subjoined, and I ought to add that Dr. CONNOLLY was the physician whom
my father had requested to see Lady LYTTON; that Dr. FORBES WINSLOW was
consulted by my mother’s legal advisers, and I felt anxious to obtain
the additional authority of the opinion of the latter gentleman, and
requested my friend, Mr. EDWIN JAMES, to place himself in communication
with him. I trust that such journals as have given publicity to partial
and inaccurate statements will do me the justice to publish this
communication, to which I need add no more than to say that this painful
matter has been arranged, as it ought to be, by the members of the family
whom it exclusively regards.—I have the honour to be, sir, your most
obedient servant,
ROBERT B. LYTTON.
1, Park Lane, July 17th, 1858.
[Copy No. 1.]
To EDWIN JAMES, Esq., Q.C.
Having at your request examined Lady B. LYTTON this day as to her state
of mind, I beg to report to you that in my opinion it is such as to
justify her liberation from restraint.
I think it but an act of justice to Sir EDWARD B. LYTTON to state that
upon the facts which I have ascertained were submitted to him, and upon
the certificates of the medical men[3] whom he was advised to consult,
the course which he has pursued throughout these painful proceedings
cannot be considered harsh or unjustifiable.—I remain, sir, your obedient
servant,
FORBES WINSLOW, M.D., D.C.L.
23, Cavendish square, July 16th, 1858.
[Copy No. 2.]
London, July 17th, 1858.
SIR,—Notwithstanding the decided opinion which I felt it my duty to
express with reference to Lady LYTTON, after my visit to her at the
private residence of Mr. and Mrs. HILL, and which I need not repeat,
justified the course you adopted; I have much satisfaction in hearing
of the arrangements which have been made for her ladyship leaving their
family in the society of her son and her female friend.—I have the honour
to be, sir, very faithfully, your obedient servant,
G. CONNOLLY, M.D.
To the Right Hon. Sir EDW. BULWER LYTTON, Bart., M.P., &c., &c., &c.
The whole of this is, no doubt, full of satisfaction to all persons
concerned; and to the outside world. We own that it does not satisfy us:
but then perhaps _we_ belong to the discontented. Our readers have only
to bear in mind that at this time Sir E. B. L. was a Cabinet Minister,
with all the immense resources of that post; that he was backed up by the
QUEEN, by Lord DERBY, and Mr. DISRAELI; and that under such circumstances
any attempt to “make the worse appear the better cause” could have little
doubt of perfect success. Such appears to have been the opinion of the
writer of what follows:—
_To the Editor of the “Daily Telegraph.”_
SIR,—Thanks to you for your noble and eloquent defence of Lady
LYTTON, and the outrage on public justice perpetrated by her husband.
Your watchfulness may have been rendered unnecessary by the family
“arrangement” which has been announced, but heaven help Lady LYTTON
travelling abroad under the guardianship of such “affection,” with the
stigma of insanity upon her, available for any purpose.
The letter of Mr. ROBERT LYTTON explains nothing, answers nothing. It
does not even show where his mother is. He writes—“My mother is now with
me, free from all restraint.” This letter is dated 1, Park-lane, the town
residence of Sir BULWER LYTTON, who is now in London. Does Mr. LYTTON
mean to say that his mother is or was on Saturday last under the roof of
her husband? There is more than meets the eye in this. Is Lady LYTTON
free from all restraint? Whatever the “arrangement” is, it was made when
she was in durance, and not a free agent, and if that arrangement has
taken her from the custody of Mr. HILL, of Brentford, to that of her own
son and husband, it is only that her prison-house has been changed. “From
the moment my father felt compelled to authorise those steps which have
been made the subject of so much misrepresentation, &c., in order that
my mother should not be subject to restraint for one moment longer than
was strictly justifiable, such was his charge to me.” If Sir EDWARD was
so solicitous to procure the opinions of the most able physicians, we may
ask how it happened that instead of consulting Dr. FORBES WINSLOW and
Dr. CONNOLLY in the first instance, that he employed a Mr. THOMPSON to
kidnap the lady at his own residence. Mr. LYTTON says the statements are
“exaggerated” and “distorted,” but he does not explain how. He says he
has the best right to speak on behalf of his mother, and has “the best
means of information,” and that his assertion will be at once believed.
It is hard to refuse this to a son, and in ordinary cases one would not
feel inclined to do so; but he seems to have acted entirely under the
influence of the father, and to have been from first to last so directly
opposed to his mother, that before we give him the credence he asks there
are several questions he ought to answer. Is it true he has neither
sought after nor corresponded with his mother, nor even seen her, for
nearly seventeen years, until he met her at the Hustings, at Hertford,
during the recent election there? Is it true that on that occasion
he made the preliminary attempt which culminated at the house of Mr.
THOMPSON, in Clarges-street, to put his mother in a madhouse by sending a
physician to the house of the Mayor of Hertford where she was on a visit?
Is it true that when his mother was kidnapped in Clarges-street, and Miss
RYVES ran out into the street, and seeing Mr. LYTTON waiting outside,
entreated him to interfere and procure assistance to prevent his mother
being carried off to Brentford, he refused to have anything to do with
the matter? Other questions suggest themselves, not directly affecting
Mr. LYTTON, but important to an understanding of this painful case.
He says, “I put myself in constant communication with my mother.... I
carried out the injunctions of my father, who confided in me implicitly,
... enjoined me to avail myself of the advice of Lord SHAFTESBURY in
whatever was judged best and kindest for Lady LYTTON.” Is this a solemn
farce, a piece of well-acted hypocrisy, or a truth in letter and spirit?
Is it conceivable that Sir EDWARD LYTTON, not having set eyes on his wife
for seventeen years, and leaving her to live and suffer and complain
during all that time on £400 a year, suddenly became tenderly solicitous
on her behalf, as to require “all that was best and kindest” should be
done for her? Why is Lord SHAFTESBURY introduced? Is it to give the
shelter of his sanctity to a cruel outrage? MEPHISTOPHELES might envy the
genius which suggested the mention of Lord SHAFTESBURY as the adviser and
referee of Sir BULWER LYTTON.
The certificates appended to Mr. LYTTON’S letter are not properly
“certificates;” they are intended as apologies for the conduct of Sir
BULWER LYTTON. But though put forward with this view, they substantiate
that the state of Lady LYTTON’S mind “is such as to justify her
liberation from restraint,” and prove nothing to his honour. It is easy
to see that the “certificate” of Dr. FORBES WINSLOW is but an answer to
certain questions put by Mr. EDWIN JAMES, who was strangely employed by
Mr. LYTTON, and whose object was to extract from the doctor everything
that he could on behalf of Sir EDWARD. On this part of the question we
are all competent to form an opinion, and if it should appear that the
facts submitted to Sir EDWARD were facts suggested by himself, and the
medical men, on whose certificates he acted, were employed by him, which
is the fact, Dr. FORBES WINSLOW’S opinion upon this part of the question
goes for nothing.
The more enquiries we make into the matter the more convinced we are that
a great wrong was attempted, and has now been glossed over. That wrong
was not done to Lady LYTTON alone, but to all society. Her wrath may have
been appeased, her personal wounds may have received a plaister, and her
friends may have been flattered and cajoled into silence, but is the
public satisfied, or the wrong to society been atoned for, while the case
of Lady LYTTON remains uninvestigated, and the conduct of her husband
escapes official and public censure? Is any one of us safe so long as the
law permits the “next of kin” to do what has been done to her?
AN ENGLISHMAN.
_Daily Telegraph, July 21, 1858._
We return unwillingly, and, we trust, for the last time, to the
melancholy scandal in which Sir BULWER LYTTON has involved himself. It
had been our intention not to carry further this painful controversy,
yet additional explanations are extorted from us by the peculiar
tactics not only of particular individuals, but of some among our
contemporaries. There have been allusions to “misrepresentations”
contained in “paragraphs,” and “exaggerated and distorted statements,”
circulated with reference to the Lady, who a few days since was spirited
away by stratagem to Brentford. Now in respect of the persons principally
concerned, nothing more need be said; if the Right Hon. Secretary for
the Colonies has effected a settlement agreeable to his conscience and
his wife, none has a right to interfere; if the Electors of Hertford are
satisfied, the general public has perhaps little reason to complain, and
if legality and justice are not to be permanently outraged we rejoice
that family negociations have been successful. Yet there are points
connected with our own position, which should be clearly set forth. The
vague and solemn rebukes that have been set forth were addressed almost
exclusively to ourselves, not of paragraphs, but of articles based upon
a well-prepared narrative published in a provincial journal, no one
assertion, of which to the present moment has been invalidated. But
if there has been “exaggeration,” if there has been “falsity,” who was
the person and what was the time to correct them? The proper individual
was the son of Sir BULWER LYTTON himself, and the proper time was upon
one of the occasions, when since the exposure in our columns, he called
at the _Daily Telegraph_ office, sometimes not alone. Did we hear then
anything about “distortion” or “misrepresentation”? Most certainly not
a word. Mr. ROBERT LYTTON acted then as the champion of his mother,
and not he only, but her personal friends also appeared delighted that
upon public grounds an appeal had been made, bearing so directly upon
their private interests. Then, we think, was the moment for substituting
accurate for erroneous impressions; but since this retort is forced upon
us, what if we suggest if the original case was not one to be explained
away? Lady LYTTON was by no means the person interested in a concealment
of the facts or in hushing up the affair before it was dragged before
a Commission of Lunacy. We are now told, indeed, that the Baronet was
satisfied in the course he adopted, which we have never pretended
to deny, for we have insisted only on enquiry. We asked whether the
allegations against him were true, and we pointed out the impossibility
of allowing a public man to remain under an imputation so scathing, and
we expressed our hope that the sinister rumours afloat would be set at
rest by an ample vindication of the Privy Councillor’s conduct. Is it our
fault then that no such vindication has been attempted—that Sir BULWER
LYTTON has preferred a private arrangement—that he has defied the written
opinion of two professional men, and allowed his so-called insane Wife
to be once more at large upon terms to which he had previously refused
his consent? Nothing would have been more satisfactory to ourselves and
the public than that Lord DERBY’S Colonial Secretary, after a strict
judicial investigation, should have demonstrated himself a Man of Honour,
incapable of kidnapping an obnoxious Wife.
But upon whose authority was Lady LYTTON captured and sent to
Brentford? Not originally, as has been stated, upon that of Dr.
CONNOLLY. The certificates were signed by a Mr. HALE THOMPSON, once
known at Westminster Hospital, and by a Mr. ROSS, an apothecary of
Farringdon-street, whose medical reputation seems to have travelled
providentially from east of Temple-bar to an official residence in
Downing-street. The sanction of these “eminent” gentlemen enabled the
policemen and nurses to place Lady LYTTON by force in a carriage, but
through a humane after-thought, Dr. CONNOLLY was ultimately called
in and dispatched to the residence of Mr. ROBERT GARDINER HILL, at
Brentford. There he certified that Lady LYTTON was a demented patient;
there, however, Dr. FORBES WINSLOW, within a day or two, certified in
singularly cautious and ambiguous terms, that she was _not_ a demented
patient; she was in fact fit and unfit to live without restraint, and
the result is that with her son and a female relation, she is to enjoy a
continental tour. At all events, it is gratifying to know that whatever
has been the effect on the Lady’s nerves, she has been benefitted by the
public discussion of her case. Instead of the Brentford process, she will
sojourn at the Spas, and Florentine gaiety may compensate her for a week
of Middlesex gloom under the Lunacy Law.
Concerning the Brentford question, Mr. ROBERT GARDINER HILL is pleased
to think himself aggrieved. We may remark that Mr. HILL claims to have
penetrated the secrets of physiological science. That he is not the
proprietor of a “notorious Madhouse” we will admit, if he will allow that
he is the principal of a “celebrated Lunatic Asylum.”
What consolation would it be to any of our readers, if falsely accused of
insanity, that a “lunatic asylum,” and not a “madhouse,” shuts its doors
upon them. Would a paltry verbal quibble reconcile them to captivity
among maniacs and the mentally afflicted? He is among the proprietors, he
confesses, of Wyke House, which, if he will not permit us to describe it
as “notorious,” is at least well-known as a Madhouse, or, if the term be
offensive, of a Lunatic Asylum.
Though not standing alone in this controversy, we have been solitary
among the organs of the press in claiming a public enquiry on behalf of
Lady LYTTON. In our main object we have succeeded. The “patient” is no
longer in legal or in medical clutches. Her position has totally changed
since the protest of public indignation rose against the treatment to
which she had been subject. The Taunton people are satisfied that a great
wrong is not to be perpetrated, and Lady LYTTON’S friends, who rejoiced
in the original exposure, are now at liberty to be as ungrateful as
they please. They will not induce us, at all events, to state whence
our information was derived, or how far the Right Honourable Baronet
is indebted to themselves for the publication of a monstrous scandal.
But it was due to ourselves, to our readers, and to the innumerable
correspondents whose letters we have felt it necessary to suppress, to
remind Mr. ROBERT LYTTON and his colleagues in the negociation just
concluded, that they have to thank the press for the publicity which
spared them the painful alternative of a judicial investigation. It fell
to us, fortunately, to produce a movement of public opinion in favour
of Lady LYTTON; and it is not for her personal advocates to blame the
persistency with which we have followed it to its final issue. Least of
all, whatever gracelessness may be exhibited in Park-lane, do we regret a
course of proceedings without which, in all probability, the wife of Sir
BULWER LYTTON might have been still, and possibly for the rest of her
life, subject to the galling tendernesses of our Asylums for Lunatics.
LORD LYTTON THE FIRST.
This man was once called by his admirers (who were probably well paid for
it) “The modern SHAKSPERE.” We now know in what estimation his writings
are held. But his private character was so vile and detestable, that
it will cause almost incredulity if it ever should be exposed in its
true colours to the world. Mr. LABOUCHERE, in _Truth_, has a paragraph
upon him, which is truth itself. Here it is:—“A man may be endowed with
genius and with numerous amiable qualities, and yet be a Snob. Few of
those who have lived during the present century have been gifted with
more genius than Lord LYTTON, and yet few have been so arrant a Snob. In
his works of fiction he has frequently sought to portray gentlemen, and
these gentlemen, each of whom has a family likeness to his creator, are
the beau-ideals of Snobs—clever, pushing, conceited, florid Snobs, with
Brummagem manners, Brummagem morals, a Brummagem varnish of philosophy,
and a Brummagem varnish of poetry.” In Friday’s _Times_ we read this
advertisement, anything meaner than which we never perused:—
Herts, Knebworth-park, with 1,500 acres of capital Shooting,
three miles from Stevenage and Welwyn Stations (G.N.R.)—A
handsome FURNISHED baronial MANSION, surrounded by a fine park
and splendid gardens and grounds. Particulars of &c., &c.
Is the son as mean a fellow as the father? Lord LYTTON left him about
£300,000; and he is paid as Viceroy of India £100,000 a year, with
“pickings;” and he offers to let his family mansion. Would he not do
better to let his Mother, that noble, injured Lady, into Knebworth, than
hire it out to some stranger?
MR. JOHN FORSTER.
This man, who was one of Lord LYTTON’S tools, and who also played
toady for the greater part of his life to a congenial evil spirit, Sir
ALEXANDER COCKBURN, is thus described by Lady LYTTON. Under the name
of JANUS ALLPUFF, she alludes to her accomplished husband:—“The chief
MECÆNAS of this FUDGESTER (FORSTER) is a Sir JANUS ALLPUFF, who not
content with having hunted his unhappy Wife nearly to death, and reduced
to the lowest ebb of pecuniary destitution, from defending herself
against his infamous Conspiracies, also prevents her in every possible
way from earning her bread: and who so useful in this way as FUDGESTER?
I should tell you, in order to show you the astuteness and diabolical
cunning of this Infamous Gang, and the tortuous sneaking measures they
adopt to prevent their dirty work being brought home to them, by always
employing others, as far a-field as possible, to do it; this FUDGESTER,
from being a known tool and toady of that vile old profligate, Sir JANUS
ALLPUFF, and a declared enemy of his Victim, never reviews her books,
or mentions her name in any way, in his own particular paper, _The
Excruciator_ (_The Examiner_), but merely sets on the ramifications of
the Gang to attack and malign her in every possible way: and from the
wording of some of these attacks, it is quite clear that Sir JANUS gives
the substance of what he wishes them to do, as the same internal evidence
exists of such being the case, that does as to his furnishing the pith
of the puffs about himself to those organs of his myrmidons. But after
all there is nothing so silly as your over-cunning people; which the very
bungling way in which Sir JANUS gets his dirty work done, will ultimately
prove: and indeed some of the anonymous letters which his infamous
Literary Myrmidons are set to write to his Victim, strongly resemble, in
their little mean cramped characters, his own, or his JACKAL FUDGESTER’S
writing.”
THE LATE DUKE OF ATHOL.
One of VICTORIA’S chief favourites, and one who knew a little more of her
than we think it well to publish, was one of the BULWER LYTTON Gang, and
is thus described:—
Another member of this worshipful clique of Stop-at-nothings, a few
grades higher as to station, but quite on a par as to blackguardism, is
the Duke of TWILGLENON.
“Ah, I’ve seen that horrid fellow,” broke in Mr. PHIPPEN; “what a
horrid-looking Wretch it is—for all the world like a low, drunken Grazier
in appearance, looking as if he had just beaten or worried one of the
poor animals he had been driving, to death.”
“Well, sir, I believe he does kick and worry the only animal which every
Englishman has a right to ill-treat to any amount, which is his wife; for
beautiful and amiable as the poor Duchess is, it don’t prevent her being
well brutalized by her ruffianly-looking husband. Ah, sir, I often think
that had Princess CHARLOTTE lived, _she_ would have had some feeling for
her own sex, and that such notoriously profligate men as this Duke of
TWILGLENON, and his worthy associate, that Sir JANUS ALLPUFF, would not
have disgraced the English Court. But perhaps a man in my sphere of life
is no judge of such matters; only I cannot help thinking, according to
the Laws of GOD, Vice is Vice, and Infamy is Infamy, all over the world,
whether in Queens, or Dukes, or Dustmen, or in Baronets or Bricklayers.”
“To be sure it is,” said Mr. PHIPPEN, “only ten times worse in the
Patrician than in the Plebeian, as _they_ have not even the excuses of
misery, as provocation, to drive them into low vice.”
But Sir JANUS ALLPUFF had other irons in the fire.