The Express.
London, England, 1853-05-10 00:00:00

more avoided than has hitherto been the csse.
(Hear, hear.) I certainly can never think that
in the schemes put forward by those who are in favour
of steuka education, the great purpose of education is sutFi.
enntly answered. There are those who say that on two
drys in the week half a day each, and on Sunday for the
whole day, there shall be religious teaching and instruction.
They thus, as it were, give up •wo days for that which is
religious instruction—in fact, the education of the soul;
while they have four days in the week fur that which is se•
cular education whir. I sty that that is a u.ost unhappy
and a most unwise division, and that neither in respect of
time nor subject is it the education which the future people
of the future nation of Euglanal ought to six...he. (Loud
cheers.) I ray, then, that these questions of secular and re-
ligious e ucation ought to be mixed together—that instruc-
tion should be imparted so as to educate at once body.
mind, and soul; and when that is accomplished, you may
be proud of your work. (Cheers.) With these few senti-
ments, in accordance I trust with those which have always
been adopted and followed in this society, I beg to thank
ou for the attention and approbation I have received; and
y I trust that this great cause of education will prosper more
and more every day. (Loud cheers.)
The proceedings then terminated.

Raw iintelitunce.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.-TESTERDAT.

StillNu, 1W BANco.—Baroas CEli► Jcerice J►aTls, Ma. Jthnics
CASIFIW&LL, MA. JUSTICI WILLIAIM, AND Ma. JVbTICIC TALFOI3IIII.
0113113 A:•ID ANOTHER.—FLIONT AND ANOTHER.—TiII
SELECT VESTRY UT Si. STEPHEN, \VAL/MOON.

This case, which has been so many years before the courts.
was brought forward again to-day, upon cause being shown
against a rule to set aside an order of Mr. Justice Williams,
which had been made a rule of eourt,and the execution issued
thereon ; and to direct that 1,7351. ss. 52. paid into court
by the defendants, under an order of Mr. Justice Platt,
should be paid out of court to the defendants, and that the
plaintiffs ahould pay the costs.
The facts as stated to the court were, that the action in
form wa, (rover for a parish book, but the real question
involved was, whether there was legally any select vestry
of the parish of St. Stephen, Walbrook. The case was
tried before the late Chief Justice Tindal, and the verdict
was for the plaintiff, subject to a special care for the
opinion of the court, and with leave to the parties to turn
the matter into a special verdict. The case was argued in
this court, and judgment of nonsuit was ordered to be
entered. The parties then turned the case into a special
verdict for the Court of Error, where it was argued for two
days; but the court had greaediffieulty in coming to a con-
clusion, in consequence of the form in which the matter
came before them, and they directed a venire de novo. It
was, however, at the lame time recommended that the
parties should go before Mr. Justice Erle, and ask him to
settle the verdict. This course was adopted ; and when
the parties were before his lordship he suggested
a settlement of the dispute on those terms:—
that the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas should
stand ; that the select vestry should he at an end ; the coats of
both parties to be paid out of tho parish funds. It was
agreed that this proposition of Mr. Justice Erle should be
brought before the meetings of the different parties in-
terested in the litigation, and the result was that it was
acquiesced in both by the plaintiffs and defendants. Sub-
sequently Mr. Justice Erie embodied these In an order,
which was afterwards made a rule of court ; and this order
disposed of the principal point in the case. Still, however,
disputes again arose, and the result was that the case went
down for trial a second time in accordance with the venire
de novo directed by the Court of Error. The case accord-
ingly came on for trial before Mr. JuaticeWilliams,at Guild-
hall, on the 3rd July, 1850. The learned judge ex-
pressed his regret that the case should came down
again for trial, "as it had in fact been ar-
ranged, and the only matter in controversy was
the construction and meaning of the learned Judge's ar-
rangement ;" and he suggested that counsel might somehow
or other arrange the rule. The consequence was, that an
arrangement was agreed to in these terms "In the Com-
mon Pleas. Gibbs and another v. Flight and another.—
By consent of the parties, an order of nisi prius to be drawn
up, containing the following terms :—The record to be
withdrawn ; the cause and all matters relating to it, by
the consent of the parties, to be referred to Mr. Justice
Erie, who is to have power to direct in what manner the
former rule of the 22nd March, 1848, is to be carried into
effect, and from time to time direct and decide what enkeht
to be done, *NI in case of any doubts respecting the con-
struction of his lordship's order, or anything relating
thereto, the matter to be referred beck to him brie'
genetics ; and amongst the rest the costs of the speei4l
jury to be in his lordships' direction. If Mr. Justice
Erie declines to accept the above reference, the matter is to
be referred to Mr. Justice Williams, who is in every respect
to have the same powers." Mr. Ju-tice Erie did decline to
act in the matter, and Mr. Justice Williams was therefore
applie I to. Ile at once undertook it ; the matter was
argued before him, and he made the following order
Upon hearing corneal on both sides, and upon reading
the affidavits of Michael Gibbs and Thos. Whitaker, and of
Thos. Flight and Wm. Fredk. Bock, I do order, direct,
and decide, that the defendants do pay to the plaintiffs, at
the office of their attorneys, Messrs. Phillips and Sons, 11,
Abchurch-lane, on the Ist March, 1833, between the hours
of 10 and 4, the sum of 1,7351.55. sd. . • unless in the mean-
time the said sum be paid to the plaintiffs out of the funds
of the parish of St. Stephen, Walbrook. Dated the 10th
August, 1852." On the 11th August, copies of this order
were served on the defendants and their attorney; on the
2nd November it was made a rule of court ; on the 4th
and Gth November this rule of court was served on the
plaintiffs and their attorney; on the 4th November the
order was registered, and the certificate of registration was
served on the defendants and their attorney. In March,
1853, the plaintiffs issued execution for the 1,73,51.55.
and gave the defendants notice of it. Mr. Justice Platt
stayed this execution upon the money being paid into court ;
ant the rule was then obtained which was now brought
before the court.

Sir Frederick. Thesiger and Mr. Cowling appeared to
show cause against the rule being made absolute, and Mr.
Bramwell, QC., Mr. Wiles, and Mr. Jones, to support the
rule.

- Sir F. Thesiger drew the attention of the court to the
dates above mentioned, and submitted, upon the authority of
reported cases,that the defendants were too late in attempting
to upset the order of Mr. Justice Williams, which was made
a rule of court so long ago as November last. The defen-
dants had allowed Michaelmas cud Hilary Terms to pass
without objecting to the order, and it was concluded that
under the circumstances they could not now do so. Ho un-
derstood that it was contended on the other side that the
nature of the document signed by Mr. Justice Williams
was equivocal, and that it was not clear whether it was an
order or an award. If it were an order, it was said that the
judge had no authority to make it ; and if it were an
award, it was said that it was bad in form and inoperative.
He submitted that the document was a judge's order; that
it was always treated as such ; and that it was perfectly valid.
If, however, it were not a good order, still he submitted
to the court that the defendants were clearly too late in
making this application. Before he sat down he thought it
but justice to the learned judge, Mr. Justice
Williams, to refer to same observations which had
been made in a public meeting, and reported in the Morn-
ing Herald, as to the motives which actuated his lordship in
settling this ease. Mr. Rock, one of the defendants, was
the speaker, and he was reported to have said that "instead
of the case being tried before a jury, for which the advocate'
would perhaps get 301., it was referred to him, by which in
private he got 3001."
Mr. Bramwell—That means me, and does not apply to his
lordship at all ; it applies to the advocate.
Mr. Rock tkea rase to address the court. He denied
VI at he had made the statement imputed to him ; and he
heped that they would not pay any attention to what was
reported in Grandmother—
The Chief Justice—This is quite irregular.
Mr. Justice Cresswell—fray, sir, alt down.
Sir F. Thesiger—Am 1 to understand that this gentleman
did not say it?
Mr. Rock—l did not say it.
Sir F. Thesiger—lt is quite sufficient to sey that the
words were not directed to Mr. Justice Williams, but to
couusel. (Laughter.)
Mr. Bramwell—lie (hes not say that.
Sir F. Thesiger—l will pass it by, and say no more.
Mr. Justice Cresswell thought it not altogether unfor-
tunate that this should have been published, for it showed
what the judges were likely to gain in reputation, if they
were ever called on to act as arbitrators.
Mr. Bramwell then addressed the court in support of the
rule. He complained that the coats had been much in-
creased,
in consequence of the unnecessary length of the
documents in the cause. As to what his client was re-
ported to have said, he submitted that it was clear that it
referred, not to the judge, but to the counsel.
Mr. Justice Cresswell said there was a good deal of ob-
scurity in the report ; but whatever might be the meaning
of the first part of the passage, the speech was un-
doubtedly an attack upon the learned judge, for the speaker
was reported to say that " lie defied Mr. Justice Williams
to carry out his order, far anything so monstrous had never
befo:e been heard of. Let him knew that British eyes
were upon him; upon the strength of which he (Mr. It.)
would repose."
The Chief Justice—What trash it is; the publication
ought to be sufficient punishment.
Mr. Bramwell—My client say that nothing of the kind
took place, and it is cot in any other newspaper.
Mr. Justice Cresswell-1 dare say that parties who make
speeches on occasions of this kind are not so much en-
gaged the next day as not to read themselves in print.
(Laughter.)
Mr. Bramwell continued—lle complalued that the other
side had refused to allow them to see a copy of the wr.t of
execution which had been issued, and under threat of which
they had been compelled to pay this 1,735/. into court. The
learned counsel then continued, that it the document signed
by Mr. Justice Williams were au order, it was clearly an in-
valid order, for his lordship had no power as a judge to
make it. If it were an award, the Were= to his lordshiit
did not give him power to make it, and beyond thh., ev:n
if he had power to make an award, still the present ens
was informal and bad upon the face of it. Another point
was, that tho execution was bad, for the order of Mr.
Justice Williams was not such an order as execution could
be issued on.
The Court took time to consider the matter.
Decision postponed.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.—YESTERDAY.
Bkrou Al it. CUMMIS,IONLU 1.111LL1141.
IN RE FREDERICK ANNESLEE.
This insolvent applied to be discharged on bail. lie wee
described se betting on the turf, and the proposed sureties
offered to justify in the sum of 1,6001.