100
information, as he had it from one of the executors. I was surprised and disgusted, and immediately wrote to Mrs Norton to inquire if she did receive that annuity. Her answer was emphatically in the negative, and at that period she spoke the truth; for I afterwards was informed that a difference had arisen between herself and the representatives of Lord Melbourne as to giving up his letters, and which letters, as I was informed, it was insisted should be given up before the annuity was granted.
I think it was not till the close of 1851, or in 1852, that I was informed that she certainly did receive the annuity, when I again required her written denial of the fact. She answered by saying that I insulted her by repeating the question; but, not being quite satisfied with the reply, I requested my son Fletcher to speak to her on the subject, and assure her that no insult was intended by the question, and that I insisted on an explicit answer to it.
She then did explicitly assure my son that she received no annuity of any kind from Lord Melbourne, and Fletcher added, from himself, that he was fully persuaded, from her manner and words, as to the truth of her assertion. This must have been in 1852, or in this very year. Judge then, of my surprise, when my solicitor ascertained, only two or three weeks ago, that she had been in the receipt of that annuity ever since 1849! I was not permitted at the trial to enter into any explanation whatever on this or any other point; but the few and hurried observations I did make, had reference to the continuance of my allowance to her one hour, after such a fact had been clearly brought to my knowledge. The confusion that prevailed at the trial rendered it impossible for me even to explain the matter to my counsel; and hence arose that part of the cross-examination, which implied that a pledge had been given before the signing of the memorandum.
It is true, that in 1837 we contemplated a re-union. She had assured me that she had taken the sacrament in attestation of her
