The Sun.
London, England, 1834-02-11 00:00:00

the punishment, 181 ; against it, 165 ; Proposition
dopt. d.
Art. 3. imposing a stamp duty upon all publicaions
containing two sheets and under, sold in the streets, was
taken into discussion.

M. Vatout proposed that an exception should be made
in favour of almanacks, and moved that publications of a
half•sheet and under should alone be liable to the stamp
duty.
The Minister of Finance said that he consented to the
amendment.

The President observed, that in consequence of the
ahmate,ndment, it became
if it were 'ejected,
AO
rotv,e3r n. mo
fe tet
the cpornospe
on ts
ei ndgl a two,
at t
there would be no longer any disposition in the proposed
law imposing a stamp duty.
The amendment being put to the vote, was rejected.
The President observed, that the rejection of this article
involved the rejection of articles 4 and 5, which also re-
lated to the stamp duty.
M. Roget proposed, as an addition to the project, that
the operation of the law should be suspended in any de.
parttnent where an election was taking place, during the
time of the election, and 15 days previously.
This amendment was rejected.
M. Aroux moved an amendment of a similar nature.
The Keeper of the Seals opposed the amendment, be-
cause it would, he said, be equivalent to stigmatizing the
liw as an exceptional law.
M. De Corcelles said—What then is your law if it be
vote not an exceptional law ?
The Keeper of the Seals—lf it he an exceptional law
o exceptional
notrceie_laws
Bu
have votedt
the uponit,c
h thefor
rrt
charter
is he
press.o
A. de charter
o
a lourb d
value
ius
your you
toyte
should
eyes.
inter-
rupted me.—(Applause from the centre.)
at
taTchheedKteoeptehre ofc ht la]
reteSre atlhs
ti It
hbee i
De veeplu
taymwmhoor e sincere
has l
y
ou done
I.deeCorcelles—And Justice! What have y
withll her ?
The Keeper of the Seals—Justice ! I have employed
her to protect social order against all manner of pertueba-
tors—against all the enemies of order —(Approhation
from the centre.) The Minister concluded by voting
against the amendment.
After some observations in its favour by M. Odillon
Barrot, the amendment was lost.

Messrs. Coulmalin and Nlarsehal proposed amendments,
purporting that the duration of the law should cease at
the end of the session of 1835.
These amendments were likewise lost.

A '3111.4 then took place on the ensemble of the law,
the result of which was as follows :—Number of votes,
321—For the proposed law, 212—Against it, 122.
The law was agreed o.
At six o'clock the Chamber rose.

CORPORATION COMMISSION INQUIRY.

Yesterday the Commissioners proceeded with the in-
quiry. A number of the Common Councilmen and
authorities of several of the Wards attended to make state-
ments of abuses which existed, and to point out to the
Commissioners the necessity of a representation of the facts
to the Government.
Mr. Knight, a gentleman who resides in the Ward o'
Bishopsgate, stated that if a gentleman residing in the Ward
of Bishopsgate Within desired to be returned a member
of the Court of Common Council he must be content to
undergo a most degrading canvass of the inhabitants of
the Ward of Bishopsgtve Without.
Mr. Commissioner DRINKWATER-48 it the case that
the Ward of Bishopsgate Without send men from that
Ward to represent the Ward of Bishopsgate Within without
the consent of the latter ?
Mr. Knight—No doubt of it. About seven or eight
years ago nine candidates out of fourteen were put in by
Bishopsgate Without.
Mr. Commissioner DRINKWATER—Have those mem-
bers who succeeded, in consequence of their political
principles, shown any neglect of the local duties?
Mr. Lowe said that that was moat decidedly the case.
He resided in the parish of All Hallows, Lombard street,
which was in the Ward Within, the inhabitants of which
precinct had been in the habit of returning two represen-
tatives from amongst themselves, but it happened that the
Wardmote returned, instead of those two, Mr. Weston
and Mr. Charles Pearson, who belonged to the Ward of
Bishopsgate Without. Mr. Jones, who was a candidate,
but also withdrew, belonged to the Ward of Bishopsgate
Within, but he refused to canvass the Ward of Bishopsgate
Without.
Mr. Commissioner Deteacwe'rea—Doesi Mr. Charles
Pearson attend the Common Council meetings for the
purposes of the Ward ?
Mr. Nathaniel Clark (formerly a member of the Ward
of Bishopsgate) said that Mr. Pearson by no means
attended so regularly as the other members. The charge
of neglect was more applicable to that gentleman than to
any one else. The members of the Ward within had no
control over the local expenditure of the Ward Without,
Mr. Commissioner ELLICE asked whether it was the
opinion of Mr. Clark that a complete separation of the
wards was necessary to remedy the existing evils?
Mr. Clark thought such would he the most effectual
course. That was the general opinion of the residents of
the Ward of Bishopsgate

THE MUNICIPAL POLICE.
Mr. Hicks, the Deputy of Castle Baynard Ward, pro-
ceeded to give the Commissioners inform ition relative to
the watching adopted in that ward.

THE FELLOWSHIP PORTERS.
Mr. George Marin, oink to the Fellowship of Corn,
Salt, and Fruit Porters, was then examined as to the
rights of that body. The fellowship was, he slid, esta-
blished by act of Common Council in December, 1619.
The privilege of porterage belonged to the Corporation,
nd they appointed porters to do the work. In case of
dispute as to an infringement of rights the Chamberlain
brought the action. Questions so raised had been decided
over and over again in favour of the fellowship. It had
been altered by various Acts. The present constitution
was that they were under the c,introl of the Alderman of
Billingsgate Ward, who was Governor of the fellowship,
and his deputy was the Deputy Governor of the Society.

THE TACKLEHOUSE AND TICKET PORTERS.
Mr. Payne, Clerk to the Society of Tacklehouse and
Ticket Porters, was next examined. The Society was
managed by a Governor,:always appointed by the Court of
Aldermen. The fees were given by Alderman Wood, the
present Governor, into the poor box, for the benefit of
the poor members of the Society. The Corporation had
the right of porterage in all cases, and they delegated that
duty to societies of porters. The tackle-porters 1 inded
goods from some countries, and the ticket-porters from other
parts of the world. The tackle porters had the water
side work, and the ticket-porters had the up town work.
The former were a sort of masters over the latter.

Mr. Woodthorpe said that in former times the appiont-
ment to a tacklehouse porter was very valuable.
Mr. Payne, in continuation, said the ticket-porters had
the sole privilege of carrying parcels and burdens in the
city. A parcel carried for hire, however small, would be
an infringement of their rights. They were employed by
bankers t 6 carry goods.
After some further evidence on this point the Com-
mission was adjourned to to.morrovv (this day).