The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1869-09-18
RYRON'S MEMORY.
The Lc,tor or,ho Byron Solicitors,

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LONDON TIMES.
Sir-As the solicitors of tho descendants and
representatives of tho late Lady Noel Byron,
for whose family wo have acted for upwards of
publish in tho columns Of ih3 Times the FOL.
lowing observations rontive to an article
which has just appeared in Macmlan's Maga-
zine.
Tho article in question is entitled "rhc Truo
Story of Lady Byron's Life" and Mrs. H. B.
Stowe is announced to be the writer of it.
OF tho paper itsolf wo should probably have
abstaiued from taking any public notice If it
had appeared in a loss respectable journal than
Macmillan, or il even in this periodical tho ar-
thorcss had been allowed TO tell her story with
out editorial preface or comment. Tho editor
of Macmillan, however, has not only admitted
Mrs. Stowc's article, but ho has pretixed to 1t
motto in which he authoTitatiycly proclaims 10
tho world that "the, paper on Lady Byron's
pleto and authentic statement of the whole
circumstaDces OF TINT disastrous affair."" Nay,
ElOre, "that this paper ls, in fact, Lady Byron's
own statement of the roasous which forced her
to tho sep ara.ion which she 30 long resisted"
Again, tho editor states that tho contribution
Of Mrs. Stowo supplies scviience at once new
and direct on Lady Byron's history.
We, as the family solicitors. beg most dis
tinctly TO state that the article is not ''com-
pletc' or ''nuthenlve stltcmcut" of the facts
cSonnectod with the separation, that it cannot
DO regarded as Lady Byron's own statement,
dence OH Lady Byrons history.
InBtead OF diroct evidence, NIrs. Stowe has
nothing to communicate but her recollection
OF conversation thirteen years ago, and her
impressions of manuscrIpt which she states
that Lady Byron ut that time gave her to pc
ruse, and Which, according to her own show
1,R ing, she read under very great excitement.
These circumstances probably account for sew
eral obvious errors into which Mrs. Stowe has
fallen, such as assigning two years instead of
thirtoen months rs the period during which
Indy Byron resided under the same roof with
her husband, and similar inaccuracies, to
which, for the Present purpose, it is unneces.
saIv 10 allude.
g. Without for q mnment conccding that Mrs.
Stoves narrative contairs n complete account
OF Lady Byron's rotations with her husband
Wo must protest against 1T as being protessed-
iy-hrst, n most gross brt ach of the trust and
confidence stated 10 have been reposed in her:
second, as inconsistent with her own recon-
mendation 10 Lady Byron; ald. third, as All
ignorant violation (at least we shall, in chari-
ty. suppose Mrs. Stowe 10 be iGnoI anil az the
express terms oil Lldy Byron5 last will aud
testament.
First, as relates 10 breach of trust, Mrs.
Stowe states that she was consulted in an M
terview which, to uso her own words, chad
almost tho soicmnity o: dcathbed," /" not as to
whether she would undertake reduction of
Lady Bfrons married history; but only as TO
the policy OF publishing su iii history at ali:
secondly, Mra. Stowe, on her own admission,
returned to Lody Byron tho brief memoran-
dunn paper which had been intrusted 10 her
With the statement OF her opinion TINT Lady
III
her DEATH and Recommended i''tfa that "'sSi ali
facts necessary should be put in the
thirdly, Lady Byron did, ty her last will and
testament, executed fow days ouly before her
deceaso. bequeath to three persons as trustees
all her manuscripts. 10 be by them frat sealed
up, aftcrward deposited in bank in the name
OF such trusteos, and She directed that no ono
else, however nearly connected with her
should, upon any plea whatsoever, be allowed
to inspect such documents, which the trustees
were alone to mako use OF as they might Judge
to be best for the interests of her grandchll-
dren. Mrs. Stowe is not ono of thes6 three.
Her paper is entirely gratuitous and unauthor-
ized. 1t ID, as we hnYo said, not consistent
with her own counsel; it is All offence against
Lady Byron's dying wishes, and the authoress
has written in utter disregard Of the feelings
OF those grandchildren of whom sho speaks in
vague, fulsonie way, Us "some Of the host and
sobest of manknd.n
The appearance of the volumes about Lord
RiiSros iis by the Countess Guccioli is alleged by
MRS. MRS. Stove as the main reason which induced
aer 10 puonsh her story; but if Lady ByIon's
descendants. b.r personal and trusted friends
rouniss rpis coGnnirS, satr the SANDERS of the
Tor, to use Mri. Stowe's own expression, of
what value H.s the outcry or 'the mistress"
against the wife ?-their silence should GER
tiinly have lea Mre. Stowe to hesitate before
slvlng 10 the world statement which, how
ever it may affect the memories of the dead,
ii,lst inevitably lnflict much pain on the
"Lady Byron's own statementn is in the DOS.
SESSION sf those who love her memory too we'll
a9o 40 make IA rash use Of it, md il the world is
Eyer ;te 70 learn The true story of Lady Byron's
It would have bnan in batter ,os,a 20 nr,
S,owe and the editor OF MacmilIan's Maeaz,ne
haa nt initiated the .'rehgioln eience" which The
n. Ia..er so npcD commends in the case of Lady
Byron. Meanwhile, Lady Byfon's descend.
ants and representatives entirely a. nd absolute
ly disclaim oil countennnce Of Mrs. Stoves
article, which has been published without thar
privity or consent.
We are, sir, your obedient servants,
\, WHARTON & Fonps.
No. Lincoln's-inn. folds, September /.