‘St.
James’s Palace: July 5, 1824.
Dear
Mr. H.,—A few lines, as I know you are anxious. The papers have probably
announced to you the arrival of that melancholy ship with the dear Remains. Of
this I heard on Thursday and was, I believe, the only person who expected it so
soon, but for days before I could not divest myself of the sensation, or
presentiment, that it was near me. You will think me very foolish, but so it
was. It is to be this day in the Docks, and the Remains moved to a house taken
for the purpose in George Street, Westminster. The intention is to deposit them
either in Westminster Abbey, or our own family vault near our own dear Abbey.
I’ve not yet seen Mr. Hobhouse to-day, so I do not know the Dean’s pleasure,
which has been sounded, not asked. I am expecting Fletcher every moment! You
may guess with what feelings. If I cannot write after having seen him, you
shall hear again to-morrow. If this melancholy ceremony takes place in
Westminster Abbey, it will be this week, I suppose, and is to be as private and
quiet as possible. I almost now wish it may be there, although it was my own
original wish that it should be in the other place. But I think it would
disappoint and inconvenience some friends who wish to attend. The papers will
also give you the account of the will: no other being found, and every reason
to suppose no later one has been made, it was to be proved to-day. I cannot
express how deeply grateful I am for the very unexpected provision for me and
mine. More to-morrow.
Yours
ever,
A.
L.’
The July 5th letter above, published in “Memoir
of Francis Hodgson”, was written by Lord Byron’s half-sister, Augusta Leigh,
addressed to Francis Hodgson, shortly after Byron’s death (from the
lordbyron.org website). John Cam Hobhouse
is mentioned in the letter, with evident importance to the family interests.
Hobhouse’s interaction with Byron’s life and legacy didn’t
end with his death, and in his “Travels in Albania and other Provinces of
Turkey in 1809 & 1810”, there is discussion of Byron’s religious beliefs,
as interpreted through his works, and the characters in his works by the Bishop
of London. Walter Scott’s opinion is integral
in defending Byron.
‘…It
must be allowed that an author, however famous, and of whatever genius, whose
writings could be fairly said to be systematically directed to the subversion
of the Christian religion, ought not to be held up to the esteem and imitation
of posterity in a temple devoted to Christian worship, nor perhaps in any other
national repository… The Bishop, according to one report, seems to have
designated Byron as a writer of much the same pernicious tendency as another
great historian, not Hume, but Gibbon… that the general scope and tendency of
his poems are such as to justify the condemnation of the Bishop of London, may
be safely denied… It is very possible, that a reader may not rise from the
perusal of these poems a better or a happier man—the same may be said of other
authors, against whom no charge of infidelity was ever made. .—was any man ever
made happier by reading Rasselas, or better by reading Pamela, or even
Clarissa?
… Had
Lord Byron been such a writer as the Bishop declares him to have been, is it to
be believed that those who are found amongst the subscribers to the monumental
statue, and most of whom were members of the Committee formed to promote that
object, would have lent the authority of their great names to honour and
perpetuate his memory?
…In that list were found his generous rivals, whose fame
for a time he almost eclipsed, Sogers," and Campbell, and Moore, and there
also the most marvellous, and the most popular, but at the same time the most
scrupulous and careful of all modern writers—the great Walter
Scott himself, whose peculiar praise it is, that in a branch of
literature most liable to be tainted with levity, and in all his hundred
volumes, not one sentence, not one word is to be found which piety would wish
to blot. And this good man—this
religious man—when applied to for the sanction of his name, replied in terms of
which nothing need be said— they speak for themselves. His first letter runs
thus—
“Edinburgh,
27th January [1826].
Sir,
I am almost, ashamed
that personal business of my own, though involving a considerable part of my
fortune, should have prevented me for a single post from replying to your very
interesting communication. I will be most happy to contribute anything in my
power, to show the high veneration I entertained for Lord Byron's brilliant
genius, and deep sense I entertain for the friendship with which he regarded
me.
I have just accomplished
a settlement of the affairs I alluded to, under conditions which will greatly
limit my power of doing what last month I would cheerfully have done in such a
case, and, therefore, it would not, I think, be fitting that my name should
stand amongst the Committee. But I put myself in your hands as to this, only
saying that, though my subscription must be in proportion to my power, rather
than my inclination, if there is anything else, in which I could be of the
slightest use, whether I am one of the Committee or not, it will give me the
highest pleasure.
I
am, Sir, with respect,
Your most obedient humble Servant,
Your most obedient humble Servant,
WALTER SCOTT."
After many months, a
list of those who had consented to be on the Committee was sent to Sir Walter Scott, who acknowledged the receipt of it in
the following letter to the same gentleman :—
"Sir,—I am honoured with your letter, and am much
gratified by the society in which my name is introduced in the inclosed list. I
hope, among so many noblemen and gentlemen well qualified to judge and decide,
the matter will not be allowed to sleep. The natural wish, perhaps, would be
for a statue in Westminster, and though I am aware difficulties might occur,
yet, perhaps, with management, they might be overcome. Byron ought to be in his
living form along with the great and glorious of the isle, who reign so many
centuries after their death; and I should [hope] the guardians of that asylum
would not fix their attention on speculative error and levities, but consider
the quantity of genius of which Britain is prematurely deprived, and the real
character of the individual, though it was not always that which was most
ostensible. But whatever the Committee may determine on will be agreeable to
me, and I will only be glad to be considered as one who takes peculiar interest
in the undertaking.
I
have the honour to be, Sir,
"Your
obliged, humble Servant,
Edinburgh, 6 December, 1826. walter Scott. “
