The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1851-11-18 00:00:00

actions, and in one case he paid the money out
of his own pocket to enable the suitor to come
into his own court. What could they think of a judge
who found the money for an action under such circum-
stances. They had rather a figurative description of Mr.
Ramshay from one of the witnesses, who said he was
blind to all but justice; but it might be truly said, that
the judge was blind to all that was due from him on that
occasion. The learned counsel next alluded to the case
of Boston and Mercer. There had been evidence called
on both sides, and he apprehended the result to he pre-
cisely that which they opened. Having stated the case
as it appeared from the evidence adduced, and which
showed what Mr. Monk considered an undue leaning on
the part of Mr. Ramshay, he asked was that the judicial
demeanour which the people of Liverpool ought to ex-
pect at the hands of the judge of the County Court ? He
next alluded to the fines inflicted on Brown and Caldwell.
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins said that the warrant was lost by
Hartley, and called a witness, who gave Hartley a cha-
racter which he had no doubt the learned sergeant did not
expect. It was insinuated that Hartley was in the police,
leaning to the conclusion that he would have a feeling
towards Mr. Whitty; hut Mr. Whitty had left the police
seven years, and certainly there had been ample time for
any feeling of attachment to subside. Hartley might
have a reason for pleasing Mr. Ramshay, situated as he
was ; and a most complete answer had been given to the
insinuation by a witness who was examined on the previ-
ous day. Mr. Monk tin n adverted to the circum-
stances attendant on the fining and journey to Lan-
caster of the tailor Brown, and said, if it did not bring
with it its own moral he should fail in illustrating it.
Here was a man going out of court, and he was unhappily
seen to put his hat on in the doorway; and he was brought
back and fined for that. It was said that Mr. Ramshay
bad not to consider who the offenders were ; but he (Mr.
Monk) thought that the judge who would fine a man
without considering what his condition was, ought not to
sit on an English bench. Did his lordship believe that
there was a single judge in Westminster who would do as
Mr. Ramshay had done ? Six fines in the course of the
day, and the judge exclaiming. " I am tired of fining !"
Mr. James and Mr. Lowndes had both presided in Mr.
Ramshay's court, and he asked why were they not called
to state that it was impossible to conduct the business
there without resorting to measures of severity ? After
alluding to the fact that, when those gentlemen sat, police
were unnecessary to preserve order in the court, Mr. Monk
proceeded to notice one or two statements made by the
learned sergeant. They were told that the conduct of the
people of Liverpool had driven both Mr. Commissioner
Skirrow and Mr. Commissioner Phillips from the town.
One was almost shocked at such a statement being made,
when there was no evidence to support it. He did not
know whether it was in his lordship's memory, but a
question was brought before his lordship's house, in June,
1846, by the late Lord G. Bentinck, with reference to the
appointment of Mr. Pollock to a judicial office in India.
It was then stated that Mr. Phillips had left Liverpool,
not for the reasons assigned, but from motives of a private
nature, totally unconnected with any human being in the
town of Liverpool. He understood that Mr. Phillips had
suffered a domestic affliction, and that it became neces-
sary he should change his residence and reside in
London. With respect to Mr. Commissioner Skirrow,
he did not choose to invade the sanctities of private life
by alluding to him, but, he believed it was known that his
leaving was not attributable to the people of Liverpool.
Thelearned counsel then proceeded to contrast the witnesses
for the memorialists with those called on the other side;
and in conclusion asked ought such a state of things to
exist, that a respectable man could go into that court and
say, " I am firmly of opinion that no man's liberty is
worth a moment's purchase." Mr. Sergeant Wilkins had
referred to his (Mr. Monk's) allusion to the tribunal of
ultimate resort. The learned sergeant knew he alluded
to the legitimate voice of public opinion, to the opinion
of educated and honourable men in this country, a tribunal
exercising a powerful influence, which no man, however
elevated his position, could escape ; it reached to the
throne itself; it was one which even his learned friend
would find he could not escape from ; and for his conduct
on this occasion, it had tried him, was trying him, and
would try him. His lordship, at the commencement of
the inquiry, had alluded to certain letters from Mr. Ram-
shay, but Mr. Sergeant Wilkins declined to have them
read, stating, as:his reason, that they were the productions
of an angry man. _ _ _