The Express.
London, England, 1866-05-01 00:00:00

THE ALLEGED FLOGGING AT SOUTHWICK
SCHOOL.

The Rev. F. B. Parkes, rector of Southwick,
forwards the following letter, addressed to the Wed Sussex
Gazette, concerning the report which we recently extracted
from that paper :
Sir,—Your sense of justice and fair play to others will,
we are sure, find space for us to answer the account pub-
lished of the vestry meeting at Southwick. Had Mr. Wil-
liam Hall confined his groundless and insulting remarks to
the meeting (at which, by-the-bye, he was told by one of
the churchwardens that none of his charges against the
school had a word of truth in them) we could with safety
have treated them with silent contempt; but when
he has published them to the world we are bound to
answer them. It appears to us that he brings five distinct
chirps against the school :-1. That the school accounts
are improperly kept. 2. That children are Bogged or
expelled for not attending the parish church. 3. That a boy
named Sheppard told him (Mr. William Hall) in the mas-
ter's presence, two days before the meeting, that four or
six cuts with the cane was the punishment given by the
schoolmaster for not being at school on a Sunday before
going to church, but if the boys bad been to any dissenting
place of worship the Rev. Mr. Parkes punished them him-
self, and much more severely. 4. That no one attempted
to deny Mr. William Hall's statement at the meeting. 5.
That a large number of labourers was brought up by the
farmers and harbour master, who decided by a triumphant
majority to support the rector in these practices.
As trustees and managers of the school we have tho-
roughly investigated these charges, upon uncontrovertible
evidence, which enables us to give the following replies:
I. That the school accounts are in perfect keeping, and
every farthing received duly accounted for. 2. That no
child was ever " flogged " or " expelled " for not attend.
ing the parish church, but that permission, when asked, is
invariably given to the children for absence on a
Sunday. 3. That the master never saw the boy Shep-
pard in Mr. W. Hall's presence ,• and that the
Rev. Mr. Parkes never punished a child, directly or indi-
rectly, for attending " any dissenting place of worship."
All we can glean with regard to the lad is, that his mother
repeatedly sent to the master, by her daughter, to have
him punished at school for his bad behaviour at home. 4.
We must refer to Mr. H. Gorringe's statement at the
meeting, which we thought a sufficient refutation of Mr.
William Hall's statement, and which he " did not attempt
to deny." 5. That out of the number of 17 votes tendered
by labourers on behalf of Mr. Hardwick., owing to the in-
accurate way in which the poor-rate book had been
managed, not one man could record his vote. Per-
haps it may not be out of place here to re-
mark that of the number of parents who have now 112
children in the school, four only voted against Mr. Hard-
wicke, one of its managers ; that these men are in the em-
ploy of Mr. Robert Horne Penny, who seconded the no-
mination of Mr. Mechen as churchwarden ; that these four
men, to show the " conscientious principle " upon which
they voted, *ant their children twice to church on the fol-
lowing Sunday ; and that the sum total we annually re-
ceive, on behalf of the school, from the 37 voters against one
of its managers, is the sum of 21.. (Signed)—F. B. Parkes,
rector ; W. H. Hardwick. and Hugh Gorringe, church-
wardens ; Matthew Hassell and William Oarden, overseen
of the poor.

ACCIDENT ON THE NORTH EMITEHN RAILWAY.
—At an early hour on Sunday morning • collision of a
serious nature happened to the night express train from
Scotland to London. The train in question, which leaves
Edinburgh at 10.15 p.m., arrived at Berwick in due course,
which station it left at • few minutes after 12 o'clock,
on its way to Newcastle and the south. It had only pro-
ceeded as far as Seri merston station, about three miles
south of Berwick, and was just about getting to full
speed, when it came in contact with an empty
goods waggon which was standing on the same line of
rails, no signal of any kind being made to those in charge
of the train. The speed at which the train was going was
fortunately such that the latter fairly cut through the
waggon, not, however, without causing the train itself to
run off the line, the result being that it tore up some 25
or 30 yards of rails ere the train was brought to • stand.
Several of the passengers were more or less injured—one
of them, a Captain Anderson, to so severe an extent that
he had to be at once removed to Berwick, and medical aid
called in. The remainder of the passengers were able, so
soon as the obstruction was removed and the train fairly
on the line again, to proceed on their journey.
HEALTH AND STRENGTH RESTORED IT MBAR/VI
OII.IOOI7IIB3VALIMITA AIABICA 1,000, which cares without me-
dicine or hsconvenience dyspepsia andlgestiOn),=l.4asthms,
ceesimit= dollen). tosWAPANOI2.
TOM, liver, sad stomach comptisalarrbillit saves fifty times
Its cost in other remedies, and is the beet food for Infants
eO,OOO cures annually.—Du Barry sad Co., No. 77, ItereuVetreet,
London, W. In tins, at Is. I.d. ; lib., it ; ;
WM., 40s ; also UR, Grsoechnrch.otreet ; t, Chsalsl4. ; 61,
sad 290. eatardotrast : sad at all OFOC4ll.—(Advirtlasomitj

tab) intrUfgence.

COURT OF E'XCHEQI7ER.-AIRTL 30.

Bittinp in Benoo.—(Before Lord Chief Baron PolLok
and Barons Martin, Bramwell, and Pigott.)
CAVILL AND •NOTHRR V. PRINCE.

This case came before the court upon damwrer to plea
The action was brought on a deed catered into by a father-
in-law on the marriage of his. daughter, allowing the hus-
band 2001. a year ; and the principal plena were the third,
all fraud the fourth, setting up the incompetency
of che h

The argument on the part of the plaintiffs was that such
• disability did not make the marriage ipso facto void, and
that the marriage could only be rendered void by a sen-
tence of nullity against it being declared by the Divorce
court, and further that the validity of the marriage could
only. be questioned on such a ground by one of the parties
to it.

The Lord Chief Baron—lt has been held by a oomuton
law court, but I certainly differed from it toto ocelo, that
a woman might insist on a man performing his promise to
many her, though he had become impotent.
Mr. Baron Bramwell—ln that we the defendant pleaded
danger to his life, and he verified his plea by dying before
the use could be taken to the House of Lords.

The Lord Chief Baron—l have a strong opinion that the
view taken on the subjxst of marriage is altogether wrong.
I believe that when two people enter into the ordinary con-
tract to mart', it is always with the implied understand-
ing that if either of them should fall out of health so sa to
make it wrong to marry, the contract should become void.
Mr. Baron Martin said that in the case alluded to the
defence was that the defendant was suffering from eon•

The Lord Chief Baron said that perhaps the contract of
marriage was not voidable if all the facts were perfectly
well known to both parties before marriage.
Mr. Baron Martin said that in order to make the plea
good it was necemary to say more than simply that the de-
fendant was incompetent, and the woman would have to
be mentioned in some way.
The Court held that the fourth plea was bad ; and as to
the third, directed that an application should be made at
chambers for particulars as to the alleged fraud.