Dilke (35 page)

Dilke was an almost impossibly bad witness.
^[2]
He was vague in his recollection of simple facts, he was full of verbose explanations, and he showed an extreme reluctance to answer a question with a straightforward affirmative or negative. His favourite method of denying a fact was to omit to say “no” but to explain why it was inherently improbable. The interventions of the President during the examination-in-chief indicate the way things were going. “Sir Walter, I think you
must put the question,” Hannen said after a quarter of an hour. “It is natural that Sir Charles should go into the question with greater detail than is necessary.” Half an hour later he interjected again: “It will be much better if Sir Charles allows himself to be conducted by you in the material parts of the case. All the details of the business of the House of Commons are immaterial. It is the time he was there.” And then again: “We do not want the reasons.” .

The examination-in-chief was directed to meeting the points put forward by Mrs. Crawford in her proof. It dealt with six principal issues. The first was Dilke's degree of acquaintanceship with Mrs. Crawford. He had known her slightly as a child, when she was probably brought to 76, Sloane Street by her parents to call upon Mrs. Chatfield, Dilke's grandmother. He believed that he had not attended her wedding, but he might have paid a family call on her at Bailey's Hotel some time afterwards, although he had no distinct recollection of this. He might also have called once at the Crawfords' house in Sydney Place during the session of 1882, but he had no recollection of the interior of the house, and believed they were not at home. Mrs. Crawford, he thought, had called at Sloane Street on perhaps two or three occasions in the years 1882-5, while he was at breakfast between 11 o'clock and 11-30, which was the normal time for family and other callers. That was all. There had certainly been no impropriety between them.

The second issue was that of the house off the Tottenham Court Road where Mrs. Crawford alleged that Dilke had taken her, and the address of which—65, Warren Street—she had specified in her proof. Dilke said that he knew the house well, although he had certainly not taken Mrs. Crawford there. It was the house where Anna Dessouslavy, a Swiss woman who was a pensioner of the Dilke family, lodged. The pension had been originally granted to Rosalie Dessouslavy, Anna's elder sister, who had been twenty-three years in the service of the family, and had been Dilke's own nurse. She had lived to enjoy it only for two years, and it had then been transferred,
by Dilke himself, to Anna. Anna had at times assisted in the nursery and had returned to the Dilke household, in which two of her younger sisters had also at times been employed, when she was out of a job elsewhere. Her health had become bad, and Dilke used to call upon her at Warren Street perhaps once or twice a year.

The third issue was that of Dilke's general pattern of life and the domestic arrangements at 76, Sloane Street. The point here was whether Mrs. Crawford's statements were to prove compatible with these. Dilke described his day as beginning with the newspapers and tea being brought up to his room, followed by the arrival of the fencing party at 10 o'clock. This consisted (besides himself) of the fencing master and an average of two or three other people, who came without notice, as they chose, for the invitation was a general one. The fencing took place on a terrace at the back of the house if the weather were fine, or in the dining-room which led on to it if it were wet. It lasted until 11 o'clock. Dilke did not fence all the time, but used to spend part of the hour sitting in the dining-room reading Foreign Office telegrams which were brought to him by messenger. The messengers, several of whom would come on a normal morning, used to sit in the hall waiting to take the telegrams on to the next person on the list. In addition, one of his two footmen used invariably to be on duty in the hall, for the period from 10 to 11-30 was a busy one, with the arrival of the fencers, the messengers and other callers causing the door-bell to be constantly rung. When he joined the Cabinet at the end of 1882 he continued to see the telegrams; and the Foreign Office messengers were supplemented by others from 10, Downing Street and the Local Government Board.

By 11 o'clock Dilke would have dressed himself, and from then until 11-30 he breakfasted in the room adjoining the dining-room at the front of the house. During the meal he continued to read telegrams and deal with work prepared by his private secretary, Bodley, as well as to see callers, who frequently came at this hour. At 11-30, according to a standing order, his coachman brought his brougham to the front of the
house, and at this time or a few minutes later he left home. As a rule he drove straight to the Foreign Office (or later the Local Government Board), but he occasionally paid brief calls before doing so.

He usually remained at his office until it was time to go across to the House of Commons, which met at 4-30; sometimes, if the pressure of work were light, he would go out to luncheon. In the evenings, if he were dining away from the House of Commons, he would dress in his room there, or if the House were not in session in his room at the Foreign Office or the Local Government Board. He rarely returned to his own house until late at night.

This house he described as being “a very old house” with only one staircase. On the first half-landing was the “blue room,” which had curtains and no door, and into which callers were normally shown. On the first floor proper were two drawing-rooms, leading into each other and again without doors. Above the blue room was Bodley's room, which looked straight out to the staircase. This room had a door, but it was invariably left open. Off the passage-way leading to it was another, smaller and doorless room which was used by Ireland, Bodley's clerk. Ireland used to arrive at about eight in the morning, Bodley somewhat later, but before Dilke was up. Above the drawing-rooms were a suite of three rooms which were used by Dilke's son when he was at home (which was not often) or by Dilke's great-uncle when he came from Chichester to pay his one month's annual visit. On the third half-landing, above Bodley's room, was Dilke's own sitting-room, which he chiefly used for keeping his letters and other papers. Then, above his son's suite, came his own bedroom, together with another, unused room, which communicated with it, but which was kept locked. On the floor above, the top floor, were the servants' quarters.

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.