The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1886-07-24 00:00:00

THE CRAWFORD DIVORCE CASE.

IRE INTERVENTION OP THE QUEEN'S
PROCTOR.

In the Divorce Division of the High Court of
Justice, Sir James Hannan and a special jury had
before them the case of "Crawford v. Crawford
(Queen's Proctor showing cause)." Originally the
petition was that of Mr. Donald Crawford, for the dis-
solution of the marriage on the ground of the alleged
adultery of his wife, Mrs. Virginia Mary Crawford,
with the co-respondent, Sir Charles Dilke. The case
was heard before Mr. Justice Butt, without a jury, on
the 13th February last, the resalt of the proceedings
being that his lordship found that the respondent had
admitted adultery, but Sir Charles Dilke, against
whom he ruled that there was no evidence, was dis-
missed from the suit, with costs. Subsequently, the
Queen's Proctor intervened to prevent the decree nisz
which had been granted to the petitioner being made
absolute, alleging principally that material facts had
not been brought to the knowledge of the court. Then
applications were made on behalf of Mrs. Crawford
and Sir Charles Dilke to appear and plead in the in-
tervention, but were refused by Sir James Hannen,
whose decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal.
Recently Sir Charles obtained leave in Chambers to
have his name struck off the record. These are
shoetli the main facts of the case which now comes
before the court on the Queen's Proctor's intervention.
The case was to have been tried before Sir James
Hannon alone, but at the wish of the learned President,
it was arranged that it should be heard before a special
London jury, to avoid a Chelsea elector being sum-
moned. Owing to a panel of 60 jurymen having to
answer to their names the court was crowded with
them alone and those immediately interested in the
case. After twelve of the jury had been sworn, the
rest were ordered to leave the court, and were ac-
commodated with seats in the jury gallery. Among
those sworn to try the case was Professor Beealy,
who was objected suad ret'red, another juryman
filling his place.
Sir Walter Phillimore, Q.C., and Mr. H. B. Deane
appeared for the Queen's Proctor; Mr. Henry Mat-
thews, Q.C., Mr. Inderwick, Q.C., and Mr. R. S.
Wright for the petitioner; and Mr. Lockwood, Q.C.,
ALP., for Mrs. Crawford. The Attorney-General and
Sir Henry James, Q.C., watched the case on behalf
of Sir Charles Dilke, and Mr. Murphy, Q.C., held a
watching brief on behalf of "an interested person."
Shortly before half-past ten Mrs. Crawford and
Mrs. Ashton Dilke, accompanied by Mr. George
Lewis, came into court, and subsequently were fol-
lowed by Sir Charles Dilke, all of whom occupied
seats at the solicitors' table.

Sir Walter Phillimore, in opening the case for the
Queen's Proctor, gave an outline of the proceedings
that have already taken place, commencing with the
date of the marriage of the petitioner, Mr. Donald
Crawford, with the respondent, Virginia Mary Smith,
which took place on the 27th of July, 1881. He was
then 44 years of age, the lady being 18. Counsel de-
tailed the various places at which Mr. and Mrs.
Crawford resided in London after the marriage, and
also the acquaintance of, and visits to, Sir Charles
Dilke, at Sloane street, Chelsea. He then gave an
account of the result of the former trial, and stated
the reasons that had induced the Queen's Proctor to
intervene, the principal one being that the decree was
obtained through the suppression of material facts.
He proceeded to refer to the law on the subject, and
then stated shortly the case for the Queen's Proctor.
Referring to the alleged confession, Mrs. Crawford
had told her husband that Sir C. Dilke had called
upon her and made love to her, and that he met her
by appointment at a house in Tottenham-court-road,
where they committed adultery on the 23rd February,
1882. There was no doubt that the suggested house
was in Warren-street, Tottenham-court-road, where
the assignation was made, and the alleged act of
adultery took place. She told her husband that that
was the first occasion, and that he visited her and
she f.sited him at his house in Sloane-street, and
that he visited her at her house in Young-streat, and
that there acts of adultery took place. That was
during the session of 1882. He then alluded to the
occasions on which the adultery had been committed
—on the 23rd of February, 1882, in a house, 59,
Warren-street, Tottenham-court-road, and also on the
13th of February, 1883, pointing out that they were
theonly specific days on which the lady had confessed
her adultery to her husband. Coming to the confes-
sion of Mrs. Crawford, which took place on the 18th of
July, 1885, he said that concluded the evidence that
had been given at the first trial, observing, at the same
time, that certain revolting incidents had to be given.
Mrs. Crawford kept a diary, which contained the
initials of "C. W. D.," and also those of Captain
Forster. In consequence of the Queen's Proctor's
intervention some inquiries had been made, and cer-
tain evidence would be submitted to the jury. In
the first place, Mrs. Crawford alleged that the ser-
vants at Sir Charles Dilke's Louse used to let her in,
but they would be called on b,half of the Queen's
Proctor to state that they did not let her in, as
alleged. In regard to the servant Sarah, she had
been in the service of Sir Charles for some years, and
she would deny the statement of Mrs. Crawford in
respect of her. Respecting "Fanny," who was nurse
to Sir Charles Dilke s only son by his first wife,
she left his service many years ago, when the
son went abroad, and she only came occasionally on
Sundays to see her sister Sarah. Every attempl-, had
been made to get her here, but without success. The
Queen's Proctor would call Sir Charles Dilke, who
would deny on oath that he ever committed adultery
with Mrs. Crawford at Warren-street, or anywhere
else.

The learned Judge remarked, in reference to Sir
W. Phiilimore's proposal to put Mrs. Crawford into
the box, that that question must be left to him (the
judge).
Sir W. Phillimore : I would, at all events, ask that
Sir C. Dilke should not be put into the box till after
Mrs. Crawford has given evidence.
His Lordship: The issue lies with the Queen's
Proctor, and he must produce such evidence as he
may consider necessary to establish his case.
The notes of the evidence given on the 13th of
February were then read by Mr. Bargrave Deane, one
of the junior counsel, and occupied the time of the
court from a quarter to 12 to five minutes to one.
It was then proposed to read the letters which had
passed at the former trial, and, after some discussion,
they were put in and read. It appeared that the
originals were not put in evidence at the former trial,
as Mrs. Crawford was absent, but were treated as
though they had been. Some of them, however,
were not in evidence at the last trial, and
they were now read by Sir Walter Phillimore,
but were not of any importance. The two anonymous
letters were also read, but they were published at the
last trial. In one of the letters to Mrs. Stewart, Mrs.
Crawford pointed out that she was "horribly afraid
of Sir Charles Dilke fighting the case.
Sir Charles Wentworth Dilke was called and ex-
amined by Sir Walter Phillimore. You have known
the family of the Smiths for some time ?—Since 1863.
And your brother, Mr. Ashton Dilke, married one of
Mrs. Smith's daughters ?—Yes. Your brother died
in 1882 ?—Yee; leaving a widow and three children.
Of whom you have been guardian ?—Yes. Did you
know Mrs. Crawford ?—Yes, she was the fifth
daughter. Your wife died when ?—Septernber, 1874.
Were you then living in the house in which you still
live in Chelsea ?—Yes, I was borne there. And after
the first Lady Mike's death did any lady come and
keep house far you?—My grandmother, Mrs. Chat-
field, who kept house for my father, from the time of
my father's death, in 1853, brought me up and left
the house on my marriage. On the day of my wife's
death she came back again and kept home for me.
Did she have from time to time ladies to
visit her ?—Yes. Amongst others the youn:.est
children of Mr. Eustace Smith used to come ?
—Yes. Were you present when Mrs. Crawford
was married ?—I was not. May you have called upon
her in the autumn of her marriage at Bury's Hotel,
Kensington ?—I cannot say whether or not. It would
have been likely, but for the fact that I was hardly
in London that autumn. I was in Paris over the
French commercial negotiations. Did you ever make
love to her or kiss her ?—No. Now I take you to the
23rd of February, 1882. Were you in London at
that time P—l was. Do you recollect whether on any
day between the 20th and 23rd, or on the 23rd, you
called on Mrs. Crawford at her house in Sidney-
place ?—I can't remember for certain ever calling at
Sydney-place in the sense of going into the house. I
fancy I did on one occasion call at Sydney-place, and
it is natural and likely that I should have done so. I
fancy I did call there, but I cannot say at what period
of the year I was there. I should think it would be
early in the season and the sesslon. At any time
between the 20th and 23rd, or on the 23rd, did you
make any assignation or appointment with Mrs. Craw-
ford to meet her IP—No, certainly not. Do you know
the house 123, Warren-street (the place to which it
was alleged Sir Charles took Mrs. Crawford) ?—Yes.
Do you know anyone living in a part of that house ?
I did and do, Madame de Soulavy. In reply to
further questions, Sir Charles said that Madame
de Soulavy occupied two rooms, and he believed she
now had two other rooms. Her eldest sister was for
about 23 years in the service of his family. She was
his nurse. The other sister was also in their service.
Two of her youngest sisters were also servants in the
house. The whole four of them were confidential
servants. He had paid attention to Hannah as an
old servant. He had, from time to time, visited her.
How often did you visit her ?—Once or twice a year.
Have you ever visited there with Mrs. Crawford, or
Left her there?—Certainly not. Or at any house ?
Never at any house. Sir Charles then gave an
account of how his time was occupied on the 23rd
February. Is it true Mrs. Crawford used to come to
your house in the morning between 10 and 11 o'clock,
or at any time in the morning, and come up to your
bedroom ?—lt is utterly untrue. Did she occasionally
come to your house ?—Yes. I can remember her
coming there about once or twice. My impression
is, that I was actually at breakfast. Intimate friends
and members of the family would come in and speak
to me when I was at breakfast.

In cross-examination by Mr: Henry Matthews, Sir
Charles said he believed Mrs. Crawford's motive in
making the accusations she did against him was that,
finding she was about to be discovered in adultery she
had committed, she determined to fix the guilt upon
somebody agreed upon by herself and others. He
thought it was a wicked conspiracy on Mrs. Crawford's
part to get a divorce by coupling his name with hers.
Mrs. Crawford was very anxious that her huband's
political claims should be recognised, and he had a
suspicion that her visits to him were connected with
this subject. At this point the Court adjourned.

Cross-examination continued: On May 6, 1882, 1
lunched with the Earles to meet my present wife.
Her first husband was then alive. He died in 1884.
I never kissed or made love to Mrs. Crawford, nor
did I ever indulge in any undue familiarity with her.
As far as she was concerned, I do not think there was
any reason for her selecting me for this charge more
than any other person. In a speech to my consti-
tuents I mentioned newspaper comments and torture
of my mind arising from them as reasons why I had
applied to the Queen's Proctor to intervene. I never
told Mrs. Crawford that she was like her mother in
the sense that I admired her or took to her on that
account.

Mr. Matthews : Had you ever been a lover of her
mother? Sir Charles Duke: Some such question
was put to me yesterday, and I declined to answer it.
I .decline to do so miff.
Cross- examination continued : I was on terms of
intimacy with Mr. Eustace Smith, and had travelled
with him and his family on one or two occasions. I
was not much in France in my youth. I was after.
lam more familiar with Provence, where they speak
a different language from the ordinary French, than I
am with France generally. I bought a small property
in Provence in 1874, and from that time to 1880
spent two months and a half each year there. I heard
from my solicitor that Mrs. Ruffle tried to get Fanny
Gray to swear to the statement made by her to my
solicitor.

Re-examined: I identify letters that passed between
my solicitor and me about endeavours to get Fanny
Gray. Now that she is married her name is Fanny
Stock. Ido not know whether, before the division of
the property between us, my ,brother Ashton Dilke
paid part of the £4O a year to my nurse Anna. I do
not know whether my brother or Mrs. Ashton Dine
knew that Anna lived in Warren-street, Tottenham-
court-road. I have no real recollection of the con-
versation with Mrs. Rogerson about anonymous letters
I do not think Mrs. Ashton Dilke ever told me she
received an anonymous letter. On the Tuesday after
the Sunday on which I heard of the confessions
made by Mrs. Crawford I went to Mrs. Ashton
Dilke's to see Mrs. Crawford, for I was very
angry. Whenever I spoke of Mrs. Crawford to
her husband I always called her "Ni," the abbre-
viated form of Virginia, which was what she was called
in her family. Her husband never resented my
doing so. I never should have thought of his doing
so. When I called on Mrs. Crawford in Young-
street I also called on Mrs. Ashton Dilke. The calls
were made in the morning. I went in my brougham,
and it remained for me outside. The diaries from
which I made the cuttings when appointments were
cancellad were kept open in my secretary's room,
and the cuttings were made there. I have several of
them in the year. When on Wednesdays I visited
Mrs. Crawford at her house m Sloane-street there
were usually tea parties there, at which several
members of the family, including children, were
present. I cannot go nearer than June as the date
last year on which I saw Captain Forster at Mrs.
Rogerson's. I believe I had a conversation as to him
with Mrs. Ashton Di'ke the previous year and also
in March of last year.
Men and women in his service, and his solicitor
were next called. A great deal of the examination
was directed to the circumstances connected with a
young woman named Fanny Gray, who was sent by
Mr. Humbert, the solicitor, in July, 1885, to a woman
named Ruffle, living at Stebbing, in Essex. Fanny
made a statement to the Queen's Proctor, but she de-
clared that she would not go into Court to swear to
it. She married a man named Stock at Stebbing,
and her sister and other witnesses stated that they did
not know where she was now. The footmen spoke
to two visits of Mrs. Crawford to Sir Charles' house in
the forenoon; she was with him ten mintites on one
occasion,when the footman went in and out of the
room with letters, and a quarter of an hour upon
the other oceasio,^

The housemaid and coachman in Sir C. Dilke's
employ, and his two private secretaries during the
time that he was Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs
were also examined. They agreed in stating that they
had never seen a lady go upstairs at the residence of
the right hon. baronet. They had seen Mrs. Eustace
Smith and Mrs. Ashton Diike at the house, but had
never seen Mrs. Crawford there. Madame Solays', a
pensioner of the Dilke family, related the circum-
stances under which she took Fanny Gray into her
service; she added that she had never admitted a
lady and gentleman into her house. An expert in
writing expressed the belief that the anonymous letter
to Mr. Crawford about his wife's unfaithfulness was
written by Mrs. Crawford. Mrs. Rogerson, a widow
Lady at whose house Mrs. Crawford first met Captain
Foster, said Mrs. Crawford made a confession to her,
and also told her what she had confessed to her
husband; bc.t Mrs. Rogerson considered that her
statements were impossible of belief. Since the con-
fession, Mrs. Rogerson had received enclosed to her-
self an undirected letter for Mrs. Crawford from
Captain Foster, and she had directed aad forwarded it.
Mrs. Rogerson's servants, who said Mrs. Craw-
ford wed to meet Captain Forster in private at their
mistress's house; and two soldiers who saw the lady
in Dublin with the same officer were among the other
witnesses examined. Lady Dilke also said Sir Charles
was in Bryanston-square from half-past 11 to half.
past two upon May 6th, 1882.
Mrs. Crawford, the respondent, then entered the
witness•box, and was sworn.

Sir James Hannen : Are you willing to give evi-
denco in this case?—The witness: Yes, my lord.
You have heard read the evidence given on the last
occasion, in which it was stated that you made a con-
fession. is the evidence true that you made this
confession? Is it true or not that you committed
adultery with Sir Charles Mike ?—The witness: It is
true. Sir James Hannen : Now, I leave it to you to
nut any questions you think fit.
Examined by Mr. Matthews: I was married in July,
1881, at which time I was 18. I saw Sir Charles
Dilke, after I was married. Where ?—At Bailey's
Hotel. Was your husband present?—No, he was not.
What passed between you and Sir Charles on that oc-
casion:—Sir Charles Dilke made love to me. When
had you last seen him before that ?—I think I saw
him shortly before I was married in my mother's
house. What more besides when he left you ?-11e
kissed me, and said he would come to see me as soon
as I came back to London. We came up &lily in
February, and I went to stay with my parents Mr.
and Mrs. Enstace Smith. On Monday, the 26th of
February I went to Sidney-place. Sir Charles Dilke
came to see me the next morning about 11.30. What
took place at the interview?—He asked me to meet
him, and I refused for a long time. I did not know
what lie meant. At last I promised to go. He gave me
an address, but would not write it down. He made me
repeat the address, and then described the house to me.
He told me the number of the house and described it
to me. Where was the house situate ?—ln Warren-
street. It had three bellseand he told me to ring one
of them. Did he fix a day that you were to go ?
Yes, he asked me to go on the following Thursday, at
11.30. Did he tell you how to go ?-lle said I was
to drive in a hansom, and that I was to change
hansoms; that I was to get out at the corner of
Warren-street and walk up to the house, and that I
would be let in by a woman. Then I was to go upstairs
to a back room, and that he would be there waiting
for me. Did you go on the Thursday 7—Yes, I did.
Did you follow his directions about the mode of
going ?—Yes, and found the house he described.
Do you remember who opened the door ?—A woman,
but I did not speak to her. I went straight upstairs,
and I went into the back room on the first floor.
What sort of room was it P—lt was a bed-room.
There was a large bed there. Was Sir Charles Dilke
there when you arrived ?-..-Yes; he was waiting for
me in the room. The curtains were drawn, and there
were lights in the room. Did you ask him or did he
tell you anything about the house ?—lie said it
belonged to an old servant of his, and that he made
use of it when he wanted it. Did he coimnit adultery
with you on that occasion ?—Yes, he did. I stayed
at the house an hour. Who left first 7—l did. Why?
—He told me to do so. You were left in the room 9
Ye's. Did you open the street door yourself to get
out ?—I don't remember. How soon did you see Sir
Charles after that P—Not Until Gth of May, He told
me he had been ill, and that was the reason
I had not seen Mel. Hew da you fix
the date as the Gth of May? It was
the day I went to Oxford with Mr. Crawford.
Where did you see Sir Charles on the 6ch of May ?
At 65, Warren-street. Rid you an engagement to
go there ?—Yes, made the day before. Mr. Crawford
went to Oxford in the morning. I dec'.ined to go
with him, as I had to meet Sir Charles. I went to
Oxford by the midday train. It was about half-past
eleven when I got to the house. The same woman
opened the door, and I went up to the same room.
Sir Charles arrived soon after. Did the same thing
occar ?—Yes. Have you ever been in that home
since?—No, never. These were the only two
occasion ?—Yes. Except what you have heard
from Sir Charles Bilks) did you know any-
thing about the house P—Nothing. Except from
Sir Charles you had no knowledge of the
house or the woman ?—Nothing. After 1882
you saw Sir Charles Dilke ?—Yes : we were
then living in Sidney-place. He did not come often.
What hour used you to go to Sir Charles's house?—
About a quarter to half-past eleven. Why select that
hour 7—lt was the hour fixed by Sir Charles, and my
husband had to be at the Home 0 ffice at eleven.
Who let you in P—Sometimes the footmen and some-
times Sir Charles, He told me not to drive up to the
house in the hansom, so I used to get out at the
corner of Pont-street, and Sir Charles Dilke used to
wait for me. There was a conservatory over the door
of Sir Charles's house. He could see me from there,
and I could see him. He could then let me in, and
he usually came with hit hat on and his gloves in his
hand, as if he was going out. When I went in he
would call out to his servants, "All right;" and
they would not come up. Who let you in,
did you say Sir Charles sometimes, at
other times the footman. Where did you
go to 7—Always to the blue-room. The footman used
to take in my name, and show me to the blue-room.
Sir Charles came to me in the blue-room,, and from
thence he took Ile to his bed-room, - We need to talk
in the blue-room, and Sir Charles complained of Mr.
Bodley keeping his door open. He used to go and
shut it, and then I went up to his bed-room. The
carpets were thick on the stairs, so no one heard me.
And you then committed adultery ?—Yes. Did you
leave the room when he did 7—No, he always went
first. And how did you leave ?—After be left Sarah
used to come and help me to dress, and then I had
to wait until Mr. Bodlev left. and the staircase was

quiet. Sarah used to come and tell you when the
coast was clear ?—Yes; she always helped me to
dross, and told me when it was safe to leave. The
other servants never saw me leave. On the
7th December, 1882, did you see Sir C
Dilke ?—Yes. It was arranged I should leave
London. On the Bth of December Sir Charles came
to say good-bye. I told him Crawford was going,
but I was not going until the following morning, and
Sir Charles asked me to spend the night at his house,
Where did you meet Sir Charles that night ?—ln
Hans-place, at ten. He then opened his door with
his latchkey, and we went upstairs. And you stayed
the night ?—Yes. When did you leave?—Between
three and four in the morning. I had a latchUey.
and I told the servants not to sit up for me that
night, as I should be late. Did anybody see you SE
you left? No, Sarah helped me to dress, and let me
out of the house. And the next morning you went
to Scotland ?—Yes. We returned to London in
February, 1883. It was arranged I should
see Sir Charles the day before the House met,
as he would not be able to see me on that day.
On the 13th you saw Sir Charles, where Young-
street, about a quarter to twelve. Crawford was
detained in Scotland, and was not to be up till the
next morning. Sir Charles asked me to spend that
night in his house. He told me he was going to
address a meeting of his constituents at Kensington
Town Hall. It was arranged that I should go about
nine, and Sarah was to let me in. I went. Sarah
saw me coming, let me in, and took me up to the
bedroom. I went to bed. What time did Sir
Charles arrive?-1 hardly know. I fell asleep.
It would be about eleven. He told me he had
been addressing a meeting. I stayed all night and
left at half-past seven the next morning. Sarah
brought up breakfast to us and I afterwards took
a hansom and drove home. Annie Jamitson, one
of my parlour-maids, let me in. I had just time to
have a bath and dress before my husband returned
home. Upon no other occasion did I sleep at Sir
Charles Dilke's house. Did adultery take place
between you in Young-street, as well as at his house?
—Yes. Did Sir Charles on any occasion say any-
thing to you about your mother, and, if so, what ?
He used to talk about my mother sometimes. He
has said that he was her lover. And has he said any-
thing about yourself?—He used to say that I was
very much like my mother, and that was why he took
a fancy to me. During that year, -1883, did Sir C.
Dilke ever mention a person named Fanny to you ?
Yes; I think it was in the summer of 1883. What
did he tell you about her ?—He told me that she
was a girl who used to sleep with him. What
else has he said P—He told me that she was very
nice, and that she was quite young and about
my age, and asked me to see her. I said I would not
like it at all. He spoke about her to me several
times. I asked how he got hold of her, and he said,
"Through Sarah." She was supposed to be at
Brixton, and she used to be let in at the house every
night about nine o'clock and stay the night. Sarah
would let her out again in the morning.
When did you first see Fanny ?—I think it was in
August, 1883. Upon one occasion he brought Fanny
into the room where I was.
Was she dressed or undressed?
The witness: My lord, is it necessary that I should
anwer this question?
Mr. Matthews: Very well, I won't ask it.
Examination continued: I burst out crying, and Sir
Charles promised to send her away. She then went
back to the room where she had come from. I saw
her again at Sir C. Dilke's house. When Sir Charles
left she helped me to dress.
Were you all three in bed together ?—Yes.
At this time had you any affection for Sir Charles
Dilke ?—Yes; I had.
In further examination, Mrs. Crawford gave an
account of her " confession " to Mrs. Rogerson, which
she said she had made because Sir Charles had told
her that Mrs. Rogerson knew all about their rela-
tions. Witness having been questioned as to the
anonymous letters, detailed the circumstances of her
confession to her husband. After hr confession to
her husband, she went to the house of her sister,
Mrs. Ashton Dilke, and there Sir Charles came and
threatened her, if she would not sign a paper denying
her confession. The witness admitted that she had
been guilty with Captain Forster, although she knew
at the time that he was engaged to be married. In
cross-examination, she said, in her last interview with
her husband she solemnly denied having had any im-
proper relations with Forster.