The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1869-09-18
RYRON,S MEMORY.
The Letter ofthe Byron Solicitors,
TO THE EDITOR OF THE LONDON TIMES.

The Letter ofthe Byron Solicitors,
TO The EDITOR OF THE LONDON TIMES.
Sir-As the collectors ofthe descendants aud
representatives Of the late Lady Noel Byron,
for whose family We have acted for upwards OF
half century, We request your permission to
lowing observations relative to an article
which has just appeared in Macmillan's Maga-
zine. ~
The article in question is entitled "The True
Story Of Lady Byronls Life" and Mrs. 81. b.
Stowe is announced to be the writer OF it..
OF the paper itself we should probably have
abstained from taking any public notice IT it
had appeared in less respectable journal than
Macmillan, or if even in this periodical the au-
thoress had been allowed to tell her story with
ont editorial preface or comment. The editor
of Macmillan, however, has not only admitted
Mrs. Stoves article, but he has prenxed TO IT
note in which he authoritatively proclaims TO
the world that "the paper on Lady byron.s
life and relations to Lord Byron is the COM
plete and authentic statement OF the whole
circumstances of that disastrous affair.". Nay,
more. "that this paper ID, in fact, Lady Byrons
own statement OF the reasons which forced her
to the separation which she go long resisted"
Again, the editor states that the contribution
of Mrs. Stowe supplies evidence at once new
and direct" on Lady Byron's history.
We, as the family solicitors, beg most dis
tinctly to statez that the article is not com
plete" or ''authentive statement" of the facts
connected with the separation, that IL cannot
be regarded as Lady Byron's own statement,
and that it does not involve any direct EVIL
dence on Lady Byrons history.
Instead of direct evidence, Mrs. Stowe has
nothing to communicate but her recollection
of conversation thirteen years ago., and her
impressious OF manuscript Whlcn sne states
that Lady Byron at that time gave her to pc
ruse, aud which, according to her own show.
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
thirteen months as the period during which
Lady Byron resided under the same roof with
her husband, and similar inaccuracies, to
which, for the present purpose, it Is unneces.
sarv to allude.
Without for mnment conceding that Mrs.
Stoves narrative contains a complete account
of Lady Byron's relations with her husband.
we must protest against 1t as being protessed-
Iy-frst, o most gross breach OF the trust and
confidence stated to have been reposed In her;
second, as inconsistent with her own recon-
mendation to Lady Byron; ana, third, as an
ignorant violation lat least we shall, in charl-
ty, suppose Mrs. Stowe to be lgnolant) OF the
express terms of Lady Byron's last will and
testament.
First, as relates to breach Of trust, Mrs
Stowe states that she was consulted IN an III
terview which, to use her own words, 'had
almost the solemnity oil deathbed, >" not as to
whether she would undertake reduction of
Lady Byron's married history, but only as to
the policy of publishing su,h history at all;
secondly, Mrs. Stowe, on her own admission,
returned to Lady Byron the brief memoran-s
dunn paper which had been intrusted to her,
with the statement Of her opinion that Lady
e ~ L. IN st1ck. aott in
ssVnp SsTGn TGud tSa ruh Ds ePr to By dseossa ter
her death, and recommended that all
facts necessary should be put in tho
hands Of some persons to be 30 publlshed;"
thirdly, Lady Byron did, by her last will and
testament, executed few daye only before her
decease, bequeath to three persons as trustees
all her manuscripts, to be by them first sealed
up, afterward deposited in bank in the name
OF such trustees, and she directed that no one
else, however nearly connected with her,
should, upon any plea whatsoever, be allowed
to inspect such documents, which the trustees
we're alone to make use OF as they might judge
to be best for the interests OF her grandchil-
dren. Mrs. Stowe is not one Of these three.
Her paper is entirely gratuitous and unauthor-
iZed. It ia, as we have said, not consistent
with her own counsel; it is an offence against
Lady Byron's dying wishes. and the authoress
has written in utter disregard OF the feelings
OF those grandchildren Of whom she speaks in
~Se~ ~~-~
noblest Of mankind"
The appearance OF the volumes about Lord
Byron by the Countess Guiccioli is alleged by
Mrs. Stowe as the main reason which induced
her to publish her story; but il Lady Byron's
descendants, her personal and trusted friends
in this country, suffer the ISLANDERS of the
Countess Guiccioli to pass uncontradicted--
for, TO use Mrs. Stoves own expression, OF
what value was the outcry OF ''the mistress"
against the wife 2-their silence should GER
taInly have leo Mrs. Stowe to hesitate before
giving to the world statement which, how
ever il may affect the memories G: the dead,
must inevitably infict much pain on the
living.
"Lady Byron's own statement" is in the pos.
session Of those who love her memory too we'll
to make rash use Of it, and if the world is
ever to learA the true story Of Lady Byron's
life, it will learn it from them.
It would have been in better taste II Mrs.
Stowe and the editor Of Macmillan's Magazine
had initiated the religious silence" which the
latter so much commends in the case Of Lady
Byron. Meanwhile, Lady Byrone descend
ants and representatives entirely and absolute
ly disclaim all countenance Of Mrs. Stoves
article, which has been published without their
privity or consent.
We are, sir, your obedent servants,
WHARTON Il FoRDs.
No. 8 Lincoln's-inn. fields, September 1.