GREAT SOCIAL SCANDAL. Sir Chas. Dilke Co-Respondent in a Divorce Case. (From Our London Correspondent.)

Te Aroha News, Volume III, Issue 121, 26 September 1885, Page 4

GREAT SOCIAL SCANDAL. Sir Chas. Dilke Co-Respondent in a Divorce Case. (From Our London Correspondent.)

London, August 13. It is impossible to adequately describe the disgust and dismay felt at the National Liberal Club and other head centres of the Radical party on Tuesday evening last, when it became known that all efforts to burk tbe much-whispered-about 4< social scandal " in connection with Sir Charles Dilke bad failed, and that the right hon. gentleman, Privy Councillor and ex-Cabinet Minister, would shortly have to figure publicly as co-respondent in a particularly uncreditable and uusavoury divorce case. For some days previously the air of London had been thick with rumours affecting " one of the most prominent leaders in English politics." At first, gossip pointed in the direction of Lord Harfcington, and a number of wonderful stories about hrs doings were absolutely formulated. Very soon, however, the club flaneurs got hold of a conversation that had really taken place at the smoking-room of the House of Commons, in the course of which Sir Charles Dilke openly admitted a very serious charge had been brought against him by tne sister of his brother's widow, a young lady married to Mr Donald Crawford. He further stated there was not a word of truth in the accusation, and that if the worst came to tbe worst, or in other words the case went to the Divorce Court, he should find no difficulty whatever in establishing his innocence. &c hoped, however, Mr Crawford would admit the falseness of the story without courting the scandal of a public inquiry. bir Charles Dilke is practically the leader of the extreme Liberals or Radicals. In the last Cabinet he acted as President of ths Local Government Board, and his political influence with the party has hitherto stood second only to that of Mr Gladstone. In appearance he is decidedly disting 2*e, an d thoug h looking to the full his 42 years, quite what women would call "a fine man." In 1872 Sir Charles married Mi3S Katherine Shiel, a beautiful girl to whom he was devotedly attached, but she died in 1874 in childbirth, leaving an only son, now 11 years old. The death of Lady Dilke attiacted considerable attention at the time, owing to her being cremated by Sir Charles's special request at Dresden. The petitioner in "Crawford versus Crawford and Dilke " is Mr Donald Crawford, an elderly barrister, who for some time waa Lord Y oung's secretary, and his wife, tne reepondent, is a girl of 20, the sister of Mrs Ashton Dilke, widow of Sir Charles's brother, the late member for Newcastle onTyne The •' pleadings " (or whatever taey are called ) are said to set forth some very shocking allegations. Sir Charles Dilke has written to his constituents offering to retire from public life till his private character haa been fully cleared. Twelve months ago a scandal of this sort would not have mattered much ; now it will almost certainly ruin the chances of the Liberals at the coming general elections. Working men are hopelessly indiscriminate ing. They confuse their ideas much as they mix their liquors. Juet at presout the j " Pall Mall Gazette" agitators have managed to hammer into the popular mind that many rich men and influential politicians are guilty of hideous crimes against the children of the poor. Well, " Crawford v. Dilke" will appear directly corroborative of such stories. " A fellow as would seduce a young; girl who is a relation's wife would do t'other thing too," Bill Smith will say. One of the worst features of "this new apocalypse of evil," as Mr Llewellyn Davies calls the "Pall Mall Gazette's" agitation, has been the reckless audacity with which the vilest accusations have been hurled broadcast at eminent persons unnamed, but tisily identifiable. The Criminal Law Amendment Bill has passed in a most extravagant form, and, in consequence, it is the unbiassed opinion of a most famous criminal lawyer that " such a season of black-mailing will shortly set in as has never before been known in England." Just think, a girl under 16 has only to | convince any numskull of a J.P. by her unsupported word that a man has solicited her (i.e., mistaken her for a prostitute), and that man will certainly be sent to gaol for two years. What the Legislature seems to have entirely overlooked in framing this bill is that with a certain class of crimes — such, for instance, as criminally assaulting a child — the question of innocence or guilt becomes subsidiary. It is the accusation that ruins. Once associate a man publicly with such a orime, and though he may be pure as undriven snow, he will never recover it. Nine men out of ten would, and will, pay any sum rather than face the horrors of a public accusation. Atlantic despatches relating to this case state: — Sir Charles Dilke has written a letter I t) his constituents denying the truth of the accusation brought against him, asking their forbearance until the trial divorce case, which he says he awaits with confidence. When Sir Charles Dilke through Lord Granville passed his cheques to Donald Crawford, the aggrieved husband, it was supposed that the scandal was hushed And 80 it would have been if it had not been for politics. The action of Crawford in returning the cheque after many days of deliberation is now known to have been largely prompted by the taunt* and arguments of the Tory enemies of Sir Charles, and it is even whispered that they bare guaranteed that Crawford abalj not'

lose pecuniarily by his rejection of the enormous bribe. The scandal is of course a wonderfully effective weapon to use against the Radical leader. Coming just at a time when the public mind was hot with anger over the exposures of the patricians' vices, and when the Radicals were using this very argument to advocate their levelling schemes against the ariatocracy, it was a godsend to the Tories to find this high i priest of radicalism convicted of a flagrant liaison, in which all the parties concerned; were of his own political faith. On August 10th Sir Charles Dilke appeared as a speaker in the House of Commons for the first time since the explosion of the scandal in which he was invoked. His speech consisted of only a few words, and was of no interest or importance. It did not devolve upon him to speak at all upon any subject, and he obviously took occasion to do so merely to show that he remained at his post and was not ashamed to to be Eeen or heard. Despite the scandal, his appearance was the signal for a round of cheers from the Whigs and Radicals, which were answered by ironical cries of " Hear ! hear !" from the Tories. Considering the small number of members present, it was quite a respectable triumph while it lasted. The Liberals were largely in the majority, and their cheers gradually drowned the voices of the Tories. The incident was somewhat significant as showing that the Liberals are determind to stand by Sir Charles and to condone bis private vices while he is under fire from the common enemy.