The Express.
London, England, 1853-09-03 00:00:00

HON. MR. AND MRS. NORTON.

The statement published by the Hon. Mr. G. C.
Norton on the 24th ult., has induced a reply from his wife.
The points in Mr. Norton's statement are re-stated with
sufficient fulness in the reply to render unnecessary the
publication of that document in exert:so. The Hon. Mrs.
Caroline Norton says:
On Wednesday, the 24th ult., a long letter from Mr.
Norton appeared in the columns of the Times. I did not
expect ever to feel thankful for anything Mr. Norton would
say of me; but I do feel most deeply thankful that he
wrote and published that letter. He has now deliberately
given to the world, on his own authority, and under his
own signature, that history which I had always refrained
from giving, beyond the circle of my own friends; and he
' has thus given me an opportunity of refitting slander, of
which I should sooner have availed myself, but that to do
so completely I have been obliged to look through a mass
of papers and correspondence, and I have been too ill since
the day I had to appear in the county court to make the
requisite exertion.
[Having replied to the charge of extravagance in her per-
sonal expenditure and establishment arrangements, Mrs.
Norton proceeds :—]
The charge I publicly bring against Mr. Norton (who bu
brought so many against me) is a far graver charge than
any Injustice in pecuniary matters. I complain, that
twice in my life he has endeavoured, on a false pretence, to
rub me of my reputation.
In 1836 I had a quarrel with my husband. Our cause of
quarrel was, whether I should, or should nor, take my
children to the house of my brother, who would not receive
my husband. I persisted. My husband baffled me by
sendieg my children to the woman who has since lett
him her property, who thrvateetd to give me into the
hands of the pogce when I went to claim them, and 1
left town alone, for my brother's country seat. Such being
our real quarrel, I charge Mr. Norton with contriving
that the whole world should believe (as they did be-
lieve) that my misconduct had broken up our home,
that I was an untaithfel wife, and that my lover was
Lord Melbourne. lie brought an action against Lord
Melbourne. The witnesses for that action were proved on
trial to be of the lowest and moat &graded class. The
chief wituess was a drunken and discarded groom, who
was then a rag-uller in Monmouth-street; both be end
others were proved to have been sent down to Lord Grant-
ley's place, and to have received a weekly stipend from his
agent while there. The trial was brought in 1838; never-
thelees no •eidence wu offered alter the year 1833; the
servants living with us after that time were not called;
nothing was heard but the witnessing of the rag seller and
hie companions, who admitted in court that they had
received money. In spite of all which strange advan-
tages, and the fact that a woman is not allowed to defend
herself in those actions, the verdict went against Mr. Nortua.
In this present year of 1843 I have a quarrel with my
husband. Our quarrel is, whether I shall or shall not,
be compelled to cede a portion of my mother's bequest.
I refuse. Mr. Norton insists. I rashly count on being
certain to obtain a compulsory fulfilment of our agree•
ment, which I imagined to be beiding. I Sod myself, on
my return to England, without funds to meet my English
creditors. I stop one action against my husband at my
own expense. I write to Mr. :lonian's own solicitor, in the
forlorn hope that Mr. Norton is acting against advice. I