, 1870-01-05
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY s, 1870.


A. SNNNG . 101A 1A kAG Dl4NA tOA%4A
versy is divided into thirteen chapters. II
first, or Introductory chapter, has alreai
been published. In this she states the re
son why she a1ade her original publicatio,
which was simply that she believed tho sto]
to be true, md that she deemed it her dui
to publish it as n defence of the memory
Lady Byron Four chapters are then give
TO the "Attack on Lady Byron" Who:
principal enemies appear to be the no.
Moore, the publisher Murray, Blackuuod
Mag"-int, and the Quarterly Reeit,e. The
cones chapter entitled Lady Byron as
krew her." after which, On page a3o, "
get into the merits Of the case. The cor
Fersasion which she had with Indy Byro
IN 1s3'', Is repeated, with rathe1 more N!
nuteness than in the original recital, bu
without any important addition.
Nss. Stove then takes hold of the letter:
OF Lady Ryson to Mrs. Leigh, published i,
the Quarftr;y, recognizing, apparently, th
fact TINT those documents are the most for
nldahle rebntting testimony that has bee,
offered, or that it is possible to offer, to th.
charge Of incest preferred against Lord By
ron md his sister. This being the salien
feature Of the controversy, we transfer ths
chnptts to our columns. The first letter te
Mrs. Leigh being without date, Mrs. Stove
assumes that it WIS written before Lad,
Lyon became awarc Of the shocking rein.
tons existing between the guilty pair '
The subsequent letters are accounted for
On the narrow hypothesis that Mrs. Leigh
had Tepentcd Of her share in the ntro:ious
csime, aud had been forgiven by
Lady Byron. Tho only new fact addueed,-
aid this is not altogether nevis that a
FEtuor nttributiug this crime to Lord Byron
MD his sister, WIS current in certain circles
iE England very soon afssr the separation,
nnd that it reached the ears Of the poet
Shelley, wEo thought it sufficiently dis
proved by tie friendly relations existing be-
tween Lady Byron md Mrs. Lsigh, Mrs.
stowe docs not impeach the geuuineness Of
tie letters published in the Quarterly, but
lnsists very properly that the writer Of that
article is bound to give history Of the
!ctters, to show how he came INTO posses
sion OF them, and to publish the whole
Ct them ii uny part has been omitted.
There is nothing beyond this Of any real
value, except the testimony OF Dr.. Forbes
WiosloS, whose letter to the London
1.mfS, rebutting the theory of Lady By
7on's insanity OF ha1lGcinatiun, had been
previously published. Mrs. Stowe gives
abundant evidence that she implicitly be-
Eevcs the story communicated to her by
Lady Byron. and her adjuration to those
who know the facts, and who possess the
evidence to substautiate them, is extremely
forcible. She says:
"Acd E0E have oDc Ecsd to sny 10 these IN
Enrlard. who, With ali the .acls mud docuu,eu,s
II the!r nat d. Hllca could a. onc: Lave cleared
Lad! HsIon's fame, allowed The harparoas as
NolM wliloui reply. 1 speag to ihose. wt'o.
fno~inG that mn speaking the truth, stand |
a'le"': 10 those who have now The ability 10 pro.
once rne 1acts and documents hy which thls calse
might ee INSTANTLY settled. aud who do not pro-
~ do not judge them: bu, rea-ind them that
day Ii coEipg wheE. they AID rnust staud side /
BY EIDE o. the great judgmeni-sea.-1 10 give an |
..In Thu. day, ali earthly coDsldefatons will
have vanished lILe uotu1n9 u!sts and truth Ur
fass hoed, Justice or Injustice, w1l be the only
y ttat day. God, who Will Judge she secrets
Ct al n4en. *ih Judge bc'wes thla uau and 1as
hhalI be told 10th OF tic dcpraved aud disso,pte
4 al ~ho made It his s'frt- "aect to delsme toe
lnt ocett, tee .lleut- The sell. .denylnK wo1nau who
nade It her h5-'1 object 10 give space for Iepept-
aLce to tie guilty"
wha:ever may he the strength of Mrs-
Sto~ti' oouviciio1H, it must be admitted
by those who we're inclined at first to give
credence to the charge against Lord Byron
and his sister, that nothing has been ad-
dGced to slIke the force Of the letters
brought forward by the Quarterly Rsrier,
nLd that, II those letters are genuine, tho
1htnry Of repentance and forgiveness
comes far short Of explaining them. For,
even urs'n this theory, We cannot account
fo. the tender and nffectiouats tone in
which they ere written, It is not wholly
to conceive that Mrs. Leigh was
forgiven, Int thnt she should have been
addressed as "My Dearest Augusta" and
Us ''ey'r mos, atfecGonnte]y yours" within
4 few months after the awful revelation was
,:ade to Lady byron, is quite beyond the
l.uunds Of belief.
The hotk which Dr. Charles A1ackay has
from IN Independent source to
tie Byro1-LciGh literature, is dull, and I'M
hAtiat 4c;ufy eiouGh. 1t purports to con-
tain the autobiography Of the woman.
whom Mrs. Stowe, entitled az Child Of sin,n
hut furnishes 20 proof Of its authenticity
That admitted, its value as PIECE of eri-
dcncc benripg upon the question 1aised by
Alrs. Stove is very slight. Medora Ieigl,'a
confessions, u hat she was !" child of SIN"
that the WIS aebaucbed at three different
'I'ucbs Of her life by Lcr sisters husband. .
Mr. Treyaniou, whom she declares she did !
not love, may be accepted as evidence
against herself, but prove nothing as to her
parentage. The only testimony On that
po:nt is her assertions that this alr. T1oyan-
i'm md his wife, her sister, declared that !
Lcr father Was mol Colonel Leigh, her l
huhban1 that Lady Byron sxbse- c
luently confirmed Ills end assured her that I
Lord Byron was her father, and on that I
account furnished her with means Of sup Z
port for number of years, md only d5nin- +
Aied the support OF Withdrew it altogether Q
n consequence Of her bad conduct. These
assertions may bo true or false. II trae,
hey only prove that Lady Byron told at b
liGerent times number Of people story \
Tint which Mrs. Stowe has re- ;
ported. But the story did not reach A1edora q
Leigh till ]s40, when Lady Byron told it to a
lcr for the first time. The book under
nkes to show that it Ind, therefore, nothing
O 90 with Lady Dyronts separation from u
ser husband. Dr., Nuckay swells his book d
0 tho requisite dimensions Of a salablc II
'olume, by inserting pages Of abuse of Mrs. d
;tove, md other equally irrelevant matter, r
4 which lie should thank the public for A
aklng no further notice. 81
The Byron mystery, therefore, remains p
3 much mystery as tyer- That there ia
7ss some crime beyond ordinary marital o.
and beyond ordinary ill-treat- g
uent of husband to wife, which caused s.
be hel'arrtion, is clearly indicated in Dr. d'
.uslin Gton's Oft quoted letter, but what it p'
aF, Mrs. Stoves revelations have not Fl
clpcd us 10 knowledge of. 81
hi
TIE ERIE CANAL. Of
Tie exhibits Of the business Of Buffalo ot