The Sun.
London, England, 1836-06-23 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TitURSDAY, JUNE 231 13d.

angry ,because he was not invited. She knew he was not:
Mr. Norton did not say that theghildren should not go if
he did not go, to her know! rnere was to be a family
meeting It rrartipion of the Sheridan family and their
children. Down to March, Mr. and Mrs. Norton bad
lived on the usual terms of harmony. , On the 29th Of Mitreli,
•Mr Norton said the chiltittti thotild not go to Frampton,
but tlpw shthlid go to Wonersh, and he gave orders ac-
cordingly, and they were taken away. MI s. Norton was in a
state of the greatest distress at losing the children. • Wit-
ness dressed Mrs. Norton, and let her out at seven o'clock
in the morning. The children were in bed at the time.
Mr. Norton had not then decided that thew should go to
Wonersh till the evening. It had been all arranged that
the children should go to Frampton. They had gone out to
dinner the day before—they bad words. and then in the night
Mr. Norton came up and said the children were not to go
to Frampton in the morning, and that his orders were to be
obeyed. Until that time she was not aware of any dispute be-
tween them. Mrs. Norton came up immediately after Mr.
Norton, and asked what he had said? Being told, she said
his orders must be obeyed. She let her out at seven o'clock,
but was not aware then that the children were to be removed—
all she knew was that they were not to go to Frampton. She
saw her again after, but not in the house. The children
were removed that morning to Upper Berkeley street. Mrs.
Norton came up there—it was in lodgings. Mr. N. had
then said nothing about Wonersh. Mrs. N. came there
in a state of great agitation—she appeared very much hurt
indeed. She remained about an hour, but was not allowed to
see the children—Mr. N. ordered that no one should.
The children were taken home that night to Storey's-gate,
and were removed to Wonersh next day. Knew of no
other quarrel, except about going 'to Frampton. Witness
knew that Mrs. Norton was going to her sister's, Lady
Seymour, in Spring Gardens, at. seven o'clock in the morn-
ing. Mr. Norton had come home once or twice when
Lord Melbourne was in the house, and then Mr. Norton
event up to the dining-room. Lord Melbourne came in
day-light.

Re-examined by Sir W. FOLLETT—The visit to Framp-
ton had been arranged for a month or five weeks before
the quarrel. Things were all ready to go to Frampton in
the morning on which Mr. Norton gave orders against it.
Mrs. Norton asked her still to remain with her children
when she saw her in Berkeley-street.
James Benbow examined by Mr. BAYLEY—Said he lived
in the service of Mr. Norton in 1832. Continued in it
eight months as footman. Chief business was to answer
the door. Lord M. was in the habit of calling often, per-
haps four or five times a week, chiefly in the afternoon.
Mr. Norton was not generally at home. Mrs. Norton was
at home ; used to show him into the drawing-room. Stayed
generally perhaps two hours. Never knew Lord Melbourne
refused when Mrs. Norton was at home. Never knew
other visitors refused. Lord Melbourne on several occa-
sions called more than once a day ; frequently took notes
From Mrs. Norton to Lord Melbourne to the Secretary's
office and to South-street. Mr. Norton was not at home
when these notes were sent. Lord Melbourne called almost
immediately after the notes were sent. Should say on some
occasions Mrs. Norton had a note to Lord Melbourne
shortly after be had left.
Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant TA LFOURD—Lived
now with Mr. Bish. There were five servants in Mr.
Norton's employ besides witness. When Mr. N. had
been there Lord Melbourne dined there occasionally, not
frequently. They kept very little company. Very few
gentlemen came there. Had been out with the carriage to
the theatre. Upon no occasion had Lord Melbourne ac-
companied them, nor to Vauxhall. Mr. and Mrs. Norton
went out a good deal to evening parties. Received no in-
junction as to secrecy about the notes he had carried.
Mary Anne Figgis examined by Mr. CROWDER—Was
cook to Mr. Norton. Was in his service in the beginning
of 1833. Was there twelve months • returned again for
three weeks to oblige Mrs. Norton. Was in her service at
this moment. During this time Lord Melbourne visited
frequently. Opened the door to him. He came three or
four times a week ; had been in the drawing-room when he
was there ; always knocked before entering. Mrs. Norton
kept her papers in the drawing room in a small blue. trunk.
Went away at night ; when she came again heard that
something had happened between Mr. and Mrs. Norton.
The drawing-room was not locked. Did not know what
became of the box.
The witness was not cross-examined.

The papers containing Mr. Norton's appointment as a
police magistrate were now put in, and Sir William Follett
then said that the plaintiff's case was closed.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL applied to have the further
hearing of case adjourned till to-morrow. They had now
been in a crowded Court 8i hours, and he was, for his
own part, quite exhausted ; so much so that it was impos-
sible that he could do justice to his client, and he was sure
that the Jury were so exhausted, that they would be un-
able to pay that attention to the case which it required.
Sir Wm. FOLLETT said that he objected to the adjourn-
ment. The Attorney-General would state that he intended
to call witnesses, and as the Attorney-General reflised to
pledge himself to do so, the application, after some alter-
cation, vas refused.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then applied for an adjourn-
ment of a quarter of an hour, in order that he might get
some refreshment, which was granted.
At a quarter to seven the Court being resumed,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL rose to address the Jury for
the defendant. He could assure them unfeignedly that he
rejoiced in the wish intimated by them, that the trial should
close that evening. Their wish had saved him a night of
anxiety, and he knew that before they left the Court, his
client would be delivered from the unfounded charge brought
against him. They would have the satisfaction when they
laid their heads upon their pillows, to reflect that, having
heard all the evidence, and given it the most dispassionate
consideration, they would come to the calm and clear
conclusion. that it was wholly insufficient to support the
accusation. He confessed that it would have been
more according to the usual practice if his Learned
Friend Sir William Follett—instead of opposing—had
seconded his application for an adjournment. But no—.
when he found that it might be an advantage to the
defendant, he strongly opposed the delay. That, lee must
say, was an unusual opposition ; but the present was
an unusual case. He (the Attorney-General) disdained
the notion of asking for delay, on the ground that he should
call witnesses. He would tell them frankly that he would
call no witnesses. He would rest upon that which lie
should demonstrate to them—that no case had been made
out against his client—that all the material facts that had
been urged were false—and that from the facts that really
did exist, no inference whatever unfavourable to his client
could be drawn. He asserted his innocence, and that there
was no proof whatever in which a Jury could satisfactorily
come to a conclusion of his guilt. His Learned Friend had
truly said that this was a criminal prosecution. It was a
prosecution for a high crime, and he should evert maintain
that the violation of Use marriage vow was one of the great-
est crimes, and in proportion as the accusation was deep and
grievous, the proof ought to be clear and convincing. There
was every presumption in his client's favour in the present
instance. 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 person except these 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 en-
titled. 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 charac-
ter of the accuser. In the present case they ought to have
evidence, clear, convincing, unequivocal—leaving no rea-
sonable doubt on their minds. They must believe that the
adulterous act was really committed and completed, for no-
thing short of it would entitle the plaintiff to a verdict.
The most alarming consequences would result from as op-
posite state of things, and if the nuptial tic could be dis-
solved without absolute proof of adultery, the evidence
must be the same as in a criminal indictment, and the de-
fendant was entitled to the same presumptions and privi-
leges, the same evidence must be given, as was required
for dissolving the marriage altogether, in prosecuting a
sentence of divorce, in which case even the confession of
the parties was considered insufficient. The • learned
authority to which Sir William Follett had referred had
said emphatically that it mud be seen not only that she
had surrendered her mind but her person, otherwise
it would be wholly insufficient. He should be
able to show them that there was nothing but an anti-
macy of friendship and innocence—nothingbut what was
known to and sanctioned by Mr. 'Norton. He acquitted
Mr. Norton from having any idea that there was anything
improper between the parties, or that it would disgrace him
if a verdict was found against him, by the suspicion that
he connived at his own dishonour. This was the most ex-
traordinary case that ever was brought into a Court of Jus-
tice. These parties were married in 1827, and lived hap-
pily together till the 29th of March, 1836—no alienation of
the affections or seduction of the mind of the wife ; and, in
his experience, he had always found that this was the in-
evitable consequence of a breach of the conjugal vow—
that a woman who forgot the duties of a wife, forgot those
of a mother. On the contrary, Mrs. Norton, down to that
period, was fondly attached to her children ; and, as the
witness had stated, when she found she was deprived of
her children, she was almost deprived of bar reason, and
was in a state bordering on distraction. In the history of
such cases the parties had generally lived happily until the
paramour had been introduced, and then the affections of
the wife had been gradually weaned from her husband and
children, and she forgot all her domestic duties, which ended

id a digcdVei'• dl 'llcl inflcleli y arid Sepafalioli. Was tlibfe
any single circumstance in the present case like that picture?
No, all was uninterrupted harmony according to the evi-
dence, except that of the infamous witness, Ninette Elliot,
which was contrar!! to We Mule tenof 6kii; as
well as the opening of his Learned friend. There was no
suspicion of any impropriety by Mr. Norton in Lord Mel-
bourne's visits ; on the contrary, he approved of them.
That was another feature of suspicion, and shewed them
that the present was ualike every other case. It shewed
that Mr. Norton was under some delusion, that his mind
was poisoned, and that be had been made the tool of others,
he would not say from personal but from political motives,
by which the present action was commenced and supported.
He cared not for the political sentiments of those he ad-
dressed—he would as soon have twelve political opponents
as twelve supporters of his Noble client, as he was sure
they would do justice to both parties. There was left on the
Jury the leader of the political party opposed to his client,
but he would have as soon seen Sir Robert Peel in that
box as any other gentleman ; and neither Lord Melbourne
nor those who advised him, ever thought of objecting to that
gentleman. He felt he was addressing twelve honest, in-
dependent men, and he cared not what their political
bias might be, as he was satisfied they would only look
to the evidence, and give a verdict according to it. An-
other remarkable feature in the present case was, that up
to that day the defendant's advisers had not the most dis-
tant conception of who the witnesses were with the excep-
tion of two, and one (Mansell) who had not been called.
In the Ecclesiastical Court, time, and place, and circum-
stance, must be proved, but hero there was nothing defini-
tive ; 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, during which time the parties conti-
nded to live in harMony. During that time Lord Mel-
bourne's visits continued, and he remained on the same
friendly footing with the family. Nothing was given in
evidence relative to 1834, 1835, or 1636—a circumstance
wholly unexampled in the annals of such cases. Unless,
therefore, a jury was watchful, vigilant, discriminating, and
just, as he felt they would be, it was utterly impossible
that the innocence of the party could be vindicated. Un-
der such circumstances it was impossible that a party
could defend himself, except by
,showino.e' the nature of
the charge, and the character of those by whom it was
made. By whom were the charges made in the present
instance ? By discarded servants—a race, the most dan-
gerous in all cases, but particularly in cases of this sort,
wholly unworthy of belief. These servants generally re-
mained in the family for some time, and yet suspected
nothing while they lived in it. They might remember the
evidence of Cummins, who, during the two years and
three months she remained there, suspected nothing im-
proper. . In the name of God, who made her suspect any-
thing ? Who put harm into her head ? When servants for
years suspect nothing, and then come and make such state-
ments, what credit could possibly be attached to their testi-
mony ? His Learned Friend had quoted a law book, and
he would quote another relative to cases like the pre-
sent :—" In a discovery made by a servant, it was impor-
tant to show that it was promptly communicated to the
party injured. If it is not made till after a quarrel or dis-
missal from the service, or after a long interval, the evi-
dence labours under great suspicion." In this case the
supposed discovery was made after dismisal, after a quarrel,
and after a long interval. Here all the alternatives of the
learned writer were put in conjunction. In the instance of
the witness Fluke, he had left the service in 1834, in conse-
quence of a quarrel with Mrs. Norton, which he had so
graphically described, and it was not until 1836 that he had
made the supposed discovery. He would ask the Jury whe-
ther, according to the rule fluid down, they should not look
at his evidence with the greatest -suspicion. One of the
greatest writers, statesmen, and philosophers that had ever
adorned a country-L(Edmund Burke)—in talking of do-
mestic servants, had said that they sowed the seeds of dis-
cord, and surrounded the bed and table with snares—that
no man's life was safe or comfortable—and that they were
nothing but instruments of terror and alarm. What family,
he would ask, could be safe, if at the distance of years, dis-
cardej servants could come forward and make such state-
ments, concealed for so long a period, and which they them-
selves admit excited no suspicion while the circum-
stances were recent, and while they were there to
make these 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 reflect-
ing very little credit on those resorting to it. No case
had ever been conducted as the present had been. It
had been asserted that every servant in the service of Mr.
Nprton would be produced : but Mrs. Gulliver, whose tes-
timony was most material, had been withheld. If truth
only was the object of the other party, why had they not
been produced? And why had not Fitness been called,
who was at that moment living at Sprefs-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. His
Learned Friend (Sir William Follett) had not dared to
touch upon that point, but he (the Attorney-General)
knowinr, the innocence of the parties, had asked the ques-
tion, and the Jury had heard the explanation. If that had
not been done, it might have been surmised that a separa-
tion arose from some discovery respecting Lord Melbourne,
although he had as little to do with it as any of the
Jury. The Learned Gentleman then detailed the cir-
cumstances which led to the separation as detailed in
the evidence of the witness, Mrs. Morris. The story
about the letters having been carried off was equally
unfounded ; and he regretted that his Learned Friend had
been led into statements which he could not afterwards
support. If the witness Fitness had been called, it would
have proved to the Jury that these letters about which so
much had been said, were lying scattered about the room,
under the eye of Mr. Norton, and every other member of
the family. What had Mr. William Norton said, the first
witness his Learned Friend had called? He had said he
almost always went in by Prince's-court. Lord Melbourne
had always entered by the street door, knocking, letting
every one who was in the court see him there, and yet it
was supposed he had gone there for the purpose of disho-
nouring Mr. Norton ! He (the Attorney-General) had
ventured to ask Mr. W. Fletcher Norton, whether he had
any improper purpose in going in at the door he did ?
That gentleman was very much shocked at the question—
he had no intention of dishonouring his relative ; but yet
he had always entered by Prince's-court, and not by Bird
Cage-walk. But if Lord Melbourne had gone in by Bird
Cage-walk, how would the tables have been turned upon
him ? It would then have been said that he had not dared
to go in at the front door, but that he had clandestinely
gone round to the back, in order that he might avoid de-
tection. He (the Attorney-General) could not fail to ob-
serve, that the failure of that attempt on the part of his
Learned Friend to bolster up such evidence, had had a
considerable influence upon th 6 minds of the Jury as it
had had upon all present ; and after the failure it had
experienced in the person of William Fletcher Nor-
ton, not another witness had they ventured to ex-
amine about the door in Princes'-court, and the door
in Bird Cage-walk. That was a part of the
.case upon
which the Jury would recollect his Learned Friend, in
his opening, mainly relied, which he himself was afterwards
obliged to abandon ; and that was only a little specimen of
the manner in which the case had been attempted to be
trumped up. He would say that it was the duty of the
plaintiff to have given evidence of the manner in which the
letters that had been put in evidence were framed, on which
he would make an observation hereafter ; 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 tiro
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 by some
insinuating rogue who had devised the slander. It was
quite clear that it was not the spontaneous suspicion of the
mind of Mr. Norton—he had been played upon—the sepa-
ration having been brought about by a quarrel respecting
the visit to Frampton. Mrs. Norton had left the house in
search of her two children in a state of distraction.
Then some one must have laid hold of Mr. Norton, and,
for indirect purposes, had induced him to bring forward
the accusation of which he never dreamt, until evi-
dently for a considerable time after that separation had
taken place. He would now draw their attention to the
evidence that had been adduced, and be would venture to
lay down this as a general rule, that might be applied to all
the. witnesses that had been examined—either they were
wholly unworthy of belief, or they spoke of facts that were
wholly irrelevant. He did not mean to say that there had
not been examined some respectable witnesses ; he would
discriminate between them ; he would not attack the cha-
racter of any witness that he believed to be honest and
respectable, but he should be able to shew that the evidence
of those who deserved the testimony of respectability arid
credit could afford no foundation on which the charge
could be founded. They first had Mr. Fletcher Norton,
and he would couple with him Mr. Derby, a gentleman at
the Bar of high respectability. They had given this most

(A.icitioCe; lie 16tild. V,etittire to say, was
wholly unexampled in thd annais itii•if,ideliee Of
this or of any other country upon such a stuee. 't!4;',±
said Mr. and Mrs. Norton lived happily together. Was it
th4t if the, mind of Mrs. Norton had been alienated
—if her affee,tion hat! ceased lc j )(0' hlo),nl(l—if
she had become an adulteress; and had continued in a 1;;:;r'.
course of the utmost depravity—was it in human nature
that she should have continued to have lived affectionately
and harmoniously with her husband ? One of the Jury
had put the question to the witness, " Did they sleep
together ?" They did, and generally speaking they had
cohabited together as man and wife. He would therefore
appeal to the Jury as men of the world, and as men of
experience, whether it was possible if an adulterous inter-
course had begun in the year 1831, Mr. Norton not con-
niving at it, which his Learned Friend spurned at, and
which he disclaimed, that, she should have lived at bed and
board with her husband, that they should have c-intinued
to have loved each other, that there should have been no
diminution of affection, no discord, no quarrelling, and that
that state of things should have continued from the year
1827 down to 1836 ? Why, they all knew that after a
woman had surrendered her person to her paramour, she
would look upon her husband with loathing—that she would
consider him as an incumbrance—that she would enter his
bed with abhorrence, and that it would be impo..:sible for
her to meet him without exhibiting to him her loathing, and
convincing him of her guilt. But Mr. Derby had told them
that there was no change whatever in the manner in
which they had behaved to each other ; that they were
as happy, as affectionate, as regardful of each other, and
as fond of their children the last time he was in their
company, as they were when the intercourse between
them and the witness had begun. He declared to God
that-he would with the utmost solemnity say that that
seemed to him to be of itself conclusive proof of the inno-
cence of the parties. He could not refrain from making
an observation upon the letters that had been introduced.
Were they the letters of a guilty woman ? He would then
retort upon his Learned Friend, Sir William Follett, who
was a most eminent lawyer, that he must have known that
if he (the Attorney-General) had thought fit to object
to the introduction of those letters, they were clearly inad-
missible ; and his Lordship had said, that if they were written
after a suspicion of adulterous intercourse bad existed, they
were inadmissible ; and so every one of the fifteen Judges
would have decided. His Learned Friend carried back the
adulterous intercourse to the year 1831, anterior to the
time when the first of those letters was written. Did the
Jury believe that a guilty woman would have written in
that playful, affectionate, and touching style, respecting her
husband and her children, and those letters written down to
the year 1836. a short time before Mr. Norton, in an evil
hour, parted with what he (the Attorney-General). believed
was an affectionate and virtuous wife, whatever eccentrici-
ties might be chargeable to her. The last of the letters was
written in 1836, and again he would ask them was it possi-
ble that she should talk in that playful, that simple, and
that affectionate manner respecting her husband and her
children, and for four or five years before that time she had
been carrying on an adulterous intercourse with her para-
mour ? But what astonished him most was this ; why was
this evidence respecting the manner in which they had
lived together confined to one distant relation of the Nor-
ton family, a gentlemon at the Bar, who only saw them oc-
casionally at his house, or their house—he meant Mr. Derby.
Why had not Lord Grantley been called ? He had been
sitting on the bench the greater part of the day. As a matter
of taste in that, he (the Attorney-General) had nothing to
do with, but it was an important circumstance. There he
was, the brother of the plaintiff, the Master of Wonersh,
the person to whose seat went the Flukes, and went Mrs.
Cummins.—(Laughter.) He should like to have heard
something of the diversions of Wonersh, the conversations
of my Lord Grantley and the witnesses.—(Continued
laughter.) There must have been some conversations ;
but no, Lord Grantley was not called. He was the natu-
ral witness to have been called—he was the bead of the
family. They might then have seen who first recom-
mended an action—what advice was taken—who per-
suaded the unhappy George Norton to become a plaintiff
in Westminster Hall—(lughterj—and for what purpose
the action was brought. But Lord Grantley was not
called ; and though he was then in Court, Lord Grantley
remained mute upon the Bench, and was there only oat of
curiosity, or to grace the cause. There were other rela-
tons who might have been material as witnesses in the box,
but none had been called. Why had Miss Norton not
been called? She had been 4 months in the family in 1832.
There were two other branches of the illustrious House of
Norton, and none of them had been called except Mr.
William Fletcher Norton, who was a very distant relation,
and who called, he supposed, merely because he happened
to be the name of Norton. Then it was said, Miss Norton
was abroad—but Lord Grantley was not abroad—Lord
Grantley was sitting on the bench, he might have been
called, but he remained neuter. He (the Attorney-Gene-
ral) complained of this. A case of that sort was to
be made out by the party who made the charge,
and if he did not venture to put in the witness-box
those who ought to be called, then he gave evidence
against himself, and acknowledged the charge was un-
founded. Would it not have been a fair thing for his
Learned Friend to have called Lady Graham, the aunt of
Mrs. Norton, and Lady Seymour and Mrs. Blackwood, to
have stated to us the affectionate terms upon which Mr.
and Mrs. Norton lived together—to have stated the high
' opinion they entertained of her chastity and purity, when
it would have been proved that they had never up to that
time disassociated themselves from her society. Was it
likely, that in a drawing-room, open at all times to visitors
and to servants, parties in such a situation in life should
commit, not one, but repeated acts of adultery ? It was
monstrous—it was incredible. If the other side wished to
have a fair judgment on all the facts, why was not Miss
Armstrong called, a witness on whom the most implicit re-
liance might be placed ? The Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman then proceeded to comment on the inconsistency
and contradiction in the evidence of the witness Milkman,
in stating at one time that he had never entered the room
of Mrs. Norton when Lord Melbourne was there ; and
afterwards his alleging his finding Lord Melbourne, on two
occasions, sitting on the sofa with Mrs. Norton ; and, on
one occasion, with his hand resting on her shoulder. The
Learned Gentleman then went into a most searching and
minute examination of the testimony of the other wit-
nesses, which we have already given at great length.
His speech seemed to produce an extraordinary effect
on the Jury and on the audience. He complained
of the rumours that had been not only most in-
dustriously but most wickedly circulated with respect
to letters of Lord Melbourne which were alleged to
have been discovered. Did the three letters pro-
duced—selected no doubt from a variety as the worst that
could be found—did they reflect upon the character of Lord
Melbourne, either as a man or a Minister ? He then re-
ferred to the letters of Mrs. Norton, and contended that
they were the letters of innocence, of affection, and of a vir-
tuous woman. He asked if those letters could have been
written by an habitual adultress ? -He alluded to the
family of Mrs. Norton, which for five generations had been
distinguished for extraordinary talent and genius—no
member of which had ever felt the taint of dishonour.
Yes, this was the first attempt to throw infamy on any
member of the family of Sheridan. The Hon. and
Learnec4' Gentleman then went on as_ follows :—Before
I conchide, I must remark that it is quite clear that Mr.
Dorton has been made a tool of. Suspicions have been in-
fused into his mind without any reason whatever—he has been
abused for political purposes, which any respectable member
of the party opposed to Lord Melbourne would abhor and
spurn at. This is not their warfare—this is not the way in
which a .public man or party is attacked. So would have
said Sir Robert Peel, and so I think lie would say if he
were associated with you in the jury box, and so would say
any Hon. Member of the party honourably opposed in po-
litics to Lord Melbourne. 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 conclude 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 Mr. Norton 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 de-
claration of Lord Melbourne. You must look to the evi-
dence. I wish you to do so—but, looking at the
evidence, I say that it is utterly impossible to find a
verdict for the plaintiff. They have not attempted to prove
that anything has taken place within the last three years
—they have not called the witnesses who could prove
what had taken place. They had.gone back to the years
1831, 1832, and 1833, and they call for such purposes to
afford some colour for an inference of guilt, such witnesses
as Fluke, who is shown to be a drunkard and a swindler,
and Cummins, who acknowledges that she prefers to live as
a mistress rather than a wife, and who declares that in all
the time she lived with Mrs. Norton there was no ground
for suspicion, and she thought no wrong. Under these cir-
cumstances, how am I to call witnesses ? It is impossible.
I cannot call Lord Melbourne or Mrs. Norton—one is the
defendant, and the other the wife of the plaintiff. I can-
not call Curtis or Sly, because Fluke has taken care to
render it quite impossible. It is utterly impossible that di-
rect evidence can be 'brought forward, and this being the
case I willingly and unhesitatingly trust to the discrimina-
tion, the justice, and 'the impartiality of an English Jury.
[The Learned Gentleman sat down amidst some cheering,
which, however, was quickly repressed.]
The Attorney-General commenced his speech at a few
minutes before seven, and concluded at a quarter past ten
o'clock. •

IMR1) CHIEF Jusrrct: then commenced summing
up the case fti This was an action brought by
file Heal. Q. C. .I\oftt-JII Og;:iis,st the Right Hon. Lord VI,-
count nettokii-ria; to recover aompensation in damages for
the seduction of (110. plaintiff's) %dr.!. Now,
at the evidence in the case, ilitHY was no proof of the actual
la,,rttrai..;,,a of the act of adultery itself, but they would have
in looking
to say, deCalikiii their calm and deliberate judgment of
the facts, whether or nal tlicl Colt themselves warranted in
coming to the conclusion that lite iigt9al fact of adalfcrY
had taken place. That there had been giTat familiarity,
and the closest intimacy, was most undoubtedly prove
but that was not sufficient ; the action was not brooght fat,
the familiarity, but for the actual fact of adultery, and tiley
were to Pay upon the oaths they had taken if they were
satisfied that from a just and necessary conclusion from the
facts, the act of adultery had been committed. It appeared
that the marriage had taken place in the month of J
ther
uly,
1827, and that the parties had lived happily toge
until the present year, and it did not appear that the act
of' sepafation that had taken place was occasioned by
any immediate stisnieion the plaintiff had entertained of
the honour of his wife, but from some other cause, since
which inquiries had been made, which had led to the pre-
' sent investigatim. It appeared also that the earliest com-
munication that had taken place was in tl:9 spring of the
year 1831, and that there had continued certaii:!.v Condt..
derable degree of intimacy till the present year. CCrtni"
circumstances had been brought in review before them, upod
which they would have to .form their deliberate judgment,
none of which came down to a later period than the month
of November, 1833, and the circumstance related as having
taken place at that tune was the strongest that had that
brought forward. He had already stated to them
they must not be satisfied with suspicion in a matter of
this sort, but they must—upon a fair consideration of the
facts, accompanied with the reasoning which, as men of
sense and discrimination—in the ordinary course of life they
would resort to, endeavour to ascertain the. real truth and
bearing of the case. They would apply to the evidence that
same degree of guarded and temperate discrimination that
they would to the ordinary transactions of life. if it was 5f
weak as not to satisfy them that the act was committed,
they would find a verdict for the defendant ; but if they
considered it was so strong that they must infer that the act
of adultery had been committed, then they must find their
verdict accordingly. Witnesses were called first to state
what was the conduct of the husband and wife during the
time they had lived together, because according to that
conduct depended the damages to be given in a case of this
sort ; but it was hardly necessary those witnesses should
have been called, because they had had letters produced from
her to her husband down to the present year, showing a strong
affection for her husband, and a great attachment for her chil-
dren. It was impossible to read them without seeing that the
expressions fell from the heart as well as the pen of the
writer ; therefore it seemed that down to the period
shortly before the separation had taken place, the hus-
band and wife evinced a mutual regard and affection for
each other, and that she had a great attachment for her
children which had been born since her marriage. Tun
rest of the evidence was such as went to trace out the
intimacy that subsisted, and upon which they were to exercise
their judgment, to see whether or not it could have been
an innocent familiarity. The first witness called was a
person who was not one of the family itself, but was one
of the relations, he believed a sister of the present plain-
tiff, who was paying a visit at the house of Mr. Norton in
1832, and she was called upon to say what circumstances
she observed for some months in that year, but she did not
throw more light upon the case than to show the general
course of dealing that subsisted—that the defendant was
permitted to come into the room at any time he pleased
all the witnesses indeed agreed in this, that during
many days in each week he was paying visits to her, some-
times for one hour, and sometimes longer, and that Mr,
Norton went every day to his office and did not return
home till six o'clock The learned Chief Justice then com-
menced reading minutely the evidence of the different wits'
nesses, and on coming to that part of the evidence of Cut**
mins where the witness spoke to seeing Mrs. Norton and
the defendant sitting holding the hand of the other, his
Lordship said whether it was a guilty indication must be
left to their own good sense. As to the evidence of Eliza
Gibson, if Lord Melbourne was not there when the door
was locked, it was of no consequence whether the door was
locked or not locked, but it was a singular thing that whets
others went to the door and Lord Melbourne was there, it
was unlocked. It would, at all events, have been a greater
safeguard to have locked it, than have trusted to the
Lob de•
dience of servants to the order not to come in when or
Melbourne was there. With regard to Mrs. Norton writing
notes to the defendant, many of the witnesses had spoken
to the fact of taking them and bringing answers. They
were to consider that there was a great degree of intimacy
between these parties, and it must be left for them (the
jury) to say, whether the circumstance of employing set,er
vents indiscriminately to carry these notes, afforded a
suspicion of guilt or innocence. As to the visits in South-
street, which were spoken to by Bulleman, they were done
very openly, for they were paid in the company of a per-
son who was a friend of her's, who was without
the slightest suspicion, and it was evident that that lady
had not thought there was any thing improper in them.
The circumstance of this lady not beinc, called was not to
be wondered at, because it was extremely unpleasant for a
lady to be put in the witness-box, and more particularly in
a case of this kind. They then came to the witness Fluke,
upon whose evidence they must exercise their discrimina"
tion, because if they believed what he said his evidence
was of great importance ; but from the mode in which he
had given his evidence, and the account which he had given,
they would say whether he was the witness of u-
truth, be'
cause if he was, it was clear that it might lead to a concl
sion that the act was committed. They must determine
whether they believed the witness or not. None of the.
other witnesses spoke to any act approaching to an act ot
adultery, but spoke to circumstances from which they were
to infer it ; but this witness had spoken of facts from whin
they were to say whether the act was committed or not
he spoke to facts which would render it less difficult to
come to a conclusion ; but then came the question whether
they implicitly believed the statement he had made ; thcY
had had the benefit of seeing him, and would form the.ir
own judgment. The witness had described the way in
which Mrs. Norton was lying on the rug. That was, -
a
situation of high indelicacy at least ; whether it was ue-
fore or after the supposed act of adultery was left nen-
tirely to conjecture. The counsel had made their co.
tnents upon it, and he had nothing more to offer than by
bin!"
calling their attention to the man's own account of
self, from which they might judge of the value of his testi;
mony. He certainly had given an account of himself:
10),
favourable to his dealings as an honest man. When t-,
were looking at the witness to weigh him, it was not in
material to see whether he was a moral and honest man
other points, though that did not come precisely !elan°
to
question whether he was committing perjury or not• n,_
asked questions as to circumstances of a late period, 'PI
did not answer very clearly- When asked whys/ter be bre
not expressed that he had formed certain-,expectations,
hd
had given answers that would induce surprise that he
not recollect. He said lie bad no knowledge, though lut
t
would not btiF; himself to say he did not say it: The-ne
witness examined was Anne Cummins, the result of.
av'te
testimony was that Lord Melbourne liall-paid-44.3. nY'4t)teher
Mrs. Norton, but that no suspreionlaitd been raised in
mind of any guilt between them. The marks on the line
which she had spoken could not have arisen, she thoucrt_
from any effeminate weakness, as Mrs. Norton was a_vec!
strong lady ; and yet she did not suppose them to have
the result of criminal intercourse, because no susnl
of any such thing had been excited in her mind. l7oP:_n
the whole of this case the Jury should exercise theirfrin.nu_
judgment. No general rule could be laid down or o
and temperate discretion directed to the en!
inferences from particular facts. Their otvv.rne
cgaosoed s sense
o uld
lead them to a decision. They
an ambiguous nature, that were en
usutannoyt
capable e l yupo no
ffaicnttse or
the y must !oak to the dif
pretation one way as the other ; d et ermining whether t
ferent points of the evidence, .
first i-
they thought so the basis Coybe.n
the act of
was credible or not, an tiP then maki ndgg
meet
ptohret.yio nshould
i tasr,
themselves whether the,
adultery had been committed lbele'tawn fecerniro Lordm thatti‘iel
b ourn and
the wife of the plaintiff? If, looking
that
various witnesses, they should come to tint conclusion. it
they might safely infer that such act had been Ornri',.,tt Tie
would be their duty to give a verdict for the plainLtr
lb the testimony of the
should say nothing whatever on the subject of dami,e.s_
which was exclusively for their own consideration, lookingn
of the world and good sense: If on the other hand,
at all the circumstances of the case,
discernment and caution which he had before calledseh
attention to, they should not be satisfied that the ea
vets
the
the part of the plaintiff had been proved,
in the, °itemise of
tt.tt_
they would give a verdict for the defendant.,eapa
was leaving the case in very safe hands when
it it theirs. He should not give even the shad r
an opinion of his own upon it ; for he should beos.o)err,yir;
throw that weight, if so it could- be said I
the scale in favour of either party. Besides,
conferred 013-
would be taking from them what the law haf
deciding upon
on them exclusively—namely, the power o
in their handgs
the subject. He, therefore, left it completelyhis doing se
confident that they would decide justly.
It is my dutY
and said---" My Lord, we are agree
h defendant."
diet for t e
The foreman of the jury instantly ad.dressed the Court,to
say that we have agreed to a vcr
d to have been
the Court exclaimed " Bravo," which seemed
several per-
of decorum, s
At this announcement some one at the extreme end of
the signal for an increased breach Inch was
tof the Court. ,
followed by hisses from a different
sons having thereupon commenced cheering-, w
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE rosepafrrom the bench, o°-
served that this was most disgraceful conduct, and called

3

I

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

PAUPERS.
Mr. MACLEAN wished to know of the Noble Lord, in re-
ference to a correspondence which had taken place between
the gurdians of a certain union (we could not hear the name)
and the Poor Law Commissioners, respecting the permission
required by paupers to go to the parish church on Sundays,
whether the Commissioners had the power by the Act to pre-
vent those persons whom poverty had driven to take refuge in
the workhouse from attending divine worship in the parish
church?
Lord J. RUSSELL had not seen the, correspondence al-
luded to by the Hon. Member, nor did he recollect the exact
terms of the Act on that point. He should make inquiry, how-
ever on the subject.
Mr. MACLEAN gave notice that he would, therefore, re-
new the inquiry on another occasion.
'The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER trusted
that the House would allow the resolution which he had to
submit to a committee of ways and means on the subject of
the alteration in the sugar duties, to take precedence of the
either Orders which stood on the paper for that night. He was
aware that it was by no means usual for the Government to
ask Wednesday from the House; het the late season of the
year, and, more than all, the public convenience, required
an early discussion of the subject he had to introduce to it,
The Right !lon. Gentleman then moved that the House re-
solve itself into a Committee of Wnys and Moans.
After a few words from Mr. French, Mr. Goulburn, and the
Chan seller of the Exchequer,
Sir R. PEEL wished to know whether en that slay, the
22d of June, the time had not arrived et which it was neces-
sary to settle what Bills could be carried through, and what
Bills would not he brought on this session of Parliament, with
a view of excluding the latter from the Order-book of the
House. He eould take one case in point—the Stamp Duties
Bill, for Instance. He did not, of course, mean to say that
it would not pass; but he thought it very improbable that all
the subjects which it purported to embrace meld be thoroughly
dealt with this session. Now, what ht should suggest was,
that the Right Hon. Gentleman would take one or two
branches of the subject, and Pe'Stpone the rest until the tlekt
session.
The CHANCFJs;LOR of the. KiThEQUER entirely
acquiesced in the goner tam- and spirit of the Right Hon.
Baronet's observations. As far as he was concerned he should
readily exclude from the paper all Bills which were not
likely to ts-sss this session of Parliament. Ile did not, how-
ever,v, agree with the Right Hon. Baronet that the Stamp
un'.'ies Bill was one of them. He had been in daily confers
knee with the parties respecting the disputed points in it,
and he had the satisfaction to state that they were now re-
duced to such a small number, and were, moreover, of such
little importance in themselves, that he had strong reasons to
hope and believe in the possibility of the consolidation he
aimed at being effected this session. He should, however, in
other respects most willingly act upon the hint of the Right
Hon. Gentleman, and readily exclude from the Order-Book
any Bill_ in his charge not likely to pass in the present session
of P•srliament.
-sir. CA YLE Y was one of those who had charge of a Bill,
and 110, therefore, thought that Wednesday should not to
ttsked for by the Government.
Mr. \VAKLEY also had charge of a Bill; and as the pro-
Position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was likely to
create discussion, he did not think he would be in discharge of
his duty to his constituents, if he gave way.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
the sugar duties were annual duties, and expired on the 25th.
Hon. Gentlemen would, therefore, perceive that an immediate
discussion on them was of the greatest importance.
Mr. HAWES did not rise for the purpose of opposing any
'obstacles to the progress of the public business, but to express
his sense of the hardship of being obliged to give way to the
Government. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the
Government intended to press forward public business on the
Wednesdays, to the exclusion of that in charge of Hon. Mem-
bers unconnected with the Government, he hoped, at least,
that they would say so at once and without. 11..Titation.

- •
upon the police to bring before him any person, whom
could perceive guilty of this contempt of the CiOaft.
Silence was immediately observed in the Court, but a
similar expression of feeling tool; place on the result being
made known to those who were assembled outside.
The trial terminated at 20 minutes before 12 o'clock'

110 USE OF COM111'„;;Nrs JUNE 22.
The SPEAKER took thrz;hairshortly before 4 o'clock.
'fir. S~IAI lAN Mr. Crafcr resented papers from the Treasury.
CRAWVORD presented a petition
Certain boat-owners near Dublin, Against the Dublin and
Drogheda Railway I3ill.
On the motion of Me. Mark Phillips, Recs' and Price's
Naturalization Bills were read a first, and ordered to be r,• ad
second time th-morro,v.
MIi'iTtOPOLITAN SUSPENSION BRIDGE.
Mr. HUME presented a petition from the inhabitants of
St. John, Westminster, in favour of the Metropolitan Suspen-
sion Bridge Bill.
Mr. TOOKE presented a petition against the 8.11 from the
inhabitants of Milbank. The Hon. Member then rose to move
that the further consideration of the Report on the Bill should
•be proceeded with that day six months. He did so on the
ground that the Standing Orders had not been complied with,
with respeOt to Road Bills, which he contended the present
4111 W 14.3, and not a Bridge Bill.
4.1. r. SHEPHERD supported the motion.
Mr. TENNYSON D'E YNCOURT supported the
further consideration of the report, as there were no compul-
sory clauses in the Bill.
Mr. TOOKE submitted that there were compulsory clauses
in the Bill.
Mr. HAWES thought the Bill was a most irregular one,
and ought to be re-committed.
Mr, HUME said it was true there were great irregu-
larities in the Bill, but those irregularities had been occa-
aioned by the Honourable Member himself, for the Committee
had unanimously agreed that the preamble of the Bill had
Imett proved. The only objection to the Bill proceeded from
the Vauxhall-bridge Company.
Captlthi PECHELL was sure that no Bill had come under
faiitt circumstances for the consideration of the House than
the present Bill did.
Mr. WARBURTON supported the Bill.
Mr. Alderman WOOD also supported the Bill.
Strangers were ordered to withdraw, and the House di-
vided; when the numbers were—
For the original motion lO9
For the amendment 3O
Majority for the original motion, for the --
further consideration of the Report 79
BRIBING VOTERS.
Mr. 'GULLY begged to call the attention of the House
to a subject that had occurred some time since, with respect to
the challenge thrown out by the Hon. Member for Dublin to the
Hon. and Learned Member for Bradford. He accused the Hon.
Member of having paid 201. for a vote ; and stated, at that time,
that he was very much mistaken if he could not prove it. He
(Mr. Gully) was in the House at the time, and heard the pre-
sent Member for Kilkenny make the assertion.
The SPEAKER inquired whether the Hon. Member in-
tended to conclude with a motion ?
Mr. GULLY said his object was to lay a complaint before
the House. The Hon. Gentleman then proceeded to read
ik letter which he had received from one of his Consti-
tuents, and one from Mr. Hardy, in which the Honourable
Member admitted that the election for Pontefract cost him
5,0004, and that he had paid the head-money, although
against his conscience, and that there were persons of this
class who took the head-money, and who should be ashamed
of themselves for so doing; and yet when Mr. O'Connell
stated that the Hon. Member had bribed upon that occasion,
the Hon. Member for Bradford characterised the assertion as
false and calumnious.
The SPEAKER again put it to the Hon. Member whe-
ther he intended to put any specific motion ? -
Mr. GULLY then moved that the letterof Mr. Hardy be
taken into consideration by the House.
Dr. BALD WIN seconded the motion.
Mr. HARDY defended his conduct, and said he had ex-
plained all the transactions connected with this affair during
the discussion on the Carlow election, brought forward by the
Hon. Member for Greenwich. He denied the charge then,
and stated that it was false and calumnious, and he stated so
still. The expenses on that occasion were very heavy,
there being a petition against him, and having a great
many witnesses to examine, but he altogether denied that he
had been guilty of bribery ; and he courted investigation,
either in a court of justice or before a Committee of that
House.---( Hear, hear.)
Lord JOHN RUSSELL put it to the House to say
whether this discussion should be allowed to go on ?
Mr. HUME said there was a substantive question before
the House, which could not be got rid of in the way suggested
by the Noble Lord. The letter was signed " John Hardy,"
and purported to be the signature of the Honourable Mem-
ber for Bradford.—( Hear, hear, hear.) That letter stated
that the Hon. Member felt himself bound in honor to pay
the electors of Pontefract who voted for him, what was called
head-money. Now what was this but bribery?—( Hear.) He
should now move that that letter be printed.
Mr. GULLY said in reply, had he been guilty of bribery
he would consider himself unworthy of a seat in that House.
Mr. ROBINSON thought it would be beneath the dignity
of that House to print the letter.
, Mr. SHEIL said it was quite clear that 5,0001. had been
expended on the election.
Mr. HARDY would now put two questions—What was
head-money, and what was the amount of it ?—( Hear.)
Mr. SHE IL—Will it be said, head-money is not bribery?
The Hon. Gentleman has been accusing others, and has pro-
mised to legislate on the subject of bribery. Will he put in a
clause to explain what head-money is ? The Hon. Member
was prompt in attacking, but very slow in defence.
The House then divided—
For printing the letter
Against it
Majority against
LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
The Sheriffs of London presented a petition from the Cor-
poration of London, praying the House not to accede to the
Lords' amendments to the Irish Municipal Bill.
HEAD MONEY.
Mr. HUME gave notice of a motion for Wednesday
next, that any Honourable Member of that House giving
his assent to the payment of " Head-money," was to a
deemed guilty of a gross breach of the privileges of the
Commons of England.—( Cheers. )
In reply to a question of Sir J. GRAHAM,
Lord J. RUSSELL, who was very imperfectly heard, was
understood to say that the Registration of Voters Bill would
be brought forward on Friday next, and the clauses would in
the meantime be printed.

'TREVOR wished that the Durham Court of Pleas
Bill should be permitted to pass through Committee proforma
for the purpose of being altered. If his proposition were ac-
ceded to he should oppose no obstaHe itt thti way 8f the Rissiii
Hon. Gentler:tat-I'S nefstidiit
11AWEd notice thatthe t time •
next any atten.pt
Was made by the Government to appropriate Wednesday to
themselves he should take the sense of the House on it.
Mr. TIIORNELE Y presented a petitioa on the subject of
the sugar duties.
Mr. AGL lONBY had charge of a Bill which brooked
no delay, especially as the Assizes were close at hand. Ho
meant the Murderers' Execution Bill. If, therefore, he should
give way on the present occasion lie claimed the right in 're-
turn of bringing it in at any reasonable hour of the night
after twelve o'clock.
Mr. WA KL Y had charge of a Bill—the Parish Vestries
Bill—which was the first on a list of thirty-six orders. Ile
should not be doing justice to his constituents if he gave way.
If the Government concurred in this Bill and permitted it to
go through a second reading, he would sit down at once ;
otherwise he should not recede.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER did net
anticipate any extended discussion on the subject of his reso-
lutions.
Sir R. PEEL suggested that the best mode for the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer to adopt would be to move his reso-
lution and have it printed, and then name a day fur its dis-
cussion.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER would
have no hesitation in acceding to the suggestion of the Right
Hon. Baronet under ordinary circumstances, but the present
was not so. If he were not allowed to explain the nature of
his resolution, and the object which he proposed to accomplish
by it, the great commercial interests out of doors would be
thrown into confusion. If he were permitted to bring in his
resolution and explain it, his object would be accomplished.
If a debate were necessary it could be taken on the second
reading of the Bill. It would suit him perfectly if he were
enabled to state what his intentions were; and by that means
he would be able to accommodate himself to the -desire of the
House in regard to fixing the day on which the second read-
ing and the discussion should be taken. But if he acceded
to the Right lion. Baronet's suggestion, his object would be
in nowise furthered. A day would be lost at a period when
a minute was valuable; and for want of the accompanying ex-
planation the public would be exposed to the danger of delay,
and the mercantile interests to the possibility of misconstruing
the resolutions. He was quite aware that nothing could pre-
vent Hon. Members from bringing forward their respective
Orders if they chose; but he hoped they would not do so, as
it would throw a great difficulty in the way of the public
service.
Mr. WAKLEY was very sorry that he could not give
way to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the present occa-
sion. Hon. Members near him said that if his order were
to be postponed, their orders would altogether be passed over.
Mr. HUM E— Leave them to themselves.--( Laughter. )
The SPEAKER then put the question.
.Mr. WA KLEY could not consent to give way.
Mr. HUME would entreat of his Hon. Friend the Member
for Finsbury to allow the important subject about to be intro-
duced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take precedence
of his Bill.
Mr. WAKLEY would do so if the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer fixed ten o'clock for his (Mr. Wakley's) Bill.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he was
sure the subject would not last half that time.
The Speaker then left the chair.
WAYS AND MEANS—SUGAR DUTIES.
The House resolved itself into Committee of Ways and
Means.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
in 1834, when the Sugar duties were moved by his Noble
Friend Lord Spencer, then Chancellor of the Exchequer,
it was suggested by an Hon. Gentleman, Member for one of
the largest commercial constituencies in the kingdom, that it
was an injustice to continue the inequality of duties on East
and West India Sugars, and urged by him that, from that
time, the inequality should cease, and the assimilation com-
mence. Lord Spencer on that occasion stated, in reply to the
Hon. Gentleman's proposition, that it would not be wise at
that moment to change the proportion of duties with regard to
East and West India Sugars which then exised, because it
would have the effect of disturbing the great measure of
Slave Emancipation passed the preceding year. He further
stated that he was quite ready to admit the Hon. Gentleman's
proposition that, as regarded the discriminating duty, the
principle could be defended on no just or tenable grounds.
The Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth then
delivered his opinions in a speech which contained the fullest
and most admirable development of the principles ne-
cessary to be kept in sight and applied to the question. He
stated, very prudently, in his (the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer's) mind, that he was not by any means insensible of the
crisis in the West Indies at that period ; and concluded by
saying that on that ground it was alone defensible. The prin-
ciple was one which, as had been rightly stated by the Right
Hon. Baronet, could not be defended between two countries
at amity with each other, still less between two parts of the
British dominions, and two portions of his Majesty's subjects.
He hoped that it would never be said of that House that strict
justice was denied to the British subject, which foreign States
were entitled to demand. These few powerful sentences had
been quoted by him, because they brought forward in the
strongest point of view the principle on which the resolution
which he should propose to the Committee was founded, and
spared him the necessity of weaker explanation. But there was
another speech of great importance also, delivered on this oc-
casion, which it would be unpardonable in him not to refer to:
he meant the speech of his Noble Friend the Member for
North Lancashire, then the representative of the Colonial
Department in the Government. His Noble Friend on that
occasion had stated, that he thought the inclination of Parlia-
ment, and the desire of the public were in favour of the
question, and he said that the speech of the Right Hon.
Baronet, and the explanation of the Noble Lord (Spencer)
might be taken by the parties interested as the best notice pos-
sible of the intentions of the Government and the Legislature.
In the course of the last Parliament, he (the Chancellor of
the Exchequer) took occasion to refer to the same question,
and to put it on the same understanding as it had been put in
the preceding Parliament. He had now the strong facts in
his favour that two years ago Parliament was disposed to con-
sider and settle the question, and that the consideration and
settlement of it had only been deferred last year for reasons
and on grounds applicable to that period, but not at all to the
present. Assuming, then, that all were of agreement with
him in the necessity of the equalization, and the justice of the
principle on which it was based, . he should proceed to state
the mode by which his proposition to effect it would be
brought into operation. There were only two modes by
which it could be carried out : the first involved the question
as to whether the equalization should take place immediately;
the second, as to whether it should take place only by de-
grees, and be accomplished in a considerable space of time.
The West Indians wiabed the latter ; they craved not to be
called into immediate competition with a powerful rival, but
to have time to prepare themselves for the reverse which
they might chance to have in the struggle. They desired
that the reduction of the duty on East India sugars
should take place by a settled per tentage, decreasing
Yearly, until it had ultimately reached the lowest point ;
for they said, otherwise we may be overwhel.ned in the market.
He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was willing to admit
that with much plausibility there was some reason in their ob-
jection ; but, after the fullest consideration which lie was ca-
pable of giving the subject—after looking at it in every light
possible, he thought they were not sufficient. His determine
tion was, that fur the interest of all parties, it was necessary
that the alteration should be immediate.—( Hear, hear.) From
the best information which he had received, that of gentlemen
long resident in India, commercially and agriculturally, lie was
convinced that without an extended growth of sugar in those
colonies, no great quantity could be brought into the market,
at least no such quantity as materially to affect those already
in possession of it. The material of which East India Sugar
was made, the flour, was of a perishable nature ; it could not
be kept for any length of time without danger of spoiling and
risk of total loss, Neither could a large stock of any kind of
commodity be kept on hand for any time by the growers in In.
ilia, where the interest of money was so high, on the specula-
lation of a change in an English Act of Parliament. The
'practice in India, according to his information and belief,
sene! thet the manufacturer of Sugar always sent round to
the grower of the raw material, and purchased the small
stock each might have on hand.—(Hear, hear, hear.) Ail
these things tended to prove that no competition of the nature
urged could be reasonably feared by the colonists of the West
Indies. The cultivation of sugar in the East Indies should
necessarily be the result of the application of British capital
and British skill—amore, It should, to compete with the West
Indies in the manner which seemed to bo feared, be the ap-
plication of both to the manufacture of improved sugar. All
this was the work of time; and it could only operate year
after year, and by !low degrees. Thus the effect which was
,ovglit to be produced by a protection not of parchment would
be produced by natural means; and therefore the necessity of
legislation to effect it was clearly at an end. It was on these
grounds he considered it would be useless to propose a ssradu-
ated reduction. The West Indies had nothing to fear from an
immediate alteration, and nothing to gain from a graduated
one. The first and most obvious protection to which the West
Indians were entitled, was a regulation that the sugar intro-
duced into this country from the East should be required to be
necompanied by a certificate of origin, a regulation which it
appeared to him was likely to prove as effectual in the East
as in the West Indies. But he did not stop here. He should
call upon those districts which exported sugar not to import
sugar also.—( Hear, hear.) They should not be an impor-
ting and an exporting district at the same time. It would
not be fair to allow a province in India to receive from foreign
countries a supply of sugar for her osn consumption,
and to import to England or elsewhere that grown within the
province.—( Hear.) The West Indians were entitled to be
guarded against this. It was but placing the East on the
same policy with the West. There were, however, some per-
sons he believed who thought that the restriction against im-
porting foreign sugar should apply not merely to the sugar
exporting provinces, but to the whole Continent of India.
Now such a proposition was only to be stated to carry its re-
futation on the face of it. It reminded him of an observation
in an author, probably well known to the House, the author
of " Peter Plymley's Letters"—" Brother Abraham, brother
Abraham, whatever you hear to the contrary, I do assure you
that Ireland is larger than the Isle of Wight." So he could
assure those persons that, whatever they heard to the contrary,
flindostan was much larger than any sugr growing island.
What he proposed then was, that in those districts of India
where sugar should be exporteqr for this country, the im-
portation of foreign sugar should be prohibited, but that
the free importation of foreigu sugar into other districts
of India would be allowed, and to this he was happy
to state that those gentlemen who were most eager for
the equalization of the duties were, from a conviction of