Archive for the ‘Cleveland Street Scandal’ Category

The West End Scandal.
LONDON, Jan. 10. – The indignation which the indecent haste of certain government officials to shield the aristocratic participants in the Cleveland street scandal aroused, has caused these persons to think twice about interfering to protect those connected with the newly discovered West End infamy, the shocking details, of which have just been brought to light. Though official anxiety for the escape of certain titled scoundrels may be as strong as ever, there has yet been manifested no disposition on the part of those in authority to hamper the action of the Scotland Yard police, who are diligently tracing the culprits with good prospects of running them down. It is possible that two members of noble houses, implicated in the latest scandal who quitted England a few days ago, were warned by persons who, had they performed their duty, should have taken them in custody instead. But the suspicion is not as yet susceptible of confirmation. The number of prominent society men implicated in the villainy laid bare today, is said to be so large that the most callous of Scotland Yard’s criminal hunters were shocked at the revelations disclosed by the list.
Source: Daily Colonist, Saturday January 11, 1890
A London correspondent writes: – "The terrible scandal in aristocratic circles which has been talked of with bated breath in the West-end for the past couple of months has this week been revived in a more pointed fashion, and there is a possibility that the whole will be revealed in the course of a trial at the Central Criminal Court either this month or next. Certain persons are now awaiting trial, under a committal from Marlborourgh-street Police Court, for participation in the crimes charged; and it is reported that since they have been in prison they have made statements incriminating men of high distinction, whose names are being bandied to and fro at the clubs. The latter are not now in England, and it is only right to state that in the preliminary and necessarily semi-private proceedings at the police court they were not named. But a circumstance has occurred within the last three days which has caused the previous rumours once more to be emphasised, and no one can now say where the proceedings will stop.
The Star states: – We hear on good authority that two men of social standing have been arrested by Inspector Abberline in connection with the scandal in the West End. They have not been brought before the magistrate yet, but as Inspector Abberline was in the magistrate’s private room on Tuesday, and several of the witnesses in the case were seen about the precincts of the Court, it is suggested that the case may have been heard in private.
The society scandal is now so widely talked about (says a correspondent) that the desperate efforts which have been made to hush it up can hardly succeed. It may seem incredible, but is nevertheless true, that some of the unhappy accomplices of the titled personages who are alleged to have been the principal offenders are at this moment undergoing imprisonment, their cases having been tried and disposed of with the most scrupulous secrecy. The magistrate before whom they were examined is said to have sat at an early hour in the morning, long before the usual time for commencing the business of his court, the evidence was given with such precautions against influential names oozing out that documents were produced, sworn to, and handed to the magistrate without anybody ascertaining what they were, or by whom they were written, and conviction and sentence followed. But for the action of a prominent public official, who insisted that justice should take its course, the matter would probably never have come before the courts at all, but now that it is in a sense public property it cannot be allowed to rest without some explanation as to why active steps were not taken to arrest the chief offenders until after they fled from the country. It is stated on good authority that two persons of social standing are now in custody, and if that be the case, it is hardly possible to prevent disclosures which will fill the public mind with horror.
Mr. Labouchere writes as follows in Truth: – The law must be equally administered – if not in Ireland, at least in England. A short time ago several of the telegraph boys in the neighbourhood of Cavendish-square were found to be spending more money than they earned. Inquiry was made by the postal authorities, and it was discovered that they were supplied with money by a band of gentlemen who met at a house in Cavendish-street. The facts are in the hands of the Home Office and of Scotland Yard; but as some of the greatest hereditary names of the country are mixed up in the scandal every effort is being made to secure the immunity of the criminals. Indeed, I am creditably informed that the Home Office is throwing obstacles in the way of prompt action on the part of Scotland Yard, and trying to get the persons concerned out of the country before warrants are issued. The fall of Louis Phillipe was to a great extent due to the Duc de Praslin having murdered his governess; but the Duc’s crime compares favourably with that of these titled miscreants. It will be really too monstrous if crimes which, when committed by poor, ignorant men, lead to sentences of penal servitude, were to be done with impunity by those whom the Tory Government delights to honour. The names of the telegraph boys are known. The name of the person who let the house in Cavendish-street is known, and the names of those who frequented it are known. I warn Mr. Marchant that if he does not take action in this matter there will be a heavy reckoning when Parliament meets. I have no sorts of sympathy with vigilance associations and other such private censors of morals; but betweent their prying action and the Home Office impeding the police and warning high-born criminals to get out of the jurisdiction of the British Courts in order to save them from prosecution, there is a wide difference.
The notices in the Gazette and elsewhere of the names of the noblemen and gentlemen connected with the indescribable Cleveland-street scandal, practically public property, show that some high personages are seriously involved. One got out of the country in time to avoid the warrant which (rather late in the day) were issued for his and others’ arrest. The brother officers in the "Blues" of one who is implicated telegraphed when they heard the shocking story offering to stand by their comrade if he would but assure them of his innocence. They received no reply, and since then the man’s retirement from the army has been notified, and his name withdrawn from the list of the Prince of Wales’ equerries. The police, it seems, at first suspected the house in Cleveland-street of being a gambling "hell," and placed a detective opposite to identify and, when possible, photograph all the habitues. The discoveries which resulted led to a carefully-planned raid, the instructions of the Home Secretary being to arrest all concerned. This was done. but on examining the parties trapped the Police Inspector (well nigh paralysed with horror) recognised to his dismay a "personage." It is not suggested (save by malevolent nobodies) that the latter visited the house for an improper purpose. His leader was, however, undoubtedly an habitue; and the idea is that, half suspecting espionage, he took his charge with him as a safeguard. And a safeguard, of course, the personage proved, for the whole affair had to be hushed up. The keeper of the house and his assistant, however, arrested and charged before the magistrate, with closed doors. At the Central Criminal Court three weeks later the pair were brought up after hours, and, pleading guilty, sentenced to comparatively brief terms of penal servitude. The whole business scarcely occupied five minutes, and passed unnoticed save by the North London Press and one or two other Radical papers. Fortunately, or unfortunately, a scandal of such magnitude cannot be altogether burked, and though the gentlemen (!) concerned escape imprisonment, they are terribly punished. The culprits made for Peru, where they will have to lie perdu for a long time to come. The "personage’s" parent, on being made acquainted with the story, is said to have broken down completely. These facts, which have been in my possession some time now, reached me through parties concerned in getting up the case, and are reliable.
A future duke, a duke’s son, a peer of the realm, a great Hebrew financier, and many "honourables,"  a parson, and several officers are implicated. The solicitor to the Treasury is burning to prosecute; but Ministers will not allow him. In ordinary cases, he works out his own plans without consulting Ministers; but in this case it was necessary for him to seek the co-operation of his chief, because the whole fabric of the prosecution depended upon obtaining the extradition of an individual who is known to be at Boulogne, and who was to be used as Queen’s evidence. The most miserable incident of this most miserable history is that it seems likely to cause the death from heartbreak, of one of the noblest women in England – the mother of one among the runaways. Endowed with every gift of nature, birth, and fortune, her fate is the most tragic of our time – even that of the Empress Eugenie not expected. This is the second of her sons who has fallen from an exalted position from the same cause. Her daughter has made a marriage she hates, and she herself has seen herself supplanted almost in her own castle by a pretty actress – if actress the lady can be called." – Argus Correspondent.
Sources: Taranaki Herald, Volume XXXIX, Issue 8667, 2 January 1890, Page 3
             Evening Post, Volume XXXIX, Issue 9, 11 January 1890, Page 1
Libel on Lord Euston.
LONDON, Jan. 17. – The trial of Mr. Ernest Parke, for criminally libelling the Earl of Euston, came on at the Old Bailey on Wednesday morning, before Mr. Justice Hawkins and a special jury. The prosecutor arrived early accompanied by his solicitor (Mr. George Lewis), and the pair were presently joined by Sir Charles Russell, Q.C., M.P., whose brief, on dit, was marked "five hundred guineas." Mr. Lockwood, Q.C., M.P., and Mr. Asquith, M.P., represented the defendant Parke, and several other barristers held watching briefs on behalf of parties whose names did not transpire.
Sir Charles Russell opened the case for the prosecution with dry brevity, repeating the story of his client’s visit to Cleveland street which Lord Euston told at the Police Court. As his Lordship, said Sir Charles, had only been to the house once, and then but for a minute or two, nothing would have been easier than for him to have denied knowing anything at all of the place. He preferred, however, to be perfectly straightforward, and had frankly confessed to a grave imprudence. In the plea of justification put in by the defendant it was alleged that Lord Euston had visited 19, Cleveland street, on several occasions. The defence having taken that course, and elected practically to place Lord Euston on his trial, he (Sir C. Russell) proposed, subject to any view the learned Judge might express upon the matter, not to call the prosecutor until they had seen by what evidence it was proposed to substantiate the plea of justification.
The Judge remarked that he did not feel justified in expressing any opinion upon the point.
Mr. Lockwood, Q.C., for the defence commented on the course pursued by the prosecution in keeping the Earl of Euston out of the witness-box until there should have been a chance of discrediting, by cross-examination, the witnesses in support of the plea of justification. He agreed with Sir Charles as to the seriousness of the charge, and as to the seriousness of the plea put on the record by the defendant; but he proposed to place evidence before the Jury which would satisfy them that Lord Euston had been in the habit of visiting 19, Cleveland street. Some of the evidence might be open to the charge of being tainted, but it was obvious that in a case of this kind it was only evidence of that class that they could expect to find. As to the part of the plea of justification which alleged that publication of the libel was for the public good, he apprehended that if the libel were shown to be true, there would be no substantial difference of opinion upon that point.
A number of persons residing in Cleveland street and neighbourhood were then called, and identified Lord Euston as an habitue of No. 19. Being mostly ignorant working people, it was not a difficult task for Sir Charles Russell to confuse these witnesses and turn their evidence into ridicule. Nevertheless, the impression left on a great many people in Court was that they were (to the best of their belief) speaking the strict truth.
The last witness called was an ineffable scoundrel named John Saul, who gave his evidence with a brazen effrontery that reduced the Court to shocked silence.
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 Hammond’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 alloted to the public.
Mr. Lockwood said he hoped his task would not be rendered more difficult by such exhibitions of feeling.
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 Drury 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 being 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 him? – 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.
Lord Euston then went into the box and denied having ever seen Saul before. He was severely cross-examined by Mr. Asquith, but did not give away much.
Mr. Lockwood then briefly addressed the Jury on behalf of the defendant, severely criticised Lord Euston’s moral estimate of "poses plastiques," and suggested that he had only admitted going to 19, Cleveland street, once because he had reason to fear that on one occasion at least he had been observed. The story was one which he asked the Jury unhesitatingly to reject, the more so because – apart from John Saul – Sir Charles Russell had failed to shake either the credibility or the respectability of the witnesses for the defence.
Sir C. Russell, on behalf of Lord Euston, submitted that the libel had been proved, and that the defendant had absolutely failed to establish his plea of justification. There had been laid before the Court loose and most unsatisfactory evidence of identification in connection with the alleged visits to Cleveland street, while the foxily-tainted testimony of John Saul was such that no one would imperil the life even of the meanest of God’s creatures upon it. If a man’s life were involved in this case he felt sure the Jury would not accept it. Throughout this matter Lord Euston had behaved as an honest and straightforward man would behave.
Source: Star, Issue 6787, 26 February 1890, Page 2

Police On The Pay

Posted: August 18, 2009 in Cleveland Street Scandal
The Police in the Pay of the Infamous Women.
The "Pall Mall Gazette Articles."
LONDON, July 11.
The "Pall Mall Gazette" has thus far printed four articles under the title: "Maiden Tribute in Modern Babylon." In its introduction the "Gazette" says: "The fact that the Athenians took so bitterly to heart the tribute of seven maidens, which they had to pay every nine years to the Minotaur, seems incredible in the light of the fact that every night in London many times seven maidens, selected as much by chance as were those who drew the lot in the Athenian market, are offered up as the maiden tribute of this modern Babylon. Unless this tribute is shorn of its worst abuses, the resentment which the reform might appease may hereafter prove the virus of a social revolution. Indeed, it may be the one explosive strong enough to wreck the throne."
The "Pall Mall Gazette’s" Inquiry Commission pays a high tribute to the assistance given it by the Salvation Army. The commission would have been almost helpless without that assistance. The London police were not consulted, because of the fear that they would warn the brothel-keepers. The Arch-bishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London gave hearty support throughout the entire investigation, and were put in possession of many of the appalling facts in advance of their publication. The Commission is prepared to prove crimes of the most ruthless and abominable description, systematically practiced in London without hindrance or even the smallest effort attention.
These crimes are classified as follows: –
First, the sale, purchase, and violation of children; second, the procuration of virgins; third, the entrapping and ruin of women; fourth, an international slave trade in girls; fifth, atrocities, brutalities, and unnatural crimes. It is, in fact, a system of which the violation of virgins is one of the ordinary incidents, and is in full operation. Arrangements for procuring, violating, and then disposing of the ruined victims of London lust are made with incredible efficiency and simplicity.
The East End of London is the great market for children who are imported into West End houses, or taken abroad when trade is brisk. One of these trafficers, living in the odor of propriety with her parents, the other in a position of trust in a well-known linen draper’s in Oxford-street, as a "blind" undertake to purvey maidens to an extensive and widening circle of customers. The commissioner visited Miss "Z", who undertook to bring a maid for £5. The following night Miss "Z" brought a fourteen year old child of dark complexion, long black hair and dark eyes, not fully grown, but promising to develop into a woman of striking appearance. She was a dress-making apprentice from the country.
The investigation shows that a majority of the houses and underground rooms, wherefrom no sound was audible. Even some rooms were padded in order to stifle the cries of the victims. The narrative gives instances where mothers were only too anxious to sell their own daughters under 13 years of age for immoral purposes. The narrative througout speaks of the victims as "parcels." For instance, "I have consigned three parcels to So and So," showing the business to be of a purely commercial character. One procuress said: "Nursegirls, shop-girls, sometimes governesses, form our chief supply. We rise often at 7 o’clock in the morning, and scour Hyde Park and Regent’s Park; watch nursemaids, and finally secure a victim." One artful procuress advanced money for months to a poor, dying charwoman, in order to secure her daughter when the proper time came. The victim was a little girl.
The "Pall Mall Gazette" published on Wednesday a woodcut of Annie Bryant, aged 5, who was a victim. A penny cake was the lure which enticed Annie to her ruin. She is luckily now in good hands. The "Gazette" proceeds to show how the law facilitates abduction, and instances recent London cases where culprits got off on legal quibbles. Once a girl gets into the toils she is entirely at the mercy of her keeper, who first strips her of her scanty store of money by running up extravagant bills for board and lodgings, and then places every impediment in the way of her finding employment. The ignorant and innocent are the principal victims. Frequently women, disguised as Sisters of Charity, meet trains conveying Irish girls from Liverpool, saying that the Lady Superior is to meet the poor Catholic girls and take them to good lodgings until they find situations. They are forthwith taken to brothels. The Sister of Charity disappears and the Irish girl is entrapped.
Decoying Country Girls.
Another startling feature is the active part taken by young girls who themselves have fallen. They act as decoys at underground railway stations especially, but other railway depots are also frequented by these decoy girls as affording a field for ruining country girls, who generally offer an unresisting quarry. The commission continues: It is easy for a girl to enter a bad house, but very difficult to get out. Besides running into debt, cases constantly occur wherein girls find themselves under lock and key. A young lady recently applied to the proprietor of a provincial music hall for engagement, and enclosed a photograph showing a pretty girl, aged 18. A favourable reply was received. She was allowed to sing only one night. The second night the manager drugged and ruined her. The manager then left her to starve. Her life is saved, although her beauty and eyesight are gone. Another feature is the prevalence of nominally temperance hotels, which are really bad houses where girls are entrapped as servants.
The Police in the Pay.
The "Pall Mall Gazette" concludes by pointing out that it is absurd to attempt to cure the mischief by increasing an arbitrary police power. It proves that police, generally, with some honourable exceptions, receive regular payment from abandoned women, besides insisting on having favours. The lewd women of London fully understand that unless they regularly bribe policemen they must quit London or otherwise be arrested and annoyed by trumped-up charges. The strongest Freemasonry among policemen exists in this direction. One keeper says: "The police are our best friends. They keep things snug, and brothel-keepers are the policemen’s best friends, because they pay them. I only keep a small house, but pay the police £3  weekly."
"We have been told," the Commission continues, "that at one famous house in the East End the police allowance is £500  yearly, besides free quarters when wanted. An alliance is thus struck up between the police and procurers. One lady devoted to rescue work, speaking with authority, says that whenever she wished to save a girl, she was compelled to take the greatest care not to allow her intention to reach the ears of the police.
An ex-officer says that policemen and soldiers between them ruin more girls than any other class of men in London. The "Gazette" urges the establishment of local vigilance committees. It also advocates police laws, equally severe as regards men soliciting women as for women soliciting men. "A severe law for the weaker sex and a lax law for the stronger," it says, "is scandalously immoral."
For Export and Import.
Today’s "Gazette" deals chiefly with the iniquities of the system of exporting English girls to the Continent and importing foreign girls to England under the pretence of providing them with respectable employment. It adduces many instances, one where a married woman was taken to Bordeaux, kept four years in a brothel, and not allowed to communicate with her husband in London. Another, where an English girl was taken to Bordeaux and afterward shipped to South America. The "Gazette" gives warning tonight that several well known bullies have been seen watching village homes, where they suspect little children, rescued from a life of vice, are in the house. Police surveillance has been ordered, owing to threats used by these miscreants.
A Hideous Traffic.
NEW YORK, July 10. – The "World’s" London cable special says: – In regard to the threatened libel suits against the "Pall Mall Gazette," the editor, Mr. Stead, says: – "Let those who do not wish to shake the very foundation of social order think twice before compelling us to confront in court the brothel-keepers with the prices of blood, and prominent public men with the victims of their lawless vice. Mme. Jeffries excercised the utmost care to secure the custom of only men of the highest rank of social position. No one could enter except such as were introduced by persons well known to her. It seemed she would secure through her agents in various parts of Great Britain and the Continent young girls of 13 or 14 years of age, of common parentage, bring them to London and put them in charge of the best masters, not only in literature, but also in every department. They were never allowed to go upon the streets, except under charge of a governess or maid, and when duly educated and refined, they would be introduced into her establishment.
"If one of her patrons happened to know or hear of some girl of the lower orders in whose betrayal he did not wish to be known, the woman would send her agent, generally a woman, to her, and by deception and persuasion only too often managed to secure her as a victim. Her books show that she was the intermediary as well for many women of good and even the highest social position. The exposure in this respect furnishes a shocking commentary upon the condition of morals in the "better circles" of the metropolis. The entries in her books go to show that she kept regular credit accounts with some of her male patrons, the amounts charged in some instances reaching £1,000. Some of the entries show that she would temporarily rent one of her houses to such a patron, with furniture, servants, and a skilled cook – an elegant and complete entourage in fact. No money was paid by any patron directly. She would render her account to him at regular intervals, and he would send the amount due by a messenger."
The article next describes the system of procuration in the West End of London, the most fashionable quarter of the metropolis. There the victims brought much larger sums than those procured in the East End. Purveying was carried on systematically by a firm whom the writer designates as Madames X. and Z. Two girls of the East End fetched only £5  each, while their sisters of the West End brought prices ranging from £10  to £20 . These figures, the writer of the article says, were verified in every instance. Here follows an account of the transaction with Mesdames X and Z, known in certain circlesas the leading procuresses in Europe. One girl said to the commissioner that her mother was lying dead, and that she had gone out to procure assistance, when she fell into the hands of decoys, who took her to Madame X,’s establishment. The Commissioner took the girl to her home, and subsequently had her placed in good hands.
The "Gazette" further says: "We are prepared to submit names, dates, localities, etc., to any of the following gentlemen: –
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Cardinal Manning, Samuel Morley, member of Parliament for Bristol; the Earl of Shaftesbury, the Earl of Dalhousie, or Howard Vincent, on condition that the information is not used for the purpose of individual exposure or criminal proceedings.
Indictment Against the Aristocracy.
"It is estimated," says the "Gazette," "that more than 10,000 little girls in England are completely given over to the practice of crimes which are of too horrible a complexion to give them names. In houses kept by French, Spanish, and English women, in fashionable London it is possible to meet Cabinet Ministers and other men of dignity and reputation. There is now walking the streets a monster, aged 50 years, who has for years amused himself by decoying and ruining children.
 London Rascality.
 The New York "Sun" cablegram from London of July 11th says: The exposures in the "Pall Mall Gazette" are creating thrilling public interest. The charge that the Police department was suborned in the interest of procuresses and their patrons excites universal indignation against the authorities, and a Government investigation is probable. If the veiled imputations of the "Gazette" can be substantiated, the peerage and throne itself are shaken. The "Gazette" says: – "There seems to be absolute unanimity of public opinion that if the procuresses had not feed the police they would have been gaoled long ago. A great number of members of the police regard this revenue as one of the legitimate perquisites of their office, and act accordingly. The power of policemen over those who fail to "tip" them is absolute. The poor wretch who neglects to pay what a policeman considers his proper fee is hurried from one district to another until she is finally driven out of London. Every bad house is more or less a source of revenue to the policeman upon whose beat the house is situated. One brothel-keeper told the Commissioner that he pays £3  a week to the police and one of the famous houses of assignation in the East End pays £500  yearly, besides giving to certain of the police officials free quarters and accommodations in the house. Rev. Mr. Charrington, a famous London missionary, deposes that the police have interfered in almost every case where he attempted to rescue outraged children, and upon one occasion two policemen actually turned him over to bullies connected with a house from which he was assisting children to escape, telling them to kill him, and that they (the policemen) would go round the corner so they might not see or know of anything that might be done."
The "Gazette" says: "An officer in high standing on the London police force ruined his own sixteen-year-old daughter. His conduct toward his child continued until the girl left home. She led a life of shame until sickness and poverty compelled her to apply to her father for relief, threatening that if he did not come to her assistance she would expose him. Her father at once sent two detectives to the place where she lodged, and they so coerced the girl that she signed a retraction." The facts in this case, the "Gazette"asserts, it supplied the home Secretary, with a view to having the inhuman father prosecuted, but nothing came of it. The "Gazette" cites this case as an instance of the power of the police. The "Gazette" ridicules the police for the little knowledge of public affairs they have,  and states, in proof of its strictures on police officials, that yesterday, while the streets were re-echoing with the cries of vendors of the "Gazette" containing the exposure, the procuresses X. and Z. delivered two certified innocents to be ruined, and entered into further contracts to supply girls for export to a foreign house of ill-fame.
Horrible Revelations.
The "Gazette" says that its commissioners frequently saw girls entering houses of ill-fame whose footsteps they tried to arrest, but they were carefully guarded, and the doors closed upon them as virtuous girls forever. They describe the scenes they encountered as heartrending in the extreme, and their feelings they liken to those of spectators watching a shipwreck with straining eyes, trying to snatch a stray swimmer from a watery grave, but throwing to him a rope which he cannot reach.
Under the headline, "How Marguerite Was Ruined," the story is told of a young and lovely French girl who was decoyed to London by a false employment advertisement, swindled out of her money, and ultimately ruined.
Under the headline, "Foreign Exports," the "Gazette" says that girls find a life of shame in England purgatory; in other countries, particularly on the Continent, a hell. The slave-trader collects his human parcels at the great central mart of London and keeps them ready for transmission to the uttermost ends of the earth.
The Trade Checked.
Since the "Gazette’s" exposures the purchase of girls has become difficult in London but they are still easily obtained in the provinces. The traffic is entirely in the hands of foreign ex-convicts. A commissioner, with a view of obtaining information would unmask the scoundrels engaged in the traffic, arranged to pay £10  for having his alleged cast off mistress deposited in an out-of-the-way house in Belgium. "With the heroism and self-sacrifice worthy of a sainted martyr, the "Gazette" says "a pure and noble girl volunteered to face the frightful risk of being separated from home and friends in order that she might be the instrument of tearing the mask from the face of the villainy. "God has been with me hitherto," she said; "why should He forsake me if in this cause I face risks? Surely He will take care of me there as well as here." Offer was accepted, but the Commissioner refused to carry the negotiations further.
Under the headline, "An Interview With An Ex-Slave Trader," the following is given: "John S. Gray, a Belgian of noble appearance, who has just served six years in prison in Belgium, states that a score of English girls are exported to Belgium and Northern France monthly for immoral purposes. Two-thirds of these, he asserts, think they are going to situations, and under this mistaken idea, are lured to their ruin. The exporter is paid so much a head if the girls are healthy. The average price paid is £10  per head. The ages of the girls range from 8 to 13 years.
A Terrible Experience.
Under the headline of "An Interview With a Party Shipped to Bordeaux and Madrid," the "Gazette" states that a woman who was forced by her husband’s ill health to seek a situation, was told by a friend, who was a girl in an honest situation, that a certain Greek keeping a cigar store on Rent-street knew of a situation as barmaids for four girls at Bordeaux. She saw the Greek, became convinced of his honesty, and left for Bordeaux. Arriving there on Sunday evening, she was taken, without suspicion being aroused, to the house of the notorious Mme. Suchou, 36 Rue Lambert. She was taken to a doctor and was alarmed to find that he spoke no English, while she spoke no French. Her appeals to him for an explanation were fruitless. The next day she found that her clothes had been removed and silk dresses substituted. Then followed the old story. She was forced and bullied into compliance with the wishes of the madam’s patrons, and she led a life of shame in Bordeaux for nearly four years. One of her companions was sold as a slave, to be sent to South America; another died at Bordeaux. The heroine of this story was finally bought from Mme. Suchou by an admirer, and at last reached London leaving the fourth girl bitterly crying for death.
A Hint To The Prince Of Wales.
LONDON, July 13. – The "Pall Mall Gazette" this afternoon, in response of a request for its opinion as to the nature of the change in the English criminal law, makes several important suggestions. It advocates first, an addition to the Criminal Act, raising the age at which female children may legally consent to sinful conduct from 13 years, the present period, to 16; second, the extension of the law prohibiting soliciting to both sexes; third, the denial of any additional power over women to the police that will be aimed at the suppression of crime, and not at the suppression of vice; that is, complete legal liberty for voluntary immorality between adults contracting on equal terms, but the vigorous repression of sexual criminality in all cases in which the parties are underage, or the elements of a full, free, and intelligent consent are absent; fourth, a greatly increased stringency in the laws against prostitution.
The "Gazette," in an editorial, commenting on the results of the revelations, declares that its trumpet blast has roused the world. "No word was raised yesterday in the churches against us," continues the paper, "but all the forces of wickedness in high places are arrayed against us. The Hon. W.H. Smith and Son, possessing the monopoly of the news stands on the railway systems of England, have suppressed their sales of the "Pall Mall Gazette." The Prince of Wales has stopped his paper, the Right Hon. Mr. Bentinck is posing in Parliament in the name of an "outraged morality" and clamors for our extinction. The "Gazette" did not take this inquiry to unearth the vices of the great, but if we are driven to bay we will be compelled by the action of our assailant to speak out and spare not."
An Important Conference.
LONDON, July 15. – A conference for the protection of young girls opened this afternoon in Princess Hall. The chief promoter of the conference is the Salvation Army. The Hon. Samuel Morley, Liberal member of Parliament for Bristol, presided,  and made an address on the subject of the iniquity exposed by the "Pall Mall Gazette." He declared that the condition of things in London as that revealed by that paper, was a scandal to the Christian nations. "The people must speak out," exclaimed the orator, "if their homes are to be kept sacred from this surrounding pollution. I believe there is one law for the rich and another for the poor in these matters. It should be a felony to steal a poor person’s child." Professor James Stuart proposed a vote of thanks to the proprietor and editor of the "Pall Mall Gazette" for the assistance their work has rendered to the cause of Christian morality. This proposal was unanimously adopted, as was also a resolution urging Parliament to raise the "age of consent" from 13 to 18 years.
Source: Te Aroha News, Volume III, Issue 118, 5 September 1885, Page 3
Note: Having just read this expose, do you now understand what the reasons were for the Ripper’s murders and just how much the Cleveland Street brothel was tied in with the case? I wonder if Mary Jane Kelly, who stated that she went to France with a gentleman but left because she did not like the "situation" was referring to this sort of "child-sex trade" in Bordeaux or another area of France. Also, these particular types of brothels which served a mostly aristocratic and influential clientele were under surveillance for years.
Maybe Mary Jane O’Brien/Kelly was the pure and noble lady who volunteered to leave her "people, family and friends" to infiltrate the East End child-sex trade. Inspector Abberline, who was put in charge of the Cleveland Street Scandal explained in his diaries that Mary Jane O’Brien was a P.A. which was an acronym for a Police Agent. If she supplied information about this child-sex trade, she would have been protected. I don’t think that Mary Jane O’Brien/Kelly was murdered in that shabby room in Miller’s Court on the 9th of November 1888. She was an important informant to Scotland Yard and was sent to Canada for her own protection. It is not known if she ever returned to England.
The Earl of Galloway on Trial for Assaulting Little Girls.

Earl of Galloway’s Trial.

LONDON, Oct. 14. – The trial of the earl of Galloway, who has been indicted for a series of assaults on children of tender years, is on the docket of the sessions court that opens today at Dumfries, Scotland. He will first be tried on one indictment, which charges assault on a child of 10 years, named Gibson, the offense, it is alleged, having been committed on a country road. The lord advocate will personally conduct the prosecution, and six counsel, headed by John Blair Balfour, queen’s counsel, and ex-lord advocate, will represent the earl. It is claimed that he has a complete defense, and that politics are at the bottom of the charges.

Source: Hawarden Independent, Hawarden, Iowa, 1889-10-17, page 2

Note: The 10th Earl of Galloway was named Alan Plantagenet Stewart and the 11th Earl of Galloway was named Randolph Henry Stewart. It was either one of these two gentlemen who was on trial for assaulting little girls. Also, his excuse is quite lame – just how many 10 year old girls are interested in politics to the extent that they would "cook up" a pedophilia scandal?

 Papers Bare a 1900 Sex Scandal That Involved British Royalty
LONDON (AP) – Queen Victoria’s family and government leaders of the day hushed up Buckingham Palace’s reported connection to a sex scandal that shocked Britain 75 years ago, according to official documents opened this week for the first time.
The scandal centred on a male homosexual brothel in London’s Cleveland Street allegedly frequented by Lord Arthur Somerset, equerry to the Prince of Wales, and other prominent men.
Details of the affair came to light when the director of public prosecutions opened relevant documents to public inspection. Until recently the department kept the wraps on official documents for 100 years.
The papers confirm rumors rife at the time that such leaders as the Prince of Wales and the prime minister, Lord Salisbury, prevented authorities – from prosecuting Lord Somerset. The Prince of Wales, the eldest son of Queen Victoria, became King Edward VII. The documents also revealed that officials at the time wrote that Lord Somerset’s attorney boasted that if the peer was taken to court "a very distinguished person will be involved – PAV." That referred to Prince Albert Victor, the black sheep among Queen Victoria’s children. The prince’s name had earlier been mentioned in the "Jack the Ripper" murders that terrorized London.
The documents do not mention Prince Albert further. They show the attorney general, the public prosecutor and the police commissioner wanted to prosecute Lord Somerset, who is referred to in the documents as "Mr. Brown," under stringent laws forbidding acts of "gross indecency" between male homosexuals.
However the then home secretary Lord Halsbury, plus Lord Salisbury and other leaders were against this, partly because of Lord Somerset’s position in society and partly because they feared other prominent Britons would be implicated.
The then assistant director of public prosecutions, H. Coffee, wrote that the Prince of Wales was "in a great state" and sent high powered emissaries to the prosecutor’s department and the police commissioners office on Lord Somerset’s behalf.
The Prince, Cuffee said, "didn’t believe a word of it and wished to concern himself to clear LAS (Lord Somerset)…and must have something settled."
Soon after, Somerset left the country – before an arrest warrant was issued.
The papers also include evidence that distinguished clients of the brothel tried to bribe the male prostitutes of Cleveland Street to go abroad before they could be called as witnesses.
The Times of London described the documents Tuesday as "an illuminating example of the Victorian high establishment closing ranks and pulling strings to protect its errant members."
The London Evening Standard quoted H. Montgomery Hyde, author of a 1970 book on the scandal, as saying that Lord Arthur Somerset left England for Boulogne, France, and subsequently to Constantinople, where I believe he offered his services to the sultan.
Hyde said the Prince of Wales wrote to Lord Salisbury expressing satisfaction that Lord Somerset had been allowed to leave but suggesting that if he ever dared return he should be permitted to only a brief visit to his parents. It is not known whether he ever returned.
Source: The Daily Press, Utica, Wed. March 12, 1975