Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T04:29:28.406Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Neo-Mercantilism and The Wealth of Nations: British Commercial Policy after the American Revolution*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

John E. Crowley
John E. Crowley
Affiliation:
Dalhousie University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Few works of economic thought have such a close association with the intellectual and economic history of their period as Adam Smith's An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Three recent careful assessments of the ‘influence’ of Smith's work, however, have found little direct evidence for its positive significance for economic policy in the 1780s and 1790s. Parliamentary debate seldom referred to the Wealth of nations, and then usually negatively unless by Smith's friends, or ‘radicals and Foxite whigs’. John Locke, David Hume, Charles Davenant, Sir Josiah Child, William Petty, Josiah Tucker and Arthur Young were all cited more frequently. A wide range of parliamentary leaders read Smith carefully, and several ministers knew him well and sought his advice, but with the exception of Shelburne they appear to have applied Smith's thought eclectically. Salim Rashid has noted that in 1776 there were already influential economic authorities, notably Arthur Young and Josiah Tucker, who advocated freer markets. Conversely, for over a decade after the publication of the Wealth of nations, articles on economic matters in the major periodical reviews made scanty reference to Smith's work, while the protectionist views of Sir James Steuart, whom Smith had ignored, were often authoritative. Smith's views became respectable among the political after negotiation of the Anglo-French commercial treaty of 1786, but it was this liberal economic policy which gave the wealth of nations currency, not the reverse.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , June 1990 , pp. 339 - 360
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 There are numerous illustrations. In the liberalization of the domestic corn trade of the 1770s, ‘The Wealth of nations may be seen not only as a point of departure but also as a grand central terminus to which many important lines of discussion in the middle of the eighteenth century…all run’; in British commercial negotiations of the 1780s, its ‘forceful arguments in favour of freer trade were having their influence on the minds of statesmen and policy makers’; for the Burke of the 1790s, Smith was the arch-exponent of ‘a liberal commercial society, the whig order as ruled by Sir Robert Walpole’. Thompson, E. P., ‘The moral economy of the English crowd in the eighteenth century’, Past and Present, L (1971), 89Google Scholar; Deane, Phyllis, The first industrial revolution, 2nd edn (Cambridge, 1979), p. 203Google Scholar; Pocock, J. G. A., ‘The political economy of Burke's analysis of the French Revolution’, Historical Journal, XXV (1982), 346Google Scholar.

2 Willis, Kirk, ‘The role in parliament of the economic ideas of Adam Smith, 1776–1800’, History of Political Economy, XIV (1979), 505–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Rashid, Salim, ‘Adam Smith's rise to fame: a reconsideration of the evidence’, Eighteenth Century, XXIII (1982), 64–85Google Scholar; Semmel, Bernard, The rise of free trade imperialism: classical political economy and the empire of free trade and imperialism 1750–1850 (Cambridge, 1970), pp. 14–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Teichgraeber, Richard F. III, ‘“Less abused than I had reason to expect”: the reception of The wealth of nations in Britain, 1776–90’, Historical Journal, XXX (1987), 361–4Google Scholar.

5 Semmel, , Rise of free trade imperialism, pp. 38–42Google Scholar.

6 Lingelbach, Anna Lane, ‘The inception of the British Board of Trade’, American Historical Review, XXX (1925), 710Google Scholar; Graham, Gerald S., Sea power and British North America 1783–1820: a study in British colonial policy (New York, 1968; originally published 1941), pp. 4, 10, 13, 19, 23, 29Google Scholar; Harlow, Vincent T., The founding of the second British empire 1763–1793, 2 vols. (London, 1952, 1964), I, 199, 201, 300–1, 401, 430, 452–3, 482Google Scholar; II, 227, 236, 253, 262–5, 273; Fieldhouse, David, ‘British imperialism in the late eighteenth century: defence or opulence?’, Essays in imperial government, ed. Robinson, Kenneth and Madden, Frederick (Oxford, 1963), pp. 24–5, 36, 39–43Google Scholar; Marshall, Peter, ‘The first and second British empires: a question of demarcation’, History, XLIX (1964), 23Google Scholar; Hyam, Ronald, ‘British imperial expansion in the late eighteenth century’, Historical Journal, X (1967), 121Google Scholar; Winch, Donald, Classical political economy and colonies (London, 1965), pp. 20–2Google Scholar; Ritcheson, Charles R., Aftermath of revolution: British policy toward the United States 1783–1795 (New York, 1971), pp. 126–7Google Scholar; Wise, John Philip, ‘British commercial policy 1783–1794: the aftermath of American independence’ (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of London, 1971), pp. 3, 19–27, 387Google Scholar; MacKay, D. L., ‘Direction and purpose in British imperial policy, 1783–1801’, Historical Journal, XVII (1974), 497–501Google Scholar; Marshall, Peter, ‘The British empire in the age of the American Revolution’, in The American revolution: changing perspectives, ed. Fowler, William M. Jr and Coyle, Wallace (Boston, 1979), pp. 196, 205Google Scholar; Jones, J. R., Britain and the world (Glasgow, 1980), p. 252Google Scholar; Christie, Ian R., Wars and revolutions: Britain 1760–1815 (London, 1982), p. 166Google Scholar. On Jenkinson's role as a ‘royal spy’, see O'Gorman, Frank, The rise of parly in England: The Rockingham Whigs 1760–1782 (London, 1975), pp. 405–6, 618Google Scholar.

7 SirNamier, Lewis and Brooke, John, The house of commons 1754–1790 (3 vols., London, 1964), II, 674–9Google Scholar; Lawson, Philip, George Grenville: a political life (Oxford, 1984), pp. 193, 251 nGoogle Scholar; The Jenkinson papers, ed. Jucker, Ninetta S. (London, 1949), pp. vi–xxiiiGoogle Scholar; The historical and posthumous memoirs of Sir Nathaniel William Wraxall 1772–1784, ed. Wheatley, Henry B. (5 vols., London, 1844), I, 419Google Scholar.

8 Pitt intended the committee to resume the advisory role of the previous Board of Trade, which had been abolished in 1782 as part of Burke's economising reforms. An Order in Council, 23 Aug. 1786, made the committee permanent, with a long list of members ex officio and several appointees. Jenkinson was the first president, and he dominated the committee's business. Until illness incapacitated him in the late 1790s, he attended every meeting and was often the only member present. Lingelbach, , ‘Inception of the Board of Trade’, pp. 704–13Google Scholar. On the relation between trading interests and commercial policy before the American revolution, see Marshall, , ‘The British Empire’, pp. 208–9Google Scholar.

9 Ehrman, John, The younger Pitt: The years of acclaim (London, 1969), pp. 330, 336, 346–8, 394–5Google Scholar; Semmel, , Rise of free trade imperialism, pp. 33–8Google Scholar; Marshall, Peter, Problems of empire: Britain and India 1757–1813 (London, 1968), pp. 97–8Google Scholar.

10 Best known as Gibbon's close friend and literary executor, Sheffield adopted the role of country gentleman on succession to an uncle's estates in 1768. After winning a by-election in 1780 he was an M.P. for Coventry and a loyal supporter of North's ministry. He became an Irish peer in 1781. He voted against Shelburne's peace preliminaries in February 1783. After defeat in the 1784 election, he showed no desire for office and did not return to parliament until 1790, this time for Bristol. During his period of absence from formal politics, he continued in the role of self-appointed public adviser to the government on commercial policy. Namier, and Brooke, , The house of commons 1754–1790, II, 43Google Scholar. Chalmers had left Maryland in September, 1775, rather than be forced to subscribe to the Continental Association. In 1777 he anonymously wrote pamphlets attacking Burke's arguments for leniency toward American constitutional views. In the same year Lord George Germain, Secretary of State for the American Department, successfully recommended him for a stipend of £100. Chalmers then became a leader among American expatriates and represented Maryland loyalist claimants before the Commission of Enquiry. In 1780 Germain secured him access to the Old Paper Office, which he used for documentation of An introduction to the history of the revolt of the colonies, a relentless narrative of British administrative neglect and American rebelliousness. The first volume was printed in 1782, but there was government concern that it would make the treaty of peace more controversial, and Chalmers apparently consented to its suppression before publication. In addition to testimony to the Committee of Trade's inaugural hearings on American–West Indian trade, he sent Jenkinson information to help him defend the Committee's recommendations. Once Chalmers was chief clerk, the two men soon developed a close administrative relationship. Cockcroft, Grace, The public life of George Chalmers (New York, 1939), pp. 48, 54–6, 65, 74, 90–1Google Scholar.

11 Tucker as well could have provided the neo-mercantilists with nationalistic arguments for freer trade, but his earlier disparagement of efforts to retain the thirteen colonies was a political embarrassment. Tucker was particularly influential on Pitt and Shelburne, especially regarding Ireland. Semmel, Bernard, ‘The Hume-Tucker debate and Pitt's trade proposals’, Economic Journal, LXXV (1965), 760–6, 769Google Scholar. For an argument that Adam Smith was himself ‘intensely nationalist’, see Nicholson, J. Shield, A project of empire: a critical study of the economics of imperialism, with special reference to the ideas of Adam Smith (London, 1909)Google Scholar.

12 Smith concluded his analysis of the mercantile system by asserting that ‘consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production’, and then noting how the system favoured the producer interests of ‘the rich and the powerful’. He identified the regulation of colonial trade as the most ‘extravagant’ instance of such sacrifices. An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations, ed. Skinner, A. S. and Campbell, R. H., (hereafter, WN), vol. 2 in The works and correspondence of Adam Smith, 6 vols. (Oxford, 1976–1983), iv, viii, 49, 53, 54Google Scholar.

13 Price took issue with the budget presented in April 1777, which showed ‘us in a condition the most sound and happy; our trade and revenue flourishing; our common people well provided for; our debts and taxes light; our current specie sufficiently ample; our paper circulation safe; and the Bank, in particular, as little less firm and durable than the world’. One of Price's arguments for respect of colonial rights was their unique contribution to Britain's commerce and defence. Additional observations on the nature and value of civil liberty, and the war with America (Dublin, 1777). PP. 69, 94Google Scholar.

14 Chalmers, George, An estimate of the comparative strength of Britain during the present and four preceding reigns; and of the losses of her trade from every war since the revolution (London, 1782), pp. iv, 75–6, 164nGoogle Scholar; ibid. (London, 1786), pp. 22, 30, 32. Cf. Cockroft, , Public life, pp. 71–6Google Scholar.

15 Harlow, , Founding, I, 300–10, 435–40, 448–51Google Scholar.

16 Cannon, John, The Fox–North coalition: crisis of the constitution, 1782–4 (Cambridge, 1969), pp. 6, 14n, 52Google Scholar. A favourable view of Shelburne's American trade policy was not necessarily based on liberal economic views. Harlow cites [Andrew Kippis], Considerations on the provisional treaty with America, and the preliminary articles of peace with France and Spain, as a virtual elaboration of Shelburne's liberal thinking on American trade policy. But most of the pamphlet was about the politics of the peace, and its discussion of trade was limited to the last three pages, and hence very general.

17 Holroyd, John Baker, Sheffield, Lord, Observations on the commerce of the United States with Europe and the West Indies, 6th edn (London, 1784), pp. 279, 284Google Scholar. WN, IV, i, 10, 31.

18 Chalmers, , Estimate (1786), pp. 41–2Google Scholar; ibid. (1782), pp. 75–6. See WN, IV, vii, b, 7, 56; IV, vii, c, 48.

19 He did not write that Britain was a nation of shopkeepers, nor did he intend a slur on shopkeepers: ‘To found a great empire for the sole purpose of raising up a people of customers, may at first sight appear a project fit only for a nation of shopkeepers. It is, however, a project altogether unfit for a nation of shopkeepers; but extremely fit for a nation whose government is influenced by shopkeepers. Say to a shopkeeper, Buy me a good estate, and I shall always buy my cloaths at your shop, even though I should pay somewhat dearer than what 1 can have them for at other shops; and you will not find him very forward to embrace your proposal’ (WN, IV, vii, c, 63).

20 On medical analogies for Britain's dangerously concentrated colonial trade, see WN, IV, vii, c, 43.

21 Chalmers, , Estimate (1782), pp. 76–7Google Scholar; Sheffield, , Observations, pp. 300, 227Google Scholar. See WN, IV, ii, 3–9, which refers to an ‘invisible hand’ giving preference to the support of domestic industry.

22 Chalmers, , Estimate (1782), pp. 48, 60Google Scholar; Sheffield, , Observations, pp. xxxv, 226Google Scholar. See WN, IV, ii, 30.

23 For Knox, however, the orders were the heart of British commercial policy. He was an unreconstructed mercantilist, who sought a commercial strategy that would create a self-sufficient empire and retard the economic growth of the United States. [Knox, William], Extra-official stale papers addressed to the Right Honorable Lord Rawdon and the other members of the two Houses of Parliament, associated for the preservation of the constitution and promoting the prosperity of the British empire (London, 1789), II, 8, 23, 53Google Scholar.

24 Sheffield, , Observations, pp. xxxvii, 157, 184–7, 286–7, 295–6Google Scholar.

25 Sheffield, , Observations, pp. 265–7, 295–6Google Scholar. Smith's frequently quoted praise of the Navigation Acts was doubly ironic: the Acts were the wisest of a largely unwise set of regulations, and their advantages were not commercial.

26 Harlow, , Founding, II, 266–7Google Scholar.

27 Lingelbach, , ‘The inception of the British Board of Trade’, p. 703Google Scholar; Sheffield, , Observations, p. 284Google Scholar; Edward Mead Earle, ‘Adam Smith, Alexander Hamilton, Friedrich List: the economic foundations of military power’, Makers of modern strategy: Military thought from Machiavelli to Hitler, ed. idem (Princeton, 1948), pp. 121–7.

28 Edwards, Brian, Thoughts on the late proceedings of government respecting the trade of the West India islands with the United States of North America (London, 1783), pp. 2, 12, 29–30Google Scholar; Bingham, W., A letter from an American, now resident in London, to a Member of Parliament, on the subject of the restraining proclamation: and containing strictures on Lord Sheffield's pamphlet on the commerce of the American states, second edition (London, 1784), pp. 22–3Google Scholar; [Champion, Richard], Considerations on the present situation of Great Britain and the United States of America, with a view to their future commercial connexions (London, 1784), pp. 9–10, 26–8, 200–1, 204–5Google Scholar; Ritcheson, , Aftermath of revolution, pp. 9–13Google Scholar. Cf. WN, IV, i, 10; IV, vii, b, 4.

29 Edwards, , Thoughts, p. 7Google Scholar; A free and candid review of a tract, entitled, ‘Observations on the commerce of the American states’; shewing the pernicious consequences, both to Great Britain, and to the British sugar islands, of the systems recommended in that tract (London, 1784), I, 58Google Scholar. Observations of the Committee of London merchants trading to America before the late war, on regulations to recover that commerce, 16July 1783, Public Record Office (P.R.O.), BT 6/20, fos. 408–13; Bingham, , A letter from an American, now resident in London, p. 14Google Scholar. Fieldhouse, , ‘British imperialism’, and Ehrman, John, The British government and commercial negotiations with Europe 1783–1793 (Cambridge, 1962), pp. 180, 189Google Scholar, maintain the appropriate distinction between commerce and navigation; Graham, Gerald S., Sea power, pp. 4–10Google Scholar, distinguishes them sharply in order to show the priority of national security over commerce in colonial policy, but he does not consider its relevance to the rest of commercial policy.

30 Sheffield, Observations (1784), pp. XXX, 1–3, 223–4Google Scholar.

31 Interview of George Chalmers, 6 Apr. 1784, P.R.O., BT 5/1, fos. 70–2.

32 Smith, Adam to Eden, William, 15 December 1783, The journal and correspondence of William Lord Auckland, edited by the Bishop of Bath and Wells, 4 vols. (London, 1861), I, 64–6Google Scholar.

33 Draft of four resolutions of the committee, 31 May 1784, P.R.O., BT 5/1, fo. 123.

34 See WN, VI, vii, b, 24, 39; cf. ibid. 40, 63.

35 Sheffield, , Observations (1784), p. xxxiGoogle Scholar.

36 A statement of such duties and other burdens as have been imposed by the American states ton British ships and goods, 15 March 1788, P.R.O., BT 6/20, fos. 148–152. See WN, IV, ii, 39: ‘To judge whether such retaliations are likely to produce such an effect [“repeal of high duties for prohibitions”], does not, perhaps, belong so much to the science of a legislator, whose or deliberations ought to be governed by general principles which are always the same, as to the skill fo that insidious and crafty animal, vulgarly called a statesman or politician.’

37 Questions transmitted to Mr Payne and others relating to the Impost and Tonnage Acts, P.R.O., BT 5/5, fos. 190–1.

38 Answers of the Liverpool committee of merchants and shipowners to questions about the commerce and shipping between Great Britain and the United States of America, 25 Nov. 1789, P.R.O., BT 6/20, fos. 281–4; Henry Wilckens to Hawksbury, 29 Sept. 1789, ibid. fos. 242–3; Wilckens to Hawksbury, 5 Oct. 1789, ibid. fos. 252–3.

39 Answers from Bristol to questions respecting the commerce and shipping between Great Britain and the United States of America, n Dec. 1789, P.R.O., BT 6/20, fo. 286.

40 Draft of four resolutions of the committee, 31 May 1784, P.R.O., BT 5/1, fo. 125.

41 Report of the Committee of Trade upon two bills passed by the Congress of the United States of America, 28 Jan. 1791, P.R.O., PC 1/19/A 24 (iii) fos. 84, 94, no, 113, 116, 125. With Smithian deftness the committee also advised against a bounty on British shipping, since it would simply use British revenue to pay the American surcharge; ibid. fo. 113. See WN, IV, ii, 30: ‘The act of navigation is not favourable to foreign commerce or to the growth of that opulence that can arise from it.’

42 Pitt denied the Committee of Trade a comparable role in Anglo-Irish trade policy. In January 1785, after he had decided on his response to the Irish resolutions, Pitt directed the committee to hold hearings on particular aspects of Anglo-Irish trade. He excluded the Navigation Acts from the terms of reference, an d he allowed parliament to resume debate before the committee had completed its report on the matter. Ehrman, , Younger Pitt, pp. 205–9Google Scholar. Sheffield, in alliance with William Eden against Pitt's Irish policy, published a typically influential pamphlet. These Observations on the manufacture, trade, and present state of Ireland distinguished between a protectionist policy regarding the Navigation Laws and a liberal policy toward the equalization of duties and the elimination of bounties; 2nd edn (London, 1785), pp. viii, 3, 7, 22, 38, 86–8.

43 Henderson, W. O., ‘The Anglo-French commercial treaty of 1786’, Economic History Review, 2nd series, X (1957), 104–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ehrman, , British government, pp. 28–69Google Scholar.

44 Cf. ibid. pp. 37, 45; and Lingelbach, , ‘Inception of the Board of Trade’, p. 725Google Scholar. Hawksbury rented Eden his London house while he attended the committee's hearings; Jenkinson to Eden, 3 Aug. 1785, British Library (B.L.), Add. MS 38, 309, fos. 100–1.

45 B.L., Add. M S 38, 395, Jenkinson to Mr Liston, 12 Sept. 1786, fos. 13—14.

46 Commerce with France. Observations on. Office, [n.d.], fo. 13, P.R.O., BT 6/111; reference from Ehrman, , British government, p. 12nGoogle Scholar. See WN, IV, vii, c, 17.

47 Smith counselled such moderation when lowering import duties on goods whose domestic manufacturers had not previously been subject to competition, lest ‘cheaper foreign goods of the same kind might be poured so fast into the home market, as to deprive all at once many thousands of our people of their ordinary employment and means of subsistence’. WN, IV, ii, 38. Silks and linens were the trades he identified particularly in this regard, as did the Committee of Trade.

48 Jenkinson to Eden, 3 Sept. 1786, B.L., Add. MS 34, 422, fos. 177–180. On the opposition to free trade, even among those manufacturers favoring the French treaty, see Ehrman, , British government, p. 47Google Scholar. Adam Smith had predicted inevitable opposition to free trade: ‘To expect, indeed, that the freedom of trade should ever be entirely restored in Great Britain, is as absurd as to expect that an Oceana or Utopia should ever be established in it. Not only the prejudices of the public, but what is much more unconquerable, the private interests of many individuals, irresistibly oppose it’; WN, IV, ii, 43.

49 Minutes of the Committee of Trade, 25 Aug. 1786, P.R.O., BT 5/4, fo. 8.

50 Sheffield to Eden, 9 Oct. 1786, B.L., Add. MS 34, 422, fos. 427–8; reference from Ehrman, British government. Sheffield, to Eden, , 4 10 1786, Journal and correspondence of William Lord Auckland, I, 163Google Scholar; see also, Sheffield to Eden, 25 Oct. 1786, ibid. I, 393.

51 Jenkinson to Eden, 3 Sept. 1786, B.L., Add. MS 34, 422, fo. 179; reference from Ehrman, British government. Jenkinson to Mr Walpole, 2 Oct. 1786, B.L., Add. MS 38,395, fos. 114–15. Adam Smith had used the same Anglo-Portuguese treaty of 1703 as his prime example of a misconceived commercial treaty; WN, IV, vi, 3–8.

52 Ehrman, , British government, pp. 48–9, 177–81, 193–6Google Scholar. Ehrman attributes the currency of Smith to the influence of Pitt and then carefully qualifies Pitt's commitment to free trade. Pitt had a general desire for freer trade, but he was disposed to treat commercial negotiations as the piecemeal bargaining of advantages, and he dealt as readily in privileges as in questions of supply and demand. His priorities in commercial policy were the increase of revenue and British exports.

53 The immediate issue was response to the French government's appeal for British grain exports during the Great Fear in the summer of 1789, when high prices precluded them. With a view toward the likelihood of the British harvest falling short of domestic demand, Pitt regretfully concluded that concern for public order at home prevented approval. He came to this conclusion in early July 1789, eight months before the Committee of Trade presented its report. Ehrman, John, The Younger Pitt: The reluctant transition (London, 1983), pp. 44–50Google Scholar.

54 Fay, C. R., The corn laws and social England (Cambridge, 1932), pp. 28–37Google Scholar.

55 WN, V, b, 28–9, 43–52.

56 Draft representation on the present state of the Corn Laws, 8 Mar. 1790, P.R.O., BT 5/6, fo. 45.

57 Hawksbury to Sir Joseph Banks, 19 May 1790, B.L., Add. MS 38, 310, fo. 53.

58 Representation of the Lords of the Committee of Council, appointed for the consideration of ail matters relating to trade and foreign plantations, upon the present state of the laws for regulating the importation and exportation of corn (London, 1790), p. 20Google Scholar.

59 Adam Smith assigned a similarly paternalistic function to dealers' efforts to sell a t the highest price. He compared their decisions with those of a ship's captain dispensing provisions. WN, IV, v, b, 3.

60 WN, IV, v, b, 22.

61 Holroyd, John Baker, Sheffield, Lord, Observations on the Corn Bill now depending in Parliament, 2nd edn (London, 1791), pp. 3, 10, 15n, 16, 20, 24, 27, 43, 45–6, 73Google Scholar. See WN, IV, v, b, 5.

62 Ibid. p. 27. See, WN, IV, v, b, 4.

63 Liverpool to Sir Joseph Banks, 20 Aug. 1795, B.L., Add. MS 38, 310, fo. 139.

64 WN, v, b, 40, 53.

65 Chalmers, , Estimate (London, 1794), p. 269–79Google Scholar.

66 Skinner, Andrew S., ‘Adam Smith and the American economic community: An essay in applied economies’, Journal of the History of Ideas, XXXVII (1976), 59–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

67 WN, IV, vii, c, 44.

68 Viner, Jacob, ‘Adam Smith and laissez-faire’, The long view and the short: studies in economic theory and policy (Glencoe, Illinois: 1958), pp. 244–5Google Scholar; Winch, Donald, ‘Science and the legislator: Adam Smith and after’, Economic Journal, XCIII (1983), 501–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

69 Winch, Donald, Adam Smith's politics: an essay in historiography revision (Cambridge, 1978), pp. 87–98, 148–60, 169–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Coats, A. W., ‘Adam Smith and the mercantile system’, Essays on Adam Smith, ed. Skinner, Andrew S. and Wilson, Thomas (Oxford, 1975), pp. 221, 225–6Google Scholar.