116
'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.' I was cruelly and insultingly 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 admits, that being desirous of borrowing the trust-fund settled on me and my sons in case of my widowhood, he found—
'That the trustees could not lend the trust-money without the permission of Mrs Norton and myself in writing; and further, that she would not give her permission unless I consented to give her an addition of 100l.. to her allowance, making it 500l., instead of 400l. I was driven into a corner by this unexpected discovery, and I had to submit to the addition.'—
What addition? if as, he affirms in the next breath, he knew the agreement 'was not binding,' 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 himself establishes the reason why; and proves by his own statement, just given, that instead of its being an agreement based on the stipulation that I should have no other resources, it was a matter of bargain for his own interest; and so great did he consider the advantage to himself, that he was willing to give for it (or to seem to give for it) an extra 100l. a year for life! In making this apparent concession, however, he says he knew, even at the time, that it was only apparent. He says that I certainly wished to make it 'a binding document, by finding trustees, but failed to do so, as not one of her relations or friends would become her surety.' I beg, on behalf of 'relations and friends,' to contradict this. I signed without sureties, because I received from Sir F. Thesiger (who, at my earnest request, "consented to see Mr Norton at his chambers on this business), a letter dated 8th August, 1848, in which he stated that Mr Norton would give me a deed, 'without requiring guarantees.' Nor had I previously named, or thought of naming, any but one member of my family, whom I had not even consulted as to his willingness to be mixed up with Mr Norton's affairs.
Having given his account of the making of the covenant, Mr Norton thus gives his account of the breaking it:—
'I learnt that Mrs Norton had been left 500l. per annum by her mother, from whom I was not aware that she had any expectations. I then proposed to her a reduction of her allowance, which she would not accede to, and after she had received her mother's legacy and for some time enjoyed it, I did reduce it. …… I did, in 1851, upon Mrs Norton's income being increased by 500l. a year upon her mother's death, while mine was, from various causes, diminished, propose to reduce it.
By his own admission, then, no stipulation respecting Lord Melbourne
