![The case between the proprietors of news-papers, and the subscribing coffee-men, fairly stated. Being remarks on their case lately publish’d. Wherein The False Pretences, Wild Project, and Groundless Complaints of that Insolent Set of Men are duly Examined, properly Exposed, and thoroughly Confuted; And their Calumny of Abuses and Impositions justly Retorted. With a Proposal for Remedying the flagrant, scandalous and growing Impositions of the Coffee-Men upon the Publick (London, printed for E. Smith; A. Dodd; and N. Blandford, 1729), 19, [1]pp.; 8°. BL: 1093.d.61. ESTCT133054](https://images.tandf.co.uk/common/jackets/crclarge/978131509/9781315094632.jpg "The case between the proprietors of news-papers, and the subscribing coffee-men, fairly stated. Being remarks on their case lately publish’d. Wherein The False Pretences, Wild Project, and Groundless Complaints of that Insolent Set of Men are duly Examined, properly Exposed, and thoroughly Confuted; And their Calumny of Abuses and Impositions justly Retorted. With a Proposal for Remedying the flagrant, scandalous and growing Impositions of the Coffee-Men upon the Publick (London, printed for E. Smith; A. Dodd; and N. Blandford, 1729), 19, [1]pp.; 8°. BL: 1093.d.61. ESTCT133054")
ABSTRACT
A prose reply to The Case of the Coffee-men (see above, pp. 89–130), which is here described as ‘a stupid Pamphlet’. This pamphlet defends the point of view of the newspaper proprietors in their contest with the coffee-men for the newspaper business. It proceeds with a point by point refutation of the key arguments advanced in the coffee-men’s pamphlet. It argues that, as men come to the coffee-house for news and conversation rather than coffee, the coffee-men rely on the news-writers, even though they make their profit from the drinks they sell. As the pamphleteer comments, ‘Papers mutually beget Company, and Company Papers’ (p. 141, 1.40). The news-writer also pours scorn on the coffee-men’s plan to publish their own papers, especially their plan to collect news from the coffee-house. The pamphlet attacks the low origins of most coffee-men, objects that the number of newspapers in London is not excessive, and complains that as the price of coffee has risen from one pence to two pence while the tax on coffee has declined, it is the coffee-men who are profiteering. Furthermore, the newspaper proprietors complain that in the coffee-house, numerous readers make use of one copy of a paper, harming their legitimate sales. Finally (pp. 149–51) the writer advances his own set of proposals, that the newspaper proprietors should make common cause, and open six coffee-houses near to those of the subscribing 132coffee-men, selling coffee at a reduced price and advertising on a sign that ‘All the papers taken in here’. Nothing became of the plan, presumably because of the failure of the coffee-men’s newspapers.
