95
of the bar, and the brilliant profession to which he belongs (a profession which has produced more distinguished men than any other in England),—when, by his lame apology, he implied, that while he pleaded as a lawyer, he was obliged to forget he was a gentleman.
After the proceedings were ended; and when we were discussing the extraordinary defence falsely set up; it was suggested to me, that the comparative dates of Lord Melbourne's death, and the drawing up of the contract, would prove at once the impossibility of what Mr Norton had asserted. I regretted that I had not had those dates in Court: and after reading the evidence next morning, I addressed the following letter to the papers: —
To the Editor,
Sir,—I ask your patience for this letter, in consequence of the unexpected falsehood by which Mr Norton yesterday upheld his non-liability to my creditors in the County Court, Mr Norton there declared that his stipulation with me was, that he should be liable only "If I received no aid from the late Lord Melbourne's family."
The solicitor who drew up the agreement contradicted him on oath—on oath he stated that there was no such stipulation.
I contradict him on facts, which are stronger than oaths. Our agreement was signed in September, 1848, and Lord Melbourne was then still alive; therefore it is impossible that any stipulation should have been made as to his supposed bequests. To save himself from the payment of £500 a year—due to my creditors on a formal covenant—Mr Norton has uttered this falsehood, and raked up, from the ashes of the past, an old refuted slander, on which, for two hours yesterday, he himself in person, and the counsel he employed, examined
