If Lord Byron asserts that his wife deserted him, the assertion is
accepted without proof; but, if Lady Byron asserts that he ordered her to
leave, that requires proof. Lady Byron asserts that she took counsel, on
this order of Lord Byron, with his family friends and physician, under
the idea that it originated in insanity. The 'Blackwood' asks, "What
family friends?' says it doesn't know of any; and asks proof.

If Lord Byron asserts that he always longed for a public investigation of
the charges against him, the 'Quarterly' and 'Blackwood' quote the saying
with ingenuous confidence. They are obliged to admit that he refused to
stand that public test; that he signed the deed of separation rather than
meet it. They know, also, that he could have at any time instituted
suits against Lady Byron that would have brought the whole matter into
court, and that he did not. Why did he not? The 'Quarterly' simply
intimates that such suits would have been unpleasant. Why? On account
of personal delicacy? The man that wrote 'Don Juan,' and furnished the
details of his wedding-night, held back from clearing his name by
delicacy! It is astonishing to what extent this controversy has
consisted in simply repeating Lord Byron's assertions over and over
again, and calling the result proof.

Now, we propose a different course. As Lady Byron is not stated by her
warm admirers to have had any monomania for speaking untruths on any
subject, we rank her value as a witness at a higher rate than Lord
Byron's. She never accused her parents of madness or suicide, merely to
make a sensation; never 'bammed' an acquaintance by false statements
concerning the commercial honour of anyone with whom she was in business
relations; never wrote and sent to the press as a clever jest false
statements about herself; and never, in any other ingenious way, tampered
with truth. We therefore hold it to be a mere dictate of reason and
common sense, that, in all cases where her statements conflict with her
husband's, hers are to be taken as the more trustworthy.

The 'London Quarterly,' in a late article, distinctly repudiates Lady
Byron's statements as sources of evidence, and throughout quotes
statements of Lord Byron as if they had the force of self-evident
propositions. We consider such a course contrary to common sense as well
as common good manners.

The state of the case is just this: If Lord Byron did not make false
statements on this subj