132
verdict must, according to Lord Wynford, have gone against Mr. Norton, with the addition of "loss of character and great expense." Sir Fitzroy Kelly settled the matter. His experienced skill saved Mr. Norton. He knew that it is easier to suppress evidence than to refute it; and on his suggestion (as Mr. Norton has now published to the world). Lord Abinger decided what to do. He simply refused to hear anything Sir John Bayley had to say! That this decision was optional, and not the result of a legal necessity, we may safely presume; since Lord Wynford did not anticipate such a road out of the difficulty; but had advised "a settlement on any terms" rather than run the risk of the actions. That risk was triumphantly avoided, by the refusal of an English judge, in open Court, to receive sworn testimony in behalf of a party unjustly accused and not represented by Counsel! The result was a verdict for Mr. Norton; and he was satisfied.
But I was not satisfied. I naturally said to myself, "Here is the truth suppressed, and evidence refused which would have decided that case precisely the other way; I have it on Lord Wynford's authority. He advised Mr. Norton to yield, to save him from exposure; these other lawyers have saved him from exposure by a superior trick of skill. It seems then, that he is to be protected At all hazards. Why? Can any one believe that nothing more is at stake than a simple admission of liability for a wife's debts, when such strange means are resorted to? Lord Wynford, in spite of his denial—of the Duke of Cumberland's denial—in spite of his repudiation of Mr. Norton and his concerns—was nevertheless the person appointed immediately after the trial to discuss terms. Lord Wynford, on Mr. Norton's behalf,—and no other, met Dr. Lushington on my behalf, as soon as the action against Lord Melbourne was over! Are we to believe that he suddenly renewed his intimacy with Mr. Norton only for the purpose of rendering him that service? Now, here were two
