~ female branch. 
1802. ] 
earned reward of his fidslity and valour. 
Before he could effe&t this, however, the 
clergyman’s wife, proud of being known 
to poflefs an important fecret, had already 
whilpered it to fome royalifts of her ac- 
qpaintance, who immediately availed them- 
felves of the intelligence, dug up the rega- 
lia from the place of their concealment, 
and, carrying them to the King, reaped 
the reward of another’s loyalty. What- 
ever Charles might have done on being at 
firft prefented with the enfigns of his 
_ power, he was not of a difpofition to pay 
any attention to the reprefentations that 
were afterwards made him of Sir David 
Ogylvie’s fufferings in his caufe ; and this 
brave foldier received no other recompenfe 
of his fervices, than the confcioufnels of 
having difcharged his duty to a thanklefs 
king. Diftrefs of circumftances have 
lately compelled his lineal defcendant to 
expofe to fale his paternal eftate, which had 
remained unaugmented and undiminifhed 
in the family for feveral centuries. 
The Earls Marthal were the hereditary 
proprietors and commanders of Dunnotter, 
and for ages poffeffed the greateft part of 
the adjoining property. When that fami- 
ly fell victims to their unfortunate attach- 
ment to the houfe of Stuart, their extenfive 
domains paffed into other hands; and the 
Caftie of Dunnotter is at length by pur- 
chafe the property of Admiral Lord Keith, © 
a defcendant of the Marfhal family by a 
Lord Keith has placed a 
gate on the entrance of the Caftle, and 
cauled fome of the antigue monuments to 
be dug out of the rubbifh, and taken feve- 
ral other precautions to preferve the ve- 
nerable ruins from decay. 
Jan. 1802. 
ee 
For the Monthly Magazine. 
DEFENCE of FORESTALLING. 
'( Continued from page 128, No. 84.) 
CASE IIf. s 
ld IVE butchers convicted of foreftal- 
ling cattle going to Smithfield mar- 
abi: 
The evil which thefe butchers are fup- 
pofed to have done, I apprehend, is this ; 
they prevented fome cattle from arriving 
at the market, and thus caufed the cattle 
that did arrive, to fellata higher pricethan 
they would have fold at, if the foreftalled 
eaitle had alfo arrived. \ 
The error feems to be in the pofition, 
that the price of any thing ata market isin 
- proportion to thequantity ; this is not true. 
It fhould be, the price is in the propor- 
tion of the quantity to the demand, If 
- MontHiy Mac, Neo, $5. 
* 
Defence of Foreftallings 
229 
one half of a commodity in its way to 
market, be met and purchafed by one half 
of the people, that would otherwife have 
gone to that market, the other half of the 
commodity that actually arrives at the 
market, bears the fame proportion to that 
half of the buyers that actually go there, 
as the whole of the commodity bears to 
the whole of the buyers. As much as 
the five butchers were fupplied by the cat- 
tle that did not reach the market, fo much 
lefs did they wantof the cattle that did 
reach the market. They were, therefore, 
net guilty of enhancing the price of the 
market, For they neither increafed the 
demand, upon the whole; nor decreafed the 
quantity of cattle. Either they drove on 
the cattle to the market, and fold them 
there at the advanced price to which they 
had a right for their labour and time, and 
advance of capital to the drover, or they 
killed them and fold them to their cufto-. 
‘mers 3 in which cafe they did exaétly what 
they would have done, if they had waited. 
till the cattle were brought to the market, 
and had boughtthemthere. Indeed itis pro- 
bable that they could afford to fupply 
their cuftomers with meat fo purchaled, 
at a little lower rate than if they had 
made the bargain atthe market. For the 
drover could afford to fell for lefs than if 
he had gone on ; and it might have coft 
the butchers na more to drive their cattle 
to their flaughter-houfes, from the fpot 
where they met the drover, than it would 
have colt te drive them from the market. 
It is not fuppofed that they were more 
likely todevourthe whole themfelves, or to 
fink them in the Thames, or toexport them 
to France, in one cafe than-in the other. 
For what evil, then, done to the commu- 
nity, were the five butchers punifhed ? 
In vain do we look for an an(wer to this 
queftion, in anything that is faid by thofey. 
who pronounce fentence on {uch fuppofed 
offenders. I have before me, a long ha- 
rancue of the Recorder of Dublin, againft 
foreftalling. He does not attempt an ar~ 
gument ; but relies entirely upon the au~ 
thorities of the repealed ftatutes of Edward 
Vi. and of Serjeant Hawkins, and Lord 
Coke. Neither do the quoted authorities 
ufe any argument, but take the thing for | 
granted. Coke only fays, ‘the more 
hands they pafs through, the dearer they 
grow,” and therefore lays it down asa 
crime, to buy and fell agam ‘ in the 
grofs.””  Here’feems to be the root of all 
the error. He did not confider that wares 
kept in the grofs, increafe in value by 
keeping; either by capital, (by the in- 
tereft of money lying dead,) cr by time, 
pe (improving 
