Dilke (39 page)

Mrs. Crawford was a woman of lively mind and considerable intelligence. At the trial she created an immediate impression of clarity and incision. She was not strictly Matthews's witness—it was her husband, not she, who was his client—and this necessitated the following procedure. The President himself conducted her through a four-question examination-in-chief. Was she willing to give evidence? Had she read her husband's evidence at the last trial? Was it true? Was it in particular true that she had committed adultery with Sir Charles Dilke? When she answered “yes” to each of these questions he handed her over to Matthews, who then began what was in part a supplementary examination-in-chief and in part an extremely courteous cross-examination. Matthews asked her 332 questions, and another thirty-five on re-examination. Phillimore in cross-examination asked her 551 questions. Her ordeal was a little longer than Dilke's, but considerably less gruelling. She was rarely at a loss for a satisfactory answer, she showed no signs of distress, and she apparently impressed the court as a truthful and straightforward witness. Whether the story she told was in fact the truth remains to be seen.

Matthews first asked her about her visit to Warren Street on February 23rd, 1882. She said that she returned to London that winter on February 13th and went to stay with her parents for a short time. On Monday, February 20th, she moved into 3, Sydney Place, the house which she and her husband had taken for the session. On the following morning Dilke came to see her there. Her evidence continued:

He asked me to meet him at another house. I refused for a long time. I did not know what he meant. Then he explained, and at last I promised to go. He gave me the address, but he would not allow me to write it down. He made me repeat it, and he described the house to me.

Q.: What description did he give you of the house?

A.: He told me the number of the house, but in case I made a mistake he told me it was a house on the north side of Warren Street—that there were two tall narrow
houses together just alike, and the one I was to go to was the one which had three bells to it. I was to ring one of those bells.

Q.: Did he fix the date on which you were to go?

A.: Yes, he asked me to go on the following Thursday, at half past eleven.

Q.: Did he tell you how to go?

A.: He told me I was to drive there, and that I was to drive in a hansom, and that I was to change hansoms on the way, and that I was to get out at the corner of Warren Street and walk up to the house, and that when I arrived at the house I would be let in by a woman, and that I was to go straight upstairs to the back room on the first floor and not to speak to anyone, and that he would be there waiting for me.

Q.: Did you go on the Thursday?

A.: Yes, I went.

Q.: And found the house he had described?

A.: I found the house, yes.

Q.: Do you remember who opened the door to you?

A.: A woman opened the door, but I did not look at her; I did not speak to her; I went straight upstairs.

Q.: Which room did you go into then?

A.: It was a bedroom. There was a large bed standing against the wall on the same side as the door. The fireplace was opposite the bed, and I think there were two windows at the end of the room. It was furnished like a bedroom.

Q.: Was Sir Charles Dilke there when you arrived?

A.: Yes, he was waiting for me.

Q.: In that room?

A.: In the room. The curtains were drawn, and there were lights in the room.

Q.: Did you ask him or did he tell you anything about the house?

A.: I asked him what house it was, and he said it belonged to an old servant of his, and that he made use of the room when he wanted it.

Q.: I am sorry to be obliged to put the question to you directly. Did he commit adultery with you on that occasion ?

A.: Yes, he did.

Q.: You said that it was a Thursday. What was the day of the month?

A.: The 23rd, I think. I know it was two days after I had seen him at Sydney Place.

Q.: Will you refer to your diary for Thursday, 23rd February?

A.: Yes, Thursday, 23rd.

Q.: Who wrote “C.W.D.”?

A.: I did.

Q.: Does that stand for Charles Wentworth Dilke?

A.: Yes, it does.

Q.: Did you write that at the time—on the day?

A.: I think I must have done so.

Q.: About how long did you stay in the house that Thursday?

A.: I think it was an hour.

Q.: Who left first?

A.: I left first.

Q.: Why did you leave first. How did that happen?

A.: He told me to.

Q.: You left him in the room, did you, when you went away?

A.: Yes.

Q.: Do you remember whether you saw anybody as you went out or did you let yourself out?

A.: I cannot remember that. I did not speak to anyone.

This account varied in two respects—one of them certainly important—from her confession as re-told by her husband at the February trial. It was then stated that she had gone to Warren Street on the afternoon of the day on which Dilke called upon her at Sydney Place. It was also stated that he had taken out a piece of paper and written the Warren Street address on it for her.

Mrs. Crawford continued her evidence by saying that she did not meet Dilke again, except at one or two parties, until May 6th. He told her that he was not well and “gave that as an explanation of my not seeing him.” On that day she again went to Warren Street, at about 11.30 a.m., and the same pattern was followed. She then went back to Sydney Place to fetch her luggage and left by train for Oxford. Her account of her movements after arriving in Oxford was in accordance with Miss Tuckwell's evidence.

This was the last occasion on which she went to Warren Street, but throughout the summer there were one or two calls by Dilke at Sydney Place and five or six visits by Mrs. Crawford to Sloane Street. On these occasions she always arrived between quarter and half-past eleven. Why was this, Matthews asked:

A.: It was the hour Sir Charles asked me to come. Mr. Crawford had to be at the Home Office at eleven, and Sir Charles had not to be at the Foreign Office until twelve, so it was the most convenient hour.

Q.: Did your husband know you were going to Sir Charles Dilke?

A.: No, he never knew. I never went until after he had started to go to the Home Office.

Q.: When you got to Sir Charles Dilke's, who let you in—was it always the same person, or different persons?

A.: Sometimes I rang the bell and was let in by the footman. It was not always the same footman.

Q.: Sometimes the footman and sometimes who else:

A.: Sometimes Sir Charles let me in himself. He used to tell me not to drive up to his house in a hansom, as the servants would be sure to hear. I always used to go in a hansom and get out at the corner of Pont Street, just close to his house and walk down to his house. Sir Charles has a conservatory over his door and he used to stand in the conservatory. The two lower panes of glass are shaded so that you cannot see through. One could just see his head, but he used
to watch until I came round the corner there and I could see if he was there and then he used to let me in without my ringing the bell; as soon as I came on the doorstep he opened the door from inside. Sometimes when I rang the bell Sir Charles would be in the dining-room and then he would come to the door and let me in himself, but he always came with his hat and gloves in his hand, to look as though he was going out in case it was not me.

Q.: Where was the dining-room? Do you mean the front room or the back room?

A.: The breakfast-room—the front room.

Q.: From the front room we understand a person coming to the door could be seen?

A.: He used to call out at the top of the stairs to the servants it was all right, and then the servants did not come up.

Q.: Are those the only persons who let you in when you called in the morning—either Sir Charles himself or the footman?

A.: Yes.

Q.: When you got into the house admitted in this way where did you go as a rule?

A.: I almost always went up to the blue room on the staircase, whether Sir Charles let me in or the footman, except once or twice when Sir Charles had not quite finished his breakfast I sat with him in the dining-room, but I almost always went into the blue room, whether Sir Charles or the footman let me in. The footman used to take my name, and show me into the blue room.

Q.: From the blue room where used you to go?

A.: Sir Charles always came to me in the blue room.

Q.: And did you go from there to any other part of the house?

A.: Yes, he used to take me up to his bedroom.

Q.: Was anything done to prevent your being seen? Just describe how you used to go up.

A.: We always used to talk a little in the blue room first, and then he used to go upstairs to see that there was no one on the staircase, and to shut Mr. Bodley's door. He always said “Bodley leaves his door open; I must go and shut it.” Then he used to come down and fetch me up. I used to run upstairs as gently as I could, and there were very thick carpets to all the stairs, so I do not think anyone could hear.

Q.: I presume I need not ask what you went to the bedroom for. I suppose he used to commit adultery with you?

A.: Yes.

Matthews asked her to describe the bedroom, which she did in some detail. She also told how, after Dilke had left, Sarah would come and help her to dress and they would wait, sometimes as much as an hour, until Bodley and the clerk had gone and Sarah could safely take her down and let her out.

The next incident related by Mrs. Crawford occurred on December 7th, 1882, when, at the end of the autumn session, Crawford travelled north a day before her. Dilke called on her in the morning at Sydney Place, and discovering this was the position, asked her to spend the night at Sloane Street. Mrs. Crawford dined with her sister, Mrs. Harrison, in Cromwell Road and left to meet Dilke in Hans Place at 10 p.m. He conducted her into his house and up to his room. Between three and four o'clock in the morning Sarah was summoned down from the floor above, helped her to dress, and let her out. She then returned to her own house.

On February 13th, 1883, she returned to London, again travelling twenty-four hours in advance of her husband. Dilke called to see her that morning at 27, Young Street—their house for the ensuing session—and arranged for her to come to Sloane Street that night. On this occasion she arrived at his house on her own, for Dilke was addressing his constituents at the Kensington Town Hall. She did not ring the bell, but Sarah met her at the door at nine o'clock exactly and took her to Dilke's bedroom. She went to bed and was asleep when he
arrived at about eleven. This time she stayed until morning. At 7-30 Sarah brought her some breakfast and she left a little before eight o'clock, returning home in a hansom and being let in by her parlourmaid. These two nights were the only ones that she spent at Dilke's house. This again was an important variation from the story which her husband said she had told him. His evidence at the first trial referred to two consecutive nights in February, 1883. When Matthews put this discrepancy to her she explained it by saying “that was a mistake by Mr. Crawford.”

During the spring and summer of 1883 the liaison continued on the basis of morning visits by Dilke to Young Street and by Mrs. Crawford to Sloane Street. There were perhaps six of the former and eight or ten of the latter. At Young Street Mrs. Crawford used to pull down the blinds, so that the room could not be seen through as Dilke's coachman had suggested. At Sloane Street the pattern followed was the same as that in 1882.

Mrs. Crawford was then asked about Fanny:

Q.: During that year, 1883, did Sir Charles ever mention a person named Fanny to you?

A.: Yes, I think it was in the summer of 1883 that he first mentioned Fanny to me.

Q.: What did he say to you about her?

A.: He told me about her first by degrees—he said that she was a girl that used to sleep with him and spend the night at his house.

Q.: What else had he said to you about her?

A.: He told me that she was very nice and quite young; he said that she was about my age, no more than me, I think, and he asked me if I would not like to see her at his house. I said I would not like to see her at all, and he talked to me about her several times. He said that she was supposed to be in service. I asked him how he had got hold of her, and he said he had got hold of her through Sarah, his housemaid; that she was supposed by her parents to be in service at Brixton, and (that) he used to make her write letters
to her parents saying that she was getting on very nicely in her place at Brixton, and that she used to live in lodgings close to Sloane Street, and that she used to be let into his house every evening, I think about nine o'clock, when the other servants were at supper. She was let in by Sarah, and she spent the nights at his house, and Sarah used to let her out again in the morning.

.     .     .     .     .

Q.: Did you ever see the person whom he called Fanny?

A.: Yes.

Q.: When did you first see her?

A.: I cannot remember the exact date; I think it must have been in August, 1883; I have nothing to tell me the exact date.

.     .     .     .     .

Q.: I must ask you to tell us the circumstances under which you saw her; where were you, to begin with?

A.: I was at Sir Charles Dilke's house. He had asked me to see her several times, and I never would. He said that he wanted to see us together, and one day when I was at Sir Charles Dilke's house he took me into the sitting-room and said she was in the house then, and he asked me if I would see her, and I did not want to at all, I said I would not, and then we went upstairs, and after I had been in the room upstairs—in the bedroom—for a little, he brought Fanny in from the next room.

Q.: Was she dressed or undressed?

A.: My Lord, is it necessary I should give all the details?