THE CRAWFORD-DILKE CASE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXVI, Issue 7927, 2 August 1886, Page 5

THE CRAWFORD-DILKE CASE.

♦ [Bt Telegbaph.] [feom our own cobbespondent.] LONDON, July 22. Tn the Dilke case yesterday, respondent, Mrs Crawford, swore that her former statements were quite true. A. Dilke, brother of the co-respondent, deposed that Dilke had offered to pay respondent an annuity provided she retracted the inculpatory statements she had made regarding him. The decree in the case was confirmed. Sir C. Dilke has published a farewell address to his late constituents, in which he states that he is sensible of the fact that his political career has for ever closed, but he still protests his innocence of the charges laid against him. The Times, commenting on the case in a leading article, reflects severely on the co-respondent. It alludes to the effrontery of Sir C. Dilke during the time that the case was pending, and says it is certain that his name will be removed from the list of Privy Councillors, for he has been convicted of wholesale perjury, and of suborning witnesses. It is necessary, the Times further declares, that the Crown should carefully consider whether | Sir C. Dilke should not be prosecuted, and [ expresses the belief that the exposure of his conduct has been so complete that he will take an early convenient opportunity of. quitting the country. The Pall Mall Gazette, alluding to the case, says there is a likelihood that the idea at present entertained of Sir C. Dilke's guilt will be diminished, but it insists that the woman Fanny, who would have been a material witness, but who disappeared mysteriously, should be found. Sir Charles Dilke should either prosecute the respondent, Mrs Crawford, for slander, or he himself should be indicted for perjury. The Press is unanimous in condemning Sir C. Dilke for his connection with the case. During the hearing, counsel for petitioner addressed the Court. He delivered a most powerful indictment, in which he described the conduct of Sir Charles Dilke in scathing terms. The jury showed they

were greatly impressed, and the audience more than once applauded. Sir Charles Dilke, smarting under the comments of counsel, twice interposed in order to give his denial, but was promptly snubbed by the Judge. Sir James Hannen, the Queen's Proctor, at whose instance tie case had been re-opened, argued that the sole issue before the Court was the question of the adultery of Sir Charles Dilke with Mrs Crawford. In summing up, the Judge said the silence of Sir C. Dilke in the first instance, under the grave charges made against his character, suggested guilt. He asked the jury whether they, aa men, would remain silent, even if counsel advised their doing so, when there wbb at issue a question of falsehood so vitally affecting their character. His Honor said it was most remarkable that Mrs Crawford should have been able to narrate so accurately all the circumstances. The jury returned a verdict to the effect that Sir C. Dilke had been guilty of adultery. The petitioner (Mr Crawford) was warmly cheered as he drove away. The omcials are now considering whether Sir C. Dilke shall not be prosecuted for perjury. It is stated that Sir Charles and Captam Porster will leave for Paris, and there fight a duel.