Lady Byron Vindicated

ng two opposing stories,-one of Lord and the other of Lady Byron

her, and reminds him, in her letter to Augusta Leigh, that the expulsion was a

turn. Lady Byron states that he told her that he would force her to leave him, and to leave him

ations on either side, here, in the very out

always, as a matter of fact, take into

proved to have singular and exceptional principles with regard to truth; if he be universally held by society to be so in the habit of mystification, that large allowances must be made for his statements; if his assertions at one time contradict those made at another

emarkable degree to Lord Byron, on the of

an article from 'Under the Crown,' which is written

ng to repeat, the various misdoings which I have from time to time heard him attribute to himself, I could fill a volume. But I never believed them. I very soon became aware of this strange idiosyncrasy: it puzzled me to account for it; but there it was, a sort of diseased and distorted vanity. The same eccentric spirit would induce him to report things which were false with regard to his family, which anybody else would have concealed, though true. He told me more than once that his father was insane, and killed himself. I shall never forget the manner in which he first told me this. While washing his hands, and singing a gay Neapolitan air, he stopped, looked round at me, and said, "There always was madness in the family." Then, after continuing his washing and his song, he added, as if speaking of a matter of the sl

, or else the wary artifices of a man who, having a deadly secret to conceal, employs many turnings and windings to throw the world off the scent. What intriguer, having a crime to cover, could devise a more artful co

ard to his father would lead naturally to the inquiry, on what other subjects, equally im

harges, that Mr. Murray's friends felt that he ought, in justice to himself, to come forward and confront them with the facts as stated in Byron's letters to himself; and in vol. x., p.143, of Murray's standard edition, accordingly these false statements are confronted with the letters of Lord Byron. The statements, a

appears to be entertained that Byron made the statements to Medwin; an

re real packages, and how many were mystifications? We find, in two places at least in his Memoir, letters to Lady Byron, written and shown to others, which, he says, were never sent by him. He told Lady Blessington that he was

many of his friends were treated with severity. She inquired of him, in case he should die, and such proofs of his friendship come bef

e in such daily habits of commenting on the defects of friends, that they are unconscious of the unkindness of it. . . Now, I write down as well as speak my sentiments of those who think they have gulled me; and I only wish, in case I die before them, that I might return to witness the effects my posthumous opinions of them are likely to produce in their minds. What good fun this would be! . . . You don't seem to value this as you ought," said Byron with one of his sardonic smi

l his friends and acquaintances, in which brief notes of their persons and character were given, with his opinion of the

king of Byron's carelessness in exposing his friends' sec

f such extravagances for the sake of making an impression might be guilty of exaggeration, or inventing what astonished you; and indeed, though he was a speaker of the truth on ordinary occasions,-that is to say, he did not tell you he had seen a dozen horses when he had seen only two,-yet, a

s as to truth, the inquiry always must be, W

double-dealing, shuffling, and dishonesty; if he tells stories about Mrs. Clermont, {205b} to which his sister offers a public refutation,-is it to b

at they might reappear in London papers,-to what other accounts might it not be turne

'for circulation among friends in England' was a s

this document, why did he not go to London, and enter a suit for the restitution of conjugal rights, or a suit in chancery to get possession of his daughter

estigation he so longed for. Can it be possible that all the friends who passed this

tion, yet all his statements in regard to this story are to be accepted, simply because he mak

his marriage, he tells Medwin that Lady Byron's maid was put between his bride and himself, on the same seat, in the wedding journ

al it in her own house. Dining with her one day, I broke a tooth, and was in great pain;

affectionate consideration and indulgence, which extended to every litt

n, after his refusal, was first opened by her. Lady Byron's friends

y against Murray's accounts, and his own admission to Murray; directly against the statement of the lady's maid as to h

that Medwin's 'Conversations' were simply laughed at as an amusing instance of how far a m

virtue of his own egregious stupidity, was the sole and sufficient bammifier of himself, I know not; neither greatly do I care. This muc

lone that many of the magazine assertio

ise that Lord Byron is declared to have paid back his wife's ten-thousand-pound wedding portion, and doubled it. Moore makes no such statements; and his remarks about Lord Byron's use of his wife's money ar

racity was not such as to entitle him to ordinary confidence as a witness

ised 'mystifier,' who can wonder that it presented a web of such intermingled truth and lies that t

, so accustomed to plain, literal dealings, that she could not understand the various mystifications of her husband; and from that cause arose her unhappiness.

h that was her

and her works of benevolence brought to act as co-operators or agents with her. She was not a person in the habit of making exaggerated or ill-considered statements. Her published statement

as generally been conducted by assuming all Lord Byron's statements to be tru

to leave, that requires proof. Lady Byron asserts that she took counsel, on this order of Lord Byron, with his family friends and physicia

an meet it. They know, also, that he could have at any time instituted suits against Lady Byron that would have brought the whole matter into court, and that he did not. Why did he not? The 'Quarterly' simply intimates that such suits would have been unpleasant. Why? On account of personal

ess or suicide, merely to make a sensation; never 'bammed' an acquaintance by false statements concerning the commercial honour of anyone with whom she was in business relations; never wrote and sent to the press as a clever jest false statements about

of evidence, and throughout quotes statements of Lord Byron as if they had the force of self-evide

ly an exception to his usual course. He certainly did make such on a great variety of other subjects. By his o

s upon this subject, it was an excep

er conduct, her life-long reputation, all w

the basis of a published attack on Lady Byron in the July 'Blackwood' of 1869. Up to that time, we look in vain through current literature for any indications that the world regarded Lady Byron otherwise than as a cold, c

e of her separation, made a confidant of a young officer; that she told the clergyman of Ham of

ecuted and pursued and harassed, both by public literature and private friendship, to say something. She had plenty of causes for a separation, without the fatal and final one. In her conversations with Lady Anne Barnard, for example, she gives reasons enough for a separation, though none of them are the chief one. It is not different stories, but co

e causes of a railroad acciden

ou ask, 'Why? Has he ever been accused of want of veracity on other subjects?'-'No: he has

s not agree with this and that.'-'Pardon me, that is the very point in que

s' theory of the facts of the separation, it at once assumes that she is

e also propose to show it to be in strict agreement with all well-authenticated facts and documents; and we propose to treat Lord Byron's evidence as that of a man of great subtlety, versed in mystifi

g the laws of evidence in regard to doc

e historical inquiry, in which the whole English

dence should be strictly observed. All important documents should be presented in an entire state, w

d Lindsay's letter, and the journal and letter it authenticates. Lord Lindsay at once comes forward, gives his name boldly, gives the his

stinct history of them was given in the first instance. The want of such evidence being noticed by other papers, the 'Quarterly' appears hurt that the high character of the magazine has not b

ve a fair account of these letters, under their own names; and then, we would add, it

insinuation on its own character when making such deadly assaults on that of another? The individuals who bring forth documents that they suppose to be deadly to the character of a noble person, a

tly confirm the facts, and agree with the dates in Lady Byron's publishe

ting the inquiry seem so obviously proper, that we canno