Ill 
Bnglish Markets and 'Fairs. 
At Knaresboro’, Northallerton, and other places, butter and 
eggs are toll — free by custom. At Londonderry, the Corporation 
charge 2d. for each cart with buttermilk entering the city, whether 
taken to the market or not ; but no toll is levied on carts with 
sweet milk. The explanation given of this remarkable distinc- 
tion is that, when the Act was obtained, the members of the 
Corporation of that day were the principal vendors of sweet milk 
through the town, and they did not wish to tax themselves. 
It is a little surprising to find that, in at least two towns — 
Newcastle-on -Tyne and Carlisle — there exists a charge which is 
substantially the same as the octroi of the Continent, being, in 
fact, a toll levied on all goods, cattle, carts, waggons, &c., passing 
into or out of the towns from the adjacent districts. They are 
known as “ through ” or “ gate ” tolls, and traces of similar 
charges under the name of street toll and passage toll are to be 
found at Cambridge and Dorchester. At Carlisle, in addition to 
the market tolls and stallages, the Corporation is entitled to 
what are known as “ shire ” and “ gates ” tolls leviable upon all 
goods taken into or out of the city of Carlisle or the county of 
Cumberland. The latter is now represented by a lump sum of 
615^. paid by way of commutation by the Railway Companies, 
and from the former a sum of about 1,400Z. is obtained annually. 
At Newcastle, the through toll is very similar, the main differ- 
ence as compared with Carlisle being that its proceeds are much 
more valuable. The amount received at Newcastle for through 
toll in the year 1887 was 6,784Z., and the cost of its collection 
and other charges came to 1,243Z., leaving a balance of 5,541Z., 
which went in aid of the general rate of the city. 
But, apart altogether from the burden, or assumed burden, 
of the tolls and charges, there are other grievances of which 
many complaints have been made more or less articulately and 
vehemently. Injury done to the community by a market 
monopoly could scarcely arise very grievously out of London ; 
but, at any rate, one well-known case has occurred in the metro- 
polis where the owners of an East-end market successfully 
resisted the right of anj’- other persons to open a new market 
for the sale of fruit and vegetables within seven miles of the 
existing market. In some cases the insufficiency of market 
accommodation vexes the souls of sellers,'if not of buyers. This, 
perhaps, is also especially a metropolitan grievance. At Billings- 
gate, for instance, the superintendent is pestered for more space, 
and could let double the area if it were available. There are 
some who think that the concentration of the food supply in a 
few great markets is not advantageous cither to producers or 
consumers, and that its chief result has been the aggrandise- 
ment of a comparatively small number of middlemen. 
