When, in the winter of 1763, he began his last series of lectures on jurisprudence as Professor of Moral Philosophy at Glasgow University, Adam Smith suggested that there were two alternative ways in which he could arrange his material: ‘The civilians begin with considering government and then treat of property and other rights. Others who have written on this subject begin with the latter and then consider family and civil government. There are several advantages peculiar to each of these methods, tho’ that of the civil law seems upon the whole preferable'. Accordingly Smith adopted what he saw as the method of civil law, that is, first government, then the family, and finally the rights of the individual. The detailed notes from his lectures of the preceding year, 1762–3, and the very brief notes from one of the early years of his professorship, however, disclose that in these two years he followed the method of the ‘others’, leading us to presume that he in fact did so in all of his lectures until 1763. The obvious question then is, Why did Smith change his system? It is also relatively easy to answer. Once we have outlined an answer, we shall see that it is no less obvious to ask, Why did Smith, even as he changed his method, see ‘several advantages peculiar to each of these methods’?