by Roy Jenkins
The fourth issue was that of Dilke’s movements on February 23rd, 1882, the day on which Mrs. Crawford alleged that she had gone to Warren Street and he had first seduced her. With the help of his engagement book he was able to recount these in some detail. The fencing and the departure from home at 11-30 he deduced from his unvarying practice, although he was able to recall that his great-uncle, who was staying with him at the time, had been present at breakfast. At the Foreign Office he had evidence of unusual activity. There were eight parliamentary questions for him to answer that afternoon, of which five were new that morning. The answers had to be prepared and cleared both with Granville and with the permanent under-secretary. There were also a great number of notes and minutes which passed during the day between Dilke and Granville, and which Dilke had brought with him and was prepared to show to the court. In addition, the day was particularly busy because a bill relating to the French commercial treaty negotiations, which Dilke had been conducting during the previous autumn, had been introduced that morning into the Chamber of Deputies. Lord Lyons, the Ambassador in Paris, had been telegraphing about it at frequent intervals.
On top of everything it was a “levée day,” which meant that Dilke had to attend at Buckingham Palace in uniform. He described the procedure which this involved. On levée days he always ordered his brougham to be at the Foreign Office with a footman and his levée clothes at 1-25. That enabled him to be changed and at the Palace before two o’clock. As he was not then in the Cabinet he had not the privilege of the entrée, and had “to pass in with other gentle-men.” It must therefore have been at least 2-40 before he could have passed through the three rooms and escaped. He could not have been back at the Foreign Office and changed before three o’clock or a little later. On levée days he had “lost his luncheon,” but had tea and dry toast at the Foreign Office. He then checked the final version of his answers to questions which had to be completely ready and copied out for distribution to the newspapers by four o’clock. At 4-25 he left for the House of Commons to be ready to give the first answer of the day. He sat on the bench until the end of questions and then, at about 5-45, was asked for information without notice about what was happening in Paris. He was unable to answer fully at the time, but after returning to his room in the House, where there were boxes waiting for him both from the Foreign Office and from Granville in the House of Lords, he was able to interpose a statement at about eight o’clock. He dined at the House of Commons.
The fifth issue was that of Dilke’s movements on February 13th and 14th, 1883, the dates on which Mrs. Crawford alleged that she had spent nights at 76, Sloane Street, and the only others specifically mentioned in her proof. In view of the times involved it was inevitable that Dilke’s alibis for these dates should be less complete than for February 23rd of the previous year; but he was able to state that, on the 13th he had attended a Cabinet meeting in the afternoon, which had lasted from one o’clock until four or five o’clock, and in the evening at eight he had addressed his constituents at the Kensington Town Hall, the meeting lasting, with questions, until about 10-45, and the speech being reported, verbatim, in the newspapers the following morning. On the 14th he had attended, in uniform, the ministerial dinner for the reading of the Queen’s speech (it being the eve of the opening of the new session of Parliament) and had gone on afterwards to a party at Lady Granville’s. He denied resolutely that Mrs. Crawford had slept at his house on these nights, or on any other occasion.
The sixth and last main issue was that of Dilke’s relations with his former servant, Sarah Gray, who had been mentioned in Mrs. Crawford’s confessions, and with Fanny, who was Sarah Gray’s sister, although Mrs. Crawford apparently did not know this. Sarah had been his principal woman servant for thirteen years, from 1872 to 1885. She had been engaged by his first wife and had left after his second marriage when he took over Mrs. Pattison’s servants in place of his own. He had never given Sarah instructions to let Mrs. Crawford in, to dress her, or to show her out. There was certainly never any relationship between himself and Sarah “except that of master and servant.” About Fanny he knew much less. She had been in his service, as under nursery-maid, for a short time, about seven years previously. He was not directly aware that she had subsequently been in the habit of coming to his house, to see her sister, almost every Sunday, because he was usually away from Saturday to Monday; but he had recently been told that this was so. Fanny had never been his mistress, and he had certainly never shared a bed with her and Mrs. Crawford. He had never given his solicitor any special instructions about Fanny. Humbert had been left to make what arrangements he thought fit, although Dilke knew that at one stage he was in touch with her.
Phillimore then proceeded, in a most circumlocutory way, to put his final question. He referred to his doubt about how the matter stood under the Evidence Further Amendment Act of 1869 and asked for the President’s ruling. The President ruled that he could without doubt put the question he had in mind to “a willing witness,” and Phillimore then said: “Then, Sir Charles, I put the question to you—have you ever committed adultery with Mrs. Crawford?” Dilke answered, “Certainly not”; and the examination-in-chief was at an end. Phillimore asked whether, if any further specific dates were alleged, he would be at liberty to recall the witness, the President agreed, and Dilke was handed over to Henry Matthews.
Matthews‘ cross-examination was hostile, skilful and effective. Bodley referred to him later as having vilified Dilke “with a coarseness unknown in the courts since the disappearance of Kenealy,” but this was an exaggerated view. Matthews did his job as a highly-paid advocate, who was no respecter of persons and was determined to get a verdict for his client by discrediting the evidence of the principal adverse witness, and he did it with great success. Charles Russell would no doubt have attempted to do the same to Mrs. Crawford; but he was not allowed to try.
Matthews began by asking Dilke what he believed about Mrs. Crawford’s state of mind and her reasons for making the allegations. It was an excellent choice of opening. Even a much more succinct witness would have found difficulty in dealing with this subject by means of question and answer. Dilke was soon floundering hopelessly:
Question: Did you believe at the time of the last trial that Mrs. Crawford was in her sound mind?
Answer: Yes, I did, and do now.
Q.: Did you believe that she had any motive for making this confession about you if it was untrue?
A.: Yes.
Q.: What motive?
A.: I believe that she desired—finding that she was near discovery in a course of adultery with other persons—that she desired to fix upon a person already agreed between her and others for that purpose.
Q.: Wait a minute; who were the others?
A.: The persons with whom she had at various times confessed to having committed adultery.
Q.: Who are they, Sir Charles?
A.: They are Dr.—I am very sorry to have to mention the names of persons who are probably innocent—Dr. F. Warner, spoken of as “Freddy Warner,” and her own brother-in-law, Dr. Robert Priestley. This I utterly disbelieve.
Q.: Kindly mention the names.
A.: I hardly like to mention the names.
Q.: I am asking the names of persons whom you allege or believe she was conspiring with.
A.: No; you misunderstand me entirely.
The President: I so understood it.
Mr. Matthews: He said so.
The President: Who were the persons whom you allege?
Mr. Matthews: I understood you to answer me, Sir Charles, that you believed she was a perfectly sane woman, who, conspiring with others, had, in order to get rid of her marriage tie, invented this story about you?
A.: Yes.
Q.: I ask you who those others are with whom you allege she was conspiring?
A.: She herself has mentioned, or believed, that the anonymous letters proceeded from her own mother. I do not know—it is impossible for me to know from who
m the anonymous letters proceeded—but the author of the anonymous letters would be one whom I mean, whoever that may be.
Q.: You say the author of the anonymous letters, whoever that was?
A.: Yes.
Q.: Do you say you believe it was her mother?
A.: I do not know. I have no means of knowing.
Q.: With whom else was she conspiring?
A.: The last of this series of lovers.
Q.: Let us have the names, if you please—let us have no false sense of delicacy about it?
A.: Captain Forster.
Q.: I understand you to allege that Captain Forster, Mrs. Smith and Mrs. Crawford conspired together to invent the story about her and you?
A.: No, I do not say that at all. I say the author of the anonymous letters. I have no means of knowing who the author of the anonymous letters was.
Q.: That the author of the anonymous letters, Captain Forster and Mrs. Crawford conspired together to get up this story against you without a shadow of truth?
A.: The case appears to me to point to that.
Q.: And you thought that at the time of the late trial?
A.: I thought so.
Q.: So that at the time of the late trial you thought it was a deliberate conspiracy by a wicked person to deceive the Court, and to get a divorce from Mr. Crawford without the slightest foundation for the allegations made?
A.: Without foundation for the allegations made as regards myself but with a great deal of foundation for the allegations as regards other people, also made in a similar way.
Q.: Other people—you now put several.
A.: I said so just now—you stopped me. I understood you wished for a list of names. I was giving that list of names when you stopped me.
Q.: You were giving a list of the names of people with whom Mrs. Crawford had committed adultery.
A.: With whom Mrs. Crawford had confessed she had committed adultery.
Q.: To what people?
A.: I believe several.
Q.: Give me one.
A.: Mrs. Rogerson.
Q.: Mrs. Rogerson has repeated it to you?
A.: Yes, and to many other people. I believe the whole of this is in the possession of the Queen’s Proctor. I have every reason to believe so.
Q.: I did not ask you that; if you will kindly answer my questions I shall be obliged to you.
A.: You are asking me matters of opinion.
The President: Be good enough to follow the questions the learned Counsel puts to you; if any improper questions are put to you your Counsel will protect you.[3]
Matthews then suggested that with these thoughts in his mind it was most improper for Dilke not to have gone into the box at the first trial. On Dilke’s reasons for not doing so, he asked: “Is it true or untrue that there are acts of indiscretion in your life which you desired not to disclose on cross-examination?” Dilke answered: “Acts which came to an end eleven and a half years ago”; and Matthews said: “Then it is true?” And Dilke said “Yes.” Later in the cross-examination (on the following day) Matthews reverted to this point:
Q.: Was it true that you had been her mother’s lover?
A.: I was yesterday asked a question of a somewhat similar kind, and I replied to it. I must decline to answer that question.
It does not appear that Matthews, or the President, or Phillimore was keeping Section 3 of the Evidence Further Amendment Act very closely in mind at this stage.
Following his earlier reference to this point Matthews went on to question Dilke about his visit to Mrs. Crawford at Mrs. Ashton Dilke’s house on the Tuesday after the confession. Here he wished to suggest that Dilke had offered Mrs. Craw-ford money if she would agree to a quiet separation from her husband. The witness’s unfortunate method of answering questions, which was particularly in evidence in this passage, greatly helped Matthews in his suggestion.
Mr. Matthews: Did you go on to say to Mrs. Dilke that if Mrs. Crawford had not income enough to live apart from her husband you would make up her income for her?
A.: Certainly not.
Q.: Or anything of that sort?
A.: No, certainly not.
Q.: Did you also tell Mrs. Ashton Dilke that you wished her sister to sign a retractation of the confession she had made?
A.: I do not think so. I do not know what I might have said of that kind, because I was very angry indeed at the foul charges which had been made against me by her. I do not think so, but it is possible I may. With regard to the money it is absurd, because Mrs. Dilke is far richer than I am.
Q.: I am not speaking about Mrs. Dilke. I am speaking about Mrs. Crawford.
A.: Mrs. Crawford was living with Mrs. Dilke. If she wanted to be provided for she would be provided for by her; the suggestion is absurd on the face of it.
The President: That is not within the limits of an answer; it is irregular.
Mr. Matthews: I am not asking you the question without reason. I put it to you distinctly. You said that in substance you urged a separation, so that the matter should be secret instead of being public—a voluntary separation—and if there was any difficulty about Mrs. Crawford’s income you would make it up,
A.: I believe a separation was offered.
Q.: I am asking you, did a conversation about separation take place between you and Mrs. Dilke?
A.: You have been asking me a great deal about what I believe.
Q.: Now I am asking you about the conversation.
Sir W. Phillimore: I think, Sir Charles, you had better answer the question as to the conversation.
Mr. Matthews: Did Mrs. Ashton Dilke express indignation, and advise you to say nothing of the kind to Mrs. Crawford?
A.: I just told you I said nothing of the kind.
Q.: Then did Mrs. Crawford come down, and did you see her, and have an interview with her in the drawing-room, Mrs. Dilke standing some little way off?
A.: Yes, which is in itself inconsistent with what you have been asking.
Q.: Never mind, Sir, we shall see whether it is inconsistent or not by and by.
Matthews ridiculed Dilke’s suggestion that his behaviour on this occasion was to be accounted for by the fact that he was “boiling with rage.” “This was Tuesday,” Matthews asked, “you had been boiling with rage since Sunday? “He then passed to an involved exchange about the conversation which had occurred when Mrs. Rogerson told Dilke, as Matthews alleged, of the anonymous letters received by Crawford. Dilke denied that such a conversation ever took place, but Matthews pressed him hard to admit it and to agree that Mrs. Rogerson added: “You see your sin has found you out.” Dilke not only denied this on his own behalf, but added that, to his certain knowledge, Mrs. Rogerson denied it also. This got him into further trouble with the President, who interjected sharply: “You are not here to tell us what Mrs. Rogerson said or will say. You are here to answer for yourself.”
The next point of substance related to Mrs. Dessouslavy. Here again Dilke was on weak ground, because he was unable to specify periods of any length when she had been in his own or his father’s service and which could provide an apparent justification for a continuing payment of forty pounds a year. It would have been much better if he had said firmly that the pension was not directly related to her own services, rather than attempting an unconvincing search for dates. Then, after Dilke had rejected repeated suggestions that he had paid very frequent visits to the Warren Street house and had met a lady or ladies there, Matthews turned to asking him about Fanny. Did he not know that Fanny had been living at Warren Street with Mrs. Dessouslavy from June, 1884, to July, 1885? Did he not see her when he called there? The answer to both these questions being no, the following interchange took place:
Q.: Had you any mistress called Fanny in the years 1882, 1883 or 1884?
A.: No.
Q.: Or any mistress whom you called “Fanny”?
A.: No.[4]
Matthews concluded this section of the cross-examination by suggesting that, i
n the autumn of 1885, when Fanny had been sent to a farm-house in Essex where Humbert used to stay for shooting, Dilke had been paying for her keep, and that Mrs. Ruffle, the farmer’s wife, had been employed to try to get Fanny to swear to an exculpating statement. The substance of Dilke’s reply was that these were matters which he had left to his solicitor.
The next issue was that of Dilke’s morning habits. Matthews was most anxious, for the sake of Mrs. Crawford’s story, to create an impression of greater elasticity.
Q.: With regard to your going out after breakfast, there again it may have been twenty minutes earlier, and sometimes twenty minutes later?
A.: I should doubt its varying twenty minutes later. I never went out before half past eleven; my brougham came round as a matter of course without being ordered.
Q.: I dare say your brougham came round.
A.: You said earlier.
Q.: Never before half past eleven?
A.: Yes.
Q.: Might have run on until twelve?
A.: Very seldom, if ever.
Q.: But occasionally?
A.: Very seldom, except on Saturday, when I was staying in town.
Q.: Occasionally it might?
A.: On Saturday, when I was staying in town, it might.
Matthews then attempted to break down Dilke’s alibi for February 23rd, 1882. He asked to see Dilke’s diary for that day and noted that the entries were confined to “levée” and “dined at the House.” He refused firmly to look at the morning’s letters to and from Lord Granville, which Dilke kept proffering him, and instead embarked on a line of questioning which could hardly have been expected to produce positive answers:
