Jeff, Page 150 of the book lists among the signers of a declaration on Ireland "Karl Marx" and "F. Engels."
Here are excerpts an 1887 article about a London-based maker of models for anatomical museums and traveling showmen:
The Pall Mall Budget, March 31, 1887, Page 11
Monsters and their Makers
Art, not nature, is responsible for most of the monstrosities exhibited by the travelling showmen who are attracted to London by the boatrace. It was a travelling showman whom I met when on a walking tour in Devonshire who first opened my eyes to the prosaic truth, telling me that the manufacture of these objects constituted a lucrative industry, of which the secret was held by a man in London well known in the show world.
Professor Sheard, “manufacturer of artificial monstrosities and curiosities of every description in flesh and skeleton,” as he describes himself on his printed prospectus, exercises his unique industry in Hoxton, and although his name is not much in the mouths of the general public, and his atelier presents little to arrest the attention of the casual passer-by, yet those who have need of him know very well where to find him. The “Professor” is a man of some forty summers, with a somewhat long face, impassive, high, narrow forehead, and small, slowly moving, introspective eyes, that seemed always to be on the search for new variations of living nature. One could not help feeling that the only interest those eyes took in you was to mentally dissect you, and note in you any peculiarities which might be successfully reproduced.
Mr. Sheard informed me thathe made four different species of artificial monstrosities—-namely, fossilized specimens, either to represent peat-preserved remains, or skeletons, and embalmed objects, either mummified or to present the appearance of beings recently dead. Many of the curiosities, he said, were copies of subjects actually existing in museums, and the value of the originals being, as unique objects, so high, a well-executed replica always fetched a good price.
[...]
The Professor was unable to say whether he had ever made anything for Barnum, as nearly all the American orders are received from and forwarded by agents; but he had made quite a number of monstrosities for American anatomical museums, where they would be exhibited side by side with genuine specimens, which would, as it were, lead up to the artificial monstrosity, and induce the public to accept it more readily. What is needed nowadays, Mr. Sheard finds, is something of a quasi-scientific character, accompanied by a moderate amount of superficial scientific information and puffing, and he is strongly of opinion that a carefully constructed Missing Link, turned out in best style, would be a great success, especially if exhibited in the West-end, and the public well worked up previously by a series of scientific paragraphs and quotations from Darwin’s works.
It was from the idea of the Missing Link that Mr. Sheard came to make a Burmese hairy family. Whose portait he handed to us for our inspection, and who he assured us were being exhibited in the provinces as living creatures. From the photograph they appeared extremely life-like and natural, the poses being so easy and unrestrained; and it was not difficult to believe that with a judicious arrangement of the light they could very readily pass for living beings. The present possessor of these curious creatures had at first the idea of exhibiting a species of hirsute monstrosity which should pass as an animal or being forming the connecting link between man and the monkeys, and ordered in consequence a figure of that description to be made; but between the time of ordering the article and receiving it, having seen the Burmese hairy family (the real one), he conceived the luminous idea of having an actualite du jour, so had two other hairy monstrosities made to bear the first company, and exhibits them together as a living group. Mr. Sheard very often receives offers from various parts of England of eccentrically-deformed animals, and very frequently, if the description induces him to believe that they would repay stuffing or preserving to serve as models for imitation, undertakes long journeys to see them; although malformed animals, whose hair or wool is sufficiently long to hide any join or seam, are looked upon with suspicion by the public even if genuine.
The Professor recollected going to Devonshire on one occasion to see a sheep which had a perfectly formed human arm growing from its shoulder, which abnormal development he considered was caused by fright to the mother. He did not seem to be familiar with the Biblical incident of Jacob’s artifice with the peeled rods to modify the colour of Laban’s lambs, but thought that It was quite possible, and indeed was of opinion that the physical formation of young animals, and even of human beings, might, by similarly conveyed impressions, be to a great extent modified. He was, however, little inclined to give credence to the statement made by Victor Hugo relative to the alleged practices of the Chinese, who, if we are to believe the French novelist, imprison very young children in earthenware vases so as to deform them. My mention of the Chinese led Mr. Sheard to remark that a quantity of his productions were bought by a dealer in Indian and Chinese goods living in the East-end, who sent them to China, and.from thence despatched them to various purchasers, who were under the impression that they were acquiring genuine Oriental monstrosities. Monstrosities are frequently made and enclosed in a sealed glass jar containing some liquid to imitate alcohol, but these are less liked by showmen, as being heavier and more liable to break—-two very serious objections when the curiosity has to encounter the perils of existence in a show van.
I then asked Mr. Sheard to tell me, unless it would be violating a trade secret, of what substance his productions are composed. The “Professor" half-closed his eyes, uncovered his teeth, and, slowly shaking his head said, “Ah! now you want to know too much, but I will tell you this, that they are all carved, out separately. Of course we could make them from a mould, but then, while you are making a mould you might just as we. make the thing itself, especially as no two showmen want exactly the same style of thing: they all have their own particular ideas as to what will take with the public, which they want carried out, and they like to have something different from anything else, and to suit the times. Yes, you are quite right about the eyes; they would be very difficult to imitate; but, as nearly all our monstrosities are prepared to represent an embalmed or a dried body, the eyes are supposed to be taken cut, the sunken sockets being covered by the eyelids." In answer to our inquiry as to whether there were any other persons in London engaged in the same trade, the Professor assured us that he was, as far as he knew, the only monstrosity manufacturer in Europe.
---end
-
I take it that, as the minutes are of the 1872 meeting of the First International, the "Citizen Marx" and "Citizen Engels" listed as contributing comments are Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels?Leave a comment:
-
There's been mention of Dr. Kahn's Anatomical Museum here at Casebook in the thread "Anatomical venus, Florentine venus, slashed beauty." Whatever the museum's original intentions,it ultimately gained a reputation as a front for the practice of "venereal quackery."
Here's a paper summarizing the history of the museum:
Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. Dec 2006; 99(12): 618–624, link.
doi: 10.1258/jrsm.99.12.618
PMCID: PMC1676337
Dr Kahn's Museum: obscene anatomy in Victorian London
A W Bates
Google books has some relevant items:
A Dutch language catalog of Kahn's exhibit before it moved to London:
Dr. Kahn's Anatomisch Museum (The Hague: 1859), link
A London catalog:
Catalogue of Dr. Kahn's Celebrated Anatomical Museum (London: 1853), link
by Joseph Kahn (M.D.)
A later London catalog:
Handbook of Dr. Kahn's Museum (London: 1867), link
A pamphlet reprinting pro-tobacco lectures given at Kahn's Museum by George Sexton:
The Great Tobacco Controversy a Bottle of Smoke (London: James Gilbert, 1857), link
by George Sexton
[From the preface:]
The lectures have been delivered upwards of 50 times, and have therefore been heard by some thousands of persons, all of whom, with one exception—-the Secretary of the Anti-Tobacco Society—-appeared to be well-pleased. The phraseology of the following pages differs slightly from that of the oral discourses, as my lectures are all delivered extempore, and when published, have to be written out expressly for that purpose. More care in preparing these for the press might have been desirable, but my time is too much occupied to allow me to bestow it. I have within the last five years addressed upwards of 4,800 different public audiences, on a variety of topics, scientific, literary, and pdlitical; attended to the onerous duties of an arduous profession; and written some score or two of literary productions. I have not, therefore, had much spare time, especially when it is taken into consideration that I am a smoker, and as such, according to modern Anti-tobacco doctrines, more sleepy, dull, inactive, and with a less ability and inclination to work
--end
Sexton's connection with Kahn's became a point of contention when his appointment as a member of the general council of the First Communist International was debated in 1872. In the end, he was elected to the council. Marx and Engels took part in the proceedings.
Documents of the First International, Volume 5 (Moscow: Progress Publishers), Pages 163-167
Minutes of Meeting
April 23rd, 1872
Citizen Roach in the chair.
Members present: Citizens Bradnick, Barry, Eccarius, Engels, Frankel, Hales, Jung, Keen, Lessner, Le Moussu, Lochner, Marx, Martin, Margueritte, Mayo, McDonnell, Milner, Murray, Roach, Ruhl, Serraillier, Taylor, Townshend, Vailant and Yarrow.
The Minutes of the previous meeting having been read and confirmed, the Chairman said the election of Citizen Sexton stood first on the order of the day. He had known him for many years and could vouch that if elected, he would make a very useful member of the Council; he had always entertained opinions similar to those advocated by the Association, and he was a most able lecturer; he would be able to go into the provinces and do much good for the Association if elected.
As Citizen Mayo was not present, Citizen Taylor seconded; he had always found Citizen Sexton a consistent and valuable advocate of democratic ideas.
Citizen Serraillier said he had seen a book in which Citizen Sexton was charged with having been connected with a museum of anatomy at which the practice was somewhat questionable and he was further charged with having threatened to expose the malpractices but suppressed the information in consideration of a certain sum annually. He thought that was a matter which required clearing up; until that was done he could not vote for Citizen Sexton.
Citizen Engels thought the matter alluded to by Citizen Serraillier ought to be disproved.
Citizen Jung said he could [see] no reason to object to Citizen Sexton because he had lectured at Kahn's; as he believed, the lectures given were upon scientific subjects—-more valuable than otherwise, but he agreed with Serraillier and Engels that the charge of suppressing information for money ought to be met and disproved.
Citizen Marx said: in view of the resolution of the Conference* he should not have voted for the addition of any more Englishman being made to the Council,105 but as Harris had resigned, his place could be filled up. Nevertheless, he thought, as the character of Sexton had been challenged, the same course should be pursued as was followed in the case of McDonnell.166
Citizen Barry said the fact that Dr. Sexton had been a lecturer [at] a place like Kahn's, which it was known was used as a cloak for the worst practices, was quite a sufficient reason why he should not be accepted. The fact that he had used the degree of M.D. without stating that it was not obtained in England showed an amount of moral delinquency, which rendered him unfitted to sit on the Council.
Citizen Hales said he was authorised by Citizen Sexton to assure the Council that the statement referred to by Citizen Serraillier was absolutely untrue; so far from Citizen Sexton being ashamed of his connection with the museum alluded to, he advertised the fact himself in the medical directory. The lectures he there gave were of a scientific and educational character, and he challenged anyone to say to the contrary who had ever attended them. Citizen Sexton had always been consistent in his political and social professions and had been a friend of Ernest Jones and Robert Owen; he called the first meeting which was held against the Conspiracy to Murder Bill of Lord Palmerston, when he and Ernest Jones spoke on the same platform. The man who attacked him was a quack and he was persecuted by certain sections of the Medical Profession because he was considered an interloper; he was a M. D. of Gottingen University, a member of the Royal Geographical Society, a member of the Royal Zoological Society, a member of the Anthropological Society and a member of the Society of Arts—to the last he had been admitted since the date of the alleged suppression. All these societies required guarantees of the honour and honesty of their members and he thought the fact that he had been admitted a member of the societies mentioned ought to be sufficient for the Council.
Citizen Barry said Citizen Hales had pleaded the cause of Dr. Sexton as well as if he had been paid to do it, but he must inform him that the man who wrote the book in question was not a quack—he was on the register while Sexton was not.
Citizen Jung asked if all men who were not on the medical register were quacks.
Citizen Barry said he did not mean to say they were.
Citizen Jung asked if all the men on the register were free from quackery.
Citizen Barry said, Oh, no!
Citizen Hales said Citizen Sexton was registered, Vie had seen the proofs himself; with respect to his advocacy, he might say that he was not paid; he only hoped that Citizen Barry was not paid for services which he rendered and information which he supplied.
Citizen Yarrow said he did not know anything about Dr. Sexton except that he was not a legitimate practitioner.
Citizen Bradnick didn't object to an investigation of Citizen Sexton's character; he only regretted that the same policy had not been pursued with others on previous occasions.
Citizen Martin thought the Council should be careful in making additions to its numbers when the candidates did not belong to the working class.
Citizen Margueritte proposed [that] the question be adjourned, so as to allow the fullest investigation into the matter.
Citizen Milner seconded, so as to allow full time for consideration; the only point with him was whether it was desirable to add professional men to the Council; as far as Dr. Sexton was concerned, he knew he would be a valuable ally, he had done good work in the past.
Citizen Murray said he hoped the matter would be disposed of at once—he knew Dr. Sexton had been a consistent advocate of advanced principles, he was one of the first men in England who had the courage to stand forward and denounce the coup d'etat, and that at a time when it was dangerous for men to express their opinions; he had not only the courage to lecture, but to publish with his name attached; he knew also that he was not a mercenary man, for many a time he had assisted him by lecturing for him. With respect to his being a professional man, he thought that should be no bar, seeing that he had to work hard for his living the same as a workman.
Citizen Marx did not think there was anything to fear from the admission of professional men while the great majority of the Council was composed of workers, but he thought the question ought to be adjourned so [as] to afford the fullest opportunities for inquiries—then whatever the result might be the Council would stand clear.
[...]
Pages 169-172
MINUTES OF MEETING
Held April 30th, l872
Citizen Jung in the chair.
Members present: Citizens Applegarth, Boon, Barry, Arnaud, Cournet, Delahaye, Eccarius, Engels, Frankel, Hales, Jung, Lessner, Le Moussu, Lochner, Marx, Martin, Mayo, McDonnell, Murray, Roach, Rozwadowski, Ruhl, Serraillier, Taylor, Townshend, Vaillant and Farrow.
The Minutes of the previous meeting were read and confirmed, after which Citizen Engels rose to make a motion of order. He said that there was such a pressure of business that it was impossible to get through it unless there were
extraordinary sittings. There was first Sexton's election. Second, the American business. Third, the action of Eccarius; fourth, the report of the 18th of March Committee*, fifth, the report of the deputation to the CabinetMakers. Then sixth, there was the conduct of Citizen Weston to be considered; seventh, the action to be taken with the socalled Federalist Council.172 and eighth, the motion of Citizen Hales with regard to the formation of Irish Nationalist Sections in England. He therefore proposed that extraordinary sittings be held on Saturday evenings until further notice.
Citizen Lessner seconded and the proposition was carried unanimously.
The Secretary then read a letter from Citizen Sexton in which he denied the truth of the charges which had been brought against him.
Citizen Yarrow said he would move the rejection of Citizen Sexton as he thought gross misrepresentations had been made.
Citizen Hales pointed out that Citizen Yarrow was mistaken. No misrepresentations had taken place.
Citizen Serraillier thought the Council had only to consider whether the letter from Citizen Sexton disproved the charges which had been made against him; he thought it did not fully do so, though it did partly.
Citizen Yarrow said the fact that Citizen Sexton belonged to a number of Royal Societies was no proof of respectability; anybody could belong to them who would subscribe.
Citizen Barry thought that Citizen Sexton's friends would do well to withdraw his nomination. It was an undoubted fact that he propped up Kahn's Museum with his intelligence and skill, though he believed he only took it when he was hard up.
Citizen Martin thought the opposition raised against Citizen Sexton was a bad omen. The French members did not understand the question and he thought his election might be productive of bitterness.
Citizen Hales said he and his friends would be content to let the matter be decided by the English members, though they did not wish it, but he would ask the French members to consider where the opposition came from, he would ask them to remember the past policy of those who opposed, and compare it with that of those who supported. Sexton would be very useful if elected.
Citizen Eccarius said his opposition arose from altogether different cause to that of others—he was opposed because of his quarrel with Bradlaugh. He did not wish the Association used in the quarrel; Sexton could do as much for the Association outside the Council, as he could, if he was in.
Citizen Vaillant said the real thing to be considered was: would the election of Citizen Sexton bring any influence to the Council? Of course, if the antecedents of the respective parties were only considered, the French members would know how to vote.
The proposition was then put to the vote and was carried by eleven to eight, the Chairman voting.
Citizen Boon protested against the Chairman voting and upon being called to order protested.
Citizen Engels proposed and Citizen Serraillier seconded a vote of censure upon Citizen Boon for constant interruption of the Chairman.
Citizen Murray hoped the motion would not be pressed.
Citizen Barry should feel it his duty to move a vote of censure upon everyone who interrupted the Chairman if the proposition was carried.
Citizen Frankel proposed and Citizen Lessner seconded that the Council should proceed to the order of the day. at the same time condemning the conduct of Citizen Boon.
Citizen Mottershead thought it would be unwise to put the proposition. Citizen Boon most likely acted in ignorance. Not usual for the Chairman to vote.
Citizen Boon apologised for his conduct to the Chairman, but he would say the Chairman voting was not in accordance with English habits. Though he did not care whether it was voted or not.
Citizen Barry moved the order of the day pure and simple.
Citizen Murray seconded and on being put [to the vote it] was carried.
[...]
---endLeave a comment:
-
The mention of an infernal machine built using a cooking utensil in the Wolff/Bondurand case reminded me of the 1885 Admiralty office bombing.
New York Times, April 24, 1885, link (look for the " download a high-resolution PDF" link at the bottom)
LONDON AGAIN ALARMED
A DYNAMITE EXPLOSION IN THE ADMIRALTY OFFICE.
New York Times, April 25, 1885, link (look for the " download a high-resolution PDF" link at the bottom)
THE ADMIRALTY OFFICE EXPLOSION
Providence Journal, April 27, 1885, Page 2
Dynamite Explosion
Daring Operations in the British Admiralty Office
Explosives Act, 1875 Tenth Annual Report of His Majesty's Explosives Inspectors (1885), Page 59
A more important and determined outrage, which there are grounds for believing was the outcome of private spite, was perpetrated at the Admiralty, on the 23rd April, in the office of Mr. Swainson, one of the Secretaries of the Department. The explosion was effected by means of a quantity of gunpowder contained in an iron stockpot, or “Papin’s Digester,” placed on a cupboard near Mr. Swainson’s desk, and that gentleman sustained a severe shock and some injury from the debris. He fortunately escaped being struck by any of the pieces of the shell (which the stockpot in fact became) of which large numbers, some of a very formidable character, were recovered by us from the walls, ceiling, &c. Considerable injury was done to the room.
---end
Internal Revenue Record, June 1, 1885, Page 171
THE ADMIRALTY EXPLOSION
The explosion which recently took place in Mr. Swainson’s room at the Admiralty does not appear to have been due to Fenian or political causes. As originally stated, it took place on the top of the book-case, and the fragments of iron found in the wall have conclusively proved that an ordinary service cook’s digester or stock-pot was used to enclose the gunpowder by means of which it has now been determined the outrage was perpetrated. This digester also contained solid drawn cased cartridges. These, strange to say, are similar to those used in the Russian Service, being in make like the Martini-Henry, but in size fitting only the Berdan rifle. Smaller cartridges, for use in revolvers, were also found amongst the debris, and these, too, are of foreign make, probably Belgian. It is, therefore, evident that the perpetrator of this diabolical outrage first procured a digester, and that, having filled it with gunpowder and Russian rifle and pistol cartridges to form a kind of shrapnel shell, the top of the digester was firmly screwed down, the hole in the top presumably being used as a vent-hole. But how the charge was ignited has not yet been discovered. Might it have been by means of a friction tube and line attached, the line being carried through the top of the window, thence falling over into the garden, whence the two men were afterwards seen running away?-—Admiralty Gazette.
---endLeave a comment:
-
I love that name "Infernal Machine"
So much better than IED or even bomb.Leave a comment:
-
TradeName,
As always, interesting stuff and great research. Thanks for sharing.
Cheers
DRoyLeave a comment:
-
More about the Wolff (Woolf)/ Bondurand case:
The Sun (New York), November 24, 1883, Page 1, Column 1
Infernal Machines in London
A German Socialist Arrested, and Two Powerful Ones Found in His Lodgings
LONDON, Nov. 23.--The police at midnight
arrested a man named Wolff who Is a member
of the Advanced Socialists' Club of London
On searching his house at Vincent square,
Westminster, the police discovered two Infernal
machines, which are considered to be of
sufficient power to demolish any building. One
of them consisted of a large zinc pail nearly
filled with coarse blasting powder and gun cotton,
covered with scrap iron with a fuse at the
bottom. The second machine was a large tin
cooking utensil similarly prepared. Major
Majendie Government Inspector, and other
officials examined the machines. There were
about ten pounds of powder In each machine.
The machines were fitted with time fuses.
After Major Majendie had discovered the
dangerous nature of the explosive material he
ordered it to be destroyed by water
Wolff is said to be of German or Polish
extraction, and has been engaged some time at
the wax work exhibition ot the Royal Aquarium.
There was a violent explosion four
months ago at his residence which he reported
as an explosion of gas. The prisoner gave his
name a William Wolff, and his occupation as
a chemist. He was taken before Sir James
Taylor Ingham at the Bow Street Police Court,
and charged under the Explosives act with
knowingly having in his possession an explosive
substance for an unlawful purpose. The
prisoner asked for a German Interpreter.
A Bow street police officer testified that he
met the prisoner on the Yauxhall Bridge road,
close to his residence, the prisoner running
away when he was approached. After arresting
him, they went to the prisoner's lodgings,
where the Infernal machines were found as
described. There were also found fourteen empty
cans such as are used for powder and some
documents, Including a letter to Count von
Munster, the German Ambassador, written in
German which says: "If you wish freedom,
you must give us equality." It is signed
"Proletariart." The prisoner said the things found
must have been placed there by a Frenchman.
wolff was remanded until Thursday next. The
St. James Gazette says it Is reported that
Wolff's machines were intended to blow up the
German embassy in London. A Frenchman
named Bolderine gave the police the
Information which led to the arrest of Wolff.
---end
The Sun (New York), November 30, 1883, Page 1, Column 4
The Plot Against the german Embassy
London, November 29.--The Frenchman who was
arrested last evening on suspicion of being implicated
with Wolff, in a plot to blow up the German
Embassy with infernal machines is named
Bondurand. He is a brother of the Frenchman who gave
the information which led to the arrest of Wolff, and
who afterwards made his escape. Wolff and Bondurand
were arraiged in the Bow Street court to-day.
Mr. Poland appeared as prosecutor on behalf of the
Treasury. It was shown the prisoners were not
members of a secret society. Their object was either to
cause an explosion at the German Embassy, or, by
timely warning to the police, to prevent a pretended
intended explosion, and fix the guilt upon some innocent
person. A man named Kallborn, alias Farrell, is also
implicated In the plot. Kallborn was accepted as a witness.
In the meantime the four culprits communicated
with the police behind each other's back, each trying to
secure himself and get a reward. Wolff pleaded that
he was the victim of a conspiracy. The prisoners were
remanded until next week.
---end
The Sun (New York), December 07, 1883, Page 1, Column 5
News From the Old World
Wolff's Scheme to Blow Up the German Embassy in London
London, Dec . 6.--At the Bow Street Police
Court this morning William Wolff, the Socialist,
and the Frenchman Bondurand, were
charged under the Explosives act with having
in their possession an explosive substance
for an Unlawful purpose. They were arrested on
the 22d ult., and two Infernal machines were
found at Wolff's house in Vincent Square.
Major Majindie, Inspector of Explosives,
deposed that the machine, if used, would have
caused a dangerous explosion.
Kalborn, who was arrested as an accomplice,
and who was accepted as a witness against the
prisoners, deposed that they told him that they
wished to blow up the German Embassy, and
said they were making plans for a much
more terrible explosion than that which
occurred at the Praed-Street station of the
underground railway. They said that at least £2,000
reward would be offered for the authors;
whereupon witness remarked that the undertaking
would be a dangerous one. They replied,
"But we have the police with us." Wolff
said that five persons were concerned in the
plot--himself, the two Bondurands, a police
officer, and a Polish Jew. Wolff and the two
Bondurands would take the machines and a
pot of petroleum to the German Embassy in a
cab. Wolff and the policeman Would then
watch while the others lighted the fuse, Wolff
at the same time throwing a letter written, in
red ink, upon the spot where the explosion was
to take place. Kalborn was to place some
paper and red ink. the same as Used in the
letter, in the house of a German. The explosion
having occurred, the policeman would
arrest the German. Kalborn was to receive
£100 of the reward winch the conspirators
expected to receive, Wolff told Kalborn to induce
the German to walk near the German Embassy
at the time the explosion Was to occur.
"The more people there were killed,"
said Wolff to Kalborn, the "better. as the
reward would be higher."
Kalborn. upon cross-examination. said he was
a deserter from the German armv, and that
Wolff was one of the greatest scoundrels living.
---end
From the Old Bailey Online site:
WILLIAM WOOLF, EDWARD BONDURAND, Damage to Property > other, 7th January 1884.
Reference Number: t18840107-220
Offence: Damage to Property > other
Verdict: Miscellaneous > no agreement
Corrections: Add a correction
Actions: Cite this text | Print-friendly version
See original Click to see original
220. WILLIAM WOOLF (24) and EDWARD BONDURAND (24) were indicted (under the 46th Vic., c.3, the Explosives Act of 1883) for feloniously having under their control, not for a lawful object, an explosive substance under such circumstances as to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that it was not for a lawful object. Other Counts varying the form of charge.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL, with. MESSRS. POLAND, DANKWERTZ and. H.S. WRIGHT Prosecuted;. MESSRS. KEITH FRITH and. BROUN defended Bondurand; Woolf defended himself.
The Jury in this case being unable to agree, were, after five hours and a half's deliberation, discharged without returning any verdict, and the case was post-poned to the next Session.Leave a comment:
-
In a Parliamentary discussion a reward offered after the Kelly, it was mentioned that the Home Office became reluctant to offer rewards in 1884 because of an alleged conspiracy to frame an innocent person for an embassy bombing in hopes of collecting a reward. This seems to be a reference to the Wolff (or Woolf)/ Bondurand case.
The Parliamentary Debates (Authorized Edition), Volume 330, November 12, 1888, Columns 902-904
CRIMINAL LAW—THE WHITECHAPEL MURDERS—OFFER OF REWARD.
Mr. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM (Lanark, N.W.) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he contemplates offering any additional reward for the capture of the Whitechapel murderer? The hon. Member explained that he did not ask this Question from any desire to embarrass the Government; but simply because considerable excitement prevailed in the East End of London.
Mr. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.): Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that Question, I wish to ask whether he has taken into consideration the propriety of extending a free pardon— which, as I understand, applies only to the last murder — to the preceding murders, especially having regard to the fact that in the case of the first murder, committed last Christmas, according to the dying testimony of tho woman, several persons were concerned in the murder?
The SECRETARY Of STATE (Mr. Matthews) (Birmingham, E.): Owing to the public interest taken in this question, I hope the House will allow me at greater length than is usual in answering a Question to state why I have hitherto refrained from offering a reward in the Whitechapel cases. Before 1884 it was the frequent practice of the Home Office to offer rewards, sometimes of a very large amount, in serious cases. In 1883, in particular, several rewards, ranging from £200 to £2,000, wore offered in such cases as the murder of Police Constable Bowies and the dynamite explosions in Charles Street and at various Railway Stations. These rewards, like the reward of £10,000 in the Phoenix Park murders, proved ineffectual, and produced no evidence of any value. In 1884 there was a change of policy. Early in that year a remarkable case occurred. A conspiracy was formed to effect an explosion at the German Embassy; to "plant" papers upon an innocent person; and to accuse him of the crime in order to obtain the reward which was expected. The revelation of this conspiracy led the then Secretary of State (Sir William Harcourt) to reconsider the whole question of rewards. He consulted the Police Authorities both in England and in Ireland; and the conclusions he arrived at were—that the practice of offering large and sensational rewards in cases of serious crime is not only ineffectual, but mischievous; that rewards produced, generally speaking, no practical result beyond satisfying a public demand for conspicuous action; that they operate prejudicially by relaxing the exertions of the police; and that they tend to produce false, rather than reliable testimony. He decided, therefore, in all oases to abandon the practice of offering rewards, as they had been found by experience to be a hindrance, rather than an aid in the detection of crime. These conclusions were publicly announced, and acted upon in two important cases in 1884 —one, a shocking murder and violation of a little girl at Middlesbrough; the other, the dynamite outrage at London Bridge, in which case the City authorities offered a reward of £5,000. The principle thus established has since been adhered to, I believe, without exception at the Home Office. The whole subject was reconsidered in 1885 by Sir Bichard Cross iu a remarkable case of infanticide at Plymouth; and again in 1886 by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) in the notorious case of "The Queen v. Louisa Hart." On both occasions, after careful consideration, and with the concurrence of the best authorities, the principle of offering no reward was maintained, and rewards were refused. Since I have been at the Home Office I have followed the Rule thus deliberately laid down by my Predecessors. I do not mean that the Rule may not be subjeot to exceptions—as, for instance, where it is known who the criminal is, and information is wanted only as to his hiding place, or on account of other circumstances of the crime itself. In the Whitechapel murders, not only are these conditions wanting at present, but the danger of a false charge is intensified by the excited state of public feeling. I know how desirable it is to allay that public feeling; and I should have been glad if the circumstances had justified me in giving visible proof that the authorities are not heedless or indifferent. I beg to assure the hon. Member and the House that neither the Home Office nor Scotland Yard will leave a stone unturned in order to bring to justice the perpetrator of these abominable crimes, which have outraged the foelings of the entire community. With regard to the Question of the hon. Member below the Gangway (Mr. Hunter), it is not proper that 1 should give an answer on the sudden. I will, however, carefully consider the question.
Mr. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation; and to say that I agree with him entirely.
Mr. MONTAGU (Tower Hamlets, Whitechapel) said, he wished to explain why he offered a reward in the case of the last murder.
Mr. SPEAKER said, that the hon. Gentleman would be out of Order in making any explanatioa at that time.
---end
Explosives Act, 1875 Eighth Annual Report of His Majesty's Explosives Inspectors (1883), Page 50
By Great Britain. Home Office
A couple of “infernal machines” were discovered in November last in a house in Westminster occupied by a German named Woolf, and it is alleged that they were intended to be employed against the German Embassy, not with any political or social ends, but simply with a view to the obtaining by those by whom the idea was conceived of the reward which it was assumed would be offered after the explosion had occurred. It is alleged that the persons who prepared the machines had further arranged to fix the guilt upon some innocent person, whom they would denounce after the event. Two men, Woolf and Edward Bondurand, have been committed for trial under the Explosives Substances Act of last Session.*
*See p. 4. While this Report has been in preparation the prisoners have been tried at the Old Bailey. The trial lasted six days, viz., from January 14th to January 19th, and in the result the jury disagreed and no verdict was given. It having subsequently transpired that 11 of the jury were in favour of acquittal, a nolle prosequi was entered on behalf of the Crown, and the prisoners were discharged from custody on the 28th January
---endLast edited by TradeName; 01-05-2015, 09:34 PM.Leave a comment:
-
A description of Aveling from a biography of Annie Besant quoting a biography of Bernard Shaw.
The First Five Lives of Annie Besant (Chicago: Univeristy of Chicago Press, 1969), Pages 149-150
by Arthur H. Nethercot
[...] Bernard Shaw, who knew Aveling very well, painted a much more circumstantial portrait for his
biographer-friend Hesketh Pearson:
Now Aveling was not a handsome man. He was undersized, had the eyes of a
basilisk, and it was said of him that he would have been interesting in a Zoological
museum as a reptile but impossible as a man. Short of actual deformation
he had every aesthetic disadvantage except a voice like a euphonium of
extraordinary resonance and beauty of tone.
Moreover, though Aveling had "an incorruptible integrity" in certain
intellectual manners, according to Shaw's story,
as a borrower of money and a swindler and a seducer of women his record was
unimpeachable. On the same day he would borrow sixpence from the poorest man
within his reach on the pretense of having forgotten his purse, and three hundred
pounds from the richest to free himself from debts that he never paid. He had
the art of coaching for science examinations, and girl students would scrape
money together to pay him in advance his fee for twelve lessons. The more
fortunate ones got nothing worse for their money than letters of apology for breaking
the lesson engagements. The others were seduced and had their microscopes
appropriated.
Shaw, at least, should know whereof he spoke. For Dr. Edward B.
Aveling sat unconsciously as the chief model, through a process of
aesthetic distortion, for the charming but unscrupulous young artist
Louis Dubedat in The Doctor's Dilemma. 8
8 Hesketh Pearson, G.B.S.: A Full-Length Portrait (Garden City, 1946), pp. 102-3
----end
William Wess was a member of the Berner Street club who was present on the night of the Stride murder. Among his papers are some leaflets relating to the Bedborough case.
A catalogue of the papers of William Wess, link
Modern Records Centre, University of Warwick Library
MSS.240W/3/9 Free Press Defence Committee 1899
1 file
Leaflets regarding prosecution of George Bedborough for selling The Psychology of Sex by Havelock Ellis.Leave a comment:
-
A picture of Edward Aveling from an American paper and a picture of Professor Moriarty.
San Jose Daily News, October 22, 1886, Page 4
Dr. Edward Aveling
One of the Foremost Among the Socialist Leaders
Edward Aveling, one of the foremost
of socialist leaders was born Novermber 29,
1851 at Stoke Newington, a northern suburb
of London, his father and mother
were both Irish, and their families for
gernerations back were also Irish; he was a very
delicate child, and suffered for seven years
with spinal complaint, when he was thrice
given up by the doctors, He received no
schooling nor any regular instruction until
he arrived at the age of eleven years. He
spent most of his time in his father's library
(who was the Reverend Thomas Avling, D. D.
of Kingsland Congregational Church)
reading everything his could get his hands
upon, Shakespere, Smollett, Fielding, Don
Lerixohs [?], and John Runyan especially.
He studied meidicine and after passing
some time in lecturing on scientific subjects
he became a journalist and was connected with
Bradlaugh in the free thought movement.
He then studied the law of socialism and
quickly concluded that it was the great
subject of the century.
Dr. Aveling writes and speakes [sic] on this
subject in England, and is now travelling in
America to expound its doctrines. In Englad
he teaches science and is a dramtic
critic on the Topical Times, writing also for
the Journal of Education, Sunday Chronicle,
(Manchester) Court, and Society Review.
He is the author of the "Students Darwin"
a complete analysis of all Darwins' [sic] works,
also of the "People's Darwin," a popular
account of Evolution, "Natural Philosophy,"
chemistry of the non-metallics "General
Biology," "Value of this Earthly Life," etc.
He has translated a volume of Haeckle [sic]
under the title "Pedigree of Man."
---end
The Strand Magazine, Volume 6 (1893), Page 561
The Adventure of the Final Problem
by A. C. Doyle
Leave a comment:
-
Some notices of the activities of the East End Propaganda Committee, which met fortnightly at the Berner Street Club. (The Stride murder occurred during an off week.)
The Commonweal (1888), link
August 18, 1888, Page 263
EAST END PROPAGANDA.
Concentration on one or two particular places has led to an apparent slackening,
which will, however, be fully made up later. Splendid meetings have been held
on Sunday mornings at Leman Street, and almost every night on Mile-end Waste.
Gibraltar Walk, the Broadway, and the Triangle, Hackney, have not been quite
regularly attended, owing to the great attention given to other parts. A capital
station has been made at Philpot Street, Commercial Road, and good congregations
have listened to the Gospel of Socialism. At Kingsland Green, Stamford
Hill, and Victoria Park immense audiences have attended. In about 100 streets
a house to house visitation has been made, about 4,000 back numbers of the Commonweal
and Freedom and 10,000 leaflets have been distributed. Every Saturday
a meeting has been held at Berner Street Club, and next Saturday will discuss
the taking of a large hall for the winter. Last week the speakers were Brooks,
Charles, Cores, Gault (S.D.F.), Hicks, Lane, Mainwaring, Nicoll, Parks, Mrs.
Schack.—-W. B. Parker, Sec. East-end Propaganda.
September 1, 1888, Page 279
EAST END PROPAGANDA.
An excellent meeting on last Saturday evening at the International Club,
Berners Street. In the course of the formal business it was decided that the
request of our Norwich friends should be complied with, namely, that a speaker
should be sent from London to Yarmouth next Sunday to take part in a great
Free Speech Demonstration, and Parker was appointed. A debate was then
opened by W. Power, on "How to Spread Revolutionary Socialism in East
London, followed by Parker, Freeman, Robinson, Davis, Leech, Cantwell, Were[?]
and others; 6s. 4d. was collected for the East London Propaganda Fund, The
hall was crowded. These gatherings will be held fortnightly.— W. B. P.
September 15, 1888, Page 295
East End Propaganda Committee.—-A debate was opened on Saturday
evening, at Berner Street Club, by H. Davis, on "Is a Peaceful Revolution
Possible?" A very interesting discussion followed. The hall was packed.
8s. 10½d. collected.
Page 296
East End Propaganda.—Instead of the usual
fortnightly discussion next Saturday week, the 22nd,
a special entertainment is being arranged for on behalf
of the Free Speech Fund. It is hoped all will do
what they can to make this a success. Further
particulais next week. Our Jewish comrades have
also recently had parades on Sunday mornings, at 11
o'clock, down Petticoat Lane, to sell their paper
The Worker's Friend; but as they have been very
badly illused there, it is hoped all English comrades
who can spare the time will accompany them next
Sunday, and take the opportunity of selling the
Commonweal, Freedom, and other English literature,
which can be obtained of J. Lane, 38, Ainslie Street,
Bethnal Green Junction, and thus help in protecting
them, and shewing they are not Jew sweaters and
enemies, but fellow workers for the complete Emancipation
of Labor, and also give practical expression
to our International sentiment.
September 29, 1888, Page 312
East-End Propaganda.—A most enjoyable evening
was spent by the crowded audience on Saturday night
at the Berner Street Club. English, Russian, German,
and French songs were sung and speeches made, after
which there was dancing. The proceeds of this entertainment
will be given to the Yarmouth Free Speech
Ftmd. The next meeting will be held at this club on
Saturday, October 6th, when the subject for discussion
will be "Our Winter Propaganda."—W. B. Parker,
October 6, 1888, page 319
London (Open-air).—-Leman Street.—-Excitement caused by murder outside
Berner Street Club prevented usual meeting here on Sunday.
October 13, 1888, page 328
East-End Propaganda.—-A crowded audience assembled
to hear a discussion on "Our Winter Propaganda."
Davis, Leach, McCormack, West, Parker,
and others took a part. Practical suggestions made
will be found useful in the coming winter. It is intended
to hold meetings on Thursday, Friday, Saturday
and Sunday evenings in district. Comrades who
intend to assist are requested to turn up at the Club,
40, Berner Street, at 8 o'clock on any of these evenings,
where we assemble previous to going out to
meetings. 5s. was collected for the strike Fund.
--end
The Nicoll mentioned in the first item above might be this guy:
DAVID JOHN NICOLL, CHARLES WILFRED MOWBRAY, Royal Offences > seditious libel, 2nd May 1892.
493. DAVID JOHN NICOLL (32) and CHARLES WILFRED MOWBRAY (35) were indicted for unlawfully, in a newspaper called the Commonweal, inciting, soliciting, and encouraging certain persons unknown to murder the Right Hon. Henry Matthews, Secretary of State for the Home Department; Sir Henry Hawkins, one of the Justices of the High Court of Justice; and William Melville, inspector of police.
[...]
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL read several extracts from the "Commonweal" of various dates. The following, of 9th April, is the one upon which the indictment is framed:—
THE WALSALL ANARCHISTS "CONDEMNED TO PENAL SERVITUDE."The Walsall Anarchists have been condemned—Charles, Battola, and Cailes to ten years' penal servitude, while Deakin has been let off in mercy with five. For what? For a police plot concocted by one of those infamous wretches who make a living by getting up these affairs and selling their victims to the vengeance of the law. Surely we ought not to have to warn Anarchists of the danger of conspiracies; these death traps; these gins set by the police and their spies, in which so many honest and devoted men have perished. Surely those who desire to act can do as John Felton did, when, alone and unaided, he bought the knife which struck down the tyrant. Are there no tyrants now? What of the Jesuitical monster at the Home Office, who murders men for taking a few head of game? What of the hyena who preys upon bodies of hanged men, and whose love of the gallows a few years ago won him the title of 'Hangman' Hawkins?—this barbarous brute, who, prating of his humanity, sends our comrades to ten years in the hell of the prisons. What of the spy Melville, who sets his agent on to concoct the plots which he discovers? Are these men fit to live? The Anarchists are criminals, vermin, gallows carrion; well, shower hard names upon us; hunt us down like mad dogs; strangle us like you have done our comrades at Xeres; shoot us down as you did at Fourmies; and then be surprised if your houses are shattered with dynamite, and if people shrink from the companionship of officials of the law as 'dangerous company.' Justice has been done. Has it, gentlemen of the middle classes? 'Justice!' Was it justice that was done in your Courts of Tuesday, when a cruel wretch belonging to your class bearing the likeness of a woman was let off with one year's imprisonment for torturing her own child to death, while men who loved the suffering people so much that they dared all things for them are condemned to ten years' penal servitude? Justice it may be; perhaps, too, it will be just when the oppressed strike back at you without ruth and mercy; only don't whine for pity in these days, for it will be useless.—D. J. NICOLL."
[...]
W.R. CUPAR. I was in Hyde Park on Sunday, 10th April—I heard the whole of your speech, from beginning to end—I did not hear you say, "The, Jesuitical Home Secretary Matthews, Inspector Melville and Coulon are the principal conspirators in this plot; two of them must die"—I heard you say that someone had said that it must be very uncomfortable for Mr. Justice Hawkins to meet so many persons in the street who he had condemned to death, but I do not remember your having added anything of that sort that is added to it—I heard nothing like an incitement to murder either of these men, decidedly not.
Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL. He made a long speech—he began by giving us some particulars about Auguste Coulon, and he suggested that the Walsall affair was very likely to be a got-up plot, and very likely it was done with a political intention, to show the connection between the Anarchists and the Social Democrats, and the Fenian Society and the Radicals, towards the Liberal party—that the uncomfortableness caused by the Walsall plot would reflect upon the Liberal party—and further, he denounced, in pretty strong language, the action taken by the police, and Justice Hawkins and Mr. Matthews, and Inspector Melville—I don't remember anything particular about it—as to Justice Hawkins, he characterised him as—I don't know whether he used the expression as his own, or as somebody else's, but he certainly used the expression, "Hangman Hawkins"—I am not quite sure about "Butcher Hawkins"—he might have, but I don't believe it—he said nothing about the Home Secretary which might be taken as inciting to murder—he spoke about his action in the case of the poachers at Aylesbury—he did not call him a murderer; he simply let it appear that Mr. Henry Matthews, at any rate—let me see—no, I can't remember what he said about it—I only heard one speech from Nicoll that afternoon; I can't tell the time exactly, but it must have been between four and half-past five, I think nearer five—I am a Dutchman.
[...]
MOWBRAY— NOT GUILTY . NICOLL— GUILTY .— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour.
--endLeave a comment:
-
The bit about the evil Zabouroff sending the dead corpse of her lover to the desperate Najezdja reminds me a little of Baron Scarpia and his lying to Tosca in the opera - but the opera had that music to make it worth while. Maurice Barrymore was better as an actor (and head of the Barrymore clan - I think he's Drew's great grandfather) than as a dramatist. This plot is really too ridiculous in the number of deaths it entails. A prelude and two acts huh!Originally posted by TradeName View Post
JeffLeave a comment:
-
Jeff, I'm not sure of the significance of the "Montague Drury", but here's a notice of a play by the original Barrymore
which may confirm your assessment of Victorian theater.
Dramatic Notes: An Illustrated Year-book of The Stage, Issue 8, January, 1886 , Pages 5-7
Nadjezda.
The dramatic year of eighteen hundred and eighty-six opened with a melodrama of a needlessly repulsive kind, in a prologue and three acts, from the pen of the well-known and graceful actor, Mr. Maurice Barrymore. The scene of this extraordinary experiment was the Haymarket Theatre. Nadjezda, first acted on January 2, was of so objectionable a nature that the management found it advisable to speedily withdraw it. The outline of the play is revenge for an abominable crime—-such a crime as has really taken place in the past; such a one as, it is possible, if not probable, may be perpetrated in the future. This, however, is scant justification for its introduction to the stage. It is difficult for a dramatist to be original, working, as of necessity he must, within prescribed lines, and it is obviously a commendable act on the part of a young author to try and break away from the beaten track. But there are regions which it is very properly forbidden for him to penetrate, and subjects which are best left untouched, so far, at any rate, as the stage is concerned. Mr. Maurice Barrymore elected to work upon a subject which had better have been left alone, and he worked boldly, but none too skilfully or delicately. His play might possibly have been excused had it shown a command on the part of its author of anything more than a mere conjuring up of the intensely horrible and disagreeable. And it might have met with a more generous reception than was accorded to it at the Haymarket, had the principal part been played by an actress of great personal fascination and transcendent genius as well. These conditions being wanting, the drama met with instant condemnation that betokened failure of the greatest extent, and showed that the more revolting episodes of human life are scarcely to the taste of the British playgoer of to-day. Nadjezda is in a prologue and three acts. The story opens at Warsaw in 1863. There is much talk of Russian cruelty and Polish oppression, and coming events are prepared for by a description of bodies "dangling bravely in the breeze" just outside Count Lorinski's house, where the prologue takes place. The Count is in the power of a sensual profligate, Prince Zabouroff. He is condemned to death, and his execution is immediate. Zabouroff promises the Countess Nadjezda that if she will pass "one sweet hour" with him she shall have her husband back again. Nadjezda makes the sacrifice, and, mad with the horror of her guilt, returns home. Zabouroff is true to his word; he sends Lorinski back to Nadjezda, but with a bullet through his heart. The unfortunate creature at first thinks that her husband is joking with her, but when she removes the covering from the face of the lifeless body on the bier, she realises that her shame has been unavailing. Raging mad, she dips her hand into the blood upon her husband's breast, and with it smears the brow of her daughter, Nadine, whom she dedicates to revenge. Her death by poison concludes an act quite powerful enough in all conscience, but repulsive to all fine feeling. The first two acts of the play proper occur at Nice, after a lapse of eighteen years, in the gambling saloon of a Polish conspirator, one Khorvitch, who passes as Baron Barsch, and who uses Nadjezda's daughter as a decoy. Prince Zabouroff appears on the scene, and tells Khorvitch that he requires a mistress, laying particular stress on the word "mistress," and that Nadine is his choice. The girl is loved by a bright young fellow, supposed to be an Englishman, Paul Devereux, who promptly knocks the Russian roue on the floor. He afterwards fights a duel with him, but nothing comes of it, so the relation of this incident might as well have been left out. Khorvitch having entrapped Devereux into joining a band of conspirators, the latter is deputed to kill Zabouroff. Nadine overhears this, and, in the best scene in the play, promises Zabouroff that she will accompany him to his chateau, plies him with wine and dances wildly around him so that, completely intoxicated, the Prince loses his senses, and misses his train, Nadine's lover being thus saved from the crime of murder. The last act takes place, at night, at Zabouroff s chateau. Zabouroff and Nadine are alone. Zabouroff, having brought shame to the mother, is about to make the daughter guilty also. Unfortunately for himself, he tells Nadjezda's story over the suppertable, and Nadine stabs him to the heart. "Poetic justice, egad," the Prince mockingly remarks as he receives the blow. Nadine hides his body behind a couch, an incident anticipated by Sardou in his Maison Neuve, as Devereux enters the room. He, however, soon learns of the deed, and Nadine promptly poisons herself, leaving Devereux in anything but a comfortable frame of mind, as may well be imagined. It also transpires in the course of the drama that Devereux is not an Englishman at all, but an illegitimate son of Zabouroff's, a useless and unpleasant introduction, and Khorvitch, we also learn, has been killed on his doorstep for betraying a secret of his brother conspirators. To relieve this distressful, unnatural, and thoroughly revolting story, some would-be comedy of the coarsest kind is introduced in the first act, in the personages of a gross caricature of an American girl and an individual who is supposed to be an English gentleman. This couple fall to flirting on their first meeting. "Stop!" suddenly says Miss Eureka Grubb, "are your intentions honourable or dishonourabler" "Am I to understand that I have the choice?" is the reply of Lord Alsager. But why enter further into the details of this objectionable work? As has been said, such a play might possibly be made even acceptable under other conditions than those of the Haymarket production; but these conditions were found sadly wanting. Miss Emily Rigl is evidently earnest and intelligent; but she cannot speak our language properly, and her voice is weak, as well as indistinct, and she is lacking in some gifts which, as I have indicated, might make a character like that of Nadjezda at all acceptable. Mr. Beerbohm-Tree played Zabouroff with neatness and care. Miss Georgina Drew overdid the already extravagant Eureka Grubb, and Mr. Mackintosh was monotonous as Khorvitch. But no amount of good acting could do great service to such a play.
--end
Fun, January 13, 1886, Page 13
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: