The Sun.
London, England, 1827-03-29 00:00:00

(COPY.)

Dear husband,

Feb. 2d, 1827.

I take this opportunity of addressing these few lines to
you, hoping to find you in good health as it leaves me at
present thank God for it—Dear husband I am going to
change my line of life and I hope it will be for the better
I must tell you I am going to . be married and hope you
have no objection for you know you have not behaved to
me as a husband ought to have done both you and your
Tamely have need me very ill But every one knows that I
never gave you any reason to ill treat ine--;-
I have been to the Overceara to ask thevre advice what
I am to do and they told me I had better get another hus-
hand as I did not expect you would ever come home agai❑
You need not fret about it nor make
yourself in the least
alarmed at.what I say for I can ashure you it is true
The Overceart of the Parish is going to give the man
ten pounds to take nu out of the Parish I have invited
your Brother Robert to the wedend and I wish you was at
home to make one among shall tell you the mans
name is William --------_ -- •

__ •
You need not forget me for all that If you should ever
come Where lam I hope you will call 'and see me So I
couclade and still remain, your, affectionate '
William _ CATHERINE ---t
Gidatueed Ship Woollege Kent' (4faidstorfe Gazette.)

INDIA HOUSE MEETING.

(Concluded from our Paper of yesterday.)

Colonel STANliopr rose to propose an Amendment. He
objected to the motion, and complained of the seven hours'
speech which had been inflicted on them by the Mover.
He relied on the wisdom and humanity of the Executive in
India, and was decidedly of opinion with a Missionary who
went out there about 100 years ago, that the practice
could only be put down efficiently by education and a free
press•—(llear, and laughter. )—The Gallant Colonel, after
some other observations, concluded by moving the follow-
ing amendment ;--" That in the opinion of this Court,
though little has been done to reform the Hindoo supersti-
tions, or to convert the natives to Christianity, the Go-
vernment of British India has at all times acted upon the
philosophical principles of unlimited toleration, And has
thereby secured the goad-will of its subjects. That the inhu-
man custom of burning widows cannot be prevented by pro-
hibitory edicts—i, e. force, without exciting the discon-
tent of seven millions, and soon or late provoking religious
wars, and ultimately increasing the frightful sacrifice.—
That the only safe, means of promoting among the Hindoos
the pure worship of GOD., and preventing the burning of
widows, the crushing of victims, and the drowning of
sick persons in the Ganges, See. is to be found in virtuous
education and free discussion, as practised under the ad-
ministration of the Marquis of Ila.stings."
General THORNTON seconded the Amendment.

The CIIAIRMAN was anxious to shorten the discussion.
It would be idle to wait for the general introduction of
Christianity into India, as stated by the Honourable Pro-
prietor, for the purposes mentioned, but he (the Chairman)
believed that that expectation was more distant than was
supposed. lii wished to have the matter left to their
Executive Body, siho-would take the necessary measures to
wrotast ans:to
solely
Ito()
yt hao sequestion disgracefulofh anduin a
nbiat
yr b,
rnbutusonceustor
f policy.
The mutiny of .Barrackpore ought to be a useful lesson to
the Government, as it was manifest that the mutineers had
other objects in view than those pretended. Immediate
insurrection might not be the result, but the first opportu-
nity would be seized by the Bralnnins, who would he all
united against the Government on the question. lie sus-
pected the speech of the Honourable Proprietor had some
ultimate object different from what appeared on the face of
the motion, and lie therefore felt himself bound to oppose
the motion, suggesting the propriety of leaving the matter
to the discretion of the Executive Body. But for the
amendment of the. Hinourable Colonel (Stanhope), he
should propose an amendment.
Colonel Srantore wished to know the purport of the
amendment before he consented to withdraw his own.
The CHAIRMAN read his amendment, which stated, that
while they deplored the existence of suttee and other rights,
involving the sacrifice of human life, in India, yet they re-
posed the most implicit confidence in the Directors, and in
the intentions of the Government, to do every thing in
their power for the abolition of such barbarous and inhu-
man customs.

Colonel STANHOPE Wall satisfied with the amendment of
the Chairman, and consented to withdraw his own amend-
ment.

The DEPUTY-CHAMMAN Seconded the amendment of
the Chairman.

Mr. WEEDING supported the motion.
Mr. RANDAL JACXSQN, at considerable length, followed
on the same side.
Captain MAXFIELD concurred in the amendment.
Dr. GI enntsr was like a fish out of water to-day, hav-
ing no opportunity of making a speech. It was not, he
said, fair for gentlemen at his side of the house to complain
of long speeches of seven hours' length. He remembered
thirty years ago, he published in a work (not his " Dic-
tionary,") the-mode of preventing suttee, to the effect, that
the Government should not allow a Hindoo who suffered a
suttee in his family, to hold office under them. He should
vote for the motion.

Sir ..101114 DOYLIE saw no difference between the motion
and the amendment ; and although anxious to leave the
question In the hands of the Executive,
,he thought the
original motion ehotild be allowed to stain]. ,
Mr. Wicitaxr, a Director, said the motion would have
the effect of recommending that suttees be put down by
force—(Cries of No, no).—The honour of the British
nation, and the safety of the Indian empire, were concerned.
He objected 'to the word " prevention" in the original
resolution, which imPlied'force;. end it was intended to
blame the Government in India and the Directors at home.
Mr. MARTeN could sea no difference between the motion
and the amendment, and was at a loss to account for tbe
opposition.
The CLIAIAMAN did not wish to adhere to his amend-
issent pertinaciously against the sense of the Court, and
was satisfied to withdraw it, on the assurance of the mover
and the Hon. Proprietor (Mr. R. Jackson,) that they did
not intend to follow up the motion by a recommendation
to use force, as an alternative, in putting down suttees.
Mr.' POYNDER would give nopledge,'but disclaimed the
'imputation east upon him by the Chairman. He had no
intention•of urging the necessity of employing force.
Sir CHARLES FO4DICS, in very warm language, com-
mented on What had fallen from the Director (Mr. Wigram).
Mr. Win RAM explained.
A very long and irregular discussion here followed, in
which several Proprietors and Directors took part, Mr.
Poynder claiming the right to reply ; and a resolution for
an adjournment being moved by Captain Maxfield, and se-
conded by Dr. Gilchrist, the Chairman at length consented
to withdraw his amendment, and the original notion was
put and carried by a great majority, there being but five
against it.

Dr. GILCHRIST said, as several motions remain undis-
posed of, he recommended an adjournment to a future day,
as it would be impossible to go through the business at that
late hour (neat seven "o clock); particularly as he intended
to make a speech on one of the resolutions of two hours at
least.—(Hear, bear, and laughter.)—Re therefore moved
an adjournment to that day se'nnight.
The CHAIRMAN objected to so short an adjournment,
as he should not be able to attend to his other official
duties. He suggested that the motions be put off till the
nett General Court.

Dr. Grt.ornrsr would not consent to this, as he should
lose the opportunity of letting out some matters of im-
portance previously to the election. This was the more
necessary, as he (Dr. G.) :,,nd six others were candidates
for the ' vacant Directorships. How would it be if the
others should go to the bosom of Abraham before the ter-
mination of the election? Would he (Dr. G.) in that
c mind, he put it hypothetically—walk over the course
and get inside the bar ?
CHAIRMAN--Oh ! I hope not.--(Great laughter. )
bneelDi,vrihar
e 7.1 Gcs
afraidt.tccdliorifslT:Gewratealilanteittgnel
consented
only to guard against the worst.
gtnohsettnehrte Directory in the manner
consented to an adjournment, af-
ter some further discussion, till Friday next (to-morrow).
The Court was accordingly adjourned at seven o'clock.

LENT ASSIZES.

Olin CIRCUIT.—SHREWSBURY, MARCH 27.

detle'irttnwe a 8 An isu MORRIS V. D.AVIES•
se directed by the Lord Chancellor, to
whether the plaintiff was the legitimate son of
'‘l
in r•
tliqorris, deceased, and as such, entitled to the estates
"" county of Montgomery, of the value of about
30,000/
•

While the Officer of the Court was calling the Jury, Mr.
BellinuY, the Clerk of the Arraigns, entered the Court,
and acquainted the Juke that Mr. Baron Garrow, who
was so ill as to be taken out of Court yesterday, was not
able to attend to-day. Mr. Taunton and Mr. Sergeant
Peake are the only gentlemen in the corrimislion, and it was
necessary to require the assistance of ono of them, for
there were still many prisoners untried.
"Jr. Baron IrAtoonAN—lf my brother Peaks can be
prevailed upon, it is a matter of necessity, and for the good
of the public.
A short conversation ensued between Mr. Taunton, Mr.
Sergeant Peake (who was engaged with Air. Taunton for
the defendant), and Mr. Baron Vaughan, after which Mr.
Sergeant Peake went to preside at the Criminal Court, and
did not return until Mr. Taunton had finished his reply.
The Jury were then sworn, and Mr. Witsasiacy opened
the Pleadings.
Mr, Cuitwoon—This issue is directed from the Court
of Chancery, but you are not, therefore, to infer that the
Lord Chancellor entertains any doubt upon the matter in
issue, for, however clear the ease may be, it is the uni-
forth practise of that Court, where an important matter
is denied, to, send an issue to a jury to decide -it. In the
investigation that is now to take place, you are not tb re-
tinae prow. a the physical Act a William Morris Laying

actually begotten the child, but you aro to inquire whether
by the law of England the plaintiff is the eon of William
Morris. I shall, under his Lordship's correction, state the
law. By the ancient rule of the law of England, when a
man and woman are once married every child born of that
woman is deemed legitimate, if the husband is within the
realm of England, intra quatu6r maria. The law is still
the same, but the rule of evidence has been relaxed, for
now the admission of evidence is permitted to show that
the husband cannot be physically the father of the child.
In the ease of "the King and Lough," Lord Ellenboroegh
decided that where there are physical impossibilities, evi-
dence of them mai, be given; but there is a marked dis-
tinction between probabilities and possibilities, and you
are not to act on probabilities. In the case I have men-
tioned, the husband only proved access within one week be.
fore tie birth of the child, and yet it was not until after a
long serious argqrnent and great consideration that the child
was adjudged 'illegitimate. In the ease of: " Head and
Head," where th'e plaintiff claimed to be eon of a man
who had no knowledge that such a being was in existence,
the whole evidenee was, that he went once or twice to his
wife, who was the mother of the child, and then not
alone. The Learned Judge before whom that issue wax
tried said, here is no impossibility, and directed the Jury to
find for the legitimacy. You will, therefore, attentively
mark the distinction between probability and possibility.
We shall show access, and a clear possibility that William
Morrhs might be the father of the plaintiff, and that is fully
,efficient to establish our case. The defendant may, per-
haps, endeavour to sully the character of Mrs. Mary Mor.
ris ; but if that attempt, is made, the evidence to support it
cannot be reserved. The Vice-Chancellor expressly laid
down the rule in " Head aokflead," that if Mut qidence
did not ekeludeAl possibility of the husband being the fa-
ther by reason of non-access or other causes, it could not
be received. The brOid rule of law ii,' that the child be
presumed to be the son of the husband, Unless it is, proved
that he could not by possibility be the father. I will show
that a child was horn of the body of Mrs. Morris, wife of
William Morris, though not cohabiting with him. William
Morris was married to his wife Mary in 1778. They re-
sided in Shrewsbury till 1788, and had one daughter,
named Harriet, who married the defendant Davies,
and they are now in possession of the estate
claimed. Morris was a quiet, and rather a parsimonious
man ; Mrs. Morris, on the contrary, was gay and extrava-
gant. They did not live happily, they had mutual bicker-
inge, which ended in a separation. They had both
landed property. The lady went to her own estate, the
White House, at Llanfair ; he went to Argoedd, about ten
miles distant. When separated, they became better friends'
than when they lived together ; he sent her presents, and
they frequently visited. On Saturday, the sth of January,
1793, Mrs. Morrie was delivered of the plaintiff. Within
a very few hours after its birth, the child was carefully
packed up, carried nearly 30 miles on horseback, and lodg-
edin the house of a Mr. Austin, a weaver, at Warn, and
remained there 10 years. Mrs. Morris visited the child at
school, caressed it, and showed for it all the affection of a
mother during this period ; but her daughter marrying
Mr. Davies, and her husband dying, her maternal affection
became perverted, and she sought to discard the child. An
attempt was made to trepan him abroad, hut being a sharp
lad, he escaped the snare, and went back to his school,
where he found friends who instituted his suit ; which
would have been determined long since had not the most
material witness, the witness of his birth, been kept out of
the way. I will not say by whose machinations this was
done, but for nine years the woman who delivered Mrs.
Morris was not forthcoming. She was a favourite
servant, and it appears was taken care of all that
time. Her hiding place was at length discovered,
and, under the Lord Chancellor's warrant, she was
taken to the fleet prison, where she remained in contempt
of Court a whole twelvemonth, refusing to give evi-
dence ; until she fell sick, when in a fit of remorse, the
gave her answers to interrogatories filed in the suit pending
in the Court of Chancery. The question for your decision
is, whether the plaintiff is, by the law of England, the
legitimate child of William Morris? I shall prove access
beyond doubt. Many witnesses will prove that Mr. and
Mrs. Morris were seen together before the birth of the
child. One day, they rushed into each other's arms,
where they both fell a weeping, and afterwards retired to-
gether. They slept one night in the house of a lady who
is too old to remember enough to state positively that they
slept together, although there is no reason to doubt it.—
Can you, after this, say that there was no possibility of
Breen ? The case is simple : if access is proved, the law
makes tho deduction that the child is legitimate. You
may ask why Mrs. Morris concealed the birth of the child ?
I am not bound to account for her having so done ; but there
is one circumstance that may throw light upon-this matter;
Mrs. Morrie, although entitled to considerable landed pro-
perty, had, on her marriage, only 1001. a year settled upon
her ; but after the separation, she was let into the possession
of hex own estate ' • and she apprehended the loss of that
estate, if she was known to come to her husband again ;
for on one occasion she said to her servant, "Morris want-
ed to sleep with me—l would not let him, because if I Lad,
I should have been sent back to my bread and cheese
again."—Mrs. Morris had a favourite servant, of the name
of Austin, now deal. I fear attempts will be made to
sully her character, and to show that she had intercourse
with him. If so, I submit, that no evidence tending to
such proof can be admitted. That is established by the
Banbury peerage case. If this issue is to be decided by
the rules of the law of England, there can be but one
conclusion. The law is founded upon deep wisdom ; and
the rule I have endeavoured to lay down partakes of that
wisdom ; and I trust you will not subvert it. It has been
the law from remote ages. It is also the law of the great-
est part of Europe, and is derived from the Romans.
[The trial lasted till nine o'clock a
the prosecution closed, and some witnesses were called for
et e The
pr
oce case
etlin fgoe
the defence; but front the late hour at which we received
the copy, we must postpone the reportt night.
fthe
till to-morrow.l

p
vrtweorepienr,sioientsedofforrespfoercgtainbgle
EXETER, MAactt 27.
John Orchard the father, and John Orchard the son,
de-
fraud a Mrs. Lane, a deed securing to that lady certain
other
property on which she had'advanced, by way of mortgage,
the sum of 1,0001. to the elder prisoner.
acnidrcuamltertainngc,eswaintldi'ien°te7teettoi°ns'
Mr. Thomas Pring, examined by Mr. TYRRELL-Was
an attorney, of Crecliton. In 1818 he advertised that he
had some money to dispose of by way of loan. Among
rino corrunrie:ye N‘iat.ti t frrl:e:smss
Younger. He said he was desirous of borrowing 1,0001.
people who applied to him, was Orchard the
for his father, on mortgage. He described his father
as old and infirm. That he was in the habit of transact-
ing all his business, and that not more than 14 per cent.
toldthan himfive
perthat
e lendp loan.
another per-
son he would let him know. The prisoners were then
both strangers to him. He mentioned the circum-
stance to an attorney named Berry ; and in conse-
quence of what passed between them, Berry and young
ehliwould
ut.l,d clientbbgt wouldiviefn if:ern
couldt It
Orchard had au interview, at which the latter produced
some deeds. (These deeds were now put in.) The first
was dated October 11, 1784, which showed that the estate
of Ford (the one to which this indictment referred) was
granted by a cousin of the elder Orchard, to him. Upon
looking over that instrument, it appeared that there had
been a prior mortgage on the property for 5001.; and there
were other circumstances which led him to look into other
deeds, to see how that mortgage bad been discharged.__
Subsequently, Mr. Berry consented to waive certain ob-
jections which he took to the title, and to advance the sum
required, 0 on having the Ford estate conveyed to his client,
Mr. Berry, on the behalf of Mrs. Lane. Having prepared
the conveyance, the 23d December, 1818, was fixed for its
completion. On that day, the two prisoners attended toge-
ther at Mr. Berry's house, but the deed was only executed
by Orchard the elder. The deed was a mortgage of the
Ford estate, in South Tawton, for securing the repay-
ment of 1,000/. and interest. It contained a covenant that
the estate was absolutely the property of the elder prisoner.
The eon examined the money, and took it into his charge.
At a later period of the day, young Orchard paid a sum
into the hands of one of the firm of the Devonshire Bank
on his own account. Throughout the whole transaction,
the younger prisoner said the estate belonged to his father.
In 1823, Mr. Berry died, and he (the witness) succeeded
him as Mrs. Lane's attorney. In that year Mrs. Lane
directed him to apply to Mr. Orchard for the interest then
in arrear, and having failed in obtaining it, he, about
March 1824, gaye a notice of sale under the mortgage
deed. Various causes contributed to, delay the matter till
the early part of 1825, and then some discoveries having
Neu mAd• wilich 144.4 to the suppo3itioa that tin Ford

:he old gen-
: year, called
ink of mak-
Ir. Lane for
had seen, it
ion in 1817,
Mrs. Lane.
new nothing
_ __rne in from
the farm, and. asked him how he could act so dishonestly
as to represent the 'estate as being his father's, when
he must have known the property had been conveyed to
him, and by him mortgaged to another person. The only
reply he gave was, " the estate is worth enough to pay
both." At this time lie was not aware that the deed had
been altered, but he told the son he had seen deeds at Mr.
Tyrrell's office, in Exeter, by which it appeared that the
estate of Ford had been conveyed by his father to him, in
1817, and by him mortgaged to a Mr. Sparke, of Ash-
burton, for 1,4001. or thereabouts, and that subsequently
to this he had made a still further mortgage of the pro-
perty. In consequence of this discovery, an interview was
had with Mr. Partridge, a solicitor of Tiverton, who had
prepared a deed of conveyance of certain estates, which
the elder prisoner had mortgaged to a Mr. Pope, from the
executors of that gentleman back to him. At the time
that deed was executed, it was clearly understood that the
Ford estate was not to be conveyed back to the father, and
a clause was introduced to that effect. On the inspection,
therefore, of this deed, by Mr. Parbridge, in 1825, he
was greatly surprised to find that the Ford property, in-
stead of being reserved, had been expressly reconveyed, and
although greatly astonished at finding this to be the
ease, he had not the least suspicion that the deed had been
altered, and he therefore entered into an undertaking to
pay the money. Some months after Mr. P. again came
to his (witness's) office, and brought with him a draft of
the original deed, and on comparing it with the convey-
ance, it was then for the first time discovered that the
deed had been altered.

Mr. Parbridge; an attorney, of Tiverton, was profes-
sionally employed by the executors of the late Mr. Pope, to
prepare a deed of re-conveyance, from Mr. Pope's execu-
tors to Mr. Orchard. The instrument was dated in April,
1818. . There were interlineations excepting the Ford
estate from the operations of the conveyance. The deeds
were pot now in tia lame state as when they passed out of
his hands. The interlineations, when the deeds were deli-
vered up by him, stood thus--"says and except all that
capital messuage and tenement called Ford, &c. ;" and the
alteration
,now made• is this. -the word " save" is com-
pletely cut out ; the next word "and" stood as it originally
did ; the following word " except" is taken out, and on
the space which it occupied is written "also." So that
the clause now read, "and also all that, &c. ;" thus mak-
ing the clause of exception a clause of grant. These alte-
rations he (the witness), believed to be in the hand-writing-
of the younger prisoner, from having been acquainted with
his writing for the last ten years.
Mr. Justice BURROUGH—Hare you any idea of the va-
lve of the property mortgaged ?
Mr. Parbridge.—Yes, my Lord ; the property mortgaged
to my client, I believe to be worth 4,0001. My client has
advanced 1,5001.

The JUDGE-And what is value of the property when
the Ford estate is taken away ?
Parbridge—ln my opinion, Ford alone is worth
2,8001. The' reason-for introdeeing the exception as to
Ford was, because there had been a conveyance of that prc.i
perty to Orchard, jun., the year before, on his paying
1,0001. part of the money advanced by Mr. Pope, the ori-
ginal mortgagee, on the security of that and other estates.
Mr. James Tyrrell, an attorney, of Exeter, in 1824, re-
ceived instructions to prepare a mortgage deed of the Ford
property from Mr. Orchard, jun. to Mr. Sparke, of Ash-
burton. The sum advanced to Mr. Orchard was about
1,4001. It was from the circumstance of having seen the
Ford estate advertised for sale by a former mortgagee, that
the double conveyance:and fraud was detected.
he elder prisoner, on being called on for his defence,
said he had a defect in his head, and was too infirm to say
any thing for himself.

The Rev. Mr. Oliver, and a great many other respectable
individual, were examined as to the prisoners' characters,
and which according to their testimony, had been most re-
spectable and unexceptionable for the last SO or 40 years.
Mr. Juatito' Buituouore minutely summed up the evi-
dence.

The Jury returned a verdict of Guilty against Orchard,
jun. and Acquitted his father.
Mr. Justice Buiutouon immediately ordered the convict
to be brought up to receive sentence of death. His Lord
ship implored him to consider seriously the awful situation
in which he stood, as he felt it quite impossible to interfere
in preventing the sentence he was about to pronounce from
being carried into effect. His Lordship then proceeded to
pass sentence of death in the usual form.
The prisoner throughout conducted himself with un-
usual fortitude and on receiving sentence; bowed respect-
fully to the Court, and retired.

The father is within a year or two of 80, and from his
great infirmities, sat in Court seemingly unconscious of the
proceedings which were going forward.

The indictment consisted of several skins of parchment
sewed together, And was upwards of 35 yards in length.
Two true bills have been returned against Thomas
Friend, for the murder of Miss Glass and Master Glass, of
Ashby, and the delinquent will be put on his trial on Friday
(to-morrow) morning*.