The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1869-08-22

HcoWu not oepriye me OF thee.
Prom the wreck OF the past which hath perished
Thus much at least may recall,
u ha.h taught me that What most cherished
In the Wild waste there stil ID a Gee,
And a bird IN the solitude singing,
Whchspeaks to my spirit OF thee.
Until Mrs. Stowe shall present some positive proof,
we think the following explanation must be ac-
reached a great height soon after their marriage.
she had every reason TO believe him an unfaithiul
husband ia ana was eagerly suspicious Of every wo
ter quarre's with his wife and the world and Lady
Byron took up an almost insane jealousy against
strange VIII. To jealous woman. trines light
as ar become confirmation strong as proofs
Of holy writ. And from thousand things
imagination framed the horrid story, story
for which, as yet. appears, no real EVIDENCE
was ever produced for 1t must be noted that Dr.
Washington does not say that ne had before him any
PROOF OF the crime alleged by Lady Byron but merely
that the allegation were true, then the conclusion
curious fact that this story was not made public
until after the death OF Dr.. Lushington and OF Sir
John Cam Hobhouse Q4erd BrouQhtOnl had removed
the last witnesses who could be expected to speak
with any positive knowledge upon the subject.
At all events, now that MRS. Stowe has most un-
dence, she must produce It, II she fails to do this
the conclusion Is inevitable that none exists, and
that she has unjustinabiy caummated the dead
From the New York Tribune, August COL
The extraordinary revelation which Mrs.
Stowe has made or the cause OF Lord Byron's sepa-
ration from his wife Is received by most people with
an increduity 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 1t was no less than
an adulterous intrigue between the poet and "a
blood relation 30 near In consanguinity that dts
covery must have been utter ruin and expulsion from
civilized society" VINO this near relation was
we are not distinctly told; but illusions In
e % ss parts 81 the na point
the wife or Colonel Leigh. Mrs. Stowe has commit
ted the grave error OF putting forth her story With
out little OF proof without the support OF dates or
circumstances, without even q clear statement Of
her charges. We are left to find the corroborati0n
as we We doubt 4 Y wOud be pUsS;
manner than hers and she has no reason TO wonder
II many people refuse to believe ner.
Awful as the charge Ia, however, It Is not tncredi-
BILE, nor Is 1t now made for the first time. IL has
long been understood that the secret reason Of the
separation was known to several persons and ru-
NOR In certain circles OF London has whispered this
very crime. Ever since public interest IN the Byron
controversy was revived by the publication Of the
large share Of he English magazines.
Some months ago there appeared In Temple Bar
Dune 1861 an article on "Lord Byron's Married
Llfe," which was either inspired from the same
source as Mrs. Stoves, or used by our country
women in the preparation OF her paper for the
Atlantic. Both give the history OF the marriage and
dents OF the separation, the statements OF the
writer in Temple Bar being. justified by continual
left her husbands house for her fathers at her
husbands own command. Her resolution to demand
was nnder heT se
spected Lord ByrOn's sanity, and after being
treasured on that point she explained to DR..
circumstances which led him to declare that
though he had previously been IN favor Of recon-
any such idea should be entertained he could not,
wards erecting it," what could have induced an
adv tn thn nln oincf tnoV nvarfn IN
opinion 30 apparently at variance with all eccesias
ucai usagesY We leave the writer IN Temple Bar to
mpst have assumed the Existence Of fact
which inevitably followed the same consequence
that Lord Thurlow pointed out to the House Of
Lords when he prevailed with them to. give
what had never been allowed before-the
right OF marrying again to q woman seek
adultery. As general rule the right was
given to man whose wife had COM
United adultery, because he could not take
her again. and was denied to woman whose hus-
band had been guilty OF the same offence because
they might be reconcIled In the particular instance
guilty with his wires sister. The wife could not
without guilt return to him, and, therefore, she was
90 10 be ana hns
attempted he could take no part in the attempt pro-
fessiOnally or otherwise, he must be understood to
mean that duty both to God and man forbade Lady
Byron to return to her husband" This ia guarded
passage but Its meaning Is clear enough now that
Mrs. stowe has given us the clue. Lady Byron could
a wife could not return to husband who had CON-
mitted adultery with her sister; adultery with a
wfe's sister, by English law is incest.
so long as Byron was afraid OF provoking his wife
TO make full disclosure, he was ready enough in u
romantic sort OF way to shoulder load Of indefinite
blame amt TO paint his partner and victim as q sui
ie!iug angel
10 Others share let female errors fall
For sine had not evn onc-the worst OF all.
Il was easy lor MIN 10 deny all knowledge OF the
specific offence Tor which he was discarded, and the
word then would suspect nothing more than the
fashionable inideitIcs OF which he never made a
'But the true cause,n says the article from
which we have quoted, .'was always present to his
mind and II II were Of the class to which DR.. Lush
ington's opinion points. his consciousness would
prompt the answer that he gave II seems
impossible to avoid the conclusion that the cause
nad never been explained to him-that he knew the
cause-and did not dare to ask for explanation"
Al the time OF its appearance this remarkable
article seems 10 have attracted little attention. We
cite 1t now for the purpose OF showing that il Mrs.
stowe has been deceived by the fctlons OF Lady
ByrOn's diseased imagination she Is not alone Ia her
errors and Is the ilrst to disseminate them For
ourselves we find nothing in the narrative incon-
some tri1ing mistakes which do not affect the main
question:, and nothing, we are sorry 10 say, neon
sistent with what 1s known Oh Byron's character.
From the New York Times, August 1871
We cannot but deplore the publication OF nara
tive such 8s that which Mrs. Stowe has Thought
proper to lay before the world. 1t sets no question
morbid curiosity OF those persons who are more III.
erested In the scandals OF Lord ByrOns life than IN
circulating revolving aspersiOn on Lord Byrons hall
sister-sster Mrs. stowe Calls her-of whom all that
Is known Is that she was faithful TO him IN the
darkest hours OF his life and followed him with her
sympathy IN his exile. IL IS no JUSTIFICATION or the
course which Mrs. Stowe has unfortunately been
advised TO adopt that Lady Byron originated the
oelumny on an innocent lady. Lady Byron
pursued the poet with systematic malignty
which was sometimes scarcely compatible with
the theory OF her sanity. There was no offence
OF which she did not accuse him. II was only after
be and his half sister had both been buried for years
I'll at she ventured TO Ink their names together In
infamy. Then II was done In a conversation with a
comparative stranger, and no proofs whatever were
given In support of the 0diOus charge. Mrs. Stowe
was not called upon to revive this miserable story OF
domestic unhappiness She can produce no evidence
In subsantation OF the narrative. All the facts aud all
the probabilities contradict 1t. Respect for the
DRY of Lady Byron would certainly have suggested
the proprIey Of allowing mystery which can never
be cleared up to sink into oblivion. She has now
stepped forward with unsupported allegations OF q
character so Accountable az to compel us to receive
them with incredullty, and IL is but little exenua-
ton OF her fault that she suffered herself to be I'M
posed upon by woman OF implacable disposition
and relentless temper,
It is quite evident that Mrs Stowe approached