# English laws for women in the nineteenth century/Appendix

APPENDIX.
Sir William Follett,—who afterwards, in a private letter to me, and publicly in the "Times" newspaper, disavowed all share in advising the trial (though compelled to fulfil his duty as counsel, by conducting it),—early in his opening statement, made the following declaration to the jury:—
"I believe I shall be able to call before you every servant who has lived in the house during the time; who will tell you that, however much their suspicions might have been excited, they never did communicate to Mr Norton any of the facts or grounds of their suspicion, until inquiry was made, and they were compelled to disclose the truth. Mrs Norton was a kind and indulgent mistress; they had no wish to say anything that would injure her; they did not; and Mr Norton had no reason for suspicion until Mrs Norton had left his house in March."
The only witness, nevertheless, who deposed to a sinful intimacy, was a groom of the name of John Fluke; who had been discharged two or three years before,—by Mr Norton himself,—for drunkenness and street-riot, on the occasion detailed in his evidence. I give those portions of his cross-examination which decided the case: (as far as his credibility was concerned). He was cross-examined by Sir Frederick Thesiger at great length: I give extracts —
"Are you a married man?" "I am."
"Have you any children?" "Three living out of ten."
"They lived, then, over the stables in Fleece-yard and Bell-yard?"'
"Yes."
"Where did you remove to?" "To Monmouth-street."
"What did you do there?" "I sold second-hand shirts and gowns."
"Then you kept an old-clothes shop?" "Yes."
"Had you the whole house? "No."
"You lived in the cellar?" "Yes."
"Hive you lived there with your wife ever since?" "Ever since, till lately."
"Mending shoes?" "Yes; and dealing in women's old apparel."
"Have you been in good circumstances?" "I earn my bread by my own honest industry."
"Have you been embarrassed?" "I was, when in Mr Norton's service, before I left."
"Have you ceased to be in embarrassed circumstances?" "It has not been in my power to pay my creditors all I owe them; but I have paid them as far as I was able."
"When were you found out as a witness in this case?" "I believe about six weeks ago."
​"You were then living in the cellar in Monmouth-street, carrying on this business of yours?" "Yes."
"Have you continued to live in that cellar?" "No"
"Have you given up your business?" "I can return to it again: I have been to the country."
"Have you carried on any business since you have been to the country?" "No."
"Have you been to see your friends in the country?" "I went to Wonersh."
"What took you there?" I went down by the coach."
"Is that your answer?" "I went down with my wife and children."
"Bag and baggage?" "Yes." (Laughter.)
"Have you been living at Wonersh since?" "Oh, yes."
"Have you been examined about this matter by any one?" "By the attorney."
"By Mr Norton?" "By Mr Norton, before the attorney."
"Where?" "In Lincoln's-inn Fields."
"And having examined you, they sent you down to Wonersh?" "Yes."
"Does Lord Grantley live there?" "Yes."
"Is Lord Grantley in Court?" "Yes, on the bench."
"How far from Wonersh does Lord Grantley live?" "He lives at Wonersh."
"You have not been living at his house, I presume?" "No."
"At a public-house?" "For a little time."
"And your wife and children?" "Yes."
"Who paid for you?" "I paid myself."
"Who gave you the money?" "The solicitor gave me money to pay my fare."
"How much money?" "About £10." (The "fare" is from London to Guildford.)
"Did he give you the £10 before you went to Wonersh?" "Yes."
"Has he not given you any since?" "No."
"You are sure of it?" "Yes."
"You gave up your business and went to Wonersh?" "Yes."
"When did you leave Wonersh?" "Last night."
"How long did you live at the public-house?" "About a week."
"What public-house?" "The Grantley Arms."
"Did you carry on any business at Wonersh?" "No."
"And you lived ia that lodging up to last night?" "Yes."
"How have you been employed?" "I amused myself as well as I could."
"Did you go out fishing or shooting?" "I have gone out fishing."
(Laughter.)
"How else did you amuse yourself?" "I walked about and exerted myself as well as I could."
"Did you ever see Lord Grantley?" "Twice while I was there, and spoke to him once."
******* ​"Have you not said that you were under examination for nine days?" "I did not say under examination; but I went to the solicitor's chambers every day; sometimes I was examined, and sometimes I was not."
"But have you not said that you were under examination for nine days?" "Not to my recollection."
"Will you swear you have not said so? "Not to my recollection.
"Try to recollect." "I cannot; I might have said so, but I cannot recollect."
"Have you not said that Lord Wynford examined you?" "Never in my life; I do not know Lord Wynford,"
"I ask you upon your oath, have you not said, that although Lord Wynford examined you, he did not know what you would say?" "I do not recollect anything of the kind, or that I did say anything of the kind."
"Will you swear positively that you did not say so?" "I cannot say, but I cannot recollect."
"I will once more put the question about the 500l. or 600l. Will you swear that you have not said that after the trial was done you would get 500l." "How could I say such a thing?"
"Will you swear that you have not said so?" "I never recollect of having said it."
"Will you swear that you have not said so?" "I never recollect saying so."
"From whom did you buy that cab, and the fly, and the gig?"
"One from one man, the other from another."
"From whom did you get the cab?" "A man of the name of Saunders built my cab."
"Have you paid him for it?" "There was a settlement between us. I really don't know how I stand."
"You don't know! Have you paid for the gig?" "The gig was included in the account to me for the cab."
"From whom did you buy the fly?" "I bought the fly from a man of the name of Crook."
"Have you paid him?" "I paid him part, and I owe him part."
"Well, then, you have sold the cab, and the gig, and the fly; will you swear that you have paid for any of them?" "I have paid part."
"Have not you said that after the trial was over, you would get 500l. or 600l. a-year?" "Oh dear! Sir, I only wish I may get enough to eat or drink, much less 500l."
"But I ask you if you have said so?" "Oh no. I came forward with a free good will, and to speak the truth."
"No doubt; but I asked you if you had not said that after the trial you would get 500l. "I do not recollect anything of the kind."
By the Court.—"Do you wish to say that you did not say so, or that you do not recollect having said so" "I do not recollect ever saying it. I might have said it, but I am sure I could not have said it."
​"How could you not have said it?" "Oh I am not acquainted with the law. I don't know what gentlemen give. I dont know anything. {sc|I don't know what is given}}. I don't know anything about it."
"Have you not said to Sly that you were employed to fish out evidence?" "I might have said I was going after a fellow-servant."
"I give you the very words: did you not say you were employed to fish for evidence 1" "I might have said I was going after a witness for Mr Norton."
"I will have my words answered, if you please." "I do not think I said, to fish up all the evidence. I might have said I was employed to go after my fellow-servants."
"You have said you sometimes went a-fishing. Probably this was the kind of fishing you liked best?" "I did not say I was employed to fish up the evidence. I deny the expression. I say, I might say I was going after my fellow-servant as a witness."
"Might you not have said you were employed to fish up evidence, although you do not recollect it?" "No, I do not recollect it."
"But you might have said so? " "I might have said so; but I do not think I have said so."
"Did you not say to Sly, that you had been suffering a good deal of late years, and that you thought this matter would make you amends?" "No; I only said I had been out of place two years. I was obliged to work at mending shoes. Of course a man must work if he means to get a bit of bread. I always did work, and very laboriously too."
"Well, did you say you had been out of place, and that this matter would make amends to you?" "No. I might have done; but I do not recollect saying so."
"But you might have done it?" "I do not recollect saying so. "What I recollect I will answer, and what I don't recollect I cannot answer."
"Will you swear that you did not say to Sly, that this business would make you amends?" "I cannot swear that I did not say so, and cannot swear that I did. The fact is, about making amends, I do not understand at all myself, what amends a man can have for speaking the truth."
"Did you not say to Sly, that you intended to take care of yourself?" "To take care of myself! I hope I shall always take care of myself" (laughter).
"Very well. Therefore it is not unlikely you did say you intended to take care of yourself?" "If I had not looked more to others than to myself, I should not be so badly off."
"Did not you say, that most likely you would be able to leave London, and retire to the country after this trial?" "No."
"No, upon your oath?"I have already said, I cannot say I said so, since I do not recollect that I ever said so."
By the Court: " You were asked if you did not say you would most probably be able to retire to the country after this trial?" "I do not recollect, and how can I say what I do not recollect?"
​"Will you swear you did not say so?" "I think I might have been able to go down to the country, for I was getting on very well in Monmouth-street."
"You were going on very comfortably in the cellar?" "I was paying my way."
"Will you swear that you have not said, that after the trial was over you would get 500l. or 600l., and would retire to Scotland, and would not care for anything?" "I don't recollect anything of the kind. I cannot swear I may not have said so. I do not believe I ever said anything of the kind, but I can't swear. I have sworn already to speak the truth, but I do not recollect anything of the kind."
"Now, sir, again upon your solemn oath, I ask, have you not used these words, or words to this effect—that, if all went on right, you would have 500l. or 600l., and retire to Scotland, and not care for anybody?" "Never, to my knowledge."
"Never, to your knowledge? That is the only answer you can give me?" "Never, to my knowledge."
"Have not you said so within the last fortnight?" "Never, to my knowledge."
"Have you said so within a week?" "Never, to my knowledge."
"Have you said so within the last 48 hours?" "Never, to my knowledge."
"Have you said so within the last 24 hours?" "Not to my knowledge."
"How was it that you left Mr Norton's?" "To tell the truth, I got a drop too much (laughter). It was a Court-day, and we generally have a drop at such a time. Mr and Mrs Norton fell out in the carriage, and of course they put the spite upon me, and so I was discharged" (laughter).
"Then you had got a drop too much?" "Why, I like to speak the truth, and I confess I had (laughter). Mrs Norton was very cross, and you could not please her very easily. She was cross because the black horse happened to gallop, and I could not get him into a trot; horses will break sometimes, you can't help it" (laughter).
"And they put the spite on you?" "Oh, it is not the first time I have had it like that."
"You like to speak the truth sometimes; you took a drop too much, eh?" "I don't know who does not at times. We are all alike for that, masters and servants" (great laughter).
"Did not Mrs Norton complain that you had drunk too much V "Mrs Norton never complained of that, because I was a good servant, though I did take a drop too much; a very good servant, and you know gentlemen do the same sometimes."
"Have you not had a sabre cut in your head!" "No, thank God; but I had a touch on my hip at Waterloo."
"How often did you take a drop too much, while in Mr Norton's ​service?" "What, Sir, during the four years? (great laughter). You have put a very heavy question."
"But on a moderate computation?" "Why, some people carry a little so well, that you can't tell when they've got a drop too much. I can't answer your question."
"Did it not happen generally in the afternoon?" "I was not drunk. Sir, every day" (laughter).
"But pretty often?" "Middling; as we generally all are."
"Did it ever happen that you had taken too much when driving Mr and Mrs Norton to the Queen's ball?" "I was sober going to the Queen's ball; but when going to the Marquis of Lansdowne's in the evening I certainly got a drop too much; and then the black horse began to gallop. Mr Norton got out of the coach, and mounted the box in his opera-hat, and I did not think he looked well driving in that fashion" (laughter).
"You were so drunk that it was necessary for Mr Norton to get on the coach-box with his opera-hat to drive?" "I'll tell you the whole. Sir. When Mrs Norton wanted Mr Norton to do anything, he was so fond of her he would do it, let it be what it might. So he got upon the box, and I, being a goodish sort of a coachman, did not wish to see my master make a fool of himself in a crowd; so I said, 'If you will drive you must drive by yourself.' I had one of my own, and one of my master's horses, in the carriage, and I did not like to see my own horse doing all the work, so I preferred walking; a pretty good proof that I was not very drunk (laughter). When I got to the Marquis of Lansdowne's I expected to see the carriage at the door; but instead of that I saw a parcel of fellows cutting at my horse. I then said to my master, 'Let me drive, and I will soon get you up. The truth is,' says I, 'you look rather foolish;' but he refused to give up the reins, and I then said, 'If you will be obstinate, I must take my horse out' (roars of laughter). So I went to take my horse out, and Mr Norton said, 'John, John, don't do that—policeman, take John away' (great laughter). I did not take the horse out, but a policeman came up and said that I must go along with him. I said, 'I am very willing to go with you, my good fellow; I will go with all the pleasure in the world.' So he took me to the watchhouse."
"Poor John! And so there you were locked up all night?" "I was."
"Did you not make an offer to release him then?" "I wanted to take hold of the reins, to get him out of the crowd."
"Did Mr Norton contrive to get the carriage up, driving with his opera hat on?" "So I understood the next morning."
"And then you were discharged?" "I was fined 5s. for being intoxicated at the office, though I was then as sober as I am now."
"Who was the magistrate who fined you 5s.?" "Mr Norton seemed to know him, for they talked together a long while."
"Then you think your sentence was a very unjust one?" "I don't think I was well used."
​"You were not drunk?" "No, when I went away with the policeman, no more than I am now."
"It was very unjust, then, that you were turned off?" "Oh, Sir, when Mrs Norton told master to do anything, he must do it."
"It was her fault, then, was it not?" "Rather more her's than master's."
"Now, did you not say that that d—d b—h, Mrs Norton, had got you discharged?" "I do not recollect whether I did or not, but I may have said it. I had had my wife confined, I lost my business, and it was enough to make any man angry, and speak what he did not mean."
"Did not you say that you would be revenged on her, or something of that sort?" "No, never, never."
"What, never?" "I did not."
"Have you not said that you were the principal witness against the Premier of England?" "No. I might have said I was one of them, but there was a good many of them."
"But you might have said you were the principal witness against the Premier?" "The Premier of England! I never did."
"Have you not said they forced you to leave your shop in Monmouthstreet, and go to Wonersh?" "I did not say there was any forcing in it."
"Have you not said they took you away at a moment's notice?" "I don't think I have."
"Did you not say you were to remain at Wonersh, and not to come to London till the trial came on?" "I did stop there. I remained there till last night."
Another witness having also deposed to receiving money, and remaining resident, with all her family, at Wonersh, for some weeks before the trial, the Attorney-General commented on these extraordinary admissions in his reply. He said—
"His learned friend (Sir William Follett) had promised the jury to call before them all the persons who had been in the service of Mr and Mrs Norton. But had he performed that promise? …… All the witnesses had not been called; the evidence had been garbled; and those witnesses alone had been called, who had previously been tutored as to the evidence they were to give." ******* The witness Fluke, was the one who boasted he was the principal witness against the Premier of England, and said, 'if all went well he should make 600l., and spend the rest of his days in ease in Scotland.' It seemed he had been a soldier, and fought at Waterloo. When he came into the service of Mr Norton he had a cab, a gig, and a fly. He acknowledged he had been often drunk. He left the plaintiff's service in debt, and swindled several people. He bought the fly from Saunders to turn it into money, for he sold it. He had a colt to break in, which he sold for 20l., and no part of the money did he pay to the owner of ​the colt. He then went to Sloane-street, sold the cab, and then took a cellar in Monmouth-street, where he set up as a dealer in old clothes, where he remained until he was ready to sell himself as a witness; and a glorious day it was for him when he was discovered. From such evidence as this, was the plaintiff's case made up! Fluke said he expected to be paid, because 'does not every man expect to he paid?' He (the Attorney-General) had a great curiosity to know if he did not expect 500l. or 600l., and repeatedly asked him. All he said was 'I do not recollect,' ('non mi ricordo,') repeated at least ten times. He (the Attorney-General) asked him if he had not, within the last 48 hours, said that he expected to make 500l.? He would only say he 'could not recollect." He did recollect that; he got so drunk on taking Mr and Mrs Norton to Lansdowne house, that Mr Norton got on the box and drove the carriage; whereupon he (Fluke) ran to Lansdowne house, and endeavoured to unharness and take away one of the horses, which he said was his own; and his behaviour was so violent that he was taken to the watch house! Would the jury act upon the testimony of such a man—would they hang a dog upon it? If he had not said 'that if there was a verdict he should get 500l.,' he would immediately and positively have denied that he had ever used such words; but he did not dare to give a direct denial; he merely said he 'did not recollect,' and it was not possible to call witnesses to contradict such testimony. He took care to avoid the possibility of being contradicted, or of being indicted for perjury. This was the expedient of a deceitful and artful witness; but he would ask the jury if they had any doubt that he did say so; aye, twenty times! Coupling this answer, 'that he did not recollect,' with his swindling, drunkenness, and history, could the jury place the smallest reliance on his testimony? Why did they send him to Wonersh? For six weeks he had been disporting himself at Wonersh, fishing, and talking over his evidence with Mrs Comyns, and considering how he should secure ease for the remainder of his life. . . . . Why were not those witnesses who were living in the service when the separation took place, produced before the jury? Not only were they not produced, but those who had been in the service during the years 1834, 1835, and 1836, were kept back. All those persons had been examined out of court; but it appeared that only those who would answer the whip, and had such convenient memories as to be able to recollect things which were said to have taken place years ago,—but had forgot what had occurred within the last 48 hours,—were selected
"There was a charge against two parties, and they should bear this in mind, that neither of them could be called as witnesses. Lord Melbourne could not, because he was the defendant—Mrs Norton could not, because she was the wife of the plaintiff. Therefore it was impossible, if any witness could come forward and say that he had seen a fact, when no persons except those two were present, that that ​witness could be contradicted. They could only, in such a case, look to the character of the witness, the probability of the story, and the credit to which it was entitled. If a charge of want of chastity was brought against the purest of women, and that no one but the accuser was said to be present, she must rest her defence on her own innocence, the improbability of the story, and the character of the accuser. . . . . . . .In the Ecclesiastical Court, time, and place, and circumstance, must be proved; but here, there was nothing definitive; the evidence ranging over a period of four or five years, and excluding all evidence of what occurred within the last two or three years. . . . . . . .What family, he would ask, could be safe, if at the distance of years, discarded servants could come forward and make such statements, concealed for so long a period, and which they themselves admit excited no suspicion while the circumstances were recent, and while they were there to make their observations? If they were to be brought forward at the end of years,—excited with the hopes of reward, and of making their fortunes,—what safety could there be, what protection for innocent persons? He could not approve of the manner in which the witnesses had been carried off from their homes to Wonersh. He cared not who was offended, but he would say, that the system of carrying off the witnesses, such as had been detailed that day—of giving them large sums of money—of exciting these extravagant expectations, that had been detailed, if their evidence proved successful—was one which could not be defended, and was a mode of conducting a case, reflecting very little credit on those resorting to it. No case had ever been conducted as the present had been. . . . . . . .It was the duty of the plaintiff to have laid before them the circumstances under which the quarrel and separation had taken place between Mr and Mrs Norton; when it might have been seen to demonstration, that Lord Melbourne had no more concern in the matter than any indifferent bystander then in Court; that bringing such a charge against Lord Melbourne was a mere after-thought; that it was what had never entered into the head of Mr Norton himself, but was put into his head by others; he would not say who,—he would not insinuate who,—but it must have been some insinuating rogue who had devised the slander.
"It had been asserted that every servant in the service of Sir Norton would be produced: but Mrs Gulliver, whose testimony was most material, had been withheld. If truth only was the object of the other party, why had she not been produced? And why had not Fitness been called, who was at that moment living at Storey's Gate? They had not dared to call him, because he was there at the time of the separation; and if it had not been that Mrs Morris had been called to prove the handwriting of Mrs Norton, the circumstances which led to the separation would have remained a secret and a mystery. Nay, it would have been left for them to surmise, that Mr Norton had actually separated from his wife in consequence of discovering her intimacy ​with Lord Melbourne. But what was the fact, as it now appeared from the questions he had put to the witness Mrs Morris? Why, that a quarrel had taken place between them on account of the proposed visit to Frampton; and that in consequence of that, Mr Norton gave orders that the children should be kept at home, and then sent them first to Berkeley-street, and afterwards to Wonersh; and Mrs Norton was thrown into the deepest consternation, and almost into a state of distraction, at finding that her children were to be thus separated from her. She pursued them all over the town, until she found them in Berkeley-street—where her tears and entreaties to see them were unavailing. … But it is quite clear that some persons have made Mr Norton a tool—an instrument of shame—he has been persuaded to allow his name to be used; and used merely for party and political purposes. Before I sit down, gentlemen, I think it right, in the name of Lord Melbourne, to declare, as he instructed me to do—in the most clear, emphatic, and solemn manner—that he never had criminal intercourse with Mrs Norton, nor did he ever do anything in the slightest degree to abuse the confidence which her husband reposed in him. I allow that you must find your verdict according to the evidence, and that you must not allow yourselves to be swayed by the solemn declaration of Lord Melbourne. You must look to the evidence—I wish you to do so—but looking at the evidence, I say that it is impossible to find a verdict for the Plaintiff." …
The Learned Judge summed up at some length.
The Jury having turned round, and conferred a few seconds.
The foreman said,—"My lord, we are agreed; it is my duty to say that our verdict is for the Defendant."
The announcement was received with loud bursts of applause.
A few days afterwards. Sir W. Pollett thus deprecated the notion that he had countenanced the proceedings which he conducted as counsel: and thus publicly disowned Mr Norton's cause. So much for the great scandals by which a woman's whole destiny may be darkened and wrecked!—See p. 123.
THE END.
​Extract from the "Times" of June 25th, 1836:—
"To the Editor of the 'Times.'
"Sir,—Having seen in the 'Times' of this morning that the action of 'Norton v. Lord Melbourne' was advised 'by the able and upright counsel who conducted it,' we think it is due to Sir William Follett to state, that the action was not brought under his advice; and that although he was retained so far back as the 25th of April last, the evidence was not in complete state for his brief to be delivered to him until the 14th of June inst., and when no course was open to the parties but to proceed with the trial of the cause, which had been fixed for the present sittings.
"We are. Sir, your most obedient Servants, (Signed)"Currie and Woodqate."
"Lincoln's Inn, June 25, 1836."