Smith published his ‘Theory of Moral Sentiments’ in 1759. The fundamental principle of this work, we use the summary of Mr. Macculloch, is that “_sympathy_ forms the real foundation of morals; that we do not immediately approve or disapprove of any given action, when we have become acquainted with the intention of the agent and the consequences of what he has done, but that we previously enter, by means of that sympathetic affection which is natural to us, into the feelings of the agent, and those to whom the action relates; that having considered all the motives and passions by which the agent was actuated, we pronounce, with respect to the _propriety_ or _impropriety_ of the action, according as we sympathise or not with him; while we pronounce, with respect to the _merit_ or _demerit_ of the action, according as we sympathise with the gratitude or resentment of those who were its objects; and that we necessarily judge of our own conduct by comparing it with such maxims and rules as we have deduced from observations previously made on the conduct of others.” This theory, ingenious as it is, is generally abandoned as untenable. Dr. Brown has argued, and the objection seems fatal, that though sympathy may diffuse, it cannot originate moral sentiments: at the same time he bears the strongest testimony to the literary merits and moral tendency of the work. In 1763 Smith received from the University of Glasgow the honorary degree of Doctor of Laws, and he was offered, and accepted, the situation of travelling tutor to the young Duke of Buccleugh. His long residence in the populous and manufacturing metropolis of western Scotland had enabled him to collect a rich hoard of materials for the great work he had in view; and this new appointment changed the method, rather than interrupted the course, of his studies. It afforded him the means of examining the habits, institutions, and condition of man under new forms, and in new countries, and he observed with his natural acuteness and sagacity the influence of locality, of climate, and of government. He no doubt derived considerable advantage from the society of the distinguished men with whom he associated at Paris; among these, Turgot, D’Alembert, Helvetius, Marmontel, Morellet, Rochefoucauld, and Quesnay, were his intimate friends. So highly did he appreciate the talents of the last-named person as an economist, that he had intended, had Quesnay lived, to have acknowledged the debt he owed him by dedicating to him his own great work on the ‘Wealth of Nations.’