Page:English laws for women in the nineteenth century.djvu/78

66 knew, and I knew (however deceived the public might be), that he was not the cause of the domestic repture [sic] which had taken place. He knew, and I knew, that to the very last day and hour of my stay under my husband's roof, he had been, not only a welcome, but a peculiarly courted guest of Mr Norton's; that, to the last, favours had been begged of him, and friendliness sustained; that for years his portrait had lain, unchallenged, the principal ornament of our drawing-room table, and that I had never imagined it necessary to conceal from my husband, or any one else, the profound enthusiasm and regard I felt for that gifted and intellectual friend,—who was of my father's generation, not mine.

Lord Melbourne himself laid much stress on the admission of the witnesses, that they had received a weekly stipend, from an agent. He always considered they had been suborned, and in one of his notes alludes thus to the man Fluke: —

"July 3, 1836. "''We are told that the witness' Fluke,' made the most of the advantages of his situation whilst it lasted, and tyrannized over his employers unmercifully. He would not leave Guildford until he had had both chicken and duckling for his breakfast, and insisted upon coming up in a chaise and four. It is a pity that we did not know these circumstances upon the day of trial.''"Yours, Melbourne."

Who the "employers" were,—was the only doubt; and it was that doubt which the Duke of Cumberland endeavoured to clear away,—^when he denied, on behalf of the whole Tory party, any undue or ungentlemanlike interference in the affair. Nevertheless, when, after the Mock-Trial, I re-appeared at the English Court (which was not without express sanction, and subsequent to Her Majesty's marriage), my re-appearance was