The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1870-01-07

was not Claimed by Lord Byron as his own, but
that lie asked his mother to care for 1t as belong
ing to schoolmate now dead; second, tnat inc
infant died shortly after, and. consequently,
could not be the Child mentioned In this letter.
Now, beside this fact that Lord Byron admit
ted living illegitimate child born before Ada
in England which was believed to be his by those
who had every opportunity OF knowing.
After all, Mrs. Stoves only sheet. anchor Is
Lady Byron's own incredible story.
From this background OF proof, come forward
and testify to an interview with Lady Byron, in
which She gave me specific information OF the
facts in the case. That l report the facts Just as
received them from her. not altered or mlsre-
membered, Is shown by the testimony OF my Sis
ter. to whom related them at the time. Ii can
not, then, be denied that had this interview, and
that this communication was made. therefore
testify that Lady Byron. for proper purpose,
and ut proper time, stated TO me tne 1oloWlng
things:
/. THAT the crime which separated her from
Lord Byron was incest.
2. That she first discovered 1t by improper ac-
tiona towards his sister, which he meant to make
her understand Indicated the guilty relation.
3. That he admitted it, reasoned on 1t, defended
1t, tried to make her an accompllce, and, falling
In that, hated her and expelled her.
4. That he tlyeatencd her that he would make
1t his fe,s Object to destroy her character.
5. That for period she was led to regard this
conduct as insanity, and to consider him only as
q diseased person.
6. That she had subsequent proof that the facts
were really as she suspected; that there had been
child born Of the crime, whose history she knew;
that Mrs. Leigh had repeated: .uo..
And she winds up with this marvellous non
Se1uitur:
Having thus shown that Lady Byron's tesli
mOny Is the testimony OF woman or strong
mind: that it was not given from malice nor ILL
will; that 1t was given at proper time anu IN
propcr manner, and for O purpose In accordance
with the most elevated moral views, ana that it
is concident with all the established facts OF this
history, snd furnishes perfect solution OF every
mystery 4 the case, we think we snail carry the
reader with us in saying that 1t Is to be received
as absolute truth.
. The comments of the New York Sun, in
which we cannot altogether concur, are as
follows:
Condensed in few words, all this amounts
to the simple proposition that lnasmuch as the
charge against Lord Byron, published oy MRS.
circulation against him during his lifetime,
and was not positively dlsproved by him,
though utterly discredted by his friends,
therefore Il must have been true! The reader
may well ask In astonishment, as we did on
getting to the end OF the chapter Is this all !?
Is there no direct testimony from any one ac-
qualnted with the facts; no positive proofs OF
the alleged criminal intimacy no bringing
home of the alleged offspring of the incentn-
ous intrigue to Mrs. Leigh IS Its mother? 40
Solutely none ,chdterer. From the beginning to
the end of the rOlu1ne, there is not paragraph,
not q line, not q loOrtl eUen, except LAZY By
ron's o,cn statement, achich presents any JdctS
not perfectly 7ceH kn0,c to the public long before
Mrs. Sto,ce n,eddlel IN the matter. The whole
book is simply mass of differences, all more
or less destitute of probability, and all entirely
inconclusive.
For instance, Mrs. Stowe asserts that Lord
Byron must have been guilty Of some unusual
immortality, because he failed to demand jn-
dicial investigation of the quarrel between
himself and Lady Byron. But the same argyll
mcnt would prove Lady Byron also guilty, for
she, too, failed to demand similar invcstlsa-
ton when all England was ringing, as Mrs.
Stowe shows, with accusations against her OF
unwiicly and cruel conduct. II is said, too, that
Lord Byrons bitter remorsc and hatred OF his
wife proves his gniltiness. Outlines OF what?
Surely, liberlinc, such as he Is said TO have
been, would not have felt any especial regret
or fear for one intrigue more or less. Tile 1act
not not have have troubled him, since it did
not, according to Mrs. Stowe, prevent
him from scducing her. AS TO what
Shelley says, Improves the reverse of guilt. He
calls the friendship openly displayed by Lady
Byron for Mrs. Leigh IA dcclsiEa -contradic-
tionn of the calumny. Mrs. Stoves effort to
explain away this manifestation of friendship,
Byron letters, published in the Quarterly Re-
view, Is utterly futile. Even ifit were occa-
stoned, as she says, solely by desire on Lady
Byron's part to screen Mrs. Leigh from public
ccnsure, why should she be believed In her
subsequent attempt to* Undo the effect of the
artlce? But the proof that there was any
arlifcc in this apparent friendship depends
entirely upon proving, In the first instance, that
there was something to be concealed by it: the
presumption being that there was nothing, so
that Mrs. Stoves ingenious argument on this
point falls to the ground.
There is no necessity for analyzing the re-
mainder of this weak and trashy production.
1t is called LADY Byron Vindlcatcd," but it
should rather be called "a Failure to Yindi-
cate Mrs. Harriet Bccchcr Stowe" Without
reason or motive, she put in circulation the
masterpiece of scandal that has been heard
for years, and now, when called upon to prove
it. she falls back upon the original fabrication
of Lady Byron's mind, weakened by age and
distorted by brooding upon her wrongs, as ifa
repetition of this fabrication were triumphant
Testimony to its intrinsic truth. She has
achieved notoriety 1t is true, but il is noto-
rirty of which no respectable woman should
be proud.