The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1853-09-18
THE CASE OF THE HON. CAROLINE NORTON.
Interesting Letter from the Poetess, in Reply
to her husbands Charges.
A CLEAR CASE FOR THE NEXT WOMAN's
RIGHTS CONVENTION.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE LONDON TIMES.

To THE EDITOR OF THE LONDON TINES
SIR-On Wednesday the oath ult., long letter
from Mr. N ,rtOn appeared in your columns. did
not expect ever 70 feel thankful for anything Mr..
Norton would say Of me; but do feel most deeply
thankful that he wrote and published that letter. He
has now deliberately given TO the world, on his own
which 1 had always RETAINED from giving beg ond
the circle my own friends and he mas taas given
me an opportunity OF refutiny slander Of which
sbonldeOoner have availed self but that to do so
completely have been obliged to look through
mass Of papers and correspondence, and have been
too i'll since the day had 70 appear in the county
court to make the requisite exertion.
l pass over the charge brought against me there
and in Mr. Nortons letter, of extravaganza In my ar
rangements for q home for my sons and myself. The
charge comes i'll from one who owes me f6S7, and
who does not deny the debt but merely says he
cannot be compelled to pay it, because, stated
in court, be is not bound IN law, but only "as man
Of honor"
income at 81 500 year, by setting" my literary
gains at permanent $500 annually. Will Mr. Nor
ton and his coansel pay 1t, well as set it? Will
they insure me health, strength, leisure, and the
they state what they think my income from literary
labor for the present year likely to be, in the tur
MOL, distress, and scandal they have brought upon
me2
own income, which could prove by my marriage
setter ents, statement of his former receiver OF
rents his own letters, and my knO Sledge, to be
nearly double what he asserted it was. With all
that = the word' has nothing to do, and if Mr. Nor
ton had confined himself to our pecunary dispute,
there would have been no necessity for public COM
plant or private sorrow.
The charge publicly bring against Mr. Norton
(who has brought many ainst meg s far graver
charge than any injustice in pecuniary matters
complain that twice in my life he has endeavored, on
Q false pretence, to rob me of my reputation.
In 1886 bad quarrel with my husband. Our
cause Of quarrel was whether should or should not
take my children to the house OF my brother who
would not receive my husband. / pc sisted. My
husband bafiled me by sending my children to the
woman who has since left him her property, who
threatened to give me into the hands Of the police
when l went to claim them ano lie town alone for
my brothers. country seat Such being our real
quarrel, charge Mr. Norton with contriving that
the whole world should believe Gas they cid beeve)
that my misconduct had broken up our home, that
was an unfaithfu wife, and that my lover was Lord
Melbourne. He brought an action against Lord Mel
bourne the witnesses for that action were proved
trial to be of the lowest and degraded class. The
chief witness was drunken discarded groom, who
was then ragseer in Monmouth street; both he
and others were proved to have been sent down to
Lord Grantleys place, and to have received weekly
stipend from his agent while there. The trial was
brought in 1885, nevertheless, evidence as Offer
ed after the year 1888; the servants living with US
after that time were not called; nothing was heard
Int oruifu NJ fho md