The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1869-10-16
THE sToWE-BYRON CASE.

cause MS death.
THE STOWE-BYRON CASE.
~~~~~~~~O>~~~e>>>~~~~~~~~
Position Of Some or the London WeekIies.
To THE EDITOR OF THE LONDON HERALD
The Saturday Reviewer breaks silence once more,
1n4aE as ne IMPLIES with rel which y u
honorable foe Is to retract cruel libel which he has
made on very inadequate evidence; the last subter.
fuge or an anonymous sanderer 10 maintain to tho
last the possibility Of the truth OF the original mpu
talon and to escape from the odium Of the proceed
ing by adducing irrelevant mlsdeeds on the injured
PERSONS part. Unable to prove incestuous adultry
on Mrs. Leigh, 1t 10 some satisfaction 70 tho high
c1c 70 s.e the adea taste q the ntnero
effective one-sheey living in adultery Byron ditto;
80 soon executed. Why should not the critic turn
novelist or playwright aisof brother critic
ture number OF the Saturday, and thereby no
small advantage accrue to the amiable pair What
wish 70 be allowed TO 90 IN the lew lines now
every particle OF evidence which has been extracted
BY the weilnah endless letters aud remarks which
Mrs. stoves article has called FORTH Is TO the effect
that Mrs. Leigh was lady or unblemisned repua-
lion and Of great personal worth, and that accord
bllity OF her innocence OF foul, unnatural almost
unparalleled act OF outrageous, infamous snail !
Charged save on almost Conclusive eydence WITH
such an offence may seem light thing III the eyes
Of the nlppant young gentlemen, who as ! have
Saturday Reuieto, would write down their own
fathers and mothers for SO many .gulneas the
will be by English gentlemen; aud repeat That
the insoient, swaggerihg anectation OF logic and
article not free from Of fact. pronounced that
on duly weighing the probabilities q slight pre-
ponderance resulted in favor OF branding Mrs.
Leigh with iffcparaba fnfamy IS disgrace to
English journalism. And yet 1t 10 evident. from the
seii-complacence OF the writer throughout, that he
considers his treatment OF the whole subecS nodei
Of "larness and honorable critlcismu-l doubt not
OF deiicacy and nlodesty also.
Qui Curios saulat Bacshanalia vivit.
That this edifying preacher should lavish praise
"the admirable article IN the Spectator," and on
the "Reader OF Byrons Letersn In the Times, Is not
very surprising considering the coincidence OF their
sentiments, and even here and there, especially that
or 'the Reader" with his own. Why, once more,
should not each Of the writer's whether they be three
or Two, give US their names, as Mrs. b. Stowe has
done, as Mr.. I. Arnold done one occasion. Al.
low urge in conclusion that sneers the gene
raj tone OF English morality III the present day come
with the worst taste from the saturday ReUaetU
which some one has called the saturday Revlfer"
and the Spectator Journals which have the credit OF
faith OF young English men and English women TO
encourage scepticlsm ana then scourge rs childish
enthusiasts the C0ens0S who embrace tt-such Is
thought by not Jew to have been the part played IN
pubic instruction by these two journals in our day.
A noole and patriotic and above all. Christian
task, God save the mark; and what may make
amends to US for the fmpudent, fatuous vugarity
and conceit with which they congratulate them
selves that they are not as other journals, as 1.-THE
sorry Jest since the Pau Mau became penny read
ing7-the {eck.hdna Onlnt6us, charming ana gentle
manllke soubriquet; and the Standard, forget
what they call you, or the moral but maudlin iup-
per. Yours, B. A. OXON.
10 THE EDITOR OF THE LONDON HERALD:-
1t Is pity the saturday Heuie,0 should not have
adhered 10 the resolution, III which 1t says 1t had
once arrived, not again TO break silence concerning
Mrs. stoves True Story" until that lady had pub
lshcd her defence; for II is now becoming apparent
that had 1t done 30 the article when appears III Its
last Issue would have been relegatcd to the Greek
kaiends Its irresouton, however Is not shown In
one particular alone. The author OF "a Vlndcatlou
OF Lord Byronn !. says, mas certainly succeeded
III closing oil controversy with ourselves" This, /
presume, refers TO the frank manner IN which have
eXpressed-though Indeed, most inperlectly-my
sense OF lis conduct In this and all cognae matters
and should have been only too glad to have done
with an adversary whose behavior l am not able to
visit with terms OF ordinary reprobaIion. Bat hay
Ing announced It's controversy with me on the sub
ject as closed, tt forthwith reopens it In manner
That would be characteristic were 1t nor Tor It's ex
mlrers. among whom he Is himself the chief may
Jud2c OF ms powers 70 conduct any controversy by
the following comic specimen"
The specimen" IN question Is this. Abiding to
the argument (Which freely acknowledge ''was
never alduced by any one out OF Bedlam," but
which was certainly pointed in the saturday Reuiei)
any passage in "Manfred.n every body must see that
Mrs. stoves story IL true-I said that 1t might be
dismissed with the REMARK tiiat-f 1t is good for
anything 1t 10 good to show that Byron committed
murder as well, ana TO corroborate the observation
made the following quotasion-
MAarnEp.-l loved her. and destroyed her.
MAstaEp.-Not with my hand but bcart-whch broke her
heart;
It sazed on mine and wiilsred. have shed
1saw-and could not slaanch II.
whereupon the Saturday Repie,o remarks
"Even child can see that tae murder which Man
frod owns to was metaDhorical one, the murder Of
arierial In shedding which the metaphorlcal sister
slayer used not his nand but heart What Astarte
died OF was not a stabbed. but broken heart The
expressions are fgaratve throughout"
Were II not that the readers OF the Saturday Rerfeic
are evidently expected to accept the foregoing with
mere obtuseness. To transcribe it is to expose IT,
True, Manfred does not say that he Killed Asarle,
ana nobody ever minated thai he did say 80. In
facts he saws distinctly the opposite But he adds
and here, OF course, Is The poiat have shed Dood,
but not hers" In plan prose English, IL did not
murder her, but have murdered somebody else.u
Which is really the coaica specimen Of critical
troverss,n think may leave people 10 decide for
hope you VIII pardon my thus trespassng once
on your columns; bnt think you VIII be cnari-
table enough to credit me with no mean unwor-
thy motives. | am nos aware that have any
'.adinlrers," and am sdfe have never done any
not what mas that to do with SO serious charge az
the one brought by Mrs. slower Like the saturday
hec'etr, the Spectator too, as you have already
pointed cut, taxes refuge in impertinences; ana
because, II seems, MIR. Topper has written in
defence OF Byron, IL pokes some poor fun AZ his
sued slmllar course ."rupperian Byronizers.''
surely, sir, II ia time 70 have done with
these childish, Irrelevant but perpetual personal,.
nnnsy weapons. Only one word more. However
biamewortny Mrs. stowe may be for having pub
iisiled her True Story,u yet, worshipping oinay,
as she did at Lady Byron's feet, she may be IN q
sense excused for having yielded oredence which
W not often Withheld by the deyout Bat those OF
whom have been writing stand la . different posi-
tion. A correspondent OF the Times wac signs him.
self "lndlgnans" call her True story" base lie.
That sir Is the proper phrase for 1t and In a the
s0briety OF conviction aud moral sense now iasten
IL on those who after the Overwhelming evidence
which proves It's falsity, SIN persist In affecting to
Behave II. have the honor to be- SIR solr obeucnt
seyant. ALFRED ACSIIN
JUNIOR CARLToN CLUD, sept. ~.