The Dilke Scandal. Sir Chariot Tells a Pecullar Story In His Defonoo.

Te Aroha News, Volume IV, Issue 160, 28 August 1886, Page 2

The Dilke Scandal. Sir Chariot Tells a Pecullar Story In His Defonoo.

The rehearing in the divorce case of Qrawford against Crawford and Dilke,' opened by the Queen's Proctor, began on July 16. Sir Charles Dilke, op-respondent, ..was present, as were also 'Mrs' Crawford and her sister. The oounsel for the Queen's Proctor, -in opening the oase, asserted that the servants mentioned by Mrs Crawford in her confession, as being present or witnessing her meetings with Sir Charles Dilke at his house or elsewhere, did not confirm Mrs Crawfords statement in any particular. Sarah, the maid, who Mrs Crawford Baid dreseed her in Sir Charles' apartments after his departure from an appointment there, denied, counsel said, that she ever did as Mrs Crawford alleged. The French woman, Fanny, who, Mrs Crawford confessed, brought her into relations with Sir Charles Dilke, had, counsel admitted, disappeared, but Dilke himself would teg. tify and show that he was not with Mrs Crawford on the dates she alleges he was in company *with her, and Fanny, the woman who kept house in Warrens, wherein Mrs Crawford said she met Sir Charles, would show that respondent never slept there as alleged. Sir Charles Dilke's coachman would show that he never stayed long at Mrs Crawfords house, waiting for his master to terminate his visits to Mrs Crawford. The coachman would further testify that he could have seen if anything wrong had been done in the room where Mrs Crawford had received Sir- Charles in her own house, as the coachman, from the box, could easily see over the whole area of the room. A con • sensuß of opinion makes of the rehearing a strong attempt to whitewash Dilke. Mm Crawford adheres to every statement in her confession. Sir Charles Dilke, being sworn, denied totally all allegations concerning him made by Mrs Crawfurd in her confession. Continuing, Sir Charles declared that Mrs Crawfords confession was an act of deliberate conspiracy against him. He accounted for the animus prompting thia conspiracy by saying that he had once, through a friend, advised Mrs Crawford to abandon an intrigue she then had with Captain Forster. The captain, learning of this advice, charged witness, during an inter view in 1885, with trying to blast his (Forster's) character, and challenged the witness to a duel. The witness declined the challenge, and treated the affair as utterly ridiculous. Tb.9 witness then proceeded to furnish evidence, B'iggesting that Captain Forster and Mrs Crawford, tiuding that the discovery of their liaison was imminent, concocted the story against the witness, contained in the lady's confession. Tbe Court was crammed with nobilities, including many well-known ladie3. Thereporters had difficulty in obtaining seats. Crowds of people were unable to gain admittance, Mrs Virginia JCrawford was dressed quietly in a brown costume. She was accompanied by her sisters, Mrs Aehton Dilke and Mrs Harrison. She arrived early and conversed animatedly with her counsel, George Lewis. Sir Charles Dilke, who was accompanied by his wife, looked careworn. He followed the evidence with the keenest interest. It was generally thought that Sir Walter Phillimore, who represented the Proctor, was somewhat biased in favour of the corespondent. When summoned as a witness, Sir Charles was visibly affected. In walking to tbe witness-box he almost staggered, but soon recovered his self-possession, and answered questions with clearness and decision. For instance, he replied to the question, •• Did you make love to Virginia Crawford?" with, "fto; certainly not." Mrs Crawford and Sir Charles frequently exchanged glances. The former «miled when Sir Charles denied that a liaison had existed between them. The spectators in the courtroom showed - great interest in the narrations of the witnesses regarding Sir Charles' alleged intimate relations with the French woman, who waa formerly in the Bervice of hia father and afterwards in his owu service. Sir Charles, it was eta ted, allowed her £40 sterling yearly, and when she was in England always visited her at 65, Warren -street. Much interest was also taken in the story of how the mysterious " Fanny " vanished, re-appeared, vanished, vanished again belore the last trial, re-appeared afterwards and gave evidence to Sir Charles Dilkb's solicitor* and finally vanished, and is now not to be found. It is the opinion that Sir Charles makes a bad witness, failing to answer questions asked until absolutely forced to, and showing a general disposition to debate and quibble. One of Matthew&'s question's, which cauEed a nutter, was, * Were you ever a lover of Virginia's mother?" The answer came, "1 have been asked previously a somewhat similar question, and I must decline to answer." Thie response created a sensation. During his evidence Sir Charles declared that he had never kissed Virginia Crawford, or made love or paid any court to her, and had never been improperly or unduly iamiliar, in fact that she was on terms of ordinary acquaintanceship with her. "My reasons for appealing to the Proctor," he continued, "arose from the comments of newspaper a." In the Court on the 20th, Dilke was most cheerful, almost frisky ; Donald Crawford was sullen and heavy-eyed ; Mrs Crawford was cool and collected, breaking the tedium of the technical evidence by a series of little yawns and twirlinga of her handkerchiof ; at the same time, she consulted a miniature cliary, and occasionally whispered to Mr lewis, and chatted smilingly with her sisters. The evidence of the servants tended to show that Dilke ordered the housemaids to be on the staircase as seldom as possible, because he disliked to see them. Shaut, the coachman, Baid he frequently drove Diike to the honaein Young-street, the vi&its usually < lasting a quarter of an hour. Once he raw Dilke anda lady through the window. They were only sitting and talking. Three secretaries testified that; they never caw lady visitors at Dilke's house Oue said' he had refreshed his memory as todatesby reference - to " Hansard.*' Justice Hannen interposing, ■aid that "Han-ard" was not a book recognised by the Court. ' Madame Besgonlavy, a Dative of Neuchatel, was a difficult witness. She did not remember whether she was married in 1873 or 1867. She had kept a cigar store in Montpelior Place, but she had forgotten ■ whether it was in 1873 or 1863 that ehe had - kept it. She had let ledgings, but was not «bl« to give the name of anybody who had over stayed over night, Bir Charles, Dilke, ibe said, called only once a year, She never saw Virginia Crawford. , , She had ongtiged " Fanny " as. a , servant. .Witness «aid she was formerly in Sir Charles Dilke's > service, and was now pensioned. , : , ',i;, i; < Mm Rogtrson .deposed that Capfc. Forater had called at her, house and told Virginia Crawford that he was ordered to Egypt, and that lire Crawford wept. Witness also said that Mrs Crawford had once teld her that

nha (Mrs Crawford) had on two occasions slept in Sir Charles Dilke's house. Witness besought Mrs Crawford to rupture her relations with Dilke. Damaging Testimony Giren by Mrs

Crawford. The evidence on July 20th was decidedly the most interesting yet given. Mrs Crawford testified. She confessed that she dislikecl her husband because he was top old, and that' she loved Foster because he was handsome and pleasing, arid thatshe committed . adultery with .Dilke £for, t the purpose' of ' obtaining*' aya v divorce ' frdm her hated husband. She spared Foreter as far as possible because she knew he w&8 about to marry. Under strict cross-examination she confessed .that she had committed adultery only with Dilke and Poreter, exculpating two other, society men. A remarkable feature* was that when Mrs Crawfoed waß asked questions— » for instance, with regard to the Frenoh vice, adultery, etc., phe answered with the utmost calmness, ■ " Yes, yes," and aven smiled, showing that naturally she was an abandoned woman, who ratber • gloried in her shame. Mrs Crawford spoke in soft, pleasing tones, damaging Dilke, without exculpating herself. The evidence given to-day produced a deep impression. Its directness, clearness and circumstantial minuteness > convinced all of its truth. Dilke's refusal to deny the liason with Mrs Crawfords mother ie attributed to the open nature of the scandal, rendering denial impossible. Tne conduot of Mrs Crawford and her two sisters in court was marked by unseemly levity. Mrs Crawford resumed her testimony on the 2 let. She said that Sir Charles Dilke declared that Mrs Rogerson, at whose home he used to meet witness, was his mistress. Mrs Crawford asserted that she believed it was Mrs Rogerson who wrote the anonymous letters accusing witness of adultery with Captain Forster, and that her object was to screen Dilke Mrs Ashton Dilke, sister of Mrs Crawford and sister-in-law of Sir Charles, testified that Sir Charles, after Mrs Crawford had made her confession, suggested a quiet separation between her and her husband, and offered to contribute to Mrs Crawford 'b income. A number of servants testified that ladies secretly visited Sir Charles Dilke, and that he made regular assignations at the War-ren-street house. While Mrs Crawford was testifying under cross-examination Captain Forster entered the courtroom and was eeen by her, when she became leas confident in her manner, and her replies were often made in a stammering way, and after long pauses. She said, among other things that Sir Charles told her, was that he had four mistresses. Captain Forster, as a witness in the Crawford-Dilke divorce case, on July 22nd, admitted he had been guilty of adultery with Mrs Crawford. He oace quarrelled with Sir Charles, called him a har, scoundrel, and coward, becauso he had secretly attempted to sever the relations between Mra Crawford and witness. He also attempted to thrash Sir Charles, but desisted at Mrs Rogerson's entreaty. Mrs Rogerson was here recalled. She denied the statements just made by Captain Forster. Matthews then addressed the jury in behalf of the petitioner, Crawford, whom the lawyer described as " the only one who had emerged clean from amidst this plentiful throwing of the foulest mud." The lawyer ridiculed Dilke's reason for remaining silent during the progress of the trial, when there waa produced acainet him strong and damaging evidence of brutal adultery. Matthews did not mince matters. He described things in the vernacular with such power as to intensely excite Dilke, who became livid with rage, and twice jumped to his feet and essayed to epeak, but the judge prevented him from doing go. Matthews, continuing, referred with inteuae scorn, to tho 4t Frenchified Sloanstreet orgies," and said that no man who was not so brutalised aa to be lost to all shame would act as Sir Charles Dilke had done in them. " Where," asked the lawyer, "is the Fanny accused of sharing >n theeo orgies, while this youne married woman, who wa3 betrayed and degraded into them, is being held up to infamy before the whole English-speaking world, for ministering to the horrible lust of Dilke? Fanny has vanished. Sne dared not appear before this jury." Commenting upon the apparent present lack of sensibility manifested by Mrs Crawford, Matthews said : "Doubtless the last epark of shame and respect in Mrs Crawford expired after the viqite she made to Dilke's house.' 7 Sir Walter Philleraore, on behalf of the Queen's Proctor, followed Matthews. Sir Walter contended tnat unless Donald Crawford proved that his wife had committed adultery with Sir Charlef, he was not entitled to a decree of divorce from her in the present case, because the commission of adultery with the co-reepondent was the particular and sole ground on which a divorce *as aaked. Crawford might obtain a divorce on the ground of his wife's adultery with Captain Forster, as shown in thia trial, but he would have to obtain it by bringing another action in which Captain Forster was co-respondent. Not a single witness had sworn to either seeing Mrs Crawford go in or leave Sir Charles's house, although it was always crowded with officials and friends. The counsel said that every gentlemanly feeling had restrained Sir Charles from going upon the stand and testifying during the previous trial. There was a dark stain upon his life and he was unwilling to submit himself to the process of examination which would be directed toward making an exposure concerning Eustace Smith, Mrs Crawfords mother. The absence of "Fanny," Sir Walter argued, could be Bimilar'y accounted for. She doubtless had a dark stain upon her and it was enough tv keep her out of the witness-box. Concerning Mrs Crawford Sir Walter said that the evideuce showed that she had been badly .reared and that she was a most bold, abandoned woman. The jury was very visibly impressed by Mattdewa' crushing oration. The Court adjourned until to-morrow, when Sir Wai ter will conclude his address.

Verdict of the Jury. The case of Crawford against , Crawford and Dilke was given to- the jury on July 23rd. They returned a verdict finding Mrs Crawford guilty ,of adultery with Sir Charles Dilke, and granting Mr Crawford a divorce. The jury was absent twenty minutes only. The decision arrived at by the jury is that Mr Crawford is entitled a divorce from hia wife on" the ground of adultery with Dilke, a» decided nisi Juctice Sir Charles Butt, February 12tb last, the present case being eimply a rehearing at the intervention of the Queen's Proctor for the purpose of ascertaining whether the decree nisi should not be set aside on the ground ,of collusion between Mr and Mra Crawford, or on now evidence invalidating the wife's confession. The jury finding in favour of' Crawford, tbe proceeding coni^rma, tho previous decree and makes, it absolute at the expira* ation of the six months attaching to it. ■< The six months will expire £nguat 2lat, the.decree nw having been issued Febru»ryl2th, The Queen's Proctor has been condemned I to pay the coats of tho present proceedings.'

Justice Hannen's Bumming up is pronounced by lawyers generally^ a model of clearness, compactness, and impartiality. It was delivered in "solemn and impreesive tones, and held the audience Bpellbound. From beginning to end the charge was de cidedly against , Sir Charles Dilke, The fudge alluded t<£; the abeenoe from the testimony fi&f confirmation of the essential portion of JDilkeV sti?ry as certainly ,to be rejcnarked'; while 'Mips Crawfordj'Was able to describe accurately the bed Worn in- Sfir Charles' house, although he swore that he had never taken heriinto the , house.. Besides this, the evidence given* by those who had testified to the co-respondent's visits to the house in Warren-street was unshaken. If the jury believed these wit* nesses, the Justice said, the whole value of Sir Charles Dilke y « testimony w»b destroyed." In reference 'to the long interval which elapsed between {he first and second acts of adultery, the Justice- thought the lady's explanation sufficient when ehe said Sir Charles Dilke' was not well during this period. Mr Crawford sat throughout the Judge's charge with his elbows resting on a table, his face buried in, his hands. Sir Charles Dilke sat all the time with his eyes fixed on the Judge's face, occasionally nodding an agreement to a judicial remark. After the verdict was rendered, Sir Charles looked the picture of misery. Captain Noster sat near Dilke, eying him closely, and evidently gloating over his rival's dejection' Jt was observed that , Foster, appeared to be watching for the door Sir Charles would eeleot for his exit, and it was thought the Captain might mean to follow the baronet and assault him. The formal verdict of the, jury contains no mention of Sir Charles Dilke by name. It simply declares that no material facts were suppressed at the previous trial, at which the decree of divorce was obtained jufetly. There were no scenes attending the declaring of the result of tbe trial, although the people outside of' the courtroom received the announcement with cheering. Sir Charles Dilke vanished immediately after the jury's verdict was rendered Donald Crawford, tho plaintiff, when he left the building, was cheered by the people in the street. Sir Charles Dilke has ordered the sale of bis house at Chelsea He will leave England and reside permanently in the south of France *» All the morning papers have leaders on the Dilke case. The, " Morning Post" is bitterest. The " Telegraph " draws many morals, but pities Dilke's forfeiture, of a respected and laborious career. The " Chronicle," formerly Dilke's organ, calls him 'a heartless miscreant. 1 The " Times " pities the fallen statesman, and says that hid best course will be to take himself from the country. The "New ¥ork, Tribune's" cable special from London of July 24th says : The Dilke case comes near being the greatest sensation London has known in modern times. It has put the Ministerial crisis in the shade and almost eclipsed the race for the Eclipee stake at Sandown, The verdict has hardly been in doubt since Mrs Crawford entered the witness box. She told her story in a way that convinced the jury and the public that it wae true. It was not shaken ffor a tnomont by cross-examination. Independent and unimpreached witnesses supported "her on some vitaJ points, but practically the jury had to say whether they believed her story on Sir Charles Dike's denial, and they believed her. The attempts to prove an alibi for Sir Charles Dilke on occa«sions when it was alleged that he met Mrs Crawford broke down. Sir Charles Dilke's denials on other points were contradicted by other witnesses, and, as the Judge said, destroyed the value of hie evidence. Sir James Hannen, one of the ablest Judges on the banch, tried the case with impartiality. His charge to the jury gave full weight to every point in Sir Charles Dilke's favour, but it would none the lees have been fatal to Sir Charles Dilke had not the jury obviously been already convinced of his guilt. Their verdict, stripped of technicalities, is a verdict that Sir Charles Dilke committod adultery with Mrs Crawford and numberless other persona whose names came out on the trial. Sir Charles Dilke is now in thia poeition : He denied the charge and affirmed his innocence. He pledged his word to his private friends, his honour to his constituents, and his oath to the Court. He has had, in spite of the complaints in tbi* morning's letter, which amount to nothing, a fair triai and every opportunity to disprove the accusation. The jury, after a week's hearing,, took ten minutes to decide that he was guilty, the judge agree*", and the public agree. The press to-day is unanimous. The " Times " even suggests the prosecution of bir Charles Dilke for perjury, but the general feeling is that his punishment is heavy enough already. Had he met the cast fairly at first, there would have been simply a decree against him as co-respon-dent that he could have lived down in time. His present condemnation is final. His bast friends cay that there remains for him nothing but exile or suicide. There is profound regret for the ruin of a man who has done the Stite much service, and who had a great career before him His ruin is none . the lc-s complete. < onuon, Juiy 24. — After Captain Foster had testffied in the Crawford divorce case Sir Charles Dilke said to him : " We will meet next week in Paris." "Whenever you please," Foster replied calmly. The "Sun's" London cab'e special of July 24th says: — Sir Charles Dilke will leave England on Monday. His friends are still urging him to remain and face the threatened prosecution against him. There is a strong official disinclination to push matters further. Thousands of photographs of the heroine of the loathsome drama have been sold. Most of them are spurious. The "World's" correspondent reports that when Dilke left the courtroom tv-day after the verdict the crowd in the street greeted him witn. shouts of •• Dirty Dilke ! Three groans for dirty Dilke !" Sir Charles Dilke left town, presumably for the continent. On th 6 same day, anticipating his removal by the Queen from her Privy Council, he resigned, aud is no longer even technically "Jtlight Honourable." Many clergymen, under ingenious veila of rhetoric, made thia fall the leading topic of their sermons. >

The following paragraph appears in a late number of London Truth : "Kerry cows ought to come into fashion, for they give far more milk than any others, and they are vetv hardy and cheap to keep. The little Kerry cow which ; Lord Rosebery sent from the home farm at Meritniore to the Islington Dairy Show, last winter, gave' fourteen quarts a'day after calving ; and I have heard of another heifer of thie breed which was giving? seven quarts a* day nine months after calving." '-' , ' '" ' \ How 'fe this ibrV *' best 6n'rebqra r 1 M. /Burrows,' of Yorkshire,', who is professional W^tthelG'alashi^laplubthis^eaßon, playing I against.Merchißtoh Castle School lately, bad. 'the following woMerfuli analysis : - Burrows bowledeSVen overs atid three balls, atfd'toblK'erght tf Wl6kSts : fbr no'runsV 'Five of the batsmen were clean bowled, the other three being caught.