THE DILKE SCANDAL. Crawford Divorce Case.

Te Aroha News, Volume III, Issue 148, 3 April 1886, Page 4

THE DILKE SCANDAL. Crawford Divorce Case.

The English mail brings the particulars of the Crawford-Dilke divorce case. Mr Inderwick, Q.C., appeared for the plaintiff, and ) said that the parties were married on July 27, 1881, in London. The lady at that time was under age, and quite young. Mr Crawford was some years older, and they lived together until the separation, which unfortunately tcok place between them in the , month of July of last year. Mr Crawford, in addition to being a member of the Bar, held the post of Secretary to the Lord Advocate of Scotland. In April, 1882, Mr Crawford received an anonymous letter, winding up with the words, "Beware of the member tor Chelsea/' He was very friendly with Sir Charles Dilke, and he supposed the letter had come from some person wishing to do him or Hir Charles Dilke some injury ; but he did, in fact, show the letter to his wife, and she walked about with the letter in her hand, and got very excited. Be thought unnecessarily so. He put the letter in the fire, and thought no more about it. He was rather astonished about that time, however, to find her putting questions to him as to what course he should pursue were ahe unfaithful to him, whether he would forgive her, in fact, as other husbands had done, or be divorced from her. Mr Crawford thought no more about it until in the summer ot 18S4 he found his wife in correspondence with a Captain Forster, and he had also reason to complain of her not attending to her domestic duties. In March, ISBS, Mr Crawford received a second anonymous letter as follows : - "The first person who ruined your wife was Sir Charles Dilke She has passed nights in his house, and she is well known to his servants." He took the letter home and showed it to his wife. She read it very quickly, gave it back to him, and said that she believed this anonymous letter and the other one were written by her mother, who had strong feelings with regard to herself and Sir Charles Dilke. She spoke of her mother's conduct in vary strong terms, and appeared very excited She said, "I cannot write to Charley?" To this Mr Crawford replied, " Certainly not," " I cannot see him to let him know anything about it ? His carriage must not be seen here?" "Certainly not," said Mr Crawford. "It has not been seen here before." He then took the letter and tore it up, and Ihrew the pieces into the fire. Aftor that Mr Crawford met Sir Charles Dilke in the lobby of the House of Commons, and something in the expression of Sir Charles 3truckhim as remarkable. It seemed to him that Sir Charles must have known of this letter having boon received by him. He said to hip wife, " You told Sir Charles Dilke about that letter?" " iNo, I have not done anything of the kind." Then he said, "Have you told Mrs Rogerson ?" "Yes, I did tell Mrs Rogerson." Mrs Rogerson was a very intimate triend of Sir Charles Dilke. She was also an intimate friend of Mrs Crawford. In June he received a third letter saying, " Your wife was seen at the Metropole on Monday with Captain Forster. Aro you a fool ?" He asked his wife whether, as a matter of facfc, it was true chat she had been to the Metropole. She said, " No, I have not." Mr Crawford was not very well satisfied with her manner, and made some inquiries about it, and had reason to believe that there was some truth in it. He gave the letter to his solicitor, and a few days later he found another anonymous epistle waiting tor him on the hall table of his club. It was in these words : " Fool looking for the cuckoo when he has flown, having defiled your nest You have been foully deceived, but dare not touch the real traitor." He went upstairs. His wife had then gone to bed. The lights were out. Mrs Crawford was in her bed. He went into the dressing room, intending to speak to her next morning, and not to trouble her that night. She said to him, " Did you find a lotter for you ? Who was it from ? Can you tell me who it was from?" He made no answer. She pressed him, and he said it wag another anonymous letter. "Tell me what is in if," and ho told her. Sho rose and lighted the gas or candle, and came to the bottom of •the bed, looking at him. He said, "I must know one way or the other. Is this a fact ?" She paused, and then said, " It is perfectly true. I was certain that I should have to tell you some time or another. It is right that you should know it now." She went on to say that Mr Crawford had been suspecting various people against whom he had no cause of suspicion. He had suspected Captain Forster. But she went on to say: "The real man with whom I have been guilty, the only man with whom I have been guilty, is Sir Charles Dilke." Then she made a long statement. The substance of it was that Sir Charles Dilke very shortly after the marriage began to pay attentions to her, and when they came up to town in the Parliamont season of ISS2 he gave her the address ot a house in the neighbourhood of Tottenham Court Road, where she met him, I think, on two occasions. She then went on to say that she had bean to Sir Charles Dilke's house. The intimacy had taken place there, and he had been to her house. Subsequently there were interviews, and she confessed her willingness to make a written statement of her guilt. Mr Crawford consulted Mr Stewart, who wrote to the respondent, asking her for an interview. Sho wrote an answer stating that she would bo there, but afterwards sent a telegram stating that sho intended to consult her father. She never made a statement for the benefit of her husband. The case, therefore, stood on her other statements. As to corroboration Mrs Rogerson was an important witness, An order was made to examine her on commission, but when they went to her for this purpose, she was too ill to be examined at the present time, and medical evidence would be given to that effect. He would be able to show by reference to Mrs Crawfords diary that she was absent from hotne on the 13th and 14th February. Mr Crawford returned to London on the 15th ; but before he arrived on that morning Mrs Crawford returned home, changed her dress, and met her husband on anival at half-past 9 in the morning. It was not known where she had been on the nights of the 13th and 14th. As regards Sir C. Dilke, he was bound to say that there was no direct evidence against him ; but Mr Crawford could not say that there was none. The learned counsel having concluded his address, Mr Donald Crawford was called, and gave evidence in support of what has been already mentioned. Describing the interview with Mrs Crawford, he said my wife said to me, " Chis. Dilke ruined me six months after our marriage. When he called upon mo at Bailey's Hotel he made love to me and kissed me. I met him in a house in Tottenham Court-road. He seduced me ihere." I think I said something about oox--roborative evidence. She replied, " I can. i give you the means of proving it. The ( footman used to let me into the house, in

Sloane-street, and they must know me there. Sarah used to dress me." I asked who was Sarah. She said, " Sarah is a domestic who has long been in his service, bufc perhaps she won't say anything, as probably she has been his mistress. Ann, our parlour-maid, could tell you something, but she would not say anything against him. My wife then observed "And yet you sleep with me." While we conversed the window remained open up to this point, and I was afraid that she might catch cold. At my suggestion she got into bed while I stood at the foot of the bed. She said, "He made me go to bed with Fanny," I said " Who is Fanny ?" She replied, " A woman he had - a mistress. I did not like ib at fir9t, but I agaentod because he wished it. I think I would have stood on my head in the street if he had told me. He used to come to bed beside us. He taught me every French vice. He taught me all I knew. He used to say I knew more than most women at thirty. He said he took me first because I was so like mother He used to say, when we were together, • Oh, how like you are to your mother just now '' ' I asked whether she had ever been guilty with other men. She replied, "No; I have been familiar; nothing worse." It was before that she told me the intrigue with Dilke had stopped at the end of the session of 1884. I inquired why it had come to an end at that particular time. She answered, " Oh, I suppose he had what he wanted with me." She said, "Since wo came to Upper George-street I had only eeen Sir Charles Dilke three times." She referred to one particular occasion when a tea party was got up, and she paid, "You remember that I stayed behind the vest, and you came in. He kissed me at the back of the door upstairs." No adultery, she said, had taken place after August. After this conversation with my wife, I went to my own bedroom. I heard weeping during the night. I remember also that in 1882, at the time of the conversations which startled me on the subject of divorce, I heard weeping and sobbing the whole night. I scarcely ever saw her shed tears ; and though her face was swollen, she denied weeping, I felt the bed shaking with her sobs. I could not imagine what it was, as it was not her habit to weep. There was another conversation which startled me. She said to me one night in Young-street, quite suddenly and very earnestly, •' When you are dead I shall spend my time burning wax candles on your tomb." I remarked, "I do not suppose that will do me any good." She said further that she used to go to Sir Charles Dilke's house about 11 o'clock in th 9 moring, that he took her up to what she called the second drawingroom, and that then he took her up two more flights of stairs to his own room. She said she could describe the furniture i.i hia bedroom. She said also that they remained together until perhaps 12 o'clock, that he then went away, and that Sarah came in and dressed her Referring to his wife's behavour upon nis showing her the anonymous letters the witness said ; My wife read that letter, coloured violently, and, clenching her fists, walked up and down the room, rfhe said, " That is mother; that woman is a fiend." I said, " You have no right to suspect your mother of such an infamous thing as sending a letter like that without having some ground for it." She said, "She hates everybody that Sir Charles Dilke likes." Mr Crawford gave some further evidence, from which it appeared that after her confession his wife went to her sister's (Mrs Ashton Dilke's) house The Attorney-General asked leave to postpone the cross-examination of the witness, as the statements made were against the lady, but not evidence in any material degree against Sir Charles Dilke. Mr Justice Brett agreed. The only other evidence taken was that of a parlourmaid of Mr Crawford?, who deposed to some morning calls paid by Sir Charles Dilke, and to two nights, during which her mistress was away from home, and which, according to Mr Crawfords evidence, were spent at Sir Charles Dilke's house. The Attorney - General then asked the Court to say that his client had nothing to answer, adding, "We take upon ourselves the responsibility of not putting him in the box. There are various reasons why we should not pursue the topic, but it is to be suggested that there has been a strong motive for sheltering some one else from blame by implicating the co-respondent, especially as the respondent knew that Mr Crawtord had received one early anonymous letter casting- the blame on Sir C. Dilke." Mr Justice Brett then delivered judgment as follows : — '• This id one of those cases in which the Court is placed in a position of some peculiarity, and of some difficulty. To say that the respondent has been guilty of adultery with the co-respondent, and at the same time to dismiss the case as against the co-respondent is a state of things which at first sight does not look quite reasonable ; but when it comes to be considered there is nothing unsound in it. Dealing with the case against the co-respondent, there is not a great deal of evidence against him, beyond the statement made by the petitioner, Mr Crawford, as to the respondent's admission of guilt; but then these admissions of guilt are clear, distinct, and circumstantial. I cannot, without disbelieving ail or nearly all Mr Crawtord has said, retuse to find that these admissions were made. In the absence of the respondent, who might have been called to deny having made such statements, I see no reason at all for doubting the truth of Mr Crawfords evidence That being so, I am compelled to come to the conclusion that adultery was committed, and to grant a aecree for the relief which the petitioner craves. With regard to the co-respondent, Sir Charles Dilke, my decision is in accordance with what I luive already said, that there is no evidence worthy ofthe name as against the co-respondent. Nothing can be clearer than the law on thatsubject, which is, that an uusworn statement of a person in the position of Mrs Crawford is not entitled to be received or even considered in a court of justice, as against the person with whom she i& alleged to have committed adultery. Thr *■ is the law, and I cannot help thinking V £. every one must see that it is good r '^ It would be unjust if any in the pos' «« • which Sir Charles Dilke finds hr m «T * a this court should be assailed ™? n demned, in charges of this nat *„_ ?' statement of a person not ™' n ° n Au c and the truth of whose sstoryr y hfi £ nH «n portunity of testing by err Jhe - n ° op " but then he wwould' ld & havQ had an tunity oftestim, first of al] the B JP * f 3 m Ji hIC a the admission was made and secondly sucll matters as te( J sSid 3 h e r- ht be accuein * him in ™ d ™ !? T v intercourse with somebody else w k jer » the thousand and one things wnica, m ig n fc present themselves as an ans\v jr . have n0 hesitation in saying }j™p t the petition as against Sir Charles -"'uke is dismissed, and ot course dismissed \vith costs " \ On the application ot Mr Inderwick, a decree nisi was granted. No order was , made as to the respondent's coats.-