76
proved to be most amply justified. I could not but remember the numerous occasions on which Mr Norton bad shown that no possible reliance could be placed on his word; and I shocked Mr Leman by expectations openly and repeatedly expressed, that my husband would "cheat" me. Every one of the letters I wrote on this business, contained that truly prophetic warning. The first hitch occurred, from Mr Norton insisting that the deed which was to be only prospective, for me, should be guaranteed retrospectively (for a period of no less than ten years), as far as his own pecuniary advantage was concerned. This was utterly refused, and the guarantee I had named, declined to act. Mr Leman told me that, without a guarantee, the deed of separation he had prepared, would be informal. I answered, that if I could not obtain a legal separation, I supposed some other kind of deed or bond could be executed; by which Mr Norton could be "bound:" and that I was to see a legal friend whom I would consult on the subject.
That legal friend was Sir Frederick Thesiger; who consented, at my earnest request, to receive Mr Norton at his chambers. Having seen him, Sir F. Thesiger wrote to me that my husband would execute a deed of separation: that he did not require guarantees, but insisted on my acceding to the condition of his retrospective advantage; which no guarantee would have acceded to, but which he declared I, personally, had promised him. Sir F. Thesiger then added,—"if he is correct in this statement"—"assuming the accuracy of Norton's assertion,"—"I should venture to recommend you not to aim at any alteration of the terms, but to embrace the offer now made, of giving you the security of a deed of separation; which you have so long earnestly desired, and which I trust, will have the effect of placing you in a situation of more complete tranquillity than it has been your lot to enjoy for many years."
I did, then, what I was advised; I yielded the point of retrospective protection. I agreed, that for ten years past, and
