GREAT SOCIAL SCANDAL.

Dunstan Times, Issue 1233, 16 October 1885, Page 3

GREAT SOCIAL SCANDAL.

(‘Evening Star’s’ London correspondent.) The principal figure in a great social scandal at present exciting public attention is well known in New Zealand. Mr L’earce, of Elder and Oo , was tne other day appointed one of the ttoyal Commissioners to inquire into the depression of trade, and came up to London to attend the first sitting. On the steps of the East India House he was met by Mr Francis, a Collector of Customs m Glasgow, and a much respected citizen there. Francis seized Pearce by the collar, and, throwing him down, administered a sound thrashing, at the same time calling him a scoundrel and accusing him of having seduced Miss Francis, his daughter. Statements vary as to the extent of the punishment administered. Mr Pearce says a few random blows were aimed at him, most of which missed their mark, but the clerks and passers-by tell a different story. One young man declares that he saw an elderly gentleman prone on the s:one steps and another elderly gentleman belaboring him mercilessly with a slick. At last he desisted,-and then Mr Pearce was carried rather than led to a cab. Francis proceeded to the office of the ‘ Pall Mall Gazette,’ where he stated that he had thrashed Pearce in order to make public <he shameful way he had behaved to his (Francis’s) daughter. It was his fixed intention to ruin him socially. Pressed to further divulge the facts of the case, he declined, observing that he had not done with Mr Pearce yet. Mr Pearce, called upon for explanations, was equally reticent, merely saying it was a particularly bad case of “blackmail,” Asked whether he intended to prosecute, he said he did not think so, as Francis was not responsible for hs actions and there were other people to consider. It is, however, practically impossible that this resolve can be adhered to, as Mr Pearce’s brother royal commissioners will not welcome him to their counsels until an exp'anatiou of the affair is forthcoming. Mr Pearce is a married man, and has always borne the reputation of being very steady. His friends aver that, like Sir Charles JJilke, he is the victim of a hysterical woman, excited by the reading r,f the unwholesome lucubrations of the ‘ Pall Mall Gazette.’

Apropos of the Dilke case, I may mention that since the publication of Mrs Mark Pattison’s cablegram from Madras announcing her engagement to Sir Charles hj i has been as completely acquitted by the public as though the Craw ford v Crawford aud Dilke case had beeu tried. Mrs Mark Pattison is one of the most charming and intellectual women of the day, and to conceive any man honored by her attachment indulging in a Vulgar intrigue with a married woman would be impossible. Since writing the foregoing Miss Francis has written to the papers indignantly denying that she was betrayed by Mr Pearce. She states that Mr f-arce had nothing to do with her leaving home. She went because she was unhappy with her father, and wished to earn her own living. Ever since she has been living with a female friend, a married woman of unblemished respectability. Mr Pearce’s lawyer hasalso written to the * Pall Mall Gazette,’ announcing that he means to take le-al proceedings of a far more serious charac'er than an action for common assault against his late assailant.

It is characteristic of the new ami thoroughly depraved tone of the ‘ Pall Mall’ that, instead of suspending judgment it should hint at Mr Pe iroe’s guilt, and endeavour to bias public opinion against him. A similar unfair attempt was made in Sir Charles Dilke’s case, but the loyal way in which his friends, his fiancee, and bis constituents publicly stood by the right honorable gentleman effectually burked Mr Stead’s villainous innuendoes.