Tweet
Originally posted by Mayerling
View Post
-
Thank goodness my next cruise isn't on an Inman liner. And I just love terms like "Infernal Machine".G U T
There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
-
Thanks for the info about the Inman line, Jeff.
The Tribune article mentions Aveling's adaptation of The Scarlet Letter. It also mentions that Aveling was "interested in a comedy which is
'running wild' at the Strand."
Here are notices for The Scarlet Letter, For Her Sake (another play with a script by Aveling writing as "Alec Nelson") and Run Wild, which may be the play that Aveling was said to be "interested in."
The Theatre: A Monthly Review and Magazine, Volume 21, July 2, 1888, Pages 41-42
“THE SCARLET LETTER.”
New play by ALEC NELSON, with an Original Prologue by CHARLES CHARRINGTON.
(Founded on Nathaniel Hawthorne's Story.)
Firs. produced at the Olympic on Tuesday afternoon, June 5, 1888.
Characters in Prologue.
Arthur Dimmesdale....Mr. CHARLES CHARRINGTON.
Andrew Trench........Mr. WILLIAM LUGG.
Roger Prynne.........Mr. JAMES FERNANDEZ.
Phoebe...............Miss LILIAN MILWARD.
Rev. Ebenezer Iron...Mr. CHARLES ALLAN.
Hester Prynne........Miss JANET ACHURCH.
Characters in Play.
Arthur Dimmesdale....Mr. CHARLES CHARRINGTON.
Bracket..............Mr. HAMILTON KNIGHT.
Mistress Hibbins.....Miss DOLOREs DRUMMOND.
Roger Chillingworth..Mr. JAMES FERNANDEZ.
Mary Barton..........Miss GERTRUDE KINGSTON.
Eliza Ramskill.......Miss CHARLOTTE MORLAND.
Melchisedeck.........Mr. JOHN TRESAHAR.
Salome Christian.....Miss MARGARET TERRY.
Rev.John Wilson......Mr. G. R. FOSS.
Rachel Bracket.......Miss ROMA.
Governor Bellingham..Mr. FREDERICK HARRISON.
Hester...............Miss JANET ACHURCH.
Pearl................Miss GRACE MURIELLE.
Capt. Loraine........Mr. BENJAMIN WEBSTER.
In the version given here Mr. Charrington bore in mind that the present generation were not so well up in Hawthorne’s powerful story, and therefore wrote for it a prologue, which shows the early love that grew up between Hester Prynne and Arthur Dimmesdale. The scene is in England, and we find the mere girl married to a man considerably her senior, who, without being actually unkind, is cold, undemonstrative, and wrapped up in his studies and scientific pursuits. Dimmesdale, the young clergyman, is supposed to be handsome, kindly, and attentive; he feels he cannot struggle against his passion, and therefore accepts a call to go forth as a pastor to Salem in Massachusetts, and soon after old Roger Prynne, returning from a long journey, announces that he and his young wife are also going to America. Once there we are led to suppose that Prynne has almost deserted his wife, spending years among the aborigines, and, when he reappears to learn the shame that has fallen on his wife, it is as an Indian Sachem. Then follows her condemnation to wear the brand of shame, the hold that Roger Prynne obtains over Dimmesdale, haunting him as his shadow, never for a moment letting him forget his sin, and at length, when the young clergyman is insensible, discovering that on his breast he also has the “scarlet letter.” The ending is in accordance. with Hawthorne’s book. After preaching the election sermon, Dimmesdale is at the very pinnacle of esteem in all good men’s eyes, revered and loved by all around him. Hester Prynne has also lived down her shame by continuous deeds of charity and goodness, and it has been considered whether she may not now be allowed to remove the scorching badge she has worn. Then in the Market-place does Dimmesdale call her and their child to him, and mounting with them on the scaffold confesses his past iniquity. The divulgence of his long-pent-up secret, the sufferings he has borne, tortured as he has been by remorse, prove too much for an already weakened heart, and he dies tearing open his dress and revealing the “scarlet letter" burnt in upon his breast. Save for the introduction of Mistress Hibbins, whose maunderings in the forest and elsewhere become wearisome, I prefer the Olympic version; there is more to study in the character of Roger Prynne, and the relentless hate of the man was splendidly delineated by Mr. Fernandez. Miss janet Achurch’s performance as Hester Prynne was unequal; she was excellent in the prologue, but in the play itself frequently lost command over her voice and was too restless; still, taken altogether, her rendering was powerful. The Arthur Dimmesdale of Mr. Charles Charrington exhibited some fine points, but was a little too melancholy. Miss Gertrude Kingston acted well as Mary Barton, and Mr. William Lugg, Mr. John Tresahar, Mr. Hamilton Knight, and Miss Roma deserve favourable mention. Miss Grace Murielle was wonderfully clever as the elfish dancing child Pearl.
August 1, 1888, Page 94
"FOR HER SAKE"
New and original drama in one act by ALEC NELSON.
Produced for the first time, Friday afternoon, June 22, 1888, at the Olympic Theatre.
Cyrill Grant....Mr. FRED. HARRISON.
Grace Hunter....Mrs. DAWES.
Jim Manning.....Mr. STEPHEN CAFFREY.
Mother Bishop...Mrs. E. H. BRO0KE.
Will Stannard...Mr. A. GORDON EDWARDS.
Mr. Alec Nelson showed us how poetically he could write in his little piece “The Bookworm;” in “For Her Sake” he exhibits a depth of pathos and a study of human nature that are most acceptable in these days of sensational drama. Cyril Grant is a cynical man of the world, who, coming to Deal for a holiday, loses his heart to Grace Hunter, a frank, honest, and lovable girl. She, however, loves Jim Manning and tells her aristocratic admirer so, and at the same time upbraids him for the purposeless life he leads, and urges him to do something worthy of his manhood. Presently the lifeboat is called out, and Jim Manning as one of its crew has to go in her. In returning from its errand of mercy the craft is overturned, and Jim is likely to be drowned, when Cyril throws himself among the breakers and saves him at the cost of his own life; but he dies happy, he has done the noble deed “for her sake” and to restore to her arms the man she so prizes. It is but a simple story, but exquisitely told, and found good interpretation at the hands of Mr. Harrison and Mr. Caffrey. Mrs. Dawes played naturally and tenderly as Grace Hunter. On the same afternoon “Grimaldi " was revived and was noticeable for the excellence of Mr. Ivan Watson as the old actor; his accent and gestures were natural and finished. Mrs. Dawes was good as Violet and gave promise of greater results when experience has been gained.
Pages 94-95
"RUN WILD"
Original Domestic Comedy in three acts, by E. COFFIN.
First produced at the Strand Theatre, Saturday evening, June 30, 1888.
Mr. John Parker.......Mr. WILLIE EDOUIN.
Hon. Bob Penley.......Mr. H. SPARLING.
Richard Parker........Mr. HARRY EVERSFIELD.
Augustus Digby........Mr. W. GUISE.
Sir Geoffrey Carew....Mr. W. LUGG.
James.................Mr. R. NAINBY.
Jack Carew............Mr. cHAS. S.. FAWCETT.
Mrs. Parker...........Miss sUSIE VAUGHN.
Bennett...............Mr. A. CHEVALIER.
Collie Parker.........Miss ALICE ATHERTON.
Burrows...............Mr. W. CHEESMAN.
Lady Grace Howard.....Miss GRACE HUNTLEY.
Montague Drury........Mr. B. WEBSTER.
Mary..................Miss V. BENNETT.
Every playgoer will be pleased that Mr. Edouin has at length found a piece which has hit the taste of the public, and that fills the house over which he has control; for though “Run Wild" is anything but a perfect work, it is thoroughly amusing, honest in its fun, and only a slightly exaggerated picture of human nature. Mr. John Parker, a wealthy retired cotton spinner, has married a woman very much above him in the social scale, and though she despises him, sends his daughter from home and teaches his son to look down upon his father, the worthy man still loves her. He has been in the habit of secretly visiting his little girl, Collie, in Ireland, and Mrs. Parker puts these absences down to some liaison he has formed. She taxes him with this, and he is so indignant that he leaves his home, vowing that he will never return to it until his wife begs of him to do so. He goes to see his son Richard in London, and the young cub, having a few friends with him, is so ashamed of his father that he induces him to pass himself of as a Mr. Jones. During Richard's absence the young fellows let out the low esteem in which poor old Parker is held by his son, but when they discover Richard’s meanness and contemptible conduct they at once indignantly leave him. Little Collie, the daughter, is the good angel of the house; she brings about a reconciliation between her father and mother, and obtains forgiveness for her brother, who it must be confessed appears heartily ashamed of himself.
“Run Wild,” a bad title by-the-by, is excellently cast. Mr. Edouin is thoroughly genial and kind-hearted as Mr. Parker, and discovers a vein of pathos that those who have seen him only in eccentric characters would scarcely give him credit for. Miss Alice Atherton as the wild but true-hearted and high-spirited girl, Collie, exercises her accustomed fascination; and Miss Susie Vaughan has very naturally hit off the disagreeable side of a woman who allows what “Mrs. Grundy will say" to rule her life, till her better nature asserts itself, and she sees how unwifelike her conduct has been to a noble-minded husband.
Mr. Harry Eversfield does not spare himself an atom in depicting one of the veriest cads that ever breathed, and as Richard Parker considerably enhances his reputation as an actor. The scene in his chambers is capitally acted. Mr. Charles S. Fawcett, a hearty, brave young Englishman, despising anything mean; Mr. B. Webster, as Montague Drury, an impecunious young man about town ; Mr. H. Sparling, very clever as the Hon. Bob Penley, a dabbler in literature; and Mr. W. Guise, as Augustus Digby, a vapid “masher,” all lend the best of aid; and Mr. Chevalier, as a cockney valet, and Mr. W. Cheesman, as a doddering old servant, are both excellent. Mr. W. Lugg is an aristocratic Sir Geoffrey Carew, and Miss Grace Huntley is the most charming of women as Lady Grace Howard.
“Run Wild” is lavishly staged, but I feel sure that the outlay will be amply repaid.
Comment
-
A rant from the socialist Commonweal which mentions the Whitechapel murders and the Berner Street Club.
The Commonweal (1888), link
October 13, 1888, Page 324
A SAFE INVESTMENT
"There is meat on that bone yet," is the way to speak of the recent
discovery by a London daily that a safe four per cent. can be made
by supplying moral "doss-kens" to the waifs and strays of London.
The chief next the Times of the reptile press says it is a "certain
thing," and a correspondent, delirious with joy, writes to say that even
more can be made out of this Christian endeavour to raise our fellow creatures
and wring a percentage out of them at the same time.
The retiring modesty of the leader-writer (possibly the same who
vilifies the unemployed) did not permit him to exhaust his theme, and
"even more" can be made from the venture than he presumed.
Enchanting prospect! to save society and pocket four per cent. safe,
and "even more"; to surround your scheme with a halo of sanctified
purpose, like the nimbus around the head of the dead Christ; to
invoke his name as sanction to your plan; to hide your prospectus
under a mass of phrases about the moral and physical degradation of
the mass and your own self-sacrificing determination to uproot and
alleviate it, and withal secure your four per cent., and even more!
It seems a far cry from Whitechapel to Peru, but a Spanish society
has been formed to discover any chance loot that Pizarro's cut-throats
may have left untouched when they invaded illfated Peru. Like their
English congeners, the Spanish adventurers think there's "meat on
that bone yet." The slums of London and all our cities and towns are
the result of landlordism and capitalism. The method of life adopted
by Annie Chapman and her fellow-victims is the alternative one to
slow murder for sweaters' pay. Had they died slowly, starved or
worked to death, the journals now so moved over the manner of their
ending would have barely noticed the inquests, if any were held; they
would certainly not have displaced their Court News to make room for
an obituary. But there is an opening for profit made literally with
the murderer's knife; and the gutters of London and its terrible human
wreckage shall be made to yield four per cent, and "even more"!
With singular inconsistency, the journal which is booming the new
enterprise calls loudly for the detection and punishment of the criminal.
How ungrateful to denounce the direct cause of making four per cent!
Such ingratitude is only equalled by the parson when denouncing the
Devil and all his works; for no Devil, assuredly no parson and no
salary. To speak well of the bridge that carries one over is evidently
not the motto of the Fleet Street Judas.
These wretched capitalistic sheets are produced themselves under
conditions which slowly murders the operatives. They are filled with
accounts of military operations wherein hundreds bite the dust in order
to increase the profits of the capitalists.
The perpetrator of the recent crimes will, if caught, suffer in person
for his crimes (if not very rich). An eye for an eye and a tooth for
a tooth, say the law and the press. When shall the doctrine of
retribution be carried out on those who at home exploit and rob their
fellows, making the awful lives of Annie Chapman and her associates,
the only life possible to thousands, and abroad use up our sons and
brothers in atrocious exploits beside which the Whitechapel tragedies
pale in comparison? As a foul and dank hole will engender noisome
creatures, so will the horrible surroundings of the poor breed monsters,
and their victims of the Annie Chapman type. That the human
virtues flourish at all under such conditions shows the capacity of our
race to withstand corrupting influences.
The murderer may be in this case a homicidal maniac, but we have
uprising in our midst gangs of unfortunates, begotten of vile surroundings,
who stop at no outrage or crime. The wretched sisterhood of
the pavement are their first victims, and next belated wayfarers. In
the first case their guilt is shared by the police, who in every locality
partake of the wages of prostitutes and join with the roughs and bullies
in blackmailing them. These "guardians of the peace" are to be, some
long day ahead, the detectors of the Whitechapel murderer.
Meanwhile, as easiest to their hand, they attack half-starved men and
lads, and steal a few bits of red cloth when borne aloft in the processions
of the unemployed. The bourgeoisie is shrieking aloud for its
dear police, sorely tried public servants as they termed them when
bludgeoning the unemployed. Who knows which way the knife may
be turned next? The four per cent. sympathy they now display for
the victims is the same kind of motor which moves them to look after
the sanitary conditions of back streets when an epidemic is threatened;
they might catch it themselves. The police are suited to the work
they have to do—-viz., to drive discontent under the surface and break
their fellow countrymen's heads, if poor—-and no murderer need fear
arrest at their hands. These bulky chawbacons, like the evicting
R.I.C., are the laughing-stock of the light-fingered fraternity. The
contumely heaped upon our comrades of the Berner Street Club by
their silly quest of a miscreant already far away from the scene of his
crime is as nothing to the outrages committed by these chartered
ruffians in uniform at the International Club a few years back. We
Socialists, with the memory and actual experience of that scene of
pillage and brutality enacted by the police and of the farcical travesty
of justice which followed upon process against them in the courts, can
well read with amusement articles calling upon the police for protection
from depredators. False swearers, blackmailers, committers of
outrage and assault upon their fellow men—-these are the agents of
"justice" in a system of society which is based upon legalised violence
and robbery: they are to bring to judgment those who commit unlegalised
depredation and murder. F. Kitz.
--end
The mention to the "outrages" committed against the International Club "a few years back" may refer to the incident mentioned below.
Hansard's Parliamentary Debates (London:1885), Volume 298, Columns 941-942
COMMONS, May 19, 1885
GAMBLING ACT—-RAID ON A BETTING CLUB. Mr. M'LAREN asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, "Whether he has made any inquiry into the proceedings of the Metropolitan Police, who at an early hour in the morning of Sunday week, in order to arrest some alleged gamblers belonging to a club called "The European Club" in Tottenham Court Road, and acting apparently on mere suspicion, forcibly broke into the neighbouring premises of "The Social Democratic Club;" whether the following passage from The Times newspaper correctly represents what occurred:-—
"The officers tried the door, and finding it locked burst it open and entered. The mob meanwhile smashed the windows, and, while the officers were pursuing their search in the uppermost rooms, helped themselves to all the contents of the bar beneath. Cigars, liquor, coats, and other property were carried off in the confusion. The police found a crowd of men upstairs all highly indignant at their club being stormed in this fashion. It is needless to say their search was not facilitated. The Social Democrats protested and obstructed. The police, with their staves in their hands, made short work of all who stood in their way, and the end of a formidable disturbance was that about fifty or sixty men, mostly foreign internationalists, were marched off to the police station, some of them battered and bleeding in a very shocking manner. The officers had also been roughly handled, and were venting their maledictions on the 'Nihilists,' as they termed those of their prisoners who had been most intractable. About breakfast time all but six or seven of the prisoners had been let off, after the surgeon had seen to the wounds of the most injured ;"
whether "The Social Democratic Club" is a lawful association; if the above report is substantially correct, whether the police had any legal warrant or justification for entering that club, or arresting and beating its members; and, if he proposes to take any action in regard to the case?
Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT said, that, according to the reports he had received, the paragraphs cited did not give an accurate account of what occurred. The case had been adjourned in order that cross-summonses might be taken out against the police; and, therefore, both sides would be fully heard.
Hansard's Parliamentary Debates (London: 1885), Volume 300, Columns 236-237
LORDS, July 28, 1885
LAW AND POLICE-THK INTERNATIONAL CLUB.
QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
The Earl Of WEMYSS, in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether, seeing that certain members of the Metropolitan Police Force have been committed by the stipendiary magistrate of the Marlborough Street Police Court for trial at the approaching sessions of the Central Criminal Court for unlawfully assaulting certain members of the International Club, and seeing that, owing to want of funds on the part of the prosecutors, the prosecution is likely to fall through, Her Majesty's Government will take such steps as may be necessary to prevent a possible miscarriage of justice? said, the facts of the case were already well known to the public. He had been asked by some working men's clubs to take the matter up, and he did so. The International Club, though it might be a Socialistic body, was, as long as its members obeyed the law, as much entitled to the protection of the law as Brooks's, the Carlton, the Reform, or any other club frequented by the rich. He applied to the Home Secretary to have the police who had been committed for trial by Mr. Newton prosecuted at the public expense, and the Home Secretary informed him that the matter was no longer in his hands, and that there was a Public Prosecutor, whose right it was to determine whether there should be a prosecution, and if so, whether the State should pay the expense of it. He then applied to the Public Prosecutor, and the answer he received from that gentleman seemed somewhat inconsistent with the statement of the Home Secretary. [The noble Earl read the answer, which was to the effect that the Public Prosecutor had received instructions from the Home Office that he was to undertake the prosecution of the summonses taken out by the police, and, should the necessity arise, to defend them.] Now, he made this appeal to the Government on two grounds. One was the confidence which the public had in the police. It was well known how admirably they did their duty, and how seldom one heard of any charge being brought against them. But the public ought to know that there was no divinity which hedged round the policeman if he misconducted himself. His other ground was the justice of the case. This club stood on the same footing as the Carlton or the Reform, and there should be equal justice for the poor man and the rich.
The PAYMASTER GENERAL (Earl Beauchamp) said, his answer would be very simple. The matter was considered by the Home Office very carefully in May last, and the late Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt) then instructed the Public Prosecutor to take up the case on behalf of the police and to defend them. He did not see any discrepancy between the statement of the Secretary of State and the answer given by the Public Prosecutor, who very naturally was reluctant to do something which would have the effect of reversing the action he was instructed to take in May last. The noble Earl put hia appeal on the ground of equal justice. But their Lordships would be very much surprised if the police made a foray upon the Carlton or the Reform, that the Secretary of State should be called upon to prosecute them at the public expense, on the ground of equal justice to rich and poor. They were told that the members of the International Club were poor men. As individuals, no doubt, they might be poor; but when they were considered in the aggregate there could not be any serious difficulty in their procuring funds for conducting the prosecution. Therefore, he did not think that the allegation of injustice was borne out by the facts of the case. The matter had been considered by the late Secretary of State, and it had also been carefully considered by the present authorities at the Home Office, and they had not been able to satisfy themselves that there was any reason why they should adopt the unusual course of undertaking the defence of the police on the one hand, or, on the other hand, of paying the expenses of this prosecution. The circumstances must be most exceptional and unusual to justify a course like that, and the Secretary of State did not feel himself called upon to adopt the very unusual course suggested by the noble Earl.Comment
-
Really good finds Tradename. Thanks for sharing.
Cheers
DRoyComment
-
Thanks. DRoy.
Here are a couple more items about the Whitechapel murders from The Commonweal.
The Commonweal (1888), link
October 20, 1888, Page 329
Our high opinion of the intelligence of the police increases day by
day. Could we have a more charming proof of their possession of this
inestimable quality than the disclosures vouchsafed at the inquest on
Catharine Eddowes? We hear there that when the murderer was
good enough to leave an absolute clue to his identity by writing on a
wall an inscription ascribing the murder to the Jews, that the metropolitan
police, at the instance of " a high official," ordered the inscription
to be rubbed out, despite the protests of the members of the City
force, who not being on their own ground were forced to submit.
Who was the "high official"? universal history will exclaim. The
Pall Mall Gazette says it was Sir Charles Warren. The good gentleman
was known to be upon the ground at the time. It is also known
that he labours under a morbid dread of riots, and beholds in any
chance crowd collected by accident or curiosity in a public thoroughfare
the nucleus of the dreaded mob. Besides, who but a very high
official would have dared to order the destruction of such a very
excellent clue ? Everything points to Sir Charles, and Sir Charles does
not deny the soft impeachment.
It may be admitted, of course, that it may be some smaller luminary
which gathers its light from the glorious sun in Scotland Yard. But
if this is so we should like to know the name of the perpetrator of
the latest stroke of genius. Will not some lover of his kind announce
it to expectant humanity?
It is said by some cynics that the perpetrator of these awful crimes
is a member of the metropolitan police, and that is why his comrades
and his chief are doing their utmost to cover up his tracks.
Meanwhile, we would advise Sir Charles to denude Whitechapel
of its police. There would be some chance of catching the murderer then.
November 3, 1888, Page 346
The Moral of the Whitechapel Murders
The upper and middle-classes are shocked. Their faithful servants,
the police, are astounded and powerless. The terrible deeds of the
probable maniac-murderer have shaken society to its very foundation.
"What can it all mean?" is the question that all men are asking themselves,
while very few seem to be able to give a satisfactory answer.
For years Socialists have thundered out against the ever-growing
evils of capitalist society, both in the lecture-hall and in the street. In
not a few cases, the prison cell has been the reward of those who have
endeavoured to awaken the apathetic to a sense of duty. At length
our masters are aroused, and behold! a Royal Commission is enquiring
into the particulars of the housing of the poor. In due time the
report of the labours of the Commission is submitted to public
scrutiny, and—what then? "Society" goes to sleep again until
aroused by the fiendish deeds of a master-murderer. And how well
do the conditions which surround these vile acts prove the Socialist
position, namely, that we are living in a system of slavery, the rich—=
the masters ; the poor—-the slaves.
The victims of these atrocious crimes are, after all, so many sacrifices
on the shrine of capitalism. The "doss" money would have
saved their lives; but our society is nob founded on life, but property,
and therefore their lives were not worth fourpence. If the murderer
be a rich man, surely his wealth and conditions by which he is surrounded
in society has driven him mad; if, on the other hand, he is a
poor one, his poverty surely has robbed him of every spark of manhood.
Now, there are in London alone no less than 80,000 prostitutes,
many of whom are mothers of the rising generation. The poor devils
must violate their virtue, and outrage their womanhood, in order to
obtain their "doss" money. What pleasant food for reflection; after
nearly nineteen hundred years of Christianity, while we have reached
an age of progress hitherto undreamed of! Surely we ought to be
proud of our boasted civilisation, where "wealth accumulates and men
decay."
Bourgeois society, just awakened, is complaining of the badly lighted
slums of the East End of London, as though such things were not
known before the recent atrocities occurred; so that in our age of
contradictions and absurdities, a fiend-murderer may become a more
effective reformer than all the honest propagandists in the world.
This is by no means a pleasing deduction; but it seems the only one
that can be made from the present state of affairs.
Our police, too, considering the expense incurred in maintaining the
system now in vogue at Scotland Yard, cut pretty figures in this business;
and that they are not kept in existence for the protection of the
property and lives of the workers is made amply clear. If some Socialist
had been suspected of conspiring to take the life of some
capitalist tyrant, then indeed should we have witnessed the successful
activity of the police in bringing the culprit to "justice." But what
matters? The victims in this case were wage-slaves, of whom there
is a plentiful supply; and, seeing how everything to-day is governed
by the "law" of the political economist—-human flesh and blood being
no exception to the rule—-when the supply is above the demand its
price will fall, yea, even to fourpence, the price of a "doss," what may
we not expect?
Well, after all, there is only one way out—-the workers must become
their own masters, and their present masters must be made to work
for their own living instead of living on the labour of others as they
do to-day.
H. DavisComment
-
I do note that the role of one "Bennett" in "Running Wild" is played by one "A. Chevalier". I think this is the later music hall comedian star "Albert Chevalier".Originally posted by TradeName View Post
By the way, reading the soppy plots of these plays make me recall that English theatre reached a nadir (except for Gilbert & Sullivan, and later Pinero, Wilde, and Shaw) in the Victorian period. The wealthy wastrel dies to save his rival, but dies happy to have obliged the girl he loved. What crap!
Curious isn't it, there is another character with the name "Montague Drury". Coincidence, or did the dramatist know something?
JeffLast edited by Mayerling; 10-11-2014, 04:16 PM.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
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
JeffComment
-
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.
--endComment
-
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
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.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.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.Comment
-
TradeName,
As always, interesting stuff and great research. Thanks for sharing.
Cheers
DRoyComment
-
I love that name "Infernal Machine"
So much better than IED or even bomb.G U T
There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true. Comment
Comment