Dilke by Roy Jenkins

Author:Roy Jenkins
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Bloomsbury Publishing
Published: 1965-09-05T16:00:00+00:00

Chapter Twelve

An Inconclusive Verdict

The Case of Crawford v. Crawford and Dilke was heard before Mr. Justice Butt on Friday, February 12th. Dilke appeared with a formidable array of legal and personal advisers. Sir Henry James, out of office like Dilke himself, although for different reasons, remained his principal but unpaid counsellor. James’s skill and experience, however, were fortified by those of Sir Charles Russell, who had been appointed Attorney General ten days before[1] and who was then the foremost advocate at the Bar. Russell had more divorce court experience than James. But he did not stand in the same position of friendship to Dilke, and his services were not available for nothing. On the contrary, his brief was marked with the figure, phenomenal for those days, of 300 guineas; and the junior, Searle, had in consequence to be rewarded with a proportionate fee. Chamberlain was also in court, to give support and to be available for consultation on any nontechnical point.

During the morning Crawford went into the box, and was led by his counsel through the confession which had been made to him. Mrs. Crawford was not in Court. Two witnesses only were called to offer corroborative evidence. The first was Anne Jamieson, who had been parlourmaid in the Crawfords’ house from the beginning of 1882. She stated that, in February, 1883, when Crawford came to London later than his wife, Mrs. Crawford spent the two intervening nights away from home, returning on the first occasion at about 7-30 in the morning, and on the second at some unspecified hour. Anne Jamieson also said that, during the session of 1883, she remembered Sir Charles Dilke paying a series of morning calls upon Mrs. Crawford. He came about once a fortnight at noon or 12-30. The visits lasted approximately half an hour, and while he was there his carriage waited in the street. Mrs. Crawford received him in the ground-floor drawing-room and gave orders that, during the visit, no one was to be admitted. Under cross-examination by Russell, Anne Jamieson said that Mrs. Crawford, in July, 1885, had told her “to tell Mr. Crawford all that I knew about Sir Charles Dilke.” She also admitted a series of visits to the house from Captain Forster, first stating that these began in 1883, but later correcting this to 1884.

The second witness was George Ball, who had been butler to Mrs. Harrison, one of Mrs. Crawford’s elder sisters, at her house in Cromwell Road. Mrs. Crawford had told Anne Jamieson that she had spent the nights away from home at this house. Ball was called in order to refute this. He was not cross-examined.

This was the case for the plaintiff, and it was one which put Dilke and his advisers in a position, as it appeared to them, of extreme difficulty. No evidence of any legal force had been offered against Dilke. This was fully recognised by Mr. Justice Butt. In the course of his summing-up he was to say: “I cannot see any case whatever against Sir Charles Dilke.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.