[Editorial] Remove regnal ordinal

src/epub/content.opf

@@ -50,7 +50,7 @@
 		<dc:source>https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/smith-an-inquiry-into-the-nature-and-causes-of-the-wealth-of-nations-cannan-ed-in-2-vols</dc:source>
 		<dc:source>https://www.google.com/books/edition/An_Inquiry_Into_the_Nature_and_Causes_of/ogs_AQAAMAAJ</dc:source>
 		<meta property="se:production-notes">Cannan's Preface has not been included because it makes various claims about the spelling which are no longer accurate for this SE edition, and mostly describes other print-only details like page headers and numbering. Page references in the endnotes have been converted to the first paragraph on the corresponding print page, so they may not be 100% accurate.</meta>
-		<meta property="se:word-count">394357</meta>
+		<meta property="se:word-count">394358</meta>
 		<meta property="se:reading-ease.flesch">50.2</meta>
 		<meta property="se:url.encyclopedia.wikipedia">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations</meta>
 		<meta property="se:url.vcs.github">https://github.com/standardebooks/adam-smith_the-wealth-of-nations</meta>

src/epub/text/chapter-3-2.xhtml

@@ -26,7 +26,7 @@
 				<p>Land occupied by such tenants is properly cultivated at the expense of the proprietor, as much as that occupied by slaves. There is, however, one very essential difference between them. Such tenants, being freemen, are capable of acquiring property, and having a certain proportion of the produce of the land, they have a plain interest that the whole produce should be as great as possible, in order that their own proportion may be so. A slave, on the contrary, who can acquire nothing but his maintenance, consults his own ease by making the land produce as little as possible over and above that maintenance. It is probable that it was partly upon account of this advantage, and partly upon account of the encroachments which the sovereign, always jealous of the great lords, gradually encouraged their villains to make upon their authority, and which seem at last to have been such as rendered this species of servitude altogether inconvenient, that tenure in villanage gradually wore out through the greater part of Europe. The time and manner, however, in which so important a revolution was brought about, is one of the most obscure points in modern history. The church of Rome claims great merit in it; and it is certain that so early as the twelfth century, Alexander <span epub:type="z3998:roman">III</span><a href="endnotes.xhtml#note-764" id="noteref-764" epub:type="noteref">764</a> published a bull for the general emancipation of slaves. It seems, however, to have been rather a pious exhortation, than a law to which exact obedience was required from the faithful. Slavery continued to take place almost universally for several centuries afterwards, till it was gradually abolished by the joint operation of the two interests above mentioned, that of the proprietor on the one hand, and that of the sovereign on the other. A villain enfranchised, and at the same time allowed to continue in possession of the land, having no stock of his own, could cultivate it only by means of what the landlord advanced to him, and must, therefore, have been what the French call a <i xml:lang="fr">Métayer</i>.</p>
 				<p>It could never, however, be the interest even of this last species of cultivators to lay out, in the further improvement of the land, any part of the little stock which they might save from their own share of the produce, because the lord, who laid out nothing, was to get one-half of whatever it produced. The tithe, which is but a tenth of the produce, is found to be a very great hindrance to improvement. A tax, therefore, which amounted to one-half, must have been an effectual bar to it. It might be the interest of a métayer to make the land produce as much as could be brought out of it by means of the stock furnished by the proprietor; but it could never be his interest to mix any part of his own with it. In France, where five parts out of six of the whole kingdom are said to be still occupied by this species of cultivators,<a href="endnotes.xhtml#note-765" id="noteref-765" epub:type="noteref">765</a> the proprietors complain that their métayers take every opportunity of employing the masters cattle rather in carriage than in cultivation; because in the one case they get the whole profits to themselves, in the other they share them with their landlord. This species of tenants still subsists in some parts of Scotland. They are called steel-bow<a href="endnotes.xhtml#note-766" id="noteref-766" epub:type="noteref">766</a> tenants. Those ancient English tenants, who are said by Chief Baron Gilbert and Doctor Blackstone to have been rather bailiffs of the landlord than farmers properly so called, were probably of the same kind.<a href="endnotes.xhtml#note-767" id="noteref-767" epub:type="noteref">767</a></p>
 				<p>To this species of tenancy succeeded, though by very slow degrees, farmers properly so called, who cultivated the land with their own stock, paying a rent certain to the landlord. When such farmers have a lease for a term of years, they may sometimes find it for their interest to lay out part of their capital in the further improvement of the farm; because they may sometimes expect to recover it, with a large profit, before the expiration of the lease. The possession even of such farmers, however, was long extremely precarious, and still is so in many parts of Europe. They could before the expiration of their term be legally outed of their lease, by a new purchaser; in England, even by the fictitious action of a common recovery. If they were turned out illegally by the violence of their master, the action by which they obtained redress was extremely imperfect. It did not always reinstate them in the possession of the land, but gave them damages which never amounted to the real loss. Even in England, the country perhaps of Europe where the yeomanry has always been most respected, it was not till about the 14th of Henry <span epub:type="z3998:roman">VII</span> that the action of ejectment was invented,<a href="endnotes.xhtml#note-768" id="noteref-768" epub:type="noteref">768</a> by which the tenant recovers, not damages only but possession, and in which his claim is not necessarily concluded by the uncertain decision of a single assize. This action has been found so effectual a remedy that, in the modern practice, when the landlord has occasion to sue for the possession of the land, he seldom makes use of the actions which properly belong to him as landlord, the writ of right or the writ of entry,<a href="endnotes.xhtml#note-769" id="noteref-769" epub:type="noteref">769</a> but sues in the name of his tenant, by the writ of ejectment. In England, therefore, the security of the tenant is equal to that of the proprietor. In England besides a lease for life of forty shillings a year value is a freehold, and entitles the lessee to vote for a member of parliament; and as a great part of the yeomanry have freeholds of this kind, the whole order becomes respectable to their landlords on account of the political consideration which this gives them.<a href="endnotes.xhtml#note-770" id="noteref-770" epub:type="noteref">770</a> There is, I believe, nowhere in Europe, except in England, any instance of the tenant building upon the land of which he had no lease, and trusting that the honour of his landlord would take no advantage of so important an improvement. Those laws and customs so favourable to the yeomanry, have perhaps contributed more to the present grandeur of England, than all their boasted regulations of commerce taken together.</p>
-				<p id="chapter-3-2-p-15">The law which secures the longest leases against successors of every kind is, so far as I know, peculiar to Great Britain. It was introduced into Scotland so early as 1449, by a law of James the <span epub:type="z3998:roman">II</span>.<a href="endnotes.xhtml#note-771" id="noteref-771" epub:type="noteref">771</a> Its beneficial influence, however, has been much obstructed by entails; the heirs of entail being generally restrained from letting leases for any long term of years, frequently for more than one year. A late act of parliament<a href="endnotes.xhtml#note-772" id="noteref-772" epub:type="noteref">772</a> has, in this respect, somewhat slackened their fetters, though they are still by much too strait. In Scotland, besides, as no leasehold gives a vote for a member of parliament, the yeomanry are upon this account less respectable to their landlords than in England.</p>
+				<p id="chapter-3-2-p-15">The law which secures the longest leases against successors of every kind is, so far as I know, peculiar to Great Britain. It was introduced into Scotland so early as 1449, by a law of James <span epub:type="z3998:roman">II</span>.<a href="endnotes.xhtml#note-771" id="noteref-771" epub:type="noteref">771</a> Its beneficial influence, however, has been much obstructed by entails; the heirs of entail being generally restrained from letting leases for any long term of years, frequently for more than one year. A late act of parliament<a href="endnotes.xhtml#note-772" id="noteref-772" epub:type="noteref">772</a> has, in this respect, somewhat slackened their fetters, though they are still by much too strait. In Scotland, besides, as no leasehold gives a vote for a member of parliament, the yeomanry are upon this account less respectable to their landlords than in England.</p>
 				<p>In other parts of Europe, after it was found convenient to secure tenants both against heirs and purchasers, the term of their security was still limited to a very short period; in France, for example, to nine years from the commencement of the lease. It has in that country, indeed, been lately extended to twenty-seven,<a href="endnotes.xhtml#note-773" id="noteref-773" epub:type="noteref">773</a> a period still too short to encourage the tenant to make the most important improvements. The proprietors of land were anciently the legislators of every part of Europe. The laws relating to land, therefore, were all calculated for what they supposed the interest of the proprietor. It was for his interest, they had imagined, that no lease granted by any of his predecessors should hinder him from enjoying, during a long term of years, the full value of his land. Avarice and injustice are always shortsighted, and they did not foresee how much this regulation must obstruct improvement, and thereby hurt in the long-run the real interest of the landlord.<a href="endnotes.xhtml#note-774" id="noteref-774" epub:type="noteref">774</a></p>
 				<p>The farmers too, besides paying the rent, were anciently, it was supposed, bound to perform a great number of services to the landlord, which were seldom either specified in the lease, or regulated by any precise rule, but by the use and wont of the manor or barony. These services, therefore, being almost entirely arbitrary, subjected the tenant to many vexations. In Scotland the abolition of all services, not precisely stipulated in the lease,<a href="endnotes.xhtml#note-775" id="noteref-775" epub:type="noteref">775</a> has in the course of a few years very much altered for the better the condition of the yeomanry of that country.</p>
 				<p id="chapter-3-2-p-18">The public services to which the yeomanry were bound, were not less arbitrary than the private ones. To make and maintain the high roads, a servitude which still subsists, I believe, everywhere, though with different degrees of oppression in different countries, was not the only one. When the king’s troops, when his household or his officers of any kind passed through any part of the country, the yeomanry were bound to provide them with horses, carriages, and provisions, at a price regulated by the purveyor. Great Britain is, I believe, the only monarchy in Europe where the oppression of purveyance has been entirely abolished. It still subsists in France and Germany.</p>