131
Here then is Mr. Norton, armed with the knowledge of Lord Wynford's opinion, that the production of the evidence Sir John Bay ley could give, would be attended with "loss of character," and prove fatal to his defence. Lord Wynford's advice was to surrender at discretion. "Don't attempt to defend the actions; the evidence will ruin you." But Mr. Norton (himself brought up to the law) thought differently. "Defend the actions; the evidence that would ruin you can be suppressed." Two of the ablest men the English bar could boast—Lord Abinger and Sir Fitzroy Kelly—might surely steer him past that dreadful shoal, with this one skilful stroke of the oar! So Hope whispered; and so the event proved. Lord Abinger "refused" the evidence which Lord Wynford had warned Lord Grantley would be fatal. Lord Abinger "rejected the advocate," whose dangerous testimony was to turn the scales. Let the foreigners, whose methods of jurisprudence we criticise, read what can happen in an English Court of Justice—and be boasted of afterwards by an English Magistrate!
Sir Fitzroy Kelly (who, for the use he then made of his skill and eloquence, may plead, like Mr. Needham, and the defender of the burglary case, duty to his client and "licence of the bar") represented Mr. Norton in pathetic terms, as a high-minded and excellent man, whose extravagant and profligate wife was endeavouring to ruin him by a succession of luxurious debts; a wife utterly unworthy, though the verdict in the trial against Lord Melbourne left her still with some legal claims on that injured and deceived husband, who vainly strove, with mingled economy and generosity, to provide for her and his children!
To contradict this Romance of the Bar, there was in Court, at that hour, a gentleman of unimpeachable integrity, subpoenaed to give testimony on oath, by the creditor who was suing for his debt. He could have proved all that Lord Wynford dreaded—all that has since been declared in Sir John Bayley's letter to the Times; and had he been permitted tp speak, the
