July 1869), of the previous relations between brother and sister, and especially of Lady Byron's affectionate relations to Mrs. Leigh at the time, as revealed in letters since published, proves this hideous story to be absolutely incredible. Till 1830 Mrs. Leigh continued to be on good terms with Lady Byron, and had conveyed messages between Byron and his wife during his life. The appointment of a trustee under Byron's marriage settlements in 1830 led to a disagreement. Lady Byron refused with considerable irritation a request made by Mrs. Leigh. All acquaintance dropped, till in 1851 Lady Byron consented to an interview. Mrs. Leigh was anxious to declare that she had not (as she supposed Lady Byron to believe that she had) encouraged Byron's bitterness of feeling towards his wife. Lady Byron replied simply, ‘Is that all?’ No further communication followed, and Mrs. Leigh died 18 Oct. 1851. It can only be surmised that Lady Byron had become jealous of Byron's public and pointed expressions of love for his sister, contrasted so forcibly with his utterances about his wife, and in brooding over her wrongs had developed the hateful suspicion communicated to Mrs. Stowe, and, as it seems, to others. It appears too, from a passage in the Guiccioli memoirs, that at a time when Byron was accused of ‘every monstrous vice,’ his phrases about his pure fraternal affection suggested some such addition to the mass of calumny (‘Reminiscences of an Attaché,’ by Hubert Jerningham (1886), contains a curious statement by Mme. Guiccioli as to Byron's strong affection for his sister).
Another suggestion made by Mr. Jeaffreson, that the cause was a connection formed by Byron about the time of the first separation with Jane Clairmont, daughter, by a previous marriage, of William Godwin's second wife, seems quite inadmissible. It entirely fails to explain Lady Byron's uniform assertions at the time and in 1830 (see ante, and letter to Lady Anne Barnard, published by Lord Lindsay in the ‘Times’ in September 1869) that Byron had been guilty of conduct excusable only on the ground of insanity, and continued during their whole cohabitation. Byron's extreme wrath against a Mrs. Clermont (a former governess of Lady Byron's), whom he accused (Medwin, p. 43) of breaking open a desk, seems to suggest that some discovery was made subsequently to Lady Byron's departure from London, but affords no confirmation of this hypothesis.
The problem must remain unsolved. The scandal excited a general explosion of public indignation. In some ‘Observations upon an article in “Blackwood's Magazine”’ (dated 15 March 1820, but not published till after Byron's death) Byron describes the state of feeling; he was accused of ‘every monstrous vice;’ advised not to go to the theatre or to parliament for fear of public insults, and his friends feared violence from the mob when he started in his travelling carriage. This indignation, perhaps exaggerated (see Hobhouse in Westminster Review), has been ridiculed; and doubtless included mean and hateful elements—love of scandal and delight in trampling on a great name. Yet it was not unnatural. Byron's very guarded sceptical utterances in ‘Childe Harold’ frightened Dallas into a formal and elaborate protest, and shocked a sensitive public extravagantly. He had been posing as a rebel against all the domestic proprieties. So long as his avowed license could pass for a literary affectation, or be condoned in the spirit of the general leniency shown to wild young men in the era of the prince regent, the protest was confined to the stricter classes. But when a Lara passed from the regions of fancy to 13 Piccadilly Terrace, matters became more serious. Byron was outraging a woman of the highest character and with the strongest claims on his tenderness; and a feeling arose such as that which, soon afterwards, showed itself when the prince regent passed from simple immorality to the persecution of a wife with infinitely less claims to respect than Lady Byron's. Lady Caroline Lamb claimed her part in the outcry by her wild novel of ‘Glenarvon,’ published at this time.
The separation was signed, and Byron left his country for ever. Some friends still stood by him. Lady Jersey earned his lasting gratitude by giving an assembly in his honour; and Miss Mercer (afterwards Lady Keith) met him there with marked cordiality. Leigh Hunt in the ‘Examiner’ and Perry in the ‘Morning Chronicle’ defended him. Mrs. Leigh's affection was his chief comfort, when even his cousin George took his wife's part (Medwin, p. 49). Two poems appeared in the papers, through the ‘injudicious zeal of a friend,’ says Moore, in the middle of April. ‘A Sketch’ (dated 29 March) is a savage onslaught upon Mrs. Clermont. ‘Fare thee well’ (dated 17 March), written with tears, it is said, the marks of which still blot the manuscript, expostulates pathetically with his wife for inflicting a ‘cureless wound.’ On 8 March Byron told Moore that there was ‘never a brighter, kinder, or more amiable and agreeable being’ than Lady Byron, and that no blame attached to her. He appeals to Rogers (25 March) to confirm his statement that he had never attacked her. In 1823 he repeated this statement to Lady
