A REPLY TO A MOST untrue Relation made and set forth in Print, By Certaine VINTNERS, in excuse of their Wine Project.Printed in the Yeare, 1641. A Reply to a most un&rehy;true Relation made, and set forth in Print, by certaine Vintners, in excuse of their Wine Proiect. ―

To contend with men that deny their owne pub&rehy;like Acts, is a hard taske; yet for better mani&rehy;festation of truth to the Honourable House of Commons, its necessary that somewhat more be said, touching the WineProiect.

&Iic;T hath been already set forth, and plainely shewed, even by the or&rehy;ders of Vintners Hall. That the retailing Vintners of London con&rehy;trived that Project at their com&rehy;mon Hall in November, 1637.

That they prosecuted it, and petitioned for it; And as it appears by the Project it selfe, that none but the Vintners could have contrived it. So the truth is, the covetousnesse of the Vintners, with their desire to Monopolize the sole retai&rehy;ling of Wines, and their pride and malice to the Coopers put them upon it.

Their covetousnesse; For they propounded, and would have no lesse then 4.l. a Tunne on all French, and 8.l. on Spanish Wines, to pay the King 40.s. restitution of 6000.l. liberty to dresse meat, sell Sugar, Beere, and Tobacco: restraint of Wines Licenses in or neere the Citie, inlarge&rehy;ment of their Charter, and other great benefits: and all this forbare 40.s. a Tun to the King.

Their pride and malice to the Coopers. They would not have a Cooper to live, but as their servant, the poore Coopers must not sell a rund&rehy;let of Wine, they must be suppressed, to advance their Lords & Masters, the London Vintners, that so they might Monopolize to themselves the re&rehy;taile of Wines both in Citie and Country. That was the Vintners end by this Project, for by it they tied up the Marchant from selling to Coo&rehy;pers or Countrey Vintners.

And albeit the truth of these particulars ap&rehy;peares clearely by the Project it selfe, and the Vintners orders: yet the Vintners are not asha&rehy;med to affirme, and that in Print too, in the front of their untrue relation,

First, that the generalitie of Retailers disliked this Project.

Secondly, that whatsoever they did in it, was by compulsion.

Thirdly, that they received great and insupporta&rehy;ble losse by it.

What truth is in these men? Doth it not plain&rehy;ly appeare by their owne Order of the 22. of November, 1637. That the generality of Retai&rehy;lers contrived it at their Hall, and have they not all taken the benefit of it, viz. a penny and two pence in the quart?

Is it then to be beleeved that they disliked it?

And what can be more manifest, then that it was the designe and worke of the generality. For the whole Comittee could not, much lesse could Alderman Abel, or any particular man, conclude any thing in it without the consent and direction of the generalitie, as appears fully by the Or&rehy;ders of the sixt, the 22. and the 27. of November, 1637.

The Comittee was from time to time to give account of their proceedings to the Gene&rehy;ralitie, and were so limited by the orders of the generality.

Doth it not appeare by their foresaid Order of the 27. of November, that they petitioned for it.

Did they not ratifie and confirme it at a generall Court, as by their Order of the seventh of February 1637. and by eight subsequent Orders made at their common Hall?

How vaine then is their pretence of threats, or compulsion.