137
lesque, when its reasoning sequel must be,—"because thereby the truth will be revealed, to my discredit."
These letters—of a mere reference to which Mr Norton complains so bitterly; the contents of which Lord Wynford considered would ruin his character; the explanation of which Lord Abinger prevented, by refusal of evidence,—rise before Mr Norton, the spectre-witnesses of past wrong! They are my justification. In this year of 1853, my husband affects to believe the slanders of 1836. Is Sir John Bayley, on my earnest appeal, not to be permitted to say, "I saw those letters signed 'Greenacre,' written by Mr Norton to the wife he now maligns; I myself received his declaration, that he disbelieved the facts stated on the trial?" Can there be more absurd language held by one gentleman to another, than the strange rebuke:—" Be silent—you have no right to speak; for you were my 'Referee.' I choose to gull the public with a false story; you shall not shew the real story—Lord Abinger protected me from you once before—I depend on the truth never being revealed, and I consider you are a traitor for revealing it."
If Sir John Bayley be a traitor to Mr Norton, many other gentlemen must share that title. Sir John is not the only person who has placed letters from Mr Norton in my hands; nor is he the only person who wrote in strong condemnation of his conduct. Mr Norton persists, that those who have blamed him, were deluded by me into that opinion. This is a poor compliment, either to the understanding or principle of the friends who from time to time have been concerned in these miserable affairs. In that deluded group must stand. Lord Harrington, Mr Edward Ellice, Sir James Graham, Sir Frederick Thesiger, Mr Barlow, Sir John Bayley, and Mr Norton's colleague, Mr Hard wi eke; of these gentlemen, no less than five, have given up one, or several, of Mr Norton's "private letters." Apparently all felt, that the extraordinary circumstances of the case justified extraordinary measures; all
