THE CRAWFORD-DILKE SCANDAL.

Dunstan Times, Issue 1293, 10 December 1886, Page 3

THE CRAWFORD-DILKE SCANDAL.

POINTS IN; SIR C. DILKE'S FAVOR. (From "Star's " London Correspondent.) London, October 6th. That the Dilkn case would have pre* sented a very different complexion had Sir Charles been properly defended by counsel at the second trial has always been the contention of his fnends. One of them now attempts to prove the fact by publishing a 'sort of statement with regard to the corespondent's position, whici is being very widely circulated. " It is," says the London correspondent of a 'West of England daily, "in the form of notes upon the evidence at the two trials, and upon the summing up of the Ju )ge in the latter suit. It is done with consummate skill, not the leait effective manifestation ot which appears in the judicial air preserved throughout.. It is rather the sum-ming-up of a Ju'lga than the plea of an advocate, and if it were possible to make it piblic it would, I fancy, have considerable effect in disturbing the curious unanimity with which the public have assumed the absolute accuracy of the statements of Mrs Crawford. From the construction of the notes, which deal minutely with innumerable pointijin the evidence and summing up, it is impossible to summarise them. But there are one or two points thit may be noted. Almost at the commencement they deal with the fatal and irrevocable error of Judgment which kept Sir Charles Dilke ou * of the witness-box on the first trial. The statement is repeated that upon this matter Sir Charles Dilke had * left himself in the hands of his advisers—both great lawyers and personal friends.' Up to the last moment they differed as to whether he should give evidence. He expected that he would be called, and came into Court fully prepared. At the h*t moment they agreed, and, only on this account, he allowed himself to be dismissed from the case without going into the box. There is no reference to the alleged agency of Mr Chamberlain at this delicate and critical moment.

“It is pretty certain that this point in Mrs Crawford’s evidence which went further than anything in the direction of sustaining her case was her ability to describe the room in ‘ the house off Tottenham Court road,’ where, as she alleged, she was in tne habit of meeting Sir Charles Dilke. It will bo remembered that at the suggestion of one of the jury she drew a plan of the room. This was not disputed, and the presumption was that its accuracy was admitted by Sir Charles Di'.ke. The amazing statement is now made for the first time that the plan was never seen until after the summing-up by anyone who had ever seen the room itself. So far from being an accurate description it was at fault in many important particulars. For example, the doer was put on the wrong side of the room and the stairs on the wrong side of the house. The most prominent object in the room, a large Eoman Catholic image, was not mentioned. Even if the plan had been correct, it did not prove the case, for it is stated that a detective named Clarke, engaged on behalf of Mrs Crawford, visited Warren street in November.

“Not less striking testimony is forthcoming upon Mrs Crawford’s statements with respect to the rooms in Sloane street. It will be remembered that one of the most revolting pa-sages in the confession described three persons in Sir Charles Dilke’s bed. it is now stated as a matter of fact that Sir Charles Dilke’a bod is a single camp bed. in which it is physically impossible for three persons to have congregated, Mrs Crawford also described this room, though not accurately, and the mistake she made is very significant. Before Mrs Crawford went into tbe box,and whilst she sat listening in the Court, Ellen Drak -, one of the servants at Sloane street, was examined as to the appearance of the room. Subsequently, when Mrs Crawford was put in the box, she was asked to describe tbe room, and followed Ellen Drake’s description so minutely thatshe even adopted a mistake made by the girl. Ellen Drake said the room was painted all white, whereas the cupboards, which form prominent objects in the room, are not white, but yellow. It is suggested that if Mrs Crawford had ever seen the room she would have corrected this slip on the part of the housemaid.

“ Another important discrepancy in Mrs Crawford's testimony with respect to Wcrren street is painted out for the first time. In hsr confession to her husband, communicated to the Court at the first trial, Airs Crawford said: * Sir Chari-a Oilke took a piece of paper out of his pocket and wrote down the address with a pencil, and gave it me in,the morning.’ At tiie second trial she said : *Ho would not let me write it down. He made me repeat it over several times and learn it by heart.’ These are only a few of the points dealt with in this statement, the appearance of which just now in 1 s present form is on a 1 i fours with the general conduct of the case. Had it appeared as the speech of Sir Chas Dilke’a counsel addressed to the jury, and had the cross-examination been conducted upon the lines it follows, the issue of the trial might have been different. Not the least effective portions of the notes are those which show how, owing to an unfortunate sequence of circumstances, beginning with the fatal abstention from the witness-box in the first trial, Sir Charles Dilke was practically undefended whilst hia life and Ilia character were being wrecked.”