The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1853-09-18

quarrel, charge Mr. Norton with contriving that
the whole world should believe Gas they cid believe)
that my miscoaduc! had broken up our home, that
was unfaithful wife, and that my lover was Lord
Melbourne. He brought an action against Lord Mel
bourne. the witnesses for that action proyedon
trial to be of the lowest and most degraded class The
chief witness was drunken discarded groom, who
was then ragseler in Monmouth street; both he
and others were proved to have been sent down to
Lord Grantey's place, and to have received weekly
stipend from his agent while there. The trial was
brought in 1886; nevertheless, no evidence IS Offer
ed after the year 1888; the servants living with US
after that time not called; nothing was heard
but the witnessing Of the ragseler and his compan
ions, who admitte in court that they had received
money. In spite Of all which strange advantages,
and the fact that woman is not allowed to defend
herself in these actions, the verdict went against
Mr. Norton.
In this present year of 1853 have quarrel with
my husband. Our quarrel is whether shall or shall
lot be compelled to cede portion of my mothers
bequest. refuse (; Mr.. Norton insists l rashly
count on being certain to obtain compulsory fulfil
ment OF our agreement which imagined to be bind
ing. find myself, on my return to England with
out funds to meet my English creditors. l stop one
action against my husband at my own expense. l
write to Mr. Nortons own solicitor, in the forlorn
hope that Mr.. Norton is acting ag ainst advice. /
CONF into court against my will. upon subpoena, COM
PEELED to appear to prove the debt and agreement.
Mr.. Norton meets me there, in person and by coun-
sci, once more to fight his battle against me with
cruel treachery more to raise the ghost of that
departed SANDER, and to cOntrive that the whole
world shall believe Gas they do believe) that Lord
Melbourne was again the subject of our quarrel that
broken by me, and that that Is MIR. Nortons excuse
for his breach Of covenant. rebuff that imputation
on oath and By proved facts; and Mr.; Norton pub
Of
OF the mother Of his grown up sons, which, even if
true (Which they not he himself dates back to
the time when he had an "only child'-that Is,
twenty years ago. Shall the verdict not once more
be against him?
was young when this SANDER was first raised;
my children were infants. was one Of numerous
and afectionate family; / had kind friends and Q
good cause. / 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, thought to have spent the future Of
stormy part. Mr.. Norton has not permitted this.
Once more he has dragged me into shameful pub
licty; but on his ogn letter will rest nay justfca-
ton, low and forever.
Mr.. Norton says he comes forward as magis.
trate and administrator of JUSTICE, to prove he has
been just also in his private affairs. In that capa
city, and with that view, he pr ,ceeds to make the
following admissions:-He admits that we did not
part on Lord Melbourne's account, and that before
he ever made Lord Melbourne defendant in the ac-
ton Of 1886, he had already endeavored to establish
case, first against one gentleman, and them give
Mr. Nortons own printed words
And then respecting sre or two others; but no sui
Client evidence ras found. Then negotiation for
sepaIstion wes entered upon
In all that followed lie says he was GUIDED by the
advice OF Sir W. Follett Sir w. Fo,let is deau, nat
fortunately has left en- record his contradiction Of
this asehood as any one may ascertain by reference
to the Tines of June 25, 1885, where it is contra.
tradicted on authority, by Messrs. Curre and Wood
gate.
have also private letter from Sir W. Follett
(whom l wrote to to reproach) expressly repuditt-
ing the idea of having advised my husband. IL was
his COUNSEL" he says, :. not his adviser" Perhaps
nothing can better mark the opinion of the trial of
1886 than the anxiety shown by all parties to disa-
Mr.. Norton adults that after this public trial and
these private efforts to establish against " one
or two others" 1t Is true that In 1887 we contem
plated reunion - and that the miserable Jest be-
tween us was (on account of my having feared TO
meet him in an empty house as he had proposed),
that we adopted in our correspondence the sigma
lures OF a nan and woman, the former of whom b I'd
been hung for Turing the latter 10 his house and there
muI dering her. de feels that this requires little
explanation and proceeds to say
Ny own conduct admit. at that Tins was weak and
vac isting in the 'xfeme I had loved hes to madness
for ree our years before married heT and after We
we're uu,tsd the hsd all 20 .ee ever me.
was a very young girl AZ school when Mr.. Norton
proposed for me. was always matrcated by him
from the earliest period Of our marriage ! parted
nom him in 1888, an0in 1885 as my family G IN
witness for violence such is brought before police
courts end returned TO hIm on his own passionate
eDtreaiy that would not crush,n but forgive
nm, and that he " went on bis knees 10 me for
pardon.' | vas safe out of bis power, and my repu-
tation unsullied, when he made this prayer; | re-
turned and i've months after this letter we we're
again and defbitiyey parted. That parting was fol-
lowed by the attempt publicly 70 disgrace me. AZ
ter that public disgrace, he did as he admits ask me
TO return 20 him. But that Ia not, as he would have
the world believe, his only vaccllatingn attemp.
at reconciliation. My husband, who pretenis TO
have loye1 me so tenderly, aud thrown me of 20
completely, did neither one nor the other. He ma.
treated me while WITH him, and be has been IN al
most constant correspondence wiih me, and occa-
sioealy avseratm house, down 70 the winter OF the
year 1900 Would any one believe that, two years nj.
ter our reunion was rendered impossible he wrote
Etlef alter letter, en0ehyorng 10 arrange for our
living together again. and spe axis of shielding me
III a husbands amso that at the time he allades
10, he was endeavOring TO resist my petition 20 the
CbaDceortorePanp possession OF my children; that be
then gave his solemn word Of holOr to Mr. HArdwick,
brother magistrate tLa' he rad not been raising 4
fresh scandal against ne; that be never ventured 70
defend my petition to the Chancellor; that In hil
letter., two years subsequently,, he begs me, With
coaXirg expressions, TO call in all copies OF pam
phet containing our strange CORES Jonience; and,
in one Of tbese letters Of 1872, speaks OF himself az
your Geoidie of toimer and happier years H. tlGs
not Only then, but In al the years since can pro-
duce letters more or less friocdy aud ahectionaie
asking services Ofme; thanking me for serving him.
announcing thn marriage q bis sier; full Of phrc
OF Josting and affection; many bcgnuiug "Dutr Car
~" and dearest CaTy;' anxious about rne; c8n
- ~ 8 -, as.--ta az" .Ay .'sses..S s'onc
can DC otyiSsecj' lpaly Qor weary ever these ia