The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1853-09-05

Statement OF her Matrimonial rroubies by
the Hon. Mr.. NSrtc9-Ine Scene III CUtGsf
Re-eHscss6 lH the rape .,


the Hon. Mr. Norsca-rne Scene III CSsssf
Re-eHscss6 is the rape ~
TO THE EDITOR or TIE LONDON TINES.
SIR-You will obl'Ce me by inserting this letter in
your columns, III which have already appeared re-
port OF the proceedings IN the County Court in this
action, and also letters from Mrs Norton, and Mr..
Leman, Der solicitor.
seek this public channel of yindication from the
false allegation there made as have public char
acter to sussan-my private one Is safe IL the hands
Of those who know Ii IL rs magistrate, an ad
ministIator OF Justice faeeording to my ability)
that come forward in the present matter with
PLAIN statement Of facts, u prove that have strlyen
10 be as Just IN my private Affairs as il IS my aim
and de ire 70 oe IN my public capacity. II IS with
paiu that feel myself compelled ~ break that ST.
ence which the goftearance Of seventeen long years
has made habtuai to me; bnt L feel must now
speak ont, and that it would be treason to my char
gcter and fair fame TO leave all these accusations
answered. was subpanaed on Thursday last by the
Messrs Ihrupp, and when Mrs. Norton had concln led
| her evidence, | begged their solicitor to call me
es q witness de refused me that favor, aud, as the
advocate o. my opponent, cannot quarrel with his
discretion and perha es ii was better that the op-
portunty not afforded me, for in the dstrac ion
OF the moment might have been tempted to reve Il
matters with which for the happiness OF others IL is
much better the public should remain unacqqainted.
My counsel was refused, by statement, to con
tradct the gross faisehoods which had been most le-
gally and improperly introduced into the case. The
question one simply Of liability, and the moment
that Mrs. Norton admitted she was living apart from
me by her own with, and which she did so admit nj
the beginning Of her examination there was an end
OF the ease and all proceedings should have term-
mated. Unhappiy, lie Judge and every one en-
gagged for or against her in the cause seemed over
powered by Nrs. Norton ) demeanor, and those who
had q turn for the drama, (of whom unfortunately,
my own solicitor was one) we're suspef ded in breath
less, he plese inacti5n. None who witnessed that
scene forget ii TO their lives end; al must re-
member it IA the most splendid piece OF acting ever
exhibited, however much the sober mind OF Eng
land must revolt against the disgrace OF court of
lnsr1 TvtT H.
Ny denials shall be as few As possible and as brief
First, the agreement, or rather the memorandum,
of ls4s was not binding one. Mrs Norton knew
this as well az did-at least her xn solicitor told
me it was not at the time we signed it, moreover,
she did try then to make the contemplated arrange
ment between ms a binding document by finding
trustees but failed 10 do So not one Of her rela
lions or friends would become her surety.
One Of Mrs. Nortons stipuations in the memo
rsndum was not observed from the very first for
constant applications have been made 10 my solicitor
and myself FOR payment of her debts. Nevertheless
had our relative circumstances remained they
were when we entered into it, | should have con;n
ued to pay her $500 per snnurn. She was quite
correct in court hen she that her nonrecep-
ton Of the annuity from Lord Melbourne formed no
part Of the conditions upon which that agreement
was come to. ! never sad il did. Lord Melbourne
was then alive, and had no tangible grounds fol- then
raising the question; but some short time afterwards
! was informed by q person, who shall be name
less after the oath that was given on Thursday, tDnf
sneak from recollection only, not having refreshed
my memory with the correspondence which passed
between us al the time) that Lord Melbourne had
left sealed letter for his brother stating that he
(Lord Mebourne) might have given her annuity
upon lands be had himself acquired, but that he
preferred leaving IL TO the convenience OF bis brother
to secure her in an annuity Of 5000 per annum, or
some other sum and he (the person alluded t0) add
cd, that might depend on this information, az he
had IT from one Of the executors. was surprised
and Disguised, and immediately wrote to Mira, Nor
ton 70 inquire she did receive that annuity Her
answer was emphatically in the negative, and at
that period she spoke the truth for afterwards
informed that difference had erisen between herself
and the representatives, Of Lord Melbourne az ~
giving up his letters and which letters as was Ia
formed, it was insisted SHOULD be given mp before the
annuity was granted.
| think Il was not till the cIosr II 1851 or in 1852
that informed thai she certainly did receive the
annuity, when again required her written denial Of
the fact. She answered by saying thet 7 usuted
her by repeating the question but not being quite
satisfied with tIs reply, requested my son Fletch-
er 10 speak IT, her the subject and assure her that
no insult was intended by the question, aud that
insisted OF m explicit answer TO u.
She then did explicitly assure my son that she re.
ceived no annuity Of any kind FROM Lord Melbourne
and Fletcher added, from himself, that he vas fully
persuaded from her manner and words, Of tho truth
this very year. Judge. then Of my surprise, when
my solicitor ascortaoed, only three weeks ago that
she had been IN the receipt q that annuity ever since
lSi9.
was not permitted ~ tie tria u enter intn any
e. panaii)n Wh0teN 10 this ~ lny other point, > 81
the rev and burrcd observations od snake nod re-
ference 10 lie continuance II M, allowance - her