Please wait. Contacting image service... loading

Article text

MAN INVOLVED IN NOTORIOUS CASE
BECAME HONORED FRIEND OF QUEEN
[?]
WHEN Sir Richard Bourke, Governor of
New South Wales, in 1837 gave the
name of "Melbourne" to the village which
was destined to become the capital city of a
new state, Victoria, his choice was singularly appropriate.
He named it in honor of William Lamb, the second Viscount
Melbourne, then Prime Minister of England in the reign of
William IV. Within three months King William was to die
and be succeeded by the 1 8-years-old Queen Victoria. Lord
Melbourne was to become friend, confidant, and
counsellor to the young Queen, and the source
of much of the triumph her reign later became—
iust as the " villaee' ' named after him, became the
pivot around which time was to build a new and
prosperous state named after the young Queen.
TT was his selfless devoted ser-
vice to the young Victoria,
bereft of. father and brought, up
in an almost exclusively fem
inine 'society, that qualifies
Lord Melbourne to be remem
bered today.
He was not distinguished for his :
statesmanship, sponsored no out
standing legislation , and eventually
retired from politics with his Min
istry Utterly discredited. \ / J
But he possessed valuable gifts
of tact and management, was an
"old dog who had travelled a hard
road" and fallen in many of its
.holes; and, divorcing himself from
the meannesses of party politics.,
he laid all his. worldly experience
at the feet of the young Queen to
guide them along the path of
greatness that later became her
destiny. , '
He placed himself as a buffer
between a hard world and this in
nocent, inexperienced and trusting
girl suddenly loaded with respon-
sibilities that had overwhelmed the
man who was her predecessor; and
in language carefully pruned of its
customary coarseness and cyni
cism, coached her in her . tasks as
Monarch, "impressing upon . -her
mind sound maxims of constitu
tional government and truths of
every description which it behoved
her to learn."
, Even .his many enemies could
not impugn his intimacy with the
Qiieexi> or challenge the fact that
his counsels had a great and bene
ficial influence on her long and
glorious feign. , , . , ,
William Lamb became Lord- Mel
bourne in the year 1828 after the
deaths of his elder brother and his
father, the first Lord Melbourne.
He became Prime Minister of Eng
land for the first time in 1834. when,
he was 49, and for a second time m
1835. ' . . ' .
; His second Ministry continued
for, over six years, and very im
portant years they were, particu
larly upon the accession of the
young Victoria in 1837.
William Lamb's youth and early
manhood hardly gave promise of
statesmanship. He had been a
careful University student, had
shown a ' capacity for writing
minor poetry/ and grew into and
remained a reading man though he
followed the major sports affected
by the nobility of his time. . . '
His mother was a remarkable
woman who was most ambitious
for, and centred all her hopes on,
her handsome second son. She
made his education as a man of
the world and of politics one pf
her chief personal concerns— al
though she also exposed herself to
rumors of scandal through her as
sociations with other titled, and
even royal, members of the op
posite sex. ' .
In spite of her worldliness. Wil
liam Lamb made an unfor
tunate marriage. His wife, Caro
line Ponsonby, who had refused his
first offer. of marriage, was a girl .
of most difficult nature, extrava
gant temper and moods that from
time to time made even her own
relatives doubt for her sanity.
When she accepted his, second pro
posal and became his wife in 1805
she was guilty of the most erratic
arid indiscreet, even outrageous; be
havior;
Lamb certainly loved her.; for
though the strain of matrimony
with this Caroline became so great
in 1813' .that a deed of separation
between the two was actually pre
pared, he forgave her. in one room
while the deed was awaiting signa-
- ture in another, and no actual
separation took place until 1825.
Garoliie Lamb dabbled in sensa
tional novel writing that was nearly
, as erratic as her habits.
-. She was reputed to have had an
' affair ' with Lord Byron, but she
was, or professed to be, strangely
innocent. One r iorning she turned
to her husband at the breakfast
table (of all places) and asked him:
"William, what is the seventh
commandment?"— a question . that
brought from her husband the re
ply: "My dear, thou shaft not
bother! "
So possibly William Lamb by the ,
time' he " became Lord Melbourne
was not alone to blame for his own
erratic ways of life and somewhat
stained reputation morally. His
morals had an eighteenth-century
flavor about them. In 1829 he had
had the unpleasant experience oi
4 being sued by Lord Brandon for
damages, for appropriating his wife
The non-appearance of. witnesses
brought a decision in Melbourne's
favor but there' was a strong sus- .
picion of : a private compromise.
Then, in 1836, just a year before
Victoria's coming to the throne, he
earned the unique distinction for a
Prime Minister, of being again, iri
eftect, cited as" co-respondent in a
notorious divorce case. .
However, to allay, at the outset,
any alarm in the Victorian capital,
it need not blush, for there was no
bar sinister, so to speak, about its -
godfather. In the end . the pro
ceedings were dismissed.
There was an unpleasant odor
about this action owing to its hinted
political background. Politics was
not then the clean and pure occu-
pation it is said to be these days;
' and there has always been grave
: doubt- whether the action of Norton
v. Melbourne was not undertaken
at the instance, of some of the Tory
Borliomonf'irv Onnnfiifinn in the
hope of disabl
ing the. Whig
leader, Mel
bourne, from
holding t h e
Prime Minister-
ship in the year 1837.
For King William the Fourth
was a pretty sick monarch, and a
female sovereign was expected to
ascend the throne hf England in
the latter year— as indeed she did
under the famous and glorious
name of Queen Victoria.
When the Honorable George Nor
ton sued the Right Honorable Wil
liam Lamb, Viscount Melbourne,
' there was political and society fur
flying in all directions. And all
Europe too was agog; for the then
Government was thought -to be in
volved in the issue and couriers
were kept ready to start for for-
eign courts witn news of the ver-.
diThe plaintiff's claim was for
£10,000 damages for criminal con
versation — or, translated, the al
leged misconduct of the defendant
Lord Melbourne with the plaintiffs
wife, the lovely Mrs. Caroline Nor-
tori. Such proceedings were in
those days the necessary prelimin
ary to a husband's petition for
divorce. ' " - x ,nnn,
The newspapers of the 1830 s
were full of guesses, gossip and com-
ment. The Tories were elated;
they, believed .that there was to.be
produced at the hearing a series
of letters written by the defendant
Lord Melbourne to Mrs. Norton
that would topple the Whig leader
into the gutter for good and. all.
The contemporary salacious, who
were legion, went , in hordes to the
Common Pleas Court, crushing one
another for seats, and there was
confusion and uproar before the
judge and jury took their seats.
The hearing took place in. the
month of January of the year 1836.
The Honorable Mrs. Caroline
Norton was one of the most beauti
ful women in an age of. female
loveliness. And she was a notable,
too; for she was a granddaughter
of the famous Richard Brinslev
Sheridan, the great playwright, dis
tinguished statesman and supreme
orator.
Moreover, she wrote poetry in the
Byron manner and was a novelist
as well. And, above all, she was
a very lively and attractive com
panion.
It is to ne remembered that at
that time neither Mrs. Norton nor
Melbourne could be called as wit
nesses on their own behalf; it was
years before the sensible alteration
of that rigid and difficult role, to
' allow parties to such proceedings
to give evidenc 3 on oath, was
brought about. ' ' .
A very capable and formidable
counsel, Sir William Follett, led for
the plaintiff. The Attorney-
General, the famous Sir John
Campbell— who was later to be
Lord Chief Justice of England, and
later .still Lord Chancellor— led for
the defendant. Sir John tells us
that he spent a sleepless night
brooding \over his brief, and missed
his breakfast, to which he was very
partial.
After all the pother and Camp
bell's nervous anxiety, there turned
out to be only three letters in all
which the plaintiff could produce.
It is of .interest to reflect that these
letters were the models for the his
toric exhibits produced by Mr. Ser
jeant Buzfuz in: the famous case,
9
Charles Dickens great fictional
"breach, of promise action of Bard -
ell versus Pickwick. Sir William
Follett's opening speech to the jury-
was also echoed by that immortal .
Serjeant in his address.
These letters of Lord Melbourne
to , Caroline Norton did not take
the Honorable George Norton even
as far as Mr. Pickwick's letters
carried Mrs. Bardell. They were
the weakest of- supports ; - indeed
they were not even suggestive of a.
meaning that was sinister.
Here aie the full contents of one.
of them, and that the most mean- _
ingful and-the longest: "I .will call
about- half past 4 or 5 o'clock.
Yours, Melbourne." And that is
absolutely all.
The evidence produced by the
plaintiff was of ex-servants, mostly,
highly suspect or having been dis
charged in disgrace and of further-
- more having been kept as well as
. . paid by Lord Grantley, the plain
tiff's brother, who was unseemly
enough in his conduct to occupy a
seat on the Bench with the judge
during the hearing.
None of the witnesses deposed to
any incident occurring subsequent
to the year 1833, though the associa
tion between the defendant and the
lady in question continued un
changed right up to the very date
of launching the claim, which was
three years later than the latest
date of the evidence.
Follett opened at length. He was
an astute counsel, but one of the
very first points that he put to the
jury made a bad start for his case, v
It was suggested to the jury that
Melbourne always used, the side en
trance to the Norton house leading
on to Birdcage Walk.
But the very first, witness, a- re
lative of Norton, arid a man who
had been present at the wedding of
the Nortons, told the Court that
the Birdcage Walk entrance was
: the usual entrance to the house.
complete wicn
I entry bell and
knocker an d
bearing the
name of Norton
nn a. hrass
plate;- whereas the other entrance,
which Follett would have held to be
, the main entrance, was only a glass
window, which, though usable as a
door, led directly into the dining
room. -
A succession of witnesses deposed
to the frequent afternoon visits of
Melbourne to Mrs. Norton, and that
the servants were instructed that
nobody else was to be admitted
when Lord Melbourne was with his
hostess.
Evidence was given that away
back in the 1830's Caroline Norton
rouged her cheeks and often pen
cilled her eyebrows — that testi
mony was the most shocking and
most damning they could find to
submit to the pre-Victorian jury,
and still they could not draw the
net tighter.
At last the star witness was put
into the box. His name was given
as Mr. John Flook. Mr. Flo, ok was
a nondescript former servant of the
plaintiff. He and his family, ac
cording to the head of it, all sub- :
sisted on the strange if not unique
business of dealing in' women's
second-hand undergarments. ;
' '' a >' >
The most important part of
Flook's evidence dealt with an oc
casion when, he said, he had enter
ed the Norton drawing-room with
out cause or request, and found
Lord - Melbourne sitting on a chair
with his hands on his knees and his
face on his hands, while -Mrs. Nor- -
tori reclined ori the floor with her
face resting on one hand.--'
Flook asked the jury to believe
that Mrs. Norton then nodded twice
t6 him '(though how or wny sne
performed that piece of contortion
he. did not explain); and he swore
. 'that he then left the drawing-room
without a word having been spoken
by anyone to anyone.
; And all this evidence was direct
ed to incidents that allegedly occur
red more than three years before
Flook gave his testimony in -the;
Court. "
But this man Flook was unable
to recollect whether he had repeat
edly, and even quite: recently, declar
ed that if the plaintiff succeeded he,
Flook, would be able to retire to
Scotland with a competence of
£500 or £600. This singular iailur.e
tof memory of Mr. Flook ended the
case for the plaintiff, which Flook
had been relied upon to complete.
. Sir John Campbell had no wit
nesses to call for the defence. After
all, what witnesses could he call,
when the lav/ did not allow him to
examine on oath either his own
client or the lady in the case? But
. he addressed the Court and , jury 1
\yith all his best characteristic force .
arid point.
Chief Justice Tindal, of the Com--
mon Pleas, surrimed up with ostens
ible impartiality. The foreman of
the jury rose immediately after the
conclusion of the judge's "address
arid announced that" the jury had
made up their , minds unanimously
in favor of the defendant.
At this there was much applause
in the court and much judicial in
dignation at the unseemly outburst.
Late in the evening Sir John Camp
bell hurried out of his robes and
into the House of Commons, which
was then sitting,, and caused a great
sensation with the> news which
brought much disappointment to
the Tories.
Lord Melbourne's administration
instead of being overthrown was
greatly strengthened as the direct
result of the case. Largely due to
these .proceedings, which were felt
to constitute an unworthy, and were
certainly a singularly unsuccessful
party manoeuvre, . Lord ' Melbourne
was still Prime Minister/of England
when Queen Victoria came to the
throne on the 20th of June, 1837;
Thus Fate preserved him to crown
a not very striking career with one
great example of loyal national ser
vice.
The young Queen's tribute if
affection and trust were the rewards
for Lord Melbourne's undouuieuiy
patierit, kindly, fatherly and wise
care for his Royal Mistress in her
most ' difficult early years as
monarch.
In his association with the Queen
Melbourne exhibited his talents and
capacities at their best, and Eng
land ' and the Empire are certainly
indebted to him for the moulding
of the wiser- and more useful parts
of the character of Victoria. ,
Lord Melbourne' had to resign in
1841 and again give way to bis old
opponent,; Sir Robert Peel, and his
death in 1848 caused one of Am first
of the many. '.heavy griefs of Queen
Victoria's long life.
[?]
I LADY CAROLINE LAMB, ec- i centric and notorious wife of |j || William Lamb, later the second j» » Lord Melbourne. Ji Help
I LADY CAROLINE LAMB, ec- i
centric and notorious wife of |j
|| William Lamb, later the second j»
» Lord Melbourne. Ji
5 THE. HON. MRS. CAROLINE z !; NORTON, with whom Lord ? !' Melbourne, Prime Minister of ) England, and later adviser to J <1 Queen Victoria, was charged 4 with having an affair. Z Help
5 THE. HON. MRS. CAROLINE z
!; NORTON, with whom Lord ?
!' Melbourne, Prime Minister of )
England, and later adviser to J
<1 Queen Victoria, was charged 4
with having an affair. Z
none Help
THE SECOND <> Viscount Mel- i! bourne, after , whom the capi- )| tal of Victoria was named, who |i crowned a more |! notorious than ; meritorious career with loyal 2 service as adviser to the girl- Z !; Queen, Victoria. z Help
THE SECOND
<> Viscount Mel-
i! bourne, after
, whom the capi-
)| tal of Victoria
was named, who
|i crowned a more
|! notorious than
; meritorious career with loyal 2
service as adviser to the girl- Z
!; Queen, Victoria. z
$