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

LONDON LAW REPORT.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—WEDNESDAY.
CRIM. CON.-NORTON V. VISCOUNT MELBOURNE.
Mr. Bailey opened the pleadings—the declaration stated that
this was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover compensa-
of the noble defendant, for cruinal conversation with plaintiff's
wife.
The defendant pleaded that he was Not Guilty; on that plea
issue was joined.
The Attorney General suggested to the court, that if some
arrangement was not made to preserve order, it would be im-
possible for the trial to proceed.
The Lord Chief:Justice ordered the doors to be closed; and
threatened, if sileric'e was not observed, to adjourn the court.
The witnesses on both sides were ordered to leave the
court.
Order having been restored, Sir William Follett addressed
the jury for the plaintiff. They were already aware of the na-
ture of this action, and never did he feel so great a duty impo-
sed upon him as on the present occasion. The defendant was
high in rank, high in the councils of his sovereign, and if he
had taken advantage of his high situation to inflict upon the
plaintiff the highest injury one man could inflict on another, a
jury of Englishmenjwould give all the reparation in their power.
He trusted, however, they would discharge from their minds all
the idle rumours that had gone abroad, when they came to con-
sider the case that would be submitted to them, and judge only
from the evidence which would be adduced. The learned coun-
sel, after some further remarks, said, the plaintiff was the bro-
ther and heir apparent of Lord Grantley ; the marriage with
his present wife took. place in 1827 ; it was what was called a
love match; in fact, it was so on his part, for he most devotedly
loved her whom he had taken as the partner of his joys and
cares. For some time they lived together, near Storey's-gate,
in the greatest happiness. Several children were the issue of
the marriage. Some four years since, however, Lord Melbourne
became acquainted with the plaintiff and his wife ; after which
he was a constant visitor at the house, and he (Sir W. Follett)
thought that the evidence would show that a criminal conversa-
tion had been carried on for some years. His lordship gave
Mr. Norton the appointment of a police magistrate, which took
him much from home ; during his absence Lord Melbourne
was a constant visitor, and when his lordship was there the ser-
vants were ordered to deny admission to every person who cal-
led. It would be proved that Mrs. Norton and Lord Melbourne
always pulled the blinds of the window down when they were
together. It would be proved that they had been in the bed-
room for more than an hour together; the door on those occa-
sions was bolted, but the servants had bad opportunities of see-
ing them in such situations as could not leave a doubt that a
criminal connection had for a long time been carried on. Lord
Melbourne had frequently been seen with his arm round Mrs.
Norton's neck, and she sitting on his knee. The learned coun-
sel here detailed minutely the facts of the case, as they were
afterwards detailed in evidence. Mrs. Norton, it will be proved.--
had also repeatedly been at Lord Melbourne's house for hours
together. Many notes also passed between Mrs. Norton and
Lord Melbourne, but when she left her husband's house Mr.
Norton, from a feeling of honour and delicacy, did not exa-
mine her correspondence or papers, but he gave strict orders
that Mrs. Norton should not again have them; however, during
absence from home a brother of Mrs. Norton's contrived to ob-
tain possession of all the papers; therefore the correspondence
between the parties could not be laid before the jury. Whether
that correspondence would have proved any guilty connection
or not could not now be decided. Only three notes from Lord
Melbourne to Mrs. Norton were found, and they were very la-
conic. Mrs. Norton was not addressed by any name, neither
were they subscribed by his lordship, but the handwriting could
be proved. The first note was as follows :—" I will call at half-
past four o'clock. Yours." The second was—" How are you:?
Yours." (Laughter.) The third was--" There is no house to-
day. I will, therefore, call on you after the Levee. Say half-
past four o'clock, or later, if mere convenient to yfill."
learned counsel then said he would read the correspadehili bf
Mrs. Norton and her husband, which was of the nat/St affection-
ate description possible.
The Attorney General submitted that this correspondence
could not be received as it took place after suspicion was created
in the mind of the plaintiff.
Sir W. Follett denied that such was the fact, as it commenced
as early as 1831 The learned counsel then read a number of
letters from Mrs Norton to the plaintiff; they were couched in
the most affectionate terms, and began " My dear Georgey,"
and were subscribed, " Your affectionate wife." In one of the
letters Mrs. Norton mentioned Lord M.; she said his lordship
had lent her a book written by Dr. Lardner, in which the
Doctor proved that the Virgin Mary was the most virtuous of
women. The learned counsel said the rank of the defendant
was an aggravation of the offence. His age was an aggravation,
and he therefore called on the jury to give the plaintiff all the
reparation that compensation in damages could give to an injured
and afflicted mind.
The following witnesses were then called :
Joseph A. Potts produced the registry of the marriage of Mr.
and Mrs. Norton, at St. George's, Hanover-square, on the 30th
of May, 1827.
Air. Wm. Fletcher Norton examined.—l am related to the
plaintiff; was present at the marriage. Mr. Norton was about
30 years of age; Miss Sheridan (Mrs. N.) was about 20. I
should say it was a marriage of affection. Miss Sheridan was
a person of great beauty and talent. Mr. Norton's fortune was
not large; he has lived at Storey's gate ever since his marriage.
I have frequently seen Mr. and Mrs. Norton since the marriage;
they appeared to live on the most affectionate terms.
Cross examined.—l saw Mr. and Mrs. N. the last time in the
spring of last year; they lived at that time on affectionate terms.
I did not see them for a short time previous to the separation.
I often resided then at Storey's-gate. Mrs. Norton had three
children, she appeared very fond of them. I have met many per-
sons of eminence and rank at the plaintiff's house. Never saw
Lord M. there. I used almost always to go to the house by
way of Princes-court.
The Attorney General.—You had no bad design for going
that way, had you? (Laughter.)
Witness.—l should hope not. (Laughter.) Mrs. Norton
moved in the first society. Lady Seyincur is the sister of Mrs.
Norton; another sister married Capt. Blackburn, a son of Lord
Dufferin. She continued to visit her relations up to the time
of the separation, and appeared to be treated with the same
kindness as formerly. I have seen Mr. Norton since his sepa-
ration.

Re-examined.—l have frequently met Mrs. Norton's sisters
at Storey's-gate.
Mr. ge-orge. DiirWe'Ka-frith-ectr-1--1 -reside at Brinkley, Sussex'
I have also a house in Great George-street, Westminster. I
have been acquainted with Mr. and Mrs. Norton ever since
their marriage; and frequently visited them up to the time of
the separation. For the first four or five rears. I repeatedly
visited them. I never saw anything to induce me to think but
that there was great affection on both sides. They were very
fond of the children.
Cross-examined by the Attorney General.—Their affection
appeared to last until the separation. Mrs. Norton was an
exceedingly affectionate mother.
Georgiana Vetch, examined by Sir W. Follett.—Was lady's
maid to Mrs. Norton, in 1832, for three months. Mr. Norton
went to his office every day, and did not usually return before
six or seven in the evening. During the time I have lived
there I have often known Lord Melbourne to be at plaintiff's
house, but I never could get a look at him. On being further
questioned, witness said she had seen Lord Melbourne go up
and down stairs two or three times a-week. I have known him
stay on some occasions nearly three hours. Never knew him
stay until Mr. Norton came home. During the time Lord Mel-
bourne was there I never knew any other visitor admitted. It
was the duty of William Mansell to open the door. I never let
Lord Melbourne in or out of the house myself'. Lord Mel-
bourne's visits continued regular all the time I lived with the
plaintiff. I am confident on one occasion his lordship s aid
more than three hours.
Cross-examined by the Attorney-General.— What I have
been speaking_ to is four years ago. Miss Norton was residing
at the plaintiff's at this time; she was a great invalid, and was
generally in her own room during the time Lord Melbourne
was there. Never knew that Lord Melbourne dined at the
plaintiff's; he might have done so. A great many gentlemen
visited the plaintiff's house.
Bridget Elliott examined by Mr. Crowther.—l entered the
service of M rs. Norton in 1831 as nursery and lady's-maid. I
lived there two years. Lord Melbourne used to visit during
that time. Mr. Norton generally left home at nine o'clock, and
did not return until six ur seven. Lord Melbourne always came
between the hours of two and five o'clock, and stayed about an
hour and a half.
Mr. Crowther.—Did he come often ?
Witness.—Yes, every day, if not particularly engaged.
(Laughter.) Sometimes when Lord Melbourne came the chil-
dren were in the room with Mrs. Norton for a short time. Lord
Melbourne's visits were most frequent in 1832. The children
used to remain in the room about a quarter of an hour, not
more; they were then taken away. It was part of my duty to
assist in dressing Mrs. Norton. I have done so before Lord
Melbourne came.
Mr. Crowther. 'Was she very particular in her dress ?
The Attorney-General objected to this question, which was
not pressed.
Examination continued.—Mrs. Norton always dressed her
hair herself. After Lord Melbourne had been visiting there,
Mrs. N. sometimes came into witness's room, washed her hands,
' and smoothed her hair. She sometimes asked for a clean poc-
ket handkerchief. Lord Melbourne generally staid for half au
hour after Mrs. Norton went down stairs again. Mrs. Norton
is in the habit of rougeing . She always put on fresh rouge af-
ter washing her face. I received orders from. Mrs. Norton that
no one was to go into the drawing-room when Lord Melbourne
was there; there was a general order to all the servants to the
same effect. When his lordship was there we were always told
to say, if any one called, that Mrs: Noiton was not at home.
Remembered Mrs. Norton returning from Scotland, Lord Mel-
bourne visited her the following week. I saw his lordship and
Mrs. Norton together. Mrs. Norton had her hands in his lord-
ship's hands. I never saw them sitting in any other way, so as
to touch each other. One day when Lord Melbourne came in,
I saw his lordship kiss Mrs. Norton; this was in the drawing-
room. I remember Mrs. Norton being confined in 1831. I re-
ceived no orders to take her pens sod paper on that occasion.
When Lord Melbourne was at the plaintiff's house, the blinds
of the windows were pulled down. They were drawn up again
after his lordship left.
Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant Talfourd.—Mr. Norton
kept a horse. He never rode out before dinner. Lord Mel-
bourne used to dine with plaintiff at one time—as often as once
a week. Mr. and Mrs. Norton often went to the play: Lord
Melbourne sometimes accompanied them. Sometimes Mr.
Norton came home before Lord Melbourne left; on these oc-
casions he appeared angry. Mr. Noiton used to go into the
drawing-room on these occasions, and he afterwards dined with
Mrs. Norton. Lord Melbourne, on some occasions, used to
stay and dine with Mr. and Mrs. N. Mrs. Norton was a very
kind mother. She was in the drawing-room when I saw Lord
Melbourne kiss her. I let him in, and had not closed the door.
I left plaintiff's service in 1833; Mrs. Norton did not discharge
me. I have seen Mr. Norton twice since his separation; he did
not tell me not to answer any questions about Lord Melbourne's
visits. Witness was in the family way before she left Mrs.
Norton's service.
By the jury.—Lord Melbourne kissed Mrs. Norton on the
cheek, not on the hand. I clearly saw and heard his lordship
kiss her.
By the Court.—Mrs. Norton was sitting in a chair when
Lord Melbourne came, but on his entering the drawing-room
Mrs. Norton rose and met him at the door. Lord Melbourne
generally entered the plaintiff's house by Prince's-gate.
Ellen Monk examined.—l lived as nurse with plaintiff in
1834. I remained in his service six months Mrs. Norton was
ill during that time. On that occasion she used the room she
generally slept in, On one occasion 1 was rung for by her, and
went to the bed room. Lord Melbourne was there, but no one
else. Mr. Norton was not at home. 1 took the children into
the bed-room at the time. Lord Melbourne was there; they re-
mained about half an hour, when I was sent for to take them
away; Lord Melbourne was in the bed-room when I went to
take the children away. I think he remained there an hour
after that. Lord Melbourne asked me the time, and [ told him
it was near seven o'clock, I think. His lordship said he was
surprised, directly left the room, and went away.
Cross-examined.—At the time Lord Melbourne visited Mrs.
Norton in her bed-room she had been confined by illness for
several weeks. She was not able to rise from the sofa.
Re-examined.—Lord Melbourne sat in a chair by the side of
the sofa. There was no one else in the room.
Eliza Gibson, examined by Sir W. Follett.-1 am now in

6,41=
7-7.-- .

prxßwr-Pw;p•-•,
t:)"(