Dilke (36 page)

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 whom 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, in 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:

Q.: Have you any document, or any entry, that will show at what hour you reached the Foreign Office that day?

A.: No. With regard to that, or any specified day, I have a great many letters passing between Lord Granville and myself.

Q.: You have nothing whatever in writing to show what hour you reached the Foreign Office that day?

A.: I have a great many letters passing between Lord Granville and myself which will show that the answers to the questions were settled in the morning.

Q.: Show me anything to fix the hour at which you arrived at the Foreign Office.

A.: No, nothing will fix the hour; they only show that I was there before the levée and did a great deal of work.

Q.: Whom did you first see when you arrived at the Foreign Office?

A.: Always my private secretary; he was the first person I should see.

Q.: Is there any person you can mention as having seen earlier?

A.: It is impossible for me to fix the first person I saw any day.

Q.: Then you cannot fix it.

Matthews did not cross-examine on the evidence about February 13th and 14th, 1883, the only other dates mentioned in Mrs. Crawford's proof, but he introduced several new dates, the 5th and 6th of May, and December 7th, 1882. “Where were you on the 5th or 6th May, 1882?” he asked suddenly. Dilke immediately applied for the President's protection. This was a date which had not been mentioned in the examination-in-chief. Surely he ought not to fix the hours before Mrs. Crawford had given her evidence? Phillimore supported him. “I do think, my Lord,” he said, “that considering the nature of the cross-examination, and of certain questions I shall have to address to Mrs. Crawford, your Lordship ought to hesitate before hearing the defence on that part of the case before the attack.” But the President gave no help. Indeed by this stage his hostility to Dilke had become marked: “I must conduct the case on known principles,” he replied. “I know of no principle on which I can exclude this cross-examination.”

The witness: Of course I shall take your Lordship's direction absolutely. Shall I state the matter definitely as to hours?

The President: Be kind enough to answer the questions put to you; that is the only advice I can give you; if
any improper questions are put to you the learned counsel who represents the Queen's Proctor will take the objection, but until that objection is taken you must answer.

The witness: Of course I shall do what I am directed, the reason I was going to give——

The President: You must excuse me. I do not desire to hear any reason from you except it be in explanation of a question which is put to you.”

The cross-examination continued. Matthews concentrated on May 6th and having asked to see Dilke's diary for that day found the following entries: “Earle,” “Duchess,” “Greenwich dinner,” and “Evening party.” He was most interested in the morning; and, having discovered that “Earle” meant a luncheon engagement at Mrs. Charles Earle's in Bryanston Square at 1-30 or 1-45 and that Dilke had left home by 11-45, he thought he had discovered a lacuna. But Dilke explained it by saying that he had gone to Mrs. Earle's at twelve o'clock in order to meet his present wife who was staying there and who had returned from France that morning.
^[5]
Dilke was also able to volunteer the fact that May 6th was the day of the Phoenix Park murders and, for this reason, was particularly clearly fixed in his mind.

Matthews then asked, rather casually, about May 4th and May 5th, and in looking at the entry for one of these days was struck by the condition of the diary. It was remarkable, like that of all Dilke's engagement books, for many years both previously and subsequently. His habit was to buy these books in half-yearly units, with a large page to each day and a perforation running down the centre. Entries were made in duplicate, and at the beginning of each day one side of the page was torn off to be carried about by Dilke and destroyed
when the day was past, while the other remained on a table in Bodley's room and was kept as a permanent record. In addition, however, the permanent pages were frequently lacerated, sometimes by the excision of large segments, sometimes by the cutting out of neat little circular holes. It was an unfortunate habit for someone who was to appear in the Divorce Court, and it excited a good deal of incredulous questioning from both Matthews and the President: