The Crawford Divorce Suit.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1645, 26 February 1886, Page 2

The Crawford Divorce Suit.

[Kapler Net D*.'] 1-he Cjrawfprd divorce suit is certainly the mosli efctraPrrlinary case which has come before the English Courts within •the lust few years, and one m which the most public interest lias centred. It contains sufficient elements of m3 f stery and sensation to fill a three volume novel, and never has the result of a Buit had so direct c l)earin^. uppn-,.publio«-.4 affairs! The history of the affair, so far as we possess it, is vague and perplexing m the extreme,. and whether Sir Charles Dilke 'Was notrgtrilfcy of -seduction— of his sister-in-law must we snppose^ieinain a matter ;of conjecture; j CQijljl first intimation of anything lout of Ihe common was a vague item to the effect that a prominent leader ' of the Radical party and 'member of the then ; Ministry . , was involved m a scandal which would cause some startling disclosures, should it ever come before a court. Suspicion first fixed on Mr Chamberlain, whose weakness for the fair sex, is known, as the ' offender/ but the- character of ;tfie ,**{ Birmingham. screw manufacturer and Radical hopei' was cleared" of suspicion when the London files came to hand. From these, as near as could be gathered it appeared, that Sir, .Chafes, acconi-^, panied by Mrs Crawford, entered the/ f former's bedroom, when thsy found it * occupied by a well known society lady.* i Mrs Crawford went into hysterics', ac- ■?&. cused|her companion of ~ betraying, .and . f: . compromising her, and rushingoff mad*, ... an excited confession to her husband.'* 1 What become of the other lady, or' who ' she was, has not transpired. Now it, mat be remembered . that Sir Charles ' Dilke was at this time a' widower,' and ■ •■:'- that bis first wife had been Mrs Craw. •.';: ford's sister, and the two families, the Crawfords and Dilkes, were on the most j' intimate and familiar terms.. At this - ; time, also Sir Charles was engaged to be ! .married to the widow, of the late Rev. * Mark Pattison, to whom he had been efc-'' ; gaged during their youth, but becoming parted by a foolish lover's quarrel the lady married Mr Pattison, who on his; death-bed , desired that she should return tp her-; old love. Well, Mrs, Crawford's hysterical, disclosures were put down by" ~ ' Sir Charles' friends as the hallucinations " : of. an excitable woman, but his political ' : opponents at once saw that by their aid, the rising light of the' Radical party might be) [extinguished ;f or even; or at least -be .compelled^ to ! sink 'below 'the horizpn for a' time. Accordingly- ■ Mr" i i Crawford; "who did not at first seem m- < clined to press the mutter, received all pits of promising anjcT flattering offers of support-socially and pecuniaßyvif he wquld only bring the case'ibto^^^ Courts, ahd meantime .every effort 3 was made by members of the Conservative party to make' political capital out ofejihe scandal amongst Sir Charles' constituents at Chelsear liadies' committees wen*!** I from house to hotise besmirching \ his character ''clergymen preached- against him from their pulpits, and, m. short, so (much mud was stirred upthatTthg ChelI sea Liberal Committee supporting Sir Charles Dilke ,were compelled to ask frbm him a public denial of his guilt. This he .gave, and Mrs Pattison, who was^hen jn'tndia, c£bled|her belief inTthtU/ assurance!! -and- that she -would fit! once ¥ i come to Enriand and fulfil her engagement, which ;Bhe did; JSir- Cbaries was no longer a Minister! a ConservaMve Ministry appealed to the country, Mr Crawford commenced his Bmt,~and the Radical irieniber for Chelsea found that the aspersions on his character, and fche r effo'rts put forth by the Conservative par'tj' for J his defeat, • were endangering his hold ' " ' upon the borough, notwithstanding hii ' tisseveratious of innocence., :ThestrMggie ', so far as Chelsea was concerned, at last * ended; and Sir Charles was returned by ! the narrow majority of- 175, securing 4291^ votes to the obtained by his Conservative fepponejQt, MtOC-TATWhife f more. ' Then 'came the ass^mblin^ of 4he L Blouse, the defeat of the Conservative Ministry, and once . more, a Gladstone Government ruled England". But this .time Sir Charles Dilke was missed from its ranks, and Reuter informed us that his obtaining a seat m the Cabinet depended upon his "clearing his character m the divorce suit of Crawford v. Crawford : and Dilke, then pending. How.far; such an announcement affected the result^of, the case of course it is impossible to sayi but certainly it was a strange issue to to place before a: jury, who would be either political supporters or opponents of the co-respondent. Do you ; decide* a that Sir Charles Dilke will or will not be a'Miriister of the Crown —^shall he assumesway over you who now try him, or bS relegated to pfiyate life i $hai' was 'tog " shirk the .res^qnsibilitY gf tt {.yerdipt, wHch might ifljean ;tte rpin^pf a gjpat career, gave one which left things m exactly the same position before' th§ trial— they fpu.nd Mps Cpawftird grotty hqt did nqt include the cp-reg^onient ilj t^e verdipt, as pwiqg.sp an 4gt specif tel|s us, tp : the abse^pe, tjjrQHgh fljness (|) of a material fitness' his giiilt was flat pjrp, ved. This yerdiqt has, as* w# said, left things as they were, . 'and will probably, be' a* damaging tp Sir] Charjfsiiii the face of his assumption of innocence,' as a direot one against him. • The oable-j already informs 'us that.he will pot, have si se^at m ,the Cabinet, T as h|s re-eleption for, Chel^ja/ wo«ld r renae^* * necessary by hjs, eleyatjon,, is. unoertaw', and his public' oareler may be Considered as for the time at least, blasted while his, private and social position' must be most.*v unenviable, wedded as he now is to a woman who married- him m proof of her belief m his innocence, and withjthiej. whole power of the . Conservative party moving for his social ostracism. His Chelsea committee, hiowever, remain faithful and still accept /hfe ; plea of ihHo- • cence. '. " " ' ■.'•;•' \ ■•;■•(! -'■■■.■r:f.i