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

VI
months after the trial and six years after my peti
Con to the Chancellor he hopes my health is "crisp"
like the fr0st-prsises my bsvther-signs himself
"Ysurs ever"-and In another letter begs will en-
brace the boys "for absent me as well as for yonr
self" Is it possible to conceive that in the face of
all this Mr.. Norton can depend my not answer.
ing him as TO venture 70 print tuch mistatements2
Is 1t possible he does not see that they leave him in
this position; either he disbeleves these calumnies
which, nevertheless, he reierates to my injury when
IL suits him. or, believing me to be bad woman he
wishes me to return home! 1t is, indeed, difficult
to choose which alternative shall save his honor!
The admissions he makes respecting the late pro.
ceedngs in the county court are as extraordinary
as his assertions No one can read the evidence
and not conclude that Mr.. Norton broke faith with
me, because l broke some stipulation made with
him, and that that stipulation was respecting money
from Lord Melbourne. / was cross examined on
Norton's counsel, who put the question to me five
times with little variation; and when, for the fifth
time, had answered, on my oath. that there was
n no such stipulation, said, snserngly, well an
bound to take your answer" Now read Mr.. Nor
tons admission in his letter to the Times
She quite correct in court when she swors that
ptOn Of the annuity from Lord Melbourne formed
no part Of the conditions upon which that ssreemsn.
was come to. never said 1t did IL Ia true,
therefore, that the agT Of 184S to allo~ $500
year not conditional the relnq uishment Of
,ss. from Lord M.so1 st.ss not tTa.
confusion that prevailed ~ the trial rendered impossi
BILE for me to explain the matter to my counsel and
implied that pledge had been given uefore tbs signing
of the memorandum.
Mr. Norton is unlucky in his choice Of legal assist
ance. When l said that my copyrights had been
claimed-the benefit OF which :" he saws f" abe has
always allowed me to epjoy'-he threw the blame on
his solicitor who had subpGnaed the publishers; and
when complain OF being all but accused Of perjury
he says it was the mistake Of his counsel TO whom he
could not explain tie matter, though he sat by his
side. and eupQestAd in uldertOne almost
question that was asked me In court. Nevertheless
it is certain Mr.. Norton did make this assertion,
which he now says he did not make. Here is the
printed report, as given In the papers
Mr. Norron-The annuity Of $500 given by me only
on this basis would not have given this sum,
fsrtbiI g. she had not given me the most solemn
SUR nee that she would not receive one shilling from
Lord Melbourne.
MIS-. Norton-I stand here my oath, and say that
that Is false
The reports may be, and are, in many respects
verbally Inaccurate; but that Mr.. Norton made the
assertion in court which he now denies having made;
that the whole cross examination turned upon II;
that all public comment and opinion turned upon
it; that It stood his excuse for breakiDg his cove
nant that It was at once his answer and hi, accuse
ti0n in reply to any claim upon him, is incOntr0vert
BILE; and so clearly understood 1t Gas every one else
has understood t TO be his answer to the charge of
breaking the agreement, that soon I had read
over the evidence next morning. sent letter 70 the
Times proving that as Lord Melbourne was not dead
at the time the agreement was made the stipulation
could not have existed. Mr.. Norton now says he
never 'said or suggested the contrary" was cruel
]y and insultingy cross examined upon it, but that
was only on account of counsel knowing nothing OF
the matter! Now read Mr. Norton's own account Of
the drawing up of this disputed agreement. He ad.
mits that, being desirous Of borrowing the trust
funds settled on me and my sons in case of my Wild
owh00d, he found
Ttat the could lend the trust money With.
out the permission of Mrs Norton and myself in wri.
ting az further that she would nt give
T nspdfn Ia; q
alossDce making l. $500 iasesd OF E4O0 vase.
into corner by this unexpected discovery and had
to submit to the addition
What addition2 if, as he afirms in the next breath
he knew the agreement was not bindlug," and
that he could break it at pleasure? And if it could
be broken at pleasure, and bound no one, why did
we sign it?
He Observation-Disclosures the reason why; and proves,
by his own statement just given, instead Of its
being an agreement based on the stipulation that
should have no other resources 1t was q matter of
bargain for his own interest; and 80 great did he
consider the advantage to himself, tnas he was will
ling to give for it Cor to seem to give for M an extra
fl00 year for life In making this app .rent con-
cesson, however, he says he knew even at the time
that it was only apparent He says that certainly
wished to make it :. a binding document by finding
trustees but failed to do So not one of her rela
tons or friends would become her surety"
beg, on behalf Of relations and friends, to contra
dict this signed without sureties. because re-
quest, consented to see Mr. Norton at his chambcrr
on this busiEess,) letter dated the 8th of August
IS4S IN which he stated that Mr. Norton would give
me deed without requiring guarantees. Nor had
previously named thought Of naming any bat ono
member OF my family, whom had not even consult
ed as to his willingness to be mixed up with Mr. Nor
toms affairs.
Having given his account of the making of the
covenant, Mr.. Norton thus gives his account Of the
breaking it,
learnt that Mrs Norton had been left $500 per annum
by her mother, from whom rot that she had
~xfrna hc~~ ~
her ao which she would not accede TO- after
ths had received her mothers legacy ard for some ZINE
in 1851 upon MIS- Nortons income being increased ~
f6C0 year upon her m0tber's death. while mine vas
from various diminished, propose to reduce it.
By his own admission, then, no stipulation respec-
ting Lord Melbourne was made, and no mention of
him was made in Mr.. Norton's letter to me, which
letter distinctly states that my brothers solicitor hav
ing informed him had my mothers legacy there
fore he will break the agreement He does not say.
:. You have had money given you by Lord Mel
He says You have got legacy from your mother;
share it with me- or will force you to share it by
nonpay ment OF what owe you J" nor was it latter
had enjoyed it some time, nut on the contrary, ut
the exast date Of receipt Of my mothers property,
that Mr.. Norton fulfilled his threat and as he ex-
Dressly says he never knew till he saw my banker
book tna. had Lord Melbourne's bequest, he ad-
mis that my mothers annuity was his only reason.
Now this agreement, about wn.eeh 80 much mas
Ueen sdlUJ WAS DAseu OH bHc SIbslc Stlpuis- Aos
that should be richer, but that he should be poorer
poorer by $1,000 year, being the value Of the
Office to which he was named by Lord Melbourne.
My being richer certainly did not make him poorer
On the contrary, atmy mother death, the small por-
tioD derived from my father went to him, and not
TO me.
He gives his own account Of my previous conduct
in money matters, mo plausibly and most falsely
the exact and witnessed truth being, that during the
two years 1886 and 1887 had not single farthng
from Mr. Norton; that he then empoye1 Sir John
Baylty, who had been his counsel to arbtrate as to
my allowance and all other matters that he woul
not abide by the arbitration made what allowance
be pleased; and advertised me Ito guard hi nself
from further liability in the public papers being,
believe, the only person Of his own rank 10 life who
ever sdopied such measure. copy two sentences
from declaration with viii h Sir John Bayley has
lately furnished me, in contradiction at once Of the
whole fabrication respecting my conduct in these
matters -
ras apcor Ted arbitrator Mr.. Norton's behslf in
The year 1887 bayirs been counsel for him ADD thus be-
came istGs,ly acquainted WITH ths cic,uma lces of