to Dr. Achilli a rule calling on Messrs. Burns and
Lambert the publishers, to show cause why a criminal
information should not be issued against them for
publishing a Libel uttered by Dr. Newman, the
Oratorian father, in his "Lectures on the Present
Position of Catholics in England, addressed to the
Brothers of the Oratory." The libel consisted of the
following specific charges, and general charges of
"habitual incontinency." "I am that Achilli who, in
the diocese of Viterbo, in February 1831, robbed of her
honour a young woman of eighteen; who in September
1833 was found guilty of a second such crime, in the
case of a person of twenty-eight; and who perpetrated
a third in July 1834, in the case of another aged
twenty-four. I am he who afterwards was found guilty
of sins similar, or worse, in other towns of the neighbourhood.
I am that son of St. Dominic who is known to
have repeated the offence at Capua in 1834 or 1835; and
at Naples, again, in 1840, in the case of a child of fifteen.
I am he who chose the sacristy of the church for one
of these crimes, and Good Friday for another." Dr.
Achilli by his affidavits denied every specific charge in
the most distinct terms. The rule, it was stated, would
have been asked for against Dr. Newman himself, but
he will not admit anything, and the authorship of the
libel cannot be proved against him. Dr. Newman, however,
has since come forward and taken the responsibility
upon himself; and his name consequently has been
substituted as defendant for the names of his publishers.

On the 14th inst, two cases occurred in two diiferent
courts, in which parties in suits, examined as witnesses,
were Committed for trial on the Charge of Perjury.—
In the Court of Exchequer, Asplin a coachmaker, sued
Blackman for repairs to carriages, to the amount of
£27 16s. 6d. The defendant had paid the sum of £11 2s.
into court, in satisfaction of all demands, alleging that
there had been a contract between the parties. This the
plaintiff flatly denied, and the defendant and his son as
positively affirmed. After a lengthened trial, the jury
found a verdict for the plaintiff to the amount of £2 10s.
Baron Martin then ordered the plaintiff to come forward,
and told him that he felt sorry at being compelled to
exercise a very painful duty. The jury had found a verdict
in which he fully concurred, and he felt it his duty
to call upon him (the plaintiff) to enter into his own
recognisances to appear at the next sessions at the
Old Bailey, for the purpose of taking his trial for perjury.
The witnesses in the trial were also bound over to appear
and give evidence; and the judge informed the attorney
for Mr Blackman that he ( the judge ) was acting under
the 14th and 15th Vict., cap. 100, sec. 19, by which the
attorney would be entitled to costs for conducting the
prosecution.—The other case was in the Bail Court.
The parties were two tradesmen, Mahon and Wright;
and the action was for the recovery of £40, the alleged
balance on a bill of exchange given by the defendant
Wright to the plaintiff. The defendant pleaded that he
had settled the claim by the delivery of goods to the
plaintiff. Both parties were examined as witnesses
respecting the transactions between them; and the
plaintiff's testimony having been disproved by other evidence,
a verdict was given for the defendant; while the
plaintiff, by order of the judge, was committed to prison,
to take his trial for perjury at the Central Criminal
Court.

An inquiry into the Conduct of Mr. Ramshay, the
judge of the Liverpool County Court, commenced on
the 5th inst, at Preston, before the Earl of Carlisle, the
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, by whom Mr.
Ramshay had been appointed. Mr. Monk and Mr.
Tindal Atkinson appealed as counsel for—the complainants,
inhabitants of Liverpool; and Mr. Ramshay was
defended by sergeant Wilkins and several juniors.
Many witnesses were examined on both sides. The
circumstances already known by the public were established
by the evidence of the complainants. For the
defence it was contended that the charges were the
result of a conspiracy against Mr. Ramshay; and witnesses
were examined to show that Mr. Ramshay had
never conducted himself improperly, but had always
behaved with decorum and courtesy. On the conclusion
of the inquiry, Lord Carlisle intimated that he would
take time to consider the case, and ultimately pronounced
a judgment, removing Mr. Ramshay from his judicial
office.

A horrible case of Self–Mutilation has occurred at
Islington. Elizabeth Edwards, a young servant girl,
after doing her usual morning's work, cut off her left
hand at the wrist with a carving knife, and threw it
into the fire, having previously attempted to destroy her
eyes with iron skewers. The bleeding being profuse,
she thrust the stump into the fire, which had the effect
of stopping the hemorrhage, and thus saved her life;
she then thrust her right hand into the fire, and burnt
it to a cinder, when her mistress hearing an unusual
noise in the kitchen, went to ascertain what was the
matter, and found her with both hands in the fire. She
pulled her from the fire, and sent for a surgeon in the
neighbourhood, who promptly attended, and found her
a second time with her right hand burning by the side
of the one she had cut off. He took her hands out and
laid her on the kitchen floor, and sent his man-servant
with her in a cab to St. Bartholomew's Hospital, where
she now lies, and is likely to recover, but with the
entire loss of her hands. The only reason she assigns
for her insane act, is, that she thought she was doing
service to God.

A whitesmith of Tewkesbury, named White, has been
arrested in London for not paying a Poor–Rate at Tewkesbury.
When brought before Alderman Wilson at the
Mansion-house, it appeared that the rate was 8s. 6d.,
and the expenses £7 19s. The Alderman thought this
an extraordinary claim. Fletcher said be was in
London, out of work, when the original summons was
issued; it was served upon his wife; he was not able
to pay the rate, and the costly proceedings against him
were the result of spite, as it was known that he could
not pay either rate or expenses. The Tewkesbury
constable affirmed the parish debtor's ability to pay.
The result was, that Fletcher was conveyed to Tewkesbury,
of course at a farther expense.

Another revolting Murder has been committed in
London. Thomas Bear, a tobacco-pipe maker, in North
Street, Marylebone, had constantly ill-treated his wife,
and driven her to leave him and seek her own living.
Her last place of retreat, in North Street, he discovered
on the evening of Saturday, the 8th inst; and finding
that she was not at home, he waited her arrival,—
charging her, to the owner of the lodging, with incontinency,
and with theft of his property. On her return
he entered her room; soon after, loud screams, and the
noise of heavy falls, were heard, but no one thought of
interfering. After a time, Bear brought some boxes out
of his wife's room, and went to a public-house. As he
left this house he observed to a policeman, that he had
done something to his wife, which no doubt would
require his attendance at the police-office; and while he
spoke, a man came up and gave him into custody for
murder. His wife had been found dead on the floor of
her room; her body bore more than a dozen punctured
wounds; and under the fender was found a sharppointed
saw-file, and its broken handle. A coroner's
inquest, on the 10th, terminated with a verdict of
wilful murder against Bear. He was also examined
at the Marylebone Police-office. The evidence was
similar in both inquiries. Bear had been drinking, was
noisy and excited, but not actually drunk. Before the
magistrate, his demeanour exhibited great callousness;
he coolly cross-examined witnesses, but without much
reference to the charge against him. A lad of seventeen
who went with Bear to take away the boxes, was put
into the witness box, but the magistrate would not put
him on his oath, as he seemed to have no notion of the
existence of a God, and no sort of religious feeling. The
prisoner has two children,—a boy, who was living with
him, and a girl, "upon the streets." He attempted no
defence; and has been committed for trial.

At the Middlesex Sessions, on the 10th, Henry Martin,
a young man of twenty-one, was convicted of inciting
Charles White, a boy of twelve, to Rob his Master.
White was employed as an errand-boy; Martin accosted
him in the street, induced him to purloin a pistol, and
then by threats of making this crime known, compelled
him to steal a silver fork, a sovereign, and a watch.
Martin, who bad previously been thrice convicted of
felony, was sentenced to fourteen years' transportation.