the unfortunate girl with feelings of deep commiseration; and I know that he not only pitied her, but felt strong compunctions for the share which his own mistaken conduct at the beginning, even more than at the end, had had in drawing her aside from what would have been her natural course in ordinary life.  Mary, I believe, clearly understood the whole case, and felt nothing but compassion for one who was a “victim to circumstances.”

The sequel has been alluded to in several publications, but so obscurely as to be more than unintelligible; for the reader is led to conclusions the reverse of the fact.  In the “Memorials,” at page 63, the subject is barely touched upon.  I take the whole passage.

“Towards the close of 1813, estrangements, which for some time had been slowly growing between Mr. and Mrs. Shelley, came to a crisis.  Separation ensued; and Mrs. Shelley returned to her father’s house.  Here she gave birth to her second child,—­a son, who died in 1826.

“The occurrences of this painful epoch in Shelley’s life, and the causes which led to them, I am spared from relating.  In Mary Shelley’s own words:—­’This is not the time to relate the truth; and I should reject any coloring of the truth.’

* * * * *

“Of those remaining who were intimate with Shelley at this time, each has given us a different version of this sad event, colored by his own views and personal feelings.  Evidently, Shelley confided to none of these friends.  We, who bear his name and are of his family, have in our possession papers written by his own hand, which, in after-years, may make the story of his life complete, and which few now living, except Shelley’s own children, have ever perused.

“One mistake which has gone forth to the world we feel ourselves called upon positively to contradict.  Harriet’s death has sometimes been ascribed to Shelley.  This is entirely false.  There was no immediate connection whatever between her tragic end and any conduct on the part of her husband.”

At the end of the “Relics” is a memorandum entitled, “Harriet Shelley and Mr. Thomas Love Peacock.”  Mr. Peacock had been writing in “Fraser’s Magazine” a series of articles on Shelley; in “Macmillan’s Magazine” for June, 1866, was an article by Mr. Richard Garnet, entitled, “Shelley in Pall-Mall”; to this Mr. Peacock replied in “Percy Bysshe Shelley:  Supplementary Notice”; and Mr. Garnet rejoined in the new little volume which he ha; edited.  The main purpose of this last notice is, to show that Mr. Peacock was not accurate in his chronology or in his interpretation of the severance between Shelley and Harriet.  Alluding either to the discretion which prevented Shelley from making a confidant of Mr. Peacock, or to his grief occasioned by the fate of Harriet, the writer refers to “the proof which exists in a series of letters written by Shelley at this very time to one in whom he had confidence, and