Cleveland Street Brothel Scandal

In July 1889, constable Luke Hanks investigated the theft from a central telegraph office in London. During the investigation, fourteen shillings were found at the fifteen-year-old telegraph courier Charles Thomas Swinskow - an amount equivalent to his wages for several weeks. However, the telegraph work rules at that time forbade couriers to carry personal funds with them, so as not to confuse them with the money paid by customers. Constable Hanks suspected Swinske of theft and took him for interrogation to the station. During the interrogation, Swinskow admitted that he earned money as a prostitute in a 19th Cleveland Street brothel run by a certain Charles Hammond. According to Swinskow, he was introduced to Hammond by the clerk of the main post office, eighteen-year-old Henry Newlow; he also named the names of two other seventeen-year-old telegraph ministers who also worked for Hammond: George Alma Wright and Charles Ernest Tickbrum. All three were interrogated and confirmed the words of Swinskow ^{[1] [2]} .

Constable Hanks reported the incident to the authorities, and the inspector of the Metropolitan Police Service, was involved in the case. On July 6, Abberline went to a brothel, having previously received a warrant for the arrest of Hammond and Newlow in accordance with Labusher's amendment . This law made all homosexual acts between men, as well as pandering or pandering attempts for such acts, a criminal offense, punishment for which threatened with imprisonment and hard labor for up to two years. Upon arrival at the brothel, Aberberline found the house closed, and Hammond managed to escape. However, the inspector managed to detain Newlow at his mother’s house in ^[3] Abberline found out that between the interrogation of Hanks and the arrest in his mother’s house, Newlov managed to warn Hammond, as a result of which he hid in his brother’s house in Gravesend ^[4] .

On the way to the police station, Newlov named the names of several clients of the brothel, among whom were representatives of the nobility: the son of the and Lord Sturmeister of the Prince of Wales, ^[5] and the son of the ^{[6] [7]} . Although Somerset was interrogated by the police, no immediate action was taken against him, and the authorities did not react at all to the statement about the involvement of the Stalmeister Prince of Wales in the scandal ^[8] . Cleveland Street was monitored at No. 19, and the details of the case were presented to the government, which began to transfer the matter between its departments ^[9] .

On August 19, an arrest warrant was issued for the acquaintance of Hammond, George Wick, who posed as a priest; in fact, Vick worked for some time in the telegraph, but was fired for "improper behavior" with a messenger ^{[10] [7]} . A seventeen-year-old boy found in Vick’s London apartment told police that George had left for Portsmouth and was due to return by train soon. The teenager’s testimony turned out to be true, and Vic was arrested at London Waterloo Station. Letters were found in his pockets from Algernon Ellies, who was soon questioned by Constable Hanks and Inspector Abberline at his parents' house in , Suffolk . Algernon admitted that he had a sexual relationship with Arthur Somerset, received money from him, and also worked for Hammond in Cleveland Street ^{[11] [12]} . On August 22, the police again questioned Somerset, after which he went to Bad Homburg , where the Prince of Wales spent his summer holidays ^[13] .

On September 11, Henry Newlow and George Wieck appeared in court. The defenders of the accused were Somerset's lawyer, solicitor Arthur Newton, as well as barris and Charles Gill, representing Newlova and Vika, respectively. All legal expenses were paid by Lord Somerset ^[14] . By this time he himself was already in Hanover , where he examined horses for the Prince of Wales. The press was full of headlines about the involvement of the “noble Lords” in the scandal ^[15] . On September 18, Newlov and Vic pleaded guilty to “ indecent behavior, ” and Judge Sir , a former Liberal Party MP who had a reputation as an indulgent man, sentenced them to four and nine months of hard labor, respectively ^[16] . Such a sentence was regarded while very lenient ^[17] . Hammond managed to escape to France, but the French authorities expelled him from the country under pressure from the UK. Hammond left for Belgium, from where he emigrated to the United States. Hammond's move was paid for by Somerset through an intermediary made by his lawyer. ^[18] On the advice of Prime Minister Salisbury , no extradition was attempted, and the case against Hammond was frozen ^{[19] [20]} .

Somerset returned to Britain at the end of September to attend the equestrian auction in Newmarket , but unexpectedly left for Dieppe on September 26, probably after receiving a message from Newton in which he warned of a possible arrest. ^[21] September 30 Somerset returned to the UK; a few days later, on October 2, Arthur's grandmother Emily Francis, the Dowager Duchess Beaufort, died, and Somerset attended her funeral ^{[22] [23]} . At the same time, the Hon. and , insisted on measures to be taken against Arthur Somerset, but Lord Chancellor prohibited any harassment of the Stahlmeister of the Prince of Wales ^[24] .

Rumors of Arthur Somerset's involvement in the scandal spread, and on October 19 he fled back to France. Somerset’s prime minister was later accused of fleeing Salisbury, who allegedly warned Arthur through Sir that his arrest was almost inevitable. ^[25] However, the allegations were rejected by Lord Salisbury himself and Sir ^[26] The Prince of Wales wrote to Salisbury that he was satisfied with the fact that Somerset was allowed to leave the country, and asked that if Somerset should “never again show his face in England”, would he be safe ^[27] ; however, Salisbury himself could not promise the prince anything, as he was under pressure from the police. On November 12, an arrest warrant was issued for Somerset ^{[28] [29]} . By this time he was far beyond the borders of the country, and the warrant for his arrest did not arouse almost any interest from the public ^[30] . After an unsuccessful job search in the Ottoman Empire and Austria-Hungary, Somerset went into voluntary exile in the south of France, where he remained until the end of his life ^[31] .

Somerset became the most famous person involved in the Cleveland Street brothel case, but there were others: the names of the liberal politician and Lord Errol ^[32] were mentioned in the press. Also involved in the scandal was a well-known public figure ^[33] , who was forced to hide abroad for four years ^{[34] [35]} . The Paris newspaper Le Figaro claimed that Broadley received General Boulanger and Henri Rochefort at his home; The charges against Boulanger were later refuted by his supporters. ^[36] In December 1889, it was reported that the prince and princess of Wales were subjected to “daily attacks in anonymous letters with the most offensive statements” regarding the involvement of their eldest son in the scandal ^[37] . By January 1890, sixty suspects had been identified, of which twenty-two had already left the country by that time ^[38] .

The British press did not cover events related to the scandal. One of the few journalists who dared to draw public attention to what was happening was Ernst Park, the editor of the little-known radical political weekly The North London Press . Park learned about the brothel in Cleveland Street from one of its reporters covering the trial of Henry Newlow. Park became interested in this story due to the fact that Newlov and George Wick were sentenced to sentences that were too lenient (usually the punishment for “gross indecency” was two years in prison and / or hard labor), and Hammond managed to avoid arrest at all. The park managed to find out that the "boys" from the brothel named the names of prominent representatives of the nobility. On September 28, he managed to publish an article in which he hinted at involvement in the scandal of the nobility, but did not give any names ^[39] . On November 16, Park published a continuation of the story, while indicating in the article the name of Henry Fitzroy, Earl of Euston, as a participant in the “indescribably disgusting scandal in Cleveland Street” ^[40] . He also stated that Euston might have left for Peru, and that he was allowed to do so in order to cover up the participation in the scandal of more senior officials ^{[40] [30]} who were not named, but some believed that Prince Albert was one of them Victor , son of the Prince of Wales ^[41] .

In fact, when Park published his articles, Euston was still in London and immediately sued the editor for libel. During the trial, Euston admitted that when he once walked around Piccadilly , one of the boys handing out flyers gave him a card that read “ Living Sculptures . C. Hammond, Cleveland Street 19 ". Euston told the court that he became interested in this and went to the specified address, believing that naked sculptures would be living sculptures. He paid sovereign entry and, shocked when he understood the true essence of this place, he hastened to leave the house. Witnesses to the defense gave conflicting testimonies and no one was able to accurately confirm the presence of Euston in a brothel ^{[42] [43]} . The last witness from the Park was , a male prostitute who was previously involved in a homosexual scandal in Dublin Castle and participated in the publication of the erotic short story , which was based on his personal life ^{[44] ]} . Speaking with the testimonies described in the protocol as “arrogant shamelessness,” Saul admitted that he made a living by leading an “immoral lifestyle” and “practicing crime”; he also stated that he had sex with Euston in a house in Cleveland Street. ^[45] In addition, he said that he told the police back in August, but the authorities did not take any measures ^[46] . At the same time, the defender of the Park did not call Newlov or Vic as witnesses and could not prove the fact of the absence of Euston in the country. On January 16, 1890, the jury found Park guilty, and a judge sentenced him to twelve months in prison. ^{[42] [47]} Historians did not agree on Euston: some believe that he was in a brothel only once, being misled by a card ^[48] ; others were convinced that Euston was a famous figure in homosexual circles ^[49] .

После суда над Эрнстом Парком судья сделал блестящую карьеру, хотя после его смерти генеральный солиситор Англии и Уэльса писал: «Сэр Генри Хокинс был худшим из судей, которых я когда-либо знал или [о которых] слышал. Он понятия не имел, что значит правосудие, долг правды или справедливость» ^[50] . Адвокаты обвинения также продвинулись по служебной лестнице: Вилли Мэтьюс стал , а — главным судьёй Англии и Уэльса . Адвокат защиты получил должность генерального солиситора, а его помощником стал Герберт Генри Асквит — будущий премьер-министр страны ^{[51] [52]} .

16 декабря 1889 года состоялся ещё один судебный процесс, на котором судили уже адвоката Генри Ньюлова и лорда Сомерсета Артура Ньютона, обвинённного в воспрепятствованию осуществлению правосудия. Утверждалось, что он вступил в сговор с целью предотвратить дачу показаний Хэммондом и проститутами борделя или способствовал в побеге Хэммонда за границу. Защитником Ньютона выступил Чарльз Расселл, который выступал на стороне обвинения на процессе против Эрнста Парка; обвинителем стал генеральный прокурор сэр Ричард Уэбстер. Ньютон признал себя виновным лишь по одному из шести выдвинутых против него обвинений, заявив, что он помог Хэммонду бежать для того, чтобы защитить от возможного шантажа своих клиентов, которым на тот момент не были предъявлены никакие обвинений. Генеральный прокурор принял прошение Ньютона и отозвал обвинение по остальным пяти пунктам ^[53] . 20 мая судья сэр приговорил Ньютона к шести неделям тюремного заключения ^[54] . Приговор Ньютону был признан его коллегами довольно суровым, и 250 юридических фирм Лондона подписали петицию на имя министра внутренних дел , протестуя против наказания Ньютона ^[55] .

While the trial of Newlov was ongoing, parliament became interested in accusing Ernst Park of trying to hush up the scandal. Henry Laboucher , MP from the radical wing of the Liberal Party , author of the paragraph on “gross obscenity” (the so-called “ Labucher Amendment ”) in the act on amendments to the criminal law of 1885 was convinced that a conspiracy to hush up the scandal had entered the government deeper than imagined. On February 28, 1890, Laboucher expressed his suspicions in parliament. He denied that a "very high-ranking gentleman" - presumably Prince Albert Victor - was involved in the scandal, but at the same time he accused the authorities of conspiring to distort the course of justice. He suggested that the Prime Minister, Lord Salisbury, in alliance with the Lord Chancellor of England and the Attorney General, conspired to obstruct the investigation ^[56] , which allowed Somerset and Hammond to escape punishment, to drag out the trial, and not to allow the investigation to be resolved. . Labusher’s allegations were denied by Attorney General Richard Webster, who participated in the trial of Arthur Newton. Charles Russell, who judged Park and defended Newton, held the same political position as Labusher, but he refused to participate in the discussion about the activities of the authorities in connection with the scandal. The heated debate lasted about seven hours; then Laboucher was expelled from parliament after declaring that he did not believe Lord Salisbury and would continue to insist on his own ^[57] .

Public interest in the scandal gradually faded away. Nevertheless, newspaper publications reinforced the negative attitude towards male homosexuality as an aristocratic vice, presenting telegraph messengers as victims exploited by members of the upper class ^{[58] [59]} . All this reached its climax a few years later, when Oscar Wilde was convicted of “rude obscenity” as a result of his romance with Lord Alfred Douglas . Oscar Wilde himself hinted at a scandal in his novel “ Portrait of Dorian Gray ”, which was published in 1890 ^{[k 1]} . Reviews of the novel were negative; it clearly showed a hint of the Cleveland Street scandal, and one reviewer called it suitable only for "outlawed nobles and perverted telegraph boys" ^{[60] [61] [62]} . The next edition of the novel, published in 1891, omitted some key passages that were considered too homoerotic ^{[62] [63]} . In 1895, Wilde unsuccessfully sued the father of his lover, the Marquis of Queensberry , accusing him of defamation. Sir , a Queensberry attorney, used quotes from a novel against Wilde and questioned him about his relationship with young men. ^[64] After the lawsuit failed, Wilde was charged with “gross indecency”, found guilty and sentenced to two years of hard labor. Wilde's accuser was Charles Gill, who defended George Wick in the Cleveland Street brothel case. ^[65]

Albert Victor's involvement

In 1892, Queen Victoria’s eldest grandson , Prince Albert Victor , who was considered involved in the Cleveland Street scandal, died. Rumors about Albert Victor also persisted many years after the scandal: sixty years later, the official biographer of King George V, Harold Nicholson wrote from the words of , who was only twelve years old during these events that Albert Victor “visited a male brothel, and his lawyer had to give perjury in order to cleanse him. The lawyer was suspended from service for this crime, but was subsequently reinstated ” ^[66] . In fact, none of the lawyers in this case was convicted of perjury or removed from office during the scandal, and Somerset lawyer Arthur Newton had problems with the law: he was convicted of obstructing justice in connection with the Cleveland Street scandal by assisting his clients fleeing abroad and was sentenced to six weeks in prison; twenty years later, in 1910, Newton was removed from office for twelve months on the fact of violation of official duties after falsifying a letter from his other client - the infamous Dr. Crippen , and in 1913 Newton was again removed from work for an indefinite period and sentenced to three years in prison for receiving money fraudulently ^{[67] [68]} .

It has also been suggested that it was Newton who spread the rumors about the prince in order to divert attention from Somerset ^[69] : letters exchanged between the Treasury solicitor Sir and his assistant contain encrypted references to Newton’s threats to entangle the prince ^{[k 2] [71] [72]} . In a personal correspondence with Somerset denied that he knew anything directly about the prince, but confirmed that he had heard rumors and hoped that they would help refute any accusations against himself: he wrote that he could well understand “The annoyance of the Prince of Wales due to the fact that his son’s name is associated with such a thing ... we were both accused of going to this place, but not together ... it will all end with the fact that in an open court session what everyone is trying to hide will be announced . I wonder if this is really a fact or just a fiction that the main villain X [emmond] is there ... ^[73] I never mentioned his [prince] name, except under , Montague and , when they worked on me and should have known it. If they were wise, hearing what I knew and what others knew, they would hush up this matter, and not share it with the authorities ” ^{[74] [75] [76]} .

While British newspapers tried to hide any mention of the prince in connection with the scandal, the press in Welsh ^[77] , as well as the colonial and American newspapers were not so scrupulous. The New York Times ridiculed him as a “dumbass” and a “dumb perverted boy” who “would never be allowed to ascend the British throne” ^[78] . According to one of the reports of the American press, when in May 1890 Albert Victor left the Gare du Nord station in Paris, he was delighted by the crowd of British waiting for him, but some Frenchmen booed him. One of the journalists asked the prince how he would comment on “the reason for his sudden departure from England”: according to the reporter, “the prince’s yellow face turned scarlet, and his eyes seemed to go out of orbit”, and one of the prince’s comrades began to reproach the journalist for his insolence ^[79] . Although there is no convincing evidence for or against the Prince’s involvement in homosexual relations, or that he has ever visited homosexual clubs or brothels ^[80] , rumors and conclusions of some historians suggest that he visited at least once Cleveland Street ^[75] and that he is “possibly bisexual or homosexual” ^[81] . At the same time, other researchers call these rumors and conclusions “somewhat unfair” and unjustified ^[82] ; thus, historian wrote that “there is no evidence that he was homosexual or even bisexual” ^[83] .

The location of the brothel and its historical context within the homosexual and other transgressive communities of the London district of Fitzrovia and its neighboring Soho and Bloomsbury became the subject of scientific research and general interest ^{[84] [85] [86]} . In Parliament, Labusher indignantly described House No. 19 in Cleveland Street as "a gloomy, incomprehensible walk-through yard, but [located] almost opposite Middlesex Hospital" ^[87] . The brothel building itself, located on the west side of Cleveland Street, was demolished in the 1890s with the expansion of the hospital ^[88] , which was demolished in 2005. Two sketches of the brothel building are known, published in The Illustrated Police News ^[89] .

There are also versions that the building was preserved: according to this theory, after changing the house numbering, house number 19 was removed from the register of houses to hide its existence, but in reality this building is now located under number 18 on the east side of the street ^[90] . The houses on Cleveland Street did indeed undergo a change in numbering, and its southern end was even earlier in Norfolk Street ^{[k 3]} . In fact, the numbering of the houses was planned back in 1867 - many years before the scandal: odd house numbers from 1 to 175 were assigned to buildings on the west side of the street, and even numbers from 2 to 140 - to the west side; in addition, house numbers began at the southern end of the street ^[92] . A cartographic sketch for 1870 shows that house number 19 was located on the west side of the street ^[93] ; The cartographic sketch for 1894 shows that the building was absorbed by the new wing of the hospital ^[94] .

• UK LGBT Rights

• Aronson, Theo . Prince Eddy and the homosexual underworld . - Barnes & Noble, 1994 .-- 246 p. - ISBN 156619993X , 9781566199933.
• Bradford, Sarah. King George VI . - London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1989 .-- 506 p. - ISBN 0297796674 , 9780297796671.
• Cook, Andrew. Prince Eddy: The King Britain Never Had . - Stroud, Gloucestershire: Tempus Publishing, 2006 .-- 319 p. - ISBN 0752434101 , 9780752434100.
• Cook, Matt. London and the Culture of Homosexuality, 1885-1914 . - Cambridge University Press, 2003 .-- 223 p. - ISBN 0521822076 , 9780521822077.
• Hallam, Paul. The Book of Sodom . - Verso, 1995 .-- 298 p. - ISBN Verso.
• Houlbrook, Matt. Queer London: Perils and Pleasures in the Sexual Metropolis, 1918-1957 . - University of Chicago Press, 2006 .-- 384 p. - ISBN 0226354628 , 9780226354620.
• Hyde, Harford Montgomery . The other love: an historical and contemporary survey of homosexuality in Britain . - London: Heinemann, 1970 .-- 323 p.
• Hyde, Harford Montgomery. The Cleveland street scandal . - Coward, McCann & Geoghegan, 1976. - 266 p.
• Inwood, Stephen. Historic London: An Explorer's Companion . - Pan Macmillan, 2012 .-- 324 p. - ISBN 0230752527 , 9780230752528.
• Lees-Milne, James . Harold Nicolson: A Biography . - London: Chatto & Windus, 1980 .-- T. II. - ISBN 0701125209 , 9780701125202.
• Wilde, Oscar; Frankel, Nicholas. The Sexual Constitution of Political Authority: The 'Trials' of Same-Sex Desire . - Harvard University Press, 2012 .-- 272 p. - ISBN 0674068041 , 9780674068049.
• Zanghellini, Aleardo. The Sexual Constitution of Political Authority: The 'Trials' of Same-Sex Desire . - Routledge, 2015 .-- 216 p. - ISBN 1134067062 , 9781134067060.
• Metropolitan Board of Works. Minutes of Proceedings of the Metropolitan Board of Works . - Reed and Pardon, Paternoster Row, printers to the Metropolitan Board of Works, 1867.