New-York tribune., 1872-03-29
DEFdM1TION.

London society has recently been agitated
by an extraordinary scandal in high life. The
wife of Sir Travers Twiss, Queens Advocate
General, Chancellor of the Diocese of London,
and Vice Chancellor of the Diocese of Canter-
bury, was charged with having been courte-
san before marriage, and with various acts of
immortality during career of unusual profii-
gacy. She has been examined in police court
on the subject of her own chastity. The
charge was originally brought by solicitor
named Chafiers, who declared that Lady Twiss
had been his mistress, and the mistress also
of Sir Travcrs. He seems to have used this
accusation for a time as means OF extOrtlng
money, and when that failed he made it pub
lie, and was thereupOn arrested and
brought to trial on a charge of mali
cious libel. The evidence, so far as it
was allowed to go, was all in the
lady's favor. She herself, and number Of
witnesses, gave minute account of her early
life. She was the daughter of Polish gen.
eral and the ward of a Belgian nobleman.
Her marriage had been sOlemnzed with the
usual publicity. She had been presented at
court and received in the best society. The
long cross-examination at the hands Of Chat
fers did not shake her testimony, and every
body supposed that the libeler would be con-
victed and severely punished. Suddenly Lady
Twiss disappeared. The action against Chat
fers was abandOned and no other explana-
ton was given than that Lady Twiss, rather
than appear again in court, had left London.
Of course the world drew only one inference
from her flight-she must be guilty; there
must be evidence not yet produced WHICH she
could not face.
The avidity with which the English news
papers have seized upon this Interpretation of
the mystery is not pleasant to contemplate
al wants to make your flesh creep" said the
Fat Boy, when he disclosed to old Mrs.
Wardle Mr. Tnpman's designs upon Miss
Rachel; and it is in similar frame of mind
that the daily mora.ists of London invite the
aristocracy to shudder at the spectacle Of O
courtesan marrying the Vicar-General of Can
terbury, who, if not exactly churchman, Is a
lawyer upon whom the shadow of the church
has thrown tone of especial and intense re-
spectability-a woman who used to be no
better than she should be sitting at Belgravian
dinner. tables, and bowing to countesses in the
Park-a graduate of the London music halls
mingling with the spotless guests at
Buckingham Palace, and penetrating un-
challenged to the presence of roy
atty itself. If such things can be, of
course the whole fabric of British society is
shaken to its foundation, and when that goes,
what is there left but chaos7 But on the
other hand there is some satisfaction in re-
marking that the victorious Chaffers gets moth
ing but abuse and if he ever had any stand
ing at the bar he has certainly none now.
" TO the end of your days." said the magis-
trate in discharging him, for your conduct
" in making those charges as a part of your
" defense in this court, you will probably be
an object of contempt to all well-thinking
men," The question, however, suggests itself
whether the law is not radically defective
which exempts from any other punishment
than contempt" man who has committed
an outrage like that of Chaffers II is an old
una kim that Z" the greater the truth the greater
the libel" and there are cases certainly in which
it is greater cruelty and perhaps greater crime
10 disclose the trne history of anothe RS life
han to give currency to false charges which
may be refuted. A great deal of discussion
has recently taken place over the offense of
personal character with accusations
that tue assalapt capnot substantlate Per.