Recollections of the Life of Lord Byron
Lord Byron’s Speech in the House of Lords
RECOLLECTIONS
OF THE
LIFE OF LORD BYRON,
FROM THE YEAR
1808 TO THE END OF 1814;
EXHIBITING
HIS EARLY CHARACTER AND OPINIONS, DETAILING THE PROGRESS OF HIS
LITERARY CAREER, AND INCLUDING VARIOUS UNPUBLISHED
PASSAGES OF HIS WORKS.
TAKEN FROM AUTHENTIC DOCUMENTS.
IN THE POSSESSION OF THE AUTHOR.
BY THE LATE
R. C. DALLAS, Esq.
TO WHICH IS PREFIXED
AN ACCOUNT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING TO THE SUPPRESSION
OF LORD
BYRON’S CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE AUTHOR,
AND HIS LETTERS TO HIS MOTHER,
LATELY
ANNOUNCED FOR PUBLICATION.
LONDON:
PRINTED FOR CHARLES KNIGHT, PALL-MALL-EAST.
MDCCCXXIV.
“My Lords,
“The subject now submitted to your
Lordships, for the first time, though new to the House, is, by no means, new to
the country. I believe it had occupied the serious thoughts of all descriptions
of persons long before its introduction to the notice of that Legislature whose
interference alone could be of real service. As a person in some degree
connected with the suffering county, though a stranger, not only to this House
in general, but to almost every individual whose attention I presume to
solicit, I must claim some portion of your Lordships’ indulgence, whilst
I offer a few observations on a question in which I confess myself deeply
interested. To enter into any detail of these riots would be su-![]()
![]()
perfluous; the House is already aware that every outrage
short of actual bloodshed has been perpetrated, and that the proprietors of the
frames obnoxious to the rioters, and all persons supposed to be connected with
them, have been liable to insult and violence. During the short time I recently
passed in Notts, not twelve hours elapsed without some fresh act of violence;
and, on the day I left the county, I was informed that forty frames had been
broken the preceding evening as usual, without resistance and without
detection. Such was then the state of that county, and such I have reason to
believe it to be at this moment. But whilst these outrages must be admitted to
exist to an alarming extent, it cannot be denied that they have arisen from
circumstances of the most unparalelled distress. The perseverance of these
miserable men in their proceedings, tends to prove that nothing but absolute
want could have driven a large and once honest and industrious body of the
people into the commission of excesses so hazardous to themselves, their
families, and the community. At the time to which I allude, the town and county
![]()
![]()
were burdened with large detachments of the
military; the police was in motion, the magistrates assembled, yet all these
movements, civil and military had led to—nothing. Not a single instance
had occurred of the apprehension of any real delinquent actually taken in the
fact, against whom there existed legal evidence sufficient for conviction. But
the police, however useless, were by no means idle: several notorious
delinquents had been detected; men liable to conviction, on the clearest
evidence, of the capital crime of poverty; men, who had been nefariously guilty
of lawfully begetting several children, whom, thanks to the times!—they
were unable to maintain. Considerable injury has been done to the proprietors
of the improved frames. These machines were to them an advantage, inasmuch as
they superseded the necessity of employing a number of workmen, who were left
in consequence to starve. By the adoption of one species of frame in
particular, one man performed the work of many, and the superfluous labourers
were thrown out of employment. Yet it is to be observed, that the work thus
executed was in-![]()
![]()
ferior in quality, not marketable at
home, and merely hurried over with a view to exportation. It was called, in the
cant of the trade, by the name of Spider-work. The rejected workmen, in the
blindness of their ignorance, instead of rejoicing at these improvements in
arts so beneficial to mankind, conceived themselves to be sacrificed to
improvements in mechanism. In the foolishness of their hearts, they imagined
that the maintenance and well doing of the industrious poor, were objects of
greater consequence than the enrichment of a few individuals by any improvement
in the implements of trade which threw the workmen out of employment, and
rendered the labourer unworthy of his hire. And, it must be confessed, that
although the adoption of the enlarged machinery, in that state of our commerce
which the country once boasted, might have been beneficial to the master
without being detrimental to the servant; yet, in the present situation of our
manufactures, rotting in warehouses without a prospect of exportation, with the
demand for work and workmen equally diminished, frames of this construction
tend ma-![]()
![]()
terially to aggravate the distresses and
discontents of the disappointed sufferers. But the real cause of these
distresses, and consequent disturbances, lies deeper. When we are told that
these men are leagued together, not only for the destruction of their own
comfort, but of their very means of subsistence, can we forget that it is the
bitter policy, the destructive warfare, of the last eighteen years, which has
destroyed their comfort, your comfort, all men’s comfort;—that
policy which, originating with “great statesmen now no
more,” has survived the dead to become a curse on the living unto
the third and fourth generation! These men never destroyed their looms till
they were become useless, worse than useless; till they were become actual
impediments to their exertions in obtaining their daily bread. Can you then
wonder, that in times like these, when bankruptcy, convicted fraud, and imputed
felony, are found in a station not far beneath that of your Lordships, the
lowest, though once most useful portion of the people, should forget their duty
in their distresses, and become only less guilty than one of their
representatives? But while the ex-![]()
![]()
alted offender can find
means to baffle the law, new capital punishments must be devised, new snares of
death must be spread, for the wretched mechanic who is famished into guilt.
These men were willing to dig, but the spade was in other hands; they were not
ashamed to beg, but there was none to relieve them. Their own means of
subsistence were cut off; all other employments pre-occupied; and their
excesses, however to be deplored and condemned, can hardly be the subject of
surprise. It has been stated, that the persons in the temporary possession of
frames connive at their destruction; if this be proved upon inquiry, it were
necessary that such material accessories to the crime should be principals in
the punishment. But I did hope that any measure proposed by His Majesty’s
Government for your Lordships’ decision, would have had conciliation for
its basis; or, if that were hopeless, that some previous inquiry, some
deliberation, would have been deemed requisite; not that we should have been
called at once, without examination and without cause, to pass sentences by
wholesale, and sign death-warrants ![]()
![]()
blindfold. But
admitting that these men had no cause of complaint, that the grievances of them
and their employers were alike groundless, that they deserved the worst; what
inefficiency, what imbecility, has been evinced in the method chosen to reduce
them! Why were the military called out to be made a mockery of—if they
were to be called out at all? As far as the difference of seasons would permit,
they have merely parodied the summer campaign of Major
Sturgeon; and, indeed, the whole proceedings, civil and
military, seem formed on the model of those of the Mayor and Corporation of
Garrett. Such marchings and countermarchings! from Nottingham to
Bulnell—from Bulnell to Bareford—from Bareford to Mansfield! and,
when at length, the detachments arrived at their destination, in all ‘the
pride, pomp, and circumstance of glorious war,’ they came just in time to
witness the mischief which had been done, and ascertain the escape of the
perpetrators;—to collect the spolia opima, in the fragments of broken frames, and return to their quarters
amidst the derision of old women, and the hootings of children. Now, though in
a ![]()
![]()
free country, it were to be wished that our military
should never be too formidable, at least, to ourselves, I cannot see the policy
of placing them in situations where they can only be made ridiculous. As the
sword is the worst argument that can be used, so should it be the last: in this
instance it has been the first, but, providentially as yet, only in the
scabbard. The present measure will, indeed, pluck it from the sheath; yet had
proper meetings been held in the earlier stages of these riots,—had the
grievances of these men and their masters (for they also have had their
grievances) been fairly weighed and justly examined, I do think that means
might have been devised to restore these workmen to their avocations, and
tranquillity to the country. At present the county suffers from the double
infliction of an idle military and a starving population. In what state of
apathy have we been plunged so long, that now, for the first time, the house
has been officially apprised of these disturbances? All this has been
transacting within one hundred and thirty miles of London, and yet we,
‘good easy men! have deemed full sure our greatness ![]()
![]()
was a ripening,’ and have sat down to
enjoy our foreign triumphs in the midst of domestic calamity. But all the
cities you have taken, all the armies which have retreated before your leaders,
are but paltry subjects of self-congratulation, if your land divides against
itself, and your dragoons and executioners must be let loose against your
fellow-citizens. You call these men a mob, desperate, dangerous, and ignorant;
and seem to think that the only way to quiet the ‘Bellua
multorum capitum’ is to lop off a few of its
superfluous heads. But even a mob may be better reduced to reason by a mixture
of conciliation and firmness, than by additional irritation and redoubled
penalties. Are we aware of our obligations to a mob! It
is the mob that labour in your fields, and serve in your houses—that man
your navy, and recruit your army—that have enabled you to defy all the
world,—and can also defy you, when neglect and calamity have driven them
to despair. You may call the people a mob, but do not forget that a mob too
often speaks the sentiments of the people. And here I must remark with what
alacrity you are accus-![]()
![]()
tomed to fly to the succour of
your distressed allies, leaving the distressed of your own country to the care
of Providence or—the parish. When the Portuguese suffered under the
retreat of the French, every arm was stretched out, every hand was
opened,—from the rich man’s largess to the widow’s mite, all
was bestowed to enable them to rebuild their villages and replenish their
granaries. And at this moment, when thousands of misguided but most unfortunate
fellow-countrymen are struggling with the extremes of hardship and hunger, as
your charity began abroad, it should end at home. A much less sum—a tithe
of the bounty bestowed on Portugal, even if these men (which I cannot admit
without inquiry) could not have been restored to their employments, would have
rendered unnecessary the tender mercies of the bayonet and the gibbet But
doubtless our funds have too many foreign claims to admit a prospect of
domestic relief,—though never did such objects demand it. I have
traversed the seat of war in the peninsula; I have been in some of the most
oppressed provinces of Turkey; but never, under the most des-![]()
![]()
potic of infidel governments, did I behold such squalid
wretchedness as I have seen since my return, in the very heart of a Christian
country. And what are your remedies? After months of inaction, and months of
action worse than inactivity, at length comes forth the grand specific, the
never-failing nostrum of all state-physicians, from the days of Draco to the
present time. After feeling the pulse and shaking the head over the patient,
prescribing the usual course of warm water and bleeding—the warm water of
your mawkish police, and the lancets of your military—these convulsions
must terminate in death, the sure consummation of the prescriptions of all
political Sangrados. Setting aside the palpable injustice and the certain
inefficiency of the bill, are there not capital punishments sufficient on your
statutes? Is there not blood enough upon your penal code! that more must be
poured forth to ascend to heaven and testify against you? How will you carry
this bill into effect? Can you commit a whole county to their own prisons? Will
you erect a gibbet in every field, and hang up men like scarescrows? or will
![]()
![]()
you proceed (as you must to bring this measure into
effect) by decimation; place the country under martial law; depopulate and lay
waste all around you; and restore Sherwood Forest as an acceptable gift to the
crown in its former condition of a royal chase, and an asylum for outlaws? Are
these the remedies for a starving and desperate populace? Will the famished
wretch who has braved your bayonets be appalled by your gibbets? When death is
a relief, and the only relief it appears that you will afford him, will he be
dragooned into tranquillity? Will that which could not be effected by your
grenadiers, be accomplished by your executioners? If you proceed by the forms
of law, where is your evidence? Those who have refused to impeach their
accomplices when transportation only was the punishment, will hardly be tempted
to witness against them when death is the penalty. With all due deference to
the noble lords opposite, I think a little investigation, some previous
inquiry, would induce even them to change their purpose. That most favourite
state measure, so marvellously efficacious in many and recent instances, ![]()
![]()
temporizing, would not be without its advantage in this.
When a proposal is made to emancipate or relieve, you hesitate, you deliberate
for years, you temporize and tamper with the minds of men; but a death-bill
must be passed off hand, without a thought of the consequences. Sure I am, from
what I have heard and from what I have seen, that to pass the bill under all
the existing circumstances, without inquiry, without deliberation, would only
be to add injustice to irritation, and barbarity to neglect. The framers of
such a bill must be content to inherit the honours of that Athenian lawgiver
whose edicts were said to be written, not in ink, but in blood. But suppose it
past,—suppose one of these men, as I have seen them meagre with famine,
sullen with despair, careless of a life which your lordships are perhaps about
to value at something less than the price of a stocking-frame; suppose this man
surrounded by those children for whom he is unable to procure bread at the
hazard of his existence, about to be torn for ever from a family which he
lately supported in peaceful industry, and which it is not his fault than he
can ![]()
![]()
no longer so support; suppose this man—and
there are ten thousand such from whom you may select your
victims,—dragged into court to be tried for this new offence, by this new
law,—still there are two things wanting to convict and condemn him, and
these are, in my opinion, twelve butchers for a jury, and a Jefferies for a judge!”
![]()
Anonymous,
“Dallas’s Recollections of Lord Byron” in Gentleman’s Magazine
Vol. 94 (November 1824)
Mr. DALLAS, the author of the
“Recollections,” has
soon followed the subject of his work to the “bourne whence no traveller
returns.” He was at the time of his death 70 years of age, and was personally
connected with the Noble Lord’s family, his sister
having married the father of the present Peer. These circumstances led, at one period of his
Lordship’s life, to a degree of intimacy; in the course of which Mr.
Dallas not only became one of his Correspondents, but was entrusted with the
duty of an Editor to several of his poems, and lastly was made the depositary of many of his
Lordship’s confidential letters to his mother and other persons. Whether those letters
were or were not intended by Lord Byron to see the light at
a future period, is a matter of some doubt. We confess we think they were; but his executors
have restrained their publication. A long “preliminary statement,” of 97 pages,
drawn up by the Rev. A. R. C. Dallas, son of the Author,
is occupied with the disputes between his father and the executors, who obtained an injunction
from the Court of Chancery against the publication of the Letters. We pass over this, and come
to the “Recollections.” . . .
Anonymous,
“Dallas’s Recollections of Lord Byron” in Gentleman’s Magazine
Vol. 94 (November 1824)
In our review of Capt.
Medwin’s book (p. 436), we have observed, that the publication of Childe Harold was
“the crisis of Lord Byron’s fate as a
man and a poet.” The present volume sets this truth in the strongest light;
but it adds a fact so extraordinary, that if it were not related so circumstantially, we
own we should hesitate to give it credence—this fact is, that Lord
Byron himself was insensible to the value of Childe Harold, and could with difficulty be brought to
consent to its publication! He had written a very indifferent paraphrase of Horace’s Art of Poetry, and was anxious to have it
published. . . .
Anonymous,
“Dallas’s Recollections of Lord Byron” in Gentleman’s Magazine
Vol. 94 (November 1824)
Childe Harold, with all its moral
faults, is beyond a doubt the great work of Lord Byron. No
one, after reading it, can deny him to be a Poet. Yet was this production the ruin of his
Lordship’s mind. “The rapidity of the sale of the Poem,” says Mr. Dallas, “its reception, and the elution of the
author’s feelings were unparalleled.” This elation of feeling was the
outbreaking of an inordinate vanity which had at last found its food, and which led him in the
riotous intoxication of his passions to break down all the fences of morality, and to trample
on everything that restrained his excesses. Mr. Dallas rendered him
essential service, by persuading him to omit some very blamable stanzas: and when he could not
prevail on him to strike out all that was irreligious, he entered a written Protest against certain passages. This protest, which is a very curious document, is
preserved in p. 124 of the volume before us. Probably Lord Byron grew
weary of such lecturing; for in a few years he dropped his intimacy with Mr.
Dallas, and fell into other hands, which only accelerated his degradation. . . .
Anonymous,
“Dallas’s Recollections of Lord Byron” in Gentleman’s Magazine
Vol. 94 (November 1824)
It certainly does appear that Mr. Dallas,
from the first to the last of his intimacy with Lord Byron,
did every thing that a friend, with the feelings of a parent, could do to win his Lordship to
the cause of virtue, but unhappily in vain. . . .
Anonymous,
“Dallas’s Recollections of Lord Byron” in Gentleman’s Magazine
Vol. 94 (November 1824)
The concluding chapter of this book is written by Mr. Dallas, jun. to whom his father on his death-bed confided the task of
closing these “Recollections.” This Gentleman’s
reflections on the decided and lamentable turn which the publication of Childe Harold gave to Lord Byron’s character, are forcible and just. . . .
[John Cam Hobhouse],
“[Review of Dallas and Medwin on Byron]” in Westminster Review
Vol. 3 (January 1825)
Since
Orrery wrote his defamatory life of Swift, and since Mr.
Wyndham published Doddington’s diary, in order to expose the author of that strange record of venality, we are not
aware that the friends or family of any writer have deliberately set down to diminish his
fame and tarnish his character. Such, however, has been the case in the work before us. We
do not mean to say that such was the first object in view by the author or authors of this
volume. No; their first object was the laudable motive of putting money into their purses;
for it appears upon their own showing, that Mr. R. C. Dallas, having
made as much money as he could out of lord Byron in his life time,
resolved to pick up a decent livelihood (either in his own person or that of his son) out
of his friend’s remains when dead. . . .
[John Cam Hobhouse],
“[Review of Dallas and Medwin on Byron]” in Westminster Review
Vol. 3 (January 1825)
But it appears that Mr. R. C. Dallas
could not wait for his money so long as was requisite, and that in the year 1819 he became
a little impatient to touch something in his life time: accordingly, in an evil hour, he
writes a long long letter to lord Byron, containing a debtor and
creditor account between R. C. Dallas and his lordship; by which, when
duly balanced, it appeared that said lord Byron was still considerably
in arrears of friendship and obligation to said R. C. Dallas, and
ought to acquit himself by a remittance of materials (such is
Mr. R. C. Dallas’s own word, in his own letter, as will be
seen by and by) to his creditor Mr. R. C.
Dallas. . . .
[John Cam Hobhouse],
“[Review of Dallas and Medwin on Byron]” in Westminster Review
Vol. 3 (January 1825)
The death of lord Byron, of
course, seemed at once to promise this settlement: no sooner had he heard it, than he set
about copying the manuscripts; he wrote to Messrs.
Galignani at Paris, to know whether they would “enter into the speculation” of publishing some very interesting manuscripts
of lord Byron; he set off for London; he sold the volume to a London:
bookseller, and “he returned without loss of time to
France.” His worthy son has told us all this himself, at pages 94 and 96 of his
volume, and has actually printed the letter his father wrote to Messrs.
Galignani, to show, we suppose, how laudably alert Mr. R. C.
Dallas evinced himself to be on this interesting opportunity of securing his
lawful property. The booksellers, also, performed their part; they announced the “Private Correspondence” of lord Byron for
sale; and, as it also appears by this volume, were so active as to be prepared to bring
their goods to market before lord Byron’s funeral. . . .
[John Cam Hobhouse],
“[Review of Dallas and Medwin on Byron]” in Westminster Review
Vol. 3 (January 1825)
They thought
differently of the publication of private letters; and Mrs. Leigh
desired Mr. Hobhouse one of the executors, to write
to Mr. R. C. Dallas to say, that she should think the publication, in
question “quite unpardonable,” at least for the present, and unless
after a previous inspection by his lordship’s family. Unfortunately for Mr.
Dallas, it appears, according to this volume, that Mr.
Hobhouse did not in this letter, state that he was lord
Byron’s executor; but merely appealed to Mr. R. C.
Dallas’s “honour and feeling,” wishing
probably to try that topic first; and thinking it more respectful to do so, than to
threaten the author with legal interference at once. . . .
[John Cam Hobhouse],
“[Review of Dallas and Medwin on Byron]” in Westminster Review
Vol. 3 (January 1825)
Mr. Dallas was resolved upon getting his money, and wrote a very angry
letter, not to Mr. Hobhouse but to Mrs. Leigh
(which, his prudent son has also printed), containing menaces not unkilfully calculated to
intimidate that lady, especially considering that she must have been at that moment
peculiarly disposed to receive any unpleasant impressions—her brother’s corpse
lying yet unburied. For an author and seller of Remains the time was
not ill chosen—by a gentleman and a man, another moment, to say nothing of another
style, might perhaps have been selected. But no time was to be lost; the book must be out
on the 12th of July, and out it would have been had not the executors procured an
injunction against it on the 7th of the same month, and thus very seriously damaged, if not
ruined, Mr. R. C. Dallas’s “speculation.” . . .
[John Cam Hobhouse],
“[Review of Dallas and Medwin on Byron]” in Westminster Review
Vol. 3 (January 1825)
Ninety-seven
pages of the volume are taken up with a statement of the proceedings in Chancery, which
were so fatal to the “speculation.” In this statement, which is written by
Mr. Alexander Dallas, the son of Mr.
R. C. Dallas, who died before the volume could be published, it may easily
be supposed that all imaginable hard things are said of those who spoiled the speculation.
The executors, and lord Byron’s sister, are spoken of in terms
which, if noticed, would certainly very much increase those “expenses” of which the Rev. Alexander Dallas so
piteously complains; for we doubt if any jury would hesitate to return a verdict of libel
and slander against many passages which we could point out in the preliminary
statement. . . .
[John Cam Hobhouse],
“[Review of Dallas and Medwin on Byron]” in Westminster Review
Vol. 3 (January 1825)
Lord Byron was taken into Scotland by his mother and
father, and Mrs. Leigh was left in England with her
grandmother, to whom her father had consigned her on condition that she should provide for
her. They were thus separated from 1789 until lord Byron came to
England; when thy met as often as possible, although it was not easy to bring them
together, as Mrs. Byron, the mother of
lord Byron, had quarrelled with lady
Holdernesse. For the intercourse which did take place, the brother and
sister were indebted to the kind offices of lord
Carlisle. . . .
[John Cam Hobhouse],
“[Review of Dallas and Medwin on Byron]” in Westminster Review
Vol. 3 (January 1825)
That lord Byron might have dropt an
unguarded opinion as to relationship in general is possible, though such an error is
nothing in comparison with the atrocity of coolly recording that opinion as if it had been
an habitual sentiment, which we say it was not. We say that it is untrue that lord Byron declaimed against the ties of
consanguinity. It is untrue that he entirely withdrew from the
company of his sister during the period alluded to. It is untrue
that he “made advances” to a friendly intercourse with her only after the
publication of Childe Harold, and only at
the persuasion of Mr. R. C. Dallas. Mrs. Leigh corresponded with lord Byron at the very time
mentioned, and saw in lord Carlisle’s house in
the spring of 1809; after which he went abroad, and did not return until July 1811. . . .
[John Cam Hobhouse],
“[Review of Dallas and Medwin on Byron]” in Westminster Review
Vol. 3 (January 1825)
We speak from the same authority, when we say that what is said of
lord Carlisle, though there was, as all the world
knows, a difference between his lordship and lord Byron,
is also at variance with the facts. . . .
[John Cam Hobhouse],
“[Review of Dallas and Medwin on Byron]” in Westminster Review
Vol. 3 (January 1825)
Such was Mr. Alexander
Dallas’s letter to Mr.
Hobhouse; and that he should, after writing such a letter, make a statement
which he knew the production of that letter could positively contradict, is an instance of
confidence in the forbearance of others such as we never have happened before to witness.
We beg the reader to compare the words in italics from Mr.
Dallas’s statement with the words in capitals from Mr.
Dallas’s letter—and then to ask himself whether he thinks
lord Byron’s
reputation, or that of his relations and friends, has much to suffer or
fear from such a censor as the Reverend Alexander Dallas. In the
Statement, he tells the world that Mr. Hobhouse is mentioned in
lord Byron’s letters in the enumeration of his suite; and,
in a remark, that lord Byron was satisfied at being alone. In the
letter, he tells Mr. Hobhouse, that “he (Mr.
Hobhouse) is mentioned throughout the whole of the correspondence with great
affection.” . . .
[John Cam Hobhouse],
“[Review of Dallas and Medwin on Byron]” in Westminster Review
Vol. 3 (January 1825)
It answered the purpose of the editor to
deal in the strongest insinuations against Mr. Hobhouse; but,
unfortunately, his father had, in the course of his correspondence with lord
Byron, mentioned that gentleman in very different terms—what does
the honest editor do? he gives only the initial of the name, so that the eulogy, such
as it is, may serve for any Mr. H * *. Mr. R. C.
Dallas’s words are, “I gave Murray your note on M * *, to be placed in the page with Wingfield. He must have been a very extraordinary
young man, and I am sincerely sorry for H * *, for whom I have felt an
increased regard ever since I heard of his intimacy with my son at Cadiz, and that they
were mutually pleased” [p. 165]. The H * * stands for
Hobhouse, and the M * * whom R. C. Dallas
characterises here, “as an extraordinary young man,” becomes, in the hands
of his honest son, “an unhappy Atheist” [p. 325], whose name he mentions,
in another place, at full length, and characterises him in such a way as must give the
greatest pain to the surviving relations and friends of the deceased. . . .
[John Cam Hobhouse],
“[Review of Dallas and Medwin on Byron]” in Westminster Review
Vol. 3 (January 1825)
We now come to the reverend gentleman’s father, and as the death of
lord Byron did not prevent that person from writing
what we know to be unfounded of his lordship, we shall not refrain, because he also is
dead, from saying what we know to be founded of Mr. R. C.
Dallas. In performing this task we are, most luckily, furnished with a list
of Mr. Dallas’s pretensions, by Mr. Dallas
himself, in the shape of a letter written by that person to lord Byron
in 1819, of which the Reverend Alexander Dallas has
thought fit to publish a considerable portion. To this letter, or list of Mr. R.
C. Dallas’s brilliant virtues, and benefits conferred upon
lord Byron, we shall oppose an answer from a person, whom neither
Mr. R. C. Dallas nor his reverend son had ever dreamt could appear
against them again in this world—that person is lord Byron
himself. For it so happens, that although his lordship did not reply to the said letter by
writing to the author, yet he did transmit that epistle, with sundry notes of his own upon
it, to one of his correspondents in England. The letter itself, with lord
Byron’s notes, is now lying before us, and we shall proceed at once to
cite the passages which lord Byron has commented upon, all of which,
with one exception, to he noticed hereafter, have before been given to the public. . . .
[John Cam Hobhouse],
“[Review of Dallas and Medwin on Byron]” in Westminster Review
Vol. 3 (January 1825)
Across these passages, opposite the words “saving you from
perpetuating the enmity,” lord Byron has put
“the Devil you did?” and over the
words “rapid retrograde motion” lord Byron has
written “when did this happen? and how?”
. . .
[John Cam Hobhouse],
“[Review of Dallas and Medwin on Byron]” in Westminster Review
Vol. 3 (January 1825)
We have now to mention that, Mr. R. C.
Dallas after the words which conclude his letter, as given by his son,
namely, these words: “but my present anxiety is, to see you restored to your
station in this world, after trials that should induce you to look seriously into
futurity.”—after these words, we find in the original letter the
following— . . .
[John Cam Hobhouse],
“[Review of Dallas and Medwin on Byron]” in Westminster Review
Vol. 3 (January 1825)
The upshot of this letter appears to be, to obtain my sanction to
the publication of a volume about
Mr. Dallas and
myself, which I shall not allow. The letter has remained and will remain
unanswered. I never injured Mr. R. C. Dallas, but did him all
the good I could, and I am quite unconscious and ignorant of what he means by
reproaching me with ungenerous treatment; the facts will speak for themselves to
those who know them—the proof is easy. . . .
[John Cam Hobhouse],
“[Review of Dallas and Medwin on Byron]” in Westminster Review
Vol. 3 (January 1825)
These persons, whose work, or rather, whose conduct we are reviewing, have tried all the
common topics by which they think they may enlist the sympathy of their readers in their
favour, to the prejudice of their illustrious benefactor. They have bandied about the
clap-trap terms of atheism, scepticism, irreligion, immorality, &c. but the good sense,
nay more, the generosity, the humanity, and the true Christian spirit of their
fellow-countrymen, will reject such an unworthy fellowship. They may weep over the failings
of Byron; but they will cast from them, with scorn and reprobation,
detractors, whose censure bears on the face of it, the unquestionable marks of envy,
malice, and. all uncharitableness. Can anything be more unpardonable, anything more unfair,
for instance, than for the editor of this volume (the clergyman) to take for granted, that
the Conversations of Medwin are authentic, though he himself has given an
example of two gross mis-statements in them, which would alone throw a doubt over their
authenticity; and upon that supposition to charge lord Byron with being sunk to the lowest
depths of degradation? What are we to say to this person who, at the same time that he
assumes the general truth of the Conversations, makes an
exception against that part of them, which represents lord
Byron’s dislike of the anti-religious opinions of Mr. Shelley? . . .
[John Cam Hobhouse],
“[Review of Dallas and Medwin on Byron]” in Westminster Review
Vol. 3 (January 1825)
If the author of “Aubrey” had but read, or had not forgotten lord
Byron’s preface to the second edition of English Bards and Scotch Reviewers, he would have spared us
all this fine writing, for that preface explains that “phenomenon of the human mind, for which it is difficult to
account,” and which this poor writer has accounted for so
profoundly. . . .
[John Gibson Lockhart],
“Lord Byron” in Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine
Vol. 17
No. 97 (February 1825)
The story of his having said to his mother, when he and Mr
Hobhouse parted company on their travels, that he “was glad to be
alone,” amounts to nothing; for who is he, and above all, who is the poet, who does
not often feel the departure of his dearest friend as a temporary relief? The man
that was composing Childe Harold had other
things to entertain him than the conversation of any companion, however pleasant; and we
believe there are few pleasanter companions anywhere than Mr Hobhouse.
This story, however, has been magnified into a mighty matter by Mr Dallas, whose name has recently been rather wearisomely connected with
Lord Byron’s. . . .
[John Gibson Lockhart],
“Lord Byron” in Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine
Vol. 17
No. 97 (February 1825)
Old Mr Dallas appears to have been an
inveterate twaddler, and there are even worse things than twaddling alleged against him by
Mr Hobhouse, in the article we have been quoting.
The worst of these, however, his misstatement as to the amount of his pecuniary obligations to
Lord Byron, may perhaps be accounted for in a way much
more charitable than has found favour with Mr Hobhouse; and as to the son,
(Mr Alexander Dallas,) we assuredly think he has
done nothing, but what he supposed his filial duty bound him to, in the whole matter. Angry
people will take sneering and perverted views of the subject matter of dispute, without
subjecting themselves in the eyes of the disinterested world, to charges so heavy either as
Mr Hobhouse has thought fit to bring against Mr A.
Dallas, or as Mr A. Dallas has thought fit to bring against
Mr Hobhouse. As for the song of which so much has been said, what is it, after all, but a mere
joke— . . .
[John Gibson Lockhart],
“Lord Byron” in Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine
Vol. 17
No. 97 (February 1825)
Dallas’s book,
utterly feeble and drivelling as it is, contains certainly some very interesting
particulars as to his feelings when he was a very young author. The whole getting up of the
two first cantos of Childe Harold—the
diffidence—the fears —the hopes that alternately depressed and elevated his
spirits while the volume was printing, are exhibited, so as to form a picture that all
students of literature, at least, will never cease to prize. All the rest of the work is
more about old Dallas than young Byron, and is
utter trash. . . .
Leigh Hunt,
Lord Byron and Some of his Contemporaries (London: Henry Colburn, 1828)
The only publications that contained any thing at once new and true
respecting Lord Byron were, Dallas’s Recollections, the Conversations by
Captain Medwin, and Parry’s and Gamba’s Accounts of his Last Days. A good deal of the real
character of his Lordship, though not always as the writer viewed it, may be gathered from
most of them; particularly the first two. . . .
Leigh Hunt,
Lord Byron and Some of his Contemporaries (London: Henry Colburn, 1828)
Dallas, who was a sort of lay-priest, errs from
being half-witted. He must have tired Lord Byron to death with blind
beggings of the question, and solemn mistakes. The wild poet ran against him, and scattered
his faculties. To the last he does not seem to have made up his mind, whether his Lordship
was Christian or Atheist. I can settle at least a part of that dilemma. Christian he
certainly was not. He neither wrote nor talked, as any Christian, in the ordinary sense of
the word, would have done: and as to the rest, the strength of his belief probably varied
according to his humour, and was at all times as undecided and uneasy, as the lights
hitherto obtained by mere reason were calculated to render it. . . .
Leigh Hunt,
Lord Byron and Some of his Contemporaries (London: Henry Colburn, 1828)
Now, the passage here quoted was quoted by myself, one of those
“atheists and scoffers,” according to Mr.
Dallas, by whom “he was led into defiance of the sacred
writings.” . . .
Pietro Gamba,
A Narrative of Lord Byron’s Last Journey to Greece (London: John Murray, 1825)
Again, in order to prove the difficulty of living with Lord Byron, it is said, that “When Mr. Hobhouse and he travelled in Greece together, they
were generally a mile asunder.” I have the best authority for saying, that
this is not the fact: that two young men, who were continually together and slept in the
same room for many months, should not always have ridden side by side on their journey is
very likely; but when Lord Byron and Mr. Hobhouse
travelled in Greece, it would have been as little safe as comfortable to be
“generally a mile asunder;” and the truth is, they were generally
very near each other. . . .
George Jeffreys, first baron Jeffreys (1645-1689)
Known as the “hanging judge,” he was chief justice of king's bench (1683-1685) in which
capacity he presided over the trial of Algernon Sidney and the Rye House plotters; he died
in the Tower of London.
