This is a modern-English version of The Complete English Tradesman (1839 ed.), originally written by Defoe, Daniel. It has been thoroughly updated, including changes to sentence structure, words, spelling, and grammar—to ensure clarity for contemporary readers, while preserving the original spirit and nuance. If you click on a paragraph, you will see the original text that we modified, and you can toggle between the two versions.

Scroll to the bottom of this page and you will find a free ePUB download link for this book.

THE COMPLETE ENGLISH TRADESMAN

BY

DANIEL DEFOE

[LONDON 1726, EDINBURGH 1839]

[LONDON 1726, EDINBURGH 1839]


CONTENTS


AUTHOR'S PREFACE

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER I
THE TRADESMAN IN HIS PREPARATIONS WHILE AN APPRENTICE

CHAPTER II
THE TRADESMAN'S WRITING LETTERS

CHAPTER III
THE TRADING STYLE

CHAPTER IV
OF THE TRADESMAN ACQUAINTING HIMSELF WITH ALL BUSINESS IN GENERAL

CHAPTER V
DILIGENCE AND APPLICATION IN BUSINESS

CHAPTER VI
OVER-TRADING

CHAPTER VII
OF THE TRADESMAN IN DISTRESS, AND BECOMING BANKRUPT

CHAPTER VIII
THE ORDINARY OCCASIONS OF THE RUIN OF TRADESMEN

CHAPTER IX
OF OTHER REASONS FOR THE TRADESMAN'S DISASTERS: AND, FIRST, OF INNOCENT DIVERSIONS

CHAPTER X
OF EXTRAVAGANT AND EXPENSIVE LIVING; ANOTHER STEP TO A TRADESMAN'S DISASTER

CHAPTER XI
OF THE TRADESMAN'S MARRYING TOO SOON

CHAPTER XII
OF THE TRADESMAN'S LEAVING HIS BUSINESS TO SERVANTS

CHAPTER XIII
OF TRADESMEN MAKING COMPOSITION WITH DEBTORS, OR WITH CREDITORS

CHAPTER XIV
OF THE UNFORTUNATE TRADESMAN COMPOUNDING WITH HIS CREDITORS

CHAPTER XV
OF TRADESMEN RUINING ONE ANOTHER BY RUMOUR AND CLAMOUR, BY SCANDAL AND REPROACH

CHAPTER XVI
OF THE TRADESMAN'S ENTERING INTO PARTNERSHIP IN TRADE, AND THE MANY DANGERS ATTENDING IT

CHAPTER XVII
OF HONESTY IN DEALING, AND LYING

CHAPTER XVIII
OF THE CUSTOMARY FRAUDS OF TRADE, WHICH HONEST MEN ALLOW THEMSELVES TO PRACTISE, AND PRETEND TO JUSTIFY

CHAPTER XIX
OF FINE SHOPS, AND FINE SHOWS

CHAPTER XX
OF THE TRADESMAN'S KEEPING HIS BOOKS, AND CASTING UP HIS SHOP

CHAPTER XXI
OF THE TRADESMAN LETTING HIS WIFE BE ACQUAINTED WITH HIS BUSINESS

CHAPTER XXII
OF THE DIGNITY OF TRADE IN ENGLAND MORE THAN IN OTHER COUNTRIES

CHAPTER XXIII
OF THE INLAND TRADE OF ENGLAND, ITS MAGNITUDE, AND THE GREAT ADVANTAGE IT IS TO THE NATION IN GENERAL

CHAPTER XXIV
OF CREDIT IN TRADE, AND HOW A TRADESMAN OUGHT TO VALUE AND IMPROVE IT: HOW EASILY LOST, AND HOW HARD IT IS TO BE RECOVERED

CHAPTER XXV
OF THE TRADESMAN'S PUNCTUAL PAYING HIS BILLS AND PROMISSORY NOTES UNDER HIS HAND, AND THE CREDIT HE GAINS BY IT

AUTHOR'S PREFACE

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER I
THE TRADESMAN IN HIS PREPARATIONS WHILE AN APPRENTICE

CHAPTER II
THE TRADESMAN'S WRITING LETTERS

CHAPTER III
THE TRADING STYLE

CHAPTER IV
OF THE TRADESMAN ACQUAINTING HIMSELF WITH ALL BUSINESS IN GENERAL

CHAPTER V
DILIGENCE AND APPLICATION IN BUSINESS

CHAPTER VI
OVER-TRADING

CHAPTER VII
OF THE TRADESMAN IN DISTRESS, AND BECOMING BANKRUPT

CHAPTER VIII
THE ORDINARY OCCASIONS OF THE RUIN OF TRADESMEN

CHAPTER IX
OF OTHER REASONS FOR THE TRADESMAN'S DISASTERS: AND, FIRST, OF INNOCENT DIVERSIONS

CHAPTER X
OF EXTRAVAGANT AND EXPENSIVE LIVING; ANOTHER STEP TO A TRADESMAN'S DISASTER

CHAPTER XI
OF THE TRADESMAN'S MARRYING TOO SOON

CHAPTER XII
OF THE TRADESMAN'S LEAVING HIS BUSINESS TO SERVANTS

CHAPTER XIII
OF TRADESMEN MAKING COMPOSITION WITH DEBTORS, OR WITH CREDITORS

CHAPTER XIV
OF THE UNFORTUNATE TRADESMAN COMPOUNDING WITH HIS CREDITORS

CHAPTER XV
OF TRADESMEN RUINING ONE ANOTHER BY RUMOUR AND CLAMOUR, BY SCANDAL AND REPROACH

CHAPTER XVI
OF THE TRADESMAN'S ENTERING INTO PARTNERSHIP IN TRADE, AND THE MANY DANGERS ATTENDING IT

CHAPTER XVII
OF HONESTY IN DEALING, AND LYING

CHAPTER XVIII
OF THE CUSTOMARY FRAUDS OF TRADE, WHICH HONEST MEN ALLOW THEMSELVES TO PRACTISE, AND PRETEND TO JUSTIFY

CHAPTER XIX
OF FINE SHOPS, AND FINE SHOWS

CHAPTER XX
OF THE TRADESMAN'S KEEPING HIS BOOKS, AND CASTING UP HIS SHOP

CHAPTER XXI
OF THE TRADESMAN LETTING HIS WIFE BE ACQUAINTED WITH HIS BUSINESS

CHAPTER XXII
OF THE DIGNITY OF TRADE IN ENGLAND MORE THAN IN OTHER COUNTRIES

CHAPTER XXIII
OF THE INLAND TRADE OF ENGLAND, ITS MAGNITUDE, AND THE GREAT ADVANTAGE IT IS TO THE NATION IN GENERAL

CHAPTER XXIV
OF CREDIT IN TRADE, AND HOW A TRADESMAN OUGHT TO VALUE AND IMPROVE IT: HOW EASILY LOST, AND HOW HARD IT IS TO BE RECOVERED

CHAPTER XXV
OF THE TRADESMAN'S PUNCTUAL PAYING HIS BILLS AND PROMISSORY NOTES UNDER HIS HAND, AND THE CREDIT HE GAINS BY IT


AUTHOR'S PREFACE


The title of this work is an index of the performance. It is a collection of useful instructions for a young tradesman. The world is grown so wise of late, or (if you will) fancy themselves so, are so opiniatre, as the French well express it, so self-wise, that I expect some will tell us beforehand they know every thing already, and want none of my instructions; and to such, indeed, these instructions are not written.

The title of this work is a guide to the performance. It is a collection of helpful advice for a young tradesman. The world has become so wise lately, or (if you prefer) thinks they are, so stubborn, as the French put it, so self-sufficient, that I anticipate some will claim they already know everything and don’t need my advice; and for those people, these instructions aren’t meant.

Had I not, in a few years' experience, seen many young tradesmen miscarry, for want of those very cautions which are here given, I should have thought this work needless, and I am sure had never gone about to write it; but as the contrary is manifest, I thought, and think still, the world greatly wanted it.

If I hadn't seen over the years many young tradespeople fail because they didn't follow the very advice I'm providing here, I would have thought this work was unnecessary and wouldn't have bothered to write it. But since it's clear that the opposite is true, I believed, and still believe, that the world really needs this.

And be it that those unfortunate creatures that have thus blown themselves up in trade, have miscarried for want of knowing, or for want of practising, what is here offered for their direction, whether for want of wit, or by too much wit, the thing is the same, and the direction is equally needful to both.

And whether those unfortunate individuals who have messed up in business did so because they didn’t know or didn’t practice what is suggested here for their guidance, whether it was due to a lack of intelligence or having too much of it, it doesn’t matter; the guidance is equally essential for both.

An old experienced pilot sometimes loses a ship by his assurance and over confidence of his knowledge, as effectually as a young pilot does by his ignorance and want of experience—this very thing, as I have been informed, was the occasion of the fatal disaster in which Sir Cloudesley Shovel, and so many hundred brave fellows, lost their lives in a moment upon the rocks of Scilly.[1]

An experienced pilot can sometimes lose a ship due to their overconfidence and assurance in their knowledge, just as a young pilot might because of their ignorance and lack of experience. This very issue, as I’ve been told, was the cause of the tragic disaster in which Sir Cloudesley Shovel and many brave souls lost their lives in an instant on the rocks of Scilly.[1]

He that is above informing himself when he is in danger, is above pity when he miscarries—a young tradesman who sets up thus full of himself, and scorning advice from those who have gone before him, like a horse that rushes into the battle, is only fearless of danger because he does not understand it.

He who neglects to educate himself when he's in danger is beyond sympathy when he fails. A young entrepreneur who starts out full of himself and disregards the advice of those who have come before him, like a horse charging into battle, is only fearless of danger because he doesn't comprehend it.

If there is not something extraordinary in the temper and genius of the tradesmen of this age, if there is not something very singular in their customs and methods, their conduct and behaviour in business; also, if there is not something different and more dangerous and fatal in the common road of trading, and tradesmen's management now, than ever was before, what is the reason that there are so many bankrupts and broken tradesmen now among us, more than ever were known before? I make no doubt but there is as much trade now, and as much gotten by trading, as there ever was in this nation, at least in our memory; and if we will allow other people to judge, they will tell us there is much more trade, and trade is much more gainful; what, then, must be the reason that the tradesmen cannot live on their trades, cannot keep open their shops, cannot maintain themselves and families, as well now as they could before? Something extraordinary must be the case.

If there's nothing special about the temperament and talent of today's tradespeople, nothing very unique in their customs and practices, and if their business behavior isn't strikingly different—in a more dangerous and harmful way—than it has been in the past, then why are there so many bankruptcies and failed businesses among us now, more than ever before? I have no doubt that there’s just as much trade happening now, and as much profit being made from it, as there ever has been in this country, at least in our lifetime. And if we let others weigh in, they would likely say there's way more trading happening now, and that it's far more profitable too. So, what could explain why tradespeople can't make a living from their businesses, can't keep their shops open, or support themselves and their families like they could before? Something unusual must be going on.

There must be some failure in the tradesman—it can be nowhere else—either he is less sober and less frugal, less cautious of what he does, whom he trusts, how he lives, and how he behaves, than tradesmen used to be, or he is less industrious, less diligent, and takes less care and pains in his business, or something is the matter; it cannot be but if he had the same gain, and but the same expense which the former ages suffered tradesmen to thrive with, he would certainly thrive as they did. There must be something out of order in the foundation; he must fail in the essential part, or he would not fail in his trade. The same causes would have the same effects in all ages; the same gain, and but the same expense, would just leave him in the same place as it would have left his predecessor in the same shop; and yet we see one grow rich, and the other starve, under the very same circumstances.

There must be something wrong with the tradesman—it can't be anything else. Either he is not as sober and frugal, not as careful about what he does, whom he trusts, how he lives, and how he behaves, as tradesmen used to be, or he is not as hardworking, not as diligent, and he puts in less effort and care into his business. Something has to be off; if he had the same profits and expenses that past tradesmen had, he would definitely be successful like they were. There has to be something faulty at the foundation; he must be failing in the essential part, or he wouldn't be struggling in his trade. The same factors would lead to the same outcomes across all times; the same profits, and the same expenses, would leave him in the same position as it would have left his predecessor in that same shop. Yet we see one person getting rich while another struggles right under the same conditions.

The temper of the times explains the case to every body that pleases but to look into it. The expenses of a family are quite different now from what they have been. Tradesmen cannot live as tradesmen in the same class used to live; custom, and the manner of all the tradesmen round them, command a difference; and he that will not do as others do, is esteemed as nobody among them, and the tradesman is doomed to ruin by the fate of the times.

The mood of the times makes it clear to everyone who cares to look into it. A family's expenses are completely different now than they used to be. Businesspeople can't live like they once did in the same class; trends and the behavior of all the businesspeople around them demand a change. Those who refuse to follow the crowd are seen as insignificant among them, and the businessperson faces inevitable failure due to the era's circumstances.

In short, there is a fate upon a tradesman; either he must yield to the snare of the times, or be the jest of the times; the young tradesman cannot resist it; he must live as others do, or lose the credit of living, and be run down as if he were bankrupt. In a word, he must spend more than he can afford to spend, and so be undone; or not spend it, and so be undone.

In short, a tradesman is destined for a tough choice; either he gives in to the trends of the times or becomes the subject of ridicule. A young tradesman can't resist this pressure; he has to live like everyone else or risk losing his reputation and being seen as a failure. In other words, he has to spend more than he can afford, leading to disaster, or not spend at all, which also leads to ruin.

If he lives as others do, he breaks, because he spends more than he gets; if he does not, he breaks too, because he loses his credit, and that is to lose his trade. What must he do?[2]

If he lives like everyone else, he goes bankrupt because he spends more than he earns; if he doesn't, he goes bankrupt too, because he loses his credit, and losing credit means losing his business. What should he do?[2]

The following directions are calculated for this exigency, and to prepare the young tradesman to stem the attacks of those fatal customs, which otherwise, if he yields to them, will inevitably send him the way of all the thoughtless tradesmen that have gone before him.

The following instructions are designed for this situation, aiming to prepare the young tradesman to resist the challenges of those harmful habits that, if he gives in to them, will inevitably lead him down the same path as all the careless tradesmen before him.

Here he will be effectually, we hope, encouraged to set out well; to begin wisely and prudently; and to avoid all those rocks which the gay race of tradesmen so frequently suffer shipwreck upon. And here he will have a true plan of his own prosperity drawn out for him, by which, if it be not his own fault, he may square his conduct in an unerring manner, and fear neither bad fortune nor bad friends. I had purposed to give a great many other cautions and directions in this work, but it would have spun it out too far, and have made it tedious. I would indeed have discoursed of some branches of home trade, which necessarily embarks the inland tradesman in some parts of foreign business, and so makes a merchant of the shopkeeper almost whether he will or no. For example, almost all the shopkeepers and inland traders in seaport towns, or even in the water-side part of London itself, are necessarily brought in to be owners of ships, and concerned at least in the vessel, if not in the voyage. Some of their trades, perhaps, relate to, or are employed in, the building, or fitting, or furnishing out ships, as is the case at Shoreham, at Ipswich, Yarmouth, Hull, Whitby, Newcastle, and the like. Others are concerned in the cargoes, as in the herring fishery at Yarmouth and the adjacent ports, the colliery at Newcastle, Sunderland, &c., and the like in many other cases.

Here, we hope he will be effectively encouraged to start off right, to begin wisely and carefully, and to avoid all the pitfalls that the lively world of traders often faces. Here, he will have a real plan for his own success laid out for him, by which, as long as he doesn't mess it up, he can align his actions precisely and not fear bad luck or bad company. I had planned to offer many more warnings and tips in this work, but that would have made it too lengthy and dull. I would have indeed discussed some aspects of local trade that inevitably involve the inland trader in certain aspects of foreign business, turning the shopkeeper into a merchant almost against their will. For instance, nearly all the shopkeepers and inland traders in port towns, or even in the riverside areas of London itself, are inevitably drawn into owning ships and are at least partially involved in the vessel, if not in the journey itself. Some of their businesses might deal with the building, fitting out, or equipping of ships, as happens in Shoreham, Ipswich, Yarmouth, Hull, Whitby, Newcastle, and similar places. Others are involved with the cargoes, as seen in the herring fishery at Yarmouth and nearby ports, the coal trade at Newcastle, Sunderland, etc., and many other similar cases.

In this case, the shopkeeper is sometimes a merchant adventurer, whether he will or not, and some of his business runs into sea-adventures, as in the salt trade at Sheffield, in Northumberland, and Durham, and again at Limington; and again in the coal trade, from Whitehaven in Cumberland to Ireland, and the like.

In this situation, the shopkeeper is often an unwitting merchant adventurer, whether he likes it or not, and some of his business involves sea adventures, like the salt trade in Sheffield, Northumberland, and Durham, and also in Limington; and similarly in the coal trade, from Whitehaven in Cumberland to Ireland, and so on.

These considerations urged me to direct due cautions to such tradesmen, and such as would be particular to them, especially not to launch out in adventures beyond the compass of their stocks,[3] and withal to manage those things with due wariness. But this work had not room for those things; and as that sort of amphibious tradesmen, for such they are, trading both by water and by land, are not of the kind with those particularly aimed at in these sheets, I thought it was better to leave them quite out than to touch but lightly upon them.

These considerations made me cautious about certain tradesmen and those specific to them, especially not to engage in ventures beyond the limits of their resources,[3] and also to handle matters with proper care. However, this work doesn't have space for those topics; and since that type of versatile tradesmen, who operate both by land and water, aren't the focus of this material, I decided it was better to leave them out entirely rather than only briefly mention them.

I had also designed one chapter or letter to my inland tradesmen, upon the most important subject of borrowing money upon interest, which is one of the most dangerous things a tradesman is exposed to. It is a pleasant thing to a tradesman to see his credit rise, and men offer him money to trade with, upon so slender a consideration as five per cent. interest, when he gets ten per cent. perhaps twice in the year; but it is a snare of the most dangerous kind in the event, and has been the ruin of so many tradesmen, that, though I had not room for it in the work, I could not let it pass without this notice in the preface.

I also wrote a chapter or letter to my local business owners about the very important issue of borrowing money with interest, which is one of the most risky situations a business owner can face. It's tempting for a business owner to watch their credit grow and have people offer them money to invest, especially at a low interest rate like five percent, while they might be making ten percent or more a couple of times a year. However, this can be a very dangerous trap that has led to the downfall of many business owners, so even though I didn’t have space for it in the main work, I felt I had to mention it in the preface.

1. Interest-money eats deep into the tradesman's profits, because it is a payment certain, whether the tradesman gets or loses, and as he may often get double, so sometimes he loses, and then his interest is a double payment; it is a partner with him under this unhappy circumstance, namely, that it goes halves when he gains, but not when he loses.

1. Interest eats away at the tradesman's profits because it's a guaranteed payment, whether he makes money or loses it. He might sometimes make double, but there are times when he loses, and then his interest feels like a double payment. In this unfortunate situation, interest shares in his gains but not in his losses.

2. The lender calls for his money when he pleases, and often comes for it when the borrower can ill spare it; and then, having launched out in trade on the supposition of so much in stock, he is left to struggle with the enlarged trade with a contracted stock, and thus he sinks under the weight of it, cannot repay the money, is dishonoured, prosecuted, and at last undone, by the very loan which he took in to help him. Interest of money is a dead weight upon the tradesman, and as the interest always keeps him low, the principal sinks him quite down, when that comes to be paid out again. Payment of interest, to a tradesman, is like Cicero bleeding to death in a warm bath;[4] the pleasing warmth of the bath makes him die in a kind of dream, and not feel himself decay, till at last he is exhausted, falls into convulsions, and expires.

2. The lender can demand repayment whenever he wants, and often comes asking for it when the borrower can barely afford it; then, having expanded his business based on the assumption of having enough stock, the borrower is left to struggle with increased business and limited stock, ultimately collapsing under the pressure. He can't repay the loan, ends up dishonored, prosecuted, and ultimately ruined by the very money he borrowed to help himself. The interest on the loan is a heavy burden for the tradesman, and while the interest keeps him struggling, the principal completely drags him down when it needs to be repaid. Paying interest feels to a tradesman like Cicero dying in a warm bath;[4] the comforting warmth of the bath makes him feel like he's dying in a haze, not realizing he's deteriorating until he finally collapses, convulses, and dies.

A tradesman held up by money at interest, is sure to sink at last by the weight of it, like a man thrown into the sea with a stone tied about his neck, who though he could swim if he was loose, drowns in spite of all his struggle.

A tradesman burdened by interest on money is bound to fail in the end, like a person thrown into the ocean with a stone tied around their neck, who, even if they could swim if free, drowns despite all their efforts.

Indeed, this article would require not a letter, but a book by itself; and the tragical stories of tradesmen undone by usury are so many, and the variety so great, that they would make a history by themselves. But it must suffice to treat it here only in general, and give the tradesmen a warning of it, as the Trinity-house pilots warn sailors of a sand, by hanging a buoy upon it, or as the Eddystone light-house upon a sunk rock, which, as the poet says, 'Bids men stand off, and live; come near, and die.'

Indeed, this article would need not just a letter, but a whole book on its own; the tragic stories of tradespeople ruined by excessive interest are so numerous and varied that they could fill a history all by themselves. However, it must be enough to discuss it here only in general terms and to warn tradespeople about it, just like the Trinity House pilots alert sailors to hidden sands by putting up a buoy, or like the Eddystone lighthouse warns of a submerged rock, which, as the poet says, 'Tells men to stay away and live; come close, and you’ll die.'

For a tradesman to borrow money upon interest, I take to be like a man going into a house infected with the plague; it is not only likely that he may be infected and die, but next to a miracle if he escapes.

For a tradesman to borrow money with interest feels like a person entering a house filled with the plague; not only is it likely that he will get infected and die, but it would be almost miraculous if he manages to escape.

This part being thus hinted at, I think I may say of the following sheets, that they contain all the directions needful to make the tradesman thrive; and if he pleases to listen to them with a temper of mind willing to be directed, he must have some uncommon ill luck if he miscarries.

This part being mentioned, I can say about the following pages that they include all the guidance needed for a tradesman to succeed; and if he is willing to follow them with an open mind, he must be really unlucky if he fails.

FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:

[October 22, 1707.—Admiral Shovel, with the confederate fleet from the Mediterranean, as he was coming home, apprehended himself near the rocks of Scilly about noon, and the weather being hazy, he brought to and lay by till evening, when he made a signal for sailing. What induced him to be more cautious in the day than in the night is not known; but the fleet had not been long under sail before his own ship, the Association, with the Eagle and Romney, were dashed to pieces upon the rocks called the Bishop and his Clerks, and all their men lost; the Ferdinand was also cast away, and but twenty-four of her men saved. Admiral Byng, perceiving the misfortune, altered his course, whereby he preserved himself and the rest of the fleet which sailed after him.—Salmon's Chronological Historian. London, 1723.]

[October 22, 1707.—Admiral Shovel, with the allied fleet from the Mediterranean, was on his way home when he found himself near the rocks of Scilly around noon. The weather was hazy, so he decided to stop and wait until evening, when he signaled to set sail. It’s unclear why he was more cautious during the day than at night, but not long after the fleet set sail, his own ship, the Association, along with the Eagle and Romney, crashed into the rocks known as the Bishop and his Clerks, resulting in the loss of all their crew. The Ferdinand also ran aground, with only twenty-four of her crew surviving. Admiral Byng, seeing the disaster, changed his course, which allowed him and the rest of the fleet that followed him to be saved.—Salmon's Chronological Historian. London, 1723.]

[There is much reason for receiving all such complaints as the above with caution. The extravagance of the present, in contrast with the frugality of a past age, has always been a favourite topic of declamation, and appears to have no other foundation than whim. Indeed, it is next to impossible that any great body of men could exist in the circumstances described in the text.]

[There are plenty of reasons to take all complaints like the ones mentioned above with caution. The lavishness of today, compared to the saving habits of the past, has always been a popular topic for speeches and seems to be based solely on opinion. In fact, it’s almost impossible for any large group of people to live under the conditions described in the text.]

[Stock is in this book invariably used for what we express by the term capital.]

[Stock is used in this book to mean what we refer to as capital.]

[Cicero is here given by mistake for Seneca, who thus suffered death by order of the tyrant Nero.]

[Cicero is incorrectly identified as Seneca, who was executed on the orders of the tyrant Nero.]


INTRODUCTION


Being to direct this discourse to the tradesmen of this nation, it is needful, in order to make the substance of this work and the subject of it agree together, that I should in a few words explain the terms, and tell the reader who it is we understand by the word tradesman, and how he is to be qualified in order to merit the title of complete.

Being to address this discussion to the tradespeople of this nation, it's important, to align the content of this work with its subject, that I briefly explain the terms and clarify who we mean by the word "tradesman" and what qualifications one needs to hold the title of complete.

This is necessary, because the said term tradesman is understood by several people, and in several places, in a different manner: for example, in the north of Britain, and likewise in Ireland, when you say a tradesman, you are understood to mean a mechanic, such as a smith, a carpenter, a shoemaker, and the like, such as here we call a handicraftsman. In like manner, abroad they call a tradesman such only as carry goods about from town to town, and from market to market, or from house to house, to sell; these in England we call petty chapmen, in the north pethers, and in our ordinary speech pedlars.

This is necessary because the term "tradesman" is understood differently by various people in different regions. For instance, in northern Britain and in Ireland, when you refer to a tradesman, it typically means a mechanic, like a blacksmith, a carpenter, or a shoemaker, which we refer to as a handicraftsman here. Similarly, abroad, a tradesman usually refers to someone who carries goods from town to town, from market to market, or from house to house to sell; in England, we call these people petty chapmen, in the north, pethers, and in everyday language, pedlars.

But in England, and especially in London, and the south parts of Britain, we take it in another sense, and in general, all sorts of warehouse-keepers, shopkeepers, whether wholesale dealers or retailers of goods, are called tradesmen, or, to explain it by another word, trading men: such are, whether wholesale or retail, our grocers, mercers, linen and woollen drapers, Blackwell-hall factors, tobacconists, haberdashers, whether of hats or small wares, glovers, hosiers, milliners, booksellers, stationers, and all other shopkeepers, who do not actually work upon, make, or manufacture, the goods they sell.

But in England, especially in London and the southern parts of Britain, we understand it differently. Generally, all kinds of warehouse keepers and shopkeepers, whether they sell in bulk or to individual customers, are referred to as tradesmen, or in other words, trading men. This includes our grocers, mercers, linen and woolen drapers, Blackwell Hall factors, tobacconists, haberdashers (whether they sell hats or small goods), glovers, hosiers, milliners, booksellers, stationers, and all other shopkeepers who don’t actually make or manufacture the goods they sell.

On the other hand, those who make the goods they sell, though they do keep shops to sell them, are not called tradesmen, but handicrafts, such as smiths, shoemakers, founders, joiners, carpenters, carvers, turners, and the like; others, who only make, or cause to be made, goods for other people to sell, are called manufacturers and artists, &c. Thus distinguished, I shall speak of them all as occasion requires, taking this general explication to be sufficient; and I thus mention it to prevent being obliged to frequent and further particular descriptions as I go on.

On the other hand, those who create the products they sell, even though they have shops to sell them, aren't called tradesmen, but rather artisans, like blacksmiths, shoemakers, metalworkers, carpenters, woodworkers, woodcarvers, and turners, among others. Others who either create or have products made for others to sell are referred to as manufacturers and artists, etc. With this distinction in mind, I will discuss them all as needed, assuming this general explanation is enough; I mention it to avoid having to provide detailed descriptions as I proceed.

As there are several degrees of people employed in trade below these, such as workmen, labourers, and servants, so there is a degree of traders above them, which we call merchants; where it is needful to observe, that in other countries, and even in the north of Britain and Ireland, as the handicraftsmen and artists are called tradesmen, so the shopkeepers whom we here call tradesmen, are all called merchants; nay, even the very pedlars are called travelling merchants.[5] But in England the word merchant is understood of none but such as carry on foreign correspondences, importing the goods and growth of other countries, and exporting the growth and manufacture of England to other countries; or, to use a vulgar expression, because I am speaking to and of those who use that expression, such as trade beyond sea. These in England, and these only, are called merchants, by way of honourable distinction; these I am not concerned with in this work, nor is any part of it directed to them.

As there are different levels of people working in trade below these, like workers, laborers, and servants, there is also a level of traders above them, which we refer to as merchants. It's important to note that in other countries, and even in the north of Britain and Ireland, the craftsmen and artists are called tradesmen, while the shopkeepers we call tradesmen are usually considered merchants; in fact, even peddlers are referred to as traveling merchants.[5] However, in England, the term merchant is understood to refer only to those who conduct foreign trade, importing goods and products from other countries and exporting England's goods and products elsewhere; or, to put it simply, people who trade overseas. In England, only these individuals are called merchants as a mark of honorable distinction; they are not the focus of this work, nor is any part of it aimed at them.

As the tradesmen are thus distinguished, and their several occupations divided into proper classes, so are the trades. The general commerce of England, as it is the most considerable of any nation in the world, so that part of it which we call the home or inland trade, is equal, if not superior, to that of any other nation, though some of those nations are infinitely greater than England, and more populous also, as France and Germany in particular.

As the tradespeople are categorized and their various jobs sorted into appropriate classes, so are the trades themselves. The overall commerce of England, being the most significant of any nation in the world, means that the part we refer to as the domestic or inland trade is on par with, if not better than, that of any other country, even though some of those countries are much larger and more populated than England, particularly France and Germany.

I insist that the trade of England is greater and more considerable than that of any other nation, for these reasons: 1. Because England produces more goods as well for home consumption as for foreign exportation, and those goods all made of its own produce or manufactured by its own inhabitants, than any other nation in the world. 2. Because England consumes within itself more goods of foreign growth, imported from the several countries where they are produced or wrought, than any other nation in the world. And—3. Because for the doing this England employs more shipping and more seamen than any other nation, and, some think, than all the other nations, of Europe.

I believe that England's trade is larger and more significant than that of any other country for these reasons: 1. England produces more goods for both domestic use and foreign export, with all these goods being made from its own resources or manufactured by its own people, than any other nation in the world. 2. England also consumes more goods from abroad, imported from various countries where they are produced or crafted, than any other nation. And—3. To achieve this, England employs more shipping and more sailors than any other country, and some say even more than all the other countries in Europe combined.

Hence, besides the great number of wealthy merchants who carry on this great foreign negoce [negotium (Latin) business], and who, by their corresponding with all parts of the world, import the growth of all countries hither—I say, besides these, we have a very great number of considerable dealers, whom we call tradesmen, who are properly called warehouse-keepers, who supply the merchants with all the several kinds of manufactures, and other goods of the produce of England, for exportation; and also others who are called wholesalemen, who buy and take off from the merchants all the foreign goods which they import; these, by their corresponding with a like sort of tradesmen in the country, convey and hand forward those goods, and our own also, among those country tradesmen, into every corner of the kingdom, however remote, and by them to the retailers, and by the retailer to the last consumer, which is the last article of all trade. These are the tradesmen understood in this work, and for whose service these sheets are made public.

So, in addition to the many wealthy merchants who conduct this extensive foreign trade, and who, by connecting with all parts of the world, import goods from various countries to here—I mean, besides these, we have a significant number of notable dealers, referred to as tradesmen, who are essentially warehouse-keepers. They provide the merchants with all kinds of manufactured goods and other products from England for export. There are also those known as wholesalers who buy all the foreign goods the merchants import. These wholesalers, by connecting with similar tradesmen in the countryside, distribute those goods, as well as our own, among local tradesmen in every corner of the kingdom, no matter how remote. Through them, goods reach retailers, and from the retailer to the final consumer, which is the last step in the trade process. These are the tradesmen referred to in this work, and these documents are published for their benefit.

Having thus described the person whom I understand by the English tradesman, it is then needful to inquire into his qualifications, and what it is that renders him a finished or complete man in his business.

Having described the person I think of as the English tradesman, it’s important to look into his skills and what makes him a well-rounded or complete professional in his field.

1. That he has a general knowledge of not his own particular trade and business only—that part, indeed, well denominates a handicraftsman to be a complete artist; but our complete tradesman ought to understand all the inland trade of England, so as to be able to turn his hand to any thing, or deal in any thing or every thing of the growth and product of his own country, or the manufacture of the people, as his circumstances in trade or other occasions may require; and may, if he sees occasion, lay down one trade and take up another when he pleases, without serving a new apprenticeship to learn it.

1. He has a broad understanding of not just his specific trade and business—though that part certainly qualifies a craftsman as a complete artist—but our well-rounded tradesman should grasp the entire inland trade of England. This means he should be capable of working in or trading anything that comes from his own country or is made by its people, depending on what his business needs or other situations call for. He should also be able to drop one trade and pick up another as he wishes, without needing to serve a new apprenticeship to learn it.

2. That he not only has a knowledge of the species or kinds of goods, but of the places and peculiar countries where those goods, whether product or manufacture, are to be found; that is to say, where produced or where made, and how to come at them or deal in them, at the first hand, and to his best advantage.

2. That he not only understands the different types of goods, but also knows the specific locations and unique countries where those goods, whether they are natural products or manufactured items, can be found; in other words, where they are produced or made, and how to access them or trade in them directly, for his benefit.

3. That he understands perfectly well all the methods of correspondence, returning money or goods for goods, to and from every county in England; in what manner to be done, and in what manner most to advantage; what goods are generally bought by barter and exchange, and what by payment of money; what for present money, and what for time; what are sold by commission from the makers, what bought by factors, and by giving commission to buyers in the country, and what bought by orders to the maker, and the like; what markets are the most proper to buy every thing at, and where and when; and what fairs are proper to go to in order to buy or sell, or meet the country dealer at, such as Sturbridge, Bristol, Chester, Exeter; or what marts, such as Beverly, Lynn, Boston, Gainsborough, and the like.

3. He fully understands all the methods of correspondence, returning money or goods for goods, to and from every county in England; how this should be done and in the most advantageous way; which goods are typically traded by barter and exchange, and which are purchased with cash; what can be bought for immediate payment and what can be bought on credit; which are sold on commission from the makers, which are acquired through agents, and how to provide commission to buyers in the region, and what is purchased through orders to the maker, and so on; which markets are the best places to buy everything, and where and when to do this; and which fairs are suitable for buying or selling, or for meeting local dealers, such as Sturbridge, Bristol, Chester, Exeter; or which trading posts, such as Beverly, Lynn, Boston, Gainsborough, and others.

In order to complete the English tradesman in this manner, the first thing to be done is lay down such general maxims of trade as are fit for his instruction, and then to describe the English or British product, being the fund of its inland trade, whether we mean its produce as the growth of the country, or its manufactures, as the labour of her people; then to acquaint the tradesman with the manner of the circulation where those things are found, how and by what methods all those goods are brought to London, and from London again conveyed into the country; where they are principally bought at best hand, and most to the advantage of the buyer, and where the proper markets are to dispose of them again when bought.

To train the English tradesman effectively, the first step is to outline some basic principles of trade that will guide him. Then, it's important to describe British products, which are the foundation of its local trade—this includes both the natural resources grown in the country and the goods produced by its workers. Next, the tradesman should learn how these goods circulate: how they are brought to London and then distributed back to the countryside. He should know where to purchase them best and at the most advantageous price, as well as where to sell them after buying.

These are the degrees by which the complete tradesman is brought up, and by which he is instructed in the principles and methods of his commerce, by which he is made acquainted with business, and is capable of carrying it on with success, after which there is not a man in the universe deserves the title of a complete tradesman, like the English shopkeeper.

These are the skills that shape the well-rounded tradesman, teaching him the fundamentals and techniques of his craft, familiarizing him with business, and enabling him to navigate it successfully. After this training, no one in the world deserves the title of a complete tradesman more than the English shopkeeper.

FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:

[This misuse of the term merchant continues to exist in Scotland to the present day.]

[This misuse of the term merchant still exists in Scotland today.]


CHAPTER I

THE TRADESMAN IN HIS PREPARATIONS WHILE AN APPRENTICE

THE TRADESMAN IN HIS PREPARATIONS AS AN APPRENTICE


The first part of a trader's beginning is ordinarily when he is very young, I mean, when he goes as an apprentice, and the notions of trade are scarcely got into his head; for boys go apprentices while they are but boys; to talk to them in their first three or four years signifies nothing; they are rather then to be taught submission to families, and subjection to their masters, and dutiful attendance in their shops or warehouses; and this is not our present business.

The first part of a trader's journey usually starts when they are very young, meaning when they become an apprentice, and the concepts of trade are hardly understood yet. Boys become apprentices while they're still just boys; talking to them in their first three or four years doesn't mean much. Instead, they need to learn to be respectful to families, obedient to their masters, and to show up regularly at their shops or warehouses, and that's not what we're discussing right now.

But after they have entered the fifth or sixth year, they may then be entertained with discourses of another nature; and as they begin then to look forward beyond the time of their servitude, and think of setting up and being for themselves, I think then is the time to put them upon useful preparations for the work, and to instruct them in such things as may qualify them best to enter upon the world, and act for themselves when they are so entered.

But after they've reached the fifth or sixth year, they can be engaged with discussions of a different kind; as they start to look ahead beyond their time of servitude and consider becoming independent, I believe that's the right time to prepare them for useful activities and teach them skills that will best equip them to enter the world and take care of themselves once they do.

The first thing a youth in the latter part of his time is to do, is to endeavour to gain a good judgment in the wares of all kinds that he is likely to deal in—as, for example, if a draper, the quality of cloths; if a stationer, the quality of papers; if a grocer, the quality of sugars, teas, &c.; and so on with all other trades. During the first years of a young man's time, he of course learns to weigh and measure either liquids or solids, to pack up and make bales, trusses, packages, &c., and to do the coarser and laborious part of business; but all that gives him little knowledge in the species and quality of the goods, much less a nice judgment in their value and sorts, which however is one of the principal things that belong to trade.

The first thing a young person in the latter part of their youth should do is work on developing a good understanding of the products they are likely to sell. For example, if they're a cloth merchant, they need to know about the quality of fabrics; if they're a stationery seller, they should understand the quality of paper; if they're a grocer, they must be familiar with the quality of sugars, teas, etc. This applies to all other trades as well. During the early years of a young person’s career, they naturally learn to weigh and measure liquids or solids, pack and bundle items, and handle the more labor-intensive aspects of the business. However, this doesn't really teach them much about the types and quality of the goods, let alone how to accurately assess their value and categories, which is one of the key skills needed in trade.

It is supposed that, by this time, if his master is a man of considerable business, his man is become the eldest apprentice, and is taken from the counter, and from sweeping the warehouse, into the counting-house, where he, among other things, sees the bills of parcels of goods bought, and thereby knows what every thing costs at first hand, what gain is made of them, and if a miscarriage happens, he knows what loss too; by which he is led of course to look into the goodness of the goods, and see the reason of things: if the goods are not to expectation, and consequently do not answer the price, he sees the reason of that loss, and he looks into the goods, and sees where and how far they are deficient, and in what; this, if he be careful to make his observations, brings him naturally to have a good judgment in the goods.

It’s assumed that by now, if his boss is a busy person, he has become the oldest apprentice and has been moved from working at the counter and sweeping the warehouse to the office. There, he sees the invoices for the goods purchased, which gives him a clear understanding of the costs, the profits made, and any losses incurred if things go wrong. This naturally leads him to evaluate the quality of the goods and understand the reasons behind the results. If the goods don't meet expectations and thus don't justify the price, he can see why that loss happens, examine the goods, and determine where they fall short. By being attentive and making observations, he naturally develops good judgment regarding the products.

If a young man neglects this part, and passes over the season for such improvement, he very rarely ever recovers it; for this part has its season, and that more remarkable than in many other cases, and that season lost, never comes again; a judgment in goods taken in early, is never lost, and a judgment taken in late is seldom good.

If a young man ignores this aspect and misses the chance for improvement, he rarely gets that opportunity back; this aspect has its own timing, which is more significant than in many other cases, and once that time is lost, it doesn’t return. Good judgment formed early is rarely lost, while judgment formed late is seldom effective.

If the youth slips this occasion, and, not minding what is before him, goes out of his time without obtaining such a skill as this in the goods he is to deal in, he enters into trade without his most useful tools, and must use spectacles before his time.

If a young person misses this opportunity and, ignoring what’s in front of him, leaves without acquiring a skill like this for the goods he’s going to work with, he’ll enter the trade without his most essential tools and will have to rely on help before he’s ready.

For want of this knowledge of the goods, he is at a loss in the buying part, and is liable to be cheated and imposed upon in the most notorious manner by the sharp-sighted world, for his want of judgment is a thing that cannot be hid; the merchants or manufacturers of whom he buys, presently discover him; the very boys in the wholesalemen's warehouses, and in merchant's warehouses, will play upon him, sell him one thing for another, show him a worse sort when he calls for a better, and, asking a higher price for it, persuade him it is better; and when they have thus bubbled him, they triumph over his ignorance when he is gone, and expose him to the last degree.

For lack of this knowledge about the goods, he struggles when buying and is likely to be tricked and taken advantage of in the worst ways by the sharp-eyed world. His lack of judgment is obvious; the merchants or manufacturers he buys from quickly pick up on it. Even the young workers in the wholesalers' and merchants' warehouses will take advantage of him, selling him one item instead of another, showing him a lower-quality product when he asks for a better one, and charging him more while convincing him it's superior. Once they’ve successfully swindled him, they celebrate his ignorance after he leaves and expose him to humiliation.

Besides, for want of judgment in the goods he is to buy, he often runs a hazard of being cheated to a very great degree, and perhaps some time or other a tradesman may be ruined by it, or at least ruin his reputation.

Besides, because he lacks judgment in the goods he needs to buy, he often risks being cheated significantly, and at some point, a seller could be ruined by it, or at the very least damage his reputation.

When I lived abroad, I had once a commission sent me from a merchant in London, to buy a large parcel of brandy: the goods were something out of my way, having never bought any in that country before. However, it happened that I had frequently bought and imported brandies in England, and had some judgment in them, so much that I ventured to buy without taking a cooper with me, which was not usual in that place. The first parcel of brandy I saw was very good, and I bought freely to the value of about £600, and shipped them for England, where they gave very good satisfaction to my employer. But I could not complete my commission to my mind in that parcel. Some days after, some merchants, who had seen me buy the other, and thought me a novice in the business, and that I took no cooper to taste the brandy, laid a plot for me, which indeed was such a plot as I was not in the least aware of; and had not the little judgment which I had in the commodity prevented, I had been notoriously abused. The case was thus:—They gave me notice by the same person who helped me to the sight of the first brandy, that there was a cellar of extraordinary good brandy at such a place, and invited me to see it. Accordingly I went in an afternoon, and tasted the brandy, being a large parcel, amounting to about £460.

When I was living abroad, a merchant in London asked me to buy a large batch of brandy. The goods were somewhat out of my usual territory since I had never purchased any in that country before. However, I had often bought and imported brandies in England and had some experience with them. I was confident enough to make the purchase without bringing a cooper with me, which wasn't typical there. The first batch of brandy I saw was very good, so I bought a significant amount worth about £600 and shipped it to England, where my employer was very pleased. But I wasn't entirely satisfied with my commission on that batch. A few days later, some merchants who had seen me buy the first batch thought I was inexperienced in the business and noticed that I hadn’t brought a cooper to taste the brandy, so they set up a scheme against me that I was completely unaware of; without the little knowledge I had about the product, I would have been seriously taken advantage of. Here’s what happened: They informed me through the same person who had shown me the first brandy that there was a cellar of exceptionally good brandy at a certain location and invited me to check it out. So, one afternoon, I went and tasted the brandy, which was a large batch worth about £460.

I liked the goods very well; but the merchant, as they called him, that is to say, the knave appointed to cheat the poor stranger, was cunningly out of the way, so that no bargain was to be made that night. But as I had said that I liked the brandy, the same person who brought me an account of them, comes to my lodgings to treat with me about the price. We did not make many words: I bade him the current price which I had bought for some days before, and after a few struggles for five crowns a-tun more, he came to my price, and his next word was to let me know the gage of the cask; and as I had seen the goods already, he thought there was nothing to do but to make a bargain, and order the goods to be delivered.

I really liked the stuff; but the merchant, as they called him, meaning the guy set up to scam the poor stranger, was cleverly out of reach, so no deal could be made that night. However, since I mentioned that I liked the brandy, the same person who told me about it came to my place to negotiate the price. We didn't beat around the bush: I offered him the current price I had paid a few days before, and after a bit of haggling for five more crowns per tun, he agreed to my price. His next move was to let me know the size of the cask; and since I had already seen the goods, he thought there was nothing left to do but make a deal and arrange for the delivery.

But young as I was, I was too old for that too; and told him, I could not tell positively how many I should take, but that I would come in the afternoon, and taste them again, and mark out what I wanted. He seemed uneasy at that, and pretended he had two merchants waiting to see them, and he could sell them immediately, and I might do him a prejudice if I made him wait and put them off, who perhaps might buy in the mean time.

But even though I was young, I felt too old for that; and I told him I couldn't say for sure how many I would take, but that I would come back in the afternoon, taste them again, and decide what I wanted. He looked uncomfortable about that and pretended he had two merchants waiting to see them, claiming he could sell them right away. He said I might hurt his chances if I made him wait and delayed things, especially since they might buy them in the meantime.

I answered him coldly, I would not hinder him selling them by any means if he could have a better chapman, that I could not come sooner, and that I would not be obliged to take the whole parcel, nor would I buy any of them without tasting them again: he argued much to have me buy them, seeing, as he said, I had tasted them before, and liked them very well.

I replied to him coolly that I wouldn’t stop him from selling them if he found a better buyer, that I couldn’t come sooner, and that I wasn’t required to buy the whole lot, nor would I buy any of them without tasting them again. He tried hard to convince me to buy them, saying that since I had liked them before, I should go for it.

'I did so,' said I, 'but I love to have my palate confirm one day what it approved the day before.' 'Perhaps,' says he, 'you would have some other person's judgment of them, and you are welcome to do so, sir, with all my heart; send any body you please:' but still he urged for a bargain, when the person sent should make his report; and then he had his agents ready, I understood afterwards, to manage the persons I should send.

"I did," I said, "but I like to have my taste buds confirm what they liked the day before." "Maybe," he replied, "you want someone else's opinion on them, and you can certainly do that, sir, with all my support; send whoever you want." But he kept pushing for a deal, saying that when the person I sent reported back, he would have his agents ready to handle them, as I later found out.

I answered him frankly, I had no great judgment, but that, such as it was, I ventured to trust to it; I thought I had honest men to deal with, and that I should bring nobody to taste them for me but myself.

I replied to him honestly, I didn't have much judgment, but still, I decided to trust it; I believed I was dealing with honest people, and that I would be the only one to experience them for myself.

This pleased him, and was what he secretly wished; and now, instead of desiring me to come immediately, he told me, that seeing I would not buy without seeing the goods again, and would not go just then, he could not be in the way in the afternoon, and so desired I would defer it till next morning, which I readily agreed to.

This made him happy and was what he secretly wanted; so now, instead of wanting me to come right away, he told me that since I wouldn’t buy without seeing the items again and didn’t want to go at that moment, he couldn’t be available in the afternoon. He asked if I could wait until the next morning, which I readily agreed to.

In the morning I went, but not so soon as I had appointed; upon which, when I came, he seemed offended, and said I had hindered him—that he could have sold the whole parcel, &c. I told him I could not have hindered him, for that I had told him he should not wait for me, but sell them to the first good customer he found. He told me he had indeed sold two or three casks, but he would not disoblige me so much as to sell the whole parcel before I came. This I mention, because he made it a kind of a bite upon me, that I should not be alarmed at seeing the casks displaced in the cellar.

In the morning I went, but not as early as I had planned; when I arrived, he seemed upset and said I had delayed him—that he could have sold the whole lot, etc. I told him I couldn't have delayed him because I had told him not to wait for me, but to sell them to the first good customer he found. He admitted he had indeed sold two or three barrels, but he didn’t want to upset me by selling the whole lot before I got there. I mention this because he used it as a jab at me, so I shouldn't be surprised to see the barrels moved around in the cellar.

When I came to taste the brandy, I began to be surprised. I saw the very same casks which I had touched with the marking-iron when I was there before, but I did not like the brandy by any means, but did not yet suspect the least foul play.

When I got to try the brandy, I started to feel surprised. I saw the exact casks that I had marked with the branding iron when I was there before, but I didn't like the brandy at all, though I didn't suspect any foul play yet.

I went round the whole cellar, and I could not mark above three casks which I durst venture to buy; the rest apparently showed themselves to be mixed, at least I thought so. I marked out the three casks, and told him my palate had deceived me, that the rest of the brandy was not for my turn.

I went all around the cellar, and I could only find three casks that I was willing to buy; the rest seemed mixed, or at least that's what I thought. I picked out the three casks and told him that my taste had let me down, and that the rest of the brandy wasn't for me.

I saw the man surprised, and turn pale, and at first seemed to be very angry, that I should, as he called it, disparage the goods—that sure I did not understand brandy, and the like—and that I should have brought somebody with me that did understand it. I answered coldly, that if I ventured my money upon my own judgment, the hazard was not to the seller, but to the buyer, and nobody had to do with that; if I did not like his goods, another, whose judgment was better, might like them, and so there was no harm done: in a word, he would not let me have the three casks I had marked, unless I took more, and I would take no more—so we parted, but with no satisfaction on his side; and I afterwards came to hear that he had sat up all the night with his coopers, mixing spirits in every cask, whence he drew off a quantity of the right brandy, and corrupted it, concluding, that as I had no judgment to choose by but my own, I could not discover it; and it came out by his quarrelling with the person who brought me to him, for telling him I did not understand the goods, upon which presumption he ventured to spoil the whole parcel.

I saw the man look surprised and turn pale, and at first, he seemed really angry that I, as he called it, was putting down his products—claiming I didn’t know anything about brandy and similar drinks—and that I should’ve brought someone with me who did. I replied coolly that if I was risking my money based on my own judgment, the risk was on the buyer, not the seller, and that was nobody's business but mine; if I didn’t like his goods, someone else with better judgment might, so there was no harm done. In short, he wouldn’t let me have the three casks I had my eye on unless I took more, and I wasn’t going to take any more—so we parted ways, without him feeling satisfied. I later heard that he stayed up all night with his coopers, mixing spirits in every cask, from which he drew out a portion of the real brandy and ruined it, thinking that since I had no judgment to rely on except my own, I wouldn’t be able to tell the difference. It later came out that he had a falling out with the person who introduced me to him for saying I didn’t understand his products, and based on that assumption, he chose to ruin the whole batch.

I give you this story as a just caution to a young tradesman, and to show how necessary it is that a tradesman should have judgment in the goods he buys, and how easily he may be imposed upon and abused, if he offers to buy upon his own judgment, when really it is defective. I could enlarge this article with many like examples, but I think this may suffice.

I share this story as a warning to young tradespeople, highlighting how important it is for them to have good judgment when buying products. It also shows how easily they can be taken advantage of if they rely on their own flawed judgment. I could provide many similar examples, but I believe this will do.

The next thing I recommend to an apprentice at the conclusion of his time, is to acquaint himself with his master's chapmen;[6] I mean of both kinds, as well those he sells to, as those he buys of, and, if he is a factor, with his master's employers. But what I aim at now is the chapmen and customers whom his master chiefly sells to. I need not explain myself not to mean by this the chance customers of a retailer's shop, for there can be no acquaintance, or very little, made with them; I mean the country shopkeepers, or others, who buy in parcels, and who buy to sell again, or export as merchants. If the young man comes from his master, and has formed no acquaintance or interest among the customers whom his master dealt with, he has, in short, slipt or lost one of the principal ends and reasons of his being an apprentice, in which he has spent seven years, and perhaps his friends given a considerable sum of money.

The next thing I suggest to an apprentice at the end of their time is to get to know their master's clients; [6] I’m referring to both types: those he sells to and those he buys from, and if he’s a factor, his master's employers too. But what I’m focusing on now are the clients and customers with whom his master mainly does business. I don't need to explain that I don't mean the random customers at a retailer's shop, as there's hardly any opportunity to connect with them; I mean the local shopkeepers, or others, who buy in bulk and who purchase to resell or export as merchants. If the young man leaves his master without having built any connections or relationships with the customers his master worked with, he has essentially missed one of the main goals of being an apprentice, a time during which he has spent seven years, and possibly his family has invested a significant amount of money.

For a young man coming out of his time to have his shop or warehouse stocked with goods, and his customers all to seek, will make his beginning infinitely more difficult to him than it would otherwise be; and he not only has new customers to seek, but has their characters to seek also, and knows not who is good and who not, till he buys that knowledge by his experience, and perhaps sometimes pays too dear for it.

For a young man starting out with his shop or warehouse filled with goods, and all his customers coming to him, makes his beginning way more difficult than it could be otherwise. Not only does he need to find new customers, but he also has to figure out their personalities, and he doesn’t know who can be trusted until he learns through experience, which can sometimes come at a high cost.

It was an odd circumstance of a tradesman in this city a few years ago, who, being out of his time, and going to solicit one of his master's customers to trade with him, the chapman did not so much as know him, or remember that he had ever heard his name, except as he had heard his master call his apprentice Jacob. I know some masters diligently watch to prevent their apprentices speaking to their customers, and to keep them from acquainting themselves with the buyers, that when they come out of their times they may not carry the trade away with them.

It was a strange situation involving a tradesman in this city a few years ago. He had finished his apprenticeship and went to ask one of his master's customers to do business with him. The customer didn’t even recognize him or remember hearing his name, except for the times he heard his master call him Jacob, the apprentice. Some masters closely monitor their apprentices to stop them from speaking to their customers and getting to know the buyers, so when the apprentices finish their training, they won't take the business with them.

To hinder an apprentice from an acquaintance with the dealers of both sorts, is somewhat like Laban's usage of Jacob, namely, keeping back the beloved Rachel, whom he served his seven years' time for, and putting him off with a blear-eyed Leah in her stead; it is, indeed, a kind of robbing him, taking from him the advantage which he served his time for, and sending him into the world like a man out of a ship set on shore among savages, who, instead of feeding him, are indeed more ready to eat him up and devour him.[7]

Preventing an apprentice from getting to know both types of dealers is similar to what Laban did to Jacob—keeping back the beloved Rachel, for whom Jacob worked seven years, and giving him only the cross-eyed Leah instead. It's really a form of theft, robbing him of the opportunity he worked for and sending him out into the world like a shipwrecked man dropped on a shore filled with savages, who are more likely to attack and devour him than help him. [7]

An apprentice who has served out his time faithfully and diligently, ought to claim it as a debt to his indentures, that his master should let him into an open acquaintance with his customers; he does not else perform his promise to teach him the art and mystery of his trade; he does not make him master of his business, or enable him as he ought to set up in the world; for, as buying is indeed the first, so selling is the last end of trade, and the faithful apprentice ought to be fully made acquainted with them both.

An apprentice who has completed his training faithfully and diligently should expect, as a right from his contract, that his master allows him to get to know his customers. If not, the master is failing to fulfill his promise to teach him the skills and secrets of the trade. He is not equipping him to take over the business or helping him to succeed in the world. After all, buying is the initial step, while selling is the ultimate goal of trade, and the dedicated apprentice should be fully informed about both.

Next to being acquainted with his master's customers and chapmen, the apprentice, when his time is near expiring, ought to acquaint himself with the books, that is to say, to see and learn his master's method of book-keeping, that he may follow it, if the method is good, and may learn a better method in time, if it is not.

Next to getting to know his master's customers and clients, the apprentice, as his time is coming to an end, should familiarize himself with the books. This means he should see and learn his master's bookkeeping methods so he can follow them if they are effective, and learn a better way over time if they are not.

The tradesman should not be at a loss how to keep his books, when he is to begin his trade; that would be to put him to school when he is just come from school; his apprenticeship is, and ought in justice to be, a school to him, where he ought to learn every thing that should qualify him for his business, at least every thing that his master can teach him; and if he finds his master either backward or unwilling to teach him, he should complain in time to his own friends, that they may some how or other supply the defect.

The tradesman shouldn't feel confused about how to keep his books when starting his trade; that would be like sending him back to school right after he's just graduated. His apprenticeship is, and should be, a learning experience where he picks up everything he needs to qualify for his job—at least everything his master can teach him. If he finds his master reluctant or unwilling to teach, he should speak up to his friends so they can help fill the gap in his education.

A tradesman's books are his repeating clock, which upon all occasions are to tell him how he goes on, and how things stand with him in the world: there he will know when it is time to go on, or when it is time to give over; and upon his regular keeping, and fully acquainting himself with his books, depends at least the comfort of his trade, if not the very trade itself. If they are not duly posted, and if every thing is not carefully entered in them, the debtor's accounts kept even, the cash constantly balanced, and the credits all stated, the tradesman is like a ship at sea, steered without a helm; he is all in confusion, and knows not what he does, or where he is; he may be a rich man, or a bankrupt—for, in a word, he can give no account of himself to himself, much less to any body else.

A tradesman's books are like his clock, showing him how he's doing and where he stands in the world. They tell him when it’s time to move forward or when to stop. His comfort in business—and possibly the survival of his business—depends on how well he keeps these records and understands them. If they aren’t updated regularly, if everything isn’t entered correctly, if the debts and credits aren’t balanced, he’s like a ship at sea without a captain; he’s lost and confused, not knowing what he’s doing or where he is. He could be wealthy or broke—essentially, he won’t be able to account for himself, let alone for anyone else.

His books being so essential to his trade, he that comes out of his time without a perfect knowledge of the method of book-keeping, like a bride undrest, is not fit to be married; he knows not what to do, or what step to take; he may indeed have served his time, but he has not learned his trade, nor is he fit to set up; and be the fault in himself for not learning, or in his master for not teaching him, he ought not to set up till he has gotten some skilful person to put him in a way to do it, and make him fully to understand it.

His books being so crucial to his profession, anyone who finishes their training without a solid understanding of bookkeeping, like an unprepared bride, isn't ready to take that step; they don't know what to do or what direction to go in. They may have completed their training, but they haven't truly learned their trade, nor are they ready to start on their own. Whether the fault lies with them for not learning or with their instructor for not teaching, they shouldn't go into business until they've had a knowledgeable person help guide them and ensure they fully understand it.

It is true, there is not a great deal of difficulty in keeping a tradesman's books, especially if he be a retailer only; but yet, even in the meanest trades, they ought to know how to keep books. But the advice is directed to those who are above the retailer, as well as to them; if the book-keeping be small, it is the sooner learned, and the apprentice is the more to blame if he neglects it. Besides, the objection is much more trifling than the advice. The tradesman cannot carry on any considerable trade without books; and he must, during his apprenticeship, prepare himself for business by acquainting himself with every thing needful for his going on with his trade, among which that of book-keeping is absolutely necessary.

It’s true, there isn’t a lot of difficulty in managing a tradesman’s books, especially if he’s just a retailer; however, even in the simplest trades, they should know how to keep their books. But the advice applies to those above the retailer level as well; if bookkeeping is minimal, it’s learned quickly, and the apprentice is at fault if he ignores it. Furthermore, the objection is much less significant than the advice. A tradesman can’t run a substantial business without keeping books, and during his apprenticeship, he needs to prepare for business by learning everything important for continuing in his trade, and bookkeeping is absolutely essential.

The last article, and in itself essential to a young tradesman, is to know how to buy; if his master is kind and generous, he will consider the justice of this part, and let him into the secret of it of his own free will, and that before his time is fully expired; but if that should not happen, as often it does not, let the apprentice know, that it is one of the most needful things to him that can belong to his apprenticeship, and that he ought not to let his time run over his head, without getting as much insight into it as possible; that therefore he ought to lose no opportunity to get into it, even whether his master approves of it or no; for as it is a debt due to him from his master to instruct him in it, it is highly just he should use all proper means to come at it.

The final point, which is crucial for a young tradesperson, is learning how to buy. If their master is kind and understanding, they will consider this important aspect and willingly share their knowledge before the apprentice's time is up. However, if that doesn't happen, which is often the case, the apprentice should recognize that understanding this is one of the most essential parts of their training. They shouldn’t let their time slip away without gaining as much insight as possible. Therefore, they should seize every opportunity to learn about it, regardless of whether their master is supportive. Since it is their master's responsibility to teach them this, the apprentice is justified in making every effort to acquire this knowledge.

Indeed, the affair in this age between masters and their apprentices, stands in a different view from what the same thing was a few years past; the state of our apprenticeship is not a state of servitude now, and hardly of subjection, and their behaviour is accordingly more like gentlemen than tradesmen; more like companions to their masters, than like servants. On the other hand, the masters seem to have made over their authority to their apprentices for a sum of money, the money taken now with apprentices being most exorbitantly great, compared to what it was in former times.

Indeed, the relationship between masters and their apprentices today looks very different than it did just a few years ago; the apprenticeship system is no longer one of servitude, and it's hardly one of subjection either. Their behavior is more like that of gentlemen than tradesmen, more like companions to their masters than like servants. On the flip side, the masters seem to have transferred their authority to their apprentices for a large sum of money, with the amount charged for apprenticeships now being incredibly high compared to what it was in the past.

Now, though this does not at all exempt the servant or apprentice from taking care of himself, and to qualify himself for business while he is an apprentice, yet it is evident that it is no furtherance to apprentices; the liberties they take towards the conclusion of their time, are so much employed to worse purposes, that apprentices do not come out of their times better finished for business and trade than they did formerly, but much the worse: and though it is not the proper business and design of this work to enlarge on the injustice done both to master and servant by this change of custom, yet to bring it to my present purpose, it carries this force with it, namely, that the advice to apprentices to endeavour to finish themselves for business during the time of the indenture, is so much the more needful and seasonable.

Now, while this doesn’t exempt the servant or apprentice from taking care of themselves and preparing for work during their apprenticeship, it's clear that it doesn’t help them at all; the freedom they experience towards the end of their term is often misused, so apprentices are coming out less prepared for business and trade than they used to, and in fact, they are worse off. Even though it's not the main focus of this work to discuss the unfairness towards both the master and servant due to this change in customs, it does highlight a crucial point: the advice for apprentices to actively work on their skills during their indenture is more important than ever.

Nor is this advice for the service of the master, but of the apprentice; for if the apprentice neglects this advice, if he omits to qualify himself for business as above, if he neither will acquaint himself with the customers, nor the books, nor with the buying part, nor gain judgment in the wares he is to deal in, the loss is his own, not his master's—and, indeed, he may be said to have served not himself, but his master—and both his money and his seven years are all thrown away.

Nor is this advice meant for the benefit of the master, but for the apprentice; because if the apprentice ignores this advice, if he fails to prepare himself for business as mentioned, if he doesn't familiarize himself with the customers, the financial records, the purchasing process, or develop knowledge about the products he is supposed to sell, the loss is his, not his master's—and, in fact, he may be considered to have served not himself, but his master—and both his money and his seven years are all wasted.

FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:

[Individuals dealt with.]

[People handled.]

[It would be hard to doubt that Defore was sincere in this pleading of the rights of the apprentice; but its morality is certainly far from clear. The master may have gained customers with difficulty, by the exercise of much ingenuity, patience, and industry, or through some peculiar merit of his own. Indeed, it is always to be presumed that a tradesman's customers are attached to him from some of these causes. Of course, it would be hard if his apprentices, instead of collecting customers for themselves by the same means, seduced away those of his master. The true and direct object of an apprenticeship is to acquire a trade, not to acquire customers.]

[It's hard to doubt that Defoe was genuine in his defense of the apprentice's rights; however, the morality of it is definitely not straightforward. The master may have gained customers with difficulty, using a lot of creativity, patience, and hard work, or because of some unique skill he has. In fact, it's generally assumed that a tradesman's customers are loyal for one of these reasons. Naturally, it would be unfair if his apprentices, instead of gathering customers for themselves through similar efforts, ended up taking away those of their master. The main purpose of an apprenticeship is to learn a trade, not to gain customers.]


CHAPTER II

THE TRADESMAN'S WRITING LETTERS

The Tradesman's Writing Letters


As plainness, and a free unconstrained way of speaking, is the beauty and excellence of speech, so an easy free concise way of writing is the best style for a tradesman. He that affects a rumbling and bombast style, and fills his letters with long harangues, compliments, and flourishes, should turn poet instead of tradesman, and set up for a wit, not a shopkeeper. Hark how such a young tradesman writes, out of the country, to his wholesale-man in London, upon his first setting up.

As straightforwardness and a natural way of speaking are the beauty and excellence of communication, an easy, free, and concise way of writing is the best style for a tradesperson. Anyone who tries to adopt a flashy and elaborate style, filling their letters with long speeches, compliments, and embellishments, should consider becoming a poet instead of a tradesperson, aiming to be clever rather than a shopkeeper. Look at how such a young tradesperson writes, from the countryside, to their wholesaler in London, upon starting out.

'SIR—The destinies having so appointed it, and my dark stars concurring, that I, who by nature was framed for better things, should be put out to a trade, and the gods having been so propitious to me in the time of my servitude, that at length the days are expired, and I am launched forth into the great ocean of business, I thought fit to acquaint you, that last month I received my fortune, which, by my father's will, had been my due two years past, at which time I arrived to man's estate, and became major, whereupon I have taken a house in one of the principal streets of the town of——, where I am entered upon my business, and hereby let you know that I shall have occasion for the goods hereafter mentioned, which you may send to me by the carrier.'

'SIR—Fate has decided, and my unfortunate stars align, that I, who was meant for greater things, should be forced into a trade. The gods have been so kind to me during my time in service, and now that my days are over, I’m ready to dive into the world of business. I wanted to inform you that last month I received my inheritance, which my father’s will stated I was entitled to two years ago, marking my transition into adulthood. With that, I’ve taken a place on one of the main streets of the town of——, where I have started my business. I’d like to let you know that I will need the goods mentioned below, which you can send to me via the carrier.'

This fine flourish, and which, no doubt, the young fellow dressed up with much application, and thought was very well done, put his correspondent in London into a fit of laughter, and instead of sending him the goods he wrote for, put him either first upon writing down into the country to inquire after his character, and whether he was worth dealing with, or else it obtained to be filed up among such letters as deserved no answer.

This impressive flourish, which the young man clearly worked hard on and thought was really well done, made his contact in London burst out laughing. Instead of sending the goods he requested, the correspondent either had him write down to the country to check on his character and if he was worth dealing with, or it ended up being put away with letters that didn’t warrant a response.

The same tradesman in London received by the post another letter, from a young shopkeeper in the country, to the purpose following:—

The same tradesman in London received another letter by mail, from a young shopkeeper in the countryside, with the following content:—

'Being obliged, Sir, by my late master's decease, to enter immediately upon his business, and consequently open my shop without coming up to London to furnish myself with such goods as at present I want, I have here sent you a small order, as underwritten. I hope you will think yourself obliged to use me well, and particularly that the goods may be good of the sorts, though I cannot be at London to look them out myself. I have enclosed a bill of exchange for £75, on Messrs A.B. and Company, payable to you, or your order, at one-and-twenty days' sight; be pleased to get it accepted, and if the goods amount to more than that sum, I shall, when I have your bill of parcels, send you the remainder. I repeat my desire, that you will send me the goods well sorted, and well chosen, and as cheap as possible, that I may be encouraged to a further correspondence. I am, your humble servant,

'Dear Sir, Due to my late master's passing, I need to take over his business right away and open my shop without traveling to London to stock up on the goods I currently need. I'm sending you a small order as detailed below. I hope you'll feel compelled to help me out, especially ensuring the products are of good quality since I can't be in London to select them myself. I've included a bill of exchange for £75, from Messrs A.B. and Company, payable to you or your order in twenty-one days. Please make sure it gets accepted, and if the goods cost more than that amount, I'll send you the rest once I have your bill of parcels. I kindly ask that you send me well-sorted and well-chosen goods at the best possible prices, so that I feel encouraged to continue our business relationship. Sincerely, Your humble servant,

C.K.'

C.K.

This was writing like a man that understood what he was doing; and his correspondent in London would presently say—'This young man writes like a man of business; pray let us take care to use him well, for in all probability he will be a very good chapman.'

This was written by someone who knew what he was doing; and his contact in London would soon say—'This young man writes like a professional; let's make sure we treat him well, because he will likely be a very good business partner.'

The sum of the matter is this: a tradesman's letters should be plain, concise, and to the purpose; no quaint expressions, no book-phrases, no flourishes, and yet they must be full and sufficient to express what he means, so as not to be doubtful, much less unintelligible. I can by no means approve of studied abbreviations, and leaving out the needful copulatives of speech in trading letters; they are to an extreme affected; no beauty to the style, but, on the contrary, a deformity of the grossest nature. They are affected to the last degree, and with this aggravation, that it is an affectation of the grossest nature; for, in a word, it is affecting to be thought a man of more than ordinary sense by writing extraordinary nonsense; and affecting to be a man of business, by giving orders and expressing your meaning in terms which a man of business may not think himself bound by. For example, a tradesman at Hull writes to his correspondent at London the following letter:—

The bottom line is this: a tradesman's letters should be straightforward, concise, and to the point; no quirky phrases, no formal language, no embellishments, yet they must be complete enough to clearly convey what he means, so there's no confusion, let alone incomprehensibility. I absolutely don’t approve of pretentious abbreviations or skipping essential connecting words in business letters; they come off as overly affected; there’s no elegance to the style, but rather a serious flaw. They are pretentious to the extreme, and to make it worse, it's a pretentiousness of the most ridiculous kind; because, in short, it tries to make one appear as if they have exceptional insight by writing absurd nonsense; and tries to present oneself as a businessperson by giving orders and stating your meaning in terms that a real business person might not feel obligated by. For example, a tradesman in Hull writes to his contact in London the following letter:—

'SIR, yours received, have at present little to reply. Last post you had bills of loading, with invoice of what had loaden for your account in Hamburgh factor bound for said port. What have farther orders for, shall be dispatched with expedition. Markets slacken much on this side; cannot sell the iron for more than 37s. Wish had your orders if shall part with it at that rate. No ships since the 11th. London fleet may be in the roads before the late storm, so hope they are safe: if have not insured, please omit the same till hear farther; the weather proving good, hope the danger is over.

'Sir, I received your letter and currently have little to respond with. In the last mail, you received the shipping bills along with an invoice for what was loaded for your account in Hamburg, bound for that port. I will send any further orders with speed. The market is quite slow here; I can't sell the iron for more than 37 shillings. I would like to know if I should sell it at that price. There haven't been any ships since the 11th. The London fleet may have arrived safely before the recent storm, so I hope they are okay. If you haven't insured it yet, please hold off until I hear more; with the weather improving, I hope the danger has passed.'

My last transmitted three bills exchange, import £315; please signify if are come to hand, and accepted, and give credit in account current to your humble servant.'

My last sent three bill exchanges, totaling £315; please confirm if they have arrived and been accepted, and credit my account accordingly, your humble servant.

I pretend to say there is nothing in all this letter, though appearing to have the face of a considerable dealer, but what may be taken any way, pro or con. The Hamburgh factor may be a ship, or a horse—be bound to Hamburgh or London. What shall be dispatched may be one thing, or any thing, or every thing, in a former letter. No ships since the 11th, may be no ships come in, or no ships gone out. The London fleet being in the roads, it may be the London fleet from Hull to London, or from London to Hull, both being often at sea together. The roads may be Yarmouth roads, or Grimsby, or, indeed, any where.

I pretend to say there's nothing in this letter, even though it seems to carry the weight of a significant dealer, but it can be interpreted in any way, for or against. The Hamburg factor could refer to a ship or a horse—bound for Hamburg or London. What needs to be sent could be one thing, something else, or everything mentioned in a previous letter. Since the 11th, there might be no ships arriving, or no ships departing. With the London fleet in the harbor, it could be the London fleet traveling from Hull to London, or from London to Hull, as both are often out at sea together. The harbor could be Yarmouth, Grimsby, or really anywhere.

By such a way of writing, no orders can be binding to him that gives them, or to him they are given to. A merchant writes to his factor at Lisbon:—

By writing this way, no orders can be binding for the person giving them or for the person they’re given to. A merchant writes to his agent in Lisbon:—

'Please to send, per first ship, 150 chests best Seville, and 200 pipes best Lisbon white. May value yourself per exchange £1250 sterling, for the account of above orders. Suppose you can send the sloop to Seville for the ordered chests, &c. I am.'

'Please send, by the first ship, 150 chests of the best Seville oranges and 200 pipes of the best Lisbon white wine. You can value yourself per exchange at £1250 sterling for the orders mentioned above. I assume you can send the sloop to Seville for the ordered chests, etc. I am.'

Here is the order to send a cargo, with a please to send; so the factor may let it alone if he does not please.[8] The order is 150 chests Seville; it is supposed he means oranges, but it may be 150 chests orange-trees as well, or chests of oil, or any thing. Lisbon white, may be wine or any thing else, though it is supposed to be wine. He may draw £1250, but he may refuse to accept it if he pleases, for any thing such an order as that obliges him.

Here’s the order to send a shipment, with a please send; so the agent can ignore it if he wants. [8] The order is for 150 chests to Seville; it’s assumed he means oranges, but it could also be 150 chests of orange trees, or chests of oil, or anything else. The order to Lisbon white might be wine or something else, although it’s assumed to be wine. He can withdraw £1250, but he can choose not to accept it if he wants, because an order like that doesn’t bind him.

On the contrary, orders ought to be plain and explicit; and he ought to have assured him, that on his drawing on him, his bills should be honoured—that is, accepted and paid.

On the other hand, orders should be clear and straightforward; and he should have guaranteed him that when he drew on him, his bills would be honored—that is, accepted and paid.

I know this affectation of style is accounted very grand, looks modish, and has a kind of majestic greatness in it; but the best merchants in the world are come off from it, and now choose to write plain and intelligibly: much less should country tradesmen, citizens, and shopkeepers, whose business is plainness and mere trade, make use of it.

I know this pretentious style is considered very impressive, looks trendy, and has a certain grandeur to it; but the best merchants in the world have moved away from it and now prefer to write clearly and understandably. Even more so, country traders, townspeople, and shopkeepers, whose work is straightforward and focused on business, should not use it.

I have mentioned this in the beginning of this work, because, indeed, it is the beginning of a tradesman's business. When a tradesman takes an apprentice, the first thing he does for him, after he takes him from behind his counter, after he lets him into his counting-house and his books, and after trusting him with his more private business—I say, the first thing is to let him write letters to his dealers, and correspond with his friends; and this he does in his master's name, subscribing his letters thus:—

I mentioned this at the start of this work because, honestly, it's the foundation of a tradesman's business. When a tradesman takes on an apprentice, the first thing he does for him, after bringing him out from behind the counter, allowing him into the office and his books, and trusting him with more private matters—I mean, the first thing is to have him write letters to his customers and keep in touch with his friends; he does this in his master's name, signing his letters like this:—

I am, for my master, A.B. and Company, your
I am, on behalf of my employer, A.B. and Company, your

humble servant, C.D.
humble servant, C.D.

And beginning thus:—Sir,
I am ordered by my master A.B. to advise you that—
I have been directed by my master A.B. to inform you that—

Or thus:—

Or like this:—

Sir, By my master's order, I am to signify to you that
Sir, I am to inform you that, at my master's request,

Orders for goods ought to be very explicit and particular, that the dealer may not mistake, especially if it be orders from a tradesman to a manufacturer to make goods, or to buy goods, either of such a quality, or to such a pattern; in which, if the goods are made to the colours, and of a marketable goodness, and within the time limited, the person ordering them cannot refuse to receive them, and make himself debtor to the maker. On the contrary, if the goods are not of a marketable goodness, or not to the patterns, or are not sent within the time, the maker ought not to expect they should be received. For example—

Orders for goods should be very clear and specific so that the vendor doesn’t get confused, especially when a tradesperson is asking a manufacturer to produce or purchase items of a certain quality or design. If the goods are made in the right colors, of acceptable quality, and delivered on time, the person who ordered them cannot refuse to accept them and must pay the manufacturer. On the other hand, if the goods are not of acceptable quality, don’t match the specified designs, or are not delivered on time, the manufacturer shouldn't expect them to be accepted. For example—

The tradesman, or warehouseman, or what else we may call him, writes to his correspondent at Devizes, in Wiltshire, thus:—

The tradesman, or warehouse worker, or whatever else we might call him, writes to his contact in Devizes, Wiltshire, like this:—

'Sir—The goods you sent me last week are not at all for my purpose, being of a sort which I am at present full of: however, if you are willing they should lie here, I will take all opportunities to sell them for your account; otherwise, on your first orders, they shall be delivered to whoever you shall direct: and as you had no orders from me for such sorts of goods, you cannot take this ill. But I have here enclosed sent you five patterns as under, marked 1 to 5; if you think fit to make me fifty pieces of druggets of the same weight and goodness with the fifty pieces, No. A.B., which I had from you last October, and mixed as exactly as you can to the enclosed patterns, ten to each pattern, and can have the same to be delivered here any time in February next, I shall take them at the same price which I gave you for the last; and one month after the delivery you may draw upon me for the money, which shall be paid to your content. Your friend and servant.

'Sir—The goods you sent me last week aren't suitable for my needs, as I'm currently fully stocked with that type. However, if you're okay with them staying here, I will do my best to sell them for you. If not, just let me know, and I'll send them to whoever you direct. Since you didn’t get any specific orders from me for this type of goods, you can't take offense. I have enclosed five samples, labeled 1 to 5. If you decide to make me fifty pieces of druggets that match the weight and quality of the fifty pieces, No. A.B., which I received from you last October, please mix them as closely as possible to the enclosed samples, with ten of each pattern. If you can have them delivered here any time in February next, I'll accept them at the same price I paid for the last order. One month after delivery, you can request payment, which I’ll ensure is settled to your satisfaction. Your friend and servant.'

P.S. Let me have your return per next post, intimating that you can or cannot answer this order, that I may govern myself accordingly. To Mr H.G., clothier, Devizes.'

P.S. Please reply by the next post, letting me know if you can or cannot fulfill this request, so I can plan accordingly. To Mr. H.G., clothier, Devizes.

The clothier, accordingly, gives him an answer the next post, as follows:—

The tailor replies to him in the next mail, as follows:—

'Sir—I have the favour of yours of the 22d past, with your order for fifty fine druggets, to be made of the like weight and goodness with the two packs, No. A.B., which I made for you and sent last October, as also the five patterns enclosed, marked 1 to 5, for my direction in the mixture. I give you this trouble, according to your order, to let you know I have already put the said fifty pieces in hand; and as I am always willing to serve you to the best of my power, and am thankful for your favours, you may depend upon them within the time, that is to say, some time in February next, and that they shall be of the like fineness and substance with the other, and as near to the patterns as possible. But in regard our poor are very craving, and money at this time very scarce, I beg you will give me leave (twenty or thirty pieces of them being finished and delivered to you at any time before the remainder), to draw fifty pounds on you for present occasion; for which I shall think myself greatly obliged, and shall give you any security you please that the rest shall follow within the time.

'Sir, I appreciate your letter from the 22nd of last month, along with your order for fifty fine druggets, to be made with the same weight and quality as the two packs, No. A.B., that I sent you last October. I've also included five samples, marked 1 to 5, for your reference on the mixture. I'm writing to let you know that I have already started working on the fifty pieces as you requested. I'm always happy to assist you to the best of my abilities and am grateful for your support. You can count on them being ready sometime in February, and they will be of the same quality and material as the previous ones, as close to the samples as possible. However, since our community is in great need and money is quite tight at the moment, I kindly ask for your permission to draw fifty pounds from you for immediate needs (with twenty or thirty pieces ready and delivered to you before the rest). I would be greatly obliged and can provide any security you prefer to ensure the remaining pieces will follow within the timeframe.'

As to the pack of goods in your hands, which were sent up without your order, I am content they remain in your hands for sale on my account, and desire you will sell them as soon as you can, for my best advantage. I am,' &c.

As for the items you have that were sent without your request, I'm fine with you keeping them for sale on my behalf, and I’d like you to sell them as soon as possible for my benefit. I'm, &c.

Here is a harmony of business, and every thing exact; the order is given plain and express; the clothier answers directly to every point; here can be no defect in the correspondence; the diligent clothier applies immediately to the work, sorts and dyes his wool, mixes his colours to the patterns, puts the wool to the spinners, sends his yarn to the weavers, has the pieces brought home, then has them to the thicking or fulling-mill, dresses them in his own workhouse, and sends them up punctually by the time; perhaps by the middle of the month. Having sent up twenty pieces five weeks before, the warehouse-keeper, to oblige him, pays his bill of £50, and a month after the rest are sent in, he draws for the rest of the money, and his bills are punctually paid. The consequence of this exact writing and answering is this—

Here’s a smooth operation in business, and everything is precise; the instructions are clear and straightforward; the clothier responds directly to every detail; there can be no issues in the communication; the hardworking clothier immediately gets to work, sorts and dyes his wool, mixes colors to match the patterns, sends the wool to the spinners, delivers his yarn to the weavers, brings the finished pieces back, then takes them to the thickening or fulling mill, finishes them in his own workshop, and sends them out on time; perhaps by the middle of the month. After sending up twenty pieces five weeks prior, the warehouse keeper, wanting to help him out, pays his bill of £50, and a month later when the rest are delivered, he collects the remaining money, and his bills are always paid promptly. The result of this precise communication and responses is this—

The warehouse-keeper having the order from his merchant, is furnished in time, and obliges his customer; then says he to his servant, 'Well, this H.G. of Devizes is a clever workman, understands his business, and may be depended on: I see if I have an order to give that requires any exactness and honest usage, he is my man; he understands orders when they are sent, goes to work immediately, and answers them punctually.'

The warehouse keeper, after receiving an order from his merchant, is ready in time and serves his customer well. Then he says to his servant, "Well, this H.G. from Devizes is a skilled worker, knows his stuff, and can be trusted. I see that if I have an order that needs precision and honest work, he’s the one I want. He gets the orders as soon as they’re sent, starts working right away, and delivers on time."

Again, the clothier at Devizes says to his head man, or perhaps his son, 'This Mr H. is a very good employer, and is worth obliging; his orders are so plain and so direct, that a man cannot mistake, and if the goods are made honestly and to his time, there's one's money; bills are cheerfully accepted, and punctually paid; I'll never disappoint him; whoever goes without goods, he shall not.'

Again, the tailor in Devizes says to his manager or maybe his son, "This Mr. H. is a great boss, and it's worth going the extra mile for him; his orders are super clear and straightforward, so there's no confusion, and if the products are made well and on schedule, you'll definitely get paid; invoices are happily accepted and paid on time; I’ll never let him down; anyone who goes without goods won't be me."

On the contrary, when orders are darkly given, they are doubtfully observed; and when the goods come to town, the merchant dislikes them, the warehouseman shuffles them back upon the clothier, to lie for his account, pretending they are not made to his order; the clothier is discouraged, and for want of his money discredited, and all their correspondence is confusion, and ends in loss both of money and credit.

On the other hand, when orders are given in a vague manner, they are often ignored; and when the goods arrive in town, the merchant dislikes them, the warehouseman sends them back to the clothier, claiming they weren’t made to his specifications; the clothier feels discouraged and loses credibility due to lack of payment, leading to confusion in all their communications and ultimately resulting in a loss of both money and trust.

FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:

[The practice of trade now sanctions courteous expressions of this kind.]

[The way we do business nowallows polite expressions like this.]


CHAPTER III

THE TRADING STYLE

TRADING STRATEGY


In the last chapter I gave my thoughts for the instruction of young tradesmen in writing letters with orders, and answering orders, and especially about the proper style of a tradesman's letters, which I hinted should be plain and easy, free in language, and direct to the purpose intended. Give me leave to go on with the subject a little farther, as I think it is useful in another part of the tradesman's correspondence.

In the last chapter, I shared my ideas on how young tradespeople should write order letters and respond to orders, focusing on the right style for their letters. I suggested that these letters should be straightforward, clear, and to the point. Allow me to continue this topic a bit more, as I believe it is helpful in another aspect of a tradesperson's communication.

I might have made some apology for urging tradesmen to write a plain and easy style; let me add, that the tradesmen need not be offended at my condemning them, as it were, to a plain and homely style—easy, plain, and familiar language is the beauty of speech in general, and is the excellency of all writing, on whatever subject, or to whatever persons they are we write or speak. The end of speech is that men might understand one another's meaning; certainly that speech, or that way of speaking, which is most easily understood, is the best way of speaking. If any man were to ask me, which would be supposed to be a perfect style, or language, I would answer, that in which a man speaking to five hundred people, of all common and various capacities, idiots or lunatics excepted, should be understood by them all in the same manner with one another, and in the same sense which the speaker intended to be understood—this would certainly be a most perfect style.

I could have apologized for encouraging tradespeople to use a straightforward and simple style; let me also say that they shouldn't take offense at my suggestion that they adopt a plain and down-to-earth style. Easy, clear, and relatable language is what makes speech appealing overall and is the hallmark of great writing, no matter the topic or audience. The purpose of communication is for people to understand each other; certainly, the way of speaking that is easiest to comprehend is the most effective. If someone were to ask me what the ideal style or language would be, I would say it’s one where a speaker, addressing five hundred people of various backgrounds and abilities (excluding any that might be considered mentally incapacitated), is understood by everyone in the same way and with the same meaning that the speaker intended—this would undoubtedly be a truly perfect style.

All exotic sayings, dark and ambiguous speakings, affected words, and, as I said in the last chapter, abridgement, or words cut off, as they are foolish and improper in business, so, indeed, are they in any other things; hard words, and affectation of style in business, is like bombast in poetry, a kind of rumbling nonsense, and nothing of the kind can be more ridiculous.

All fancy phrases, vague and unclear expressions, pretentious words, and, as I mentioned in the last chapter, abbreviations or cut-off words, are foolish and inappropriate in business; they're actually the same in any other context too. Using complicated words and trying to show off your style in business is like using overblown language in poetry—it's just empty nonsense, and nothing is more ridiculous than that.

The nicety of writing in business consists chiefly in giving every species of goods their trading names, for there are certain peculiarities in the trading language, which are to be observed as the greatest proprieties, and without which the language your letters are written in would be obscure, and the tradesmen you write to would not understand you—for example, if you write to your factor at Lisbon, or at Cadiz, to make you returns in hardware, he understands you, and sends you so many bags of pieces of eight. So, if a merchant comes to me to hire a small ship of me, and tells me it is for the pipin trade, or to buy a vessel, and tells me he intends to make a pipiner of her, the meaning is, that she is to run to Seville for oranges, or to Malaga for lemons. If he says he intends to send her for a lading of fruit, the meaning is, she is to go to Alicant, Denia, or Xevia, on the coast of Spain, for raisins of the sun, or to Malaga for Malaga raisins. Thus, in the home trade in England: if in Kent a man tells me he is to go among the night-riders, his meaning is, he is to go a-carrying wool to the sea-shore—the people that usually run the wool off in boats, are called owlers—those that steal customs, smugglers, and the like. In a word, there is a kind of slang in trade, which a tradesman ought to know, as the beggars and strollers know the gipsy cant, which none can speak but themselves; and this in letters of business is allowable, and, indeed, they cannot understand one another without it.

The key to effective business writing lies mainly in using the correct trading names for different types of goods. There are specific terms in commercial language that need to be respected as essential conventions. Without these, your letters would be unclear, and the tradespeople you’re communicating with wouldn’t understand you. For example, if you write to your agent in Lisbon or Cadiz asking for hardware returns, he knows exactly what you mean and sends back a number of bags filled with pieces of eight. Similarly, if a merchant asks to rent a small ship for the pipin trade and says he plans to turn it into a pipiner, he means that the ship will be used to transport oranges to Seville or lemons to Malaga. If he mentions he’s sending it to pick up a load of fruit, it means the ship is heading to Alicante, Denia, or Xevia along the Spanish coast for sun-dried raisins or to Malaga for Malaga raisins. In England's domestic trade, if someone in Kent says they are off to deal with the night-riders, they actually mean they are taking wool to the coast—the people who usually smuggle wool away in boats are called owlers, who are essentially smugglers and thieves. In short, there’s a type of jargon in trading that every tradesperson should understand, similar to how beggars and drifters know the slang of the gypsies, which only they can speak. This kind of language is acceptable in business letters, and honestly, they wouldn’t be able to communicate effectively without it.

A brickmaker being hired by a brewer to make some bricks for him at his country-house, wrote to the brewer that he could not go forward unless he had two or three loads of spanish, and that otherwise his bricks would cost him six or seven chaldrons of coals extraordinary, and the bricks would not be so good and hard neither by a great deal, when they were burnt.

A brickmaker was hired by a brewer to make some bricks for him at his country house. The brickmaker wrote to the brewer that he couldn't proceed unless he had two or three loads of Spanish, and that otherwise his bricks would cost him an extra six or seven chaldrons of coal, and the bricks wouldn't be nearly as good or strong when fired.

The brewer sends him an answer, that he should go on as well as he could for three or four days, and then the spanish should be sent him: accordingly, the following week, the brewer sends him down two carts loaded with about twelve hogsheads or casks of molasses, which frighted the brickmaker almost out of his senses. The case was this:-The brewers formerly mixed molasses with their ale to sweeten it, and abate the quantity of malt, molasses, being, at that time, much cheaper in proportion, and this they called spanish, not being willing that people should know it. Again, the brickmakers all about London, do mix sea-coal ashes, or laystal-stuff, as we call it, with the clay of which they make bricks, and by that shift save eight chaldrons of coals out of eleven, in proportion to what other people use to burn them with, and these ashes they call spanish.

The brewer replies that he should continue as best as he can for three or four days, and then the spanish will be sent to him. So, the following week, the brewer sends him two carts loaded with about twelve hogsheads or casks of molasses, which nearly shocked the brickmaker out of his mind. Here’s the situation: The brewers used to mix molasses with their ale to sweeten it and reduce the amount of malt, as molasses was much cheaper back then, and they referred to it as spanish, wanting to keep it a secret. Additionally, brickmakers all around London mix sea-coal ashes, or laystal-stuff, as we call it, with the clay used to make bricks, which allows them to save eight chaldrons of coal out of eleven compared to what others use for burning, and they also call these ashes spanish.

Thus the received terms of art, in every particular business, are to be observed, of which I shall speak to you in its turn: I name them here to intimate, that when I am speaking of plain writing in matters of business, it must be understood with an allowance for all these things—and a tradesman must be not only allowed to use them in his style, but cannot write properly without them—it is a particular excellence in a tradesman to be able to know all the terms of art in every separate business, so as to be able to speak or write to any particular handicraft or manufacturer in his own dialect, and it is as necessary as it is for a seaman to understand the names of all the several things belonging to a ship. This, therefore, is not to be understood when I say, that a tradesman should write plain and explicit, for these things belong to, and are part of, the language of trade.

So, the accepted terminology in each specific trade should be followed, which I will discuss in due time. I'm mentioning them here to clarify that when I talk about straightforward writing in business matters, it's important to consider these elements. A tradesperson should not only be permitted to use these terms in their writing but also cannot write effectively without them. It's a key skill for a tradesperson to know all the jargon in their specific field, so they can communicate with any particular craftsman or manufacturer in their own language. This is as essential as it is for a sailor to know the names of all the various parts of a ship. Therefore, when I say that a tradesperson should write clearly and precisely, it shouldn't be taken to mean that they shouldn't use these terms, as they are part of the language of trade.

But even these terms of art, or customary expressions, are not to be used with affectation, and with a needless repetition, where they are not called for.

But even these technical terms or common phrases shouldn't be used pretentiously or repeated unnecessarily when they're not needed.

Nor should a tradesman write those out-of-the-way words, though it is in the way of the business he writes about, to any other person, who he knows, or has reason to believe, does not understand them—I say, he ought not to write in those terms to such, because it shows a kind of ostentation, and a triumph over the ignorance of the person they are written to, unless at the very same time you add an explanation of the terms, so as to make them assuredly intelligible at the place, and to the person to whom they are sent.

Nor should a tradesman use complicated words when writing to someone he knows, or thinks, won't understand them. I mean, he shouldn't write like that to those people because it comes off as showy and feels like he’s flaunting their ignorance, unless he also explains the terms clearly so that the recipient can easily understand them.

A tradesman, in such cases, like a parson, should suit his language to his auditory; and it would be as ridiculous for a tradesman to write a letter filled with the peculiarities of this or that particular trade, which trade he knows the person he writes to is ignorant of, and the terms whereof he is unacquainted with, as it would be for a minister to quote the Chrysostome and St Austin, and repeat at large all their sayings in the Greek and the Latin, in a country church, among a parcel of ploughmen and farmers. Thus a sailor, writing a letter to a surgeon, told him he had a swelling on the north-east side of his face—that his windward leg being hurt by a bruise, it so put him out of trim, that he always heeled to starboard when he made fresh way, and so run to leeward, till he was often forced aground; then he desired him to give him some directions how to put himself into a sailing posture again. Of all which the surgeon understood little more than that he had a swelling on his face, and a bruise in his leg.

A tradesman, in these situations, like a pastor, should match his language to his audience; it would be just as silly for a tradesman to write a letter filled with jargon from this or that specific trade, knowing the person he’s writing to has no idea about it and doesn’t understand the terms, as it would be for a minister to quote Chrysostom and St. Augustine and recite all their sayings in Greek and Latin in a rural church full of farmers and laborers. Similarly, a sailor, writing a letter to a surgeon, mentioned he had a swelling on the northeast side of his face—that his windward leg was hurt by a bruise, which threw him off balance so that he always tilted to starboard when he tried to move quickly, causing him to drift off course and often get stuck on shore; then he asked for advice on how to get himself back in shape for sailing. The surgeon understood little more than that he had a swelling on his face and a bruise on his leg.

It would be a very happy thing, if tradesmen had all their lexicon technicum at their fingers' ends; I mean (for pray, remember, that I observe my own rule, not to use a hard word without explaining it), that every tradesman would study so the terms of art of other trades, that he might be able to speak to every manufacturer or artist in his own language, and understand them when they talked one to another: this would make trade be a kind of universal language, and the particular marks they are obliged to, would be like the notes of music, an universal character, in which all the tradesmen in England might write to one another in the language and characters of their several trades, and be as intelligible to one another as the minister is to his people, and perhaps much more.

It would be really great if tradespeople had all their technical vocabulary at their fingertips. I mean (and please remember that I follow my own rule of explaining difficult words), that every tradesperson should learn the terminology of other trades so they can communicate with any manufacturer or artist in their own language and understand each other when they speak. This would make trade function as a kind of universal language, and the specific symbols they must use would be like musical notation—a universal way for all tradespeople in England to write to one another in the language and symbols of their various trades, making them just as understandable to each other as a minister is to their congregation, and maybe even more so.

I therefore recommend it to every young tradesman to take all occasions to converse with mechanics of every kind, and to learn the particular language of their business; not the names of their tools only, and the way of working with their instruments as well as hands, but the very cant of their trade, for every trade has its nostrums, and its little made words, which they often pride themselves in, and which yet are useful to them on some occasion or other.

I recommend that every young tradesperson look for opportunities to talk with all types of mechanics and learn the specific language of their trade. This means not just knowing the names of their tools and how to use them, but also understanding the unique jargon of their profession. Every trade has its own special terms and phrases that its practitioners take pride in, and these can be useful in various situations.

There are many advantages to a tradesman in thus having a general knowledge of the terms of art, and the cant, as I call it, of every business; and particularly this, that they could not be imposed upon so easily by other tradesmen, when they came to deal with them.

There are many benefits for a tradesperson in having a general understanding of the terminology and jargon, as I refer to it, of every trade; especially this: they wouldn't be so easily taken advantage of by other tradespeople when it came time to negotiate with them.

If you come to deal with a tradesman or handicraft man, and talk his own language to him, he presently supposes you understand his business; that you know what you come about; that you have judgment in his goods, or in his art, and cannot easily be imposed upon; accordingly, he treats you like a man that is not to be cheated, comes close to the point, and does not crowd you with words and rattling talk to set out his wares, and to cover their defects; he finds you know where to look or feel for the defect of things, and how to judge their worth. For example:—

If you deal with a tradesperson or artisan and speak their language, they quickly think you understand their work; that you know what you're there for; that you have good judgment about their products or skills, and can't be easily fooled. As a result, they treat you like someone who can't be tricked, get straight to the point, and don't overwhelm you with chatter to sell their goods or hide their flaws. They see that you know where to check for issues and how to assess their value. For example:—

What trade has more hard words and peculiar ways attending it, than that of a jockey, or horse-courser, as we call them! They have all the parts of the horse, and all the diseases attending him, necessary to be mentioned in the market, upon every occasion of buying or bargaining. A jockey will know you at first sight, when you do but go round a horse, or at the first word you say about him, whether you are a dealer, as they call themselves, or a stranger. If you begin well, if you take up the horse's foot right, if you handle him in the proper places, if you bid his servant open his mouth, or go about it yourself like a workman, if you speak of his shapes or goings in the proper words—'Oh!' says the jockey to his fellow, 'he understands a horse, he speaks the language:' then he knows you are not to be cheated, or, at least, not so easily; but if you go awkwardly to work, whisper to your man you bring with you to ask every thing for you, cannot handle the horse yourself, or speak the language of the trade, he falls upon you with his flourishes, and with a flux of horse rhetoric imposes upon you with oaths and asseverations, and, in a word, conquers you with the mere clamour of his trade.

What profession has more complicated terms and unique practices than that of a jockey, or horse trader, as we call them? They have to know all the parts of a horse and all the illnesses that can affect it, which must be mentioned in every buying or negotiating situation. A jockey can tell right away, just by watching you walk around a horse or hearing your first comment about it, whether you are a dealer, as they refer to themselves, or just an outsider. If you handle the horse correctly—if you pick up its hoof properly, touch it in the right spots, ask its groom to open its mouth, or do it yourself like a pro, and use the right terms for its conformation or movement—then the jockey will say to his buddy, 'He knows his stuff; he speaks the lingo.' At that point, he realizes you won't be easily fooled. However, if you fumble through the process, have someone else do all the talking for you, can't handle the horse yourself, or don’t understand the jargon of the trade, he’ll take advantage of you with his flashy presentations and a stream of horse talk, using lies and strong claims to overwhelm you with the sheer noise of his profession.

Thus, if you go to a garden to buy flowers, plants, trees, and greens, if you know what you go about, know the names of flowers, or simples, or greens; know the particular beauties of them, when they are fit to remove, and when to slip and draw, and when not; what colour is ordinary, and what rare; when a flower is rare, and when ordinary—the gardener presently talks to you as to a man of art, tells you that you are a lover of art, a friend to a florist, shows you his exotics, his green-house, and his stores; what he has set out, and what he has budded or enarched, and the like; but if he finds you have none of the terms of art, know little or nothing of the names of plants, or the nature of planting, he picks your pocket instantly, shows you a fine trimmed fuz-bush for a juniper, sells you common pinks for painted ladies, an ordinary tulip for a rarity, and the like. Thus I saw a gardener sell a gentleman a large yellow auricula, that is to say, a running away, for a curious flower, and take a great price. It seems, the gentleman was a lover of a good yellow; and it is known, that when nature in the auricula is exhausted, and has spent her strengh in showing a fine flower, perhaps some years upon the same root, she faints at last, and then turns into a yellow, which yellow shall be bright and pleasant the first year, and look very well to one that knows nothing of it, though another year it turns pale, and at length almost white. This the gardeners call a run flower, and this they put upon the gentleman for a rarity, only because he discovered at his coming that he knew nothing of the matter. The same gardener sold another person a root of white painted thyme for the right Marum Syriacum; and thus they do every day.

So, if you go to a garden to buy flowers, plants, trees, and greens, and you know what you're looking for—know the names of flowers, herbs, or greens; be aware of their unique qualities, when they're ready to be replanted, when to take cuttings, and when not to; what colors are common and which are rare; when a flower is a rarity and when it's just ordinary—the gardener will talk to you like you're someone who understands the art, tell you that you're an art lover, a friend to florists, show you his exotic plants, his greenhouse, and his inventory; what he has on display, and what he has grafted or cultivated, and so on. But if he realizes you don’t know any of the terminology, or if you know very little about plant names or gardening techniques, he’ll take advantage of you right away, showing you a nicely trimmed bush that’s really just a juniper, selling you common pinks as if they were painted ladies, and passing off an ordinary tulip as something special. I once saw a gardener sell a gentleman a large yellow auricula, which is basically a running away, claiming it was a unique flower, and charged a high price. It turns out the gentleman liked good yellow flowers, and it’s known that when an auricula exhausts itself from producing a beautiful flower—sometimes for several years from the same root—it eventually fades and turns yellow, which looks bright and appealing the first year to someone who knows nothing about it, but the next year it may turn pale, and eventually almost white. Gardeners call this a run flower, and they pass it off to the gentleman as a rarity just because he showed up unaware of the details. The same gardener also sold someone a root of white painted thyme, claiming it was the genuine Marum Syriacum; and this happens every day.

A person goes into a brickmaker's field to view his clamp, and buy a load of bricks; he resolves to see them loaded, because he would have good ones; but not understanding the goods, and seeing the workmen loading them where they were hard and well burnt, but looked white and grey, which, to be sure, were the best of the bricks, and which perhaps they would not have done if he had not been there to look at them, they supposing he understood which were the best; but he, in the abundance of his ignorance, finds fault with them, because they were not a good colour, and did not look red; the brickmaker's men took the hint immediately, and telling the buyer they would give him red bricks to oblige him, turned their hands from the grey hard well-burnt bricks to the soft sammel[9] half-burnt bricks, which they were glad to dispose of, and which nobody that had understood them would have taken off their hands.

A person enters a brickmaker's field to check out his kiln and buy a load of bricks; he decides to watch them being loaded because he wants quality ones. However, not being knowledgeable about the goods, he sees the workers loading bricks that are hard and well-burnt but look white and grey, which are actually the best of the lot. They might not have chosen those if he hadn't been there, thinking he knew which ones were the best. In his ignorance, he complains about them because they don’t have a good color and aren’t red. The brickmaker's workers quickly catch on and tell the buyer that they'll get him red bricks to satisfy him. They shift from the grey, hard, well-burnt bricks to the soft sammel[9] half-burnt bricks, which they were eager to get rid of and which anyone who truly understood bricks would never have taken off their hands.

I mention these lower things, because I would suit my writing to the understanding of the meanest people, and speak of frauds used in the most ordinary trades; but it is the like in almost all the goods a tradesman can deal in. If you go to Warwickshire to buy cheese, you demand the cheese 'of the first make,' because that is the best. If you go to Suffolk to buy butter, you refuse the butter of the first make, because that is not the best, but you bargain for 'the right rowing butter,' which is the butter that is made when the cows are turned into the grounds where the grass has been mowed, and the hay carried off, and grown again: and so in many other cases. These things demonstrate the advantages there are to a tradesman, in his being thoroughly informed of the terms of art, and the peculiarities belonging to every particular business, which, therefore, I call the language of trade.

I bring up these simple matters because I want my writing to be understandable for everyone, and to talk about the tricks used in everyday businesses. This is true for almost any product a seller might offer. For instance, if you go to Warwickshire to buy cheese, you ask for the cheese 'of the first make' because that's the best. But if you're in Suffolk looking for butter, you wouldn't want the butter 'of the first make' since that's not actually the best; instead, you'd negotiate for 'the right rowing butter,' which is made when cows are turned into the fields where the grass has been cut and the hay taken away, and then grows back. This applies in many other situations as well. These examples show how beneficial it is for a tradesperson to be well-informed about the specific terminology and unique aspects of their trade, which I refer to as the language of trade.

As a merchant should understand all languages, at least the languages of those countries which he trades to, or corresponds with, and the customs and usages of those countries as to their commerce, so an English tradesman ought to understand all the languages of trade, within the circumference of his own country, at least, and particularly of such as he may, by any of the consequences of his commerce, come to be any way concerned with.

As a merchant should know all languages, at least the languages of the countries he trades with or communicates with, and the customs and practices of those countries regarding commerce, an English trader should understand all the trade languages relevant to his own country and especially those he might be involved with due to his business activities.

Especially, it is his business to acquaint himself with the terms and trading style, as I call it, of those trades which he buys of, as to those he sells to; supposing he sells to those who sell again, it is their business to understand him, not his to understand them: and if he finds they do not understand him, he will not fail to make their ignorance be his advantage, unless he is honester and more conscientious in his dealings than most of the tradesmen of this age seem to be.

Especially, it's his responsibility to get to know the terms and trading style, as I call it, of the businesses he buys from, just as much as those he sells to; if he’s selling to someone who will resell, it’s up to them to understand him, not the other way around: and if he realizes they don’t get him, he won’t hesitate to use their lack of understanding to his benefit, unless he is more honest and principled in his dealings than most of today's merchants seem to be.

FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:

[Sammel is a term of art the brickmakers use for those bricks which are not well burnt, and which generally look of a pale red colour, and as fair as the other, but are soft.]

[Sammel is a technical term used by brickmakers to refer to bricks that aren't fully fired. They typically appear a light red color and look just as nice as the others, but they're soft.]


CHAPTER IV

OF THE TRADESMAN ACQUAINTING HIMSELF WITH ALL BUSINESS IN GENERAL

OF THE TRADESMAN GETTING TO KNOW ALL ASPECTS OF BUSINESS IN GENERAL


It is the judgment of some experienced tradesmen, that no man ought to go from one business to another, and launch out of the trade or employment he was bred to: Tractent fabrilia fabri—'Every man to his own business;' and, they tell us, men never thrive when they do so.

Some experienced tradesmen believe that no one should switch from one job to another and leave the trade or profession they were trained for: Tractent fabrilia fabri—'Every man to his own business;' and they say that men never succeed when they do.

I will not enter into that dispute here. I know some good and encouraging examples of the contrary, and which stand as remarkable instances, or as exceptions to the general rule: but let that be as it will, sometimes providence eminently calls upon men out of one employ into another, out of a shop into a warehouse, out of a warehouse into a shop, out of a single hand into a partnership, and the like; and they trade one time here, another time there, and with very good success too. But I say, be that as it will, a tradesman ought so far to acquaint himself with business, that he should not be at a loss to turn his hand to this or that trade, as occasion presents, whether in or out of the way of his ordinary dealing, as we have often seen done in London and other places, and sometimes with good success.

I won't get into that argument here. I know some really good and encouraging examples that go against the general trend, which are noteworthy exceptions: but whatever the case, sometimes fate clearly calls people from one job to another, from a shop to a warehouse, from a warehouse to a shop, from working alone to being in a partnership, and so on; and they might work here at one time and there at another, often with quite a bit of success. That said, a tradesperson should be familiar enough with the business to handle different trades as opportunities arise, whether it's part of their usual work or not, just like we've often seen in London and other places, sometimes with great success.

This acquainting himself with business does not intimate that he should learn every trade, or enter into the mystery of every employment. That cannot well be; but that he should have a true notion of business in general, and a knowledge how and in what manner it is carried on; that he should know where every manufacture is made, and how bought at first hand; that he should know which are the proper markets, and what the particular kinds of goods to exchange at those markets; that he should know the manner how every manufacture is managed, and the method of their sale.

This getting to know business doesn't mean he needs to learn every trade or dive into the details of every job. That's just not realistic. Instead, he should have a clear understanding of business as a whole and know how it's conducted; he should be aware of where every product is made and how to buy it directly; he should know the right markets and the specific types of goods to trade there; he should understand how each product is managed and the process of selling them.

It cannot be expected that he should have judgment in the choice of all kinds of goods, though in a great many he may have judgment too: but there is a general understanding in trade, which every tradesman both may and ought to arrive to; and this perfectly qualifies him to engage in any new undertaking, and to embark with other persons better qualified than himself in any new trade, which he was not in before; in which, though he may not have a particular knowledge and judgment in the goods they are to deal in or to make, yet, having the benefit of the knowledge his new partner is master of, and being himself apt to take in all additional lights, he soon becomes experienced, and the knowledge of all the other parts of business qualifies him to be a sufficient partner. For example—A.B. was bred a dry-salter, and he goes in partner with with C.D., a scarlet-dyer, called a bow-dyer, at Wandsworth.

It's unrealistic to expect him to have good judgment in choosing all types of goods, although he might be skilled in many. However, there's a general understanding in trade that every trader can and should strive to achieve. This knowledge enables him to take on new ventures and team up with others who are more qualified in different trades he hasn’t been involved in before. Even if he doesn’t have specific knowledge about the goods they'll be handling or producing, he can benefit from the expertise of his new partner. Being open to new information helps him quickly gain experience, and his understanding of other business aspects makes him a capable partner. For instance, A.B. trained as a dry-salter and partners with C.D., a scarlet-dyer known as a bow-dyer, in Wandsworth.

As a salter, A.B. has had experience enough in the materials for dyeing, as well scarlets as all other colours, and understands very well the buying of cochineal, indigo, galls, shumach, logwood, fustick, madder, and the like; so that he does his part very well. C.D. is an experienced scarlet-dyer; but now, doubling their stock, they fall into a larger work, and they dye bays and stuffs, and other goods, into differing colours, as occasion requires; and this brings them to an equality in the business, and by hiring good experienced servants, they go on very well together.

As a dye supplier, A.B. has plenty of experience with dye materials, including scarlets and all other colors, and he knows how to purchase cochineal, indigo, galls, shumach, logwood, fustic, madder, and similar items; so he does his job very well. C.D. is a skilled scarlet-dyer; but now, by combining their resources, they take on larger projects, dyeing various fabrics and goods in different colors as needed; this brings them to the same level in the business, and by hiring experienced workers, they work well together.

The like happens often when a tradesman turns his hand from one trade to another; and when he embarks, either in partnership or out of it, in any new business, it is supposed he seldom changes hands in such a manner without some such suitable person to join with, or that he has some experienced head workman to direct him, which, if that workman proves honest, is as well as a partner. On the other hand, his own application and indefatigable industry supply the want of judgment. Thus, I have known several tradesmen turn their hands from one business to another, or from one trade entirely to another, and very often with good success. For example, I have seen a confectioner turn a sugar-baker; another a distiller; an apothecary turn chemist, and not a few turn physicians, and prove very good physicians too; but that is a step beyond what I am speaking of.

That happens often when a tradesperson switches from one job to another. When they start a new business, whether in partnership or not, it's assumed they usually don’t make that change without having someone suitable to partner with or an experienced mentor to guide them. If that mentor is honest, it's just as good as having a partner. On the flip side, their own dedication and tireless work can make up for a lack of experience. I've seen several tradespeople move from one field to another or entirely switch careers, often with great success. For instance, I've seen a confectioner become a sugar baker; another become a distiller; an apothecary turn into a chemist, and quite a few become doctors—and become very good doctors, too. But that's a bit beyond what I'm discussing.

But my argument turns upon this—that a tradesman ought to be able to turn his hand to any thing; that is to say, to lay down one trade and take up another, if occasion leads him to it, and if he sees an evident view of profit and advantage in it; and this is only done by his having a general knowledge of trade, so as to have a capacity of judging: and by but just looking upon what is offered or proposed, he sees as much at first view as others do by long inquiry, and with the judgment of many advisers.

But my point is this: a tradesperson should be able to adapt to anything. In other words, they should be able to leave one trade and start another if the opportunity arises and they see a clear chance for profit and benefit. This can only happen if they have a broad understanding of trade, which allows them to make informed decisions. By simply examining what is presented to them, they can grasp as much right away as others do after extensive research and consulting with multiple advisors.

When I am thus speaking of the tradesman's being capable of making judgment of things, it occurs, with a force not to be resisted, that I should add, he is hereby fenced against bubbles and projects, and against those fatal people called projectors, who are, indeed, among tradesmen, as birds of prey are among the innocent fowls—devourers and destroyers. A tradesman cannot be too well armed, nor too much cautioned, against those sort of people; they are constantly surrounded with them, and are as much in jeopardy from them, as a man in a crowd is of having his pocket picked—nay, almost as a man is when in a crowd of pickpockets.

When I talk about a tradesman being able to judge things well, it's clear that I should mention how this helps protect him from scams and get-rich-quick schemes, as well as those dangerous individuals known as projectors. These people, much like predators among unsuspecting birds, are out to devour and destroy. A tradesman can't be too prepared or too alert against this kind of threat; they are always around him, putting him in as much danger as someone in a crowd is of having their pocket picked—actually, it’s almost like being in a crowd full of pickpockets.

Nothing secures the tradesman against those men so well as his being thoroughly knowing in business, having a judgment to weigh all the delusive schemes and the fine promises of the wheedling projector, and to see which are likely to answer, or which not; to examine all his specious pretences, his calculations and figures, and see whether they are as likely to answer the end as he takes upon him to say they will; to make allowances for all his fine flourishes and outsides, and then to judge for himself. A projector is to a tradesman a kind of incendiary; he is in a constant plot to blow him up, or set fire to him; for projects are generally as fatal to a tradesman as fire in a magazine of gunpowder.

Nothing protects the business person from those deceitful men better than being well-informed about their trade, having the ability to evaluate all the misleading schemes and smooth promises of the persuasive con artist, and determining which are likely to succeed or fail; to scrutinize all their deceptive claims, calculations, and figures, and see if they are as likely to achieve what they claim as they say they will; to consider all their flashy statements and appearances, and then make a judgment for themselves. A con artist is to a business person what an arsonist is; they are constantly trying to undermine or ruin them, as schemes are often just as dangerous to a business person as fire is in a gunpowder store.

The honest tradesman is always in danger, and cannot be too wary; and therefore to fortify his judgment, that he may be able to guard against such people as these, is one of the most necessary things I can do for him.

The honest tradesman is always at risk and needs to be very cautious; so, helping him strengthen his judgment so he can protect himself against people like these is one of the most important things I can do for him.

In order, then, to direct the tradesman how to furnish himself thus with a needful stock of trading knowledge, first, I shall propose to him to converse with tradesmen chiefly: he that will be a tradesman should confine himself within his own sphere: never was the Gazette so full of the advertisements of commissions of bankrupt as since our shopkeepers are so much engaged in parties, formed into clubs to hear news, and read journals and politics; in short, when tradesmen turn statesmen, they should either shut up their shops, or hire somebody else to look after them.

To guide the tradesman in building a necessary stock of trading knowledge, I suggest that he mostly talks to other tradesmen. If you want to be a tradesman, stick to your own area of expertise. The Gazette has never had so many bankruptcy ads as it does now that shopkeepers are so caught up in groups that focus on news, journals, and politics. In short, when traders start acting like politicians, they should either close their shops or hire someone else to manage them.

The known story of the upholsterer is very instructive,[10] who, in his abundant concern for the public, ran himself out of his business into a jail; and even when he was in prison, could not sleep for the concern he had for the liberties of his dear country: the man was a good patriot, but a bad shopkeeper; and, indeed, should rather have shut up his shop, and got a commission in the army, and then he had served his country in the way of his calling. But I may speak to this more in its turn.

The story of the upholsterer is quite instructive,[10] who, out of his deep concern for the public, ran his business into the ground and ended up in jail. Even while imprisoned, he couldn’t sleep because he was worried about the freedoms of his beloved country: he was a good patriot, but a poor businessman; honestly, he should have closed his shop and joined the army, where he could have served his country in a way that suited him better. But I'll address this more thoroughly later.

My present subject is not the negative, what he should not do, but the affirmative, what he should do; I say, he should take all occasions to converse within the circuit of his own sphere, that is, dwell upon the subject of trade in his conversation, and sort with and converse among tradesmen as much as he can; as writing teaches to write—scribendo discis scribere—so conversing among tradesmen will make him a tradesman. I need not explain this so critically as to tell you I do not mean he should confine or restrain himself entirely from all manner of conversation but among his own class: I shall speak to that in its place also. A tradesman may on occasion keep company with gentlemen as well as other people; nor is a trading man, if he is a man of sense, unsuitable or unprofitable for a gentleman to converse with, as occasion requires; and you will often find, that not private gentlemen only, but even ministers of state, privy-councillors, members of parliament, and persons of all ranks in the government, find it for their purpose to converse with tradesmen, and are not ashamed to acknowledge, that a tradesman is sometimes qualified to inform them in the most difficult and intricate, as well as the most urgent, affairs of government; and this has been the reason why so many tradesmen have been advanced to honours and dignities above their ordinary rank, as Sir Charles Duncombe, a goldsmith; Sir Henry Furnese, who was originally a retail hosier; Sir Charles Cook, late one of the board of trade, a merchant; Sir Josiah Child, originally a very mean tradesman; the late Mr Lowndes, bred a scrivener; and many others, too many to name.

My current topic isn’t about what he shouldn’t do, but about what he should do. He should take every chance to talk within his own field, meaning he should focus on discussing trade in his conversations and engage with tradespeople as much as possible. Just as writing improves writing—scribendo discis scribere—talking with tradespeople will help him become a tradesman. I don’t need to clarify that I don’t mean he should limit himself to only talking to his own class; I’ll address that in due time. A tradesman can socialize with gentlemen and other people when the opportunity arises; and a sensible tradesman can be a valuable conversational partner for gentlemen when needed. You will often see that not just private gentlemen, but also state ministers, privy councillors, parliament members, and people of all ranks in government find it useful to talk to tradesmen and aren’t embarrassed to admit that tradesmen can sometimes provide insights on the most challenging and pressing government matters. This has led to many tradesmen being promoted to honors and positions above their usual status, like Sir Charles Duncombe, a goldsmith; Sir Henry Furnese, who started as a retail hosier; Sir Charles Cook, a former board member of trade, a merchant; Sir Josiah Child, who began as a lowly tradesman; the late Mr. Lowndes, who was a scrivener; and many others, too numerous to mention.

But these are instances of men called out of their lower sphere for their eminent usefulness, and their known capacities, being first known to be diligent and industrious men in their private and lower spheres; such advancements make good the words of the wise man—'Seest thou a man diligent in his calling, he shall stand before kings; he shall not stand before mean men.[11]

But these are examples of men who were lifted from their lower status because of their significant contributions and recognized abilities, first proven to be hardworking and dedicated in their private and lower roles; such advancements prove the words of the wise person—'Do you see a man diligent in his work? He will stand before kings; he will not stand before ordinary men.[11]

In the mean time, the tradesman's proper business is in his shop or warehouse, and among his own class or rank of people; there he sees how other men go on, and there he learns how to go on himself; there he sees how other men thrive, and learns to thrive himself; there he hears all the trading news—as for state news and politics, it is none of his business; there he learns how to buy, and there he gets oftentimes opportunities to sell; there he hears of all the disasters in trade, who breaks, and why; what brought such and such a man to misfortunes and disasters; and sees the various ways how men go down in the world, as well as the arts and management, by which others from nothing arise to wealth and estates.

In the meantime, the business of a tradesman is in his shop or warehouse, surrounded by his peers; that's where he observes how others operate and figures out how to navigate his own path. There, he sees how others succeed and learns to succeed himself; he keeps up with all the trading news—state and political news don’t concern him. He learns how to buy, and often finds chances to sell; he hears about all the setbacks in trade, who goes bankrupt, and why; what led certain individuals to their misfortunes and failures; and sees the different ways people struggle in life, as well as the strategies and management techniques that help others rise from nothing to wealth and property.

Here he sees the Scripture itself thwarted, and his neighbour tradesman, a wholesale haberdasher, in spite of a good understanding, in spite of a good beginning, and in spite of the most indefatigable industry, sink in his circumstances, lose his credit, then his stock, and then break and become bankrupt, while the man takes more pains to be poor than others do to grow rich.

Here he sees the Scripture itself being undermined, and his neighbor, a wholesale haberdasher, despite having a good understanding, a promising start, and tireless effort, ends up struggling financially, losing his reputation, then his inventory, and finally going bankrupt, all while this man works harder to stay poor than others do to get rich.

There, on the other hand, he sees G.D., a plodding, weak-headed, but laborious wretch, of a confined genius, and that cannot look a quarter of a mile from his shop-door into the world, and beginning with little or nothing, yet rises apace in the mere road of business, in which he goes on like the miller's horse, who, being tied to the post, is turned round by the very wheel which he turns round himself; and this fellow shall get money insensibly, and grow rich even he knows not how, and no body else knows why.

There, on the other hand, he sees G.D., a slow, simple-minded, but hardworking guy with a limited imagination, who can't see more than a quarter of a mile from his shop door into the world. Starting with little or nothing, he still rises quickly in the straightforward world of business, going on like the miller's horse that’s tied to the post and is turned around by the very wheel it turns itself. This guy will gradually make money and get rich without even knowing how, and nobody else will know why.

Here he sees F.M. ruined by too much trade, and there he sees M.F. starved for want of trade; and from all these observations he may learn something useful to himself, and fit to guide his own measures, that he may not fall into the same mischiefs which he sees others sink under, and that he may take the advantage of that prudence which others rise by.

Here he sees F.M. destroyed by too much commerce, and there he sees M.F. struggling due to a lack of trade; from all these observations, he can pick up something valuable for himself and use it to shape his own actions, so he doesn’t fall into the same problems that others are facing, and he can benefit from the caution that helps others succeed.

All these things will naturally occur to him, in his conversing among his fellow-tradesmen. A settled little society of trading people, who understand business, and are carrying on trade in the same manner with himself, no matter whether they are of the very same trades or no, and perhaps better not of the same—such a society, I say, shall, if due observations are made from it, teach the tradesman more than his apprenticeship; for there he learned the operation, here he learns the progression; his apprenticeship is his grammar-school, this is his university; behind his master's counter, or in his warehouse, he learned the first rudiments of trade, but here he learns the trading sciences; here he comes to learn the arcana, speak the language, understand the meaning of every thing, of which before he only learned the beginning: the apprenticeship inducts him, and leads him as the nurse the child; this finishes him; there he learned the beginning of trade, here he sees it in its full extent; in a word, there he learned to trade, here he is made a complete tradesman.

All these things will naturally come to mind while he chats with his fellow tradespeople. A small, close-knit community of business-minded individuals who are trading in the same way he does, regardless of whether they're in the same field or not—maybe it’s even better if they aren’t in the same trade. This community, I say, if he observes it properly, will teach the tradesman more than his apprenticeship; he learned the basics before, but here he learns how to advance. His apprenticeship is like his grammar school, and this is his university; behind his master's counter or in his warehouse, he picked up the fundamentals of trade, but here he learns the advanced concepts; here he discovers the secrets, learns the language, and understands everything that before he only scratched the surface of: the apprenticeship introduces him, guiding him like a nurse with a child; this experience completes him; there he learned the basics of trade, and here he sees it in its entirety. In short, there he learned how to trade, and here he becomes a fully developed tradesman.

Let no young tradesman object, that, in the conversation I speak of, there are so many gross things said, and so many ridiculous things argued upon, there being always a great many weak empty heads among the shopkeeping trading world: this may be granted without any impeachment of what I have advanced—for where shall a man converse, and find no fools in the society?—and where shall he hear the weightiest things debated, and not a great many empty weak things offered, out of which nothing can be learned, and from which nothing can be deduced?—for 'out of nothing, nothing can come.'

Let no young tradesman complain that in the conversation I’m talking about, a lot of foolish things are said and many ridiculous arguments are made, given that there are always plenty of naive minds in the retail world. This can be accepted without undermining my point—where can a person have a conversation and not encounter any fools in the mix? And where can one hear serious discussions without a bunch of weak, pointless comments thrown in, from which nothing can be learned and no conclusions can be drawn?—because 'nothing comes from nothing.'

But, notwithstanding, let me still insist upon it to the tradesman to keep company with tradesmen; let the fool run on in his own way; let the talkative green-apron rattle in his own way; let the manufacturer and his factor squabble and brangle; the grave self-conceited puppy, who was born a boy, and will die before he is a man, chatter and say a great deal of nothing, and talk his neighbours to death—out of every one you will learn something—they are all tradesmen, and there is always something for a young tradesman to learn from them. If, understanding but a little French, you were to converse every day a little among some Frenchmen in your neighbourhood, and suppose those Frenchmen, you thus kept company with, were every one of them fools, mere ignorant, empty, foolish fellows, there might be nothing learnt from their sense, but you would still learn French from them, if it was no more than the tone and accent, and the ordinary words usual in conversation.

But still, I want to emphasize to the tradesman that they should stick with other tradesmen; let the fool go on with his nonsense; let the chatty guy in the green apron babble away; let the manufacturer and his associate bicker and argue; let the serious, self-important guy, who was born a boy and will die before he becomes a man, ramble on about nothing and bore his neighbors to death—there's something to learn from every one of them—they're all tradesmen, and there's always something a young tradesman can pick up from them. If, knowing just a little French, you were to chat daily with some French people in your neighborhood, and suppose those French people you spent time with were all fools, totally ignorant and empty-headed, you might not learn anything from their wisdom, but you'd still pick up French from them, even if it was just their tone and accent and the everyday words commonly used in conversation.

Thus, among your silly empty tradesmen, let them be as foolish and empty other ways as you can suggest, though you can learn no philosophy from them, you may learn many things in trade from them, and something from every one; for though it is not absolutely necessary that every tradesman should be a philosopher, yet every tradesman, in his way, knows something that even a philosopher may learn from.

Thus, among your silly, empty tradespeople, let them be as foolish and empty in other ways as you can think of. While you may not learn any philosophy from them, you can pick up many things about trade, and something from each one; for even though it’s not absolutely necessary for every tradesperson to be a philosopher, every tradesperson, in their own way, knows something that even a philosopher can learn from.

I knew a philosopher that was excellently skilled in the noble science or study of astronomy, who told me he had some years studied for some simile, or proper allusion, to explain to his scholars the phenomena of the sun's motion round its own axis, and could never happen upon one to his mind, till by accident he saw his maid Betty trundling her mop: surprised with the exactness of the motion to describe the thing he wanted, he goes into his study, calls his pupils about him, and tells them that Betty, who herself knew nothing of the matter, could show them the sun revolving about itself in a more lively manner than ever he could. Accordingly, Betty was called, and bidden bring out her mop, when, placing his scholars in a due-position, opposite not to the face of the maid, but to her left side, so that they could see the end of the mop, when it whirled round upon her arm. They took it immediately—there was the broad-headed nail in the centre, which was as the body of the sun, and the thrums whisking round, flinging the water about every way by innumerable little streams, describing exactly the rays of the sun, darting light from the centre to the whole system.

I knew a philosopher who was really skilled in the study of astronomy. He told me he had spent years looking for a good analogy or reference to explain the sun's motion around its own axis to his students, but he never found one that satisfied him. One day, by chance, he saw his maid Betty spinning her mop. He was so impressed with how well that motion represented what he wanted to explain that he went to his study, gathered his students, and said that Betty, who knew nothing about it, could show them how the sun revolves around itself better than he could. So, they called Betty and asked her to bring her mop. He arranged his students so they were not facing her but positioned to her left, allowing them to see the end of the mop as it spun around her arm. They understood immediately—there was the broad-headed nail in the center, representing the body of the sun, and the mop's strands swirling around and splashing water everywhere, perfectly illustrating the rays of the sun radiating light from the center to the whole system.

If ignorant Betty, by the natural consequences of her operation, instructed the astronomer, why may not the meanest shoemaker or pedlar, by the ordinary sagacity of his trading wit, though it may be indeed very ordinary, coarse, and unlooked for, communicate something, give some useful hint, dart some sudden thought into the mind of the observing tradesman, which he shall make his use of, and apply to his own advantage in trade, when, at the same time, he that gives such hint shall himself, like Betty and her mop, know nothing of the matter?

If clueless Betty, through the natural effects of her actions, taught the astronomer something, then why can't even the simplest shoemaker or peddler, by the basic cleverness of their business sense—no matter how simple, rough, and unexpected it may be—share some useful insight, spark a sudden idea in the mind of the careful tradesman, who then uses it for their own benefit in business, while the person who offered that insight remains completely unaware of it, just like Betty and her mop?

Every tradesman is supposed to manage his business his own way, and, generally speaking, most tradesmen have some ways peculiar and particular to themselves, which they either derived from the masters who taught them, or from the experience of things, or from something in the course of their business, which had not happened to them before.

Every tradesman is expected to run their business in their own way, and generally, most tradesmen have specific methods that are unique to them. They may have learned these from the masters who trained them, from their own experiences, or from situations they encountered in the course of their business that they hadn't faced before.

And those little nostrums are oftentime very properly and with advantage communicated from one to another; one tradesman finds out a nearer way of buying than another, another finds a vent for what is bought beyond what his neighbour knows of, and these, in time, come to be learned of them by their ordinary conversation.

And those little remedies are often very effectively and beneficially shared from one person to another; one merchant discovers a better way to make purchases than another, another finds a market for what he buys that his neighbor doesn’t know about, and these things, in time, are learned by them through their everyday conversations.

I am not for confining the tradesman from keeping better company, as occasion and leisure requires; I allow the tradesman to act the gentleman sometimes, and that even for conversation, at least if his understanding and capacity make him suitable company to them, but still his business is among those of his own rank. The conversation of gentlemen, and what they call keeping good company, may be used as a diversion, or as an excursion, but his stated society must be with his neighbours, and people in trade; men of business are companions for men of business; with gentlemen he may converse pleasantly, but here he converses profitably; tradesmen are always profitable to one another; as they always gain by trading together, so they never lose by conversing together; if they do not get money, they gain knowledge in business, improve their experience, and see farther and farther into the world.

I'm not against tradespeople spending time with better company when they have the chance; I think it's fine for them to act like gentlemen sometimes, especially if they can hold a good conversation. However, their main social circle should still be with people in their own line of work. Engaging with gentlemen can be entertaining or a nice break, but they should regularly associate with their neighbors and other tradespeople. Businesspeople make good companions for each other; while they can enjoy chatting with gentlemen, it's with their peers that they really benefit. Trading together is always profitable, and even if they don't make money from a conversation, they gain valuable insights and expand their understanding of the world.

A man of but an ordinary penetration will improve himself by conversing in matters of trade with men of trade; by the experience of the old tradesmen they learn caution and prudence, and by the rashness and the miscarriages of the young, they learn what are the mischiefs that themselves may be exposed to.

A man with just average insight will get better by talking about business with experienced traders; from the wisdom of seasoned tradesmen, they learn to be careful and sensible, and from the recklessness and failures of the younger ones, they understand the dangers they might face themselves.

Again, in conversing with men of trade, they get trade; men first talk together, then deal together—many a good bargain is made, and many a pound gained, where nothing was expected, by mere casual coming to talk together, without knowing any thing of the matter before they met. The tradesmen's meetings are like the merchants' exchange, where they manage, negociate, and, indeed, beget business with one another.

Once again, when talking to businesspeople, they engage in trade; people first chat, then do business together—many great deals are struck, and a lot of money is made unexpectedly, simply by casually meeting and talking without any prior knowledge of the subject. Business meetings are like a merchant exchange, where they connect, negotiate, and really create opportunities with each other.

Let no tradesman mistake me in this part; I am not encouraging them to leave their shops and warehouses, to go to taverns and ale-houses, and spend their time there in unnecessary prattle, which, indeed, is nothing but sotting and drinking; this is not meeting to do business, but to neglect business. Of which I shall speak fully afterwards.

Let no tradesman get me wrong here; I’m not encouraging them to abandon their shops and warehouses to hang out in bars and pubs, wasting their time on pointless chatter, which is really just drinking and goofing off. This isn’t meeting to conduct business, but rather ignoring it. I will discuss this in more detail later.

But the tradesmen conversing with one another, which I mean, is the taking suitable occasions to discourse with their fellow tradesmen, meeting them in the way of their business, and improving their spare hours together. To leave their shops, and quit their counters, in the proper seasons for their attendance there, would be a preposterous negligence, would be going out of business to gain business, and would be cheating themselves, instead of improving themselves. The proper hours of business are sacred to the shop and the warehouse. He that goes out of the order of trade, let the pretence of business be what it will, loses his business, not increases it; and will, if continued, lose the credit of his conduct in business also.

But the tradespeople talking to each other, which I mean, is about taking the right opportunities to chat with their fellow tradespeople, running into them while they’re working, and making the most of their downtime together. Leaving their shops and stepping away from their counters at the right times for their work would be careless; it would be stepping away from business to try to gain business, and ultimately, it would be letting themselves down instead of lifting themselves up. The proper business hours are crucial for the shop and the warehouse. Anyone who strays from the order of trade, no matter what excuse they give, will lose their business instead of growing it; and if they keep this up, they’ll also lose their reputation for handling business well.

FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:

[The story of the political upholsterer forms the subject of several amusing papers by Addison in the Tatler.]

[The story of the political upholsterer is the topic of several entertaining articles by Addison in the Tatler.]

[To stand in the presence of a prince is the highest mark of honour in the east, as to sit is with us.]

[Standing in the presence of a prince is the greatest honor in the East, just as sitting is for us.]


CHAPTER V

DILIGENCE AND APPLICATION IN BUSINESS

Hard Work and Commitment in Business


Solomon was certainly a friend to men of business, as it appears by his frequent good advice to them. In Prov. xviii. 9, he says, 'He that is slothful in business, is brother to him that is a great waster:' and in another place, 'The sluggard shall be clothed in rags,' (Prov. xxiii. 1), or to that purpose. On the contrary, the same wise man, by way of encouragement, tells them, 'The diligent hand maketh rich,' (Prov. x. 4), and, 'The diligent shall bear rule, but the slothful shall be under tribute.'

Solomon was definitely a friend to businesspeople, as shown by his regular good advice to them. In Prov. xviii. 9, he says, 'A lazy person in business is like a brother to a waster:' and in another place, 'The lazy will end up in rags,' (Prov. xxiii. 1), or something similar. On the flip side, the same wise man encourages them by saying, 'Hard work brings wealth,' (Prov. x. 4), and, 'Those who work hard will get to lead, but the lazy will be forced to serve.'

Nothing can give a greater prospect of thriving to a young tradesman, than his own diligence; it fills himself with hope, and gives him credit with all who know him; without application, nothing in this world goes forward as it should do: let the man have the most perfect knowledge of his trade, and the best situation for his shop, yet without application nothing will go on. What is the shop without the master? what the books without the book-keeper? what the credit without the man? Hark how the people talk of such conduct as the slothful negligent trader discovers in his way.

Nothing gives a young tradesman a better chance of success than his own hard work; it fills him with hope and earns him respect from everyone who knows him. Without effort, nothing in this world advances as it should. A person might have complete knowledge of their trade and the best location for their shop, but without effort, nothing will succeed. What is the shop without the owner? What are the books without the accountant? What is the reputation without the person behind it? Just listen to how people talk about the lazy, careless trader and their behavior.

'Such a shop,' says the customer, 'stands well, and there is a good stock of goods in it, but there is nobody to serve but a 'prentice-boy or two, and an idle journeyman: one finds them always at play together, rather than looking out for customers; and when you come to buy, they look as if they did not care whether they showed you any thing or no. One never sees a master in the shop, if we go twenty times, nor anything that bears the face of authority. Then, it is a shop always exposed, it is perfectly haunted with thieves and shop-lifters; they see nobody but raw boys in it, that mind nothing, and the diligent devils never fail to haunt them, so that there are more outcries of 'Stop thief!' at their door, and more constables fetched to that shop, than to all the shops in the row. There was a brave trade at that shop in Mr—'s time: he was a true shopkeeper; like the quack doctor, you never missed him from seven in the morning till twelve, and from two till nine at night, and he throve accordingly—he left a good estate behind him. But I don't know what these people are; they say there are two partners of them, but there had as good be none, for they are never at home, nor in their shop: one wears a long wig and a sword, I hear, and you see him often in the Mall and at court, but very seldom in his shop, or waiting on his customers; and the other, they say, lies a-bed till eleven o'clock every day, just comes into the shop and shows himself, then stalks about to the tavern to take a whet, then to Child's coffee-house to hear the news, comes home to dinner at one, takes a long sleep in his chair after it, and about four o'clock comes into the shop for half an hour, or thereabouts, then to the tavern, where he stays till two in the morning, gets drunk, and is led home by the watch, and so lies till eleven again; and thus he walks round like the hand of a dial. And what will it all come to?—they'll certainly break, that you may be sure of; they can't hold it long.'

"That shop," says the customer, "is in a good location and has a decent selection of goods, but there’s no one to help you except for a couple of apprentice boys and a lazy journeyman. You always find them playing around instead of looking for customers, and when you try to buy something, they act like they don’t care if they show you anything or not. You never see a master in the shop, even if you go by twenty times, or anything that looks like authority. Plus, it’s always open and practically overrun with thieves and shoplifters; they only see inexperienced kids in there who aren’t paying attention, and the persistent troublemakers never miss an opportunity to target them. There are more shouts of ‘Stop thief!’ at their door and more constables called to that shop than any other in the area. There used to be a thriving business there in Mr.—'s time; he was a real shopkeeper. Like a quack doctor, you could count on him being there from seven in the morning until noon and from two until nine at night, and he did well because of it—he left behind a good estate. But I don’t know what these new people are doing; they say there are two partners, but it might as well be none, since they’re never around or in the shop. One wears a long wig and a sword, and I hear he’s often seen in the Mall and at court, but hardly ever in his shop or attending to customers. The other supposedly sleeps in until eleven every day, then shows up in the shop for a bit before heading off to a tavern for a drink, then to Child's coffee-house for the news. He returns home for dinner at one, takes a long nap in his chair after that, and around four, he pops into the shop for half an hour or so, then goes back to the tavern where he stays until two in the morning, gets drunk, and is escorted home by the watch, only to sleep in until eleven again. He just keeps rotating like the hand of a clock. And what’s this all leading to?—they’re definitely going to go under, that much is clear; they can’t keep this up for long."

'This is the town's way of talking, where they see an example of it in the manner as is described; nor are the inferences unjust, any more than the description is unlike, for such certainly is the end of such management, and no shop thus neglected ever made a tradesman rich.

'This is how people in the town speak, where they see an example of it in the way it's described; the conclusions are fair, just as the description is accurate, because that is definitely the outcome of such management, and no business left unattended ever made a merchant wealthy.'

On the contrary, customers love to see the master's face in the shop, and to go to a shop where they are sure to find him at home. When he does not sell, or cannot take the price offered, yet the customers are not disobliged, and if they do not deal now, they may another time: if they do deal, the master generally gets a better price for his goods than a servant can, besides that he gives better content; and yet the customers always think they buy cheaper of the master too.

On the other hand, customers enjoy seeing the owner in the shop and prefer going to a place where they know he will be there. Even when he doesn’t make a sale or can't agree on a price, customers aren't put off, and if they don't buy now, they might later. If they do make a purchase, the owner usually secures a better price for his products than an employee would, plus he provides better service; yet customers still believe they’re getting a better deal from the owner as well.

I seem to be talking now of the mercer or draper, as if my discourse were wholly bent and directed to them; but it is quite contrary, for it concerns every tradesman—the advice is general, and every tradesman claims a share in it; the nature of trade requires it. It is an old Anglicism, 'Such a man drives a trade;' the allusion is to a carter, that with his voice, his hands, his whip, and his constant attendance, keeps the team always going, helps himself, lifts at the wheel in every slough, doubles his application upon every difficulty, and, in a word, to complete the simile, if he is not always with his horses, either the wagon is set in a hole, or the team stands still, or, which is worst of all, the load is spoiled by the waggon overthrowing.

I seem to be focusing on the mercer or draper as if my discussion is entirely about them; but that's not the case at all, as it relates to every tradesman—the advice is universal, and every tradesman has a stake in it; it's just part of doing business. There's an old saying, 'Such a man runs a trade;' it's a reference to a carter who, with his voice, hands, whip, and constant attention, keeps the team moving, manages everything, lifts the wheel out of every muddy patch, increases his effort when faced with challenges, and to finish the analogy, if he’s not always with his horses, either the wagon gets stuck, the team stops, or, worst of all, the load gets ruined when the wagon tips over.

It is therefore no improper speech to say, such a man drives his trade; for, in short, if trade is not driven, it will not go.

It’s not incorrect to say that such a person works hard at their job; because, simply put, if you don’t put in the effort, nothing will happen.

Trade is like a hand-mill, it must always be turned about by the diligent hand of the master; or, if you will, like the pump-house at Amsterdam, where they put offenders in for petty matters, especially beggars; if they will work and keep pumping, they sit well, and dry and safe, and if they work very hard one hour or two, they may rest, perhaps, a quarter of an hour afterwards; but if they oversleep themselves, or grow lazy, the water comes in upon them and wets them, and they have no dry place to stand in, much less to sit down in; and, in short, if they continue obstinately idle, they must sink; so that it is nothing but pump or drown, and they may choose which they like best.

Trade is like a hand mill; it always needs to be turned by the diligent hand of the master. It's similar to the pump house in Amsterdam, where they put offenders for minor offenses, especially beggars. If they work and keep pumping, they stay comfortable, dry, and safe. If they work hard for an hour or two, they might get to rest for about fifteen minutes afterward. But if they oversleep or get lazy, the water starts coming in and soaks them, leaving no dry place to stand, let alone sit down. In short, if they continue to be stubbornly idle, they'll end up sinking. So it’s either pump or drown, and they can choose whichever they prefer.

He that engages in trade, and does not resolve to work at it, is felo de se; it is downright murdering himself; that is to say, in his trading capacity, he murders his credit, he murders his stock, and he starves, which is as bad as murdering, his family.

Anyone who gets into trade without committing to working at it is basically committing self-destruction; it's like killing himself. In other words, in his role as a trader, he destroys his reputation, he depletes his resources, and he neglects his family, which is just as harmful as murder.

Trade must not be entered into as a thing of light concern; it is called business very properly, for it is a business for life, and ought to be followed as one of the great businesses of life—I do not say the chief, but one of the great businesses of life it certainly is—trade must, I say, be worked at, not played with; he that trades in jest, will certainly break in earnest; and this is one reason indeed why so many tradesmen come to so hasty a conclusion of their affairs.

Trade should not be taken lightly; it's rightly called business because it’s a serious pursuit for life. It should be treated as one of the major aspects of existence—I’m not saying it’s the most important, but it definitely is one of the significant ones. Trade needs to be approached with diligence, not as a game; those who treat trading as a joke will inevitably face serious consequences. This is one reason why so many business people rush to close their deals.

There was another old English saying to this purpose, which shows how much our old fathers were sensible of the duty of a shopkeeper: speaking of the tradesman as just opening his shop, and beginning a dialogue with it; the result of which is, that the shop replies to the tradesman thus: 'Keep me, and I will keep thee.' It is the same with driving the trade; if the shopkeeper will not keep, that is, diligently attend to his shop, the shop will not keep, that is, maintain him: and in the other sense it is harsher to him, if he will not drive his trade, the trade will drive him; that is, drive him out of the shop, drive him away.

There was another old English saying about this that shows how aware our ancestors were of a shopkeeper's responsibilities. It talks about a tradesman just opening his shop and starting a conversation with it, leading to the shop replying, "Take care of me, and I’ll take care of you." The same goes for running a business; if the shopkeeper doesn’t put in the effort to manage the shop, the shop won’t support him. On the flip side, if he doesn’t actively pursue his trade, it will push him out, driving him away from his shop.

All these old sayings have this monitory substance in them; namely, they all concur to fill a young tradesman with true notions of what he is going about; and that the undertaking of a trade is not a sport or game, in which he is to meet with diversions only, and entertainment, and not to be in the least troubled or disturbed: trade is a daily employment, and must be followed as such, with the full attention of the mind, and full attendance of the person; nothing but what are to be called the necessary duties of life are to intervene; and even these are to be limited so as not to be prejudicial to business.

All these old sayings have a valuable lesson in them; they all aim to give a young tradesman a clear understanding of what he is doing. The pursuit of a trade is not just a pastime or a game, where he encounters only fun and entertainment without a care in the world. Trade is a daily commitment that requires complete focus and dedication. Only the essential responsibilities of life should come into play, and even those should be kept to a minimum so they don’t interfere with business.

And now I am speaking of the necessary things which may intervene, and which may divide the time with our business or trade, I shall state the manner in a few words, that the tradesman may neither give too much, nor take away too much, to or from any respective part of what may be called his proper employment, but keep as due a balance of his time as he should of his books or cash.

And now I’m talking about the important things that can come up and disrupt our business or work. I’ll explain briefly that a tradesperson shouldn’t give too much time to, or take too much time away from, their specific job. They should maintain a proper balance of their time just like they would with their accounts or cash.

The life of man is, or should be, a measure of allotted time; as his time is measured out to him, so the measure is limited, must end, and the end of it is appointed.

The life of a person is, or should be, a measure of their allotted time; as their time is given to them, so that time is limited, must come to an end, and that end is predetermined.

The purposes for which time is given, and life bestowed, are very momentous; no time is given uselessly, and for nothing; time is no more to be unemployed, than it is to be ill employed. Three things are chiefly before us in the appointment of our time: 1. Necessaries of nature. 2. Duties of religion, or things relating to a future life. 3. Duties of the present life, namely, business and calling.

The reasons we have time and life are really important; no time is given for nothing or wasted. Time shouldn't be wasted any more than it should be used poorly. There are three main things we need to focus on when deciding how to spend our time: 1. Basic needs. 2. Responsibilities related to our faith or things that connect to the afterlife. 3. Responsibilities in our current life, including work and our vocations.

I. Necessities of nature, such as eating and drinking; rest, or sleep; and in case of disease, a recess from business; all which have two limitations on them, and no more; namely, that they be

I. Basic needs of life, like eating and drinking; resting or sleeping; and taking a break from work when you're sick; all of which have just two limits on them, and no more; specifically, that they be

1. Referred to their proper seasons.

1. Called by their appropriate seasons.

2. Used with moderation.

2. Use in moderation.

Both these might give me subject to write many letters upon; but I study brevity, and desire rather to hint than dwell upon things which are serious and grave, because I would not tire you.

Both of these might give me a lot to write about in letters; but I aim for brevity and prefer to suggest rather than elaborate on serious and weighty matters, as I wouldn't want to bore you.

II. Duties of religion: these may be called necessities too in their kind, and that of the sublimest nature; and they ought not to be thrust at all out of their place, and yet they ought to be kept in their place too.

II. Duties of religion: these can also be considered essential in their own way, and of the highest importance; they shouldn't be pushed out of their rightful position, but they also need to be maintained in the right context.

III. Duties of life, that is to say, business, or employment, or calling, which are divided into three kinds:

III. The responsibilities of life, meaning work, job, or profession, are divided into three types:

1. Labour, or servitude.

Work or servitude.

2. Employment.

2. Job Opportunities.

3. Trade.

Trade.

By labour, I mean the poor manualist, whom we properly call the labouring man, who works for himself indeed in one respect, but sometimes serves and works for wages, as a servant, or workman.

By labor, I mean the underpaid worker, who we rightly refer to as the laborer, who works for himself in one way, but at times takes jobs and earns wages as an employee or tradesman.

By employment, I mean men in business, which yet is not properly called trade, such as lawyers, physicians, surgeons, scriveners, clerks, secretaries, and such like: and

By employment, I mean men in business, which still isn't really called trade, like lawyers, doctors, surgeons, notaries, clerks, secretaries, and similar roles: and

By trade I mean merchants and inland-traders, such as are already described in the introduction to this work.

By trade, I mean merchants and inland traders, like those described in the introduction to this work.

To speak of time, it is divided among these; even in them all there is a just equality of circumstances to be preserved, and as diligence is required in one, and necessity to be obeyed in another, so duty is to be observed in the third; and yet all these with such a due regard to one another, as that one duty may not jostle out another; and every thing going on with an equality and just regard to the nature of the thing, the tradesman may go on with a glad heart and a quiet conscience.

To talk about time, it's divided among these areas; even within them all, there's a fair balance of circumstances that needs to be maintained. Just as effort is necessary in one area and obligations must be met in another, so responsibilities should be honored in the third. And yet, all of these should be considered in such a way that one responsibility doesn't interfere with another. If everything is managed with balance and proper consideration for its nature, the businessperson can proceed with a happy heart and a clear conscience.

This article is very nice, as I intend to speak to it; and it is a dangerous thing indeed to speak to, lest young tradesmen, treading on the brink of duty on one side, and duty on the other side, should pretend to neglect their duty to heaven, on pretence that I say they must not neglect their shops. But let them do me justice, and they will do themselves no injury; nor do I fear that my arguing on this point should give them any just cause to go wrong; if they will go wrong, and plead my argument for their excuse, it must be by their abusing my directions, and taking them in pieces, misplacing the words, and disjointing the sense, and by the same method they may make blasphemy of the Scripture.

This article is really great, as I plan to discuss it; and it's actually quite risky to talk about it, in case young businesspeople, balancing their responsibilities on one side and their duty on the other, claim to ignore their duty to God just because I say they shouldn't neglect their work. But if they treat me fairly, they won't harm themselves; nor do I worry that my arguments on this point will give them any valid reason to go off track; if they choose to go wrong and use my arguments as an excuse, it would be by misusing my guidance, twisting my words, and misunderstanding the meaning, and in the same way, they could twist Scripture into something blasphemous.

The duties of life, I say, must not interfere with one another, must not jostle one another out of the place, or so break in as to be prejudicial to one another. It is certainly the duty of every Christian to worship God, to pay his homage morning and evening to his Maker, and at all other proper seasons to behave as becomes a sincere worshipper of God; nor must any avocation, either of business or nature, however necessary, interfere with this duty, either in public or in private. This is plainly asserting the necessity of the duty, so no man can pretend to evade that.

The responsibilities of life, I believe, should not conflict with each other, should not push each other out of their roles, or interfere in ways that harm one another. It is definitely the responsibility of every Christian to worship God, to show respect to their Creator morning and evening, and at all other appropriate times to act like a true worshipper of God; no task, whether professional or personal, no matter how essential, should interfere with this duty, either in public or in private. This clearly emphasizes the importance of this duty, so no one can claim to avoid it.

But the duties of nature and religion also have such particular seasons, and those seasons so proper to themselves, and so stated, as not to break in or trench upon one another, that we are really without excuse, if we let any one be pleaded for the neglect of the other. Food, sleep, rest, and the necessities of nature, are either reserved for the night, which is appointed for man to rest, or take up so little room in the day, that they can never be pleaded in bar of either religion or employment.

But the responsibilities of nature and religion also have specific times, and those times are so well-defined that they don’t interfere with each other. We have no excuse if we let one serve as an excuse to neglect the other. Eating, sleeping, resting, and basic needs are either reserved for the night, which is meant for rest, or take up so little time during the day that they can never serve as an excuse to skip either religion or work.

He, indeed, who will sleep when he should work, and perhaps drink when he should sleep, turns nature bottom upwards, inverts the appointment of providence, and must account to himself, and afterwards to a higher judge, for the neglect.

He, in fact, who sleeps when he should be working, and maybe drinks when he should be sleeping, turns nature upside down, reverses the plan of fate, and will have to answer to himself, and later to a higher authority, for that neglect.

The devil—if it be the devil that tempts, for I would not wrong Satan himself—plays our duties often one against another; and to bring us, if possible, into confusion in our conduct, subtly throws religion out of its place, to put it in our way, and to urge us to a breach of what we ought to do: besides this subtle tempter—for, as above, I won't charge it all upon the devil—we have a great hand in it ourselves; but let it be who it will, I say, this subtle tempter hurries the well-meaning tradesman to act in all manner of irregularity, that he may confound religion and business, and in the end may destroy both.

The devil—if it is the devil who tempts, because I wouldn’t want to unfairly blame Satan—often pits our duties against each other; and to confuse us in our actions, he subtly misplaces religion to put it in our path and pushes us to break what we should be doing. Besides this cunning tempter—because, as I said, I won’t put all the blame on the devil—we are also greatly responsible ourselves; but whoever it is, I say, this sly tempter drives the well-meaning businessperson to behave in all sorts of irregular ways, so they can mix up religion and work, ultimately risking the destruction of both.

When the tradesman well inclined rises early in the morning, and is moved, as in duty to his Maker he ought, to pay his morning vows to him either in his closet, or at the church, where he hears the six o'clock bell ring to call his neighbours to the same duty—then the secret hint comes across his happy intention, that he must go to such or such a place, that he may be back time enough for such other business as has been appointed over-night, and both perhaps may be both lawful and necessary; so his diligence oppresses his religion, and away he runs to transact his business, and neglects his morning sacrifice to his Maker.

When a well-intentioned tradesman gets up early in the morning and feels the duty to pay his morning respects to his Maker, either in his room or at church, where he hears the six o'clock bell ring to call his neighbors to do the same—then a thought crosses his mind, reminding him that he needs to go to a certain place so he can be back in time for other tasks that were planned the night before, which may be both necessary and appropriate; so his busy schedule takes precedence over his religious duties, and he rushes off to handle his business, neglecting his morning offerings to his Maker.

On the other hand, and at another time, being in his shop, or his counting-house, or warehouse, a vast throng of business upon his hands, and the world in his head, when it is highly his duty to attend it, and shall be to his prejudice to absent himself—then the same deceiver presses him earnestly to go to his closet, or to the church to prayers, during which time his customer goes to another place, the neighbours miss him in his shop, his business is lost, his reputation suffers; and by this turned into a practice, the man may say his prayers so long and so unseasonably till he is undone, and not a creditor he has (I may give it him from experience) will use him the better, or show him the more favour, when a commission of bankrupt comes out against him.

On the other hand, at another time, when he's in his shop, or his office, or warehouse, overwhelmed with business and full of responsibilities, while it’s really his duty to focus on it, and it would hurt him to step away—then the same trickster urges him to head to his room or to church for some prayers. During that time, his customer goes elsewhere, neighbors notice his absence in the shop, he loses business, and his reputation takes a hit. If he gets into the habit of doing this, he might end up saying his prayers at such bad times that he ruins himself, and none of his creditors (I can tell you from experience) will treat him any better or be more forgiving when a bankruptcy notice comes his way.

Thus, I knew once a zealous, pious, religious tradesman, who would almost shut up his shop every day about nine or ten o'clock to call all his family together to prayers; and yet he was no presbyterian, I assure you; I say, he would almost shut up his shop, for he would suffer none of his servants to be absent from his family worship.

Thus, I once knew a devoted, religious shopkeeper who would nearly close his store every day around nine or ten o'clock to gather his family for prayers; and yet, I assure you, he was not a Presbyterian. I say he would nearly close his shop because he wouldn’t allow any of his employees to skip his family worship.

This man had certainly been right, had he made all his family get up by six o'clock in the morning, and called them to prayers before he had opened his shop; but instead of that, he first suffered sleep to interfere with religion, and lying a-bed to postpone and jostle out his prayers—and then, to make God Almighty amends upon himself, wounds his family by making his prayers interfere with his trade, and shuts his customers out of his shop; the end of which was, the poor good man deceived himself, and lost his business.

This man was definitely right when he made his whole family get up at six in the morning and called them to pray before he opened his shop. But instead, he let sleep get in the way of his faith, choosing to stay in bed and skip his prayers. Then, to make up for it with God, he hurt his family by letting his prayers disrupt his business and closing his shop to customers. In the end, this poor man was fooling himself and ended up losing his business.

Another tradesman, whom I knew personally well, was raised in the morning very early, by the outcries of his wife, to go and fetch a midwife. It was necessary, in his way, to go by a church, where there was always, on that day of the week, a morning sermon early, for the supplying the devotion of such early Christians as he; so the honest man, seeing the door open, steps in, and seeing the minister just gone up into the pulpit, sits down, joins in the prayers, hears the sermon, and goes very gravely home again; in short, his earnestness in the worship, and attention to what he had heard, quite put the errand he was sent about out of his head; and the poor woman in travail, after having waited long for the return of her husband with the midwife, was obliged (having run an extreme hazard by depending on his expedition) to dispatch other messengers, who fetched the midwife, and she was come, and the work over, long before the sermon was done, or that any body heard of the husband: at last, he was met coming gravely home from the church, when being upbraided with his negligence, in a dreadful surprise he struck his hands together, and cried out, 'How is my wife? I profess I forgot it!'

Another tradesman I knew well was woken up early in the morning by his wife's cries to go get a midwife. On his way, he had to pass by a church that always held an early morning sermon on that day of the week for devoted early Christians like him. Seeing the door open, the honest man stepped inside, noticed the minister was just about to start his sermon, sat down, joined in the prayers, listened to the sermon, and then seriously made his way home again. In short, he got so caught up in worship and what he had heard that he completely forgot about the errand he was supposed to run. Meanwhile, his poor wife, who had waited a long time for him to return with the midwife and took a huge risk relying on his quickness, had to send other messengers to fetch the midwife. By the time she arrived and the work was done, it was well before the sermon was over, and nobody had heard from the husband. Eventually, he was seen coming home from church, and when someone pointed out his negligence, he was so shocked that he clapped his hands together and exclaimed, 'How is my wife? I can’t believe I forgot!'

What shall we say now to this ill-timed devotion, and who must tempt the poor man to this neglect? Certainly, had he gone for the midwife, it had been much more his duty, than to go to hear a sermon at that time.

What should we say about this poorly timed dedication, and who is responsible for leading the poor man to this disregard? Surely, if he had gone for the midwife, it would have been much more his obligation than attending a sermon at that moment.

I knew also another tradesman, who was such a sermon-hunter, and, as there are lectures and sermons preached in London, either in the churches or meeting-houses, almost every day in the week, used so assiduously to hunt out these occasions, that whether it was in a church or meeting-house, or both, he was always abroad to hear a sermon, at least once every day, and sometimes more; and the consequence was, that the man lost his trade, his shop was entirely neglected, the time which was proper for him to apply to his business was misapplied, his trade fell off, and the man broke.

I also knew another tradesman who was obsessed with finding sermons. Since there are lectures and sermons happening in London almost every day of the week, whether in churches or meeting houses, he diligently sought out these events. No matter if it was in a church or meeting house, or both, he was always out listening to a sermon at least once a day, sometimes even more. The result was that he neglected his business completely; his shop fell into disrepair, the time he should have spent working was wasted, his trade suffered, and ultimately he went broke.

Now it is true, and I ought to take notice of it also, that, though these things happen, and may wrong a tradesman, yet it is oftener, ten times for once, that tradesmen neglect their shop and business to follow the track of their vices and extravagence—some by taverns, others to the gaming-houses, others to balls and masquerades, plays, harlequins, and operas, very few by too much religion.

Now, it’s true, and I should acknowledge it, that even though these things happen and can hurt a business owner, it’s more common—ten times more often, in fact—that business owners ignore their shops and responsibilities to chase after their vices and extravagance. Some go to bars, others to gambling houses, some to parties and masquerades, plays, comedy shows, and operas, with very few getting distracted by too much religion.

But my inference is still sound, and the more effectually so as to that part; for if our business and trades are not to be neglected, no, not for the extraordinary excursions of religion, and religious duties, much less are they to be neglected for vices and extravagances.

But my conclusion still holds true, and it's even more relevant for that part; because if we shouldn’t neglect our work and businesses, not even for exceptional religious activities and obligations, then we certainly shouldn’t neglect them for vices and excesses.

This is an age of gallantry and gaiety, and never was the city transposed to the court as it is now; the play-houses and balls are now filled with citizens and young tradesmen, instead of gentlemen and families of distinction; the shopkeepers wear a differing garb now, and are seen with their long wigs and swords, rather than with aprons on, as was formerly the figure they made.

This is a time of bravery and celebration, and the city has never been more influenced by the court than it is now; theaters and dance halls are now packed with everyday people and young business owners, instead of just nobles and distinguished families; shopkeepers dress differently now, sporting long wigs and swords instead of the aprons they used to wear.

But what is the difference in the consequences? You did not see in those days acts of grace for the relief of insolvent debtors almost every session of parliament, and yet the jails filled with insolvents before the next year, though ten or twelve thousand have been released at a time by those acts.

But what’s the difference in the consequences? You didn’t see acts of grace for helping bankrupt debtors in almost every session of parliament back then, and yet the jails were filled with bankrupts before the following year, even though ten or twelve thousand had been released all at once by those acts.

Nor did you hear of so many commissions of bankrupt every week in the Gazette, as is now the case; in a word, whether you take the lower sort of tradesman, or the higher, where there were twenty that failed in those days, I believe I speak within compass if I say that five hundred turn insolvent now; it is, as I said above, an age of pleasure, and as the wise man said long ago, 'He that loves pleasure shall be a poor man'—so it is now; it is an age of drunkenness and extravagance, and thousands ruin themselves by that; it is an age of luxurious and expensive living, and thousands more undo themselves by that; but, among all our vices, nothing ruins a tradesman so effectually as the neglect of his business: it is true, all those things prompt men to neglect their business, but the more seasonable is the advice; either enter upon no trade, undertake no business, or, having undertaken it, pursue it diligently: drive your trade, that the world may not drive you out of trade, and ruin and undo you. Without diligence a man can never thoroughly understand his business and how should a man thrive, when he does not perfectly know what he is doing, or how to do it? Application to his trade teaches him how to carry it on, as much as his going apprentice taught him how to set it up. Certainly, that man shall never improve in his trading knowledge, that does not know his business, or how to carry it on: the diligent tradesman is always the knowing and complete tradesman.

You don’t hear about as many bankruptcies in the newspaper every week as you used to; nowadays, whether you look at lower-end shops or high-end businesses, there used to be twenty failures a week, but now it’s more like five hundred. As I mentioned earlier, this is an age of pleasure, and as the saying goes, "He who loves pleasure will end up poor"—that’s true today. It’s a time of drinking and overspending, and thousands destroy themselves because of it. It’s also an era of lavish living, and many more go broke because of that. However, among all our flaws, nothing damages a tradesman more than neglecting his business. It’s true that these excesses encourage people to disregard their work, but the advice is more relevant than ever: either don’t start a business at all, or if you do, commit to it fully. Focus on your work so the world doesn’t push you out and lead you to ruin. Without hard work, a person can never fully grasp their business; how can someone succeed when they don’t know what they are doing or how to do it? Dedicating yourself to your trade teaches you how to run it, just like your apprenticeship taught you how to start it. Certainly, a person who doesn’t understand their business or how to manage it will never grow in their trading knowledge. The hardworking tradesman is always the knowledgeable and successful one.

Now, in order to have a man apply heartily, and pursue earnestly, the business he is engaged in, there is yet another thing necessary, namely, that he should delight in it: to follow a trade, and not to love and delight in it, is a slavery, a bondage, not a business: the shop is a bridewell, and the warehouse a house of correction to the tradesman, if he does not delight in his trade. While he is bound, as we say, to keep his shop, he is like the galley-slave chained down to the oar; he tugs and labours indeed, and exerts the utmost of his strength, for fear of the strapado, and because he is obliged to do it; but when he is on shore, and is out from the bank, he abhors the labour, and hates to come to it again.

Now, for a person to truly engage and passionately pursue the work they're involved in, there's one more thing that's essential: they need to enjoy it. Engaging in a trade without loving and finding joy in it feels like slavery or confinement, not like a business. The shop becomes like a prison, and the warehouse feels like a correctional facility for the tradesperson if they don't find pleasure in their work. While they're obligated, as we say, to run their shop, it's like being a galley slave chained to the oar; they toil and exert themselves to the utmost out of fear of punishment and because they have to. But once they're free and away from it, they dread the work and dislike the idea of returning to it.

To delight in business is making business pleasant and agreeable; and such a tradesman cannot but be diligent in it, which, according to Solomon, makes him certainly rich, and in time raises him above the world and able to instruct and encourage those who come after him.

To enjoy your work means making it enjoyable and satisfying; a trader like this can’t help but be hardworking, which, according to Solomon, guarantees his success and eventually elevates him above the rest, allowing him to teach and inspire those who follow him.


CHAPTER VI

OVER-TRADING

Overtrading


It is an observation, indeed, of my own, but I believe it will hold true almost in all the chief trading towns in England, that there are more tradesmen undone by having too much trade, than for want of trade. Over-trading is among tradesmen as over-lifting is among strong men: such people, vain of the strengh, and their pride prompting them to put it to the utmost trial, at last lift at something too heavy for them, over-strain their sinews, break some of nature's bands, and are cripples ever after.

I’ve observed that in almost all the major trading towns in England, more business people end up failing because they have too much work than because they lack it. Over-trading affects business people much like over-lifting affects strong individuals: those who are proud of their strength and driven by ego push themselves to their limits, eventually attempting to lift something too heavy, straining their muscles, breaking their own limits, and becoming injured for life.

I take over-trading to be to a shopkeeper as ambition is to a prince. The late king of France, the great king Louis, ambition led him to invade the dominions of his neighbours; and while upon the empire here, or the states-general there, or the Spanish Netherlands on another quarter, he was an over-match for every one, and, in their single capacity, he gained from them all; but at last pride made him think himself a match for them all together, and he entered into a declared war against the emperor and the empire, the kings of Spain and Great Britain, and the states of Holland, all at once. And what was the consequence? They reduced him to the utmost distress, he lost all his conquests, was obliged, by a dishonourable peace, to quit what he had got by encroachment, to demolish his invincible towns, such as Pignerol, Dunkirk, &c., the two strongest fortresses in Europe; and, in a word, like a bankrupt monarch, he may, in many cases, be said to have died a beggar.

I see over-trading as being similar to ambition for a shopkeeper, just like it is for a prince. The late king of France, the great king Louis, let his ambition drive him to invade the territories of his neighbors. While he was focused on the empire here, or the states-general there, or the Spanish Netherlands elsewhere, he easily outmatched everyone, defeating them individually. But eventually, his pride led him to believe he could take them all on at once. He declared war against the emperor and the empire, the kings of Spain and Great Britain, and the states of Holland all at the same time. And what happened as a result? They brought him to his knees; he lost all his conquests and was forced into an embarrassing peace that made him give up everything he had taken, dismantling his once-invincible cities, such as Pignerol and Dunkirk, two of the strongest fortresses in Europe. In short, like a bankrupt monarch, he could be seen in many ways as having died a beggar.

Thus the strong man in the fable, who by main strength used to rive a tree, undertook one at last which was too strong for him, and it closed upon his fingers, and held him till the wild beasts came and devoured him. Though the story is a fable, the moral is good to my present purpose, and is not at all above my subject; I mean that of a tradesman, who should be warned against over-trading, as earnestly, and with as much passion, as I would warn a dealer in gunpowder to be wary of fire, or a distiller or rectifier of spirits to moderate his furnace, lest the heads of his stills fly off, and he should be scalded to death.

So, the strong man in the fable, who used to split a tree with sheer strength, eventually took on one that was too tough for him. It snapped shut on his fingers and trapped him until wild animals came along and ate him. Even though it’s just a fable, the moral is really relevant to my point about a businessman who should be as careful about overextending himself as I would advise someone dealing with gunpowder to be cautious of fire, or a distiller to be mindful of his heat, so that the heads of his stills don’t blow off, putting him at risk of getting seriously hurt.

For a young tradesman to over-trade himself, is like a young swimmer going out of his depth, when, if help does not come immediately, it is a thousand to one but he sinks, and is drowned. All rash adventures are condemned by the prudent part of mankind; but it is as hard to restrain youth in trade, as it is in any other thing, where the advantage stands in view, and the danger out of sight; the profits of trade are baits to the avaricious shopkeeper, and he is forward to reckon them up to himself, but does not perhaps cast up the difficulty which there may be to compass it, or the unhappy consequences of a miscarriage.

For a young tradesman to take on too much is like a young swimmer venturing too far into the deep end; if help doesn’t arrive quickly, the chance of sinking and drowning is very likely. All reckless pursuits are criticized by sensible people, but it’s just as difficult to restrain youth in business as it is in any other area where the rewards are clear and the risks are hidden. The profits from trade entice greedy shopkeepers, who are quick to tally them up in their minds but may overlook the challenges involved in achieving them or the unfortunate outcomes of a failure.

For want of this consideration, the tradesman oftentimes drowns, as I may call it, even within his depth—that is, he sinks when he has really the substance at bottom to keep him up—and this is all owing to an adventurous bold spirit in trade, joined with too great a gust of gain. Avarice is the ruin of many people besides tradesmen; and I might give the late South Sea calamity for an example in which the longest heads were most overreached, not so much by the wit or cunning of those they had to deal with as by the secret promptings of their own avarice; wherein they abundantly verified an old proverbial speech or saying, namely, 'All covet, all lose;' so it was there indeed, and the cunningest, wisest, sharpest, men lost the most money.

Due to the lack of this understanding, traders often end up drowning, so to speak, even when they're surrounded by opportunities that could support them. This happens because of their overly ambitious approach to business combined with an overwhelming desire for profit. Greed destroys many people, not just traders. A good example of this is the recent South Sea disaster, where the smartest individuals were the most deceived, not so much by the cleverness of others but by their own hidden greed. This situation proved an old saying true: 'Everyone who covets ends up losing.' In that case, it really was true, as the shrewdest and wisest people lost the most money.

There are two things which may be properly called over-trading, in a young beginner; and by both which tradesmen are often overthrown.

There are two things that can genuinely be called over-trading in a young beginner, and both of these can often lead to tradesmen being ruined.

1. Trading beyond their stock.

Trading beyond their shares.

2. Giving too large credit.

2. Giving overly generous credit.

A tradesman ought to consider and measure well the extent of his own strengh; his stock of money, and credit, is properly his beginning; for credit is a stock as well as money. He that takes too much credit is really in as much danger as he that gives too much credit; and the danger lies particularly in this, if the tradesman over-buys himself, that is, buys faster than he can sell, buying upon credit, the payments perhaps become due too soon for him; the goods not being sold, he must answer the bills upon the strength of his proper stock—that is, pay for them out of his own cash; if that should not hold out, he is obliged to put off his bills after they are due, or suffer the impertinence of being dunned by the creditor, and perhaps by servants and apprentices, and that with the usual indecencies of such kind of people.

A tradesperson should carefully assess their own strength; their amount of money and credit is essentially their starting point, because credit is just as important as cash. Someone who takes on too much credit is just as much at risk as someone who offers too much credit. The real danger occurs when the tradesperson buys more than they can sell, extending credit for purchases. If payments are due sooner than expected and the goods haven't sold, they have to cover the bills with their own cash. If their cash runs out, they will have to postpone payments after they're due or face the annoyance of being pursued by creditors, including possible harassment from assistants and apprentices, often with the usual rudeness from those types of people.

This impairs his credit, and if he comes to deal with the same merchant, or clothier, or other tradesman again, he is treated like one that is but an indifferent paymaster; and though they may give him credit as before, yet depending that if he bargains for six months, he will take eight or nine in the payment, they consider it in the price, and use him accordingly; and this impairs his gain, so that loss of credit is indeed loss of money, and this weakens him both ways.

This damages his credit, and if he has to work with the same merchant, clothier, or other seller again, he is seen as a poor payer. Even if they offer him credit like before, knowing that if he negotiates for six months, he might actually take eight or nine months to pay, they factor that into the price and treat him accordingly. This reduces his profits, meaning that losing credit is basically losing money, and it weakens him in both respects.

A tradesman, therefore, especially at his beginning, ought to be very wary of taking too much credit; he had much better slip the occasion of buying now and then a bargain to his advantage, for that is usually the temptation, than buying a greater quantity of goods than he can pay for, run into debt, and be insulted, and at last ruined. Merchants, and wholesale dealers, to put off their goods, are very apt to prompt young shopkeepers and young tradesmen to buy great quantities of goods, and take large credit at first; but it is a snare that many a young beginner has fallen into, and been ruined in the very bud; for if the young beginner does not find a vent for the quantity, he is undone; for at the time of payment the merchant expects his money, whether the goods are sold or not; and if he cannot pay, he is gone at once.

A tradesman, especially at the start, should be very careful about taking on too much credit; it's much better to miss out on the chance to buy a good deal here and there than to purchase more goods than he can afford, go into debt, be insulted, and ultimately end up ruined. Merchants and wholesalers often encourage young shopkeepers and new tradesmen to buy large amounts of goods and take on significant credit right away; but this is a trap that many newcomers have fallen into and been destroyed right from the beginning. If the newcomer can't find a way to sell all that inventory, he's in trouble because when payment is due, the merchant expects to be paid whether the goods are sold or not. If he can't pay, he's finished.

The tradesman that buys warily, always pays surely, and every young beginner ought to buy cautiously; if he has money to pay, he need never fear goods to be had; the merchants' warehouses are always open, and he may supply himself upon all occasions, as he wants, and as his customers call.

The tradesperson who buys carefully always pays reliably, and every young newbie should buy cautiously; if they have money to pay, they should never worry about getting goods; the merchants' warehouses are always open, and they can restock whenever they need to, based on what their customers request.

It may pass for a kind of an objection here, that there are some goods which a tradesman may deal in, which are to be bought at such and such markets only, and at such and such fairs only, that is to say, are chiefly bought there; as the cheesemongers buy their stocks of cheese and of butter, the cheese at several fairs in Warwickshire, as at Atherston fair in particular, or at fair in Gloucestershire, and at Sturbridge fair, near Cambridge; and their butter at Ipswich fair, in Suffolk; and so of many other things; but the answer is plain: those things which are generally bought thus, are ready money goods, and the tradesman has a sure rule for buying, namely, his cash. But as I am speaking of taking credit, so I must be necessarily supposed to speak of such goods as are bought upon credit, as the linen-draper buys of the Hamburgh and Dutch merchants, the woollen-draper of the Blackwell-hall men, the haberdasher of the thread merchants, the mercer of the weavers and Italian merchants, the silk-man of the Turkey merchants, and the like; here they are under no necessity of running deep into debt, but may buy sparingly, and recruit again as they sell off.

It might be seen as a valid point that some products a trader can sell are only available at specific markets or fairs—mainly where they are typically purchased. For example, cheesemongers usually get their cheese and butter from different fairs in Warwickshire, especially at Atherston fair, or fairs in Gloucestershire and Sturbridge fair near Cambridge; they obtain butter from Ipswich fair in Suffolk, along with many other items. However, the response is straightforward: those goods that are commonly bought this way are cash purchases, and the trader has a clear guideline for buying—his cash. But since I'm discussing taking credit, it's important to focus on goods purchased on credit, like what a linen-draper buys from Hamburg and Dutch merchants, or what a woollen-draper gets from the Blackwell-hall traders, a haberdasher from thread merchants, a mercer from weavers and Italian merchants, and a silk dealer from Turkey merchants. In these cases, they aren't forced to go deeply into debt; they can buy less and restock as they sell their inventory.

I know some tradesmen are very fond of seeing their shops well-stocked, and their warehouses full of goods, and this is a snare to them, and brings them to buy in more goods than they want; but this is a great error, either in their judgment or their vanity; for, except in retailers' shops, and that in some trades where they must have a great choice of goods, or else may want a trade, otherwise a well-experienced tradesman had rather see his warehouse too empty than too full: if it be too empty, he can fill it when he pleases, if his credit be good, or his cash strong; but a thronged warehouse is a sign of a want of customers, and of a bad market; whereas, an empty warehouse is a sign of a nimble demand.[12]

I know some tradespeople really like to see their shops well-stocked and their warehouses full of goods, and this can trap them into buying more inventory than they actually need. This is a big mistake, either due to poor judgment or a bit of vanity. Except for retail shops and certain trades where having a wide variety of goods is necessary to attract customers, an experienced tradesperson would prefer their warehouse to be a little empty rather than overflowing. If it's too empty, they can restock whenever they want, as long as their credit is good or they have solid cash flow. However, a crowded warehouse usually indicates a lack of customers and a struggling market, while an empty warehouse suggests a strong demand.[12]

Let no young tradesman value himself upon having a very great throng of goods in hand, having just a necessary supply to produce a choice of new and fashionable goods—nay, though he be a mercer, for they are the most under the necessity of a large stock of goods; but I say, supposing even the mercer to have a tolerable show and choice of fashionable goods, that gives his shop a reputation, he derives no credit at all from a throng of old shopkeepers, as they call them, namely, out-of-fashion things: but in other trades it is much more a needful caution; a few goods, and a quick sale, is the beauty of a tradesman's warehouse, or shop either; and it is his wisdom to keep himself in that posture that his payments may come in on his front as fast as they go out in his rear; that he may be able to answer the demands of his merchants or dealers, and, if possible, let no man come twice for his money.

Let no young tradesman think too highly of having a huge inventory of goods on hand, instead of just a necessary selection to offer trendy and popular items—yes, even if he’s a mercer, since they typically need a large stock. But I argue that even if a mercer has a decent display and selection of fashionable items, earning his shop a good reputation, he gains no respect from a bunch of outdated stock, as they call it. In other trades, this is a much more critical consideration; having just a few goods and selling them quickly is what makes a tradesman’s shop appealing. It’s smart for him to manage his business in such a way that his money comes in as quickly as it goes out, so he can meet the demands of his suppliers, and if possible, ensure that no one has to come back a second time for their money.

The reason of this is plain, and leads me back to where I began; credit is stock, and, if well supported, is as good as a stock, and will be as durable. A tradesman whose credit is good, untouched, unspotted, and who, as above, has maintained it with care, shall in many cases buy his goods as cheap at three or four months' time of payment, as another man shall with ready money—I say in some cases, and in goods which are ordinarily sold for time, as all our manufactures, the bay trade excepted, generally are.

The reason for this is clear, and it brings me back to where I started; credit is like capital, and when it's well-maintained, it's just as valuable and can last just as long. A business owner with a strong, clean credit history, who has nurtured it carefully, can often purchase their goods at the same price with payment terms of three or four months as someone else would with cash upfront—I specify in some cases, and for products that are typically sold on credit, which is true for most of our goods, except for the bay trade.

He, then, that keeps his credit unshaken, has a double stock—I mean, it is an addition to his real stock, and often superior to it: nay, I have known several considerable tradesmen in this city who have traded with great success, and to a very considerable degree, and yet have not had at bottom one shilling real stock; but by the strength of their reputation, being sober and diligent, and having with care preserved the character of honest men, and the credit of their business, by cautious dealing and punctual payments, they have gone on till the gain of their trade has effectually established them, and they have raised estates out of nothing.

He who maintains his reputation intact has an added advantage—I mean, it's an enhancement to his actual assets, often even more valuable. In fact, I've seen several successful businesspeople in this city who, despite having little to no real capital, have thrived significantly. By leveraging their solid reputation, being responsible and hardworking, and carefully maintaining their reputation for honesty along with the credibility of their business through cautious transactions and timely payments, they have succeeded until their trade's profits have effectively established them, allowing them to create wealth from nothing.

But to return to the dark side, namely, over-trading; the second danger is the giving too much credit. He that takes credit may give credit, but he must be exceedingly watchful; for it is the most dangerous state of life that a tradesman can live in, for he is in as much jeopardy as a seaman upon a lee-shore.

But to get back to the downside, specifically, over-trading; the second risk is giving too much credit. Someone who takes credit can also offer credit, but they need to be extremely vigilant; because it’s the most perilous situation a trader can be in, just like a sailor caught near a rocky shore.

If the people he trusts fail, or fail but of a punctual compliance with him, he can never support his own credit, unless by the caution I am now giving; that is, to be very sure not to give so much credit as he takes.

If the people he trusts let him down, or only partially follow through with him, he can never maintain his reputation unless he follows the advice I'm giving now: he needs to be careful not to extend more credit than he receives.

By the word so much, I must be understood thus—either he must sell for shorter time than he takes, or in less quantity; the last is the safest, namely, that he should be sure not to trust out so much as he is trusted with. If he has a real stock, indeed, besides the credit he takes, that, indeed, makes the case differ; and a man that can pay his own debts, whether other people pay him or no, that man is out of the question—he is past danger, and cannot be hurt; but if he trusts beyond the extent of his stock and credit, even he may be overthrown too.

By the phrase so much, I mean this—he either needs to sell for a shorter time than he takes, or in smaller quantities; the safest option is definitely that he should ensure he doesn’t extend credit for more than he is receiving. If he has actual stock in addition to the credit he’s taking, that indeed changes the situation; a person who can pay their own debts, regardless of whether others pay him, is out of the equation—he's safe and cannot be harmed. However, if he trusts beyond what he has in stock and credit, even he could be brought down too.

There were many sad examples of this in the time of the late war,[13] and in the days when the public credit was in a more precarious condition that it has been since—I say, sad examples, namely, when tradesmen in flourishing circumstances, and who had indeed good estates at bottom, and were in full credit themselves, trusted the public with too great sums; which, not coming in at the time expected, either by the deficiency of the funds given by parliament, and the parliament themselves not soon making good those deficiencies, or by other disasters of those times; I say, their money not coming in to answer their demands, they were ruined, at least their credit wounded, and some quite undone, who yet, had they been paid, could have paid all their own debts, and had good sums of money left.

There were many unfortunate examples of this during the recent war,[13] and in the days when public credit was in a more unstable state than it has been since. I mean sad examples, such as when merchants who were doing well, and who actually had solid assets and good credit themselves, lent large amounts to the government; however, since the expected funds did not come in on time—due to a lack of funds provided by parliament, and the parliament not quickly addressing those shortages, or due to other calamities of that period—their money didn’t arrive to meet their obligations. As a result, they were financially ruined, or at least their credit was damaged, and some were left completely bankrupt, even though had they received payment, they could have settled all their debts and still had substantial amounts of money remaining.

Others, who had ability to afford it, were obliged to sell their tallies and orders at forty or fifty per cent. loss; from whence proceeded that black trade of buying and selling navy and victualling bills and transport debts, by which the brokers and usurers got estates, and many thousands of tradesmen were brought to nothing; even those that stood it, lost great sums of money by selling their tallies: but credit cannot be bought too dear; and the throwing away one half to save the other, was much better than sinking under the burden; like sailors in a storm, who, to lighten the ship wallowing in the trough of the sea, will throw the choicest goods overboard, even to half the cargo, in order to keep the ship above water, and save their lives.

Others who could afford it had to sell their tallies and orders at a loss of forty or fifty percent. This led to a shady business of buying and selling navy and victualling bills and transport debts, which allowed brokers and loan sharks to accumulate wealth while many thousands of tradespeople lost everything. Even those who managed to hold on lost significant amounts by selling their tallies. But credit can't be bought too expensively, and throwing away half to save the other half was much better than being crushed by the weight. It’s like sailors in a storm who, to lighten a ship that’s struggling in turbulent seas, will throw overboard their best goods, even half the cargo, just to keep the ship afloat and save their lives.

These were terrible examples of over-trading indeed; the men were tempted by the high price which the government gave for their goods, and which they were obliged to give, because of the badness of the public credit at that time; but this was not sufficient to make good the loss sustained in the sale of the tallies, so that even they that sold and were able to stand without ruin, were yet great sufferers, and had enough to do to keep up their credit.

These were truly awful examples of over-trading; the men were lured by the high prices the government offered for their goods, which they were forced to pay due to the poor state of public credit at the time. However, this was not enough to recover the losses from selling the tallies. Even those who sold and managed to avoid disaster still suffered greatly and had their hands full trying to maintain their credit.

This was the effect of giving over-much credit; for though it was the government itself which they trusted, yet neither could the government itself keep up the sinking credit of those whom it was indebted to; and, indeed, how should it, when it was not able to support its own credit? But that by the way. I return to the young tradesman, whom we are now speaking about.

This was the result of giving too much credit; for even though they trusted the government itself, the government couldn't maintain the dwindling credit of those it owed money to; and, really, how could it, when it was struggling to uphold its own credit? But that's beside the point. Let's get back to the young tradesman we're talking about.

It is his greatest prudence, therefore, after he has considered his own fund, and the stock he has to rest upon—I say, his next business is to take care of his credit, and, next to limiting his buying-liberty, let him be sure to limit his selling. Could the tradesman buy all upon credit, and sell all for ready money, he might turn usurer, and put his own stock out to interest, or buy land with it, for he would have no occasion for one shilling of it; but since that is not expected, nor can be done, it is his business to act with prudence in both parts—I mean of taking and giving credit—and the best rule to be given him for it is, never to give so much credit as he takes, by at least one-third part.

It’s his best strategy, then, after assessing his own resources and the capital he has to rely on—I mean, his next task is to manage his credit, and alongside keeping his purchasing power in check, he should also be careful about how much he sells. If a trader could buy everything on credit and sell everything for cash, he could become a moneylender and invest his own capital for profit or buy land with it, as he wouldn’t need a single penny of it; but since that's not realistic or feasible, he needs to be prudent in both granting and receiving credit—and the best advice for him is to never extend more credit than he takes in, by at least one-third.

By giving credit, I do not mean, that even all the goods which he buys upon credit, may not be sold upon credit; perhaps they are goods which are usually sold so, and no otherwise; but the alternative is before him thus—either he must not give so much credit in quantity of goods, or not so long credit in relation to time—for example:

By giving credit, I don't mean that everything he buys on credit can't be sold on credit; maybe they are things that are typically sold that way and not any other way. But he faces this choice—either he shouldn't extend so much credit in terms of quantity of goods, or he shouldn't offer such a long credit period in terms of time—for example:

Suppose the young tradesman buys ten thousand pounds' value of goods on credit, and this ten thousand pounds are sold for eleven thousand pounds likewise on credit; if the time given be the same, the man is in a state of apparent destruction, and it is a hundred to one but he is blown up: perhaps he owes the ten thousand pounds to twenty men, perhaps the eleven thousand pounds is owing to him by two hundred men—it is scarce possible that these two hundred petty customers of his, should all so punctually comply with their payments as to enable him to comply with his; and if two or three thousand pounds fall short, the poor tradesman, unless he has a fund to support the deficiency, must be undone.

Imagine a young tradesman buys goods worth ten thousand pounds on credit, and he sells those goods for eleven thousand pounds, also on credit. If the payment terms are the same, he’s in a really risky situation, and it’s highly likely he’ll face trouble. He might owe the ten thousand pounds to twenty different people, while the eleven thousand he’s owed could be from two hundred customers. It’s almost impossible for all those two hundred customers to pay him back on time to allow him to pay off his debt. If he comes up short by two or three thousand pounds, the poor tradesman will be out of luck unless he has some extra funds to cover the gap.

But if the man had bought ten thousand pounds at six or eight months' credit, and had sold them all again as above to his two hundred customers, at three months' and four months' credit, then it might be supposed all, or the greatest part of them, would have paid time enough to make his payments good; if not, all would be lost still.

But if the man had bought ten thousand pounds on credit for six or eight months and sold them all again as mentioned to his two hundred customers on three and four months' credit, it could be assumed that most, if not all, of them would have paid in time to cover his payments; otherwise, everything would still be lost.

But, on the other hand, suppose he had sold but three thousand pounds' worth of the ten for ready money, and had sold the rest for six months' credit, it might be supposed that the three thousand pounds in cash, and what else the two hundred debtors might pay in time, might stop the months of the tradesman's creditors till the difference might be made good.

But, on the other hand, imagine he had only sold three thousand pounds' worth of the ten for cash and had sold the rest on six months' credit. It could be assumed that the three thousand pounds in cash, along with whatever the two hundred debtors might pay over time, could keep the tradesman's creditors at bay until the situation could be resolved.

So easy a thing is it for a tradesman to lose his credit in trade, and so hard is it, once upon such a blow, to retrieve it again. What need, then, is there for the tradesman to guard himself against running too far into debt, or letting other people run too far into debt to him; for if they do not pay him, he cannot pay others, and the next thing is a commission of bankrupt, and so the tradesman may be undone, though he has eleven thousand pounds to pay ten with?

It's so easy for a tradesman to lose their reputation in business, and once that happens, it's really tough to get it back. So, there's a big need for tradespeople to protect themselves from going too deep into debt, or letting others owe them too much. If those people don't pay up, they can't pay their own debts, and then the next step could be bankruptcy. So, a tradesman might find themselves in serious trouble, even if they have eleven thousand pounds but only ten to pay off.

It is true, it is not possible in a country where there is such an infinite extent of trade as we see managed in this kingdom, that either on one hand or another it can be carried on, without a reciprocal credit both taken and given; but it is so nice an article, that I am of opinion as many tradesmen break with giving too much credit, as break with taking it. The danger, indeed, is mutual, and very great. Whatever, then, the young tradesman omits, let him guard against both his giving and taking too much credit.

It's true that in a country with such a vast trade like we have in this kingdom, it’s impossible to operate without mutual credit being both given and received. However, it’s a delicate matter, and I believe just as many business people get into trouble by giving too much credit as they do by taking it. The risks are indeed high for both sides. So, whatever else the young businessperson overlooks, they should be careful about giving and taking too much credit.

But there are divers ways of over-trading, besides this of taking and giving too much credit; and one of these is the running out into projects and heavy undertakings, either out of the common road which the tradesman is already engaged in, or grasping at too many undertakings at once, and having, as it is vulgarly expressed, too many irons in the fire at a time; in both which cases the tradesman is often wounded, and that deeply, sometimes too deep to recover.

But there are different ways to over-trade beyond just giving and taking too much credit; one of these is getting involved in projects and large undertakings that veer away from the usual path the businessperson is already on or trying to juggle too many ventures at once, which is commonly said as having too many irons in the fire at the same time. In both cases, the businessperson often ends up hurt, sometimes too much to bounce back.

The consequences of those adventures are generally such as these: first, that they stock-starve the tradesman, and impoverish him in his ordinary business, which is the main support of his family; they lessen his strength, and while his trade is not lessened, yet his stock is lessened; and as they very rarely add to his credit, so, if they lessen the man's stock, they weaken him in the main, and he must at last faint under it.

The outcomes of those adventures are usually like this: first, they leave the tradesman short on supplies and make it harder for him to support his family through his regular business; they reduce his resources, and while his trade isn't necessarily diminished, his inventory is. Since these adventures hardly ever improve his credit, if they decrease his stock, they ultimately weaken him significantly, and he eventually can’t keep up.

Secondly, as they lessen his stock, so they draw from it in the most sensible part—they wound him in the tenderest and most nervous part, for they always draw away his ready money; and what follows? The money, which was before the sinews of his business, the life of his trade, maintained his shop, and kept up his credit in the full extent of it, being drawn off, like the blood let out of the veins, his trade languishes, his credit, by degrees, flags and goes off, and the tradesman falls under the weight.

Secondly, as they reduce his resources, they take from him in the most crucial areas—they hurt him in the most sensitive and vital way, because they always take his cash. And what happens next? The money, which used to be the backbone of his business, the lifeblood of his trade, supported his shop and maintained his credit to its fullest extent, is withdrawn, like blood draining from veins. His trade suffers, his credit slowly weakens and fades, and the merchant collapses under the pressure.

Thus I have seen many a flourishing tradesman sensibly decay; his credit has first a little suffered, then for want of that credit trade has declined—that is to say, he has been obliged to trade for less and less, till at last he is wasted and reduced: if he has been wise enough and wary enough to draw out betimes, and avoid breaking, he has yet come out of trade, like an old invalid soldier out of the wars, maimed, bruised, sick, reduced, and fitter for an hospital than a shop—such miserable havoc has launching out into projects and remote undertakings made among tradesmen.

I've seen many successful businesspeople decline noticeably; their credit first suffers a bit, and then, due to that lost credit, their business starts to fail. In other words, they end up trading less and less until they're completely worn out and diminished. If they were wise and cautious enough to withdraw in time and avoid going bankrupt, they still exit business like an old wounded soldier returning from war—injured, battered, sick, and more suited for a hospital than a shop. This is the terrible damage that venturing into ambitious projects and distant undertakings causes among businesspeople.

But the safe tradesman is he, that avoiding all such remote excursions, keeps close within the verge of his own affairs, minds his shop or warehouse, and confining himself to what belongs to him there, goes on in the road of his business without launching into unknown oceans; and content with the gain of his own trade, is neither led by ambition or avarice, and neither covets to be greater nor richer by such uncertain and hazardous attempts.

But the cautious businessman is the one who, avoiding all these distant ventures, focuses on his own affairs, manages his shop or warehouse, and limits himself to what belongs to him there. He continues down the path of his business without venturing into unknown waters. Satisfied with the profits from his own trade, he isn't driven by ambition or greed and doesn't desire to become greater or richer through uncertain and risky endeavors.

FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:

[The keeping of a half empty shop will not suit the necessities of trade in modern times. Instead of following the advice of Defoe, therefore, the young tradesman is recommended to keep a sufficient stock of every kind of goods in which he professes to deal. A shopkeeper can hardly commit a greater blunder than allow himself to be out of any article of his trade. One of his chief duties ought to consist in keeping up a fresh stock of every article which there is a chance of being sought for, and, while avoiding the imprudence of keeping too large a stock of goods—which comes nearest to Defoe's meaning—it is certain that, by having on hand an abundant choice, the shop gains a name, and has the best chance of securing a concourse of customers.]

[Keeping a half-empty shop doesn’t meet the needs of today’s market. Instead of taking Defoe's advice, young business owners should ensure they have a sufficient stock of every type of product they sell. A shopkeeper can't make a bigger mistake than running out of any item in their inventory. One of their main responsibilities should be to maintain a fresh supply of every product that might be in demand. While it's important to avoid the mistake of having too much stock—which is closer to what Defoe meant—having a wide variety on hand helps the shop build a reputation and increases the chances of attracting customers.]

[The war of the Spanish succession, concluded by the treaty of Utrecht, 1713.]

[The War of the Spanish Succession, ended by the Treaty of Utrecht, 1713.]


CHAPTER VII

OF THE TRADESMAN IN DISTRESS, AND BECOMING BANKRUPT

OF THE TRADESMAN IN DISTRESS, AND BECOMING BANKRUPT


In former times it was a dismal and calamitous thing for a tradesman to break. Where it befell a family, it put all into confusion and distraction; the man, in the utmost terror, fright, and distress, ran away with what goods he could get off, as if the house were on fire, to get into the Friars[14] or the Mint; the family fled, one one way, and one another, like people in desperation; the wife to her father and mother, if she had any, and the children, some to one relation, some to another. A statute (so they vulgarly call a commission of bankrupt) came and swept away all, and oftentimes consumed it too, and left little or nothing, either to pay the creditors or relieve the bankrupt. This made the bankrupt desperate, and made him fly to those places of shelter with his goods, where, hardened by the cruelty of the creditors, he chose to spend all the effects which should have paid the creditors, and at last perished in misery.

In the past, it was a terrible and disastrous situation for a tradesman to go bankrupt. When it happened to a family, it threw everything into chaos and confusion; the man, filled with fear and distress, would take whatever goods he could grab and run away as if the house was on fire, trying to reach the Friars[14] or the Mint. The family would scatter in different directions, like people in a panic; the wife would go to her parents, if they were around, and the children would split off to various relatives. A statute (what people commonly refer to as a bankruptcy commission) would come in and take everything away, often destroying it as well, leaving little or nothing behind to pay the creditors or help the bankrupt. This would drive the bankrupt to desperation, forcing him to seek shelter with his goods in places where, hardened by the creditors' cruelty, he chose to spend all the money that should have gone to the creditors, ultimately leading to his misery.

But now the case is altered; men make so little of breaking, that many times the family scarce removes for it. A commission of bankrupt is so familiar a thing, that the debtor oftentimes causes it to be taken out in his favour, that he may sooner be effectually delivered from all his creditors at once, the law obliging him only to give a full account of himself upon oath to the commissioners, who, when they see his integrity, may effectually deliver him from all further molestation, give him a part even of the creditors' estate; and so he may push into the world again, and try whether he cannot retrieve his fortunes by a better management, or with better success for the future.

But now things have changed; people think so little of bankruptcy that often the family hardly moves because of it. A bankruptcy commission is so common that debtors sometimes request it themselves to quickly get rid of all their creditors at once. The law requires them to provide a full account under oath to the commissioners, who, if they find the debtor to be honest, can relieve them from any further hassle and even allow them to keep a part of the creditors' assets. This way, the debtor can re-enter the world and see if they can turn their fortunes around with better management or more success in the future.

Some have said, this law is too favourable to the bankrupt; that it makes tradesmen careless; that they value not breaking at all, but run on at all hazards, venturing without forecast and without consideration, knowing they may come off again so cheap and so easy, if they miscarry. But though I cannot enter here into a long debate upon that subject, yet I may have room to say, that I differ from those people very much; for, though the terror of the commission is in some measure abated, as indeed it ought to be, because it was before exorbitant and unreasonable, yet the terror of ruining a man's family, sinking his fortunes, blasting his credit, and throwing him out of business, and into the worst of disgrace that a tradesman can fall into, this is not taken away, or abated at all; and this, to an honest trading man, is as bad as all the rest ever was or could be.

Some people say this law is too lenient on bankrupts; that it makes businesspeople reckless; they no longer fear failure but take risks without planning or considering the consequences, knowing they can bounce back easily if things go wrong. While I can't have an extensive discussion on that topic here, I do want to express that I strongly disagree with those views. Although the fear of bankruptcy has been somewhat reduced—rightly so, since it was previously excessive and unfair—the fear of destroying a family, ruining one’s finances, damaging one’s reputation, and being driven out of business and into deep disgrace, this fear hasn’t been diminished at all; and for an honest businessperson, it's just as bad as it ever was.

Nor can a man be supposed, in the rupture of his affairs, to receive any comfort, or to see through his disasters into the little relief which he may, and at the same time cannot be sure he shall, receive, at the end of his troubles, from the mercy of the commission.

Nor can a person be expected, amidst the breakdown of their affairs, to find any comfort or to see beyond their struggles to the small relief that they might, yet at the same time cannot be certain they will, receive at the end of their troubles from the mercy of the commission.

These are poor things, and very trifling for a tradesman to entertain thoughts of a breach from, especially with any prospect of satisfaction; nor can any tradesman with the least shadow of principle entertain any thought of breaking, but with the utmost aversion, and even abhorrence; for the circumstances of it are attended with so many mortifications, and so many shocking things, contrary to all the views and expectations that a tradesman can begin the world with, that he cannot think of it, but as we do of the grave, with a chillness upon the blood, and a tremor in the spirits. Breaking is the death of a tradesman; he is mortally stabbed, or, as we may say, shot through the head, in his trading capacity; his shop is shut up, as it is when a man is buried; his credit, the life and blood of his trade, is stagnated; and his attendance, which was the pulse of his business, is stopped, and beats no more; in a word, his fame, and even name, as to trade is buried, and the commissioners, that act upon him, and all their proceedings, are but like the executors of the defunct, dividing the ruins of his fortune, and at last, his certificate is a kind of performing the obsequies for the dead, and praying him out of purgatory.

These are sad things, and quite trivial for a tradesperson to consider breaking away from, especially with any hope of satisfaction; nor can any tradesperson with even a hint of principles think about breaking without feeling deep aversion, even disgust; because the situation comes with so many humiliations and shocking realities, totally opposite to all the dreams and expectations that a tradesperson begins their journey with, that they can't think of it without that same chill in the blood and a tremor in their spirit, as we feel when thinking about death. Breaking is the end of a tradesperson; they are fatally wounded, or, as we might say, shot in the head, in their business role; their shop is closed up, just like when someone is buried; their credit, the lifeblood of their trade, is stalled; and their foot traffic, which was the heartbeat of their business, has stopped and no longer pulses; in short, their reputation, and even their name in trade, is buried, and the commissioners acting upon them, along with all their actions, are just like the executors of the deceased, dividing up the remnants of their fortune, and in the end, their certificate is like carrying out the last rites for the dead and praying them out of purgatory.

Did ever tradesman set up on purpose to break? Did ever a man build himself a house on purpose to have it burnt down? I can by no means grant that any tradesman, at least in his senses, can entertain the least satisfaction in his trading, or abate any thing of his diligence in trade, from the easiness of breaking, or the abated severities of the bankrupt act.

Did any businessperson ever intentionally go into debt? Did anyone ever build a house just to have it burned down? I absolutely cannot believe that any sensible businessperson would find any satisfaction in their work or reduce their effort in trading because breaking even is easy or because the penalties in the bankruptcy law have been softened.

I could argue it from the nature of the act itself, which, indeed, was made, and is effectual, chiefly for the relief of creditors, not debtors; to secure the bankrupt's effects for the use of those to whom it of right belongs, and to prevent the extravagant expenses of the commission, which before were such as often devoured all, ruining both the bankrupt and his creditors too. This the present law has providently put a stop to; and the creditors now are secure in this point, that what is to be had, what the poor tradesman has left, they are sure to have preserved for, and divided among them, which, indeed, before they were not. The case is so well known, and so recent in every tradesman's memory, that I need not take up any more of your time about it.

I could argue this based on the nature of the act itself, which was created, and works mainly to help creditors, not debtors; to protect the bankrupt's assets for the rightful owners and to stop the excessive costs of the commission, which previously often consumed everything, ruining both the bankrupt and their creditors. The current law has wisely put an end to that; creditors can now feel secure knowing that whatever can be salvaged from the struggling tradesman will be preserved and divided among them, which was not the case before. This is so well known and so recent in every tradesman’s memory that I don't need to take up any more of your time discussing it.

As to the encouragements in the act for the bankrupt, they are only these—namely, that, upon his honest and faithful surrender of his affairs, he shall be set at liberty; and if they see cause, they, the creditors, may give him back a small gratification for his discovering his effects, and assisting to the recovery of them; and all this, which amounts to very little, is upon his being, as I have said, entirely honest, and having run through all possible examinations and purgations, and that it is at the peril of his life if he prevaricates.

As for the support offered in the bankruptcy act, it's basically this: if a bankrupt individual honestly and faithfully hands over their financial situation, they will be set free. If the creditors decide it's warranted, they might give him a small reward for revealing his assets and helping to retrieve them. However, all of this, which isn’t much, depends on him being completely honest and going through all the necessary investigations and clearances, knowing that lying could put his life at risk.

Are these encouragements to tradesmen to be negligent and careless of the event of things? Will any man in his wits fail in his trade, break his credit, and shut up his shop, for these prospects? Or will he comfort himself in case he is forced to fail—I say, will he comfort himself with these little benefits, and make the matter easy to himself on that account? He must have a very mean spirit that can do this, and must act upon very mean principles in life, who can fall with satisfaction, on purpose to rise no higher than this; it is like a man going to bed on purpose to rise naked, pleasing himself with the thoughts that, though he shall have no clothes to put on, yet he shall have the liberty to get out of bed and shift for himself.

Are these motivations for tradespeople to be careless and indifferent about their outcomes? Would anyone in their right mind ruin their business, damage their reputation, and close up shop because of these possibilities? Or will they find solace if they end up failing—I mean, will they find comfort in these minor perks and convince themselves to cope with it? It takes a really low-spirited person to do this, and they must have very low principles in life if they can settle for less and aim for nothing more than this; it’s like someone going to bed with the intention of getting up without any clothes, fooling themselves into thinking that, even though they won’t have anything to wear, they still have the freedom to get out of bed and figure things out.

On these accounts, and some others, too long to mention here, I think it is out of doubt, that the easiness of the proceedings on commissions of bankrupt can be no encouragement to any tradesman to break, or so much as to entertain the thoughts of it, with less horror and aversion than he would have done before this law was made.

On these reasons, and a few others that are too lengthy to cover here, I believe it’s clear that the simplicity of the bankruptcy process does not provide any incentive for a tradesperson to go bankrupt or even to consider it without the same fear and dislike as they would have had before this law was enacted.

But I must come now to speak of the tradesman in his real state of mortification, and under the inevitable necessity of a blow upon his affairs. He has had losses in his business, such as are too heavy for his stock to support; he has, perhaps, launched out in trade beyond his reach: either he has so many bad debts, that he cannot find by his books he has enough left to pay his creditors, or his debts lie out of his reach, and he cannot get them in, which in one respect is as bad; he has more bills running against him than he knows how to pay, and creditors dunning him, whom it is hard for him to comply with; and this, by degrees, sinks his credit.

But I need to talk about the merchant in his true state of distress and the unavoidable hit to his business. He has faced losses that are too big for his resources to handle; he might have ventured into trade that's beyond his capacity. Either he has so many unpaid debts that his financial records show he doesn’t have enough to pay his creditors, or his debts are out of reach, and he can’t collect them, which is just as bad; he has more bills piling up than he knows how to settle, and creditors are chasing him down, making it tough for him to meet their demands; and this gradually ruins his reputation.

Now, could the poor unhappy tradesman take good advice, now would be his time to prevent his utter ruin, and let his case be better or worse, his way is clear.

Now, if the poor, unhappy tradesman could take some good advice, this would be the time to avoid his complete downfall, and regardless of whether his situation improves or worsens, the path ahead is clear.

If it be only that he has overshot himself in trade, taken too much credit, and is loaded with goods; or given too much credit, and cannot get his debts in; but that, upon casting up his books, he finds his circumstances good at bottom, though his credit has suffered by his effects being out of his hands; let him endeavour to retrench, let him check his career in trade—immediately take some extraordinary measures to get in his debts, or some extraordinary measures, if he can, to raise money in the meantime, till those debts come in, that he may stop the crowd of present demands. If this will not do, let him treat with some of his principal creditors, showing them a true and faithful state of his affairs, and giving them the best assurances he can of payment, that they may be easy with him till he can get in his debts; and then, with the utmost care, draw in his trade within the due compass of his stock, and be sure never to run out again farther than he is able to answer, let the prospect of advantage be what it will; and by this method he may perhaps recover his credit again, at least he may prevent his ruin. But this is always supposing the man has a firm bottom, that he is sound in the main, and that his stock is at least sufficient to pay all his debts.

If it's just that he has overextended himself in business, taken on too much credit, and is overwhelmed with inventory; or given out too much credit and can't collect on his debts; but upon reviewing his accounts, he finds that his overall situation is still sound, even though his credit has taken a hit due to having his goods unavailable; he should try to cut back, rein in his trading activities—immediately take some urgent steps to collect his debts, or make extraordinary efforts, if possible, to raise funds in the meantime, until those debts come in, so he can manage the pressing demands. If this doesn’t work, he should negotiate with some of his main creditors, honestly sharing a clear and accurate picture of his situation, and giving them the best assurances he can about repayment, so they can feel more at ease until he can recover his debts; then, with great care, he should scale back his business to align with the available stock, always ensuring he doesn’t extend himself beyond what he can handle, regardless of the potential profit; and by following this approach, he may possibly restore his credit, or at least avoid total disaster. However, this assumes that he has a solid foundation, that his overall situation is stable, and that his inventory is enough to settle all his debts.

But the difficulty which I am proposing to speak of, is when the poor tradesman, distressed as above in point of credit, looking into his affairs, finds that his stock is diminished, or perhaps entirely sunk—that, in short, he has such losses and such disappointments in his business, that he is not sound at bottom; that he has run too far, and that his own stock being wasted or sunk, he has not really sufficient to pay his debts; what is this man's business?—and what course shall he take?

But the challenge I want to discuss is when the struggling tradesman, feeling stressed about his credit, examines his situation and sees that his inventory is low or possibly gone altogether—that, in short, he faces so many losses and setbacks in his business that he’s not stable at all; that he’s taken on too much, and since his own stock is depleted or lost, he doesn’t actually have enough to settle his debts; what is this man's situation?—and what should he do?

I know the ordinary course with such tradesmen is this:—'It is true,' says the poor man, 'I am running down, and I have lost so much in such a place, and so much by such a chapman that broke, and, in short, so much, that I am worse than nothing; but come, I have such a thing before me, or I have undertaken such a project, or I have such an adventure abroad, if it suceeds, I may recover again; I'll try my utmost; I'll never drown while I can swim; I'll never fall while I can stand; who knows but I may get over it?' In a word, the poor man is loth to come to the fatal day; loth to have his name in the Gazette, and see his wife and family turned out of doors, and the like; who can blame him? or who is not, in the like case, apt to take the like measures?—for it is natural to us all to put the evil day far from us, at least to put it as far off as we can. Though the criminal believes he shall be executed at last, yet he accepts of every reprieve, as it puts him within the possibility of an escape, and that as long as there is life there is hope; but at last the dead warrant comes down, then he sees death unavoidable, and gives himself up to despair.

I know that the usual situation with these tradespeople is like this: “It's true," says the struggling man, "I'm in a downward spiral, and I've lost a lot in this place, and a lot with this trader who went bankrupt, and, in short, I've lost so much that I'm worse off than nothing; but look, I have this opportunity in front of me, or I've taken on this project, or I have this adventure planned, and if it succeeds, I might be able to recover; I’ll give it everything I’ve got; I won't drown as long as I can swim; I won't fall as long as I can stand; who knows, maybe I can make it through?” In short, the poor man is reluctant to face the inevitable day; reluctant to see his name in the newspaper, to watch his wife and kids get kicked out, and so on; who can blame him? Or who isn’t, in a similar situation, inclined to take the same route?—because it’s human nature to push the bad day as far away as possible, or at least to delay it for as long as we can. Even though the criminal knows he will be executed eventually, he accepts every delay because it keeps the possibility of escape alive, and as long as there is life, there is hope; but eventually the death warrant arrives, then he realizes that death is unavoidable and gives in to despair.

Indeed, the malefactor was in the right to accept, as I say, of every reprieve, but it is quite otherwise in the tradesman's case; and if I may give him a rule, safe, and in its end comfortable, in proportion to his circumstances, but, to be sure, out of question, just, honest, and prudent, it is this:—

Indeed, the wrongdoer was justified in accepting, as I mentioned, every chance to escape punishment, but it’s a different story for the tradesman. If I may offer him a guideline that is safe and ultimately beneficial according to his situation, and that, of course, is just, fair, and wise, it is this:—

When he perceives his case as above, and knows that if his new adventures or projects should fail, he cannot by any means stand or support himself, I not only give it as my advice to all tradesmen, as their interest, but insist upon it, as they are honest men, they should break, that is, stop in time: fear not to do that which necessity obliges you to do; but, above all, fear not to do that early, which, if omitted, necessity will oblige you to do late.

When he sees his situation like this and understands that if his new ventures or projects fail, he won't be able to support himself at all, I not only recommend to all businesspeople, for their own good, but insist that, as honest individuals, they should take a step back, meaning they should stop at the right moment: don’t be afraid to do what necessity requires; but, most importantly, don’t hesitate to do it early, because if you delay, necessity will force you to take action later.

First, let me argue upon the honesty of it, and next upon the prudence of it. Certainly, honesty obliges every man, when he sees that his stock is gone, that he is below the level, and eating into the estate of other men, to put a stop to it, and to do it in time, while something is left. It has been a fault, without doubt, to break in upon other men's estates at all; but perhaps a plea may be made that it was ignorantly done, and they did not think they were run so far as to be worse than nothing; or some sudden disaster may have occasioned it, which they did not expect, and, it may be, could not foresee; both which may indeed happen to a tradesman, though the former can hardly happen without his fault, because he ought to be always acquainting himself with his books, stating his expenses and his profits, and casting things up frequently, at least in his head, so as always to know whether he goes backward or forward. The latter, namely, sudden disaster, may happen so to any tradesman as that he may be undone, and it may not be his fault; for ruin sometimes falls as suddenly as unavoidably upon a tradesman, though there are but very few incidents of that kind which may not be accounted for in such a manner as to charge it upon his prudence.

First, let me discuss the honesty of the situation, and then the wisdom of it. Clearly, honesty requires every person, when they see that their resources are depleted, that they are below their means, and are depleting the assets of others, to put an end to it, and to do so in time while there is still something left. It has certainly been a mistake to encroach on others' resources at all; however, one might argue that it was done without understanding, and they didn’t realize they had fallen so far as to become a burden; or perhaps an unexpected event caused it, which they didn’t foresee and couldn’t predict. Both scenarios can indeed happen to a business owner, although the first situation is hard to excuse without fault, as they should always be keeping track of their finances, reviewing their expenses and profits, and regularly calculating things, at least in their mind, to know if they are making progress or not. The latter situation, sudden misfortune, can occur to any business owner in such a way that they may be ruined through no fault of their own; after all, catastrophe can strike a business owner unexpectedly and unavoidably, even though very few such events can’t be explained in a way that would attribute responsibility to their lack of caution.

Some cases may indeed happen, some disasters may befall a tradesman, which it was not possible he should foresee, as fire, floods of water, thieves, and many such—and in those cases the disaster is visible, the plea is open, every body allows it, the man can have no blame. A prodigious tide from the sea, joined with a great fresh or flood in the river Dee, destroyed the new wharf below the Roodee at West Chester, and tore down the merchants' warehouses there, and drove away not only all the goods, but even the buildings and altogether, into the sea. Now, if a poor shopkeeper in Chester had a large parcel of goods lying there, perhaps newly landed in order to be brought up to the city, but were all swept away, if, I say, the poor tradesman were ruined by the loss of those goods on that occasion, the creditors would see reason in it that they should every one take a share in the loss; the tradesman was not to blame.

Some situations can indeed occur, and some disasters can strike a tradesperson that they couldn't possibly foresee, like fires, floods, thefts, and other such events—and in those cases, the disaster is clear, the argument is valid, everyone agrees, and the person can't be held at fault. A massive tide from the sea, combined with a significant freshwater flood in the river Dee, destroyed the new wharf below the Roodee in Chester and took down the merchants' warehouses there, washing away not just all the goods but even the buildings completely into the sea. Now, if a struggling shopkeeper in Chester had a large shipment of goods stored there, perhaps just unloaded for transport to the city, and all of it got washed away, if, I say, the unfortunate tradesperson faced ruin due to the loss of those goods, the creditors would understand that they each need to take a share of the loss; the tradesperson wasn’t at fault.

Likewise in the distress of the late fire which began in Thames Street, near Bear Quay, a grocer might have had a quantity of goods in a warehouse thereabouts, or his shop might be there, and the goods perhaps might be sugars, or currants, or tobacco, or any other goods in his way, which could not be easily removed; this fire was a surprise, it was a blast of powder, it was at noonday, when no person coud foresee it. The man may have been undone and be in no fault himself, one way or other; no man can reasonably say to him, why did you keep so many goods upon your hands, or in such a place? for it was his proper business both to have a stock of goods, and to have them in such a place; every thing was in the right position, and in the order which the nature of his trade required.

Similarly, in the aftermath of the recent fire that started on Thames Street near Bear Quay, a grocer could have had a lot of goods stored in a warehouse nearby, or his shop might have been there, and the products could have included sugars, currants, tobacco, or any other items he dealt with that couldn’t be easily moved. This fire came as a shock; it was like an explosion, and it happened at noon when no one could have predicted it. The grocer could have lost everything through no fault of his own; no one can reasonably ask him why he kept so many goods on hand or in that location because it was his job to maintain a stock of inventory and have it stored where he needed it. Everything was in the right place and arranged according to the requirements of his business.

On the other hand, if it was the breaking of a particular chapman, or an adventure by sea, the creditors would perhaps reflect on his prudence; why should any man trust a single chapman so much, or adventure so much in one single bottom, and uninsured, as that the loss of it would be his undoing?

On the other hand, if it was the collapse of a specific merchant, or a journey by sea, the creditors might question his judgment; why would anyone rely so heavily on one merchant, or risk so much in a single venture, without insurance, to the point that losing it would ruin him?

But there are other cases, however, which may happen to a tradesman, and by which he may be at once reduced below his proper stock, and have nothing left to trade on but his credit, that is to say, the estates of his creditors. In such a case, I question whether it can be honest for any man to continue trading; for, first, it is making his creditors run an unjust hazard, without their consent; indeed, if he discovers his condition to one or two of them, who are men of capital stocks, and will support him, they giving him leave to pay others off, and go on at their risks, that alters the case; or if he has a ready money trade, that will apparently raise him again, and he runs no more hazards, but is sure he shall at least run out no farther; in these two cases, and I do not know another, he may with honesty continue.

But there are other situations that can happen to a tradesman, where he might find himself falling below his proper stock and have nothing left to trade on except his credit, which refers to the assets of his creditors. In this scenario, I wonder if it’s honest for anyone to keep trading; because, first, it makes his creditors take on an unfair risk without their agreement. In fact, if he reveals his situation to one or two of them, who have substantial resources and are willing to support him, allowing him to pay off others and proceed at their risk, that changes things. Or if he has a cash-based business that will clearly lift him back up, and he isn’t taking on additional risks, but is confident that he won’t fall any further, in these two instances — and I can’t think of any others — he may honestly continue.

On the contrary, when he sees himself evidently running out, and declining, and has only a shift here and a shift there, to lay hold on, as sinking men generally do; and knows, that unless something extraordinary happen, which, perhaps, also is not probable, he must fall, for such a man to go on, and trade in the ordinary way, notwithstanding losses, and hazards—in such a case, I affirm, he cannot act the honest man, he cannot go on with justice to his creditors, or his family; he ought to call his creditors together, lay his circumstances honestly before them, and pay as far as it will go. If his creditors will do any thing generously for him, to enable him to go on again, well and good, but he cannot honestly oblige them to run the risk of his unfortunate progress, and to venture their estates on his bottom, after his bottom is really nothing at all but their money.

On the other hand, when he sees that he’s clearly running out of options and is in decline, with only a few small things to hold onto, like a person drowning usually does; and he knows that unless something extraordinary happens, which is unlikely, he’s going to fail. For someone in that situation to continue operating normally, despite losses and risks—well, I maintain that he cannot be honest. He can’t proceed fairly with his creditors or his family; he should gather his creditors, honestly explain his situation, and pay what he can. If his creditors are willing to be generous and help him get back on his feet, that’s great. However, he cannot justly expect them to take the risk of his unfortunate situation and put their finances on the line, especially when his own finances are essentially just their money.

But I pass from the honesty to the prudence of it—from what regards his creditors, to what regards himself—and I affirm, nothing can be more imprudent and impolite, as it regards himself and his family, than to go on after he sees his circumstances irrecoverable. If he has any consideration for himself, or his future happiness, he will stop in time, and not be afraid of meeting the mischief which he sees follows too fast for him to escape; be not so afraid of breaking, as not to break till necessity forces you, and that you have nothing left. In a word, I speak it to every declining tradesman, if you love yourself, your family, or your reputation, and would ever hope to look the world in the face again, break in time.

But I shift from discussing honesty to discussing caution—from what concerns his creditors to what concerns himself—and I assert that nothing is more unwise and disrespectful, regarding him and his family, than to continue on after realizing his situation is beyond repair. If he values himself or his future happiness, he will recognize when to stop, instead of being afraid to confront the problems that are closing in on him. Don’t be so scared of going broke that you wait until you have nothing left, forced into it by necessity. In short, I say this to every struggling business owner: if you care about yourself, your family, or your reputation, and if you ever hope to hold your head high in public again, declare bankruptcy before it’s too late.

By breaking in time you will first obtain the character of an honest, though unfortunate man; it is owing to the contrary course, which is indeed the ordinary practice of tradesmen, namely, not to break till they run the bottom quite out, and have little or nothing left to pay; I say, it is owing to this, that some people think all men that break are knaves. The censure, it is true, is unjust, but the cause is owing to the indiscretion, to call it no worse, of the poor tradesmen, who putting the mischief as far from them as they can, trade on to the last gasp, till a throng of creditors coming on them together, or being arrested, and not able to get bail, or by some such public blow to their credit, they are brought to a stop or breach of course, like a man fighting to the last gasp who is knocked down, and laid on the ground, and then his resistance is at an end; for indeed a tradesman pushing on under irresistable misfortunes is but fighting with the world to the last drop, and with such unequal odds, that like the soldier surrounded with enemies, he must be killed; so the debtor must sink, it cannot be prevented.

By declaring bankruptcy early, you can first gain the reputation of being an honest, though unfortunate, person. This is in contrast to what most businesspeople do, which is to keep going until they’ve completely run out of resources and have little or nothing left to pay their debts. Because of this approach, some people believe that anyone who declares bankruptcy is a crook. While this judgement is indeed unfair, it stems from the foolishness—if we may call it that—of those struggling businesspeople who try to avoid disaster for as long as they can, pushing themselves to the limit until a wave of creditors comes at them all at once, or they get arrested and can’t secure bail, or face some other public setback that damages their reputation. At that point, they are forced to stop or declare bankruptcy, like a fighter who has been knocked down and can’t continue. A businessperson battling overwhelming hardships is essentially fighting against the world until the very end, facing such impossible odds that, like a soldier surrounded by enemies, they are bound to be defeated; similarly, the debtor will ultimately collapse, and there’s no way to prevent it.

It is true, also, the man that thus struggles to the last, brings upon him an universal reproach, and a censure, that is not only unavoidable, but just, which is worse; but when a man breaks in time, he may hold up his face to his creditors, and tell them, that he could have gone on a considerable while longer, but that he should have had less left to pay them with, and that he has chosen to stop while he may be able to give them so considerable a sum as may convince them of his integrity.

It’s also true that a man who struggles until the very end earns universal blame and judgment that is not only inevitable but fair, which makes it even worse; however, when a man chooses to stop in time, he can face his creditors confidently and tell them that he could have continued for quite a while longer, but he would have had even less to pay them with. He has decided to stop now so he can offer them a substantial amount that shows his honesty.

We have a great clamour among us of the cruelty of creditors, and it is a popular clamour, that goes a great way with some people; but let them tell us when ever creditors were cruel, when the debtor came thus to them with fifteen shillings in the pound in his offer. Perhaps when the debtor has run to the utmost, and there appears to be little or nothing left, he has been used roughly; and it is enough to provoke a creditor, indeed, to be offered a shilling or half-a-crown in the pound for a large debt, when, had the debtor been honest, and broke in time, he might have received perhaps two-thirds of his debt, and the debtor been in better condition too.

We have a lot of noise about how cruel creditors are, and it's a popular complaint that resonates with many people. But let’s ask, when have creditors actually been cruel when the debtor comes to them offering fifteen pence on the pound? Maybe when the debtor has exhausted all options and there’s hardly anything left, they’ve been treated harshly; and it’s pretty frustrating for a creditor to be offered just a shilling or half a crown on a large debt. If the debtor had been honest and declared bankruptcy sooner, they might have been able to repay two-thirds of what they owe, and the debtor wouldn’t be in such a tough spot either.

Break then in time, young tradesman, if you see you are going down, and that the hazard of going on is doubtful; you will certainly be received by your creditors with compassion, and with a generous treatment; and, whatever happens, you will be able to begin the world again with the title of an honest man—even the same creditors will embark with you again, and be more forward to give you credit than before.

Break then in time, young tradesman, if you see you are going down, and that the risk of continuing is uncertain; you will definitely be treated with compassion by your creditors and receive generous treatment; and, no matter what happens, you will be able to start over with the reputation of an honest person—even those same creditors will partner with you again and be more willing to extend credit than before.

It is true, most tradesmen that break merit the name of knave or dishonest man, but it is not so with all; the reason of the difference lies chiefly in the manner of their breaking—namely, whether sooner or later. It is possible, he may be an honest man who cannot, but he can never be honest that can, and will not pay his debts. Now he, that, being able to pay fifteen shillings in the pound, will struggle on till he sees he shall not be able to pay half-a-crown in the pound, this man was able to pay, but would not, and, therefore, as above, cannot be an honest man.

It's true that most tradespeople who fail deserve to be called dishonest, but not all of them do. The main difference comes from how they fail—whether they do it sooner or later. An honest person might be unable to pay their debts, but someone who can and chooses not to is not honest. So, if someone can pay fifteen shillings on the pound but drags it out until they realize they can't even pay half a crown, that person was able to pay but didn't want to. Therefore, as mentioned earlier, they can't be considered honest.

In the next place, what shall we say to the peace and satisfaction of mind in breaking, which the tradesman will always have when he acts the honest part, and breaks betimes, compared to that guilt and chagrin of the mind, occasioned by a running on, as I said, to the last gasp, when they have little to pay? Then, indeed, the tradesman can expect no quarter from his creditors, and will have no quiet in himself.

In addition, what can we say about the peace of mind and satisfaction that a tradesperson feels when they choose to break early, honestly, compared to the guilt and regret that comes from pushing things to the very end, especially when they have little to pay? At that point, the tradesperson can expect no mercy from their creditors and will find no peace within themselves.

I might instance here the miserable, anxious, perplexed life, which the poor tradesman lives under; the distresses and extremities of his declining state; how harassed and tormented for money; what shifts he is driven to for supporting himself; how many little, mean, and even wicked things, will even the religious tradesman stoop to in his distress, to deliver himself—even such things as his very soul would abhor at another time, and for which he goes perhaps with a wounded conscience all his life after!

I could point out the miserable, anxious, and confused life that a struggling tradesman endures; the hardships and struggles of his declining situation; how stressed and tormented he is for money; what desperate measures he resorts to in order to survive; how many small, petty, and even wrong things a religious tradesman will do in his desperation to save himself—things that his very soul would reject at another time, and for which he might carry a guilty conscience for the rest of his life!

By giving up early, all this, which is the most dreadful part of all the rest, would be prevented. I have heard many an honest unfortunate man confess this, and repent, even with tears, that they had not learned to despair in trade some years sooner than they did, by which they had avoided falling into many foul and foolish actions, which they afterwards had been driven to by the extremity of their affairs.

By quitting early, all of this, which is the worst part of it all, could be avoided. I've heard many honest, unfortunate people admit this and regret, even with tears, that they didn't learn to give up in business a few years earlier, which would have helped them avoid many bad and foolish actions they ended up taking out of desperation due to their circumstances.

FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:

[Whitefriars, in the neighbourhood of the Temple, London. This and the Mint were sanctuaries for debtors.]

[Whitefriars, near the Temple, London. This and the Mint were refuges for people in debt.]


CHAPTER VIII

THE ORDINARY OCCASIONS OF THE RUIN OF TRADESMEN

THE COMMON REASONS FOR THE DOWNFALL OF BUSINESS PEOPLE


Since I have given advice to tradesmen, when they fell into difficulties, and find they are run behind-hand, to break in time, before they run on too far, and thereby prevent the consequences of a fatal running on to extremity, it is but just I should give them some needful directions, to avoid, if possible, breaking at all.

Since I've advised tradespeople when they get into trouble and realize they're falling behind, to manage their situation early before it gets out of hand and prevents the serious consequences of running into extreme issues, it's only fair that I provide them with some helpful tips to avoid breaking at all, if possible.

In order to this, I will briefly inquire what are the ordinary originals of a tradesman's ruin in business. To say it is negligence, when I have already pressed to a close application and diligence; that it is launching into, and grasping at, more business than their stock, or, perhaps, their understandings, are able to manage, when I have already spoken of the fatal consequences of over-trading; to say it is trusting carelessly people unable to pay, and running too rashly into debt, when I have already spoken of taking and giving too much credit—this would all be but saying the same thing over again—and I am too full of particulars, in this important case, to have any need of tautologies and repetitions; but there are a great many ways by which tradesmen precipitate themselves into ruin besides those, and some that need explaining and enlarging upon.

To address this, I will briefly look into the common reasons for a tradesman's failure in business. It's not just negligence, since I've already emphasized the importance of focus and hard work; it's not simply about taking on more business than their resources or capabilities can handle, which I've already pointed out as the dangerous effects of over-trading; nor is it just about recklessly trusting people who can’t pay and getting into too much debt, as I’ve already discussed the risks of giving and taking excessive credit. Repeating these points wouldn’t add anything new, and I have plenty of details on this important issue to avoid unnecessary repetition. However, there are many other ways tradesmen can lead themselves to ruin that require further explanation and elaboration.

1. Some, especially retailers, ruin themselves by fixing their shops in such places as are improper for their business. In most towns, but particularly in the city of London, there are places as it were appropriated to particular trades, and where the trades which are placed there succeed very well, but would do very ill any where else, or any other trades in the same places; as the orange-merchants and wet-salters about Billingsgate, and in Thames Street; the coster-mongers at the Three Cranes; the wholesale cheesemongers in Thames Street; the mercers and drapers in the high streets, such as Cheapside, Ludgate Street, Cornhill, Round Court, and Grace-church Street, &c.

1. Some people, especially retailers, harm themselves by setting up their shops in locations that aren’t suitable for their business. In most towns, particularly in London, there are areas designated for specific trades where those businesses thrive, but they would fail anywhere else, and other trades wouldn’t succeed in those areas either; for example, the orange sellers and fish sellers near Billingsgate and on Thames Street; the street vendors at the Three Cranes; the wholesale cheesemakers on Thames Street; the fabric and clothing sellers on major streets like Cheapside, Ludgate Street, Cornhill, Round Court, and Gracechurch Street, etc.

Pray what would a bookseller make of his business at Billingsgate, or a mercer in Tower Street, or near the Custom-house, or a draper in Thames Street, or about Queen-hithe? Many trades have their peculiar streets, and proper places for the sale of their goods, where people expect to find such shops, and consequently, when they want such goods, they go thither for them; as the booksellers in St Paul's churchyard, about the Exchange, Temple, and the Strand, &c., the mercers on both sides Ludgate, in Round Court, and Grace-church and Lombard Streets; the shoemakers in St Martins le Grand, and Shoemaker Row; the coach-makers in Long-acre, Queen Street, and Bishopsgate; butchers in Eastcheap; and such like.

What would a bookseller think of doing business at Billingsgate, or a fabric seller on Tower Street, or near the Custom House, or a cloth merchant in Thames Street, or around Queenhithe? Many trades have their specific streets and designated areas for selling their products, where people expect to find those shops. So, when they need those items, they head there to get them, like the booksellers in St. Paul's Churchyard, around the Exchange, Temple, and the Strand, etc.; the fabric sellers on both sides of Ludgate, in Round Court, and Gracechurch and Lombard Streets; the shoemakers in St. Martin's le Grand and Shoemaker Row; the carriage makers in Long Acre, Queen Street, and Bishopsgate; butchers in Eastcheap; and so on.

For a tradesman to open his shop in a place unresorted to, or in a place where his trade is not agreeable, and where it is not expected, it is no wonder if he has no trade. What retail trade would a milliner have among the fishmongers' shops on Fishstreet-hill, or a toyman about Queen-hithe? When a shop is ill chosen, the tradesman starves; he is out of the way, and business will not follow him that runs away from it: suppose a ship-chandler should set up in Holborn, or a block-maker in Whitecross Street, an anchor-smith at Moorgate, or a coachmaker in Redriff, and the like!

For a tradesperson to open their shop in a place that doesn't attract customers, or in a location where their business isn't suitable and not expected, it's no surprise if they struggle to get sales. What retail business would a hat maker have among the fish shops on Fish Street Hill, or a toy seller near Queenhithe? When a shop is poorly located, the seller suffers; they are out of sight, and customers won't chase after someone who is far away: imagine a ship supply store opening in Holborn, or a lumber maker in Whitecross Street, an anchor smith at Moorgate, or a coach builder in Redriff, and so on!

It is true, we have seen a kind of fate attend the very streets and rows where such trades have been gathered together; and a street, famous some years ago, shall, in a few years after, be quite forsaken; as Paternoster Row for mercers, St Paul's Churchyard for woollen-drapers; both the Eastcheaps for butchers; and now you see hardly any of those trades left in those places.

It’s true, we’ve noticed that certain fates have affected the very streets where these businesses have come together; a street that was popular a few years ago can be completely abandoned just a few years later, like Paternoster Row for mercers, St Paul’s Churchyard for wool dealers; both Eastcheaps for butchers; and now you can hardly find any of those businesses left in those areas.

I mention it for this reason, and this makes it to my purpose in an extraordinary manner, that whenever the principal shopkeepers remove from such a street, or settled place, where the principal trade used to be, the rest soon follow—knowing, that if the fame of the trade is not there, the customers will not resort thither: and that a tradesman's business is to follow wherever the trade leads. For a mercer to set up now in Paternoster Row, or a woollen-draper in St Paul's Churchyard, the one among the sempstresses, and the other among the chair-makers, would be the same thing as for a country shopkeeper not to set up in or near the market-place.[15]

I mention this because it really highlights my point: whenever the main shopkeepers leave a street or location where the main trade used to be, the rest tend to follow. They know that if the trade’s reputation isn’t there, customers won’t come. A tradesperson’s job is to go where the trade is thriving. For a fabric seller to open shop now in Paternoster Row, or for a wool dealer in St Paul's Churchyard, one among the seamstresses and the other among the furniture makers, would be just like a country shopkeeper choosing not to set up in or near the marketplace.[15]

The place, therefore, is to be prudently chosen by the retailer, when he first begins his business, that he may put himself in the way of business; and then, with God's blessing, and his own care, he may expect his share of trade with his neighbours.

The retailer should carefully choose the location when starting their business so they can attract customers. With a bit of luck and their own effort, they can look forward to getting their fair share of business from the community.

2. He must take an especial care to have his shop not so much crowded with a large bulk of goods, as with a well-sorted and well-chosen quantity proper for his business, and to give credit to his beginning. In order to this, his buying part requires not only a good judgment in the wares he is to deal in, but a perfect government of his judgment by his understanding to suit and sort his quantities and proportions, as well to his shop as to the particular place where his shop is situated; for example, a particular trade is not only proper for such or such a part of the town, but a particular assortment of goods, even in the same way, suits one part of the town, or one town and not another; as he that sets up in the Strand, or near the Exchange, is likely to sell more rich silks, more fine Hollands, more fine broad-cloths, more fine toys and trinkets, than one of the same trade setting up in the skirts of the town, or at Ratcliff, or Wapping, or Redriff; and he that sets up in the capital city of a county, than he that is placed in a private market-town, in the same county; and he that is placed in a market-town, than he that is placed in a country village. A tradesman in a seaport town sorts himself different from one of the same trade in an inland town, though larger and more populous; and this the tradesman must weigh very maturely before he lays out his stock.

2. He needs to be especially careful not to fill his shop with a lot of goods, but with a well-organized and carefully chosen selection that fits his business and reflects his beginnings. To do this, his purchasing requires not only good judgment regarding the products he will sell but also a thorough understanding of how to match and balance his inventory according to both his shop and its location. For instance, certain types of businesses are more suited to specific parts of town, and even within the same area, particular products might be more appropriate for one neighborhood than another. A shop located on the Strand or near the Exchange is likely to sell more luxury items like rich silks, fine linens, and high-end toys than a similar shop located in the outskirts of town, at places like Ratcliff, Wapping, or Redriff. Similarly, a shop in the main city of a county will fare better than one in a lesser-known market town within the same county, and a market-town shop will perform better than one in a rural village. A merchant in a coastal town operates differently from someone in the same line of business in a larger, inland town. This is something the merchant must carefully consider before investing in stock.

Sometimes it happens a tradesman serves his apprenticeship in one town, and sets up in another; and sometimes circumstances altering, he removes from one town to another; the change is very important to him, for the goods, which he is to sell in the town he removes to, are sometimes so different from the sorts of goods which he sold in the place he removed from, though in the same way of trade, that he is at a great loss both in changing his hand, and in the judgment of buying. This made me insist, in a former chapter, that a tradesman should take all occasions to extend his knowledge in every kind of goods, that which way soever he may turn his hand, he may have judgment in every thing.

Sometimes a tradesman learns his trade in one town and sets up shop in another; other times, circumstances change and he moves from one town to another. This change is really significant for him because the goods he will be selling in the new town can be quite different from the types of goods he sold before, even if they're in the same line of work. As a result, he struggles both with the change in his craft and with making informed purchasing decisions. This is why I emphasized in a previous chapter that a tradesman should seize every opportunity to broaden his knowledge of different kinds of goods, so that no matter which way he turns, he can make sound judgments in all areas.

In thus changing his circumstances of trade, he must learn, as well as he can, how to furnish his shop suitable to the place he is to trade in, and to sort his goods to the demand which he is like to have there; otherwise he will not only lose the customers for want of proper goods, but will very much lose by the goods which he lays in for sale, there being no demand for them where he is going.

By changing his business environment, he needs to figure out how to stock his shop with items that fit the location he’s selling in and to organize his products based on the likely demand there. If he doesn’t, he not only risks losing customers because he lacks the right goods, but he’ll also suffer significant losses on the items he buys for sale that won’t sell in that area.

When merchants send adventures to our British colonies, it is usual with them to make up to each factor what they call a sortable cargo; that is to say, they want something of every thing that may furnish the tradesmen there with parcels fit to fill their shops, and invite their customers; and if they fail, and do not thus sort their cargoes, the factors there not only complain, as being ill sorted, but the cargo lies by unsold, because there is not a sufficient quantity of sorts to answer the demand, and make them all marketable together.

When merchants send shipments to our British colonies, they typically prepare what they refer to as a sortable cargo; this means they include a variety of items that can provide local traders with stock suitable for their shops and attract customers. If they don’t sort their shipments properly, the local factors not only complain about the poor selection, but the cargo also remains unsold because there isn’t enough variety to meet the demand and make everything sellable at once.

It is the same thing here: if the tradesman's shop is not well sorted, it is not suitably furnished, or fitted to supply his customers; and nothing dishonours him more than to have people come to buy things usual to be had in such shops, and go away without them. The next thing they say to one another is, 'I went to that shop, but I could not be furnished; they are not stocked there for a trade; one seldom finds any thing there that is new or fashionable:' and so they go away to another shop; and not only go away themselves, but carry others away with them—for it is observable, that the buyers or retail customers, especially the ladies, follow one another as sheep follow the flock; and if one buys a beautiful silk, or a cheap piece of Holland, or a new-fashioned thing of any kind, the next inquiry is, where it was bought; and the shop is presently recommended for a shop well sorted, and for a place where things are to be had not only cheap and good, but of the newest fashion, and where they have always great choice to please the curious, and to supply whatever is called for. And thus the trade runs away insensibly to the shops which are best sorted.

It’s the same here: if a shopkeeper's store isn’t well organized, it won’t be properly stocked to meet customer demands, and nothing embarrasses them more than seeing people come in looking for common items and leave empty-handed. The next thing they say to each other is, “I went to that shop, but I couldn’t find anything; they don’t have a proper inventory; you rarely find anything new or trendy there.” So, they head to another store. Not only do they leave, but they also take others with them—it's noticeable that shoppers, especially women, tend to follow each other like a flock of sheep; if one buys a beautiful piece of silk, a cheap fabric, or something trendy, the next question is where it was purchased. That shop quickly gets recommended as one that’s well-stocked, where you can find items that are not only affordable and high quality but also the latest styles, and where there’s always a great selection to satisfy those with discerning tastes and meet whatever requests arise. In this way, business gradually shifts to shops that are better organized.

3. The retail tradesman in especial, but even every tradesman in his station, must furnish himself with a competent stock of patience; I mean, that patience which is needful to bear with all sorts of impertinence, and the most provoking curiosity, that it is possible to imagine the buyers, even the worst of them, are or can be guilty of. A tradesman behind his counter must have no flesh and blood about him, no passions, no resentment. He must never be angry; no, not so much as seem to be so. If a customer tumbles him five hundred pounds' worth of goods, and scarce bids money for any thing—nay, though they really come to his shop with no intent to buy, as many do, only to see what is to be sold, and if they cannot be better pleased than they are at some other shop where they intend to buy, it is all one, the tradesman must take it, and place it to the account of his calling, that it is his business to be ill used, and resent nothing; and so must answer as obligingly to those that give him an hour or two's trouble and buy nothing, as he does to those who in half the time lay out ten or twenty pounds. The case is plain: it is his business to get money, to sell and please; and if some do give him trouble and do not buy, others make him amends, and do buy; and as for the trouble, it is the business of his shop.

3. Retailers, in particular, but every tradesman in their role, needs to stock up on a good amount of patience; I mean, the kind of patience required to deal with all sorts of rudeness and the most infuriating curiosity that buyers—yes, even the worst of them—can show. A tradesman behind the counter must be emotionless, without passions or grudges. He must never show anger, not even a hint of it. If a customer piles up five hundred pounds' worth of goods and hardly offers any money—or even comes to the shop with no intention of buying, just to see what's available—like many do, simply to compare with other shops before deciding where to purchase, it doesn't matter. The tradesman must accept it and recognize that it’s part of his job to be mistreated and not take offense; he must respond just as politely to those who waste an hour or two and buy nothing as he does to those who spend ten or twenty pounds in half that time. The situation is straightforward: his work is to make sales and satisfy customers. While some may give him a hard time without buying, others will compensate and actually make purchases; and as for the trouble, it’s simply part of running his shop.

I have heard that some ladies, and those, too, persons of good note, have taken their coaches and spent a whole afternoon in Ludgate Street or Covent Garden, only to divert themselves in going from one mercer's shop to another, to look upon their fine silks, and to rattle and banter the journeymen and shopkeepers, and have not so much as the least occasion, much less intention, to buy any thing; nay, not so much as carrying any money out with them to buy anything if they fancied it: yet this the mercers who understand themselves know their business too well to resent; nor if they really knew it, would they take the least notice of it, but perhaps tell the ladies they were welcome to look upon their goods; that it was their business to show them; and that if they did not come to buy now, they might perhaps see they were furnished to please them when they might have occasion.

I've heard that some women, including those of good standing, have taken their carriages and spent an entire afternoon in Ludgate Street or Covent Garden, just to enjoy browsing from one mercer's shop to another, looking at their beautiful silks, and teasing the workers and shopkeepers. They have no real reason, let alone intention, to buy anything; in fact, they don't even bring any money along to buy something they might like. However, the mercers who know their trade are too savvy to take offense at this. If they truly understood, they wouldn't pay any attention to it, but might instead tell the ladies they’re welcome to look at their goods; that it’s their job to show them; and that if they’re not buying now, they might find something they like when they do need it.

On the other hand, I have been told that sometimes those sorts of ladies have been caught in their own snare; that is to say, have been so engaged by the good usage of the shopkeeper, and so unexpectedly surprised with some fine thing or other that has been shown them, that they have been drawn in by their fancy against their design, to lay out money, whether they had it or no; that is to say, to buy, and send home for money to pay for it.

On the other hand, I've heard that sometimes those kinds of women get caught in their own trap; meaning, they get so caught up in the kindness of the shopkeeper and are so unexpectedly amazed by some nice item or another that they end up giving in to their desires, spending money, whether they have it or not; in other words, buying things and sending home for cash to pay for them.

But let it be how and which way it will, whether mercer or draper, or what trade you please, the man that stands behind the counter must be all courtesy, civility, and good manners; he must not be affronted, or any way moved, by any manner of usage, whether owing to casualty or design; if he sees himself ill used, he must wink, and not see it—he must at least not appear to see it, nor any way show dislike or distaste; if he does, he reproaches not only himself but his shop, and puts an ill name upon the general usuage of customers in it; and it is not to be imagined how, in this gossiping, tea-drinking age, the scandal will run, even among people who have had no knowledge of the person first complaining. 'Such a shop!' says a certain lady to a citizen's wife in conversation, as they were going to buy clothes; 'I am resolved I won't go to it; the fellow that keeps it is saucy and rude: if I lay out my money, I expect to be well used; if I don't lay it out, I expect to be well treated.'

But however it turns out, whether you're a merchant or a tailor, or whatever job you have, the person behind the counter needs to be all about courtesy, civility, and good manners. They must not take offense or get upset by any kind of treatment, whether it's accidental or intentional. If they feel they're being treated poorly, they should ignore it and not acknowledge it—at least not openly—and they shouldn't show any dislike or displeasure. If they do, they not only shame themselves but also their business, tarnishing the reputation of all the customers who shop there. In this gossiping, tea-drinking era, the word will spread fast, even among those who don't know the original complainer. "What a terrible shop!" a certain lady says to a citizen's wife while they’re out shopping for clothes. "I've decided I won't go there; the guy who runs it is rude and arrogant. If I’m spending my money, I expect to be treated well; if I’m not spending it, I still expect to be treated well."

'Why, Madam,' says the citizen, 'did the man of the shop use your ladyship ill?'

'Why, Ma'am,' says the citizen, 'did the shopkeeper treat you badly?'

Lady.—No, I can't say he used me ill, for I never was in his shop.

Lady.—No, I can't say he treated me poorly, because I was never in his shop.

Cit.—How does your ladyship know he does so then?

Cit.—How does your lady know he's doing that then?

Lady.—Why, I know he used another lady saucily, because she gave him a great deal of trouble, as he called it, and did not buy.

Lady.—Well, I know he treated another woman cheekily because she caused him a lot of hassle, as he put it, and didn’t make a purchase.

Cit.—Was it the lady that told you so herself, Madam?

Cit.—Did the lady tell you that herself, Ma'am?

Lady.—I don't know, really, I have forgot who it was; but I have such a notion in my head, and I don't care to try, for I hate the sauciness of shopkeepers when they don't understand themselves.

Lady.—I honestly can’t remember who it was; but I have this idea in my head, and I don’t want to try, because I can’t stand the attitude of shopkeepers when they’re clueless.

Cit.—Well; but, Madam, perhaps it may be a mistake—and the lady that told you was not the person neither?

Cit.—Well, ma'am, maybe it was a mistake—and the woman who told you might not have been the right person either?

Lady.—Oh, Madam, I remember now who told me; it was my Lady Tattle, when I was at Mrs Whymsy's on a visiting day; it was the talk of the whole circle, and all the ladies took notice of it, and said they would take care to shun that shop.

Lady.—Oh, Madam, I remember now who told me; it was my Lady Tattle when I was visiting Mrs. Whymsy on a social day; it was the talk of the whole group, and all the ladies noticed it and said they would make sure to avoid that shop.

Cit.—Sure, Madam, the lady was strangely used; did she tell any of the particulars?

Cit.—Sure, Ma'am, the lady was treated strangely; did she share any of the details?

Lady.—No; I did not understand that she told the particulars, for it seems it was not to her, but to some other lady, a friend of hers; but it was all one; the company took as much notice of it as if it had been to her, and resented it as much, I assure you.

Lady.—No; I didn’t realize she shared the details because it seems she was talking to another lady, a friend of hers; but it doesn’t matter. The group reacted to it just as if it had been directed at her, and they were just as upset about it, I assure you.

Cit.—Yet, and without examining the truth of the fact.

Cit.—Still, and without looking into the truth of the matter.

Lady.—We did not doubt the story.

Lady.—We believed the story without question.

Cit.—But had no other proof of it, Madam, than her relation?

Cit.—But did you have any other proof of it, ma'am, besides her story?

Lady.—Why, that's true; nobody asked for a proof; it was enough to tell the story.

Lady.—Well, that's true; no one asked for proof; it was enough to share the story.

Cit.—What! though perhaps the lady did not know the person, or whether it was true or no, and perhaps had it from a third or fourth hand—your ladyship knows any body's credit may be blasted at that rate.

Cit.—What! Even if the lady didn't know the person, or if it was true or not, and maybe heard it from someone else—your ladyship knows anyone's reputation can be destroyed that way.

Lady.—We don't inquire so nicely, you know, into the truth of stories at a tea-table.

Lady.—We don’t dig into the truth of stories so thoroughly at a tea table, you know.

Cit.—No, Madam, that's true; but when reputation is at stake, we should be a little careful too.

Cit.—No, ma'am, that's true; but when our reputation is on the line, we should be a bit cautious too.

Lady.—Why, that's true too. But why are you so concerned about it, Madam? do you know the man that keeps the shop?

Lady.—That's a good point. But why are you so worried about it, ma'am? Do you know the guy who runs the shop?

Cit.—No otherwise, Madam, than that I have often bought there, and I always found them the most civil, obliging people in the world.

Cit.—Not really, Madam, other than that I’ve often shopped there, and I always found them to be the kindest, most helpful people around.

Lady.—It may be they know you, Madam.

Lady.—They might recognize you, ma'am.

Cit.—I am persuaded they don't, for I seldom went but I saw new faces, for they have a great many servants and journeymen in the shop.

Cit.—I believe they don’t, because whenever I went, I usually saw new faces, since they have a lot of workers and apprentices in the shop.

Lady.—It may be you are easy to be pleased; you are good-humoured yourself, and cannot put their patience to any trial.

Lady.—You might be someone who is easily satisfied; you’re cheerful yourself and don’t test their patience at all.

Cit.—Indeed, Madam, just the contrary; I believe I made them tumble two or three hundred pounds' worth of goods one day, and bought nothing; and yet it was all one; they used me as well as if I had laid out twenty pounds.

Cit.—Actually, Madam, it was the opposite; I think I caused them to drop two or three hundred pounds' worth of goods one day, and I bought nothing; but it didn’t matter; they treated me just as well as if I had spent twenty pounds.

Lady.—Why, so they ought.

Lady.—Well, they should.

Cit.—Yes, Madam, but then it is a token they do as they ought, and understand themselves.

Cit.—Yes, Madam, but then it shows they're behaving as they should and truly understand themselves.

Lady.—Well, I don't know much of it indeed, but thus I was told.

Lady.—Well, I honestly don't know a lot about it, but this is what I was told.

Cit.—Well, but if your ladyship would know the truth of it, you would do a piece of justice to go and try them.

Cit.—Well, if you really want to know the truth, it would be fair to go and try them out.

Lady.—Not I; besides, I have a mercer of my acquaintance.

Lady.—Not me; besides, I know a fabric dealer.

Cit.—Well, Madam, I'll wait on your ladyship to your own mercer, and if you can't find any thing to your liking, will you go and try the other shop?

Cit.—Well, Madam, I'll accompany you to your mercer, and if you can't find anything you like, will you go and check out the other shop?

Lady.—Oh! I am sure I shall deal if I go to my mercer.

Lady.—Oh! I'm sure I will manage if I go to my fabric store.

Cit.—Well, but if you should, let us go for a frolic, and give the other as much trouble as we can for nothing, and see how he'll behave, for I want to be satisfied; if I find them as your ladyship has been told, I'll never go there any more.

Cit.—Well, if you insist, let’s go have some fun and mess with the other person as much as we can for no reason, and see how they react. I want to know for sure; if I find things are as you've been told, I’ll never visit again.

Lady.—Upon that condition I agree—I will go with you; but I will go and lay out my money at my own mercer's first, because I wont be tempted.

Lady.—Under that condition, I agree—I’ll go with you; but first, I’ll stop by my own mercer's to spend my money because I don’t want to be tempted.

Cit.—Well, Madam, I'll wait on your ladyship till you have laid out your money.

Cit.—Well, Ma'am, I'll wait for you until you've decided on your spending.

After this discourse they drove away to the mercer's shop where the lady used to buy; and when they came there, the lady was surprised—the shop was shut up, and nobody to be seen. The next door was a laceman's, and the journeyman being at the door, the lady sent her servant to desire him to speak a word or two to her; and when he came, says the lady to him,

After this conversation, they drove off to the mercer's shop where the lady usually shopped. When they arrived, she was surprised to find the shop closed and with no one around. Next door was a lace shop, and since the worker was at the door, the lady sent her servant to ask him to come over for a moment. When he arrived, the lady said to him,

Pray, how long has Mr—'s shop been shut up?

Pray, how long has Mr—'s shop been closed?

Laceman.—About a month, madam.

Laceman.—About a month, ma'am.

Lady.—What! is Mr—dead?

Lady.—What! Is Mr. dead?

Laceman.—No, madam, he is not dead.

Laceman.—No, ma'am, he’s not dead.

Lady.—What then, pray?

Lady.—What then, please?

Laceman.—Something worse, madam; he has had some misfortunes.

Laceman.—Something worse, ma'am; he's faced some setbacks.

Lady.—I am very sorry to hear it, indeed. So her ladyship made her bow, and her coachman drove away.

Lady.—I'm really sorry to hear that. So she curtsied, and her chauffeur drove off.

The short of the story was, her mercer was broke; upon which the city lady prevailed upon her ladyship to go to the other shop, which she did, but declared beforehand she would buy nothing, but give the mercer all the trouble she could; and so said the other. And to make the thing more sure, she would have them go into the shop single, because she fancied the mercer knew the city lady, and therefore would behave more civilly to them both on that account, the other having laid out her money there several times. Well, they went in, and the lady asked for such and such rich things, and had them shown her, to a variety that she was surprised at; but not the best or richest things they could show her gave her any satisfaction—either she did not like the pattern, or the colours did not suit her fancy, or they were too dear; and so she prepares to leave the shop, her coach standing at a distance, which she ordered, that they might not guess at her quality.

The short version of the story is that her merchant was broke; so the city lady persuaded her ladyship to visit another shop, which she agreed to do but made it clear beforehand that she wouldn’t buy anything and only intended to give the merchant a hard time. The city lady wanted them to enter the shop separately because she thought the merchant recognized her and would therefore treat them both more politely since she had spent money there multiple times. They went in, and the lady asked to see various expensive items, which they showed her in surprising amounts; however, none of the best or most luxurious items satisfied her—either she didn’t like the pattern, the colors didn’t appeal to her, or they were too expensive. So she got ready to leave the shop, with her coach waiting at a distance, which she had arranged to avoid revealing her status.

But she was quite deceived in her expectation; for the mercer, far from treating her in the manner as she had heard, used her with the utmost civility and good manners. She treated him, on the contrary, as she said herself, even with a forced rudeness; she gave him all the impertinent trouble she was able, as above; and, pretending to like nothing he showed, turned away with an air of contempt, intimating that his shop was ill furnished, and that she should be easily served, she doubted not, at another.

But she was completely wrong in her expectations; the merchant, instead of treating her the way she had heard, was extremely polite and courteous. She, on the other hand, as she admitted herself, treated him with a sort of forced rudeness; she made things as difficult for him as she could, as mentioned above; and pretending to dislike everything he showed her, she turned away with a look of disdain, suggesting that his shop was poorly stocked and that she was sure she could find what she needed elsewhere.

He told her he was very unhappy in not having any thing that suited her fancy—that, if she knew what particular things would please her, he would have them in two hours' time for her, if all the French and Italian merchants' warehouses in London, or all the weavers' looms in Spitalfields, could furnish them. But when that would not do, she comes forward from his back shop, where she had plagued him about an hour and a half; and makes him the slight compliment of (in a kind of a scornful tone too), 'I am sorry I have given you so much trouble.'

He told her he was really unhappy not having anything that matched her taste—if she knew what specific items would make her happy, he would have them ready for her in two hours, assuming all the French and Italian merchants' warehouses in London, or all the looms in Spitalfields, could supply them. But when that didn't work, she stepped out from his back shop, where she had been bothering him for about an hour and a half, and gave him the little compliment of (in a slightly scornful tone as well), 'I'm sorry I've caused you so much trouble.'

'The trouble, madam, is nothing; it is my misfortune not to please you; but, as to trouble, my business is to oblige the ladies, my customers; if I show my goods, I may sell them; if I do not show them, I cannot; if it is not a trouble to you, I'll show you every piece of goods in my shop; if you do not buy now, you may perhaps buy another time.' And thus, in short, he pursued her with all the good words in the world, and waited on her towards the door.

"The problem, ma'am, is nothing; my misfortune is that I can't please you. But as for trouble, my job is to serve the ladies, my customers. If I show my products, I might sell them; if I don’t show them, I definitely can’t. If it’s not an inconvenience for you, I’ll show you every item in my shop. If you don’t buy now, you might consider buying another time." And so, he continued to flatter her with all the kindest words and escorted her toward the door.

As she comes forward, there she spied the city lady, who had just used the partner as the lady had used the chief master; and there, as if it had been by mere chance, she salutes her with, 'Your servant, cousin; pray, what brought you here?' The cousin answers, 'Madam, I am mighty glad to see your ladyship here; I have been haggling here a good while, but this gentleman and I cannot bargain, and I was just going away.'

As she approached, she noticed the city woman, who had just treated the partner the same way the lady had treated the chief master; and there, almost as if by coincidence, she greeted her with, 'Hello, cousin; what brings you here?' The cousin replied, 'Ma'am, I'm really glad to see you here; I've been negotiating for quite a while, but this gentleman and I can't reach a deal, and I was just about to leave.'

'Why, then,' says the lady, 'you have been just such another customer as I, for I have troubled the gentleman mercer this two hours, and I cannot meet with any thing to my mind.' So away they go together to the door; and the lady gets the mercer to send one of his servants to bid her coachman drive to the door, showing him where the fellow stood.

'Why, then,' says the lady, 'you've been just like me, because I've been bothering the gentleman at the fabric shop for two hours, and I can't find anything I like.' So they head to the door together, and the lady gets the shopkeeper to send one of his employees to tell her driver to come to the door, pointing out where the guy is waiting.

While the boy was gone, she takes the city lady aside, and talking softly, the mercer and his partner, seeing them talk together, withdrew, but waited at a distance to be ready to hand them to the coach. So they began a new discourse, as follows:—

While the boy was away, she pulled the city lady to the side, and as they talked quietly, the mercer and his partner noticed them and stepped back, but stayed close enough to help them into the coach. They then started a new conversation, as follows:—

Lady.—Well, I am satisfied this man has been ill used in the world.

Lady.—Well, I believe this man has been treated unfairly in life.

Cit.—Why, Madam, how does your ladyship find him?

Cit.—So, Ma’am, what do you think of him?

Lady.—Only the most obliging, most gentleman-like man of a tradesman that ever I met with in my life.

Lady.—The most courteous, gentlemanly tradesman I've ever encountered in my life.

Cit.—But did your ladyship try him as you said you would?

Cit.—But did you actually test him like you said you would?

Lady.—Try him! I believe he has tumbled three thousand pounds' worth of goods for me.

Lady.—Give him a shot! I think he's dropped three thousand pounds' worth of stuff for me.

Cit.—Did you oblige him to do so?

Cit.—Did you make him do that?

Lady.—I forced him to it, indeed, for I liked nothing.

Lady.—I really pushed him into it, because I didn't like anything.

Cit.—Is he well stocked with goods?

Cit.—Does he have plenty of goods?

Lady.—I told him his shop was ill furnished.

Lady.—I told him his store was poorly stocked.

Cit.—What did he say to that?

Cit.—What did he say to that?

Lady.—Say! why he carried me into another inner shop, or warehouse, where he had goods to a surprising quantity and value, I confess.

Lady.—So, why did he take me into another back room or storage area, where he had a surprisingly large amount of valuable goods? I admit it.

Cit.—And what could you say, then?

Cit.—So, what do you have to say about it?

Lady.—Say! in truth I was ashamed to say any more, but still was resolved not to be pleased, and so came away, as you see.

Lady.—Honestly, I was embarrassed to say anything more, but I was still determined not to be satisfied, and so I walked away, as you can see.

Cit.—And he has not disobliged you at all, has he?

Cit.—And he hasn't offended you at all, has he?

Lady.—Just the contrary, indeed. (Here she repeated the words the mercer had said to her, and the modesty and civility he had treated her with.)

Lady.—Quite the opposite, actually. (Here she repeated what the mercer had said to her, along with the respect and courtesy he had shown her.)

Cit.—Well, Madam, I assure you I have been faithful to my promise, for you cannot have used him so ill as I have used his partner—for I have perfectly abused him for having nothing to please me—I did as good as tell him I believed he was going to break, and that he had no choice.

Cit.—Well, Madam, I promise I've kept my word, because you couldn't have treated him as badly as I have treated his partner—I completely took it out on him for not being able to satisfy me—I practically told him I thought he was about to collapse and that he had no other option.

Lady.—And how did he treat you?

Lady.—So, how did he treat you?

Cit.—Just in the same manner as his partner did your ladyship, all mild and mannerly, smiling, and in perfect temper; for my part, if I was a young wench again, I should be in love with such a man.

Cit.—Just like your ladyship's partner, he was all calm and polite, smiling, and in a great mood; for my part, if I were a young woman again, I'd definitely fall for a guy like him.

Lady.—Well, but what shall we do now?

Lady.—So, what should we do now?

Cit.—Why, be gone. I think we have teazed them enough; it would be cruel to bear-bait them any more.

Cit.—Come on, let’s leave. I think we’ve bothered them enough; it would be harsh to keep provoking them any further.

Lady.—No, I am not for teazing them any more; but shall we really go away, and buy nothing?

Lady.—No, I’m done teasing them; but are we really going to leave without buying anything?

Cit.—Nay, that shall be just as your ladyship pleases—you know I promised you I would not buy; that is to say, unless you discharge me of that obligation.

Cit.—No, that will be just as you wish, your ladyship. You know I promised I wouldn’t buy anything, that is, unless you relieve me of that obligation.

Lady.—I cannot, for shame, go out of this shop, and lay out nothing.

Lady.—I can’t, out of shame, leave this shop without buying anything.

Cit.—Did your ladyship see any thing that pleased you?

Cit.—Did you see anything that you liked?

Lady.—I only saw some of the finest things in England—I don't think all the city of Paris can outdo him.

Lady.—I only saw some of the best things in England—I don’t think all of Paris can top him.

Cit.—Well, madam, if you resolve to buy, let us go and look again.

Cit.—Well, ma'am, if you're set on buying, let's go check it out again.

Lady.—'Come, then.' And upon that the lady, turning to the mercer—'Come, sir,' says she, 'I think I will look upon that piece of brocade again; I cannot find in my heart to give you all this trouble for nothing.'

Lady.—'Alright, then.' And with that, the lady turned to the merchant—'Come on, sir,' she says, 'I think I’d like to see that piece of brocade again; I can’t bring myself to make you go through all this trouble for nothing.'

'Madam,' says the mercer, 'I shall be very glad if I can be so happy as to please you; but, I beseech your ladyship, don't speak of the trouble, for that is the duty of our trade; we must never think our business a trouble.'

'Madam,' says the merchant, 'I would be very pleased if I could make you happy; but, I ask you, please don't mention the hassle, as it’s part of our job; we should never view our work as a burden.'

Upon this the ladies went back with him into his inner shop, and laid out between sixty and seventy pounds, for they both bought rich suits of clothes, and used his shop for many years after.

Upon this, the ladies followed him into his inner shop and spent between sixty and seventy pounds, as they both purchased luxurious outfits and continued to use his shop for many years afterward.

The short inference from this long discourse is this: That here you see, and I could give many examples very like this, how, and in what manner, a shopkeeper is to behave himself in the way of his business—what impertinences, what taunts, flouts, and ridiculous things, he must bear in his business, and must not show the least return, or the least signal of disgust—he must have no passions, no fire in his temper—he must be all soft and smooth: nay, if his real temper be naturally fiery and hot, he must show none of it in his shop—he must be a perfect complete hypocrite, if he will be a complete tradesman.[16]

The brief takeaway from this lengthy discussion is this: Here you can see, and I could provide many similar examples, how a shopkeeper should conduct himself in his business—what rudeness, what insults, taunts, and absurdities he must tolerate without showing any signs of annoyance or disgust—he must have no strong emotions, no fire in his temper—he must be completely calm and composed: in fact, if his true temperament is naturally fiery and passionate, he must hide it entirely in his shop—he must be a total hypocrite if he wants to be a successful tradesman.[16]

It is true, natural tempers are not to be always counterfeited—the man cannot easily be a lamb in his shop, and a lion in himself; but let it be easy or hard, it must be done, and it is done. There are men who have, by custom and usage, brought themselves to it, that nothing could be meeker and milder than they, when behind the counter, and yet nothing be more furious and raging in every other part of life—nay, the provocations they have met with in their shops have so irritated their rage, that they would go upstairs from their shop, and fall into phrensies, and a kind of madness, and beat their heads against the wall, and mischief themselves, if not prevented, till the violence of it had gotten vent, and the passions abate and cool. Nay, I heard once of a shopkeeper that behaved himself thus to such an extreme, that, when he was provoked by the impertinence of the customers, beyond what his temper could bear, he would go upstairs and beat his wife, kick his children about like dogs, and be as furious for two or three minutes as a man chained down in Bedlam, and when the heat was over, would sit down and cry faster then the children he had abused; and after the fit was over he would go down into his shop again, and be as humble, as courteous, and as calm as any man whatever—so absolute a government of his passions had he in the shop, and so little out of it; in the shop a soul-less animal that can resent nothing, and in the family a madman; in the shop meek like the lamb, but in the family outrageous like a Lybian lion.

It’s true, natural temperaments can’t always be faked—the man can’t easily be gentle in his shop and fierce within himself; but whether it’s easy or hard, it’s necessary, and it happens. There are men who, through habit and routine, have managed to be so meek and mild behind the counter, yet are nothing but furious and raging in every other part of life. In fact, the frustrations they experience in their shops have stirred such irritation in them that they would go upstairs after work and fall into frenzies and a kind of madness, banging their heads against the wall and hurting themselves if not stopped, until the intensity subsided and their emotions calmed down. I even once heard of a shopkeeper who went to such extremes that, when he was pushed beyond his breaking point by rude customers, he would go upstairs and hit his wife, kick his kids around like pets, and rage for two or three minutes like a man locked up in an insane asylum. When his anger subsided, he would sit down and cry harder than the children he had just mistreated; and once he had calmed down, he would return to his shop and be as humble, courteous, and composed as anyone could be—he had such absolute control over his emotions in the shop, and so little outside of it; in the shop, he was a soulless creature who felt nothing, but at home, he was a madman; meek like a lamb in the shop, but outrageous like a Libyan lion at home.

The sum of the matter is this: it is necessary for a tradesman to subject himself, by all the ways possible, to his business; his customers are to be his idols: so far as he may worship idols by allowance, he is to bow down to them and worship them;[17] at least, he is not any way to displease them, or show any disgust or distaste at any thing they say or do. The bottom of it all is, that he is intending to get money by them; and it is not for him that gets money by them to offer the least inconvenience to them by whom he gets it; but he is to consider, that, as Solomon says, 'The borrower is servant to the lender,' so the seller is servant to the buyer.

The bottom line is this: a tradesperson must dedicate themselves in every way possible to their business; their customers should be treated like idols. As much as they can reasonably admire these "idols," they should show them respect and not express any displeasure or distaste regarding anything the customers say or do. Ultimately, the goal is to make money from them, and it’s not the person making money who should inconvenience those from whom they earn it. They need to keep in mind that, as Solomon said, "The borrower is servant to the lender," so the seller is servant to the buyer.

When a tradesman has thus conquered all his passions, and can stand before the storm of impertinence, he is said to be fitted up for the main article, namely, the inside of the counter.

When a tradesman has managed to control all his emotions and can face the onslaught of rudeness, he is considered ready for the main challenge, which is dealing with the counter inside.

On the other hand, we see that the contrary temper, nay, but the very suggestion of it, hurries people on to ruin their trade, to disoblige the customers, to quarrel with them, and drive them away. We see by the lady above, after having seen the ways she had taken to put this man out of temper—I say, we see it conquered her temper, and brought her to lay out her money cheerfully, and be his customer ever after.

On the other hand, we notice that the opposite attitude, or even just the hint of it, pushes people to ruin their business, upset their customers, argue with them, and drive them away. As we can see from the lady mentioned earlier, after observing the lengths she went to provoke this man’s anger – I mean, we can see it ended up calming her down, and she started spending her money happily, becoming his customer from then on.

A sour, morose, dogmatic temper would have sent these ladies both away with their money in their pockets; but the man's patience and temper drove the lady back to lay out her money, and engaged her entirely.

A bitter, gloomy, stubborn attitude would have sent these ladies away with their money still in their pockets; but the man's patience and demeanor made the lady come back to spend her money and fully engaged her.

FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:

Paternoster Row has long been the chief seat of the bookselling and publishing trade in London; and there are now some splendid shops of mercers or haberdashers in St Paul's Churchyard, also in Ludgate hill adjoining.

Paternoster Row has long been the main hub for bookselling and publishing in London, and there are now some great shops of mercers or haberdashers in St Paul's Churchyard, also on Ludgate Hill nearby.

[The necessity here insisted on seems a hard one, and scarcely consistent with a just morality. Yet, if the tradesman takes a right view of his situation, he will scarcely doubt the propriety of Defoe's advice. He must consider, that, in his shop, he is, as it were, acting a part. He performs a certain character in the drama of our social arrangements, one which requires all the civility and forbearance above insisted on. He is not called upon, in such circumstances, to feel, speak, and act, as he would find himself in honour required to do in his private or absolutely personal capacity—in his own house, for instance, or in any public place where he mingled on a footing of equality with his fellow-citizens. Accordingly, there is such a general sense of the justifiableness of his conducting himself in this submissive spirit, that no one would think of imputing it to him as a fault; but he would be more apt to be censured or ridiculed if he had so little sense as to take offence, in his capacity of tradesman, at any thing which it would only concern him to resent if it were offered to him in his capacity as a private citizen.

[The necessity being discussed here seems tough and not really in line with fair morality. However, if the shopkeeper takes a proper look at their situation, they should have no doubt about the wisdom of Defoe's advice. They need to see that, in their store, they are essentially playing a role. They are representing a certain character in the drama of our social interactions, one that demands all the politeness and patience mentioned earlier. They aren't expected, in such a situation, to feel, speak, and act as they would be obligated to do in their personal life—in their own home, for example, or in any public setting where they interact as equals with other citizens. Therefore, there is a general understanding that it's completely acceptable for them to behave in this humble way, and no one would think of blaming them for it; instead, they'd be more likely to be criticized or laughed at if they were so insensitive as to take offense, in their role as a shopkeeper, at anything that would only bother them if it were said to them as an individual.]

An incident, somewhat like that so dramatically related by Defoe, occurred a few years ago in the northern capital. A lady had, through whim, pestered a mercer in the manner related in the text, turning over all his goods, and only treating him with rudeness in return. When she finally turned to leave the shop, to inquire, as she said, for better and cheaper goods elsewhere, she found that a shower was falling, against which she had no protection. The tradesman, who had politely shown her to the door, observing her hesitate on the threshold at sight of the rain, requested her to wait a moment, and, stepping backwards for his umbrella, instantly returned, and, in the kindest accents, requested her to accept the loan of it. She took it, and went away, but in a few minutes returned it, in a totally different frame of spirit, and not only purchased extensively on this occasion, but became a constant customer for the future.

An incident, somewhat similar to the one dramatically described by Defoe, happened a few years ago in the northern capital. A woman had, out of whim, bothered a fabric seller much like mentioned in the text, going through all his products and treating him rudely in return. When she finally decided to leave the shop, claiming she was looking for better and cheaper items somewhere else, she discovered that it was raining, and she had no way to stay dry. The shopkeeper, who had politely escorted her to the door, noticed her hesitating on the threshold due to the rain and asked her to wait a moment. He stepped back to grab his umbrella and quickly returned, kindly offering it to her to use. She accepted it and left, but just a few minutes later, she returned it in a completely different mood, and not only did she make a large purchase this time, but she also became a regular customer from then on.

Another tradesman in the same city was so remarkable for his imperturbable civility, that it became the subject of a bet—an individual undertaking to irritate him, or, if he failed, to forfeit a certain sum. He went to the shop, and caused an immense quantity of the finest silks to be turned over, after which he coolly asked for a pennyworth of a certain splendid piece of satin. 'By all means,' said the discreet trader; 'allow me, Sir, to have your penny.' The coin was handed to him, and, taking up the piece of satin, and placing the penny on the end of it, he cut round with his scissors, thus detaching a little bit of exactly the size and shape of the piece of money which was to purchase it. This, with the most polite air imaginable, he handed to his customer, whose confusion may be imagined.]

Another tradesman in the same city was so known for his unflappable politeness that it became the topic of a bet—someone challenged themselves to annoy him, or if they couldn't, to lose a certain amount of money. They went to the shop and made a huge mess of the finest silks, then casually asked for a penny's worth of a certain beautiful piece of satin. "Of course," said the composed trader; "please, sir, let me have your penny." The coin was given to him, and taking the piece of satin, he placed the penny on the end of it and cut around it with his scissors, perfectly creating a little piece that was exactly the size and shape of the coin to pay for it. With the most polite demeanor imaginable, he handed it to his customer, whose embarrassment can only be imagined.

[It appears to the editor that the case is here somewhat over-stated. While imperterbable good temper and civility are indispensible in the shopkeeper, it is not impossible that he may also err in displaying a too great obsequiousness of manner. This, by disgusting the common sense and good taste of customers, may do as much harm as want of civility. A too pressing manner, likewise, does harm, by causing the customer to feel as if he were obliged to purchase. The medium of an easy, obliging, and good-humoured manner, is perhaps what suits best. But here, as in many other things, it is not easy to lay down any general rule. Much must be left to the goos sense and tact of the trader.]

[It seems to the editor that the case is somewhat exaggerated. While unshakeable good temper and politeness are essential for shopkeepers, it's possible for them to go too far in showing a too great obsequiousness of manner. This can annoy customers and go against their common sense and good taste, causing as much harm as being rude. A too pressing approach also hurts by making customers feel obliged to buy. The best approach seems to be an easygoing, accommodating, and cheerful manner. However, as with many other things, it's hard to establish a general rule. Much relies on the good sense and tact of the trader.]


CHAPTER IX

OF OTHER REASONS FOR THE TRADESMAN'S DISASTERS: AND, FIRST, OF INNOCENT DIVERSIONS

OF OTHER REASONS FOR THE TRADESMAN'S DISASTERS: AND, FIRST, OF INNOCENT DIVERSIONS


A few directions seasonably given, and wisely received, will be sufficient to guide a tradesman in a right management of his business, so as that, if he observes them, he may secure his prosperity and success: but it requires a long and serious caveat to warn him of the dangers he meets with in his way. Trade is a straight and direct way, if they will but keep in it with a steady foot, and not wander, and launch out here and there, as a loose head and giddy fancy will prompt them to do.

A few timely tips, given thoughtfully, are enough to help a business owner manage their company well, ensuring they can achieve success and prosperity if they follow them. However, it takes a long and careful warning to alert them to the dangers they may face along the way. Business is a clear and direct path, as long as they stay focused and don’t stray, wandering off here and there because of a restless mind or capricious whims.

The road, I say, is straight and direct; but there are many turnings and openings in it, both to the right hand and to the left, in which, if a tradesman but once ventures to step awry, it is ten thousand to one but he loses himself, and very rarely finds his way back again; at least if he does, it is like a man that has been lost in a wood; he comes out with a scratched face, and torn clothes, tired and spent, and does not recover himself in a long while after.

The road, I say, is straight and direct; but there are many turns and openings along it, both to the right and to the left. If a tradesman takes even one wrong step, there’s a good chance he’ll lose his way and hardly ever find his way back. At least when he does, it’s like someone who has been lost in a forest; he emerges with a scratched face and torn clothes, exhausted and worn out, and it takes him a long time to get back to normal.

In a word, one steady motion carries him up, but many things assist to pull him down; there are many ways open to his ruin, but few to his rising: and though employment is said to be the best fence against temptations, and he that is busy heartily in his business, temptations to idleness and negligence will not be so busy about him, yet tradesmen are as often drawn from their business as other men; and when they are so, it is more fatal to them a great deal, than it is to gentlemen and persons whose employments do not call for their personal attendance so much as a shop does.

In short, one steady action lifts him up, but many things pull him down; there are countless paths to his downfall, but only a few to his success. Although staying busy is said to be the best defense against temptation, and someone who is genuinely engrossed in their work won't face as many temptations to be idle or careless, tradespeople get distracted from their work just like anyone else. However, when they do get sidetracked, it's often much more damaging to them than it is for gentlemen or those whose jobs don't require their constant presence like a shop does.

Among the many turnings and bye-lanes, which, as I say, are to be met with in the straight road of trade, there are two as dangerous and fatal to their prosperity as the worst, though they both carry an appearance of good, and promise contrary to what they perform; these are—

Among the many twists and side streets, which, as I mentioned, can be found along the straight path of business, there are two that are as dangerous and detrimental to their success as the worst, even though they both seem good and promise the opposite of what they deliver; these are—

I. Pleasures and diversions, especially such as they will have us call innocent diversions.

I. Pleasures and pastimes, especially those that we refer to as innocent activities.

II. Projects and adventures, and especially such as promise mountains of profit in nubibus [in the clouds], and are therefore the more likely to ensnare the poor eager avaricious tradesman.

II. Projects and adventures, especially those that promise huge profits in nubibus [in the clouds], are therefore more likely to trap the desperate, greedy trader.

1. I am now to speak of the first, namely, pleasures and diversions. I cannot allow any pleasures to be innocent, when they turn away either the body or the mind of a tradesman from the one needful thing which his calling makes necessary, and that necessity makes his duty—I mean, the application both of his hands and head to his business. Those pleasures and diversions may be innocent in themselves, which are not so to him: there are very few things in the world that are simply evil, but things are made circumstantially evil when they are not so in themselves: killing a man is not simply sinful; on the contrary, it is not lawful only, but a duty, when justice and the laws of God or man require it; but when done maliciously, from any corrupt principle, or to any corrupted end, is murder, and the worst of crimes.

1. I’m going to talk about the first topic: pleasures and distractions. I can’t consider any pleasures to be harmless if they distract a tradesman’s body or mind from the one essential thing that his job requires, which is his duty—applying both his hands and mind to his work. Some pleasures and distractions might be harmless on their own, but they aren’t for him: very few things in the world are purely evil, but circumstances can make them evil even if they aren’t intrinsically so. For example, killing someone isn’t simply sinful; in fact, it can be not only lawful but a duty when justice and the laws of God or man demand it. However, if it’s done with malicious intent, from any corrupt motive, or for any immoral purpose, then it becomes murder, and it’s the worst kind of crime.

Pleasures and diversions are thus made criminal, when a man is engaged in duty to a full attendance upon such business as those pleasures and diversions necessarily interfere with and interrupt; those pleasures, though innocent in themselves, become a fault in him, because his legal avocations demand his attendance in another place. Thus those pleasures may be lawful to another man, which are not so to him, because another man has not the same obligation to a calling, the same necessity to apply to it, the same cry of a family, whose bread may depend upon his diligence, as a tradesman has.

Pleasures and distractions become problematic when a person is supposed to focus on responsibilities that those pleasures and distractions disrupt. Even if those pleasures are harmless in themselves, they become an issue for him because his job requires him to be elsewhere. What may be acceptable for someone else might not be for him, as that person doesn't have the same obligations to a profession, the same need to commit to it, or the same pressure from a family that relies on his hard work, as a tradesman does.

Solomon, the royal patron of industry, tells us, 'He that is a lover of pleasure, shall be a poor man.' I must not doubt but Solomon is to be understood of tradesmen and working men, such as I am writing of, whose time and application is due to their business, and who, in pursuit of their pleasures, are sure to neglect their shops, or employments, and I therefore render the words thus, to the present purpose—'The tradesman that is a lover of pleasure, shall be a poor man.' I hope I do not wrest the Scripture in my interpretation of it; I am sure it agrees with the whole tenor of the wise man's other discourses.

Solomon, the royal supporter of industry, tells us, 'Those who love pleasure will end up poor.' I have no doubt that Solomon is talking about tradespeople and workers, like those I'm writing about, whose time and effort should go into their work. When they chase after fun, they are likely to neglect their shops or jobs. So, I interpret it this way for our current context—'A tradesperson who loves pleasure will end up poor.' I hope I'm not twisting the Scriptures with my interpretation; it certainly fits with the overall message of the wise man's other teachings.

When I see young shopkeepers keep horses, ride a-hunting, learn dog-language, and keep the sportsmen's brogue upon their tongues, I will not say I read their destiny, for I am no fortuneteller, but I do say, I am always afraid for them; especially when I know that either their fortunes and beginnings are below it, or that their trades are such as in a particular manner to require their constant attendance. As to see a barber abroad on a Saturday, a corn-factor abroad on a Wednesday and Friday, or a Blackwell-hall man on a Thursday, you may as well say a country shopkeeper should go a-hunting on a market-day, or go a-feasting at the fair day of the town where he lives; and yet riding and hunting are otherwise lawful diversions, and in their kind very good for exercise and health.

When I see young shopkeepers with horses, out hunting, learning dog commands, and sporting a hunters' accent, I won’t claim to predict their future because I’m not a fortuneteller, but I will say I constantly worry about them; especially when I know their backgrounds or financial situations don’t match up, or their jobs require their full attention. Seeing a barber out on a Saturday, a grain dealer out on a Wednesday and Friday, or a merchant from Blackwell on a Thursday is like saying a country shopkeeper should go hunting on market day or enjoy a feast on the fair day of their town; yet riding and hunting are otherwise perfectly acceptable pastimes that are great for exercise and health.

I am not for making a galley-slave of a shopkeeper, and have him chained down to the oar; but if he be a wise, a prudent, and a diligent tradesman, he will allow himself as few excursions as possible.

I’m not in favor of turning a shopkeeper into a slave at the oars, but if he’s a smart, careful, and hardworking businessman, he’ll keep his distractions to a minimum.

Business neglected is business lost; it is true, there are some businesses which require less attendance than others, and give a man less occasion of application; but, in general, that tradesman who can satisfy himself to be absent from his business, must not expect success; if he is above the character of a diligent tradesman, he must then be above the business too, and should leave it to somebody, that, having more need of it, will think it worth his while to mind it better.

Business that is ignored is business that is lost; it's true, some businesses need less attention than others and require less effort from a person; however, generally speaking, a business owner who can be okay with being away from their business shouldn't expect to succeed. If they consider themselves above the role of a hard-working business person, then they should also be above the business itself and should hand it over to someone who needs it more and will put in the effort to manage it properly.

Nor, indeed, is it possible a tradesman should be master of any of the qualifications which I have set down to denominate him complete, if he neglects his shop and his time, following his pleasures and diversions.

Nor is it possible for a tradesperson to master any of the skills I've listed that define them as complete if they neglect their shop and their time to pursue their pleasures and distractions.

I will allow that the man is not vicious and wicked, that he is not addicted to drunkenness, to women, to gaming, or any such things as those, for those are not woundings, but murder, downright killing. A man may wound and hurt himself sometimes, in the rage of an ungoverned passion, or in a phrensy or fever, and intend no more; but if he shoots himself through the head, or hangs himself, we are sure then he intended to kill and destroy himself, and he dies inevitably.

I can acknowledge that the man isn't evil or malicious, that he doesn't have a problem with drinking, women, gambling, or anything like that, because those actions aren't just wounds, they're outright murder, plain and simple. A person might hurt themselves occasionally, driven by uncontrolled emotions, madness, or a fever, without meaning any harm; but if he shoots himself in the head or hangs himself, it's clear he intends to end his life, and there's no escaping that fate.

For a tradesman to follow his pleasures, which indeed is generally attended with a slighting of his business, leaving his shop to servants or others, it is evident to me that he is indifferent whether it thrives or no; and, above all, it is evident that his heart is not in his business; that he does not delight in it, or look on it with pleasure. To a complete tradesman there is no pleasure equal to that of being in his business, no delight equal to that of seeing himself thrive, to see trade flow in upon him, and to be satisfied that he goes on prosperously. He will never thrive, that cares not whether he thrives or no. As trade is the chief employment of his life, and is therefore called, by way of eminence, his business, so it should be made the chief delight of his life. The tradesman that does not love his business, will never give it due attendance.

For a tradesperson to indulge in their pleasures, which usually means neglecting their work and leaving the shop to employees or others, it’s clear to me that they don’t care if their business succeeds or fails; and, most importantly, it's obvious that they're not invested in their work, that they don’t enjoy it or view it positively. For a truly dedicated tradesperson, there’s no joy greater than working in their trade, no satisfaction equal to seeing their success, watching business come their way, and feeling assured that things are going well. They won’t succeed if they don’t care about their success. Since trade is the main focus of their life and is therefore rightly called, in a primary sense, their business, it should also be the main source of joy in their life. A tradesperson who doesn’t love their work will never attend to it properly.

Pleasure is a bait to the mind, and the mind will attract the body: where the heart is, the object shall always have the body's company. The great objection I meet with from young tradesmen against this argument is, they follow no unlawful pleasures; they do not spend their time in taverns, and drinking to excess; they do not spend their money in gaming, and so stock-starve their business, and rob the shop to supply the extravagant losses of play; or they do not spend their hours in ill company and debaucheries; all they do, is a little innocent diversion in riding abroad now and then for the air, and for their health, and to ease their thoughts of the throng of other affairs which are heavy upon them, &c.

Pleasure is an attraction for the mind, and the mind pulls in the body: wherever the heart is, the object will always have the body's attention. The main pushback I get from young tradesmen against this idea is that they don’t pursue any unlawful pleasures; they don’t waste their time in bars drinking excessively; they don’t gamble away their money, starving their business and stealing from their shop to cover their gambling losses; or they don’t spend their time in bad company and indulge in debauchery. All they do is take a little innocent break by going out for a ride every now and then for fresh air, for their health, and to relieve their minds from the burdens of other pressing matters, etc.

These, I say, are the excuses of young tradesmen; and, indeed, they are young excuses, and, I may say truly, have nothing in them. It is perhaps true, or I may grant it so for the present purpose, that the pleasure the tradesman takes is, as he says, not unlawful, and that he follows only a little innocent diversion; but let me tell him, the words are ill put together, and the diversion is rather recommended from the word little, than from the word innocent: if it be, indeed, but little, it may be innocent; but the case is quite altered by the extent of the thing; and the innocence lies here, not in the nature of the thing, not in the diversion or pleasure that is taken, but in the time it takes; for if the man spends the time in it which should be spent in his shop or warehouse, and his business suffers by his absence, as it must do, if the absence is long at a time, or often practised—the diversion so taken becomes criminal to him, though the same diversion might be innocent in another.

These are the excuses of young tradespeople; and honestly, they're just young excuses that don't hold water. It might be true, or I'll accept it for now, that the enjoyment the tradesperson experiences is, as they claim, not illegal, and that they engage in only a little harmless fun; but let me tell them, the phrasing is all wrong, and the fun is more justified by the word little than by the word innocent: if it is, in fact, just a little, it can be innocent; but the situation completely changes based on how much time is spent on it; and the innocence doesn't come from the nature of the activity, or the enjoyment involved, but from how long it takes; because if a person spends time on it that should be dedicated to their shop or warehouse, and their business suffers due to their absence, which it surely will if they're gone for too long or do it too often—the fun they have becomes wrong for them, even though the same activity might be innocent for someone else.

Thus I have heard a young tradesman, who loved his bottle, excuse himself, and say, 'It is true, I have been at the tavern, but I was treated, it cost me nothing.' And this, he thinks, clears him of all blame; not considering that when he spends no money, yet he spends five times the value of the money in time. Another says, 'Why, indeed, I was at the tavern yesterday all the afternoon, but I could not help it, and I spent but sixpence.' But at the same time perhaps it might be said he spent five pounds' worth of time, his business being neglected, his shop unattended, his books not posted, his letters not written, and the like—for all those things are works necessary to a tradesman, as well as the attendance on his shop, and infinitely above the pleasure of being treated at the expense of his time. All manner of pleasures should buckle and be subservient to business: he that makes his pleasure be his business, will never make his business be a pleasure. Innocent pleasures become sinful, when they are used to excess, and so it is here; the most innocent diversion becomes criminal, when it breaks in upon that which is the due and just employment of the man's life. Pleasures rob the tradesman, and how, then, can he call them innocent diversions? They are downright thieves; they rob his shop of his attendance, and of the time which he ought to bestow there; they rob his family of their due support, by the man's neglecting that business by which they are to be supported and maintained; and they oftentimes rob the creditors of their just debts, the tradesman sinking by the inordinate use of those innocent diversions, as he calls them, as well by the expense attending them, as the loss of his time, and neglect of his business, by which he is at last reduced to the necessity of shutting up shop in earnest, which was indeed as good as shut before. A shop without a master is like the same shop on a middling holiday, half shut up, and he that keeps it long so, need not doubt but he may in a little time more shut it quite up.

Thus I’ve heard a young tradesman, who enjoyed his drinks, excuse himself by saying, “It’s true, I’ve been at the tavern, but it was free for me, so it didn’t cost me anything.” And he thinks this clears him of any blame, not realizing that when he spends no money, he's actually wasting five times the value of that money in time. Another one says, “Well, I was at the tavern yesterday all afternoon, but I couldn’t avoid it, and I only spent sixpence.” But at the same time, it could be said he wasted five pounds' worth of time because his work was neglected, his shop unattended, his books not updated, his letters not sent, and so on—since all those tasks are just as essential for a tradesman as running his shop, and far more valuable than the enjoyment of being treated while wasting his time. All kinds of pleasures should support and be secondary to business: someone who makes pleasure their business will never find joy in their work. Innocent pleasures become wrong when taken to excess, and that’s the case here; the most harmless entertainment turns into wrongdoing when it interrupts what should rightly occupy a man’s life. Pleasures take away from the tradesman, so how can he call them innocent distractions? They are outright thieves; they rob him of attendance at his shop and the time he should dedicate there; they deprive his family of the support they need by making him neglect the work that provides for them; and they often rob his creditors of what they’re owed, as the tradesman succumbs to the excessive use of those so-called innocent pleasures, both through the money they cost and the time he loses while ignoring his business, ultimately leading him to the point where he must seriously close his shop, which was basically closed already. A shop without a master is like a shop that’s half-closed on a normal holiday, and anyone keeping it like that for too long can be sure that it won't be long before it completely shuts down.

In short, pleasure is a thief to business; how any man can call it innocent, let him answer that does so; it robs him every way, as I have said above: and if the tradesman be a Christian, and has any regard to religion and his duty, I must tell him, that when upon his disasters he shall reflect, and see that he has ruined himself and his family, by following too much those diversions and pleasures which he thought innocent, and which perhaps in themselves were really so, he will find great cause to repent of that which he insisted on as innocent; he will find himself lost, by doing lawful things, and that he made those innocent things sinful, and those lawful things unlawful to him. Thus, as they robbed his family and creditors before of their just debts—for maintenance is a tradesman's just debt to his family, and a wife and children are as much a tradesman's real creditors as those who trusted him with their goods—I say, as his innocent pleasures robbed his family and creditors before, they will rob him now of his peace, and of all that calm of soul which an honest, industrious, though unfortunate, tradesman meets with under his disasters.

In short, pleasure is a distraction to business; how anyone can call it innocent is beyond me. It robs a person in every way, as I mentioned earlier. If the businessman is a Christian and cares about his religion and responsibilities, I must say that when he looks back on his troubles, realizing he has ruined himself and his family by indulging too much in those diversions and pleasures he thought were innocent—pleasures that perhaps were indeed harmless—he will have plenty of reasons to regret what he claimed was innocent. He will see that he has lost everything by engaging in lawful activities and that he turned those innocent things into sinful actions, making what was lawful become unlawful for him. Just as those innocent pleasures previously robbed his family and creditors of their rightful dues—because providing for one's family is a businessman’s duty, and a wife and children are just as much a businessman’s real creditors as those who entrusted him with their goods—so now, those innocent pleasures will rob him of his peace and all the tranquility that an honest, hardworking, albeit unfortunate, businessman finds amidst his troubles.

I am asked here, perhaps, how much pleasure an honest-meaning tradesman may be allowed to take? for it cannot be supposed I should insist that all pleasure is forbidden him, that he must have no diversion, no spare hours, no intervals from hurry and fatigue; that would be to pin him down to the very floor of his shop, as John Sheppard was locked down to the floor of his prison.

I’m being asked here, maybe, how much enjoyment a well-meaning tradesperson can have? It can’t be assumed that I’m saying all pleasure is off-limits for them, that they have to avoid fun, spare time, or breaks from their busy and tiring work; that would be like trapping them to the floor of their shop, just like John Sheppard was confined to the floor of his prison.

The answer to this question every prudent tradesman may make for himself: if his pleasure is in his shop, and in his business, there is no danger of him; but if he has an itch after exotic diversions—I mean such as are foreign to his shop, and to his business, and which I therefore call exotic—let him honestly and fairly state the case between his shop and his diversions, and judge impartially for himself. So much pleasure, and no more, may be innocently taken, as does not interfere with, or do the least damage to his business, by taking him away from it.

The answer to this question is something every smart tradesperson can figure out for themselves: if they enjoy being in their shop and focusing on their work, they’ll be just fine. But if they’re constantly craving distractions that aren’t related to their shop or business—what I mean by "exotic" distractions—they should honestly weigh the pros and cons of spending time in their shop versus seeking those distractions and make a fair judgment. They can take only as much pleasure as won’t disrupt or harm their business by pulling them away from it.

Every moment that his trade wants him in his shop or warehouse, it is his duty to be there; it is not enough to say, I believe I shall not be wanted; or I believe I shall suffer no loss by my absence. He must come to a point and not deceive himself; if he does, the cheat is all his own. If he will not judge sincerely at first, he will reproach himself sincerely at last; for there is no fraud against his own reflections: a man is very rarely a hypocrite to himself.

Every time his business needs him in the shop or warehouse, he must be there; it’s not enough for him to think, "I don’t believe I’ll be needed," or "I don’t think I’ll lose anything by not being there." He needs to be honest with himself; if he isn’t, he’s only fooling himself. If he won’t make a sincere judgment at the start, he’ll end up regretting it seriously later; because there’s no deception against his own thoughts: a person is rarely a hypocrite to himself.

The rule may be, in a few words, thus: those pleasures or diversions, and those only, can be innocent, which the man may or does use, or allow himself to use, without hindrance of, or injury to, his business and reputation.

The rule can be summarized in a few words: only those pleasures or entertainments are innocent which a person can or does engage in, or permits himself to engage in, without interfering with or damaging his work and reputation.

Let the diversions or pleasures in question be what they will, and how innocent soever they are in themselves, they are not so to him, because they interrupt or interfere with his business, which is his immediate duty. I have mentioned the circumstance which touches this part too, namely, that there may be a time when even the needful duties of religion may become faults, and unseasonable, when another more needful attendance calls for us to apply to it; much more, then, those things which are only barely lawful. There is a visible difference between the things which we may do, and the things which we must do. Pleasures at certain seasons are allowed, and we may give ourselves some loose to them; but business, I mean to the man of business, is that needful thing, of which it is not to be said it may, but it must be done.

Let the distractions or pleasures be whatever they may be, and however innocent they are in themselves, they aren't innocent to him because they interrupt or interfere with his work, which is his immediate responsibility. I've mentioned the point that relates to this idea, namely, that there might be times when even the necessary duties of religion can become problems and out of place when something more urgent requires our attention; even more so with things that are just barely acceptable. There is a clear difference between what we can do and what we must do. Enjoying pleasures at certain times is fine, and we can indulge a bit; however, work, for someone focused on their responsibilities, is that essential thing that shouldn't just be seen as something that may be done, but it must be done.

Again, those pleasures which may not only be lawful in themselves, but which may be lawful to other men, yet are criminal and unlawful to him. To gentlemen of fortunes and estates, who being born to large possessions, and have no avocations of this kind, it is certainly lawful to spend their spare hours on horseback, with their hounds or hawks, pursuing their game; or, on foot, with their gun and their net, and their dogs to kill the hares or birds, &c.—all which we call sport. These are the men that can, with a particular satisfaction, when they come home, say they have only taken an innocent diversion; and yet even in these, there are not wanting some excesses which take away the innocence of them, and consequently the satisfaction in their reflection, and therefore it was I said it was lawful to them to spend their spare hours—by which I am to be understood, those hours which are not due to more solemn and weighty occasions, such as the duties of religion in particular. But as this is not my present subject, I proceed; for I am not talking to gentlemen now, but to tradesmen.

Once again, there are pleasures that might not only be permissible in themselves but also legal for others, yet are considered wrong and unlawful for him. For wealthy gentlemen who have inherited large estates and have no other obligations of this sort, it is certainly acceptable to spend their leisure time riding horses, accompanying their hounds or falcons while hunting, or walking with their guns and nets and dogs to catch hares or birds, etc.—all of which we refer to as sport. These individuals can return home with particular satisfaction, claiming they’ve only engaged in innocent recreation. However, even within these activities, there can be excesses that strip away their innocence, thereby diminishing the pleasure they find in those reflections. Hence, I mentioned that it is lawful for them to spend their free hours—specifically, those hours not dedicated to more serious responsibilities, such as religious duties. But since that’s not my focus now, I’ll move on; I’m not addressing gentlemen at this moment, but tradesmen.

The prudent tradesman will, in time, consider what he ought or ought not to do, in his own particular case, as to his pleasures—not what another man may or may not do. In short, nothing of pleasure or diversion can be innocent to him, whatever it may be to another, if it injures his business, if it takes either his time, or his mind, or his delight, or his attendance, from his business; nor can all the little excuses, of its being for his health, and for the needful unbending the bow of the mind, from the constant application of business, for all these must stoop to the great article of his shop and business; though I might add, that the bare taking the air for health, and for a recess to the mind, is not the thing I am talking of—it is the taking an immoderate liberty, and spending an immoderate length of time, and that at unseasonable and improper hours, so as to make his pleasures and diversions be prejudicial to his business—this is the evil I object to, and this is too much the ruin of the tradesmen of this age; and thus any man who calmly reads these papers will see I ought to be understood.

The careful tradesman will eventually think about what he should or shouldn't do regarding his own pleasures—not what someone else might do. In short, nothing that brings him pleasure or entertainment can be harmless if it harms his business, takes up his time, distracts his mind, or pulls him away from work. All the little justifications about it being good for his health or necessary to relax the mind from constant work must yield to the main focus on his shop and business. However, I want to clarify that the simple act of getting fresh air for health and mental relief isn’t what I’m criticizing—it’s the excessive indulgence and spending too much time on unseasonable and inappropriate activities that make his pleasures and pastimes detrimental to his business. This is the problem I see, and it's a significant issue for tradesmen today. Anyone who reads this with thought will understand my point.

Nor do I confine this discourse to the innocent diversions of a horse, and riding abroad to take the air; things which, as above, are made hurtful and unlawful to him, only as they are hindrances to his business, and are more or less so, as they rob his shop or warehouse, or business, or his attendance and time, and cause him to draw his affections off from his calling.

Nor do I limit this discussion to the harmless enjoyment of a horse and riding outside for fresh air; these things, as mentioned earlier, are considered harmful and illegal for him only because they interfere with his work, and the extent to which they do so depends on how they distract him from his shop, warehouse, or business, as well as how they take up his time and attention, causing him to shift his focus away from his vocation.

But we see other and new pleasures daily crowding in upon the tradesman, and some which no age before this have been in danger of—I mean, not to such an excess as is now the case, and consequently there were fewer tradesmen drawn into the practice.

But we see new and different pleasures coming in every day for the tradesman, and some that no previous age has experienced—at least not to the same extreme as we do now—and as a result, there were fewer tradesmen involved in this practice.

The present age is a time of gallantry and gaiety; nothing of the present pride and vanity was known, or but very little of it, in former times: the baits which are every where laid for the corruption of youth, and for the ruin of their fortunes, were never so many and so mischievous as they are now.

The current era is one of bravery and fun; the pride and vanity we see today were hardly known in the past. The traps set everywhere to corrupt young people and ruin their futures have never been as numerous or as harmful as they are now.

We scarce now see a tradesman's apprentice come to his fifth year, but he gets a long wig and a sword, and a set of companions suitable; and this wig and sword, being left at proper and convenient places, are put on at night after the shop is shut, or when they can slip out to go a-raking in, and when they never fail of company ready to lead them into all manner of wickedness and debauchery; and from this cause it is principally that so many apprentices are ruined, and run away from their masters before they come out of their times—more, I am persuaded, now, than ever were to be found before.

We hardly see an apprentice complete their fifth year without getting a long wig, a sword, and a group of friends to match. This wig and sword are kept in convenient places and put on at night after closing the shop or whenever they can sneak out to go partying. They always find friends ready to lead them into all kinds of trouble and debauchery. This is mainly why so many apprentices end up getting ruined and running away from their masters before finishing their training—more, I believe, than ever before.

Nor, as I said before, will I charge the devil with having any hand in the ruin of these young fellows—indeed, he needs not trouble himself about them, they are his own by early choice—they anticipate temptation, and are as forward as the devil can desire them to be. These may be truly said to be drawn aside of their own lusts, and enticed—they need no tempter.

Nor, as I mentioned earlier, will I blame the devil for the downfall of these young guys—actually, he doesn’t have to worry about them, they are his by choice from a young age—they seek out temptation and are eager to indulge as much as the devil could want. It's fair to say they are led away by their own desires and lured in—they don’t need a tempter.

But of these I may also say, they seldom trouble the tradesmen's class; they get ruined early, and finish the tradesman before they begin, so my discourse is not at present directed much to them; indeed, they are past advice before they come in my way.

But I can also say that they hardly ever bother the tradesmen; they get ruined quickly and end the tradesman's career before it even starts, so I’m not really focusing on them right now; in fact, they’re usually beyond help by the time they cross my path.

Indeed, I knew one of these sort of gentlemen-apprentices make an attempt to begin, and set up his trade—he was a dealer in what they call Crooked-lane wares: he got about £300 from his father, an honest plain countryman, to set him up, and his said honest father exerted himself to the utmost to send him up so much money.

Indeed, I knew one of these gentlemen-apprentices who tried to start his own business—he dealt in what they call Crooked-lane goods. He received about £300 from his father, a straightforward countryman, to help him get started, and his hardworking father did everything he could to send him that amount.

When he had gotten the money, he took a shop near the place where he had served his time, and entering upon the shop, he had it painted, and fitted up, and some goods he bought in order to furnish it; but before that, he was obliged to pay about £70 of the money to little debts, which he had contracted in his apprenticeship, at two or three ale-houses, for drink and eatables, treats, and junketings; and at the barber's for long perukes, at the sempstress's for fine Holland-shirts, turn-overs, white gloves, &c, to make a beau of him, and at several other places.

When he got the money, he rented a shop near where he had completed his apprenticeship. After getting the shop, he had it painted and set up, and bought some goods to stock it. However, before he could do that, he had to pay off about £70 in small debts he had accumulated during his time as an apprentice at a couple of pubs for drinks and food, for treats and gatherings. He also owed money to the barber for fancy wigs, to the seamstress for nice shirts, collars, and white gloves to make himself look stylish, and to several other places.

When he came to dip into this, and found that it wanted still £30 or £40 to equip him for the company which he had learned to keep, he took care to do this first; and being delighted with his new dress, and how like a gentleman he looked, he was resolved, before he opened a shop, to take his swing a little in the town; so away he went, with two of his neighbour's apprentices, to the play-house, thence to the tavern, not far from his dwelling, and there they fell to cards, and sat up all night—and thus they spent about a fortnight; the rest just creeping into their masters' houses, by the connivance of their fellow-servants, and he getting a bed in the tavern, where what he spent, to be sure, made them willing enough to oblige him—that is to say, to encourage him to ruin himself.

When he got around to checking what he needed, he realized he still needed around £30 or £40 to properly dress for the crowd he had started to associate with. So, he made sure to take care of that first. Excited by his new outfit and how much like a gentleman he appeared, he decided that before opening a shop, he wanted to enjoy himself a bit in town. He set off with two of his neighbor’s apprentices to the theater, then to the tavern not far from his home, where they played cards and stayed up all night. They spent about two weeks like this, barely sneaking back to their masters’ homes with the help of their fellow servants, while he crash-landed at the tavern, where his spending made them more than willing to help him out—essentially encouraging him to lead himself to ruin.

They then changed their course, indeed, and went to the ball, and that necessarily kept them out the most part of the night, always having their supper dressed at the tavern at their return; and thus, in a few words, he went on till he made way through all the remaining money he had left, and was obliged to call his creditors together, and break before he so much as opened his shop—I say, his creditors, for great part of the goods which he had furnished his shop with were unpaid for; perhaps some few might be bought with ready money.

They then changed their plans and went to the ball, which meant they were out most of the night, always having their dinner prepared at the tavern when they got back. In short, he continued like this until he used up all the remaining money he had, and was forced to gather his creditors and declare bankruptcy before he even opened his shop—I mean, his creditors, since a large part of the goods he stocked his shop with were unpaid for; maybe a few items were actually bought with cash.

This man, indeed, is the only tradesman that ever I met with, that set up and broke before his shop was open; others I have indeed known make very quick work of it.

This man is definitely the only tradesman I've ever encountered who started and failed before his shop even opened; I have known others who have made quick work of it.

But this part rather belongs to another head. I am at present not talking of madmen, as I hope, indeed, I am not writing to madmen, but I am talking of tradesmen undone by lawful things, by what they call innocent and harmless things—such as riding abroad, or walking abroad to take the air, and to divert themselves, dogs, gun, country-sport, and city-recreation. These things are certainly lawful, and in themselves very innocent; nay, they may be needful for health, and to give some relaxation to the mind, hurried with too much business; but the needfulness of them is so much made an excuse, and the excess of them is so injurious to the tradesman's business and to his time, which should be set apart for his shop and his trade, that there are not a few tradesmen thus lawfully ruined, as I may call it—in a word, lawful or unlawful, their shop is neglected, their business goes behind-hand, and it is all one to the subject of breaking, and to the creditor, whether the man was undone by being a knave, or by being a fool; it is all one whether he lost his trade by scandalous immoral negligence, or by sober or religious negligence.

But this part really belongs to another topic. Right now, I’m not talking about crazy people, and I hope I'm not writing for crazy people either. I'm discussing tradesmen who have been brought down by lawful things—what they consider innocent and harmless activities—like going out for a ride, taking a walk to get some fresh air, having a dog, hunting, or enjoying outdoor sports and city entertainment. These things are certainly lawful and, in themselves, very innocent. In fact, they can be essential for health and a way to give the mind a break from excessive work. However, the necessity of these activities often becomes an excuse, and the excess of them can seriously harm a tradesman's business and take away from the time that should be dedicated to their shop and trade. As a result, there are quite a few tradesmen who have been lawfully ruined, so to speak. In short, whether their downfall is due to lawful or unlawful reasons, their shop is neglected, their business suffers, and to those who are owed money, it makes no difference if the person failed due to being dishonest or foolish; it’s all the same whether they lost their trade through scandalous negligence or through more respectable negligence.

In a word, business languishes, while the tradesman is absent, and neglects it, be it for his health or for his pleasure, be it in good company or in bad, be it from a good or an ill design; and if the business languishes, the tradesman will not be long before he languishes too; for nothing can support the tradesman but his supporting his trade by a due attendance and application.[18]

In short, business suffers when the tradesman is away, whether it's for his health or enjoyment, whether he's with good people or not, whether he has good or bad intentions; and if business suffers, the tradesman won't last long either; because the only thing that keeps the tradesman afloat is actively taking care of his trade through proper attention and effort.[18]

FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:

[In the above admirable series of plain-spoken advices, the author has omitted one weighty reason why young tradesmen should not spend their evenings in frivolous, or otherwise improper company. The actual loss of time and of money incurred by such courses of conduct, is generally of less consequence than the losses arising from habitual distraction of mind, and the acquisition of an acquaintanceship with a set of idle or silly companions. It is of the utmost importance that young tradesmen should spend their leisure hours in a way calculated to soothe the feelings, and enlarge the mind; and in the present day, from the prevalance of literature, and other rational means for amusement, they have ample opportunities of doing so.]

[In the above insightful series of straightforward advice, the author has left out a significant reason why young tradespeople should avoid spending their evenings with frivolous or inappropriate company. The actual loss of time and money from such behavior is usually less important than the mental distraction and the negative influence of associating with a group of idle or foolish friends. It’s crucial for young tradespeople to use their free time in ways that comfort their emotions and expand their minds; nowadays, thanks to the abundance of literature and other thoughtful forms of entertainment, they have plenty of opportunities to do just that.]


CHAPTER X

OF EXTRAVAGANT AND EXPENSIVE LIVING; ANOTHER STEP TO A TRADESMAN'S DISASTER

OF EXTRAVAGANT AND EXPENSIVE LIVING; ANOTHER STEP TO A TRADESMAN'S DISASTER


Hitherto I have written of tradesmen ruined by lawful and innocent diversions; and, indeed, these are some of the most dangerous pits for a tradesman to fall into, because men are so apt to be insensible of the danger: a ship may as well be lost in a calm smooth sea, and an easy fair gale of wind, as in a storm, if they have no pilot, or the pilot be ignorant or unwary; and disasters of that nature happen as frequently as any others, and are as fatal. When rocks are apparent, and the pilot, bold and wilful, runs directly upon them, without fear or wit, we know the fate of the ship—it must perish, and all that are in it will inevitably be lost; but in a smooth sea, a bold shore, an easy gale, the unseen rocks or shoals are the only dangers, and nothing can hazard them but the skilfulness of the pilot: and thus it is in trade. Open debaucheries and extravagances, and a profusion of expense, as well as a general contempt of business, these are open and current roads to a tradesman's destruction; but a silent going on, in pursuit of innocent pleasures, a smooth and calm, but sure neglect of his shop, and time, and business, will as effectually and as surely ruin the tradesman as the other; and though the means are not so scandalous, the effect is as certain. But I proceed to the other.

Until now, I've written about merchants who have been ruined by lawful and innocent pastimes; and indeed, these can be some of the most dangerous traps for a merchant to fall into, because people often don't realize the danger. A ship can be lost just as easily in a calm, smooth sea with a gentle breeze as in a storm, if it has no captain, or if the captain is careless or inexperienced; and such disasters happen just as often and can be just as deadly. When rocks are visible and the captain, bold and reckless, sails straight into them without caution or thought, we know the ship's fate—it will surely sink, and all aboard will inevitably be lost. But in a calm sea, with a welcoming shore and a light breeze, the hidden rocks or shallow waters are the only threats, and the only thing that can endanger them is the skill of the captain. It’s the same in business. Open indulgences and extravagant spending, along with a general disregard for work, are clear and obvious paths to a merchant's downfall; however, quietly pursuing innocent pleasures, maintaining a smooth and calm neglect of his shop and responsibilities, can ruin the merchant just as effectively and certainly as the former. Though the methods may not seem as scandalous, the results are equally inevitable. But I will move on to the next point.

Next to immoderate pleasures, the tradesman ought to be warned against immoderate expense. This is a terrible article, and more particularly so to the tradesman, as custom has now, as it were on purpose for their undoing, introduced a general habit of, and as it were a general inclination among all sorts of people to, an expensive way of living; to which might be added a kind of necessity of it; for that even with the greatest prudence and frugality a man cannot now support a family with the ordinary expense, which the same family might have been maintained with some few years ago: there is now (1) a weight of taxes upon almost all the necessaries of life, bread and flesh excepted, as coals, salt, malt, candles, soap, leather, hops, wine, fruit, and all foreign consumptions; (2) a load of pride upon the temper of the nation, which, in spite of taxes and the unusual dearess of every thing, yet prompts people to a profusion in their expenses.

Next to excessive pleasures, the tradesman should be cautious of excessive spending. This is a serious issue, especially for tradespeople, as society has now created a widespread habit and a general tendency among people to live expensively, almost as if it were designed for their downfall. There's even a sense of necessity to it; because even with the best planning and thriftiness, it’s impossible to support a family today with the regular expenses that would have sufficed just a few years ago. There is now (1) a heavy tax burden on almost all essentials in life, excluding bread and meat, such as coal, salt, malt, candles, soap, leather, hops, wine, fruit, and all imported goods; (2) a sense of pride that influences the nation's mindset, which, despite taxes and the rising cost of everything, still drives people to overspend.

This is not so properly called a tax upon the tradesmen; I think rather, it may be called a plague upon them: for there is, first, the dearness of every necessary thing to make living expensive; and secondly, an unconquerable aversion to any restraint; so that the poor will be like the rich, and the rich like the great, and the great like the greatest—and thus the world runs on to a kind of distraction at this time: where it will end, time must discover.

This isn't really just a tax on the tradesmen; I think it's better described as a plague for them. First, everything essential is so expensive that it makes living costly; and second, there's a strong resistance to any kind of restriction. As a result, the poor will be like the rich, the rich will be like the powerful, and the powerful will be like the most powerful—and that's how the world is heading towards chaos right now. Where it will all lead is something only time will reveal.

Now, the tradesman I speak of, if he will thrive, he must resolve to begin as he can go on; and if he does so, in a word, he must resolve to live more under restraint than ever tradesmen of his class used to do; for every necessary thing being, as I have said, grown dearer than before, he must entirely omit all the enjoyment of the unnecessaries which he might have allowed himself before, or perhaps be obliged to an expense beyond the income of his trade: and in either of these cases he has a great hardship upon him.

Now, the tradesman I’m talking about, if he wants to succeed, needs to commit to starting out as he intends to continue; and if he does, he has to accept that he’ll have to live with more restrictions than any tradesmen of his kind ever did before. Since everything necessary has become more expensive, he must completely cut out any indulgences he used to allow himself, or he might have to spend more than what his trade can bring in. In either situation, he faces a significant hardship.

When I talk of immoderate expenses, I must be understood not yet to mean the extravagances of wickedness and debaucheries; there are so many sober extravagances, and so many grave sedate ways for a tradesman's ruin, and they are so much more dangerous than those hair-brained desperate ways of gaming and debauchery, that I think it is the best service I can do the tradesmen to lay before them those sunk rocks (as the seamen call them), those secret dangers in the first place, that they may know how to avoid them; and as for the other common ways, common discretion will supply them with caution for those, and their senses will be their protection.

When I mention excessive spending, I don't just mean the wild indulgences and immoral behaviors; there are plenty of serious extravagances and solemn ways that can ruin a business, and they are far more dangerous than the reckless paths of gambling and excess. I believe it's my duty to point out these hidden pitfalls (as sailors refer to them), these secret dangers first, so that tradespeople can learn to avoid them. As for the more common pitfalls, general caution will help them navigate those, and their instincts will serve as their protection.

The dangers to the tradesmen whom I am directing myself to, are from lawful things, and such as before are called innocent; for I am speaking to the sober part of tradesmen, who yet are often ruined and overthrown in trade; and perhaps as many such miscarry, as of the mad and extravagant, particularly because their number far exceeds them. Expensive living is a kind of slow fever; it is not so open, so threatening and dangerous, as the ordinary distemper which goes by that name, but it preys upon the spirits, and, when its degrees are increased to a height, is as fatal and as sure to kill as the other: it is a secret enemy, that feeds upon the vitals; and when it has gone its full length, and the languishing tradesman is weakened in his solid part, I mean his stock, then it overwhelms him at once.

The dangers facing the tradespeople I’m addressing come from legal things that are often seen as innocent. I’m speaking to the responsible side of tradespeople, who can still get ruined and brought down in their business. Perhaps as many of them fail as those who are reckless and extravagant, especially since their numbers far exceed the latter. High living is like a slow fever; it’s not as obvious, threatening, or dangerous as the usual disorders associated with that term, but it erodes their spirit. When it becomes too much, it can be just as deadly. It’s a hidden enemy that eats away at their very essence, and once it has taken its toll and the struggling tradesperson is drained in their core, specifically their finances, it can suddenly overwhelm them.

Expensive living feeds upon the life and blood of the tradesman, for it eats into the two most essential branches of his trade, namely, his credit and his cash; the first is its triumph, and the last is its food: nothing goes out to cherish the exorbitance, but the immediate money; expenses seldom go on trust, they are generally supplied and supported with ready money, whatever are not.

High living drains the life and energy of the tradesman, as it attacks the two most vital parts of his business: his credit and his cash. The first is its victory, and the last is its sustenance. Nothing supports the extravagance except immediate cash; expenses rarely go on credit; they are usually covered and maintained with available money, whatever else isn't.

This expensive way of living consists in several things, which are all indeed in their degree ruinous to the tradesman; such as

This expensive lifestyle includes several factors that are ultimately damaging to the tradesperson, such as

1. Expensive house-keeping, or family extravagance.

1. Costly housekeeping or family overindulgence.

2. Expensive dressing, or the extravagance of fine clothes.

2. Expensive dressing, or the luxury of high-end clothes.

3. Expensive company, or keeping company above himself.

3. Costly company, or associating with people above his level.

4. Expensive equipages, making a show and ostentation of figure in the world.

4. Expensive vehicles, displaying showiness and pretentiousness in the world.

I might take them all in bulk, and say, what has a young tradesman to do with these? and yet where is there a tradesman now to be found, who is not more or less guilty? It is, as I have said, the general vice of the times; the whole nation are more or less in the crime; what with necessity and inclination, where is the man or the family that lives as such families used to live?

I could easily dismiss them all and wonder what a young tradesperson has to do with this. But still, where can you find a tradesperson today who isn’t somewhat guilty? As I’ve mentioned, it’s a widespread issue in our times; the entire nation is more or less complicit in the wrongdoing. With necessity and desire at play, where is the person or family that lives like families used to?

In short, good husbandry and frugality is quite out of fashion, and he that goes about to set up for the practice of it, must mortify every thing about him that has the least tincture of frugality; it is the mode to live high, to spend more than we get, to neglect trade, contemn care and concern, and go on without forecast, or without consideration; and, in consequence, it is the mode to go on to extremity, to break, become bankrupt and beggars, and so going off the trading stage, leave it open for others to come after us, and do the same.[19]

In short, being responsible and frugal is totally out of style, and anyone who tries to practice it has to get rid of anything that even slightly resembles frugality. The trend is to live extravagantly, to spend more than we earn, to ignore business, dismiss worries, and go through life without planning or thought. As a result, the trend is to push things to the limit, to go broke and end up in poverty, thus leaving the business world for others to come along and do the same. [19]

To begin with house-keeping. I have already hinted, that every thing belonging to the family subsistence bears a higher price than usual, I may say, than ever; at the same time I can neither undertake to prove that there is more got by selling, or more ways to get it, I mean to a tradesman, than there was formerly; the consequence then must be, that the tradesmen do not grow rich faster than formerly; at least we may venture to say this of tradesmen and their families, comparing them with former times, namely, that there is not more got, and I am satisfied there is less laid up, than was then; or, if you will have it, that tradesmen get less and spend more than they ever did. How they should be richer than they were in those times, is very hard to say.

To start with housekeeping, I've already mentioned that everything related to the family's living expenses is more expensive than usual, I might even say more than ever. At the same time, I can't prove that there are greater profits from selling or more ways for a tradesman to earn money than before; therefore, the outcome must be that tradesmen aren't getting rich faster than they used to. At least we can confidently say this about tradesmen and their families when we compare them to the past: they aren't earning more, and I'm convinced they're saving less than they did back then. Or, if you prefer, tradesmen are earning less and spending more than they ever did. How they could be wealthier than they were in those times is quite difficult to explain.

That all things are dearer than formerly to a house-keeper, needs little demonstration; the taxes necessarily infer it from the weight of them, and the many things charged; for, besides the things enumerated above, we find all articles of foreign importation are increased by the high duties laid on them; such as linen, especially fine linen; silk, especially foreign wrought silk: every thing eatable, drinkable, and wearable, are made heavy to us by high and exorbitant customs and excises, as brandies, tobacco, sugar; deals and timber for building; oil, wine, spice, raw silks, calico, chocolate, coffee, tea; on some of these the duties are more than doubled: and yet that which is most observable is, that such is the expensive humour of the times, that not a family, no, hardly of the meanest tradesman, but treat their friends with wine, or punch, or fine ale; and have their parlours set off with the tea-table and the chocolate-pot—treats and liquors all exotic, foreign and new among tradesmen, and terrible articles in their modern expenses; which have nothing to be said for them, either as to the expense of them, or the helps to health which they boast of: on the contrary, they procure us rheumatic bodies and consumptive purses, and can no way pass with me for necessaries; but being needless, they add to the expense, by sending us to the doctors and apothecaries to cure the breaches which they make in our health, and are themselves the very worst sort of superfluities.

That everything is more expensive for a housekeeper than before is obvious; the taxes make this clear given their burden and the numerous items taxed. In addition to the listed items, we see all imported goods are pricier due to the high duties imposed on them, like linen, especially fine linen; silk, particularly foreign-made silk; everything edible, drinkable, and wearable becomes a financial strain due to the steep customs and excise fees, such as brandy, tobacco, sugar; lumber and timber for construction; oil, wine, spices, raw silk, calico, chocolate, coffee, tea; on some of these, the duties have more than doubled. What’s most noticeable, though, is that in these expensive times, even the least well-off tradespeople host their friends with wine, punch, or fine ale, and their living rooms are decorated with tea sets and chocolate pots—treats and drinks that are all exotic, foreign, and new to tradespeople, yet are huge expenses; they offer no real benefits in terms of cost or health benefits they claim to provide. On the contrary, they lead to medical issues and empty wallets, and I can’t consider them necessities; instead of being needed, they just drive up costs by sending us to doctors and pharmacists to fix the health problems they cause, making them the worst kinds of unnecessary expenses.

But I come back to necessaries; and even in them, family-expenses are extremely risen, provisions are higher rated—no provisions that I know of, except only bread, mutton, and fish, but are made dearer than ever—house-rent, in almost all the cities and towns of note in England, is excessively and extremely dearer, and that in spite of such innumerable buildings as we see almost everywhere raised up, as well in the country as in London, and the parts adjacent.

But I come back to the essentials; and even in those, family expenses have skyrocketed, food prices are higher than ever—no food that I know of, except for bread, mutton, and fish, is cheaper—rent, in almost all the notable cities and towns in England, is excessively expensive, and this is despite the countless buildings popping up almost everywhere, both in the countryside and in London and the surrounding areas.

Add to the rents of houses, the wages of servants. A tradesman, be he ever so much inclined to good husbandry, cannot always do his kitchen-work himself, suppose him a bachelor, or can his wife, suppose him married, and suppose her to have brought him any portion, be his bedfellow and his cook too. These maid-servants, then, are to be considered, and are an exceeding tax upon house-keepers; those who were formerly hired at three pounds to four pounds a-year wages, now demand five, six and eight pounds a-year; nor do they double anything upon us but their wages and their pride; for, instead of doing more work for their advance of wages, they do less: and the ordinary work of families cannot now be performed by the same number of maids, which, in short, is a tax upon the upper sort of tradesmen, and contributes very often to their disasters, by the extravagant keeping three or four maid-servants in a house, nay, sometimes five, where two formerly were thought sufficient. This very extravagance is such, that talking lately with a man very well experienced in this matter, he told me he had been making his calculations on that very particular, and he found by computation, that the number of servants kept by all sorts of people, tradesmen as well as others, was so much increased, that there are in London, and the towns within ten miles of it, take it every way, above a hundred thousand more maid-servants and footmen, at this time in place, than used to be in the same compass of ground thirty years ago;[20] and that their wages amounted to above forty shillings a-head per annum, more than the wages of the like number of servants did amount to at the same length of time past; the advance to the whole body amounting to no less than two hundred thousand pounds a-year.

Add to the rent of houses the wages for domestic help. A tradesman, no matter how much he wants to manage his household efficiently, can't always do all the cooking himself; for example, if he's single, or if he's married, his wife, even if she brought him a dowry, can't be both his partner and his cook. Therefore, we need to consider these domestic workers, who are quite a burden for homeowners. Those who used to be hired for three to four pounds a year now expect five, six, or even eight pounds a year; and they don't double their work in exchange for higher pay, they actually do less. The usual household tasks can't be handled by the same number of maids; this is essentially a strain on higher-end tradespeople and often leads to financial troubles due to the extravagant practice of keeping three or four maids in a household, sometimes five, when two used to be enough. This extravagance is such that when I recently spoke to someone well-versed in this issue, he told me he calculated that the number of servants kept by all kinds of people, including tradesmen, has increased so much that there are now over one hundred thousand more maids and footmen in London and the surrounding towns within ten miles than there were thirty years ago; and that their wages add up to over forty shillings per person per year more than what the same number of servants earned back then, leading to a total increase of no less than two hundred thousand pounds a year.

Indeed, it is not easy to guess what the expense of wages to servants amounts to in a year, in this nation; and consequently we cannot easily determine what the increase of that expense amounts to in England, but certainly it must rise to many hundred thousand pounds a-year in the whole.

Indeed, it's not easy to estimate how much is spent on wages for servants in a year in this country; therefore, we can't easily figure out what the total increase of that expense is in England, but it certainly must amount to several hundred thousand pounds a year overall.

The tradesmen bear their share of this expense, and indeed too great a share, very ordinary tradesmen in London keeping at least two maids, and some more, and some a footman or two besides; for it is an ordinary thing to see the tradesmen and shopkeepers of London keep footmen, as well as the gentlemen: witness the infinite number of blue liveries, which are so common now that they are called the tradesmen's liveries; and few gentlemen care to give blue to their servants for that very reason.

The tradespeople bear part of this cost, and honestly, too much of it, as average tradespeople in London employ at least two maids, and sometimes more, along with a footman or two; it’s quite common to see London’s tradesmen and shopkeepers with footmen, just like the gentlemen do. You can see the countless blue uniforms, which are so common now they’ve become known as the tradesmen's uniforms; and very few gentlemen prefer to give blue outfits to their servants for that exact reason.

In proportion to their servants, the tradesmen now keep their tables, which are also advanced in their proportion of expense to other things: indeed, the citizen's and tradesmen's tables are now the emblems, not of plenty, but of luxury, not of good house-keeping, but of profusion, and that of the highest kind of extravagance; insomuch, that it was the opinion of a gentleman who had been not a traveller only, but a nice observer of such things abroad, that there is at this time more waste of provisions in England than in any other nation in the world, of equal extent of ground; and that England consumes for their whole subsistence more flesh than half Europe besides; that the beggars of London, and within ten miles round it, eat more white bread than the whole kingdom of Scotland,[21] and the like.

In relation to their servants, tradespeople now have their meals, which are also reflecting an increase in their spending compared to other things: in fact, the meals of citizens and tradespeople are now symbols, not of abundance, but of luxury; not of good housekeeping, but of excess, and of the highest kind of extravagance. A gentleman who was not only a traveler but also a keen observer of such matters abroad believed that currently, there's more waste of food in England than in any other country of similar size; and that England consumes more meat for its total food supply than half of Europe combined. Additionally, the beggars in London and within a ten-mile radius eat more white bread than the entire kingdom of Scotland,[21] and so on.

But this is an observation only, though I believe it is very just; I am bringing it in here only as an example of the dreadful profusion of this age, and how an extravagant way of expensive living, perfectly negligent of all degrees of frugality or good husbandry, is the reigning vice of the people. I could enlarge upon it, and very much to the purpose here, but I shall have occasion to speak of it again.

But this is just an observation, though I believe it's quite accurate; I'm mentioning it here as an example of the terrible excesses of this era, and how a lavish lifestyle that completely ignores any sense of frugality or responsible management is a major flaw of our society. I could expand on this, and it would be relevant here, but I’ll have another chance to talk about it later.

The tradesman, whom I am speaking to by way of direction, will not, I hope, think this the way for him to thrive, or find it for his convenience to fall in with this common height of living presently, in his beginning; if he comes gradually into it after he has gotten something considerable to lay by, I say, if he does it then, it is early enough, and he may be said to be insensibly drawn into it by the necessity of the times; because, forsooth, it is a received notion, 'We must be like other folks:' I say, if he does fall into it then, when he will pretend he cannot help it, it is better than worse, and if he can afford it, well and good; but to begin thus, to set up at this rate, when he first looks into the world, I can only say this, he that begins in such a manner, it will not be difficult to guess where he will end; for a tradesman's pride certainly precedes his destruction, and an expensive living goes before his fall.

The tradesman I’m talking about won’t, I hope, think that this is the way for him to succeed or find it convenient to adopt this average lifestyle right from the start. If he eases into it after he has saved up something substantial, then that’s fine; if he does it then, it’s early enough, and he can be said to have been naturally drawn into it by the demands of the times. Because, honestly, there’s this common belief, “We have to be like everyone else.” I say, if he does fall into it at that point, when he claims he has no choice, it’s better than not, and if he can afford it, great. But to start off this way, setting up at this level when he first enters the world, I can only say this: it won’t be hard to guess where he’ll end up. A tradesman’s pride definitely leads to his downfall, and an extravagant lifestyle precedes his failure.

We are speaking now to a tradesman, who, it is supposed, must live by his business, a young man who sets up a shop, or warehouse, and expects to get money; one that would be a rich tradesman, rather than a poor, fine, gay man; a grave citizen, not a peacock's feather; for he that sets up for a Sir Fopling Flutter, instead of a complete tradesman, is not to be thought capable of relishing this discourse; neither does this discourse relish him; for such men seem to be among the incurables, and are rather fit for an hospital of fools (so the French call our Bedlam) than to undertake trade, and enter upon business.

We’re talking about a tradesman who is expected to make a living from his business—a young man who opens a shop or warehouse and anticipates making money. He would prefer to be a wealthy tradesman rather than a flashy, rich guy; a serious citizen, not someone flamboyant. A person who tries to be like Sir Fopling Flutter instead of a true tradesman isn’t seen as capable of appreciating this conversation, nor does this conversation fit him. People like that seem hopeless and are better suited for a mad house (as the French refer to our Bedlam) than for trade and business.

Trade is not a ball, where people appear in masque, and act a part to make sport; where they strive to seem what they really are not, and to think themselves best dressed when they are least known: but it is a plain visible scene of honest life, shown best in its native appearance, without disguise; supported by prudence and frugality; and like strong, stiff, clay land, grows fruitful only by good husbandry, culture, and manuring.

Trade isn't a game where people wear masks and play roles for fun; where they try to look like something they're not and think they look their best when they are least recognized. Instead, it's a straightforward and visible part of genuine life, best represented in its true form, without any pretenses. It's backed by careful planning and saving, and like tough, solid clay soil, it thrives only through proper management, cultivation, and fertilization.

A tradesman dressed up fine, with his long wig and sword, may go to the ball when he pleases, for he is already dressed up in the habit; like a piece of counterfeit money, he is brass washed over with silver, and no tradesman will take him for current; with money in his hand, indeed, he may go to the merchant's warehouse and buy any thing, but no body will deal with him without it: he may write upon his edged hat, as a certain tradesman, after having been once broke and set up again, 'I neither give nor take credit:' and as others set up in their shops, 'No trust by retail,' so he may say, 'No trust by wholesale.' In short, thus equipped, he is truly a tradesman in masquerade, and must pass for such wherever he is known. How long it may be before his dress and he may suit, it not hard to guess.

A tradesman dressed to the nines, with his long wig and sword, can go to the ball whenever he wants because he’s already in costume. Like a piece of counterfeit money, he’s just metal coated with silver, and no one will take him seriously; with cash in hand, he might go to the merchant's warehouse and buy anything, but nobody will deal with him without it. He can even write on his fancy hat, like a certain tradesman who, after being bankrupt and starting over, says, 'I neither give nor take credit'; and just like others who have signs in their shops saying, 'No credit for retail,' he can say, 'No credit for wholesale.' In short, looking the part, he’s truly a tradesman in disguise, and he has to be accepted as such wherever he’s known. How long it may be before his appearance and reality line up isn’t hard to guess.

Some will have it that this expensive way of living began among the tradesmen first, that is to say, among the citizens of London; and that their eager resolved pursuit of that empty and meanest kind of pride, called imitation, namely, to look like the gentry, and appear above themselves, drew them into it. It has indeed been a fatal custom, but it has been too long a city vanity. If men of quality lived like themselves, men of no quality would strive to live not like themselves: if those had plenty, these would have profusion; if those had enough, these would have excess; if those had what was good, these would have what was rare and exotic; I mean as to season, and consequently dear. And this is one of the ways that have worn out so many tradesmen before their time.

Some say that this lavish lifestyle started with the tradesmen, specifically the citizens of London; their desperate chase after a shallow type of pride, known as imitation, meant trying to look like the gentry and act above their means. It's definitely been a dangerous trend, but it's been a city obsession for too long. If people of quality lived as themselves, those without status would try to live differently; if the wealthy had plenty, the less fortunate would seek excess; if the well-off had enough, the others would want more; and if the privileged had good things, those without would crave rare and expensive items. This is one of the reasons so many tradesmen have worn themselves out before their time.

This extravagance, wherever it began, had its first rise among those sorts of tradesmen, who, scorning the society of their shops and customers, applied themselves to rambling to courts and plays; kept company above themselves, and spent their hours in such company as lives always above them; this could not but bring great expense along with it, and that expense would not be confined to the bare keeping such company abroad, but soon showed itself in a living like them at home, whether the tradesmen could support it or no.

This extravagance, no matter where it started, first took off among tradespeople who, rejecting the company of their shops and customers, turned to roaming around courts and theaters. They associated with people above their social class and spent their time with those who always lived at a higher level. This naturally led to significant expenses, which wouldn't just stem from keeping such company outside but quickly became evident in their lifestyle at home, regardless of whether the tradespeople could actually afford it.

Keeping high company abroad certainly brings on visitings and high treatings at home; and these are attended with costly furniture, rich clothes, and dainty tables. How these things agree with a tradesman's income, it is easy to suggest; and that, in short, these measures have sent so many tradesmen to the Mint and to the Fleet, where I am witness to it that they have still carried on their expensive living till they have come at last to starving and misery; but have been so used to it, they could not abate it, or at least not quite leave it off, though they wanted the money to pay for it.

Keeping up with high society abroad definitely leads to visits and lavish treatment at home; and these come with expensive furnishings, fancy clothes, and elegant dining. It's easy to see how these things match up with a tradesman's income; in short, this way of living has driven many tradespeople to the Mint and the Fleet, where I've seen that they continue their extravagant lifestyle until they end up in starvation and hardship. Yet, they have become so accustomed to it that they can't cut back, or at least can't fully stop, even when they lack the money to afford it.

Nor is the expensive dressing a little tax upon tradesmen, as it is now come up to an excess not formerly known to tradesmen; and though it is true that this particularly respects the ladies (for the tradesmen's wives now claim that title, as they do by their dress claim the appearance), yet to do justice to them, and not to load the women with the reproach, as if it were wholly theirs, it must be acknowledged the men have their share in dress, as the times go now, though, it is true, not so antic and gay as in former days; but do we not see fine wigs, fine Holland shirts of six to seven shillings an ell, and perhaps laced also, all lately brought down to the level of the apron, and become the common wear of tradesmen—nay, I may say, of tradesmen's apprentices—and that in such a manner as was never known in England before?

The costly fashion isn't just a minor burden on tradespeople; it's reached an extreme that was unheard of before. While it's true this primarily affects women (as the wives of tradespeople now demand that status through their clothing), we must give credit where it's due. Men also play a part in fashion these days, even if their styles aren't as extravagant as in the past. Just look at the fine wigs and expensive Holland shirts costing six to seven shillings per yard, and sometimes even laced. These items have recently become standard wear for tradesmen—I'd even say for apprentices—which is something we’ve never seen in England before.

If the tradesman is thriving, and can support this and his credit too, that makes the case differ, though even then it cannot be said to be suitable; but for a tradesman to begin thus, is very imprudent, because the expense of this, as I said before, drains the very life-blood of his trade, taking away his ready money only, and making no return, but the worst of return, poverty and reproach; and, in case of miscarriage, infinite scandal and offence.

If the businessperson is doing well and can manage this along with their credit, that changes the situation, though even then it can't be considered wise. However, for a businessperson to start this way is very unwise because the cost of it, as I mentioned before, drains the very essence of their business, leaving them short on cash and providing no return—only the worst possible outcomes: poverty and shame. And if they fail, they face endless scandal and offense.

I am loth to make any part of my writing a satire upon the women; nor, indeed, does the extravagance either of dress or house-keeping, lie all, or always, at the door of the tradesmen's wives—the husband is often the prompter of it; at least he does not let his wife into the detail of his circumstances, he does not make her mistress of her own condition, but either flatters her with notions of his wealth, his profits, and his flourishing circumstances, and so the innocent woman spends high and lives great, believing that she is in a condition to afford it, and that her husband approves of it; at least, he does not offer to retrench or restrain her, but lets her go on, and indeed goes on with her, to the ruin of both.

I don't want to make any part of my writing a satire about women; besides, the excessive spending on clothes or household management isn’t always solely the fault of the tradesmen's wives. Often, the husbands encourage it too. They don’t share the full details of their financial situation with their wives, keeping them in the dark about their true circumstances. Instead, they flatter them with ideas of wealth, profits, and success, causing these naive women to spend extravagantly, believing they can afford it and that their husbands support their choices. At the very least, the husbands don’t try to cut back or limit their spending but instead go along with it, leading to the downfall of both.

I cannot but mention one thing here (though I purpose to give you one discourse on that subject by itself), namely, the great and indispensable obligation there is upon a tradesman always to acquaint his wife with the truth of his circumstances, and not to let her run on in ignorance, till she falls with him down the precipice of an unavoidable ruin—a thing no prudent woman would do, and therefore will never take amiss a husband's plainness in that particular case. But I reserve this to another place, because I am rather directing my discourse at this time to the tradesman at his beginning, and, as it may be supposed, unmarried.

I have to mention one thing here (though I plan to give you a separate discussion on that topic), which is the crucial obligation for a tradesman to always be honest with his wife about his situation, and not to let her remain in the dark until she shares in his unavoidable downfall—something no sensible woman would do, and therefore will never take offense at her husband's straightforwardness in that regard. But I'll save this for another time because I’m currently addressing tradesmen who are just starting out and, as one might expect, are likely unmarried.

Next to the expensive dressing, I place the expensive keeping company, as one thing fatal to a tradesman, and which, if he would be a complete tradesman, he should avoid with the utmost diligence. It is an agreeable thing to be seen in good company; for a man to see himself courted and valued, and his company desired by men of fashion and distinction, is very pleasing to any young tradesman, and it is really a snare which a young tradesman, if he be a man of sense, can very hardly resist. There is in itself indeed nothing that can be objected against, or is not very agreeable to the nature of man, and that not to his vicious part merely, but even to his best faculties; for who would not value himself upon being, as above, rendered acceptable to men both in station and figure above themselves? and it is really a piece of excellent advice which a learned man gave to his son, always to keep company with men above himself, not with men below himself.

Next to the pricey lifestyle, I place the costly need for socializing, as it's something dangerous for a businessperson, and if he wants to be a successful entrepreneur, he should stay away from it at all costs. It's nice to be seen with good company; for a young businessperson, being admired and valued, and having his presence sought by fashionable and distinguished individuals, is very appealing. It's truly a trap that a sensible young entrepreneur can find hard to resist. There's really nothing wrong with it, and it appeals to human nature, not just to our worst instincts but even to our best qualities; who wouldn't want to feel good about being liked by those in higher positions? It's truly wise advice from a learned man who told his son to always associate with people above him, not below him.

But take me now to be talking, as I really am, not to the man merely, but to his circumstances, if he were a man of fortune, and had the view of great things before him, it would hold good; but if he is a young tradesman, such as I am now speaking of, who is newly entered into business, and must depend upon his said business for his subsistence and support, and hopes to raise himself by it—I say, if I am talking to such a one, I must say to him, that keeping company as above, with men superior to himself in knowledge, in figure, and estate, is not his business; for, first, as such conversation must necessarily take up a great deal of his time, so it ordinarily must occasion a great expense of money, and both destructive of his prosperity; nay, sometimes the first may be as fatal to him as the last, and it is oftentimes true in that sense of trade, that while by keeping company he is drawn out of his business, his absence from his shop or warehouse is the most fatal to him; and while he spends one crown in the tavern, he spends forty crowns' worth of his time; and with this difference, too, which renders it the worse to the tradesman, namely, that the money may be recovered, and gotten up again, but the time cannot. For example—

But let me be clear: when I talk, I'm not just speaking to the man himself, but also to his situation. If he were wealthy and had big ambitions, that would make sense. However, if he is a young businessperson, like the one I'm discussing, who has just started out and relies on their business for a living, hoping to improve their circumstances through it—I have to tell him that socializing with people who are more knowledgeable, better positioned, and wealthier than he is shouldn't be his priority. First, such socializing takes up a lot of his time, and it also usually leads to spending a lot of money, which can undermine his success. In fact, sometimes losing time can be just as harmful as losing money; it's often true in business that when he gets drawn away from his work to socialize, his absence from the shop or warehouse is detrimental. When he spends one dollar at a bar, he actually loses about forty dollars' worth of his time. Plus, there's an important difference that makes it worse for the businessperson: money can be earned back, but time cannot. For instance—

1. Perhaps in that very juncture a person comes to his warehouse. Suppose the tradesman to be a warehouse-keeper, who trades by commission, and this person, being a clothier in the country, comes to offer him his business, the commission of which might have been worth to him thirty to forty or fifty pounds per annum; but finding him abroad, or rather, not finding him at home and in his business, goes to another, and fixes with him at once. I once knew a dealer lose such an occasion as this, for an afternoon's pleasure, he being gone a-fishing into Hackney-marsh. This loss can never be restored, this expense of time was a fatal expense of money; and no tradesman will deny but they find many such things as this happen in the course of trade, either to themselves or others.

1. Maybe at that very moment, someone walks into his warehouse. Let’s say the tradesman is a warehouse manager who operates on commission, and this person, a cloth retailer from the countryside, comes to offer him business that could have earned him thirty to fifty pounds a year. However, when he finds the manager is out, or rather, not at home and attending to his work, he goes to someone else and strikes a deal right away. I once knew a seller who lost an opportunity like this because he spent the afternoon fishing in Hackney Marsh. That loss can never be made up; that wasted time cost him money, and no tradesperson would deny that these kinds of things happen frequently in their line of work, either to themselves or to others.

2. Another tradesman is invited to dinner by his great friend; for I am now speaking chiefly upon the subject of keeping high company, and what the tradesman sometimes suffers by it; it is true, that there he finds a most noble entertainment, the person of quality, and that professes a friendship for him, treats him with infinite respect, is fond of him, makes him welcome as a prince—for I am speaking of the acquaintance as really valuable and good in itself—but then, see it in its consequences. The tradesman on this occasion misses his 'Change, that is, omits going to the Exchange for that one day only, and not being found there, a merchant with whom he was in treaty for a large parcel of foreign goods, which would have been to his advantage to have bought, sells them to another more diligent man in the same way; and when he comes home, he finds, to his great mortification, that he has lost a bargain that would have been worth a hundred pounds buying; and now being in want of the goods, he is forced to entreat his neighbour who bought them to part with some of them at a considerable advance of price, and esteem it a favour too. Who now paid dearest for the visit to a person of figure?—the gentleman, who perhaps spent twenty shillings extraordinary to give him a handsome dinner, or the tradesman who lost a bargain worth a hundred pounds buying to go to eat it?

2. Another tradesman is invited to dinner by his close friend; I'm mainly discussing the idea of mingling with high society and the troubles it can bring the tradesman. It’s true that at such gatherings, he enjoys a lavish meal, and the noble host, who claims to be his friend, treats him with great respect, is fond of him, and welcomes him like royalty—I'm talking about a friendship that is genuinely valuable and good in itself. But then, look at the consequences. The tradesman, in this case, misses his day at the Exchange, which means he skips going to the market just for that one day. Since he’s not there, a merchant he was negotiating with for a sizable shipment of foreign goods, which would have been very beneficial for him to purchase, sells them to someone more attentive instead. When he returns home, he discovers, to his great disappointment, that he lost out on a deal that would have earned him a hundred pounds. Now, needing the goods, he has to ask his neighbor, who bought them, to sell him some at a much higher price, considering it a favor. Who ends up paying the most for a visit to a person of prominence?—the gentleman who maybe spent twenty shillings extra for a nice dinner, or the tradesman who lost a deal worth a hundred pounds by going to eat it?

3. Another tradesman goes to 'Change in the ordinary course of his business, intending to speak with some of the merchants, his customers, as is usual, and get orders for goods, or perhaps an appointment to come to his warehouse to buy; but a snare of the like kind falls in his way, and a couple of friends, who perhaps have little or no business, at least with him, lay hold of him, and they agree to go off Change to the tavern together. By complying with this invitation, he omits speaking to some of those merchants, as above, who, though he knew nothing of their minds, yet it had been his business to have shown himself to them, and have put himself in the way of their call; but omitting this, he goes and drinks a bottle of wine, as above, and though he stays but an hour, or, as we say, but a little while, yet unluckily, in that interim, the merchant, not seeing him on the Exchange, calls at his warehouse as he goes from the Exchange, but not finding him there either, he goes to another warehouse, and gives his orders to the value of £300 or £400, to a more diligent neighbour of the same business; by which he (the warehouse-keeper) not only loses the profit of selling that parcel, or serving that order, but the merchant is shown the way to his neighbour's warehouse, who, being more diligent than himself, fails not to cultivate his interest, obliges him with selling low, even to little or no gain, for the first parcel; and so the unhappy tradesman loses not his selling that parcel only, but loses the very customer, which was, as it were, his peculiar property before.

3. Another businessman goes to the Exchange as part of his regular routine, planning to chat with some merchants, his customers, as usual, and get orders for goods or maybe set up a time for them to visit his warehouse to buy; but then he gets caught up in a situation where a couple of friends, who probably don’t have much business to discuss with him, convince him to leave the Exchange and join them at a tavern. By accepting this invitation, he misses the chance to talk to some of those merchants, even though he had no idea what they were thinking; it was his job to show up and make himself available for their inquiries. Instead, he goes and has a drink, and even though he only stays for an hour, it turns out that during that time, one of the merchants, not seeing him at the Exchange, stops by his warehouse on his way back, but when he finds him missing there too, he heads to another warehouse and places an order worth £300 or £400 with a more attentive neighbor in the same business. As a result, the warehouse owner not only loses out on the profit from that sale but also points the merchant to his neighbor's warehouse, who, being more proactive, makes an effort to build a relationship, even selling to him at a low price, which barely covers costs, for the first order. Consequently, the unfortunate businessman not only misses out on that sale but also loses the customer that he had essentially considered his own.

All these things, and many more such, are the consequences of a tradesman's absence from his business; and I therefore say, the expense of time on such light occasions as these, is one of the worst sorts of extravagance, and the most fatal to the tradesman, because really he knows not what he loses.

All of these things, along with many others, are the results of a tradesman being away from his business. So, I believe that wasting time on trivial matters like these is one of the worst kinds of extravagance and is the most harmful to the tradesman, because he genuinely doesn’t realize what he’s losing.

Above all things, the tradesman should take care not to be absent in the season of business, as I have mentioned above; for the warehouse-keeper to be absent from 'Change, which is his market, or from his warehouse, at the times when the merchants generally go about to buy, he had better be absent all the rest of the day.

Above all, the tradesman should make sure not to be absent during the busy season, as I mentioned earlier; for the warehouse keeper to be away from the market, which is his selling place, or from his warehouse when merchants typically go to buy, it's better for him to just stay away for the rest of the day.

I know nothing is more frequent, than for the tradesman, when company invites, or an excursion from business presses, to say, 'Well, come, I have nothing to do; there is no business to hinder, there is nothing neglected, I have no letters to write;' and the like; and away he goes to take the air for the afternoon, or to sit and enjoy himself with a friend—all of them things innocent and lawful in themselves; but here is the crisis of a tradesman's prosperity. In that very moment business presents, a valuable customer comes to buy, an unexpected bargain offers to be sold; another calls to pay money; and the like: nay, I would almost say, but that I am loth to concern the devil in more evils than he is guilty of—that the devil frequently draws a man out of his business when something extraordinary is just at hand for his advantage.

I know nothing is more common than for a tradesperson, when invited out by friends or feeling pressure from business, to say, "Well, I have nothing to do; there's no work to hold me back, I’ve got no letters to write," and similar things; then off they go to relax for the afternoon or to enjoy time with a friend—all perfectly innocent and fine activities. But this is the turning point of a tradesperson's success. At that exact moment, a business opportunity arises, a valuable customer shows up to buy something, an unexpected deal comes up for sale; another customer arrives to make a payment; and so on. I would almost say, though I hate to involve the devil in more wrongdoing than he's already responsible for, that he often leads a person away from their work just when something extraordinary is about to present itself for their benefit.

But not, as I have said, to charge the devil with what he is not guilty of, the tradesman is generally his own tempter; his head runs off from his business by a secret indolence; company, and the pleasure of being well received among gentlemen, is a cursed snare to a young tradesman, and carries him away from his business, for the mere vanity of being caressed and complimented by men who mean no ill, and perhaps know not the mischief they do to the man they show respect to; and this the young tradesman cannot resist, and that is in time his undoing.

But, as I've mentioned, we shouldn't blame the devil for things he isn't responsible for. The tradesman often becomes his own worst enemy; he lets his mind wander from work due to a hidden laziness. Socializing and the desire to be well-liked among gentlemen can trap a young tradesman, pulling him away from his work just for the sake of being admired and praised by people who don’t mean any harm and might not even realize the damage they're causing to the person they're respecting. This is something the young tradesman finds hard to resist, and over time, it leads to his downfall.

The tradesman's pleasure should be in his business, his companions should be his books; and if he has a family, he makes his excursions up stairs, and no farther; when he is there, a bell or a call brings him down; and while he is in his parlour, his shop or his warehouse never misses him; his customers never go away unserved, his letters never come in and are unanswered. None of my cautions aim at restraining a tradesman from diverting himself, as we call it, with his fireside, or keeping company with his wife and children: there are so few tradesmen ruin themselves that way, and so few ill consequences happen upon an uxorious temper, that I will not so much as rank it with the rest; nor can it be justly called one of the occasions of a tradesman's disasters; on the contrary, it is too often that the want of a due complacency there, the want of taking delight there, estranges the man from not his parlour only, but his warehouse and shop, and every part of business that ought to engross both his mind and his time. That tradesman who does not delight in his family, will never long delight in his business; for, as one great end of an honest tradesman's diligence is the support of his family, and the providing for the comfortable subsistence of his wife and children, so the very sight of, and above all, his tender and affectionate care for his wife and children, is the spur of his diligence; that is, it puts an edge upon his mind, and makes him hunt the world for business, as hounds hunt the woods for their game. When he is dispirited, or discouraged by crosses and disappointments, and ready to lie down and despair, the very sight of his family rouses him again, and he flies to his business with a new vigour; 'I must follow my business,' says he, 'or we must all starve, my poor children must perish;' in a word, he that is not animated to diligence by the very sight and thought of his wife and children being brought to misery and distress, is a kind of a deaf adder that no music will charm, or a Turkish mute that no pity can move: in a word, he is a creature not to be called human, a wretch hardened against all the passions and affections that nature has furnished to other animals; and as there is no rhetoric of use to such a kind of man as that, so I am not talking to such a one, he must go among the incurables; for, where nature cannot work, what can argument assist?

The tradesman's joy should come from his work, and his companions should be his books; if he has a family, he only needs to go upstairs, and no further. When he’s up there, a bell or a call brings him back down; while he's in his living room, his shop or warehouse never feels his absence; his customers are always served, and his letters are never left unanswered. None of my advice is meant to stop a tradesman from enjoying time with his family, or spending time with his wife and kids: very few tradesmen ruin themselves this way, and the negative effects of being overly devoted to family are rare, so I won't even categorize it with the other issues; in fact, it’s often the lack of enjoyment in that area, the absence of delight there, that pushes the man away from not just his living room, but also from his warehouse, shop, and every other part of his work that should occupy both his mind and his time. A tradesman who doesn’t take joy in his family won’t stay happy in his business for long; as one key reason for an honest tradesman’s hard work is to support his family and ensure his wife and children have a comfortable life, the simple sight of, and especially his caring and loving attention to, his wife and kids drives his dedication; it sharpens his focus and motivates him to seek out opportunities in business, just like hounds hunt in the woods for their prey. When he feels down or discouraged by setbacks and failures, and is ready to give up and despair, just seeing his family lifts his spirits again, and he leaps back into his work with renewed energy; ‘I have to keep working,’ he tells himself, ‘or we’ll all starve; my poor children will suffer.’ In short, if he’s not motivated to work hard by the sight and thought of his wife and children facing hardship and distress, he’s like a deaf adder that can’t be charmed by music, or a mute person who can’t be swayed by compassion; fundamentally, he’s a being unworthy of the label 'human,' a wretch who’s closed off to all the feelings and emotions that nature has given to other creatures; and since there’s no persuasive argument that can reach such a man, I’m not addressing him—he belongs among the hopeless, because where nature fails to inspire, what can reason do?

FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:

[Now, as in Defoe's time, a common observer is apt to be impressed with the idea, that expenses, with a large part of the community, exceed gains. Certainly, this is true at all times with a certain portion of society, but probably at no time with a large portion. There is a tendency to great self-deception in all such speculations; and no one ever thinks of bringing them to the only true test—statistical facts. The reader ought, therefore, to pay little attention to the complaints in the text, as to an increased extravagance in the expenses of tradesmen, and only regard the general recommendation, and the reasons by which that recommendation is enforced, to live within income.]

[Now, just like in Defoe's time, a typical observer might feel that expenses for a large part of the community exceed their earnings. While this is certainly true for some segments of society at all times, it's probably not the case for most. There's a strong tendency for self-deception in these kinds of reflections, and nobody ever really thinks to measure them against the only true standard—statistical facts. Therefore, readers should pay little attention to the complaints in the text about increasing overspending by tradesmen, and should instead focus on the overall advice and the reasons supporting that advice to live within their means.]

[There can be little doubt, that the calculation of this experienced gentleman is grossly inconsistent with the truth. Nevertheless, this part of Defoe's work contains some curious traits of manners, which are probably not exaggerated]

[There’s little doubt that this seasoned gentleman’s calculations are seriously off-base. Still, this section of Defoe’s work includes some interesting aspects of behavior that are likely not exaggerated.]

[Defoe, from his having been employed for several years in Scotland at the time of the Union, must have well known how rare was then the use of white or wheaten bread in that country.]

[Defoe, having worked for several years in Scotland during the time of the Union, must have been well aware of how uncommon white or wheat bread was in that country at that time.]


CHAPTER XI

OF THE TRADESMAN'S MARRYING TOO SOON

OF THE TRADESMAN'S MARRYING TOO SOON


It was a prudent provision which our ancestors made in the indenture of tradesmen's apprentices, that they should not contract matrimony during their apprenticeship; and they bound it with a penalty that was then thought sufficient. However, custom has taken off the edge of it since; namely, that they who did thus contract matrimony should forfeit their indentures, that is to say, should lose the benefit of their whole service, and not be made free.

It was a smart decision our ancestors made in the agreements for tradesmen's apprentices, stating that they shouldn’t get married during their apprenticeship; and they enforced it with a penalty that was considered adequate at the time. However, over time, this rule has become less strict. Specifically, those who got married would lose their agreements, meaning they would forfeit the benefits of their entire service and not gain their freedom.

Doubtless our forefathers were better acquainted with the advantages of frugality than we are, and saw farther into the desperate consequences of expensive living in the beginning of a tradesman's setting out into the world than we do; at least, it is evident they studied more and practised more of the prudential part in those cases, than we do.

Surely our ancestors understood the benefits of being frugal better than we do, and they recognized the serious consequences of costly living when a tradesman was just starting out in the world more than we do; at the very least, it’s clear that they considered and practiced the sensible aspects in those situations more than we do.

Hence we find them very careful to bind their youth under the strongest obligations they could, to temperance, modesty, and good husbandry, as the grand foundations of their prosperity in trade, and to prescribe to them such rules and methods of frugality and good husbandry, as they thought would best conduce to their prosperity.

Hence, we see them being very careful to instill in their youth the strongest commitments to moderation, modesty, and good management, as the key foundations of their success in business. They also set rules and methods for frugality and good management that they believed would best support their prosperity.

Among these rules this was one of the chief—namely, 'that they should not wed before they had sped?' It is an old homely rule, and coarsely expressed, but the meaning is evident, that a young beginner should never marry too soon. While he was a servant, he was bound from it as above; and when he had his liberty, he was persuaded against it by all the arguments which indeed ought to prevail with a considering man—namely, the expenses that a family necessarily would bring with it, and the care he ought to take to be able to support the expense before he brought it upon himself.

Among these rules, this was one of the main ones—specifically, 'that they should not marry before they were ready.' It's a simple, old-fashioned guideline, but its meaning is clear: a young person should never rush into marriage. While he was a servant, he was restricted by this rule; and when he gained his freedom, he was convinced against it by all the reasonable arguments that should resonate with someone thoughtful—namely, the costs that a family would inevitably bring, and the necessity for him to ensure he could afford those costs before taking that step.

On this account it is, I say, our ancestors took more of their youth than we now do; at least, I think, they studied well the best methods of thriving, and were better acquainted with the steps by which a young tradesman ought to be introduced into the world than we are, and of the difficulties which those people would necessarily involve themselves in, who, despising those rules and methods of frugality, involved themselves in the expense of a family before they were in a way of gaining sufficient to support it.

For this reason, I believe our ancestors enjoyed their youth more than we do today. They seemed to have a good grasp on the best ways to succeed and understood better how a young tradesman should enter the world. They were also aware of the challenges faced by those who ignored the rules and frugal strategies, diving into family expenses before they were able to earn enough to support one.

A married apprentice will always make a repenting tradesman; and those stolen matches, a very few excepted, are generally attended with infinite broils and troubles, difficulties, and cross events, to carry them on at first by way of intrigue, to conceal them afterwards under fear of superiors, to manage after that to keep off scandal, and preserve the character as well of the wife as of the husband; and all this necessarily attended with a heavy expense, even before the young man is out of his time; before he has set a foot forward, or gotten a shilling in the world; so that all this expense is out of his original stock, even before he gets it, and is a sad drawback upon him when it comes.

A married apprentice will always regret becoming a tradesman; and those secret relationships, with very few exceptions, usually come with endless arguments and problems, challenges, and unexpected events. At first, they start as a secret, then they're hidden out of fear of authority, and later they involve trying to avoid rumors and maintain the reputation of both the wife and the husband. All of this comes with heavy costs, even before the young man completes his training; before he's made any progress or earned any money in the world. So, all these expenses come out of his initial resources, even before he receives them, and this is a significant setback for him when he finally does.

Nay, this unhappy and dirty part is often attended with worse consequences still; for this expense coming upon him while he is but a servant, and while his portion, or whatever it is to be called, is not yet come into his hand, he is driven to terrible exigencies to supply this expense. If his circumstances are mean, and his trade mean, he is frequently driven to wrong his master, and rob his shop or his till for money, if he can come at it: and this, as it begins in madness, generally ends in destruction; for often he is discovered, exposed, and perhaps punished, and so the man is undone before he begins. If his circumstances are good, and he has friends that are able, and expectations that are considerable, then his expense is still the greater, and ways and means are found out, or at least looked for, to supply the expense, and conceal the fact, that his friends may not know it, till he has gotten the blessing he expects into his hands, and is put in a way to stand upon his own legs; and then it comes out, with a great many grieving aggravations to a parent to find himself tricked and defeated in the expectations of his son's marrying handsomely, and to his advantage; instead of which, he is obliged to receive a dish-clout for a daughter-in-law, and see his family propagated by a race of beggars, and yet perhaps as haughty, as insolent, and as expensive, as if she had blessed the family with a lady of fortune, and brought a fund with her to have supported the charge of her posterity.

No, this unfortunate and messy situation often leads to even worse consequences. When these expenses hit him while he’s still a servant, and before he has received his share or whatever it's supposed to be called, he is pushed into desperate situations to cover the costs. If he comes from a poor background and his job is lowly, he often resorts to betraying his master, stealing from the shop or cash register if he can get away with it. This typically begins in a moment of madness and usually ends in disaster; he gets caught, exposed, and possibly punished, leaving him ruined before he even starts. If his situation is better, and he has supportive friends and significant expectations, his expenses are even higher, and he looks for ways—whether legitimate or not—to cover these costs without his friends finding out until he finally receives the expected blessings and is able to stand on his own. Then, when it all comes to light, it deeply frustrates a parent to realize he’s been tricked and let down in his hopes of seeing his son marry well for his benefit. Instead, he is forced to welcome a daughter-in-law who is basically a kitchen maid and watch his family grow through a lineage of beggars, who might be just as proud, arrogant, and costly as if she had brought wealth and status to the family.

When this happens, the poor young man's case is really deplorable. Before he is out of his time, he is obliged to borrow of friends, if he has any, on pretence his father does not make him a sufficient allowance, or he trenches upon his master's cash, which perhaps, he being the eldest apprentice, is in his hands; and this he does, depending, that when he is out of his time, and his father gives him wherewith to set up, he will make good the deficiency; and all this happens accordingly so that his reputation as to his master is preserved, and he comes off clear as to dishonesty in his trust.

When this happens, the poor young man's situation is truly unfortunate. Before he finishes his apprenticeship, he has to borrow money from friends, if he has any, claiming that his father doesn’t give him enough allowance, or he dips into his master's funds, which he may control since he’s the oldest apprentice. He does this hoping that once he’s finished his time and his father gives him money to start out on his own, he will make up for what he borrowed. All of this allows him to maintain his reputation with his master and come away without any accusations of dishonesty.

But what a sad chasm does it make in his fortune! I knew a certain young tradesman, whose father, knowing nothing of his son's measures, gave him £2000 to set up with, straining himself to the utmost for the well introducing his son into the world; but who, when he came to set up, having near a year before married the servant-maid of the house where he lodged, and kept her privately at a great expense, had above £600 of his stock already wasted and sunk, before he began for himself; the consequence of which was, that going in partner with another young man, who had likewise £2000 to begin with, he was, instead of half of the profits, obliged to make a private article to accept of a third of the trade; and the beggar-wife proving more expensive, by far, than the partner's wife (who married afterwards, and doubled his fortune), the first young man was obliged to quit the trade, and with his remaining stock set up by himself; in which case his expenses continuing, and his stock being insufficient, he sank gradually, and then broke, and died poor. In a word, he broke the heart of his father, wasted what he had, and could never recover it, and at last it broke his own heart too.

But what a sad gap it creates in his fortunes! I knew a young tradesman whose father, unaware of his son’s actions, gave him £2000 to get started, pushing himself to the limit to help his son enter the world. However, when he was ready to start, having married the maid from the place where he stayed nearly a year earlier and keeping her secretly at a high cost, he had already wasted over £600 of his funds before he could begin on his own. As a result, partnering with another young man who also had £2000 to start, instead of getting half the profits, he had to agree to take only a third of the business. And the expense of his wife turned out to be much higher than his partner's wife, who married later and doubled her husband's wealth. This first young man ended up leaving the trade and tried to set up on his own with what little capital he had left; but his ongoing expenses and insufficient stock led to gradual failure, and he eventually went bankrupt and died poor. In short, he broke his father’s heart, squandered what he had, could never bounce back, and ultimately broke his own heart too.

But I shall bring it a little farther. Suppose the youth not to act so grossly neither; not to marry in his apprenticeship, not to be forced to keep a wife privately, and eat the bread he never got; but suppose him to be entered upon the world, that he has set up, opened shop, or fitted up his warehouse, and is ready to trade, the next thing, in the ordinary course of the world, at this time is a wife; nay, I have met with some parents, who have been indiscreet enough themselves to prompt their sons to marry as soon as they are set up; and the reason they give for it is, the wickedness of the age, that youth are drawn in a hundred ways to ruinous matches or debaucheries, and are so easily ruined by the mere looseness of their circumstances, that it is needful to marry them to keep them at home, and to preserve them diligent, and bind them close to their business.

But let’s consider it a bit differently. Imagine a young man who doesn’t act in such a foolish way; he doesn’t marry during his apprenticeship, nor is he pressured to secretly take care of a wife and live off money he hasn’t earned. Instead, let’s say he’s entered the world, has established himself, opened a shop, or set up his warehouse, and is ready to do business. The next logical step in the normal course of life at this point is a wife; in fact, I’ve known some parents who have been imprudent enough to encourage their sons to marry as soon as they get started. Their reasoning is based on the wickedness of the times, claiming that young people are easily led into disastrous relationships or vices in many ways, and that the very laxity of their situation means they can quickly go off track. Therefore, they believe it’s necessary to marry them off to keep them at home, motivate them to stay diligent, and tie them closely to their work.

This, be it just or not, is a bad cure of an ill disease; it is ruining the young man to make him sober, and making him a slave for life to make him diligent. Be it that the wife he shall marry is a sober, frugal, housewifely woman, and that nothing is to be laid to her charge but the mere necessary addition of a family expense, and that with the utmost moderation, yet, at the best, he cripples his fortune, stock-starves his business, and brings a great expense upon himself at first, before, by his success in trade, he had laid up stock enough to support the charge.

This, whether it’s fair or not, is a poor remedy for a serious problem; it's ruining the young man by forcing him to be sober, and turning him into a lifelong slave to make him hardworking. Even if the wife he marries is responsible, economical, and good at managing a household, and the only extra financial burden she brings is a minimal family expense, in the end, he still jeopardizes his finances, starves his business of necessary resources, and causes himself significant costs upfront, before he’s earned enough through his trade to cover those expenses.

First, it is reasonable to suppose, that at his beginning in the world he cannot expect to get so good a portion with a wife, as he might after he had been set up a few years, and by his diligence and frugality, joined to a small expense in house-keeping, had increased both his stock in trade and the trade itself; then he would be able to look forward boldly, and would have some pretence for insisting on a fortune, when he could make out his improvements in trade, and show that he was both able to maintain a wife, and able to live without her. When a young tradesman in Holland or Germany goes a-courting, I am told the first question the young woman asks of him, or perhaps her friends for her, is, 'Are you able to pay the charges?' that is to say, in English, 'Are you able to keep a wife when you have got her?' The question is a little Gothic indeed, and would be but a kind of gross way of receiving a lover here, according to our English good breeding; but there is a great deal of reason in the inquiry, that must be confessed; and he that is not able to pay the charges, should never begin the journey; for, be the wife what she will, the very state of life that naturally attends the marrying a woman, brings with it an expense so very considerable, that a tradesman ought to consider very well of it before he engages.

First, it makes sense to assume that when he first enters the world, he can't expect to get as good a deal with a wife as he might after he's been established for a few years. By being diligent and frugal, alongside keeping household expenses low, he would have grown both his business and his savings. Then he could look ahead with confidence and have a reason to ask for a dowry when he could demonstrate his business improvements and show that he was capable of supporting a wife while also managing on his own. When a young merchant in Holland or Germany starts courting, I've heard the first question the young woman asks, or perhaps her friends on her behalf, is, 'Can you afford to support a family?' In other words, 'Can you take care of a wife once you have one?' This question sounds a bit outdated, and would come off as rather blunt here according to our social norms; however, there's a lot of logic behind the question that can’t be ignored. Anyone who isn't ready to "pay the costs" shouldn't even consider starting down that path; because regardless of who the wife is, the very act of marrying brings significant expenses that a businessman should carefully think over before committing.

But it is to be observed, too, that abundance of young tradesmen, especially in England, not only marry early, but by the so marrying they are obliged to take up with much less fortunes in their haste, than when they allow themselves longer time of consideration. As it stands now, generally speaking, the wife and the shop make their first show together; but how few of these early marriages succeed—how hard such a tradesman finds it to stand, and support the weight that attends it—I appeal to the experience of those, who having taken this wrong step, and being with difficulty got over it, are yet good judges of that particular circumstance in others that come after them.[22]

But it's also worth noting that many young tradespeople, especially in England, not only marry young but, in doing so, they often settle for much smaller fortunes in their rush than if they took their time to think things through. Currently, the wife and the shop tend to make their first appearance together; however, very few of these early marriages are successful—how challenging it is for such a tradesperson to uphold and manage the pressures that come with it—I turn to the insights of those who have made this mistake, who have barely managed to move past it, yet are still keen observers of the situation in others who follow after them.[22]

I know it is a common cry that is raised against the woman, when her husband fails in business, namely, that it is the wife has ruined him; it is true, in some particular cases it may be so, but in general it is wrong placed—they may say marrying has ruined the man, when they cannot say his wife has done it, for the woman was not in fault, but her husband.

I know it's a common complaint that gets thrown around when a husband fails in business, claiming that it's the wife who ruined him. While it might be true in some specific cases, generally it's misplaced. People might say that getting married has ruined the man, but they can't honestly say his wife did it, because the woman isn't at fault—it's her husband who is.

When a tradesman marries, there are necessary consequences, I mean of expenses, which the wife ought not be charged with, and cannot be made accountable for—such as, first, furnishing the house; and let this be done with the utmost plainness, so as to be decent; yet it must be done, and this calls for ready money, and that ready money by so much diminishes his stock in trade; nor is the wife at all to be charged in this case, unless she either put him to more charge than was needful, or showed herself dissatisfied with things needful, and required extravagant gaiety and expense. Secondly, servants, if the man was frugal before, it may be he shifted with a shop, and a servant in it, an apprentice, or journeyman, or perhaps without one at first, and a lodging for himself, where he kept no other servant, and so his expenses went on small and easy; or if he was obliged to take a house because of his business and the situation of his shop, he then either let part of the house out to lodgers, keeping himself a chamber in it, or at the worst left it unfurnished, and without any one but a maid-servant to dress his victuals, and keep the house clean; and thus he goes on when a bachelor, with a middling expense at most.

When a tradesman gets married, there are necessary costs, specifically expenses that his wife shouldn't be held responsible for and can't be held accountable for—like, first, setting up the house; and this should be done simply, in a way that looks decent, yet it must be done, and this requires cash on hand, which in turn reduces his working capital. The wife shouldn't be responsible for this unless she either makes him spend more than necessary or expresses dissatisfaction with necessary things and demands excessive luxury and expense. Secondly, regarding staff, if the man was careful with his money before, he might have managed with just a shop and an apprentice, or even by himself initially, with a place to live where he had no other employees, keeping his expenses low and manageable; or if he had to rent a house due to his business and the location of his shop, he might have rented part of the house to lodgers while keeping one room for himself, or at the very least left it unfurnished and only had a maid to prepare his meals and clean the house; and thus he manages as a bachelor, with fairly modest expenses at most.

But when he brings home a wife, besides the furnishing his house, he must have a formal house-keeping, even at the very first; and as children come on, more servants, that is, maids, or nurses, that are as necessary as the bread he eats—especially if he multiplies apace, as he ought to suppose he may—in this case let the wife be frugal and managing, let her be unexceptionable in her expense, yet the man finds his charge mount high, and perhaps too high for his gettings, notwithstanding the additional stock obtained by her portion. And what is the end of this but inevitable decay, and at last poverty and ruin?

But when he brings home a wife, along with furnishing the house, he needs to establish a proper household right from the start. As children arrive, he’ll need more help, like maids or nurses, which are as essential as the food he eats—especially if he ends up having a lot of kids, as he might expect. In this case, the wife should be careful with money and manage expenses wisely, but even with her portion added in, he still finds that costs rise quickly, perhaps even too high for what he can afford. What does this lead to but inevitable decline, eventually resulting in poverty and ruin?

Nay, the more the woman is blameless, the more certain is his overthrow, for if it was an expense that was extravagant and unnecessary, and that his wife ran him out by her high living and gaiety, he might find ways to retrench, to take up in time, and prevent the mischief that is in view. A woman may, with kindness and just reasoning, be easily convinced, that her husband cannot maintain such an expense as she now lives at; and let tradesmen say what they will, and endeavour to excuse themselves as much as they will, by loading their wives with the blame of their miscarriage, as I have known some do, and as old father Adam, though in another case, did before them, I must say so much in the woman's behalf at a venture. It will be very hard to make me believe that any woman, that was not fit for Bedlam, if her husband truly and timely represented his case to her, and how far he was or was not able to maintain the expense of their way of living, would not comply with her husband's circumstances, and retrench her expenses, rather than go on for a while, and come to poverty and misery. Let, then, the tradesman lay it early and seriously before his wife, and with kindness and plainness tell her his circumstances, or never let him pretend to charge her with being the cause of his ruin. Let him tell her how great his annual expense is; for a woman who receives what she wants as she wants it, that only takes it with one hand, and lays it out with another, does not, and perhaps cannot, always keep an account, or cast up how much it comes to by the year. Let her husband, therefore, I say, tell her honestly how much his expense for her and himself amounts to yearly; and tell her as honestly, that it is too much for him, that his income in trade will not answer it; that he goes backward, and the last year his family expenses amounted to so much, say £400—for that is but an ordinary sum now for a tradesman to spend, whatever it has been esteemed formerly—and that his whole trade, though he made no bad debts, and had no losses, brought him in but £320 the whole year, so that he was £80 that year a worse man than he was before, that this coming year he had met with a heavy loss already, having had a shopkeeper in the country broke in his debt £200, and that he offered but eight shillings in the pound, so that he should lose £120 by him, and that this, added to the £80 run out last year, came to £200, and that if they went on thus, they should be soon reduced.

No, the more innocent the woman is, the more certain his downfall becomes. If her spending is extravagant and unnecessary, and if his wife drives him to bankruptcy with her lavish lifestyle and fun, he might find ways to cut back, to adjust in time, and prevent the disaster that lies ahead. A woman can, through kindness and reasonable discussion, be easily convinced that her husband can't afford the expenses of their current lifestyle; and no matter how much merchants try to excuse themselves by blaming their wives for their failures—like I’ve seen some do, just as old Father Adam did in a different case—I have to say this on the woman's behalf: it’s hard for me to believe that any woman who isn’t crazy wouldn’t comply with her husband’s situation and cut back on her expenses if he honestly and timely explained how much he can or can't handle. Merchants should address this with their wives early and seriously, kindly and clearly communicating their circumstances, or they shouldn’t blame her for their ruin. The husband should explain how high their yearly expenses are. A woman who receives what she wants as she wants it, using one hand to take and another to spend, doesn’t always keep track of how much it totals yearly. So, the husband should honestly tell her how much he spends on her and himself each year, and just as honestly explain that it’s too much for him—that his business income can’t cover it, that he’s falling behind, and that last year their family expenses were around £400—which is a normal amount for a tradesman to spend nowadays, despite what it may have been considered in the past—and that even without bad debts or losses, his entire business only brought in £320 for the whole year, meaning he ended up £80 poorer than before. This coming year, he’s already faced a tough loss with a shopkeeper in the countryside who defaulted on a £200 debt, offering only eight shillings on the pound, which means he’ll lose £120 from that, and adding this to the £80 he lost last year totals £200. If they keep going like this, they’ll soon find themselves in a difficult situation.

What could the woman say to so reasonable a discourse, if she was a woman of any sense, but to reply, she would do any thing that lay in her to assist him, and if her way of living was too great for him to support, she would lessen it as he should direct, or as much as he thought was reasonable?—and thus, going hand in hand, she and he together abating what reason required, they might bring their expenses within the compass of their gettings, and be able to go on again comfortably.

What could the woman say to such a reasonable discussion, if she had any sense, but to respond that she would do anything within her power to help him? If her lifestyle was too extravagant for him to support, she would scale it back according to his suggestions or as much as he deemed reasonable. By working together and reducing their expenses to match their income, they could manage to live comfortably again.

But now, when the man, finding his expenses greater than his income, and yet, when he looks into those expenses, finds that his wife is frugal too, and industrious, and applies diligently to the managing her family, and bringing up her children, spends nothing idly, saves every thing that can be saved; that instead of keeping too many servants, is a servant to every body herself; and that, in short, when he makes the strictest examination, finds she lays out nothing but what is absolutely necessary, what now must this man do? He is ruined inevitably—for all his expense is necessary; there is no retrenching, no abating any thing.

But now, when the man sees that his expenses are higher than his income, and yet, when he looks at those expenses, he finds that his wife is also careful with money and hardworking, doing her best to manage the household and raise their children, spending nothing frivolously, saving everything that can be saved; that instead of hiring too many servants, she takes care of everyone herself; and that, in short, when he conducts the strictest review, he finds she spends only what is absolutely necessary, what should this man do? He is inevitably doomed—because all his expenses are essential; there’s no way to cut back, no way to reduce anything.

This, I say, is the worst case of the two indeed; and this man, though he may say he is undone by marrying, yet cannot blame the woman, and say he is undone by his wife. This is the very case I am speaking of; the man should not have married so soon; he should have staid till he had, by pushing on his trade, and living close in his expense, increased his stock, and been what we call beforehand in the world; and had he done thus, he had not been undone by marrying.

This, I say, is definitely the worst situation of the two; and this man, even though he claims he's ruined by getting married, cannot blame the woman and say he's ruined because of his wife. This is exactly the situation I'm referring to; the man shouldn't have married so soon; he should have waited until he had, by focusing on his business and keeping his expenses low, increased his savings and been what we call ahead in life; and if he had done that, he wouldn't have been ruined by marrying.

It is a little hard to say it, but in this respect it is very true, there is many a young tradesman ruined by marrying a good wife—in which, pray take notice that I observe my own just distinction: I do not say they are ruined or undone by a good wife, or by their wives being good, but by their marrying—their unseasonable, early, and hasty marrying—before they had cast up the cost of one, or the income of the other—before they had inquired into the necessary charge of a wife and a family, or seen the profits of their business, whether it would maintain them or no; and whether, as above, they could pay the charges, the increasing necessary charge, of a large and growing family. How to persuade young men to consider this in time, and beware and avoid the mischief of it, that is a question by itself.

It's a bit tough to say, but it’s very true that many young tradesmen end up struggling because they marry a good wife. Let me clarify: I'm not saying they are ruined by having a good wife or that their wives are the problem, but by the fact that they marry—by their untimely, premature, and rash decisions to marry—before they’ve calculated the costs involved or the income they can generate. They often don’t look into the expenses of having a wife and family or assess whether their business can support them. They need to think about whether they can cover the increasing costs of a larger family. Finding a way to convince young men to reflect on this in time and to avoid the pitfalls is a separate challenge entirely.

Let no man, then, when he is brought to distress by this early rashness, turn short upon his wife, and reproach her with being the cause of his ruin, unless, at the same time, he can charge her with extravagant living, needless expense, squandering away his money, spending it in trifles and toys, and running him out till the shop could not maintain the kitchen, much less the parlour; nor even then, unless he had given her timely notice of it, and warned her that he was not able to maintain so large a family, or so great an expense, and that, therefore, she would do well to consider of it, and manage with a straiter hand, and the like. If, indeed, he had done so, and she had not complied with him, then she had been guilty, and without excuse too; but as the woman cannot judge of his affairs, and he sees and bears a share in the riotous way of their living, and does not either show his dislike of it, or let her know, by some means or other, that he cannot support it, the woman cannot be charged with being his ruin—no, though her way of extravagant expensive living were really the cause of it. I met with a short dialogue, the other day, between a tradesman and his wife, upon such a subject as this, some part of which may be instructing in the case before us.

Let no man, when he's faced with the consequences of his hasty decisions, take it out on his wife and blame her for his downfall, unless he can also point to her excessive spending, unnecessary costs, wasting his money on trivial things, and leaving him so broke that the shop can't even cover the kitchen expenses, let alone the living room. And even then, he should have given her a heads-up and warned her that he couldn't support such a big household or high expenses, suggesting that she should reconsider and manage things more frugally. If he did all that and she still didn't listen, then she would be at fault without excuse. However, since the woman can't judge his financial situation and he shares in the extravagant lifestyle without expressing his disapproval, or making it known that he can't keep up with it, she can't be blamed for his ruin—even if her lavish spending really is the cause. I came across a brief conversation the other day between a businessman and his wife that touches on this topic, and some parts of it might be relevant to our discussion.

The tradesman was very melancholy for two or three days, and had appeared all that time to be pensive and sad, and his wife, with all her arts, entreaties, anger, and tears, could not get it out of him; only now and then she heard him fetch a deep sigh, and at another time say, he wished he was dead, and the like expressions. At last, she began the discourse with him in a respectful, obliging manner, but with the utmost importunity to get it out of him, thus:—

The tradesman was really down for two or three days, and during that time, he seemed deep in thought and sad. His wife, using all her tricks, pleas, anger, and tears, couldn’t find out what was bothering him; she just occasionally heard him let out a deep sigh or say he wished he were dead and similar things. Finally, she started talking to him in a respectful and friendly way, but with great insistence to get him to open up, saying:—

Wife.—My dear, what is the matter with you?

Wife.—Babe, what's wrong with you?

Husb.—Nothing.

Husb.—Nothing.

Wife.—Nay, don't put me off with an answer that signifies nothing; tell me what is the matter, for I am sure something extraordinary is the case—tell me, I say, do tell me. [Then she kisses him.]

Wife.—Don't give me a vague answer; tell me what's going on because I know something unusual is happening—please, go ahead and tell me. [Then she kisses him.]

Husb.—Prithee, don't trouble me.

Husb.—Please, don’t bother me.

Wife.—I will know what is the matter

Wife.—I want to know what's going on.

Husb.—I tell you nothing is the matter—what should be the matter?

Husb.—I’m telling you, nothing is wrong—what could possibly be wrong?

Wife.—Come, my dear, I must not be put off so; I am sure, if it be any thing ill, I must have my share of it; and why should I not be worthy to know it, whatever it is, before it comes upon me.

Wife.—Come on, my love, you can't just brush me off like that; I know if there's something bad going on, I deserve to know about it too. Why shouldn't I be entitled to learn about whatever it is before it affects me?

Husb.—Poor woman! [He kisses her.]

Husb.—Poor woman! [He kisses her.]

Wife.—Well, but let me know what it is; come, don't distract yourself alone; let me bear a share of your grief, as well as I have shared in your joy.

Wife.—Well, just tell me what it is; come on, don’t keep it all to yourself; let me share in your sadness, just like I’ve shared in your happiness.

Husb.—My dear, let me alone, you trouble me now, indeed.

Husb.—My dear, just leave me alone; you're bothering me right now.

[Still he keeps her off.]

[Still he keeps her away.]

Wife.—Then you will not trust your wife with knowing what touches you so sensibly?

Wife.—So you won't trust your wife with knowing what affects you so deeply?

Husb.—I tell you, it is nothing, it is a trifle, it is not worth talking of.

Husb.—I’m telling you, it’s nothing, it’s a small thing, it’s not worth discussing.

Wife.—Don't put me off with such stuff as that; I tell you, it is not for nothing that you have been so concerned, and that so long too; I have seen it plain enough; why, you have drooped upon it for this fortnight past, and above.

Wife.—Don’t brush me off with that nonsense; I’m telling you, there’s a reason you’ve been so worried, and for this long too; I’ve noticed it clearly; you’ve been down about this for the past two weeks or more.

Husb.—Ay, this twelvemonth, and more.

Husb.—Yeah, this year and more.

Wife.—Very well, and yet it is nothing.

Wife.—Okay, but it still doesn’t mean anything.

Husb.—It is nothing that you can help me in.

Husb.—It's nothing you can do to help me.

Wife.—Well, but how do you know that? Let me see, and judge whether I can, or no.

Wife.—Well, how do you know that? Let me see, and I'll decide if I can or not.

Husb.—I tell you, you cannot.

Husband—I'm telling you, you can't.

Wife.—Sure it is some terrible thing then. Why must not I know it? What! are you going to break? Come, tell me the worst of it.

Wife.—It must be something really awful then. Why can't I know? What! Are you going to give up? Come on, just tell me the worst.

Husb.—Break! no, no, I hope not—Break! no, I'll never break.

Husb.—No way! I really hope not—Break! No, I won't ever break.

Wife.—As good as you have broke; don't presume; no man in trade can say he won't break.

Wife.—As good as you've ruined; don't assume; no man in business can say he won't fail.

Husb.—Yes, yes; I can say I won't break.

Husb.—Yeah, yeah; I can say I won't give in.

Wife.—I am glad to hear it; I hope you have a knack, then, beyond other tradesmen.

Wife.—I'm happy to hear that; I hope you have a special talent that sets you apart from other tradespeople.

Husb.—No, I have not neither; any man may say so as well as I; and no man need break, if he will act the part of an honest man.

Husb.—No, I haven't either; any man can say that just like I can; and no one has to act dishonestly if they're committed to being an honest person.

Wife.—How is that, pray?

Wife.—How’s that, pray?

Husb.—Why, give up all faithfully to his creditors, as soon as he finds there is a deficiency in his stock, and yet that there is enough left to pay them.

Husb.—Why not just turn over everything to his creditors as soon as he realizes there's a shortfall in his stock, but still enough left to pay them?

Wife.—Well, I don't understand those things, but I desire you would tell me what it is troubles you now; and if it be any thing of that kind, yet I think you should let me know it.

Wife.—I don’t really get these things, but I want you to tell me what’s bothering you right now; and if it’s something like that, I think you should let me know.

Husb.—Why should I trouble you with it?

Husb.—Why should I bother you with it?

Wife.—It would be very unkind to let me know nothing till it comes and swallows you up and me too, all on a sudden; I must know it, then; pray tell it me now.

Wife.—It would be really unfair to keep me in the dark until it suddenly comes and takes you away, along with me. I need to know about it now; please tell me.

Husb.—Why, then, I will tell you; indeed, I am not going to break, and I hope I am in no danger of it, at least not yet.

Husb.—Well, I'll tell you; I'm not going to crack, and I don't think I'm in any danger of that, at least not yet.

Wife.—I thank you, my dear, for that; but still, though it is some satisfaction to me to be assured of so much, yet I find there is something in it; and your way of speaking is ambiguous and doubtful. I entreat you, be plain and free with me. What is at the bottom of it?—why won't you tell me?—what have I done, that I am not to be trusted with a thing that so nearly concerns me?

Wife.—Thank you, my dear, for that; but even though it’s somewhat reassuring to hear, I still sense there’s more to it. The way you’re speaking feels vague and uncertain. Please, be honest and straightforward with me. What’s really going on? Why won’t you tell me? What have I done that makes me untrustworthy regarding something that matters so much to me?

Husb.—I have told you, my dear; pray be easy; I am not going to break, I tell you.

Husb.—I've told you, my dear; please relax; I'm not going to fall apart, I promise.

Wife.—Well, but let us talk a little more seriously of it; you are not going to break, that is, not just now, not yet, you said; but, my dear, if it is then not just at hand, but may happen, or is in view at some distance, may not some steps be taken to prevent it for the present, and to save us from it at last too.

Wife.—Well, let's talk about this a bit more seriously; you’re not going to break, at least not right now, you said. But, my dear, if it’s not imminent and might happen or is something we can see coming in the distance, can’t we take some steps to prevent it for now and ultimately avoid it altogether?

Husb.—What steps could you think of, if that were the case?

Husb.—What ideas do you have if that were true?

Wife.—Indeed it is not much that is in a wife's power, but I am ready to do what lies in me, and what becomes me; and first, pray let us live lower. Do you think I would live as I do, if I thought your income would not bear it? No, indeed.

Wife.—Honestly, a wife doesn’t have much control, but I'm willing to do what I can and what is right for me; and first, let's please live more modestly. Do you think I would live the way I do if I believed your income could handle it? Absolutely not.

Husb.—You have touched me in the most sensible part, my dear; you have found out what has been my grief; you need make no further inquiries.

Husb.—You've hit me right in the feels, my dear; you've uncovered what's been bothering me; there's no need for more questions.

Wife.—Was that your grief?—and would you never be so kind to your wife as to let her know it?

Wife.—Was that your pain?—and would you never be so nice to your wife as to let her know?

Husb.—How could I mention so unkind a thing to you?

Husb.—How could I bring up something so hurtful to you?

Wife.—Would it not have been more unkind to have let things run on to destruction, and left your wife to the reproach of the world, as having ruined you by her expensive living?

Wife.—Wouldn't it have been more unkind to let things fall apart and leave your wife to face the blame from everyone for ruining you with her expensive lifestyle?

Husb.—That's true, my dear; and it may be I might have spoke to you at last, but I could not do it now; it looks so cruel and so hard to lower your figure, and make you look little in the eyes of the world, for you know they judge all by outsides, that I could not bear it.

Husb.—That's true, my dear; and maybe I would have talked to you eventually, but I can't do it now; it feels so harsh and unfair to diminish your worth and make you seem smaller in the eyes of the world, because you know they judge everything based on appearances, and I just can't stand that.

Wife.—It would be a great deal more cruel to let me run on, and be really an instrument to ruin, my husband, when, God knows, I thought I was within the compass of your gettings, and that a great way; and you know you always prompted me to go fine, to treat handsomely, to keep more servants, and every thing of that kind. Could I doubt but that you could afford it very well?

Wife.—It would be much more cruel to let me continue and actually be a cause of my husband's downfall, when, God knows, I believed I was well within your means, and quite a bit beyond that; and you know you always encouraged me to dress well, to entertain nicely, to have more staff, and everything like that. How could I doubt that you could easily afford it?

Husb.—That's true, but I see it is otherwise now; and though I cannot help it, I could not mention it to you, nor, for ought I know, should I ever have done it.

Husb.—That’s true, but I see things differently now; and even though I can’t change it, I couldn’t bring myself to tell you, nor, for all I know, would I have ever done so.

Wife.—Why! you said just now you should have done it.

Wife.—What! You just said you would have done it.

Husb.—Ay, at last, perhaps, I might, when things had been past recovery.

Husb.—Yeah, finally, maybe I could, when things had gone too far to fix.

Wife.—That is to say, when you were ruined and undone, and could not show your head, I should know it; or when a statute of bankrupt had come out, and the creditors had come and turned us out of doors, then I should have known it—that would have been a barbarous sort of kindness.

Wife.—In other words, when you were broke and lost everything, and couldn’t even face the world, I would have found out; or when the bankruptcy notice was issued, and the creditors came to kick us out, then I would have known it—that would have been a cruel kind of kindness.

Husb.—What could I do? I could not help it.

Husb.—What could I do? I couldn't help it.

Wife.—Just so our old acquaintance G—W—did; his poor wife knew not one word of it, nor so much as suspected it, but thought him in as flourishing circumstances as ever; till on a sudden he was arrested in an action for a great sum, so great that he could not find bail, and the next day an execution on another action was served in the house, and swept away the very bed from under her; and the poor lady, that brought him £3000 portion, was turned into the street with five small children to take care of.

Wife.—Just like our old friend G—W— did; his poor wife had no idea about it, nor did she even suspect anything, but assumed he was doing as well as ever. Then suddenly he was arrested for a huge debt, so large that he couldn’t find anyone to cover it, and the next day, another legal action led to an execution at their house, taking away the very bed from right underneath her. The poor lady, who brought him a £3000 dowry, was thrown out onto the street with five young kids to care for.

Husb.—Her case was very sad, indeed.

Husb.—Her situation was really unfortunate.

Wife.—But was not he a barbarous wretch to her, to let her know nothing of her circumstances? She was at the ball but the day before, in her velvet suit, and with her jewels on, and they reproach her with it every day.

Wife.—But wasn't he a cruel jerk to her, keeping her in the dark about her situation? She was just at the ball the day before, in her velvet outfit and wearing her jewels, and they remind her of it every day.

Husb.—She did go too fine, indeed.

Husb.—She really went overboard, for sure.

Wife.—Do you think she would have done so, if she had known any thing of his circumstances?

Wife.—Do you think she would have done that if she had known anything about his situation?

Husb.—It may be not.

Husb.—Maybe it won't be.

Wife.—No, no; she is a lady of too much sense, to allow us to suggest it.

Wife.—No, no; she’s too sensible to let us suggest that.

Husb.—And why did he not let her have some notice of it?

Husb.—And why didn't he give her any warning about it?

Wife.—Why, he makes the same dull excuse you speak of; he could not bear to speak to her of it, and it looked so unkind to do any thing to straiten her, he could not do it, it would break his heart, and the like; and now he has broke her heart.

Wife.—Well, he gives the same boring excuse you mentioned; he couldn't bring himself to talk to her about it, and it seemed so cruel to put any pressure on her, he just couldn't do it, it would shatter his heart, and so on; and now he has shattered hers.

Husb.—I know it is hard to break in upon one's wife in such a manner, where there is any true kindness and affection; but—

Husb.—I understand it’s tough to interrupt your wife like this, especially when there’s real kindness and love involved; but—

Wife.—But! but what? Were there really a true kindness and affection, as is the pretence, it would be quite otherwise; he would not break his own heart, forsooth, but chose rather to break his wife's heart! he could not be so cruel to tell her of it, and therefore left her to be cruelly and villanously insulted, as she was, by the bailiffs and creditors. Was that his kindness to her?

Wife.—But! But what? If there were really true kindness and affection, like they pretend, it would be entirely different; he wouldn't break his own heart, truly, but would rather choose to shatter his wife's heart! He couldn’t be so cruel as to tell her about it, so instead, he let her be cruelly and wickedly insulted, as she was, by the bailiffs and creditors. Was that his kindness to her?

Husb.—Well, my dear, I have not brought you to that, I hope.

Husb.—Well, my dear, I hope I haven't led you to that.

Wife.—No, my dear, and I hope you will not; however, you shall not say I will not do every thing I can to prevent it; and, if it lies on my side, you are safe.

Wife.—No, my dear, and I hope you won’t; however, you should know that I will do everything I can to stop it; and if it’s up to me, you’re safe.

Husb.—What will you do to prevent it? Come, let's see, what can you do?

Husb.—What are you going to do to stop it? Come on, let's see what you can do.

Wife.—Why, first, I keep five maids, you see, and a footman; I shall immediately give three of my maids warning, and the fellow also, and save you that part of the expense.

Wife.—Well, for starters, I have five maids and a footman; I’ll quickly let three of my maids go, along with the footman, and save you that part of the cost.

Husb.—How can you do that?—you can't do your business.

Husb.—How can you do that?—you can't handle your work.

Wife.—Yes, yes, there's nobody knows what they can do till they are tried; two maids may do all my house-business, and I'll look after my children myself; and if I live to see them grown a little bigger, I'll make them help one another, and keep but one maid; I hope that will be one step towards helping it.

Wife.—Yes, yes, nobody really knows what they can do until they try; two maids can handle all my household chores, and I'll take care of my kids myself; and if I live to see them grow a bit older, I'll have them help each other out and only keep one maid; I hope that will be a step towards making things easier.

Husb.—And what will all your friends and acquaintance, and the world, say to it?

Husb.—And what will all your friends, acquaintances, and everyone else think about it?

Wife.—Not half so much as they would to see you break, and the world believe it be by my high living, keeping a house full of servants, and do nothing myself.

Wife.—Not nearly as much as they would enjoy seeing you fail, and everyone think it's because I'm living extravagantly, having a house full of servants, and doing nothing myself.

Husb.—They will say I am going to break upon your doing thus, and that's the way to make it so.

Husb.—They'll say I'm going to freak out if you do that, and that's exactly how it will happen.

Wife.—I had rather a hundred should say you were going to break, than one could say you were really broke already.

Wife.—I would prefer it if a hundred people said you were about to break, rather than one person saying you're already broken.

Husb.—But it is dangerous to have it talked of, I say.

Husb.—But it's risky to talk about it, I say.

Wife.—No, no; they will say we are taking effectual ways to prevent breaking.

Wife.—No, no; they'll say we're doing everything we can to avoid a breakup.

Husb.—But it will put a slur upon yourself too. I cannot bear any mortifications upon you, any more than I can upon myself.

Husb.—But it will affect your reputation too. I can’t stand to see you embarrassed, any more than I can bear it for myself.

Wife.—Don't tell me of mortifications; it would be a worse mortification, a thousand times over, to have you ruined, and have your creditors insult me with being the occasion of it.

Wife.—Don't talk to me about humiliations; it would be a thousand times worse to see you ruined and have your creditors insult me for being the reason behind it.

Husb.—It is very kind in you, my dear, and I must always acknowledge it; but, however, I would not have you straiten yourself too much neither.

Husb.—That's really sweet of you, my dear, and I always appreciate it; but I wouldn't want you to put yourself in a tough spot either.

Wife.—Nay, this will not be so much a mortification as the natural consequence of other things; for, in order to abate the expense of our living, I resolve to keep less company. I assure you I will lay down all the state of living, as well as the expense of it; and, first, I will keep no visiting days; secondly, I'll drop the greatest part of the acquaintance I have; thirdly, I will lay down our treats and entertainments, and the like needless occasions of expense, and then I shall have no occasion for so many maids.

Wife.—No, this won't be as much a humiliation as a natural outcome of other circumstances; because, to cut down on our living expenses, I've decided to socialize less. I promise to simplify our lifestyle and reduce costs; first, I won't have any visiting days; second, I'll greatly reduce the number of acquaintances I have; third, I'll get rid of our gatherings and entertainments, and other unnecessary expenses, which means I won't need as many maids.

Husb.—But this, my dear, I say, will make as much noise almost, as if I were actually broke.

Husb.—But, my dear, I have to say, this will make just as much noise as if I were really broke.

Wife.—No, no; leave that part to me.

Wife.—No, no; I'll handle that part.

Husb.—But you may tell me how you will manage it then.

Husb.—But you can explain how you plan to handle it then.

Wife.—Why, I'll go into the country.

Wife.—Well, I’m going to the countryside.

Husb.—That will but bring them after you, as it used to do.

Husb.—That will only attract them to you, just like it used to.

Wife.—But I'll put off our usual lodgings at Hampstead, and give out that I am gone to spend the summer in Bedfordshire, at my aunt's, where every body knows I used to go sometimes; they can't come after me thither.

Wife.—But I’ll skip our usual place in Hampstead and say I’m going to spend the summer in Bedfordshire at my aunt’s, where everyone knows I used to visit sometimes; they can’t track me down there.

Husb.—But when you return, they will all visit you.

Husb.—But when you get back, they will all come to see you.

Wife.—Yes, and I will make no return to all those I have a mind to drop, and there's an end of all their acquaintance at once.

Wife.—Yes, and I won’t respond to anyone I want to cut ties with, and that’s the end of all their connections with me.

Husb.—And what must I do?

Husband.—What should I do?

Wife.—Nay, my dear, it is not for me to direct that part; you know how to cure the evil which you sensibly feel the mischief of. If I do my part, I don't doubt you know how to do yours.

Wife.—No, my dear, it's not for me to take charge of that; you know how to fix the problem that you clearly feel the effects of. If I do my part, I'm sure you know how to do yours.

Husb.—Yes, I know, but it is hard, very hard.

Husb.—Yeah, I get it, but it’s tough, really tough.

Wife.—Nay, I hope it is no harder for you than it is for your wife.

Wife.—No, I hope it's not more difficult for you than it is for your wife.

Husb.—That is true, indeed, but I'll see.

Husb.—That is definitely true, but I'll check it out.

Wife.—The question to me is not whether it is hard, but whether it is necessary.

Wife.—The question for me isn’t if it’s difficult, but if it’s necessary.

Husb.—Nay, it is necessary, that is certain.

Husb.—No, it's definitely needed.

Wife.—Then I hope it is as necessary to you as to your wife.

Wife.—Then I hope it’s just as important to you as it is to your wife.

Husb.—I know not where to begin.

Husb.—I don't know where to start.

Wife.—Why, you keep two horses and a groom, you keep rich high company, and you sit long at the Fleece every evening. I need say no more; you know where to begin well enough.

Wife.—Well, you have two horses and a groom, you socialize with wealthy people, and you spend a lot of time at the Fleece every evening. I don’t need to say anything else; you know where to start.

Husb.—It is very hard; I have not your spirit, my dear.

Husb.—It’s really tough; I don’t have your strength, my dear.

Wife.—I hope you are not more ashamed to retrench, than you would be to have your name in the Gazette.

Wife.—I hope you’re not more embarrassed to cut back than you would be to have your name in the newspaper.

Husb.—It is sad work to come down hill thus.

Husb.—It is tough to go downhill like this.

Wife.—It would be worse to fall down at one blow from the top; better slide gently and voluntarily down the smooth part, than to be pushed down the precipice, and be dashed all in pieces.

Wife.—It would be worse to crash down all at once from the top; it’s better to slowly and willingly slide down the smooth part than to be shoved over the edge and get shattered into pieces.

There was more of this dialogue, but I give the part which I think most to the present purpose; and as I strive to shorten the doctrine, so I will abridge the application also; the substance of the case lies in a few particulars, thus:—

There was more of this conversation, but I’ll share the part that I think is most relevant now; just as I try to condense the doctrine, I’ll keep the application brief as well; the essence of the matter boils down to a few key points, as follows:—

I. The man was melancholy, and oppressed with the thoughts of his declining circumstances, and yet had not any thought of letting his wife know it, whose way of living was high and expensive, and more than he could support; but though it must have ended in ruin, he would rather let it have gone on till she was surprised in it, than to tell her the danger that was before her.

I. The man was downcast and weighed down by his worries about his worsening situation, yet he had no intention of revealing this to his wife, whose lifestyle was extravagant and beyond what he could afford. Even though it would inevitably lead to disaster, he preferred to let it continue until she was caught off guard rather than warn her about the impending danger.

His wife very well argues the injustice and unkindness of such usage, and how hard it was to a wife, who, being of necessity to suffer in the fall, ought certainly to have the most early notice of it—that, if possible, she might prevent it, or, at least, that she might not be overwhelmed with the suddenness and the terror of it.

His wife clearly points out the unfairness and cruelty of such treatment, and how difficult it is for a wife, who must inevitably endure the consequences, to not have the earliest notice of it—so that, if possible, she could prevent it or, at the very least, not be caught off guard by its suddenness and fear.

II. Upon discovering it to his wife, or rather her drawing the discovery from him by her importunity, she immediately, and most readily and cheerfully, enters into measures to retrench her expenses, and, as far as she was able, to prevent the blow, which was otherwise apparent and unavoidable.

II. When he told his wife about it, or more accurately, when she got it out of him by being so persistent, she immediately and cheerfully took steps to cut back on her spending and, as much as she could, prevent the inevitable blow that was about to come.

Hence it is apparent, that the expensive living of most tradesmen in their families, is for want of a serious acquainting their wives with their circumstances, and acquainting them also in time; for there are very few ladies so unreasonable, who, if their husbands seriously informed them how things stood with them, and that they could not support their way of living, would not willingly come into measures to prevent their own destruction.

It’s clear that the high cost of living for many tradespeople and their families is due to not seriously discussing their situation with their wives and doing so in a timely manner. There are very few women who would be unreasonable enough to ignore their husbands if they seriously explained their financial struggles and that they couldn’t maintain their current lifestyle; most would be willing to take steps to avoid ruining themselves.

III. That it is in vain, as well as unequal, for a tradesman to preach frugality to his wife, and to bring his wife to a retrenching of her expenses, and not at the same time to retrench his own; seeing that keeping horses and high company is every way as great and expensive, and as necessary to be abated, as any of the family extravagances, let them be which they will.

III. It's pointless and unfair for a tradesman to lecture his wife about saving money while not also cutting his own expenses. Maintaining horses and socializing with the wealthy is just as costly and needs to be reduced as much as any of the family's extravagant spending, no matter what it is.

All this relates to the duty of a tradesman in preventing his family expenses being ruinous to his business; but the true method to prevent all this, and never to let it come so far, is still, as I said before, not to marry too soon; not to marry, till by a frugal industrious management of his trade in the beginning, he has laid a foundation for maintaining a wife, and bringing up a family, and has made an essay by which he knows what he can and cannot do, and also before he has laid up and increased his stock, that he may not cripple his fortune at first, and be ruined before he has begun to thrive.

All of this has to do with a tradesman's responsibility to keep his family expenses from ruining his business. However, the best way to avoid this and never let it get to that point is, as I mentioned earlier, to not marry too soon. He shouldn't marry until, through careful and hard work managing his trade in the beginning, he has established a foundation for supporting a wife and raising a family. He should also have some experience that helps him understand what he can and can't handle, and he should have saved up and increased his resources so he doesn't jeopardize his finances right from the start and risk being in trouble before he even has a chance to succeed.

FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:

[Defoe's views on the subject of the too early marrying of young tradesmen, are in every particular sound. Though there are instances of premature marriages followed by no evil result, but rather the contrary, there can be no doubt, that the only prudent course is to wait till a settlement in life, and a regular income, have been secured. A young man, anxious for other reasons to marry, is sometimes heard to express his conviction that he might live more cheaply married than single. There could be no assertion more inconsistent with all common experience. Even if no positively ruinous consequences arise from an over-early marriage, it almost always occasions much hardship. It saddens a period of life which nature has designed to be peculiarly cheerful. The whole life of such a man becomes like a year in which there has been no May or June. The grave cares of matrimony do not appear to be naturally suitable to the human character, till the man has approached his thirtieth, and the woman her twenty-fourth year.]

[Defoe's views on the issue of young tradesmen marrying too early are completely sound. While there are cases of early marriages that don't lead to negative outcomes, and sometimes even the opposite, it’s clear that the best approach is to wait until one has secured a stable life and a steady income. A young man, eager to marry for various reasons, might claim that he could live more affordably with a spouse than alone. This belief is completely contrary to common experience. Even if no disastrous results come from marrying too soon, it typically brings a lot of hardship. It casts a shadow over a time in life that should be especially joyful. The entire life of such a man feels like a year without any May or June. The serious responsibilities of marriage don’t seem to suit a person until the man is nearing thirty and the woman is approaching twenty-four.]


CHAPTER XII

OF THE TRADESMAN'S LEAVING HIS BUSINESS TO SERVANTS

OF THE TRADESMAN'S LEAVING HIS BUSINESS TO SERVANTS


It is the ordinary excuse of the gentlemen tradesmen of our times, that they have good servants, and that therefore they take more liberty to be out of their business, than they would otherwise do. 'Oh!' says the shopkeeper, 'I have an apprentice—it is an estate to have such a servant. I am as safe in him as if I had my eye upon the business from morning till night; let me be where I will, I am always satisfied he is at home; if I am at the tavern, I am sure he is in the counting-house, or behind the counter; he is never out of his post.

It's the usual excuse of today's shop owners that they have reliable employees, which allows them to take more time away from work than they normally would. "Oh!" says the shopkeeper, "I have an apprentice—it's like having a real asset. I'm as secure with him as if I were watching the business from dawn until dusk; no matter where I am, I know he's taking care of things. If I'm at the bar, I'm sure he's in the office or behind the register; he never leaves his post."

'And then for my other servants, the younger apprentices,' says he, 'it is all one as if I were there myself—they would be idle it may be, but he won't let them, I assure you; they must stick close to it, or he will make them do it; he tells them, boys do not come apprentices to play, but to work; not to sit idle, and be doing nothing, but to mind their master's business, that they may learn how to do their own.'

'And then for my other workers, the younger apprentices,' he says, 'it’s just like I’m there myself—they might be lazy, but he won’t allow it, I promise you; they have to stay focused, or he’ll make them; he tells them, boys don’t become apprentices to mess around, but to work; not to sit around doing nothing, but to pay attention to their master’s business, so they can learn how to handle their own.'

'Very well; and you think, Sir, this young man being so much in the shop, and so diligent and faithful, is an estate to you, and so indeed it is; but are your customers as well pleased with this man, too, as you are? or are they as well pleased with him, as they would be, if you were there yourself?'

'All right; so you believe, Sir, that having this young man working in the shop, being so hardworking and trustworthy, is an asset to you—and it really is. But are your customers as satisfied with him as you are? Or are they as pleased with him as they would be if you were there yourself?'

'Yes, they are,' says the shopkeeper; 'nay, abundance of the customers take him for the master of the shop, and don't know any other; and he is so very obliging, and pleases so well, giving content to every body, that, if I am at any other part of the shop, and see him serving a customer, I never interrupt them, unless sometimes (he is so modest) he will call me, and turning to the ladies say, "There's my master, Madam; if you think he will abate you any thing, I'll call him;" and sometimes they will look a little surprised, and say, "Is that your master? indeed, we thought you had been the master of the shop yourself."'

'Yes, they are,' says the shopkeeper. 'In fact, a lot of the customers think he's the owner and don’t know anyone else. He’s very accommodating and keeps everyone happy. If I’m in another part of the shop and see him helping a customer, I never interrupt, unless sometimes (he's so modest) he calls for me and turns to the ladies, saying, "There's my boss, ma'am; if you think he can give you a better deal, I'll get him." Sometimes they look a little surprised and say, "Is that your boss? We really thought you were the owner of the shop yourself."'

'Well,' said I, 'and you think yourself very happy in all this, don't you? Pray, how long has this young gentleman to serve? how long is it before his time will be out?' 'Oh, he has almost a year and a half to serve,' says the shopkeeper. 'I hope, then,' said I, 'you will take care to have him knocked on the head, as soon as his time is out.' 'God forbid,' says the honest man; 'what do you mean by that?' 'Mean!' said I, 'why, if you don't, he will certainly knock your trade on the head, as soon as the year and a half comes to be up. Either you must dispose of him, as I say, or take care that he does not set up near you, no, not in the same street; if you do, your customers will all run thither. When they miss him in the shop, they will presently inquire for him; and as, you say, they generally take him for the master, they will ask whether the gentleman is removed that kept the shop before.'

'Well,' I said, 'you really think you're happy with all this, don’t you? By the way, how long does this young guy have to serve? When will his time be up?' 'Oh, he has almost a year and a half left,' said the shopkeeper. 'I hope, then,' I continued, 'you will make sure he’s out of the way as soon as his time is up.' 'God forbid,' said the honest man; 'what do you mean by that?' 'Mean!' I replied, 'well, if you don’t, he will definitely ruin your business as soon as that year and a half is over. You either need to get rid of him, as I said, or ensure he doesn’t set up shop near you, not even on the same street; if you do, your customers will all flock to him. When they notice he’s not in the shop, they will immediately start asking for him; and since, as you say, they usually think he’s the master, they will wonder whether the gentleman who used to run the shop is gone.'

All my shopkeeper could say, was, that he had got a salve for that sore, and that was, that when Timothy was out of his time, he resolved to take him in partner.

All my shopkeeper could say was that he had a remedy for that issue, and that was that when Timothy completed his apprenticeship, he planned to take him on as a partner.

'A very good thing, indeed! so you must take Timothy into half the trade when he is out of his time, for fear he should run away with three-quarters of it, when he sets up for himself. But had not the master much better have been Timothy himself?—then he had been sure never to have the customers take Timothy for the master; and when he went away, and set up perhaps at next door, leave the shop, and run after him.'

'A really good idea! You should definitely bring Timothy into half of the business when his apprenticeship is done, just in case he tries to take most of it for himself when he starts his own. But wouldn’t it have been better if the master had been Timothy himself? That way, he would have been sure that customers wouldn’t confuse Timothy with the master; and when he left and maybe opened a shop next door, he wouldn’t have to leave the shop and chase after him.'

It is certain, a good servant, a faithful, industrious, obliging servant, is a blessing to a tradesman, and, as he said, is an estate to his master; but the master, by laying the stress of his business upon him, divests himself of all the advantages of such a servant, and turns the blessing into a blast; for by giving up the shop as it were to him, and indulging himself in being abroad, and absent from his business, the apprentice gets the mastery of the business, the fame of the shop depends upon him, and when he sets up, certainly follows him. Such a servant would, with the master's attendance too, be very helpful, and yet not be dangerous; such a servant is well, when he is visibly an assistant to the master, but is ruinous when he is taken for the master. There is a great deal of difference between a servant's being the stay of his master, and his being the stay of his trade: when he is the first, the master is served by him; and when he is gone, he breeds up another to follow his steps; but when he is the last, he carries the trade with him, and does his master infinitely more hurt than good.

It's clear that a good servant—someone who is loyal, hardworking, and helpful—is a real asset to a business, and as he mentioned, a valuable resource for his employer. However, when the employer relies too heavily on this servant and takes a step back from the business, it can lead to problems. By letting the servant handle everything and indulging in being away, the apprentice gains control of the operation, the reputation of the shop relies on him, and when he starts his own venture, it will likely follow him. A good servant can be very beneficial when the employer is still actively involved; however, it becomes problematic if the servant is mistaken for the employer. There's a significant difference between a servant supporting his employer and one who becomes the face of the business. When he’s the former, the employer benefits from his work, and even when he exits, he can train another to succeed him. But when he’s the latter, he takes the business with him and can bring far more harm than good to his employer.

A good tradesman has a great deal of trouble with a bad servant, but must take heed that he is not wounded by a good one—the extravagant idle vagrant servant hurts himself, but the diligent servant endangers his master. The greater reputation the servant gets in his business, the more care the master has upon him, lest he gets within him, and worms him out of his business.

A skilled tradesman faces a lot of issues with a bad worker, but he has to be cautious not to be harmed by a good one—the lazy, reckless servant only hurts themselves, but the hardworking servant can put their employer at risk. The more recognition the servant gains in their role, the more concern the employer has for them, fearing they might get too involved and undermine their business.

The only way to prevent this, and yet not injure a diligent servant, is that the master be as diligent as the servant; that the master be as much at the shop as the man. He that will keep in his business, need never fear keeping his business, let his servant be as diligent as he will. It is a hard thing that a tradesman should have the blessing of a good servant, and make it a curse to him, by his appearing less capable than his man.

The only way to prevent this, while also not harming a hardworking employee, is for the employer to be just as dedicated as the employee; for the employer to be present in the shop as much as the worker. Anyone who is fully engaged in their business shouldn’t worry about maintaining it, no matter how diligent their employee is. It’s unfortunate that a business owner can have the advantage of a good employee but turn it into a disadvantage by seeming less capable than their worker.

Let your apprentice be in the business, but let the master be at the head of the business at all times. There is a great deal of difference between being diligent in the business in the shop, and leading the whole business of the shop. An apprentice who is diligent may be master of his business, but should never be master of the shop; the one is to be useful to his master, the other is to be master of his master; and, indeed, this shows the absolute necessity of diligence and application in a tradesman, and how, for want of it, that very thing which is the blessing of another tradesman's business is the ruin of his.

Let your apprentice take part in the work, but always have the master in charge of the business. There’s a big difference between working hard in the shop and leading the entire operation. An apprentice who works diligently may excel at their trade, but should never run the shop; the former is meant to support their master, while the latter would be taking control away from their master. This clearly illustrates the essential need for dedication and effort in a tradesman, and how lacking those qualities can turn what benefits another tradesman’s business into a downfall for their own.

Servants, especially apprentices, ought to be considered, as they really are, in their moveable station, that they are here with you but seven years, and that then they act or move in a sphere or station of their own: their diligence is now for you, but ever after it is for themselves; that the better servants they have been while they were with you, the more dangerous they will be to you when you part; that, therefore, though you are bound in justice to them to let them into your business in every branch of it, yet you are not bound to give your business away to them; the diligence, therefore, of a good servant in the master's business, should be a spur to the master's diligence to take care of himself.

Servants, especially apprentices, should be seen for what they are: in a temporary position, here with you for only seven years, after which they will step into their own roles. Their hard work benefits you now, but afterwards, it benefits them. The better they serve you while they're with you, the more of a threat they might become when you part ways. Therefore, while you have a duty to involve them in all aspects of your business, you are not obligated to hand over your business to them. A good servant's dedication to the master's work should motivate the master to look after their own interests.

There is a great deal of difference also between trusting a servant in your business, and trusting him with your business: the first is leaving your business with him, the other is leaving your business to him. He that trusts a servant in his business, leaves his shop only to him; but he that leaves his business to his servant, leaves his wife and children at his disposal—in a word, such a trusting, or leaving the business to the servant, is no less than a giving up all to him, abandoning the care of his shop and all his affairs to him; and when such a servant is out of his time, the master runs a terrible risk, such as, indeed, it is not fit any tradesman should run—namely, of losing the best of his business.

There’s a significant difference between trusting a servant with your work and trusting them with your entire business. The first means you’re letting them take care of your tasks, while the second means you’re handing over the entire operation to them. When you trust a servant with your work, you’re just letting them manage your shop; but when you trust them with your business, you’re essentially leaving your family, finances, and well-being in their hands. In short, this kind of trust—letting the servant take over—is equivalent to giving them complete control and neglecting your responsibilities. When such a servant eventually leaves, the owner faces an enormous risk, one that no merchant should have to face: potentially losing the most valuable aspects of his business.

What I have been now saying, is of the tradesman leaving his business to his apprentices and servants, when they prove good, when they are honest and diligent, faithful, and industrious; and if there are dangers even in trusting good servants, and such as do their duty perfectly well, what, then, must it be when the business is left to idle, negligent, and extravagant servants, who both neglect their masters' business and their own, who neither learn their trade for themselves, nor regard it for the interest of their masters? If the first are a blessing to their masters, and may only be made dangerous by their carrying away the trade with them when they go, these are made curses to their masters early, for they lose the trade for themselves and their masters too. The first carry the customers away with them, the last drive the customers away before they go. 'What signifies going to such a shop?' say the ladies, either speaking of a mercer or a draper, or any other trade; 'there is nothing to be met with there but a crew of saucy boys, that are always at play when you come in, and can hardly refrain it when you are there: one hardly ever sees a master in the shop, and the young rude boys hardly mind you when you are looking on their goods; they talk to you as if they cared not whether you laid out your money or no, and as if they had rather you were gone, that they might go to play again. I will go there no more, not I.'

What I've been saying is about the business owner who leaves their shop to their apprentices and employees when they are good—when they are honest, hardworking, loyal, and diligent. If there are risks even in trusting good employees who do their jobs well, then what must it be like when the business is left to lazy, careless, and wasteful workers? These workers neglect both their employer's business and their own; they don't bother to learn their trade for themselves or care about their employer's interests. If the former are a blessing to their employers and might only pose a risk by taking the business with them when they leave, the latter are a curse from the start, as they ruin the trade for both themselves and their employer. The first group attracts customers away, while the last drives them away before they even leave. "What’s the point of going to such a shop?" the ladies say, whether talking about a fabric shop or any other business. "There’s nothing there but a bunch of rude boys who are always playing when you walk in, and they can barely hold back even when you're around. You hardly ever see the owner in the shop, and the young rude boys hardly pay attention when you're looking at their goods; they talk to you like they don’t care if you spend your money or not, and it seems they'd rather you leave so they can go back to playing. I’m not going there again, no way."

If this be not the case, then you are in danger of worse still, and that is, that they are often thieves—idle ones are seldom honest ones—nay, they cannot indeed be honest, in a strict sense, if they are idle: but by dishonest, I mean downright thieves; and what is more dangerous than for an apprentice, to whom the whole business, the cash, the books, and all is committed, to be a thief?

If that's not the situation, then you're at risk of something even worse: they are often thieves—lazy people are rarely honest—actually, they can't truly be honest if they're lazy. And by dishonest, I mean outright thieves; and what could be more dangerous than for an apprentice, who is trusted with the entire operation, the money, the records, and everything else, to be a thief?

For a tradesman, therefore, to commit his business thus into the hand of a false, a negligent, and a thievish servant, is like a man that travels a journey, and takes a highwayman into the coach with him: such a man is sure to be robbed, and to be fully and effectually plundered, because he discovers where he hides his treasure. Thus the tradesman places his confidence in the thief, and how should he avoid being robbed?

For a tradesman, it's like putting his business in the hands of a dishonest, careless, and thieving employee. It's similar to a person traveling and picking up a hitchhiker who turns out to be a robber: that person is bound to be robbed and thoroughly looted because they reveal where they keep their valuables. In the same way, the tradesman trusts the thief, so how can he expect to avoid being robbed?

It is answered, that, generally tradesmen, who have any considerable trust to put into the hands of an apprentice, take security of them for their honesty by their friends, when their indentures are signed; and it is their fault then, if they are not secure. True, it is often so; but in a retail business, if the servant be unfaithful, there are so many ways to defraud a master, besides that of merely not balancing the cash, that it is impossible to detect them; till the tradesman, declining insensibly by the weight of the loss, is ruined and undone.

It is noted that, generally, tradespeople who have a significant amount of trust to place in an apprentice obtain guarantees from their friends about the apprentice's honesty when the contracts are signed. If these guarantees aren't in place, it's their fault if they aren't secure. That's true, but in a retail business, if an employee is untrustworthy, there are numerous ways to cheat their employer beyond just failing to balance the cash, making it nearly impossible to catch them until the employer gradually succumbs to the pressure of the losses and is ultimately ruined.

What need, then, has the tradesman to give a close attendance, and preserve himself from plunder, by acquainting himself in and with his business and servants, by which he makes it very difficult for them to deceive him, and much easier to him to discover it if he suspects them. But if the tradesman lives abroad, keeps at his country-house or lodgings, and leaves his business thus in the hands of his servants, committing his affairs to them, as is often the case; if they prove thieves, negligent, careless, and idle, what is the consequence?—he is insensibly wronged, his substance wasted, his business neglected; and how shall a tradesman thrive under such circumstances? Nay, how is it possible he should avoid ruin and destruction?—I mean, as to his business; for, in short, every such servant has his hand in his master's pocket, and may use him as he pleases.

What need, then, does a tradesman have to pay close attention and protect himself from theft by getting to know his business and employees? This approach makes it very difficult for them to deceive him and much easier for him to catch them if he suspects wrongdoing. But if the tradesman spends his time away from his business, living at his country house or in other lodgings, and leaves his affairs in the hands of his employees, as is often the case; if those employees turn out to be thieves, negligent, careless, and lazy, what happens?—he is slowly wronged, his resources are wasted, and his business is neglected. How can a tradesman succeed under such conditions? In fact, how can he avoid ruin and disaster?—I mean regarding his business; because, in short, every such employee has their hand in the master's pocket and can exploit him as they wish.

Again, if they are not thieves, yet if they are idle and negligent, it is, in some cases, the same thing; and I wish it were well recommended to all such servants as call themselves honest, that it is as criminal to neglect their master's business as to rob him; and he is as really a thief who robs him of his time, as he that robs him of his money.

Again, if they aren’t thieves, being lazy and careless can be just as bad; and I wish it were well known to all those servants who consider themselves honest that neglecting their employer's business is just as wrong as stealing from him. Someone who steals his time is just as much a thief as someone who steals his money.

I know, as servants are now, this is a principle they will not allow, neither does one servant in fifty act by it; but if the master be absent, the servant is at his heels—that is to say, is as soon out of doors as his master, and having none but his conscience to answer to, he makes shift to compound with himself, like a bankrupt with his creditor, to pay half the debt—that is to say, half the time to his master, and half to himself, and think it good pay too.

I know that, just like servants today, they won't accept this principle; in fact, only one out of fifty actually follows it. But when the master is away, the servant is right behind him—that is, they leave the house as soon as their master does. With no one but their own conscience to answer to, they manage to make a deal with themselves, like a bankrupt negotiating with a creditor, paying off half the debt—that is, spending half the time working for their master and half for themselves, and they even consider it a good deal.

The point of conscience, indeed, seems to be out of the question now, between master and servant; and as few masters concern themselves with the souls, nay, scarce with the morals of their servants, either to instruct them, or inform them of their duty either to God or man, much less to restrain them by force, or correct them, as was anciently practised, so, few servants concern themselves in a conscientious discharge of their duty to their masters—so that the great law of subordination is destroyed, and the relative duties on both sides are neglected; all which, as I take it, is owing to the exorbitant sums of money which are now given with servants to the masters, as the present or condition of their apprenticeship, which, as it is extravagant in itself, so it gives the servant a kind of a different figure in the family, places him above the ordinary class of servants hired for wages, and exempts him from all the laws of family government, so that a master seems now to have nothing to do with his apprentice, any other than in what relates to his business.

The issue of conscience seems to be off the table now between employers and employees. Few employers really care about the well-being or even the morals of their employees, whether it’s about guiding them or making them aware of their responsibilities to God or society, let alone restraining or correcting them like was done in the past. Similarly, very few employees take their duties to their employers seriously. As a result, the fundamental principle of hierarchy is broken, and the responsibilities on both sides are overlooked. I believe this is largely due to the outrageous sums of money that are now paid to employers when hiring workers, as part of their apprenticeship. This payment is so excessive that it gives the employee a different status within the household, elevating them above regular wage workers and freeing them from the rules of family management. Now, it seems that an employer's connection with their apprentice is limited only to work-related matters.

And as the servant knows this, so he fails not to take the advantage of it, and to pay no more service than he thinks is due; and the hours of his shop business being run out, he claims all the rest for himself, without the above restraint. Nor will the servants, in these times, bear any examinations with respect to the disposing of their waste time, or with respect to the company they keep, or the houses or places they go to.

And since the servant understands this, he makes sure to take advantage of it and only puts in as much effort as he thinks is owed. Once his working hours are up, he claims all his remaining time for himself, without any restrictions. Furthermore, the servants nowadays won’t tolerate any questions about how they spend their free time, who they hang out with, or the places they visit.

The use I make of it is this, and herein it is justly applicable to the case in hand; by how much the apprentices and servants in this age are loose, wild, and ungovernable, by so much the more should a master think himself obliged not to depend upon them, much less to leave his business to them, and dispense with his own attendance in it. If he does, he must have much better luck then his neighbours, if he does not find himself very much wronged and abused, seeing, as I said above, the servants and apprentices of this age do very rarely act from a principle of conscience in serving their master's interest, which, however, I do not see they can be good Christians without.

The way I see it is this, and it’s really relevant to the situation at hand: because apprentices and workers today are often unruly and hard to manage, a boss should feel even more compelled not to rely on them, let alone leave the management of his business to them while skipping out on his own responsibilities. If he does, he’ll be luckier than his neighbors if he doesn’t end up feeling cheated and mistreated, since, as I mentioned before, workers and apprentices these days rarely act out of a sense of duty to look after their boss's interests, which, honestly, seems like a requirement for being good Christians.

I knew one very considerable tradesman in this city, and who had always five or six servants in his business, apprentices and journeymen, who lodged in his house; and having a little more the spirit of government in him than most masters I now meet with, he took this method with them. When he took apprentices, he told them beforehand the orders of his family, and which he should oblige them to; particularly, that they should none be absent from his business without leave, nor out of the house after nine o'clock at night; and that he would not have it thought hard, if he exacted three things of them:—

I knew a very important businessman in this city who always had five or six workers, including apprentices and journeymen, living in his house. He had a bit more of a management style than most bosses I see today, and he took this approach with them. When he took on apprentices, he made sure to explain the rules of his household to them ahead of time, including the expectations he would hold them to. In particular, he insisted that they should not be absent from work without permission and that they should not be out of the house after nine o'clock at night. He also made it clear that he wouldn’t consider it unreasonable if he required three things from them:—

1. That, if they had been out, he should ask them where they had been, and in what company? and that they should give him a true and direct answer.

1. If they had been out, he would ask them where they went and who they were with, and they should give him a straightforward and honest answer.

2. That, if he found reason to forbid them keeping company with any particular person, or in any particular house or family, they should be obliged to refrain from such company.

2. If he had a reason to prohibit them from associating with a specific person or in a certain house or family, they would be required to avoid that company.

3. That, in breach of any of those two, after being positively charged with it, he would, on their promising to amend it, forgive them, only acquainting their friends of it; but the second time, he would dismiss them his service, and not be obliged to return any of the money he had with them. And to these he made their parents consent when they were bound; and yet he had large sums of money with them too, not less than £200 each, and sometimes more.

3. That, if he broke either of those two agreements, after he was clearly informed about it, he would, once they promised to fix it, forgive them, only letting their friends know; but the second time, he would dismiss them from his service and wouldn't have to return any of the money he had with them. He also made their parents agree to this when they were signed up; and yet he had large amounts of money with them too, no less than £200 each, and sometimes even more.

As to his journeymen, he conditioned with them as follows:—

As for his workers, he made arrangements with them as follows:—

1. They should never dine from home without leave asked and obtained, and telling where, if required.

1. They should never eat at home without asking for permission and getting it, and informing where, if needed.

2. After the shutting in of the shop, they were at liberty to go where they pleased, only not to be out of the house after nine o'clock at night.

2. After the shop closed, they were free to go wherever they wanted, just not to be out of the house after nine o'clock at night.

3. Never to be in drink, or to swear, on pain of being immediately dismissed without the courtesy usual with such servants, namely, of a month's warning.

3. Never drink alcohol or use profanity, or you’ll be fired immediately without the usual courtesy of a month's notice.

These were excellent household laws; but the question is, how shall a master see them punctually obeyed, for the life of all laws depends upon their being well executed; and we are famous in England for being remiss in that very point; and that we have the best laws the worst executed of any nation in the world.

These were great household rules; but the question is, how can a master ensure they are followed consistently, because the effectiveness of all laws relies on their proper enforcement. We are known in England for being slack in this regard, and we have the best laws poorly enforced of any nation in the world.

But my friend was a man who knew as well how to make his laws be well executed, as he did how to make the laws themselves. His case was thus: he kept a country-house about two miles from London, in the summer-time, for the air of his wife and children, and there he maintained them very comfortably: but it was a rule with him, that he who expects his servants to obey his orders, must be always upon the spot with them to see it done: to this purpose he confined himself to lie always at home, though his family was in the country; and every afternoon he walked out to see them, and to give himself the air too; but always so ordered his diversions, that he was sure to be at home before nine at night, that he might call over his family, and see that they observed orders, that is, that they were all at home at their time, and all sober.

But my friend was a guy who knew just as well how to enforce his rules as he did how to create them. Here’s how it was: he had a country house about two miles from London that he used in the summer for the sake of his wife and kids, and he took good care of them there. However, he had a rule: if you want your servants to follow your orders, you have to be there with them to make sure it happens. Because of this, he made it a point to stay at home, even when his family was in the countryside. Every afternoon, he would go out to visit them and enjoy some fresh air, but he always planned his outings so he could be back home before nine at night. This way, he could gather his family and ensure they followed the rules, meaning they were all home on time and sober.

As this was, indeed, the only way to have good servants, and an orderly family, so he had both; but it was owing much, if not all, to the exactness of his government; and would all masters take the same method, I doubt not they would have the like success; but what servants can a man expect when he leaves them to their own government, not regarding whether they serve God or the devil?

As this was truly the only way to have good workers and a well-organized home, he managed to achieve both; however, it was largely due to the strictness of his management. If all bosses adopted the same approach, I have no doubt they would experience similar success. But what kind of workers can anyone expect if they let them manage themselves, without caring whether they serve God or the devil?

Now, though this man had a very regular family, and very good servants, yet he had this particular qualification, too, for a good tradesman, namely, that he never left his business entirely to them, nor could any of them boast that they were trusted to more than another.

Now, even though this man had a very organized family and great staff, he also had an important trait of a good tradesman: he never entirely left his business to them, nor could any of them claim they were more trusted than the others.

This is certainly the way to have regular servants and to have business thrive; but this is not practised by one master to a thousand at this time—if it were, we should soon see a change in the families of tradesmen, and that very much for the better: nor, indeed, would this family government be good for the tradesman only, but it would be the servant's advantage too; and such a practice, we may say, would in time reform all the next age, and make them ashamed of us that went before them.

This is definitely the way to have reliable workers and for business to succeed; but right now, only one in a thousand employers does this—if more did, we would quickly see improvement in the lives of tradespeople and that improvement would be significant: furthermore, this type of family management wouldn’t just benefit the tradesperson, but it would also help the workers; and we can say that such practices would eventually transform future generations, making them proud and a bit ashamed of us from the past.

If, then, the morals of servants are thus loose and debauched, and that it is a general and epidemic evil, how much less ought tradesmen of this age to trust them, and still less to venture their all upon them, leave their great design, the event of all their business with them, and go into the country in pursuit of their pleasure.

If the conduct of servants is so careless and corrupt, and it's a widespread problem, how much less should tradespeople of today trust them? And even less should they risk everything on them, abandon their important work, and head off to the countryside for their own enjoyment.

The case of tradesmen differs extremely in this age from those in the last, with respect to their apprentices and servants; and the difference is all to the disadvantage of the present age, namely, in the last age, that is to say, fifty or sixty years ago, for it is not less, servants were infinitely more under subjection than they are now, and the subordination of mankind extended effectually to them; they were content to submit to family government; and the just regulations which masters made in their houses were not scorned and contemned, as they are now; family religion also had some sway upon them; and if their masters did keep good orders, and preserve the worship of God in their houses, the apprentices thought themselves obliged to attend at the usual hours for such services; nay, it has been known, where such orders have been observed, that if the master of the family has been sick, or indisposed, or out of town, the eldest apprentice has read prayers to the family in his place.

The situation for tradespeople today is very different from what it was fifty or sixty years ago regarding their apprentices and workers, and unfortunately, it's a downgrade for the current era. Back then, workers were much more obedient than they are now, and there was a clear hierarchy that included them. They were willing to accept family leadership, and the fair rules set by their employers in their homes were respected, unlike today. Family religious practices also had some influence over them; when their bosses maintained order and upheld the worship of God in their homes, apprentices felt obligated to participate in these services at the usual times. In fact, it's been noted that when such practices were in place, if the head of the household was ill, unavailable, or away, the eldest apprentice would read prayers to the family in his absence.

How ridiculous, to speak in the language of the present times, would it be for any master to expect this of a servant in our days! and where is the servant that would comply with it? Nay, it is but very rarely now that masters themselves do it; it is rather thought now to be a low step, and beneath the character of a man in business, as if worshipping God were a disgrace, and not an honour, to a family, or to the master of a family; and I doubt not but in a little while more, either the worship of God will be quite banished out of families, or the better sort of tradesmen, and such as have any regard to it, will keep chaplains, as other persons of quality do. It is confessed, the first is most probable, though the last, as I am informed, is already begun in the city, in some houses, where the reader of the parish is allowed a small additional salary to come once a-day, namely, every evening, to read prayers in the house.

How ridiculous it is, in today's world, for any boss to expect this from an employee! And where is the employee who would agree to it? In fact, it's quite rare now for bosses to act this way; it's considered low and beneath the dignity of a business person, as if worshiping God is a disgrace rather than an honor for a family or its leader. I have no doubt that soon enough, either worship of God will be completely pushed out of households, or the more respectable tradespeople who care about it will hire chaplains, just like other people of quality do. It's acknowledged that the first option seems more likely, although I've heard that the second has already started happening in the city, in some homes, where the parish reader is given a small extra payment to come once a day, specifically every evening, to read prayers at the house.

But I am not talking on this subject; I am not directing myself to citizens or townsmen, as masters of families, but as heads of trade, and masters in their business; the other part would indeed require a whole book by itself, and would insensibly run me into a long satirical discourse upon the loss of all family government among us; in which, indeed, the practice of house-keepers and heads of families is grown not remiss only in all serious things, but even scandalous in their own morals, and in the personal examples they show to their servants, and all about them.

But I’m not discussing this topic; I’m not addressing citizens or townspeople as family heads, but as business leaders and experts in their trades. The other angle would really need a whole book to cover and would naturally lead me into a lengthy satirical commentary on the breakdown of family authority among us. In fact, the way housekeepers and heads of families operate has not just become careless in serious matters but even shocking in their own behavior and the personal examples they set for their employees and everyone around them.

But to come back to my subject, namely, that the case of tradesmen differs extremely from what it was formerly: the second head of difference is this; that whereas, in former times, the servants were better and humbler than they are now, submitted more to family government, and to the regulations made by their masters, and masters were more moral, set better examples, and kept better order in their houses, and, by consequence of it, all servants were soberer, and fitter to be trusted, than they are now; yet, on the other hand, notwithstanding all their sobriety, masters did not then so much depend upon them, leave business to them, and commit the management of their affairs so entirely to their servants, as they do now.

But to get back to my point, which is that the situation with tradespeople is very different now compared to the past: the second major difference is this; back in the day, servants were better and more humble than they are now. They were more obedient to family rules and the regulations set by their employers, and employers were more ethical, set better examples, and maintained better order in their homes. As a result, all servants were more reliable and trustworthy than they are today. However, on the flip side, despite their reliability, employers did not rely on them as much, didn't delegate tasks to them, and didn't hand over the management of their affairs as completely to their servants as they do now.

All that I meet with, which masters have to say to this, is contained in two heads, and these, in my opinion, amount to very little.

All that I encounter, which the experts have to say about this, can be summed up in two points, and in my view, they add up to very little.

I. That they have security for their servants' honesty, which in former times they had not.

I. That they have assurance of their servants' honesty, which in the past they did not have.

II. That they receive greater premiums, or present-money, now with their apprentices, than they did formerly.

II. That they now receive larger bonuses or cash upfront with their apprentices than they did in the past.

The first of these is of no moment; for, first, it does not appear that apprentices in those former days gave no security to their masters for their integrity, which, though perhaps not so generally as now, yet I have good reason to know was then practised among tradesmen of note, and is not now among inferior tradesmen: but, secondly, this security extends to nothing, but to make the master satisfaction for any misapplications or embezzlements which are discovered, and can be proved, but extend to no secret concealed mischiefs: neither, thirdly, do those securities reach to the negligence, idleness, or debaucheries of servants; but, which is still more than all the rest, they do not reach to the worst of robbery between the servant and his master, I mean the loss of his time; so that still there is as much reason for the master's inspection, both into his servants and their business, as ever.

The first point is not significant; first, it does not seem that apprentices in the past failed to provide any assurance to their masters regarding their honesty. While it may not have been as common as it is today, I have good reason to know that this practice was observed among reputable tradesmen, and it is not currently upheld among lesser tradesmen. Secondly, this assurance only covers making the master whole for any misappropriation or theft that is uncovered and can be proven; it does not account for any hidden wrongdoings. Thirdly, these assurances do not address the negligence, laziness, or misconduct of employees. Moreover, and most importantly, they do not address the worst form of theft between the servant and the master, which is the loss of time. Therefore, there remains just as much reason for the master to oversee his servants and their work as ever.

But least of all does this security reach to make the master any satisfaction for the loss of his business, the ill management of his shop, the disreputation brought upon it by being committed to servants, and those servants behaving ill, slighting, neglecting, or disobliging customers; this does not relate to securities given or taken, nor can the master make himself any amends upon his servant, or upon his securities, for this irrecoverable damage. He, therefore, that will keep up the reputation of his shop, or of his business, and preserve his trade to his own advantage, must resolve to attend it himself, and not leave it to servants, whether good or bad; if he leaves it to good servants, they improve it for themselves, and carry the trade away with them when they go; if to bad servants, they drive his customers away, bring a scandal upon his shop, and destroy both their master and themselves.

But this security doesn't provide any compensation for the loss of his business, the poor management of his shop, or the damage to its reputation from being left in the hands of employees who behave poorly, disregard, neglect, or upset customers. This issue is unrelated to any securities given or taken, and the owner can't recover any losses from his employees or their securities for this irreversible damage. Therefore, anyone who wants to maintain the reputation of their shop or business and keep their trade profitable must be prepared to manage it themselves, rather than relying on employees, whether they're good or bad. If he relies on good employees, they'll benefit themselves and take the business with them when they leave; if he relies on bad employees, they will drive customers away, harm the shop's reputation, and ruin both themselves and their employer.

Secondly, As to the receiving great premiums with their apprentices, which, indeed, is grown up to a strange height in this age, beyond whatever it was before, it is an unaccountable excess, which is the ruin of more servants at this time than all the other excesses they are subject to, nay, in some respect it is the cause of it all; and, on the contrary, is far from being an equivalent to their masters for the defect of their service, but is an unanswerable reason why the master should not leave his business to their management.

Secondly, regarding the practice of giving large bonuses to their apprentices, which has really reached an unbelievable level in this age, far beyond what it was before, it is an irrational excess that is causing more problems for servants right now than all the other issues they face. In fact, in some ways, it is the root cause of all these problems; and, on the flip side, it does not compensate their masters for the shortcomings in their work but rather serves as a compelling reason for the master not to entrust them with their responsibilities.

This premium was originally not a condition of indenture, but was a kind of usual or customary present to the tradesman's wife to engage her to be kind to the youth, and take a motherly care of him, being supposed to be young when first put out.

This payment was originally not part of the indenture agreement but was a common gift to the tradesman's wife to encourage her to be kind to the young apprentice and to care for him like a mother, as he was assumed to be young when he first started.

By length of time this compliment or present became so customary as to be made a debt, and to be conditioned for as a demand, but still was kept within bounds, and thirty or forty pounds was sufficient to a very good merchant, which now is run up to five hundred, nay, to a thousand pounds with an apprentice; a thing which formerly would have been thought monstrous, and not to be named.

Over time, this compliment or gift became so routine that it turned into a debt and was expected as a demand. However, it still stayed within limits, with thirty or forty pounds being enough for a decent merchant. Now, it's gone up to five hundred, even a thousand pounds with an apprentice—something that would have once been considered outrageous and unmentionable.

The ill consequences of giving these large premiums are such and so many, that it is not to be entered upon in such a small tract as this; nor is it the design of this work: but it is thus far to the purpose here—namely, as it shows that this sets up servants into a class of gentlemen above their masters, and above their business; and they neither have a sufficient regard to one or other, and consequently are the less fit to be trusted by the master in the essential parts of his business; and this brings it down to the case in hand.

The negative effects of offering these high premiums are numerous and significant, making it impractical to cover them in detail in such a brief space as this; it's not the goal of this work. However, it is relevant here because it demonstrates that this elevates servants to a status of gentlemen above their employers and their work. They tend to disregard both their employer and the job, which means they are less reliable for the crucial aspects of the business. This connects directly to the current situation at hand.

Upon the whole, the present state of things between masters and servants is such, that now more than ever the caution is needful and just, that he that leaves his business to the management of his servants, it is ten to one but he ruins his business and his servants too.

Overall, the current situation between employers and employees is such that now more than ever, it's crucial and fair to be cautious. Anyone who allows their business to be handled by their employees is likely to end up ruining both their business and their employees.

Ruining his business is, indeed, my present subject; but ruining his servants also is a consideration that an honest, conscientious master ought to think is of weight with him, and will concern himself about. Servants out of government are like soldiers without an officer, fit for nothing but to rob and plunder; without order, and without orders, they neither know what to do, or are directed how to do it.

Ruining his business is, indeed, my current topic; but ruining his employees is also something that a decent, responsible boss should consider important and care about. Employees without guidance are like soldiers without a leader, only good for stealing and causing chaos; without structure and without direction, they don’t know what to do or how to do it.

Besides, it is letting loose his apprentices to levity and liberty in that particular critical time of life, when they have the most need of government and restraint. When should laws and limits be useful to mankind but in their youth, when unlimited liberty is most fatal to them, and when they are least capable of governing themselves? To have youth left without government, is leaving fire in a magazine of powder, which will certainly blow it all up at last, and ruin all the houses that are near it.

Besides, it's allowing his apprentices to be carefree and free at a time in their lives when they need guidance and boundaries the most. When should rules and limits be helpful to people if not in their youth, when unchecked freedom can be most dangerous for them, and when they are least able to control themselves? Leaving youth without any governance is like leaving fire in a gunpowder store, which will eventually explode and destroy everything around it.

If there is any duty on the side of a master to his servant, any obligation on him as a Christian, and as a trustee for his parents, it lies here—to limit and restrain them, if possible, in the liberty of doing evil; and this is certainly a debt due to the trust reposed in masters by the parents of the youth committed to them. If he is let loose here, he is undone, of course, and it may be said, indeed, he was ruined by his master; and if the master is afterwards ruined by such a servant, what can be said for it but this? He could expect no other.

If a master has any responsibility towards his servant, any obligation as a Christian and as someone trusted by the parents, it is to limit and control their freedom to do wrong; this is definitely a duty owed to the trust placed in masters by the parents of the young people entrusted to them. If he is given free rein here, he will inevitably fail, and it could be argued that he was ruined by his master; and if the master is later ruined by such a servant, what can be said other than this? He shouldn't have expected anything different.

To leave a youth without government is indeed unworthy of any honest master; he cannot discharge himself as a master; for instead of taking care of him he indeed casts him off, abandons him, and, to put it into Scripture words, he leads him into temptation: nay, he goes farther, to use another Scripture expression: he delivers him over to Satan.

To leave a young person without guidance is definitely not respectable for any honest leader; they can't fulfill their responsibilities as a leader. Instead of taking care of them, they actually neglect and abandon them, and, to say it in biblical terms, they lead them into temptation; in fact, they go even further, to use another biblical phrase: they turn them over to Satan.

It is confessed—and it is fatal both to masters and servants at this time—that not only servants are made haughty, and above the government of their masters, and think it below them to submit to any family government, or any restraints of their masters, as to their morals and religion; but masters also seem to have given up all family government, and all care or concern for the morals and manners, as well as for the religion of their servants, thinking themselves under no obligation to meddle with those things, or to think any thing about them, so that their business be but done, and their shop or warehouse duly looked after.

It’s clear—and it’s a serious issue for both employers and employees these days—that not only have employees become arrogant and feel above their employers, thinking it’s beneath them to follow any household rules or restrictions regarding their behavior and beliefs; but employers also seem to have given up all authority at home and any care for the ethics and conduct, as well as the beliefs of their employees, believing they have no duty to get involved with those matters, as long as the work gets done and the business runs smoothly.

But to bring it all home to the point in hand, if it is so with the master and servant, there is the less room still for the master of such servants to leave any considerable trust in the hands of such apprentices, or to expect much from them, to leave the weight of their affairs with them, and, living at their country lodgings, and taking their own diversions, depend upon such servants for the success of their business. This is indeed abandoning their business, throwing it away, and committing themselves, families, and fortunes, to the conduct of those, who, they have all the reason in the world to believe, have no concern upon them for their good, or care one farthing what becomes of them.

But to really drive this point home, if that's the case with the boss and the employees, there's even less reason for the boss of such employees to place any significant trust in those apprentices, or to expect much from them, or to hand over their responsibilities and, while living in their country homes and enjoying their personal leisure, rely on those employees for the success of their business. This is essentially neglecting their business, throwing it away, and putting their families and fortunes in the hands of people who, they have every reason to believe, don't care at all about their well-being or what happens to them.


CHAPTER XIII

OF TRADESMEN MAKING COMPOSITION WITH DEBTORS, OR WITH CREDITORS

OF TRADESPEOPLE REACHING AGREEMENTS WITH DEBTORS OR CREDITORS


There is an alternative in the subject of this chapter, which places the discourse in the two extremes of a tradesman's fortunes.

There is an alternative in the topic of this chapter, which places the discussion at the two extremes of a tradesman's fortunes.

I. The fortunate tradesman, called upon by his poor unfortunate neighbour, who is his debtor, and is become insolvent, to have compassion on him, and to compound with him for part of his debt, and accept his offer in discharge of the whole.

I. The fortunate tradesman is approached by his poor, unfortunate neighbor, who owes him money and has become unable to pay. The neighbor pleads for compassion, asking him to settle for just part of the debt and to accept that offer as full payment.

II. The unfortunate tradesman become insolvent and bankrupt himself, and applying himself to his creditor to accept of a composition, in discharge of his debt.

II. The unfortunate tradesman became insolvent and went bankrupt, then approached his creditor to accept a settlement to clear his debt.

I must confess, a tradesman, let his circumstances be what they will, has the most reason to consider the disasters of the unfortunate, and be compassionate to them under their pressures and disasters, of any other men; because they know not—no, not the most prosperous of them—what may be their own fate in the world. There is a Scripture proverb, if I may call it so, very necessary to a tradesman in this case, 'Let him that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall.'

I have to admit, a tradesperson, no matter their situation, has the strongest reason to reflect on the misfortunes of others and to empathize with them during tough times, more than anyone else; because they have no idea—not even the most successful among them—what their own future may hold. There’s a saying in the Bible that’s very relevant for anyone in trade: 'Let the one who thinks they stand, be careful not to fall.'

N.B. It is not said, let him that standeth take heed, but him that thinketh he standeth. Men in trade can but think they stand; and there are so many incidents in a tradesman's circumstances, that sometimes when he thinks himself most secure of standing, he is in most danger of falling.

N.B. It doesn't say, "let him who stands take heed," but "him that thinks he stands." People in business can only think they are secure; and there are so many things happening in a tradesman's life that sometimes when he feels most confident about his stability, he is actually at the greatest risk of falling.

If, then, the contingent nature of trade renders every man liable to disaster that is engaged in it, it seems strange that tradesmen should be outrageous and unmerciful to one another when they fall; and yet so it is, that no creditor is so furious upon an unhappy insolvent tradesman, as a brother-tradesman of his own class, and who is at least liable to the same disaster, in the common event of his business.

If the unpredictable nature of trade makes every person involved in it vulnerable to failure, it's odd that merchants should be so harsh and unforgiving toward each other when they do fail. Yet, it's true that no creditor is as furious with an unfortunate bankrupt merchant as a fellow merchant from the same profession, who is just as likely to face the same risks in their business dealings.

Nay, I have lived to see—such is the uncertainty of human affairs, and especially in trade—the furious and outrageous creditor become bankrupt himself in a few years, or perhaps months after, and begging the same mercy of others, which he but just before denied to his not more unfortunate fellow-tradesman, and making the same exclamations at the cruelty and hard-heartedness of his creditors in refusing to comply with him, when, at the same time, his own heart must reproach him with his former conduct; how inexorable he was to all the entreaties and tears of his miserable neighbour and his distressed family, who begged his compassion with the lowest submission, who employed friends to solicit and entreat for them, laying forth their misery in the most lively expressions, and using all the arguments which the most moving distress could dictate, but in vain.

No, I’ve lived to see—such is the unpredictability of human affairs, especially in business—that a furious and cruel creditor can become bankrupt himself in just a few years, or maybe even months later, begging for the same mercy from others that he just denied to his not-so-unlucky fellow trader. He makes the same complaints about the cruelty and hard-heartedness of his creditors for refusing to help him, even while his own conscience must guilt-trip him over his past actions; how unyielding he was to all the pleas and tears of his unfortunate neighbor and his struggling family, who begged for his compassion with the utmost humility, using friends to advocate for them and laying out their misery in the most vivid terms, employing every argument that true desperation could inspire, but all in vain.

The tradesman is certainly wrong in this, as compassion to the miserable is a debt of charity due from all mankind to their fellow-creatures; and though the purse-proud tradesman may be able to say he is above the fear of being in the like circumstances, as some may be, yet, even then, he might reflect that perhaps there was a time when he was not so, and he ought to pay that debt of charity, in acknowledgement of the mercy that has set him above the danger.

The tradesman is definitely mistaken here, as showing compassion to those who are suffering is a responsibility of kindness owed by everyone to their fellow humans. And while the arrogant tradesman might think he's above the fear of finding himself in such situations, he should still consider that there may have been a time when he wasn't in such a comfortable position. He should fulfill that obligation of kindness in recognition of the mercy that has lifted him above that risk.

And yet, speaking in the ordinary language of men who are subject to vicissitudes of fortune, where is the man that is sure he shall meet with no shock? And how have we seen men, who have to-day been immensely rich, be to-morrow, as it were, reduced to nothing! What examples were made in this city of such precipitations within the memory of some living, when the Exchequer shutting up ruined the great bankers of Lombard Street.[23] To what fell Sir Robert Viner—the great Alderman Backwell—the three brothers of the name of Forth, of whom King Charles II. made that severe pun, that 'Three-fourths of the city were broke?'

And yet, speaking in the everyday language of people who face the ups and downs of life, where is the person who can be sure they won’t experience any setbacks? And how many times have we seen people who were incredibly wealthy one day suddenly become practically nothing the next! What examples have occurred in this city of such dramatic falls within the memory of those still living, when the closing of the Exchequer ruined the major bankers of Lombard Street. [23] What happened to Sir Robert Viner—the great Alderman Backwell—the three brothers named Forth, of whom King Charles II. made that harsh joke that 'Three-fourths of the city were broke?'

To what have we seen men of prodigious bulk in trade reduced—as Sir Thomas Cook, Sir Basil Firebrass, Sheppard, Coggs, and innumerable bankers, money-scriveners, and merchants, who thought themselves as secure against the shocks of trade, as any men in the world could be? Not to instance our late South Sea directors, and others, reduced by the terrible fate of bubbles, whose names I omit because they yet live, though sinking still under the oppression of their fortunes, and whose weight I would be far from endeavouring to make heavier.

To what have we seen once-mighty men in business reduced—like Sir Thomas Cook, Sir Basil Firebrass, Sheppard, Coggs, and countless bankers, money lenders, and merchants, who believed they were as safe from the ups and downs of trade as anyone in the world could be? Not to mention our recent South Sea directors and others, brought low by the disastrous fate of economic bubbles, whose names I won't mention because they are still living, even though they continue to struggle under the burden of their circumstances, and I certainly don’t want to add to their troubles.

Why, then, should any tradesman, presuming on his own security, and of his being out of the reach of disaster, harden his heart against the miseries and distresses of a fellow-tradesman, who sinks, as it were, by his side, and refuse to accept his offer of composition; at least, if he cannot object against the integrity of his representations, and cannot charge him with fraud and deceit, breaking with a wicked design to cheat and delude his creditors, and to get money by a pretended breach? I say, why should any tradesman harden his heart in such a case, and not, with a generous pity, comply with a reasonable and fair proposal, while it is to be had?

Why should any business person, feeling secure and out of harm's way, harden their heart against the suffering of a fellow trader who is struggling beside them? Why refuse to accept a reasonable offer to settle, especially if there are no grounds to doubt the honesty of their claims or to accuse them of deceitful intentions to trick their creditors and take money through a fake default? I ask, why should any businessperson be so callous in this situation and not, with compassion, agree to a fair proposal while it’s still on the table?

I do acknowledge, if there is an evident fraud, if he can detect the bankrupt in any wicked design, if he can prove he has effects sufficient to pay his debts, and that he only breaks with a purpose to cheat his creditors, and he conceals a part of his estate, when he seems to offer a sincere surrender; if this be the case, and it can be made appear to be so—for in such a case, too, we ought to be very sure of the fact—then, indeed, no favour is due, and really none ought to be shown.

I do recognize that if there’s clear fraud, if he can spot the bankrupt in any dishonest scheme, if he can show he has enough assets to pay his debts, and he's only declaring bankruptcy to trick his creditors while hiding part of his belongings when he seems to genuinely surrender; if that’s the situation and it can be proven—because we need to be very certain of the facts in such a case—then, indeed, no favor is owed, and honestly, none should be given.

And, therefore, it was a very righteous clause which was inflicted on the fraudulent bankrupt, in a late act of Parliament, namely, that in case he concealed his effects, and that it appeared he had, though upon his oath, not given in a full account of his estate, but willingly and knowingly concealed it, or any part of it, with design to defraud his creditors, he should be put to death as a felon: the reason and justice of which clause was this, and it was given as the reason of it when the act was passed in the House of Commons, namely, that the act was made for the relief of the debtor, as well as of the creditor, and to procure for him a deliverance on a surrender of his effects; but then it was made also for the relief of the creditor, too, that he might have as much of his debt secured to him as possible, and that he should not discharge the debtor with his estate in his pocket, suffering him to run away with his (the creditor's) money before his face.

And so, it was a very just rule that was imposed on the dishonest bankrupt in a recent act of Parliament. This rule stated that if he hid his assets and it was shown that he had not fully disclosed his estate under oath, but had willingly and knowingly concealed it, or any part of it, with the intention to defraud his creditors, he should be sentenced to death as a felon. The reasoning and fairness behind this rule were explained when the act was passed in the House of Commons: the act was intended to help both the debtor and the creditor, allowing the debtor to be released upon surrendering his assets. However, it was also designed to protect the creditor, ensuring he could recover as much of his debt as possible, and preventing the debtor from escaping with the creditor's money right in front of him.

Also it was objected, that the act, without a penalty, would be only an act to encourage perjury, and would deliver the hard-mouthed knave that could swear what he pleased, and ruin and reject the modest conscientious tradesman, that was willing and ready to give up the utmost farthing to his creditors. On this account the clause was accepted, and the act passed, which otherwise had been thrown out.

Also, it was argued that the law, without a penalty, would only encourage lying under oath and would protect the deceitful person who could lie freely, while hurting and disregarding the honest, conscientious tradesman who was willing to give everything to his creditors. Because of this, the clause was accepted, and the law passed, which would have otherwise been rejected.

Now, when the poor insolvent has thus surrendered his all, stript himself entirely upon oath, and that oath taken on the penalty of death if it be false, there seems to be a kind of justice due to the bankrupt. He has satisfied the law, and ought to have his liberty given him as a prey, as the text calls it, Jer. xxxix. 18., that he may try the world once again, and see, if possible, to recover his disasters, and get his bread; and it is to be spoken in honour of the justice as well as humanity of that law for delivering bankrupts, that there are more tradesmen recover themselves in this age upon their second endeavours, and by setting up again after they have thus failed and been delivered, than ever were known to do so in ten times the number of years before.

Now, when the poor bankrupt has given up everything, stripped himself completely under oath, with that oath taken under the threat of death if it’s false, it seems only fair that he deserves some justice. He has fulfilled his legal obligations and should be granted his freedom as a prey, as the passage says, Jer. xxxix. 18., so he can try again in the world and see if he can recover from his troubles and earn a living; and it should be noted in praise of the fairness and humanity of the law that helps bankrupts, that more businesspeople are able to bounce back these days on their second attempts, establishing themselves again after failing and being excused, than ever were in the ten times the number of years before.

To break, or turn bankrupt, before this, was like a man being taken by the Turks; he seldom recovered liberty to try his fortune again, but frequently languished under the tyranny of the commissioners of bankrupt, or in the Mint, or Friars, or rules of the Fleet, till he wasted the whole estate, and at length his life, and so his debts were all paid at once.

To go bankrupt before this was like being captured by the Turks; you rarely got a chance to try your luck again, and often suffered under the control of the bankruptcy commissioners, or ended up in the Mint, or with the Friars, or stuck in the Fleet, until you drained all your resources, and eventually your life, meaning all your debts were settled at once.

Nor was the case of the creditor much better—I mean as far as respected his debt, for it was very seldom that any considerable dividend was made; on the other hand, large contributions were called for before people knew whether it was likely any thing would be made of the debtor's effects or no, and oftentimes the creditor lost his whole debt, contribution-money and all; so that while the debtor was kept on the rack, as above, being held in suspense by the creditors, or by the commissioners, or both, he spent the creditor's effects, and subsisted at their expense, till, the estate being wasted, the loss fell heavy on every side, and generally most on those who were least able to bear it.

Nor was the situation for the creditor much better—at least when it came to his debt. It was very rare for any significant payout to happen; on the other hand, large payments were required before anyone knew if any value would come from the debtor's assets or not. Often, the creditor ended up losing the entire debt, including contributions. So, while the debtor was put through the wringer, held in suspense by the creditors, the commissioners, or both, he spent the creditor's money and lived off their resources until the estate was exhausted. The loss weighed heavily on everyone involved, but it usually hit hardest those who could least afford it.

By the present state of things, this evil is indeed altered, and the ruin of the creditor's effects is better prevented; the bankrupt can no more skulk behind the door of the Mint and Rules, and prevent the commissioners' inspection; he must come forth, be examined, give in an account, and surrender himself and effects too, or fly his country, and be seen here no more; and if he does come in, he must give a full account upon oath, on the penalty of his neck.

By the current situation, this problem has definitely changed, and it's easier to prevent the destruction of the creditor's assets; the bankrupt can no longer hide behind the Mint and Rules to avoid the commissioners' inspection. He has to step forward, be questioned, provide an account, and turn over himself and his assets, or leave the country and never be seen again; and if he does come forward, he must give a complete account under oath, risking serious consequences if he doesn't.

When the effects are thus surrendered, the commissioners' proceedings are short and summary. The assignees are obliged to make dividends, and not detain the estate in their own hands, as was the case in former days, till sometimes they became bankrupts themselves, so that the creditors are sure now what is put into the hands of the assignees, shall in due time, and without the usual delay, be fairly divided. On the other hand, the poor debtor having honestly discharged his part, and no objection lying against the sincerity of the discovery, has a certificate granted him, which being allowed by the Lord Chancellor, he is a clear man, and may begin the world again, as I have said above.

When the effects are handed over, the commissioners' process is quick and straightforward. The assignees must distribute dividends and can't keep the estate for themselves, as was common in the past, when they sometimes ended up bankrupt themselves. Now, creditors can be sure that what is given to the assignees will be divided fairly and without the usual delays. On the other hand, the honest debtor who has fulfilled their obligations, with no issues regarding the validity of their disclosure, receives a certificate. Once approved by the Lord Chancellor, they are considered debt-free and can start fresh, as I mentioned earlier.

The creditor, being thus satisfied that the debtor has been faithful, does not answer the end of the act of Parliament, if he declines to assent to the debtor's certificate; nor can any creditor decline it, but on principles which no man cares to own—namely, that of malice, and the highest resentment, which are things a Christian tradesman will not easily act upon.

The creditor, feeling assured that the debtor has been honest, does not fulfill the purpose of the law if he refuses to accept the debtor's certificate; nor can any creditor reject it without motives that no one wants to admit—specifically, malice and deep resentment, which are not qualities a Christian businessperson would readily act upon.

But I come now to the other part of the case; and this is supposing a debtor fails, and the creditors do not think fit to take out a commission of bankrupt against him, as sometimes is the case, at least, where they see the offers of the debtor are any thing reasonable: my advice in such case is (and I speak it from long experience in such things), that they should always accept the first reasonable proposal of the debtor; and I am not in this talking on the foot of charity and mercy to the debtor, but of the real and undoubted interest of the creditor; nor could I urge it, by such arguments as I shall bring, upon any other foundation; for, if I speak in behalf of the debtor, I must argue commiseration to the miserable, compassion and pity of his family, and a reflection upon the sad changes which human life exposes us all to, and so persuade the creditor to have pity upon not him only, but upon all families in distress.

But now I want to address the other side of the situation; this is about when a debtor defaults, and the creditors choose not to file a bankruptcy petition against them, which sometimes happens, especially when they find the debtor’s offers to be reasonable. My advice in this situation (and I say this from a lot of experience in these matters) is that they should always accept the first reasonable offer from the debtor. I’m not saying this out of kindness or mercy towards the debtor, but rather for the real and clear benefit of the creditor. I couldn't argue this on any other basis. If I were to speak on behalf of the debtor, I would have to appeal to the sympathy for someone in distress, the compassion for their family, and the recognition of the unfortunate circumstances that life can throw at any of us. I would be trying to persuade the creditor to feel compassion not just for the debtor, but for all families in need.

But, I say, I argue now upon a different foundation, and insist that it is the creditor's true interest, as I hinted before, that if he finds the debtor inclined to be honest, and he sees reason to believe he makes the best offer he can, he should accept the first offer, as being generally the best the debtor can make;[24] and, indeed, if the debtor be wise as well as honest, he will make it so, and generally it is found to be so. And there are, indeed, many reasons why the first offers of the debtor are generally the best, and why no commission of bankrupt ordinarily raises so much, notwithstanding all its severities, as the bankrupt offers before it is sued out—not reckoning the time and expense which, notwithstanding all the new methods, attend such things, and are inevitable. For example—

But I argue now from a different perspective and believe that it’s in the creditor's best interest, as I mentioned before, that if he sees the debtor willing to be honest and believes he’s made the best offer he can, he should accept that first offer, as it’s usually the best the debtor can do; [24] and if the debtor is both wise and honest, he will ensure it is so, and it’s usually found to be true. There are several reasons why the debtor's first offers are typically the best and why no bankruptcy commission usually raises as much, despite all its harshness, as the offers made by the bankrupt before legal action is taken—not counting the time and costs that, despite all the new methods, are unavoidable. For example—

When the debtor, first looking into his affairs, sees the necessity coming upon him of making a stop in trade, and calling his creditors together, the first thought which by the consequence of the thing comes to be considered, is, what offers he can make to them to avoid the having a commission sued out against him, and to which end common prudence, as well as honest principles, move him to make the best offers he can. If he be a man of sense, and, according to what I mentioned in another chapter, has prudently come to a stop in time, before things are run to extremities, and while he has something left to make an offer of that may be considerable, he will seldom meet with creditors so weak or so blind to their own interest not to be willing to end it amicably, rather than to proceed to a commission. And as this is certainly best both for the debtor and the creditor, so, as I argued with the debtor, that he should be wise enough, as well as honest enough, to break betimes, and that it was infinitely best for his own interest, so I must add, on the other hand, to the creditor, that it is always his interest to accept the first offer; and I never knew a commission make more of an estate, where the debtor has been honest, than he (the debtor) proposed to give them without it.

When a debtor first looks at his situation and realizes he needs to stop doing business and gather his creditors, the first thing he thinks about is what he can offer them to avoid having a bankruptcy petition filed against him. To that end, both common sense and honesty lead him to make the best offers he can. If he's a sensible person and, as I mentioned in another chapter, has wisely decided to stop before things have gone too far, and while he still has some assets to make a meaningful offer, he will usually find that creditors aren’t so weak or shortsighted as to refuse to settle things amicably instead of escalating to a bankruptcy. This approach is certainly the best option for both the debtor and the creditor. Just as I advised the debtor to be smart and honest enough to take action early, for his own benefit, I must also emphasize to the creditor that it's always in his best interest to accept the first offer. I've never seen a bankruptcy proceeding yield more than what the debtor proposed to give them without it.

It is true, there are cases where the issuing out a commission may be absolutely necessary. For example—

It’s true, there are situations where issuing a commission might be completely essential. For example—

1. Where the debtor is evidently knavish, and discovers himself to be so, by endeavours to carry off his effects, or alter the property of the estate, confessing judgments, or any the usual ways of fraud, which in such cases are ordinarily practised. Or—

1. When the debtor is clearly dishonest and shows it by trying to take his belongings, change the property of the estate, confessing judgments, or any of the common fraudulent methods typically used in these situations. Or—

2. Where some creditors, by such judgments, or by attachments of debts, goods delivered, effects made over, or any other way, have gotten some of the estate into their hands, or securities belonging to it, whereby they are in a better state, as to payment, than the rest. Or—

2. Where some creditors, through such judgments, or by seizing debts, goods delivered, assets transferred, or any other means, have gained possession of some of the estate or securities related to it, placing them in a better position for payment than others. Or—

3. Where some people are brought in as creditors, whose debts there is reason to believe are not real, but who place themselves in the room of creditors, in order to receive a dividend for the use of the bankrupt, or some of his family.

3. Where some individuals are introduced as creditors, whose debts are likely not legitimate, but who position themselves as creditors to collect a payout for the benefit of the bankrupt or their family.

In these, and such like cases, a commission is inevitable, and must be taken out; nor does the man merit to be regarded upon the foot of what I call compassion and commiseration at all, but ought to be treated like a rapparee,[25] or plunderer, who breaks with a design to make himself whole by the composition; and as many did formerly, who were beggars when they broke, be made rich by the breach. It was to provide against such harpies as these that the act of Parliament was made; and the only remedy against them is a commission, in which the best thing they can do for their creditors is to come in and be examined, give in a false account upon oath, be discovered, convicted of it, and sent to the gallows, as they deserve.

In these situations, a commission is unavoidable and must be issued; the person involved doesn’t deserve to be treated with compassion or sympathy at all, but should instead be treated like a rapparee,[25] or a thief, who breaks the law to benefit themselves through deception; just like many who used to be beggars when they broke the law and became wealthy from their wrongdoing. It was to protect against such scammers that this law was created; and the only way to address them is through a commission, where the best they can do for their creditors is to show up, be examined, give a false account under oath, get caught, be convicted of it, and face the consequences they deserve.

But I am speaking of honest men, the reverse of such thieves as these, who being brought into distress by the ordinary calamities of trade, are willing to do the utmost to satisfy their creditors. When such as these break in the tradesman's debt, let him consider seriously my advice, and he shall find—I might say, he shall always find, but I do affirm, he shall generally find—the first offer the best, and that he will never lose by accepting it. To refuse it is but pushing the debtor to extremities, and running out some of the effects to secure the rest.

But I'm talking about honest people, the opposite of those thieves who, when faced with the usual hardships of business, are willing to do everything they can to pay back what they owe. When these individuals default on their debts to a merchant, he should seriously consider my advice, and he will find—I could say he will always find, but I’ll say he will generally find—that the first offer is the best one, and he won't lose out by accepting it. Refusing it only pushes the debtor to their limits, risking some of the assets to protect the rest.

First, as to collecting in the debts. Supposing the man is honest, and they can trust him, it is evident no man can make so much of them as the bankrupt. (1.) He knows the circumstances of the debtors, and how best to manage them; he knows who he may best push at, and who best forbear. (2.) He can do it with the least charge; the commissioners or assignees must employ other people, such as attorneys, solicitors, &c., and they are paid dear. The bankrupt sits at home, and by letters into the country, or by visiting them, if in town, can make up every account, answer every objection, judge of every scruple, and, in a word, with ease, compared to what others must do, brings them to comply.

First, about collecting the debts. If the person is honest and trustworthy, it's clear that no one can collect as effectively as the bankrupt. (1.) He understands the details of the debtors' situations and knows how to handle them best; he knows who to pressure and who to avoid. (2.) He can do this with the least expense; the commissioners or assignees have to hire others, like attorneys and solicitors, and they charge a lot. The bankrupt can manage everything from home, using letters or visiting those in town to settle accounts, address concerns, evaluate doubts, and, in short, make things happen more easily than others have to.

Next, as to selling off a stock of goods. The bankrupt keeps open the shop, disperses or disposes of the goods with advantage; whereas the commission brings all to a sale, or an outcry, or an appraisement, and all sinks the value of the stock; so that the bankrupt can certainly make more of the stock than any other person (always provided he is honest, as I said before), and much more than the creditors can do.

Next, regarding the sale of goods. The bankrupt keeps the shop open and sells off the goods profitably; meanwhile, the commission pulls everything together for a sale, an auction, or an appraisal, which lowers the value of the stock. Therefore, the bankrupt can definitely get more out of the stock than anyone else (as long as he is honest, as I mentioned before), and much more than the creditors can.

For these reasons, and many others, the bankrupt is able to make a better offer upon his estate than the creditors can expect to raise any other way; and therefore it is their interest always to take the first offer, if they are satisfied there is no fraud in it, and that the man has offered any thing near the extent of what he has left in the world to offer from.

For these reasons, and many others, the bankrupt can make a better offer for their estate than the creditors could expect to get otherwise; so it’s always in the creditors' best interest to accept the first offer, as long as they are sure there’s no fraud involved and that the person has offered something close to the value of what they still have to give.

If, then, it be the tradesman's interest to accept of the offer made, there needs no stronger argument to be used with him for the doing it; and nothing is more surprising to me than to see tradesmen, the hardest to come into such compositions, and to push on severities against other tradesmen, as if they were out of the reach of the shocks of fortune themselves, or that it was impossible for them ever to stand in need of the same mercy—the contrary to which I have often seen.

If it's in the tradesman's best interest to accept the offer made, there's no need for a stronger argument to convince him to do it. What surprises me the most is seeing tradesmen, who are usually the hardest to agree to such deals, push for harsh treatment against other tradesmen, as if they're immune to the ups and downs of fortune or as if they could never find themselves in need of the same mercy—something I have often witnessed to be untrue.

To what purpose should tradesmen push things to extremities against tradesmen, if nothing is to be gotten by it, and if the insolvent tradesman will take proper measures to convince the creditor that his intentions are honest? The law was made for offenders; there needs no law for innocent men: commissions are granted to manage knaves, and hamper and entangle cunning and designing rogues, who seek to raise fortunes out of their creditors' estates, and exalt themselves by their own downfall; they are not designed against honest men, neither, indeed, is there any need of them for such.

Why should tradespeople push things to the limit against other tradespeople if there's nothing to gain from it, and if the struggling tradesperson is taking the right steps to show the creditor that their intentions are honest? The law is meant for wrongdoers; innocent people don't need laws. Commissions are given to manage the dishonest and to trap and ensnare clever schemers who try to profit off their creditors’ property and elevate themselves through others' misfortunes; these measures aren't meant for honest individuals, and honestly, there’s no need for them in such cases.

Let no man mistake this part, therefore, and think that I am moving tradesmen to be easy and compassionate to rogues and cheats: I am far from it, and have given sufficient testimony of the contrary; having, I assure you, been the only person who actually formed, drew up, and first proposed that very cause to the House of Commons, which made it felony to the bankrupt to give in a false account. It cannot, therefore, be suggested, without manifest injustice, that I would with one breath prompt creditors to be easy to rogues, and to cheating fraudulent bankrupts, and with another make a proposal to have them hanged.

Let no one misunderstand this point and think that I'm encouraging tradespeople to be lenient and compassionate toward con artists and frauds: that's not my intention at all, and I've provided plenty of evidence to the opposite; I assure you, I was the only person who actually created, drafted, and first proposed the specific legislation to the House of Commons that made it a crime for bankrupts to submit a false account. Therefore, it can't honestly be argued, without clear injustice, that I would, on one hand, urge creditors to be lenient with con artists and fraudulent bankrupts, and on the other hand, propose that they face the death penalty.

But I move the creditor, on account of his own interest, always to take the first offer, if he sees no palpable fraud in it, or sees no reason to suspect such fraud; and my reason is good, namely, because I believe, as I said before, it is generally the best.

But I encourage the creditor, for his own benefit, to accept the first offer, unless he clearly sees fraud in it or has a reason to suspect there might be fraud; and my reasoning is sound, as I mentioned earlier, because I believe it is usually the best option.

I know there is a new method of putting an end to a tradesman's troubles, by that which was formerly thought the greatest of all troubles; I mean a fraudulent method, or what they call taking out friendly statutes; that is, when tradesmen get statutes taken out against themselves, moved first by some person in kindness to them, and done at the request of the bankrupt himself. This is generally done when the circumstances of the debtor are very low, and he has little or nothing to surrender; and the end is, that the creditors may be obliged to take what there is, and the man may get a full discharge.

I know there's a new way to end a tradesman's troubles, using what used to be seen as the worst trouble of all; I'm talking about a fraudulent method, or what they now call getting friendly statutes. This means tradesmen have statutes issued against them, initiated by someone who wants to help, and done at the request of the bankrupt themselves. This usually happens when the debtor's situation is really bad, and they have little or nothing to give up. The outcome is that the creditors might have to accept whatever is available, and the person can get a fresh start.

This is, indeed, a vile corruption of a good law, and turning the edge of the act against the creditor, not against the debtor; and as he has nothing to surrender, they get little or nothing, and the man is as effectually discharged as if he had paid twenty shillings in the pound; and so he is in a condition to set up again, take fresh credit, break again, and have another commission against him; and so round, as often as he thinks fit. This, indeed, is a fraud upon the act, and shows that all human wisdom is imperfect, that the law wants some repairs, and that it will in time come into consideration again, to be made capable of disappointing the people that intend to make such use of it.

This is, without a doubt, a terrible corruption of a good law, turning the intent of the act against the creditor instead of the debtor. Since he has nothing to give up, they receive little or nothing, and the individual is effectively discharged as if he had paid twenty shillings for every pound. As a result, he can start over, take on new credit, go bankrupt again, and face another commission against him; and this cycle can continue as often as he wishes. This is truly a scam against the act, highlighting that all human wisdom is flawed, that the law needs some fixes, and that it will eventually be reconsidered to prevent people from exploiting it in this way.

I think there is also wanting a law against twice breaking, and that all second commissions should have some penalty upon the bankrupt, and a third a farther penalty, and if the fourth brought the man to the gallows, it could not be thought hard; for he that has set up and broke, and set up again, and broke again, and the like, a third time, I think merits to be hanged, if he pretends to venture any more.

I think there should also be a law against repeated bankruptcies, and that every second offense should come with some penalty for the bankrupt, a third offense with a harsher penalty, and if the fourth one led the person to the gallows, it wouldn’t seem too harsh; because someone who has gone bankrupt, rebuilt, and then gone bankrupt again, and then done it a third time, deserves to be hanged if they dare to try again.

Most of those crimes against which any laws are published in particular, and which are not capital, have generally an addition of punishment upon a repetition of the crime, and so on—a further punishment to a further repetition. I do not see why it should not be so here; and I doubt not but it would have a good effect upon tradesmen, to make them cautious, and to warn them to avoid such scandalous doings as we see daily practised, breaking three or four, or five times over; and we see instances of some such while I am writing this very chapter.

Most crimes that have specific laws against them, especially those that aren’t punishable by death, usually face increased penalties for repeat offenses. I don’t see why this shouldn’t apply here, and I believe it would effectively encourage merchants to be more careful and prevent them from engaging in the shameful behavior we see happening daily, repeated three, four, or even five times. There are already examples of this occurring as I write this very chapter.

To such, therefore, I am so far from moving for any favour, either from the law, or from their creditors, that I think the only deficiency of the law at this time is, that it does not reach to inflict a corporal punishment in such a case, but leaves such insolvents to fare well, in common with those whose disasters are greater, and who, being honest and conscientious, merit more favour, but do not often find it.

To those people, I am so far from seeking any favor, whether from the law or their creditors, that I believe the only shortcoming of the law right now is that it doesn’t impose physical punishment in such cases. Instead, it allows these bankrupt individuals to get by, alongside those who have experienced even worse misfortunes, and who, being honest and ethical, deserve more kindness, but often don’t receive it.

FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:

[This event took place in 1671, Charles II. finding it necessary to suspend the national payments for a year.]

[This event happened in 1671 when Charles II found it necessary to pause national payments for a year.]

[The truth of this continues to be matter of daily observation in our own times.]

[The truth of this is still something we see every day in our times.]

[A name applied, in the seventeenth century, to a certain class of robbers in Ireland.]

[A name used in the seventeenth century for a specific class of robbers in Ireland.]


CHAPTER XIV

OF THE UNFORTUNATE TRADESMAN COMPOUNDING WITH HIS CREDITORS

OF THE UNFORTUNATE TRADESMAN MAKING A DEAL WITH HIS CREDITORS


This is what in the last chapter I called an alternative to that of the fortunate tradesman yielding to accept the composition of his insolvent debtor.

This is what I referred to in the last chapter as an alternative to the fortunate tradesman agreeing to accept the settlement from his bankrupt debtor.

The poor unhappy tradesman, having long laboured in the fire, and finding it is in vain to struggle, but that whether he strives or not strives, he must break; that he does but go backward more and more, and that the longer he holds out, he shall have the less to offer, and be the harder thought of, as well as the harder dealt with—resolves to call his creditors together in time, while there is something considerable to offer them, and while he may have some just account to give of himself, and of his conduct, and that he may not be reproached with having lived on the spoil, and consumed their estates; and thus, being satisfied that the longer he puts the evil day from him, the heavier it will fall when it comes; I say, he resolves to go no farther, and so gets a friend to discourse with and prepare them, and then draws up a state of his case to lay before them.

The poor, unhappy tradesman, having worked hard for a long time, realizes that it's pointless to fight against his situation. Whether he tries or not, he's bound to fail. He finds that the more he struggles, the worse things get, and the longer he holds out, the less he’ll have to offer. He knows he’ll be judged more harshly and treated worse the longer he waits. So, he decides to call his creditors together while he still has something valuable to offer, and while he can provide a reasonable account of himself and his actions, to avoid being blamed for living off their losses and wasting their assets. He understands that delaying only makes the inevitable outcome worse. So, he resolves to stop dragging it out and gets a friend to talk to them and prepare them, then he puts together a summary of his situation to present to them.

First, He assures them that he has not wasted his estate, either by vice and immorality, or by expensive and riotous living, luxury, extravagance, and the like.

First, He assures them that he has not squandered his wealth, either through wrongdoing and immoral behavior, or through lavish and excessive living, luxury, extravagance, and similar indulgences.

Secondly, He makes it appear that he has met with great losses, such as he could not avoid; and yet such and so many, that he has not been able to support the weight of them.

Secondly, he makes it seem like he has faced significant losses that he couldn't escape; yet they are so numerous and heavy that he hasn't been able to bear their burden.

Thirdly, That he could have stood it out longer, but that he was sensible if he did, he should but diminish the stock, which, considering his debts, was properly not his own; and that he was resolved not to spend one part of their debts, as he had lost the other.

Thirdly, he could have lasted longer, but he realized that if he did, he would just reduce the resources, which, given his debts, truly weren't his to begin with; and he was determined not to use any part of their debts, just as he had lost the other part.

Fourthly, That he is willing to show them his books, and give up every farthing into their hands, that they might see he acted the part of an honest man to them. And,

Fourthly, he is willing to show them his books and hand over every penny to them so they can see that he acted honestly with them. And,

Fifthly, That upon his doing so, they will find, that there is in goods and good debts sufficient to pay them fifteen shillings in the pound; after which, and when he has made appear that they have a faithful and just account of every thing laid before them, he hopes they will give him his liberty, that he may try to get his bread, and to maintain his family in the best manner he can; and, if possible, to pay the remainder of the debt.

Fifthly, once he does this, they will find that there are enough goods and valuable debts to pay them fifteen shillings for every pound owed. After that, once he shows that they have a fair and accurate account of everything presented to them, he hopes they will grant him his freedom so he can earn a living and support his family in the best way possible, and if he can, pay off the rest of the debt.

You see I go all the way upon the suggestion of the poor unfortunate tradesman being critically honest, and showing himself so to the full satisfaction of his creditors; that he shows them distinctly a true state of his case, and offers his books and vouchers to confirm every part of his account.

You see, I completely agree with the idea that the poor, unfortunate tradesman is being brutally honest and demonstrating this to the total satisfaction of his creditors. He clearly presents a true picture of his situation and offers his books and receipts to back up every part of his account.

Upon the suggestion of his being thus sincerely honest, and allowing that the state of his account comes out so well as to pay fifteen shillings in the pound, what and who but a parcel of outrageous hot-headed men would reject such a man? What would they be called, nay, what would they say of themselves, if they should reject such a composition, and should go and take out a commission of bankrupt against such a man? I never knew but one of the like circumstances, that was refused by his creditors; and that one held them out, till they were all glad to accept of half what they said should be first paid them: so may all those be served, who reject such wholesome advice, and the season for accepting a good offer, when it was made them. But I return to the debtor.

If we consider his honesty and notice that his account balances well enough to pay fifteen shillings for every pound owed, what kind of unreasonable, hot-headed people would turn him away? What would they call themselves if they reject such a generous offer and instead decide to file for bankruptcy against him? I’ve only seen one case like this where a debtor was refused by his creditors, and that person managed to hold out until they all gladly accepted half of what they initially demanded. So may it be for anyone who ignores such sound advice and the opportunity to take a good deal when it’s offered. But I digress and return to the debtor.

When he looks into his books, he finds himself declined, his own fortune lost, and his creditors' stock in his hands wasted in part, and still wasting, his trade being for want of stock much fallen off, and his family expense and house-rent great; so he draws up the general articles thus:—

When he checks his books, he sees he’s in decline, his own fortune vanished, and the money owed to his creditors is partially wasted and still disappearing. His business has taken a hit due to lack of resources, and his family expenses and rent are high. So he prepares the general articles like this:—


     STOCK DEBTOR

     To cash of my father (being my stock) to begin with in trade£800  0  0
     To cash of my father-in-law, being my wife's portion         600  0  0
     To household-goods, plate, &c. of both                       100  0  0
     To profits in trade for ten years, as by the yearly balance
     in the journal appears                                      2469 10  0
     To debts abroad esteemed good, as by the ledger appears     1357  8  0
     To goods in the warehouse at the prime cost                  672 12  0
     Plate and some small jewels of my wife's left, and old
     household-goods altogether                                   103  0  0
                                                                -----------
                                                                £6102 10  0
     Estate deficient to balance                                 1006  2  0
                                                                -----------
                                                                £7108 12  0
     STOCK CREDITOR

     By losses by bad debts in trade, in the year 1715         £ 50    0  0
     By do. 1716                                                 66   10  0
     By do. 1717                                                234   15  0
     By do. 1718                                                 43    0  0
     By do. 1719                                                 25    0  0
     By do. by the South Sea stock, 1720                       1280    0  0
     By do. in trade, 1721                                       42    0  0
     By do. 1722                                                106    0  0
     By do. 1723                                                302    0  0
     By do. 1724                                                 86   15  0
     By house-keeping and expenses, taxes included, as by the
        cash-book appears, for ten years                       1836   12  0
     By house-rents at £50 per annum                            500    0  0
     By credits now owing to sundry persons, as by the ledger
        appears                                                2536    0  0
                                                              -------------
                                                              £7108   12  0
                                                              =============
     STOCK DEBTOR

     Cash from my father (my stock) to start in business £800  0  0  
     Cash from my father-in-law, my wife's portion         600  0  0  
     Household goods, silverware, etc. from both              100  0  0  
     Profits in trade for ten years, as shown in the yearly balance  
     in the journal                                         2469 10  0  
     Debts overseas considered good, as shown in the ledger 1357  8  0  
     Goods in the warehouse at cost price                     672 12  0  
     Silverware and some small jewelry belonging to my wife, and old   
     household goods altogether                              103  0  0  
                                                           -----------  
                                                           £6102 10  0  
     Estate short to balance                                 1006  2  0  
                                                           -----------  
                                                           £7108 12  0  

     STOCK CREDITOR

     By losses from bad debts in trade in the year 1715      £ 50    0  0  
     By losses in 1716                                       66   10  0  
     By losses in 1717                                      234   15  0  
     By losses in 1718                                       43    0  0  
     By losses in 1719                                       25    0  0  
     By losses from the South Sea stock, 1720              1280    0  0  
     By losses in trade, 1721                                 42    0  0  
     By losses in 1722                                      106    0  0  
     By losses in 1723                                      302    0  0  
     By losses in 1724                                       86   15  0  
     By household expenses, including taxes, as shown in the  
     cash book for ten years                                1836   12  0  
     By rent at £50 per year                                 500    0  0  
     By credits currently owed to various people, as shown in the ledger  
                                                           2536    0  0  
                                                           -------------  
                                                           £7108   12  0  
                                                           =============  

This account is drawn out to satisfy himself how his condition stands, and what it is he ought to do: upon the stating which account he sees to his affliction that he has sunk all his own fortune and his wife's, and is a thousand pounds worse than nothing in the world; and that, being obliged to live in the same house for the sake of his business and warehouse, though the rent is too great for him, his trade being declined, his credit sunk, and his family being large, he sees evidently he cannot go on, and that it will only be bringing things from bad to worse; and, above all the rest, being greatly perplexed in his mind that he is spending other people's estates, and that the bread he eats is not his own, he resolves to call his creditors all together, lay before them the true state of his case, and lie at their mercy for the rest.

This account is written out to help him understand how he's really doing and what he should do next. In laying out this account, he realizes with distress that he has lost all his own money and his wife's, leaving him a thousand pounds in debt. He's stuck living in the same house for his business and warehouse, even though the rent is too high for him, with his business declining, his credit shot, and a large family to support. He clearly sees he can't keep going like this, and it's only going to make things worse. On top of all this, he's very troubled by the fact that he's spending other people's money and that the food he has isn't truly his. He decides to gather all his creditors, present them with an honest account of his situation, and put himself at their mercy for what comes next.

The account of his present and past fortune standing as it did, and as appears above, the result is as follows, namely, that he has not sufficient to pay all his creditors, though his debts should prove to be all good, and the goods in his warehouse should be fully worth the price they cost, which, being liable to daily contingencies, add to the reasons which pressed him before to make an offer of surrender to his creditors both of his goods and debts, and to give up all into their hands.

The situation regarding his current and past finances is as follows: he doesn't have enough to pay all his creditors, even if all his debts are valid and the items in his warehouse are worth what he paid for them. Since these circumstances can change daily, this reinforces his previous decision to propose surrendering both his assets and liabilities to his creditors and to hand everything over to them.

The state of his case, as to his debts and credits, stands as follows:—

The status of his case regarding his debts and credits is as follows:—

     His debts esteemed good, as by the ledger, are         £1357   8   0
     His goods in the warehouse                               672  12   0
                                                            -------------
                                                            £2030   0   0

     His creditors demands, as by the same ledger
     appears, are                                           £3036   0   0
     His debts, valued according to the ledger, are         £1357   8   0
     His goods in the warehouse                               672  12   0
                                                            -------------
                                                            £2030   0   0

     His creditors' demands, as shown in the same ledger,
     are                                                   £3036   0   0

This amounts to fifteen shillings in the pound upon all his debts, which, if the creditors please to appoint an assignee or trustee to sell the goods, and collect the debts, he is willing to surrender wholly into their hands, hoping they will, as a favour, give him his household goods, as in the account, for his family use, and his liberty, that he may seek out for some employment to get his bread.

This adds up to fifteen shillings for every pound he owes. If the creditors want to appoint someone to sell his belongings and collect the debts, he is willing to hand everything over to them, hoping they will kindly allow him to keep his household items, as listed, for his family and give him his freedom so he can look for a job to support himself.

The account being thus clear, the books exactly agreeing, and the man appearing to have acted openly and fairly, the creditors meet, and, after a few consultations, agree to accept his proposals, and the man is a free man immediately, gets fresh credit, opens his shop again, and, doubling his vigilance and application in business, he recovers in a few years, grows rich; then, like an honest man still, he calls all his creditors together again, tells them he does not call them now to a second composition, but to tell them, that having, with God's blessing and his own industry, gotten enough to enable him, he was resolved to pay them the remainder of his old debt; and accordingly does so, to the great joy of his creditors, to his own very great honour, and to the encouragement of all honest men to take the same measures. It is true, this does not often happen, but there have been instances of it, and I could name several within my own knowledge.

The situation being clear, the records matching perfectly, and the man seeming to have acted honestly and fairly, the creditors come together and, after a few discussions, agree to accept his proposals. The man is immediately free, gets new credit, reopens his shop, and through increased vigilance and hard work, he recovers in a few years and becomes wealthy. Still being an honest man, he gathers all his creditors again, informing them that he’s not calling them for a second deal, but to let them know that, with God’s blessing and his own efforts, he has made enough to pay them the rest of his old debt. He does so, which brings great joy to his creditors, earns him immense respect, and encourages all honest people to take similar actions. While it’s true this doesn’t happen often, there have been instances of it, and I could name several from my own experience.

But here comes an objection in the way, as follows: It is true this man did very honestly, and his creditors had a great deal of reason to be satisfied with his just dealing with them; but is every man bound thus to strip himself naked? Perhaps this man at the same time had a family to maintain, and had he no debt of justice to them, but to beg his household goods back of them for his poor family, and that as an alms?-and would he not have fared as well, if he had offered his creditors ten shillings in the pound, and took all the rest upon himself, and then he had reserved to himself sufficient to have supported himself in any new undertaking?

But here comes an objection: It’s true this man acted very honorably, and his creditors had plenty of reason to feel satisfied with how he dealt with them; but is every person really required to completely strip themselves bare? Maybe this man also had a family to support, and did he not have a moral obligation to them, perhaps needing to ask for his belongings back just to help his struggling family, almost like asking for charity? Wouldn't he have been just as fine if he offered his creditors ten shillings for every pound owed and took the rest upon himself, ensuring he had enough left to take care of himself in any new venture?

The answer to this is short and plain, and no debtor can be at a loss to know his way in it, for otherwise people may make difficulties where there are none; the observing the strict rules of justice and honesty will chalk out his way for him.

The answer to this is simple and clear, and no debtor should have trouble understanding it; otherwise, people might create issues where there aren't any. Following the strict principles of fairness and integrity will guide him.

The man being deficient in stock, and his estate run out to a thousand pounds worse than nothing by his losses, &c, it is evident all he has left is the proper estate of his creditors, and he has no right to one shilling of it; he owes it them, it is a just debt to them, and he ought to discharge it fairly, by giving up all into their hands, or at least to offer to do so.

The man is short on resources, and his financial situation has deteriorated to a deficit of a thousand pounds due to his losses, etc. It’s clear that everything he has left belongs to his creditors, and he doesn’t have any claim to even a single penny of it; he owes it to them. This is a legitimate debt, and he should settle it properly by surrendering everything to them, or at the very least, he should offer to do so.

But to put the case upon a new foot; as he is obliged to make an offer, as above, to put all his effects, books, and goods into their power, so he may add an alternative to them thus, namely—that if, on the other hand, they do not think proper to take the trouble, or run the risk, of collecting the debts, and selling the goods, which may be difficult, if they will leave it to him to do it, he will undertake to pay them—shillings in the pound, and stand to the hazard both of debts and goods.

But to present the situation differently; since he is required to make an offer, as mentioned above, to hand over all his possessions, books, and goods to them, he can also provide them with an alternative. Specifically, if they prefer not to take the effort or risk of collecting the debts and selling the goods, which might be challenging, they can let him handle it. He will commit to paying them—shillings in the pound—and will take on the risk associated with both the debts and the goods.

Having thus offered the creditors their choice, if they accept the proposal of a certain sum, as sometimes I know they have chosen to do, rather than to have the trouble of making assignees, and run the hazard of the debts, when put into lawyers' hands to collect, and of the goods, to sell them by appraisement; if, I say, they choose this, and offer to discharge the debtor upon payment, suppose it be of ten or twelve shillings in the pound in money, within a certain time, or on giving security for the payment; then, indeed, the debtor is discharged in conscience, and may lawfully and honestly take the remainder as a gift given him by his creditors for undertaking their business, or securing the remainder of their debt to them—I say, the debtor may do this with the utmost satisfaction to his conscience.

Having given the creditors their options, if they agree to a certain amount—which I know they sometimes prefer over the hassle of appointing assignees and risking the debts when handled by lawyers for collection, along with selling the goods through appraisal—if, I say, they choose this route and offer to release the debtor upon receiving payment, let’s say ten or twelve shillings on the pound in cash within a specific time frame, or by providing security for that payment; then, the debtor is indeed released in good conscience and can rightfully and honestly accept the remaining amount as a gift from their creditors for taking on their business or securing the rest of the debt owed to them. I say, the debtor can do this with full peace of mind regarding their conscience.

But without thus putting it into the creditors' choice, it is a force upon them to offer them any thing less than the utmost farthing that he is able to pay; and particularly to pretend to make an offer as if it were his utmost, and, as is usual, make protestations that it is the most he is able to pay (indeed, every offer of a composition is a kind of protestation that the debtor is not able to pay any more)—I say, to offer thus, and declare he offers as much as possible, and as much as the effects he has left will produce, if his effects are able to produce more, he is then a cheat; for he acts then like one that stands at bay with his creditors, make an offer, and if the creditors do not think fit to accept of it, they must take what methods they think they can take to get more; that is to say, he bids open defiance to their statutes and commissions of bankrupt, and any other proceedings: like a town besieged, which offers to capitulate and to yield upon such and such articles; which implies, that if those articles are not accepted, the garrison will defend themselves to the last extremity, and do all the mischief to the assailants that they can.

But without giving the creditors a real choice, it forces them to accept anything less than the absolute minimum he can pay; especially to make it seem like his offer is his last and, as usual, claim that this is all he can afford (in fact, every offer of a settlement is a way of saying that the debtor can't pay any more)—I mean, to offer like this and state that he’s offering as much as possible, and as much as his remaining assets will yield, if his assets could produce more, then he’s being dishonest; because he's acting like someone backed into a corner with his creditors, making an offer, and if the creditors don't want to accept it, they have to take whatever actions they think they can to get more; that is to say, he outright defies their laws and bankruptcy proceedings, just like a besieged town that proposes to surrender under specific terms; which implies that if those terms aren't accepted, the defenders will fight back to the bitter end and cause as much harm to the attackers as they can.

Now, this in a garrison-town, I say, may be lawful and fair, but in a debtor to his creditor it is quite another thing: for, as I have said above, the debtor has no property in the effects which he has in his hands; they are the goods and the estate of the creditor; and to hold out against the creditor, keep his estate by violence, and make him accept of a small part of it, when the debtor has a larger part in his power, and is able to give it—this is not fair, much less is it honest and conscientious; but it is still worse to do this, and at the same time to declare that it is the utmost the debtor can do; this, I say, is still more dishonest, because it is not true, and is adding falsehood to the other injustice.

Now, in a garrison town, I say this may be lawful and fair, but when it comes to a debtor and his creditor, it’s a whole different story. As I mentioned earlier, the debtor doesn't actually own the possessions in his hands; they belong to the creditor. To resist the creditor, keep the creditor’s property by force, and only give the creditor a small portion of it when the debtor has more that he could easily provide—that’s not fair at all. It’s even less honest and conscientious. But it’s even worse when the debtor claims that's all he can do; this is more dishonest because it’s not true and adds a lie to the existing injustice.

Thus, I think, I have stated the case clearly, for the conduct of the debtor; and, indeed, this way of laying all before the creditors, and putting it into their choice, seems a very happy method for the comfort of the debtor, cast down and dejected with the weight of his circumstances; and, it may be, with the reproaches of his own conscience too, that he has not done honestly in running out the effects of his creditors, and making other families suffer by him, and perhaps poor families too—I say, this way of giving up all with an honest and single desire to make all the satisfaction he is able to his creditors, greatly heals the breach in his peace, which his circumstances had made before; for, by now doing all that is in his power, he makes all possible amends for what is past, I mean as to men; and they are induced, by this open, frank usage, to give him the reward of his honesty, and freely forgive him the rest of the debt.

I believe I've made the situation clear regarding the debtor's actions. This approach of laying everything out for the creditors and letting them decide seems like a really good way to ease the debtor's burden, who is feeling down because of their circumstances, and possibly feeling guilty too for not having acted honestly by running up debts and affecting other families, possibly even struggling families. I think that surrendering everything with a genuine desire to repay his creditors as much as he can really helps restore the peace he lost due to his situation. By doing everything he can now, he makes amends for the past as far as others are concerned, and this honest and straightforward approach encourages them to reward his integrity by forgiving the remaining debt.

There is a manifest difference to the debtor, in point of conscience, between surrendering his whole effects, or estate, to his creditors for satisfaction of their debts, and offering them a composition, unless, as I have said, the composition is offered, as above, to the choice of the creditor. By surrendering the whole estate, the debtor acknowledges the creditors' right to all he has in his possession, and gives it up to them as their own, putting it in their full power to dispose of it as they please.

There is a clear difference for the debtor, in terms of conscience, between giving up all his assets or property to his creditors to settle their debts and proposing a settlement, unless, as I mentioned, the settlement is offered, as stated above, for the creditor to choose. By surrendering the entire estate, the debtor admits that the creditors have a right to everything he possesses and hands it over to them as their own, allowing them complete control to manage it as they wish.

But, by a composition, the debtor, as I have said above, stands at bay with the creditors, and, keeping their estates in his hands, capitulates with them, as it were, sword in hand, telling them he can give them no more, when perhaps, and too often it is the case, it is apparent that he is in condition to offer more. Now, let the creditors consent to these proposals, be what it will; and, however voluntary it may be pretended to be, it is evident that a force is the occasion of it, and the creditor complies, and accepts the proposal, upon the supposition that no better conditions can be had. It is the plain language of the thing, for no man accepts of less than he thinks he can get: if he believed he could have more, he would certainly get it if he could.

But through a settlement, the debtor, as I mentioned earlier, faces off against the creditors, and, keeping their assets in his possession, negotiates with them almost like a standoff, claiming he can’t offer more, when often it's clear that he actually could. Now, if the creditors agree to these terms, no matter what they may be, and no matter how voluntary it seems, it's clear that there’s a pressure behind it, and the creditor agrees and accepts the offer, assuming that no better terms are possible. It’s straightforward because no one accepts less than what they believe they can get: if they thought they could get more, they would definitely pursue it.

And if the debtor is able to pay one shilling more than he offers, it is a cheat, a palpable fraud, and of so much he actually robs his creditor. But in a surrender the case is altered in all its parts; the debtor says to his creditors, 'Gentlemen, there is a full and faithful account of all I have left; it is your own, and there it is; I am ready to put it into your hands, or into the hands of whomsoever you shall appoint to receive it, and to lie at your mercy.' This is all the man is able to do, and therefore is so far honest; whether the methods that reduced him were honest or no, that is a question by itself. If on this surrender he finds the creditors desirous rather to have it digested into a composition, and that they will voluntarily come into such a proposal, then, as above, they being judges of the equity of the composition, and of what ability the debtor is to perform it, and, above all, of what he may or may not gain by it, if they accept of such a composition, instead of the surrender of his effects, then the case alters entirely, and the debtor is acquitted in conscience, because the creditor had a fair choice, and the composition is rather their proposal to the debtor, than the debtor's proposal to them.

And if the debtor can pay even a single shilling more than what he offers, it’s a cheat, a clear fraud, and in that amount, he’s essentially stealing from his creditor. However, in a surrender, everything changes; the debtor tells his creditors, 'Gentlemen, here’s a complete and honest account of everything I have left; it belongs to you, and it’s right there; I’m ready to hand it over to you or to anyone you choose to receive it, and I’m at your mercy.' That’s all he can do, so in that sense, he’s being honest; whether the circumstances that led to his situation were honest is a separate issue. If, after this surrender, the creditors prefer to convert it into a composition and are willing to accept such a proposal, then, as mentioned, they become the judges of the fairness of the composition, of how much the debtor can manage to fulfill it, and, most importantly, of what he may or may not benefit from it. If they agree to that composition instead of taking the surrender of his assets, then the situation is completely different, and the debtor is cleared in his conscience because the creditor had a genuine choice, and the composition is more their proposal to the debtor than the debtor's proposal to them.

Thus, I think, I have stated the case of justice and conscience on the debtor's behalf, and cleared up his way, in case of a necessity, to stop trading, that he may break without wounding his conscience, as well as his fortunes; and he that thinks fit to act thus, will come off with the reputation of an honest man, and will have the favour of his creditors to begin again, with whatever he may have as to stock; and sometimes that favour is better to him than a stock, and has been the raising of many a broken tradesman, so that his latter end has been better than his beginning.

So, I believe I have presented the case for justice and conscience on behalf of the debtor, making it clear that if necessary, he can stop trading without compromising his principles or his financial situation. Those who choose to act this way will be seen as honest and will earn the goodwill of their creditors, allowing them to start over with whatever inventory they may have. Sometimes that goodwill is more valuable than stock itself and has helped many struggling businesspeople, leading to better outcomes than they initially had.


CHAPTER XV

OF TRADESMEN RUINING ONE ANOTHER BY RUMOUR AND CLAMOUR, BY SCANDAL AND REPROACH

OF TRADESPEOPLE DESTROYING EACH OTHER THROUGH RUMORS AND NOISE, THROUGH SCANDAL AND SHAME


I have dwelt long upon the tradesman's management of himself, in order to his due preserving both his business and his reputation: let me bestow one chapter upon the tradesman for his conduct among his neighbours and fellow-tradesmen.

I have spent a lot of time discussing how a tradesman should manage himself to maintain both his business and his reputation. Now, let me dedicate a chapter to the tradesman regarding his interactions with his neighbors and fellow tradespeople.

Credit is so much a tradesman's blessing that it is the choicest ware he deals in, and he cannot be too chary of it when he has it, or buy it too dear when he wants it; it is a stock to his warehouse, it is current money in his cash-chest, it accepts all his bills, for it is on the fund of his credit that he has any bills to accept; demands would else be made upon the spot, and he must pay for his goods before he has them—therefore, I say, it accepts all his bills, and oftentimes pays them too; in a word, it is the life and soul of his trade, and it requires his utmost vigilance to preserve it.

Credit is such a valuable asset for a tradesman that it's the most prized item he offers, and he should be careful with it when he has it or pay a high price when he needs it; it's like inventory for his shop, actual money in his cash register, it covers all his expenses because it's the basis of his ability to handle any expenses at all; otherwise, he'd have to pay immediately for his goods before receiving them—so, I say, it covers all his expenses and often pays them too; in short, it's the lifeblood of his business, and he must be extremely diligent to maintain it.

If, then, his own credit should be of so much value to him, and he should be so nice in his concern about it, he ought in some degree to have the same care of his neighbour's. Religion teaches us not to slander and defame our neighbour, that is to say, not to raise or promote any slander or scandal upon his good name. As a good name is to another man, and which the wise man says, 'is better than life,' the same is credit to a tradesman—it is the life of his trade; and he that wounds a tradesman's credit without cause, is as much a murderer in trade, as he that kills a man in the dark is a murderer in matters of blood.

If his reputation is so important to him, and he is so careful about it, he should also show some concern for his neighbor’s. Religion teaches us not to slander or defame others, meaning we shouldn’t spread or encourage any rumors or scandal about their good name. Just like a good name is valuable to someone, as the wise say, 'is better than life,' a good reputation is crucial for a tradesman—it’s essential to his business. Hurting a tradesman’s reputation without reason is as damaging in business as killing someone in the dark is in terms of taking a life.

Besides, there is a particular nicety in the credit of a tradesman, which does not reach in other cases: a man is slandered in his character, or reputation, and it is injurious; and if it comes in the way of a marriage, or of a preferment, or post, it may disappoint and ruin him; but if this happens to a tradesman, he is immediately and unavoidably blasted and undone; a tradesman has but two sorts of enemies to encounter with, namely, thieves breaking open his shop, and ill neighbours blackening and blasting his reputation; and the latter are the worst thieves of the two, by a great deal; and, therefore, people should indeed be more chary of their discourse of tradesmen, than of other men, and that as they would not be guilty of murder. I knew an author of a book, who was drawn in unwarily, and without design, to publish a scandalous story of a tradesman in London. He (the author) was imposed upon by a set of men, who did it maliciously, and he was utterly ignorant of the wicked design; nor did he know the person, but rashly published the thing, being himself too fond of a piece of news, which he thought would be grateful to his readers; nor yet did he publish the person's name, so cautious he was, though that was not enough, as it proved, for the person was presently published by those who had maliciously done it.

Besides, there's a specific importance to a tradesman's reputation that doesn't apply in other situations: if a person’s character is slandered, it’s damaging; and if it affects a marriage, a promotion, or a job, it can disappoint and destroy him. But when this happens to a tradesman, he is instantly and irreparably harmed. A tradesman only has two types of enemies to deal with: thieves breaking into his shop and dishonest neighbors tarnishing his reputation. The latter are by far the worse of the two. Therefore, people should be more careful about what they say about tradesmen than about others, as if they were committing a serious crime. I know an author who was unknowingly tricked into publishing a scandalous story about a tradesman in London. He was misled by a group of people who acted maliciously, and he had no idea of their evil intentions; he didn’t even know the person involved, but he carelessly published the story because he was too eager for a piece of news that he thought would please his readers. He didn’t even publish the person's name, being that cautious, but that wasn’t enough, as it turned out, because the person was quickly identified by those who had acted maliciously.

The scandal spread; the tradesman, a flourishing man, and a considerable dealer, was run upon by it with a torrent of malice; a match which he was about with a considerable fortune was blasted and prevented, and that indeed was the malicious end of the people that did it; nor did it stop there—it brought his creditors upon him, it ruined him, it brought out a commission of bankrupt against him, it broke his heart, and killed him; and after his death, his debts and effects coming in, there appeared to be seven shillings in the pound estate, clear and good over and above all demands, all his debts discharged, and all the expenses of the statute paid.

The scandal blew up; the tradesman, a successful guy and a significant dealer, was hit with a flood of negativity. A deal he was about to make with a large fortune was destroyed, which was exactly what those behind it intended. And it didn’t end there—it brought his creditors down on him, ruined him, led to a bankruptcy claim against him, broke his heart, and ultimately killed him. After his death, when his debts and assets were accounted for, it turned out there were seven shillings for every pound of his estate, clean and clear aside from all claims, all his debts settled, and all the legal costs covered.

It was to no purpose that the man purged himself of the crime laid to his charge—that the author, who had ignorantly and rashly published the scandal, declared himself ignorant; the man was run down by a torrent of reproach; scandal oppressed him; he was buried alive in the noise and dust raised both against his morals and his credit, and yet his character was proved good, and his bottom in trade was so too, as I have said above.

It was pointless for the man to clear himself of the crime he was accused of—that the author, who had carelessly and foolishly published the scandal, claimed he didn’t know anything; the man faced a flood of blame; the scandal weighed heavily on him; he felt buried alive in the chaos and accusations against his character and reputation, yet his integrity was established, and his business was solid, as I mentioned before.

It is not the least reason of my publishing this to add, that even the person who was ignorantly made the instrument of publishing the scandal, was not able to retrieve it, or to prevent the man's ruin by all the public reparation he could make in print, and by all the acknowledgement he could make of his having been ignorantly drawn in to do it. And this I mention for the honest tradesman's caution, and to put him in mind, that when he has unwarily let slip anything to the wounding the reputation of his neighbour tradesman, whether in his trading credit, or the credit of his morals, it may not be in his power to unsay it again, that is, so as to prevent the ruin of the person; and though it may grieve him as long as he lives, as the like did the author I mention, yet it is not in his power to recall it, or to heal the wound he has given; and that he should consider very well of beforehand.

It's worth mentioning that even the person who unintentionally spread the scandal couldn't fix the situation or stop the man's downfall, despite all the public apologies he made in print and all the acknowledgments of having been mistakenly involved. I bring this up to warn the honest tradesman, reminding him that if he carelessly shares something that damages the reputation of his neighbor in business—whether it’s their professional reputation or their moral standing—it might not be possible for him to take it back and prevent the person's ruin. Even if it causes him regret for the rest of his life, like it did to the author I mentioned, he still can't undo it or heal the hurt he caused, and he should really think this through beforehand.

A tradesman's credit and a virgin's virtue ought to be equally sacred from the tongues of men; and it is a very unhappy truth, that as times now go, they are neither of them regarded among us as they ought to be.

A tradesman's reputation and a virgin's innocence should be equally protected from gossip; and it is a sad reality that, in today’s world, neither is valued as they should be.

The tea-table among the ladies, and the coffee-house among the men, seem to be places of new invention for a depravation of our manners and morals, places devoted to scandal, and where the characters of all kinds of persons and professions are handled in the most merciless manner, where reproach triumphs, and we seem to give ourselves a loose to fall upon one another in the most unchristian and unfriendly manner in the world.

The tea-table for the ladies and the coffeehouse for the men appear to be new spots for the deterioration of our manners and morals, places dedicated to gossip, where the reputations of all sorts of people and professions are discussed in the harshest way, where criticism prevails, and we seem to allow ourselves to attack one another in the most unkind and uncharitable manner possible.

It seems a little hard that the reputation of a young lady, or of a new-married couple, or of people in the most critical season of establishing the characters of their persons and families, should lie at the mercy of the tea-table; nor is it less hard, that the credit of a tradesman, which is the same thing in its nature as the virtue of a lady, should be tossed about, shuttle-cock-like, from one table to another, in the coffee-house, till they shall talk all his creditors about his ears, and bring him to the very misfortune which they reported him to be near, when at the same time he owed them nothing who raised the clamour, and owed nothing to all the world, but what he was able to pay.

It seems a bit unfair that the reputation of a young woman, a newly married couple, or anyone trying to establish their personal and family identity should depend on gossip at the tea table. It's equally unfair that a tradesman's reputation, which is just as important as a woman's virtue, gets tossed around like a shuttlecock from one coffee house table to another. This can lead to conversations about his financial troubles, putting him in a difficult situation that others are claiming he’s facing, even though he owes nothing to those who are spreading those rumors and is capable of paying all his debts.

And yet how many tradesmen have been thus undone, and how many more have been put to the full trial of their strength in trade, and have stood by the mere force of their good circumstances; whereas, had they been unfurnished with cash to have answered their whole debts, they must have fallen with the rest.

And yet how many businesspeople have been ruined this way, and how many more have been fully tested in their trade, surviving solely because of their good circumstances; whereas, if they hadn’t had enough cash to cover their debts, they would have failed like the rest.

We need go no farther than Lombard Street for an exemplification of this truth. There was a time when Lombard Street was the only bank, and the goldsmiths there were all called bankers. The credit of their business was such, that the like has not been seen in England since, in private hands: some of those bankers, as I have had from their own mouths, have had near two millions of paper credit upon them at a time; that is to say, have had bills under their hands running abroad for so much at a time.

We don’t have to look any further than Lombard Street to see this truth in action. There was a time when Lombard Street was the only banking hub, and all the goldsmiths there were referred to as bankers. The level of trust in their operations was unmatched in England since then, in private hands: some of those bankers, as I’ve heard directly from them, had nearly two million in paper credit at one time; that is, they had bills in circulation amounting to that much simultaneously.

On a sudden, like a clap of thunder, King Charles II. shut up the Exchequer, which was the common centre of the overplus cash these great bankers had in their hands. What was the consequence? Not only the bankers who had the bulk of their cash there, but all Lombard Street, stood still. The very report of having money in the Exchequer brought a run upon the goldsmiths that had no money there, as well as upon those that had, and not only Sir Robert Viner, Alderman Backwell, Farringdon, Forth, and others, broke and failed, but several were ruined who had not a penny of money in the Exchequer, and only sunk by the rumour of it; that rumour bringing a run upon the whole street, and giving a check to the paper credit that was run up to such an exorbitant height.

Suddenly, like a clap of thunder, King Charles II shut down the Exchequer, which was the main place where these big bankers kept their extra cash. What happened next? Not just the bankers who had most of their money there, but all of Lombard Street came to a halt. The mere rumor of having money in the Exchequer triggered a rush on the goldsmiths, regardless of whether they had money there or not. As a result, not only did Sir Robert Viner, Alderman Backwell, Farringdon, Forth, and others go broke, but several others who didn’t have a penny in the Exchequer were ruined just by the gossip surrounding it. That rumor caused a panic across the entire street, which put a stop to the skyrocketing paper credit.

I remember a shopkeeper who one time took the liberty (foolish liberty!) with himself, in public company in a coffee-house, to say that he was broke. 'I assure you,' says he, 'that I am broke, and to-morrow I resolve to shut up my shop, and call my creditors together.' His meaning was, that he had a brother just dead in his house, and the next day was to be buried, when, in civility to the deceased, he kept his shop shut; and several people whom he dealt with, and owed money to, were the next day invited to the funeral, so that he did actually shut up his shop, and call some of his creditors together.

I remember a shopkeeper who once took the ridiculous step of announcing in a coffee house that he was broke. “I swear,” he said, “I’m broke, and tomorrow I’m planning to close my shop and gather my creditors.” What he really meant was that he had a brother who had just passed away in his home, and the next day was the burial. Out of respect for the deceased, he kept his shop closed; several of his debtors were invited to the funeral, so he really did close his shop and bring some of his creditors together.

But he sorely repented the jest which he put upon himself. 'Are you broke?' says one of his friends to him, that was in the coffee-house; 'then I wish I had the little money you owe me' (which however, it seems, was not much). Says the other, still carrying on his jest, 'I shall pay nobody, till, as I told you, I have called my people together.' The other did not reach his jest, which at best was but a dull one, but he reached that part of it that concerned himself, and seeing him continue carelessly sitting in the shop, slipped out, and, fetching a couple of sergeants, arrested him. The other was a little surprised; but however, the debt being no great sum, he paid it, and when he found his mistake, told his friends what he meant by his being broke.

But he deeply regretted the joke he made at his own expense. "Are you out of cash?" one of his friends in the coffee house asked him. "I wish I had the little money you owe me" (which, it turns out, wasn't much). The other, still going along with the joke, said, "I won't pay anyone until, as I mentioned, I've gathered my people." The first friend didn't grasp the joke, which was pretty dull anyway, but he understood the part that affected him. Seeing him casually sitting in the shop, he slipped out and brought back a couple of bailiffs to arrest him. The other was a bit surprised; however, since the debt wasn't a large amount, he paid it. When he realized his mistake, he told his friends what he really meant by being broke.

But it did not end there; for other people of his neighbours, who were then in the coffee-house, and heard his discourse, and had thought nothing more of it, yet in the morning seeing his shop shut, concluded the thing was so indeed, and immediately it went over the whole street that such a one was broke; from thence it went to the Exchange, and from thence into the country, among all his dealers, who came up in a throng and a fright to look after him. In a word, he had as much to do to prevent his breaking as any man need to desire, and if he had not had very good friends as well as a very good bottom, he had inevitably been ruined and undone.

But it didn't stop there; other neighbors who were in the coffeehouse, heard him talking, and thought nothing of it at the time. However, when they saw his shop closed the next morning, they assumed it was true that he had gone bankrupt. The news spread quickly through the whole street that someone had failed. From there, it reached the Exchange and then made its way out to the countryside, where all his dealers rushed in a panic to find out what was going on. In short, he had to work just as hard to avoid going bankrupt as anyone could hope for, and if he hadn't had really good friends and a solid foundation, he would have certainly been destroyed.

So small a rumour will overset a tradesman, if he is not very careful of himself; and if a word in jest from himself, which though indeed no man that had considered things, or thought before he spoke, would have said (and, on the other hand, no man who had been wise and thinking would have taken as it was taken)—I say, if a word taken from the tradesman's own mouth could be so fatal, and run such a dangerous length, what may not words spoken slyly, and secretly, and maliciously, be made to do?

A small rumor can completely ruin a tradesman if he's not really careful about himself. If he says something in jest—something that no one who really thought it through would have said, and no one wise would interpret the way it was taken—then I ask, if a word from the tradesman himself can be so damaging and cause such trouble, what could words spoken secretly and maliciously do?

A tradesman's reputation is of the nicest nature imaginable; like a blight upon a fine flower, if it is but touched, the beauty of it, or the flavour of it, or the seed of it, is lost, though the noxious breath which touched it might not reach to blast the leaf, or hurt the root; the credit of a tradesman, at least in his beginning, is too much at the mercy of every enemy he has, till it has taken root, and is established on a solid foundation of good conduct and success. It is a sad truth, that every idle tongue can blast a young shopkeeper; and therefore, though I would not discourage any young beginner, yet it is highly beneficial to alarm them, and to let them know that they must expect a storm of scandal and reproach upon the least slip they make: if they but stumble, fame will throw them down; it is true, if they recover, she will set them up as fast; but malice generally runs before, and bears down all with it; and there are ten tradesmen who fall under the weight of slander and an ill tongue, to one that is lifted up again by the common hurry of report.

A tradesman's reputation is incredibly fragile; like a blight on a beautiful flower, if it's touched, its beauty, taste, or potential is lost, even if the harmful influence doesn’t directly damage the petals or roots. At least in the beginning, a tradesman’s credibility is too vulnerable to attacks from any enemies he has, until it takes root and is built on a solid foundation of good behavior and success. It's a harsh reality that every idle rumor can ruin a young shopkeeper; therefore, while I don’t want to discourage any new business owner, it’s essential to warn them that they should expect a storm of gossip and criticism at the slightest mistake they make: if they just trip up, their reputation will suffer; it's true that if they bounce back, they may regain their status quickly, but negativity usually spreads faster and brings everyone down with it; and there are ten tradesmen who are crushed by the weight of slander and gossip for every one who is lifted back up by the swift tide of rumor.

To say I am broke, or in danger of breaking, is to break me: and though sometimes the malicious occasion is discovered, and the author detected and exposed, yet how seldom is it so; and how much oftener are ill reports raised to ruin and run down a tradesman, and the credit of a shop; and like an arrow that flies in the dark, it wounds unseen. The authors, no nor the occasion of these reports, are never discovered perhaps, or so much as rightly guessed at; and the poor tradesman feels the wound, receives the deadly blow, and is perhaps mortally stabbed in the vitals of his trade, I mean his trading credit, and never knows who hurt him.

To say I'm broke or about to be broke is to hurt me: and although sometimes the malicious source is found out, and the person responsible is identified and exposed, that is rarely the case; and much more often, false rumors are spread to destroy a business and harm the reputation of a shop; and like an arrow that flies in the dark, it hits without being seen. The people responsible for these rumors, or the reasons behind them, are hardly ever found out or even correctly guessed; and the poor business owner feels the pain, takes the fatal hit, and might be mortally wounded in the core of their business, meaning their reputation, and never knows who attacked them.

I must say, in the tradesman's behalf, that he is in such a case to be esteemed a sacrifice to the worst and most hellish of all secret crimes, I mean envy; which is made up of every hateful vice, a complication of crimes which nothing but the worst of God's reasonable world can be guilty of; and he will indeed merit and call for every honest man's pity and concern. But what relief is this to him? for, in the meantime, though the devil himself were the raiser of the scandal, yet it shall go about; the blow shall take, and every man, though at the same time expressing their horror and aversion at the thing, shall yet not be able, no not themselves, to say they receive no impression from it.

I have to say, on behalf of the tradesman, that he's in a situation where he should be seen as a victim of the worst kind of hidden crime—envy. It's made up of every disgusting vice, a mix of offenses that only the worst people in God's world could commit; and he truly deserves every honest person's pity and concern. But what does this help him? Because, in the meantime, even if the devil himself started the rumor, it will spread; the impact will be felt, and every person, while expressing their disgust and dislike towards the situation, won’t be able to deny that they're affected by it.

Though I know the clamour or rumour was raised maliciously, and from a secret envy at the prosperity of the man, yet if I deal with him, it will in spite of all my abhorrence of the thing, in spite of all my willingness to do justice, I say it will have some little impression upon me, it will be some shock to my confidence in the man; and though I know the devil is a liar, a slanderer, a calumniator, and that his name devil is derived from it; and that I knew, if that, as I said, were possible, that the devil in his proper person raised and began, and carried on, this scandal upon the tradesman, yet there is a secret lurking doubt (about him), which hangs about me concerning him; the devil is a liar, but he may happen to speak truth just then, he may chance to be right, and I know not what there may be in it, and whether there may be any thing or no, but I will have a little care, &c.

Though I know the noise or gossip was stirred up out of malice, and out of a hidden jealousy of the man's success, if I interact with him, it will, despite all my disgust for the situation and my desire to be fair, have some impact on me; it will be a bit of a blow to my trust in him. And even though I know the devil is a liar, a slanderer, a backstabber, and that his name devil comes from that, I also know that if, as I said, it were possible for the devil himself to have started and spread this rumor about the tradesman, there’s still a sneaky doubt lingering in my mind about him. The devil is a liar, but he might tell the truth in that moment; he could be right, and I have no idea what might actually be true or not, so I’ll have to be a little cautious, etc.

Thus, insensibly and involuntarily, nay, in spite of friendship, good wishes, and even resolution to the contrary, it is almost impossible to prevent our being shocked by rumour, and we receive an impression whether we will or not, and that from the worst enemy; there is such a powerful sympathy between our thoughts and our interest, that the first being but touched, and that in the lightest manner imaginable, we cannot help it, caution steps on in behalf of the last, and the man is jealous and afraid, in spite of all the kindest and best intentions in the world.

So, without even realizing it and against our will, even with friendship, good intentions, and a strong determination not to, it's nearly impossible to avoid being affected by gossip. We end up taking in impressions whether we want to or not, often from the worst sources. There's such a strong connection between our thoughts and what we care about that even the slightest disturbance can trigger our caution. As a result, a person becomes jealous and fearful, despite having the kindest and best intentions.

Nor is it only dangerous in case of false accusations and false charges, for those indeed are to be expected fatal; but even just and true things may be as fatal as false, for the truth is not always necessary to be said of a tradesman: many things a tradesman may perhaps allow himself to do, and may be lawfully done, but if they should be known to be part of his character, it would sink deep into his trading fame, his credit would suffer by it, and in the end it might be his ruin; so that he that would not set his hand to his neighbour's ruin, should as carefully avoid speaking some truths, as raising some forgeries upon him.

It's not just dangerous in the case of false accusations and charges, which could definitely be fatal; even honest and true things can be just as harmful as lies. There's no need to share everything about a tradesman: there are many things a tradesman might do or that might be legally acceptable, but if they're revealed as part of his character, it could seriously damage his reputation and credit, potentially leading to his downfall. So, anyone who wouldn't want to contribute to their neighbor's ruin should avoid speaking certain truths as carefully as they would avoid spreading falsehoods about them.

Of what fatal consequence, then, is the raising rumours and suspicions upon the credit and characters of young tradesmen! and how little do those who are forward to raise such suspicions, and spread such rumours, consult conscience, or principle, or honour, in what they do! How little do they consider that they are committing a trading murder, and that, in respect to the justice of it, they may with much more equity break open the tradesman's house, and rob his cash-chest, or his shop; and what they can carry away thence will not do him half the injury that robbing his character of what is due to it from an upright and diligent conduct, would do. The loss of his money or goods is easily made up, and may be sometimes repaired with advantage, but the loss of credit is never repaired; the one is breaking open his house, but the other is burning it down; the one carries away some goods, but the other shuts goods out from coming in; one is hurting the tradesman, but the other is undoing him.

What a devastating impact it has, then, to raise rumors and doubts about the integrity and reputation of young businesspeople! Those who eagerly spread such doubts and rumors hardly think about their conscience, principles, or honor in what they do! They don’t realize they are committing a business murder, and in terms of fairness, they might as well break into the businessperson's home and steal from their cash register or store; what they take would harm him far less than tarnishing his reputation, which he has earned through honest and hard work. Losing his money or goods can often be recovered and might even lead to a benefit, but a loss of reputation is never fully restored; one is like breaking into his house, while the other is like burning it down; one takes away some possessions, but the other prevents new opportunities from coming in; one harms the businessperson, but the other destroys them altogether.

Credit is the tradesman's life; it is, as the wise man says, 'marrow to his bones;' it is by this that all his affairs go on prosperously and pleasantly; if this be hurt, wounded, or weakened, the tradesman is sick, hangs his head, is dejected and discouraged; and if he does go on, it is heavily and with difficulty, as well as with disadvantage; he is beholding to his fund of cash, not his friends; and he may be truly said to stand upon his own legs, for nothing else can do it.

Credit is essential for a tradesperson; as the wise say, it’s like the marrow in their bones. It’s what keeps their business running smoothly and successfully. If their credit is damaged, the tradesperson feels unwell, downhearted, and discouraged. Even if they continue working, it’s a struggle and comes with challenges. They rely on their cash reserves, not on their friends; and you could truly say they are standing on their own two feet, since nothing else can support them.

And therefore, on the other hand, if such a man is any way beholding to his credit, if he stood before upon the foundation of his credit, if he owes any thing considerable, it is a thousand to one but he sinks under the oppression of it; that is to say, it brings every body upon him—I mean, every one that has any demand upon him—for in pushing for their own, especially in such cases, men have so little mercy, and are so universally persuaded that he that comes first is first served, that I did not at all wonder, that in the story of the tradesman who so foolishly exposed himself in the coffee-house, as above, his friend whom he said the words to, began with him that very night, and before he went out of the coffee-house; it was rather a wonder to me he did not go out and bring in half-a-dozen more upon him the same evening.

And so, on the flip side, if a guy is at all reliant on his reputation, if he’s built his standing on it, and if he owes a significant amount, it’s highly likely he’ll be crushed under the weight of it all; that is to say, it brings everyone down on him—I mean, everyone who has a claim against him—because when it comes to looking out for their own interests, especially in such situations, people have little compassion, and they’re all convinced that the first person to act is the one who gets served first. So, I wasn’t surprised that in the story of the tradesman who foolishly made himself vulnerable in the coffeehouse, the friend he spoke to started pressing him that very night, before he even left the coffeehouse; I was actually surprised he didn’t leave and bring in half a dozen more people to confront him that same evening.

It is very rarely that men are wanting to their own interest; and the jealousy of its being but in danger, is enough to make men forget, not friendship only, and generosity, but good manners, civility, and even justice itself, and fall upon the best friends they have in the world, if they think they are in the least danger of suffering by them.

It’s very rare for people to act against their own interests; and the fear that their interests might be threatened is enough to make them forget not just friendship and generosity, but also good manners, civility, and even justice. They might turn against their closest friends if they think there’s even a slight chance of being harmed by them.

On these accounts it is, and many more, that a tradesman walks in continual jeopardy, from the looseness and inadvertency of men's tongues, ay, and women's too; for though I am all along very tender of the ladies, and would do justice to the sex, by telling you, they were not the dangerous people whom I had in view in my first writing upon this subject, yet I must be allowed to say, that they are sometimes fully even with the men, for ill usage, when they please to fall upon them in this nice article, in revenge for any slight, or but pretended slight, put upon them.

For these reasons and many others, a tradesman is always at risk because of the careless and thoughtless words that people, including women, often say. While I always try to be respectful towards women and want to acknowledge their value, I must point out that they can be just as harsh as men when it comes to criticism. Sometimes, they go after men in this delicate matter as a way to get back at them for any real or imagined slight.

It was a terrible revenge a certain lady, who was affronted by a tradesman in London, in a matter of love, took upon him in this very article. It seems a tradesman had courted her some time, and it was become public, as a thing in a manner concluded, when the tradesman left the lady a little abruptly, without giving a good reason for it, and, indeed, she afterwards discovered, that he had left her for the offer of another with a little more money, and that, when he had done so, he reported that it was for another reason, which reflected a little on the person of the lady; and in this the tradesman did very unworthily indeed, and deserved her resentment: but, as I said, it was a terrible revenge she took, and what she ought not to have done.

It was a harsh revenge that a certain woman, who was slighted by a tradesman in London over a love matter, took on him regarding this very issue. It seems a tradesman had been pursuing her for some time, and it had become common knowledge, as if it were a done deal, when the tradesman abruptly left her without a decent explanation. She later found out that he had chosen to leave her for another woman who had a bit more money, and after doing so, he claimed it was for a different reason that reflected poorly on her. The tradesman acted very dishonorably and deserved her anger; however, as I mentioned, her revenge was severe, and it was something she shouldn't have done.

First, she found out who it was that her former pretended lover had been recommended to, and she found means to have it insinuated to her by a woman-friend, that he was not only rakish and wicked, but, in short, that he had a particular illness, and went so far as to produce letters from him to a quack-doctor, for directions to him how to take his medicines, and afterwards a receipt for money for the cure; though both the letters and receipt also, as afterwards appeared, were forged, in which she went a dismal length in her revenge, as you may see.

First, she discovered who had recommended her former fake lover, and she managed to have a female friend suggest to her that he was not only scandalous and immoral but, in fact, that he had a specific illness. She even went to the extent of producing letters from him to a quack doctor, asking for instructions on how to take his medicine, and later a receipt for payment for the treatment. However, both the letters and the receipt, as it turned out later, were forged, in which she went to great lengths in her revenge, as you can see.

Then she set two or three female instruments to discourse her case in all their gossips' companies, and at the tea-tables wherever they came, and to magnify the lady's prudence in refusing such a man, and what an escape she had had in being clear of him.

Then she had a couple of her female friends discuss her situation in all their gossip circles and at the tea tables they visited, praising the lady's wisdom in turning down such a man and how lucky she was to be free from him.

'Why,' says a lady to one of these emissaries, 'what was the matter? I thought she was like to be very well married.'

'Why,' says a lady to one of these messengers, 'what happened? I thought she was going to get a great marriage.'

'Oh no, Madam! by no means,' says the emissary.

'Oh no, Madam! Not at all,' says the messenger.

'Why, Madam,' says another lady, 'we all know Mr H——; he is a very pretty sort of a man.'

'Why, Ma'am,' says another lady, 'we all know Mr. H——; he's quite a handsome guy.'

'Ay, Madam,' says the emissary again, 'but you know a pretty man is not all that is required.'

'Ay, Madam,' says the messenger again, 'but you know that being a good-looking man isn’t everything that's needed.'

'Nay,' says the lady again, 'I don't mean so; he is no beauty, no rarity that way; but I mean a clever good sort of a man in his business, such as we call a pretty tradesman.'

'Nay,' says the lady again, 'I don't mean that; he's not a looker, not special in that way; but I'm talking about a smart, decent kind of guy in his trade, the kind we call a handsome tradesman.'

'Ay,' says the lady employed, 'but that is not all neither.'

'Ay,' says the lady working, 'but that's not everything either.'

'Why,' says the other lady, 'he has a very good trade too, and lives in good credit.'

'Why,' says the other lady, 'he has a great job too, and enjoys a good reputation.'

'Yes,' says malice, 'he has some of the first, but not too much of the last, I suppose.'

'Yeah,' says malice, 'he has some of the best, but not too much of the rest, I guess.'

'No!' says the lady; 'I thought his credit had been very good.'

'No!' says the woman; 'I thought his credit was really good.'

'If it had, I suppose,' says the first, 'the match had not been broke off.'

'If it had, I guess,' says the first, 'the match wouldn't have been called off.'

'Why,' says the lady, 'I understood it was broken off on his side.'

'Why,' says the lady, 'I thought it was ended on his part.'

'And so did I,' says another.

"Same here," says another.

'And so did I, indeed,' says a third.

'And I did too,' says a third.

'Oh, Madam!' says the tool, 'nothing like it, I assure you.'

'Oh, ma'am!' says the tool, 'nothing like it, I promise you.'

'Indeed,' says another, I understood he had quitted Mrs——, because she had not fortune enough for him, and that he courted another certain lady, whom we all know.'

'Really,' says another, 'I heard he broke up with Mrs—— because she didn't have enough money for him, and that he’s now pursuing another lady we all know.'

Then the ladies fell to talking of the circumstances of his leaving her, and how he had broken from her abruptly and unmannerly, and had been too free with her character; at which the first lady, that is to say, the emissary, or tool, as I call her, took it up a little warmly, thus:—

Then the women started discussing the details of his leaving her, and how he had abruptly and rudely broken away from her, being too careless with her reputation. The first woman, the messenger—or as I call her, the pawn—got a bit heated about it, saying:

1. Lady.—Well, you see, ladies, how easily a lady's reputation may be injured; I hope you will not go away with it so.

1. Lady.—Well, you see, ladies, how easily a woman's reputation can be damaged; I hope you won't leave with that in mind.

2. Lady.—Nay, we have all of us a respect for Mrs——, and some of us visit there sometimes; I believe none of us would be willing to injure her.

2. Lady.—No, we all have respect for Mrs——, and some of us visit her occasionally; I believe none of us would want to hurt her.

1. Lady.—But indeed, ladies, she is very much injured in that story.

1. Lady.—But honestly, ladies, she is really hurt by that story.

2. Lady.—Indeed, it is generally understood so, and every body believes it.

2. Lady.—Actually, that's pretty much accepted by everyone, and everyone believes it.

1. Lady.—I can assure you it is quite otherwise in fact.

1. Lady.—I can assure you it's actually quite different.

2. Lady.—I believe he reports it so himself, and that with some very odd things about the lady too.

2. Lady.—I think he mentions it himself, along with some pretty strange things about the lady as well.

1. Lady.—The more base unworthy fellow he.

1. Lady.—What a low, unworthy guy he is.

2. Lady.—Especially if he knows it to be otherwise.

2. Lady.—Especially if he knows it isn't true.

1. Lady.—Especially if he knows the contrary to be true, Madam.

1. Lady.—Especially if he knows it's not true, Madam.

2. Lady.—Is that possible? Did he not refuse her, then?

2. Lady.—Is that really possible? Didn't he turn her down, then?

1. Lady.—Nothing like it, Madam; but just the contrary.

1. Lady.—Nothing like it, Madam; but just the opposite.

2. Lady.—You surprise me!

2. Lady.—You’re surprising me!

3. Lady.—I am very glad to hear it, for her sake.

3. Lady.—I’m really happy to hear that, for her sake.

1. Lady.—I can assure you, Madam, she had refused him, and that he knows well enough, which has been one of the reasons that has made him abuse her as he has done.

1. Lady.—I can assure you, madam, she turned him down, and he knows it well, which is one of the reasons he's treated her so poorly.

2. Lady.—Indeed, she has been used very ill by him, or somebody for him.

2. Lady.—Honestly, she has been treated very poorly by him, or someone acting on his behalf.

1. Lady.—Yes, he has reported strange things, but they are all lies.

1. Lady.—Yes, he has shared some weird things, but they're all lies.

2. Lady.—Well; but pray, Madam, what was the reason, if we may be so free, that she turned him off after she had entertained him so long?

2. Lady.—Well, can I ask you, Madam, why she let him go after keeping him around for so long?

1. Lady.—Oh, Madam! reason enough; I wonder he should pretend, when he knew his own circumstances too, to court a lady of her fortune.

1. Lady.—Oh, Madam! There's enough reason; I can't believe he would pretend to court a woman of her wealth when he knows his own situation too well.

2. Lady.—Why, are not his circumstances good, then?

2. Lady.—So, are his circumstances not good, then?

1. Lady.—No, Madam. Good! alas, he has no bottom.

1. Lady.—No, ma'am. Good! Oh no, he has no depth.

2. Lady.—No bottom! Why, you surprise me; we always looked upon him to be a man of substance, and that he was very well in the world.

2. Lady.—No bottom! I can’t believe it; we always thought he was a man of means and that he was doing quite well in life.

1. Lady.—It is all a cheat, Madam; there's nothing in it; when it came to be made out, nothing at all in it.

1. Lady.—It's all a scam, Ma'am; there's nothing to it; when it was broken down, there really was nothing at all in it.

2. Lady.—That cannot be, Madam; Mr —— has lived always in good reputation and good credit in his business.

2. Lady.—That can't be true, Madam; Mr —— has always had a good reputation and solid credibility in his business.

1. Lady.—It is all sunk again then, if it was so; I don't know.

1. Lady.—So it’s all gone down again, if that’s the case; I have no idea.

2. Lady.—Why did she entertain him so long, then?

2. Lady.—So why did she keep him around for so long, then?

1. Lady.—Alas! Madam, how could she know, poor lady, till her friends inquired into things? But when they came to look a little narrowly into it, they soon found reason to give her a caution, that he was not the man she took him for.

1. Lady.—Oh no! Madam, how could she have known, poor lady, until her friends started to ask questions? But when they looked into it more carefully, they quickly realized they needed to warn her that he wasn't the man she thought he was.

2. Lady.—Well, it is very strange; I am sure he passed for another man among us.

2. Lady.—Well, that's very strange; I'm sure he was seen as a different person among us.

1. Lady.—It must be formerly, then, for they tell me his credit has been sunk these three or four years; he had need enough indeed to try for a greater fortune, he wants it enough.

1. Lady.—It must have been a while ago, because I've heard that his reputation has taken a hit for the last three or four years; he really needs to aim for a better fortune, he definitely needs it.

2. Lady.—It is a sad thing when men look out for fortunes to heal their trade-breaches with, and make the poor wife patch up their old bankrupt credit.

2. Lady.—It's a sad situation when men seek out fortunes to fix their business failures, expecting their poor wives to repair their damaged reputation.

1. Lady.—Especially, Madam, when they know themselves to be gone so far, that even with the addition they can stand but a little while, and must inevitably bring the lady to destruction with them.

1. Lady.—Especially, Madam, when they realize they've gone so far that even with the extra help, they can only last a little while longer and will inevitably lead the lady to her downfall along with them.

2. Lady.—Well, I could never have thought Mr —— was in such circumstances.

2. Lady.—Well, I never would have imagined Mr. —— was in such a situation.

3. Lady.—Nor I; we always took him for a ten thousand pound man.

3. Lady.—Me neither; we always thought he was a ten thousand pound guy.

1. Lady.—They say he was deep in the bubbles, Madam.

1. Lady.—They say he was really into the party scene, Madam.

2. Lady.—Nay, if he was gotten into the South Sea, that might hurt him indeed, as it has done many a gentleman of better estates than he.

2. Lady.—No, if he got caught up in the South Sea, that could really harm him, just like it has to many gentlemen with better fortunes than he has.

1. Lady.—I don't know whether it was the South Sea, or some other bubbles, but he was very near making a bubble of her, and £3000 into the bargain.

1. Lady.—I’m not sure if it was the South Sea or some other bubbles, but he was really close to turning her into a bubble and getting £3000 on top of that.

2. Lady.—I am glad she has escaped him, if it be so; it is a sign her friends took a great deal of care of her.

2. Lady.—I’m happy she got away from him, if that’s the case; it shows that her friends really looked out for her.

1. Lady.—He won't hold it long; he will have his desert, I hope; I don't doubt but we shall see him in the Gazette quickly for a bankrupt.

1. Lady.—He won't keep it for long; I hope he'll get what's coming to him; I have no doubt we'll see his name in the Gazette soon as a bankrupt.

2. Lady.—If he does not draw in some innocent young thing that has her fortune in her own hands to patch him up.

2. Lady.—If he doesn't manage to find some innocent young girl who has her own fortune to help him out.

1. Lady.—I hope not, Madam; I hear he is blown where he went since, and there, they say, they have made another discovery of him, in a worse circumstance than the other.

1. Lady.—I hope not, Madam; I hear he was discovered where he went since, and there, they say, they've found him again in an even worse situation than before.

2. Lady.—How, pray?

2. Lady.—How, please?

1. Lady.—Nothing, Madam, but a particular kind of illness, &c. I need say no more.

1. Lady.—Nothing, Ma'am, just a specific kind of illness, etc. I don't need to say anything more.

2. Lady.—You astonish me! Why, I always thought him a very civil, honest, sober man.

2. Lady.—You surprise me! I always thought he was a very polite, honest, and responsible man.

1. Lady.—This is a sad world, Madam; men are seldom known now, till it is too late; but sometimes murder comes out seasonably, and so I understand it is here; for the lady had not gone so far with him, but that she could go off again.

1. Lady.—This world is so sad, Madam; we rarely know men until it’s too late; but sometimes a murder happens at just the right time, and that's what I understand is happening here; because the lady hadn’t gotten too far with him, so she could still back out.

2. Lady.—Nay, it was time to go off again, if it were so.

2. Lady.—Well, it was time to leave again, if that’s the case.

1. Lady.—Nay, Madam, I do not tell this part of my own knowledge; I only heard so, but I am afraid there is too much in it.

1. Lady.—No, Madam, I’m not saying this from my own experience; I just heard it, but I’m afraid there might be some truth to it.

Thus ended this piece of hellish wildfire, upon the character and credit of a tradesman, the truth of all which was no more than this—that the tradesman, disliking his first lady, left her, and soon after, though not presently, courted another of a superior fortune indeed, though not for that reason; and the first lady, provoked at being cast off, and, as she called it, slighted, raised all this clamour upon him, and persecuted him with it, wherever she was able.

Thus ended this terrible situation, affecting the reputation and character of a tradesman. The truth of the matter was simply this: the tradesman, unhappy with his first wife, left her, and soon after, although not immediately, pursued another woman who was indeed better off, though that wasn’t the only reason. The first wife, angered by being abandoned and, as she put it, disrespected, caused a stir about him and harassed him with it wherever she could.

Such a discourse as this at a tea-table, it could not be expected would be long a secret; it ran from one tittle-tattle society to another; and in every company, snow-ball like, it was far from lessening, and it went on, till at length it began to meet with some contradiction, and the tradesman found himself obliged to trace it as far and as well as he could.

Such a conversation at a tea table couldn't be expected to stay a secret for long; it spread from one gossiping group to another. In every gathering, like a snowball, it only grew bigger, until eventually it started to face some pushback, and the shopkeeper found himself needing to follow it as far and as well as he could.

But it was to no purpose to confront it; when one was asked, and another was asked, they only answered they heard so, and they heard it in company in such a place, and in such a place, and some could remember where they had it, and some could not; and the poor tradesman, though he was really a man of substance, sank under it prodigiously: his new mistress, whom he courted, refused him, and would never hear any thing in his favour, or trouble herself to examine whether it were true or no—it was enough, she said, to her, that he was laden with such a report; and, if it was unjust, she was sorry for it, but the misfortune must be his, and he must place it to the account of his having made some enemies, which she could not help.

But it was pointless to confront it; when one person was asked, and then another was asked, they only said they heard it from someone else, and they had heard it in this place or that, and some could remember where they got it from, while others could not. The poor tradesman, despite being a man of means, was crushed by it: his new love interest, whom he was trying to win over, rejected him and wouldn’t listen to anything good about him, nor would she bother to find out if it was true or not—it was enough for her that he was burdened by such a rumor; and if it was false, she felt bad for him, but the misfortune was his to bear, and he had to chalk it up to having made some enemies, which she couldn’t do anything about.

As to his credit, the slander of the first lady's raising was spread industriously, and with the utmost malice and bitterness, and did him an inexpressible prejudice; every man he dealt with was shy of him; every man he owed any thing to came for it, and, as he said, he was sure he should see the last penny demanded; it was his happiness that he had wherewith to pay, for had his circumstances been in the least perplexed, the man had been undone; nay, as I have observed in another case, as his affairs might have lain, he might have been able to have paid forty shillings in the pound, and yet have been undone, and been obliged to break, and shut up his shop.

As for his reputation, the malicious gossip about the first lady’s upbringing was spread vigorously, with a lot of spite and bitterness, which harmed him significantly; every person he interacted with avoided him; everyone he owed money to came after him, and, as he said, he was certain he would see the last penny demanded; luckily, he had the means to pay, because if his circumstances had been even a little complicated, he would have been ruined; in fact, as I've noted in another situation, even if his finances had allowed him to pay forty shillings on the pound, he could still have ended up ruined and forced to close his shop.

It is true, he worked through it, and he carried it so far as to fix the malice of all the reports pretty much upon the first lady, and particularly so far as to discover that she was the great reason of his being so positively rejected by the other; but he could never fix it so upon her as to recover any damages of her, only to expose her a little, and that she did not value, having, as she said wickedly, had her full revenge of him, and so indeed she had.

It's true, he dealt with it, and he went so far as to blame all the gossip mainly on the first woman, especially realizing that she was a big reason he got so harshly rejected by the other. But he could never hold her accountable enough to get any compensation from her—only to embarrass her a bit, and she didn’t care, having, as she said maliciously, gotten her full revenge on him, which she indeed had.

The sum of the matter is, and it is for this reason I tell you the story, that the reputation of a tradesman is too much at the mercy of men's tongues or women's either; and a story raised upon a tradesman, however malicious, however false, and however frivolous the occasion, is not easily suppressed, but, if it touches his credit, as a flash of fire it spreads over the whole air like a sheet; there is no stopping it.

The bottom line is, and this is why I'm sharing this story, that a tradesman's reputation is heavily influenced by what people say, whether it's men or women. A rumor about a tradesman, no matter how spiteful, untrue, or meaningless the reason, is hard to control. If it impacts his reputation, it spreads quickly like wildfire and is impossible to contain.

My inference from all this shall be very brief; if the tongues of every ill-disposed envious gossip, whether man-gossip or woman-gossip, for there are of both sorts, may be thus mischievous to the tradesman, and he is so much at the mercy of the tattling slandering part of the world, how much more should tradesmen be cautious and wary how they touch or wound the credit and character of one another. There are but a very few tradesmen who can say they are out of the reach of slander, and that the malice of enemies cannot hurt them with the tongue. Here and there one, and those ancient and well established, may be able to defy the world; but there are so many others, that I think I may warn all tradesmen against making havoc of one another's reputation, as they would be tenderly used in the same case.

My conclusion from all this will be very brief: if the gossip from every envious person, whether male or female—because there are both—can be so harmful to a business owner, and they are so vulnerable to the slanderous chatter of others, then tradespeople should be even more careful about how they affect each other’s reputation and character. There are very few business owners who can truly say they are immune to slander or that the spite of their enemies can’t harm them through words. A few, especially those who are long-established and well-respected, may be able to ignore the world, but many others are not in that position. Therefore, I believe I should warn all tradespeople against damaging each other's reputations, just as they would want to be treated kindly in the same situation.

And yet I cannot but say it is too much a tradesman's crime, I mean to speak slightly and contemptibly of other tradesman, their neighbours, or perhaps rivals in trade, and to run them down in the characters they give of them, when inquiry may be made of them, as often is the case. The reputation of tradesmen is too often put into the hands of their fellow-tradesmen, when ignorant people think to inform themselves of their circumstances, by going to those whose interest it is to defame and run them down.

And yet I must say this is a real problem among tradespeople: they often talk down and disrespect their fellow tradesmen, who might be their neighbors or competitors, and they badmouth them in the accounts they give. This is especially concerning when people make inquiries, as is often the case. The reputation of tradesmen too frequently rests in the hands of their peers, while uninformed individuals try to learn about them by asking those who benefit from tarnishing their reputation.

I know no case in the world in which there is more occasion for the golden rule, Do as you would be done unto; and though you may be established, as you may think, and be above the reach of the tongues of others, yet the obligation of the rule is the same, for you are to do as you would be done unto, supposing that you were in the same condition, or on a level with the person.

I don't know of any situation in the world where the golden rule, "Treat others as you want to be treated," is more relevant. Even if you feel secure and think you're above the judgment of others, the obligation to follow this rule remains the same. You should act as you would want others to act towards you, assuming you were in the same situation or on the same level as the other person.

It is confessed that tradesmen do not study this rule in the particular case I am now speaking of. No men are apter to speak slightly and coldly of a fellow-tradesman than his fellow-tradesmen, and to speak unjustly so too; the reasons for which cannot be good, unless it can be pleaded for upon the foundation of a just and impartial concern in the interest of the inquirer; and even then nothing must be said but what is consistent with strict justice and truth: all that is more than that, is mere slander and envy, and has nothing of the Christian in it, much less of the neighbour or friend. It is true that friendship may be due to the inquirer, but still so much justice is due to the person inquired of, that it is very hard to speak in such cases, and not be guilty of raising dust, as they call it, upon your neighbour, and at least hurting, if not injuring him.

It's true that businesspeople often don't follow this principle in the specific situation I'm discussing. No one is more likely to speak dismissively and coldly about a fellow tradesman than other tradespeople, and they often do so unfairly; the reasons for this can't be justified unless it's based on a genuine and unbiased concern for the inquirer's interest. Even then, nothing should be said that isn't consistent with strict justice and truth: anything beyond that is just slander and jealousy, lacking any Christian spirit, not to mention neighborly or friendly feelings. While it's true that friendship might be owed to the inquirer, a certain level of fairness is also owed to the person being asked about, making it very challenging to respond in these situations without risking damage to your neighbor's reputation and potentially causing harm.

It is, indeed, so difficult a thing, that I scarce know what stated rule to lay down for the conduct of a tradesman in this case:—A tradesman at a distance is going to deal with another tradesman, my neighbour; and before he comes to bargain, or before he cares to trust him, he goes, weakly enough perhaps, to inquire of him, and of his circumstances, among his neighbours and fellow-tradesmen, perhaps of the same profession or employment, and who, among other things, it may be, are concerned by their interest, that this tradesman's credit should not rise too fast. What must be done in this case?

It’s truly a challenging situation, and I hardly know what guideline to provide for how a tradesman should act in this scenario: A tradesman from afar is about to engage with my neighbor, another tradesman; and before he comes to negotiate, or before he feels comfortable trusting him, he, perhaps naively, goes to ask others in the neighborhood and his fellow tradesmen—maybe even those in the same line of work—about him and his situation, and they might be concerned, for their own benefit, that this tradesman’s reputation shouldn’t improve too quickly. What should be done in this case?

If I am the person inquired of, what must I do? If I would have this man sink in his reputation, or be discredited, and if it is for my interest to have him cried down in the world, it is a sore temptation to me to put in a few words to his disadvantage; and yet, if I do it in gratification of my private views or interest, or upon the foot of resentment of any kind whatever, and let it be from what occasion it will, nay, however just and reasonable the resentment is, or may be, it is utterly unjust and unlawful, and is not only unfair as a man, but unchristian, and is neither less nor more than a secret revenge, which is forbidden by the laws of God and man.

If I'm the person being asked about, what should I do? If I want this guy to tarnish his reputation or be discredited, and if it's in my interest to see him talked down in the world, it's a strong temptation for me to say a few things to hurt him. Yet, if I do this to satisfy my own interests or out of resentment for any reason, no matter how justified that resentment might seem, it's completely wrong and unlawful. It's not just unfair as a person, but unchristian as well, and it's nothing more than secret revenge, which is forbidden by both God's and human laws.

If, on the other hand, I give a good character of the man, or of his reputation, I mean, of his credit in business, in order to have the inquirer trust him, and at the same time know or believe that he is not a sound and good man (that is, as to trade, for it is his character in trade that I am speaking of), what am I doing then? It is plain I lay a snare for the inquirer, and am at least instrumental to his loss, without having really any design to hurt him; for it is to be supposed, before he came to me to inquire, I had no view of acting any thing to his prejudice.

If I give a positive description of the man, or his reputation, specifically his business credibility, to make the person asking trust him, while also knowing or believing that he isn't a trustworthy person (at least in terms of business, since that's what I'm referring to), what am I really doing? It's clear that I'm setting a trap for the inquirer and making him vulnerable to a loss, even if I don’t actually intend to harm him; before he came to me for information, I had no intention of doing anything that would be bad for him.

Again, there is no medium, for to refuse or decline giving a character of the man, is downright giving him the worst character I can—it is, in short, shooting him through the head in his trade. A man comes to me for a character of my neighbouring tradesman; I answer him with a repulse to his inquiry thus—

Again, there’s no middle ground. Refusing to give my opinion about a man is just as good as giving him the worst reputation possible. It’s basically like putting a bullet through his career. When someone asks me for a reference about the tradesman next door, I respond to their question with a denial—

A.—Good sir, do not ask me the character of my neighbours—I resolve to meddle with nobody's character; pray, do not inquire of me.

A.—Good sir, please don’t ask me about my neighbors' character—I choose not to involve myself in anyone's reputation; I kindly ask that you refrain from asking me.

B.—Well, but, sir, you know the gentleman; you live next door to him; you can tell me, if you please, all that I desire to know, whether he is a man in credit, and fit to be trusted, or no, in the way of his business.

B.—Well, but, sir, you know the guy; you live next door to him; you can tell me, if you don’t mind, everything I want to know, whether he’s trustworthy and reliable in his business or not.

A.—I tell you, sir, I meddle with no man's business; I will not give characters of my neighbours—it is an ill office—a man gets no thanks for it, and perhaps deserves none.

A.—I tell you, sir, I don't get involved in anyone else's business; I won't judge my neighbors—it's a bad job—no one appreciates it, and maybe they don't even deserve it.

B.—But, sir, you would be willing to be informed and advised, if it were your own case.

B.—But, sir, you would want to be informed and advised if it were your own situation.

A.—It may be so, but I cannot oblige people to inform me.

A.—It might be true, but I can’t force people to tell me.

B.—But you would entreat it as a favour, and so I come to you.

B.—But you would ask for it as a favor, and that’s why I’m coming to you.

A.—But you may go to any body else.

A.—But you can go to anyone else.

B.—But you are a man of integrity; I can depend upon what you say; I know you will not deceive me; and, therefore, I beg of you to satisfy me.

B.—But you are a person of integrity; I can trust what you say; I know you won’t mislead me; and, so, I ask you to reassure me.

A.—But I desire you to excuse me, for it is what I never do—I cannot do it.

A.—But please forgive me, because this is something I never do—I just can't do it.

B.—But, sir, I am in a great strait; I am just selling him a great parcel of goods, and I am willing to sell them too, and yet I am willing to be safe, as you would yourself, if you were in my case.

B.—But, sir, I'm in a tough spot; I'm about to sell him a huge load of goods, and I'm ready to sell them too, but I also want to be safe, just like you would if you were in my situation.

A.—I tell you, sir, I have always resolved to forbear meddling with the characters of my neighbours—it is an ill office. Besides, I mind my own business; I do not enter into the inquiries after other people's affairs.

A.—I tell you, sir, I've always decided to stay out of my neighbors' business—it's a bad thing to do. Besides, I focus on my own life; I don't get involved in finding out about other people's issues.

B.—Well, sir, I understand you, then; I know what I have to do.

B.—Alright, I get you; I know what I need to do.

A.—What do you mean by that?

A.—What do you mean by that?

B.—Nothing, sir, but what I suppose you would have me understand by it.

B.—Nothing, sir, except what I think you want me to understand by it.

A.—I would have you understand what I say—namely, that I will meddle with nobody's business but my own.

A.—I want you to understand what I’m saying—specifically, that I won’t get involved in anyone's business except my own.

B.—And I say I understand you; I know you are a good man, and a man of charity, and loth to do your neighbours any prejudice, and that you will speak the best of every man as near as you can.

B.—And I say I get you; I know you're a good person, someone who cares, and you definitely don't want to hurt your neighbors. You always try to say something positive about everyone you can.

A.—I tell you, I speak neither the best nor the worst—I speak nothing.

A.—I'm telling you, I don't speak the best or the worst—I say nothing.

B.—Well, sir, that is to say, that as charity directs you to speak well of every man, so, when you cannot speak well, you refrain, and will say nothing; and you do very well, to be sure; you are a very kind neighbour.

B.—Well, sir, what I mean is that charity encourages you to speak positively about everyone, so when you can't say something nice, you choose to stay silent, and that's very good. You're a really kind neighbor.

A.—But that is a base construction of my words; for I tell you, I do the like by every body.

A.—But that's a twisted interpretation of what I said; I assure you, I treat everyone the same way.

B.—Yes, sir, I believe you do, and I think you are in the right of it—am fully satisfied.

B.—Yes, sir, I believe you do, and I think you're right—I'm completely convinced.

A.—You act more unjustly by me than by my neighbour; for you take my silence, or declining to give a character, to be giving an ill character.

A.—You treat me more unfairly than my neighbor; because you interpret my silence, or my refusal to give a reference, as me giving a bad reference.

B.—No, sir, not for an ill character.

B.—No, sir, not for a bad character.

A.—But I find you take it for a ground of suspicion.

A.—But I see you take it as a reason to be suspicious.

B.—I take it, indeed, for a due caution to me, sir; but the man may be a good man for all that, only—

B.—I consider it a fair warning for me, sir; but the man might still be a good person despite that, only—

A.—Only what? I understand you—only you won't trust him with your goods.

A.—Only what? I get you—it's just that you won't trust him with your stuff.

B.—But another man may, sir, for all that, so that you have been kind to your neighbours and to me too, sir—and you are very just. I wish all men would act so one by another; I should feel the benefit of it myself among others, for I have suffered deeply by ill tongues, I am sure.

B.—But someone else might, sir, regardless, because you have been nice to your neighbors and to me as well, sir—and you are very fair. I wish everyone would treat each other that way; I would benefit from it myself among others, as I have definitely suffered a lot from hurtful talk.

A.—Well, however unjust you are to me, and to my neighbour too, I will not undeceive you at present; I think you do not deserve it.

A.—Well, no matter how unfair you are to me and to my neighbor too, I won't correct you right now; I don't think you deserve it.

He used a great many more words with him to convince him that he did not mean any discredit to his neighbour tradesman; but it was all one; he would have it be, that his declining to give his said neighbour a good character was giving him an ill character, which the other told him was a wrong inference. However, he found that the man stood by his own notion of it, and declined trusting the tradesman with the goods, though he was satisfied he (the tradesman) was a sufficient man.

He used a lot more words to convince him that he didn’t mean to discredit his neighbor's business; but it didn’t make a difference. He insisted that refusing to give his neighbor a good reference was the same as giving him a bad one, which the other guy said was a misunderstanding. Still, he found that the man stuck to his own point of view and refused to trust the tradesman with the goods, even though he was sure the tradesman was qualified.

Upon this, he was a little uneasy, imagining that he had been the cause of it, as indeed he had, next to the positive humour of the inquirer, though it was not really his fault; neither was the construction the other made of it just to his intention, for he aimed at freeing himself from all inquiries of that nature, but found there was no prevailing with him to understand it any other way than he did; so, to requite the man a little in his own way, he contrived the following method: he met with him two or three days after, and asked him if he had sold his goods to the person his neighbour?

Feeling a bit uneasy about it, he thought he might have caused the situation, which he sort of did, given the inquisitive person's bluntness, even though it wasn't really his fault. The way the other person interpreted his actions didn’t reflect his intentions, as he wanted to avoid any questions like that. However, he realized there was no convincing him to see it differently. So, to get back at him a little in his own way, he came up with this plan: he ran into him a couple of days later and asked if he had sold his goods to the neighbor's buyer.

'No,' says he; 'you know I would not.'

'No,' he says; 'you know I wouldn't.'

'Nay,' says the other, 'I only knew you said so; I did not think you would have acted so from what I said, nor do I think I gave you any reason.'

'Nah,' says the other, 'I only knew you said that; I didn’t think you would act that way based on what I said, and I don't think I gave you any reason to.'

'Why,' says he, 'I knew you would have given him a good character if you could, and I knew you were too honest to do it, if you were not sure it was just.'

'Why,' he says, 'I knew you would have given him a good reference if you could, and I knew you were too honest to do it unless you were sure it was fair.'

'The last part I hope is true, but you might have believed me honest too, in what I did say, that I had resolved to give no characters of any body.'

'The last part I hope is true, but you might have thought I was being honest too when I said that I had decided not to give any descriptions of anyone.'

'As to that, I took it, as any body would, to be the best and modestest way of covering what you would not have be disclosed, namely, that you could not speak as you would; and I also judged that you therefore chose to say nothing.'

'Regarding that, I took it, as anyone would, to be the best and most respectful way to cover what you wouldn't want revealed, which is that you couldn't speak freely; and I also thought that you therefore chose to remain silent.'

'Well, I can say no more but this; you are not just to me in it, and I think you are not just to yourself neither.'

'Well, I can only say this: you are not fair to me in this, and I don't think you are fair to yourself either.'

They parted again upon this, and the next day the first tradesman, who had been so pressed to give a character of his neighbour, sent a man to buy the parcel of goods of the other tradesman, and offering him ready money, bought them considerably cheaper than the neighbour-tradesman was to have given for them, besides reckoning a reasonable discount for the time, which was four months, that the first tradesman was to have given to his neighbour.

They separated after that, and the next day the first shopkeeper, who had been urged to speak about his neighbor, sent someone to buy the other shopkeeper's goods. Offering cash on the spot, he bought them for much less than what the neighbor shopkeeper would have paid, also factoring in a fair discount for the four-month period that the first shopkeeper had intended to give his neighbor.

As soon as he had done, he went and told the neighbour-tradesman what he had done, and the reason of it, and sold the whole parcel to him again, giving the same four months' credit for them as the first man was to have given, and taking the discount for time only to himself, gave him all the advantage of the buying, and gave the first man the mortification of knowing it all, and that the goods were not only for the same man, but that the very tradesman, whom he would not believe when he declined giving a character of any man in general, had trusted him with them.

As soon as he was done, he went and told the neighbor tradesman what he had done and why. He sold the entire batch back to him, offering the same four months' credit that the first man was supposed to get, and kept the time discount for himself. This way, he gave the neighbor the full benefit of the purchase and made the first man feel bad knowing all of this. Not only were the goods meant for the same person, but it was also the very tradesman who he refused to trust when he wouldn’t provide a reference for anyone.

He pretended to be very angry, and to take it very ill; but the other told him, that when he came to him for a character of the man, and he told him honestly, that he would give no characters at all, that it was not for any ill to his neighbour that he declined it, he ought to have believed him; and that he hoped, when he wanted a character of any of his neighbours again, he would not come to him for it.

He acted really angry and took it the wrong way; but the other guy told him that when he asked him for a reference on the man, and he honestly said he wouldn’t give any references at all, it wasn’t because he had anything against his neighbor. He should have trusted him, and he hoped that the next time he needed a reference for any of his neighbors, he wouldn’t come to him for it.

This story is to my purpose in this particular, which is indeed very significant; that it is the most difficult thing of its kind in the world to avoid giving characters of our neighbouring tradesmen; and that, let your reasons for it be what they will, to refuse giving a character is giving a bad character, and is generally so taken, whatever caution or arguments you use to the contrary.

This story is relevant to my point here, which is actually very important; it’s incredibly difficult to avoid describing the characters of our neighboring shopkeepers. And no matter your reasons for doing so, refusing to talk positively about someone is seen as giving them a bad reputation, regardless of any precautions or arguments you might present to argue the opposite.

In the next place, it is hard indeed, if an honest neighbour be in danger of selling a large parcel of goods to a fellow, who I may know it is not likely should be able to pay for them, though his credit may in the common appearance be pretty good at that time; and what must I do? If I discover the man's circumstances, which perhaps I am let into by some accident, I say, if I discover them, the man is undone; and if I do not, the tradesman, who is in danger of trusting him, is undone.

In the next place, it’s really tough if a good neighbor is at risk of selling a large amount of goods to someone who, even though they might seem to have decent credit, I know for sure probably can't pay for them. So what should I do? If I find out about the guy's situation—maybe through some chance event—I think, if I find out, that guy is in big trouble. And if I don't say anything, the shopkeeper, who might trust him, is in big trouble too.

I confess the way is clear, if I am obliged to speak at all in the case: the man unsound is already a bankrupt at bottom, and must fail, but the other man is sound and firm, if this disaster does not befall him: the first has no wound given him, but negatively; he stands where he stood before; whereas the other is drawn in perhaps to his own ruin. In the next place, the first is a knave, or rather thief, for he offers to buy, and knows he cannot pay; in a word, he offers to cheat his neighbour; and if I know it, I am so far confederate with him in the cheat.

I admit the path is clear if I have to say anything about this case: the man who is not sound is already a total failure and will definitely collapse, while the other man is stable and solid as long as nothing bad happens to him. The first man has not been harmed directly; he remains in the same position as before; whereas the second man might get dragged into his own downfall. Furthermore, the first man is a fraud, or more accurately, a thief, since he pretends to want to buy but knows he can't pay. In short, he is trying to deceive his neighbor; and if I'm aware of this, I'm complicit in the deceit.

In this case I think I am obliged to give the honest man a due caution for his safety, if he desires my advice; I cannot say I am obliged officiously to go out of my way to do it, unless I am any way interested in the person—for that would be to dip into other men's affairs, which is not my proper work; and if I should any way be misinformed of the circumstances of the tradesman I am to speak of, and wrong him, I may be instrumental to bring ruin causelessly upon him.

In this situation, I feel I should give the honest person a fair warning for their safety, if they want my advice; I can’t say I’m obligated to go out of my way to do it unless I have some interest in the person—because that would mean interfering in others' business, which isn’t my place. And if I happen to be misinformed about the circumstances of the tradesman I’m talking about and end up wronging him, I could inadvertently cause him unnecessary harm.

In a word, it is a very nice and critical case, and a tradesman ought to be very sure of what he says or does in such a case, the good or evil fate of his neighbour lying much at stake, and depending too much on the breath of his mouth. Every part of this discourse shows how much a tradesman's welfare depends upon the justice and courtesy of his neighbours, and how nice and critical a thing his reputation is.

In short, it’s a very important and delicate situation, and a tradesperson needs to be absolutely certain about what they say or do, as the fate of their neighbor hangs in the balance, depending greatly on their words. Every aspect of this discussion highlights how much a tradesperson's well-being relies on the fairness and kindness of their neighbors, and how fragile their reputation can be.

This, well considered, would always keep a tradesman humble, and show him what need he has to behave courteously and obligingly among his neighbours; for one malicious word from a man much meaner than himself, may overthrow him in such a manner, as all the friends he has may not be able to recover him; a tradesman, if possible, should never make himself any enemies.

This, when thought about carefully, would always keep a tradesperson humble and remind them of the importance of being courteous and helpful to their neighbors. A single malicious word from someone far beneath them can bring them down in a way that all their friends might not be able to help them recover from. A tradesperson should, if possible, never make any enemies.

But if it is so fatal a thing to tradesmen to give characters of one another, and that a tradesman should be so backward in it for fear of hurting his neighbour, and that, notwithstanding the character given should be just, and the particular reported of him should be true, with how much greater caution should we act in like cases where what is suggested is really false in fact, and the tradesman is innocent, as was the case in the tradesman mentioned before about courting the lady. If a tradesman may be ruined and undone by a true report, much more may he be so by a false report, by a malicious, slandering, defaming tongue. There is an artful way of talking of other people's reputation, which really, however some people salve the matter, is equal, if not superior, in malice to the worst thing they can say; this is, by rendering them suspected, talking doubtfully of their characters, and of their conduct, and rendering them first doubtful, and then strongly suspected. I don't know what to say to such a man. A gentleman came to me the other day, but I knew not what to say; I dare not say he is a good man, or that I would trust him with five hundred pounds myself; if I should say so, I should belie my own opinion. I do not know, indeed, he may be a good man at bottom, but I cannot say he minds his business; if I should, I must lie; I think he keeps a great deal of company, and the like.

But if it's so damaging for businesspeople to judge each other, and if a businessperson is hesitant to do so out of fear of hurting their neighbor, then how much more careful should we be in situations where the accusations are actually false, and the businessperson is innocent, like the one mentioned earlier about pursuing a lady? If a businessperson can be ruined by a true statement, they can be even more easily harmed by a false one, especially from a malicious, slandering, defaming tongue. There’s a sly way of discussing other people's reputations that, regardless of how some try to justify it, is just as malicious, if not worse, than the worst accusations; it involves casting doubt, speaking ambiguously about their character and actions, and leading to suspicion and strong doubts. I’m not sure how to respond to someone like that. A gentleman approached me the other day, but I didn’t know what to say; I couldn’t claim he’s a good man or that I would trust him with five hundred pounds myself; if I did, I’d be going against my own opinion. I really don’t know—he may be a good person deep down, but I can’t say he pays attention to his business; if I did, I’d be lying; I think he socializes too much, among other things.

Another, he is asked of the currency of his payments, and he answers suspiciously on that side too; I know not what to say, he may pay them at last, but he does not pay them the most currently of any man in the street, and I have heard saucy boys huff him at his door for bills, on his endeavouring to put them off; indeed, I must needs say I had a bill on him a few weeks ago for a hundred pounds, and he paid me very currently, and without any dunning, or often calling upon, but it was I believe because I offered him a bargain at that time, and I supposed he was resolved to put a good face upon his credit.

Another person asks him about the way he makes his payments, and he responds suspiciously in that regard too; I’m not sure what to say. He might pay them eventually, but he doesn’t pay them more regularly than any other guy on the street, and I’ve heard cheeky kids confront him at his door for payments when he tries to brush them off. In fact, I have to admit I had an invoice from him a few weeks ago for a hundred pounds, and he paid me promptly, without any nagging or frequent reminders. But I think that was because I offered him a deal at that time, and I assumed he was determined to maintain a good image for his credit.

A tradesman, that would do as he would be done by, should carefully avoid these people who come always about, inquiring after other tradesman's characters. There are men who make it their business to do thus; and as they are thereby as ready to ruin and blow up good fair-dealing tradesmen as others, so they do actually surprise many, and come at their characters earlier and nearer than they expect they would.

A tradesman who wants to be treated well should definitely steer clear of those people who constantly ask about other tradesmen's reputations. There are individuals who make it their mission to do this; and just like they can easily harm honest tradesmen, they often catch many by surprise and find out about their reputations sooner and more closely than anyone would expect.

Tradesmen, I say, that will thus behave to one another, cannot be supposed to be men of much principle, but will be apt to lay hold of any other advantage, how unjust soever, and, indeed, will wait for an occasion of such advantages; and where is there a tradesman, but who, if he be never so circumspect, may some time or other give his neighbour, who watches for his halting, advantage enough against him. When such a malicious tradesman appears in any place, all the honest tradesmen about him ought to join to expose him, whether they are afraid of him or no: they should blow him among the neighbourhood, as a public nuisance, as a common barrettor, or raiser of scandal; by such a general aversion to him they would depreciate him, and bring him into so just a contempt, that no body would keep him company, much less credit any thing he said; and then his tongue would be no slander, and his breath would be no blast, and nobody would either tell him any thing, or hear any thing from him: and this kind of usage, I think, is the only way to put a stop to a defamer; for when he has no credit of his own left, he would be unable to hurt any of his neighbour's.

Tradespeople, I say, who behave like this toward each other can't be expected to have much integrity. They're likely to seize any opportunity for gain, no matter how unfair, and will be on the lookout for such chances. Where can you find a tradesperson who, no matter how careful they are, won’t occasionally give their neighbor, who’s watching for their mistakes, enough ammunition to use against them? When such a malicious tradesperson shows up anywhere, all the honest tradespeople nearby should band together to expose them, whether they fear them or not. They should treat him like a public nuisance, a common barrettor, or someone who spreads rumors; by creating a general dislike for him, they would diminish his reputation and bring him to such a low status that no one would associate with him, much less believe anything he said. Then his words would hold no weight, and his breath would amount to nothing, with no one sharing information or listening to him. I believe this approach is the only way to stop a slanderer; once he has lost all credibility, he won’t be able to harm any of his neighbors.


CHAPTER XVI

OF THE TRADESMAN'S ENTERING INTO PARTNERSHIP IN TRADE, AND THE MANY DANGERS ATTENDING IT

OF THE TRADESMAN'S ENTERING INTO PARTNERSHIP IN TRADE, AND THE MANY DANGERS ATTENDING IT


There are some businesses which are more particularly accustomed to partnerships than others, and some that are very seldom managed without two, three, or four partners, and others that cannot be at all carried on without partnership; and there are those again, in which they seldom join partners together.

There are some businesses that are more commonly run as partnerships than others, some that are rarely operated without two, three, or four partners, and others that can’t be run at all without partners; then there are those where partnerships don’t happen very often.

Mercers, linen-drapers, banking goldsmiths, and such considerable trades, are often, and indeed generally, carried on in partnership; but other meaner trades, and of less business, are carried on, generally speaking, single-handed.

Mercers, linen dealers, goldsmiths, and other substantial businesses are often, and typically, run in partnerships; however, smaller trades and those with less activity are usually operated individually.

Some merchants, who carry on great business in foreign ports, have what they call houses in those ports, where they plant and breed up their sons and apprentices; and these are such as I hinted could not carry on their business without partnership.

Some merchants who do significant business in foreign ports have what they call offices in those ports, where they raise their sons and apprentices; and these are the ones I mentioned who couldn't manage their business without partners.

The trading in partnership is not only liable to more hazards and difficulties, but it exposes the tradesman to more snares and disadvantages by a great deal, than the trading with a single hand does; and some of those snares are these:—

The trading in partnership not only comes with more risks and challenges, but it also puts the trader at greater risk of traps and disadvantages than trading alone does; and some of those traps include these:—

1. If the partner is a stirring, diligent, capable man, there is danger of his slipping into the whole trade, and, getting in between you and home, by his application, thrusting you at last quite out; so that you bring in a snake into your chimney corner, which, when it is warmed and grown vigorous, turns about at you, and hisses you out of the house. It is with the tradesman, in the case of a diligent and active partner, as I have already observed it was in the case of a trusty and diligent apprentice, namely, that if the master does not appear constantly at the head of the business, and make himself be known by his own application and diligence to be what he is, he shall soon look to be what he is not, that is to say, one not concerned in the business.

1. If your partner is an energetic, hard-working, capable person, there's a risk he could take over the whole trade, getting in between you and home. Through his dedication, he could eventually push you out completely. It’s like bringing a snake into your cozy space; once it gets warm and strong, it can turn on you and hiss you out of your own home. When it comes to a diligent and proactive partner, it's similar to what I’ve already mentioned about a reliable and hardworking apprentice: if the boss doesn't consistently stay at the forefront of the business and show through his own effort and commitment that he is indeed in charge, he may soon find himself regarded as someone who isn't involved in the business at all.

He will never fail to be esteemed the principal person concerned in the shop, and in the trade, who is principally and most constantly found there, acting at the head of every business; and be it a servant or a partner, the master or chief loses himself extremely by the advances the other makes of that kind; for, whenever they part again, either the apprentice by being out of his time, or the partner by the expiration of the articles of partnership, or by any other determination of their agreement, the customers most certainly desire to deal with the man whom they have so often been obliged by; and if they miss him, inquire after and follow him.

He will always be regarded as the main person involved in the shop and in the business, as he is the one who is most often found there, leading every operation. Whether it's a servant or a partner, the owner or main person really loses out because of the progress the other makes in this regard. Whenever they part ways—either the apprentice after completing his time, or the partner when the partnership agreement ends, or for any other reason—they will definitely find that customers want to work with the person they have been accustomed to. If they can’t find him, they will ask about him and try to seek him out.

It is true, the apprentice is the more dangerous of the two, because his separation is supposed to be more certain, and generally sooner than the partner; the apprentice is not known, and cannot have made his interest among the buyers, but for perhaps a year, or a year and a half, before his time expired: sooner than that he could not put himself in the way of being known and observed; and then, when his time is out, he certainly removes, unless he is taken into the shop as a partner, and that, indeed, prolongs the time, and places the injury at a greater distance, but still it makes it the more influencing when it comes; and unless he is brought some how or other into the family, and becomes one of the house, perhaps by marriage, or some other settled union with the master, he never goes off without making a great chasm in the master's affairs, and the more, by how much he has been more diligent and useful in the trade, the wounds of which the master seldom if ever recovers.

It’s true that the apprentice is the more dangerous of the two because his departure is seen as more certain and usually happens sooner than that of the partner. The apprentice isn’t well-known and can only build his connection with the buyers for maybe a year or a year and a half before his time is up. Before that, he wouldn’t have had the chance to be recognized and noticed. Once his term ends, he definitely leaves unless he’s made a partner in the shop, which can extend his time and push the impact further away, but it also makes it more significant when it finally does happen. Unless he manages to integrate into the family—maybe through marriage or some other stable bond with the master—he will leave a significant gap in the master's business, especially if he has been particularly diligent and helpful in the trade. The master rarely, if ever, fully recovers from these losses.

If the partner were not an apprentice, but that they either came out of their times together, or near it, or had a shop and business before, but quitted it to come in, it may then be said that he brought part of the trade with him, and so increased the trade when he joined with the other in proportion to what he may be said to carry away when he went off; this is the best thing that can be said of a partnership; and then I have this to add, first, that the tradesman who took the partner in has a fair field, indeed, to act in with his partner, and must take care, by his constant attendance, due acquaintance with the customers, and appearing in every part of the business, to maintain not his interest only, but the appearance of his interest, in the shop or warehouse, that he may, on every occasion, and to every customer, not only be, but be known to be, the master and head of the business; and that the other is at best but a partner, and not a chief partner, as, in case of his absence and negligence, will presently be suggested; for he that chiefly appears will be always chief partner in the eye of the customers, whatever he is in the substance of the thing.

If the partner isn't an apprentice, but rather someone who either finished their training together, was nearing completion, or had their own shop and business before leaving it to join, then it's fair to say they brought some of their expertise with them, which increases the overall business when they partner up with the other person, in relation to what they take away when they leave. This is the best thing that can be said about a partnership. Additionally, I want to point out that the business owner who takes on the partner has a solid opportunity to work alongside them and must ensure, through continuous involvement, getting to know the customers, and being present in all aspects of the business, to maintain not just his own interests, but also the perception of his involvement in the shop or warehouse. This way, he can, at all times and to every customer, not only be seen as, but actually be recognized as, the owner and leader of the business, while the other person is at best just a partner, not the leading partner. If he is absent or negligent, it will quickly be assumed that he is not the primary partner because the one who is visibly present will always be seen as the main partner in the eyes of the customers, regardless of their actual role.

This, indeed, is much the same case with what is said before of a diligent servant, and a negligent master, and therefore I forbear to enlarge upon it; but it is so important in both cases, that indeed it cannot well be mentioned too often: the master's full application, in his own person, is the only answer to both. He that takes a partner only to ease him of the toil of his business, that he may take his pleasure, and leave the drudgery, as they call it, to the partner, should take care not to do it till about seven years before he resolves to leave off trade, that, at the end of the partnership, he may be satisfied to give up the trade to his partner, or see him run away with it, and not trouble himself about it.

This is very similar to what has been said earlier about a hardworking servant and a careless master, so I won’t go into it too much; however, it's so significant in both situations that it really can’t be discussed too frequently: the master’s full involvement is the only solution for both. If someone takes on a partner just to lighten their workload so they can enjoy themselves and leave the hard work to the partner, they should be careful to wait until about seven years before they plan to stop working, so that by the end of the partnership, they can be okay with handing over the business to their partner or watching them take over it, without worrying about it.

But if he takes a partner at his beginning, with an intent, by their joint enlarged stock, to enlarge their business, and so carry on a capital trade, which perhaps neither of them were able to do by themselves, and which is the only justifiable reason for taking a partner at all, he must resolve then to join with his partner, not only in stock, but in mutual diligence and application, that the trade may flourish by their joint assistance and constant labour, as two oxen yoked together in the same draught, by their joint assistance, draw much more than double what they could either of them draw by their single strength; and this, indeed, is the only safe circumstance of a partnership: then, indeed, they are properly partners when they are assistants to one another, whereas otherwise they are like two gamesters striving to worm one another out, and to get the mastery in the play they are engaged in.

But if he starts a partnership with someone, aiming to grow their business together with their combined resources—something that neither could do alone, which is the only valid reason for having a partner—he must be committed to working together not just in terms of investment but also in effort and dedication. This way, their business can thrive through their mutual support and consistent hard work, much like two oxen working together can pull far more than either could manage on their own. This is truly the only secure aspect of a partnership: they are genuinely partners when they help each other out; otherwise, they’re just two players trying to outsmart each other to gain the upper hand in the game they’re playing.

The very word partner imports the substance of the thing, and they are, as such, engaged to a mutual application, or they are no more partners, but rather one is the trading gentleman, and the other is the trading drudge; but even then, let them depend, the drudge will carry away the trade, and the profit too, at last. And this is the way how one partner may honestly ruin another, and for ought I know it is the only one: for it cannot be said but that the diligent partner acts honestly in acting diligently, and if the other did the same, they would both thrive alike; but if one is negligent and the other diligent, one extravagant and expensive, the other frugal and prudent, it cannot be said to be his fault that one is rich and the other poor—that one increases in the stock, and the other is lessened, and at last worked quite out of it.

The word partner carries the essence of the relationship, and they are, as such, committed to a shared effort; otherwise, they're not really partners at all—one becomes the trader while the other becomes the laborer. But even then, just know that the laborer will ultimately take the business and the profits. This is how one partner can genuinely ruin another, and as far as I know, it’s the only way: the hardworking partner is acting honestly by being diligent, and if the other did the same, they would both succeed equally. However, if one is careless while the other is hardworking, if one is extravagant and the other is prudent, it’s not the diligent partner's fault that one ends up rich and the other poor—that one grows their assets while the other dwindles down and eventually loses everything.

As a partner, then, is taken in only for ease, to abate the first tradesman's diligence, and take off the edge of his application, so far a partner, let him be as honest and diligent as he will, is dangerous to the tradesman—nay, the more honest and the more diligent he is, the more dangerous he is, and the more a snare to the tradesman that takes him in; and a tradesman ought to be very cautious in the adventure, for, indeed, it is an adventure—that he be not brought in time to relax his diligence, by having a partner, even contrary to his first intention; for laziness is a subtle insinuating thing, and it is a sore temptation to a man of ease and indolence to see his work done for him, and less need of him in the business than used to be, and yet the business to go on well too; and this danger is dormant, and lies unseen, till after several years it rises, as it were, out of its ambuscade, and surprises the tradesman, letting him see by his loss what his neglect has cost him.

As a partner is brought in primarily for convenience, to reduce the initial hard work of a tradesman and lessen his dedication, having a partner—even if they're honest and hardworking—can be risky for the tradesman. In fact, the more honest and diligent the partner is, the riskier they become, posing a greater threat to the tradesman who accepts them. A tradesman must be very careful in this choice, as it truly is a gamble, so he doesn't end up becoming lazy by having a partner, which goes against his initial purpose. Laziness can sneak in quietly, and it's a strong temptation for someone who prefers comfort and ease to watch their work being done for them, needing to contribute less than before, yet still seeing the business succeed. This danger is often hidden, lying in wait, until, after several years, it suddenly reappears and surprises the tradesman, showing him just how much his neglect has cost him.

2. But there are other dangers in partnership, and those not a few; for you may not only be remiss and negligent, remitting the weight of the business upon him, and depending upon him for its being carried on, by which he makes himself master, and brings you to be forgot in the business; but he may be crafty too, and designing in all this, and when he has thus brought you to be as it were nobody, he shall make himself be all somebody in the trade, and in that particular he by degrees gets the capital interest, as well as stock in the trade, while the true original of the shop, who laid the foundation of the whole business, brought a trade to the shop, or brought commissions to the house, and whose the business more particularly is, is secretly supplanted, and with the concurrence of his own negligence—for without that it cannot be—is, as it were, laid aside, and at last quite thrust out.

2. But there are other risks in partnerships, and not just a few; for you might not only be careless and neglectful, putting the burden of the business on him, relying on him to keep it going, which allows him to take control and makes you forgotten in the process; but he could also be cunning and manipulative, and once he has reduced you to practically being nobody, he will position himself as somebody in the trade. Gradually, he gains both the financial interest and the stake in the business, while the real founder of the shop, who established the entire operation, brought customers or contracts to the business, and who the business really belongs to, is quietly pushed aside and, due to his own neglect—because without that, it wouldn't happen—is essentially sidelined and eventually completely pushed out.

Thus, whether honest or dishonest, the tradesman is circumvented, and the partnership is made fatal to him; for it was all owing to the partnership the tradesman was diligent before, understood his business, and kept close to it, gave up his time to it, and by employing himself, prevented the indolence which he finds breaking insensibly upon him afterwards, by being made easy, as they call it, in the assistance of a partner.

Thus, whether the tradesman is honest or dishonest, he is undermined, and the partnership becomes detrimental to him. It was the partnership that initially made the tradesman diligent, helped him understand his business, and kept him focused. He devoted his time to it, and by keeping himself busy, he avoided the laziness that later creeps in when he becomes complacent, as it's said, with the help of a partner.

3. But there are abundance of other cases which make a partnership dangerous; for if it be so where the partner is honest and diligent, and where he works into the heart of the business by his industry and application, or by his craft and insinuation, what may it not be if he proves idle and extravagant; and if, instead of working him out, he may be said to play him out of the business, that is to say, prove wild, expensive, and run himself and his partner out by his extravagance?

3. But there are plenty of other situations that can make a partnership risky; if it's already an issue when the partner is honest and hardworking, putting their effort and dedication into the business, or using their skills and ability to fit in, what could happen if they become lazy and overspend? Instead of contributing to the business, might they end up draining it with their reckless and costly behaviors, leaving both themselves and their partner in a tough spot?

There are but too many examples of this kind; and here the honest tradesman has the labouring oar indeed; for instead of being assisted by a diligent industrious partner, whom on that account he took into the trade, he proves a loose, extravagant, wild fellow, runs abroad into company, and leaves him (for whose relief he was taken in) to bear the burden of the whole trade, which, perhaps, was too heavy for him before, and if it had not been so, he had not been prevailed with to have taken in a partner at all.

There are way too many examples like this; and here the honest business owner really has the tough job; instead of being supported by a hardworking partner, whom he brought into the business for that reason, he ends up with a careless, reckless, wild person who goes out socializing and leaves him (the one he brought in for help) to handle the entire workload, which was probably too much for him on his own, and if it hadn’t been, he wouldn’t have been convinced to take on a partner in the first place.

This is, indeed, a terrible disappointment, and is very discouraging, and the more so, because it cannot be recalled; for a partnership is like matrimony, it is almost engaged in for better or for worse, till the years expire; there is no breaking it off, at least, not easily nor fairly, but all the inconveniences which are to be feared will follow and stare in your face: as, first, the partner in the first place draws out all his stock; and this sometimes is a blow fatal enough, for perhaps the partner cannot take the whole trade upon himself, and cannot carry on the trade upon his own stock: if he could, he would not have taken in a partner at all. This withdrawing the stock has sometimes been very dangerous to a partner; nay, has many times been the overthrow and undoing of him and of the family that is left.

This is truly a huge disappointment and quite discouraging, especially because it can’t be undone. A partnership is like a marriage; it's a commitment made for better or worse, until the end. It’s not easy or fair to just break it off, and all the potential issues that could arise will come back to haunt you. For one, the partner can withdraw all their investment, which can be a devastating blow. The remaining partner might not be able to handle the entire business themselves, especially since they chose to take on a partner in the first place. This withdrawal of capital has often led to serious problems for the remaining partner and could even ruin their family.

He that takes a partner into his trade on this account—namely, for the support of his stock, to enjoy the assistance of so much cash to carry on the trade, ought seriously to consider what he shall be able to do when the partner, breaking off the partnership, shall carry all his stock, and the improvement of it too, with him: perhaps the tradesman's stock is not much increased, perhaps not at all; nay, perhaps the stock is lessened, instead of being increased, and they have rather gone backward than forward. What shall the tradesman do in such a case? And how shall he bear the breach in his stock which that separation would make?

A person who brings in a partner to their business for support—specifically, to boost their funds and help with operations—should think carefully about what will happen when the partner decides to leave, taking all their assets and any gains along with them. It’s possible that the business’s resources haven’t really grown, or maybe they’ve even shrunk instead of expanded, meaning they’ve regressed rather than progressed. What will the business owner do in that situation? How will they manage the loss in resources caused by that separation?

Thus he is either tied down to the partner, or the partner is pinned down to him, for he cannot separate without a breach. It is a sad truth to many a partner, that when the partnership comes to be finished and expired, the man would let his partner go, but the other cannot go without tearing him all to pieces whom he leaves behind him; and yet the partner being loose, idle, and extravagant, in a word, will ruin both if he stays.

Thus, he is either stuck with his partner, or the partner is stuck with him, because he can't separate without causing a rift. It's a harsh reality for many partners that when the partnership comes to an end, one person might want to let the other go, but the other can't leave without completely destroying the one they’re leaving behind; yet, the partner, being carefree, lazy, and reckless, will ruin both of them if he stays.

This is the danger of partnership in some of the best circumstances of it; but how hazardous and how fatal is it in other cases! And how many an honest and industrious tradesman has been prevailed with to take in a partner to ease himself in the weight of the business, or on several other accounts, some perhaps reasonable and prudent enough, but has found himself immediately involved in a sea of trouble, is brought into innumerable difficulties, concealed debts, and unknown incumbrances, such as he could no ways extricate himself out of, and so both have been unavoidably ruined together!

This is the risk of partnership even in the best situations; but how dangerous and potentially destructive it can be in other cases! So many honest and hardworking business owners have been convinced to take on a partner to lighten their workload or for various other reasons, some of which may seem reasonable and wise enough, only to find themselves immediately caught in a whirlwind of problems, facing countless difficulties, hidden debts, and unknown burdens, from which they could find no way to escape, and as a result, both have been inevitably ruined together!

These cases are so various and so uncertain, that it is not easy to enumerate them: but we may include the particulars in a general or two.

These cases are so varied and uncertain that it's not easy to list them all, but we can summarize the specifics into a couple of general points.

1. One partner may contract debts, even in the partnership itself, so far unknown to the other, as that the other may be involved in the danger of them, though he was not at all concerned in, or acquainted with, them at the same time they were contracted.

1. One partner can take on debts, even within the partnership itself, without the other knowing, which means the other could be put at risk from those debts, even if they had no involvement or knowledge of them when they were incurred.

2. One partner may discharge debts for both partners; and so, having a design to be knavish, may go and receive money, and give receipts for it, and not bringing it to account, or not bringing the money into cash, may wrong the stock to so considerable a sum as may be to the ruin of the other partner.

2. One partner can pay off debts for both partners; and so, if they intend to be deceitful, they can take money, give receipts for it, and if they don't account for it or fail to bring the cash in, they could harm the other partner's finances by a significant amount, potentially leading to their ruin.

3. One partner may confess judgment, or give bonds, or current notes in the name, and as for the account of the company, and yet convert the effects to his own private use, leaving the stock to be answerable for the value.

3. One partner may admit judgment, or provide bonds, or current notes in the name and on behalf of the company, and still use the assets for their own personal benefit, leaving the stock liable for the value.

4. One partner may sell and give credit, and deliver parcels of goods to what sum, or what quantity, he thinks fit, and to whom, and so, by his indiscretion, or perhaps by connivance and knavery, lose to the stock what parcel of goods he pleases, to the ruin of the other partner, and bring themselves to be both bankrupt together.

4. One partner can sell and offer credit, and deliver shipments of goods in whatever amount or quantity they see fit, to whoever they choose. This could lead to them carelessly or perhaps intentionally losing some of the stock, harming the other partner, and potentially causing both of them to go bankrupt together.

5. Nay, to sum up all, one partner may commit acts of bankruptcy without the knowledge of the other, and thereby subject the united stock, and both or all the partners, to the danger of a commission, when they may themselves know nothing of it till the blow is given, and given so as to be too late to be retrieved.

5. In short, one partner can engage in bankruptcy activities without the other knowing, putting the shared assets and all partners at risk of a bankruptcy ruling, even though they may remain completely unaware of it until it's too late to fix the situation.

All these, and many more, being the ill consequences and dangers of partnership in trade, I cannot but seriously warn the honest industrious tradesman, if possible, to stand upon his own legs, and go on upon his own bottom; to pursue his business diligently, but cautiously, and what we call fair and softly; not eagerly pushing to drive a vast trade, and enjoy but half of it, rather carry on a middling business, and let it be his own.

All of these, along with many others, are the negative outcomes and risks of entering into business partnerships. I can’t help but strongly advise the honest, hardworking businessperson to try to stand on their own feet and operate independently. They should pursue their work diligently, but carefully, taking it step by step. Instead of aggressively trying to grow a massive business and only reaping a portion of the benefits, it’s better to maintain a moderate enterprise that is entirely theirs.

There may be cases, indeed, which may have their exceptions to this general head of advice; partnerships may sometimes prove successful, and in some particular business they are more necessary than in others, and in some they tell us that they are absolutely necessary, though the last I can by no means grant; but be that as it will, there are so many cases more in number, and of great consequence too, which miscarry by the several perplexed circumstances, differing tempers, and open knavery of partners, that I cannot but give it as a friendly advice to all tradesmen—if possible, to avoid partnerships of all kinds.

There may be some exceptions to this general advice; partnerships can sometimes be successful, and in certain businesses, they are more essential than in others. Some even claim that they are absolutely necessary, although I can’t agree with that. Regardless, there are far more cases, and they are quite significant, where partnerships fail due to various complicated situations, differing personalities, and the outright dishonesty of partners. So, I strongly advise all businesspeople—if possible—to avoid partnerships altogether.

But if the circumstances of trade require partnerships, and the risk must be run, I would recommend to the tradesman not to enter into partnerships, but under the following circumstances:—

But if the conditions of trade need partnerships, and the risk has to be taken, I would advise the tradesperson not to enter into partnerships, except under the following circumstances:—

1. Not to take in any partner who should be allowed to carry on any separate business, in which the partnership is not concerned. Depend upon it, whatever other business your partner carries on, you run the risk of it as much as you do of your own; and you run the risk with this particular circumstance too, that you have the hazard without the profit or success: that is, without a share in the profit or success, which is very unequal and unfair. I know cunning men will tell you, that there may be provision made so effectually in the articles of partnership, that the stock in partnership should be concerned in no other interest or engagements but its own; but let such cunning gentlemen tell me, if the partner meets with a disappointment in his other undertakings, which wounds him so deep as to break him, will it not affect the partnership thus far? 1. That it may cause his stock to be drawn hastily out, and perhaps violently too. 2. That it touches and taints the credit of the partner to be concerned with such a man; and though a man's bottom may support him, if it be very good, yet it is a blow to him, touches his credit, and makes the world stand a little at a stay about him, if it be no more, for a while, till they see that he shows himself upon the Exchange, or at his shop-door again, in spite of all the apprehensions and doubts that have been handed about concerning him. Either of these are so essential to the tradesman, whose partner thus sinks by his own private breaches, in which the parnership is not concerned, that it is worth while to caution the tradesman against venturing. And I must add, too, that many a tradesman has fallen under the disaster by the partner's affairs thus affecting him, though the immediate losses which the partner had suffered have not been charged upon him; and yet I believe it is not so easy to avoid being fallen upon for those debts also.

1. Don't bring in any partner who should be allowed to run a separate business that isn't connected to the partnership. Believe me, whatever other business your partner is involved in poses just as much risk to you as your own does. Plus, there's the added disadvantage that you bear the risk without sharing in any of the profits or successes, which is really unfair. I know some clever people will say that you can draft the partnership agreement so thoroughly that the partnership's assets won't be tied up in any other interests or obligations. But let those clever folks explain this: if the partner faces major setbacks in their other ventures that deeply affect them, won't it impact the partnership? 1. It could lead to them withdrawing their investment quickly, possibly even in a rush. 2. It would damage the partner's reputation to be associated with someone like that; and even if a partner's foundation is solid, it still hurts their credibility. The community will hesitate about them for a while until they see them back in action at the Exchange or at their shop, despite the worries and rumors floating around about them. Both scenarios are critical to a tradesperson, whose partner's personal failures affect them, to the extent that it's wise to warn traders against taking such risks. Additionally, many tradespeople have faced setbacks because of their partner's issues—even if those losses weren't directly linked to them. Yet, I believe it's still pretty hard to avoid being held responsible for those debts too.

It is certain, as I formerly noted, rumour will break a tradesman almost at any time. It matters not, at first, whether the rumour be true or false. What rumour can sit closer to a man in business—his own personal misfortunes excepted—than such as this-that his partner is broke? That his partner has met with a loss, suppose an insurance, suppose a fall of stocks, suppose a bubble or a cheat, or we know not what, the partner is sunk, no man knows whether the partnership be concerned in it or no; and while it is not known, every man will suppose it, for mankind always think the worst of every thing.

It’s clear, as I mentioned before, that a rumor can ruin a businessperson at any time. It doesn't matter, at first, whether the rumor is true or false. What rumor could hit closer to home for someone in business—except for their own personal troubles—than the one that says their partner is bankrupt? If their partner has suffered a loss, whether it’s from an insurance issue, a drop in stock prices, a scam, or something else we can’t predict, the partner is in deep trouble. No one knows if the partnership is affected or not; and as long as it’s uncertain, everyone will assume the worst, because people tend to believe the negative.

What can be a closer stroke at the poor tradesman? He knows not what his partner has done; he has reason to fear the worst; he even knows not himself, for a while, whether he can steer clear of the rocks or no; but soon recovers, knows his own circumstances, and struggles hard with the world, pays out his partner's stock, and gets happily over it. And it is well he does so, for that he is at the brink of ruin must be granted; and where one stands and keeps up his reputation and his business, there are twenty would be undone in the same circumstance.

What could hit a struggling tradesman harder? He has no idea what his partner has done; he has every reason to expect the worst. He even doesn't know himself, for a time, whether he can avoid disaster or not; but he soon pulls himself together, understands his own situation, and fights hard against the odds, pays off his partner’s debts, and manages to get through it successfully. And it's a good thing he does, because it’s clear he’s on the edge of failure; for every one person who can hold on to their reputation and business, there are twenty others who would be ruined in the same situation.

Who, then, would run the venture of a partner, if it were possible to avoid it? And who, if they must have a partner, would have one that was concerned in separate business, in which the partnership was not engaged?

Who, then, would take on a partnership if they could avoid it? And who, if they have to have a partner, would choose one involved in a different business that isn't related to their partnership?

2. If you must have a partner, always choose to have the partner rather under than over you; by this I mean, take him in for a fifth, a fourth, or at most a third, never for a half. There are many reasons to be given for this, besides that of having the greater share of profits, for that I do not give as a reason here at all; but the principal reasons are these:—First, in case of any disaster in any of the particular supposed accidents which I have mentioned, and that you should be obliged to pay out your partner's stock, it will not be so heavy, or be so much a blow to you: and, secondly, you preserve to yourself the governing influence in your own business; you cannot be overruled, overawed, or dogmatically told, it shall, or shall not, be thus, or thus. He that takes in a partner for a third, has a partner servant; he that takes him in for a half, has a partner master—that is to say, a director, or preceptor: let your partner have always a lesser interest in the business than yourself, and be rather less acquainted with the business than yourself, at least not better. You should rather have a partner to be instructed, than a partner to instruct you; for he that teaches you, will always taunt you.

2. If you need to have a partner, always choose someone who has less involvement than you do; what I mean is, bring them in for a fifth, a fourth, or at most a third of the business, but never for half. There are many reasons for this, beyond just wanting a bigger share of the profits—I'm not mentioning that reason here at all. The main reasons are these: First, in case something goes wrong from any of the specific situations I mentioned, and you have to pay off your partner's share, it won't be such a heavy burden or a big hit for you. Secondly, you keep the control in your own business; you can't be overruling, intimidated, or told dogmatically how things should or shouldn't be done. A partner with a third share is more like a partner-servant, while a partner with half is like a partner-master—that is, a director or teacher. Always make sure your partner has a smaller stake in the business than you and knows less about it than you do, or at least not more. You'd rather have a partner who needs guidance than one who tries to teach you; because the one who teaches you will always find a way to mock you.

3. If you must have a partner, let him always be your junior, rather than your senior; by this I mean, your junior in business, whether he is so in years or not. There are many reasons why the tradesman should choose this, and particularly the same as the other of taking him in for a junior or inferior part of the trade—that is to say, to maintain the superiority of the business in his own hands; and this I mention, not at all upon account of the pride or vanity of the superiority, for that is a trifle compared to the rest; but that he may have the more authority to inspect the conduct of his partner, in which he is so much and so essentially concerned; and to inquire whether he is doing any thing, or taking any measures, dangerous or prejudicial to the stock, or to the credit of the partnership, that so if he finds any thing, he may restrain him, and prevent in time the mischief which would otherwise be inevitable to them both.

3. If you need a partner, make sure they are always younger than you, especially in business experience, even if they are older in age. There are plenty of reasons why a businessperson should go with this option, particularly for the same reason as choosing someone for a junior or lower role—namely, to keep control of the business in their own hands. I mention this not out of pride or vanity about being in charge, since that’s minor compared to the bigger picture; it’s so that you have more authority to monitor your partner's actions, which is crucial for you. You need to check if they are doing anything or taking any risks that could harm the business or the partnership’s reputation. This way, if you notice any issues, you can intervene and prevent problems that would be unavoidable for both of you.

There are many other advantages to a tradesman who is obliged to take a partner, by keeping in his own hands the major part of the trade, which are too long to repeat here; such as his being always able to put a check to any rash adventure, any launching out into bubbles and projects, and things dangerous to the business: and this is a very needful thing in a partnership, that one partner should be able to correct the rash resolves of another in hazardous cases.

There are many other benefits for a tradesman who has to take on a partner, especially by retaining control over the majority of the business, which are too lengthy to list here; for example, being able to stop any reckless ventures, any diving into risky schemes and projects, and things that could jeopardize the business. This is crucial in a partnership because it's important for one partner to be able to rein in the impulsive decisions of another in risky situations.

By this correcting of rash measures, I mean over-ruling them with moderation and temper, for the good of the whole, and for their mutual advantage. The Romans frequently had two generals, or consuls, to command their armies in the field: one of which was to be a young man, that by his vigour and sprightly forwardness he might keep up the spirits and courage of the soldiers, encourage them to fight, and lead them on by his example; the other an old soldier, that by his experience in the military affairs, age, and counsels, he might a little abate the fire of his colleague, and might not only know how to fight, but know when to fight, that is to say, when to avoid fighting; and the want of this lost them many a victory, and the great battle of Cannae in particular, in which 80,000 Romans were killed in one day.

By correcting reckless actions, I mean balancing them with moderation and calmness, for the overall benefit and for everyone's advantage. The Romans often had two generals, or consuls, leading their armies in the field: one was a young man, whose energy and enthusiasm would uplift the soldiers’ spirits, motivate them to fight, and lead by example; the other was an experienced soldier, who, with his military knowledge, age, and advice, would temper his colleague's fervor and not only know how to fight but also when to fight, which means knowing when to avoid battle. The lack of this wisdom cost them many victories, particularly in the significant battle of Cannae, where 80,000 Romans were killed in a single day.

To compare small things with great, I may say it is just so in the affair of trade. You should always join a sober grave head, weighed to business, and acquainted with trade, to the young trader, who having been young in the work will the easier give up his judgment to the other, and who is governed with the solid experience of the other; and so you join their ways together, the rash and the sedate, the grave and the giddy.

To compare small things with big, I can say it’s the same in business. You should always pair a serious, level-headed person who is experienced and knowledgeable about trade with a young trader. Since the young trader is still learning, they will be more likely to trust the judgment of the experienced one, who brings solid experience to the table. This way, you combine their approaches: the bold and the cautious, the serious and the carefree.

Again, if you must go into partnership, be sure, if possible, you take nobody into partnership but such as whose circumstances in trade you are fully acquainted with. Such there are frequently to be had among relations and neighbours, and such, if possible, should be the man that is taken into partnership, that the hazard of unsound circumstances may be avoided. A man may else be taken into partnership who may be really bankrupt even before you take him; and such things have been done, to the ruin of many an honest tradesman.

Again, if you need to go into a partnership, make sure, if possible, that you only partner with someone whose business situation you fully understand. You can often find such individuals among your family and neighbors, and ideally, that should be the person you partner with to avoid the risk of unreliable circumstances. Otherwise, you might partner with someone who is actually bankrupt even before you take him on, and such situations have led to the downfall of many honest businesspeople.

If possible, let your partner be a beginner, that his stock may be reasonably supposed to be free and unentangled; and let him be one that you know personally, and his circumstances, and did know even before you had any thoughts of engaging together.

If you can, choose a partner who's a beginner, so their situation is likely to be uncomplicated and straightforward; and make sure it's someone you know personally, along with their circumstances, even before you thought about working together.

All these cautions are with a supposition that the partner must be had; but I must still give it as my opinion, in the case of such tradesmen as I have all along directed myself to, that if possible they should go on single-handed in trade; and I close it with this brief note, respecting the qualifications of a partner, as above, that, next to no partner, such a partner is best.

All these warnings assume that a partner is necessary; however, I still believe that for the types of tradespeople I’ve focused on, they should try to operate independently if they can. I’ll wrap this up with a quick note on what to look for in a partner: next to having no partner at all, the right partner is the next best option.


CHAPTER XVII

OF HONESTY IN DEALING, AND LYING

OF HONESTY IN DEALING, AND LYING


There is some difference between an honest man and an honest tradesman; and though the distinction is very nice, yet, I must say, it is to be supported. Trade cannot make a knave of an honest man, for there is a specific difference between honesty and knavery which can never be altered by trade or any other thing; nor can that integrity of mind which describes and is peculiar to a man of honesty be ever abated to a tradesman; the rectitude of his soul must be the same, and he must not only intend or mean honestly and justly, but he must do so; he must act honestly and justly, and that in all his dealings; he must neither cheat nor defraud, over-reach nor circumvent his neighbour, nor indeed anybody he deals with; nor must he design to do so, or lay any plots or snares to that purpose in his dealing, as is frequent in the general conduct of too many, who yet call themselves honest tradesmen, and would take it very ill to have any one tax their integrity.

There is a difference between an honest person and an honest tradesperson; and while the distinction is subtle, I believe it’s important to recognize. Being in trade doesn’t turn an honest person into a rogue, because there’s a clear difference between honesty and deceit that can’t be changed by trade or anything else. The integrity of a truly honest person can’t be diminished just because they are a tradesperson; their moral uprightness must remain the same. They must not only intend to act honestly and fairly, but they must actually do so in all their dealings. They should neither cheat nor defraud, take advantage of, nor deceive their neighbors or anyone else they interact with. They shouldn’t plan or scheme to do so either, unlike many who consider themselves honest tradespeople but would be outraged if anyone questioned their integrity.

But after all this is premised, there are some latitudes, like poetical licences in other cases, which a tradesman is and must be allowed, and which by the custom and usage of trade he may give himself a liberty in, which cannot be allowed in other cases to any man, no, nor to the tradesman himself out of his business—I say, he may take some liberties, but within bounds; and whatever some pretenders to strict living may say, yet that tradesman shall pass with me for a very honest man, notwithstanding the liberty which he gives himself of this kind, if he does not take those liberties in an exorbitant manner; and those liberties are such as these.

But after all this is established, there are some freedoms, like artistic licenses in other cases, that a tradesman is and must be allowed to take. By the customs and practices of the trade, he may give himself some leeway that wouldn’t be acceptable in other situations, not even for the tradesman outside of his business. I mean, he can take certain liberties, but within limits; and no matter what some people who claim to live strictly might say, I view that tradesman as a very honest man, despite the liberties he allows himself, as long as he doesn’t take those liberties excessively. These liberties include things like these.

1. The liberty of asking more than he will take. I know some people have condemned this practice as dishonest, and the Quakers for a time stood to their point in the contrary practice, resolving to ask no more than they would take, upon any occasion whatsoever, and choosing rather to lose the selling of their goods, though they could afford sometimes to take what was offered, rather than abate a farthing of the price they had asked; but time and the necessities of trade made them wiser, and brought them off of that severity, and they by degrees came to ask, and abate, and abate again, just as other business tradesmen do, though not perhaps as some do, who give themselves a fuller liberty that way.

1. The freedom to ask for more than he actually intends to accept. I know some people have criticized this practice as dishonest, and for a while the Quakers stuck to their belief in the opposite approach, deciding to only ask for what they were willing to take, no matter the situation, and preferring to lose sales of their goods, even when they could have accepted the offers, rather than reduce the price they had set by even a penny. However, over time and due to the demands of trade, they became more practical and moved away from that strictness, gradually learning to ask for, then lower, and then lower again their prices, just like other businesspeople do, though perhaps not as freely as some who give themselves more leeway in that regard.

Indeed, it is the buyers that make this custom necessary; for they, especially those who buy for immediate use, will first pretend positively to tie themselves up to a limited price, and bid them a little and a little more, till they come so near the sellers' price, that they, the sellers, cannot find in their hearts to refuse it, and then they are tempted to take it, notwithstanding their first words to the contrary. It is common, indeed, for the tradesman to say, 'I cannot abate anything,' when yet they do and can afford it; but the tradesman should indeed not be understood strictly and literally to his words, but as he means it, namely, that he cannot reasonably abate, and that he cannot afford to abate: and there he may be in earnest, namely, that he cannot make a reasonable profit of his goods, if he is obliged to abate, and so the meaning is honest, that he cannot abate; and yet rather than not take your money, he may at last resolve to do it, in hopes of getting a better price for the remainder, or being willing to abate his ordinary gain, rather than disoblige the customer; or being perhaps afraid he should not sell off the quantity; and many such reasons may be given why he submits to sell at a lower price than he really intended, or can afford to do; and yet he cannot be said to be dishonest, or to lie, in saying at first he cannot, or could not, abate.

Indeed, it's the buyers who make this custom necessary; they, especially those buying for immediate use, will first act like they’re definitely limiting themselves to a certain price, and then they bid a bit more and a bit more until they get close enough to the seller's price that the sellers can’t bring themselves to refuse it. Then they're tempted to accept it, even though they initially said otherwise. It's common for tradespeople to say, 'I can't lower the price,' when in fact they do and can afford to. However, tradespeople shouldn’t be taken too literally; what they mean is that they can't reasonably lower the price and that it’s difficult for them to do so. They might genuinely believe they can’t make a reasonable profit if they have to lower the price. So their statement is honest: they can't lower it; yet, rather than walk away from a sale, they might eventually decide to do it, hoping to get a better price for what’s left or willing to sacrifice their typical profit to keep the customer happy, or perhaps fearing they won’t sell all their stock. There are many reasons why they might end up selling at a lower price than they initially intended or can really afford, but they can't be considered dishonest or lying when they first say they can't or couldn’t lower their price.

A man in trade is properly to be said not to be able to do what he cannot do to his profit and advantage. The English cannot trade to Hungary, and into Slavonia—that is to say, they cannot do it to advantage; but it is better for them to trade to Venice with their goods, and let the Venetians carry on a trade into Hungary through Dalmatia, Croatia, &c, and the like in other places.

A businessman is rightly considered unable to do anything that doesn’t benefit him. The English can’t trade directly with Hungary or Slavonia—meaning they can't do it profitably; instead, it’s better for them to sell their goods to Venice and let the Venetians handle the trade into Hungary via Dalmatia, Croatia, and similar regions.

To bring it down to particular cases: one certain merchant cannot deal in one sort of goods which another merchant is eminent for; the other merchant is as free to the trade as he, but he cannot do it to profit; for he is unacquainted with the trade, and it is out of his way, and therefore he cannot do it.

To make it more relatable: one specific merchant can't trade in a type of goods that another merchant is well-known for; the other merchant has the freedom to engage in that trade just like he does, but he can’t profit from it because he’s not familiar with the trade, and it's outside his area of expertise, so he can't pursue it.

Thus, to the case in hand. The tradesman says he cannot sell his goods under such a price, which in the sense of his business is true; that is to say, he cannot do it to carry on his trade with the usual and reasonable advantage which he ought to expect, and which others make in the same way of business.

Thus, to the case at hand. The trader says he cannot sell his goods for such a low price, which is true for his business; in other words, he cannot do it while maintaining the usual and fair profit he should expect, and that others achieve in the same line of work.

Or, he cannot, without underselling the market, and undervaluing the goods, and seeming to undersell his neighbour-shopkeepers, to whom there is a justice due in trade, which respects the price of sale; and to undersell is looked upon as an unfair kind of trading.

Or, he can't do that without pricing the market too low, undervaluing the goods, and appearing to price below his neighboring shopkeepers, to whom there is a fairness owed in business that relates to sale prices; and pricing lower than others is considered an unfair way of trading.

All these, and many more, are the reasons why a tradesman may be said not to lie, though he should say he cannot abate, or cannot sell his goods under such a price, and yet may after think fit to sell you his goods something lower than he so intended, or can afford to do, rather than lose your custom, or rather than lose the selling of his goods, and taking your ready money, which at that time he may have occasion for.

All these reasons, and many more, explain why a tradesperson might not be considered dishonest, even if they say they cannot lower the price or cannot sell their goods for less than a certain amount. They might later decide to sell you their goods for a lower price than they originally intended or could afford, just to keep your business or to sell their goods and take your cash, which they might need at that moment.

In these cases, I cannot say a shopkeeper should be tied down to the literal meaning of his words in the price he asks, or that he is guilty of lying in not adhering stiffly to the letter of his first demand; though, at the same time, I would have every tradesman take as little liberty that way as may be: and if the buyer would expect the tradesman should keep strictly to his demand, he should not stand and haggle, and screw the shopkeeper down, bidding from one penny to another, to a trifle within his price, so, as it were, to push him to the extremity, either to turn away his customer for a sixpence, or some such trifle, or to break his word: as if he would say, I will force you to speak falsely, or turn me away for a trifle.

In these situations, I can't say that a shopkeeper should be strictly bound by the exact meaning of his words in the price he sets, nor that he's being dishonest if he doesn't stick rigidly to his initial asking price; however, I would prefer that every tradesman takes as little liberty as possible in this regard. If a buyer expects the tradesman to adhere strictly to his asking price, he shouldn't haggle and push the shopkeeper down from one penny to another, squeezing him for a small amount less than his price, as if to force him into a corner—either to lose a customer over a sixpence or some such small amount, or to go back on his word. It’s as though he’s saying, I will make you lie or turn me away over a trivial matter.

In such cases, if, indeed, there is a breach, the sin is the buyer's: at least, he puts himself in the devil's stead, and makes himself both tempter and accuser; nor can I say that the seller is in that case so much to blame as the buyer. However, it were to be wished that on both sides buying and selling might be carried on without it; for the buyer as often says, 'I won't give a farthing more,' and yet advances, as the seller says, 'I can't abate a farthing,' and yet complies. These are, as I call them, trading lies; and it were to be wished they could be avoided on both sides; and the honest tradesman does avoid them as much as possible, but yet must not, I say, in all cases, be tied up to the strict, literal sense of that expression, I cannot abate, as above.[26]

In such cases, if there is a breach, the blame lies with the buyer: at the very least, they put themselves in a position of temptation and accusation; I wouldn't say the seller is as much to blame as the buyer. However, it would be nice if buying and selling could happen without these issues; the buyer often says, 'I won’t pay a cent more,' and yet proceeds, while the seller says, 'I can’t lower the price,' and yet gives in. I call these trading lies; it would be great if both sides could avoid them. The honest tradesperson tries to minimize them as much as possible, but they shouldn’t always be held to the strict, literal meaning of the phrase I cannot abate, as mentioned above.[26]

2. Another trading licence is that of appointing, and promising payments of money, which men in business are oftentimes forced to make, and forced to break, without any scrupple; nay, and without any reproach upon their integrity. Let us state this case as clearly as we can, and see how it stands as to the morality of it, for that is the point in debate.

2. Another type of trading license is appointing and promising payments of money, which business people often have to make, and sometimes break, without any hesitation; in fact, without any damage to their integrity. Let's outline this situation as clearly as possible and see how it relates to its morality, since that's the issue at hand.

The credit usually given by one tradesman to another, as particularly by the merchant to the wholesale-man, and by the wholesale-man to the retailer, is such, that, without tying the buyer up to a particular day of payment, they go on buying and selling, and the buyer pays money upon account, as his convenience admits, and as the seller is content to take it. This occasions the merchant, or the wholesale-man, to go about, as they call it, a-dunning among their dealers, and which is generally the work of every Saturday. When the merchant comes to his customer the wholesale-man, or warehouse-keeper, for money, he tells him, 'I have no money, Sir; I cannot pay you now; if you call next week, I will pay you.' Next week comes, and the merchant calls again; but it is the same thing, only the warehouseman adds, 'Well, I will pay you next week, without fail.' When the week comes, he tells him he has met with great disappointments, and he knows not what to do, but desires his patience another week: and when the other week comes, perhaps he pays him, and so they go on.

The credit typically extended by one tradesman to another, especially from the merchant to the wholesaler, and from the wholesaler to the retailer, is structured in a way that doesn't tie the buyer to a specific payment date. They continue to buy and sell, and the buyer pays whatever he can as it suits him, as long as the seller is okay with it. This leads the merchant or wholesaler to go around, as they say, dunning their clients, which usually happens every Saturday. When the merchant approaches his client, the wholesaler, for payment, the wholesaler says, 'I have no money right now; I can’t pay you.' When the following week rolls around, the merchant comes back, and it’s the same story, but the wholesaler adds, 'Well, I'll definitely pay you next week, without fail.' When that week arrives, the wholesaler claims he’s faced significant setbacks and requests another week of patience. And when the next week comes, he might finally pay him, and so the cycle continues.

Now, what is to be said for this? In the first place, let us look back to the occasion. This warehouse-keeper, or wholesale-man, sells the goods which he buys of the merchant—I say, he sells them to the retailers, and it is for that reason I place it first there. Now, as they buy in smaller quantities than he did of the merchant, so he deals with more of them in number, and he goes about among them the same Saturday, to get in money that he may pay his merchant, and he receives his bag full of promises, too, every where instead of money, and is put off from week to week, perhaps by fifty shopkeepers in a day; and their serving him thus obliges him to do the same to the merchant.

Now, what can we say about this? First, let’s look back at the situation. This warehouse manager, or wholesaler, sells the goods he buys from the merchant—I emphasize that he sells these goods to the retailers, which is why I mention it first. Since the retailers buy in smaller quantities than he does from the merchant, he deals with many more of them, and on the same Saturday, he goes around to collect money so he can pay his merchant. He ends up with a bag full of promises everywhere instead of actual money, and he might get put off week after week by fifty shop owners in a single day; their way of handling him forces him to do the same thing to the merchant.

Again, come to the merchant. Except some, whose circumstances are above it, they are by this very usage obliged to put off the Blackwell-hall factor, or the packer, or the clothier, or whoever they deal with, in proportion; and thus promises go round for payment, and those promises are kept or broken as money comes in, or as disappointments happen; and all this while there is no breach of honesty, or parole; no lying, or supposition of it, among the tradesmen, either on one side or other.

Once again, let’s talk about the merchants. Except for a few whose situations are better, they are required by this very system to delay payments to the Blackwell-hall factor, the packer, the clothier, or whoever they do business with, depending on the circumstances. As a result, payment promises circulate, and these promises are either honored or ignored based on incoming money or unexpected setbacks. Throughout this process, there’s no breach of honesty or trust; there’s no lying or any implication of it among the tradespeople, whether on one side or the other.

But let us come, I say, to the morality of it. To break a solemn promise is a kind of prevarication; that is certain, there is no coming off of it; and I might enlarge here upon the first fault, namely, of making the promise, which, say the strict objectors, they should not do. But the tradesman's answer is this: all those promises ought to be taken as they are made—namely, with a contingent dependence upon the circumstances of trade, such as promises made them by others who owe them money, or the supposition of a week's trade bringing in money by retail, as usual, both of which are liable to fail, or at least to fall short; and this the person who calls for the money knows, and takes the promise with those attending casualties; which if they fail, he knows the shopkeeper, or whoever he is, must fail him too.

But let's get to the moral of this. Breaking a solid promise is a form of dishonesty; that’s clear, and there's no getting around it. I could elaborate on the original mistake, which is making the promise in the first place—a mistake, say the strict critics, that should never happen. But the business owner's response is this: all promises should be understood in the context they’re made—in other words, they depend on the realities of business, like other promises made to them by people who owe them money, or the expectation that a week of sales will bring in cash as usual, both of which can fail or at least fall short. The person asking for the money knows this and accepts the promise with those potential issues in mind; if those issues occur, they understand that the shopkeeper, or whoever it is, will also let them down.

The case is plain, if the man had the money in cash, he need not make a promise or appointment for a farther day; for that promise is no more or less than a capitulation for a favour, a desire or condition of a week's forbearance, on his assurance, that if possible he will not fail to pay him at the time. It is objected, that the words if possible should then be mentioned, which would solve the morality of the case: to this I must answer, that I own I think it needless, unless the man to whom the promise was made could be supposed to believe the promise was to be performed, whether it were possible or no; which no reasonable man can be supposed to do.

The situation is straightforward: if the man had the cash on hand, he wouldn’t need to make a promise or set an appointment for a later date. That promise is just a way of giving in for a favor, a request or condition for a week’s delay, based on his assurance that he will try not to miss the payment when the time comes. It’s argued that the phrase if possible should be included, which would clarify the ethical part of the situation. I have to say, I think that’s unnecessary unless the person to whom the promise was made could realistically believe that the promise would be kept, regardless of whether it was possible or not; which no sensible person would be expected to do.

There is a parallel case to this in the ordinary appointment of people to meet either at place or time, upon occasions of business. Two friends make an appointment to meet the next day at such a house, suppose a tavern at or near the Exchange: one says to the other, 'Do not fail me at that time, for I will certainly be there;' the other answers, 'I will not fail.' Some people, who think themselves more religious than others, or at least would be thought so, object against these positive appointments, and tell us we ought to say, 'I will, if it pleases God.' or I will, life and health permitting;[27] and they quote the text for it, where our Saviour expressly commands to use such a caution, and which I shall say nothing to lessen the force of.

There’s a similar situation in the usual setting where people arrange to meet at a specific time or place for business. Two friends plan to meet the next day at a place, let’s say a tavern near the Exchange. One says to the other, "Don’t let me down at that time, because I’ll definitely be there." The other replies, "I won’t let you down." Some people, who think they’re more religious than others—or at least want to be seen that way—criticize these definite plans and say we should say, "I will, if it’s God's will," or "I will, if life and health allow;"[27] and they reference the scripture where our Savior specifically instructs us to use such caution, and I won’t say anything to undermine that point.

But to say a word to our present custom. Since Christianity is the public profession of the country, and we are to suppose we not only are Christians ourselves, but that all those we are talking to, or of, are also Christians, we must add that Christianity supposes we acknowledge that life, and all the contingencies of life, are subjected to the dominion of Providence, and liable to all those accidents which God permits to befall us in the ordinary course of our living in the world, therefore we expect to be taken in that sense in all such appointments; and it is but justice to us as Christians, in the common acceptation of our words, that when I say, I will certainly meet my friend at such a place, and at such a time, he should understand me to mean, if it pleases God to give me life and health, or that his Providence permits me to come, or, as the text says, 'If the Lord will;' for we all know that unless the Lord will, I cannot meet, or so much as live.

But to address our current customs: Since Christianity is the public faith of the country, and we assume that not only are we Christians but also that everyone we’re talking about is, we should add that Christianity implies we recognize that life, and all its unpredictabilities, are under the control of Providence and subject to the various hardships that God allows to happen to us in the usual course of living in the world. Therefore, we expect to be understood in this sense in all such arrangements. It is only fair to us as Christians, in the commonly accepted meaning of our words, that when I say, I will definitely meet my friend at a specific place and time, he understands that I mean, if God grants me life and health, or if His Providence allows me to come, or, as the scripture says, 'If the Lord wills;' because we all know that unless the Lord wills it, I cannot meet, or even continue to live.

Not to understand me thus, is as much as to say, you do not understand me to be a Christian, or to act like a Christian in any thing; and on the other hand, they that understand it otherwise, I ought not to understand them to be Christians. Nor should I be supposed to put any neglect or dishonour upon the government of Providence in the world, or to suggest that I did not think myself subjected to it, because I omitted the words in my appointment.

Not understanding me this way is like saying you don't see me as a Christian or acting like one at all; and on the flip side, if others interpret it differently, I shouldn't regard them as Christians. I also shouldn't be thought to disrespect or belittle the authority of Providence in the world, or imply that I don't see myself as being under its control, just because I left out those words in my appointment.

In like manner, when a man comes to me for money, I put him off: that, in the first place, supposes I have not the money by me, or cannot spare it to pay him at that time; if it were otherwise, it may be supposed I would pay him just then. He is then perhaps impatient, and asks me when I will pay him, and I tell him at such a time. This naturally supposes, that by that time I expect to be supplied, so as to be able to pay; I have current bills, or promises of money, to be paid me, or I expect the ordinary takings in my shop or warehouse will supply me to make good my promise: thus my promise is honest in its foundation, because I have reason to expect money to come in to make me in a condition to perform it; but so it falls out, contrary to my expectation, and contrary to the reason of things, I am disappointed, and cannot do it; I am then, indeed, a trespasser upon my creditor, whom I ought to have paid, and I am under affliction enough on that account, and I suffer in my reputation for it also; but I cannot be said to be a liar, an immoral man, a man that has no regard to my promise, and the like; for at the same time I have perhaps used my utmost endeavour to do it, but am prevented by many several men breaking promise with me, and I am no way able to help myself.

Similarly, when someone asks me for money, I brush them off. This first assumes that I don’t have the money on hand or that I can’t spare it to pay them right then; if it were different, I would pay them immediately. They might then get impatient and ask when I’ll pay them, and I tell them at a specific time. This naturally implies that by then, I expect to have the funds to pay them. I have outstanding bills or expect to receive money, or I believe that my usual business income will allow me to fulfill my promise. So, my promise is valid because I have reason to believe that money will come in to enable me to keep it. However, it turns out, against my expectations and the natural order of things, that I’m let down and can’t follow through. At that point, I’m truly in the wrong with my creditor, whom I should have paid, and I suffer enough for it, damaging my reputation as well. But I wouldn’t be called a liar or an immoral person, nor someone who disregards promises, because I may have genuinely tried my best to follow through but was stopped by multiple people breaking their commitments to me, leaving me unable to help myself.

It is objected to this, that then I should not make my promises absolute, but conditional. To this I say, that the promises, as is above observed, are really not absolute, but conditional in the very nature of them, and are understood so when they are made, or else they that hear them do not understand them, as all human appointments ought to be understood; I do confess, it would be better not to make an absolute promise at all, but to express the condition or reserve with the promise, and say, 'I will if I can,' or, 'I will if people are just to me, and perform their promises to me.'

It’s been pointed out that I should not make my promises absolute, but rather conditional. In response, I say that promises, as mentioned earlier, aren’t truly absolute but are inherently conditional, and that’s how they’re understood when made. If someone doesn't understand this, then they aren’t grasping what all human agreements should convey. I admit it would be better not to make an absolute promise at all, but to clarify the conditions along with the promise by saying, 'I will if I can,' or, 'I will if people treat me fairly and keep their promises to me.'

But to this I answer, the importunity of the person who demands the payment will not permit it—nothing short of a positive promise will satisfy—they never believe the person intends to perform if he makes the least reserve or condition in his promise, though, at the same time, they know that even the nature of the promise and the reason of the promise strongly implies the condition—I say, the importunity of the creditor occasions the breach, which he reproaches the debtor with the immorality of.[28]

But to this, I say that the persistence of the person asking for payment won’t allow it—nothing less than a firm promise will satisfy them. They never believe the person intends to follow through if they show even the slightest hesitation or condition in their promise, even though they know that the nature and reasons for the promise imply conditions. I argue that the creditor's insistence causes the breach, which they then criticize the debtor for. [28]

Custom, indeed, has driven us beyond the limits of our morals in many things, which trade makes necessary, and which we cannot now avoid; so that if we must pretend to go back to the literal sense of the command; if our yea must be yea, and our nay nay; if no man must go beyond, or defraud his neighbour; if our conversation must be without covetousness, and the like—why, then, it is impossible for tradesmen to be Christians, and we must unhinge all business, act upon new principles in trade, and go on by new rules—in short, we must shut up shop, and leave off trade, and so in many things we must leave off living; for as conversation is called life, we must leave off to converse: all the ordinary communication of life is now full of lying; and what with table-lies, salutation-lies, and trading-lies, there is no such thing as every man speaking truth with his neighbour.

Custom has really pushed us past the boundaries of our morals in many ways that trade makes necessary and that we can no longer avoid. So, if we have to pretend to return to the literal meaning of the command; if our yes must be yes, and our no must be no; if no one should go beyond or cheat their neighbor; if our conversations must be free of greed and similar things—then, it becomes impossible for businesspeople to be Christians. We would have to completely change how we do business, adopt new principles in trade, and follow new rules—in short, we would have to close up shop and stop trading, which would mean we’d have to stop living in many respects; because as conversation is considered life, we would have to stop interacting. All the usual ways we communicate in life are now filled with lies; and with table lies, greeting lies, and trade lies, there’s no way for anyone to really speak the truth with their neighbor.

But this is a subject would launch me out beyond the bounds of a chapter, and make a book by itself. I return to the case particularly in hand—promises of payment of money. Men in trade, I say, are under this unhappy necessity, they are forced to make them, and they are forced to break them; the violent pressing and dunning, and perhaps threatening too, of the creditor, when the poor shopkeeper cannot comply with his demand, forces him to promise; in short, the importunate creditor will not be otherwise put off, and the poor shopkeeper, almost worried, and perhaps a little terrified too, and afraid of him, is glad to do and say any thing to pacify him, and this extorts a promise, which, when the time comes, he is no more able to perform than he was before, and this multiplies promises, and consequently breaches, so much of which are to be placed to the accounts of force, that I must acknowledge, though the debtor is to blame, the creditor is too far concerned in the crime of it to be excused, and it were to be wished some other method could be found out to prevent the evil, and that tradesmen would resolve with more courage to resist the importunities of the creditor, be the consequence what it would, rather than break in upon their morals, and load their consciences with the reproaches of it for all their lives after.

But this is a topic that would take me beyond the limits of a chapter and could fill an entire book. I’ll return to the specific issue at hand—promises to pay money. Tradespeople, I say, are trapped in this unfortunate situation; they are compelled to make these promises, and they are equally compelled to break them. The relentless pressure and demands, and sometimes threats, from creditors force the struggling shopkeeper to make these promises. In short, the persistent creditor won't be easily dismissed, and the overwhelmed shopkeeper, feeling anxious and maybe a bit scared, is eager to do or say anything to calm him down, which leads to a promise that, when the time comes, he has no more ability to fulfill than before. This creates a cycle of promises and breaches, much of which is due to external pressure. I must acknowledge that while the debtor is at fault, the creditor is too involved in the wrongdoing to be exempt from blame. It would be better if a different solution could be found to prevent this issue, and that business owners would have the courage to resist the creditors' demands, regardless of the consequences, instead of compromising their morals and burdening their consciences with regret for the rest of their lives.

I remember I knew a tradesman, who, labouring long under the ordinary difficulties of men embarrassed in trade, and past the possibility of getting out, and being at last obliged to stop and call his people together, told me, that after he was broke, though it was a terrible thing to him at first too, as it is to most tradesmen, yet he thought himself in a new world, when he was at a full stop, and had no more the terror upon him of bills coming for payment, and creditors knocking at his door to dun him, and he without money to pay. He was no more obliged to stand in his shop, and be bullied and ruffled by his creditors, nay, by their apprentices and boys, and sometimes by porters and footmen, to whom he was forced to give good words, and sometimes strain his patience to the utmost limits: he was now no more obliged to make promises, which he knew he could not perform, and break promises as fast as he made them, and so lie continually both to God and man; and, he added, the ease of his mind which he felt upon that occasion was so great, that it balanced all the grief he was in at the general disaster of his affairs; and, farther, that even in the lowest of his circumstances which followed, he would not go back to live as he had done, in the exquisite torture of want of money to pay his bills and his duns.

I remember knowing a tradesman who, after struggling for a long time with the usual challenges of being in business and realizing he couldn’t get out of it, finally had to stop and gather his people together. He told me that after he went bankrupt, even though it was a terrible experience for him at first like it is for most business people, he felt like he was in a new world once he reached a full stop. He no longer had the constant fear of bills piling up and creditors knocking on his door demanding payment, with him having no money to pay them. He was no longer forced to stand in his shop, being bullied and harassed by his creditors, and sometimes by their apprentices and boys, and even by porters and footmen, to whom he had to speak kindly while often stretching his patience to the limit. Now, he wasn’t obligated to make promises that he knew he couldn’t keep and break those promises as quickly as he made them, effectively lying constantly to both God and man. He added that the relief he felt in that situation was so significant that it outweighed all the sorrow he experienced from the overall disaster of his business. Moreover, even in the lowest point of his situation afterward, he wouldn’t go back to living as he had, overwhelmed by the unbearable stress of not having enough money to pay his bills and settle his debts.

Nor was it any satisfaction to him to say, that it was owing to the like breach of promise in the shopkeepers, and gentlemen, and people whom he dealt with, who owed him money, and who made no conscience of promising and disappointing him, and thereby drove him to the necessity of breaking his own promises; for this did not satisfy his mind in the breaches of his word, though they really drove him to the necessity of it: but that which lay heaviest upon him was the violence and clamour of creditors, who would not be satisfied without such promises, even when he knew, or at least believed, he should not be able to perform.

It didn't comfort him to say that it was because of the same broken promises from the shopkeepers, gentlemen, and others he dealt with, who owed him money and had no qualms about promising and then disappointing him. This pushed him into a corner, forcing him to break his own promises. However, this didn’t ease his mind about his own broken words, even though it was the reality that led him to do so. What weighed most heavily on him was the pressure and demands from creditors who wouldn’t accept anything less than those promises, even when he knew, or at least thought, he wouldn't be able to keep them.

Nay, such was the importunity of one of his merchants, that when he came for money, and he was obliged to put him off, and to set him another day, the merchant would not be satisfied, unless he would swear that he would pay him on that day without fail. 'And what said you to him?' said I. 'Say to him!' said he, 'I looked him full in the face, and sat me down without speaking a word, being filled with rage and indignation at him; but after a little while he insisted again, and asked me what answer I would make him, at which I smiled, and asked him, if he were in earnest? He grew angry then, and asked me if I laughed at him, and if I thought to laugh him out of his money? I then asked him, if he really did expect I should swear that I would pay him the next week, as I proposed to promise? He told me, yes, he did, and I should swear it, or pay him before he went out of my warehouse.

No, one of his merchants was so persistent that when he came asking for money and he had to postpone, the merchant wouldn't be satisfied unless he swore he would pay him that day for sure. 'And what did you say to him?' I asked. 'What could I say!' he replied, 'I looked him straight in the eye and sat down without saying a word, filled with anger and frustration. But after a moment, he pressed me again and asked what my response would be. I smiled and asked him if he was serious. That made him angry, and he asked if I was laughing at him and if I thought I could joke him out of his money. I then asked him if he really expected me to swear that I would pay him the following week, as I had planned to promise. He said yes, he did expect that, and I had to swear it or pay him before he left my warehouse.'

I wondered, indeed, at the discourse, and at the folly of the merchant, who, I understood afterwards, was a foreigner; and though I thought he had been in jest at first, when he assured me he was not, I was curious to hear the issue, which at first he was loth to go on with, because he knew it would bring about all the rest; but I pressed him to know—so he told me that the merchant carried it to such a height as put him into a furious passion, and, knowing he must break some time or other, he was resolved to put an end to his being insulted in that manner; so at last he rose up in a rage, told the merchant, that as no honest man could take such an oath, unless he had the money by him to pay it, so no honest man could ask such a thing of him; and that, since he must have an answer, his answer was, he would not swear such an oath for him, nor any man living, and if he would not be satisfied without it, he might do his worst—and so turned from him; and knowing the man was a considerable creditor, and might do him a mischief, he resolved to shut up that very night, and did so, carrying all his valuable goods with him into the Mint, and the next day he heard that his angry creditor waylaid him the same afternoon to arrest him, but he was too quick for him; and, as he said, though it almost broke his heart to shut up his shop, yet that being delivered from the insulting temper of his creditor, and the perpetual perplexities of want of money to pay people when they dunned him, and, above all, from the necessity of making solemn promises for trifling sums, and then breaking them again, was to him like a load taken off his back when he was weary, and could stand under it no longer; it was a terror to him, he said, to be continually lying, breaking faith with all mankind, and making promises which he could not perform.

I really thought about the conversation and the foolishness of the merchant, who I later found out was a foreigner. At first, I believed he was joking when he told me he wasn't, but I was curious to see how it would turn out. Initially, he was reluctant to continue because he knew it would lead to everything else. Still, I pushed him to tell me, and he recounted how the merchant's behavior escalated to the point of making him furious. Aware that he would eventually have to confront it, he decided to stop being insulted like that. Finally, he stood up in anger and told the merchant that no honest person would take such an oath unless they had the money on hand to pay it, so no honest person could ask such a thing of him. He declared that his answer was simple: he wouldn't swear any oaths for him or anyone else, and if the merchant couldn't accept that, he could do his worst. With that, he turned away from him. Knowing the man was a significant creditor who could cause him trouble, he decided to close his shop that very night, taking all his valuable goods into the Mint. The next day, he learned that his angry creditor had been waiting for him that afternoon to arrest him, but he was too quick for that. Although it nearly broke his heart to close his shop, he felt that being free from his creditor's insults, the constant stress of not having enough money to pay people when they demanded it, and especially the need to make serious promises for small amounts and then break them, was like a heavy burden lifted off his back when he was too exhausted to carry it any longer. He said it was terrifying to be always lying, breaking trust with everyone, and making promises he couldn't keep.

This necessarily brings me to observe here, and it is a little for the ease of the tradesman's mind in such severe cases, that there is a distinction to be made in this case between wilful premeditated lying, and the necessity men may be driven to by their disappointments, and other accidents of their circumstances, to break such promises, as they had made with an honest intention of performing them.

This leads me to point out, for the sake of the tradesman's peace of mind in tough situations, that there is a difference between intentionally lying and the circumstances that might force someone to break promises they genuinely intended to keep.

He that breaks a promise, however solemnly made, may be an honest man, but he that makes a promise with a design to break it, or with no resolution of performing it, cannot be so: nay, to carry it farther, he that makes a promise, and does not do his endeavour to perform it, or to put himself into a condition to perform it, cannot be an honest man. A promise once made supposes the person willing to perform it, if it were in his power, and has a binding influence upon the person who made it, so far as his power extends, or that he can within the reach of any reasonable ability perform the conditions; but if it is not in his power to perform it, as in this affair of payment of money is often the case, the man cannot be condemned as dishonest, unless it can be made appear, either

He who breaks a promise, no matter how seriously it was made, might still be an honest person. However, someone who makes a promise with the intention to break it or without any plan to keep it cannot be considered honest. In fact, to take it a step further, if someone makes a promise but doesn’t make an effort to keep it, or doesn’t put themselves in a position to keep it, they cannot be seen as an honest individual. A promise implies that the person intends to fulfill it if they are able to, and it holds a binding effect on the person who made it, as far as their ability allows or if they can reasonably meet the conditions. But if it’s beyond their capability to fulfill the promise, like often happens with the payment of money, that person shouldn’t be labeled as dishonest unless it can be proven otherwise.

1. That when he made the promise, he knew he should not be able to perform it; or,

1. That when he made the promise, he knew he wouldn't be able to keep it; or,

2. That he resolved when he made the promise not to perform it, though he should be in a condition to do it. And in both these cases the morality of promising cannot be justified, any more than the immorality of not performing it.

2. He decided that when he made the promise, he wouldn't follow through with it, even if he was able to. In both situations, the ethics of making a promise can't be defended, just like the wrongness of not keeping it.

But, on the other hand, the person promising, honestly intending when he made the appointment to perform it if possible, and endeavouring faithfully to be able, but being rendered unable by the disappointment of those on whose promises he depended for the performance of his own; I cannot say that such a tradesman can be charged with lying, or with any immorality in promising, for the breach was not properly his own, but the people's on whom he depended; and this is justified from what I said before, namely, that every promise of that kind supposes the possibility of such a disappointment, even in the very nature of its making; for, if the man were not under a moral incapacity of payment, he would not promise at all, but pay at the time he promised. His promising, then, implies that he has only something future to depend upon, to capacitate him for the payment; that is to say, the appointments of payment by other tradesmen, who owe him (that promises) the money, or the daily supply from the ordinary course of his trade, suppose him a retailer in a shop, and the like; all which circumstances are subject to contingencies and disappointments, and are known to be so by the person to whom the promise is made; and it is with all those contingencies and possibilities of disappointment, that he takes or accepts the tradesman's promise, and forbears him, in hopes that he will be able to perform, knowing, that unless he receives money as above, he cannot.

But, on the other hand, the person making a promise, who genuinely intends to keep it when they make the appointment and is sincerely trying to fulfill their commitment, but finds themselves unable to do so because of the letdowns from others on whom they relied for the fulfillment of their own promise; I can’t say that such a tradesperson should be accused of lying or any wrongdoing in making the promise, because the failure wasn’t really their fault, but rather those who were supposed to help them. This is supported by what I mentioned earlier, which is that every promise of this sort assumes the possibility of such a letdown, even inherently within the very act of making it; because if the person weren’t in a genuine position where they couldn’t follow through, they would just pay up at the time they promised. Their promise indicates that they only have something in the future to rely on that would enable them to fulfill the payment; that is to say, the payments they are expecting from other tradespeople who owe them money (that is, those who promised to pay them), or the regular supply from their business operations, assuming they are a retailer in a shop, and so on. All these circumstances are subject to unforeseen events and disappointments, and the person receiving the promise is aware of this. They accept the tradesperson’s promise with all these potential setbacks in mind and hold off, hoping that the tradesperson will be able to deliver, knowing that unless they receive money as mentioned, they cannot follow through.

I must, however, acknowledge, that it is a very mortifying thing to a tradesman, whether we suppose him to be one that values his credit in trade, or his principle as to honest dealing, to be obliged to break his word; and therefore, where men are not too much under the hatches to the creditor, and they can possibly avoid it, a tradesman should not make his promises of payment so positive, but rather conditional, and thereby avoid both the immorality and the discredit of breaking his word; nor will any tradesman, I hope, harden himself in a careless forwardness to promise, without endeavouring or intending to perform, from any thing said in this chapter; for be the excuse for it as good as it will, as to the point of strict honesty, he can have but small regard to his own peace of mind, or to his own credit in trade, who will not avoid it as much as possible.

I have to admit, though, that it’s really embarrassing for a businessperson, whether they care about their reputation in trade or their principle of honesty, to have to break their word. So, when people aren’t too much at the mercy of their creditors, and they can help it, a businessperson shouldn’t make promises of payment too definitively. Instead, they should make them more conditional to avoid both the wrongdoing and the loss of credibility that comes with breaking their word. I hope no businessperson will become so careless about making promises without trying or planning to keep them, based on anything said in this chapter. Because no matter how good the excuse may seem regarding strict honesty, someone who doesn’t do their best to avoid this doesn’t care much about their own peace of mind or their reputation in business.

FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:

[The practice of haggling about prices is now very properly abandoned by all respectable dealers in goods, greatly to the comfort of both sellers and buyers.]

[The practice of negotiating prices is now rightly abandoned by all reputable sellers, which greatly benefits both sellers and buyers.]

[It was a fashion of trade in Defoe's time, and down to a somewhat later period, to thrust the phrase 'God willing' into almost every promise or announcement, the purport of which might possibly be thwarted by death or any other accident. The phrase, in particular, appeared at the beginning of all letters in which a merchant announced his design of visiting retail dealers in the provinces; as, 'God willing, I shall have the honour of waiting on you on the 15th proximo:' hence English riders, or commercial travellers, came to be known in Scotland by the nickname of God-willings.' This pious phraseology seems now to be banished from all mercantile affairs, except the shipping of goods.]

[In Defoe's time and even for a while after, it was common to add the phrase 'God willing' to nearly every promise or announcement that could be disrupted by death or another mishap. Specifically, this phrase often appeared at the start of letters from merchants who planned to visit retail dealers in the provinces, such as, 'God willing, I shall have the honor of meeting you on the 15th of next month:' therefore, English riders, or commercial travelers, came to be known in Scotland by the nickname God-willings.' This religious expression seems to have disappeared from most business dealings, except for shipping goods.]

[Notwithstanding all this ingenious reasoning, we cannot help thinking that it would be better if conditional promises were made in conditional language. It is not necessarily to be understood in all cases that a direct unreserved promise means something conditional, so that there is a liability to being much deceived and grievously disappointed by all such promises. A sound morality certainly demands that the tradesman should use the practices described in the text as rarely, and with as much reluctance, as possible, and that, like other men, he should make his words, as nearly as may be, the echo of his thoughts.]

[Despite all this clever reasoning, we can’t help but think it would be better if conditional promises were made using conditional language. It’s not always clear that a direct, outright promise is meant to be conditional, which can lead to being badly deceived and deeply disappointed by such promises. A strong sense of morality definitely requires that the merchant should use the practices described in the text as infrequently and reluctantly as possible, and that, like everyone else, he should make his words closely reflect his thoughts.]


CHAPTER XVIII

OF THE CUSTOMARY FRAUDS OF TRADE, WHICH HONEST MEN ALLOW THEMSELVES TO PRACTISE, AND PRETEND TO JUSTIFY

OF THE COMMON FRAUDS IN BUSINESS THAT HONEST PEOPLE ALLOW THEMSELVES TO ENGAGE IN AND CLAIM TO JUSTIFY


As there are trading lies which honest men tell, so there are frauds in trade, which tradesmen daily practise, and which, notwithstanding, they think are consistent with their being honest men.

As there are deceitful things that honest people say in business, there are also dishonest practices that merchants engage in daily, and they still believe these practices are compatible with being honest individuals.

It is certainly true, that few things in nature are simply unlawful and dishonest, but that all crime is made so by the addition and concurrence of circumstances; and of these I am now to speak: and the first I take notice of, is that of taking and repassing, or putting off, counterfeit or false money.

It’s definitely true that not many things in nature are inherently illegal or dishonest, but rather that all crime becomes so through specific circumstances; and I’m going to discuss these. The first one I want to address is the act of taking, passing, or distributing counterfeit or fake money.

It must be confessed, that calling in the old money in the time of the late King William was an act particularly glorious to that reign, and in nothing more than this, that it delivered trade from a terrible load, and tradesmen from a vast accumulated weight of daily crime. There was scarce a shopkeeper that had not a considerable quantity or bag full of false and unpassable money; not an apprentice that kept his master's cash, but had an annual loss, which they sometimes were unable to support, and sometimes their parents and friends were called upon for the deficiency.

It must be acknowledged that calling in the old currency during the reign of the late King William was an especially commendable act for that time. It achieved this notably by freeing trade from a heavy burden and traders from a significant buildup of daily crime. Hardly any shopkeeper was without a sizable amount or a bag full of counterfeit money; not a single apprentice handling his master's cash escaped an annual loss, which they sometimes couldn’t bear, and at other times, their parents and friends were brought in to cover the shortfall.

The consequence was, that every raw youth or unskilful body, that was sent to receive money, was put upon by the cunning tradesmen, and all the bad money they had was tendered in payment among the good, that by ignorance or oversight some might possibly be made to pass; and as these took it, so they were not wanting again in all the artifice and sleight of hand they were masters of, to put it off again; so that, in short, people were made bites and cheats to one another in all their business; and if you went but to buy a pair of gloves, or stockings, or any trifle, at a shop, you went with bad money in one hand, and good money in the other, proffering first the bad coin, to get it off, if possible, and then the good, to make up the deficiency, if the other was rejected.

The result was that every inexperienced young person or clueless individual sent to collect money was taken advantage of by the sly shopkeepers. They mixed fake money in with the real, hoping that through ignorance or oversight, some might unknowingly accept it. As they received the counterfeit, they used all their tricks and expertise to pass it off again. In short, people ended up scamming each other in all their dealings. If you went to buy a pair of gloves, stockings, or any small item at a store, you walked in with fake money in one hand and real money in the other, first offering the bad coin to get rid of it if possible, and then the good money to cover any shortage if the fake was turned down.

Thus, people were daily upon the catch to cheat and surprise one another, if they could; and, in short, paid no good money for anything, if they could help it. And how did we triumph, if meeting with some poor raw servant, or ignorant woman, behind a counter, we got off a counterfeit half-crown, or a brass shilling, and brought away their goods (which were worth the said half-crown or shilling, if it had been good) for a half-crown that was perhaps not worth sixpence, or for a shilling not worth a penny: as if this were not all one with picking the shopkeeper's pocket, or robbing his house!

So, people were constantly trying to trick and surprise each other whenever they could, and basically, they wouldn't spend any real money on anything if they could avoid it. And how did we feel victorious if we managed to pass off a fake half-crown or a worthless shilling to some poor, inexperienced worker or clueless woman behind a counter, walking away with their goods (which were worth the real half-crown or shilling if it had been legitimate) for a half-crown that was maybe worth sixpence, or for a shilling that wasn't worth a penny? It’s like that wasn't the same as picking the shopkeeper's pocket or robbing their store!

The excuse ordinarily given for this practice was this—namely, that it came to us for good; we took it, and it only went as it came; we did not make it, and the like; as if, because we had been basely cheated by A, we were to be allowed to cheat B; or that because C had robbed our house, that therefore we might go and rob D.

The usual excuse for this practice was this—that it came to us for good; we accepted it, and it only left as it arrived; we didn’t create it, and so on; as if, because we had been unfairly deceived by A, we were allowed to deceive B; or that because C had stolen from us, we could then go and steal from D.

And yet this was constantly practised at that time over the whole nation, and by some of the honestest tradesmen among us, if not by all of them.

And yet this was regularly done back then across the whole country, and by some of the most honest tradespeople among us, if not by all of them.

When the old money was, as I have said, called in, this cheating trade was put to an end, and the morals of the nation in some measure restored—for, in short, before that, it was almost impossible for a tradesman to be an honest man; but now we begin to fall into it again, and we see the current coin of the kingdom strangely crowded with counterfeit money again, both gold and silver; and especially we have found a great deal of counterfeit foreign money, as particularly Portugal and Spanish gold, such as moydores and Spanish pistoles, which, when we have the misfortune to be put upon with them, the fraud runs high, and dips deep into our pockets, the first being twenty-seven shillings, and the latter seventeen shillings. It is true, the latter being payable only by weight, we are not often troubled with them; but the former going all by tale, great quantities of them have been put off among us. I find, also, there is a great increase of late of counterfeit money of our own coin, especially of shillings, and the quantity increasing, so that, in a few years more, if the wicked artists are not detected, the grievance may be in proportion as great as it was formerly, and perhaps harder to be redressed, because the coin is not likely to be any more called in, as the old smooth money was.

When the old money was recalled, as I mentioned, this dishonest trading practice came to an end, and the morals of the nation were somewhat restored—because, frankly, before that, it was nearly impossible for a tradesperson to be honest. However, we’re starting to slide back into bad habits, and we’re seeing the currency of the kingdom filled with fake money again, both gold and silver. In particular, we’ve discovered a lot of counterfeit foreign currency, especially Portuguese and Spanish gold, like moydores and Spanish pistoles. When we happen to encounter them, the fraud is serious and really digs into our pockets, with the first being twenty-seven shillings and the latter seventeen shillings. It’s true that the latter is only accepted by weight, so we don’t often deal with them; but the former is based on face value, so large amounts of them have circulated among us. I also notice that there’s been a significant rise recently in counterfeit versions of our own coins, especially shillings, and the quantity is growing. If the malicious counterfeiters aren’t caught soon, this issue could become as serious as it once was, and maybe even harder to fix, since it’s unlikely the old smooth money will be called in again like before.

What, then, must be done? And how must we prevent the mischief to conscience and principle which lay so heavy upon the whole nation before? The question is short, and the answer would be as short, and to the purpose, if people would but submit to the little loss that would fall upon them at first, by which they would lessen the weight of it as they go on, as it would never increase to such a formidable height as it was at before, nor would it fall so much upon the poor as it did then.

What should we do then? And how can we avoid the damage to our conscience and values that burdened the entire nation before? The question is simple, and the answer would be just as straightforward if people would accept the minor sacrifices they would face initially. By doing so, they would reduce the overall burden over time, preventing it from growing to the overwhelming level it was at before, and it wouldn’t impact the poor as heavily as it did then.

First, I must lay it down as a stated rule or maxim, in the moral part of the question—that to put off counterfeit base money for good money, knowing it to be counterfeit, is dishonest and knavish.

First, I must make it clear as a rule or principle in the moral aspect of the issue—that passing off fake money as real money, while knowing it's fake, is dishonest and deceitful.

Nor will it take off from the crime of it, or lessen the dishonesty, to say, 'I took it for good and current money, and it goes as it comes;' for, as before, my having been cheated does not authorise me to cheat any other person, so neither was it a just or honest thing in that person who put the bad money upon me, if they knew it to be bad; and if it were not honest in them, how can it be so in me? If, then, it came by knavery, it should not go by knavery—that would be, indeed, to say, it goes as it comes, in a literal sense; that is to say, it came by injustice, and I shall make it go so: but that will not do in matters of right and wrong.

Nor will it change the wrongdoing or make it any less dishonest to say, 'I accepted it as good and valid money, and it goes as it comes;' because, as before, just because I was cheated doesn't give me the right to cheat someone else. Likewise, it wasn’t fair or honest for the person who gave me the bad money to do that, if they knew it was bad. And if it wasn't honest for them, how can it be honest for me? If it came through deceit, it shouldn’t go through deceit—that would literally mean it goes as it comes; in other words, it came through injustice, and I should pass it on that way: but that doesn't hold up when it comes to matters of right and wrong.

The laws of our country, also, are directly against the practice; the law condemns the coin as illegal—that is to say, it is not current money, or, as the lawyers style it, it is not lawful money of England. Now, every bargain or agreement in trade, is in the common and just acceptation, and the language of trade, made for such a price or rate, in the current money of England; and though you may not express it in words at length, it is so understood, as much as if it were set down in writing. If I cheapen any thing at a shop, suppose it the least toy or trifle, I ask them, 'What must you have for it?' The shopkeeper answers—so much; suppose it were a shilling, what is the English but this—one shilling of lawful money of England? And I agree to give that shilling; but instead of it give them a counterfeit piece of lead or tin, washed over, to make it look like a shilling. Do I pay them what I bargained for? Do I give them one shilling of lawful money of England? Do I not put a cheat upon them, and act against justice and mutual agreement?

The laws of our country are also directly against the practice; the law labels the coin as illegal—that is to say, it's not recognized as current money, or, as lawyers put it, it's not lawful money of England. Every deal or agreement in trade is understood in the common and fair sense, and the language of trade is made for such a price or rate, in the current money of England; and even if you don’t say it in full, it’s understood as if it were written down. If I haggle over something in a shop, even if it’s just a small item, I ask them, 'How much do you want for it?' The shopkeeper replies—with a certain amount; let’s say it’s a shilling, what it really means in English is this—one shilling of lawful money of England? And I agree to pay that shilling; but instead, I give them a counterfeit piece of lead or tin, coated to make it look like a shilling. Am I paying them what I bargained for? Am I giving them one shilling of lawful money of England? Am I not deceiving them and acting against fairness and mutual agreement?

To say I took this for the lawful money of England, will not add at all, except it be to the fraud; for my being deceived does not at all make it be lawful money: so that, in a word, there can be nothing in that part but increasing the criminal part, and adding one knave more to the number of knaves which the nation was encumbered with before.

To say I accepted this as the legal currency of England doesn't change anything, except to highlight the deceit; my being tricked doesn't make it legitimate currency. In short, this only increases the criminal aspect and adds one more con artist to the list of con artists that the country was already burdened with.

The case to me is very clear, namely, that neither by law, justice, nor conscience, can the tradesman put off his bad money after he has taken it, if he once knows it to be false and counterfeit money. That it is against the law is evident, because it is not good and lawful money of England; it cannot be honest, because you do not pay in the coin you agreed for, or perform the bargain you made, or pay in the coin expected of you; and it is not just, because you do not give a valuable consideration for the goods you buy, but really take a tradesman's goods away, and return dross and dirt to him in the room of it.

The situation is very clear to me: neither by law, justice, nor conscience can a tradesperson pass off fake money once they know it's counterfeit. It's obviously against the law since it's not real and lawful currency of England; it can't be honest because you're not paying with the agreed-upon coins, nor fulfilling the bargain you made, or providing the expected payment. It's also unjust because you aren’t giving a fair exchange for the goods you buy; instead, you’re taking a tradesperson's goods and giving them worthless metal in return.

The medium I have to propose in the room of this, is, that every man who takes a counterfeit piece of money, and knows it to be such, should immediately destroy it—that is to say, destroy it as money, cut it in pieces; or, as I have seen some honest tradesmen do, nail it up against a post, so that it should go no farther. It is true, this is sinking so much upon himself, and supporting the credit of the current coin at his own expense, and he loses the whole piece, and this tradesmen are loth to do: but my answer is very clear, that thus they ought to do, and that sundry public reasons, and several public benefits, would follow to the public, in some of which he might have his share of benefit hereafter, and if he had not, yet he ought to do it.

The suggestion I have for this situation is that every person who comes across a counterfeit coin and knows it's fake should immediately destroy it—that is, destroy it as currency, chop it into pieces; or, as I've seen some honest merchants do, nail it to a post so it can't circulate anymore. It's true that this means taking a loss and effectively supporting the value of real currency at their own expense, and they would lose the whole coin, which many merchants are reluctant to do. However, my point is clear: they should do this, as it would lead to various public benefits, some of which they might also benefit from in the future, and even if they don't, they should still do the right thing.

First, by doing thus, he puts a stop to the fraud—that piece of money is no more made the instrument to deceive others, which otherwise it might do; and though it is true that the loss is only to the last man, that is to say, in the ordinary currency of the money, yet the breach upon conscience and principle is to every owner through whose hands that piece of money has fraudulently passed, that is to say, who have passed it away for good, knowing it to be counterfeit; so that it is a piece of good service to the public to take away the occasion and instrument of so much knavery and deceit.

First, by doing this, he stops the fraud— that piece of money is no longer used as a tool to mislead others, which it could otherwise do; and while it’s true that the loss ultimately falls on the last person, meaning in the normal flow of money, the damage to conscience and principle affects every owner who has had that piece of money fraudulently pass through their hands, that is, who has given it away thinking it was real; so it's in the public's best interest to remove the cause and tool of such trickery and deception.

Secondly, he prevents a worse fraud, which is, the buying and selling such counterfeit money. This was a very wicked, but open trade, in former days, and may in time come to be so again: fellows went about the streets, crying 'Brass money, broken or whole;' that is to say, they would give good money for bad. It was at first pretended that they were obliged to cut it in pieces, and if you insisted upon it, they would cut it in pieces before your face; but they as often got it without that ceremony, and so made what wicked shifts they could to get it off again, and many times did put it off for current money, after they had bought it for a trifle.

Secondly, he prevents a worse scam, which is buying and selling counterfeit money. This used to be a very shady, but open business in the past, and it might become so again: people walked the streets shouting 'Brass money, broken or whole;' meaning they would trade good money for bad. At first, they pretended they had to cut it into pieces, and if you insisted, they would cut it right in front of you; but they often managed to get it without that formality, using various dishonest methods to get rid of it, and many times they passed it off as real money after buying it for just a small amount.

Thirdly, by this fraud, perhaps, the same piece of money might, several years after, come into your hands again, after you had sold it for a trifle, and so you might lose by the same shilling two or three times over, and the like of other people; but if men were obliged to demolish all the counterfeit money they take, and let it go no farther, they they would be sure the fraud could go no farther, nor would the quantity be ever great at a time; for whatever quantity the false coiners should at any time make, it would gradually lessen and sink away, and not a mass of false and counterfeit coin appear together, as was formerly the case, and which lost the nation a vast sum of money to call in.

Thirdly, because of this scam, the same coin could end up in your hands again years later after you had sold it for a small amount, which means you could lose out on that same shilling two or three times over, as could others. However, if people were required to destroy all the counterfeit money they received and not pass it along, then the scam would definitely stop there, and the quantity wouldn't become large at any time. Whatever amount the counterfeiters managed to produce would gradually decline and disappear, rather than a large pile of fake coins appearing all at once like it did before, which cost the country a huge amount of money to recall.

It has been the opinion of some, that a penalty should be inflicted upon those who offered any counterfeit money in payment; but besides that, there is already a statute against uttering false money, knowing it to be such. If any other or farther law should be made, either to enforce the statute, or to have new penalties added, they would still fall into the same difficulties as in the act.

It has been the view of some that a penalty should be imposed on anyone who uses counterfeit money for payment; however, there is already a law against knowingly using fake money. If any additional laws were created to enforce this statute or introduce new penalties, they would encounter the same challenges as the current law.

1. That innocent men would suffer, seeing many tradesmen may take a piece of counterfeit money in tale with other money, and really and bona fide not know it, and so may offer it again as innocently as they at first took it ignorantly; and to bring such into trouble for every false shilling which they might offer to pay away without knowing it, would be to make the law be merely vexatious and tormenting to those against whom it was not intended, and at the same time not to meddle with the subtle crafty offender whom it was intended to punish, and who is really guilty.

1. It’s unfair that innocent people suffer, considering many merchants might unknowingly accept a counterfeit bill mixed in with real money. They could then try to spend it just as innocently as they received it without realizing it was fake. Holding them accountable for every fake dollar they might unknowingly try to pay would make the law simply annoying and harsh for those it wasn’t meant to target, while not touching the cunning offenders it aimed to punish, who are the ones truly at fault.

2. Such an act would be difficultly executed, because it would still be difficult to know who did knowingly utter false money, and who did not; which is the difficulty, indeed, in the present law—so that, upon the whole, such a law would no way answer the end, nor effectually discover the offender, much less suppress the practice. But I am not upon projects and schemes—it is not the business of this undertaking.

2. Such an act would be hard to carry out because it would still be tough to determine who knowingly passed fake money and who didn't; that’s actually the challenge with the current law. Overall, such a law wouldn’t achieve its goal or effectively identify the offender, let alone stop the practice. But I’m not here to propose plans or ideas—it’s not the purpose of this endeavor.

But a general act, obliging all tradesmen to suppress counterfeit money, by refusing to put it off again, after they knew it to be counterfeit, and a general consent of tradesmen to do so; this would be the best way to put a stop to the practice, the morality of which is so justly called in question, and the ill consequences of which to trade are so very well known; nor will any thing but a universal consent of tradesmen, in the honest suppressing of counterfeit money, ever bring it to pass. In the meantime, as to the dishonesty of the practice, however popular it is grown at this time, I think it is out of question; it can have nothing but custom to plead for it, which is so far from an argument, that I think the plea is criminal in itself, and really adds to its being a grievance, and calls loudly for a speedy redress.

But a law that requires all merchants to stop counterfeit money by refusing to use it once they know it's fake, along with a general agreement among merchants to do so, would be the best way to end this practice. The morality of it is rightly questioned, and its negative effects on trade are well known. Nothing but widespread agreement among merchants to honestly reject counterfeit money will ever make it happen. In the meantime, regarding the dishonesty of this practice, no matter how popular it has become, it's beyond doubt that it's wrong. It only has habit to defend it, which doesn't count as a valid argument; rather, I believe this reasoning is itself wrong and only adds to the grievance, loudly calling for urgent correction.

Another trading fraud, which, among many others of the like nature, I think worth speaking of, is the various arts made use of by tradesmen to set off their goods to the eye of the ignorant buyer.

Another trading fraud, which, like many others, I think is worth mentioning, is the various tricks used by merchants to showcase their products to the eyes of unaware buyers.

I bring this in here, because I really think it is something of kin to putting off counterfeit money; every false gloss put upon our woollen manufactures, by hot-pressing, folding, dressing, tucking, packing, bleaching, &c, what are they but washing over a brass shilling to make it pass for sterling? Every false light, every artificial side-window, sky-light, and trunk-light we see made to show the fine Hollands, lawns, cambrics, &c. to advantage, and to deceive the buyer—what is it but a counterfeit coin to cheat the tradesman's customers?—an ignis fatuus to impose upon fools and ignorant people, and make their goods look finer than they are?

I bring this up because I really think it's similar to passing off counterfeit money; every false enhancement added to our woolen products through hot-pressing, folding, dressing, tucking, packing, bleaching, etc., is just like painting over a fake coin to make it seem real. Every false light, every artificial window, skylight, and trunk light we see used to display fine linens like Hollands, lawns, and cambrics to their best advantage, in order to mislead the buyer—what is it if not a scam to deceive the customer's honest intentions?—a will-o'-the-wisp tricking fools and ignorant people into thinking their goods are more valuable than they actually are?

But where in trade is there any business entirely free from these frauds? and how shall we speak of them, when we see them so universally made use of? Either they are honest, or they are not. If they are not, why do we, I say, universally make use of them?—if they are honest, why so much art and so much application to manage them, and to make goods appear fairer and finer to the eye than they really are?—which, in its own nature, is evidently a design to cheat, and that in itself is criminal, and can be no other.

But where in trade is there any business completely free from these scams? And how should we talk about them when we see them so commonly used? Either they're honest, or they're not. If they're not, then why do we all use them? If they are honest, then why all the tricks and effort to make products look better and more attractive than they really are? This, by its very nature, is clearly an attempt to deceive, which is inherently wrong and can be nothing else.

And yet there is much to be said for setting goods out to the best advantage too; for in some goods, if they are not well dressed, well pressed, and packed, the goods are not really shown in a true light; many of our woollen manufactures, if brought to market rough and undressed, like a piece of cloth not carried to the fulling or thicking mill, it does not show itself to a just advantage, nay, it does not show what it really is; and therefore such works as may be proper for so far setting it forth to the eye may be necessary. For example:

And yet, there’s a lot to be said for displaying products in the best way possible too; because with some items, if they aren't properly styled, pressed, and packed, they aren’t really presented accurately. Many of our woolen products, if taken to market rough and unrefined, like a piece of cloth that hasn’t been finished at the fulling or thickening mill, don’t reveal their true quality. Therefore, it’s important to have the right techniques or tools to showcase them visually. For example:

The cloths, stuffs, serges, druggets, &c, which are brought to market in the west and northern parts of England, and in Norfolk, as they are bought without the dressing and making up, it may be said of them that they are brought to market unfinished, and they are bought there again by the wholesale dealers, or cloth-workers, tuckers, and merchants, and they carry them to their warehouses and workhouses, and there they go through divers operations again, and are finished for the market; nor, indeed, are they fit to be shown till they are so; the stuffs are in the grease, the cloth is in the oil, they are rough and foul, and are not dressed, and consequently not finished; and as our buyers do not understand them till they are so dressed, it is no proper finishing the goods to bring them to market before—they are not, indeed, properly said to be made till that part is done.

The fabrics, materials, serges, druggets, etc., that are brought to market in the west and northern parts of England, as well as in Norfolk, are sold without being fully processed. They can be considered unfinished when they arrive at market, and then they get purchased by wholesale dealers, cloth workers, tuckers, and merchants. These buyers take them to their warehouses and workshops, where they undergo various processes and are finished for sale; they aren't suitable for display until this is done. The materials are greasy, the cloth is oily, they are rough and dirty, and not processed, so they aren’t complete. Since our buyers don't understand them until they are properly finished, it's not appropriate to present the goods at market before that. They cannot truly be considered made until that stage is reached.

Therefore I cannot call all those setting-out of goods to be knavish and false; but when the goods, like a false shilling, are to be set out with fraud and false colours, and made smooth and shining to delude the eye, there, where they are so, it is really a fraud; and though in some cases it extremely differs, yet that does not excuse the rest by any means.

Therefore, I can't say that all displays of goods are dishonest and deceptive; however, when the goods are presented like a counterfeit coin—with trickery and false appearances, made to look smooth and shiny to mislead the eye—that's genuinely a scam. While there might be some scenarios where it varies greatly, that doesn't justify the others at all.

The packers and hot-pressers, tuckers, and cloth-workers, are very necessary people in their trades, and their business is to set goods off to the best advantage; but it may be said, too, that their true and proper business is to make the goods show what really they are, and nothing else. It is true, as above, that in the original dress, as a piece of cloth or drugget, or stuff, comes out of the hand of the maker, it does not show itself as it really is, nor what it should and ought to show: thus far these people are properly called finishers of the manufactures, and their work is not lawful only, but it is a doing justice to the manufacture.

The packers, hot-pressers, tuckers, and cloth-workers are really important in their jobs, and their role is to present goods in the best possible way. However, it can also be argued that their main job is to ensure the goods represent what they truly are, and nothing more. It's true that when a piece of cloth or fabric comes directly from the maker, it doesn't fully display its true nature or what it should look like. In this sense, these individuals are rightly called finishers of the products, and their work is not only legitimate but also serves to do justice to the craft.

But if, by the exuberances of their art, they set the goods in a false light, give them a false gloss, a finer and smoother surface than really they have: this is like a painted jade, who puts on a false colour upon her tawny skin to deceive and delude her customers, and make her seem the beauty which she has no just claim to the name of.

But if their artistic flair makes the goods look better than they actually are, giving them a misleading shine and a smoother appearance than they possess: this is like a painted jade, who puts on a false color on her dull skin to trick and mislead her customers, making her seem beautiful in a way she doesn't truly deserve.

So far as art is thus used to show these goods to be what they really are not, and deceive the buyer, so far it is a trading fraud, which is an unjustifiable practice in business, and which, like coining of counterfeit money, is making goods to pass for what they really are not; and is done for the advantage of the person who puts them off, and to the loss of the buyer, who is cheated and deceived by the fraud.

As far as art is used to make these goods appear to be something they really aren’t, and to trick the buyer, it constitutes a trading fraud. This is an unfair business practice, similar to counterfeiting money, where goods are misrepresented to benefit the seller and harm the buyer, who ends up being misled and deceived by the scam.

The making false lights, sky-lights, trunks, and other contrivances, to make goods look to be what they are not, and to deceive the eye of the buyer, these are all so many brass shillings washed over, in order to deceive the person who is to take them, and cheat him of his money; and so far these false lights are really criminal, they are cheats in trade, and made to deceive the world; to make deformity look like beauty, and to varnish over deficiencies; to make goods which are ordinary in themselves appear fine; to make things which are ill made look well; in a word, they are cheats in themselves, but being legitimated by custom, are become a general practice; the honestest tradesmen have them, and make use of them; the buyer knows of it, and suffers himself to be so imposed upon; and, in a word, if it be a cheat, as no doubt it is, they tell us that yet it is a universal cheat, and nobody trades without it; so custom and usage make it lawful, and there is little to be said but this, Si populus vult decepi, decipiatur—if the people will be cheated, let them be cheated, or they shall be cheated.

The use of false lights, skylights, trunks, and other tricks to make products appear different from what they really are, deceiving the buyer’s eye, are all just like brass shillings that have been scrubbed to trick the person handling them and cheat them out of their money. These false lights are actually criminal; they’re dishonest in trade and designed to mislead people—making something unattractive look appealing and covering up flaws; making ordinary goods appear luxurious; making poorly made items seem well-crafted. In short, they’re inherently deceptive, yet because they’re accepted by society, they’ve become common practice. Even the most honest sellers use them, and buyers are aware yet allow themselves to be fooled. In other words, even if it’s a scam, which it certainly is, it’s a widespread scam, and nobody trades without it. So, customs and conventions make it acceptable, and there’s little else to say except this, Si populus vult decepi, decipiatur—if the people want to be deceived, let them be deceived, or they will be deceived.

I come next to the setting out their goods to the buyer by the help of their tongue; and here I must confess our shop rhetoric is a strange kind of speech; it is to be understood in a manner by itself; it is to be taken, not in a latitude only, but in such a latitude as indeed requires as many flourishes to excuse it, as it contains flourishes in itself.

I now turn to how they present their goods to the buyer using their words; and I have to admit our shop rhetoric is a unique kind of language; it should be understood in its own way; it needs to be taken not just broadly, but in a way that truly requires as many embellishments to defend it as it has embellishments of its own.

The end of it, indeed, is corrupt, and it is also made up of a corrupt composition; it is composed of a mass of rattling flattery to the buyer, and that filled with hypocrisy, compliment, self-praises, falsehood, and, in short, a complication of wickedness; it is a corrupt means to a vicious end: and I cannot see any thing in it but what a wise man laughs at, a good man abhors, and any man of honesty avoids as much as possible.

The end of it is definitely corrupt, and it's also made up of a corrupt mix; it's filled with a bunch of empty flattery for the buyer, along with hypocrisy, compliments, self-promotion, lies, and, in short, a mess of wrongdoing. It’s a corrupt method for a bad outcome: and I can’t see anything in it that a wise person would laugh at, a good person would hate, and any honest person would avoid as much as possible.

The shopkeeper ought, indeed, to have a good tongue, but he should not make a common prostitute of his tongue, and employ it to the wicked purpose of abusing and imposing upon all that come to deal with him. There is a modest liberty, which trading licence, like the poetic licence, allows to all the tradesmen of every kind: but tradesmen ought no more to lie behind the counter, than the parsons ought to talk treason in the pulpit.

The shopkeeper should definitely have a good way with words, but he shouldn't misuse his speech for the shameless purpose of insulting or deceiving everyone who comes to do business with him. There is a certain freedom, much like poetic license, that allows all kinds of tradespeople some leeway: but tradespeople shouldn't be any more deceptive behind the counter than ministers should promote treason from the pulpit.

Let them confine themselves to truth, and say what they will. But it cannot be done; a talking rattling mercer, or draper, or milliner, behind his counter, would be worth nothing if he should confine himself to that mean silly thing called truth—they must lie; it is in support of their business, and some think they cannot live without it; but I deny that part, and recommend it, I mean to the tradesmen I am speaking of, to consider what a scandal it is upon trade, to pretend to say that a tradesman cannot live without lying, the contrary to which may be made appear in almost every article.

Let them stick to the truth and say whatever they want. But that can’t happen; a loudmouth merchant, tailor, or hatmaker behind his counter wouldn't be worth much if he only limited himself to that petty, foolish thing called truth—they have to lie; it's essential for their business, and some believe they can’t survive without it. But I disagree with that idea and urge the merchants I’m talking about to think about what a disgrace it is for their industry to claim that they can’t survive without lying, which can be proven wrong in almost every product.

On the other hand, I must do justice to the tradesmen, and must say, that much of it is owing to the buyers—they begin the work, and give the occasion. It was the saying of a very good shopman once upon this occasion, 'That their customers would not be pleased without lying; and why,' said he, 'did Solomon reprove the buyer?—he said nothing to the shopkeeper—"It is naught, it is naught," says the buyer; "but when he goes away, then he boasteth" (Prov. xx. 14.) The buyer telling us,' adds he, 'that every thing is worse than it is, forces us, in justifying its true value, to tell them it is better than it is.'

On the other hand, I have to give credit to the tradespeople and say that a lot of it is due to the buyers—they start the process and create the demand. A really insightful shopkeeper once said, "Their customers wouldn't be satisfied without some deception; and why," he asked, "did Solomon criticize the buyer?—He had nothing to say to the shopkeeper—'It’s worthless, it’s worthless,' says the buyer; 'but when he leaves, then he brags'" (Prov. xx. 14). The buyer, by claiming everything is worse than it actually is, makes us justify its real value by saying it’s better than it really is.

It must be confessed, this verbose way of trading is most ridiculous, as well as offensive, both in buyer and seller; and as it adds nothing to the goodness or value of the goods, so, I am sure, it adds nothing to the honesty or good morals of the tradesman, on one side or other, but multiplies trading-lies on every side, and brings a just reproach on the integrity of the dealer, whether he be the buyer or seller.

It has to be said, this long-winded way of trading is quite ridiculous and annoying for both buyers and sellers. It doesn’t enhance the quality or value of the goods, and I’m certain it doesn’t improve the honesty or morals of the trader, whether they’re buying or selling. Instead, it creates a multitude of dishonest claims all around and just damages the reputation of the dealer, no matter which side they’re on.

It was a kind of a step to the cure of this vice in trade, for such it is, that there was an old office erected in the city of London, for searching and viewing all the goods which were sold in bulk, and could not be searched into by the buyer—this was called garbling; and the garbler having viewed the goods, and caused all damaged or unsound goods to be taken out, set his seal upon the case or bags which held the rest, and then they were vouched to be marketable, so that when the merchant and the shopkeeper met to deal, there was no room for any words about the goodness of the wares; there was the garbler's seal to vouch that they were marketable and good, and if they were otherwise, the garbler was answerable.

It was a kind of step toward addressing this vice in trade, as there was an old office set up in the city of London for inspecting and checking all the goods sold in bulk, which buyers couldn’t examine themselves—this process was called garbling; and the garbler, having inspected the goods and ensured that all damaged or defective items were removed, would seal the cases or bags containing the rest. After that, the goods were certified as marketable, so when the merchant and shopkeeper met to do business, there was no debate about the quality of the products; the garbler's seal guaranteed that they were marketable and good, and if they weren’t, the garbler was held accountable.

This respected some particular sorts of goods only, and chiefly spices and drugs, and dye-stuffs, and the like. It were well if some other method than that of a rattling tongue could be found out, to ascertain the goodness and value of goods between the shopkeeper and the retail buyer, that such a flux of falsehoods and untruths might be avoided, as we see every day made use of to run up and run down every thing that is bought or sold, and that without any effect too; for, take it one time with another, all the shopkeeper's lying does not make the buyer like the goods at all the better, nor does the buyer's lying make the shopkeeper sell the cheaper.

This focused on certain types of goods only, mainly spices, medicines, dyes, and similar items. It would be great if we could find a better way than just talking a lot to determine the quality and value of goods between the shopkeeper and the retail buyer. This way, we could avoid the constant flood of lies and deceit we see every day that tries to inflate or deflate the value of everything bought or sold, all to no effect; because, in the end, the shopkeeper's lies don't make the buyer like the goods any more, nor do the buyer's lies make the shopkeeper sell them any cheaper.

It would be worth while to consider a little the language that passes between the tradesman and his customer over the counter, and put it into plain homespun English, as the meaning of it really imports. We would not take that usage if it were put into plain words—it would set all the shopkeepers and their customers together by the ears, and we should have fighting and quarrelling, instead of bowing and curtseying, in every shop. Let us hark a little, and hear how it would sound between them. A lady comes into a mercer's shop to buy some silks, or to the laceman's to buy silver laces, or the like; and when she pitches upon a piece which she likes, she begins thus:

It would be worthwhile to think a bit about the conversation that happens between the shopkeeper and their customer at the counter, and put it into straightforward, everyday language, as it really means. We wouldn't accept that way of speaking if it were in simple terms—it would lead to all the shopkeepers and their customers arguing with each other, and we would have fighting and quarrelling instead of polite exchanges in every shop. Let's listen in a little, and see how it would sound between them. A lady walks into a fabric store to buy some silks, or to the lace shop to buy silver laces, or something similar; and when she finds a piece she likes, she starts like this:

Lady.—I like that colour and that figure well enough, but I don't like the silk—there is no substance in it.

Lady.—I like that color and that shape well enough, but I don't like the silk—it's too flimsy.

Mer.—Indeed, Madam, your ladyship lies—it is a very substantial silk.

Mer.—Actually, Madam, that’s not true—it’s a really high-quality silk.

Lady.—No, no! you lie indeed, Sir; it is good for nothing; it will do no service.

Lady.—No, no! You’re lying, Sir; it’s useless; it won’t serve any purpose.

Mer.—Pray, Madam, feel how heavy it is; you will find it is a lie; the very weight of it may satisfy you that you lie, indeed, Madam.

Mer.—Please, ma'am, feel how heavy it is; you'll see it's a lie; just the weight of it should convince you that you're lying, indeed, ma'am.

Lady.—Come, come, show me a better piece; I am sure you have better.

Lady.—Come on, show me something better; I know you have something better.

Mer.—Indeed, Madam, your ladyship lies; I may show you more pieces, but I cannot show you a better; there is not a better piece of silk of that sort in London, Madam.

Mer.—Truly, madam, you’re mistaken; I can show you more items, but I can’t show you a better one; there isn’t a better piece of silk like that in London, madam.

Lady.—Let me see that piece of crimson there.

Lady.—Show me that red piece over there.

Mer.—Here it is, Madam.

Here you go, Madam.

Lady.—No, that won't do neither; it is not a good colour.

Lady.—No, that won't work either; it's not a good color.

Mer.—Indeed, Madam, you lie; it is as fine a colour as can be dyed.

Mer.—Honestly, ma'am, you're mistaken; it’s as beautiful a color as can be dyed.

Lady.—Oh fy! you lie, indeed, Sir; why, it is not in grain.

Lady.—Oh come on! You're lying, Sir; it's definitely not true.

Mer.—Your ladyship lies, upon my word, Madam; it is in grain, indeed, and as fine as can be dyed.

Mer.—You’re lying, I swear, Madam; it really is dyed in the fabric, and it’s as nice as it can get.

I might make this dialogue much longer, but here is enough to set the mercer and the lady both in a flame, and to set the shop in an uproar, if it were but spoken out in plain language, as above; and yet what is all the shop-dialect less or more than this? The meaning is plain—it is nothing but you lie, and you lie—downright Billingsgate, wrapped up in silk and satin, and delivered dressed finely up in better clothes than perhaps it might come dressed in between a carman and a porter.

I could make this conversation much longer, but this is enough to ignite a passion between the merchant and the lady, causing chaos in the shop if it were just said plainly, as mentioned earlier. Yet, what is all the shop talk other than this? The meaning is clear—it’s nothing but you lie, and you lie—straight-up trash talk, wrapped in silk and satin, and delivered neatly dressed in nicer clothes than it might wear coming from a delivery driver or a laborer.

How ridiculous is all the tongue-padding flutter between Miss Tawdry, the sempstress, and Tattle, my lady's woman, at the change-shop, when the latter comes to buy any trifle! and how many lies, indeed, creep into every part of trade, especially of retail trade, from the meanest to the uppermost part of business!—till, in short, it is grown so scandalous, that I much wonder the shopkeepers themselves do not leave it off, for the mere shame of its simplicity and uselessness.

How ridiculous is all the gossip and chitchat between Miss Tawdry, the seamstress, and Tattle, my lady's maid, at the corner shop, whenever the latter comes to buy something small! And how many lies, really, slip into every area of business, especially in retail, from the lowest to the highest levels!—until, in short, it has become so scandalous that I really wonder why the shopkeepers themselves don’t stop it, just out of sheer embarrassment over how pointless and silly it is.

But habits once got into use are very rarely abated, however ridiculous they are; and the age is come to such a degree of obstinate folly, that nothing is too ridiculous for them, if they please but to make a custom of it.

But habits that once become established are very rarely given up, no matter how silly they are; and we’ve reached a point of stubborn foolishness where nothing is too absurd for them, as long as they decide to make a routine out of it.

I am not for making my discourse a satire upon the shopkeepers, or upon their customers: if I were, I could give a long detail of the arts and tricks made use of behind the counter to wheedle and persuade the buyer, and manage the selling part among shopkeepers, and how easily and dexterously they draw in their customers; but this is rather work for a ballad and a song: my business is to tell the complete tradesman how to act a wiser part, to talk to his customers like a man of sense and business, and not like a mountebank and his merry-andrew; to let him see that there is a way of managing behind a counter, that, let the customer be what or how it will, man or woman, impertinent or not impertinent—for sometimes, I must say, the men customers are every jot as impertinent as the women; but, I say, let them be what they will, and how they will, let them make as many words as they will, and urge the shopkeeper how they will, he may behave himself so as to avoid all those impertinences, falsehoods, follish and wicked excursions which I complain of, if he pleases.

I'm not trying to make my speech a joke at the expense of shopkeepers or their customers. If I were, I could go on about the tricks and tactics used behind the counter to charm and convince buyers, and how skillfully shopkeepers reel in their customers; but that's more suited for a ballad or a song. My goal is to help the average tradesman act more wisely, to engage with their customers like a sensible and professional person, not like a quack and his foolish assistant. I want to show them that there's a way to handle things behind the counter, no matter who the customer is—man or woman, polite or rude—because sometimes, I must say, male customers can be just as bothersome as female ones. But regardless of who they are or how they behave, and no matter how much they talk or pressure the shopkeeper, he can conduct himself in a way that avoids all the nonsense, lies, and foolishness that I criticize, if he chooses to.

It by no means follows, that because the buyer is foolish, the seller must be so too; that because the buyer has a never-ceasing tongue, the seller must rattle as fast as she; that because she tells a hundred lies to run down his goods, he must tell another hundred to run them up; and that because she belies the goods one way, he must do the same the other way.

It doesn’t mean that just because the buyer is naive, the seller has to be as well; that because the buyer can't stop talking, the seller has to chatter just as quickly; that because she spreads a hundred lies to trash his merchandise, he has to come up with another hundred to promote it; and that because she slanders the products one way, he has to do the same in the opposite direction.

There is a happy medium in these things. The shopkeeper, far from being rude to his customers on one hand, or sullen and silent on the other, may speak handsomely and modestly, of his goods; what they deserve, and no other; may with truth, and good manners too, set forth his goods as they ought to be set forth; and neither be wanting to the commodity he sells, nor run out into a ridiculous extravagance of words, which have neither truth of fact nor honesty of design in them.

There’s a balanced approach to these situations. The shopkeeper, instead of being rude to his customers or sulky and quiet, can talk openly and pleasantly about his products; he can represent them fairly and appropriately, showing them as they truly are. He should neither undervalue what he sells nor overdo it with absurd descriptions that lack both truth and sincerity.

Nor is this middle way of management at all less likely to succeed, if the customers have any share of sense in them, or the goods he shows any merit to recommend them; and I must say, I believe this grave middle way of discoursing to a customer, is generally more effectual, and more to the purpose, and more to the reputation of the shopkeeper, than a storm of words, and a mouthful of common, shop-language, which makes a noise, but has little in it to plead, except to here and there a fool that can no otherwise be prevailed with.

The middle way of managing things is just as likely to succeed, especially if the customers have any sense or if the products being shown have quality that speaks for themselves. I truly believe that this serious approach to talking with a customer is usually more effective, more relevant, and better for the shopkeeper's reputation than a barrage of words and shop talk that creates a lot of noise but offers little substance, appealing only to a few who can't be convinced otherwise.

It would be a terrible satire upon the ladies, to say that they will not be pleased or engaged either with good wares or good pennyworths, with reasonable good language, or good manners, but they must have the addition of long harangues, simple, fawning, and flattering language, and a flux of false and foolish words, to set off the goods, and wheedle them in to lay out their money; and that without these they are not to be pleased.

It would be a terrible insult to women to suggest that they can’t be satisfied or engaged by quality products or good deals, reasonable conversation, or good manners, but instead need long speeches filled with simple, flattering language and a stream of empty, foolish words to entice them to spend their money; and that without these, they can’t be pleased.

But let the tradesman try the honest part, and stand by that, keeping a stock of fashionable and valuable goods in his shop to show, and I dare say he will run no venture, nor need he fear customers; if any thing calls for the help of noise, and rattling words, it must be mean and sorry, unfashionable, and ordinary goods, together with weak and silly buyers; and let the buyers that chance to read this remember, that whenever they find the shopkeeper begins his noise, and makes his fine speeches, they ought to suppose he (the shopkeeper) has trash to bring out, and believes he has fools to show it to.

But let the tradesman choose the honest route and stick to it, keeping a selection of trendy and valuable items in his shop to display, and I bet he won’t take any risks, nor will he need to worry about customers; if anything needs loud noises and flashy talk, it must be cheap and low-quality, outdated, or ordinary goods, along with gullible and naive buyers; and for the buyers who happen to read this, remember that whenever they hear the shopkeeper start making noise and giving fancy speeches, they should assume he has junk to sell and thinks he’s got fools to buy it.


CHAPTER XIX

OF FINE SHOPS, AND FINE SHOWS

OF FINE SHOPS, AND FINE SHOWS


It is a modern custom, and wholly unknown to our ancestors, who yet understood trade, in proportion to the trade they carried on, as well as we do, to have tradesmen lay out two-thirds of their fortune in fitting up their shops.

It’s a current practice, completely unfamiliar to our ancestors, who nonetheless understood business, in relation to the commerce they engaged in, just as well as we do, to have merchants invest two-thirds of their wealth in setting up their stores.

By fitting up, I do not mean furnishing their shops with wares and goods to sell—for in that they came up to us in every particular, and perhaps went beyond us too—but in painting and gilding, fine shelves, shutters, boxes, glass-doors, sashes, and the like, in which, they tell us now, it is a small matter to lay out two or three hundred pounds, nay, five hundred pounds, to fit up a pastry-cook's, or a toy-shop.

By fitting up, I don't mean stocking their stores with products to sell—because in that regard, they matched us in every way and maybe even exceeded us—but in decorating with paint and gold, nice shelves, shutters, boxes, glass doors, windows, and similar things, which they now say can easily cost two or three hundred pounds, or even five hundred pounds, to set up a bakery or a toy store.

The first inference to be drawn from this must necessarily be, that this age must have more fools than the last: for certainly fools only are most taken with shows and outsides.

The first conclusion we can draw from this must be that this generation has more fools than the previous one, because it's clear that only fools are most impressed by appearances and superficiality.

It is true, that a fine show of goods will bring customers; and it is not a new custom, but a very old one, that a new shop, very well furnished, goes a great way to bringing a trade; for the proverb was, and still is, very true, that every body has a penny for a new shop; but that a fine show of shelves and glass-windows should bring customers, that was never made a rule in trade till now.

It’s true that a nice display of products attracts customers; and it’s not a new trend, but rather an old one, that a well-stocked new shop significantly helps to attract business. The saying, which is still true today, is that everyone has a penny for a new shop. However, the idea that a great display of shelves and glass windows should draw in customers has only recently become a rule in business.

And yet, even now, I should not except so much against it, if it were not carried on to such an excess, as is too much for a middling tradesman to bear the expense of. In this, therefore, it is made not a grievance only, but really scandalous to trade; for now, a young beginner has such a tax upon him before he begins, that he must sink perhaps a third part, nay, a half part, of his stock, in painting and gilding, wainscoting and glazing, before he begins to trade, nay, before he can open his shop. As they say of building a watermill, two-thirds of the expense lies under the water; and when the poor tradesman comes to furnish his shop, and lay in his stock of goods, he finds a great hole made in his cash to the workmen, and his show of goods, on which the life of his trade depends, is fain to be lessened to make up his show of boards, and glass to lay them in.

And yet, even now, I wouldn’t mind so much if it weren’t pushed to such extremes that a typical tradesperson can't afford the costs. Because of this, it’s not just an annoyance, but really damaging to business; now, a young entrepreneur faces such a financial burden before they even start that they might have to spend a third, or even half, of their capital on painting, gilding, paneling, and glazing before they can even open their shop. As the saying goes about building a watermill, two-thirds of the expense is hidden beneath the surface. When the struggling tradesperson finally tries to set up their shop and stock their inventory, they discover a significant dent in their cash flow due to the workers, and the display of goods, which is crucial for their business, ends up being reduced just to cover the costs of wood and glass to set it all up.

Nor is this heavy article to be abated upon any account; for if he does not make a good show, he comes abroad like a mean ordinary fellow, and nobody of fashion comes to his shop; the customers are drawn away by the pictures and painted shelves, though, when they come there, they are not half so well filled as in other places, with goods fit for a trade; and how, indeed, should it be otherwise? the joiners and painters, glaziers and carvers, must have all ready money; the weavers and merchants may give credit; their goods are of so much less moment to the shopkeeper, that they must trust; but the more important show must be finished first, and paid first; and when that has made a deep hole in the tradesman's stock, then the remainder may be spared to furnish the shop with goods, and the merchant must trust for the rest.

Nor should this hefty price be reduced for any reason; if he doesn’t present himself well, he ends up looking like a low-class guy, and no one of importance visits his shop. Customers are lured away by the flashy displays and painted shelves, but when they arrive, they find it not nearly as stocked as other places with items suitable for trade. And how could it be any different? The carpenters, painters, glassmakers, and carvers all need cash upfront; the weavers and merchants can offer credit because their goods matter less to the shopkeeper, so they have to extend trust. However, the more significant displays need to be completed and paid for first; after that has seriously depleted the merchant’s inventory, then what’s left can be used to stock the shop, and the merchant can take on credit for the rest.

It will hardly be believed in ages to come, when our posterity shall be grown wiser by our loss, and, as I may truly say, at our expense, that a pastry-cook's shop, which twenty pounds would effectually furnish at a time, with all needful things for sale, nay, except on an extraordinary show, as on twelfth-day at night for cakes, or upon some great feast, twenty pounds can hardly be laid out at one time in goods for sale, yet that fitting up one of these shops should cost upwards of £300 in the year 1710—let the year be recorded—the fitting up to consist of the following particulars:—

It will be hard to believe in the future when our descendants become wiser from our mistakes, and, I can honestly say, at our expense, that a pastry shop, which could be stocked with everything necessary for £20 at a time, except during special occasions like Twelfth Night for cakes or major celebrations, could hardly have £20 spent at once on goods for sale. Yet, fitting out one of these shops cost over £300 in the year 1710—let that year be noted—the setup included the following items:—

1. Sash windows, all of looking-glass plates, 12 inches by 16 inches in measure.

1. Sash windows, made of mirror glass, measuring 12 inches by 16 inches.

2. All the walls of the shop lined up with galley-tiles, and the back shop with galley-tiles in panels, finely painted in forest-work and figures.

2. All the walls of the shop were covered with decorative tiles, and the back section had tiles arranged in panels, beautifully painted with forest scenes and figures.

3. Two large pier looking-glasses and one chimney glass in the shop, and one very large pier-glass seven feet high in the back shop.

3. Two large pier mirrors and one chimney mirror in the shop, and one very large pier mirror seven feet tall in the back shop.

4. Two large branches of candlesticks, one in the shop, and one in the back room.

4. Two big candlestick holders, one in the store and one in the back room.

5. Three great glass lanterns in the shop, and eight small ones.

5. Three large glass lanterns in the shop and eight small ones.

6. Twenty-five sconces against the wall, with a large pair of silver standing candlesticks in the back room, value £25.

6. Twenty-five wall sconces, along with a large pair of silver standing candlesticks in the back room, valued at £25.

7. Six fine large silver salvers to serve sweetmeats.

7. Six large, elegant silver trays to serve desserts.

8. Twelve large high stands of rings, whereof three silver, to place small dishes for tarts, jellies, &c., at a feast.

8. Twelve tall ring stands, three of which are silver, to hold small dishes for tarts, jellies, etc., at a feast.

9. Painting the ceiling, and gilding the lanterns, the sashes, and the carved work, £55.

9. Painting the ceiling and gilding the lanterns, the window frames, and the carvings, £55.

These, with some odd things to set forth the shop, and make a show, besides small plate, and besides china basins and cups, amounted to, as I am well informed, above £300.

These, along with some unusual items to decorate the shop and make it appealing, not to mention small plates, china basins, and cups, totaled, as I’ve heard, over £300.

Add to this the more necessary part, which was:—

Add to this the more essential part, which was:—

1. Building two ovens, about £25.

1. Building two ovens, approximately £25.

2. Twenty pounds in stock for pies, cheese-cakes, &c.

2. Twenty pounds in stock for pies, cheesecakes, etc.

So that, in short, here was a trade which might be carried on for about £30 or £40 stock, required £300 expenses to fit up the shop, and make a show to invite customers.

So, in short, here was a business that could be started with about £30 or £40 in stock, but it needed £300 in expenses to set up the shop and create an attractive display to draw in customers.

I might give something of a like example of extravagance in fitting up a cutler's shop, Anglicé a toyman, which are now come up to such a ridiculous expense, as is hardly to be thought of without the utmost contempt: let any one stop at the Temple, or at Paul's corner, or in many other places.

I could provide an example of extravagance in setting up a knife shop, or more casually, a toy store, which have now become so ridiculously expensive that it's hard to think about without feeling complete disdain. Just stop by the Temple, or at the corner of St. Paul's, or in many other locations.

As to the shops of the more considerable trades, they all bear a proportion of the humour of the times, but do not call for so loud a remark. Leaving, therefore, the just reflection which such things call for, let me bring it home to the young tradesman, to whom I am directing this discourse, and to whom I am desirous to give solid and useful hints for his instruction, I would recommend it to him to avoid all such needless expenses, and rather endeavour to furnish his shop with goods, than to paint and gild it over, to make it fine and gay; let it invite customers rather by the well-filled presses and shelves, and the great choice of rich and fashionable goods, that one customer being well-served may bring another; and let him study to bring his shop into reputation for good choice of wares, and good attendance on his customers; and this shall bring a throng to him much better, and of much better people, than those that go in merely for a gay shop.

As for the shops of the larger trades, they all reflect the current trends, but they don’t require much comment. So, leaving aside the deeper thoughts such matters inspire, let’s focus on the young tradesman I’m addressing. I want to offer him practical and valuable advice. I recommend that he avoid unnecessary expenses and concentrate on stocking his shop with quality goods instead of just decorating it to look appealing. His shop should attract customers through well-stocked shelves filled with a great selection of stylish and trendy items. Satisfied customers can bring in more customers, so he should aim to build a reputation for offering good merchandise and excellent service. This approach will attract a crowd much better and of higher quality than those who come in just for a flashy shop.

Let the shop be decent and handsome, spacious as the place will allow, and let something like the face of a master be always to be seen in it; and, if possible, be always busy, and doing something in it, that may look like being employed: this takes as much with the wiser observers of such things, as any other appearance can do.

Let the shop be neat and attractive, as roomy as the space allows, and make sure there's always a sense of a skilled owner present; and, if possible, always be engaged in some activity that looks productive: this impresses the more discerning observers just as much as any other aspect can.

I have heard of a young apothecary, who setting up in a part of the town, where he had not much acquaintance, and fearing much whether he should get into business, hired a man acquainted with such business, and made him be every morning between five and six, and often late in the evenings, working very hard at the great mortar; pounding and beating, though he had nothing to do with it, but beating some very needless thing, that all his neighbours might hear it, and find that he was in full employ, being at work early and late, and that consequently he must be a man of vast business, and have a great practice: and the thing was well laid, and took accordingly; for the neighbours, believing he had business, brought business to him; and the reputation of having a trade, made a trade for him.

I’ve heard about a young pharmacist who, when he opened his shop in a part of town where he didn’t know many people, was really worried about getting customers. So, he hired someone familiar with the business and made him come in every morning between five and six, and often stay late in the evenings, working hard at the big mortar; pounding and grinding, even though he wasn’t actually doing anything important—just making noise so all the neighbors could hear him. This way, they would think he was busy and assume he must be a successful businessman with a lot of customers. It was a smart move, and it worked well; the neighbors, believing he had a thriving business, started bringing their business to him. The reputation of having a busy shop ended up creating business for him.

The observation is just: a show may bring some people to a shop, but it is the fame of business that brings business; and nothing raises the fame of a shop like its being a shop of good trade already; then people go to it, because they think other people go to it, and because they think there is good choice of goods; their gilding and painting may go a little way, but it is the having a shop well filled with goods,[29] having good choice to sell, and selling reasonable—these are the things that bring a trade, and a trade thus brought will stand by you and last; for fame of trade brings trade anywhere.

The observation is accurate: a display might attract some people to a store, but it’s the store’s reputation that drives business; and nothing boosts a store's reputation like already being a store with good sales. Then people visit because they believe others do, and because they expect a great selection of products. Sure, the decor can help a bit, but it’s having a well-stocked shop, offering a good variety of items, and selling at fair prices—these are what truly attract customers. A business built on such a foundation will endure because a good reputation brings in more business everywhere.

It is a sign of the barrenness of the people's fancy, when they are so easily taken with shows and outsides of things. Never was such painting and gilding, such sashings and looking-glasses among the shopkeepers, as there is now; and yet trade flourished more in former times by a gread deal that it does now, if we may believe the report of very honest and understanding men. The reason, I think, cannot be to the credit of the present age, nor it it to the discredit of the former; for they carried on their trade with less gaiety, and with less expense, than we do now.[30]

It shows how unoriginal people are when they get easily impressed by appearances. There’s never been as much decoration and fancy displays among shopkeepers as there is today, yet trade was much better in the past, if we can trust the words of honest and knowledgeable folks. I don’t think this reflects positively on our time, nor negatively on the past; they conducted their business with less flair and expense than we do now.[30]

My advice to a young tradesman is to keep the safe middle between these extremes; something the times must be humoured in, because fashion and custom must be followed; but let him consider the depth of his stock, and not lay out half his estate upon fitting up his shop, and then leave but the other half to furnish it; it is much better to have a full shop, than a fine shop; and a hundred pounds in goods will make a much better show than a hundred pounds' worth of painting and carved work; it is good to make a show, but not to be all show.

My advice to a young tradesperson is to find a balanced middle ground between these extremes. It’s important to adapt to current trends and customs, but they should also think about the depth of their stock. They shouldn’t spend half their fortune on decorating their shop, leaving only the rest to fill it. Having a stocked shop is way better than having a fancy shop. A hundred pounds worth of products will create a much better display than a hundred pounds spent on paint and decorative work. It’s great to make an impression, but not to be just for show.

It is true, that painting and adorning a shop seems to intimate, that the tradesman has a large stock to begin with, or else they suggest he would not make such a show; hence the young shopkeepers are willing to make a great show, and beautify, and paint, and gild, and carve, because they would be thought to have a great stock to begin with; but let me tell you, the reputation of having a great stock is ill purchased, when half your stock is laid out to make the world believe it; that is, in short, reducing yourself to a small stock to have the world believe you have a great one; in which you do no less than barter the real stock for the imaginary, and give away your stock to keep the name of it only.

It's true that painting and decorating a shop suggests that the owner has a lot of inventory to start with, or else they wouldn't bother making such a display. That's why young shopkeepers are eager to show off, beautify, paint, gild, and carve their shops—they want to be seen as having a large inventory. But let me tell you, the reputation of having a large stock isn't worth it if half of your inventory is spent just to create that illusion. In short, you're risking a small stock to make the world think you have a large one; in doing so, you’re effectively trading actual value for a false impression, giving away your real stock just to maintain the appearance of quantity.

I take this indeed to be a French humour, or a spice of it turned English; and, indeed, we are famous for this, that when we do mimic the French, we generally do it to our hurt, and over-do the French themselves.

I really think this is a bit of French humor, or maybe a twist of it made English; and honestly, we are known for this: when we try to imitate the French, we usually end up hurting ourselves and outdoing the French themselves.

The French nation are eminent for making a fine outside, when perhaps within they want necessaries; and, indeed, a gay shop and a mean stock is something like the Frenchman with his laced ruffles, without a shirt. I cannot but think a well-furnished shop with a moderate outside is much better to a tradesman, than a fine shop and few goods; I am sure it will be much more to his satisfaction, when he casts up his year's account, for his fine shop will weigh but sorrily in his account of profit and loss; it is all a dead article; it is sunk out of his first money, before he makes a shilling profit, and may be some years a-recovering, as trade may go with him.

The French are known for having an impressive exterior, even when their interior is lacking in essentials; it's a bit like a Frenchman wearing fancy ruffles but no shirt underneath. I truly believe that a well-stocked shop with a modest appearance is far better for a merchant than a flashy shop with little inventory. I’m sure it brings him more satisfaction when he reviews his yearly accounts because his fancy shop won't contribute much to his profit and loss statement; it’s just a lost cost. That expense is gone from his initial investment before he even makes a profit, and it might take years to recover, depending on how business goes for him.

It is true that all these notions of mine in trade are founded upon the principle of frugality and good husbandry; and this is a principle so disagreeable to the times, and so contrary to the general practice, that we shall find very few people to whom it is agreeable. But let me tell my young tradesmen, that if they must banish frugality and good husbandry, they must at the same time banish all expectation of growing rich by their trade. It is a maxim in commerce, that money gets money, and they that will not frugally lay up their gain, in order to increase their gain, must not expect to gain as they might otherwise do; frugality may be out of fashion among the gentry, but if it comes to be so among tradesmen, we shall soon see that wealthy tradesmen will be hard to find; for they who will not save as well as gain, must expect to go out of trade as lean as they began.

It’s true that all my ideas about business are based on being frugal and managing resources well; and this principle is so unpopular these days and so opposite to what most people practice, that few will find it appealing. But let me tell my young business owners that if they choose to abandon frugality and good management, they also need to give up any hope of getting rich through their trade. There's a saying in business: money makes money, and those who won’t save their profits to increase their wealth shouldn’t expect to earn as much as they could otherwise. Frugality might be out of style among the wealthy, but if it also becomes unfashionable among businesspeople, we’ll soon see that rich business owners will be rare; because those who don’t save as well as earn should expect to leave the trade as poor as they started.

Some people tell us indeed in many cases, especially in trade, that putting a good face upon things goes as far as the real merit of the things themselves; and that a fine, painted, gilded shop, among the rest, has a great influence upon the people, draws customers, and brings trade; and they run a great length in this discourse by satirising on the blindness and folly of mankind, and how the world are to be taken in their own way; and seeing they are to be deluded and imposed upon in such an innocent way, they ought to be so far deluded and imposed upon, alluding to the old proverbial saying, 'Si populus vult decipi, decipiatur;' that it is no fraud, no crime, and can neither be against conscience, nor prudence; for if they are pleased with a show, why should they not have it? and the like.

Some people often tell us, especially in business, that putting on a good front can be just as important as the actual quality of the goods themselves. A well-decorated, stylish shop, in particular, has a significant impact on people, attracts customers, and boosts sales. They go on at length about the ignorance and foolishness of people, and how the world can be easily swayed this way. Since people are going to be fooled in such a harmless manner, they might as well be fooled, referencing the old saying, 'Si populus vult decipi, decipiatur;' claiming it's neither dishonest nor wrong and poses no issue for one's conscience or common sense. After all, if they're happy with a facade, why shouldn't they have it?

This way of talking is indeed plausible; and were the fact true, there might be more in it than I think there is. But I do not grant that the world is thus to be deluded; and that the people do follow this rule in general—I mean, go always to a fine shop to lay out their money. Perhaps, in some cases, it may be so, where the women, and the weakest of the sex too, are chiefly concerned; or where the fops and fools of the age resort; and as to those few, they that are willing to be so imposed upon, let them have it.

This way of speaking makes sense; and if it were true, there might be more to it than I realize. But I don't believe the world should be fooled like this; and that people generally follow this rule—I mean, always going to a nice store to spend their money. Maybe in some cases that's true, especially when it comes to women, or the more naive of the gender; or where the pretentious and foolish of the time gather; and as for those few, if they're okay with being taken in, let them have it.

But I do not see, that even this extends any farther than to a few toy-shops, and pastry-cooks; and the customers of both these are not of credit sufficient, I think, to weigh in this case: we may as well argue for the fine habits at a puppet-show and a rope-dancing, because they draw the mob about them; but I cannot think, after you go but one degree above these, the thing is of any weight, much less does it bring credit to the tradesman, whatever it may do to the shop.

But I don't think this goes beyond a few toy stores and bakeries, and the customers at both places don’t really have the credibility to matter here. It’s like arguing that the classy habits at a puppet show or a rope dance make a difference just because they attract crowds; but I can't believe that once you move even a little above that level, it holds any significance, let alone adds credibility to the business, no matter what it does for the shop.

The credit of a tradesman respects two sorts of people, first, the merchants, or wholesale men, or makers, who sell him his goods, or the customers, who come to his shop to buy.

The credit of a tradesman involves two types of people: first, the merchants or wholesalers or manufacturers who sell him his goods, and second, the customers who come to his shop to buy.

The first of these are so far from valuing him upon the gay appearance of his shop, that they are often the first that take an offence at it, and suspect his credit upon that account: their opinion upon a tradesman, and his credit with them, is raised quite another way, namely, by his current pay, diligent attendance, and honest figure; the gay shop does not help him at all there, but rather the contrary.

The first group of people is so unimpressed by the flashy look of his shop that they are often the first to take offense at it and doubt his credibility for that reason. Their judgment of a tradesman and his trustworthiness is based entirely on his timely payments, attentive service, and honest reputation; the flashy shop doesn't help him at all in that regard, but rather does the opposite.

As to the latter, though some customers may at first be drawn by the gay appearance and fine gilding and painting of a shop, yet it is the well sorting a shop with goods, and the selling good pennyworths, that will bring trade, especially after the shop has been open some time: this, and this only, establishes the man and the credit of the shop.

As for the latter, while some customers might initially be attracted by the bright look and nice decorations of a store, it's really the way a shop is organized with quality products and offering great deals that will drive business, especially after the shop has been open for a while. This, and only this, builds the reputation of the person running it and the store itself.

To conclude: the credit raised by the fine show of things is also of a different kind from the substantial reputation of a tradesman; it is rather the credit of the shop, than of the man; and, in a word, it is no more or less than a net spread to catch fools; it is a bait to allure and deceive, and the tradesman generally intends it so. He intends that the customers shall pay for the gilding and painting his shop, and it is the use he really makes of it, namely, that his shop looking like something eminent, he may sell dearer than his neighbours: who, and what kind of fools can so be drawn in, it is easy to describe, but satire is none of our business here.

To wrap things up: the reputation gained from a flashy setup is different from the real standing of a business owner; it’s more about the store’s image than the person running it. Essentially, it’s just a trap to catch the gullible. It’s a lure meant to attract and mislead, and the business owner usually plans it that way. They want customers to cover the costs of the fancy decor in their shop, which is really just a way for them to charge more than the competition: the types of naive people who fall for this are easy to identify, but making fun of them isn’t what we’re here to do.

On the contrary, the customers, who are the substantial dependence of a tradesman's shop, are such as are gained and preserved by good usage, good pennyworths, good wares, and good choice; and a shop that has the reputation of these four, like good wine that needs no bush, needs no painting and gilding, no carved works and ornaments;[31] it requires only a diligent master and a faithful servant, and it will never want a trade.

On the other hand, customers, who are the main support of a shop, are attracted and kept by good service, fair prices, quality products, and a variety of choices; and a shop that is known for these four things, like a good wine that doesn’t need a sign, doesn’t need any fancy decorations or elaborate designs; it only needs a hardworking owner and a loyal employee, and it will always have business.

FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:

[In another place, the author recommends a light stock, as showing a nimble trade. There can be little doubt that he is more reasonable here. A considerable abundance of goods is certainly an attraction to a shop. No doubt, a tradesman with little capital would only be incurring certain ruin having a larger stock than he could readily pay for. He must needs keep a small stock, if he would have a chance at all of doing well in the world. But this does not make it the less an advantage to a tradesman of good capital to keep an abundant and various stock of goods.]

[In another place, the author suggests a light inventory, as it reflects a quick-moving business. There’s no doubt he makes a valid point here. A good amount of merchandise definitely attracts customers to a store. A business owner with limited funds would surely be risking failure by carrying more stock than he can afford. He must maintain a small inventory if he wants any chance of succeeding. However, this doesn't take away from the fact that it's beneficial for a well-capitalized business owner to have a large and diverse inventory of goods.]

[It is really curious to find in this chapter the same contrast drawn between the old and the new style of fitting up shops, and carrying on business, as would be drawn at the present day by nine out of every ten common observers. The notion that the shops of the past age were plain, while those of the present are gaudy, and that the tradesmen of a past age carried on all their business in a quiet way and with little expense, is as strongly impressed on the minds of the present generation, as it is here seen to have been on those of Defoe's contemporaries, a hundred and twenty years ago, although it is quite impossible that the notion can be just in both cases. The truth probably is, that in Defoe's time, and at all former times, there were conspicuous, but not very numerous, examples of finely decorated shops, which seemed, and really were, very much of a novelty, as well as a rather striking exception from the style in which such places in general were then, and had for many years been furnished. So far, however, from these proving, as Defoe anticipates, a warning to future generations, the general appearance of shops has experienced a vast improvement since those days; and the third-rate class are now probably as fine as the first-rate were at no distant period. At the same time, as in the reign of the first George, we have now also a few shops fitted up in a style of extraordinary and startling elegance, and thus forming that contrast with the general appearance of shops for the last forty years, which makes old people, and many others, talk of all the past as homely and moderate, and all the present as showy and expensive.]

[It's really interesting to see in this chapter the same contrast made between the old and the new way of setting up shops and doing business, just like nine out of ten ordinary people would notice today. The idea that shops from the past were simple, while those today are flashy, and that merchants from earlier times operated quietly and with little expense, is as firmly held by our generation as it was among Defoe's contemporaries 120 years ago, even though it's unlikely that this perception could be accurate in both instances. The truth is that during Defoe's time, there were noticeable but not very common examples of beautifully decorated shops, which appeared to be, and really were, quite a novelty and a striking exception to the usual style these places had maintained for many years. However, instead of these serving as a warning for future generations, the overall appearance of shops has greatly improved since then; the third-rate shops today are likely as impressive as the first-rate shops were not long ago. At the same time, just like during the reign of the first George, we now have a few shops designed with exceptional and eye-catching elegance, creating a contrast with the general look of shops over the past forty years, prompting older people and many others to view everything from the past as simple and moderate, while perceiving the present as flashy and costly.]

[The author seems here to carry his objections to decoration to an extreme. Good usage, good pennyworths, good wares, and good choice, are doubtless the four cardinal points of business; but a handsome shop also goes a considerable way in attracting customers, and is a principle which no prudent tradesman will despise.]

[The author seems to take his objections to decoration to the extreme. Good practices, good value, quality goods, and smart choices are definitely the four main pillars of business; however, an attractive shop also plays a significant role in drawing in customers, and it's a principle that no wise businessman will overlook.]


CHAPTER XX

OF THE TRADESMAN'S KEEPING HIS BOOKS, AND CASTING UP HIS SHOP

OF THE TRADESMAN'S KEEPING HIS BOOKS, AND CASTING UP HIS SHOP


It was an ancient and laudable custom with tradesmen in England always to balance their accounts of stock, and of profit and loss, at least once every year; and generally it was done at Christmas, or New-year's tide, when they could always tell whether they went backward or forward, and how their affairs stood in the world; and though this good custom is very much lost among tradesmen at this time, yet there are a great many that do so still, and they generally call it casting up shop. To speak the truth, the great occasion of omitting it has been from the many tradesmen, who do not care to look into things, and who, fearing their affairs are not right, care not to know how they go at all, good or bad; and when I see a tradesman that does not cast up once a-year, I conclude that tradesman to be in very bad circumstances, that at least he fears he is so, and by consequence cares not to inquire.

It used to be a respected tradition for business owners in England to balance their accounts of inventory, profit, and loss at least once a year; typically, this was done at Christmas or New Year’s, when they could easily assess whether they were doing better or worse and understand their overall situation. Although this good practice has largely faded among business owners today, many still do it and usually refer to it as casting up shop. The main reason for not doing this is that many business owners avoid looking into their finances, and those who suspect their situation isn’t good often prefer not to find out either way. When I see a business owner who doesn’t balance their books at least once a year, I assume they are in really bad shape or at least fear that they are, and therefore choose not to investigate further.

As casting up the shop is the way to know every year whether he goes backward or forward, and is the tradesman's particular satisfaction, so he must cast up his books too, or else it will be very ominous to the tradesman's credit.

As reviewing the shop is the way to determine each year whether he's making progress or falling behind, and it brings the merchant specific satisfaction, he must also review his accounts; otherwise, it could be quite damaging to the merchant's reputation.

Now, in order to doing this effectually once a-year, it is needful the tradesman should keep his books always in order; his day-book duly posted, his cash duly balanced, and all people's accounts always fit for a view. He that delights in his trade will delight in his books; and, as I said that he that will thrive must diligently attend his shop or warehouse, and take up his delight there, so, I say now, he must also diligently keep his books, or else he will never know whether he thrives or no.

Now, to do this effectively once a year, it's necessary for the business owner to keep their records in order; their daybook should be properly updated, their cash should be balanced, and everyone's accounts should be easy to review. A person who takes pride in their trade will also take pride in their records; and just as I said that anyone who wants to succeed must work hard in their shop or warehouse and find satisfaction there, I now say that they must also diligently maintain their records, or else they will never know if they are succeeding or not.

Exact keeping his books is one essential part of a tradesman's prosperity. The books are the register of his estate, the index of his stock. All the tradesman has in the world must be found in these three articles, or some of them:—

Exact bookkeeping is a key factor in a tradesman's success. The books serve as a record of his assets and the inventory of his stock. Everything a tradesman owns must be documented in these three items, or some of them:—

Goods in the shop; Money in cash; Debts abroad.

Goods in the store; Cash in hand; Debts overseas.

The shop will at any time show the first of these upon a small stop to cast it up; the cash-chest and bill-box will show the second at demand; and the ledger when posted will show the last; so that a tradesman can at any time, at a week's notice, cast up all these three; and then, examining his accounts, to take the balance, which is a real trying what he is worth in the world.

The shop can show the first one anytime with a quick stop to calculate it; the cash register and bill box will reveal the second one upon request; and the ledger will show the last one once it's updated. This way, a business owner can check all three figures anytime with a week’s notice, and then, by reviewing his accounts, determine his balance, which truly reflects what he is worth in the world.

It cannot be satisfactory to any tradesman to let his books go unsettled, and uncast up, for then he knows nothing of himself, or of his circumstances in the world; the books can tell him at any time what his condition is, and will satisfy him what is the condition of his debts abroad.

It can't be satisfying for any business owner to leave their accounts untracked and unbalanced, because then they don't know their own situation or how they stand in the world. Their records can provide information at any time about their financial condition and clarify the status of their debts.

In order to his regular keeping his books, several things might be said very useful for the tradesman to consider:

In order to keep his books regularly, there are several things that could be very useful for the tradesman to think about:

I. Every thing done in the whole circumference of his trade must be set down in a book, except the retail trade; and this is clear, if the goods are not in bulk, then the money is in cash, and so the substance will be always found either there, or somewhere else; for if it is neither in the shop, nor in the cash, nor in the books, it must be stolen and lost.

I. Everything done in the entire scope of his business must be recorded in a book, except for retail sales; and this is obvious, if the goods aren't in bulk, then the money is in cash, and so the actual value will always be found either there or somewhere else; because if it's not in the shop, in the cash, or in the books, it must be stolen or lost.

II. As every thing done must be set down in the books, so it should be done at the very time of it; all goods sold must be entered in the books before they are sent out of the house; goods sent away and not entered, are goods lost; and he that does not keep an exact account of what goes out and comes in, can never swear to his books, or prove his debts, if occasion calls for it.

II. Since everything that’s done needs to be recorded, it should be noted at the exact moment it happens; all goods sold must be logged in the books before they leave the premises; goods that are sent out but not recorded are considered lost; and anyone who doesn’t keep a precise record of what goes in and out can never verify their accounts or prove their debts when needed.

I am not going to set down rules here for book-keeping, or to teach the tradesman how to do it, but I am showing the necessity and usefulness of doing it at all. That tradesman who keeps no books, may depend upon it he will ere long keep no trade, unless he resolves also to give no credit. He that gives no trust, and takes no trust, either by wholesale or by retail, and keeps his cash all himself, may indeed go on without keeping any books at all; and has nothing to do, when he would know his estate, but to cast up his shop and his cash, and see how much they amount to, and that is his whole and neat estate; for as he owes nothing, so nobody is in debt to him, and all his estate is in his shop; but I suppose the tradesman that trades wholly thus, is not yet born, or if there ever were any such, they are all dead.

I'm not here to outline rules for bookkeeping or teach tradespeople how to do it, but to highlight the necessity and benefits of keeping records at all. A tradesperson who doesn't keep books can count on losing their business soon enough, unless they decide to give no credit at all. Those who don’t extend trust and don’t receive it, whether in bulk or retail, and keep all their cash themselves, might actually get by without any bookkeeping. They only need to tally up their inventory and cash to see what they have, and that’s their entire and simple wealth; since they owe nothing, no one owes them either, and all their assets are in their shop. However, I assume that any tradesperson who operates entirely this way hasn't been born yet, or if they ever existed, they’re long gone.

A tradesman's books, like a Christian's conscience, should always be kept clean and clear; and he that is not careful of both will give but a sad account of himself either to God or man. It is true, that a great many tradesmen, and especially shopkeepers, understand but little of book-keeping; but it is as true that they all understand something of it, or else they will make but poor work of shopkeeping.

A tradesman's records, like a Christian's conscience, should always be kept clean and clear; and whoever isn’t careful about both will end up giving a disappointing account of themselves to either God or people. It's true that many tradespeople, especially shopkeepers, know very little about bookkeeping; but it’s also true that they all understand at least some of it, or else they will struggle with managing their shops.

I knew a tradesman that could not write, and yet he supplied the defect with so many ingenious knacks of his own, to secure the account of what people owed him, and was so exact doing it, and then took such care to have but very short accounts with any body, that he brought up his method to be every way an equivalent to writing; and, as I often told him, with half the study and application that those things cost him, he might have learned to write, and keep books too. He made notches upon sticks for all the middling sums, and scored with chalk for lesser things. He had drawers for every particular customer's name, which his memory supplied, for he knew every particular drawer, though he had a great many, as well as if their faces had been painted upon them; he had innumerable figures to signify what he would have written, if he could; and his shelves and boxes always put me in mind of the Egyptian hieroglyphics, and nobody understood them, or any thing of them, but himself.

I knew a tradesman who couldn’t write, but he made up for it with a bunch of clever tricks to keep track of what people owed him. He was so precise in doing this, and he made sure to keep his accounts short, that his method was pretty much as good as writing. I used to tell him that with half the effort he put into it, he could have learned to write and keep records too. He made notches on sticks for the larger amounts and used chalk for the smaller ones. He had a drawer for each customer’s name, which he remembered perfectly, even with a lot of drawers—he knew each one as well as if their faces were painted on them. He had all sorts of symbols to represent what he would have written if he could, and his shelves and boxes always reminded me of Egyptian hieroglyphics. No one else understood them, just him.

It was an odd thing to see him, when a country-chap, came up to settle accounts with him; he would go to a drawer directly, among such a number as was amazing: in that drawer was nothing but little pieces of split sticks, like laths, with chalk-marks on them, all as unintelligible as the signs of the zodiac are to an old school-mistress that teaches the horn-book and primer, or as Arabic or Greek is to a ploughman. Every stick had notches on one side for single pounds, on the other side for tens of pounds, and so higher; and the length and breadth also had its signification, and the colour too; for they were painted in some places with one colour, and in some places with anther; by which he knew what goods had been delivered for the money: and his way of casting up was very remarkable, for he knew nothing of figures; but he kept six spoons in a place on purpose, near his counter, which he took out when he had occasion to cast up any sum, and, laying the spoons in a row before him, he counted upon them thus:

It was strange to see him when a country guy came by to settle accounts; he would go straight to a drawer, filled with an amazing amount of stuff. Inside that drawer were only little pieces of split sticks, like laths, marked with chalk, all as baffling as the zodiac signs to an old schoolteacher who only teaches basic reading and writing, or as Arabic or Greek is to a farmer. Each stick had notches on one side for single pounds and on the other side for tens of pounds, and so on; even the length and width had meanings, as well as the colors because they were painted differently in various places. This was how he tracked what goods had been delivered for the money: his method of calculating was quite unique because he didn't know anything about numbers. Instead, he kept six spoons in a spot near his counter just for this purpose. Whenever he needed to do some calculations, he would lay the spoons in a row in front of him and count on them like this:

One, two, three, and another, one odd spoon, and t'other | | | | | |

One, two, three, and another, one strange spoon, and the other | | | | | |

By this he told up to six; if he had any occasion to tell any farther, he began again, as we do after the number ten in our ordinary numeration; and by this method, and running them up very quick, he would count any number under thirty-six, which was six spoons of six spoons, and then, by the strength of his head, he could number as many more as he pleased, multiplying them always by sixes, but never higher.

By this, he counted up to six; if he needed to count higher, he started over, like we do after ten in our usual counting. Using this method and counting quickly, he could tally any number under thirty-six, which was six groups of six spoons. Then, with his mental agility, he could count as many more as he wanted, always multiplying by six, but never going higher.

I give this instance to show how far the application of a man's head might go to supply the defect, but principally to show (and it does abundantly show it) what an absolute necessity there is for a tradesman to be very diligent and exact in keeping his books, and what pains those who understand their business will always take to do it.

I use this example to illustrate how much a person's intellect can compensate for a shortcoming, but mainly to highlight (and it clearly emphasizes) the essential need for a tradesperson to be very attentive and precise in maintaining their records, and the effort those who know their craft will always put into doing so.

This tradesman was indeed a country shopkeeper; but he was so considerable a dealer, that he became mayor of the city which he lived in (for it was a city, and that a considerable city too), and his posterity have been very considerable traders in the same city ever since, and they show their great-grandfather's six counting spoons and his hieroglyphics to this day.

This guy was definitely a local shopkeeper, but he was such a significant dealer that he became the mayor of the city he lived in (and it was a pretty important city). His descendants have been well-known traders in the same city ever since, and they still show off their great-grandfather's six counting spoons and his symbols to this day.

After some time, the old tradesman bred up two of his sons to his business, and the young men having learned to write, brought books into the counting-house, things their father had never used before; but the old man kept to his old method for all that, and would cast up a sum, and make up an account with his spoons and his drawers, as soon as they could with their pen and ink, if it were not too full of small articles, and that he had always avoided in his business.

After a while, the old tradesman trained two of his sons to take over the business. The young men learned to write and brought books into the counting house, which their father had never used before. However, the old man stuck to his traditional ways and would calculate sums and create accounts using his spoons and drawers just as quickly as they could with their pen and ink, as long as it wasn't too packed with small items, which he had always steered clear of in his work.

However, as I have said above, this evidently shows the necessity of book-keeping to a tradesman, and the very nature of the thing evidences also that it must be done with the greatest exactness. He that does not keep his books exactly, and so as that he may depend upon them for charging his debtors, had better keep no books at all, but, like my shopkeeper, score and notch every thing; for as books well kept make business regular, easy, and certain, so books neglected turn all into confusion, and leave the tradesman in a wood, which he can never get out of without damage and loss. If ever his dealers know that his books are ill kept, they play upon him, and impose horrid forgeries and falsities upon him: whatever he omits they catch at, and leave it out; whatever they put upon him, he is bound to yield to; so that, in short, as books well kept are the security of the tradesman's estate, and the ascertaining of his debts, so books ill kept will assist every knavish customer or chapman to cheat and deceive him.

However, as I mentioned earlier, this clearly shows how important bookkeeping is for a tradesman, and it’s crucial that it’s done with the utmost accuracy. Anyone who doesn’t keep their books accurately and can’t rely on them to track their debtors might as well not keep any books at all, but, like my shopkeeper, just tally everything informally; because just like well-kept books make business smooth, straightforward, and certain, neglected books throw everything into chaos and leave the tradesman in a mess that he can never escape from without suffering losses. If his clients realize that his books are poorly maintained, they will take advantage of him and hit him with outrageous lies and frauds: whatever he misses, they will seize upon and omit; whatever they throw at him, he has to accept; so, in short, just as well-kept books protect a tradesman's finances and clarify his debts, poorly kept books will enable every dishonest customer to cheat and deceive him.

Some men keep a due and exact entry or journal of all they sell, or perhaps of all they buy or sell, but are utterly remiss in posting it forward to a ledger; that is to say, to another book, where every parcel is carried to the debtor's particular account. Likewise they keep another book, where they enter all the money they receive, but, as above, never keeping any account for the man; there it stands in the cash-book, and both these books must be ransacked over for the particulars, as well of goods sold, as of the money received, when this customer comes to have his account made up; and as the goods are certainly entered when sold or sent away, and the money is certainly entered when it is received, this they think is sufficient, and all the rest superfluous.

Some men keep a detailed record or journal of everything they sell, or maybe of everything they buy or sell, but they completely neglect to update it in a ledger; that is, in another book where every transaction is recorded in the customer's specific account. Similarly, they maintain another book for all the money they receive, but, like before, they never keep any account for the customer; it just sits there in the cash book, and both of these books need to be searched for the details, both of the goods sold and the money received, when the customer comes to settle their account. Since the goods are definitely recorded when sold or shipped and the money is definitely noted when it’s received, they think this is enough and everything else is unnecessary.

I doubt not such tradesmen often suffer as much by their slothfulness and neglect of book-keeping, as might, especially if their business is considerable, pay for a book-keeper; for what is such a man's case, when his customer, suppose a country dealer, comes to town, which perhaps he does once a-year (as in the custom of other tradesmen), and desires to have his account made up? The London tradesman goes to his books, and first he rummages his day-book back for the whole year, and takes out the foot[32] of all the parcels sent to his chapman, and they make the debtor side of the account; then he takes his cash-book, if it deserves that name, and there he takes out all the sums of money which the chapman has sent up, or bills which he has received, and these make the creditor side of the account; and so the balance is drawn out, and this man thinks himself a mighty good accountant, that he keeps his books exactly; and so perhaps he does, as far as he keeps them at all; that is to say, he never sends a parcel away to his customer, but he enters it down, and never receives a bill from him, but he sets it down when the money is paid; but now take this man and his chap, together, as they are making up this account. The chapman, a sharp clever tradesman, though a countryman, has his pocket-book with him, and in it a copy of his posting-book, so the countrymen call a ledger, where the London tradesman's accounts are copied out; and when the city tradesman has drawn out his account, he takes it to his inn and examines it by his little book, and what is the consequence?

I don’t doubt that these tradespeople often suffer just as much from their laziness and lack of bookkeeping as could be covered by hiring a bookkeeper, especially if their business is significant. What happens when a customer, like a country dealer, comes to town, perhaps once a year, and wants their account settled? The London tradesman pulls out his books and first goes through his daybook for the entire year, listing all the items sent to his customer, which makes up the debit side of the account. Then he checks his cash book, if it can even be called that, and notes all the money the customer has sent or the bills he has received, forming the credit side of the account. He figures out the balance and thinks he's a fantastic accountant because he claims his books are accurate. And maybe they are, to some extent, since he records every parcel he sends and every bill he receives when the payment is made. But now picture him and his customer together as they reconcile this account. The customer, a sharp and savvy tradesman from the countryside, has his pocketbook handy with a record of his own, which the country folk refer to as a ledger, containing the London tradesman’s accounts. When the city tradesman finishes his account, he takes it back to his inn and checks it against his little book, and what happens next?

If the city tradesman has omitted any of the bills which the country tradesman has sent him up, he finds it out, and is sure to put him in mind of it. 'Sir,' says he, 'you had a bill from me upon Mr A.G. at such a time, for thirty pounds, and I have your letter that you received the money; but you have omitted it in the account, so that I am not so much in your debt by thirty pounds, as you thought I was.'

If the city merchant has missed any of the invoices that the country merchant sent him, he will notice it and will definitely remind him. “Sir,” he says, “you received an invoice from me regarding Mr. A.G. at a certain time for thirty pounds, and I have your letter confirming you got the payment; however, you’ve left it out of the account, so I’m actually not as much in your debt by thirty pounds as you believed.”

'Say you so!' says the city tradesman; 'I cannot think but you must be mistaken.'

'Say you so!' says the city merchant; 'I can’t help but think you must be wrong.'

'No, no!' says the other, 'I am sure I can't be mistaken, for I have it in my book; besides, I can go to Mr A.G., whom the bill was drawn upon, and there is, to be sure, your own endorsement upon it, and a receipt for the money.'

'No, no!' says the other, 'I'm sure I'm not wrong because I have it in my book; plus, I can go to Mr. A.G., the person the bill was drawn on, and there’s definitely your own signature on it, along with a receipt for the money.'

'Well,' says the citizen, 'I keep my books as exact as any body—I'll look again, and if it be there I shall find it, for I am sure if I had it, it is in my cash-book.'

'Well,' says the citizen, 'I keep my books as accurately as anyone—I’ll check again, and if it’s there, I’ll find it, because I’m sure if I had it, it’s in my cashbook.'

'Pray do, then,' says the countryman, 'for I am sure I sent it you, and I am sure I can produce the bill, if there be occasion.'

'Please do,' says the countryman, 'because I know I sent it to you, and I'm sure I can provide the bill if needed.'

Away goes the tradesman to his books, which he pretends he keeps so exact, and examining them over again, he finds the bill for thirty pounds entered fairly, but in his running the whole year over together, as well he might, he had overlooked it, whereas, if his cash-book had been duly posted every week, as it ought to have been, this bill had been regularly placed to account.

Away goes the businessman to his records, which he claims to keep so accurately, and as he reviews them again, he finds the thirty-pound bill logged properly. However, while going through everything from the whole year, he realizes he missed it. If he had updated his cash book every week, like he should have, this bill would have been recorded appropriately.

But now, observe the difference: the bill for thirty pounds being omitted, was no damage to the country tradesman, because he has an account of it in his book of memorandums, and had it regularly posted in his books at home, whatever the other had, and also was able to bring sufficient proof of the payment; so the London tradesman's omission was no hurt to him.

But now, notice the difference: the thirty-pound bill being left out didn't harm the local tradesman, because he has a record of it in his notebook and had it properly documented in his books at home, regardless of what the other person had, and he could also provide enough proof of payment; so the London tradesman's omission didn't affect him either.

But the case differs materially in the debtor side of the account; for here the tradesman, who with all his boasts of keeping his books exactly, has yet no ledger, which being, as I have said, duly posted, should show every man's account at one view; and being done every week, left it scarce possible to omit any parcel that was once entered in the day-book or journal—I say, the tradesman keeping no ledger, he looks over his day-book for the whole year past, to draw up the debtor side of his customer's account, and there being a great many parcels, truly he overlooks one or two of them, or suppose but one of them, and gives the chapman the account, in which he sums up his debtor side so much, suppose £136, 10s.: the chapman examining this by his book, as he did the cash, finds two parcels, one £7, 15s., and the other £9, 13s., omitted; so that by his own book his debtor side was £153, 18s.; but being a cunning sharp tradesman, and withal not exceeding honest, 'Well, well,' says he to himself, 'if Mr G. says it is no more than £136, 10s. what have I to do to contradict him? it is none of my business to keep his books for him; it is time enough for me to reckon for it when he charges me.' So he goes back to him the next day, and settles accounts with him, pays him the balance in good bills which he brought up with him for that purpose, takes a receipt in full of all accounts and demands to such a day of the month, and the next day comes and looks out another parcel of goods, and so begins an account for the next year, like a current chapman, and has the credit of an extraordinary customer that pays well, and clears his accounts every year; which he had not done had he not seen the advantage, and so strained himself to pay, that he might get a receipt in full of all accounts.

But the situation is quite different on the debtor side of the account. Here, the tradesman, despite his claims of keeping his books perfectly, doesn’t actually have a ledger that, as I mentioned, should show everyone’s account at a glance. If he updated it weekly, it would be nearly impossible to miss any item that was recorded in the day-book or journal. That said, the tradesman doesn’t keep a ledger, so he goes through his day-book for the past year to put together the debtor side of his customer's account. Since there are a lot of items, he genuinely overlooks one or two, or maybe just one, and gives the customer an account that totals £136, 10s. When the customer checks this against his own records, just like he did with the cash, he finds two items missing: one for £7, 15s., and the other for £9, 13s. According to his own records, the debtor side should actually be £153, 18s. But being a cunning and somewhat dishonest tradesman, he thinks to himself, "Well, if Mr. G says it’s only £136, 10s., why should I argue with him? It’s not my job to keep his books for him. I can deal with it when he bills me." So, the next day, he goes back, settles the account, pays the balance with good bills he has brought for that purpose, and gets a receipt in full for all accounts up to a specific day of the month. The following day, he starts looking for another batch of goods, essentially beginning a new account for the next year, just like an ongoing customer, and enjoys the reputation of a top client who pays well and clears his accounts every year. He wouldn’t have done this if he hadn’t seen the opportunity and pushed himself to pay in order to get a receipt for all accounts.

It happens some years after that this city tradesman dies, and his executors finding his accounts difficult to make up, there being no books to be found but a day-book and a cash-book, they get some skilful book-keeper to look into them, who immediately sees that the only way to bring the accounts to a head, is to form a ledger out of the other two, and post every body's account into it from the beginning; for though it were a long way back, there is no other remedy.

It happens several years later that this city trader dies, and his executors, finding his accounts hard to sort out since there are no books besides a day book and a cash book, hire a skilled bookkeeper to examine them. The bookkeeper quickly realizes that the only way to finalize the accounts is to create a ledger from the other two books and transfer everyone's account into it from the start; even though it's a long way back, there's no other solution.

In doing this, they come to this mistake, among a great many others of the like kind in other chapmen's accounts; upon this they write to the chapman, and tell him they find him debtor to the estate of the deceased in such a sum of money, and desire him to make payment.

In doing this, they make this mistake, along with many others of a similar kind in other merchants' accounts; based on this, they write to the merchant and tell him that he owes money to the estate of the deceased in a certain amount and ask him to make the payment.

The country shopkeeper huffs them, tells them he always made up accounts with Mr. G., the deceased, once a-year, as he did with all his other chapmen, and that he took his receipt in full of all accounts and demands, upon paying the balance to him at such a time; which receipt he has to show; and that he owes him nothing, or but such a sum, being the account of goods bought since.

The local shopkeeper gasps and informs them that he always settled his accounts with Mr. G., the late owner, once a year, just like he did with all his other customers. He says he received a receipt confirming that everything was paid in full when he settled the balance at that time, which he can show. He insists he doesn’t owe anything, or at most a small amount for the goods purchased since then.

The executors finding the mistake, and how it happened, endeavour to convince him of it; but it is all one-he wants no convincing, for he knows at bottom how it is; but being a little of a knave himself, or if you please, not a little, he tells them he cannot enter into the accounts so far back—Mr G. always told him he kept his books very exactly, and he trusted to him; and as he has his receipt in full, and it is so long ago, he can say nothing to it.

The executors discover the mistake and try to explain how it happened, but it doesn’t make a difference—he doesn’t want to be convinced because deep down he knows the truth. However, since he’s a bit of a trickster himself, or maybe more than a bit, he tells them he can’t go back through the accounts that far. Mr. G. always said he kept his books very accurately, and he trusted him. Plus, since he has his receipt in full and it's been a long time, he has nothing to say about it.

From hence they come to quarrel, and the executors threaten him with going to law; but he bids them defiance, and insists upon his receipt in full; and besides that, it is perhaps six years ago, and so he tells them he will plead the statute of limitations upon them; and then adds, that he does not do it avoid a just debt, but to avoid being imposed upon, he not understanding books so well as Mr G. pretended to do; and having balanced accounts so long ago with him, he stands by the balance, and has nothing to say to their mistakes, not he. So that, in short, not finding any remedy, they are forced to sit down by the loss; and perhaps in the course of twenty years' trade, Mr G. might lose a great many such parcels in the whole; and had much better have kept a ledger; or if he did not know how to keep a ledger himself, had better have hired a book-keeper to have come once a-week, or once a-month, to have posted his day-book for him.

From there, they start to argue, and the executors threaten him with legal action; but he stands firm and insists on his receipt in full. Plus, this was maybe six years ago, so he tells them he’ll invoke the statute of limitations against them. He adds that he’s not trying to avoid a legitimate debt, but he doesn’t want to be taken advantage of, as he doesn’t understand the books as well as Mr. G pretended to. Having settled accounts with him a long time ago, he sticks by that balance and has nothing more to say about their errors. In short, since they can’t find any solution, they have no choice but to accept their loss. Over twenty years of business, Mr. G probably had many such losses overall and would have been better off keeping a ledger; or if he didn’t know how to manage a ledger himself, he should have hired a bookkeeper to come in weekly or monthly to update his daybook.

The like misfortune attends the not balancing his cash, a thing which such book-keepers as Mr G. do not think worth their trouble; nor do they understand the benefit of it. The particulars, indeed, of this article are tedious, and would be too long for a chapter; but certainly they that know any thing of the use of keeping an exact cash-book, know that, without it, a tradesman can never be thoroughly satisfied either of his own not committing mistakes, or of any people cheating him, I mean servants, or sons, or whoever is the first about him.

The same bad luck comes to those who don’t keep their cash in check, something that bookkeepers like Mr. G. don't consider worth their time; they also don’t grasp its benefits. The details of this topic are indeed tedious and would take too long for a chapter; however, it’s clear that anyone familiar with the advantages of maintaining an accurate cash book knows that, without it, a business owner can never be completely sure that he’s not making mistakes or that anyone around him, whether it's employees, children, or anyone close, is not taking advantage of him.

What I call balancing his cash-book, is, first, the casting up daily, or weekly, or monthly, his receipts and payments, and then seeing what money is left in hand, or, as the usual expression of the tradesman is, what money is in cash; secondly, the examining his money, telling it over, and seeing how much he has in his chest or bags, and then seeing if it agrees with the balance of his book, that what is, and what should be, correspond.

What I refer to as balancing his cash book is, first, adding up daily, weekly, or monthly his income and expenses, and then checking how much money he has left, or, as a tradesman would say, how much cash is on hand; second, counting his money, going through it, and checking how much he has in his safe or bags, and then verifying if it matches the balance in his book, ensuring that what is and what should be correspond.

And here let me give tradesmen a caution or two.

And here, let me give some advice to tradespeople.

1. Never sit down satisfied with an error in the cash; that is to say, with a difference between the money really in the cash, and the balance in the book; for if they do not agree, there must be a mistake somewhere, and while there is a mistake in the cash, the tradesman cannot, at least he ought not to be, easy. He that can be easy with a mistake in his cash, may be easy with a gang of thieves in his house; for if his money does not come right, he must have paid something that is not set down, and that is to be supposed as bad as if it were lost; or he must have somebody about him that can find the way to his money besides himself, that is to say, somebody that should not come to it; and if so, what is the difference between that and having a gang of thieves about him?—for every one that takes money out of his cash without his leave, and without letting him know it, is so far a thief to him: and he can never pretend to balance his cash, nor, indeed, know any thing of his affairs, that does not know which way his money goes.

1. Never sit down feeling okay about an error in your cash; that is, about a difference between the actual money in the cash and the balance in the books. If they don't match, there must be a mistake somewhere, and as long as there's a mistake in the cash, the business owner shouldn't be relaxed. Someone who can be comfortable with a mistake in their cash might as well be fine with a group of thieves in their house. If their money doesn't add up, they must have paid something that isn't recorded, and that’s just as bad as losing it. Alternatively, they might have someone around who can access their money without them knowing, which means someone shouldn't have access to it. If that's the case, what's the difference between that and having a gang of thieves around? Everyone who takes money from their cash without permission and without their knowledge is essentially a thief to them. They can never truly balance their cash or understand their business if they don't know where their money is going.

2. A tradesman endeavouring to balance his cash, should no more be satisfied if he finds a mistake in his cash one way, than another—that is to say, if he finds more in cash than by the balance of his cash-book ought to be there, than if he finds less, or wanting in cash. I know many, who, when they find it thus, sit down satisfied, and say, 'Well, there is an error, and I don't know where it lies; but come, it is an error on the right hand; I have more cash in hand than I should have, that is all, so I am well enough; let it go; I shall find it some time or other.' But the tradesman ought to consider that he is quite in the dark; and as he does not really know where it lies, so, for ought he knows, the error may really be to his loss very considerably—and the case is very plain, that it is as dangerous to be over, as it would be to be under; he should, therefore, never give it over till he has found it out, and brought it to rights. For example:

2. A tradesperson trying to balance their cash shouldn't feel any more content if they find an error that results in having more cash than what their cash-book says they should have, than if they find they have less cash. I know many people who, when they discover a discrepancy, simply accept it, saying, 'Well, there's a mistake, and I don't know where it is; but at least it's in my favor—I've got more cash than I should have, so I'm fine; I'll sort it out eventually.' However, the tradesperson needs to realize that they're completely in the dark. Since they don't really know where the mistake is, it could very well be causing them a significant loss. It's clear that it's just as risky to be over as it is to be under. Therefore, they should never stop looking until they've figured it out and corrected it. For example:

If there appears to be more money in the cash than there is by the balance in the cash-book, this must follow—namely, that some parcel of money must have been received, which is not entered in the book; now, till the tradesman knows what sum of money this is, that is thus not entered, how can he tell but the mistake may be quite the other way, and the cash be really wrong to his loss? Thus,

If there seems to be more cash on hand than what’s recorded in the cash book, this means that some amount of money has been received that isn’t logged in the book. Until the business owner figures out how much money is missing from the records, they can't be sure that the issue isn't the opposite—that the cash balance is actually incorrect and could lead to a loss. So,

My cash-book being cast up for the last month, I find, by the foot of the leaf, there is cash remaining in hand to balance £176, 10s. 6d.

My cash book for the last month shows, at the bottom of the page, that I have £176.10.6 in cash remaining.

To see if all things are right, I go and tell my money over, and there, to my surprise, I find £194, 10s. 6d. in cash, so that I have £18 there more than I should have. Now, far from being pleased that I have more money by me than I should have, my inquiry is plain, 'How comes this to pass?'

To check if everything's okay, I go and count my money, and there, to my surprise, I find £194.10.6 in cash, which means I have £18 more than I should. Instead of being happy about having extra money, I'm wondering, 'How did this happen?'

Perhaps I puzzle my head a great while about it, but not being able to find out, I sit down easy and satisfied, and say, 'Well, I don't much concern myself about it; it is better to be so than £18 missing; I cannot tell where it lies, but let it lie where it will, here is the money to make up the mistake when it appears.'

Perhaps I think about it for a long time, but since I can't figure it out, I sit back comfortably and say, 'Well, I won’t worry too much about it; it’s better to be like this than to be £18 short. I don’t know where it is, but let it stay wherever it is; I have the money to cover the mistake when it shows up.'

But how foolish is this! how ill-grounded the satisfaction! and how weak am I to argue thus, and please myself with the delusion! For some months after, it appears, perhaps, that whereas there was £38 entered, received of Mr B.K., the figure 3 was mistaken, and set down for a figure of 5, for the sum received was £58; so that, instead of having £18 more in cash than there ought to be, I have 40s. wanting in my cash, which my son or my apprentice stole from me when they put in the money, and made the mistake of the figures to puzzle the book, that it might be some time before it should be discovered.

But how foolish is this! How unfounded is this satisfaction! And how weak am I to argue like this and indulge in this delusion! For some months later, it seems that while £38 was recorded as received from Mr. B.K., the figure 3 was mistakenly written down instead of a figure 5, because the actual amount received was £58. So instead of having £18 more in cash than I should, I actually have £2 missing, which either my son or my apprentice took when they deposited the money and made the mistake with the figures to confuse the records, so that it would take a while before it was discovered.

Upon the whole, take it as a rule, the tradesman ought to be as unsatisfied when he finds a mistake to his gain in his cash, as when he finds it to his loss; and it is every whit as dangerous, nay, it is the more suspicious, because it seems to be laid as a bait for him to stop his mouth, and to prevent further inquiries; and it is on that account that I leave this caution upon record, that the tradesman may be duly alarmed.

Overall, as a general rule, a tradesman should be just as dissatisfied when he finds a mistake that benefits him financially as he would be if he discovered one that costs him money. It's equally dangerous, if not more so, because it might be a trap meant to silence him and stop him from asking more questions. For this reason, I'm leaving this warning on the record to ensure the tradesman is properly alerted.

The keeping a cash-book is one of the nicest parts of a tradesman's business, because there is always the bag and the book to be brought together, and if they do not exactly speak the same language, even to a farthing, there must be some omission; and how big or how little that omission may be, who knows, or how shall it be known, but by casting and recasting up, telling, and telling over and over again, the money?

Keeping a cash book is one of the best aspects of a tradesman's business because the money and the records need to match up. If they don't align perfectly, even to the smallest cent, it means there's a mistake somewhere; and who knows how big or small that mistake could be? The only way to find out is by counting and recounting the money, checking and rechecking it repeatedly.

If there is but twenty shillings over in the money, the question is, 'How came it there?' It must be received somewhere, and of somebody, more than is entered; and how can the cash-keeper, be he master or servant, know but more was received with it, which is not, and should have been, entered, and so the loss may be the other way? It is true, in telling money there may have been a mistake, and he that received a sum of money may have received twenty shillings too much, or five pounds too much—and such a mistake I have known to be made in the paying and receiving of money—and a man's cash has been more perplexed, and his mind more distracted about it, than the five pounds have been worth, because he could not find it out, till some accident has discovered it;[33] and the reason is, because not knowing which way it could come there, he could not know but some omission might be made to his loss another way, as in the case above mentioned.

If there are just twenty shillings left over in the money, the question becomes, "How did it get there?" It must have been received from somewhere and from someone, more than what’s recorded; how can the cash-handler, whether the boss or an employee, be sure that extra was accepted without being logged, and therefore the loss might actually be in the opposite direction? It’s true that when counting money, there could have been an error, and the person who received a sum might have taken twenty shillings too much or even five pounds too much—and I have seen such mistakes happen in handling money—and a person's cash has been more complicated, and his mind more troubled about it, than the five pounds were worth, because he couldn't figure it out until some unexpected event revealed it; and the reason is that not knowing how it might have happened, he couldn’t rule out the possibility that some oversight could result in a loss another way, just like the scenario discussed above.

I knew, indeed, a strong waterman, who drove a very considerable trade, but, being an illiterate tradesman, never balanced his cash-book for many years, nor scarce posted his other books, and, indeed, hardly understood how to do it; but knowing his trade was exceedingly profitable, and keeping his money all himself, he was easy, and grew rich apace, in spite of the most unjustifiable, and, indeed, the most intolerable, negligence; but lest this should be pleaded as an exception to my general rule, and to invalidate the argument, give me leave to add, that, though this man grew rich in spite of indolence, and a neglect of his book, yet, when he died, two things appeared, which no tradesman in his wits would desire should be said of him.

I knew a strong waterman who ran a pretty solid business, but since he was uneducated, he never balanced his cash book for years and hardly managed to record anything else. In fact, he didn’t even really know how to do it. However, since he knew his trade was very profitable and kept all his money to himself, he was content and became wealthy quickly, despite his completely unacceptable negligence. But to ensure this doesn’t count as an exception to my overall point and weaken my argument, let me add that even though this guy got rich despite being lazy and ignoring his accounts, when he passed away, there were two things that no smart tradesman would want said about him.

I. The servants falling out, and maliciously accusing one another, had, as it appeared by the affidavits of several of them, wronged him of several considerable sums of money, which they received, and never brought into the books; and others, of sums which they brought into the books, but never brought into the cash; and others, of sums which they took ready money in the shop, and never set down, either the goods in the day-book, or the money into the cash-book; and it was thought, though he was so rich as not to feel it, that is, not to his hurt, yet that he lost three or four hundred pounds a-year in that manner, for the two or three last years of his life; but his widow and son, who came after him, having the discovery made to them, took better measures afterwards.

I. The servants had a falling out and were spitefully blaming each other, which, as shown by the affidavits of several of them, led to him being cheated out of several large sums of money. They received money that was never recorded in the books, and others received sums that were recorded but never entered into the cash. Some took cash right from the shop and failed to write down the goods in the day-book or the money in the cash-book. It was believed that, even though he was wealthy enough not to notice the loss—at least not to his detriment—he lost three or four hundred pounds a year in this way over the last two or three years of his life. However, his widow and son, upon discovering this, took better measures afterwards.

II. He never did, or could know, what he was worth, for the accounts in his books were never made up; nor when he came to die, could his executors make up any man's account, so as to be able to prove the particulars, and make a just demand of their debt, but found a prodigious number of small sums of money paid by the debtors, as by receipts in their books and on their files, some by himself, and some by his man, which were never brought to account, or brought into cash; and his man's answer being still, that he gave all to the master, they could not tell how to charge him by the master's account, because several sums, which the master himself received, were omitted being entered in the same manner, so that all was confusion and neglect; and though the man died rich, it was in spite of that management that would have made any but himself have died poor.

II. He never knew what he was worth because his financial records were never finalized. When he died, his executors couldn't compile anyone's account to accurately prove the details and make a fair claim for their debt. Instead, they found a huge number of small payments made by the debtors, with receipts in their records and files—some from him and some from his assistant—that were never accounted for or turned into cash. His assistant always claimed he gave everything to the master, so they didn’t know how to hold him accountable based on the master's records. This was because several amounts that the master himself received weren’t entered the same way, leading to overall confusion and neglect. And although the man died wealthy, it was despite the mismanagement that would have caused anyone else to go bankrupt.

Exact book-keeping is to me the effect of a man whose heart is in his business, and who intends to thrive. He that cares not whether his books are kept well or no, is in my opinion one that does not much care whether he thrives or no; or else, being in desperate circumstances, knows it, and that he cannot, or does not thrive, and so matters not which way it goes.

Accurate bookkeeping shows me that a person is committed to their business and wants to succeed. Someone who doesn’t care whether their accounts are managed properly, in my view, is either indifferent about their success or, if they’re in a tough situation, recognizes that they can’t succeed anyway, so it doesn’t really matter what happens.

It is true, the neglect of the books is private and secret, and is seldom known to any body but the tradesman himself, at least till he comes to break, and be a bankrupt, and then you frequently hear them exclaim against him, upon that very account. 'Break!' says one of the assignees; 'how should he but break?—why, he kept no books; you never saw books kept in such a scandalous manner in your life; why, he has not posted his cash-book, for I know not how many months; nor posted his day-book and journal at all, except here and there an account that he perhaps wanted to know the balance of; and as for balancing his cash, I don't see any thing of that done, I know not how long. Why, this fellow could never tell how he went on, or how things stood with him: I wonder he did not break a long time ago.'

It's true, the neglect of the books is private and secret, and it's usually only known to the tradesman himself, at least until he goes bankrupt, and then you often hear people complain about him for that very reason. "Bankrupt!" says one of the assignees; "how could he not go bankrupt?—he didn't keep any books; you've never seen books kept in such a terrible way in your life; he hasn't updated his cash book for I don’t know how many months; nor has he updated his day book and journal at all, except for a few accounts that he probably wanted to check the balance of; and as for balancing his cash, I haven’t seen anything done for ages. I mean, this guy could never tell how he was doing or what his situation was: I’m surprised he didn’t go bankrupt a long time ago."

Now, the man's case was this: he knew how to keep his books well enough, perhaps, and could write well enough; and if you look into his five or six first years of trade, you find all his accounts well kept, the journal duly posted, the cash monthly balanced; but the poor man found after that, that things went wrong, that he went backwards, and that all went down-hill, and he hated to look into his books. As a profligate never looks into his conscience, because he can see nothing there but what terrifies and affrights him, makes him uneasy and melancholy, so a sinking tradesman cares not to look into his books, because the prospect there is dark and melancholy. 'What signify the accounts to me?' says he; 'I can see nothing in the books but debts that 1 cannot pay, and debtors that will never pay; I can see nothing there but how I have trusted my estate away like a fool, and how I am to be ruined for my easiness, and being a sot:' and this makes him throw them away, and hardly post things enough to make up when folks call to pay; or if he does post such accounts as he has money to receive from, that's all, and the rest lie at random, till, as I say, the assignees come to reproach him with his negligence.

Now, the man's situation was this: he knew how to keep his books well enough, and he could write reasonably well; and if you look at his first five or six years in business, you’ll see all his accounts were well maintained, the journal properly updated, and the cash balanced every month. But after that, the poor man found that things went wrong, he fell behind, and everything started to go downhill, so he dreaded looking at his books. Just like someone who leads a reckless life avoids facing their conscience, because all they see is what scares and disturbs them, a struggling businessman doesn’t want to check his books because the outlook is bleak and depressing. “What do these accounts matter to me?” he says; “All I see in these books are debts I can’t pay, and debtors who will never settle up. All I see is how I’ve foolishly trusted away my estate and how I’m going to be ruined for being so easygoing and foolish.” This leads him to toss them aside, barely updating anything unless someone comes to pay; or if he does record the accounts from which he expects to receive money, that’s it, while the rest sit in disarray, until, as I said, the assignees come to confront him about his neglect.

Whereas, in truth, the man understood his books well enough, but had no heart to look in them, no courage to balance them, because of the afflicting prospect of them.

Whereas, in reality, the man understood his books well enough, but lacked the heart to look at them, no courage to weigh them, due to the troubling expectation of them.

But let me here advise tradesmen to keep a perfect acquaintance with their books, though things are bad and discouraging; it keeps them in full knowledge of what they are doing, and how they really stand; and it brings them sometimes to the just reflections on their circumstances which they ought to make; so to stop in time, as I hinted before, and not let things run too far before they are surprised and torn to pieces by violence.

But let me suggest to businesspeople that they stay fully aware of their finances, even when times are tough and discouraging; it helps them understand what they’re doing and where they really stand. This awareness can sometimes lead them to reflect on their situation in a way they need to, allowing them to recognize when it’s time to take action and not let things spiral out of control before they’re overwhelmed and broken apart by problems.

And, at the worst, even a declining tradesman should not let his books be neglected; if his creditors find them punctually kept to the last, it will be a credit to him, and they would see he was a man fit for business; and I have known when that very thing has recommended a tradesman so much to his creditors, that after the ruin of his fortunes, some or other of them have taken him into business, as into partnership, or into employment, only because they knew him to be qualified for business, and for keeping books in particular.

And, at the very least, even a struggling business owner shouldn’t ignore their financial records; if their creditors see that the books are kept up to date, it will reflect well on them, and they will recognize that the person is capable in business. I've seen cases where this alone has made creditors recommend a business owner so highly that, after their financial downfall, some of those creditors have brought them into business, either as a partner or in a job, simply because they knew the person was skilled in managing business and keeping accurate records.

But if we should admonish the tradesman to an exact and regular care of his books, even in his declining fortunes, much more should it be his care in his beginning, and before any disaster has befallen him. I doubt not, that many a tradesman has miscarried by the mistakes and neglect of his books; for the losses that men suffer on that account are not easily set down; but I recommend it to a tradesman to take exact care of his books, as I would to every man to take care of his diet and temperate living, in order to their health; for though, according to some, we cannot, by all our care and caution, lengthen out life, but that every one must and shall live their appointed time,[34] yet, by temperance and regular conduct, we may make that life more comfortable, more agreeable, and pleasant, by its being more healthy and hearty; so, though the exactest book-keeping cannot be said to make a tradesman thrive, or that he shall stand the longer in his business, because his profit and loss do not depend upon his books, or the goodness of his debts depend upon the debtor's accounts being well posted, yet this must be said, that the well keeping of his books may be the occasion of his trade being carried on with the more ease and pleasure, and the more satisfaction, by having numberless quarrels, and contentions, and law-suits, which are the plagues of a tradesman's life, prevented and avoided; which, on the contrary, often torment a tradesman, and make his whole business be uneasy to him for want of being able to make a regular proof of things by his books.

But if we should advise the tradesman to take careful and consistent care of his books, even when his fortunes are declining, it’s even more important for him to do so at the beginning and before any disasters hit. I’m sure that many tradesmen have failed due to mistakes and neglect of their books; the losses that people suffer because of this can't be easily stated. I recommend that a tradesman keep careful records, just as I would advise anyone to pay attention to their diet and moderate living for the sake of their health. Although some believe we can’t extend our lives no matter how careful we are, and that everyone will live their allotted time, yet through moderation and order, we can make life more comfortable, pleasant, and enjoyable by making it healthier. Similarly, while precise bookkeeping can't necessarily guarantee a tradesman’s success or longer tenure in business, since his profits and losses don’t solely depend on his records, it’s worth noting that maintaining good books can lead to running his trade with more ease and satisfaction. This can help prevent countless disputes, conflicts, and lawsuits, which plague a tradesman’s life and can turn his whole business into a source of stress due to the inability to provide clear evidence through his records.

A tradesman without his books, in case of a law-suit for a debt, is like a married woman without her certificate. How many times has a woman been cast, and her cause not only lost, but her reputation and character exposed, for want of being able to prove her marriage, though she has been really and honestly married, and has merited a good character all her days? And so in trade, many a debt has been lost, many an account been perplexed by the debtor, many a sum of money been recovered, and actually paid over again, especially after the tradesman has been dead, for want of hits keeping his books carefully and exactly when he was alive; by which negligence, if he has not been ruined when he was living, his widow and children have been ruined after his decease; though, had justice been done, he had left them in good circumstances, and with sufficient to support them.

A tradesman without his records, when facing a lawsuit for a debt, is like a married woman without her marriage certificate. How often has a woman been rejected, causing her not only to lose her case but also to have her reputation and character undermined, simply because she couldn't prove her marriage, even though she was truly and honestly married and had earned a good reputation throughout her life? Similarly, in business, many debts have gone unpaid, many accounts have been complicated by the debtor, and a lot of money has been recovered and paid out again, especially after the tradesman has died, due to his failure to keep accurate and careful records while alive. This negligence, if it didn't ruin him while he was alive, left his widow and children in a dire situation after his death, when, had justice been served, he would have left them in a stable position, with enough to support themselves.

And this brings me to another principal reason why a tradesman should not only keep books, but be very regular and exact in keeping them in order, that is to say, duly posted, and all his affairs exactly and duly entered in his books; and this is, that if he should be surprised by sudden or unexpected sickness, or death, as many are, and as all may be, his accounts may not be left intricate and unsettled, and his affairs thereby be perplexed.

And this brings me to another main reason why a tradesman should not only keep records but also be very organized and precise in maintaining them. Specifically, everything should be properly updated, and all his business dealings should be accurately and thoroughly recorded in his books. This is important because if he experiences a sudden or unexpected illness or death, as many do and any could, his accounts won't be left complicated and unresolved, preventing his affairs from becoming chaotic.

Next to being prepared for death, with respect to Heaven and his soul, a tradesman should be always in a state of preparation for death, with respect to his books; it is in vain that he calls for a scrivener or lawyer, and makes a will, when he finds a sudden summons sent him for the grave, and calls his friends about him to divide and settle his estate; if his business is in confusion below stairs, his books out of order, and his accounts unsettled, to what purpose does he give his estate among his relations, when nobody knows where to find it?

Next to being ready for death concerning Heaven and his soul, a tradesman should always be prepared for death with regard to his books. It's pointless to call a notary or lawyer and make a will when he suddenly gets called to the grave, gathering his friends to divide and settle his estate. If his business is chaotic, his books are disorganized, and his accounts are unresolved, what's the point of giving his estate to his relatives when no one knows where to find it?

As, then, the minister exhorts us to take care of our souls, and make our peace with Heaven, while we are in a state of health, and while life has no threatening enemies about it, no diseases, no fevers attending; so let me second that advice to the tradesman always to keep his books in such a posture, that if he should be snatched away by death, his distressed widow and fatherless family may know what is left for them, and may know where to look for it. He may depend upon it, that what he owes to any one they will come fast enough for, and his widow and executrix will be pulled to pieces for it, if she cannot and does not speedily pay it. Why, then, should he not put her in a condition to have justice done her and her children, and to know how and of whom to seek for his just debts, that she may be able to pay others, and secure the remainder for herself and her children? I must confess, a tradesman not to leave his books in order when he dies, argues him to be either.

As the minister urges us to focus on our souls and make peace with Heaven while we are healthy and life is free from threats, diseases, or fevers, let me echo that advice for the tradesman: always keep your books organized so that if death suddenly takes you, your grieving widow and fatherless family will know what you’ve left for them and where to find it. You can be sure that creditors will come demanding what you owe, and your widow and executrix will be pressured to pay quickly if she can. So, why shouldn’t he make sure she is prepared to seek justice for herself and her children, and know how to find out about his debts so she can pay them and secure what’s left for herself and the kids? I must admit, a tradesman who leaves his books disorganized when he dies shows a lack of responsibility.

1. A very bad Christian, who had few or no thoughts of death upon him, or that considered nothing of its frequent coming unexpected and sudden without warning; or,

1. A very bad Christian, who rarely thought about death or didn’t see it as something that often comes unexpectedly and suddenly without warning; or,

2. A very unnatural relation, without the affections of a father, or a husband, or even of a friend, that should rather leave what he had to be swallowed up by strangers, than leave his family and friends in a condition to find, and to recover it.

2. A very unnatural relationship, lacking the feelings of a father, a husband, or even a friend, which would rather allow what he had to be taken by strangers than leave his family and friends in a position to find and reclaim it.

Again, it is the same case as in matters religious, with respect to the doing this in time, and while health and strength remain. For, as we say very well, and with great reason, that the work of eternity should not be left to the last moments; that a death-bed is no place, and a sick languishing body no condition, and the last breath no time, for repentance; so I may add, neither are these the place, the condition, nor the time, to make up our accounts. There is no posting the books on a death-bed, or balancing the cash-book in a high fever. Can the tradesman tell you where his effects lie, and to whom he has lent or trusted sums of money, or large quantities of goods, when he is delirious and light-headed? All these things must be done in time, and the tradesman should take care that his books should always do this for him, and then he has nothing to do but make his will, and dispose of what he has; and for the rest he refers them to his books, to know where every thing is to be had.

Once again, it's the same situation as in religious matters: we should take care of things in a timely manner while we still have our health and strength. As we wisely say, the matters of eternity shouldn't be left until the very last moments; a deathbed is not the right place, a sick and weak body is not the right condition, and the final moments are not the right time for repentance. Likewise, this is not the time or place to settle our accounts. You can't balance the books on your deathbed or reconcile your finances while you're feverish. Can a business owner tell you where their assets are or to whom they've loaned money or given goods when they're delirious and out of their mind? All of these things need to be handled in advance, and the business owner should ensure their records are always up to date. Then, they only need to focus on making their will and deciding what to do with their possessions; for everything else, they can refer to their records to know where everything is.

FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:

[The sum at the bottom, or foot, of the account.]

[The total at the bottom, or foot, of the account.]

[This reminds the editor of an amusing anecdote he has heard, illustrative of the diseased accuracy, as it may be called, of a certain existing London merchant. On reckoning up his household book one year, he found that he had expended one penny more than was accounted for, and there was accordingly an error to that extent in his reckoning. The very idea of an error, however trifling the amount, gave him great uneasiness, and he set himself with the greatest anxiety to discover, if possible, the occasion. He employed the by-hours of weeks in the vain attempt; but at length, having one day to cross Waterloo Bridge, where there is a pontage of a penny for foot passengers, he all at once, to his inconceivable joy, recollected having there disbursed the coin in question about a twelvemonth before.]

[This reminds the editor of a funny story he heard about a particular London merchant who was obsessively precise. One year, while going over his household expenses, he noticed he had spent one penny more than he had recorded, which meant there was a slight mistake in his accounting. The mere thought of this error, no matter how small, caused him a lot of anxiety, and he spent weeks trying to figure out where it happened. After a long struggle, one day while crossing Waterloo Bridge, where foot passengers have to pay a penny toll, he suddenly remembered that he had spent that exact penny there about a year ago, which filled him with immense joy.]

[The correct doctrine is, we may not, by our utmost care and diligence, avoid the causes of an early and premature death; but he who acts according to the rules which promote health, and avoids all things which tend to endanger it, has a much better chance of living to the natural period appointed for human life than he who acts otherwise—besides, as stated in the text, making his life more agreeable. The author's illustration would be more properly drawn if we were to say, 'The tradesman, by keeping exact accounts, may not succeed in contending against certain unfavourable circumstances, no more than the man who lives according to the just rules of nature may thereby succeed in eviting other evils that tend to cut short life; but as the temperate man is most likely to be healthy, so is the tradesman, who keeps exact accounts, most likely to thrive in business.']

[The correct idea is, we cannot completely prevent the causes of an early and premature death, no matter how careful we are; but someone who follows the guidelines that encourage good health and avoids things that could harm it has a much better chance of living to the natural lifespan given for humans than someone who doesn’t—plus, as noted in the text, it makes life more enjoyable. The author’s example would be better put if we said, 'The merchant, by keeping precise records, may not be able to overcome certain unfavorable situations, just like someone who lives according to the natural laws may not be able to avoid other dangers that could shorten life; but just as a temperate person is most likely to be healthy, the merchant who keeps precise records is most likely to succeed in business.']


CHAPTER XXI

OF THE TRADESMAN LETTING HIS WIFE BE ACQUAINTED WITH HIS BUSINESS

OF THE TRADESMAN LETTING HIS WIFE KNOW ABOUT HIS BUSINESS


It must be acknowledged, that as this chapter seems to be written in favour of the women, it also seems to be an officious, thankless benefaction to the wives; for that, as the tradesman's ladies now manage, they are above the favour, and put no value upon it. On the contrary, the women, generally speaking, trouble not their heads about it, scorn to be seen in the counting house, much less behind the counter; despise the knowledge of their husbands' business, and act as if they were ashamed of being tradesmen's wives, and never intended to be tradesmen's widows.

It should be recognized that while this chapter appears to support women, it also seems like an unnecessary, unappreciated act of kindness toward wives; because, as the wives of business owners nowadays operate, they see themselves as independent and don't value that support. On the flip side, women in general don't concern themselves with it, refuse to be seen in the office, and certainly not behind the counter; they look down on knowing their husbands' business and behave as if they are embarrassed to be the wives of tradesmen, with no intention of becoming the widows of tradesmen.

If this chosen ignorance of theirs comes some time or other to be their loss, and they find the disadvantage of it too late, they may read their fault in their punishment, and wish too late they had acted the humbler part, and not thought it below them to inform themselves of what it is so much their interest to know. This pride is, indeed, the great misfortune of tradesmen's wives; for, as they lived as if they were above being owned for the tradesman's wife, so, when he dies, they live to be the shame of the tradesman's widow. They knew nothing how he got his estate when he was alive, and they know nothing where to find it when he is dead. This drives them into the hands of lawyers, attorneys, and solicitors, to get in their effects; who, when they have got it, often run away with it, and leave the poor widow in a more disconsolate and perplexed condition than she was in before.

If their chosen ignorance eventually leads to their downfall and they realize the disadvantage too late, they may see their mistakes through their punishment and regret not having taken the more modest approach of informing themselves about what is so crucial for their interests. This pride is truly the main misfortune for the wives of tradesmen. They live as if they are above being recognized as the tradesman's wife, but when he dies, they become a source of shame for the tradesman's widow. They had no idea how he built his wealth while he was alive, and they don’t know where to find it once he’s gone. This drives them into the hands of lawyers, attorneys, and solicitors to recover their assets; however, once they obtain it, they often abscond with it, leaving the poor widow in an even more hopeless and confused state than before.

It is true, indeed, that this is the women's fault in one respect, and too often it is so in many, since the common spirit is, as I observed, so much above the tradesman's condition; but since it is not so with every body, let me state the case a little for the use of those who still have ther senses about them; and whose pride is not got so much above their reason, as to let them choose to be tradesmen's beggars, rather than tradesmen's widows.

It's true that in some ways, this is the women's fault, and often it's the case in many situations, since the general attitude, as I mentioned, is so much above the tradesman's status. However, since this isn't true for everyone, let me explain the situation a little for those who still have their wits about them; and whose pride hasn't gotten so far above their common sense that they choose to be beggars of tradesmen instead of widows of tradesmen.

When the tradesman dies, it is to be expected that what estate or effects he leaves, is, generally speaking, dispersed about in many hands; his widow, if she is left executrix, has the trouble of getting things together as well as she can; if she is not left executrix, she has not the trouble indeed, but then it is looked upon that she is dishonoured in not having the trust; when she comes to look into her affairs, she is more or less perplexed and embarrassed, as she has not or has acquainted herself, or been made acquainted, with her husband's affairs in his lifetime.

When the tradesman passes away, it's usually expected that the estate or belongings he leaves behind are spread out among many people. If his widow is named as the executor, she has the challenge of gathering everything as best as she can. If she isn't the executor, she may not have the burden, but it’s viewed as a dishonor that she wasn’t entrusted with that role. When she starts to examine her finances, she often feels confused and stressed, as she hasn’t been involved in her husband’s affairs during his lifetime or hasn’t been informed about them.

If she has been one of those gay delicate ladies, that valuing herself upon her being a gentlewoman, and that thought it a step below herself, when she married this mechanic thing called a tradesman, and consequently scorned to come near his shop, or warehouse, and by consequence acquainting herself with any of his affairs,[35] or so much as where his effects lay, which are to be her fortune for the future—I say, if this has been her case, her folly calls for pity now, as her pride did for contempt before; for as she was foolish in the first, she may be miserable in the last part of it; for now she falls into a sea of trouble, she has the satisfaction of knowing that her husband has died, as the tradesmen call it, well to pass, and that she is left well enough; but she has at the same time the mortification of knowing nothing how to get it in, or in what hands it lies. The only relief she has is her husband's books, and she is happy in that, but just in proportion to the care he took in keeping them; even when she finds the names of debtors, she knows not who they are, or where they dwell, who are good, and who are bad; the only remedy she has here, if her husband had ever a servant, or apprentice, who was so near out of his time as to be acquainted with the customers, and with the books, then she is forced to be beholden to him to settle the accounts for her, and endeavour to get in the debts; in return for which she is forced to give him his time and freedom, and let him into the trade, make him master of all the business in the world, and it may be at last, with all her pride, has to take him for a husband; and when her friends upbraid her with it, that she should marry her apprentice boy, when it may be she was old enough to be his mother, her answer is, 'Why, what could I do? I see I must have been ruined else; I had nothing but what lay abroad in debts, scattered about the world, and nobody but he knew how to get them in. What could I do? If I had not done it, I must have been a beggar.' And so, it may be, she is at last too, if the boy of a husband proves a brute to her, as many do, and as in such unequal matches indeed most such people do. Thus, that pride which once set her above a kind, diligent, tender husband, and made her scorn to stoop to acquaint herself with his affairs, by which, had she done it, she had been tolerably qualified to get in her debts, dispose of her shop-goods, and bring her estate together—the same pride sinks her into the necessity of cringing to a scoundrel, and taking her servant to be her master.

If she was one of those delicate, fashionable ladies who valued herself as a gentlewoman and thought it was beneath her to marry someone like a tradesman, so she avoided his shop or warehouse and didn’t involve herself in his business, then her foolishness deserves pity now, just as her pride once deserved scorn. She might have been foolish in the beginning, and now she could be miserable at the end because she’s drowning in problems. She can take comfort in knowing her husband passed away content, and that she’s financially okay, but she also faces the frustration of having no idea how to access those funds or who’s in charge of them. Her only support is her husband’s accounting books, which can only help her to the extent that he kept them organized. Even if she finds the names of people who owe him money, she doesn’t know who they are or where they live, or if they’re reliable or not. The only help she might get is from a servant or apprentice of her husband’s who’s close to finishing his training and knows the customers and the accounting. This means she has to rely on him to settle the accounts and collect the debts. In exchange, she might have to give him his freedom and let him take over the business, and in the end, with all her pride, she might even have to marry him. When her friends criticize her for marrying her apprentice, even though she’s old enough to be his mother, she might respond, “What else could I do? I was going to be ruined otherwise. I had nothing but scattered debts, and he was the only one who knew how to collect them. What could I do? If I hadn’t done it, I would have been a beggar.” And perhaps, she will end up being a beggar if her young husband turns out to be a jerk, like many do, especially in such mismatched situations. Thus, her pride, which once kept her above a caring and hardworking husband and made her refuse to get involved in his business—had she done so, she might have been well-prepared to collect her debts, manage her stock, and consolidate her finances—now forces her to submit to a scoundrel and make her servant her master.

This I mention for the caution of those ladies who stoop to marry men of business, and yet despise the business they are maintained by; that marry the tradesman, but scorn the trade. If madam thinks fit to stoop to the man, she ought never to think herself above owning his employment; and as she may upon occasion of his death be left to value herself upon it, and to have at least her fortune and her children's to gather up out of it, she ought not to profess herself so unacquainted with it as not to be able to look into it when necessity obliges her.

I mention this as a warning to those women who choose to marry men in business but look down on the work that supports them; who marry the businessman but scorn the business. If a woman thinks it’s okay to marry the man, she shouldn’t think she’s above acknowledging his profession. If he were to pass away, she might need to take pride in it and rely on it to secure her fortune and that of her children, so she shouldn’t pretend to be so unfamiliar with it that she can't look into it when she needs to.

It is a terrible disaster to any woman to be so far above her own circumstances, that she should not qualify herself to make the best of things that are left her, or to preserve herself from being cheated, and being imposed upon. In former times, tradesmen's widows valued themselves upon the shop and trade, or the warehouse and trade, that were left them; and at least, if they did not carry on the trade in their own names, they would keep it up till they put it off to advantage; and often I have known a widow get from £300 to £500 for the good-will, as it is called, of the shop and trade, if she did not think fit to carry on the trade; if she did, the case turned the other way, namely, that if the widow did not put off the shop, the shop would put off the widow; and I may venture to say, that where there is one widow that keeps on the trade now, after a husband's decease, there were ten, if not twenty, that did it then.

It’s a huge problem for any woman to rise so far above her circumstances that she can’t manage what’s left for her or protect herself from being taken advantage of. In the past, widows of shopkeepers took pride in the store and business that were left to them; and even if they didn’t run the business in their names, they would maintain it until they could sell it for a good price. I’ve often seen a widow sell the good will of the shop for between £300 to £500 if she didn’t want to keep the business going. If she chose to continue running the shop, however, the situation flipped: if the widow didn’t sell the shop, the shop would end up driving her out. I can confidently say that for every widow keeping the business going now after her husband passes, there were ten, if not twenty, who did so back then.

But now the ladies are above it, and disdain it so much, that they choose rather to go without the prospect of a second marriage, in virtue of the trade, than to stoop to the mechanic low step of carrying on a trade; and they have their reward, for they do go without it; and whereas they might in former times match infinitely to their advantage by that method, now they throw themselves away, and the trade too.[36]

But now the women are above it and look down on it so much that they’d rather go without the chance of a second marriage because of the profession than lower themselves by engaging in it. And they get their reward, as they truly do go without it. While in the past they could have matched themselves to their advantage through that way, now they throw themselves away along with the trade.[36]

But this is not the case which I particularly aim at in this chapter. If the women will act weakly and foolishly, and throw away the advantages that he puts into their hands, be that to them, and it is their business to take care of that; but I would have them have the opportunity put into their hands, and that they may make the best of it if they please; if they will not, the fault is their own. But to this end, I say, I would have every tradesman make his wife so much acquainted with his trade, and so much mistress of the managing part of it, that she might be able to carry it on if she pleased, in case of his death; if she does not please, that is another case; or if she will not acquaint herself with it, that also is another case, and she must let it alone; but he should put it into her power, or give her the offer of it.

But that's not the situation I'm focusing on in this chapter. If women choose to act weakly and foolishly and waste the opportunities presented to them, that's their choice, and it's up to them to handle it. However, I believe they should have the chance to take advantage of those opportunities and do their best with them if they want; if they choose not to, then the blame is on them. To that end, I think every tradesman should make sure his wife understands his trade well enough to manage it herself if she wants to, especially in case he passes away. If she doesn't want to, that's one thing; if she refuses to learn about it, that's another, and she can choose to let it go. But he should give her the chance or offer it to her.

First, he should do it for her own sake, namely, as before, that she may make her advantage of it, either for disposing herself and the shop together, as is said above, or for the more readily disposing the goods, and getting in the debts, without dishonouring herself, as I have observed, and marrying her 'prentice boy, in order to take care of the effects—that is to say, ruining herself to prevent her being ruined.

First, he should do it for her own good, just like before, so she can benefit from it, either by managing herself and the shop together, as mentioned earlier, or by selling the goods more easily and collecting the debts without tarnishing her reputation, as I’ve noted, and marrying her apprentice boy to take care of the business—that is, sacrificing herself to avoid being ruined.

Secondly, he should do it for his children's sake, if he has any, that if the wife have any knowledge of the business, and has a son to breed up to it, though he be not yet of age to take it up, she may keep the trade for him, and introduce him into it, that so he may take the trouble off her hands, and she may have the satisfaction of preserving the father's trade for the benefit of his son, though left too young to enter upon it at first.

Secondly, he should do it for the sake of his children, if he has any. If the wife knows anything about the business and has a son to prepare for it, even if he’s not old enough to take it over yet, she can keep the trade for him and introduce him to it. That way, he can eventually take the burden off her hands, and she can take comfort in preserving the father’s trade for the benefit of his son, even though he’s too young to take it on right away.

Thus I have known many a widow that would have thought it otherwise below her, has engaged herself in her husbands's business, and carried it on, purely to bring her eldest son up to it, and has preserved it for him, and which has been an estate to him, whereas otherwise it must have been lost, and he would have had the world to seek for a new business.

Thus, I have known many widows who would have considered it beneath them, but they got involved in their husband's business and ran it, solely to prepare their oldest son for it. They kept it for him, which became an asset for him, whereas otherwise it would have been lost, and he would have had to find a new career.

This is a thing which every honest affectionate mother would, or at least should, be so willing to do for a son, that she, I think, who would not, ought not to marry a tradesman at all; but if she would think herself above so important a trust for her own children, she should likewise think herself above having children by a tradesman, and marry somebody whose children she would act the mother for.

This is something that every loving and honest mother would, or at least should, be willing to do for her son. I believe that any mother who wouldn’t is not fit to marry a tradesman at all. If she sees herself as too good for such an important responsibility for her own children, then she should also see herself as too good to have children with a tradesman and should marry someone whose children she would take on as her own.

But every widow is not so unnatural, and I am willing to suppose the tradesman I am writing to shall be better married, and, therefore, I give over speaking to the woman's side, and I will suppose the tradesman's wife not to be above her quality, and willing to be made acquainted with her husband's affairs, as well as to be helpful to him, if she can, as to be in a condition to be helpful to herself and her family, if she comes to have occasion. But, then, the difficulty often lies on the other side the question, and the tradesman cares not to lay open his business to, or acquaint his wife with it; and many circumstances of the tradesman draw him into this snare; for I must call it a snare both to him and to her.

But not every widow is so unreasonable, and I’m willing to believe that the tradesman I’m addressing will be better married. So, I’ll stop discussing the woman's perspective and assume that the tradesman's wife is not above her position and is eager to understand her husband's business as well as to help him if she can. She should also be in a position to support herself and her family if the need arises. However, the challenge often lies on the other side of the issue, as the tradesman may not want to share his business or involve his wife in it. Various factors can trap the tradesman in this situation, and I must refer to it as a trap for both him and her.

I. The tradesman is foolishly vain of making his wife a gentlewoman, and, forsooth, he will have her sit above in the parlour, and receive visits, and drink tea, and entertain her neighbours, or take a coach and go abroad; but as to the business, she shall not stoop to touch it; he has apprentices and journeymen, and there is no need of it.

I. The tradesman is foolishly proud of turning his wife into a lady, and, seriously, he wants her to sit upstairs in the parlor, receive guests, drink tea, and host her neighbors, or take a carriage and go out; but when it comes to the business, she shouldn’t lower herself to handle it; he has apprentices and workers for that, and it’s not necessary.

II. Some trades, indeed, are not proper for the women to meddle in, or custom has made it so, that it would be ridiculous for the women to appear in their shops; that is, such as linen and woollen drapers, mercers, booksellers, goldsmiths, and all sorts of dealers by commission, and the like—custom, I say, has made these trades so effectually shut out the women, that, what with custom, and the women's generally thinking it below them, we never, or rarely, see any women in those shops or warehouses.

II. There are indeed some trades that women shouldn't engage in, or custom has made it such that it would be ridiculous for women to be seen in those shops. This includes businesses like linen and wool merchants, fabric sellers, bookstores, gold shops, and various commission-based sellers. Custom has effectively excluded women from these trades, and since women generally think these jobs are beneath them, we hardly ever see women in those shops or warehouses.

III. Or if the trade is proper, and the wife willing, the husband declines it, and shuts her out—and this is the thing I complain of as an unjustice upon the woman. But our tradesmen, forsooth, think it an undervaluing to them and to their business to have their wives seen in their shops—that is to say, that, because other trades do not admit them, therefore they will not have their trades or shops thought less masculine or less considerable than others, and they will not have their wives be seen in their shops.

III. Or if the trade is suitable, and the wife is willing, the husband rejects it and keeps her out—and this is what I view as unfair to the woman. But our tradesmen, it seems, believe that having their wives visible in their shops devalues them and their businesses—that is to say, because other trades don’t allow it, they refuse to let their trades or shops be seen as less masculine or less significant than others, and they won’t allow their wives to be seen in their shops.

IV. But there are two sorts of husbands more who decline acquainting their wives with their business; and those are, (1.) Those who are unkind, haughty, and imperious, who will not trust their wives, because they will not make them useful, that they may not value themselves upon it, and make themselves, as it were, equal to their husbands. A weak, foolish, and absurd suggestion! as if the wife were at all exalted by it, which, indeed, is just the contrary, for the woman is rather humbled and made a servant by it: or, (2.) The other sort are those who are afraid their wives should be let into the grand secret of all—namely, to know that they are bankrupt, and undone, and worth nothing.

IV. But there are two types of husbands who refuse to share their business with their wives; and those are, (1.) Those who are unkind, arrogant, and domineering, who won’t trust their wives because they don’t want them to be helpful and feel equal to them. What a weak, foolish, and ridiculous idea! As if the wife gains anything from it; in reality, it does the opposite, as it diminishes the woman and turns her into a servant; or, (2.) The other type are those who are scared that their wives will discover the ultimate truth—that they are bankrupt, failing, and worth nothing.

All these considerations are foolish or fraudulent, and in every one of them the husband is in the wrong—nay, they all argue very strongly for the wife's being, in a due degree, let into the knowledge of their business; but the last, indeed, especially that she may be put into a posture to save him from ruin, if it be possible, or to carry on some business without him, if he is forced to fail, and fly; as many have been, when the creditors have encouraged the wife to carry on a trade for the support of her family and children, when he perhaps may never show his head again.

All these points are either silly or misleading, and in each case, the husband is at fault—actually, they all strongly suggest that the wife should be informed about their affairs to a reasonable extent; but the last point, in particular, is crucial so she can potentially rescue him from disaster if possible, or manage some matters on her own if he has to escape and disappear, as many have had to do when creditors prompted the wife to run a business to support her family and children, even when he might never return.

But let the man's case be what it will, I think he can never call it a hard shift to let his wife into an acquaintance with his business, if she desires it, and is fit for it; and especially in case of mortality, that she may not be left helpless and friendless with her children when her husband is gone, and when, perhaps, her circumstances may require it.

But regardless of the man's situation, I believe he can never consider it a tough situation to allow his wife to be aware of his work if she wants to and is capable of understanding it; especially in case of death, so she won't be left powerless and alone with her children when her husband is gone, and when her situation might demand it.

I am not for a man setting his wife at the head of his business, and placing himself under her like a journeyman, like a certain china-seller, not far from the East India House, who, if any customers came into the shop that made a mean, sorry figure, would leave them to her husband to manage and attend them; but if they looked like quality, and people of fashion, would come up to her husband, when he was showing them his goods, putting him by with a 'Hold your tongue, Tom, and let me talk.' I say, it is not this kind, or part, that I would have the tradesman's wife let into, but such, and so much, of the trade only as may be proper for her, not ridiculous, in the eye of the world, and may make her assisting and helpful, not governing to him, and, which is the main thing I am at, such as should qualify her to keep up the business for herself and children, if her husband should be taken away, and she be left destitute in the world, as many are.

I don't support a man putting his wife in charge of his business and treating himself like an employee, like a certain china-seller near the East India House who would leave customers who seemed cheap to her husband to deal with. However, if customers appeared to be of high status or fashionable, they would approach him while he was showing off his products, telling him, 'Be quiet, Tom, let me handle this.' I’m not advocating for that kind of dynamic where a tradesman's wife is involved. Instead, I believe she should be involved in a way that is appropriate and not embarrassing in public, making her supportive and helpful rather than in control. Most importantly, she should be capable of maintaining the business for herself and her children if her husband were to pass away, leaving her on her own, as many women unfortunately find themselves.

Thus much, I think, it is hard a wife should not know, and no honest tradesman ought to refuse it; and above all, it is a great pity the wives of tradesmen, who so often are reduced to great inconvenience for want of it, should so far withstand their own felicity, as to refuse to be thus made acquainted with their business, by which weak and foolish pride they expose themselves, as I have observed, to the misfortune of throwing the business away, when they may come to want it, and when the keeping it up might be the restoring of their family, and providing for their children.

I think it's difficult for a wife not to know this, and no honest business person should refuse to share it. Above all, it's really unfortunate that the wives of business owners often face significant challenges because they lack this information. Their own weak and foolish pride leads them to refuse to understand their household finances, and as I've noticed, this can result in them losing the business altogether. This is especially concerning when they might need it later to support their family and provide for their children.

For, not to compliment tradesmen too much, their wives are not all ladies, nor are their children all born to be gentlemen. Trade, on the contrary, is subject to contingencies; some begin poor, and end rich; others, and those very many, begin rich, and end poor: and there are innumerable circumstances which may attend a tradesman's family, which may make it absolutely necessary to preserve the trade for his children, if possible; the doing which may keep them from misery, and raise them all in the world, and the want of it, on the other hand, sinks and suppresses them. For example:—

Because, while I don’t want to overpraise tradespeople, their wives aren’t all dignified, and their children aren’t all destined to be gentlemen. Trade, on the other hand, can be unpredictable; some start out poor and end up wealthy, while many others start out wealthy and end up poor. There are countless factors that can affect a tradesman’s family, which might make it essential to pass on the trade to his children, if possible. Doing so can help them avoid hardship and elevate their status in society, while the lack of it can, conversely, lead to their decline and suppression. For example:—

A tradesman has begun the world about six or seven years; he has, by his industry and good understanding in business, just got into a flourishing trade, by which he clears five or six hundred pounds a-year; and if it should please God to spare his life for twenty years or more, he would certainly be a rich man, and get a good estate; but on a sudden, and in the middle of all his prosperity, he is snatched away by a sudden fit of sickness, and his widow is left in a desolate despairing condition, having five children, and big with another; but the eldest of these is not above six years old, and, though he is a boy, yet he is utterly incapable to be concerned in the business; so the trade which (had his father lived to bring him up in his shop or warehouse) would have been an estate to him, is like to be lost, and perhaps go all away to the eldest apprentice, who, however, wants two years of his time. Now, what is to be done for this unhappy family?

A tradesman had been in business for about six or seven years; through hard work and smart business decisions, he had just built a successful trade, earning five or six hundred pounds a year. If God spared his life for twenty more years or so, he would likely become wealthy and acquire a good estate. But suddenly, in the midst of all his success, he was struck down by a sudden illness, leaving his widow in a state of deep despair, with five children and pregnant with another. The oldest is only six years old, and even though he’s a boy, he’s completely unfit to manage the business. So, the trade that could have provided for him, had his father lived to teach him in the shop or warehouse, is at risk of being lost, possibly going to the eldest apprentice, who still has two years left to serve. Now, what can be done for this unfortunate family?

'Done!' says the widow; 'why, I will never let the trade fall so, that should be the making of my son, and in the meantime be the maintenance of all my children.'

'Done!' says the widow; 'I will never let the business go down like that, as it should secure my son’s future and support all my children in the meantime.'

'Why, what can you do, child?' says her father, or other friends; 'you know nothing of it. Mr —— did not acquaint you with his business.'

'What can you do, kid?' her father or other friends ask. 'You don't know anything about it. Mr. —— didn't fill you in on his business.'

'That is true,' says the widow; 'he did not, because I was a fool, and did not care to look much into it, and that was my fault. Mr —— did not press me to it, because he was afraid I might think he intended to put me upon it; but he often used to say, that if he should drop off before his boys were fit to come into the shop, it would be a sad loss to them—that the trade would make gentlemen of a couple of them, and it would be great pity it should go away from them.'

"That’s true," says the widow; "he didn’t, because I was a fool and didn’t bother to look into it much, and that was my fault. Mr. —— didn’t push me on it because he was worried I might think he was trying to get me involved; but he often used to say that if he passed away before his boys were ready to take over the shop, it would be a real loss for them—that the trade would turn a couple of them into gentlemen, and it would be a shame for it to slip away from them."

'But what does that signify now, child?' adds the father; 'you see it is so; and how can it be helped?'

'But what does that mean now, kid?' the father adds; 'you see it's true; and how can we change it?'

'Why,' says the widow, 'I used to ask him if he thought I could carry it on for them, if such a thing should happen?'

'Why,' says the widow, 'I used to ask him if he thought I could keep it going for them if something like that were to happen?'

'And what answer did he make?' says the father.

'And what did he say?' asks the father.

'He shook his head,' replied the widow, 'and answered, "Yes, I might, if I had good servants, and if I would look a little into it beforehand."'

'He shook his head,' replied the widow, 'and answered, "Yes, I could, if I had good help, and if I would take a little time to think it over first."'

'Why,' says the father, 'he talked as if he had foreseen his end.'

'Why,' says the father, 'he talked like he knew what was coming for him.'

'I think he did foresee it,' says she, 'for he was often talking thus.'

'I think he saw it coming,' she says, 'because he often talked like this.'

'And why did you not take the hint then,' says her father, 'and acquaint yourself a little with things, that you might have been prepared for such an unhappy circumstance, whatever might happen?'

'And why didn’t you take the hint back then,' says her father, 'and learn a bit about things so you could have been ready for such an unfortunate situation, no matter what happened?'

'Why, so I did,' says the widow, 'and have done for above two years past; he used to show me his letters, and his books, and I know where he bought every thing; and I know a little of goods too, when they are good, and when bad, and the prices; also I know all the country-people he dealt with, and have seen most of them, and talked with them. Mr—— used to bring them up to dinner sometimes, and he would prompt my being acquainted with them, and would sometimes talk of his business with them at table, on purpose that I might hear it; and I know a little how to sell, too, for I have stood by him sometimes, and seen the customers and him chaffer with one another.'

"Yeah, I have," says the widow, "and I've been doing it for over two years now; he used to show me his letters and his books, and I know where he got everything. I also have some knowledge about goods, knowing what's good and what's bad, along with their prices. Plus, I know all the local people he worked with, and I’ve met most of them and talked to them. Mr. [Name] would sometimes bring them over for dinner, and he would encourage me to get to know them. He'd even discuss his business with them at the table, just so I could hear it. I also know a bit about selling because I've stood by him sometimes and watched him and the customers haggle with each other."

'And did your husband like that you did so?' says the father.

'And did your husband care that you did that?' says the father.

'Yes,' says she, 'he loved to see me do it, and often told me he did so; and told me, that if he were dead, he believed I might carry on the trade as well as he.'

'Yes,' she says, 'he loved watching me do it and often told me he did. He also said that if he were dead, he believed I could run the business just as well as he could.'

'But he did not believe so, I doubt,' says the father.

'But I don't think he believed that,' says the father.

'I do not know as to that, but I sold goods several times to some customers, when he has been out of the way.'

'I don't know about that, but I've sold goods a few times to some customers while he was away.'

'And was he pleased with it when he came home? Did you do it to his mind?'

'And was he happy with it when he got home? Did you make it to his liking?'

'Nay, I have served a customer sometimes when he has been in the warehouse, and he would go away to his counting-house on purpose, and say, "I'll leave you and my wife to make the bargain," and I have pleased the customer and him too.'

'Nah, I've helped a customer a few times when he was in the warehouse, and he would leave for his office on purpose, saying, "I'll let you and my wife handle the deal," and I managed to satisfy both the customer and him too.'

'Well,' says the father, 'do you think you could carry on the trade?'

'Well,' says the father, 'do you think you could keep the business going?'

'I believe I could, if I had but an honest fellow of a journeyman for a year or two to write in the books, and go abroad among customers.'

'I think I could, if I just had a trustworthy journeyman for a year or two to record in the books and interact with customers.'

'Well, you have two apprentices; one of them begins to understand things very much, and seems to be a diligent lad.'

'Well, you have two apprentices; one of them is starting to grasp things really well and seems to be a hardworking guy.'

'He comes forward, indeed, and will be very useful, if he does not grow too forward, upon a supposition that I shall want him too much: but it will be necessary to have a man to be above him for a while.'

'He steps up, and he’ll be really helpful, as long as he doesn’t get too confident, thinking I’ll rely on him too much: but it'll be important to have someone above him for a bit.'

'Well,' says the father, 'we will see to get you such a one.'

'Well,' says the father, 'we'll make sure to get you one of those.'

In short, they got her a man to assist to keep the books, go to Exchange, and do the business abroad, and the widow carried on the business with great application and success, till her eldest son grew up, and was first taken into the shop as an apprentice to his mother; the eldest apprentice served her faithfully, and was her journeyman four years after his time was out; then she took him in partner to one-fourth of the trade, and when her son came of age, she gave the apprentice one of her daughters, and enlarged his share to a third, gave her own son another third, and kept a third for herself to support the family.

In short, they got her a man to help with the bookkeeping, go to the Exchange, and manage the business overseas, and the widow ran the business with a lot of dedication and success until her eldest son grew up. He started working in the shop as an apprentice to his mother; the oldest apprentice was loyal to her and worked as her journeyman for four years after his apprenticeship ended. Then she made him a partner, giving him one-fourth of the business. When her son turned 18, she gave the apprentice one of her daughters and increased his share to a third, gave her own son another third, and kept a third for herself to support the family.

Thus the whole trade was preserved, and the son and son-in-law grew rich in it, and the widow, who grew as skilful in the business as her husband was before her, advanced the fortunes of all the rest of her children very considerably.

Thus the entire business thrived, and the son and son-in-law became wealthy through it, while the widow, who became as skilled in the trade as her husband had been, significantly improved the fortunes of all her other children.

This was an example of the husband's making the wife (but a little) acquainted with his business; and if this had not been the case, the trade had been lost, and the family left just to divide what the father left; which, as they were seven of them, mother and all, would not have been considerable enough to have raised them above just the degree of having bread to eat, and none to spare.

This was an example of the husband letting the wife know a little about his business; if he hadn't done that, they would have lost the trade, and the family would have only been left to split what the father had left behind. With seven of them, including the mother, that wouldn't have been enough to lift them above merely having bread to eat, with nothing extra.

I hardly need give any examples where tradesmen die, leaving nourishing businesses, and good trades, but leaving their wives ignorant and destitute, neither understanding their business, nor knowing how to learn, having been too proud to stoop to it when they had husbands, and not courage or heart to do it when they have none. The town is so full of such as these, that this book can scarce fall into the hands of any readers but who will be able to name them among their own acquaintance.

I hardly need to provide examples of tradespeople who pass away, leaving behind thriving businesses and solid trades, but their wives are left clueless and without resources, not understanding the business and not knowing how to learn, having been too proud to engage with it when they had husbands, and lacking the courage or motivation to do so now that they don’t. The town is so full of people like this that hardly anyone who reads this book won’t be able to name a few from their own circle.

These indolent, lofty ladies have generally the mortification to see their husbands' trades catched up by apprentices or journeymen in the shop, or by other shopkeepers in the neighbourhood, and of the same business, that might have enriched them, and descended to their children; to see their bread carried away by strangers, and other families flourishing on the spoils of their fortunes.

These lazy, arrogant women often feel the humiliation of watching their husbands' businesses be taken over by apprentices or other tradespeople nearby in the same industry, businesses that could have made them wealthy and benefited their children; they see their livelihood taken away by outsiders while other families profit from what should have been theirs.

And this brings me to speak of those ladies, who, though they do, perhaps, for want of better offers, stoop to wed a trade, as we call it, and take up with a mechanic; yet all the while they are the tradesmen's wives, they endeavour to preserve the distinction of their fancied character; carry themselves as if they thought they were still above their station, and that, though they were unhappily yoked with a tradesman, they would still keep up the dignity of their birth, and be called gentlewomen; and in order to this, would behave like such all the way, whatever rank they were levelled with by the misfortune of their circumstances.

And this brings me to talk about those women who, perhaps because they don’t have better options, settle for marrying someone in a trade, as we say, and partner with a tradesman; yet, even though they are trade workers' wives, they try to maintain the illusion of their imagined status. They carry themselves as if they believe they are still above their situation and that, even though they are unfortunately paired with a tradesman, they will uphold the dignity of their background and be referred to as gentlewomen. To achieve this, they act accordingly, no matter what rank they have been reduced to by the misfortune of their circumstances.

This is a very unhappy, and, indeed, a most unseasonable kind of pride; and if I might presume to add a word here by way of caution to such ladies, it should be to consider, before they marry tradesmen, the great disadvantages they lay themselves under, in submitting to be a tradesman's wife, but not putting themselves in a condition to take the benefit, as well as the inconvenience of it; for while they are above the circumstances of the tradesman's wife, they are deprived of all the remedy against the miseries of a tradesman's widow; and if the man dies, and leaves them little or nothing but the trade to carry on and maintain them, they, being unacquainted with that, are undone.

This kind of pride is really unhappy and, honestly, totally inappropriate. If I may offer a word of caution to women considering marrying tradesmen, it would be to think carefully about the significant disadvantages they take on. By becoming a tradesman's wife without being prepared to benefit from it as well as handle its downsides, they risk a lot. While they may look down on the life of a tradesman’s wife, they lose all protection from the hardships of being a tradesman’s widow. If the husband dies and leaves them with little else but the business to run and support them, they may find themselves in serious trouble since they don’t know how to manage that.

A lady that stoops to marry a tradesman, should consider the usage of England among the gentry and persons of distinction, where the case is thus: if a lady, who has a title of honour, suppose it be a countess, or if she were a duchess, it is all one—if, I say, she stoop to marry a private gentleman, she ceases to rank for the future as a countess, or duchess, but must be content to be, for the time to come, what her husband can entitle her to, and no other; and, excepting the courtesy of the people calling her my Lady Duchess, or the Countess, she is no more than plain Mrs such a one, meaning the name of her husband, and no other.

A lady who chooses to marry a tradesman should think about the customs in England among the upper class and distinguished people. Here’s the situation: if a lady has a title of honor, let's say she's a countess, or if she's a duchess, it doesn't make a difference—if she decides to marry a common gentleman, she will no longer be considered a countess or duchess. Instead, she must accept her status going forward based on her husband's title, and nothing else. Unless people refer to her with courtesy as “my Lady Duchess” or “the Countess,” she is essentially just plain Mrs. [Husband's Name], and nothing more.

Thus, if a baronet's widow marry a tradesman in London, she is no more my lady, but plain Mrs——, the draper's wife, &c. The application of the thing is thus: if the lady think fit to marry a mechanic, say a glover, or a cutler, or whatever it is, she should remember she is a glover's wife from that time, and no more; and to keep up her dignity, when fortune has levelled her circumstances, is but a piece of unseasonable pageantry, and will do her no service at all. The thing she is to inquire is, what she must do if Mr——, the glover, or cutler, should die? whether she can carry on the trade afterwards, or whether she can live without it? If she find she cannot live without it, it is her prudence to consider in time, and so to acquaint herself with the trade, that she may be able to do it when she comes to it.

So, if a baronet's widow marries a tradesman in London, she is no longer my lady, but just Mrs.——, the draper's wife, etc. The point is this: if she thinks it's right to marry a mechanic, let’s say a glovemaker or a cutler or whatever it is, she should remember she will be a glovemaker's wife from that point on and nothing more. Trying to maintain her dignity when her circumstances have changed is just an unnecessary pretense and won't help her at all. What she really needs to think about is what she should do if Mr.——, the glovemaker or cutler, dies. Can she continue the business after that, or will she be able to live without it? If she finds she can't live without it, it would be wise for her to learn the trade in advance so that she can handle it when the time comes.

I do confess, there is nothing more ridiculous than the double pride of the ladies of this age, with respect to marrying what they call below their birth. Some ladies of good families, though but of mean fortune, are so stiff upon the point of honour, that they refuse to marry tradesmen, nay, even merchants, though vastly above them in wealth and fortune, only because they are tradesmen, or, as they are pleased to call them, though improperly, mechanics; and though perhaps they have not above £500 or £1000 to their portion, scorn the man for his rank, who does but turn round, and has his choice of wives, perhaps, with two, or three, or four thousand pounds, before their faces.

I have to admit, there's nothing more absurd than the double pride of women these days regarding marrying someone they consider beneath their status. Some women from decent families, even if they don’t have much money, are so hung up on their sense of honor that they refuse to marry tradesmen, and even wealthy merchants, just because they are tradesmen, or as they incorrectly call them, mechanics. Even if they might only have £500 or £1000 as a dowry, they look down on a man of lower status, who could easily have his pick of brides, maybe with two, three, or four thousand pounds right in front of them.

The gentlemen of quality, we see, act upon quite another foot, and, I may say, with much more judgment, seeing nothing is more frequent than when any noble family are loaded with titles and honour rather than fortune, they come down into the city, and choose wives among the merchants' and tradesmen's daughters to raise their families; and I am mistaken, if at this time we have not several duchesses, countesses, and ladies of rank, who are the daughters of citizens and tradesmen, as the Duchess of Bedford, of A——e, of Wharton, and others; the Countess of Exeter, of Onslow, and many more, too many to name, where it is thought no dishonour at all for those persons to have matched into rich families, though not ennobled; and we have seen many trading families lay the foundation of nobility by their wealth and opulence—as Mr Child, for example, afterwards Sir Josiah Child, whose posterity by his two daughters are now Dukes of Beaufort and of Bedford, and his grandson Lord Viscount Castlemain, and yet he himself began a tradesman, and in circumstances very mean.

The quality gentlemen, as we can see, operate very differently and, I must say, with much more insight. It’s quite common that when a noble family is burdened with titles and honors rather than wealth, they come down to the city and choose wives from the daughters of merchants and tradesmen to elevate their families. I wouldn’t be surprised if, at this time, we have several duchesses, countesses, and ladies of distinction who are the daughters of citizens and tradespeople, like the Duchess of Bedford, of A——e, of Wharton, and others; the Countess of Exeter, of Onslow, and many more—too many to list—where it is considered no disgrace to have allied with wealthy families, even if they're not noble. We’ve also seen many trading families lay the groundwork for nobility through their wealth and success, such as Mr. Child, who later became Sir Josiah Child. His legacy, through his two daughters, now includes the Dukes of Beaufort and Bedford, as well as his grandson, Lord Viscount Castlemain. Yet, he himself started as a tradesman in very modest circumstances.

But this stiffness of the ladies, in refusing to marry tradesmen, though it is weak in itself, is not near so weak as the folly of those who first do stoop to marry thus, and yet think to maintain the dignity of their birth in spite of the meanness of their fortune, and so, carrying themselves above that station in which Providence has placed them, disable themselves from receiving the benefit which their condition offers them, upon any subsequent changes of their life.

But this rigidity of the ladies, in refusing to marry tradesmen, although it’s weak in itself, is nowhere near as foolish as the ones who lower themselves to marry like that and still believe they can uphold their status despite their lack of wealth. By acting superior to the position in which fate has placed them, they prevent themselves from taking advantage of the opportunities that their circumstances may provide them if their lives change later on.

This extraordinary stiffness, I have known, has brought many a well-bred gentlewoman to misery and the utmost distress, whereas, had they been able to have stooped to the subsequent circumstances of life, which Providence also thought fit to make their lot, they might have lived comfortably and plentifully all their days.

This extreme rigidity, as I've seen, has led many refined women to suffering and deep distress, whereas, if they had been willing to adapt to the circumstances of life that fate chose for them, they could have lived happily and abundantly throughout their lives.

It is certainly every lady's prudence to bring her spirit down to her condition; and if she thinks fit, or it is any how her lot to marry a tradesman, which many ladies of good families have found it for their advantage to do—I say, if it be her lot, she should take care she does not make that a curse to her, which would be her blessing, by despising her own condition, and putting herself into a posture not to enjoy it.

It’s definitely wise for every woman to adjust her attitude to match her situation; and if she decides to marry a tradesman, which many women from good families have found beneficial, I say if that’s her situation, she should make sure not to turn what could be a blessing into a curse by looking down on her own circumstances and setting herself up in a way that prevents her from enjoying it.

In all this, I am to be understood to mean that unhappy temper, which I find so much among the tradesman's wives at this time, of being above taking any notice of their husband's affairs, as if nothing were before them but a constant settled state of prosperity, and it were impossible for them to taste any other fortune; whereas, that very hour they embark with a tradesman, they ought to remember that they are entering a state of life full of accidents and hazards, and that innumerable families, in as good circumstances as theirs, fall every day into disasters and misfortunes, and that a tradesman's condition is liable to more casualties than any other life whatever.

In all this, I mean to address the unhappy attitude I see among the wives of tradesmen these days. They act as if they’re too good to care about their husbands' business, believing that only a steady stream of success lies ahead and that they can't possibly face any other outcome. Yet, the moment they marry a tradesman, they should realize they’re entering a life filled with unpredictability and risks. Countless families, just as well off as theirs, encounter disasters and hardships every day, and the life of a tradesman is subject to more uncertainties than any other.

How many widows of tradesmen, nay, and wives of broken and ruined tradesmen, do we daily see recover themselves and their shattered families, when the man has been either snatched away by death, or demolished by misfortunes, and has been forced to fly to the East or West Indies, and forsake his family in search of bread?

How many widows of tradesmen, and even wives of failed and ruined tradesmen, do we see every day pulling themselves and their broken families together when the man has either been taken away by death or devastated by misfortunes, forcing him to flee to the East or West Indies, leaving his family behind in search of a living?

Women, when once they give themselves leave to stoop to their own circumstances, and think fit to rouse up themselves to their own relief, are not so helpless and shiftless creatures as some would make them appear in the world; and we see whole families in trade frequently recovered by their industry: but, then, they are such women as can stoop to it, and can lay aside the particular pride of their first years; and who, without looking back to what they have been, can be content to look into what Providence has brought them to be, and what they must infallibly be, if they do not vigorously apply to the affairs which offer, and fall into the business which their husbands leave them the introduction to, and do not level their minds to their condition. It may, indeed, be hard to do this at first, but necessity is a spur to industry, and will make things easy where they seem difficult; and this necessity will humble the minds of those whom nothing else could make to stoop; and where it does not, it is a defect of the understanding, as well as of prudence, and must reflect upon the senses as well as the morals of the person.

Women, when they allow themselves to consider their circumstances and decide to take action for their own help, are not as helpless and aimless as some people portray them to be. We often see entire families improved by their hard work. However, these are women who can adapt, set aside the pride of their younger years, and who, without dwelling on their past, can focus on what life has brought them to become, and what they will inevitably become if they don’t actively engage in the opportunities available to them, taking on the tasks their husbands leave for them. It may be tough to make this transition initially, but necessity drives effort and can make what seems hard become manageable. This necessity can humble those who otherwise might never bend, and where it doesn’t, it reflects a lack of insight and good judgment, impacting both the person’s reasoning and morals.

FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:

[Most of the wives of tradesmen above a certain rather humble condition would now smile at the idea of their being expected to attend their husbands' shops, in order to form an intimate acquaintance with their affairs. Doubtless, however, in the days of Defoe, when the capitals of tradesmen were less, when provision for widows by insurance upon lives was not practised, and when the comparative simplicity of the modes of conducting business admitted it, a female in that situation would only be exercising a prudent caution, and doing nothing in the least inconsistent with the delicacy of her sex, in obeying the rules laid down in the text.]

[Most of the wives of tradespeople from a certain modest background would now find it amusing to think they should be expected to work in their husbands' shops to get familiar with their business. However, back in Defoe's time, when tradespeople had less capital, when life insurance for widows wasn't common, and when business was simpler, a woman in that position would simply be acting wisely and doing nothing at all against the delicacy expected of her gender by following the guidelines mentioned in the text.]

[The number of widows, or at least females, carrying on trade in England, is still very considerable. In Scotland, it is a comparatively rare case. A native of the northern part of the island is apt to be strongly impressed with this fact, when, in the large manufacturing towns of England, he sees female names in so many cases inscribed upon the waggons used in the transport of goods. The complaint in the text, that females have, to such an extent, ceased to carry on the business of their deceased husbands, is probably, like many other complaints of the same kind already pointed out, merely a piece of querulousness on the part of our author, or the result of a very common mental deception.]

[The number of widows, or at least women, running businesses in England is still quite substantial. In Scotland, it's a relatively rare occurrence. Someone from the northern part of the island is likely to be struck by this fact when, in the large manufacturing cities of England, they see women's names on so many of the wagons used for transporting goods. The concern expressed in the text that women have largely stopped taking over the businesses of their deceased husbands is probably, like many other similar complaints already mentioned, just a bit of grumbling on the part of the author or the outcome of a very common mental illusion.]


CHAPTER XXII

OF THE DIGNITY OF TRADE IN ENGLAND MORE THAN IN OTHER COUNTRIES

OF THE DIGNITY OF TRADE IN ENGLAND MORE THAN IN OTHER COUNTRIES


It is said of England, by way of distinction, and we all value ourselves upon it, that it is a trading country; and King Charles II., who was perhaps that prince of all the kings that ever reigned in England, that best understood the country and the people that he governed, used to say, 'That the tradesmen were the only gentry in England.' His majesty spoke it merrily, but it had a happy signification in it, such as was peculiar to the bright genius of that prince, who, though he was not the best governor, was the best acquainted with the world of all the princes of his age, if not of all the men in it; and, though it be a digression, give me leave, after having quoted the king, to add three short observations of my own, in favour of England, and of the people and trade of it, and yet without the least partiality to our own country.

It's often remarked about England, as a point of pride, that it's a trading nation; and King Charles II., perhaps the most knowledgeable king who ever ruled England, used to say, "The merchants are the only gentry in England." He said it in a light-hearted way, but it carried a meaningful idea that matched his bright character. Although he wasn't the best ruler, he had a better understanding of the world than any other king of his time, if not of all time. As a slight digression, after mentioning the king, let me share three brief thoughts of my own about England and its people and trade, without any bias toward our own country.

I. We are not only a trading country, but the greatest trading country in the world.

I. We are not just a trading nation, but the biggest trading nation in the world.

II. Our climate is the most agreeable climate in the world to live in.

II. Our climate is the most pleasant place in the world to live.

III. Our Englishmen are the stoutest and best men (I mean what we call men of their hands) in the world.

III. Our Englishmen are the toughest and most skilled people (I mean the ones we refer to as handymen) in the world.

These are great things to advance in our own favour, and yet to pretend not to be partial too; and, therefore, I shall give my reasons, which I think support my opinion, and they shall be as short as the heads themselves, that I may not go too much off from my subject.

These are excellent things to promote for our own benefit, while also pretending to be unbiased; therefore, I will present my reasons, which I believe back up my opinion, and I will keep them as brief as the points themselves so I don’t stray too far from my topic.

1. We are the greatest trading country in the world, because we have the greatest exportation of the growth and product of our land, and of the manufacture and labour of our people; and the greatest importation and consumption of the growth, product, and manufactures of other countries from abroad, of any nation in the world.[37]

1. We are the best trading country in the world because we export more of our land's produce and our people's manufactured goods than anyone else, and we import and consume more of the products and goods from other countries than any other nation. [37]

2. Our climate is the best and most agreeable, because a man can be more out of doors in England than in other countries. This was King Charles II.'s reason for it, and I cannot name it, without doing justice to his majesty in it.

2. Our climate is the best and most pleasant because a person can spend more time outside in England than in other countries. This was King Charles II.'s reasoning, and I can’t mention it without giving credit to his majesty for it.

3. Our men are the stoutest and best, because, strip them naked from the waist upwards, and give them no weapons at all but their hands and heels, and turn them into a room, or stage, and lock them in with the like number of other men of any nation, man for man, and they shall beat the best men you shall find in the world.

3. Our guys are the strongest and the best because, if you strip them naked from the waist up and give them no weapons except for their hands and feet, and put them in a room, or on a stage, and lock them in with the same number of men from any nation, one for one, they will outfight the best men you'll find in the world.

From this digression, which I hope will not be disagreeable, as it is not very tedious, I come back to my first observation, that England is a trading country, and two things I offer from that head.

From this digression, which I hope won't be unappealing, since it's not very long, I return to my initial point, that England is a trading nation, and I present two points regarding that idea.

First, our tradesmen are not, as in other countries, the meanest of our people.

First, our tradespeople are not, like in other countries, the lowest among our people.

Secondly, some of the greatest and best, and most flourishing families, among not the gentry only, but even the nobility, have been raised from trade, owe their beginning, their wealth, and their estates, to trade; and, I may add,

Secondly, some of the greatest, most successful, and thriving families, not just among the gentry but even the nobility, have risen from trade. They owe their beginnings, their wealth, and their estates to trade; and, I may add,

Thirdly, those families are not at all ashamed of their original, and, indeed, have no occasion to be ashamed of it.

Thirdly, those families aren't at all embarrassed about their origins and really have no reason to be.

It is true, that in England we have a numerous and an illustrious nobility and gentry; and it is true, also, that not so many of those families have raised themselves by the sword as in other nations, though we have not been without men of fame in the field too.

It’s true that in England, we have a large and prestigious nobility and gentry; and it’s also true that not as many of those families have risen to prominence through military means as in other countries, though we haven’t lacked for notable figures in the military as well.

But trade and learning have been the two chief steps by which our gentlemen have raised their relations, and have built their fortunes; and from which they have ascended up to the prodigious height, both in wealth and number, which we see them now risen to.

But trade and education have been the two main ways our gentlemen have improved their connections and built their fortunes, and from which they have risen to the incredible level, both in wealth and numbers, that we see them at now.

As so many of our noble and wealthy families are raised by, and derive from trade, so it is true, and, indeed, it cannot well be otherwise, that many of the younger branches of our gentry, and even of the nobility itself, have descended again into the spring from whence they flowed, and have become tradesmen; and thence it is, that, as I said above, our tradesmen in England are not, as it generally is in other countries, always of the meanest of our people.

As many of our noble and wealthy families come from and are supported by trade, it’s also true that many younger branches of our gentry, and even some from the nobility, have returned to their roots and become tradespeople. Because of this, as I mentioned earlier, our tradespeople in England are not, as they usually are in other countries, always from the lowest social classes.

Indeed, I might have added here, that trade itself in England is not, as it generally is in other countries, the meanest thing the men can turn their hand to; but, on the contrary, trade is the readiest way for men to raise their fortunes and families; and, therefore, it is a field for men of figure and of good families to enter upon.

Indeed, I could mention here that in England, trade isn’t seen as the lowest option for men, as it often is in other countries. Instead, trade is actually the best way for men to improve their wealth and support their families. Because of this, it’s an area where men of status and good families are eager to participate.

N.B. By trade we must be understood to include navigation, and foreign discoveries, because they are, generally speaking, all promoted and carried on by trade, and even by tradesmen, as well as merchants; and the tradesmen are at this time as much concerned in shipping (as owners) as the merchants; only the latter may be said to be the chief employers of the shipping.

N.B. By trade, we mean to include navigation and foreign discoveries, because, generally speaking, they are all driven and facilitated by trade, and even by tradespeople, as well as merchants; and right now, tradespeople are just as involved in shipping (as owners) as merchants are; it's just that the latter can be considered the primary employers of the shipping industry.

Having thus done a particular piece of justice to ourselves, in the value we put upon trade and tradesmen in England, it reflects very much upon the understanding of those refined heads, who pretend to depreciate that part of the nation, which is so infinitely superior in number and in wealth to the families who call themselves gentry, or quality, and so infinitely more numerous.

Having done a specific justice to ourselves in the importance we place on trade and tradespeople in England, it really highlights the understanding of those refined thinkers who try to downplay that part of the population, which is far superior in number and wealth compared to the families that consider themselves gentry or aristocracy, and is so much more numerous.

As to the wealth of the nation, that undoubtedly lies chiefly among the trading part of the people; and though there are a great many families raised within few years, in the late war, by great employments, and by great actions abroad, to the honour of the English gentry; yet how many more families among the tradesmen have been raised to immense estates, even during the same time, by the attending circumstances of the war, such as the clothing, the paying, the victualling and furnishing, &c, both army and navy! And by whom have the prodigious taxes been paid, the loans supplied, and money advanced upon all occasions? By whom are the banks and companies carried on?—and on whom are the customs and excises levied? Have not the trade and tradesmen born the burden of the war?—and do they not still pay four millions a-year interest for the public debts? On whom are the funds levied, and by whom the public credit supported? Is not trade the inexhausted fund of all funds, and upon which all the rest depend?

Regarding the nation's wealth, it mainly comes from the trading part of the population. Although many families have risen to prominence in recent years due to significant roles and achievements during the recent war, bringing honor to the English gentry, countless other families within the trades have also accumulated substantial wealth during the same period, thanks to the circumstances of the war, like clothing, paying, supplying food, and providing resources for both the army and navy. Who has paid the enormous taxes, supplied loans, and provided money whenever needed? Who runs the banks and companies? And who are the ones taxed through customs and excises? Haven't the trades and tradespeople carried the burden of the war? Don't they still pay four million a year in interest on public debts? Who is responsible for levying the funds, and who supports public credit? Isn't trade the endless source of all wealth, upon which everything else relies?

As is the trade, so in proportion are the tradesmen; and how wealthy are tradesmen in almost all the several parts of England, as well as in London! How ordinary is it to see a tradesman go off the stage, even but from mere shopkeeping, with from ten to forty thousand pounds' estate, to divide among his family!—when, on the contrary, take the gentry in England from one end to the other, except a few here and there, what with excessive high living, which is of late grown so much into a disease, and the other ordinary circumstances of families, we find few families of the lower gentry, that is to say, from six or seven hundred a-year downwards, but they are in debt and in necessitous circumstances, and a great many of greater estates also.

As goes the trade, so go the traders; and just look at how wealthy traders are in almost every part of England, not just in London! It’s common to see a trader leave the scene, even just from running a shop, with anywhere from ten to forty thousand pounds to pass on to their family!—while, on the other hand, if you look at the gentry across England, apart from a few exceptions, many are burdened by excessive living, which has become quite the problem lately, and other typical family issues. You’ll find that few families in the lower gentry—those earning six or seven hundred a year or less—aren't in debt or struggling, and many even among those with larger estates are dealing with the same issues.

On the other hand, let any one who is acquainted with England, look but abroad into the several counties, especially near London, or within fifty miles of it. How are the ancient families worn out by time and family misfortunes, and the estates possessed by a new race of tradesmen, grown up into families of gentry, and established by the immense wealth, gained, as I may say, behind the counter, that is, in the shop, the warehouse, and the counting-house! How are the sons of tradesmen ranked among the prime of the gentry! How are the daughters of tradesmen at this time adorned with the ducal coronets, and seen riding in the coaches of the best of our nobility! Nay, many of our trading gentlemen at this time refuse to be ennobled, scorn being knighted, and content themselves with being known to be rated among the richest commoners in the nation. And it must be acknowledged, that, whatever they be as to court-breeding and to manners, they, generally speaking, come behind none of the gentry in knowledge of the world.

On the other hand, let anyone who knows England look around at the different counties, especially near London, or within fifty miles of it. How have the ancient families faded away due to time and family troubles, while their estates

At this very day we see the son of Sir Thomas Scawen matched into the ducal family of Bedford, and the son of Sir James Bateman into the princely house of Marlborough, both whose ancestors, within the memory of the writer of these sheets, were tradesmen in London; the first Sir William Scawen's apprentice, and the latter's grandfather a porter upon or near London Bridge.

Today, we see the son of Sir Thomas Scawen connected to the ducal family of Bedford, and the son of Sir James Bateman linked to the royal house of Marlborough. Just within the memory of the writer of this text, both of their ancestors were merchants in London; the first Sir William Scawen was an apprentice, and the latter's grandfather was a porter on or near London Bridge.

How many noble seats, superior to the palaces of sovereign princes (in some countries) do we see erected within few miles of this city by tradesmen, or the sons of tradesmen, while the seats and castles of the ancient gentry, like their families, look worn out, and fallen into decay. Witness the noble house of Sir John Eyles, himself a merchant, at Giddy-hall near Rumford; Sir Gregory Page on Blackheath, the son of a brewer; Sir Nathaniel Mead near Wealgreen, his father a linen-draper, with many others too long to repeat; and, to crown all, the Lord Castlemains at Wanstead, his father Sir Josiah Child, originally a tradesman.

How many impressive homes, better than the palaces of royal leaders (in some countries), do we see built within a few miles of this city by merchants or their sons, while the homes and estates of the old gentry, like their families, appear worn out and in decay. Just look at the grand house of Sir John Eyles, a merchant, at Giddy-hall near Rumford; Sir Gregory Page on Blackheath, the son of a brewer; Sir Nathaniel Mead near Wealgreen, whose father was a linen-draper, and many others too numerous to mention; and, to top it all off, Lord Castlemains at Wanstead, whose father, Sir Josiah Child, originally came from a trading background.

It was a smart, but just repartee, of a London tradesman, when a gentleman, who had a good estate too, rudely reproached him in company, and bade him hold his tongue, for he was no gentleman. 'No, Sir,' says he, 'but I can buy a gentleman, and therefore I claim a liberty to speak among gentlemen.'

It was a clever yet fair comeback from a London tradesman when a well-off gentleman rudely criticized him in public and told him to be quiet because he wasn't a gentleman. "No, sir," he replied, "but I can buy a gentleman, and that’s why I believe I have the right to speak among gentlemen."

Again, in how superior a port or figure (as we now call it) do our tradesmen live, to what the middling gentry either do or can support! An ordinary tradesman now, not in the city only, but in the country, shall spend more money by the year, than a gentleman of four or five hundred pounds a-year can do, and shall increase and lay up every year too, whereas the gentleman shall at the best stand stock still, just where he began, nay, perhaps decline; and as for the lower gentry, from a hundred pounds a-year to three hundred, or thereabouts, though they are often as proud and high in their appearance as the other—as to them, I say, a shoemaker in London shall keep a better house, spend more money, clothe his family better, and yet grow rich too. It is evident where the difference lies; an estate's a pond, but a trade's a spring: the first, if it keeps full, and the water wholesome, by the ordinary supplies and drains from the neighbouring grounds, it is well, and it is all that is expected; but the other is an inexhausted current, which not only fills the pond, and keeps it full, but is continually running over, and fills all the lower ponds and places about it.

Once again, consider how much better off a tradesperson is now compared to what the average gentry can manage! An everyday tradesperson today, not just in the city but also in rural areas, spends more money each year than a gentleman with an income of four or five hundred pounds can afford. They save and accumulate more every year, while the gentleman often just maintains his status, and may even fall behind. As for the lower gentry, making between a hundred and three hundred pounds a year, they can be just as proud and high in appearance, yet a shoemaker in London can afford a better house, spend more, dress his family better, and still grow wealthy. It’s clear where the difference lies; an estate's a pond, but a trade's a spring: the pond needs to stay full and healthy through regular supplies and drainage from the land around it, which is all that's expected. In contrast, a trade is an endless stream that not only fills the pond and keeps it overflowing but also replenishes all the lower ponds and surrounding areas.

This being the case in England, and our trade being so vastly great, it is no wonder that the tradesmen in England fill the lists of our nobility and gentry; no wonder that the gentlemen of the best families marry tradesmen's daughters, and put their younger sons apprentices to tradesmen; and how often do these younger sons come to buy the elder son's estates, and restore the family, when the elder, and head of the house, proving rakish and extravagant, has wasted his patrimony, and is obliged to make out the blessing of Israel's family, where the younger son bought the birthright, and the elder was doomed to serve him.

Since this is the situation in England, and our trade is so vastly significant, it’s no surprise that tradespeople in England are included among our nobility and gentry; it’s no wonder that gentlemen from the best families marry the daughters of tradespeople, and send their younger sons to apprentice with tradesmen. How often do these younger sons end up purchasing the elder son's estates, reviving the family when the elder, who heads the household, has squandered his inheritance and is forced to seek the fate of Israel's family, where the younger son bought the birthright while the elder was destined to serve him.

Trade is so far here from being inconsistent with a gentleman, that, in short, trade in England makes gentlemen, and has peopled this nation with gentlemen; for after a generation or two the tradesmen's children, or at least their grand-children, come to be as good gentlemen, statesmen, parliament-men, privy-counsellors, judges, bishops, and noblemen, as those of the highest birth and the most ancient families, and nothing too high for them. Thus the late Earl of Haversham was originally a merchant; the late Secretary Craggs was the son of a barber; the present Lord Castlemain's father was a tradesman; the great-grandfather of the present Duke of Bedford the same; and so of several others. Nor do we find any defect either in the genius or capacities of the posterity of tradesmen, arising from any remains of mechanic blood, which it is pretended should influence them, but all the gallantry of spirit, greatness of soul, and all the generous principles, that can be found in any of the ancient families, whose blood is the most untainted, as they call it, with the low mixtures of a mechanic race, are found in these; and, as is said before, they generally go beyond them in knowledge of the world, which is the best education.

Trade is far from being incompatible with being a gentleman. In fact, trade in England creates gentlemen and has filled this nation with them. After a generation or two, the children of tradespeople—and at least their grandchildren—become as good gentlemen, statesmen, members of Parliament, privy counselors, judges, bishops, and nobles as those from the highest birth and oldest families; nothing is beyond their reach. For instance, the late Earl of Haversham was originally a merchant, the late Secretary Craggs was the son of a barber, the present Lord Castlemain's father was a tradesman, and the great-grandfather of the current Duke of Bedford was too, among several others. We also see no lack of talent or ability in the descendants of tradespeople due to any supposed "mechanic blood" that some claim affects them. In fact, they possess all the bravery of spirit, greatness of soul, and generous principles found in any ancient family with supposedly pure blood, and as mentioned before, they often surpass these families in worldly knowledge, which is the best education.

We see the tradesmen of England, as they grow wealthy, coming every day to the Herald's Office, to search for the coats-of-arms of their ancestors, in order to paint them upon their coaches, and engrave them upon their plate, embroider them upon their furniture, or carve them upon the pediments of their new houses; and how often do we see them trace the registers of their families up to the prime nobility, or the most ancient gentry of the kingdom!

We see the tradespeople of England, as they become wealthy, coming every day to the Herald's Office to look up the coats-of-arms of their ancestors. They want to paint them on their coaches, engrave them on their silverware, embroider them on their furniture, or carve them into the pediments of their new houses. And how often do we see them tracing their family histories back to the top nobility or the oldest gentry of the kingdom!

In this search we find them often qualified to raise new families, if they do not descend from old; as was said of a certain tradesman of London that if he could not find the ancient race of gentlemen from which he came, he would begin a new race, who should be as good gentlemen as any that went before them. They tell us a story of the old Lord Craven, who was afterwards created Earl of Craven by King Charles II., that, being upbraided with his being of an upstart nobility, by the famous Aubery, Earl of Oxford, who was himself of the very ancient family of the Veres, Earls of Oxford, the Lord Craven told him, he (Craven) would cap pedigrees with him (Oxford) for a wager. The Earl of Oxford laughed at the challenge, and began reckoning up his famous ancestors, who had been Earls of Oxford for a hundred years past, and knights for some hundreds of years more; but when my Lord Craven began, he read over his family thus:—'I am William Lord Craven; my father was Lord Mayor of London, and my grandfather was the Lord knows who; wherefore I think my pedigree as good as yours, my lord.' The story was merry enough, but is to my purpose exactly; for let the grandfather be who he would, his father, Sir William Craven, who was Lord Mayor of London, was a wholesale grocer, and raised the family by trade, and yet nobody doubts but that the family of Craven is at this day as truly noble, in all the beauties which adorn noble birth and blood, as can be desired of any family, however ancient, or anciently noble.

In this search, we often find people qualified to start new families, even if they don't come from old ones. There was a certain tradesman in London who said that if he couldn't find the noble ancestry he came from, he would create a new lineage, one that would be just as respectable as any that came before. There's a story about the old Lord Craven, who later became the Earl of Craven under King Charles II. When he was criticized for being part of new nobility by the well-known Aubery, Earl of Oxford, who belonged to the very old Vere family, the Lord Craven challenged him to a wager based on their ancestries. The Earl of Oxford laughed off the challenge and started listing his famous ancestors, who had been Earls of Oxford for the past century and knights for numerous centuries before that. However, when Lord Craven began, he introduced his family like this: “I am William Lord Craven; my father was Lord Mayor of London, and my grandfather was who knows who; so I think my lineage is just as good as yours, my lord.” The story is quite amusing and is exactly to my point; because no matter who his grandfather was, his father, Sir William Craven, the Lord Mayor of London, was a wholesale grocer who built the family’s wealth through trade. Still, no one doubts that the Craven family today is as genuinely noble, embodying all the qualities that define noble birth and lineage, as any family, regardless of how ancient or traditionally noble they may be.

In Italy, and especially at Venice, we see every day the sons of merchants, and other trades, who grow in wealth and estates, and can advance for the service of their country a considerable sum of money, namely, 60,000 to 100,000 dollars, are accepted to honour by the senate, and translated into the list of the nobility, without any regard to the antiquities of their families, or the nobility of blood; and in all ages the best kings and sovereign princes have thought fit to reward the extraordinary merit of their subjects with titles of honour, and to rank men among their nobility, who have deserved it by good and great actions, whether their birth and the antiquity of their families entitled them to it or not.

In Italy, especially in Venice, we see every day the sons of merchants and other tradesmen who are growing their wealth and property. They can contribute a significant amount of money for the service of their country, anywhere from $60,000 to $100,000, and are accepted into the ranks of honor by the senate, being added to the list of the nobility, regardless of their family background or noble lineage. Throughout history, the best kings and sovereign leaders have deemed it right to reward the exceptional merits of their subjects with titles of honor, elevating individuals to nobility based on their good deeds and great contributions, regardless of whether their birth or family history entitled them to such recognition.

Thus in the late wars between England and France, how was our army full of excellent officers, who went from the shop, and from behind the counter, into the camp, and who distinguished themselves there by their merit and gallant behaviour. And several such came to command regiments, and even to be general officers, and to gain as much reputation in the service as any; as Colonel Pierce, Wood, Richards, and several others that might be named.

Thus, during the recent wars between England and France, our army was filled with outstanding officers who left their jobs and stores to join the military, where they proved their worth and bravery. Many of them rose to lead regiments and even became general officers, earning as much respect in the service as anyone else; for example, Colonel Pierce, Wood, Richards, and several others could be mentioned.

All this confirms what I have said before, namely, that trade in England neither is nor ought to be levelled with what it is in other countries; nor the tradesmen depreciated as they are abroad, and as some of our gentry would pretend to do in England; but that, as many of our best families rose from trade, so many branches of the best families in England, under the nobility, have stooped so low as to be put apprentices to tradesmen in London, and to set up and follow those trades when they have come out of their times, and have thought it no dishonour to their blood.

All of this confirms what I've said before: trade in England is not, and shouldn't be, the same as it is in other countries; nor should merchants be looked down on like they are abroad, or like some of our upper class try to do here in England. Many of our best families have come from trade, and many members of prominent families, even those with noble titles, have lowered themselves to become apprentices to merchants in London and to start and pursue those trades once their apprenticeship is over. They don't see it as a disgrace to their heritage.

To bring this once more home to the ladies, who are so scandalised at that mean step, which they call it, of marrying a tradesman—it may be told them for their humiliation, that, however they think fit to act, sometimes those tradesmen come of better families than their own; and oftentimes, when they have refused them to their loss, those very tradesmen have married ladies of superior fortune to them, and have raised families of their own, who in one generation have been superior to those nice ladies both in dignity and estate, and have, to their great mortification, been ranked above them upon all public occasions.

To remind the ladies, who are so scandalized by what they see as the lowly act of marrying a tradesman, it's worth noting for their embarrassment that, despite their views, some of these tradesmen actually come from better families than theirs. Often, when they turn down these tradesmen to their own detriment, those very same tradesmen end up marrying women of greater wealth and have raised families that surpass those refined ladies in both status and fortune. This has led, to their great dismay, to those families being acknowledged above them at all public events.

The word tradesman in England does not sound so harsh as it does in other countries; and to say a gentleman-tradesman, is not so much nonsense as some people would persuade us to reckon it: and, indeed, as trade is now flourishing in England, and increasing, and the wealth of our tradesmen is already so great, it is very probable a few years will show us still a greater race of trade-bred gentlemen, than ever England yet had.

The term tradesman in England doesn't come across as harsh as it does in other countries; and calling someone a gentleman-tradesman isn’t as ridiculous as some might like us to think. In fact, as trade continues to thrive and grow in England, and as our tradesmen’s wealth increases, it's likely that in a few years we will see an even greater class of trade-bred gentlemen than England has ever seen before.

The very name of an English tradesman will, and does already obtain in the world; and as our soldiers by the late war gained the reputation of being some of the best troops in the world, and our seamen are at this day, and very justly too, esteemed the best sailors in the world, so the English tradesmen may in a few years be allowed to rank with the best gentlemen in Europe; and as the prophet Isaiah said of the merchants of Tyre, that 'her traffickers were the honourable of the earth,' (Isaiah, xxiii. 8.)

The very name of an English tradesman is already respected worldwide; just as our soldiers earned a reputation for being among the best troops during the recent war, and our seamen are rightly regarded as the best sailors today, English tradesmen may soon be recognized as ranking with the best gentlemen in Europe. As the prophet Isaiah said about the merchants of Tyre, 'her traffickers were the honorables of the earth' (Isaiah, xxiii. 8).

In the meantime, it is evident their wealth at this time out-does that of the like rank of any nation in Europe; and as their number is prodigious, so is their commerce; for the inland commerce of England—and it is of those tradesmen, or traffickers, that I am now speaking in particular—is certainly the greatest of its kind of any in the world; nor is it possible there should ever be any like it, the consumption of all sorts of goods, both of our own manufacture, and of foreign growth, being so exceeding great.

In the meantime, it's clear that their wealth right now surpasses that of similar ranks in any European nation; and since their numbers are massive, so is their trade. The inland commerce of England—which is what I'm specifically talking about with these traders or merchants—is definitely the largest of its kind in the world. There's really no possibility for anything like it to ever exist again, with the demand for all kinds of goods, both made by us and imported, being so incredibly high.

If the English nation were to be nearly inquired into, and its present opulence and greatness duly weighed, it would appear, that, as the figure it now makes in Europe is greater than it ever made before—take it either in King Edward III.'s reign, or in Queen Elizabeth's, which were the two chief points of time when the English fame was in its highest extent—I say, if its present greatness were to be duly weighed, there is no comparison in its wealth, the number of its people, the value of its lands, the greatness of the estates of its private inhabitants; and, in consequence of all this, its real strength is infinitely beyond whatever it was before, and if it were needful, I could fill up this work with a very agreeable and useful inquiry into the particulars.

If we were to closely examine the English nation and properly assess its current wealth and greatness, it would become clear that its standing in Europe today is greater than it has ever been before—whether we look at the time of King Edward III or Queen Elizabeth, which were the two key periods when England's reputation was at its peak. I mean, if we properly assess its present greatness, there's no comparison in its wealth, population, land value, and the size of the estates owned by its private citizens; as a result, its real strength is vastly greater than it was in the past. If needed, I could easily elaborate on this topic with an interesting and informative examination of the details.

But I content myself with turning it to the case in hand, for the truth of fact is not to be disputed—I say, I turn it to the case in hand thus: whence comes it to be so?—how is it produced? War has not done it; no, nor so much as helped or assisted to it; it is not by any martial exploits; we have made no conquests abroad, added no new kingdoms to the British empire, reduced no neighbouring nations, or extended the possession of our monarchs into the properties of others; we have grained nothing by war and encroachment; we are butted and bounded just where we were in Queen Elizabeth's time; the Dutch, the Flemings, the French, are in view of us just as they were then. We have subjected no new provinces or people to our government; and, with few or no exceptions, we are almost for dominion where King Edward I. left us; nay, we have lost all the dominions which our ancient kings for some hundreds of years held in France—such as the rich and powerful provinces of Normandy, Poictou, Gascoigne, Bretagne, and Acquitaine; and instead of being enriched by war and victory, on the contrary we have been torn in pieces by civil wars and rebellions, as well in Ireland as in England, and that several times, to the ruin of our richest families, and the slaughter of our nobility and gentry, nay, to the destruction even of monarchy itself, and this many years at a time, as in the long bloody wars between the houses of Lancaster and York, the many rebellions of the Irish, as well in Queen Elizabeth's time, as in King Charles I.'s time, and the fatal massacre, and almost extirpation of the English name in that kingdom; and at last, the late rebellion in England, in which the monarch fell a sacrifice to the fury of the people, and monarchy itself gave way to tyranny and usurpation, for almost twenty years.

But I focus on the current situation, because the reality is undeniable—I mean, how did we get here? How did this happen? War hasn’t caused it; no, it hasn’t even contributed to it; it’s not due to military conquests. We haven’t made any gains overseas, added new territories to the British Empire, conquered any neighboring nations, or expanded our monarchs' rule into other people's lands; we haven’t gained anything through war and encroachment; we are exactly where we were in Queen Elizabeth's time; the Dutch, the Flemings, and the French are right in front of us just like they were back then. We haven’t brought any new provinces or peoples under our rule; and, with few exceptions, we’re almost exactly where King Edward I left us; in fact, we have lost all the lands our ancient kings held in France for hundreds of years—like the wealthy and powerful regions of Normandy, Poictou, Gascoigne, Bretagne, and Acquitaine; rather than being enriched by war and victory, we have been devastated by civil wars and rebellions, both in Ireland and England, multiple times, which ruined our wealthiest families and led to the deaths of many of our nobility and gentry, even threatening the monarchy itself for many years, as seen in the prolonged bloody conflicts between the houses of Lancaster and York, the numerous Irish rebellions during Queen Elizabeth's and King Charles I’s reigns, and the tragic massacre that nearly wiped out the English presence in that kingdom; finally, the recent rebellion in England, where the monarch became a victim of the people’s rage, and monarchy itself was replaced by tyranny and usurpation for almost two decades.

These things prove abundantly that the rising greatness of the British nation is not owing to war and conquests, to enlarging its dominion by the sword, or subjecting the people of other countries to our power; but it is all owing to trade, to the increase of our commerce at home, and the extending it abroad.

These factors clearly show that the growing strength of the British nation isn't due to war and conquests, expanding our empire through force, or dominating other countries; instead, it all comes down to trade, the growth of our commerce at home, and its expansion overseas.

It is owing to trade, that new discoveries have been made in lands unknown, and new settlements and plantations made, new colonies placed, and new governments formed in the uninhabited islands, and the uncultivated continent of America; and those plantings and settlements have again enlarged and increased the trade, and thereby the wealth and power of the nation by whom they were discovered and planted. We have not increased our power, or the number of our subjects, by subduing the nations which possessed those countries, and incorporating them into our own, but have entirely planted our colonies, and peopled the countries with our own subjects, natives of this island; and, excepting the negroes, which we transport from Africa to America, as slaves to work in the sugar and tobacco plantations, all our colonies, as well in the islands as on the continent of America, are entirely peopled from Great Britain and Ireland, and chiefly the former; the natives having either removed farther up into the country, or by their own folly and treachery raising war against us, been destroyed and cut off.

It is because of trade that new discoveries have been made in unknown lands, and new settlements and plantations established, new colonies created, and new governments formed in the uninhabited islands and the uncultivated continent of America. These new settlements and plantations have further expanded and increased trade, thereby boosting the wealth and power of the nation that discovered and developed them. We haven’t grown our power or the number of our subjects by conquering the nations that originally inhabited those areas and incorporating them into our own, but instead, we have fully established our colonies and populated these lands with our own people from this island. Except for the Black people we bring from Africa to America as slaves to work on sugar and tobacco plantations, all our colonies, both on the islands and on the continent of America, are entirely populated by people from Great Britain and Ireland, mostly the former; the Indigenous people have either moved further inland or, due to their own foolishness and treachery, went to war against us and have been killed off.

As trade alone has peopled those countries, so trading with them has raised them also to a prodigy of wealth and opulence; and we see now the ordinary planters at Jamaica and Barbadoes rise to immense estates, riding in their coaches and six, especially at Jamaica, with twenty or thirty negroes on foot running before them whenever they please to appear in public.

As trade has populated those countries, trading with them has also brought about an incredible amount of wealth and prosperity. Now we see the average plantation owners in Jamaica and Barbados accumulating vast estates, traveling in their coaches and six, especially in Jamaica, with twenty or thirty enslaved people running alongside them whenever they choose to appear in public.

As trade has thus extended our colonies abroad, so it has, except those colonies, kept our people at home, where they are multiplied to that prodigious degree, and do still continue to multiply in such a manner, that if it goes on so, time may come that all the lands in England will do little more than serve for gardens for them, and to feed their cows; and their corn and cattle be supplied from Scotland and Ireland.

As trade has expanded our colonies overseas, it has, with the exception of those colonies, kept our population at home, where it has grown to an extraordinary degree and continues to increase so rapidly that if this keeps up, there may come a time when all the land in England will be largely used just for gardens and to feed their cows, while their grain and livestock will be provided by Scotland and Ireland.

What is the reason that we see numbers of French, and of Scots, and of Germans, in all the foreign nations in Europe, and especially filling up their armies and courts, and that you see few or no English there?

What’s the reason we see so many French, Scots, and Germans in various countries across Europe, especially in their armies and courts, while there are few or no English people there?

What is the reason, that when we want to raise armies, or to man navies in England, we are obliged to press the seamen, and to make laws and empower the justices of the peace, and magistrates of towns, to force men to go for soldiers, and enter into the service, or allure them by giving bounty-money, as an encouragement to men to list themselves?—whereas the people of other nations, and even the Scots and Irish, travel abroad, and run into all the neighbour nations, to seek service, and to be admitted into their pay.

What’s the reason that when we want to raise armies or recruit sailors in England, we have to draft seamen and make laws that give justices of the peace and town magistrates the power to force people to serve as soldiers or entice them with signing bonuses as an incentive to enlist? Meanwhile, people from other nations, including the Scots and Irish, freely travel abroad and seek out service with neighboring countries to get paid.

What is it but trade?—the increase of business at home, and the employment of the poor in the business and manufactures of this kingdom, by which the poor get so good wages, and live so well, that they will not list for soldiers; and have so good pay in the merchants' service, that they will not serve on board the ships of war, unless they are forced to do it?

What is it if not trade?—the growth of business at home, and the employment of the poor in the industries and manufacturing of this country, through which the poor earn decent wages and live well enough that they won't enlist as soldiers; and they get such good pay working for merchants that they won't work on warships unless they're forced to?

What is the reason, that, in order to supply our colonies and plantations with people, besides the encouragement given in those colonies to all people that will come there to plant and to settle, we are obliged to send away thither all our petty offenders, and all the criminals that we think fit to spare from the gallows, besides what we formerly called the kidnapping trade?—that is to say, the arts made use of to wheedle and draw away young vagrant and indigent people, and people of desperate fortunes, to sell themselves—that is, bind themselves for servants, the numbers of which are very great.

What’s the reason that, to provide our colonies and plantations with people, in addition to the support offered in those colonies to anyone willing to come and settle, we have to send all our minor offenders and any criminals we deem fit to spare from the gallows? This also includes what we used to refer to as the kidnapping trade—meaning the methods used to persuade and lure young vagrants and impoverished individuals, as well as desperate individuals, to sell themselves—that is, to commit to being servants, which includes a large number of people.

It is poverty fills armies, mans navies, and peoples colonies. In vain the drums beat for soldiers, and the king's captains invite seamen to serve in the armies for fivepence a-day, and in the royal navy for twenty-three shillings per month, in a country where the ordinary labourer can have nine shillings a-week for his labour, and the manufacturers earn from twelve to sixteen shillings a-week for their work, and while trade gives thirty shillings per month wages to the seamen on board merchant ships. Men will always stay or go, as the pay gives them encouragement; and this is the reason why it has been so much more difficult to raise and recruit armies in England, than it has been in Scotland and Ireland, France and Germany.

It’s poverty that fills armies, man’s navies, and populates colonies. The drums beat in vain for soldiers, and the king’s captains invite sailors to serve in the armies for five pence a day, and in the royal navy for twenty-three shillings a month, in a country where an ordinary worker can earn nine shillings a week for his labor, and manufacturers make between twelve and sixteen shillings a week for their work, while trade offers thirty shillings a month in wages to sailors on merchant ships. Men will always choose to stay or go based on how much they’re being paid; and this is why it has been so much more difficult to raise and recruit armies in England than it has been in Scotland, Ireland, France, and Germany.

The same trade that keeps our people at home, is the cause of the well living of the people here; for as frugality is not the national virtue of England, so the people that get much spend much; and as they work hard, so they live well, eat and drink well, clothe warm, and lodge soft—in a word, the working manufacturing people of England eat the fat, and drink the sweet, live better, and fare better, than the working poor of any other nation in Europe; they make better wages of their work, and spend more of the money upon their backs and bellies, than in any other country. This expense of the poor, as it causes a prodigious consumption both of the provisions, and of the manufactures of our country at home, so two things are undeniably the consequence of that part.

The same trade that keeps our people at home is what allows the people here to live well. Frugality isn't really a national virtue in England, so those who earn a lot tend to spend a lot. They work hard, and as a result, they live well, eat and drink well, stay warm in their clothes, and have comfortable places to stay. In short, the working manufacturing people of England enjoy better food and drink, and have a better quality of life than the working poor in any other European nation. They earn better wages for their work and spend more of their money on clothes and food than in any other country. This spending by the poor leads to a huge consumption of both food and goods produced in our country, and two things are undoubtedly the result of that.

1. The consumption of provisions increases the rent and value of the lands, and this raises the gentlemen's estates, and that again increases the employment of people, and consequently the numbers of them, as well those who are employed in the husbandry of land, breeding and feeding of cattle, &c, as of servants in the gentlemen's families, who, as their estates increase in value, so they increase their families and equipages.

1. The use of resources raises the rent and value of the land, which boosts the estates of the gentry, and this, in turn, increases job opportunities for people. This applies to those working in farming, livestock breeding, and so on, as well as for servants in the households of the gentry. As their estates gain value, they tend to grow their families and households.

2. As the people get greater wages, so they, I mean the same poorer part of the people, clothe better, and furnish better, and this increases the consumption of the very manufactures they make; then that consumption increases the quantity made, and this creates what we call inland trade, by which innumerable families are employed, and the increase of the people maintained, and by which increase of trade and people the present growing prosperity of this nation is produced.

2. As people earn higher wages, the poorer part of the population starts to dress better and provide better for themselves. This boosts the demand for the very goods they produce; then that demand leads to increased production, which creates what we refer to as domestic trade. This trade employs countless families and supports a growing population, and it is through this increase in trade and population that the current prosperity of this nation is achieved.

The whole glory and greatness of England, then, being thus raised by trade, it must be unaccountable folly and ignorance in us to lessen that one article in our own esteem, which is the only fountain from whence we all, take us as a nation, are raised, and by which we are enriched and maintained. The Scripture says, speaking of the riches and glory of the city of Tyre—which was, indeed, at that time, the great port or emporium of the world for foreign commerce, from whence all the silks and fine manufactures of Persia and India were exported all over the western world—'That her merchants were princes;' and, in another place, 'By thy traffic thou hast increased thy riches.' (Ezek. xxviii. 5.) Certain it is, that our traffic has increased our riches; and it is also certain, that the flourishing of our manufactures is the foundation of all our traffic, as well our merchandise as our inland trade.

The entire glory and greatness of England is elevated by trade, so it would be utterly foolish and ignorant for us to undervalue the one thing that is the source of our national rise and the means by which we are enriched and sustained. The Bible mentions the wealth and glory of the city of Tyre — which, at that time, was the major port and trading center for the world, exporting all the silks and fine goods from Persia and India throughout the western world — stating, 'Her merchants were princes;' and elsewhere, 'By your trade you have increased your wealth.' (Ezek. xxviii. 5.) It’s clear that our trade has boosted our wealth, and it’s also clear that the success of our manufacturing is the basis for all our trade, whether it’s our imports or our domestic commerce.

The inland trade of England is a thing not easily described; it would, in a word, take up a whole book by itself; it is the foundation of all our wealth and greatness; it is the support of all our foreign trade, and of our manufacturing, and, as I have hitherto written, of the tradesmen who carry it on. I shall proceed with a brief discourse of the trade itself.

The inland trade of England is not easy to describe; in fact, it could fill a whole book by itself. It forms the basis of all our wealth and greatness, supports all our foreign trade, and is essential for our manufacturing and, as I have mentioned before, for the tradespeople involved in it. I will continue with a short discussion of the trade itself.

FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:

[We have here a pleasing trait of the superior sagacity of Defoe, in as far as it was a prevalent notion down to his time, and even later (nor is it, perhaps, altogether extinguished yet), that the prosperity of a country was marked by its excess of exports over imports. Defoe justly ranks the amount of importation on a level with that of exportation, as indicative of the well-being of the country.]

[We see a valuable insight from Defoe, as it was a common belief during his time and even afterward (and it may not be completely gone today) that a country’s success was measured by having more exports than imports. Defoe correctly states that the amount of imports should be considered just as important as exports when assessing the country’s health.]


CHAPTER XXIII

OF THE INLAND TRADE OF ENGLAND, ITS MAGNITUDE, AND THE GREAT ADVANTAGE IT IS TO THE NATION IN GENERAL

OF THE INLAND TRADE OF ENGLAND, ITS SIZE, AND THE GREAT BENEFIT IT IS TO THE NATION AS A WHOLE


I have, in a few words, described what I mean by the inland trade of England, in the introduction to this work. It is the circulation of commerce among ourselves.

I’ve briefly explained what I mean by the inland trade of England in the introduction to this work. It’s the flow of commerce among us.

I. For the carrying on our manufactures of several kinds in the several counties where they are made, and the employing the several sorts of people and trades needful for the said manufactures.

I. For continuing our manufacturing of various types in the different counties where they are produced, and for employing the various kinds of people and trades necessary for those manufactures.

II. For the raising and vending provisions of all kinds for the supply of the vast numbers of people who are employed every where by the said manufactures.

II. For the production and sale of all types of provisions to feed the large number of people employed everywhere by these industries.

III. For the importing and bringing in from abroad all kinds of foreign growth and manufactures which we want.

III. For importing and bringing in all types of foreign products and goods that we need.

IV. For the carrying about and dispersing, as well our own growth and manufactures as the foreign imported growth and manufactures of other nations, to the retailer, and by them to the last consumer, which is the utmost end of all trade; and this, in every part, to the utmost corner of the island of Great Britain and Ireland.

IV. For the transport and distribution of both our own products and crafts, as well as the foreign goods produced by other nations, to the retailer, and from them to the final consumer, which is the ultimate goal of all trade; and this, in every part, to the farthest corner of the islands of Great Britain and Ireland.

This I call inland trade, and these circulators of goods, and retailers of them to the last consumer, are those whom we are to understand by the word tradesmen, in all the parts of this work; for (as I observed in the beginning) the ploughmen and farmers who labour at home, and the merchant who imports our merchandise from abroad, are not at all meant or included, and whatever I have been saying, except where they have been mentioned in particular, and at length.

This I refer to as inland trade, and those who move and sell goods to the final consumer are the ones we mean by the term tradesmen throughout this work; because, as I mentioned at the start, the ploughmen and farmers who work locally, and the merchants who bring our goods from overseas, are not included at all. Everything I’ve been saying applies to tradesmen, except where I specifically mention them in detail.

This inland trade is in itself at this time the wonder of all the world of trade, nor is there any thing like it now in the world, much less that exceeds it, or perhaps ever will be, except only what itself may grow up to in the ages to come; for, as I have said on all occasions, it is still growing and increasing.

This inland trade is, right now, the marvel of the entire trading world, and there's nothing else like it today, let alone anything that surpasses it or likely ever will, except for what it may develop into in the future; because, as I've mentioned before, it’s still growing and expanding.

By this prodigy of a trade, all the vast importation from our own colonies is circulated and dispersed to the remotest corner of the island, whereby the consumption is become so great, and by which those colonies are so increased, and are become so populous and so wealthy as I have already observed of them. This importation consists chiefly of sugars and tobacco, of which the consumption in Great Britain is scarcely to be conceived of, besides the consumption of cotton, indigo, rice, ginger, pimento or Jamaica pepper, cocoa or chocolate, rum and molasses, train-oil, salt-fish, whale-fin, all sorts of furs, abundance of valuable drugs, pitch, tar, turpentine, deals, masts, and timber, and many other things of smaller value; all which, besides the employing a very great number of ships and English seamen, occasion again a very great exportation of our own manufactures of all sorts to those colonies; which being circulated again for consumption there, that circulation is to be accounted a branch of home or inland trade, as those colonies are on all such occasions esteemed as a branch of part of ourselves, and of the British government in the world.

By this amazing trade, all the huge imports from our own colonies are spread out to the farthest reaches of the island, which has led to an enormous increase in consumption, and as I've noted, these colonies have grown in population and wealth. This importation mainly includes sugars and tobacco, with the amount consumed in Great Britain being almost unimaginable, along with cotton, indigo, rice, ginger, pimento, cocoa, rum, and molasses, as well as train oil, salted fish, whale fins, various furs, plenty of valuable drugs, pitch, tar, turpentine, timber, masts, and many other less valuable items. All of this not only employs a significant number of ships and English sailors but also results in a substantial export of our own manufactured goods to those colonies. When those goods are circulated for consumption there, this trade counts as part of our domestic or inland trade, since those colonies are always viewed as an extension of ourselves and the British government in the world.

This trade to our West Indies and American colonies, is very considerable, as it employs so many ships and sailors, and so much of the growth of those colonies is again exported by us to other parts of the world, over and above what is consumed among us at home; and, also, as all those goods, and a great deal of money in specie, is returned hither for and in balance of our own manufactures and merchandises exported thither—on these accounts some have insisted that more real wealth is brought into Great Britain every year from those colonies, than is brought from the Spanish West Indies to old Spain, notwithstanding the extent of their dominion is above twenty times as much, and notwithstanding the vast quantity of gold and silver which they bring from the mines of Mexico, and the mountains of Potosi.[38]

This trade with our West Indies and American colonies is quite significant, as it employs many ships and sailors. Much of what those colonies produce is exported by us to other parts of the world, in addition to what we consume at home. Moreover, all those goods, along with a substantial amount of money in cash, are brought back here as a balance for our own manufactured goods and merchandise sent there. For these reasons, some argue that more real wealth comes into Great Britain each year from those colonies than what is brought from the Spanish West Indies to old Spain, despite the fact that their territory is more than twenty times larger and despite the large amounts of gold and silver they extract from the mines of Mexico and the mountains of Potosí.[38]

Whether these people say true or no, is not my business to inquire here; though, if I may give my opinion, I must acknowledge that I believe they do; but be it so or not, it is certain that it is an infinitely extended trade, and daily increasing; and much of it, if not all, is and ought to be esteemed as an inland trade, because, as above, it is a circulation among ourselves.

Whether these people are telling the truth or not is not my concern here; however, if I may express my opinion, I must admit that I believe they are. But whether that's the case or not, it's clear that this is a huge and growing industry, and much of it, if not all, should be considered as domestic trade because, as mentioned, it circulates among ourselves.

As the manufactures of England, particularly those of wool (cotton wool included), and of silk, are the greatest, and amount to the greatest value of any single manufacture in Europe,[39] so they not only employ more people, but those people gain the most money, that is to say, have the best wages for their work of any people in the world; and yet, which is peculiar to England, the English manufactures are, allowing for their goodness, the cheapest at market of any in the world, too. Even France itself, after all the pains they are at to get our wool, and all the expense they have been at to imitate our manufactures, by getting over our workmen, and giving them even greater wages than they had here, have yet made so little proficiency in it, and are so far from outselling us in foreign markets, that they still, in spite of the strictest prohibitions, send hither, and to Holland and Germany, for English broad-cloths, druggets, duroys, flannels, serges, and several other sorts of our goods, to supply their own. Nor can they clothe themselves to their satisfaction with their own goods; but if any French gentleman of quality comes over hither from France, he is sure to bring no more coats with him than backs, but immediately to make him new clothes as soon as he arrives, and to carry as many new suits home with him at his return, as he can get leave to bring ashore when he comes there—a demonstration that our manufacture exceeds theirs, after all their boasts of it, both in goodness and in cheapness, even by their own confession. But I am not now to enter upon the particular manufactures, but the general trade in the manufacture; this particular being a trade of such a magnitude, it is to be observed for our purpose, that the greatness of it consists of two parts:—

As the manufacturers of England, especially those producing wool (including cotton wool) and silk, are the largest and the most valuable single industry in Europe,[39] they not only employ more people but also pay them the highest wages of any workers in the world. Yet, uniquely in England, these manufactures, considering their quality, are also the cheapest available globally. Even France, despite all their efforts to obtain our wool and the expenses they’ve incurred to replicate our products by luring our workers with higher pay, have made little progress and are far from outselling us in international markets. They still, even with the strictest bans, import English broad-cloths, druggets, duroys, flannels, serges, and various other types of our goods to meet their needs. They cannot satisfy their own clothing preferences with their products; in fact, any French gentleman of means who comes over from France typically brings no more than the clothes on his back and immediately gets new outfits made as soon as he arrives, taking as many new suits back with him as he is allowed when he returns—evidence that our manufacturing surpasses theirs in quality and price, even by their own admission. However, I will not delve into specific products but rather focus on the overall trade in manufacturing; this is such a significant area that it's important to note that its magnitude consists of two main components:—

1. The consumption of it at home, including our own plantations and factories.

1. Using it at home, including our own farms and factories.

2. The exportation of it to foreign parts, exclusive of the said plantations and factories.

2. The export of it to other countries, excluding the mentioned plantations and factories.

It is the first of these which is the subject of my present discourse, because the tradesmen to whom, and for whose instruction these chapters are designed, are the people principally concerned in the making all these manufactures, and wholly and solely concerned in dispersing and circulating them for the home consumption; and this, with some additions, as explained above, I call inland trade.

It’s the first of these that I’ll focus on now, because the merchants for whom these chapters are intended are the main ones involved in producing all these goods and are entirely responsible for distributing and selling them for local use; and this, along with some extra details as mentioned earlier, I refer to as inland trade.

The home-consumption of our own goods, as it is very great, so it has one particular circumstance attending it, which exceedingly increases it as a trade, and that is, that besides the numbers of people which it employs in the raising the materials, and making the goods themselves as a manufacture—I say, besides all this, there are multitudes of people employed, cattle maintained, with waggons and carts for the service on shore, barges and boats for carriage in the rivers, and ships and barks for carrying by sea, and all for the circulating these manufactures from one place to another, for the consumption of them among the people.

The consumption of our own goods at home is really significant, and there's one specific factor that greatly boosts it as a trade. This factor is that, in addition to the many people involved in producing the raw materials and in manufacturing the goods, there are also countless individuals employed, cattle being cared for, and wagons and carts operating on land, along with barges and boats transporting goods on rivers, and ships and small boats carrying them by sea. All of this is aimed at circulating these products from one location to another for consumption by the people.

So that, in short, the circulation of the goods is a business not equal, indeed, but bearing a very great proportion to the trade itself.

So, in short, the flow of goods is a business that isn’t equal, but it has a significant impact on the trade itself.

This is owing to another particular circumstance of our manufacture, and perhaps is not so remarkably the case of any other manufacture or country in Europe, namely, that though all our manufactures are used and called for by almost all the people, and that in every part of the whole British dominion, yet they are made and wrought in their several distinct and respective countries in Britain, and some of them at the remotest distance from one another, hardly any two manufactures being made in one place. For example:

This is due to another specific aspect of our production, and it might not be as true for any other industry or country in Europe. Even though almost everyone in the British Empire wants and uses our products, they are created in their own unique and separate regions of Britain, with some being manufactured quite far apart from each other. In fact, hardly any two products are made in the same location. For example:

The broad-cloth and druggets in Wilts, Gloucester, and Worcestershire; serges in Devon and Somersetshire; narrow-cloths in Yorkshire and Staffordshire; kerseys, cottons, half-thicks, duffields, plains, and coarser things, in Lancashire and Westmoreland; shalloons in the counties of Northampton, Berks, Oxford, Southampton, and York; women's-stuffs in Norfolk; linsey-woolseys, &c, at Kidderminster; dimmeties and cotton-wares at Manchester; flannels at Salisbury, and in Wales; tammeys at Coventry; and the like. It is the same, in some respects, with our provisions, especially for the supply of the city of London, and also of several other parts: for example, when I speak of provisions, I mean such as are not made use of in the county where they are made and produced. For example:

The broadcloth and druggets in Wiltshire, Gloucestershire, and Worcestershire; serges in Devon and Somerset; narrow-cloths in Yorkshire and Staffordshire; kerseys, cottons, half-thicks, duffields, plains, and coarser goods in Lancashire and Westmoreland; shalloons in the counties of Northampton, Berkshire, Oxford, Southampton, and York; women's fabrics in Norfolk; linsey-woolseys, etc., at Kidderminster; dimmeties and cotton goods in Manchester; flannels in Salisbury and Wales; tammeys in Coventry; and similar items. It's somewhat the same with our food supplies, especially for the city of London and several other areas: when I mention provisions, I mean those that are not used in the county where they are produced. For example:

Butter, in firkins, in Suffolk and Yorkshire; cheese from Cheshire, Wiltshire, Warwickshire, and Gloucestershire; herrings, cured red, from Yarmouth in Norfolk; coals, for fuel, from Northumberland and Durham; malt from the counties of Hertford, Essex, Kent, Bucks, Oxford, Berks, &c.

Butter in firkins from Suffolk and Yorkshire; cheese from Cheshire, Wiltshire, Warwickshire, and Gloucestershire; cured red herrings from Yarmouth in Norfolk; coal for fuel from Northumberland and Durham; malt from Hertfordshire, Essex, Kent, Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Berkshire, etc.

And thus of many other things which are the proper produce of one part of the country only, but are from thence dispersed for the ordinary use of the people into many, or perhaps into all the other counties of England, to the infinite advantage of our inland commerce, and employing a vast number of people and cattle; and consequently those people and cattle increasing the consumption of provisions and forage, and the improvement of lands; so true it is, and so visible, that trade increases people, and people increase trade.

And so, there are many other things that only come from one part of the country but are distributed for everyday use across many, or maybe all, other counties in England. This greatly benefits our inland trade and employs a huge number of people and livestock. As a result, these people and animals increase the demand for food and feed, as well as the improvement of land. It's clear and evident that trade leads to more people, and more people lead to more trade.

This carriage of goods in England from those places is chiefly managed by horses and waggons; the number of which is not to be guessed at, nor is there any rule or art that can be thought of, by which any just calculation can be made of it, and therefore I shall not enter upon any particular of it at this time; it is sufficient to say, what I believe to be true, namely, that it is equal to the whole trade of some nations, and the rather because of the great improvement of land, which proceeds from the employing so many thousands of horses as are furnished for this part of business.

This transport of goods in England from those locations is mainly handled by horses and wagons; the number of which is impossible to estimate, and there’s no method or system that could accurately calculate it, so I won’t go into specifics right now. It’s enough to say what I believe is true: that it matches the entire trade of some countries, especially because of the significant improvement of land that comes from using so many thousands of horses for this work.

In other countries, and indeed, in most countries in Europe, all their inland trade, such as it is, is carried on by the convenience of navigation, either by coastings on the sea, or by river-navigation. It is true, our coasting trade is exceedingly great, and employs a prodigious number of ships, as well from all the shores of England to London, as from one port to another.

In other countries, and especially in most European countries, all their domestic trade, as limited as it may be, relies on navigation, either through coastal routes or river transport. It's true that our coastal trade is very extensive and involves a huge number of ships, coming from all the shores of England to London, as well as between various ports.

But as to our river-navigation, it is not equal to it, though in some places it is very great too; but we have but a very few navigable rivers in England, compared with those of other countries; nor are many of those rivers we have navigable to any considerable length from the sea. The most considerable rivers in England for navigation are as follows:—The Thames, the Trent, the Severn, the Wye, the Ouse, the Humber, the Air, and the Calder. These are navigable a considerable way, and receive several other navigable rivers into them; but except these there are very few rivers in England which are navigable much above the first town of note within their mouth.

But when it comes to our river navigation, it's not as good as it could be, although there are some areas where it's quite impressive too. However, we have very few navigable rivers in England compared to other countries, and most of the rivers we do have aren't navigable for long distances from the sea. The main rivers in England that are good for navigation are: the Thames, the Trent, the Severn, the Wye, the Ouse, the Humber, the Aire, and the Calder. These rivers can be navigated for quite a stretch and they connect with several other navigable rivers; but aside from these, there are very few rivers in England that are navigable much beyond the first notable town at their mouths.

Most of our other greatest and most navigable rivers are navigable but a very little way in; as the northern Ouse but to York, the Orwell but to Ipswich, the Yare but to Norwich; the Tyne itself but a very little above Newcastle, not in all above twelve miles; the Tweed not at all above Berwick; the great Avon but to Bristol; the Exe but to Exeter; and the Dee but to Chester: in a word, our river-navigation is not to be named for carriage, with the vast bulk of carriage by pack-horses and by waggons; nor must the carriage by pedlars on their backs be omitted.[40]

Most of our other major and most navigable rivers are only navigable for a short distance; for example, the northern Ouse can only be traveled to York, the Orwell to Ipswich, and the Yare to Norwich. The Tyne can only be navigated a little way above Newcastle, totaling not more than twelve miles; the Tweed isn't navigable at all above Berwick; the great Avon only reaches Bristol; the Exe goes only to Exeter; and the Dee only to Chester. In short, our river navigation is not worth mentioning for transporting goods, as most transport is done via pack-horses and wagons, and we shouldn't forget about the pedlars carrying loads on their backs.[40]

This carriage is the medium of our inland trade, and, as I said, is a branch of the trade itself. This great carriage is occasioned by the situation of our produce and manufactures. For example—the Taunton and Exeter serges, perpetuanas, and duroys, come chiefly by land; the clothing, such as the broad-cloth and druggets from Wilts, Gloucester, Worcester, and Shropshire, comes all by land-carriage to London, and goes down again by land-carriages to all parts of England; the Yorkshire clothing trade, the Manchester and Coventry trades, all by land, not to London only, but to all parts of England, by horse-packs—the Manchester men being, saving their wealth, a kind of pedlars, who carry their goods themselves to the country shopkeepers every where, as do now the Yorkshire and Coventry manufacturers also.

This carriage is the way our inland trade works, and, as I mentioned, it's a part of the trade itself. This extensive carriage system exists because of where our products and goods are located. For instance—the Taunton and Exeter serges, perpetuanas, and duroys mostly come overland; the clothing, like broadcloth and druggets from Wiltshire, Gloucester, Worcester, and Shropshire, is all transported to London by land, and then sent back out to every corner of England via land transport; the Yorkshire clothing trade and the Manchester and Coventry trades also rely on land, not just to London but to all parts of England, using horse packs—the people from Manchester, aside from their wealth, are kind of like peddlers, who deliver their goods directly to local shopkeepers everywhere, as do the manufacturers from Yorkshire and Coventry today.

Now, in all these manufactures, however remote from one another, every town in England uses something, not only of one or other, but of all the rest. Every sort of goods is wanted every where; and where they make one sort of goods, and sell them all over England, they at the same time want other goods from almost every other part. For example:

Now, in all these industries, no matter how different they are from one another, every town in England produces something that not only uses one type or another but all the rest as well. Every kind of product is in demand everywhere, and where they manufacture one type of product to sell across England, they also need other products from nearly every other region. For example:

Norwich makes chiefly woollen stuffs and camblets, and these are sold all over England; but then Norwich buys broad-cloth from Wilts and Worcestershire, serges and sagathies from Devon and Somersetshire, narrow cloth from Yorkshire, flannel from Wales, coal from Newcastle, and the like; and so it is, mutatis mutandis, of most of the other parts.

Norwich mainly produces woolen fabrics and camblets, which are sold throughout England. However, Norwich also buys broadcloth from Wiltshire and Worcestershire, serges and sagathies from Devon and Somerset, narrow cloth from Yorkshire, flannel from Wales, coal from Newcastle, and similar items; and this is true, mutatis mutandis, for most other regions as well.

The circulating of these goods in this manner, is the life of our inland trade, and increases the numbers of our people, by keeping them employed at home; and, indeed, of late they are prodigiously multiplied; and they again increase our trade, as shall be mentioned in its place.

The distribution of these goods like this is vital for our local trade and helps grow our population by keeping people working at home. In fact, recently their numbers have surged, which in turn boosts our trade, as will be discussed later.

As the demand for all sorts of English goods is thus great, and they are thus extended in every part of the island, so the tradesmen are dispersed and spread over every part also; that is to say, in every town, great or little, we find shopkeepers, wholesale or retail, who are concerned in this circulation, and hand forward the goods to the last consumer. From London, the goods go chiefly to the great towns, and from those again to the smaller markets, and from those to the meanest villages; so that all the manufactures of England, and most of them also of foreign countries, are to be found in the meanest village, and in the remotest corner of the whole island of Britain, and are to be bought, as it were, at every body's door.

As the demand for various English goods is high, and they are widely available throughout the island, merchants are also spread out in every area. In every town, big or small, we find shopkeepers, both wholesale and retail, involved in this distribution and delivering goods to the final consumer. Goods mainly travel from London to the large towns, then to smaller markets, and finally to the tiniest villages. As a result, all of England's manufactured products, along with many from foreign countries, can be found even in the smallest village and in the most remote corners of Britain, easily accessible to everyone.

This shows not the extent of our manufactures only, but the usefulness of them, and how they are so necessary to mankind that our own people cannot be without them, and every sort of them, and cannot make one thing serve for another; but as they sell their own, so they buy from others, and every body here trades with every body: this it is that gives the whole manufacture so universal a circulation, and makes it so immensely great in England. What it is abroad, is not so much to our present purpose.

This illustrates not only the scale of our manufacturing but also their importance and how essential they are to people. Our own population relies on them completely and can't make do with just one type for another. Just as they sell their goods, they also buy from others, and everyone here is involved in trade with everyone else. This is what allows the entire manufacturing sector to circulate so widely and makes it incredibly significant in England. What happens elsewhere isn't our main focus right now.

Again, the magnitude of the city of London adds very considerably to the greatness of the inland trade; for as this city is the centre of our trade, so all the manufactures are brought hither, and from hence circulated again to all the country, as they are particularly called for. But that is not all; the magnitude of the city influences the whole nation also in the article of provisions, and something is raised in every county in England, however remote, for the supply of London; nay, all the best of every produce is brought hither; so that all the people, and all the lands in England, seem to be at work for, or employed by, or on the account of, this overgrown city.

Once again, the size of London greatly enhances the importance of inland trade. This city is the hub of our commerce, where all goods are brought in and then distributed throughout the country as needed. But that's not all; the size of the city also affects the entire nation in terms of food supplies, as something is grown in every county in England, no matter how far away, to feed London. In fact, the finest products from all over are sent here, making it seem like everyone and everything in England is working for or connected to this enormous city.

This makes the trade increase prodigiously, even as the city itself increases; and we all know the city is very greatly increased within few years past. Again, as the whole nation is employed to feed and clothe this city, so here is the money, by which all the people in the whole nation seem to be supported and maintained.

This causes trade to grow tremendously, just like the city itself is growing; and it's well known that the city has expanded significantly in the last few years. Moreover, since the entire nation is working to provide food and clothing for this city, the money generated here supports and sustains people across the entire nation.

I have endeavoured to make some calculation of the number of shopkeepers in this kingdom, but I find it is not to be done—we may as well count the stars; not that they are equal in number neither, but it is as impossible, unless any one person corresponded so as to have them numbered in every town or parish throughout the kingdom. I doubt not they are some hundreds of thousands, but there is no making an estimate—the number is in a manner infinite. It is as impossible likewise to make any guess at the bulk of their trade, and how much they return yearly; nor, if we could, would it give any foundation for any just calculation of the value of goods in general, because all our goods circulate so much, and go so often through so many hands before they come to the consumer. This so often passing every sort of goods through so many hands, before it comes into the hands of the last consumer, is that which makes our trade be so immensely great. For example, if there is made in England for our home-consumption the value of £100,000 worth of any particular goods, say, for example, that it be so many pieces of serge or cloth, and if this goes through ten tradesmen's hands, before it comes to the last consumer, then there is £1,000,000 returned in trade for that £100,000 worth of goods; and so of all the sorts of goods we trade in.

I’ve tried to estimate the number of shopkeepers in this country, but it seems impossible—it’s like trying to count the stars. Not that they’re all the same number, but it’s just as unfeasible unless one person could keep track of them all in every town or neighborhood across the country. I'm sure there are hundreds of thousands, but it’s hard to even guess—the number feels almost infinite. It's just as tricky to estimate the volume of their trade and how much they generate each year; even if we could, it wouldn’t provide a solid basis for calculating the overall value of goods because our products change hands so much before reaching the final consumer. This frequent exchange of goods among various people before they end up with the last buyer is what makes our trade extraordinarily large. For instance, if England produces £100,000 worth of certain goods, like some pieces of serge or cloth for local use, and if these goods pass through ten different traders before reaching the final customer, then it results in £1,000,000 worth of trade from that £100,000 worth of goods—and this applies to all types of goods we deal with.

Again, as I said above, all our manufactures are so useful to, and depend on, one another so much in trade, that the sale of one necessarily causes the demand of the other in all parts. For example, suppose the poorest countryman wants to be clothed, or suppose it be a gentleman wants to clothe one of his servants, whether a footman in a livery, or suppose it be any servant in ordinary apparel, yet he shall in some part employ almost every one of the manufacturing counties of England, for making up one ordinary suit of clothes. For example:

Again, as I mentioned earlier, all our products are so valuable to each other and so interconnected in trade that selling one sparks the demand for the others everywhere. For instance, if the poorest farmer needs clothing, or if a gentleman wants to outfit one of his servants—whether it's a footman in a uniform or any servant in regular clothes—he will end up relying on nearly every manufacturing region in England to create just one simple outfit. For example:

If his coat be of woollen-cloth, he has that from Yorkshire; the lining is shalloon from Berkshire; the waistcoat is of callamanco from Norwich; the breeches of a strong drugget from Devizes, Wiltshire; the stockings being of yarn from Westmoreland; the hat is a felt from Leicester; the gloves of leather from Somersetshire; the shoes from Northampton; the buttons from Macclesfield in Cheshire, or, if they are of metal, they come from Birmingham, or Warwickshire; his garters from Manchester; his shirt of home-made linen of Lancashire, or Scotland.

If his coat is made of wool, it comes from Yorkshire; the lining is a fabric from Berkshire; the waistcoat is made from callamanco from Norwich; the trousers are a strong fabric from Devizes, Wiltshire; the stockings are yarn from Westmoreland; the hat is felt from Leicester; the gloves are leather from Somerset; the shoes are from Northampton; the buttons are from Macclesfield in Cheshire, or if they're metal, they come from Birmingham or Warwickshire; his garters are from Manchester; his shirt is homemade linen from Lancashire or Scotland.

If it be thus of every poor man's clothing, or of a servant, what must it be of the master, and of the rest of the family? And in this particular the case is the same, let the family live where they will; so that all these manufactures must be found in all the remotest towns and counties in England, be it where you will.

If this is true for every poor man's clothing or a servant's, what does it say about the master and the rest of the family? In this situation, it is the same, no matter where the family lives; all these goods must be available in even the most remote towns and counties in England, wherever you go.

Again, take the furnishing of our houses, it is the same in proportion, and according to the figure and quality of the person. Suppose, then, it be a middling tradesman that is going to live in some market-town, and to open his shop there; suppose him not to deal in the manufacture, but in groceries, and such sort of wares as the country grocers sell.

Again, consider how we furnish our homes; it's similar based on the status and quality of the person. Imagine a regular tradesman who plans to live in a market town and open his shop there; picture him not dealing in manufacturing, but in groceries and the kinds of goods that country grocers typically sell.

This man, however, must clothe himself and his wife, and must furnish his house: let us see, then, to how many counties and towns, among our manufactures, must he send for his needful supply. Nor is the quantity concerned in it; let him furnish himself as frugally as he pleases, yet he must have something of every necessary thing; and we will suppose for the present purpose the man lived in Sussex, where very few, if any, manufactures are carried on; suppose he lived at Horsham, which is a market-town in or near the middle of the county.

This man, however, needs to dress himself and his wife, and he has to supply his home: let’s see how many counties and towns, among our products, he needs to reach out to for his essential supplies. It doesn't matter how much he buys; even if he tries to be very economical, he still needs to get something of every necessary item. For now, let's imagine he lives in Sussex, where there are very few, if any, manufacturers; let’s assume he lives in Horsham, which is a market town in or around the center of the county.

For his clothing of himself—for we must allow him to have a new suit of clothes when he begins the world—take them to be just as above; for as to the quality or quantity, it is much the same; only, that instead of buying the cloth from Yorkshire, perhaps he has it a little finer than the poor man above, and so his comes out of Wiltshire, and his stockings are, it may be, of worsted, not of yarn, and so they come from Nottingham, not Westmoreland; but this does not at all alter the case.

For his clothing—since we should allow him to have a new suit when he starts out—consider it to be just like mentioned above; the quality or quantity is pretty much the same. The only difference is that instead of buying the fabric from Yorkshire, he might have something a bit finer from Wiltshire, and his stockings could be made of worsted instead of yarn, so they come from Nottingham, not Westmoreland; but this really doesn’t change anything.

Come we next to his wife; and she being a good honest townsman's daughter, is not dressed over fine, yet she must have something decent, being newly married too, especially as times go, when the burghers' wives of Horsham, or any other town, go as fine as they do in other places: allow her, then, to have a silk gown, with all the necessaries belonging to a middling tolerable appearance, yet you shall find all the nation more or less concerned in clothing this country grocer's wife, and furnishing his house, and yet nothing at all extravagant. For example:

Now let's talk about his wife. Being a decent, honest girl from the town, she isn’t dressed too extravagantly, but she does need something nice since she’s newly married, especially considering how things are these days when the wives of shopkeepers in Horsham, or any other town, dress as elegantly as those in other places. So, let’s say she has a silk gown along with everything needed for a respectable appearance. You’ll see that everyone in the community is involved in dressing this grocer's wife and setting up their home, but nothing is overly extravagant. For example:

Her gown, a plain English mantua-silk, manufactured in Spitalfields; her petticoat the same; her binding, a piece of chequered-stuff, made at Bristol and Norwich; her under-petticoat, a piece of black callamanco, made at Norwith—quilted at home, if she be a good housewife, but the quilting of cotton from Manchester, or cotton-wool from abroad; her inner-petticoats, flannel and swanskin, from Salisbury and Wales; her stockings from Tewksbury, if ordinary, from Leicester, if woven; her lace and edgings from Stony Stratford the first, and Great Marlow the last; her muslin from foreign trade, as likewise her linen, being something finer than the man's, may perhaps be a guilick-Holland; her wrapper, or morning-gown, a piece of Irish linen, printed at London; her black hood, a thin English lustring; her gloves, lamb's-skin, from Berwick and Northumberland, or Scotland; her ribands, being but very few, from Coventry, or London; her riding-hood, of English worsted-camblet, made at Norwich.

Her gown, a simple English silk, made in Spitalfields; her petticoat the same; her trim, a piece of checkered fabric, made in Bristol and Norwich; her under-petticoat, a piece of black calico, made in Norwith—quilted at home, if she’s a good housewife, but the quilting of cotton from Manchester, or cotton wool from abroad; her inner petticoats, flannel and swanskin, from Salisbury and Wales; her stockings from Tewksbury, if ordinary, from Leicester, if woven; her lace and trims from Stony Stratford the first, and Great Marlow the last; her muslin from foreign trade, as well as her linen, being something finer than the man's, may perhaps be a type of Holland; her wrapper, or morning gown, a piece of Irish linen, printed in London; her black hood, a light English silk; her gloves, lambskin, from Berwick and Northumberland, or Scotland; her ribbons, being very few, from Coventry, or London; her riding hood, made of English worsted camlet, created in Norwich.

Come next to the furniture of their house. It is scarce credible, to how many counties of England, and how remote, the furniture of but a mean house must send them, and how many people are every where employed about it; nay, and the meaner the furniture, the more people and places employed. For example:

Come next to the furniture of their house. It's hard to believe how many counties in England, and how far away, the furniture of just an average house must come from, and how many people are involved in making it; in fact, the simpler the furniture, the more people and places are involved. For example:

The hangings, suppose them to be ordinary linsey-woolsey, are made at Kidderminster, dyed in the country, and painted, or watered, at London; the chairs, if of cane, are made at London; the ordinary matted chairs, perhaps in the place where they live; tables, chests of drawers, &c., made at London; as also looking-glass; bedding, &c., the curtains, suppose of serge from Taunton and Exeter, or of camblets, from Norwich, or the same with the hangings, as above; the ticking comes from the west country, Somerset and Dorsetshire; the feathers also from the same country; the blankets from Whitney in Oxfordshire; the rugs from Westmoreland and Yorkshire; the sheets, of good linen, from Ireland; kitchen utensils and chimney-furniture, almost all the brass and iron from Birmingham and Sheffield; earthen-ware from Stafford, Nottingham, and Kent; glass ware from Sturbridge in Worcestershire, and London.

The hangings, let’s say they’re regular linsey-woolsey, are made in Kidderminster, dyed locally, and painted or finished in London; the chairs, if they’re made of cane, come from London; the standard matted chairs might be made where they live; tables, chests of drawers, etc., are made in London; the same goes for the mirrors; bedding, etc., the curtains could be made of serge from Taunton and Exeter, or of camblets from Norwich, or the same as the hangings mentioned earlier; the ticking comes from the southwest, Somerset and Dorsetshire; the feathers also come from the same area; the blankets are from Whitney in Oxfordshire; the rugs are from Westmoreland and Yorkshire; the sheets, which are good linen, come from Ireland; kitchen utensils and chimney fittings, almost all the brass and iron come from Birmingham and Sheffield; earthenware is from Stafford, Nottingham, and Kent; glassware is from Sturbridge in Worcestershire and London.

I give this list to explain what I said before, namely, that there is no particular place in England, where all the manufactures are made, but every county or place has its peculiar sort, or particular manufacture, in which the people are wholly employed; and for all the rest that is wanted, they fetch them from other parts.[41]

I’m providing this list to clarify what I mentioned earlier, which is that there isn’t one specific location in England where all the products are made. Instead, every county or area has its own specific type of manufacturing that the people focus on entirely; for everything else they need, they source it from other regions.[41]

But, then, as what is thus wanted by every particular person, or family, is but in small quantities, and they would not be able to send for it to the country or town where it is to be bought, there are shopkeepers in every village, or at least in every considerable market-town, where the particulars are to be bought, and who find it worth their while to furnish themselves with quantities of all the particular goods, be they made where and as far off as they will; and at these shops the people who want them are easily supplied.

But, since what each person or family needs is usually just a small amount, and they wouldn't be able to travel to the country or town where it's sold, there are shopkeepers in every village, or at least in every notable market town, where these specific items can be purchased. These shopkeepers find it worthwhile to stock up on a variety of goods, no matter how far away they are made, and at these stores, people can easily get what they need.

Nor do even these shopkeepers go or send to all the several counties where those goods are made—that is to say, to this part for the cloth, or to that for the lining; to another for the buttons, and to another for the thread; but they again correspond with the wholesale dealers in London, where there are particular shops or warehouses for all these; and they not only furnish the country shopkeepers, but give them large credit, and sell them great quantities of goods, by which they again are enabled to trust the tailors who make the clothes, or even their neighbours who wear them; and the manufacturers in the several counties do the like by those wholesale dealers who supply the country shops.

Even these shopkeepers don’t go or send to all the different counties where those goods are made—that is, they don't go to this area for the cloth, that area for the lining, another for the buttons, and yet another for the thread; instead, they communicate with the wholesale dealers in London, where there are specific shops or warehouses for all these items. They not only supply the country shopkeepers but also extend them significant credit and sell them large quantities of goods, which allows these shopkeepers to trust the tailors who make the clothes, or even their neighbors who wear them. Similarly, the manufacturers in the various counties do the same with the wholesale dealers who supply the country shops.

Through so many hands do all the necessary things pass for the clothing a poor plain countryman, though he lived as far as Berwick-upon-Tweed; and this occasions, as I have said, a general circulation of trade, both to and from London, from and to all the parts of England, so that every manufacture is sold and removed five or six times, and perhaps more, before it comes at the last consumer.

Through so many hands do all the necessary items pass for the clothing of a poor, simple countryman, even if he lived as far away as Berwick-upon-Tweed; and this creates, as I mentioned, a general flow of trade, both to and from London, reaching all parts of England. As a result, every product is sold and transferred five or six times, and maybe even more, before it finally reaches the end consumer.

This method of trade brings another article in, which also is the great foundation of the increase of commerce, and the prodigious magnitude of our inland trade is much owing to it; and that is giving credit, by which every tradesman is enabled to trade for a great deal more than he otherwise could do. By this method a shopkeeper is able to stock his shop, or warehouses, with two or three times as much goods in value, as he has stock of his own to begin the world with, and by that means is able to trust out his goods to others, and give them time, and so under one another—nay, I may say, many a tradesman begins the world with borrowed stocks, or with no stock at all, but that of credit, and yet carries on a trade for several hundreds, nay, for several thousands, of pounds a-year.

This method of trade introduces another key factor that significantly boosts commerce, and the impressive scale of our domestic trade owes a lot to it; that is extending credit, which allows every merchant to conduct business on a much larger scale than they could otherwise manage. With this approach, a shopkeeper can fill their shop or warehouse with two or three times the value of goods compared to their own initial stock, allowing them to lend their products to others and offer them time to pay. In fact, many merchants start their business with borrowed capital, or with no capital other than their credit, yet they still manage to run a business worth hundreds, or even thousands, of pounds each year.

By this means the trade in general is infinitely increased—nay, the stock of the kingdom in trade is doubled, or trebled, or more, and there is infinitely more business carried on, than the real stock could be able to manage, if no credit were to be given; for credit in this particular is a stock, and that not an imaginary, but a real stock; for the tradesman, that perhaps begins but with five hundred, or one thousand pounds' stock, shall be able to furnish or stock his shop with four times the sum in the value of goods; and as he gives credit again, and trusts other tradesmen under him, so he launches out into a trade of great magnitude; and yet, if he is a prudent manager of his business, he finds himself able to answer his payments, and so continually supply himself with goods, keeping up the reputation of his dealings, and the credit of his shop, though his stock be not a fifth, nay, sometimes not a tenth part, in proportion to the returns that he makes by the year: so that credit is the foundation on which the trade of England is made so considerable.

This way, trade in general has increased tremendously—actually, the kingdom's trading capacity has doubled, tripled, or even more, and there’s way more business happening than the actual resources could handle without credit. Credit here is a real asset, not just a figment of imagination; for a tradesman who starts with just five hundred or one thousand pounds in inventory can stock his shop with goods worth four times that amount. As he extends credit and trusts other traders, he steps into a much larger trade. Yet, if he manages his business wisely, he can meet his payments and continuously restock, maintaining his reputation and the credibility of his shop, even though his actual inventory might be less than a fifth, and sometimes even less than a tenth, of the yearly returns he generates. So, credit is the foundation that makes England's trade so significant.

Nor is it enough to say, that people must and will have goods, and that the consumption is the same; it is evident that consumption is not the same; and in those nations where they give no credit, or not so much as here, the trade is small in proportion, as I shall show in its place.

Nor is it enough to say that people need and will acquire goods, and that consumption is the same; it's clear that consumption is not the same. In those countries where credit isn’t given or isn’t as prevalent as here, trade is relatively small, as I will demonstrate later.

FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:

[The amount of trade produced by the British colonies is still great; but it has been ascertained that it is not profitable to the nation at large, as much more is paid from the public purse for the military protection required by the colonies, than returns to individuals through the medium of business.]

[The trade generated by the British colonies is still significant; however, it has been determined that it does not benefit the nation overall, as the government spends much more on military protection for the colonies than individuals gain from business transactions.]

[The cotton manufacture has now the prominence which, in Defoe's time, was due to those of wool and silk.]

[The cotton industry now has the same prominence that the wool and silk industries had during Defoe's time.]

[It is scarcely necessary to remind the reader, that the canal navigation of England has come into existence since the date of this work—the railway communication is but of yesterday.]

[It’s hardly worth reminding the reader that England's canal navigation has been established since this work was written—the railway system is barely a recent development.]

[Since Defoe's time, little alteration has taken place in the locality of a number of manufactures in England; but, in the interval, an entire change has been effected in Scotland, which now possesses various manufactures of importance in the commercial economy of the nation. We need only allude to the cambrics, gauzes, and silks of Paisley; the cottons and other goods of Glasgow; the plaidings of Stirlingshire; the stockings of Hawick; the printing-paper of Mid-Lothian; the carpets and bonnets of Kilmarnock; the iron of Muirkirk and Carron; the linens of Fife and Dundee; and the shawls of Edinburgh.]

[Since Defoe's time, there hasn't been much change in the location of several industries in England; however, during that time, Scotland has undergone a complete transformation and now has several important industries that contribute to the nation's commercial economy. We only need to mention the cambrics, gauzes, and silks from Paisley; the cottons and other products from Glasgow; the plaids from Stirlingshire; the stockings from Hawick; the printing paper from Mid-Lothian; the carpets and bonnets from Kilmarnock; the iron from Muirkirk and Carron; the linens from Fife and Dundee; and the shawls from Edinburgh.]


CHAPTER XXIV

OF CREDIT IN TRADE, AND HOW A TRADESMAN OUGHT TO VALUE AND IMPROVE IT: HOW EASILY LOST, AND HOW HARD IT IS TO BE RECOVERED

OF CREDIT IN TRADE, AND HOW A TRADESMAN OUGHT TO VALUE AND IMPROVE IT: HOW EASILY LOST, AND HOW HARD IT IS TO BE RECOVERED


Credit is, or ought to be, the tradesman's mistress; but I must tell him too, he must not think of ever casting her off, for if once he loses her, she hardly ever returns; and yet she has one quality, in which she differs from most of the ladies who go by that name—if you court her, she is gone; if you manage so wisely as to make her believe you really do not want her, she follows and courts you. But, by the way, no tradesman can be in so good circumstances as to say he does not want, that is, does not stand in need of credit.

Credit is, or should be, the tradesman's mistress; but I must warn him not to consider ever letting her go, because once he loses her, she rarely comes back. Yet, she has one trait that sets her apart from most women with that title—if you pursue her, she disappears; if you manage to convince her that you don't actually want her, she follows and pursues you. But, just so you know, no tradesman can be in such a good position as to claim he doesn't need, that is, doesn’t stand in need of credit.

Credit, next to real stock, is the foundation, the life and soul, of business in a private tradesman; it is his prosperity; it is his support in the substance of his whole trade; even in public matters, it is the strengh and fund of a nation. We felt, in the late wars, the consequence of both the extremes—namely, of wanting and of enjoying a complete fund of credit.

Credit, alongside actual capital, is the foundation, the lifeblood, of a private business; it drives his success; it supports the entirety of his trade; even in public matters, it serves as the strength and resource of a nation. We experienced, during the recent wars, the consequences of both extremes—namely, lacking a sufficient credit supply and having an abundance of it.

Credit makes war, and makes peace; raises armies, fits out navies, fights battles, besieges towns; and, in a word, it is more justly called the sinews of war than the money itself,[42] because it can do all these things without money—nay, it will bring in money to be subservient, though it be independent.

Credit drives war and fosters peace; it raises armies, equips navies, fights battles, and besieges cities. In short, it deserves to be called the backbone of war more than money itself,[42] because it can accomplish all these things without cash—indeed, it can generate money to serve its purpose, even if it remains self-sufficient.

Credit makes the soldier fight without pay, the armies march without provisions, and it makes tradesmen keep open shop without stock. The force of credit is not to be described by words; it is an impregnable fortification, either for a nation, or for a single man in business; and he that has credit is invulnerable, whether he has money or no; nay, it will make money, and, which is yet more, it will make money without an intrinsic, without the materia medica (as the doctors have it); it adds a value, and supports whatever value it adds, to the meanest substance; it makes paper pass for money, and fills the Exchequer and the banks with as many millions as it pleases, upon demand. As I said in last chapter, it increases commerce; so, I may add, it makes trade, and makes the whole kingdom trade for many millions more than the national specie can amount to.

Credit makes soldiers fight without pay, allows armies to march without supplies, and lets merchants keep their shops open even when they're out of stock. The power of credit is beyond words; it serves as an unbreakable fortress, whether for a nation or an individual in business. Anyone who has credit is untouchable, regardless of having money or not; in fact, it can create money, and even more importantly, it can generate money without any intrinsic value, without the materia medica (as doctors say). It adds value and maintains whatever value it adds to the most ordinary items; it makes paper accepted as money and fills the treasury and banks with as many millions as needed, upon request. As I mentioned in the last chapter, it boosts commerce; I can also say that it stimulates trade and enables the entire kingdom to trade for many millions more than the country's actual coinage.

It may be true, as some allege, that we cannot drive a trade for more goods than we have to trade with, but then it is as true, that it is by the help of credit that we can increase the quantity, and that more goods are made to trade with than would otherwise be; more goods are brought to market than they could otherwise sell; and even in the last consumption, how many thousands of families wear out their clothes before they pay for them, and eat their dinner upon tick with the butcher! Nay, how many thousands who could not buy any clothes, if they were to pay for them in ready money, yet buy them at a venture upon their credit, and pay for them as they can!

It might be true, as some people say, that we can't trade for more goods than we have to offer, but it’s also true that credit helps us increase the amount we can trade. More goods are produced for trading than would be otherwise; more goods are available in the market than they could sell without it; and in daily life, how many families wear out their clothes before they’ve paid for them, and get their dinners on credit from the butcher? In fact, how many people who couldn’t afford to buy clothes if they had to pay cash are able to purchase them on credit and pay for them as they can?

Trade is anticipated by credit, and it grows by the anticipation; for men often buy clothes before they pay for them, because they want clothes before they can spare the money; and these are so many in number, that really they add a great stroke to the bulk of our inland trade. How many families have we in England that live upon credit, even to the tune of two or three years' rent of their revenue, before it comes in!—so that they must be said to eat the calf in the cow's belly. This encroachment they make upon the stock in trade; and even this very article may state the case: I doubt not but at this time the land owes to the trade some millions sterling; that is to say, the gentlemen owe to the tradesmen so much money, which, at long run, the rents of their lands must pay.

Trade relies on credit, and it expands through that expectation; people often buy clothes before they pay for them because they want them before they can afford to pay. The sheer number of these purchases significantly boosts our domestic trade. How many families in England live on credit, even borrowing for two or three years' worth of rent before their income arrives!—they can be said to eat the calf in the cow's belly. This encroachment affects the working capital; and even this specific situation reflects the issue: I have no doubt that right now, the land owes the trade several million pounds; in other words, the gentlemen owe that amount to the tradesmen, which ultimately will have to be covered by the rents from their lands.

The tradesmen having, then, trusted the landed men with so much, where must they have it but by giving credit also to one another? Trusting their goods and money into trade, one launching out into the hands of another, and forbearing payment till the lands make it good out of their produce, that is to say, out of their rents.

The tradesmen, having trusted the landowners so much, where else could they turn but to each other for credit? They put their goods and money into trade, relying on one another, delaying payment until the landowners can cover it with their earnings, specifically from their rent.

The trade is not limited; the produce of lands may be and is restrained. Trade cannot exceed the bounds of the goods it can sell; but while trade can increase its stock of cash by credit, it can increase its stock of goods for sale, and then it has nothing to do but to find a market to sell at; and this we have done in all parts of the world, still by the force of our stocks being so increased.

The trade isn't constrained; the output of the land can be and often is limited. Trade can't go beyond the limits of the goods it can sell; however, while trade can boost its cash flow through credit, it can increase its inventory of goods for sale. Then, it's just a matter of finding a market to sell in, which we've achieved in every part of the world, driven by the growth of our inventory.

Thus, credit raising stock at home, that stock enables us to give credit abroad; and thus the quantity of goods which we make, and which is infinitely increased at home, enables us to find or force a vent abroad. This is apparent, our home trade having so far increased our manufacture, that England may be said to be able almost to clothe the whole world; and in our carrying on the foreign trade wholly upon the English stocks, giving credit to almost all the nations of the world; for it is evident, our stocks lie at this time upon credit in the warehouses of the merchants in Spain and Portugal, Holland and Germany, Italy and Turkey; nay, in New Spain and Brazil.

Thus, raising credit from stock at home allows us to give credit abroad; and as a result, the amount of goods we produce, which has greatly increased domestically, helps us find or create a market internationally. This is clear, as our domestic trade has expanded our manufacturing capacity to the point where England can almost supply clothing for the entire world. We conduct our foreign trade primarily on English credit, extending loans to nearly all nations worldwide; it's obvious that our stocks are currently held on credit in the warehouses of merchants in Spain and Portugal, Holland and Germany, Italy and Turkey; even in New Spain and Brazil.

The exceeding quantity of goods thus raised in England cannot be supposed to be the mere product of the solid wealth and stocks of the English people; we do not pretend to it; the joining those stocks to the value of goods, always appearing in England in the hands of the manufacturers, tradesmen, and merchants, and to the wealth which appears in shipping, in stock upon land, and in the current coin of the nation, would amount to such a prodigy of stock, as not all Europe could pretend to.

The enormous amount of goods produced in England can't just be considered the result of the solid wealth and resources of the English people; we don't claim that. When you combine those resources with the value of goods consistently held by manufacturers, traders, and merchants, along with the wealth that shows up in shipping, land assets, and the nation's circulating currency, it adds up to such a massive amount of wealth that not all of Europe could match it.

But all this is owing to the prodigious thing called credit, the extent of which in the British trade is as hard to be valued, as the benefit of it to England is really not to be described. It must be likewise said, to the honour of our English tradesman, that they understand how to manage the credit they both give and take, better than any other tradesmen in the world; indeed, they have a greater opportunity to improve it, and make use of it, and therefore may be supposed to be more ready in making the best of their credit, than any other nations are.

But all of this is due to the amazing thing called credit, which is really hard to measure in British trade, while its benefits to England are truly indescribable. It should also be noted, to the credit of our English tradespeople, that they know how to manage the credit they both extend and receive better than any other traders in the world; in fact, they have a greater opportunity to enhance and utilize it, which means they are likely more adept at making the most of their credit than traders from any other nations.

Hence it is that we frequently find tradesmen carrying on a prodigious trade with but a middling stock of their own, the rest being all managed by the force of their credit; for example, I have known a man in a private warehouse in London trade for forty thousand pounds a-year sterling, and carry on such a return for many years together, and not have one thousand pounds' stock of his own, or not more—all the rest has been carried on upon credit, being the stocks of other men running continually through his hands; and this is not practised now and then, as a great rarity, but is very frequent in trade, and may be seen every day, as what in its degree runs through the whole body of the tradesmen in England.[43]

So, we often see tradespeople conducting a massive business with just an average amount of their own stock, relying mainly on their credit. For instance, I know a guy in a private warehouse in London who traded for forty thousand pounds a year and kept it up for many years without having even one thousand pounds' worth of stock of his own, or not much more than that—everything else was managed on credit, using other people's stocks constantly passing through his hands. This isn't just a rare occurrence; it's very common in trade and can be observed every day, as it applies broadly to many tradespeople across England.[43]

Every tradesman both gives and takes credit, and the new mode of setting it up over their shop and warehouse doors, in capital letters, No trust by retail, is a presumption in trade; and though it may have been attempted in some trades, was never yet brought to any perfection; and most of those trades, who were the forwardest to set it up, have been obliged to take it down again, or act contrary to it in their business, or see some very good customers go away from them to other shops, who, though they have not brought money with them, have yet good foundations to make any tradesmen trust them, and who do at proper times make payments punctual enough.

Every tradesperson both gives and receives credit, and the new trend of putting up signs over their shop and warehouse doors in bold letters, No trust by retail, is a bold move in business. While it may have been tried in some industries, it has never really been perfected. Most of the businesses that were the quickest to adopt this practice have had to take down the signs or act against it in their dealings, or they risk losing valuable customers to other shops. These customers may not have cash on hand, but they have solid reasons for tradespeople to trust them and usually make their payments on time.

On the contrary, instead of giving no trust by retail, we see very considerable families who buy nothing but on trust; even bread, beer, butter, cheese, beef, and mutton, wine, groceries, &c, being the things which even with the meanest families are generally sold for ready money. Thus I have known a family, whose revenue has been some thousands a-year, pay their butcher, and baker, and grocer, and cheesemonger, by a hundred pounds at a time, and be generally a hundred more in each of their debts, and yet the tradesmen have thought it well worth while to trust them, and their pay has in the end been very honest and good.

On the contrary, instead of having no trust in retail, we see many families who buy everything on credit; even essentials like bread, beer, butter, cheese, beef, mutton, wine, groceries, etc., are usually sold for cash, even to the poorest families. I've known a family with an income of several thousand a year to pay their butcher, baker, grocer, and cheesemonger a hundred pounds at a time, while typically being a hundred pounds deeper in debt to each, yet the merchants still found it worthwhile to give them credit, and in the end, their payments were very honest and reliable.

This is what I say brings land so much in debt to trade, and obliges the tradesman to take credit of one another; and yet they do not lose by it neither, for the tradesmen find it in the price, and they take care to make such families pay warmly for the credit, in the rate of their goods; nor can it be expected it should be otherwise, for unless the profit answered it, the tradesman could not afford to be so long without his money.

This is what I say makes land so deeply in debt to trade and forces businesspeople to rely on each other for credit; yet they don’t really lose out either, because the businesspeople factor it into the price, and they ensure that families pay well for the credit in the cost of their goods. It’s not surprising, because if the profits didn’t compensate for it, the businessperson couldn’t afford to wait so long for their money.

This credit takes its beginning in our manufactures, even at the very first of the operation, for the master manufacturer himself begins it. Take a country clothier, or bay-maker, or what other maker of goods you please, provided he be one that puts out the goods to the making; it is true that the poor spinners and weavers cannot trust; the first spin for their bread, and the last not only weave for their bread, but they have several workmen and boys under them, who are very poor, and if they should want their pay on Saturday night, must want their dinner on Sunday; and perhaps would be in danger of starving with their families, by the next Saturday.

This credit starts with our manufacturers, right from the very first stage of the process, as the master manufacturer initiates it. Consider a local clothier, bay-maker, or any type of goods maker you like, as long as they outsource production; it's true that the poor spinners and weavers can't rely on this. The spinners work for their livelihood, and the weavers not only work for their own but also have several workers and boys under them who are struggling. If they're waiting for their pay on Saturday night, they might not have food for dinner on Sunday; they could risk starving with their families by the following Saturday.

But though the clothier cannot have credit for spinning and weaving, he buys his wool at the stapler's or fellmonger's, and he gets two or three months' credit for that; he buys his oil and soap of the country shopkeeper, or has it sent down from his factor at London, and he gets longer credit for that, and the like of all other things; so that a clothier of any considerable business, when he comes to die, shall appear to be £4000 or £5000 in debt.

But even though the cloth maker can't take credit for spinning and weaving, he buys his wool from the wool dealer or the skin dealer, and he gets two or three months' credit for that; he buys his oil and soap from the local shopkeeper, or has it shipped from his agent in London, and he gets even longer credit for that and similar items; so when a clothier with a decent business passes away, he may seem to be £4000 or £5000 in debt.

But, then, look into his books, and you shall find his factor at Blackwell Hall, who sells his cloths, or the warehouse-keeper who sells his duroys and druggets, or both together, have £2000 worth of goods in hand left unsold, and has trusted out to drapers, and mercers, and merchants, to the value of £4000 more; and look into his workhouse at home, namely, his wool-lofts, his combing-shop, his yarn-chamber, and the like, and there you will find it—in wool unspun, and in yarn spun, and in wool at the spinners', and in yarn at and in the looms at the weavers'; in rape-oil, gallipoli oil, and perhaps soap, &c, in his warehouses, and in cloths at the fulling-mill, and in his rowing-shops, finished and unfinished, £4000 worth of goods more; so that, though this clothier owed £5000 at his death, he has nevertheless died in good circumstances, and has £5000 estate clear to go among his children, all his debts paid and discharged. However, it is evident, that at the very beginning of this manufacturer's trade, his £5000 stock is made £10,000, by the help of his credit, and he trades for three times as much in the year; so that £5000 stock makes £10,000 stock and credit, and that together makes £30,000 a-year returned in trade.

But if you look into his books, you'll find his agent at Blackwell Hall, who sells his fabrics, or the warehouse manager who sells his duroys and druggets, or both of them together, have £2000 worth of unsold goods on hand and have extended credit worth an additional £4000 to drapers, mercers, and merchants. Also, check out his workshop at home, that is, his wool lofts, combing shop, yarn chamber, and similar places, and you’ll see it—in unspun wool, spun yarn, wool at the spinners', and yarn at the weavers' looms; in rape oil, Gallipoli oil, and maybe some soap, etc., in his warehouses, and in cloth at the fulling mill, plus in his factories, both finished and unfinished, worth another £4000. So, even though this clothier owed £5000 when he died, he still passed away in good shape, leaving a £5000 estate to distribute among his children, all his debts paid off. However, it’s clear that at the very start of this manufacturer’s business, his £5000 stock grew to £10,000 with the help of credit, and he trades for three times that amount in a year; thus, that £5000 stock creates a £10,000 stock and credit, which altogether generates £30,000 a year in trade.

When you come from him to the warehouse-keeper in London, there you double and treble upon it, to an unknown degree; for the London wholesale man shall at his death appear to have credit among the country clothiers for £10,000 or £15,000, nay, to £20,000, and yet have kept up an unspotted credit all his days.

When you go from him to the warehouse manager in London, you start multiplying it by two or three times, to an unknown extent; because the London wholesale dealer, when he dies, will seem to have credit with the country clothiers for £10,000 or £15,000, or even £20,000, and yet has maintained a flawless reputation throughout his life.

When he is dead, and his executors or widow come to look into things, they are frightened with the very appearance of such a weight of debts, and begin to doubt how his estate will come out at the end of it. But when they come to cast up his books and his warehouse, they find,

When he dies, and his executors or widow start to figure things out, they are scared by the sheer amount of debt, and they begin to question how his estate will turn out in the end. But when they go through his records and his warehouse, they find,

In debts abroad, perhaps £30,000 In goods in his warehouse £12,000

In debts overseas, maybe £30,000. In goods in his warehouse, £12,000.

So that, in a word, the man has died immensely rich; that is to say, worth between £20,000 and £30,000, only that, having been a long standard in trade, and having a large stock, he drove a very great business, perhaps to the tune of £60,000 or £70,000 a-year; so that, of all the £30,000 owing, there may be very little of it delivered above four to six months, and the debtors being many of them considerable merchants, and good paymasters, there is no difficulty in getting in money enough to clear all his own debts; and the widow and children being left well, are not in such haste for the rest but that it comes in time enough to make them easy; and at length it all comes in, or with but a little loss.

So, in short, the man died incredibly wealthy; that is to say, worth between £20,000 and £30,000. However, having been a well-established figure in business and having a large inventory, he ran a very successful operation, perhaps bringing in £60,000 or £70,000 a year. As for the £30,000 owed to him, very little of it is likely to be unpaid for more than four to six months, and since many of the debtors are significant merchants and reliable payers, there’s no trouble in collecting enough money to settle all his debts. The widow and children are left well off, so they're not in a rush for the remaining funds; they come in soon enough to keep them comfortable, and in the end, they receive it all, or with just a minor loss.

As it is thus in great things, it is the same in proportion with small; so that in all the trade of England, you may reckon two-thirds of it carried on upon credit; in which reckoning I suppose I speak much within compass, for in some trades there is four parts of five carried on so, and in some more.

As it is true in big things, it's the same in small ones; so that in all of England's trade, you can estimate that two-thirds of it is done on credit. I think I'm being conservative here, because in some trades, four out of five transactions are done this way, and in others even more.

All these things serve to show the infinite value of which credit is to the tradesman, as well as to trade itself; and it is for this reason I have closed my instructions with this part of the discourse. Credit is the choicest jewel the tradesman is trusted with; it is better than money many ways; if a man has £10,000 in money, he may certainly trade for £10,000, and if he has no credit, he cannot trade for a shilling more.

All these factors highlight the immense value of credit to a tradesperson and to business itself. That's why I've concluded my guidance with this part of the discussion. Credit is the most precious asset a tradesperson has; it often surpasses money in many ways. If someone has £10,000 in cash, they can definitely trade for £10,000, but without credit, they can't trade for even a penny more.

But how often have we seen men, by the mere strength of their credit, trade for ten thousand pounds a-year, and have not one groat of real stock of their own left in the world! Nay, I can say it of my own knowledge, that I have known a tradesman trade for ten thousand pounds a-year, and carry it on with full credit to the last gasp, then die, and break both at once; that is to say, die unsuspected, and yet, when his estate has been cast up, appear to be five thousand pounds worse than nothing in the world: how he kept up his credit, and made good his payments so long, is indeed the mystery, and makes good what I said before, namely, that as none trade so much upon credit in the world, so none know so well how to improve and manage credit to their real advantage, as the English tradesmen do; and we have many examples of it, among our bankers especially, of which I have not room to enter at this time into the discourse, though it would afford a great many diverting particulars.[44]

But how often have we seen men who, just by the strength of their credit, trade for ten thousand pounds a year, yet have not one penny of real assets left in the world! In fact, I can say from my own experience that I’ve known a trader who operated at that level, maintaining full credit until the end, only to die and collapse both at once; that is to say, he died without anyone suspecting a thing, and yet, when his estate was settled, it turned out he was five thousand pounds in the hole. The way he maintained his credit and managed to make his payments for so long is indeed a mystery, and supports what I mentioned earlier, that no one trades on credit as much in the world, and no one knows better how to leverage and manage credit to their genuine advantage than English tradesmen do. We have many examples, especially among our bankers, though I don’t have the space to delve into that right now, even though it would provide a lot of entertaining details.[44]

I have mentioned on several occasions in this work, how nice and how dainty a dame this credit is, how soon she is affronted and disobliged, and how hard to be recovered, when once distasted and fled; particularly in the story of the tradesman who told his friends in a public coffee-house that he was broke, and should shut up his shop the next day. I have hinted how chary we ought to be of one another's credit, and that we should take care as much of our neighbour tradesman's credit as we would of his life, or as we would of firing his house, and, consequently, the whole street.

I’ve mentioned several times in this work how valuable and delicate reputation is, how quickly it can be offended and damaged, and how difficult it is to restore once it's lost and gone; especially in the story of the tradesman who told his friends in a public coffeehouse that he was bankrupt and would be closing his shop the next day. I’ve suggested that we should be very careful with each other’s reputation, and we should take as much care of a fellow tradesman’s reputation as we would for his life, or as if we were setting fire to his house, and, by extension, the whole street.

Let me close all with a word to the tradesman himself, that if it be so valuable to him, and his friends should be all so chary of injuring his reputation, certainly he should be very chary of it himself. The tradesman that is not as tender of his credit as he is of his eyes, or of his wife and children, neither deserves credit, nor will long be master of it.

Let me finish with a reminder to the tradesman himself that if his reputation is so important to him, and his friends are careful not to harm it, he should definitely be careful himself. A tradesman who doesn't protect his reputation as much as he does his eyesight, or his wife and kids, doesn’t deserve trust and won’t keep it for long.

As credit is a coy mistress, and will not easily be courted, so she is a mighty nice touchy lady, and is soon affronted; if she is ill used, she flies at once, and it is a very doubtful thing whether ever you gain her favour again.

As credit is a fickle mistress and doesn’t easily accept attention, she’s also a very sensitive lady who can be easily offended; if you mistreat her, she’ll vanish in an instant, and it’s uncertain whether you’ll ever win her favor back.

Some may ask me here, 'How comes it to pass, since she is so nice and touchy a lady, that so many clowns court and carry her, and so many fools keep her so long?' My answer is, that those clowns have yet good breeding enough to treat her civilly; he must be a fool indeed that will give way to have his credit injured, and sit still and be quiet-that will not bustle and use his utmost industry to vindicate his own reputation, and preserve his credit.

Some might wonder, "How is it possible that since she's such a delicate and particular lady, so many clowns pursue her and so many fools keep her around for so long?" My answer is that those clowns are still polite enough to treat her with respect; only a true fool would let his reputation be harmed and just sit back quietly—he should be proactive and do everything he can to defend his reputation and maintain his good name.

But the main question for a tradesman in this case, and which I have not spoken of yet, is, 'What is the man to do to preserve his credit? What are the methods that a young tradesman is to take, to gain a good share of credit in his beginning, and to preserve and maintain it when it is gained?'[45]

But the main question for a tradesman in this case, and which I have not talked about yet, is, 'What should the man do to maintain his reputation? What steps should a young tradesman take to earn a good amount of credibility at the start, and how can he keep and uphold it once it's achieved?'[45]

Every tradesman's credit is supposed to be good at first. He that begins without credit, is an unhappy wretch of a tradesman indeed, and may be said to be broke even before he sets up; for what can a man do, who by any misfortune in his conduct during his apprenticeship, or by some ill character upon him so early, begins with a blast upon his credit? My advice to such a young man would be, not to set up at all; or if he did, to stay for some time, till by some better behaviour, either as a journeyman, or as an assistant in some other man's shop or warehouse, he had recovered himself; or else to go and set up in some other place or town remote from that where he has been bred; for he must have a great assurance that can flatter himself to set up, and believe he shall recover a lost reputation.

Every tradesperson’s reputation is expected to be good at the start. A tradesperson who begins without a solid reputation is truly unfortunate and can be considered broke even before they start; what can someone do if, due to a mistake in their conduct during their apprenticeship or a bad reputation that follows them early on, they start with their credit already damaged? My advice to such a young person would be not to start at all; or if they do, to wait for some time until they have improved their behavior, either as a worker for someone else or as an assistant in another shop or warehouse, so they can rebuild their reputation; or else to move and start fresh in a different place or town away from where they were raised; because it takes a lot of confidence to think they can recover a tarnished reputation.

But take a young tradesman as setting up with the ordinary stock, that is to say, a negative character, namely, that he has done nothing to hurt his character, nothing to prejudice his behaviour, and to give people a suspicion of him: what, then, is the first principle on which to build a tradesman's reputation? and what is it he is to do?

But consider a young tradesman starting out with the usual background, which means he has a clean slate—he hasn't done anything to damage his reputation, nothing to undermine his behavior, and hasn't given anyone reason to doubt him. So, what is the first principle for building a tradesman's reputation? And what should he do?

The answer is short. Two things raise credit in trade, and, I may say, they are the only things required; there are some necessary addenda, but these are the fundamentals.

The answer is simple. Two things boost credit in business, and I can say they are the only essentials needed; there are a few necessary additions, but these are the basics.

1. Industry. 2. Honesty.

1. Industry. 2. Transparency.

I have dwelt upon the first; the last I have but a few words to say to, but they will be very significant; indeed, that head requires no comment, no explanations or enlargements: nothing can support credit, be it public or private, but honesty; a punctual dealing, a general probity in every transaction. He that once breaks through his honesty, violates his credit—once denominate a man a knave, and you need not forbid any man to trust him.

I have talked a lot about the first point; I only have a few things to say about the last, but they are very important. Honestly, that topic doesn’t need any further discussion or explanations: nothing can maintain trust, whether it’s public or private, except for honesty; reliable dealings and general integrity in every transaction. Once someone compromises their honesty, they ruin their trustworthiness—once you label someone as a cheat, you don’t even need to tell anyone not to trust them.

Even in the public it appears to be the same thing. Let any man view the public credit in its present flourishing circumstances, and compare it with the latter end of the years of King Charles II. after the Exchequer had been shut up, parliamentary appropriations misapplied, and, in a word, the public faith broken; who would lend? Seven or eight per cent, was given for anticipations in King William's time, though no new fraud had been offered, only because the old debts were unpaid; and how hard was it to get any one to lend money at all!

Even in public, it seems to be the same. Let anyone look at public credit in its currently thriving state and compare it to the last years of King Charles II, after the Exchequer was shut down, parliamentary funds were misused, and, in short, public trust was broken; who would lend? Back in King William's time, lenders wanted seven or eight percent for loans, even though no new fraud was introduced, simply because the old debts weren't paid. And it was really difficult to find anyone willing to lend money at all!

But, after by a long series of just and punctual dealing, the Parliament making good all the deficient funds, and paying even those debts for which no provision was made, and the like, how is the credit restored, the public faith made sacred again, and how money flows into the Exchequer without calling for, and that at three or four per cent. interest, even from foreign countries as well as from our own people! They that have credit can never want money; and this credit is to be raised by no other method, whether by private tradesmen, or public bodies of men, by nations and governments, but by a general probity and an honest punctual dealing.

But after a long period of fair and timely transactions, the Parliament fully covered all the missing funds and even paid off debts that had no existing provisions, how is the credit restored, the public trust made sacred again, and how does money flow into the Exchequer without needing to be called for, and at just three or four percent interest, even from foreign countries as well as from our own citizens? Those who have credit will never lack money; and this credit can only be built up through general integrity and honest, timely dealings, whether by private businesses or public organizations, by nations and governments.

The reason of this case is as plain as the assertion; the cause is in itself; no man lends his money but with an expectation of receiving it again with the interest. If the borrower pays it punctually without hesitations and defalcations, without difficulties, and, above all, without compulsion, what is the consequence?—he is called an honest man, he has the reputation of a punctual fair dealer. And what then?—why, then, he may borrow again whenever he will, he may take up money and goods, or anything, upon his bare words, or note; when another man must give bondsmen, or mainprize, that is, a pawn or pledge for security, and hardly be trusted to neither. This is credit.

The reason for this case is as clear as the statement itself; the cause lies within. No one lends their money without expecting to get it back with interest. If the borrower repays it on time, without hesitation or shortages, without any problems, and especially without being forced, what happens?—he's considered an honest person and gains a reputation as a reliable fair dealer. And then what?—well, then he can borrow again whenever he wants; he can get money and goods, or anything else, just on his word or a note; while another person has to provide guarantors or a pledge for security and might not even be trusted. This is credit.

It is not the quality of the person would give credit to his dealing; not kings, princes, emperors, it is all one; nay, a private shopkeeper shall borrow money much easier than a prince, if the credit of the tradesman has the reputation of being an honest man. Not the crown itself can give credit to the head that wears it, if once he that wears it comes but to mortgage his honour in the matter of payment of money.

It’s not the status of a person that earns them credit; it doesn’t matter if they’re kings, princes, or emperors—it's all the same. In fact, a regular shopkeeper can borrow money much more easily than a prince if the shopkeeper is known for being honest. Even a crown can't provide credit to the person wearing it if that person jeopardizes their reputation over money.

Who would have lent King Charles II. fifty pounds on the credit of his word or bond, after the shutting up the Exchequer? The royal word was made a jest of, and the character of the king was esteemed a fluttering trifle, which no man would venture upon, much less venture his money upon.

Who would have lent King Charles II fifty pounds based on his word or bond after the Exchequer was closed? The king's word became a joke, and his reputation was seen as a fleeting triviality that no one would gamble on, let alone risk their money on.

In King William's time the case was much the same at first; though the king had not broken his credit then with any man, yet how did they break their faith with the whole world, by the deficiency of the funds, the giving high and ruinous interest to men almost as greedy as vultures, the causing the government to pay great and extravagant rates for what they bought, and great premiums for what they borrowed—these were the injuries to the public for want of credit; nor was it in the power of the whole nation to remedy it; on the contrary, they made it still grow worse and worse, till, as above, the parliament recovered it. And how was it done? Not but by the same method a private person must do the same, namely, by doing justly, and fairly, and honestly, by every body.

In King William's time, things were pretty much the same at first. Although the king hadn't lost trust with anyone yet, they did betray the whole world by running out of funds, paying outrageously high interest to people who were almost as greedy as vultures, making the government pay excessive prices for what they bought, and high premiums for what they borrowed—these were the harms to the public due to a lack of credit. It wasn't something the entire nation could fix; instead, it just got worse and worse until, as mentioned earlier, the parliament managed to restore it. And how did they do it? By following the same approach a private individual would take: by being just, fair, and honest with everyone.

Thus credit began to revive, and to enlarge itself again; and usury, which had, as it were, eaten up mankind in business, declined, and so things came to their right way again.

Thus credit began to recover and expand again; and usury, which had, in a sense, consumed people's financial dealings, declined, and so things returned to normal.

The case is the same with a tradesman; if he shuffles in payment, bargains at one time, and pays at another, breaks his word and his honour in the road of his business, he is gone; no man will take his bills, no man will trust him.

The situation is the same for a tradesperson; if they delay payments, negotiate one moment, and pay at another time, breaking their word and honor in the course of their business, they're done for; no one will accept their bills, and no one will trust them.

The conclusion is open and clear: the tradesman cannot be too careful of his credit, he cannot buy it too dear, or be too careful to preserve it: it is in vain to maintain it by false and loose doing business; by breaking faith, refusing to perform agreements, and such shuffling things as those; the greatest monarch in Europe could not so preserve his credit.

The conclusion is straightforward: the tradesman must be extremely careful about his credit. He can't pay too much for it or be too cautious in maintaining it. It's pointless to try to uphold it through dishonest and sloppy business practices, like breaking promises or failing to follow through on agreements. Even the most powerful king in Europe couldn't keep his credit in good standing that way.

Nothing but probity will support credit; just, and fair, and honourable dealings give credit, and nothing but the same just, and fair, and honourable dealings will preserve it.

Nothing but honesty will uphold trust; only fair, just, and honorable actions build trust, and nothing but those same fair, just, and honorable actions will maintain it.

FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:

[How strikingly was this proved in the last war, when the British government obtained credit for no less than six hundred millions to conduct warlike operations, and by these means was ultimately victorious.]

[How clearly this was demonstrated in the last war when the British government secured credit for no less than six hundred million to carry out military operations, and through these efforts, ultimately achieved victory.]

[The author's praises of credit must be received with caution. If his descriptions of the credit system of his own day are true, an improvement has since taken place, as business neither is nor can be now carried on to such an extent upon credit—a circumstance that redounds to the advantage of all parties.]

[The author's praise for credit should be taken with caution. If his descriptions of the credit system in his time are accurate, there has been an improvement since then, as business is now neither conducted nor can be conducted to such a degree on credit—this is beneficial for everyone involved.]

[Defoe speaks of such cases as if there were something laudable in them, whereas it is obviously for the interest of all honest traders, that no such men should be allowed to carry on business.]

[Defoe talks about these situations as if there's something praiseworthy about them, but it's clear that it's in the best interest of all honest traders that no one like that should be allowed to conduct business.]

[Defoe almost appears in this place to lay capital out of the question, and to represent credit as all in all. Credit is a matter of great consequence; but we must not attempt to carry on business by its means alone. It should only be considered as an aid to capital. Those who, without capital, endeavour to set up in business by means of credit, or, when capital is exhausted, attempt to struggle on by means of credit alone, will, in general, only have a life of anxiety and dispeace for their pains.]

[Defoe seems to suggest here that credit is everything, but that's not the case. Credit is important, but we can't rely on it alone to run a business. It should be seen as a support to capital. Those who try to start a business without capital using only credit, or who continue to struggle with just credit when their capital is gone, will usually face a life full of stress and dissatisfaction for their efforts.]


CHAPTER XXV

OF THE TRADESMAN'S PUNCTUAL PAYING HIS BILLS AND PROMISSORY NOTES UNDER HIS HAND, AND THE CREDIT HE GAINS BY IT

OF THE TRADESMAN'S PUNCTUAL PAYING HIS BILLS AND PROMISSORY NOTES UNDER HIS HAND, AND THE CREDIT HE GAINS BY IT


As I said that credit is maintained by just and honourable dealing, so that just dealing depends very much upon the tradesman's punctual payment of money in all the several demands that are upon him. The ordinary demands of money upon a tradesman are—

As I mentioned, credit is upheld through fair and honorable behavior, which means that fair dealing relies heavily on a tradesman's timely payment of all the various financial obligations he faces. The typical financial demands on a tradesman are—

I. Promises of money for goods bought at time.

I. Promises of payment for items purchased at the time.

II. Bills drawn upon him; which, generally speaking, are from the country, that is to say, from some places remote from where he lives. Or,

II. Bills drawn on him, which, in general, come from the countryside, meaning from locations far from where he lives. Or,

III. Promissory notes under his hand, which are passed oftentimes upon buying goods: bought also at time, as in the first head.

III. Promissory notes signed by him, which are often used when purchasing goods: also bought at the time, as mentioned in the first section.

IV. Bonds bearing interest, given chiefly for money borrowed at running interest.

IV. Bonds that earn interest, primarily issued for money borrowed at ongoing interest.

1. Promises of money for goods bought at time. This indeed is the loosest article in a tradesman's payments; and it is true that a tradesman's credit is maintained upon the easiest terms in this case of any other that belongs to trade; for in this case not one man in twenty keeps to his time; and so easy are tradesmen to one another, that in general it is not much expected, but he that pays tolerably well, and without dunning, is a good man, and in credit; shall be trusted any where, and keeps up a character in his business: sometimes he pays sooner, sometimes later, and is accounted so good a customer, that though he owes a great deal, yet he shall be trusted any where, and is as lofty and touchy if his credit be called in question, as if he paid all ready money.

1. Promises of money for goods bought on credit. This is definitely the most flexible part of a tradesman's payments, and it's true that a tradesman's credit is maintained under the easiest conditions in this situation compared to any other aspect of trade; because in this case, not one person in twenty sticks to their payment schedule. Tradesmen are generally quite lenient with each other, so it's not a big expectation that someone pays on time. As long as someone pays reasonably well and doesn't need to be constantly reminded, they’re considered a good customer and have a solid reputation. Sometimes they pay sooner, sometimes later, and they are seen as such reliable clients that even if they owe a lot, they'll still be trusted anywhere. They're just as proud and defensive about their credit being questioned as if they paid all in cash.

And, indeed, these men shall often buy their goods as cheap upon the credit of their ordinary pay, as another man shall that brings his money in his hand; and it is reasonable it should be so, for the ready-money man comes and buys a parcel here and a parcel there, and comes but seldom, but the other comes every day, that is to say, as often as he wants goods, buys considerably, perhaps deals for two or three thousand pounds a-year with you, and the like, and pays currently too. Such a customer ought indeed to be sold as cheap to, as the other chance customer for his ready money. In this manner of trade, I say, credit is maintained upon the easiest terms of any other, and yet here the tradesman must have a great care to keep it up too; for though it be the easiest article to keep up credit in, yet even in this article the tradesman may lose his credit, and then he is undone at once; and this is by growing (what in the language of trade is called) long-winded, putting off and putting off continually, till he will bear dunning; then his credit falls, his dealer that trusted him perhaps a thousand pounds previously, that esteemed him as good as ready money, now grows sick of him, declines him, cares not whether he deals with him or no, and at last refuses to trust him any longer. Then his credit is quite sunk and gone, and in a little after that his trade is ruined and the tradesman too; for he must be a very extraordinary tradesman that can open his shop after he has outlived his credit: let him look which way he will, all is lost, nobody cares to deal with him, and, which is still worse, nobody will trust him.

And, in fact, these guys often buy their goods just as cheaply on the credit of their regular pay as someone who brings cash. It makes sense because the cash buyer comes in, picks up a few items here and there, and doesn’t visit often, while the other guy shows up every day, buying a lot, maybe dealing with you for two or three thousand pounds a year, and paying regularly. A customer like this should definitely be treated the same as the occasional cash buyer. In this type of business, credit is kept up more easily than in any other, but the seller still needs to be careful about maintaining it. Even though it's easier to keep credit in this case, a seller can still lose their reputation. This can happen by taking too long to pay, delaying and delaying until they can’t handle the pressure anymore. Then their credit drops, and a seller who had trusted them with maybe a thousand pounds, thinking they were as good as cash, starts to lose faith, doesn’t want to do business anymore, and eventually refuses to trust them at all. At that point, their credit is completely gone, and shortly after that, their business is ruined too; it takes a really exceptional seller to reopen their shop after losing their credit. No matter how they look at it, everything is lost, nobody wants to do business with them, and even worse, nobody will trust them.

2. Bills drawn upon him from the country, that is to say, from some places remote from where he now dwells: it is but a little while ago since those bills were the loosest things in trade, for as they could not be protested, so they would not (in all their heats) always sue for them, but rather return them to the person from whom they received them.

2. Bills drawn on him from the countryside, meaning from places far away from where he currently lives: not long ago, those bills were the most unreliable things in trade, because they couldn’t be protested, so they wouldn’t (in all their urgency) always pursue collection on them but would instead return them to the person who issued them.

In the meantime, let the occasion be what it will, the tradesman ought on all occasions to pay these notes without a public recalling and returning them, and without hesitation of any kind whatsoever. He that lets his bills lie long unpaid, must not expect to keep his credit much after them.

In the meantime, regardless of the situation, the tradesman should always pay these notes without having to be reminded or returning them, and without any hesitation whatsoever. Anyone who lets their bills go unpaid for a long time shouldn't expect to maintain their credit much longer after that.

Besides, the late law for noting and protesting inland bills, alters the case very much. Bills now accepted, are protested in form, and, if not punctually paid, are either returned immediately, or the person on whom they are drawn is liable to be sued at law; either of which is at best a blow to the credit of the acceptor.

Besides, the new law for recording and protesting inland bills changes things a lot. Bills that are accepted are formally protested, and if they aren't paid on time, they're either returned right away or the person they're drawn on can be sued in court; either way, it hurts the credit of the acceptor.

A tradesman may, without hurt to his reputation, refuse to accept a bill, for then, when the notary comes he gives his reasons, namely, that he refuses to accept the bill for want of advice, or for want of effects in his hands for account of the drawer, or that he has not given orders to draw upon him; in all which cases the non-acceptance touches the credit of the drawer; for in trade it is always esteemed a dishonourable thing to draw upon any man that has not effects in his hands to answer the bill; or to draw without order, or to draw and not give advice of it; because it looks like a forwardness to take the remitter's money without giving him a sufficient demand for it, where he expects and ought to have it.

A tradesman can, without damaging his reputation, refuse to accept a bill. When the notary arrives, he can explain his reasons: that he refuses to accept the bill due to a lack of advice, or because he doesn’t have any funds on hand for the drawer, or that he hasn’t authorized the bill to be drawn on him. In all these situations, the refusal affects the credit of the drawer. In business, it’s always considered dishonorable to draw on someone who doesn’t have funds to cover the bill; to draw without authorization; or to draw and not notify the other party. This behavior appears as if one is trying to take the remitter's money without giving them a proper reason, especially when they expect to have it.

A tradesman comes to me in London, and desires me to give him a bill payable at Bristol, for he is going to the fair there, and being to buy goods there, he wants money at Bristol to pay for them. If I give him a bill, he pays me down the money upon receipt of it, depending upon my credit for the acceptance of the bill. If I draw this bill where I have no reason to draw it, where I have no demand, or no effects to answer it, or if I give my correspondent no advice of it, I abuse the remitter, that is, the man whose money I take, and this reflects upon my credit that am the drawer, and the next time this tradesman wants money at Bristol fair, he will not come to me. 'No,' says he, 'his last bills were not accepted.' Or, if he does come to me, then he demands that he should not pay his money till he has advice that my bills are accepted.

A tradesman comes to me in London and asks me to give him a bill that can be cashed in Bristol because he’s heading to the fair there and needs money to buy goods. If I provide him with a bill, he pays me upfront when he receives it, relying on my credibility for the bill’s acceptance. If I issue this bill without justification, meaning I have no valid reason, no assets to cover it, or if I don’t inform my correspondent about it, I’m taking advantage of the remitter, the person whose money I’m using, and this damages my reputation as the drawer. The next time this tradesman needs money at the Bristol fair, he won’t come to me. He’ll think, “No, his last bills weren’t accepted.” Or if he does come back, he’ll insist that he doesn’t pay until he knows my bills have been accepted.

But, on the other hand, if bills are right drawn, and advice duly given, and the person has effects in his hands, then, if he refuses the bill, he says to the notary he does not accept the bill, but gives no reason for it, only that he says absolutely, 'I will not accept it—you may take that for an answer;' or he adds, 'I refuse to accept it, for reasons best known to myself.' This is sometimes done, but this does not leave the person's credit who refuses, so clear as the other, though perhaps it may not so directly reflect upon him; but it leaves the case a little dubious and uncertain, and men will be apt to write back to the person who sent the bill to inquire what the drawer says to it, and what account he gives, or what character he has upon his tongue for the person drawn upon.

But, on the flip side, if the bills are drawn correctly, and the advice is given properly, and the person has assets in their possession, then if they refuse the bill, they inform the notary that they do not accept it without providing any explanation, only stating firmly, 'I will not accept it—you can take that as my answer;' or they might add, 'I refuse to accept it for reasons known only to me.' This can happen sometimes, but it doesn’t leave the credit of the person refusing as clear as the other option, even though it might not directly reflect on them; however, it does make the situation a bit uncertain and ambiguous, and people are likely to reach out to the individual who sent the bill to ask what the person who issued it says about it, what explanation they provide, or what reputation they have regarding the person being drawn upon.

As the punctual paying of bills when accepted, is a main article in the credit of the acceptor, so a tradesman should be very cautious in permitting men to draw upon him where he has not effects, or does not give order; for though, as I said, it ought not to affect his reputation not to accept a bill where it ought not to be drawn, yet a tradesman that is nice of his own character does not love to be always or often refusing to accept bills, or to have bills drawn upon him where he has no reason to accept them, and therefore he will be very positive in forbidding such drawing; and if, notwithstanding that, the importunities of the country tradesman oblige him to draw, the person drawn upon will give smart and rough answers to such bills; as particularly, 'I refuse to accept this bill, because I have no effects of the drawer's to answer it.' Or thus, 'I refuse to accept this bill, because I not only gave no orders to draw, but gave positive orders not to draw.' Or thus, 'I neither will accept this bill, nor any other this man shall draw;' and the like. This thoroughly clears the credit of the acceptor, and reflects grossly on the drawer.

As paying bills on time is a key part of someone's credit, a merchant should be very careful about allowing people to draw on him when he doesn’t have goods or hasn’t given an order. Even though, as I mentioned, it shouldn’t hurt his reputation to refuse a bill that shouldn’t be drawn, a merchant who values his own reputation doesn’t like to frequently reject bill acceptances or have bills drawn against him without a valid reason. Therefore, he will firmly prohibit such drawings. If, despite this, the persistent pleas from local tradesmen compel him to accept, he will respond sharply and bluntly to those bills, saying things like, “I refuse to accept this bill because I have no goods from the drawer to cover it.” Or, “I refuse to accept this bill because I didn’t give any permission for it to be drawn and even instructed against it.” Or, “I will neither accept this bill nor any other that this person tries to draw.” This clearly protects the merchant’s credit and reflects poorly on the drawer.

And yet, I say, even in this case a tradesman does not care to be drawn upon, and be obliged to see bills presented for acceptance, and for payment, where he has given orders not to draw, and where he has no effects to answer.

And yet, I say, even in this case a tradesman doesn’t want to be relied upon and forced to see bills presented for acceptance and payment, especially when he has instructed not to draw, and where he has no funds to cover them.

It is the great error of our country manufacturers, in many, if not in most, parts of England at this time, that as soon as they can finish their goods, they hurry them up to London to their factor, and as soon as the goods are gone, immediately follow them with their bills for the money, without waiting to hear whether the goods are come to a market, are sold, or in demand, and whether they are likely to sell quickly or not; thus they load the factor's warehouse with their goods before they are wanted, and load the factor with their bills, before it is possible that he can have gotten cash in his hand to pay them.

It’s a major mistake by our country’s manufacturers, in many, if not most, parts of England right now, that as soon as they finish their products, they rush them to London to their agent. Then, right after the goods are sent, they immediately follow up with their invoices for payment, without waiting to see if the products have reached the market, if they've sold, or if there's any demand for them, and whether they'll sell quickly or not. This way, they fill the agent's warehouse with their products before they're actually needed, and burden the agent with their invoices before he has even had a chance to collect any cash to pay them.

This is, first, a direct borrowing money of their factor; and it is borrowing, as it were, whether the factor will lend or no, and sometimes whether he can or no. The factor, if he be a man of money, and answers their bills, fails not to make them pay for advancing; or sells the goods to loss to answer the bills, which is making them pay dear for the loan; or refuses their bills, and so baulks both their business and their credit.

This is, first, a direct borrowing of money from their agent; and it is borrowing, whether the agent agrees to lend or not, and sometimes whether he is able to or not. The agent, if he has money and covers their bills, doesn’t fail to make them pay for the advance; or he sells the goods at a loss to cover the bills, which means they end up paying a lot for the loan; or he refuses their bills, which undermines both their business and their credit.

But if the factor, willing to oblige his employers, and knowing he shall otherwise lose their commission, accepts the bills on the credit of the goods, and then, not being able to sell the goods in time, is also made unable to pay the bills when due—this reflects upon his credit, though the fault is indeed in the drawer whose effects are not come in; and this has ruined many an honest factor.

But if the factor, wanting to help his employers and knowing he’ll lose their commission otherwise, accepts the bills based on the credit of the goods, and then, unable to sell the goods in time, also can’t pay the bills when they’re due—this harms his credit, even though the fault actually lies with the drawer whose goods haven’t arrived; and this has ruined many honest factors.

First, it has hurt him by drawing large sums out of his cash, for the supply of the needy manufacturer, who is his employer, and has thereby made him unable to pay his other bills currently, even of such men's drafts who had perhaps good reason to draw.

First, it has hurt him by taking out large amounts of his cash for the support of the struggling manufacturer, who is his boss, and as a result, has made him unable to pay his other bills right now, even for those people's drafts who might have had valid reasons to draw.

Secondly, it keeps the factor always bare of money, and wounds his reputation, so that he pays those very bills with discredit, which in justice to himself he ought not to pay at all, and the borrower has the money, at the expense of the credit of the lender; whereas, indeed, the reproach ought to be to him that borrows, not to him that lends—to him that draws where there are no effects to warrant his draft, not to him that pays where he does not owe.

Secondly, it leaves the lender without money and damages his reputation, so that he ends up paying bills with a bad name, which he shouldn't have to pay at all. Meanwhile, the borrower has the cash at the cost of the lender’s credit; in reality, the shame should be on the borrower, not the lender—on the one who takes money when there are no funds to back it up, not on the one who pays for what isn’t owed.

But the damage lies on the circumstances of accepting the bill, for the factor lends his employer the money the hour he accepts the bill, and the blow to his credit is for not paying when accepted. When the bill is accepted, the acceptor is debtor to the person to whom the bill is payable, or in his right to every indorser; for a bill of exchange is in this case different from a bond, namely, that the right of action is transferable by indorsement, and every indorser has a right to sue the acceptor in his own name, and can transfer that right to another; whereas in a bond, though it be given to me by assignment, I must sue in the name of the first person to whom the bond is payable, and he may at any time discharge the bond, notwithstanding my assignment.

But the problem comes from accepting the bill, because when the factor accepts it, he effectively lends his employer the money at that moment, and the damage to his credit happens if he doesn’t pay once it's accepted. When the bill is accepted, the acceptor owes money to the person to whom the bill is payable, or, by extension, to every endorser; because a bill of exchange is different from a bond in this situation. The right to take legal action can be transferred through endorsement, and each endorser has the right to sue the acceptor in their own name, and they can pass that right on to someone else. In contrast, with a bond, even if I receive it through assignment, I still have to sue in the name of the original payee, and they can discharge the bond at any time, regardless of my assignment.

Tradesmen, then, especially such as are factors,[46] are unaccountably to blame to accept bills for their employers before their goods are sold, and the money received, or within reach: if the employers cannot wait, the reproach should lie on them, not on the factor; and, indeed, the manufacturers all over England are greatly wrong in that part of their business; for, not considering the difference between a time of demand and a time of glut, a quick or a dead market, they go on in the same course of making, and, without slackening their hands as to quantity, crowd up their goods, as if it were enough to them that the factor had them, and that they were to be reckoned as sold when they were in his hands: but would the factor truly represent to them the state of the market—that there are great quantities of goods in hand unsold, and no present demand, desiring them to slack their hands a little in making; and at the same time back their directions in a plain and positive way, though with respect too, by telling them they could accept no more bills till the goods were sold. This would bring the trade into a better regulation, and the makers would stop their hands when the market stopped; and when the merchant ceased to buy, the manufacturers would cease to make, and, consequently, would not crowd or clog the market with goods, or wrong their factors with bills.

Tradesmen, especially those who act as factors,[46] are unfairly blamed for accepting bills from their employers before the goods are sold and the money is actually received or available. If the employers can't wait, the fault should be on them, not on the factor. Moreover, manufacturers across England are seriously mistaken in how they handle their business. They fail to recognize the difference between times of high demand and times of excess supply, whether the market is active or stagnant. They continue producing without cutting back their output, as if having the factor hold their goods is enough to count as sales. However, if the factor were to honestly inform them about the state of the market—that there are large quantities of unsold goods and no current demand—encouraging them to slow down their production a bit, while also clearly stating that they can't accept more bills until the goods are sold, this would improve the trade overall. Manufacturers would stop production when the market slows down, and when merchants stop buying, the manufacturers would stop making, thus preventing an overflow of goods in the market and avoiding penalizing their factors with unpaid bills.

But this would require a large discourse, and the manufacturers' objections should be answered, namely, that they cannot stop, that they have their particular sets of workmen and spinners, whom they are obliged to keep employed, or, if they should dismiss them, they could not have them again when a demand for goods came, and the markets revived, and that, besides, the poor would starve.

But this would need a lengthy discussion, and the manufacturers' concerns should be addressed. They argue that they can't stop production because they have specific workers and spinners they need to keep employed. If they let them go, they wouldn’t be able to hire them back when demand for goods rises and the markets improve, and, on top of that, the poor would suffer.

These objections are easy to be answered, though that is not my present business; but thus far it is to my purpose—it is the factor's business to keep himself within compass: if the goods cannot be sold, the maker must stay till they can; if the poor must be employed, the manufacturer is right to keep them at work if he can; but if he cannot, without oppressing the factor, then he makes the factor employ them, not himself; and I do not see the factor has any obligation upon him to consider the spinners and weavers, especially not at the expense of his own credit, and his family's safety.

These objections are easy to address, though that's not my main focus right now; but it is relevant to my point—it's the factor's job to stay within limits: if the goods can't be sold, the maker has to wait until they can; if the poor need to be employed, the manufacturer is justified in keeping them working if possible; but if he can't do so without putting pressure on the factor, then he pushes the factor to employ them instead of himself; and I don't believe the factor has any obligation to look out for the spinners and weavers, especially not at the cost of his own reputation and his family's safety.

Upon the whole, all tradesmen that trade thus, whether by commission from the country, or upon their own accounts, should make it the standing order of their business not to suffer themselves to be overdrawn by their employers, so as to straiten themselves in their cash, and make them unable to pay their bills when accepted. It is also to be observed, that when a tradesman once comes to suffer himself to be thus overdrawn, and sinks his credit in kindness to his employer, he buys his employment so dear as all his employer can do for him can never repay the price.

Overall, all tradespeople who operate this way, whether by commission from the country or on their own behalf, should make it a standard practice in their business not to allow themselves to be overdrawn by their employers. This habit can strain their finances and make it difficult for them to pay their bills when they’re due. It's also important to note that when a tradesperson allows themselves to be overdrawn and damages their credit in goodwill towards their employer, they end up paying a steep price for their job that no amount of help from their employer can ever truly compensate.

And even while he is thus serving his employer, he more and more wounds himself; for suppose he does (with difficulty) raise money, and, after some dunning, does pay the bills, yet he loses in the very doing it, for he never pays them with credit, but suffers in reputation by every day's delay. In a word, a tradesman that buys upon credit, that is to say, in a course of credit, such as I have described before, may let the merchant or the warehouse-keeper call two or three times, and may put him off without much damage to his credit; and if he makes them stay one time, he makes it up again another, and recovers in one good payment what he lost in two or three bad ones.

And even while he’s working for his employer, he ends up hurting himself more and more; suppose he does manage to raise money and, after some nagging, actually pays the bills, yet he still suffers in the process because he never pays them with enough credit, and his reputation takes a hit with every day's delay. In short, a businessperson who buys on credit, meaning within a system of credit like I've explained earlier, can let the merchant or warehouse manager visit a couple of times and can postpone payment without doing much damage to his credit; and if he makes them wait once, he can make up for it later and recover from one good payment what he lost in two or three late ones.

But in bills of exchange or promissory notes, it is quite another thing; and he that values his reputation in trade should never let a bill come twice for payment, or a note under his hand stay a day after it is due, that is to say, after the three days of grace, as it is called. Those three days, indeed, are granted to all bills of exchange, not by law, but by the custom of trade: it is hard to tell how this custom prevailed, or when it began, but it is one of those many instances which may be given, where custom of trade is equal to an established law; and it is so much a law now in itself, that no bill is protested now, till those three days are expired; nor is a bill of exchange esteemed due till the third day; no man offers to demand it, nor will any goldsmith, or even the bank itself, pay a foreign bill sooner. But that by the way.

But with bills of exchange or promissory notes, it’s a whole different story; anyone who values their reputation in business should never let a bill be presented for payment twice, nor should a note they’ve signed remain unpaid for a single day after it's due, meaning after the three days of grace, as it’s called. Those three days are indeed granted to all bills of exchange, not by law but by business custom. It’s hard to pinpoint how this custom began or when it became established, but it stands as one of those many instances where business customs hold as much weight as established laws; it’s so much a law in itself now that no bill is protested until those three days have passed; nor is a bill of exchange considered due until the third day; no one attempts to demand payment, and neither a goldsmith nor even the bank will pay a foreign bill any sooner. But that’s just an aside.

Bills of exchange being thus sacred in trade, and inland bills being (by the late law for protesting them, and giving interest and damage upon them) made, as near as can be, equally sacred, nothing can be of more moment to a tradesman than to pay them always punctually and honourably.

Bills of exchange are considered essential in trade, and inland bills have been made nearly as important due to recent laws on protesting them and providing interest and damages. Therefore, there's nothing more crucial for a tradesperson than to always pay them on time and with integrity.

Let no critic cavil at the word honourably, as it relates to trade: punctual payment is the honour of trade, and there is a word always used among merchants which justifies my using it in this place; and that is, when a merchant draws a bill from abroad upon his friend at London, his correspondent in London answering his letter, and approving his drawing upon him, adds, that he shall be sure to honour his bill when it appears; that is to say, to accept it.

Let no critic complain about the word honourably in relation to trade: timely payment is the honor of trade, and there's a term commonly used among merchants that justifies my usage here. When a merchant draws a bill from abroad on his friend in London, his correspondent in London responds to his letter and approves the drawing, adding that he will be sure to honour his bill when it arrives; in other words, to accept it.

Likewise, when the drawer gives advice of his having drawn such a bill upon him, he gives an account of the sum drawn, the name of the person it is payable to, the time it is drawn at, that is, the time given for payment, and he adds thus—'I doubt not your giving my bill due honour;' that is, of accepting it, and paying it when it is due.

Likewise, when the drawer informs him that they have issued a bill, they provide details about the amount, the name of the person it’s payable to, the date it was drawn, meaning the due date for payment, and they add—'I trust you will honor my bill;' which means accepting it and paying it when it's due.

This term is also used in another case in foreign trade only, namely—a merchant abroad (say it be at Lisbon, or Bourdeaux) draws a bill of £300 sterling upon his correspondent at London: the correspondent happens to be dead, or is broke, or by some other accident the bill is not accepted; another merchant on the Exchange hearing of it, and knowing, and perhaps corresponding with, the merchant abroad who drew the bill, and loth his credit should suffer by the bill going back protested, accepts it, and pays it for him. This is called accepting it for the honour of the drawer; and he writes so upon the bill when he accepts it, which entitles him to re-draw the same with interest upon the drawer in Lisbon or Bourdeaux, as above.

This term is also used in another situation in foreign trade only, namely—a merchant overseas (let's say in Lisbon or Bordeaux) writes a bill for £300 sterling to his contact in London: the contact turns out to be dead, bankrupt, or the bill is not accepted for some other reason; another trader in the Exchange learns about this, knows the merchant abroad who issued the bill, and doesn't want his credit to suffer because the bill was protested, so he accepts it and pays it on his behalf. This is known as accepting it for the honor of the drawer, and he writes that on the bill when he accepts it, which allows him to demand repayment with interest from the drawer in Lisbon or Bordeaux, as mentioned above.

This is, indeed, a case peculiar to foreign commerce, and is not often practised in home trade, and among shopkeepers, though sometimes I have known it practised here too: but I name it on two accounts, first—to legitimate the word honourable, which I had used, and which has its due propriety in matters of trade, though not in the same acceptation as it generally receives in common affairs; and, secondly, to let the tradesman see how deeply the honour, that is, the credit of trade, is concerned in the punctual payment of bills of exchange, and the like of promissory notes; for in point of credit there is no difference, though in matter of form there is.

This is definitely a situation unique to international trade and isn’t commonly seen in local commerce or among retailers, although I have seen it happen here occasionally too. I mention it for two reasons: first—to legitimize the term "honorable" that I used, which is relevant in trade, though not in the same way it’s usually understood in everyday matters; and, second, to show the trader how important honor, or the credibility of trade, is when it comes to paying bills of exchange and similar promissory notes on time. In terms of credibility, there's no difference, although there is a difference in how it’s presented.

There are a great many variations in the drawing bills from foreign countries, according as the customs and usages of merchants direct, and according as the coins and rates of exchange differ, and according as the same terms are differently understood in several places; as the word usance, and two usance, which is a term for the number of days given for payment, after the date of the bill; and though this is a thing particularly relating to merchants, and to foreign commerce, yet as the nature of bills of exchange is pretty general, and that sometimes an inland tradesman, especially in seaport towns, may be obliged to take foreign accepted bills in payment for their goods; or if they have money to spare (as sometimes it is an inland tradesman's good luck to have), may be asked to discount such bills—I say, on this account, and that they may know the value of a foreign bill when they see it, and how far it has to run, before it has to be demanded, I think it not foreign to the case before me, to give them the following account:—

There are many variations in drawing bills from foreign countries, depending on the customs and practices of merchants, as well as the differences in currency and exchange rates. The same terms can also have different meanings in various locations; take the word usance and two usance, which refers to the number of days allowed for payment after the bill's date. While this is mainly relevant to merchants and international trade, the nature of bills of exchange is quite general. Sometimes, a local trader, especially in coastal towns, might have to accept foreign bills as payment for their goods. If they happen to have some extra money (which can occasionally be a stroke of luck for a local trader), they might be asked to discount such bills. For this reason, and so they can recognize the value of a foreign bill when they see one and understand how long it is valid before it needs to be paid, I believe it’s relevant to provide them with the following information:—

1. As to the times of payment of foreign bills of exchange, and the terms of art ordinarily used by merchants in drawing, and expressed in the said bills: the times of payment are, as above, either—

1. Regarding the payment timelines for foreign bills of exchange and the common terminology used by merchants when drafting these bills: the payment terms are, as mentioned earlier, either—

(1.) At sight; which is to be understood, not the day it is presented, but three days (called days of grace) after the bill is accepted: (2.) usance: (3.) two usance.[47]

(1.) At sight; this means not the day it is presented, but three days (known as days of grace) after the bill is accepted: (2.) usance: (3.) two usance.[47]

Usance between London and all the towns in the States Generals' dominions, and also in the provinces now called the Austrian Netherlands [Belgium], is one month. And two usance is two months; reckoning not from the acceptance of the bill, but from the date of it. Usance between London and Hamburgh is two months, Venice is three months; and double usance, or two usance, is double that time. Usance payable at Florence or Leghorn, is two months; but from thence payable at London, usance is three months. Usance from London to Rouen or Paris, is one month; but they generally draw at a certain number of days, usually twenty-one days' sight. Usance from London to Seville, is two months; as likewise between London and Lisbon, and Oporto, to or from. Usance from Genoa to Rome is payable at Rome ten days after sight. Usance between Antwerp and Genoa, Naples or Messina, is two months, whether to or from. Usance from Antwerp or Amsterdam, payable at Venice, is two months, payable in bank.

Usance between London and all the towns in the States Generals' territories, as well as in the areas now known as Belgium, is one month. Two usance means two months; this is calculated not from when the bill is accepted, but from its date. Usance between London and Hamburg is two months, and for Venice, it’s three months. Double usance, or two usance, means double that time. Usance due in Florence or Livorno is two months; however, from there to London, it's three months. Usance from London to Rouen or Paris is one month, but they usually draw at a specific number of days, typically twenty-one days' sight. Usance from London to Seville is two months, as is the case for Lisbon and Oporto, both to and from London. Usance from Genoa to Rome is payable ten days after sight in Rome. Usance between Antwerp and Genoa, Naples, or Messina is two months, whether to or from. Usance from Antwerp or Amsterdam, payable at Venice, is two months, payable through the bank.

There are abundance of niceties in the accepting and paying of bills of exchange, especially foreign bills, which I think needless to enter upon here; but this I think I should not omit, namely—

There are plenty of details in accepting and paying bills of exchange, especially foreign ones, that I think are unnecessary to discuss here; but I should point out this—

That if a man pays a bill of exchange before it is due, though he had accepted it, if the man to whom it was payable proves a bankrupt after he has received the money, and yet before the bill becomes due, the person who voluntarily paid the money before it was due, shall be liable to pay it again to the remitter; for as the remitter delivered his money to the drawer, in order to have it paid again to such person as he should order, it is, and ought to be, in his power to divert the payment by altering the bill, and make it payable to any other person whom he thinks fit, during all the time between the acceptance and the day of payment.

That if a man pays a bill of exchange before its due date, even if he accepted it, and the person to whom it’s payable goes bankrupt after receiving the money but before the bill is due, the person who paid the money early is responsible for paying it again to the remitter. This is because the remitter gave his money to the drawer to have it paid again to whoever he instructs. Therefore, he should be able to change the payment by modifying the bill and make it payable to someone else he chooses, during the time between acceptance and the payment date.

This has been controverted, I know, in some cases, but I have always found, that by the most experienced merchants, and especially in places of the greatest business abroad, it was always given in favour of the remitter, namely, that the right of guiding the payment is in him, all the time the bill is running; and no bill can or ought to be paid before it is due, without the declared assent of the remitter, signified under his hand, and attested by a public notary. There are, I say, abundance of niceties in the matter of foreign exchanges, and in the manner of drawing, accepting, and protesting bills; but as I am now speaking with, and have confined my discourse in this work to, the inland tradesmen of England, I think it would be as unprofitable to them to meddle with this, as it would be difficult to them to understand it.[48]

This has been disputed, I know, in some cases, but I've always found that the most experienced merchants, especially in major overseas markets, consistently favor the remitter. This means that the right to direct the payment belongs to him for the duration of the bill; no bill can or should be paid before it’s due without the explicit consent of the remitter, provided in writing and validated by a public notary. I must say, there are many complexities in the area of foreign exchanges and in the processes of drawing, accepting, and protesting bills. However, since I’m currently addressing and have limited my discussion in this work to the inland traders of England, I believe it would be just as unhelpful for them to engage with this topic as it would be challenging for them to comprehend it.[48]

I return, therefore, to the subject in hand, as well as to the people to whom I have all along directed my discourse.

I return, then, to the topic at hand, as well as to the people I have been addressing all along.

Though the inland tradesmen do not, and need not, acquaint themselves with the manner of foreign exchanges, yet there is a great deal of business done by exchange among ourselves, and at home, and in which our inland trade is chiefly concerned; and as this is the reason why I speak so much, and repeat it so often to the tradesman for whose instruction I am writing, that he should maintain the credit of his bills, so it may not be amiss to give the tradesman some directions concerning such bills.

Though local merchants don't have to understand foreign exchange methods, a lot of business is done through exchanges among ourselves, and at home, which mainly concerns our local trade. That's why I emphasize this point and keep bringing it up to the merchants I'm writing for: they should uphold the credibility of their bills. It might be useful to provide them with some guidance on such bills.

He is to consider, that, in general, bills pass through a number of hands, by indorsation from one to another, and that if the bill comes to be protested afterwards and returned, it goes back again through all those hands with this mark of the tradesman's disgrace upon it, namely, that it has been accepted, but that the man who accepted it is not able to pay it, than which nothing can expose the tradesman more.

He should keep in mind that, generally, bills go through several people, being endorsed from one person to another. If the bill ends up being protested and returned, it goes back through all those people with a mark of shame on it, meaning that it was accepted, but the person who accepted it can’t pay it. Nothing can be more damaging to the tradesman’s reputation.

He is to consider that the grand characteristic of a tradesman, and by which his credit is rated, is this of paying his bills well or ill. If any man goes to the neighbours or dealers of a tradesman to inquire of his credit, or his fame in business, which is often done upon almost every extraordinary occasion, the first question is, 'How does he pay his bills?' As when we go to a master or mistress to inquire the character of a maid-servant, one of the first questions generally is of her probity, 'Is she honest?' so here, if you would be able to judge of the man, your first question is, 'What for a paymaster is he? How does he pay his bills?'—strongly intimating, and, indeed, very reasonably, that if he has any credit, or any regard to his credit, he will be sure to pay his bills well; and if he does not pay his bills well, he cannot be sound at bottom, because he would never suffer a slur there, if it were possible for him to avoid it. On the other hand, if a tradesman pays his bills punctually, let whatever other slur be upon his reputation, his credit will hold good. I knew a man in the city, who upon all occasions of business issued promissory notes, or notes under his hand, at such or such time, and it was for an immense sum of money that he gave out such notes; so that they became frequent in trade, and at length people began to carry them about to discount, which lessened the gentleman so much, though he was really a man of substance, that his bills went at last at twenty per cent, discount or more; and yet this man maintained his credit by this, that though he would always take as much time as he could get in these notes, yet when they came due they were always punctually paid to a day; no man came twice for his money.

He needs to understand that the main trait of a tradesman—and what determines his reputation—is whether he pays his bills well or poorly. If someone asks the neighbors or suppliers about a tradesman’s reputation, the first question is often, "How does he pay his bills?" Just like when we inquire about the character of a maidservant, where one of the first questions is usually about her honesty, here, if you want to judge a tradesman, your first question should be, "What kind of payer is he? How does he handle his bills?" This strongly suggests, and is quite reasonable, that if he values his reputation, he will make sure to pay his bills on time. If he doesn’t pay his bills well, he can't be reliable, because he wouldn’t let his reputation suffer if he could avoid it. Conversely, if a tradesman pays his bills on time, no matter what other issues he may have in his reputation, his credit will remain intact. I knew a man in the city who regularly issued promissory notes or notes under his hand for various sums, sometimes for large amounts. These notes became common in trade, and eventually, people started trying to discount them, which harmed his reputation even though he was a person of means; his notes went at a twenty percent discount or more. Nonetheless, this man maintained his credit because, although he always took as much time as he could with these notes, he always paid them on the day they were due—no one ever had to come back for their money.

This was a trying case, for though upon the multitude of his notes that were out, and by reason of the large discount given upon them, his credit at first suffered exceedingly, and men began to talk very dubiously of him, yet upon the punctual discharge of them when due, it began presently to be taken notice of, and said openly how well he paid his notes; upon which presently the rate of his discount fell, and in a short time all his notes were at par; so that punctual payment, in spite of rumour, and of a rumour not so ill grounded as rumours generally are, prevailed and established the credit of the person, who was indeed rich at bottom, but might have found it hard enough to have stood it, if, as his bills had a high discount upon them, they had been ill paid too. All which confirms what I have hitherto alleged, namely, of how much concern it is for a tradesman to pay his bills and promissory notes very punctually.

This was a challenging situation. Although he had a lot of outstanding notes and gave a significant discount on them, his credit initially took a major hit, leading people to speak very skeptically about him. However, once he started paying off those notes on time, people quickly noticed and began to openly commend him for it. As a result, his discount rate decreased, and soon all his notes were at par. So, despite the rumors—some of which were not entirely unfounded—his reliable payment established his credit. He was actually wealthy underneath it all, but it would have been difficult if he hadn’t paid his bills, especially since his notes had such a high discount. This reinforces my earlier point about how crucial it is for a businessperson to pay their bills and promissory notes promptly.

I might argue here how much it is his interest to do so, and how it enables him to coin as many bills as he pleases—in short, a man whose notes are currently paid, and the credit of whose bills is established by their being punctually paid, has an infinite advantage in trade; he is a bank to himself; he can buy what bargains he pleases; no advantage in business offers but he can grasp at it, for his notes are current as another man's cash; if he buys at time in the country, he has nothing to do but to order them to draw for the money when it is due, and he gains all the time given in the bills into the bargain.

I could argue here how beneficial it is for him to do this, and how it allows him to create as many bills as he wants—in short, a person whose notes are consistently honored and whose bills are trusted because they’re paid on time has a huge edge in business; he’s like a bank for himself; he can take advantage of any good deals that come his way, because his notes are as good as another person’s cash; if he buys with credit in the country, all he needs to do is tell them to withdraw the money when it’s due, and he benefits from all the time granted in the bills.

If he knows what he buys, and how to put it off, he buys a thousand pounds' worth of goods at once, sells them for less time than he buys at, and pays them with their own money. I might swell this discourse to a volume by itself, to set out the particular profit that such a man may make of his credit, and how he can raise what sums he will, by buying goods, and by ordering the people whom he is to pay in the country, to draw bills on him. Nor is it any loss to those he buys of, for as all the remitters of money know his bills, and they are currently paid, they never scruple delivering their money upon his bills, so that the countryman or manufacturer is effectually supplied, and the time given in the bill is the property of the current dealer on whom they are drawn.

If he knows what he’s buying and how to handle it, he can purchase a thousand pounds' worth of goods at once, sell them quicker than he bought them, and pay for them with the profits. I could expand this discussion into a whole volume to explain the specific profits such a person can make from his credit and how he can raise whatever amounts he needs by buying goods and telling the people he owes in that area to draw bills on him. It's not a loss for those he buys from, because all the money remitters recognize his bills and they are routinely paid. They always feel confident delivering their money based on his bills, so the local sellers or manufacturers are effectively supplied, and the time given on the bill belongs to the current dealer it’s drawn on.

But, then, let me add a caution here for the best of tradesmen not to neglect—namely, as the tradesman should take care to pay his bills and notes currently, so, that he may do it, he must be careful what notes he issues out, and how he suffers others to draw on him. He that is careful of his reputation in business, will also be cautious not to let any man he deals with over draw him, or draw upon him before the money drawn for his due. And as to notes promissory, or under his hand, he is careful not to give out such notes but on good occasions, and where he has the effects in his hand to answer them; this keeps his cash whole, and preserves his ability of performing and punctually paying when the notes become due; and the want of this caution has ruined the reputation of a tradesman many times, when he might otherwise have preserved himself in as good credit and condition as other men.

But, let me add a warning here for the best tradespeople: don't overlook this—just as a tradesperson should make sure to pay their bills and notes on time, they must be careful about what notes they issue and how they allow others to draw on them. Someone who values their reputation in business will also be cautious not to let anyone they deal with overdraw them or draw before the money is paid for what’s owed. When it comes to promissory notes or personal guarantees, they should only issue those notes for good reasons and when they have the necessary funds to cover them. This approach keeps their cash flow steady and ensures they can fulfill their obligations and pay on time when those notes come due. Failing to be cautious has ruined the reputation of many tradespeople, when they could have maintained as good a credit standing and position as others.

All these cautions are made thus needful on account of that one useful maxim, that the tradesman's all depends upon his punctual complying with the payment of his bills.

All these warnings are necessary because of the important principle that a tradesman's success depends entirely on his timely payment of bills.

FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:

[By factors, Defoe seems to mean the class of persons whom we now name commission-agents.]

[By factors, Defoe seems to mean the group of individuals we now refer to as commission agents.]

[All bills and promissory notes, inland or foreign, payable in this country, are allowed three days of grace beyond the actual period expressed upon them; thus, a bill drawn at thirty days after date, is payable only on the thirty-third day. If bills be not presented for payment on the last day of grace, they cannot be protested, and consitute only an evidence of the debt for legal recovery. If the last day of grace be a Sunday, the bill is presentible on the Saturday previous.]

[All bills and promissory notes, whether domestic or international, that are payable in this country, are given three days of grace beyond the actual due date stated on them; therefore, a bill drawn for thirty days after the date is payable only on the thirty-third day. If bills are not presented for payment on the last day of grace, they cannot be protested and serve only as proof of the debt for legal recovery. If the last day of grace falls on a Sunday, the bill can be presented the Saturday before.]

[In consequence of the great extension of commerce since the time of Defoe, a short explanation of the principle and practice of drawing foreign bills of exchange now seems necessary. Foreign bills of exchange are used, in order to avoid the necessity of transmitting actual money from one country to another. A merchant, for instance, in Nova Scotia, is owing £100 to a manufacturer in Glasgow: he seeks out some one who is a creditor to that amount to some person in Britain; we shall say he finds a captain in the army who wishes to draw £100 from his agent in London. To this captain the Nova Scotia merchant pays £100, and gets his order or bill on the London agent, which bill he sends to the manufacturer in Glasgow, and the manufacturer transmits the bill to London for payment; any banker, indeed, will give him the money for it, deducting a small commission. Thus two debts are liquidated, without the transmission of a farthing in money. The demand for bills in foreign countries to send to Great Britain, has the effect of raising them to a premium, which is called the rate of exchange, and is a burden which falls on the purchaser of the bill. Foreign bills of exchange drawn on parties in Great Britain, have expressed upon them the number of days after sight at which they are to be payable. Thus, a merchant on receiving a foreign bill drawn at 'thirty days after sight,' hastens to get it 'sighted,' or shown to the party on whom it is drawn, and that party accepts it, at the same time marking the date of doing so. The bill is then complete and negociable, and is presented for payment to the acceptor at the end of the time specified, allowing the usual three days of grace. Should the bill not be accepted on being 'sighted,' it is a dishonoured bill, and is returned with a legal protest to the foreign correspondent. To avert, as far as possible, the loss of foreign bills by shipwreck, a set of three bills is drawn for each transaction, called first, second, and third, of the same tenor. For example: 'Thirty days after sight pay this my first bill of exchange, for the sum of £100 sterling; second and third of the same tenor being unpaid.' This first bill is first sent, and by next conveyance the second is sent. Should the first arrive safely, the second, on making its appearance, is destroyed. The third is retained by the foreign correspondent till he hear whether the former two have arrived at their destination, and is sent only if they have been lost. On receiving whichever comes first, it is the duty of the receiver to communicate intelligence of the fact to the sender.]

[Due to the significant growth of trade since Defoe's time, a brief explanation of how foreign bills of exchange work now seems necessary. Foreign bills of exchange are used to avoid the need to send actual money from one country to another. For instance, a merchant in Nova Scotia owes £100 to a manufacturer in Glasgow: he looks for someone who is owed that amount by a person in Britain; let’s say he finds an army captain who wants to draw £100 from his agent in London. The Nova Scotia merchant pays the captain £100 and receives his order or bill on the London agent, which he then sends to the manufacturer in Glasgow. The manufacturer sends the bill to London for payment; any banker will give him the cash for it, minus a small commission. In this way, two debts are settled without transferring any actual money. The demand for bills in foreign countries sent to Great Britain raises their value, known as the rate of exchange, which is a cost for the buyer of the bill. Foreign bills of exchange drawn on parties in Great Britain specify the number of days after sight that they are to be paid. Therefore, when a merchant receives a foreign bill marked 'thirty days after sight,' he quickly gets it 'sighted' or shown to the party it’s drawn on, and that party accepts it while marking the date. The bill is then complete and negotiable, and it’s presented for payment to the acceptor at the end of the specified time, with the usual three days of grace allowed. If the bill isn’t accepted upon being 'sighted,' it becomes a dishonored bill and is returned with a legal protest to the foreign correspondent. To reduce the risk of losing foreign bills due to shipwreck, a set of three bills is drawn for each transaction, called first, second, and third, all of the same terms. For example: 'Thirty days after sight pay this my first bill of exchange for the sum of £100 sterling; second and third of the same tenor being unpaid.' The first bill is sent first, and then the second is sent by the next available courier. If the first one arrives safely, the second is destroyed when it shows up. The third is kept by the foreign correspondent until they find out whether the first two bills reached their destination, and it’s only sent if they have been lost. Upon receiving whichever one comes first, it’s the receiver’s duty to inform the sender of the outcome.]


Download ePUB

If you like this ebook, consider a donation!