examination before Sir William Addington, at his house in Greek-street, Soho, who committed them to Cold Bath Fields Prison. Two of them are journeymen shoemakers.

LAW COURTS.

of reasoning, purchasing hops on the poles amounts to the same thing. It is in fact much stronger, for no single man whatever in so general an article as grain could purchase all the corn in England. Particular speculations might enhance the price in particular spots, but in others it would be lower, and every day's practice proved to us, that in an article so general as corn the market price would find its own level. It was extremely different, however, where an article was so much limited in its growth as that of hops, the produce of which was confined to COURT OF KING'S BENCH, February 8. two or three counties. In this case it may be (88.) MR. ERSKINE moved the Court for a rule within the power of the purse of one individual, to show cause why a criminal information should or of a purse formed by conspiracy, to bring not be filed against Samuel Ferrand Waddington, about the most mischievous and injurious conEsq., for having been guilty, if he was rightly sequences to the general welfare of the cominstructed, of one of the darkest crimes which an munity. My Lord Coke had always held the individual can commit against society at large. opinion that forestalling was one of the most This was forestalling, and that in an article mischievous crimes against the community, bewhich could not be denied to be an actual and cause it was a grievous oppression of the poor; indispensable necessary of life. He was sure he and of that opinion he doubted not the Court would not be deemed wrong in this assertion, would be on this and every similar occasion. when he informed the Court that this article This subject was of the highest importance, was hops, an ingredient without which beer Mr. Erskine said, to the general welfare of the could not be brewed so as to keep and be whole- kingdom, and he flattered himself that the present some, and it was needless for him to state that application and the consequent conduct of the beer was the common beverage of the great mass Court upon it, would prove most salutary in of the people of this country; and with those of rooting out so baneful a practice, not only in the most industrious and laborious classes it this but in every other necessary of life. It was might very fairly be said to be one of the staffs a practice the most shameful that could be of life. He was extremely sorry to think that a imagined, and of the most deadly tendency. It crime of this baneful nature, and of so long was high time it should be put a stop to, and he standing in this country, should be looked upon had no doubt but the Court would convince the by many of our fellow-citizens as not punishable. public mind that no men or set of men, let their It had been complained of so long ago as the reign rank or station be what it might, should offend of Edward VI, and a statute had then been framed against the law with impunity. In order to to prevent it. Since that a variety of judicious show that the gentleman against whom the statutes had been passed for the same salutary present application is made has offended against purpose, which in more modern times the Legis- the law, Mr. Erskine read the affidavit of lature had thought proper to repeal, leaving the Mr. Knipe to the following purport. "That in offence when in future committed to be punished 1798 Mr. Waddington had informed him he was as a misdemeanour by the common law of the land. just come from Kent, where he found there was a The repeal of those judicious statutes had, how-fine speculation to be made in hops: that he had ever, led many persons to suppose that this offence against the dearest interests of society was no longer in esse, and had increased a practice which struck deeply at the root of the common happiness of the subjects of this realm. By the justices and barons of the Exchequer, in the reign of Edward VI, it was determined that salt was a victual, or, in plainer terms, a necessary of life. That hops are entitled to the same consideration there could be no doubt, as it is a bitter which is absolutely necessary to be used in the brewing of beer; and not only so, but the Legislature has positively and strictly enacted that it shall be the only bitter which shall be made use of in the manufacture of that universal beverage. From_affidavits which he had then before him, Mr. Erskine said, he was instructed to say that from the year 1798 hops had advanced in price to a very enormous and alarming degree; that this enhancement of price was actually given to overgrown speculations in that article. To show what is looked upon as forestalling the article of hops, Mr. Erskine cited a case in 3 Coke, where it was held to be forestalling, and a crime against the common law to sell corn in sheaves. In like manner, by parity

80,000l. in hand, and that he was determined to purchase hops to the utmost extent of that sum, so as to create a scarcity." Mr. Erskine then stated, that Mr. Waddington had not contented himself with purchasing a single hop garden here and another there, but that he or his agents had, like a swarm of locusts, made a round sweep of whole counties. He then read from the affidavit of Mr. W. Richardson, “That the same course had been pursued by Mr. Waddington down to 1799." And, said Mr. Erskine, I have reason to believe that even the crop of hops for next season is forestalled in the same manner.

Lord Kenyon declared that he was extremely happy this subject had been brought before the Court, the matter was of immense moment to the public, and the offence complained of was of uncommon magnitude; he was sorry to say it had become too prevalent, and its evil consequences could not be too speedily put an end to. Ile was of opinion, that as the offence had been committed in more than one county, the rule should be for leave to file an information or informations.

Mr. Justice Grose said he was sorry to find any one had been so far misled as to suppose this

offence was not punishable. Such an opinion unhappily had gone abroad, but it was absurd and unfounded; and he had, within a few days past, informed a grand jury that this was an offence punishable at common law, and it was their duty wherever they met with it to give it their most serious attention.

Lord Kenyon said that he remembered a few years ago being on the Oxford Circuit, when, from the prevalence of this offence, the whole county was on the verge of open insurrection; that he informed the grand jury this was an offence punishable at common law; and in consequence of the prudent measures by them adopted, the discontents in a very short time totally subsided, and the county was restored to peace and harmony.

Rule granted for an information or informations.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.

The King v. Armstrong. (89.) On the motion of Mr. Erskine, the rule that was obtained on a former day to show cause why a criminal information should not be filed against Mr. Armstrong for sending a challenge to Major-General Coote was made absolute, no cause being shown. The defendant had very prudent and discreet advice from his counsel not to show cause against the rule, and he had followed it. That was a circumstance of which he should certainly remind their lordships in a subsequent stage of these proceedings. The counsel observed, that His Majesty had seen this matter in so serious a light towards the army that he had publicly signified his approbation of the conduct of General Coote, in having instituted this prosecution, and had directed it to be published throughout the whole army.

Guildhall, London, July 4.

at once.

of it we should not have to look for it in the elements, but in the mal-practices of those who committed offences against the public trade of the kingdom. The remedy was not to be found in legislative institutions; the remedy was not to be found in sweeping away with a rude and sudden hand statutes that had been growing up for ages for the protection of trade, much less by rash unadvised experiments, some of which he understood were making at that moment. But it struck him that the best way by which these evils were to be remedied was, by putting in force those laws that yet remained, by going up to the source and fountain of the law of the country, to see what it was, and whether it was sufficient for all the purposes of justice,-and if it was insufficient, it would give the Legislature an opportunity of seeing whether they ought not to build up again that fabric which was destroyed It would be found that the common law has this great advantage belonging to it, that it was founded on broad, sound, intelligible principles; that judges and juries had an opportunity of moulding it to the purposes and ends of justice; whereas certainly it very often happened when statutes were made to repress any particular offences, the precision necessary, and wholesomely necessary, produced very great difficulties; and sometimes cases might occur that might not be within the evil, and yet be within the statute, and might put it out of countenance. The offence here charged against the defendant, he apprehended, did not require the aid of any statute to punish it. He conceived the offence was founded in the very principles of trade and commerce, and the offence was as ancient as the country and its laws. The three offences of forestalling, engrossing, and regrating, were by Lord Coke, in the 8th institute all comprehended, under the word forestalling, as an offence against trade. He considered this offence to be this. A man might come into a market and buy what was to be sold there, and he might buy for his own consumption, or for the

Sittings before Lord Kenyon and a Special Jury purpose of commerce, to sell it again; no doubt

of Merchants.

The King against Rusby.

(90.) THIS is as momentous a cause as ever presented itself in a court of justice. It concerns every man in the kingdom, and calls most loudly for the interposition of the legislature of the country.

Mr. Knap opened the pleadings, from which it appeared, that on the 8th of November last defendant, Mr. Rusby, bought of Shrimpton and Co., ninety quarters of oats, in the market called the Corn Exchange, at 41s. per quarter, and did unlawfully regrate thirty quarters of the said oats to William Hardy for the price of 43s. per quarter.

Mr. Erskine said this was a prosecution against the defendant, and although certainly he neither could nor ought to claim more than justice against him, and if he did he should receive no more at their hands; yet he had a right to say, that this was a case that deserved all their attention and all their consideration. There was nothing, perhaps, that was more the subject of regret than the present high price of provisions; and perhaps when we came to consider the cause

he might. But the offence here charged was, that the market was not allowed to take a fair course; that when corn was brought to it by those who grew it, or by those who had bought it in the first stages, certain people came to market for the purpose of setting an artificial price on it, and by their own artifices and manœuvres, or in combination with others, to buy that corn, and to sell it in the same market at an advanced price, by which the consumer had not the same advantage he would have had if that had not taken place; for, as Lord Coke justly observed, in proportion to the number of hands it went through, the price would be increased to the consumer. Having stated these preliminary observations, Mr. E. said, he would tell the jury in a few words what this case was. He understood there was a set of persons who had thrust themselves into the corn market of this great city, between the corn factors, who represented the sellers, and the buyers. Those persons were numerous, and had possessed themselves of stands in the market. The mode of doing business was this. The corn remained in bulk, either in the vessels in which it was brought into the different

}

marked 90, which was placed on Messrs. Shrimpton's stand. They asked 44s. per quarter for it. Mr. Spell did not purchase it. He saw Mr. Rusby, who is a jobber, and is in company with Thomas and William Smith, contract for it at 41s. per quarter, and carry it to his own stand; and very soon after it was sent to the stand of Prest and Nattras, who sold thirty quarters of it for the defendant at 43s. per quarter to a Mr. Hardy. Prest and Nattras also sold the other sixty quarters as the defendant's agents. This was the nature of the case; and after the jury were in possession of the evidence, they would do justice between the public and the defendant.

(Witnesses were here called in support of the prosecution, who gave evidence in corroboration of the statement of the counsel.)

in a crime.

ports of the kingdom, or in lighters. Samples were put into bags and delivered to the corn factors, and great care was taken by the statutes that factors should not be sellers of corn, and they were obliged to take an oath, as the representatives of the sellers, that they would expose it for sale fairly. The seller fixes the price at which the factor is to sell, and the quantity to be sold was generally marked on the bag. If this, therefore, were suffered to take its natural course, the market would be pretty even. Without the intervention of these jobbers here complained of the market would find its own level, and settle at its fair rice. But the jobbers come, and this is the practice: they go round to the different stands, and say to the corn-factor, what do you sell this at? The factor tells them the price They say to the factor, we will give you this price The counsel for the defendant, in the course of at all events, if you cannot get a better. After this comes the consumer, and if the factor gets that he should satisfy the Court and the jury that a very able speech, among other things, observeď a greater price, no harm is done; but if he does this offence was not committed by the defendant not, if the factor is about to receive no more Mr. Rusby, but by Thomas Smith, his senior from the consumer than the jobber offered him, partner. Smith thought it was not a good the jobber, in consequence of his pre-emption, bargain and wished speedily to get quit of it steps in and has the preference; the consequence is, the consumer must pay a higher price. The again, and therefore immediately carried the jobbers instantly take it away, and put it on their sample to the stand of Prest and Nattras. own stands, by virtue of their fraudulent pre-ners, dissented from it. Rusby in particular Rusby and William Smith, the other two partemption. The consumer does not get it, of protested against it, and that circumstance he course, from the factor, because it is whipped should prove by Thomas Smith himself. And away by the jobber; and then he exposes the surely, though the act of one partner was the act same sample for sale and sells it at an advanced of another as to the partnership, yet it would not price; and he will not let it go till it comes up be said that the act of one was the act of another to a certain price. Now, could any man contemplate that practice without saying it was an offence against the public trade. With regard to engrossing, what quantity would be considered as engrossing must be matter of fact to be left to a jury. That, perhaps, was not to be measured by the simplicity of ancient times, but must be measured by circumstances. But what made it a misdemeanour in one age, made it so, and must make it so, in all ages; and that was, by making the commodity pass through different hands it increased the price. Besides, the statutes on this subject, which were repealed by the 12th of the present King, in which Mr. Burke took the lead, he observed, that the 31st of the King repealed the 15th Cha. II, c. 7, sec. 4; but the words in parenthesis in that section still remained untouched. The prosecutors in this case had many difficulties to encounter in every corner, but he trusted that the sanctity of an oath would enable them to lay this transaction before the jury. It was not immorality that was here complained of, but an offence for which the defendant must answer. If the defendant conceived he was doing that which was lawful, the Court would consider that when he received judgment on the conviction of a jury; their conviction would have a mighty operation, because it would be a proclamation of the law, and a promulgation of the penalties. It would bring back the market to that state of equity at which it ought to be fixed, and the poor would be relieved from their accumulated distresses. He thought the prosecution would be attended with the best consequences. Mr. Snell, who is a corn-chandler, would tell the jury, that on the 8th of November last he came to the market, and looked at a sample of oats

Lord Kenyon here observed, that there was a case in Lord Raymond's Report, where Lord Holt had laid it down, that the act of one might be held to be the act of another in misdemeaIf a servant threw a quantity of rubbish into the street, which was a nuisance, the master

nour.

was answerable. The case was this: the servant in the street, and having left no light near it, a of a builder having thrown a quantity of rubbish coach was overturned in the night, and it was held respondeat superior.

The counsel said, if one partner accepted a bill of exchange it bound the whole partnership, but if one partner forged a bill that could not affect his partners.

Lord Kenyon said, certainly not.

The counsel said, he had heard about one hundred times from his learned friend on the other side, in cases of libel, and where it did not apply-Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. Thomas Smith conceived that this was a falling article, carried it to the stand of Nattras and Prest. Rusby resisted the re-sale and Smith carried the re-sale into execution against that resistance.

(Thomas and William Smith were then called on the part of the defence, and deposed to the effect stated by the counsel for the defendant.)

Mr. Erskine, on the part of the prosecution, made a very eloquent reply, in the course of which he observed, that the poor of England were more industrious and more virtuous than those of any other country, and he would venture to affirm that since the origin of civilization among mankind there never existed a poor in