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

THE EXPRESS, SATURDAY EVENING, SEPTEMBER 3, 1853.

come into court against my will, upon e.bpmns, eemelled
to appear, to prove the debt and agreement. Mr. Norton
meets me there, in person, and by counsel, once more to
fight his battle against me with cruel treachery, ones more
Ito raise the ghost of that departed slander, and to contrive
tharthe whole world shall believe (u they do believe) that
Lord Melbourne sou again the subject of our quarrel ; that
some pledge, stipulation, or promise was made and broken
by me, and that that is Mr. Norton's excuse fur his breach
of covenant. I rebut that imputation on oath, and by
proved sects; and Mr. Norton publishes, in the Times
nowsinper, two columns of abuse of the dead and
including coarse anecdotes of the mother of his
g Igrown up sons, which, even if true (which they are not)
ehimself dates back to the time when we had " au only
child," that is, twenty years ago. Shah the verdict not once
more be against him ?

• • • • • a
Mr. Norton says, he comes forward " as a magistrate
and administrator of justice," to prove he has been just
also, in his private affairs. In that eanacity, and with
that view, he proceeds to make the following admissions;
he admits, that we did not part on Lord Melbourne's cc-
count ; and that before be ever Inside Lord Melbourne de•
fendent in the action of 1836, he had already endeavuurcil
to establish a case, first against one gentleman, and then—l
give Mr. Ncrton'e own printed words:
" And then, respecting one or two other; hut no suffi-
cient evidence war Maud. Then a negotiation for a "pa-
vieelnoarltstirhaltvfokl.loorieett hseirsasyvs.
ration a as entered upon."
ohe rlealtt giusiddeedadb;y htuhte faodr.-
tunately has left un record hie cen•radiction of this false-
hood, via any este may "certain by retereuce to the Timis of
dime 3S, le3d, where it is contradicted, on authority, by
Messrs. Currie and Wouelgate.
I have also a private letter from Sir W. Follett (whom
I e!ote to reproach), s :prewar repudiating the idea of
haviug advised my husband. "I was his counsel," he
Boys, "not his adviser." Perhaps noihing can better mark
the opinion of the trial of 1836 than that anxiety shown by
all parties to disavow Vide share in it.
Mr. Norton admits—that after this public trial, and
these private efforts to establish eases against " one or two
°there "—" It is true that in 1837 we contemplated a re-
-1111a.)11 ;" and that the miserable jest between us was (on
account of my having feared to meet him in an empty'
h. use, as he had I reposed), that we adopted in our tor-
respenilence the signatures of a man and woman, the
former of whom had been hung, for luring the latter to his
house, and there murdering her. He feels that this re-
retiree a little explanation, and proceeds to say :
" My own conduct, I admit, at that time was weak and
vacillatisig in the extreme. I had loved her to m One" for
three or four years before I married her, and after we were
united she had all power over me."
I was a very young girl at school, when Mr. Norton ',re-
posed for me. I was alwnys maltreated by him from the
earliest per.od of our marriage. I parted from him in 1833,
and in l'-3.i, as my family can witness, for violence, such as
is brought before police courts; and I returned to him on
his own passtunate entreaty that I would not "crush" but
" fur:ive him," and that he " went on his knees to me for
pardon." I was safe out of his power, and my reputation un-
su:lird when he made this prayer; I returned, and five months
after this letter we were again and 1.1, tiurtively parted.
Thar parting was followed by the attempt publicly tu dis-
grace me. After that public disgrace, he did, us be adnsita,
ask me to emir u to him. But that is not, as he would have
the world believe, his only " vacillating " attempt at re-
conciliation. My husband, who pretends to have loved me
so tenderly, and thrown me off so completely, aid neither
one nor the other. lie maltreated me while with him ;
and he has been in almost constant correspondence with
me, and occasionally a visitor at my house, down to
the %neer of the year 18•30. Would any ore be-
lieve that two pats after "oar reunion was rendered
impossible," he wrote letter after letter endeavouring to
arrange tot our living together again : and steaks of
" et:kitting me in a husbana's arms ?" That at the
time he alludes to, he was endeavouring to resist my
petition to the Chancellor to regain puese,sion of my
ehddrin " that lie then gave his solemn word of honour
to Mr. Hardwick, a brother magistrate, that he had out
been raising a fresh scandal against me; that he never
ventured to defend my petition to the Chancellor ; that
in his letters, two years subsequently, he begs me, with
coaxing expressions, to call in all copies of a pamphlet,
containing our strange correspondence; and in one of
these litters of 1842, speaks of himself" as your Geordie of
former and happier !ears ? " That not only then, but in
all the years since, 1 can produce letters more or less
friendly end air. eti- Late; asking services of me; thank-
ing me for serving lilin , announcing the marriage of his
sister ; full of phrases of jesting and utrectien ; many be-
ginning " Dear Carry " and " Dearest Carry ; " anxious
about me; complimenting me; asking " how my travai-
ling uloue can be obviated ; " finally (for I weary over
these instances of caprice), in April, (846, be begins:—
" Your kind letter, written in the good old spirit,
which should never have been broken " and on
Christi:lei-day, 1816, exactly ten years and six
months nfter the trial, and six years alter my petition
to the Chencel:or, he hopes my health is " crisp" like the
froe.—preises my brother—signs himself "Your ever"—
and in ai.other letter begs I will embrace the boys " for
absent me, as well as for vourself !" Is it possible to con-
ceive, that in the face of all this, Mr. Norton can to depend
on my not i cowering him, as to venture to print such
miasta•ements ? Is it possible he does no: see, that they
leave him iu this position, either he disbelieves these
calumnies whist: nevertheless he reiterates to my injury
r when it suits him, or, believing me to be a bad woman, he
wishes me to return be me ? It is indeed difficult to choose
which alternative shall save his honour.

The admi-si•ioe he makes respecting the late proceedings
in the County Court are as extraordinary as his assertions.
No one can read the evideuce and n.l conclude that Mr.
Norton broke faith with me, because I broke some stipula-
tion made with him, and that that stipulation was respect-
ing mon y from Lord Melbourne. Now read Mr. Norton's
admission in his letter to the Times:— _

" She was suite correct in court, when she iwore that
her non-reception of the annuity from Lord Melbourne
formed no part of the conditions upon which that agree-
mi nt was come to. I utter said it did." • • • • •

" It is true, therefore, that the agreement of 1848, to allow
500!. a year, was not conditional u• on the relinquishment
of an allowance from Lord blolbourne's estate. It is not
true that I ever said or suggested the contrary." • • •
" The confusion that prevailed at the trial rendered it im-
possible for me to explain the matter to my counsel ; and
hence arose that part of the cross-examination which im-
plied that a pledge had been given before the signing of the
memorandum."
Mr. Norton is unlucky in his choice of legal assist-
ance. When I said that my copyrights had been claimed,
the "benefit of which," he says, "ehe has always
been allowed by me to enjoy," be threw the blame on
his solicitor, who bad subtcenaed the publishers; and
when I complain of being all but accused of perjury, he says
it was the mistake of his counsel, to whom he could not ex-

plain the matter—though he sat by his side, and suggested,
in an undertone, almost every question that was asked me
in court. Nevertheless it is certain Mr. Norton did make
this auertion, which he now says he did not make. Here
is the printed report as given in the papers :
" Mr. Norton—The annuity of 6001. was given by me only
on this basis. I would not have given this sum, or one
aribing, if she had not given me the most solemn assur-
ance that she would nut receive one shilling from Lord
Melb .erne.
" Mrs. Norton—l stand here on my oath, and I say that
that is false."
The reports may be, and Cr., in many respects, ver-
bally inaccurate ; but that Mr. Norton made the auc-
tion in court which he now denies having made is in-
controvertible. Now read Mr. Norton's own account of
the drawing up of this disputed agreement. He
admits, that being desirous of borrowing the trust funds
settled on me and my sons in ease of my widowhood, he
found—
" That the trustees could not lend the trust money with-
out the permission of Mrs. Norton and myself in writing ;
and further, that she would not give her permission un-
less I consented to give her an addition of 1001. to her allow-
ance, making it 5001., instead of 4001. I was driven into
a corner by this unexpected discovery, and I had to submit
to the addition."
What addition ? if, as he Mans in the next breath,
he knew the agreement " was not binding," and that he
could break it at pleasure ? And if it could be broken at
pleasure, ace bound no one, why did we sign it ?
He himself establishes the reason why; and proves by
his own statement, just given, that, instead of its !being
an agreement based on the stipulation that I should
have no other resources, it was a matter of bar-
gain, for his own interest: and so great did he consider
, the advantage to himself, that he wax willing to give for
it (or to seem to give fur it) an extra 1001. • year for life.
In making this apparent concession, however, he ems he
knew even at the time, that it was only apparent. Ile says
that I certainly wished to make it "a binding document,
by finding trustees, but failed to do so, as not one of her
relations or friends would become her surety."
1 h. g, on behalf of "relations and friends," to contra-
dict this. I signed without sureties, because I received
11 from Sir Y. Thesiger (who, at my earnest request, consented
to see Mr. Norton at his chambers on this business) • letter
dated Bth August, 1848, in which he stated that Mr. Norton
would give me a deed, " without requiring guarantees."
Nor had I previously named, or thought of naming, any but
one member .f my family, whom I had not even consulted
as ta his willingness to be mixed up with Mr. Norton's
alleles.
Having given his account of the making of the covenant,
Mr. Norton thus gives his account of the breaking it:
" 1 ltornt that Mrs. Norton had been left 600/. per
annum by her mother, from whom I was not aware that
she had any expectations. I then proposed to her a reduc-
tion of her allowance, which she would not accede to, and
after she had received her mother's legacy and for some
time s ',payed it, I did reduce it." "' •
" I did, in 1851, upon Mrs. Norton's income being in-
creased by 500/. a year upon her mother's death, while
mine was from various causes diminished, propose to re-
duce it."
By his own admission. then, no stipulation respecting
Lord Melbourne was made ; and no in. talon of him was
made in Mr. Norton's letter to me, which letter distinctly
states, that, my brother's 'elicitor having informed him I
had my mother's legacy, therefore he will break the agree-
ment. He does not say, "you have had money given to
you by Lord Melbourne's family, therefore I stop your
allowance." He says, " you have got a legacy from your
mother ; share it with me, or I will force you to share it,
by non-payment of what I owe you ;" nor was it " eft.er
I had eenged it some time," but, on the contrary, at the
exact date of receipt of my mother's property, that Mr.
Norton fulfilled his throat; and, as he expret,my says, he
never knew till he saw my banker's book, '?sat I had Lord
Melbourne's bequest, he admits that
was his ooly noon. my mother's annuitj

this agreement,
Now about which so much has Men
slid, was based on the eiogle stitulation, not that I
should be richer, but that he should be poorer; poorer
Iby one thousand a year, being the value of the office
to which he was named by Lord Melbourne. My being ,
richer certainly did not make him poorer ; on the eon- ;
trary, at my mother's death, the email portion I de-
rived .item my father went to him, and nut to me. He
gives his own account of my previous eonduct in money
matters; most plausibly and most falsely ; the exact
end witnessed truth being, that during the two years, ;
1836 aad 1837, I had not one single farthing from Mr. !
I Nerton ; that he then ens; lnyed Sir John Bayley, who
had been his counsel, to arbitrate as to my allowance and
all other matters; that he would not abide by the arbitra-
tion ; made what allowance he pleased; and advertised me
(to guard himself from further liability) in the public
papers; being, I believe, the only person of his own rank
in life who ever adopted such a measure. I copy two sen-
truces from a declaration with which Sir John Bayley has
lately furnished me, in contradiction at once of the whole
fabrication respecting my conduct in these matters:
" I was appointed arbitrator on Me. Norton's behalf, in
the year 1837, hoeing been counsel Or him; and thus be-
came intimately acquainted with the circumstances of thews
disputes. Mr. Norton gave me at that time a written pro-
mise to abide by my decision. Ile broke his piomise, and
refused to hold himself bound by the pledges given."
• • • • " I consider Mr. Norton's conduct to I. Site,
so far as it has citing) under my knowledge and cognisance.,
to have beta marked with the grossest cruelty, injustice,
and inconsistency."
It is with pain I approach that portion of Mr. Norton's
letter in which he his chosen t / make referent : to our sm.
I think my sons' names should have been held sacred in
this dreary quarrel, which began in their childhood, and
which their manhood finds unreconciled. My eon is not
yet iu England, nor was he in England at the time Mr.
Norton states be had these communications with hint. 1
utterly deny that I ever mails Inn the charnel of a false-
hood to his father; oud I deny that I ever said ur implied
that it was "an insult" to be *opposed to be aided by
Lord Melbourne's t..mily. I did say (and perhaps others
will agree with me) that it was the coarsest of insults when
Mr. Norton talkril of these affairs to my son; that 1 te•
fused to discus, them with him ; that I denied Mr. isi,irton's
right to question me ; he having bound himself " strin-
gently" in writing to my solicitor never more to int. rfere
in my affairs from the date of the agreement; aad Mr.
Lewin has a Itttrr front me, written at that time, stating
that 1 cons, nteti to Mr. Norton's proposals—'• mainly
because it is intolerable to me to have my son talk over
matt, rs from his father."

That Mr. Norton protested afterwards, either respecting
a bequest from Lord Melbourne, or my mither's legacy,
only proves the truth 31 my warning to Mr. Leman, that
if it were possible ter Mr. Norton to find an excuse for
breaking his word, he would break it; as he had done to
Sir John Bayley.
With respect to Lord Melbourne ; three years after the
date Mr. Norten himself assigns to the anecdote he has
thought fit to publish, he writes thus; speaking of the
woman who afterwards left him the Yorkshire property,
and who had invited him to dine:—
" I sent her a civil excuse, which was answered by a
thorough love-letter; indeed it is high time that I should
sanction to a remarking world your perschata for old men,
by suffering this ant iquefassx pas."
The post-mark of t..at letter is August 8, 1831. I do
not know if Mr. Norton will persist that it is the re-
mark of a jealous husband. In January and February,
1836 that is, one month -before our final separation).
Mr. Nation speaks of the "unparalleled kindesti" of
Lord Melbourne; and strenuously untes me to write to
him, to press the appointment of a friend. I will not rote,
into the fabulous history of the letters; Mr. Norton forgets,
that as ho was then, by his own admission, occupied on
"one or two other" names, it could not be foreseen that
these notes from Lord Melbourne would be important ; and
the whole of that statement is false. With the exception of
myself, most of the persons Mr. Norton maligns are stead,
and cannot answer him. Lord Melbourne is no lower
here to give his word of honour that the man he served
win n living, has stated that which is untrue of his me
mory ; but I can very clearly contradict Mr. Norton as to
one statement ; and I do en to show what credence may be
given toothers. Becoming apparently uneasy as to any
remarks which may be made on the affectation of looking
with abhorrence on my acceptance of aid, while he himself
receives one thousand a year horn Lord Melbourne's ap-
pointment—Mr. Norton asserts as follows :
" Lord Melbourne promised me the appointment of police
magistrate beiore he visited at our house, or before, I be-
lieve, he even knew Mn. Norton."

And he ?rives this very plausit•le reason :
" Lord Eldon had appointed me Commit______.
rupts in 1827, and when such appointment was abolished
by the construction of the Ernkruptcy Court, in 1830 ••‘•
1831, I coneittcred that I had somo claim on the Home Se-
cretary, having received no compensation for the loss of my
situation."

of Bank•

Both these sentences are directly contrary to the real
facts.

By Mr. Norton's express wish and desire, I wrote at
that time, not only to Lord Melbourne, but to all those
friend. I thought mig:t serve us. I wrote to Lord
Holland, Lord Lansdowne, the Duke of Devonshire,
and 'there, to make interest with Lord Brougham ( hen
Lord Chancellor), to get Mr. Norton a legal appoint-
ment. This not appearing probable, we asked for a
Commitutionership of Excise or Customs. We did not
succeed in this second request any m. re than the first, brit
when Mr. Wyatt, a police mogi.trate, died, Lord Melbourne
wrote to me to offer the vacant magistrecy.'Un the 18th April,
Ib3l, Lord Melbourne wrote me word that the Chancellor
had sent his secretary to inquire respecting this matter ;
and had intimated that he should expect Mr. Norton to re-
sign hie Cummissionersoip of Boni:milts; Lord Melb urn.-
added, " this is not 11,1 agreeable, but still was to be ex-
pected, and is perhaps not unfair in these reforming times,
and I mention it that you may not be surprised when you
receive the intelligence."
Mr. Norton was disappointed and demurred; he desired
to hold both appointments; I wrote again to Lord Mel-
bourne to state this, and received in reply the following
note :

" House of Lords, Quarter-post Five.
"Take my advice, and make Norton write a line imme-
d;ately to the Lord Chancellor, giving up his commissioner-
ship. What you cannot keep it is always best to give up
with a goad grace. "Yours faithfully,
" MautotalNE."

The statement, therefore, made by hit./TOrton,iS en-
tirely fictitious; and if I notice it, it is to ask, what reliance
I can be placed on all the other mis-staiements in which blind
I wrath, imnerfect memory, and utter irresolutlin, have in-
volved him ? Mr. Norton calls his published letter a
" vindication." A man of keener moral perceptions would
hay., felt, when he wrote it, that he was not writing his de-
fence, but his confession.
From beginning to end it is a tissue of degrading admis-
sions, or incorrect assertions; of which the contradiction, I
am thankful to say, does not rest on my helpless denial, but
on the clearest disproof.
♦ • • • • • •

I say again that, henceforth and for ever, I rest my jus-
tification on this published confession of Mr. Norton's;
on its glaring contradictions in all matters to which it re-
fers i on its strange admissions as regards his conduct to-
wards me.
Even on the showing of that confused letter, our gory
stands thus :—that after bringing a divorce trial, in which
he himself so little believed that he wooed me home again
the next year, he revives the slander which an English
jury, the pledged word of the deceased, and his own recall,
had refuted, with the bitterest expressions and false accu-
sations lau againiit his wile and his dead patron. That
he has done this in the course of defence to a common
action for debt; the simple question being whether be was
or was not bound to provide and set apart for a body of
tradesmen the sum of 6871., the security rOf And "n
being an agreement drawn out formally by a solicitor, at his
own urgent request ; to procure an arrangement he desired;
signed by his own hand, and witnessed by two other persons ;
that he cannot assert, that he had any stipulation what-
ever with me, respecting Lord Melbourne, my expec•ations
from my mother, or my literary resources (all three of
which he gave as his excuse) ; neither can he deny, that
as the agreement embraced the contingency of his be-
coming Lord °motley, it was intended to be permanent.
I complain that the original simple question has been
cunningly lest and covered by the overwhelming scandal
of Mr. Norton's false defence. I resent, not his treachery
about the broken agreement, but his attempt to raise the
laid ghost of a dead slander to shame me. I resisted it with
passionate despair, because, let a woman straggle as she
will, fair fame is blotted, and fair name lost, not ny the fact,
but the accusation ; and I feel it more now even than in
1836, because then my children were infants and it could
not grieve them. Those who have commented on the exas-
peration with which I answered in court, would do well to
remember that I stood there answering questions on oath,
which had no possible bearing on the case ; well know-
ing those questions to be put with the express view
and purpose of defaming me ' • knowing the charges im-
plied by those questions to be false; knowing (the most
despairing knowledge of all) that Mr. Norten knew
they were fal.e, even while he put them; and that, instead
of being allowed to prove the debt and agreement, I was
once more being insulted with the echo of the trial of 1836,
with as little just cause fur the insult.
Mrs. Norton concludes her reply thus :
1 have done. There will always be thewe to whom a
slander is precious ; and who cannot bear to have it refuted.
There are also those in whose eyes the accusation of a
woman is her condemnation, and who care little whether
the story be false or true, so long as there is or was a story
against her. But juster minds, who will pause and review
the circumstances Mr. Norton himself has published, will
perhaps think the fate of that woman a hard one, whom
neither the verdict of a jury, nor the solemn denial of a
voice from the dead, nor the petition of her husband for
reconciliation and oblivion of the past, can clear from a
charge always and utterly untrue. I did not de-
serve the scandal of 1836, and I do not_deserve the
scandal of 1853. Lord Melbourne did not tempt
me then to break my wedded faith ; and his name has 'Kt
now been the ground of a broken stipulation. Or, Mr.
Norton's own letter I ant content that people should judge
us both. Many friends have winded me to pees over that
letter in disdainful silence, as refuting itself ; and perhaps,
if I were happy enough to he obscure and unknown, that
would be my course. lint. !a have a position separate from II
my woman's destiny ; am known us a writer ; and I will
not permit that M r. N ton's letter shall remain on the
joemals of Oret'e Britain, as the uncontradicted record of
my actions. I will, as far us I am able, defend a name,
which might have been only favourably known, but
which my husband Into rendered notorious. The little
world of my chance readers, may say of me after I am
dead and gone, and my struggle eve: and forgotten—
'• The woman who wrote this book had an unhappy his-
tory ;" but they shall nut say—" the woman who

ata
wrote this book was a profligate and amen's, y
hypoetite." Sipe my one gift of writing gives me Winds
among atrangers, I appeal to the opinion of strargers
as well as that of friends. Since, in however bounded
, and narrow a degree, there is n chance that I may I e re-
membered after death, I will not have iny whole life mis-
; represented. Let these women who have the true iv. man's
lot, of being unknown out of the circle of their homes,
thank God fur that blessing: it is a blessin, ; but for me,
publicity is no longer a matter of choice. Defence is pos-
sible for me : not silence. And I must remind those who
think the right of a husband so indefeasible, that a wife
ought rather W su,mit to the martyrdom of her re.puta-
tem), than he justified at his es• ease. that I bare
ref. tined. All I state now, I might 1141,0 stated at
any time during the past unhappy years; but
I nev. r did publicly state it till now ; now, when
I find Mr. Norton slandering the mother of his
sone, b coarse anecdotes signed with his name and pub-
lished by his authority: endeavouring thus to overwhelm
me with infamy, tar 1110 offence but that of having rashly
asserted a claim upon him, which was found nut to be valid
iu law, bat only binding on him as is man of hoeonr."
CAttomxis N111:TON.