75
suffering by changes in the law; and my writing on that topic, while the law is admitted to be in a state of transition, may (without over-rating my own power) have as much influence, as other individuals have had in the gradual remedy of other defective laws. Such a hope has a certain degree of happiness attached to it; even if the law be remedied too late for me personally to profit much by the change.
I come now to the history of the contract, in the attempt to evade which, Mr Norton revived scandal, and braved this defence.
In July 1848, my husband—who had for years allotted me precisely what he pleased—desired once more to attempt to raise the Trust- fund alluded to at page 28, that being the provision made on my marriage, for me and my sons. To raise this money, it was necessary for him to obtain my written consent. He applied to me accordingly: and I requested him, in exchange, to execute a deed of separation, and secure me an income of 600l. a-year (which I had been assured was the minimum of allowance that would have been granted, if I had been in a position to sue for alimony).
Mr Norton's reply was merely haggling as to terms: he would not give 600l. but he would give 500l.: and I must give my consent at once to raise the Trust-fund. He employed my invalid son, who had just returned on leave from Lisbon, to press this upon me; and to explain that he wanted the money immediately, to improve the estate left him by Miss Vaughan. As soon as my son interfered, I made haste to yield: I wrote to Mr Leman, who acted as solicitor for my trustees, to say that I consented to all Mr Norton proposed,—"mainly because it is intolerable to me to have my son talk over matters of this kind from his father." But I entered on the arrangement with a distrust which subsequent events have
