The Crawford-Dike Divorce Case

Manawatu Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1679, 8 April 1886, Page 2

The Crawford-Dike Divorce Case

[London correspondent of Exchange."! The long-expected case of Crawford v. Dilke fans at last come off. probably to the relief of all concerned, but certainly very much to the mystification of the general public, who have, once again been treated to an exposition of the British law aud gained some further insight into its glorious uncertainties and perplexities. It is needless, perhaps, to say that the petitioner, Mr Donald Crawford, who. occupied the post of Legal Secretary to the Lord Advocate under the last Liberal Administration, applied for a divource from his wife on the ground of adultery with Sir' Charles Dilke, the late President of the: Local Government Board and a member of Mr Gladstone^ former Cabinet. The lady m question is also sister to Mrs Ashton Dilke, the wife of Sir Charles*; late brother ; hence she occupied toward the co-raspondeht a semi-relationship as sister-in-law. iThe ouly e.vi.dnce adduced m support of the charge was 'the confession made by Mrs Crawford herself toher hucband, th^ details of which were given by Mr Crawford m his evidence. The story itself is leally too disgusting to be retailed, but m brief it amounted to this : That Sir Charles was constantly m the habit of visiting her m her husband's absence, and that the influence he exerted over b^r was so great that she repeated y went to him not only m his owu place m Sloane Street, but also to a house somewhere near Tottenham Court-road, which he had purposely hired for her accommodation. She admitted to the most prurient and revolting intimacy, and her husband apparently swallowed the story without hesitation. At the trial, however, not only waßshenot put into the witness box, but not ono shred of evidence was produced by Mr Crawford m support of his case beyond his own story of his wifVs confession* On this the counsel for Sir Charles submitted there, was no oaso, and took upon himself the responsibility of refusing to allow his clieut io go into the witness box, on the ground, as he observed, that: no man had a right; oh such shallow pretences to subject another to a merciless cross -examination into all the incidents of his private life ; though, counsel remarked if the .Judge considered it necessary, the co-respondent' ' was perfectly ready to give au emphatic denial to the whole story. Mr Justice Butt concurred that no evidence whatever had been' given against Sir Charles; as a woman's confession unless substantiated ou oath is of no value against any one except herself . And here comes m the glorious ambiguity of law; his Lordship pronounced a decree nisi on the ground that Mrs Crawford had evidently committed adultery with Sir Charles Dilke on her own confession, therefore a divorce would be granted ; but that nevertheless Sir Charles had no committed adultery with hor, and and therefore left the Court without a stain on his character. In other words, as some ono- has pointed out, the principle enunciated may be used m Buch as a case as this : — A confesses he has murdered B. Bis not forthcoming but Ais sentenced to death on his own seir-incriminatiou. B, however suddenly turns up and says he is alive and well, and that A never murdered or attempted to murder him. Nevertheless B has admitted to his own guilt, therefore the law-must take its course, and A is accordingly hauged! This is certainly » logical deduction from Mr Justice Butt's (as it is positively asserted J strictly legal decision. As to the unfortunate co-respondent, public opinion is divided. No oue believes him guilty ; there was not a scintilla of evidence against him, but there is a general conviction that he would have been better advised if ho had run the gauntlet of a hostile cross-examination, and proved his reputation, even, as it were, at the cannon's mouth. His friends and constituents have stood by him well, and Mr Chamberlain accomDanied him into Court, and advised with the counsel throughout the entire proceedings. What to think of Mrs Crawford baffles the wisest heads ; the charitable conclusion is that she is mad. It. is not tho first time that women have made the most erroneous charges against men. of every rank without the remotest basis for the accusation. The uncharitable opinion, and perhaps the most prevalent is that she really has been guilty with some other rnnr., and that the sin, lying heavily on her conscience, she confessed to her husband, but shielded the real criminal by a false charge against her brother-ia-law.