The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1869-08-23
TIE BYRON SC<4NDAL.
A SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM OF
TIE AGE.

TIE AGE. a
why Lazy Byron Separated frsn
her Husband.
tue latest sensation in the literary world H
the publication OF an article in which harrleI
B,echer Stowe tells anew the story OF tne
separation Of Lord Byron from his wife, ana
charges him with crime almost too monstrous
to name. The article will doubtless cell weii'
and We believe it to be as true In its oescrlploh
OF the causes of the Byron scandal. as oncie
Toms Cabin was in its description OF southern
In. and manners. Mrs. Stowe, it must be sala'
nrosasses that she bad her informahcn from
Lady Byron. ,b
The New York Tribune, of Wednesday, psb-
,,sbes the essential portions OF Mrs. stoves
article. It says:
Interesting and graphic as is the recital, the
,,oa facts Positively established are not 80
many as might have been expected. tnat
Lord Byron was a libertine all the world knows.
THAT the worst any enc could say OF Lacy
R.ron was that she was fsultily faultless her
husband was the first to ADMIT. The present
story cannot. therefore, add anything 10 LUG
general appreciation Of Lady Byron's character, h
nor can it do more than aod one, ar aiue1s sb;cb
fonlest shade of darkness, to character %niSn
the would has already accepted ss very piacs'
Mrs. Stowe now sets forth that the sepaIa,
t;on between the poet and his wife was ~ que u
TO his brutal treatment,. beglnn'Is, DE- o. uben
herself tells us, at the very chuIca sS u9 non have
he exclaimed, .'Madam, you will ma you nsSe
n,ar1ied devil" and continuing al! tne 9ears
nf their welded life, but to Lady byron's dis-
ooverv of an ,ncestuous intrigue between ner
husband and his own sister This half-slster
reslly,) which began before their marrlsge,
and continued under her roof. ibis horrlDie
statement rests simply on Lady Byron's asser-
tion tbat she had discovered evidence OF it,
although Mrs. Stowe adds that 1t ID now well
known III Epgland, and leaves it to be inferred
that the guilty sister had herself made con-
fesslons to the agerieved vie.
It remains to say that Lady Byron's reason
for making 80 frightful revelation against
her dead husband was belief, urged BY her
frierds, that it was pecessary to exhibit his
true Character to check the popular and per-
nlcous Influence u his writings; ana that Mrs.
Stoves reason tor now bringing the whole
matter berors the world. is desire, since the
publication of the Countess GuiccioL's Me-
mors to vindicatc the memory OF tne WIG
against the ISLANDERS OF the nistress. Resting,
as the revelation doss, on the statement eI
Lady Byron 70 Mrs. Stowe, without any mcn-
ton Of particulars, or production OF corrobora,,
tory proof it Is quite possible that the world
NAV be DISPOSED az readily to belleye that
Lady Byron might have been deceived as that
her deprayed and lcentious hush md was
monster. Both on this point and on the pro.
priety OF the publication IN any even, We are
likely to have an abundance OF discussion IN
literary circles.
According to Mrs. Stoves statement, it was
at Lord Byron's own comm>nd that the scpa.
ration took place, Lady Byron implicitly ley
ing him, deeming him mad. She asserts also
that child was oorn under the circumstances
alleged to have existed, which fortunately died
Young, and soon afterwards tho sister passed
away, yielding up her latest breath In Lady
Byron's arms. Sach are the statements en-
bodied in Mrs. Stoves apologize for Lady
Byron. This is the fearful mystery which ID to
explain her apparent coldness and her unbro-
ken silence towards the man she had loved 80
dearly, and whose tender farewell, in imper.
ishab!e verse, had drawn tears from the SYM
pathizing maidens OF Eugiaud and America.
Il may be doubted, however, whether, in the
loose andunmethodical way IN which the state
ments have beea set forth, they will compel
belief, OF whether, supposing them to DC IRE
futable, il was necessary for Lidy 'Byron's
fame that they should be brought to light.
Several journals have commented upon the
publication, and generally with great incredu;;
Iity and positive conviction OF the .irnpolicy
and uselessness OF the accomplishment OF Mrs.
stowe's indellc,te task at this late day. The
New York Post says:
ManifestIy IL seems strange, not to say un-
accountable, that Lord Byron. Knowing his
wife to be in possession OF tuls damnln2 BE-
eret. should have driven her from his pres.
ence, which was 10 all probability the surest
mears OF bringing about lts disclosure. We
are alro without any information as to the
means by which Lady Byron 1ersen came 70
know it, and can only Infer that it was sus,
pseted merely during their m:rried life, aud
not positively known by her till the sister, dy-
ing, confessed it. We say this is inference,
and no more The most uoaccouptabie part
Of ell, however, is that with the ferce full light
OF contemporary criticism poured upon LORD
Byron's whole career, so that every fact and
circumstance OF his domestic life was known
to all the world, the child lIvlug four years
under Lady Byrons charse aud nurture, no
whisper OF this dark secret should ever have
reached society. No mystery OF our times ls
more remarkable than this,
For the vlndication Of historic truth, this last
publication may be judicous aud profitable.
but Lady Byron's reputation had better been
left as lt-was. Guiccfbli's ridiculous apotheosis
OF the erring nobleman, when she loved not
wisely Gut too we'll, has utterly failed to change
one line OF the verdict OF posterity upon bis
character and his farle. In like manner her at
tacks npon Lady Byron have not induced any
we,i-disclpline1 mind to douot that she was
more sinned against than SHINING.
The New York imes has criticism OF Mrs.
Stoves article, in which it says:
Every detail of her story is contradicted by
the circumstances attending tho separation OF
Lord and Lady Byron. She is wrong in her
quotations, wrong in her dates, wrong in the
account which she gives Of the mode IN which
Lady Byron Quilted her husbands roof. She
speaks OF Lady Byron as having lived two
wears with her husband. The truth is that
they were married on the Sd OF January, 1915,
and OF the 18th Of the following January they
we're separated. She states that Lord Byron
wrote note to his wife, ordering her to leave
him. "He could not and would not" says
Mrs. Stowe, shave her about him. and when
her child was only FIVE weeks old he carried
this threat Of expulsion into effect. This !s
quite contrary to the actual facts. The child
was born on the 10th Of December. Lady
Byron went to her fathers house at lGrkby
Mallory IN the ensuing month, for the beneft
of her health. She wrote q letter from thence
to her husband. which has always been
deemed strong presumotive proof that Lord