118
and I deny that I ever said or implied that it was 'an insult' to be supposed to be aided by Lord Melbourne's family. I did say (and perhaps others will agree with me) that it was the coarsest of insults when Mr Norton talked of these affairs to my son; that I refused to discuss them with him; that I denied Mr Norton's right to question me, he having bound himself 'stringently,' in writing to my solicitor, never more to interfere in my affairs from the date of the agreement; and Mr Leman has a letter from me written at that time, stating that I consent to Mr Norton's proposals—'mainly because it is intolerable to me to have my son talk over matters from his father.' That Mr Norton protested afterwards,—either respecting a bequest from Lord Melbourne, or my mother's legacy,—only proves the truth of my warning to Mr Leman, that if it were possible for Mr Norton to find an excuse for breaking his word, he would break it; as he had done to Sir John Bayley.
With respect to Lord Melbourne,—three years after the date Mr Norton himself assigns to the anecdote he has thought fit to publish, he writes thus, speaking of the woman who afterwards left him the Yorkshire property, and who had invited him to dine:—
'I sent her a civil excuse, which was answered by a thorough love-letter; indeed it is high time that I should sanction, to a remarking world, your penchant for old men, by suffering this antique faux-pas.'
The post-mark of that letter is August 8, 1834. I do not know if Mr Norton will persist that it is the remark of a jealous husband. In January, and in February, 1836 (that is, one month before our final separation), Mr Norton speaks of the 'unparalleled kindness of Lord Melbourne;' and strenuously urges me to write to him to press the appointment of a friend. I will not enter into the fabulous history of the letters; Mr Norton forgets that as he was then, by his own, admission, occupied on 'one or two other' names, it could not be foreseen that these notes from Lord Melbourne would be important: and the whole of that statement is false. With the exception of myself, most of the persons Mr Norton maligns are dead, and cannot answer him. Lord Melbourne is no longer here to give his word of honour, that the man he served when living, has stated that which is untrue of his memory; but I can very clearly contradict Mr Norton as to one statement, and I do so to show what credence may be given to others. Becoming apparently uneasy as to any remarks which may be made on the affectation of looking with abhorrence on my acceptance of aid, while he himself receives one thousand a year from Lord Melbourne's appointment, Mr Norton asserts as follows:⁂
'Lord Melbourne promised me the appointment of police magistrate before he visited at our house, or before, I believe, he even knew Mrs Norton:' (!)
And he gives this very plausible reason:—
