The Sun.
London, England, 1836-12-22 00:00:00

FRANCE.

CIVIL TRIBUNAL, DEC. 10.
BELLOC V. NEWMAN ; AND ALSO BELLOC V. BYDE.

The above two causes with two defendants, and qh more
than one plaintiff, came on for hearing this mornffig, and
their termination will be wormwood and gall to certain
attorneys both English and French, as also to a Parisian
bum-bailiff, who happened in some way or other to come
into the possession of the two bills. M. Bedouin was '
counsel for the plaintiff in both causes ; that against Mr.
Newman was for an overdue bill of the sum of 4821., and
Mr. H. made out as good a case as the facts would admit
of, but bad as the best that could be effected. M. Mesu-
reur rose in reply, and stated that the plaintiffin this action
was in that rank of life, and was so circumstanced that it
was not possible that he could give value for the bill ; in fact
be was at present no more than a clerk to a huissier in Pa-
ris, and in 1830, he sold wine on commission, and became
bankrupt. He further said that an attorney from London
of the house of Taylor and Thorn had been over on the
business with a considerable number of bills in his posses-
sion, overdue and accepted by Englishmen. The Court
decided against the plaintiff, leaving him to pay costs and
500 francs damages.
In the next case Belloc v. Byde, M. Hedouin was also
counsel, .and it was evident from his manner of 'proceeding
that he was fully aware of the untenable nature of his
ground, and like a skilful general he soon beat a retreat,
rather than be worsted and driven from his post. The bill
on which Mr. Byde was sued, had been altered in the date
from 1831 to 1835, no small jump in time, but a stroke of
-the pen is almost as fleet as "a glance of the mind," and
with men in pursuit of money, and who are not very nice
as to the means by which they obtain it, such things are
thought nothing of. The Court in this case decided for
the defendant with costs and 320 francs damages. M.
Carmier was for 'the defendant, who had been bailed by
Mr. Farcey.
ANOTHER JUDGMENT REVERSED.-WC stated formerly
that a gentleman residing at Recques bad been fined by Cor-
rectional Tribunal of St. Omer, 20 francs and confiscation
of his gun for sporting ; and was a second time brought be-
fore the same and fined 200 francs, for having said some-
thing to the guard champetre, when all that he said was
good night." The gentleman alluded to has since made
his appeal to the Court of Dailey and they have reveraed
the fine of 200 francs.

MEMORIALS OF MRS. HEMANS.-It has been
truly said that the name of Hcmans requires no other me-
mento than her own imperishable works ; but still the his-
tory of her early life, the rise and progress of her genius,
and everything connected with her fate and character, both
as a woman and a poetess, must naturally prove matters of
curiosity to the numerous admirers of her writings. We
therefore hail these volumes as a valuable addition to the
literature of our country ; they supply us with interesting
anecdotes even of her childhood ; and contain her subse-
quent correspondence with some of the leading literary
char49.tgrs of her times never before published,

Mr. Pole/lora rose to bring forward his promised mo-
tion, ►which was to the effect :—" That, adverting to the
despatch of the Court of Directors, dated the 23d of Fe-
bruary, 1833, having for its object the withdrawal of the
encouragement afforded by Great Britain to the idolatrous
worship of India, and also the relinquishing of the revenue
hitherto derived from such sources, which object does not
appear to have been yet accomplished, the Court deems it ne-
cessary to recommend to the Court of Directors the adop-
tion of such further means upon the subject, as in their
judgment may appear to be most expedient." It would
have been (cont►nued the hon. proprietor) more agreeable
to himself to have refrained from referring personally to the
motion he had brought•forward eleven years since in that
Court, upon what the Court had termed " the cruel and
irreligious act of immolation." The hon. proprietor de-
fended his motion in a speech of great eloquence and talent,
in which he repeated the arguments which on former occa-
sions he had urged in reference to the same subject.
Mr. MARRYATT seconded the motion.
The CHAIRMAN would not attempt to follow the argu-
ments of the Hon. Proprietor. The subject had been fre-
quently before the Court during the last twelve years, and
it had, with few exceptions, been left in the hands of the
executive body. He hoped the Hon. Proprietor would
not now depart from that course, and would not take any
step to retard the object in view. He would request the
Hon. Mover to withdraw the motion, assuring the Court
that the subject had and should continue to engage the
utmost solicitude of the executive body. (Hear.)
Sir C. FORBES was opposed to any interference with the
religious rites and ceremonies of the people of India.
Mr. HAN KEY supported the motion, as did Mr. WEEDING.
The CHAIRMAN said the Directors were in daily expect-
ation of hearing of the steps taken by Lord Auckland upon
the instructions of the Court of 1833, but as it appeared to
be the general feeling of the Court to adopt the resolution
he would not oppose it ; on the contrary, if it were per-
sisted in he should vote in its favour.
The motion was put and carried unanimously.
The CHAIRMAN said, with reference to the notice of mo-
tion given by an hon. proprietor (Sir C. Forbes), for infor-
mation as to the trial, conviction, and execution of Shum-
sooden Khan, Nawaub of Ferozepore, and the confiscation
of his territory, he had to state that the Directors had not
received any information, and he hoped, therefore, that the
motion would be withdrawn.
Sir C. FORBES consented, observing that he should renew
it next Court.

The motion was then withdrawn.
The CHAIRMAN then brought forward the motion relative
to Sir John Campbell, in doing which he called the atten-
tion of the Court to the eminent and efficient services of
that officer while assistant to the Persian mission, and sub-
sequently as Envoy to the Persian Government.
Sir C. FORBES spoke in favour of the motion, which was
carried unanimously.
The Court then adjourned.