1802.] 
at a lower price than he would have had 
if he had brought it forward in due and 
regular quantities. 
Now,. can it be fuppofed that many per- 
fons, or any one perfon to any confiderable 
degree, will occafion te the public the in- 
convenience of a fluctuating price, by 
caufing a real Jofs to themlelves? The 
circumftance, that it is every man’s in- 
tereft to bring forward his commodity 
when it is moft wanted, that is, when the 
price is higheft, is a fufficient fecurity 
that he will not keep it back fo as to make 
any neceflity for legiflative interference, 
and much lefs for a punifhment, on lofing 
fight, for a fhort time, of his own in- 
tereft. His intentions may be to raife the 
price tothe confumer ; but he cannot raife 
the average price; he can only lower it. 
All that he can do, is to caufe a fmall 
temporary inconvenience to the public by 
his own great lois. He can put money 
into the pockets of thofe of his neighbours 
who fend their corn to market, while his 
own is kept back; but the money muft 
ultimately come from his own pocket. 
Mr. Waddington was punifhed for 
over-trading ; for buying up hops, and 
thus enhancing the price: that is, by 
hoarding his hops, he is fuppofed to have 
caufed the hops that were brought to 
market to fell at a higher price. But by 
the growers of hops he is accufed of doing 
the reverfe of this. They fay that he 
fold his hops as faft as he bought them ; 
and perfuaded thole hop-planters from 
whom he did zot buy, to keep up their 
hops, in the. hope of a price {till higher, 
_and thus jold his own for more than if 
the hops of them who took his advice 
had been brought to market. It is evi- 
dent that thefe charges are totally incom- 
patible.- He could not have been guilty 
of both at once. If he knew fo little of 
the nature of trade, as to keep back when 
he fhould bring to market, he was fufi- 
ciently punifhed by the lofs that he muft 
have fultained. The fecond charge is 
more intelligible, but it cannot, and cught 
not, to be brought under the cognizance 
of law. ‘Whether or not this or that 
charge be true, it is not my bufinefs to 
inquire: but true, or not, the public 
have no right to complain. The high 
price, whether caufed in part by hoarding, 
or, as is moft probable, alzof entirely 
{tor fome planters allow, by their accu- 
dation, that they hoarded) by a failure of 
the crop, produced the conitant effcct of 
lefcning the confumption, and confequent- 
ly, as far as hoarding was concerned, a 
lower average price. Some brewers uled 
Defence of Foreftalling. 
493 
fubftitutes, and others have found out 
methods of making the fame quantity of 
hops go twice as far. 
I fhall reprefs my fenfations at this and 
fimilar profecutions, and fhall only afk,’ 
what we are to think, if the principles 
for which I am contending be true, of 
the following bit of rhetoric that occurs 
in the moft liberal publication of the day; 
and alfo, whether the laft lines of the quo- 
tation do not confirm thole principles ?— 
«© Though the price of hops is.not very 
high, yet the quantity puts it out of the 
power of thole daring fpeculators who 
have done fo much mifchief, either to 
monopolize, or perfuade the planters not 
to fupply the market, as was done ia 
1799 and 18co, thofe years that will ever 
be remembered by private as well as pub- 
l'c brewers, who, by the machinations of 
certain individuals, now well known in 
the courts of law, were compelled to pay 
from 16]. to 201. per cwt. for hops which 
might have been fold at half the price. 
Only laft year the monopolizers demanded 
161. or 17]. for hops, which they have 
fince been glad to fell from 70s. to 80s, 
And they fill have enough upon their 
hands to remind them of their unjutt 
conduét.”” 
If I were tmclined to retort the charge 
of combination, and could fuppofe that 
the foes of foreftalling aéted not from ig- 
norance, but from defign, I fthould fay 
that their objeé&t is to force thofe fellers 
who. want capital to fell prematurely, that 
they may employ their own capital in 
laying in their ftock. If an undue quan- 
tity of hops was kept back, it was a rare 
inftance of commercial error; and, as the 
above paragraph aflerts, was punifhed ac- 
cordingly by a heavy lofs. The fault is 
generally on the other fide. This is put. 
beyond all doubt, by all who have the 
command of money buying their ftock, of 
corn particularly, in the autumn, when 
poor farmers are obliged to fell. TThefe 
capitalifts are the real and hurtful fore- 
flailers, by whom the poor are doubly 
Hl-ufed. Firft, by interfering with the 
corn-trade, they buy cheaper than they 
ought, and thus, in times of fearcity, are 
enabled to extend their confumption be- 
yond what it would otherwile be. The 
coniequence of this is, that the poor, who 
buy weekly or daily, pay a higher price 
for the part that is left for them than they 
would otherwife pay (for the quantity is 
leflened, while the demand remains the 
fame); and, fecondly, are prevailed on te 
join in a fenfeleis clamour, not again them . 
who have provided for themfelves, and are 
really 
‘ 
