Extraordinary trial! Norton v. Viscount Melbourne, for crim[inal] con[versation] ... A full and accruate report ... / by an eminent reporter ... Embellished with a portrait and memoir of the Hon. Mrs. Norton. &c., &c.

  • Norton, George Chappele, 1800-1875
Date:
[1836?]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Extraordinary trial! Norton v. Viscount Melbourne, for crim[inal] con[versation] ... A full and accruate report ... / by an eminent reporter ... Embellished with a portrait and memoir of the Hon. Mrs. Norton. &c., &c. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    16/38 (page 14)
    has treated as his friend takes that opportunity to seduce the af fections of his wife. I can never believe that h's absence, o those opportunities which Lord Melbourne had in consequence wiil be biought out against the plaintiff. As to suspicion, believe I can call before you every servant who has been in the house, who have lived there during the time, and who will tel you that however their suspicions may have been excited tha Norton had no shadow of suspicion till inquiry was made and Mrs. Norton left his house. That Mr. Norton was a kinc and indulgent husband, he could not give a better proof than b} leaning the letters ol Mrs. Norton herself—letters written during a time when he was absent, and which were quite sufficien to lull everything like suspicion of the truth of her affectior and kindness, and speaking of Lord Melbourne as of any othei person with w'hom she was acquainted. The letters that were written are those of an affectionate wife to an absent husband— they are full of affection, and calculated to disarm anything like suspicion, if anv such existed. I he Attorney-General believed he might object to the reading of these letters, as he apprehended they were written after the time when the crime was charged, but he would waive that objection. Sir W. Follett—You need not have made it then. These things are done merely ad captandan. The Chief-justice—If the letters were written after there was) just cause of suspicion, they are not evidence in the case. Sir W. Follett—I was going to state that there was not the slight¬ est pretence for objection, and I am prepared to shew it. They are perfectly legal evidence, and my hon. and Learned Friend knows! if. The letters were written at a time when there was no suspicion in the mind of Mr. Norton, when he was absent from home.! Some of them were written to Scotland, during the period of an oc-j casional absence. The first was dated July I2th, 1831. It began Dearest George, pray come home as soon as you possibly can.’’ [The letters went on to state that the children were all well, that one of them was playing with a pug dog and a pet lamb, that the lamb was so stupid that she was inclined to roast it twenty times a day. Three other letters were read, all expressive of affection and dated at several periods, viz. 1832, 1833 and 1835. In the latter she stated that Lord Melbourne had lent her a book containing Dr. Lardner’s letters, in which he proved that Mary Magdalene was the most virtuous of her sex.—(Great laughter.) She had not read the book yet, but she was impatient to see how he proved it.]