Dilke

by Roy Jenkins

  “C’etait un héros, à très courte vue comme beaucoup d’héros, un mystique qui se payait de phrases, et aussi, comment dirai je? Un peu ‘un fumiste.’ Vous savez ce que nous appelons ainsi. Il s’amusalt à étonner les gens. Il ne croyait pas tout ce qu’il disait. Dans les lettres de lui que j’ai conservées, il traitait volontiers Dizzie et ses amis de Mountebanks. Il était, lui-même, Mountebank. . .” (D.P. 33921, 186.)

  10 One of the more attractive strands of Rosebery’s strange contradictory character led him to place himself unreservedly in Gladstone’s hands as soon as the news of the fall of Khartoum came through. Three months earlier he had contumaciously refused the Office of Works with the Cabinet. Now he was quite willing to accept this or even a lesser post. In fact he got the Privy Seal as well.

  1 Dilke’s normal use of the verb “to upset” was always in the sense of “to overturn.” If he used it in the more common modern sense of “to disturb” he added inverted commas, and frequently a deprecating parenthesis—“as the servants say” or “to use housemaid’s language.”

  2 He had not, of course, abolished plural voting, although he would like to have done so. At the first general election following the act based on his scheme, Dilke himself had nine votes, scattered over the different constituencies in which he held property. He made several special journeys in order to exercise these votes, and when this was not possible he attempted to make “pairing” arrangements with Tory politicians whom he knew to own property in the same area.

  3 Dilke also recorded, in characteristic terms, his impressions of one of the pictures. “The portrait of the first Cavendish—who was usher of Cardinal Wolsey, and who married Bess of Hardwick, the richest lady of the day—is exactly like Hartington, but a vulgar Hartington—fat and greasy—a Hartington who might have kept a public-house.” (D.P. 43939, 34.)

  4 This Garvin version is disputed by Henry Harrison in his polemical but often convincing Parnell, Joseph Chamberlain and Mr. Garvin (pp. 96-101). Harrison accepted O’Shea’s untrustworthiness, but believed the objective evidence pointed strongly to Chamberlain being far more aware of Parnell’s real state of mind than he subsequently admitted. Mr. Conor Cruise O’Brien (Parnell and His Party, p. 91) reserves judgment on the point. What is in any event clear is that Chamberlain and Dilke both believed at this stage in the possibility of a great step forward on Ireland.

  5 Dilke noted on this letter: “But the Old Testament Radical went on to make proposals to me with regard to the Roman Catholic vote in Chelsea which would have astonished the Old Testament prophets.”

  6 Myles Joyce, aged eighteen, was amongst those hanged for the Maamtrasna murders. All the others died protesting his innocence.

  1 The Anglican Dilke and the erstwhile Unitarian Chamberlain consistently over-estimated the power of the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Irish politics.

  1 Nevertheless, Mordaunt was successful in another petition five years later, when Lord Cole was cited as the sole co-respondent.

  2 The account which follows is a summary of the evidence which Donald Crawford gave in the divorce court on February 12th, 1886. Whatever view is taken of the other parties to the case there is not the slightest reason to believe that Crawford did not tell the truth according to the best of his recollection.

  3 The first of these, received as long ago as the spring of 1882, began by warning Crawford that his wife who, with her sister, was visiting the latter’s husband in St. George’s Hospital, had “been carrying on flirtations” with the students there. It concluded, on a quite different tack, with the words: “Beware of the member for Chelsea.” The second anonymous letter reached Crawford in March, 1885. It told him that his wife was Dilke’s mistress, that she was a frequent visitor to 76, Sloane Street and was known to the servants there; it gave, in fact, most of the details of her subsequent confession. The third was received in June of the same year and referred to Mrs. Crawford having lunched with a Captain Forster at the Hotel Métropole.

  4 Some of the details of this “confession” were supplied to Crawford, not on the night of July 17th, but two days later when he interviewed his wife at the house of her sister, where she was then staying.

  5 At the side of this last comment Dilke noted, many years later: “Chamberlain overpersuaded Hoya (Mrs. Pattison) and through her me, but he was wrong.”

  6 T. M. Healy recounts in his memoirs that, before this stage was reached, Gladstone tried, through Labouchere, to buy Crawford off. Crawford proved unyielding, but Labouchere, always generous with invention, reported to Gladstone that he wanted a judgeship. “A Scottish judgeship, I presume,” Gladstone replied; but on being told that it was an English judgeship which was required was undismayed. “Can any good reason be brought forward against his being made an English judge?” was the G.O.M.’s next answer, as he contemplated the possibility of a bargain. (Healy, Letters and Leaders of My Day, I, p. 215.) The story is uncorroborated from any other source.

  7 See infra p. 368.

  8 Perhaps the most significant of these was in the following terms: “F. Harrison’s sources of information are tainted. Please tell him from me for what it is worth that I am certain Dilke is innocent of the charge brought against him. I do not answer for his whole life—nor for my own—nor for any man’s—but the particular charge and its accompaniments are false.” (Letter written on October 22nd, 1885, and quoted in Garvin, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 45.)

  9 At this stage the details of Mrs. Crawford’s confession were not generally known. What had been published was that Crawford was suing his wife and citing Dilke as co-respondent.

  10 G. W. E. Russell, who had been a junior minister under Dilke at the Local Government Board, first suggested that the invitation should be sent. He recorded that Gladstone “could not have looked more amazed if I had suggested inviting the Pope or the Sultan.” (Cornhill Magazine, Sept., 1914.)

  11 Self-pity was not normally one of Dilke’s vices, but the tone of this part of the letter would have been more appropriate had he been going to gaol rather than on to the back benches.

  1 It was then both permissible and usual for the law officers to accept private briefs. Russell’s appearance for Dilke implied no official backing.

  2 In the relevant section of the Act there occurs the following passage: “The parties to any proceedings instituted in consequence of adultery, and the husbands and wives of such parties, shall be competent to give evidence in such proceedings provided that no witness to any proceeding, whether a party to the suit or not, shall be liable to be asked or bound to answer any question tending to show that he or she has been guilty of adultery, unless such witness shall have already given evidence in the same proceeding in disproof of his or her alleged adultery.”

  3 Bigham P. was to take a contrary view in Hall v. Hall (The King’s Proctor showing cause), 1909 (25 TLR 524), but the decision was disapproved and not followed by McCardie J. in Hensley v. Hensley and Nevin, 1920 (30 TLR 288), and Hill J. in Mourilyan v. Mourilyan, 1922 (38 TLR 482). For a full discussion of the point and the conclusion that the judgment of Bigham P. “cannot be supported,” see Rayden on Divorce, Seventh Edition, pp. 437-7.

  4 Dilke’s objection to Russell’s statement was slightly amplified in the memoir which he later wrote up from his diary: “The way in which Sir Charles Russell spoke of ‘indiscretions,’” he wrote, “looked to the public as though he was alluding to something more recent than this old story of capture in 1868 and recapture for two months in 1874-5—the winter in which I was mad.” (D.P. 43940, 117.) This is the only available written comment of Dilke’s upon his relations with Mrs. Eustace Smith.

  5 Any picture of Stead should perhaps be supplemented by a postcard which Bernard Shaw wrote in reply to a request for his views on the subject from Robertson Scott, who was writing a history of the Pall Mall Gazette. “I never spoke to Stead in my life,” Shaw wrote, “nor even saw him except once at a public meeting, where he behaved so outrageously that I walked out in disgust. I was a
contributor to the Pall Mall under his editorship; but as my department was literature and art, and he was an utter Philistine, no contacts between us were possible. Outside political journalism such as can be picked up in a newspaper office he was a complete ignoramus. I wrote him a few letters about politics which he acknowledged very sensibly as ‘intended for his instruction’; but he was unteachable except by himself.

  “We backed him up over the Maiden Tribute only to discover that the Eliza Armstrong case was a put-up job of his. After that, it was clear that he was a man who could not work with anybody; and nobody would work with him. When he was set up years after as the editor of a new London daily he had learnt nothing and forgotten nothing, being so hopelessly out of date journalistically that the paper collapsed almost at once. He wanted me to review for it on the old P.M.G. terms though I had become a Big Noise in the interval.” (Scott, The Life and Death of a Newspaper, p. 85.)

  6 His attitude was illustrated by the fact that for many years afterwards, on the anniversary of his conviction, he wore his convict suit, an attire which attracted a good deal of attention as he travelled up in the suburban train from Wimbledon and walked across Waterloo Bridge to his office. The gesture would have been more justified had he not been treated as a first-class misdemeanant for all but the first two days of his sentence, and allowed to wear ordinary clothes.

  7 Stead’s remarkable inaccuracy in writing about a case in which he was so closely interested is more than matched by that of his admirer, Robertson Scott. Scott, in summarising the proceedings, showed not merely inaccuracy but a formidable imagination. “Mrs. Crawford,” he wrote, “was the respondent in the divorce suit brought by a Scottish M.P. in which Sir Charles Dilke, the Duke of Marlborough and Shaw, Captain of the London Fire Brigade, were co-respondents.” (The Life and Death of a Newspaper, p. 82n.)

  8 Although it should be noted in fairness that she was far from laching in literary talent. (See p. 332 infra.)

  9 The Queen’s Proctor is a legal official who acts in the capacity of solicitor on the Crown’s behalf in the Probate and Divorce division of the High Court. He can intervene between the granting of a decree nisi and its being made absolute, and if he can show that the court was deceived or that relevant facts were kept from its notice, the interim decree can be upset.

  10 Three months later, for instance, Dilke wrote to Chamberlain: “Mr. G.’s friendliness comes to me a little late. After sitting in front of me in the House for several weeks he suddenly discovered my presence (now some time ago) and turned round and shook hands suddenly and warmly—which was very awkward and might have got into the papers, but luckily didn’t. The people whose kindness and friendship—and in your case something more—I shall remember will be those who did not wait” (D.P. 49610.)

  11 Special juries, abolished by the Criminal Justice Act of 1948, were chosen from persons with a relatively high property qualification.

  12 Born 1826; Conservative M.P. for Dungarven, 1868–74, and for Birmingham, East, 1886–95; Home Secretary, 1886–92; created Viscount Llandaff, 1895; died, unmarried, in 1913.

  13 The land purchase scheme which Gladstone at this time, largely on the advice of Spencer, was endeavouring to run in double harness with Home Rule. Dilke was as strongly opposed to this as was Chamberlain.

  14 This letter, it should perhaps be noted, was written six weeks before the publication of Lord Randolph Churchill’s election address which contained, amongst other pieces of invective, the memorable phrase: “An old man in a hurry.”

  1 He was the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty division of the High Court. Later, as Lord Hannen, he became a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary. He was the father of Nicholas Hannen, the actor, and was known as the most handsome judge on the bench. Born in 1821, he died in 1894.

  2 Perhaps the expectation of this was an additional, unspoken reason which weighed with James and Russell in February.

  3 It was a remarkable slip on the part of the President to assume that Dilke had counsel to protect him, and one which caused great resentment.

  4 Again, the Act of 1869 seems to have been forgotten.

  5 When the cross-examination was resumed on the following day, Matthews repaid Dilke by a delicate piece of innuendo for this explanation. The following interchange then took place: Q.: Sir Charles, you said yesterday that on the 6th of May, 1882, you had lunch with the Earles, and you met your present wife? A.: Yes. Q.: Was she then married, and was her late husband then living? A.: Yes. Q.: When did he die? A.: I think in July, two years ago. Q.: July, 1884? A.: I think so.”

  6 This was an astonishing answer, for as Dilke in fact knew Mrs. Crawford was a trained painter and had a highly intelligent artistic and literary appreciation.

  1 Thus he devoted much time to suggesting that, on May 6th, 1882, Mrs. Crawford would have found it difficult to remain at Warren Street until nearly 12.30, to go to Sydney Place to collect her luggage, and to catch the 2.15 train from Paddington to Oxford. Nearly twenty questions elicited from Mrs. Crawford the admission that she might have sacrificed her luncheon.

  2 Mrs. Crawford’s method of dealing with difficult questions could hardly have been more different from Dilke’s. She was less addicted to explanation.

  3 The President was perhaps inclined to give greater weight to Matthews’s sense of delicacy, as opposed to his diligence as an advocate, than would most other followers of the trial.

  1 Francis Jeune, later Lord St. Helier.

  2 Dilke himself, despite his dismay when it was originally decided upon, felt no resentment against the special jury. “. . . the Jury decided as they could not have helped deciding, and as I should have decided had I been one of them,” he wrote in his diary. (D.P. 46910.)

  3 The comments of the Pall Mall Gazette on the trial, curiously enough, were a good deal more favourable to Dilke than were those of most other newspapers. It pointed out that there were many inconsistencies in Mrs. Crawford’s story. The issue was still in doubt. It could be resolved only by Dilke suing Mrs. Crawford for slander or by the Crown prosecuting him for perjury. Stead was still unwilling to drop the bone which he had got so firmly between his teeth.

  4 In such a trial the onus would of course have been reversed. Furthermore, a higher standard would have been required—proof beyond reasonable doubt, and not just a balance of probabilities. Corroboration of Mrs. Crawford’s story would have been required and—an added advantage—Dilke would under the law as it then stood have been ineligible to give evidence in his own defence. Despite James’s view, it is perhaps a pity that the prosecution did not occur.

  5 Not even the popular press suggested that Dilke should be deprived of his baronetcy. Perhaps they regarded it as an appropriate title for him to continue to bear.

  6 Mrs. Green, it will be recalled, was the name under which Mrs. Crawford admitted having received letters from Forster at the Kensington Post Office.

  7 In 1885 Martin apparently wrote to Sir George Lewis saying that Forster had told him of affairs with four women—Mrs. Crawford, Mrs. Harrison, and two others.

  8 De Jersey, it was discovered, came (a little confusingly) from Guernsey, was “something on the Stock Exchange” in addition to running a society for the recovery of lost property, and died in a brothel in 1891.

  9 “Nia” was the diminutive of Virginia by which Mrs. Crawford was known to her intimates.

  10 This was a younger sister, Ida, who had been born in 1864 and who lived until 1943.

  11 The original of this document found its way into the Dilke papers by a curious route. In 1931 Edward Marjoribanks sent it to Miss Tuckwell with the following letter: “I have been meaning to send you this document for a very long time; it is a proof taken by Humbert & Co. in the case of Crawford and Crawford from Fanny Stock before the trial. Marshall Hall stole this statement or failed to return it to the solicitors because I suppose of its unique interest; all the Marshall Hall papers were, I understood, to be destroyed, but I specially asked for this
so as to send it to you if you wanted it.” (D.P. 49612.)

  12 This was at a time when there was some Irish terrorist activity; and when the Home Secretary, Harcourt, took his duties as a protector of public safety almost excessively seriously.

  13 Many of the Dilke papers (not only his engagement diaries) are appallingly lacerated. It is not always clear whether this was done by Sir Charles himself, or whether it was the result of the censorship which Miss Tuckwell exercised before entrusting the papers to the British Museum in 1939.

  14 Hannah Rosebery, who died in 1890, was a rich Jewess, the only daughter of Baron Meyer de Rothschild. She was a first cousin of the Miss (Alice) Rothschild referred to later in the letter. See also p. 113, supra.

  15 See pp. 355-8 infra.

  16 Dilke’s act of faith was the greater in so far as he apparently believed that Mrs. Crawford herself posted the last anonymous letter to her husband—the one which provoked her “confession”—immediately after leaving Chamberlain’s house (D.P. 43933,85)). This story was still circulating as late as 1952, when Miss Gertrude Tuckwell related it, sceptically, to Mr. Harry Pitt, Fellow of Worcester College, Oxford. It is supported by the fact that, under the system of code numbers then used by the post office it would have been possible to tell from the envelope (which was available at the time of the trials) whether it had been posted, as was suggested, in the Princes Gardens pillar-box. But the story is made implausible by the dates not being right. Mrs. Crawford’s visit to Princes Gardens was on the Wednesday afternoon, while the letter did not reach Bryanston Square until the Friday evening; and posts were somewhat quicker then than they are to-day.