111
answer to Mr Norton's letter as it appeared in the papers at the time. It contains so much repetition of what has been already more fully recorded in this pamphlet, that I print it rather as a record of what my answer was,—than from the necessity of its delaying the reader in this place. I would merely call attention to the passage marked with three asterisks ⁂, page 118 (disproving Mr Norton's astonishing assertion, that Lord Melbourne gave him his Magistracy before he was acquainted with me); and t would beg especial notice of the letters which immediately follow mine.
"Sir,—On Wednesday, the 24th ult., a long letter from Mr Norton appeared in the columns of the ' Times. I did not expect ever to feel thankful for anything Mr Norton would say of me; but I do feel most deeply thankful that he wrote and published that letter. He has now deliberately given to the world, on his own authority, and under his own signature, that history which I have always refrained from giving, beyond the circle of my own friends; and he has thus given me an opportunity of refuting slander, of which I should sooner have availed myself, but that to do so completely, I have been obliged to look through a mass of papers and correspondence; and I have been too ill, since the day I had to appear in the County Court, to make the requisite exertion.
I pass over the charge brought against me, there and in Mr Norton's letter, of extravagance in my arrangements for a home for my sons and myself. The charge comes ill from one who owes me 6871., and who does not even deny the debt, but merely says he cannot be compelled to pay it, because, as was stated in Court, he is not bound by law, but only 'as a man of honour.' I pass the ludicrous attempt to fix my fluctuating income at 1,500l. a year, by 'setting' my literary gains at a permanent 500l. annually. Will Mr Norton and his counsel pay it, as well as 'set' it? Will they ensure me health, strength, leisure, and the frame of mind fit for so calm an occupation? Will they state what they think my income from literary labour for the present year is likely to be, in the turmoil, distress, and scandal they have brought upon me? I pass the manifest mis-statement of Mr Norton's own income, which I could prove, by my marriage settlements, a statement of his former receiver of rents, his own letters, and my own knowledge, to be nearly double what he asserted it was. With all that 'the world' has nothing to do; and if Mr Norton had confined himself to our pecuniary dispute, there would have been no necessity for public complaint or private sorrow.
