The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1836-06-24 00:00:00

'

bourne the baby, and asked his lordship if he did not think it
was a pretty baby. His lordship put his hand upon the child's
head and said it was a pretty baby; he did not know whom it
was like—it was not like Norton. (Laughter.) On one occa-
sion I entered the drawing-room without knocking, when I saw
Mrs. Norton kneeling by Lord Melbourne, -with her hands
on his lordship's knees • on another occasion, I saw her sitting
by the side of his lordship, on the sofa, with her arm lying over
his shoulder. Mrs. Norton always '" rouged," and sometimes
pencilled her eye-brows. • This witness corroborated the evi-
dence of former witnesses as to Mrs. Norton arranging her
dress, " rouging," &c., &c., after she had been with Lord
Melbourne. The witness was here examined as to the state of
Mrs. Norton's linen, but nothing material occurred.
Cross-examined.—Was now a widow; did not always go by
the name of Cummings, went sometimes by the name of Owen,
the name of the man she was going to be married to. Had a
child only four months old. 1 mean to marry Owen when
trade gets good. 1 have not lately been in any service. It is
about a month ago that I went to 'Wonash. • I was so teazed by
people coming from Lord Melbourne that I was obliged to go.
Mr. Norton's attorney told me I might change my lodgings,
and I might go to Wonash. I was not acquainted with that
part of the country; my expenses were paid. I received £5 to
go to Wonash, and was paid £1 ss. a-week from a Mr. Head.
Mr. Head has something to do on Lord Grantley's estate; he
paid the money every week, but I do not know what it was for.
The witness Flook told me the positions he had seen Lord
Melbourne and Mrs. Norton in, and I told him what I had
seen. I was examined o* the subject four times before I left
London, and once after ['got to Wonash. I saw Lord Grant-
ley, but he did not put a question to me about the trial. I
never was promised any money for giving evidence. I know a
Mrs. Garratt. Ido not recollect that I talked to her about
this matter. I never stated to any one that when Lord. Mel-
bourne was at Mr. Norton's I used to go into the room without
reserve. On being further questioned, the witness said, "I
may have said so, but I do not recollect it."
Mrs. Morris, examined by Sir W. Follett.—Lived in Mrs. Norton's
service. The letters produced were in her handwiiting.. (The letters
referred to by Sir William Follett in his address to the jury were here
put in and read.) Witness lived there two years. Lord Melbourne
was frequently in the habit of calling. Had often carried notes from
Mrs. Norton to Lord Melbourne; never any back. She was nurse.
The children were never allowed in the room, as Lord Melbourne did
not like children. She was in the service at the present time. Mrs.
Norton left home on the e9th of March. The children were now in
the country, under the care of witness. Had not seen Mrs. Norton
since.

Cross-examined by the Attorney-General.—Rnew there was a
quarrel between Mr. and Mrs. Norton, but did not know what it was
about. She was aware that Mrs. Norton wanted to go to Frampton
withher children to visit her brothers. Did not know that Mr. Nor-
ton was angry because he was not invited. She knew he was not.
Mr. Norton did not say that the children should not go if he did not
go, to her knowledge. There was to he a family meeting at Frampton
of the Sheridan family and their children. Down to March Mr. and
Mrs. Norton had lived on the usual terms of harmony. On the29th
of March Mr. Norton said that the children should not go to Framp-
ton, but that they should go to Wonash, and he gave orders accord.
ingly, and they were taken away. Mrs. Norton was in a state of
great distress at losing the children. Witness 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 they should,
go to Wonash 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 had 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 between them. Mrs. Norton came up imme-
mediately 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 to go to Frampton,. She saw her
again after; but not in the house. The children were removed to Up-
per Berkley-street. Mrs. Norton came up there—it was in lodgings.
Mr. Norton had then said nothing about Wonash. Mrs. N. came
there in a state of great agitation—she appeared very much hurt in-
deed. She remained about an hour, hut was not allowed to see the
children. Mr. Norton ordered that no one should. The children
were taken home that night to Storey's-gate, and were removed to
Wonash next day. Knew of no other quarrel, except about going
to Frampton. Witness knew that Mrs. Norton was going to her sis-
ter'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 went up to the dining-room.
Lord Melbourne came in day-light.
Re-examined by Sir W. Follett.—The visit to Framptoa 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 IJr. Norton
gave orders against it. Mrs. Norton asked her still to remain with
her children when she saw her in Berkeley-street.
James Benhow 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 L. was in
the habit of calling often, perhaps 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 up into the drawing-room.
Staved generally, perhaps, about two hours. Never knew Lord
Melbourne refused when Mrs. Norton was at home. Never knew
other visitors refused. Lord Melbourne, on several occasions, 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 Mel-
bourne called almost immediately after the notes were sent. Should
say on some occasions Mrs. Norton had a note to Lord Melbourne
shortly after he had left.
Cross-examined by Sergeant Talfourd.—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 occasion-
ally, not frequently. They kept very little company. Very few
gentlemen came there. Had been out with the carriage to thd
theatre. Upon no occasion had Lord Melbourne accompanied them,
nor to Vauxhall. Mr. and Mrs. Norton went out a good deal to even-
ing parties ; received no injunction as to se-e-resy about the notes that
he had carried.
Mary Anne Figgia examined by Mr. Crowder.—Was conk to Mr.
Norton. Was in his service in the beginning of 1833. Was there
twelve months ; returned again for three weeks to oblige Mrs. Nor-
ton. 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 be-
tween 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 ma-
gistrate were then 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 the
case adjourned till to-morrow. They had now been in a crowded
court 81 hours, and be was, for his own part, quite exhausted; so much
so that it was impossible that he could do justice to his client, and he
was sure that the jury were so exhausted, that they would be unable
to pay that attention to the case which it required.
Sir William Follett said that he objected to the adjournment. The
Attorney-General would state that he intended to call witnesses, and
as the Atiorney-General refused to pledge himself to do so, the ap-
plication, after some altercation, was refused.
The Attorney-General then applied for an adjournment of a quar-
ter of an hour, in order that he might get sonic refreshment. which
was granted.

LIBERALITY OF THE LIBERALS.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL ST4NMIRD.

SIR,—I have no doubt you will be very glad to hear that there is a
number of liberal and intelligent village politicians in my neighbour-
hood who are full to overflowing of the milk of human kindness,
and that being in office their demeanour is humble_and obliging in the
extreme. These good-natured gentlemen did me the honour, the
other day, to send a servitor of theirs to my house. " What is your
business here ? " said I to this messenger of these great men. " I
have come with a distress-warrant," quoth he, " for 4s. 4d., being the
amount of your composition for highways from Michaelmas, 1835, to
Michaelmas, 1836." "You are very kind,—thank you, pray take
possession of that chair until you are paid !" I could do no less than
this, for in fact I had no reason to expect such an act of courtesy.
The bill for the said 4s 4d. had been rendered to me in March last for
a highway-rate levied by the surveyors, as I was informed, and n day
or two after a person called for payment. Not knowing, at that time,
the liberal gentlemen I had to deal with, I hinted that I would inquire
whether it was correct. The next day I was favoured with a sum-
mons to attend at Great Neston, to show cause why I should not pay
the rate. I attended, as in duty bound, and stated that the rate ought
to have been sanctioned by two justices of the peace, but one of that
learned body then and there informed me I was wrong, and so I bowed
to his dictum ; but still being persuaded I was right, I refused to pay
the expense of the summons, and in consequence of my refusal, I had
the aforesaid visit paid to me by proxy. I was curious enough to pe-
ruse the distress-warrant before alluded to, and I found that it stated
that a Mister Alexander Blaylock had made affidavit that I refused to
pay the said rate, which was sanctioned by two Justices of the peace in
September last! It appears after all, therefore, that I was not far
wrong, and a little explanation on the part of the authorities might
have saved them some trouble. Of one thing, however, lam con-
vinced, and that is that they were not actuated by any vindictive or
illiberal motive towards
Tranmere, 23d June, 183 G.

A TORY.

P.S.—I am going to purchase the new highway act, and intend to
study it at large. I hope I shall find my enlightened neighbours right
in all their private ways; and, perhaps, I may be able to save Mr.
Haram, our liberal surveyor, the trouble of nominating himself next
year, as I know he has been so very busy lately, that it is impossible
for him to preserve his infallibility.