A SCANDAL SCOTCHED.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVII, Issue 257, 3 November 1906, Page 9

A SCANDAL SCOTCHED.

Society -was well represented at the Old Bailey last Tuesday, when Liuly Gweiulolen Cecil, daughter of the late .Lord Salisbury, appeared "in the role of proseeutrix ia a, criminal libel ease. TV defendant was a ?>irs. Matilda La-vini-a Stanley. who some years ago was a memher of the Cecil' phousehold at Hatiield, being- employed as organist at ■the late Premier's private chapel. In 18S9 the woman's health' broke down and since then she has apparently suffered from certain -wittl delusions which .made her a nuisance to tlfe Cecil family and other i people. She,made all sorts of wild 'statements concerning the Salisbury family, the members of which she alleged were in conspiracy to ruin her. In some quarters her ravings were tar ken as facts, and she seems to have obtained something more than sympathy from a good many people on the strength of her statement that sihe was bringing an action against the Cecils. For a long time the members of that family were content to ignore Mrs. Stanley's calumnious statements as the outpourings of a woman whose mind ■was unhinged, but the time came when they could no longer suffer in silence. Mrs. Stanley began to circulate broadcast a pamphlet in whioh she perpetrated as gross a- libel on a. lady member of the Cecil family as it is possible to conceive. The pamphlet was entitled"The Hatfield Business or Cecil Plot. Letters and Overtures; Astounding Revelations," and contained this statement:—

■'It was not until some three years later that I found to mv utter astonishment that after I had left Hatfleld House a- foul and base slander and , accusation had been adroitly and designedly attached to my name, and for a very apparent reason. The rumours of these slanders met mc everywhere, causing mc irreparable injury. Briefly, the origin of the plot, with all its subsequent developments and complications, was as follows: A scandal arose between the chaplain of Hatfield House and a lady of the household, who is a member of the Cecil family. It appears that in the year IS9O this lady gave birth to a child, of which the chaplain was the father, and in order to shield this lady the parentage of this child has been infamously attributed to mc, a.nd the necessary tradesmen's bills have actually been .made out in .my name.'"'

It will be noticed tha-t Mrs. Stanley did not mention any names in this astdnisbing outbreak, but later she "crossed her Tees and dotted Tier IV in no hesitating manner, in a leaflet addendum, which ran:—

"I regret to learn that one or two points in my published pamphlet are not quite clear, so in response to innumerable requests I now -give the name of the lady for whom. I have been made the scapegoat, that is Lady Gwendo/en. CeciL I have had Lady Gwendolen GceiFs immorality, disgrace, and dishonour thrown upon mc for fourteen years, with most disastrous results and at terrible, cost, both to my husband andmyself, and I am absolutely determined to endure it no longer. In consequence of the distinct information I have received, I demand that Lady Gwendolen Cecil shall submit herself to a jury of matrons, that she publicly produce her child born in the year 1890, whiah she has infamously attributed to mc."

She distributed the pamphlet and leaflet in London from a carriage, on the sides of which were hung large placards reading "The Ha : tfield Business, or the Cecil Plot,"

This wart the last straw to the Cecil family, and Mrs. Stanley was arrested and charged with criminal libel. At the Old Bailey she pleaded- justification, but she was unrepresented by counsel, and coukl produce nothing in. the nature of evidence to support her gross allegation against Lady Gwendolen. The latter went into the witness box and denied on oath that she had ever had a child.

Mrs. Stanley called several witnesses, including Lord Robert Cecil and the Archdeacon of Lewes, but her examination of these gentlemen was mainly irrelevant to-the issue before the Court, and- after being pulled up a few timea by the juige the defendant threw up the .sponge.

The jury found Mrs. Stanley guilty, and the judge sentenced her to six months' imprisonment. He remarked that the prisoner had published gross libels on a member of a- family with whom she ihad had some connection, and to whom she hud been from time to ' time applying for assistance. Tliis •being so, the case was not an ordinary one of libel, but it was very nearly, though not; quite, an attempt to blackmail. It wats impossible to tell how far she had been put up to do this 'by people who were more cunning than herself. It was a most malicious perfectly {rroundless, and published'-nn the grossest possible way. The documenis in the ease are being sent to the Public Prose - eutor, and it may be that Mrs. Stanley will not be the only person to figure at the Old. Bailay in conneebica with

'•'The Hstfield Business." As for Mrs. Stanley, she appears to be a. fitter subject for a lunatic asylum than a prison. She may not be actually mad, hut she is evidently an utterly irresponsible creature with a very big bee in her bonnet,.