accepted, simply because he makes them. Why must we
accept them, any more than his statements as to Murray or his own father?

So we constantly find Lord Byron's incidental statements coming in
collision with those of others: for example, in his account of his
marriage, he tells Medwin that Lady Byron's maid was put between his
bride and himself, on the same seat, in the wedding journey. The lady's
maid herself, Mrs. Mimms, says she was sent before them to Halnaby, and
was there to receive them when they alighted.

He said of Lady Byron's mother, 'She always detested me, and had not the
decency to conceal it in her own house. Dining with her one day, I broke
a tooth, and was in great pain; which I could not help showing. "It will
do you good," said Lady Noel; "I am glad of it!"'

Lady Byron says, speaking of her mother, 'She 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.'

Lord Byron states that the correspondence between him and Lady Byron,
after his refusal, was first opened by her. Lady Byron's friends deny
the statement, and assert that the direct contrary is the fact.

Thus we see that Lord Byron's statements are directly opposed to those of
his family in relation to his father; directly against Murray's accounts,
and his own admission to Murray; directly against the statement of the
lady's maid as to her position in the journey; directly against Mrs.
Leigh's as to Mrs. Clermont, and against Lady Byron as to her mother.

We can see, also, that these misstatements were so fully perceived by the
men of his times, that Medwin's 'Conversations' were simply laughed at as
an amusing instance of how far a man might be made the victim of a
mystification. Christopher North thus sentences the book:--

'I don't mean to call Medwin a liar . . . The captain lies, sir, but
it is under a thousand mistakes. Whether Byron bammed him, or he, by
virtue of his own egregious stupidity, was the sole and sufficient
bammifier of himself, I know not; neither greatly do I care. This
much is certain, . . . that the book throughout is full of things that
were not, and most resplendently deficient quoad the things that
were.'

Yet it is on Medwin's 'Conversations' alone that many of the magazine
assertions in regard to Lady Byron are founded.

It is on that authority that Lady Byron