Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

15 articles on this Page

- riie foilman g appeared…


riie foilman g appeared in our Second Edition of Saturday last. J THE DILKE SCANDAL. CAPT. FORSTER EXAMINED. SENSATIONAL EVIDENCE, EXTRAORDINARY SCENE IN COURT. THE JUDGE-S SL MMIXG UP. VERDICT OF THE JURY. SIXTH DAY. The further hearing of this case was resumed on Thursday morning, before Sir James Hannen and a special jury. The court, as on previous occasions, was greatly crowded. Mrs. Crawford did not put in an appearance at the commencement of the pro- ceedings. Sir Walter Philiimore, Q.C., and Mr. Bargrave Deane represented the Queen's Proctor; Mr. H. Matthews, Q.C., M.P., Mr. Inderwick. Q.C., and Mr. E. S. Wright appeared for Mr. Crawford; and the Attorney-General (Sir C. Russel!, Q.C., M.P.) and Sir Henry Jarne*. M.P., held watching briefs for Sir Charles Dilke. Mr. Lockwood, Q.C., M.P., watched the on behalf of Mrs. Crawford. EVIDENCE OF CAPTAIN FORSTER. Captain Thomas Henry Forster was called by Mr. Matthews. He said that he was engaged to be married in September, 1884, and that he did not married his wife until September, 1885. There was some difficulty about settlements. Witness was a visitor since February, 1885, at Mrs. Roger- Son s house. He often met Mrs. Crawford there, Bind Mrs. Rogerson encouraged his meeting her at. her bouse. Ùn 0ne occasion Mrs. Rogerson invited witness to attend at her house in order to personally castigate ;'as she said), if he could, Sir C. Dilke, for having loudy slandered her. The slander was that Sir Charies had described Mrs. Rogerson as his mistress to Mrs. Crawford. Wit- ness saw Sir C. Dilke outside the dining-room at Mrs. Rogerson's, and addressed him. He said, "I wisii to tell you that you are a scoundrel and a liar, and Sir Charles said. I am afraid you may add n coward, too." Sir Charles Dilke replied that he undersood Captain Forster was a gentleman, and he hoped that he would do nothing to injure his rep utation. Sir W. Philiimore: I object to this, The Judge: I wish you had interfered befcre. This is another side issue to which we have irifted. Sir W. Philiimore: As the examination of the witness has gone so far I will ask for leave to re- call Sir Charles Dilke. The Judge: Sir Charles Dilke did give an account of the interview with Captain Forster, but VI e only got so far as the word "scoundrel." Sir W. Pnillimore: He did not Siy that Captain Forster called him a c0ward. The Judge: I). Sir C. Dilke was stopped at the word scoundrel. We should not have had this evidence. Mr. Matthews, Q.C.: I am very sorry, my lord, but I was advised that the evidence was impor- tant. Examination continued: I made no offer of violence to Sir C. Dilke then. I doubt if I should have taken Mrs. Rogerson's part, unless I had had some irritation against Sir Charles Dilke pre- viously. Cr'w-examined by Sir W. Philiimore: I did not a,ttack Sir Charles Dilke because he had said any- thing about my prospects. It was in consequence of whit lie had said to Mrs. Ashton Dilke that I called him (Sir Charles Dilke) a scoundrel and a liar. I have taRen Mrs. Crawford to a house in Hill-street, Knightsbricige-road, and I believe that .t is a house of ill fame. SIRS. ROGERSON RE-CALLED. Mrs. Rogerson was re-called: She indignantly denied the truth of Captain Forster's statement that she had sent, for him to castigate Sir Charles Dilke. She nevpr H.sked him to castigate Sir Charles Dilke, and she had never asked him to her house. Captain Foster entered when Sir Charles Dilke was leaving her house, and. know- ing the state of feeling between them, she put up her hand and fold the footman to show Captain Forster into the dining-room. Then the altercation took place. and she complained of a scene being made on the puolic stairs of her house. Sir C. Dilke raised his hat, and said iie was sorry that a scene had taken place. Captain Forster told her that he hed .-ailed on her, and he saw Sir Charles Dilke's carriage at her door. REBUTTING EVIDENCE BY SIR CHAS. DILKE. Sir diaries DLke was re-called by Sir W. Philii- more. He denied tnat he said to Captain Forster, And I am afraid you may add I am a coward, too." If he useu the worJ" coward at all it Was with reference to his having made a scene in a private house. Captain Forster did not say that he had attacked inuu (Sir Charles Dilke) on account of anything that he had said about Mrs. Rogerson. The Judge: The witness did not say so. MR. MATTHEWS'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY. Mr. Mattnevvs, Q.L., then proceeded to address the jury in supporr ut the case of Mr. Crawford He said that he felt more hesitation in dealing with this case than he could well explain. He ap- peared for Mr. Donald Crawford. a gentleman of blameless life and. unblemished honour, and against whom no one in the course of the prE:sent inquiry baù ventured D say a word. Be had been brought there by the intervention of the Queen's Pro, or, and he hoped that the jury had not forgotten the history of his life, as re- vealed in the shorthand notes of the first trial. It wouid be remembered that Mr Craw- ford was a man of middle life, and that he married tjis wife when she was scarcely eighteen years of age. As she had stated, she had no affection for her husband, and siie did it simply to escape from a miserable home. They would remember the suggestions and qlletions of Mr, Crawford shortly aiter her marriage as to what he would do should she prove unfaithful to him. fhis threw light upon the story. Mrs. Crawford had told them how her husband was befooled and beguiled. The story was told in the witness-box at the first trial implicating Sir Charles Dilke. Two of the most eminent members of the bar, Sir C. Russell at the head of the bar, and Sir Henry James had advised Sir Charles Dilke not to go into the witness box. bec>1.use there was no tecimical evidence against him. That might be true, but there was a moral ground why he should not have sat silently by while he was charged with two coarse adul- taries with two generations. What was there blacker than that in his life his learned counsel should advise him not to enter the witness box. He had been guilty of coarse and brutal adultery with Mrs. Crawford. There were none of those loving attentions which often preceded the seduction of a lady. Why was ae nor, called to give the contradiction. Sir Charles Russell: I think my lord cannot near. Sir James Hannen Mr. Attorney, I cannot hear you. These are arguments with which the jury Will have to deal. Mr. Matthews proceeded to deal with the evi- dence as it showed Sir C. Dilke in the company of Fanny and Mrs. Crawford together. This. he said, was submitting an English lady of gentle birth to a degradation which could not be exceeded on the person of a prostitute in a French brothel. But at last Sir Charles Dilke had moved in the matter for further investigation. It was not out of any remorse for his first silence that Sir Charles Dilke had come forward. He did so because, on his own admission, he had suffered from the relentless persecution of the press, and the intolerable torture of newspaper comment He had a seat in Parliament. He occupied the posi- tion of a public man, and his station and credit in that were involved in it. The evidence against him was so strong that it was impossible for him to take his old position, and so at last he mustered up bis courage to the sticking point. The con- fession was made by Mrs. Crawford on a Friday oiglit. Sir Charles Dilke heard of it on Sunday, and the first thing he did to go to Mrs. Ashtcn Dilke's house on Tuesday, n urder to obtain a retraction of Mrs. Crawford's jtatement. Sir C. Dilke (very much excited): No. no. Mr. Matthews My lord, these interruptions are inconvenient, and 1 am only stating what I am assured are the facts. Sir C. Dilke: No, no. (Ilitting the table with both hands). Sir James Hinnen (with emphasis): Silence snust he ¡)bserved. Sir C. Dilke (rising) My lord Sir J. Hannen (sternlv): Sit down, Sir Charles Silence must be observed. If you have any suggestions to make vou must make them to Sir W. Philiimore, who has heretofore conducted the case with marked ability. Sir C. Dilke (still agitated). It is false; it is ■wrong. Mr. Mathews resumed his criticism of the evidence. He denied that Madame de Soulave was an servant of Sir C. Dilke's. At her house in W arren-street Fanny was a guest for a tweivemoni h, and it was in her darkened room that Mrs. Craw lord told the story of her seduction. The busy Minister of State, with his dispatches to "Sign and his questions to answer in the House of Commons, had only half an hour to devote to Mrs. Crawford when he first seduced her. There was trustworthy evidence that two aduitaries took place at Warren-street. Mrs. Crawford couid not know the house, or that Madame de soulave lived there unless Sir Charles Dilke told her. But there had been adulteries at Sloane- street as well, where Mrs. Crawford was smuggled in through the Foreign Office—messengers and brougham an he door—the parapherual ia of a busy Member of State. The footmen at the house cor- roborated Mrs. Crawford and contradicted the evidence of Sir Charles Dilke. The footmen at least let in Mrs. Crawford five or six times when Sir Charles Dilke did not see her coming. Again, if the Elelliers, who had sworn to seeing Sir Charles at 65. Warren-street, were to be believed, Sir Charles was a perjured witness and thatinci- dent afforded tremendous corroboration of Mrs. Crawford's testimony as to that house. As to the Visit to SSoane-street, the learned counsel pointed to the absence of evidence snowing how Charles spent his time between 11 and 11 30in the morning l, when the visits were made, while the evidence of the servnnts corroborated Mrs. Crawford, and to. some extent contradicted Sir Charles. Dealing next with the night visits to Sir Charles, it was p0inted out how again no alibi had en while there was corroboration of the confession in ihe fact that other witnesses spoke to two; bseucea oi Aicat Crawford from her bogae. i Mrs. Crawford knew the habits and the order of business at Sloane-street as only a person who had been there could describe it. Emma Drake seemed to give her evidence fairly enough. She stated that on one occasion she saw a ladv in a large dark hat with Sir Charles Dilke. Then the evidence of Mary Ann Gray showed that she saw a iady in Sir Charles Dilkes room on one occasion and if that. were true the jury could not believe either Sir C. Dilke or the servant Sarah. It should be remembered that Mrs. Crawford was a young married woman, who visited Sir C. Dilke, a widower, with the knowledge of her husband. Sir C. Dilke himself ventured to explain that she came to hi:* house to obtain office for her husband, but then he withdrew that when he was pressed by him (Mr. Matthews),. Notwithstanding that he heard muttered denials from Sir C. Dilke, he would repeat the statement that he (Sir C. Dilke) did not insist in the explanation of Mrs. Crawford's visits. Then there was evidence that Mrs. Crawford spent two nights with Sir Charles Dilke at his house. On both these occasions her husband was .not in London. There was evidence of her absence from her own house at night on those occasions. Did the jury believe that Sarah was conniving at the disappearance of Fanny ? Sarah was the accomplice in this long history of adultery, and she was not called at the last trial. The other side alleged that Mrs. Crawford had invented the story of Fanny's con- nection with the Sloane-street Frenchified orgie. Fannywas an innocent nursemaid whom Sir Charles stated he did not know by sight, but somehow she felt she must fly and disappear in Essex in the house of Mrs. Ruffles, She took littJe trips up to London from August, 1885, until close before the last trial, and all at the expense of Sir C. Dilke. She was in London at Mapleden-place on the 10th of April, when Sir C. Dilke wrote to the Queen's Proctor, but again she disappeared with her husband, Mr. Stock. She did not come forward to vindicate her reputation of being the degraded mistress of Sir C. Dilke. She ought to have done so if she looked forward to a life of happiness with tbe husband she had recently married. If she were a slandered woman, would she not have done so? She went from the mysterious service in Brixton to Warren-street, where the room was newly papered on her going there. He asked the jury to believe that she was at the beck and call of Sarah and Sir Charles Dilke, and that they could produce her if they liked. The man who could perform such a part as that attri- buted to him in this case had a great responsi- bility. From the time of the three visits of Fanny. Mrs. Crawford must have lost the last traces of womanly feeling and womanly shame. Sir Chas. Dilke had supplied to the Queen's Proctor evidence to support the suggestion that she had committed adultery with Mr. Warren, a medical student, and with her own brother-in-law, Mr. Priestley, but there was no evidence to support this sugges- tion. Unfortunately, it was true that Mrs. Craw- ford had fallen a second time and committed adultery with Captain Forster. Sir Charles Dilke got a knowledge of this from Mrs. Rogerson, who encouraged their interviews in every way. The court then adjourned for luncheon. Mr. Matthews continued his speech by referring to Mrs. Crawford's connection with Captain Forster. The evidence for the Queen's Proctor suggested that Mrs. Crawford herself had written to the Metropole Hotel, but nothing could be more absurd. A curious scene had occurred in June, 1385, between Sir C. Dilke and Captain Forster, and why he (Mr. Mathews) had called attention to the latter was to show whether or not Mrs. Rogerson had a grievance against Sir C Dilke, for that lady had been both hot and cold in connec- tion with the whole case. He suspected Mrs. Rogerson of having told Sir Charles Dilke about the meetings at the Hotel Metropole, and Sir Charles communicated the fact to Mrs. Ashton Dilke with a view to cljaring himself. The jury would have to consider who did write the anony- mous letters. Mrs. Crawford supposed at first that her own mother wrote three of the anony- mous letters sent to her husband. Unless she was told of the sin of her own mother by Sir C. Dilke how could she know that since she had not spokeD to her mother for several years, and how could there have been a conspiracy between them. He Mr. Matthews) suggested that Mrs. Rogerson wrote the Metropole letter. Mr. Stewart stated he believed that she had written both the anonymous letters about Captain Forster, and the object was to put him as a buffer between Sir Charles Dilke and Mrs. Crawford. It was certain that Mrs Crawford's object was to get rid of her husband, and the anonymous letters made life intolerable to her, so she told Mrs. Rogerson that she must tell her husband everything; and her whole story was a rational one. If it was a a mutual one. if she was a conspirator, why did she hesitate to give her husband at first full assistance to obtain a divorce? That was the last topic upon which he would address them. He believed that the issue the jury would have to try was whether Mr. Justice Butt was justified in pronouncing a decree of divorce, and whether it was justly obtained. They were asked by the Queen's Procior to say that the adultery was not corrmitted with Sir Charles Dilke. The burden was upon him to satisfy the jury that a wrong decree had been pronounced at the first trial. He hoped. in conclusion, that the result of their verdict would be to put an end to the litigation which was wear- ing out the heart and soul of Mrs. Crawford. He asked them for a verdict which would deliver Mr. Crawford from the terrible burden he had to bear in consequence of the discredit and disgrace which Mrs. Crawford had brought upon him oy her marriage with him. SIR W. PHILLIMORE SUMS UP FOR THE QUEEN'S PROCTOR. Sir Walter Philiimore then proceeded to sum up the case on behalf of the Queeh's Proctor. He submitted that it was the duty of the Queen's Proctor to have brought the case into court once more after the statement which Sir C. Dilke had brought under his notice. When he (Sir Walter) had placed before the jury the observations and sug- gestions on the evidence which had occurred to Mr. Deane and himself, he would have discharged his duty. The two parties here interested were Mrs. Crawford and Sir Charles Dilke-the one affirming and the other denying the adultery. If the jury should tind that there was no adultery with Sir Charles, if there should be a verdict for the Queen's Proctor, in a few weeks Mr. Craw- ford could obtain a divorce from his wife as against Captain Forster. The learned counsel proceeded to justify the advice siven by Sir C. Russell and Sir H. James at the first trial, when they would not let him appear in the box. There was a dark spot in his life. There had been a guilty connection between him and Mrs. Eustace Smith, and he, if called, would nave been liable to be cross-examined with reference to it. The jury could understand why, therefore, he did not appear as a witness in the first case. It was not to save himself only, but others, and especially when the guilty connection with Mrs. Smith had ceased a year ago, and she was now living with her husband. He thought it right to say this in reply to what was urged bv Mr. Matthews. Mrs. Crawford admitted that she married her husband without having any love for him. The first letter that Mr. Crawford received about his wife had reference to some flirting with students at St. George's Hospital. Next came the White- chapel letter, which Captain Forster said he had written to Mrs. Crawford, and that had caused her husband to become suspicious of her. There was in the March before a letter about Sir C. Dilke, but it made no impression. They found that Mrs. Crawford visited Captain Forster in Dublin, and that morning they had fresh evidence that she went to a house of ill-tame with him. There was no doubt that in June of last year Mrs. Crawford was a very abandoned woman. When she made her state- ment to her husband she was anxious for any excuse not to live with him. If Mrs. Crawford had a strong affection for Captain Forster she would no doubt endeavour to screen him, as she did in her confession to her husband. It would be remembered that before the trial she said she was terribly afraid that Sir C. Dilke would fight it. The evidence given by Sir Charles Dilke showed that on the alleged first visit to Warren-street he had not the time to go there, let alone to remain some time at the house. He had only given nega- tive evidence, it was true. It should not be for- gotten that, according to her own statement, on the second visit Sir C. Dilke paid to her she agreed to go to a certain house to be seduced. If that was true, her mind was very degraded six weeks after her marriage. The statement, on the face of it, sounded a very improbable one. The learned counsel had not concluded his speech when the court arose. SEVENTH DAY. The further hearing of this cause was resumed on Friday morning, before Sir J. Hannen and a special jury, the court being again crowded. CONTINUATION OF SIR W. PHILLIMORE'S ADDRESS. Sir Walter Philiimore, Q.C., continued the sum- ming up on behalf of the Queen's Proctor. He said he was dealing with the evidence of Sir Charles Dilke's footmen when the court rose on the previous day. As to the evidence of the servants he thought that in many particulars it was remarkable. It was stated that on the two occasions that Mrs. Crawford visited Sir Charles Dilke's house she went early in the evening, and had to wait some hours before his return. Was it not likely that a woman like Mrs. Crawford required some amusement, and that she would slip out of the house if she possibly could ? The jury could hardly doubt. It had been deposed that a ladv in a large black hat and dress visited the house on one occasion. Might it not be naturally assumed that Sarah, the head servant, had friends who would sometimes call upon her? There was the evidence ot Mary Ann Gray to the effect that she had seen a lady in Sir Charles Dilke's bedroom without a hat or cloak, but the date of that occurence did not coincide with the time fixed by Mrs. Crawford for her visits. On the occasion that Sir Charles Dilke was seen by the servants to take ladies upstairs, that was just what would happen if they had come to look at the pictures, as had been the habit of some lady friends of Sir Charles Dilke. Coming to the evi- dence of Sarah Gray, Sir Walter said that the life of that woman, if her statement was true, was that of a respectable woman. If the jury believed her, her evidence negatived the whole story told by Mrs. Crawford. It was not possible, though most things were possible, that Sarah should have con- nived at the degradation of her own sister in the manner suggested by the other side. The evidence of Grant, the coachman, did not support the allega- tion that there had been adultery committed at Young-street. Mrs. Crawford stated that she drew down the blind when Sir Charles Dilke came, but the coachman, on the other hand, described how he could always see into the room and through it bv means of the window at the back. which disclosed a green field. Could the jurv believe that Sarah would be sent to dress Mrs. Crawford after her visits to Sir Charles Dilke-that one cast-off mistress would consent to dress another? As to Fanny, she was in service in Sir C. Dilke's house about the year 1878, when his little sister was at home. The visits to her sister proved nothing against Sir C. Dilke. Mrs. Crawford could not remember the number of the house in Wariea-atreet, yet she pre* I tended to sketch the furniture in the room or the bedroom where she alleged she met Sir Charles Dilke. but she could not describe where the door was that led into the bedroom. No one had confirmed the accuracy of her sketch of tne bedroom, and as it had not been confirmed it must stand for what it was worth. The evidence of Madame de Soulave was consistent on the whole. She gave the name of the place where she was married in Switzerland, and afterwards she kept house for a Roman Catholic priest. As to the hour fixed for the alleged visits to Warren-street, the Helliers deposed that the visits of Sir Charles Dilke were between half-past three and five o'clock in the afternoon. This would be impossible for Sir Charles Dilke, who, as a Minister, had to answer questions in the House of Commons at half-past four o'clock. The evi- dence showed that Mr. Humbert and Sir C, Dilke had all that they could to secure the atten. dance of Fanny. Her absence was, no doubt, a disadvantage to Sir t Dilke's case but if she had a stain on her character, it she had led a bad life, it was not likely that she—a young married woman, recently married to a respectabte man—would like to give evidence with reference to her past life. With regard to the interview with Mrs. Ashton Dilke, what was more natural than that Sir Chas. Dilke should go to her house r She was the natural protectress of Mrs. Crawford. being a married lady and older than her sister. Sir Charles Dilke did not ask to see Mrs. Crawford alone, and what he asked was that communication should not be made to Mr. Stewart, the solicitor, on that day. As to the anonymous letters, he suggested to the jury that two of them had been written by Irs. Crawford, who had a desire to shield Captain Forster. She knew what the connection between Sir C. Dilke and her mother had been, and she must have fixed upon him as her paramour in the belief that he would be afraid to enter the witness-box. He suggested that the" cuckoo" lettet. was written either by Mrs. Crawford or by Mrs. Eustace Smith. One thing was certain, the person who wrote the Metropole letter instigated or wrote the second. Both these letters were intended to lead up to the confession which Mrs. Crawford had prepared herself to make. In conclusion, Sir W .Phillimore said that the story of Mrs. Crawford was altogether improbable. Was it likely Sir C. Dilke would, if he had seduced her, introduce her to Sarah, state his connection with her to Mrs. Rogerson, that he should have told Mrs. Crawford that Mrs. Rogerson was also his mistress, and that he had had criminal relations with her own mother? The jury had not to decide whether Mrs. Crawford was an adulteress or not, or whether Mr. Crawford was entitled to a divorce. What they had to consider was whether he should get a divorce with Sir Charles Dilke as co-respondent. Mrs..Crawford's own evidence and that of Captain Forster clearly proved that when she made her confession she was a degraded woman, she having gone to a house of ill-fame with the captain. THE JUDGE'S SUMMING UP. Sir James Hannen proceeded to sum up the case to the jury at a quarter past twelve o'clock. He said he had to remind the jury that Mr Crawford had obtained a decree nisi of divorce from Mr. Justice Butt at the first trial, and the Queen's Proctor had intervened to show cause why the decree should not be made absolute. In order to do this be would have to show that material facts had been kept back, and in order to set the decree nisi aside he would have to show that it was wrongly granted. At the first trial tho Lord Judge was justified in pronouncing tho decree nisi, for no one had from the beginning questioned the veracity of Mrs. Crawford. The Queen's Proctor had intervened on evidence that must have obviously come from Sir Charles Dilke, and it would be for the jury to say how far it was true. The jury would have to consider the motives of Sir Charles Dilke in coming forward to dispute the deciee which had been granted. No doubt he had suffered in reputation through that decision of Mr. Justice Butt. In consequence of the comments of the press he had determined to come forward, as he had now, to question the decree that had been pronounced. At, the trial Sir Chas. Dilke did not enter the witness-box, on the advice of his counsel. On the previous day lie could not allow Sir C. Russell to explain why he had advised Sir C. Dilke not to enter the dock, but what they had to consider was why, in a case like this, did Sir Charles Dilke acquiesce in the advice of his counsel. According to his position now, the court at the first trial was deceived. It was for the jury to decide whether they would have acted in this way. Now he turned to the motives and position of Mrs. Crawford. She had now confessed to adultery with Captain Forster, though she had solemnly declared to her husband that her friendship with him was innocent. It would be for the jury to say if this woman, who did not appear to be a woman of truth, intended to implicate Sir C. Dilke in order to screen Captain Forster. She stated that she only desired to ruin one man at a time, and the question was, did the jury believe that her story against Sir Charles Dilke was trumped up in order to screen her undoubted lover, Captain Forster. Although the case had taken a long time to try, the facts with which the jury had to deal were not, many. Mrs. Crawford's con- fession to her husband was different in some respects to her evidence at the present trial, but she had afterwards corrected some of those mistakes to her sister and her solicitor. As to the two alleged meetings at Warren-street, Sir C. Dilke had pioduced evidence to show that he could not have been there on those occasions, and for this purpose he had called his wife, Lady Dilke, who had given important evidence in favour of her husband. Still, she was now an interested party, and it was a mistake not to have called Mr. and Mrs. Earl, so as to know when Sir Charles Dilke arrived there on the 6th of May, 1832. If the jury believed the evidence of Mrs. Ashton DilKe, H was a remarkable cüincidenCtJ that Irs. Crawford should have gone and found the house in Warren-street where Sir Charles Dilke had been in the habit of going at short intervals. The jury had put a question testing her know- ledge of tho bedroom at Warren-street, and she had drawn the interior of that room. Sir W. Philiimore said there was no evidence that her sketch was correct. That. might be true, but since she mad" it the Queen's Proctor could havA visited the room and contradicted it. The sketch of the room by Mrs. Crawford must be accepted as true. As to Madame de Soulave, she was described as in receipt of a pension from the Dilke family. ir C. Dilke stated that he only visited at Warren-street about once a year. The evidence of the Helliers disapproved that state- ment. They all stated that Sir Charles Dilke met a woman at Madame de Soulave's, though Sir Charles Dilke and Madame de oulave led them to infer that his visits were those of charity or friendship. There was a man named Guilliano, who bore some resemblanc3 to Sir Charles Dilke, but the Helliers denied that he was the man they saw at Warren-street. They said Sir Charles Dilke was the man. and that they recognised him by his voice. The learned judge next dealt with the evidence relating to Mrs. Crawford's two visits to Sir Charles Dilke's house, when on each occasion she spent the night, with him. It was not an easy thing for a man to convev a woman into his house without assistance, and, 'according to Mrs. Crawford's evidence, Sarah had assisted her to dress on those occasions. It was for the jury to say whether they believed Sarah's evidence in regard to the movements of her sister Fanny. The court then adjourned for luncheon. Sir James Hannen, resuming his summing-up, said Mr. Crawford understood his wife to have passed two consecutive nights at the house of Sir Charles Dilke in February, 1883, but Mrs. Craw- ford, by her evidence, contradicted that. That was a mistake which might, naturally have occurred, seeing that Mrs. Crawford started to come up to London on the 12th of February, and that her husband did not arrive until the 14th of July. Then, as to her various visits to Sir Charles Dilke's house during the day for short times. In 1882 she said there were five or six visits, and in 1883 she said that they numbered eight or ten. The footmen corroborated her as to the visits, but they stated that the visits lasted only a few minutes, just as Sir Charles Dilke was leaving the house in the morning. On one occasion the footman said that he had shown her into the blue room. It was for the jury to say why a young married lady paid these visits to Sir Charles Dilke at his house. It was true 8he was a relation by marriage, but what was her business at the house on those occasions ? Mrs. Crawford stated that Fanny was first mentioned to her by Sir Charles Dilke in 1883. That was a most revolting circum- stance of the case, and he would rather not believe it true. Did the jury think that sue would invent this statement ? Would a woman who was seek- ing to fix a false charge upon a man make such a statement of revolting crime, or simply say that the accused person had committed adultery with her? These were questions which, as men of the wodd, with a knowledge of human nature, the jury would have to answer for themselves. Next., as to the visits it was alleged Sir Charles Dilke paid to Mrs. Crawford where she lodged. The evidence of the coachman as to those visits was clearly in favour of Sir Charles Dilke. There was no doubt that Mrs. Crawford had carried on an intrigue with Captain Forster after she had given up her intrigue with Sir Charles Dilke, and that she meant to inform her husband that she had committed adultery in 1883. It should be remem- bered that Mrs. Crawford bad confessed to Mrs. Rogerson in 1883 of her intrigue with Sir C. Dilke, and there was evidence that Mrs. Rogerson asked her to break it off, and that it was broken off accordingly. He (the judge) was sorry to say that he considered the evidence showed that Mrs. Rogerson had encouraged tho meetings of Mrs. Crawford and Captain Forster, but it was difficult to get an intelligent idea of what her object was. It seemed to him that Mrs. Rogerson had written the Metropole letter, and the question was, did she not write the second anonymous letter. Sir Charles Dilke was impatient at Mr. Matthews' statement that the first sign he made after the confession was to go and see Mrs. Ashton Dilke and Mrs. Crawford. He could not say if an inno- cent man would not have done what Sir C. Dilke did, in thus visiting the woman who had accused him. But Mrs. Ashton Dilke stated that Sir C. Dilke suggested that a. separation ought to be obtained by Mrs. Crawford, and that he would see to an income for her. This was a very impor- tant matter, but it should be remembered that Sir Charles Dilke had denied this. In con- cluding, his lordship said that he was glad the grave issue which had to be tried had been left to the jury, who had not to consider in any way whether or not Mr. Crawford would be entitled to a divorce as against Captain Forster. With these remarks he left the case in the charge of the jury, who then retired at fire minutes to three o'clock. RETURN OF THE JURY: THE VERDICT. The jury, after an absence of about a quarter of an hour, came into court, Sir James Hannen taking his seat immediately afterwards. The Clerk of the Court (Mr. Widdicombe) Gentlemen, have you agreed upon your verdict ? The Foreman: We have. The Clerk: Was the decree nisi for the dissolu* tioa of the marriage of Mr. Donald Crawford, the petitioner, and Virginia Mary Crawford, the re- spondent, obtained contrary to the justice of that case by reason of material facts not, having been brought to the knowledge of the court? The Foreman: We find that the decree was not obtained contrary to the justice of the case or by reason of material facts not being brought to the knowledge of the court. Mr. Matthews. Q.C.: Then I ask vour lordship to give judgment accordingly, and I also ask you,, under the Act of 1878, to award coats against the Queen's Proctor, which, in this case, have been exceptionally heavy. The President: Certainly; but I do not know what you mean by giving judgment. Mr, Matthews, Q.C.: 1 leave it entirely to the court, but I understand the practice is, that there must be a judgment dismissing the Queen's Proctor's intervention, and that I leave to your lordship. Mr. Inderwick: I think in any further step it is usual to proceed by motion. Sir James Hannen But I think I must at once dismiss the Queen's Proctor's intervention, and I would suggest, as I had a representation made to me, that in this case a higher rate of remuneration should be paid than is usual in such cases. It appears to me that the Queen's Proctor should attend to this. Sir Walter Philiimore Any representation your lordship may make shall be conveyed to the Treasury, and shall be duly attended to. The jury were then discharged from their atten- dance. Mr. Matthews, Q.C.: I don't know what further course can be adopted, but I believe the decree nisi was obtained less than six months ago. The President: That is what I had in my mind. Have the six months elapsed? Mr. Mat thews, Q.C.: No, my lord; the six months wiil not elapse until just after the expiration of these sittings. The President: I will anticipate your applica- tion, which may be made on the last day of sit- tings or in chambers, at your option. Sir Walter Philiimore, Q.C., said the Treasury had consented to give extra remuneration to the jury. Sir James Hannen Very well. THE SCENE IN COURT. The jury were absent for scarcely a quarter of an hour when they returned into court. Sir James Hannen, evidently expecting that they would take more time in private, had left the bench, and had to he summoned back somewhat suddenly. Mean- time those in the crowded court burst out into a general buzz of conversation as to the probable finding of the jury, but very few persons expected a result different to that found by them, namely, that no material facts had been kept back from the court when the decree nisi was pronounced in favour of Mr. Crawford. In other words, the special jury had found that they were convinced that Sir C. Dilke iiad committed adultery with Mrs. Crawford. There was no demonstration one way or the other. Sir Charles Dilke received the verdict with that firm, immovable expression of countenance habitual to him. He conversed quietly with his brother-in-law, Mr. Pattison, who, smiling, said something in reply. Mr. Crawford sat calm and unmoved by the side of his solicitor, Mr. Stewart, i From the entrance of the jury, with their verdict, until the proceedings closed was about five minutes. After a significant pause, the judge making no sign, Mr. Matthews, Q.C., at once asked for judgment according to the verdict just de- livered, and for the costs of his client, wnich, he added, had been very heavy. Oh, yes," was the reply of the learned president, to the latter part of the appeal. "Of course tho costs shall follow the event." His lordship ad- mitted that lie did not exactly know for the moment what form his judgment should take, but lie felt that he was then jusLitied in dismiing tho Queen's Proctor's intervention. Mr. Inderwick, Q.C., mildly interposing, suggested that his lord- ship should make the decree of divorce absolute, and informed his lordship that he should move that the decree be made absolute on the last day of sitting. "0 yes," assented the lord judge, when the clerk of the court reminded his lordship that the special jury had a "presentment to make on their own behalf, to the effect that their fees ought to be increased beyond the usual amount. Sir James Hannen thought the application a very proper one. and Sir Walter Philiimore promised to convey his lordship's recommendation to ''My Lords of the Treasury." Then the crowded court rapidly emptied, and the great Crawford divorce case is now concluded.












Family Notices