It is clear that those vices which destroy domestic happiness ought to be as much as possible repressed.It is equally clear that they cannot be repressed by penal legislation.It is therefore right and desirable that public opinion should be directed against them.But it should be directed against them uniformly, steadily, and temperately, not by sudden fits and starts.There should be one weight and one measure.Decimation is always an objectionable mode of punishment.It is the resource of judges too indolent and hasty to investigate facts and to discriminate nicely between shades of guilt.It is an irrational practice, even when adopted by military tribunals.When adopted by the tribunal of public opinion, it is infinitely more irrational.It is good that a certain portion of disgrace should constantly attend on certain bad actions.But it is not good that the offenders should merely have to stand the risks of a lottery of infamy, that ninety-nine out of every hundred should escape, and that the hundredth, perhaps the most innocent of the hundred, should pay for all.We remember to have seen a mob assembled in Lincoln's Inn to hoot a gentleman against whom the most oppressive proceeding known to the English law was then in progress.He was hooted because he had been an unfaithful husband, as if some of the most popular men of the age, Lord Nelson for example, had not been unfaithful husbands.We remember a still stronger case.Will posterity believe that, in an age in which men whose gallantries were universally known, and had been legally proved, filled some of the highest offices in the State and in the army, presided at the meetings of religions and benevolent institutions, were the delight of every society, and the favourites of the multitude, a crowd of moralists went to the theatre, in order to pelt a poor actor for disturbing the conjugal felicity of an alderman? What there was in the circumstances either of the offender or of the sufferer to vindicate the zeal of the audience, we could never conceive.It has never been supposed that the situation of an actor is peculiarly favourable to the rigid virtues, or that an alderman enjoys any special immunity from injuries such as that which on this occasion roused the anger of the public.But such is the justice of mankind.
In these cases the punishment was excessive; but the offence was known and proved.The case of Lord Byron was harder.True Jedwood justice was dealt out to him.First came the execution, then the investigation, and last of all, or rather not at all, the accusation.The public, without knowing anything whatever about the transactions in his family, flew into a violent passion with him, and proceeded to invent stories which might justify its anger.Ten or twenty different accounts of the separation, inconsistent with each other, with themselves, and with common sense, circulated at the same time.What evidence there might be for any one of these, the virtuous people who repeated them neither knew nor cared.For in fact these stories were not the causes, but the effects of the public indignation.They resembled those loathsome slanders which Lewis Goldsmith, and other abject libellers of the same class, were in the habit of publishing about Bonaparte; such as that he poisoned a girl with arsenic when he was at the military school, that he hired a grenadier to shoot Dessaix at Marengo, that he filled St.Cloud with all the pollutions of Capreae.There was a time when anecdotes like these obtained some credence from persons who, hating the French emperor without knowing why, were eager to believe anything which might justify their hatred.Lord Byron fared in the same way.His countrymen were in a bad humour with him.His writings and his character had lost the charm of novelty.He had been guilty of the offence which, of all offences, is punished most severely; he had been over-praised; he had excited too warm an interest; and the public, with its usual justice, chastised him for its own folly.The attachments of the multitude bear no small resemblance to those of the wanton enchantress in the Arabian Tales, who, when the forty days of her fondness were over, was not content with dismissing her lovers, but condemned them to expiate, in loathsome shapes, and under cruel penances, the crime of having once pleased her too well.
The obloquy which Byron had to endure was such as might well have shaken a more constant mind.The newspapers were filled with lampoons.The theatres shook with execrations.He was excluded from circles where he had lately been the observed of all observers.All those creeping things that riot in the decay of nobler natures hastened to their repast; and they were right;they did after their kind.It is not every day that the savage envy of aspiring dunces is gratified by the agonies of such a spirit, and the degradation of such a name.
The unhappy man left his country for ever.The howl of contumely followed him across the sea, up the Rhine, over the Alps; it gradually waxed fainter; it died away; those who had raised it began to ask each other, what, after all, was the matter about which they had been so clamorous, and wished to invite back the criminal whom they had just chased from them.His poetry became more popular than it had ever been; and his complaints were read with tears by thousands and tens of thousands who had never seen his face.
