Papurau Newydd Cymru

Chwiliwch 15 miliwn o erthyglau papurau newydd Cymru

Cuddio Rhestr Erthyglau

1 erthygl ar y dudalen hon

J THE CRAWFORD DIVORCE SUIT.…

Newyddion
Dyfynnu
Rhannu

J THE CRAWFORD DIVORCE SUIT. CASE FOR THE QUEENS PROCTOR. SECOND DAY. The hearing of the caso of Crawford v. Crawford (the Queen's Proctor intervening) was resumed on Saturday morning, before Mr. Justice Hannen and a special iury. Sir Walter Phillimore, Q.C., and Mr. Bargrave Deane represented the Queen's Proctor; Mr. H. Matthews, Q.C., M.P., Mr. Inderwick, Q.C., and Mr. R. S. Wright appeared for Mr. Crawford; and the Attornev-General (Sir C. Russell, Q.C., M.P.) and Sir Henry James, Q.C., M.P., held watching briefs for Sir Charles Dilke. Mr. Lockwood, Q.C., M.P., watched the case on behalf of Mrs. Crawford. A large crowd assembled outside the public entrance, great interest being manifested in the proceedings. The applications for admission to the court are very numerous, but, under the judge's direction, only those strictly on business" are allowed to enter. CROSS-EXAMINATION OK SIR CBAS. DILKE. Sir Charles Dilke entered the witness-box, and was further cross-examined by Mr. Henry I Matthews, Q.C. He said On the 6th of May, 1882 I lunched with the Earles, and there met my pre- sent wife. Her tirst husband was then alive. He died in July, 1884-, Did you ever kiss Mrs. Crawford?—Nevi»r. Did you ever make love to her, or pay her any court ?—I never did, nor was ever guilty of any impropriety or undue familiarity with her. 1 was on terms of ordinary acquaintance with her. Did you give her any cause of offence ?—I think not. So there was no more ground for selecting you as the person with whom she had committed adul- tery than any other human being ?—As far as she was concerned there was not. Did you ever tell Mrs. Crawford that she was like her mother?—Not under the circumstances the has stated. Was it true that you had ever been her mother's over V-1 was yesterday asked the same question ind I decline now to answer that question. Were you on intimate terms with Mr. Eustace Smith ?—Yes in 1879 and 18o0. And you travelled with him in 1375 ?—Yes. And received his hospitality ?—Yes; I was frequently at his house. Were you frequently in France ?—Yes I bought a small property there some years ago. Were you familiar with French habits there ?—-I can hardly say that. Re-examined by Sir Walter Philiimore I can produce letters written by Mr. Humbert (Sir Charles Dilke's solicitor ) to Fanny Stock. (Two of these were given in evidence, but the third was only handed to counsel to read.) When I went to Warren-street I might have seen Fanny there, but I cannot recollect. My brother Asnton and I paid annuities to the old servants. tie might have known where Hannah lived. With regard to anonymous letters, did you receive any ?—Yes they hinted at infidelity. My I brother Ashton toid me that a lot of them were going about." Was reference made in those letters to the street off Tottenham Court-road ?—Yes. off Tottenham Court-road ?—Yes. Were these letters against hun or against you ?— Those I have seen were all charges against me and I other members of the family. After the charge was made public against you, you went, I understand, and called on Mrs. Ashton Dilke'?—Yes; at that time I did not know where Mrs. Crawford was living. I. was very angry at the time. When I met Mr. Crawford I. asked after his wife bv her Christian name. What did you call her?—" Nie," a nick-name she was always known by, On the occasions when you called at Mrs. Craw- ford's in Young-street you wont in your carriage i —Yes. Did you give your coachman any directions when you went to M's. Crawford's?—When I got out of my carriage, and was not going to stay, I always said to him turn." Did you ever give your coachman directions to drive away when you went to Mrs. Cra.w- ford's?—Never. Now, with regard to your diary, were the entries made in that book beforehand ?—Yes, by me or my private secretary. Is the book locked up ?—No; it was always open on the table. Anybody cculd see it. The cutting out of the pieces was that done in the presence of any person ? Yes. It would be done by myself or private secretary. And the book would then remain on the table?— It was there for six months. When Mrs. Crawrord lived near me I often used to see her. especially on Wednesdays, when Parliament rose at six o'clock. Mrs. Ashton Dilke has three children. EVIDENCE OF SARAH GREY. Sarah Grey, examined by Mr. Bargrava Deane, said: I live at Forest Gato. I noi now stayiaj with my sistsr, Mrs. Livings. I was for twelve years in the service of Sir Churlea Dilke. When 1 went to in the house Mrs. Chatfield was there. I was there while Lady Dilke was alive. I left last October. I first upper housemaid. I rccellect Crawford coming iu Mrs. (,'luUfield's time, but not since. I recollect Mrs. Crawford before she was married coming once. Ave you auto you have never sean Mrs. Crawford at the uOUöSesmce Mrs. Cbattield's —Yea, quite sure. Have you a sister named Fanny ?—Yes. Was she in Sir C. Dilke's service ?—?Yes, about eight years ago. She then left, and did not jgain enter his service. Shd used to come aometimss to see me. She cams usually on Sunda.y and some- times on Friday. She would remain from about six until nine. She never slept in the house on the occasions that sho visited ma. Has she ever been upstairs alone with you ?-—I remember. Was Sir Charles Dilke ever at homo when she came on these occasions?—I don't remember. What time used Sir Charles DUke to go down stairs in the morning ?—Generally from ten to half-oast. What time did ho usually leave the house ?— About a. quarter past eleven. There was an under servant named Ellen Drake with me. W o ware the only housemaids. What time did you use to make Sir Charles Dilke's bed 9-1 don't remember. Sometimes between eleven and twelve. < Did you begin your bed-room work before or after Sir Charles Dilke left the house ?—After. What time would you begin your work ?—About seven. Where would you be while Sir Charles Dilke was dot breakfast?—in the bed-rooms. Did you ever see Mrs. Crawford go up to the oedrooms in the morning ?—No, not to my know- edge. Was she over there to your knowledge for a night?—No. Did you ever help to dress Mrs. Crawford at that house ?—Certainly not. Or any other house ?—No. Did you ever let her into tho house in the morn- ing?—No. To your knowledge, was your sister Fanny Sir C. Dilke's mistress?—No, sir. Did you ever see vour sister and Sir Charles together ?—No. IJr see anv impropriety between them ?—No, sir Did any impropriety ever take place between you and Sir Charles Dilke ?—Certainly not. When did you last see your sister Fanny?—I don't remember. About how long ago? Four or five months?— I don't remember. Where did you see her ?-S;¡9 came to see me at Forest-gato. Sho was then inarried to a man named 8wc Did she tell you then where she was living.—No, j sir. Have you known since then -v here your sister has been ?—No, sir.—I romemoei" the trial in February last. 13efore that trial I had not seen Mr. Crawford's solicitor. I received a subpeena to attend the trial Hom Mr, Crawford but 1 did not attend. Why?—Because I did not receive a notice. Previously I had not made a statement to any person. I have made a statement to the Queen's Proctor. Some detectives camo to see me. They told me they came from Mrs. Crawford. EXAMINATION OF SARAH GREY. Cross-examined by Mr. Matthews, the witness said: The detectives came to Forest-gate. I told them I did not see why 1 should be troubled about the matter. Did you toll them if they wanted to know they had better see Sir Charles Dilke ?—I did not say so. When your sister Fanny camo to see you at Forest-gate, was that the first time you had seen her since her marriage 1 1 es. Why didn't you ask her wnere she lived ?—I don't know. Did you know the trial was coming on when you saw her ?—No.. How long was it before the trialr 1 think about five months. Was it near the time of the trial.—I don t think so. I cannot recollect how long it was after Christmas. What reason had you for not asking?—(The wit- ness hesitated). Now, please answer.—No reason. Did you know her husband Stock?—Yes; I went to see her at Mrs. Kulfell's after her wed- ding. When was your sister married ?—I don't recol- lect. Have vou seen her since you saw her at Forest- gate ?—No. Do vou know that she came to London in April last, after the last truii?—(The witness again hesitated, but eventually said, "I don't re- ulember.") I must press vou.—I now remember I saw her once in London. Who told you she was coming to London?—She wrote to me. Have you got her letter?—No. Where was the letter from ?—I don't recollect. The Queen's Proctor wiil tell you. (Laughter.) Do you know Sir C. Diik^s solicitor?— Yes, Mr. Humbert. Did he tell you your sister was in London ?—I can't recollect. Where did you last seo your sister in London— at 76, ;iùane-street r-No. Where ( In Warren-street ?—No. Where then ?—(The witness again hesitated.) Where was it—come, Sarah i—(Laughter.) I don't remember. It was & street to which I had never been before. It was near King's-cross. What did Fanny say to you when you saw her ? I don't remember.—Did you ask her whvjshe had been sent fur from Forest-gate ? No.—Did she tell you what she had come for ? No.—How long did she stay ? About ten days.—How do you know that ? I went afterwards to see her with a gentle- man from the Queen's Proctor r- You went twice ? Yes.—Where was it you went to ( I don't know the street.—Now, where was that house ? I don't ¡ recollect. Did you know that your sister was charged with being in bed with Mrs. Crawtord and Sir Charles Dilke ?—I heard liO. I Did you know that you were charged with having helped to dress Mrs. Crawford ?—Yes. You know it was said that your sister was keep- ing out of the way ?—Yes. And you did not ask her where she had been or where she had gone to ?—No, sir. She did not explain why she was living near King's-cross. Her husband is a journeyman coachbuilder. I think it was in July my sister went to Essex. Prior to that I knew what my sister was doing. During the first six months of 1884- Fanny was living in Warren-street. Before that she was living at a place near Brixton. I do not know with whom she was living. I had no reason for asking her. She was employed there as a housemaid. She was in Warren-street in July, 1884, and 1 went twice to see her there. I saw her on the first floor. Where did she sleep ?—I don't know. Did she not show you the room ?—No. I saw her with her mistress, Mrs. Davis, whom I pre- viously knew. I have a niece, Mary Ann Grey, who was in the service of ir Charles Dilke until twelve months ago. She was there a year and nine months. Did she come and tell you that she found a lady in Sir Charles's bedroom ?—No. Did you not find fault with Mary Ann Grey for having gone into the room ?—No, sir, never. Did you tell her not to go into Sir Charles Dilke's bedroom ?—I told her never to go into the room untd I had been. Why did you tell her that ?—I told all of them not to go until I went. Have you ever let a lady in or out of Sir Charles's bedroom ?—No, sir. Do you know Mrs. Crawford by sight ?—No if I saw her I would not know her. Did you admit into the house a lady dressed in black with a large black hat?—No, sir. Wero there an inner and outer door to the hall in Sloane-street?—Yes. Did Ellen Drake ever find you speaking to a lady between those two doors in March, 1885 ?—I don't remember. Were you ever speaking to a lady between those two doors ?—I don't remember. RE-EXAMINATION OF SARAH GREY. Sir W. Phillimore: What was your position at this time at Sir Charles Dilke's (-1 was then acting as upper housemaid. You were then making the beds. Did you ever have to re-make the bed in Sir Charles's room after he had left it ?—No. Did you ever find the bed tumbled ?—No. Was your sister Fanny at Sir Charles's house, on and off, while she was out of place?—Yes. The house at which I went to see my sister was at Mabledcn Gate. I remember Mr. Drake asking me where I had seen my sister. I told him that I could not recollect. He then got a Post- office Directory, and read out the namea ot certain places, and it was then I recollected the name. When I got there I found my sister gone. I had no communication with my sister before I went to the house with the gentleman from the Queen's Proctor. I was thirteen when I first went into Sir Charles Dilke's service. 1 am now 21. At first I was under-nurse to Sir Charles Dilke's son. I have not inquired amongst my brothers and sisters where Fanny was. The detectives called upon me twice at Forest Gate. I told them that my sister had married a soldier. MR. HUMBERT'S EVIDENCE. Mr. Ernest Humbert: I am Sir Charles Dilke's solicitor, and have been so for some years. On the 10th of April I took a statement from Fanny Stock. I afterwards gave it to Mr. Brown, of the Queen's Proctor's office, I know the Ruffells. I got Fanny Stock a place in their house in 1885. She had previously told me that she was being frightened by detectives, and under such circum- stances I thought it best to put her in a place of safety. On the occasion of taking her statement I told her that she would be required as a witness. Sho and her husband Stock were both unwilling that she should appear as a witness. The husband told me so in a rough sort of way. I wrote to Sir Charles on account of what I had done. I have never seen her since I took the statement on the 10th of April, nor have X heard of her. Have you made inquiry for her ?—I sent to Mabledon-place, but found that she had gone and left no address. I have since made inquiries in Essex. Cross-examined by Mr. H. Matthews, Q.C.: I subpoenaed Shanks and Good, Sir Charles's foot- men, at the last trial. I did not tell Sarah to attend the last trial, nor did I subpoena her or Fanny. I told Mrs. Ruffell I would pay her any xpenses sue was put to in regard to Fanny. It was in July, 1885, that I found Fanny in an alarmed condition about the detectives. I gathered that detectives had been to see her and had shown her photographs of Mrs. Crawford. What did sho tell you?—That she was afraid of being prosecuted for perjury. A few days after the trial I told her the details of Mrs. Crawford's confession. How long after the trial ?—About a week. I saw her at Foreat-gate. She was then staying with her sister. Where was she at tha last trial ?—I do not know. Uave you ascertained where Fanny lived from March, 1833, to July, 1884?—I endeavoured to ascertain but. failed. She declined to tell me. Did you pay her expenses at Mabledon-place ?— Certainly nut. How did this journeyman, out of work, pay bis expenses up to and in London ?—I don't know. Where did they coma from ?—I believe it was Bedford. Did you learn from her at whose expense she had come up from Mabledon-place ?—I believe I sent word that I wanted to see her or her lster. Sir James Hanneu; Which siater ?—The witness: Sarah. Cross-examination continued; I never had tho curiosity to find out who sent her to Mabledon- place. Where was she at the last trial ?—She was at Chatham, she told me, and "various places," travelling about. At the time of the last trial I was aware that Mrs. Davles lived in Warren-street. Nobody who lived at that house was present at the last trial. Re-examined She said that she was afraid of being prosecuted for perjury. The detective who saw her was named Clark. EVIDENCE OF MRS. RUFFELL. Mrs. Frances Eliza Ruffell, •»examined by Mr. H. B. Deane, said I know Mr. Humbert. Last July I saw him at his office in London by appointment. He then spoke to me about a young woman named Fanny Grey, whom he asked me to take as a ser- vant. He said that he wanted her to be quiet, and said that he must keep an eye upon her. She came early in August. I agreed to give her JE16 a year, She was with ma for about four months. My husband had in his service a man named Stock, and Fanny married him from my house. She never falked to me about the Crawford-Dilke case. She was very reticent. I don't know where she is now, To Mr. Henry Matthews: I used to keep other servants besides Fanny. I kept a general servant. Fanny used to go to London. She stayed away on one occasion three days, and on another occasion one day. She was free to come and go ai she liked. Did vou tell the Queen's Proctor Fanny would not or could not swear to her statement in court? —I cannot say I did. I don't recollect. Think a bit.—I think I told him that she would not or could not go into court. The next witness called was Mr. Ruffell. Sir James Hannen interposed. He said: I think it is needless to continue this kind of evidence. We can all see the terms on which Fanny lived with the Ruffells. THE FOOTMEN'S EVIDENCE. Samuel Good, examined by Sir W. Phillimore, said: I was in Sir C. Dilke's service in 1830 as coachman. I was so for about two years. When my brother William left I succeeded him as foot- man. Mr. Cryall was the butler. I afterwards becamo first footman. Henry Shanks was the other. Sir Charles always had fencing in the morning, and after that he went out, generally about half-past eleven. 1 was on duty while the fencing was going on. Gentlemen used to visit. Did you ever let in ladies?—Yes, once. Was Sir Charles at home in the morning after he once left ?—No. Do you recollect who the lady was you let in ?— Xù, I think Sir Charles was in the front hall and received her. Did they go upstairs ?—They went into the Blue Room on the balf-landing. About a quarter of an hour afterwards I let the lady out. Did the bell ring during that half-hour?—Yes; the bell would ring generally about thirty times during half an hour. That was the only time I let a lady out. While Sir Charles Dilke was in the bedroom did you ever see" lady go upstairs ?—No. You have seen Fanny Grey visit her sister ?— Yes; but she never slept in the house. She usually came in the evening. Cross-examined by Mr. H. Matthews: I cannot tell the month 1 let the lady out. Had Sir Charles told you a lady was coming ?— I think he said a lady would call. At what time did she arrive?—Between ten and eleven. There was fencing every morning. In spite of the fencing Sir Charles and the lady went up into the Blue Room. Did you hear her name ?—I think I heard Sir Charles sav" Mrs. Crawford." Did it remain in your mind that it was Mrs. Crawford — Afterwards. Why?—I don't know. Come, now, what made you think it was Mrs. Crawforti?—I don't know, sir. Henry Shanks, examined by Mr. H. B. Deane I was formerly in the service of bir Charles Dilke as footman, and used to answer the bell. Did you ever admit any ladies ?—I did. At what time?—A little after eleven. I know Mrs. Crawford by sight. How often have you admitted her?—Twice. When?—I cannot give dates. It was about the summer of 1384. I did not admit her in the morn- ing in 1883. Where did you take her to r—On the first occa- sion into tho dining-room, as Sii Charles Dilke was at breakfast. On that occasion I let her out. How long was she there?—In all not more than a quarter of an hour. She came from the dining- room. I went into the room once or twice without knocking. What was the other occasion ?—A week or two afterwards. Where did you show her to then ?—Either the Blue Room or the drawing-room. I am not certain which. How long did she remain on that occasion ?— About ten minutes. I let her out myself. I know Fanny Grey. Sometimes she came to the house. To my knowledge she has never slept in the house. I have never seen her early in the morning. Cross-examined by Mr. Henry Matthews: In connection with this case I saw Detectives Clark, father and son. They got a. statement from me. I don't remember whether the statement was taken I down in writing. Do you remember making a statement that you twice let Mrs. Crawford out of the house, and did not let her in ?—I dont remember that. There may have been one occasion; but I don't remember two. Possibly there might have been two. Was there a talk in the servants' hall about Mrs. Crawford's visits ?—No I never beard her talked about. When you were with Mr. Stewart were you not shown a photograph of a lady?—I don't remem- ber I might have been. And you recognised it ?—I cannot say I recog- nise I it, because I am not certain that it was shown to me. Were you not shown one of these three photo- graphs (produced)?—I have been shown all three, but I am not sure I was shown one at Mr. Stewart's. I was shown them by the detectives. You won't swear that you did not identify the lady's photograph e—No. After that did you not get a subpeena to attend the trial ?—Yes. Before the tirst trial did you get t subpoena from Sir Charles's solicitor to attend Yes. and he asked me whether I had got one from the other side. Will you pledge yourself that there were no more than two visit3 of Mrs. Crawford to Sir Charles's house?—There might have been more, but I cannot say. Cross-examined: I made a statement to the detectives, and I saw Mr. Stewart. I was at the last trial, but I was not called as a witness. I have made a stateuient to the Queen's Proctor. Mr. Benry Mathews: Do you recollect Mr. Stewart writing down and reading something, and asking you to sign it ?—No, I have no recollection. William Good was then called. He said: lam second footman to Sir Charles Dilke. I or Shanks would always admit visitors. Messages were con- tinually arriving. I recollect letting in Mrs. Crawford on two occasions. Miss Dilke called, and I recollect Mrs. Rogerson called. Mr. Henry Matthews: Did you let Mrs. Craw- ford in more than twice ?—No. And you let her out ?—Yes. How long were her visits?—The first was but for a few minutes; the second about a quarter of an hour. When she came I showed her into the breakfast-room. Sir Charles was coming out with his hat on. He went back with the lady to the breakfast-room. Mrs. Crawford came out first; I let her out, and then I let out Sir Charles. On her second visit she went into the breakfast-room. I let her out on that occasion. I don't think she has ever been in the house except on the occasions I have mentioned. I have never seen her upstairs. It was an unusual thing for Mrs. Crawford to call. I am almost positive this occurred in 1883—it would not be in 1882. I might have said that she was to be shown into the Blue Room, but I cannot swear to it. I remember seeing Mr. Stewart, and I then refused the subpeena. I was awfully excited at the time. But you are not excited now. (Laughter.) Was not the order given you that when Mrs. Crawford came she should be shown into the Blue Room ?—I don't know. Did you not tell Mr. Stewart so ?—I don't know what I said to him. (Laughter.) The court then adjourned till this (Monday) morning. THIRD DAY. The hearing of the case of Crawford 11, Crawford, the Queen's Proctor intervening, was continued on Monday in the Probate and Divcrce Division of tb. High Court of Justice, before Sir James Hannen (the president) and a special jury. Mrs. Crawford, Mrs. Ashton Dilke, and Mrs. Harrison were again present, and Sir Charles Dilke and Mr. Crawford occupied seats at the solicitors' table. The court was rather more crowded than on the previous days. EVIDENCE OF SIR CHARLES DILKE'S SERVANTS. The nrst witness examined was Ellen Drake, who, in reply to Mr. B. Deane, said she went into Sir Charles Dilke's service as under-housemaid h April, 1880, and sho left on the 27th of March, 1883. She knew Mrs. Crawford by sight. She had seen her, to the best of her knowledge, for the first time in the court. She had not, to her knowledge, seen Mrs. Crawford at Sir Charles Dilke's house. She had seen Mrs. Ashton Dilke there. Witness made the beds in Sir Charles Dilke's house generally about eleven o'clock. She never had to mako Sir Charles Dilka's bed a second time in the day, and she had never known the bed to have been tumbled after she had made it. She had seen Fanny Grey call t the house to see her sister, Sarah Grey. She generally came on Sundays and stayed two or three hours. Witness had never seen any ladies in the upper part of the house. She described the situation cf the various rooms, and said that she always did her work in Sir Charles Dilke's bedroom in company with the housemaid. Sometimes she did the sitting-room. Do you remember on one occasion seeing a lady ;n the hall ?—Yes; it would be in 1883, and would be shortly before I left in March. She was standing talking to Sarah Grey just inside the hall. I had just ccmo up from the basement to call Sarah. I cannot say how long they were talking together. Tho lady was dressed in black, and wore a large black hat. Mr. Clarke, jun., the detective, called upon me, and showed me a photo, but I told him I could not recognise it. I was subpoenaed by both sides at the last trial, but waa not called, although I waa in attendance. Did you ever see Fanny in the upper part of the house?—Yes. S" aietimes alone ?—No. Do you know whether Sarah had any visitors? —Yes, sometimes. Lady visitors?—Occasionally her aunt called. Who engaged the women servants ?—Mrs. Chatlield. Cross-examined: I was housemaid with Sarah, and remained in the service of Sir Charles about three years. I do not remember what times he was at home in tho yeurs1882 and 1383. There was no fixed hour for making Sir Charles Dilke's bed. Sometimes it was done bdtoro he left the house, and sometimes afterwards. The servants usually had supper from eight to nine o'clock, and went to bed at ten o'clock. I had no other upstairs duties than these connected with the bedrooms. Sarah Grey was there at the same time as myself, and I knew her aunt. I remember a lady in black with a large black hat calling .and talking to Sarah in the ball. That lady was not Sarah's aunt. I have seen Fanny upstairs in Sarah's bedroom many times, but never upstairs alone. I can't say how long the lady in black remained, and have notsince seen her.Sarah didnot accuse meof having watched her during that interview. The servants were not allowed to be seen about the house more than was absolutely necessary, as Sir Charles Dilke objected. I cannot say whether the lady had feathers in her hat, which was a large one and nearly hid her face. The visits by the lady were always on the week days, not on the Sundays. Sir Charles Dilke was seldom at home on Sundays. Charles Grant said he had been coachman to Sir Charles Dilke for fourteen years. He had known Mrs. Crawford for twelve months as Mrs. Craw- ford. He had seen her call with her mother when she was a child. That was twelve years ago. Witness had driven Sir Charles Dilke to 27, George- street. He never stopped longer than ten minutes or a quarter of an hour. While he was waiting he could see Sir C. Dilko in the room and Mrs. Craw- ford. He could not see what they were doing. They were sitting together. Of course he did not know what they were doing. Cross-examined He could see into the room. He did not notice the blind's, but he could see the green field through a window in the back of the room. The window was square, and came low down. EVIDENCE BT GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS. Mr. John Edward Courtenay Bodley was next examined. He stated that he became private secretary to Sir Charles Dilke in 1881. He occupied a room on the second half floor at the end of a short corridor, from whence he commanded a view of the entire staircase. The door was invariably open, and he could see anyone coming up or going down stairs. He usually went to Sir Charles Dilke's house about half-past nine, and remained till a quarter or half-past twelve, when Sir Charles went out. He had never seen a lady go upstairs between half-past nine and twelve o'clock in the morning. He could not have failed to have seen & lady had she went upstairs. He had never seen Mrs. Crawford until last Friday. He was in the habit of opening Sir Charles Dilko's letters when be got them. Soma of Sir Charles's diaries were cut and torn and hacked about in the most extraordinary manner. At times Sir Charles used to dash an entry through with a pencil. Sometimes he used to tear it out in a rough way and at others he used to cut it out. Ho had seen him do that frequently. He becamo official private secretary to Sir Charles when he entered the Cabinet in 1882. He could not say he bad seen ladies calling at Sir Charles Dilke's house, but he rather fancied he had. Cross-examined: He might have seen Mrs. Crawford with her husband, but be was not sure. He remembered being at Mr. John Holland's, and it was possible that he asked Mr. Crawford to introduce him to his wife, but be aid not recollect the circumstances. He had asked other gentle- men for introductions. With regard to the situa- tion of the rooms in Sir Charles Dilke's house, witness occupied one which commanded a view of the staircase, and Ireland, the clerk, had one next door, which did not do so. and which had no door to it. The door of witness's room was always, or almost always, kept open, be- cause he used to shout his instructions to the clerk in the next room. He preferred having the clerk in the next room to his own. He could not say his door was never closed. Sometimes an election aeent would call to see Sir Charles Dilke, and the interview would take place in his room but, if Sir Charles went out and closed it, 'he would jump up like a shot and re-open it. (Laughter.) The room was a small one, and was very warm both in summer and winter. After he became official secretary to Sir Charles Dilke he continued practically his private secretaryship, and never left Sloane-street until after Sir Charles went away to Whitehall, where he joined him immediately afterwards. Re-examined When he left Sloane-street Ireland remained there, and was supposed to do so throughout the day. Mr. George Henry Kennedy, one of the Poor- law inspectors, said that he was formerly private secretary to Sir Charles Dilke. He entered Sir Charles Dilke's service in April, 1870, and left in 1882. He used to go to Sloane-street at. all hours, and occupied the same room as Mr. Bodley, who succeeded him. That room overlooked the stair- case, but be did not always keep the door open. He knew Madame do Soutaire, and the service which she had performed she received a pension for. Ho had, in the ordinary way as private secretary, paid the pension and had been in communication with Mr. Kadcliffe, Sir Charles's solicitor, upon various matters. Madame De Soutaire at the time was keeping a small tobacco- nist's shop at Brompton, and if she went to Warren-street it was after he left Sir Charles Dilke's. He did not remember seeing her after- wards. Be knew the Eustace Smith family, and remembered Mrs. Eustace Smith after calling in Sloane-street. Mrs. Ashton Dilke also used to call, but he did not remember how frequently. He never saw Mrs. Crawford there, and had no distinct recollection of her. Wit- ness had seen Mrs. Ashton Dilke in the secre- tary's room and on the ground floor in Mrs. Chat- field's room. Witness bad the diaries made which Sir Charles Dilke kept. It was Sir Charles Dilke's practice t cut out portions of the diary. For instance, when gentlemen were invited to dine with him, supposing one of those gentlemen declined the invitation the entry of his name in the diary would be struck out bv witness, and Sir Charles when he came in would cut out the entry with a pair of scissors which he kept on the table. That had been his practice as long as witness could remember. Cross-examined: Witness remained in Sir Chas. Dilke's service till May 6,1882. Mr. Bodley was engaged to act in his absence through illness in 1881. Mr. Charles Austin Lea, examined by Sir W. Phillimore, said that he was Sir Charles Dilke's official private secretary when Sir Charles was Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. Sir Charles generally arrived at tho Foreign Office within a few minutes of twelve o'clock and left at four or a quarter past four in the afternoon for the House of Commons. Refreshing his memory by the aid of documents in the Foreign Office, witness knew that on the 23rd of February, 1882, Sir Charles had to prepare answers to seven or eight questions in the House on that day, in addition to which he had charge of the Commercial Department. The pre- paration of the answers to questions took a con- siderable time. Sir Charles had also to initial about 30 dispatcb»o and drafts. MADAME DK SOOTAXD IN THE WITNESS-BOX. Madame do Soutans waa next called, and oxaminod by Sir Walter Phillimore, Q.C., and said: I am native of Neuchatel, and have one sister Ir, the service of Sir Charles Dilke. Another sister had been in his servico 24 years, a^ the end of which time she was pensioned. The pension was transferred to mo. I was married in 1867, and my husband died in 1879. I then came t.) Enhnd, I now live ,t 65, Warren-street, Tottenham-court- road, and have been there since 1881. Sir Charles Dilke calls upon me once a year, and ono year called twice. Did any young lady corao to your house, being afterwards visited by Sir Charles Dilke ?—No, sir. Do you know Mrs. Crawford ?—No, sir. Has Sir Charles Dilko ever met Mrs. Crawford in your house to your knowledge?—Never. At the request of counsel Mrs. Crawford stood up, but the witness failed to recognise her. You know Sarah Grey?—Yes. Did she come to see you ?—I think she came twice. Did you know her sister Fanny ?—Yes. In 1884 did Fanny come to lodge with you ?— Ye3 she came as a companion and help, cleaning the rooms and doing whatever I needed. What is your native language ?—French. Did the Dilka family speak to you in English or in French?—Sometimes in one and sometimes in the other. What rooms had Fanny?—A bedroom down- stairs on the parlour door. Who had been living in tho parlour before Fanny came?—People of the nima of Hellier. Witness continued to that she offered £9 or £10 a year. Nothing was said about wales at first. Fanny stopped with witness for twelve months, »nd left when her (witness's) sit. l' returned from Russia. Had only heard of har once 8inc, a few weeks afterwards, when she wroto from Stebbing, in Essex. Her conduct was good while she was with witness. The photo- graph produced was that of Fanny. She was always dressed plainly, like witness herself. No gentleman ever called to see Fanny at witness's house in Warren-street. Cross-examined by Mr. Matthews: Witness entered the service of Sir C. Dilke in 1879. Mrs. Chatfield engaged her to mind the little boy (Sir C. Dilke's son). She came to look ftor property that her sister, who had died in London, had 'eft her. It was worth between JE400 and £500. £200 of it was in cash the rest was money lent, and some lard in Switzerland. Witness married in 1867. Witness was worth as much as her sister when her sister died. Did you ever keep a shop in London ?—Witness did not answer. Surely it will not tako you five I')inut8 to answer.—No reply. Mr. Matthews'Well, we nra waiting.—Witness (after a further pause): I think I did. Are you not sure ?—I think I did. Had yo forgotten it?—At first I did. What flort of a shop ?—Cigar shop. Where ?—In a bye-street off the Brompton-road. How long were you there ?—Witness hesitated. How long were you there ?—A year and a half or two years. When did you go there ?—I can't remember. How soon after your sister's death?—^Witness again hesitated. How soon after your sister's death ?—It was be- fore my sister's death. How many years?—No reply. Oh, do not keep us all day about a thing like this in your own history. How long before your sister's death, Madame de Soutane ? Do answer a plain question ?—In 1866. The President: Do you mean 1866 or 1876? —1866. Mr. Mat'hews ? Were you not there in the year 1874 or 1875 ? Did not Mr. Kennedy call upon you at the cigar shop in Montpelier-squara in either one of these years ?—Witness hesitated. Do you know Mr. Kennedy?—Yes. Did he come in 1874 or 1875 ?—I think he did. When your husband was alive, were you keep- in this tobacconist shop ?—I was not married. When were you married ?—In 1867. In reply to further questions, witness said the shop was stocked by her sister, who was in the servico of the Dilke family; JE15 represented tbo capital. She could swear that & Scotch cook stayed with her a month, and that she had another lodger fr a fortnight. Sho had had lodgers for more than a night. Where were you married?—In a village of Ncuchatel. What was the name of the village ?—The church had no name. And I suppose the village had none ? (Laughter.) —Witness made an answer, which was so inaudible that she was asked to repeat it again. She failed to make herself understood, and at lait the judge had to request her to write down the name of the village. This wicnesa did, and tho slip of paper was handed to the learned counsel. Mr. Matthews: Then the name of the village is Fenin?—Yes. What was the date of your marriage ?—The 12th of July, 1£.37. Have you got a certificate of vour marriage ?— Ne. Have you ever had one?—Yes. What has become of it?—I left it in Switzerland. Where did your husband live?—In Fenin. What was he?—A watchmaker. What was tho date of his death ?—February 3, 1876. When did your sister die?—A month hter in tho same year. (At this point the witness nearly faiDted, and had to be assisted to a chair.) Cross-examination continued: She came to England as soon as her husband died, and received a pension from Sir Charles Dilke on the death of her sister. The pension was JE40 a year, but she never received any presents after Mrs. Chatfield's death from any of tho family; Between 1878 and 1881 she lived a short time at Petersham, and then went to Twickenham, whence she removed to Warren-street. When at Warren-street sho used to have a woman in occasionally to clean for her, and there were some people named Hellier there, who sometimes opened the front door when people called. Fanny came to live there. Witness mot her in the street, but did not at first recognise her. She came about a fort- night afterwards. Witness bought the furniture for two rooms and the paper to paper them with. Sho did not remember acy gentleman and lady coming to the rooms and being there together. Will you swear that no gentleman and lady wero there in your large room, with the door locked ?—Never. During the time the Helliers were there?—No, nor at any time. You did not let them in yourself, not only once or twice, but many times?—Never. Cross-examination continued: Fanny did not assist her, and witness had never taken coffee upstairs to her. Witness had paid £10 to Fanny, but she did not pay her all at once. She paid her at tho end of the month. Fanny came to her from Brixton. Witness had never inquired of her with whom she had been living, and did not know there was any secret in the matter or anything to be ashamed of. She had invited her to come to live with her because she (witness) was worse in health. At this stage the court adjourned for luncheon. After the adjournment for luncheon, the cross- examination of Madame de Soutane was continued by Mr. Henry Matthews, Q C. The witness stated that she paid lis. a week for her apartments in Warren-street. Fanny came to stay with her, being out of a place, and after two or three days witness engaged her to wait upon her and attend to the apartments. Re-examined by Sir Walter Phillimore.witness said she had, besides being in the Dilke family, held situations with Lady Fitzwilliam, Lady Chalmers, the late Lord Harris, and Sir John Wareham. She was married in 1867, and her husband died in 1876. She then came to England, and after remaining six weeks took a. situation as housekeeper to a Roman Catholic priest at Petersham. She next went to a Mrs. Dyson at Twickenham, where sho received a letter from Mrs. Chatfield, addressing her as "Dear Hannah." Both Mr. Ashton Dilke and Sir C. Dilke visited her when witness was in England. She recovered the rent for her land in Switzerland from her uncle. What she did not was put in the bank. She had kept a cigar shop before her marriage for about a year and h?lf. She did not ask Fanny where she had been at Brixton. She did not talk about it. EVIDENCE OF AN EXPERT. George Inglis, an expert in handwriting, at con- siderable length, deposed that he found similarities between the writing of threo letters of Mrs. Craw- ford to Mr. Stewart (solicitor) and the anonymous letter. The letters F and C in Mrs. Craw- ford's signature were alike. Other letters in both sets of communications seemed to him to be in the same handwriting. SIR JULIAN PAUNCKBOrE. Sir Julian Pauncefote, Permanent Secretary for Foreign Affairs, deposed that in 1881 he began going to Sir Charles Dilke's house to practice fencing. There was usually a party of from six to eight. They generally met between ten and eleven o'clock. Messengers from the Foreign Office would frequently be sent to Sir Charles Dilke and himself. JlRS. BOOSRSON UKDER EXAMINATION IMPORTANT EVIDKNCE. Mrs. Rogerson deposed that she was an old acquaintance of the Crawford family, and in 1884 went to see Mrs. Crawford, who was very ill and crying. She told witness that great unhappiness between herself and husband had resulted through a letter being opened from a clergyman in White- chapel. She afterwards made a statement to her respecting Sir Charles Dilke. Had you then cognisance of anything wrong as between Mrs. Crawford and Sir Charles Dilke ? I —Certainly not. Witness continued: Mrs. Crawford did not show me an anonymous letter; in fact, I never saw it nor knew what was in it. She bad spoken I to Sir Charles Dilke about Mrs. Crawford. Sir W. Phillimore: What did you say to Sir Charles Dilke, and what did he say to you in reply ? The learned Judge ruled that this question ought i not to be put. The witness said that she thought that she ought to be allowed to make an explanation, as a great deal of discussion had taken place on that 1 part of the matter. Examination continued: Witness said that Mrs. Crawford had met Captain Forster at her house. Sometimes they left together, and some- times they left afterwards, the one after the other. On one occasion Captain Forster entered the room at witness's house, and said ho was called to Egypt. Then Mrs. Crawford cried. It was the first time that she (witness) bad seen her cry. Witness received a letter from Captain Forster, enclosing one in a blank envelope for Mrs. Craw- ford. LSic W. Phillimore proposed to read the letter, but Sir J. Hannen ruled that it was not evidence.J The letter from Captain Forster arrived two days or so after her confession. Witness posted the letter to Mrs. Crawford, who waa taen staying at Mrs. Ashton Dilke's. Fir W. Phillimore: Has Mrs. Crawford made statements to you i-bout others besides Sir C. Dilke? Mr. H. Matthews objected, on tho ground that th eviderco would be irrelevant. Sir J. Hannen thought not. The answer might show the motive of Mrs. Crawford. Sir Walter Phillimore: Did she confes3 to having committed adultery wit < otheYP ?—Ye3. More than one?—Yr-s. Was or was not one of those Captain Forster ?— Am I bound togivp any name? Was not any or one uf those Captain For^t&r ?— Y-is. There were, in fact, other naaes?—Yes. Ono thing more. thoso confessions mado prior to or after the confession about Sir Charles! Dilke ?—Aftor. Can you give me the data when she mado con- fessions about Captain Forster?—No. About what year was it slit mado her confessions about Captain Forster ?—I rather think it was August in 1054. Mr. Matthews: Are you not aware about that date in 188 alio was not in London at all ?—She may have left in August and come back in February, 1885. Do you think she talked to you about Captain Forster at all till the autumn of 1885 ?—Long be- fore that. February or the early part of the year. You must be wrong about August, 1884, as she was in Scotland.—1 am not exact as to dates, perhaps. In 1884, I understand, she did make & confession to you about Sir Charles Dilke ?—Yes. A confession of adultery ?—Yes. Did she tell you she had slept twice in his house ?—Sho told me that later. Did she tell you the different details? She afterwards told her llUband some of them? I suppose she did. Sarah dressing her ?-1S0. Just think a. minute. Did sho not mention about Sarah dressing her?—No. Not at any time ?—I can't recollect anything about it. Do you remember telling Mrs. Ashton Dilke what you had beard from Mea. Crawford ?—No, I don't reireniber. You told Mfa, Ashton Dilke you had heard from Mrs. Crawford that even the dervants at Sloane- street know all it, and that Sarah was palled in to help her to dress ?—I did not say that Sarah was called in to dross her, but I said tb" servants knew all about it, because Mrs. Crawford told wI;) so. Mrs. Crawforf told you the servants knew all about it?—alie told me that, and it was a strong element cf my disbelief in tho whole story. You yourself brought Mrs. Crawford to break off her intimacy with Sir Charles Dilko jI- Y Ð, most assuredly. Did yov make her promise not to meet" im again ?—Yes. And did she not, in compliance with that promise, tell you when she had met him at tea parties ?—I telieve sho kept that promise. She told you of the tea party ?—Yes. And you dil not think that constituted any breach ?—I did not think that constituted any breach. You acted on her confession ?—1 said when she told me, "Surely your first step ought to be never to see him again." Did she tell you that she had slept in his house ? —She did not on that occasion. On what occasion ?—Not the first time. Now much later ?—I don't know. Well, within a day or two ?—She told me sho had slept there twice. In conversation between you and her these con- fessions about Sir Charles Dilko had been referred to. More than once she had hforred to the pub- ject ?—Yes, I think she had. She told me he bad never been more than ten minutes in her house at any time. But that he had frequently committed adultery with her ?—Yes. Did tell you of the adultery had com- mitted in her house as well as his?—I inferred so from what she said. Did you gather from her when this intrigue began ? I think sho said shortly after hor marriage.— 011 yes what sho said was that the first timo be saw her he made love to her, and the second time he seduced her. Now, Mrs. Rogerson, you have remained in acquaintance with Captain Forster.—I should never pay I havf been a friend of Captain Forster's. I have been an acquaintance. This is a letter you havo torn up (hardinp up witness a letter pasted on glass) ?—Yes. I always tear up rvery letter. The letter was then handed back to Mr. Matthews, who read it as follows Richmond Barracks, Dublin, Friday. My dear Mrs. Kogersou,—I do not like sending you a letter for anyone else. It feels like asking you to do a thing that somebody else should do. Of course, you know for whom it is ? I am very sorry for the catas- trophe. It will be a scandal in any case. Some day a writer of anonymous letters will be caught, and drawn and quartered before being gibbeted as an example to others. I know you have been very good to the victim. That is the only word for her. Don't you wish you bad met her first and given her another life ? If you think there is any course lean take for Nia's good you will tell me, will you not ? I shall have the pleasure of seeing you in September. It would, indeed, be the greatest plea- sure to me. May I congratulate you on a diminution of your acquaintance ? I hope you are still endlessly gone on that grandchild.—Believe me, sincerely yours, HENRY FOBSTEB. You understand the letter to refer to Sir Charles Dilke ?—Yes. But I did not know the terms of it. I told Sir Charles Dilke about it, but I do not remember whether or not I mentioned Mrs. Craw- ford's name. I should think I did so, and I ex- pressed surprise that a clever man like him should be so mentioned anonymously; I did not in 1884 and 1885 believe the story. I thought it so im- possible. You know that Mrs. Crawford's introduction to Captain Forster was in February, 1884 ? Did you ever see any intimacy between them before 1885 ? —I nover saw them together till 1885. Did you ever have a csnversation with Mrs. Crawford about Captain Forster until 1885?— Yes. At what period ?—Within a few days of her speaking to me about Sir Charles Dilke. The Court then adjourned, the witness being still under cross-examination. FOURTH DAY. The cross-examination of Mrs. Rogerson was continued by Mr. Matthews. Witness said Mrs. Crawford was much moved, and shed tears when making the statement relative to Sir Charles Dilke. The letter dated the 9th of December, 1885, was in her handwriting. It stated that Mrs. Crawford, she believed, would give Mr. Crawford evidence to enable him to prove his case, but at that time her health was giving way, and sbe was not responsible for what she did then. Later the same day she called on Mr. Crawford, and urged on him to consent to anything rather than that the case should be made public. She had not seen or written to Sir Charles between the date of Mrs. Crawford's confession and the date of the letter; She could remember Mr. Crawford saying that as his wife had been in bed with another man nothing less than a divorce would satisfy him. She did not remember saying, Not if she consents." She could not say when Captain Forster married—it was after the beginning of September last year. Had written to him since then. Could not remember if she knew of the luncheon at the Hotel Metropole at the time it happened. Sbe might have heard of it. She doubted if Mrs. Crawford would have told her, because she would have warned her it was unwise and inexpedient. Witness had seen the envelope produced. Whose handwriting is on it ?—I do not know. Do you swear it is not yours?—Yes, surely. Did you know that letter was going to be sent ? —No. It was not written by you or by your direc- tion ?—Most assuredly not. 1 swear it. Do you use Magenta ink ?—I know what red ink is, but don't use it. Witness (continuing): The letter produced was in violet ink. She wrote it. while staying at her sister's house. She did not use the same ink in London. She was not in the habit of using violet ink' Do you know the writing on this letter (one of the anonymous letters) jI-No. She had received an anonymous letter herself, but had not kept it, nor could she remember one word of what was in it. She received the anonymous letter while at Wimbledon. Did it contain charges against Mrs. Crawford and Sir Charles Diike?—I tell you I do not remem- ber anything about it. Have your relations with Mrs; Crawford been interrupted, or have you remained on intimate aud friendly terms down to the present ?—I have not seen her. I have been on no terms. Have you written to her ?—Yes. In friendly terms?—Yes. Re-examined by Sir Walter Phillimoro: Mr. Stewart, the solicitor for the petitioner, was her brother. He asked her if she wrote the words on the envelopes which had been produced, and she told him she did not. He said nothing to her of the anonymous letter. She bad a "letter handed her by her sister, who warned her that if she did not adhere to her statement to ber mother she would be subjected to a rigid cross-examination with a view of showing the worthlessness of her evidence and intimated by or on behalf of Sir Charles Dilke, while certain scenes would be re- ferred to. What did Mrs. Crawford say to you about Capt. Forster jI-I can't remember. The Judge: I must put the question.—She said she loved him very much, indeed, and spoke of I him as her lover. The Judge: What words were used ?—No answer. Sir W. Phillimore What did she say about other persons?—She spoke of two other people having been her lovers. Did she give you their names ?—Yes. The Court: We must have what was said. Witness I cannot remember the exact words. The statements were made on different occasions. SERVANTS' EVIDENCE. Ellen Dalgleish, of Locherbie, in South Scotland, and formerly lady's maid to Mrs. Rogerson, de- posed that one day Captain Forster and Mrs. Craw. ford were alone in Mrs. Rogerson's drawing-room, and when she went into the room to attend to the tire they were both in one chair, one sitting on the other's knes. She could not give the date. On another occasion Mrs. Crawford stayed a week at Mra. Rogerson's, and one evening said she was going to dine out and sleep at her sisters. She was dressed for the evening, and went out in a hat and cloak. She returned next morning, and had a bath immediately. On a third occasion Mrs. Craw- ford called at the house one evening while Mrs. Rogerson was from home. She went in, and soon after Captain Forster called to see her, remaining in the room till very late. Both went out together. Mr. Matthews said this evidenee placed him in great difficulty. He had no notice of it. By Mr. Matthews: Witness was not now in Mrs. Rogerson's service. he was not dismissed. Mr. Stewart did tell her she was always drinking, and had better go. She had had letters from Sir Charles Dilke and had destroyed them. The letters were sent her after she left, which was on the 2nd of January. She had two letters. Witness knew Sarah Gray. She made a statement to Mr. Humbert at Sir Charles's. She came up from Scotland to give it, and Mr. Humbert paid her £10 for attending to-day. She had received £ 4.' By Sir Walter Phillimore The £10 was for her expenses, as well as of her sister's, all the way from Scotland. The learned counsel proceeded to ask as to the contents of letters from Sir Charles, but Mr. Matthews successfully objected to the question. Dalgleish, housemaid to Mrs. Rogerson and sister to the last witness, deposed that when they were at Hans-place she saw Captain Forster and Mrs. Crawford go together into the morning room one evening. Thf two spent a long time together in tho drawing-room, and the next morning she found on the sofa Mrs. Crawford's purse and a gentleman's button-hole bouquet. By Mr. Matthews: She was not dismissed because slae was addicted to drink. Albert Talbot, footman in Mrs. Rogerson's employ, said he knew both Captain Forster and Mrs. Crawford, and had seen them both at 13, Hans-pkce, and at Albert Mansions, Victoria-street. He remembered on one occasion Capt. Forster and Mrs. Crawford dined there and were in the room alone ovor an hour, subsequently letting them- selves out. On a third occasion, in Mrs. Rogerson's absence, Capt. Forster and Mrs. Crawford spent two and a half hours together in the drawing room, and when he took tea in he saw Mrs. Crawford sitting on the captain's knee, with her arm round his neck, while his arm was round her waist. By Mr. Matthews: When he saw the case was going to be tried a second time he volunteered his evidence. Sir Charles and Lady Dilke were fre- quent visitors at Mis. Rogerson's. E. J. Dunn, private in the Duke of Cornwall's Light Infantry and servant of Major Bond, said Captain Forster was an officer in the regiment. At a private luncheon at the Richmond Barracks at Dublin early in April, 1885, he remembered Mrs. Crawford being present with Captain Forster. William Harvey, groom and coachman to Major Bond, said he saw Mrs, Crawford at Dublin in the spring of last year. She was in the company of Captain Forster. They drove in company to the Hibernia Hotel, Dublin, in Dorset-street. Lady Dilke deposed that on the 6th of May, 1882, she was in London, staying with Mr. and Mrs. Charles Earl, at 5, Bryanstone-square. Sir Charles Dilke lunched there that day. He arrived before twelve, and left soon after 2.30. The witness was not cross-examined. Miss Tuckwell, niece of the last witness, deposed that on the 6th of May, while at her uncle's house at Oxford, Mr. and Mrs. Crawford visited them, being there about five o'clock. The Rev. S. Barnett, vicar of St. Jude's, White- chapel, deposed that in April, 1884, Miss Townsend and Mrs. Crawford were working with witness for the poor, and on one occasion Miss Townsend handed witness a letter addressed to Mrs. Craw- ford. He asked the latter to give it to her hus- band. Miss Townsend told him it was a silly kind of letter, written by an officer of the barracks. He Mr. Crawford acquainted with the fact of the delivery of the letter to his wife. Sir Charles Dilke, re-called, said that in his brother's life-time, prior to the division of the pro- perty, his brother paid a half share of the annuities to Madame De Soulave and others. He produced^ large number of diaries. He was prepared to state the contents of the letters to Ellen Dalgleish if allowed. His Lordship said the answer could not be taken. This ended the case of the Queen's Proctor. Mr. Matthews complained that the Helliers and Mary Ann Gray had not been called, although the Queen's Proctor had supplied proofs of their evidence. Sir Walter said he did not think they were proper witnesses to call. Mr. Matthews then asked that Mrs. Crawford might be called, saying that, as he appeared for the petitioner, it would embarrass him to open the case without knowing what she would say. MRS. CRAWFORD IN THE WITNESS-BOX: SENSATIONAL EVIDENCE. Mrs. Crawford was then called, and, in answer to the judge, said she was willing to give evidence. Her husband's evidence on the last occasion was true, and it was true she had committed adultery with Sir Charles Dilke. By Mr. Matthews: She was married in July, 1881. She was then ei^Jiteen years old. She saw Sir Charles soon after. Her husband was not present. Sir Charles made love to her prior to that, before she was married, in her mother's house. When he saw her after her marriage he kissed her. Her husband was secretary to the Lord Advocate. On the 13th of February in the next year they came to London again, and went to Sydney-place soon after. The next morning sha saw Sir Charles Dilke. who asked her to meet him at another house. She refused for a long time, and said she did not know what he meant. He explained, and after a long time she consented. He described the bouse, but would not let her write it down. It was on the north side of Warren-street. There were three bells, and she was to go in a hansom on the following Thursday. She was to change hansoms on the road, get out at the corner of the street, walk to the bouse, and ring a bell. The door would be opened by a woman. She was to go upstairs; she would be in a back room she was to speak to no one. She followed his directions and found herself in a bedroom, where Sir Charles was waiting. The curtains were drawn. Ho told her the house be- longed to an old servant. She made use of it when she wanted it. Did he commit adultery with you on that occa- sion ?—Yes, he did. It was Thursday, February 23. The letters C. W. D. in the diary refer to Sir Charles. She wrote them at the time. She stayed with him about an hour, and left first, by his directions. She next saw him on the 6th of May in the same house by previous arrangement. Mr. Crawford went down that morning to Oxford, and she followed him by a later train. The same woman opened the door as before. Sir Charles arrived later. She again committed adultery with him and left first. She had never been to that house since. Except what she heard from Sir Charles, she had no knowledge of the house in Warren-street or the woman connected with it. After May, 1883, she saw Sir Charles from time to time. He called a few times at Sydney-place, but she used tp go to his house. She usually reached there between 11.15 and 11.30 by Sir Charles's arrangement. Her husband never knew of the visits. Sir Charles used to watch for her arrival, and generally admitted her. She went into the Blue Room, and from thence Sir Charles took her to his bedroom upstairs. First of all he shut Mr. Bodley's door, and then she ran up as lightly as possible. Except with Sir Charles sho had never been in the bedroom. They stayed in the bedroom from a quarter to half an hour, and sometimes longer. He left first, and after he had gone Sarah used to come in and help her to dress and would let her out, generally waiting till Mr. Bodley had gone. No other servant saw her leave. There were five or six such visits in 1382. She saw Sir Charles on the 7th of December that year, and told him her husband was going North that night, and she was staying till the next day. She dined that evening at her sister's, and at ten o'clock met Sir Charles, who took her home, and she spent the night with him. She went home between three and four o'clock in the morning, and let her- self in with a latchkey. Sarah let her out of the house. She returned to London on the 13th of February following, and by arrangement made in December Sir Charles called and saw her at the house in Young-street. At his request she spent the next night at his house. She went to his house at nine o'clock. She at once went to bed and to sleep, but she thought Sir Charles arrived at eleven o'clock, saying he had been addressing a large meeting. She left the next morning just before eight and went straight home, her parlourmaid letting her in. Her husband arrived an hour afterwards from Edinburgh, for she just had time to have her bath and dress. The court then adjourned for luncheon. On resuming after luncheon. Mrs. Crawford said I did not on any other occasion, except the 7th of December and the 13th of February, sleep in Sir Charles Dilke's house. I have heard that in my confession to Mr. Crawford I staterllhat I slept at Sir Charles Dilke's house on the 12th and 13th of February. I think that was a mistake. I did not tell him I slept there two consecutive nights. I told him I slept there two nights. I saw Sirrharles Dilke constantly during the summer of 1883. He used to call upon me at 27, Young-street, between half-past eleven and a quarter to twelve in the morning. During that summer I think I must have been at Sir Charle" Dilke's houso eight or ten times. I should say he called upon me half a dozen times at Young-street. Adultery took place between us at Young-street, as well as at his • wn house. When Sir Charles came I generally pulled the blind half way down the window, and then nobody could see into the room. He used to talk to me about my mother sometimes. He told me he was her lover. He said I was very like my mother, and that was why he took a fancy to me. I think it was in the summer of 1883 that he first mentioned Fanny to me. He said she was a girl who used to sin with him, and who spent the night at his house. Yes, what else ?—He told me she WRS very nice, and that she was quite young. He asked me if I would not like to see her at his house. I said I would not like to see her at ail. He talked to me about her several times. He said she was supposed to be in service. I asked him how he got hold of her. He said he got hold of her through Sarah. She was supposed by her parents to be in service in London, aod-be used to make her write letters to her parents and say she was getting on nicely. She used to live in lodgings close to Sloane- I street, and was let into his house in the evening about nine o'clock when the servants were at supper. She was let in bv Sarah. She used to spend the night at his house, and Sarah let her out again. Did you ever see the person who was called Fanny ?—Yes. When did you first see her ?—I cannot remember the exact date, but I think it must have been in August, 1883. 1 must ask you to tell us the circumstances under which you saw her. First of all, where were you ?—I was at Sir Charles Dilke's house. He asked me to see her several times, but I never would. He said he wanted to see us together, and one day, when I was at Sir Charles Dilke's house talking to him, he said she was in the house then. and he asked me if I would see her, but I did not want to at all. I said I would not. Then he went upstairs, and after I had been upstairs in his bed- room for a minute or two he brought Fanny in. Was she dressed or undressed ? Witness: My lord, is it necessary that I should answer that question? Mr. Matthews: Very well; I will not ask that. What happened?—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, as I could not bear having her there, and he sent her away, and told me that I should never see her again, as I did not want to She went back to where she had come from. Yes. Was that the adjoining room?—Yes, the adjoining room. When did you see her again?—I saw her again in the spring of 1884, when I came back to London. He spoke to me about her a great many times, and asked me to see her again, and I did not want to at all, only he always insisted upon it. She was brought into the room one day when I was there, and she remained for a minute. I asked him to send her away, and he sent her away. Did you ever see her again?—Yes, I saw her, I think, about a week or a fortnight after that, again. Where?—At Sir Charles Dilke's house, in the same way. He told me I was very silly not to like to see her. He was rather vexed about it, so to please him, I let her stay longer, and she was in the room about ten minutes or so with Sir Charles and me, and then, when Sir Charles left, she helped me to dress. Were you all there in bed together?—Yes. Did Sarah help you to dress?—Yes, and she let me out afterwards. Did you have any conversation with Fanny?— Yes. She told me very much what Sir Charles Dilke had told me about her. She told me she was living near Sloane-street, and that she was nine- teen. Did you know at all what Fanny's surname was? —No, not at all. Did you know she was the sister of Sarah at that time ?—No, not at all. Will you just look at that photograph and say who you can see there ? (Photograph banded to witness.)—It is Fanny. Witness continued: We left London at the end of August, 1883. I think we returned to Young- street in February, 1884. I had a sore throat during the August of that year, and I remember Mrs. Rogerson coming to see me. I had had a conversation with Sir Charles Dilke about her before, and he told me she was a great friend of his, and that I should like her. He told me that she knew all about our intimacy, and, believing that, I spoke quite openly to her, otherwise I should not have mentioned the matter. I have frequently spoken to her about Sarah. Did Mrs. Rogerson, after August, give you any advice?—Yes, she asked me to break off the con- nection with Sir Charles Dilke, and I, more or less, promised to do so. She was very anxious upon that point. Nothing, however, was definitely settled, but I spoke to Sir Charles Dilke about it. During the autumn session he had tea at our house on two occasions, and on tho first, having arrived late, my sister and others there left before he did. We had & conversation for ten minutes or a quarter of an hour, and I said there must be nothing more between us. We did not quarrel, and I told him the advice Mrs. Rogerson had given me. Was that advice acted upon ?—Yes, it was. And I never saw Sir Charles Dilke alone again, and he never came to see me after the autumn. You say there was no quarrel?—None whatever. We had rather a quarrel in the summer of that year. I wanted to break off the intimacy before I saw Mrs. Rogerson, but we made it up again. What did Sir Charles Dilke say when you pro- posed to break off the intimacy ? He begged me not to do so. I remember Mr. Crawford bringing home an annonymous letter he had received at the Home Office. It said Your wife has been seduced by Sir Charles Dilke she has been his mistress since shortly after her marriage, and the connection is still going on. She has spent two nights at his houle, and is known by sight to his ler- vants. My husband put the letter in the fire, and told me not to tell Sir Charles Dilke about it. I thought it right he should know that these letters were being written, so I went to Mrs. Rogerson and explained the matter, and understood from her that she had told Sir Charles Dilke. Subse- quently my husband came home, and said he did not know what was the matter with Sir Charles Dilke, but that he had met him, and Sir Charles appeared startled and did not speak. He asked me if I had told Sir Charles about the letter, and 1 said" No." I also said I had not told Mrs. Rogerson. Do you remember the Metropole letter being shown to you in June, 1885 ?—Yes; as a fact I had lunched there, and on the same day I was at Mrs. Rogerson's Captain Forster and I went there to tea. I do not think there was anyone else there. We told Mrs. Rogers that we had lunched at the Hotel Metropole, and no mystery was made about it at the time. I am afraid Mr. Crawford did not know any- thing about it ?—No; I do not think anyone except Mrs. Rogerson knew. The letter produced is very much like her handwriting—the envelope more particularly. The letter reached my husband the day after I had been to the Hotel Metropole. As far as I know, no one knew of our having been there except Mrs. Rogerson. I was not at the time on speaking terms with my mother, and had not been since my marriage. Are your sisters on speaking terms with her?— None of my married ones neither Mrs. Asbton Dilke nor Mrs. Harrison. On the 17th of July an anonymous letter came to the house, and my husband woke me up after I had been in bed. I made a confession which, I think, he has accurately stated. What were the motives which induced you to make the confession to your husband?—The anonymous letter made my husband very sus- picious. I knew it was not any good for me to keep it from him any longer, and I was extremely miserable. I had never been happy with him at all. Have you anything to add?—That he had sus- pected me in various ways, and I thought he should rather know the truth. Had he ever been unkind to you ?—He never meant to be unkind. Until your intimacy with Sir Charles Dilke, were you not on terms of affection with him ?—I was never in love with him at all. I married him because all my people wanted me to do so. He is very much my senior. I had told -Mrs. Rogerson I should tell my husband, and I made up my mind to confess everything. I had no conversation with Captain Forster on the subject. Have you any opinion as to the writer of the last anonymous letter ?—I should not like to say. Until you went to Warren-street to see Sir Charles Dilke, had you been unfaithful to your husband ?—No, never. On the day after I made my confession I left my husband's house by his desire and went to my sister's. I afterwards saw Mrs. Rogerson. I told her I had informed my husband all about Sir Charles Dilke, and she appeared much horrified, and said it would ruin him. I repeated my statement, at my husband's request, to Mr. Stewart. The President: Is it necessary to go into that part of the case any further? Mr. Matthews: It is very difficult to separate it The President: Very well. Examination continued :— The morning after that did you see anybody else ? —Sir Charles Dilke called either on the Monday or the Tuesday, and my sister, Mrs Ashton Dilke, came down and spoke to him, afterwards telling me that he wanted to speak to me. I then went down, What took place between you aad Sir Charles Dilke?—He began by telling me what would happen if I persisted in making this statement about him; that it would ruin me and my family and ruin him, and asked whether it would not be better if I said that when I u;ade the statement I was hysterical. That would prevent the case coming into court. I told him that I had made the statement and that I should have to adhere to it. He said that if I made the denial it would be corroborated by doctors, and that it would be better for me. Be wished me to sign a denial then and there of what I had stated, but I declined to do so, because it would be untrue. He threatened that if I per- sisted he would state that I had carried on with other men, and told me he should not care what he did to ruin me or anyone of my family. I then told him to do his worst. Was anything said about your visit to Mr. Stewart ?—Yes, he knew I was going to see Mr. Stewart that morning. He talked to me about the matter, and asked me not to see him or to take any steps for two days, and then something might be done to shut the whole matter up. I agreed not to see Mr. Stewart that morning, and I wrote saying that I would not see him until the arrival of my father. My sister was in the billiard-room adjoining, but I do not think she could hear all the conversation. She told Sir Charles Dilko that she would not allow me to sign anything, and that I must not take any step without due thought. At this point Mrs. Crawford exhibited indica- tions of fainting, but after the application of a smelling-bottle and a drink of water she was able to resume, permission being given by the President for her to remain seated. Do you remember on any occasion that you were in Sir Charles Dilke's bedroom seeing anybody besides Fanny?—Yes, I once saw someone at the door dressed like a servant. At the time you made your confession did you know the number of the house in Warren-street ? —No but I told my husband that I could recog- nise it. describing it as a house off Tottenham- court-road. Last November I was in the neigh- bourhood. and at once recognised it, looked at the number and put it down on paper. Since then I have remembered that it was the address given to me. Mr. George Lewis is acting as your solicitor ?— Yes. When did you communicate with him?—Soon afterwards. Are you with your sister now ?—-Yes. I am staying with my sister. Mrs. Ashton Dilke. I have been abroad since the last trial and only returned about ten days ago. Who were you with abroad ?—I stayed with a Mr. and Mrs. Congreve at San Remo. He used to be consul there. Then you have been in the charge of your sister or this lady ever since?—Yes, ever since. Cross-examined by Sir W. Phillimore: I am quite sure that Sir C. Dilke threatened to bring up matters that would be painful to my family. I had not a very close knowledge of Sir Charles beforn my marriage. I used to see a good deal of him when I was a child, but I had seen very little of him two or three years preceding my marriage. When he made love to mo at Bailey's Hotel I resented it, but he told me I need not mind, as he was a connection. He kissed me. Anything else ?—I really cannot tell you the j details. No letters or communication passed i between us. I did not tell my husband what had happened, nor anybody. I did not try to stop his coming to see me again. Did you understand that you were to go to Warren-street to be seduced by him ?—Yes, I understood him to mean that. It was more than three years afterwards that I made the confession to my husband. I had. then forgotten the name of the street. I described the house to him. Tho initials "C. W. D." in my diary on March 23 would be placed there at about that date. 1 really could not say whether it was a memorandum of an appointment to keep or of one that had been kept. The initials F. W." on the 25th of May refer to Mr. Frederick Warren. I fancy he came to see me on that day, but I have no recollection. There is no special meaning in those initials. The initials on the 23rd of November in pencil, R, C. P. mean Robert Priestly. There is nothing special in it. He may have como to tea on that afternoon. The entry on the 4th of January, 1884, H. F," refers to Captain Forster. The entry has no special meaning. On the 3rd of March there is an entry H. F. comes." That means Captain Forster comes. I am not quite sure whether that is a record of his first visit. In the diary of June 12 there is another record, H. F. leaves"; that must be when ho was leaving town. Those entries of the three sets of initials are not meant as records of my committing adultery with these three people. They are records of their coming to tea or some- thing of that sort. The first anonymous letter referred to St. George's Hospital. I used to go there. Mr. Warner was a student there, but I never saw him there, nor did I speak to any of the students. Mr. Priestly was never a student there. My relation left St. George's in March. Have you been guilty of any immoral relations with Captain Forster? Witness (having applied to thp. Lord President to know whether she was obliged to answer the question, and his Lordship having intimated, that ir, was necessary for her to do so, after some hesi- tation) Yes, I hve. When didthoso relations begin?—In 1C84. The letter which has been referred to was in the handwriting of Captain Forster. That letter has 1)een destroyed. I never keep letters. I had determined to sea Captain Forster in Dublin at about Easter, 1883. I did not tell my husband I was going to Dublin. 1 told him I was going to with Mrs. Rogerson. During 1885 I from time to time saw Captain Forster at Mrs. Rogerson's, but we never met without her absolute knowledge and approvai. I had not seen Captain Forster for quite a month before I mado my statement to my husband. The lunch at the Metropole was early in Jum. I knew that Mrs. Ashton Dilke knew Capt. Forster was & friend of mine. 1 knew Sir Charles Dilke spoke to her about the matter. 1 likewise under- stood that Sir Charles had made some threats with regard to Captain Forster. I spok" to Captain Forster bout it, and he told me that he had had n letter from Sir Charles Dilke. He said he con- sidered that very interfering. He and I wero both vexed on tho occasion of the last anonymous lettor coming to the house. There had been no talk of a marriage between Captain Forster and myself, as In was engaged to be married to Miss Smith-Barry, and he, in fact, married her shortly afterwards. I knew that all the time I was com- mitting acts of adultery with Captain Forster. Did you desire a divorce from your husband?— I did not wish to live with him any longer. Did you wieh to be free to marry someone else ? —I do not know that I had r, wish about that. Now, with regard to this anonymous letter. Did you leave it lying on the table or did you put it on the mantelpiece?—I think I left it lying on the table. Did you leave it in such a place that Mr. Craw- ford would see it when he came in ?—Yes. Did you think this was an anonymous letter accusing yon ?—I thought it looked like an anony- mous letter. What nadí) you think it an anonymous letter ? —I did not know the handwriting at all. 1 can't say exactly why I thought it was an anonymous letter, but I did. Did you see the first anonymous letter ?—Yes. In whose handwriting was it?—1 never thought. I knew who had actually written it. With regard to the second did you cay to Mr. Crawford "That is mother"?—Yes, but I want to say that I thought it waa mother who had had it written. Do you think your mother had anything to do with writing the third or fourth letters?—I thought they were all my mother's, because I had no reason to suspect anyone else. I was always suspicious, though, of the third anonymous letter, the Metropole one, as the others always referred to Sir Charles Dilke, and this didn't refer to him. Do you think all but the third were the con- trivance of your mother ?—I think the first two are, and I think the fourth is, but I am not so certain about the fourth as rvbout the other two. Had not Mr. Crawford been complaining to you about Captain Forster in 1885 ii-No, I don't think he complained to me about Captain Forster until after the receipt of thi anonymous letter. Did you tell Ann Harrison that she might tell Mr. Crawford all (lhc knew about Sir Charles Dilke ?—Yes. Did you tell her the might tell him about Capt. Forster ?—No. Had she been posting letters from you to Captain Forster ?—Yes. Do you remember Mrs. Rogerson sending you a letter ndjresed in her handwriting from Captain Forster a. week or so after you left Mrs. Crawford?—Yes, I had one from Captain Forster. Have you got that letter ?—No. Do you remember what was in it?—He said he was sorry I had left my husband. Was not that letter one in reply to th9 ono you had written him ?—Yes. I wroto to him after I had left Mr. Crawford, and told him Mr. Crawford was going to have a divorce caso. Did you not ask him to marry you ?—No, never. And did not Captain Forster refuso to marry you? —He certainly did not refuse to marry me, because I never asked him such a question. He had never referred to marriage ?—No abso- lutely no. There was never any question of the kini between us. Did you not also tell Mrs. Rogerson that you ha-1 been guilty of adultery with thoso other two people ii-No. never. I have never been guilty with cither of them. I knew Mrs. Chatfield when I was a child. I went to Sir Charles Dilke's when I was a child. I went into the sitting-room. I do not think I was shown over the rooms. I remember his taking me and my sister into the sitting-room upstairs. I used to go there some- times t'1 see Mrs. Chatfield. I was only once upstairs, on tho occasion mentioned. I was not often in the house before I was married. I have no recollection of seeing Sarah then. I gave a description of Sir Charles Dilke's bedroom to the solicitor before I heard Ellen Drake's evidence. I have no distinct recollection of having made the engagement with him to o to Warren-street. On leaving Warren-street I went to Sidney-place, and then to the station t" leave for Oxford-street. I do not remember what train I went by. It possibly wa3 the 2.15 train. I have not met any person I recognise as having seen in Warren-street, except the woman who let me in. You say that Sir Charles Dilke told you it was the house of an old servant that he made use of when he wanted?—Yes, that was the explanation he me. What did you understand by made use of for certain purposes ?—Yes, that is what I gathered. Sir Charles Dilke told me that Fanny was a girl whom Sarah had found for him. He never told me that Fanny was Sarah's sister. I first learnt that from Mrs. Rogerson. Fanny's name was mentioned between myself and Mrs. Rogerson. Sir Charles Dilke certainly told me that Fanny was his mistress. It must hav* been in 1884 that Sir Charles Dilke told me that he had been my mother's lover. He told me so by degrees. Of course I knew he had been an intimate for many years. I never heard that he had been my mother's lover, until Sir Charles Dilke told me himself after he became my lover. I never heard it frwm anyone else but Sir Charles Dilke. It was more or less known in the family, but it was not a subject we were likely to discuss. I think I implied it t" my husband. Of course I did not put it positively. That was before I made the confession. I remem- ber drawing down the blinds in Young-street when Sir Charles Dilke was coming to call. Sometimes ho would call without my knowing that he was coming. I may have drawn down the blinds on some occa- sions after he came. I did not say I absolutely pulled the blind down. I said I generally did it, but I may not have done so on the occasions wheh I did not know ho was coming. The coachman might have seen into the room if he pulled up the carriage so that it was straight opposite the window, but Sir Charles Dilke often told him to turn round, and if the carriage were turned round the coachman could not see into the room. The house was situated in the borough of which Sir C. Dilke was member. The longest time Sir C. Dilke stayed in Young-street was twenty minutes or half an hour. Generally, he did not stay more than a quarter of an hour or twenty minutes. I used to go at 11.15 to his house. Of course I had to be very careful, and if 1 saw anyone at the door I used to walk past and come back. There was a policeman on duty there. I never met anybody except Sir C. Dilke and Sarah there. Mrs. Crawford was still under cross-examination when the Court adjourned. FIFTH DA) In the Divorce Division of the Hign oourt of Justice on Wednesday the Right Hon. the President (Sir James Hannen) and a special jury again had before them, for the fifth day, the further hearing of the case of Crawford v. Crawford (the Queen's Proctor showing cause). In proportion as the case steadily approaches a conclusion so does public interest increase. In addition to the crowded condition of the c&urt itself, its corridor approaches were literally mocked by a large number of the public and barristers in wig and gown alike clamorous for admission, whilst a large crowd remained in waiting all day at the front entrance to the building, in the hope of catching a glimpse either of Sir Charles Dilke or Mrs. Crawford. CROSS-EXAMINATION OF MRS. CRAWFORD. Immediately after Sir James Hannen had taken his seat on the bench, punctually at half-past ten, Mrs Crawford entered the court, escorted by Mr. George Lewis, and at once walked with a firm step to the witness-box to be further cross- examined by Sir Walter Phillimore. She said The porch door at Sir Charles pllke. s house pro- jects a little, so that anybody either in the dtnmg- room or the apartment adjoining could see a person through the side of the door. I usually approached the house from the Kensington side. I never said that Sir Charles Dilke usually took me into the dining-room. He always had time to come down from his conservatory outlook and open the door for IDG Were your visits in 1883 irregular ?—Yes. Were the appointments made by letters sent to the Reform Club from time to time?—Some- times, but very often they were made from one I time to another to avoid writing. Did you ever mention anything about the Reform i Club to your husband?—No, I don't think so, although I might have referred to it at the time of my confession; but 1 have no recollection of doing 'III so. I might have mentioned it to Mr. Geoff b, Lewis the day after I returned from abroad, on tho U 8th of July, but cannot say whthter it was iDelUdei 81 in my statement. t ft About this occasion, when a woman came In I the bedroom and saw you, you say you were nO ti fully dressed. Did you mention that C3!1JO t< before ?—I do not think I did e: You state that when you 'Qnt to Sloane-str< you did not go to the door whpn vnll sa S people come. Are you aware that at that I,oU ii people would be leaving the house ?—I J there would be. » Was there any way of avoiding them ?—IN* t And did you, on any single occasion, & t t anyone coming out?—I have no recollection 0 t. havin» done so. I might have done. < Now, as to sleeping in the house on the 7th0 t December, 1882. When did you fix that as beiD» the occasion of your first visit ?—I have alW&Yr ) known the fact, and I think I mentioned it to W" t Lewis before I went abroad.. k 1 Did you mention it to your husband ?—I thIn not, but I answered every question he put to o1' As to the note in your diary. You told us c you went out and dined on the occasion of 111 8 appointment with Sir Charles Dilke ?—I 1 to Hans-place. 1 Now, as to the meeting at Kensington You say you left home at nine o'clock, and wl>i's? ] waiting you fell asleep in Sir Charles Dilke's hoU^j < —Yes. I did not attend that meeting, but < with Mrs. Ashton Dilke to another political ing there.. You are perfectly certain that you were not 0° two nights before your husband reached from Edinburgh on the 14th of February, No, it was only the preceding night. Did you not tell your husband that you weI1 two or three nights at Sir Charles Dilke's hOIl:, before he came to town?—No, the seconu m?" was in December. The evidence of Ann Jamie9", is wrong about my going out the second night, ap I pointed out the error to Mr. Lewis. When I Ie ø Sir Charles Dilke's house he asked me to tur down the little street opposite his house, and to walk along Sloane-street, so that I should be observed by anyone, and I did as he request me. Did Sarah dress you on that occasion or did dress yourself?—She brought me some tea, a". may have been in the room. She accompanJ me downstairs. e You say Fanny used to be let in about nlo o'clock in the evening ?—Yes I think so. And left there every night?—I understood fro him that she left there most nights. That was during the Parliamentary Session Yes.. When he would not be home, possibly, till 01" past two or three o'clock ?—Possibly not. Did you ask what she did when she came I nine O'clock—what she did between that tl and Sir Charles Dilke's coming home?—1 dQo, remember asking such a question. „ Do you mean to suggest that you never sJ anyone but Sarah?—Yes. E On the occasion when she came to you with t tea, do you say she came into Sir Charles DJlIcenl bedroom ?—Yes; and she came out of the i room, which opened into the bedroom. I sa that Sir Charles Dilke told me that Fanny j supposed to be living at Brixton in a place. '9 have no doubt that 1 mentioned it to Mr. Le",1 d my solicitor, last autumn. Sir Charles had ste.. that she was with Mrs. Rogerson for some He told me that Mrs. Rogerson was his He said so when he asked me to make 1 acquaintance of Mrs. Rogerson. He asked I would like to meet her at my house, and I S&I I would rather not. He told me that Fanny his mistress, and he told me about my mother about Mrs. Rogerson. < Did he say that all four had been his mistress# —Yes. You believed Mrs. Rogerson was his mistrrjj and you kept on making statements to her ?"n she denied it. When 1 was II ill" and I sent for Mrs. Rogerson, whose acquaintance C. Dilke wished me to make. I asked to come. I continued to confide in her u to the time of the rupture with husband. I always thought that she was friend, and I believe I described her to my bUs as my kindest friend. I did not think that Rogerson had writ ten the letter about the luncbeOJG with Captain Forster at the Hotel Metropole. was only within the last few days that I tboog that she had anything to do with it. When I s the Hotel Metropole letter I was struck by It resemblance to the writing of Mrs. Rogerson*. havo had letters from Mrs. Rogerson while j was ill. It was not very different, ? > it was shaky." I know her handwrJ^ extremely well. (Witness pointed out that "C" in Crawford and the capital II F" in Fors were like Mrs. Rogerson's writing.) sø. Can you give any reason why Mrs. Rogr èd should write that letter ?—Yes, because she w*s\sjj my husband to put the suspicion on Cap^vJJ Forster and to conceal Sir Charles Dilke. That was received in June, and the intimacy Sir Charles Dilke and myself broke off in July or August of the previous year, Mrs. Rogeø knew from me that my husband and I were bad terms. I knew that Mr. Crawford had cion of Captain Forster. I do not thiok that at p. time he had any suspicion of Sir C. Dilke, he was generally suspicious of my relations men. I did not find any difficulty in inducIng bO husband to believe that it was Sir C. Dilke ad seduced me. I did tell my husband that he D got hold of the wrong man in Captain Forster. Is it true that you said: "He was thund struck and could not believe it, and I had to into the whole question. I told him that we to a house in Tottenham-court-road." Is correct?—Yes, I think so. I have never told O. Rogerson that my husband had suspicions of Dilke. Most decidedly Mrs. Rogerson forwarded øbø meetings with Capt. Forster. I understand that or' knew my relations with Captain Forster were C than flirtations. I do not believe that the an jg, mous letters, which I believe Mrs. Rogerson exposed Captain Forster. I do not think the e » dence of the sisters Dalgleish to be very correSl¡ In the autumn of 1884 we took lodgings a.c(ke'» Sloane-street, within fifteen doors of Sir C. D'1' house. We took the house because it was c venient. We had two tea parties there, when 1\1 tØ Ashton Dilke and her children attended the parties. Sir C. Dilke requested them to be he j Family affairs were talked of at those parties. » had promised Mrs. Rogerson that I would off the connection with Sir C. Dilke when lodgings in Sloane-street. I did not watch Dilke after we went to live there. I used his carriage at the door, and I have passed blot once or twice at the door, but I certainly did watch. I knew Sir C. Dilke before my He used to call me Nia." Mr. Crawford used object to me speaking of him as Charlie," aDd of me as Nia." One anonymous letter, yott will see, begøl "Fool, looking for the cuckoo when he has fiO tJlS after he has defiled your nest." Who was cuckoo ?—I suppose it means Captain Forster. j By flown" you think it means leaving —No answer. ot Come, now, think it orer. Do you think it n,ea(j« London?—Yes. I do not know that aavb°0f except Mrs. Rogerson knew of the movement3 Captain Forster. I knew. Then the letter goes on, II You have been fou Ifc deceived, but dare not touch the real traitor." whom do you think that alludes ?—I pose it would be Sir Charles Dilke. husband did not show the letter to r I. I daresay that you dare not touch the trait^ referred to Sir Charles Dilke lest he damage his (Mr. Crawford's) political prospeC Before the last letter about Captain For9 arrived I was on bad terms with my We hardly ever spoke. I felt very certain tha1 j mother had written the letter. I was on ,)9 terms with my husband a fortnight before d ø anonymous letter came. In June, 1884-, we ha Jtle row about Captain Forster, and he made promise not to see him again. I had been seeb8 him the whole season, but he did not come to £ house, I told Captain Forster about 1 letter and he left town that week. 1 that my husband was suspicious g Captain Forster, but nothing more. Nothing was said about Captain Forster until the seCCljrf anonymous letter about him was received. t husband began to watch me. He went out office just before that time, and he had nothj £ else to do. When I went out he alwavs looked my letters before I got them. I don't think opened the Ill, but he asked me where they came fr16 I do not believe I thought that there was a detef watching me at the time. Mrs. Rogerson afterwards that I had been watched, but I did know if it was true. Between June and July 0^ or two letters passed between Captain Forster me. Most likely I posted them myself. I use go to the post-office for letters 11 SO Now, on your oath, did you not write, or 08 to be written, the last anonymous letter .j. Certainly not; I knew nothing whatever aboU until after it was received. The" C. M. Crawfo^ may be like mine, but I swear I never The "F" crossed in purple ii/^ could not \g been written by me, as 1 never used any P11^- ink. I never made a D like that one in crp ford, 1 remember Mr. Stewart writing war*1 0 me that Sir Charles Dilke intended to den? charge of aduliery. I answered a letter sta1' s "Sir Charles Dilke alleges that the cllarg O' against him are false, and are the result of a c spiracy against him by you and others." lam horribly frightened at Sir Chas. Dilke's ing the case, which is complicated so I went to Edinburgh last autumn to see my lle. band. He refused to see me, and wrote me a ^00't I wrote on a scrap of paper a note, You understand; lonly want to help you, and I cø/J do nothing unless you see me. You must for your own sake, please." I wanted to see 11 and to know really what he was going to do, "t. nobody seemed to know exactly. I saw him at$ wards for a few minutes. He refused to me. When 1 made the statement to 1 probably said, Well, after all you had better have a divcrce." I it was in November that 1 left Mrs. Dilke at Maple's to go and find the house off tenham-court-road. Mrs. Ashton Dilke had tl to in the interval mentioned the Swiss me. Sir C. Dilke never told me the name of Davis. Was this a matter of affection between Sir Charles Dilke?—Yes, of course, I was fond of Sir Charles Dilke. 9 oC Did you tell your husband that there affection between you on either side ?—Of CO at the time when I made the confession. sídØl You say that there was affection on and you believe on the side of Sir Charles Dtlk I naturally supposed there was. rT°' Were you jealous of the other mistresses ?—-Disil You were not ? Did your affection when Sir Charles Dilke told you of them ?—1 very much horrified. otbet Did it diminish when he told you about thei mistresses?—It did diminish when he expec to meet Fanny at his house. he^ Were you content to go and visit it after you ferf him say that Fanny slept with hiin nearly 6 øight ií-Yes. MRS. CRAWFORD RE-EXAMINED. eØf Witness was then re-examined by Mr. in reply to whom she said: I was first introo.ggj. to Captain Forster on the 15th of February, ^0 My chief intimacy with him was in 1885.