Sir Charles Dilke was born in 1843 and died in 1911. His career is one of the mysteries and tragedies of nineteenth-century history.
In the summer of 1885 he was the youngest man in the outgoing cabinet and Gladstone's most likely successor as leader of the Liberal Party. But his great expectations were shattered when in July 1885 Donald Crawford, a Liberal candidate, began divorce proceedings against his twenty-two-year-old wife, citing Dilke as co-respondent. There were two hearings, during the second of which Mrs Crawford made the most sensational allegations and in the end Dilke lost. He maintained his innocence to his dying day and despite his public disgrace there were many who believed him.
First published in 1958, Dilke is a story with a climax as exciting as it is mysterious and which bears continuing relevance to the private lives of public figures.
Roy Harris Jenkins, Baron Jenkins of Hillhead OM PC was a Welsh politician. Once prominent as a Labour Member of Parliament (MP) and government minister in the 1960s and 1970s, he became the first (and so far only) British President of the European Commission (1977-81) and one of the four principal founders of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) in 1981. He was also a distinguished writer, especially of biographies.
A great “what if” of English politics: the rising radical politician Charles Dilke - tipped for the premiership by many, including Disraeli - has his career destroyed in the 1890s when named as the co-respondent in a notorious divorce case. Jenkins is a very smooth writer and he navigates the torturous path of the divorce cases with some skill. It’s hard to believe, on Jenkins’ narrative, that Dilke could have been guilty of the acts detailed by Mrs. Crawford. That said, the narrative doesn’t give enough about the strange world of Victoria sexuality. Dilke, impressively hard working in office, had an active social life which needs examination and contextualization. If he wasn’t guilty of adultery with Mrs Crawford, the reasons why she (possibly with others) targeted him remain obscure. There was some aspect of Dilke’s private conduct that attracted attention, at least among elite circles. He was the target of a long term anonymous letter campaign that is insufficiently explained; he had a long relationship with his second wife while she was still married (unhappily); he didn’t testified in the first divorce trial because of fears he’d be questioned about “indiscretions”; and Jenkins buries in a footnote the report of a neighbor of Dilke’s in the south of France that he had a relationship with a very young French woman. The rigid divorce laws and the insistence on impeccable public behavior virtually ensured that people committed adultery.