eBook - ePub
Caroline Norton's Defense
English Laws for Women in the 19th Century
Caroline Norton
This is a test
Share book
- 208 pages
- English
- ePUB (mobile friendly)
- Available on iOS & Android
eBook - ePub
Caroline Norton's Defense
English Laws for Women in the 19th Century
Caroline Norton
Book details
Book preview
Table of contents
Citations
About This Book
This account of the author's experience at the hands of an "imperfect state of law" in early 19th-century England makes a passionate plea for equal justice for women. Largely as a result of this book the passage of the Married Women's Property Act and reform of the English Marriage and Divorce Laws occurred some years later.
Frequently asked questions
How do I cancel my subscription?
Can/how do I download books?
At the moment all of our mobile-responsive ePub books are available to download via the app. Most of our PDFs are also available to download and we're working on making the final remaining ones downloadable now. Learn more here.
What is the difference between the pricing plans?
Both plans give you full access to the library and all of Perlegoâs features. The only differences are the price and subscription period: With the annual plan youâll save around 30% compared to 12 months on the monthly plan.
What is Perlego?
We are an online textbook subscription service, where you can get access to an entire online library for less than the price of a single book per month. With over 1 million books across 1000+ topics, weâve got you covered! Learn more here.
Do you support text-to-speech?
Look out for the read-aloud symbol on your next book to see if you can listen to it. The read-aloud tool reads text aloud for you, highlighting the text as it is being read. You can pause it, speed it up and slow it down. Learn more here.
Is Caroline Norton's Defense an online PDF/ePUB?
Yes, you can access Caroline Norton's Defense by Caroline Norton in PDF and/or ePUB format, as well as other popular books in Derecho & Derecho administrativo. We have over one million books available in our catalogue for you to explore.
Information
VI
After the proceedings were ended; and when we were discussing the extraordinary defence falsely set up; it was suggested to me, that the comparative dates of Lord Melbourneâs death, and the drawing up of the contract, would prove at once the impossibility of what Mr Norton had asserted. I regretted that I had not had those dates in Court: and after reading the evidence next morning, I addressed the following letter to the papers:
To the Editor,
Sir,âI ask your patience for this letter, in consequence of the unexpected falsehood by which Mr Norton yesterday upheld his non-liability to my creditors in the County Court. Mr Norton there declared that his stipulation with me was, that he should be liable only âIf I received no aid from the late Lord Melbourneâs family.â
The solicitor who drew up the agreement contradicted him on oathâon oath he stated that there was no such stipulation.
I contradict him on facts, which are stronger than oaths. Our agreement was signed in September, 1848, and Lord Melbourne was then still alive; therefore it is impossible that any stipulation should have been made as to his supposed bequests. To save himself from the payment of $500 a yearâdue to my creditors on a formal covenantâMr Norton has uttered this falsehood, and raked up, from the ashes of the past, an old refuted slander, on which, for two hours yesterday, he himself in person, and the counsel he employed, examined and cross-examined me, on topics which had nothing to do with the case, but which were to imply degradation and shame!
Once for all, I did not part from my husband on Lord Melbourneâs account; nor had Lord Melbourne anything whatever to do with our quarrel. I parted from Mr Norton because I persisted in an intention to take my children to my brotherâs house, where my husband, on account of his own conduct, was not received. My husband sent my children to a woman with whom he was intimate, and who has since left him an estate in Yorkshire; and we separated upon that. I had no other ground of dispute with my husband. The slanders respecting Lord Melbourne were an after-thought.
So it was yesterday. Mr Norton did not make any such stipulation with me as he says he did. There was then no question of bequests from Lord Melbourneâfor Lord Melbourne was not dead. Mr Norton broke his covenant, according to his own letter, because my mother left me an annuity. There is not a syllable in his letter of any other cause. He introduced Lord Melbourneâs name yesterday to pain and insult me, and also to draw off public attention from the fact of the positive fraud committed on my creditors by his withholding the sum due to them. The year after the action against Lord Melbourne, he besought my return home, and my forgiveness, in the most endearing terms. He threw the blame of the trial on Lord Grantley, Lord Wynford, and the political party to which they belonged. If he believed the slander, he was base to write caressing letters to persuade me to return to him; if (as is the fact) he did not believe that slander, he is doubly base to invoke the name of the dead against the mother of his grown-up sons, in a public court, by way of excusing his violation of a solemn covenant.
All this, though it is life and death to me, may not interest the public. But what does interest the public is the state of the law. By the law as it stands, if Mr Norton can evade his covenant (as he does, by stating that it is null because it was a contract with me, and âa man cannot contract with his own wifeâ) he can defraud the creditor, for if a creditor sues me, I have only to plead âcoverture,â plead that I am a married woman, and the creditor who could not recover against Mr Norton is equally unable to recover against me. Between the facts, that because I am Mr Nortonâs wife he can cheat me, and because I am Mr Nortonâs wife I can cheat others, the tradesmen who have supplied me would (by the law of England) utterly lose their money.* This does interest the public, and is a state of the law which certainly requires amending. The case yesterday, was technically decided on this point, viz., that at the time this particular bill was incurred, the allowance had not been stopped. The validity of the covenant Mr Norton is attempting to break was not called in question; and it does interest the public and the barâwhether it can be called in questionâwhether, if not a contract with me, is not a contract with my creditorsâa written and stamped agreement with them, made by a magistrate and barrister; because, as I have stated, if it is not a valid contract, the creditor may be utterly cheated of his moneyâif (which God forbid), copying the example of Mr Norton, I also should fling off, by quibble of the law, my personal liability.
Mr Norton, after a pause of a day or two, published an âanswerâ of extraordinary length; premising, especially, that he did soâless in his private, than his public capacity; his private character being âsafe in the hands of those who knew him.â) That it was, in short, as the person appointedâby Lord Melbourneâto the Metropolitan Magistracy, that he proceeded to accuse Lord Melbourne (now dead, and unable to contradict him) of every degree of turpitude; from the seduction of his wife, to the appointing of a Treasury Messenger âas a rewardâ for treacherously purloining his own compromising and inculpating letters from Mr Nortonâs house.
But I will permit Mr Norton to speak for himself; and give his letter, as he published it. He says, then:â
It is as a Magistrateâan administrator of Justice (according to my ability)âthat I come forward in the present matter with a plain statement of facts, to prove that I have striven to be as just in my private affairs as it is my aim and desire to be in my public capacity! It is with pain that I feel myself compelled to break the silence which the forebearance of seventeen long years has made habitual to me; but I feel I must now speak out, and that it would be treason to my character and fair fame to leave all these accusations unanswered. I was subpĆnaed on Thursday last by the Messrs. Thrupp, and when Mrs Norton had concluded her evidence, I begged their solicitor to call me as a witness. He refused me that favour, and, as the advocate of my opponent, I cannot quarrel with his discretion; and perhaps it was better that the opportunity was not afforded me, for in the distraction of the moment I might have been tempted to reveal matters with which, for the happiness of others, it is much better the public should remain unacquainted. My counsel was refused, even by statement, to contradict the gross falsehoods which had been most illegally and improperly introduced into the case. The question was one simply of liability; and the moment that Mrs Norton admitted she was living apart from me by her own wish (and which she did so admit at the begining of her examination), there was an end of the case, and all proceedings should have terminated. Unhappily, the judge, and every one engaged for or against her in the cause, seemed overpowered by Mrs Nortonâs demeanour; and those who had a turn for the drama (of whom, unfortunately, my own solicitor was one), were suspended in breathless, helpless inaction. None who witnessed that scene can forget it to their livesâ endâall must remember it as the most splendid piece of acting ever exhibited; however much the sober mind of England must revolt against the disgrace of a court of justice being turned into the stage of Drury-lane.
My denials shall be as few as possible and as brief.
First. The agreement, or rather the memorandum, of 1848 was not a binding one. Mrs Norton knew this as well as I didâat least, her own solicitor told me it was not at the time we signed it; moreover, she did try then to make the contemplated arrangement between us a binding document, by finding trustees, but failed to do so, as not one of her relations or friends would become her surety.
One of Mrs Nortonâs stipulations in the memorandum was not observed from the very first, for constant applications have been made to my solicitor and myself for payment of her debts. Nevertheless, had our relative circumstances remained as they were when we entered into it, I should have continued to pay her $500 per annum. She was quite correct in court when she swore that her non-reception of the annuity from Lord Melbourne formed no part of the conditions upon which that agreement was come to. I never said it did. Lord Melbourne was then alive, and I had no tangible grounds for then raising the question; but some short time afterwards I was informed by a person, who shall be nameless, after the oath that was given on Thursday (but I speak from recollection only, not having refreshed my memory with the correspondence which passed between us at the time) that Lord Melbourne had left a sealed letter for his brother, stating that he (Lord Melbourne) might have given her an annuity upon the lands he had himself acquired, but that he preferred leaving it to the convenience of his brother to secure her in an annuity of $600 per annum, of some other sum, and he (the person alluded to) added, that I might depend on this information, as he had it from one of the executors. I was surprised and disgusted, and immediately wrote to Mrs Norton to inquire if she did receive that annuity. Her answer was emphatically in the negative, and at that period she spoke the truth; for I afterwards was informed that a difference had arisen between herself and the representatives of Lord Melbourne as to giving up his letters, and which letters, as I was informed, it was insisted should be given up before the annuity was granted.
I think it was not till the close of 1851, or in 1852, that I was informed that she certainly did receive the annuity, when I again required her written denial of the fact. She answered by saying that I insulted her by repeating the question; but, not being quite satisfied with the reply, I requested my son Fletcher to speak to her on the subject, and assure her that no insult was intended by the question, and that I insisted on an explicit answer to it.
She then did explicitly assure my son that she received no annuity of any kind from Lord Melbourne, and Fletcher added, from himself, that he was fully persuaded, from her manner and words, as to the truth of her assertion. This must have been in 1852, or in this very year. Judge then, of my surprise, when my solicitor ascertained, only two or three weeks ago, that she had been in the receipt of that annuity ever since 1849! I was not permitted at the trial to enter into any explanation whatever on this or any other point; but the few and hurried observations I did make, had reference to the continuance of my allowance to her one hour, after such a fact had been clearly brought to my knowledge. The confusion that prevailed at the trial rendered it impossible for me even to explain the matter to my counsel; and hence arose that part of the cross-examination, which implied that a pledge had been given before the signing of the memorandum.
It is true, that in 1837 we contemplated a re-union. She had assured me that she had taken the sacrament in attestation of her innocence of all criminality; that assurance and other circumstances induced me to believe her innocent of the last offence; but of the impropriety of her conduct and total disregard of outward appearance, by which alone society can form its opinion, no one who moved in our circle could doubt. My own conduct, I admit, at that time was weak and vacillating in the extreme. I had loved her to madness for three or four years before I married her, and after we were united she had all power over me. But all idea of re-union was abruptly broken off when certain tidings reached me of her sĂ©jour in the Isle of Wight. From that moment my honour was out-raged, and our re-union rendered impossible. Judge, then, of my surprise within the last three or four years to receive hints from her as to our living again together: one of these I can distinctly remember. My son Fletcher was seriously ill at her house, and I went there to see him. I was remarking to him that I was about taking a new lease of my house, when she said, âWhat nonsense, when thereâs a room for you here.â Would any one believe that in 1849 such a proposal could have come from the person who, on Thursday last, denounced me in the way she did?
But to return to our money differences. When we first separated I divided my incomeâthen only 800l. or 900l. per annum, into three portions. One I paid into Messrs Ransonâs for her support, the second I allotted for payment of our debts, and the third for the three children and myself; and, after paying their expenses, I had not more than 5s. per day for myself to live upon in town, having to attend to my police court. In 1838, my cousins, Mr Vaughan and his sister, fulfilled their deceased motherâs wishes, by leaving me their Yorkshire estates, and I immediately increased Mrs Nortonâs allowance to 400l. per annum, exclusive of her pension. She declined at first receiving it; she preferred furnishing houses and disposing of them, and leaving the tradesmen to bring their action in the superior courts. At least thirty suits were instituted against me for debts of her contracting. In two cases only were the opinions of juries taken, and in both the verdicts were for me.*
But the expense of defending myself against such ruination was very heavy; and I had to borrow, if I recollect, 5,000l. or 6,000l. in Scotland and elsewhere to meet it. In 1848 it was suggested that it would be a saving of interest to borrow that money of the trustees out of my patrimony, and notice was given to the bondholders in Scotland that they would be paid at a certain time. Mr Leman prepared the mortgage deed for the trustees over my Yorkshire estates; but after the preparation of the mortgage had proceeded nearly to completion, and much expence incurred therein, he told me he had discovered, what he ought from the first to have knownâthat the trustees could not lend the trust-money without the permission of Mrs Norton and myself in writing, and he informed me, 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. In 1851, my younger sonâs expenses at Oxford increasing, and my own expenses in Yorkshire being greater to keep up the rents in the then depressed state of agriculture, 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 motherâs legacy and for some time enjoyed it, I did reduce it to 300l. per annum, but which she has never accepted.
Now, as to her access to the three children. My first idea upon her leaving me, was to place them with herself, and I never denied her reasonable access to them; but she made three different attempts to carry them offâfrom Storeyâs gate, from Ryde, and from Wonersh; and she resolutely refused to guarantee me against similar attempts, her object evidently being by every means and pretence to excite public sympathy on the subject of the children, and for which I gave her no grounds. I was responsible for their maintenance and education, and I dreaded her intention of taking them abroad. I therefore ultimately sent them to my sisterâs, Lady Menzies, in Scotland, providing them with a tutor; they were thence sent to Dr Buckland, at Laleham; thence the two eldest went to Eton; and the poor youngest died of lock-jaw, resulting from a mere scratch on the bone of his elbow by a fall from his pony. He died at Kettlethorp, my place in Yorkshire, and the moment the first symptoms of lock-jaw and of danger were discovered, I sent immediately for Mrs Norton, but she arrived not until after he had expired.
Both my elder sons stayed some years at Eton, and then Fletcher went to Lisbon as attaché, with an outfit that cost me upwards of 400l. and an allowance of 300l. per annum, which he enjoys up to this moment. Fletcher was ill at Lisbon, and Mrs Norton took Brinsley out there, removing him from Eton against he advice of Mr Coleridge, his tutor, and myself. I had much difficulty in getting him back to England, when I placed him with a private tutor, Mr Heatly, to whom I paid 200l. per annum to prepare him for college. He then went to University College, Oxford, and, although I gave him an outfit, and allowed him 250l. per annum, the utmost sum Dr Plumtre advised, and which sum was afterwards increased, he got into such difficulties that he is living abroad, and I am now at an expense for his support and maintenance there. In addition to these allowances, I have sent money at various times to Lisbon, Germany, and Italy, for the support of my sons. My house has always been open to receive them; and they have not unfrequently availed themselves of it as a home. During their whole lives I have paid for their clothing, schooling, and support, with the exception of their viands at those periods when they have lived with their mother, and it was one of my many astonishments on Thursday to hear her unblushingly state that all I had done for them was to pay for their education.
The history of the action against Lord Melbourne was shortly this:âI had observed from the time of their close intimacy, Mrs Norton had taken less interest in our then only child and in myself. On one occasion, I had seen her arm round his neck, and when I remonstrated with her, she said, âWell, and what if I had my Melly round the neckâwhat was it?â I was jealous, and mentioned the subject to Mrs Sheridan, who quite lulled my suspicion by telling me that he had been her fatherâs friend, and other cir...