Page:English laws for women in the nineteenth century.djvu/100

88 that kindness, one selfish comment), I think never woman had fairer claim on kindness; for if it had not been for the scheme to oust Lord Melbourne as Minister, my quarrel with my husband would have been arranged—as other disputes had been; Mr Norton having already owned to Sir James Graham, that he was ready, conditionally, to retract what he had said against me. And if it had not been for Lord Melbourne's position afterwards, as Minister,—and above all, the embarrassment of his being Minister to a young Queen, at the time when I was most eager to institute some suit against Mr Norton that might lead to my public justification,—I could long ago have made my husband's weapons of slander recoil upon himself, as I do this day; and the trial of 1836 would have received that explanation which even now I have given within the limits of a certain discretion, Lord Melbourne repeatedly thanked me, for not moving in this matter; and for him, and for his interests, I bore much which I certainly need not have borne.

When Mr Norton's counsel had received answers to the questions he put, relative to the supposed bequest, he paused; and then proceeded to cross-examine me, as though he believed I had perjured myself. This gentleman's manner of questioning, was so insolent and offensive, that at one time Mr Hayward appealed to the Judge on my behalf; and I was obliged to remind him that I was answering him "upon oath." He insisted that there had been some stipulation with Mr Norton about this money. He endeavoured to show (in spite of my denials), that it was secured, and was a legacy. He said—as if to confound me by proof—"You received a certain sum in January, and an equal sum in July. Do you not know that the difference between those two sums and the income Lord Melbourne left you, is made up by the Legacy Duty?" I said I did not know what the difference was made up by; all I knew was, that the payment depended on the pleasure (or the "charity," if he pleased) of Lady Palmerston; and not on legal securities. Mr Leman then explained that the difference