The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-01-05
MRS. STOVES BYRON BOOK.

From the NJ Y. sto.
The publishers of Mrs. Stoves new book
have acted prudently in stimulating pnblic
curiosity about il to the highest possible
pitch before its appearance Many thousands
of persons will purchase copies of it simply to
find out what there is in 1t, who, If they were
fully acquainted with its contents beforehand,
would not deign to give it passing look.
more pitiful contrast between promise and
fulflment has rarely been seen in the history
of literature
For some months now Mrs. Stowe has been
loudly proclaiming that the volume she had
in preparation would be such complete and
triumphant proof of the truth of the charge
she made against Lord Byron and Mrs.
Leigh, in her article in the AtldRttc Monthly,
that there could be no further dispute on the
subject. Upon the testimony adduced in the
Ahdntic the almost unanimous verdict of the
public was that the charge was not proven;
but on Mrs Stoves assurance that she had
further and more conclusive evidence in re-
serve, there has been general Willingness to
suspend final Judgment until that evidence
could be weighed. Now that she publishes
her book, whatever consideration may have
been entertained for her will be swept
away, and she herself be looked upon as a
mere slanderer.
Condensed into a few words, all this
amounts to the simple proposition that mas
much as the charge against Lord Byron, pub
lished by Mrs. Stowe, was one of the thou
sand accusations in circulation against him
during his lifetime, and was not positively
disproved by him, though utterly discredited
by his friends, therefore it must have been
true The reader may well ask in astonish-
ment, as we did on getting to the end of the
chapter, Is this all ? Is there no direct testi-
mony from any one acquainted with the facts
no positive proofs of the alleged criminal
intimacy; no bringing home of the alleged
offspring of the incestuous intrigue to Mrs.
Leigh as its mother Absolutely none what
ever. From the beginning to the end of the
volume, there is not paragraph, not line,
not a word even, except Lady Byrons own
statement, which presents any facts not per-
fectly well known to the public long before
Mrs. Stowe meddled in the matter. The
whole book is simply mass of inferences,
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 un-
usual immortality because he failed to de-
mand judicial investigation OF the quarrel
between himself and Lady Byron. But the
same argument would prove Lady Byron
also guilty, for she too, failed to demand
similar investigation when all England was
ringing, as Mrs. Stowe shows, with accusa-
tions against her of unwifely and cruel con-
duct. 1t is said, too, that Lord Byrons bit
ter remorse and hatred of his wife prove
mis- guiltiness. Outlines of what? Surely
a hbertine, such as he is said to have been,
would not have felt any especial regret or
fear for one intrigue more or less The fact
that Mrs. Leigh was his half-sister would
not have troubled him, since it did not,
according to Mrs. Stowe, prevent him
from seducing her. AS to what Shelley
says, it proves the reverse Of guilt. He
calls the friendship openly displayed by
Lady Byron for Mrs Leigh "a decisive con-
tradiction" of the calumny. Mrs. Stoves
effort to explain away this manifestation of
friendship, like her attempt to break the force
of Lady Byrons letters, published in the
quarterly Rec561o is utterly futile. Even if
it were occasioned, as she says, solely by a
desire on Lady Byron's part to screen Mrs.
Leigh from public censure, why should she
be believed in her subsequent attempt to
undo the effect of the artifce? But the proof
that there was any artifice in this apparent
friendship depends entirely upon proving, in
the first instance, that there was something
to be concealed by it, the presumption peing
that there was nothing, 80 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 vindicated, - but it
should rather be called "a Failure to Vindi-
cate Mrs. Harriet Beecher Stowe" Without
reason or motive, she put in circulation the
nastiest piece 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 if repetition Of this fabrication
were triumphant testimony to Its intrinsic
truth. She has achieved notoriety, it is true,
but it is a notoriety of which no respectable
woman should be proud.