een sette in the toune in Cornhyll for his
dishoneste, and hath forsworne the cyte, alle suche shulde bee
presentyd."--p. 92.

Upon these I shall make no remark. They will make different impressions
on different readers; according to the extent of prejudice or liberality
existing in different minds. They show that even during the most
absolute period of ecclesiastical domination, there was one spot in
England where attempts to legislate for the priesthood (though perhaps
feeble enough) were made. The legislative {101} powers of the
corporation were at that time very ample; and the only condition by
which they appear to have been limited was, that they should not
override an act of parliament or a royal proclamation.

Is there any specific account of the "tonne in Cornhyll" existing? Its
purpose, in connection with the conduit, admits of no doubt; the
forsworn and dishonest priest had been punished with a "good ducking,"
and this, no doubt, accompanied with a suitable ceremonial for the
special amusement of the "'prentices."[3]

I have also marked a few passages relative to the police and the fiscal
laws of those days, and when time permits, will transcribe them for you,
if you deem them worthy of being laid before your readers.

T.S.D.

[Footnote 2: Mr. Cunningham, speaking of Houndsditch, merely
quotes the words of Stow. It would appear that Stow's reason for
the name is entirely conjectural; and indeed the same reason
would justify the same name being applied to all the "ditches"
in London in the year 1500, and indeed much later. This passage
of Arnold throws a new light upon the _name_, at least, of that
rivulet; for stagnant its waters could not be, from its
inclination to the horizon. It, however, raises another question
respecting the mode of keeping and feeding hounds in those days;
and likewise, as suggested in the text, the further question, as
to the purpose for which these hounds were thus kept as a part
of the civic establishment.]

[Footnote 3: This view will no doubt be contested on the
authority of Stow, who describes the tonne as a "prison for
night-walkers," so called from the form in which it was built.
(Cunningham, p. 141., 2nd ed.) Yet, as Mr. Cunningham elsewhere
states (p. xxxix.), "the Tun upon Corn-hill [was] converted into
a conduit" in 1401, it would hardly be called a "prison" a
century later. The proba