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

q
friend win not enter into the fabulous history Of
the letters. Mr. Morton forsets that as he was then
by his own admission, occupied on zone or two
other" names, it could not be foreseen that these
the whole of that statement is false With the ex.
ception OF myself, most OF the persons Mr.. Norton
maligns are dead, and cannot answer him. Lord
Melbourne is no longer here to give his word Of
honor that the man he served when living has stated
that which is untrue of his memory; but can very
clearly contradict Mr.. Norton as to one statement
and do so to show what credence may be given to
others. Becoming apparently uneasy as to any re.
marks which may be made on the anectaton of look
ing with adherence on my acceptance of aid while
he himself receives fl,00O year from Lord Mel.
bournes appointment, Mr.. Norton asserts as fol-
lows =
magistrate before he visited at house. or before
believe he even knew Mrs. Norton.
And he gives this very plausible reason
Lord Eden had appointed me Commissioner Of Bank
snpts iss. ana wnsn socn appointment was so9hsd
1881, considered that had some claim the Home
Secretary. having received compensation for the loss
Of my stuation.
Both these sentences are directly contrary to the
real facts.
By Mr.. Nortons express wish and desire wrote
at that time, not only to Lord Melbourne, but to all
those friends / thought might serve us. wrote to
Lord Holland, Lord Lansdowne, the Duke of Devon.
shire, and Others to make interest with Lord
Brougham (then Lord Chancellor) to get Mr.. Nor
ton legal appointment. This not appearing pro-
bable, We asked for Commissionershp Of Excise or
Customs. We did not succeed in this second request
any more than the first, but when Mr.. Wyatt, 90
lice magistrate, died, Lord Melbourne wrote to me
to offer the vacant magistracy On the 18th
April, 1881, Lord Melbourne wrote me word that
the Chancellor had sent his secretary to inquire
respecting this matter; and had minated that he
should expect Mr. Norton to resign his Commission
erhp OF Bankrupts; Lord Melbourne added,
This 10 not agreeable but still va, to be expected
Ia yha in thaso
mention II that you may not be Sred when you
ceive the intelligence.
Mr. Norton was disappointed, and demurred; he
desired TO bold both appointments; wrote again to
Lord Melbourne to state this, and received in reply
the following note:-
HOUSE LORDS. quarter past5.
Take my advice and mako Norton write line immedi-
afey to The LORD Chancellor. giving ns eoumsiooer
fbip What you cannot keep Is always gsa up
with good grace. Yours, f.ithfslly, MELBOURNE
The statement, therefore, made by Mr. Norton, is
entirely fictitious; and notice il, il is to ask what
reliance can be placed all the other misstate ents
in which blind wrath, imperfect memory, and utter
ifresolution have involved him? Mr.. Norton calls his
published letter "vindi atom" man OF keener
moral perceptions would have felt when he wrote it,
that he was not writing his Defence but his confess
sion.
From beginning to end it is tissue Of degrading
admissions or incorrect assertions, of which the
contradiction, am thankful to say does not rest on
my helpless denial, but on the clearest disproof.
Mr.. Norton admits that we did not part on Lord
Melbourne's account in 1885, but that he took then,
as he takes )w, any SANDER he could lind to in
| voIve me in undeserved shame and disgrace. He
admits that he solicited my return after the trial. in
familiar, testing, and caressing correspondence
even while he repeats IS true the gross ISLANDERS of
seventeen years ago. He admits that be had no
stipulation whatever with me about Lord Melbourne
on this disputed agreement, and he denies that he
ever said or suggested" that he had any such
stipulation. Such are his admissions; turn to his
Mr.. Notions appointment was not given or pro-
missed by Lord Melbourne before he knew me or
visited At our house but on the contrary, after
respondence and intimacy; and it was not given as
compensation for the loss Of his commssionershp Of
bankruptcy; on the contrary, the lanceor in
sisted on controlling his own patronage, aud gave
notice that Mr. Norton should not be permitted to
hold both appointments together
did not put my husband to needless torment aud
expense, by extravagance and actions from my
tradespeople; on the contrary, he broke his solemn
written pledge with his referee, Sir John Bayley, aud
advertised me in the newspapers, AZ Sir John Bayly
Sir w. Foett did not advise the trial. or the mea.
sures taken by Mr.. Norton the contrary, lie pub
icy disav0wed him ~ soon as the sral Wa over as
the letter Of Messrs. Curre and WOodgatc Is extant
| to prove.
Mr.. Norton has not proved by his letter that he
has been Just in his private affairs" but, on the
contrary he has proved himself as cruelty unjust as
| any man ever was, by meeting q true claim with a
past, to Islander the living and the dead. ~ ''
am content mat those accusations SnOuiu
| at their worth; Mr.. NOrt0n's word has been too
recklessy pledged on matters easy Of dsproof to be
trustee where evidence Is wanting and nothing pos
slble bat denial. / say again that henceforth and
forever rest my justification on this published
fesson Of Mr. Nortons on its glsring contradictions
in oil matters to which 1t refers; its strange ad-
missions as regards his conduct towards me.
Even on the showing Of that confused letter, our
trial, in which he himself SO little believed that be
wooec me home again the next year, he revives the
Islander which an Eng sh jury, the pledged word Of
the deceased, and his wn recall had refuted with
the bilterest expressions and false accusations both
against his wire and his dead patron; that he has
done this in the course Of defence to common ac-
ton for debt; the simple question being whether he
was or was not bound to provide and set apar, for
body of tradesmen the sum OF fG87 the security for
such sum being an agreement drawn out formally by
solicitor, at his own urgen. request to procure
arrangement he desired, signed by his own hand,
and witnessed BY two other persons; that he can
with me respecting Lord Melbourne my expecta.
lions from my mother, or my literary resources,
Gall three OF which he gave as his excuse);
neither can he deny that, as the agree
ing Lord Grantey, it was intended to be perna.
uent. complain that the original simple question
has been cunningly lost and covered by the over
whelming scandal Of Mr. Norton's false defence.
resent, not his treachery about the broken agree
ment, but bis attempt to raise the lad ghost OF q
dead SANDER 70 shame me. / resisted it with pas.
sionate despair, because, let woman struggle as
she WILL fair fame is blotted and fair name lost not
by the fact, but the accusation and | feel it more
now even than in 1886, because then my children
were infants, and it could not greve them Those
/ who have commented on the evaporation with
which | answered In court would do well TO rerlem-
Der that stood there answering questions on oath
| which had no possible bearing on the case well
knowing those questions to be put with the express
view and purpose Of defaming me knowing th
charges implied by those questions 10 be falls,
that Mr Norton knew they were ialse even while
put them and that, instead Of being aooed -
prove the debt and agreement, J was once more
being insulted with the echo of the trial Of 1886
with as little just cause for the insult.
is said, why all this scandal ir miserable mt.
ter of few hundred pounds better any sacrifice
than such q struggle. Very true; but ghca this
pretty struggle was undertaken no hnGau being
could have ioreseen the falsehood with which t vas
TO be met, and out of which this scandal was ID
grow. Others, judging where none can judge who