Fanny and Stella, Female Impersonators, 1870–71

30 April 1870

At the Bow Street Police Court yesterday, Ernest Boulton, aged 22, of 43, Shirland Road, Paddington, Frederick William Parke, aged 23, of 13, Bruton Street, Berkeley Square, law student, and Hugh Alexander Mundell, aged 23, of 158, Buckingham Palace Road, gentlemen, were charged before Mr. Flowers with frequenting a place of public resort, to wit, the Strand Theatre, with intent to commit felony, the first two named in female attire.
          Mr. Abrams defended the prisoners.
          On being placed in the dock much amusement was created by their artistic make up. Boulton was dressed in fashionable crimson silk, trimmed with white lace. He wore a flaxen wig, with plaited chignon. His arms and neck were bare. He had bracelets, and a white lace shawl round his shoulders. Parke wore a green satin dress, with panier flaxen wig curled, white kid gloves, bracelets, and black lace shawl over the shoulders. The prisoner Mundell was in plain male attire. The whole of Bow Street was crowded with an eager mob, anxious to catch a glimpse of the prisoners as they were brought over the road. Immediately the prisoners were brought out of the station they were greeted with shouts of laughter, intermingled with groans and hisses. The court was crammed to suffocation.
          Mr. James Thompson, superintendent of the E division, deposed to finding the prisoners on Thursday night in the Strand theatre.
          Other evidence having been given, and it having been stated that they had not been guilty of any impropriety beyond such dresses,
          Mr. Flowers remanded the prisoners, but allowed Mundell to be liberated on his own recognisances in £100. to appear. He should refuse, however, to accept bail for Boulton and Parke. (Aris's Birmingham Gazette)

30 April 1870

APPREHENSION IN THE STRAND THEATRE OF GENTLEMEN IN WOMEN'S ATTIRE. – GREAT EXCITEMENT. – Ernest Boulton, aged 23, gentleman, 23, Shirland-road, Paddington, Frederick William Park, aged 23, law student, 13, Bruton-street, Berkeley-square, and Hugh Alexander Mundell, aged 23, gentleman, 158, Buckingham Palace-road, were charged before Mr. Flowers yesterday afternoon, with frequenting a place of public resort, namely, the Strand Theatre, with intent to commit felony.
          Mr. Abrams appeared on behalf of Boulton and Park, who were clothed in female attire of the most fashioanble description.
          During the whole of the morning the greatest excitement prevailed, and a large number of police was employed to keep back the crowds of people who thronged Bow-street, to get a sight of the prisoners as they were being conveyed from the police-station over to the court. Directly they appeared they were greeted with shouts of laughter and hooting, intermingled with groans and hisses. Those dressed as women were arm-in-arm with police officers, and presented a most ludicrous aspect during the short journey over the road. Then a great rush was made at the gates of the court to obtain entrance, and the solitary constable usually employed at the doors had the necessary assistance of other officers, who found it a great task even then to keep back the mob, which was chiefly composed of the inhabitants of Drury-lane and Seven-dials.
          On being placed in the dock, the greatest amusement was created among the auditors by the artistic "make-up" of those in character. Boulton was dressed in a fashionable low necked evening dress of white and crimson silk, trimmed with white lace. His arms and neck were bare, and he had a light lace shawl on his shoulders, a pearl bracelet on one arm, and a gold one on the other. He wore on his head a flaxen wig, with plaited chignon decorated with a large crimson rosette. Park wore a green satin low necked dress, trimmed with black lace, and large panier à la mode. A black lace shawl encircled his shoulders. On his wrists he wore bracelets, and upon his hands white kid gloves. The prisoner Mundell had on a gentleman's plain morning costume.
          During the proceeding of the case, which was listened to with considerable interest, every seat and all the standing room in the court was occupied.
          Mr. Superintendent J. Thomson, E division, said that from information received he watched the prisoners at the Strand Theatre on Thursday evening. He noticed the prisoners for a short time nodding and smiling to gentlemen in the stalls. They were removed at the termination of a portion of the performance. They were put into a cab and taken to the station by two officers. The prisoner Mundell at first refused to give his name and address, but did so afterwrds as Hugh Alexander Mundell, 158, Buckingham Palace-road. He said he was the son of a barrister, and a few evenings since he met the two other prisoners in male attire at the Surrey Theatre. He said he believed they were girls in men's clothes, and therefore he had consented to escort them to the theatre that evening. Boulton first gave the name of Cecil Graham, and the address, 2, Bruton-cresent; afterwrds that he was the son of Mr. Boulton, stockbroker, 23, Shirland-road, Maida-hill. I asked him to give me an explanation of his conduct, but he did not do so. The prisoner Park gave his name as Frederick Wm. Park, 13, Brook-street, Grosvenor-square, and had recently come from 118, Princes-street, Edinburgh.
          Mr. Abrams. – Did they nod and smile as if they were pleased with the performance?
          The Witness. – One had her back to the stage, and was looking into the stalls.
          Mr. Flowers. – I presume you will admit that the two persons in female attire are men?
          Mr. Abrams. – Oh! sir.
          Mr. Flowers. – You said "Oh! sir." Do you mean to admit it?
          Mr. Abrams. – Yes, sir.
          William Chamberlain, constable, said – At 8.20 I saw the two defendantrs, dressed in female attire, in 13, Wakefield-street, Regent's-square. Each had a satin dress, made low at the neck, with chignons on (laughter), wth bare arms and necks. A gentleman called a four-wheeled cab, into which they both got, and drove to the Strand Theatre. I got into another cab and followed. At the theatre they met the other prisoner at the entrance to the boxes, with another gentleman. I saw the four take a seat in a box, and also come out into the saloon and take some brandy. One came out and asked the attendant to pin up the skirt of the dress in the ladies' room. It was the lace of the dress, he asked the woman to pin it up. After she had fastened the dress he came to the bar and gave the woman something for herself. We waited until they came out, and saw them about getting into a cab, and stopped them. The fourth gentleman ran away. We then brought them to Bow-street. I went to their apartments, 13, Wakefield-street, and found a lot of photographs in the front parlour – some in a drawer and some in an album. They were portraits of the prisoners in female attire. I found a number of silks, satins, and muslin, shirt, chignons (laughter), hats worn by women, bonnets, male attire, coats, trousers, &c., and some bracelets. Boulton and Park had no bracelets on. There were some ear-drops and pearl-powder. I have seen the two dressed as women about the neighbourhood of Brunswick-square, and at the Holborn Casino, always in female attire, talking to gentlemen, for the past year. Suspecting them, I watched them.
          By Mr. Abrams. – I did not see them guilty of any impropriety. I have seen the prisoners before, but did not know they were men until now.
          Mr. Flowers. – I should have thought they were women myself, which makes the case all the worse for them.
          Mr. Superintendent Thomson said – I have examined the photographs. They are 28 in number. With the exception of one, they are all portraits of Boulton, both in male and female attire. The other portrait is of Park. The photographs bear the name of the photographers in different countries and this kingdom.
          Fred. Kerley, detective E, corroborated, and added – On the way to the station in the cab, Park said – "Look here, old fellow, it will do you no good to take us to the station; if you let us go we will give you anything you want." Boulton said, "Any sum you require you can have if you let us go." I said I should do nothing of the sort, and took them to the station.
          By Mr. Abrams. – They did not say anything about doing this for a lark, or that they had been out for a lark.
          Mr. Superintendent Thomson said that was the case so far.
          For the defence, Mr. Abrams contended that the charge of felony had not been made out, and unless it was shown that they were out for an unlawful purpose they had committed no offence. In fact, it was a mere lark on their part.
          Mr. Flowers (with severity). – It is a lark then that they have been carrying on evidently for a very long time. I have, however, a doubt with regard to Mundell. He may have been deceived by the appearance of the others, and the evidence does not show that he has previously been connected with them. I should have been deceived myself and have entertained no doubt; but that, in my mind, makes the case all the worse for those dressed up.
          Mr. Abrams. – It was only a supid act of folly.
          Mr. Flowers said he was not sure of that yet. It may transpire that they were out for a purpose of a far different nature, or they might even have lured gentlemen to their rooms for the purpose of extorting money from them.
          Mr. Superintendent Thomson then asked for a remand.
          Mr. Flowers complied with the request. He said he sould allow Mundell to be liberated upon entering into his own recognisances in 100l. to appear next week.
          Mr. Abrams. – I trust you will accept bail on behalf of my clients.
          Mr. Flowers. – No, I fear not, Mr. Abrams.
          The prisoners were then removed.
          Mr. Abrams later in the day asked Mr. Flowers if the prisoners might be allowed to change their dresses before being removed in the van. They had already sent for their other attire.
          Mr. Flowers said certainly.
          Mr. Burnaby (chief clerk), after the lapse of an hour or so, said that the crowd in the streeet had greatly increased, and Mr. Superintendent Thomson thought it would be better to remove the prisoners as quickly as possible.
          Mr. Superintendent Thomson said that as yet the clothes had not arrived.
          Mr. Flowers consented to this, and the prisoners were then removed in the van to the House of Detention. (London Evening Standard)

30 April 1870

Yesterday morning, at Bow-street, London, two quasi females and a "gentleman," who represented himself as the son of a barrister named Mundell, were brought up before Mr. Flowers. There was a large concourse of persons to see "the ladies," who were attired in the full costume of the girls of the period – green silk and pink, rich with all the paraphernalia of lace, ribbons, &c. . . .
          William Chamberlain, constable, said. – . . . I have seen the two dressed as women about the neighbourhood of Brunswick-square and at the Holborn Casino, always in female attire, talking to gentlemen for the last year. Suspecting them, I watched them.
          By Mr. Abrams. – I did not see them guilty of any impropriety. I have seen the prisoners before, but did not know they were men until now.
          Mr. Flowers. – How do you know now? (sensation).
          Witness. – By their own confession. . . .
          Charles Walker, 12 E R. – For the last fortnight I have been on duty in the neighbourhood of Wakefield-street. I have seen the two in female attire going in and out of No. 13, Wakefield-street, at all hours of the night, repeatedly, dressed as women. I have seen them at half-past one up to three o'clock. They always conducted themselves very well. Yesterday morning they came out at half-past three in changed attire. The neighbours had complained.
          By Mr. Abrams. – If they had not been quiet I should have taken them.
          By Mundell. – When they dressed in male attire they did not look more like women than men.
          Chamberlain, recalled. – The prisoners wore "single" rings, not wedding rings; Boulton one on the little finger, Parkes on the middle finger. . . . (Liverpool Daily Post)

2 May 1870

At the Bow-street Police Station, on Friday, Mr. Flowers, the presiding magistrate, heard an extraordinary charge against two young men of having been found personating women. . . .
          When the prisoners were placed in the dock great surprise was manifested at the admirable manner in which Boulton and Park had "made up." Both had an unexceptionable feminine cast of features. They appeared in evening dress, as when they were apprehended at the theatre, Boulton with a cerise satin dress, with an "open square" body. The neck was hidden by the folds of a white lace scarf. The sleeves were short, scarcely reaching to the elbow, and edted with white lace, which ws the general trimming of the dress. The prisoner had a massive gold bracelet on the left arm, and an imitation pearl one on the right. Adopting the pronoun used regarding the prisoner during the hearing of the case, "she" had a small signet-ring on the little finger of the left hand, but did not wear ear-rings. Her hair – or rather wig – of golden colour, was fashionably dressed in the Grecian style, with plaited chignon. The front was bound with a narrow strip of black velvet, and a piece of the same material was worn round the neck, a locket being suspended from it. Park wore a beautiful green satin dress, which was made with an "open square body," and short sleeves, like that of Boulton. It was also trimmed with white lace. The prisoner had a lace scarf thrown across her shoulders, so as to cover the open part of the dress. She had a handsome gold chain bracelet; and on her left hand a signet-ring, and in her ears imitation-pearl droops. Her hair was the same colour as that of her friend, and dressed in the like fashion, excepting that the back part was done in curls instead of plaits; and in front was a diamond star on the velvet band. Both prisoners wore a white kid glove on the right hand. While listening to the evidence, Boulton rested her head on her right hand, but did not pay very particular attention, excepting when the detective stated that he had seen the prisoners about for some time, and produced the photographs which were found at their lodgings. Park was evidently anxious respecting the case which would be established, and carefully listened throughout. Both conducted themselves decorously. The complete ease with which they maintained their parts astonished every one in court, and even the magistrate and most experienced detective officers had to admit that the "get up" was artistic enough to deceive themselves. . . . As Boulton and Park were represented by a solicitor, they did not question the witnesses, and there was, therefore, no opportunity of hearing whether their voices would indicate their sex. . . .
          Mr. Jas. Thomson, superintendent of the E division, said: . . . Boulton was pointed out to me as supposed to be the Duchess of Manchester. (A laugh.) . . . (Sheffield Daily Telegraph)

2 May 1870

There is an amount of mystery about the case of the young men charged with being found in female attire in a private box at the Strand Theatre on Thursday evening which it will be very desirable should be cleared up before the prisoners are re-charged under the magisterial remand to the House of Detention on Friday next. An examination of the articles discovered in the house, No. 13, Wakefield-street, from which three of the accused persons were seen to depart for the Strand Theatre, and in the lodgings of two of the prisoners, rather increases than removes the doubts belonging to the case, inasmuch as there have been found, inter alia, a silver-mounted gentleman's dressing-case, an elegantly-fitted photographic album, bearing the initials of the prisoner Boulton, filled with portraits of young men apparently of good birth, and bearing the appearance in many cases of university men, and other personal property denoting a fair amount of good breeding, coupled with an immense wardrobe of female attire, much of it dirty and considerably the worse for wear, but at the same time exhibiting the most perfect completeness, even to the minutest articles of women's underclothing. When brought together there were found to be between thirty and forty rich silk and other dresses, all of fashioanble patterns, and some elaborately trimmed with lace, furs, &c.; a large ermine cloak, well-stocked female glove boxes, more than a score different wigs and head-dresses, chiefly of the prevailing golden hue, some of them having plaited hair; falls from 20 to 30 inches in length attached, a great number of girls' hats variously trimmed, ladies' white kid boots, Balmoral walking boots, richly embroidered; a large quantity of bizarre jewellery, with some bracelets and necklaces of a better class, caps, feathers, garters, &c., and the usual toilette accompaniements of ladies of a certain class, such as rose bloom, volet powder, &c. Amongst all this property, there are not more than one, or at most, two costumes bearing any affinity to a masquerade or fancy dress. All the remainder are articles of ordinary female wear, and with the head gear have been found an assortment of white net caps neaty trimmed with fancy ribbons as worn by household servants.

          . . . Boulton is rather tall and good-looking, with an expression of countenance which, when surrounded by female accessories, might, as the magistrate pronounced at Bow-street, on Friday last, deceive any one as to his sex. The prisoner Park hails from the aristocratic neighbourhood of Bruton-street, where he occupies well-furnished rooms in Berkeley Chambers, a grand piano and other articles of luxury decorating his apartments. It has been stated that the cartes de visite found in Boulton's albums were chiefly those of young men of apparent good breeding. It is proper to add that none of the photographs found (and there are a very large number in the books) have anything approaching an indecent tendency. . . .
          The perfect completeness of Boulton and Park's feminine get-up may be understood from the fact that when the boxkeeper at one of the theatres was asked by one of the officers whether he was aware who it was he had in the private box, the accused persons had just entered, the official prompter replied – "Of course I do; one of them is the Duchess of Manchester." This was Boulton, who really makes up into a tall and attractive-looking female, though bearing no more resemblance to the Duchess of Manchester than her grace does to a box-keeper. Park is of shorter build and sterner features, but he also makes up capitally. . . .
          It is more than suspected that there are others besides those in custody who have for some time past been engaged in personating females in London. In fact, it is stated that an association exists which numberrs nearly 30 of these foolish young men, and that recently a ball was given at a well-known hotel in the Strand, at which twelve of the party represented females, and twelve of their companions the opposite sex. (London Evening Standard)

2 May 1870

. . . It has been seen that the cartes de visite found in Boulton's album are chiefly those of young men of apparent good breeding. It should be added that in one group Boulton is seen resting his hand upon the shoulder of a gentleman formerly remarkable in London for his love of fires and fire engines, and in another both Boulton and Park make up a picture of which Lord Arthur Pelham Clinton forms the centre. . . . (Daily Telegraph & Courier)

9 May 1870

. . . I submit that the evidence already given substantially proves a prima facie case, and that of a very serious character. There were the photographs, by which it appeared that these two persons had been going to different parts of the country, assuming the character of women, and in attitudes not indecent, but which were those of affection. It also appeared that they had not confined such conduct to this country. Here is a photograph from Paris, in which Boulton is represented leaning on the shoulder of a man. Here is another photograph of Boulton dressed as a woman with several men. Here are two more representing Boulton dressed as a woman, and in the attitude you see. Here is a photograph of park dressed as a woman. If the attitude is not indecent, it is of an improper character. . . . (Clerkenwell News)

10 May 1870

SIR. – Since the first appearance of this unpleasant case in the newspapers, not one word of the defence of these two young men has been heard, and the bitterness of public opinion, fed by the most ridiculous exaggeration, is daily increasing against them.
          Every one is bound to admit that their conduct is worthy of the gravest censure; but there are hundreds of your readers who must feel, with much regret, that those long-continued acts of folly are, in a great measure, the results of encouragement received from their flattery and caresses.

          In January, 1869, an amateur theatrical performance was given in a small town in Essex, in which Boulton and Park appeared in female characters. Their admirable acting and marvellous make-up created the greatest excitement and enthusiasm. Other performances were speedily arranged in larger towns, and in a short time their popularity became immense. Bouquets were thrown to them on the stage, supper parties were given at gentlemen's houses, at which they were specially requested to appear in female attire (and this request was on more than one occasion made by the lady of the house); their rooms for weeks were literally inundated with gentlemen, (including clergymen): they received innumerable invitations and presents, the demand for their photographs became enormous, and it was considered capital fun to write them burlesque love letters, in which they were invariably addressed as "My darling Stella," "Dearest Fan," &c.
          It is well known that highly indiscreet propositions have been frequently made to them; for instance – at one of the supper parties before mentioned several sporting gentlemen endeavoured (luckily in vain) to persuade Boulton to appear as a lady on horseback in the hunting-field, for the express purpose of taking in the master of the hounds. In justice to the young men, I think the public should be made aware of these few facts, and learn that there are very many others besides the unfortunate prisoners who must take to themselves some share in the disgrace of the exposure. – I am, Sir, yours, &c. NON AMICUS, NON INIMICUS.
          P.S. – The enclosed is a critique upon Bouton's performance at Colchesteer:– "Looking at him with one's eyes both wide open, listening to his extraordinary voice, and criticising, however narrowly, his wonderfully feminine appearance and manner, it is really difficult for a moment to believe that he is not a really charming girl. As the performance went on – and most highly-amusing, as well as refined it was – one unconsciously felt impelled to speak of 'Mrs. Chillingstone,' the fascinating widow whom Mr. Boulton personates so admirably, as if she were a veritable member of the weaker sex. Laugh! Who could help it? Few tried who were present at the Public Hall on Wednesday night. It was really one of the raciest and best things out." – Essex Journal. (London Evening Standard)

9 May 1870

We are enabled to offer some particulars respecting the two young men in custody at Bow-street, which have not been elicited by the proceedings before the magistrates. The public have heard of their frequent appearances at the London theatres, music halls, casinos, and other places of resort during the past two years or more, and of the public indignation occasionally manifested at their presence when detected by the select few who were acquainted with their identity. Indeed, this fact will account to some extent for the extraordinary interest taken in their case by persons connected with the theatrical and musical professions, as shown by their presence in such large numbers at the police court on Friday last. Popular actors have been too long exposed to the annoyance of a sudden interruption, or complete suspension of the performances, by the rows in front, caused by the discovery of such young men sitting in a private box, or taking their places in the stalls – sometimes in ladies' evening dress, and sometimes in the costume of gentlemen with hair and face arranged to much in the style of young ladies of the period as to lead to the suspicion that they were really women in male costume. Nor was this the only annoyance resulting from the notoriety of Boulton and Park at public exhibitions; it having become whispered abroad that such persons were in the theatre, there was a curious tendency on the part of the audience to identify the wrong persons, and to treat them with a contumely which was of course as unmerited as it was to them unaccountable. Every effeminate looking man and every woman with a slightly masculine aspect were subjected to the most offensive prying and criticism, and it might be well supposed that, if the nuisance became established, a visit to the theatre by any person at all peculiar in aspect would be almost a dangerous venture. But from the information we have been able to gather respecting the young men charged, it will be seen that they have acquired also a provincial celebrity, and in some places have exhibited their talent for personating women under distinguished patronage. During the months of May and June, 1869, the prisoner Ernest Boulton, in company with a gentleman named Pavitt, gave a series of drawing-room entertainments in Colchester, Southend, Dunmow, Bishop Stortford, Rochford, and various other places, amongst them Romford, where they played under the patronage of Sir Thomas Barrett Lennard, Bart., and Lady Lennard, the Rev. W. T. Skilton, Mr. Octavius E. Coope, Mr. E. Ind, and Mr. E. V. Ind. The entertainment usually comprised a short opera, a humorous dialogue in a laughable sketch. In all these the lady characters were represented by Ernest Boulton. At the theatre Royal, Stock, January 27th, 1869, "Her Majesty's Servants" played (by special request) Mr. H. J. Byron's comedy of £100,000, the characters of Alice and Mrs. Barlow being played respectively by Boulton and Park, who are designated in the programme Miss Ernestine Edwards and Miss Mabel Foster. An original farce followed, the ladies' characters being, as before, represented by Boulton and Park. The Essex Herald of the 2nd of February, in noticing this performance, observed – "During the piece, Miss Edwards sang 'Fading away' with a care and taste that brought down the house, and on being encored she gave 'My Pretty Jane.'" In October, 1868, Ernest Boulton assisted Lord Arthur Pelham Clinton, M.P., in a drawing-room entertainment at the Spa Saloon, Scarborough. On this occasion "A Morning Call" was performed, his lordship playing Sir Edward Ardent, and Boulton Mrs. Chillington. The Scarborough Gazette describes the latter's appearance as "something wonderful." This entertainment was postponed for a short time on account of Boulton's indisposition, and a copy of the telegram sent to Lord Arthur Clinton containing the information was printed and circulated in Scarborough. The prisoner Park does not appear to have taken such a prominent part in enterprises of this kind, and we have at present only found one notice of his performance of a lady's rôle, namely, that of Mrs. Barlow. Boulton's assumption of ladies' characters has been a matter of the past three years, for in one programme he is announced to play Maria in "The Brigand," he then being only fourteen years of age. (Daily News)

Friday, 20 May 1870

On Friday last the two young men, Ernest Boulton and Frederick William Park, charged with personating women at places of public resort for unlawful purposes, were for the third time placed at the bar of Bow-street Police-court, before Mr. Flowers, for further examination.
          There was the usual rabble outside, but ample provision had been made by Superintendent Thomson to prevent the inconvenient crowding of the court. Nevertheless, the small area of the building was quite full, the audience including many persons of rank, besides many literary and theatrical celebrities, who were probably admitted by special application to the auithorities.
          The ordinary night charges were taken at the police-station opposite.
          Mr. Poland conducted the prosecution as before, instructed by Mr. Pollard, from the office of the Treasury Solicitor: Mr. Besley (instructed by Mr. Abrams for Mr. Gratley) appeared for the defendant Boulton; and Mr. Straight attended as counsel for the defendant Park.
          Mr. Poland, without any preliminary remarks, at once proceeded with the examination of witnesses.
          Henry Holland, examined: I live at 5 Torrington-mews, Torrington-square, and am a driver in the service of Mr. Yeoman, Guildford-street, Russell-square, a livery-stable keeper; I know the two prisoners; I first saw them on the 6th April last – the day of the Oxford and Cambridge boat race; my master had given me directions to take a brougham, at 10 o'clock in the day, to 13 Wakefield-street, to a Mrs. Park's; on arriving there the prisoner Park came out, dressed as a woman; he, or she, said, "My sister is not ready," and desired me to drive to a restaurant in Newcastle-street, Strand; Park got into the brougham, and I drove her to the place as directed; she got out and went in, and presently returned with a gentleman; I did not know him, and should not know him if I saw him again; they both got into the brougham; I was directed to drive to Bruton-street; here the gentleman got out of the brougham and entered a house; he returned to the brougham in a few minutes and ordered me to drive back to the restaurant, where both of them got out and went inside; the gentleman brought back a small hamper, which was put inside the brougham; shortly after this Mrs. Park came out and gave me a glass of ale, and re-entered the brougham; I left the gentleman in Newcastle-street; Mrs. Park got out of the brougham and went into the house for five minutes; she then returned with another lady; the prisoner Boulton was the other lady; they both entered the brougham, and I was ordered to drive them to Hammersmith-bridge to see the boat race; I could not get on the bridge, and could not get near enough to see the boats pass; when the race was over I was ordered to turn round, and I drove them to South Kensington, where we stopped at a public-house; one of the ladies asked me to take some refreshments, which of course I did; I had some beef, bread, and ale; I did not see them take anything; they remained about a quarter of an hour at the public-house, and then they came and spoke to me, telling me to follow them when I had finished by refreshments; I think it was Park who desired me to follow them on the road towards London; I overtook them about 200 yards down the road, and saw them in a confectioner's shop, where they told me to look for them; they were in the shop a few minutes only.
          Mr. Straight: Surely you are going to tell us what they had to eat there? (A laugh.)
          Examination continued: After this I drove them, at about seven o'clock, to Haxell's Hotel, in the Strand; the ladies went in, Park returning presently and discharging me. Park went back to the hotel, and I drove back to my stables; I saw nothing more of them that night; on Tuesday, the 26th April, I saw them again; I went to Park's, 13 Wakefield-street, by order of my masteer, at half-past six; the defendants came out dressed as ladies; they got into the brougham and ordered me to drive them to Kuhn's restaurant in Hanover-street; they went in, and afterwards I drove them to the Surrey Theatre; Boulton told me to fetch them at the time carriages were ordered, and to answer, "Mrs. Graham's carriage;" they went to the theatre, and I returned for them at a quarter to 11; Mrs. Graham's carriage was called for, and I was told by a gentleman to drive up to the door; the ladies came out of the theatre, each being escorted by a gentleman, and I was ordered to drive them to the Globe restaurant in Coventry-street; they remained there an hour, and when they came out one gentleman went away and the other got into the brougham; I drove them to Buckingham Palace-road, where the other gentleman got out and left them, desiring me to drive on; this was about half-past 12; after the gentlemen had left the ladies desired me to stop at a public-house for refreshment; the ladies went in with me, and we all had some drink; I then drove them towards home; we stopped at a public-house near the Army and Navy Club; they had pulled the check-string; they got out, and asked me if I would have more refreshment; we all went in, and were there some minutes; we all had more drink; they did not speak to any one there; they returned to the brougham; after a time they pulled the check-string again, and asked me to stop at the next public-house that I saw open; I pulled up at one in Oxford-street, where we stopped about a couple of minuters; I was next directed to stop at the corner of Guildford-street, Gray's-inn-road, where they discharged me; I left them in the public street; this was about 10 minutes past one.
          Mr. Polance: What did you take them for?
          Mr. Besley and Mr. Straight objected to this question.
          Mr. Poland: Had you any idea that they were men?
          Witness: I had not; these were the only occasions on which I drove them out; I did not notice if the defendants had bonnets on, or whethere they were in evening dress; they had veils on.
          Mr. Straight thought it would be rather difficult for a coachman to identify a bonnet now-a-days.
          By Mr. Poland: The hamper was taken into Haxell's hotel; I did not see what was in it.
          Cross-examined: I have been about two months in Mr. Yeoman's service; I was first spoken to about giving evidence on Friday, the 6th inst., by Chamberlain, the police-officer, at the Judd-street station; I went there by my master's orders; I had about half-an-hour's conversation about the defendants, but was not taken to see them; I had not read the case in the papers, but had heard of it; I saw some one last Tuesday at the Treasury; I saw Mr. Poland there, and Chamberlain was there also; they took down my evidence; I am quite sure about its being the day of the boat race that I took the defendants out; they were dressed in violet color, white lace over their bare shoulders; could not describe the material of the dress; I never saw any photographs; I could have sworn to Boulton all along; I swear to both more particularly from what I saw on the 30th of April, but I swear Boulton was with me on the 6th; I saw no one speak to them.
          By Mr. Straight: Could not say if the hamper was ever opened on the boat race day; they were quite sober apparently.
          By Mr. Poland: I never saw defendants in men's clothing till last Friday, at this court.

          John Reeves said: I live at Gt. Frith-street, Soho, and am staff-superintendent at the Alhambra, in Leicestere-square; I know the defendants by sight; I have known Park for three years, and the other nearly as long; I have seen them repeatedly at the Alhambra; my attention was first drawn to them about two years aog, when they were dressed as women; they were both there together; I requested them to leave, on the ground that they were men dressed in women's clothes; a person in their company told me not to interfere with them, as it was a mistake; I told the gentleman that it was no mistake, and I must desire them to leave, as they were known, and their presence had caused suspicion and a disturbance; I then marched them out of the place, and their friends followed them out; I know the gentleman by sight, but I do not know his name; I should know his photograph; before this I had seen them walking about as women, loking over their shoulders to men as if enticing men, and behaving in a suspicious way; when they were turned out three or four men followed them; I only saw one gentleman speak to them; he was their compaion; I saw them there again three or four months afterwrds in the lower part of the building; my attention was called to them directly they entered by the visitors who surrounded them; I told them they must leave directly, for the public believed they were men, and they did so; I saw several men leaving in their company on that occasion also; they were only there about five minutes; about six months later I saw them at the Alhambra again, dressed as men; their faces were painted; they had low shirt collars, and their necks were powdered; their waist-coats were very open; they walked about in an effeminate way, and people gathered round them, saying they were two women dressed in men's clothes; I spoke to them, and desired them to leave; I told them they had created so much disorder in the establishment that I must insist on their leaving; they had been walking about, looking at men offensively, and had excited indignation; I marked them out, and desired them never to come again; I next saw them in March of the present year in a private box at the Alhambra; they were dressed as men, but their faces were painted up and powdered, and they were got up effeminately as before; they were with a third person, but I do not know him; it was not the same gentleman whom I first saw in their company, although I had seen him with them before; he was not painted up, but had also an effeminate appearance; I saw the people looking up at the box, and rising from their seats to get a better view of them, and they were playing all sorts of frivolous games with each other; they were handing cigarettes to each other, leaning over the box and flicking them in the gas; when I saw that they were attracting general attention and making peculiar noises with their lips, I went up to the box and spoke to them, desiring them to leave; the noises were such as I have heard females make in the streets; they hung their hands and pink gloves over the box; when I went to the box I recognised them at once as the persons who had visited the place on former occasions; I desired them to leave at once; they asked for some soda and brandy; I said they should have nothing there, and that I had desired them before not to come to the Alhambra; I walked them out, and I desired the box-keeper to return them the guinea which they had paid for the box and never to admit them again; I could never quite make up my mind about them; sometimes I thought they were men and sometimes that they were women; whenever they appeared in male costume their faces were painted; I did not know their names or who they were; I should not know the gentleman who was with them if I saw him again; I think I have seen them 20 times altogether at the Alhambra; I have seen them in Regent-street also dressed as men and painted up; I have seen them together, and sometimes with a third party – generally between four and seven o'clock in the evening; none of the photographs have been shown to me.
          Cross-examined: I have been five years at the Alhambra; was formerly with Howes and Cushing, the circus proprietors; it is my duty to report disturbances at the Alhambra to the proprietors; the police have access to the building; they are not paid by the company; I have not been asked to give evidence; I volunteered to say what I knew of them when I saw the case reported in the newspapers; I saw the prisoners at the last examination, and identified them at once; I spoke to Inspector Shenton about them; I afterwards stated what I knew to a gentleman at the Treasury; I did not say that I had seen defendants in Regent-street; there has been a disturbance at the Alhambra, and possibly persons may have been turned out for disorderly conduct; they would be turned out if they were disorderly; the cards of such people are not always asked for; it would depend on circumstances; did not ask defendants for their cards; I have seen men with powdered faces before – perhaps 20 such men; they have generally been with defendants.
          By Mr. Straight: I was a witness at Marlborough-street in reference to a disturbance outside of the Alhambra; two of the officers of the Alhambra were indicted for assaulting a gentleman after being acquitted by the magistrates, and they were acquitted by the jury also; I volunteered my statement to Inspector Shenton; it was from no desire to be in a sensational case at Bow-street, neither do I expect nor desire any reward for my services; there are disorderly persons at the Alhambra sometimes, but they are always put out.
          By Mr. Poland: I attended here last Friday to identify the defendants by request of Shenton, after volunteering my statement to him, and I was afterwards directed to go down to the Treasury and state what I knew of the defendants; there was no bal masqué on either of the occasions I have referred to when the defendants visited the Alhambra; they were ordinary nights.
          By Mr. Flowers: The painted men whom I have seen at the Alhambra at different times were usually acquaintances of the defendants, and in their company; not altogether, but at different times.
          An adjournment of the court having been now proposed,
          Mr. Besley applied to the magistrate for permission to inspect the letters which had been seized with certain photographs at the lodgings of the defendants, in order that those which were of an innocent character might be put in as evidence, as well as those which the Treasury might think fit to select for their purposes. Mr. Poland had had a week to con them over to make his choice.
          Mr. Poland said, in the exercise of his discretion, he should certainly decline to entertain any such application. It was true he had had ample time to examine the letters in question, and a very painful duty it had been to him to read them; but until they were in evidence his friend had no right to see them.
          Mr. Straight urged that they were surely entitled to see the letters.
          Mr. Flowers could make no order about them until they were formally put in evidence. At present they were not before him any way.
          Mr. Burnaby, the chief clerk, then announced that the court would be adjourned for half an hour, it being now nearly two o'clock. Very few of the persons who had gained admission to the court availed themselves of the interval to leave, but the defendants were removed from the dock.
          On the resumption of business, at half-past two, Mr. Straight requested permission to ask the last witness another question relative to Park.
          In reply, the witness said he had seen Park as frequently as the other prisoner at the Alhambra.

          George Smith examined: I was formerly beadle of the Burlington-arcade; I have known the defendants for a long time; I have known Boulton about two years as visiting the Burlington-arcade, painted very thickly with rouge, and everything else on; I noticed him because he always caused such a commotion when he entered the arcade; he spoke to me on one occasion when he was leaving the arcade in company with a man named Cumming; he (Boulton) said to me, "Oh! you sweet little dear;" I communicated this fact to the policeman on duty in the arcade, Holden, C 58; Boulton was not then in sight; Cumming's face was also painted very thickly; on another occasion when they were together, I saw Boulton wink at men and make a noise with his mouth, as women would, to entice them (imitating the sound); when I saw this I went up to Boulton and said, "I have received several complaints about you; do you remember what you said to me a week or two ago? I have seen enough of your conduct to consider you as an improper person to frequent the arcade, and you must leave at once;" this was in the centre of the arcade; Boulton said, "Take no notice of that fellow;" he spoke in a feminine manner; Cumming said something also, but I do not remember what; they tried to pass me to go up to the other end (the Burlington-gardens end); a good many gentlemen were present, some of whom I see on the bench now; they hissed – I do not mean the gentlemen present, but some of them in the arcade; I ejected them from the arcade; Holden saw me do it; I have also seen Park in the arcade with Boulton; they presented themselves once at the Piccadilly end, about three days after I had turned out Boulton and Cumming, and I refused them admittance; I said, "You don't come in here;" and they walked on without saying anything; about a fortnight afterwards I saw them – Boulton and Cumming – walking down the arcade; directly they saw me they rushed into a hosier's shop; when they came out I said to Boulton, "I have cautioned you not to come here; leave the arcade at once;" Boulton said, "I shall go wherever I like;" I said, "Nothing of the sort; you will go out;" he tried to pass me, and I ejected him again as before; Cumming followed us down, and left quietly; I saw nothing of either of the gentlemen afterwards; I reported the facts to my directors, who gave me orders concerning them; I have sene Park and Boulton about six times; I first saw them in 1868; their faces were painted.
          Cross-examined: I was appointed beadle in 1868; before that I had been seven years in the police; I resigned the beadleship in 1869; I have applied since to get into the police at Charing-cross station; I have since been a conductor to an omnibus, about seven months; I have not done much since; I have sincde had no employment, excepting helping the police by getting them evidence in this case; during the four months I was out of a situation, in 1869, I was trying to get a situation, but my health was bad; I have friends at Southend who can support me, and I had a few pounds when I left the arcade; I went to the police about this case on the 24th of April to tell Sergeant Thompson what I knew about the defendants; I don't expect to be paid, but shall not object to; Mr. Thompson sent me to Mr. Shenton; I have made some notes; you can see them. (They were handed to the learned counsel.) I have been seen at the Treasury office; I gave the same evidence as I gave to Shenton, with one or two corrections caused by thinking over the matter again; I mean additions; I was dressed in a beadle's uniform, but had no staff, when Boulton accosted me; I identified the defendants at the prison; I picked them out from 14 or 15 others; I was warned by tradespeople in the arcade not to admit the defendants and Cumming.
          By Mr. Straight: I left the arcade through quarrelling with another beadle; He had said that I had received some money for liquor from a gay lady, and what if I did? Some of them, although gay, are very respectable, and if a lady offered you half-a-crown wouldn't you take it? (Roars of laughter.) I may have taken money from girls a hundred times; I am too much of a man to threaten to eject women from the arcade unless they paid me money; I was asked to resign, through the other beadle reporting me, and I did resign; he is now dead; my object in taking money from the women was to get a drink; I have had a few glasses to-day; a gentleman in court gave me a shilling; I decline to say who it is; he has nothing to do with the police; I could not get back to the metropolitan police if I wanted to; I should not object to a situation of the Treasury would give me one.
          Mr. Straight: I should think they would not.
          By Mr. Poland: I was taken to the Treasury in consequence of what I had told Shenton, and my evidence was taken down; when I left the police I received a gratuity of £29; it was for good conduct.
          Witness: I don't think it a disgrace to have taken money for drink; everybody does it; I am not ashamed of it.
          Mr. Straight: You do not appear to be ashamed of anything.

          Martha Stacey said: I live at 13 Wakefield-street, Regent's-square; I have been there about 23 years; it is my mother's house; she is 75; I attend to the house chiefly, and a young niece assists; mother helps something; we let lodgings; it is a small house, with two rooms on each floor; the second floor is occupied by a merchant's clerk, who has been there for some years; I know the two defendants; I first saw Boulton about two years ago; he came to lodge at my house two nights; Mr. Park was with him; I forget whether they had the parlors or the first floor; there was only one bed in their room; I believe they slept together; they came dressed as gentlemen, but subsequently they went out dressed as ladies; they had a latch-key; I don't remember what time they returned home; I think Mr. Park paid the rent when they left; I remember seeing a Mr. C. H. Thomas about nine months ago; he was introduced to me by Ernest Boulton, who said the gentleman wanted apartments; I let the two rooms on the ground floor to Mr. Thomas at 10s. per week; Boulton and Park have lodged with me about a dozen different times since I first saw them; they were mostly together, and stopped one or two nights only at a time; they dressed, as before, in both male and female clothes; sometimes they had the parlor floor and sometimes the first floor, always occupying one bed; sometimes they were in by twelve, and sometimes later; as they had latch keys I could not tell; I always went to bed by twelve myself; when they left they usually took their luggage, but sometimes they left it for a few days; Mr. Park always paid for the lodgings; they never told me where they lived, but I sometimes saw letters lying about with their addresses upon them; Thomas did not occupy the rooms every night when he first came; I saw both the defendants there; Boulton and Park were absent about four months; I saw them in Mr. Thomas's rooms two or three times before their long absence, but I cannot fix the time; they were dressed as men; once Boulton came alone after twelve, and waited for this train to go to Scotland; after his long absence in Scotland I saw him again with a gentleman named Cumming; this was about a fortnight before his arrest; I do not know Mr. Cumming's initials, but I think he lived in Montague-street; they called to leave Boulton's luggage in Mr. Thomas's room – a portmanteau, deal box, and hat box; it was about four in the afternoon; Mr. Thomas was not at home, but they left the things in his room; I did not see Boulton until the Monday previous to his arrest (April 25th) Park was with him then; Mr. Thomas was there on that day also and Mr. Gibbons; I don't know his profession, but he said he was an amateur performer; they were all dressed as gentlemen in the first place, and afterwards all four went out in women's clothes; they went out together in a brougham;


I can't say if they had bonnets; Thomas had the latch-key that night; I went to bed before they returned; my first floor was vacant that night, and Mr. Park said they would take it for the night; it was prepared for them accordingly; the prisoners did not say where they were going; they were stylishly dressed, and had some jewelry – a little; Mr. Thomas and Mr. Gibbons occupied the ground floor that night and the defendants the other bedroom; they rose about ten and breakfasted together; they were then in male attire; they went in and out several times during the day, and at night the defendants went out again in women's attire; I think Mr. Thomas did also; I did not hear them say where they had been on Monday night; they went out in the brougham again on Tuesday night in ladies' evening dress; Mr. Park and Mr. Thomas both had latch-keys that night; I don't know when they returned; they breakfasted together the next morning in Mr. Thomas's room; they went out on the Wednesday in male attire, and Park and Boulton went out in the evening in ladies' attire; they dressed in Thomas's room, their things having been bought down from the first floor andput there; Thomas was with them on Wednesday evening, also dressed as a woman; I think they went in the brougham; on Thursday morning they were not in their rooms, but they had left their women's clothes in the night and gone out again; the beds had not been slept upon; they returned in the evening dressed as men, and went out between seven and eight, the defendants being in female costume and Thomas in male attire; Thomas fetched a cab, and the two defendants left him in it, the former walking away; did not see them again that night; I heard the next morning that they were both in custody; I did not see any papers brought down with the things from the first floor; on the Friday morning the police-officer Chamberlain arrived, and went into the room on the ground floor, and he took possession of some photographs and letters; he then locked the door and took away the key, having told me that he was an officer; in the course of the day Mr. Cumming and Mr. Gibbons called at the house and asked for the prisoners' things; I said they were in the parlor; they then forced open the door and took away Park and boulton's male attire and jewel box; I really do not know what they took away besides; there were some bracelets, necklaces, studs, gold chain, &c., among the jewelry; I do not know where Mr. Thomas is now; the police took possession of the rest of the things; I remember the Oxford boat race day, but I was out all that day and could not say what occurred in my absence; I cannot say how many different female dresses I have seen on the defendants and Thomas; they had changes, but I cannot say how many; I never saw Cumming in a female dress; the defendants never told me what their profession was, but I thought they were amateur performers; I knew Park to be a law student; Thomas owes me about £7 for rent, but Park only owes for two days' lodgings; I thought the women's dresses were theatrical dresses, enabling them to represent female characters; they were ordinary female dresses.
          Mr. Flowers: We saw the dresses here, and they were not like ordinary theatrical dresses. People would not go to a boat race in theatrical costume.
          By Mr. Poland: I never saw any hairdresser in attendance upon the defendants; I do not think I have seen anybody with them besides the persons I have mentioned.
          It being now past five o'clock Mr. Poland suggested that the inquiry should be adjourned.
          Mr. Besley had no objection if the defendants were to be admitted to bail.
          Mr. Flowers was ready to consider the question of bail at the present stage of the case. They would be entitled to it even after committal.
          Mr. Poland objected to the prisoners being admitted to bail. He had not yet half completed his case, although he had made all the progress possible in one day. He had surely advanced his case considerably to show that the defendants had not been engaged in a mere frolic, and if he were pressed to do it he should now hand up certain letters addressed to the prisoners which would have an important influence on the mind of the magistrate. He did not wish to do this prematurely for fear of involving others whose names were mixed up with the defendants, but if he were driven to this course to justify his appeal to the court to retain the prisoners in custody he should not hesitate to read them at once.
          Mr. Flowers said he was only judging the qustion, of course, from what had already transpired, and, although the case had been carried further, he still saw no urgent reason why the prisoners should not be entitled to bail.
          After some further discussion, during which Mr Besley threatened to go on with the case till midnight if bail were refused, it was ultimately arranged that the adjournment should be for one day only, till Saturday afternoon, when the question of bail would be decided.
          On Saturday some hundreds of persons congregated in Bow-street to see the prisoners as they alighted from the prison van, while the interior of the court was crowded in every part, the seats on the bench being occupied by noblemen and gentlemen of distinction.
          Mr. Flowers, the magistrate, took his seat soon after two o'clock, and the prisoners were then ordered into the dock. Their demeanor, like that of Friday, was rather one of treating their position as joke than otherwise.
          Martha Stacey was recalled and cross-examined by Mr. Besley. I always found Boulton behave with propriety; I never knew him use an improper word; I have not seen him upon more than 20 occasions; he did not upon all these occasions sleep at my house; he was not many times there while Mr. Thomas was there; he was never there before the last week in April; he did upon two or three occasions take tea with Park when he was staying in the hosue; I have seen envelopes on the dressing-table with the addresses of Park and Boulton; I don't remember any letter coming to my house addressed to Boulton; I knew Mr. Park as a law student; the letters that I saw were addressed to "14 Bruton-street;" I have addressed letters to Mr. Park at Chelmsford; I have never written to Mr. Boulton; I saw Mr. Thomas in August, 1869, and within a month of that Boulton came and said he wanted to remain an hour before he started for Scotland; he came (within a fortnight of his arrest) with Mr. Cumming; I had not seen him from August up to the time of his coming with Mr. Cumming; Mr. Gibbings was at my house on the 26th of April, and I last saw him on the Wednesday before the arrest; I was sometimes present when they conversed with each other; their conversation was quite of an ordinary nture, and their manners that of persons of respectability; they were quiet and orderly; I first heard that they were taken into custody on Friday morning about ten o'clock; Chamberlain, the officer, came and told us; he asked if two gentlemen lived there that dressed in female attire? he said they were in custody, and I said, "I am astonished!" I said, "What for?" he said for a "freak"or "lark," but I forget which word he used; he asked me which rooms they occupied; I said those, pointing to the ground floor; he then searched the rooms; he did not show me any warrant; I did not ask him for one; I was too confused; he went into the room and began to search the things – the clothes they had left the night before; he opened a box, and took some ordinary female clothing and some letters away; my mother remonstrated with him for going to the boxes, but he said he should do as he thought proper – he would sell them if he thought proper; he took some letters from the box; I can't say how many letters; I saw him go to a photographic album, and take what portraits he thought proper out of it; he took a great many – about 20.
          Mr. Flowers: We have 28 here.
          Mr. Poland: I shall produce more presently. (Sensation.)
          . . .

Frederick William Park (left) and a fellow actor

          By Mr. Straight: I have known Park two years, and from that time down to the present he lodged about a dozen times at my house; I don't think he was in the habit of coming on Saturday and staying till Monday; from the month of August last year to February in this year Park wore a moustache; during that time I never saw him in female costume; during the whoile of that period he did not stay more than 24 times at my house; I did not know that Park was articled to a gentleman named Gepp at Chelmsford; they always laughed and chaffed about dressing up as ladies, and I have never seen any other gentlemen than those I have named at my house; I have never heard anything immoral or disgusting about their conversation at any time.
          Re-examined by Mr. Poland: I have never had any letters given to me to post; I hae only seen letters that were left on the dressing table by Mr. Park; they were addressed to him at Bruton-street, and that is how I knew his address.
          Mr. Poland: Did you ever answer the door when the brougham came?
          Witness: Yes.
          Well, you say they are persons of respectability. Did you not hear the coachman ask for Mrs. Park? – I can't say. I heard him ask for Park.
          You knew they were men, did you not? – Yes.
          Mr. Straight: Have you ever seen theatrical programmes lying about the room?
          Witness: Yes; I have upon more occasions than one.

          Thomas Shenton: I am an inspector of police; on Friday, the 29th of April, Chamberlain showed me some photographs and letters; they were given to me, and I went with him to 13 Wakefield-street; we searched the two rooms on the ground floor, and took possession of a quantity of wearing apparel and other articles; I have made a list of the things, the greater portion of which are at Bow-street Police-station.
          Is this the list (handing it to witness)? – Yes.
          Mr. Poland: I intend to prove this list, sir, which I will read if you like.
          Mr. Flowers: Very well.
          The learned counsel then read as follows:– Dresses: 1 mauve satin, trimmed with black lace; 1 white corded rep silk, trimmed with blue satin and lace; pink satin and tulle; 1 white lace, trimmed with blue satin and lace; 1 white Japanese silk, pink stripe, trimmed with white lace and swansdown; 1 green cord silk; 1 violet glace silk, trimmed with white lace; 1 black satin, trimmed with mauve satin; 1 blue and white satin, piped with white satin; 1 mauve rep silk and green satin; 1 blue satin tunic (part of dress); 1 pink tarlatan; 2 muslim; 1 camlet costume; 1 cambric morning; 1 grey moire antique.
          Skirts and Petticoats. – 1 tulle tunic; 3 tarlatan pieces; 1 white frilled cambric petticoat; 1 white book muslin; three white frilled petticoats; 1 white check petticoat; 1 plain white petticoat; 1 colored petticoat; 1 crinoline.
          Cloaks and jackets. – 1 scarlet Cashmere opera cloak; 1 black shawl; 1 black silk jacket; 1 white lace shawl; 1 ermine jacket and muff; 1 crimson velvet tunic; 1 white llama opera cloak, trimmed with swansdown; 1 velveteen jacket; 1 black silk body.
          Bodices. – 2 cambric; 1 muslin, white silk, trimmed with lace; three under bodices; 1 tulle-piped blue satin.
          Boots and Shoes. – 4 pairs white kid; 4 pairs shoes, various; 3 pairs button spring sides.
          Seven chignons, various; 2 long curls; 10 plaits; 1 grey beard.
          Bonnets and hats. – 5 hats, various; 4 bonnets, various.
          Miscellaneous. – 1 pair of curling irons; 2 sun shades; 6 pairs of stays; 1 tulle stay; 1 lace crossover; 2 tulle fulls; 1 piece magenta cashmere; 1 pink satin sash; 1 chemisette; 2 pairs of garters; 2 pairs of drawers; 4 boxes of violet-powder; 1 box of bloom of roses; 4 pairs of old pink silk stockings; 1 small whicker dog kennel; 3 albums; 8 pairs of gloves; 1 pocket-handkerchief holder; 1 bottled, labelled chloroform, a few artificial flowers, and a large quantity of wadding, evidently used for "padding."
          Cross-examination continued. By Mr. Besley: I have written nothing on the backs of the photographs; there are photographs of a great number of different people; I took a statement from the late beadle of the Burlington-arcade, but I have not got these notes; I have examined two witnesses, Smith and Mr. Yeoman's driver.
          Mr. Straight: In your very extensive experience have you ever heard that chloroform is used for the toothache?
          Witness: Yes, I have sir.
          Mr. Poland: And bloom of roses for the cheek?
          Witness: Yes, sir. (Laughter.)
          The photographs were here put in, and elicited a very general curiosity. They represented the prisoners in female attire, and were generally admired as fine specimens of photography.
          Mrs. Stracy was recalled, and said in answer to Mr. Straight, that the photograph handed to her represented the likeness of Park when he wore a moustache.
          Mr. Poland: Now, sir, I propose to read some of these letters, very much against my own inclination.
          Mr. Besley said he should ask his worship to say whether those letters were evidence before they were read. He contended that they were not admissible.
          The Magistrate: I can't see upon what ground those letters are not admissible, so long as they are pertinent to the case.
          Mr. Besley contended that they were not admissible before the writer of the letters had proved their authenticity.
          The Magistrate ruled that the letters should be read.
          Mr. Besley: Then I propose that all the letters are read, and that they are read in a chronological order.
          Mr. Poland: Excuse me, I shall read them in my own order. (Laughter.) There is no use in disguising the matter; there are other persons besides the prisoners connected with this case.
          The first letter was dated the 8th of April, 1870:–

"My darling Erne. – I was rather hurt at not receiving a letter from you before leaving Dingwall, as I know if you had posted a letter any time up to nine p.m. on Tuesday, I should have got it at Dingwall; and as you did not write them, I fear you will not have written at all. My next chance of getting a letter from you is to-night, and shan't I swear if you don't! The worst of it is, I omitted to write down your address in London. Please send it to me at once, if you have not already done. I have deserved this through George. My mother goes to Boulogne on the 22nd of this month, and I must manage if possible, to be there with her. I have told her I can go there on the 16th of May, if she can send me some money before that. Will it be too early for you? I am not altogether sorry that you should meet her. Will you promise not to shave your moustache again from this time until we meet for any consideration whatever? I beg you will promise this. When I left Dingwall in the mail car on Wednesday I wished you were with me; but by the time I arrived here I was very glad you were not. I was drenched to the skin, and I have been very feverish and reedy yersday and to-day. I should like to have had you to nurse me, but probably you have been worse. I think I told you my youngest brother had lately left the army. I am glad to hear he has got in again through the interest of Sir Hope Grant, uncle of the girl whose portrait I pointed out to you in the Academy in Edinburgh. I am quite in the dark as to Albert's movements. Did you hear anything of Jack, or did you see Fisher before leaving Edinburgh? – Yours always,

Mr. Flowers: Louis may be a woman.
          Mr. Besley: I don't know, sir.
          The following is the second letter:–

                                                  "Sunday. – 17, 1870.
"My dearest Erne. – At last your address. Fiske writes to me that there is no such place as Shirland-road in the Directory, but perhaps the houses are new. I am rather sorry to hear of your going about in drag so much – partly, I confess, for selfish reasons. I know the moustache has no chance while this sort of thing goes on. You have now less than a month to grow it, for my mother has arranged to stay at Boulogne until the 21st, so as to meet me. So I have settled to go there on the 16th, if I can get leave; th t is four weeks from tomorrow, I have told my mother you are coming, but have not yet had time to receive her answer. I thought it well to tell her that you are very effeminate, but I hope that you will do your best to appear as manly as you can, at any rate in face. I therefore again beg of you to let your moustache grow at once. I have written to propose us at Baronne from May 275h to 23rd of June. I will let you know how I think of dividing our time abroad when we meet, or before if you like. I enclose part of a letter from ——. Do you know who —— intended is. I heard yesterday from Albert at Liverpool, he said he would go to Edinburgh and pray for my speedy arrival. With his usual vagueness he gives no dates. I have written, asking him to join me in the north, as I don't know when I shall be in Edinburgh. I hop you aint hard up. I can't send you any money for a week or two. Next month I will send you some, both for pocket and clothes; so you may order the latter at once. Of course I would pay any drag bills except the one at Edinburgh. If you haven't paid this let me know about this and other bills. I have determined to depart from Mrs. Dickinson when I go on leave. I am sure you will be glad to hear of this. I to-day got an invitation from —— to dine with himn, and to go to Grand Duchess on the 25th. He will be cut up when he hears we are to be in Edinburgh. You were much inquired after at Thurso. The waiter there told me that the ladies in the hotel would not let you go at all if you had gone there again. I yesterday went to John o'Groat's house, of which, possibly, you have heard. Of course I miss you. – Yours ever.

The third letter was dated

                                        "Union Hotel, Inverness, April 13, 1870.
My dear Ernie, – No address, no money. That is my motto at present. It means that until I have your address I shan't risk sending any money. Perhaps that will induce you to send it – nothing else seems to. I want you to write a long letter giving me an acocunt of everything which has happened since we parted. Who saw yo off? What about F—— and Henry P——? The former gave me a hint that something had occurred. F—— wants to know your address. He says there is no such place as Shirland-road in the directory. I don't know when the Derby is, but were I able to be in town I could not go with you in a drag. Don't think me a cross old thing for this. You know my sentiments. Were I a humbug I should say I should be delighted to go and take care not to; as I am not a humbug I tell you I wouldn't. I will take care to have the things you mention. What bills have you left in Edinbro? I wish you would make an attempt to pay some other earlier bills. I should be very glad to help you. I should like you to have a little more principle than I fear you have as to paying debts. Will you let me know the address of the photographer in Colchester and I will write to him at once. I haven't it with me. I came here from Dingwall this morning. I shortly start for Thurso, where I should arrive at 6.30 to-morrow. I expect to meet B—— and his wife in the train. Write a long letter answering all my questions. – Your loving,

Mr. Poland said it was well known that "drag" meant going about in women's clothes.
          Mr. Besley said that his friend was not there to offer evidence himself.
          Mr. Flowers said he always thought a "drag" was a four-wheeled vehicle.
          Mr. Straight suggested that this was far more likely; besides the word has been coupled with the "Derby."
          Mr. Flowers said that the letters read at present were not sufficient to prevent his refusing bail; in fact one of the letters, where it said, "the ladies would not let him go away if he went again," was decidedly in his favor.
          Mr. Poland: Shall I read another?
          Mr. Besley: I desire that all the letters be read.
          Mr. Poland said he should only read those he chose, and then read the following:

                                        Office, Edinbro', April 30.
My darling Erne, – I had a letter last night from Louis, which was cheering in every respect, except in the information it bore that he is to be kept a week or so longer in the north. He tells me that you are 'living in drag,' What a wonderful child it is! I have three minds to come up to London, and see your magnificence with my own eyes. Should you welcome me? Probably it is better that I should stay at home and dream of you. But the thought of you, Lois and Antinous in one, is ravishing. Let me ask your advice. A young lady, whose family are friends of mine, is coming here. She is a charmingly dressed, beautiful fool, with £30,000 a year. I have reason to believe that if I go in for her I can marry. You know I should never care for her, but is the bait tempting enough for me to make this further sacrifice to respectability? Of course, after we were married I could do pretty much as I pleased. People don't mind what one does on £30,000 a year, and the lady wouldn't much mind, as she hasn't brains enough to trouble herself about much beyond her dresses, carriage, &c. What shall I do? You see I keep on writing to you, and expect some day an answer to some of my letters. In any case, with all the love in my heart, I am yours, &c.

(The two initials following are indistinct, but appear to be "P. F.")
          Mr. Besley, on looking at this letter, expressed his opinion that it was in a woman's handwriting.
          Mr. Poland said he saw no such resemblance. It was signed "John," at any rate, and the contents would show whether it was written by a man or not. The learned counsel then said, "if your mind is not changed, sir, I will read more."
          Mr. Flowers observed, that when the case first came on there was very little evidence, but he did not admit the prisoners to bail because he understood a very serious crime was going to be proved against them. But to the present time no substantial evidence had been given in support of that charge. They were charged with conspiring to commit a felony, and that was a bailable offence.
          Mr. Besley reminded his worship that the Treasury had already had 14 days to gather evidence.
          Mr. Poland observed that had been proved that the defendants and their friends had gone about with painted faces even while dressed as men. His difficulty in the case was considerable. It differed altogether from an ordinary charge of criminal assault. The persons involved in such a charge as this would naturally be very unwilling to come forward to offer evidence.
          Mr. Besley said that Mr. Poland got out of it by saying he was proving a charge in which the overt act could not be proved. He might, at all events, endeavor to give the apparent object of their conduct, such as obtaining money, &c., but instead of this, he still argued that it was not a lark, because it had been carried on a very long time. He also attached some serious importance to the fact that the two defendants had slept together.
          Mr. Flowers said he sincrely trusted that was not supposed to be a fact in support of so horrible a charge. (Applause.)
          Mr. Besley said it was not likely the defendants would run away from such sureties as would be offered. At all events the magistrate could use his discretion and increase the bail.
          Mr. Straight said his worship would probably know from his experience, when it was found a person could not be charged with anything, he was then placed in the dock and charged with conspiracy,and this applied to the present instance. The defendants were charged with felony, but now that Mr. Poland could not substantiate that charge, he charged them with conspiracy. It was very easy to make such charges, and it was very difficult to refute them. It was stated that the Treasury had had fourteen days to get up their case in, while it was really shown that they had had a much longer time, for the police had deposed to having haunted the defendants for some months at all events. One thing was certainly evident, not a single one of the letters made any reference to Park. There was no evidence adduced to show that they left the apartments in Waterford-street for the purpose of enticing men to come back with them and commit an unnatural offence. Surely Park was entitled to be liberated on bail.
          Mr. Poland (to the magistrate): If you have further doubt, sir, I will go on with the evidence. I ask you in the interests of public justice not to allow them to go out on bail.
          Mr. Flowers: I cannot think (excepting the letter) that there is enough evidence against the defendants to prevent my accepting bail. (Hear, hear.)
          Mr. Poland: Is it not a question for a jury to decide?
          Mr. Flowers: I did not say I would withhold it from the jury.
          Mr. Poland then handed another letter to the magistrate, which he retired to read in private.
          The court then adjourned for a few minutes.
          When Mr. Flower returned, he said that since reading the last letter his opinion of the case had entirely changed. He now felt it his duty to remand the prisoners for another week, without bail. (Sensation.)
          The prisoners were then remanded. (Chelmsford Chronicle)

Monday, 23 May 1870

This extraordinary case was resumed before Mr. Flowers at the Bow street Police-court on Saturday, without any sign of abatement in the interest attached to it by the public. The two defendants, Ernest Boulton and Frederick William Park, appeared to be as cool and collected as on each former occasion, although looking somewhat the worse for their three weeks' confinement in prison.

          Mr. Poland again conducted the prosecution; Mr. Besley appearing for the defendant Boulton, and Mr. Straight for Park.
          In the latter part of Friday's hearing, the following evidence was given:–
          Francis C. Cox, of Brewar street, Buckingham Palace road: I was formerly in business as an auctioneer at 1, Gresham buildings, Leadenhall street. I know the prisoner Boulton, and I have seen the other prisoner also. I first saw Boulton at the Guildhall Tavern, about the end of August or September, in 1868. He was dressed as a man. Mr. W. H. Roberts, of Moorgate street, and Lord Arthur Clinton were in his company. I was introduced to both Boulton and Lord Arthur Clinton by Mr. Roberts, whom I knew previously. They were having luncheon at the time. I saw down with them at the same table. I formed the opinion that Boulton was a woman, from his manners and conversation. Among other things he said, "I suppose you young City birds have fine fun in your officer, and have some champagne there." I said, "You had better come and see." They all accompanied me to the office, and we had some champagne. I treated Boulton as a fascinating woman. During their stay Lord Arthur Clinton went into the outer office, and appeared to be jealous of me. (A laugh.) While he was away, Boulton went on with me in such a flirting way that I was induced to kiss him, never suspecting that he was a man. Shortly after this Boulton complained of being chilly, and my business partner wrapped up his feet in the table-cloth. Lord Arthur Clinton and Boulton left together afterwrds. A few days after this I saw Boulton and Lord Arthur Clinton together again at a sale we were having at Turnham-green. My partner, myself, and the two others were into a sitting room. It was a private room. Boulton played a few airs on the piano, and after that we all went to the railway station together, where Boulton presented his photograph to me – secretly, as far as Lord Arthur Clinton was concerned. I fear I have lost the photograph. It was like the one produced. I afterwards heard something about Boulton's sex, and saw him at Evan's supper rooms in the company of Lord Arthur and Park. I ponted out the three to the waiter. He did not interfere, and I consequently threatened to turn them out myself. I went up to the table where they were sitting together and I said, "You —— infernal scoundrels, you ought to be kicked out of this place;" and I said something else equally abusive, all the persons at the table hearing me. They did nothing. I had promised the waiter not to create a disturbance, and left. I mentioned the circumstance to a great many persons, including the uncle of Lord Arthur Clinton. I waited upon Mr. Ball, a solicitor acting for them, some time afterwards. The photograph produced (a group) includes Boulton and Lord Arthur Clinton. I do not recognise the other figures in the group.
          Marie Cavendish: I live at 12, South bank, Regent's Park. I remember going to a ball at Hazell's Hotel, in the Strand. A friend of mine, named Agnes Earle, went with me. We went at half-past 11. We were taken by some friends. We were in walking costume. We went upstairs to the ladies' dressing room. Some ladies were there besides us in evening dress, and the servants of the hotel. I took off my bonnet and went to the ballroom. I thought it was a masquerade ball, but there were only two or three there in fancy dresses. There were about 40 persons at the ball probably – more or less. About half were dressed as women, or rather less than half. It was Mr. Gibbons who gave the ball. There was a programme of the list of dances and a band. The name of "A. Westropp Gibbons, Esq.," was on the programme.
          Mr. Poland: How was Mr. Gibbons dressed?
          Witness: Am I bound to answer that question?
          Mr. Flowers: I think you are.
          Witness: He was dressed as a lady in evening dress. Boulton and Park were both present, and also in ladies' evening dress. I knew no lady at the ball personally except the lady who accompanied me. I did not know the two persons in masquerade costume. I saw Boulton dancing with a gentleman. I stopped at the ball till after supper. I believe the landlord of the hotel went into the room late in the evening. I did not know that Park, Bolton, and Gibbons were men till I was told in the ballroom. There was singing besides dancing in the ballroom. I spoke to the men dressed as women after they had sung. The landlord came into the room owing to a slight disturbance that occurred. I left partly in consequence of this and partly becasue it was time to go. I do not think the defendants were present, or had anything to do with the disturbance. I danced only with my own friends. I am not willing to mention the names of my friends, either in public or private. I decline to say who the gentlemen were. After some discussion, the witness said if compelled to reveal the names of her friends should would sooner do it privately, lest it should injure them. It was understood that this course would be adopted, and one of the gentlemen named should be asked to give evidence on public grounds.

          Agnes Earle: I live with Miss Cavendish, and went to the ball with her. I saw the two defendants and Mr. Gibbons, dressed as women. Boulton was dressed in a white satin dress with tulle and pink roses. I believe Gibbons was dressed in a mauve silk, but can't be certain. They were all in evening dress. I saw one of the three come up and smack a gentleman's face while the latter was talking to me and asking for my address. There was a row in the supper-room, partly caused by a gentleman speaking to me. When I found out what was going on I left the room with Miss Cavendish and our gentlemen friends. It was while I was in the ladies' retiring-room that I discovered the defendants were men. A lady fainted, and fell upon the bed. I only know one of the gentlemen who went with us by name, and if I am compelled to mention his name would rather do it in private. I do not know the servant of the hotel was in attendance. There was a band.
          On Saturday the hearing of the case was resumed.
          Mr. W. H. Roberts, of Moorgate street, as soon as the magistrate had taken his seat, said that his name having been mentioned in the reports of the previous day's proceedings, he thought he had a right to ask that he should be called as a witness. He was ready to answer any questions.
          [He conceived that the fact of his name having been mentioned in connection with such a case was prejudicial to him, and he was therefore desirous of explaining to the Court that he was by the merest chance present with the prisoner Boulton at the Guildhall Coffee-House on the day referred to. He (Mr. Roberts) was solicitor to Lord Arthur Clinton, conducting his bankruptcy case, and that was how – (The Scotsman, report of 28 May 1870)]
          Mr. Flowers thought that Mr. Roberts should not make observations at the present time which might tend to prejudice the prisoners.
          William Henry Martin said: I am a whip and umbrella maker, of the Burlington arcade. About four years ago I was appointed by the landlord his agent to look after the arcade, and the constables were under my control. I know both the defendants. I have seen them there. They were dressed as women. I cannot say that I saw them speak to any one. I had them turned out. It was some time in 1869. They were lounging about; walking up and down like persons of loose character, and I directed the constables to turn them out. I had no idea that they were men. I have also seen them dressed as men.
          George Holder, P.C., 58 B: I know Boulton, and have seen him in the arcade. He turned out once when I was there. He was then in company with Park. I have never seen boulton but once in women's clothes. I have seen both of them many times, and there was a young man, whose name I believe to be Cummings, very often with them. He is a fair young man, with round features, and they attracted a good deal of attention by their behaviour and peculiar manner of walking.
          Mr. Edward Nelson Haxell said: I am landlord of the Royal Exeter Hotel in the Strand. Part of it is known as Haxell's Hotel. I know the prisoners. My name has been pretty freely handled in this matter, and I should like to make a statement.
          Mr. Flowers: Everybody seems to think himself and not of the prisoners.
          Mr. Poland: You must only answer the questions at present.
          I first saw Boulton on the 7th of April this year. He was in my hotel, and was introduced by a Mr. Amos Westropp Gibbons. He is a gentleman of independent fortune. Boulton stayed about eight days, and Mr. Gibbings stayed there all the time. He had been there from about the middle of the March before. He told me that Boulton was the best amateur "actress" off the boards. Boulton never was a customer of mine. He was Gibbings' guest, and he engaged the room for him. He came as a man, and Gibbings said that he had been invited from Edinburgh specially for the little party. When they left Gibbings paid every bill. I cannot say if they left together. Gibbons lived at 13, Bruton street, Berkeley square, and at Clapham. I saw Boulton dressed as a woman about four times. He left my hotel generally in a carriage, and dressed in full evening attire as a lady. There was generally a part of four of them – Park, Boulton, Gibbings, and a gentleman named Somerville. Gibbings was sometimes dressed as a lady, Somerville was always dressed as a gentleman, Park sometimes as a lady. He only stayed in the house one night, but when he went out as a lady he always dressed there. I think he dressed alone in a room. Gibbings introduced him as an amateur actor. I know Mr. Thomas. Have known him for about two months, about as long as I knew Park. I always understood him (Thomas) to be a gentleman of independent fortune. He always came in his carriage. Gibbings introduced him. I have seen him in female attire. Generally he came so dressed. I recollect the day of the boat race. I do not remember a brougham coming to my house that evening with ladies. Mr. Gibbings had not a party there that night. Mr. Gibbings had a ball – if you can call it such – at my house on the 7th of April. It was a party, with music. I got the programme up. It began at half-past nine, and ended about half-past three. There was supper in the interval. Boulton, Park, Thomas, and Cumming were dressed as ladies. There was one other man dressed as a woman at the ball. I understood his name to be Peel. He came with Thomas. I asked, and Gibbings told me. I understood that he was connected with the family of the Peels (Sensation). There were no other men, as far as I know, who were there dressed as women except those whose names I have given you. Those who were dressed as women danced with men. I was in the room nearly the whole time, and the only sign of disturbance I saw was when some gentlemen wanted the programme varied. Then I suggested that it should be concluded. There was a Miss Cavendish there, also a Miss Erle. I saw them leave, but do not know if anyone went with them. I think that all those who dressed as women, except Thomas and Peel, slept at my house that night. [The carriages which were used when they went out were supplied by Herring, of Northumberland-street.
          By Mr. Flowers – I should say that Gibbings is nearly 22; he had a dinner party at my house when he came of age. Thomas is about 22; I dont know what age Mr. Peel is. – Western Times reportof 24 May 1870]
          Cross-examined by Mr. Besley – Gibbings consulted me about the party some fortnight before it took place. His first idea was to have a musical party. He is an accomplished musician. It was changed because he said that he would have some fancy dress affair, and that they would come in "drag," which is the slang term for women's clothes. [Mr. Flowers – This is the first time the meaning of the word "drag" has been given in evidence. – Western Times report of 24 May 1870] Cross-examination continued – The invitations were sent from my house, I believe. They were twenty-five in number, but there were forty-eight came. Six of the persons dressed as women I knew to be men. Others, I believe, knew it also. I heard the observation round the room – how well the young fellows were acting. There was plenty of fun, but nothing coarse or improper. I heard Boulton sing, [if I may [say] so,] very charmingly. He sang "Fading away" three or four times with great èclát.I heard it said that Boulton's was the most perfect female voice. I told the leader of the band that it was Ernest Boulton, and he said "It must be a lady." Boulton, I believe, arrived from Edinburgh on the morning of the 7th of April. I had heard of him before, and spoken of as playing ladies' parts in good society. I believe I have seen some notice of his acting in Scarborough. Gibbings told me that he had played at St. George's Hall, Langham-place.
          By Mr. Straight – At the time these things were going on the hotel was full. There was not the slightest impropriety; if there had been I should have turned them all out. It was a lark, and no secret about it. There were always plenty of chambermaids about. Park generally came to my hotel as a man, dressed as a woman, went out in a brougham, came back, went into Mr. Gibbings's private room, changed his clothes, and came down again. Mr. Gibbings only left my hotel last week, about four days ago. I was much surprised when I heard of this charge being made against them, and am now; but until convicted I shall never believe it.
          By Mr. Poland – I had cautioned Gibbings about going out in women's attire, and told him that if he went to private boxes of theatres he would get into trouble. He said that he meant nothing by it. I replied, "I know you do not; but others may think you do." I never heard the slang phrase "drag" used by anybody else than Gibbings, and he said it meant women's clothes. I swear that I believe that all the persons at the ball believed that the men dressed as women were men.
          Mr. Poland – Let Mr. Shaen come in.
          A gentleman was here confronted with the witness, who said he did not know him. Would not swear that he was not at the ball. . . . (Sheffield and Rotherham Independent)

24 May 1870 . . .
          By Mr. Poland – There was a lady who fainted; but she was a lady. There was a medical man there, and I sent him to her. He told me that she was a little overcome with the supper. Mr. Gibbings said that he was so pleased with the affair that he would have another in May.
          Hermann Mendeghal, steward of Berkeley-chambers, Bruton-street, said – I know Mr. Gibbings. He took rooms there from the 1st of April. It is about a fortnight since he slept there; Park introduced him. He had apartments in the same house on the third floor. Park did not tell me what he was, but said he was a friend of his.
          Cross-examined by Mr. Straight – Park generally slept in his room. He came there for good about the beginning of January. He then had a moustache.
          Peter Roberts, a warder of the House of Detention – When the prisoners were brought to the gaol I searched them and changed their clothes for male attire. This is the list of things Boulton was wearing. He told me that he had undressed at the station, expecting to have his own clothes. A body and dress skirt of scarlet silk, three petticoats, a green gauze dress, a bodice, a pair of drawers and stockings sewn together, two bustles, a pair of boots bronze colour, a red flannel shirt and a quantity of wadding at the breast, a metal chain, four lockets, three bracelets, one finger-ring, a pair of ear-rings, a box order for the Olympic Theatre, and a necklace. There was no shawl. Park wore the following:– A dress of green with crape shawl, a crinoline, a pair of stockings, a white pair of boots and some wadding on his breast, and two finger rings. I tied them up in separate bundles. There were no stays on either of them.
          Agnes Dixon – I let lodgings at 118, Princess-street, Edinburgh. I know the prisoner Boulton. He lodged in my house at the end of last year, from the end of October to about the first or second week in April. The lodgings were taken for him by a Mr. Louis Charles Hurts. He paid all the expenses. Mr. Hurts occupied a sitting-room and bedroom. Boulton used his bedroom when Mr. Hurts was absent. They have occupied the same bedroom, when, perhaps, Mr. Hurts has returned suddenly, and a bedroom was not ready for him. The letters produced are in his handwriting. (The letters handed to the witness were those read last week signed "Louis." Other letters were put into the witness's hand, and she was asked to identify them as the handwriting of a man who had called at the lodgings). She said – I think they are the handwriting of Mr. Fiske. He used to come and see Boulton. I know a brother of the prisoner Park. He used to come and see Boulton. I know that Mr. Hurts is related to a person in a high position. He always behaved well. I should think he is about 26. Mr. Fiske is a younger man. I know that Boulton had female attire. I never saw him in it. Mr. Thompson (Superintendent) came down to my house and overhauled Mr. Hurts's things. He was from home at the time. Mr. Thompson told me to come to London. I recognise the likeness of Hurts among the photographs produced.
          Mr. Besley said he should ask to have all the letters read in court if the Treasury continued to refuse to give him copies of all the letters which the police had seized.
          Mr. Poland said that his case being substantially closed his learned friend had a right to copies, and should have them. He would have to ask for the committal of the prisoners on the evidence adduced.
          Mr. Besley – On what charge?
          Mr. Poland said he should ask that they be committed – firstly, for a general conspiracy to commit an abominable crime; secondly, conspiring with other persons to commit an abominable crime; and thirdly, by conspiring to incite other persons to commit the same crime. And there is also a question whether it would not be to commit an offence against common decency, for which they would be amenable at common law. Also, with reference to Park, there would be evidence before the jury to show that an offence had actually been committed by him.
          Mr. Besley – But it is necessary to state with whom, how, when, and where.
          Mr. Poland – I should fall back upon the legal charge, as – with divers persons, at divers times, between such-and-such a time and the present.
          The prisoners were then further remanded for a week. (Western Times)

27 May 1870

THE MEN IN WOMEN'S CLOTHES. – On Saturday, the charges against the two young men, Boulton and Park, were again proceeded with at Bow-street. One of the witnesses was Mr. Haxsell, of the Exeter Hall Hotel, who testified to the innocent character of the ball given in his house, at which the prisoners appeared in women's clothes. Mr. Haxell expressed his belief that all present knew Boulton and Park to be men, he having heard many observations as to the excellent quality of their acting. Agnes Dixon, with whom Boulton had lodged in Edinburgh from October to April last, was also called. Mr. Poland then stated the nature of the charge upon which he should ask the magistrate to send the prisoners for trial, and another remand was granted for the completion of the depositions. The charge is one of committing, and conspiring to commit, an abominable and unnatural crime. (Western Gazette)

28 May 1870

This case, which on the last occasion occupied two days – the third and fourth times the prisoners were before Mr. Flowers – was again heard at Bow-street on Friday. The counsel for the prisoners Park and Boulton were the same as before, while Mr. Montague Williams appeared on behalf of Mr. Haxell. On opening the proceedings Mr. Besley said it was compulsor on the part of the prosecution to define exactly the offence alleged and the time and place of its commission. It was impossible to conduct this defence without a definite statement of the actual charge which he was called upon to answer.
          Mr. Poland thought it was sufficiently obvious that the police could not be expected to know how to shape a charge of this kind.
          Mr. Besley claimed a copy of the letters.
          Mr. Poland said all the letters read in court had been given in the newspapers. Copies of the others should be given when they were put in.
          Dr. Richard Barwell, examined: I am a member of the Royal College of Surgeons, and a surgeon at the Charing-cross Hospital. I know the prisoner Park. I first saw him about ten weeks ago at the hospital, as an out-patient. His name was entered in the usual way, but I do not remember it. I saw him two or three times within a fortnight. (The witness here described the nature of the disease from which the defendant was suffereing, the way in which it was communicated, and his mode of treating it.) After this case appeared in the papers I was sent for to the Bow-street station, and I identified Park from a number of person placed together. With energetic treatment such a complaint might be cured within a month, or less. I believe there would be still some trace of its manifest. The defendant gave no account as to the cause of his malady. He was dressed in common clothes – such as out-patients ordinarily wear. I see a great many patients, but I have no doubt whatever of the prisoner Park being the man.
          Cross-examined by Mr. Straight: I have been surgeon at the hospital since 1854. I am there three days in the week, the duration of my attendance being dependent upon the number of applicants. Park must have been there on a Monday, Wednesday,or Friday. I notice their maladies rather than their faces. There is a book at the hospital recording the names of the patients, and I have ordered the book to be examined by the person who registers the names. I have not yet heard the result. Persons with peculiar diseases often give wrong names. I was quite certain of Park's identity.
          By Mr. Poland: The other man referred to by me as suffering from the same disease was not examined, because he stated the nature of his malady, and the cause of it, voluntarily.
          Some further medical testimony was given by Dr. Barwell, tending to substantiate the gravest imputations against the defendant, but of a character wholly unfit for publication.
          Mr. James Thomas Paul, examined: I carry on business in Burton-crescent, and am the divisional surgeon of the police (E Division). I saw the prisoners after their first examination at this court. I examined them separately, by the direction of Sueprintendent Thomson. I examined Boulton first. He was then dressed as a woman. I said to him, "Step inside here," pointing to a screen in the room, and I desired him to unfasten his things and get out of them. He was dressed in drawers and silk stockings attached to them. He complied at once with my request. (The witness stated the result of his examination, and expressed his opinion that the criminal offence charged had been committed again and again.) The prisoner Park was afterwards examined in the same way, and I arrived at the same opinion from the appearances presented. (Witness also confirmed a portion of the evidence of the previous medical witness.) I have been in practice 16 years, and made similar examinations on many occasions, but I never before saw the symptoms presented in these cases.
          By Mr. Besley: I have been seven or eight years the divisional surgeon. I was here in another case on the 29th of April, when the defendants were brought here, and saw them for a short time. The screen was as high as my head. I did not attend with any "order" given by Thomson. No threat of violence was made if they did not comply with the request to examine them.
          Mr. Besley complained that the prisoners had been examined without the magistrate's order, and
          Mr. Flowers, while admitting that it would have been better, entirely vidicated Dr. Paul, the more so, as he, the magistrate, thought they were women, and the examination was necessary to disprove that.
          . . . (Lake's Falmouth Packet)

4 June 1870

On Friday Boulton and Park, the young men charged with frequenting public places in women's clothes with intent to commit a felony, were again brought up at Bow-street.
          Mrs. Annie Empson, living at Davis-street, Berkeley-square, said: In December, 1868, I let the drawing-room floor to Lord Arthur Pelham Clinton. He stayed with me a fortnight; the prisoner Boulton (pointing to the prisoner Park) came and had mutton chops and bitter beer with Lord Arthur Clinton. (Laughter.) I complained to Lord Arthur Clinton about bringing a man dressed in woman's clothes to the house; he assured me he was a man. Lord Arthur went on tip-toes and let this one (pointing to Park) out of the house. He was then dressed as a woman. I examined the drawers in Lord Arthur's room, and found his (Park's) shirts – (laughter) – and, what's more, I found his powder and paint. I also found a lot of letters, which I handed over to the police. The two prisoners brought a box to the lodgings, which was taken upstairs, but I made them both carry it down again, and turned them out of the house. Lord Arthur represented Park as being his cousin. On the night upon which he went out from my house in women's clothes he slept with Lord Arthur. I stopped Lord Arthur's clothes for his rent, and among them I found the letters which I gave up to Superintendent Thompson.
          The witness was in some doubt as to the identity of the prisoners, confounding Park with Boulton, and being unable to speak with certainty to the persons in a photograph produced.
          Mrs. Flowers: When you say Lord Arthur slept with Boulton, do you mean in the same room or in the same bed.
          Witness: In the same bed. When Lord Arthur took the rooms he told me his brother was coming to stay with him, and asked me to get a bed for him, which I did. The bed was in one of the suite of rooms occupied by Lord Arthur on the drawing-room floor, and I was very much surprised to find on the morning after Park had stayed all night that it had not been occupied. She added that Lord Arthur had not paid her rent.
          Maria Duffey said that from July to November in 1863 she was housemaid in the service of Mrs. Peck, 36, Southampton-street, Strand. Lord Arthur Clinton was a lodger there, and Park and Boulton were frequent visitors, staying for two or three days at a time. Boulton used to sleep in the same bed as Lord Arthur. There was a small dressing-room leading out of Lord Arthur's bedroom, and Park used to sleep there. The only entrance to this room was from Lord Arthur's bedroom. While Park was away Boulton did not sleep in this room, but continued to occupy the same bed as Lord Arthur. Lord Arthur used to address Boulton as "My dear" and "My darling." She did not know whether Boulton was a man or a woman, and accused him of being a man, and he laughed, and showing his wedding ring and keeper, said he was Lord Arthur's wife. He usually dressed as a woman, but sometimes as a man. Park also dressed in both ways.
          A photograph being produced, the witness recognized the persons as Lord Arthur and Boulton. While Lord Arthur had the rooms in Southampton-street he went away for a week to Scarborough, taking Boulton with him. Boulton was then in man's clothes, but he took women's clothes with him. A hairdresser used to come nearly every morning to do Boulton's hair, and if Boulton and Park were going out at night he used also to come. Lord Arthur never dressed as a woman. In consequence of what the witness saw going on in the house she spoke to her mother and left the situation.
          Mr. Superintendent Thomson said that the witness Mrs. Empton had handed over to him about two thousand letters and papers, which she had detained as the property of Lord Arthur Clinton. Among them were some now procued in court. One had on the top in gilt letters the monogram "F.W.P." This was signed "Fanny Winnifred Park." A second was signed "Fanny," and a third "Fan." He also procued a letter signed "Stella Clinton," and eleven in the same handwriting, some signed "Stella" and some "Ernest Boulton." They were all addressed to Lord Arthur Clinton. On one envelope there was the stamped initial "C." with a scroll round it in which the name "Stella" was engraved.
          Chamberlain, the detective officer, proved the handwriting of the letters signed "Fanny Winnifred Park," "Fanny," and "Fan" to be that of the prisoner Park. The three letters were then read. They were all addressed to "My dearest Arthur." The first thanked Lord Arthur for remembering the birthday of the writer, promised him a present, and was subscribed "Your affectionate sister-in-law." The second referred to "a matrimonial squabble" between Lord Arthur and "Stella," in which the writer professed his inability to interfere; and the third arranged for a visit from Lord Arthur. The letter signed "Stella Clinton" was also read. It informed Lord Arthur that the writer and "Fanny" were going down to a party at Chelmsford, and concluded with the sentence "Not sent me any money, wretch."
          Mr. Barlow, surgeon, recalled, stated that upon his attending on Thursday to make a further examination of the prisoners, they, by the advice of their legal advisers, declined to permit it.
          This closed the case for the prosecution, and evidence was called for the defence.
          Mr. F. L. Clark, surgeon, who had made an exmainationn of the prisoners since their arrest, gave evidence in direct opposition to the theory supported by the medical testimony of the surgeons called by the prosecution. (The delivery of Mr. Clark's evidence was several times interrupted by applause in the body of the court.) Dr. Harvey gave evidence in corroboration of that given by the previous witness.
          Mr. Gibbins, who gave the ball at Haxell's Hotel, was next called, and stated that he and the prisoners as well as other persons mentioned in the case – Thomas and Cumming – had been in the habit of playing women's characters at private theatricals. In the course of his evidence the witness said he would swear Boulton was not at the boat race. For fear of "insinuations" he invited several real ladies to the ball at Haxell's. The witness indignantly denied any knowledge of immoral practices on the part of the prisoners.
          Another medical gentleman, Mr. W. H. Hughes, knew Boulton's father, and had attended Boulton himself professionally last year and the year before. He had seen the prisoner again in the House of Detention lately, and had formed an opinion quite contrary to that given by the doctors examined on behalf of the prosecution.
          The case was then adjourned.
          The first witness on Monday was Louisa, wife of James Peck, 36, Southampton-street, who said: Lord Arthur Clinton was my lodger from September until November, 1868. He occupied the drawing-room floor. During the three months he was there he was visited by Lady Albert Clinton, his brother's wife. He was visited by gentlemen. Mr. Boulton lived with him. Lodgings were taken for Boulton and him. Boulton sometimes went away for a day or two. They both went to Scarborough for some theatrical expedition. There were two beds in the apartment. There was a sitting and bed-room on the same floor. There was a bed in the dressing-room, and a couch in the sitting-room. I cannot saw where Mr. Boulton slept, but both beds were occupied. Mr. Park visited them once or twice. The length of his visits was about an hour. I believe he slept there one night. I don't know whether any one occupied the couch when Mr. Park was there. I never saw Mr. Boulton in women's clothes. When he was there he left the house as an ordinary lodger, and was dressed as a gentleman. I heard from a servant one evening he had dressed in women's clothes for a theatrical entertainment. During the whole time Boulton was under my roof he conducted himself as a gentleman, and was never guilty to my knowledge of any impropriety. He never used terms of endearment to Lord Arthur to my knowledge, except as to a gentleman. Maria Duffey was a servant at my place. She came in October and left in November. She was there one month and not four or five months, as she stated. She left because she said she was delicate. She said she was in a consumption, and that the place was too hard for her. She never complained of the conduct of Boulton and Lord Arthur.
          Cross-examined: Boulton looked very effeminate, but I did not notice any powder or paint on him. I did not for a moment think Boulton was a woman. I fancied that he looked as such. I never heard Boulton called "Stella Clinton." I never saw any cards with "Lady Arthur Clinton" on them. Lord A. Clinton did not visit Wight and Hurt to my knowledge. I did say, "We refused him (Lord A. Clinton) three times, but at last he sent his piano in and took possession." We had refused him on that day. I did not refuse him because I knew him to be a friend of Wight and Hurt.
          Eliza Clarke: I am 20 years of age. I was in 1868 in Mrs. Peck's service. I went in May, and remained till the following April. I was there several months late in the year. Maria Duffin was there one month. I was a housemaid. Duffin's was kitchen work, and her duties confined her down stairs. I was there when Lord A. Clinton and Boulton were stopping there. They took their meals together. I was in the habit of waiting on them at breakfast. I have seen Park there several times. On one occasion he slept there.
          Mr. Arthur Gladwell said: I am a dealer in works of art in Southampton-street. I occupied apartments on the secont floor in Mrs. Peck's house at the same time as Lord A. Clinton. I saw Lord Arthur and Boulton almost daily. I frequently saw Park come there. Boulton, with the exception of one occasion, was always dressed as a gentleman. On that occasion I was invited to see the party before they went out, and Boulton and Park were dressed as ladies. I heard that they were going to some little theatrical entertainment. When I passed their aprtment their sitting-room door was as frequently open as shut. I heard nothing coarse or familiar in their conversation. I saw Mr. Boulton one evening in female costume. He said he was going to a private amateur performance. Mr. Park was with him, and was also in women's dress. I opened the door for them and saw them enter a cab. I was not up when they came back. They had a latch key. That is the only occasion I saw them in female costume. I used to accuse him of being a female. He passed it off as a joke. Duffin left Mrs. Peck becasue she said she had delicate health.
          Cross-examined by Mr. Polance: I did not notice a wedding-ring upon Boulton's finger. I thought he was a female. I heard him sing. It was a womanish voice. I thought he was a woman all the time he was there. Lord Arthur used to call him Ernest. I remember a lady and gentleman coming to see Boulton. They were represented to be his father and mother. A hairdresser used to come about once or twice a week. He used to curl Boulton and Park's hair. When Boulton and Park were dressed as women they were powdered. I can't say painted. I thought Park was a woman. Boulton dressed in white muslin, and Park in a black silk dress. I have been to the theatre, and have seen ladies on the stage wearing similar dresses to those worn by the prisoners.
          Mr. Flowers said he had not allowed himself to be prejudiced against the prisoners, but he felt it his duty to commit the defendants for trial upon the graver charge and the common law offence, and that without bail. They would be tried at the Central Criminal Court at the next session. He asked the defendants if they wished to make any reply to the charge, or to reserve their defence, as he presumed they would.
          Boulton said nothing, but Park observed "I am entirely innocent of such a gross charge." After saying this he nearly fainted. The witnesses were then bound over to appear at the trial, and the prisoners were removed, shaking hands with their friends as they passed them. (Gloucester Journal)

9 June 1870

It is understood that a warrant has been issued for the apprehension of Lord Arthur Clinton, in connection with the charges for which Boulton and Park are now awaiting their trial at the Central Criminal Court. (West Briton and Cornwall Advertiser)

11 June 1870

On Wednesday afternoon, the Grand Jury returned a true bill for misdemeanour against Lord Arthur Clinton, Cumming, Boulton, Park, Thomas, and Louis Hurst; also a true bill for felony against Clinton and Park and Boulton and Park; and an indictment for felony against Clinton and Boulton. Warrants were granted for the apprehension of persons not yet in custody. It is believed that Lord Arthur Clinton is in America.
          On Thursday morning, Ernest Boulton and Fred. William Park were arraigned on various charges of felony and misdemeanour, to which Lord Arthur Pelham Clinton was a party.
          The Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General, Mr. Poland, and Mr. Archibald conducted the prosecution; Serjeant Parry and Mr. Straight defended Park; and Serjeant Ballantine and Mr. Besley, Boulton.
          Mr. Justice Blackburn took his seat on the Bench at ten o'clock, and the prisoners were then ordered into the dock. They were both dressed the same as when they were examined at Bow Stret, but neither looked so indifferent as to the position in which they were placed as at their various examinations at Bow Street. Their demeanour was then indicative of confidence that the affair would result in their dismissal. Not so this morning. On entering the dock, Park advanced to the front with an evident effort to sustain the ordeal before him. He placed his arms on the ledge of the dock, and scanned the court generally. In appearance he has rather improved. Boulton on the contrary evinced extreme nervousness, and hesitated as to which part of the dock he should take his stand in. He was very pale, and considerably thinner than when at Bow Street. The eyes of the court were instantly directed to the prisoners, and were only diverted by the clerk of the arraigns calling upon the prisoners severally to answer to their names. This they did – Park decidedly, in a firm voice, but Boulton on the other hand was tremulous and feeble. After the argument regarding the postponement of the trial, as appended in full, the clerk of the arraigns read to the prisoners severally the various indictments agianst them. They were five in number, and in each instance they said in answer to the usual formal questions as to whether guilty or not guilty, "Not guilty."
          Mr. Sergeant Parry: I appear for Park; but on behalf of both prisoners I have to state that we have not seen the indictment for felony, and we are anxious to see a copy of it.
          Mr. Justice Blackburn: Have you any doubt as to what the felony is? The prisoners were committed by the magistrate, and the evidence given before him is well known; but I should be glad to hear any reason for your application.
          Mr. Serjeant Parry: I am going to ask generally for a postponement of the trial both for the misdemeanour and the felony until the next sesson.
          Mrl Justice Blackburn: On what ground?
          Mr. Serjeant Parry: On the ground that we are not prepared to take our trial.
          . . . The Solicitor-General: I also ask that the trial should not proceed now. I think there are many reasons why I should not enter upon this investigation this session, and therefore, I accede to the application for a postponment.
          His Lordship: Under the circumstances, the application coming from both sides, I have no objection. . . .
          Five thousand pounds have been sent anonymously for the defence of Boulton and Park.
          A constable is stationed day and night at Haxell's Hotel to arrest any of those persons for whom warrants have been granted.
          The Globe has reason to believe that all the parties against whom fresh warrants were on Thursday issued in the men-women case, so far from keeping out of reach, were (with the exception of Lord A. Clinton, who has been abroad for some time) among the crowd in or about the court. (Morpeth Herald)

18 June 1870

THE MEN IN WOMENS's DRESS. – Up to Saturday night the police had not succeeded in apprehending any of the other persons against whom the grand jury returned true bills, and there appears to be very little doubt that they have left the country. It appears that the prisoners continue to assert emphatically that there is no foundation for the more serious charge against them, and at their own request they have undergone a surgical examination, at which Professor Taylor, of Guy's Hospital, was present, by the direction of the Government, as well as Mr. Gibson, the surgeon of Newgate, and it may be relied upon as a positive fact that the result of this examination undoubtedly tended to throw some light upon the medical evidence adduced before the police magistrate. It would seem that the prosecution have all along entertained considerable doubts whether the charge of felony can be sustained against any of the defendants, and it is not at all improbable that when the case comes on for trial the only charge that will be proceeded with will be the offence of misdemeanour at common law.
          On Saturday John Safford Fiske and Louis Charles Hurt, two of the men said to be concerned in the affair, and for whose apprehension bench warrants were granted, were brought up before Mr. Flowers, at Bow-street, for examination. Mr. Pllard, a solicitor from the treasury, said that the prisoners had been apprehended upon warrants which he held in his hand, granted upon the return of a true bill against them for misdemeanour, and upon which he should ask his worshop to commit them for trial. Mr. Superintendent Thomson identified the prisoners as the persons against whom the warrants were issued. Applications were made to admit the defendants to bail, but Mr. Flower told the parties that application must be made to a judge in chambers. The defendants were then committed to take their trial.
          The name of W. S. Cumming, who is in this case put on his trial for misdemeanour, has been given inaccurately. It should have been Martin Luther Cumming. This case (says a London correspondent) is now entering upon a very unexpected and discreditable phase of its character. Numerous as have been the summonses that have been issued, it is now said that the proceedings will not stop short at them but that a great many more persons will either directly or indirectly be implicated in the scandal. What is perhaps still more to be deplored is the fact that most of the persons move in the upper circles, and that attempts will be made to have the matter hushed up. Indeed, it is said that considerable pressure has been already brought to bear upon the Home Office, in order to prevent further revelations. This, however, has been happily resisted, Government being resolved to sift the whole case to the bottom.
          The Observer says it would seem that the prosecution have all along entertained considerable doubts whether the charge of felony can be sustained against any of the defendants, and it is not at all impossible that when the case comes on for trial the only charge that will be proceeded with will be the offence of misdemeanour at common law, which imputes to the defendants Park and Boulton, and all the other parties against whom true bills have been returned, that they unlawfully conspired together to dress themselves as women and to frequent various public places, and induced men to toy and play with them as such, and had thereby outraged public morals and decency. If convicted of this offence the prisoners can only be sentenced to imprisonment; but if convicted upon any of the other crimes, which allege that the prisoners conspired together to induce persons to commit unnatural offences, they would be liable to be sentenced to penal servitude for seven years. (Gloucester Journal)

25 June 1870

THE MEN IN PETTICOATS. – All the efforts of Mr. Abrams, the solicitor engaged in the defence of the defendants, have failed in obtaining the necessary bail for the release of John Safford Fiske, the late American consul at Leith. The prisoner will, therefore, remain in Newgate till the day of the trial, in July. The remaining four persons indicted are still at large. (Gloucester Journal)

10 July 1870

The affair of the "Men in Pitticoats" has completely collapsed. The same judicial farce that was played in the case of Overend and Gurney was repeaed in that of Boulton and Park in the Court of Queen's Bench on Wednesday. There was the same judge, in the same wig, to go through the same performance; there were some of the same counsel; and, in fact the same stale old actors in the same stale old farce. All the world foretold how the Overend and Gurney affair would terminate when removed from the tribunal for the trial of criminal charges into the superior court; and we can guess pretty accurately how the affair of Boulton and Park will now end. A write of certiorari, removing the trial from the Central Criminal Court to that of the Queen's Bench, is nothing more nor less than a loophole afforded to wealthy and influential parties to get out of the fangs of justice. Some few years ago, a rich solicitor was charged at the police-court with bestiality with a soldier. He was committed to the Old Bailey, and got the trial removed to the Queen's Bench, obtained bail, and bolted. Many others have done this, and many others will do the same again.
          Poor persons are tried at the Central Criminal Court, and even at an inferior one – the Middlesex Sessions – for offences identical to those with which Boulton and Park are charged. Why, then, we ask, should any difference be made? If a man can be tried for murder at the Old Bailey, surely the tribunal sitting there is capable of ajudicating on minor matters? The fact is, our judicial system is a scandal to the age, and a reproach to the English nation; the custom of removing trials from a criminal to a civil court, by means of money, being perhaps the greatest iniquity in the system.
          The prosecution by the Treasury has cost an enormous sum of money, and now, forsooth, it completely breaks down! Why has the prosecution of the major offence, the charge of having committed unnatural crimes, dropped through? Has the letter which Mr. Flowers, the magistrate, privately read – the letter which caused him to commit the prisoners on the more serious charge – been satisfactorily explained? Has the fact of the prisoners, Lord Arthur Clinton, &c., sleeping unnecessarily together, been accounted for? But, above all, has the damnatory evidence of Drs. Barwell and Paul been disproven? All this the public has a right to know, not only in the interests of justice, but likewise for the sake of the accused themselves, as well as for the reputations of the medical men we have named. It is well known that the names of two peers of the realm and of a baronet have been associated with those of Park and Boulton, although they have not been prominently before the public. We feel certain that some sinister influence has been at work to screen persons of high position from being placed in the same predicament as Boulton and Park, and hence their prison doors are thrown open; bail for ten times the required amount will be forthcoming: the trial, if ever it takes place at all, will be postponed for months, no further exposures will be made – and so the farce is ended! It would have been more complete, perhaps, if Lord chief Justice Cockburn had stood upon his head, or turned a somersault, after granting the writ of certiorari, and beofre the curtain fell on the first act of the comedy. (Reynolds's Newspaper)

9 May 1871

The long-delayed case of "The Queen v. Boulton, Park, and others," came on for trial this morning in the Court of Queen's Bench, before the Lord Chief Justice and a special jury.
          Great interest was attached to the proceedings, and crowds of persons congregated round the entranceof the courtfor an hour previous to its opening,and long before the proceedingscommenced the interior was densely crowded.
          The defendants Boulton and Parkentered the court with Mr. Lewis, their solicitor, about ten minutestoten o'clock, and took their seats under their counsel. They were dressed in the most fashionable attire, and had each a bouquet of flowers in the buttonholes of their coats. They were shortly after followed by Hurt and Fiske, who were equally well-dressed. Each wore a new pair of light-coloured well-fitting kid gloves. When the case was opened, and allusion was made by the Attorney-General tothe painful nature of the charge and the respectability of the defendants,and the disgrace which attached to thecharge, they appeared to feel acutely their position, but they speedily regained their self-confidence.
          . . . Mr. Archbold stated the nature of the indictment, which charged the defendants, Ernest Boulton, Louise Charles Hurt, Frederick William Park, John Salford Fiske, William Somerville, Martin Luther Cumming, C. H. Thompson, and Lord Clinton, with conspiring and inciting persons to commit an unnatural offence. The four defendants, who had surrendered, pleaded not guilty. Lord Clinton had since died, and Somerville, and Thomas had not surrendered.
          The Attorney-General, in opening the case, said:– It is at all timesan unpleasant duty to have toconduct a prosecution, but when it is to be conducted against four gentlemen – for such they are, and well educated and constituted – two of whom have certainly borne a high character – it is with the utmost pain and sorrow that I feel constrained to accuse them of an odious crime, but I have no alternative. It would be idle on my part, after the revelations that were made in the Police Court, to suppose that you are ignorant of what has transpired in reference to this case, but from what took place then the Home Secretary thought it his bounden duty to institute a most searching investigate, and I have to lay the result of that investigation before his Lordship and you. . . .
          There are four other defendants, one of whom has died since the isntitution of these proceedings, and the other three have not surrendered to take their trial, and the police have not succeeded in apprehending them. They spoke to and wrote to each other in such a manner as to indicate that relations subsisted between them of the most immoral character. They sometimes dressedthemselves in female constumes, wore lowdresses, and painte.d They wrote to each other in the language of love, and sometimes in language of violent passion. . . .
          Witnesses are peculiarly reluctant togive evidence, and those who have accidentally associated with them, and to whom no criminality attaches, are unwilling witnesses. Boulton and Park have frequently acted the parts of women at amateur theatricals, which is not an offence, and if the dressing up in female attire in the streets had been a mere freak or escapade, they would not have been amenable to such a charge as this; but it is for you to say whether after hearing the whole of the case you think this case admits of any such explanation. I fear, however, it will be shown that their appearance in public in female attire was not a mere freak, but the business of their lives, and adopted with a persistency such as to lead one to suppose it was their profession. I shall be able to prove their visits and conduct at various places of public amusement – the Alhambra and the Surrey Theatre, where they frequented the ladies' retiring rooms – their promenading in the Burlington-arcade; and much of this proof will depend upon the evidence of a young gentleman named Mundell, the son of a a gentleman of high standing, and against whom no imputation rests, he having accidentally become acquainted with Boulton and Park, and associated with them for a short time,in the belief that they were respectable. After they were apprehended it was discovered that they possessed an extensive female wardrobe of every description of ladies' attire, ad well as ornaments and trinkets. . . .
          The Attorney-General continuing, his address, then referred to the evidence he should call with reference to their living together, and the letters that passed between the defendants. In continuation he said Fisk was subsequently apprehended in Edinburgh, and the police had orders to search his room before apprehending him. He inquired in Fisk had received any letters from Boulton, and he replied he had, and had destroyed them, and he told the constable that if he would leave the room a moment he would give him something. The constable, however, did not, and proceeded to search the room, and he soon found behind the fire-place an album with photographs, beautifully executed, of Boulton in female attire. In one he represented a beautiful woman, especially one who was in the attitude of prayer. . . . (Echo (London))

9 May 1871

The long-delayed case of Park and Boulton came on for trial this morning in the Court of Queen's Bench, before the Lord Chief Justice and a special jury. The Court was densely crowded. Boulton and Park were dressed in the msot fashioanble attire, and had each a bouquet in their button holes. Hart and Fisk were equally well dressed. The defendants appeared to be affected during the opening address of the counsel. The other defendants did not surrender. The four named pleaded "Not guilty." . . .
          On the jury being sworn,
          Mr. Archbald read the indictment, from which it appeared that there were three more defendants, whose apprehension had not been effected by the police. One of these was Martin Luther Cumming, the othes were Thomas and Somerville.
          The Attorney-General then rose, amid breathless silence, to open the case. His voice was at first very low. He said: May it please your lordship. Gentlemen of the jury, – When I see before me four gentlemen – for such they are – charged with the crime which it is my duty to state against them – gentlemen who have borne a high character, it is with the utmost pain and sorrow I feel constrained to accuse them of an odious crime; but I have a solemn duty to perform, and so have you, in the interest of justice and the whole community. First let me briefly mention how I am engaged in the case. The revelations of the police-court during the preliminary investigation of this case were of such a character that the Secretary of State gave directions to institute a most searching investigation, in order to ascertain as far as possible whether the popular apprehension which was entertained was true. The crime is of a character held in peculiar detestation in this country. . . . I shall now state as shortly and clearly as I can the nature of the charge and the evidence which I shall have to submit to you. First with respect to the defendants, Mr. Boulton is a young man of 22 or 23, whose father was engaged in commercial pursuits. The son was for some time clark in the office of his uncle, a stock broker in the City, and for a short time also a clerk in a bank. I think he ceased to be that in 1866 or 1867, and since then, as far as I have been able to find out, he had no occupation, and I believe little or no means of livelihood; and that is a matter which may turn out to be a matter not altogether immaterial. Mr. Park was educated for the profession of the law. He had been articled to a respectable firm of solicitors, and his father, a man worthy of every respect, is master in one of the superior law courts. Mr. Hart was a clerk in the Post Office. I believe, for some time he has been in London. He was well acquainted with Boulton and Park. At one time he removed to Edinburgh, where he was clerk in the Post Office. Mr. Hart is a gentleman of good position. He is an educated man, well connected, and he has borne a high character. The fourth defendant is Mr. Fiske. He is an American subject. I believe he carried on business, and does now, as a merchant, in Edinburgh, and is the American Consul at Leith. He also is a gentleman of high character and good position. There are four other defendants, but of these one died since the execution of the process. The other three have not surrendered to take their trial, and the police have not succeeded in apprehending any of them. And now it may be as well that I should state to you the general nature of the charge before I go into evidence. The general natura of the charge is this: that the defendants, with other persons not apprehended, and also, I regret to say, other persons whose names have not been discovered, associated together, spoke to, and wrote to each other in such a manner as to indicate that relations existed between them as were permissible only between men and women; that by sometimes dressing in female costume, sometimes in male costume, with a studied air of effeminacy, baring their necks, painting their faces, and so making themselves objects of desire to their own sex, they lived together in the relations of lover and mistress; they wrote to each other and addressed each other in terms of endearment, and wrote to each other in the language of love, sometimes of violent passion, in short, that they associated together – or in the language of the indictment, that they conspired for the purpose of committing an unnatural crime. Now, with respect to the character of the evidence, I think you will concur with me in this preliminary observation that this is a crime which, by its very nature, is very difficult to prove. . . . The Attorney-General then proceeded to read over portions of the evidence which would be given and a number of letters. In the course of the observations which he made upon portions of the case, he declared that it would be made plain that Boulton was kept by Lord Arthur Clinton.
          His speech occupied nearly two hours in delivery, and he concluded by saying the jury would do what in them lay to stop a plague which might lead to a serious contamination of the national morals. . . .
          A discussion then arose as to the manner in which the Crown was conducting the prosecution. There were two indictments, and the one under which they were proceeding was for a conspiracy for the purpose of inciting others to an unnatural crime. The time fixed was Jan. 1, 1868. The second indictment was for indecently attiring themselves for purposes which were immoral. . . . (Birmingham Mail)

10 May 1871

. . . The evidence brought forward when the Court assembled after luncheon was mainly a repetition of what is already familiar to all who have followed the case. In Superintendant Thomson's examination, an allusion was made to Lord Arthur Clinton's death, which elicited from this witness the reply, "Yes, I know he is dead" – an answer which excited some attention, as this officer, it was understood, had been specially employed to inquire into the circumstances of his decease. . . . (Daily Telegraph & Courier)

12 May 1871

The trial of Boulton, Park, Hurt, and Fiske was resumed this morning. . . .
          Sir John Karslake then commenced his address on behalf of Mr. Lewis Hurt. He said, after remaining in a state of enforced idleness since Tuesday, he had to address the Court on behalf of his client. The jury would have noticed that since the opening of the case he had scarcely found it necessary to ask a single question on behalf of Mr. Hurt, whose interests had been confided to his care.It was a hard thing that in this case, owing to the singular manner in which the case had been conducted, a number of gentlemen had been mixed up in one indictment, and, with respect toMr. Hurt, mixed up in concerns with which he had nothing to do whatever.It was a serious matter that power was posessed to include men in that wholesale way in one common indictment for an offence where the probable result would be that, in the disgust entertained for the offence, all might be dragged down to one common level. There was a chared against a gentleman residing in Scotland, who had never been examined before a bench of magistrates in Scotland, for conspiring, with others in England, to commit a certain horrible offence in different places. Thje onky evidence was that of a womna, Mrs. Dixon, the lodging-house keeper in Edinburgh; and he would be able to show most conclusively that when Boulton visited Hurt in Scotland he occupied a separate bed, and yet he was included in the indictment for conspiring tocommit an unnatural offence in England. The very charge being made against a man produced a stigma which would never be got rid of through life A man once charged with that offence never recovered his position. The charge might e disproved; nevertheless the man went about the world with an odium which was never shaken off in public estimation, and there were always too many in the world ready to believe that such a man was guilty. He did not for one moment believe that his learned friend the Attorney-General had acted in the way he had from any prejudice; but he must have known before the case came on that there was not an atom of evidence justifying Hurt being charged jointly with the others. The history of the whole case was only a story of folly. No doubt Boulton and Park had been guilty of great folly in going abut in women's clothes: but an amount of prejudice had been imported into the case, which was not warranted by the evidence. At first, and for many days, the ony offence charged against Boulton and Prk was that of going about in women's clothes; and it wasnot until the unfortunate evidence was given by Mr. Paul, the police surgeon, that the more serious harge was preferred.It would appear that Boultonm from a child had affected women's characters. He had been encouraged by his mother in assuming the parts usually acted buy women. So, then, it had come to pass that in gait, in voice, in a peculiar lisp which he had, and in the possession of what had been described as a marvellous soprano voice, he closey resembled a woman. The whole case was one of great folly, and was so regarde duntil the evidence given by Mr. Paul. The conduct of Mr. Paul he could only chaaracterise as of the greatest indignity. That he should have bekan upon himself to order these young men to submit –
          The Lord Chief Justice: He was told by Thompson that there was an order. I don't believe for one moment that Sir Thomas Henry would have ordered such an examination. In this case the police took the power into their own hands. The whole thing seems to have been done by the police.
          Sir Johjn Karslake: The surgeon ought to have required something more than the mere statement of Mr. Thompson.
          The Lord Chief Justice: I entirely agree with you that Mr. Paul ought to have required something more than the statement of Mr. Thompson.
          A few minutes elapsed during during which the learned Chief Justice went out to confer with other learned judged. Upon his return the Lord Chief Justice said his brother judges agreed with him that there was at presentsome evidence to go to the jury upn, but t the same time leave would be reserved upon the point as to the jurisdiction.
          Sir John Karslake then proceeded to comment upon the evidence which had been brought foward. The intercourse between his client and Boulton originated in a friendship of many years' standing. His client had visited at the house of Boulton's parents; and they were attached to one anothere. There appeared to be a singular charm about Boulton, which endeared him to all his friends. Was it therefore at all unnatural that when Boulton was recovering from a long and serious illness that his friend Hurt should wish him to visit him in Scotland. At this time it must be borne in mind that Mr. Hurt was travelling about as an inspector of post offices, and he thought, not unnaturally, that a little travelling would help to restore his friend to perfect health. He accepted the invitation, and travelled with Hurt, but at that time there is not the least suggestion that he ever dressed in female attire, or behaved with the least impropriety. Yet it was evident that during that journey Boulton was everywhere taken for a female. At6 roadside inns where they stopped, cute men would not believe but that he was a woman dressed in men's clothes; and the consequence was that ultimately some one wrote to the chief of the Post Office and told him that Mr. Hurt was travelling about with a woman in disguise This led to the letters passing which had been read, in which Hurt assures his chief that Boulton was a man, and a friend of his for some time. The letters written by Hurt to Boulton entirely bore out the version which he was giving of the affair. There was not the least ipropriety in them, and Mr. Hurt commented upon his enforced absence from London in a tone of not unnatural regret. With regard to his addressing Boulton as Stella, he saw no indication of that guilt which it was sought to attach tothe phrase. In fact, it was the most natural name to give him; for it would be shown that in the country newspapers, wherever Boulton acted, he was called the "Star" of the evneing; and the papers were full of expressions of admiration and wonder at the manner in which he sustained the female parts he took. Then again, it was the common title by which he went in his parents' house. Friends familiarly calle dhim "Stell," and "Stella," and he was encouraged tosustain the parts he took, from the rare excellence with which he simulated female parts. Then what evidence was thre as to any unnatural offence having been committed in Edinburgh; and upon this he ventured to say there was not one atop to justify his cient being included in the indictment. Mrs. Dixon had certainly contradicted herself in the evidence which she gave before the Maqgistrates and in that Court, but there was the strongest possible evidence, namely, in the bills which Mr. Hurt produced for lodgings while Boulton was with him, to show that they never slept together, but always occupied separate rooms. The evidence altogether was wholly corroborative of the case which he had been instructed to lay before the jury,l namely, that the friendship between Hurt and Boulton was of the most innocent character. They did not live in any secrecy, but openly, and there was not a tittle of evidence in support of the serious charge levelled against his client in the indictment. . . .
          Mrs. Boulton said her husband was a stockbroker, now on business at the Cape of Good Hope. Her son Ernest was from six years old fond of acting female parts. he constantly put on female dress and acted, when no visitor was present.He had waited at table as parlour maid, and never been detected by their friends. They encouraged him to act. She knew Lord Clinton, he was friendly with her son. They dined together. She and her husband visited Lord Arthur in London, and went with him to the theatre. Her son was then visiting Lod Clinton, wiht her permission. He never went anywhere without her permission. She remembered her son acting with Clinton, in "Morning Call," at the Egyptian Hall, in 1868. From that time Boulton played at Brentwood, Scarb oro', Chelmsford, Southen, and many other places. She always knew where he was. She was rather against it, but never forbade him, because he was so fond of acting Gave her sanction to his going on a theatrical tour with Mr. Pavitt, and read theatrical bills from every place – everywhere he was very successful. . . . (Birmingham Mail)

14 May 1871

This long-delayed case of the Queen v. Boulton, Park, and others, came on for trial on Tuesday, before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn. Great interest was attached to the proceedings, and crowds of persons congregated round the entrance of the court for an hour previous to its opening. Long before the proceedings commenced the interior was densely crowded.
          Before ten o'clock the defendants were seated upon the bench; though only four of the eight originally charged appeared in court. Boulton was scarcely altered in look since his appearance at Bow-street; and, except for the faint shade of a moustache, he might still easily have been taken for a girl in boy's clothes. Park, on the other hand, has grown stout, and his large whiskers have so altered his face as completely to deprive it of the feminine look which it wore a year ago. Both he and Boulton had flowers in their button-holes, and were dressed, to use the expression used by one of the witnesses, "somewhat more tastily" than is quite common with young men of the present day. As to Hurt and Fiske, they had the look and attire of quiet, well-dressed young gentlemen, in whose appearance there was nothing to notice one way or the other. All the defendants, it should be added, behaved with perfect propriety throughout the proceedings, speaking occasionally to each other or to their counsel, but exhibiting nothing of the unseemly levity display by Park and Boulton during the original hearing of the case at Bow-street. . . .
          The Attorney-General, in opening the case, said: . . . Boulton and Park have frequently acted the parts of women at amateur theatricals, which is not an offence, and if the dressing-up in female attire in the streets had been a mere freak or escapade, they would not be amenable to such a charge as this; but it is for you to say whether, after hearing the whole of the evidence, you think this case admits of any such explanation. I fear, however, it will be shown that their appearance in public in female attire was not a mere freak, but the business of their lives. . . .
          [He then read several letters, including some already printed above]:

                              "Duke-street, Nov. 21.
"My dearest Arthur, – How very kind of you to think of me on my birthday! I had no idea that you would do so. It was very good of you to write, and I am really very grateful to you for it. I require no remembrances of my sister's husband, as the many kindnesses he has bestowed upon me will make me remember him for many a year, and the birthday present he is so kind as to promise me will only be one addition to the heap of little favours I already treasure up. I cannot echo your wish that I should live to be a hundred, though I should like to live to a green old age. Green, did I say? Oh, ciel! the amount of paint that will be required to hide the very unbecming tint. My 'campish undertakings' are not at present meeting with the success which they deserve. Whatever I do seems to get me into hot water somewhere. But, n'importe. What's the odds as long as you're happy? – Believe me, your affectionate sister-in-law,
                              "FANNY WINIFRED PARK."

          The next letter was dated 22nd November:–
"My dearest Arthur, – You must really excuse me from interfering in matrimonial squabbles (for I am sure the present is no more than that); and though I am, as you say, Stella's confidante in most things, that which you wish to know she keeps locked up in her own breast. My own opinion on the subject varies fifty times a day when I see you together. She may sometimes treat you brusquely; but, on the other hand, see how she stands up for your dignity of position (in the matter of Ellils's parts for instance), so that I really cannot form an opinion on the subject. As to all the things she said to you the other night, she may have been tight and did not know all she was saying, so that by the time you get my answer you will both be laughing over the whole affair, as Stella and I did when we quarrelled and fought down here, don't you remember when I slapped her face? Do not think me unkind, dear, as really I have told you all I know, and have not an opinion worth having to offer you. My address is the same, as I do not move out of the street. I have enclosed a note to you in the one I wrote Stella last night. Good-bye, dear, – Ever yours,

          The next was dated Duke-street, Friday:–
          "My dearest Arthur, – I think I would rather you came in the middle of the week, as I fancy I am engaged on the Saturday (15th) in London, though I am not certain yet. If you came on Wednesday, and stayed until Saturday morning (if you could endure me so long), we could all go up together – that is, if I go. But please yourselves. I am always at home, and a fixture. I shall be glad to see you both at any time. Is the handle of my umbrella mended yet? If so, I wish you would kindly send it me, as the weather has turned so showery that I can't get out without a dread of my back hair coming out of curl. Let me hear from you at any time; I am always glad to do so. – Ever yours affectionate.
          He would now read two letters written to Boulton by Mr. Somerville, who had not surrendered. They were as follows:–

          "Dearest Stella – I am afraid I shall not be able to see you to-night, as I must go down by the 7.25 train, to be present at a presentation of a purse to an old fellow to-night, and half-past eight. You imagine I do not love you. I wish to God it was so; but tell me how I can prove it, and I will willingly do so. I will explain to you very soon. It will not be my fault if it is not so. What are you going to do on Saturday afternoon? I cannot ask you to come as far as the City to see me, but say where would be convenient to you and I will come. Please answere this at once; and, if you only love me as I do you, I will be quite content; but I am afraid that is impossible. Do let me know about Saturday, and believe me, with fondest love, ever your
                              "Seven o'clock.
          "P.S. – I took the liberty of taking some of your paper. – W. S."

                              "130, Fenchurch-street.
          "Dearest Stella, – I am very sorry to tell you we are not going to have a ball at Richmond. We had a meeting last night, and it was decided it would not be advisable, as we have not sold more than sixty tickets. Did you see a fellow had been taken up for being in drag (meaning women's clothes), but he was let off. Do you know him by name? I did not see Fan last night at Richmond Theatre, as I had not finished dinner till eight, so was too late. I expect she will be awfully angry, – saw us going into Lake's on Monday. He was just coming out. I wonder he did not speak to us, or at any rate stop us and look daggers. I began this letter yesterday, but had not time to finish it, as I was awfully busy. When shall I see you again, dearest? Do let me know what you are going to do on Saturday. I am going to a ball at Kingston to-morrow night, which I hope will be a ——. With much love and many kisses, ever your
          Another letter was signed "Harry," and addressed to "dear Stella." It ran thus:–
          "Dear Stella, – You can easily imagine how dull I am, and how disinclined to write. I hope you will have much fun to-night, and both you and Fan must send me news as soon as convenient. I left the two ladies a few minutes after you departed, but met them again at twelve. Bob never turned up, but Stenny came at three o'clock. I forgot all about the photos, and he never mentioned them; he saw me to the station. I came from Holytown with Georgte and James Tudhope. To-day is Glasgow fast. I will positive write again soon, but at this present I cannot. Love to Fanny.
          "Yours ever,
          "P.S. – Of course I have as usual left a few little things behind, such as the glycerine, &c. – that don't matter – but cannot find (oh, horror!) those filthy photos nor Louis' (Hurt's) likeness. I do hope they are not lying about your room."
          The learned Attorney-General then referred to letters which passed between the defendant Hurt and Lord Arthur Clinton, the former having been called to account by the Post-office authorities by reason, as he said, of "the rustics of Devizes, Aberdare, and Newport having taken Ernest for a woman."
          . . . Then there were letters to Boulton from the defendant Fiske:–
                    "Edinburgh, 136, George-street, 18th April, 1870.
"My darling Ernie, – I am looking for Louis to-night, and wishing, as I do a hundred times each day, that you were to be here. I have eleven photographs of you (and expecting more to-morrow,) which I look at over and over again. I have four little notes which I have sealed up in a packet. I have a heart full of love and longing, and my photographs, my four little notes, and my memory are all that I have of you. When are you going to give me more? When are you going to write a dozen lies of four words each, to say that all the world is over head and ears in love with you, and that you are so tired of adoration and compliments that you turn to your humdrum friend as a relief? Will it be to-morrow, or will it be next week? Believe me, darling, a word of remembrance from you can never come amiss, only the sooner it comes the better. 'Hope deferred' – you know the saying. Adventures do turn up, even in Edinburgh. Perhaps you would envy me for five whole minutes if I were to tell you of one that I've had since you left; but I will keep for your own ear when very likely you try after the same happiness. I shall write you a long note, darling, at least not to night, perhaps never again if you don't write and tell me that I may. I hear Robbie Sinclair coming here: is his smiling face with the clear gray eyes and vivid roses. I wonder if Louis will like him. I hope not – at least not too much. I am getting very fond of Louis, and as I am fond of Robby too, I don't want them to take too violently to each other. But what are these fancies and likings to the devotion with which I am yours always, jusq' a la mort (till death).
                              "JOHN S. FISKE
          "A un ange au'on nomme Erne Boulton, Londres," (to an angel named Ernie Boulton, London).

          . . . The fourth letter, sealed up in the packet to which Fiske referred in his letter as having been received from Boulton, was not found by the police, and was no doubt destroyed. They, however, found behind the fireplace in his rooms a photograph book containing a number of photographs of Boulton in various characters – one as a saint in the attitude of prayer. (A laugh.) . . .

          The court then adjourned.
          Crowds of pesons waited in Palace-yard to see the defendants depart from the court. Cabs were in requisition for their conveyance, and as they came out from Westminster Hall on the way to their vehicles some of the assembled mass cheered them, some hissed, and some clapped hands in demonstration of their feelings. Fairly seated in their cab, Boulton, as they were whirled off, put up his hand to his lips and kissed it to his friends.
          Wednesday was the second day of this trial. The same interest and excitement prevailed. The court was densely crowded, and throughout the day the approaches to the court were thronged.
          . . . [From the testimony of divisional surgeon James Thomas Paul:]
          On the 29th of April last yet I saw the two defendants, Boulton and Park, at the police-court, Bow-street, after they had been examined before the magistrate. They were in female attire. I saw them separately. First I examined Boulton. There was a screen in the room in which I examined them, and I requested him to remove his clothes, which he did without hesitation. He had female attire on, and wore drawers and silk stockings. I examined him minutely. He had extreme dilation of the posterior. The muscles were relaxed. The relaxation was such as I had never seen efore. I examined Park in the same way. The result with reference to him was extreme dilation of the orifice. There was a mark of discoloration of the skin. I could not trace its origin. I could not say if it was a sore or not. In Park also there was an extreme relaxation of the muscles; I think greater than that of Boulton. My observation with reference to never having seen such symptoms before applies also to him. I have had to examine men before for affections of certain parts. There were the same symptoms in these men as I should expect to find in men that had committed unnatural crimes.
          Cross-examined: The book I have in my pocket is 'Tardien.'
[i.e. August Ambroise Tardieu's forensic study of sexual crimes Etude Médico-Légale sur les Attentats aux Moeurs] I have not been studying it. I have read it to-day. It is a French work on the subject. . . . I may have said that I only knew they were charged with being men in women's clothes, and that I examined them as to their sex. It was my own idea, from reading 'Taylor's Medical Jurisprudence,' to examine them for something else. I had read that years before. I imagined I had to examine them for everything, seeing them in women's clothes, and knowing of the case of Eliza Edmonds, in 'Taylor's Medical Jurisprudence.'
          . . . On Thursday the trial was resumed.
          J. R. Gibson, Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons, and surgeon to the Gaol of Newgate, was examined gy Mr. H. James, Q.C., and said: On the 7th June last I made an examination of the two prisoners, Boulton and Park . . . I examined the person of Boulton. There was an abrasion of the posterior. There were within the opening four or five small convilominous spots. There was the mark of a previous operation for fistula. There was nothing in the abrasion that would cause me to draw any conclusion as to the present charge. As to Park, there were certain peculiar features of an uncommon condition, so far as my experience goes, but it does not suggest anything extraordinary to mind. I have had no experience in cases where such charges have been suggested.
          . . . By Mr. James: Would these symptoms become removed or weakened by time? Witness: I should expect they would be weakened.
          Mr. James: With reference to the sphincter, would the symptoms with reference ot it disappear in the course of time? Witness: I think the sphincter would recover its power in course of time. . . .
          Q. Was the abrasion on Boulton recent? Might it have been done in two of three days? – A. Yes: It was raw, and might have resulted from rubbing.
          Q. Or from a scratch? A. No, rather more than that, because it was more extensive.
          Q. Do not such abrasions occur from rubbing caused by irritation? A. I think irritation about that part would lead to violent rubbing, which would produce the appearance. He had had a previous fistula.
          Q. Would not that be the most probable way of accounting for what you saw? A. I think it would.
          By the Lord Chief Justice: And you do not think they would be necessarily connected with such practices as have been suggested? A. I think not.
          . . . [Another physician gives evidence:] In cross-examination the witness admitted that the symptoms he saw on the prisoner were such as might be attributed to other causes than those with which they were accused. . . . The general tone of this witness's cross-examination was similar to the two previous witnesses as to the symptoms being by no means conclusive of the unnatural offence having been committed, although he thought they were very suspicious. The genital organs of both prisoners were perfectly healthy.
          . . . Mrs. Boulton, mother of one of the prisoners, was called. She deposed that from the age of six years, her son showed a liking for assuming female characters. That he cultivated, until later in years he assumed the character of a parlour-maid, and waited at table, and the disguise was so perfect, that a friend had said to her, "I wonder you keep so flippant a girl about you, having two sons." She and her son first became acquainted with Lord Arthur Clinton about three years since, at the house of her relations. She supplied him [i.e. Boulton] with money when he went into the country. She and her friends provided some of the dresses. They sometimes played for money, and at other times for charities. He told her on one occasion that he went by the name of Stella, but she never heard him called by that name. He had always been a dutiful son. His only fault was his love of admiration, which was fed by the flattery of foolish people.
          . . . Mr. Pavitt, the son of a miller in Essex, who described himself as a member of the musical and theatrical professions, had known Mr. Park since 1867, when he was articled to a respectable firm of solicitors at Chelmsford. Mr. Park was then young, and took part in theatrical performances – as, for instance, a piece called 'Retained for the Defence' (a laugh); the performance was at the Shire Hall, and was well attended. At that performance Mr. Park played a female character, and the name of the character he played was Mrs. Fanny Graham. (This was to explain his being called 'Fanny' by his friends, and also his giving the name of Mrs. Graham when dressed in female attire.) That was in 1868, and in 1869 witness met Mr. Park again, and he asked him to get up more theatricals, and he did so at Stock and other places, and he introduced Mr. Boulton to take part in the performances. (Bills of the performances were produced.) He stated that in these performances young Boulton played and sang, and appeared passionately fond of such pursuits. These performances, the witness stated, were for money, and at one place as much as 35l. was taken. Throughout the tour the names of Mr. Park and Mr. Boulton were known as performers of female characters; they played with applause, especially Boulton, who at one place had as many as a dozen bouquets thrown at him on the stage. On several occasions he was invited home after the performances in his female dress. (Reynolds's Newspaper)

16 May 1871

Yesterday was the sixth day of the trial. The prisoners surrendered shortly before ten o'clock. They did not display their light-coloured kid gloves as on the former days, and the familiar bouquet was dispensed with. As the day advanced the Court became densely crowded.
          . . .
          The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, in summing up, said – All that ingenuity and ability could urge on one side and on the other has been brought before you; and it is now for you calmly, dispassionately, and impartially to consider the evidence and the facts that have been laid before you. We are trying the defendants for conspiracy to commit an offence which by the law of England is a felony, and the proof of it amounts to the proof of the perpetration of the fact of which they are charged in the indictment with conspiracy to commit. After commenting on the way in which the case had been brought before the jury, which, he said, was unfair to the parties concerned, his Lordship proceeded to say that the case divided itself into two branches – the first, a general conspiracy to commit the offence with persons not members of a particular fraternity, but of the general public; and the second charges the persons named in the indictment; and here we have to look to their private behaviour and conduct, and the relation subsisting between them in private life in connection with their public conduct and behaviour. There can be no doubt that for some time before their apprehension some of the parties named in the indictment were in the habit of presenting themselves in public sometimes in the character or disguise of women, and at other times in their own proper habiliments in the dress of men, but still under circumstances which produced a public scandal by their assuming the gait and manners and carriage and appearance of women, with painted and powdered faces, so as to produce a general impression that, though in male attire, they were of the opposite sex. It can be proved that they resorted to public places of amusement and created an outrageous scandal by inducing the belief that they were women disguised as men, and in others men disguised as women. It is impossible to speak in terms of sufficient reprobation of indecent conduct of this description. No one can doubt that it is an outrage, not only on public morals, but also of decency, and one that deserves in some way or other, not only reprehension, but actual and severe punishment; and that, without the suggestion of any ulterior sinister purpose, it is an outrage against public decency that ought not to be tolerated; and, in my opinion, when it is done even in a frolic, it ought to be a subject of severe and summary punishment; and it is one of those incidents where the provisions of a most useful Act for the prevention of public indecency might be extended. If the law cannot reach it as it is, it ought to be made the subject of such legislation, and a punishment of two or three months' imprisonment with treadmill attached to it. In case of the repetition of the offence, a little wholesome corporal discipline would, I think, be right, not only in such cases, but in all cases of outrage against public decency. That is not what we are now trying, and you must carefully bear in mind and not allow any indignation which you may feel at such unmanly and disorderly proceedings to warp your judgment or possess your minds in trying a far more serious offence. The question will be, looking at all the facts of the case, whether you can come to the conclusion that they conducted themselves in a manner that proved the offence with which they are charged? The explanation how they came by the female dresses is satisfactory, but not so the purpose for which they were latterly used; but I must say the evidence seems to me wanting in proof of the purposes alleged being, in point of fact, carried into execution, and on that point the medical evidence fails. The letters are remarkable productions, and are capable of the construction put upon them by the prosecution; but is there not another solution than that put upon them by the defence – viz., that the familiarity of expressions are to be traced to Boulton and Lord Arthur Clinton performing together in pieces as man and wife, and in others which changed from love to marriage, and that Boulton had on one occasion performed a character under the name of Stella? Having exhausted the case as between Boulton and Park and Lord Arthur Clinton, his Lordship proceeded to examine the evidence affecting Boulton and Hurt, and said – I approach this part of the case with great pain. In my opinion – and I say it unhesitatingly and emphatically – Hurt and Fiske ought never to have been put in this indictment. In order to convict Hurt and Fiske of what is alleged to be a conspiracy, you must be satisfied there was a conspiracy in England in which they took part. What happened in Scotland is without your jurisdiction, and should have been tried in that country; and it is an oppression for two defendants to be brought to this country to be tried, where they cannot call witnesses except at a very great and additional expense. The London police went to Edinburgh, and on their own authority, without a warrant or the authority of any Scotch judge or magistrate, they went to Hurt and Fiske's lodgings, took possession of them, and brought them to London. The result was that Hurt and Fiske were made defendants, and the police, who have acted without authority, transfered the case to the Treasury, and the Treasury, to my astonishment, adopts the whole of the proceedings, and treats the defendants as if the offence had been committed in this country, and they are made parties to an indictment for an offence of which they have nothing in common. We have them here, and you must deal with the evidence. I am not making these remarks to deter you from the stern discharge of your duty, but I warn the Treasury against the repetition of conduct which is impolitic and improper.

The jury retired at 4 o'clock to consider their verdict, and returned into Court at 4.53 with a verdict of "Not guilty" on all the counts of the indictment, which was greeted with loud applause, which, however, was put down at once by the officers of the Court. (Dundee Advertiser)

9 June 1871

On Tuesday, Boulton and Park, who were to appear to take their trial on the second indictment charging them with an outrage on common decency, by appearing publicly in female apparel, were allowed by the Lord Chief Justice to enter into their recognisances of £500 each for two years to be of good behaviour, the defendants to be liable to be called before the Court in the event of further misconduct. This concludes the case. (Carlisle Patriot)

11 June 1871

We have another flagrantly incompetent public officer in the person of the Attorney-General, Sir Robert Collier, whom Mr. Gladstone cannot or will not get rid of. Although far from a first-rate barrister, he receives enormous emoluments from the public purse, averaging probably about fifteen thousand per annum. His gross blundering caused the trial of the men in "drag" to break down; and now, I presume by his advice, they are allowed to get off scot free. A more scandalous miscarriage of justice has never been witnessed than the judicial farce in which Messrs. Boulton and Park played principal parts. The end of worthy of the beginning. The other day, before the very judge who, in his charge to the jury on the trial of the chief indictment, declared that the conduct of the prisoners as set forth in the other was an outrage on decency, ought not to go unpunished, and suggested the infliction of corporal punishment in similar cases – that very Judge cockburn not only allowed the charge to be dropped, but released three delinquents, on their giving their own bail for their future good conduct! To the fact of Park being the son of a person high in authority, a largely salaried official, and to the circumstance that powerful influences were at work to stay farther proceedings, in order that the names of others might not be brought forward, may be partly ascribed the failure of justice to reach these notorious delinquents. At all events, the public have a right to require the removal of the Attorney-General from a post the duties of which he is manifestly incompetent properly to fulfil. But I presume, like Messrs. Lowe, Bruce, and other incapables, he is irremovable. (Reynolds's Newspaper)

23 June 1871

THE BOULTON AND PARK EXCITEMENT. – On Friday night the above-named individuals paid a visit to the Canterbury Hall, London, but they had not been present in the hall long before they were recogtnised by an unwelcome acquaintance of former days. In a few minutes a serious disturbance took place, and finally they were both ejected from this place of amusement. (Derbyshire Advertiser)

23 June 1871

THERE is no truth in the statement that Messrs Boulton and Park were kicked out of a London Music Hall last week. Buchan Observer)

1 July 1871

PERSHORE. – Year after year the same story has to be told of the sure, and withal far from gradual decay of our ancient fair. . . . This year the weather was most propitious for the fair, and equally so for the gathering of the crops of grass, which has been so much retarded by the storms and showers of the past fortnight; and probably to this latter circumstance may partly be attributed the meagre attendance at the fair. Broad-street was far from full of shows, "Clinton's Enchanted Temple of Mystery and Science," and a Peepshow, were all that were noticeable in the stationary list, while the locomotive one was represented by a Peepshow on a hand-cart, which claimed to give its numerous patrons vivid delineations of the French and German war, and correct portraits of Lady Mordaunt, and of Boulton and Park in female attire, and further gratified them by the harmonious strains of a steam organ. A solitary boxing booth, in which a few "professors" condescended to exhibit "the noble hart of self-defence" to spectators at twopence each, a bicycle machine, a few rifle galleries and roundabouts, the gipsies time-honoured three sticks a-penny, and two or three sundries, completed the amusements of Pershore fair. (Worcester Herald)

17 August 1871

Since the notorious Boulton and Park case, effeminate-looking men have had a hard time of it. It is almost a criminal offence for a young man to be without any of the hirsute adornments which generally accompany manhood. Quite a commotion was created in Southport on Tuesday evening by the appearance on the pier and promenade of three individuals who were taken for women in men's clothes. The behaviour of the supposed females contributed to strengthen the popular delusion, and a crowd soon gathered round them. Apparently not liking too much attention, one of the parties got away from the crowd, and the other two made the best of their way to the railway station. Here matters began to look serious, and, to prevent further trouble the head constable, who happened to be present, took the two young men, as they proved to be, to the police office, and afterwards they were conveyed in a cab to the railway station. It is thoroughly characteristic of a British crowd to mob and insult people on the flimsiest suspicion, and to assail with unpleasant comments young men who have the misfortune to be whisker-less. (Birmingham Mail)

11 September 1871

Ernest Boulton, one of the defendants in the celebrated Boulton and Park case, having declined the offers of certain theatrical managers, has turned public lecturer, and is now giving an entertainment at Eastbourne, in which he appears in full female costume, and sings the song, "Fading away." Large numbers nightly patronise the entertainment. (Newcastle Journal)

30 September 1871

VISIT OF THE CELEBRATED ERNEST BOULTON. – A FAILURE. – On Saturday last bills were issued stating that Mr. Ernest Boulton (who figured in the notorious case of "Boulton and Park") and Mr. Howard Hampton would give entertainments in the Town Hall on Monday and Tuesday evenings. The entertainments were to commence with an overture upon the pianoforte, to be followed with Charles Dance's comedietta of "A Morning Call," the character of "Mrs. Chillintone" to be represented by Mr. Boulton, and "Sir Edward Ardent" by Mr. H. Hamilton, the former introducing a celebrated song entitled "Fading Away." This was to be followed by an operatta called "The Power of Gold," afte which the trial scene from Dickens's works of "Bardell v. Pickwick," and to conclude with the comedietta of "A Happy Pair." The prices ranged from 5s. to 1s. each. About half an hour after the time announced for opening, only two persons had applied for admission, and the performance was abandoned. Early on Tuesday the "professional gentlemen" packed up their traps, and were soon non est. No attempt was made to perform on Tuesday evening. (The Ashton Weekly Reporter)

13 January 1872

There are some people in this world who never can recognise the propriety of hiding their diminished head. The sense of shame seems to be not so much numbed as dead. It certainly would surprise even the Solicitor-General to hear that one of the accused in a recent cause celèbre, has been disporting himself in female attire to an admiring Oxford audience. Why, it was on account of that same public scandal that the University put a dead stopper on all amateur theatricals whatsoever. Mr. Cumming of Oriel had allowed his name to be associated with that of Messrs. Boulton and Park in the Central Criminal Court, and it was in consequence felt that rather than allow such a blame to fall on Oxford, a harmless amusement should be dispensed with. I am here tempted to ask what was the result of that famous trial? Can it be that persons who have escaped legal penalty have been re-instated to popular favour? Was the verdict, in effect, not guilty, or not proven? If the latter, then it is indeed a matter of surprise that any section of our public should care to witness a performance which, if artistically good, carries with it much very unsavoury reminiscences. Is it the latest fast thing to hob-nob with the scape-goats of a nasty trial? Really Anonyma, Skittler, and poor Mabel Gray were ulcers bad enough in our social system. To ride by their side in the Row might be gallantry – or profligacy – but as concerning Messrs. Boulton and Park, and their confrères, it is not possible to write with patience. Let the public opinion of our city look to it. (Oxford Times)

15 June 1872

This was the title of an entertainment which was given at Portsmouth, by Mr. Boulton, of Boulton and Park notoriety. The audience on the first evening was limited, and most of those present had, probably, been attracted by curiosity, in consequence of the announcement that Mr. Ernest Boulton would appear "in those wonderful impersonations of female characte, which have gained for him world-wide celebrity." Mr. Boulton, we should have thought, would have been very glad for the public to have forgotten all about the kind of "world-wide celebrity" which he, in conjunction with another peson, gained by their extraordinary proceedings when disguised in woman's attire, for it was certainly nothing to be proud of. Mr. Boulton chose, for the sake of profit or amusement, to go about the country appearing in a role which ought, we should fancy, to be unpleasant to him. It would be more decent if reminiscences of the disgraceful affair were not revived for the purpose of creating a fictitious interest in the public mind. The entertainment, in which Mr. Boulton assumes female characters with considerable skill, his "make up" and bye-play being paticularly good, and in which he is assisted by Mr. Lewis Munro, who is a very fair actor, is up to the average of its class, and some of the songs are fairly sung, but there is something about the whole affair which outrages feelings of propriety. (Aldershot Military Gazette)

16 July 1872

A Press Association telegram from Aldershot says:– "Ernest Boulton, of Boulton and Park notoriety, was to have given an entertainment at Aldershot last evening, but was prevented by a number of officers and others, who determinedthey would not hear him. A regular row ensued, in the midst of which the gas was turned out, and the principal performer was glad to make his escape as best he could." (Pall Mall Gazette)

31 July 1872

APPARENTLY the Boulton and Park scandals have not yet terminated. A court martial was opened at Aldershott yesterday, to inquire into certain disturbances that took place when Boulton appeared in that town in female attire. (Daily Gazette for Middlesbrough)

20 October 1872

The New York Mercury says that Lord Arthur Clinton, who was mixed up in the Boulton and Park business, and was reported dead, has been recognised several times at some of the New York theatres, and clearly identified. (Reynolds's Newspaper)

2 June 1874

At the Birmingham Police Court, yesterday, Stephen John Franklin, alias Park, one of the defendants in the notorious Boulton and Park case, was charged with illegally pawning certain goods, the property of Mr. J. W. Farmer, from whom he had rented a furnished house. After pawning the articles the prisoner asconded, but was afterwards apprehended in London. Prisoner, who denied the charge, was ordered to pay £3 with costs, and £4 the value of the goods, or go to prison for three months. The money was not forthcoming, and he was removed to the cell. (Sheffield Daily Telegraph)

SOURCE: Various newspapers, dates as given.

CITATION: If you cite this Web page, please use the following citation:
Rictor Norton (Ed.), "Fanny and Stella, Female Impersonators, 1870–71", Homosexuality in Nineteenth-Century England: A Sourcebook, 10 December 2018, updated 14 Jan. 2023 <>.

Return to Homosexuality in Nineteenth-Century England