We Americans have been made accessories, after the fact, to every insult and injury that Lord Byron and the literary men of his day have heaped upon Lady Byron. We have been betrayed into injustice and a complicity with villainy. After Lady Byron had n.o.bly lived down slanders in England, and died full of years and honours, the "Blackwood" takes occasion to re-open the controversy by recommending a book full of slanders to a rising generation who knew nothing of the past. What was the consequence in America? My attention was first called to the result, not by reading the "Blackwood" article, but by finding in a popular monthly magazine two long articles,--the one an enthusiastic recommendation of the Guiccioli book, and the other a lamentation over the burning of the Autobiography as a lost chapter in history.
Both articles represented Lady Byron as a cold, malignant, mean, persecuting woman, who had been her husband"s ruin. They were so full of falsehoods and misstatements as to astonish me. Not long after, a literary friend wrote to me, "Will you, can you, reconcile it to your conscience to sit still and allow that mistress so to slander that wife,--you, perhaps, the only one knowing the real facts, and able to set them forth?"
Upon this, I immediately began collecting and reading the various articles and the book, and perceived that the public of this generation were in a way of having false history created, uncontradicted, under their own eyes.
I claim for my countrymen and women, our right to true history. For years, the popular literature has held up publicly before our eyes the facts as to this man and this woman, and called on us to praise or condemn. Let us have truth when we are called on to judge. It is our right.
There is no conceivable obligation on a human being greater than that of absolute justice. It is the deepest personal injury to an honourable mind to be made, through misrepresentation, an accomplice in injustice.
When a n.o.ble name is accused, any person who possesses truth which might clear it, and withholds that truth, is guilty of a sin against human nature and the inalienable rights of justice. I claim that I have not only a right, but an obligation, to bring in my solemn testimony upon this subject.
For years and years, the silence-policy has been tried; and what has it brought forth? As neither word nor deed could be proved against Lady Byron, her silence has been spoken of as a monstrous, unnatural crime, "a poisonous miasma," in which she enveloped the name of her husband.
Very well; since silence is the crime, I thought I would tell the world that Lady Byron had spoken.
Christopher North, years ago, when he condemned her for speaking, said that she should speak further,--
"She should speak, or some one for her. One word would suffice."
That one word has been spoken.
PART II.
CHAPTER I. LADY BYRON AS I KNEW HER.
An editorial in The London Times" of Sept. 18 says:--
"The perplexing feature in this "True Story" is, that it is impossible to distinguish what part in it is the editress"s, and what Lady Byron"s own. We are given the impression made on Mrs. Stowe"s mind by Lady Byron"s statements; but it would have been more satisfactory if the statement itself had been reproduced as bare as possible, and been left to make its own impression on the public."
In reply to this, I will say, that in my article I gave a brief synopsis of the subject-matter of Lady Byron"s communications; and I think it must be quite evident to the world that the main fact on which the story turns was one which could not possibly be misunderstood, and the remembrance of which no lapse of time could ever weaken.
Lady Byron"s communications were made to me in language clear, precise, terrible; and many of her phrases and sentences I could repeat at this day, word for word. But if I had reproduced them at first, as "The Times" suggests, word for word, the public horror and incredulity would have been doubled. It was necessary that the brutality of the story should, in some degree, be veiled and softened.
The publication, by Lord Lindsay, of Lady Anne Barnard"s communication, makes it now possible to tell fully, and in Lady Byron"s own words, certain incidents that yet remain untold. To me, who know the whole history, the revelations in Lady Anne"s account, and the story related by Lady Byron, are like fragments of a dissected map: they fit together, piece by piece, and form one connected whole.
In confirmation of the general facts of this interview, I have the testimony of a sister who accompanied me on this visit, and to whom, immediately after it, I recounted the story.
Her testimony on the subject is as follows:--
"MY DEAR SISTER,--I have a perfect recollection of going with you to visit Lady Byron at the time spoken of in your published article. We arrived at her house in the morning; and, after lunch, Lady Byron and yourself spent the whole time till evening alone together.
"After we retired to our apartment that night, you related to me the story given in your published account, though with many more particulars than you have yet thought fit to give to the public.
"You stated to me that Lady Byron was strongly impressed with the idea that it might be her duty to publish a statement during her lifetime, and also the reasons which induced her to think so. You appeared at that time quite disposed to think that justice required this step, and asked my opinion. We pa.s.sed most of the night in conversation on the subject,--a conversation often resumed, from time to time, during several weeks in which you were considering what opinion to give.
"I was strongly of opinion that justice required the publication of the truth, but felt exceedingly averse to its being done by Lady Byron herself during her own lifetime, when she personally would be subject to the comments and misconceptions of motives which would certainly follow such a communication.
"Your sister,
"M. F. PERKINS."
I am now about to complete the account of my conversation with Lady Byron; but as the credibility of a history depends greatly on the character of its narrator, and as especial pains have been taken to destroy the belief in this story by representing it to be the wanderings of a broken-down mind in a state of dotage and mental hallucination, I shall preface the narrative with some account of Lady Byron as she was during the time of our mutual acquaintance and friendship.
This account may, perhaps, be deemed superfluous in England, where so many knew her; but in America, where, from Maine to California, her character has been discussed and traduced, it is of importance to give interested thousands an opportunity of learning what kind of a woman Lady Byron was.
Her character as given by Lord Byron in his Journal, after her first refusal of him, is this:--
"She is a very superior woman, and very little spoiled; which is strange in an heiress, a girl of twenty, a peeress that is to be in her own right, an only child, and a savante, who has always had her own way. She is a poetess, a mathematician, a metaphysician; yet, withal, very kind, generous, and gentle, with very little pretension.
Any other head would be turned with half her acquisitions and a tenth of her advantages."
Such was Lady Byron at twenty. I formed her acquaintance in the year 1853, during my first visit in England. I met her at a lunch-party in the house of one of her friends.
The party had many notables; but, among them all, my attention was fixed princ.i.p.ally on Lady Byron. She was at this time sixty-one years of age, but still had, to a remarkable degree, that personal attraction which is commonly considered to belong only to youth and beauty.
Her form was slight, giving an impression of fragility; her motions were both graceful and decided; her eyes bright, and full of interest and quick observation. Her silvery-white hair seemed to lend a grace to the transparent purity of her complexion, and her small hands had a pearly whiteness. I recollect she wore a plain widow"s cap of a transparent material; and was dressed in some delicate shade of lavender, which harmonised well with her complexion.
When I was introduced to her, I felt in a moment the words of her husband:--
"There was awe in the homage that she drew; Her spirit seemed as seated on a throne."
Calm, self-poised, and thoughtful, she seemed to me rather to resemble an interested spectator of the world"s affairs, than an actor involved in its trials; yet the sweetness of her smile, and a certain very delicate sense of humour in her remarks, made the way of acquaintance easy.
Her first remarks were a little playful; but in a few moments we were speaking on what every one in those days was talking to me about,--the slavery question in America.
It need not be remarked, that, when any one subject especially occupies the public mind, those known to be interested in it are compelled to listen to many weary plat.i.tudes. Lady Byron"s remarks, however, caught my ear and arrested my attention by their peculiar incisive quality, their originality, and the evidence they gave that she was as well informed on all our matters as the best American statesman could be. I had no wearisome course to go over with her as to the difference between the General Government and State Governments, nor explanations of the United States Const.i.tution; for she had the whole before her mind with a perfect clearness. Her morality upon the slavery question, too, impressed me as something far higher and deeper than the common sentimentalism of the day. Many of her words surprised me greatly, and gave me new material for thought.
I found I was in company with a commanding mind, and hastened to gain instruction from her on another point where my interest had been aroused.
I had recently been much excited by Kingsley"s novels, "Alton Locke" and "Yeast," on the position of religious thought in England. From these works I had gathered, that under the apparent placid uniformity of the Established Church of England, and of "good society" as founded on it, there was moving a secret current of speculative enquiry, doubt, and dissent; but I had met, as yet, with no person among my various acquaintances in England who seemed either aware of this fact, or able to guide my mind respecting it. The moment I mentioned the subject to Lady Byron, I received an answer which showed me that the whole ground was familiar to her, and that she was capable of giving me full information.
She had studied with careful thoughtfulness all the social and religious tendencies of England during her generation. One of her remarks has often since occurred to me. Speaking of the Oxford movement, she said the time had come when the English Church could no longer remain as it was. It must either restore the past, or create a future. The Oxford movement attempted the former; and of the future she was beginning to speak, when our conversation was interrupted by the presentation of other parties.
Subsequently, in reply to a note from her on some benevolent business, I alluded to that conversation, and expressed a wish that she would finish giving me her views of the religious state of England. A portion of the letter that she wrote me in reply I insert, as being very characteristic in many respects:--
"Various causes have been a.s.signed for the decaying state of the English Church; which seems the more strange, because the clergy have improved, morally and intellectually, in the last twenty years. Then why should their influence be diminished? I think it is owing to the diffusion of a spirit of free enquiry.
"Doubts have arisen in the minds of many who are unhappily bound by subscription not to doubt; and, in consequence, they are habitually pretending either to believe or to disbelieve. The state of Denmark cannot but be rotten, when to seem is the first object of the witnesses of truth.
"They may lead better lives, and bring forward abler arguments; but their efforts are paralysed by that unsoundness. I see the High Churchman professing to believe in the existence of a church, when the most palpable facts must show him that no such church exists; the "Low" Churchman professing to believe in exceptional interpositions which his philosophy secretly questions; the "Broad" Churchman professing as absolute an attachment to the Established Church as the narrowest could feel, while he is preaching such principles as will at last pull it down.
"I ask you, my friend, whether there would not be more faith, as well as earnestness, if all would speak out. There would be more unanimity too, because they would all agree in a certain basis. Would not a wider love supersede the creed-bound charity of sects?
"I am aware that I have touched on a point of difference between us, and I will not regret it; for I think the differences of mind are a.n.a.logous to those differences of nature, which, in the most comprehensive survey, are the very elements of harmony.
"I am not at all p.r.o.ne to put forth my own opinions; but the tone in which you have written to me claims an unusual degree of openness on my part. I look upon creeds of all kinds as chains,--far worse chains than those you would break,--as the causes of much hypocrisy and infidelity. I hold it to be a sin to make a child say, "I believe."
Lead it to utter that belief spontaneously. I also consider the inst.i.tution of an exclusive priesthood, though having been of service in some respects, as r.e.t.a.r.ding the progress of Christianity at present. I desire to see a lay ministry.