Remarks occasioned by Mr. Moore’s Life of Lord ByronLiterary GazetteLady Byron Markup and editing by David Hill Radcliffe Completed November 2011 LyByron.1830.Moore Center for Applied Technologies in the Humanities Virginia Tech
Published under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported
License
Lord Byron and his Times: http://lordbyron.org
Lady ByronRemarks occasioned by Mr. Moore’s Notices of Lord Byron’s
LifeLiterary GazetteLondon20 March 1830687185-86
Any dashes occurring in line breaks have been removed.
Obvious and unambiguous compositors’ errors have been silently corrected.
NINES categories for Genre and Material Form at
http://www.performantsoftware.com/nines_wiki/index.php/Submitting_RDF#.3Cnines:genre.3E on
2009-02-26BibliographyBook HistoryCollectionCriticismDramaEphemeraFictionHumorLawLettersLife WritingHistoryManuscriptNonfictionPeriodicalPoliticsReference WorksPoetryReligionReviewTranslationTravel
THE LONDON LITERARY GAZETTE;ANDJournal of Belles Lettres, Arts, Sciences &c.
This Journal is supplied Weekly, or Monthly, by the principal Booksellers and
Newsmen, throughout the Kingdom; but to those who may desire its immediate transmission, by
post, we recommend the LITERARY GAZETTE, printed on stamped paper, price One
Shilling.
No. 687. SATURDAY, MARCH 20, 1830. PRICE 8d.
REVIEW OF NEW BOOKS.LADY BYRON’S LETTER TO MR. MOORE.
Remarks occasioned byMr. Moore’sNotices of Lord Byron’s Life.
There is no portion of the life of Lord
Byron which has more excited public curiosity and discussion than the painful
event of his separation from his lady, followed as it was by the relinquishment of his native
country. Without intruding on the privacies of life, it is therefore with some degree of
satisfaction that we find ourselves in a situation to lay some explanation of this matter
before our readers, by reprinting the following letter, which Lady
Byron has addressed to Mr. Moore, as a
commentary upon certain passages in the first volume of his Memoirs, recently published. It is
a moderate but meaning document, and must give rise to much cogitation:—
“I have disregarded various publications in which facts within my own
knowledge have been grossly misrepresented; but I am called upon to notice some of the
erroneous statements proceeding from one who claims to be considered as Lord Byron’s confidential and authorised friend. Domestic details ought
not to be intruded on the public attention: if, however, they are so intruded, the persons
affected by them have a right to refute injurious charges. Mr.
Moore has promulgated his own impressions of private events in which I was most
nearly concerned, as if he possessed a competent knowledge of the subject. Having survived
Lord Byron, I feel increased reluctance to advert to any circumstances
connected with the period of my marriage; nor is it now my intention to disclose them, further
than may be indispensably requisite for the end I have in view. Self-vindication is not the
motive which actuates me to make this appeal, and the spirit of accusation is unmingled with
it; but when the conduct of my parents is brought forward in a disgraceful light, by the
passages selected from Lord Byron’s letters, and by the remarks of
his biographer, I feel bound to justify their characters from imputations which I know to be
false. The passages from Lord Byron’s letters, to which I refer, are
the aspersion on my mother’s character, p. 648, l. 4:—‘My child is very well,
and nourishing, I hear; but I must see also. I feel no disposition to resign it to the contagion of its grandmother’s society.’ The assertion of her
dishonourable conduct in employing a spy, p. 645, l. 7, &c. ‘A Mrs. C. (now a kind of housekeeper and spy of Lady N.’s), who, in her better days, was a
washerwoman, is supposed to be—by the learned —— very much the occult cause of our domestic
discrepancies.’ The seeming exculpation of myself, in the extract, p. 646, with
the words immediately following it,—‘Her nearest relatives are a ——;’ where
the blank clearly implies something too offensive for publication. These passages tend to throw
suspicion on my parents, and give reason to ascribe the separation either to their direct
agency, or to that of ‘officious spies’ employed by them.* From the
following part of the narrative, p. 642, it must also be inferred that an undue influence was
exercised by them for the accomplishment of this purpose. ‘It was in a few weeks after
the latter communication between us (Lord Byron and Mr.
Moore), that Lady Byron adopted the
determination of parting from him. She had left London at the latter end of January, on a
visit to her father’s house, in
Leicestershire, and Lord Byron was in a short time to follow her. They
had parted in the utmost kindness,—she wrote him a letter full of playfulness and
affection, on the road: and immediately on her arrival at Kirkby Mallory, her father wrote
to acquaint Lord Byron that she would return to him no
more.’ In my observations upon this statement, I shall, as far as possible, avoid
touching on any matters relating personally to Lord Byron and myself. The
facts are:—I left London for Kirkby Mallory, the residence of my father and mother, on the 15th
of January, 1816. Lord Byron had signified to me in writing (Jan. 6th) his
absolute desire that I should leave London on the earliest day that I could conveniently fix.
It was not safe for me to undertake the fatigue of a journey sooner than the 15th. Previously
to my departure, it had been strongly impressed on my mind, that Lord
Byron was under the influence of insanity. This opinion was derived in a great
measure from the communications made to me by his nearest relatives and personal attendant, who
had more opportunities than myself of observing him during the latter part of my stay in town.
It was even represented to me that he was in danger of destroying himself. With the concurrence of his family I had consulted Dr.
Baillie as a friend (Jan. 8th) respecting this supposed malady. On acquainting
him with the state of the case, and with Lord Byron’s desire that I
should leave London, Dr. Baillie thought that my absence might be
advisable as an experiment, assuming the fact of mental derangement; for Dr.
Baillie, not having had access to Lord Byron, could not
pronounce a positive opinion on that point. He enjoined that in correspondence with
Lord Byron I should avoid all but light and soothing topics. Under
these impressions, I left London, determined to follow the advice given by Dr.
Baillie. Whatever might have been the nature of Lord
Byron’s conduct towards me from the time of my marriage, yet, supposing
him to be in a state of mental alienation, it was not for me, nor for any person of common
humanity, to manifest, at that moment, a sense of injury. On the day of my departure, and again
on my arrival at Kirkby, Jan. 16th, I wrote to Lord Byron in a kind and
cheerful tone, according to those medical directions. The last letter was circulated, and
employed as a pretext for the charge of my having been subsequently influenced to
‘desert’† my husband. It has been argued, that I parted from
Lord Byron in perfect harmony; that feelings, incompatible with any
deep sense of injury had dictated the letter which I addressed to him; and that my sentiments
must have been changed by persuasion and interference, when I was under the roof of my parents.
These assertions and inferences are wholly destitute of foundation. When I arrived at Kirkby
Mallory, my parents were unacquainted with the existence of any causes likely to destroy my
prospects of happiness; and when I communicated to them the opinion which had been formed
concerning Lord Byron’s state of mind, they were most anxious to
promote his restoration by every means in their power. They assured those relations who were
with him in London, that ‘they would devote their whole care and attention to the
alleviation of his malady,’ and hoped to make the best arrangements for his
comfort, if he could be induced to visit them. With these intentions my mother wrote on the
17th to Lord Byron, inviting him to Kirkby Mallory. She had always treated
him with an affectionate consideration and indulgence, which extended to every little
peculiarity of his feelings. Never did an irritating word escape her lips in her whole
intercourse with him. The accounts given me after I left Lord Byron by the
persons in constant intercourse with him, added to those doubts which had before transiently
occurred to my mind, as to the reality of the alleged disease; and the reports of his medical
attendant were far from establishing the existence of any thing like lunacy. Under this
uncertainty, I deemed it right to communicate to my parents, that if I were to consider
Lord Byron’s past conduct as that of a person of sound mind,
nothing could induce me to return to him. It therefore appeared expedient both to them and
myself to consult the ablest advisers. For that object, and also to obtain still further
information respecting the appearances which seemed to indicate mental derangement, my mother
determined to go to London. She was empowered by me to take legal opinions on a written
statement of mine, though I had then reasons for reserving a part of the case from the
knowledge even of my father and mother. Being convinced by the result of these inquiries, and
by the tenor of Lord Byron’s proceedings, that the notion of
insanity was an illusion, I no longer hesitated to authorise such measures as were necessary,
in order to secure me from being ever again placed in his power. Conformably with this
resolution, my father wrote to him on the 2d of February, to propose an amicable separation.
Lord Byron at first rejected this proposal; but when it was distinctly
notified to him, that if he persisted in his refusal, recourse must be had to legal measures,
he agreed to sign a deed of separation. Upon applying to Dr.
Lushington, who was intimately acquainted with all the circumstances, to state
in writing what he recollected upon this subject, I received from him the following letter, by
which it will be manifest that my mother cannot have been
* “The officious spies of his privacy,” p. 650.
† “The deserted husband,” p. 601.
actuated by any hostile or ungenerous motives towards Lord
Byron.
“‘My dear Lady
Byron,—I can rely upon the accuracy of my memory for the following
statement. I was originally consulted by Lady
Noel on your behalf, whilst you were in the country; the
circumstances detailed by her were such as justified a separation, but they were
not of that aggravated description as to render such a measure indispensable. On
Lady Noel’s representation, I deemed a
reconciliation with Lord Byron practicable, and
felt most sincerely a wish to aid in effecting it. There was not on Lady
Noel’s part any exaggeration of the facts; nor, so far as I
could perceive, any determination to prevent a return to Lord
Byron: certainly none was expressed when I spoke of a
reconciliation. When you came to town in about a fortnight, or perhaps more, after
my first interview with Lady Noel, I was for the first time
informed by you of facts utterly unknown, as I have no doubt, to Sir Ralph and Lady Noel. On
receiving this additional information, my opinion was entirely changed: I
considered a reconciliation impossible. I declared my opinion, and added, that if
such an idea should be entertained, I could not, either professionally or
otherwise, take any part towards effecting it. Believe me, very faithfully yours,
‘Steph. Lushington. ‘Great George Street, Jan. 31, 1830.’
“I have only to observe, that if the statements on which my legal advisers
(the late Sir Samuel Romilly and Dr. Lushington) formed their opinions, were false, the
responsibility and the odium should rest with me only. I trust that the facts which I have here
briefly recapitulated will absolve my father and mother from all accusations with regard to the
part they took in the separation between Lord Byron and myself. They
neither originated, instigated, nor advised, that separation; and they cannot be condemned for
having afforded to their daughter the assistance and protection which she claimed. There is no
other near relative to vindicate their memory from insult. I am therefore compelled to break
the silence which I had hoped always to observe, and to solicit from the readers of
Lord Byron’s life an impartial consideration of the testimony
extorted from me.
“A. I. Noel Byron. “Hanger Hill, Feb. 19, 1830.”
We understand that Mr. Moore has signified
his intention of subjoining these Remarks of Lady Byron to the new edition of his work.