them completely in favour of a free importation ofcorn. [52] Sir James Steuart was a most persuasive talker; Smithhimself said he understood Sir James's system better from his talkthan from his books, [3] and those Glasgow merchants must have obtainedfrom Smith's expositions a very clear and complete hold indeed of thedoctrines of commercial freedom, when Steuart failed to shake it, andwas fain to leave such theorists to their theories. Long before thepublication of the _Wealth of Nations_, therefore, the new light wasshining clearly from Smith's chair in Glasgow College, and winning itsfirst converts in the practical world. One can accordingly wellunderstand the emotion with which J. B. Say sat in this chair when hevisited Glasgow in 1815, and after a short prayer said with greatfervour, "Lord, let now thy servant depart in peace. "[53]

Dugald Stewart further states, on the authority of gentlemen who werestudents in the moral philosophy class at Glasgow in 1752 or 1753, that Smith delivered so early as that lectures containing thefundamental principles of the _Wealth of Nations_; and in 1755--theyear Cantillon's _Essai_ first saw the light, and the year beforeQuesnay published his first economic writing--Smith was not onlyexpounding his system of natural liberty to his students, but publiclyasserting his claim to the authorship of that system in a GlasgowEconomic Society--perhaps the first economic club establishedanywhere. The paper in which Smith vindicates this claim came somehowinto the possession of Dugald Stewart, and so escaped the fire towhich Smith committed all his other papers before his death, but it isbelieved to have been destroyed by Stewart's son, very possibly afterhis father's directions. For Stewart thought it would be improper topublish the complete manuscript, because it would revive personaldifferences which had better remain in oblivion, and consequently ourknowledge of its contents is confined to the few sentences which hehas thought right to quote as a valuable evidence of the progress ofSmith's political ideas at that very early period. It will be observedthat, as far as we can collect from so small a fragment of hisdiscourse, he presents the doctrine of natural liberty in a moreextreme form than it came to wear after twenty years more of thoughtin the _Wealth of Nations_. Stewart says that many of the mostimportant opinions in the _Wealth of Nations_ are detailed in thisdocument, but he cites only the following:--

 "Man is generally considered by statesmen and projectors as the materials of a sort of political mechanics. Projectors disturb nature in the course of her operations on human affairs, and it requires no more than to leave her alone and give her fair play in the pursuit of her ends that she may establish her own designs. .. . Little else is required to carry a state to the highest degree of affluence from the lowest barbarism but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice; all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things. All governments which thwart this natural course, which force things into another channel, or which endeavour to arrest the progress of society at a particular point, are unnatural, and, to support themselves, are obliged to be oppressive and tyrannical. .. . A great part of the opinions enumerated in this paper is treated of at length in some lectures which I have still by me, and which were written in the hand of a clerk who left my service six years ago. They have all of them been the constant subjects of my lectures since I first taught Mr. Craigie's class the first winter I spent in Glasgow down to this day without any considerable variations. They had all of them been the subjects of lectures which I read at Edinburgh the winter before I left it, and I can adduce innumerable witnesses both from that place and from this who will ascertain them sufficiently to be mine. "[54]

The distinction drawn in the last sentence between _that_ place, Edinburgh, and _this_ place, shows that the paper was read to asociety in Glasgow. Smith was a member of two societies there, ofwhich I shall presently have something more to say, the LiterarySociety and a society which we may call the Economic, because it metfor the discussion of economic subjects, though we do not know itsprecise name, if it had any. Now this paper of Smith's was not read tothe Literary Society--at least, it is not included in the publishedlist of papers read by it--and we may therefore conclude that it wasread to the Economic Society. 

Nothing is now known of the precise circumstances in which the paperoriginated, except what Stewart tells us, that Smith "was anxious toestablish his exclusive right" to "certain leading principles bothpolitical and literary, " "in order to prevent the possibility of somerival claims which he thought he had reason to apprehend, and to whichhis situation as a professor, added to his unreserved communicationsin private companies, rendered him peculiarly liable"; and that heexpressed himself "with a good deal of that honest and indignantwarmth which is perhaps unavoidable by a man who is conscious of thepurity of his intentions when he suspects that advantages have beentaken of the frankness of his temper. " It would appear that some one, who had got hold of Smith's ideas through attending his class orfrequenting his company, either had published them, or was believed tobe going to publish them as his own. 

The writer of the obituary notice of Smith in the _Monthly Review_ for1790 alleges that in this Glasgow period Smith lived in such constantapprehension of being robbed of his ideas that, if he saw any of hisstudents take notes of his lectures, he would instantly stop him andsay, "I hate scribblers. " But this is directly contradicted by theaccount of Professor John Millar, who, as we have seen, was a studentin Smith's classes himself, and who expressly states both that thepermission to take notes was freely given by Smith to his students, and that the privilege was the occasion of frequent abuse. "From thepermission given to students of taking notes, " says Millar, "manyobservations and opinions contained in these lectures (the lectures onrhetoric and belles-lettres) have either been detailed in separatedissertations or engrossed in general collections which have sincebeen given to the public. " In those days manuscript copies of apopular professor's lectures, transcribed from his students'notebooks, were often kept for sale in the booksellers' shops. Blair'slectures on rhetoric, for example, were for years in generalcirculation in this intermediate state, and it was the publication ofhis criticism on Addison, taken from one of the unauthorisedtranscripts, in Kippis's _Biographia Britannica_, that at lengthinstigated Blair to give his lectures to the press himself. Aprofessor was thus always liable to have his unpublished thoughtappropriated by another author without any acknowledgment at all, orpublished in such an imperfect form that he would hardly care toacknowledge it himself. If Smith, therefore, exhibited a jealousy overhis rights to his own thought, as has been suggested, Millar'sobservation shows him to have had at any rate frequent cause; butneither at that time of his life nor any other was he animated by anundue or unreasonable jealousy of this sort such as he has sometimesbeen accused of; and if in 1755 he took occasion to resent with"honest and indignant warmth" a violation of his rights, there musthave been some special provocation. 

Mr. James Bonar suggests that this manifesto of 1755 was directedagainst Adam Ferguson, but that is not probable. Ferguson's name, itis true, will readily occur in such a connection, because Dr. Carlyletells us that when he published his _History of Civil Society_ in 1767Smith accused him of having borrowed some of his ideas without owningthem, and that Ferguson replied that he had borrowed nothing fromSmith, but much from some French source unnamed where Smith had beenbefore him. But, however this may have been in 1767, it is unlikelythat Ferguson was the occasion of offence in 1755. Up till that yearhe was generally living abroad with the regiment of which he waschaplain, and it is not probable that he had begun his _History_before his return to Scotland, or that he had time between his returnand the composition of Smith's manifesto to do or project anything tooccasion such a remonstrance. Then he is found on the friendliestfooting with Smith in the years immediately following the manifesto, and Stewart's allusion to the circumstances implies a graver breachthan could be healed so summarily. Besides, had Ferguson been thecause of offence, Stewart would have probably avoided the subjectaltogether in a paper to the Royal Society, of which Ferguson wasstill an active member. 

FOOTNOTES:

[27] Thomson's _Life of Cullen_, i. 605. 

[28] Thomson's _Life of Cullen_, i. 606. 

[29] Bisset's _Burke_, i. 32. 

[30] Prior's _Burke_, p. 38. 

[31] _Outlines of the Philosophy of Education_, p. 23. 

[32] Prior's _Life of Burke_, Bohn's ed. P. 38. 

[33] Burton's _Life of Hume_, ii. 55. 

[34] _Caldwell Papers_, i. 170. 

[35] Hamilton's _Reid_, p. 40. 

[36] _Brougham's Life and Times_, i. 78. 

[37] Chamberlayne's _Angliæ Notitia_ for 1750. 

[38] Smith's copy of this book seems to have gone out of existencelike the others, for his cousin and heir, David Douglas, wrote LordBuchan in January 1792 that he had searched for it in Smith's librarywithout any success, and that though a catalogue of the library hadsince then been made out, Lockhart's Memoirs was not contained in it. Douglas's letter is in the Edinburgh University Library. 

[39] Book II. Chap. X. 

[40] Cockburn's _Life of Jeffrey_, p. 12. 

[41] Stewart's _Works_, x. 12. 

[42] Richardson's _Life of Arthur_. See _Arthur's Discourses_, p. 510. 

[43] Richardson's _Life of Arthur_. See _Arthur's Discourses_, p. 508. 

[44] Stewart's _Works_, x. 12. 

[45] Sinclair's _Old Times and Distant Places_, p. 9. 

[46] Hamilton's _Reid_, p. 43. 

[47] M'Cosh, _Scottish Philosophy_, p. 66. 

[48] Boswell's _Correspondence with Erskine_, p. 26. 

[49] Currie's _Memoirs of James Currie, M. D. _, ii. 317. 

[50] Ramsay, _Scotland and Scotsmen_, i. 462, 463. 

[51] _Steuart's Works_, vi. 379. 

[52] _Ibid. _ vi. 378. 

[53] Dr. Cleland's account of Glasgow in _New Statistical Account ofScotland_, vi. 139. 

[54] Stewart's _Works_, ed. Hamilton; x. 68. 

CHAPTER VI

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR

A common misconception regarding Smith is that he was as helpless as achild in matters of business. One of his Edinburgh neighbours remarkedof him to Robert Chambers that it was strange a man who wrote so wellon exchange and barter was obliged to get a friend to buy his horsecorn for him. This idea of his helplessness in the petty transactionsof life arose from observing his occasional fits of absence and hishabitual simplicity of character, but his simplicity, nobody denies, was accompanied by exceptional acuteness and practical sagacity, andhis fits of absence seem to have been neither so frequent nor soprolonged as they are commonly represented. Samuel Rogers spent mostof a week with him in Edinburgh the year before his death, and did notremark his absence of mind all the time. Anyhow, during his thirteenyears' residence at Glasgow College, Smith seems to have had more todo with the business of the College, petty or important, than anyother professor, and his brethren in the Senate of that Universitycannot have seen in him any marked failing or incapacity for ordinarybusiness. They threw on his shoulders an ample share of the committeeand general routine work of the place, and set him to audit accounts, or inspect the drains in the College court, or see the holly hedge inthe College garden uprooted, or to examine the encroachments on theCollege lands on the Molendinar Burn, without any fear of hisforgetting his business on the way. They entrusted him for years withthe post of College Quæstor or Treasurer, in which inattention or thewant of sound business habits might inflict injury even on theirpecuniary interests. They made him one of the two curators of theCollege chambers, the forty lodgings provided for students inside theCollege gates. And when there was any matter of business that was alittle troublesome or delicate to negotiate, they seem generally tohave chosen Smith for their chief spokesman or representative. It wasthen very common for Scotch students to bring with them from home atthe beginning of the session as much oatmeal as would keep them tillthe end of it, and by an ancient privilege of the University they wereentitled to bring this meal with them into the city without requiringto pay custom on it; but in 1757 those students were obliged by thetacksman of the meal-market to pay custom on their meal, though it wasmeant for their own use alone. Smith was appointed along withProfessor Muirhead to go and represent to the Provost that theexaction was a violation of the privileges of the University, and todemand repayment within eight days, under pain of legal proceedings. And at the next meeting of Senate "Mr. Smith reported that he hadspoken to the Provost of Glasgow about the ladles exacted by the townfrom students for meal brought into the town for their own use, andthat the Provost promised to cause what had been exacted to bereturned, and that accordingly the money was offered by the town'sladler[55] to the students. "

Smith was often entrusted with College business to transact inEdinburgh--to arrange with Andrew Stuart, W. S. , about promoting a billin Parliament, or to wait on the Barons of Exchequer and get theCollege accounts passed; and he was generally the medium ofcommunication between the Senatus and the authorities of BalliolCollege during their long and troublesome contentions about the Snellproperty and the Snell exhibitioners. 

He was Quæstor from 1758 till he left in 1764, and in that capacityhad the management of the library funds and some other funds, hisduties being subsequently divided between the factor and thelibrarian. The professors, we are told by Professor Dickson, used totake this office in turn for a term of two or three years, but Smithheld the office longer than the customary term, and on the 19th of May1763 the Senate agreed that "as Dr. Smith has long executed the officeof Quæstor, he is allowed to take the assistance of an amanuensis. " Hewas Dean of Faculty from 1760 to 1762, and as such not only exerciseda general supervision over the studies of the College and the grantingof degrees, but was one of the three visitors charged with seeing thatthe whole business of the College was administered according to thestatutes of 1727. While still filling these two offices, he was in1762 appointed to the additional and important business office ofVice-Rector, by his personal friend Sir Thomas Miller, theLord-Advocate of Scotland (afterwards Lord President of the Court ofSession), who was Rector of the University that year. As Sir ThomasMiller was generally absent in consequence of his public engagementsin London or his professional engagements in Edinburgh, Smith asVice-Rector had to preside over all University meetings--meetings ofthe Senatus, of the Comitia, of the Rector's Court--at a time whenthis duty was rendered delicate by the contentions which prevailedamong the professors. The Rector's Court, it may be added--whichconsisted of the Rector and professors--was a judiciary as well asadministrative body, which at one time possessed the power of life anddeath, and according to the Parliamentary Report of 1829, actuallyinflicted imprisonment in the College steeple on several delinquentswithin the preceding fifty years. It may be mentioned that some timeelapsed after Sir Thomas Miller's election to the Rectorship beforehe was able to appoint a Vice-Rector, because he could not appoint aVice-Rector till he was himself admitted, and he could not attendpersonally to be admitted on account of engagements elsewhere. Duringthis interval Smith was elected præses of the University meetings bythe choice of his colleagues, and as the position was at the time oneof considerable difficulty, they would not be likely to select for ita man of decided business incapacity. 

Some idea of the difficulty of the place, on account of thedissensions prevailing in the College during Smith's residence there, may be got from a remark of his successor, Dr. Reid. In the course ofthe first year after his arrival in Glasgow, Reid writes one of hisAberdeen friends complaining bitterly of being obliged to attend fiveor six College meetings every week, and meetings, moreover, of a verydisagreeable character, in consequence of "an evil spirit of partythat seems to put us in a ferment, and, I am afraid, will produce badconsequences. "[56] A writer in the _Gentleman's Magazine_, in noticingSmith's death in 1790, says that these divisions turned on questionsof academic policy, and that Smith always took the side which waspopular with people of condition in the city. The writer offers nofurther particulars, but as far as we can now ascertain anything aboutthe questions which then kept the Glasgow Senate in such perpetualperturbation, they were not questions of general policy or publicinterest such as his words might suggest, and on the petty issues theyraised it makes no odds to know whether Smith sided with the kites orwith the crows. The troubles were generated, without any publicdifferences, out of the constitution of the University itself, whichseemed to be framed, as if on purpose, to create the greatest possibleamount of friction in its working. By its constitution; as that isdescribed in the Parliamentary Report of 1830, Glasgow University wasat that time under one name really two distinct corporations, withtwo distinct governing bodies: (1) the University governed by theSenate, which was composed of the Rector, the Dean of Faculty, thePrincipal, the thirteen College or Faculty professors, and the fiveregius professors; and (2) the College governed by the Faculty, as itwas called, which consisted of the thirteen College professors alone, who claimed to be the sole owners and administrators of the olderendowments of the College, and to have the right of electing theoccupants of their own thirteen chairs by co-optation. Within theFaculty again there was still another division of the professors intogown professors and other professors. The gown professors, who seem tohave been the representatives of the five regents of earlier times, were the professors of those classes the students of which woreacademical gowns, while the students of the other classes did not; thegown classes being Humanity, Greek, Logic, Natural Philosophy, andMoral Philosophy. These several bodies held separate meetings and keptseparate minutes, which remain to this day. The meetings of the Senatewere called University meetings or Rector's meetings, because theywere presided over by the Rector; and the meetings of the Faculty werecalled Faculty meetings or Principal's meetings, because they werepresided over by the Principal. Even the five gown professors with thePrincipal held separate meetings which the other professors had noright to attend--meetings with the students every Saturday in theCommon Hall for the administration of ordinary academic discipline forpetty offences committed by the students of the five gown classes. Smith belonged to all three bodies; he was University professor, Faculty or College professor, and gown professor too. It is obvioushow easily this complicated and unnatural system of government mightbreed incessant and irritating discussions without any grave divisionof opinion on matters of serious educational policy. Practicaldifficulties could scarce help arising as to the respective functionsof the University and the College, or the respective claims of theregius professors and the Faculty professors, or the respective powersof the Rector and the Principal; and Smith himself was one of a smallcommittee which presented a very lengthy report on this last subjectto the Senate of the University on the 13th of August 1762. The reportwas adopted, but two of the professors dissented on the ground that itwas too favourable to the powers of the Principal. 

But, wrangle as they might over petty points of constitutional rightor property administration, the heads of Glasgow College were guidedin their general policy at this period by the wisest and mostenlightened spirit of academic enlargement. Only a few years beforeSmith's arrival they had recognised the new claims of science byestablishing a chemical laboratory, in which during Smith's residencethe celebrated Dr. Black was working out his discovery of latent heat. They gave a workshop in the College to James Watt in 1756, and madehim mathematical instrument maker to the University, when the tradecorporations of Glasgow refused to allow him to open a workshop in thecity; and it was in that very workshop and at this very period that aNewcomen's engine he repaired set his thoughts revolving till thememorable morning in 1764 when the idea of the separate condenserleapt to his mind as he was strolling past the washhouse on GlasgowGreen. They had at the same time in another corner of the Collegeopened a printing office for the better advancement of that art, andwere encouraging the University printer, the famous Robert Foulis, toprint those Homers and Horaces by which he more than rivalled theElzevirs and Etiennes of the past. To help Foulis the better, they hadwith their own money assisted the establishment of the type-foundry ofWilson at Camlachie, where Foulis procured the types for his _Iliad_;they appointed Wilson type-founder to the University, and in 1762 theyerected for him a founding-house, as they called it, in their owngrounds. They had just before endowed a new chair of astronomy, ofwhich they had made their versatile type-founder the first professor, and built for him an astronomical observatory, from which he broughtreputation to the College and himself by his observation of the solarspots. They further gave Foulis in 1753 several more rooms in theCollege, including the large room afterwards used as the Faculty Hall, to carry out his ill-fated scheme of an Academy of Design; so that thearts of painting, sculpture, and engraving were taught in the Collegeas well as the classics and mathematics, and Tassie and David Allanwere then receiving their training under the same roof with thestudents for the so-called learned professions. The Earl of Buchan, while walking, as he said, "after the manner of the ancients in theporticoes of Glasgow with Smith and with Millar, " unbent from the hightasks of philosophy by learning to etch in the studio of Foulis. Thiswas the first school of design in Great Britain. There was as yet noRoyal Academy, no National Gallery, no South Kensington Museum, notechnical colleges, and the dream of the ardent printer, which was soactively seconded by the heads of the University, was to found aninstitution which should combine the functions of all those severalinstitutions, and pay its own way by honest work into the bargain. Inall these different ways the College of Glasgow was doing its best, asfar as its slender means allowed, to widen the scope of universityeducation in accordance with the requirements of modern times, andthere was still another direction in which they anticipated a movementof our own day. They had already done something for thatpopularisation of academic instruction which we call universityextension. Professor John Anderson, an active and reforming spirit whodeserves to be held in honour in spite of his troublesome pugnacity, used then to deliver within the College walls, with the completeconcurrence and encouragement of his colleagues, a series of eveninglectures on natural philosophy to classes of working-men in theirworking clothes, and the lectures are generally acknowledged to havedone great service to the arts and manufactures of the West ofScotland, by improving the technical education of the higher grades ofartisans. 

Now in all these new developments Smith took a warm interest; some ofthem he actively promoted. There is nothing in the University minutesto connect Smith in any more special way than the other professorswith the University's timely hospitality to James Watt; but as thatact was a direct protest on behalf of industrial liberty against thetyrannical spirit of the trade guilds so strongly condemned in the_Wealth of Nations_, it is at least interesting to remember that Smithhad a part in it. Watt, it may be recollected, was then a lad oftwenty, who had come back from London to Glasgow to set up asmathematical instrument maker, but though there was no othermathematical instrument maker in the city, the corporation ofhammermen refused to permit his settlement because he was not the sonor son-in-law of a burgess, and had not served his apprenticeship tothe craft within the burgh. But in those days of privilege theuniversities also had their privileges. The professors of Glasgowenjoyed an absolute and independent authority over the area withincollege bounds, and they defeated the oppression of Watt by making himmathematical instrument maker to the University, and giving him a roomin the College buildings for his workshop and another at the Collegegates for the sale of his instruments. In these proceedings Smithjoined, and joined, we may be sure, with the warmest approval. For weknow the strong light in which he regarded the oppressions of thecorporation laws. "The property which every man has in his labour, " hesays, "as it is the original foundation of all other property, so itis the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man liesin the strength and dexterity of his hands, and to hinder him fromemploying this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks properwithout injury to his neighbour is a plain violation of this mostsacred property. It is a manifest encroachment upon the just libertyboth of the workman and of those who might be disposed to employhim. "[57] Watt's workshop was a favourite resort of Smith's during hisresidence at Glasgow College, for Watt's conversation, young though hewas, was fresh and original, and had great attractions for thestronger spirits about him. Watt on his side retained always thedeepest respect for Smith, and when he was amusing the leisure of hisold age in 1809 with his new invention of the sculpture machine, andpresenting his works to his friends as "the productions of a youngartist just entering his eighty-third year, " one of the first works heexecuted with the machine was a small head of Adam Smith in ivory. [58]

In the Foulis press and the Academy of Design Smith took a particularinterest. He was himself a book-fancier, fond of fine editions andbindings, and he once said to Smellie the printer, whom he observedadmiring some of the books in his library, "I am a beau in nothing butmy books. " And he was a man, as Dugald Stewart informs us, with acarefully-cultivated taste for the fine arts, who was considered byhis contemporaries an excellent judge of a picture or a sculpture, though in Stewart's opinion he appeared interested in works of artless as instruments of direct enjoyment than as materials forspeculative discussions about the principles of human nature involvedin their production. Smith seems to have been one of Foulis's chiefpractical advisers in the work of the Academy of Design, in settlingsuch details, for example, as the pictures which ought to be selectedto be copied by the pupils, or the subjects which ought to be chosenfor original work from Plutarch or other classical sources, and whichwould be most likely to suit modern taste. 

Sir John Dalrymple, who appears to have been one of Foulis'sassociates in the enterprise, and to have taken an active concern inthe sale of the productions of the Academy in its Edinburgh agencyshop, writes Foulis on the 1st of December 1757 regarding the kind ofwork that ought to be sent for sale there. "In the History picturesthat you send in, I beg you will take the advice of Mr. Smith and Dr. Black. Your present scheme should be to execute not what you think thebest, but what will sell the best. In the first you may be the betterjudge, since you are the master of a great Academa, but in the last Ithink their advice will be of use to you. "[59] The letter concludes:"Whether it is an idea or not, I am going to give you a piece oftrouble. Be so good as make out a catalogue of your pictures, and asfar as you can of your busts, books of drawings, and prints. Secondly, your boys, and how employed. Thirdly, the people who have studiedunder you with a view to the mechanical art. And lastly, give someaccount of the prospects which you think you have of being of useeither to the mechanical or to the fine arts of your country. Framethis into a memorial and send it to me. I shall have it tryed here bysome who wish well to you, and as I go to London in the spring, Ishall, together with Mr. Wedderburn and Mr. Elliot, consider what arethe most prudent measures to take for your sake, or whether to takeany. Mr. Smith is too busy or too indolent, but I flatter myself Dr. Black will be happy to make out this memorial for you. Let me know ifI have any chance of seeing you this winter. I have none of being atGlasgow, and therefore wish you and Mr. Smith would come here, or youby yourself would come here in the Christmas vacance. "

The memorial alluded to in this letter was no doubt a memorial toGovernment in behalf of a project then promoted by the Earl ofSelkirk and other friends of Foulis, of settling a salary on him fordirecting an institution so useful to the nation as the Academy ofDesign. Whether Smith overcame his alleged indolence and drew up thememorial I cannot say, but this whole letter shows that Smith andBlack were the two friends in Glasgow whom Foulis was in the habit ofprincipally consulting, and the last sentence seems to indicate thatSmith's hand in the business was hardly less intimate than Dalrymple'sown. It may be noticed too how completely Sir John Dalrymple's ideasof Smith, as implied in this letter, differ from those which arecurrent now, and how he sends a tradesman to the philosopher foradvice on practical points in his trade. As to pure questions of art, whether this work or that is finest, he thinks Foulis himself maypossibly be the best judge, but when it comes to a question as towhich will sell the best--and that was the question for the success ofthe project--then he is urged to take the practical mind of Smith tohis counsels. Though Smith's leanings were not to practical life, hisjudgment, as any page of the _Wealth of Nations_ shows, was of themost eminently practical kind. He had little of the impulse to meddlein affairs or the itch to manage them that belongs to more bustlingpeople, but had unquestionably a practical mind and capacity. 

If Smith was consulted by Foulis in this way about the management ofthe Academy of Design, we may safely infer that he had also more to dowith the Foulis press than merely visiting the office to see thefamous _Iliad_ while it was on the case. Smith's connection withFoulis began before he went to Glasgow, by the publication of Hamiltonof Bangour's poems by the University press, and I think it notunreasonable to see traces of Smith's suggestion in the number ofearly economic books which Foulis reissued after the year 1750, worksof writers like Child, Gee, Mun, Law, and Petty. 

In the University type-foundry Smith took an active interest, becausehe was a warm friend and associate of the accomplished type-founder. Wilson had been bred a physician, but gave up his practice to becometype-founder, and devoted himself besides, as I have just mentioned, to astronomy, to which Smith also at this period of his life gave someattention. Smith indeed was possibly then writing his fragment on thehistory of astronomy, which, though not published till after hisdeath, was, we are informed by Dugald Stewart, the earliest of all hiscompositions, being the first part of an extensive work on the historyof all the sciences which he had at this time projected. Wilson, having gone to large expense both of time and money to cast the Greektype for the University Homer, and having never found another customerfor the fount except the University printer, went up to London in 1759to push around, if possible, for orders, and was furnished by Smithwith a letter of recommendation to Hume, who was then residing there. Hume writes to Smith on the 29th of July: "Your friend Mr. Wilsoncalled on me two or three days ago when I was abroad, and he left yourletter. I did not see him till to-day. He seems a very modest, sensible, ingenious man. Before I saw him I spoke to Mr. A. Millarabout him, and found him much disposed to serve him. I proposedparticularly to Mr. Millar that it was worthy of so eminent abookseller as he to make a complete elegant set of the classics, whichmight set up his name equal to the Alduses, Stevenses, or Elzevirs, and that Mr. Wilson was the properest person in the world to assisthim in such a project. He confessed to me that he had sometimesthought of it, but that his great difficulty was to find a man ofletters that could correct the press. I mentioned the matter toWilson, who said he had a man of letters in his eye one Lyon, anonjuring clergyman of Glasgow. I would desire your opinion ofhim. "[60]

When Wilson came to reside in the College in 1762, after hisappointment to the chair of Astronomy, he found it inconvenient to goto and fro between the College and Camlachie to attend to thetype-foundry, and petitioned the Senate to build him a founding-housein the College grounds, basing his claim on their custom of givingaccommodation to the arts subservient to learning, on his own servicesto the University in the matter of the Greek types before mentioned, and on his having undertaken, in spite of the discouraging results ofthat speculation, to cast a large and elegant Hebrew type for theUniversity press. He estimated that the building would cost no morethan the very modest sum of £40 sterling, and he offered to pay a fairrent. This memorial came up for consideration on the 5th of April, andit was Smith who proposed the motion which was ultimately carried, tothe effect that the University should build a new foundry for Mr. Wilson on the site most convenient within the College grounds, at anexpense not exceeding the sum of £40 sterling, on condition (1) thatMr. Wilson pay a reasonable rent, and (2) that if the house shouldbecome useless to the College before the Senate were sufficientlyrecouped for their expenditure, Mr. Wilson or his heirs should beobliged to make adequate compensation. The foundry was erected in thelittle College garden next the Physic Garden; it cost £19 more thanthe estimate, and was let for £3:15s. A year, from which it wouldappear that 6-1/2 per cent on the actual expenditure (irrespective ofany allowance for the site) was considered a fair rent by theUniversity authorities in those days. 

The Senate of this little college, which was thus actively encouragingevery liberal art, which had in a few years added to the lecture-roomof Hutcheson and Smith the laboratory of Black, the workshop of Watt, the press of Foulis, the academy of painting, sculpture, andengraving, and the foundry and observatory of Wilson, entertained in1761 the idea of doing something for the promotion of athletics amongthe students, and had under consideration a proposal for theestablishment of a new academy of dancing, fencing, and riding in theUniversity. One of the active promoters of this scheme appears againto have been Adam Smith, for it is he who is chosen by the Senate onthe 22nd December 1761 to go in their name and explain their design tothe Rector, Lord Erroll, and request his assistance. This idea seems, however, to have borne no fruit. Dancing was an exercise they requiredto be observed with considerable moderation, for they passed a rule in1752 that no student should be present at balls or assemblies or thelike more than thrice in one session, but they treated it with noaustere proscription. 

One art alone did they seek to proscribe, the art dramatic, and in1762 the Senate was profoundly disturbed by a project then on foot forthe erection of the first permanent theatre in Glasgow. The affairoriginated with five respectable and wealthy merchants, who wereprepared to build the house at their own expense, the leading spiritof the five being Robert Bogle of Shettleston, who had himself, we aretold by Dr. Carlyle, played "Sempronius" in a students' performance of_Cato_ within the walls of Glasgow College in 1745. Carlyle played thetitle _rôle_, and another divinity student, already mentioned as acollege friend of Smith's, Dr. Maclaine of the Hague, played a minorpart. But an amateur representation of an unexceptionable play underthe eye of the professors was one thing, the erection of a publicplayhouse, catering like other public playhouses for the toolicentious taste of the period, was another, and the project of Mr. Bogle and his friends in 1762 excited equal alarm in the populace ofthe city, in the Town Council, and in the University. The Councilrefused to sanction a site for the theatre within the city bounds, sothat the promoters were obliged to build it a mile outside; but theanger of the multitude pursued them thither, and on the very eve ofits opening in 1764 by a performance in which Mrs. Bellamy was to playthe leading part, it was set on fire by a mob, at the instigation of awild preacher, who said he had on the previous night been present in avision at an entertainment in hell, and the toast of the evening, proposed in most flattering terms from the chair, was the health ofMr. Millar, the maltster who had sold the site for this new temple ofthe devil. 

During the two years between the projection of this building and itsdestruction it caused the Senate of the College no common anxiety, andSmith went along with them in all they did. On the 25th of November1762 he was appointed, with the Principal and two other professors, asa committee, to confer with the magistrates concerning the most propermethods of preventing the establishment of a playhouse in Glasgow, andat the same time to procure all the information in their powerconcerning the privileges of the University of Oxford with respect totheir ability to prevent anything of that kind being establishedwithin their bounds, and concerning the manner in which thoseprivileges, if they existed, were made effectual. On therecommendation of this committee the University agreed to memorialisethe Lord Advocate on the subject, and to ask the magistrates of thecity to join them in sending the memorial. The Lord Advocate havingapparently suggested doubts as to the extent of their ancient powersor privileges in the direction contemplated, Smith was appointed, along with the Principal and one or two other professors, as a specialcommittee of inquiry into the ancient privileges and constitution ofthe University, and the Principal was instructed meanwhile to expressto his lordship the earnest desire of the University to prevent theestablishment of a playhouse. While this inquiry was proceeding, themagistrates of the city, on their part, had determined, with theconcurrence of a large body of the inhabitants, to raise an action atlaw against the players if they should attempt to act plays in the newtheatre, and at a meeting over which Smith presided, and in whoseaction he concurred, the University agreed to join the magistrates inthis prosecution. The agitation against the playhouse was stillproceeding when Smith resigned his chair in 1764, but shortlyafterwards, finding itself without any legal support, it graduallydied away. The part Smith took in this agitation may seem to require aword of explanation, for he not only entertained no objection totheatrical representations, but was so deeply impressed with theirbeneficial character that in the _Wealth of Nations_ he speciallyrecommends them for positive encouragement by the State, and expresslydissociates himself from those "fanatical promoters of popularfrenzies" who make dramatic representations "more than all otherdiversions the objects of their peculiar abhorrence. " The Stateencouragement he wants is nothing in the nature of the endowment of anational theatre, which is sometimes demanded nowadays. All theencouragement he asks for is liberty--"entire liberty to all those whofrom their own interest would attempt, without scandal or indecency, to amuse and divert the people by painting, poetry, music, dancing, byall sorts of dramatic representations and exhibitions. " But inpressing for this liberty, he expresses the strongest conviction that"the frequency and gaiety of public diversions" is absolutelyessential for the good of the commonwealth, in order to "correctwhatever is unsocial or disagreeably rigorous in the morals of all thelittle sects into which the country is divided, " and to "dissipatethat melancholy and gloomy humour which is almost always the source ofpopular superstition and enthusiasm. "[61] Yet here we seem to find himin alliance with the little sects himself, and trying to crush thatliberty of dramatic representations which he declares to be so vitalto the health of the community. 

The reason is not, moreover, that he had changed his opinions in theinterval between the attempts to suppress the Glasgow playhouse in1762 and the publication of his general plea for playhouses in theWealth of Nations in 1776. He had not changed his opinions. Hetravelled with a pupil to France, still warm from this agitation inGlasgow, and, as we learn from Stewart, was a great frequenter andadmirer of the theatre in that country, [62] and a few years before theagitation began he was as deeply interested as any other of JohnHome's friends in the representations of the tragedy of Douglas, andas much a partisan of Home's cause. He does not appear indeed, as issometimes stated, to have been present either at the publicperformance of Home's tragedy in Edinburgh in 1756, or at the previousprivate performance, which is alleged to have taken place at Mrs. Wardthe actress's rooms, and in which the author himself, and Hume, Carlyle, Ferguson, and Blair are all said to have acted parts. Butthat he was in complete sympathy with them on the subject is manifestfrom an undated letter of Hume to Smith, which must have been writtenin that year. In this letter, knowing Smith's sentiments, he writes:"I can now give you the satisfaction of hearing that the play, thoughnot near so well acted in Covent Garden as in this place, is likely tobe very successful. Its great intrinsic merit breaks through allobstacles. When it shall be printed (which shall be soon) I ampersuaded it will be esteemed the best, and by French critics the onlytragedy of our language. " After finishing his letter he adds: "I havejust now received a copy of _Douglas_ from London. It will instantlybe put on the press. I hope to be able to send you a copy in the sameparcel with the dedication. "[63] These sentences certainly imply thatSmith's ideas of theatrical representations were in harmony with thoseof Hume and his other Edinburgh friends, but shortly afterwards he isseeking to revive obsolete academic privileges to prevent the erectionof a theatre. 

The explanation must be looked for in the line of the conditionalclause with which he limits his claim for entire liberty to dramaticentertainments--they must be "without scandal or indecency. " There isnever any question that if free trade and public morals clash, it isfree trade that must give way, and his opposition to the project ofthe Glasgow playhouse must have originated in his persuasion that itwas not attended, as things then went, with sufficient practicalsafeguards against scandal and indecency. In considering that pointdue weight must be given not only to the general improprietiespermissible on the English stage at that time, but to the fact thatlocally great offence had quite recently been given in Scotland by theprofane or immoral character of some of the pieces presented on theScottish boards, [64] and that Glasgow itself had had experience of adisorderly theatre already--the old wooden shed where hardy playgoersbraved opinion and listened to indifferent performances under theprotection of troops, and where, it will be remembered, Boswell, thena student at the College, made the acquaintance of Francis Gentleman, the actor. That house was not a licensed house, but the new house wasnot to be a licensed house either, and it is quite possible for onewho thought a theatre generally, with due safeguards, a publicbenefit, to think that a particular theatre without those safeguardsmight constitute a public danger, especially in a university town. 

On two delicate questions of professorial duty Smith made a decidedstand in behalf of the stricter interpretation. In 1757 Professor JohnAnderson, the founder of the Andersonian University, who was thenProfessor of Oriental Languages in Glasgow, became a candidate for thechair which he afterwards filled for so many years with great creditand success--the chair of Natural Philosophy; and, as the appointmentlay with the professors, Professor Anderson was one of the electors, and was quite within his legal right in voting for himself. But Smith, impressed with the importance of keeping such appointments free fromany leaven of personal interest, tabled a formal protest on threesuccessive occasions against the intervention of that distinguishedbut headstrong professor in the business of that particular election. He protested first against Anderson voting on a preliminary resolutionrespecting the election; he protested the second time against himtaking part in the election itself; and he protested a third timeafter the election, desiring it to be recorded expressly "that he didnot vote in the election of Mr. Anderson as Professor of NaturalPhilosophy, not from objection to Mr. Anderson, in whose election hewould willingly have concurred, but because he regarded the method ofproceeding as irregular and possibly establishing a bad precedent. " Aspatrons of University chairs, the professors were trustees for thecommunity, and ought each to be bound by a tacit self-denyingordinance, at least to the extent of refraining from actively usingthis public position to serve his private interest. Smith himself, itwill be remembered, was one of his own electors to the MoralPhilosophy chair, but then that election was uncontested, and Smithwas not present at the meeting which appointed him. 

The other personal question arose also out of circumstances which havetheir counterpart in Smith's own history. Professor William Rouet, Professor of Ecclesiastical and Civil History, made an engagement in1759 to travel abroad as tutor with Lord Hope, the eldest son of LordHopetoun; but when Lord Hopetoun wrote requesting leave of absence forProfessor Rouet, the Senate by a majority refused to grant therequest. Smith was one of that majority, and took an active part inthe subsequent transactions arising out of their decision. Rouetpersists in going abroad in the teeth of the refusal, and theUniversity by a majority deprive him of office for his negligence ofduty. The Crown, however, at first refuse to appoint a successor, onthe ground of informality in the act of deprivation, and Lord Butetells the Rector, Lord Erroll, that "the king's orders" are that thebusiness must be done over again _de novo_, or "else it may be of theworst consequences to the University. " The University take the opinionof eminent counsel, Ferguson of Pitfour and Burnet of Mountbodie(Monboddo), and are prepared to face the consequences threatened, butare eventually saved the trouble by the resignation of Rouet in 1761. Now in these transactions Smith seems to bear a leading part. He wasone of the small committee appointed to draw up answers to the protesttabled by the minority of the Senatus; it was to him Lord Errollcommunicated the intimation of Lord Bute, though he was not theneither Vice-Rector or Dean of Faculty; and it was he and ProfessorMillar who were sent through to Edinburgh to consult the twoadvocates. 

Smith was probably on the best terms with Rouet himself, who was anintimate friend of David Hume and a cousin of their common friendBaron Mure, and it was not an uncommon practice for the Scotchuniversities at that period to sanction the absence of a professor ona tutorial engagement. Adam Ferguson left England as tutor to LordChesterfield while he was Professor of Moral Philosophy at Edinburgh, and Dalzel resided at Oxford as tutor to Lord Maitland after he wasProfessor of Greek in the same University. The Senate of Glasgow haditself already permitted Professor John Anderson to remain anotherwinter in France with a son of the Primate of Ireland, when he waschosen Professor of Oriental Languages in 1756, and Smith hadconcurred in giving the permission. But Anderson's absence was absenceto fulfil an already-existing engagement, like the absence granted toSmith himself in the first year of his own appointment, while Rouet'swas absence to fulfil a new one; and Smith, as his own subsequentconduct shows, held pluralities and absenteeism of that sort to be awrong and mischievous subordination of the interest of the Universityto the purely private interest or convenience of the professors. Theyhad too many temptations to accommodate one another by sucharrangements at the expense of the efficiency of the College; and hisaction both in Rouet's case and his own is entirely in the spirit ofhis criticism of the English universities in the _Wealth of Nations_. 

FOOTNOTES:

[55] The words ladles and ladler seem to have descended from a timewhen the exactions were made in kind by ladling the quantity out ofthe sack. 

[56] Hamilton's _Reid_, p. 43. 

[57] _Wealth of Nations_, Book I. Chap. Ix. 

[58] Muirhead's _Life of Watt_, p. 470. 

[59] Duncan's _Notes and Documents_, p. 25. 

[60] Burton, _Life of Hume_, ii. 59. 

[61] _Wealth of Nations_, Book V. Chap. I. Art. Iii. 

[62] Stewart's _Works_, x. 49. 

[63] Burton's _Life of Hume_, ii. 16. 

[64] See Doran's _Annals of the Stage_, ii. 377. 

CHAPTER VII

AMONG GLASGOW FOLK

Smith was not only teacher in Glasgow, he was also learner, and theconditions of time and place were most favourable, in many importantways, for his instruction. Had he remained at Oxford, he wouldprobably never have been an economist; had he not spent so many of hisbest years in Glasgow, he would never have been such an eminent one. It was amid the thickening problems of the rising trade of the Clyde, and the daily discussions they occasioned among the enterprising andintelligent merchants of the town, that he grew into a greateconomist. 

It need scarce be said that the Glasgow of the middle of last centurywas a very different city from the Glasgow of to-day. It was in sizeand appearance a mere provincial town of 23, 000 inhabitants. Broomstill grew on the Broomielaw; a few cobles were the only craft on theriver; and the rude wharf was the resort of idlers, watching thefishermen on the opposite side cast for salmon, and draw up netfuls onthe green bank. The Clyde was not deepened till 1768. Before that thewhole tonnage dues at Glasgow were only eight pounds a year, and forweeks together not a single vessel with a mast would be seen on thewater. St. Enoch Square was a private garden; Argyle Street anill-kept country road; and the town herd still went his rounds everymorning with his horn, calling the cattle from the Trongate and theSaltmarket to their pasture on the common meadows in the nowdensely-populated district of the Cowcaddens. 

Glasgow in these its younger days struck every traveller chiefly forits beauty. Mrs. Montagu thought it the most beautiful city in GreatBritain, and Defoe, a few years before, said it was "the cleanest andbeautifullest and best built city in Britain, London excepted. " AsMrs. Bellamy approached it on the occasion I have mentioned in orderto open the new theatre in 1764, she says "the magnificence of thebuildings and the beauty of the river . .. Elated her heart"; and Smithhimself, we know, once suffered for praising its charms. It was at aLondon table, and Johnson was present, who, liking neither Smith norhis Scotch city, cut him short by asking, "Pray, sir, have you seenBrentford?" Boswell, who took a pride in Glasgow himself, calling it"a beautiful city, " afterwards expostulated with the doctor for thisrough interruption: "Now, sir, " said he, "was not that rude?" The fullrudeness is only apparent when we remember that Brentford was in thatday a byword for dreariness and dirt--Thomson in the _Castle ofIndolence_ calls it "a town of mud. " When Johnson visited Glasgow, however, he joined the troop of its admirers himself, and Boswell tookthe opportunity to put him then in mind of his question to Smith, andwhisper to him, "Don't you feel some remorse?"

But Glasgow had already begun its transition from the small provincialto the great commercial capital, and was therefore at a stage ofdevelopment of special value to the philosophical observer. Thoughstill only a quiet but picturesque old place, nestling about theCathedral and the College and two fine but sleepy streets, in whichcarriers built their haystacks out before their door, it was carryingon a trade which was even then cosmopolitan. The ships of Glasgow werein all the waters of the world, and its merchants had won the lead inat least one important branch of commerce, the West India tobaccotrade, and were founding fresh industries every year with thegreatest possible enterprise. The prosperity of Glasgow is a fruit ofthe Union which first opened the colonial markets to Scotchmerchandise, and enabled the merchants of the Clyde to profit by theadvantages of their natural situation for trading with the Americanplantations. Before the middle of the century the Clyde had become thechief European emporium for American tobacco, which foreign countrieswere not then allowed to import directly, and three-fourths of thetobacco was immediately on arrival transhipped by the Glasgowmerchants for the seaports of the Mediterranean, the Baltic, and theNorth Sea. 

As they widened their connections abroad, they naturally developedtheir industries at home. They founded the Smithfield ironworks, andimported iron from Russia and Sweden to make hoes and spades for thenegroes of Maryland. They founded the Glasgow tannery in 1742, whichPennant thought an amazing sight, and where they employed 300 menmaking saddles and shoes for the plantations. They opened thePollokshaws linen print-field in 1742, copper and tin works in 1747, the Delffield pottery in 1748. They began to manufacture carpets andcrape in 1759, silk in 1759, and leather gloves in 1763. They openedthe first Glasgow bank--the Ship--in 1750, and the second--theArms--in 1752. They first began to improve the navigation of the Clydeby the Act of 1759; they built a dry dock at their harbour of PortGlasgow in 1762; while in 1768 they deepened the Clyde up to the city, and began (for this also was mainly their work) the canal to the Forthfor their trade with the Baltic. It was obvious, therefore, that thiswas a period of unique commercial enterprise and expansion. We caneasily believe Gibson, the historian of Glasgow, when he states thatafter 1750 "not a beggar was to be seen in the streets, " and "the verychildren were busy"; and we can as easily understand Smith when, contrasting Glasgow and Edinburgh among other places, he says theresidence of a few spirited merchants is a much better thing for thecommon people of a place than the residence of a court. 

Now it was those spirited merchants who had then so much to do withthe making of Glasgow that had also something to do with the making ofAdam Smith. Plain business men of to-day sometimes smile at the"Virginian Dons" and "tobacco lords" of last century as they picturethem gathering to the Glasgow Plainstanes at the hour of Change in theglory of scarlet cloaks, cocked hats, and gold-headed canes, and theplain citizens of that time all making way for their honours as theypassed. But there was much enlightenment and sagacity concealed underthat finery. Mrs. Montagu, who visited Glasgow in 1767, wrote Sir A. Mitchell, the Ambassador, that she was more delighted with it thanwith any other commercial town she had seen, because gain did notusurp people's whole attention, but "the sciences, the arts, and thelove of agriculture had their share. "[65] Their fortunes were smallcompared with the present standard. Sir John Dalrymple, speaking ofthree of the foremost merchants of Glasgow (one of them, JohnGlassford, the richest man in the city), computes that they had aquarter of a million between the three, and Dr. Reid, explaining theanxiety caused in Glasgow by the American troubles in 1765, saysGlasgow owners possessed property in the American plantationsamounting to £400, 000. But these figures meant large handling andlarge dealings in those times, and perhaps more energy, mind, andcharacter than the bigger figures of the present day; and we are toldthat commercial men in Glasgow still look back to John Glassford andAndrew Cochrane as perhaps the greatest merchants the Clyde has seen. 

Andrew Cochrane was Smith's particular friend among them, and Dr. Carlyle tells that "Dr. Smith acknowledged his obligations to thisgentleman's information when he was collecting materials for his_Wealth of Nations_; and the junior merchants who have flourishedsince his time and extended their commerce far beyond what was thendreamt of, confess with respectful remembrance that it was AndrewCochrane who first opened and enlarged their views. "[66] Dr. Carlyleinforms us, moreover, that Cochrane founded a weekly club in the"forties"--political economy club--of which "the express design was toinquire into the nature and principles of trade in all its branches, and to communicate knowledge and ideas on that subject to each other, "and that Smith became a member of this club after coming to reside inGlasgow. This was probably the first political economy club in theworld, for Carlyle was in Glasgow in 1743, and it is of that period hespeaks when he says, "I was not acquainted with Provost Cochrane atthis time, but I observed that the members of this society had thehighest admiration of his knowledge and talents. "

Cochrane was indeed one of the remarkable men of that time. Smollettdescribes him in _Humphrey Clinker_ as "one of the first sages of theScottish kingdom, " and "a patriot of a truly Roman spirit. " He wasProvost of Glasgow during the Rebellion, and while the Government andthe Horse Guards slumbered and dawdled, and let Prince Charlie marchfrom the Highlands to Edinburgh, and from Edinburgh up into the heartof England, Cochrane had already raised two regiments in Glasgow toresist the invader, which, however, this same dawdling Government, from mistaken suspicions of Scottish loyalty, refused to permit him toarm. The Prince, on his return from England, actually occupiedGlasgow, and taxed it severely, but Cochrane's sagacious managementpiloted the city through the crisis, so that it neither yielded to thepopular Prince's arts nor provoked him to hostilities; and, lookingback at these difficulties when he laid down the Provostship a fewyears later, he said, "I thank my God that my magistracy has endedwithout reproach. " His correspondence, published by the Maitland Club, contains some terse descriptions of the "prodigious slavery" heunderwent, "going through the great folks" in London day after day fortwo months trying to recover from the Government some compensation forthe Prince's exactions. And it may be added that it was his bankingfirm--Cochrane, Murdoch and Co. , generally known, however, as theGlasgow Arms Bank, because they printed the Glasgow arms on theirnotes--that fell on the happy expedient of paying in sixpences whenthe Bank of Scotland made the infamous attempt to "break" it in 1759by first collecting its notes for some time, and then suddenlypresenting the whole number collected for immediate payment. The agentof the Bank of Scotland presented £2893 of notes on the 14th ofDecember, and after thirty-four successive days' attendance he wrotehis employers that he had only received £1232, because "the partnersvied with each other in gaining time by miscounting and other lowarts, and when the partners became wearied or ashamed of the task, their porter, a menial servant, would act the part of teller. "[67]

Of the Political Economy Club, founded by this able man, we knownothing except what Dr. Carlyle tells us, and the only other member ofit besides Smith and Cochrane whose name Carlyle mentions is Dr. Wight, Professor of Ecclesiastical and Civil History. But it met oncea week all the thirteen years Smith resided in Glasgow, and must havediscussed many commercial problems during that time. We know, indeed, some of the principal practical questions which were then agitatingthe minds of Glasgow merchants, and may be sure those, at least, wouldbe among the questions discussed at the club. Some of them concernedthe removal of trade restrictions, but the restrictions which thoseGlasgow merchants were anxious to remove were restrictions on theimport of raw materials for their manufactures, such as iron and linenyarn, and manufacturers, of course, are not necessarily free-tradersbecause they want free import of raw materials. That was advocated asstrongly from the old mercantilist standpoint as it is now from thefree-trade one; it was merely sanctioning a little addition to ourimports in order to produce a much greater addition to our exports. 

In 1750 we find Provost Cochrane in correspondence with Smith'sfriend, James Oswald, M. P. , concerting parliamentary action for theentire removal of the import duty on American iron. The Glasgowironworks--the nailery, as it was called--with which Mr. Cochrane wasconnected used at that time 400 tons of iron in the year, and the ironhad to be all imported at a high price from Russia and Sweden, becausethe native ores of Scotland were not then discovered, and Americaniron, by an iniquitous piece of preferential legislation in favour ofthe English manufacturer, was allowed to come duty free into Englishbut not into Scotch seaports. Cochrane wants Oswald to get the lawamended so as to "allow bar iron from our colonies to be imported toScotland duty free. " "It would, " he says, "save our country very greatsums, and no way hurt the landed interest. It would lower the price ofiron, and consequently of all our manufactures, which would increasethe consumpt and sale; it would serve for ballast to our ships fromNorth America, and when tobacco is scarce, fill up part of thetonnage; would increase our exports, and no way interfere with ourneighbours in the South. "[68] That language might be heldindifferently by the mercantilist and the free-trader. 

In advocating the abolition of the duty on foreign linen yarns, whichthey succeeded in obtaining in 1756, the Glasgow merchants seemcertainly to have had no thought of free trade, or probably anythingelse but their own obvious interest as manufacturers, for they neverdreamt of abolishing either the export bounty on home-made linen clothor of repealing the law of 1748, which gave their own Glasgow linenfactory a considerable lift, and which forbade the import of foreignlinen, and fined husbands for letting their wives wear it. Still thediscussion of these subjects would open up various points of view, andit may be remembered that this duty on foreign linen yarns is onewhich Smith himself, free-trader though he was, was againstabolishing, not out of any favour for the flax-growers, but for theprotection of the poor women scattered in the cottages of the kingdomwho made their livelihood by spinning yarn. 

On the question of paper money we find Mr. Cochrane and Mr. Glassford--both of whom were bankers as well as merchants--incommunication with Baron Mure and Sir James Steuart, the economist, soon after Smith left Glasgow. Sir James would almost certainly be amember of the club, because he resided in the neighbourhood, but as hewas only pardoned a few months before Smith resigned his chair, it isimprobable that the two economists ever met together at the clubmeetings. But the questions the two leading merchants were thendiscussing with Sir James would, no doubt, have been occasionallysubjects of conversation at the club during the time of Smith'sattendance. What, we find them asking, are the effects of paper moneyon prices? on the currency? on the exchanges with other countries?What was the effect of small notes? what of notes not payable ondemand? They differed on various points. For example, Glassford wouldlet the banks issue notes for any sums they liked, and had noobjection to the small ten-shilling and five-shilling notes which werethen common. Cochrane would abolish all notes for less than apound, [69] and Smith--at least in 1776--would abolish all notes lessthan five pounds. [70] But all alike had a firm grasp of the truenature and operation of money. 

Another society of which Smith was a member, and indeed a founder, was the Literary Society of Glasgow. It was a general debating societycomposed mainly of professors in the University--Cullen, Black, Wilsonthe astronomer; Robert Simson, Leechman the divinity professor andprincipal; Millar, and indeed nearly the whole Senatus; with a fewmerchants or country gentlemen of literary tastes such as WilliamCraufurd, the friend of Hamilton of Bangour; William Mure of Caldwell, M. P. For Renfrewshire; Sir John Dalrymple, the historian, who was aproprietor in the West country; John Callander of Craigforth, theantiquary; Thomas Miller, Town Clerk of Glasgow, and afterwards LordJustice-Clerk of Scotland; Robert Foulis, the printer; James Watt, whosaid he derived much benefit from it; Robert Bogle of Shettleston, thepromoter of the theatre already mentioned; David Hume, and the Earl ofBuchan, elected while residing as a student in 1762. 

The Literary Society was founded in 1752, and met every Thursdayevening from November to May at half-past six. Its minutes areprobably still in existence somewhere, but a few extracts from themhave been published by the Maitland Club, [71] and from them we learnthat Smith was one of the first contributors to its proceedings. Earlyin its first session--on the 23rd of January 1753--Professor AdamSmith is stated to have read an account of some of Mr. David Hume'sEssays on Commerce. These essays had then just appeared; and they hadprobably been seen by Smith before their publication, for in September1752 Hume writes Smith asking him for any corrections he had tosuggest on the old edition of the Political Essays with which theCommercial Essays were incorporated. We have seen Hume submitting oneof these Commercial Essays in 1750 to Oswald and Mure, and when wefind him in 1752 asking for suggestions from Smith on the essaysalready printed, we may safely infer that he had also asked andreceived suggestions on the new essays which had never been published. 

The Maitland Club volume gives us no information about the papers readin this society after the first six months, except those read byFoulis, but no doubt Smith read other papers in the remaining tenyears of his connection with the society. Its debates were often verykeen; the metaphysical and theological combats between ProfessorMillar--a most brilliant debater--and Dr. Reid, the father of thecommon-sense philosophy, were famous in their day; and on one occasiontradition informs us that Smith engaged in a strenuous discussion onsome subject for a whole evening against the entire assembly, and, having lost his point by an overwhelming majority, was overheardmuttering to himself, "Convicted but not convinced. "[72]

After their high controversies in the Literary Society and theirkeener but less noble contentions in the Senate Hall, the Glasgowprofessors used to unbend their bows again in the simpleconvivialities of "Mr. Robin Simson's Club. " Mr. Robin Simson was thevenerable Professor of Mathematics, equally celebrated and beloved, known through all the world for his rediscovery of the porisms ofEuclid, but in Glasgow College--whose bounds he rarely quitted--thedelight of all hearts for the warmth, breadth, and uprightness of hischaracter, for the charming simplicity of his manner, and the richnessof his weighty and sparkling conversation. It was his impressions ofSimson that first gave Smith the idea that mathematicians possessed aspecific amiability and happiness of disposition which placed themabove the jealousies and vanities and intrigues of the lower world. For fifty years Simson's life was spent almost entirely within the twoquadrangles of Glasgow College; between the rooms he worked and sleptin, the tavern at the gate, where he ate his meals, and the Collegegardens, where he took his daily walk of a fixed number of hundredpaces, of which, according to some well-known anecdotes, he alwayskept count as he went, even under the difficulties of interruption. Mr. Robin, who was unmarried, never went into general society, butafter his geometrical labours were over finished the day with a rubberof whist in the tavern at the College gate. Here one or another of theprofessors used to join him, and the little circle eventually ripenedinto a regular club, which met for supper at this tavern every Fridayevening, and went out to Anderston for dinner on Saturday. It was thenknown as the Anderston Club, as well as by its former designation fromthe name of its founder. Anderston was at that time quite a countryvillage. It was very soon afterwards made busy enough with the cottonfactory of James Monteith, but at this time Tames Monteith's fatherwas using the spot as a market garden. It contained, however, a cosylittle "change-house, " capable of providing the simple dinner then invogue. The dinner consisted of only one course. Mr. M'George says thefirst dinner of two courses ever given in Glasgow was given in 1786;and Principal M'Cormick of St. Andrews, writing Dr. Carlyle about thatdate, praises the dinner-parties of St. Andrews to the skies, but saysnobody gave two courses except Mrs. Prebendary Berkeley, and Mrs. Prebendary Berkeley was the daughter-in-law of a bishop. The course atthe Anderston dinner, moreover, consisted every week of the same dish;it was invariably chicken-broth, which Smollett classes with haggis, singed sheepshead, fish and sauce, and minced collops, as one of thefive national dishes of Scotland. He describes it as "a very simplepreparation enriched with eggs in such a manner as to give the air ofa spoiled fricassee"; but adds that "notwithstanding its appearance, it is very delicate and nourishing. " The chicken-broth was accompaniedwith a tankard of sound claret, and then the cloth was removed forwhist and a bowl of punch. At whist Smith was not considered aneligible partner, for, says Ramsay of Ochtertyre, if an idea struckhim in the middle of the game he "either renounced or neglected tocall, "[73] and he must have in this way given much provocation to theamiability of Simson, who, though as absent-minded as Smith ever wasat common seasons, was always keenly on the alert at cards, and couldnever quite forgive a slip of his partner in the game. After cards therest of the evening was spent in cheerful talk or song, in which againSimson was ever the leading spirit. He used to sing Greek odes set tomodern airs, which the members never tired of hearing again, for hehad a fine voice and threw his soul into the rendering. ProfessorRobison of Edinburgh, who was one of his students, twice heard him--nodoubt at this club, for Simson never went anywhere else--sing a Latinhymn to the Divine Geometer, apparently of his own making, and thetears stood in the worthy old gentleman's eyes with the emotion he putinto the singing of it. His conversation is said to have beenremarkably animated and various, for he knew most other subjectsnearly as well as he did mathematics. He was always full of hardproblems suggested by his studies of them, and he threw into thediscussion much whimsical humour and many well-told anecdotes. Theonly subject debarred was religion. Professor Traill says any attemptto introduce that peace-breaking subject in the club was checked withgravity and decision. Simson was invariably chairman, and so much ofthe life of the club came from his presence that when he died in 1768the club died too. 

Three at least of the younger men who shared the simple pleasures ofthis homely Anderston board--Adam Smith, Joseph Black, and JamesWatt--were to exert as important effects on the progress of mankind asany men of their generation. Watt specially mentions Smith as one ofthe principal figures of the club, and says their conversation, "besides the usual subjects with young men, turned principally onliterary topics, religion, morality, belles-lettres, etc. , and to thisconversation my mind owed its first bias towards such subjects inwhich they were all my superiors, I never having attended a college, and being then but a mechanic. "[74] According to this account religionwas not proscribed, but Professor Traill's assertion is so explicitthat probably Watt's recollection errs. It is, however, another signof the liberal spirit that then animated these Glasgow professors tofind them welcoming on a footing of perfect equality one who, as hesays, was then only a mechanic, but whose mental worth they had thesense to recognise. Dr. Carlyle, who was invited by Simson to join theclub in 1743, says the two chief spirits in it then were HerculesLindsay, the Professor of Law, and James Moor, the Professor of Greek, both of whom were still members in Smith's time. Lindsay, who, it willbe remembered, acted as Smith's substitute in the logic class, was aman of force and independence, who had suffered much abuse from theFaculty of Advocates in Edinburgh for giving up the old practice ofdelivering his lectures in Latin, and refusing to return to it. Moorwas the general editor of the famous editions of the classics printedby his brother-in-law, Robert Foulis, a man, says Dugald Stewart, of"a gaiety and levity foreign to this climate, " much addicted topunning, and noted for his gift of ready repartee. He was alwayssmartly dressed and powdered, and one day as he was passing on thePlainstanes he overheard two young military officers observe one tothe other, "He smells strongly of powder. " "Don't be alarmed, my youngsoldier, " said Moor, turning round on the speaker, "it is notgunpowder. " A great promoter of the merriment of the club was Dr. Thomas Hamilton, Professor of Anatomy, the grandfather of Sir William, the metaphysician, who is thus described in some verses by Dr. JohnMoore, the author of _Zelucco_--

 He who leads up the van is stout Thomas the tall, Who can make us all laugh, though he laughs at us all; But _entre nous_, Tom, you and I, if you please, Must take care not to laugh ourselves out of our fees. 

Then we remember what Jeffrey says of "the magical vivacity" of theconversation of Professor John Millar. 

FOOTNOTES:

[65] Add. MSS. , 6856. 

[66] Carlyle's _Autobiography_, p. 73. 

[67] Fleming's _Scottish Banking_, p. 53. 

[68] Oswald's _Correspondence_, p. 229. 

[69] _Caldwell Papers_, ii. 3. 

[70] _Wealth of Nations_, Book II. Chap. Ii. 

[71] _Notices and Documents illustrative of the Literary History ofGlasgow_, p. 132. 

[72] Strang's _Clubs of Glasgow_, 2nd ed. P. 314. 

[73] Ramsay's _Scotland and Scotsmen in Eighteenth Century_, i. 468. 

[74] Smiles's _Lives of Boulton and Watt_, p. 112. 

CHAPTER VIII

EDINBURGH ACTIVITIES

During his residence in Glasgow Smith continued to maintain intimaterelations with his old friends in Edinburgh. He often ran through bycoach to visit them, though before the road was improved it tookthirteen hours to make the journey; he spent among them most part ofmany of his successive vacations; and he took an active share, alongwith them, in promoting some of those projects of literary, scientific, and social improvement with which Scotland was then rife. His patron, Henry Home, had in 1752 been raised to the bench as LordKames, and was devoting his new-found leisure to those works ofcriticism and speculation which soon gave him European fame. DavidHume, after his defeat at Glasgow, had settled for a time into themodest post of librarian to the Faculty of Advocates, and was writinghis _History of England_ in his dim apartments in the Canongate. AdamFerguson, who threw up his clerical calling in 1754, and wrote Smithfrom Groningen to give him "clerical titles" no more, for he was "adownright layman, " came to Edinburgh, and was made Hume's successor inthe Advocates' Library in 1757 and professor in the University in1759. Robertson did not live in Edinburgh till 1758, but he used tocome to town every week with his neighbour John Home before the latterleft Scotland in 1757, and they held late sittings with Hume and theother men of letters in the evening. Gilbert Elliot enteredParliament in 1754, but was always back during the recess with news ofmen and things in the capital. The two Dalrymples--Sir David ofHailes, and Sir John of Cousland--were toiling at their respectivehistories, and both were personal friends of Smith's; while another, of whom Smith was particularly fond--Wilkie, the eccentric author ofthe _Epigoniad_--was living a few miles out as minister of the parishof Ratho. Wilkie always said that Smith had far more originality andinvention than Hume, and that while Hume had only industry andjudgment, Smith had industry and genius. His mind was at least themore constructive of the two. A remark of Smith's about Wilkie hasalso been preserved, and though it is of no importance, it may berepeated. Quoting Lord Elibank, he said that whether it was in learnedcompany or unlearned, wherever Wilkie's name was mentioned it wasnever dropped soon, for everybody had much to say about him. [75] Butthat was probably due to his oddities as much as anything else. Wilkieused to plough his own glebe with his own hands in the ordinaryploughman's dress, and it was he who was the occasion of the jokeplayed on Dr. Roebuck, the chemist, by a Scotch friend, who said tohim as they were passing Ratho glebe that the parish schools ofScotland had given almost every peasant a knowledge of the classics, and added, "Here, for example, is a man working in the field who is agood illustration of that training; let us speak with him. " Roebuckmade some observation about agriculture. "Yes, sir, " said theploughman, "but in Sicily they had a different method, " and he quotedTheocritus, to Roebuck's great astonishment. 

Among Smith's chief Edinburgh friends at this period was one of hisformer pupils, William Johnstone--son of Sir James Johnstone ofWesterhall, and nephew of Lord Elibank--who was then practising as anadvocate at the Scotch bar, but ultimately went into Parliament, married the greatest heiress of the time, Miss Pulteney, niece of theEarl of Bath, and long filled an honoured and influential place inpublic life as Sir William Pulteney. He was, as even Wraxall admits, aman of "masculine sense" and "independent as well as upright"character, and he devoted special attention to all economic andfinancial questions. It was Pulteney who in his speech on thesuspension of cash payments by the Bank of England in 1797--in whichhe proposed the establishment of another bank--quoted from someunknown source the memorable saying which is generally repeated as ifit were his own, that Smith "would persuade the present generation andgovern the next. " He quoted the words as something that had been "wellsaid. " Between him and Smith there prevailed a warm and affectionatefriendship for more than forty years, and we shall have occasion againto mention his name. But I allude to him at present because a letterstill exists which was given him by Smith at this period to introducehim, during a short stay he made in London, to James Oswald, thennewly appointed to office at the Board of Trade. This is the onlyletter that happens to be preserved of all the correspondence carriedon by Smith with Oswald, and while both the occasion of it and itssubstance reveal the footing of personal intimacy on which they stood, its ceremonious opening and ending indicate something of the reverenceand gratitude of the client to the patron:--

 SIR--This will be delivered to you by Mr. William Johnstone, son of Sir James Johnstone of Westerhall, a young gentleman whom I have known intimately these four years, and of whose discretion, good temper, sincerity, and honour I have had during all that time frequent proofs. You will find in him too, if you come to know him better, some qualities which from real and unaffected modesty he does not at first discover; a refinement and depth of observation and an accuracy of judgment, joined to a natural delicacy of sentiment, as much improved as study and the narrow sphere of acquaintance this country affords can improve it. He had, first when I knew him, a good deal of vivacity and humour, but he has studied them away. He is an advocate; and though I am sensible of the folly of prophesying with regard to the future fortune of so young a man, yet I could almost venture to foretell that if he lives he will be eminent in that profession. He has, I think, every quality that ought to forward, and not one that should obstruct his progress, modesty and sincerity excepted, and these, it is to be hoped, experience and a better sense of things may in part cure him of. I do not, I assure you, exaggerate knowingly, but could pawn my honour upon the truth of every article. You will find him, I imagine, a young gentleman of solid, substantial (not flashy) abilities and worth. Private business obliges him to spend some time in London. He would beg to be allowed the privilege of waiting on you sometimes, to receive your advice how he may employ his time there in the manner that will tend most to his real and lasting improvement. 

 I am sensible how much I presume upon your indulgence in giving you this trouble; but as it is to serve and comply with a person for whom I have the most entire friendship, I know you will excuse me though guilty of an indiscretion; at least if you do not, you will not judge others as you would desire to be judged yourself; for I am very sure a like motive would carry you to be guilty of a greater. 

 I would have waited on you when you was last in Scotland had the College allowed me three days' vacation; and it gave me real uneasiness that I should be in the same country with you, and not have the pleasure of seeing you. Believe it, no man can more rejoice at your late success, [76] or at whatever else tends to your honour and prosperity, than does, Sir, your ever obliged and very humble servant, ADAM SMITH. 

 Glasgow, _19th January 1752_, N. S. [77]

Pulteney abandoned the law in which Smith prophesied eminence for him, but he was happily not cured entirely of his sincerity by hissubsequent experience, for it was greatly from that quality that hederived the weight he enjoyed in the House of Commons. Hiscontemporary in Parliament, Sir John Sinclair, says Pulteney'sinfluence arose from the fact that he was known to be a man who nevergave a vote he did not in his heart believe to be right. Having notaste for display, he lived when he had £20, 000 a year about as simplyas he did when he had only £200, and on that account he is sometimesaccused of avarice, though he was constantly doing acts of signalliberality. 

Smith's chief friend in Edinburgh was David Hume. Though their firstrelations were begun apparently in 1739, they could not have met muchpersonally before Smith's settlement in Glasgow. For when Smith cameto Edinburgh in 1748 Hume was abroad as secretary to General St. Clairin the Embassy at Vienna and Turin, and though he left this post in1749, he remained for the next two years at Ninewells, his father'splace in Berwickshire, and only settled in Edinburgh again just asSmith was removing to Glasgow. He would no doubt visit townoccasionally, however, and before Smith was a year in Glasgow he hadalready entered on that correspondence with the elder philosopherwhich, beginning with the respectful "dear sir, " grew shortly into thewarmer style of "my dearest friend" as their memorable and Romanfriendship ripened. Hume never paid Smith a visit in Glasgow, thoughhe had often promised to do so, but Smith in his runs to Edinburghspent always more and more of his time with Hume, and latterly at anyrate made Hume's house his regular Edinburgh home. 

In 1752 Hume had already taken Smith as one of his literarycounsellors, and consulted him about the new edition of his _Essays, Moral and Political_, and his historical projects, and I may bepermitted here and afterwards to quote parts of Hume's letters whichthrow any light on Smith's opinions or movements. 

On the 24th of September 1752 he writes--

 DEAR SIR--I confess I was once of the same opinion with you, and thought that the best period to begin an English History was about Henry the Seventh, but you will please to observe that the change which then happened in public affairs was very insensible, and did not display its influence for many years afterwards. .. . I am just now diverted for the moment by correcting my _Essays, Moral and Political_ for a new edition. If anything occur to you to be inserted or retrenched, I shall be obliged if you offer the hint. In case you should not have the last edition by you I shall send you a copy of it. .. . I had almost lost your letter by its being wrong directed. I received it late, which was the reason you got not sooner a copy of _Joannes Magnus_. [78]

On the 17th of December 1754 Hume gives Smith an account of hisquarrel with the Faculty of Advocates, and his resolution to stay aslibrarian after all, for the sake of the use of the books, which hecannot do without, but to give Blacklock, the blind poet, a bond ofannuity for the salary. Three weeks later he writes again, and as theletter mentions Smith's views on some historical subjects, it may bequoted:--

 EDINBURGH, _9th January 1755_. 

 DEAR SIR--I beg you to make my compliments to the Society, and to take the fault on yourself if I have not executed my duty, and sent them this time my anniversary paper. Had I got a week's warning I should have been able to have supplied them. I should willingly have sent some sheets of the History of the Commonwealth or Protectorship, but they are all of them out of my hand at present, and I have not been able to recall them. [79] I think you are extremely in the right that the Parliament's bigotry has nothing in common with Hiero's generosity. They were themselves violent persecutors at home to the utmost of their power. Besides, the Huguenots in France were not persecuted; they were really seditious, turbulent people, whom their king was not able to reduce to obedience. The French persecutions did not begin till sixty years after. 

 Your objection to the Irish massacre is just, but falls not on the execution but the subject. Had I been to describe the massacre of Paris I should not have fallen into that fault, but in the Irish massacre no single eminent man fell, or by a remarkable death. If the elocution of the whole chapter be blamable, it is because my conceptions laboured most to start an idea of my subject, which is there the most important, but that misfortune is not unusual. --I am, etc. [80]

In 1752 Smith was chosen a member of the Philosophical Society ofEdinburgh, which, after an interregnum caused by the rebellion, wasrevived in that year, with David Hume for Secretary, and which waseventually merged in the Royal Society in 1784. But we know of no parthe took, if he took any, in its proceedings. Of the Rankenian Society, again--the famous old club in Ranken's Coffee-house, to which ColinMaclaurin and other eminent men belonged, and some of whose memberscarried on a philosophical controversy with Berkeley, and, if we canbelieve Ramsay of Ochtertyre, were pressed by the good bishop toaccompany him in his Utopian mission to Bermuda--Smith was never evena member, though it survived till 1774. But he took a principal partin founding a third society in 1754, which far eclipsed either ofthese--at least for a time--in _éclat_, and has left a more celebratedname, the Select Society. 

The Select Society was established in imitation of the academies whichwere then common in the larger towns of France, and was partly adebating society for the discussion of topics of the day, and partly apatriotic society for the promotion of the arts, sciences, andmanufactures of Scotland. The idea was first mooted by Allan Ramsay, the painter, who had travelled in France as long ago as 1739, withJames Oswald, M. P. , and was struck with some of the Frenchinstitutions. Smith was one of the first of Ramsay's friends to beconsulted about the suggestion, and threw himself so heartily into itthat when the painter announced his first formal meeting for thepurpose on the 23rd of May 1754, Smith was not only one of the fifteenpersons present, but was entrusted with the duty of explaining theobject of the meeting and the nature of the proposed institution. Dr. A. Carlyle, who was present, says this was the only occasion he everheard Smith make anything in the nature of a speech, and he was butlittle impressed with Smith's powers as a public speaker. His voicewas harsh, and his enunciation thick, approaching even tostammering. [81] Of course many excellent speakers often stutter muchin making a simple business explanation which they are composing asthey go along, and Smith always stuttered and hesitated a deal for thefirst quarter of an hour, even in his class lectures, though hiselocution grew free and animated, and often powerful, as he warmed tohis task. 

The Society was established and met with the most rapid and remarkablesuccess. The fifteen original members soon grew to a hundred andthirty, and men of the highest rank as well as literary name flockedto join it. Kames and Monboddo, Robertson and Ferguson and Hume, Carlyle and John Home, Blair and Wilkie and Wallace, the statistician;Islay Campbell and Thomas Miller, the future heads of the Court ofSession; the Earls of Sutherland, Hopetoun, Marchmont, Morton, Rosebery, Erroll, Aboyne, Cassilis, Selkirk, Glasgow, and Lauderdale;Lords Elibank, Garlies, Gray, Auchinleck, and Hailes; John Adam, thearchitect; Dr. Cullen, John Coutts, the banker and member for thecity; Charles Townshend, the witty statesman; and a throng of all thatwas distinguished in the country, were enrolled as members, and, whatis more, frequented its meetings. It met every Friday evening from sixto nine, at first in a room in the Advocates' Library, but when thatbecame too small for the numbers that began to attend its meetings, ina room hired from the Mason Lodge above the Laigh Council House; andits debates, in which the younger advocates and ministers--men likeWedderburn and Robertson--took the chief part, became speedily famousover all Scotland as intellectual displays to which neither theGeneral Assembly of the Kirk nor the Imperial Parliament could showanything to rival. Hume wrote in 1755 to Allan Ramsay, who had by thattime gone to settle in Rome, that the Select Society "has grown to bea national concern. Young and old, noble and ignoble, witty and dull, laity and clergy, all the world are ambitious of a place amongst us, and on each occasion we are as much solicited by candidates as if wewere to choose a member of Parliament. " He goes on to say that "ouryoung friend Wedderburn has acquired a great character by theappearance he has made, " and that Wilkie, the minister, "has turned upfrom obscurity and become a very fashionable man, as he is indeed avery singular one. Monboddo's oddities divert, Sir David's (LordHailes) zeal entertains, Jack Dalrymple's (Sir John of the _Memoirs_)rhetoric interests. The long drawling speakers have found out theirwant of talents and rise seldomer. In short, the House of Commons isless the object of general curiosity to London than the Select Societyis to Edinburgh. The 'Robin Hood, ' the 'Devil, ' and all other speakingsocieties are ignoble in comparison. "[82]

At the second regular meeting, which was held on the 19th of June1754, Mr. Adam Smith was Præses, and gave out the subjects for debateon the following meeting night: (1) Whether a general naturalisationof foreign Protestantism would be advantageous to Britain; and (2)whether bounties on the exportation of corn be advantageous to tradeand manufactures as well as to agriculture. [83] Lord Campbell inmentioning this circumstance makes it appear as if Smith chose thelatter subject of his own motion, in accordance with a rule of thesociety whereby the chairman of one meeting selected the subject fordebate at the next meeting; and it would have been a not uninterestingcircumstance if it were true, for it would show the line his ideaswere taking at that early period of his career; but as a matter offact the rule in question was not adopted for some time after thesecond meeting, and it is distinctly mentioned in the minutes that onthis particular occasion the Præses "declared before he left the chairthe questions that were agreed upon by the majority of the meeting tobe the subject of next night's debate. "[84] It is quite possible, ofcourse, that the subjects may have been of Smith's suggestion, butthat can now only be matter of conjecture. Indeed, whether it be dueto his influence or whether it arose merely from a general current ofinterest moving in that direction at the time, the subjects, discussedby this society were very largely economic; so much so that in aselection of them published by the _Scots Magazine_ in 1757 every onepartakes of that character. "What are the advantages to the public andthe State from grazing? what from corn lands? and what ought to bemost encouraged in this country? Whether great or small farms are mostadvantageous to the country? What are the most proper measures for agentleman to promote industry on his own estate? What are theadvantages and disadvantages of gentlemen of estate being farmers?What is the best and most proper duration of leases of land inScotland? What prestations beside the proper tack-duty tenants oughtto be obliged to pay with respect to carriages and other services, planting and preserving trees, maintaining enclosures and houses, working freestone, limestone, coal, or minerals, making enclosures, straightening marches, carrying off superfluous water to othergrounds, and forming drains? and what restrictions they should be putunder with respect to cottars, live stock on the farm, winter herding, ploughing the ground, selling manure, straw, hay, or corn, thirlage tomills, smiths or tradesmen employed on business extrinsic to the farm, subsetting land, granting assignations of leases, and removals at theexpiration of leases? What proportion of the produce of lands shouldbe paid as rent to the master? In what circumstances the rents oflands should be paid in money? in what in kind? and in what time theyshould be paid? Whether corn should be sold by measure or by weight?What is the best method of getting public highways made and repaired, whether by a turnpike law, as in many places in Great Britain, bycounty or parish work, by a tax, or by what other method? What is thebest and most equal way of hiring and contracting servants? and whatis the most proper method to abolish the practice of giving ofvails?"[85] The society had what may be termed a special agriculturalbranch, to which I shall presently refer, and which met once a monthand discussed chiefly questions of husbandry and land management; andthe above list of subjects looks, from its almost exclusively agrariancharacter, as if it had been rather the business of this branch of thesociety merely than of the society as a whole. Still the same causesthat made rural economy predominate in the monthly work of the branchwould give it a large place in the weekly discussions of the parentassociation. The members were largely connected with the landedinterest, and agricultural improvement was then on the order of theday. 

In this society accordingly, which Smith attended very frequently, though he does not appear to have spoken in the debates, he had withrespect to agrarian problems precisely what he had in the economicclub of Glasgow with respect to commercial problems, the bestopportunities of hearing them discussed at first hand by those whowere practically most conversant with the subjects in all theirdetails. Of course the society sometimes discussed questions ofliterature or art, or familiar old historical controversies, such aswhether Brutus did well in killing Cæsar? Indeed, no subject wasexpressly tabooed except such as might stir up the Deistic or Jacobitestrife--in the words of the rules, "such as regard revealed religion, or which may give occasion to vent any principles of Jacobitism. " Butthe great majority of the questions debated were of an economic orpolitical character, --questions about outdoor relief, entail, banking, linen export bounties, whisky duties, foundling hospitals, whether theinstitution of slavery be advantageous to the free? and whether aunion with Ireland would be advantageous to Great Britain? Sometimesmore than one subject would be got through in a night, sometimes thedebate on a single subject would be adjourned from week to week tillit was thought to be thrashed out; and every member might speak threetimes in the course of a debate if he chose, once for fifteen minutes, and the other twice for ten. 

The Select Society was, however, as I have said, more than a debatingclub; it aimed besides at doing something practical for the promotionof the arts, sciences, manufactures, and agriculture, in the land ofits birth, and accordingly, when it was about ten months in existence, it established a well-devised and extensive scheme of prizes formeritorious work in every department of human labour, to be supportedby voluntary subscriptions. In the prospectus the society issued itsays that, after the example of foreign academies, it had resolved topropose two subjects for competition every year, chosen one frompolite letters and the other from the sciences, and to confer on thewinner some public mark of distinction in respect to his taste andlearning. The reward, however, was not in this case to be of apecuniary nature, for the principle of the society was that rewards ofmerit were in the finer arts to be honorary, but in the more usefularts, where the merit was of a less elevated character, they were tobe lucrative. On the same principle, in the arts the highest place wasallowed to be due to genius, and therefore a reward for a discovery orinvention was set at the very top of the tree, but still it was of apurely honorary character, a pecuniary recognition being thoughtapparently unsuitable to the dignity of that kind of service. "The artof printing, " the prospectus goes on to say--with a glance ofsatisfaction cast doubtless at the Foulis Press--"the art of printingin this country needs no encouragement, yet as to pass it by unnoticedwere slighting the merit of those by whose means alone it has attainedthat eminence, it was resolved that the best printed and most correctbook which shall be produced within a limited time be distinguished byan honorary reward. " On the other hand, the manufacture of paper was athing that required encouragement in Scotland, because the Scotch atthat time imported their paper from abroad, "from countries, " says theprospectus, "which use not half the linen that is here consumed"; and"to remove this defect, to render people more attentive to their owninterest as well as to the interest of their country, to show them theconsequence of attention to matters which may seem trivial, it wasresolved that for the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth parcelsof linen rags gathered within a limited time a reward be assigned inproportion to the quantity and goodness of each parcel. " In othercases manufactures were already well established in the country, andthe thing that still needed to be encouraged by prizes was improvementin the workmanship. For example, "manufactures of cotton and linenprints are already established in different places of this country; inorder to promote an attention to the elegance of the pattern and tothe goodness of the colouring, as well as to the strength of thecloth, it was resolved that for the best piece of printed linen orcotton cloth made within a certain period a premium should beallotted. " The art of drawing, again, "being closely connected withthis art and serviceable to most others, it was resolved that for thebest drawings by boys or girls under sixteen years of age certainpremiums be assigned. " Then there was a considerable annualimportation into Scotland of worked ruffles and of bone lace andedging which the Select Society thought might, under properencouragement, be quite as well produced at home; and it was thereforeresolved to give both honorary and lucrative rewards for superiormerit in such work, the honorary for "women of fashion" who mightcompete, and the lucrative for those "whose laudable industrycontributes to their own support. " Scotch stockings had then a greatreputation for the excellence of their workmanship, but Scotchworsted, to make them with, was not so good, and consequently apremium was to be offered for the best woollen yarn. There was a greatdemand at the time for English blankets, and no reason why the Scotchshould not make quite as good blankets themselves out of their ownwool, so a premium was proposed for the best imitation of Englishblankets. Carpet-making was begun in several places in the country, and a prize for the best-wrought and best-patterned carpet wouldencourage the manufacturers to vie with each other. Whisky-distilling, too, was established at different places, and Scotch strong ale hadeven acquired a great and just reputation both at home and abroad; butthe whisky was "still capable of great improvement in the quality andtaste, " and the ale trade "might be carried to a much greater height, "and these ends might be severally promoted by prizes for the best tunof whisky and the best hogshead of strong ale. 

The practical execution of this scheme was committed to nine membersof the society, who were to be chosen annually, and were to meet withthe society once a month to report progress or receive instructions;but to keep this new task quite distinct from the old, the societyresolved, like certain mercantile firms when they adopt a new branchof business, to carry it on under a new firm name, and for thispurpose the Select Society of Edinburgh became "The Edinburgh Societyfor encouraging arts, sciences, manufactures, and agriculture inScotland"; and the executive committee of nine were termed the"ordinary managers of the Edinburgh Society, " who were assisted byother nine "extraordinary managers. " The Edinburgh Society was not, however, a separate institution; it was really only a specialcommittee of the Select Society. It met once a month at a separatetime from the usual weekly meeting of the parent society, and thebusiness of this monthly meeting came, from the predominant interestof the members, who were so largely composed of the nobility andgentry, to be engrossed almost wholly with agricultural discussions. To render these discussions more effective and profitable, aresolution was passed in 1756 to admit a certain number of practicalfarmers to the membership. 

This extension of the scope of the society's work was not approved byits founder, Allan Ramsay, who thought it beneath the dignity of suchan institution to take an interest in the making of ruffles or thebrewing of strong ale, and feared besides that it would introduce anew set of very unintellectual members, to the serious prejudice ofthe society's debates. An essay on taste was very well, and when itcame out he would ask Millar, the bookseller, to send it out to him inRome, but a prize for the biggest bundle of linen rags! "I could havewished, " he writes Hume, "that some other way had been fallen upon bywhich porter might have been made thick and the nation rich withoutour understanding being at all the poorer for it. Is not truth morethan meat, and wisdom than raiment?"[86] But however Ramsay might lookdown on the project, his coadjutor in the founding of the society, Adam Smith, entertained a very different idea of its importance. Astimulus to the development of her industries was the very thingScotland most needed at the moment, and he entered heartily into thenew scheme, and took a prominent part in carrying it out. He was notone of the nine managers to whom the practical execution of the ideawas at first entrusted, but when a few months afterwards the work wasdivided among four separate committees or sections of five memberseach, all chosen by another committee of five, nominated expressly forthat purpose, Smith is one of this nominating committee, and is by itappointed likewise a member of one of the four executive committees. The other four members of the nominating committee were AlexanderMonro _Primus_, the anatomist; Gilbert Elliot, M. P. For Selkirkshire;the Rev. William Wilkie, author of the _Epigoniad_; and the Rev. Robert Wallace, the predecessor and at least in part the stimulator ofMalthus in his speculations on the population question. The fivemembers of this committee were directed by the society to put theirown names on one or other of the four executive committees, and theyplaced the name of Smith, together with that of Hume, on the committeefor Belles-Lettres and Criticism. As yet he was evidently best knownas literary critic, though the questions propounded by him in thissociety, and the subjects treated by him in the Literary Society ofGlasgow, show that his tastes were already leading him into otherdirections. 

Sufficient contributions soon flowed in; Hume in his letter to Ramsayspeaks of £100 being already in hand, and of several largesubscriptions besides being promised from various noblemen, whom henames; and accordingly an advertisement was published in thenewspapers on the 10th of April 1755, offering the following prizes:--

 I. Honorary premiums, being gold medals with suitable devices and inscriptions:--

 1. For the best discovery in science. 

 2. For the best essay on taste. 

 3. For the best dissertation on vegetation and the principles of agriculture. 

 II. Honorary premiums, being silver medals with proper devices and inscriptions:--

 4. For the best printed and most correct book of at least 10 sheets. 

 5. For the best printed cotton or linen cloth, not under 28 yards. 

 6. For the best imitation of English blankets, not under six. 

 7. For the next best ditto, not under six. 

 8. For the best hogshead of strong ale. 

 9. For the best hogshead of porter. 

 III. Lucrative premiums:--

 10. For the most useful invention in arts, £21. 

 11. For the best carpet as to work, pattern, and colours, of at least 48 yards, . £5:5s. 

 12. For the next best ditto, also 48 yards, £4:4s. 

 13. For the best drawings of fruits, flowers, and foliages by boys or girls under sixteen years of age, £5:5s. 

 14. For the second best, £3:3s. 

 15. For the third best, £2:2s. 

 16. For the best imitation of Dresden work in a pair of man's ruffles, £5:5s. 

 17. For the best bone lace, not under 20 yards, £5:5s. 

 18. For the greatest quantity of white linen rags, £1:10s. 

 19. For the second ditto, £1:5s. 

 20. For the third ditto, £1. 

 21. For the fourth ditto, 15s. 

 22. For the fifth ditto, 10s. 

The articles were asked to be delivered to Mr. Walter Goodall (DavidHume's assistant in the work of librarian), at the Advocates' Library, before the first Monday of December. [87] On the 19th of August thefollowing additional prizes were offered:--

 23. To the farmer who plants the greatest number (not under 1000) of timber trees, oak, beech, ash, or elm, in hedgerows before December 1756, £10. 

 24. Second ditto (not under 500), £5. 

 25. To the farmer who shall raise the greatest number (not under 2000) of young thorn plants before December 1758, £6. 

 26. Second ditto (not under 1000), £4. 

In the following year the society increased the number of its prizesto 92; in 1757 to 120, in 1758 to 138, and in 1759 to 142; and theywere devoted to the encouragement of every variety of likelyindustry--kid gloves, straw hats, felt hats, soap, cheese, cradles tobe made of willow grown in Scotland. One premium was offered to theperson who would "cure the greatest number of smoky chimneys to thesatisfaction of the society. "

The prize for the best essay on taste was won by Professor Gerard ofAberdeen, and the essay was published, and is still well known tostudents of metaphysics; and the prize for the best dissertation onvegetation and agriculture fell to Dr. Francis Home. The bestinvention was a piece of linen made like Marseille work but on a loom, and for this £20 were awarded to Peter Brotherton, weaver in Dirleton, East Lothian. Foulis won in 1757 the prize for the best printed bookin Roman characters by his _Horace_, and for the best printed book inGreek characters by his _Iliad_; and in 1759 Professor Gerard againwon a prize by his dissertation on style. 

This society, while it lasted, undoubtedly exercised a most beneficialinfluence in developing and improving the industrial resources ofScotland. The carpet manufacture alone rose £1000 in the year afterthe establishment of the prizes, and the rise was believed to be dueto the stimulus they imparted. But, useful and active and celebratedas it was, the Select Society died within ten years of its origin. Theusual explanation is that it owed its death to the effects of asarcasm of Charles Townshend's. Townshend was brought to hear one ofthe wonderful debates, which were thought to reflect a new glory onEdinburgh, and was even elected a member of the society, but heobserved when he came out that, while he admitted the eloquence of theorators, he was unable to understand a word they said, inasmuch asthey spoke in what was to him a foreign tongue. "Why, " he asked, "canyou not learn to speak the English language, as you have alreadylearnt to write it?"[88]

This was to touch Scotchmen of that period who made any pretensions toeducation at one of their most sensitive parts. Scotch--the broaddialect of Burns and Fergusson--was still the common medium ofintercourse in polite society, and might be heard even from the pulpitor the bench, though English was flowing rapidly into fashion, and theyounger and more ambitious sort of people were trying their best tolose the native dialect. We know the pains taken by great writers likeHume and Robertson to clear their English composition of Scotchidioms, and the greater but less successful pains taken by Wedderburnto cure himself of his Scotch pronunciation, to which he revertedafter all in his old age. Under these circumstances Townshend'ssarcasm occasioned almost a little movement of lingual reform. ThomasSheridan, who was about this time full of a method he had invented ofimparting to foreigners a proper pronunciation of the English languageby means of sounds borrowed from their own, and who had just beengiving lessons to Wedderburn, and probably practising the new methodon him, was brought north in 1761 and delivered a course of sixteenlectures in St. Paul's Chapel, Carrubber's Close, to about 300gentlemen--"the most eminent, " it is reported, "in the country forrank and abilities. " Immediately thereafter the Select Societyorganised a special association for promoting the writing and speakingof the English language in Scotland, and engaged a teacher of correctEnglish pronunciation from London. Smith was not one of the directorsof this new association, but Robertson, Ferguson, and Blair were, together with a number of peers, baronets, lords of Session, andleaders of the bar. But spite of the imposing auspices under whichthis simple project of an English elocution master was launched, itproved a signal failure, for it touched the national vanity. It seemedto involve a humiliating confession of inferiority to a rival nationat the very moment when that nation was raging with abuse of theScotch, when Wilkes was publishing the _North Briton_, and Churchillwas writing his lampoons; and when it was advertised in the Edinburghnewspapers, it provoked such a storm of antipathy and ridicule thateven the honourable society which furthered the scheme began to losefavour, its subscriptions and membership declined, and presently thewhole organisation fell to pieces. That is the account commonly givenof the fall of the Select Society, and the society certainly reachedits culminating point in 1762. After that subscribers withdrew theirnames, or refused to pay their subscriptions, and in 1765 the societyhad no funds to offer more than six prizes and ceased to exist, itsown explanation being that it died of the loss of novelty. "Thearrears of subscriptions seem, " it says, "to confirm an observationthat has sometimes been made, that in Scotland every disinterestedplan of public utility is slighted as soon as it loses the charm ofnovelty. "[89]

Another interesting but even more abortive project which Smith took aleading part in promoting at this same period was the publication of anew literary magazine, entitled the _Edinburgh Review_, of which thefirst number appeared in July 1755, and the second and last in January1756. This project also originated, like the Select Society, in asentiment of Scotch patriotism. It was felt that though Scotland wasat the time stirring with an important literary and scientificmovement, the productions of the Scotch press were too much ignored bythe English literary periodicals, and received inadequateappreciation even in Scotland itself for want of a good criticaljournal on the spot. "If countries may be said to have their ages withrespect to improvement, " says the preface to the first number of thenew _Review_, "then North Britain may be considered as in a state ofearly youth, guided and supported by the more mature strength of herkindred country. If in anything her advances have been such as to makea more forward state, it is in science. " After remarking that the twoobstacles to the literary advancement of Scotland had hitherto beenher deficiency in the art of printing and her imperfect command ofgood English, and that the first of these obstacles had been removedentirely, and the second shown by recent writers to be capable ofbeing surmounted, it proceeds: "The idea therefore was that to showmen at this particular stage of the country's progress the gradualadvance of science would be a means of inciting them to a more eagerpursuit of learning, to distinguish themselves and to do honour totheir country. " The editor was Alexander Wedderburn, who afterwardsbecame Lord High Chancellor of England and Earl of Rosslyn, but had in1755 only just passed as an advocate at the Scotch bar; and thecontributors were Robertson, who wrote eight review articles on newhistorical publications; Blair, who gave one or two indifferentnotices of works in philosophy; Jardine, one of the ministers ofEdinburgh, who discussed Ebenezer Erskine's sermons, a few theologicalpamphlets, and Mrs. Cleland's Cookery Book; and Adam Smith, whocontributed to the first number a review of Dr. Johnson's_Dictionary_, and to the second a remarkable letter to the editorproposing to widen the scope of the _Review_, and giving a strikingsurvey of the state of contemporary literature in all the countries ofEurope. Smith's two contributions are out of sight the ablest and mostimportant articles the _Review_ published. 

He gives a warm and most appreciative welcome to Johnson's_Dictionary_, but thinks it would have been improved if the author hadin the first place more often censured words not of approved use, andif in the second he had, instead of simply enumerating the severalmeanings of a word, arranged them into classes and distinguishedprincipal from subsidiary meanings. Then to illustrate what he wants, Smith himself writes two model articles, one on _Wit_ and the other on_Humour_, both acute and interesting. He counts humour to be alwayssomething accidental and fitful, the disease of a disposition, and heconsiders it much inferior to wit, though it may often be moreamusing. "Wit expresses something that is more designed, concerted, regular, and artificial; humour something that is more wild, loose, extravagant, and fantastical; something which comes upon a man by fitswhich he can neither command nor restrain, and which is not perfectlyconsistent with true politeness. Humour, it has been said, is oftenmore diverting than wit; yet a man of wit is as much above a man ofhumour as a gentleman is above a buffoon; a buffoon, however, willoften divert more than a gentleman. "

In his second contribution--a long letter to the editor published inthe appendix to the second number--Smith advocates the enlargement ofthe scope of the _Review_ so as to give some account of works ofimportance published abroad, even though space had to be provided forthe purpose by neglecting unimportant publications issued from theScotch press, and, in fact, he considers this substitution as anecessity for the continued life of the _Review_. For, says he, "youwill oblige the public much more by giving them an account of suchbooks as are worthy of their regard than by filling your paper withall the insignificant literary news of the time, of which not anarticle in a hundred is likely to be thought of a fortnight after thepublication of the work that gave occasion to it. " He then proceeds toa review of contemporary continental literature, which he says meantat that time the literature of France. Italy had ceased to produceliterature, and Germany produced only science. A sentence or two maybe quoted from his comparison between French and English literature, because they show that he was not, as he is sometimes accused ofbeing, an unfair depreciator of the great writers of England and ablind admirer of those of France. He will be owned to have had a veryjust opinion of the specific merits of each. 

"Imagination, genius, and invention, " he says, "seem to be the talentsof the English; taste, judgment, propriety, and order, of the French. In the old English poets, in Shakespeare, Spenser, and Milton, thereoften appears, amidst some irregularities and extravagancies, astrength of imagination so vast, so gigantic and supernatural, asastonishes and confounds the reader into that admiration of theirgenius which makes him despise as mean and insignificant all criticismupon the inequalities of their writings. In the eminent French writerssuch sallies of genius are more rarely to be met with, but instead ofthem a just arrangement, an exact propriety and decorum, joined to anequal and studied elegance of sentiment and diction, which, as itnever strikes the heart like those violent and momentary flashes ofimagination, so it never revolts the judgment by anything that isabsurd or unnatural, nor ever wearies the attention by any grossinequality in the style or want of connection in the method, butentertains the mind with a regular succession of agreeable, interesting, and connected objects. "

From poetry he passes to philosophy, and finds that the Frenchencyclopedists had left their native Cartesian system for the Englishsystem of Bacon and Newton, and were proving more effective expositorsof that system than the English themselves. After reviewing the_Encyclopédie_ at considerable length, he gives an account of therecent scientific works of Buffon and Reaumur, and, among books inmetaphysics, of Rousseau's famous _Discourse on the Origin andFoundation of the Inequality of Mankind_, which was then only a fewmonths out, and in which, Smith says, Rousseau, "by the help of hisstyle, together with a little philosophical chemistry, " has made "theprinciples and ideas of the profligate Mandeville seem to have all thepurity and simplicity of the morals of Plato, and to be only the truespirit of a republican carried a little too far. " He gives a summaryof the book, translates a few specimen passages, and concludes bysaying, "I shall only add that the dedication to the Republic ofGeneva, of which M. Rousseau has the honour of being a citizen, is anagreeable, animated, and I believe, too, a just panegyric. "

Sir James Mackintosh, who republished these two numbers of the first_Edinburgh Review_ in 1818 after the second _Edinburgh Review_ hadmade the name famous, considers it noteworthy, as showing thecontributors to have taken up a very decided political position for soearly a period, that the preface to the first number speaks boldly inpraise of George Buchanan's "undaunted spirit of liberty. " But Smith'swarm expression of admiration for the Republic of Geneva, to which hereckons it an honour to belong, is equally notable. He seems to havebeen always theoretically a republican, and he certainly had the truespirit of a republican in his love of all rational liberty. His pupiland lifelong friend, the Earl of Buchan, says: "He approached torepublicanism in his political principles, and considered acommonwealth as the platform for the monarchy, hereditary successionin the chief magistrate being necessary only to prevent thecommonwealth from being shaken by ambition, or absolute dominionintroduced by the consequences of contending factions. "[90]

Smith's scheme for the improvement of the _Review_ was never carriedout, for with that number the _Review_ itself came to a sudden andpremature end. The reason for giving it up is explained by LordWoodhouselee to have been that the strictures passed by it on somefanatical publications of the day had excited such a clamour "that aregard to the public tranquillity and their own determined thereviewers to discontinue their labours. "[91] Doubt has been expressedof the probability of this explanation, but Lord Woodhouselee, who waspersonally acquainted with several of the contributors, is likely tohave known of the circumstances, and his statement is borne outbesides by certain corroborative facts. It is true the theologicalarticles of the two numbers appear to us to be singularly inoffensive. They were entrusted to the only contributor who was not a young man, Dr. Jardine, the wily leader of the Moderate party in the Church, theDean of the Thistle mentioned in Lord Dreghorn's verses as governingthe affairs of the city as well as the Church through his power overhis father-in-law--

 The old Provost, who danced to the whistle Of that arch politician, the Dean of the Thistle. 

The arch politician contrived to make his theological criticismcolourless even to the point of vapidity, but that did not save him orhis _Review_; it perhaps only exposed them the more to the attacks ofzealots. His notice of the sermons of Ebenezer Erskine, the Secessionleader, provoked a sharp pamphlet from Erskine's son, in which thereviewers were accused of teaching unsound theological views, ofputting the creature before the Creator by allowing the lawfulness ofa lie in certain situations, of throwing ridicule on the Bible and theWestminster _Confession of Faith_, and of having David Hume, anatheist, among their number. 

This last thrust was a mere controversial guess, and, strangelyenough, it guessed wrong. A new literary review is started inEdinburgh by a few of Hume's younger friends, and Hume himself--theonly one of them who had yet made any name in literature, and the mostdistinguished man of letters then in Scotland--is neither asked tocontribute to the periodical, nor even admitted to the secret of itsorigination. When the first number appeared he went about among hisacquaintances expressing the greatest surprise that so promising aliterary adventure should be started by Edinburgh men of letterswithout a whisper of it ever reaching his ears. More than that, hisvery name and writings were strangely and studiously ignored in itspages. His _History of the Stewarts_ was one of the last new books, having been published in the end of 1754, and was unquestionably muchthe most important work that had recently come from any Scotch pen, yet in a periodical instituted for the very purpose of devotingattention to the productions of Scotch authors, this work of hisremained absolutely unnoticed. 

Why this complete boycott of Hume by his own household? HenryMackenzie "thinks he has heard" two reasons given for it: first, thatHume was considered too good-natured for a critic, and certain to haveinsisted on softening remarks his colleagues believed to be calledfor; and second, that they determined to keep him out of the secretentirely, because he could not keep a secret. [92] But this explanationdoes not hold together. If Hume was so good-natured, he would be lessdifficult rather than more difficult to manage; and as for not beingable to keep a secret, that, as Mr. Burton observes, is a verysingular judgment to pass on one who had been Secretary of Legationalready and was soon to be Secretary of Legation again, and UnderSecretary of State, without having been once under the shadow of suchan accusation. Besides, neither of these reasons will explain theignoring of his writings. 

A more credible explanation must be looked for, and it can only bediscovered in the intense _odium theologicum_ which the name of Humeexcited at the moment, and which made it imperative, if the new_Review_ was to get justice, that it should be severed from allassociation with his detested name. Scotland happened to be at thatvery hour in an exceptional ferment about his theological heresies, and one of the strangest of proposals had come before the previousGeneral Assembly of the Kirk, backed by a number of the most respectedcountry clergy. It was no other than to summon the great sceptic totheir bar, to visit his _Inquiry concerning the Principles of Morals_with censure, and to pronounce against the author the major ban ofexcommunication. 

The wise heads who rule the Scotch Church courts of course threw outthis inconvenient proposal by the favourite ecclesiastical device ofpassing an abstract resolution expressive of concern at the growingevils of the day, without committing the Church to any embarrassingpractical action; and Hume himself was, as Wedderburn told them helikely would be, hardened enough to laugh at the very idea of theiranathema. But the originators of the agitation only returned to thebattle, and prepared for a victory in the next Assembly in May 1756. Between the two Assemblies Hume wrote his friend Allan Ramsay, thepainter, who was in Rome: "You may tell that reverend gentleman thePope that there are men here who rail at him, and yet would be muchgreater persecutors had they equal power. The last Assembly sat on me. They did not propose to burn me, because they cannot, but theyintended to give me over to Satan, which they think they have thepower of doing. My friends, however, prevailed, and my damnation ispostponed for a twelvemonth, but next Assembly will surely be uponme. "[93] And so in truth it was. An overture came up calling foraction regarding "one person calling himself David Hume, Esq. , whohath arrived at such a degree of boldness as publicly to avow himselfthe author of books containing the most rude and open attacks upon theglorious Gospel of Christ, " and a motion was made for the appointmentof a committee "to inquire into the writings of this author, to callhim before them, and prepare the matter for the next GeneralAssembly. " This motion was again defeated, and the heresy-hunterspassed on to turn their attention to Lord Kames, and to summon theprinters and publishers of his _Essays_ before the EdinburghPresbytery to give up the author's name (the book having beenpublished anonymously), "that he and they may be censured according tothe law of the Gospel and the practice of this and all otherwell-governed churches. "

It is open to us to believe that Hume's friends contemplated no morethan a temporary exclusion of him from their counsels until this stormshould pass by; but at any rate, as they launched their frail bark inthe very thick of the storm, it would have meant instant swamping atthat juncture to have taken the Jonah who caused all the commotion andmade him one of their crew. For the same reason, when they found that, for all their precautions, the clamour overtook them notwithstanding, they simply put back into port and never risked so unreasoning andraging an element again. 

It may indeed be thought that they declined Hume's co-operation, because they expressly hoisted the flag of religion in their preface, and professed one of their objects to be to resist the current attacksof infidelity. But there would have been no inconsistency in engagingthe co-operation of an unbeliever on secular subjects, so long as theyretained the rudder in their own hands, and men who were alreadyHume's intimate personal friends were not likely to be troubled withsuch unnecessary scruples about their consistency. The true reasonboth of Hume's exclusion from their secret and of their ownabandonment of their undertaking is undoubtedly the reason given byLord Woodhouselee, that they wanted to live and work in peace. Theydid not like, to use a phrase of Hamilton of Bangour, to have "zealclanking her iron bands" about their ears. Hume, on the other hand, rather took pleasure in the din he provoked, and had he been acontributor the rest would have had difficulty--and may have feltso--in restraining him from gratifying that taste when any favourableopportunities offered. 

While these things were going on in Edinburgh a book had made itsappearance from the London press, which is often stated to have beenwritten for the express purpose of converting Adam Smith to a beliefin the miraculous evidences of Christianity. That book is the_Criterion of Miracles Examined_, by Smith's Oxford friend BishopDouglas, then a country rector in Shropshire. It is written in theform of a letter to an anonymous correspondent, who had, in spite ofhis "good sense, candour, and learning, " and on grounds "many of thempeculiar to himself and not borrowed from books, " "reasoned himselfinto an unfavourable opinion of the evidences of Christianity"; andthis anonymous correspondent is said in Chalmers's _BiographicalDictionary_ to have been "since known to be Adam Smith. " FromChalmers's _Dictionary_ the same statement has been repeated in thesame words in subsequent biographical dictionaries and elsewhere, butneither Chalmers nor his successors reveal who it was to whom this wasknown, or how he came to know it; and on the other hand, Macdonald, the son-in-law and biographer of Douglas, makes no mention of Smith'sname in connection with this work at all, and explicitly states thatthe book was written for the satisfaction of more than one of theauthor's friends, who had been influenced by the objections of Humeand others to the reality of the Gospel miracles. [94] This leaves thepoint somewhat undetermined. 

Smith was certainly a Theist, his writings leave no doubt of that, buthe most probably discarded the Christian miracles; and if Douglas'sbook is addressed to his particular position, discarded them on theground that there is no possible criterion for distinguishing truemiracles from false, and enabling you to accept those of Christianityif you reject those of profane history. The Earl of Buchan, apostrophising Smith, asks, "Oh, venerable and worthy man, why was younot a Christian?" and tries to let his old professor down as gently aspossible by suggesting that the reason lay in the warmth of his heart, which always made him express strongly the opinions of his friends, and carried him in this instance into sympathy with those of DavidHume. That is obviously a lame conclusion, because Smith's friendshipfor Hume never made him a Tory, nor even on the point of religion werehis opinions identical with those of Hume; but Lord Buchan's words maybe quoted as an observation by an acute man of a feature in Smith'scharacter not without biographical interest. "Had he (Smith) been afriend of the worthy ingenious Horrox, " says his lordship, "he wouldhave believed that the moon sometimes disappeared in a clear skywithout the interposition of a cloud, or of another truly honest andrespectable man, that a professor of mathematics at Upsala had a tailof six inches long to his rump. "[95]

In 1756 the literary circle in Edinburgh was much excited by theperformance of John Home's tragedy of _Douglas_. Smith was not presentat that performance; but he is stated by Henry Mackenzie, in his _Lifeof John Home_, to have been present at some of the previous rehearsalsof the play, and at any rate he was deeply interested in it; and Hume, as soon as he hears of the continued success of the play in London, hastens to communicate the welcome news to his friend in Glasgow, withwhom he was in correspondence about his own historical plans. Smithseems to have been advising him, instead of following up his _Historyof the Stewarts_ by the history of succeeding periods, to go back andwrite the history of the period before the Stewarts. 

After mentioning John Home, Hume proceeds: "I can now give you thesatisfaction of hearing that the play, though not near so well actedin Covent Garden as in this place, is likely to be very successful. Its great intrinsic merit breaks through all obstacles. When it shallbe printed (which shall be soon) I am persuaded it will be esteemedthe best, and by French critics the only tragedy of our language!. .. 

"Did you ever hear of such madness and folly as our clergy have latelyfallen into? For my part, I expect that the next Assembly will verysolemnly pronounce the sentence of excommunication against me, but Ido not apprehend it to be a matter of any consequence; what do youthink?

"I am somewhat idle at present and somewhat indifferent as to my nextundertaking. Shall I go backwards or forwards in my History? I thinkyou used to tell me that you approved more of my going backwards. Theother would be the more popular subject, but I am afraid I shall notfind materials sufficient to ascertain the truth, at least withoutsettling in London, which I own I have some reluctance to. I amsettled here very much to my mind, and would not wish at my years tochange the place of my abode. 

"I have just now received a copy of _Douglas_ from London. It willinstantly be put in the press. I hope to be able to send you a copy inthe same parcel with the dedication. "[96]

Hume was now very anxious to have his friend nearer him, and thoughtin 1758 an opportunity could be contrived of translating Smith to achair in the University of Edinburgh. There was at that time someprobability of Professor Abercromby resigning the chair of Public Law(then styled the chair of the Law of Nature and Nations), and asSmith, though not a lawyer, was yet a distinguished professor ofjurisprudence, his friends in Edinburgh immediately suggested hiscandidature, especially as they believed such a change would not beunacceptable to himself. The chair of the Law of Nature and Nationswas one of the best endowed in the College, having a revenue of £150 ayear independently of fees, but it had been founded as a job, andcontinued ever since to be treated as a sinecure. Not a single lecturehad ever been delivered by any of its incumbents, in spite of repeatedremonstrances on the part of the Faculty of Advocates, and Humebelieved that if the Town Council, as administrators of the College, could be got to press for the delivery of the statutory lectures, thepresent professor would prefer the alternative of resignation. In thatevent the vacant office might easily, in Hume's opinion, be obtainedby Smith, inasmuch as the patronage was in the hands of the Crown, andCrown patronage in Scotland at the time was virtually exercisedthrough Lord Justice-Clerk Milton (a nephew of Andrew Fletcher ofSaltoun, the patriot), who had been, ever since the death of LordPresident Forbes, the chief confidential adviser of the Duke ofArgyle, the Minister for Scotland, and was personally acquainted withSmith through his daughter Mrs. Wedderburn of Gosford, the friend ofRobertson and John Home. 

Others of Smith's Edinburgh friends zealously joined Hume in hisrepresentations, especially the faithful Johnstone (afterwards Sir W. Pulteney), who actually wrote Smith a letter on the subject along withHume's. Hume's letter is as follows:--

 DEAR SMITH--I sit down to write to you along with Johnstone, and as we have been talking over the matter, it is probable we shall employ the same arguments. As he is the younger lawyer, I leave him to open the case, and suppose that you have read his letter first. We are certain that the settlement of you here and of Ferguson at Glasgow would be perfectly easy by Lord Milton's Interest. The Prospect of prevailing with Abercrombie is also very good. For the same statesman by his influence over the Town Council could oblige him either to attend, which he never would do, or dispose of the office for the money which he gave for it. The only real difficulty is then with you. Pray then consider that this is perhaps the only opportunity we shall ever have of getting you to town. I dare swear that you think the difference of Place is worth paying something for, and yet it will really cost you nothing. You made above a hundred pound a year by your class when in this Place, though you had not the character of Professor. We cannot suppose that it will be less than a hundred and thirty after you are settled. John Stevenson[97]--and it is John Stevenson--makes near a hundred and fifty, as we were informed upon Enquiry. Here is a hundred pounds a year for eight years' Purchase, which is a cheap purchase, even considered in the way of a Bargain. We flatter ourselves that you rate our company at something, and the Prospect of settling Ferguson will be an additional inducement. For though we think of making him take up the Project if you refuse it, yet it is uncertain whether he will consent; and it is attended in his case with many very obvious objections. I beseech you therefore to weigh all these motives over again. The alteration of these circumstances merit that you should put the matter again in deliberation. I had a letter from Miss Hepburn, where she regrets very much that you are settled at Glasgow, and that we had the chance of seeing you so seldom. --I am, dear Smith, yours sincerely, DAVID HUME. 

 _8th June 1758. _

 _P. S. _--Lord Milton can with his finger stop the foul mouths of all the Roarers against heresy. [98]

The postscript shows what we have already indicated, that Smith hadnot escaped the general hue and cry against heresy which was now forsome years abroad in the country. 

The Miss Hepburn who regrets so much the remoteness of Smith'sresidence is doubtless Miss Hepburn of Monkrig, near Haddington, oneof those gifted literary ladies who were then not infrequently to befound in the country houses of Scotland. It was to Miss Hepburn andher sisters that John Home is said to have been indebted for thefirst idea of Douglas, and Robertson submitted to her the manuscriptof his _History of Scotland_ piece by piece as he wrote it. When itwas finished the historian sent her a presentation copy with a letter, in which he said: "Queen Mary has grown up to her present form underyour eye; you have seen her in many different shapes, and you have nowa right to her. Were I a _galante_ writer now, what a fine contrastmight I make between you and Queen Mary? What a pretty string ofantitheses between your virtues and her vices. I am glad, however, shedid not resemble you. If she had, Rizzio would have only played firstfiddle at her consort (_sic_), with a pension of a thousand merks andtwo benefits in a winter; Darnley would have been a colonel in theGuards; Bothwell would, on account of his valour, have been Warden ofthe Middle Marches, but would have been forbid to appear at courtbecause of his profligacy. But if all that had been done, what wouldhave become of my History?"[99]

Smith seems to have declined, for whatever reason, to take up thesuggestion of Hume about this chair of Law, for we find Hume presentlytrying hard to secure the place for Ferguson. The difficulty may havebeen about the price, for though Hume speaks of £800, it seemsAbercromby wanted more than £1000, and Ferguson too had no mind tobegin life with such a debt on his shoulders. But the world isprobably no loser by the difficulty, whatever it was, which kept Smithfive years longer among the merchants and commercial problems ofGlasgow. 

Smith was one of the founders, or at least the original members, ofthe Edinburgh Poker Club in 1762. Every one has heard of that famousclub, but most persons probably think of it as if it were merely asocial or convivial society; and Mr. Burton lends some countenance tothat mistake by declaring that he has never been able to discover anyother object it existed for except the drinking of claret. But thePoker Club was really a committee for political agitation, like theAnti-Corn-Law League or the Home Rule Union; only, after the moregenial manners of those times, the first thing the committee thoughtrequisite for the proper performance of their work was to lay in astock of sound Burgundy that could be drawn from the wood ateighteenpence or two shillings a quart, to engage a room in a tavernfor the exclusive use of the members, and establish a weekly orbi-weekly dinner at a moderate figure, to keep the _poker_ ofagitation in active exercise. The club got its name from the practicalpurpose it was instituted to serve; it was to be an instrument for_stirring_ opinion, especially in high quarters, on a public questionwhich was exciting the people of Scotland greatly at the moment, thequestion of the establishment of a national Scotch militia. Some ofthe members thought that when that question was settled, the clubshould go on and take up others. George Dempster of Dunnichen, forexample, an old and respected parliamentary hand of that time, wroteDr. Carlyle in 1762 that when they got their militia, they ought toagitate for parliamentary reform, "so as to let the industrious farmerand manufacturer share at last in a privilege now engrossed by thegreat lord, the drunken laird, and the drunkener baillie. "[100] Butthey never got the length of considering other reforms, for themilitia question was not settled in that generation. It outlived thePoker Club, and it outlived the Younger Poker Club which was enrolledto take up the cause in 1786, and it was not finally settled till1793. 

The Scotch had been roused to the defenceless condition of theircountry by the alarming appearance of Thurot in Scotch waters in 1759, and had instantly with one voice raised a cry for the establishment ofa national militia. The whole country seemed to have set its mind onthis measure with a singular unanimity, and a bill for its enactmentwas accordingly introduced into the House of Commons in 1760 by two ofthe principal Scotch members, both former ministers of theCrown--James Oswald and Gilbert Elliot; but it was rejected by a largemajority, because within only fifteen years of the Rebellion theEnglish members were unwilling to entrust the Scotch people with arms. The rejection of the bill provoked a deep feeling of nationalindignation, the slur it cast on the loyalty of Scotland beingresented even more than the indifference it showed to her perils. Itwas under the influence of this wave of national sentiment that thePoker Club was founded in 1762, to procure for the Scotch at onceequality of rights with the English and adequate defences for theircountry. 

The membership of the club included many of the foremost men in theland--great noblemen, advocates, men of letters, together with anumber of spirited county gentlemen on both sides of politics, whocried that they had a militia of their own before the Union, and musthave a militia of their own again. Dr. Carlyle says most of themembers of the Select Society belonged to it, the exceptionsconsisting of a few who disapproved of the militia scheme, and ofothers, like the judges, who scrupled, on account of their officialposition, to take any part in a political movement. Carlyle gives alist of the members in 1774, containing among other names those of theDuke of Buccleugh, Lords Haddington, Glasgow, Glencairn, Elibank, andMountstuart; Henry Dundas, Lord Advocate; Baron Mure, Hume, AdamSmith, Robertson, Black, Adam Ferguson, John Home, Dr. Blair, SirJames Steuart the economist, Dempster, Islay Campbell, afterwards LordPresident; and John Clerk of Eldin. The first secretary of the clubwas William Johnstone (Sir William Pulteney), and, as has beenfrequently told, David Hume was jocularly appointed to a sinecureoffice created for him, the office of assassin, and lest Hume'sgood-nature should unfit him for the duties, Andrew Crosbie, advocate(the original of Scott's "Pleydell"), was made his assistant. The clubmet at first in Tom Nicholson's tavern, the Diversorium, at the Cross, and subsequently removed to more fashionable quarters at the famousFortune's in the Stamp Office Close, where the Lord High Commissionerto the General Assembly held his levees, and the members dined everyFriday at two and sat till six. However the club may have pulled wiresin private, their public activity seems to have been very little; sofar at least as literary advocacy of their cause went, nothingproceeded from it except a pamphlet by Dr. Carlyle, and amuch-overlauded squib by Adam Ferguson, entitled "A History of theProceedings in the Case of Margaret, commonly called Sister Peg. "

Smith was, as I have said, one of the original members of the club, and from Carlyle's list would appear to have continued a member till1774; but he was not a member of the Younger Poker Club, establishedin 1786. In the interval he had expressed in the _Wealth of Nations_ astrong preference for a standing army over a national militia, [101]after instituting a very careful examination of the whole subject. Whether his views had changed since 1762, or whether he had joined inthe agitation for a militia merely as a measure of justice to Scotlandor as an expedient of temporary necessity, without committing himselfto any abstract admiration for the institution in general, I have nomeans of deciding; but we can hardly think he ever shared that kind ofbelief in the principle of a militia which animated men like Fergusonand Carlyle, and which, according to them, animated the other membersof the club also at its birth. Ferguson says the club was founded"upon the principle of zeal for a militia and a conviction that therecould be no lasting security for the freedom and independence of theseislands but in the valour and patriotism of an armed people";[102]and when, during his travels in Switzerland in 1775, he saw for thefirst time in his life a real militia--the object of hisdreams--actually moving before him in the flesh, and going throughtheir drill, his heart came to his mouth, and he wrote his friendCarlyle: "As they were the only body of men I ever saw under arms onthe true principle for which arms should be carried, I felt muchsecret emotion, and could have shed tears. "[103] He was deeplydisappointed a year later with Smith's apostasy on this question, orat least opposition, for Ferguson makes no accusation of apostasy. After reading the _Wealth of Nations_, he wrote Smith on the 18th ofApril 1776: "You have provoked, too, so far the Church, theuniversities, and the merchants, against all of whom I am willing totake your part; but you have likewise provoked the militia, and thereI must be against you. The gentlemen and peasants of this country donot need the authority of philosophers to make them supine andnegligent of every resource they might have in themselves in the caseof certain extremities, of which the pressure, God knows, may be at nogreat distance. But of this more at Philippi. "[104]

But many others besides Smith had in this interval either found theirzeal for a militia grown cool or their opinion of its value modified, and when Lord Mountstuart introduced his new Scotch Militia Bill in1776, it received little support from Scotch members, and itsrejection excited nothing like the feeling roused by the rejection ofits predecessor in 1760, although it was attended this time with thegalling aggravation that what was refused to the Scotch was in thesame hour granted to the Irish, then the less disliked and distrustednation of the two. Opinions had grown divided. Old Fletcher ofSaltoun's idea of a citizen army with universal compulsory servicewas still much discussed, but many now objected to the compulsion, andothers, among whom was Lord Kames, to the universality of thecompulsion, rallying to the idea of Fencibles--_i. E. _ regiments to beraised compulsorily by the landed proprietors, each furnishing anumber of men proportioned to their valued rent. [105] Smith said amilitia formed in this way, like the old Highland militia, was thebest of all militias, but he held that the day was past for militiasof men with one hand on the sword and the other on the plough, andthat nothing could now answer for what he calls "the noblest of allarts, " the art of war, but the division of labour, which answered bestfor the arts of peace, and a standing army of soldiers by exclusiveoccupation. 

Divided counsels and diminished zeal supply, no doubt, the main reasonfor the decay of the Poker Club, but other causes combined. Dr. Carlyle, who was an active member of the club, says it began todecline when it transferred itself to more elegant quarters atFortune's, because its dinners became too expensive for the members;and Lord Campbell attributes its dissolution definitely to the newtaxes imposed on French wines to pay the cost of the American War. Hisstatement is very explicit: "To punish the Government they agreed todissolve the 'Poker, ' and to form another society which should existwithout consumption of any excisable commodity. "[106] But he gives noauthority for the statement, and they are at least not likely to havebeen such fools as to think of punishing the Government by what wasafter all only an excellent way of punishing themselves. The wine dutywas no doubt a real enough grievance; it was raised five or six timesduring the club's existence, and many a man who enjoyed his quart ofBurgundy when the duty was less than half-a-crown a gallon, wasobliged to do without it when the duty rose to seven shillings. Itmay be worth adding, however, that the Poker Club was revived as theYounger Poker Club in the very year, 1786, when the duty on Burgundywas reduced again by the new Commercial Treaty with France. 

FOOTNOTES:

[75] Southey's Life of A. Bell, i. 23. 

[76] Oswald had just been appointed commissioner for trade andplantations. 

[77] _Correspondence of James Oswald_, p. 124. 

[78] Burton's _Life of Hume_, i. 375. 

[79] Mr. Burton thinks the Society mentioned in this paragraph to be"evidently the Philosophical Society" of Edinburgh, but it seems muchmore likely to have been the Literary Society of Glasgow, of whichHume was also a member. Of the Philosophical Society he was himselfSecretary, and would therefore have been in the position of givingwarning rather than receiving it; nor would he have spoken of sendingthat Society a paper which he would be on the spot to read himself. Whether Smith was Secretary of the Glasgow Literary Society I do notknow, but even if he were not it would be nothing strange though thecommunications of the Society with Hume were carried on through Smith, his chief friend among the members, and his regular correspondent. 

[80] Burton's _Life of Hume_, i. 417. 

[81] Carlyle's _Autobiography_, p. 275. 

[82] Burton's Scot Abroad, ii. 340. 

[83] Minutes of Select Society, Advocates' Library, Edinburgh. 

[84] Ibid. 

[85] _Scots Magazine_, xix. 163. 

[86] Burton's _Scot Abroad_, ii. 343. 

[87] _Scots Magazine_ for year 1755, p. 126. 

[88] Lord Campbell's _Lives of the Chancellors_, vi. 32. 

[89] _Scots Magazine_, xxvi. 229. 

[90] The _Bee_ for June 1791. 

[91] Tytler's _Life of Lord Kames_, i. 233. 

[92] _Life of John Home_, p. 24. 

[93] Burton's _Scot Abroad_, ii. 343. 

[94] Douglas's _Select Works_, p. 23. 

[95] The _Bee_ for 1791. 

[96] Burton's _Life of Hume_, ii. 16. 

[97] Professor of Logic. 

[98] Burton's _Life of Hume_, ii. 45. 

[99] Fraser's _The Lennox_, p. Xliv. 

[100] _Carlyle Correspondence_, Edinburgh University Library. 

[101] _Wealth of Nations_, Book V. Chap. I. 

[102] "Memoirs of Black, " _Transactions, _ R. S. E. , v. 113. 

[103] _Carlyle Correspondence, _ Edinburgh University. 

[104] Small, _Sketch of A. Ferguson, _ p. 23. 

[105] Kames, _Sketches of Man_, Book II. Chap. Ix. 

[106] Campbell's _Lives of the Lord Chancellors_, vi. 28. 

CHAPTER IX

THE "THEORY OF MORAL SENTIMENTS"

1759. _Aet. _ 36

Smith enjoyed a very high Scotch reputation long before his name wasknown to the great public by any contribution to literature. But in1759 he gave his _Theory of Moral Sentiments_ to the press, and tookhis place, by almost immediate and universal recognition, in the firstrank of contemporary writers. The book is an essay supporting andillustrating the doctrine that moral approbation and disapprobationare in the last analysis expressions of sympathy with the feelings ofan imaginary and impartial spectator, and its substance had alreadybeen given from year to year in his ordinary lectures to his students, though after the publication he thought it no longer necessary todwell at the same length on this branch of his course, giving moretime, no doubt, to jurisprudence and political economy. The book waspublished in London by Andrew Millar in two vols. 8vo. It was from thefirst well received, its ingenuity, eloquence, and great copiousnessof effective illustration being universally acknowledged and admired. Smith sent a copy to Hume in London, and received the following reply, which contains some interesting particulars of the reception of thebook there:--

 LONDON, _12th April 1759_. 

 DEAR SIR--I give you thanks for the agreeable present of your _Theory_. Wedderburn and I made presents of our copies to such of our acquaintances as we thought good judges and proper to spread the reputation of the book. I sent one to the Duke of Argyle, to Lord Lyttelton, Horace Walpole, Soame Jenyns, and Burke, an Irish gentleman who wrote lately a very pretty treatise on the Sublime. Millar desired my permission to send one in your name to Dr. Warburton. 

 I have delayed writing you till I could tell you something of the success of the book, and could prognosticate with some probability whether it should be finally damned to oblivion or should be registered in the temple of immortality. Though it has been published only a few weeks, I think there appear already such strong symptoms that I can almost venture to foretell its fate. It is, in short, this--

 But I have been interrupted in my letter by a foolish impertinent visit of one who has lately come from Scotland. He tells me that the University of Glasgow intend to declare Rouet's office vacant upon his going abroad with Lord Hope. I question not but you will have our friend Ferguson in your eye, in case another project for procuring him a place in the University of Edinburgh should fail. Ferguson has very much polished and improved his _Treatise on Refinement_, and with some amendments it will make an admirable book, and discovers an elegant and singular genius. The _Epigoniad_, I hope, will do, but it is somewhat uphill work. As I doubt not but you consult the Reviews sometimes at present, you will see in _The Critical Review_ a letter upon that poem; and I desire you to employ your conjectures in finding out the author. Let me see a sample of your skill in knowing hints by guessing at the person. 

 I am afraid of Kames's _Law Tracts_. The man might as well think of making a fine sauce by a mixture of wormwood and aloes as an agreeable combination by joining metaphysics and Scottish law. However, the book, I believe, has merit, though few people ever take the pains of inquiring into it. But to return to your book and its success in this town. I must tell you--

 A plague to interruptions! I ordered myself to be denied, and yet here is one that has broke in upon me again. He is a man of letters, and we have had a good deal of literary conversation. You told me that you was curious of literary anecdotes, and therefore I shall inform you of a few that have come to my knowledge. I believe I have mentioned to you already Helvetius's book _De l'Esprit_. It is worth your reading, not for its philosophy, which I do not highly value, but for its agreeable composition. I had a letter from him a few days ago, wherein he tells me that my name was much oftener in the manuscript, but that the censor of books at Paris obliged him to strike it out. 

 Voltaire has lately published a small work called _Candide, ou l'Optimisme_. I shall give you a detail of it. But what is all this to my book, say you? My dear Mr. Smith, have patience; compose yourself to tranquillity. Show yourself a philosopher in practice as well as profession. Think on the impotence and rashness and futility of the common judgments of men, how little they are regulated by reason on any subject, much more on philosophical subjects, which so far exceed the comprehension of the vulgar--

 Non, si quid turbida Roma Elevet, accedas: examenve improbum in iliâ Castiges trutinâ: nec te quaesiveris extra. 

 A wise man's kingdom is his own heart; or, if he ever looks farther, it will only be to the judgment of a select few, who are free from prejudices and capable of examining; his work. Nothing, indeed, can be a stronger presumption of falsehood than the approbation of the multitude; and Phocion, you know, always suspected himself of some blunder when he was attended with the applause of the populace. 

 Supposing, therefore, that you have duly prepared yourself for the worst by all these reflections, I proceed to tell you the melancholy news that your book has been very unfortunate, for the public seem disposed to applaud it extremely. It was looked for by the foolish people with some impatience; and the mob of literati are beginning already to be very loud in its praises. Three bishops called yesterday at Millar's shop in order to buy copies, and to ask questions about the author. The Bishop of Peterborough said he had passed the evening in a company where he heard it extolled above all books in the world. The Duke of Argyle is more decisive than he used to be in its favour. I suppose he either considers it as an exotic, or thinks the author will be very serviceable to him in the Glasgow elections. Lord Lyttelton says that Robertson and Smith and Bower[107] are the glories of English literature. Oswald protests he does not know whether he has reaped more instruction or entertainment from it, but you may easily judge what reliance can be placed on his judgment. He has been engaged all his life in public business, and he never sees any faults in his friends. Millar exults and brags that two-thirds of the edition are already sold, and that he is now sure of success. You see what a son of the earth that is, to value books only by the profit they bring him. In that view, I believe, it may prove a very good book. 

 Charles Townshend, who passes for the cleverest fellow in England, is so much taken with the performance that he said to Oswald he would put the Duke of Buccleugh under the author's care, and would make it worth his while to accept of that charge. As soon as I heard this I called on him twice with a view of talking with him about the matter, and of convincing him of the propriety of sending that young gentleman to Glasgow, for I could not hope that he could offer you any terms which would tempt you to renounce your professorship; but I missed him. Mr. Townshend passes for being a little uncertain in his resolutions, so perhaps you need not build much on his sally. 

 In recompense for so many mortifying things, which nothing but truth could have extorted from me, and which I could easily have multiplied to a greater number, I doubt not but you are so good a Christian as to return good for evil, and to flatter my vanity by telling me that all the godly in Scotland abuse me for my account of John Knox and the Reformation. I suppose you are glad to see my paper end, and that I am obliged to conclude with--Your humble servant. [108]

On the 28th of July Hume again writes from London on the samesubject:--

 I am very well acquainted with Bourke, [109] who was much taken with your book. He got your direction from me with a view of writing to you and thanking you for your present, for I made it pass in your name. I wonder he has not done it. He is now in Ireland. I am not acquainted with Jenyns, [110] but he spoke very highly of the book to Oswald, who is his brother in the Board of Trade. Millar showed me a few days ago a letter from Lord Fitzmaurice, [111] where he tells him that he has carried over a few copies to the Hague for presents. Mr. York[112] was very much taken with it, as well as several others who had read it. 

 I am told that you are preparing a new edition, and propose to make some additions and alterations in order to obviate objections. I shall use the freedom to propose one; which, if it appears to be of any weight, you may have in your eye. I wish you had more particularly and fully proved that all kinds of sympathy are agreeable. This is the hinge of your system, and yet you only mention the matter cursorily on p. 20. Now it would appear that there is a disagreeable sympathy as well as an agreeable. And, indeed, as the sympathetic passion is a reflex image of the principal, it must partake of its qualities, and be painful when that is so. Indeed, _when we converse with a man with whom we can entirely sympathise_, that is when there is a warm and intimate friendship, the cordial openness of such a commerce overbears the pain of a disagreeable sympathy, and renders the whole movement agreeable, but in ordinary cases this cannot have place. A man tired and disgusted with everything, always _ennuié_, sickly, complaining, embarrassed, such a one throws an evident damp on company, which I suppose would be accounted for by sympathy, and yet is disagreeable. 

 It is always thought a difficult problem to account for the pleasure from the tears and grief and sympathy of tragedy, which would not be the case if all sympathy was agreeable. An hospital would be a more entertaining place than a ball. I am afraid that on p. 99 and 111 this proposition has escaped you, or rather is interwoven with your reasoning. In that place you say expressly, "It is painful to go along with grief, and we always enter into it with reluctance. " It will probably be requisite for you to modify or explain this sentiment, and reconcile it to your system. [113]

Burke, who was thus reported by Hume to have been so much taken withthe book, reviewed it most favourably in the _Annual Register_, andnot only recognised Smith's theory as a new and ingenious one, butaccepted it as being "in all its essential parts just and founded ontruth and nature. " "The author, " he says, "seeks for the foundation ofthe just, the fit, the proper, the decent, in our most common and mostallowed passions, and making approbation and disapprobation the testsof virtue and vice, and showing that these are founded on sympathy, heraises from this simple truth one of the most beautiful fabrics ofmoral theory that has perhaps ever appeared. The illustrations arenumerous and happy, and show the author to be a man of uncommonobservation. His language is easy and spirited, and puts things beforeyou in the fullest light; it is rather painting than writing. "[114]One of the most interesting characteristics of the book, from abiographical point of view, is that mentioned by this reviewer; itcertainly shows the author to have been a man of uncommon observation, not only of his own mental states, but of the life and ways of menabout him; as Mackintosh remarks, the book has a high value for "thevariety of explanations of life and manners which embellish" it, apartaltogether from the thesis it is written to prove. [115]

Charles Townshend adhered to his purpose about Smith with much moresteadiness than Hume felt able to give him credit for. Townshend, itneed perhaps hardly be said, was the brilliant but flighty youngstatesman to whom we owe the beginnings of our difficulties withAmerica. He was the colonial minister who first awoke the question of"colonial rights, " by depriving the colonists of the appointment oftheir own judges, and he was the Chancellor of the Exchequer whoimposed the tea duty in 1767 which actually provoked the rebellion. "Aman, " says Horace Walpole, "endowed with every great talent, who musthave been the greatest man of his age if he had only common sincerity, common steadiness, and common sense. " "In truth, " said Burke, "he wasthe delight and ornament of this house, and the charm of every privatesociety which he honoured with his presence. Perhaps there never arosein this country nor in any other a man of a more pointed and finishedwit, and (when his passions were not concerned) of a more refined andexquisite and penetrating judgment. " He had in 1754 married theCountess of Dalkeith, daughter and co-heiress of the famous Duke ofArgyle and Greenwich, and widow of the eldest son of the Duke ofBuccleugh. She had been left with two sons by her first husband, ofwhom the eldest had succeeded his grandfather as Duke of Buccleugh in1751, and was now at Eton under the tutorship of Mr. Hallam, father ofthe historian. On leaving Eton he was to travel abroad with a tutorfor some time, and it was for this post of tutor to the Duke abroadthat Townshend, after reading the _Theory of Moral Sentiments_, hadset his heart on engaging its author. 

Townshend bore, as Hume hints, a bad character for changeability. Hewas popularly nicknamed the Weathercock, and a squib of the day oncereported that Mr. Townshend was ill of a pain in his side, butregretted that it was not said on which side. But he stood firmly tohis project about Smith; paid him a visit in Glasgow that very summer, saw much of him, invited him to Dalkeith House, arranged with himabout the selection and despatch of a number of books for the youngDuke's study, and seems to have arrived at a general understandingwith Smith that the latter should accept the tutorship when the timecame. Townshend of course delighted the Glasgow professors during thisvisit, as he delighted everybody, but he seems in turn to have beendelighted with them, for William Hunter wrote Cullen a little later inthe same year that Townshend had come back from Scotland passing thehighest encomiums on everybody. Smith seems to have acted as his chiefcicerone in Glasgow, as appears from one of the trivial incidentswhich were all that the contemporary writers of Smith's obituarynotices seemed able to learn of his life. He was showing Townshend thetannery, one of the spectacles of Glasgow at the time--"an amazingsight, " Pennant calls it--and walked in his absent way right into thetanpit, from which, however, he was immediately rescued without anyharm. 

In September 1759, on the death of Mr. Townshend's brother, Smithwrote him the following letter:--[116]

 SIR--It gives me great concern that the first letter I ever have done myself the honour to write to you should be upon so melancholy an occasion. As your Brother was generally known here, he is universally regretted, and your friends are sorry that, amidst the public rejoicings and prosperity, your family should have occasion to be in mourning. Everybody here remembers you with the greatest admiration and affection, and nothing that concerns you is indifferent to them, and there are more people who sympathise with you than you are aware of. It would be the greatest pedantry to offer any topics of consolation to you who are naturally so firm and so manly. As your Brother dyed in the service of his country, you have the best and the noblest consolation: That since it has pleased God to deprive you of the satisfaction you might have expected from the continuance of his life, it has at least been so ordered that y^e manner of his death does you honour. 

 You left Scotland so much sooner than you proposed, when I had the pleasure of seeing you at Glasgow, that I had not an opportunity of making you a visit at Dalkieth (_sic_), as I intended, before you should return to London. 

 I sent about a fortnight ago the books which you ordered for the Duke of Buccleugh to Mr. Campbell at Edinburgh. [117] I paid for them, according to your orders, as soon as they were ready. I send you enclosed a list of them, with the prices discharged on the back. You will compare with the books when they arrive. Mr. Campbell will further them to London. I should have wrote to you of this a fortnight ago, but my natural dilatoriness prevented me. --I ever am, with the greatest esteem and regard, your most obliged and most obedient humble servant, ADAM SMITH. 

 COLLEGE OF GLASGOW, _17th September 1759. _

The second edition of the _Theory_, which Hume was anticipatingimmediately in 1759, did not appear till 1761, and it contained noneof the alterations or additions he expected; but the _Dissertation onthe Origin of Languages_ was for the first time published along withit. The reason for the omission of the other additions is difficult todiscover, for the author had not only prepared them, but gone thelength of placing them in the printer's hands in 1760, as appears fromthe following letter. They did not appear either in the third editionin 1767, or the fourth in 1774, or the fifth in 1781; nor till thesixth, which was published, with considerable additions andcorrections, immediately before the author's death in 1790. Theearlier editions were published at 6s. , and the 1790 edition at 12s. This was the last edition published in the author's lifetime, and ithas been many times republished in the century that has elapsed since. This is the letter just referred to:--

 DEAR STRAHAN--I sent up to Mr. Millar four or five Posts ago the same additions which I had formerly sent to you, with a good many corrections and improvements which occurred to me since. If there are any typographical errors remaining in the last edition which had escaped me, I hope you will correct them. In other respects I could wish it was printed pretty exactly according to the copy which I delivered to you. A man, says the Spanish proverb, had better be a cuckold and know nothing of the matter, than not be a cuckold and believe himself to be one. And in the same manner, say I, an author had sometimes better be in the wrong and believe himself in the right, than be in the right and believe or even suspect himself to be in the wrong. To desire you to read my book over and mark all the corrections you would wish me to make upon a sheet of paper and send it to me, would, I fear, be giving you too much trouble. If, however, you could induce yourself to take this trouble, you would oblige me greatly; I know how much I shall be benefitted, and I shall at the same time preserve the pretious right of private judgment, for the sake of which our forefathers kicked out the Pope and the Pretender. I believe you to be much more infallible than the Pope, but as I am a Protestant, my conscience makes me scruple to submit to any unscriptural authority. 

 _Apropos_ to the Pope and the Pretender, have you read Hook's Memoirs?[118] I have been ill these ten days, otherwise I should have written to you sooner, but I sat up the day before yesterday in my bed and read them thro' with infinite satisfaction, tho' they are by no means well written. The substance of what is in them I knew before, tho' not in such detail. I am afraid they are published at an unlucky time, and may throw a damp upon our militia. Nothing, however, appears to me more excusable than the disaffection of Scotland at that time. The Union was a measure from which infinite good has been derived to this country. The Prospect of that good, however, must then have appeared very remote and very uncertain. The immediate effect of it was to hurt the interest of every single order of men in the country. The dignity of the nobility was undone by it. The greater part of the gentry who had been accustomed to represent their own country in its own Parliament were cut out for ever from all hopes of representing it in a British Parliament. Even the merchants seemed to suffer at first. The trade to the Plantations was, indeed, opened to them. But that was a trade which they knew nothing about; the trade they were acquainted with, that to France, Holland, and the Baltic, was laid under new embar(r)assments, which almost totally annihilated the two first and most important branches of it. The Clergy, too, who were then far from insignificant, were alarmed about the Church. No wonder if at that time all orders of men conspired in cursing a measure so hurtful to their immediate interest. The views of their Posterity are now very different; but those views could be seen by but few of our forefathers, by those few in but a confused and imperfect manner. 

 It will give me the greatest satisfaction to hear from you. I pray you write to me soon. Remember me to the Franklins. I hope I shall have the grace to write to the youngest by next post to thank him, in the name both of the College and of myself, for his very agreeable present. Remember me likewise to Mr. Griffiths. I am greatly obliged to him for the very handsom character he gave of my book in his review. --I ever am, dear Strahan, most faithfully and sincerely yours, ADAM SMITH. 

 GLASGOW, _4th April 1760_. [119]

The Franklins mentioned in this letter are Benjamin Franklin and hisson, who had spent six weeks in Scotland in the spring of the previousyear--"six weeks, " said Franklin, "of the densest happiness I have metwith in any part of my life. " We know from Dr. Carlyle that duringthis visit Franklin met Smith one evening at supper at Robertson's inEdinburgh, but it seems from this letter highly probable that he hadgone through to Glasgow, and possibly stayed with Smith at theCollege. Why otherwise should the younger, or, as Smith says, youngest, Franklin have thought of making a presentation to GlasgowCollege, or Smith of thanking him not merely in the name of theCollege, but in his own? Strahan was one of Franklin's most intimateprivate friends. They took a pride in one another as old compositorswho had risen in the world; and Smith had no doubt heard of, andperhaps from, the Franklins in some of Strahan's previous letters. 

The Mr. Griffiths to whom Smith desires to be remembered was theeditor of the _Monthly Review_, in which a favourable notice of hisbook had appeared in the preceding July. 

FOOTNOTES:

[107] Burton thinks with great probability that this junction of nameswas meant as a sarcasm on Lord Lyttelton's taste. 

[108] Burton's _Life of Hume_, ii. 55. 

[109] Edmund Burke. 

[110] Soame Jenyns. 

[111] Afterwards the Earl of Shelburne, the statesman. 

[112] Probably Charles Yorke, afterwards Lord Chancellor Morden. 

[113] Burton's _Hume_, ii. 59. 

[114] _Annual Register_, 1776, p. 485. 

[115] Mackintosh, _Miscellaneous Works_, i. 151. 

[116] _Buccleuch MSS. _, Dalkeith Palace. 

[117] Mr. Campbell was the Duke's law-agent. 

[118] _The Secret History of Colonel Hooke's Negotiations in Scotlandin Favour of the Pretender in 1707_, written by himself. London, 1760. 

[119] Bonar's _Catalogue of Adam Smith's Library_, p. X. 

CHAPTER X

FIRST VISIT TO LONDON

1761. _Aet. _ 38

Smith visited London for the first time in September 1761, when Humeand probably others of his Scotch friends happened to be alreadythere. He had not visited London in the course of his seven years'residence at Oxford, for, as Mr. Rogers reports, the Balliol ButteryBooks show him never to have left Oxford at all during that time, andhe had not visited London in the course of the first ten years hespent in Glasgow, otherwise the University would be certain to havepreserved some record of it. For Glasgow University had much businessto transact in London at that period, and would be certain to havecommissioned Smith, if he was known to be going there, to transactsome of that business for it. It never did so, however, till 1761. Butin that year, on the 16th of June, the Senate having learned Smith'spurpose of going to London, authorise him to get the accounts of theordinary revenue of the College and the subdeanery for crops 1755, 1756, 1757, and 1758 cleared with the Treasury (that public officebeing then always in deep arrears with its work); to meet with Mr. Joshua Sharpe and settle his accounts with respect to the lands givento the College by Dr. Williams (the Dr. Williams of Williams'sLibrary); to inquire into the state of the division of Snell's estateas to Coleburn farm, and the affair of the Prebends of Lincoln; and toget all particulars about the £500 costs in the Snell lawsuit withBalliol, which had to be paid to the University. Those documents weredelivered, on the 27th of August, to Smith _in præsentia_, and then onthe 15th of October, after his return, he reported what he had done, and produced a certificate, signed by the Secretary to the Treasury, finding that the University had in the four years specified and theyears preceding expended above their revenue the sum of£2631:6:5-11/12. I mention all these details with the view of showingthat during Smith's residence in Glasgow the University had a varietyof important and difficult business to transact in London, which theywould be always glad to get one of their own number to attend topersonally on the spot, and that as Smith was never asked to transactany of this business for them except in 1761, it may almost withcertainty be inferred that he never was in London on any otheroccasion during his connection with that University. 

Now this journey to London in 1761 is memorable because it constitutedthe economic "road to Damascus" for a future Prime Minister ofEngland. It was during this journey, I believe, that Smith had LordShelburne for his travelling companion, and converted the youngstatesman to free trade. In 1795 Shelburne (then become Marquis ofLansdowne) writes Dugald Stewart: "I owe to a journey I made with Mr. Smith from Edinburgh to London the difference between light anddarkness through the best part of my life. The novelty of hisprinciples, added to my youth and prejudices, made me unable tocomprehend them at the time, but he urged them with so muchbenevolence, as well as eloquence, that they took a certain holdwhich, though it did not develop itself so as to arrive at fullconviction for some few years after, I can truly say has constitutedever since the happiness of my life, as well as the source of anylittle consideration I may have enjoyed in it. "[120]

Shelburne was the first English statesman, except perhaps Burke, whograsped and advocated free trade as a broad political principle; andthough his biographer, Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice, attributes hisconversion to Morellet, it is plain from the letter to Stewart thatMorellet had only watered, it was Smith that sowed. 

It is important, therefore, to fix if possible the date of thisinteresting journey. It occurred, Lord Shelburne says, in his ownyouth, and the only journeys to London Smith made during the periodwhich with any reasonable stretching may be called Shelburne's youth, were made in 1761, 1763, and 1773. Now we have no positive knowledgeof Shelburne being in Scotland any of these years, but in 1761 hisbrother, the Hon. Thomas Fitzmaurice, who had been studying underSmith in Glasgow, and living in Smith's house, left Glasgow forOxford; and Shelburne, who, since his father's death that very year, was taking, as we know from his correspondence with Sir WilliamBlackstone on the subject, a very responsible concern in his youngerbrother's education and welfare, may very probably have gone toScotland to attend him back. This circumstance seems to turn thebalance in favour of 1761 and against the other two dates. 

It is almost certain that the journey was not in 1773, for Shelburnewould hardly have thought of himself as so young at that date, sixyears after he had been Secretary of State, and besides he hadprobably cast off his prejudices by that time, and was already (as weshall presently find) receiving instruction from Smith on colonialpolicy in 1767; and whether it was 1761 or 1763, it in either caseshows at what a long period before the appearance of the _Wealth ofNations_ Smith was advocating those broad principles which struckShelburne at the time for their "novelty, " and were only fullycomprehended and accepted by him a few years afterwards. 

Of Smith's visit to London on this occasion we know almost noparticulars, but I think the notorious incident of his altercationwith Johnson at the house of Strahan the printer must be referred tothis visit. The story was told by Robertson to Boswell and AllanRamsay, the painter, one evening in 1778, when they were diningtogether at the painter's house, and Johnson was expected as one ofthe guests. Before the doctor arrived the conversation happened toturn on him, and Robertson said, "He and I have always been verygracious. The first time I met him was one evening at Strahan's, whenhe had just had an unlucky altercation with Adam Smith, to whom he hadbeen so rough that Strahan, after Smith was gone, had remonstrated, and told him that I was coming soon, and that he was uneasy to thinkthat he might behave in the same way to me. 'No, no, sir, ' saidJohnson, 'I warrant you Robertson and I shall do very well. 'Accordingly he was gentle and good-humoured and gracious with me thewhole evening, and he has been so on every occasion that we have metsince. I have often said laughing that I have been in a great measureindebted to Smith for my good reception. "[121]

Now this incident must have occurred years before 1778, the date ofRamsay's dinner-party at which it was related, for Robertson speaks ofhaving met Johnson many times between; and it probably occurred before1763, because in 1763 Boswell mentions in his journal having toldJohnson one evening that Smith had in his lectures in Glasgowexpressed the strongest preference for rhyme over blank verse, andJohnson alludes in his reply to an unfriendly meeting he had once hadwith Smith. "Sir, " said he, "I was once in company with Smith, and wedid not take to each other, but had I known that he loved rhyme somuch as you tell me he does I should have hugged him. "[122] Thisanswer seems to imply that the meeting was not quite recent--not in1763--and if it occurred before 1763, it must have been in 1761. 

It was, no doubt, this unhappy altercation that gave rise to thelegendary anecdote which has obtained an immortality it ill deserved, but which cannot be passed over here, because it has been given to theworld by three independent authorities of such importance as SirWalter Scott, Lord Jeffrey, and Bishop Wilberforce. Scott communicatesthe anecdote to Croker for his edition of Boswell's _Johnson_, as itwas told him by Professor John Millar of Glasgow, who had it fromSmith himself the night the affair happened. Wilberforce gives itostensibly as it was heard by his father from Smith's lips; andJeffrey, in reviewing Wilberforce's book in the _Edinburgh Review_, says he heard the story, in substantially the same form as Wilberforcetells it, nearly fifty years before, "from the mouth of one of a partyinto which Mr. Smith came immediately after the collision. "

The story, as told by Scott, is in this wise:[123] "Mr. Boswell haschosen to omit (in his account of Johnson's visit to Glasgow), forreasons which will be presently obvious, that Johnson and Adam Smithmet at Glasgow; but I have been assured by Professor John Millar thatthey did so, and that Smith, leaving the party in which he had metJohnson, happened to come to another company where Millar was. Knowingthat Smith had been in Johnson's society, they were anxious to knowwhat had passed, and the more so as Dr. Smith's temper seemed muchruffled. At first Smith would only answer, 'He's a brute; he's abrute;' but on closer examination it appeared that Johnson no soonersaw Smith than he attacked him for some point of his famous letter onthe death of Hume. Smith vindicated the truth of his statement. 'Whatdid Johnson say?' was the universal inquiry. 'Why, he said, ' repliedSmith, with the deepest impression of resentment, 'he said, You lie. ''And what did you reply?' 'I said, You are a son of a ----!' On suchterms did these two great moralists meet and part, and such was theclassical dialogue between two great teachers of philosophy. "

Wilberforce's version is identical with Scott's, except that itcommits the absurdity of making Smith tell not the story itself, butthe story of his first telling it. "'Some of our friends, ' said AdamSmith, 'were anxious that we should meet, and a party was arranged forthe purpose in the course of the evening. I was soon after enteringanother society, and perhaps with a manner a little confused. "Haveyou met Dr. Johnson?" my friends exclaimed. "Yes, I have. " "And whatpassed between you?"'" and so on. All this at any rate is legendaryoutgrowth on the very face of it, and nonsensical even for that. Buteven the story itself, as told so circumstantially by Scott, isdemonstrably mythical in most of its circumstances. Johnson was neverin Glasgow except one day, the 29th of October 1773, and in October1773 Smith was in London, and as we know from an incidentalparenthesis in the _Wealth of Nations_, [124] engaged in thecomposition of that great work. Hume, again, did not die till 1776, sothat there were better and more "obvious reasons" than Scott imaginedfor Boswell's omitting mention of a meeting between Johnson and Smithat Glasgow which never took place, and a collision between them abouta famous letter which was not then written. Time, place, and subjectare all alike wrong, but these Scott might think but the mortal partsof the story, and he sometimes varied them in the telling himself. Moore heard him tell it at his own table at Abbotsford somewhatdifferently from the version he gave to Croker. [125] But when so muchis plainly the insensible creation of the imagination, what reliancecan be placed on the remainder? All we know is that apparently attheir very first meeting those two philosophers did, in Strahan'shouse in London in September 1761, have a personal altercation of anoutrageous character, at which, if not the very words reported byScott, then words quite as strong must manifestly have passed betweenthem; that their host declared Johnson to be entirely in the wrong, and that Smith withdrew from the company, and would very possibly go, as the story relates, to another company, his Scotch friends at theBritish Coffee-House in Cockspur Street, then the great Scotchresort, --a house which was kept by the sister of his friend BishopDouglas, which was frequented much by Wedderburn, John Home, andothers, and to which Smith's own letters used to be addressed. 

One thing remains to be said: if the world has never been able tosuffer this little morsel of scandal to be forgotten, the twoprincipals in the feud themselves were able to forget it entirely. Smith was at a later period in the habit of meeting Johnson constantlyat the table of common friends in London, and was elected in 1775 amember of Johnson's famous club, which would of course have beenimpossible--and indeed in so small a society never have been thoughtof--had the slightest remnant of animosity continued on either side. Johnson, it is true, was still occasionally rude to Smith, as he wasoccasionally rude to every other member of the club; and certainlySmith never established with him anything of the cordial personalfriendship he enjoyed with Burke, Gibbon, or Reynolds; but theircommon membership in the Literary Club is proof of the complete burialof their earlier quarrel. 

FOOTNOTES:

[120] Stewart's _Life of Smith; Works_, ed. Hamilton, vol. X. P. 95. 

[121] Boswell's _Johnson_, ed. Hill, iii. 331. 

[122] _Ibid. _ i. 427. 

[123] Boswell's _Johnson_, ed. Hill, v. 369. 

[124] Book IV. Chap. Vii. 

[125] Russell's _Life of Moore_, p. 338. 

CHAPTER XI

LAST YEAR IN GLASGOW

1763. _Aet. _ 40

In 1763 the Rev. William Ward of Broughton, chaplain to the Marquis ofRockingham, was bringing out his _Essay on Grammar_, which Sir WilliamHamilton thought "perhaps the most philosophical essay on the Englishlanguage extant, " and sent an abstract of it to Smith through a commonfriend, Mr. George Baird, to whom Smith wrote the following letter onthe subject:--[126]

 GLASGOW, _7th February 1763_. 

 DEAR SIR--I have read over the contents of your Friend's work with very great pleasure; and heartily wish it was in my power to give, or to procure him all the encouragement which his ingenuity and industry deserve. I think myself greatly obliged to him for the very obliging notice he has been pleased to take of me, and should be glad to contribute anything in my power to compleating his design. I approve greatly of his plan for a Rational Grammar, and am convinced that a work of this kind, executed with his abilities and industry, may prove not only the best system of grammar, but the best system of logic in any language, as well as the best history of the natural progress of the human mind in forming the most important abstractions upon which all reasoning depends. From the short abstract which Mr. Ward has been so good as to send me, it is impossible for me to form any very decisive judgment concerning the propriety of every part of his method, particularly of some of his divisions. If I was to treat the same subject, I should endeavour to begin with the consideration of verbs; these being in my apprehension the original parts of speech, first invented to express in one word a compleat event; I should then have endeavoured to show how the subject was divided to form the attribute, and afterwards how the object was distinguished from both; and in this manner I should have tried to investigate the origin and use of all the different parts of speech and of all their different modifications, considered as necessary to express the different qualifications and relations of any single event. Mr. Ward, however, may have excellent reasons for following his own method; and perhaps if I was engaged in the same task I should find it necessary to follow the same; things frequently appearing in a very different light when taken in a general view, which is the only view I can pretend to have taken of them, and when considered in detail. 

 Mr. Ward, when he mentions the definitions which different authors have given of nouns substantive, takes no notice of that of the Abbé Girard, the author of the book called _Les Vrais Principes de la Langue Françoise_, which made me think it might be possible that he had not seen it. It is the book which first set me a thinking upon these subjects, and I have received more instruction from it than from any other I have yet seen upon them. If Mr. Ward has not seen it, I have it at his service. The grammatical articles, too, in the French _Encyclopédie_ have given me a good deal of entertainment. Very probably Mr. Ward has seen both these works, and as he may have considered the subject more than I have done, may think less of them. Remember me to Mrs. Baird and Mr. Oswald, and believe me to be, with great truth, dear sir, sincerely yours, ADAM SMITH. 

Shortly after the date of this letter, Smith, who was now probablybeginning to see the approach of the day when he would lay down hisGlasgow professorship in order to superintend the studies of the youngDuke of Buccleugh, writes David Hume, pressing for his long-promisedvisit to the West. The occasion of the letter is to introduce a younggentleman of whom I know nothing, but who was doubtless one of theEnglish students who were attracted to Glasgow by Smith's rising fame. He was possibly the first Earl of Carnarvon, of whose uncle, NicholasHerbert, Smith told Rogers the story that he had read over once a listof the Eton boys and repeated it four years afterwards to his nephew, then Lord Porchester. Smith said he knew him well. The letter is asfollows:--

 MY DEAR HUME--This letter will be presented to you by Mr. Henry Herbert, a young gentleman who is very well acquainted with your works, and upon that account extremely desirous of being introduced to the authour. As I am convinced that you will find him extremely agreeable, I shall make no apology for introducing him. He proposes to stay a few days in Edinburgh while the company are there, and would be glad to have the liberty of calling upon you sometimes when it suits your conveniency to receive him. If you indulge him in this, both he and I will think ourselves infinitely obliged to you. 

 You have been long promising us a visit at Glasgow, and I have made Mr. Herbert promise to endeavour to bring you along with him. Though you have resisted all my sollicitations, I hope you will not resist his. I hope I need not tell you that it will give me the greatest pleasure to see you. --I ever am, my dear friend, most affectionately and sincerely yours, ADAM SMITH. 

 GLASGOW, _22nd February 1763_. [127]

To that letter Hume returned the following answer:--

 DEAR SMITH--I was obliged to you both for your kind letter and for the opportunity which you afforded me of making acquaintance with Mr. Herbert, who appears to me a very promising young man. I set up a chaise in May next, which will give me the liberty of travelling about, and you may be sure a journey to Glasgow will be one of the first I shall undertake. I intend to require with great strictness an account how you have been employing your Leisure, and I desire you to be ready for that purpose. Wo be to you if the Ballance be against you. Your friends here will also expect that I should bring you with me. It seems to me very long since I saw you. --Most sincerely, DAVID HUME. 

 EDINBURGH, _28th March 1763_. [128]

This long-meditated visit was apparently never accomplished, thechaise, notwithstanding. Only a few months more pass and the scenecompletely changes; the two friends are one after the othertransported suddenly to France on new vocations, and their firstmeeting now was in Paris. 

Hume writes Smith from Edinburgh on the 9th of August 1763 intimatinghis appointment as Secretary to the English Embassy at Paris, andbidding him adieu. "I am a little hurried, " he says, "in mypreparations, but I could not depart without bidding you adieu, mygood friend, and without acquainting you with the reasons of so suddena movement. I have not great expectations of revisiting this countrysoon, but I hope it will not be impossible; but we may meet abroad, which will be a great satisfaction to me. "[129]

Smith's reply has not been preserved, but it seems to have containedamong other things a condemnation, in Smith's most decisive style, ofthe recent proceedings of his friend Lord Shelburne in connection withvarious intrigues and negotiations set agoing by the Court and LordBute with the view of increasing the power of the Crown in Englishpolitics. That appears from a letter Hume writes Smith from London on13th September, wanting information about his new chief's eldest son, Lord Beauchamp, regarding whom he had once heard Smith mentionsomething told by "that severe critic Mr. Herbert, " and to whom Humewas now to act in the capacity of tutor in conjunction with hisofficial duties as Secretary of Legation. Then after relating thestory of Bute's negotiations with Pitt through Shelburne, and statingthat Lord Shelburne resigned because he found himself obnoxious onaccount of his share in that negotiation, he says: "I see you are muchincensed with that nobleman, but he always speaks of you with regard. I hear that your pupil, Mr. Fitzmaurice, makes a very good figure atParis. "[130]

Smith was always a stout Whig, strongly opposed to any attempt toincrease the power of the Crown, and cordially denounced Bute and allhis works. He was delighted with the famous No. 45 of the _NorthBriton_, published in the April of this very year 1763, and afterreading it exclaimed to Dr. Carlyle, "Bravo! this fellow (Wilkes) willeither be hanged in six months, or he will get Lord Buteimpeached. "[131] Shelburne after his resignation in September votedagainst the Court in the Wilkes affair, but up till then, at any rate, his public conduct could not be viewed by a man of Smith's politicalprinciples with anything but the most absolute condemnation, and thecondemnation would be all the stronger because, from personalintercourse with his lordship, Smith knew that he was really a man ofliberal mind and reforming spirit, from whom he had a right to lookfor better things. 

When Hume arrived in France the first letter he wrote to any of hisfriends at home was to Smith. He had been only a week in the country, and describes his first experiences of the curious transformation hethen suddenly underwent: from being the object of attack and reproachand persecution for half a lifetime among the honest citizens ofEdinburgh, he had become the idol of extravagant worship among thegreat and powerful at the Court of France. 

"During the last days in particular, " he says, "that I have been atFontainebleau I have _suffered_ (the expression is not improper) asmuch flattery as almost any man has ever done in the same time, butthere are few days in my life when I have been in good health that Iwould not rather pass over again. 

"I had almost forgot in this effusion, shall I say, of my misanthropyor my vanity to mention the subject which first put my pen in my hand. The Baron d'Holbach, whom I saw at Paris, told me that there was oneunder his eye that was translating your _Theory of Moral Sentiments_, and desired me to inform you of it. Mr. Fitzmaurice, your oldfriend, [132] interests himself strongly in this undertaking. Both ofthem wish to know if you propose to make any alteration on thework, and desire you to inform me of your intentions in thatparticular. "[133]

Hume's hope of their "not impossible" meeting in Paris was destined tobe gratified sooner than he could have conjectured. A few days beforeSmith received this letter from Hume he had received likewise thefollowing letter from Charles Townshend, intimating that the time hadnow come for the Duke of Buccleugh to go abroad, and renewing to Smiththe offer of the post of travelling tutor to his Grace:--

 Dear Sir--The time now drawing near when the Duke of Buccleugh intends to go abroad, I take the liberty of renewing the subject to you: that if you should still have the same disposition to travel with Him I may have the satisfaction of informing Lady Dalkeith and His Grace of it, and of congratulating them upon an event which I know that they, as well as myself, have so much at heart. The Duke is now at Eton: He will remain there until Christmass. He will then spend some short time in London, that he may be presented at Court, and not pass instantaneously from school to a foreign country; but it were to be wished He should not be long in Town, exposed to the habits and companions of London, before his mind has been more formed and better guarded by education and experience. 

 I do not enter at this moment upon the subject of establishment, because if you have no objection to the situation, I know we cannot differ about the terms. On the contrary, you will find me more sollicitous than yourself to make the connection with Buccleugh as satisfactory and advantageous to you as I am persuaded it will be essentially beneficial to him. 

 The Duke of Buccleugh has lately made great progress both in his knowledge of ancient languages and in his general taste for composition. With these improvements his amusement from reading and his love of instruction have naturally increased. He has sufficient talents: a very manly temper, and an integrity of heart and reverence for truth, which in a person of his rank and fortune are the firmest foundation of weight in life and uniform greatness. If it should be agreeable to you to finish his education, and mould these excellent materials into a settled character, I make no doubt but he will return to his family and country the very man our fondest hopes have fancied him. 

 I go to Town next Friday, and should be obliged to you for your answer to this letter. --I am, with sincere affection and esteem, dear sir, your most faithful and most obedient humble servant, C. TOWNSHEND. 

 Lady Dalkeith presents her compliments to you. 

 ADDERBURY, _25th October 1763_. [134]

Smith accepted the offer. The terms were a salary of £300 a year, withtravelling expenses while abroad, and a pension of £300 a year forlife afterwards. He was thus to have twice his Glasgow income, and tohave it assured till death. The pension was no doubt a principalinducement to a Scotch professor in those days to take such a post, for a Scotch professor had then no resource in his old age except theprice he happened to receive for his chair from his successor in theevent of his resignation; and we find several of them--Professors Moorand Robert Simson of Glasgow among others--much harassed withpecuniary cares in their last years. Smith's remuneration was liberal, but nothing beyond what was usual in such situations at the time. Dr. John Moore, who gave up his medical practice in Glasgow a few yearslater to be tutor to the young Duke of Hamilton, got also £300 a yearwhile actively employed in the tutorship and a pension of £100 a yearafterwards. [135] Professor Rouet, who, as already mentioned, sacrificed his chair in Glasgow for his tutorial appointment, is saidto have received a pension of £500 a year from Lord Hopetoun, inaddition to a pension of £50 he received, in consideration of previousservices of the same kind, from Sir John Maxwell; and Professor AdamFerguson, who was appointed tutor to the Earl of Chesterfield onSmith's recommendation, had £400 a year while on duty, and a pensionof £200 a year, which he lived to enjoy for forty years after, receiving from first to last nearly £9000 for his two years' work. Smith did almost as well, for with the pension, which he drew fortwenty-four years, he got altogether more than £8000 for his threeyears' service. 

This residence abroad for a few years with a competent tutor was thena common substitute for a university education. The Duke of Buccleugh, for example, was never sent to a university after he came back fromhis travels with Smith, but married almost immediately on his return, and entered directly into the active duties of life. It was generallythought that travel really supplied a more liberal education and abetter preparation for life for a young man of the world thanresidence at a university; and it is not uninteresting to recall herehow strongly Smith disagrees with that opinion in the _Wealth ofNations_, while admitting that some excuse could be found for it inthe low state of learning into which the English universities hadsuffered themselves to fall:--

"In England it becomes every day more and more the custom to sendyoung people to travel in foreign countries immediately upon theirleaving school, and without sending them to any university. Our youngpeople, it is said, generally return home much improved by theirtravels. A young man who goes abroad at seventeen or eighteen, andreturns home at one-and-twenty, returns three or four years older thanhe was when he went abroad; and at that age it is very difficult notto improve a good deal in three or four years. In the course of histravels he generally acquires some knowledge of one or two foreignlanguages; a knowledge, however, which is seldom sufficient to enablehim either to speak or write them with propriety. In other respectshe commonly returns home more conceited, more unprincipled, moredissipated, and more incapable of any serious application, either tostudy or to business, than he could well have become in so short atime had he lived at home. By travelling so very young, by spending inthe most frivolous dissipation the most precious years of his life, ata distance from the inspection and controul of his parents andrelations, every useful habit which the earlier parts of his educationmight have had some tendency to form in him, instead of being rivetedand confirmed, is almost necessarily either weakened or effaced. Nothing but the discredit into which the universities are allowingthemselves to fall could ever have brought into repute so very absurda practice as that of travelling at this early period of life. Bysending his son abroad, a father delivers himself, at least for sometime, from so disagreeable an object as a son unemployed, neglectedand going to ruin before his eyes. "[136]

Smith must have written Townshend accepting the situation almostimmediately on receiving the offer of it, and he at the same timeapplied to the University authorities for leave of absence for part ofthe session. He does not as yet resign his chair, nor does he make inhis application any formal mention of the nature of the business thatrequired his absence; he merely asks for their sanction to some highlycharacteristic arrangements which he desired to make in connectionwith the conduct of his class by a substitute. On the 8th of November1763, according to the Faculty Records, "Dr. Smith represented thatsome interesting business would probably require his leaving theCollege some time this winter, and made the following proposals andrequest to the meeting:-?

"1st, That if he should be obliged to leave the College withoutfinishing his usual course of lectures, he should pay back to all hisstudents the fees which he shall have received from them; and that ifany of them should refuse to accept of such fees, he should in thatcase pay them to the University. 

"2nd, That whatever part of the usual course of lectures he shouldleave unfinished should be given gratis to the students, by a personto be appointed by the University, with such salary as they shallthink proper, which salary is to be paid by Dr. Smith. 

"The Faculty accept of the above proposals, and hereby unanimouslygrant Dr. Smith leave of absence for three months of this session ifhis business shall require, and at such time as he shall find itnecessary. "

The reason he asks in the first instance only for this temporary andprovisional arrangement is no doubt to be found in the fact that theprecise date for the beginning of the tutorship was not yetdetermined. As it might very possibly be fixed upon suddenly andinvolve a somewhat rapid call for his services, the precaution ofobtaining beforehand a three months' leave of absence would enable himto remain in constant readiness to answer that call whenever it mightcome, without in the meanwhile requiring him to give up his duties tohis Glasgow class prematurely; and it would at the same time allowample time to the University to make more permanent arrangementsbefore the temporary provision expired. The call when it came did comerather suddenly. Up till the middle of December Smith never receivedany manner of answer from Townshend, and the matter was not settledtill after the Christmas holidays. For on the 12th of December 1763Smith writes Hume, who was now in Paris:--

 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 expressed 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. .. . --I ever am, my dearest friend, most faithfully yours, ADAM SMITH. [137]

After the Duke reached London, however, at the Christmas recess, itseems to have been quickly settled to send him out on his travelswithout more delay, and on the 8th of January 1764 Smith intimated tothe Faculty of Glasgow College that he was soon to leave that cityunder the permission granted him by the Dean of Faculty's meeting ofthe 8th of November, and that he had returned to the students all thefees he had received that session. He likewise acquainted the meetingthat he proposed to pay his salary as paid by the College for onehalf-year, commencing the 10th of October previous, to the person whoshould teach his class for the remainder of the session. Mr. ThomasYoung, student of divinity, was, on Smith's recommendation, chosen forthis purpose. A committee was appointed to receive from Smith theprivate library of the Moral Philosophy class; next day at a meetingof Senatus he was paid the balance due to him on his accounts asQuæstor, and was entrusted with a copy of Foulis's large _Homer_, which they asked him to carry to London and deliver, in their name, toSir James Gray, as a present to his Sicilian majesty, who had shownthem some favour; and the Senate-room of Glasgow knew him no more. 

His parting with his students was not quite so simple. They made somedifficulty, as he seems to have anticipated, about taking back thefees they had paid him for his class, and he was obliged to resortalmost to force before he succeeded in getting them to do so. Thecurious scene is described by Alexander Fraser Tytler (LordWoodhouselee) in his _Life of Lord Kames:_ "After concluding his lastlecture, and publicly announcing from the chair that he was now takinga final leave of his auditors, acquainting them at the same time withthe arrangements he had made, to the best of his power, for theirbenefit, he drew from his pocket the several fees of the students, wrapped up in separate paper parcels, and beginning to call up eachman by his name, he delivered to the first who was called the moneyinto his hand. The young man peremptorily refused to accept it, declaring that the instruction and pleasure he had already receivedwas much more than he either had repaid or ever could compensate, anda general cry was heard from every one in the room to the same effect. But Mr. Smith was not to be bent from his purpose. After warmlyexpressing his feelings of gratitude and the strong sense he had ofthe regard shown to him by his young friends, he told them this was amatter betwixt him and his own mind, and that he could not restsatisfied unless he performed what he deemed right and proper. 'Youmust not refuse me this satisfaction; nay, by heavens, gentlemen, youshall not;' and seizing by the coat the young man who stood next him, he thrust the money into his pocket and then pushed him from him. Therest saw it was in vain to contest the matter, and were obliged to lethim have his own way. "[138]

This is a signal proof of the scrupulous delicacy of Smith's honour;he had firmly determined not to touch a shilling of this money, and ifthe students had persisted in refusing it he intended, as we haveseen, to give it to the funds of the University. Many may think hisdelicacy even excessive, for it is common enough for a professor'sclass to be conducted by a substitute in the absence, throughill-health or other causes, of the professor himself, and nobodythinks the students suffer any such injury by the arrangement as tocall for even a reduction of the fees. What Smith would have done hadhis absence been due to ill-health one cannot say, but as hisengagement with the students for a session's lectures was broken offby his own spontaneous acceptance of an office of profit, he felt hecould not honourably retain the wages when he had failed to implementthe engagement, --a thing which a barrister in large practice doeswithout scruple every day. 

The same sense of right led Smith to resign his chair. He did not doso till he reached France, but he manifestly contemplated doing itfrom the first, for he only made arrangements for paying hissubstitute till the end of the first half of the session, by whichtime he would expect his successor to have entered on office, asindeed actually happened, for Reid came there in the beginning ofJune. Moreover, his resignation was evidently an understood thing atthe University long before it was really sent in, for a good deal ofintriguing had already been going on for the place. The Lord PrivySeal (the Hon. James Stuart Mackenzie, Lord Bute's brother), who wasScotch Minister, writes Baron Mure on the 2nd February 1764, afortnight before Smith resigned, asking whether it was true theUniversity were to appoint Dr. Wight to succeed Smith, and mentionsincidentally having had some conversation with Smith himself(apparently in London) on the subject, particularly with regard to thepossible claims of Mr. Young, his substitute, to the appointment. 

It was not always necessary--nor, indeed, does it seem to have beenthe more usual practice--for a Scotch professor to resign his chair onaccepting a temporary place like a travelling tutorship. Adam Fergusonfought the point successfully with the Edinburgh Town Council when heleft England as tutor to Lord Chesterfield; and Dalzel, when Professorof Greek in Edinburgh, went to live at Oxford as tutor to LordMaitland; but we have already seen, in connection with the case ofProfessor Rouet, that Smith held strong views against theencouragement of absenteeism and the growth of any feeling that theUniversity was there for the convenience of the professors, instead ofthe professors being there for the service of the University. 

Under these circumstances it was natural for Smith to resign his chairon his acceptance of the tutorship; and although he only sent theletter of resignation after his arrival in France, it is perhaps moreconvenient to print it here in its natural connection with GlasgowUniversity affairs than to defer it to its more strictly chronologicalplace in the chapter describing his French travels. The letter isaddressed "To the Right Hon. Thomas Miller, Esq. , His Majesty'sAdvocate for Scotland, " Lord Rector of Glasgow University at the time;and it runs as follows:

 MY LORD--I take this first opportunity after my arrival in this place, which was not till yesterday, to resign my office into the hands of your lordship, of the Dean of Faculty, of the Principal of the College, and of all my other most respectable and worthy colleagues. Into your and their hands, therefor, I do hereby resign my office of Professor of Moral Philosophy in the University of Glasgow and in the College thereof, with all the emoluments, privileges, and advantages which belong to it. I reserve, however, my right to the salary for the current half year, which commenced at the 10th of October for one part of my salary and at Martinmas last for another; and I desire that this salary may be paid to the gentleman who does that part of my duty which I was obliged to leave undone, in the manner agreed on between my very worthy colleagues and me before we parted. I never was more anxious for the good of the College than at this moment; and I sincerely wish that whoever is my successor may not only do credit to the office by his abilities, but be a comfort to the very excellent men with whom he is likely to spend his life, by the probity of his heart and the goodness of his temper. --I have the honour to be, my lord, your lordship's most obedient and most faithful servant, ADAM SMITH. 

 PARIS, _14th February 1764_. [139]

The Senate accepted his resignation on the 1st of March, and expressedtheir regret at his loss in the following terms: "The Universitycannot help at the same time expressing their sincere regret at theremoval of Dr. Smith, whose distinguished probity and amiablequalities procured him the esteem and affection of his colleagues;whose uncommon genius, great abilities, and extensive learning did somuch honour to this society; his elegant and ingenious _Theory ofMoral Sentiments_ having recommended him to the esteem of men of tasteand literature throughout Europe. His happy talents in illustratingabstracted subjects, and faithful assiduity in communicating usefulknowledge, distinguished him as a professor, and at once afforded thegreatest pleasure and the most important instruction to the youthunder his care. "

FOOTNOTES:

[126] Nichol's _Literary Illustrations_, iii. 515. 

[127] _Hume Correspondence_, R. S. E. Library. 

[128] _Ibid. _ Printed by Burton. 

[129] Burton's _Life of Hume_, ii. 157. 

[130] _Ibid. _, ii. 163. 

[131] Carlyle's _Autobiography_, p. 431. 

[132] See above, p. 58. 

[133] Burton's _Life of Hume_, ii. 168. 

[134] Original in possession of Professor Cunningham, Belfast. 

[135] _Caldwell Papers_, i. 192. 

[136] Wealth of Nations, Book V. Chap. I. Art. Ii. 

[137] Fraser's _Scotts of Buccleuch_, ii. 403. 

[138] Tytler's _Kames_, i. 278. 

[139] Glasgow University Records. 

CHAPTER XII

TOULOUSE

Smith joined his pupil in London in the end of January 1764, and theyset out together for France in the beginning of February. Theyremained abroad two years and a half--ten days in Paris, eighteenmonths in Toulouse, two months travelling in the South of France, twomonths in Geneva, and ten months in Paris again. Smith kept no journaland wrote as few letters as possible, but we are able from varioussources to fill in some of the outlines of their course of travel. 

At Dover they were joined by Sir James Macdonald of Sleat, a youngbaronet who had been at Eton College with the Duke of Buccleugh, andwho had been living in France almost right on since there-establishment of peace. Sir James was heir of the old Lords of theIsles, and son of the lady who, with her factor Kingsburgh, harbouredPrince Charlie and Flora Macdonald in Skye; and he was himself thenfilling the world of letters in Paris and London alike withastonishment at the extent of his knowledge and the variety of hisintellectual gifts. Walpole, indeed, said that when he grew older hewould choose to know less, but to Grimm he seemed the same marvel ofparts as he seemed to Hume. He accompanied Smith and the Duke toParis, where they arrived (as we know from Smith's letter to theRector of Glasgow University) on the 13th of February. 

In Paris they did not remain long--not more than ten days at most, for it took at that period six days to go from Paris to Toulouse, andthey were in Toulouse on the 4th of March. Smith does not appearduring this short stay in Paris to have made the personal acquaintanceof any of the eminent men of letters whom he afterwards knew so well, for he never mentions any of them in his subsequent letters to Humefrom Toulouse, though he occasionally mentions Englishmen whoseacquaintance he first made at that time. He probably could not as yetspeak French, for even to the last he could only speak it veryimperfectly. Most of their time in Paris seems, therefore, to havebeen spent with Hume and Sir James Macdonald and Lord Beauchamp, whowas Hume's pupil and Sir James's chief friend. Paris, moreover, wasmerely a halting-place for the present; their immediate destinationwas Toulouse, at that time a favourite resort of the English. It wasthe second city of the kingdom, and wore still much of the style of anancient capital. It was the seat of an archbishopric, of a university, of a parliament, of modern academies of science and art which madesome ado with their annual _Jeux Floraux_, and the nobility of theprovince still had their town houses there, and lived in them allwinter. The society was more varied and refined than anywhere else inFrance out of Paris. 

Among the English residents was a cousin of David Hume, who hadentered the Gallican Church, and was then Vicar-General of the dioceseof Toulouse, the Abbé Seignelay Colbert. Smith brought a letter fromHume to the Abbé, and the Abbé writes Hume in reply on the 4th ofMarch, thanking him for having introduced Smith, who, he says, appeared to be all that was said of him in the letter. "He has onlyjust arrived, " the Abbé proceeds, "and I have only seen him for aninstant. I am very sorry that they have not found the Archbishop here. He went some six weeks ago to Montpellier, whence he will soon go toParis. He told me he had a great desire to make your acquaintance. Ifear that my long black cassock will frighten the Duke of Buccleugh, but apart from that I should omit nothing to make his stay in thistown as agreeable and useful as possible. "[140] He writes again on the22nd of April, after having a month's experience of his new friends:"Mr. Smith is a sublime man. His heart and his mind are equallyadmirable. Messrs. Malcolm and Mr. Urquhart of Cromartie are now here. The Duke, his pupil, is a very amiable spirit, and does his exerciseswell, and is making progress in French. If any English or Scotchpeople ask your advice where to go for their studies, you couldrecommend Toulouse. There is a very good academy and much society, andsome very distinguished people to be seen here. " In a subsequentletter he says, "There are many English people here, and the districtsuits them well. "[141]

This Abbé Colbert, who was Smith's chief guide and friend in the Southof France, was the eldest son of Mr. Cuthbert of Castlehill inInverness-shire, and was therefore head of the old Highland family towhich Colbert, the famous minister of Louis XIV. , was so anxious totrace his descent. That minister had himself gone the length ofpetitioning the Scotch Privy Council for a birth-brieve, orcertificate, to attest his descent from the Castlehill family, and thepetition was refused through the influence of the Duke of Lauderdale. But his successor, the Marquis de Seignelay, found the ScotchParliament more accommodating in 1686 than the Scotch Privy Councilhad been, and obtained the birth-brieve in an Act of that year, whichwas passed, as it states, in order that "this illustrious and noblefamily of Colbert may be restored to us their friends and to theirnative country, " and which declared that the family came from thesouth of Scotland, took their name from St. Cuthbert (pronounced, saysthe Act, by the Scotch Culbert, though "soaftened" by the French intoColbert), and received their arms for their valour in the battle ofHarlaw. 

The link between the Scotch Cuthberts and the French Colberts, thusattested by Act of Parliament, may or may not be fabulous, but it wasa link of gold to many members of the family of Castlehill, whoemigrated to France, and were advanced into high positions through theinterest of their French connections. One of these was the presentAbbé, who had come over in 1750 a boy of fourteen, was now attwenty-eight Vicar-General of Toulouse, and was in 1781 made Bishop ofRodez. As Bishop he distinguished himself by the work he did for theimprovement of agriculture and industry in his diocese, and, as memberof the States General in 1789, he became the hero of the hour in Parisand was carried shoulder-high through the streets for proposing theunion of the clergy with the Third Estate. When the Civil Constitutionof the clergy was declared he refused to submit, and returning to thiscountry, spent the remainder of his days here as Secretary to LouisXVIII. 

It would appear from the Abbé's first letter that Smith had eitherbrought with him from Paris an introduction to the Archbishop ofToulouse, or that Hume had asked his cousin to give him one. ThisArchbishop--who was so desirous to make Hume's acquaintance--was thecelebrated Loménie de Brienne, afterwards Cardinal and Minister ofFrance, who was thought at this time, Walpole says, to be the ablestman in the Gallican Church, and was pronounced by Hume to be the onlyman in France capable of restoring the greatness of the kingdom. Whenhe obtained the opportunity he signally falsified Hume'sprognostication, and did much to precipitate the Revolution by hisincapacity. Smith must no doubt have met him occasionally during hisprotracted sojourn at Toulouse, though we have no evidence that hedid, and the Archbishop was rather notorious for his absence from hissee. If he did meet his Grace he would have found him as advanced aneconomist as himself, for having been a college friend of Turgot andMorellet at the Sorbonne, he became a strong advocate of their neweconomic principles, and succeeded in getting the principle of freetrade in corn adopted by the States of Languedoc. Whether they werepersonally acquainted or not, the Archbishop does not appear to havecherished any profound regard for Smith, for when he was Minister ofFrance he refused his friend Morellet the trifling sum of a hundredfrancs, which the Abbé asked to pay for the printing of histranslation of the _Wealth of Nations_. 

During Smith's first six months at Toulouse he does not seem to haveseen the Archbishop, or to have seen much of anybody, as the followingletter shows. Indeed he found the place extremely dull, the life heled in Glasgow having been, he says, dissipation itself in comparison. They had not received the letters of recommendation they had expectedfrom the Duc de Choiseul, and for society they were as yet practicallyconfined to the Abbé Colbert and the English residents. For adiversion Smith contemplates an excursion to Bordeaux, and suggests avisit for a month from Sir James Macdonald, for the sake not only ofhis agreeable society, but of the service "his influence and example"would render the Duke. Personally he had, to mitigate his solitude, taken a measure no less important than effectual--he had begun towrite a book--the _Wealth of Nations_--"to pass away the time. You maybelieve I have very little to do. "

They had arrived in Toulouse on the 3rd or 4th of March, but it is the5th of July before Smith thinks of writing Hume; at least thefollowing letter reads as if it were the first since they parted:--

 MY DEAREST FRIEND--The Duke of Buccleugh proposes soon to set out for Bordeaux, where he intends to stay a fortnight or more. I should be much obliged to you if you could send us recommendations to the Duke of Richelieu, the Marquis de Lorges, and the Intendant of the Province. Mr. Townshend assured me that the Duc de Choiseul was to recommend us to all the people of fashion here and everywhere else in France. We have heard nothing, however, of these recommendations, and have had our way to make as well as we could by the help of the Abbé, who is a stranger here almost as much as we. The Progress indeed we have made is not very great. The Duke is acquainted with no Frenchman whatever. I cannot cultivate the acquaintance of the few with whom I am acquainted, as I cannot bring them to our house, and am not always at liberty to go to theirs. The life which I led at Glasgow was a pleasurable dissipated life in comparison of that which I lead here at Present. I have begun to write a book in order to pass away the time. You may believe I have very little to do. If Sir James would come and spend a month with us in his travels, it would not only be a great satisfaction to me, but he might by his influence and example be of great service to the Duke. Mention these matters, however, to nobody but to him. Remember me in the most respectful manner to Lord Beauchamp and to Dr. Trail, [142] and believe me, my dear friend, ever yours, ADAM SMITH. 

 TOULOUSE, _5th July 1764_. [143]

The trip to Bordeaux was taken probably in August, and in the companyof Abbé Colbert. At Bordeaux they fell in with Colonel Barré, thefurious orator, whose invective made even Charles Townshend quail, butwho was now over on a visit to his French kinsfolk, and making thehearts of these simple people glad with his natural kindnesses. Heseems to have been much with Smith and his party during their stay inBordeaux, and to have accompanied them back to Toulouse. For he writesHume on the 4th of September from the latter town, and says: "I thankyou for your last letter from Paris, which I received just as Smithand his _élève_ and L'Abbé Colbert were sitting down to dine with meat Bordeaux. The latter is a very honest fellow and deserves to be abishop; make him one if you can. .. . Why will you triumph and talk of_platte couture_? You have friends on both sides. Smith agrees with mein thinking that you are turned soft by the _délices_ of the FrenchCourt, and that you don't write in that nervous manner you wasremarkable for in the more northern climates. Besides, what is stillworse, you take your politics from your Elliots, Rigbys, andSelwyns. "[144]

Smith was already acquainted with Barré before he left Scotland, wherethe colonel, for services rendered to Lord Shelburne, held thelucrative post of Governor of Stirling Castle; and now he could not gosight-seeing in a French town under two better guides than Barré andColbert--a Frenchman who had become an English politician, and anEnglishman who had become a French ecclesiastic. He seems to have beenstruck with the contrast between the condition of the working class inBordeaux and their condition in Toulouse, as he had already beenstruck with the same contrast between Glasgow and Edinburgh. InBordeaux they were in general industrious, sober, and thriving; inToulouse and the rest of the parliament towns they were idle and poor;and the reason was that Bordeaux was a commercial town, the _entrepôt_of the wine trade of a rich wine district, while Toulouse and the restwere merely residential towns, employing little capital more than wasnecessary to supply their own consumption. The common people werealways better off in a town like Bordeaux, where they lived oncapital, than in a town like Toulouse, where they lived onrevenue. [145] But while he speaks as if he thought the people ofBordeaux more sober as well as more industrious than the people ofToulouse, he looked upon the inhabitants of the southern provinces ofFrance generally as among the soberest people in Europe, and ascribestheir sobriety to the cheapness of their liquor. "People are seldomguilty of excess, " he says, "in what is their daily fare. " He tellsthat when a French regiment came from some of the northern provincesof France, where wine was somewhat dear, to be quartered in thesouthern, where wine was very cheap, the soldiers were at firstdebauched by the cheapness and novelty of good wine; but after a fewmonths' residence the greater part of them became as sober as the restof the inhabitants. And he thinks the same effect might occur in thiscountry from a reduction of the wine, malt, and ale duties. [146]

Besides seeing the places, they visited some of the notabilities, towhom the Earl of Hertford had sent them the letters of introductionfor which Smith had asked through Hume. The governor of the provincewas away from home at the time, however; but Smith hoped to see him ona second visit to Bordeaux he was presently to pay to meet his pupil'syounger brother on his way round from Paris to Toulouse. But theyfound the Duke of Richelieu at home, and the gallant oldfield-marshal, the hero of a hundred fights and a thousand scandals, seems to have received them with great civility and even distinction. Smith used to have much to say ever afterwards of this famous andill-famed man. 

The excursion to Bordeaux in August was so agreeable that they madeanother--probably in September--up to the fashionable watering-placeBagnères de Bigorre, and in October, when Smith wrote the followingletter to Hume, they were on the eve of the second visit to Bordeauxof which I have spoken, and even contemplating after that a visit toMontpellier, when the States of Languedoc--the local assembly of theprovince--met there in the end of November. 

 TOULOUSE, _21st October 1764_. 

 MY DEAR HUME--I take this opportunity of Mr. Cook's going to Paris to return to you, and thro' you to the Ambassador, my very sincere and hearty thanks for the very honourable manner in which he was so good as to mention me to the Duke of Richelieu in the letter of recommendation which you sent us. There was, indeed, one small mistake in it. He called me Robinson instead of Smith. I took upon me to correct this mistake myself before the Duke delivered the letter. We were all treated by the Maréchal with the utmost Politeness and attention, particularly the Duke, whom he distinguished in a very proper manner. The Intendant was not at Bordeaux, but we shall soon have an opportunity of delivering his letter, as we propose to return to that place in order to meet my Lord's Brother. 

 Mr. Cook[147] goes to Caen to wait upon Mr. Scot, and to attend him from that place to Toulouse. He will pass by Paris, and I must beg the favour of you that as soon as you understand he is in town you will be so good as to call upon him and carry him to the Ambassador's, as well as to any other place where he would chuse to go. I must beg the same favour of Sir James. Mr. Cook will let you know when he comes to town. I have great reason to entertain the most favourable opinion of Mr. Scot, and I flatter myself his company will be both useful and agreeable to his Brother. Our expedition to Bordeaux and another we have made since to Bagnères has made a great change upon the Duke. He begins now to familiarise himself to French company, and I flatter myself I shall spend the rest of the time we are to live together not only in Peace and contentment, but in gayetty and amusement. 

 When Mr. Scot joins us we propose to go to see the meeting of the States of Languedoc at Montpelier. Could you promise us recommendations to the Comte d'Eu, to the Archbishop of Narbonne, and to the Intendant? These expeditions, I find, are of the greatest service to my Lord. --I ever am, my dear friend, most, faithfully yours, ADAM SMITH. [148]

A few days after the date of that letter Smith writes Hume again, introducing one of the English residents in Toulouse, Mr. Urquhart ofCromartie, as Abbé Colbert describes him in one of his letters, adescendant therefore probably of Sir Thomas. The letter is of noimportance, but it shows at least Smith's hearty liking for a goodfellow. 

 MY DEAR FRIEND--This letter will be delivered to you by Mr. Urquhart, the only man I ever knew who had a better temper than yourself. You will find him most perfectly amiable. I recommend him in the most earnest manner to your advice and protection. He is not a man of letters, and is just a plain, sensible, agreeable man of no pretensions of any kind, but whom you will love every day better and better. --My dear friend, most faithfully yours, ADAM SMITH. 

 TOULOUSE, _4th November 1764_. [149]

Smith and his two pupils made their proposed expedition to Montpellierduring the sittings of the States, for we find them visited there byHorne Tooke, [150] then still parson of Brentford, who had been on atour in Italy, and stayed some time in Montpellier on his way back. Tooke, it may be said here, was no admirer of Smith; he thought the_Theory of Moral Sentiments_ nonsense, and the _Wealth of Nations_written for a wicked purpose, [151] and this is the only occasion onwhich they are known to have met. 

The little provincial assembly which Smith had come to Montpellier tosee was at that period, it ought to be mentioned, attracting muchattention from all the thinkers and reformers of France, and wasthought by many of the first of them to furnish the solution of thepolitical question of that age. The States of Languedoc were almostthe only remains of free institutions then left in France. In all thethirty-two provinces of the country except six the States had beensuppressed altogether, and in five of these six they were too small tobe important or vigorous; but Languedoc was a great province, containing twenty-three bishoprics and more territory than the kingdomof Belgium, and the States governed its affairs so well that itsprosperity was the envy of the rest of France. They dug canals, openedharbours, drained marshes, made roads, which Arthur Young singles outfor praise, and made them without the _corvée_ under which the rest ofrural France was groaning. They farmed the imperial taxes of theprovince themselves, to avoid the exactions of the farmers-general. They allowed the _noblesse_ none of the exemptions so unfairly enjoyedby them elsewhere. The _taille_, which was a personal tax in otherparts of the kingdom, was in Languedoc an equitable land tax, assessedaccording to a valuation periodically revised. There was not apoorhouse in the whole province, and such was its prosperity andexcellent administration that it enjoyed better credit in the marketthan the Central Government, and the king used sometimes, in order toget more favourable terms, to borrow on the security of the States ofLanguedoc instead of his own. [152]

Under those circumstances it is not surprising that one of thefavourite remedies for the political situation in France was therevival of the provincial assemblies and the suppression of theintendants--"Grattan's Parliament and the abolition of the Castle. "Turgot, among others, favoured this solution, though he was anintendant himself. Necker had just put it into execution when theRevolution came and swept everything away. Smith himself has expressedthe strongest opinion in favour of the administration of provincialaffairs by a local body instead of by an intendant, and he must havewitnessed with no ordinary interest the proceedings of this remarkablelittle assembly at Montpellier, with its 23 prelates on the right, its23 barons on the left, and the third estate--representatives of 23chief towns and 23 dioceses--in the centre, and on a dais in front ofall, the President, the Archbishop of Narbonne. The Archbishop, towhom, it will be remembered, Smith asked, and no doubt received, aletter of introduction from Lord Hertford, was a countryman of hisown, Cardinal Dillon, a prince of prelates, afterwards Minister ofFrance; a strong champion of the rights of the States against thepretensions of the Crown, and, if we may judge from the speech withwhich Miss Knight heard him open the States of Languedoc in 1776, avery thorough free-trader. 

With all these excursions, Smith was now evidently realising in somereasonable measure the "gayetty and amusement" he told Hume heanticipated to enjoy during the rest of his stay in the South ofFrance. His command of the language, too, grew easier, though it neverbecame perfect, and he not only went more into society, but was ableto enjoy it better. Among those he saw most of in Toulouse were, heused to tell Stewart, the presidents and counsellors of theParliament, who were noted, like their class in other parliamenttowns, for their hospitality, and noted above those of otherparliament towns for keeping up the old tradition of blending theirlaw with a love of letters. They were men, moreover, of provedpatriotism and independence; in no other society would Smith be likelyto hear more of the oppressed condition of the peasantry, and thenecessity for thoroughgoing reforms. In those days the king's edictdid not run in a province till it was registered by the localparliament, and the Parliament of Toulouse often used this privilegeof theirs to check bad measures. They had in 1756 remonstrated withthe king against the _corvée_, declaring that the condition of thepeasantry of France was "a thousand times less tolerable than thecondition of the slaves in America. " At the very moment of Smith'sfirst arrival in Toulouse they were all thrown in prison--or at leastput under arrest in their own houses--for refusing to register the_centième denier_, and Smith no doubt had that circumstance in hismind when he animadverted in the _Wealth of Nations_ on the violencepractised by the French Government to coerce its parliaments. Hethought very highly of those parliaments as institutions, stating thatthough not very convenient courts of law, they had never been accusedor even suspected of corruption, and he gives a curious reason fortheir incorruptibility; it was because they were not paid by salary, but by fees dependent on their diligence. 

During Smith's residence in Toulouse the town was raging (as AbbéColbert mentions in his letters to Hume) about one of the judgments ofthis Parliament, and for the most part, strangely enough, taking theParliament's side. This was its judgment in the famous Calas case, towhich Smith alludes in the last edition of his _Theory_. Jean Calas, it may be remembered, had a son who had renounced his Protestantism inorder to become eligible for admission to the Toulouse bar, and thenworried himself so much about his apostasy that he committed suicidein his father's house; and the father was unjustly accused before theParliament of the town of having murdered the youth on account of hisapostasy, was found guilty without a particle of proof, and thenbroken on the wheel and burnt on the 9th of March 1762. But the greatvoice of Voltaire rose against this judicial atrocity, and after threeyears' agitation procured a new trial before a special court of fiftymasters of requests, of whom Turgot was one, on the 9th of March 1765, with the result that Calas was pronounced absolutely innocent of thecrime he suffered for, and his family was awarded a compensation of36, 000 livres. The king received them at court, and all Francerejoiced in their rehabilitation except their own townsfolk inToulouse. On the 10th of April 1765--a month after the verdict--AbbéColbert writes Hume: "The people here would surprise you with theirfanaticism. In spite of all that has happened, they every man believeCalas to be guilty, and it is no use speaking to them on thesubject. "[153]

Smith makes use of the incident to illustrate the proposition thatwhile unmerited praise gives no satisfaction except to the frivolous, unmerited reproach inflicts the keenest suffering even on men ofexceptional endurance, because the injustice destroys the sweetnessof the praise, but enormously embitters the sting of the condemnation. "The unfortunate Calas, " he writes--"a man of much more than ordinaryconstancy (broken upon the wheel and burnt at Tholouse for thesupposed murder of his own son, of which he was perfectlyinnocent)--seemed with his last breath to deprecate not so much thecruelty of the punishment, as the disgrace which the imputation mustbring upon his memory. After he had been broke, and when just going tobe thrown into the fire, the monk who attended the execution exhortedhim to confess the crime for which he had been condemned. 'My father, 'said Calas, 'can you bring yourself to believe that I was guilty?'"

FOOTNOTES:

[140] _Hume Correspondence_, R. S. E. Library. 

[141] Ibid. 

[142] Lord Beauchamp was the eldest son of the English Ambassador, theEarl of Hertford, and Dr. Trail, or properly Traill, was theAmbassador's chaplain, who was made Bishop of Down and Connor soonafterwards, when Lord Hertford became Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland. 

[143] _Hume Correspondence_, R. S. E. Library. 

[144] Burton's _Letters of Eminent Persons to David Hume_, p. 37. 

[145] _Wealth of Nations_, Book II. Chap. Iii. 

[146] _Wealth of Nations_, Book I. Chap. Xi. 

[147] The Duke's servant. 

[148] _Hume Correspondence_, R. S. E. Library. 

[149] _Hume Correspondence_, R. S. E. Library. 

[150] Stephen's _Life of Horne Tooke_, i. 75. 

[151] Samuel Rogers told this to his friend the Rev. John Mitford. SeeAdd. MSS. 32, 566. 

[152] Tocqueville, _State of Society in France_, pp. _265, 271. _

[153] _Hume Correspondence_, R. S. E. Library. 

CHAPTER XIII

GENEVA

In the end of August Smith and his pupils left Toulouse and made whatStewart calls an extensive tour in the South of France. Of this tourno other record remains, but the Duke's aunt, Lady Mary Coke, incidentally mentions that when they were at Marseilles they visitedthe porcelain factory, and that the Duke bought two of the largestservices ever sold there, for which he paid more than £150 sterling. They seem to have arrived in Geneva some time in October, and stayedabout two months in the little republic of which, as we have seen, Smith had long been a fervent admirer. In making so considerable asojourn at Geneva, he was no doubt influenced as a politicalphilosopher by the desire to see something of the practical working ofthose republican institutions which he regarded speculatively with somuch favour, to observe how the common problems of government workedthemselves out on the narrow field of a commonwealth with only 24, 000inhabitants all told, which yet contrived to keep its place among thenations, to sit sometimes as arbiter between them, and to surpass themall in the art of making its people prosperous. He had the luck toobserve it at an interesting moment, for it was in the thick of aconstitutional crisis. The government of the republic had hithertobeen vested in the hands of 200 privileged families, and the rest ofthe citizens were now pressing their right to a share in it, with theactive assistance of Voltaire. This important struggle for theconversion of the aristocratic into the democratic republic continuedall through the period of Smith's visit, and the city of Geneva, whichin its usual state was described by Voltaire as "a tedious conventwith some sensible people in it, " was day after day at this time theanimated scene of the successive acts of that political drama. 

During his stay there Smith made many personal friends, both among theleading citizens of the commonwealth and among the more distinguishedof the foreign visitors who generally abounded there. People went toGeneva in those days not to see the lake or the mountains, but toconsult Dr. Tronchin and converse with Voltaire. Smith needed nointroduction to Tronchin, who, as we have seen, held so high anopinion of his abilities that he had sent his own son all the way toGlasgow to attend his philosophical classes; and it was no doubtthrough Tronchin, Voltaire's chief friend in that quarter, that Smithwas introduced to Voltaire. Smith told Rogers he had been inVoltaire's company on five or six different occasions, and he no doubtenjoyed, as most English visitors enjoyed, hospitable entertainment atFerney, the beautiful little temporality of the great literarypontiff, overlooking the lake. 

There was no living name before which Smith bowed with profounderveneration than the name of Voltaire, and his recollections of theirintercourse on these occasions were always among those he cherishedmost warmly. Few memorials, however, of their conversation remain, andthese are preserved by Samuel Rogers in his diary of his visit toEdinburgh the year before Smith's death. They seem to have spoken, aswas very natural, of the Duke of Richelieu, the only famous FrenchmanSmith had yet met, and of the political question as to the revival ofthe provincial assemblies or the continuance of government by royalintendants. On this question Smith said that Voltaire expressed greataversion to the States and favoured the side of the royal prerogative. Of the Duke of Richelieu Voltaire said that he was an old friend ofhis, but a singular character. A few years before his death his footslipped one day at Versailles, and the old marshal said that was thefirst _faux pas_ he had ever made at court. Voltaire then seems tohave told anecdotes of the Duke's being bastilled and of his borrowingthe Embassy plate at Vienna and never returning it, and to have passedthe remark he made elsewhere that the English had only one sauce, melted butter. Smith always spoke of Voltaire with a genuine emotionof reverence. When Samuel Rogers happened to describe some clever butsuperficial author as "a Voltaire, " Smith brought his hand down on thetable with great energy and said, "Sir, there is only oneVoltaire. "[154] Professor Faujas Saint Fond, Professor of Geology inthe Museum of Natural History in Paris, visited Smith in Edinburgh afew years before Rogers was there, and says that the animation ofSmith's countenance was striking when he spoke of Voltaire, whom hehad known personally, and whose memory he revered. "Reason, " saidSmith one day, as he showed M. Saint Fond a fine bust of Voltaire hehad in his room, "reason owes him incalculable obligations. Theridicule and the sarcasm which he so plentifully bestowed uponfanatics and heretics of all sects have enabled the understanding ofmen to bear the light of truth, and prepared them for those inquiriesto which every intelligent mind ought to aspire. He has done much morefor the benefit of mankind than those grave philosophers whose booksare read by a few only. The writings of Voltaire are made for all andread by all. " On another occasion he observed to the same visitor, "Icannot pardon the Emperor Joseph II. , who pretended to travel as aphilosopher, for passing Ferney without doing homage to the historianof the Czar Peter I. From this circumstance I concluded that Josephwas but a man of inferior mind. "[155]

One of the warmest of Smith's Swiss friends was Charles Bonnet, thecelebrated naturalist and metaphysician, who, in writing Hume tenyears after the date of this visit, desires to be remembered "to thesage of Glascow, " adding, "You perceive I speak of Mr. Smith, whom weshall always recollect with great pleasure. "[156] On the day thisletter was written by Bonnet to Hume, another was written to Smithhimself by a young Scotch tutor then in Geneva, Patrick Clason, whoseems to have carried an introduction from Smith to Bonnet, and whomentions having received many civilities from Bonnet on account of hisbeing one of Smith's friends. Clason then goes on to tell Smith thatthe Syndic Turretin and M. Le Sage also begged to be remembered tohim. The Syndic Turretin was the President of the Republic, and M. LeSage was the eminent Professor of Physics, George Louis Le Sage, whowas then greatly interested in Professor Black's recent discoveriesabout latent heat and Professor Matthew Stewart's in astronomy, andwas one of a group who gathered round Bonnet for discussions inspeculative philosophy and morals, at which, it may be reasonablyinferred, Smith would have also occasionally assisted. Le Sage seemsto have met Smith first, however, and to have been in the habit ofmeeting him often afterwards, at the house of a high and distinguishedFrench lady, the Duchesse d'Enville, who was living in Geneva underTronchin's treatment, and whose son, the young and virtuous Duc de laRochefoucauld, who was afterwards stoned to death in the Revolution, was receiving instruction from Le Sage himself. Le Sage writes theDuchesse d'Enville on 5th February 1766, "Of all the people I have metat your house, that is, of all the _élite_ of our good company, I haveonly continued to see the excellent Lord Stanhope and occasionally Mr. Smith. The latter wished me to make the acquaintance of Lady Conyersand the Duke of Buckleugh, but I begged him to reserve that kindnessfor me till his return. "[157]

This letter shows that Smith was so much taken with Geneva that hemeant to pay it a second visit before he ended his tutorialengagement, but the intention was never fulfilled, in consequence ofunfortunate circumstances to be presently mentioned. 

The Duchesse d'Enville, at whose house Smith seems to have been sosteady a guest, was herself a Rochefoucauld by blood, a grand-daughterof the famous author of the _Maxims_, and was a woman of greatability, who was popularly supposed to be the inspirer of all Turgot'spolitical and social ideas, the chief of the "three Maries" who werealleged to guide his doings. Stewart tells us that Smith used to speakwith very particular pleasure and gratitude of the many civilities hereceived from this interesting woman and her son, and they seem ontheir part to have cherished the same lively recollection of him. WhenAdam Ferguson was in Paris in 1774 she asked him much about Smith, andoften complained, says Ferguson in a letter to Smith himself, "of yourFrench as she did of mine, but said that before you left Paris she hadthe happiness to learn your language. "[158] After two and a halfyears' residence in France, Smith seems then to have been justsucceeding in making himself intelligible to the more intelligentinhabitants in their own language, and this agrees with what Morelletsays, that Smith's French was very bad. The young Duc de laRochefoucauld, who, like his mother, was a devoted friend of Turgot, became presently a declared disciple of Quesnay, and sat regularlywith the rest of the economist sect at the economic dinners ofMirabeau, the "Friend of Man. " When Samuel Rogers met him in Parisshortly after the outbreak of the Revolution, he expressed to Rogersthe highest admiration for Smith, then recently dead, of whom he hadseen much in Paris as well as Geneva, and he had at one time begun totranslate the _Theory of Moral Sentiments_ into French, abandoning thetask only when he found his work anticipated by the Abbé Blavet'stranslation in 1774. The only surviving memorial of their intercourseis a letter from the Duke, which will be given in its place, and inwhich he begs Smith to modify the opinion pronounced in the _Theory_on the writer's ancestor, the author of the _Maxims_. 

The Earl Stanhope, whom Smith used to meet at the Duchess's, and withwhom he established a lasting friendship, was the second Earl, theeditor of Professor Robert Simson's mathematical works, and himself adistinguished mathematician. He took no part in public life, but hisopinions were of the most advanced Liberal order. He had come toGeneva to place his son, afterwards also so distinguished in science, under the training of Le Sage. The Lady Conyers, to whom the Scotchwas so anxious to introduce the Swiss philosopher, was the young ladywho a few years afterwards ran away from her husband, the fifth Dukeof Leeds, with the poet Byron's father, whom she subsequently married, and by whom she became the mother of the poet's sister Augusta. 

FOOTNOTES:

[154] Clayden's _Early Life of Samuel Rogers_, p. 110. 

[155] Faujas Saint Fond, _Travels in England, Scotland, and theHebrides, _ ii. 241. 

[156] _Hume Correspondence_, R. S. E. Library. 

[157] Prevost, _Notice de la Vie et des écrits de George Louis Le Sagede Geneva_, p. 226. 

[158] Small's _Biographical Sketch of Adam Ferguson_, p. 20. 

CHAPTER XIV

PARIS

Smith left Geneva in December for Paris, where he arrived, accordingto Dugald Stewart, about Christmas 1765. The Rev. William Cole, whowas in Paris in October of the same year, notes in his journal on the26th of that month, that the Duke of Buccleugh arrived in Paris thatday from Spa along with the Earl and Countess of Fife; but this mustbe a mistake, for Horace Walpole, who was also in Paris that autumn, writes on the 5th of December that the Duke was then expected toarrive in the following week, and as Walpole was staying in the hotelwhere the Duke and Smith stayed during their residence in thatcity--the Hotel du Parc Royal in the Faubourg de St. Germain--heprobably wrote from authentic information about the engagement oftheir rooms. It may be taken, therefore, that they arrived in Parisabout the middle of December, just in time to have a week or two withHume before he finally left Paris for London with Rousseau on the 3rdof January 1766. Hume had been looking for Smith ever since midsummer. As far back as the 5th of September he wrote, "I have been looking foryou every day these three months, " but that expectation was probablyfounded on reports from Abbé Colbert, for Smith himself does not seemto have written Hume since the previous October, except the short noteintroducing Mr. Urquhart. At any rate in this letter of September 1765Hume, as if in reply to Smith's account of his pupil's improvement inhis letter of October 1764, says, "Your satisfaction in your pupilgives me equal satisfaction. " It is no doubt possible that Smith mayhave written letters in the interval which have been lost, but he hadclearly written none for the previous three months, and it is mostprobable, with his general aversion to writing, that he wrote none forthe four or five months before that. Hume's own object in breaking thelong silence is, in the first place, to inform him that, having losthis place at the Embassy through the translation of his chief to theLord-Lieutenancy of Ireland, he should be obliged to return to Englandin October before Smith's arrival in Paris; and in the next, toconsult him on a new perplexity that was distressing him, whether heshould not come back to Paris and spend the remainder of his daysthere. In compensation for the loss of his place, he had obtained apension of £900 a year, without office or duty of any kind--"opulenceand liberty, " as he calls it. But opulence and liberty brought theirown cares, and he was rent with temptations to belong to differentnations. "As a new vexation to temper my good fortune, " he writes toSmith, "I am in much perplexity about fixing the place of my futureabode for life. Paris is the most agreeable town in Europe, and suitsme best, but it is a foreign country. London is the capital of my owncountry, but it never pleased me much. Letters are there held in nohonour; Scotsmen are hated; superstition and ignorance gain grounddaily. Edinburgh has many objections and many allurements. My presentmind this forenoon, the 5th of September, is to return to France. I ammuch press'd also to accept of offers which would contribute to myagreeable living, but might encroach on my independence by making meenter into engagements with Princes and great lords and ladies. Praygive me your judgment. "[159]

Events soon settled the question for him. He was appointed UnderSecretary of State in London by Lord Hertford's brother, GeneralConway, and left Paris, as I have just said, early in January 1766. Rousseau had been in Paris since the 17th of December waiting toaccompany Hume to England, and Smith must no doubt have met Rousseauoccasionally with Hume during that last fortnight of 1765, thoughthere is no actual evidence that he did. Before leaving, moreover, Hume would have time to introduce his friend to the famous men ofParis itself, and to initiate him into those literary and fashionablecircles in which he had moved like a demigod for the preceding twoyears. The philosophe was then king in Paris, and Hume was king of thephilosophes, and everything that was great in court or salon fell downand did him obeisance. "Here, " he tells Robertson, "I feed onambrosia, drink nothing but nectar, breathe incense only, and walk onflowers. Every one I meet, and especially every woman, would considerthemselves as failing in the most indispensable duty if they did notfavour me with a lengthy and ingenious discourse on my celebrity. "Hume could, therefore, open to his friend every door in Paris that wasworth entering, but Smith's own name was also sufficiently known andesteemed, at least among men of letters, in France to secure to him acordial welcome for his own sake. _The Theory of Moral Sentiments_ hadbeen translated, at the suggestion of Baron d'Holbach, by E. Dous, andthe translation had appeared in 1764 under the title of _Métaphysiquede l'Ame_. It was unfortunately a very bad translation, for whichGrimm makes the curious apology that it was impossible to render theideas of metaphysics in a foreign language as you could render theimages of poetry, because every nation had its own abstractideas. [160] But though the book got probably little impetus from thistranslation, it had been considerably read in the original by men ofletters when it first came out, and many of them had then formed, asAbbé Morellet says he did, the highest idea of Smith's sagacity anddepth, and were prepared to meet the author with much interest. 

Smith went more into society in the few months he resided in Paristhan at any other period of his life. He was a regular guest in almostall the famous literary salons of that time--Baron d'Holbach's, Helvetius', Madame de Geoffrin's, Comtesse de Boufflers', Mademoisellel'Espinasse's, and probably Madame Necker's. Our information about hisdoings is of course meagre, but there is one week in July 1766 inwhich we happen to have his name mentioned frequently in the course ofthe correspondence between Hume and his Paris friends regarding thequarrel with Rousseau, and during that week Smith was on the 21st atMademoiselle l'Espinasse's, on the 25th at Comtesse de Boufflers', andon the 27th at Baron d'Holbach's, where he had some conversation withTurgot. He was a constant visitor at Madame Riccoboni the novelist's. He attended the meetings of the new economist sect in the apartmentsof Dr. Quesnay, and though the economic dinners of the elder Mirabeau, the "Friend of Men, " were not begun for a year after, he no doubtvisited the Marquis, as we know he visited other members of thefraternity. He went to Compiègne when the Court removed to Compiègne, made frequent excursions to interesting places within reach, and isalways seen with troops of friends about him. Many of these wereEnglishmen, for after their long exclusion from Paris during the SevenYears war, Englishmen had begun to pour into the city, and the Hoteldu Parc Royal, where Smith lived, was generally full of Englishguests. Among others who were there, as I have just mentioned, wasHorace Walpole, who remained on till Easter, and with whom Smith seemsto have become well acquainted, for in writing Hume in July he asks tobe specially remembered to Mr. Walpole. 

So much has been written about the literary salons of Paris in lastcentury that it is unnecessary to do more here than describe Smith'sconnection with them. The salon we happen to hear most of hisfrequenting is the salon of the Comtesse de Boufflers-Rouvel, but thatis due to the simple circumstance that the hostess was an assiduouscorrespondent of David Hume. She was mistress to the Prince de Conti, but ties of that character, if permanent, derogated nothing from alady's position in Paris at that period. Abbé Morellet, who was aconstant guest at her house, even states that this connection of herswith a prince of the blood, though illicit, really enhanced ratherthan diminished her consideration in society, and her receptions wereattended by all the rank, fashion, and learning of the city. TheComtesse was very fond of entertaining English guests, for she spokeour language well, and had been greatly pleased with the civilitiesshe had received during her then recent visit to England in 1763. Smith was not long in Paris till he made her acquaintance, andreceived a very hearty welcome for the love of Hume. She began to readhis book, moreover, and it became eventually such a favourite with herthat she had thoughts of translating it. 

Hume writes to her from Wootton on the 22nd of March 1766: "I am gladyou have taken my friend Smith under your protection. You will findhim a man of true merit, though perhaps his sedentary recluse life mayhave hurt his air and appearance as a man of the world. " The Comtessewrites Hume on the 6th of May: "I think I told you that I have madethe acquaintance of Mr. Smith, and that for the love of you I hadgiven him a very hearty welcome. I am now reading his _Theory of MoralSentiments_. I am not very far advanced with it yet, but I believe itwill please me. " And again on the 25th of July, in the same year, whenHume's quarrel with Rousseau was raging, she appends to a letter toHume on that subject a few words about Smith, who had apparentlycalled upon her just as she had finished it: "I entreated your friendMr. Smith to call upon me. He has just this moment left me. I haveread my letter to him. He, like myself, is apprehensive that you havebeen deceived in the warmth of so just a resentment. He begs of you toread over again the letter to Mr. Conway. It does not appear that he(Rousseau) refuses the pension, nor that he desires it to be madepublic. "[161] The _Theory of Moral Sentiments_, which she had thenbegun to read, grew more and more in favour with her, and a few yearsafter this--in 1770--when the two sons of Smith's friend, Sir GilbertElliot, visited her, they found her at her studies in her bedroom, andtalking of translating the book, if she had time, because it containedsuch just ideas about sympathy. She added that the book had come intogreat vogue in France, and that Smith's doctrine of sympathy bade fairto supplant David Hume's immaterialism as the fashionable opinion, especially with the ladies. [162] The vogue would probably be aided bySmith's personal introduction into French literary circles, butevidence of its extent is found in the fact that although one Frenchtranslation of the work had already appeared, three different personswere then preparing or contemplating another--the Abbé Blavet, whoactually published his; the Due de la Rochefoucauld, who discontinuedhis labour when he found himself forestalled by the Abbé; and theComtesse de Boufflers who perhaps did little more than entertain thedesign. The best translation was published some years after by anotherlady, the widow of Condorcet. 

The Baron d'Holbach's weekly or bi-weekly dinners, at one of which ithas been mentioned Smith had a conversation with Turgot, were, as L. Blanc has said, the regular states-general of philosophy. The usualguests were the philosophes and encyclopedists and men ofletters--Diderot, Marmontel, Raynal, Galiani. The conversation ranlargely towards metaphysics and theology, and, as Morellet, who wasoften there, states, the boldest theories were propounded, and thingsspoken which might well call down fire from heaven. It was there thatHume observed he had neither seen an atheist, nor did he believe oneexisted, and was informed by his host in reply, "You have been alittle unfortunate; you are here at table with seventeen for the firsttime. "

Morellet mentions that it was at the table of Helvetius, thephilosopher, he himself first met Smith. Helvetius was a retiredfarmer-general of the taxes, who had grown rich without practisingextortion, and instead of remaining a bachelor, as Smith says otherfarmers-general in France did, because no gentlewoman would marrythem, and they were too proud to marry anybody else, he had married apretty and clever wife, an early friend of Turgot's, who helped tomake his Tuesday dinners among the most agreeable entertainments inParis. He had recently returned from a long sojourn in England, soenchanted with both country and people that d'Holbach, who could findnothing to praise in either, declared he could really have seennothing in England all the time except the persecution for heresywhich he had shortly before suffered in France, and would have escapedin our freer air; and he was always very hospitable to Englishcelebrities, so that it may be inferred that Smith enjoyed manyopportunities of conversation with this versatile and philosophicalfinancier during his stay in Paris. 

Morellet, whose acquaintance Smith made at Helvetius' house, becameone of his fastest friends in France, and on leaving Paris Smith gavehim for a keepsake his own pocket-book, --a very pretty English-madepocket-book, says the Abbé, which "has served me these twenty years. "Morellet, besides being an advanced economist, whose views ran insympathy with Smith's own, was the most delightful of companions, uniting with strong sense and a deep love of the right an unfailingplay of irony and fun, and ever ready, as Fanny Burney found him stillat eighty-five, to sing his own songs for the entertainment of hisfriends. The Abbé was a metaphysician as well as an economist, but, according to his account of his conversations with Smith, they seem tohave discussed mainly economic subjects--"the theory of commerce, " hesays, "banking, public credit, and various points in the great workwhich Smith was then meditating, "[163] _i. E. _ the _Wealth of Nations_. This book had therefore by that time taken shape so far that theauthor made his Paris friends aware of his occupation upon it, anddiscussed with them definite points in the scheme of doctrine he wasunfolding. Morellet formed a very just estimate of him. "I regard himstill, " he says, "as one of the men who have made the most completeobservations and analyses on all questions he treated of, " and he gavethe best proof of his high opinion by writing a translation of the_Wealth of Nations_ himself. Smith would no doubt derive someassistance towards making his observations and analyses more completefrom the different lights in which the matters under considerationwould be naturally placed in the course of discussions with men likeMorellet and his friends; but whatever others have thought, Morelletat least sets up no claim, either on his own behalf or on behalf ofhis very old and intimate college friend Turgot, or of any other ofthe French economists, of having influenced or supplied any of Smith'sideas. The Scotch inquirer had been long working on the same lines ashis French colleagues, and Morellet seems to have thought him, whenthey first met, as he thought him still, when he wrote those memoirs, as being more complete in his observations and analyses than theothers. 

A frequent resort of Smith in Paris was the salon of Mademoiselle del'Espinasse, which differed from the others by the greater variety ofthe guests and by the presence of ladies. The hostess--according toHume, one of the most sensible women in Paris--had long been Madame duDeffand's principal assistant in the management of her famous salon, but having been dismissed in 1764 for entertaining Turgot andD'Alembert on her own account without permission, she set up a rivalsalon of her own on improved principles, with the zealous help of hertwo eminent friends; and to her unpretending apartments ambassadors, princesses, marshals of France, and financiers came, and met with menof letters like Grimm, Condillac, and Gibbon. D'Alembert indeed livedin the house, having come there to be nursed through an illness andremaining on afterwards, and as D'Alembert was one of Smith's chieffriends in Paris, his house was naturally one of the latter's chiefresorts. Here, moreover, he often met Turgot, as indeed he dideverywhere he went, and of all the friends he met in France there wasnone in whose society he took more pleasure, or for whose mind andcharacter he formed a profounder admiration, than that great thinkerand statesman. If his conversation with Morellet ran mainly onpolitical and economic subjects, it would most probably run even morelargely on such subjects with Turgot, for they were both at the momentbusy writing their most important works on those subjects. Turgot's_Formation and Distribution of Wealth_ was written in 1766, though itwas only published three years later in the _Éphémérides du Citoyen_;and it cannot, I think, be doubted that the ideas and theories withwhich his mind was then boiling must have been the subject ofdiscussion again and again in the course of his numerous conversationswith Smith. So also if Smith brought out various points in the work hewas undertaking for discussion with Morellet, he may reasonably beinferred to have done the same with Morellet's greater friend Turgot, and all this would have been greatly to their mutual advantage. Novestiges of their intercourse, however, remain, though some criticsprofess to see its results writ very large on the face of theirwritings. 

Professor Thorold Rogers thinks the influences of Turgot's reasoningon Smith's mind to be easily perceptible to any reader of the_Formation and Distribution of Wealth_ and of the _Wealth of Nations_. Dupont de Nemours once went so far as to say that whatever was true inSmith was borrowed from Turgot, and whatever was not borrowedfrom Turgot was not true; but he afterwards retracted thatabsurdly-sweeping allegation, and confessed that he had made it beforehe was able to read English; while Leon Say thinks Turgot owed much ofhis philosophy to Smith, and Smith owed much of his economics toTurgot. [164] Questions of literary obligation are often difficult tosettle. Two contemporary thinkers, dealing with the same subject underthe same general influences and tendencies of the time, may thinknearly alike even without any manner of personal intercommunication, and the idea of natural liberty of trade, in which the mainresemblance between the writers in the present case is supposed tooccur, was already in the ground, and sprouting up here and therebefore either of them wrote at all. Smith's position on that subject, moreover, is so much more solid, balanced, and moderate than Turgot's, that it is different in positive character; the extremer form of thedoctrine taught by Turgot appears to have been taught also by Smith inearlier years and abandoned. At least the fragment published byStewart of Smith's Society paper of 1755--eleven years before Turgotwrote his book or saw Smith--proclaims individualism of the extremerform, and intimates that he had taught the same views in Edinburgh in1750. Smith had thus been teaching free trade many years before he metTurgot, and teaching it in Turgot's own form; he had converted many ofthe merchants of Glasgow to it and a future Prime Minister ofEngland; he had probably, moreover, thought out the main truths of thework he was even then busy upon. He was therefore in a position tomeet Turgot on equal terms, and give full value for anything he mighttake, and if obligations must needs be assessed and the balanceadjusted, who shall say whether Smith owes most to the conversation ofTurgot or Turgot owes most to the conversation of Smith? The state ofthe exchange cannot be determined from mere priority of publication;no other means of determining it exist, and it is of no great momentto determine it at all. 

Turgot and Smith are said--on authority which cannot be altogetherdisregarded, Condorcet, the biographer of Turgot--to have continuedtheir economic discussions by correspondence after Smith returned tothis country; but though every search has been made for thiscorrespondence, as Dugald Stewart informs us, no trace of anything ofthe kind was ever discovered on either side of the Channel, andSmith's friends never heard him allude to such a thing. "It isscarcely to be supposed, " says Stewart, "that Mr. Smith would destroythe letters of such a correspondent as M. Turgot, and still lessprobable that such an intercourse was carried on between them withoutthe knowledge of Mr. Smith's friends. From some inquiries that havebeen made at Paris by a gentleman of this society[165] since Smith'sdeath, I have reason to believe that no evidence of the correspondenceexists among the papers of M. Turgot, and that the whole story hastaken its rise from a report suggested by the knowledge of theirformer intimacy. "[166] Some of Hume's letters to Turgot--one from thisyear 1766, combating among other things Turgot's principle of thesingle tax on the net product of the land--still exist among theTurgot family archives, but none from Smith, for Leon Say examinedthose archives a few years ago with this purpose among othersexpressly in view. 

An occasional letter, however, certainly did pass between them, for, as Smith himself mentions in a letter which will appear in asubsequent chapter, it was "by the particular favour of M. Turgot"that he received the copy of the _Mémoires concernant lesImpositions_, which he quotes so often in the _Wealth of Nations_. This book was not printed when he was in France, and as it needed muchinfluence to get a copy of it, his was most probably got after Turgotbecame Controller-General of the Finances in 1774. But in any case itwould involve the exchange of letters. 

Smith, with all his admiration for Turgot, thought him toosimple-hearted for a practical statesman, too prone, as noble naturesoften are, to underrate the selfishness, stupidity, and prejudice thatprevail in the world and resist the course of just and rationalreform. He described Turgot to Samuel Rogers as an excellent person, very honest and well-meaning, but so unacquainted with the world andhuman nature that it was a maxim with him, as he had himself toldDavid Hume, that whatever is right may be done. [167]

Smith would deny the name of statesman altogether to the politicianwho did not make it his aim to establish the right, or, in otherwords, had no public ideal; such a man is only "that crafty andinsidious animal vulgarly termed a statesman. " But he insists that thetruly wise statesman in pressing his ideal must always practiseconsiderable accommodation. If he cannot carry the right he will notdisdain to ameliorate the wrong, but, "like Solon, when he cannotestablish the best system of laws, he will endeavour to establish thebest that the people can bear. "[168] Turgot made too little account, he thought, of the resisting power of vested interests and confirmedhabits. He was too optimist, and the peculiarity attaches to histheoretical as well as his practical work. Smith himself was pronerather to the contrary error of overrating the resisting power ofinterests and prejudices. If Turgot was too sanguine when he told theking that popular education would in ten years change the people pastall recognition, Smith was too incredulous when he despaired of theultimate realisation of slave emancipation and free trade; and under abiographical aspect, it is curious to find the man who has spent hislife in the practical business of the world taking the moreenthusiastic view we expect from the recluse, and the man who hasspent his life in his library taking the more critical and measuredview we expect from the man of the world. 

Another statesman whom Smith knew well in Paris was Necker. His wifehad very possibly begun by this time her rather austere salon, wherefree-thinking was strictly tabooed, and Morellet, her right-hand manin the entertainment of the guests, confesses the restraint was reallyirksome; and if she had, Morellet would probably have brought Smiththere. But anyhow Sir James Mackintosh, who had means of hearing aboutSmith from competent sources, states explicitly that he was uponintimate terms with Necker during his residence in the French capital, that he formed only a poor opinion of that minister's abilities, andthat he used to predict the fall of his political reputation themoment his head was put to any real proof, always saying of him withemphasis, "He is a mere man of detail. "[169] Smith was not alwayslucky in his predictions, but here for once he was right. 

While Smith was frequenting these various literary and philosophicalsalons they were all thrown into a state of unusual commotion by thefamous quarrel between Rousseau and Hume. The world has long sinceceased to take any interest in that quarrel, having assured itselfthat it all originated in the suspicions of Rousseau's insane fancy, but during the whole summer of 1766 it filled column after column ofthe English and continental newspapers, and it occupied much of theattention of Smith and the other friends of Hume in Paris. It will beremembered that when Rousseau was expelled from Switzerland, Hume, whowas an extravagant admirer of his, offered to find him a home inEngland, and on the offer being accepted, brought him over to thiscountry in January 1766. Hume first found quarters for him atChiswick, but the capricious philosopher would not live at Chiswickbecause it was too near town. Hume then got him a gentleman's house inthe Peak of Derby, but Rousseau would not enter it unless the owneragreed to take board. Hume induced the owner to gratify even thiswhim, and Rousseau departed and established himself comfortably atWootton in the Peak of Derby. Hume next procured for him a pension of£100 a year from the king. Rousseau would not touch it unless it werekept secret; the king agreed to keep it secret. Rousseau then wouldnot have it unless it were made public; the king again agreed to meethis whim. But the more Hume did for him the more Rousseau suspectedthe sincerity of his motives, and used first to assail him with themost ridiculous accusations, and then fall on his neck and imploreforgiveness for ever doubting him. But at last, on the 23rd of June, in reply to Hume's note intimating the king's remission of thecondition of secrecy, and the consequent removal of every obstacle tothe acceptance of the pension, Rousseau gave way entirely to the evilspirit that haunted him, and wrote Hume the notorious letter, declaring that his horrible designs were at last found out. 

Hume lost no time in going with his troubles to Smith, and asking himto lay the true state of the case before their Paris friends. To thatletter Smith wrote the following reply:--

 PARIS, _6th July 1766_. 

 MY DEAR FRIEND--I am thoroughly convinced that Rousseau is as great a rascal as you and as every man here believe him to be. Yet let me beg of you not to think of publishing anything to the world upon the very great impertinence which he has been guilty of. By refusing the pension which you had the goodness to solicit for him with his own consent, he may have thrown, by the baseness of his proceedings, a little ridicule upon you in the eyes of the court and the ministry. Stand this ridicule; expose his brutal letter, but without giving it out of your own hand, so that it may never be printed, and, if you can, laugh at yourself, and I will pawn my life that before three weeks are at an end this little affair which at present gives you so much uneasiness shall be understood to do you as much honour as anything that has ever happened to you. By endeavouring to unmask before the public this hypocritical pedant, you run the risk of disturbing the tranquillity of your whole life. By leaving him alone he cannot give you a fortnight's uneasiness. To write against him is, you may depend upon it, the very thing he wishes you to do. He is in danger of falling into obscurity in England, and he hopes to make himself considerable by provoking an illustrious adversary. He will have a great party--the Church, the Whigs, the Jacobites, the whole wise English nation--who will love to mortify a Scotchman, and to applaud a man who has refused a pension from the king. It is not unlikely, too, that they may pay him very well for having refused it, and that even he may have had in view this compensation. Your whole friends here wish you not to write, --the Baron, D'Alembert, Madame Riccoboni, Mademoiselle Rianecourt, M. Turgot, etc. Etc. M. Turgot, a friend every way worthy of you, desired me to recommend this advice to you in a particular manner as his most earnest entreaty and opinion. He and I are both afraid that you are surrounded with evil counsellors, and that the advice of your English _literati_, who are themselves accustomed to publishing all their little gossiping stories in newspapers, may have too much influence upon you. Remember me to Mr. Walpole, and believe me, etc. 

 P. S. --Make my apology to Millar for not having yet answered his last very kind letter. I am preparing the answer to it, which he will certainly receive by next post. Remember me to Mrs. Millar. Do you ever see Mr. Townshend?[170]

The deep love of tranquillity this letter breathes, the dislike ofpublicity as a snare fatal to future quiet, the contempt for the pettyvanity that makes men of letters run into print with their littlepersonal affairs, as if they were of moment to anybody but themselves, are all very characteristic of Smith's philosophic temper of mind; andthere is also--what appears on other occasions as well as this in theintercourse of the two philosophers--a certain note of affectionateanxiety on the part of the younger and graver philosopher towards theelder as towards a man of less weight of natural character andexperience, and perhaps less of the wisdom of this world, thanhimself. 

Smith seems to have shown Hume's letter to their common friends inParis, and while deeply interested, as was only natural, in thequarrel, they with one consent took Hume's side, the only possibleview of the transaction. The subject continued to furnish matter ofconversation and conference among Hume's French literary friendsduring the whole time of Smith's residence in Paris. Hume sent Smithanother letter a little later on in the month of July, which he askedhim specially to show to D'Alembert. This Smith did on the 21 st, whenhe met D'Alembert at dinner at Mademoiselle de l'Espinasse's, incompany with Turgot, Marmontel, Roux, Morellet, Saurin, and Duclos;and on the same evening D'Alembert wrote Hume that he had just had thehonour of seeing Mr. Smith, who had shown him the letter he hadreceived, and that they had talked much together about Hume and hisaffairs. Apparently Smith's objections to Hume publishing anything onthe quarrel were now overcome; at all events, the result of thisconsultation of Hume's French friends was to advise publication; andaccordingly a week or two later Hume sent on a complete narrative ofhis relations with Rousseau, together with the whole correspondencefrom first to last, to D'Alembert, with full permission to make anyuse of it he thought best, and he wrote Smith at the same time askinghim to go and get a sight of it. "Pray tell me, " he adds, "yourjudgment of my work, if it deserves the name. Tell D'Alembert I makehim absolute master to retrench or alter what he thinks proper inorder to suit it to the latitude of Paris. "[171]

On the 27th of July Turgot writes Hume, mentioning that he had thatday met Smith at Baron d'Holbach's, and they had discussed theRousseau affair together. Smith had told him of the letter fromRousseau to General Conway, which he had been shown on the 25th by theComtesse de Boufflers, and had repeated to him the same interpretationof that letter which he had already expressed to the Comtesse, viz. That Rousseau had not made the secrecy a ground for refusing thepension, but merely regretted that that condition made it impossiblefor him adequately to show his gratitude. Smith was thus inclined togive Rousseau the benefit of a better construction when a betterconstruction was possible, but Hume writes Turgot on the 5th of Augustthat Smith was quite wrong in that supposition. 

One of those two letters of Smith's on the Rousseau affair mentionsthe name of Madame Riccoboni among those of Hume's friends with whomhe had been in communication on the subject, and Madame Riccoboniabout the same date writes Garrick that Smith and Changuion, theEnglish ambassador's private secretary, were her two great confidantson the business of this famous quarrel. Madame Riccoboni had been apopular actress, but giving up the stage for letters, had become themost popular novelist in France. Her _Letters of Fanny Butler_ and her_History of Miss Jenny_ were dividing the attention of Paris with thenovels of our own Richardson; and Smith, in the 1790 edition of his_Theory_, brackets her with Racine, Voltaire, and Richardson asinstructors in "the refinements and delicacies of love andfriendship. " She was an effusive admirer of Smith, as, indeed, she wasof Changuion, and of that _bel Anglais_ Richard Burke, and of Garrickhimself;--"you are, " she writes the player, "the dearling of myheart";--and when Smith was returning home from France, she gave himthe following letter of introduction to Garrick:--

 Je suis bien vaine, my dear Mr. Garrick, de pouvoir vous donner ce que je perds avec un regret trés-vif, le plaisir de voir Mr. Smith. Ce charming philosopher vous dira combien il a d'esprit, car je le défie de parler sans en montrer. Je sui vraiment fâchée que la politesse m'oblige à lui donner ma lettre ouverte: cet usage établi retient mon coeur tout prêt à lui rendre justice, mais sa modestie est aussi grande que son mérite, et je craindrois que la plus simple vérité ne parût à ses yeux une grosse flaterie; je puis vous dire de lui, ce qu'il disoit un jour d'un autre--le métier de cet homme-là est d'être aimable. J'ajouterai, --et de mériter l'estime de tous ceux qui ont le bonheur de le connoitre. 

 Oh ces Ecossois! ces chiens d'Ecossois! ils viennent me plaire et m'affliger. Je suis comme ces folles jeunes filles qui écoutent un amant sans penser an regret, toujours voisin du plaisir. Grondez-moi, battez-moi, tuez-moi! mais j'aime Mr. Smith, je l'aime beaucoup. Je voudrois que le diable emportât tous nos gens de lettres, tous nos philosophes, et qu'il me rapportât Mr. Smith. Les hommes supérieurs se cherchent. Rempli d'estime pour Mr. Garrick, désirant le voir et l'entretenir, Mr. Smith a voulu être introduit par moi. Il me flate infiniment par cette préférence, bien des gens se mélent de présenter un ami à un autre ami, peu sont comme moi dans le cas d'être sûre de la reconnoissance des tous deux. Adieu, mon très-aimable et très-paresseux ami. Embrassez pour moi vôtre gracieuse compagne. La mienne vous assure l'un et l'autre de sa plus tendre amitié. 

 RICCOBONI. [172]

Not content with this letter of recommendation which she gave to Smithto deliver, Madame Riccoboni at the same time sent Garrick anotherthrough the post, and shows the sincerity of the feelings of highesteem she had expressed in the open letter by expressing them againquite as decisively in the closed one:--

 _6 Octobre. _

 Aujourd'huy je vous écris uniquement pour vous prévenir sur une visite que vous recevrez à Londres. Mr. Smith, un Ecossois, homme d'un très grand mérite, aussi distingué par son bon naturel, par la douceur de son caractère que par son esprit et son sçavoir, me demande une lettre pour vous. Vous verrez un philosophe moral et pratique; gay, riant, à cent lieues de la pédanterie des nôtres. Il vous estime beaucoup et désire vous connoître particulièrement. Donnez son nom à votre porte, je vous en prie, vous perdriez beaucoup à ne pas le voir, et je serois désolée de ne pas recevoir de lui un détail du bon accueil que vous lui aurez fait. .. . Donnez son nom à votre porte, je vous le répète. S'il ne vous voit pas, je vous étrangle. [173]

Smith had apparently begged of her also a letter of introduction to R. Burke, and she wrote him one, but he went away without it; as she saysto Garrick, in a letter of 3rd January 1767: "Ma bête de philosopheest partie sans songer à la prendre. " Nor apparently had Smith as yetdelivered her letter to Garrick, for she asks, "Vous ne l'avez pasencore vu Mr. Smith? c'est la plus distraite créature! mais c'est unedes plus aimables. Je l'aime beaucoup et je l'estime encored'avantage. "[174] A few weeks later, on the 29th of January, she againreturns to the subject of Smith, asking Garrick whether he had yetseen him, whether he was in London or had delivered her letter, andadding, "C'est un homme charmant, n'est-il pas?"[175]

Madame Riccoboni was not the only Frenchwoman who was touched withSmith's personal charms; we hear of another, a marquise, "a woman tooof talents and wit, " who actually fell in love with him. It was duringan excursion Smith made from Paris to Abbeville, with the Duke ofBuccleugh and several other English noblemen and a certain CaptainLloyd, a retired officer, who was afterwards a friend, perhaps apatient, of Dr. Currie, the author of the _Life of Burns_, and toldthe doctor this and many other anecdotes about the economist. Lloydwas, according to Currie, a most interesting and accomplished man, andhis acquaintance with Smith was one of great intimacy. The party seemto have stayed some days at Abbeville--to visit Crecy, no doubt, likepatriotic Englishmen, and this French marquise was stopping at thesame hotel. She had just come from Paris, where she found all theworld talking about Hume, and having heard that Smith was Hume'sparticular friend and almost as great a philosopher as he, she wasbent on making so famous a conquest, but after many persistent effortswas obliged eventually to abandon the attempt. Her philosopher couldnot endure her, nor could he--and this greatly amused his ownparty--conceal his embarrassment; but it was not philosophy altogetherthat steeled his breast. The truth, according to Lloyd, was that thephilosopher was deeply in love with another, an English lady, who wasalso stopping in Abbeville at the time. Of all Currie heard concerningSmith from Captain Lloyd this is the only thing he has chosen torecord, and slight though it is, it contributes a touch of nature tothat more personal aspect of Smith's life of which we have leastknowledge. Stewart makes mention of an attachment which Smith wasknown to have cherished for several years in the early part of hislife to a young lady of great beauty and accomplishment, whom Stewarthad himself seen when she was past eighty, but "still retained evidenttraces of her former beauty, " while "the powers of her understandingand the gaiety of her temper seemed to have suffered nothing from thehand of time. " Nobody ever knew what prevented their union, or how farSmith's addresses were favourably received, but she never married anymore than he. Stewart says that "after this disappointment he laidaside all thoughts of marriage"; but the Abbeville attachment seems tohave been a different one from this and a later. 

While in Paris Smith was a very steady playgoer. He was always a greatadmirer of the French dramatists, and now enjoyed very much seeingtheir plays actually represented on the stage, and discussing themafterwards, we may be sure, with an expert like Madame Riccoboni. 

Speaking of his admiration for the great French dramatists, DugaldStewart states that "this admiration (resulting originally from thegeneral character of his taste, which delighted more to remark thatpliancy of genius which accommodates itself to general rules than towonder at the bolder flights of an undisciplined imagination) wasincreased to a great degree when he saw the beauties that had struckhim in the closet heightened by the utmost perfection of theatricalexhibition. "[176] The French theatre, indeed, gave him much materialfor reflection. In his later years his thoughts and his conversationoften recurred to the philosophy of the imitative arts. He meant hadhe lived to have written a book on the subject; he has actually leftus a single essay, one of the most finished pieces of work he everdid; and among his friends he was very fond in those days of speakingand theorising on that topic, and supporting his conclusions byillustrations from his wide reading and his observation of life. Theseillustrations seem to have been drawn frequently from his experiencesof the French theatre. 

The Earl of Buchan says that Smith had no ear for music, but there arefew things he seems to have nevertheless enjoyed better than theopera, both serious and comic. He thought the "sprightly airs" of thecomic opera, though a more "temperate joy" than "the scenes of thecommon comedy, " were still a "most delicious" one. '[177] "They do notmake us laugh so loud, but they make us smile more frequently. " And heheld the strongest opinion that music was always on virtue's side, forhe says the only musical passions are the good ones, the bad andunsocial passions being, in his view, essentially unmelodious. But hethought scenery was much abused on the French operatic stage. "In theFrench operas not only thunder and lightning, storms and tempests, arecommonly represented in the ridiculous manner above mentioned, butall the marvellous, all the supernatural of epic poetry, all themetamorphoses of mythology, all the wonders of witchcraft and magic, everything that is most unfit to be represented upon the stage, areevery day exhibited with the most complete approbation and applause ofthat ingenious nation. "[178]

Amid all this gaiety of salons and playhouses Smith found a graverretreat with the philanthropic sect of the economists in theapartments of the king's physician, Dr. Quesnay, in Paris andVersailles. Dupont de Nemours told J. B. Say that he had often metSmith at their little meetings, and that they looked on him as ajudicious and simple man, and apparently nothing more, for, he adds, Smith had not at that time shown the stuff he was made of. [179] Ifthey did not then recognise his paramount capacity as they afterwardsdid, there were some things about his opinions which Dupont thoughtthey learnt better then than they could from the great work in whichhe subsequently expounded them. In a note to one of Turgot's works, ofwhich he was editor, Dupont appeals from an opinion expressed, orunderstood to be expressed, by Smith in his published writings, to theopinion on the same subject which he used to hear from Smith's ownlips in the unreserved intercourse of private life. "Smith atliberty, " he says, "Smith in his own room or in that of a friend, as Ihave seen him when we were fellow-disciples of M. Quesnay, would nothave said that. "[180]

Though Smith met with them, and was indeed their very close scientificas well as personal associate, it is of course impossible, strictlyspeaking, to count him, as Dupont does, among the disciples ofQuesnay. He was no more a disciple of Quesnay than Peter was adisciple of Paul, although, it is true, Paul wrote first. He neitheragreed with all the creed of the French economists, nor did heacquire the articles he agreed with from the teaching of their master. He had been for sixteen years before he met them teaching the twoprincipal truths which they set themselves to proclaim: (1) that thewealth of a country does not consist in its gold and silver, but inits stock of consumable commodities; and (2) that the true way ofincreasing it is not by conferring privileges or imposing restraints, but by assuring its producers a fair field and no favour. He hadtaught those truths in 1750, and Quesnay had not written anythingbearing on them till 1756. Moreover, much in their system on whichthey laid most stress he has publicly repudiated. Still he speaks bothof their system and of their master with a veneration which nodisciple could easily surpass. He pronounces the system to be, "withall its imperfections, perhaps the nearest approximation to the truththat has yet been published upon the subject of political economy, "and the author of the system to be "ingenious and profound, " "a man ofthe greatest simplicity and modesty, who was honoured by his discipleswith a reverence not inferior to that of any of the ancientphilosophers for the founders of their respective systems. "[181] Hemight not, like the Marquis de Mirabeau, call Quesnay a greater thanSocrates, or the _Economic Table_ a discovery equal to the inventionof printing or of money, but he thought him so clearly the head of theeconomic inquirers of the world that he meant to have dedicated the_Wealth of Nations_ to Quesnay had the venerable French economist beenalive at the time of its publication. Smith was therefore a verysympathetic associate of this new sect, though not a strict adherent. 

It may be well to explain in a word to the general reader that thissect were patriots and practical social and political reformers quiteas much as theoretical economists. They believed the condition of theFrench people to have grown so bad as to be a grave danger to theState, and they preached their system as a revelation of the only wayof salvation. They were too earnest for the Paris wits. Voltairealways sneered at them till he came to know Turgot. Grimm calls them"the pietists of philosophy, " and Hume, bantering Morellet, wondershow a man like Turgot could herd with such cattle, "the mostchimerical and the most arrogant that now exist since the annihilationof the Sorbonne. " But they were grappling with living problems, andseeing into the real situation so much further than theircontemporaries, that an historian like de Tocqueville thinks the bestkey to the Revolution is to be found in their writings. The malady ofthe age, they held, was the ever-increasing distress of theagricultural population. The great nobles, the financiers, thefarmers-general, the monopolists, were very rich; but theagriculturists--the vast body of the people--were sinking into ahopeless impoverishment, for between tithes and heavy war taxes andfarmer-generals' extortions, and the high rents which, to Turgot'sdespair, the smaller peasantry would persist in offering withoutreflecting in the least on the rise in their burdens, --between allthese things, the net product of agriculture--what was left in thehands of the cultivator after all expenses were paid away--was gettingless and less every year, and the ruin of the peasantry meant the ruinof the nation. "Poor peasants, poor kingdom, " said they; "poorkingdom, poor king. "

And the remedy was plain: the net product of agriculture must somehowbe made to rise instead of fall. They supported their contention witha certain erroneous theory that agriculture is the sole source ofwealth, but the error made little practical difference to theargument, for agriculture is always a sufficiently important source ofwealth to make its improvement a national concern. How then was thenet product to be increased? By better methods of cultivation, byremoval of legal and official interferences, and by lightening thepublic burdens through the abolition of all existing taxes and of theexisting system of collecting them through farmers-general, and theinstitution instead of a single tax on the net product of the soil, tobe collected directly by responsible officials. According to thereminiscences of strangers who happened to fall into their company, the talk of the economists always ran much on the net product and thesingle tax, for they believed the two great needs of the country wereagricultural improvement and financial reform. When Quesnay wasoffered a farmer-generalship of the taxes for his son, he said, "No;let the welfare of my children be bound up with the publicprosperity, " and made his son a farmer of the land instead. 

In Quesnay's rooms in the palace of Versailles Smith would sometimeshear words that would sound very strange in the house of the king. Mercier de la Rivière, Quesnay's favourite disciple, while writing hisbook on the _Natural and Essential Order of Political Societies_, published in 1767, almost lived in Quesnay's apartments, discussingthe work point by point with the master. The Marquis de Mirabeaumentions having seen him there six whole weeks running, "moulding andremoulding his work, and consequently denying father and mother" forthe time. One day Madame du Hausset heard a memorable conversationthere between these two economists. "This kingdom, " observed Mirabeau, "is in a miserable state. There is neither energy in the nation normoney to serve in its place. " "No, " replied Mercier de la Rivière, counsellor of the Parliament of Paris and late Governor of Martinico, "it cannot be regenerated except by a conquest like that of China, orby a great internal convulsion; but woe to those who will be therethen, for the French people does nothing by halves. " The words madethe little lady-in-waiting tremble, and she hurried out of the room;but M. De Marigny, brother of the king's mistress, who was alsopresent, followed her, and bade her have no fear, for these werehonest men, if a little chimerical, and they were even, he thought, on the right road, though they knew not when to stop and went past thegoal. [182]

The doctor's room was a little sanctuary of free speech pitched by anodd chance in the heart of a despotic court, but his loyalty was knownto be as sterling as his patriotism, and Louis himself would comeround and listen to his economic parables, and call him the king'sthinker?-as indeed he was, for he was no believer in states-general orstates-particular, he had no interest in court or party intrigues, andhis thought was always for the power of the king as well as for thewelfare of the people. Marmontel, who used to come to him feigning aninterest in the net product and the single tax, merely, as heconfesses, to secure the doctor's word with Madame de Pompadour aboutan appointment he wanted, writes that "while storms gathered anddispersed again underneath Quesnay's _entre-sol_, he wrought at hisaxioms and his calculations in rural economy as calmly and with asmuch indifference to the movements of the court as if he were ahundred leagues away. Below they discussed peace and war, the choiceof generals, the dismissal of ministers, while we up in the entre-solreasoned about agriculture and calculated the net product, orsometimes dined gaily with Diderot, D'Alembert, Duclos, Helvetius, Turgot, Buffon; and Madame de Pompadour, not being able to get thatcompany of philosophers to descend into her salon, used to come upthere herself to see them at table, and have a talk with them. "[183]None of the famous men mentioned here were members of the sect exceptTurgot. 

The year 1766 was a year of exceptional activity in this economistcamp. Turgot, as we have seen, was writing an important work, andMercier de la Rivière another. The other members of the group werebusy too, for they had just for the first time secured an organ in thepress in the _Journal de l'Agriculture du Commerce et des Finances_, of which their youngest convert, Dupont de Nemours, was made editorin June 1765, and in which Quesnay himself wrote an article almostevery month till Dupont's dismissal in November 1766. The Government, moreover, which had thrown Mirabeau into prison for his first book andhad suppressed his second only a year or two before, now ceased fromtroubling, and gave even a certain official countenance to the_Journal de l'Agriculture_, for after the war it no longer shut itseyes to the distress that prevailed, and began to give an ear toremedies. They were making converts too, among others the AbbéBaudeau, who used to write them down in his journal, the _Éphéméridesdu Citoyen_, but now offered to make it their organ when they lost the_Journal de l'Agriculture_. They were thus in the first flush of theiractive propaganda, which in a year or two more made political economy, Grimm says, the _science de la mode_ in France, and won converts tothe single tax among the crowned heads of Europe. Quesnay too hadtaken apartments in town in the house of a disciple to be nearer hisfriends for pushing the propaganda, so that Smith had especiallyabundant opportunities of seeing him and them that year. 

No memorial of all their intercourse, however, has survived except theslight and rather indefinite reminiscence of Dupont de Nemours, towhich allusion has been made. Dupont remembers that Smith used todiscuss with them a question, which they no doubt would be oftendiscussing, for they were greatly interested in it, --the question ofthe effect upon the wages of labour of a tax upon the commoditiesconsumed by the labourers; and he says that Smith, in the freedom ofprivate intercourse with them, expressed quite a different opinionupon that subject from that which he delivered in the _Wealth ofNations_, with the fear of vested interests before his eyes. Dupontcould not have read the _Wealth of Nations_ very carefully when hehinted this accusation of timidity before vested interests, for therewas scarcely a vested interest existing at the time that has notincurred in its turn most vigorous censure in that work. But as thealleged difference amounts merely to this, that Smith in his bookasserts a principle with a certain specific limitation to it which heused to assert in conversation without the limitation, it probablyrepresents no real change of opinion, but only a difference betweenthe more exact expositions of the book and the less exact expositionsof conversation. The point was this. Smith held, with Dupont and hisfriends, that a direct tax on the wages of labour, like the Frenchindustrial _taille_, would, if the demand for labour and the price ofprovisions remained the same, have the effect of raising the wages oflabour by the sum required to pay the tax. He held, again, with themthat an indirect tax on the commodities consumed by the labourerswould act in exactly the same way if the commodities taxed werenecessaries of life, because a rise in the price of necessaries wouldimperil the labourer's ability to bring up his family. But what seemednew to Dupont was that Smith now in his book held that if thecommodities taxed were luxuries, the tax would not act in that way. Itwould act as a sumptuary law. The labourer would merely spend less onsuch superfluities, and since this forced frugality would probablyincrease rather than diminish his ability to bring up a family, hewould neither require nor obtain any rise of wages. The high tobaccoduty in France and England and a recent rise of three shillings on thebarrel of beer had no effect whatever on wages. 

That is what Dupont says Smith would not have contended in France. Hewould not have drawn this distinction between the taxation of anecessary and the taxation of a luxury, and he only drew it in hisbook to avert the clamour of offended interests, though against hisreal convictions. The imputation of dissimulation, though explicitlyenough made, may be disregarded. The alternative of a real change ofopinion is quite possible, inasmuch as the position Smith has actuallyreached on this question in his book is far from final or perfect; itis obvious at a glance that in a community such as he supposes, wherethe labourers are in the habit of consuming both necessaries andluxuries, a tax on necessaries would have exactly the same effect ashe attributes to a tax on luxuries; it would force the labourer togive up some of his luxuries. But there might be no real change ofopinion, and yet a good deal of apparent difference between the loosestatements of a speaker in a language of which he had only imperfectcommand and his more complete and precise statements in a writtenbook. Dupont, it may be added, seems to think that Smith in his talkswith the French economists expressed much more unfavourable views ofthe inconveniences, changes, and general evils of the English systemof taxation than would be gathered from the _Wealth of Nations_. 

Before Smith left France he had occasion, unhappily, to resort toQuesnay the physician as well as to Quesnay the economist. He had beenin the habit while in Paris of taking his pupils for excursions tointeresting places in the vicinity, as he had done from Toulouse, andin August 1766 they went to Compiègne to see the camp and the militaryevolutions which were to take place during the residence of the Courtthere. In Compiègne the Duke of Buccleugh took seriously ill of afever, --the consequence of a fall from his horse while hunting, sayshis aunt, Lady Mary Coke, --and, as will be seen from the followingletter, he was watched and nursed by his distinguished tutor with acare and devotion almost more than paternal. The letter is written toCharles Townshend, the Duke's step-father:--

 COMPIÈGNE, _26th August 1766_. 

 DEAR SIR--It is, you may believe, with the greatest concern that I find myself obliged to give you an account of a slight fever from which the Duke of Buccleugh is not yet entirely recovered, though it is this day very much abated. He came here to see the camp and to hunt with the King and the Court. On Thursday last he returned from hunting about seven at night very hungry, and ate heartily of a cold supper with a vast quantity of sallad, and drank some cold punch after it. This supper, it seems, disagreed with him. He had no appetite next day, but appeared well and hearty as usual. He found himself uneasy on the field and returned home before the rest of the company. He dined with my Lord George Lennox, and, as he tells me, ate heartily. He found himself very much fatigued after dinner and threw himself upon his servant's bed. He slept there about an hour, and awaked about eight at night in a good deal of disorder. He vomited, but not enough to relieve him. I found his pulse extremely quick. He went to bed immediately and drank some vinegar whey, quite confident that a night's rest and a sweat, his usual remedy, would relieve him. He slept little that night but sweat profusely. The moment I saw him next day (Sunday) I was sure he had a fever, and begged of him to send for a physician. He refused a long time, but at last, upon seeing me uneasy, consented. I sent for Quenay, first ordinary physician to the King. He sent me word he was ill. I then sent for Senac; he was ill likewise. I went to Quenay myself to beg that, notwithstanding his illness, which was not dangerous, he would come to see the Duke. He told me he was an old infirm man, whose attendance could not be depended on, and advised me as his friend to depend upon De la Saone, first physician to the Queen. I went to De la Saone. He was gone out, and was not expected home that night. I returned to Quenay, who followed me immediately to the Duke. It was by this time seven at night. The Duke was in the same profuse sweat which he had been in all day and all the preceding night. In this situation Quenay declared that it was improper to do anything till the sweat should be over. He only ordered him some cooling ptisane drink. Ouenay's illness made it impossible for him to return next day (Monday) and De la Saone has waited on the Duke ever since, to my entire satisfaction. On Monday he found the Duke's fever so moderate that he judged it unnecessary to bleed him. .. . To-day, Wednesday, upon finding some little extraordinary heat upon the Duke's skin in the morning, he proposed ordering a small quantity of blood to be taken from him at two o'clock, but upon returning at that hour he found him so very cool and easy that he judged it unnecessary. When a French physician judges bleeding unnecessary, you may be sure that the fever is not very violent. The Duke has never had the smallest headache nor any pain in any part of his body; he has good spirits; his head and his eye are both clear; he has no extraordinary redness in his face; his tongue is not more foul than in a common cold. There is some little quickness in his pulse, but it is soft, full, and regular. In short, there is no one bad symptom about him, only he has a fever and keeps his bed. .. . De la Saone imagines the whole illness owing to the indigestion of Thursday night. Some part of the undigested matter having got into his blood, the violent commotion which this had occasioned had burst, he supposes, some small vessel in his veins. .. . Depend upon hearing from me by every post till his perfect recovery; if any threatening symptom should appear I shall immediately despatch an express to you; so keep your mind as easy as possible. There is not the least probability that any such symptom ever will appear. I never stirr from his room from eight in the morning till ten at night, and watch for the smallest change that happens to him. I should sit by him all night too if the ridiculous, impertinent jealousy of Cook, who thinks my assiduity an encroachment upon his duty, would not be so much alarmed, as it gave some disturbance even to his master in his present illness. 

 The King has inquired almost every day at his levée of my Lord George and of Mr. De la Saone concerning the Duke's illness. The Duke and Dutchess of Fitzjames, the Chevalier de Clermont, the Comte de Guerchy, etc. Etc. , together with the whole English nation here and at Paris, have expressed the greatest anxiety for his recovery. Remember me in the most respectful manner to Lady Dalkeith, and believe me to be with the greatest regard, dear sir, your most obliged and most humble servant, ADAM SMITH. 

 COMPIÈGNE, _26th August 1766_. 

 Wednesday, 5 o'clock afternoon. [184]

Could there be a more pleasing exhibition of the thorough kindness ofa manly heart than this picture of the great philosopher sitting dayafter day by the bedside of his pupil, watching eagerly everyindication of change, and only consenting to leave the room for a timeat night out of consideration for the silly jealousy of the valet, whothought the tutor's presence an invasion of his own rights?

The Duke recovered and they returned to Paris. But while still atCompiègne they heard of a sad event that could not fail to shock themgreatly, the death of their greatly esteemed young friend andfellow-traveller, Sir James Macdonald. "Were you and I together, dearSmith, " writes Hume at this time, "we should shed tears at present forthe death of poor Sir James Macdonald. We could not possibly havesuffered a greater loss than in that valuable young man. "[185]

In this letter Hume had dropped a remark showing that he was stillclinging to the idea which he had repeatedly mentioned to Smith ofreturning and making his home for the remainder of his days somewherein France--in Paris, or "Toulouse, or Montauban, or some provincialtown in the South of France, where"--to quote his words to Sir G. Elliot--"I shall spend contentedly the rest of my life with moremoney, under a finer sky and in better company than I was born toenjoy. " Of this idea Smith strongly disapproved. He thought that Humewould find himself too old to transplant, and that he was beingcarried away by the great kindness and flatteries he had received inParis into entertaining a plan which could never promote hishappiness, because, in the first place, it would probably prove fatalto work, and in the next, it would certainly deprive him of thesupport of those old and rooted friendships which could not bereplaced by the incense of an hour. For his own part, and with a viewto his own future, Smith was of an entirely opposite mind. Thecontrast between the two friends in natural character stands out verystrongly here. Smith had enjoyed his stay in France almost as much asHume, and had been welcomed everywhere by the best men and women inthe country with high respect, but now that the term of his tutorshipis approaching its end, he longs passionately for home, feels that hehas had his fill of travel, and says if he once gets among his oldfriends again, he will never wander more. This appears from a letterhe wrote Millar, the bookseller, probably after his return fromCompiègne, of which Millar sent the following extract to Hume:"Though I am very happy here, I long passionately to rejoin my oldfriends, and if I had once got fairly to your side of the water, Ithink I should never cross it again. Recommend the same sober way ofthinking to Hume. He is light-headed, tell him, when he talks ofcoming to spend the remainder of his days here or in France. Rememberme to him most affectionately. "[186]

His return, for which he was then looking with so much desire, camesooner than he anticipated, and came, unfortunately, with a cloud. Hisyounger pupil, the Hon. Hew Campbell Scott, was assassinated in thestreets of Paris, on the 18th of October 1766, in his nineteenthyear;[187] and immediately thereafter they set out for London, bringing the remains of Mr. Scott along with them, and accompanied byLord George Lennox, Hume's successor as Secretary of Legation. TheLondon papers announce their arrival at Dover on the 1st of November. The tutorship, which ended with this melancholy event, was alwaysremembered with great satisfaction and gratitude by the survivingpupil. "In October 1766, " writes the Duke of Buccleugh to DugaldStewart, "we returned to London, after having spent near three yearstogether without the slightest disagreement or coolness, and, on mypart, with every advantage that could be expected from the society ofsuch a man. We continued to live in friendship till the hour of hisdeath, and I shall always remain with the impression of having lost afriend whom I loved and respected, not only for his great talents, butfor every private virtue. "

Smith's choice for this post of travelling tutor was thought in manyquarters at the time to be a very strange choice. Shrewd old Dr. Carlyle thought it so strange that he professes to be quite unable asa man of the world to understand Charles Townshend making it, except"for his own glory of having sent an eminent Scotch philosopher totravel with the Duke. "[188] He thought Smith had too much "probity andbenevolence" in his own soul to suspect ill in another or check it, and that a man who seemed too absent to make his own way about couldhardly be expected to look efficiently after the goings of another. "He was, " says Carlyle, "the most absent man in company I ever knew, "and "he appeared very unfit for the intercourse of the world as atravelling tutor. "[189]

Still Townshend's choice was thoroughly justified by the result, andCarlyle admits it, but thinks that was due less to the efficiency ofthe tutor than to the natural excellence of the pupil. And there is nodoubt that Smith was exceptionally fortunate in his pupil. In hisafter life this Duke Henry took little part in politics, but he madehimself singularly beloved among his countrymen by a long careerfilled with works of beneficence and patriotism, and brightened bythat love of science which has for generations distinguished the houseof Buccleuch. It may be true that with such a pupil Smith's naturaldefects would find little opportunity of causing trouble, but it seemscertain, as I have before said, that these defects were habituallyexaggerated by Smith's contemporaries, and Carlyle himselfacknowledges that Smith's travels with the Duke cured him considerablyof his fits of abstraction. This is confirmed by Ramsay of Ochtertyre, who says that Smith grew smarter during his stay abroad, and lost muchof the awkwardness of manner he previously exhibited. 

Stewart is disposed to think, however, that the public have not thesame reason to be satisfied with Smith's acceptance of this tutorshipas either he himself or his pupil had, and that the world at large hasbeen seriously the loser for it, because "it interrupted that studiousleisure for which nature seemed to have designed him, and in whichalone he could have hoped to accomplish those literary projects whichhad flattered the ambition of his youthful genius. " Now it is, ofcourse, idle to speculate on the things that might have been. Kant wasnever forty miles from Konigsberg, and had Smith remained in Glasgowall his days there is no reason to doubt he could have produced worksof lasting importance. But it is a truism to say that the works wouldhave been other and different from what we have. To a politicalphilosopher foreign travel is an immense advantage, and there neverwas a country where graver or more interesting problems, both economicand constitutional, offered themselves for study than France in thelatter half of last century, nor any political philosopher who enjoyedbetter opportunities than Smith of discussing such problems with theablest and best-informed minds on the spot. Smith's residence inFrance, whatever it was to his pupil, must have been an invaluableeducation to himself, supplying him day after day with constantmaterials for fresh comparison and thought. Samuel Rogers was greatlystruck with the difference between Smith and the historian Robertson. The conversation of Robertson, who, as we know, had never been out ofhis own country, was much more limited in its range of interest, butSmith's was the rich conversation of a man who had seen and known agreat deal of the world. It does not appear that Smith suffered inFrance from any such want of literary leisure as Stewart speaks of, for he began writing a book in Toulouse because he had so little elseto do, and he had not attempted anything of the kind in Glasgow, sofar as we know, for five years; but, at all events, for the wealth ofillustration which his new book exhibits, the variety of its points ofview, the copiousness of its data drawn from personal observation, theworld is greatly indebted to the author's residence abroad. And hadSmith lived to finish his work on Government we should probably havehad more results of his observation of France, but the _Wealth ofNations_ itself contains many. 

M'Culloch has expressed astonishment that for all his long stay inFrance Smith should have never perceived any foreshadowings of thecoming Revolution, such as were visible even to a passing travellerlike Smollett. But Smith was quite aware of all the gravities andpossibilities of the situation, and occasionally gave expression toanticipations of vital change. He formed possibly a less gloomy viewof the actual condition of the French people than he would have hearduttered in Quesnay's room at Versailles, because he always mentallycompared the state of things he saw in France with the state of thingshe knew in Scotland, and though it was plain to him that France wasnot going forward so fast as Scotland, he thought the common opinionthat it was going backward to be ill founded. [190] Then France was amuch richer country, with a better soil and climate, and "betterstocked, " he says, "with all those things which it requires a longtime to raise up and accumulate, such as great towns and convenientand well-built houses both in town and country. "[191] In spite ofthese advantages, however, the common people in France were decidedlyworse off than the common people of Scotland. The wages of labour werelower--the real wages--for the people evidently lived harder. Theirdress and countenance showed it at once. "When you go from Scotland toEngland the difference which you may remark between the dress andcountenance of the common people in the one country and in the othersufficiently indicates the difference in their condition. The contrastis still greater when you return from France. " In England nobody wastoo poor to wear leather shoes; in Scotland even the lowest orders ofmen wore them, though the same orders of women still went aboutbarefooted. But "in France they are necessaries neither to men nor towomen; the lowest rank of both sexes appearing there publicly, without any discredit, sometimes in wooden shoes and sometimesbarefooted. "[192] Another little circumstance struck him as a proofthat the classes immediately above the rank of labourer were worse offin France than they were here. The taste for dressing yew-trees intothe shape of pyramids and obelisks by "that very clumsy instrument ofsculpture" the gardener's shears had gone out of fashion in thiscountry, merely because it got too common, and was discarded by therich and vain. The multitude of persons able to indulge the taste wassufficiently great to drive the custom out of fashion. In France, onthe other hand, he found this custom still in good repute, "notwithstanding, " he adds, "that inconstancy of fashion with which wesometimes reproach the natives of that country. " The reason was thatthe number of people in that country able to indulge this taste wastoo few to deprive the custom of the requisite degree of rarity. "InFrance the condition of the inferior ranks of people is seldom sohappy as it frequently is in England, and you will there seldom findeven pyramids and obelisks of yew in the garden of a tallow-chandler. Such ornaments, not having in that country been degraded by theirvulgarity, have not yet been excluded from the gardens of princes andgreat lords. "[193]

He discusses one great cause of the poorer condition of the Frenchthan of the English people. It was generally acknowledged, he says, that "the people of France was much more oppressed by taxation thanthe people of Great Britain"; and the oppression he found, by personalinvestigation, to be all due to bad taxes and bad methods ofcollecting them. The sum that reached the public treasury representeda much smaller burden per head of population than it did in thiscountry. Smith calculated the public revenue of Great Britain torepresent an assessment of about 25s. A head of population, and in1765 and 1766, the years he was in France, according to the best, though, he admits, imperfect, accounts he could get of the matter, thewhole sum passed into the French treasury would only represent anassessment of 12s. 6d. Per head of the French population. [194]Taxation ought thus to be really lighter in France than in GreatBritain, but it was made into a scourge by vicious modes of assessmentand collection. Smith even suggested for France various moderatefinancial reforms, repealing some taxes, increasing others, making athird class uniform over the kingdom, and abolishing the farmingsystem; but though these reforms would be sufficient to restoreprosperity to a country with the resources of France, he had no hopeof it being possible to carry them against the active opposition ofindividuals interested in maintaining things as they were. 

Smith was thus perfectly alive to the prevailing poverty and distressof the French population, to the oppression they suffered, to theextreme difficulty, the hopelessness even, of any improvement of theirsituation while the existing distribution of political forcescontinued, and was able to defeat all efforts at reform. Now from allthis it was not very far to the idea of a political upheaval and a newdistribution of political forces, and Smith saw tendencies abroad inthat direction also. He told Professor Saint Fond in 1782 that the"Social Compact" would one day avenge Rousseau for all thepersecutions he had suffered from the powers that were. 

FOOTNOTES:

[159] _Hume MSS. _, R. S. E. Partially published in Burton's _Life_. 

[160] _Correspondance Littéraire_, I. Iv. 291. 

[161] _Burton's Letters of Eminent Persons to David Hume_, p. 238. 

[162] Lady Minto, _Memoirs of Hugh Elliot_, p. 13. 

[163] Morellet's _Mémoires_, i. 237. 

[164] Schelle, _Dupont de Nemours et les Physiocrates_, p. 159. 

[165] _i. E. _ the Royal Society of Edinburgh, to whom Stewart firstread his _Life of Smith_. 

[166] Stewart's _Works_, v. 47. 

[167] Clayden's _Early Life of Samuel Rogers_, p. 95. 

[168] _Theory of Moral Sentiments_, Part VI. Sec. Ii. 

[169] Mackintosh, _Miscellaneous Works_, iii. 13. 

[170] Brougham's Men of Letters, ii. 226. 

[171] Burton's Hume, ii. 348. 

[172] Garrick Correspondence, ii. 550. 

[173] Garrick Correspondence, ii. 549. 

[174] Ibid. Ii. 501. 

[175] Ibid. Ii. 511. 

[176] Stewart's _Works, _ x. 49, 50. 

[177] "Essay on the Imitative Arts, " _Works_, v. 281. 

[178] _Works_, v. 294. 

[179] Say, _Cours Complet, OEuvres_, p. 870. 

[180] Turgot's _OEuvres_, v. 136. 

[181] _Wealth of Nations_, Book IV. Chap. Ix. 

[182] Memoirs of Madame du Hausset, p. 141. 

[183] Marmontel's Memoirs, English Translation, ii. 37. 

[184] Fraser's _Scotts of Buccleuch_, ii. 405. 

[185] Burton's _Life of Hume_, ii. 348. 

[186] Hill's _Letters of Hume_, p. 59. Original in R. S. E. 

[187] _New Statistical Account of Scotland_, i. 490. (Account ofDalkeith by the late Dr. Norman Macleod, then minister of that parish, and Mr. Peter Steel, Rector of Dalkeith Grammar School. )

[188] _Autobiography_, p. 280. 

[189] _Ibid. _

[190] _Wealth of Nations_, Book I. Chap. Ix. 

[191] _Ibid. _, Book V. Chap. Ii. Art. Iii. 

[192] _Wealth of Nations_, Book V. Chap. Ii. Art. Iv. 

[193] "Essay on the Imitative Arts, " _Works_, v. 260. 

[194] _Wealth of Nations_, Book V. Chap. Ii. Art. Iv. 

CHAPTER XV

LONDON

1766-1767. _Aet. _ 43

Arriving in London early in November, Smith seems to have remained onin the capital for the next six months. The body of his unfortunatepupil, which he brought over with him, was ultimately buried in thefamily vault at Dalkeith, for Dr. Norman Macleod and Mr. Steel say so;but the interment there does not seem to have taken place immediatelyafter the arrival from France, for the London journals, which announcethe Duke of Buccleugh's landing at Dover on the 1st of November, mention his presence at the Guildhall with his stepfather, Mr. Townshend, Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the 10th, Lord Mayor's Day;and the Duke, who is stated by Dr. Macleod to have brought hisbrother's remains north, could not have been to Scotland and back inthat interval. Smith was accordingly not required to proceed toScotland on that sad duty, and on the 22nd of November Andrew Millar, the publisher, writing to David Hume in Edinburgh, mentions the factthat Smith was then in London and moving about among the great. Thisletter was written about a question on which Hume had sought Smith'scounsel, and on which Millar had held some conversation with Smith, the upshot of which he now communicates to Hume--the question whetherhe should continue his _History of England_. While Smith was still inParis Hume had written saying: "Some push me to continue my _History_. Millar offers any price. All the Marlborough papers are offered me, and I believe nobody would venture to refuse me, but _cui bono?_ Whyshould I forego dalliance and sauntering and society, and exposemyself again to the clamours of a stupid factious public? I am not yettired of doing nothing, and am become too wise either to want censureor praise. By and by I shall be too old to undergo so muchlabour. "[195]

Smith does not appear to have answered this letter at the time, buthis opinion is communicated to Hume in this letter from Millar, who nodoubt had a conversation with him on the subject. Millar says: "He isof opinion, with many more of your very good sensible friends, thatthe history of this country from the Revolution is not to be met within books yet printed, but from MSS. In this country, to which he issure you will have ready access, from all accounts he learns from thegreat here; and therefore you should lay the groundwork here afteryour perusal of the MSS. You may have access to, and doing it belowwill be laying the wrong foundation. I think it my duty to inform youthe opinion of your most judicious friends, and I think he and SirJohn Pringle may be reckoned amongst that number. "[196]

Smith was himself publishing with Millar at this time a new edition ofhis _Theory of Moral Sentiments_--the third, which appeared in 1767, containing, like the second, the addition of the _Dissertation uponthe Origin of Languages_. One of his reasons for staying so long inLondon this winter was no doubt to see the sheets through the press. The book was printed by Strahan, who was also a partner in Millar'spublishing business; and there is a letter to him from Smith which, though bearing no date but Friday and no place of writing at all, musthave been written, as indeed those two very circumstances indicate, inLondon, and some time during the winter of 1766-67. 

 MY DEAR STRAHAN--I go to the country for a few days this afternoon, so that it will be unnecessary to send me any more sheets till I return. The _Dissertation upon the Origin of Languages_ is to be printed at the end of the _Theory_. There are some literal errors in the printed copy of it which I should have been glad to have corrected, but have not the opportunity, as I have no copy by me. They are of no great consequence. In the titles, both of the _Theory_ and _Dissertation_, call me simply Adam Smith without any addition either before or behind. --I ever am, etc. , ADAM SMITH. 

 Friday. [197]

When the _Wealth of Nations_ came out in 1776 the author describedhimself on the title-page as LL. D. And F. R. S. , late Professor of MoralPhilosophy in Glasgow University, but he wants here on the _Theory_nothing but plain Adam Smith, his mind being at this period apparentlyaverse to making use of his degree even on public and formaloccasions, as it always was to using it in private life. He describedhimself on his visiting cards as "Mr. Adam Smith, " he was known in theinner circle of his personal friends as Mr. Smith, and when DugaldStewart was found fault with by certain critics for speaking of him soin his memoirs, he replied that he never heard Smith called anythingelse. 

But while Smith was superintending the republication of his firstbook, he was at the same time using his opportunities in London toread up at the British Museum, then newly established, or elsewhere, for his second and greater, of which he had laid the keel in France. One of the subjects which he was engaged in studying at that time wascolonial administration. He seems to have been discussing the subjectwith Lord Shelburne, who was now Secretary of State, and he gives thatstatesman the results of his further investigations into at least onebranch of the subject in the following letter, written in the firstinstance, like so many others of Smith's extant letters, to do aservice to a friend. He wished to interest Lord Shelburne in theclaims of a Scotch friend, Alexander Dalrymple, for the command of theexploring expedition which it was then in contemplation to send to theSouth Sea, and which was eventually committed to Captain Wallis. ThisAlexander Dalrymple was afterwards the well-known Hydrographer to theAdmiralty and the East India Company, to whom the progress ofgeographical knowledge lies under deep obligations. He was one of thenumerous younger brothers of Lord Hailes, the Scotch judge andhistorian, and having returned in 1765 from thirteen years' work inthe East India Company's service, had devoted himself since then tothe study of discoveries in the South Sea, and arrived at a confidentbelief in the existence of a great undiscovered continent in thatquarter. Lord Shelburne would have given him the command of thisexpedition had not Captain Wallis been already engaged, and next yearhe was actually offered, and had he been granted naval rank, which hethought essential for maintaining discipline on board ship, he wouldhave undertaken command of the more memorable expedition to observethe transit of Venus, which made Captain Cook the most famous explorerof his age. 

The following is Smith's letter:--

 MY LORD--I send you enclosed Quiros's memorial, presented to Philip the Second after his return from his voyage, translated from the Spanish in which it is published in Purchass. The voyage itself is long, obscure, and difficult to be understood, except by those who are particularly acquainted with the geography and navigation of those countries, and upon looking over a great number of Dalrymple's papers I imagined this was what you would like best to see. He is besides just finishing a geographical account of all the discoveries that have yet been made in the South Seas from the west coast of America to Tasman's discoveries. If your lordship will give him leave, he would be glad to read this to you himself, and show you on his map the geographical ascertainment of the situation of each island. I have seen it; it is extremely short; not much longer than this memorial of Quiros. Whether this may be convenient for your lordship I know not; whether this continent exists or not may perhaps be uncertain; but supposing it does exist, I am very certain you never will find a man fitter for discovering it, or more determined to hazard everything in order to discover it. The terms that he would ask are, first, the absolute command of the ship, with the naming of all the officers, in order that he may have people who both have confidence in him and in whom he has confidence; and secondly, that in case he should lose his ship by the common course of accidents before he gets into the South Sea, that the Government will undertake to give him another. These are all the terms he would insist upon. The ship properest for such an expedition, he says, would be an old fifty-gun ship without her guns. He does not, however, insist upon this, as a _sine quâ non_, but will go in any ship from an hundred to a thousand tons. He wishes to have but one ship with a good many boats. Most expeditions of this kind have miscarried from one ship's being obliged to wait for the other, or losing time in looking out for the other. 

 Within these two days I have looked over everything I can find relating to the Roman Colonys. I have not yet found anything of much consequence. They were governed upon the model of the Republic: had two consuls called _duumviri_; a senate called _decuriones_ or _collegium decurionum_, and other magistrates similar to those of the Republic. The colonists lost their right of voting or of being elected to any magistracy in the Roman comitia. In this respect they were inferior to many municipia. They retained, however, all the other privileges of Roman citizens. They seem to have been very independent. Of thirty colonies of whom the Romans demanded troops in the second Carthaginian war, twelve refused to obey. They frequently rebelled and joined the enemies of the Republic; being in some measure little independent republics, they naturally followed the interests which their peculiar situation pointed out to them. --I have the honour to be, with the highest regard, my lord, your lordship's most obedient humble servant, ADAM SMITH. 

 Tuesday, _12th February 1767_. [198]

The problem of colonial rights and responsibilities had just comerapidly to the forefront of public questions in England. Theabandonment of North America by the French in 1763 had given a newimportance to the plantations, and seemed to develop at the same timea stronger disposition to assert colonial rights on the one side ofthe Atlantic, and to interfere with them on the other. The Stamp Actof 1765 had already begun the struggle against imperial taxation whichCharles Townshend's tea duty, imposed a few months after this letterwas written, was to precipitate into rebellion. There was thereforevery good reason why statesmen like Lord Shelburne should be studyingthe relations of dependencies to mother countries, and turning theirattention to earlier colonial experiments such as those of ancientRome. It will be observed that Smith came in the _Wealth of Nations_to modify somewhat the view he expresses in this letter of theindependence of the Roman colonies, and explains that the reason theywere less prosperous than the Greek colonies was because they werenot, like the latter, independent, and were "not always at liberty tomanage their own affairs in the way that they judged most suitable totheir own interest. "[199]

Smith's absent-minded habit, while it seems from various accounts tohave been lessened by his travels abroad, was not entirely removed bythem, for on the 11th of February 1767 Lady Mary Coke writes hersister that Lady George Lennox and Sir Gilbert Elliot had happened tomeet while visiting her, and had talked of "Mr. Smith, the gentlemanthat went abroad with the Duke of Buccleugh, " saying many things inhis praise, but adding that he was the most absent man they ever knew. Sir Gilbert mentioned that Mr. Damer (probably Mr. John Damer, LordMilton's son) had paid Smith a visit a few mornings before as he wassitting down to breakfast, and falling into discourse Smith took apiece of bread and butter, and after rolling it round and round put itinto the teapot and poured the water upon it. Shortly after he pouredout a cup, and on tasting it declared it was the worst tea he hadever met with. "I have not the least doubt of it, " said Mr. Damer, "for you have made it of bread and butter instead of tea. "[200]

The Duke of Buccleugh was married in London on the 3rd of May 1767 toLady Betsy, only daughter of the Duke of Montagu, and Smith probablyreturned to Scotland immediately after that event. For in writing Humefrom Kirkcaldy on the 9th of June 1767, he mentions having now beensettled down to his work for about a month. Another circumstanceconfirms this inference. He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Societyof London on the 21st of May 1767, but was not admitted till the 27thof May 1773, and that seems to imply that he had left London beforethe former date, and never returned to it again till shortly beforethe latter one. 

FOOTNOTES:

[195] Burton's _Life of Hume_, ii. 392. 

[196] Ibid. 

[197] _New York Evening Post. _ Original in possession of Mr. David A. Wells of Norwich, U. S. A. 

[198] Lansdowne MSS. 

[199] _Wealth of Nations_, Book IV. Chap. Vii. 

[200] Lady Mary Coke's _Journal_, i. 141. 

CHAPTER XVI

KIRKCALDY

1767-1773. _Aet. _ 44-50

When Smith left Glasgow his mother and cousin went back again toKirkcaldy, and he now joined them and remained with them there for thenext eleven years. Hume, who thought the country an unsuitable placefor a man of letters, used every endeavour to persuade him to removeto Edinburgh, but without success. The gaiety and fulness of city lifewere evidently much less to him than they were to Hume, and he musthave found what sufficed him in the little town of his birth. He hadhis work, he had his mother, he had his books, he had his daily walksin the sea breeze, and he had Edinburgh always in the offing as aplace of occasional resort. He is said to have taken much realpleasure, like Shakespeare at Stratford, in mingling again with thesimple old folk who were about him in his youth, and he had a fewneighbours whose pursuits corresponded more nearly with his own. JamesOswald, indeed, was now struck down with illness--"terrible distress"is Smith's expression--and he died in the second year after Smith'sreturn to Scotland. Oswald spent some months in Kirkcaldy, however, inthe fall of 1767, and probably again in 1768. One of Smith's otherliterary neighbours, whom he saw much of during this eleven years'residence in Fife, was Robert Beatson, author of the _Political Index_and other works, to whom there will be occasion to refer again lateron. His chief resource, however, throughout this period was his work, which engaged his mind late and early till it told hard, as we shallpresently see, on his health. 

After being established in Kirkcaldy for some weeks Smith wrote Humethat he was immersed in study, which was the only business he had, that his sole amusements were long solitary walks by the seaside(which, with a man of his gift or infirmity of abstraction, would onlybe protractions of the study that preoccupied him), and that he neverwas happier or more contented in all his life. The immediate object ofthis letter, as so usual with Smith, was to serve a friend--a motivewhich never failed to overcome his aversion to writing. A Frenchfriend--"the best and most agreeable friend I had in France, " saysSmith--was then in London, and Smith wishes Hume, who was now UnderSecretary of State, to show him some attentions during his residencethere. This friend was Count de Sarsfield, a gentleman of Irishextraction, an associate of Turgot and the other men of letters inParis, and a man who added to almost universal knowledge a specialpredilection for economics, and indeed wrote a number of essays oneconomic questions, though he never published any of them. He seems tohave really been, as Smith indicates, the perfection of an agreeablecompanion. John Adams, the second President of the United States, whenenvoy for that country in Paris, was very intimate with him, and saysthat Sarsfield was the happiest man he knew, for he led the life of aperipatetic philosopher. "Observation and reflection are all hisbusiness, and his dinner and his friend all his pleasure. If a manwere born for himself alone, I would take him for a model. "[201] Hewas "the greatest rider of hobby-horses" in all President Adams'sacquaintance, and some of his hobbies were for the most seriousstudies. He published a work in metaphysics, and wrote essays againstserfdom and slavery, and on a number of other subjects, which werefound in MS. Among President Adams's papers. Yet he was aproblem--and not a very soluble one--to the worthy President, for helaid a weight on the merest trifles of ceremony or etiquette whichseemed difficult to reconcile with his devotion to profound andlearned studies. He visited Adams at Washington during his presidency, and used constantly to lecture the President on his little omissions. After any entertainment Sarsfield would say, writes Adams, "that Ishould have placed the Ambassador of France at my right hand and theMinister of Spain at my left, and have arranged the other principalpersonages; and when I rose from the table I should have said, Messieurs, voudrez vous, etc. , or Monsieur or Duc voudrez vous, etc. .. . How is it possible to reconcile these trifling contemplationsof a master of the ceremonies with the vast knowledge of arts, sciences, history, government, etc. , possessed by this nobleman?"[202]Sarsfield kept a journal about all the people he met with, from whichAdams makes some interesting quotations, and which, if extant, mightbe expected to add to our information regarding Smith. Having said somuch of Smith's "best and most agreeable friend in France, " I will nowgive the letter:--

 KIRKALDY, _7th June 1767_. 

 MY DEAREST FRIEND--The Principal design of this Letter is to Recommend to your particular attention the Count de Sarsfield, the best and most agreeable friend I had in France. Introduce him, if you find it proper, to all the friends of yr. Absent friend, to Oswald and to Elliot in particular. I cannot express to you how anxious I am that his stay in London should be rendered agreeable to him. You know him, and must know what a plain, worthy, honourable man he is. I enclose a letter for him, which you may either send to him, or rather, if the weighty affairs of State will permit it, deliver it to him yourself. The letter to Dr. Morton[203] you may send by the Penny Post. 

 My Business here is study, in which I have been very deeply engaged for about a month past. My amusements are long solitary walks by the seaside. You may judge how I spend my time. I feel myself, however, extremely happy, comfortable, and contented. I never was perhaps more so in all my life. 

 You will give me great comfort by writing to me now and then, and by letting me know what is passing among my friends at London. Remember me to them all, particularly to Mr. Adams's family and to Mrs. Montagu. [204]

 What has become of Rousseau? Has he gone abroad because he cannot contrive to get himself sufficiently persecuted in Great Britain?

 What is the meaning of the bargain that your ministry have made with the India Company? They have not, I see, prolonged their charter, which is a good circumstance. [205]

The rest of the sheet is torn. 

Hume replies on the 13th that Sarsfield was a very good friend of hisown, whom he had always great pleasure in meeting, as he was a man ofmerit; but that he did not introduce him, as Smith desired, to SirGilbert Elliot, because "this gentleman's reserve and indolence wouldmake him neglect the acquaintance"; nor to Oswald, because he foundhis intimacy with Oswald, which had lasted more than a quarter of acentury, was broken for ever. He goes on to describe his quarrel withOswald's brother the bishop; and concludes: "If I were sure, dearSmith, that you and I should not some day quarrel in some such manner, I should tell you that I am yours affectionately and sincerely. "[206]Count de Sarsfield seems to have gone on to Scotland to pay Smith avisit, for on the 14th of July Hume writes Smith, enclosing a packet, which he desires to be delivered to the Count. 

Smith did not reply to either of these letters till the 13th ofSeptember, when he writes from Dalkeith House, where he has gone forthe home-coming of the Duke and Duchess of Buccleugh. After expressinghis mind in the plainest terms about the bishop with whom Hume had thetussle--"He is a brute and a beast, " says Smith--he goes on to bespeakHume's favour for a young cousin of his who happened to be living inthe same house with Hume in London, Captain David Skene, afterwards ofPitlour, who was in 1787 made inspector of military roads in Scotland. 

 Be so good (he says) as convey the enclosed letter to the Count de Sarsfield. I have been much in the wrong for having delayed so long to write both to him and you. 

 There is a very amiable, modest, brave, worthy young gentleman who lives in the same house with you. His name is David Skeene. He and I are sisters' sons, but my regard for him is much more founded on his personal qualities than upon the relations in which he stands to me. He acted lately in a very gallant manner in America, of which he never acquainted me himself, and of which I came to the knowledge only within these few days. If you can be of any service to him you could not possibly do a more obliging thing to me. 

 The Duke and Dutchess of Buccleugh have been here now for almost a fortnight. They begin to open their house on Monday next, and, I flatter myself, will both be very agreeable to the People of this country. I am not sure that I have ever seen a more agreeable woman than the Dutchess. I am sorry that you are not here, because I am sure you would be perfectly in love with her. I shall probably be here some weeks. I could wish, however, that both you and the Count de Sarsfield would direct for me as usual at Kirkaldy. I should be glad to know the true history of Rousseau before and since he left England. You may perfectly depend upon my never quoting you to any living soul upon that subject. --I ever am, dear sir, most faithfully yours, ADAM SMITH. [207]

The Duke of Buccleugh had never been at Dalkeith since his infancy--ifindeed he had been even then, for Dr. Carlyle's words in describingthis celebration are, "where his grace had never beenbefore"--because his stepfather, Charles Townshend, was afraid hemight grow up too Scotch in accent and feeling; and his home-comingnow, with his young and beautiful bride, excited the liveliestinterest and expectation, not only on the Buccleugh estates, but overthe whole lowlands of Scotland, from the Forth to the Solway. The dayoriginally fixed for the celebration was the Duke's birthday, the 13thof September, the very day Smith wrote Hume; but the event had to bepostponed in consequence of the sudden death of Townshend, from anattack of putrid fever, between the day of the Duke's arrival atDalkeith and the anniversary of his birth. It came off, however, twoor three weeks later. An entertainment was given to about fifty ladiesand gentlemen of the neighbourhood; but Dr. Carlyle, who was present, and wrote indeed an ode for the occasion, says that though the farewas sumptuous, the company was formal and dull, because the guestswere all strangers to their host and hostess except Adam Smith, andAdam Smith, says Carlyle, "was but ill qualified to promote thejollity of a birthday. " "Had it not been for Alexander Macmillan, W. S. , and myself, " he proceeds, "the meeting would have been verydull, and might have been dissolved without even drinking the healthof the day. .. . Smith remained with them (the Duke and Duchess) for twomonths, and then returned to Kirkcaldy to his mother and his studies. I have often thought since that if they had brought down a man of moreaddress than he was, how much sooner their first appearance might havebeen. "[208]

The ice, which Smith is thus blamed for not being able to break onthis first meeting of his pupil with his Scotch neighbours, was notlong in melting naturally away under the warmth of the Duke's ownkindness of heart. He almost settled among them, for on Townshend'sdeath he gave up the idea on which that statesman had set his heart, and which was one of his reasons for committing the training of theyoung Duke to the care of a political philosopher, --the idea of goinginto politics as an active career; and he lived largely on his Scotchestates; becoming a father to his numerous tenantry, and a powerfuland enlightened promoter of all sound agricultural improvement. Dr. Carlyle says the family were always kind to their tenants, but DukeHenry "surpassed them all, as much in justice and humanity as he didin superiority of understanding and good sense. " Without claiming forSmith's teaching what must in any case have been largely the result ofa fine natural character, it is certain that no young man could livefor three years in daily intimacy with Adam Smith without beingpowerfully influenced by that deep love of justice and humanity whichanimated Smith beyond his fellows, and ran as warmly through hisconversation in private life as we see it still runs through hispublished writings. Smith was always vigorous and weighty in hisdenunciation of wrong, and so impatient of anything in the nature ofindifference or palliation towards it, that he could scarce feel atease in the presence of the palliator. "We can breathe more freelynow, " he once said when a person of that sort had just left thecompany; "that man has no indignation in him. "[209]

Smith remained the mentor of his pupil all his life. At "Dalkeith, which all the virtues love, " he was always a most honoured guest, andDugald Stewart says he always spoke with much satisfaction andgratitude of his relations with the family of Buccleugh. Several ofthe traditional anecdotes of Smith's absence of mind are localised atDalkeith House. Lord Brougham, for example, has preserved a story ofSmith breaking out at dinner into a strong condemnation of the publicconduct of some leading statesman of the day, then suddenly stoppingshort on perceiving that statesman's nearest relation on the oppositeside of the table, and presently losing self-recollection again andmuttering to himself, "Deil care, deil care, it's all true. " Or thereis the less pointed story told by Archdeacon Sinclair of anotheroccasion when Smith was dining at Dalkeith, and two sons of LordDorchester were of the company. The conversation all turned on LordDorchester's estates and Lord Dorchester's affairs, and at last Smithinterposed and said, "Pray, who is Lord Dorchester? I have never heardso much of him before. " The former anecdote shows at once that Smithwas in the habit of speaking his mind with considerable plainness, andthat he shrank at the same time from everything like personaldiscourtesy; and the latter, like other stories of his absence ofmind, is hardly worth repeating, except for showing that he continuedto possess a redeeming infirmity. 

From Dalkeith Smith returns to Kirkcaldy and his work. We find him in1768 in correspondence with the Duke's law-agent, Mr. A. Campbell, W. S. , and with Sir James Johnstone of Westerhall, about someinvestigation, apparently of no public importance, into the genealogyof the Scotts, in connection with which he first got Campbell to makea search in the charter-room of Dalkeith for ancient papers connectedwith the Scotts of Thirlestane, and then wanted to know theexplanation Sir James Johnstone had given of Scott of Davington'sclaim as heir of Rennaldburn upon the Duke of Buccleugh. [210] It showsSmith, however, taking an interest, as if he were entitled to do so, in the business affairs of the Duke. We find him too in correspondencewith Lord Hailes on historical points of some consequence to theeconomic inquiries he was now busy upon. Lord Hailes was one of theprecursors of sound historical investigation in this country, and toSmith, with whom he was long intimate, he afterwards paid the curiouscompliment of translating his letter to Strahan on the death of Humeinto Latin. 

Of Smith's correspondence with Hailes only two letters have beenpreserved. The first is as follows:--

 _KIRKALDY, 5th March 1769_. 

 MY LORD--I should now be extremely obliged to your Lordship if you would send me the papers you mentioned upon the prices of provisions in former times. In order that the conveyance may be perfectly secure, if your Lordship will give me leave I shall send my own servant sometime this week to receive them at your Lordship's house at Edinburgh. I have not been able to get the papers in the cause of Lord Galloway and Lord Morton. If your Lordship is possessed of them it would likewise be a great obligation if you would send me them. I shall return both as soon as possible. If your Lordship will give me leave I shall transcribe the manuscript papers; this, however, entirely depends upon your Lordship. 

 Since the last time I had the honour of writing to your Lordship I have read over with more care than before the Acts of James I. , and compared them with your Lordship's remarks. From this last I have received both much pleasure and much instruction. Your Lordship's remarks will, I plainly see, be of much more use to me than, I am afraid, mine will be to you. I have read law entirely with a view to form some general notion of the great outlines of the plan according to which justice has been administered in different ages and nations; and I have entered very little into the detail of particulars of which I see your Lordship is very much master. Your Lordship's particular facts will be of great use to correct my general views; but the latter, I fear, will always be too vague and superficial to be of much use to your Lordship. 

 I have nothing to add to what your Lordship has observed upon the Acts of James I. They are framed in general in a much ruder and more inaccurate manner than either the English statutes or French ordinances of the same period; and Scotland seems to have been, even during this vigorous reign, as our historians represent it, in greater disorder than either France or England had been from the time of the Danish and Norwegian incursions. The 5, 24, 56, and 85 statutes seem all to attempt a remedy to one and the same abuse. Travelling, from the disorders of the country, must have been extremely dangerous, and consequently very rare. Few people therefore would propose to live by entertaining travellers, and consequently there would be few or no inns. Travellers would be obliged to have recourse to the hospitality of private families in the same manner as in all other barbarous countries; and being in this situation real objects of compassion, private families would think themselves obliged to receive them even though this hospitality was extremely oppressive. Strangers, says Homer, are sacred persons, and under the protection of Jupiter, but no wise man would ever choose to send for a stranger unless he was a bard or a soothsayer. The danger too of travelling either alone or with few attendants made all men of consequence carry along with them a numerous suite of retainers, which rendered this hospitality still more oppressive. Hence the orders to build hostellaries in 24 and 85; and as many people had chosen to follow the old fashion and to live rather at the expense of other people than at their own, hence the complaint of the keepers of the hostellaries and the order thereupon in Act 85. 

 I cannot conclude this letter, though already too long, without expressing to your Lordship my concern, and still more my indignation, at what has lately passed both at London and at Edinburgh. I have often thought that the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom very much resembled a jury. The law lords generally take upon them to sum up the evidence and to explain the law to the other peers, who generally follow their opinion implicitly. Of the two law lords who upon this occasion instructed them, the one has always run after the applause of the mob; the other, by far the most intelligent, has always shown the greatest dread of popular odium, which, however, he has not been able to avoid. His inclinations also have always been suspected to favour one of the parties. He has upon this occasion, I suspect, followed rather his fears and his inclinations than his judgment. I could say a great deal more upon this subject to your Lordship, but I am afraid I have already said too much. I would rather, for my own part, have the solid reputation of your most respectable president, though exposed to the insults of a brutal mob, than all the vain and flimsy applause that has ever yet been bestowed upon either or both the other two. --I have the honour to be, with the highest esteem and regard, my Lord, your Lordship's most obliged and obedient servant, ADAM SMITH. [211]

A week later Smith wrote Lord Hailes another letter, "giving, " saysLord Brougham, "what is evidently the beginning of his speculations onthe price of silver, " but the letter seems to be now lost, and LordBrougham quotes from it only the following sentences on the Douglascause. "If the rejoicings which I read of in the public papers indifferent places on account of the Douglas cause, had no morefoundation than those which were said to have been in this place, there has been very little joy upon the occasion. There was here nosort of rejoicing of any kind, unless four schoolboys having set upthree candles upon the trone by way of an illumination, is to beconsidered as such. "[212]

The first of these letters was written almost immediately after Smithheard of the decision of the House of Lords in the famous Douglascase. The news of the decision only reached Edinburgh on the 2nd ofMarch, and was received with such popular enthusiasm that the wholecity was illuminated. Smith walking by the shore at Kirkcaldy wouldhave seen the bonfires blazing on Salisbury Crags, and he seems tohave heard before writing that the house of the Lord President of theCourt of Session, who was opposed to the Douglas claim, was attackedby the mob, and the President himself insulted next morning in thestreet on his way to Court. No civil lawsuit ever excited so muchpopular interest or feeling. The question, it will be remembered, waswhether Mr. Douglas, who had been served heir to the estates of thelate Duke of Douglas, was really the son of the Duke's sister, LadyJane, by her husband, Sir John Stewart of Grandtully, whom she hadsecretly married abroad when she was already fifty years old, orwhether he was an impostor, the son of a Frenchwoman, whom Lady Janehad brought up as her own son with a view to the inheritance of thoseestates. Everybody in Scotland was for the time either a Douglas or aHamilton, and the sentimental elements in the case had enlistedpopular sympathy strongly on the Douglas side. Smith, as will be seenfrom those letters, was quite as strong and even impassioned apartisan on the unpopular and losing side, and Lord Hailes having beenone of the judges who voted with the Lord President for the decisionagainst Mr. Douglas which the House of Lords now reversed, he feels hecan give free vent to his disappointment. Brougham, in publishing theletters, calls the opinion Smith gives not only "very strong" but"very rash, " and his impeachment of the impartiality of the two greatEnglish judges--Lord Camden and Lord Mansfield--cannot seemdefensible. But David Hume, though a Tory and an Under Secretary ofState, is not a whit less sparing in his denunciation of those two lawlords and in his contempt for the general body of the peers thanSmith. "To one who understands the case as I do, " he writes to Dr. Blair, "nothing could appear more scandalous than the pleading of thetwo law lords. Such curious misrepresentation, such impudentassertions, such groundless imputations, never came from that place;but they were good enough for the audience, who, bating their quality, are most of them little better than their brothers the Wilkites of thestreets. " Hume, having lost his place with a change of ministry, returned to Edinburgh for good in August 1769, and presently wroteSmith inviting him over:--

 JAMES'S COURT, _20th August 1769_. 

 DEAR SMITH--I am glad to have come within sight of you, and to have a view of Kirkaldy from my windows, but as I wish also to be within speaking terms of you, I wish we could concert measures for that purpose. I am miserably sick at sea, and regard with horror and a kind of hydrophobia the great gulf that lies between us. I am also tired of travelling as much as you ought naturally to be of staying at home. I therefore propose to you to come hither and pass some days with me in this solitude. I want to know what you have been doing, and purpose to exact a rigorous account of the method in which you have employed yourself during your retreat. I am positive you are in the wrong in many of your speculations, especially when you have the misfortune to differ from me. All these are reasons for our meeting, and I wish you would make me some reasonable proposal for that purpose. There is no habitation on the island of Inchkeith, otherwise I should challenge you to meet me on that spot, and neither of us ever to leave the place till we were fully agreed on all points of controversy. I expect General Conway here to-morrow, whom I shall attend to Roseneath, and I shall remain there a few days. On my return I expect to find a letter from you containing a bold acceptance of this defiance. I am, dear Smith, yours sincerely. [213]

Smith seems to have made such progress with his work in the two yearsof what Hume here calls his retreat at Kirkcaldy that in the beginningof 1770 there was some word of his going up with it to London forpublication. For on the 6th of February Hume again writes him: "Whatis the meaning of this, dear Smith, which we hear, that you are not tobe here above a day or two on your passage to London? How can you somuch as entertain a thought of publishing a book full of reason, sense, and learning to those wicked abandoned madmen?"[214]

He had probably completed his first draft of the work from beginningto end, but he kept constantly amplifying and altering parts of it forsix years more. He did not go to London in 1770, if he evercontemplated doing so, but he came to Edinburgh and received thefreedom of the city in June. He seems to have received this honour forthe merits of the Duke of Buccleugh rather than for his own. For theentry in the minutes of the Council of 6th June 1770 runs thus:

 "Appoint the Dean of Guild and his Council to admit and receive their Graces the Duke of Buccleugh and the Duke of Montagu in the most ample form, for good services done by them and their noble ancestors to the kingdome. And also Adam Smith, LL. D. , and the Reverend Mr. John Hallam to be Burgesses and Gild Brethren of this city in the most ample form. 

 (Signed) JAMES STUART, Provost. "

The Duke of Montagu was the Duke of Buccleugh's father-in-law, and theRev. Mr. John Hallam--afterwards Dean of Windsor, and father of HenryHallam, the historian--was the Duke's tutor at Eton, as Adam Smith washis tutor abroad. The freedom was therefore given to the Duke ofBuccleugh and party. Smith's burgess-ticket is one of the few relicsof him still extant; it is possessed by Professor Cunningham ofBelfast. 

Smith promised Hume a visit about Christmas 1771, but the visit waspostponed in consequence of the illness of Hume's sister, and on the28th of January he received the following letter, in reply apparentlyto a request for the address of the Comtesse de Boufflers in Paris:--

 EDINBURGH, _28th January 1772_. 

 DEAR SMITH--I should certainly before this time have challenged the Performance of your Promise of being with me about Christmas had it not been for the misfortunes of my family. Last month my sister fell dangerously ill of a fever, and though the fever be now gone, she is still so weak and low, and recovers so slowly, that I was afraid it would be but a melancholy house to invite you to. However, I expect that time will reinstate her in her former health, in which case I shall look for your company. I shall not take any excuse from your own state of health, which I suppose only a subterfuge invented by indolence and love of solitude. Indeed, my dear Smith, if you continue to hearken to complaints of this nature, you will cut yourself out entirely from human society, to the great loss of both parties. 

 The Lady's Direction is M^e la Comtesse de B. , Douanière au Temple. She has a daughter-in-law, which makes it requisite to distinguish her. --Yours sincerely, DAVID HUME. 

 _P. S. _--I have not yet read _Orlando Inamorato_. I am now in a course of reading the Italian historians, and am confirmed in my former opinion that that language has not produced one author who knew how to write elegant correct prose though it contains several excellent poets. You say nothing to me of your own work. [215]

Smith seems to have perhaps sent him _Orlando Inamorato_, or at anyrate to have been previously in communication, either by letter orconversation, on the subject, for the Italian poets were favouritereading of his. But a more important point in the letter is theindication it affords that Smith's labours and solitude were beginningto tell on the state of his health. Indeed, poor health had now becomeone of the chief causes of his delay in finishing his work, and itcontinued to go from bad to worse. He writes his friend Pulteney inSeptember that his book would have been ready for the press by thefirst of that winter if it were not for the interruptions caused bybad health, "arising, " he says, "from want of amusement and fromthinking too much upon one thing, " together with other interruptionsof an equally anxious nature, occasioned by his endeavours toextricate some of his personal friends from the difficulties in whichthey were involved by the commercial crisis of that time. 

 KIRKALDY, _5th September 1772_. 

 MY DEAR PULTENEY--I have received your most friendly letter in due course, and I have delayed a great deal too long to answer it. Though I have had no concern myself in the Public calamities, some of the friends in whom I interest myself the most have been deeply concerned in them; and my attention has been a good deal occupied about the most proper method of extricating them. 

 In the Book which I am now preparing for the press I have treated fully and distinctly of every part of the subject which you have recommended to me; and I intended to send you some extracts from it; but upon looking them over I find that they are too much interwoven with other parts of the work to be easily separated from it. I have the same opinion of Sir James Stewart's book that you have. Without once mentioning it, I flatter myself that any fallacious principle in it will meet with a clear and distinct confutation in mine. [216]

 I think myself very much honoured and obliged to you for having mentioned me to the E. India Directors as a person who would be of use to them. You have acted in your old way of doing your friends a good office behind their backs, pretty much as other people do them a bad one. There is no labour of any kind which you can impose upon me which I will not readily undertake. By what Mr. Stewart and Mr. Ferguson hinted to me concerning your notice of the proper remedy for the disorders of the coin in Bengal, I believe our opinions upon that subject are perfectly the same. 

 My book would have been ready for the press by the beginning of this winter, but interruptions occasioned partly by bad health, arising from want of amusement and from thinking too much upon one thing, and partly by the avocations above mentioned, will oblige me to retard its publication for a few months longer. --I ever am, my dearest Pulteney, most faithfully and affectionately your obliged servant, ADAM SMITH. 

 _To_ WILLIAM PULTENEY Esq. , _Member of Parliament_, BATH HOUSE, LONDON. [217]

The public calamities to which Smith refers in the opening paragraphof his letter are the bankruptcies of the severe commercial crisis ofthat year, and the friends he was so much occupied in extricating fromits results were, I think it most likely, the family of Buccleugh. Thecrash was especially disastrous in Scotland; only three private banksin Edinburgh out of thirty survived it, and a large joint-stock bank, Douglas Heron and Company, started only three years before, for thepublic-spirited purpose of promoting improvements, particularlyimprovements of land, now seemed to shake all commercial Scotland withits fall. In this company the Duke of Buccleugh was one of the largestshareholders, and, liability being unlimited, it was impossible toforesee how much of its £800, 000 of liabilities his Grace might beeventually called upon to pay. The suggestion that Smith was muchconsulted by the Duke and his advisers about this grave business is tosome extent confirmed by the familiarity which he shows with the wholecircumstances of this bank at the time of its failure in the secondchapter of the second book of the _Wealth of Nations_. 

The situation for which Pulteney had recommended him to the Court ofDirectors of the East India Company was, no doubt, a place as memberof the Special Commission of Supervision which they then contemplatedestablishing. In 1772 the East India Company was in extremities; inJuly they were nearly a million and a half sterling behind for theirnext quarter's payments; and they proposed to send out to India acommission of three independent and competent men, with full authorityto institute a complete examination into every detail of theadministration, and to exercise a certain supervision and control ofthe whole. Burke had already been offered one of the seats on thiscommission, but had refused it on finding that Lord Rockingham wasunwilling to part with him; and at the time this letter was writtentwo of Smith's own Scotch friends, whose names he happens to mentionin the letter--Adam Ferguson and Andrew Stuart, M. P. --were actuallycandidates for the places, and had apparently been recently seeingPulteney in London on the subject. Pulteney, who had great influenceat the India House, had probably mentioned the names of Smith, Ferguson, and Stuart to the Court of Directors at the same time, andif so, that must have been at least two months before Smith wrote thisletter, for Ferguson was in the month of July getting influencebrought to bear on the Edinburgh Town Council to secure theirpermission to retain his professorship in the event of his going toIndia. [218] Ferguson pushed his candidature vigorously, and went toLondon repeatedly about it between July and November, but Smith, although he would have accepted the post if he received the offer ofit, does not seem to have taken any steps to procure it, and did noteven answer Pulteney's letter till September. Stuart's candidature wasdefeated, Horace Walpole says, by Lord Mansfield, but eventually noappointment was made, because Parliament intervened, and forbade anysuch commission to be sent out at all. 

In sending the letter to the _Academy_ for publication ProfessorRogers observes that it is plain the delay in the publication of the_Wealth of Nations_ was due to the negotiations which Mr. Pulteney wasevidently making for the purpose of getting Smith appointed to thisplace. "Had he succeeded, " proceeds Mr. Rogers, "it is probable thatthe _Wealth of Nations_ would never have seen the light; for every oneknows that in the first and second books of that work the East IndiaCompany is criticised with the greatest severity. .. . I have no doubtthat owing to Pulteney's negotiations it lay unrevised and unalteredduring four years in the author's desk. "

With all respect, this is a strange remark to fall from an editor ofthe _Wealth of Nations_, for the evidences of continuous revision andalteration during those four years are very numerous in the text ofthe work itself. He made many changes or additions in 1773; forexample, the remarks on the price of hides, [219] in the chapter onRent, were written in February 1773; and those on the decline ofsugar-refining in colonies taken from the French, in the chapter onthe Colonies, [220] were written in October; while the passage onAmerican wages, in the chapter on Wages, was inserted some time in thesame year. The extensive additions in the chapters on the Revenue, occasioned by reading the _Mémoires concernant les Droits_, must havebeen written after 1774, because Smith probably obtained that bookafter Turgot became Minister in the middle of that year; his remarks, in the chapter on Colonies, on the effects of recent events on thetrade with North America, [221] and his remarks on the Irish revenue inthe chapter on Public Debts, were added in 1775. [222] The chapter onthe Regulated Companies, in which the East India Company receives mostsystematic attention, and which did not appear in the first edition ofthe book, was apparently not written till 1782. [223]

The book therefore did not lie "unrevised and unaltered" in theauthor's desk from 1772 to 1776; on the contrary, the chief cause ofthe four years' delay was the revision and alteration to which it wasbeing incessantly subjected during that whole term. The particularIndian appointment for which Pulteney had recommended him could havenothing to do with the delay, inasmuch as the proposed office wassuppressed altogether within two months after this letter was written;and even if he entertained expectations of any other sort from theEast India Company, there is no reason why he should on that accounthave withheld his work from publication. The more elaborate criticismof that Company in the chapter on Public Works did not appear in theoriginal edition of the book at all, but the only remarks on Indianadministration which did appear in that edition, although they aremerely incidental in character, are very strong and decided, and mighteasily have been omitted, had the author been so minded, to please theCompany, without any injury to the general argument with which theyare connected. 

On the other hand, there exists abundance of evidence that Smith wasbusy for most of three years after this date, and mainly in London, altering, improving, and adding to the manuscript of the book. Newlines of investigation would suggest themselves, new theories to bethought out, and the task would grow day by day by a very simple butunforeseen process of natural accretion. Hume thought it nearcompletion in 1769; but towards the end of 1772, a couple of monthsafter Smith's answer to Pulteney, he gives it most of another year yetfor being finished. He writes from his new quarters in St. AndrewSquare, asking Smith to break off his studies for a few weeks'relaxation with him in Edinburgh about Christmas, and then to returnand finish his work before the following autumn. 

 ST. ANDREW'S SQUARE, _23rd November 1772_. 

 DEAR SMITH--I should agree to your Reasoning if I could trust your Resolution. Come hither for some weeks about Christmas; dissipate yourself a little; return to Kirkaldy; finish your work before autumn; go to London, print it, return and settle in this town, which suits your studious, independent turn even better than London. Execute this plan faithfully, and I forgive you. .. . 

 Ferguson has returned fat and fair and in good humour, notwithstanding his disappointment, [224] which I am glad of. He comes over next week to a house in this neighbourhood. Pray come over this winter and join us. --I am, my dear Smith, ever yours, DAVID HUME. [225]

While Pulteney was suggesting Smith's name for employment under theEast India Company, Baron Mure was trying to secure his services astutor to the Duke of Hamilton, and Lord Stanhope possibly offered himthe position of tutor to his lordship's ward, the young Earl ofChesterfield. Baron Mure was one of the guardians of the young Duke ofHamilton (the son of the beautiful Miss Gunning), and had in thatcapacity had the chief responsibility in raising and carrying on thegreat Douglas cause. He was a man of great sagacity and weight, whomwe have seen in communication with Hume and Oswald on economicsubjects; he had long been also on terms of personal intimacy withSmith, and he seems to have been anxious in 1772 to send Smith abroadwith the Duke of Hamilton, as he had already been sent abroad withthe Duke of Buccleugh. Smith would appear to have been sounded on thesubject, and even to have given what was considered a favourablereply, for Andrew Stuart, a fellow-guardian of the Duke along withMure, writes the latter acknowledging receipt of his letter"intimating"--these are the words--"the practicability of having Mr. Smith, " but the Duke's mother (then Duchess of Argyle) and the Dukehimself preferred Dr. John Moore, the author of _Zelucco_, who was thefamily medical attendant, and was indeed chosen because he could actin that capacity to his very delicate young charge, though he wasstrictly required to drop the "doctor, " and was severely censured bythe Duchess for assisting at a surgical operation in Geneva, inasmuchas if it got known that he was a medical man it would be a bar totheir reception in the best society. [226] Accordingly Mure was toldthat it was "the united opinion of all concerned that matters go nofurther with Mr. Smith. "

The circumstance that so wise and practical a head as Baron Mure'sshould have thought of Smith for this post is at least a proof thatthe Buccleugh tutorship had been a success, and that Smith was notconsidered by other men of the world who knew him well as being sounfit for the situation of travelling tutor as some of his friendsthought him. 

During this period of severe study in Kirkcaldy his fits of absencemight be expected to recur occasionally, and Dr. Charles Rogersrelates an anecdote of one of them, which may be repeated here, thoughDr. Rogers omits mentioning any authority for it; and stories of thatkind must naturally be accepted with scruples, because they are so aptto agglomerate round any person noted for the failing they indicate. 

According to Dr. Rogers, however, Smith, during his residence inKirkcaldy, went out one Sunday morning in his dressing-gown to walk inthe garden, but once in the garden he went on to the path leading tothe turnpike road, and then to the road itself, along which hecontinued in a condition of reverie till he reached Dunfermline, fifteen miles distant, just as the bells were sounding and the peoplewere proceeding to church. The strange sound of the bells was thefirst thing that roused the philosopher from the meditation in whichhe was immersed. [227] The story is very open to criticism, but ifcorrect it points to sleepless nights and an incapacity to get asubject out of the head, due to over-application. 

The persistency of his occupation with his book, according to RobertChambers in his _Picture of Scotland_, left a mark on the wall of hisstudy which remained there till the room was repainted shortly beforethat author wrote of it in 1827. Chambers says that it was Smith'shabit to compose _standing_, and to dictate to an amanuensis. Heusually stood with his back to the fire, and unconsciously in theprocess of thought used to make his head vibrate, or rather, rubsidewise against the wall above the chimney-piece. His head beingdressed, in the ordinary style of that period, with pomatum, could notfail to make a mark on the wall. 

M'Culloch says Smith dictated the _Wealth of Nations_ but did notdictate the _Theory of Moral Sentiments_. Whether he had any externalground for making this assertion I cannot tell, and, apart from such, the probability would seem to be that if he dictated his lectures inEdinburgh to an amanuensis, as seems probable, as well as his _Wealthof Nations_, he would have done the same with his _Theory_. ButM'Culloch professes to see internal evidences of this difference ofmanual method in the different style of the respective works. Mooremet M'Culloch one evening at Longman's, and they were discussingwriters who were in the habit of dictating as they composed. One ofthe party said the habit of dictating always bred a diffuse style, andM'Culloch supported this view by the example of Adam Smith, whose_Wealth of Nations_, he said, was very diffuse because it had beendictated, while his _Theory_, which was not dictated, was admirable instyle. But in reality there is probably more diffuse writing in the_Theory_ than in the _Wealth of Nations_, which is for the most partpacked tightly enough. Another Scotch critic, Archibald Alison theelder, the author of the _Essay on Taste_, even surpasses M'Culloch inhis keenness in detecting the effects of this dictating habit. He saysthat Smith used to walk up and down the room while he dictated, andthat the consequence is that his sentences are nearly all the samelength, each containing as much as the amanuensis could write downwhile the author took a single turn. [228] This is excessive acuteness. Smith's sentences are not by any means all of one length, or all ofthe same construction. It need only be added that the habit ofdictating would in his case arise naturally from his slow and labouredpenmanship. 

As I have mentioned the house in which the _Wealth of Nations_ wascomposed, it may be added that it stood in the main street of thetown, but its garden ran down to the beach, and that it was onlypulled down in 1844, without anybody in the place realising at themoment, though it has been a cause of much regret since, that theywere suffering their most interesting association to be destroyed. Anengraving of it, however, exists. 

FOOTNOTES:

[201] Adams's _Works_, ix. 589. 

[202] Adams's _Works_, iii. 276. 

[203] Secretary of the Royal Society. The letter was probably inacknowledgment of the intimation of his election as Fellow. 

[204] Mr. Adams is Adam the architect, and Mrs. Montagu is thewell-known Mrs. Elizabeth Montagu of Portman Square, whose hospitablehouse was a rival to any of the most brilliant salons of Paris. 

[205] _Hume MSS. _, R. S. E. Library. 

[206] Burton's _Life of Hume_, ii. 390. 

[207] _Hume MSS. _, R. S. E. Library. 

[208] Carlyle's _Autobiography_, p. 489. 

[209] Sinclair's _Life of Sir John Sinclair_, i. 37. 

[210] Fraser's _Scotts of Buccleuch_, I. Lxxxviii. , II. 406. 

[211] Brougham's _Men of Letters_, ii. 219. 

[212] Brougham's Men of Letters, ii. 219. 

[213] Burton's _Life of Hume_, ii. 429. 

[214] _Ibid. _, ii. 433. 

[215] _Hume MSS. _, R. S. E. Library. Partially published by Burton. 

[216] Sir James Steuart's _Inquiry into the Principles of PoliticalEconomy_ was published in 1767. 

[217] Published by Professor Thorold Rogers in the _Academy_ of 28thFebruary 1885. 

[218] _Caldwell Papers_, iii. 207. 

[219] _Wealth of Nations_, Book I. Chap. Xi. 

[220] _Ibid. _, Book IV. Chap. Vii. 

[221] _Wealth of Nations_, Book IV. Chap. Vii. 

[222] _Ibid. _, Book V. Chap. Iii. 

[223] _Ibid. _, Book V. Chap. I. 

[224] From the suppression of the Indian supervisorship; see p. 255. 

[225] _Hume MSS. _, R. S. E. Library. 

[226] _Caldwell Papers_, i. 192. 

[227] Rogers' _Social Life of Scotland_, iii. 181. 

[228] Sinclair's _Old Times and Distant Places_, p. 9. 

CHAPTER XVII

LONDON

1773-1776. _Aet. _ 50-53

In the spring of 1773, Smith, having, as he thought, virtuallycompleted the _Wealth of Nations_, set out with the manuscript forLondon, to give it perhaps some finishing touches and then place it inthe hands of a publisher. But his labours had told so seriously on hishealth and spirits that he thought it not improbable he might die, andeven die suddenly, before the work got through the press, and he wroteHume a formal letter before he started on his journey, constitutinghim his literary executor, and giving him directions about thedestination of the various unpublished manuscripts that lay in hisdepositories:--

 MY DEAR FRIEND--As I have left the care of all my literary papers to you, I must tell you that except those which I carry along with me, there are none worth the publishing but a fragment of a great work which contains a history of the astronomical systems that were successively in fashion down to the time of Descartes. Whether that might not be published as a fragment of an intended juvenile work I leave entirely to your judgment, tho' I begin to suspect myself that there is more refinement than solidity in some parts of it. This little work you will find in a thin folio paper book in my writing-desk in my book-room. All the other loose paper which you will find either in that desk or within the glass folding-doors of a bureau which stands in my bedroom, together with about eighteen thin paper folio books, which you will likewise find within the same glass folding-doors, I desire may be destroyed without any examination. Unless I die very suddenly, I shall take care that the Papers I carry with me shall be carefully sent to you. --I ever am, my dear friend, most faithfully yours, ADAM SMITH. 

 EDINBURGH, _16th April 1773_. 

 _To_ DAVID HUME, Esq. , 9 St. Andrew's Square, Edinburgh. [229]

Smith went to London shortly after writing this letter, and spent mostof the next four years there. We find him there in May 1773, for he isadmitted to the Royal Society on the 27th of that month; he is therein September, for Ferguson then writes to him as if he were stillthere. He is there in February 1774, for Hume writes him in thatmonth, "Pray what accounts are these we hear of Franklyn'sconduct?"--a question he would hardly have addressed except to one ina better position for hearing the truth about Franklin than he washimself. He is there in September 1774, for he writes Cullen from townin that month, and speaks of having been for some time in it. He isthere in January 1775, for on the 11th Bishop Percy met him at dinnerat Sir Joshua Reynolds', along with Johnson, Burke, Gibbon, andothers. [230] He is there in February, for a young friend, PatrickClason, addresses a letter to him during that month to the care ofCadell, the bookseller, in the Strand. He is there in December, for onthe 27th Horace Walpole writes the Countess of Ossory that "Adam Smithtold us t'other night at Beauclerk's that Major Preston--one of two, but he is not sure which--would have been an excellent commander someyears hence if he had seen any service. I said it was a pity that thewar had not been put off till the Major should be some yearsolder. "[231] He returned to Scotland in April 1776, about a monthafter his book was issued, but we find him back again in London inJanuary 1777, for his letter to Governor Pownall in that month isdated from Suffolk Street. Whether the first three years of his stayin London was continuous I cannot say, but it would almost appear sofrom the circumstance that nothing remains to indicate the contrary. 

Those three years were spent upon the _Wealth of Nations_. Much of thebook as we know it must have been written in London. When he went upto London he had no idea that any fresh investigations he contemplatedinstituting there would detain him so long. He wrote Pulteney, as wehave seen, even in the previous September that the book would befinished in a few months, and he led not only Hume but Adam Fergusonalso to look for its publication in 1773. In a footnote to the fourthedition of his _History of Civil Society_, published in that year, Ferguson says, "The public will probably soon be furnished (by Mr. Smith, author of the _Theory of Moral Sentiments_) with a theory ofnational economy equal to what has ever appeared on any subject ofscience whatever. " But the researches the author now made in Londonmust have been much more important than he expected, and haveoccasioned extensive alterations and additions, so that Hume, incongratulating him on the eventual appearance of the work in 1776, writes, "It is probably much improved by your last abode in London. "Whole chapters seem to have been put through the forge afresh; and onsome of them the author has tool-marked the date of his handiworkhimself. 

A very circumstantial account of Smith's London labours at the bookcomes from America. Mr. Watson, author of the _Annals ofPhiladelphia_, says: "Dr. Franklin once told Dr. Logan that thecelebrated Adam Smith when writing his _Wealth of Nations_ was in thehabit of bringing chapter after chapter as he composed it to himself, Dr. Price, and others of the literati; then patiently hear theirobservations and profit by their discussions and criticisms, sometimessubmitting to write whole chapters anew, and even to reverse some ofhis propositions. "[232]

Franklin's remark may have itself undergone enlargement before itappeared in print, but though it may have been exaggerated, thereseems no ground for rejecting it altogether. Smith became acquaintedwith Franklin in Edinburgh in 1759, and could not fail to see much ofhim in London, because some of the most intimate of his own Londonfriends, Sir John Pringle and Strahan, for example, were also amongthe most intimate friends of Franklin. Then a considerable proportionof the additions, which we know from the text of the _Wealth ofNations_ itself to have been made to the work during this Londonperiod, bear on colonial or American experience. [233] And as Smithalways obtained a great deal of his information from the conversationof competent men, no one would be more likely than Franklin to be laidunder contribution or to be able to contribute something worthlearning on such questions. The biographer of Franklin states that hispapers which belong to this particular period "contain sets ofproblems and queries as though jotted down at some meeting ofphilosophers for particular consideration at home, " and then he adds:"A glance at the index of the _Wealth of Nations_ will suffice to showthat its author possessed just that kind of knowledge of the AmericanColonies which Franklin was of all men the best fitted to impart. Theallusions to the Colonies may be counted by hundreds; illustrationsfrom their condition and growth occur in nearly every chapter. We maygo further and say that the American Colonies constitute theexperimental evidence of the essential truth of the book, withoutwhich many of its leading positions had been little more thantheory. "[234] It ought of course to be borne in mind that Smith hadbeen in the constant habit of hearing much about the American Coloniesand their affairs during his thirteen years in Glasgow from theintelligent merchants and returned planters of that city. 

After coming to London Smith seems to have renewed his acquaintancewith Lord Stanhope, who sought Smith's counsel as to a tutor for hisward the Earl of Chesterfield, and appointed Adam Ferguson on Smith'srecommendation. The negotiations with Ferguson were conducted throughSmith, and some of Ferguson's letters to Smith on the matter stillexist, but contain nothing of any interest for the biography of thelatter. But in contemplation of Ferguson's going abroad with the Earlof Chesterfield, Hume, ever anxious to have his friend near him, sounds Smith on the possibility of his agreeing to act duringFerguson's absence as his substitute in the Moral Philosophy chair atEdinburgh. Smith, however, was apparently unwilling to undertake thatduty. As we have already seen, he was strongly opposed to professorialabsenteeism, and in the present case it was associated with unpleasantcircumstances. The Town Council, the administrators of the College, refused to sanction Ferguson's absence, and called upon him either tostay at home or to resign his chair. Ferguson merely snapped hisfingers, appointed young Dugald Stewart his substitute, and went offon his travels, quietly remarking that fools and knaves were necessaryin the world to give other people something to do. Hume's letter is asfollows:--

 ST. ANDREW'S SQUARE, _13th February 1774_. 

 DEAR SMITH--You are in the wrong for never informing me of your intentions and resolutions, if you have fix'd any. I am now obliged to write to you on a subject without knowing whether the proposal, or rather Hint, which I am to give you be an absurdity or not. The settlement to be made on Ferguson is a very narrow compensation for his class if he must lose it. He wishes to keep it and to serve by a Deputy in his absence. But besides that this scheme will appear invidious and is really scarce admissible, those in the Town Council who aim at filling the vacancy with a friend will strenuously object to it, and he himself cannot think of one who will make a proper substitute. I fancy that the chief difficulty would be removed if you could offer to supply his class either as his substitute or his successor, with a purpose of resigning upon his return. This notion is entirely my own, and shall never be known to Ferguson if it appear to you improper. I shall only say that he deserves this friendly treatment by his friendly conduct of a similar kind towards poor Russell's family. 

 Pray what strange accounts are these we hear of Franklyn's conduct? I am very slow in believing that he has been guilty in the extreme degree that is pretended, tho' I always knew him to be a very factious man, and Faction next to Fanaticism is of all passions the most destructive of morality. I hear that Wedderburn's treatment of him before the Council was most cruel without being in the least blamable. What a pity![235]

Smith's headquarters in London, to which Hume's letters to him wereaddressed, was the British Coffee-House in Cockspur Street, a greatScotch resort in last century, kept, as I have said, by a sister ofhis old Balliol friend, Bishop Douglas, "a woman, " according to HenryMackenzie, "of uncommon talents and the most agreeable conversation. "Wedderburn founded a weekly dining club in this house, which Robertsonand Carlyle used to frequent when they came to town, and no doubtSmith would do the same, for many of his Scotch friends belonged toit--Dr. William Hunter, John Home, Robert Adam the architect, and SirGilbert Elliot. Indeed, though men like Goldsmith, Sir JoshuaReynolds, Garrick, and Richard Cumberland were members, it waspredominantly a Scotch club, and both Carlyle and Richard Cumberlandsay an extremely agreeable one. But during his residence at thisperiod in London Smith was in 1775 admitted to the membership of amuch more famous club, the Literary Club of Johnson and Burke andReynolds at the Turk's Head in Gerrard Street, and he no doubtattended their fortnightly dinners. The only members present on thenight of his election were Beauclerk, Gibbon, Sir William Jones, andSir Joshua Reynolds. Boswell, writing his friend Temple on 28th April1776, immediately after the _Wealth of Nations_ was published, says, "Smith too is now of our club. It has lost its select merit. " Butanother member of the club, Dean Barnard--husband of the authoress of"Auld Robin Gray"--appreciates his worth better, though he wrote thelines in which his appreciation occurs before the _Wealth of Nations_appeared, and his words may therefore be taken perhaps to convey theimpression made by Smith's conversation. One of the Dean's versesruns--

 If I have thoughts and can't express 'em, Gibbon shall teach me how to dress 'em In form select and terse; Jones teach me modesty and Greek, Smith how to think, Burke how to speak, And Beauclerk to converse. 

Smith's conversation seems, from all the accounts we have of it, tohave been the conversation of a thinker, often lecturing rather thantalk, but always instructive and solid. William Playfair, the brotherof Professor John Playfair, the mathematician, says, "Those personswho have ever had the pleasure to be in his company may recollect thateven in his common conversation the order and method he pursuedwithout the smallest degree of formality or stiffness were beautiful, and gave a sort of pleasure to all who listened to him. "[236]

Bennet Langton mentions the "decisive professorial manner" in which hewas used to talk, and according to Boswell, Topham Beauclerk conceiveda high opinion of Smith's conversation at first, but afterwards lostit, for reasons unreported, though if Beauclerk was himself, as DeanBarnard indicates, the model converser of the club, he would probablygrow tired of expository lectures, however excellent and instructive. A criticism of Garrick's is more curious. After listening to Smith oneevening, the great player turned to a friend and whispered, "What sayyou to this? eh, flabby, eh?" but whatever may have been the case thatparticular evening, flabbiness at least was not a characteristic ofSmith's talk. It erred rather in excess of substance. He had Johnson'ssolidity and weight, without Johnson's force and vivacity. HenryMackenzie, author of the _Man of Feeling_, talking of Smith soon afterhis death with Samuel Rogers, said of him, "With a most retentivememory, his conversation was solid beyond that of any man. I haveoften told him after half an hour's conversation, 'Sir, you have saidenough to make a book. '"[237] His conversation, moreover, wasparticularly wide in its range. Dugald Stewart says that though Smithseldom started a topic of conversation, there were few topics raisedon which he was not found contributing something worth hearing, andBoswell, no very partial witness, admits that his talk evinced "a mindcrowded with all manner of subjects. " Like Sir Walter Scott, Smith hasbeen unjustly accused of habitually abstaining from conversing on thesubjects he had made his own. Boswell tells us that Smith once said toSir Joshua Reynolds that he made it a rule in company never to talk ofwhat he understood, and he alleges the reason to have been that Smithhad bookmaking ever in his mind, and the fear of the plagiarist everbefore his eyes. But the fact thus reported by Boswell cannot beaccepted exactly as he reports it, and his explanation cannot beaccepted at all. Men able to converse on a variety of subjects willnaturally prefer to converse on those unconnected with their own shop, because they go into company for diversion from their own shop, butit is a question of company and circumstances. If Smith ever made anysuch rule as Boswell speaks of, he certainly seems to have honoured itas often by the breach as by the observance, for when his friendsbrought round the conversation to his special lines of research, henever seems to have failed to give his ideas quite freely, nay, as maybe seen from the remark just quoted from Henry Mackenzie, not freelymerely but abundantly--as many as would make a book. He does notappear to have been in this respect a grudging giver. I have alreadyquoted his remark on hearing of Blair's borrowing some of hisjuridical ideas, "There's enough left. " When Sir John Sinclair waswriting his _History of the Revenue_ Smith offered him the use ofeverything, either printed or manuscript, in his possession bearingupon the subject. And if it is true that he was discussing his ownbook chapter by chapter with Franklin, Price, and others, about thevery period when this remark to Sir Joshua purports to have been made, it appears most unlikely that he could have thought of setting anychurlish watch on his lips in ordinary conversation. But however it bewith his disposition to talk about his own pursuits, we know fromDugald Stewart that he was very fond of talking of subjects remotefrom them, and as Stewart says, he was never more entertaining thanwhen he gave a loose rein to his speculation on subjects off his ownline. "Nor do I think, " says Stewart, "I shall be accused of going toofar when I say that he was scarcely ever known to start a new topichimself, or to appear unprepared upon those topics that wereintroduced by others. Indeed, his conversation was never more amusingthan when he gave a loose rein to his genius upon the very fewbranches of knowledge of which he only possessed the outlines. "[238]One of his defects, according to both Stewart and Carlyle, was hispoor penetration into personal character; but he was very fond ofdrawing the character of any person whose name came up inconversation, and Stewart says his judgments of this kind, thoughalways decided and lively, were generally too systematic to be just, leaning ever, however, to charity's side, and erring by partialityrather than prejudice; while Carlyle completes the description bystating that when any one challenged or disputed his opinion of acharacter, he would retrace his steps with the greatest ease andnonchalance and contradict every word he had been saying. Carlyle'sstatement is confirmed by the remarks of certain of Smith's otherfriends who speak incidentally of the amusing inconsistencies in whichhe indulged in private conversation. He was fond of starting theoriesand supporting them, but it is not so easy to explain a man on atheory as to explain some abstract subject on a theory. 

His voice seems to have been harsh, his utterance often stammering, and his manner, especially among strangers, often embarrassed, butmany writers speak of the remarkable animation of his features as hewarmed to his subject, and of the peculiar radiancy of his smile. "Hissmile of approbation, " says Dr. Carlyle, "was captivating. " "In thesociety of those he loved, " says Stewart, "his features were oftenbrightened with a smile of inexpressible benignity. "

While living in London, Smith, along with Gibbon, attended Dr. WilliamHunter's lectures on anatomy, [239] as we are told by a writer who wasone of Hunter's students at the time, and during that very period hehad an opportunity of vindicating the value of the lectures of privateteachers of medicine like Hunter against pretensions to monopoly setup at the moment on behalf of the universities. In a long letterwritten to Cullen in September 1774 Smith defends with great vigourand vivacity the most absolute and unlimited freedom of medicaleducation, treating the University claims as mere expressions of thecraft spirit, and recognising none of those exceptional features ofmedical education which have constrained even the most extremepartisans of economic liberty now to approve of governmentinterference in that matter. 

The letter was occasioned by an agitation which had been longgathering strength in Scotch medical circles against the laxity withwhich certain of the Scotch universities--St. Andrews and Aberdeen inparticular--were in the habit of conferring their medical degrees. Thecandidate was not required either to attend classes or to pass anexamination, but got the degree by merely paying the fees andproducing a certificate of proficiency from two medical practitioners, into whose qualifications no inquiry was instituted. In London aspecial class of agent--the broker in Scotch degrees--sprang up totransact the business, and England was being overrun with a horde ofScotch doctors of medicine who hardly knew a vein from an artery, andhad created south of the Border a deep prejudice against all Scotchgraduates, even those from the unoffending Universities of Edinburghand Glasgow. A case seemed to be brought home even to Edinburgh in theyear 1771. The offender--one Leeds--had not, indeed, got his degreefrom Edinburgh without examination, but he showed his competency to beso doubtful in his duties at the London Hospital that the governorsmade it a condition of the continuance of his services that he shouldobtain the diploma of the London College of Physicians, and he failedto pass this London examination and was deprived of his post. Thiscase created much sensation both in London and Edinburgh, and when theDuke of Buccleugh was elected an honorary Fellow of the College ofPhysicians of Edinburgh in 1774, he made that body something like anoffer to take up the question of examination for medical degrees inParliament and try what could be done to remove this reproach from hiscountry. The College of Physicians thereupon drew up a memorial toGovernment for the Duke of Buccleugh to present, praying for theprohibition of the universities from granting medical degrees, excepthonorary ones, to any person in absence, or to any person withoutfirst undergoing a personal examination into his proficiency, andbringing a certificate of having attended for two years at auniversity where physic was regularly taught, and of having appliedhimself to all branches of medical study. They add that they fix ontwo years not because they think two years enough, but because thatwas the term adopted by the London College of Physicians, and theysuggest the appointment of a royal commission of inquiry if Governmentis not prepared for immediate action. 

The Duke of Buccleugh sent the memorial for the consideration of AdamSmith, and asked him to write to Cullen his views on the subject. Smith thought that it was not very practicable in any event for thepublic to obtain a satisfactory test of medical efficiency, that itwas certainly not practicable if the competition by the privateteachers were suppressed, that otherwise the medical examination mightbecome as great a quackery as the medical degree, and that the wholequestion was a mere squabble between the big quack and the little one. He unfolds his views in the following letter:--

 DEAR DOCTOR--I have been very much in the wrong both to you and to the Duke of Buccleugh, to whom I certainly promised to write you in a post or two, for having delayed so long to fulfil my promise. The truth is that some occurrences which interested me a good deal, and which happened here immediately after the Duke's departure, made me forget altogether a business which, I do acknowledge, interested me very little. 

 In the present state of the Scotch universities I do most sincerely look upon them as, in spite of all their faults, without exception the best seminaries of learning that are to be found anywhere in Europe. They are perhaps, upon the whole, as unexceptionable as any public institutions of that kind, which all contain in their very nature the seeds and causes of negligency and corruption, have ever been or are ever likely to be. That, however, they are still capable of amendment, and even of considerable amendment, I know very well, and a Visitation (that is, a Royal Commission) is, I believe, the only proper means of procuring them this amendment. Before any wise man, however, would apply for the appointment of so arbitrary a tribunal in order to improve what is already, upon the whole, very well, he ought certainly to know with some degree of certainty, first, who are likely to be appointed visitors, and secondly, what plan of reformation those visitors are likely to follow; but in the present multiplicity of pretenders to some share in the prudential management of Scotch affairs, these are two points which, I apprehend, neither you nor I, nor the Solicitor-General nor the Duke of Buccleugh, can possibly know anything about. In the present state of our affairs, therefore, to apply for a Visitation in order to remedy an abuse which is not perhaps of great consequence to the public, would appear to me to be extremely unwise. Hereafter, perhaps, an opportunity may present itself for making such an application with more safety. 

 With regard to an admonition, or threatening, or any other method of interfering in the affairs of a body corporate which is not perfectly and strictly regular and legal, these are expedients which I am convinced neither his Majesty nor any of his present Ministers would choose to employ either now or at any time hereafter in order to obtain an object even of much greater consequence than this reformation of Scottish degrees. 

 You propose, I observe, that no person should be admitted to examination for his degrees unless he brought a certificate of his having studied at least two years in some university. Would not such a regulation be oppressive upon all private teachers, such as the Hunters, Hewson, Fordyce, etc. ? The scholars of such teachers surely merit whatever honour or advantage a degree can confer much more than the greater part of those who have spent many years in some universities, where the different branches of medical knowledge are either not taught at all, or are taught so superficially that they had as well not be taught at all. When a man has learnt his lesson very well, it surely can be of little importance where or from whom he has learnt it. 

 The monopoly of medical education which this regulation would establish in favour of universities would, I apprehend, be hurtful to the lasting prosperity of such bodies corporate. Monopolists very seldom make good work, and a lecture which a certain number of students must attend, whether they profit by it or no, is certainly not very likely to be a good one. I have thought a great deal upon this subject, and have inquired very carefully into the constitution and history of several of the principal universities of Europe; I have satisfied myself that the present state of degradation and contempt into which the greater part of these societies have fallen in almost every part of Europe arises principally, first, from the large salaries which in some universities are given to professors, and which render them altogether independent of their diligence and success in their professions; and secondly, from the great number of students who, in order to get degrees or to be admitted to exercise certain professions, or who, for the sake of bursaries, exhibitions, scholarships, fellowships, etc. , are obliged to resort to certain societies of this kind, whether the instructions which they are likely to receive there are or are not worth the receiving. All these different cases of negligence and corruption no doubt take place in some degree in all our Scotch universities. In the best of them, however, these cases take place in a much less degree than in the greater part of other considerable societies of the same kind; and I look upon this circumstance as the real cause of their present excellence. In the Medical College of Edinburgh in particular the salaries of the professors are insignificant. There are few or no bursaries or exhibitions, and their monopoly of degrees is broken in upon by all other universities, foreign and domestic. I require no other explication of its present acknowledged superiority over every other society of the same kind in Europe. 

 To sign a certificate in favour of any man whom we know little or nothing about is most certainly a practice which cannot be strictly vindicated. It is a practice, however, which from mere good-nature and without interest of any kind the most scrupulous men in the world are sometimes guilty of. I certainly do not mean to defend it. Bating the unhandsomeness of the practice, however, I would ask in what manner does the public suffer by it? The title of Doctor, such as it is, you will say, gives some credit and authority to the man upon whom it is bestowed; it extends his practice and consequently his field for doing mischief; it is not improbable too that it may increase his presumption and consequently his disposition to do mischief. That a degree injudiciously conferred may sometimes have some little effect of this kind it would surely be absurd to deny, but that this effect should be very considerable I cannot bring myself to believe. That Doctors are sometimes fools as well as other people is not in the present time one of those profound secrets which is known only to the learned. The title is not so very imposing, and it very seldom happens that a man trusts his health to another merely because that other is a Doctor. The person so trusted has almost always some knowledge or some craft which would procure him nearly the same trust, though he was not decorated with any such title. In fact the persons who apply for degrees in the irregular manner complained of are, the greater part of them, surgeons or apothecaries who are in the custom of advising and prescribing, that is, of practising as physicians; but who, being only surgeons and apothecaries, are not fee-ed as physicians. It is not so much to extend their practice as to increase their fees that they are desirous of being made Doctors. Degrees conferred even undeservedly upon such persons can surely do very little harm to the public. When the University of St. Andrews very rashly and imprudently conferred a degree upon one Green who happened to be a stage-doctor, they no doubt brought much ridicule and discredit upon themselves, but in what respect did they hurt the public? Green still continued to be what he was before, a stage-doctor, and probably never poisoned a single man more than he would have done though the honours of graduation had never been conferred upon him. Stage-doctors, I must observe, do not much excite the indignation of the faculty; more reputable quacks do. The former are too contemptible to be considered as rivals; they only poison the poor people; and the copper pence which are thrown up to them in handkerchiefs could never find their way to the pocket of a regular physician. It is otherwise with the latter: they sometimes intercept a part of what perhaps would have been better bestowed in another place. Do not all the old women in the country practise physic without exciting murmur or complaint? And if here and there a graduated Doctor should be as ignorant as an old woman, where can be the great harm? The beardless old woman indeed takes no fees; the bearded one does, and it is this circumstance, I strongly suspect, which exasperates his brethren so much against him. 

 There never was, and I will venture to say there never will be, a university from which a degree could give any tolerable security that the person upon whom it had been conferred was fit to practise physic. The strictest universities confer degrees only upon students of a certain standing. Their real motive for requiring this standing is that the student may spend more money among them and that they may make more profit by him. When he has attained this standing therefore, though he still undergoes what they call an examination, it scarce ever happens that he is refused his degree. Your examination at Edinburgh, I have all reason to believe, is as serious, and perhaps more so, than that of any other university in Europe; but when a student has resided a few years among you, has behaved dutifully to all his professors, and has attended regularly all their lectures, when he comes to his examination I suspect you are disposed to be as good-natured as other people. Several of your graduates, upon applying for license from the College of Physicians here, have had it recommended to them to continue their studies. From a particular knowledge of some of the cases I am satisfied that the decision of the College in refusing them their license was perfectly just--that is, was perfectly agreeable to the principles which ought to regulate all such decisions; and that the candidates were really very ignorant of their profession. 

 A degree can pretend to give security for nothing but the science of the graduate; and even for that it can give but a very slender security. For his good sense and discretion, qualities not discoverable by an academical examination, it can give no security at all; but without these the presumption which commonly attends science must render it in the practice of physic ten times more dangerous than the grossest ignorance when accompanied, as it sometimes is, with some degree of modesty and diffidence. 

 If a degree, in short, always has been, and, in spite of all the regulations which can be made, always must be, a mere piece of quackery, it is certainly for the advantage of the public that it should be understood to be so. It is in a particular manner for the advantage of the universities that for the resort of students they should be obliged to depend, not upon their privileges but upon their merit, upon their abilities to teach and their diligence in teaching; and that they should not have it in their power to use any of those quackish arts which have disgraced and degraded the half of them. 

 A degree which can be conferred only upon students of a certain standing is a statute of apprenticeship which is likely to contribute to the advancement of science, just as other statutes of apprenticeship have contributed to that of arts and manufactures. Those statutes of apprenticeship, assisted by other corporation laws, have banished arts and manufactures from the greater part of towns corporate. Such degrees, assisted by some other regulations of a similar tendency, have banished almost all useful and solid education from the greater part of universities. Bad work and high price have been the effect of the monopoly introduced by the former; quackery, imposture, and exorbitant fees have been the consequences of that established by the latter. The industry of manufacturing villages has remedied in part the inconveniences which the monopolies established by towns corporate had occasioned. The private interest of some poor Professors of Physic in some poor universities inconveniently situated for the resort of students has in part remedied the inconveniences which would certainly have resulted from that sort of monopoly which the great and rich universities had attempted to establish. The great and rich universities seldom graduated anybody but their own students, and not even these till after a long and tedious standing; five and seven years for a Master of Arts; eleven and sixteen for a Doctor of Law, Physic, or Divinity. The poor universities on account of the inconvenience of their situation, not being able to get many students, endeavoured to turn a penny in the only way in which they could turn it, and sold their degrees to whoever would buy them, generally without requiring any residence or standing, and frequently without subjecting the candidate even to a decent examination. The less trouble they gave, the more money they got, and I certainly do not pretend to vindicate so dirty a practice. All universities being ecclesiastical establishments under the immediate protection of the Pope, a degree from one of them gave all over Christendom very nearly the same privileges which a degree from any other could have given; and the respect which is to this day paid to foreign degrees, even in Protestant countries, must be considered as a remnant of Popery. The facility of obtaining degrees, particularly in physic, from those poor universities had two effects, both extremely advantageous to the public, but extremely disagreeable to graduates of other universities whose degrees had cost them much time and expense. First, it multiplied very much the number of doctors, and thereby no doubt sunk their fees, or at least hindered them from rising so very high as they otherwise would have done. Had the universities of Oxford and Cambridge been able to maintain themselves in the exclusive privilege of graduating all the doctors who could practise in England, the price of feeling the pulse might by this time have risen from two and three guineas, the price which it has now happily arrived at, to double or triple that sum; and English physicians might, and probably would, have been at the same time the most ignorant and quackish in the world. Secondly, it reduced a good deal the rank and dignity of a doctor, but if the physician was a man of sense and science it would not surely prevent his being respected and employed as a man of sense and science. If he was neither the one nor the other, indeed, his doctorship would no doubt avail him the less. But ought it in this case to avail him at all? Had the hopeful project of the rich and great universities succeeded, there would have been no occasion for sense or science. To have been a doctor would alone have been sufficient to give any man rank, dignity, and fortune enough. That in every profession the fortune of every individual should depend as much as possible upon his merit and as little as possible upon his privilege is certainly for the interest of the public. It is even for the interest of every particular profession, which can never so effectually support the general merit and real honour of the greater part of those who exercise it, as by resting on such liberal principles. Those principles are even most effectual for procuring them all the employment which the country can afford. The great success of quacks in England has been altogether owing to the real quackery of the regular physicians. Our regular physicians in Scotland have little quackery, and no quack accordingly has ever made his fortune among us. 

 After all, this trade in degrees I acknowledge to be a most disgraceful trade to those who exercise it; and I am extremely sorry that it should be exercised by such respectable bodies as any of our Scotch universities. But as it serves as a corrective of what would otherwise soon grow up to be an intolerable nuisance, the exclusive and corporation spirit of all thriving professions and of all great universities, I deny that it is hurtful to the public. 

 What the physicians of Edinburgh at present feel as a hardship is perhaps the real cause of their acknowledged superiority over the greater part of other physicians. The Royal College of Physicians there, you say, are obliged by their charter to grant a license without examination to all the graduates of Scotch universities. You are all obliged, I suppose, in consequence of this, to consult sometimes with very unworthy brethren. You are all made to feel that you must rest no part of your dignity upon your degree, a distinction which you share with the men in the world perhaps whom you despise the most, but that you must found the whole of it upon your merit. Not being able to derive much consequence from the character of Doctor, you are obliged perhaps to attend more to your character as men, as gentlemen, and as men of letters. The unworthiness of some of your brethren may perhaps in this manner be in part the cause of the very eminent and superior worth of many of the rest. The very abuse which you complain of may in this manner perhaps be the real source of your present excellence. You are at present well, wonderfully well, and when you are so, be assured there is always some danger in attempting to be better. 

 Adieu, my dear Doctor; after having delayed to write to you I am afraid I shall _get my lug_ (ear) _in my lufe_ (hand), as we say, for what I have written. But I ever am, most affectionately yours, ADAM SMITH. 

 LONDON, _20th September 1774_. [240]

Whether this decided expression of unfavourable opinion on the part ofhis old and venerated tutor altered the Duke of Buccleugh's mind onthe subject, or in any way prevented him from persevering in hiscontemplated application to Government, we have no means of knowing, but at any rate no further action seems to have been taken in thematter, and it was left to the Scottish universities themselves toremedy abuses which were seriously telling on their own interest andgood name. 

The last year of Smith's residence in London was overcast by growinganxiety about the condition of his friend Hume, who had always enjoyedfairly good health till the beginning of the year 1775, and thenseemed to fall rapidly away. As Smith said one evening at LordShelburne's to Dr. Price, who asked him about Hume's health, it seemedas if Hume was one of those persons who after a certain time of lifego down not gradually but by jumps. [241] Under those circumstancesSmith had determined as soon as his new book was out to go down toEdinburgh and if possible persuade Hume to come back with him toLondon, to try the effect of change of scene and a little wholesomediversion. But, bad correspondent that he was, he appears to have leftHume to gather his intentions from the reports of friends, andconsequently received from Hume the following remonstrance a few weeksbefore the publication of his work:--

 EDINBURGH, _8th February, 1776_. 

 DEAR SMITH--I am as lazy a correspondent as you, but my anxiety about you makes me write. 

 By all accounts your book has been printed long ago, yet it has never yet been so much as advertised. What is the reason? If you wait till the fate of Bavaria be decided you may wait long. 

 By all accounts you intend to settle with us this spring, yet we hear no more of it. What is the reason? Your chamber in my house is always unengaged; I am always at home; I expect you to land here. 

 I have been, am, and shall be probably in an indifferent state of health. I weighed myself t'other day, and find I have fallen five compleat stones. If you delay much longer I shall probably disappear altogether. 

 The Duke of Buccleugh tells me that you are very zealous in American affairs. My notion is that this matter is not so important as is commonly imagined. If I be mistaken I shall probably correct my error when I see you or read you. For navigation and general commerce may suffer more than our manufactures. Should London fall as much in its size as I have done it will be the better. It is nothing but a Hulk of bad and unclean Humours. [242]

The American question was of course the great question of the hour, for the Colonies were already a year in active rebellion, and theyissued their declaration of independence but a few months later. Smithfollowed the struggle, as we see from many evidences in the concludingportion of the _Wealth of Nations_, with the most patriotic interestand anxiety, and having long made a special study of the whole problemof colonial administration, had arrived at the most decided opinionsnot only on the rights and wrongs of the particular quarrel then atissue, but on the general policy it was requisite to adopt in thegovernment of dependencies. Hume was in favour of separation, becausehe believed separation to be inevitable sooner or later in theordinary course of nature, like the separation of the fruit from thetree or the child from the parent. But Smith, shunning all suchmisleading metaphors, held that there need never be any occasion forseparation as long as mother country and dependency were wise enoughto keep together, and that the sound policy to adopt was really thepolicy of closer union--of imperial federation, as we should now callit. He would not say, "Perish dependencies, " but "Incorporate them. "He would treat a colony as but a natural expansion of the territory ofthe kingdom, and have its inhabitants enjoy the same rights and bearthe same burdens as other citizens. He did not think it wrong to taxthe Colonies; on the contrary, he would make them pay every tax theinhabitants of Great Britain had to pay; but he thought it wrong toput restrictions on their commerce from which the commerce of GreatBritain was free, and he thought it wrong to tax them for imperialpurposes without giving them representation in the ImperialParliament--full and equal representation, "bearing the sameproportion to the produce of their taxes as the representation ofGreat Britain might bear to the produce of the taxes levied upon GreatBritain. " The union he contemplated was to be more than federal; itwas to preclude home rule by local assemblies; it was to be like theunion which had been established with Scotland, and which he stronglydesired to see established with Ireland; and the Imperial Parliamentin London was to make laws for the local affairs of the provincesacross the Atlantic exactly as it made laws for the local affairs ofthe province across the Tweed. He shrank from none of the consequencesof his scheme, admitting even that when the Colonies grew inpopulation and wealth, as grow they must, till the real centre ofempire changed, the time would then arrive when the American membersof the Imperial Parliament would far outnumber the British, and theseat of Parliament itself would require to be transferred from Londonto some Constantinople on the other side of the Atlantic. 

He was quite sensible that this scheme of his would be thought wildand called a "new Utopia, " but he was not one of those who counted theold Utopia of Sir Thomas More to be either useless or chimerical, andhe says that this Utopia of his own is "no more useless or chimericalthan the old one. " The difficulties it would encounter came, he says, "not from the nature of things, but from the prejudices and opinionsof the people both on this and on the other side of the Atlantic. " Heheld, moreover, very strongly that a union of this kind was the onlymeans of making the Colonies a useful factor instead of a showy andexpensive appendage of the empire, and the only alternative that couldreally prevent their total separation from Great Britain. He pleadedfor union, too, not merely for the salvation of the Colonies to themother country, but even more for the salvation of the Colonies tothemselves. Separation merely meant mediocrity for Great Britain, butfor the Colonies it meant ruin. There would no longer be any check onthe spirit of rancorous and virulent faction which was alwaysinseparable from small democracies. The coercive power of the mothercountry had hitherto prevented the colonial factions from breaking outinto anything worse than brutality and insult, but if that coercivepower were entirely taken away they would probably soon break out intoopen violence and bloodshed. [243]

The event has falsified the last anticipation, but this is not theplace to criticise Smith's scheme. It was only requisite to recall fora moment the ideas which, according to the Duke of Buccleugh'sstatement to Hume, Smith was at this time so zealously working for inthe important circles in which he then moved in London. 

FOOTNOTES:

[229] _Hume MSS. _, R. S. E. Library. 

[230] Add. MSS. , 32, 336. It must have been during this period thatSmith entertained Reynolds at dinner at Mrs. Hill's, Dartmouth Street, Westminster, on Sunday 11th March, and not, as Mr. Tom Taylor placesit, in 1764, from finding the dinner engagement noted on "a tinyold-fashioned card bearing the name of 'Mr. Adam Smith'" lying in oneof Reynolds' pocket-books for 1764. In March 1764 Smith, as we know, was in France, and Mr. Taylor must have mistaken the year for 1774, unless, indeed, it may have been 1767. 

[231] Walpole's _Letters_, vi. 302. 

[232] Watson's _Annals of Philadelphia_, i. 533. 

[233] See above, pp. 256-7. 

[234] Parton's _Life of Franklin_, i. 537. 

[235] _Hume MSS. _, R. S. E. Library. 

[236] Playfair's edition of _Wealth of Nations_, I. Xiii. 

[237] Clayden's _Early Life of Samuel Rogers_, p. 168. 

[238] _Works_, v. 519. 

[239] Taylor's _Records of my Life_, ii. 262. 

[240] Thomson's _Life of Cullen_, i. 481. 

[241] Notes of S. Rogers' Conversation. Add. MSS. , 32, 571. 

[242] Burton's _Life of Hume_, ii. 483. 

[243] _Wealth of Nations_, Book V. Chap. Iii. 

CHAPTER XVIII

"THE WEALTH OF NATIONS"

1776. _Aet. _ 52

The _Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations_ wasat length published on the 9th of March 1776. Bishop Horne, one ofSmith's antagonists, of whom we shall presently hear more, said thebooks which live longest are those which have been carried longest inthe womb of the parent. The _Wealth of Nations_ took twelve years towrite, and was in contemplation for probably twelve years before that. It was explicitly and publicly promised in 1759, in the concludingparagraph of the _Theory of Moral Sentiments_, though it is only thepartial fulfilment of that promise. 

The promise is: "I shall in another discourse endeavour to give anaccount of the general principles of law and government, and of thedifferent revolutions they have undergone in the different ages andperiods of society, not only in what concerns justice, but in whatconcerns policy revenue and arms, and whatever else is the object oflaw. " In speaking of this promise in the preface of the sixth editionof the _Theory_ in 1790, Smith says, "In the _Inquiry concerning theNature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations_ I have partially executedthis promise, at least so far as concerns policy revenue and arms. "Now doubtless when Smith began writing his book in Toulouse he beganit on the large plan originally in contemplation, and some part of thelong delay that took place in its composition is probably to beexplained by the fact that he would have possibly been a considerabletime at work before he determined to break his book in two, and pushon meanwhile with the section on policy revenue and arms, leaving to aseparate publication in the future his discussion of the theory ofjurisprudence. 

The work was published in two vols. 4to, at the price of £1:16s. Inboards, and the author uses this time all his honours on thetitle-page, describing himself as Adam Smith, LL. D. And F. R. S. , formerly Professor of Moral Philosophy in the University of Glasgow. What was the extent of this edition, or the terms, as between authorand publisher, on which it was put out, is not exactly known. Theterms were not half-profits, for that arrangement is proposed by Smithfor the second edition as if it were a new one, and is accepted in thesame way by Strahan, who in a letter which I shall presently quote, pronounces it a "very fair" proposal, "and therefore very agreeable toMr. Cadell and me"; nor was it printed for the author, for thepresentation copies he gave away were deducted from the copy money hereceived. On the whole, it seems most probable that the book waspurchased from him for a definite sum, and as he mentions in hisletter of the 13th November 1776 that he had received, £300 of hismoney at that time, and had still a balance owing to him, one mayreasonably conjecture that the full sum was £500--the same sumCadell's firm had paid for the last economic work they had undertaken, Sir James Steuart's _Inquiry into the Principles of PoliticalEconomy_. 

The book sold well. The first edition, of whose extent, however, weare ignorant, was exhausted in six months, and the sale was from thefirst better than the publishers expected, for on the 12th of April, when it had only been a month out, Strahan takes notice of a remark ofDavid Hume that Smith's book required too much thought to be aspopular as Gibbon's, and states, "What you say of Mr. Gibbon's and Dr. Smith's book is exactly just. The former is the most popular work;but the sale of the latter, though not near so rapid, has been morethan I could have expected from a work that requires much thought andreflection (qualities that do not abound among modern readers) toperuse to any purpose. "[244] The sale is the more remarkable becauseit was scarce to any degree helped on by reviews, favourable orotherwise. The book was not noticed at all, for example, in the_Gentleman's Magazine_, and it was allowed only two pages in the_Annual Register_, while in the same number Watson's _History ofPhilip_ got sixteen. This review of the book, however, was probablywritten by Burke. 

Smith speaks in one of his letters to Strahan of having distributednumerous presentation copies. One of the first of these was of coursesent to his old friend David Hume, and that copy, by the way, with itsinscription, probably still exists, having been possessed for a timeby the late Mr. Babbage. Hume acknowledged receipt of it in thefollowing letter, which shows among other things that not even Humehad seen the manuscript of the book before publication:--

 EDINBURGH, _1st April 1776_. 

 EUGE! BELLE! DEAR MR. SMITH--I am much pleased with your performance, and the perusal of it has taken me from a state of great anxiety. It was a work of so much expectation, by yourself, by your friends, and by the public, that I trembled for its appearance, but am now much relieved. Not but that the reading of it necessarily requires so much attention, and the public is disposed to give so little that I shall still doubt for some time of its being at first very popular, but it has depth and solidity and acuteness, and is so much illustrated by curious facts that it must at last attract the public attention. It is probably much improved by your last abode in London. If you were here at my fireside, I should dispute some of your principles. I cannot think that the rent of farms makes any part of the price of the produce, but that the price is determined altogether by the quantity and the demand. It appears to me impossible that the King of France can take a seignorage of 8 per cent upon the coinage. Nobody would bring bullion to the mint, it would be all sent to Holland or England, where it might be coined and sent back to France for less than 2 per cent. Accordingly Necker says that the French king takes only 2 per cent of seignorage. But these and a hundred other points are fit only to be discussed in conversation, which till you tell me the contrary I still flatter myself with soon. I hope it will be soon, for I am in a very bad state of health and cannot afford a long delay. I fancy you are acquainted with Mr. Gibbon. I like his performance extremely, and have ventured to tell him that had I not been personally acquainted with him I should never have expected such an excellent work from the pen of an Englishman. It is lamentable to consider how much that nation has declined in literature during our time. I hope he did not take amiss this national reflection. 

 All your friends here are in deep grief at present for the death of Baron Mure, which is an irreparable loss to our society. He was among the oldest and best friends I had in the world. [245]

On the same day as Hume wrote this letter from Edinburgh, Gibbon wrotefrom London to Adam Ferguson and said among other things, "What anexcellent work is that with which our common friend Mr. Adam Smith hasenriched the public! An extensive science in a single book, and themost profound ideas expressed in the most perspicuous language. Heproposes visiting you very soon, and I find he means to exert his moststrenuous endeavours to persuade Mr. Hume to return with him to town. I am sorry to hear that the health and spirits of that truly great manare in a less favourable state than his friends could wish, and I amsure you will join your efforts in convincing him of the benefits ofexercise, dissipation, and change of air. "

Some of Smith's personal friends seem to have entertained the commonprejudice that a good work on commerce could not be reasonablyexpected from a man who had never been engaged in any branch ofpractical business, and seemed in outward air and appearance so illfitted to succeed in such a line of business if he had engaged in it. One of these was Sir John Pringle, President of the Royal Society, andformerly, like Smith himself, Professor of Moral Philosophy at aScotch university. When the _Wealth of Nations_ appeared Sir JohnPringle remarked to Boswell that Smith, having never been in trade, could not be expected to write well on that subject any more than alawyer upon physic, and Boswell repeated the remark to Johnson, who atonce, however, sent it to the winds. "He is mistaken, sir, " said theDoctor; "a man who has never been engaged in trade himself mayundoubtedly write well upon trade, and there is nothing that requiresmore to be illustrated by philosophy than does trade. As to merewealth--that is to say, money--it is clear that one nation or oneindividual cannot increase its store but by making another poorer; buttrade procures what is more valuable, the reciprocation of thepeculiar advantages of different countries. A merchant seldom thinksbut of his own particular trade. To write a good book upon it a manmust have extensive views; it is not necessary to have practised towrite well upon a subject. "

It is not within the scope of a work like the present to give anaccount of the doctrines of the _Wealth of Nations_, or any estimateof their originality or value, or of their influence on the progressof science, on the policy and prosperity of nations, or on thepractical happiness of mankind. Buckle, as we know, declared it to be"in its ultimate results probably the most important book that hasever been written"; a book, he said, which has "done more towards thehappiness of man than has been effected by the united abilities of allthe statesmen and legislators of whom history has preserved anauthentic account";[246] and even those who take the most sober viewof the place of this work in history readily admit that its publiccareer, which is far from being ended yet, is a very remarkable storyof successive conquest. 

It has been seriously asserted that the fortune of the book in thiscountry was made by Fox quoting it one day in the House of Commons. But this happened in November 1783, after the book had already gonethrough two editions and was on the eve of appearing in a third. It iscurious, however, that that was the first time it was quoted in theHouse, and it is curious, again, that the person to quote it then wasFox, who was neither an admirer of the book, nor a believer in itsprinciples, nor a lover of its subject. He once told Charles Butlerthat he had never read the book, and the remark must have been mademany years after its publication, for it was made at St. Anne's Hill, to which Fox only went in 1785. "There is something in all thesesubjects, " the statesman added in explanation, "which passes mycomprehension; something so wide that I could never embrace themmyself nor find any one who did. "[247] On another occasion, when hewas dining one evening in 1796 at Sergeant Heywood's, Fox showed hishearty disdain for Smith and political economy together. The Earl ofLauderdale, who was himself an economist of great ability, and by nomeans a blind follower of Smith, made the remark that we knew nothingof political economy before Adam Smith wrote. "Pooh, " said Fox, "yourAdam Smiths are nothing, but" (he added, turning to the company) "thatis his love; we must spare him there. " "I think, " replied Lauderdale, "he is everything. " "That, " rejoined Fox, "is a great proof of youraffection. " Fox was no believer in free trade, and actively opposedthe Commercial Treaty with France in 1787 on the express and mostilliberal ground that it proceeded from a novel system of doctrines, that it was a dangerous departure from the established principles ofour forefathers, and that France and England were enemies by nature, and ought to be kept enemies by legislation. 

It is curious therefore that in a House where Smith had many admirersand not a few disciples, his book was never mentioned for near eightyears after its appearance, and was mentioned then by an enemy of itsprinciples. Fox's quotation from it on that occasion was of the mostunimportant character. It was in his speech on the Address of Thanksto the Throne, and he said: "There was a maxim laid down in anexcellent book upon the Wealth of Nations which had been ridiculed forits simplicity, but which was indisputable as to its truth. In thatbook it was stated that the only way to become rich was to managematters so as to make one's income exceed one's expenses. This maximapplied equally to an individual and to a nation. The proper line ofconduct therefore was by a well-directed economy to retrench everycurrent expense, and to make as large a saving during the peace aspossible. "[248] To think of this allusion having any influence on thefortunes of the work is of course out of reason. It was never evenmentioned in the House again till the year 1787, when Mr. RobertThornton invoked it in support of the Commercial Treaty with France, and Mr. George Dempster read an extract from it in the debate on theproposal to farm the post-horse duties. It was quoted once in 1788, byMr. Hussy on the Wool Exportation Bill, and not referred to againuntil Pitt introduced his Budget on the 17th February 1792. In thenexplaining the progressive accumulation of capital that was alwaysspontaneously going on in a country when it was not checked bycalamity or by vicious legislation, that great minister, a deepstudent of Smith's book and the most convinced of all Smith'sdisciples, made the remark: "Simple and obvious as this principle is, and felt and observed as it must have been in a greater or less degreeeven from the earliest periods, I doubt whether it has ever been fullydeveloped and sufficiently explained but in the writings of an authorof our own time, now unfortunately no more (I mean the author of thecelebrated treatise on the _Wealth of Nations_), whose extensiveknowledge of detail and depth of philosophical research will, Ibelieve, furnish the best solution of every question connected withthe history of commerce and with the system of politicaleconomy. "[249] In the same year it was quoted by Mr. Whitbread and byFox (from the exposition of the division of labour in the first book)in the debate on the armament against Russia, and by Wilberforce inhis speech introducing his Bill for the Abolition of the Slave Trade. 

It was not mentioned in the House of Lords till 1793, when in thedebate on the King's Message for an Augmentation of the Forces it wasreferred to by Smith's two old friends, the Earl of Shelburne (nowMarquis of Lansdowne) and Alexander Wedderburn (now Lord Loughborough, and presiding over the House as Lord Chancellor, of England). TheMarquis of Lansdowne said: "With respect to French principles, as theyhad been denominated, those principles had been exported from us toFrance, and could not be said to have originated among the populationof the latter country. The new principles of government founded on theabolition of the old feudal system were originally propagated among usby the Dean of Gloucester, Mr. Tucker, and had since been moregenerally inculcated by Dr. Adam Smith in his work on the _Wealth ofNations_, which had been recommended as a book necessary for theinformation of youth by Mr. Dugald Stewart in his _Elements of thePhilosophy of the Human Mind_. " The Lord Chancellor in replying merelysaid that "in the works of Dean Tucker, Adam Smith, and Mr. Stewart, to which allusion had been made, no doctrines inimical to theprinciples of civil government, the morals or religion of mankind, were contained, and therefore to trace the errors of the French tothese causes was manifestly fallacious. "[250]

Lord Lansdowne's endeavour to shield Smith's political orthodoxy underthe countenance lent to his book by so safe and trusted a teacher ofthe sons of the Whig nobility as Dugald Stewart, is hardly lesscurious than his unreserved identification of the new politicaleconomy with that moving cloud of ideas which, under the name ofFrench principles, excited so much alarm in the public mind of thattime. For Dugald Stewart was in that same year 1793 (on the eveningsof 21st January and 18th March) reading his _Memoir of Adam Smith_ tothe Royal Society of Edinburgh, and he tells us himself (in 1810) howhe was compelled to abandon the idea of giving a long account ofSmith's opinions which he intended to have done, because at thatperiod, he says, "it was not unusual, even among men of some talentsand information, to confound studiously the speculative doctrines ofpolitical economy with those discussions concerning the firstprinciples of government, which happened unfortunately at that time toagitate the public mind. The doctrine of a Free Trade was itselfrepresented as of a revolutionary tendency, and some who had formerlyprided themselves on their intimacy with Mr. Smith, and on their zealfor the propagation of his liberal system, began to call in questionthe expediency of subjecting to the disputation of philosophers thearcana of State policy, and the unfathomable wisdom of feudalages. "[251] People's teeth had been so set on edge by the events inFrance that, as Lord Cockburn tells us, when Stewart first began togive a course of lectures in the University on political economy inthe winter 1801-2, the mere term "political economy" made them start. "They thought it included questions touching the constitution ofgovernments, and not a few hoped to catch Stewart in dangerouspropositions. "[252]

The French Revolution seems to have checked for a time the growingvogue of Smith's book and the advance of his principles in thiscountry, just as it checked the progress of parliamentary and socialreform, because it filled men's mind with a fear of change, with asuspicion of all novelty, with an unreasoning dislike of anything inthe nature of a general principle. By French principles the publicunderstood, it is true, much more than the abolition of all commercialand agrarian privilege which was advocated by Smith, but in theirrecoil they made no fine distinctions, and they naturally felt theirprejudices strongly confirmed when they found men like the Marquis ofLansdowne, who were believers in the so-called French principles andbelievers at the same time in the principles of Adam Smith, declaringthat the two things were substantially the same. Whether and how farSmith or Tucker had any influence on that development of opinion whicheventuated in the Revolution, it would be difficult to gauge. BeforeLord Lansdowne made this speech in 1793 two different translations ofthe _Wealth of Nations_ into French had already been published; athird (by the Abbé Morellet) had been written but not published, and afourth was possibly under way, for it appeared in a few years. Thefirst and worst of these translations, moreover (Blavet's), hadalready gone through three separate editions, after having originallyrun through a periodical in monthly sections for two years. These areall tokens that the work was unquestionably influencing Frenchopinion. 

But if the French Revolution stopped for a time, as is most likely, the onward advance of Smith's free-trade principles, it does not seemto have exercised the same effect on the actual sale of the book. I donot know whether the successive editions were uniform in number ofcopies, but as many editions of the _Wealth of Nations_--four Englishand one Irish--appeared between the years 1791 and 1799 as between theyears 1776 and 1786, and since none was called for from 1786 till1791, the edition of 1786 took longer to sell off than the subsequenteditions of 1791, 1793, and 1796. It is quite possible--indeed it isonly natural--that the wave of active antagonism which, according toStewart's testimony, rose against the principles of the book after theoutbreak of the French Revolution would have helped on the sale ofthe book itself by keeping it more constantly under public attention, discussion, and, if you will, vituperation. The fortune of a book, like that of a public man, is often made by its enemies. 

But the very early influence of the _Wealth of Nations_ in the Englishpolitical world is established by much better proofs than quotationsin Parliament. It had actually shaped parts of the policy of thecountry years before it was ever publicly alluded to in either House. The very first budget after its publication bore its marks. Lord Northwas then on the outlook for fresh and comparatively unburdensome meansof increasing the revenue, and obtained valuable assistance from the_Wealth of Nations_. He imposed two new taxes in 1777, of which he gotthe idea there; one on man-servants, and the other on property sold byauction. And the budget of 1778 owed still more important features toSmith's suggestions, for it introduced the inhabited house duty sostrongly recommended by him, and the malt tax. [253] Then in thefollowing year 1779 we find Smith consulted by statesmen like Dundasand the Earl of Carlisle on the pressing and anxious question ofgiving Ireland free trade. His answers still exist, and will appearlater on in this work. [254]

FOOTNOTES:

[244] _Hume MSS. _, R. S. E. 

[245] Burton's _Life of Hume_, ii. 487. 

[246] Buckle's _History of Civilisation_, ed. 1869, i. 214. 

[247] Butler's _Reminiscences_, i. 176. 

[248] _Parliamentary History_, xxiii. 1152. 

[249] _Parliamentary History_, xxix. 834. 

[250] _Ibid. _, xxx. 330, 334. 

[251] Stewart's _Works_, x. 87. 

[252] Cockburn's _Memorials of My Own Time_, p. 174. 

[253] See Dowell's _Taxation_, ii. 169. 

[254] See below, pp. 350, 352. 

CHAPTER XIX

THE DEATH OF HUME

1776

After the publication of his book in the beginning of March, Smithstill dallied in London, without taking any steps to carry out hisplan of going to see Hume in Edinburgh and bring him up to London. Butsome hope seems to have been entertained of Hume coming up evenwithout Smith's persuasion and escort. John Home, who was in Londonand was in correspondence with him, thought so, but he at lengthreceived a direct negative to the idea in a letter from Hume himself, written on the 12th of April; and then Smith and John Home set outtogether immediately for the northern capital, but when the coachstopped at Morpeth, whom should they see standing in the door of theinn but Colin, their friend's servant? Hume had determined toundertake the journey to London after all to consult Sir John Pringle, and was now so far on his way. John Home thereupon accompanied Humeback to London, but Smith, having heard of his mother being taken ill, and being anxious about her, as she was now over eighty years old, continued his journey on to Kirkcaldy. At Morpeth, however, he andHume had time to discuss the question of the publication, in the eventof Hume's death, of certain of his unpublished works. Hume had alreadyon the 4th of January 1776 made Smith his literary executor by will, leaving him full power over all his papers except the _Dialogues onNatural Religion_, which he explicitly desired him to publish. It wasyears since this work had been written, but its publication had beendeferred in submission to the representations of Sir Gilbert Elliotand other friends as to the annoying clamour it was sure to excite. Its author, however, had never ceased to cherish a peculiar paternalpride in the work, and now that his serious illness forced him to facethe possibility of its extinction, he resolved at last to save it fromthat fate, clamour or no clamour. If he lived, he would publish ithimself; if he died, he charged his executor to do so. 

But this was a duty for which Smith had no mind. He was opposed to thepublication of these _Dialogues_ on general grounds and under anyeditorship whatever, as will appear in the course of thecorrespondence which follows, but he had also personal scruplesagainst editing them, of the same character as those which had alreadyso long prevented their author himself from publishing them. He shrankfrom the public clamour in which it would involve him, and the injuryit might do to his prospects of preferment from the Crown. When he metHume at Morpeth accordingly he laid his mind fully before his friend, and the result was that Hume agreed to leave the whole question ofpublication or no publication absolutely to Smith's discretion, and onreaching London sent Smith a formal letter of authority empowering himto deal with the _Dialogues_ as he judged best. 

 LONDON, _3rd May 1776_. 

 MY DEAR FRIEND--I send you enclosed a new ostensible letter, conformably to your desire. I think, however, your scruples groundless. Was Mallet anywise hurt by his publication of Lord Bolingbroke? He received an office afterwards from the present king and Lord Bute, the most prudent men in the world, and he always justified himself by his sacred regard to the will of a dead friend. At the same time I own that your scruples have a specious appearance, but my opinion is that if upon my death you determine never to publish these papers, you should leave them sealed up with my brother and family, with some inscription that you reserve to yourself the power of reclaiming them whenever you think proper. If I live a few years longer I shall publish them myself. I consider an observation of Rochefoucault that the wind, though it extinguishes a candle, blows up a fire. 

 You may be surprised to hear me talk of living years, considering the state you saw me in and the sentiments both I and all my friends at Edinburgh entertained on that subject. But though I cannot come up entirely to the sanguine notions of our friend John, I find myself very much recovered on the road, and I hope Bath waters and further journies may effect my cure. 

 By the little company I have seen I find the town very full of your book, which meets with general approbation. Many people think particular parts disputable, but this you certainly expected. I am glad that I am one of the number, as these parts will be the subject of future conversation between us. I set out for Bath, I believe, on Monday, by Sir John Pringle's directions. He says that he sees nothing to be apprehended in my case. If you write to me (hem! hem!)--I say if you write to me, send your letter under cover to Mr. Strahan, who will have my direction. [255]

The ostensible letter which accompanied the other is--

 LONDON, _3rd May 1776_. 

 MY DEAR SIR--After reflecting more maturely on that article of my will by which I leave you the disposal of all my papers, with a request that you should publish my _Dialogues concerning Natural Religion_, I have become sensible that both on account of the nature of the work and of your situation it may be improper to hurry on that publication. I therefore take the present opportunity of qualifying that friendly request. I am content to leave it entirely to your discretion at what time you will publish that piece, or whether you will publish it at all. 

 You will find among my papers a very inoffensive piece called "My Own Life, " which I composed a few days before I left Edinburgh, when I thought, as did all my friends, that my life was despaired of. There can be no objection that the small piece should be sent to Messrs. Strahan and Cadell and the proprietors of my other works, to be prefixed to any future edition of them. [256]

The ink of those letters was scarcely dry before Hume's heart softenedagain towards his _Dialogues_, and in order to make more sure of theireventual publication than he could feel while they were entrusted toSmith's hands, he wrote Strahan from Bath on the 8th of June asking ifhe would agree to act as literary executor and undertake the editingand publishing of the work. In this letter he says: "I have hithertoforborne to publish it because I was of late desirous to live quietlyand keep remote from all clamour, for though it be not moreexceptionable than some things I had formerly published, yet you knowsome of them were thought exceptionable, and in prudence perhaps Iought to have suppressed them. I there introduce a sceptic who isindeed refuted and at last gives up the argument; nay, confesses thathe was only amusing himself by all his cavils, yet before he issilenced he advances several topics which will give umbrage and willbe deemed for bold and free as well as much out of the common road. Assoon as I arrive at Edinburgh I intend to print a small edition of500, of which I may give away about 100 in presents, and shall makeyou the property of the whole, provided you have no scruple, in yourpresent situation, of being the editor. It is not necessary you shouldprefix any name to the Title-page. I seriously declare that after Mr. Miller and you and Mr. Cadell have publicly avowed your publication ofthe _Inquiry concerning Human Understanding_, I know no reason why youshould have the least scruple with regard to these _Dialogues_. Theywill be much less obnoxious to the Law and not more exposed to popularclamour. Whatever your resolution be, I beg you would keep an entiresilence on this subject. If I leave them to you by will, yourexecuting the desire of a dead friend will render the publicationstill more excusable. Mallet never suffered anything by being theeditor of Bolingbroke's works. "[257]

Strahan agreed to undertake this duty, and Hume on the 12th of Juneadded a codicil to his will making Strahan his literary executor andentire master of all his manuscripts. Hume, however, got rapidly worsein health, so that he never printed the small edition he spoke of, andfeeling his end to be near, he added a fresh codicil to his will onthe 7th of August, desiring Strahan to publish the _Dialogues_ withintwo years, and adding that if they were not published in two years anda half the property should return to his nephew (afterwards Baron ofExchequer), "whose duty, " he says, "in publishing them, as the lastrequest of his uncle, must be approved of by all the world. "[258]

Hume had meanwhile on the 4th of July 1776 gathered his group of moreintimate friends about him to eat together a last farewell dinnerbefore he made the great departure. Smith was present at this touchingand unusual reunion, and may possibly have remained some daysthereafter, for he speaks in a letter in the following month of havinghad several conversations with Hume lately, among them being thatwhich he afterwards published in his letter to Strahan. But he was inKirkcaldy again in the beginning of August, and received there on the22nd of August the following letter which Hume had written on the15th, and which, having gone, through some mistake, by the carrierinstead of the post, had lain for a week at the carrier's housewithout being delivered. The delay occasioned by this accident was themore unfortunate on account of the earnest appeal for an early answerwith which the letter closes, and which seems to contain arecollection of many past transgressions, for Smith was always adilatory and backward correspondent, the act of writing, as herepeatedly mentions, being a real pain to him. 

 EDINBURGH, _15th August 1776_. 

 MY DEAR SMITH--I have ordered a new copy of my _Dialogues_ to be made besides that wh. Will be sent to Mr. Strahan, and to be kept by my nephew. If you will permit me, I shall order a third copy to be made and consigned to you. It will bind you to nothing, but will serve as a security. On revising them (which I have not done these five years) I find that nothing can be more cautiously and more artfully written. You had certainly forgotten them. Will you permit me to leave you the property of the copy, in case they should not be published in five years after my decease? Be so good as write me an answer soon. My state of health does not permit me to wait months for it. --Yours affectionately, DAVID HUME. [259]

To this letter Smith, immediately on receiving it, sent the followingreply:--

 KIRKALDY, _22nd August 1776_. 

 MY DEAREST FRIEND--I have this moment received yr. Letter of the 15th inst. You had, in order to save me the sum of one penny sterling, sent it by the carrier instead of the Post, and (if you have not mistaken the date) it has lain at his quarters these eight days, and was, I presume, very likely to lie there for ever. 

 I shall be very happy to receive a copy of your _Dialogues_, and if I should happen to die before they are published, I shall take care that my copy shall be as carefully preserved as if I was to live a hundred years. With regard to leaving me the property in case they are not published within five years after yr. Decease, you may do as you think proper. I think, however, you should not menace Strahan with the loss of anything, in case he does not publish yr. Work within a certain time. There is no probability of his delaying it, and if anything could make him delay it, it wd. Be a clause of this kind, wh. Wd. Give him an honourable pretence for doing so. It would then be said I had published, for the sake of an emolument, not from respect to the memory of my friend, what even a printer, for the sake of the same emolument, had not published. That Strahan is sufficiently jealous you will see by the enclosed letter, wh. I will beg the favour of you to return to me, but by the Post, and not by the carrier. 

 If you will give me leave I will add a few lines to yr. Account of your own life, giving some account in my own name of your behaviour in this illness, if, contrary to my own hopes, it should prove your last. Some conversations we had lately together, particularly that concerning your want of an excuse to make to Charon, the excuse you at last thought of, and the very bad reception wh. Charon was likely to give it, would, I imagine, make no disagreeable part of the history. You have in a declining state of health, under an exhausting disease, for more than two years together now looked at the approach of death with a steady cheerfulness such as very few men have been able to maintain for a few hours, tho' otherwise in the most perfect Health. 

 I shall likewise, if you give me leave, correct the sheets of the new edition of your works, and shall take care that it shall be published exactly according to your last corrections. As I shall be at London this winter, it will cost me very little trouble. 

 All this I have written upon the supposition that the event of yr. Disease should prove different from what I still hope it may do. For your spirits are so good, the spirit of life is still so very strong in you, and the progress of your disorder is so slow and gradual, that I still hope it may take a turn. Even the cool and steady Dr. Black, by a letter I received from him last week, seems not to be averse to the same hopes. 

 I hope I need not repeat to you that I am ready to wait on you whenever you wish to see me. Whenever you do so I hope you will not scruple to call on me. I beg to be remembered in the kindest and most respectful manner to yr. Brother, your sister, your nephew, and all other friends. --I ever am, my dearest friend, most affectionately yours, ADAM SMITH. [260]

Hume answered this letter next day. 

 EDINBURGH, _23rd August 1776_. 

 MY DEAREST FRIEND--I am obliged to make use of my nephew's hand in writing to you, as I do not rise to-day. 

 There is no man in whom I have a greater confidence than Mr. Strahan, yet I have left the property of that manuscript to my nephew David, in case by any accident it should not be published within three years after my decease. The only accident I could foresee was one to Mr. Strahan's life, and without this clause my nephew would have had no right to publish it. Be so good as to inform Mr. Strahan of this circumstance. 

 You are too good in thinking any trifles that concern me are so much worth of your attention, but I give you entire liberty to make what additions you please to the account of my life. 

 I go very fast to decline, and last night had a small fever, wh. I hoped might put a quicker period to this tedious illness, but unluckily it has in a great measure gone off. I cannot submit to your coming over here on my account, as it is possible for me to see you so small a portion of the day, but Dr. Black can better inform you concerning the degree of strength which may from time to time remain with me. --Adieu, my dearest friend, DAVID HUME. 

 _P. S. _--It was a strange blunder to send yr. Letter by the carrier. [261]

These were the last words of this long and memorable friendship. Twodays after they were written Hume passed peacefully away, and hisbones were laid in the new cemetery on the Calton Crags, and covered alittle later, according to his own express provision, with that greatround tower, designed by Robert Adam, which Smith once pointed out tothe Earl of Dunmore as they were walking together down the NorthBridge, and said, "I don't like that monument; it is the greatestpiece of vanity I ever saw in my friend Hume. "

Smith was no doubt at the funeral, and seems to have been present whenthe will was read, and to have had some conversation about it withHume's elder brother, John Home of Ninewells, [262] for on the 31st ofAugust he writes from Dalkeith House, where he had gone on a visit tohis old pupil, discharging Ninewells of any obligation to pay thelegacy of £200 which he had been left by Hume in consideration ofacting as his literary executor, and which had not been revoked in thecodicil superseding him by Strahan. This legacy Smith felt that hecould not in the circumstances honourably accept, and he consequentlylost no time in forwarding to Ninewells the following letter:--

 DALKEITH HOUSE, _31st August 1776_. 

 DEAR SIR--As the Duke proposes to stay here till Thursday next I may not have an opportunity of seeing you before yr. Return to Ninewells. I therefore take the opportunity of discharging you and all others concerned of the Legacy which you was so good as to think might upon a certain event become due to me by your Brother's will, but which I think could upon no event become so, viz. The legacy of two hundred pounds sterling. I hereby therefore discharge it for ever, and least this discharge should be lost I shall be careful to mention it in a note at the bottom of my will. I shall be glad to hear that you have received this letter, and hope you will believe me to be, both on yr. Brother's account and your own, with great truth, most affectionately yours, ADAM SMITH. 

 _P. S. _--I do not hereby mean to discharge the other Legacy, viz. That of a copy of his works. [263]

Mr. Home answered him on the 2nd of September as follows:--

 DEAR SIR--I was favoured with yours of Saturday, and I assure you that on perusing the destination I was more of oppinion than when I saw you that the pecuniary part of it was not altered by the codicil, and that it was intended for you at all events, that my brother, knowing your liberal way of thinking, laid on you something as an equivalent, not imagining you would refuse a small gratuity from the hands it was to come from as a testimony of his friendship, and tho' I most highly esteem the motives and manner, I cannot agree to accept of your renunciation, but leave you full master to dispose of it which way is most agreeable to you. 

 The copys of the _Dialogues_ are finished, and of the life, and will be sent to Mr. Strahan to-morrow, and I will mention to him your intention of adding to the last something to finish so valuable a life, and will leave you at liberty to look into the correction of the first as it either answers your leisure or ideas with regard to his composition or what effects you think it may have with regard to yourself. The two copys intended for you will be left with my sister when you please to require them, and the copy of the new edition of his works you shall be sure to receive, tho' you have, no better title to that part than the other, tho' much you have to the friendship and esteem, dr. Sir, of him who is most sincerely yours, JOHN HOME. 

 EDINBURGH, _2nd September 1776_. [264]

Smith's reply was that though the legacy might be due to him in strictlaw, he was fully satisfied it was not due to him in justice, becauseit was expressly given in the will as a reward for a task which he haddeclined to undertake. This reply was given in a letter of the 7thOctober, in which he enclosed a copy of the account of Hume's deathwhich he proposed to add to his friend's own account of his life. 

 DEAR SIR--I send you under the same cover with this letter what I propose should be added to the account which your never-to-be-forgotten brother has left of his own life. When you have read it I beg you will return it to me, and at the same time let me know if you wd. Wish to have anything either added to it or taken from it. I think there is a propriety in addressing it as a letter to Mr. Strahan, to whom he has left the care of his works. If you approve of it I shall send it to him as soon as I receive it from you. 

 I have added at the bottom of my will the note discharging the legacy of two hundred pounds which your brother was so kind as to leave me. Upon the most mature deliberation I am fully satisfied that in justice it is not due to me. Tho' it should be due to me therefore in strict law, I cannot with honour accept of it. You will easily believe that my refusal does not proceed from any want of the highest respect for the memory of your deceased brother. --I have the honour to be, with the highest respect and esteem, dear sir, most sincerely and affectionately yours, ADAM SMITH. 

 KIRKALDY, FIFESHIRE, _7th October 1776_. [265]

Mr. Home returned Smith's manuscript to him on the 14th of October, and expressed his entire approbation of it except "that as it is to beadded to what is wrote in so short and simple a manner, he would havewished that the detail had been less minutely entered into, particularly of the journey which, being of a private concern andhaving drawn to no consequences, does not interest the publick, " butstill he expressed that opinion, he said, with diffidence, andthought the piece would perhaps best stand as it was. He says, too, that instead of the words, "as my worst enemies could wish" in theremark to Dr. Dundas, he was told that the words his brother actuallyused were, "as my enemies, if I have any, could wish"--a correctionwhich was adopted by Smith. And he repeats that by his interpretationof his brother's will he considers the legacy to belong to Smith bothin law and in equity. 

Meanwhile Smith had also written Strahan from Dalkeith:--

 MY DEAR STRAHAN--By a codicil to the will of our late most valuable friend Mr. Hume, the care of his manuscripts is left to you. Both from his will and from his conversation I understand that there are only two which he meant should be published--an account of his life and _Dialogues concerning Natural Religion_. The latter, tho' finely written, I could have wished had remained in manuscript to be communicated only to a few people. When you read the work you will see my reasons without my giving you the trouble of reading them in a letter. But he has ordered it otherwise. In case of their not being published within three years after his decease, he has left the property of them to his nephew. Upon my objecting to this clause as unnecessary and improper, he wrote to me by his nephew's hand in the following terms: "There is no man in whom I have a greater confidence than Mr. Strahan, yet have I left the property of that manuscript to my nephew David, in case by any accident they should not be published within three years after my decease. The only accident I could foresee was one to Mr. Strahan's life, and without this clause my nephew would have had no right to publish it. Be so good as inform Mr. Strahan of this circumstance. " Thus far this letter, which was dated on the 23rd of August. He dyed on the 25th at 4 o'clock afternoon. I once had persuaded him to leave it entirely to my discretion either to publish them at what time I thought proper, or not to publish them at all. Had he continued of this mind the manuscript should have been most carefully preserved, and upon my decease restored to his family; but it never should have been published in my lifetime. When you have read it you will perhaps think it not unreasonable to consult some prudent friend about what you ought to do. 

 I propose to add to his Life a very well authenticated account of his behaviour during his last illness. I must, however, beg that his life and those _Dialogues_ may not be published together, as I am resolved for many reasons to have no concern in the publication of the _Dialogues_. His life, I think, ought to be prefixed to the next edition of his former works, upon which he has made many very proper corrections, chiefly in what concerns the language. If this edition is published while I am at London, I shall revise the sheets and authenticate its being according to his last corrections. I promised him that I would do so. 

 If my mother's health will permit me to leave her, I shall be in London by the beginning of November. I shall write to Mr. Home to take my lodgings as soon as I return to Fife, which will be on Monday or Tuesday next. The Duke of Buccleugh leaves this on Sunday. Direct for me at Kirkaldy, Fifeshire, where I shall remain all the rest of the season. --I remain, my dear Strahan, most faithfully yours, ADAM SMITH. 

 DALKEITH HOUSE, _5th September 1776_. 

 Let me hear from you soon. [266]

To this Strahan replied on the 16th of September, and then towards theend of October Smith wrote the following answer, of which the firstdraft, in Smith's own handwriting, unsigned and undated and containingconsiderable erasures, exists in the R. S. E. Library. It shows thatSmith submitted his account of Hume's illness to the whole circle ofHume's intimate friends, and that at the moment of writing he waswaiting for the arrival of John Home, the poet, in Edinburgh, toobtain his remarks upon it. 

 DEAR SIR--When I received your last letter I had not begun the small addition I proposed to make to the life of our late friend. It is now more than three weeks since I finished it, and sent one copy to his brother and another to Dr. Black. That which I sent to his brother is returned with remarks, all of which I approve of and shall adopt. Dr. Black waits for John Home, the Poet, who is expected every day in Edinburgh, whose remarks he proposes to send along with those of all our common friends. The work consists only of two sheets, in the form of a letter to you, but without one word of flattery or compliment. It will not cost my servant a forenoon to transcribe it, so that you will receive it by the first post after it is returned to me. 

 I am much obliged to you for so readily agreeing to print the life together with my additions separate from the _Dialogues_. I even flatter myself that this arrangement will contribute not only to my quiet but to your interest. The clamour against the _Dialogues_, if published first, might hurt for some time the sale of the new edition of his works, and when the clamour has a little subsided the _Dialogues_ may hereafter occasion a quicker sale of another edition. 

 I do not propose being with you till the Christmas holidays; in the meantime I should be glad to know how things stand between us, what copies of my last book are either sold or unsold, and when the balance of our bargain is likely to be due to me. I beg my most respectful and affectionate compliments to Mr. Cadell; I should have written him, but you know the pain it gives me to write with my own hand, and I look upon writing to him and you as the same thing. I have been since I came to Scotland most exceedingly idle. It is partly in order to bring up in some measure my leeway that I propose to stay here two months longer than I once intended. If my presence, however, was at all necessary in London, I could easily set out immediately. 

 I beg the favour of you to send the enclosed to Mr. Home. The purpose of it is to bespeak my lodgings. [267]

The second and third paragraphs of this letter as they stood at firstare erased entirely, but their original substance is in no way alteredin their corrected form. One of the original sentences about theclamour he dreaded may perhaps be transcribed. "I am still, " he says, "uneasy about the clamour which I foresee they will excite. " It mayalso be noticed that he does not seem to have dictated his account ofHume's illness to his amanuensis, but to have written it with his ownhand and then got his amanuensis to transcribe it. The Mr. Home whomhe wishes to bespeak lodgings for him must be John Home the poet, inspite of the circumstance that he speaks of John Home the poet asbeing expected in Edinburgh every day at the time of writing; and inthe event Home does not seem to have come to Edinburgh, for in asubsequent letter to Strahan on 13th of November Smith again mentionshaving written Mr. Home to engage lodgings for him from Christmas. This letter is as follows:--

 DEAR SIR--The enclosed is the small addition which I propose to make to the account which our late invaluable friend left of his own life. 

 I have received £300 of the copy money of the first edition of my book. But as I got a good number of copies to make presents of from Mr. Cadell, I do not exactly know what balance may be due to me. I should therefore be glad he would send me the account. I shall write to him upon this subject. 

 With regard to the next edition, my present opinion is that it should be printed in four vol. Octavo; and I would propose that it should be printed at your expense, and that we should divide the profits. Let me know if this is agreeable to you. 

 My mother begs to be remembered to Mrs. Strahan and Miss Strahan, and thinks herself much obliged both to you and them for being so good as to remember her. --I ever am, dear sir, most affectionately yours, ADAM SMITH. 

 KIRKALDY, FIFESHIRE, _13th November 1776_. 

 I shall certainly be in town before the end of the Christmas holidays. I do not apprehend it can be necessary for me to come sooner. I have therefore written to Mr. Home to bespeak my lodgings from Christmas. [268]

Strahan acknowledges this letter on the 26th of November, and asksSmith's opinion on an idea that has occurred to him of publishing theinteresting series of letters from Hume to himself which he possessed, and which, after a curious and remarkable history, have been nowpreserved for the world through the liberality of Lord Rosebery andthe learned devotion of Mr. Birkbeck Hill. To these letters Strahan, if he obtained Smith's concurrence, would like to add those of Hume toSmith himself, to John Home, to Robertson, and other friends, whichhave now for the most part been lost. But Smith put his foot on thisproposal decisively, on the ground apparently that it was mostimproper for a man's friends to publish anything he had written whichhe had himself given no express direction or leave to publish eitherby his will or otherwise. Strahan's letter runs thus:--

 DEAR SIR--I received yours of the 13th enclosing the addition to Mr. Hume's Life, which I like exceedingly. But as the whole put together is very short and will not make a volume even of the _smallest size_, I have been advised by some very good judges to annex some of his letters to me on political subjects. What think you of this? I will do nothing without your advice and approbation, nor would I for the world publish any letter of his but such as in yr. Opinion would do him honour. Mr. Gibbon thinks such as I have shown him would have that tendency. Now if you approve of this in any manner, you may perhaps add partly to the collection from your own cabinet and those of Mr. John Home, Dr. Robertson, and others of your mutual friends which you may pick up before you return hither. But if you wholly disapprove of this scheme say nothing of it, here let it drop, for without your concurrence I will not publish a single word of his. I should be glad, however, of your sentiments as soon as you can, and let me know at the same time as nearly as may be what day you purpose to be in London, for I must again repeat to you that without your approbation I will do nothing. 

 Your proposal to print the next edition of your work in 4 vols. Octavo at _our_ expense and to divide the Profits is a very fair one, and therefore very agreeable to Mr. Cadell and me. Enclosed is the List of Books delivered to you of the 1st edit. 

 My wife and daughter join kindest compliments to your amiable Parent, who, I hope, is still able to enjoy your company, which must be her greatest comfort. --Dear sir, your faithful and affectionate humble servant, WILL. STRAHAN. 

 LONDON, _26th November 1776_. [269]

The following is Smith's reply:--

 DEAR SIR--It always gives me great uneasiness whenever I am obliged to give an opinion contrary to the inclination of my friend. I am sensible that many of Mr. Hume's letters would do him great honour, and that you would publish none but such as would. But what in this case ought principally to be considered is the will of the Dead. Mr. Hume's constant injunction was to burn all his Papers except the _Dialogues_ and the account of his own life. This injunction was even inserted in the body of his will. I know he always disliked the thought of his letters ever being published. He had been in long and intimate correspondence with a relation of his own who dyed a few years ago. When that gentleman's health began to decline he was extremely anxious to get back his letters, least the heir should think of publishing them. They were accordingly returned, and burnt as soon as returned. If a collection of Mr. Hume's letters besides was to receive the public approbation, as yours certainly would, the Curls of the times would immediately set about rummaging the cabinets of all those who had ever received a scrap of paper from him. Many things would be published not fit to see the light, to the great mortification of all those who wish well to his memory. Nothing has contributed so much to sink the value of Swift's works as the undistinguished publication of his letters; and be assured that your publication, however select, would soon be followed by an undistinguished one. I should therefore be sorry to see any beginning given to the publication of his letters. His life will not make a volume, but it will make a small pamphlet. I shall certainly be in London by the tenth of January at furthest. I have a little business at Edinburgh which may detain me a few days about Christmas, otherwise I should be with you by the new year. I have a great deal more to say to you; but the post is just going. I shall write to Mr. Cadell by next post. --I ever am, dear sir, most affectionately yours, ADAM SMITH. 

 KIRKALDY, _2nd December 1776_. [270]

When we consider Smith's concern about the clamour he expected toarise from the _Dialogues_, and his entire unconcern about the clamourhe did not expect to arise from the letter to Strahan on Hume's lastillness, the actual event seems one of those teasing perversitieswhich drew from Lord Bolingbroke the exclamation, "What a world isthis, and how does fortune banter us!" The _Dialogues_ fell flat; theworld had apparently had its surfeit of theological controversy. Acontemporary German observer of things in England states that whilethe book made something of a sensation in his own country, it excitednothing of that sort here, and was already at the moment he wrote(1785) entirely forgotten. [271]

The letter to Strahan, on the other hand, excited a long reverberationof angry criticism. Smith had certainly in writing it no thought ofundermining the faith, or of anything more than speaking a good wordfor the friend he loved, and putting on record some things which heconsidered very remarkable when he observed them, but in the ear ofthat age his simple words rang like a challenge to religion itself. Men had always heard that without religion they could neither live avirtuous life nor die an untroubled death, and yet here was theforemost foe of Christianity represented as leading more than the lifeof the just, and meeting death not only without perturbation, but witha positive gaiety of spirits. His cheerfulness without frivolity, hisfirmness, his magnanimity, his charity, his generosity, his entirefreedom from malice, his intellectual elevation and strenuous labour, are all described with the affection and confidence of a friend whohad known them well; and they are finally summed up in the conclusion:"Upon the whole I have always considered him, both in his lifetime andsince his death, as approaching as nearly to the idea of a perfectlywise and virtuous man as perhaps the nature of human frailty willpermit. "

Hume's character was certainly one of great beauty and nobleness, andchurchmen who knew him well speak of him in quite as strong admirationas Smith. Robertson used to call him "the virtuous heathen"; Blairsaid every word Smith wrote about him was true; and Lord Hailes, agrave religious man and a public apologist of Christianity, showedsufficient approbation of this letter to translate it into Latinverse. But in the world generally it raised a great outcry. It wasfalse, it was incredible, it was a wicked defiance of the surestverities of religion. Even Boswell calls it a piece of "daringeffrontery, " and as he thinks of it being done by his old professor, says, "Surely now have I more understanding than my teachers. " Thoughnothing was further from the intention of the author, it was generallyregarded as an attack upon religion, which imperatively called forrepulsion; and a champion soon appeared in the person of Dr. GeorgeHorne, President of Magdalen College, Oxford, author of a well-knowncommentary on the Psalms, and afterwards Bishop of Norwich. In ananonymous pamphlet, entitled "A Letter to Adam Smith, LL. D. , on theLife, Death, and Philosophy of David Hume, Esq. , by one of the Peoplecalled Christians, " which ran rapidly through a number of editions, Horne, begging the whole question he raises, contends that a man ofHume's known opinions could not by any possibility be the good andvirtuous man Smith represented him to be, for had he been reallygenerous, or compassionate, or good-natured, or charitable, orgentle-minded, he could never have thought of erasing from the heartsof mankind the knowledge of God and the comfortable faith in Hisfatherly care, or been guilty of "the atrocious wickedness ofdiffusing atheism through the land. " Horne goes on to charge this"atrocious wickedness" against Smith too. "You would persuade us, " hesays, "by the example of David Hume, Esq. , that atheism is the onlycordial for low spirits and the proper antidote against the fear ofdeath, but surely he who can reflect with complacency on a friend thusemploying his talents in this life, and thus amusing himself withLucian, whist, and Charon at his death, can smile over Babylon inruins, esteem the earthquakes which destroyed Lisbon as agreeableoccurrences, and congratulate the hardened Pharaoh on his overthrow inthe Red Sea. "

Smith never wrote any reply to this attack, nor took any public noticeof it whatever, though he had too much real human nature in him toagree with Bishop Horne's own ethereal maxim that "a man reproachedwith a crime of which he knows himself to be innocent should feel nomore uneasiness than if he was said to be ill when he felt himself inperfect health. " It was of course quite unjust to accuse Smith ofatheism, or of desiring to propagate atheism. His published writings, which the Bishop ought in fairness to have consulted, show him to havebeen a Theist, and there is some ground for thinking that he believedHume, as many others of Hume's personal friends did, to have been aTheist likewise. Though Hume was philosophically a doubter aboutmatter, about his own existence, about God, he did not practicallythink so differently from the rest of the world about any of the threeas was often supposed. Dr. Carlyle always thought him a believer. MissMure of Caldwell, the sister of his great friend the Baron ofExchequer, says he was the most superstitious man she ever knew. [272]He told Holbach that an atheist never existed, and once, while walkingwith Adam Ferguson on a beautiful clear night, he stopped suddenly andexclaimed, pointing to the sky, "Can any one contemplate the wondersof that firmament and not believe that there is a God?"[273] ThatSmith would not have been surprised to hear his friend make such aconfession is apparent from the well-known anecdote told of hisabsence of mind in connection with Henry Mackenzie's story of "LaRoche. " That story was written soon after Hume's death; it waspublished in the _Mirror_ in 1779, while Horne's agitation was raging;and the author introduced Hume as one of the characters of the piecefor the very purpose of presenting this more favourable view of thegreat sceptic's religious position with which Mackenzie had beenimpressed in his own intercourse with him. Hume appears in the storyas a visitor in Switzerland, an inmate of the simple household of thepastor La Roche, and after describing him as being deeply taken withthe sweet and unaffected piety of this family's life and with thefaith that sustained them in their troubles, the author goes on toobserve, "I have heard him long after confess that there were momentswhen, amidst the pride of philosophical discovery and the pride ofliterary fame, he recalled to his mind the venerable figure of thegood La Roche and wished he had never doubted. " Before publishing hisstory Mackenzie read it to Adam Smith, in order to be told whetheranything should be omitted or altered as being out of keeping withHume's character, and so completely was Smith carried away by theverisimilitude that he not only said he found not a syllable to objectto, but added that he was surprised he had never heard the anecdotebefore. In his absence of mind he had forgotten for the moment that hehad been asked to listen to the story as a work of fiction, and hisanswer was the best compliment Mackenzie could receive to his fidelityto the probabilities of character. [274]

FOOTNOTES:

[255] Burton's _Life of Hume_, ii. 492. 

[256] _Ibid. _, ii. 493. 

[257] Hill's _Letters of Hume to Strahan_, p. 330. 

[258] Burton's _Life of Hume_, ii. 494. 

[259] _Hume Correspondence_, R. S. E. Library. 

[260] _Hume Correspondence_, R. S. E. Library. 

[261] _Hume Correspondence, _ R. S. E. Library. 

[262] Hume's brother always spelt his name with an _o_. 

[263] _Hume Correspondence_, R. S. E. Library. 

[264] _Ibid. _

[265] _Hume Correspondence_, R. S. E. Library. 

[266] _New York Evening Post, _ 30th April 1887. Original in possessionof Mr. Worthington C. Ford of Washington, U. S. A. The first draft ofthis letter, in Smith's handwriting but without the last paragraph andthe signature, seems to have been preserved by him as a copy forreference, and having been sent by him with his other Hume letters tothe historian's nephew, is now in the Royal Society Library, Edinburgh. 

[267] _Hume Correspondence_, R. S. E. Library. 

[268] _New York Evening Post_, 30th March 1887. Original in possessionof Mr. Worthington C. Ford of Washington, U. S. A. 

[269] _Hume Correspondence_, R. S. E. Library. 

[270] Hill's _Letters of Hume_, p. 351. 

[271] Wendeborn, _Zustand des Staats, etc. , in Gross-britannien_, ii. 365. 

[272] _Caldwell Papers_, i. 41. 

[273] Burton's _Hume_, ii. 451. 

[274] See Mackenzie's "La Roche, " and Mackenzie's _Works of J. Home_, i. 21. 

CHAPTER XX

LONDON AGAIN--APPOINTED COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

Smith remained at Kirkcaldy from May to December 1776, except foroccasional visits to Edinburgh or Dalkeith, but his thoughts, as wehave noticed from time to time, were again bent on London, as soon ashis mother's health should permit of his leaving home. He seems tohave enjoyed London thoroughly during his recent prolonged sojourn, and inspired some hopes in friends like Strahan that he might evensettle there as a permanent place of residence. After his departurefor Scotland in April Strahan used to write him from time to time along letter of political news keeping him abreast of all that wasgoing on, and in a letter of the 16th of September he says: "I hopeyour mother's health will not prevent you from returning hither at thetime you propose. You know I once mentioned to you how happy I thoughtit would make you both if you could bring her along with you to spendthe remainder of her days in this Place, but perhaps it will not beeasy to remove her so far at this time of her life. I pray you offerher the respectful compliments of my family, who do not forget hergenteel and hospitable reception at Kircaldy some years ago. "[275] Thetime Smith proposed to return, as he had written Strahan early inSeptember, was November, but he afterwards put the journey off for twomonths on account of his own health, which had suffered from his longspell of literary labour, and was in need of more rest; and he mighthave postponed it still further but for the visit being necessary inorder to carry the second edition of his work through the press. Earlyin January 1777 he is already in London, having found lodgings inSuffolk Street, near the British Coffee-House, and on the 14th ofMarch we find him attending a dinner of the Literary Club, with Fox inthe chair, and Gibbon, Garrick, Reynolds, Johnson, Burke, and Fordycefor the rest of the company. [276]

His great work had not yet attracted much public notice. Its meritswere being fully recognised by the learned, and it was already leavingits mark on the budget of the year; but it was probable Smith was moretalked about in general company at the time for his letter to Strahanthan for his _Wealth of Nations_. In one little literary circle he wasbeing zealously but most unjustly decried for taking a shabby revengeon a worthy young Scotch poet who had ventured to differ from him inopinion about the merits of the East India Company. Mickle, the authorof the popular song "There's nae luck aboot the hoose, " published histranslation of the _Lusiad_ of Camoens in 1775, and dedicated the bookby permission to the Duke of Buccleugh, whose family had been hisfather's patrons, and from whose interest he hoped to obtain someadvancement himself. When the work appeared the author sent anicely-bound presentation copy to the Duke, but received noacknowledgment, and at length a common friend waited on his Grace, and, says one of Mickle's biographers, "heard with the indignation andcontempt it deserved, a declaration that the work was at that timeunread, and had been represented not to have the merit it had beenfirst said to possess, and therefore nothing could be done on thesubject of his mission. " A dedication in those days was often only amore dignified begging letter, and Mickle's friends declared that hehad been cruelly wronged, because the Duke had not only done nothingfor him himself, but by accepting the dedication had prevented theauthor from going to some other patron who might have done something. Whatever could have been the reason for this sudden coolness of theDuke? Mickle and his little group of admirers declared it was all dueto an ill word from the Duke's great mentor, Adam Smith, whom theyalleged to have borne Mickle a grudge for having in the preface to the_Lusiad_ successfully exposed the futility of some of the views aboutthe East India Company propounded in the _Wealth of Nations_. [277]

But since the _Wealth of Nations_ was only published in 1776, itsopinions obviously could not, even with the vision and faculty divineof the poet, be commented on either favourably or unfavourably in the_Lusiad_, which was published in 1775. The comments on Smith's viewsappeared first in subsequent editions of Mickle's work, and wereprobably effects of the injury the author fancied himself to havesuffered. Anyhow they could not have been its causes, and the wholestory, so thoroughly opposed to the unusual tolerancy and benevolenceof Smith's character, merits no attention. It sprang manifestly fromsome imaginary suspicion of a sensitive minor poet, but Mickle used todenounce Smith without stint, and, thinking he had an opportunity forretaliation when the letter to Strahan appeared, he wrote a satireentitled, "An Heroic Epistle from Hume in the Shades to Dr. AdamSmith, " which he never published indeed, though he showed it aboutamong his friends, but in which, says Sim, who had seen it, Smith andhis noble pupil were rather roughly handled. [278] Mickle afterwardsburnt this _jeu d'esprit_, and very probably came to entertain betterviews of Smith, for he seems to have been not only quick to suspectinjuries, but ready after a space to perceive his error. He onceinserted an angry note in one of his poems against Garrick, who had, as he imagined, used him ill; but going afterwards to see the greatactor in _King Lear_, he listened to the first three acts withoutsaying a word, and after a fine passage in the fourth, heaved a deepsigh, and turning to his companion said, "I wish that note was out ofmy book. " Had he foreseen the noise his several friends continued tomake, even after his death, about this purely imaginary offence on thepart of Adam Smith, the poet would not improbably wish the polemicalprefaces out of his book. Smith did not think much of Mickle'stranslation of the _Lusiad_, holding the French version to be muchsuperior, [279] but if he happened to express this unfavourable opinionto the Duke of Buccleugh, it could not have been with any thought ofinjuring a struggling and meritorious young author. He has never shownany such intolerance of public contradiction as Mickle's friends choseto attribute to him. Dr. James Anderson, the first and true author ofwhat is known as Ricardo's theory of rent, won Smith's friendship by acontroversial pamphlet challenging some of his doctrines; Benthamwon--what is rarer--his conversion from the doctrines impugned, and avery kindly letter still exists which Smith wrote to another hostilecritic, Governor Pownall, and which I shall give here, as it was oneof the first things he did after now arriving in London. Pownall hadbeen Governor of Massachusetts, a man of much activity of mind andexperience of affairs, and author of respectable works on the_Principles of Polity_, the _Administration of the Colonies_, and the_Middle States of America_. He was one of the forty-two persons towhom the authorship of the letters of Junius has been attributed. Hediffered strongly from many of Smith's views, especially from hiscondemnation of the monopoly of the colonial trade, and wrote apamphlet setting forth his criticisms in the form of a letter to AdamSmith. This pamphlet Smith received in Edinburgh, just before hisdeparture for London, and when he arrived he wrote the Governor asfollows:--

 SIR--I received the day before I left Edinburgh the very great honour of your letter. Though I arrived here on Sunday last, I have been almost from the day of my arrival confined by a cold, which I caught upon the road; otherwise I should before this time have done myself the honour of waiting on you in person, and of thanking you for the very great politeness with which you have everywhere treated me. There is not, I give you my word, in your whole letter a single syllable relating to myself which I could wish to have altered, and the publication of your remarks does me much more honour than the communication of them by a private letter could have done. 

 I hope in a few days to have the honour of waiting on you, and of discussing in person with you both the points on which we agree and those on which we differ. Whether you will think me, what I mean to be, a fair disputant, I know not; I can venture to promise you will not find me an irascible one. In the meantime I have the honour to be, with the highest respect and esteem, etc. Etc. 

 ADAM SMITH. 

 SUFFOLK STREET, _12th January 1777_. [280]

The gentleman who forwarded this letter to the editor of the_Gentleman's Magazine_ in 1795, but whose name is not published, states, in further evidence, as he says, of Smith's liberality ofmind, that "he altered in his second edition some of the partsobjected to, and instead of a reply, sent to Governor Pownall aprinted copy of this second edition so altered, and there all contestclosed. " Smith, however, does not appear to have made any suchalterations. In feet, in the second edition he hardly made more thanthree or four alterations, and these were confined to the introductionof an additional fact or two in confirmation of his argument; andbesides, when we refer to Pownall's pamphlet we find that theirdifferences were all about points on which Smith's views were matureand the Governor's raw. 

Smith probably remained most of the year 1777 in London, for, as wehave seen, one of his reasons for being there was to see the secondedition of his work through the press, and the second edition of hiswork did not appear till 1778. But he was back in Kirkcaldy againbefore December, and while there he received from Lord North theappointment of Commissioner of Customs in Scotland, vacant through thedeath of Mr. Archibald Menzies. The offence he unexpectedly gave tothe world's religious sensibilities by his account of Hume's last dayshad not interfered, as he feared such an offence would, with hisprospects of employment in the public service, nor, what is quite asremarkable, had his political opinions. For he was always a strongWhig, and the preferment was bestowed by a Tory ministry. It isusually attributed to the influence of the Duke of Buccleugh and HenryDundas, then a member of the ministry as Lord Advocate for Scotland, and their word may no doubt have helped; but there is reason tobelieve that the appointment was really a direct reward to the authorof the _Wealth of Nations_ for the benefit Lord North, who wasChancellor of the Exchequer as well as Prime Minister, derived fromthat book in preparing the budgets for the years 1777 and 1778. Smithhimself, in a letter to Strahan which will presently appear (p. 323)attributes the appointment largely to the favour of Sir Grey Cooper, who had been Secretary to the Treasury since 1765, and was naturallyLord North's right-hand man in the preparation of his budgets. At thetime the _Wealth of Nations_ appeared the English Chancellor of theExchequer was at his wits' end for fresh and convenient and easy meansof increasing the revenue to carry on the American war, and the bookwas a mine of suggestions to him. He imposed two new taxes in 1777, ofwhich he got the idea there, --one on man-servants, estimated by him tobring in £105, 000, though in the event it yielded only £18, 000, andthe other on property sold by auction, which was to bring in £37, 000;but in the budget of 1778, which he would have under consideration atthe very moment of Smith's appointment, he introduced two new taxesrecommended by Smith, --the inhabited house duty, estimated to yield£264, 000, and the malt tax, estimated to yield £310, 000. Under thosecircumstances Smith's appointment to the Commissionership of Customsis to be regarded not as a private favour to the Duke of Buccleugh, but as an express recognition on the part of the Premier of the publicvalue of Smith's work, and the more honourable because rendered to apolitical opponent who had condemned important parts of theministerial policy--their American policy, for example--in his recentwork. 

The appointment was worth £600 a year, --£500 for the Commissionershipof Customs and £100 for the Commissionership of the Salt Duties; andSmith still retained his pension of £300 from the House of Buccleugh. When he obtained this place he thought himself bound in honour to giveup his Buccleugh pension, possibly because of the assistance he mayhave believed the Duke to have given in securing it; but he wasinformed that the pension was meant to be permanent and unconditional, and that if he were consulting his own honour in offering to give itup, he was not thinking of the honour of the Duke of Buccleugh. Smithnow settled in Edinburgh accordingly with an assured income of £900 ayear, and £900 a year was a comparatively princely revenue in theScottish capital at a time when a Lord of Session had only £700 ayear, and a professor in the best chair in the University seldom madeas much as £300. 

Though the appointment was made probably in November 1777, Smith didnot receive the Commission till January 1778, and there were stillfees to pay and other business to transact about the matter, which hegot Strahan to do for him. That occasioned the following letters:--

 DEAR SIR--The last letter I had the pleasure of receiving from you congratulated me upon my being appointed one of the Commissioners of Customs in Scotland. You told me at the same time that you had dined that day with Sir Grey Cooper, and that you had both been so good as to speak very favourably of me. I have received from London several other congratulations of the same kind. But I have not yet received, nor has the office here received, any official information that any such appointment had been made. It is possible that the Commission is not made out on account of the fees. If this is the case, you may either draw upon me for the amount, which I understand to be about £160, or you may write to me, and I shall by return of post remit you the money to London. Whatever be the cause of the delay, I beg you will endeavour to find it out and let me know as soon as possible, that I may at least be at the end of my hope. Remember me most affectionately to all your family, and believe me to be, most faithfully yours, ADAM SMITH. 

 EDINBURGH, _20th December 1777_. 

 Neither you nor Mr. Cadell have wrote me anything concerning the new Edition of my Book. Is it published? does it sell well? does it sell ill? does it sell at all? I left directions with Mr. Cadell to send copies of it to several of my friends. If John Hunter was not among the number, put him in _ex dono authoris_, and desire Cadell to send me the account of the whole, that I may pay it. I should write to him, but it would only be plaguing him. If you draw upon me make your bill payable at five days' sight. I return to Kirkaldy on Christmas Day. [281]

On returning to Kirkcaldy Smith again wrote Strahan:--

 DEAR SIR--I should have sent you the enclosed bill the day after I received your letter accompanyed with a note from Mr. Spottiswood, had not Mr. Charteris, the Solicitor of the Customs here, told me that the fees were not paid in London, but at Edinburgh, where Mr. Shadrach Moyes acted as receiver and agent for the officers of the treasury at London. I have drawn the bill for £120, in order to pay, first, what you have advanced for me; secondly, the exchange between Edinburgh and London; and lastly, the account which I shall owe to Mr. Cadell, after he has delivered the presents I desired him to make of the second edition of my book. To this I beg he will add two copies, handsomely bound and guilt (_sic_), one to Lord North, the other to Sir Gray Cooper. I received Sir Gray's letter, and shall write to him as soon as the new Commission arrives, in order not to trouble him with answering two Letters. I believe that I have been very highly obliged to him in this business. I shall not say anything to you of the obligations I owe you for the concern you have shewn and the diligence you have exerted on my account. Remember me to Mr. Spottiswood. I shall write to him as soon as the affair is over. Would it be proper to send him any present or fee? I am much obliged to him, and should be glad to express my sense of it in every way in my power. 

 I would not make any alteration in my title-page on account of my new office. 

 Remember me to Mrs. And Miss Strahan, likewise to the Homes and the Hunters. How does the Painter go on? I hope he thrives. --I ever am, my dear sir, most faithfully and affectionately yours, ADAM SMITH. 

 KIRKALDY, _14th January 1777_. [282]

The Mr. Spottiswood mentioned in this letter was a nephew of Strahan, and no doubt an ancestor of Strahan's present successor in hisprinting business. The Hunters are John and William Hunter, the Homesare John Home and his wife, and the painter is Allan Ramsay. 

In the course of a fortnight the Commission arrived, and Smith thenwrote Strahan again:--

 EDINBURGH, _5th February 1778_. 

 MY DEAR STRAHAN--I received the Commission in due course, and have now to thank you for your great attention to my interest in every respect, but above all, for your generosity in so readily forgiving the sally of bad humour which, in consequence of General Skeenes, who meant too very well, most unreasonably broke out upon you. I can only say in my own vindication that I am not very subject to such sallies, and that upon the very few occasions on which I have happened to fall into them, I have soon recovered from them. I am told that no commission ever came so soon to Edinburgh, many having been delayed 3 weeks or a month after appearing in the Gazette. This extraordinary despatch I can impute to nothing but your friendly diligence and that of Mr. Spottiswood, to whom I beg to be remembered in the most respectful manner. 

 You have made a small mistake in stating our account. You credit me with £150 only, instead of £170; the first bill for £120, the second for £50. Cadell, however, still remains unpaid. As soon as I understand he has delivered the books, or before it, if he will send me the account of them, I shall send him the money. --I ever am, dear sir, most faithfully yours, ADAM SMITH. [283]

What was the cause of Smith's outbreak of very unhabitual irritationwith Strahan on the occasion alluded to in this letter, I cannot say, nor probably does it in the least matter. His temper, indeed, was oneof unusual serenity and constancy, and but for his own confession inthis letter, we should never have known that it was liable, likeothers, to occasional perturbations, from which it appears, however, he speedily recovered, and of which he is evidently heartily ashamed. General Skeenes was probably one of his relations, the Skenes ofPitlour. 

The money transactions mentioned in the concluding paragraph referdoubtless to his Commission fees, which from some calculations made, probably by Strahan, on the back of the letter, seem to have come to£147:18s. But the reference to Mr. Cadell's account shows that thesecond edition of his book had now appeared. It was not published infour volumes octavo, as he originally proposed to Strahan, but, likethe former edition, in two volumes quarto, and the price was nowraised from £1:16s. To two guineas, so that under the half-profitarrangement which was agreed upon, he must have obtained a veryreasonable sum out of this edition, and we can understand how, fromthe four authorised editions published during his lifetime, he made, according to his friend Professor Dalzel, a "genteel fortune, " asgenteel fortunes went in those days. 

FOOTNOTES:

[275] _Hume MSS. _, R. S. E. Library. 

[276] Leslie and Taylor, _Life of Reynolds_, ii. 199. 

[277] Sim's _Works of Mickle_, Preface, xl. 

[278] _Ibid. _, Preface, xliii. 

[279] _The Bee_, 1st May 1791. 

[280] _Gentleman's Magazine_, lxv. 635. 

[281] Original with Mr. F. Barker. 

[282] Original in possession of Mr. Alfred Morrison. 

[283] Original in possession of Mr. Alfred Morrison. 

CHAPTER XXI

IN EDINBURGH

1778-1790. _Aet. _ 55-67

On settling in Edinburgh Smith took a house in the Canongate--PanmureHouse, at the foot of Panmure Close, one of the steep and narrow wyndsthat descend from the north side of the Canongate towards the base ofthe Calton Hill; and this house was his home for the rest of his days, and in it he died. The Canongate--the old Court end of the Scottishcapital--was still at the close of last century the fashionableresidential quarter of the city, although Holyrood had then long laindeserted--as Hamilton of Bangour called it, A virtuous palace where no monarch dwells. 

The Scottish nobility had their town-houses in its gloomy courts, andgreat dowagers and famous generals still toiled up its cheerlessstairs. Panmure House itself had been the residence of the Panmurefamily before Smith occupied it, and became the residence of theCountess of Aberdeen after his death. Most of his own more particularfriends too--the better aristocracy of letters and science--livedabout him here. If it was to Edinburgh, as Gibbon remarks, that "tasteand philosophy seemed to have retired from the smoke and hurry of theimmense capital of London, " it was in the ancient smoke and leisure ofthe Canongate they found their sanctuary. Robertson flitted out, indeed, to the Grange House; Black--Smith's special crony in thisEdinburgh period--to the present Blind Asylum in Nicolson Street, thena country villa; and Adam Ferguson to a place at the Sciennes which, though scarce two miles from the Cross, was thought so outrageouslyremote by the people of the compact little Edinburgh of those days, that his friends always called it Kamtschatka, as if it lay in theends of the earth. But Kames and Hailes still lived in New Street, SirJohn Dalrymple and Monboddo and many other notabilities in St. JohnStreet, Cullen in the Mint, and Dugald Stewart in the Lothian Hut (thetown-house of the Marquis of Lothian) in the Horse Wynd. 

Panmure House is still standing. It is a much more modern structurethan the houses near it, having been built towards the middle of lastcentury; and although its rooms are now mostly tenantless, and itsgarden a cooper's yard, it wears to this day an air of spacious andsubstantial comfort which is entirely wanting in the rest of theneighbourhood. William Windham, the statesman, who dined in itrepeatedly when he was in Edinburgh with Burke in 1785, thought it avery stately house indeed for a philosopher. "House magnificent, " heenters in his diary, "and place fine, " and one can still imagine howit would appear so when the plastered walls were yet white, and theeye looked over the long strip of terraced garden on to the soft greenslopes of the Calton. There was then no building of any kind on orabout the Calton Hill, except the Observatory, and Dugald Stewart, whowas very fond of rural scenery, always said that the great charm ofhis own house a few closes up was its view of the Calton crags andbraes. 

Smith brought over his mother and his cousin, Miss Douglas, fromKirkcaldy, and a few months later the youngest son of his cousin, Colonel Douglas of Strathendry, who was to attend school and collegewith a view to the bar, and whom he made his heir. Windham, aftervisiting them, makes the same note twice in his diary, "Felt stronglythe impression of a family completely Scotch. " Smith's house wasnoted for its simple and unpretending hospitality. He liked to havehis friends about him without the formality of an invitation, and fewstrangers of distinction visited Edinburgh without being entertainedin Panmure House. His Sunday suppers were still remembered and spokenof in Edinburgh when M'Culloch lived there as a young man. ScotchSabbatarianism had not at that time reached the rigour that came inwith the evangelical revival in the beginning of this century, and theSunday supper was a regular Edinburgh institution. Even theEvangelical leaders patronised it. Lord Cockburn and Mrs. Somervilleboth speak with very agreeable recollections of the Sunday supperparties of the Rev. Sir Harry Moncreiff, and Boswell mentions beinginvited to one by another Evangelical leader, Dr. Alexander Webster. 

His mother, his friends, his books--these were Smith's three greatjoys. He had a library of about 3000 volumes, as varied a collectionin point of subject-matter as it would be possible to find. ProfessorShield Nicholson, who saw a large portion of it, says: "I was moststruck by the large number of books of travel and of poetry, of someof which there were more than one edition, and occasionally _éditionsde luxe_. I had hoped to find marginal notes or references which mighthave thrown light on the authorities of some passages in the _Wealthof Nations_ (for Smith gives no references), but even the ingeniousoft-quoted author of the _Tracts on the Corn Laws_ has escaped withouta mark. At the same time pamphlets have been carefully bound togetherand indexes prefixed in Smith's own writing. "[284]

Mr. James Bonar has been able to collect a list of probably two-thirdsof Smith's books--about 1000 books, or 2200 volumes. [285] Nearly athird of the whole are in French, another third in Latin, Greek, andItalian, and a little more than a third in English. According to Mr. Bonar's analysis, a fifth of them were on Literature and Art; a fifthwere Latin and Greek classics; a fifth on Law, Politics, andBiography; a fifth on Political Economy and History; and the remainingfifth on Science and Philosophy. One cannot help remarking, as anindication of the economist's tastes, the almost complete absence ofworks in theology and prose fiction. Hume's _Dialogues on NaturalReligion_ and Pascal's _Pensées_ belong as much to philosophy astheology; Jeremy Taylor's _Antiquitates Christianae_, Father PaulSarpi's _History of the Council of Trent_, and Ruchat's _Histoire dela Reformation de la Suisse_ belong as much to history; and exceptthese the only representatives of theology on Smith's shelves were theEnglish Bible, Watson's edition, 1722--probably his parents' familyBible--a French translation of the Koran, and Van Maestricht's_Theologia_. The only sermons, except those of Massillon in French, are the _Sermons of Mr. Yorick_. Those sermons, however, were the onlyrepresentative of Sterne. Goldsmith was represented by his poems, butnot by his fiction; and Defoe, Fielding, Richardson, and Smollett werenot represented at all. One or two French novels were there, butexcept Gulliver, which came in with the complete edition of Swift'sworks in 1784, the only English novel Smith seems to have possessedwas the _Man of the World_, by his friend Henry Mackenzie. It isperhaps stranger that he ignored the novel than that he ignoredtheology, for the novel was then a very rising and popular literaryform, and Smith began life as a professed literary critic. His mindseems to have been too positive to care much for tales. On the otherhand, of the Greek and Latin classics he not unfrequently had severaldifferent editions. He had eight, for example, of _Horace_, who seemsto have been an especial favourite. 

Like most men who are fond of books, he seems to have bound them well, and often elegantly. Smellie, the printer, says that the first time hehappened to be in Smith's library he was "looking at the books withsome degree of curiosity, and perhaps surprise, for most of thevolumes were elegantly, and some of them superbly bound, " when Smith, observing him, said, "You must have remarked that I am a beau innothing but my books. "[286] M'Culloch, however, who had seen thebooks, doubts whether their condition warranted the account given ofthem by Smellie, and says that while they were neatly, and in somecases even elegantly bound, he saw few or none of which the bindingcould with propriety be called superb. 

The Custom House was on the upper floors of the Royal Exchange, inExchange Square, off the High Street; and Kay, standing in his shopover at the corner of the Parliament Close, must often have seen Smithwalk past from his house to his office in the morning exactly as hehas depicted him in one of his portraits, --in a light-coloured coat, probably linen; knee-breeches, white silk stockings, buckle shoes, andflat broad-brimmed beaver hat; walking erect with a bunch of flowersin his left hand, and his cane, held by the middle, borne on his rightshoulder, as Smellie tells us was Smith's usual habit, "as a soldiercarries his musket. " When he walked his head always moved gently fromside to side, and his body swayed, Smellie says, "vermicularly, " as ifat each alternate step "he meant to alter his direction, or even toturn back. " Often, moreover, his lips would be moving all the while, and smiling in rapt conversation with invisible companions. A verynoticeable figure he was as he went up and down the High Street, andhe used to tell himself the observations of two market women about himas he marched past them one day. "Hegh sirs!" said one, shaking herhead significantly. "And he's weel put on too!" rejoined the other, surprised that one who appeared from his dress to be likely to havefriends should be left by them to walk abroad alone. 

There were five Commissioners in the Scotch Board of Customs, butSmith's colleagues were none of them men of any public reputation atthe time, and they are now mere names; but the name of the Secretaryof the Board, R. E. Phillips, may be mentioned for the circumstancethat, after living to the great age of 104, he was buried--for whatreason I know not--in the same grave with Adam Smith in CanongateChurchyard. The business of the office was mostly of a routine andsimple character: considering appeals from merchants against the localcollector's assessments; the appointment of a new officer here, thesuppression of one there; a report on a projected colliery; a plan fora lighthouse, a petition from a wine importer, or the owner of abounty sloop; a representation about the increase of illicit trade inOrkney, or the appearance of smuggling vessels in the Minch; thedespatch of troops to repress illegal practices at some distillery, orto watch a suspected part of the coast; the preparation of the annualreturns of income and expenditure, the payment of salaries, andtransmission of the balance to the Treasury. 

Smith attended to those duties with uncommon diligence; he sayshimself, in his letter to the Principal of Glasgow College in 1787 onhis appointment to the Rectorship, that he was so regular an attendantat the Custom House that he could "take the play for a week at anytime" without giving offence or provoking comment. He was evidently avery conscientious and on the whole, no doubt, a satisfactoryadministrator, though he may have been in some things slower than aclerk bred to business would have been, and caused occasionally aludicrous mistake through his incidental absence of mind. Sir WalterScott relates two anecdotes illustrative of that weakness, on theauthority of one of Smith's colleagues on the Board of Customs. Havingone day to sign an official document as Commissioner, Smith, insteadof signing his own name, wrote an imitation of the signature of theCommissioner who had written before him. The other story, though, possibly enough, embellished unconsciously by the teller in somedetails, is yet of too distinct and peculiar a character to be easilyrejected, and for the same reason will best be given in Scott's ownwords:--

"That Board (the Board of Customs) had in their service as porter astately person, who, dressed in a huge scarlet gown or cloak coveredwith frogs of worsted lace, and holding in his hand a staff aboutseven feet high as an emblem of his office, used to mount guard beforethe Custom House when a Board was to be held. It was the etiquettethat as each Commissioner entered the porter should go through a sortof salute with his staff of office, resembling that which officersused formerly to perform through their spontoon, and then marshal thedignitary to the hall of meeting. This ceremony had been performedbefore the great economist perhaps five hundred times. Neverthelessone day, as he was about to enter the Custom House, the motions ofthis janitor seem to have attracted his eye without their character orpurpose reaching his apprehension, and on a sudden he began to imitatehis gestures as a recruit does those of his drill serjeant. The porterhaving drawn up in front of the door, presented his staff as a soldierdoes his musket. The Commissioner, raising his cane and holding itwith both hands by the middle, returned the salute with the utmostgravity. The inferior officer, much annoyed, levelled his weapon, wheeled to the right, stepping a pace back to give the Commissionerroom to pass, lowering his staff at the same time in token ofobeisance. Dr. Smith, instead of passing on, drew up on the oppositeside and lowered his cane to the same angle. The functionary, much outof consequence, next moved upstairs with his staff upraised, while theauthor of the _Wealth of Nations_ followed with his bamboo inprecisely the same posture, and his whole soul apparently wrapped inthe purpose of placing his foot exactly on the same spot of each stepwhich had been occupied by the officer who preceded him. At the doorof the hall the porter again drew off, saluted with his staff, andbowed reverentially. The philosopher again imitated his motions, andreturned his bow with the most profound gravity. When the Doctorentered the apartment the spell under which he seemed to act wasentirely broken, and our informant, who, very much amused, hadfollowed him the whole way, had some difficulty to convince him thathe had been doing anything extraordinary. "[287]

This inability to recollect in a completely waking state what hadtaken place during the morbid one separates this story from all therest that are told of Smith's absence of mind. For his friends usedalways to observe of his fits of abstraction what a remarkable facultyhe possessed of recovering, when he came to himself, long portions ofthe conversation that had been going on around him while his mind wasabsent. But here there is an entire break between the one state andthe other; the case seems more allied to trance, though it doubtlesshad the same origin as the more ordinary fits of absence, and, likethem, was only one of the penalties of that power of profound andprolonged concentration to which the world owes so much; it wasthinker's cramp, if I may use the expression. In one way Smith tookmore interest in his official work than ordinary Commissioners woulddo, because he found it useful to his economic studies. In 1778 hewrote Sir John Sinclair, who had desired a loan of the French inquiryentitled _Mémoires concernant les Impositions_, that "he had frequentoccasion to consult the book himself both in the course of his privatestudies and in the business of his present employment, " and Sir Johnstates that Smith used to admit "that he derived great advantage fromthe practical information he derived by means of his officialsituation, and that he would not have otherwise known or believed howessential practical knowledge was to the thorough understanding ofpolitical subjects. "[288] This is confirmed by the fact that most ofthe additions and corrections introduced into the third edition of the_Wealth of Nations_--the first published after his settlement in theCustoms--are connected with that branch of the public service. 

Still his friends were perhaps right in lamenting that the duties ofthis office, light though they really were, used up his time andenergy too completely to permit his application to the great work ongovernment which he had projected. "Though they required littleexertion of thought, they were yet, " says Dugald Stewart, "sufficientto waste his spirits and dissipate his attention; and now that hiscareer is closed, it is impossible to reflect on the time theyconsumed without lamenting that it had not been employed in laboursmore profitable to the world and more equal to his mind. During thefirst years of his residence in this city his studies seemed to beentirely suspended, and his passion for letters served only to amusehis leisure and to animate his conversation. The infirmities of age, of which he very early began to feel the approach, reminded him atlast, when it was too late, of what he yet owed to the public and tohis own fame. The principal materials of the works which he hadannounced had been long ago collected, and little probably was wantingbut a few years of health and retirement to bestow on them thatsystematical arrangement in which he delighted. "[289]

His leisure seems to have been passed during these later years of hislife very largely in the study of the Greek poets, and he frequentlyremarked to Dugald Stewart, when found in his library with Sophoclesor Euripides open before him on the table, that of all the amusementsof old age, the most grateful and soothing was the renewal ofacquaintance with the favourite studies and the favourite authors ofour youth. [290] Besides, the work of composition seems to have grownreally more arduous to him. He was always a slow composer, and hadnever acquired increased facility from increased practice. Much of histime too was now given to the enjoyments of friendship. I have alreadymentioned his Sunday suppers, but besides these he founded, soon aftersettling in Edinburgh, in co-operation with the two friends who werehis closest associates during the whole of this last period of hiscareer--Black the chemist, and Hutton the geologist--a weekly diningclub, which met every Friday at two o'clock in a tavern in theGrassmarket. Dr. Swediaur, the Paris physician, who spent some time inEdinburgh in 1784 making researches along with Cullen, and was made amember of this club during his stay, writes Jeremy Bentham: "We have aclub here which consists of nothing but philosophers. Dr. Adam Smith, Cullen, Black, Mr. M'Gowan, etc. , belong to it, and I am also a memberof it. Thus I spend once a week in a most enlightened and agreeable, cheerful and social company. " And of Smith, with whom he says he isintimately acquainted, he tells Bentham he "is quite our man"--inopinion and tendencies, I presume. Ferguson was a member of the club, though after being struck with paralysis in 1780 he never dined out;but among the constant attenders were Henry Mackenzie, Dugald Stewart, Professor John Playfair, Sir James Hall the geologist; Robert Adam, architect; Adam's brother-in-law, John Clerk of Eldin, inventor of thenew system of naval tactics; and Lord Daer--the "noble youthfulDaer"--who was the first lord Burns ever met, and taught the poet thatin a lord he after all but "met a brither, " with nothing uncommonabout him, Except good sense and social glee, An' (what surprised me) modesty. 

Lord Daer was the eldest son of the fourth Earl of Selkirk, and, onthe outbreak of the French Revolution, a few years after Burns methim, became one of the most ardent of the "Friends of the People"; andwas intimate with Mirabeau, to whom he ventured to speak a word forthe king's safety, and was told that the French would not commit theEnglish blunder of cutting off their king's head, because that was theusual way to establish a despotism. [291] Great expectations werecherished of Lord Daer's future, but they were defeated by hispremature death in 1794. The Mr. M'Gowan mentioned by Swediaur islittle known now, but he was an antiquary and naturalist, a friend andcorrespondent of Shenstone, Pennant, and Bishop Percy. M'Gowan kepthouse with a friend of his youth, who had returned to him after longpolitical exile, Andrew Lumisden, Prince Charlie's Secretary, who wasalso a warm friend of Smith, and whose portrait by Tassie is one ofthe few relics of Smith's household effects which still exist. Lumisden had been Hamilton of Bangour's companion in exile at Rouen, and was no doubt also a member of this club. 

According to Playfair, the chief delight of the club was to listen tothe conversation of its three founders. "As all the three possessedgreat talents, enlarged views, and extensive information, without anyof the stateliness and formality which men of letters think itsometimes necessary to affect, as they were all three easily amused, and as the sincerity of their friendship had never been darkened bythe least shade of envy, it would be hard to find an example whereeverything favourable to good society was more perfectly united, andeverything adverse more entirely excluded. "[292] This friendship ofSmith, Black, and Hutton, if not so famous as the friendship betweenSmith and Hume, was not less really memorable. Each of them hadfounded--or done more than any other single person to found--ascience; they may be called the fathers of modern chemistry, of moderngeology, and of modern political economy; and for all their greatachievements, they were yet men of the most unaffected simplicity ofcharacter. In other respects they were very different from oneanother, but their differences only knit them closer together, andmade them more interesting to their friends. 

Black was a man of fine presence and courtly bearing, grave, calm, polished, well dressed, speaking, what was then rare, correct Englishwithout a trace of Scotch accent, and always with sense and insighteven in fields beyond his own. Smith used to say that he never knew aman with less nonsense in him than Dr. Black, and that he was oftenindebted to his better discrimination in the judgment of character, apoint in which Smith, not only by the general testimony of hisacquaintance, but by his own confession, was by no means strong, inasmuch as he was, as he acknowledges, too apt to form his opinionfrom a single feature. Now the judgment of character was, according toRobison, Black's very strongest point. "Indeed, " says Robison, "were Ito say what natural talent Dr. Black possessed in the most uncommondegree, I should say it was his judgment of human character, and atalent which he had of expressing his opinion in a single shortphrase, which fixed it in the mind never to be forgotten. "[293] He wasa very brilliant lecturer, for Brougham, who had been one of hisstudents, said that he had heard Pitt and Fox and Plunket, but formere intellectual gratification he should prefer sitting again on theold benches of the chemistry classroom, "while the first philosopherof his age was the historian of his own discoveries"; and, adored ashe was by his students, he was the object of scarce less venerationand pride to the whole body of his fellow-citizens. Lord Cockburntells us how even the wildest boys used to respect Black. "No lad, "says he, "could ever be irreverent towards a man so pale, so gentle, so elegant, and so illustrious. "

Hutton was in many respects the reverse of Black. He was a dwellerout of doors, a man of strong vitality and high spirits, careless ofdress and appearance, setting little store by the world's prejudicesor fashions, and speaking the broadest Scotch, but overflowing withviews and speculations and fun, and with a certain originality ofexpression, often very piquant. Every face brightened, says Playfair, when Hutton entered a room. He had been bred a doctor, though he neverpractised, but, devoting himself to agriculture, had been for yearsone of the leading improvers of the Border counties, and is said, indeed, to have been the first man in Scotland to plough with a pairof horses and no driver, the old eight-ox plough being then inuniversal use. Between his early chemical studies and his lateragricultural pursuits, his curiosity was deeply aroused as he walkedabout the fields and dales, not merely concerning the composition butthe origin of the soils and rocks and minerals that lay in the crustof the globe, and he never ceased examining and speculating till hecompleted his theory of the earth which became a new starting-pointfor all subsequent geological research. He was a bold investigator, and Playfair distinguishes him finely in this respect from Black byremarking that "Dr. Black hated nothing so much as error, and Dr. Hutton nothing so much as ignorance. The one was always afraid ofgoing beyond the truth, and the other of not reaching it. " He wentlittle into general society, but Playfair says that in the moreprivate circles which he preferred he was the most delightful ofcompanions. 

The conversation of the club was often, as was to be expected from itscomposition, scientific, but Professor Playfair says it was alwaysfree, and never didactic or disputatious, and that "as the club wasmuch the resort of the strangers who visited Edinburgh from anyobjects connected with art or with science, it derived from them anextraordinary degree of vivacity and interest. "[294]

Its name was the Oyster Club, and it may be thought from thatcircumstance that those great philosophers did not spurn the delightsof more ordinary mortals. But probably no three men could be found whocared less for the pleasures of the table. Hutton was an abstainer;Black a vegetarian, his usual fare being "some bread, a few prunes, and a measured quantity of milk diluted with water"; and as for Smith, his only weakness seems to have been for lump sugar, according to ananecdote preserved by Scott, which, trivial though it be, may berepeated here, under the shelter of the great novelist's example andof Smith's own biographical principle that nothing about a great manis too minute not to be worth knowing. 

Scott, speaking apparently as an eye-witness, says: "We shall neverforget one particular evening when he (Smith) put an elderly maidenlady who presided at the tea-table to sore confusion by neglectingutterly her invitation to be seated, and walking round and round thecircle, stopping ever and anon to steal a lump from the sugar basin, which the venerable spinster was at length constrained to place on herown knee, as the only method of securing it from his uneconomicaldepredations. His appearance mumping the eternal sugar was somethingindescribable. " It is probably the same story Robert Chambers gives inhis _Traditions of Edinburgh_, and he makes the scene Smith's ownparlour, and the elderly spinster his cousin, Miss Jean Douglas. Itmay have been so, for Scott, as a school companion of young DavidDouglas, would very likely have been occasionally at Panmure House. 

FOOTNOTES:

[284] Nicholson's edition of _Wealth of Nations_, p. 8. 

[285] Bonar's _Catalogue of the Library of Adam Smith_, p. Viii. 

[286] Smellie's _Life of Smith_, p. 297. 

[287] _Quarterly Review_, xxxvi. 200. 

[288] _Sir J. Sinclair's Correspondence_, i. 389. 

[289] Stewart's _Works_, x. 73. 

[290] Stewart's _Life of Reid_, sec. Iii. 

[291] Sinclair's _Old Times and Distant Places_, p. 7. 

[292] Stewart's _Life of Reid_, sec. Iii. 

[293] Black's _Works_, I. Xxxii. 

[294] _Transactions_, R. S. E. , v. 98. 

CHAPTER XXII

VARIOUS CORRESPONDENCE IN 1778

Soon after Smith settled in Edinburgh he received from his old Frenchfriends, the Duchesse d'Enville and her son the Duc de laRochefoucauld, a presentation copy of a new edition of theirancestor's _Maximes_, accompanied by the following letter from theDuke himself, in which he informs Smith of the interestingcircumstance that, in spite of the way his famous ancestor ismentioned in the _Theory of Moral Sentiments_, he had himself at onetime undertaken a translation of that work, and only abandoned thetask when he found himself anticipated by the publication of thetranslation by Abbé Blavet in 1774. It is a little curious that adisciple of Quesnay, a regular frequenter of Mirabeau's economicdinners, should take no notice in his letter of Smith's greater work, so lately published. 

 PARIS, _3 mars 1778_. 

 Le désir de se rappeller à votre souvenir, monsieur, quand on a eu l'honneur de vous connoître doit vous paroître fort naturel; permettez que nous saisissons pour cela, ma mère et moi, l'occasion d'une édition nouvelle des _Maximes de la Rochefoucauld_, dont nous prenons la liberté de vous offrir un exemplaire. Vous voyez que vous n'avons point de rancune, puisque le mal que vous avez, dit de lui dans la _Théorie des Sentimens Moraux_ ne nous empêche point de vous envoyer ce même ouvrage. Il s'en est même fallu de peu que je ne fisse encore plus, car j'avois eu peutêtre la témérité d'entreprendre une traduction de votre _Théorie_; mais comme je venois de terminer la première partie, j'ai vu paroître la traduction de M. L'Abbé Blavet, et j'ai été forcé de renoncer au plaisir que j'aurois eu de faire passer dans ma langue un des meilleurs ouvrages de la vôtre. 

 Il auroit bien fallu pour lors entreprendre une justification de mon grandpère. Peutêtre n'auroit-il pas été difficile premièrement de l'excuser, en disant, qu'il avoit toujours vu les hommes à la Cour, et dans la guerre civile, _deux théâtres sur lesquels ils sont certainement plus mauvais qu'ailleurs_; et ensuite de justifier, par la conduite personnelle de l'auteur, les principes qui sont certainement trop généralisés dans son ouvrage. Il a pris la partie pour le tout; et parceque les gens qu'il avoit eu le plus sous les yeux étoient animés par _l'amour-propre_, il en a fait le mobile général de tous les hommes. Au reste quoique son ouvrage mérite à certains égards d'être combattu, il est cependant estimable même pour le fond, et beaucoup pour la forme. 

 Permettez-moi de vous demander, si nous aurons bientôt une édition complète des oeuvres de votre illustre ami M. Hume? Nous l'avons sincèrement regretté. 

 Recevez, je vous supplie, l'expression sincère de tous les sentimens d'estime et d'attachement avec lesquels j'ai l'honneur d'être, monsieur, votre très humble et très obéissant serviteur, LE DUC DE LA ROCHEFOUCAULD. [295]

What immediate answer Smith gave to this letter is unknown, and hecertainly suffered the offending allusion to his correspondent'sancestor to remain unmodified in the new edition of the _Theory_ whichappeared in 1781, but eventually at any rate he came to think that hehad done the author of the _Maximes_ an injustice by associating himin the same condemnation with Mandeville, and when Dugald Stewartvisited Paris in 1789 he was commissioned by Smith to express to theDuc de la Rochefoucauld his sincere regret for having done so, and toinform him that the error would be repaired in the forthcoming editionof the work, which was at that time in preparation. [296] This wasdone. In that final edition the allusion to Rochefoucauld was entirelysuppressed, and the censure confined to Mandeville alone. 

While Smith's French friends were remonstrating with him about anincidental allusion in the _Theory of Moral Sentiments_, his oldfriend, Lord Kames--still at eighty-three as keen for metaphysicalcontroversy as he had been with Bishop Butler sixty years before--waspreparing an elaborate attack upon the theory of the book itself, which he proposed to incorporate in a new edition of his own_Principles of Morality and Religion_. Before publishing thisexamination of the theory, however, he sent the manuscript to Smithfor perusal, and received the following reply:--

 _16th November 1778. _

 MY DEAR LORD--I am much obliged to you for the kind communication of the objections you propose to make in yr. New edition to my system. Nothing can be more perfectly friendly and polite than the terms in which you express yourself with regard to me, and I should be extremely peevish and ill-tempered if I could make the slightest opposition to their publication. I am no doubt extremely sorry to find myself of a different opinion both from so able a judge of the subject and from so old and good a friend; but differences of this kind are inevitable, and besides, _Partium contentionibus respublica crescit_. I should have been waiting on your Lordship before this time, but the remains of a cold have for these four or five days past made it inconvenient for me to go out in the evening. Remember me to Mrs. Drummond, [297] and believe me to be, my dear Lord, your most obliged and most humble servant, ADAM SMITH. 

Smith had most probably discussed the merits of Lord Kames'sobjections with his lordship already, so that he saw no occasion toreply to them in his letter. What Kames principally combated was theidea that sympathy with the sufferings of another originated in anyway in our imagining what would be our own feelings if we were in thesufferer's place. He contends, on the contrary, that it is exciteddirectly by the perception of the screams, contortions, tears, orother outward signs of the pain that is endured; and that trying toput ourselves in the sufferer's place produces really aself-satisfaction, on account of our own immunity from his troubles, which has the effect not of awakening the feeling of pity but ofmoderating and diminishing it. 

A second objection he raises is that if Smith's theory were true, those in whom the power of imagination was strongest would feel theforce of the moral duties most sensibly, and vice versa, which, hesays, is contradicted by experience. His last objection is that whilethe theory proposes to explain the origin of the moral sentiments sofar as they respect other persons, it fails entirely to account forthose sentiments in regard to ourselves. Our distress on losing anonly son and our gratitude for a kindly office neither need to beexplained nor can they be explained by imagining ourselves to be otherpersons. 

One of the first acquaintances Smith made in Edinburgh was a youngCaithness laird who was presently to make a considerable figure inpublic life--the patriotic and laborious Sir John Sinclair, founder ofthe Board of Agriculture, promoter of the Statistical Account ofScotland, and author of the _History of the Public Revenue_, _the Codeof Agriculture_, _the Code of Health_, and innumerable pamphlets oninnumerable subjects. Sinclair was not yet in Parliament when Smithcame to Edinburgh in the end of 1777, but his hands were already fullof serious work. He was busy with his _History of the Public Revenue_, in which Smith gave him every assistance in his power, and he hadactually finished a treatise on the Christian Sabbath, which, indeference to Smith's advice, he never gave to the press. The object ofthis treatise was to show that the puritanical Sabbath observance ofScotland had no countenance in Holy Scripture, and that, while part ofthe day ought certainly to be devoted to divine service, the restmight be usefully employed in occupations of a character not strictlyreligious without infringing any divine law. When the work wascompleted, Sinclair showed the manuscript to Smith, who dissuaded himstrongly from printing it. "Your work, Mr. Sinclair, " said he, "isvery ably written, but I advise you not to publish it, for restassured that the Sabbath as a political institution is of inestimablevalue independently of its claim to divine authority. "[298]

One day Sinclair brought Smith the news of the surrender of Burgoyneat Saratoga in October 1777, and exclaimed in the deepest concern thatthe nation was ruined. "There is a great deal of ruin in a nation, "was Smith's calm reply. In November 1778 Sinclair wanted Smith to sendhim to Thurso Castle the loan of the important French book oncontemporary systems of taxation, which is so often quoted in the_Wealth of Nations_--the _Mémoires concernant les Impositions_--and ofwhich only 100 copies were originally printed, and only fourapparently found their way to this country. Smith naturally hesitatedto send so rare a book so far, but promised his young correspondent togive him, when he returned to Edinburgh, not only that book buteverything else, printed or written, which he possessed on thesubject. Smith's letter is as follows:--

 Mr. Smith presents his most respectful compliments to Mr. Sinclair of Ulbster. 

 The _Mémoires sur les Finances_[299] are engaged for four months to come to Mr. John Davidson;[300] when he is done with them Mr. Smith would be very happy to accommodate Mr. Sinclair, but acknowledges he is a little uneasy about the safety of the conveyance and the greatness of the distance. He has frequent occasion to consult the book himself, both in the course of his private studies and in the business of his present employment, and is therefore not very willing to let it go out of Edinburgh. The book was never properly published, but there were a few more copies printed than was necessary for the Commission, for whose use it was compiled. 

 One of these I obtained by the particular favour of Mr. Turgot, the late Controller-General of the Finances. I have heard but of three copies in Great Britain: one belongs to a noble lord, who obtained it by connivance, as he told me;[301] one is in the Secretary of State's office, and the third belongs to a private gentleman. How these two were obtained I know not, but suspect it was in the same manner. If any accident should happen to my book, the loss is perfectly irreparable. When Mr. Sinclair comes to Edinburgh I shall be very happy to communicate to him not only that book, but everything else I have upon the subject, both printed and manuscript, and am, with the highest respect for his character, his most obedient humble servant, ADAM SMITH. 

 EDINBURGH, _24th November 1778_. [302]

The _Mémoires_ was printed in 1768, but it may be reasonably inferred, from Smith's account of the extreme difficulty of getting a copy, thathe only obtained his in 1774, on the advent of Turgot to power. Ifthat be so, much in the chapters on taxation in the _Wealth ofNations_ must have been written in London after that date. 

Sir John's biographer quotes a passage from another letter of Smith inconnection with his correspondent's financial studies. Thisletter--which Archdeacon Sinclair describes as a "holograph letter insix folio pages"--is no longer extant, but it concluded with thefollowing remarks on the taxation of the necessaries and luxuries ofthe poor:--

 I dislike all taxes that may affect the necessary expenses of the poor. They, according to circumstances, either oppress the people immediately subject to them, or are repaid with great interest by the rich, _i. E. _ by their employers in the advanced wages of their labour. Taxes on the _luxuries_ of the poor, upon their beer and other spirituous liquors, for example, as long as they are so moderate as not to give much temptation to smuggling, I am so far from disapproving, that I look upon them as the best of sumptuary laws. 

 I could write a volume upon the folly and the bad effects of all the legal encouragements that have been given either to the linen manufacture or to the fisheries. --I have the honour to be, with most sincere regard, my dear friend, most affectionately yours, ADAM SMITH. [303]

FOOTNOTES:

[295] Stewart's _Works_, x. 46. 

[296] _Ibid. _, v. 256. 

[297] Mrs. Drummond is Lord Kames's wife. She had succeeded to theestate of her father, Mr. Drummond of Blair Drummond, and having alongwith her husband assumed her father's surname in addition to her own, was now Mrs. Home Drummond. It may perhaps be necessary to add thatthe title of a Scotch judge is not extended, even by courtesy, to hiswife. 

[298] Sinclair's _Memoirs of Sir John Sinclair_, i. 36. 

[299] Smith, writing from memory and without the book at hand, makes averbal mistake in the title. 

[300] Doubtless John Davidson, W. S. , a well-known antiquary of theperiod, who is mentioned favourably in the preface to Robertson's_History of Scotland_ as a special authority on certain facts of thelife of Mary Stuart. 

[301] Probably Lord Rosslyn, for Bentham, in writing to advise LordShelburne to procure a copy of this book, mentions that he knew LordRosslyn had a copy, which he had obtained from Mr. Anstruther, M. P. , who happened to be in Paris when it was printed, and contrived to geta copy somehow there. 

[302] _Sir J. Sinclair's Correspondence_, i. 388. 

[303] Sinclair's _Life of Sir J. Sinclair_, i. 39. 

CHAPTER XXIII

FREE TRADE FOR IRELAND

1779

In 1779 Smith was consulted by various members of the Government withrespect to the probable effects of the contemplated concession of freetrade to Ireland, and two letters of Smith still remain--one to theEarl of Carlisle, First Lord of Trade and Plantations, and the otherto Henry Dundas--which state his views on this subject. A fewpreliminary words will explain the situation. The policy of commercialrestriction has probably never been used with more cruelty or moredisaster than it was used against the people of Ireland between theRestoration and the Union. They were not allowed to trade as theywould with Great Britain or her colonies, because they were aliens, and they were not allowed to trade as they would with foreigncountries, because they were British subjects. There were variousindustries they had special advantages for establishing, but themoment they began to export the products the English Parliament, ortheir own Irish Parliament under English influence, closed the marketsagainst them. Living in an excellent grazing country, their firstgreat product was cattle, and the export of cattle was prohibited. When stopped from sending live meat, they tried to send dead, but theembargo was promptly extended to salt provisions. Driven from cattle, they betook themselves to sheep, and sent over wool; that was stopped, allowed, and stopped again. When their raw wool was denied a market, they next tried cloth, but England then bargained for the suppressionof the chief branches of Irish woollen manufacture by promisingIreland a monopoly of the manufacture of linen. Other infantindustries which gave signs of growing to prosperity were by the samemeans crushed in the cradle, and Ireland was in consequence never ableto acquire that nest-egg of industrial capital and training whichEngland won in the eighteenth century. 

All this systematic oppression of national industry had produced itsnatural fruit in a distressing scarcity of employment, and in 1778, though it was a year of plenty, and meal was at its cheapest, manythousands of the population were starving because they had not themeans to buy it; the farmers were unable to pay their rents becausethey got such poor prices; processions of unemployed paraded thestreets of Dublin carrying a black fleece in token of their want; andthe Viceroy from the Castle warned the English ministry that anenlargement of the trade of Ireland had become a matter of the merestnecessity, without which she could never pay her national obligationsto the English Exchequer. 

But it was neither the voice of justice nor the cry of distress thatmoved the Government; it was the alarm of external danger. Thestrength of England was then strained as it has never been before orsince in an unequal war with the combined forces of France, Spain, andAmerica, and it was no time either to feed or to neglect discontent athome. Ireland had already sent many recruits to the revolutionary armyin America, and at this very moment the Irish Protestants, incensed atthe indifference of Government to the protection of their ports, had, under the lead of Lord Charlemont, raised an illegal army of 42, 000volunteers, and placed them under arms without the consent of theCrown. 

The demand of free trade for Ireland came therefore with sanctionsthat could not be ignored, and Lord North's first idea was to giveIreland the same rights of trading with the colonies and foreigncountries as England enjoyed, except in the two particulars of theexport of wool and glass and the import of tobacco. This proposal wasnot satisfactory to the Irish, because it failed to remove their chiefgrievance, the restriction on their trade in woollen goods, but itprovoked a storm of indignation in Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow, andall the great manufacturing and trading centres of Great Britain. Theypetitioned the Government declaring that the proposed measure wouldruin them, for a reason with which we are still very familiar, becauseit would be impossible for any English or Scotch manufacturer tocompete against the pauper labour of Ireland. Lord North, frightened, as Burke said, into some concessions by the menaces of Ireland, wasnow frightened out of them again by the menaces of England, and he cutdown his original proposals till the Irish thought he was merelytrifling with their troubles, and their whole island was aflame. Associations were formed, commotions broke out; a great meeting inDublin in April 1779 pledged itself to buy nothing of English orScotch manufacture; many of the county meetings instructed theirrepresentatives in Parliament to vote no money bill for more than sixmonths till Irish grievances were redressed; and the Lord-Lieutenantwrote the Government that popular discontent was seriously increasing, that French and American emissaries were actively abroad, that theoutlook was black indeed if next session of Parliament passed withoutgiving the Irish a satisfactory measure of free trade, and that"nothing short of permission to export coarse woollen goods would inany degree give general satisfaction. "

As soon as the Irish Parliament met in October a new member of theHouse, who was presently to become a new power in the country, HenryGrattan, rose and moved an amendment to the address, urging thenecessity for a free export trade; and the amendment was, on thesuggestion of Flood, extended to a general demand for free trade, including imports as well as exports, and in this form was carriedwithout a division. The reply to the address, however, seemedstudiously ambiguous, and inflamed the prevailing discontent. On KingWilliam's birthday the statue of that monarch in Dublin was hung overwith expressive placards, and the city volunteers turned out andparaded round it; a few days later a mob from the Liberties attackedthe house of the Attorney-General, and proceeding to Parliament, sworeall the members they found to vote only short money bills till freetrade were conceded; and then Grattan, in his place in the House, carried by three to one a resolution to grant no new taxes and to giveonly six months' bills for the appropriated duties. 

The Government was now thoroughly alarmed; they must at last face thequestion of free trade for Ireland in dead earnest, and appliedthemselves without delay to learn from all who understood the subjectwhat would be the real effect on England of removing the Irishrestrictions. They requested many of the leading public men whom theytrusted in Ireland--Lord Lifford, Hely Hutchinson, Henry Burgh, andothers--to prepare detailed statements of their views on thecommercial grievances of their country and the operation of theproposed remedies. Mr. Lecky, who has seen those statements at theRecord Office, says they are conspicuous for their clear grasp of theprinciples of free trade, and I think that they may with greatprobability be considered a fruit of Smith's then recently publishedwork, because Hely Hutchinson's statement, or its substance, has beenpublished--it was, indeed, the last book publicly burned in thiscountry--and it makes frequent quotations from the _Wealth ofNations_. It was in these circumstances that the Board of Trade made adouble application to Adam Smith for his opinion on the subject. LordCarlisle, the head of the Board, applied to him through Adam Ferguson, who had been Secretary of the Commission, of which Lord Carlisle hadbeen President, sent out to America the year before to negotiateterms of peace; and Mr. William Eden, Secretary of the Board, appliedto him through Henry Dundas. With Eden (afterwards the first LordAuckland) Smith became later on well acquainted; he was married in1776 to a daughter of Smith's old friend, Sir Gilbert Elliot, but atthe date of this correspondence their personal acquaintance does notseem to have been intimate. 

Smith's letter to Lord Carlisle is as follows:--

 MY LORD--My friend Mr. Ferguson showed me a few days ago a letter in which your Lordship was so good as to say that you wished to know my opinion concerning the consequence of granting to the Irish that _free trade_ which they at present demand so importunately. I shall not attempt to express how much I feel myself flattered by your Lordship's very honourable remembrance of me, but shall without further preface endeavour to explain that opinion, such as it may be, as distinctly as I can. 

 Till we see the heads of the bill which the Irish propose to send over, it is impossible to know precisely what they mean by a free trade. 

 It is possible they may mean by it no more than the freedom of exporting all goods, whether of their own produce or imported from abroad, to all countries (Great Britain and the British settlements excepted) subject to no other duties or restraints than such as their own Parliament may impose. At present they can export glass, tho' of their own manufacture, to no country whatever. Raw silk, a foreign commodity, is under the same restraint. Wool they can export only to Great Britain. Woollen manufactures they can export only from certain ports in Ireland to certain ports in Great Britain. A very slender interest of our own manufacturers is the foundation of all these unjust and oppressive restraints. The watchful jealousy of those gentlemen is alarmed least the Irish, who have never been able to supply compleatly even their own market with glass or woollen manufactures, should be able to rival them in foreign markets. 

 The Irish may mean by a _free trade_ to demand, besides, the freedom of importing from wherever they can buy them cheapest all such foreign goods as they have occasion for. At present they can import glass, sugars of foreign plantations, except those of Spain or Portugal, and certain sorts of East India goods, from no country but Great Britain. Tho' Ireland was relieved from these and from all restraints of the same kind, the interest of Great Britain could surely suffer very little. The Irish probably mean to demand no more than this most just and reasonable freedom of exportation and importation; in restraining which we seem to me rather to have gratified the impertinence than to have promoted any solid interest of our merchants and manufacturers. 

 The Irish may, however, mean to demand, besides, the same freedom of exportation and importation to and from the British settlements in Africa and America which is enjoyed by the inhabitants of Great Britain. As Ireland has contributed little either to the establishment or defence of these settlements, this demand would be less reasonable than the other two. But as I never believed that the monopoly of our Plantation trade was really advantageous to Great Britain, so I cannot believe that the admission of Ireland to a share in that monopoly, or the extension of this monopoly to all the British islands, would be really disadvantageous. 

 Over and above all this, the Irish may mean to demand the freedom of importing their own produce and manufactures into Great Britain, subject to no other duties than such as are equivalent to the duties imposed upon the like goods of British produce or manufacture. Tho' even this demand, the most unreasonable of all, should be granted, I cannot believe that the interest of Britain would be hurt by it. On the contrary, the competition of Irish goods in the British market might contribute to break down in part that monopoly which we have most absurdly granted to the greater part of our own workmen against ourselves. It would, however, be a long time before this competition could be very considerable. In the present state of Ireland centuries must pass away before the greater part of its manufactures could vie with those of England. Ireland has little coal, the coallieries about Lough Neagh being of little consequence to the greater part of the country; it is ill provided with wood: two articles essentially necessary to the progress of great manufactures. It wants order, police, and a regular administration of justice, both to protect and to restrain the inferior ranks of people: articles more essential to the progress of industry than both coal and wood put together, and which Ireland must continue to want as long as it continues to be divided between two hostile nations, the oppressors and the oppressed, the Protestants and the Papists. Should the industry of Ireland, in consequence of freedom and good government, ever equal that of England, so much the better would it be not only for the whole British Empire, but for the particular province of England. As the wealth and industry of Lancashire does not obstruct but promote that of Yorkshire, so the wealth and industry of Ireland would not obstruct but promote that of England. 

 It makes me very happy to find that in the midst of the public misfortunes a person of your Lordship's rank and elevation of mind doth not despair of the commonwealth, but is willing to accept of an active share in administration. That your Lordship may be the happy means of restoring vigour and decision to our counsels, and in consequence of them, success to our arms, is the sincere wish of, my Lord, your Lordship's most obliged and most obedient servant, ADAM SMITH. [304]

 EDINBURGH, _8th November 1779_. 

The letter to Dundas was published in the _English Historical Review_for April 1886 (p. 308), by Mr. Oscar Browning, from a copy in theAuckland papers then in his possession. Mr. Browning gives at the sametime the previous letters of Dundas to Eden and Smith respectively. ToEden he writes:--

 MELVILLE, _30th October 1779_. 

 MY DEAR SIR--I received yours last night and have sent it this morning to Smith. When I see or hear from him you shall hear again from me upon the different parts of your letter. The enclosed is a copy of my letter to Smith, which will show you what are my present crude ideas upon the subject of Ireland. --Yours faithfully, HENRY DUNDAS. 

His letter to Smith is as follows:--

 MELVILLE, _30th October 1779_. 

 DEAR SIR--I received the enclosed last night from Mr. Eden. The questions he puts would require a Volume to answer them in place of a Letter. Think of it, however, and let me have your ideas upon it. For my own part I confess myself little alarmed about what others seem so much alarmed. I doubt much if a free trade to Ireland is so very much to be dreaded. There is trade enough in the World for the Industry both of Britain and Ireland, and if two or three places either in South or North Britain should suffer some damage, which, by the bye, will be very gradual, from the loss of their monopoly, that is a very small consideration in the general scale and policy of the country. The only thing to be guarded against is the people in Ireland being able to undersell us in foreign mercates from the want of taxes and the cheapness of Labour. But a wise statesman will be able to regulate that by proper distribution of taxes upon the materials and commodities of the respective Countrys. I believe a Union would be best if it can be accomplished; if not the Irish Parliament might be managed by the proper distribution of the Loaves and Fishes, so that the Legislatures of the two countrys may act in union together. In short, it has long appeared to me that the bearing down of Ireland was in truth bearing down a substantial part of the Naval and Military strength of our own Country. Indeed, it has often shocked me in the House of Commons for these two years past, when anything was hinted in favour of Ireland by friends of giving them only the benefit of making the most of what their soil and climate afforded them, to hear it received as a sufficient answer that a town in England or Scotland would be hurt by such an Indulgence. This kind of reasoning will no longer do. But I find, in place of asking yours, I am giving you my opinion. So adieu. --Yours sincerely, HENRY DUNDAS. 

To this manly, but somewhat inconsistent letter, acknowledging thefull right of a people to make the most of what their soil and climateafforded, but yet afraid to give them the whole advantage of theircheapness of labour, Smith sent the following reply, probably on the1st of November:--

 MY DEAR LORD[305]--I am very happy to find that Your Lordship's opinion concerning the circumstance of granting a free trade to Ireland coincides so perfectly with my own. I cannot believe that the manufacturers of Great Britain can for a century to come suffer much from the Rivalship of those of Ireland, even though the Irish should be indulged in a free trade. Ireland has neither the skill nor the stock which would enable Her to rival England, and tho' both may be acquired in time, to acquire them completely will require the opperation of little less than a Century. Ireland has neither Coal nor wood; the former seems to have been denied to her by nature; and though her Soil and Climate are perfectly suited for raising the Latter, yet to raise it to the same degree as in England will require more than a Century. I perfectly agree with your Lordship too that to Crush the Industry of so great and so fine a Province of the Empire in order to favour the monopoly of some particular Towns in Scotland or England is equally injurious and impolitic. The general opulence and improvement of Ireland must certainly, under proper management, afford much greater Resources to Government than can ever be drawn from a few mercantile or manufacturing Towns. 

 Till the Irish Parliament sends over the Heads of their proposed Bill, it may perhaps be uncertain what they understand by a Free Trade. 

 They may perhaps understand by it no more than the power of exporting their own produce to the foreign country where they can find the best mercate. Nothing can be more just and reasonable than this demand, nor can anything be more unjust and unreasonable than some of the restraints which their Industry in this respect at present labours under. They are prohibited under the heaviest penalties to export Glass to any Country. Wool they can export only to Great Britain. Woolen goods they can export only from certain Ports in their own Country and to certain Ports in Great Britain. 

 They may mean to demand the Power of importing such foods as they have occasion for from any Country where they can find them cheapest, subject to no other duties and restraints than such as may be imposed by their own Parliament. This freedom, tho' in my opinion perfectly reasonable, will interfere a little with some of our paltry monopolies. Glass, Hops, Foreign Sugars, several sorts of East Indian goods can at present be imported only from Great Britain. 

 They may mean to demand a free trade to our American and African Plantations, free from the restraints which the 18th of the present King imposed upon it, or at least from some of those restraints, such as the prohibition of exporting thither their own Woolen and Cotton manufactures, Glass, Hatts, Hops, Gunpowder, etc. This freedom, tho' it would interfere with some of our monopolies, I am convinced, would do no harm to Great Britain. It would be reasonable, indeed, that whatever goods were exported from Ireland to these Plantations should be subject to the like duties as those of the same kind exported from England in the terms of the 18th of the present King. 

 They may mean to demand a free trade to Great Britain, their manufactures and produce when Imported into this country being subjected to no other duties than the like manufactures and produce of our own. Nothing, in my opinion, would be more highly advantageous to both countries than this mutual freedom of trade. It would help to break down that absurd monopoly which we have most absurdly established against ourselves in favour of almost all the different Classes of our own manufacturers. 

 Whatever the Irish mean to demand in this way, in the present situation of our affairs I should think it madness not to grant it. Whatever they may demand, our manufacturers, unless the leading and principal men among them are properly dealt with beforehand, will probably oppose it. That they may be so dealt with I know from experience, and that it may be done at little expense and with no great trouble. I could even point to some persons who, I think, are fit and likely to deal with them successfully for this purpose. I shall not say more upon this till I see you, which I shall do the first moment I can get out of this Town. 

 I am much honoured by Mr. Eden's remembrance of me. I beg you will present my most respectful compliments to him, and that you will believe me to be, my dear Lord, most faithfully yours, ADAM SMITH. 

 _1st November 1779. _

I cannot explain the allusion in the closing parts of the letter tothe writer's personal experience of the ease with which the oppositionof manufacturers to proposed measures of public policy could beaverted by sagacious management and a little expenditure of money. Norcan I say what persons he had in view to recommend as likely to dothis work successfully; but his advice seems to imply that he agreedwith the political maxim that the opposition of the pocket is best metthrough the pocket. 

He takes no notice of Dundas's suggestion of a union with GreatBritain, but we know from the _Wealth of Nations_ that he was a strongadvocate of a union--not, of course, on Dundas's ground that a unionwould better enable the English Parliament to counteract the effectsof the competition of Irish pauper labour, but for a reason which willsound curiously perhaps in the middle of our present agitations, thata union would deliver the Irish people from the tyranny of anoppressive aristocracy, which was the great cause of that kingdombeing then divided into "two hostile nations, " to use his words toLord Carlisle, "the oppressors and the oppressed. " He avers in the_Wealth of Nations_ that "without a union with Great Britain theinhabitants of Ireland are not likely for many ages to considerthemselves one people. "[306]

FOOTNOTES:

[304] Morrison MSS. 

[305] The Lord Advocate is usually addressed as My Lord. 

[306] Book V. Chap. Iii. 

CHAPTER XXIV

THE "WEALTH OF NATIONS" ABROAD AND AT HOME

While these communications with leading statesmen were showing theimpression the _Wealth of Nations_ had made in this country, Smith wasreceiving equally satisfactory proofs of its recognition abroad. Thebook had been translated into Danish by F. Dräbye, and the translationpublished in two volumes in 1779-80. Apparently the translator wascontemplating the publication of a second edition, for he communicatedwith Smith through a Danish friend, desiring to know what alterationsSmith proposed to make in his second edition, of whose appearance thetranslator had manifestly not heard. Smith thereupon wrote Strahan thefollowing letter, asking him to send a copy of the second edition toDräbye:--

 DEAR SIR--I think it is predestined that I shall never write to you except to ask some favour of you or to put you to some trouble. This letter is not to depart from the style of all the rest. I am a subscriber for Watt's Copying Machine. The price is six guineas for the machine and five shillings for the packing-box; I should be glad too he would send me a ream of the copying paper, together with all the other specimens of ink, etc. , which commonly accompany the machine. For payment of this to Mr. Woodmason, the seller, whose printed letter I have enclosed, you will herewith receive a bill of eight Guineas payable at sight. If, after paying for all these, there should be any remnant, there is a tailour in Craven Street, one Heddington, an acquaintance of James M'Pherson, to whom I owe some shillings, I believe under ten, certainly under twenty; pay him what I owe. He is a very honest man, and will ask no more than is due. Before I left London I had sent several times for his account, but he always put it off. 

 I had almost forgot I was the author of the inquiry concerning the Wealth of Nations, but some time ago I received a letter from a friend in Denmark telling me that it had been translated into Danish by one Mr. Dreby, secretary to a new erected board of trade and Economy in that Kingdom. My correspondent, Mr. Holt, who is an assessor of that Board, desires me, in the name of Mr. Dreby, to know what alterations I propose to make in a second Edition. The shortest answer to this is to send them the second edition. I propose, therefore, by this Post to desire Mr. Cadell to send three copies of the second Edition, handsomely bound and gilt, to Mr. Anker, Consul-General of Denmark, who is an old acquaintance--one for himself and the other two to be by him transmitted to Mr. Holt and Mr. Dreby. At our final settlement I shall debit myself with these three Books. I suspect I am now almost your only customer for my own book. Let me know, however, how matters go on in this respect. 

 After begging your pardon a thousand times for having so long neglected to write you, I shall conclude with assuring you that notwithstanding this neglect I have the highest respect and esteem for you and for your whole family, and that I am, most sincerely and affectionately, ever yours, ADAM SMITH. 

 EDINBURGH, CANONGATE, _26 Oct. 1780_. [307]

As this Danish translation has come up, it may be mentioned here thatthe _Wealth of Nations_ had already been translated into several otherlanguages. The Abbé Blavet's French version ran through the pages ofthe _Journal de l'Agriculture, des Commerce, des Finances, et desArts_ month by month in the course of the years 1779 and 1780, and wasthen published in book form in 1781. This was not a satisfactorytranslation, though through mere priority of occupation it held thefield for a number of years and went through a number of editions. In1790 a second translation appeared by Roucher and the Marquise deCondorcet, and in 1802 a third, the best, by Germain Garnier. Smith'sown friend Morellet, receiving a presentation copy from the authorthrough Lord Shelburne on its publication, carried it with him toBrienne, the seat of his old Sorbonne comrade the Archbishop ofToulouse, and set at work to translate it there. But he tells ushimself that the ex-Benedictine Abbé (Blavet), who had formerlymurdered the _Theory of Moral Sentiments_ by a bad translation, anticipated him by his equally bad translation of the _Wealth ofNations_; and so, adds Morellet, "poor Smith was again betrayedinstead of being translated, according to the Italian proverb, _Tradottore traditore_. "[308] Morellet still thought, however, ofpublishing his own version, offering it to the booksellers first for100 louis-d'or and then for nothing, and many years afterwards heasked his friend the Archbishop of Toulouse, when he had becomeMinister of France, for a grant of 100 louis to pay for itsproduction, but was as unsuccessful with the Minister as he was withthe booksellers. All the good Abbé says is that he is sure the moneywould have been well spent, because the translation was carefullydone, and he knew the subject better than any of the othertranslators. Everything that was abstract in the theory of Smith was, he says, quite unintelligible in Blavet's translation, and even inRoucher's subsequent one, and could be read to more advantage in hisown; but after a good translation was published by Garnier in 1802, the Abbé gave up all thought of giving his to the press. 

A German translation by J. F. Schuler appeared, the first volume in1776 and the second in 1778, but Roscher says it is worse done thanBlavet's translation; and little attention was paid to Smith or hiswork in Germany until about the close of the century, when a newtranslation was published by Professor Garve, the metaphysician. Roscher observes that neither Frederick the Great nor the EmperorJoseph, nor any of the princes who patronised the Physiocrats so much, paid the least heed to the _Wealth of Nations_; that in the Germanpress it was neither quoted nor confuted, but merely ignored; and thathe himself had taken the trouble to look through the economicliterature published between 1776 and 1794, to discover any marks ofthe reception of the book, and found that Smith's name was very seldommentioned, and then without any idea of his importance. One spot oughtto be excepted--the little kingdom of Hanover, which, from itsconnection with the English Crown, participated in the contemporaryFrench complaint of Anglomania. Göttingen had its influential schoolof admirers of English institutions and literature; the _Wealth ofNations_ was reviewed in the _Gelehrte Anzeigen_ of Göttingen early in1777, and one of the professors of the University there announced acourse of lectures upon it in the winter session of 1777-78. [309] Butbefore Smith died his work was beginning to be clearly understoodamong German thinkers. Gentz, the well-known politician, writes afriend in December 1790 that he had been reading the book for thethird time, and thought it "far the most important work which iswritten in any language on this subject";[310] and Professor C. J. Kraus writes Voigt in 1796 that the world had never seen a moreimportant work, and that no book since the New Testament has producedmore beneficial effects than this book would produce when it gotbetter known. A few years later it was avowedly shaping the policy ofStein. 

It was translated into Italian in 1780, and in Spain it had thecurious fortune of being suppressed by the Inquisition on account of"the lowness of its style and the looseness of its morals. " Sir JohnMacpherson--Warren Hastings' successor as Governor-General ofIndia--writes Gibbon as if he saw the sentence of the Inquisitionposted on the church doors in a Spanish tour he made in 1792;[311] buta change must have speedily come over the censorial mind, for aSpanish translation by J. A. Ortez was published in four volumes in1794, with additions relating to Spain. 

Smith continued, as he says, to be a good customer for his own book. There is another letter which, though undated and unaddressed, wasevidently written about this time to Cadell, directing presentationcopies of both his books to be sent to Mrs. Ross of Crighton, the wifeof his own "very near relation, " Colonel Patrick Ross. 

 DEAR SIR--Mrs. Ross of Crighton, now living in Welbeck Street, is my particular friend, and the wife of Lieutenant-Collonel (_sic_) Patrick Ross, in the service of the East India Company, my very near relation. When she left this she seemed to intimate that she wished to have a copy of my last book from the author. May I therefore beg the favour of you to send her a copy of both my books, viz. Of the Theory of Moral Sentiments and of the Enquiry concerning the "Wealth of Nations, " handsomely bound and gilt, placing the same to my account, and writing upon the blank-leaf of each, _From the Authour_. Be so good as to remember me to Mrs. Cadell, Mr. Strahan and family, and all other friends, and believe me, ever yours, ADAM SMITH. [312]

Smith's new duties did not pre-engage his pen from higher workaltogether, for before the close of 1782 he had written someconsiderable additions to the _Wealth of Nations_, which he proposedto insert in the third edition, among them a history of the tradingcompanies of Great Britain, including, no doubt, his history of theEast India Company, which Mr. Thorold Rogers supposed him to havewritten ten years before and kept in his desk. He writes Cadell on the7th December 1782:--

 I have many apologies to make to you for my idleness since I came to Scotland. The truth is, I bought at London a good many partly new books or editions that were new to me, and the amusement I found in reading and diverting myself with them debauched me from my proper business, the preparing a new edition of the _Wealth of Nations_. I am now, however, heartily engaged at my proper work, and I hope in two or three months to send you up the second edition corrected in many places, with three or four very considerable additions, chiefly to the second volume. Among the rest is a short but, I flatter myself, a complete history of all the trading companies in Great Britain. These additions I mean not only to be inserted at their proper places into the new edition, but to be printed separately and to be sold for a shilling or half-a-crown to the purchasers of the old edition. The price must depend on the bulk of the additions when they are all written out. It would give me great satisfaction if you would let me know by the return of the Post if this delay will not be inconvenient. Remember me to Strahan. He will be so good as excuse my not writing to him, as I have nothing to say but what I have now said to you, and he knows my aversion to writing. [313]

The additions of which he speaks in this letter were publishedseparately in 1783 in quarto, so as to suit the two previous editionsof the work, and the new edition containing them was published in theend of 1784 in three volumes octavo, at the price of a guinea. Thedelay was due to booksellers' reasons. Dr. Swediaur, the eminent Parisphysician, who was resident in Edinburgh at the time studying withCullen, wrote Bentham in November 1784 that Smith, whom he used to seeat least once a week, had shown him the new edition printed andfinished, but had told him that Cadell would not publish it till allthe people of fashion had arrived in London, and would then at oncepush a large sale. Swediaur adds that he found this was abookseller's trick very generally practised, and of Smith himself hesays he found him "a very unprejudiced and good man. "[314]

The principal additions are the result of investigations to which heseems to have been prompted by current agitations of the stream ofpolitical opinion. He gives now, for example, a fuller account of theworking of the bounty system in the Scotch fisheries, which was thenthe subject of a special parliamentary inquiry, and on which hisexperience as a Commissioner of Customs furnished him with manyopportunities of gaining accurate information; and he enters on acareful examination of the chartered and regulated corporations, andespecially of the East India Company, whose government of the greatoriental dependency was at the moment a question of such urgency thatFox introduced his India Bill which killed the Coalition Ministry in1783, and Pitt established the Board of Control in 1784. 

The new matter contains two recommendations which have attractedcomment as ostensible contraventions of free trade doctrine. One ofthem is the recommendation of a tax on the export of wool; but thenthe tax was to take the place of the absolute prohibition of theexport which then existed, and it was not to be imposed forprotectionist reasons, but for the simple financial purpose of raisinga revenue. Smith thought few taxes would yield so considerable arevenue with so little inconvenience to anybody. The other supposedcontravention of free trade doctrine is the sanction he lends totemporary commercial monopolies; but then this is avowedly a devicefor an exceptional situation in which a project promises greateventual benefit to the public, but the projectors might without themonopoly be debarred from undertaking it by the magnitude of the riskit involved. He places this temporary monopoly in the same categorywith authors' copyrights and inventors' patents; it was the easiestand most natural way of recompensing a projector for hazarding adangerous and expensive experiment of which the public was afterwardsto reap the benefit. [315] It was only to be granted for a fixed term, and upon proof of the ultimate advantage of the enterprise to thepublic. 

FOOTNOTES:

[307] _New York Evening Post_, 30th April 1887. Original in possessionof Mr. Worthington C. Ford, Washington, U. S. A. 

[308] Morellet, _Mémoires_, i. 244. 

[309] Roscher, _Geschichte_, p. 599. 

[310] Gentz, _Briefe an Christian Garve_, p. 63. 

[311] Gibbon's _Miscellaneous Works_, ii. 479. 

[312] _New York Evening Post_, 30th April 1887. Original in possessionof Mr. Worthington C. Ford, Washington, U. S. A. 

[313] Printed in a catalogue of a sale of autographs at Messrs. Sotheby, Wilkinson, and Hodge's on 26th and 27th November 1891. 

[314] Add. MSS. , 33, 540. 

[315] _Wealth of Nations_, Book V. Chap. I. 

CHAPTER XXV

SMITH INTERVIEWED

In his letter to Cadell Smith reproaches himself with his idlenessduring his first few years in Edinburgh. He had bought a good many newbooks in London, or new editions of old ones, and, says he, "Theamusement I found in reading and diverting myself with them debauchedme from my proper business, the preparing a new edition of the _Wealthof Nations_. " While he was engaged in this dissipation ofmiscellaneous reading a young interviewer from Glasgow, who happenedto be much in his company in connection with business in the year1780, elicited his opinions on most of the famous authors of theworld, noted them down, and gave them to the public after Smith'sdeath in the pages of the _Bee_ for 1791. In introducing theserecollections the editor of the _Bee_, Dr. James Anderson--author ofRicardo's rent theory--says that even if they had not been sent to himwith the strongest assurances of authenticity, he could entertain nodoubt on that point after their perusal from the coincidence of theopinions reported in them with those he himself had heard Smithexpress. The writer, who takes the name Amicus, describes himself as"young, inquisitive, and full of respect" for Smith, and says theirconversation, after they finished their business, always took aliterary turn, and Smith was "extremely communicative, and deliveredhimself with a freedom and even boldness quite opposite to theapparent reserve of his appearance. "

The first author Amicus mentions is Dr. Johnson, of whom he thoughtSmith had a "very contemptuous opinion. " "I have seen that creature, "said Smith, "bolt up in the midst of a mixed company, and without anyprevious notice fall upon his knees behind a chair, repeat the Lord'sPrayer, and then resume his seat at table. He has played this trickover and over, perhaps five or six times in the course of an evening. It is not hypocrisy but madness. Though an honest sort of man himself, he is always patronising scoundrels. Savage, for example, whom he soloudly praises, was but a worthless fellow; his pension of £50 neverlasted him longer than a few days. As a sample of his economy you maytake a circumstance that Johnson himself once told me. It was at thatperiod fashionable to wear scarlet cloaks trimmed with gold lace, andthe Doctor met him one day just after he had got his pension with oneof those cloaks on his back, while at the same time his naked toeswere sticking through his shoes. " He spoke highly, however, ofJohnson's political pamphlets on the American question, in spite ofhis disapproval of their opinions, and he was especially charmed withthe pamphlet about the Falkland Islands, because it presented in suchforcible language the madness of modern wars. 

"Contemptuous opinion" is too strong an expression for Smith's view ofJohnson, but it is certain he never rated him so high as the world didthen or does now. He told Samuel Rogers that he was astonished atJohnson's immense reputation, but, on the other hand, he frequentlypraised some of the Doctor's individual writings very highly, as hedid to this young gentleman of Glasgow. He once said to Seward thatJohnson's preface to Shakespeare was "the most manly piece ofcriticism that was ever published in any country. "[316]

Amicus then inquired of Smith his opinion of his countryman Dr. Campbell, author of the _Political Survey_, and Smith replied that hehad never met him but once, but that he was one of those authors whowrote on from one end of the week to the other, and had therefore withhis own hand produced almost a library of books. A gentleman who metCampbell out at dinner said he would be glad to have a complete set ofhis works, and next morning a cart-load came to his door, and thedriver's bill was £70. He used to get a few copies of each of hisworks from the printers, and keep them for such chances as that. Avisitor one day, casting his eye on these books, asked Campbell, "Haveyou read all these books?" "Nay, " said the other, "I have writtenthem. "

Smith often praised Swift, and praised him highly, saying he wantednothing but inclination to have become one of the greatest of allpoets. "But in place of that he is only a gossiper, writing merely forthe entertainment of a private circle. " He regarded Swift, however, asa pattern of correctness both in style and sentiment, and he read tohis young friend some of the short poetical addresses to _Stella_. Amicus says Smith expressed particular pleasure with one couplet--

 Say, Stella, feel you no content, Reflecting on a life well spent?

But it was more probably not so much of these two lines as of thewhole passage of which they are the opening that Smith was thinking. He thought Swift a great master of the poetic art, because he producedan impression of ease and simplicity, though the work of compositionwas to him a work of much difficulty, a verse coming from him, asSwift himself said, like a guinea. The Dean's masterpiece was, inSmith's opinion, the lines on his own death, and his poetry was on thewhole more correct after he settled in Ireland, and was surrounded, ashe himself said, "only by humble friends. "

Among historians Smith rated Livy first either in the ancient or themodern world. He knew of no other who had even a pretence to rivalhim, unless David Hume perhaps could claim that honour. 

When asked about Shakespeare Smith quoted with apparent approvalVoltaire's remarks that _Hamlet_ was the dream of a drunken savage, and that Shakespeare had good scenes but not a good play; but Amicusgathered that he would not permit anybody else to pass such a verdictwith impunity, for when he himself once ventured to say somethingderogatory of _Hamlet_, Smith replied, "Yes, but still _Hamlet_ isfull of fine passages. " This opinion of Shakespeare was of coursecommon to most of the great men of last century. They were not so muchinsensible to the poet's genius as perplexed by it. His plays werefull of imagination, dramatic power, natural gifts of every kind--thatwas admitted; but then they seemed wild, unregulated, savage--even"drunken savage, " to use Voltaire's expression; they were magnificent, but they were not poetry, for they broke every rule of the art, andpoetry after all was an art. And so we find Addison at the beginningof last century writing on the greatest English poets and leaving thename of Shakespeare out; and we find Charles James Fox, a true loverof letters, telling Reynolds at the close of the century thatShakespeare's reputation would have stood higher if he had neverwritten _Hamlet_. Smith thought Shakespeare had more than ten timesthe dramatic genius of Dryden, but Dryden had more of the poetic art. 

He praised Dryden for rhyming his plays, and said--as Pope andVoltaire used also to say--that it was nothing but laziness thatprevented our tragic poets from writing in rhyme like those of France. "Dryden, " said he, "had he possessed but a tenth part of Shakespeare'sdramatic genius, would have brought rhyming tragedies into fashionhere as they were in France, and then the mob would have admired themjust as much as they then pretended to despise them. " Beattie's_Minstrel_ he would not allow to be called a poem at all, because ithad no plan, no beginning, middle, or end. It was only a series ofverses, some of them, however, he admitted, very happy. As for Pope'stranslation of the _Iliad_, he said, "They do well to call it Pope's_Iliad_, for it is not Homer's _Iliad_. It has no resemblance to themajesty and simplicity of the Greek. "

He read over to Amicus Milton's _L'Allegro_ and _Il Penseroso_, andexplained the respective beauties of each; but he added that all therest of Milton's short poems were trash. He could not imagine whatmade Johnson praise the poem on the death of Mrs. Killigrew, andcompare it with _Alexander's Feast_. Johnson's praise of it hadinduced him to read the poem over and with attention twice, but hecould not discover even a spark of merit in it. On the other hand, Smith considered Gray's _Odes_, which Johnson had damned, to be thestandard of lyric excellence. 

_The Gentle Shepherd_ he did not admire much. He preferred the _PastorFido_, of which, says Amicus, he "spoke with rapture, " and the_Eclogues_ of Virgil. Amicus put in a word in favour of the poet ofhis own country, but Smith would not yield a point. "It is the duty ofa poet, " he said, "to write like a gentleman. I dislike that homelystyle which some think fit to call the language of nature andsimplicity and so forth. In Percy's _Reliques_ too a few tolerablepieces are buried under a heap of rubbish. You have read perhaps _AdamBell, Clym of the Cleugh, and William of Cloudesley_. " "Yes, " saidAmicus. "Well then, " continued Smith, "do you think that was worthprinting?"

Of Goldsmith Smith spoke somewhat severely--of Goldsmith as a manapparently, not as a writer--relating some anecdotes of his easymorals, which Amicus does not repeat. But when Amicus mentioned somestory about Burke seducing a young lady, Smith at once declared it aninvention. "I imagine, " said he, "that you have got that fine storyout of some of the Magazines. If anything can be lower than theReviews, they are so. They once had the impudence to publish a storyof a gentleman having debauched his own sister, and on inquiry it cameout that the gentleman never had a sister. As to Mr. Burke, he is aworthy, honest man, who married an accomplished girl without ashilling of fortune. " Of the Reviews Smith never spoke but withridicule and detestation. Amicus tried to get the _Gentleman'sMagazine_ exempted from the general condemnation, but Smith would nothear of that, and said that for his part he never looked at a Review, nor even at the names of the publishers. 

Pope was a great favourite with him as a poet, and he knew by heartmany passages from his poems, though he disliked Pope's personalcharacter as a man, saying he was all affectation, and speaking of hisletter to Arbuthnot when the latter was dying as a consummate piece ofcanting. Dryden was another of his favourite poets, and when he wasspeaking one day in high praise of Dryden's fables, Amicus mentionedHume's objections, and was told, "You will learn more as to poetry byreading one good poem than by a thousand volumes of criticism. " Smithregarded the French theatre as the standard of dramatic excellence. 

Amicus concludes his reminiscences by quoting one of Smith'sobservations on a political subject. He said that at the beginning ofthe reign of George the Third the dissenting ministers used to receive£2000 a year from Government, but that the Earl of Bute had mostimproperly deprived them of this allowance, and that he supposed thisto be the real motive of their virulent opposition to Government. 

These recollections of Amicus provoked a letter in a succeeding numberof the _Bee_ from Ascanius (the Earl of Buchan) complaining of theirpublication, not as in any way misrepresenting any of Smith's views, but as obtruding the trifles of the ordinary social hour upon thelearned world in a way Smith himself would have extremely disliked. Smith, he says, would rather have had his body injected by Hunter andMonro, and exhibited in Fleet Street or in Weir's Museum. That mayvery possibly be so; but though Smith, if he were to give his views onliterary topics to the public, might prefer putting them in moreelaborate dress, yet the opinions he expressed were, it must beremembered, mature opinions on subjects on which he had long thoughtand even lectured, and if neither Dr. Anderson nor the Earl of Buchanhas any fault to find with the correctness of Amicus's report of them, Smith cannot be considered to be any way wronged. The Earl complainstoo of the matter of the letter being "such frivolous matter"; but itis not so frivolous, and, if it were, is it not Smith himself who usedto say to his class at Glasgow, as we are informed by Boswell, thatthere was nothing too frivolous to be learnt about a great man, andthat, for his own part, he was always glad to know that Milton worelatchets to his shoes and not buckles?

In 1781 Gibbon seems to have been in doubt as to continuing his_History_, and desired Robertson, who happened to be up in London atthe time, to talk the matter over with Smith after his return toEdinburgh. The result of this consultation is communicated in a letterfrom Robertson to Gibbon on 6th November 1781. "Soon after my return, "says Robertson, "I had a long conversation with our friend Mr. Smith, in which I stated to him every particular you mentioned to me withrespect to the propriety of going on with your work. I was happy tofind that his opinion coincided perfectly with that which I hadventured to give you. His decisions, you know, are both prompt andvigorous, and he could not allow that you ought to hesitate a momentin your choice. He promised to write his sentiments to you very fully, but as he may have neglected to do this, for it is not willingly heputs pen to paper, I thought it might be agreeable to you to know hisopinion, though I imagine you could hardly entertain any doubtconcerning it. "[317]

Professor B. Faujas Saint Fond, Professor of Geology in the Museum ofNatural History at Paris and member of the National Institute ofFrance, paid a visit to Edinburgh in October or November 1782 in thecourse of a tour he made through Scotland, and received manycivilities from Adam Smith, as he mentions in the account of histravels which he published in 1783. Saint Fond says there was nobodyin Edinburgh he visited more frequently than Smith, and nobodyreceived him more kindly or studied more to procure for him everyinformation and amusement Edinburgh could afford. He was struck withSmith's numerous and, as he says, excellently chosen library. "Thebest French authors occupied a distinguished place in his library, forhe was fond of our language. " "Though advanced in years, he stillpossessed a fine figure; the animation of his countenance was strikingwhen he spoke of Voltaire. " I have already quoted the remark he made(p. 190). 

One evening when the geologist was at tea with him, Smith spoke aboutRousseau also, and spoke of him "with a kind of religious respect. ""Voltaire, " he said, "set himself to correct the vices and follies ofmankind by laughing at them, and sometimes by treating them withseverity, but Rousseau conducts the reader to reason and truth by theattractions of sentiment and the force of conviction. His 'SocialCompact' will one day avenge all the persecutions he suffered. "

Smith asked the Professor if he loved music, and on being told that itwas one of his chief delights whenever it was well executed, rejoined, "I am very glad of it; I shall put you to a proof which will be veryinteresting for me, for I shall take you to hear a kind of music ofwhich it is impossible you can have formed any idea, and it willafford me great pleasure to know the impression it makes upon you. "The annual bagpipe competition was to take place next day, andaccordingly in the morning Smith came to the Professor's lodgings atnine o'clock, and they proceeded at ten to a spacious concert-room, plainly but neatly decorated, which they found already filled with anumerous assembly of ladies and gentlemen. A large space was reservedin the middle of the room and occupied by gentlemen only, who, Smithsaid, were the judges of the performances that were to take place, andwho were all inhabitants of the Highlands or Islands. The prize wasfor the best execution of some favourite piece of Highland music, andthe same air was to be played successively by all the competitors. Inabout half an hour a folding door opened at the bottom of the hall, and the Professor was surprised to see a Highlander advance playing ona bagpipe, and dressed in the ancient kilt and plaid of his country. "He walked up and down the vacant space in the middle of the hall withrapid steps and a martial air playing his noisy instrument, thediscordant sounds of which were sufficient to rend the ear. The tunewas a kind of sonata divided into three periods. Smith requested me topay my whole attention to the music, and to explain to him afterwardsthe impression it made upon me. But I confess that at first I couldnot distinguish either air or design in the music. I was only struckwith a piper marching backward and forward with great rapidity, andstill presenting the same warlike countenance, he made incredibleefforts with his body and his fingers to bring into play the differentreeds of his instrument, which emitted sounds that were to me almostinsupportable. He received, however, great praise. " Then came a secondpiper, who seemed to excel the first, judging from the clapping ofhands and cries of bravo that greeted him from every side; and then athird and a fourth, till eight were heard successively; and theProfessor began at length to realise that the first part of the musicwas meant to represent the clash and din and fury of war, and the lastpart the wailing for the slain, --and this last part, he observed, always drew tears from the eyes of a number of "the beautiful Scotchladies" in the audience. After the music came a "lively and animateddance, " in which some of the pipers engaged, and the rest all playedtogether "suitable airs possessing expression and character, thoughthe union of so many bagpipes produced a most hideous noise. " He doesnot say whether his verdict was satisfactory to Smith, but the verdictwas that it seemed to him like a bear's dancing, and that "theimpression the wild instrument made on the greater part of theaudience was so different from the impression it made on himself, thathe could not help thinking that the lively emotion of the personsaround him was not occasioned by the musical effect of the air itself, but by some association of ideas which connected the discordant soundsof the pipe with historical events brought forcibly to theirrecollection. "[318]

Nor were these annual competitions the only local institutions inwhich Smith took a more or less active interest. One of the duties ofa citizen which he undertook will perhaps occasion surprise--he becamea Captain of the City Guard. He was made Honorary Captain of theTrained Bands of Edinburgh--the City Guard--on the 4th of June 1781, "with the usual solemnity, " the minutes state, "and after spending theevening with grate joy, the whole corps retired, but in distinctdivisions and good order, to quarters. "[319]

The business of this body, according to its minutes, seems practicallyto have been mostly of a convivial character, and we can sympathisewith the honest pride of the clerk in recording in what a condition ofgood order they were able to retire after celebrating that auspiciousoccasion with the joy it deserved. Smith no doubt attended theirperiodical festivities, or paid his fine of eight magnums of claretfor absence. But their business was not all claret and punch. On the8th September 1784, for example, the captains, lieutenants, andensigns of the Trained Bands were called out, in consequence of anorder from the Lord Provost, "to attend the wheeping of Paull andAnderson, actors in the late riots at Cannonmills. " A rescue riot wasapprehended, and the Trained Bands met in the old JusticiaryCourt-room, and were armed there with "stowt oaken sticks. " Marchingforth in regular order, they acted as guard to the magistrates duringthe day, and "by their formidable and respectable appearance had thegood effect of detering the multitude so that they became onlypeaceable spectators. " Whether an honorary captain could be calledupon for active service in an emergency I cannot say, but Smith's nameis not mentioned in the list of absentee captains upon this occasion. 

In 1783 Smith joined Robertson and others in founding the RoyalSociety of Edinburgh. Robertson had long entertained the idea ofestablishing a society on the model of the foreign academies for thecultivation of every branch of science, learning, and taste, and hewas at length moved into action by the steps taken in 1782 by the Earlof Buchan and others to obtain a royal charter for the Society ofAntiquaries of Scotland, founded two years before. Robertson was veryanxious to have only one learned society in Edinburgh, of whichantiquities might be made a branch subject, and he even induced theUniversity authorities to petition Parliament against granting acharter of incorporation to the Antiquarian Society. In this strongstep the University was seconded by the Faculty of Advocates and theold Philosophical Society, founded by Colin Maclaurin in 1739, buttheir efforts failed. Out of the agitation, however, the Royal Societycame into being. Whether Smith actively supported Robertson, orsupported him at all, in his exertions against the AntiquarianSociety, I do not know. He was not, as Robertson was, a member of theSociety of Antiquaries. But he was one of the original members of theRoyal Society. The society was divided into two branches, --a physicalbranch or class devoted to science; and a literary branch or classdevoted to history and polite letters, --and Smith was one of the fourpresidents of the literary class. The Duke of Buccleugh was Presidentof the whole society; and Smith's colleagues in the presidency of theliterary class were Robertson, Blair, and Baron Gordon (Cosmo Gordonof Cluny, a Baron of Exchequer and most accomplished man). 

Smith never read a paper to this society, nor does he ever seem tohave spoken in it except once or twice on a matter of business whichhad been entrusted to him. The only mention of his name in the printed_Transactions_ is in connection with two prizes of 1000 ducats and 500ducats respectively, which were offered to all the world in 1785 byCount J. N. De Windischgraetz for the two most successful inventions ofsuch legal terminology for every sort of deed as, without imposing anynew restraints on natural liberty, would yet leave no possible roomfor doubt or litigation, and would thereby diminish the number oflawsuits. The Count wished the prizes to be decided by three of themost distinguished literary academies in Europe, and had chosen forthat purpose the Royal Academy of Science in Paris, which had alreadyconsented to undertake the duty; the Royal Society of Edinburgh, whoseconsent the Count now sought; and one of the academies of Germany orSwitzerland which he was afterwards to name. He addressed hiscommunication to the society through Adam Smith, who must therefore beassumed to have had some private acquaintance or connection with him;and on the 9th of July Smith laid the proposal before the Council ofthe society, and, as is reported in the _Transactions_, "signified tothe meeting that although he entertained great doubt whether theproblem of the Count de Windischgraetz admitted of any complete andrational solution, yet the views of the proposer being so highlylaudable, and the object itself being of that nature that even anapproximation to its attainment would be of importance to mankind, hewas therefore of opinion that the society ought to agree to therequest that was made to them. He added that it was his intention tocommunicate his sentiments on the subject to the Count by a letterwhich he would lay before the Council at a subsequent meeting. "[320]This letter was read to the Council on the 13th of December, and afterbeing approved, a copy of it was requested for preservation amongtheir papers, as the author "did not incline that it should bepublished in the Transactions of the society. "

Nothing further is heard of this business till the 6th of August 1787, when "Mr. Commissioner Smith acquainted the society that the Count deWindischgraetz had transmitted to him three dissertations offered assolutions of his problem, and had desired the judgment of the societyupon their merits. The society referred the consideration of thesepapers to Mr. Smith, Mr. Henry Mackenzie of the Exchequer, and Mr. William Craig, advocate, as a committee to appraise and consider them, and to report their opinion to the society at a subsequent meeting. "At length, on the 21st January 1788, Mr. Commissioner Smith reportedthat this committee thought none of the three dissertations amountedeither to a solution or an approximation to a solution of the Count'sproblem, but that one of them was a work of great merit, and thesociety asked Mr. A. Fraser Tytler, one of their secretaries, to sendon this opinion to the Count as their verdict. [321]

FOOTNOTES:

[316] Seward's _Anecdotes_, ii. 464. 

[317] Gibbon's _Miscellaneous Works_, ii. 255. 

[318] Saint Fond, _Travels in England, Scotland, and the Hebrides_, ii. 241. 

[319] Skinner's _Society of Trained Bands of Edinburgh_, p. 99. 

[320] _Transactions_, R. S. E. , i. 39. 

[321] _Ibid. _, R. S. E. , ii. 24. 

CHAPTER XXVI

THE AMERICAN QUESTION AND OTHER POLITICS

Notwithstanding the patronage he received from Lord North and hisrelations of friendship and obligation with the Duke of Buccleugh andHenry Dundas, Smith continued to be a warm political supporter of theRockingham Whigs and a warm opponent of the North ministry. The firstEarl of Minto (then Sir Gilbert Elliot) visited Edinburgh in 1782, andwrote in his journal. "I have found one just man in Gomorrah, AdamSmith, author of the _Wealth of Nations_. He was the Duke ofBuccleugh's tutor, is a wise and deep philosopher, and although madeCommissioner of the Customs here by the Duke and Lord Advocate, iswhat I call an _honest fellow_. He wrote a most kind as well aselegant letter to Burke on his resignation, as I believe I told youbefore, and on my mentioning it to him he told me he was the only manhere who spoke out for the Rockinghams. "[322] This letter is now lost, but Burke's answer to it remains, and was sold at Sotheby's a fewyears ago. Smith must have expressed the warmest approval of the stepFox and Burke had taken, on the death of the Marquis of Rockingham inJuly 1782, in resigning their offices in the Ministry rather thanserve under their colleague Lord Shelburne, and he must have feltstrongly on the subject to overcome his aversion to letter-writing onthe occasion. Fox and Burke have been much censured for their refusalto serve under Shelburne, inasmuch as that refusal meant a practicaldisruption of the Whig party; and Burke could not help feelingstrengthened, as he says he was in his letter, by the approval of aman like Smith, who was not only a profound political philosopher, buta thorough and loyal Whig. Notwithstanding his personal friendshipwith Lord Shelburne, Smith never seems to have trusted him as apolitical leader. We have already seen him condemning Shelburne at thetime of that statesman's first collision with Fox--the "pious fraud"occasion--and now nineteen years later he shows the same distrust ofShelburne, and doubtless for the same reason, that he believedShelburne was willing to be subservient to the king's designs, and toincrease the power of the Crown, which it had ever been the aim of theWhigs to limit. Shelburne's acceptance of office, after the king'spositive refusal to listen to the views of the Rockinghams themselvesregarding the leadership of their own party, was probably regarded bySmith as a piece of open treason to the popular cause, and openespousal of the cause of the Court. 

In those critical times the thoughts of even private citizens broodedon the arts of war. An Edinburgh lawyer who had never been at seainvented the system of naval tactics which gave Rodney his victories, and here is a Highland laird, who had spent his days among his herdsin Skye, writing Smith about a treatise he has composed onfortification, which he believes to contain original discoveries ofgreat importance, and which he sends up to Smith and Henry Mackenzie, with a five-pound note to pay the expenses of its publication. Theauthor was Charles Mackinnon of Mackinnon, the chief of his clan, whofell into adverse circumstances shortly after the date of thiscorrespondence, and parted with all the old clan property, and thetreatise on fortification itself still exists among the manuscripts ofthe British Museum. It is certainly a poor affair, from which theauthor could have reaped nothing but disappointment, and Smith, whoseems to have held Mr. Mackinnon in high esteem personally, stronglydissuades him from giving it to the press. This opinion iscommunicated in the following candid but kind letter:--

 DEAR SIR--I received your favour of the 13th of this month, and am under some concern to be obliged to tell you that I have not only not got out of the press, but that I have not yet gone into it, and would most earnestly once more recommend it to your consideration whether upon this occasion we should go into it at all. It was but within these few days that I could obtain a meeting with Mr. Mackinzie, who was occupied with the Exchequer Business. I find he had seen your papers before, and was of the same opinion with me that in their present condition they would not do you the honour we wish you to derive from whatever work you publish. We read them over together with great care and attention, and we both continued of our first opinion. I hope you will pardon me if I take the liberty to tell you that I cannot discover in them those original ideas which you seem to suppose that they contain. I am not very certain whether I understand what you hint obscurely in your former letter, but it seems to me as if you had some fear that some person might anticipate you, and claim the merit of your discoveries by publishing them as his own. From the character of the gentleman to whom your property has been communicated, I should hope there is no danger of this. But to prevent the Possibility of the Public being imposed upon in this manner, your Papers now lie sealed up in my writing Desk, superscribed with directions to my executors to return them unopened to you or your heirs as their proper owners. In case of my death and that of Mr. M'Kinzie, the production of these papers under my seal and superscribed by my hand will be sufficient to refute any plagiarism of this kind. While we live our evidence will secure to you the reputation of whatever discoveries may be contained in them. I return you the five Pound note, in hopes that you will not insist upon this publication, at least for some time; at any rate, I shall always be happy to advance a larger sum upon your account, though I own I could wish it was for some other purpose. I have not shown your Papers to Smellie. It will give me great pleasure to hear from you, and to be informed that you forgive the freedom I have used in offering you, I am afraid, a disagreeable advice. I can assure you that nothing but the respect which I think I owe to the character of a person whom I know to be a man of worth, delicacy, and honour, could have extorted it from me. --I ever am, dear sir, most faithfully yours, ADAM SMITH. 

 CUSTOM HOUSE, EDINBURGH, _21st August 1782_. 

 If you should not chuse that your Papers should remain in my custody, I shall either send them to you or deliver to whom you please. [323]

While one Highland laird was planning to save his country by animproved system of fortification, another was conceiving a granderproject of saving her by continental alliances. The moment was amongthe darkest England has ever passed through. We were engaged in adeath-struggle against France, Spain, and the American coloniescombined. Cornwallis had just repeated at Yorktown the humiliatingsurrender of Burgoyne at Saratoga. Elliot lay locked in Gibraltar. Ireland was growing restive and menacing on one side, and the Northernpowers of Europe on the other--the Armed Neutrality, as they werecalled--sat and watched, with their hands on their sword-hilts and agrudge against England in their hearts. Now Sir John Sinclair believedthat these neutral powers held the key of the situation, and wrote apamphlet in 1782, which he proposed to translate into their respectivetongues for the purpose of persuading them to join this country in acrusade against the House of Bourbon, and "to emancipate the coloniesboth in the West Indies and on the continent of America for thegeneral interest of all nations. " The price he was prepared to offerthese powers for their adhesion was to be a share in the colonialcommerce of England, and the acquisition of some of the French andSpanish colonial dependencies for themselves. Sinclair sent hispamphlet to Smith, apparently with a request for his opinion on theadvisability of translating it for the conversion of the powers, andhe received the following reply. I may add that I have not been ableto see this pamphlet, but that it is evidently not the pamphletentitled "Impartial Considerations on the Propriety of retainingGibraltar, " as Sinclair's biographer supposes; for in the formerpamphlet Sinclair is advocating not only a continuance, but anextension of the war, whereas in the latter he has come round to theadvocacy of peace, and instead of contemplating the deprivation ofFrance and Spain of their colonies, he recommends the cession ofGibraltar as a useless and expensive possession, using very much thesame line of argument which Smith suggests in this letter. Smith'sletter very probably had some influence in changing his views, thoughit is true the idea of ceding Gibraltar was in 1782 much favoured by aparty in Lord Shelburne's government, and even by the king himself. 

Smith's letter ran thus:--

 MY DEAR SIR--I have read your pamphlet several times with great pleasure, and am very much pleased with the style and composition. As to what effect it might produce if translated upon the Powers concerned in the Armed Neutrality, I am a little doubtful. It is too plainly partial to England. It proposes that the force of the Armed Neutrality should be employed in recovering to England the islands she has lost, and the compensation which it is proposed that England should give for this service is the islands which they may conquer for themselves, with the assistance of England indeed, from France and Spain. There seems to me besides to be some inconsistency in the argument. If it be just to emancipate the continent of America from the dominion of every European power, how can it be just to subject the islands to such dominion? and if the monopoly of the trade of the continent be contrary to the rights of mankind, how can that of the islands be agreeable to these rights? The real futility of all distant dominions, of which the defence is necessarily most expensive, and which contribute nothing, either by revenue or military forces, to the general defence of the empire, and very little even to their own particular defence, is, I think, the subject on which the public prejudices of Europe require most to be set right. In order to defend the barren rock of Gibraltar (to the possession of which we owe the union of France and Spain, contrary to the natural interests and inveterate prejudices of both countries, the important enmity of Spain and the futile and expensive friendship of Portugal) we have now left our own coasts defenceless, and sent out a great fleet, to which any considerable disaster may prove fatal to our domestic security; and which, in order to effectuate its purpose, must probably engage a fleet of superior force. Sore eyes have made me delay writing to you so long. --I ever am, my dear sir, your most faithful and affectionate humble servant, ADAM SMITH. 

 CUSTOM HOUSE, EDINBURGH, _14th October 1782_. [324]

The strong opinion expressed in this letter of the uselessness ofcolonial dependencies, which contributed nothing to the maintenance ofthe mother country, had of course been already expressed in the_Wealth of Nations_. "Perish uncontributing colonies" is the very pithof the last sentence of that work. "If any of the provinces of theBritish Empire cannot be made to contribute towards the support of thewhole empire, it is surely time that Great Britain should free herselffrom the expense of defending those provinces in time of war and ofsupporting any part of their civil or military establishments in timeof peace; and endeavour to accommodate her future views and designs tothe real mediocrity of her circumstances. "

The principles of free trade presently got an impetus from theconclusion of peace with America and France in 1783. Lord Shelburnewrote Abbé Morellet in 1783 that the treaties of that year wereinspired from beginning to end by "the great principle of free trade, "and that "a peace was good in the exact proportion that it recognisedthat principle. " A fitting opportunity was thought to have arisen formaking somewhat extended applications of the principle, and manyquestions were asked about how far such applications should go in thisdirection or that. When the American Intercourse Bill was before theHouse in 1783, one of Lord Shelburne's colleagues in the Ministry, William Eden, approached Smith in considerable perplexity as to thewisdom of conceding to the new republic free commercial intercoursewith this country and our colonies. Eden had already done somethingfor free trade in Ireland, and he was presently to earn a name as agreat champion of that principle, after successfully negotiating withDupont de Nemours the Commercial Treaty with France in 1786; but in1787 he had not accepted the principle so completely as his chief, Lord Shelburne. Perhaps, indeed, he never took a firm hold of theprinciple at any time, for Smith always said of him, "He is but a manof detail. "[325] Anyhow, when he wrote Smith in 1783 he was underserious alarm at the proposal to give the United States the samefreedom to trade with Canada and Nova Scotia as we enjoyed ourselves. Being so near those colonies, the States would be sure to oust GreatBritain and Ireland entirely out of the trade of provisioning them. The Irish fisheries would be ruined, the English carrying trade wouldbe lost. The Americans, with fur at their doors, could easily beat usin hats, and if we allowed them to import our tools free, they wouldbeat us in everything else for which they had the raw materials inplenty. Eden and Smith seem to have exchanged several letters on thissubject, but none of them remain except the following one from Smith, in which he declares that it would be an injustice to our own coloniesto restrict their trade with the United States merely to benefit Irishfish-curers or English hatters, and to be bad policy to impose specialdiscouragements on the trade of one foreign nation which are notimposed on the trade of others. His argument is not, it will beobserved, for free trade, which he perhaps thought then impracticable, but merely for equality of treatment, --equality of treatment betweenthe British subject in Canada and the British subject in England, andequality of treatment between the American nation and the Russian, orFrench, or Spanish. 

 DEAR SIR--If the Americans really mean to subject the goods of all different nations to the same duties and to grant them the same indulgence, they set an example of good sense which all other nations ought to imitate. At any rate it is certainly just that their goods, their naval stores for example, should be subjected to the same duties to which we subject those of Russia, Sweden, and Denmark, and that we should treat them as they mean to treat us and all other nations. 

 What degree of commercial connection we should allow between the remaining colonies, whether in North America or the West Indies, and the United States may to some people appear a more difficult question. My own opinion is that it should be allowed to go on as before, and whatever inconveniences result from this freedom may be remedied as they occur. The lumber and provisions of the United States are more necessary to our West India Islands than the rum and sugar of the latter are to the former. Any interruption or restraint of commerce would hurt our loyal much more than our revolted subjects. Canada and Nova Scotia cannot justly be refused at least the same freedom of commerce which we grant to the United States. 

 I suspect the Americans do not mean what they say. I have seen a Revenue Act of South Carolina by which two shillings are laid upon every hundredweight of brown sugar imported from the British plantations, and only eighteenpence upon that imported from any foreign colony. Upon every pound of refined sugar from the former one penny, from the latter one halfpenny. Upon every gallon of French wine twopence; of Spanish wine threepence; of Portuguese wine fourpence. 

 I have little anxiety about what becomes of the American commerce. By an equality of treatment of all nations we must soon open a commerce with the neighbouring nations of Europe infinitely more advantageous than that of so distant a country as America. This is an immense subject upon which when I wrote to you last I intended to have sent you a letter of many sheets, but as I expect to see you in a few weeks I shall not trouble you with so tedious a dissertation. I shall only say at present that every extraordinary, either encouragement or discouragement that is given to the trade of any country more than to that of another may, I think, be demonstrated to be in every case a complete piece of dupery, by which the interest of the state and the nation is constantly sacrificed to that of some particular class of traders. I heartily congratulate you upon the triumphant manner in which the East India Bill has been carried through the Lower House. I have no doubt of its passing through the Upper House in the same manner. The decisive judgment and resolution with which Mr. Fox has introduced and supported that Bill does him the highest honour. --I ever am, with the greatest respect and esteem, dear sir, your most affectionate and most humble servant, ADAM SMITH. 

 EDINBURGH, _15th December 1783_. [326]

Fox's East India Bill, of which Smith expresses such unqualifiedcommendation, proposed to transfer the government of British Indiafrom the Court of Directors of the East India Company to a new boardof Crown nominees. This measure was entirely to Smith's mind. He hadalready in the former editions of his book condemned the companywhich, as he says, "oppresses and domineers in India, " and in theadditional matter which he wrote about the company immediately beforethis bill was introduced he declared of them that "no other sovereignsever were, or, from the nature of things, ever could be, so perfectlyindifferent about the happiness or misery of their subjects, theimprovement or waste of their dominions, the glory or disgrace oftheir administration, as, from irresistible moral causes, the greaterpart of the proprietors of such a mercantile company are andnecessarily must be. "

FOOTNOTES:

[322] Lady Minto's _Life of the Earl of Minto_, i. 84. 

[323] Add. MSS. , 5035. 

[324] _Correspondence of Sir John Sinclair_, i. 389. 

[325] Mackintosh, _Miscellaneous Works_, iii. 17. 

[326] _Journals and Correspondence of Lord Auckland_, i. 64. 

CHAPTER XXVII

BURKE IN SCOTLAND

1784-1785

Burke had been elected Lord Rector of the University of Glasgow inNovember 1783 in succession to Dundas, and he came down to Scotland tobe installed in the following April. He spent altogether eight or tendays in the country, and he spent them all in the company of Smith, who attended him wherever he went. Burke and Smith, always profoundadmirers of one another's writings, had grown warm friends during therecent lengthened residence of the latter in London. Even in thebrilliant circle round the brown table in Gerrard Street there wasnone Burke loved or esteemed more highly than Smith. One of thestatesman's biographers informs us, on the authority of an eminentliterary friend, who paid him a visit at Beaconsfield after hisretirement from public life, that he then spoke with the warmestadmiration of Smith's vast learning, his profound understanding, andthe great importance of his writings, and added that his heart was asgood and rare as his head, and that his manners were "peculiarlypleasing. "[327] Smith on his part was drawn to Burke by no lesspowerful an attraction. He once paid him a compliment with which thelatter appears to have been particularly gratified, for he repeated itto his literary friend on this same occasion. "Burke, " said theeconomist, "is the only man I ever knew who thinks on economicsubjects exactly as I do, without any previous communications havingpassed between us. "[328]

The installation of Lord Rector was to take place on Saturday the 10thof April, and Burke arrived in Edinburgh on Tuesday or Wednesdayprevious. Whether he was Smith's guest while there I am unable to say, but at any rate it was Smith who did the honours of the town to him, and accompanied him wherever he went. Dalzel, the Greek professor, gives an account of the statesman's visit, to his old friend andclass-fellow, Sir Robert Liston, and states that "Lord Maitlandattended him constantly and Mr. Adam Smith. They brought him, " headds, "to my house the day after he arrived. " Lord Maitland was theeldest son of the Earl of Lauderdale, and became a well-known figureboth in politics and in scientific economics after he succeeded to thepeerage himself. I have already mentioned him for his admiration ofSmith, and his defence of him from the disparaging remarks of Fox, though he was himself no blind follower of the _Wealth of Nations_, but one of the earliest and not the least acute of the critics of thatwork. He was at this time one of the rising hopes of the Whigs in theHouse of Commons, which he had entered as representative of a Cornishborough in 1780. Dalzel had been his tutor, and had accompanied him inthat capacity to Oxford; and being also a great favourite with Smith, whom he respected above all things for his knowledge of Greek, he wasnaturally among the first of the eminent citizens to whom theyintroduced their distinguished guest. 

On Thursday morning Burke and Smith went out with Lord Maitland toHatton, the Lauderdale seat in Midlothian, to dine and stay the nightthere on their way to Glasgow, and Dugald Stewart and Dalzel joinedthem later in the day after they had finished their college classes. The conversation happened very naturally to touch on party prospects, for they were at the moment in the thick of a general election--thefamous election of 1784, so fatal to the Whigs, when near 160supporters of the Coalition Ministry--"Fox's martyrs"--lost theirseats, and Pitt was sent back with an enormous majority behind him. Parliament had been dissolved a fortnight before, and many of theelections were already past; Burke himself had been returned forMalton on his way north, but the battle was still raging; inWestminster, where the Whig chief was himself fighting, it lasted amonth longer, and in many other constituencies the event was as yetundecided. As far as returns had been made, however, things had gonehard with the Whigs, and Burke was despondent. He had been some twentyyears in public life without his party being in power as many months, and since the party seemed now doomed, as indeed it was, to twentyyears of opposition again, he turned to Lord Maitland and said, "LordMaitland, if you want to be in office, if you have any ambition orwish to be successful in life, shake us off, give us up. " But Smithintervened, and with singular hopefulness ventured to prophesy that intwo years things would certainly come round again. "Why, " repliedBurke, "I have already been in a minority nineteen years, and your twoyears, Mr. Smith, will just make me twenty-one, and it will surely behigh time for me to be then in my majority. "[329]

Smith's hearty remark implies his continued loyalty to theRockinghams, and shows that just as he two years before approved oftheir separation from Lord Shelburne, which many Whig critics havecensured, so he now equally approved of their coalition with their oldadversary, Lord North, which Whig critics have censured more severelystill. But his sanguine forecast was far astray. Burke never againreturned to office, and the whole conversation reads strangely in thelight of subsequent events. Only a few years more and Burke hadhimself shaken off his friends--from no view to power, it istrue--and the young nobleman to whom he gave the advice in jest was totake the lead in avenging the desertion, and to denounce the pensionit was proposed to give him as the wages of apostasy. The FrenchRevolution, which drove Burke back to a more conservative position, carried Lord Maitland, who had drunk in Radicalism from Professor JohnMillar, forward into the republican camp. He went over to Paris withDugald Stewart and harangued the mob on the streets _pour laliberté_, [330] and he said one day to the Duchess of Gordon, "I hope, madame, ere long to have the pleasure of introducing Mrs. Maitland toMrs. Gordon. "[331]

On the present occasion at Hatton, however, they were all one in theirlamentations over the temporary eclipse the cause of liberty hadsuffered. On the following morning they all set out together forGlasgow, Stewart and Dalzel being able to accompany them because itwas Good Friday, and Good Friday was then a holiday at EdinburghUniversity. They supped that evening with Professor John Millar, Smith's pupil and Lord Maitland's master, and next day they assistedat the ceremony of installation. The chief business was of course theRector's address, described in the _Annual Register_ of the year as "avery polite and elegant speech suited to the occasion. " Tradition saysBurke broke down in this speech, and after speaking five minutesconcluded abruptly by saying he was unable to proceed, as he had neveraddressed so learned an audience before; but though the tradition ismentioned by Jeffrey, who was a student at Glasgow only three yearsafterwards, and is more definitely stated by Professor Young of thesame University in his _Lectures on Intellectual Philosophy_ (p. 334), there appears to be no solid foundation for it whatever. It is notmentioned by Dalzel, who would be unlikely to omit so interesting acircumstance in the gossiping account of the affair which he gives inhis letter to Sir R. Liston. 

After the installation they adjourned to the College chapel for divineservice, where they heard a sermon from Professor Arthur, and thenthey dined in the College Hall. On Sunday Stewart and Dalzel returnedto Edinburgh for their classes next day, but Smith and Lord Maitlandaccompanied Burke on an excursion to Loch Lomond, of which we knowSmith was a great admirer. He said to Samuel Rogers it was the finestlake in Great Britain, and the feature that pleased him particularlywas the contrast between the islands and the shore. [332] They did notreturn to Edinburgh till Wednesday, and they returned then by way ofCarron, probably to see the ironworks. On Thursday evening they dinedat Smith's, Dalzel being again of the party. Burke seems to have beenat his best--"the most agreeable and entertaining man in conversationI ever knew, " says Dalzel. "We got a vast deal of political anecdotesfrom him, and fine pictures of political characters both dead andliving. Whether they were impartially drawn or not, that isquestionable, but they were admirably drawn. "[333]

The elections were still proceeding, and the 29th of April was fixedfor the election in Lanarkshire, which had been represented for theprevious ten years by a strong personal friend of Smith, Andrew Stuartof Torrance. I have already mentioned Stuart's name in connection withhis candidature for the Indian Commissionership, for which Sir WilliamPulteney thought of proposing Smith. Though now forgotten, he was anotable person in his day. He came first strongly into public noticeduring the proceedings in the Douglas cause. Having, as law-agent forthe Duke of Hamilton, borne the chief part in preparing the Hamiltonside of the case, he was attacked in the House of Lords--and attackedwith quite unusual virulence--both by Thurlow, the counsel for theother side, and by Lord Mansfield, one of the judges; and he met thoseattacks by fighting a duel with Thurlow, and writing a series ofletters to Lord Mansfield, which obtained much attention and won him ahigh name for ability. Shortly thereafter--in 1774--he enteredParliament as member for Lanarkshire, and made such rapid mark that hewas appointed a Commissioner of Trade and Plantations in 1779, andseemed destined to higher office. But now in 1784, on the very eve ofthe election, Stuart suddenly retired from the field, in consequenceapparently of some personal considerations arising between himself andthe Duke of Hamilton. He was extremely anxious to have his reasons forthis unexpected step immediately and fully explained to his personalfriends in Edinburgh, and on the 22nd of April--the day before hewrote his resignation--he sent his whole correspondence with the Dukeof Hamilton about the matter through to John Davidson, W. S. , for theirperusal, and especially, it would appear, for the perusal of Smith, the only one he names. "There is particularly, " he says, "one friend, Mr. Adam Smith, whom I wish to be fully informed of everything. " Beingthe only friend specifically named in the letter, Smith seems to havebeen consulted by Davidson as to any other "particular friends" towhom the correspondence should be submitted, and he wrote Davidson onthe 7th of May 1784 advising him to show it to Campbell of Stonefield, one of the Lords of Session, and a brother-in-law of Lord Bute. Hesays--

 My Lord Stonefield is an old attached and faithful friend of A. Stuart. The papers relative to the County of Lanark may safely be communicated to him. He is perfectly convinced of the propriety of what you and I agreed upon, that the subject ought to be talked of as little as possible, and never but among his most intimate and cordial friends. 

 A. SMITH. 

 _Friday, 7th May_. [334]

After being brightened by the agreeable visit of Burke, Smith waspresently cast into the deepest sadness by what seems to have been thefirst trouble of his singularly serene and smooth life--the death ofhis mother. She died on the 23rd of May, in her ninetieth year. Thethree avenues to Smith, says the Earl of Buchan, were always hismother, his books, and his political opinions--his mother apparentlyfirst of all. They had lived together, off and on, for sixty years, and being most tenderly attached to her, he is said, after her death, never to have seemed the same again. According to Ramsay ofOchtertyre, he was so disconsolate that people in general could findno explanation except in his supposed unbelief in the resurrection. Hesorrowed, they said, as those who have no hope. People in generalwould seem to have little belief in the natural affections; but whilethey extracted from Smith's filial love a proof of his infidelity, Archdeacon John Sinclair seeks to extract from it a demonstration ofhis religious faith. It appears that when Mrs. Smith was visited onher deathbed by her minister, her famous son always remained in theroom and joined in the prayers, though they were made in the name andfor the sake of Christ; and the worthy Archdeacon thinks no infidelwould have done that. 

The depression Smith showed after his mother's death, however, wasunfortunately due in part to the fact that his own health wasbeginning to fail. He was now sixty-one; as Stewart tells us, he agedvery rapidly, and in two years more he was in the toils of the maladythat carried him off. The shock of his mother's death could not helptherefore telling severely upon him in his declining bodily condition. 

Burke was--no doubt at Smith's instance--elected Fellow of the RoyalSociety of Edinburgh in June 1784, in spite of several black balls;for, as Dalzel observes, "it would seem that there are some violentpoliticians among us"; and in August 1785 he was again in Scotlandattending to the duties of his Rectorship. He was accompanied thistime by Windham, who was the most attached and the most beloved of hispolitical disciples, and who had been a student at Glasgow himself in1766. If Dalzel was delighted with Burke, he was enchanted withWindham, for, says he to Liston, "besides his being a polite man and aman of the world, he is perhaps the very best Greek scholar I ever metwith. He did me the honour of breakfasting with me one morning, andsat for three hours talking about Greek. When we were at Hatton he andI stole away as often as we could from the rest of the company to readand talk about Greek. .. . You may judge how I would delight in him. "Smith was not at Hatton with them this time, but he saw much of themin Edinburgh. 

Smith had probably known Windham already, but at any rate, as soon asBurke and he arrived in Edinburgh on the 24th of August and took theirquarters in Dun's Hotel, they paid a visit to Smith, and next day theydined with him at his house. Among the guests mentioned by Windham asbeing present were Robertson; Henry Erskine, who had recently beenBurke's colleague in the Coalition Ministry as Lord Advocate; and Mr. Cullen, probably the doctor, though it may have been his son(afterwards a judge), who lives in fame chiefly for his feats as amimic. Windham gives us no scrap of their conversation except a fewremarks of Robertson about Holyrood; and though he says he recollectedno one else of the company except those he has mentioned, there was atleast one other guest whose presence there that evening he was shortlyafterwards to have somewhat romantic occasion to recall. This was SirJohn Sinclair, who had just re-entered Parliament for a constituencyat the Land's End, after having been defeated in the Wick burghs byFox. Burke and Windham proposed making a tour in the Highlands, andSir John advised them strongly, when they came to the beautifuldistrict between Blair-Athole and Dunkeld, to leave their post-chaisefor that stage and walk through the woods and glens on foot. Theytook the advice, and about ten miles from Dunkeld came upon a younglady, the daughter of a neighbouring proprietor, reading a novel undera tree. They entered into conversation with her, and Windham was somuch struck with her smartness and talent that though he was obligedat the time, as he said, most reluctantly to leave her, he, threeyears afterwards, came to Sinclair in the House of Commons and said tohim, "I have never been able to get this beautiful mountain nymph outof my mind, and I wish you to ascertain whether she is married orsingle. " Windham was too late. She was already married to Dr. Dick--afterwards a much-trusted medical adviser of Sir WalterScott--and had gone with her husband to the East Indies. 

They returned to Edinburgh on the 13th of September, and, saysWindham, "after dinner walked to Adam Smith's. Felt strongly theimpression of a family completely Scotch. House magnificent and placefine. .. . Found there Colonels Balfour and Ross, the former lateaide-de-camp to General Howe, the latter to Lord Cornwallis. Feltstrongly the impression of a company completely Scotch. "

Colonel Nesbit Balfour, who won great distinction in the American war, was the son of one of Smith's old Fifeshire neighbours, a proprietorin that county, and became afterwards well known in Parliament, wherehe sat from 1790 to 1812. Colonel (afterwards General) Alexander Rosshad also taken a distinguished part in the American war, and wasCornwallis's most intimate friend and correspondent. He was at thistime Deputy-Adjutant-General of the Forces in Scotland. Whether he wasa relation of the Colonel Patrick Ross of whom Smith speaks in one ofhis letters as a kinsman of his own, [335] I cannot say. 

Next day, the 14th, Burke and Windham dined with Smith. There was noother guest except a Mr. Skene, no doubt one of Smith's cousins fromPitlour, probably the Inspector-General of Scotch Roads alreadymentioned. [336] On the following morning the two statesmen proceededon their way southward. 

One of the visits Burke paid in Edinburgh was to a charming poet, towhom fortune has been singularly unkind, not only treating him cruellywhen alive, but instead of granting the usual posthumous reparation, treating him even more cruelly after his death. I mean John Logan, theauthor of the _Ode to the Cuckoo_, which Burke thought the mostbeautiful lyric in the language. Logan was at the moment in the thickof his troubles. He had written a tragedy called _Runnymede_, which, though accepted by the management of Covent Garden, was prohibited bythe Lord Chamberlain, who scented current politics in the boldspeeches of the Barons of King John, but it was eventually produced inthe Edinburgh theatre in 1783. Its production immediately involved theauthor, as one of the ministers of Leith, in difficulties with hisparishioners and the ecclesiastical courts similar to those which JohnHome had encountered twenty years before, and the trouble ended inLogan resigning his charge in December 1786 on a pension of £40 ayear. Smith, who was an admirer and, as Dr. Carlyle mentions to BishopDouglas, a "great patron" of Logan, stood by him through thesetroubles. When they first broke out in 1783 he wished, as Loganhimself tells his old pupil Sir John Sinclair, to get the poettransferred if possible from his parish in Leith to the more liberaland enlightened parish of the Canongate, and when Logan eventuallymade up his mind to take refuge in literature, Smith gave him thefollowing letter of introduction to Andrew Strahan, who had, since hisfather's death, become the head of the firm:--

 DEAR SIR--Mr. Logan, a clergyman of uncommon learning, taste, and ingenuity, but who cannot easily submit to the puritanical spirit of this country, quits his charge and proposes to settle in London, where he will probably exercise what may be called the trade of a man of letters. He has published a few poems, of which several have great merit, and which are probably not unknown to you. He has likewise published a tragedy, which I cannot say I admire in the least. He has another in manuscript, founded and almost translated from a French drama, which is much better. But the best of all his works which I have seen are some lectures upon universal history, which were read here some years ago, but which, notwithstanding they were approved and even admired by some of the best and most impartial judges, were run down by the prevalence of a hostile literary faction, to the leaders of which he had imprudently given some personal offence. Give me leave to recommend him most earnestly to your countenance and protection. If he was employed on a review he would be an excellent hand for giving an account of all books of taste, of history, and of moral and abstract philosophy. --I ever am, my dear sir, most faithfully and affectionately yours, ADAM SMITH. [337]

 EDINBURGH, _29th September 1785_. 

The lectures which Smith praises so highly were published in 1779, andare interesting as one of the first adventures in what was afterwardsknown as the philosophy of history. But his memory rests now on hispoems, which Smith thought less of, and especially on his _Ode to theCuckoo_, which he has been accused so often of stealing from hisdeceased friend Michael Bruce, but to which his title has at last beenput beyond all doubt by Mr. Small's publication of a letter, writtento Principal Baird in 1791, by Dr. Robertson of Dalmeny, who acted asjoint editor with him of their common friend Bruce's poems. [338]

FOOTNOTES:

[327] Bisset's _Life of Burke_, ii. 429. 

[328] Bisset's _Life of Burke_, ii. 429. 

[329] Innes's Memoir of Dalzel in Dalzel's _History of University ofEdinburgh_, i. 42. 

[330] Add. MSS. , 32, 567. 

[331] Best's _Anecdotes_, p. 25. 

[332] Clayden's _Early Life of Samuel Rogers_, p. 92. 

[333] Dalzel's _History of the University of Edinburgh_, i. 42. 

[334] Edinburgh University Library. 

[335] See above, p. 361. 

[336] See above, p. 243. 

[337] Morrison MSS. 

[338] Small, _Michael Bruce and the Ode to the Cuckoo_, p. 7. 

CHAPTER XXVIII

THE POPULATION QUESTION

Dr. Richard Price had recently stirred a sensation by his attempt toprove that the population of England was declining, and had actuallydeclined by nearly 30 per cent since the Revolution, and the first toenter the lists against him was William Eden, who in his _Fifth Letterto the Earl of Carlisle_, published in 1780, exposes the weakness ofPrice's statistics, and argues that both the population and the tradeof the country had increased. Price replied to these criticisms in thesame year, and now in 1785 Eden appears to have been contemplating areturn to the subject and the publication of another work upon it, inconnection with which he entered upon a correspondence with Smith, forthe two following letters bearing on this population question of lastcentury, though neither of them bears any name or address, seem mostlikely to have been written to that politician. 

Price had drawn his alarmist conclusions from rough estimates foundedon the revenue returns. From a comparison of the hearth-money returnsbefore the Revolution with the window and house tax returns of his owntime he guessed at the number of dwelling-houses in the country, andfrom the number of dwelling-houses he guessed at the number ofinhabitants by simply supposing each house to contain five persons. Hefurther tried to support his conclusion by figures drawn from bills ofmortality and by references to colonial emigration, consolidation offarms, the growth of London, and the progress of luxury. 

Smith thought very poorly of those ill-founded speculations, and evenof their author generally, and he appears to have called Eden'sattention to a population return relative to Scotland which furnisheda sounder basis for a just estimate of the numbers of the people thanthe statistics on which Price relied. This was a return of the numberof examinable persons in every parish of Scotland which had beenobtained in 1755 by Dr. Alexander Webster, at the desire of LordPresident Dundas, for the information of the Government. Publiccatechisings were then, and in many parishes are still, part of theordinary duties of the minister, who visited each hamlet and districtof his parish successively for the purpose every year, andconsequently every minister kept a list of the examinable persons inhis parish--the persons who were old enough to answer his questions onthe Bible or Shorter Catechism. None were too old to be exempt. Webster procured copies of these lists for every parish in Scotland, and when he added to each a certain proportion to represent the numberof persons under examinable age, he had a fairly accurate statement ofthe population of the country. He appears to have procured the listsfor 1779 as well as those for 1755, and to have ascertained from acomparison of the two that the population of Scotland had remainedvirtually stationary during that quarter of a century, the increase inthe commercial and manufacturing districts being counterbalanced by adiminution in the purely agricultural districts, due to theconsolidation of farms. That, at least, was the impression of theofficials of the Ministers' Widows' Fund, through whom thecorrespondence on the subject with the ministers had beenconducted; and they threw doubt on an observation of a contraryimport--apparently to the effect that the population of Scotland wasincreasing--which Smith heard Webster make in one of those hours ofmerriment for which that popular and useful divine seems destined tobe remembered when his public services are forgotten. 

Smith's first letter runs thus:--

 SIR--I have been so long in answering your very obliging letter of the 8th inst. That I am afraid you will imagine I have been forgetting or neglecting it. I hoped to send one of the accounts by the post after I received your letter, but some difficulties have occurred which I was not aware of, and you may yet be obliged to wait a few days for it. In the meantime I send you a note extracted from Mr. Webster's book by his clerk, who was of great use to him in composing it, and who has made several corrections upon it since. 

 My letters as a Commissioner of the Customs are paid at the Custom House, and my correspondents receive them duty free. I should otherwise have taken the liberty to enclose them, as you direct, under Mr. Rose's cover. It may perhaps give that gentleman pleasure to be informed that the net revenue arising from the customs in Scotland is at least four times greater than it was seven or eight years ago. It has been increasing rapidly these four or five years past, and the revenue of this year has overleaped by at least one-half the revenue of the greatest former year. I flatter myself it is likely to increase still further. The development of the causes of this augmentation would require a longer discussion than this letter will admit. 

 Price's speculations cannot fail to sink into the neglect that they have always deserved. I have always considered him as a factious citizen, a most superficial philosopher, and by no means an able calculator. --I have the honour to be, with great respect and esteem, sir, your most faithful humble servant, ADAM SMITH. 

 CUSTOM HOUSE, EDINBURGH, _22nd December 1785_. 

 I shall certainly think myself very much honoured by any notice you may think proper to take of my book. [339]

The second letter followed in a few days:--

 EDINBURGH, _3rd January 1786_. 

 SIR--The accounts of the imports and exports of Scotland which you wanted are sent by this day's post to Mr. Rose. 

 Since I wrote to you last I have conversed with Sir Henry Moncreiff, Dr. Webster's successor as collector of the fund for the maintenance of clergymen's widows, and with his clerk, who was likewise clerk to Dr. Webster, and who was of great use to the Doctor in the composition of the very book which I mentioned to you in a former letter. They are both of opinion that the conversation I had with Dr. Webster a few months before his death must have been the effect of a momentary and sudden thought, and not of any serious or deliberate consideration or inquiry. It was, indeed, at a very jolly table and in the midst of much mirth and jollity, of which the worthy Doctor, among many other useful and amiable qualities, was a very great lover and promoter. They told me that in the year 1779 a copy of the Doctor's book was made out by his clerk for the use of my Lord North. That at the end of that book the Doctor had subjoined a note to the following purpose, that though between 1755 and 1779 the numbers in the great trading and manufacturing towns and villages were considerably increased, yet the Highlands and Islands were much depopulated, and even the low country, by the enlargement of farms, in some degree; so that the whole numbers, he imagined, must be nearly the same at both periods. Both these gentlemen believe that this was the last deliberate judgment which Dr. Webster ever formed upon this subject. The lists mentioned in the note are the lists of what are called examinable persons--that is, of persons upwards of seven or eight years of age, who are supposed fit to be publicly examined upon religious and moral subjects. Most of our country clergy keep examination rolls of this kind. 

 My Lord North will, I dare to say, be happy to accommodate you with the use of this book. It is a great curiosity, though the conversation I mentioned to you had a little shaken my faith in it--I am glad now to suppose, without much reason. --I have the honour to be, with the highest regard, sir, your most obedient humble servant, ADAM SMITH. [340]

A new edition of the _Wealth of Nations_--the fourth--appeared in1786, without any alteration in the text from the previous one, butthe author prefixed to it an advertisement acknowledging the verygreat obligations he had been under to Mr. Henry Hope, the banker atAmsterdam, for (to quote the words of the advertisement) "the mostdistinct as well as the most liberal information concerning a veryinteresting and important subject, the Bank of Amsterdam, of which noprinted account has ever appeared to me satisfactory or evenintelligible. The name of that gentleman is so well known in Europe, the information which comes from him must do so much honour to whoeverhas been favoured with it, and my vanity is so much interested inmaking this acknowledgment, that I can no longer refuse myself thepleasure of prefixing this advertisement to this new edition of mybook. "

Smith had now, as he says in the following letter, reached his grandclimacteric--his sixty-third year, according to the old belief, thelast and most dangerous of the periodical crises to which man's bodilylife was supposed to be subject--and the winter of 1786-87 laid him solow with a chronic obstruction of the bowels that Robertson wroteGibbon they were in great danger of losing him. That was the winterBurns was in Edinburgh, and it was doubtless owing to this illness andSmith's consequent inability to go into society, that he and the poetnever met. Burns obtained a letter of introduction to Smith from theircommon friend Mrs. Dunlop, but writes her on the 19th of April thatwhen he called he found Smith had gone to London the day before, having recovered, as we know he did, sufficiently in spring to go upthere for the purpose of consulting John Hunter. He was still inEdinburgh in March, however, and wrote Bishop Douglas a letterintroducing one of his Fifeshire neighbours, Robert Beatson, theauthor of the well-known and very useful _Political Index_. Beatsonhad been an officer of the Engineers, but had retired on half-pay in1766 and become an agriculturist in his native county. While there hecompiled his unique and valuable work, which he published in 1786 anddedicated to his old friend Adam Smith. A new edition was called forwithin a year, and the author proposed to add some new matter, onwhich he desired the advice of Bishop Douglas. Hence this letter:--

 DEAR SIR--This letter will be delivered to you by Mr. Robert Beatson of Vicars Grange, in Fifeshire, a very worthy friend of mine, and my neighbour in the country for more than ten years together. He has lately published a very useful book called a Political Index, which has been very successful, and which he now proposes to republish with some additions. He wishes much to have your good advice with regard to these additions, and indeed with regard to every other part of his book. And indeed, without flattering you, I know no man so fit to give him good advice upon this subject. May I therefore beg leave to introduce him to your acquaintance, and to recommend him most earnestly to your best advice and assistance. You will find him a very good-natured, well-informed, inoffensive, and obliging companion. 

 I was exceedingly vexed and not a little offended when I heard that you had passed through this town some time ago without calling upon me, or letting me know that you was in our neighbourhood. My anger, however, which was very fierce, is now a good deal abated, and if you promise to behave better for the future, it is not impossible that I may forgive the past. 

 This year I am in my grand climacteric, and the state of my health has been a good deal worse than usual. I am getting better and better, however, every day, and I begin to flatter myself that with good pilotage I shall be able to weather this dangerous promontory of human life, after which I hope to sail in smooth water for the remainder of my days. --I am ever, my dear sir, most faithfully and affectionately yours, ADAM SMITH. 

 EDINBURGH, _6th March 1787_. [341]

FOOTNOTES:

[339] Original in possession of Mr. Alfred Morrison. 

[340] Original in Edinburgh University Library. 

[341] Egerton MSS. , British Museum, 2181. 

CHAPTER XXIX

VISIT TO LONDON

1787. _Aet. _ 64

In April he had improved enough to undertake the journey to London toconsult Hunter, but he was wasted to a skeleton. WilliamPlayfair--brother of his friend the Professor of Mathematics, andafterwards one of the early editors of the _Wealth of Nations_--methim soon after his arrival in London, and says he was looking veryill, and was evidently going to decay. While in his usual health hewas, though not corpulent, yet rather stout than spare, but he was nowreduced to skin and bone. He was able, however, to move about insociety and see old friends and make new. Windham in his Diarymentions meeting him at several different places, and he was nowintroduced for the first time to the young statesman who was only astudent in the Temple when he was last in London in 1777, but who wasalready one of the most powerful ministers England had ever seen, andwas at the moment reforming the national finances with the _Wealth ofNations_ in his hand. Pitt always confessed himself one of Smith'smost convinced disciples. The first few years of his long ministry sawthe daybreak of free trade. He brought in a measure of commercialemancipation for Ireland; he carried a commercial treaty with France;he passed, in accordance with Smith's recommendations, lawssimplifying the collection and administration of the revenue. In thisvery year 1787 he introduced his great Consolidation Bill, whichcreated order out of the previous chaos of customs and excise, and wasso extensive a work that it took 2537 separate resolutions to stateits provisions, and these resolutions had only just been read on the7th of March, a few weeks before Smith arrived in London. 

No one in London therefore was more interested to meet Smith than theyoung minister who was carrying the economist's principles out soextensively in practical legislation. They met repeatedly, but theymet on one occasion, of which recollection has been preserved, atDundas's house on Wimbledon Green, --Addington, Wilberforce, andGrenville being also of the company; and it is said that when Smith, who was one of the last guests to arrive, entered the room, the wholecompany rose from their seats to receive him and remained standing. "Be seated, gentlemen, " said Smith. "No, " replied Pitt; "we will standtill you are first seated, for we are all your scholars. " This storyseems to rest on Edinburgh tradition, and was first published, so faras I know, in the 1838 edition of Kay's _Portraits_, more than half acentury after the date of the incident it relates. Most of thebiographies contained in that work were written by James Paterson, buta few of the earliest, including this of Smith, were not. They wereall written, however, from materials which had been long collected byKay himself, who only died in 1832, or which were obtained before thetime of publication from local residents who had known the menthemselves, or had mingled with those who did. The whole were editedby the well-known and learned antiquary, James Maidment, whoseacceptance of the story is some security that it came from anauthoritative though unnamed source. 

Smith was highly taken with Pitt, and one evening when dining withhim, he remarked to Addington after dinner, "What an extraordinary manPitt is; he understands my ideas better than I do myself. "[342] Otherstatesmen have been converts to free trade. Pitt never had any othercreed; it was his first faith. He was forming his opinions as a youngman when the _Wealth of Nations_ appeared, and he formed them uponthat work. Smith saw much of this group of statesmen during his visitto the capital in that year. [343] We find Wilberforce sounding himabout some of his philanthropic schemes, Addington writing an ode tohim after meeting him at Pitt's, and Pitt himself seeking his counselsconcerning some contemplated legislation, and perhaps setting him tosome task of investigation for his assistance. Bentham had in theearly part of 1787 sent from Russia the manuscript of his _Defence ofUsury_, written in antagonism to Smith's doctrine on the subject, tohis friend George Wilson, barrister, and Wilson a month or twolater--14th of July--writes of "Dr. Smith, " who can, I think, be noother than the economist: "Dr. Smith has been very ill here of aninflammation in the neck of the bladder, which was increased by verybad piles. He has been cut for the piles, and the other complaint issince much mended. The physicians say he may do some time longer. Heis much with the Ministry, and the clerks of the public offices haveorders to furnish him with all papers, and to employ additional hands, if necessary, to copy for him. I am vexed that Pitt should have doneso right a thing as to consult Smith, but if any of his schemes areeffectuated I shall be comforted. "[344] It may be, of course, thatSmith was examining papers in the public offices in connection withhis own work on Government, but Wilson's statement rather leaves theimpression that the researches were instituted in pursuance of someidea of Pitt's, probably related to the reform of the finances. If theDr. Smith of Wilson's letter is the economist, he would appear to havestayed in London a considerable time on this occasion, and to havesuffered a serious relapse of ill-health during his stay there. 

Wilberforce did not think quite so highly of Smith as Pitt did, beingdisappointed to find him too hard-headed to share his own enthusiasmabout a great philanthropic adventure of the day, which, to the verypractical mind of the economist, seemed entirely wanting in theordinary conditions of success. With some of the other philanthropicmovements in which Wilberforce was interested--with his anti-slaveryagitation, for example, begun in that very year 1787--he would havefound no more cordial sympathiser than Smith, who had condemnedslavery so strongly in his book. The Sunday school movement, too, started by Thomas Raikes two or three years before, won Smith'sstrongest commendation; for Raikes writes William Fox on 27th July ofthis same year, and writes as if the remark had been made inconversation with himself, "Dr. Adam Smith, who has very ably writtenon the Wealth of Nations, says: 'No plan has promised to effect achange of manners with equal ease and simplicity since the days of theApostles. '" These schools were instituted for the purpose of givinggratuitous instruction to all comers for four or five hours everySunday in the ordinary branches of primary education, and they wereopposed by some leading ecclesiastics--among others by a liberaldivine like Bishop Horsley--on the ground that they might becomesubservient to purposes of political propagandism. The ecclesiasticalmind is too often suspicious of the consequences of mental improvementand independence, but to Smith these were merely the first broadconditions of all popular progress. 

No man could be less chargeable with indifference to honest andpracticable schemes of philanthropy, but the particular scheme towardswhich Wilberforce found him "characteristically cool" was one which, in his opinion, held out extravagant expectations that could notpossibly be realised. It was a project--first suggested, I believe, bySir James Steuart, the economist, and taken up warmly after him by Dr. James Anderson, and especially by that earliest and most persistentof crofters' friends, John Knox, bookseller in the Strand--forchecking the depopulation and distress of the Scotch Highlands byplanting a series of fishing villages all round the Highland coast. Knox's idea was to plant forty fishing villages at spots twenty-fivemiles apart between the Mull of Cantyre and the Dornoch Firth at acost of £2000 apiece, or at least as many of them as money could beobtained to start; and the scheme rose high in public favour when theparliamentary committee on Scotch Fisheries gave it a generalrecommendation in 1785, and suggested the incorporation of a limitedliability company by Act of Parliament in order to carry it out. 

The Scotch nobility adopted the suggestion with great spirit, and in1786 the British Society for extending the Fisheries was incorporatedfor that purpose by Royal Charter with a capital of £150, 000, with theDuke of Argyle for Governor, and many leading personages, one of thembeing Wilberforce, for directors. It was indeed the grandphilanthropic scheme of the day. The shares were rapidly subscribedfor sufficiently to justify a start, and when Smith was in London in1787 the society had just begun operations on a paid-up capital of£35, 000. One of the directors, Isaac Hawkins Browne, M. P. , wasactually down in Scotland choosing the sites for the villages; andWilberforce was already almost hearing the "busy hum" of the littlehives of fishermen, coopers, boat-builders, and ropemakers, whom theywere settling along the desolate coasts. 

He naturally spoke to Smith about this large and generous project forthe benefit of his countrymen, but was disappointed to find him verysceptical indeed as to its practical results. "Dr. Smith, " writesWilberforce to Hawkins Browne, "with a certain characteristiccoolness, observed to me that he looked for no other consequence fromthe scheme than the entire loss of every shilling that should beexpended on it, granting, however, with uncommon candour, that thepublic would be no great sufferer, because he believed theindividuals meant to put their hands only in their own pockets. "[345]

The event, however, has justified the sagacity of Smith'sprognostication. The society began by purchasing the ground for threefishing settlements on the west coast, --one at Ullapool, inRoss-shire; a second at Lochbeg, in Inverness-shire; and a third atTobermory, in Argyle. They prepared their feuing plans, built a fewhouses at their own cost, tried to attract settlers by offeringbuilding feus at low rents and fishing-boats on credit at low rates, but, except to a slight extent at Ullapool, their offers were nottaken; not a single boat ever sailed from Tobermory under theirauspices, and before many years elapsed the society deserted thesethree original west coast stations and sold its interest in them at aloss of some £2000. But meanwhile the directors had in 1803 boughtland at a small port on the east coast, Wick, where a flourishingfishery with 400 boats had already been established by localenterprise without their aid, and they founded there the settlement ofPulteneytown (named by them after Smith's friend, Sir WilliamPulteney), which has grown with the industry of the port. The societynever again tried to resume its original purpose of creating newfishing centres, and here in Pulteneytown it has obviously only actedthe part of the shrewd building speculator, investing in theground-rents of a rising community and prudently helping in itsdevelopment. Through this change of purpose it has contrived to savesome of its capital, and having recently resolved to be wound up, itsold its whole estate in 1893 for £20, 000, and after all claims aremet may probably have £15, 000 of its original capital of £35, 000 leftto divide. The net result of the scheme therefore on the developmentof Highland fisheries has been as near _nil_ as Smith anticipated; andif the shareholders have not, as he predicted, lost every shilling oftheir money, they have lost half of it, and only saved the other halfby abandoning the scheme for which it was subscribed. In the wholecourse of its one hundred and eight years' existence the society neverpaid more than eleven annual dividends, because for many years itsaved up its income for building an extension to its harbour, andeventually lost all these savings and £100, 000 of Government moneybesides in a great breakwater, which proved an irremediableengineering failure, and lies now in the bottom of the sea. 

Smith returned to Edinburgh deeply pleased with the reception he metwith from the ministers and the progress he saw his principles making. He came back, says the Earl of Buchan, "a Tory and a Pittite insteadof a Whig and a Foxite, as he was when he set out. By and by theimpression wore off and his former sentiments returned, butunconnected either with Pitt, Fox, or anybody else. "[346] Had theimpression remained till his death, it would be no matter for wonder. A Liberal has little satisfaction in contemplating the conflict ofparties during the first years of Pitt's long administration, andseeing the young Tory minister introducing one great measure ofcommercial reform after another, while his own Whig chief, CharlesFox, offers to every one of them a most factious and unscrupulousopposition. 

Soon after his return Smith received another, and to him a verytouching, recognition of his merit in being chosen in November LordRector of his old alma mater, the University of Glasgow. Theappointment lay with the whole University, professors and studentstogether, but as the students had the advantage of numbers, thedecision was virtually in their hands, and their unanimous choice cameto Smith (as Carlyle said a similar choice came to him) at the end ofhis labours like a voice of "Well done" from the University which hadsent him forth to do them, and from the coming generation which was toenter upon the fruits of them. There was at first some word ofopposition to his candidature, on the good old electioneering pleathat he was the professors' nominee, and that it was essential for thestudents to resent dictation and assert their independence. One ofSmith's keenest opponents among the students was Francis Jeffrey, whowas then a Tory. Principal Haldane, who was also a student atGlasgow at the time, used to tell of seeing Jeffrey--a little, black, quick-motioned creature with a rapid utterance and aprematurely-developed moustache, on which his audience teased himmercilessly--haranguing a mob of boys on the green and trying to rousethem to their manifest duty of organising opposition to theprofessors' nominee. His exertions failed, however, and Smith waschosen without a contest. 

On receiving intimation of his appointment Smith wrote to PrincipalDavidson the following reply:--

 REVEREND AND DEAR SIR--I have this moment received the honour of your letter of the 15th instant. I accept with gratitude and pleasure the very great honour which the University of Glasgow have done me in electing me for the ensuing year to be the Rector of that illustrious Body. No preferment could have given me so much real satisfaction. No man can own greater obligations to a Society than I do to the University of Glasgow. They educated me, they sent me to Oxford, soon after my return to Scotland they elected me one of their own members, and afterwards preferred me to another office to which the abilities and virtues of the never-to-be-forgotten Dr. Hutcheson had given a superior degree of illustration. The period of thirteen years which I spent as a member of that Society, I remember as by far the most useful and therefore as by far the happiest and most honourable period of my life; and now, after three-and-twenty years' absence, to be remembered in so very agreeable a manner by my old friends and protectors gives me a heartfelt joy which I cannot easily express to you. 

 I shall be happy to receive the commands of my colleagues concerning the time when it may be convenient for them to do me the honour of admitting me to the office. Mr. Millar mentions Christmass. We have commonly at the Board of Customs a vacation of five or six days at that time. But I am so regular an attendant that I think myself entitled to take the play for a week at any time. It will be no inconveniency to me therefore to wait upon you at whatever time you please. I beg to be remembered to my colleagues in the most respectful and the most affectionate manner; and that you would believe me to be, with great truth, reverend and dear sir, your and their most obliged, most obedient, and most humble servant, ADAM SMITH. 

 EDINBURGH, _16th November 1787_. 

 The Rev. Dr. ARCHIBALD DAVIDSON, Principal of the College, Glasgow. [347]

He was installed as Rector on the 12th December 1787 with the usualceremonies. He gave no inaugural address, nor apparently so much as aformal word of thanks. At least Jeffrey, who might have been present, though he does not seem to speak from personal recollection, says heremained altogether silent. His predecessor, Graham of Gartmore, heldthe Rector's chair for only one year, but Smith, like Burke andDundas, was re-elected for a second term, and was Rector thereforefrom November 1787 till November 1789. 

One of the new friends Smith made during his last visit to London wasSir Joseph Banks, President of the Royal Society, who seems to haveshown him particular attentions; and shortly after his return he gavea young Scotch scientific man a letter of very warm recommendation toSir Joseph. The young man of science was John Leslie, afterwards SirJohn, the celebrated Professor of Natural Philosophy in EdinburghUniversity. Leslie, who belonged to the neighbourhood of Smith's owntown of Kirkcaldy, had been employed by him for the previous two yearsas tutor to his cousin and heir, David Douglas, and being thus a dailyvisitor at Smith's house, had won a high place in his affections andregard. Accordingly when Leslie in 1787 gave up his original idea ofentering the Church, and resolved to migrate to London with a view toliterary or scientific employment, Smith furnished him with a numberof letters of introduction, and, as Leslie informed the writer of hisbiography in Chambers's _Biographical Dictionary_, advised him, whenthe letter was addressed to an author, to be always sure to read thatauthor's book before presenting it, so as to be able to speak of thebook should a fit opportunity occur. The letter to Sir Joseph Banksruns as follows:--

 SIR--The very great politeness and attention with which you was so good as to honour me when I was last in London has emboldened me to use a freedom which I am afraid I am not entitled to, and to introduce to your acquaintance a young gentleman of very great merit, and who is very ambitious of being known to you. Mr. Leslie, the bearer of this letter, has been known to me for several years past. He has a very particular happy turn for the mathematical sciences. It is no more than two years and a half ago that he undertook the instruction of a young gentleman, my nearest relation, in some of the higher parts of these sciences, and acquitted himself most perfectly both to my satisfaction and to that of the young gentleman. He proposes to pursue the same lines in London, and would be glad to accept of employment in some of the mathematical academies. Besides his knowledge in mathematics he is, I am assured, a tolerable Botanist and Chymist. Your countenance and good opinion, provided you shall find he deserves them, may be of the highest importance to him. Give me leave, upon that condition, to recommend him in the most anxious and earnest manner to your protection. I have the honour to be, with the highest respect and regard, sir, your most obliged and most obedient humble servant, ADAM SMITH. [348]

 EDINBURGH, _18th December 178(sic)_. Sir JOSEPH BANKS. 

Why does so large a proportion of Smith's extant letters consist ofletters of introduction? Have they a better principle of vitality thanothers, that they should be more frequently preserved? There certainlyseems less reason to preserve them, but then there is also less reasonto destroy them. 

Smith's health appears to have improved so much during the spring of1788 that his friends, who, as we know from Robertson's letter toGibbon, had been seriously alarmed about his condition, were now againfree from anxiety. He seemed to them to be "perfectly re-established. "But in the autumn he suffered another great personal loss in the deathof his cousin, Miss Jean Douglas, who had lived under his roof for somany years. His home was now desolate. His mother and his cousin--thetwo lifelong companions of his hearth--were both gone; his young heirwas only with him during the vacations from Glasgow College, where hewas now living with Professor John Millar, and being a man for whomthe domestic affections went for so much, there seemed, amid all thehonour, love, obedience, troops of friends that enrich the close of animportant career, to remain a void in his life that could not befilled. 

Gibbon had sent him a present of the three concluding volumes of the_Decline and Fall_, and Smith writes him in November a brief letter ofthanks, in which he sets the English historian where he used to setVoltaire, at the head of all living men of letters. 

 EDINBURGH, _18th December 1788_. 

 MY DEAR FRIEND--I have ten thousand apologies to make for not having long ago returned you my best thanks for the very agreeable present you made me of the three last volumes of your History. I cannot express to you the pleasure it gives me to find that by the universal consent of every man of taste and learning whom I either know or correspond with, it sets you at the very head of the whole literary tribe at present existing in Europe. --I ever am, my dear friend, most affectionately yours, ADAM SMITH. [349]

In this letter Smith makes no complaint of his condition of health, but he seems to have got worse again in the course of the winter, forwe find Gibbon writing Cadell, the bookseller, with some apparentanxiety on the 11th of February 1789: "If you can send me a goodaccount of Adam Smith, there is no man more sincerely interested inhis welfare than myself. " If, however, he were ill then, he recoveredin the summer, and was in excellent spirits in July, when SamuelRogers saw him often during a week he spent in Edinburgh. 

FOOTNOTES:

[342] Pellew's _Life of Sidmouth_, i. 151. 

[343] Wilberforce's _Correspondence_, i. 40. 

[344] Bowring's Memoir of Bentham, Bentham's _Works_, x. 173. 

[345] Wilberforce's _Correspondence_, i. 40. 

[346] The _Bee_, vol. In. P. 165. 

[347] Glasgow College Minutes. 

[348] Morrison MSS. 

[349] Gibbon's _Miscellaneous Works_, ii. 429. 

CHAPTER XXX

VISIT OF SAMUEL ROGERS

1789

The author of the _Pleasures of Memory_, going to Scotland to make thehome tour, as it was called, then much in vogue, brought with himletters of introduction to Smith from Dr. Price and Dr. Kippis, theeditor of the _Biographia Britannica_. The poet was then a young manof twenty-three, who had published nothing but his _Ode toSuperstition_, and these old Unitarian friends of his father were asyet his chief acquaintances in the world of letters. Their names, notwithstanding the disparaging allusion Smith makes to Price in aletter previously given, won for Rogers the kindest possiblereception, and even a continuous succession of civilities, of which hehas left a grateful record in the journal he kept during his tour. This journal has been published in Mr. Clayden's _Early Tears ofSamuel Rogers_, and a few additional particulars omitted in it arefound in Dyce's published and Mitford's unpublished recollections ofRogers's table-talk. 

Rogers arrived in Edinburgh apparently on the 14th of July--thatmomentous 14th of July 1789 which set the world aflame, though not aspark of information of it had reached Edinburgh before he left thecity on the 21st; and on the morning of the 15th he walked downPanmure Close and paid his first visit to the economist. He foundSmith sitting at breakfast quite alone, with a dish of strawberriesbefore him, and he has preserved some scraps of the conversation, none of them in any way remarkable. Starting from the business then onhand, Smith said that fruit was his favourite diet at that season ofthe year, and that Scotland produced excellent strawberries, for thestrawberry was a northern fruit, and was at its best in Orkney orSweden. Passing to the subject of Rogers's tour, he said thatEdinburgh deserved little notice, that the old town had given Scotlanda bad name (for its filth, presumably), and that he himself wasanxious to remove to the newer quarters of the town, and had set hisheart on George Square (the place where Walter Scott was brought upand Henry Dundas died). He explained that Edinburgh was entirelysupported by the three Courts of Session, Exchequer, and Justiciary(possibly to account for the filth of the place, in accordance withhis theory that there was always more squalor and misery in aresidential than in an industrial town). While thus apparentlyslighting or ignoring the beauties of Edinburgh, which were all therethen as they are now, he praised Loch Lomond highly. It was the finestlake in Great Britain, the islands being very beautiful and forming avery striking contrast to the shores. The conversation passed from thescenery of Scotland to the soil, and Smith said Scotland had anexcellent soil, but a climate so severe that its harvests were toooften overtaken by winter before they were housed. The consequence wasthat the Scotch on the Borders were still in extreme poverty, just ashe had noticed half a century before when he rode across the Bordersas a student to Oxford, and was greatly struck with the differentcondition of things he saw as he approached Carlisle. From agriculturethey passed on to discuss the corn trade, and Smith denounced theGovernment's late refusal of corn to France, saying it ought to exciteindignation and contempt, inasmuch as the quantity required was sotrifling that it would not support the population of Edinburgh for asingle day. The population of Edinburgh suggested their houses, andSmith said that the houses were piled high on one another in Paris aswell as in Edinburgh. They then touched on Sir John Sinclair, of whomSmith spoke disparagingly in certain aspects, but said that he neverknew a man who was in earnest and did not do something at last. Beforeleaving to return to his hotel Rogers seems to have asked Smith if heknew Mrs. Piozzi, who was then living there, and had called uponRogers after learning from the landlord that Smith and Robertson hadleft cards for him, and Smith said he did not know her, but believedshe was spoiled by keeping company with odd people. Smith then invitedhis visitor to dine with him next day at the usual Friday dinner ofthe Oyster Club, and Rogers came away delighted with the interview, and with the illustrious philosopher's genuine kindness of heart. 

On Friday, as appointed, Rogers dined with the Oyster Club as Smith'sguest, but he has made no specific entry of the event in his journal, and no record of the conversation. Black and Playfair seem to havebeen there, and possibly other men of eminence; but the whole talk wasusurped by a commonplace member, and Smith felt--and possibly Rogerstoo--that the day was lost. For next time they met Smith asked Rogershow he liked the club, and said, "_That_ Bogle, I was sorry he talkedso much; he spoiled our evening. " That Bogle was the Laird ofDaldowie, on the Clyde. His father had been Rector of GlasgowUniversity in Smith's professorial days, and one of his brothers, George Bogle, attained some eminence through the embassy on which hewas sent by Warren Hastings to the Llama of Thibet, and his account ofwhich has been published quite recently; and the offender himself wasa man of ability and knowledge, who had been a West India merchant formany years, was well versed in economic and commercial subjects, andvery fond of writing to the Government of the day long communicationson those subjects, which seem to have been generally read, andsometimes even acted upon. In society, as we are told by one of hisrelations, Mr. Morehead, he was generally considered very "tedious, from the long lectures on mercantile and political subjects (for hedid not converse when he entered on these, but rather declaimed) whichhe was in the habit of delivering in the most humdrum and monotonousmanner. "[350] His tedious lectures must, however, have had more inthem than ordinary hearers appreciated, for Smith thought so highly ofBogle's conversation that when he invited Rogers to the club on thisparticular occasion he mentioned that Bogle, a very clever person, wasto be there, and said "I must go and hear Bogle talk. "[351]

Rogers was with Smith again on Sunday the 19th, and used everafterwards to speak of that particular Sunday as the most memorable inhis life, for he breakfasted with Robertson, heard him preach in theOld Greyfriars in the forenoon, heard Blair preach in the High Churchin the afternoon, drank coffee thereafter with Mrs. Piozzi, andfinished the day by supping with Adam Smith. He had called on Smith"between sermons, " as they say in Scotland, and apparently close onthe hour for service, since "all the bells of the kirks" were ringing. But Smith was going for an airing, and his chair was at the door. Thesedan was much in vogue in Edinburgh at that period, because itthreaded the narrow wynds and alleys better than any other sort ofcarriage was able to do. Smith met Rogers at the door, and afterexchanging the few observations about Bogle and the club to which Ihave already alluded, he invited his young friend to come back tosupper in the evening, and also to dinner on Monday, because he hadasked Henry Mackenzie, the author of the _Man of Feeling_, to meethim. "Who could refuse?" writes Rogers. Smith then set out in hissedan, and Rogers walked up to the High Church to hear Blair. Returning to Panmure House at nine, he found there, he says, all thecompany who were at the club on Friday except Bogle and Macaulay, andwith the addition of a Mr. Muir from Göttingen. (I do not know whoMacaulay and Muir were. ) They spoke of Junius, and Smith suspectedSingle-speech Hamilton of the authorship, on the ground of thewell-known story, which seems to have been then new to Rogers, andwhich Smith had been told by Gibbon, that on one occasion whenHamilton was on a visit at Goodwood, he informed the Duke of Richmondthat there was a devilish keen letter from Junius in the _PublicAdvertiser_ of that day, and mentioned even some of the points itmade; but when the Duke got hold of the paper he found the letteritself was not there, but only an apology for its absence. From thiscircumstance Hamilton's name came to be mentioned in connection withthe authorship of the letters, and they ceased to appear. Smith'sargument was that so long as the letters were attributed to men whowere not their writers, such as Lord Lansdowne or Burke, theycontinued to go on, but immediately the true author was named theystopped. The conversation passed on to Turgot and Voltaire and theDuke of Richelieu, and its particulars have been stated already inprevious parts of this work. [352]

On Monday Rogers dined at Smith's house to meet Henry Mackenzie, ashad been arranged, and the other guests seem to have been the Mr. Muirof the evening before and Mr. M'Gowan--John M'Gowan, Clerk of theSignet, already referred to. Dr. Hutton came in afterwards and joinedthem at tea. The chief share in the conversation seems to have beentaken by Mackenzie, who, as we know from Scott, was always "the lifeof company with anecdotes and fun, " and related on this occasion manystories of second sight in the Highlands, and especially of theeccentric Caithness laird, who used the pretension as a very effectualinstrument for maintaining authority and discipline among histenantry. They spoke much too about the poetesses, --Hannah More, andMrs. Charlotte Smith, and Mrs. John Hunter, the great surgeon's wife;but it appears to have still been Mackenzie who bore the burden of thetalk. The only thing Rogers reports Smith as saying is a very ordinaryremark about Dr. Blair. They had been speaking, as was natural, aboutthe sermon which Rogers--and Mackenzie also--had heard the previousafternoon on "Curiosity concerning the Affairs of Others, " and onepassage in which, though it reads now commonplace enough in theprinted page, Rogers seems to have admired greatly. Smith observedthat Blair was too puffed up, and the worthy divine would have beenmore or less than human if he had escaped the necessary effects of theexcessive popularity he so long enjoyed at once as a preacher and as acritic. It will be remembered how Burns detested Blair's absurdcondescension and pomposity. 

From Smith's the company seems to have proceeded in a body to ameeting of the Royal Society, of which all were members except Muirand Rogers himself. Before going Mackenzie repeated an epigram whichhad been written on Smith sleeping at the meetings of this society, but the epigram has not been preserved. Only seven persons werepresent--Smith and his guests and the reader of the paper for the day, who happened to be the economist, Dr. James Anderson, alreadymentioned repeatedly in this book as the original propounder ofRicardo's theory of rent. His paper was on "Debtors and the Revisionof the Laws that respect them, " and Rogers says it was "very long anddull, " and, as a natural consequence, "Mr. Commissioner Smith fellasleep, and Mackenzie touched my elbow and smiled, "[353]--a curioustableau. When the meeting was over Rogers took leave of his host, wentto the play with Mrs. Piozzi, and, though he no doubt saw Smith againbefore finally quitting Edinburgh, mentions him no more. 

Having been so much with Smith during those few days, Rogers'simpressions are in some respects of considerable value. He was deeplyimpressed with the warmth of Smith's kindness. "He is a very friendly, agreeable man, and I should have dined and supped with him every day, if I had accepted all his invitations. "[354] He was verycommunicative, [355] and to Rogers's surprise, considering thedisparity of their years and the greatness of his reputation, Smithwas "quite familiar. " "Who shall we have to dinner?" he would ask. Rogers observed in him no sign of absence of mind, [356] and felt thatas compared with Robertson, Smith was far more of a man who had seenmuch of the world. His communicativeness impressed itself also uponother casual visitors, because his first appearance sometimes gavethem the opposite suggestion of reserve. "He was extremelycommunicative, " says the anonymous writer who sent the first letter ofreminiscences to the editor of the _Bee_, "and delivered himself onevery subject with a freedom and boldness quite opposite to theapparent reserve of his appearance. "

Another visitor to Scotland that year who enjoyed a talk with Smith, and has something interesting to communicate about the conversation, is William Adam, barrister and M. P. , afterwards Chief Commissioner ofthe Jury Court in Scotland, who was a nephew of Smith's schoolfellowand lifelong friend, Robert Adam, the architect. William Adam was anintimate personal friend of Bentham since the days when they ate theirway to the bar together and spent their nights in endless discussionsabout Hume's philosophy and other thorny subjects, and when inScotland in the summer of 1789 he met Smith, and drew the conversationto his friend Bentham's recently published _Defence of Usury_. Thisbook, it will be remembered, was written expressly to controvertSmith's recommendation of a legal limitation of the rate of interest, and from this conversation with Adam there seems to be some ground forthinking that the book had the very unusual controversial effect ofconverting the antagonist against whom it was written. Smith's reasonfor wanting to fix the legal rate of interest at a maximum just alittle above the ordinary market rate was to prevent undue facilitiesbeing given to prodigals and projectors; but Bentham replied veryjustly that, whatever might be said of prodigals, projectors at anyrate were one of the most useful classes a community could possess, that a wise government ought to do all it could to encourage theirenterprise instead of thwarting it, and that the best policy thereforewas to leave the rate of interest alone. In conducting his polemicBentham wrote as an admiring pupil towards a venerated master, to whomhe said he owed everything, and over whom he could gain no advantageexcept, to use his own words, "with weapons which you have taught meto wield and with which you have furnished me; for as all the greatstandards of truth which can be appealed to in this line owe, as faras I can understand, their establishment to you, I can see scarce anyother way of convicting you of an error or oversight than by judgingyou out of your own mouth. "[357]

Smith was touched with the handsome spirit in which his adversarywrote, and candidly admitted to Adam the force of his assaults. Theconversation is preserved in a letter written to Bentham on the 4thDecember 1789 by another friend and fellow-barrister, George Wilson, as he apparently had the story from Adam's own lips. 

"Did we ever tell you, " writes Wilson, "what Dr. Adam Smith said toMr. William Adam, the Council M. P. , last summer in Scotland? TheDoctor's expressions were that 'the _Defence of Usury_ was the work ofa very superior man, and that tho' he had given him some hard knocks, it was done in so handsome a way that he could not complain, ' andseemed to admit that you were right. "[358] This admission, thoughapparently not made in so many words by Smith, but rather inferred byAdam from the general purport of the conversation, is still not farremoved from the confession so definitely reported that his positionsuffered some hard knocks from the assaults of Bentham. After thatconfession it is reasonable to think that if Smith had lived topublish another edition of his work, he would have modified hisposition on the rate of interest. 

FOOTNOTES:

[350] Morehead's _Life of the Rev. R. Morehead_, p. 43. 

[351] Add. MSS. , 32, 566. 

[352] See above, pp. 189, 190, 205. 

[353] Clayden's _Early Life of Samuel Rogers_, p. 96. 

[354] Clayden's _Early Life of Samuel Rogers_, p. 90. 

[355] Dyce's _Recollections of the Table-talk of Samuel Rogers_, p. 45. 

[356] Add. MSS. , 32, 566. 

[357] Bentham's _Works_, iii. 21. 

[358] Bentham MSS. , British Museum. 

CHAPTER XXXI

REVISION OF THE "THEORY"

A revision of the _Theory of Moral Sentiments_ was a task Smith hadlong had in contemplation. The book had been thirty years before theworld and had passed through five editions, but it had never undergoneany revision or alteration whatever. This was the task of the lastyear of the author's life. He made considerable changes, especially byway of addition, and though he wrote the additions, as Stewart informsus, while he was suffering under severe illness, he has never writtenanything better in point of literary style. Before the new editionappeared there was a preliminary difference between author andpublisher regarding the propriety of issuing the additions as theadditions to the _Wealth of Nations_ had been issued, in a separateform, for the use of those who already possessed copies of theprevious editions of the book. Cadell favoured that course, notwithstanding that it would obviously interfere with the sale of thenew book, because he was unwilling to incur the charge of beingilliberal in his dealings with the public. But Smith refused to assentto it, for reasons quite apart from the sale, but connected, whateverthey were, with "the nature of the work. " He communicated his decisionthrough Dugald Stewart, who was in London in May 1789 on his way toParis, and Stewart reports the result of his interview with Cadell inthe following letter, bearing the post stamp of 6th May 1789:--

 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 you till now. The day after my arrival I called on Cadell, and luckily found Strachan (_sic_) 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. 

 I mentioned also to Cadell the resolution you had formed not to allow the Additions to the _Theory_ 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 it 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. 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, your much obliged and most obedient servant, DUGALD STEWART. [359]

In the preface to the 1790 edition the author refers to the promise hehad made in that of 1759 of treating in a future work of the generalprinciples of law and government, and of the different revolutionsthey had undergone in the different ages and periods of society, notonly in what concerns justice, but in what concerns policy, revenue, and arms, and whatever else is the object of law; and he says that inthe _Wealth of Nations_ he had executed this promise so far as policy, revenue, and arms were concerned, but that the remaining part of thetask, the theory of jurisprudence, he had been prevented fromexecuting by the same occupations which had till then prevented himfrom revising the _Theory_. He adds: "Though my very advanced ageleaves me, I acknowledge, very little expectation of ever being ableto execute this great work to my own satisfaction, yet, as I have notaltogether abandoned the design, and as I wish still to continue underthe obligation of doing what I can, I have allowed the paragraph toremain as it was published more than thirty years ago, when Ientertained no doubt of being able to execute everything which itannounced. "

The most important of the new contributions to this last edition ofthe _Theory_ is the chapter "on the corruption of our moralsentiments, which is occasioned by our disposition to admire the richand the great, and to despise or neglect persons of poor and meancondition. " In spite of his alleged republicanism he was still a sortof believer in the principle of birth. It was not, in his view, arational principle, but it was a natural and beneficial delusion. Inthe light of reason the vulgar esteem for rank and fortune abovewisdom and virtue was utterly indefensible, but it had a certainadvantage as a practical aid to good government. The maintenance ofsocial order required the establishment of popular deference to somespecies of superiority, and the superiorities of birth and fortunewere at least plain and palpable to the mob of mankind who have to begoverned, whereas the superiorities of wisdom and virtue were ofteninvisible and uncertain, even to the discerning. But however usefulthis admiration for the wrong things might be for the establishment ofsettled authority, he held it to be "at the same time the great andmost universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments. "[360]

But the additions attracted little notice compared with thedeletions--the deletion of the allusion to Rochefoucauld associatingthat writer in the same condemnation with Mandeville, and the deletionof the passage in which the revealed doctrine of the atonement wasstated to coincide with the repentant sinner's natural feeling of thenecessity of some other intercession and sacrifice than his own. Theomission of the reference to Rochefoucauld has been blamed as aconcession to feelings of private friendship in the teeth of theclaims of truth; but Stewart, who knew the whole circumstances, saysthat Smith came to believe that truth as well as friendship requiredthe emendation, and there is certainly difference enough betweenRochefoucauld and Mandeville to support such a view. 

The suppression of the passage about the atonement escaped notice fortwenty years, till a notable divine, Archbishop Magee, in entireignorance of the suppression, quoted the passage from one of theearlier editions as a strong testimony to the reasonableness of theScriptural doctrine of the atonement from a man whose intellectualcapacity and independence were above all dispute. "Such, " he says, "are the reflections of a man whose powers of thinking and reasoningwill surely not be pronounced inferior to those of any, even of themost distinguished champions of the Unitarian school, and whosetheological opinions cannot be charged with any supposed taint fromprofessional habits or interests. A layman (and he too a familiarfriend of David Hume), whose life was employed in scientific, political, and philosophical researches, has given to the world thosesentiments as the natural suggestions of reason. Yet these are thesentiments which are the scoff of sciolists and witlings. "[361]

The sciolists and witlings were not slow in returning the scoff, andpointing out that while Smith was, no doubt, as an intellectualauthority all that the Archbishop claimed for him, his authorityreally ran against the Archbishop's view and not in favour of it, inasmuch as he had withdrawn the passage relied on from the lastedition of his work. Dr. Magee instantly changed his tune, and withoutthinking whether he had any ground for the statement, attributed theomission to the unhappy influence over Smith's mind of the aggressiveinfidelity of Hume. "It adds one proof more, " says his Grace, who, having failed to make Smith an evidence for Christianity, will nowhave him turned into a warning against unbelief, --"it adds one proofmore to the many that already existed of the danger, even to the mostenlightened, from a familiar contact with infidelity. " His intercoursewith Hume was at its closest when he first published the passage in1759, whereas Hume was fourteen years in his grave when the passagewas omitted; besides there is probably as much left in the contextwhich Hume would object to as is deleted, and in any case, there is noreason to believe that Smith's opinion about the atonement was anywisedifferent in 1790 from what it was in 1759, or for doubting his ownexplanation of the omission, which he is said to have given to certainEdinburgh friends, that he thought the passage unnecessary andmisplaced. [362] As if taking an odd revenge for its suppression, theoriginal manuscript of this particular passage seems to havereappeared from between the leaves of a volume of Aristotle in theyear 1831, when all the rest of the MS. Of the book and of Smith'sother works had long gone to destruction. [363] It may be added, as somuch attention has been paid to Smith's religious opinions, that hegives a fresh expression to his belief in a future state and anall-seeing Judge in one of the new passages he wrote for this sameedition of his _Theory_. It is in connection with his remarks on theCalas case. He says that to persons in the circumstances of Calas, condemned to an unjust death, "Religion can alone afford them everyeffectual comfort. She also can tell them that it is of littleimportance what men may think of their conduct while the all-seeingJudge of the world approves of it. She alone can present to them aview of another world, --a world of more candour, humanity, and justicethan the present, where their innocence is in due time to be declaredand their virtue to be finally rewarded, and the same great principlewhich can alone strike terror into triumphant vice affords the onlyeffectual consolation of disgraced and insulted innocence. "[364]Whatever may have been his attitude towards historical Christianity, these words, written on the eve of his own death, show that he died ashe lived, in the full faith of those doctrines of natural religionwhich he had publicly taught. 

FOOTNOTES:

[359] Original in possession of Professor Cunningham, Belfast. 

[360] _Theory_, ed. 1790, i. 146. 

[361] Magee's _Works_, p. 138. 

[362] Sinclair's _Life of Sir John Sinclair_, i. 40. 

[363] Add. MSS. , 32, 574. 

[364] _Theory_, ed. 1790, i. 303, 304. 

CHAPTER XXXII

LAST DAYS

The new edition of the _Theory_ was the last work Smith published. AFrench newspaper, the _Moniteur Universelle_ of Paris, announced on11th March 1790 that a critical examination of Montesquieu's _Espritdes Lois_ was about to appear from the pen of the celebrated author ofthe _Wealth of Nations_, and ventured to predict that the work wouldmake an epoch in the history of politics and of philosophy. That atleast, it added, is the judgment of well-informed people who have seenparts of it, of which they speak with an enthusiasm of the happiestaugury. But notwithstanding this last statement the announcement wasnot made on any good authority. Smith may probably enough have dealtwith Montesquieu as he dealt with many other topics in the papers hehad prepared towards his projected work on government, but there is noevidence that he ever intended to publish a separate work on thatremarkable writer, and before March 1790 his strength seems to havebeen much wasted. The Earl of Buchan, who had some time before gone tolive in the country, was in town in February, and paid a visit to hisold professor and friend. On taking leave of him the Earl said, "Mydear Doctor, I hope to see you oftener when I come to town nextFebruary, " but Smith squeezed his lordship's hand and replied, "Mydear Lord Buchan, [365] I may be alive then and perhaps half a dozenFebruaries, but you never will see your old friend any more. I findthat the machine is breaking down, so that I shall be little betterthan a mummy"--with a by-thought possibly to the mummies of Toulouse. "I found a great inclination, " adds the Earl, "to visit the Doctor inhis last illness, but the mummy stared me in the face and I wasintimidated. "[366]

During the spring months Smith got worse and weaker, and though heseemed to rally somewhat at the first approach of the warm weather, heat length sank again in June, and his condition seemed to his friendsto be already hopeless. Long and painful as his illness was, he boreit throughout not with patience merely but with a serene and evencheerful resignation. On the 21st of June Henry Mackenzie wrote hisbrother-in-law, Sir J. Grant, that Edinburgh had just lost its finestwoman, and in a few weeks it would in all probability lose itsgreatest man. The finest woman was the beautiful Miss Burnet ofMonboddo, whom Burns called "the most heavenly of all God's works, "and the greatest man was Adam Smith. "He is now, " says Mackenzie, "past all hopes of recovery, with which about three weeks ago we hadflattered ourselves. "

A week later Smellie, the printer, wrote Smith's young friend, PatrickClason, in London: "Poor Smith! we must soon lose him, and the momentin which he departs will give a heart-pang to thousands. Mr. Smith'sspirits are flat, and I am afraid the exertions he sometimes makes toplease his friends do him no good. His intellect as well as his sensesare clear and distinct. He wishes to be cheerful, but nature isomnipotent. His body is extremely emaciated, and his stomach cannotadmit of sufficient nourishment; but, like a man, he is perfectlypatient and resigned. "[367]

In all his own weakness he was still thoughtful of the care of hisfriends, and one of his last acts was to commend to the good officesof the Duke of Buccleugh the children of his old friend and physician, Cullen, who died only a few months before himself. "In many respects, "says Lord Buchan, "Adam Smith was a chaste disciple of Epicurus asthat philosopher is properly understood, and Smith's last actresembled that of Epicurus leaving as a legacy to his friend andpatron the children of his Metrodorus, the excellent Cullen. "[368]

When it became evident that the sickness was to prove mortal, Smith'sold friend Adam Ferguson, who had been apparently estranged from himfor some time, immediately forgot their coolness, whatever it wasabout, and came and waited on him with the old affection. "Your friendSmith, " writes Ferguson on 31st July 1790, announcing the death to SirJohn Macpherson, Warren Hastings' successor as Governor-General ofIndia--"your old friend Smith is no more. We knew he was dying forsome months, and though matters, as you know, were a little awkwardwhen he was in health, upon that appearance I turned my face that wayand went to him without further consideration, and continued myattentions to the last. "[369]

Dr. Carlyle mentions that the harmony of the famous Edinburgh literarycircle of last century was often ruffled by little tifts, which he andJohn Home were generally called in to compose, and that the usualsource of the trouble was Ferguson's "great jealousy of rivals, " andespecially of his three more distinguished friends, Hume, Smith, andRobertson. But it would not be right to ascribe the fault to Fergusonmerely on that account, for Carlyle hints that Smith too had "a littlejealousy in his nature, " although he admits him to have been a man of"unbounded benevolence. " But whatever it was that had come betweenthem, it is pleasant to find Ferguson dismissing it so unreservedly, and forgetting his own infirmities too--for he had been long sincehopelessly paralysed, and went about, Cockburn tells us, buried infurs "like a philosopher from Lapland"--in order to cheer the lastdays of the friend of his youth. 

When Smith felt his end to be approaching he evinced great anxiety tohave all his papers destroyed except the few which he judged to be ina sufficiently finished state to deserve publication, and beingapparently too feeble to undertake the task himself, he repeatedlybegged his friends Black and Hutton to destroy them for him. A thirdfriend, Mr. Riddell, was present on one of the occasions when thisrequest was made, and mentions that Smith expressed regret that "hehad done so little. " "But I meant, " he said, "to have done more, andthere are materials in my papers of which I could have made a greatdeal, but that is now out of the question. "[370] Black and Huttonalways put off complying with Smith's entreaties in the hope of hisrecovering his health or perhaps changing his mind; but at length, aweek before his death, he expressly sent for them, and asked them thenand there to burn sixteen volumes of manuscript to which he directedthem. This they did without knowing or asking what they contained. Itwill be remembered that seventeen years before, when he went up toLondon with the manuscript of the _Wealth of Nations_, he made Humehis literary executor, and left instructions with him to destroy allhis loose papers and eighteen thin paper folio books "without anyexamination, " and to spare nothing but his fragment on the history ofastronomy. When the sixteen volumes of manuscript were burnt Smith'smind seemed to be greatly relieved. It appears to have been on aSunday, and when his friends came, as they were accustomed to do, onthe Sunday evening to supper--and they seem to have mustered stronglyon this particular evening--he was able to receive them with somethingof his usual cheerfulness. He would even have stayed up and sat withthem had they allowed him, but they pressed him not to do so, and heretired to bed about half-past nine. As he left the room he turned andsaid, "I love your company, gentlemen, but I believe I must leave youto go to another world. " These are the words as reported by HenryMackenzie, who was present, in giving Samuel Rogers an account ofSmith's death during a visit he paid to London in the course of thefollowing year. [371] But Hutton, in the account he gave Stewart of theincident, employs the slightly different form of expression, "Ibelieve we must adjourn this meeting to some other place. " Possiblyboth sentences were used by Smith, for both are needed for thecomplete expression of the parting consolation he obviously meant toconvey--that death is not a final separation, but only an adjournmentof the meeting. 

That was his last meeting with them in the earthly meeting-place. Hehad gone to the other world before the next Sunday came round, havingdied on Saturday the 17th of July 1790. He was buried in the Canongatechurchyard, near by the simple stone which Burns placed on the graveof Fergusson, and not far from the statelier tomb which later onreceived the remains of his friend Dugald Stewart. The grave is markedby an unpretending monument, stating that Adam Smith, the author ofthe _Wealth of Nations_, lies buried there. 

His death made less stir or rumour in the world than many of hisadmirers expected. Sir Samuel Romilly, for example, writing on the20th of August to a French lady who had wanted a copy of the newedition of the _Theory of Moral Sentiments_, says: "I have beensurprised and, I own, a little indignant to observe how littleimpression his death has made here. Scarce any notice has been takenof it, while for above a year together after the death of Dr. Johnsonnothing was to be heard of but panegyrics of him, --lives, letters, andanecdotes, --and even at this moment there are two more lives of him tostart into existence. Indeed, one ought not perhaps to be very muchsurprised that the public does not do justice to the works of A. Smithsince he did not do justice to them himself, but always considered his_Theory of Moral Sentiments_ a much superior work to his _Wealth ofNations_. "[372] Even in Edinburgh it seemed to make less impressionthan the death of a bustling divine would have made--certainlyconsiderably less than the death of the excellent but far lessillustrious Dugald Stewart a generation later. The newspapers had anobituary notice of two small paragraphs, and the only facts in hislife the writers appear to have been able to find were his earlyabduction by the gipsies, of which both the Mercury and the Advertisergive a circumstantial account, and the characteristics which theAdvertiser mentions, that "in private life Dr. Smith was distinguishedfor philanthropy, benevolence, humanity, and charity. " Lord Cockburn, who was then beginning to read and think, was struck with the generalignorance of Smith's merits which his fellow-citizens exhibitedshortly after his death. "The middle-aged seemed to me to know littleabout the founder of the science (political economy) except that hehad recently been a Commissioner of Customs and had written a sensiblebook. The young--by which I mean the Liberal young of Edinburgh--livedupon him. "[373] Stewart was no sooner dead than a monument was raisedto him on one of the best sites in the city. The greater name of Smithhas to this day no public monument in the city he so long adorned. 

Black and Hutton were his literary executors, and published in 1795the literary fragments which had been spared from the flames. By hiswill, dated 6th February 1790, he left his whole property to hiscousin, David Douglas, afterwards Lord Reston, subject to thecondition that the legatee should follow the instructions of Black andHutton in disposing of the MSS. And writings, and pay an annuity of£20 a year to Mrs. Janet Douglas, and after her death, a sum of £400to Professor Hugh Cleghorn of St. Andrews and his wife. [374] Theproperty Smith left, however, was very moderate, and his friends couldnot at first help expressing some surprise that it should have been solittle, because, though known to be very hospitable, he had nevermaintained anything more than a moderate establishment. But they hadnot then known, though many of them had long suspected, that he gaveaway large sums in secret charity. William Playfair mentions thatSmith's friends, suspecting him of doing this, had sometimes in hislifetime formed special juries for the purpose of discoveringevidences of it, but that the economist was "so ingenious inconcealing his charity" that they never could discover it fromwitnesses, though they often found the strongest circumstantialevidence of it. [375] Dugald Stewart was more fortunate. He says: "Somevery affecting instances of Mr. Smith's beneficence in cases where hefound it impossible to conceal entirely his good offices have beenmentioned to me by a near relation of his and one of his mostconfidential friends, Miss Ross, daughter of the late Patrick Ross, Esq. , of Innernethy. They were all on a scale much beyond what wouldhave been expected from his fortune, and were combined withcircumstances equally honourable to the delicacy of his feelings andthe liberality of his heart. " One recalls the saying of Sir JamesMackintosh, who was a student of Cullen and Black's in Smith's closingyears, and used occasionally to meet the economist in private society. "I have known, " said Mackintosh to Empson many years after this--"Ihave known Adam Smith slightly, Ricardo well, and Malthus intimately. Is it not something to say for a science that its three greatestmasters were about the three best men I ever knew?"[376]

Smith never sat for his picture, but nevertheless we possess excellentportraits of him by two very talented artists who had manyopportunities of seeing and sketching him. Tassie was a student atFoulis's Academy of Design in Glasgow College when Smith was there, and he may possibly even then have occasionally modelled thedistinguished Professor, for we hear of models of Smith being in allthe booksellers' windows in Glasgow at that time, and these modelswould, for a certainty, have been made in the Academy of Design. However that may be, Tassie executed in later days two differentmedallions of Smith. Raspe, in his catalogue of Tassie's enamels, describes one of these in a list of portraits of the largest size thatthat kind of work admitted of, as being modelled and cast by Tassie inhis hard white enamel paste so as to resemble a cameo. From this modelJ. Jackson, R. A. , made a drawing, which was engraved in stipple by C. Picart, and published in 1811 by Cadell and Davies. Line engravings ofthe same model were subsequently made by John Horsburgh and R. C. Bellfor successive editions of the _Wealth of Nations_, and it isaccordingly the best known, as well as probably the best, portrait ofthe author of that work. It is a profile bust showing rather handsomefeatures, full forehead, prominent eyeballs, well curved eyebrows, slightly aquiline nose, and firm mouth and chin, and it is inscribed, "Adam Smith in his 64th year, 1787. Tassie F. " In this medallion Smithwears a wig, but Tassie executed another, Mr. J. M. Gray tells us, inwhat he called "the antique manner, " without the wig, and with neckand breast bare. "This work, " says Mr. Gray, "has the advantage ofshowing the rounded form of the head, covered with rather curling hairand curving upwards from the brow to a point above the large ear, which is hidden in the other version. "[377] It bears the same date asthe former, and it appears never to have been engraved. Raspe mentionsa third medallion of Smith in his catalogue of Tassie's enamels--"abust in enamel, being in colour an imitation of chalcedony, engravedby F. Warner, after a model by J. Tassie, "--but this appears from Mr. Gray's account to be a reduced version of the first of the two justmentioned. Kay made two portraits of Smith: the first, done in 1787, representing him as he walked in the street, and the second, issued in1790, and occasioned, no doubt, by his death, representing him as hehas entered an office, probably the Custom House. There is a paintingby T. Collopy in the National Museum of Antiquities at Edinburgh, which is thought to be a portrait of Adam Smith from the circumstancethat the title _Wealth of Nations_ appears on the back of a book onthe table in the picture; but in the teeth of Stewart's very explicitstatement that Smith never sat for his portrait, the inference drawnfrom that circumstance cannot but remain very doubtful. All otherlikenesses of Smith are founded on those of Tassie and Kay. Smith wasof middle height, full but not corpulent, with erect figure, well-sethead, and large gray or light blue eyes, which are said to have beamedwith "inexpressible benignity. " He dressed well--so well that nobodyseems to have remarked it; for while we hear, on the one hand, ofHume's black-spotted yellow coat and Gibbon's flowered velvet, and onthe other, of Hutton's battered attire and Henry Erskine's gray hatwith the torn rim, we meet with no allusion to Smith's dress eitherfor fault or merit. 

Smith's books, which went on his death to his heir, Lord Reston, weredivided, on the death of the latter, between his two daughters; theeconomic books going to Mrs. Bannerman, the wife of the late ProfessorBannerman of Edinburgh, and the works on other subjects to Mrs. Cunningham, wife of the Rev. Mr. Cunningham of Prestonpans. Bothportions still exist, the former in the Library of the New College, Edinburgh, to which they have been presented by Dr. D. DouglasBannerman of Perth; and the latter in the possession of ProfessorCunningham of Queen's College, Belfast, except a small number whichwere sold in Edinburgh in 1878, and a section, consisting almostexclusively of Greek and Latin classics, which Professor Cunninghamhas presented to the library of the college of which he is a member. Among other relics of Smith that are still extant are four medallionsby Tassie, which very probably hung in his library. They aremedallions of his personal friends: Black, the chemist; Hutton, thegeologist; Dr. Thomas Reid, the metaphysician; and Andrew Lumisden, the Pretender's old secretary, and author of the work on theantiquities of Rome. 

FOOTNOTES:

[365] "My dear Ascanius" are the words of the text, because Ascaniuswas the pseudonym under which the Earl happened to be writing. 

[366] The _Bee_, 1791, iii. 166. 

[367] Kerr's _Memoirs of W. Smellie_, i. 295. 

[368] The _Bee_, 1791, iii. 167. 

[369] Original letter in Edinburgh University Library. 

[370] Stewart's _Works_, x. 74. 

[371] Clayden's _Early Life of Samuel Rogers_, p. 168. 

[372] _Memoirs of Sir Samuel Romilly_, i. 403. 

[373] Cockburn's _Memorials of My Own Time_, p. 45. 

[374] Bonar's _Library of Adam Smith_, p. Xiv. 

[375] Playfair's edition of _Wealth of Nations_, p. Xxxiv. 

[376] _Edinburgh Review_, January 1837, p. 473. 

[377] Bonar's _Library of Adam Smith_, p. Xxii. 

INDEX

Abbeville, Smith at, 213

Abercromby, Professor, expected resignation of chair of Law of Nature, 132

Absence of mind, Smith's, in childhood, 4; at Glasgow, 60; exaggerated, 66; Glasgow anecdote of, 147; London anecdote, 237; Dalkeith anecdotes, 245; Kirkcaldy anecdote, 259; the story of "La Roche, " 314; Custom House anecdotes, 330; unobserved by Samuel Rogers, 422

Academy of Dancing, Fencing, and Riding in Glasgow College, 79

Academy of Design, Glasgow, 72; Smith's interest in, 74

Adam, Robert, architect, schoolfellow of Smith, 7

Adam, William, M. P. , Smith's remark on Bentham's _Defence of Usury_, 422

Addington, H. (Lord Sidmouth), writes an ode to Smith, 406

Alison, Rev. Archibald, effects of Smith's habit of dictating, 261

American Intercourse Bill, Smith's opinion, 385

American question, Smith's views, 281

Anderson, Dr. James, paper to R. S. E. , 421

Anderson, Professor John, his classes for working men, 72; voting for his own appointment to Natural Philosophy chair, 83; tutorial engagement abroad, 85

Anderston Club, 97

Armed Neutrality, the, Smith on, 382

Astronomy, Smith's history of, 262

Auckland, Lord, _see_ Eden, W. 

Bagpipe competition, Smith at, 372; Professor Saint Pond's description of, 373

Balfour, Colonel Nesbit, 395

Balliol College, Oxford, Smith enters, 18; state of learning at, 22; Smith's reading at, 24; confiscation of Hume's _Treatise_, 24; treatment of Scotch students, 25; complaints of Snell exhibitioners, 26; correspondence between heads of Balliol and Glasgow Colleges, 27

Banks, Sir Joseph, Smith's letter to, 413

Barnard, Dean, verses on Smith and other members of "the club, " 268

Barré, Colonel, with Smith at Bordeaux, 179

Beatson, Robert, Smith's letter introducing, 402

Beattie's Minstrel, Smith's opinion of, 368

Beauclerk, Topham, on Smith's conversation, 269

Bellamy, Mrs. , invited to open Glasgow theatre, 80; on beauty of Glasgow, 88

Beneficence, Smith's, 437

Bentham, Jeremy, on state of learning at Oxford, 21; Smith on his _Defence of Usury_, 422

Berkeley, Mrs. Prebendary, her dinners, 97

Black, Dr. Joseph, professorial losses by light guineas, 49; Smith's opinion of, 336; Robison's account of, 336; appointed Smith's literary executor, 434

Blair, Dr. Hugh, his indebtedness to Smith's lectures on rhetoric, 32; his preaching, 420; Smith on, 421

Blank verse, Smith on, 35

Bogle, Robert, of Daldowie, 418

Bogle, Robert, of Shettleston, promoter of Glasgow theatre, 79

Bonar, James, on Smith's manifesto of 1755, 65; Smith's library, 327

Bonnet, Charles, of Geneva, friendship with Smith, 191

Bordeaux, Smith at, 179; condition of people, 180

Boswell, James, Smith's teaching on blank verse, 35; pupil of Smith, 58 Johnson's remark about Glasgow, 88; Smith's altercation with Johnson, 155; on Smith's admission to "the club, " 268

Boufflers-Rouvel, Comtesse de, Smith's visits to her salon, 198; her purpose to translate his _Theory_, 199

Brienne, Loménie de, Archbishop of Toulouse, 177; his refusal to give Morellet help to publish his translation of _Wealth of Nations_, 359

British Coffee-House, Smith's headquarters in London, 267

British Fisheries Society, Smith on, 408; his prognostication confirmed, 409

Brougham, Lord, on Dr. J. Black, 336

Buccleugh, Duke of, Smith tutor to, 165; illness at Compiègne, 222; character, 227; marriage, 238; home-coming to Dalkeith, 243; memorial on medical degrees, 272; Mickle's complaint against, 318

Buchan, Earl of, on Smith's love for his mother, 4; pupil of Smith, 51; Smith's remark about, 52; learns etching in Glasgow College, 72; on Smith's religious views, 130; on Smith's dislike of publicity, 370; Smith's declining health, 431; Smith's character, 433

Buckle, T. H. , on _Wealth of Nations_, 288

Burgoyne's surrender at Saratoga, Smith's remark, 343

Burke, Edmund, reported candidature for Glasgow Logic chair, 46; his high opinion of the _Theory_, 144; his review of it, 145; Smith's defence of, 369; his visit to Scotland in 1784, 387; his remark on Smith, 387; Smith's remark on him, 387; in Edinburgh, 388; conversation, with Smith at Hatton, 389; rectorial installation at Glasgow, 390; Did he break down? 390; made F. R. S. E. , 393; again in Edinburgh in 1785, 394; dinner at Smith's, 395; visits John Logan, the poet, 396

Burns, Robert, his letter of introduction to Smith, 402

Butler, Bishop, on state of learning at Oxford, 20

Calas case, the, 186; Smith on, 187, 429

Campbell, Dr. , of the _Political Survey_, 366

Carlisle, Earl of, Smith's letter to, on free trade for Ireland, 350

Carlyle, Dr. A. , on spirit of inquiry among Glasgow students, 9; on Earl of Buchan, 52; takes part in theatricals in Glasgow College, 79; on Smith's obligations to Provost Cochrane, 90; on the Glasgow Political Economy Club, 91; on "Mr. Robin Simson's Club, " 99; on Smith's elocution, 108; on Smith's appointment as travelling tutor, 226; thought Hume a Theist, 313; on Smith's jealousy, 433

Chambers, Robert, on Smith's habits of composition, 260

Chicken-broth, 97

Club, Glasgow Political Economy, 92; Professor Robert Simson's, 96; the Literary, London, 267; Edinburgh Oyster, 334

Cochrane, Provost Andrew, Smith's obligations to, 90; Political Economy Club, 91; spirited conduct during Rebellion, 91; attempt to break his bank, 92; correspondence with Oswald on duty on iron, 93; views on bank notes, 94

Cockburn, Lord, on current belief in danger of political economy, 292; on Dr. Black, 336; on appreciation of Smith by young Edinburgh, 436

Colbert, the French minister, claim to descent from Scotch Cuthberts, 176

Colbert, Abbé (Bishop of Rodez), 175; on Smith, 176

College administrator, Smith as, 66

Colonial incorporation, Smith's views, 281

Colonies, Roman, 236; American, 381; when not valuable, in Smith's opinion, 383

Compiègne, Smith at, 222

Composition, Smith's habits of, 260

Conversation, Smith's, 268

Conyers, Lady, at Geneva, 191, 193

Cooper, Sir Grey, helps Smith to Commissionership of Customs, 320, 323

Craufurd, William, friend of Hamilton of Bangour, 40

Critic, Smith as, 34

Cullen, Professor W. , letter from Smith to, 44; letter from Smith to, 45; Smith's letter to, on medical degrees, 273; Smith's interest in his family, 433

Custom dues in Glasgow meal-market on students' meal, 67

Customs, salaries of officers, 2; Smith made Commissioner, 320; his work in Custom House, 330

Daer, Lord, 334

D'Alembert, intimacy with Smith, 202

Dalrymple, Alexander, hydrographer, Smith's recommendation of, to Shelburne, 235

Dalrymple, Sir David, _see_ Hailes

Dalrymple, Sir John, on dedication of Hamilton's poems, 40; Smith's connection with Foulis's Academy of Design, 75; fortunes of Glasgow merchants, 90

Dalzel, Professor A. , on Smith's knowledge of Greek, 23; on Burke, 391; on Windham, 394

Dancing, Academy of, in Glasgow College, 79

Death of Smith, 435; Romilly on, 435

Design, Academy of, in Glasgow College, 79 Smith's interest in this academy, 74

Dictation, Smith's habit of, in composition, 260

Dillon, Cardinal, 184

_Douglas_, Home's tragedy, Smith's interest in, 82, 130

Douglas, Bishop, friend of Smith at Balliol, 28; his _Criterion of Miracles_, said to be addressed to Smith, 129; letter from Smith to, 403

Douglas cause, the, Smith on, 249, 249

Douglas, David (Lord Reston), Smith's heir, 436

Douglas Heron and Company, bankruptcy of, 254

Douglas of Strathendry, Smith's mother's family, 4

Drysdale, Dr. John, schoolfellow of Smith, 7

Dundas, Henry (Lord Melville), letter to Smith on free trade for Ireland, 352; Smith's reply, 353; dinner to Smith, 405

Dupont de Nemours, reminiscences of Smith in Paris, 215; recollection of Smith's views on taxation of the poor, 220

East India Bill, Smith on, 386

East India Company, Smith on, 242; Smith mentioned for supervisorship, 253

Economists, the French sect of, 216; their great activity in 1766, 219

Eden, William (Lord Auckland), applies for Smith's opinion on free trade for Ireland, 352; Smith's opinion of, 384; Smith's letter to, on American affairs, 385

Edinburgh, Smith's lectures in, 30; Smith made freeman of burgh, 251; Smith's permanent residence there, 325; Royal Society of, 375; Smith on, 417; New College possesses part of Smith's books, 439

_Edinburgh Review_, 120; Smith's review of Johnson's Dictionary, 121; his review of contemporary literature, 122; death of, 124; Hume's exclusion from, 125

Elliot, Sir Gilbert, M. P. , reported candidature for chair of Moral Philosophy, 46

Enville, Duchesse d', hospitality to Smith at Geneva, 191; on Smith's French, 192

Erskine, Henry, Lord Advocate, pupil of Smith, 58

Espinasse, Mademoiselle de 1', Smith's visits to her salon, 201

Fencing, Academy of, in Glasgow College, 79

Ferguson, Dr. Adam, was he the object of Smith's 1755 manifesto? 65; on a national militia, 138; candidate for Indian supervisorship, 255; appointed tutor to Lord Chesterfield on Smith's recommendation, 258; his announcement in 1773 of the _Wealth of Nations_, 264; intermediary between Lord Carlisle and Smith, 350; reconciliation with Smith, 433

Fitzmaurice, Hon. T. , pupil of Smith, 154

Foulis, Robert, University press, 71; Academy of Design, 72; economic publications, 76

Fox, Charles James, quotes _Wealth of Nations_, 289; on Smith, 289; Smith's approbation of his East India Bill, 386

France, Smith's account of condition of the people of, 229; sobriety of southern, 180

Franklin, Benjamin, makes Smith's acquaintance, 150; alleged assistance to Smith in composing _Wealth of Nations_, 264

Free trade, Smith's advocacy of, in 1750, 36; his conversion of the Glasgow merchants to, 60; his 1755 manifesto about, 62; alleged revolutionary character of the doctrine, 292; for Ireland, 349; Smith's opinion, 350, 353

French principles and the _Wealth of Nations_, 291

Funeral expenses, Smith's father's, 3

Garrick, David, letter introducing Smith to, 211; on Smith's conversation, 269

Geneva, Smith at, 188; the constitutional struggle then proceeding, 188

Gibbon, Edward, on state of learning at Oxford, 20; on _Wealth of Nations_, 287; obtains Smith's opinion as to continuation of his _History_, 371; Smith's admiration for his work, 414

Gibraltar, Smith against retaining, 382

Gipsies, Smith stolen by, 4

Glasgow in Smith's time, 87; its beauty, 88; passage between Johnson and Smith about, 88 Mrs. Montagu, Mrs. Bellamy, Dr. Johnson on, 88; its trade, 88; its industries, 89; its merchants, 90

Glasgow College, Smith a student at, 9; its professors then, 10; his companions there, 10; correspondence of Senate with Balliol College about Snell exhibitioners, 26; Smith Professor of Logic at, 42; Professor of Moral Philosophy, 43; Smith's courses at, 43; fees and classes, 49; students, 57; Rector's Court, 68; divisions in Senate, 69; peculiarities of constitution, 69; advanced educational policy, 71; Smith's resignation of chair, 172; Smith Rector, 410; his letter of acceptance, 411; installation, 412

Glassford, John, Glasgow, his wealth, 90; views on bank notes, 94

Grattan, Henry, motion on free trade for Ireland, 348

Gray's _Odes_, Smith on, 369

Gray, J. M. , on Tassie's medallion of Smith, 438

Hailes, Lord, letters of Smith to, 247

Hamilton, Duke of, Smith and tutorship to, 258

Hamilton, William, of Bangour, poems edited by Smith, 38; dedication to second edition written by Smith, 40; Kames's friendship with, 41

Hamilton, Professor J. , Dr. J. Moore's verses on, 100

_Hamlet_, Smith on, 368

Helvetius, his dinners, 200

Hepburn, Miss, 133

Herbert, Henry, introduced by Smith to Hume, 161

Herbert, Nicolas, his remarkable memory, 162

Highlands, depopulation of, 401

Holbach, Baron d', gets _Theory of Moral Sentiments_ translated, 164; his dinners, 199

Home, Henry, _see_ Kames

Home, John, poet, Smith's interest in _Douglas_, 82, 130; journey north with Smith, 295

Home, John, of Ninewells, correspondence with Smith about Hume's legacy, 302; and about the _Dialogues_, 305

Hope, Henry, banker, Amsterdam, Smith's acknowledgment to, 401

Home, Bishop, the "Letter to Adam Smith", 312

Horne Tooke, J. , visits Smith at Montpellier, 183

Horsley, Bishop, disapproval of Sunday schools, 407

Hostellaries in Scotland, Smith on, 247

Hume, David, presents Smith with his _Treatise_, 15; candidature for Logic chair, Glasgow, 46; Essays on Commerce, subject of paper by Smith, 95; friendship with Smith, 105; descriptions of Select Society, 109; exclusion from _Edinburgh Review_, 125; letter to Smith on chair of Law of Mature and Nations, 132; letters on _Theory of Moral Sentiments_, 141; Secretary of Legation at Paris, 162; reception in Paris, 163; perplexity where to fix his abode, 195; quarrel with Rousseau, 206; Smith's letter on quarrel, 208; Smith on his idea of residing in France, 225; Smith on his continuing his _History_, 233; appointed by Smith his literary executor, 262; letter on _Wealth of Nations_, 286; correspondence with Smith about publication of _Dialogues on Natural Religion_, 296, 299; farewell dinner with his friends, 299; death, 302; Smith on his monument in Calton Cemetery, 302; Smith's letter to Strahan on his death, 304, 307, 311; proposal to publish selection from his letters, 309; Smith's objection to this, 310; Was Hume a Theist? 313; Smith's opinion of Hume as historian, 368

Hutcheson, Francis, influence over Smith, 11; power as lecturer, 11; author of phrase, "greatest happiness of greatest number, " 12; specific influences on Smith in theology, 13; in ethics, 14; in political economy, 14; taught doctrine of industrial liberty, 15

Hutchinson, Hely, report on free trade for Ireland, 349

Hutton, Dr. James, geologist, 339; Smith's literary executor, 434

India Company, East, Smith on, 242; Smith mentioned for supervisorship, 253; Smith on Fox's Bill, 386

Indignation, Smith's dislike of the man without, 245

Ireland, free trade for, 346; discontent in, 347; Smith's letter to Lord-Lieutenant on free trade for, 350; Dundas on free trade for, 352; Smith's reply to Dundas's letter, 353

Jardine, Rev. Dr. , a writer in _Edinburgh Review_, 125

Jeffrey, Francis (Lord), on the Johnson and Smith altercation, 156; his opposition to Smith's election as Rector, 411

Johnson, Dr. Samuel, on Smith's views of blank verse, 35; on Glasgow, 88; _Dictionary_, reviewed by Smith, 121; altercation with Smith, 154; on _Wealth of Nations_, 288; Smith's opinion of, 366

Johnstone, William, _see_ Pulteney, Sir W. 

Judge Advocate, nature of office, 1

Junius, Smith on authorship of letters by, 420

Kames, Lord, patron of Smith, 31; place in literature, 31; letter from Smith to, on sympathy, 341

Kay, John, portraits of Smith, 439

Kirkcaldy, inhabitants and industries in last century, 8; Smith's residence 1767-73, 238

Knox, John, bookseller, his plan for improving Scotch Highlands, 408

Laing, David, Smith's editing Hamilton's poems, 39

Langton, Bennet, on Smith's conversation, 268

Languedoc, the States of, 183

Lansdowne, Marquis of, _see_ Shelburne

Lauderdale, Earl of, conversation with Fox on Smith, 289; entertains Burke and Smith at Hatton, 389; his democratic sentiments in early life, 390

Lecturer, Smith as, 56

Le Sage, Professor G. L. , Geneva, friendship with Smith, 191

Leslie, Sir John, tutor to Smith's cousin and heir, 412; introduced by Smith to Sir Joseph Banks, 413

L'Espinasse, _see_ Espinasse

Library, Smith's, 327, 439

Lindsay, Professor Hercules, takes Smith's classes, 42; gives up lecturing in Latin, 99

Literary Club, _see_ Club

Literary Society, Glasgow, _see_ Society

Livy, Smith's opinion of, 367

Lloyd, Captain, reminiscences of Smith in Abbeville, 212

Logan, John, poet, Burke's visit to, 396; Smith's admiration for, 396; introduced by Smith to Andrew Strahan, 396

Loménie de Brienne, Archbishop of Toulouse, 177

London, Smith's first visit to, 152; Smith's residence there 1766-67, 252; his residence there 1773-76, 262; residence there again 1777, 314

Loudon, Earl of, 1

M'Culloch, J. R. , on Smith's failure to foresee French Revolution, 229; on Smith's habit of dictating to amanuensis, 260; on Smith's books, 329

Macdonald, Sir James, in Paris, 174; his death, 225

M'Gowan, John, antiquary, 335

Mackenzie, Henry, on Smith's wealth of conversation, 33, 269; his story of "La Roche" and Hume's religious opinions, 313; account of Smith's last words to his friends, 435

Mackinnon of Mackinnon, letter from Smith to, 380

Mackintosh, Sir James, on the _Edinburgh Review_, 124; remark on Smith, 437

Maclaine, Dr. Archibald, college friend of Smith, 17; Smith's remark about, 17; acts in college theatricals, 79

Magee, Archbishop, on suppressed passage in _Theory of Moral Sentiments_ about the Atonement, 428

Manifesto of doctrine, Smith's, in 1755, 62

Market women on Smith, 329

Marseilles, Smith at, 188

Medical degrees, freedom of, 271; Smith's letter to Cullen on, 273

Mickle, translator of _Lusiad_, takes offence at Smith, 316

Militia question in Poker Club, 135; Smith's views, 137

Millar, David, Smith's schoolmaster, 5; his play, 6

Millar, Professor John, pupil of Smith, 43, 53; Jeffrey on, 53; on Smith as lecturer, 56

Miller, Sir Thomas, Rector of Glasgow College, 68

Milton's shorter poems, Smith on, 369

Mirabeau, Marquis de, on state of France, 218

Montagu, Mrs. , on beauty of Glasgow, 88; on culture of Glasgow merchants, 90

Montesquieu, Smith's reported book on, 431

Montpellier, Smith at, 181

Moor, Professor James, 99

Moral Philosophy, Smith professor of, 43; fees and classes, 49; students, 57; his parting with them, 170; his resignation, 172

_Moral Sentiments, Theory of_, 141; Hume on its reception, 142; translated into French, 196; author's last revision, 425; suppressed passage on Atonement, 428

Morellet, Abbé, intimacy with Smith, 200; opinion of Smith, 201; on Madame Necker's salon, 206; on the French translations of Smith's works, 759; his own translation of Wealth of Nations, 359

Mother, death of Smith's, 393

Mure, Baron, correspondence of Hume and Oswald on Balance of Trade, 38; in Glasgow Literary Society, 95; connection with Douglas cause, 258; desires Smith for tutor to Duke of Hamilton, 258

Mure, Miss, of Caldwell, on Hume's superstition, 313

Music, Smith's alleged absence of ear for, 214; his criticism of, 214

Necker, Smith's acquaintance with, 206; and opinion of, 206

Neutrality, the Armed, Smith on, 382

New College, Edinburgh, possessor of Smith's economic books, 439

Nicholson, Professor Shield, on Smith's books, 327

North, Lord, adopts suggestions for his budget from _Wealth of Nations_, 294, 310; rewards the author with Commissionership of Customs, 320

Opera, French, Smith on, 214

Oswald, James, Treasurer of Navy, home friend of Smith, 6; influence on Smith, 37; correspondence with Hume on Balance of Trade, 38; works for removal of duty on American iron, 93

Oxford, Smith's matriculation, 18; expenses of education there then, 19; Did Smith graduate? 20; state of learning there, 20; Smith on, 21; his friendlessness at, 27; never revisited by him, 29

Oyster Club, Edinburgh, 334; Samuel Rogers at, 418

Panmure House, Smith's Edinburgh residence, 325

Paris, Smith in, 175, 194

_Pastor Fido_, Smith's opinion of, 369

Percy's _Reliques_, Smith's opinion of, 369

Physiocrats, the, 216

Pitt, William, disciple of Smith, 404; his remark to Smith at Dundas's, 405; Smith's remark on, 405; consults Smith on public affairs, 406

Plagiarism, Smith's alleged accusation of Blair, 32; his alleged fear of, 64, 269

Playfair, Professor John, on Oyster Club, 335; on Dr. Hutton, 337

Playfair, William, on Smith's conversation, 268; on Smith's declining health, 405

Poker Club, 134

Pope, Alexander, Smith on, 369, 370

Population question, 398

Portraits of Smith, 438

Pownall, Governor, Smith's letter to, 319

Price, Dr. Richard, on decline of population, 398; Smith's opinion of, 400

Pringle, Sir John, on _Wealth of Nations_, 288

Pulteney, Sir William, attends Smith's lectures, 32; introduced by Smith to Oswald, 103; Smith's letter to, on Indian supervisorship, 253

Quacks in medicine, 276, 279

Quæstor of Glasgow College, office held by Smith, 68

Quesnay, Dr. F. , Smith not his disciple, 215; Smith's admiration for, 215; refusal of farmer-generalship for his son, 218; discussions in his room, 219; called in by Smith to treat Duke of Buccleugh, 222

Ramsay, Allan, Smith on _Gentle Shepherd_, 369

Ramsay, Allan, painter, founder of Select Society, 107

Ramsay, John, of Ochtertyre, on Kames's friendship with Bangour, 41; on Smith's religious views, 60; on Smith at whist, 97; on Smith's smartening during his foreign travels, 227; on Smith's depression after his mother's death, 393

Rector of Glasgow University, Smith's appointment, 410

Reid, Dr. Thomas, on students of Moral Philosophy class, Glasgow, 58

Religion, Smith's views suspected in Glasgow, 60; his views obliged to be controverted by Bishop Douglas, 393; his final testimony, 429

Republicanism, Smith's, 124

Reston, Lord, _see_ Douglas, David

Reviews, Smith's opinion of the, 370

Revolution, French, Did Smith foresee? 229

Reynolds, Sir Joshua, on Smith's conversation, 269

Riccoboni, Madame, friendship with Smith, 210; Smith's opinion of, 210; introduces him to Garrick, 211

Richardson, Professor, on Smith's political lectures, 55

Richelieu, Duc de, visited by Smith, 181; Voltaire on, 190

Riding, Academy of, in Glasgow College, 79

Ritchie, James, merchant, Glasgow, on the spread of Smith's opinions among Glasgow merchants, 60

Rivière, Mercier de la, on condition of France, 218

Robison, Professor, on Dr. Black, 336

Rochefoucauld's _Maximes_, Smith's allusion to, in _Theory_, 340, 428

Rochefoucauld, Duc de la, Smith's friendship with, in Geneva, 191; letter to Smith from, 339

Roebuck, Dr. , anecdote of Wilkie, the poet, and, 102

Rogers, Professor Thorold, on Smith's obligations to Turgot, 203; on the Indian supervisorship and the _Wealth of Nations_, 256

Rogers, Samuel, on Smith's absence of mind, 66, 422; on Smith and Robertson, 228; conversations with Smith in Edinburgh, 416

Romilly, Sir S. , on Smith's death, 435

Ross, General Alexander, 395

Ross, Colonel Patrick, 361

Ross, Miss, on Smith's charities, 437

Rouet, Professor, expenses of journey to London, 19; with young Tronchin, 59; his absenteeism, 89

Rousseau, discourse on inequality reviewed by Smith, 123; in Paris with Hume, 196; quarrel with Hume, 206; Smith's letter on the quarrel, 208; Smith on his "Social Compact, " 372

Royal Society of London, Smith elected, 238; admitted, 263

Royal Society of Edinburgh, foundation of, 375; Smith's participation, 376; Smith at, with Rogers, 421

Sabbath, the, Smith on, 342

Saint Fond, Professor, his reminiscences of Smith, 372

Saratoga, Smith's remark on the defeat at, 343

Sarsfield, Count de, Smith's chief friend in France, 240

Savage, Richard, Smith on, 366

Say, Leon, on Smith and Turgot, 203

School, Burgh, of Kirkcaldy, 5

Scotland, people of, 401

Scott, Hon. Hew Campbell, joins Smith at Toulouse, 182; his death, 226

Scott, Sir Walter, Smith's altercation with Johnson, 156; anecdotes of Smith's absence of mind, 330

Select Society, _see_ Society

Shakespeare, Smith on, 368

Shelburne, Earl of (afterwards Marquis of Lansdowne), his admiration of Smith's _Theory_, 144; his conversion by Smith to free trade, 153; Smith's opinion of his negotiations with Pitt for Bute, 162; letter of Smith to, 235; Smith's political distrust of, 379

Sheridan, Thomas, elocution class at Edinburgh, 119

Simson, Professor Robert, influence on Smith, 10; Smith's opinion of, 11; his club, 96; his Greek and Latin odes, 98

Sinclair, Sir John, his treatise on the Sabbath, 342; conversation with Smith on Burgoyne's surrender, 343; letter of Smith to, on _Mémoires_, 343; letter of Smith on the Armed Neutrality, 382; Windham's romantic attachment, 394; Smith's opinion of Sinclair, 418

Skene, Captain David, 243

Smellie, William, printer, on Smith's books, 329

Smith, Adam, W. S. , Kirkcaldy, 1

Smith, Adam, Collector of Customs, Alloa, 2

Snell exhibitions at Oxford, 16

Society, British Fisheries, Smith on, 408

Society, Glasgow Literary, 94 Smith's paper on Home's Essays on Commerce, 95

Society, Select, 107; Smith's opening speech, 108; its economic discussions, 110; its work for improvement of Scots arts and manufactures, 112; its dissolution, 118

Stage-doctors, 276

Stanhope, Earl, friendship with Smith at Geneva, 191, 193; consults Smith about Chesterfield tutorship, 266

Steuart, Sir James, economist, acts in school theatricals, 5; on free trade among Glasgow merchants, 61

Stewart, Professor Dugald, on Smith's mathematical tastes, 10; on Smith's judgment in art, 74; on Smith's travelling tutorship, 217; on Smith's being styled "Mr. , " 234; on Smith's conversation, 269, 270; on alleged revolutionary character of free trade doctrine, 292

Stewart, Professor Matthew, college friend of Smith, 10; Smith's taste for mathematics, 10; Smith's opinion of, 11

Strahan, William, printer, letter from Smith to, about new edition of the _Theory_, 149; friend of Franklin, 151; Hume's literary executor, 298; Smith's letter to, on Hume's illness and death, 304; letter on Hume's _Dialogues_ from Smith to, 305; letter from Smith to, 308; proposes publication of selection of Hume's letters, 309; Smith's reply, 310; correspondence of Smith with, on Commissionership of Customs, 321

Stuart, Andrew, W. S. And M. P. , candidate for Indian supervisorship, 255; withdrawal from contest for Lanarkshire, 391; letter of Smith, 392

Sugar, Smith's fondness for, 338

Sunday schools, Smith on, 407

Sunday suppers, Smith's, 327

Swediaur, Dr. , on the Oyster Club, 334; on Smith, 334

Swift, Jonathan, Smith on, 367

Tassie, J. , his medallions of Smith, 438

Taxation of poor, 220, 344; in France, 230

Theatre, erection in Glasgow, 79; opposition of Senatus and Smith, 79; in France frequented by Smith, 213

_Theory of Moral Sentiments_, 141; of its reception in London, 142; last revision, 425

Thompson, Dr. W. , historian, Smith on, 17

Tooke, Horne, visits Smith at Montpellier, 183

Toulouse, Smith at, 175; dulness of Smith at, 179; its Parliament, 185; the Calas case, 186

Townshend, Charles, his admiration for Smith's _Theory_, 144; his proposal of tutorship for Smith, 144; his visit to Glasgow, 147; letter of Smith to, 148; letter to Smith, 164; letter of Smith from Compiègne to, 223

Trained Bands of Edinburgh, Smith made Honorary Captain, 374

Tronchin, Dr. , sends son to be Smith's pupil, 59

Turgot, M. , friendship with Smith in Paris, 202; their obligations to one another, 203; their alleged correspondence, 204; Smith's opinion of, 205; procures copy of the _Mémoires_ for Smith, 344

Tutorships, travelling, Smith's views of, 166

Union, Smith on the Scotch, 150; Smith on Irish, 355

Urquhart, Mr. , of Cromartie, 183

_Usury_, Smith on Bentham's _Defence_, 423

Utopia, Smith on, 282

Vice-rector of Glasgow University, office held by Smith, 68

Virgil's _Eclogues_, Smith on, 369

Voltaire, conversation with Smith in Geneva, 189; Smith's admiration for, 190; Smith's comparison of Rousseau and, 372

Walpole, Horace, Smith's acquaintance with, in Paris, 194; reports remark of Smith, 263

Ward, Rev. William, Smith on his Rational Grammar, 159

Watt, James, made mathematical instrument maker to Glasgow University, 71; makes ivory bust of Smith with his sculpture machine, 74; on Professor Simson's Club, 98

_Wealth of Nations_, various dates of composition toolmarked in the text, 256; publication, 284; reception, 285; Hume's letter on, 286; Gibbon on, 287; quoted in Parliament, 290; editions, 293; early influence on public affairs, 294; Danish translation, 356; French translations, 359; German, 359; Spanish, 360; letter of Smith to Cadell about third edition, 362

Webster, Dr. A. , lists of examinable persons, 399, 400

Wedderburn, Alexander (Earl of Rosslyn), attends Smith's lectures, 32; connection with Foulis's Academy of Design, 75; editor of _Edinburgh Review_, 121

Whiggism, Smith's, 162, 379, 389, 410

Whist, Smith at, 97

Wilberforce, Bishop, account of Smith's altercation with Johnson, 156

Wilberforce, William, opinion of Smith, 447; promoter of British Fisheries Society, 408

Wilkes, John, Smith on, 163

Wilkie, the poet, on Smith, 102

Will, Smith's, 436

Wilson, Professor A. , his type-foundry, 71; Smith's interest in the foundry, 77; new foundry in Glasgow College grounds, 78

Windham, William, on Smith's house in Edinburgh, 326; romantic incident, 394; on Smith's family circle, 395

Windischgraetz, Count J. N. De, his proposed reform of legal terminology, 376

Wordsworth, William, on Smith as a critic, 34

THE END