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

FRENCH PAYERS.

(From Galignani's Messenger of Saturday.)

CHAMBER OF DEPUTIES.—SITTING OF FEB. 7.
At a quarter to two M. Lupin, President,took the chair.
The debate on the project relative to the street criers

was resumed.

Art. 1 being still under discussion, amendments to
this article were proposed by Messrs. Charlemagne, Tail-
landier, Portalis, Anglade, and De Failly. The amend-
ment selected for discussion was that of M. Charlemagne,
the purport of which was nearly the same as that moved
by M.,Legrand in the preceding deb ite. After a brief dis-
cussion, or rather conversation, M. Charlemagne, seeing
the little probability of his amendment being adopted,
withdrew it.

The President observed, that the other amendments
being in the nature of additions, he would first put Article
1 to the vote.

Article 1 was agreed to by a large majority. (The
right of the Chamber was very thin of deputies.)

M. Taillandier proposed an addition to the article►
enacting that authorizations to public criers should be
granted by the mayors of the arrondissement in which the
persons applying I,r such license should reside.

M. Fulchiron objected to this additional clause, that, as
there were 12 mayors in Paris, the license refused by one
might be granted by another, and by this means the law be
nullified.

M. Vatout likewise opposed the additional ciente, and
besought the Chamber to cause to be swept from the
streets those filthy publications, sot less disgusting and
pestiferous than the dirt of the streets in which they
were distributed. The Hon. Deputy added, that if the
additional clause of M. Taillandier were adopted, the
public criers would be furnished with an easy way of
eluding the law, for (said M. Vatout) the sth and 6th
arrondissements are only separated by a channel ; and a
public crier who bad obtained a license in the sth arron-
dissement, would have nothing more to do than to stand
astride over the channel, where he might cry his publi-
cation, and at the same time laugh at the refractory
Mayor of the 6th arrondissement.---(Laughter.)
M. Lherbette was not a little astonished by the stretch
of imagination of M. Vatout, by which he sought to re-
present the public criers as so many new colossuses of
Rhodes astride over a puddle, instead of an arm of the
sea.—(Renewed laughter.) The Hon. Deputy concluded
by voting for the addition proposed by M. Taillandier.
The amendment was put to the vote and rejected.
M. de Fully moved that the enactments of the law
should be applicable likewise to the street singers.—
Adopted.
M. Anglade moved an additional clause, exempting
from the necessity of previous authorization the venders
and distributors of the public journals published in con-
formity with the law relative to the press.
The Minister of the Interior said that this additional
clause would have the effect of annulling the law, for, if

adipted, there would be nothing to hinder certain journals
from inserting in their columns similar infamous writings
to those complained of, and publishing them in the street.
We must not shut our eyes to the truth, added the Minis-
ter ; there are journals that boldly call for another revo-
lution. I hold in my hand the prospectus of the Popu-
faire, in which is a paragraph which endeavours to prove
the necessity of a revolution, either by le4al means or by
force. As long as you take no effective measures to
restrain this detestable and anarchical journal, you will
have done nothing.—(Agi,ation.)
M. Gait; Bizoin stigniatiz,cl the proposed law as an act
of anger and hatred, and voted in favour of the amendment.
M. Per sil denied that the project was framed under the
influence of anger or hatred. It was a measure that was
wished for and demanded by all the sound part of the
population, and by all the respectable inhabitants of Paris.
—(Murmurs from the right. )
M. Gamier Pages (from his place)—We are not then
in the class of respectable persons ?—(Murmurs from the
centre.)

M. de Coredles (addressing himself to the centre)—
We are at least as worthy of respect as you.—(Tumult.)
M. Persil explained, and said that it could not for a
moment be supposed that he meant to deny the respecta-
bility of any of the Deputies in the Chamber. He said
that the great majori'y of the population of Paris, and all
the respectable inhabitants, were desirous ofsuch a law.
M. Gamier Pages—l do nut conceive that M. Persil
has any more right to insult a portion of the population
than he has to insult a portion of the Chamber. But I
cannot be astonished at what M. Persil has said, alter
witnessing that one of the Ministers designates as detesta-
ble and anarchical a journal (Le Populaire), the director
of which, M. Cabet, has been denounced to you, and is to
be judged by you tomorrow. Singular abuse of mind on
the part of the Minister ! who, on the very eve of a dis-
cussion en the Populaire, thinks proper to rise up and
condemn, without hearing, that very Populaire. M.
Gamier Pages then proceeded to maintain, that the exist-
ing laws were sufficient to repress the excesses complained of.
M. Cabet expressed great indignation at the words
which had just been made use of by the Minister of the
Interior, when speaking of the Populaire. The Popu-
laire, added the Hon. Deputy, has not yet been prose-
cuted, and yet the Minister has said that it is guilty every
day in the year. In thus speaking the Minister betrays
his duty.
The amendment of M. Anglade was then put to the vote
and rejected.
Legrand moved that the criers who sell complete
coples of the journals, published conformably to the laws
on the press, should be exempted from the prohibitory
dispositions of the law.
This amendment was put to the vote, but the result
being doubtful, a ballot took place, the result of which
was as follows :—Number of votes, 361 ; for the amend-
ment, 163; against it, 198. The amendment was

rejected.
Art. 2, relative to the penalties consequent upon the
non-observance of the law, was taken into discus ion.
After a few observations from M. Portalis, with regard
to the augmentation of punishment proposed by the corn
mission,
Art. 2, as originally framed, was put to the vote, and
adopted.
The proposition of the commission, recommending that
the punishment in case of a second offence should, instead
of from six days to two months, be from two months to a
year, was put to the vote, but the result being doubtful,
the Chamber proceeded to a ballot. The following was
the result:--Number of votes, 346 ; for the increase of
ill