12 November 1889
In late 1889 a police investigation discovered a male brothel on Cleveland Street, near Tottenham Court Road, which supplied boys from the Post Office to have sex with aristocratic gentlemen. One of the boys and a man who lived at the house pleaded guilty in return for a relatively light sentence, thus preventing the necessity of presenting evidence at a court trial. The authorities wished to hush up the affair because a large number of important men were implicated, including Lord Arthur Somerset, the Earl of Euston, and even Prince Albert Victor (second in line to the throne). The authorities successfully delayed the investigation until many men could flee the country, including the keeper of the house, and Lord Arthur Somerset. Rumours nevertheless circulated and early reports appeared in the American newspapers, and eventually a newspaper editor published some explicit charges in London. The Earl of Euston successfully sued the editor for libel, claiming that he had visited Cleveland Street only under the mistaken impression that he would see female striptease shows there, and in any case he certainly had not fled to Peru as the newspaper falsely alleged. Several telegraph boys testified that Euston was in fact a frequent visitor to Cleveland Street, and the notorious male prostitute Jack Saul testified that he had often had relations with Euston on the premises. This evidence was dismissed as "tainted" (how could it be otherwise?) and the editor was sent to prison for 12 months, though he was released after six months due to public outrage at the severity of the sentence. Somerset's lawyer was subsequently tried and imprisoned for perverting the course of justice by offering to maintain the telegraph boys if they emigrated. The keeper of the house attempted to blackmail his aristocratic clients from his new base in Seattle. The fiery Radical MP Henry Labouchere used his privilege in the House of Commons to expose the Prime Minister's involvement in the government conspiracy to prevent investigation and to allow important men to escape justice. The following account documents the scandal entirely through contemporary newspaper accounts, selected and slightly abridged to avoid repetition.
12 November 1889
13 November 1889
A great European sensation, and scandal that will cause many nabobs to leave the country, comes from London, in a dispatch dated the 9th, which reads as follows:
A horrible scandal in the private West End club has been exposed. Hundreds of members are implicated. Thirty warrants of arrest have been issued, but their execution is withheld on condition that the persons charged with crime leave the country. The offenders include future dukes, a duke's son, another peer, a Jewish financier, many honorables, a parson and several officers of the army. The latter suddenly resigned their commissions. All the principal offenders have fled. Efforts had been made to suppress the affair, but the story became known in the clubs and newspaper offices and the outline as above, which is all that can be given at present, is true in every respect. (Goshen Democrat, Indiana)
18 November 1889
LONDON, November 16. – During the time when John Bull is not swelling out his chest and returning loud thanks to the Creator who made him so much better than other people, it is his ill-luck to be engaged in discussing or trying to suppress the malodorous scandals which spring up eternally inside his island household. There is always something peculiarily offensive or attractive – whichever you liike – about a British scandal. It has become an axiom that when a bank cashier has been a particularly pious man his flight makes a bigger hole in the assets than ordinary. By the same rule, when anything happens in England to shock the proprieties so dear to the English bosom, these proprieties get an astonishing amount of sensation for their money.
Ten days ago it looked as if the official pressure was going to succeed in hushing up the
This threat, ominously enough, follows a paragraph alluding to the costly apartments being fitted up for [Prince] Albert Victor in St. James' Palace, the expense of which the Commons will be asked to meet. No connection between these two paragraphs is suggested, but it is obvious to everybody that there has come to be within the past few days a general conviction that this long-necked, narrow-headed, young dullard was mixed up in the scandal, and out of this had sprung a half-whimsical, half-serious notion, which one hears propounded now about clubland, that matters will be so arranged that he will never return from India. The most popular idea is that he will be killed in a tiger hunt, but runaway horses or a fractious elephant might serve as well. What this really mirrors is a public awakening to the fact that this stupid, perverse boy has become a man, and has duly two highly precarious lives between him and the English throne, and is
The Paris press for a week has been full of the most exaggerated and sensational accounts of the thing. Le Matin leading the way in an outspoken onslaught on London society under the suggestive caption of
20 November 1889
It was put about, however, on what seemed to be good authority, that a number of letters and cards were found by the police, which they seized, and used in compiling a list of frequenters of the house, the black catalogue containing the names of many persons of good birth, though of indifferent morals. Instead of acting at once on this information the Home Office refused to allow anything to be done until the matter was considered by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister shrank from all responsibility until he consulted his Cabinet.
Meantime, the chief persons accused had disappeared, and malicious gossip declares that the scruples of Ministers were carefully conceived in order to give time to the accused to depart, so as to avoid the exposure, which was dreaded.
At the first meeting of the Cabinet held after the recess warrants were issued against some of the accused, but all efforts to ascertain the names of those persons against whom the warrants were issued have hitherto failed.
Inquiries of the police (who, it might be thought, should be able to give information) elicit reports more or less misleading, and one of those reports finding its way into print has led to proceedings which will finally frustrate all the efforts that have been made to hush the matter up.
On Saturday next at eleven o'clock Mr. George Lewis, instructed by the Earl of Euston, eldest son of the Duke of Grafton, and heir to the title and estates, will apply for a fiat to take criminal proceedings against Mr. Parke, editor of the North London Press, for having stated that the Earl of Euston was mixed up in the Cleveland-street scandal, and that he had been allowed to leave the country and to defeat the ends of justice.
There is therefore every probability of the whole noisome matter, with the names of those concerned, being brought into the public courts, and everything turns upon the question of identity. If tried as a case of mistaken identity, then the witnesses called for the defence of Mr. Parke will be liable to examination and cross-examination concernng every person whom they can swear they met at the house in question.
The prospect is anything but pleasant either for the public or for the parties concerned, but the course taken by Lord Euston seems to render it inevitable.
Mr. Labouchere in Truith of to-day says: – A nobleman [i.e. Lord Arthur Somerset] holding a position at Court was implicated by the depositions of the Postal inquiry that had taken place, and by the telegraph boys who would have been called as witnesses if the prisoners had not pleaded guilty. He was asked by a high Court official to explain matters, and at once fled the country. Hamond, the owner of the house, has also gone abroad. Warrants were subsequently issued against these two men. I am further informed that the house was not let to Hamond, but to four gentlemen. The names are known, and are common talk at every club. It is pretty clear that matters cannot be allowed to rest here. Very possibly many who are suspected are innocent, and in their interest, as well as in the public interest, no effort should be spared to bring home the guilt to those really guilty. (Pall Mall Gazette)
[At the trial at the Old Bailey, George Daniel Veck, age 40, and Henry Horace Newlove, age 18, together with Charles Hammond, not in custody, were charged "for procuring George Alma Wright and others to commit certain obscene acts, and also to conspiracy". Veck pleaded guilty to the 16th and 17th counts and was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment with hard labour, while Newlove pleaded guilty to the first thirteen counts and was sentenced to four months' hard labour. According to the more detailed Trial Calendar of Prisoners (TNA CRIM19, piece 35), Veck, a minster, was taken into custody on 20 August 1889, and tried on 18 September, on the charges of "Conspiring and agreeing together with Charles Hammond to incite and procure George Barber, George Alma Wright, Charles Thomas Swinscow, Charles Ernest Thickbroom, William Meech Perkins, and Algernon Edward Allies, to commit an abominable crime", as well as committing an act of gross indecency with George Barber and Algernon Edward Allies. He pleaded Guilty to Gross Indecency and was sentenced to nine months in Pentonville Prison. Newlove, a clerk, was taken into custody on 8 July, and tried on 18 September, on the charges of procuring the commission by the aforementioned youths Barber, Wright, Swinscow, Thickbroom, Perkins, and Allies "of divers acts of gross indecency with other male persons", and further charged with himself "attempting to commit an abominable crime" with Wright, and actually "committing acts of gross indecency" with Wright and with Swinscow. He pleaded guilty to procuring the commission of gross indecency by male persons and was sentenced to four months in Pentonville Prison.]
21 November 1889
21 November 1889
The Prince of Wales arrived in London, on his return from Athens, at one o'clock on Monday morning, and he did not sleep late, for before the luncheon-hour on that day it became known among his entourage that he had determined to have what is now frankly called "the scandal of Cleveland Street" completely investigated, and, if found necessary, publicly exposed. It was in consequence of this resolution that, after having received that afternoon at Marlborough House a visit from the Duke of Cambridge, the Prince subsequently the same day went to Gloucester House to have another interview with the Commander-in-Chief, for well-known men both at the Court and in the army are alleged to be involved. What would have followed from this prompt action on the part of the Prince of Wales can hardly now be guessed, for the announcement made to-day that criminal proceedings for libel against a suburban newspaper will be taken for having directly charged the son of a peer with being concerned in the scandalous affair, will precipitate a legal enquiry, which cannot end until all the truth be learned. From various points of view the necessity for such an investigation is deplorable, but matters had gone so far that it was impossible much longer to hush up the affair. (Birmingham Daily Post)
23 November 1889
23 November 1889
. . . As only one name is involved in this particular suit, it may be that even a plea of justification on the part of the defendant newspaper would not avail to have the whole case thoroughly investigated; but it is scarcely possible for the enquiry to end without bringing in the names of various well-known personages. One of these is now openly given in print, and no proceedings on his behalf have yet been instituted, it being understood that he is not in England.
From the public point of view the gravest feature of the charges now made is not that affecting individuals, but highly-placed members of the Cabinet. The accusation is briefly this: That the information affecting the keeper of a certain house in Cleveland Street and some of its alleged frequenters, including a Court official, was in the hands of the authorities at the end of July; that for two months this, as far as these persons were concerned, was not acted upon; that immediately after the newspaper now involved had pointed to the existence of the scandal the keeper of the house and the Court official, against both of whom warrants are asserted to have been subsequently issued, fled the country; that the resigation by the latter of his various posts was received and gazetted some weeks later; and that in the meanwhile, at the suggestion of our own Foreign Office, the keeper of the house had been expelled from France as a mauvais sujet. This last point is a charge of peculiar gravity, and abundant evidence of its truth must be awaited before it can in any way be credited. How necessary is reserve at this juncture will be shown during the progress of the coming enquiry, in which, I hear, Mr. Lockwood, Q.C., will lead for the defence. (Birmingham Daily Post)
25 November 1889
Lord Euston, who has brought the charge against the editor, is the eldest son of the Duke of Grafton, and consequently heir to the dukedom. He is a tall, slender man, between thirty-five and forty years of age, with a long blonde moustache. In his time he has seen a good deal of life. Four or five years ago he tried to get his early marriage nullified, but the skilful strategy of his solicitor, Mr George Lewis, and the able advocacy of Sir Charles Russell were of no avail, and his lordship's suit was unsuccessful. The Countess of Euston, and prospective Duchess of Grafton, lives in one of the terraces around Regent's Park, on a liberal allowance provided out of her husband's estates. Since then, Lord Duston himself has seldom been heard of, except in Freemasonry. Of late years he has taken much interest in ths pursuit, and is at this moment Provincial Grand Master of one of the Midland counties. The best proof that he has not gone to Peru, as stated in the "North London Press," was his appearance at Bow Street on Saturday afternoon in company with his solicitor, Mr George Lewis, to swear the information against Mr Ernest Parke. The development of the case will be interesting. As an authentic statement will be made to-day it is useless even to hint at the many rumours flying about the clubs – many of the most sensational and exaggerated kind – as to what the forthcoming evidence will be. (Bradford Daily Telegraph)
26 November 1889
The proceedings commenced shortly after 3 o'clock, at which time the Court was crowded.
Mr Lewis in opening the case said Lord Euston complained of a libel pubilshed by the defendant in a paper called the North London Press, of Nov. 16th, 1889. The newspaper was not registered at Somerset House, as required by law, but he should prove that the defendant was the proprietor and editor. The libel charged Lord Euston with having committed a felony. The libel had already been before the bench, and the magistrate would notice it was alleged that the Earl of Euston was "one of a number of distinguished aristocrats who were mixed up in the indescribably loathsome scandal in Cleveland-street, Tottenham-court road," and it went on to say that these men had been allowed to leave the country. Now, if there had been the least inquiry, it would have been ascertained that Lord Euston was living where he always lived at 4, Euston-place. It went on to say that these men had been allowed to leave the country "because their prosecution would disclose the fact that a few more highly-placed personages than themselves were inculpated in this disgusting crime." The libel, therefore, was that Lord Euston had committed a felony of an atrocious character, and that was the libel for which he should ask the Court to commit the defendant to take his trial. The circumstances, so far as Lord Euston was concerned were these: He would say that he had never committed any crime of any sort or kind, and that this statement was absolutely without foundation so far as he was concerned; that he never left the country, and that there had never been any warrant out for his apprehension. The whole thing, in fact, was a fabrication from beginning to end. All Lord Euston knew of the matter was simply this:– That one evening, at the end of May or the beginning of June, he was walking in Picadilly at eleven o'clock, and a man put a card into his hand, on which were the words "Pose Plastique;" then the name of the proprietor, and "Cleveland-street, Tottenham Court-road." Lord Euston did not know what became of the card, but about a week afterwards he went at 11 o'clock at night. A man opened the door and asked him for a sovereign, which he gave him, and he was shown into the parlour. Then the man made some indecent proposal to him, and he called him a filthy blackguard and said he would knock him down if he did not allow him to pass, and then he went out of the house. That was all the knowledge which he had upon this matter.
Evidence was first given that Mr Parke was the proprietor and editor of the paper.
Lord Euston was then examined by Mr Lewis. He had seen the North London Press of November 16th, and he at once gave instructions for criminal prosecution for libel in respect of matters contained in that paper.
Is there any truth, Lord Euston, that you have been guilty of the crime alleged in the paper against you? – Certainly not.
Continuing, witness said there was no truth in the statement that a warrant had been issued for his apprehension. He had not been out of England since he came back.
Will you state in Court what you know of this house in Cleveland-street? – All I know is that I was waking one night in Piccadilly, I can't say the date, but it was at the end of May or the beginning of May [he meant June], when a card was put into my hand which was headed "Pose Plastique, Hammond, 19, Cleveland-street." Witness, continuing, said he went there about a week afterwards, about half-past ten o'clock at night. The door was opened by a man who demanded a sovereign, which he gave him. He then asked when the poses palstiques were going to take place. The man said there was nothing of that sort.
Mr Lockwood here objected to the conversation being repeated.
Mr Lewis: The libel alleged that Lord Euston was mixed up in having committed crime in Cleveland-street. He had a right to show what he did.
Mr Lockwood: I have no objection to Mr Lewis showing what Lord Euston did, but what he said his learned friend was not entitled to refer to.
Mr Vaughan agreed with Mr Lockwood.
Examination continued: Witness said he left the house immediately, and he had never been there since or previously. He had no knowledge of the house other than the one visit in connection with that house. If not objected to, you came here prepared to state what had passed? – I did. This concluded the examination.
Mr Lockwood said he did not propose to enter into any detailed cross-examination, because his client wished the matter to come before the final tribunal as soon as possible. He would, however, ask a few question.
Cross-examined by Mr Lockwood, the witness said he had been in the army, in the Rifle Brigade; but he was gazetted out, in 1871, he thought. He was now in the 1st Volunteer Battalion Northamptonshire Regiment. The newspaper in question was first brought to his attention on Monday of last week. He at once gave instructions for a prosecution.
Now this statement that you have made to-day – When did you first make it? – About the middle of October.
This thing happened, as I understand, in the month of June, and your first statement with regard to it was made in the month of October? Have you made a statement to the Home Office about it? – No.
At the Treasury? – No.
Have you made no statement to any official either at the Treasury or the Home Office? –I have had no communication of any sort or kind with any official either at the Treasury or the Home Office. That I swear.
You said that the first statement you made was in October – to private friends, I presume? – Yes, to private friends.
Is Lord Arthur Somerset a friend of yours? – I know him.
Where did you see him last? – Last summer; sometime during the season. I have met him in society. I have not seen him since.
Do you know where he is? – I do not know where he is.
After this occurrence in May or June you say you read the card? – Yes.
How long afterwards? – When I got home. I think when I got home and took my coat off. I could not read it in the street, and shoved it into my pocket; and when I got home I took it out to see what it was.
Was it a printed card? – It was lithographed, but "pose plastique" was in writing.
Was the gentleman who was giving out these cards in Piccadilly distributing them generally or were you specially favoured? – I cannot tell. I was walking along, and one was shoved into my hand. I cannot tell whether he was distrubting them promiscuously. I did not see him give a card to anybody else.
You had not time to stop and read it under the lamppost? – No. I do now know what you are laughing at. I did not think of stopping to read it under the lamppost.
How long elapsed between your looking at the card and going to the house? – At least a week.
Then of course you kept the card during that time? – Yes, I did. I should say I went to the house about the second week in June between half-past ten and eleven o'clock.
What became of the card? – I destroyed it. I was so sigusted at what I found at the place that I did not want to have anything more to do with it.
Did you burn it or tear it up? – I should think I tore it up.
You remember tearing it up in disgust and indignation? – Yes; I was very angry with myself for having been there.
From what passed in that house you have no doubt in your own mind what the character of the house is that you went to? – Not the smallest.
It is a house, as I understand you to say, of your own knowledge – where crimes such as those alluded to in the libel was probably being committed? – I should think that they might have been committed there, and probably were from what was said to me.
That was your experience of the house? – Yes.
Re-examined by Mr Lewis: You have been asked from what passed in the house if you have any doubt as to the character of the house. what did pass and what did the man say to you after you had given him the sovereign, and after the inquiry as to the "Pose plastique?" – He said, "There is nothing of that sort here."
Witness here described how a disgusting proposal was made to him.
What did you say? – I said, "You infernal scoundrel, if you don't let me out of the house at once I will knock you down."
And did you at once leave the house? – I did. Up to the moment that he made that statement to you, had you any knowledge whatever about this house other than what appeared on the card? – None whatever.
The Magistrate: Nor any suspicion? – Lord Euston: No.
Mr Lockwood (to the magistrate): That Sir, at present, is all I have to ask Lord Euston.
Mr Lewis: You had never been there before? – No.
Nor heard of it until recoveing that card? – No.
You were asked whether your first statement about it was not made until October. Was it until October that some public mention was made of this case? – Thereabouts.
From what you heard?
Mr Lockwood objected to the witness being asked what he had heard.
The Magistrate: How came you to make the statement in October?
Lord Euston: Because a rumour had got about, and I went and consulted with some friends of mine as to what I should do.
Mr Lewis: Then you made the statement to several friends? – Yes.
In reply to the questin as to whether he had anything to say, Mr Parke said. "I reserve my defence."
Mr Vaughan then commimtted him for trial at the next sessions of the Central Criminal Court.
Mr Lockwood said he hoped that in considering the qustion of bail, his Worship would bear in mind the fact that from the first Mr Parke had shown anxiety to meet the charge, and had not shown the slightest intention of shrinking from it. Mr Vaughan said it was a case of very great gravity, and he should require such bail as would certainly secure the attendance of the defendant at the trial which would take place next month. "I shall require two sureties in £250 each."
These were forthcoming, and Mr Parke left the court with his friends. (Hull Daily Mail)
27 November 1889
1 December 1889
. . . Where, I ask, are the thousand and one moral organizations of the country, when criminal vice in high places is being protected by the authorities? Is a common jade, or something worse, to direct the counsels of the Cabinet? Are hermaphrodites enthroned in Scotland-yard? Is the ensign of the great united Tory and Coercionist party in future to be a he-goat, or a lump of mud? Shall Cabinet meetings be movable feasts – now sitting in Cleveland-street, now in Pimlico? Where are the depositions of the boys of the one place and of the rosebuds of the others? Must our mouths remain closed while this foul crime is being perpetrated in the sight of man? Or must we expect that in the coming time there will be attached to the bureau of every Tory Minister, as there is attached to the person of the shaw of Persia, a boy-favourite, and that the meetings of the Primrose League Dames will be presided over by a battered trull? . . . (Reynolds's Newspaper)
1 December 1889
. . . Many years back something of the same sort took place, and possibly the police may point to it as a precedent for what they have now done. The Bishop of Clogher was arrested in the act of perpetrating what was then a capital crime, with a private soldier of the Guards. They were both arrested, but on learning the high position of the right reverend culprit, he was admitted to bail, and forthwith absconded abroad, and was no more heard of. What became of his accomplice we know not. The existence amongst us of a Sodomite institution is a matter of a far more serious nature than his lordship, judging by the way in which he gave his evidence, would seem to think. The most severe measures the law will admit of should be resorted to in order to stamp out practices of an unnatural and revolting shape too hideous even to be mention[ed].
Indeed, the general conduct of the police in protecting highly-placed delinquents, and hunting down minor culprits has at last awakened public indignation, and many who had hitherto been blinded by the silly old saying that all persons were equal in the eyes of the law have come to the conclusion that the very reverse is the fact. . . . (Reynolds's Newspaper)
7 December 1889
14 December 1889
The Earl of Euston, who is the prosecutor in the case which, it is believed, will be means of bringing to light the Cleveland street scandal was forty-one on Thursday week. He married when he was two-and-twenty Miss Kate Walsh, and has no children. His father, the Duke of Grafton, Earl of Arlington and Euston, Viscount Thetford and Ipswich, Baron Arlikngton of Harlington, Middlesex, Baron Sudbury, Suffolk, is hereditary Ranger of Whittlebury Forest, and an Honorary Equerry to Her Majesty. The Duke was born in 1821, and is a widower. In addition to Lord Euston there are two sons, Lord Alfred Fitz-Roy and the Rev. Lord Charles, Rector of Euston and Honorary Chaplain to the Queen, and one daughter, the lady Eleanor Harbord. Lady Eleanor's first husband was Mr. Hubert Fitz-Roy Eaton, who died on the 8th of April, 1875. On the 5th of May, 1875, the widow married Mr. Harbord. (Shefrield Weekly Telegraph)
17 December 1889
18 December 1889
19 December 1889
19 December 1889
19 December 1889
Mr. Asquith (for the defence) put in a plea of justification, stating that the alleged libel was published without malice and was true in substance and in fact.
Mr. Lionel Hart, who said he appeared with Sir Charles Rusell and Mr. Mathews for the proseuction, applied that the case might stand over until the next sessions, so that his learned friends with himself might have a further opportunity of grappling with the case, which was so very peculiar.
Mr. Asquith said that he had not been able – according to the usual practice – to inform the other side of the plea until just beforehand, and that while Mr. Parke was vey anxious to meet this charge, he would order no objection to the postponement.
The Recorder said that the application was quite reasonable, and ordered that the case should stand over until the January sessions.
Mr. Parke then left the dock. (Pall Mall Gazette)
24 December 1889
Mr. Horace Avery, instructed by Sir A. K. Stephenson, solicitor to the Treasury, conducted the prosecution; Mr. Gill, barrister, defended Mr. Newton, and Mr. St. John Wontner appeared for the other defendants.
Mr. Avory, in opening the proceedings, said that on July 4 last a telegraph messenger in the service of the Post Office was questioned by a constaable on the establishment as to some money that was missing, and accounted for money in his possession by stating that he obtained it at the house, No. 19, Cleveland-street. Other boys were also indicated as having visited the house, and statement were obtained from lads named Wright and Thickbroom. All of these boys mentioned a lad named Newlove, also in the service of the Post Office, as the person who had introduced them to the house. The lads were thereupon suspended and the matter placed in the hands of the police, with the result that warrants were obtained against Newlove and a man named Hammond, who was alleged to be a principal in the matter. Newlove was arrested on July 7, but as, on his suspension, he had communicated the fact to Hammond, that person contrived to escape, and the house was closed. Newlove was remanded from time to time, and on the 25th July the matter was placed by the Home Office in the hands of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Inquiries were then made and statements taken for the purpose of ascertaining how far, if at all, the evidence of these lads could be corroborated, as it was clear that no charge of visiting and using the house could be sustained against any person upon the mere statement of accomplices. On the 20th of August, Veck, a man who habitually assumed the garb of a clergyman and who could be indentified by independent witnesses as one who assisted in the management of the concern, was arrested. Documents were found upon him which directed the attention of the police to a boy named Alliss, who lived at Sudbury, in Suffolk. On the police going to that address on the 23d of August they found that, in consequence of an anonymous letter received on the previous day, the lad had destroyed a number of letters which might have afforded valuable corroborative evidence against visitors to the house. Next day Alliss was brought to the Treasury, and on the same day the defendant De Galla, it was believed, called on the parents at Sudbury and inquired whether their son had left any letters at home. He was answered in the negative, and told that the police had taken him away; on which he remarked that he wished he had called earlier. At the police-court Alliss and other boys gave evidence against Hammond, and also against other person, whom they could describe, but without knowing who they were. On the 11th of September Newlove and Veck were committed for trial for offences against the Criminal Law Amendment Act, and on the 18th they were brought up in the ordinary way at the Central Criminal Court, and having pleaded guilty to various counts in an indictment in which Hammond was included, they were sentenced to terms of iprisonment. Mr. Newton had throughout acted as solicitor for the defence, and on the 24th of September Taylerson, his clerk, visited Alliss's parents, and stated that his object was to see the boy and provide him with money to enable him to go abroad. The mother said that she and her husband were old, and objected to their son going away, but on the 25th Taylerson saw the boy at his lodgings, and promised to provide him with all necessaries if he would go to America, to give him £15 on his arrival there, and £1 a week if he failed to get work, adding, "the reason is that we want you not to give evidence against you know who." It was arranged that the boy and the defendant should meet at a public-house in Tottenham-court-coad for the purpose of proceedings to Liverpool that night, and in the meantime Alliss informed Inspector Abberline of that fact, and by direction kept the appointment. The two were followed by the police to the Marlborough Head public-house, opposite the police-court and Mr. Newton's offices; and Mr. Newton and Mr. de Galla were observed standing close by. On seeing the inspector they walked away in different directions, and Taylerson, on being spoken to, refused to answer questions. The boy was then reconducted back to his lodgings by the police. On the 27th of September the solicitor to the Treasury received a letter from Mr. Newton complaining that Alliss had been kept in a state of duress, had been threatened by the police, and that he had been insructed by his parents to remove him from his objectionable surroundings and send him abroad. He said that the boy was most anxious to get away, and asked for an appointment on the part of the Treasury to meet the father. The statements with regard to the police and the boy's desire were certainly untrue, and he (the learned counsel) was obliged to allege that the letter was written either as a cloak to cover the proceedings of the previous day, or else in the interest of some other persons, instead of the lad's parents. An answer was sent denying the allegations, and statement that anyone trying to remove the lad in order to defeat the ends of justice would incur a great responsibility. After some further correspondence information came to the authorities which led them to suppose that these efforts to remove Alliss were being made really in the interest of Lord Arthur Somerset, whose name had come into the case in the course of the investigation, and against whom on the 12th of November a warrant was obtained. Almost immediately afterwards negotiations were renewed by Mr. Newton, ostensibly on the part of Alliss's father, for an interview with his son, and an arrangement was made to meet at the Treasury. The father, however, had said he was too poor to come to London, and Mr. Newton sent him the money to enable him to keep the appointment. On the father's arrival the son positively declined to see him, so he had to go away. On the 6th of December, the warrants against Lord Arthur Somerset and Hammond not having been executed owing to those persons having left the country, the boys Wright, Perkins, Swinskull [i.e. Swinscow], and Thickbroom were dismissed from the Post Office. On the 9th, in consequence of a communication they received, Perkins and Thickbroom met Mr. Newton at the corner of Oxford-street and Poland-street. He reminded them that it was he who had cross-examined them at the police-court, and told them that he knew someone who was prepared to help them, and that if they liked to go to Australia they should be provided with an outfit, a sum of £20, and £1 a week for three years, adding that two or three lads had gone away and were doing very well. He asked them to get Wright, Swinskull, and Barber to meet him on the following day at one o'clock, and observed that Alliss had made a great fool of himself. He sent them 10s. to pay Barber's fare from home, and next day Wright, Swinskull, and Perkins kept the appointment, the other two being absent. De Galla met thm, and told them they were to start that night for Dover, and suggested that they should write to their parents saying that they should not return home. He subsequently informed them that the boat for that night was full, and that he would find them lodgings for the night. He conducted them to a coffee-house in the Edgware-road, gave them a sovereign to pay expenses, told them to say indoors until half-past-nine to see whether Thickbroom came, and to give fictitious names. On the 11th of December he called, and finding that Thickbroom had not arrived, eventually told the boys that they had better go home, as there was some difficulty about obtaining their parents' consent. It was only conjecture, but some light was thrown upon this change of plans from the fact that Swinskull's parents had communicated with the police immediately upon receiving his letter. Upon proof of the statement he (the learned counsel) had laid before the court, he should ask the magistrate to come to the conclusion that the three defendants, acting independently it was true, had for their object the prevention of evidence being given against either Hammond or Lord Arthur Somerset or other persons, and that, therefore, they were endeavouring to defeat the ends of justice, as stated in the summons. He regretted to find among them a member of the legal profession, whose name was so well known, and trusted that it would turn out that nothing more than excessive zeal on behalf of his clients had led him into what he must have known was a serious infraction of the law.
Mr. Gill suggested that, as the cross-examination of witnesses must occupy some time, it would be better to adjourn at this point until a day when the magistrate would be able to devote his whole attention to the case.
Mr. Wontner supported the appeal, on the ground that he had only just been instructed, and had not had time to prepare his case.
Mr. Gill observed that he was quite prepared to give a complete answer to the charge, but the case must be fully gone into, and much time would necessarily be occcupied.
The Magistrate – Will one day suffice?
Mr. Gill – Oh, no, sir: I should say at least three days.
Mr. Avory was also of opinion that it would occupy that length of time.
Eventually the hearing was adjourned until next Monday week, Mr. Gill observing that it had been stated by one journal that his client assisted Hammond to escape, whereas that person had left the country before Mr. Newton came into the case. (Morning Post)
2 January 1890
7 January 1890
Mr. Horace Avory, instructed by Sir A. K. Stephenson, solicitor to the Treasury, conducted the prosecution; Mr. Gill, barrister, defended Mr. Newton, and Mr. St. John Wontner appeared for the other defendants.
Mr. Avory, having, on the previous occasion, opened the case at some length, now proceeded to call evidence.
Algernon Edward Allies, a youth whose parents reside at Sudbury, deposed that on 4th September last he gave evidence at the Marlborough-street Police-court against Newlove and Veck, who were charged in connection with the Cleveland-street case, and was bound over to appear against them at the Old Bailey. Between those periods he was living in lodgings under the observation of the police. About the 23rd August, Constable Hanks took a statement from him at Sudbury; but two days prior to that date he had received an anonymous letter. He did not know the handwriting; but in consequence of that communication he destroyed a number of letters he had in his possession from Lord Arthur Somerset. In his evidence at the Police-court he referred to an individual who was known as Mr. Brown, at the house in Cleveland-street, and described his personal appearance. That individual was Lord Arthur Somerset. After he had given evidence at the Old Bailey he returned to his lodgings in Houndsditch. There the defendant Taylerson called upon him, and suggested that he should go to America, promising to hand the captain of the ship he went in £15 for him on his arrival, and to allow him £1 a week if he failed to obtain work. After some persuasion he agreed to go, and an appointment was made for that evening at the A 1 public-house in Tottenham-court-road. In the course of conversation Taylerson said that no doubt he (witness) could guess whom he came from. He (witness) supposed that he meant Lord Arthur Somerset, but afterwards he believed Taylerson said he came from Mr. Newton, and gave him 6s. to buy some shirts. After Taylerson left him, he communicated with Inspector Abberline, and by his direction kept the appointment, being followed by that officer and Constable Hanks. On meeting Taylerson he was taken by him to the Marlborough Head public-house, in Great Marlborough-street, and there Inspector Abberline demanded of Taylerson what he was doing with that boy. He declined to answer, and he (witness) was then handed over to the care of Cosntable Hanks. He had never told his parents or any one else that he was kept in a state of terror by the threats of the police, or that they neglected to provide him with clothes, or that he was anxious to get away. The only remark he had ever made about the matter was that he was very comfortable. He had never expressed any anxiety to see his father, and when he was brought to the Treasury for that purpose he declined the interview.
Cross-examined by Mr. Gill – There was no reason why he should fear his father. He lived at the house in Cleveland-street for some months after Christmas, 1888. Previous that that he had been convicted of stealing from a club, and was discharged without punishment, on Lord Arthur Somerset's becoming surety for his good behaviour. That gentleman had frequently promised to give him a start in life, and in August he appealed to him to obtain for him a situation in a tobacconist's shop. When Constable Hanks called on him at Sudbury he was somewhat frightened at first, as he thought he was going to be imprisoned, and he preferred being a witness to being a prisoner. Until the 12th of November he swore no information against Lord Arthur Somerset. He was not ordered by the police not to communicate with his parents, and they were not told at first that any letter for hiim must come through Inspector Abberline, though that was done eventually. He was not supplied by the police with clothes and money, but all his expenses were paid. The police did not tell him the very words to put in his letters to his parents and other people. He declined to state the address from which some of his letters were written, as that was his present address. He referrred the learned counsel to Inspector Abberline for the information.
After some discussion between the legal gentlemen engaged in the case, the magistrate decided that the question should not be pressed.
Cross-examination resumed – The letter to his father suggesting that his parents had been misled by some person who was seeking his own interest instead of theirs, and asserting that he was acting of his own free will, and was actuated by a desire to do what was just, was not dictated to him by the police. He had shown a letter from home to Constable Hanks, and had kept in his mind some remarks that that officer made at the time, which he afterwards embodied in the letter. It was Hanks who said that it must bave been Mr. Newton who circulated a report respecting his (witness's) character about the neighbourhood of Sudbury. The police told him that his father wished to see him, and that an appointment had been made for an interiew at the Treasury. He was conducted there by Hanks, and on the way he changedf his mind, and determined not to see his father. That he did entirely of his own free will. Neither Mr. newton nor Mr. de Gallo had ever spoken to him. When Mr. Taylerson called upon him that defendant said almost immediately that he had seen his parents the day before, and that they wished him to call upon them. He (witness) did not reply that he was not allowed to see even his realtions, but Mr. Taylerson did remark that he, having Mr. Allies Senior's authority, had a perfect right to see their son if he pleased, whether Inspector Abberline was present or not. He said that if he did not decide to go abroad he need say nothing about the subbestion to the police, of whom there was no reason to be afraid. He declined to accompany Tayalerson to Sudbury on the ground that Hanks might call to see him while he was away. He did remark to Taylerson that he wished he was out of the casee, but did not assign as a reason for not going to Sudbury that his sweetheart had heard the rumours about him and wanted an explanation of his conduct. He had at the time received a letter from his sweetheart, saying that there were rumours about him all over Sudbury, and aksing him to let her know what was really the matter. He wrote and told her not to believe the rumours about him. He intended at the time of the conversation with Taylerson to tell the police all about it. He had quite made up his mind not to go either to America or Sudbury or anywhere else. He did not care to go away at all. Taylerson said that the object of his proposal was to give him (witness) a start in life. He (witness) supposed from a remark of Taylerson's that Lord Arthur Somerset desired him to leave the country. He knew that his character was quite gone, and that there was no chance of obtaining employment in this country, but £15 was not enough to induce him to go to America. He should have thought £100 was more like the requisite amount, but he had no intention whatever of going abroad. He gave Taylerson a list of clothes that he required, merely because he wanted to get rid of him, and if he had hesitated when asked Taylerson might have suspected his intentions. The consent to go away was a mere sham. When Taylerson left him he took a 'bus and went direct to the Treasury. Subsequently to that interview Hanks asked him if he had seen Mr. Newton near the Marlborough Head, and he replied in the negative. He did not remember Taylerson saying to the inspector, "You have no busienss to order that boy about," nor did he hear Abberline threaten Taylerson that he should hear further of the matter. From the 23d of August to the 12th of November when he attended Marlborough-street Police-court in order to swear an information against Lord Arthur Somerset he did not see his mother, and he had not seen his father down to the present time. The police told him that there was a warrant out against Lord Arthur Somerset, but did not say that that person had left the country before the warrant was issued.
Re-examined – When he left Sudbury in August his parents did not know what he had been doing, and it was after he was told of the rumours that were in circulation that he refused to see his parents. After Newlove and Veck had pleaded guilty he was servedwith a document required him to attend the next sessions of the court.
Mr. Avory explained that the document was a subpoena served on the chance of the man Hammond being arrested and charged, with a view of securing the witness's attendance.
Mr. Gill – On the cnace of Hammond coming back to this country.
The witness, in further reply to Mr. Avory, said that he thought it was only right that he should remain in England and give evidence against any person who might be charged in connection with the case. At the Treasury, Sir Augustus Stephenson told him that Mr. Newton had arranged an interview with his father; that he could see his father or not, as he pleased, and that he could see him alone.
Mr. Gill asked whether the magistrate would grant him permission to ask the witness whether, before he entered the witness-box at Marlborough-street Police-court, Inspector Abberline told hm that if he mentioend anybody's name in the course of his evidence he would get into trouble.
The magistrate declined to allow the question to be put.
Charles Ernest Thickbroom, a youth formerly in the service of the Post Office, deposed that he was suspended in July last and dismissed on December 6. He had given evidence in the Cleveland-street case. On the afternoon of the 9th December he and Perkins, another witness in the case, in consequenceof a communication received, met Mr. Newton at the corner of Poland-street and Marlborough-street. The defendant said that he knew somebody who would do them good, and suggested that they should go to Australia, promising them £20 down, £1 a week, and a free passage. Perkins agreed at once, but he (Thickbroom) did not say one way or the other. Mr. Newton asked where Wright, Swincoe, and Allies (other witnesses) lived. He gave Swinscoe's address, and said that Allies was going about with a detective. Mr. Newton observed that Allies had made a fool of himself. He might have been doing well, like two other young fellows were doing. He promised to send out Wright's address, which he did, together with half a sovereeign, shortly afterwards.In the course of conversation Mr. Newton remarked that it would take more than Inspector Abberline to frighten him, and made an appointment for the next day. He (witness) did not keep the appointment owing to his father's illness, and had not seen the defendant since. He had made a statement to the police in consequence of a communication he received from Mrs. Swinscoe. He had also sworn an information against a person whose description he gave. He guessed who the person was when he swore the information.
Cross-examined by Mr. Gill – He made his statement about Cleveland-street with some reluctance. He feared that he should get into trouble if he did not make one. It was close to the Marlborough-street Police-court that he met Mr. Newton, and in broad daylight. He went to see Mr. Newton in order to find out what he meant to do, not for the purpose of informing the police against him. He did not think they met Mr. Newton by accident. Mr. Newton remarked, in reference to the proposal to send the lads abroad, that it sounded like a fairy tale, and said also that they might tell Inspector Abberline if they liked. When they left the defendant there was nothing to prevent their going direct to Scotland-yard. He had walked about Piccadilly and other West-end streets with some detectives to see if he could identify any persons as visitors to Cleveland-street. He received no subpoena from the Treasury after the conviction of Newlove and Veck, nor had he ever seen Taylerson and De Gallo.
The Magistrate – Was it in consequence of what Perkins or any other person said to you that you went to the corner of Poland-street? – Well, it was both. Perkins asked me to go as well.
But had any other person spoken to you about it? – Yes, a police-constable.
What police-constable? – Sladden.
What did he say to you? – He said that somebody wanted to see us at the corner of Poland and Marlborough Streets.
When did he say that? – On the Saturday night.
Was it on Monday that you went to Poland-street? – Yes.
The Magistrate (to mr. Gill) – I think you had better pursue this.
Mr. Avory – I was going to ask that in re-examination.
The Magistrate – Then let it stand over until to-morrow.
The hearing was then adjourned until to-day. (Morning Post)
8 January 1890
These include one accressed to Hammond's wife, upbraiding one Peck, who had a list of the names and addresses of his (Hammond's) friends. When Peck was arrested this list was found in his pocket-book. It comprised the names of many noblemen and included that of Lord Euston.
The Public Prosecutor now accepts these letters, which, it is expected, will lead to the exposure and prosecution of several persons already prominently before the public. (Sacramento Daily Record Union), USA)
9 January 1890
10 January 1890
Mr. Horace Avory, instructed by Sir A. K. Stephenson, prosecuted on behalf of the Treasury; and Mr. Gill, barrister, and Mr. St. John Wontner appeared for the defence.
George A. Wright, a youth, formerly employed at the Post Office, who was under examination when the Court rose on Wednesday, again entered the witness-box, and gave further evidence with respect to the interview with Mr. De Gallo. He was also cross-examined by Mr. Gill with a view, the learned counsel said, of showing that "his character was such that his evidcence ought not to be taken against any human being." The witness did not, he said, tell De Gallo that he did not wish to be mixed up further with the case, and would therefore not give any information. He was never told not to mention names in the course of his evidence at Marlborough-street Police-court. He was annoyed at being sent home by De Gallo after having been kept "fooling about" for two days in the hope of going abroad.
By Mr. Avory – From first to last, De Gallo never asked any questions about the Cleveland-street case. After giving evidence against Newlove and Veck he received no subpoena from the police.
Charles Thomas Swinscow, another ex-emploé of the Post Office, was also examined by Mr. Avory as to the details of the itnerview with De Gallo. He corroborated in the main the evidence of the preceding witnesses, and said that De Gallo told them that a lady and a clergyman were desirous of getting the lads out of the country from Philanthropic motives. He (witness) understood that they were to go home and remain there until someone called.
Cross-examined by Mr. Gill – He was the boy who first made a statement with respect to Cleveland-street, and through whom the proceedings at Marlborough-street Police-court originated. He made a statement to Constable Hanks on the 4th of July, because he accused him of stealing money, and searched him. Hanks did not tell him that unless he spoke the truth he should get five years' penal servitude, the same as all Post Office thieves got. He was not frightened. He did not tell Hanks the precise truth, inasmuch as he said he had been to Cleveland-street only twice instead of five times. He told that lie because he did not think there would be any bother about the affair. When he swore the information at the police-court he turned to Inspector Abberline to ask him whether his statement in this respect should be altered, but the usher told him to listen to what was going on. In the corridor of the court he afterwards told Inspector Abberline what he had done, and the officer told him that he could correct his statement on the next occasion, or else make a fresh statement. He had made several statements; some at the Treasury about Lord Arthur Somerset, that might have been made in July, because at that time he was watching in Piccadilly. It was two or three days after they saw Lord Arthur Somerset in Piccadilly. It was, he believed, before Veck's arrest, but he was not sure. He watched two or three places in the company of Sladden and Thickbroom for probably about a month. They left off watching before the case went to the Old Bailey. When they met De Gallo the other boys talked about him (witness) as being the person through whom the charge at Marlborough-street originated, and he then explained how it was that he made a statement. He did not remember how or by whom the conversation was commenced. He did not think he said anything about watching people, but believe he told De Gallo that somebody had been to see him about Lord Euston's libel case. The gentleman who came brought some photographs, but he (witness) did not recognise any of them. He remembered being told at Marlborough-street not to mention any names. By whom he did not know, but it was when they went to swear against Lord Arthur Somerset. He believed that when he went to the Court as a witness he was told not to mention any names or he might get himself into trouble.
The Magistrate – Was that when you swore the information? – I think it was the first time.
Mr. Gill – Was that when you swore the information, or when you gave evidence in the witness-box? Do you remember, before that, being told not to mention any names or you would get yourself into trouble? – I think it was before that.
Do you remember who it was said it to you? – No, I do not. Continuing his evidence, the witness said he did know who observed that if they gave their own names at the coffee-house they might be recognised, but De Gallo said that they need not give their own names at all.
Mr. Vaughan – Did that come of your having said that your names would be recognised? – Yes. He was of opinion all along that they were going abroad, and kept on telling Perkins so.
Re-examined by Mr. Avory – The reason for using fictitious names was that if real names were given the lads might be recognised when they got into another country.
On other questions being put,
Mr. Gill observed that it was important that the witness's answers should be taken down exactly as they were given, without any interpretation being put upon them. It was, he said, a lamentable thing that proceedings had been instituted upon evidence of the kind that had been produced.
Mr. Avory – Perhaps that is the reason why proceedings were not instituted upon this sort of evidence.
The witness, continuing, said that De Gallo asked no questions about the Cleveland-street case. Anything he heard could only have been when the lads were conversing with one another. He had said that he could identify Lord Arthur Somerset, and had so sworn in his information.
. . . Mr. Avory then called upon Mr. Ernest Parke, proprietor of the North London Press, to produce on subpoena certain letters from Hammond which were in his possession, in order that he (Mr. Avory) and the legal officials of the Treasury might have an opporunity of inspecting them.
Mr. Parke produced the documents in question.
Mr. Avory – I only ask that they may remain in court. You have a list of them, Mr. Parke?
Mr. Parke – Yes.
The Magistrate – How many are there?
Mr. Parke – There are six letters – seven including the letter from the Public Prosecutor. I have also a number of other letters, including some cards and photographs, which I tender to you if you like to accept them.
Mr. Avory – Very well. If you will give noticee of anything else you have to the Public Prosecutor we will see whether it is worth while to deal with them. We do not want any letters but those we have asked for.
Mr. Parke – These also are letters from Hammond.
Mr. Avory – Very well. Are you willing to produce them and leave them with me for my inspection?
Mr. Parke – Yes.
Mr. Avory – Very well. You have for your own protection a list of everything you now hand in?
Mr. Parke – Yes, and I will have you a duplicate of the list. There are 26 documents, including photographs, &c., all lettered from A to Z.
Mr. Gill – I presume you have no objection to our seeing those letters?
Mr. Parke – Not the least.
Edward James Aldridge, coffee-house keeper, of 364, Edgware-road, identified Mr. De Gallo as the person who engaged beds for the witnedsses Wright, Perkins, and Swinscow at his house on the 10th of December, and who afterwards called to see them.
By the Magistrate – One of the lads paid him with a sovereign.
[The hearing was adjourned.] (Morning Post)
15 January 1890
Lord Ronald Gower, the amateur sculptor, who was rumored to be connected with the Cleveland street scandal, London, has not fled, but is "cut" at his clubs by his friends. (Ogden Standard, Utah)
16 January 1890
There was a crowded attendance, especially of the junior bar, which overflowed into the palces allotted for the general public, and blocked the gangways. The galleries were also inconveniently filled.
Sir Charles Russell in opening the case commended upon the additional protection which had been afforded by recent legislation to proprietors of newspapers, and then proceeded to recapitulate the facts of the case. The allegation was that Lord Euston was one of a number of persons who were in the habit of visitng a house in Cleveland-street, where practices of a criminal characte were carried on, and that a warrant had been issued for the apprehension of Lord eusto, who had fled to Peru. The two latter statements were absolutely devoid of foundation, and as to the former, Lord Euston admitted having been once to the house in order to witness an exhjibition of poses plastiques, but, on being told of the real character of the place, left immediatley in indignation and shame. Having read the plea of justification, the learned counsel said that Lord Euston was there prepared to meet that plea, and he desired to go into the witness-box and submit himself to cross-examination. But since the inquiry the whole position of things had changed. The defendant had put Lord Euston on his trial, and had taken on himself to allege and try to prove the truth of what they had published of him. Subject to any expression of opinion by his lordship, the course he proposed to adopt was to call Lord Euston, after an attempt had been made to what were the grounds for putting forward this most serious plea of justification. He pledged himself to call Lord Euston, but in the first instance he called upon the prisoner to make an endeavour to substantiate his plea. . . .
John O'Loughlin was the first witness for the defence. Examined by Mr. Asquith, he said he was a coal dealer and greengrocer, his shop being 27 yards from 19, Cleveland-street. On an evening in May last, about the 20th, he was standing at the corner of Cleveland-street, and saw a carriage pull up at No. 23. A gentleman alighted, knocked at No. 19. and was admitted. Witness had seen the gentleman since at Hyde-park-corner and outside that court about a month ago. . . .
Lord Euston rose, whereupon the witness remarked, "I should like to see you walk." His lordship accordingly walked a few steps.
Witness – That is Lord Euston.
Sir C. Tussell – We are aware of that; but do you recognise him?
Witness – I should say that that is Lord Euston.
Mr. Asquith – Have you seen that gentleman before?
Witness – I saw him twice at Hyde-park and at the door of the Old Bailey.
Have you seen him before that? – I saw him go into the house in Cleveland-street. . . .
Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell – He never saw the gentleman before he got out of the carriage. It was a closed carriage with coachman and footman. Whether with one or two horses he could not say. It was a dusky night and his eyesight was bad. He next saw the gentleman six weeks ago at Hyde-park-corner, just by the gates. He was stuck there an hour and three-quarters to see if he could identify the people who passed.
Who had stuck you there? – I was authorised to do so. I don't know who authorised me. I was told to go there. I don't know who it was. He said Lord Euston was to pass there, and I was to identify him. A man told me to do it at my place in Tottenham-street. The man came about nine o'clock and brought a cab to take me off to Hyde-park-corner. . . . He asked if I knew Lord Euston, and I said, "Yes." He showed me a photograph, and I identified it, and said, "I should know him again." . . . When the photogrpah was shown to me I said, "That is like Lord Euston, but it is not a good resemblance. It is fuller in the face that the party I saw going into Cleveland-street." The man asked me if I knew anything about that house, and I said, "I knew a little." . . .
Cross-examined – Witness had nothing from these men but his cab fare and expenses; not half what he ought to have had. (Laughter.) Asked to describe Lord Euston's walk, he said it was like that of a policeman who had done 20 years on the stones. (Laughter.) . . .
John W. Smith, who was with the last witness on the occasion spoken to in May last, also identifed the prosecutor, whom, he said, he had seen go to the house about a dozen times.
Cross-examined by Sir Charles Russell – The witness rented the shop before O'Loughlin took it last June, and had heard the house in Cleveland-street mentioned. He had seen a number of carriages and cabs driving to the house. Witness was asked to give evidence by Captain Webb, a private inquiry agent. He recognised Lord Euston to-day by his moustache.
His Lordship – How often altogether have you seen the person whom you have identified as Lord Euston? – About six times.
Spread over what period? – About nine months. . . .
Michael O'Loughlin, a son of the first witness, and a barman out of employment, said that two years ago he was at Ascot on the Hunt Cup day, and a gentleman was pointed out to him as Lord Euston. That person he had seen at 19, Cleveland-street – he was sure of three times. The first occasion was at the end of May or the beginning of June, about 11.30. Witness was coming along the street at the time, and saw Lord Euston leave the house. The next time, about five weeks afterwards, at 2 a.m., he saw the prosecutor enter No. 19. He followed Lord Euston up Cleveland-street. The next occasion was about two or three days later, when he sww the prosecutor leave the house about 11.30 p.m. Two or three weeks ago he was told to go to Grosvenor-place, and saw the same gentleman come out of a house there. That gentleman was now in court (pointing to Lord Euston).
Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell, the witness stated that he was first spoken to about the case by Captain Webb. The witness never heard of the trial of Veck and Newlove. He thought that the last time he saw Lord Euston go to the house in Cleveland-street was in the betginning of July – about the 8th, 9th, or 10th. He did not know that the house was closed, and that Hammon fled on July 6.
Do you expect to get anytyhing for this evidence/ – I don't expect anytyhing; but I dare say I shall get something. (Laughter.)
Hannah Elizabeth Morgan, of 62, Cleveland-street, said she had lived there for about 12 months. She knew 19 on the opposite side of the road. She had seen many persons going into and coming out of the house. . . .
His Lordship – How many people have you seen and particularly noticed? – It might be 50.
Fifty that you could recognise? – I could not recognise them all – only one.
Sir Charles Russell assented, and the prosecutor [i.e. Lord Euston] stood up.
Examination continued – That was the person she saw at Cleveland-street. He came to the house several times, generally between twelve and one at night. The first time she saw him at the house was three or four months before the people left, which was about three months. ago.
Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell – This house had a very bad name, and witness had heard of the proceedings which had resulted. After the committal of the defendant from Bow-street, witness was first asked what she knew about the case. Three gentlemen had called to see her, but up to this morning she had never seen or heard of Captain Webb. Up to the time of these visits she had never connectedd the name of the person she now recognised with the prosecutor. She identified the prosecutor as soon as she saw the photograph, but she could not say by what means she distinguished him from the other people who came to the house. Lord Euston was not always dressed alike, sometimes he wore a blue pilot topcoat with velvet collar, and at other times a grey suit. She was only shown one photograph, and that was a likeness of Lord Euston. . . . Frederick Grant, a barman living in Euston-road, said, in reply to Mr. Asquith, that he was at the Middlesex Music Hall with O'Loughlin the younger in May or June of last year. He walked home with him, and as they passed 19, Cleveland-street, about 11.30, he saw Lord Euston leaving the house.
Cross-examined by Sir Charles Russell – Except on that occasion and that day witness had never seen the prosecutor. As they passed the house O'Loughlin told witness the character of the house, and told him the gentleman was Lord Euston.
John Saul, who gave an address at Old Compton-street, Soho, examined by Mr. Lockwood, said he had known Charles Hammond from 1879. He was then living at 25, Oxendon-street, Haymarket, and witness remembered Hammond going to 19, Cleveland-street, just after Christmas, 1886. At the end of March, 1887, witness went to live there, and lived there for seven or eight weeks. In describing the character of the house, witness identified Lord Euston, whom, he said, he took to the house himself. That was some time in April or May, 1887. Witness met Lord Euston in Piccadilly, between Albany-courtyard and Sackville-street. Afterwards the prosecutor was known amongst the people at 19, Cleveland-street, as "the Duke." Witness saw Lord Euston at the house a second time. Newlove and Frank Hewett, the latter of whom somebody had sent abroad, were there then. At the end of May, 1887, witness quarrelled with Hammond.
Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell – Witness gave his evidence first to Inspector Abberline in the beginning of August. Witness had been taken care of lately by a Mr. Violet, whom he met at Captain Webb's office, where he made a second statement. Witness knew none of the boys except Newlove and Hewett. Violet gave witness his board and lodging, and he had half a sovereign a week, and sometimes more as pocket money. He had sent most of it to his mother in Ireland, who was very poor. At the time of the meeting in Piccadilly, witness had not before seen Lord Euston nor the proecutor him. On the second occasion of the visit Hammond showed Lord Euston into the reception room – the front room. Witness had never spoken to the prosecutor before or after the occasion of the first visit, nor had he had any communication with him. As early as 1875, witness had pursued this course of life in Dublin. He had not done much honest work in London; he could not get it to do. From Oxenden-street witness went with Hammond to Frith-street, Soho, then to number 4 in the same street.
In reply to further questions, the witness admitted that since his quarrel with Hammond he had lived at various disreputable houses. The police allowed him to walk about without interference, and sometimes advised him to give up the life he was leading. In 1884 he offered to give evidence with regard to the Dublin scandals, but his story was too old. It was not true that he was told that his evidence would not be received on oath owing to his disreputable character. A young man from Captain Webb's office, named Ashley, first spoke to him about the case. After some demur, he offered to go to Captain Webb's office, on the understanding that he was to support the case of Mr. Parke, who, he thought, had been Very badly used.
That was the first statement you made about Lord Euston? – Yes.
The Judge – The first, do you say? – Yes.
Re-examined – Witness had made only one statement to Inspector Abberline.
This closed the case for the defence.
[John Saul was a male prostitute, or "Mary-Ann", nicknamed Dublin Jack. His genuine (albeit semi-fictionalised) auitobiography was published in 1881 as The Sins of the Cities of the Plain: Or, The Recollections of a Mary-Anne, consisting mainly of pornographic descriptions of his adventures.]
The Earl of Euston was then sworn. – Examined by Sir C. Russell, he said he was examined at Bow-street when the case was heard by the magistrate. . . .
Were any of the events which have now been sworn to put to you in cross-examination? – No, not a single instance. . . .
Witness repeated the evidence given at the police-court to the effect that last year, sometime in June, he went to Cleveland-street, in consequence of a card, headed poses plastiques, having been placed into his hand as he was walking along Piccadilly. Witness drove to the house in a hansom, reaching there about eleven. He was shown into a front room on the right hand side of the passage. The man asked for a sovereign, which witness gave, and, in reply to witness's question about the poses plastiques, avowed the real character of the house. Witness said if he was not let out of the house at once he would knock the man down, and he was allowed to leave. . . . Except on the occasion just described, witness was never in Cleveland-street in his life. Witness was then taken through all the allegations which had been made by Saul and the other witnesses and denied them categorically. He also denied the statement in the North London Press that in July last he had fled to Peru, and that a warrant had been issued against him for any offence whatever. Witness never had a "blue pilot coat with velvet collar" of the kind described by the witness Morgan. He never went to Cleveland-street in a private carriage. He had no private carriage. . . .
Mr. Lockwood, addressing the jury for the defence, suggested that the reason for the story told by the Earl of Euston was that on one of the occasions of which the witnesses had spoken, Lord Euston had good reason to believe that he was seen by somebody; and it was necessary, therefore, to account in some way for at least one visit to Cleveland-street. If that story were not true – if it did not appeal to the mind of the jury as being true – it carried him (Mr. Lockwood) a very long way towards establishing the plea of justification which had been set up. . . . [Lord Euston] treated the incident with silence even after the proceedings against Newlove and Veck, and it was not until his own name had been associated with the house as having been a frequenter of it that it turned out that he actually had been there. That was a singular coincidence, and he unhesitatingly asked the jury to refuse to accept it. He admitted that the evidence of Saul was that of a very tainted character, but the respectablity of the other testimony had not been impugned. . . .
Sir Charles Russell contended that the truth of the libel had not been proved, and commented adversely on the fact that the majority of the witnesses put forward that day were not known to the defendant when he published the libel, neither were they mentioned at the police-court proceedings. He called attention to the defencts in the evidence of identification, especially as regarded height, dress, and the vehicle in which Lord Euston was said to have driven to Cleveland-street. He asked why the other persons who had assisted in these attempts at identification had not been called. For years these hideous practices had been carried on at 19, Cleveand-street, and only now were these charges made against his client – charges that which none more monstrously absurd had ever been placed before a jury, and a man of the utterly degraded character of the witness Saul would at once have used his power over Lord Euston, had his story been correct, as a means of extorting money, yet no word of communicationn took place between them for over two years. He asked why the two other persons – Newlove and Veck – who had been convicted, had not been placed in the box, especially as Saul had sworn that Newlove was present on the occasion of Lord Euston's second visit. These criminals would have been glad to relieve the tedium of their imprisonment by appearing in that Court, and might, not unnaturally, think that by making a clean breast of it they would probably shorten the term of their confinement. For all these reasons, he asked the jury to reject the evidence which had been offered in justification of these foul and slanderous statements.
It being now half-past six o'clock, the Court adjourned till to'day, when Mr. Justice Hawkins will commence his summing up to the jury. (Morning Post)
16 January 1890
. . . John Saul, replying to Mr. Lockwood, said: I live at 15, Old Compton-street, Soho. In 1879 I knew a man named Charles Hammond, who was then living at 25, Oxenden-street, off the Haymarket. He moved to 19, Cleveland-street, just after Christmas, 1886. At about the end of March I went to live there. during the time I was there I remember many persons coming to the house.
Do you see any person here in this court whom you have seen at Hammoond's house, 19, Cleveland-street, at any time? – One gentleman I recognise that I took there myself if I am not thoroughly mistaken. (Witness here pointed to Lord Euston.)
When was that? – Some time at the end of April or the beginning of May, 1887.
Where did you meet this person? – In Piccadilly, not far from the Albany Courtyard, near Sackville-street – nearly opposite the Yorkshire Grey.
As the witness was proceeding to give evidence of a character which renders it unfit for publication, there was some demonstration of disapproval from that portion of the court allotted to the public.
Mr. Lockwood said he hoped his task would not be rendered more difficult by such exhibitions of feelings.
Mr. Justice Hawkins said if this sort of thing was repeated he should order the court to be cleared. The evidence was filthily brutal and disgusting, but it was necessary to hear it. So far as this witness was concerned he afforded a shocking spectacle.
Examination continued: I saw Lord Euston on a second occasion when Frank Hewett and Newlove were there.
Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell: Since just before Christmas I have been living at Akerman-road, Brixton, with a very respectable man named Violet, who is taking care of me. I gave my evidence to Inspector Abberline at the beginning of August. I met Violet at the private inquiry office at Westminster. I remember the prosecution of Newlove and Veck. I don't recollect Taylor, or Lovelock, or Swinscow, or Sladden, or Thickbroom, or Wright.
Have you any means of earning your bread? – No, sir.
I see you have a ring on your finger? – It's not my fault, or it would have been gone long ago. It's only paste. (Laughter.)
And a silver-headed cane? – Oh, that's not much – 1s 6d, no more. I bought it in the Brixton-road. Mr. Violet lets me have money sometimes, and supplies me with everything I want. I was concerned in committing an indecent offence in Dublin in 1875, and since I have been in London I have tried to earn an honest living, but have not been able to get a character. The police and detectives have always been kind to me here. I offered my evidence in Dublin some years ago, but it was not used. I was employed a little while at Druiry-lane Theatre in "The Royal Oak." I expressed my willingness to give evidence for Mr. Parke, but for nobody else. I was not then aware that a considerable sum of money was bieng raised to help Mr. Parke.
You don't suggest that you knew the defendant? – No; I thought he was acted very unfair with.
And your sense of justice prompted you to help hiim? – Yes.
When you went to Webb's office, and made your statement, were any photographs produced? – Yes, two.
Were they both photographs of Lord Euston? – One was, and the other was a photograph of a man named Carrington.
Sir C. Russell observed that he had no intention of introducing other names, and regretted that the witness had mentioned any.
Mr. Justice Hawkins agreed that it was undesirable to introduce the names of persons who were not before the Court.
Did you recognise the photograph of Lord Euston? – Yes; by his face, and by his big white teeth and his moustache.
Where did you first learn Lord Euston's name? – Along Piccadilly, not long after I first met him.
In re-examination witness said he made his original statement to Inspector Abberline's clerk.
This closed the case for the defendant. . . . (Daily Telegraph & Courier, London)
16 January 1890
Lord Euston himself was called as a witness. He denied in toto the evidence of these witnesses. His counsel pleaded that their testimony was from a tainted source, but no motive was shown why this tainted evidence should be utilized against Euston; and Parke's counsel pointed out that evidence of this nature could hardly come from other than tainted sources. One point in Saul's evidence was significant. He said that his first statement incriminating aristocratic customers of Hammond's house was made at the instance of Scotland Yard officials, and he intimated that the reason he was willing to testify was because Hammond introduced telegraph boys in order to break up the nefaviour business which he and others were carrying on for years.
LONDON, Jan. 15. – Lockwood created great excitement by calling John Saul and asking him if he recognized any one present as having been in Hammond's house. Saul immediately pointed out Lord Euston and said in a distinct but effeminate voice: "Yes, that is one of them; I took him there myself; I met him in Piccadilly; I winked at him; he laughed and I told him that my place was a very quiet one. We drove in a hansom to Hammond's house and Hammond produced champagne." Saul then described what took place. Euston gave him a sovereign. Being questioned as to his past career, Saul confessed that he had been guilty of similar offences in Dublin and had resumed them in London. He said he had never been hunted by the police, but had always been treated kindly.
Euston, being put into the witness-box, emphatically and categorically denied Saul's statements. The case closed and the Judge will sum up to-morrow. (New York World)
17 January 1890
His LORDSHIP – You can if you like until tomorrow give me any information which will alter my view of the matter. I see no evidence which was in your possession at the time the libel was published.
Defendant – I can only say the information was in my possession.
His LORDSHIP – I must really have more than that. I cannot be satisfied with your bare statement. At present the libel stands to my mind a very atrocious one, without anything which would even morally justify its publication.
Defendant expressed a wish to have sentence passed immediately, and his Lordship said a more atrocious libel than that of which Parke had been found guilty had scarcely ever been published by any man, or under circumstances less justifiable.. At the time of the publication defendant appeared to have had no shade of evidence to substantiate the charges to which he gave currency. It was his duty to pass a sentence which would not only be a punishment to defendant, but a warning to others. He would be imprisoned for twelve months. (Dundee Courier)
16 January 1890
The London correspondent of the Birmingham Post states that the Scotland-yard authorities have in hand another investigation in the West-end of a very delicate character, upon which some light may be expected soon to be thrown in the police-courts. In this eonnection, as well as with reference to the Cleveland-street affair, two persons well known in society have within the last ten days quitted England, and rumours of further intended disappearances are strangely rife. (Banbury Advertiser)
17 January 1890
It is with extreme reluctance that we enter upon any discussion of the trial which has for two days occupied the attention of Mr. Justice HAWKINS at the Central Criminal Court, in London, and the result of which is reported in another column. The subject is repulsive, and some of the circumstances detailed in court cannot be so much as referred to; but in certain respects the case is one of such gravity as to preclude the possibility of passing it by without comment. The charge was one of criminal libel against Mr. PARKE, the conductor of the North London Press, for having published in his paper a statement most seriously aspersing the character of Lord EUSTON, the eldest son of the Duke of GRAFTON, and consequeently the prospective inheritor of a seat in the House of Peers, as a member of the highest rank in the peerage. The nature of the imputation will be recalled by all who have, for weeks past, read in the newspapers repeated references to what is now commonly iknown as the Cleveland Street scandal. A particular house in that street is known to have been used for purposes of the grossest immorality; indeed, for the habitual practice of vices which all persons with the faintest spark of decency in their minds would be glad to believe had no place in English society. The general allegation, widely circulated, was that men of high rank were amongst the frequenters of the house in question, and that some of them, fearing the consequences of detection, had absconded from justice, and had sought refuge abroad. In one instance there is evidence foundation for this statement, for a warrant has been issued against a younger son of a duke [i.e. Lord Arthur Somerset], who has by flight saved himself from arrest, from trial, and from heavy punishment as the penalty of being found guilty. The keeper of the house, and apparently some of those who assisted in his nefarious practices, have also absconded; and two or three minor agents in the detestable transaction have been tried and sentenced to terms of imprisonment. All these facts being known and published, strong excitement was caused in the public mind, and some journals, chiefly in London, occupied themselves with the publication of hints, suggestions, and rumours, more or less specific, as to the alleged circumstances of the case, and as to the personality of the actors in the disgraceful proceedings which had taken place in Cleveland Street. Mr. PARKE, the defendant in the trial which has just concluded, went further than others who dealt largely with this reovlting subject. Not content with repeating the vague allegations current in London gossip, he named as amongst the criminals not only the officer who is known to have absconded, but also Lord EUSTON, whom he affirmed to be implicated.
The allegation made against Lord EUSTON was that he had frequented the house above named for shameful purposes, and that to avoid the consequence of his guilt he had absconded to Peru, so as to place himself in safety beyond the reach of justice. On the publication of this charge, Lord EUSTON took proceedings against Mr. PARKE for criminal libel, and in his defence Mr. PARKE entered a plea of justification, and therefore undertook to prove that the alleged libel was true in fact. . . . and another witness was produced who deposed to acts of the gravest criminal immorality having been actually committed by Lord EUSTON in the house. The last-indicated witness [i.e. John Saul] was a man in whose uncorroborated testimony no credit whatever could be reposed. The other witnesses, upon whom no imputations were cast, were shown to have made erroneous or contradictory statements as to matters of detail . . . In a case of such extreme gravity, involving an issue, so far as the prosecution was concerned, which was more serious even than a question of life and death, it is manifest that a plea of justification could be rightly sustained only by evidence absolutely beyond contest – testiimony against which no probability of mistake could be reasonably alleged. In the opinion of the jury, who had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses, proof of this incontestable character was not adduced, and therefore they found Mr. PARKE guilty of libel, and declared that hs plea of justification had not been proved. With this verdict Mr. Justice HAWKINS said he thoroughy agreed, and we think justly so, for the graver portion of the evidence, resting upon the single statement of a most deeply-tained witness, was manifestly impossible of acceptance without the strongest corroboration; and as to the other witnesses, however honest they might be in intention, their testimony was open to at least a qustion of mistake. If Lord EUSTON had been formally on trial, it would have been unsafe to convict him on this evidence; and if it were not enough to convict, it was obviously not enough to sustain a plea of justification for the libel.
As to the sentence on the defendant, we think there will be a general feeling that it might with propriety have been less severe. Twelve months' imprisonment of the ordinary type – for Mr. PARKE does not appear to have been made a first-class misdemeanant – is a very heavy term, and one in regard to which the whole circumstances of the case do not seem to have been sufficiently taken into account. Of course when a man publishes a libel of this character he must be presumed to have considered the result of failure to prove justification, and therefore to have made up his mind to take the consequences, whatever they may be. But surely some weight should have attached to the fact that the defendant did not publish the libel of pure malice, and without believing that he had some ground for the imputation he made. After the verdict he declared that he had acted in good faith, that he had spoken in the public interst, and that he had "adequate evidence" which he could not disclose without violating confidence. This statement manifestly receives colour from Lord EUSTON'S admission that, without criminal intent, and under the influence of a false inducement, he had once visited the house in Cleveland Street. If this visit were known to the defendant – and it must be supposed to have come to his knowledge – it relieved him, so far, from the imputation of merely wanton libel, and therefore might properly have been taken into account in awarding sentence; thought it must be added that no excuse was offered, or seemingly could be offered, for the wholly untrue allegation that Lord EUSTON had become a fugitive from justice. We are not unwilling, either, to allow force to Mr. PARKE'S contention that he bleieved himself to be serving the public interests. If he had made out his plea of justification no doubt he would have rendered great service, for the exposure of crime and the consequences following exposure must of necessity act as a deterrent and as a protection to society against offences which not only bring indelible shame in their train, but tend to deprave morals in an inexpressible degree. But the plea of justification was not made out, and the steps taken to support it go to prove that further enquiry, so full and searching as to leave no doubt, ought to have been made before he ventured upon the publication of the charge. Neglecting such enquiry, which would certainly have led to the suppression of part of the libel, and might have compelled the suppression of the whole, Mr. PARKE has become a victim to the vicious eagerness of what is called "the new journalism" to give unseemly and offensive prominence to social scandals – sometimes true perhaps, sometimes obviously false; prompted, it may be, on occasion by zeal for morality, influenced too often by the desire of creating a sensation and of making profit. If the issue of this trial should tend to check a pernicious practice, now far too common, the public will have gained by the investigation of an extremely painful and disgusting case. (Birmingham Daily Post)
17 January 1890
The sentence is a terribly severe one, but we do not know that it is disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. The JUDGE very properly characterised the allegation against Lord EUSTON as "a wicked and atrocious libel." We are not holding up his lordship as a spotless pattern of the English aristocracy, the immaculate wearer of the white flower of a blameless life. No, we should be very sorry to waste much pretty sentiment over his lordship. The circumstances under which he admits going to the infamous house betray, to say the least, a sad infirmity of moral purpose and propensities of a by no means creditable kind. The Standard, which shows no mercy to the defendant PARKE, has nothing but contemptuous scorn to offer to the noble complanant. This is what the Conservative journal says of Lord EUSTON in its leading article:– "We have no sort of sympathy with the prosecutor, Lord EUSTON, who admitted quite enough about his own tastes and pursuits to show that he has very little claim to the respect of persons of decent life." But the defendant PARKE undertook to prove that Lord EUSTON was something more than this. He held him up to public odium as a social leper, a filthy, unclean wretch, of whom even the average roué and reprobate could not think without a shudder. According to the statement in the North London Press, Lord EUSTON had been compelled to fly the country, like Lord ARTHUR SOMERSET, as a consequence of his unutterable infamy. Here the information was clearly wrong. . . . The evidence by which [Parke] endeavoured to prove that Lord EUSTON was everything that the libel made him out to be, and that if he had not fled the country, he ought in common decency to have done so, was just about as weak and as flimsy as it could have been. . . . But the greatest blot upon the defendant's case was the calling of that hideous wretch SAUL, who stood self-confessed as an indescribable criminal. That this shocking scoundrel should be allowed to be at large, after the unblushing confession he made in the witness box, is a scandal upon society in general. The police ought to know what to do with him, and we trust that many hours will not be allowed to elapse before his polluting presence vanishes from its accustomed haunts.
We quite expect that Mr. PARKE'S friends will raise a great outcry against the sentence. From one point of view they will be able to make out a strong case. They will point to the fact that crimes which are a disgrace to the country, and a reproach upon our boasted civilisation, have been committed in the heart of our great metropolis; that the ringleaders have been allowed to slink away to foreign lands, that the very people who should have laboured to expose such flagitious iniquities have used their influence to hush up the scandals, while a newspaper editor, for trying to bring the matter before the public notice, is sent to a common gaol for twelve months. No doubt we shall be told that it is a monstrous injustice that Mr. PARKE should receive a heavier sentence for exposing the Cleveland Street abominations than was awarded to two of the actual criminals [i.e. Veck and Newlove] who were smuggled into the Old Bailey a few months ago during the absence of the Press and the public, and condemned to short terms of imprisonment. This, of course, is one way of looking at it. It does seem an extraordinary anomaly that a respectable man like PARKE, with an unblemished character, should for the mere offence of making a blunder – call it a gross blunder if you like – receive a sentence of greater severity than was passed by a secret tribunal upon the odious wretches from the Cleveland Street extablishment. But we must bear this in mind that the failure of justice in this most abominable case does not atone for the recklessness of Mr. PARKE'S ill-advised venture. Unless the grave responsibilities which attach to journalism at times when scandal, more or less distorted,, is being whispered from mouth to mouth are discreetly and decently recognised, a huge social danger is at once created. The public require protection against these rash and random personal attacks. . . . His fate is a deplorable one; but if it moderates the misapplied energy of the new school of personal journalism, the sentence – severe though it unquestionably is – will not be without its salutary effect. (Birmingham Mail)
17 January 1890
17 January 1890
The man Hammond, whose name has been so often mentioned of late in connection with the Cleveland Street case, is said to be at Seattle, a township in Washington Territory, U.S.A. He is accompanied by his wife and two boys, and according to American accounts is being closely watched by Scotland Yard detectives. (Birmingham Mail)
17 January 1890
. . . Before his sentence was passed, Mr. Parke declared that he had other evidence, which he could not call because it was given in confidence. Such a statement is not worth a moment's credence. Words spoken by people who will not come forward to substantiate them are not worth notice, and Mr. Parke in taking this line, after his conviction too, only aggravated his offence.
There is no doubt, however, that all the facts about Cleveland-street have not yet been disclosed. There is much in the background which will, in the course of time, be dragged into light. Mr. Labouchere will call the attention of the House of Commons to the subject at the earliest possible moment, and in all probability he will be supported by the grat majority of the Radical party in demanding a Parliamentary inquiry into the conduct of the police and the Home Office in allowing delinquents to escape from the country, although warrants were out for their apprehension. This house was in existence in Cleveland-street for at least three or four years, and its reputation was well known to all residents in the locality. The whole story is one of the most shameful characters, and a disgrace to the aristocracy who supported it. It will do more to help towards the abolition of the House of Lords than anything which has taken place during this generation. (Derby Daily Telegraph)
17 January 1890
Inspector Abberline was recalled for further examinaton by Mr. Gill. He deposed that he was cognisant of what was being done by the authorities. The case had been under the notice of the Foreign Office with regard to Hammond. That was in the latter part of July. Mr. Gill: From whom did you get your information? Witness saw a copy of the reply from the Foreign Office. Mr. Avory objected to this being pursued, on the ground that the witness could only say that he saw the copy of a letter. Witness: It was the reply. It was after it was decided as to who was to have the conduct of the case – the police or the Treasury. Mr. Gill: From whom did you take your instructions? Witness: From the Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner and various gentlemen at the Treasury – Sir Augustus Stephenson, the Hon. Mr. Cuffle, and Mr Angus Lewis. Witness did not know that the boys were to be discharged from the Post Office. Witness had stated to the authorities all the information he had, and all the names that had been mentioned and every document that had been found. These reports were made to the Commissioner. By Mr. Avory: There was no gound for suggesting that witness had expressed his regret that greater publicity had not been given to the case. Newlove had made a confession, which was embodied in the information submitted to the magistrate. At that time witness did not know where Hammond was. Mr. Avory asked the witness as to his knowledge of the consideration by the Foreign Office for Hammond's extradition. Mr. Gill objected to any expressions of opinion from the witness. Otherwise he submitted that it would be competent for him in cross-examination to elicit what the witness must be fully cognisant of, that it had been advised by the highest authorites that the case should not be proceeded with. Mr. Vaughan thought Mr. Avory's questions admissible, but suggested that they should not be pressed. Informations were sworn on July 6, Aug. 19, Oct. 6, and on Nov. 12 one against Hammond. Formal evidence was given proving the letters sent by the Treasury solicitor to Mr. Newton.
Police-constable Hanks, one of the constables of the Metropolitan Police attached to the Post Office, deposed to the statements taken in the casse, and to his visit to Sudbury to fetch Allies for the purpose of being interviewed at the Treasury. He remained in lodgings in London. The witness deposed to the meeting of Allies and Taylerson in the Tottenham-court-road, and the subsequent visit to the Marlborough Head public-house, to which place they were followed by witness and Abberline. The witness averred that he saw Newton three or four yards beyond the public-house in company with a gentleman. They hurriedly crossed the street when Abberline went into the public-house, and entered Foubert's-place. Witness followed, saw them at the corner, and then returned. De Galla was seen to go in an opposite direction. The witness generally confirmed the evidence already given as to what transpired at the public-house, and to the subsequent removal of the boy Allies to other lodgings. Witness had never threatened the boy, and had not told him what to say in his letters to his father. By Mr. Gill: Witness was a party to the information against Mr. Newton, and had sworn to seeing Mr. Newton on the particular occasion mentioned above. Witness had a great respect for Mr. Newton. The witness was minutely cross-examined as to whether it was actually Mr. Newton that he had seen. He averred that it was, and that he was accompanied by a taller gentleman whom witness did not know. He was fair. The boy Allies was treated as a perfectly free agent, and was told that he must know whether he was under any influence. Allies' father had complained of witness, but on an inquiry being made he (witness) was exonerated. Mr. Avory said that Police-constable Sladden was present if it was desired that he should be called. This was the case for the prosecution. Mr. Gill did not wish to call him. The case was adjourned until the 23rd last. (Otley News and West Riding Advertiser)
20 January 1890
One marked result of the conviction of Mr. Parke is that the public interest in the Cleveland-street scandal has waned, and that the disposition to accept all sorts of malicious rumours as facts is dying out. Cautious persons reserve judgment until after the trial of Mr. Newton; but unless Mr. Labouchere has more information than can be collected at the clubs, he will serve no purpose in calling attention to the question in the House of Commons. The manufacturers of libellous gossip are now as chary as they were formerly audacious in mentioning the names of honoured and honourable men in connection with the scandal. (York Herald)
21 January 189
2 February 1890
As soon as his worship had taken his seat Mr. Gill proceeded to speak on behalf of his client. Mr. Newton, he said, had committed no offence. Mr. Newton took upon himself whatever responsibility attached to the incidents that had occurred. He did not in any way seek to shirk that. One of the other defendants was a young clerk in Mr. Newton's employment, and the other was a man whom he occasionally employed for making inquiries. Regarding both, Mr. Newton wished it to be stated that they had simply acted on instructions given by him. From this point Mr. Gill went on to criticise the delay of the police authorities in dealing with the Cleveland-street case. He said deliberately that the whole cause of the mischief that had arisen from the proceedings was the initial mistake by Inspector Abberline on the 5th July, while being cognisant of what was going on at Cleveland-street, having allowed Hammond to make good his escape. The witness Saul in the libel case had said that the police had been kind to him, but nothing could have been more kind that the manner in which Hammond was dealt with after his conduct became known. The scandals and rumours that had got abroad he spoke of as having done more harm to the country than anything that had happened within the memory of man.
. . . Mr. Vaughan said he could not agree that there was no evidence of conspiracy before him. Conspiracy was one of those offences in which it need not be proved that there was any direct agreement. It was sufficient to show that the persons had been acting with one common object. He did not follow the learned counsel in his remarks about the hindrances to the initiation of the case. Those observations were very much beside the point. He did not think Inspector Abberline deserved the censure which had been passed upon him. When one looked at the circumstances he could only arrive at the conclusion that there was the object on the part of all three defendants to abduct certain boys from the jurisdiction of the courts of this country, so that their evidence might not be available. He could not see that Mr. Newton could have imagined that the prosecutions were over; why, he had had a letter from a solicitor to the Teasury to the opposite effect, saying that Allies would yet be wanted. The learned magistrate proceeded to comment on the circumstances of the interviews with Allies and with the other lads in December. He said he was forced to arrive at a decision that a prima facie case had been made out, and that he would have to commit all three defendants for trial.
Mr. Newton then made a statement to the effect that he was innocent, and had been acting under the best legal advice.
Taylorson and De Galla also made statement.
Bail was allowed each defendant in a sum of 100l. (Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper)
3 February 1890
4 February 1890
10 February 1890
27 February 1890
Mr. Labouchere is determined to have a congenial evening on Friday [in the House of Commons], when he will attack Mr. Secretary Matthews over the Cleveland-street scandals. Due notice has been given, and ladies will therefore have the opportunity of keeping away from the gallery behind the chair. (Manchester Evening News)
1 March 1890
Mr. Labouchere moved a reduction of the vote by £100., on the ground that it comprised the salaries of certain officials who had confederated together to defeat the ends of justice.
Mr. Maclure, interposing, proposed the withdrawal of strangers, but, on the question being put, the "Noes" were in a large majority.
Mr. Labouchere, proceeding, said he charged these officials with confederating together to defeat the hands of justice by preventing certain persons from being put on their trial in respect of a crime for whch the men Veck and Newlove had been tried and sentenced to nine and four months' imprisonment respectively. The sentence in the case of the pseudo-clergyman Veck, who was Hammond's partner, was entirely and scandalously inadequate. He charged the Goverenment with securing the pleas of guilty in these cases that the scandal might be hushed up in the interest of richer and more influential persons. ("Oh.") Indeed, he believed Veck would never have been prosecuted at all had it not been for the action of the Post Office, for which he honoured the Postmaster-General and the Secretary of the Post Office. (Cheers.) He begged the House to note that Hammond was not watched by the police, and that on the following day to that on which the boys gave information respecting him, an intimation of the fact was brought by Newlove, and Hammond forthwith fled the country. But the police, unlike the Treasury, were perfectly in earnest in the matter, and they and the Post Office urged that Hammond, who had with him an English boy abstracted from his parents, should be brought back to England. What happened? Lord Salisbury wrote, and the Treasury forwarded to the police a letter saying that the Government could not ask that the man should be extradited from France. A month elapsed, and Hammond crossed to Belgium, still shadowed by the English and local police. Application being again made to the Treasury for extradition, a second reply was sent that there was no evidence of an extraditable offence, and that it could not, therefore, be asked for. He believed the Law of Extradition extended to these offences. Why was it not put in force, and why was Hammond hunted from France and Belgium until he was safely on board a Transatlantic steamer? The object was obvious.
Proceeding, Mr. Labouchere dealt with the case of Lord Arthur Somerset. Why, when that person was recognised by the police at Knights-bridge Barracks and at the funeral of the Dowager Duchess of Beauifort, did the Treasury reply, giving instructions for the immediate withdrawal of the constables? and why did Lord Salisbury intimte to those who could communicate with Lord Arthur Somerset that the Government would on the morrow issue a warrant for his arrest? (Cheers.) Of course Lord Arthur Somerset fled the country, and even then he was not dismissed from his regiment, but allowed to resign, and even now held the position of magistrate in two counties. (Loud cries of "Oh" and cheers.) What right had Lord Salisbury to interfere in this way? The Premier had acted not only criminally but foolishly, for the upper classes had, through his attempts to hush up the cases, been the subject of endless and unfounded whisperings. He knew of several persons who ought to have been arrested, but, so far as he knew, there was no ground whatever for the suspicions breathed in the clubs against any one of the gentlemen there mentioned. (General cheers.) He wished too to say that he honoured and respected the Prince ofWales for the action he had taken, which was wise, honourable, and worthy of his position. (Renewed cheers.) He did not know what the reply of the Government would be, but he would advise them not to put up a lawyer with a brief in his hands, to defend them by evasive chicanery. (Loud Ministerial cries of "Order" and "Withdraw.") Very well, he would say what would have the same meaning to those near him. Let not the Government be defended by the same tactics as were pursued in regard to the Parnell Commission. (Opposition cheers, and Ministerial cries of"Withdraw.") He appealed to all members of the House, as English gentlemen, to support him in this demand – that there should be no condonation. He appealed to them to stand by the old doctrine of equal justice between man and man, and secure a complete enquiry into the whole matter. (Loud Opposition cheers.)
The Attorney-General, who was received with loud Ministerial cheers, said he had never heard charges made in the House approaching in importance to those of the hon. member. He had charged the Prime Minister with being party to a criminal conspiracy to defeat the ends of justice – (Opposition cheers) – and he charged subordinate officials with being parties to the conspiracy. These and other charges were disgraceful if true. They were still more disgraceful if false. The hon. member knew that he (the Attorney-General) must be one of the persons charged with this criminal conspiracy, and yet ye endeavoured to discount what he might say in defence by declaring beforehand that it could only be chicanery of a lawyer. (Ministerial cheers.) That was fair play, indeed?
Mr. Labouchere: No, no.
The Attorney-General: Well, that charge was made in connection with one of the cases, but there was not a shadow of foundation for the charge. (Ministerial cheers.) He (the Attorney-General) had acted on his own responsibility, and his sole wish had been that when the evidence was sufficient, all guilty persons should, without distinction, be brought to justice. Anyone who put forward suich charges ought to be practically certain that he could prove them. (Nationalist cries of "Piggott.") Up to August 20 there was not, in his judgment, sufficient evidence, and on that day Veck was arrested and committed for trial. The gravamen of the charge, the Veck and Newlove case, was that a light sentence was arranged between the oppositing counsel. On that point Mr. Poland wrote to him, emphatically denying that there was any arrangement, direct or indirect. After that, would the hon. member say there was anything in the accusation?
Mr. Labouchere: I still assert there was an understanding beforehand about these persons pleading guilty. I never said it was "agreed." That is not how things are done. The prosecuting counsel say, "Don't you think you had better plead guilty? I think you had better, and we will see what we can do for you."
The Attorney-General: The hon. gentleman said he was credibly informed that this arrangement was made between counsel. Will he say who his credible informant was? (Ministerial cheers.)
Mr. Labouchere: No, I will not, for the same reason that the Irish Secretary always gives with regard to boycotting – that he would be a marked man. (Cheers and laughter.)
The Attorney-General? No the House can see the principle of the evidence on which the hon. member proceeds. (Ministerial cheers and laughter.) He was as certain as he stood there. (Parnellite cries of "Pledge your reputation on it," and "Order") that the hon. gentleman would not give the name. Then as to the suggested light sentence, there was
Mr. Labouchere: The right hon. gentleman asks me a question. I will offer him this: I will write down the name of the person from whom I received it, and then leave it to the right hon. gentleman to read it out to the House or not. (Opposition cheers and "Accept the challenge.")
The Attorney-General said he wanted a yes or no to the question whether the hon. member got it from Sir Dighton Probyn. There were two parties to the interview. The story was that Sir Dighton Probyn, having telegraphed for an intervieww with Lord Salisbury, was told by the Prime Minister that he would issue the warrants immediately, and that that communication was intended to be conveyed to Lord Arthur Somerset. The answer to that story was the simple statement of Lord Salisbury, which could not be made otherwise than through him (the Attorney-General) in consequence of the course adopted by the hon. member. Lord Salisbury said he saw Sir Dighton Probyn on the evening of the day on which Lord Arthur Somerset fled from London. Sir Dighton asked if there was any truth in the imputations which had been made against certain persons whom he named. Lord Salisbury said that, as far as he knew, there was not a vestige of evidence against any of those persons except one, and in his case the evidence of identification was not sufficient. After he left Lord Salisbury
Mr. Labouchere: Does he deny it? (Opposition cheers.)
The Attorney-General: Does the hon. member suppose it consistent with that statement that Lord Salisbury should have gone on to say he would issue a warrant?
Mr. Labouchere: that is not a denial. (Loud Opposition cheers.)
The Attorney-General asked why the hon. member did not get the question put across the floor of the House of Lords.
Mr. Labouchere: I have not got the House of Lords in my pocket. (Opposition cheers and laughter.)
The Attorney-General (warmly): No; the hon. member has not got lords in his pocket to do such dirty work as this. (Loud Ministerial cheers.) If the hon. member had a scrap of evidence he would be only too glad to produce it. (Renewed cheers.)
Mr. Labouchere here rose, and, holding out a scrap of paper, said, amidst intense excitement: If the right hon. gentleman will take this paper, with the name on it, I leave it to him to read it to the House or not, as he likes. (Opposition cheers.)
The Chairman: Order, order.
The Attorney-General: I am entitled to ask, did he get the statement from Sir Dighton Probyn? (Opposition cries of "Oh," and "Take the paper.")
Mr. Labouchere turned round in his seat and waved the paper in the face of members of the Opposition, which caused a renwed burst of cheering.
The Attorney-General said the hon. member was not justified in making these charges on hearsay evidence. ("Oh!")
Mr.Labouchere: It is not hearsay evidence.
The Attorney-General said the hon. member knew perfectly well he did not get his information from Sir Dighton Probyn or Lord Salisbury; therefore it must be hearsay evidence. (Ministerial cheers.) A more infamous charge, without a shadow of confirmation, was never brought. (Loud cheers.)
Mr. Labouchere: I offered to write down the name of the gentleman on a piece of paper, and leave it to him to read it to the House. (Cries of "Read it yourself.") I understand why he did not accept the offer. I assert this – if I am obliged to do it – that
The Chairman: There is a certain courtesy due to Lord Salisbury – to members of this House or members of the other House and it would be intolerable to use such language to a member of this House or the other. (Ministerial cheers.)
Mr. Labouchere (with warmth): I repeat it. (Radical cheers.)
The Chairman: Does the hon. gentleman withdraw?
Mr. Labouchere: I decline, sir, to withdraw it. (Renewed Radical cheers.)
The Chairman: Then I have to exercise the power which is vested in me. (After a pause.) Does the hon. member withdraw?
Mr. Labouchere: No. (Radical cheers.)
Mr. T. P. O'Connor: Is there any precedent for a member of this House being called upon to withdraw a statement as to a member of the other house? (Cheers.)
The Chairman: I again ask the hon. member to withdraw.
Mr. Labouchere: And I decline. (Radical cheers.)
The Chairman: Then I name Mr. Henry Laabouchere. (Ministerial cheers.)
Mr. Smith: I beg to move that Mr. Henry Labouchere be suspended from the service of this House. (Renewed Ministerial cheers.)
The House divided on the motion, and much excitement prevailed, the Attorney-General being greeted with jeers and cries of "Pigott." The figures were declared to be
For the suspension 177
Against 96
Majority 81
Cheers and counter-cheers greeted the announcement of the figures.
Mr. Courtney then left the chair, and the House being resumed, reported the result to the Speaker.
Mr. Robertson, addressing the Speaker, asked if he could obtain the Speaker's opinion as to the chairman's ruling.
The Speaker: No, this is not the time.
The question of the suspension was then put from the chair, and the "Noes" seeming to preponderate, the Speaker, amid loud Radical cheering, said he thought the "Noes" had it, but subsequently called a division, when there were:–
Ayes 173
Noes 97
Majority 81
The Speaker: I now call on the hon. member to withdraw.
Mr. Labouchere: I get, sir, to withdraw, and at the same time to express regret that my conscience would not allow me to say that I believed Lord Salisbury. (Loud and prolonged Radical cheers, amongst which the hon. member withdrew.) . . .
The discussion was then resumed, and eventually the closure was applied, when 206 voted against Mr. Labouchere's proposed reduction of the vote, against 66 in favour of it.
1 March 1890
The Press Association states that during the debate on the Cleveland-street scandals the ladies' gallery was empty. About a dozen ladies put in an appearance when business commenced at three o'clock, but were informed that a debate of an exceptional character would probably arise in the course of the afternoon, and that it was the intstructions of the Speaker that they should withdraw as soon as Mr. Labouchere rose. In consequence of this intimation, which was conveyed by Mr. Wilson, the attendant, the ladies retired in a body when the hon. member for Northampton commenced his remarks, and most of them left the building for the night.
The Press Association in a later telegram says: We understand that the name Mr. Labouchere wrote on a piece of paper and said the Attorney-General might communicate to the House if he chose was that of a gentleman well-known in Court circles as occupying a position of great responsibility, and as having intimate relations with a member of the Royal family. (Leicester Daily Mercury)
6 March 1890
6 March 1890
7 March 1890
8 March 1890
There was not the slightest necessity for Lord Salisbuiry, Mr. Henry Matthews, Sir Richard Webster or the Lord Chancellor to have interfered in the matter at all. Why then did they all take such a deep interest in the Cleveland Street case? Have they nothing better to do than to go into the minutest details of such criminal offences? The very idea is absurd. The character of the wretch Hammond's house had been known for years. Attempts had frequently been made to get the place closed. But the very police who are ready enough to hound poor women of loose life about from one district to another somehow always shut their eyes to what went on at 10 [actually 19], Cleveland Street. Why? Because the den had been established and was maintained by men of the highest position and influence. What was the house principally used for? For the deliberately calculated debauchery of boys in the public service – there, Sir Richard, is where the public interest, which you are paid an enormous salary to be the protectcor of, comes in – by aristocrats and men of fashion. This, we say, has been going on for years with impunity, though the facts, as well as the habitual frequenters of this house, were well known to the police. Suddenly, by an accident, the whole hideous story is forced out. Hammond is allowed to escape immediately, and no serious effort is made to get hold of him. His associates are tried in circumstances absolutely unprecedented. They plead guilty, hold their tongues, and are let off with absurdly light punishments. Mr. Ernest Parke is imprisoned for twelve months at the suit of the immaculate Lord Euston, and all is made quite comfortable for the bulk of these pets of "society." Is the matter to rest here? We imagine not. Lord Arthur Somerset is merely a scapegoat, though anybody can see his escape was winked at as Hammond's was. The list of habitual frequenters has been passed round: names of many have been published in the foreign papers. Mr. Labouchere will, we hope, press for a Committee or a Commission of Inquiry in order that the aristocrats and men of fashion who have corrupted scores, if not hundreds, of boys in the public service may be made an example of. If the Prince of Wales, Sir Dighton Probyn, and Sir Francis Knollys are interested in the matter, so, and much more so, is the public at large. (Justice)
8 March 1890
9 March 1890
That yarn of the London Gomorrah
Has struck decent people with horrah;
But the lord who went free
We may very soon see,
Doing Sydney and Melbourne, begorrah!
One of the Cleveland-street avoiders of the law has just arrived in Perth, West Australia. (Reynolds's Newspaper)
10 March 1890
16 May 1890
16 May 1890
20 May 1890
31 May 1890
THE CASE OF MR E. PARKE. – The petition which is being promoted with a view to obtaining the release of Mr Ernest Parke, now in prison for libel in connection with the Cleveland Street scandals, is being largely signed in London. the friends of Mr Parke have some grounds for anticipating a favourable reply, and they believe that Mr Matthews will sympathise with the view that he has been sufficiently punished for his action. The points upon which the petitioners rely are briefly as follow:– That Mr Justice Hawkins was wrong in believing that Parke did nothing before publication to satisfy himself of the truth of the allegations; that his honest intent may plead for mitigation of punishment; that inasmuch as four months was thought sufficient punishment for Newlove's crime, and nine months for Veck's a much shorter detention would be a sufficient punishment for Parke's offence; and that to a man of Parke's delicate constitution and habits, 12 months' incarceration is likely to permanently injure his health. Indeed, the last has already been affected. He continues to remain in the infirmary and under the care of the doctor; and a friend of his who recently saw him came awaay convinced that he was suffering seriously. (Leamington Spa Courier)
9 June 1890
7 July 1890
Mr. Parke, of the North London Press, who was sentenced about six months ago to twelve months' imprisonment for libelling Lord Euston in connection with the Cleveland-street scandals, was this morning released from gaol on medical grounds. (Manchester Eveniung News)
13 July 1890
5 September 1890
28 November 1890
3 January 1891
5 January 1891
Charles Hammond, who became notorious through the Cleveland Street scandals, has been sentenced in America to two years' imprisonment for blackmailing. (Aberdeen Press and Journal)
9 January 1891
3 April 1891
8 May 1891
7 August 1891
9 February 1892
SOURCE: Various newspapers, dates as given.
CITATION: If you cite this Web page, please use the following citation:
Rictor Norton (Ed.), "The Cleveland Street Scandal",
Homosexuality in Nineteenth-Century England: A Sourcebook, 28 July 2020, amended 10 Aug. 2020
<http://rictornorton.co.uk/eighteen/1889clev.htm>.