66

high rank." The mention of the deficiency is unpolite and unedifying; not to pay homage to the possession, is unfeeling.

Agreeably to this system of morals, it is curious to see, in his review of the present work, what a number of things, extracts from letters, &c. are brought in to tell in Lord Byron's favour, which really tell against him, and furnish aggravated proofs of his little claim to be esteemed. Among these are his virulence against Mr. Keats and others; his remark, (in a spirit of infinite aristocratical absurdity, which shows how much he had been injured by being a Lord,) that “ they never lived in high life nor solitude!" (as if the millions of human hearts that lay between were nothing!) his splenetic inventions against others, and his extraordinary forgetfulness of his own offences.

where he speaks of

The passage is quoted

my "not very tractable

children." Thank God, they were not tractable

to him! I have something very awful to say on that point, in case it is forced from me. Then the same man, who talked as he did about his wife, over and over again, to the whole world, asserts his incapability of violating domestic confidence; and the servility of the poor reviewer is carried to its climax, in the assumption, that what appeared weak or insincere in the conversation of the Noble Lord (as if his very title could not have spoilt him and helped to make it so) was only so much profundity beyond the capacity of his hearers, or done out of an intention of making his guests ridiculous, and so violating the very hospitality which they are accused of not being grateful for! These are the airs of a footman, eager to degrade others, out of an instinct of his own condition; and raising a servile laugh in honour of his master, for insulting some stranger at his door.

But I am noticing this born slave more than I intended. One must have some respect for a writer, to contend with him; and I keep what I have to say on these matters, till the promised work appears from the pen of Mr. Moore. Meanwhile, however, in order to answer a question put to me in the Quarterly Review, I will suppose that I heard it elsewhere, and that it was put by some honest

man.

"that

"It is well known," says the Review, Lord Byron took leave finally of Mr. Leigh Hunt by letter. The letter in question we never saw, but we have conversed with those who read it; and from their account of its contents-they describe it as a document of considerable length, and as containing a full narrative of the whole circumstances under which Lord Byron and Mr. Hunt met and parted, according to his Lordship's view of the case-we confess we have been rather surprised to find it

altogether omitted in Mr. Leigh Hunt's quarto. Mr. Hunt prints very carefully various letters, in which Lord Byron treats of matters nowise bearing on the differences which occurred between these two distinguished contemporaries : and our question is, was it from humanity to the dead, or from humanity to the living, that Mr. Leigh Hunt judged it proper to omit in this work the apparently rather important letter to which we refer? If Mr. Hunt has had the misfortune to mislay the document, and sought in vain for it amongst his collections, he ought, we rather think, to have stated that fact, and stated also, in so far as his memory might serve him, his impression of the character and tendency of this valedictory epistle. But in case he has both lost the document and totally forgotten what it contained, we are happy in having this opportunity of informing him, that a copy of it exists in very safe keeping."

I am very glad to hear it. Pray let it be

such

brought forward, for I never received any s valedictory epistle. Lord Byron certainly did take leave of me by letter. It was an epistle equally friendly and short, and purported that there was no necessity for our meeting on the occasion, because leave-taking was painful; and therefore he wished me well, and was very sincerely mine, &c. That he was not very sincerely mine, I know very well; and so did he. But that is another matter. It is insinuated (for even the habitual falsehoods of the reviewer do not enable him to doubt that I speak the truth, and that it is better to get at the truth out of my own mouth, than charge me directly with want of it) that I have kept back this one letter written to me by Lord Byron, while I have published various others nowise bearing on the differences between us. I have said in the book, (see vol.i. p. 250,) that I have other letters in my possession, written while Lord Byron was in Italy, and varying in degrees of cordiality, according