Page:The Economic Journal Volume 1.djvu/304

282 ' THE ECONOMIC JOURNAL ship money.' This was the case with a sum of 1,000, lent by Cantilion, senior, to a Mr. Carroll in Amsterdam (October, 1720). On the other hand, when an affair promised to be lucrative, as in a large dealing for copper with one Mr. Colebrook in Amsterdam (July 1720), Cantilion insisted that the affair was his personally, and coerced Hughes into submission by reminding him that he was'not too old to sett his hand to the plow again.' Again, Cantilion had forced her husband, much against his will, in June 1720, to lend Mr. William Law 220,000 out of the Partnership money. To all which Cantilion replies that he was never partner with Hughes, but only commandite, that he could not be expected to be at the loss of Carroll's money, since his views were merely to advance the Firm's profit, that the business with Colebrook was private to himself, and that he was reluctant to advise Hughes to advance money to William Law, but he believed 'the great power of the said Mr. William Law and Mr. John Law in France at that time determined the said John Hughes to lend'it. As for accounting to the widow, Cantilion says that, after the loans to the Herberts, he sent the Firm a million of livres from Holland to strengthen its reserves; and that, on the whole, the House still owes him money. In June 1720 Cantilion left Paris, and did not return thither, as he says, for nearly six years. In August 1720 we find him at Amsterdam; but his home seems now to be his house in London, in the parish of St. Paul's, Covent Garden. On the 16th February 1722 he executed his marriage settlement with Mary ?Iahony, daughter of the Lady Clare by her second husband Daniel Mahony, a rich merchant of Paris. Born in France, and spending most of her life, before and after marriage, in Paris, she came to Covent Garden to be married. Martin Harrold, banker, of Throgmorton-street, London, apparently a relative of Cantilion, joined in her settlement. It was Cantillon's intention to take her with him for a tour in Italy and elsewhere, but the Bill of the ?Vidow Hughes (13th March, 1723) asks for a ?e exeat reg?o, causing Cantilion to explain in his answer (18th May, 1724) that, for some years last past, since he had resided in London, he had gone beyond sea, whither his business or his inclination invited him, and returned again to London. Necessary business called him abroad in the spring of 1724, and he had intended to take his wife with him to Naples and some other places in Italy, where he had business, and to return again to London to reside, 'where he hath a House and a Family, and a son at iN'urse near London.' This son must have died young.