The Sun.
London, England, 1864-06-25 00:00:00

elation. The truth of the matter, he said, was that
the Corporation had hitherto been receiving £13,000
a year from this duty without making any adequate
return ; and in consideration of this profit it had
allowed a monopoly to grow up with respect to
the corn market, which kept it in the hands of a
tew traders. Ho denied that the measure was
favourably regarded by the general body of corn
dealers and others concerned, and held that the
trade was not fairly represented by the monopolists

referred to. The bill enacts that for every hundred-
weight of grain brought into the port of London
there should be paid to the Mayor and Commonalty

he sum of three-eighths of a penny, and this ta;
is to be paid whether service be performed or not.

It is provided that the grain shall be weighed i
any one desires it, but it by no means specifies tha

grain not weighed shall not be paid for. It pro-
vides that the weighing shall only be done by the

`ellowship porters, but they shall be paid for what
.hey do, not for what gran arrives, whether

weighed or not, so that it is the Corporation who

are confessedly to make a very unnecessary and
uncalled-for profit. It may be urged on the part of
the City that there is no reason why the Corpo.

ration should abdicate its long-established rights
becauee a law has been passed affecting
the general system of computing grain
throughout the country. But, on the other

hand, it may be justly urged that the pre

sent opportunity gives a favourable occasion for

abolition of an ex-official tax which ought never
to have been imposed, and on whose behalf no valid

reason can be brought forward. It seems certainly
somewhat unreasonable that vessels loaded with
grain going on to another port should have to pay
duty on it, although they may not unload any part
of it within toe jurisdiction of the City. The Go-

vernment have taken an impartial course, declining
to pledge themselves to support the bill, but under-
taking that the corporation sticuld not be defeated

on account of the late period of the session. Perhaps
they think they havi, had enough to do with civic
legislation. As the matter stands, however, the
public will generally believe that, in Mr. GLAD•
STONE'S words, " the fair presumption is against
this sort of civic revenue," and until much clearer
cause is shown in its favour, we trust our represen•
naives will not submit to the maintenance of this

unwarrantable toll for the benefit of a corporation
which cannot certainly plead limited reeources or

scanty revenue in its defence.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, as visitor of All
Souls' College, Oxford, has fixed Monday, the 27tu
inst., at 11 a.m., for the hearing at Lambeth Palace of the
appeal respecting the conduct of election to Fellowships in
that College. Sir John Coleridge (who was one of the late
University Commissioners) will sit as assessor to the visitor.
Mr J D. Coleridge, Q.C., and Mr C. C. Bowen, of the
Western Circuit, will appear for the appellant. Fellows—
Mr A. G. Watson, and the Rev. W. H Fremantle, The
College will also be represented by counsel.
HOMELY ROMANCE, FROM A REPORTER'S NOTE-
800.-111 r Walls, the reporter at lqarlborough-
street Police-court, has for some time past been onefully
jotting down the more extraordinary cases which have come
before "his worship" during several years. He has thrown
these notes "of the curiosities and eccentricities of life in
the met:•cpolis" into a small volume, and it will be pub
under the title of " London Life at the Police-courts."
Many years ago, a Mr Wright issued a little book which
was famous in its day—" Mornings in Bow-street."
Cruikshank contributed some illustrations, and a third or
fourth edition was attained. A sequel, however, under the
title of " More Mornings in 133w-street,' ' broke the charm,
and the little work lost for a time its popularity. Nowadays,
it is much sought after by collectors of Cruikshankiana.—
London _Review.

NATHANIEL HAWTHORNE'S 17 UNERAL.—A cor-
respondent sends us the following little account of
Hawthorne 's funeral !—" Hawthorne died, when five days
absent front home, in the same way that Thackeray died—
found dead with a smile upon his face. A friend was with
him. He had lived at Concord, and his funeral there was
a beautiful one. The church was heaped with flowers, the
music admirable, the grave dug in a sod literally alive with
violets, under singing pines, and bordered with a wreath of
white lilies. He was borne to the body's rest by a troop of
literary friends of thers Atlantic Club—Emerson and Long-
fellow walking fi ; Agassiz, Holmes, Lowell, &c., after-
wards. Fields carried his last unfinished manuscript in his
hand. All the young women of the place brought wreaths,
apple-blossoms, and all the promise of our spring, The
day was lovely—the birds in full warble—the winds in choir.
They say it seemed a festival of life rather than the ceremony 1
of death."—The Reader.

BACON'S AMERICAN WAR :TAPS,—Two new
maps of Richmond and the country 50 miles round
it have just been published. They are both well and clearly
executed, and will Jae feud very maul at the present
moment.

whose signal discomfiture did not occasion much
regret. In many instances it is to the advantage
of the public that such rights and privileges should
be maintained intact, and anything that tends to
neutralise or to counteract that spirit of centraliz-
ation which gives the first blow to public liberty
and individual freedom is in itself beneficial. These
old forms and customs, which now appear meaning-
less and cumbersome, have proved in sterner times
the bulwarks of constitutional law, and have
given a vantage grcnnd to men who were boldly
resisting the encroecnments of despotic authority.
So that, on the whole, the public looks with a
kindly eye upon the forms and privileges of our
good citizens, paying a sort of deference to the
jealous guarding of its rights, and seldom counte-
nancing any active measures for the despoiling or
' curtailing of so formidable apart of the community.
The City is no longer looked upon with effected
contempt or professed dislike by would-be fashion-
able or distinguished assemblies. In our matter•
of-fact and business times things are very different,
and the general tendency is rather unduly to elevate
the world of money making than unjustly to depre-
ciate its importance. Still questions are sometimes
raised in which the privileges of the City clash
so evidently with the public interests that a
different result is visible, and we should not
be surprised if Mr. CRAWFORD'S Bill, which
came on for discussion last Thursday, had
to undergo material alterations before it be
read a third time. The bill referred to the right
Which the Corporation have hitherto possessed
of measuring all the grain brought into the port of
London, and of claiming all emoluments and profits
resulting from that office. Owing to the recent
Customs and Inland Revenue Act, the duties on
grain will henceforward be levied by weight and
not by measure; and in order to preserve their pro-
fitable privilege under this change of circumstances
the Weight of Grain (Port of London) Bill has
been laid before the House. Mr. CRAWFORD, in
moving the second reading, dwelt much upon the
immemorial right of the Corporation to the fulfil-
ment of this function, and remarked that by cer-
tain proposed alterations the City would lose some
1:5,000 a year, and pointed out several reasons for
the adoption of the measure. The hon. member
failed to show, however, by what reason the Cor-
poration were entitled to the maintenance of a
privilege affecting the public interests, and calling
upon them for partial and irregular fulfilment of
the duties specified. It is one thing to uphold the
rights of the City to manage its own affairs and to
stand upon points of order and questions of pre-
cedence, and another to submit to all those com-
fortable little arrangements by which the public
purse is made to contribute to the City exchequer.
Mr. AYRTON, who was somewhat severe upon the
Corporation generally, maintained that the measure
ought really t) be considered a private bill, since
its object was to gain a private advantage for the
Corporation of London, and in principle there was
really no difference between it and a bill promoted
by a railway company or any other trading esso