77
for all years to come, Mr Norton should never be troubled with any debt of mine; he agreeing in future to pay 500/. a year. I told Mr Leman I would be content with such a deed, signed by Mr Norton and witnessed by Sir F. Thesiger; and 1 left town on a visit to Lord Rutherford, the then Lord Advocate of Scotland. The new deed was sent to Scotland for me to sign. I obeyed; and returned it by post. It never occurred to me as possible, that the instrument was valueless. If I had thought so, I would not have gone through the ridiculous farce of signing it. I received it as the valid substitute for the unexecuted deed previously thrown aside; and as a settlement for life. Mr Norton, in his published letter, says that he knew at the time, it was invalid. If so, he was guilty of deliberate fraud: for the deed pretended to make permanent conditions, and included the contingency of his succeeding to the peerage by surviving his brother. Even the lately disputed chance of my providing for debt beyond the allowance so secured—by literary or other resources—had been duly contemplated: Sir F. Thesiger had written to Mr Leman to guard against Mr Norton's interference in such a case, in these terms:—"I foresee the germs of endless differences if it were to be permitted … The spirit of the agreement I understand to be, that a certain provision should be secured to Mrs Norton; that Mr Norton should be discharged from liability for her debts, and that neither should trouble or interfere with the other." That was also my exact understanding of the case; and Mr Norton hastened to give this earnest assurance in reply. "I can have no wish to interfere with Mrs Norton's affairs: still less with her debts: you may bind me as stringently as you please not to interfere with her affairs. I shall pay her allowance under the deed, with the same regularity I have paid her previous allowance." I had yet to learn how easily I had been outwitted! On the strength of the momentary value of my signature, Mr Norton instantly
