Letters and Journals of Lord Byron
Lady Byron to Thomas Moore, 19 February 1830
“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
authorized 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 flourishing, 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
* “The officious spies of his
privacy,” p. 650. |
![]()
![]()
![]()
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
* “The deserted husband,” p. 651.
|
![]()
![]()
![]()
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 actuated
by any hostile or ungenerous motives towards Lord 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,
“‘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.”
Matthew Baillie (1761-1823)
Physician and brother of Joanna Baillie; as successor to the anatomist William Hunter he
treated the pedal deformities of both Walter Scott and Lord Byron.
Stephen Lushington (1782-1873)
Barrister, judge, and Whig MP; educated at Eton and at Christ Church, Oxford, he advised
Lady Byron on a separation from Lord Byron in 1816.
Thomas Moore (1779-1852)
Irish poet and biographer, author of the
Irish Melodies (1807-34),
The Fudge Family in Paris (1818), and
Lalla
Rookh (1817); he was Byron's close friend and designated biographer.
Sir Samuel Romilly (1757-1818)
Reformer of the penal code and the author of
Thoughts on Executive
Justice (1786); he was a Whig MP and Solicitor-General who died a suicide.
