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

SEPTEMBER 3, 1853.

The Hon. Mrs. Norton had yesterloor a letter in the
Times extending, with accompanying, documents, over
four columns, in answer to the letterpof her husband,
, ,
which appeared in the same journal,' few days ago,
and the substance of which was pu ished in the The
i
San. Mrs. Norton thus commences r long epistle:—
On Wednesday, the 24th ult., a lon ' letter from Mr.
Norton appeared in your columns. I not expect ever
to feel thankful for anythinc, Mr. Norto would say of me ;
but I do feel most deeply tankful that:he wrote and pub-
lished that letter. iie has now deliberitely given to the
world, on his own authority and under Lis own signature,
that history which I had always refrained from
giving be-
yond the circle of my own friends ; andhe has thus given
me an opportunity of refuting slander, of which I should
sooner have availed mys lf, but that to p 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. 4 •

After refuting the charge brought tigai
travagance, and denying that her into
year, she proceeds :- -
The charge I publicly bring against
has brought so many against me) is a
-than any injustice in pecuniary matt
that twice in my life he has endeavour
tence, to rob me of my reputation. .
In 1836 I had a quarrel with my hu and. Our cause
of quarrel was whether I should, or sh ld not, take my
children to the house of my brother, o would not re-
ceive my husband. I persisted. M husband baffled
me by sending my children to the worn‘b•who has since
left him her property, who threatened to give me into
the hands of the police When"' went to fiaim them, and
I left town alone for my brother:a country seat. Such
being oux real quarrel; 1' charge 1b,.,t0n with con-
I triving that the whole world should bel (as they did
believe)that my misconduct had broken up our home,
than I was an unfaithful wife, and that my lover was
omLnoerd triallbouMelbourne.
eMelbourne..beToh of the
tli[ete brought
nleoswseesstfoar an
and
dhamt aoacsettti
action
against
degradedwere
provedLo
r class.d
The chief witness was a drunken discarded groom, who
was then a ragseller in Monmouth-street ; both he and
others were proved to have been sent down to Lord
Grantley's place, and to have received a weekly stipend
from his agent while there. The trial was brought in
1836: nevertheless no evidence was offered after the
year 1833 ; the servants living with us after that time
were not called ; nothing was heard but the witnessing
of the ragseller and his companions, who admitted in
court that they had received money. In spite of all
which strange advantages, and the fact that a woman is
not allowed to defend herself in these actions, the ver-
dict went against Mr. Norton.
In this present year 1853 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 binding, I find myself,
on my return to England, without funds to meet my
English creditors. I stop one action against my hus-
band at my own expense. I write to Mr. Norton's own
solicitor, in the forlorn hope that Mr. Norton is acting
against advice. I come into court against my will,
upon subpcena, compelled 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, once more to raise the ghost of
that departed slander, and to contrive that the whole
world shall believe (as they do believe) that Lord Mel-
bourne was 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 for his breach
of covenant. I rebut that imputation on oath and by
proved facts ; and Mr. Norton publishes in the Times
newspaper two columns of abuse of the dead and living,
including coarse anecdotes of the mother of his grown-
up sons, which, even if true (which they are not), he
himself dates back to the time when we had an " only
child"—that is, 20 years ago. Shall the verdict not
once more be against him.
I was young when this slander was first raised ; my
children were infants. I was one of a numerous and
affectionate family • I had kind friends and a good cause.
I struggled like a drowning person against disgrace, and
reached the shore. Already these miserable affairs were
half-forgotten by the world ; and in literary occupation,
devotion to my sons, and the firm friendship of those
who knew my real story, I thought to have spent the
future of a stormy past. Mr. Norton has not permitted
this. Once more he has dragged me into shameful pub-
licity ; but on his own letter I will rest any justification
now and for ever. •
The following passage from Mr. Nortks letter draws
from Mrs. Norton an account of her W3tment from
the period of their marriage :

.inst
her
1,5001.
ex-
Le was a

r. Norton (who
r.
ognr age,
avcfe
oar
lmsceph
lapar gr ine e:

"My own conduct, I admit, at that time-was weak and
vaccinating in the the extreme. I had It bar to-mad-
ness for three or four years before I marri • ier, and after
we were united she had all power over me

I was a very young girl at school when Mr. Norton
proposed for me. I was always maltreated by hitt from
the earliest period of our marriage. I parted from him
in 1833, and in 1835, as my family can witness, for
violence such is brought before police courts ; and I re-
turned to him on his own passionate entreaty that I
would not "crush" but "forgive him," and that he
" went on his knees to me for pardon." I was safe out
of his power, and my reputation unsullied, when he
made his. prayer ; I returned, and, five months after
this letter, we were again and definitively parted.
That parting was followed by the attempt publicly
to disgrace me. After that public disgrace, he did,
as he admits, ask me to return to him. But that is
not, as he would have the world believe, his only vacil-
lating" attempt at reconciliation.
My husband, who pre-
tends to have loved me so tenderly, and thrown me off
so completely, did neither one nor the other. lie mal-
treated me while with him, and he has been in almost
constant correspondence with me, and occasionally a
visitor at my house down to the winter of the yearlBso.
Would any one believe that, two years after " our re-
union was rendered impossible," he wrote letter after
letter, endeavouring to arrange for our living together
again, and speaksiof "shielding me in a husband's arms ?"
that, at the time he alludes to, he was endeavouring
regainto
resist my petition to the Chancellor to possession
of my children ; that he then gave his solemn word of
honour to Mr. Hardwick, a brother magistrate; that he
had not been raising a fresh scandal against me ; that
he never ventured to defend my petition to the Chancel-
lor ; that in his letters, two years subsequently, he begs
me, with coaxing expressions, to call in all copies a a
pamphlet containing our strange correspondence ; and,
in one of these letters of 1842,
speaks of himself as
" your Geordie of former and happier years" that not
only then, but in all the years since, I can produce let-
ters more or less friend!y and affectionate ; asking ser-
vices of me ; thanking me for serving him • announcing
the marriage of his sister ; full of phrases Of jesting and
affection; many beginning "Dear Carry," and "Dearest
Carry ;" anxious about me ; complimenting me ; asking
" how my travelling al ine can be obviated ;" finally (for
I weary over these instances of caprice), in April, 1846,
be begins—" Your kind letter, written in the good old
spirit, which should never have been broken,"—and on
Christmas-day, 1846, exactly ten years and six months
after the trial, and six years after my petition to the
Chancellor, he hopes my health is " crisp like the frost
—praises my brother—signs himself, " Yours ever '
and in another letter begs I will embrace the boys "for
absent me, as well as for yourself ! " Is it possible to
conceive that in the face of all this Mr. Norton can so
depend on my not answering him as to venture to print
such mistatements ? Is it possible he does not see that
these calumnies,
leave him in this position ; either he disbelieves
calumnies, which nevertheless he reiterates to my
injury when it suits him ; or, believing me to be a bad
woman, he wishes me to return home ? It is, indeed,
difficult to choo©e which alternative shall save his

honour!
The next shows that Mr. Norton proved by his own
admissions that there was no stipulation that her annuity
was to depend on her not receiving any money from
Lord Melbourne, and further, that his only ground for
my previous proposing a reduction was the fact of her income being
increased by 5001., which was left by her mother. She
than proceeds :
He o
givesney his
matters, own
most aeconduct
yonduct
inallow-
ance
the
exact and witnessed truth being, that during the two
m ount
of
plausibly,
years 1836 and 1837 I had not one single farthing from
Mr. Norton ; that he then employed Sir John Bayley,
who had been
all
otherhis counsel,matters ;
tot arbitrate;that
h
e would as
not to
abide by m falsely
;
the arbitration ; 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 mea.
sure. I copy two sentences from a declaration with
which Sir John Bailey has lately furnished me, in con-
tradiction at once of the whole fabrication respecting
my conduct in these matters :
" I was appointed arbitrator on Mr. Norton's behalf in
the year 1837, having been counsel for him, and thus be-
came intimately acquainted with the circumstances of
these disputes. Mr. Norton gave me at that time a
written promise to abide by my decision. He broke his
promise, and refused to hold himself bound by the pledges
given."
to his wife, so far as it has come under my knowledge and
cognizance, to have been marked with the grossest cruelty,
injustice, and inconsistency."
It is with pain I approach that portion of Mr. Norton's
letter in which he has chosen to make reference to our son.
I think my sons' names should have been held sacred in
this dreary quarrel, whieh began in their childhood, and
which their manhood finds unreconciled. My son is not
yet in England, nor was he in England at the time Mr.
Norton states he had those communications with him.
I utterly deny that I ever made him the channel of a
falsehood to his father ; and I deny that I ever said or
implied that it was "an insult" to be supposed to be
aided by Lord Melbourne's family.
With respect to Lord Melbourne, three years after
the date' Mr. Norton himself assigns to the anecdote he
has thought fit to publish, he writes thus—speakin of
the woman who afterwards left him the Yorkshire pro-
perty, 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 penchant for old men,
by suffering this antique faux pas."
• The postmark of that letter is Aug. 8, 1834. Ido
not know if Mr. Norton will persist that it is the remark
of a jealous husband. In January and in February,
1836 (that is, one month before our filial separation),
Mr. Norton speaks of the "unparalleled kindness" of
Lord Melbourne, and strenuously urges me to write to
him to press the appointment of a friend. I will not
enter into the fabulous history of the letters. Mr.
Norton forgets that as he was then, by his own admis-
sion, 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 per-
sons Mr. Norton maligns are dead, and cannot answer
him. Lord Melbourne is no longer here to give his word
of honour that the man he served when living has stated
that which is untrue of his memory ; but I can very
clearly contradict Mr. Norton as to one statement, and
I do so to show what credence may be given to others.
Becoming apparently uneasy as, to any remarks which
may be made on the affectation of looking with abhor-
rence on my acceptance of aid, while he himself receives
1,000/. a year from Lord Melbourne's appointment, Mr.
Norton asserts as follows :

" Lord Melbourne promised me the appointment of
police magistrate before he visited at our house, or before
I believe, he even knew Mrs. Norton."

And he gives this very plausible reason :
" Lord Eldon had appointed me Commissioner of Bank-
rupts in 1827, and when such appointment was abolished
by the construction of the Bankruptcy Court, in 1830 or
1831, I considered that I had some claim on the Home Se-
cretary, having received no compensation for the loss of
my situation.'

Both these sentences are directly contrary to the real
facts.

By Mr. Norton's express wish and desire, I wrote at
Hfrioeinladnsdl, ttourdght
amnsigdohtwnsee,rvteheups.
ukle wofropteevtoonsLhiorred,
that time, not only to Lord Melbourne, but to all those
and others, to make interest with Lord Brougham (then
Lord Chancellor) to get Mr. Norton a legal appoint-
ment. This not appearing probable, we asked for a
Commissionership of Excise or custom. We did not
succeed in this second request any more than the first,
but,when Mr. Wyatt, a police magistrate, died, Lord Mel-
bourne wrote to me to offer the vacant magistracy. On
the 18th of April, 1831, Lord Melbourne wrote me
word that the Chancellor had sent his secretary to in-
quire respecting this matter ; and had intimated that he
should expect Mr. Norton to resign his Commissioner-
ship of Bankrupts ; Lord Melbourne added, " This is
not so agreeable, but still was to be expected, and is
perhaps not unfair in these reforming times, and I men-
tion 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 Melbourne to state this ; and received in reply
the following note :
" House of Lords, Quarter-past Five.

" Take my advice, and make Nortoii write a line imme-
diately to the Lord Chancellor, giving up his Commis-
sionership. What you cannot keep, it is always best to
give up with a good grace.—Yours faithfully,
" MELBOURNE."

The statement, therefore, made by Mr. Norton, is
entirely fictitious ; and, if I notice it, it is to ask what
reliance can be placed on all the other misstatements in
which blind wrath, imperfect memory, and utter irresolu-
tion, have involved hith ? Mr. Norton calls his pub-
lished letter, a " vindication ;" a man of keener moral
perceptions would have felt, when he wrote it, that he
was not writing his defence, but his confession.
From beginning to end it is a tissue of degrading
admissions, or incorrect assertions ; of which the con-
tradiction, I am thankful to say, does not rest on my
helpless denial, but on the clearest disproof.
The conclusion of the letter is as follows :—" I have
done. There will always be those to whom a slander is
precious ; and who can bear to 'have it refuted. There
are also those in whose eyes the accusation of a woman
is 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 the 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 deserve
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 not now been the
ground of a broken stipulation. On Mr. Norton's own
letter I am content that people should judge us both.
Many friends have wished me to pass over that letter in
disdainfulsilence, as refuting itself; and perhaps, if I were
happy enough to be obscure and unknown, that would be
my course. But I have a position separate from my woman's
destiny ; I am known as a writer ; and I will not permit
1,14 Mr. Norton's letter -shall. -remain on the journal
of Great Britain as the uncontra,dicted record of my ac-
tions. I will, as far as lam able, defend a name which
might have been only favourably known, but which my
husband has rendered notorious. The little world of
my chance readers may say of me, after I am dead and
gone, and my struggle over and forgotten—" The wo-
man who wrote this book had an unhappy history ;" but
they shall not say— "The woman who wrote this book
was a profligate and mercenary hypocrite." Since my
one gift of writing gives me friends among strangers, I
appeal to the opinion of strangers as well as that of
friends. Since, in however bounded and narrow a de-
gree, there is a chance that I may be remembered after
death, I will not have my whole life misrepresented.
Let those women who have the true woman's lot, of
being unknown out of the circle of their homes; thank
God for that blessing ; it is a blessing ; but for me pub-
licity is no longer a matter of choice. Defence is pos-
sible to me; not silence. And I must remind those who
think the right of a husband so indefeasible that a wife
ought rather to submit to the martyrdom of her reputa-
tion than be justified at his expense, that I have re-
frained. All I state now I might have stated at any
time during the past unhappy years ; and I never did
publicly state it till now—now, when I find Mr. Norton
slandering the mother of his sons by coarse anecdotes,
signed with his name and published by his authority,
endeavouring thus to overwhelm me with infamy, for no
offence but that of having rashly asserted a claim upon
him which was found not to be valid in law, but only
binding on him "as a man of honour."

NAVAL INTELLIGENCE:

PORTSMOUTH, SEPT. 2.

The London, 90, Capt. Eden, sailed from Spithead
Shia morning, to join 19,ear-Admiral Corry's division of
the Channel fleet.

The Daedalus, 20, Capt. Wellesley, sailed last night on
her return to Plymouth, to be paid off.
The Prince of Wales Indiaman brought up at Spit-
head this afternoon en route to Calcutta.

The Sprightly steam-tender, Master-Commander
Allen, went to Lunce-point yesterday, with Capt. Pel-
ham and a party of engineers, to inspect the new bat-
tery.

The Plumper, 9, screw-sloop, Commander Wharton,
bent sails to-day ;it is expected she will relieve the
Penelope, as flag of Rear-Admiral Bruce, on the coast
of Africa. It is probable the Antelope steam-vessel will
accompany her out.
The Christiana American packet-ship, which arrived
on Thursday, sailed this morning for New York.
Wind N. by E., with rain.
The comet has been distinctly visible two nights this
week, looking up the harbour W.N.W., from 8 to 10
p.m., about 35 degrees from the earth ; and to the naked
eye the " length of a rocket," with the nucleus beauti-
fully bright, the size of a cocoa-nut. Many hundreds
witnessed this interesting phenomenon.
The new-fashioned iron propellor for the Conflict, 8,
will be cast to-morrow in her Majesty's dockyard, and
which is expected to be the happy medium.
The Comus, 18, Commander Fellowes, arrived at
Madeira on the Ist of August, from England.

DEVONPORT, SEPT. 1.
The trial of the St. Jean d'Acre yesterday gave the
greatest satisfaction. She was not tried at full speed on
Tuesday. Yesterday full speed was put on, and she
ran from the Breakwater to the Eddystone in 53 minutes.
She kept out some hours, when, in every position, she
answered admirably, and finally left the Eddystone,
coming in at full speed, and reached her moorings
abreast of the dockyard in one hour and fifteen minutes,
about ten miles and a half per hour. She is altogether
a splendid ship. Her qualities as a sailing-ship have
not as yet been tested.
Mr. Dinnen is here entering into all the qualities and
performances of her engines.

SHEERNESS, SEPT. 1.
At 9 a.m., this day, the Lords of the Admiralt ar-
rived here from Chatham. On their approachiny g the
yard a salute was fired from the Waterloo, 120 guns,
Captain the Hon. Montagu Stopford. On landing their
lordships were received by the port officers, Captain-
Superintendent Charles Hope, R.N., and the principal
officers of her Majesty's dockyard. The full Board
visited, with the exception of Vice-Admiral C.B. Hyde
Parker and the First Secretary, Mr. Ralph Osborne,
M.P. The Board, with Captain Sir Baldwin Walker,
K.C.8., &c., Surveyor of the Navy, proceeded to the
board-room, in the Captain Superintendent's depart-
ment, for the purpose of inspecting the reports and sug-
gestions of the officers of everygrade for the improvement
of the service, the result of which is, of course, unknown
at present ; but there is little doubt there is great
room for improvement. At about twelve o'clock their
lordships proceeded to visit the storehouses, all of
which were thrown open for inspection. Their lord-
ships were conducted through the various departments
appropriated for the stowage of cables, standing and run-
ning rigging, sails, &c., by Mr. Robert Laws, store-
keeper. Their Lordships then proceeded to the docks
to inspect the Miranda, 14, screw steam-sloop' after
which they visited the Royal George, 120, screw steam-
ship. The Howe, 120, now being taken to pieces, in
No. 2 dock, for future conversion, became a point of at-
traction, or, perhaps, reflection on some persons or other,
for such a noble stucture of marine architecture, at an
enormous expense, being sacrificed. At 1.30 p.m., their

r Plum SD.

Lordships mustered the entire staff of the yard ; all the
officers and clerks individully being presented to their
Lordships by the Captain Superintendent, Charles
Hope, R.N. Their Lordships also mustered the crew of
the Horatio, receiving-ship for volunteers for the
navy. The inspection of the boys entered for contin-
uous service was particularly made by Sir James
Robert Graham, who made several inquiries among the
boys, and commended them generally for entering the
service. After the inspection, their Lordships pro-
ceeded
to the Admiralty-house, and partook of the hos-
pitality of the Vice-Admiral, the Hon. Josceline Percy.
To morrow, their lordships will take their departure for
Harwich in the Vivid paddle-wheel steam-packet, Master
Commander Luke Smithett (acting), February 4, 1851.
The Wildfire, steam-tender to the Waterloo, proceeded
to Chatham, with a portion of the retinue of their lord-
ships, and Colonel Green proceeded in the Wildfire, en
route to London, via the North Kent Railway from
Stroud. At 5.15 p.m. the Prince of Prussia passed
through Sea-reach, and was saluted with 21 guns from
the Waterloo flag-ship.