THE CRAWFORD DILKE SCANDAL. FURTHER REVELATIONS. Points In Sir C. Dilko's Favour.

Te Aroha News, Volume IV, Issue 179, 20 November 1886, Page 1

THE CRAWFORD DILKE SCANDAL. FURTHER REVELATIONS. Points In Sir C. Dilko's Favour.

London, October 6th. That the Dilke case would have presented a very different complexion had Sir Charles been properly defended by counsel at the second trial has always been the contention of his frienda. One of them now attempts to prove the fact by publishing a sort of statement with regard to the co-respon-dent's position which is being very widely inculated. It is, says the London correspondent of a west of England daily, in the form of roles upon the Evidence at the two trials, and upon the summing up of the judge in the latter suit. It ia done with consummate skill, not the least effective manifestation of which appears in the judicial air preserved throughout. It is rather the summing-up of a judge than the plea of an advocate, and if it were possible to make it public'it would, I fancy, have considerable effect in disturbing the curious unanimity with which the public have assumed the absolute accuracy of the statements of Mrs Crawford From the construction of the noteB, which deal minutely with innumerable points in the evidence and the summing-up, it is impossible to summarise them. But there are one or two points that may be noted. Almost at the commencement they deal with the fatal and irrevocable error of judgment which kept Sir Charles Dilke out of the wit-ness-box on the first trial. The statement ie repeated that upon this matter Sir Charles Dilke had " left himself in the hands of his advisera — both great lawyers and personal frienda " Up to the last moment they differed as to whether he should give e% idence. He expected that he weuld be called, and came into court fully prepared. At the last moment they agreed, and, only on this account, he allowed himself to be dismissed from the case without going into the box. There is no reference to the alleged agency of Mr Chamberlain at this delicate and critical moment. It is pretty certain that the point in Mrs Crawfords evidence which went further than anything in the direction of sustaining her case was her ability to describe the room in "the house off Tottenham Court Road," where, as ohe alleged.she was in the habit of meeting Sir Charles Dilke. It will be remembered that at the suggestion of one of the jury she drew a plan of the room. This was not disputed, and the presumption was that its accuracy was admitted by Sir Charles Dilko. The ama7ing statement is now made for the first time that the plan was never seen until after the eumming-up by anyone who had ever seen the room itself ! So far from being an accurate description, it was at fault in many important particulars. For example, the door was put on the wrong side of the room, and the stairs on the wrong side of the hou?e. The most prominent object in the room, a large Roman Catholic image, was not mentioned. Even if the plan had been correct, it did not prove the case, for it is stated that a detective named Clarke, engaged on behalf of Mrs Crawford, visited Warren-street in November. Not less striking testimony ig forthcoming upon Mrs Crawfords statements with reepect to the rooms in Sloane-street. 't will be remembered that one of the most revolting passages in the confession described three persons in Sir Charles Dilke's bed. It is now stated as a matter of fact that Sir Charles Dilke's bed is a single camp bed in which it is physically impossible for three persona to have congregated. Mrs Crawford also described this room, though not accurately, and the mistake she nade is very significant. Before Mrs Crawford went into the box, and while she eat listening, in the court, Ellen Drake, one of the servants at Sloane-street, was examined as to the appearance of the room. Subsequently, when Mrs Crawford was put in the box, she was asked to describe the room, and followed Ellen Drake's desciiption so minutely that she even adopted a mistake made by the girl. Ellen Drake eaid the room was painted all white, whereas the cupboards, which form prominent objects in the room, are not white, but yellow. It is Buggested that if Mrs Crawford bad ever seen the room she would have corrected this slip on the part of the housemaid. Another important discrepancy in Mrs Crawfords testimony with respect to Warren-street is pointed out for the first time. In her confee&ion to her husband, communicated to the Court at the first trial, Mrs Crawford paid : Sir Charles Dilke fook a piece of paper out of his pocket and wrote down the address with a pencil, and gave it to me in the morning. At the second trial she said : lie would not let me write it down. He made me repeat it over several times and learn it by heart. These are only a few of the points dealt with in this statement, the appearance of which just now in its present form is on all fours with the general conduct of the case. Had it appeared as the speech of Sir Charles Dilke'a counsel addressed to the jury, and had the cross-examination been conducted upon the lines it follows, the issue of the trial might have been different. Not the least offective portions of the notes are those which show how, owing to an unfortunate sequence of circumstances, beginning with the fatal abstention from the witnessbox in the first trial, Sir Charles Dilke was practically undefended whilst his life and his character were being wrecked.