The Wealth of Nations - Adam Smith (ereader that reads to you TXT) 📗

c. 17, § 3; 5 Geo. II, c. 22. ↩

But 8 Eliz., c. 11, was enacted “at the lamentable suit and complaint” not of the hatters but of the cap-makers, who alleged that they were being impoverished by the excessive use of hats, which were made of foreign wool, and the extension to the colonies of the restriction on apprentices by 5 Geo. II, c. 22, was doubtless suggested by the English hatters’ jealousy of the American hatters, so that this regulation was not dictated by quite the same spirit as the Sheffield bylaw. ↩

The preamble of 13 and 14 Car. II, c. 15, says that the company of silk throwers in London were incorporated in 1629, and the preamble of 20 Car. II, c. 6, says that the trade had lately been obstructed because the company had endeavoured to put into execution a certain bylaw made by them nearly forty years since, restricting the freemen to 160 spindles and the assistants to 240. The act 20 Car. II, c. 6, accordingly declares this bylaw void. It also enacts that “no bylaw already made or hereafter to be made by the said company shall limit the number of apprentices to less than three.” ↩

“In Italy a mestiere or company of artisans and tradesmen was sometimes styled an ars or universitas.⁠ ⁠… The company of mercers of Rome are styled universitas merciariorum, and the company of bakers there universitas pistorum.” —⁠Madox, Firma Burgi, 1726, p. 32 ↩

C. 4, § 31. ↩

“It hath been held that this statute doth not restrain a man from using several trades, so as he had been an apprentice to all; wherefore it indemnifies all petty chapmen in little towns and villages because their masters kept the same mixed trades before.” —⁠Matthew Bacon, New Abridgement of the Law, 3rd ed., 1768, vol. iii, p. 553, s.v. Master and servant ↩

New Abridgement of the Law, vol. iii, p. 552. ↩

New Abridgement of the Law, vol. i, p. 553. ↩

Bacon (New Abridgement of the Law, iii, 553), however, says distinctly: “A coach-maker is within this statute,” on the authority of Ventris’ Reports, p. 346. ↩

Compagnon. ↩

Compagnonnage. ↩

Contrast with this the account of the origin of property in the Lectures, pp. 107⁠–⁠127. ↩

Of Scotch manufacture, 10 Ann., c. 21; 13 Geo. I, c. 26. ↩

39 Eliz., c. 20; 43 Eliz., c. 10, § 7. ↩

The article on apprentices occupies twenty-four pages in Richard Burn’s Justice of the Peace, 1764. ↩

The last two terms seem to be used rather contemptuously. Probably Smith had fresh in his recollection the passage in which Madox ridicules as a “piece of puerility” the use of the English word “misterie,” derived from “the Gallic word mestera, mistera and misteria,” as if it “signified something μυστηριω̑δες, mysterious.” —⁠Firma Burgi, 1726, pp. 33⁠–⁠35 ↩

See Madox Firma Burgi, p. 26, etc. —⁠Smith

This note appears first in ed. 2. —⁠Cannan ↩

“Peradventure from these secular gilds or in imitation of them sprang the method or practice of gildating and embodying whole towns.” —⁠Madox, Firma Burgi, p. 27 ↩

The argument is unsound in the absence of any proof that the more numerous successes are not counterbalanced by equally numerous failures; cp. this note. ↩

Below, here through here. ↩

Descriptions des Arts et Métiers faites ou approuvées par Messieurs de l’Académie Royale des Sciences, 1761⁠–⁠88. ↩

Lectures, p. 255. ↩

Below, here through here. ↩

Ed. 1 reads “single member of it” here and in the next line. ↩

Eds. 4 and 5 erroneously insert “a” here. ↩

According to Richard Burn’s Ecclesiastical Law, 1763, s.v. Curates, six marks was the pay ordered by a constitution of Archbishop Islip till 1378, when it was raised to eight. ↩

See the Statute of labourers, 25 Ed. III. —⁠Smith

Below, here. The note is not in ed. 1. —⁠Cannan ↩

The quotation is not intended to be verbatim, in spite of the inverted commas. ↩

Ed. 1 does not contain “or private.” ↩

Hume, History, ed. of 1773, vol, iii, p. 403, quotes 11 Hen. VII, c. 22, which forbids students to beg without permission from the chancellor. ↩

Eds. 1⁠–⁠3 read “was.” ↩

§§ 3, 4. A very free but not incorrect translation. Arbuthnot, Tables of Ancient Coins, Weights and Measures, 2nd ed., 1754, p. 198, refers to but does not quote the passage as his authority for stating the reward of a sophist at four or five minæ. He treats the mina as equal to £3 4s. 7d., which at the rate of 62s. to the pound troy is considerably too low. ↩

Plutarch, Demosthenes, c. v, § 3; Isocrates, § 30. ↩

Arbuthnot, Tables of Ancient Coins, p. 198, says, “Isocrates had from his disciples a didactron or reward of 1,000 minæ, £3,229 3s. 4d.,” and quotes “Plut. in Isocrate,” which says nothing about a didactron, but only that Isocrates charged ten minæ and had 100 pupils. —⁠§§