The Sun.
London, England, 1869-09-02 00:00:00

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

Sir,—As the solicitors of the descen.lants and
representatives of the late Lady Noel Byron, for
-whose family we have acted for upwards of half a
century, we request your permission to publish
in the columns of The limes the following observa-
tions relative to an article which has just appeared
in Macmillan's Magazine.
The article in question is entitled " The True
Story of Lord Byron's Life," and Mrs. H. B.
Stowe is announced to be the writer of it.
Of the paper itself we should probably have
abstained from taking any public notice if it had.
appeared in a less respectable journal than Mac-
millan,
or if even in this periodical the authoress
had been allowed to tell her story without editorial
preface or comment. The editor of Macmillan,
however, has not only admitted Mrs. Stowe's
article, but he has prefixed to it a note in which be
authoritatively proclaims to the world that " the
paper on Lady Byron's life and relations to Lord
Byron is the complete and authentic statement of
the whole circumstances of that disastrous affair."
Nay, more, " that this paper is, in fact, Lady
Byron's own statement of the reasons which forced
her to the separation which she so long resisted."
Again, the editor states that the contribution of
Mrs. Stowe supplies " evidence at once new and
direct " on Lady Byron's history.
We, as the family solicitors, beg most distinctly
to state that the article is not " a complete " or
authentic statement " of the facts connected with
the separation, that it cannot be regarded as Lady
Byron's own st itement, and that it does not involve
any direct evidence on Lady Byron's history.

Instead of direct evidence, Mrs. Stowe has no-
thing to communicate but her recollections of a
conversation 13 years ago, and her impressions of
a manuscript which she states that Lady
Byron at that time gave her to peruse, and
which, according to her own showing, she read
under very great excitement. These circumstances
probably account for several obvious errors into
which Mrs. Stowe has fallen, such as assigning two
years instead of 13 months as the period during
which Lady Byron resided under the same roof
wi!h her husband, and similar inaccuracies, to
which, for the present purpose, it is unnecessary to

Without for a moment conceding that Mrs.
Stowe's narrative contains a complete account of
Lady Byron's relations with her husband, we must
protest against it as being. prefessedly—first, a most
gross breach of the trust and confidence stated to
have been reposed in her ; second, as inconsistent
with her own recommendation to Lady Byron.; and,
third, as an ignorant violation (at least we shall,
in charity, suppose Mrs. Stowe to be ignorant) of
_.the_express Or= of Lady Byron's last will and tes-

'r • tamea

Fiat, 44 relates to 4 breach Um

Stowe states that she was consulted in an inter-
view which, to use her own words, " had almost
the solemnity of a death-bed," not as to whether
,:Le would unrler4,ake a redaction of Lady Byron's
married history, but only as to the policy of pub-
lishing such a history at all ; secondly, hirs.
Stowe, on her own admission, returned to Lar'iy.
Byron the brief memorandum paper which lad
been entrusted to her, with these statements
of her opinion that " Lady Byron would be entirely
justifiable in leaving the truth to be disclosed after
her death, and recommended that all facts neces-
sary should be put in the hands of some person to
be so published ;" thirdly, Lady Byron did, by her
last will and testament, executed a few days only
before her decease, bequeath to three persons as
trustees all her manuscripts, to be by them first
sealed up, afterwards deposited in a bank in the
names of suchtrustees, and she directed that no one
else, however nearly connected with her, should
upon any plea whatsoever be allowed to inspect
such documents, which the trustees were alone to
make use of as they might judge to be best for the
interests of her grandchildren. Mrs. Stowe is not
one of these three. Her paper is entirely gratuitons
and unauthorised. It is, as we have said, not con-
sistent with her own counsel ; it is an offence against
Lady Byron's dying wishes, and the authoress has
written in utter disregard of the feelings of those
grandchildren of whom she speaks in a vague, ful-
, some way, as " some of the best and noblest of
mankind."

The appearance of the volumes about Lord Byron
by the Countess Guiccioli is alleged by Mrs. Stowe
as the main reason which induced her to publish her
story; but if Lady Byron's descendants, her per-
sonal and trusted friends in this country, suffer the
slanders of the Countess Guiccioli to pass uncontra-
dicted—for, to use Mrs. Stowe's own expression, of
what value was the outcry of " the mistress" against
the wife?—their silence should surely have led Mrs.
Stowe to hesitate before giving to the world a state-
ment which, however, it may affect the memories
of the dead, must inevitably inflict much pain on
the living.
" Lady Byron's own statement" is in the posses-
sion of those who love her memory too well to make
a rash use of it, and if the world is ever to learn
the true story of Lady Byron's life it will learn it
from them.

It would have been in better taste if M s. Stowe
and the Editor of Macmillan's Magazine had imi-
tated the " religious silence" which the latter so
much commends in the case of Lady Byron. Mean-
while, Lady Byron's descendants and representa-
tives entirely and absolutely disclaim all counte-
nance of Mrs. Stowe's article, which has been pub-
lished without their privity or consent.
We are, Sir, your obedient servants,

WFURTON AND FORDS.
8, Lincoln',3-inn-fields, Sept. 1.