principal profit。 He is generally in contract with some farmers
to furnish him for a certain number of years with a certain
quantity of corn at a certain price。 This contract price is
settled according to what is supposed to be the moderate and
reasonable； that is； the ordinary or average price； which before
the late years of scarcity was commonly about eight…and…twenty
shillings for the quarter of wheat； and for that of other grain
in proportion。 In years of scarcity； therefore； the corn merchant
buys a great part of his corn for the ordinary price； and sells
it for a much higher。 That this extraordinary profit； however； is
no more than sufficient to put his trade upon a fair level with
other trades； and to compensate the many losses which he sustains
upon other occasions； both from the perishable nature of the
commodity itself； and from the frequent and unforeseen
fluctuations of its price； seems evident enough； from this single
circumstance； that great fortunes are as seldom made in this as
in any other trade。 The popular odium； however； which attends it
in years of scarcity； the only years in which it can be very
profitable； renders people of character and fortune averse to
enter into it。 It is abandoned to an inferior set of dealers； and
millers； bakers； mealmen； and meal factors； together with a
number of wretched hucksters； are almost the only middle people
that； in the home market； come between the grower and the
consumer。
The ancient policy of Europe； instead of discountenancing
this popular odium against a trade so beneficial to the public；
seems； on the contrary； to have authorized and encouraged it。
By the 5th and 6th of Edward VI； c。 14； it was enacted that
whoever should buy any corn or grain with intent to sell it
again； should be reputed an unlawful engrosser； and should； for
the first fault； suffer two months' imprisonment； and forfeit the
value of the corn； for the second； suffer six months'
imprisonment； and forfeit double the value； and for the third； be
set in the pillory； suffer imprisonment during the king's
pleasure； and forfeit all his goods and chattels。 The ancient
policy of most other parts of Europe was no better than that of
England。
Our ancestors seem to have imagined that the people would
buy their corn cheaper of the farmer than of the corn merchant；
who； they were afraid； would require； over and above the price
which he paid to the farmer； an exorbitant profit to himself。
They endeavoured； therefore； to annihilate his trade altogether。
They even endeavoured to hinder as much as possible any middle
man of any kind from coming in between the grower and the
consumer； and this was the meaning of the many restraints which
they imposed upon the trade of those whom they called kidders or
carriers of corn； a trade which nobody was allowed to exercise
without a licence ascertaining his qualifications as a man of
probity and fair dealing。 The authority of three justices of the
peace was； by the statute of Edward VI； necessary in order to
grant this licence。 But even this restraint was afterwards
thought insufficient； and by a statute of Elizabeth the privilege
of granting it was confined to the quarter…sessions。
The ancient policy of Europe endeavoured in this manner to
regulate agriculture； the great trade of the country； by maxims
quite different from those which it established with regard to
manufactures； the great trade of the towns。 By leaving the farmer
no other customers but either the consumers or their immediate
factors； the kidders and carriers of corn； it endeavoured to
force him to exercise the trade； not only of a farmer； but of a
corn merchant or corn retailer。 On the contrary； it in many cases
prohibited the manufacturer from exercising the trade of a
shopkeeper； or from selling his own goods by retail。 It meant by
the one law to promote the general interest of the country； or to
render corn cheap； without； perhaps； its being well understood
how this was to be done。 By the other it meant to promote that of
a particular order of men； the shopkeepers； who would be so much
undersold by the manufacturer； it was supposed； that their trade
would be ruined if he was allowed to retail at all。
The manufacturer； however； though he had been allowed to
keep a shop； and to sell his own goods by retail； could not have
undersold the common shopkeeper。 Whatever part of his capital he
might have placed in his shop； he must have withdrawn it from his
manufacture。 In order to carry on his business on a level with
that of other people； as he must have had the profit of a
manufacturer on the one part； so he must have had that of a
shopkeeper upon the other。 Let us suppose； for example； that in
the particular town where he lived； ten per cent was the ordinary
profit both of manufacturing and shopkeeping stock； he must in
this case have charged upon every piece of his own goods which he
sold in his shop； a profit of twenty per cent。 When he carried
them from his workhouse to his shop； he must have valued them at
the price for which he could have sold them to a dealer or
shopkeeper； who would have bought them by wholesale。 If he valued
them lower； he lost a part of the profit of his manufacturing
capital。 When again he sold them from his shop； unless he got the
same price at which a shopkeeper would have sold them； he lost a
part of the profit of his shopkeeping capital。 Though he might
appear； therefore； to make a double profit upon the same piece of
goods； yet as these goods made successively a part of two
distinct capitals； he made but a single profit upon the whole
capital employed about them； and if he made less than his profit；
he was a loser； or did not employ his whole capital with the same
advantage as the greater part of his neighbours。
What the manufacturer was prohibited to do； the farmer was
in some measure enjoined to do； to divide his capital between two
different employments； to keep one part of it in his granaries
and stack yard； for supplying the occasional demands of the
market； and to employ the other in the cultivation of his land。
But as he could not afford to employ the latter for less than the
ordinary profits of farming stock； so he could as little afford
to employ the former for less than the ordinary profits of
mercantile stock。 Whether the stock which really carried on the
business of the corn merchant belonged to the person who was
called a farmer； or to the person who was called a corn merchant；
an equal profit was in both cases requisite in order to indemnify
its owner for employing it in this manner； in order to put his
business upon a level with other trades； and in order to hinder
him from having an interest to change it as soon as possible for
some other。 The farmer； therefore； who was thus forced to
exercise the trade of a corn merchant； could not afford to sell
his corn cheaper than any other corn merchant would have been
obliged to do in the case of a free competition。
The dealer who can employ his whole stock in one single
branch of business has an advantage of the same kind with the
workman who can employ his whole labour in one single operation。
As the latter acquires a dexterity which enables him； with the
same two hands； to perform a much greater quantity of work； so
the former acquires so easy and ready a method of transacting his
business； of buying and disposing of his goods； that with the
same capital he can transact a much greater quantity of business。
As the one can commonly afford his work a good deal cheaper； so
the other can commonly afford his goods somewhat cheaper than if
his stock and attention were both employed about a greater
variety of objects。 The greater part of manufacturers could not
afford to retail their own goods so cheap as a vigilant and
active shopkeeper； whose sole business it was to buy them at
wholesale and to retail them again。 The greater part of farmers
could still less afford to retail their own corn； to supply the
inhabitants of a town； at perhaps four or five miles distance
from the greater part of them； so cheap as a vigilant and active
corn merchant； whose sole business it was to purchase corn by
wholesale； to collect it into a great magazine； and to retail it
again。
The law which prohibited the manufacturer from exercising
the trade of a shopkeeper endeavoured to force this division in
the employment of stock to go on faster than it might otherwise
have done。 The law which obliged the farmer to exercise the trade
of a corn merchant endeavoured to hinder it from going on so
fast。 Both laws were evident violations of natural liberty； and
therefore unjust； and they were both； too； as impolitic as they
were unjust。 It is the interest of every society that things of
this kind should never either be forced or obstructed。 The man
who employs either his labour or his stock in a greater variety
of ways than his situation renders necessary can never hurt his
neighbour by underselling him。 He may hurt himself； and he
generally does so。 Jack of all trades will never be rich； says
the proverb。 But the law ought always to trust people with the
care of their own interest； as in their local situations they
must generally be able to judge better of it than the legislator
can do。 The law； however； which obliged the farmer to exercise
the trade of a corn merchant was by far the most pernicious of
the two。
It obstructed not only that division in the employment of
stock which is so advantageous to every society； but it
obstructed likewise the improvement and cultivation of the land。
By obliging the farmer to carry on two trades instead of one； it
forced him to divide his capital into two parts； of which one
only could be employed in cultivation。 But if he had been at
liberty to sell his whole crop to a corn merchant as fast as he
could thresh it out； his whole capital might have returned
immediately to the land； and have been employed in buying more
cattle； and hiring more servants； in order to improve and