The Sun.
London, England, 1854-03-16 00:00:00

TEE CORPORATION OF LONDON.

Our warlike preparations since Christmas have
certainly had the effect of throwing the warfare
actually waged before Christmas between the public
and the Corporation of the city of London some-
what into the shade. It would, however, be a great
mistake to suppose that, because we have fallen foul
of the Russians, we have not attention to spare,
when the proper moment shall arrive, for our own
arcana imperii. It may, in point of fact, be just
as well for the rational decision of the question,
that some of the phials of wrath which had been
long preserved for the especial use of the Corpo-
ration should have been expended on the head of
Czar. It would seem that the advisers of the
Corporation are very judiciously setting their house
in order; or rather, we should write, lightening the
ship, that she may the more easily, ride out the
impending storm. They are giving up some of
their most obnoxious privileges, in order that they
may make out a better case for the preservation of
the remainder. It is not our intention just now
to reopen the whole case against the Corporation,
but simply to call attention to one recent act,
which, though the record of it is embalmed in our
law report of yesterday, may well have escaped the
attention of the ordinary reader. It will be re-
membered that one of the claims made by the Cor-
poration which raised against them the greatest
outcry in the city was that of " metage. They
demanded, as their ancient and undoubted privi-
lege, the right of measuring grain, (43c. This claim
was not confined to corn alone, but embraced a
considerable variety of merchandise brought to
London by the great highway of the Thames. No-
thing could be more offensive or oppressive than
this exaction, and at length Messrs. Combe and
Delafield, the great brewers, determined to test
the validity of the claim by trial in a court of
equity. They refused to submit to the payment
of certain fees, and a bill was filed against them
on the part of the Corporation. Their opponents,
the legal advisers of the brewery, hereupon recom-
mended that a cross-bill should be filed for dis-
covery, in order that their clients might be enabled
to frame their answers with sufficient certainty.
They prayed for production of all the muniments
of title, and of the various books which either gave
or supported the right claimed. Now, this step
put the Corporation in a serious dilemma. It might
well be that the documents in question would not
make out their title at all—it might be that, even
if the title to the one particular right were made out,
disclosures might follow of the most awkward kind
with reference to other matters not immediatey in-
volved in the suit. They resisted the application.
When the case was heard Vice-Chancellor Knight
Bruce decided it in favour of the brewers. The
Corporation appealed from that decree to the Chan-
cellor. The Chancellor affirmed the decree, and the
consequent order. Still the Corporation persevered.
So unwilling were they that their muniments of
title should be ventilated, that they carried the ap-
peal to the Lords, where it stood on the list for im-
mediate hearing. On Tuesday, however, the Soli-
citor-General appeared for the Corporation and
abandoned the appeal, agreeing to pay all costs.
The advisers of the Corporation have, no doubt,
exercised a very sound discretion in withdrawing
from a contest in which their defeat was certain.
The Solicitor-General informed the Peers " that
it had been for a considerable period under the se-
rious consideration of the corporation of London to
effect a settlement of these rights in such a manner
as should prove beneficial to the public at large."
The arrangement—we have the fact on the authority

of the law advisers of the corporation—although not
complete, is on the eve of completion. They are wil-
ling to anticipate its results, and hope " that the
question which was raised by the original suit will
result in an arrangement beneficial to the public in-
terest." Be it so. We cannot, however, forget how
long and how oppressively this claim has been main-
tained and enforced. It is but one of Many of an
analogous nature. Many plausible reasons have
been urged by the Corporation witnesses before the
Commission in favour of this, as of other obsolete
and tyrannical practices. Wei may well question
if an " arrangement" would have been so speedily
arrived at, had not the city magnates found them-
selves engaged with opponents of sufficient wealth
and consequence to maintain their rights even
against the corporate purse, and the astute brains
which that purse can call into play. We are
willing to accept any concession made to the citi-
zens and inhabitants of London as an instalment,
but we must not lose sight of the difference between
an instalment and payment in full.--Times.