The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1870-01-12
period the disclosure was made. We are
not afsnp tte oxecks x7Afr.z- 1fra Sto-n

period the disclosure was made. We are
not gisep the exact date Mrs. Stove
evades lass tes In b most eAtat;s ;sfaneary
manner-b4 slse- is obliged 20 d1Ait that
when the geaSt eonseSe atioh tcuk place
Lady Byr6n WaS Harie1riy ill. When she
was eI,she AHoke ef her dead husband
to Mrs. Stove jueE O. niie had always
written OF him 20 ME IsSigh--that q 10
soy, Nth soffoW and resYect We Yegssal
this as most .imR mt piece o. eyi-
denoe, sthough AEfs, Stowe mentions IL
in cursofy manner. 1t was not until
Lady Byron was :sprostrated" with illness
that she accused her husband of incest.
Before that time, Mrs. Stowe herself de-.
clares that no one would have copieo-
tured from Lady Byron's- remarks con-
cerning her husband, ,-''that there were
under all any deeper rccollections than
the circumstances Of an ordinary separa-
ton might bring" But at the time the
"secret" was divnlged all was different
with Lady Byron. Mrs. Stowe saws of
her state at this period:
Her hands we're like ice; her face vas
deadly pale, ond she conyersed with a
restraint and difficulty which showed
what an exertion it was for her to keen
up at ALL page 230.) Again, she saws
that she found her ''in one of those ne
riods of utter physical exhaustion to
which she was subject, on account of the
constant pressure of care beyond her
strength" Page 229.) On the very day
OF the unfortunate conversation there
were twc ether visitors With Lady Byron
at the moment Mrs. Stowe entered the
room. When Lady Byron got up to 20
out, says Mrs: Stowe. they (tho other
guests) '1ooked after her with singular
expression of respect and affection, and
gave utterance to fears lest "her unset
fishness might be leading her to over
exertion. When Lady Byron made the
revelation "she became" says Mrs.
Stowe, $50 deadly pale that feared sue
would faint" As for the paper which
Lady Byron afterwards lent to her visitor,
Mrs. Stowe seems to be unable to give us
any account whatever of it. Lady BY
ron told Mrs Stowe that she thought Of
making her story public some day, be-
cause Lord Byron was looking on from
another world at the mischief he had
done, and he could not 'be at peace un-
til this injustice" wns righted: Now take
these facts in connection with the letters
OF Lady Byron to Mrs. Leigh and others,
and which becomes the more probable
conjeoture-that Lord Byron and Mrs.
Leigh were guilty, or that Lady Byron,
! towards the end of her life, was not in
full possession of her faculties?
We have passed by all minor points in
Mrs. Stoves second narrative. We shall
not criticise the manner in which she has
performed her task. Her strange rhapso-
dies, her spasmodic bursts of sentiment,
her dlsordered array of such facts as she
has to offer, VIC vii! put wholly aside.
But there Is one particular in which her
moral sense is strangely at fault, and we
must call her attention to it ere we leave
the subject, as we trust. forever. She
vlndlcatos herself for publishing her un-
| supported and repulsive "story" upon
! the ground that she wished to defend "a
wife and mother" Is it possible, then,
that she does not perceive that in reality
she has come forward to defume wife
and mother? No one accused Lady
Byron of immortality. But Mrs. Stowe
has charged Mrs. Leigh with the most
| shocking of all offences, and she thinks
thnt it is enough to substantiate her
charge if she shows that Lord Byron was
man of very bad character. She has
asked whether Lord Byron was capable
OF committing this crime, and having
satisfied herself that he was, she pro.
claims that the whole case is proved. But
by an incredible perversity, she makes no
account of the fact TINT there must have
been two parties to the sin. If Lord By
ron was profigate, does that provo his
half sister was rs bad, or worse? Mrs.
Stowe has not yet said one word against
Mrs Leigh. She merely assumes that if
Lord Byron wished to commit the spe-
Gifted crime, Mrs. Leigh would have
readily become his accomplice. Is sis
ter to be condemned because her brother
happens to be licentious scoundrel?
Cannot Mrs. Stowe see that she is attack.
ing Mrs. Leigh more than Lord Byron,
and that she is not defending Lady By.
ron at all? Surely Mrs. Leigh ought to be
held innocent until she is proved guilty
and OF proof. Mrs. Stowe has not par
ticle to give the world.
Since, indeed, it was impossible from
the first that her charge could be proved,
and since it was charge fraught with
cruelty and wrong to the memory of
Mrs: Leigh and all her survivors and
relatives, Mrs. Stowe never ought to
have made it. Even if DR.. Lushinrton
would tell us what were the exact cir
cumstances disclosed to him by Lady
Byron, it would be important evidence.
but not absolutely decisive on either
side. For we should still have Lady
Byron's letters to Lady Ann Bernard,
written more than year after the aepa-
ration, distinctly acquitting her husband
OF any graver faults than neglect and
cruelty. We should still have the fact
before Us that Lord Wentworth, Lady
Byron's nearest representative, declares
that manuscript was found among that
lady's papers, giving an account Of her
marriage, and that it docs not contain
any accusation of so grave a nature AS
that which Mrs. Stowe. asserts was told
her." Mrs. Stowe takes no notice of
this most weighty information. She is
nu flaok oil =.