63
solicitude is you, and the situation in which you have been so unjustly placed, hy the circumstances which have taken place."
Lord Melbourne was right, so far that what was "false " was not made to "appear true: and that the drunken and worthless witnesses were discredited by the Jury. The very fact, however, of the utter disbelief with which the evidence was received, saved Mr Norton from any furher exposure than that of having brought forward a story it was obvious even he himself could not have believed. For—as it was not thought necessary to call any witnesses to rebut the coarse invention of the accuser—our real history remained unknown as before.
The next steps taken, prove only how heartily ashamed every one was of being supposed to have had any share in the transaction. The papers of the day were filled with severe comments and counter comments. Lord Wynford denied having had any hand in the business. Lord Grantley (who at least had the excuse for interference that he was Mr Norton's brother) partly denied it. Sir W. Follett hastened to intrench himself within the narrowest limit of professional and compulsory assistance, and published a denial of having advised the trial, in the 'Times;' and Lord Melbourne had already written to me, as follows, of the denial of the Duke of Cumberland.
…… "What I wanted to tell you was this: that a few days ago the Duke of Cumberland came up to me in one of the lobbies of the House of Lords, and said—"Have you seen Wynford? He wishes to speak to you; and it is in order to assure you, upon his honour, that he has had nothing to do with this affair. Nor indeed any of us. We would do nothing so ungentlemanlike. The moment I heard he was charged with it, I went to him, and asked him, and he solemnly denied it." I replied that 'I never believed mere rumours and reports; that I had never thought it, and that His Royal Highness' s declaration was of course, perfectly satisfactory.' When I went into the
