"THE REAL LORD BYRON."

New Zealand Herald, Volume XVIII, Issue 6757, 14 July 1883, Page 2 (Supplement)

"THE REAL LORD BYRON."

A MISERABLE STORY. TnE Times, in a review of "The Real | Byron," by John Cordy Jeaffreson, na-ys :— " But the question still naturally arisr, 8> how came the poet's marriage to turn o'at so ill 'when it was one of mutual affection » It is a long and in some respects an intvicate story, but it is carefully and closely followed in these pages. The chapters on 'Byron's Married Life,' 'The Separation,' and 'The Storm,' for the first time put the public in frill possesion of the facts of Byron'n married life and the reason why the happiness of tu3band and wife wa3 completely wrecked. Immediately after the marriage ceremony, Hobhouse handed Lady Byron to her carriage, and saw her drive off with tho poet at her side ; aud her parting words to the best man were, ' If I am not happy it will be my own fault.' That the poet and his bride were a happy couple for the firat seven month nf their union is clear from Byron's letters during the honeymoon, his letters of the following months, and Lady Byron's correspondence with Augusta. 'My spouse aud I agree to admiration,' wrote Byron to Moore. Swift says, 'no wise man ever married ; but for a fool, I think it the most ambrosial of all future states. And there were many other letters of a similar purport. Lady Byron thanked her husband for giving her the desire of her heart-a sister whom she could love as thoroughly as she conld have loved any sister given her by her own parents. In view <<f what subsequently occurred, it is most important to remember thi3, and also the solemn promise made by Lady Byron that, come what might, she would be always kind to Augusta. We have many pleasant glimpses of the unclouded and affectionate intercourse of Byron, his wife, and his sister during the early married life of the two former. They had pet names for each other, and their whole rehuiona were perfect in mutual confidence and affection, 'itis certain that Lady Byron and her husband Beparated on account of reasons covereC- by the familiar and elastic phrase of ' incompatibility of temper'—a phrase that may cover serious nnkindaess, scarcely a ban s breadth short of legal cruelty. It is certain that not one of the various kinds of flagrant immorality charged against her husband by scandalous rumour was the reason why Lady Byron determined to leave him. It is oertain, if he was guilty of any one of the charges so made by report, the sin was done with a secrecy that saved it from being an insult to his wife and made him certain neither she nor any o£ her friends knew of it. On all these points, fortunately for human mature, there exists conclusive evidence, that would sooner or later be published to the ■world.' How, then, came that domestic breach to be made which was never healed ? To understand how the storm arose, the reader must remember that neither Byron nor his wife had a perfect temper. She was naturally jealou3 and suspicious, he suffered from the morbid selfishness which, as we have seen, was the grand defect of an otherwise generous nature. Sympathetic, sensitive, tender-hearted, free-handed, Byron in hi 3 best time had compassion for every distress, care for every sufferer, so long as he was not thwarted in the whim and wish of the moment. He could surrender anything in obedience to affectionate impulse, except the one thing he coveted at the instant. Bat that one thing he would have at any cost; and the person rash enough to come between him and his desire never failed to provoke him to tempestuous anger. The bickerings of the husband and wife arose, in the first instance, from the latter's discontent at the poet's fr quent visits to Melbourne House, and her attitude only caused Byron to be come more stubborn. But other causes of contention quickly followed. Instead of yielding to his wife in some things.at a critical period—viz., just before the birth of their daughter Ada, Byron pursued his own selfiih way. Then, too, he was greatly exasperated over his pecuniary difficulties, his creditors being very clamorous. He longed for the blue skies of the south, and expressed an intention to travel, which was opposed by his ■wife. Her opposition angered him still more, while hia nervous distress was heightened by overwork of brain and the practice of taking laudanum. He was sorely disappointed also on the birth of his daughter, as he had been longing for a son. Altogether, his behaviour at this time savoured very much of insanity. His wife quite believed that he was deranged, and in this view she was supported by Augusta and George Byron. At the same time, when Lady Byron left for her father's house in Leicestershire in January, ISI6, there was not the least idea of an eternal separation either on her side or her husband's. Byron, indeed, fully intended to follow her and to resume cohabitation within the month, for he was very anxious to have an heir who should bear hi 3 name. And when Lady Byron had confided the whole of her troubles to her parents, the latter decided that Byron should be invited into Leicestershire at once, where he should be considered and humoured in everything. But when Lady Byron found that her husband was not mad, her whole tttitude changed. She determined never to live with him again. On her behalf, Lady Noel went to Dr. Lushington to learn whether Byron's treatment of his wife would entitle her to the benefit of a judicial separation. That eminent man decided that though the poe:'s misconduct would entitle his wife to judicial separation, it was not of so heinous a kind as to render separation indispensable. It was a case for reconciliation; and this opinion, it must be borne in mind, was founded upon the whole of the case against Byron at this time. Nothing was kept back. Byron's sister steadily defended the wife, and censured her brother—another important fact to be borne in mind. Some weeks later, Lady Byron herself came to London and placed before Dr. Lushington and Sir Samuel Romiliy a statement containing additional charges against her husband. ' What was the statement ? By those who gave credence to the monstrous invention set forth in Mrs. Beecher Stowe's book, it has been assumed that this mysterious and additional statement to Lady Byron's counsel was a communication which could not have failed to inspire the lawyer with unutterable repugnance to the Hon. Mrs. Leigh, and to make him think her nnfit for the society of Christian women. Had the mysterious statement been what the ■writer of that lamentable book fancied it to be, Lady Byron would scarcely have told Dr. Lushington, only a few days later, that she ■was longing to havean interview with herdear Bißter, Augusta—her child's godmother—for the purpose of conferring with her on domestic interests. . . Moreover, Lady Byron could scarcely have continued for many years to live on termi of close and affectionate intimacy with her sister-in-law, and at the same time have been able to retain the cordial sympathy and chivalric admiration of her famous lawyer." It now may be clearly understood that the points of the statement •which has caused so much controvereay were these : First, Byron's liason with Jane Chermon's, an intimacy beginning immediately after Lady Byron's determination to separate from, him ; and, secondly, his action in publishing the insulting 'Fare Thee Well,' which may be said to have been penned while he was in Jane Clermont's embraces ; while his gr-and offence after the signature of the deed of separation was his action in meeting Jane Clermont at Geneva/ and living with her there for three months, and venturing in the middle of that term to make overtures for a reconcilation with his wife, Byron conld no doubt plead that the liaison with Jane Clermont had not begun till he had received a ormal announcement of the wife's determination not to return to him ; but Lady Byron, taking another and cot unnatural, though quite an erroneous view of the case, had no soon heard of the liaison with Jane Clermont than she suspected him of being guilty of immoral intimacy with her even before she had herself left town. The ' Fa:ra Thee Well' might have been the result of a genuine outburst of emotion; but it was none the lees true that the writer was consoling himself with Jane Clermont when he wrote the poem, and that immediately after insulting his •wife with its publication be went abroad to meet Miss Clermont at Geneva, and thence sent his overtures for a reconcilation. 'If the additional statement,' observes the author, " had reference to the Jaue Clermont business, Dr. Lushington could only say to his client, ' That being so, and your feelings being what they.are, I will no longer advise you to think of reconciliation ;' and, as a man of fine feeling, Komilly could only say to his client, 'I will not be used as an instrument for forcing Lady Byron to return to a "husband who knows so well how to make himself happy without her.' " There were several reasons why, if the liaison of Lord Byron with Jane Clarmont was the chief basis of the additional statement, Lady Byron did sot wish to mention this at the time to anyone bnt her counsel, and these reasons are given in Mr. Jeaffreson'a pages. The publication of the Hobhouse papers will almost to a certainty confirm the author's statement as to the separation. This is the whole of the miserable story. I