LADY BYRON'S DEMAND FOR A SEPARATION--RUMOURS THAT "GROSS CHARGES" MIGHT
BE BROUGHT, INVOLVING MRS. LEIGH
Hobhouse, as we have seen, had an early inkling of the trouble which was
to come; and it is not to be supposed that the brief entries in his Diary
chronicle the whole of his knowledge. He had observed, indeed--or so he
says--that it was "impossible for any couple to live in more apparent
harmony"; but he also had reason to believe that the appearances did not
reflect the realities with complete exactitude. He had heard Byron talk,
though "vaguely," of breaking up his establishment, of going abroad
without Lady Byron, of living alone in rooms; and he had noticed that
Byron's complaints of his poverty led up to disparaging generalisations
about marriage.
Speaking of his embarrassments, Byron had said that "no one could know
what he had gone through," but that he "should think lightly of them were
he not married." Marriage, he had added, "doubled all his misfortunes and
diminished all his comforts." He summed the matter up, with apparent
anxiety to do equal justice to Lady Byron's feelings and his own by
saying: "My wife is perfection itself--the best creature breathing; but
mind what I say--_don't marry_." Having received these confidences, and
knowing Byron well, Hobhouse must have been at least partially prepared
for the subsequent developments; but their suddenness nevertheless
surprised him, as they surprised everyone.
The crisis came shortly after Lady Byron's confinement, in the early days
of 1816. Augusta, Byron's cousin, Captain George Byron, and Mrs. Clermont,
a waiting woman who had been promoted to be Lady Byron's governess and
companion, were all in the house at the time. They had witnessed some of
the scenes of which we have spoken--scenes which appear to have included,
if not to have been provoked by, irritating references to "the women of
the theatre." Byron is said to have been aggressive in his allusions to
them; and there is no evidence that Lady Byron was conciliatory on the
subject. The state of his liver and of her general health would naturally
have tended to accentuate any differences that arose. Things came to such
a pass that, for a few days, they communicated in writing instead of by
word of mouth; and Byron sent a note to Lady Byron's room.
He spoke in this note of the necessity of breaking up his establishment--a
necessity of which, in view of the frequent invasions of the bailiffs, she
can scarcely have then heard for the first time. He asked her to fix a
date for accepting an invitation to stay with her mother at Kirkby
Mallory. He proposed that that date should be as early as was compatible
with her convenience, and added: "The child will, of course, accompany
you." Whereto Lady Byron replied, also in writing: "I shall obey your
wishes and fix the earliest day that circumstances will admit for leaving
London."
Neither letter is particularly amiable. On the other hand, neither letter
suggests that Lady Byron was leaving, or being asked to leave, as the
direct consequence of any specific quarrel. There was no question of a
separation--only of a visit to be paid; and the dread of more "men in
possession" sufficiently explains Byron's wish that it should be paid
without delay. Lady Byron would obviously be more comfortable at Kirkby
Mallory than in a house besieged or occupied by minions of the law. Her
husband would have time, while she was there, to turn round and reconsider
his position. The temporary estrangement--the interchange of heated
recriminations--did not make the execution of the plan any the less
desirable. On the contrary, it might afford opportunity for tempers to
cool and for absence to make the heart grow fonder.
It seemed, at first, as though Lady Byron saw the matter in that light.
She did not sail out of the house with indignation--she left it on
ostensibly cordial terms with everybody who remained in it. She wrote to
Byron in language which seemed to express fond affection, sending him news
of his child, and saying that she looked forward to seeing him at Kirkby.
One of the letters--there were two of them--began with the words "Dear
Duck," and was signed with Lady Byron's pet name "Pippin." That was in the
middle of January. There was an interval of a few days, and then it became
known that Lady Noel[8] and Mrs. Clermont were in London, "for the
purpose," as Hobhouse states, "of procuring means of providing a
separation."
Nothing, Hobhouse insists, had happened since Lady Byron's departure to
account for this sudden change of attitude. There had, in fact, hardly
been time for anything to happen. That intrigue with a "woman of the
theatre" which Cordy Jeaffreson believed to have been Lady Byron's
determining grievance did not begin until a later date. The one thing, in
short, which had happened was that Lady Byron--and Mrs. Clermont, who had
accompanied her--had talked. Byron's conduct had been painted by them in
lurid colours--the more lurid, no doubt, because they found listeners who
were at once astounded and sympathetic. Sir Ralph and Lady Noel had,
naturally, been indignant. Their daughter, they vowed, was not to be
treated in this way; and they were, no doubt, the more disposed to
indignation because they and Byron had not got on very well together.
Sir Ralph is commonly described in Byron's letters to his intimates as
prosy and a bore. "I can't stand Lady Noel," was the reason which he gave
Hobhouse for declining to visit her house. A very small spark, in such
circumstances, may kindle a fierce conflagration; and it appeared to do so
in this case. There was no manoeuvring for position, no beating about the
bush. Byron received no intimation, direct or indirect, of the plans which
were being laid for his confusion. What he did receive--on February 2--was
a stiffly worded ultimatum from his father-in-law.
The charges contained in the ultimatum were mostly vague; in so far as
they were precise, they were untrue. "Very recently," Sir Ralph began,
"circumstances have come to my knowledge"; the circumstances, so far as he
disclosed them, relating to Lady Byron's "dismissal" from Byron's house,
and "the treatment she experienced while in it." He went on to propose a
separation and to demand as early an answer as possible. He got his answer
the same day. It was to the effect that Lady Byron had not been
"dismissed" from Piccadilly Terrace, but had left London "by medical
advice," and it concluded: "Till I have her express sanction of your
proceedings, I shall take leave to doubt the propriety of your
interference."
Mrs. Leigh wrote simultaneously to Lady Byron to inquire whether the
proposal made by her father had her concurrence. The answer, dated
February 3, was that it had, but that Lady Byron, owing to her
"distressing situation" did not feel "capable of stating in a detailed
manner the reasons which will not only justify this measure, but compel
me to take it." She referred, however, to Byron's "avowed and
insurmountable aversion to the married state, and the desire and
determination he has expressed, ever since its commencement, to free
himself from that bondage, as finding it quite insupportable"; and she
added in a subsequent letter, written on the following day:
"I hope, my dear A., that you would on no account, withhold from your
brother the letter which I sent yesterday, in answer to yours, written
by his desire; particularly as one which I have received from himself
to-day renders it still more important that he should know the
contents of that addressed to you."
That was the stage which the discussion had reached when Hobhouse, calling
on Byron on February 5, heard what had happened and was taken into
council. The whole thing was a mystery to him, and a mystery on which
Byron could throw but little light. In the light of the few facts before
him, Lady Byron's conduct was absolutely unaccountable, inconsistent, and
incoherent. The transition from the "Dearest Duck" letter to the "avowed
and insurmountable aversion to the married state" letter seemed
inexplicably abrupt; and, indeed, it seems so still, though later
disclosures enable us, in some measure, to trace its history; the facts
now known, but not then known either to Byron or to his advisers, being
as follows:
1. Lady Byron had assumed that Byron was mad, and must be humoured
tactfully. The "Dearest Duck" letter had been the manifestation of her
tact.
2. Lady Byron had secretly instructed doctors to inquire into, and
report upon, the state of Byron's mind. They had reported that he was
perfectly sane; and their report had, in Lady Byron's opinion, removed
all shadow of excuse for his behaviour, and decided her to leave him.
Hence Lady Noel's journey to London, to consult lawyers.
3. Dr. Lushington, the lawyer consulted, had advised Lady Noel that,
while the circumstances laid before him "were such as justified a
separation," they were "not such as to render such a measure
indispensable," and that he "deemed a reconciliation practicable."
4. Lady Byron had persisted, for reasons which she did not yet state,
either to her family or to her legal advisers, in her refusal to
return. Hence Sir Ralph Noel's ultimatum.
These facts, which gave Lady Byron's conduct a certain superficial
coherence, were gradually elicited. For the moment, however, the only fact
which Hobhouse had before him was the ultimatum and Lady Byron's
endorsement of it. Of Lady Byron's reasons he knew nothing; and he had no
grounds for suspecting any other motives than the word "tantrums" would
cover. He proceeded, as did all Byron's supporters, on the assumption that
the word "tantrums" did, in fact, cover them; and a fusillade of letters
ensued. One cannot quote them all, but their contents can easily be summed
up. From Byron's side there issued appeals for reconciliation, for
explanations, for specific charges, for personal interviews; from Lady
Byron's side there came refusals either to give reasons or to parley, and
reiterated statements that her mind was unalterably made up.
"I must decline your visit and all discussion," was what Lady Byron wrote
to Hobhouse on February 7; and on the same day she wrote to Byron himself:
"I have finally determined on the measure of a separation.... Every
expression of feeling, sincerely as it might be made, would be misplaced."
The letter apparently crossed one from Byron to Sir Ralph Noel, in which
he said that his house was still open to Lady Byron, that he must not
debase himself to "implore as a suppliant the restoration of a reluctant
wife," but that it was her duty to return, and that he knew of no reason
why she should not do so. On the following day Byron addressed a further
appeal to Lady Byron herself: "Will you see me--when and where you
please--in whose presence you please?" and, almost as he was writing, he
received another communication from Sir Ralph Noel, threatening legal
proceedings "until a final separation is effected."
February 13 brought the letter in which Lady Byron stated that she had
excused Byron's conduct in the belief that he was mad, but that she could
not excuse it now that she had received assurance of his sanity. She
added: "I have consistently fulfilled my duty as your wife; it was too
dear to be resigned till it was hopeless. Now my resolution cannot be
changed." Byron rejoined on February 15: "I have invited your return; it
has been refused. I have requested to know with what I am charged; it is
refused."
He had, in fact, made, and was still to make, attempts, through several
channels, to pin Lady Byron and her supporters to a specific allegation.
Hodgson had been appealed to by Mrs. Leigh to come and help. He came, and,
on the strength of the information supplied to him, wrote to Lady Byron.
Two of her letters and one of his are published in his life by his son,
the Reverend James T. Hodgson. Hers may be analysed as a very thinly
veiled threat to bring mysterious and abominable charges unless she got
her way. There is an air about the letters of conscious virtue and of
consideration for the feelings of others, but the threat is unmistakably
contained in them. "He _does_ know--too well--what he affects to inquire,"
is one sentence; and another is: "The circumstances, which are of too
convincing a nature, shall not be generally known whilst Lord B. allows me
to spare him."
Hanson, the lawyer had, in the meantime, been sent to call on Sir Ralph
Noel. He had asked for explanations, and been refused any. He had also
met Lushington who had, by this time, been definitely retained by Lady
Byron, and addressed some inquiries to him. "Oh, we are not going to let
you into the _forte_ of our case," had been Dr. Lushington's reply.
It was, no doubt, a reply in strict conformity with his instructions.
Lushington, as we know from a published letter from him to Lady Byron,
was, at this date, personally in favour of an attempt at reconciliation.
On the other hand, as is equally clear from the letters quoted in
preceding paragraphs, Lady Byron had announced her intention of going into
Court unless she could get her separation without doing so. Whether she
had, at this date, any case--any case, that is to say, which a lawyer
could take into Court with any confidence of winning it--may be
questioned. The weaker her case, of course, the less likely her counsel
would be to reveal the nakedness of the land prematurely by talking about
it. Professional etiquette and zeal for the interests intrusted to him
account quite adequately for his reticence; and there is no other
influence to be drawn from it.
A little later, at an uncertain date towards the end of February,
Lushington, as his letter to Lady Byron sets forth, received a visit from
Lady Byron, had "additional information" imparted to him, changed his
mind, and said that, if a reconciliation were still contemplated, or
should thereafter be proposed, he, at any rate, should decline to render
any help in bringing it about. The original "Byron mystery" was: What was
the nature of that "additional information" which so suddenly altered
Lushington's attitude towards the case? That mystery has, as we shall see
in a moment, been solved by Lord Lovelace. The questions left unsolved
relate, not to the nature of the information but to its accuracy. Byron,
Hobhouse, and Hodgson, however, were unable to dispute its accuracy
because they were left uninformed as to its nature, and could only guess
the charges to be met.
The awkwardness of the situation is obvious. On the one hand, Byron could
not be expected to desire, for his own sake, the society of a wife who
wrote him such letters as he was now receiving from Lady Byron--to
separate from her would, at any rate, be the least uncomfortable of the
courses open to him. On the other hand, he could not afford to let it be
said that he had consented to a separation under the threat of gross, but
unspecified, accusations. The charges might be specified afterwards,
whether by Lady Byron herself or by the irresponsible voice of gossip, and
he would be held to have pleaded guilty to them.
That, as Byron's friends impressed upon him, could not be allowed. It
could the less be allowed because rumour was already busy, and charges of
a very monstrous and malignant character were being whispered. The name of
Mrs. Leigh was being mixed up in the matter, and there was some reason to
suppose that the stories implicating her emanated from Lady Byron; for
Lady Byron, according to Hobhouse, had intimated to Mrs. Leigh that "she
would be one of her evidences against her brother." That might mean much,
or might mean little; but it meant enough, at any rate, to make it
imperative for Byron to show fight until the air was cleared. So his
friends urged, and he agreed with them, and waited for the next step to be
taken by the other side.
What the other side did, in these circumstances--we are still following
Hobhouse's account--was simultaneously to appeal for pity, to bluff, and
to spy out the land. They "talked of the cruelty of dragging" Lady Byron
into a public Court. They sent Mrs. Clermont to Captain Byron to try to
induce him to dissuade Byron from fighting. They threatened that, if he
did fight, they would carry the case from Court to Court, and bury him
alive under a heap of costs. But all this without effect. Sir Ralph Noel
wrote to Hanson to inquire whether Byron had "come to any determination"
on the proposal to separate. The reply was to the effect that "his
Lordship cannot accede."
At the end of February, that is to say, Byron still meant fighting. He
said that, if Lady Byron did not proceed against him, he should proceed
against her, and commence an action for the restitution of conjugal
rights. His friends approved of his determination; but, at the same time,
desiring to know what sort of a case would have to be met, they begged
Byron to be quite candid with them and inform them, not, of course, of the
nature of Lady Byron's charges, of which he had not himself been informed,
but of any good grounds of complaint which he knew himself to have given
her.