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.
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.
