Sir Charles Dilke's Aequittal. (From Our London Correspondent.)

Te Aroha News, Volume III, Issue 150, 17 April 1886, Page 6

Sir Charles Dilke's Acquittal. (From Our London Correspondent.)

The much-talked of and eagerly-anticipated ause celehre of Crawford v. Dilke is over, and with the strange result that outwardly most people know no more about the real facts now than they did before the trial. Mr Crawford'3 evidence, of course, was fuhy detailed in the original pleadings, and — though it may be news to the general public — has been talked over at the clubs and in legal elides for roonth3 past. The general expectation among&t lawyers was that Mrs Crawford would appear personally in the witness-box. Her determined refcsal to do so naturally broke down the case. It would, all reasonable men must admit, be a pretty state of things if a man's character . could be irreparably blasted by the unsupported statement of an hysterical woman, who deliberately de clinea to submit to the test of cross-examina-tion. Sir Charles himself was ready (if necessary) to go into the box, and there is a very general feeling that his counsel j made a grave mistake in dissuading him from doing so. They had, however, good reasons, besides taking it for granted that the piblic would, like themselves and the Court, be able to read between the lines of the case Unf ortunai 3ly, I don't find this to be so. There are still plenty of d nse Philistiues who go about whispering and winking, and sagely remarking that they can't believe any woman could have invented the tale Mr 3 Crawford told her husband, and that consequently there must be something in it. I have no patience with such thickheads. Of course there was "something in it," but not as regards Sir Charles Dilke. The opinion prevails that the woman told the truth with regard to the details of her liaison, simply substituting Dilke's name for that of hei real lover. It should be abundantly clear to anyone who reads the evidence carefully that Mrs Crawford had been carrying on an illicit connection. Her husband, moreover, suspected it and (with good reason) began to make things exceedingly unpleasant. The wife then hit on the expedient of diverting his suspicions into another channel, and wrote and gent the anonymous letters which startled him so much. At last came the imperative necessity of confessing to Crawford what he was bound very shortly to discover for himself, viz., the fact of her adultery. She determined to shield her lover at all hazards Dilke, on the contrary, she was delighted to ruin. Why ? you will a9k. Because she hated him — had excellent reasons for hating him. The plain truth is, Mrs Crawfords girlhood was poisoned by a compromising intrigue between her mother, Mrs Eustace Smith, and Sir Charles Dilke. This was the " episode common to most men "' in Sir Charles's past, which made Sir Henry Jame3 advise him to shirk the witneB3-box. In clearing himself of one esclandre, another which had some foundation might, and probably would (for Mrs Crawford is very vindictive), have come to light. It was, I am confidently assured by a connection of the family, thought, in order to be free to carry on her flirtation with Sir Charles, that Mrs Eustace Smith insisted upon her young daughter accepting Crawford, a man old enough to be her father. Bead the latter's account of his wife's confession, and you will see feminine spite against Sir Charles in every sentence. How anxious she was to make Crawford believe her incredible tale ; how prompt to suggeet proofs ; above all, how resolved to ehield another man she admitted having met clandestinely. The trial, no doubt, was to some extent a pre-arranged or " putup " business. Crawford discovered how he had been duped long ago, and whilst passing for a divorcj {vide Inderwick's opening address), freely admitted there was no evidence against Sir Charles Dilke. The case was brought into Court with the double purpose of enabling Crawford to get a decree nisi and clearing Dilke. Both eides were reeolved againßt washing further dirty linen in public or of raking up the Mra Eustace Smith episode. You will easily gather from the foregoing on what delicate ground Sir Charles Dilke's lawyers were working, and agree they were quite right in not risking his cross-examin-ation by the respondent's counsel. I may mention that Captain Forster whose name was mentioned in Mrs Crawfords confession, is a very handsome man, and wellknown in London society. The talk of hysteria with regard to Mrs Ciawford's conduct was all nonsense. She has acted throughout with calm adroitness, managing to carry on an intrigue and to hoodwink her husband, and to pay off an old grudge by one and the same means. Her confession was timed to the moment. In another week or fortnight Crawford (though obtuseness itself) must inevitably have detected her condition, and so realised all. The "Pall Mall Gazette " — naturally quite at home in dealing with such a caseboldly declares Sir Charles Dilke has not kept the pledge he made to his constituents, and cleared himself of the social charges against his character ; he has not even denied it on oatb. The inference, of course^ is that he ought to retire from public life. What nonsense ! If the truth isn't known, yet it very soon will be. The talk of the clubs to-day becomes the gossip of the coalisses to morrow, and " copy " for Fleet-street the day after. It would be a pretty thing if a pardonable reluctance to rake up youthful follies were to deprive England of the political aeryjees of one of her most brilliant statesmen,