Lady Byron Vindicated

Thus we see that Lord Byron’s statements are directly opposed to those of his family in relation to his father; directly against Murray’s accounts, and his own admission to Murray; directly against the statement of the lady’s maid as to her position in the journey; directly against Mrs. Leigh’s as to Mrs. Clermont, and against Lady Byron as to her mother.

We can see, also, that these misstatements were so fully perceived by the men of his times, that Medwin’s ‘Conversations’ were simply laughed at as an amusing instance of how far a man might be made the victim of a mystification.  Christopher North thus sentences the book:—

‘I don’t mean to call Medwin a liar . . .  The captain lies, sir, but it is under a thousand mistakes.  Whether Byron bammed him, or he, by virtue of his own egregious stupidity, was the sole and sufficient bammifier of himself, I know not; neither greatly do I care.  This much is certain, . . . that the book throughout is full of things that were not, and most resplendently deficient quoad the things that were.’

Yet it is on Medwin’s ‘Conversations’ alone that many of the magazine assertions in regard to Lady Byron are founded.

It is on that authority that Lady Byron is accused of breaking open her husband’s writing-desk in his absence, and sending the letters she found there to the husband of a lady compromised by them; and likewise 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 are unmistakable evidence to the contrary.  Moore, although Byron’s ardent partisan, was too well informed to make assertions with regard to him, which, at that time, it would have been perfectly easy to refute.

All these facts go to show that Lord Byron’s character for accuracy or veracity was not such as to entitle him to ordinary confidence as a witness, especially in a case where he had the strongest motives for misstatement.

And if we consider that the celebrated Autobiography was the finished, careful work of such a practised ‘mystifier,’ who can wonder that it presented a web of such intermingled truth and lies that there was no such thing as disentangling it, and pointing out where falsehood ended and truth began?

But in regard to Lady Byron, what has been the universal impression of the world?  It has been alleged against her that she was a precise, straightforward woman, so accustomed to plain, literal dealings, that she could not understand the various mystifications of her husband; and from that cause arose her unhappiness.  Byron speaks, in ‘The Sketch,’ of her peculiar truthfulness; and even in the ‘Clytemnestra’ poem, when accusing her of lying, he speaks of her as departing from

‘The early truth that was her proper praise.’

Lady Byron’s careful accuracy as to dates, to time, place, and circumstances, will probably be vouched for by all the very large number of persons whom the management of her extended property 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 of 1830 is clear, exact, accurate, and perfectly intelligible.  The dates are carefully ascertained and stated, the expressions are moderate, and all the assertions firm and perfectly definite.

It therefore seems remarkable that the whole reasoning on this Byron matter has generally been conducted by assuming all Lord Byron’s statements to be true, and requiring all Lady Byron’s statements to be sustained by other evidence.

If Lord Byron asserts that his wife deserted him, the assertion is accepted without proof; but, if Lady Byron asserts that he ordered her to leave, that requires proof.  Lady Byron asserts that she took counsel, on this order of Lord Byron, with his family friends and physician, under the idea that it originated in insanity.  The ‘Blackwood’ asks, “What family friends?’ says it doesn’t know of any; and asks proof.

If Lord Byron asserts that he always longed for a public investigation of the charges against him, the ‘Quarterly’ and ‘Blackwood’ quote the saying with ingenuous confidence.  They are obliged to admit that he refused to stand that public test; that he signed the deed of separation rather than 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 delicacy?  The man that wrote ‘Don Juan,’ and furnished the details of his wedding-night, held back from clearing his name by delicacy!  It is astonishing to what extent this controversy has consisted in simply repeating Lord Byron’s assertions over and over again, and calling the result proof.

Now, we propose a different course.  As Lady Byron is not stated by her warm admirers to have had any monomania for speaking untruths on any subject, we rank her value as a witness at a higher rate than Lord Byron’s.  She never accused her parents of madness 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 herself; and never, in any other ingenious way, tampered with truth.  We therefore hold it to be a mere dictate of reason and common sense, that, in all cases where her statements conflict with her husband’s, hers are to be taken as the more trustworthy.

The ‘London Quarterly,’ in a late article, distinctly repudiates Lady Byron’s statements as sources of evidence, and throughout quotes statements of Lord Byron as if they had the force of self-evident propositions.  We consider such a course contrary to common sense as well as common good manners.

The state of the case is just this: If Lord Byron did not make false statements on this subject it was certainly an exception to his usual course.  He certainly did make such on a great variety of other subjects.  By his own showing, he had a peculiar pleasure in falsifying language, and in misleading and betraying even his friends.

But, if Lady Byron gave false witness upon this subject, it was an exception to the whole course of her life.

The habits of her mind, the government of her conduct, her life-long reputation, all were those of a literal, exact truthfulness.

The accusation of her being untruthful was first brought forward by her husband in the ‘Clytemnestra’ poem, in the autumn of 1816; but it never was publicly circulated till after his death, and it was first formally made 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, careful, prudent woman, who made no assertions, and had no confidants.  When she spoke in 1830, it is perfectly evident that Christopher North and his circle believed what she said, though reproving her for saying it at all.

The ‘Quarterly’ goes on to heap up a number of vague assertions,—that Lady Byron, about the time of her separation, made a confidant of a young officer; that she told the clergyman of Ham of some trials with Lord Ockham; and that she told stories of different things at different times.

All this is not proof: it is mere assertion, and assertion made to produce prejudice.  It is like raising a whirlwind of sand to blind the eyes that are looking for landmarks.  It is quite probable Lady Byron told different stories about Lord Byron at various times.  No woman could have a greater variety of stories to tell; and no woman ever was so persecuted 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 contradictory stories, that must be relied on to disprove the credibility of a witness.  The ‘Quarterly’ has certainly told a great number of different stories,—stories which may prove as irreconcilable with each other as any attributed to Lady Byron; but its denial of all weight to her testimony is simply begging the whole question under consideration.

A man gives testimony about the causes of a railroad accident, being the only eye-witness.

The opposing counsel begs, whatever else you do, you will not admit that man’s testimony.  You ask, ‘Why?  Has he ever been accused of want of veracity on other subjects?’—‘No: he has stood high as a man of probity and honour for years.’—‘Why, then, throw out his testimony?’

‘Because he lies in this instance,’ says the adversary: ‘his testimony does not agree with this and that.’—‘Pardon me, that is the very point in question,’ say you: ‘we expect to prove that it does agree with this and that.’

Because certain letters of Lady Byron’s do not agree with the ‘Quarterly’s’ theory of the facts of the separation, it at once assumes that she is an untruthful witness, and proposes to throw out her evidence altogether.

We propose, on the contrary, to regard Lady Byron’s evidence with all the attention due to the statement of a high-minded conscientious person, never in any other case accused of violation of truth; we 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 mystification and delighting in it, and who, on many other subjects, not only deceived, but gloried in deception; and then we propose to show that it contradicts well-established facts and received documents.

One thing more we have to say concerning the laws of evidence in regard to documents presented in this investigation.

This is not a London West-End affair, but a grave historical inquiry, in which the whole English-speaking world are interested to know the truth.

As it is now too late to have the securities of a legal trial, certainly the rules of historical evidence should be strictly observed.  All important documents should be presented in an entire state, with a plain and open account of their history,—who had them, where they were found, and how preserved.

There have been most excellent, credible, and authentic documents produced in this case; and, as a specimen of them, we shall mention Lord Lindsay’s letter, and the journal and letter it authenticates.  Lord Lindsay at once comes forward, gives his name boldly, gives the history of the papers he produces, shows how they came to be in his hands, why never produced before, and why now.  We feel confidence at once.

But in regard to the important series of letters presented as Lady Byron’s, this obviously proper course has not been pursued.  Though assumed to be of the most critical importance, no such distinct 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 been a sufficient guarantee; and still deals in vague statements that the letters have been freely circulated, and that two noblemen of the highest character would vouch for them if necessary.

In our view, it is necessary.  These noblemen should imitate Lord Lindsay’s example,—give a fair account of these letters, under their own names; and then, we would add, it is needful for complete satisfaction to have the letters entire, and not in fragments.

The ‘Quarterly’ gave these letters with the evident implication that they are entirely destructive to Lady Byron’s character as a witness.  Now, has that magazine much reason to be hurt at even an 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, always in her generation held to be eminent for virtue, certainly should not murmur at being called upon to substantiate these documents in the manner usually expected in historical investigations.

We have shown that these letters do not contradict, but that they perfectly confirm the facts, and agree with the dates in Lady Byron’s published statements of 1830; and this is our reason for deeming them authentic.

These considerations with regard to the manner of conducting the inquiry seem so obviously proper, that we cannot but believe that they will command a serious attention.

CHAPTER V.  THE DIRECT ARGUMENT TO PROVE THE CRIME

We shall now proceed to state the argument against Lord Byron.

1st, There is direct evidence that Lord Byron was guilty of some unusual immorality.

The evidence is not, as the ‘Blackwood’ says, that Lushington yielded assent to the ex parte statement of a client; nor, as the ‘Quarterly’ intimates, that he was affected by the charms of an attractive young woman.

The first evidence of it is the fact that Lushington and Romilly offered to take the case into court, and make there a public exhibition of the proofs on which their convictions were founded.

2nd, It is very strong evidence of this fact, that Lord Byron, while loudly declaring that he wished to know with what he was charged, declined this open investigation, and, rather than meet it, signed a paper which he had before refused to sign.

3rd, It is also strong evidence of this fact, that although secretly declaring to all his intimate friends that he still wished open investigation in a court of justice, and affirming his belief that his character was being ruined for want of it, he never afterwards took the means to get it.  Instead of writing a private handbill, he might have come to England and entered a suit; and he did not do it.

That Lord Byron was conscious of a great crime is further made probable by the peculiar malice he seemed to bear to his wife’s legal counsel.

If there had been nothing to fear in that legal investigation wherewith they threatened him, why did he not only flee from it, but regard with a peculiar bitterness those who advised and proposed it?  To an innocent man falsely accused, the certainties of law are a blessing and a refuge.  Female charms cannot mislead in a court of justice; and the atrocities of rumour are there sifted, and deprived of power.  A trial is not a threat to an innocent man: it is an invitation, an opportunity.  Why, then, did he hate Sir Samuel Romilly, so that he exulted like a fiend over his tragical death?  The letter in which he pours forth this malignity was so brutal, that Moore was obliged, by the general outcry of society, to suppress it.  Is this the language of an innocent man who has been offered a fair trial under his country’s laws? or of a guilty man, to whom the very idea of public trial means public exposure?

4th, It is probable that the crime was the one now alleged, because that was the most important crime charged against him by rumour at the period.  This appears by the following extract of a letter from Shelley, furnished by the ‘Quarterly,’ dated Bath, Sept. 29, 1816:—

‘I saw Kinnaird, and had a long talk with him.  He informed me that Lady Byron was now in perfect health; that she was living with your sister.  I felt much pleasure from this intelligence.  I consider the latter part of it as affording a decisive contradiction to the only important calumny that ever was advanced against you.  On this ground, at least, it will become the world hereafter to be silent.’

It appears evident here that the charge of improper intimacy with his sister was, in the mind of Shelley, the only important one that had yet been made against Lord Byron.

It is fairly inferable, from Lord Byron’s own statements, that his family friends believed this charge.  Lady Byron speaks, in her statement, of ‘nearest relatives’ and family friends who were cognizant of Lord Byron’s strange conduct at the time of the separation; and Lord Byron, in the letter to Bowles, before quoted, says that every one of his relations, except his sister, fell from him in this crisis like leaves from a tree in autumn.  There was, therefore, not only this report, but such appearances in support of it as convinced those nearest to the scene, and best apprised of the facts; so that they fell from him entirely, notwithstanding the strong influence of family feeling.  The Guiccioli book also mentions this same allegation as having arisen from peculiarities in Lord Byron’s manner of treating his sister:—

‘This deep, fraternal affection assumed at times, under the influence of his powerful genius, and under exceptional circumstances, an almost too passionate expression, which opened a fresh field to his enemies.’45

It appears, then, that there was nothing in the character of Lord Byron and of his sister, as they appeared before their generation, that prevented such a report from arising: on the contrary, there was something in their relations that made it seem probable.  And it appears that his own family friends were so affected by it, that they, with one accord, deserted him.  The ‘Quarterly’ presents the fact that Lady Byron went to visit Mrs. Leigh at this time, as triumphant proof that she did not then believe it.  Can the ‘Quarterly’ show just what Lady Byron’s state of mind was, or what her motives were, in making that visit?

The ‘Quarterly’ seems to assume, that no woman, without gross hypocrisy, can stand by a sister proven to have been guilty.  We can appeal on this subject to all women.  We fearlessly ask any wife, ‘Supposing your husband and sister were involved together in an infamous crime, and that you were the mother of a young daughter whose life would be tainted by a knowledge of that crime, what would be your wish?  Would you wish to proclaim it forthwith? or would you wish quietly to separate from your husband, and to cover the crime from the eye of man?’

It has been proved that Lady Byron did not reveal this even to her nearest relatives.  It is proved that she sealed the mouths of her counsel, and even of servants, so effectually, that they remain sealed even to this day.  This is evidence that she did not wish the thing known.  It is proved also, that, in spite of her secrecy with her parents and friends, the rumour got out, and was spoken of by Shelley as the only important one.

Now, let us see how this note, cited by the ‘Quarterly,’ confirms one of Lady Byron’s own statements.  She says to Lady Anne Barnard,—

‘I trust you understand my wishes, which never were to injure Lord Byron in any way; for, though he would not suffer me to remain his wife, he cannot prevent me from continuing his friend; and it was from considering myself as such that I silenced the accusations by which my own conduct might have been more fully justified.’

How did Lady Byron silence accusations?  First, by keeping silence to her nearest relatives; second, by shutting the mouths of servants; third, by imposing silence on her friends,—as Lady Anne Barnard; fourth, by silencing her legal counsel; fifth, and most entirely, by treating Mrs. Leigh, before the world, with unaltered kindness.  In the midst of the rumours, Lady Byron went to visit her; and Shelley says that the movement was effectual.  Can the ‘Quarterly’ prove that, at this time, Mrs. Leigh had not confessed all, and thrown herself on Lady Byron’s mercy?

It is not necessary to suppose great horror and indignation on the part of Lady Byron.  She may have regarded her sister as the victim of a most singularly powerful tempter.  Lord Byron, as she knew, had tried to corrupt her own morals and faith.  He had obtained a power over some women, even in the highest circles in England, which had led them to forego the usual decorums of their sex, and had given rise to great scandals.  He was a being of wonderful personal attractions.  He had not only strong poetical, but also strong logical power.  He was daring in speculation, and vigorous in sophistical argument; beautiful, dazzling, and possessed of magnetic power of fascination.  His sister had been kind and considerate to Lady Byron when Lord Byron was brutal and cruel.  She had been overcome by him, as a weaker nature sometimes sinks under the force of a stronger one; and Lady Byron may really have considered her to be more sinned against than sinning.

Lord Byron, if we look at it rightly, did not corrupt Mrs. Leigh any more than he did the whole British public.  They rebelled at the immorality of his conduct and the obscenity of his writings; and he resolved that they should accept both.  And he made them do it.  At first, they execrated ‘Don Juan.’  Murray was afraid to publish it.  Women were determined not to read it.  In 1819, Dr. William Maginn of the Noctes wrote a song against it in the following virtuous strain:—

‘Be “Juan,” then, unseen, unknown;   It must, or we shall rue it.We may have virtue of our own:   Ah! why should we undo it?The treasured faith of days long past   We still would prize o’er any,And grieve to hear the ribald jeer   Of scamps like Don Giovanni.’

Lord Byron determined to conquer the virtuous scruples of the Noctes Club; and so we find this same Dr. William Maginn, who in 1819 wrote so valiantly, in 1822 declaring that he would rather have written a page of ‘Don Juan’ than a ton of ‘Childe Harold.’  All English morals were, in like manner, formally surrendered to Lord Byron.  Moore details his adulteries in Venice with unabashed particularity: artists send for pictures of his principal mistresses; the literary world call for biographical sketches of their points; Moore compares his wife and his last mistress in a neatly-turned sentence; and yet the professor of morals in Edinburgh University recommends the biography as pure, and having no mud in it.  The mistress is lionized in London; and in 1869 is introduced to the world of letters by ‘Blackwood,’ and bid, ‘without a blush, to say she loved’—

This much being done to all England, it is quite possible that a woman like Lady Byron, standing silently aside and surveying the course of things, may have thought that Mrs. Leigh was no more seduced than all the rest of the world, and have said as we feel disposed to say of that generation, and of a good many in this, ‘Let him that is without sin among you cast the first stone.’

The peculiar bitterness of remorse expressed in his works by Lord Byron is a further evidence that he had committed an unusual crime.  We are aware that evidence cannot be drawn in this manner from an author’s works merely, if unsupported by any external probability.  For example, the subject most frequently and powerfully treated by Hawthorne is the influence of a secret, unconfessed crime on the soul: nevertheless, as Hawthorne is well known to have always lived a pure and regular life, nobody has ever suspected him of any greater sin than a vigorous imagination.  But here is a man believed guilty of an uncommon immorality by the two best lawyers in England, and threatened with an open exposure, which he does not dare to meet.  The crime is named in society; his own relations fall away from him on account of it; it is only set at rest by the heroic conduct of his wife.  Now, this man is stated by many of his friends to have had all the appearance of a man secretly labouring under the consciousness of crime.  Moore speaks of this propensity in the following language:—

‘I have known him more than once, as we sat together after dinner, and he was a little under the influence of wine, to fall seriously into this dark, self-accusing mood, and throw out hints of his past life with an air of gloom and mystery designed evidently to awaken curiosity and interest.’

Moore says that it was his own custom to dispel these appearances by ridicule, to which his friend was keenly alive.  And he goes on to say,—

‘It has sometimes occurred to me, that the occult causes of his lady’s separation from him, round which herself and her legal advisers have thrown such formidable mystery, may have been nothing more than some imposture of this kind, some dimly-hinted confession of undefined horror, which, though intended by the relater to mystify and surprise, the hearer so little understood as to take in sober seriousness.’46