ween Smith and the historian Robertson.
The conversation of Robertson, who, as we know, had never been out of
his own country, was much more limited in its range of interest, but
Smith's was the rich conversation of a man who had seen and known a
great deal of the world. It does not appear that Smith suffered in
France from any such want of literary leisure as Stewart speaks of,
for he began writing a book in Toulouse because he had so little else
to do, and he had not attempted anything of the kind in Glasgow, so
far as we know, for five years; but, at all events, for the wealth of
illustration which his new book exhibits, the variety of its points of
view, the copiousness of its data drawn from personal observation, the
world is greatly indebted to the author's residence abroad. And had
Smith lived to finish his work on Government we should probably have
had more results of his observation of France, but the _Wealth of
Nations_ itself contains many.

M'Culloch has expressed astonishment that for all his long stay in
France Smith should have never perceived any foreshadowings of the
coming Revolution, such as were visible even to a passing traveller
like Smollett. But Smith was quite aware of all the gravities and
possibilities of the situation, and occasionally gave expression to
anticipations of vital change. He formed possibly a less gloomy view
of the actual condition of the French people than he would have heard
uttered in Quesnay's room at Versailles, because he always mentally
compared the state of things he saw in France with the state of things
he knew in Scotland, and though it was plain to him that France was
not going forward so fast as Scotland, he thought the common opinion
that it was going backward to be ill founded.[190] Then France was a
much richer country, with a better soil and climate, and "better
stocked," he says, "with all those things which it requires a long
time to raise up and accumulate, such as great towns and convenient
and well-built houses both in town and country."[191] In spite of
these advantages, however, the common people in France were decidedly
worse off than the common people of Scotland. The wages of labour were
lower--the real wages--for the people evidently lived harder. Their
dress and countenance showed it at once. "When you go from Scotland to
England the difference which you may remark between the dress and
countenance of the common people in the one country and in the o