by Roy Jenkins
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.: Dur
ing 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?
Q.: Very well, I will not ask. What happened when he brought her into the room?
A.: He wanted me to talk to her, and I would not. She stayed only a few minutes, and I burst out crying, and asked Sir Charles to send her away, because I could not bear having her there, and he sent her away, and told me I should never see her again as I did not want to see her.
. . . . .
Q.: When did you see her again?
A.: I saw her again in the spring of 1884, when I came back to London . . . he brought her into the room one day when I was there, and she remained, I think, a minute or two, and I asked him to send her away, and he sent her away.
Q.: Did you ever see her again?
A.: Yes, I saw her, I think, about a week or a fortnight after.
Q.: Again at Sir Charles Dilke’s house?
A.: Yes, in the same way; he told me I was very silly not to like her, and not to let her stop; he was rather vexed about it, and so to please him I let her stop longer, and she was in the room, I think, about ten minutes or so with Sir Charles Dilke and me, and then when Sir Charles Dilke left she helped me to dress.
Q.: One moment, please, were you all three in bed together?
A.: Yes.
Mrs. Crawford added that she had a little conversation with Fanny, but that she did not discover her surname or the fact that Sarah was her sister. She was next asked to look at a photograph and say whether she recognised it. She replied: “It is Fanny.”
During the session of 1884, apart from Fanny, the pattern of visits continued, although they were perhaps less frequent. Mrs. Crawford said that as late as that summer she had affection for Dilke, but in the autumn, largely as a result of Mrs. Rogerson’s advice, she implied, she broke off the intimacy. She had been very friendly with Mrs. Rogerson during that summer, but she now believed her to have written the “Métropole” anonymous letter. She based her belief partly on the handwriting and partly on the fact that Mrs. Rogerson, to whose house she and Forster had gone to tea on the same day, was the only person who knew of their Métropole luncheon. So far as the last anonymous letter—the one which precipitated her confession—was concerned, she would not like to give any opinion about its authorship. But when she saw it she thought it looked by the form of the envelope to be an anonymous letter, and she decided to end her dissimulation and tell her husband “the real truth.” She had been very miserable with her husband, with whom she had never been in love and whom she had married because she had been unhappy at home. She had told Mrs. Rogerson a little time before the confession that she could not much longer go on living with him.
Towards the end of Matthews’ examination one or two loose ends were gathered together. Mrs. Crawford said that she had never been unfaithful to her husband before her first visit to Warren Street. She told how Dilke had visited her at her sister’s house on the Tuesday after her confession, and had tried to get her to withdraw her statements, threatening that he would otherwise make public her relations with other men, and ruin herself and her family; but she did not suggest that he had tried to bribe her. Finally she described how she was able to identify the Warren Street house so many years after she had forgotten the number. In November, 1885, she accompanied Mrs. Ashton Dilke on a shopping expedition to Maple’s in Tottenham Court Road. While there she decided to try to find the house She succeeded, recognising it from the outside, and went back to her sister with the address written down.
Sir Walter Phillimore then began his cross-examination. It was much less aggressive and effective than Matthews’ cross-examination of Dilke had been. Phillimore was frequently doubtful about his facts, which meant that he often realised neither the strength of his own case nor the weakness of Mrs. Crawford’s. Sometimes he appeared to be cross-examining without point and merely leading Mrs. Crawford through a repetition of the statements she had already made in reply to Matthews. At other times he would pursue a poor point with greater enthusiasm than he would show for a good one.[1] As a result her cross-examination occupies a much less central position in the case than does that of Dilke. It was probably less important in its effect upon the court than her examination by Matthews.
Phillimore attempted to make three main points. The first was to bring out the adulterous nature of Mrs. Crawford’s relations with Forster, and perhaps with others as well. About Forster he put the direct question to her, and, after an attempt to avoid it, she admitted the position for the first time:
Q.: Have you not had guilty relations with Captain Forster?
A.: My Lord, must I answer that question?
The President: If the question is pressed you must answer it.
Sir W. Phillimore: Yes, my Lord, I must press it.
A.: Yes, I have.
Q.: When did these relations begin?
A.: In 1884.
She also admitted that at Easter, 1885, she had gone to Dublin to see Forster, telling her husband that she was staying with Mrs. Rogerson.
So far as her relations with other men were concerned the principal evidence against her was that of her diary. The space for February 23rd, 1882, contained the initials “C.W.D.” faintly pencilled in her own handwriting close against the line. Matthews had drawn attention to this in his examination. Phillimore drew attention to similar entries. For May 25th, 1882, “F.W.” was written in this way, and for November 20th of the same year there was “R.C.P.” For June 4th, 1884, there was “H.F.” Mrs. Crawford was asked who were designated by these initials and replied that “F.W.” was Mr. Frederick Warner, “R.C.P.” Mr. Robert Priestley (who had subsequently become her brother-in-law), and “H.F.” Captain Henry Forster. Phillimore continued:
Q.: Now I ask you whether those three initials, May 25th, 1882, “F.W.,” November 20th, “R.C.P.�
� and June 4th “H.F.” are not meant as records of committing adultery with these three people?
A.: No, certainly not.
Q.: None of them?
A.: No, none of them.
Q.: Or of appointments made with them?
A.: I do not remember what they refer to, but they must refer to their coming to the house, probably to tea.
Q.: Is that the way that you recorded visits of people coming to tea?
A.: Yes, apparently so.
Q.: You may have an opportunity of showing that. Can you turn now, or at any time, to any entries in your diary of people coming to tea, put in this manner?
A.: I do not remember any. I have sometimes put people down by their initials.
Phillimore then allowed her to leave this immediate point, and turned to asking her about the first anonymous letter which her husband had received and which referred to her flirting with medical students at St. George’s Hospital, where she was visiting a sick relative. She fixed the date of this letter as March, 1882, but denied the allegations both in general and in reference to Warner and Priestley; the latter, she said, had never been a student at St. George’s.
Phillimore’s second main point was the implausibility of Mrs. Crawford’s story on what may perhaps be called psychological rather than circumstantial grounds. He asked her whether she resented Dilke’s having made love to her at Bailey’s Hotel, and she replied that she did. She was asked whether she had told her husband and whether there had been any communication between her and Dilke in the five months which followed this incident. She replied “No” to both these questions, and Phillimore continued, referring to Dilke’s visit to her, at Sydney Place, on her return to London:
Q.: You expected him to come. Did you try to stop him coming, or take any precautions to prevent his coming?
A.: No.
Q.: And when he did come, was it on that very first occasion that he came to you that he and you made this arrangement that you should go to Warren Street?
A.: Yes.
Q.: Did you understand you were to go to Warren Street to be seduced by him?
A.: Yes, I did, when he explained.