Boulton & Park:
The Victorian Incident

Conclusion

Saturday May 21, 1870

Before the examinations continued a Mr.W.H. Roberts, whose name was brought up in testimony the preceding day, asked permission to state "that it was only by accident he was in the company of one of the defendants", as was pointed out in the testimony. To his due credit, the magistrate, Mr. Flowers, noted that "nothing had been said to the prejudice of Mr. Roberts, and perhaps it was hardly fair to conclude at present that it was discreditable to be in the company of the defendants at all." Several witnesses were called that day.

Williams H. Morris, a proprietor in the Burlington Arcade, stated that he had seen Boulton and Park in the Arcade a hundred times or more and always dressed as women, "except once". He had them thrown out once for being in the company of "loose characters". At the time he did not know they were men.

Police-constable Holden stated he had seen the defendants in the Arcade several times, generally dressed as men. He said that because of "their peculiar way of walking up and down" many people believed they were really women.

Prior to his testimony, Edmund Haxell, landlord of the Royal Exeter Hotel in the Strand, where the masquerade ball had been held "begged to be allowed to make a statement to the court, the name of his hotel having been rather frequently used in connection with the case."

The magistrate, to his credit stated, "Everybody seems anxious about his own interests. The interests of the prisoners are rarely considered."

A Lot of Queens

Haxell stated that Boulton, Park, Mr. Gibbings and a Mr. Sommerville would go out evenings, generally "Mr. Gibbings was dressed as a lady, Mr. Sommerville as a gentleman and Mr. Park, sometimes as a lady and sometimes as a gentleman. I have known Park for about two months. He was also introduced to me by Gibbings as an amateur actress and a very good one. A Mr. Thomas was introduced to me about the same time. I think he generally came in his carriage dressed as a woman."

At the masquerade ball. "Gibbings was dressed as a lady in ordinary evening costume. Boulton and Park and Mr. Thomas were also dressed as ladies, in evening dress. A Mr. Cummings was there, also dressed as a lady, with chignon and powdered. I think there was only one other man there dressed as a woman. The men dressed as women danced with men. I do not remember any serious disturbance. I think every one knew that the young men in female attire were men. I heard observations made as to the cleverness with which they were acting their parts. Their was no impropriety of any kind in either action or gesture. Mr. Boulton sang 'Fading Away', most charmingly. The leader of the band said it was the most wonderful female voice that he ever heard. He was astonished when I said it was Mr. Ernest Boulton."

Then the witness concluded with a very thoughtful insight, "I fancy I have seen some criticisms of Mr. Boulton's performance at Scarborough. I think the age of Mr. Sommerville was about 23. They were all young men - mere boys."

Several other witnesses were called before the prosecution rested their case, handing over four other letters to the court. Of the remaining witnesses, the only one of real interest was Peter Roberts - sub-warder in the House of Detention where Boulton and Park were brought upon their arrest. "Boulton's dress consisted of one scarlet silk body", (a slip), "three petticoats, one green gauze dress, one bodice, one pair of drawers and stockings sewn together, two bustles, one pair of bronze boots, one red flannel shirt, a quantity of wading (which I took from the breast), a metal chain, four lockets, three bracelets, one finger-ring, one pair of earrings, one box order for the Olympic Theatre, and one necklace. The things on Park were one green dress, one crepe shawl, one crinoline, one pair of stockings, one pair of white boots, and some wading (taken from the breast) and two finger-rings."

After the prosecution rested, Boulton's counsel, Mr. Besley asked the prosecutor, Mr. Poland, "to state definitely the charges which the defendants were called upon to answer". Mr. Poland stated: "Firstly, conspiracy to commit an abominable crime; secondly, conspiring with diverse other persons to commit an abominable crime; and thirdly, conspiring to incite other persons to the commission of that crime." The defendants were then remanded until the next week for the completion of the examination.

Saturday May 28, 1870

The Times devoted nearly half a page to the day's hearing. Further: "The little court was as usual, most inconveniently crowded, and two attempts to clear it during the day were utterly futile."

Before examinations began Mr. Collette agent for the Society for the Suppression of Vice begged leave to address the court. He said that he had many letters urging the society "interfere to prevent the publication of any further evidence in this case in the newspapers. He felt the mere subject of the investigation was so revolting" that the magistrate should move the hearings behind doors.

The magistrate, Mr. Flowers acknowledged the turn the hearing had taken but, again to his credit, stated "a strong feeling against secret inquiries in this present age." Mr. Collette thanked the court for allowing him to speak.

In the week since the prior hearing, the prosecution came upon two other witnesses it wished to examine before finally closing it's case: Ann Empson, who rented a lodging to an acquaintance of Boulton, Lord Arthur Clinton.

She stated Boulton was spending the nights dressed as a women. "I complained to Lord Arthur that he had brought a woman to my house. He said it was a man". When asked to identify Boulton in the court, she picked out Park but explained, "It is very difficult to say, seeing them now dressed as men and without powder, chignons, etc." But later definitely claimed the man was Park, stating "It was the one with the golden hair." However she still insisted on calling him Boulton.

Consequently Park's counsel, Mr. Straight, asked her if she had been drinking that morning. She replied," On my oath I have not. I was never married. It might have been better for me if I had been, unless I married Lord Arthur or Boulton!", causing an outburst of laughter throughout the court.

Maria Duffin, who worked at the dwelling where Lord Clinton stayed after leaving Ms. Empson's lodgings testified about the number of people coming and going, one time as a man, the next as a women. All the names were those of the men at the Masquerade ball held by Gibbings. When she accused Boulton of being a man she claimed he showed her a wedding ring and said he was Lord Clinton's wife Stella.

Superintendent Thompson, of the E Division, produced some 2,000 letters of Lord Arthur which Ms. Empson had in her home. Many were signed "Fanny Winnfred Park" or "Stella Clinton". Several letters were read to the court.

The paper reported, "During the reading of these letters, the audience in the body of the court appeared to be exceedingly amused, and the prisoners themselves smiled occasionally. Certain expressions of endearment addressed by one man to another caused such an outburst that Mr. Polland rose and begged that such unseemly demonstrations might be checked."

A series of medical witnesses were called and examination centered on "traces of diseases" left after "criminal acts". While there was no overt mention of which acts, it appeared rather obvious. One doctor who had examined Boulton stated the defendant's "appearance was natural, differing in no respect from hundreds whom I have examined.", causing what the Times reported as "a most indecent manifestation of applause expressed by stamping and cheering. And Mr. Flowers entreated that such ebullitions of feelings should be restrained."

Bitchy Star Witness

The Times devoted one paragraph alone to describe his demeanor upon entering the witness box since he "was regarded with intense curiosity and created quite a sensation in court."

"The young man stepped into the witness box without any sign of diffidence, and gave his evidence with remarkable clearness and self-possession. His voice and manner were decidedly effeminate. He spoke with a slight lisp and an air of simplicity and candour which impressed the Court materially in his favor."

He began, " I am 21 years of age. I have been educated by many private tutors and also at Repton. My father is dead. My mother lives near Clifton. I have been in the habit of dressing in female attire. I dressed as a girl six or seven years ago for a charade. For the past three years I have frequently dressed as a woman and acted female parts in amateur performances, chiefly for the benefit of charity." He listed his theatrical performances then went into his association with Boulton, Park and the masquerade ball.

His testimony was as the Times described it, simple and honest. He even threw in a barb at Park, one that might help vindicate him of serious charges when he stated, "I know him as an actor in female characters - chiefly dowagers." He spoke of Boulton and Lord Arthur Clinton, and that most of the clothing and accessories confiscated from Boulton and Park by the police belonged to him.

He concluded his opening testimony by stating, "I never suspected Boulton and Park of any sort of impropriety. They have always behaved as perfect gentlemen in my presence, or they would not have been friends of mine. I have heard of the present imputation against them and I cannot entertain the thought of such a thing. I should never believe it."

Upon cross-examination, Lord Clinton's name was again brought up, causing the magistrate to question if the prosecution intended calling Lord Clinton. When the prosecutor indicated not, Boulton's counsel made a pointed reference concerning the prosecution's refusal to call as a witness nor even to investigate the British Lord Clinton and his role in these affairs. Gibbings concluded his testimony by stating," I came from Calais today as a volunteer witness. I should have come before if I had known matters were getting so serious."

The magistrate "said it was the best thing the witness could do if he was innocent and believed his friends were innocent also of the more serious charges. He had given his evidence extremely well. (Applause in court)."

Upon the ending of the hearing "a large portion of the crowd outside the court cheered the prisoners as they were stepping into the van, while others hissed and hooted at them. Boulton took off his hat, and both prisoners bowed to the mob in return."

Monday May 30, 1870

For the final day of the hearing, the examinations were moved into a library of the Bow Street Police Station. The Times noted, "the room being small the public was necessarily excluded."

There were three witnesses called for the defense. The purpose of all three was to refute testimony given by Maria Duffin, whose examination the prior day alleged all sorts of improprieties between Lord Arthur Clinton and Boulton, while they shared an apartment. The three witness were the owner of the apartment, one of her workers and another tenant. None ever heard Boulton referred to as 'Stella' nor Mrs. Clinton. None saw many men going about dressed in women's attire. It was noted a hairdresser would come in from time to time for Mr. Boulton but only occasionally not everyday as Ms. Duffin had stated. It was further noted that Ms. Duffin only worked at the lodging for one month not the four or five she had stated in the prior day's testimony. Since that time she had been fired from five or six other jobs. (It should be noted here that the Treasury was of the habit of monetarily reimbursing certain witnesses for the prosecution.)

When Boulton's counsel requested a short recess the magistrate felt it was too early for that and then took the occasion "to state that, so far as he was concerned, he should commit the prisoners for trial."

After the final witness testified, the counsels for each defendant made their pleas before the magistrate. Mr. Besley, "These young men are charged with conspiring, but with whom did they conspire? The object of an evil conspiracy was usually to exhort money but not a suspicion of this kind had been even suggested. These young men were well connected and had the means to indulge in those perhaps foolish and indiscreet freaks, and in those amateur theatrical enterprises to which alone the depositions pointed."

Mr. Straight, stated as rule, he did not address the magistrate for the preliminary hearing, bit in this case felt compelled to do so. He hit the nail on the head when he allowed Mr. Poland of the prosecution leeway in this sordid affair because, "he had been put up to represent a number of policemen, who had received a large number of anonymous communications, most of which, he had no doubt, the truth could be told, were found to be utterly unreliable. The young men, after being hunted down by the police and brought her for inquiry eight times in succession - ample time for every legal inquiry being thus secured - were now to be charged with a capital offense and conspiracy upon evidence such, as he ventured to say, had never before been relied on in a court of justice."

Mr. Flowers the magistrate then bound Boulton and Park over for trial at the Central Criminal Court, bail being refused. The prisoners were asked if they had anything to say. Park: "I am innocent even of the thought of such a crime." Boulton: "I say the same." "All the witnesses were then bound over with the usual formalities, and the investigation closed soon after five o'clock. An immense crowd had filled the street all day, and the prisoners saluted them on entering the van by waving their hats."

At the conclusion of the preliminary hearing, the London Times issued another editorial on the case. Here is summary of that editorial which began:

"For a whole month the public curiosity has been fed, though probably not satiated, by the details of the most extraordinary case we can remember to have occurred in our time. The 'revelations' came to an end yesterday, and the two prisoners Boulton and Park, were committed for trial at the Central Criminal Court, bail being refused."

The editorial went on to say that such charges as brought against Boulton and Park, are usually made against people from a lower class and that it was too bad Britain had to treat those who were well off the same as everybody else but in this case it was necessary.

The Times felt that theatrical drag had caught "the fancy of some empty-headed, effeminate young men." and that Boulton and Park had, "been guilty of an outrage on propriety with which the law ought to deal. should any one of them intrude himself among decent people again, it would be pardonable for any gentleman present to take the law into his own hands, and inflict on the offender a suitable castigation at once."

Victory: After a year in jail

The most important element for Boulton and Park was the refusal of the Lord Chief Justice to admit most evidence of cross-dressing in public by the defendants if it was not tied to the commission of a crime, a distinction the police court did not wish to make. It was distinction that eliminated most of the case against the defendants.

Moreover, the charges against Boulton and Park were initiated by the police. It was the police who followed them on their night out and then arrested them. Whereas the police court was run by the police magistrate, co-worker of the very people instituting the charges, there was no such professional nepotism with the court of the Lord Chief Justice.

Consequently the two were acquitted in the case.

Even the Attorney-General, who handled the prosecution for the crown, referred to the defendants as "gentlemen of good education, with respectable connections and of high character" in his opening remarks to the jury. But probably more important than any other factor in their eventual acquittal was the fact that most of the furor had passed. There were no crowds clogging the streets nor incendiary editorials by the papers for the second trial as there had been during the first hearing.

Nonetheless it should be remembered that the two were held in prison without bail for a considerable time on charges for which they were acquitted.