Car roline Norton

PROLOG GUE TO TH HRUPP V. N NORTON by David Arthur Wal d lters We prese below the court report of the ex p ent parte courtro oom depositi of Carol Norton i the ion line in case of t Thrupp coach builde versus h estranged husband G the c ers her d George C. N Norton, Thrup v. upp Norton, 1853 Count Courts Chronicle 113 Caroline Elizabeth S ty 3. Sarah Norton an author and n, r distinguished Whig salon hostes known in her youth as one of th Three Graces, her sisters ss n he being the other two beauties, d much to advance w e did womens lega rights to custody of their al children and property in England although she maintain her belie that wom are inferi to y d, ned ef men ior men by Gods will, therefore she never pretended to the wild and ridicu d ulous doctrin of ne equality. Women, their incom and prope me erty, and th heir children were little more than the n, n property of their hus sbands under existing la Her husb r aw. band was a f failed lawye with very little er income w was given to drun who nkenness and violent fit To resol the mon problem she ts. lve ney m, secured h a lucrative post as a Metropolit Police C him tan Commissione thanks to her friend, Lord er, o Melbourn the Prim Minister, with whom she associa ne, me m ated with he husbands knowledge and er s e approval. He would later sue Lo Melbour for Con ord rne nversation, in effect cha n arging Melbo ourne with con nverting his wifes body to his own uses i.e. a y n alienation of affection, hoping to e extort 10,000 from him, bring down h government, and obt b his tain a divorc the only g ce, ground for w which in those days was ad dultery. He lost the case but Carolin and the Pr ne rime Ministe were defa er amed. The case was a great public scan with frequent refere t ndal ences made t the Melbo to ournes testim mony that he h preferred to enter the back door of Caroline quarters. Norton freq had d e es quently bruta alized Caroline, sometimes strangling her. It has b , been noted t that her quic tongue an obstinate ck nd eness, somewha evident in her testimon below, in the face of male author were agg at ny n f rity gravating fac ctors. In any ca she could no longer brook the p ase physical abus after he th se hrew her dow the stairs one wn day, caus sing her to miscarry, so she left him for good the law the would hav permitted him m m en ve d to find a abduct her if he so wished. He legally too away the children and claimed her and h e ok eir d copyrigh to her righ ht htings, and t there was lit she could do about i except to refer credito to ttle d it ors him, sinc by law a wifes debts were her hu ce w s usbands for she was co r onsider his ag gent. To for restall her from putting him into debt, he offered h an allow m m her wance provid ding she wo ould pay her own r bills, a so of separa ort ation agreem ment that she eventually signed. Ho e y owever, he d decided to re educe the amou of the allowance, a finally to discontinu it altoget unt a and ue ther when h heard she was he e
1

getting income from Melbournes friends after his death, and said she could do nothing about it because by law a man and his wife are one person, to wit the man and his rib, and cannot contract with one another. No doubt out of spite, and on advice of counsel, she refused to pay the balance due on her carriage account although she had ample income from elsewhere to pay it, hence Thrupp v. Norton. The reader shall see that Caroline had aliunds, a Latin term meaning abundance; i.e. she had separate income copious enough to pay her own bills. Judging from the testimony given in this case, Mr. Norton did not actually seize any of her income, and he was paying bills for his children he was not allowed to contest the witnesss statements in court because the procedure was one-sided, or ex parte, to the purpose of obtaining the Carolines testimony. Since her husband held her the copyright, she devoted her writing to complaining to Queen Victoria and Parliament and anyone else who would listen about the fact that a married woman was non-existent under existing English law. The result was the Custody of Infants Act of 1839 and the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857. The reader will also notice that the judge in the case entered a decree for nonlawsuit, meaning that he dismissed it, apparently because the carriage makers were intimates of Mr. Norton, had public notice of his provision of separate income to her, and opened the account with her during that period. That was the equitable thing to do, and we suppose that such equity on that point had already been embedded in the common law.
COUNTYCOURTSINTELLIGENCE Westminster August18,1853 THRUPPv.NORTON Liability of a husband for the debts of his wife when she is living separatefromhim,andherefusestopayherallowance,shehavingan incomealiunds. This was an action brought by the plaintiffs, Mssrs. Thrupp, coach builders, of Oxfordstreet, against the Hon. G.C. Norton, defendant, underthefollowingpeculiarandextraordinarycircumstances; Mr.C.Dod,thesolicitor,appearedfortheplaintiffs,andMr.Needham, counsel,instructedbyMssrs.Fladgate,Clarke,andFinch,conductedthe defense. The case, which was fixed for hearing some time ago, had been twice postponedonaccountofthenonattendanceofcertainwitnesses,and anunusualdegreeofinterestwasexcited,thecourtbeingcrowdedto

excess during the whole of the proceedings, which occupied several hours. Dod said the claim was 49l. 4s. 6d.for work and labor supplied by the plaintiffstotheHon.Mrs.Norton,whowasthewifeofthedefendant. ThedefendantwasapolicemagistrateforLambeth,andalsoamember ofthebar.Theaccountoftheplaintiffshadextendedfromthe17thof April, 1843, to the 17th of March, 1850, amounting to 189l. 4s. 6d., of which135lhadbeenpaidindifferentinstalments,leavingabalanceof 49l.4s.6d.,theamountsoughttoberecovered.Heshouldprovethat the work was duly performed, and that the orders were given by the Hon. Mrs. Norton, as the wife of the defendant, and that the charges were fair and reasonable. He (Mr. Dod) understood that a defence of nonliability was about to be raised by reason of some separation, of somelivingapartofthedefendantfromhiswife.Heshould,however, be able to satisfy the court, that the account was a proper and reasonable one, and the items would show that they were such as befittedthestationofaladyinthepositionofthedefendantswife.The plaintiffs had come into the court to show that their claim was a just one,andthattheyhadnothingwhatevertodowithprivatedifferences betweenthedefendantandhiswife. The Hon. Mrs. Norton, who was accommodated with a seat on the bench,wasexaminedbyMr.Dod. She stated that she was the wife of the defendant, the Hon. George ChapelNorton.Shehadbeensubpoenaedtothecourttoproducethe accountsoftheplaintiffsfortheworkandlaborsuppliedbythemtoher fromtheyear1843tothemonthofMarch,1850. Dod.Whatdidtheworkconsistof? TheHon.Mrs.Norton.Repairstomycarriage.Ibegtoobserve,Iam here against my will upon subpoena. I sent a statement of my case to Mr.Nortonssolicitor. TheCourtintimatedthatthewitnesshadbetterconfineherselftothe questionsofheradvocate. The Honorable Mrs. Norton (emphatically).I am here for justice, and asthisisacourtofjustice,IinsistonstatingwhatIhavetosay.These tradesmenwouldhavebeenpaidifMr.Nortonhadnotperformedthe greatestbreachoffaiththatwaseveraccomplishedbyman. TheJudge.Prayallowmetosaythatthisisirregular. TheHonorableMrs.Norton(withdetermination.)Iwillspeak. TheJudge.Willyouallowthisgentlemantoconductyourcase? 3

Dod.Whatisthedescriptionofcarriageforwhichtheworkwasdone? TheHon.Mrs.Norton.Abrougham.IpaidMr.Thruppbyinstalments until Mr.Nortonstopped myallowance.Wearenotresidingtogether, andhavelivedapartforsomeyears,bymywishandchoice,becauseI considerthatIhavesustainedaninjurythatnowomanoughttosubmit to.IbelieveMr.Nortonsincometobeabout3,000l,ayearviz.,from his magistracy, his patrimonial profits in Scotland, his chambers in the Temple,andothersources,altogetheramountingto3,000l.perannum. I was parted from him in the year 1836, and the following year he offered500l.ayearuntilwecouldarrangeourmatters,butmademea compulsory allowance of 400l. per annum. He stipulated that I should give up my children, and I said that I would rather starve than lose them;andI didstarveforatime.FromthemonthofMarch,1838,he made me an allowance, and he advertised me in the public papers respecting this compulsory allowance. He paid me 400l. until 1848. In referencetothistherewasanagreementdrawnup.Heandmybrother inlaw, the Hon. E. Phipps, witnessed it. In the year 1851, my mother died, and she left me some money; but there is still 857l. due my creditors, and I have returned from Italy to have it paid; and if the defendant had paid me the money he promised by this agreement, I should have settled with the plaintiffs, but I understand Mr. Nortons plea to be, that as this paper was made between him and his wife it cannotbebindingonhim;butifIhadhadthemoneyeveryoneofmy creditorswouldhavewhatisduetothem. Cross examined by Needham.Have you received your income from Mr.Nortonregularlyuptoaperiodbeyondthatofthelastitem,March, 1850? TheHon.Mrs.Norton.Heowesme687l. NeedhamHave you not received your allowance under the agreement? The Hon. Mrs. Norton.I have received my allowance up to March, 1852. NeedhamWasyourseparationfromyourhusbandavoluntaryone? The Hon. Mrs. Norton.Mr. Norton sent my little children to Mrs. Vaughan, to which I very much objected, and I received nothing in shape of an allowance for two years; and when I parted from my husbandIhadnoincome. Needham.Was not the allowance paid into your bankers first, after therateof200l.ayear,andsubsequently400l.?

The Hon. Mrs. NortonNo; I have not got my bankers passbook with me.Ineverhadabookatalluntil1848,becauseIneverhadsufficient moneytomakeitworthmywhiletokeepanaccountthere.YesterdayI sentforalistofwhatmoneysIhadatmybankers. Needham.Idontaskyouthat. TheHon.Mrs.Norton.YouareafraidofmyanswerswhenIgivethem. Needham.Willyouletmeseethatpaperyouarelookingat? TheHon.Mrs.Norton.No;Ihavethishereformyownpurpose. The Judge.But it must be produced to the counsel, Madam, if he requiresit. Needham.Did you refuse to take the money after it was paid into Mssrs.Rawsons,thebanker? TheHon.Mrs.Norton.Irefusedtodoanythingwhilemychildrenwere takenfromme. Needham.Ibelieveyouhad15,000l.leftyoubyyourmother? The Hon. Mrs. Norton.I have the interest on the money paid to me throughmybrother. Needham.Haveyoualso571l.10s.paidtoyoubywayofpension? TheHon.Mrs.Norton.MyfatherheldanappointmentattheCapeof GoodHope.Hediedthere,andIhavethispensioninconsequence. Needham.HadyousumsofmoneysenttoyoutoLisbon? The Hon. Mrs. Norton.He sent me money to pay the passage of his secondsonhome.Herefusedtopaythepassageofhiseldestson,and alsowhatwasindebtedtoSirHamiltonSeymour.Ipaidboth. TheHon.Mr.Nortonhereinterposed,andsaidhethoughtitveryhardif theexpartestatementwastogoforthtothepublicwithouthishaving an opportunity of saying anything in denial or explanation of the statementsthatwerebeingmadeagainsthim. TheHon.Mrs.Norton.Icanproveuponmyoaththatmysonresided withmeinGermany,Italy,Belgium,andinPortugal,andthatIsustained the whole expenses of such residence myself. The eldest has had an allowancesincehewenttoLisbon.

Needham.HasthesecondsonnotbeenatEton,andsubsequentlyat Oxford? TheHon.Mrs.Norton.Mr.Nortonpaidforhiseducation,butIpaidfor hisresidence.Iamknownasapopularwriterinmyowncountry,and sometimesIhave1,000l.ayear,andsometimesIhavenothing.Ihave workedashardasanylawyersclerkinthisCourt. Needham.Whatisyourliteraryincome?Isif500l.ayear. TheHon.Mrs.Norton.No.Mr.Nortonhasclaimedmycopyrightsfrom mypublisher. TheHon.Mr.Norton(interrupting).Mysolicitordid. TheHon.Mrs.Norton(withindignation).Doesheactwithoutknowing whatyourwishesare,Sir? Needham.Maywetakeitat500layear? TheHon.Mrs.Norton.Youmaytakeitforwhatyoulike;andtheonly remaining source of income is the assistance from my friends and familyanysumsthattheychosetoallowme. Needham.Madam,wehavealreadygotanincomeofabout1,300l.a year. Do you mean to tell the learned Judge that you have no other sourceofincome? TheHon.Mrs.Norton.ImeantotellthelearnedJudgethetruth. Needham.Isoneofthosefriendsfromwhomyouderiveanallowance LordBeauvale,thelateLordMelbourne? The Hon. Mrs. Norton.That is one of the sources. (The witness here becameveryexcited,and,risingfromherseat,said.)Idonotreceive an income, for his property was strictly entailed. He left his solemn declaration, as a dying man, and gave his word of honour that Mr. Nortonsaccusationagainstme,whenIwasayoungthingathome,was afalseone.Helefthisrequesttohisbrother,andtohissolicitor,thatas thisyoungwoman,youngenough,andmorethanyoungenoughto havebeenhischildwould,onaccountofsuchaccusation,undergothe greatsuffering,thegreatmisery,thelossofhome,andthewreckofher wholelifeIstandhereablastedwomanfromthatday,becausethose people knew me, and Lord Melbourne left me nothing but his letter swearingthatIwasfalselyaccused.Hismemoryisdeartothem.(Atthis stageoftheproceedingtherewasaburstofapplausefromsometwoor threehundredpersonsinthebodyofthecourt,butwhichwasatonce properly suppressed by order to the Judge.) The witness continued. MyhusbandcancheatmebecauseIamhiswife. 6

The Hon. Mr. Norton (interrupting.)God forbid! (To the Court)Is it regularformetosayoneword? TheHon.Mrs.Norton.Itisallirregular. TheJudge.Mrs.Norton,willyouhavethegoodnesstositdown? Needham.Mrs.Norton,Iaskyouwhetheritwasnotupontheexpress assertion, at the time the agreement was signed, that you received nothing from Lord Melbourne, that Mr. Norton was to make you the allowance? TheHon.Mrs.Norton.IdidreceivenothingfromLordMelbourne. Needham.Didyousay,thatyouneitherdidthen,norwould? TheHon.Mrs.Norton.Ididnot,forIhaveneverexpectedtoreceive anything. Needham.Doyoumeantosaythatonyouroath? TheHon.Mrs.Norton(withgreatemphasis).Isayituponmyoath manwhat? Needham.Madam,thatmaybeverytragical,butitisnotverypolite. The Hon. Mrs. Norton.I am sorry not to be polite. I am in a very tragicalstate. Needham.Fromwhattimeuptowhattimehaveyoureceived600l. ayear? TheHon.Mrs.Norton.Youhavemybankersbookathome. Needham.Whopaidit? TheHon.Mrs.Norton.LadyPalmerston;Idontknowhowitispaid. Needham.Whendidyoureceivethelast? TheHon.Mrs.Norton.ItwasinJuneorJuly.LadyPalmerstongaveme somethingthisyear.Nobodyisboundtogivemeanything. Needham.Have you received 600l. ayear up to July in the present year? TheHon.Mrs.Norton.Ihavenothad600l.ayear.Idontknowhow muchmyincomefallsshortofthat;butIhavenotreceivedthat.

Needham.InJanuary,1852,didyouhave291l.5s.ontheaccountof LordMelbourneplacedinyouraccount? TheHon.Mrs.Norton.IdaresayIdid.Youhavethebook. Needham.Now, in July of the same year, per Lord Melbourne, the sumof291l.5s.,didyouhavethat? The Hon. Mrs. Norton.Yes. But Lord Melbourne is dead. No one is bound to give me one farthing. We are discussing simply whether my creditorsareorarenottobepaid. Afteranumberofquestionsbearinguponthedomesticrelationshipof theplaintiffanddefendant,butwhichinvolvednomatterofinterestto thepublic,theexaminationwasthuscontinued: Needham.Iasyou,Madam,whetherthe500l.ayearallowedyouby Mr.Nortonwasnotupontheexpressconditionthatyoushouldreceive nothingfromLordMelbourne? The Hon. Mrs. Norton (emphatically).I did receive nothing, and therefore the condition could not be called in question. Mr. Lemon (a solicitor)drewuptheagreementofcontract. Needham.Wasnotthe500l.allowedupontheexpressconditionthat youshouldreceivenothingfromLordMelbourne? TheHon.Mrs.Norton.No. AvastdealofcorrespondencebetweentheHon.Mr.NortonandLord Melbournewasputin,themainchargescontainedinitbeingthatthe Hon.Mrs.NortonwaskeptbyLordMelbourne,andthatthelettersin evidencewerestolen,Theladydeclaredthatallthelettersfoundinher possession, and purporting to be addressed to other persons, were addressedtoLordMelbourne.TheHon.Mrs.Nortonproceededtosay thatshecorrespondedwithLordMelbourneuntilthedayofhisdeath. The question of liability having been ably disputed, the Hon. Mrs. Nortonmadeastatementinthefollowingwords: I told you to be aware of your questions if you were afraid of my answers. For seventeen years have I concealed these things, but they comeouttodaybecauseyoubullyme;andIamshamedforyourclient ifhedoesnotfeelashamedforhimself.Mymeanswillperfectlysuffice nowthatIknowMr.Nortoncancheatme,andIhavenodoubtthatmy friendswillassistmemorethaneverwhentheylearnthatthemanwho calls himself a magistrate, a barrister, and a gentleman, and who can alsocheatpoortradesmen,becauseIamcalledhisagent,anditisnot bindingonme.Idonotaskformyrights.IhavenorightsIhaveonly 8

wrongs. I have no doubt I have had a very simple income; upon the averageforsomeyears,1,500l.;andnowthatIknowhecandefraudme Iwillnotliveabroadwithmyson:(cheersincourt). NeedhamWhatrentdoyoupay,Madam? Mrs.Norton.Ipay100l.ayear. Someotherwitnesseshavingbeenexamined, The Honorable Mr. Norton prayed for his right to have his saying in court. TheJudgesaid,thatatthepresentstagethewasexparte,anddecreed fornonsuit; Upon which Mr. Norton pressed for a hearing in explanation of the allegationsmadeuponhimbyhiswife. ThelearnedJudgeremarkedthat,asthewholecasewasquiteexparte, the public could only attach such weight as was due to statements undersuchcircumstances.