The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1869-11-20
THE BYRON SCANDAL.


the byron Mystery" We give below q postscript"
on the same subject also furnished US from advance
sheets OF the same magazine
We certainly thought that the character or this
review and the common courtesles Of literature
would have protected US from the iliberal insnua-
lions that have been based the opportune appear
ance. In our pages OF Lady ByrM's letters to Mrs.
Leigh They do ut In admirably, but did Il never oc-
cur to the critics, who affect surprise at the circum
stance that this sort OF fness is Ofthe ordinary
results OF TRUTH The existence Of these letters was
known, and they were frequent subject OF CONVEX
saton in metropolitan circles some weeks before
the appearance or our article. The originals in
ITCHY Is guaranteed by two n0biemen whose names
freely circulated already can be given If required.
in our possession when we wrote. along with several
other autograph letters Of Lady Byron.
the following document which appeared IN an
on the 7th instant did not reach this country I'LL
after the publication Of this number Of the Quarterly
ReUtelD:-
Mrs stowe desires the friends OF justice and fair dealing to
byron First she regarded ihe PUB
and secondly because she has expected the ds
preparing q the whole matter with further facts
and more documents including several letters of Lady Byron
s the % n Of dw hs n At s
ssssaor: after tha. death She wl also give
led her to feel to be her duty make this disclosure
shp.
As DR.. Johnson remarked on being told that dull
gentleman required time to become entertaining,
awe can wall" There is only one suggestion that
must press. 1t viii be worse than useless to &C
cumulate more letters or reported statements OF
Lady Byron. There are too many OF them already.
They contradict, weaken, neutraiize and discredit
one another. They resemble tangled skeln OF SILK
or regiment that has got "cubped" by bad hand.
ling. What we require 10 ssn1rmatory proof, of
which hitherto there has been literally not frag
ment Or q shred, while the evidence on the other
the case admits IL clear continuous, consistent and
self-supporting. Conjectures ana surmlses will be
equally supernuous. AS we have been grossly mis-
represented ana have o new fact or two TO add we
viii briefly recall the essential points.
pe,r that the specified CRIME was the substance Of
the famous communication to DR.. Washington In
1916" the inclination OF our opinion was and ls de-
cldedy the other way, notwithstanding the orcible
inference from his confirmed silence. The language
OF the "Remarks.n we repeat Is all but decisive on
this point. Lady Byron stated IN 1880 a. that the
conduct OF which she complained In 1916 was OF q
nature TO be paliated or excused by insanity; l2l
that all the facts were known to her when she
arrived ut kirkby Mallory, although part OF
them were kept back. Now the crime IN ques-
ton. in which two persons were concerned
could not De excused or paated III 1t could be ex-
cusej paated at all) by the insanity OF one. No
facts SO far as they affected Mrs. Leigh, and 1t Is
Lady Byron's unchanged demeanor to her sister. In
law that must be accounted for, as wei as her
changed demeanor to her lord.
Alter staJing that on being convinced that the
notion of insanity was an Illusion she no longer
y
"in order to secure me from again being placed
In his power'-very Significant words Lady Byron
continues" Conformably to this resolution my
father wrote to him lord Byron on the I'd OF Feb
ruary Qsl6l to propose an amicable separation"
sn came er ro Ms g aha nsn the
which Lady Byron speaks OF "reasons which VIII not
only justify this measure but compeis me TO take it,
obviously written after her final interview with
DR.. Lushington,* and leaving no doubt at all
that her mind was dehninvely made up. Then
comes the letter OF February IA with It's Farewell
God bless you from the bottom OF my heart" which
sufficiently explains the pause In the correspondence.
The Conversations with Lady Anne Barnard, in
ldence OF Mrs. Leigh, bridge over another three
months. In the following september Qsl6) Lady
their place near Newmarket. Down to and incud-
ing the period OF Lord ByroD's last illness we ind
his sister the recognized medium OF communication
between Lady Byron and himself
After stating (ane, 220) that Mr.. Wilmot Horton
we said 1--WE are not aware whether tins specific
charge was named among the rest" We are now
able 70 state positively that the specific charge was
named by Lord Broughton and distinctly dis
claimed by Mr.. Wilmot Horton on behalf OF Lady
Byron. At the burning OF the autobiography, Mrs.
Byron's confidential friends, Mr. Wimot Horton and
Colonel (Sir Francis) Doyle.
The publication Of Moore's Life in 1880 led
to as warm controversy touching the cause
or causes OF the separation as has been
provoked BY MIS- Beecher stowe. Lady Byron
Campbell warmly seconded ner In the Ne,o Montnv,
and among the pieces justtcdtipes. figured letters
y,
not much az an aluson TO the charge in question
Is to be traced. Although certainty produced and
ss psan Lady mao Byron a'n wa se openly r0% n
ana a. AL WY ad she mol DO 50 while
wimot Horton were still ivingY what earthly Tor
heavenly object was subsequently attained by the
nlne dignined, or charitable to run about repeating
1t TO person after person. mostly below her own rank
in llreS She would not look at her husbands story
q
Memoirs considering the publication or crcula-
ton Of such composition at any time as prejudieal
scruples, when he was dead and the Memoirs
burned, In publishing or circulating her own story.
may really help to solve Is, at what period Lady
Byron first specified the charge and by what
supposed evidence or mental process she arrived at
NJ That, assuming her 10 have specified It in 1916,
she did so under the influence OF monomania, IL q
theory OF which we never 80 much as heard till we
saw 1t attributed 10y the saturday Rectetcl to our
selveson the strength or havpg said In refer
ence to her muithorm statements during the last
ten or fifteen years OF her e that the most Tor only
charitable hypothesis was insanity. Even as regards
that period we did not say IL was our hypothesis,
and we must beg leave to suspend our opinion on
the point. Enough for us to have demonstrated
that whenever, or under whatever state OF mind,
sne Drought the accusation 1t was fal Sc.
There Is one particular In which all the published
versions, including Mrs. Bcecher stoves, agree
namely, that Lady Byron declared the guilty connec
ton 10 DO the cause OF the separatl0n tnat she vr
tualy therefore, declared it TO be the substance or
her Bna communication to Or. Washington. Yet
DcIOfe, uuriDg anu i0n8 aiter tne separation sue
continued TO all outward seeming on footing OF
anectionate confidence with Mrs. Leigh. The pas
sionate entreaty 10 remain IN Pccadilly must have
peen trap. We are forbidden tby the saturday
Rcpte1c) on Dr. Forbes WInsow's authority, to at
triDute her conduct TO monomania- We are smul-
taneously told that, whether we intended 1t not,
we have 'rased an accusation OF deliberate wicked
ness against Lady Byron which no person OF com
mon senseaying the matter OF good feeling aside
can Tor moment entertain" This IL a pleasing
dilemma, recalling that OF the 5tste nsti,eu
soner:--
"a. ii faut monrir
Is. IL 1aut v1vre.
&. III faut enir un Juse milicu.n
Here ION the hypothesis that Lazy Byron spoke the
truth TO Mrs. Beecher stowe and others, ana did
make the charge TO DR.. Lusnington) two sisters
ilaw living together terms OF alfectionate CONT
dence one or whom must have been guilty OF the
Rrossest treachery. IL IL an outrage ON common
sense ana good feeling TO assume any amount Of
evidence, that the brought false charge: Is