You ask, 'Why?
Has he ever been accused of want of veracity on other subjects ?'--'No: he has stood high as a man of probity and honour for years.'-- 'Why, then, throw out his testimony ?' 'Because he lies in this instance,' says the adversary: 'his testimony does not agree with this and that.'-- 'Pardon me, that is the very point in question,' say you: 'we expect to prove that it does agree with this and that.' Because certain letters of Lady Byron's do not agree with the 'Quarterly's' theory of the facts of the separation, it at once assumes that she is an untruthful witness, and proposes to throw out her evidence altogether.
We propose, on the contrary, to regard Lady Byron's evidence with all the attention due to the statement of a high-minded conscientious person, never in any other case accused of violation of truth; we also propose to show it to be in strict agreement with all well-authenticated facts and documents; and we propose to treat Lord Byron's evidence as that of a man of great subtlety, versed in mystification and delighting in it, and who, on many other subjects, not only deceived, but gloried in deception; and then we propose to show that it contradicts well-established facts and received documents.
One thing more we have to say concerning the laws of evidence in regard to documents presented in this investigation.
This is not a London West-End affair, but a grave historical inquiry, in which the whole English-speaking world are interested to know the truth.
As it is now too late to have the securities of a legal trial, certainly the rules of historical evidence should be strictly observed.

All important documents should be presented in an entire state, with a plain and open account of their history,--who had them, where they were found, and how preserved.
There have been most excellent, credible, and authentic documents produced in this case; and, as a specimen of them, we shall mention Lord Lindsay's letter, and the journal and letter it authenticates.

Lord Lindsay at once comes forward, gives his name boldly, gives the history of the papers he produces, shows how they came to be in his hands, why never produced before, and why now.

We feel confidence at once.
But in regard to the important series of letters presented as Lady Byron's, this obviously proper course has not been pursued.

Though assumed to be of the most critical importance, no such distinct history of them was given in the first instance.