The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1870-01-08

espoused the cause of a crazy woman, it Is
| inconceivable that the representatives OF the
Byron family should not have informed them
at once of the character of their client. II
must be remembered, however, on the Other
hand, that while there can be no doubt (if these
documents are genninc,) that Mcdora Leigh
was the child Of By yron's sister, there is no
proof that she was Byron's daughter. nor In
| decd any proof that she was not the legitimate
offspring of Colonel Leigh. In the ncgotia-
tions for her relief, the question OF her pater-
nifty does not seem to have been raised.
| although the story of incest was known 10 DR..
Illshingtol, Sir George Stephen, and many
others, and was probably the subject OF con-
versation with Mr.. s..
So far this strange, repulsive book. with it
| devil IS own history of in1amy, is strong con
| frmation of Mrs. Stowe; buta all what does
it prove? Only that Lady Byron told to many
persons, at least as early as l843, tlc same
story that she told to Mrs. Stowe in 1856: that
| there was an unfortunate wayward cnlld OF MIS-
| Leigh's upon whom Lady Byron, believing her
to be the fruit Of her husbands incestuons pas
| sion, lavshed mothers care; propaoly thaL
this child believed Lady Byron's story OF her
shameful birth. This leaves the problem as
far as ever from solution, and OF course @ @ aoes
not weaken in the least the tremendous force
of Lady Byron's letters to her slstcr-ln-aW,
which were published in the Quarterly
Review, OF the fact mentioned in the post
cript to the same periodical, that when
Lord Broughton (lobhousc) acting Tor BY
ron, met Mr.. afterwards Sir Robert) VIII
mot Horton, Lady Byron's representative,
with view to an anicabe settlement,
and questioned him upon all the charges
and rumors which had been uttered against
the poet as q cause for the separation, Mr..
Horton, in the name of the lady, expressly re-
pudiated the specific charge which has now
been revived by Mrs. Stowe. DR.. Mackay's
theory is that so far as Mrs. Leigh Is concerned
the present accusation dates from Mrs. Irc-
vanion's statement to Medora about 1881 that
Colonel Leigh was not her father. He be-
lievcs that il was the wicked invention OF an
outraged wife who wanted to get rid OF her
husband, after she had once discovered his In
fidelity. If she obtained divorce, Trevanion
could not marry his wife's sister, and ''it was
necessary to make Medora believe that she was
not really Georgiana's sister-or, at all events,
not the child of Georgiana's tsther-in order
that the unfortunate girl, even at the saCiiicc
of her mothers good name, might dcludc hcr-
self with the hope that if The divorce were OBJ
tanned, there would remain no real obstacle
to her marriage with her seducer." Lord By
ron's name, it will be observed, was not cou-
pled with the story at this time; Medora was
only told she was the illegltimatc child OF ncr
mother. 1t was from Lady Byron, in 1910, that
She learned the name other father DR.. Mackay
believes that Lady Byron learned from Georgl-
ana Trevanion, and that unnatural woman ellher
invented it altogether for tile shameful puf-
pose We have mentioned, or possibly, got IL
from Mrs. Charlemont Jus this theory seems
Incredible. 1t sunposcs more loathsome ue
pravity in Mrs. Trcvanion than has ever pccn
attributed to any Of the actors i'll TINS shocking
drama. il supposcs that, for no adequate rea-
son, she would blast the reputation of her
mother, and condemn her sister to q life OF
shame. II she wanted divorce, she had
cause already, for adultery had been commit.
tod. and proving that Mcdora was her ha!t
sister would not further her plans. 1t IS mncn
more likely that She never made any stlcli rcIe-
lation. We have only Mctlora's word Tor II;
and that is worth very little in such IL case as
this. She blamcs her mother and her sister
for exposing her to the danger which provca
her ruin. She even charges the sister with
virtually cnticing her TO sin. Probably thcse
charges are purely fictitious, designed to soften
the horrors Of her narrative and stand tor hcr
excuses
DR.. Mackay argues that Lady Byron cannot
lave entertained the suspicion or belief winch
she communicated to Mcdora until some time
later than this supposed revelation of 1881. be,
cause her account Of The separation, published
in Moore's life in 1880, seems inconsistent With
it, But in the first place thai account Is not
really Inconsistent with belief IN the charge
oiinccst; 1t is only inconsistent with WillltiS-
ness 10 have that Delle1 susllcctcu. Anu uSuii,
even if size Gil not know it in 1880, 1t is queer
logic to conclude that she could not have
known it in 1851. There is another diili-
Guilty, however, which the editor has ap-
parcntly overlooked. Mr.. s. says that
pr. Lushington and others, in 1913, were in pos
session of the ''sccrct' which Lady Byron con-
idcd to Mrs. Stowe as tile cause OF the scpara-
lion. Arc we to infer that the ''srcret" which
she impaired to her adviser in lSlG was
different from the secret which she impaired
to him later? There are obvious difficulties in
believing that it was the same; there are equal
" obvious difficulties in believing that it was
different except on the sllppostion that she had
become upon this one point Of unsound mind
a supposition in which DR.. Mackay's book
ur0n the whole tends to confirm ns.