Virginia advocate. [volume] (Charlottesville, Va.) 1827-1860, 1830-06-11

ungallant indifference to the thus acquit-
ted Lady Byron' In the name of both
OF them reprove you. Byron confess
ses, but you try to explain away his con-
iesslon, and by your hints at spies, I'M
sutableness sc. you dirty and puddle the
holy water of acknowledgement that
alone will wash away the poor penitent
mans transgressions. You resortto By
ron's letter TO Mr.. Rogers for the means
OF inculpating Lady Byron and Der
friends, as planners of Lord Byron. But
they never said more than that Lord By
ron's temper was inlolerable to Indy |
Byron. This was true, and they never
circulated any calumnies against him.
There is equal injustice in the allusion
TO Lord Byron having been ever sur
rounded by spies. What spy was near
him The only person denounced in
that odlous capacity by Lord Byron
himself was Mrs Clermount and what
was the fact with regard to her If Mrs.
Clermont was spy, surely the last per-
son in the world TO have acquitted her
would have been Mrs. Leigh, the sister
Of Lold Byron !; but have in my pos
session the authentic copy of letter
from Mrs. Leigh to the same Mrs. G..
earnestly Acquiring her Of the calumny,
and Offering even public testimony to her
(Mrs C.'s) tenderness and forbearance
copy Mrs. Leigh's words) under cir
cums.ances that must have been trying
to any friend of Lord Byron. Another
unworthy expression of MIR. Moore. s
is, that of calling Lord Byron "dcser-
ted Amsbamd." Let him read Lord By
ron's remarks and blot out this absurdity
from his volume. DR.. Washington, YER
sed in the harshest cases Of iustliable Sc
paration, and bound to admit none of
slight nature, thought it was impossible
she could live with him.
You should have paused, MIR. Moore,
before you compelled any friend ofLady
Byron TO bring out this truth.
1t is farther mistake on Mr.. MIoore's
part and | can prove it to be so, if proof
be necessary, 10 represent Lady Byron,
in the course of their courtship, as one
in iting her future husband to cores
pondence by letters after she had at first
refused him. She never proposed a
correspondence. On the contrary, he
sent her a message after that first refusal,
stating, that he meant to go abroad, and
to travel for some years in the east that
he should depart with heart aching,
but not angry and that he only begged
a verbal assurance that she had still some
interest in his happiness. Could Miss
Nlllbank, well-bred woman, refuse q
courteous answer to such message
She sent him verbal answer, which
was merely kind and becoming, but
which sIgnfied no encouragement that
he should renew his offer of marriage.
After that he wrote to her most inter
esting letter about himself-about his
views, personal, moral, and religious, to
which it would have been unchartable
not to have replied. The result was an
lnsensibly increasing correspondence,
which ended in her being devoutly at
touched to him. About this time | oc-
casonally saw Lord Byron, and though
| knew less of him than Mr. Moore, yet
suspect knew as much of him as Miss
Mlllbank then knew. AT that time he
was so pleasing, that if ] had a daughter
with ample fortune and beauty, should
have trusted her in marriage u:;h Lord
Byron.
1t is another improper insinuation,
when Mr.. Moore hints at a resemblance
between the first wife of Milton and the
widow of Byron. The parallel is dis
guslingly unlair-Of Millions first wife
we know not much /; but, upon the
whole, 1t is clear that his wife could not
have got two honorable men to Justify
her departure. She went away from
him, TO all appearance in rashness, and
returned, for her own convenience, in
repentance. Lady Byron acted no such
part. Produce on Mrs. Millions part a
DIR. Washington to speak for her, and we
will meet you in the parallel, but beware
of the ploughshare.
1t is more for Lord Byron's sake than
for his widows that resort not to a more
special examination Of Mr.. Moore's
misconceptions. The subject would lead
me insenslbly into hateful disclosures a.
gainst poor Lord Byron, who is more
unfortunate in his rash defenders, than
his reluctant accusers. Happily his
own candour turns our hostility from him
self against his defenders. it was only
in hayward and bitter remarks that he
misrepresented Lady Byron. He would
have defended himself irresistibly if MIR.
Moore had left only his acknowledging
nassares Rnf Mr Moore hae nrnd,,noI