112
The charge I publicly bring against Mr Norton (who has brought so many against me) is a far graver charge than any injustice in pecuniary matters. I complain, that twice in my life he has endeavoured, on a false pretence, to rob me of my reputation.
In 1836, I had a quarrel with my husband. Our cause of quarrel was, whether I should, or should not, take my children to the house of my brother, who would not receive my husband. I persisted. My husband baffled 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 I went to claim them, and I left town alone for my brother's country seat. Such being our real quarrel, I charge Mr Norton with contriving that the whole world should believe (as they did believe) that my misconduct had broken up our home, that I was an unfaithful wife, and that my lover was Lord Melbourne. He brought an action against Lord Melbourne. The witnesses for that action were proved, on trial, to be of the lowest and most degraded class. The chief witness was a drunken discarded groom, who was then a rag-seller in Monmouth-street: both he and others were proved to have been sent down to Lord Grantle's place, and to have received a weekly stipend from his agent while there. The trial was brought in 1836; nevertheless, no evidence was offered after the year 1833; the servants living with us at the time were not called; nothing was heard but the witnessing of the rag-seller and his companions, who admitted in Court that they had received money. In spite of all which strange advantages, and the fact that a woman is not allowed to defend herself in these actions, the verdict went against Mr Norton.
In this present year of 1853 I have a quarrel with my husband. Our quarrel is, whether I shall, or shall not, be compelled to cede a portion of my mother's bequest. I refuse. Mr Norton insists. I rashly count on being certain to obtain a compulsory fulfilment of our agreement; which I imagined to be binding. I find myself, on my return to England, without funds to meet my English creditors. I stop one action against my husband at my own expense. I write to Mr Norton's own solicitor, in the forlorn hope that Mr Norton is acting against advice. I come into Court against my will, upon subpœna, compelled to appear, to prove the debt and agreement. Mr Norton meets me there, in person, and by counsel, once more to raise the ghost of that departed slander, and to contrive that the whole world shall believe (as they do believe), that Lord Melbourne was again the subject of our quarrel: that some pledge, stipulation, or promise, was made and broken by me, and that that is Mr Norton's excuse for his breach of covenant. I rebut that imputation on oath, and by proved facts; and Mr Norton publishes, in the "Times" newspaper, two columns of abuse of, the dead and living, including coarse anecdotes of the mother of his grown up sons, which, even if true (which they are not), he himself dates back
