and the best that can be said for his attitude is that he was so mentally constituted that he could only see or preferred to see in Nelson’s extravagant attentions to his wife a guileless symbol of high friendship for her, which he took as a compliment to himself.  On the other hand, if he not only suspected but knew that he was being betrayed, and bitterly resented the passion which no remonstrances from him could have controlled, he at any rate determined to let the world see “how a Christian could die,” and refrained from uttering the unutterable.  Napoleon on the rock at St. Helena acted in the same magnanimous way towards the adulterous Marie Louise, of whose faithlessness he also unguardedly let slip his opinion.

It is an odious habit, but we are apt to believe, without any reserve, disparaging stories, that may or may not be true, concerning men of distinction, and the more prominent the man or woman, the more viciously the scandal-mongers pursue their contemptible occupation.  These vermin invariably belong to a class of industrious mediocrities who have been born with a mental kink, and their treachery, falsehood, and cowardice are incurable.  They are merely hurtful creatures who spoil the earth, and are to be found dolefully chattering about what they conceive to be other men’s and women’s lapses from the paths of stern virtue.  Their plan of life is to defame other people, and by this means proclaim their own superiority over other weak mortals.  Give the unsexed woman a chance, and she will let fly with unrestrained industry.  How many innocent people have had their names dragged into the public gaze by this vice!  The report may arise from professional or political jealousy, and may grow into incredible accusations of immorality.  Who can estimate the suffering caused to Lord Melbourne, the then Prime Minister, and to his relatives and friends, and even to some of his political opponents, and to the Hon. Mrs. Norton, one of Sheridan’s beautiful daughters (who was the wife of as unscrupulous a scamp as was ever permitted to live), by the engineering of an accusation of infidelity that forced the Prime Minister and Mrs. Norton into the Courts to defend themselves against what was proved to be a malicious and unfounded story?  The plaintiff’s case, resting as it did upon a tissue of fabricated evidence, takes a fine place in history because of the judge’s impartiality and sagacious charge, and the verdict of the jury for the defendants which was received with tumultuous cheers, characterized by the judge as “disgraceful in a court of justice.”  His Lordship’s remonstrance was futile, and again and again the cheers were given, both in the court and outside, where the wildest enthusiasm prevailed.  No one who took part in this disgraceful action came out of it with a higher reputation than Sir John Campbell, who acted for Melbourne.  His entrance to the House of Commons that night was the occasion of an outburst of delirious cheering, the like of which had never been witnessed in the House.  “The Tories” are said to have “affected to cheer.”  I give this as a notable case whereby two innocent people were threatened with ruin and disgrace by the poisonous slander circulated for both private and political ends and fostered by the worthless husband of a virtuous and amiable woman.