THE CLEVELAND-STREET SCANDAL.

Te Aroha News, Volume VII, Issue 454, 15 March 1890, Page 6

THE CLEVELAND-STREET SCANDAL.

(From Our Srkcial Correspondent.) London, January 17. THE LIBEL ON LORD EUSTON. The trial of Mr Ernest Parke for criminally libelling the Earl of Euston came on at the Old Bailey on Wedne day 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 Chas. Russell, Q.C., AI.P., whose brief on dit was marked “ live hundred guineas.’’ Mr Lockwood, Q.C., ALP., and Mr Asquith, M.P., represented the defendant Parke,, and seveial other barristers held watching briefs on behalf of parties whose names did not transpire. Sir Chas. Russell opened the case for the prosecution with dry brevity, repeating the story of his client’s visit to Clevelandstreet which Lord Euston told at the Police Court. As his Lordship, said Sir Charles, had only been to the houso 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, how'ever, 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 (SirC. Russell) proposed, subject to any view the learned judge might express upon the matter, not to cail the prosecutoruniil 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 bean a chancoof discrediting by crossexamination 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 tho jury that 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 the publication of the libel was for the public good, he apprehended that, if the libel was shown to be true, there would be no substantial differ' ence of opinion upon that point. A number of persons residing in Cleve-land-street and neighbourhood were then called and identified Lord Euston as an habitue of number 19. Being mostly ignorant working people, it was nob a difficult task for Sir Charles Russell to confuse these witnesses and turn their evidence into ridicule. The last witness called was a man named John Saul, vho gave his evidence with a brazen effrontery that reduced the Court to shocked silence.

John Saul, replying to Mr Lockwood, said : I livo at 15, Old Compton-streeb, t*oho. In 1879 I knew a man named Chas. Hammond*, who was then living at 25, Oxenden-street, off the Haymarket. He moved to 19, Cleveland-street, just after Chiistmas, 1886. At about the end of March I went to live there. During the time I wa.-. there I remember many persona coming to the house. Do you seo any person here in this Court svhom you have seen at Hammond’s house, 19, Cleveland-street, at any time ?—One gent email 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 ?—ln Ficcadilly (not far from tho Albany Courtyard, near Sackville-streeb —nearly opposite the Yorkshire Grey). As tho 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. Air 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 ana 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. 1 remember the prosecution of Newlove and Veck. 1 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’3 only paste. (Laughter.) And a silver-headed cane ?—Oh, that’s not much—ls 6d, no more. I bought it in Brixton Road. Mr Violet lets me have money sometimes, and supplies me with everything I want. I was concerned in committing an indecent otlence in Dublin in 1875, and since I have been in London X 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 tho names of persons who were not before the Court. Did you recognise the photograph of Lord Euston ?—Yes ; by his face, and by iit3 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 lie made his original statement to Inspector Abberline’s clerk. This elosc-d 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 morai estimate of “ poses plastiques,” and suggested that he had only admitted going to 19, Clevelandstreet, onco 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 faded to shake either the credibility or the respectability of the witnesses for the defence.

Sir C. Ru.-sell, on behalf of Lord Euston, submitted that the libol 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 foully-tainted testimony of John Saul was such that tio 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. The Judge summed up dead against the defendant, exposing clearly enough the extraordinary weakness of the luckless young journalist’s case. Dealing with the plea of justification, His Lordship said there was not a particle of evidence to prove that Lord Euston left this country fearing arrest in connection with the Cleveland-street case. No evidence had been adduced to attempt to substantiate this allegation, and he was sorry it had been introduced. Five persons were called to state that they saw Lord Euston go in and out of the house in Cleveland-street. In cases of identity it was necessary that a witness should not only be honest but intelligently observant. The first witness could not recognise Lord Euston by his features, but picked him out by the prosecutor walking two or three yards along the Court. The second witness, Smith, said the man they saw go into the house was dressed in a dark frock coat, while O’Loughlin, who was with Smith at the time, said he wore a light grey suit. The photographs afterwards shown O’Loughlin depicted Lord Euston in a grey suit, and it was subsequent to seeing that that the witness swore he recognised the prosecutor at Hyde Park corner as the inan seen in Clevelandstreet. Smith knew Lord Euston by his trousers, which he said were baggy, but yesterday he wore a irock-coat, and from where the witness stood the extraordinary trousers—if existing—could not be seen. Then again Lord Euston was 6ft. 4in., and the witnesses bad spoken of sft. Bin., a vast difference in the height of a man. The two pot-boys or barmen out of work, swore positively to seeing Lord Euston in Cleveland-street, and yet when the inquiry agent called upon them they were shown the photograph and asked “Is that the man you mean ?” In all cases it was better to give witnesses an opportunity of relying upon their own knowledge rather than that the identification should be refreshed by the sight of the portrait of the person sought to be i ientifiod. No doubt Mrs Morgan had an opportunity of learning the character of the house in Cleveland-street, but although sho had seen 50 or 60 persons enter the house tho witness swore *that the only person she would be able to recognise was Lord Euston. No doubt the jury would have liked to see the “man with a big stick,” who took O’Loughlin to identify Lord Euston; “ the little black man ” who did the same with Mrs Morgan ; and Captain Webb, whose name had been mentioned. Turning to the evidence of “that creature Saul,” tiro learned judge said a more melancholy spectacle he had never witnessed. He hoped for the honour of the police of this city that it was not true that they had dealt” kindly, with him. Lord Euston had said that Saul's evidence was as foul a perjury as a man could commit. The jury would have to ask themselves whether they preferred the oath of a man who had committed crimes confessedly for which he might be sent to penal servitude (and he marvelled much that no one had suggested that the man should be prosecuted), or that of Lord Euston. The man Saul had stated that he was now under the care of someone, that he was living on the fat of the land, and that he the vilest of vile creatures was allowed to walk abroad. The man had sworn that in August he gave his statement with regard to Lord Euston to Inspector Abberline, and if confirmation of it could be obtained he (the learned judge), as one of tho public, had a right to know why a warrant was not at once issued against Lord Euston. Failing corroboration of this creature's tale it would have been gross cruelty to Lord Euston to act upon it. The wretch’s story had not been spoken to by any other witness. Saul had coupled the names of Hewitt and Newlove with that of Lord Euston. Hewitt had left the country, whether for good or bad, but Newlove, although not within the sound of his (tho judge’s) voice, was within the reach of the cab. Why had not the didgent inquiry office suggested that Newlove should have the photograph shown him ? Beside that,not one singly individual who had ever been connected with the house in Cleveland-street had been called to speak to seeing Lord Euston in the house. Some of tho boys were in the country, and could have been called. Whether high or low, rich or poor, every man was entitled to justice, aud to say, “ If you make a charge against me prove it.” Another striking fact to be remembered was that since a certain date in 1887, although Sau> had stated that he often saw Lord Euston in Piccadilly, he never had any communication with him; nor being pinched with poverty did he appeal for any money to the man who, if his story was true, was in his power. It was conceded that it was to the public interest that certain things should be made known, but it was to the last degree inexpedient, unjust, and cruel that matters reflecting seriously upon the character of an individual should be made public unless there was solid foundation for , it. The whole question was whether Lord ' Euston had been proved a miscreant, or was he entitled to tho verdict that the case had not been proved. The jury retired at 1.5, and leturned into Courbat 1.45 with a verdict of Guilty, and that the justification was not proved. In passing sentence, the Judge said that there was never a more atrocious libel. The prisoner had before

him nothing more than rumour that Lord Eu>ton had been guilty of an abominable crime, for which ho would have been liable to bo sent into penal servitude for life, a sentence which would have been hardly sufficiently expressive of the horror felt at a gentleman in his position being guilty of so wicked and grave a crime. The prisoner suggested he had other evidence. H 6 could hardly credit the statement, and at least it was shown that the prisoner could place no reliance upon it. A plea which said that others advised the publication he would never tolerate. He had expressed himself as strongly as a man could do, and ho felt compelled to say that he absolutely and entirely agreed with the verdict of the jury. He did not believe it would have been possible to find in England 12 men who, conscientiously, honestly, and carefully looking at the evidence, could ha v e come to any other conclusion than that this was a wicked libel, published without any justification, and endeavoured to be supported by testimony absolutely unworthy of credence. He would pas 3 a sentence which, he hoped, besides being a punishment, would be a warning to others not to publish such libels. The sentence would he one of twelve months’ imprisonment. The prisoner, who received his sentence with composure, was then removed to the cells.