The Louisiana Democrat. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1845-1918, 1869-12-08
THE BYRON MYSTERY AGAIN.

| HAS LII oh0 AdOAo VI PuOAoA1uS uO1'
than one edition to meet the want,
of their numerous subscribers. Ii
the second edition of the Foreign
Quarterly for October there is pub.
lished supplement to the article on
the byron Mystery" Such pub.
LEGATION was rendered necessary by a
misinterpretation in certain quarters
of the first article. The readers Of
the original article will remember 8
letter from DIR. Washington to Lady
Byron dated in the year 1916, very
short time after she left her hus-
bands house. DIR. Washington was
one of Lady Byron's counsel and
was one of the three who ushered
themselves into Lord Byron's room
one day very unceremoniously fo1
the purpose of gathering evidence in
support of her charge of his insanity.
The letter now published advised
strongly against a reconciliation
The Saturday Review, in noticing
the article of the Quarterly, says the
Quarterly admits that the ofense
alluded to in DR.. Lushington's letter
as rendering reconciliation impos-
sible was the specific charge made
recently by Mrs. Harriet Beecher
Stowe. The Quarterly publishes this
supplement not only to deny that it
admitted the specific charge was al
luded to in DR.. Lushington's letter,
but to prove that it was impossible
it should have been the charge re-
ferred to. We have seen only a
newspaper abstract of the supple
ment, but that is sufficient to show
the conclusiveness of the Quarterly's
reasoning on the subject. Lady
Byron, in her remarks" published
Immediately after the date of DR..
Lushington's letter, says that Lord
Byron's conduct could be explained
only on the ground of his insanity. -
Now, says the Quarterly, if his con-
duct, while guilty of the specific
charge, could be explained on the
ground of insanity, how can Mrs.
Leigh's conduct be explained OF ex-
cused? 1t is not pretended that she
was insane, and if she was guilty of
the specific charge, she was not only
without excuse, but her crime was
intensified by it's commission with
brother who had lost his reason
That Mrs. Leigh was not blamed by
Lady Byron for anything relating to
the causes of her separation from her
husband, is proved by the abundance
of evidence collected together in the
Quarterly's first article. For, at the
time of the separation and long after,
and at the time of DIR. Lushinptc:,' 9
letter and long AFTER f esiT Lady Byron was
on the most intimate terms with Mrs.
Leigh, was writing her letters breath
ing the most affectionate sentiments,
and it is not shown that their rela-
tons were ever changed. It is i'm
possible that any woman could be SO
friendly with another if she believed
her guilty of such monstrous crime
with her husband, and a husband,
too, whom she believed to be insane.
But a very mysterious and suspi-
cious circumstance connected with
this matter is the fact that DIR. Lush
ington, who is still alive, refuses to
throw any light upon it, notwith-
standing the many efforts that have
been made to cause him to break his
silence. Many have supposed that
the specific charge was really made
to him by Lady Byron, and that hav-
ing little more delicacy than Mrs.
Stowe, he refuses to parade the bus
mess before the public now that the
parties have long since been laid il
their graves. And here the Quarter
", without entering upon any very
long discussion on the subject, con-
tents itself with showing that the
specific charge, whether made or
not, was false. That the Quarterly
does not rate its argument too high
y is evident to every one who has
read the article. The Reviewer CEN
sures Lady Byron for her duplicity
and unfairness in the whole matter,
and thinks that she ought to have
had the question settled before Lord
Byron's death, if she intended to
publish any such a serious charge as
hat which Mrs. Stowe has SO indis-
,reetly made known. If Lady By
on is to be blamed, what shall we
'ay of Mrs. Stowe? The verdict of
he public on her conduct is almost
on both sides of the A.