New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1869-08-20

not we see that wise forecast calls upon us
to set I'D breakwater against her pauper-
made goods. that millions of bales of our up
land cotton may sing the song of Home In
dustry on millions of American SpindleSS
-
MORE LIGHT ON THE BYRON SCANDAL
The extraordinary revelation which Mrs.
Stowe has made of the cause OF Lord Byron's
separation from his wife is received by most
people with an incredulity which we cannot
share, yet at which we cannot wonder There
have been from the first vague rumors of an
awful guilty secret, and Mrs Stowe, taking
her information from Lady ByrOn's own lips,
at last assures us that it was no less than an
adulterous intrigue between the poet and "a
blood relation so near in cOnsangulnlty that
discovery must have been utter ruin
and expulsion from civilized society"
Who this near relation vas we are
not distinctly told; but illusions in
other parts of the article point Enthusiastically
to his Lordship's half sister, Augusta Byron,
the wife of Col, Leigh. Mrs. Stowe has com
mitted the grave error of putting forth her
story without title of proof, without the
support of dates or circumstances without
even a clear statement of her charges. We
are left to find the confederation as best we
can. We doubt if it would be possible to pre-
sent a case in a more bungline and inefficient
manner than hers, and she has no reason to
wonder if many people refuse to believe her.
Awful as the charge is, however, 1t is
not incredible, nor is IL non made for the
first time. 1t has long been understood that
the secret reason of the separation was known
to several persons and rumOI IN certain CIR
cles of London has whispered this very crime.
Ever since public interest in tie Byron contro-
versy was revived by the publication of the
Countess GuicCiOis book both sides have
taken I'D large share of the English maya
zines. Three months ago, them appeared IN
Temple Bar June, 1867 an Article on Lord
"Byron's Married Life" which was either in
spired from the same source as Mrs Stoves, or
used by our countrywoman in ,he preparation
of her paper for The IHdnho' Both
give the history of the marriage and
early welded life alike, a, well a. the
public incidents Of the separation, the
statements of the writer in Temple Bar being
justified by continual marginh references to
Moore's Life. Lady Byron let her husbands
house for her fathers at her husbands own
command. Her resolution to demand per-
mancnt separation was taken while she was
under her fathers protection She suspected
Lord Byron's sanity, and after being treasured
ON that point, she explained e Dr. Lushington,
who acted "a her counsel, certain circum-
stances which led him 70 declare that
though he had previously been in favor
of reconciliation he nov judged it to
be impossible, land if any such idea
SHOULD be entertained, he could not either
professionally or otherwise take any part
towards effectng it, Whit could have in
duced an advocate in the ecclesiastical courts
| to give an opinion 50 apparently at variance with
all ecclesiastical usages9 W. leave the writer
in Temple Bar to reply: ""here is but one
"answer. Dr. Washington mist have assumed
"the existence of fact from which inevitably
followed the same consequence that Lord
"Thurlow pointed out to tie House of Lords
"when he prevailed with item to give, what
chad never been allowed lefOre, the right of
marrying again to a wOmn seeking divorce
"for the cause of her husbands adultery.
GAS general rule the right was given
"to man whose wife had committed
"adultery, because he could not take
" her again, and was deDiedtO a woman whose
husband had been guilty f the same offense,
because they might be Bconced. In the
particular instance before he House of Lords
the husband had been guilty Nth his W0e'S
"Sister. The wife could nC without guilt re-
"turn to him, and therefor she was permitted
"tO marry again. When Dr.. LuShingtOn de-
"cldreS reconciliation 10 be impossible, and
"Mat If attempted he Guild take no part
ain the attempt, professionally or otherwise,
"he must be understood TO mean that
"duty both to God and man forbade
"Lddy Byron to return to her husband"
This is q guarded passage, but its meaning
is clear enough now that hrs. Stowe has given
us the clue. Lady Byron could not return TO
her husband for the sanD reason that wife
could not return to huIband who had COM
mtted adultery with her sister: adultery with
a wife's sister, by English law lis incest.
So long as Byron was afraid of provoking
his wife to make q full disclosure, he was
ready enough in romantic sort OF way TO
shoulder load of indefinite blame, and to
paint his partner and victim as suffering
angel: .... ...l.
To others share let female errors fall.
For she had not ey'n One-tbe worst Oi all ....
1t was easy for him to deny all knowledge
of the specific oflense for which he was dis
carded, and the world then would suspect
nothing more than the fashionable iniidelites Of
which he never made secret. But the true
cause" says the article from which we have
quoted, was always present to his mind, and
+" if it were of the class to which DR.. Lushing-
" tons opinion points, his consciousness would
prompt the answer that he gave. 1t
seems impossible to avoid the conclusion that
" the cause had never been explained to him
Z" that he knew the cause-and did not dare to
" ask for explanationn