begging the whole question under
consideration.

A man gives testimony about the causes of a railroad accident, being the
only eye-witness.

The opposing counsel begs, whatever else you do, you will not admit that
man's testimony. You ask, 'Why? Has he ever been accused of want of
veracity on other subjects?'--'No: he has stood high as a man of probity
and honour for years.'--'Why, then, throw out his testimony?'

'Because he lies in this instance,' says the adversary: 'his testimony
does not agree with this and that.'--'Pardon me, that is the very point
in question,' say you: 'we expect to prove that it does agree with this
and that.'

Because certain letters of Lady Byron's do not agree with the
'Quarterly's' theory of the facts of the separation, it at once assumes
that she is an untruthful witness, and proposes to throw out her evidence
altogether.

We propose, on the contrary, to regard Lady Byron's evidence with all the
attention due to the statement of a high-minded conscientious person,
never in any other case accused of violation of truth; we also propose to
show it to be in strict agreement with all well-authenticated facts and
documents; and we propose to treat Lord Byron's evidence as that of a man
of great subtlety, versed in mystification and delighting in it, and who,
on many other subjects, not only deceived, but gloried in deception; and
then we propose to show that it contradicts well-established facts and
received documents.

One thing more we have to say concerning the laws of evidence in regard
to documents presented in this investigation.

This is not a London West-End affair, but a grave historical inquiry, in
which the whole English-speaking world are interested to know the truth.

As it is now too late to have the securities of a legal trial, certainly
the rules of historical evidence should be strictly observed. All
important documents should be presented in an entire state, with a plain
and open account of their history,--who had them, where they were found,
and how preserved.

There have been most excellent, credible, and authentic documents
produced in this case; and, as a specimen of them, we shall mention Lord
Lindsay's letter, and the journal and letter it authenticates. Lord
Lindsay at once comes forward, gives his name boldly, gives the history
of the papers he produces, shows how they came to be in his hands, why
never produced before, and why now. We feel confidence at