The introduction to the papers was written by Stephen Roskill in March 1974.

Charles Wentworth Dilke (CWD) and Virginia Mary Crawford (VMC): The purpose of this archive is to bring together in convenient form papers concerning the two chief actors in perhaps the most notorious politico-social drama of the 19th century - namely the two law suits involving Right Hon Sir Charles Wentworth Dilke, Bart, MP (1843-1911) and Mrs Virginia Mary Crawford (1863-1948) the wife of Donald Crawford, MP. The first of the two cases was Crawford's petition for divorce from Virginia Crawford, in which he cited Charles WD as co-respondent. For reasons given by CWD's counsel, which now seem ill-advised, he did not go into the witness box at this trial. The second, and more sensational trial took place when, at CWD's request, the Queen's Proctor intervened to show reason why the divorce decree granted to Crawford should not be made absolute. This trial took place in an atmosphere already poisoned against CWD by W T Stead and others, and in it CWD was denied legal representation. He was subjected to a very rigorous cross-examination by Henry Mathews, appearing for Crawford, and proved an extremely bad witness. The intervention by the Queen's Proctor was unsuccessful, and so CWD's name was not cleared - as had been his object.

The political interest in the above cases lies chiefly in the fact that, but for the success of Donald Crawford in obtaining a divorce from VMC and the subsequent failure of CWD to establish his innocence, CWD could well have succeeded Gladstone as leader of the Liberal Party, and would then have been likely to become Prime Minister instead of Campbell-Bannerman in 1905.

But the divorce cases also provide the background for an interesting study in late 19th century social history and mores; and it is partly for this reason that it has been thought worth while to bring these papers together. It should however be made plain that, although the papers throw interesting light on the background, upbringing and character of both CWD and VMC, the student who may hope to find here the long-sought answer to the question 'Which was the guilty (or guiltier) party?' will be disappointed.

It is possible that, sooner or later, another attempt will be made to produce a balanced biography of CWD with an accurate and unbiased account of the divorce case. In fact, as recently as 1973, it seemed probable that such a project would be undertaken, but it fell through on account of pressure of other work on the would-be biographer. It is chiefly in the hope that this collection will be useful to a future biographer's understanding of both CWD and VMC, of their families and circumstances, and of the society in which they moved that this collection has been assembled. It must of course be regarded as supplementary to the main collection of CWD's papers (such of them as survived the holocaust in which he indulged in 1910), which are now lodged in the British Museum.

Ashton Wentworth Dilke: AWD was a remarkable man in his own right - MP (Liberal), Newspaper Proprietor (Weekly Despatch, at whose offices he printed several other journals), extensive traveller in European Russia and in Siberia at a time when this was far from easy, co-author with CWD of a book on Russia published by Murray, and friend of many Russian intellectuals and writers, including Turgeniev. When living at Algiers he produced what The Times described as 'an excellent translation' of one of Turgeniev's works 'for amusement [and] in the absence of any dictionaries and published without revision'.

Thomas Eustace Smith: Here we must turn to the family of Thomas Eustace Smith, MP (1831-1903), son of the founder of Smith's Docks of North Shields, Newcastle and Middlesborough. He is reputed to have been a man of great wealth and of even greater extravagance. In 1855 Eustace Smith married Mary Martha Dalrymple by whom he had 10 children (6 daughters and 4 sons). The eldest daughter was Maye (1856-1914), the wife of AWD and maternal grandmother of the Roskill brothers, and the fourth was Virginia Mary ('Nia') the VMC referred to above. Thus the Roskill brothers are in the singular position of being great-nephews of both the respondent and co-respondent in the divorce case of 1886.

Enthoven: The Enthoven Section (Section 12) was given to the Archives Centre of Mr Roderick Enthoven and his sister Mrs Marion Rawson (hereafter RE and MR). Their mother was Linda, the youngest daughter of the Eustace Smith family, who married Ernest Enthoven. They are therefore first cousins once removed of the Roskill brothers. During the latter part of VMC's long life, she devoted her energies to the Roman Catholic Church, to Local Government politics in the Labour Party interest in London (she was a Councillor of the Borough of St Marylebone) and to anti-Fascist causes in Spain and Italy. She was prepared for the Roman Catholic Church by Cardinal Manning and received into the Church by Father Robert Butler on 4 February 1889. During this period no-one knew her better than RE and MR, and she appointed the former as her residuary legatee and Literary Executor.

It is not intended here to enter into the question of the relative 'guilt' or 'innocence' of either party in the divorce case. Only three persons probably knew the whole truth - CWD, VMC and Father Butler. The first spent a great part of his last 25 years trying to establish his innocence in the eyes of posterity; the second never spoke openly about her part in the case, though she did at various times drop what may be significant hints to RE and MR. Those hints will be found in my file of correspondence and papers about the case which I have added to the Enthoven Section. Finally, Father Butler's lips were of course sealed by the secrecy of the confessional. It is noteworthy that CWD was on friendly terms with Manning from the time of his first wife's death in 18745, and that the second Lady Dilke was a frequent correspondent with the Cardinal - well after the divorce case6.

Though the author of this Foreword wishes to maintain a strict neutrality as between CWD and VMC, it is perhaps permissible to draw attention to two interesting items in the Enthoven Section. One is a photograph of CWD dated 'April 1883' in VMC's hand; which provokes the question why should she have preserved a photograph of her sister's brother-in-law and carefully dated it to some 3 years before the story of her alleged misconduct with CWD became public. The second is two letters dated after the divorce case addressed to VMC from the Captain Henry Forster who, almost certainly, was her lover. Forster obviously wanted VMC back, and may perhaps have been the man she really cared for. Why else should she have preserved those letters?