123
by Sir W. Follett's advice) minutes of a consultation noted by his solicitor, Mr Currie; in which Mr Currie admitted, that Sir W. Follett said, he doubted much if a verdict could be got, as witnesses of the description Mr Norton had procured, "were so likely to break down on cross-examination"; that it would be "important to prove by a better class of witnesses," the extreme intimacy with Lord Melbourne; and that a conference had been afterwards held, as to the necessity of taking some step, rather than admit (by not proceeding) that the charge was groundless. On so slender a chance did that mock trial turn!
Mr Norton also published the opinion and letters of Sir John Bayley, at and after the trial; to prove, as he said, that Sir John's opinion was then at variance with the one recently expressed in my favour. Sir John was in Scotland when this second batch of slanders appeared; I therefore wrote to him; and, after briefly commenting, myself, on Mr Norton's fresh attack; I re-printed this public denial made at the time, to disprove Sir W. Pollett's share in a transaction he had expressly disclaimed.
Extract from the "Times" of June 25th, 1836:—
"To the Editor of the 'Times.'
"Sir,—Having seen in the ' Times ' of this morning that the action of 'Norton v. Lord Melbourne ' was advised ' by the able and " upright counsel who conducted it,' we think it is due to Sir William Follett to state, that the action was not brought under his advice; and that although he was retained so far back as the 25th of April last the evidence was not in complete state for his brief to be delivered to him until the 14th of June inst., and when no course was open to the parties but to proceed with the trial of the cause, which had been fixed for the present sittings.
(Signed)Currie and Woodgate.
Lincoln's Inn, June 25, 1836."
Sir John Bayley answered my appeal to him, as I hoped and expected; he came forward and publicly contradicted, in his own person, the tissue of mis-statements by which
