pursued under a sense of humiliation which caused its best
representatives to escape from it as soon as they could. Louis XIV.,
under the influence of Colbert, put forth an ordinance "authorizing
all noblemen to take an interest in merchant ships, goods and
merchandise, without being considered as having derogated from
nobility, provided they did not sell at retail;" and the reason given
for this action was, "that it imports the good of our subjects and our
own satisfaction, to efface this relic of a public opinion,
universally prevalent, that maritime commerce is incompatible with
nobility." But a prejudice involving conscious and open superiority is
not readily effaced by ordinances, especially when vanity is a
conspicuous trait in national character; and many years later
Montesquieu taught that it is contrary to the spirit of monarchy that
the nobility should engage in trade.

In Holland there was a nobility; but the State was republican in name,
allowed large scope to personal freedom and enterprise, and the
centres of power were in the great cities. The foundation of the
national greatness was money--or rather wealth. Wealth, as a source
of civic distinction, carried with it also power in the State; and
with power there went social position and consideration. In England
the same result obtained. The nobility were proud; but in a
representative government the power of wealth could be neither put
down nor overshadowed. It was patent to the eyes of all; it was
honored by all; and in England, as well as Holland, the occupations
which were the source of wealth shared in the honor given to wealth
itself. Thus, in all the countries named, social sentiment, the
outcome of national characteristics, had a marked influence upon the
national attitude toward trade.