On this day an extraordinary case, which had been the town-talk for a fortnight, was brought to an extraordinary conclusion.
At the end of last month, at the Southwark Police-court, Mr. Alexander Chaffers, an elderly man, who described himself as a solicitor, residing in York-road, Lambeth, was' charged with maliciously publishing a libel upon Sir Travers Twiss, her Majesty’s Advocate-General, and Lady Twiss, with intent to extort money. Mr. Poland, in a lengthy opening, occupying nearly two hours, said the charges against the defendant were of a very serious nature, inasmuch as the libels were obnoxious, false, and malicious, and published with intent to extort money from Sir Travers and Lady Twiss, who, he thought, would not seek redress in a court of justice. Sir Travers Twiss married Lady Twiss at the British Legation at Dresden, in the presence of her family and numerous witnesses, on the 29th of August, 1862. Previous to that the lady had known the defendant in business transactions, and when Sir Travers and his lady returned to London in 1863 they met defendant in the Botanical Gardens, when he congratulated her ladyship on her marriage. After that began the defendant’s persecutions. He wrote to Lady Twiss in 1864 for money, demanding 1501. Sir Travers’ solicitor paid him 50L, and he gave an acknowledgment in full of all demands. He sent other letters, and brought sham actions against Lady Twiss for alleged slanders. In 1863 Lady Twiss was presented at St. James’s by Lady Rutherford Alcock, and in 1869 was again at her Majesty’s Drawing Room. On the 29th of April of that year the defendant wrote to the Lord Chamberlain, complaining of Lady Twiss, stating that she had misconducted herself in London previous to her marriage with Sir Travers Twiss. The Lord Chamberlain made inquiries, as he was bound to do under the circumstances, the result of which was satisfactory to himself and Sir Travers and Lady Twiss. On the 4th April, last year, the defendant, determined to carry on his malicious persecutions, made a statutory declaration at Bow-street Police-court to the effect that Lady Twiss had led an immoral life under the name of Marie Gelas.
Every one of his allegations were specifically and distinctly contradicted by Lady Twiss, who was before the magistrate on March 2. She denied that she was Marie Gelas. She stated that she was the daughter of Major-General Van Lynseele, of the Polish army; that she was educated at Brussels, and subsequently at Cracow. At the latter place Marie Gelas was her governess. Marie Gelas came to London in 1859, and Lady Twiss lodged with that person at No. 11, South-street, Brompton, paying her 301. a month. While at this house she was taken ill, and Marie Gelas sent for the defendant to make her will; for this Marie Gelas paid him. She was married with her father’s consent to Dr. Twiss at Dresden, in August, 1862, and Dr. Twiss, received 5000]. English money as her marriage-portion. She met the defendant some years afterwards, in 1863, in the Botanical Gardens at the Regent’s Park, when he congratulated her on her marriage. In 1864 she received a letter from the defendant, stating that he had paid 6L out of pocket in connexion with the making of her will, and that 40L was due to him. This letter was not answered, and he subsequently demanded 150i. Lady Twiss consulted her husband about these letters, and by her husband’s desire went to the defendant’s office.
On Tuesday, March 6, Lady Twiss entered the court shortly before one, and took her seat near the chief clerk. On being sworn, the defendant, who, as a solicitor, conducted his own case, asked for all Witnesses to be out of court. He then proceeded to cross examine Lady Twiss in support of the statements contained in his declaration, and continued to do so for a. considerable time in a most painful and extraordinary manner.
In re-examination by Mr. Poland, Lady Twiss said, “There was never any misconduct or familiarity between me and the defendant. All the questions he has put to me are a tissue of falsehoods.”
M. Felix Jastreuski was then called on Lady Twiss’s behalf, and stated that he formerly carried on the business of a pianoforte manufacturer in Brussels, and that he and his wife, having no children of their own, adopted the infant daughter of his cousin, M. Van Lynseele. The little girl, who was always treated as his own child, was the present Lady Twiss. Her father left 100,000 francs with witness for her use. The witness narrated the steps he took to educate Miss Van Lynseele. His wife engaged Madame Gelas as governess. Every inquiry was made about her before she was engaged, and the witness believed she was a widow. Asked to describe her, he said she was a little dark woman, with a turned-up nose. It was impossible to mistake her for Miss Van Lynseele. In 1859 Miss Van Lynseele went to England, accompanied by an English maid named Louisa. She made a short stay then, but subsequently returned to England, and the witness paid Madame Gelas, with whom she lodged, 30L a month. The witness and his wife in 1860 came over to England with Miss Van Lynseele, and stayed at the house of Madame Gelas. “While there,” he said, “we visited Dr. Travers Twiss, Miss Anderson, and Dr. Twiss’s mother.”
Other witnesses were called, who flatly contradicted Chaffers’ story, and as he declined to cross-examine them, there was a general belief that his abominable charges were entirely fictitious. But to-day (the 13th), at the time the case was to come before Mr. Benson, Mr. Poland, after some delay, entered the court and said, “ Since I was here yesterday Lady Twiss has determined not to appear again in court” (sensation), “ and she has, I am informed, left London. I am therefore regretfully compelled to abandon this prosecution, as it would be useless to proceed without her evidence.”
The public curiosity was not destined to be satisfied by further definite revelations. But Sir Travers v and Lady Twiss did not reappear in London, and shortly after this date the former resigned all his appointments, holding, amongst others, that of Advocate General.
Mr. Benson animadverted severely on the conduct of Chaffers, who was further charged with a similar attempt to extort money from one Henry Williams, by accusing him of bigamy. But this charge too was abandoned.
