Funding for the digitization of this title was provided by the R.J. Taylor, Jr. Foundation in partnership with the Atlanta History Center.
About Weekly constitutionalist. (Augusta, Ga.) 185?-1877 | View Entire Issue (Sept. 15, 1869)
THE WEEKLY OOHBTITUTIONALIBT. WEDNESDAY MORNING. SEPT. 15, 15«» dab Rate* for tfao Weekly Conetltutlon nllet. That every one may be enabled to sub scribe, and receive the benefits of a live Jour nal, we offer the following liberal terms to Clnbs: 1 Copy per year • - - - $3 00 3 Copies per year - - - - 750 5 Copies per year - * - - 12 :00 10 Copies per year - - - - 20 00 We trust that every subscriber to the paper will aid ns in adding to our list. OBOPS AND OTJRBEN V NEWS. Onr subscribers and Mends in the coun try will confer a favor on us and onr nu merous readers by sending us items as to crop prospects and general news in their different sections. We trust that each subscriber will consider himself a special correspondent for the Constitu tionalist, and thereby add to the interest of the paper. “ INTOLERANCE.”’ Under this caption, the Atlanta Intelli gencer, of Sunday, contains the following leader: “We have seen for sonic time past the evidence of a combination on the part of the Chronicle and Sentinel, Columbus Hun, and the Atlanta Constitution, to impair and injure the well-earned reputation of the Atlanta Intelligencer for fairness and inde pcnclence. “ These three papers, to say nothing of the lesser ‘lights’ of the Georgia press, have, in their studied and unjustifiable ef forts, sought every opportunity to make an attnek on the integrity and interest of the Intelligencer, and have even gone so far as to read the proprietor of tills journal a lec ture on his private and social visits and entertainments —and above all, and the most ridiculous—to undertake to teach Democracy to the Intelligencer. “ The Union Democrats of Georgia will never consent to lie led by such ultra and intolerant journals. The whole country arid the people of the State especially—have already been injured too much by these pa pers, and so far as wc are concerned, wc do not Intend to lie governed and influenced by them any longer, bnt will pursue an in dependent course in support of the State and Federal Governments, and such meas ures as will best promote the interest and prosperity of the people, and we call upon all good and true conservative men every where to do the same, without regard to threats of proscription. “ We shall notice this subject again in our next Issue.” It will appear from the above article that the Atlanta Intelligencer has voluntarily abandoned the Democratic party, and gone over to the camps of the enemy. This move on the part of our Gate City con temporary is ostensibly an “ independent” one; but happening at a time when it is the recipient of Mr. Bullock’s patronage, the excuse of “ independence” Is not near so forcible as It might be. Beside, tills “independent" attitude has been u long time in parturition, ami its open announce ment at this late day makes it sound like a mockery. The Intelligencer s. ks, as If officially, of certain “Union Democrats” who will “ never consent to be led by intolerant jour nals.” Is Bullock a “ Union Democrat ?’’ Is Blodgett - ? Is Hulbert ? Are the true Democratic papers of the State to tie classed as “ intolerant,” because they scorn to make a compromise with ill-gotten power and its mongrel minions? “ Intolerance,” under such circumstances, l« not an asper sion, and, In comparison with the easy tolerance of the Intelligencer, Is virtue Itself. It is impossible nny longer to regard our Gate City contemporary as a Democratic organ. It Is nothiug of the kind. It is a so-called independent sheet which defends Bullock, Blodgett & Cos. It is a so-called independent sheet which supports the Statu and Federal Gov ernments. It may put on fine airs of in dignation, and prate of proscription; but when it preferred Its present company to old associates it knew very well what the consequences would be. We do not read the Intdligencer out of the party. That would be superfluous, since the Intelligencer has taken the initiative and read itself out. We have hitherto dealt leniently with our venerable contemporary, in the hope that his transition state would have produced better fruit. But here wo part company. The Democratic press of the State can no longer have affiliation with the Atlanta liUdUgencer. Wo trust that the defection of this old journal will teach an important lesson, via: a closer union among those of us who remain steadfast in the faith. We have, horn time to time, noted signs of rcstlesnoss among some of our contem poraries. This restlessness has occasion ally resulted in sentiments calculated, however unwittingly, to impair the strength aud invincibility of the Demo cratic party of Georgia. We call upon our brethren of the Democratic press who re main true to be all the more faithful and all the more vigllaut and all the more re- solved. The defection of the Atlanta In~ teUigeneer has erased from the scroll one paper formerly devoted to Democratic principles. We arc of opinion that it will not carry with it ten individuals who were not willing to go at any time. If there be as many as ten, wo look upon their deser tion as a blessing rather than a curse. Let the Aciians go. Ukkki.ky and China.— Out of pur* sport, the Mew York journals are urging Ohkk I.KT for the Chinese mission. They say that “ under the apisjsmiice of great atm pitrliy—iu which he resembles a Citium mail be a grunt deal of practical > wisdom aud cunning." ANOTHER TRANSFORMATION. About a fortnight ago, Util. Grant au thorized the publication of a conversation he hail had with A certain Gen. Tabbell, iu which convers«t|on the President dis tinctly sided with the ultra Radicals, and desired' that the country should under stand the position he had deliberately as sumed. Since this notable conversation, affairs have not prw>j»ered for the ultra Radicals, and we now have Gen. Grant quickly transmogrified into a Conserva tive, with a smart chance pf tossing over board Messrs. Boutwell and Cbbswell, who have hitherto been considered his evil genii. The first intimation of this start ling change happened in this wise: Stokes, the plucked bald-eagle of Tennessee, had an interview with the President. His Excel lency patted the bald-eagle on the head, smoothed his rumpled feathers and ar ranged his draggled tail. He Cooed to Stokes ever so mildly, praised him as a good Radical bird, and gave him a cracker to mumble at parting. Stokes went away delighted. Then Sentek, the victorious, had his pow-wow with the President. The same scene was enacted, and Sentek pass ed out of the reception chamber the picture of edification. This was a capital imita tion of Gen. Lafayette by Grant. Com ing to this country, and desirous of pleas ing everybody, Lafayette, when intro duced to any individual, cautiously in quired as to his position in the matritno uinl market. Mr. Jones was presented. “Married man, Mr. Jones?” said the Gen- eral. Mr. Jones, mayhap, replied in the affirmative; when the General retorted: “ Happy man, Mr. Jones, happy man! Then came Mr. Smith. “Married man, Mr. Smith?” quoth Lafayette. “No, sir,” growled Smith. “Happy man,” said the General, with the same fervor lie used toward Jones, “ happy man ! ’ And in just such a fashion the President managed Stokes and Sentek ; but the sequel was not so comfortable. The ad herents of both these worthies compared notes and then their rage was bouudless. It was determined that the President should not perform a two-horse act with impunity, and must either ride one way or the other, or else take the consequences of duplicity. Pushed to the wall, and compelled to make some demonstration of position, Gen. Grant lias chosen to repudiate the Tar heel conversation, and now comes forth a full-blown Conservative! Though this transformation was begun, as we have ex plained, by Stokes aud Sentek, the affair of the Virginia test oath was the feather which finally inclined the Executive to eject the ultra Radicals. Hence, Attorney General Hoar’s opinion and a complete political revolution, as sudden as remark able. llow long this attitude will lie preserved no one can tell, for Grant is moved mys teriously, and by events as well as indi viduals. What will be the consequences jirt inun .'Hu Bay, tar wo Jwv* yrt to witnow the counter-moves of Boutwell and Ckeswell. The Stokes men declare that the result will be a Democratic triumph in every State that votes this Fall, except Maine and Vermont. The Sentek men say nothing, being too well pleased, per haps, with the spoils at home to bother much about anything abroad. One tiling seems certain, viz., that Grant will shape his policy according to events rather than according to Massachusetts dictatiou. That this will cause much bad blood and division in the Radical ranks no one can doubt; that Democrats should be all the more compact, united and agreed every oue may perceive. If, however, the divisions iu our party become equally ns great as the divisions of our enemy, the result will be a complication deplorable beyond expression. Roseorans. —Old father Grant says Roseorans is treacherous and unreliable. We believe him and here is corroboration of this estimate in a strange quarter : Declining the Democratic nomination for Governor of Ohio—for which God be prais ed—he wrote a letter to the Democratic Committee in which he translated K Pluri bus Unuin “ many in one.” ' This is a false and. wc fear, a deliberately false translation Intended to support his theory of our gov ernment and as an excuse for the outrages he helped perpetrate in the war. A corres pondent of the Baltimore Gazette, who points out this error, justly says : “ The General shed much blood in right ing against the principle contained in the true translation of our Federal motto, and it is natural, if he is not ignorant, that he should endeavor to save ills conscience by persuading others, at least, that the mean ing is the very reverse of what it truly is. This Is not a wry small matter ; it is one of the numerous misrepresentations indulg ed in by the war party to make the habit of thought and expression conform with the idea of national unity, and thus justify themselves with the rising generation for their blood-stained hands.” Sickles’ Blunder. —The New York World pursues Sickles with supernatural venom. No doubt much of its diatribe is just; but we are not Inclined to admit, as the World does, that his blunder at Gettys burg “is tlie last count in the indictment against this epitome of vileuees.” Hear the librM: “ But for the tremendous efforts put! forth by five-sevenths of Meade’s army to j hold Lougstrect’s corps at bay, the result j of Sickles’ blunder would have been the end of the United Stab's and the establish 1 mout of the Southern Confederacy. With 1 the loss of Gettysburg would have come the occupation of Washington, foreign In tervention, the ratatng of the blockade, the I perpetuation of slavery, and the indc peudeseeor the Ikrath." It that lie so, just think how near Hicki.es com, uiiintculUnially though, to doing the most wholesome thing he ever did In Ids Getting Rich.— The people of the North say we are getting rich in the South. They have been rummaging among the statistics of the Agricultural Bureau and Treasury Department,and find somestartling figures. For instance, onr agricultural production is set down as worth $650,000,000, and, iu the way of cash, we are said to have more of the “demnitiou” than the rustic por tions of North, East and West. We hope all of this Is true; for it is the only way to command the respect and veneration of our Yankee masters. The Ever lasting Nigger.—Only the other day, the New York Herald declared t| ie “ nigger question ” a dead one. In | its last issue it changes tunc thus: I “From all the signs of the day, includ j jug the results of the California election, ! wt . think it probable that the ‘ almighty | aigger ’ will be the leading issue in all the l approaching State elections where there is ] a chance to head off General Grant on the | /ifteenth amendment, iu support of which I he is fully committed:” .... • A Singular Omission.— The Legislature of New York failed to send the resolution ratifying the XVth Amendment to the Gov ernor, and so failed to provide for Its trans mission to the Secretary of State. Hence the job will have to be done over again by the next General Assembly, and that General Assembly will be, it is predicted, tod Democratic to endorse the ratification. [From the New Yoik World. More Rotten-Borough States. The Radical leaders can beat any fox in turning and doubling to escape the enmity which is hot upon their trail aud threatens to overtake and destroy them. Oue of the latest devices is to repeat the trick in the case of West Virginia—that is, carve new States out of old ones. Tills is proposed in tlic cases respectively of Arkansas and Tennessee, with the purpose, of course, of obtaining four brand-new Radical Sena tors, and so oft-setting any possible Demo cratic Senatorial gaius in existing States. As is perfectly well understood by these leaders, the Senate of the United States is really the government of the United States, and so long as Radicalism has a two-thirds jin that body it can laugh at any testimony of popular disapprobation as evidenced in the composition of tlie lower House.— West Virginia, as the reader will remem ber, has been made to do yeoman service, nullifying, on several occasions, in the per sbn of its two surreptitious Senators, the rfibuke of much larger States as expressed by returning Democratic representatives to the House. Impeachment itself, by the aid of West Virginia, would have been suc cessful had it not happened, contrary to every expectation, that the Senatorial vote of that made-td-order State was divided in the (blabvote. With Willey voting guilty and Van Winkle not guilty, the vote good 35 for to 19 against conviction ; from which it is easy to see that, had the West Virginia vote been wholly reliable, A. J. would have gone under by 30 to 18. To be sure, it was not “reliable,” anti he did not go under; but the very fact, that impeachment, with all its probable consequences, was only averted by so unexpected a circumstance •as the division of tins bogus vote, gives one a very lively idea of the tremendous import ance in any given contingency iu Federal legislation possessed by ftny oue State, real or putative. To instance still further the importance of the senatorial vote, let ns suppose a matter of conflicting interests between the States of Vermont and New York comes up In the House of Representatives. The thirty-one New York members would, of course, Vote one way, and the three mem bers from Vermont the other, leaving Ver mont out-voted ten to one; and yet In the Senate, the Senators voting each for his State, Vermont' would nullify New York, and New York's ten to one superiority in the House go, so far as regards Federal legislation, for nanjjht. The chain being no stronger than its weakest link, It follows that under our system the States are all of the same power ; for, however one State may out-vote another in the House, that vote goes for nothiug until acted on by the Senate vote, where any one State has as many votes as any other State. Knowing this, it is the subtle design of the Radical leaders to neutralize any revul sion of sentiment which might change the complexion of the House by reinforcing' their side of the question in the Senate. With the creation of new Radical Senators, who cares for the House ? Let the people, poor gulls, give a Democratic majority at the next Congressional election; this House is ours—by its aid let us erect new States, fill up the Senate with six-year reliable vo ters, and then let the people and the House together go hang. A pleasant little game, is it not, thus to use and abuse the crown and flower of State rights—the equal vote iu the Senate—While bawling on all occa sions that State rights strikes at the great heart of the nation, aud is a device of the old enemy himself? Mr. Bonner Would Not Publish Mrs. Stowe’s Byron Article. New York, August 30, 1300. To the Editor of the Herald : In yonr paper of tlds morning; I And the following statement, copied from the Louis ville Courier-Journal,- in regard to Mrs. Stowe’s recent articie.on Lord Byron : “ Dana and Bouner fairly burst with spieeu—Dana liecause he did not invent the Byron scandal, and Bouner because he did not get it for the Ledger. 1 Damnation!’ cried Bouner, when he first got au inkling of it; • why didn’t she fetch it to me ? Why, I’d have paid her a cool $5,000 for it.’ ” This is not only a falsehood, but it is a falsehood which no one at all acquainted with me could ever have invented. What ever J might have thought about Mrs. Stowe’s article, it would have been quite contrary to my habit of sjieech to char acterize it by the word “ damnation but this I must say, that a million of dollars could not have induced me to print that gross and indecent article in the ledger, no matter what the publishers of the Atlantic Monthly were willing to do. Few women have evinced so much talent as Mrs. Stowe. I have myself purchased articles from her for which I have cheerfully paid her a high price ; but they were very difft rent articles from the one tinder consideration. And I do not believe that any true friend who was himself In his right nilnd could have advised her to sell for any sum that mor bid, terrible and unnatural hallucination about Lord Byron. For her sake, I 4n j oerelv and deeply regret that she lias done it. I know of no article published in ray lifetime calculated to exert a more liijurf | <>ti» aud demoralizing influence on the rls , lug generation; and for this reason l wish ! cvcryisidy to know that nothing would ( hare tempted me to publish it. ItoRRMT UoNRP.». Th* Stowe-Byron Scandal. THE TRUE CAUSE OF QUARREL AND SETA RATION. Two years before his marriage with Miss Millbankc, Lord Byron had been rejected by her—a circumstance never forgotten by man. In a reckless, inebriated moment, in cited by wine and Sheridan—who regarded his poet friend (one of the committee of Drury Lane Theatre) as a species of Sir Uharies Surface—Byron wrote for a wife, and addressed two ladies, half in jest, half iu earnest, proposing marriage, and to his amazement he was accepted, and by Miss Milibanke. Never were united two beings more anti-sympathetic. He a volcano of poetic fire; she a frozen fountain of the ice-brook temper. He, from his beauty, genius, and generosity, having no jealousy; she, comparatively plain in features, viewed with hatred the admiration of handsome women for her husband, and thence she be came mentally “ bound in to saucy doubts and fears ;” and the jealous are not jealous for a cause, but jealous because they are jealous, as says Shakspeare. It is generally called the “honeymoon'’—the first-four weeks of marriage; but Byron called his the “ treaciemoon ;” and certainly it was a “ brimstone and treacle ” matrimony. They were married on January 2, 1815, he being twenty-seven years and she twenty three years of a?e, respectively, having been born in 1788 and 1792, and they separated forever on January 15,1816, hav ing been married only one year and thir teen days; but they never had sexual intercourse with each other after the first' six weeks of marriage, and “ hell has no fury like a woman scorned,” especially regarding the hyraenial rights of mar riage. It is historically related of Zenobia, Queen of Palmyra, that from the day she discovered maternity she refused marital rights to the King, her husband ; nor could the philosopher* Longinus, change her de termination that a wife’s mission was to be a mother, and when that, by proof, was even initiated, the woman should have no farther knowledge of man. That, how ever, was not the natural philosophy of Lady Byron,' and certainly not oi her liege lord, George, the Baron Byron of Rochdale. What, then, caused the sexual separation, and finally the marital? Here, then, is the true secret, and the “ curse ” the chief cause. In the sixth week of their mar riage, and during a jealous mood, Lady Byron fearfully resented a remark of a love-, memory of Lord Byron’s, who said : “ I deeply regret that my beloved Mary Cha worth was very unhappy in her marriage. Ah! it might have been different had we married!” Upon this sighing remark La dy Byron instantly arose, and, in great an ger, uttered these fatal words: “ Mary Cha worth rejected you for your deformity, as I did once, and it had been better if 1 had still rejected a man with a devil’s foot 1” and with those terrible words she left the apartment. To Lord Byron, sensitive as the quivering aspen leaf upon that very fact of his deformity—his “ curse of life,” as he once said to Trelawney—those fear -ful words were as daggers in the breast of love, esteem or respect, and from that mo ment ceased all sexual knowledge of his wife, and as the woman he never knew her more. Each kept their own apart ments ; and thus, in solitude, each sought those friends best entitled to advise. Lady Byron, in another evil moment, as if destiuy was driving her to marital desola tion, sent for her former governess—the human being who was the cause why Miss Milibanke had formerly rejected Lord By ron. She came, and, of con use, took shies with her former pupil, over whose mind she had great influeucc, and sanctioned even t/ie brnt.il remarks upon the deformity of the husband, and which was quickly communicated to his lordship. Then it was that the wounded poet brother sent for the faithful and devoted Aflgnsla, his half-sister. She was his senior by five years—she having been born in 1783; mar ried in 1807—and at this time* (1815) the eight years’ wife of Colonel George Leigh, of the British army, and the mother of a child born of that marriage; and Augusta at this time was thirty-two years of age and Lady Byron only twenty-three years. Except at about the marriage period, this was the first time that Lady Byron had seen the Hon. Mrs. Leigh, and with the in diguation, from the savage insult and.wrong tier in-other had received, well might the slight, fragile form and features of Lady Byron shrink abashed before the majestic figure, the queenly dignity, the intellectual and mild look of sisterly reproach from the Lady Augusta, di unified by that title in so ciety—less in courtesy than to her character as a gentillimma —a very “ lady of ladies,” and assiich wasflnally honored by the Queen of Great Britain, as 1 will prove. The an cieut governess arrived, in the latter part of the month of February, and the Honor able Mrs. Colonel Leigh in the middle of March, 1815 ; and what followed established that the former became the “ damned lago ’ of the family, and worse, beiug a female; and the latter, the Lady Augusta, a species of Innocent Dcsdemona ; the poet, an equally innocent Cassio, while Lady Byron became a self-consuming jealous Othello. The first resolution of the brother upon the arrival of his sister was that he would separate from his wife, and by a legal document to that effect. This resolution was success fully resisted by the honorable Mrs. Leigh, upon the paternal ground that, as Lady Byrou was enceinte and in a few months would become a mother, should the husband separate by a legal document, or otherwise, before the birth, it would cast a lasting re proach upon the child, as to the true father. This argument was conclusive with Lord Byron ; for he never doubted the chastity of his wife, and would endure his wrongs rather thau Injure her reputation, or that of their future unborn innocent child. _ He, therefore, concluded to remain domiciled until after the birth, and then, upon the convalescence of the mother, to separate, at" least for a time ; bat an event soon took place, from the malice of “ the female lago,” which made Byron finally determine to be separated forever. I have already shown the diflnified charac ter of the beauty of Lady Angusta; it formed a perfect contrast with Lady Bvron’s, aud as the latter was prone to* be jealous it was no difficult matter to create that feeling towards Augusta, and finally of a criminal suspicion, instigated by the fiendish governess, who urged the natural fact to convey belief, viz : that the Hon. Mrs. Leigh was ouiy the half-sister of the poet. This poisonous suggestion hav ing entered the brain of Lady Byron, creat ed from the serpent shrine of slander, it fatally permeated her intellect until she be came upon that false Idea a monomaniac, and thence she lived and so she died. It was the first week of July, 1815, iu a scene of quarrel, that Lord Byrou was Indirectly accused by Lady Byron with being “ over fond of his half sister, Augusta, and that | the suspicious of my governess arc not j without foundation." This false aud ma j lignum aspersiou upon bis sister and the ; wife of Col. Leigh, conjoined with the pre vious insult regarding his deformity, de- I terralued Lord Byron that after the ae couehement of Lwly Byron they should sepa j rate forever, The brother and ’sister con-1 fronted thrlr accusers ; they were abashed I and silent, slid Lady Byrou cast the respou-' j ■lblllty entirely u|x>u the governess, whom ■ the poet has iuuoortalked lo tli# sketch, • Born in garret, in the kitchen bred ; Promoted thence to deck her mUtree*’ bead, Ac., it being the most powerful invective from the peu of man, and oould only emanate against a woman upon the ground of false, malignant demoniac wrong, received by the author, and also his true and Irreproacha ble sister. Following the above scene. Lord Byron made and duly executed his last will and testament on the 29th of July, 1815, leaving all his property to his sister, “Augusta Mary Leigh, wife of George Leigh, Esq.,” and in the same will he writes that “Lady Byron and any children I may have being otherwise amply provided for.” The former will, made in 1811, was by law vacated and void by his marriage in 1815. ■ On the 10th of December, 1815, the only child of Lord and Lady Bvron was born. Some.time previous to this event the mother had song - t reconciliation with the husband, but he was firm in his resolution to separate. The express contrition, atone ment and entire disbelief in the criminal suggestion ; and as a public confession of her injustice to the injured . sister, Lady Byron herself proposed (mark this, Mrs. Stowe,) that the unborn child, if a girl, should not only be named Ada, the father’s selection, but also Angnsta, impressing that innocent name as a seal of purity upon the virgin jewel yet within the casket of human nature. By the justice of God it was so, and the child was baptized “ Ada Augusta,” and as she grew to womanhood, anti was married, she used that name in preference to Ada, in justice to her father and his sister, and thence she became alienated from her mother. Lady Byron had the lingering hope of preventing her husband leaving England, and “ madness” was suggested as a means to an end, but this only expedited the issue; for they separated within six weeks after Ada Augusta’s birth- The day of separation came (January 15, 1816), but the statement of Mis. Stowe of that final interview is entirely false and un natural, and also malignant in its criminal assertion. The authoress writes that “ La dy Byron went into her husband’s room,. where he and the partner of Ins sins (the lion. Mrs. Leigh) were sitting together,and said, ‘ Byron, I come to say good-bye,’ ” &e. There is falsity in the very phrase “ Byron.” The ignorance of Mrs. Stowe as to the domestic phraseology of high society in England has betrayed her. Ladies and gentlemen of rank iu married life—and even of royalty, as I know, personally— as among the more humble classes, address each other by their baptismal names, as George, and Mary, &c., when in the domes tic circle and friendly. If otherwise, the address would be “Mv Lord ”or “ Lord Byron.” Nobfemeu bachelors and most in timate gentlemen friends of rank alone ad dress each other by their title or family surnames. Now, the facts of the “ Fare well” are these : Lord Byron left his own room and went into that of Lady Byron’s to take farewell of his wife and daughter, and he had sent wold to that effect. There were present the father, mother aud infant child (the nurse left upon his entrance.) — The husband received into his arms “ Ada Augusta,” kissed her with deep emotion aud wept. He took the hand of his weep ing wife, and while thus situated (a group for the painter or sculptor) he said, with a deep sigh, the words of his favorite author, Shakspeare: “ When shall we three meet again ?” to which the wife responded,On earth, I hope.” Lord Byron replied, “In heaven, I trust;” and those were his last words to her, as he gaye back the infant to its mother and silently and slowly left the chamber, and, with royal etiquette, face to face. So “ Lady Byron’s caressing the spaniel,” &c„ is auother fiction; and well it might be, since the spaniel was a large dog of the Mont St Bernard breed, and al ways at night guarded his master’s door as formerly when lit Newstead. There in the daytime the noble dog was the playful companion of the wolf and bear that guard ed right and left the monastic staircase of the ancient Abbey. On April 35,1816, Lord Byron left Eng land forever, and never again saw his wife, child br sister. The poet died at the early age of thirty-five years, and the marble tablet to his memory over his grave, in the village church, near Newstead Abbey, was erected by that faithful sister, of whom he ;iad written : Thou eiood’st, as stands a lovely tree, That, still unbroke though gently bent, Still waves, with fond fidelity, Its boughs above a monument. The foregoing narrative and solemn denial of the slander I received from the lion. Mrs. Augusta Leigh, personally, at her residence in St. James’ Palace,Loudon. Ay! Madame Stowe, at St. James’ Palace, as I will prove. SOLEMN DENIAL BY LORD BYRON ON HIS DEATH BED. In a conversation I had with the late Field Marshal, the Duke of Wellington— the warrior of Waterloo—and having read my “ Biography of (general President Har rison,” he was pleased to say that he wished such a pen would do him justice after his death, in regard to the only event of his life in which justipe had not been done, viz: “It is said that I could have saved the life of the brave Marshal Ney. I could not. I tried. But King Louis XVIII was inexor able.” The Duke, of Wellington then told me circumstances of proof, which are now in my manuscript autobiography. In a similar manner Lord Byron wished justice upon one theme, viz: that in regard to his sister, and he besought a friend, to whom he wrote, “ not to suffer unmerited censure to rest upon his name after death. To the Couutcss Guiceioli, the Couutess of Bless ington, Viscount Canterbury (formerly Speaker of the House of Commons), the Count D’Orsay and the Cornwall Trelaw ney, he solemnly denied the truth of the imputation, and from those personages I received that denial in solemn conversa tion. There is, however, another proof more solemn. When a man is assassina ted, and in his dying moments he proclaims his murderer, it is proof of the crimi nal, and all other dyrag confessions are re ceived with equal reverential solemity. I now transfer the reader to the death-bed of Lord Byron atMissolonghi, on April 19, A. D. 1824. There were present, among others, Count Pietro Gamba, the brother of the Countess Guiceioli; Trelawney, of Corn wall ; William Fletcher, the valet, and Colonel the Hon. Leicester Stanhope, after wards the Earl of Harrington. This gen tleman honored me with hjs friendship to the day of his death, extending over a period from 1834 for more than twenty years. I was intimate with him and in his confidence, and often was his invited guest in London and at Ashburnhara House, his country lesldence. This was the demo cratic nobleman who introduced the free press in India, and was the patriotic cham! pion, with ids friend and democrat Lord Byron, for the freedom of the classic land of Marathon and Mlltiades, and towards that noble cause advanced from his own I purse the sum of i'lo,ooo ($80,000.) Within the dying hour of the great poet, Lord Byrou requested all to leave the chamber except Colonel the Hon. Leicester Stanhope. J The poet then knew that he was dying, ami said to bis friend, “ Htauliope, I wish you to take charge of ray dead body to Eugland. Hce that It is burled in tlra grave or my mother,” [Both these dying withes were fulfilled by the friend.] “ Stanhope, I de clare to yon, at this solemn moment, that the former accusation by Lady Byron against me and my ftdttafbl sister was A lie, an odious, Caraned He! Upon my son), a wicked lie! and so defend us when again assailed.” Col. Stanhope took the hand of this dying friend, and said, “ Byron, the name of Au gusta being added to that of Ada at the baptism of your daughter, and at the re quest of Lady Byron, as told me by yonr sister, dispersed that slander forever; but if you would be happier, send ,your dying declaration by your confidential valet, Fletcher, and order him to see Lady Byron with your death denial.” “ I will do so,” said the dying poet. “ Send Fletcher to me. God bless you. Stanhope. Os all men you 1 best love. You will live to see the freedom of this classic land when I shall be no more. Adieu!” With manly tears Col. Stanhope bade adieu, to his friend forever, and within half an hour there ifier Fletcher was at the bed side of his dying master. Then took place the oft-repeated broken sentences cited by Mrs. Stowe and others, but now explained by the previous interview with Col. Stan hope :“Goto my sister—tell her—go to* Ladv Byron—you will see her, and say “ here” his voice failed from exhaustion. But had he power, who can doubt but the dying man would have repeated to his faithful valet what he had already declared to his faithful friend ? REQUIESCAT IN PACE. It was at Asiiburnham House, on the Sun day following I passed with the Hon. Mrs. Leigh at St. James’ Palace, when she re lated what 1 have recited; and speaking of the subject to the Earl of Harrington (the former Colonel Stanhope), that he narrated to me the dying declaration to him by his dying friend, Lord Byron, at Missolonghi, and authorized me, should the occasion call for it, to repeat the words, as the sister had her narrative; and the present libellous oc casion does call tor it, and I have done my duty. QUEEN VICTORIA DEFENDS THE INNOCENT. In conclusion, I now produce a proof of innocence, which, if Mrs. Stowe knew and concealed from the public, is, in itself, m crime upon the dead; if she did not knoiß it, then she is unfit to be a writer of history, being ignorant of facts. It is the custom of the Queens of Eng land, when any lady of rank has been over taken by comparative poverty, by misfor tune, or any honorable cause, to present gratuitously to the distressed lady a suit of furnished apartments, cuisine, &c., in one of her Majesty’s palaces, either at Hampton Court, Holyrood, or, a greater compliment still, in the Royal Palace of St. James, ■ London. Need I add that personal chastity " and the matronly virtues are the conditions precedent with Queen Victoria. She, her self, the model wife, widow and Queen to all posterity! I say to the libelous au thoress, “ O shame, where is thy blush ?’’ to conceal from the public the great moral fact which here follows: . The Queen of Great Britain, Victoria tiie Good! God bless her! in sympathy to the monetary misfortunes of a lady of rank (from the improvidence of her husband)* and that ladv having the right of entree t™ her Majesty’s drawing-room, even upon State occasions, and the Queen gave to that lady for life a suit of regal apartments at St.'James’ Palace, and that lady’s name was engraved on a 'silver plate and placed on the front door of those apartments, pub licly seen at all times, iu the royal banner square of the palace. Who was that lady * whom the Queen delighted to honor?— Does the reader ask ? Do the poisonous publishers of the libel ask? Then thus I answer to them and all the world, and dare denial of its truth—that lady was this ver® slandered Augusta, the Hon. Mrs. Coloner Leigh, the half sister of Lord Byron, the poet, and his royal honor was publicly en joyed by Lady Angnsta while Lady Byron lived! In that palace, in her own apartments,! repeatedly saw the Hon. Mrs. Leigh, re ceived her hospitality, passed evenings with her, a..’ freely conversed of her poet brother and his eventful life, and each of ns without reserve. And she also honored me by accepting my friendship, and which I again prove, though she is in her with her brother, by thus publicly defend® ing her reputation ; and were I in France I would do so even to the death. My brother editors who have published the libel from the Atlantic Monthly —though they nobly scorned it—will, in justice to the dead, copy this refutation of the irreligious, fiendish and cowardly calumny. The spirit of Byron whispers to me these lines upon the original slanderer of himself anti sister, and anew couplet of verses upon the renewal of the libel: Oh ! may thy grave be sleepless as tby bed. The widow’d couch ol fire that thou bast spread! Down to the dust! and as thou rott’st away, Even worms shall perish on thy poisonous clay! Ten thousand depths in Dante’s hell below, Be hurled to infamy the novels of Stowe. I remain yours, respectfully, &c„ George, the Count Johannes, Os the Supreme Court of New York. New York, August, 1869. Extraordinary Self-Immolation.—' TlJj following statement appears in the Pall Mall Gazette: “ All the extraordinary proceedings of the many’ fanatical sects whose rapid in crease has excited so much anxiety in Russia are fairly thrown in the shade by a terrible act of self-immolation which is reported from the government of Sara tow. A few months ago the prophets of anew religion made their appearance in that part of the empire, preaching self dcstrtiction by fire as the only sure road to salvation, and so readily was their dreadful doctrine received by the igno rant and superstitious peasantry that in one large village no less than 1,700 per sons assembled in some wooden houses, and, having barricaded the doors and windows, set the buildings on fire and perished in the flames. The authorities are doing all they can to stay the prog gress of this new madness, but their taslS is obviously a difficult one. The punish ment which the law can inflict must have little terror for enthusiasts who delibe rately choose a death so horrible as the true road to Heaven.” Dismal Swamp Burning.— This great swamp is still burning, and the smoke from'' it fills the whole atmosphere for miles around. Saturday the delightful breeze which was blowing from the direction of the fire was laden with a heavy vapor which almost obstructed the sun. In the afternoon we saw a gentleman from Deep creek wh6 says the smoke there is almost intolerable. The same gentleman tells us that the fire is sweeping the swamp and burning the deep collection of debris upou its surface. — Norfolk Virginian. The Prick op Hogs.— The hog crop of lower East Terftiessee, tills season, says the Cleveland Danner, is greater than It has been in any one year since the war, but owlug to the fall off In the corn cron, there is but little doing In that line. We have heard of hogk beiug offered at 9 cents gross, hut buyers do not appear to take hold ug these figures.
