The Sun.
London, England, 1836-06-22 00:00:00

COMMON Y

HIS DAY.)

Before Lord Chief Justice TINDAL, and a Middlesex Special

Jury.)
CRIM. CON.
NORTON V. LORD MELBOURNE.
This case, which has excited such an extraordinary degree
of interest, came on for trial this morning. Long before the
time appointed for the opening of the Court to the public, the
galleries were crowded, it being generally understood that as
much as five guineas had been given for scats. Indeed, ru-
mour, with her hundred tongues, makes the impatiently curious
part of the community much more extravagant. When the
door was opened, there was a tremendous rush from the Hall,
and the Court in every corner was instantly crammed. The
gowned and wigged members of the Bar formed by far the.
largest portion of the auditory. When the rush was made,
several gentlemen of the Bar appeared amongst the crowd,
and the unavailing cries of " make way for the gentlemen of
the Bar," excited considerable merriment.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE came into Court precisely at
half-past 9 o'clock, and the Jury was then called over.
The name of Sir Robert Peel was called, but the Hon.
Baronet did not answer.
The following Jury was then sworn in :—Robert Stafford,
merchant, Foreman ; William Rowlandson, merchant ; Au-
gustus Ruff, merchant ; Anthony Hammond, Esq. ; George
Robert Smith, merchant; Charles Wilkinson, merchant ;
John Dunn, merchant ; William Hopkinson, merchant ;
Valentine Collins, merchant ; Robert Smith, merchant ;

and John Simpson, merchant.
Mr. BAYLEY was about to open the pleadings, but from the
uproar in the Court, it was impossible to hear a word the
Learned Gentleman uttered.
The ATTORNEY- GENERAL said, that unless some means were
taken to produce order, it would be impossible for the trial to
proceed.
The CHIEF JUSTICE said, that unless there was more order
and silence, he would adjourn the Court.
One of the officers said that several of the witnesses were
endeavouring to get in.
The CHIEF JUSTICE—When they are called let them be ad-
mitted, and not till then. His Lordship added, that as the
Court was now full, the doors might be closed, and no person
else admitted except witnesses.
The ATTORNEY- GENER AL said it was proper that the wit-
nesses should be all ordered out of Court.
The CHIEF JUSTICE said, that any witness who appeared to
give evidence must leave the Court, or be would not be heard
when in the box.
The' witnesses were accordingly ordered out of Court.
•
Order having been in some measure restored,
Mr. BAYLEY opened the pleadings. He said that in this
ease George Chappel Norton, Esq. was the plaintiff, and
William Lamb Lord Viscount Melbourne was the defendant ;
and the declaration charged the defendant with having carried
on criminal conversation with the wife of the plaintiff, to which
the defendant pleaded Not Guilty, and therefore issue was

joined.
Sir WILLIAM FOLLETT then rose to address the Jury, and
spoke as follows : —My Lord, and Gentlemen of the Jury—it is
impossible for me to address you on the present occasion with-
out feeling deeply sensible of the responsibility of the task im-
posed on me. Of the nature of this action, and of the injury
which the plaintiff has suffered, you are already well aware,
as unfortunately from the high rank of one of the parties—
from the position which he occupies in this country and in the
Councils of his Sovereign—and from the well-known beauty
and talent of the unfortunate lady whose conduct will be made
the subject of investigation this day—this subject has become
one of public and painful notoriety ; and in justice to all par-
ties—in justice to the plaintiff—in justice to the defendant—
and in justice to the lady herself, I am sure you will feel
hound to dismiss, as far as you possibly can, from your minds,
the idle rumours to which this case has been subjected,
and that you will approach it as you would any other trial,
between two persons, whose names where wholly unknown to
you ; that you will act upon the evidence only—upon the
evidence adduced on the part of the Plaintiff, and if in your
minds you arc satisfied of the guilt of the party, you will fear-
lessly pronounce your verdict. The position of the parties in
society you will feel to be a subject for your consideration, as
forming one of the circumstances on which your verdict
will in a great measure depend ; if y?ou find that the de-
fendant in this case has taken advantage of his high posi-
tion to lull the suspicions that might otherwise have been
awakened, or to introduce himself into the family of
the plaintiff as a benefactor, a patron, and a friend—
if he has taken advantage of that position to inflict upon the
plaintiff the deepest injury—aye, the deepest in every case
in the present state of society which one man can inflict upon
another—if you find that this illicit intercourse has been
long- continued—that children have been born, and that it is
impossible to ascertain the extent of the injury ; and if you
find that he has poisoned that source which is the purest of
all feelings—the affection of a father for his children—this,
Gentlemen, is the case which I have to address you upon,
and upon which I beg your calm and dispassionate attention.
On the part of the plaintiff I ask you to look calmly and
dispassionately at the proofs which we will adduce before you,
and then we will call upon you to say whether you are satis•
fled or not of the guilt of the defendant. The plaintiff, as
you all know, is Mr. Norton, brother and heir-presumptive of
Lord Grantley. Mrs. Norton is the daughter of the late
Mr. Thomas Sheridan, who unites considerable per-
sonal attract:ons with a great deal of that talent 'for
which her family has long been celebrated. They were
married in the month of July, 1827, Mr. Norton being at that
time 27 years of age, and Miss Sheridan 19 years of age. It
was a marriage of affection—at least on the part of Mr. Nor-
ton it was one of unbounded affection. Their income at that
time was extremely limited for the rank of the parties. They
inhabited a small house, which Mr. Norton occupies at the
present moment near Storey's-gate, looking towards the Bird-
cage-walk. The house is close by Storey's gate, and the situa-
tion is rather important, as you will perceive when I come to
speak of the evidence. It is the first house as you enter the Park.
At the time of their marriage Lord Melbourne was not ac-
quainted with either of the parties; he had no acquaintance
either with Miss Sheridan or with Mr. Norton. A child was
b )rn in July, 1829 ; he was the eldest son. Their first ac-
quaintance with Lord Melbourne was in the early part of the
year 1831, and it commenced in this way :—Mr. Norton was
a Commissioner of Bankrupts ' • that office was reduced, and
upon that a suggestion wasmade that Lord Melbourne, who
was at that time Secretary of State for the Home Department,
had been in early life acquainted with Mrs. Norton's family.
Mrs. Norton wrote to Lord Melbourne to state the injury that
was done to her husband, and the consequence of her ap-
plication was a visit from Lord Melbourne. He called in
answer to her note, and shortly afterwards he appointed
Mr. Norton to the situation of Polite Magistrate for the
Whitechapel district ; this was in April 1831. This appoint-
ment necessarily obliged Mr. Norton to be absent a great
deal from his home. He was obliged to attend at the Police-
office in Whitechapel, which was at a considerable distance
from his house. He left his house in the morning, and was
absent in general till 7 o'clock, and occasionally when he was
obliged to remain late, he dined in the neighbourhood of his
office. After this appointment Lord Melbourne became a
constant visitor at Mr. Norton's house in Storey-street. I do
not mean to say that those visits were altogether confined to
the periods of Mr. Norton's absence. Lord Melbourne pro-
fessed to be the friend of Mr. Norton. He came into the
house as his patron, and Mr. Norton felt towards him nothing
but friendship. Lord Melbourne dined in the house several
times, and professed to be on terms of intimacy ; but
I find that Lord Melbourne was a constant visitor
at the house at times when Mr. Norton was not
there. He began by coming to the house shortly
after the duties of the Home Office were ( I suppose)
discharged—about 3 o'clock. He came constantly three or
four times in the course of a week, sometimes oftener, some-
times less, but still he was a constant visitor. He was in the
habit of leaving before Mr. Norton returned, and I think that
any gentleman, on looking at the evidence I am going to state,
must be satisfied that very shortly after their first interview a
criminal intercourse commenced, and was continued between,
the defendant and the wife of the plaintiff. Of course, in all
cases of this sort it rarely or never happens that you can prove
the actual commission of the offence. In this case, as in all
other cases of crime, fpr crime it is, you must convict the
parties by circumstantial evidence, which would lead any un-
prejudiced mind to infer a guilty conclusion. I believe I can-
not better state the sort of evidence that must be adduced in
such cases than by reading from a book I have before me a state-
ment, in which it is laid down, that with respect-to the proof of
the act of adultery, it is enough to say that whatever convinces
the minds of a jury of the commission of the act, is sufficient
for the purpose. This is a fundamental rule laid down by
Sir William Scott, Lord Stowell, that admirable Judge, in
the case of Lovegrove v. Lovegrove, where the facts were
vcry'similar to those of the present case, and the intercourse
had been long continued. Lord Stowell then laid it down that
it was not necessary to prove the direct fact of adultery, as
otherwise there was not one case in a hundred in which justice
could be obtained. It was very rarely that the parties were
surprised in the direct fact of adultery. In every case the fact
must be inferred if circumstances lead to the fair inference as a
necessary conclusion. Unless this were the case, and unless
it be so held, there is no protection whatever to the sacred
rights of marriage. But there are circumstances that lead to
such a conclusion, which cannot be laid down in any book,
because of their infinite diversity. As for instance, the station
and character of' the parties—the state of the manners of the
society in which, they mixed—and many other inciden-
tal circumstances—apparently slight in themselves—but
having a most important bearing on the decision of
the Jury—the only general rule that could be laid
down is that circumstances must be such as would lead the
guarded discretion of a reasonable and just man to infer the
fact. That is the general proposition I lay down. I was
telling you, gentlemen, that Lord Melbourne was a constant
visitor at Mr. Norton's house when Mr. Norton was not there.
In what way did he visit ? The first thing that strikes me is
this. Ido not know whether it may be important in the re-
sult, but I confess it appears to me rather extraordinary. The
house of Mr. Norton opens into the Bird Cage-walk—that is
the public entrance. There is another in a small court be-
hind. Whenever visitors entered the house they came by the
entrance at Storey's Gate—that was the way by which visitors
entered, and it is the one particularly
which a person coming
from the Home Office would very naturally enter. Lord
Melbourne always went by the gate that opened from behind.
When Lord Melbourne came to the house Mrs. Nor ton
gave orders to the servants that no one else should be admitted,
and no one else was then admitted. These orders were acted
upon. The servants were directed not to admit the most in-
timate friends, even their relations, whilst Lord Melbourne was
there. The servants were directed not to come into the room
unless they were rung- for, and they obeyed generally. The
blinds which looked into the Park were drawn down while
Lord Melbourne was there. He was in the habit of leaving
shortly before Mr. Norton came home. From Mrs. Norton's
conduct you, gentlemen, must infer what else took place.

She goes to ber room ; prepares herself to receive Lord Mel-
bourne ; dresses, arranges her hair, and gets the room ready
before he comes. While he was in the house, she frequently
goes into her bed-room whilst he was there. Her
hair is disordered, her dress is disordered, she goes agaio
n t
her bed-room to set it to rights. Having arranged her hair
she comes down again to Lord Melbourne. put the case is
not confined to her house alone • Mrs. Norton has been to
Lord Melbourne's house, and has 'been in that house alone with
Lord Melbourne more that once. I shall show you that she
has been in the carriage of a friend which she was in the habit
of using—that it has carried her to Lord Melbourne's house,
and left her there—that the carriage then drove round the
Park, and again went to Lord Melbourne's house to take her
up. Where had she been during that time ? Or in what room?
It was true he could not show—she was in the house of Lord
Melbourne—a young and beautiful woman, and alone. I cannot
call the servants of Lord Melbourne in order to inquire where
she was ; but he can do so, and he may show that all that was
done was done was consistent with innocence ; if so, we shall
probably hear how and where she was employed—that she had
been to Lord Melbourne's house was beyond a doubt. Again,
with respect to the manners and habits of Lord Melbourne, I
shall prove that when Mrs. Norton was ill' and confined to her
bed-room, a servant went into the room and found Lord Mel-
bourne in the bed-room; he remained there an hour or two.
This must seem very extraordinary, according to the manners
of the present day ; but the case did not rest here. One of
the servants having gone into the room while Lord Melbourne
was there, on more occasions than one found the door bolted,
and on more than one occasion had seen kisses passed between
the parties. She had seen Mrs. Norton's arm round Lord
Melbourne's neck—had seen her hand upon his knee, and her-
self kneeling in a posture (We did not catch the re-
mainder of the sentence.) In that room Mrs. Norton has
been seen lying on the floor, her clothes in a position to expose
her person.—(Great sensation.) There are other things, too,
which it is my painful duty to disclose. I allude to the marks
from the consequences of the intercourse between the two
parties. I will show you that these marks were seen upon
the linen of Mrs. Norton * * * • and I have
other facts to disclose, which leave no doubt of the guilt of
these parties. It is laid down in the admirable judgment of
Lord Stowell that there must be circumstances which would
lead the guarded discretion of a reasonable and just man to
concur in a conviction. I ask you as men of the world, with
a knowledge of the feelings of your brother men, I ask you
what must be the meaning of the visits of Lord Melbourne to
this young and beautiful woman ? What was the mean-
ing of her denying herself to others, while Melbourne
was there ? Why did she dress to receive him ? Why were the
blinds drawn down ? Why were the children removed ? And
why were strict injunctions given to prevent any parson from
coming into the room ? Why—this alone would lead to the
conclusion that these visits were not consistent with innocence.
And looking at the familiarities that passed between them—at
the kisses—the embraces, and the position in which they were
seen—could there be on the mind of any man the slightest
doubt of their guilt? It is notorious that there was a constant
interchange of letters and messages between Mr. Norton's
house and Lord Melbourne's. We have proofs that notes
were frequently carried from Mrs. Norton to Lord
Melbourne, and brought from Lord Melbourne to Mrs.
Norton. Where are all these notes ? And I am glad
of the opportunity of alluding to the correspondence which has
taken place, because it is impossible for any one not to have
heard of the idle rumour and gossip that attached to that cor-
respondence, whether the letters exist or not—whether they
are letters of a description to satisfy you, Gentlemen, of the
guilt of the parties or not— I cannot tell. Whether they are
destroyed or kept, as when Mrs. Norton left the house of her
husband in March last, when suspicions were first excited in
Mr. Norton's mind, and he made enquiries which led to this
result, Mrs. Norton's papers, letters, and every thing that be-
longed to her, remained in the house ; and I must say, in
justice to Mr. Norton, that he acted with feelings of delicacy
and honour, which, whatever may be the result as regards this
trial, does him the highest credit—he declined to look at the
letters or correspondence of his wife until he should be fully
satisfied of her guilt. Whilst the matter was undecided, and
whilst it was still in the course of investigation,
_he gave strict
orders to the servants that these letters should not be removed.
Mr. Norton left London, and went to the country to Lord
Grantley's house. Whilst he was there, the eldest brother of
Mrs. Norton came to Mr. Norton's house, and by pretending
to the servants that he bad the authority of Mr. Norton, he
obtained from the servants all the letters. I cannot tell, there-
fore, whether the letters will be produced or not. They may
be destroyed, and, judging from three notes in the hand-
writing of Lord Melbourne, which were found in the house
since, it is probable if they contained no more than these, they
may hot be destroyed. These notes were found since, they
relate only to the hours of meeting, and are of a trivial charac-
ter. They state that Lord Melbourne would be there by such an
hour, and nothing more ; but there is something in the style
of the notes that seems to me to lead to something like a sus-
picion of what was going on. The first note merely said—.
" I will call about half-past four.—Yours."
This letter has no beginning; it has no commencement. It
does not commence as letters usually do, which are written by
gentlemen to ladies. The next letter was in these words •--
" How are you ?—( A laugh.) I shall not be able to call
to-day, but I probably shall to-morrow.—Yours."
This is not the note of a mere acquaintance. The next
letter runs thus :
" There is no House to-day. I will call after the levee'
about half-past four, or, if you wish it, later. Let me know
what you intend, about going to Vauxhall.—( A laugh.)---
Yours."
These are the only notes that have been found—if there are
others I cannot produce them. It is of importance to notice
the manner in which these notes were written; there is nothing .
of the style of a mere love letter, they are most cautiously and
guardedly worded—they are not written as a mere acquain-
tance or friend would write. All the other letters of Lord
Melbourne were removed by Mrs—Norton's-brother. There
is another topic to which I must now call your attention. If
you are satisfied, as satisfied I think you must be of
the facts stated, it remains for you to consider what
d images you will give—you are aware that by the law
of this country, a husband sustaining an injury of this
sert, has no mode whatever of obtaining redress, or
of guarding against a spurious offspring being palmed upon
him, but by first bringing his case before a Jury and seeking'
for damages for the injury he has sustained. This may or may
not be a wise law, but it is the law of the country, and this is
the first step which must be taken in the case, and therefore
the amount of damages, though not as a personal compens4-
tion, must he considered in the result. In estimating th!.
subject I have a right to take into consideration the conduct of
all the parties—of the plaintiff—of the wife, and of the defend-
ant—and any other circumstances which may be brought tot
hear in any way upon the case. It will be said the.
Mr. Norton was careless of his wife—that he allowed
these visits from Lord Melbourne without disapprobation an'
remonstrance—that he was absent from home, and thstr
dies opportunities were given to Lord Melbourne. Mr. Nt7"
a
ton's absence was a compulsory absence, and at times where
husband, from the duties of his profession, is obliged to lent
o!:
his home and his wife for a great part of the day, must n.
suffer, or must blame be attached to him, because a pers!
whom he has treated as his friend takes that opportunity Wt
seduce the affections of his wife. I can never believe t,head
his absence, or those opportunities which Lord Melbourne "79
in consequence, will he brought out against the plaintiff. el:c,
a
to suspicion, I believe I can call before you every servant 'Dia
has been in the house, who have lived there during the time, a%
who will tell you that however their suspicions may have be%
excited, that Mr. Norton himself had no shadow of suspicion I.olr
inquiry was made, and he was compelled to do so. As her
Mrs. Norton, she was a kind and indulgent mistress to ...
servants, and they were unwilling, therefore, to injure, If__
They did not do so ; and Mr. Norton had no reason for . so
picion, till the time when Mrs. Norton left his house. en
inquiry was instituted, and the horrid conviction was broug_s
home to the mind of Mr. Norton, that there existed for y”_`...
this illicit intercourse. That Mr. Norton was a kind and le%
dulgent husband, he could not give a better proof tha.,:i;
reading the letters of Mrs. Norton herself—letters wrl
during a time when he was absent, and which were quitease,,e_..,
cient to lull everything like suspicion of the truth of her
of
tion and kindness and speaking of Lord Melbourne as 11 "25
other person with, whom she was acquainted. , The 1 ttsee_,
that were written are those of an affectionate wife to an ehsarnai'
husband—they are full of affection, and calculated to disarm
anything like suspicion, if any such existed.
t to thc
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL believed he might chem. en
reading of these letters, as he apprehended they were sesi."_`:ye
after the time when the crime was charged, but he would '"
that
Sir objW.ection.
FOLLETT—You need not have made it then. These
things arc done merely ad captandam.
The CIIIEF.JUSTICE—If the letters Were written after theer.e
was just cause of suspicion, they are not evidence in the ettasSnot
Sir W. FOLLETT—I was going to state that there
pwa r cud°
iit°.
the slightest pretence for objection, and I am pre
shew it. They are perfectly legal evidence, and
_"at $
and Learned Friend knows it. The letters were vvritten
t_..,
Nor 0"0
time when there was no suspicion in the mind of Mr.
were
when he was absent from his home. Some of them
written to Scotland, during the period of an occasion.
e:a11
sence. The first was dated July 12th, 1831 It I)_,Tbly
" Dearest George, pray come home as soon as ydicP°e'frere
can." [The letters went on to state that the children
as
to
a
all well, that one of them was playing with a pug.d g
incline
roast it 20 times a day. Three other letters were revz. pet lamb, that the lamb was so stupid that she was
presive of affection and dated at several periods,
_ice lcii,
1833 and 1835. In the latter she stated that Lord .31.1nrich
had lent her a book containing Dr. Lardner's letters, to
of
he proved that Mary Magdalene was
sex.—( Great laughter.) She had not read the
_hoc
letters
she was impatient to see how he proved it.] T
the most vibrotuouyseti
but
certainly showed, at least to all apearances, affelectttioern,
part of Mrs. Norton; and looking at the last
whic
the wrong, was it not a letter written by a person ,
alluded to some
.quarrel, in which she admitted herselfho tporobfee in
os sod di
nt to
her
re
conduct
affectionatecalculated
eek 0.
Of course the position of the parties in this case,
r stances,
one of the parties, and the mode in which
ltl
eerclui
wife
to? excite There
wasany thingntbi kitvehsteltsei iectiton;
damsges'
considered, it is for you, Gentlemen, under aount
of
to say what may appear to you a proper
la
artam not going to
With respect to the fact of guilt,
circumstances.
must look at the tice
Inved being
trouble you again ; you may de justice
You must look at them in order that you
wile your
world, and is .
knowledge as men of the with innocence ?
not, consistent wit
between the parties. You must look
itat
.thetren for
you
to say, are they or arc they
mentioned—looking at
Norton's house, in the way that I havle
have described them to
the events that have taken placieboads
to
Gentlemen, looking at the visits of Lord Melbourne to • Mn;
you by witnesses--ace
you, and as they will be described
you n carrying on
has bee
of time, Lord Melbourne
resist being satisfied that, for a considerablaen nait