Ebr Siirtropati1.

THE NORTON AND MELBOURNE TRIAL.

Tim Court of Common Pleas WitS completely filled at an early hour on Wednesday, by persons anxious to hear the trial of the case of Norton versus Melbourne, before Lord Chief Justice Tindall and a Special Jury. Sir Hobert Peel and Mr. Francis Baring, whose names were on the Jury list, were called, but did not appear. Lord Graniley, the Earl of Lichfield, and Lord Ltleall, were seated on the bench. The counsel for Mr. Norton were Sir William Follett, Mr. Crowder, and Mr. Bayley ; for Viscount Melbourne, Sir John Campbell, Mr. Sergeant Talfourd, and Mr. Thessiger. Mr. Bayley opened the pleadings, and Sir William Follett stated the plaintiff's case. Sir William Follett began by calling the attention of the Jury to the high station occupied by Lord Melbourne hi the Government, and re- questing them to discard from their minds the idle rumours to which the case had given rise- " The position (said Sir William) of the part:es in society is no further a fit subject for your consideration, than as forming one of the circumstances upon which your verdict will proceed ; for if we find that the defendant in this case has taken advantage of the high position in which he stands to lull suspicion asleep—to introduce himself into the family of Mr. Norton, as his benefactor, his patron, and his frienr1,—if he has taken advantage of that position to inflict upon him the deepest injury—ay, the deepest injury in every case, in the present state of society, which one man can inflict upon another—but in this instance, where the intercourse has been long continued, and where children have been born, it is in-possible to calculate the extent of the injury, fur it does poison is its sources the dearest of all earthly affections, the love of a father to his child; if the defendant has taken advantage of his position to inflict upon Mr. Norton this deepest of all injuries, the defendant's rank and station must necessarily- form one of the elements of your consideration in the amount of damages you shall award. This is the cafe I have tolay before you ; and I beg of you a cabs and dispassionate attention to its various circumstances. On the part of the plaintiff I ask no more; I ask you to look calmly and dispassionately at the proof I shall place before you, and say whether you are not satisfied of the defendant's guilt."

Mr. Norton was the brother and heir-presumptive of Lord Grantley.

He married Mrs. Norton, then Miss Caroline Sheridan, in July 1827; Mr. Norton being then twenty-seven, and Miss Sheridan nineteen years of age. It was a marriage of unbounded affection on the part of Mr. Norton. The income of the parties being very limited, they took a small house, still held by Mr. Norton, close to Storey's Gate and the Birdcage Walk ; to which house there were two entrances, one by the obscure back lane called Prince's Court, the other from the Birdcage Walk,— he begged the Jury to attend closely to this distinction, the importance of which would appear by and by. Mrs. Norton's first child was born on the 10th of July 1829. Her acquaintance with Lord Melbourne did not commence till the early part of 1831; when, on the °dice of Commissioner of Bankrupts, which Mr. Norton held, being reduced, Lord Melbourne, at the intercession of Mrs. Norton. who wrote to him on the subject, appointed Mr. Norton to the office of Police Magistrate for the Whitechapel district. Mrs. Norton made this application to Lord Melbourne on the plea of his Lordship's former intimacy with her father, Mr. Thomas Sheridan, son of Richard Brinsley Sheridan. The Alagisterial deities of Mr. Norton took him from home in the morning, and he seldom returned till six or seven in the evening. It was during his absence that Lord Melbourne, who soon became a constant vis:ter at his house, was in the habit of calling on Mrs. Norton, and spending two or three hours with her at a time.

" I don't mean to say that those visits were altogether confined to the time when Mr. Norton was absent : for Lord Melbourne professed to be the inti- mate friend of Mr. Norton himself; he had come into the house as his patron and friend ; Mr. Norton, therefore, felt towards him nothing but friendship and gratitude. Lord Melbourne dined several times at the house, and pro. feaseil to he on terms of intimacy with both Mr. and Mrs. Norton. But you will find that Lord Melbourne was a constant visiter at the house when Mr. Norton Was not there. He began by coming to the house shortly, I presume, after his duties at the Home Office were over, at three o'clock, or somewhere thereabout. He came to the house constantly, three or four times a week, sometimes more frequently, sometimes less. He was a constant visiter at the house, but he was in the habit of leaving before Mr. Norton returned. Now I think the evidence I am about to disclose to you will satisfy your minds, that very shortly after the first acquaintance between Lord Melbourne and Mrs. Norton, a criminal intercourse commenced between them, and was continued for a very consi- derable time afterwards. You are of course aware, that in all eases of this sort it rarely, indeed I may say never, happens that you prove the actual com- mission of the offence. In this, as in all other cases of crime—for crime it is— you convict the parties by circumstantial evidence, which will lead your minds to the inference and conclusion that the guilty act has taken place."

In the first place, in whit way did Lord Melbourne come as a vi- Biter ?

" The first thing that strikes me is this, although I don't know that much importance will attach to it in the result ; but it dues appear rather extraor- dinary—the house opens into the Birdcage Walk, and that is a public en- trance ; but it has another entrance from Prince's Court behind, and Lord Melbourne always entered by the gate behind. The door towards the Binh cage Walk was generally used by visitors ; and to one coming from the Home Office it was the more convenient; but Lord Melbourne never went in by that entrance, but always through Prince's Come. Was that the visit of a friend, or like any other person coining to the house ? When Lord Melbourne came there, Mrs. Norton gave orders to the servants that no one else should be admitted; while Lord Melbourne was there, no one vas admitted to the house. Those orders were acted upon ; the servants denied admittance to the most intimate friends, rela- tions, and v bites s, while Lord :Melbourne was there. The servants were directed never to come into the drawing-room until rung or sent for ; and they obeyed the injunction generally. The blinds of the windows looking into the Park were drawn down while Lord Melbourne was there ; and he was in the habit of leaving shortly before Mr. Norton came home. Mts. Norton's conduct, which we must here also inquire Mtn, was this,—she would go to her 1.00111, she would prepare herself to receive Lord Melbourne, she would dress, arrange her hair, and rouge before became. While he was in the house, she has frequently gone up into her lied-room with her hair and her dress disordered ; and having put herself to rights, washed her hands, and arranged her dress and hair, she would come down stairs again to Lord Melbourne in the drawing-room. But that is not all : the intercourse was not confined to that house alone. Mrs. Norton has been to Lord Melbourne's house: and here I ask you whether that is con- sistent with the state of manners in our country? Mrs. Norton has been to Lord Illelbourne's house, and has been in that house alone with Lord Mel- bourne more than once. I shall show you that she has been in the carriage of a friend which she was in the habit of using. She has been driven to Lord Melbourne's in South Street ; she has been left there; the carriage has been sent round the Park, and, after being absent half an hour, has ieturned to take her up again. Where was she in Lord Melbourne's house? in what room ? who was with her ? what was she doing,—a young and beautiful woman, in such extraordinary and suspicious circumstances? I have no means of telling you. I shall not call before you the servants of Lord Melbourue. I have no means of inquiring ; but he has; and it may be that all that occurred on this occasion was consistent with innocence : if so, perhaps it will be proved today where and how Lord Melbourne and Mrs. Norton were then employed. But I shall show she has been to his house. With respect to the manner and habit of Lord Melbourne when Mrs. Norton was ill and confined to her bed-room, shall prove to you, by a servant, that Lord Melbourne was in that bed-room, and remained with her alone there for an hour or two.' Surely this is some- what extraordinary, according to the manners of the present day; but the matter does not rest here. The servants have gone into this room when Lord Melbourne has been there; on more occasions than one they have found the door bolted ; they have been in the room, and on more occasions than one have seen kisses pass between the parties. They have seen his arm round her neck. They have seen her hand leaning on his knee, and herself kneeling on the floor. They have seen familiarities of that sort between the parties ; and they have seen what will make you wonder, in that room. Mrs. Norton has been seen lying on the floor, and her clothes in a position to expose her person, with Lord Melbourne there alone. There is still other evidence which it is the painful duty of counsel to lay before you in such a case as this. I allude to those marks which are the consequences of intercourse between the sexes. We shall show those marks existed on the day linen; they will be shown to have existed on her gown ; from which, and the other facts I have stated, there can, I apprehend, be no doubt of the guilty connexion of these parties."

Notes were constantly interchanged between Lord Melbourne and Mrs. Norton ; but whether the correspondence would have disclosed guilt, be could not tell ; for when Mrs. Norton left her husband's house, which she did in March last, Mr. Norton had locked up her papers without reading them, and ordered them not to be removed ; but a brother of Mrs. Norton, in Mr. Norton's absence, had called at the house, and, pretending to have his authority, had prevailed on the ser- vants to give him the box of papers. Only three notes in Lord Mel- bourne's handwriting had been found. They were very trivial, but there was something in the style even of these trivial notes which justified suspicion- " Here is one of them—' I will call about half• past four. Yours.' There is no regular beginnings() the letters ; they don't commence with My dear Mrs. Norton,' or any thing of that sort, as is usual in this country when a gentleman writes to a lady. Here is another of the notes—' How are you?' Again there is no beginning as you see. ' I shall not be able to call to-day, but probably shall to-morrow.' This is not the note of a gentleman to a lady with whom he may be acquainted. The third runs thus—' No House to-day; I shall call after the levee, about four or half-past. If you wish it later, let me know. I shall then explain about going to Vauxhall.' These are the only letters which have been found : if the others were like them, they probably may have been de- at* dyed ; but even these are not in the style and form of address of notes of a gentleman would write to a lady with whom be was merely on friendly terms. They seem to import much more than the mere words convey. They are written cautiously, I admit : there is no profession of love in them—they are not love-letters; but they are not written in the ordinary style of correspond. ence usually adopted in this country between intimate frienda or mutual ac- quaintances. These, however, are the whole of the letters that have been found about the house; the other letters belonging to Mrs. Norton having been re- moved by her brother before any one had an opportunity of seeing them."

Referring to the subject of damages. he strongly repudiated the no.. tion, which bud got abroad, that Mr. Norton was careless of his wife, and by his purposed absence allowed of opportunities to Lord Mel- bourne of seeing her. The servants never had communicated any of their suspicions to their master ; %elm, up to the time when Mrs. Norton left his house in March last, had no suspicion of his wik's infidelity. Indeed, the letters written by Mrs. Norton, up to a very late period, must have set at rest any suspicion, had such existed. lle would read two or three of the letters, to show the style and ittrectionate terms in which they were written.

Sir John Campbell said that the letters could not be evidence, and he might object to their being read ; but he waived the objection.

Sir 1Villiam Follett—" Then, why interrupt me ? " Chief Justice said, that if the letters were written after just cause of suspicion became known to the plaintiff, they could not be re- ceived as evidence.

Sir William Follett, after observing that Sir Jobb Campbell had merely raised the objection ad captundum, in order to have the grace of withdrawing it, read passages of the following letters, which were written either while Mrs. Norton was on a visit in Scotland, or to Mr. Norton when away from home. "'Tuesday, 12th July 1831. " Dearest Georgo—Our chicken came safe to hand this meriting. It having rained torrents nearly all the night. he rested at Mere, and cattle on in the gig Seymour sent ; and I have just seen him washed and put to bed in a largo. high, airy room. lle has been in Malt spirits all day. play ing with the pet lamb andneagle puppy. the latter of whom allows a decided attachment to his little companion ; hut the lamb is ready so stupid and so awkward, that I with it roasted a dozen times a day. I think and hope Menny has not taken cold; but Mrs. ;Moore says. that when the rain C:11101 on very heavy, the outside passeri„aerw crammed in; and as they were very wet, it is a lead chance for him. I hear Mr. Bush, the doctor, is a very experienced person, with the 10.10 icv of several parishes in his own hands; so I do mot feel so ittiliappy al being parted from my Iodine,' Herbert. I got a little scrawl from you this titoruitig (which. by the innissiou of the word • Mere ' on the direction, trayellt•d to three or firm towns), wproaching me lin out writing; whereas I have written evi•ry day. except last night, when I thought 1 e nett wait till the arrival of my dear lambkin. abase minting gave me great joy. Your letters are too short, Sir ; :oaf if you du not make them hunger, I shall belhae you are looking on at the • domestic happiness • of that amiable young person and her bridegroom to whom yon were charitable enough to pay a visit some time since. Our pony-chaise comes home to-mony.w ; and then. t suppose, 1 shall see Long Lee, :mil tell you something of the country ; but there is nothing to tell you :them close by. I dwatned last night that you were ily tug, and two old maids told you stories of nit., and then persuaded me you mould trot see our; but I rushed into your room, and found it was all a lie, aud that you were ,k Mg for my company ; and then I thought. as 1 a as sitting by you explaining, I saw you grow quite unconscious and die; lwrefore I woke with a flood M tears,aud a allied up and duwn with hare feet. till Mrs. l'iloore art ivi.11 .111(1 informed are that you were quite well, 111111 110 VW maid with you. I dreamed the night i,cture, that baby was Moaning. and 1 saw him floating clown the liver; but no one would :Wend to me, because I was mad ! I lort id dreams beset nie. I cannot bear sleeping a tette : hem I you ought to come dua a and protect me. This morning. I broke illy already-broken tooth quite tip into my jaw • an,i it almost put out my eye with the pain. I drew the fragment myself, a ith notch trouble, with the pitwers lit my dressing-ease, and was exactly twenty-tour minutes at it ! Pity my suf- realms I " l w ill write every day of myself ant.' the two chiltireu. " Ever yours, :Iffectionately, CAROLINE. " I Inn. (1, C. Norton."

•• Sunday. •• Sunday.

" Dearest George—I fear thia will be but it hurried line, for they do run about su all day in Ile open air. that time slips ;tarty till we dress for dinner. I have sent your gunpowder, and hope it aill con., sate. Penny is very well indeed, and I have bought flannel at Dundee to roll 11101 111. 1 nave not heard again of baby. Lady — is come wish a sweet little child for Penny a play with. Lord and Mr. — and Lord — come to-morrow : we are asked to Camper-dont,. I saw the handsome old Lord —, and a young one. Come back, darling ; I am wishing for you. To drive four small piebald ponies. and swinging and flinging beech-nuts at one anther's heads, is all we do; and very gear( sport it is. " I shall write )en again to-morrow or next day. and pray write to me. I have not heard of t tot vet. Direct Incliture, Perthshire: it conies quicker. Mrs. Charles there nevcr was any thing so beautiful as the room she is to have in right of being a bride—an enormous room, looking on the lawn, with ebony furni- ture, and the most maguificent things in it. Ditto dressing-room fur Charles. " The house is in lovely, soil them are eight new rooms Turuialled. " God bless you. Love to all. Ever yours. CARY. " lion. G. Norton, Remelt Lodge, 30th August 1832." " 1st January 1835. " My dearest Geordie—I wish there were franks, but there are none now, to make a stupid letter tolerable. " I am very much vexed about poor Charlie, who has been in his bed these three days; and Fincham, the apothecary, says lie requires the greatest care. I have made tea for him these two past evenings: he is quire low and dull, turd Frank does not seem to think nmeli about him.

To-day is the 1st of January ; so, before I go further, let me wish you a happy new year, and many of them. dear Geordie, in quietness and comfort at home, and what prosperity may chance abroad. •• I have sat the a hole day with Heath (the publisher of the Keepsake and Annual), 11(•:, marls, and Lord Mulgrave. I have taken the Keepqrke ; and Mr. Heath informed me of what he was pleased to call 'a horrible attempt on the part of Mr. Bull. of Bolles Street, and an actionable offence."Ihis was, that it seems Bull has published, and cunningly sent to Paris, an Annual called the English Annual, and on which is impudently priuted, • Edited by Mrs. NO1'10111. I have sent for the book, and expressed the utmost indignation and astonishment. I shall give you an amusing aceomit of this interview when we meet. Nothing is droll upuu paper, and one can't write down the torte of voice in which a thing was said. • ' I trait seemed struck with my personal charms, and requested me to sit to Ross for next year's Book of Beauty ; which I agreed to do. "•lanyl :4111.10111111.1 hits 11111 me a curious book. — Dr. Lardner's Letters ; in which the Doctor proves that Mary Magdalen was the most virtuous of her sex. I have not yet looked at it, as i do not wish to lose the post to you, but am very curious to see it proved. I was showing the opera-glass you gave me to the boys, and. Brinney said ' What do you see?" 1 see your dear little dirty face,' (moth 1 : 1 then handed it to him, and said • What do you see?" I see vour dear big dirty face,' said he:. was•nt it quick and funny? The other laughed amazingly at this filial impertinence. Spencer's ' good things' I must not omit. We were sitting %salt Charlie, and he was dull. • Now,' says he `let's resign." What do you mean?' said I. ' People say • resign. when they go out, quotli he. So much for living wish Ministers! " With these anecdotes I conclude my shabby little letter ; hoping to hear foam you that any little unpleasantness between you and Grantley, a hen you thought you were doing tor the best, is over and explained away. The boys send their love. Brice says gravely, ' have you told papa about your poor sick little brother ?' •• Yours, ever affectionate, C. " l Ion. G. C. Norton, at I. Ilockley's, Esq., Guildford.

" Mamma begs you to drink melted gum Arabic in all your drinks. Take care, dear Geordie." "1935.

" Dearest George—Take your bath, and be better. You cannot think how I reproach. mysellut your being ill; it makes me quite unhappy: but it shall never happen again your remorseful wire promises you faithfully. You are a good kind hub. in the long run ; sal don't believe me when I say tut sh things to you. waking or sleeping; balance my words last bight against the day you xo'se me. Glad to make Mends, and happy to see you at Paris, and forgive me t " Come early on Wednesday. God bless you.dear. klind you write.

" Ever your alfictionate, CAR."

"The Hon. G. C. Norton."

Thu bath cost twelve guineas new."

These letters, Sir William Follett argued, proved that Mrs. Norton kept up the semblance of affection for her husband, and must have

lapel any suspicion that might arise in his mind. He would not dilate

on the question of damages ; but the age, the rank, the pretence of being a friend of the husband, were all aggravations of the noble defendant's guilt, if proved. It was quite impossible to compen- sate Mr. Norton for the injury he had susta'ned ; but he asked the Jury, as husbands and fathers, to give him all the reparation in their power. The plaintiff's witnesses were now produced. The marriage of Mr. and Mrs. Norton was proved by Mr. George Potts.

Mr. Fletcher Norton, a relation of the plaintiff, was the next wit- ness. He spoke to the affectionate terms 011 which the husband and

wife used together. Mrs. Norton was a very kind and attentive mother. Many persons of fashion and distinction were in the habit of visiting Mr. and Mrs. Norton. Ile always entered the house by Prince's Court, not by Storey's Gate. The door by which he entered, in Prince's Court, bad a bell and a knocker, with a brass plate—it was No. 2. The door from the Park was a glass door, and led into the dining-room—it made one of the windows of the dining-room.

Mr. George Darby, of Markby, Sussex, also gave testimony as to the affectionate terms on which the parties lived together, and to Mrs. Norton's kindness to and care of her children.

Georgiana Veitch, lady's maid to Miss Norton (Mr. Norton's sister), was with her mistress at Storey's Gate for three months, in 1832. During her stay, Lord Melbourne was in the habit of calling frequently on Mrs. Norton, and stopping with her for an hour together. ISio other visiters were admitted whilst be was there.

Trinette Elliott went to Mrs. Norton's, as lady's maid, in the latter part of 1831. Mr. Norton was in the habit of going to his office in the City between nine and ten. Lord Melbourne called almost every day between two and three. The children were frequently called down Whilst Lord Melbourne was with Mrs. Norton. She used to attend her mistress when dressing. Mrs. Norton dressed much the same when Lord Melbourne called as when about to receive other visiters. She washed her hands, and smoothed her hair, and sometimes asked for a clean pocket-hankerchief. She never was at home to any other visiter When Lord Melbourne was with her. On one occasion she saw Lord Melbourne kiss Mrs. Norton: it was just as she was shutting the door after showing his Lordship into the room. When Lord Melbourne called, the window-blinds were drawn quite down. Mrs. Norton lost many of her pocket-handkerchiefs. On cross.examination, this witness said that Lord Melbourne and Mr. and Mrs. Norton used sometimes to dine and go to the play together. Mr. Norton used to come home when Lord Melbourne had left or was just going. When Mr. Norton came borne and found Lord Melbourne was at his house, he seemed angry. He used to go into the drawing-room, and sometimes asked Lord Mel- bourne to stay to dinner. The witness bud left Mrs. Norton's service to be married ton private in the Scotch Fusileers. When she left Mrs. Norton she was pregnant ; but was not discharged on that account. Carriage visiters and those on horseback generally entered by the door from the Park which led into the dining-room ; others through Prince's Court.

Ellen Monk was in Mrs. Norton's service as nurse for six months from April 1834. Mrs. Norton was unwell while she was with her. She kept her room, and one day Lord Melbourne went to see her there : it was her sleeping-room. By Mrs. Norton's direction, she took up the children and left them in the room. Lord Melbourne staid for about an hour. He sat on a chair near the sofa, on which Mrs. Norton, who was too ill to come down stairs, was lying. Eliza Gibson was housemaid at Mr. Norton's in 1833 for seven months. She remembered trying to open the drawing-room door, but it was bolted. She could not tell whether Lord Melbourne or any one else was in the room with her mistress. She used to see Mrs. Norton arrange her dress, and braid her hair, and rouge, after having been with Lord Melbourne : her collar was tumbled on those occasions. Lord Melbourne used to call six times a week. She thought he was about ferty-five years of age. He never kissed or took improper liberties with witness. Mrs. Norton did not change her collar, but merely ad- justed it, after being with Lord Melbourne. There was a mirror in the drawing-room. Mr. Norton first examined her respecting Mrs. Norton's conduct, in Lincoln's Inn Fields, on Wednesday last week. There were two beds in Mrs. Norton's sleeping-room. Mr. Norton did not always sleep with his wife.

Thomas Bulliman went as servant to Mr. Norton in July 1833, and staid for about a month. He had previously been footman to Colonel Armstrong; and had frequently gone in the carriage with Miss Arm- strong to call on Mrs. Norton. When the blinds were down in Mrs. Norton's drawing-room, Miss Armstrong was not admitted. Miss Armstrong used to take Mrs. Norton an airing; and once they left Mrs. Norton at Lord Melbourne's, in South Street. On one occasion, he saw Lord Melbourne at Mrs. Norton's, sitting on the sofa with that lady: his Lordship's hand was on the lady's shoulder ; he drew it gently oft', and did not seem surprised when witness entered the room : they seemed as if they had been sitting close together and had recently moved. Miss Armstrong was a lady of great respectability, and moved an the best circles. Mrs. Norton met Mr. Norton once at least at Lord Melbourne's; and they left the house together. He remembered Miss Armstrong's setting Mrs. Norton down at the Duke of Devonshire's, when the Duke was ill.

Thomas Tucker, footman to Mr. Norton in December 1833, proved that Mr. Norton had frequently found Lord Melbourne at his house, on his return from the city. lie had carried notes to and from Lord Melbourne at the Home Office. He had Seen Lord Melbtiurne and Mrs. Norton sitting close together on the sofa, which was a large one. There was a balcony at the first drawing-room window with some plants, which Mrs. Norton used to meddle with. She used also to

draw, sometimes with chalk. The muslin curtains WAte generally drawn three parts across the window. He had bad some conversation with the previous witness, Bulliman, but not as to what evidence he should give. William Lawley, coachman to Colonel Armstrong, said that he' bad driven Mrs. Norton to the Duke of Devonshire's, Lord Lansdowne's, Lord Seymour's, Mrs. Blackwood's, and to Sir James Graham's at the Admiralty. Miss Armstrong always accompanied Mrs. Norton. Sometimes Colonel Armstrong went with them ; but they generally set him down at White's Club-house. John Fluke went to live with Mr. Norton in 1830, as coachman, and staid with him for four years : lie used to do work in the stable, and in-door work also. Has seen Lord Melbourne at Mr. Norton's numbers of times ; has taken notes to and from him ; and has seen Lord Melbourne and Mrs Norton together in the drawing-room. In reply to the question whether he had seen any thing particular in Mrs. Norton's position or dress, this witness said- " On one occasion, I think I was sent to the play for a box ticket—I cannot say whether for the Olympic or not. On my return, I went up to the drawing- room and knocked once at the door, but received no answer. I knocked a second time, and received noanswer. I then thought that Mrs. Norton was not in the room, and I opened the door and went into the room. Lord Mel. bourne was sitting on the left hand in a chair at the fire, with his elbows on his knees, his head reclining on his bands, and his face turned towards Mrs. Norton. She was lying down on her right side with her feet towards the door, and her head upon the hearth-rug. Mrs. Norton, the moment I got into the middle of the room, when I was going to deliver my message, shifted herself with her hand, and up a lithe. Lord Melbourne looked at her and she looked again at his Lordship : she then turned round and never said any thing, but gave me a bow, as much as to say that is enough,' after I had delivered my message. Mrs. Norton'sclothes were up, and I saw the thick part of her thigh. I turned round and retired from the room. Mrs. Norton made a bow, but she never spoke to me. 1 left the room."

Ile once opened the drawing-room door for Lord Melbourne ; who said to Mrs. Norton, " Well, Carry, how do you do ;" and witness believed that his Lordship kissed Mrs. Norton.

Fluke was cross-examined at great length by Sir John Campbell. It appeared that lie had a fly, a gig, a cab, and horse, which he hired out to make up the deficiency of his wages,—for he had only half- wages, he said. lie was a married man with three children ; and since be left Mr. Norton, had taken to mending shoes and selling women's cast-off clothes in a cellar in Monmouth Street. Ile had disposed of his gig, fly, cab, and horse; which lie bought on credit, but had not yet paid for—only part, as much as he could. For the last six weeks he had been living at a public-house near Lord Grantley's at Wo- nersh, in Siirry. He only left Wonersh on the previous night. He had received 101. from Mr. Norton's solicitor. He amused himself at U'onersh with fishing. He did not recollect that he had, but would not swear that he had not said, that he been examined nine days on this matter. He denied that Lord Wynford had ever examined him on this business. He had " a very bad place at Norton's ;" but for his cab and horses, he should have been starved. The cross-examination continued as follows : many of the witness's answers eliciting peals of laughter.

la reply to the question why he had left " Norton's," be said—" To tell the truth, I gut a drop too much. It was a Court-day, and we generally have a drop at such a time. Mr. and Mrs. Norton fell out in the carriage, and of course they put the spite on me, and so I was discharged." " Then vou had got a drop too much ?"—" Why, I like to speak the truth, and I confess I had. Mrs. Norton was very cross, and you could not please her very easily. She was cross because the black horse happened to gallop, and I could not get him into a trot. Horses will break sometimes ; you can't help it." And they put the spite on you ?"—" Oh, it is not the first time I have had it like that."

" You like to speak the truth : sometimes you took a drop too much, eh?" —" I don't know who does not at times. We are all alike for that, masters and servants."

" Did not Mrs. Norton complain that you had drunk too much ?"—" Mrs. Norton never complained of that ; because I was a good servant, though I did take a drop too much—a very good servant ; and you know gentlemen do the same sometimes."

" Have you not hail a sabre cut in your head "—" No, thank God, but I had a touch on may hip at Waterloo." " How often did you take a drop too much while in Mr. Norton's service?" " What, Sir, during the four years? You have put a very heavy question." " But on a moderate computation?"—" Why, some people carry a littlt so well that you can't tell when they've got a drop too much. I can't answer your question." " Did it not happen generally in the afternoon ?"—" I was not drunk, Sir, every day."

" But pretty often ?"—" Middling ; as we generally all are."

" Did it ever happen that you had taken too much when driving Mr. and Mrs. No tun to the Queen's ball ?"—" 1 was sober going to the Queen's ball ; but when going to the Marquis of Lansdowne's, in the evening, I certainly got a drop too aloe,. ; and then the black horse began to gallop. Mr. Norton got Omit of the coach, and mounted the box in his opera-hat ; and 1 did not think be looked well driving in that fashion." " You were so drunk that it was necessary for Mr. Norton to get on the coach-box with his opera-hat to drive?"—" I'll tell you the whole, Sir. When Mrs. Norton wanted Mr. Norton to do any thing, he was so fond of her he would do it, let it be what it might. So he got upon the box ; and I, being a goodish sort of a coachman, did not wish to see my master make a fool of himself in a crowd : so I said, ' If you will drive, you must drive by yourself.' I had one of my own and one of my master's horses in the carriage, and I did not like to see may own horse doing all the work ; so I preferred - walking.; a pretty good proof that I was not very drunk. When I got to the Marquis of Lansdowne's I expected to see the carriage at the door ; but instead of that, I saw a par eel of fellows cutting at my horse. I then said to my waster,' Let me drive, and I will soon get you up. The truth is,' says I, ' you look rather foolish.' But he refused to give up the reigns ; and I then said, If you will be obstinate, I must take may horse nut.' So I went went to take my horse out ; and Nil-. Norton said, ' John, John, don't do that! Policeman, take John away !' I did not take the horse out; but a Policeman came up, and said that I must g.) along with him. I said ' 1 am very willing to go with you, my good felio.v; I will go with all the pleasure in the world.' So be took mint to the watellhouse."

" Poor John ! And so there you were, locked up all night ? "—" I was."

" Did not you make an offer to release him then ?"—" I wanted to take hold of the reins, to get hint out of the crowd." 13th April 1832. " My dear George—All the children are quite well. You might have sent me a line to-day; but I say nothing. Write down tit Stoulay, do; and above all thins urtie to Mr. —, or at all events find out Frank's direction. Send a note to the Admiralty again to him. I am left here with nolstiv to keep no! company ; quite like one of the heroes in romances, is it tart ? Do go the Admiralty, or scud a note. God bless you ; good by. " CAROLINE."

Sir William Follett then put in three notes written by Lord Mel- bourne,—the first without a date ; the second dated in July 183:3; the third in February 1836. These were oil the letters of Lord Melbourne.

" I will call about half-past four or live o'clock. " Your's, Sze. " MET.Bor RNF."

" There is no house to-day ; I will call after tl .:. levee, about four or htlf-past. If ion wish it later, let me hear from you. I will then explain to you about going to

'Vauxhall. " Your's, &c. " MEr,unettNE."

South Street. 4th February l5 6.

• How are you? I shall not be Able to call to-day, but probably- shall to-rnorrow. " Your's, &c. 31ELBUCHNE." The examination of Martha Morris was continued. She had re- mained with Mr. and Mrs. Norton up to the time of the separation ; and was now taking care of the children at the house, near Storey's Gate. There had been a quarrel between Mr. and Mrs. Norton, in consequence of Mr. Norton's not being included in an invitation to his wife and family to visit Mr. and Mrs. Sheridan at Frampton, in Dor- setshire. Mr. Norton said, that as he was not invited, the children should not go. There was to be a flintily meeting of the Sheridans at Frampton—Sir James and Lady Graham, Lady Seymour, and Mrs. Blackwood. On the 29th of March, the morning after the quarrel, she let Mrs. Norton out of the house at seven o'clock in the morning: Mrs. Norton went to Lady Seymour's. Mr. Norton declared that the children should not go to Frampton; and they were sent to Upper Berkeley Street, to Lord Grantley's. Mr. Norton followed them there. Mrs.-Norton was in a state of great agitation, and exceedingly hurt that she could not see the children; who were removed again that night to the house at Storey's Gate, and were afterwards sent to Wonersh. She stopped with the children, as Mrs. Norton said she should then be satisfied that they would be taken care of.

James Benbow lived as footman with Mr. Norton in 183'2. He bad frequently carried notes to Lord Melbourne ; who sometimes called almost immediately after receiving them. There was no secrecy en- joined either as to the notes or the visits.

" Did Mr. Norton contrive to get the carriage up, driving with his opera.. baton?"—" So I understood next morning."

" And then you were discharged? "—" I was fined 5s. fur being intoxicated at the Office, though I was then as sober as I am now."

" Who was the Magistrate that fined you 5s. ? "—" Mr. Norton seemed to know him, for they talked together a lung while." a Then, you think your sentence was a very unjust one? "—" I don't think I was well used." " You were not deunk ? "—No ; when I went away with the Policeman, no more than I am now." " It was very unjust, then, that you were turned off? "—" Oh, Sir, when Mrs. Norton told master to do any thing, he must do it." " It was her fault, then, was it not ?"—" Rather more her's than master's."

He might have said that Mrs. Norton was a " damned bitch " for getting him discharged, but he never said he would be revenged on her

never, never." He did not recollect having said that he should get SOU for his evidence on this trial, and then go and live in the country. [This question was repeatedly put to the witness ; but he would not give it a decisive answer—he did not know how much it was usual to give on these occasions.] He did not know Lord Wynford, and bad not spoken of him in connexion with this affair. Ile had been em- ployed to find out his old fellow-servants at Mr. Norton's, but not "to fish up evid,a.ce "—he denied the expression. He might have said that he was th. ptin ipal witness against the Premier of England. Ile did not recoil et diving pocketed money which he had received from Mr. Norton to pay a sadler's bill. If they won the cause, he did expect something; a man must be paid for his work. lie did not wish to go into the country ; London agreed best with his constitution. The fire in the parlour, when he saw Mrs. Norton lying on the rug, was a very large one—it was in December. He had found out an old fellow-ser- vant, named Cummins, in London, for Mr. Norton. This woman was afterwards sent down to the neighbourhood with three littleCumminses, her children. Cummins always passed for a widow. Ann Cummins, a Roman Catholic, was sworn on the .cross ; and said that she had lived two years and three months with Mrs. Norton, as nurse ; having entered her service in October 18:31. She remem- bered Lord Melbourne calling seven days after the birth of Mrs. Nor- ton's second son. She was ordered to take the children into the bed- room: Mrs. Norton kissed the infant, and asked Lord Melbourne if it was not a pretty baby ? Lord Melbourne patted it on the bead, and said it was " not like Norton." Mrs. Norton kept the baby, and sent her away : and she did not return till she was rung for, in about half an hour. Once afterwards she came into the drawing-room, and saw Lord Melbourne's hand on Mrs. Norton's shoulder. Mrs. Norton rouged, and sometimes pencilled her eyebrows. She bad observed marks on Mrs. Norton's day-linen ; but did not think any thing of them at the time, though she had since thought it strange there should be any, as Mrs. Norton was a very strong woman. This witness was cross-examined by Mr. Thessiger; in whose fa- mily, it appeared, she had lived as a widow. She said that she now went by the name of Owen, a tailor ; whose mistress she was, and whom she did not wish to marry. She had been to Wonersh ; for she

wished to go there to avoid the people who came to her respecting this

trial from Lord Melbourne, and others. She had received 51. from a lawyer's clerk, and since 11. .5s. a week. She had seen Lord Gremtley once, but he only asked her how she did. She could not say whether

or not Mrs. Lilly, the monthly nurse, was in the bed-room when Lord Melbourne was with Mrs. Norton, seven days after her confinement. When Lord Melbourne called, the orders were, not to go into the drawing-room without knocking : but she had gone in sometimes

lvithout knocking—twice certainly. She had told Mr. Vizard, Lord Melbourne's attorney, who had questioned her on the subject, that she had never seen any thing in Mrs. Norton's conduct to excite suspicion.

Martha Morris was Mrs. Norton's servant ; and swore to her hard- writing in the letters already given as part of Sir William Follett's speech, and also to the following.

Maria Foggia was cook at Mrs. Norton's in 1833 and 1834. She was examined as to what became of the box in which Mrs. Norton kept her papers ; but could give no account of it.

The appointment of Mr. Norton as a Police Magistrate, dated,19 April 1831, was put in; and this closed the plaintiff's case.'",,

It being now about six o'clock, Sir John Campbell applied to have the trial postponed till the next morning, on account of the exhaustion both of himself and the Jury. But Sir William Follett opposed the application ; and the Jury expressed their wish that the trial should proceed. The Court adjourned for half an hour for refreshment ; and then

Sir John Campbell proceeded to address the Jury for the defendant, Lord Melbourne,

66 Gentlemen of the Jury," he said, "I can say to you unfeignedly, ',that I rejoice in that which you intimated to me—your wish that this trial should be proceeded with, and that we may have done with it this night. Your wish, gentlenwn, has saved me a night ofauxiety ; and I now can say this, that before 1 leave this court I shall be able to !mast, that, by your verdict, you have de- livered my client from the unfounded charge that has been brought against Min. YOU Will have the satisfaction When you lay your heads ou your pillow, to re- fleet, that having, beard all the evitharce,--having given to it the most dis- passionate consideration,—you have entice to the calm hut at the same dine the clear conclusion, that the clung° is wholly unfounded—that there is no proof to support the accusation made against the defendant. 1 think that it would have been more graceful in tiir William I h tti, if instead of opposing, he had seconded my application for an adjournment. Iltit no—when he thought that any advantage or assistance of time could be useful to my client, he pertina- ciously opposed it. Such was what I consider the unusual opposition of may learned friend in this very unusual case. I disdained, however, the notion of asking for that adjournment on the ground that I was to call witnesses. I tell you frankly, gentlemen of the .fury, that I shall call no witnesses. I shall be able to demonstrate to you, that no ease has been made out against my client; that all the material facts that have been alleged against hint are false; and that all the facts which really do exist are such, that no inference from them can be drawn against hint. I assert his innocence—there is no proof upon which a Jury can satisfactorily come to a conclusion of his guilt."

Ile would remind the Jury of the extreme hardship under which defendants laboured in actions for criminal conversation. In transac- tions where there could be no evidence except that of the parties im- plicated and a single winless of each alleged fact, it was impossible to supply contradictory testimony to the assertions of the plaintiff's wit- nesses; for neither of the two parties implicated could be put into the witness-box, arid it was only upon the improbability of the story, or discredit attaching to the third party who gave testimony against him, that the defendant could rely to rebut the charge. It therefore was necessary that the Jury should have no doubt whatever as to the credi- bility of the accusing witnesses, before they could convict the de- fendant. In the present ease, the defendant's counsel denied that any thing more than an intimate and innocent friendship, sanctioned by .Mr. Norton, had existed between Lord Melbourne and Mrs. Norton.

Ile acquitted Mt. Norton from having an idea that there was any thing im- proper between them, or from any suspicion that lie had connived at his own dishonour. It was the most extraordinary case that bad ever been brought into a court of justice. Alr. Norton was evidently under some delusion, and had been made the tool of others for political motives. There had been left on the Jury the leader of the political party opposed to his client ; but Sir John 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. Another remarkable feature in the present case was, that up to that day the defendant's advisers had not the most distant conception of who the witnesses were with the exception of two, and one (Mansell) who had not been called. In the Ecclesiastical Court, time and place and circumstance must be proved ; but here there was nothing definitive ; the evidence ranged over a period of four or five years, and excluded all evidence of what occurred within the last t,vu or three years, tlut ing which time the parties continued to live in harmony. During that period Lord Melbourne's visits continued, and he remained on the sane friendly footing with the family. Nothing was given in evidence relative to 18:35, or 11336,—a circumstance unexampled in the annals of such cases. Unless, therefore, a .Tury were watchful, vigilant, dis- criminating, and just,--as lie felt they would be,—it was utterly impossible that the innocence of the party could be vindicated. Under such circumstances it was impossible that a party could defend himself, except by showing the nature of the charge, and the characters of those by whom it was made.

The witnesses in this rinse were the most dangerous and least credible of all witnesses—discarded servants. Never was there a ease more disgraceful to those who- had got it up. Sir John remarked upon the non-appearance of several witnesses who ought to have been called by the plaintiff. Where was Mrs. Gulliver, Mrs. Norton's nurse ? where Fitness, Mr. Norton's servant, who was now at Storey's Gate, and could have related the real cause of the separation between Mr. Norton and his wife, about which the Jury would have learned nothing had it not been necessary to call Mrs. Morris to prove Mrs. Norton's handwriting? Fitness might also have contradicted the story

about the carrying away of Mrs. Norton's letters ; and he could also have proved the undisguised manner in which Lord Melbourne called upon Mrs. Norton.

Why were not the witnesses who had lived in Mr. Norton's service during the two or three latter years brought forward on this occasion ? Surely, if an adulterous intercourse had ever existed between the parties, it continued to exist down to the present period. Why then, he repeated, were not those witnesses who were living in the service when the separation took place produced before the Jury? Not only were they rut produced, but those who had been in the service during the years 1834, 1835, and 18:36, were kept back. All those per- sons had been examined cut of court; but it appeared that only those who would answer the whip, and had such convenient memories as to be able to recollect things which were said to have taken place years ago, but forgot what had occurred within the last forty-eight hours, were selected. Such as they were, however, it was now his duty to call the attention of the Jury to the evi- dence which they had given. His learned friends suggested to him, however, a fact which he did not intend to overlook,—namely, the statement which had been made respecting the finding of the letters ; the total n-ant of proof in respect of which was the first symptom of the tottering of a building that would by and by crumble into dust. Neither must he omit to remind them of the clan- dcstineity of Lord Melbourne's approaches to the house, which was so much dwelt on by his learned friend Sir William Follett, who had over and over again charged him with sneaking in at the backdoor. flow did that fact turn out? Why, the back-door was the door which opened into the Park—which led directly to the dining-room—to which it did not appear that there was either knocker or bell. And the very first witness called, Mr. Fletcher Norton, stated at once, that he had always entered by the door in Prince's Court. That Was • the street-door ; an because Lead Melbourne entered the house by that

door, the Jury were called upon to infer that he did ran for the purpose of dis-

honouring 3les. Nestor' ! The failure of that attempt had produced an evident effect trivia the mince Of the Jury, and of every person around ; and conse- quently, his learned friends did nut veuttne to est. aby other witness a single question on the subject.

It taros clear that the charge ngainet Lord Melbourne bad nething to do Vida the separatien : that was the after-thought of some subtle, [sly, ineinuating rogue. It Was impossible to believe that the woman who could write those letteN %vilielt had been read court—who tip to

the day of the separation bad been a most of wife and mother, mad who had glow &lout half-distracted at being separated from her ahildeell_eould have been raerying on an adulteroue intercourse for years. Such horrible depravity was absolutely ineredihle. Ile asked ashy no intimate tticnd or relative of the family had been called to speak of the domestic habits of .Mr. and Mrs. Norton ?— Why wee the evidence respecting their domestic habits et:Mined to one distant relation, and a eentlewan of the bar, who was not r■ I .terl at all to thwth ? NVIty was out Lord Grantley ctiled? Ile was sitting upan the bench during the

w hole or the hid,—Sit' wonla say nothing of the taste which had led him to do sn ; but there lie was---the brother of the plaintiff, tie newer of Wonersh, to which hail gone down the Flakes and the Cumminscs: he could have ex- plained the communications which he had bad with them ; why. then, was hot

Lord Grandee called ? Iiis Lordship %vas the head of the ; if he haul been called, perhaps he might hate told the Jury who it was that bad parmaded th.r unhappy George Norton to become a plaintiff in •Weetnainster Hall, and for what purpose. Ilut Lord Grantley had net been called. Ife tenuntied mute on the bench he was merely present front curiosity, or, perhaps, to grace the cause. Then, there other relations of the famile who :niht have been called. There seas Mies Norton ; there would have been 1111 111111■1ult y its procuring her attendance. It was said site was at Paris: -what then ? her at- tetatoce could have !inn procured. She had lived fir four months in the family, and she could therefore have spoken to Mrs. Norton's habits an:1 con- duct during that period. But there were other beanebes of the illustrious house of Norton, and they had not been called. If Aires Norton was at Calais or Boulogne, so that it WAS inconvenient to have her here, at all events Luta Grantiev was not abioad. It was 1114 for the defloyhtnt to call Lord G rantley the plaintiff was bound to make out hie case ; and if he did not produce the pro- per witnesees in the box, he gave evidence against himself. They tvere not

• althengh they might have told the Jury whether they had seen Lord 3Ielborne visit Air. and Norton, and encouraged his visits as well as Mr. Norton, and aftermwds advised 3Ir. Norton to take advantage of them. Then why were not the ladies of the family called ? There %vele Lady Seymour, the sister of Mts. Norton ; there waS Mrs. 13Iaakwood, her ether sister ; and there was Lady Graham, her aunt. NVIly were none of these called, who might have shown upon what terms they associated with Mrs. Norton—whether they parted from her side—and whether they do not continue, fl ono their knowledge of her whole conduct, to associate with and respect her as much as ever ? They had not called Mr. Sheridan, although they had brought a charge against him which turned out to be mimes.

Sir John proceeded to remark on the character of the plaintiff's wit- nesses—

There was Trieette Elliott:a witness of bad character. a discarded servant.

(" No! "from Sir Follett.) Ile repeated, a discarded servant, and

a witness; of had character. His learned friend said " no:" tvltv, she ad- mitted that she, being a single woman, had hermitic with child, and that she had been turned away by her mistress. But his learned friend seemed proud of her ; she Was his trump card ; he gloried in her. Conmared with other of his witnesses she was chaste as drifted snow. However, by snore accident or another, she had been got with child. lie might-he in the habit of drawing false inferences, but he could nut help suspecting that if an unmarried WOR11111 became with child, she must have had illicit intercourse with some man ; and

that if she hail, she must have committed a breach of chastity. He suspected that if she had had a child she was nut a pure virgin. She herself, however, did not seem so !wend of it, for she was at great pains to deny it at first. She finessed with the questions as long as she could, and at length admitted that she had been turned away, and that she had been with child. She was therefore a witness mit entitled to credit. But what did she say ? Why, that she had been in the habit of taking the children down to see Lord Melbourne when he called. And here site was at variance with Mrs. Morris, who stated that Lord Melbourne disliked children. Elliot, however, it appeared, took down the children when the bell rang, and when the bell rang again she went to take them away. Upon one occasion she said, that when the hell rang, she went down and found Lord Melbourne and Mrs. Norton With her hand in his. Now, how very odd, that they should ring the bell for the servant to come and see what they were doing,—like the story of the kiss spoken to by the same witness: EO that they must have desired to do these things corona poptdo ; for it appeared that they always rang the bell when any thine; was going to take place! And in the kiss hail been given without waiting for the servant to shot the door. Really this was so absurd, and so utterly opposed to all those feelings and con- siderations that actuate persons in such circumstances, that it was impossible to believe it. Then, Mrs. Norton preferred conning up stairs to adjust her col- lar and smooth her hair, before the servants, although there was a mirror in her drawing room: and this was construed to be a sign ofguilt !

Eliza Gibson had said that Mr. Norton was veryangry when he came borne and found Lord Melbourne with his wife— If he were angry on those occasions, why did he not turn Lord Melbourne out of doors? But how did he vent his rage ? By sayieg to Lord Melbourne, "Stay and tat your mutton at my table ; stop and take pot-luck ; and in the evening we will go to Covent Garden and see the play." (Lauphter.) He had always thought, that when the evidence of one witness was proved to be false, it threw discredit on that of the others on the stow side. %Ilia, then, must be the effect of this witness's testimony on the defendant's case ? The next witness called was Ellen Monk, whom he believed to be a respectable wit- ness. He would make no imputation against her, or against any witness whom he did not believe to deserve it. She stated, that on one ore:is-km when Mrs. Norton had been ill for several weeks, and was lying on her sofa in her own room, so ill as to be unable to move from it, Lord Melbourne was admitted to see her. Whilst he was there the children were rung fur three times. Mrs. Monk came down stairs and took in the children ; the nurse, a Mrs. Lilly, was there: the witness was afterwards rung for to take away the children, and again to know what o'clock it was. Now, it seemed a very sounding thine to that a man was admitted into a lady's bed-room ; but when it turned out that the lady was so ill, and had been for weeks previously, that she could not move from her sofa; and also that Mrs. Monk was there with the children, as Follett an opportunity to reply,—but probably most of the Jury bad seen Lord Melbourne, and they must know that, though be had been a handsome man in his youth, be had passed his grand climacteric, and had reached it term of years when the heyday of the blood was tamed and yet they were told to believe, that this man, for six days a week during three months, visited the same lady for the purpose of illicit intercourse—

His nerves must have town strong indeed. No apprehension of a discovery ! Hie !varied ft scud had stated a fact sehiell had not Incur proved—that the door

was bolted ; hut it Was not proved that it was bolted during the whole six ye rt.,. Elize Gibson could not say NvIal w is in the house, who was in the room. The Jury lied ne evidence of any precaution having: heen taken ; and they unite t. u Jon to supose, that Itt a small house, day by day, in the and epee to the tett drawing room, unbolted, a -alive of all strangers and vieiters,

these ciretintetowee took place ! ile would riot dwell longer on its complete impreledrility .111.1 incredibility. That Mts. 'Norton went up stairs to adjust her dress, was highly pruhahle ; that she should dress. for the morning, go down start's, receive her woritieg visitets, anti than go up stairs and dress herself for

dinner. Was a woman to he supine, :1 ;milt!: of .-litery heranse she gt.;:s: to her 1'00111 to Wil141 her hands? Alight she out have lernd:ed t! .v crayons, and so have dirtied her halide? -Was it extra:who:ay that site shonld wash them, and afterwards im,ke herself fdy ? If such facts as these were to be taken as

evidence of guilt, the 1110-4 person could not e•. ape.

A Per eommenting etre,. aly on the neglect of the plaintiff's Itgent to

cull \li Aerie-tieing to eiwale to .7%1 re. Nut .:1's conduct, Sir John Campbell went on to anim..!!...t.rt stiongly en the evidence of John Fluke ; died:wine his stor:• about liars, Not ton's position on the rug to lac utterly inertlible-

I le says dew on in winter dey, in t1 e worth of December, lac went into the dietwieg-room of Mr. Norton's house, and that these 1:e saw boil Melbourne sittine in a chair with his hands on his late-s, and Mrs. Norton lying on the tug, twit!: a roaring time in the clammy ; and "'There she lay All slant day," like a Spartan virgin, l'N rising her tlhigh to the peen of Fluke. Now, gentle-

men, ie not this jilt' ale ,e Can this fellow mean to assert that, there being a sofa in the room, if they had any wish to commit adultery, Mrs. No• ton would

lie impart <111 a rung before the time ! Ile says that, en his camber into the room, lie and ells. reertea looked at each other expressively, but that she did not make any attempt to adjust her dress ; and it then states, that having delivered the

to.,,imbt him into the mom, lac tar:de his lino• and withdrew. Ther.rWaS plenty of time for Aire. Norton to adjust her dries, but he states that she seemed in no but ry to do NO. i he even goes so far as to allege teat he knocked twice. and that he waited for shore time between the first and second knock' but that, hearing no reply, lie went in, and that he remained In the room fir oleo[ two minutes ; during :ill which time 31es. Norton's dress was so arranged that the thick hurt of ore of her thighs Was completely expesed. Nay, elr. Fluke is figurative ; for, if nut in so loony words, he give us to uhderstand that Mrs. N.itton looked like a statue teehning in a semi-supine attitude, and that she so tem:lived, without making- any effm t to recompose her dress, during the space of mere than two millutee, for the mere purpose of allowing Hoke to gratify his emit:site. (Lar,ufhler. ) Tlh:t really is the stoty this than tt ils. ,:ow, I ask you if the mast profligate and allandoord strumpet hail been found in the situation described by this Piero', whether she would not have immediately sprung op, adjusted her dress, andendeavottred to conceal her person from the gaze a stranger ? 131.1 t 110 j according to Mr. Fluke's story, there she remained like a statue while he continued in the room ; and so, he would lead yeti to conclude, she eantinued after he withdrew."

He contended that the evidence of Ann Cummins completely set aside the prestrioptioo raised ninon the marks on the day-dress of Mrs. Norton. After dwelling for some time on this point, he went on to observe, that it was very easy to account for Lord Melbourne's visits to Airs. Dorton, without supposing any improper motives— It was well known that Mrs. Norton was celebrated not only for her beauty, but also for her literary aecomplisimients and conversation. Lord Melbourne had no domestic engagements—why W,114 he not allowed to cultivate friendehips without being suspected to abuse confidence? A most uncharitable conelusion was to be drawn against his Lordship, which might with equal justice be drawn against any other visiter. But, then, the letters! Three were given in evi- dence : these, he hail a right to suppose had been selected ; and where' so many had passed, if there really had been guilt, evidence of it must have ap- peared in some passage : but this is the gruiclis ct rectosu tpi.steln—" I wilt call about half-poet four or live. Yours, Melbourne." The Jury were called upon tin presume floin this letter, that three had been an adulterous intercuuree. Other letters of 3Irs. Norton's wining bad been put in, to which he might have ohiected ; but they showed the affection of tire mother to her children, and were written with so much affection and tenderness, relating the play fulness and little /um mots af her children, that it was not possible they could be written by an adultress. There was nothing in the evidence that could induce the Jury to believe that she had broken her marrieee vows and dishonoured her distinguished handy. In the history of Englasel there has seldom been found such examples of gamins : one of her ancestors was the friend of Dean Swift, highly valued by him as a man of genius ; his son was a friend of Dr. Johns-on, and father of lbehard Brinsley Sheridan, the greatest owl micro: of the reign of Gerirge the 'Third; and he was the father of Thoniae Sheridan, from whom Mrs. Norton is •lestemiled. lie would c upoll the Jary, fir the sake of the plaintiff himself, not to find a verdict of guilty upon such evidence, The true eohntion was, ilea the pleintiff had been made a dime far parry arid political purposes. it was not fair warfac. This is not the way in which public men should be treated. So would Irrye said Sir Robert Peel if he had been asso- ciated with you in the hex; so would have slid any honourable weather of the party opposed to Lord Aielbouree. Ihit it was clear that come person has made Mr. Norton a dupe, and peleteeleil him to allow his na1:1a to he used fur party and !edified purposes. Lehi: e he rend:riled, he thimeht it right, in the name of Lord Melbourne, to declare, as he had instructed him to tin, in the most clear, emphatic, and solemn manner, that he never had lead any criminal intereouse with Mrs. Norton, nor had he ever done any finites in the sli.alitest degree to abuse the confidence of Alr. Norton,. The Jury were not to be swayed by this declaration, but they were to look at the evidence ; and if they did look at it, he would say that it was utterly impossible to find a verdict against his clieut. They had net called a single witness to prove any thing for the last three years. They went back to the .years 18:11, 1S:32, and IS:3. They called such witnesses as Fluke and Cumnone. He could not call witnesses, for Fluke had taken very good care to prevent contradiction by his want of me- mory; and there was no fourth person present with Lord Melbourne and Mrs. Norton, and he was not allowed to call either of them. The only course he had, then, to pursue, was to trust to the discrimination, justice, and impar- tiality of the Jury. especially that of by far the most important witness, Fluke. He de- clined giving any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant, leaving that point as well as the question of damages entirely to the Jury. [Though Sir Nicholas Tyndall pronounced no opinion of his own, the whole effect of his charge went to damage the case.) At the conclusion of the Judge's charge, the Foreman of the Jury immediately said, " My Lord, we are agreed : it is my duty to say, that we have agreed on a verdict for the defendant."

Loud cheers and cries of " Bravo !" rang through the court. The noise within doors was soon silenced by the Chief Justice ; but on the verdict being made known, the cheering was taken up and pro- longed by the assembled multitude outside. The trial terminated a few minutes before midnight.