paper, containing the headings of its various contents,
had the following heading of a law-report; "Mr.
Ramshay's opinion of the people of Liverpool." The report
in the paper itself, was that of a case decided by Mr.
Ramshay, in the course of which he said that the
witnesses, "like many persons in this part of the country,
appear to have not the slightest regard for the solemnity of
an oath, and to be equally destitute of the feelings of
humanity." Mr. Ramshay observing the placard posted up
in the streets, resolved to proceed against Mr. Whitty,
the proprietor of the journal, for contempt; and ordered
his officers to bring Mr. Whitty before him forthwith.
The bailiffs went, and intimated the desire of the judge for
Mr. Whitty's attendance; but he refused to attend, and
told the officers he should not obey them unless they
showed some warrant or legal instrument. They
returned and told this to the judge. Mr. Ramshay
told them to go again with assistance and bring Mr.
Whitty by force. They found Mr. Whitty, with several
of his men beside him, and a force of police-constables,
drawn up to see that all things should be done with legality .
The bailiffs tried to take Mr. Whitty by force; but the
printers defended him, though without violence; and
when the police-constables were appealed to, they said,
"We would assist you if you had a warrant, but if you
have no warrant we cannot assist you." At last Mr.
Whitty gave "the bailiffs" into custody, and they
were taken to the police-station; the superintendent
heard the charge, and the explanations of the bailiffs,
who admitted they had no violence to complain of.
When it was found that the bailiffs had been acting under
Mr. Ramshay's orders, the case was dismissed, and the
bailiffs returned to Mr. Ramshay to report their second
repulse. This occurred on Saturday the 27th ult.:
and Mr. Ramshay then formally summoned Mr. Whitty
before him on the following Monday. Mr. Whitty
appeared, with Sir George Stephen as his counsel;
and, after some controversy, Mr. Ramshay fined Mr.
Whitty £5, with the alternative of seven days' imprisonment
in Lancaster Castle.—Another charge was then
brought against Mr. Whitty, arising out of the same
transaction, namely, that of resisting the officers in the
execution of their duty. It appeared from the evidence
that Mr. Whitty, on being ordered to attend the court
by the verbal summons of the officer, had refused to go,
saying, however, he should be ready to attend if the
officer would get a summons or a warrant; also, that
upon being again urged by the officer, who had gone
to get assistants, to go quietly, he had pulled out what
the officer described as a large knife, about a foot long,
but which according to the evidence of one witness was
rounded at the point, and was designated by Sir G.
Stephen as a paper-knife, and threatened to cut their
souls out if they attempted to touch him. The bailiffs
then stepped back, and a number of policemen who
had come to the spot, on being asked to assist them,
the superintendent said he could not, they (the bailiffs)
having no warrant. A long cross-examination of the
bailiff, who was the principal witness, took place, when
he admitted he was not perfectly sober at the time he
went to Mr. Whitty, and also that he had no warrant.
In answer to Sir G. Stephen, as to who gave him the
order to bring the defendant before the judge, the
witness was pausing, when the learned judge said: "I
did. I gave him the order. By the word 'bring ' I
meant to use force if necessary; and even if it required
ten thousand men I should get them. I care for no
man living who opposes me." Sir G. Stephen, after
submitting that he had not the power to do so, declared
that if any one had entered his house under similar
circumstances he should have shot him. Here the
whole court, which was crowded by a great number of
respectable merchants, bankers, and traders, burst out
into a loud shout of applause. Judge: "I will clear this
court if I have any more of this. I will close the doors,
and I will fine every man I have reason to suspect for
giving such expression to his feelings. I have no doubt
but that all the men belonging to this man's shop are here
insulting me in my own court. If you bailiffs don't
take one of these men who made this indecent expression
—if you don't immediately I will fine you!" Bailiff:
"Everybody in court cheered; they all cheered!"
Judge: " Well, sir, if you don't bring one in—if you
don't bring one before me this instant, I will fine you!"
Two persons in the crowd were seized by the collar,
and dragged forward. They were each fined £5 by the
judge, or ordered to stand committed for seven days.
Reference having been again made to the refusal of the
policeman to assist the bailiffs without a warrant, the
judge said the superintendent ought to have known
that no warrant was necessary from the judge of a
county court in arresting a person for contempt; but
he cared not who the man was, be he peer or peasant,
that obstructed or insulted any officer of the court, he
would have him apprehended. Mr. Ramshay then
proceeded to give judgment. "I tell this court," he
said, "that that man (Mr. Whitty) has been found guilty
before me of a crime against the act of parliament, and
he must answer for it. He has publicly offended against
the bailiffs of this court. What you are here now for
(turning to Mr. Whitty), is one of the cases of offensive
insolence which you have so repeatedly committed and
carried on. I tell you, sir—for you are a man—and
every man like you, that the law will be too strong for
you, and you will find it out. I tell you, sir, that
you look like a man in whose eyes, and in whose face,
the worst passions and worst feelings of our human
nature are delineated. You do not look like a man,
but like a person who is not at all sorry for what
he has done. I tell you, sir, that I shall inflict
upon you for this offence—for insulting the two bailiffs
whom I sent to you, for that offence—for wilfully
insulting a bailiff of this court of the name of Hartley—
I will order you to be imprisoned in her Majesty's
gaol at Lancaster for seven days; and for your
offence of insulting another officer of this court, of the
name of Cholmondely, I shall order you to be further
imprisoned in her Majesty's gaol of Lancaster for another
seven days, to commence at the expiration of your
former sentence."  Loud murmurs arose during this
address, and at its termination the judge violently
threatened his officers with fine and imprisonment if they
did not more effectually preserve order in the court.
Mr. Whitty then left the court in custody, surrounded
by a number of his friends. On making his appearance
next day at the railway-station, in order to proceed to
Lancaster Castle, a great concourse of persons had
assembled to witness his departure, by whom he was
warmly greeted with hearty cheers, shaking of hands,
and every demonstration of sympathy.

On Tuesday the 30th Mr. John Whitty, Mr. Whitty's
son, was charged with Assaulting the officers who
were executing their duty by endeavouring to arrest
his father on Saturday. The evidence was vague; but
Mr. Ramshay held that it was sufficient. He imposed
fines of £2 for the insults to each bailiff; and further
fines of £2 more for the obstructions to each officer in
the execution of his duty. Of the fines inflicted on the
persons who had cheered in court, the first was persisted
in, and the culprit was sent to Lancaster Castle in
default of apology or payment. The second was remitted.
A public meeting of Liverpool citizens was held on
the 2nd inst. Mr. Samuel Holme was in the chair;
and Mr. W. Browne, M.P., and Mr. Robertson
Gladstone, moved resolutions. It was resolved to raise a
subscription to pay Mr Whitty's fines, and to defray
the cost of "ulterior proceedings" for obtaining redress
for the personal wrongs done to him. A deputation
immediately went to the county court and paid the
fines imposed on Mr Whitty, with the costs, amounting
to £38; and procured his discharge. In the afternoon
of that day, he was brought back from Lancaster
Castle in triumph: nearly four thousand persons formed
themselves into an avenue on the immense platform of
the railway station, to give him a hearty greeting. The
Earl of Carlisle has intimated his intention of investigating
the complaints which have been made of Mr
Ramshay's conduct as a judge.

Another tragedy of a similar kind to that at Camberwell
has taken place at Bermondsey. In the afternoon
of Friday the 10th, Mary Anna Newman, a young
married woman, Cut the Throat of her Little Daughter,
six years of age, and then Destroyed Herself. The
child ran down stairs with its throat bleeding, exclaiming,
"Mother has done it!" surgical aid was obtained,
but the poor child soon died. Lodgers in the house