Hughes Hallett Gallery

[Robert Linford]

Joe and I want to post a few pics of HH. With thanks to AP.
http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/gallant20colonel.jpg

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/HH20OLL.jpg

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/HH20CHAIR.jpg
http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/HH20VANITY.jpg
http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/HH20VANITY.jpg
http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/hughes20hallet.jpg
http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/IPSWICH20JOURNAL20SEPT20302087.jpg
http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/PIP2520192520Oct2520892520pic.jpg

[A.P. Wolf]

No worries Robert, this is a fascinating discourse.
One question though.
Third picture along on the right at the top, is that Tumblety that HH is sitting on or what?

[Robert Linford]

It does rather look like someone's legs under him, AP. Maybe it was a member of the shadow cabinet.

[Joe Chetcuti]

Bully! Nice work, Robert. You'll be served your bread pudding very shortly.

A.P. - Thanks for posting the Daily Inter Ocean article. You'll be served your bottle of Jameson very shortly.

[Joe Chetcuti]

Do you get the feeling that this Colonel may have known a thing or two? It was as if Hughes-Hallett strangely expected the Aug 7th atrocity to occur. His reaction to the George Yard murder was immediate, well organized, and very personal.

"I was convinced that my man left his club, as I was then doing, and disguised himself for his hideous nocturnal revel as I was about to do." - Colonel Hughes-Hallett speaking of his Aug 8th hunt.

Hughes-Hallett's statement, in accompaniment with his actions, signified that he had a specific person in mind who committed the Tabram killing. The reason why the Colonel commenced his Whitechapel hunt at that late night hour was because he had synchronized his movements with that of his fellow clubman. And it was clear that this clubman was the Colonel's murder suspect. Within 24 hours of Tabram's murder, Hughes-Hallett was already convinced that the killer was a West End clubman who embarks out of Pall Mall near the midnight hour.

"...being an amateur actor as well as a detective, I had 'made up' my face and completed the disguise effectually." - Colonel Hughes-Hallett.

Not only did the Colonel have a specific suspect in mind, but he behaved like he had personally met this suspect before. A very plausible reason why Hughes-Hallett disguised himself during his East End hunt is because he didn't want to be recognized by the man whom he intended to trail in Whitechapel. It can easily be construed that they had met before and that they knew what each other looked like.

These things point to the conclusion that Hughes-Hallett instantly had a specific man in mind who committed the Tabram murder. But even beyond that, the Colonel showed signs as if he had been tipped off that a crime of this nature would occur.

[Chris G.]

Hi Joe

I find your research and hypotheses fascinating as usual. But here's a question for you:

I know you are pursuing the idea that Tumblety obtained guest membership privileges in one or more West End clubs. And thus what you said, "Within 24 hours of Tabram's murder, Hughes-Hallett was already convinced that the killer was a West End clubman who embarks out of Pall Mall near the midnight hour."

To quote Colonel Hughes-Hallett:

"I had more upon my mind, and I have seen since no reason to change it, that the perpetrator of these atrocities is a West End man, a gentleman, a person of wealth and culture perhaps, but certainly of intellectual qualities, finesse and keen discrimination.

". . . I was convinced that my man left his club, as I was then doing, and disguised himself for his hideous nocturnal revel as I was about to do. . .

"[the Ripper] must be found at his home, in his club, in the fashionable thoroughfares of the West End." Atlanta Constitution, 7 October 1888.

However, if Tumblety was only a guest member and not a full member, would Hughes-Hallett really think of him as a "clubman" and how could it be "his [Tumblety's] club" when he only had temporary privileges there?

Chris

[Joe Chetcuti]

"I believe him to be an army doctor retired, perhaps, or a medical student, or a gentleman who has read medicine as amusement or as a part of a liberal education." - Colonel Hughes-Hallett's quote in the Atlanta Constitution.

In the past, a few guys have designated that quote to be their official excuse for "negating" the solid points that were made on my last post. Their logic apparently being: "The Colonel didn't explicitly define his suspect's 'one and only' profession to us. Therefore all of the facts that support the premise about the Colonel having a 'specific suspect in mind' must be rejected." We even had a guy imply that Bocock's in-depth article that featured Hughes-Hallett's interview should somehow be dismissed as a 1900 worded..."press blurb."

People are free to cling to those peculiar deductions if they want, but not surprisingly, only a couple of men have publicly trumpeted this stance. Thankfully, these are the only "rebuttals" that they have been able to come up with during the past three years. People can judge for themselves if these counter-arguments are sage or anemic.

As for the Colonel's quote at the top of this post, Hughes-Hallett was slyly talking about one man. I suspect that the Colonel was approached by his suspect who presented himself as a retired army doctor or surgeon, but the Colonel had his doubts about the truthfulness of it.

It's logical to assume that during the summer of 1888 Hughes-Hallett conducted some research into the phony medical man whom he was trailing. Enough information was gathered to the point where the Colonel felt confident to relay some of his findings to the American press. It should be remembered that Hughes-Hallett definitely had the means to uncover a charlatan's history. For example, the Colonel dug up plenty of dirty laundry concerning his crooked American financial agent, John Chandor.

Col. Hallett's suspicion of Chandor was aroused, and he began to think that Chandor in some way or other played him false. Immediately on Col. Hallett's return to England,... he began prosecuting inquiries concerning John Chandor. He is reported to have unearthed a story of the man's career which is simply appalling. - Chicago Tribune Dec 9, 1889.

Robert will be posting up a copy of the Colonel's death certificate soon. Andy Aliffe helped us obtain it awhile back. On the certificate you'll see the name McCarthy listed on it. McCarthy was Hughes-Hallett's step son.

Chris, I'll respond to your questions via private e-mail. I really don't use the words hypothesis or theory when I speak of my research. I simply refer to it as my answers. And I expect to find out if my answers are right or wrong sometime before I leave this world! Hopefully, I still have plenty of years to go!

[Chris G.]

Hi Joe

I will look forward to receiving the email from you.

By the way, one of the impressions that I receive from the latest article from you that we will be publishing in Ripperologist 87, to appear imminently, "Knocking on Pall Mall's Door," is that both Tumblety and Hughes-Hallett were playactors, if, possibly combatants in a deadly game. Thus some of what he said may have been said for a certain audience and not be as straightforward as it could be. In other words, Dr. T and H-H were engaged in an elaborate form of charades or cat-and-mouse.

One other thing. Well, sure, Joe, you are pursuing a hypothesis or theory. The narrative of "Knocking on Pall Mall's Door," which provides an interesting and engaging blow-by-blow description of your ongoing investigation, would bear out that you have a hypothesis or theory that is driving your research. Carry on, Holmes.

Best regards

Chris :clap2:

[Robert Linford]

Death certificate :

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/scan000120bit20smaller.jpg

[A.P. Wolf]

I posted this on another thread sometime ago, showing that Tumblety was a West End boy rather than an East End boy, so perhaps if one searched a decade before, one might then find this 'Doctor' as a fully fledged club member?

Tumblety ran a series of advertisements in the Liverpool press in 1875 touting his book and patent medicines, but the address he gave was a London one.

'53 Margaret Street, Cavendish-square'.

Which is interesting as in June of 1877 the following advertisement appeared in the classified columns of The Times:

'RE-ENGAGEMENT required, by man, age 30, 5ft 10ins, as attendant to a gentleman mentally afflicted. Willing to travel. Good references.
James East, 53 Margaret Street, Cavendish-square.'

Had the dog lost its master?
Or bone?

[Chris G.]

Hi AP

I suggest that he would have used a West End address when advertising in Liverpool because it sounded prestigious. More smoke and mirrors from the good doctor? :rolleyes:

Chris

[Joe Chetcuti]

I'll pretend I didn't read your last paragraph on post #8, Chris! But as for your main paragraph... yes, I very definitely see it as you see it. There were witty 19th century word games being played here by both men. They were both using the American newspaper press as their instrument to take jabs at each other.

Nice job, Robert. As the Captain of Das Boot once said, "You've got to have good men."

You're a good man, Robert. :thumb:

But unfortunately for Das Boot, the RAF had some pretty good men themselves!

[Joe Chetcuti]

Chris,

Turning 60 hasn't slowed you down one bit! You're as sharp as ever.

But I'm not a theorist. I just trying to find out about why a member of Parliament was hunting in the East End on Aug 8th.

[Joe Chetcuti]

And yes, I am looking forward to Ripperologist #87, too!

[A.P. Wolf]

Joe, I like your thrust here, good stuff.
The 'Beefsteak' was limited to 24 members wasn't it?
See a report in the New York Times, January 1st 1886, which gives detail about a bolshy upstart merchant from Liverpool who joined the club.
Sounds like Maybrick to me. I love cats amongst the pigeons.

[Joe Chetcuti]

A.P.

I'll get into this with you shortly after everyone has gotten a chance to read the new Rip issue. But I can say that there is a difference between taking a census amongst the full members of a Pall Mall club as opposed to counting the total number of guest members for the same club.

[Joe Chetcuti]

Hi A.P.

The Beefsteak Club goes all the way back to the year 1709 in England. For many years it was tough to become a member of this elite club. The NY Times article you spoke about said the club's laws were rigidly laid down so that no more than 24 members were allowed. This 24-man limit rule was certainly in effect during the 1811-1820 time period because even the Prince Regent (George IV) had to "wait his turn" to become a member.

The Beefsteakers would meet in the Lyceum Theatre starting in 1809. When their membership finally dwindled in 1867, the club disbanded.

J L Toole revived the Beefsteak Club in 1876, and Sir Henry Irving revived the Beefsteak Room in the Lyceum Theatre when he took over as the manager. The club's rules for membership were more lenient during these years because not only were full memberships available to applicants but also 'guest memberships' could be attained.

A.P. your assignment is to find out if the Beefsteak Room is still alive and kicking today behind the stage of the Lyceum Theatre!! If so, I'll be sure to remember that if I ever make it to London. Hmmm...I better make a note of it:

When in England, be sure to have dinner with A.P. Wolf in the Beefsteak Room. Where he will surely embarrass me by ordering fish.

[A.P. Wolf]

Well that date fits, Joe. Tumblety was in England in 1876, and he had a West End address. I see no good reason why someone like Tumblety, the Master of the Universe, should not have swanked it with the best at the Beefsteak in 1888. After all, with all that beef and champagne they probably had an urgent need for a pimple banisher.
And he was gay, as were most of the others.

[Caroline Morris]

Joe, I like your thrust here, good stuff.
The 'Beefsteak' was limited to 24 members wasn't it?
See a report in the New York Times, January 1st 1886, which gives detail about a bolshy upstart merchant from Liverpool who joined the club.
Sounds like Maybrick to me. I love cats amongst the pigeons.

Hi AP,

You couldn't give me any more details from this report could you, or direct me to where I can see it?

Were you being semi-serious here? You see, I can give you a possible connecting link between the Beefsteak Club and James Maybrick:

Bernard Ryan, in his 1977 book, The poisoned Life of Mrs Maybrick, suggests that from about 1887:

James continued to spend frequent evenings 'at the club' and to travel often to London for a day or two 'on business' . But Florence could no longer feel sure of just where he was or what he was doing...

James’s brother Michael was a West End man and high-ranking mason, and the two undoubtedly spent many an evening together when James was down from Aigburth, Liverpool.

Another pair of brothers who were very much part of the West End club scene, and were in fact both Beefsteak Club members, were George and Weedon Grossmith (of Diary of a Nobody fame - first serialised in Punch in 1888).

According to Weedon’s autobiography, he strolled into the Beefsteak Club one night in 1898 (when in his mid forties), hoping to meet some ‘jovial companions at that delightful one-room club’. On entering he heard ‘loud laughter from a merry set of about a dozen “bloods”, including Sir George Chetwynd, Waldo Storey the sculptor, Leslie Ward (“Spy” of Vanity Fair), Freddie Post [and] John Drew (the popular American actor)…’

Weedon names two other Beefsteak Club frequenters from the mid 1890s - Sir Augustus Webster and Lord Edward Cecil - and describes J L Toole and Sir Henry Irving as ‘my dear old friends’.

At one time Weedon managed Whitechapel's Pavilion Theatre, close to Buck's Row. And Sir Melville Macnaghten had Weedon’s portrait, in his acting role as Jack Sheppard, hanging next to a print of the real Sheppard, taken from an original portrait painted of him in the condemned cell.

Of all the places in all the world for a Beefsteak Club member to spend his honeymoon, Weedon's more famous brother George chose Aigburth, Liverpool.

Love,

Caz
X

PS Sorry Joe - that was way off topic.

[Joe Chetcuti]

It's always good to read your posts, Caroline. I'll enjoy your words even if all you talk about is Mint Juleps !! Thanks for the cool new Beefsteak info.

http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?srchst=p

If you click into that, then type in the words Beefsteak Club in the "your search" box, you'll come to a list of news reports. Just select the story that was dated January 1, 1886. I think it's the 6th one on the list. Then on the next screen just hit "view full article."

The difficult thing about this NY Times article is that it didn't give the year when the pretentious man from Liverpool shared company with the Beefsteakers.

[Caroline Morris]

Hi Joe,

Well that was absolutely fascinating - thank you so much! :)

The pretentious Liverpool merchant who thought it a good 'joke', but fancied he could see through it, actually sounds more like the 'Sir Jim' of the Maybrick diary than the real James. :eek:

If we are looking for a dodgy 'medicine man', living a dual life, Jim could fit that bill as well as Dr T, assuming he frequented London clubs like he frequented the Liverpool equivalent. His new doctor in November 1888 asked him what medicine he had been taking, when he complained of ceaseless headaches over the previous three months, and other symptoms such as numbness and skin eruptions (come in Dr T with the bogus pimple lotion! :lol:).

In addition to the arsenic, too much wine and heavy smoking, James was knocking back nitro-hydrochloric acid, strychnine, hydrate of potash and several other drugs. I don't think he mentioned the Mint Juleps though. ;)

The fully qualified medicine man, a Dr Drysdale of Liverpool, entered a complete account of his new patient's remedies in his diary (according to Maybrick author Bernard Ryan, writing in 1977) and noted that James seemed to be 'quite knowledgeable about medicines'.

James would also pop in to see a Liverpool chemist between twice and five times a day to pick up his arsenic-based pick-me-up. When he planned to be out of town he would often have between 8 and 16 doses made up in advance. When the chemist asked about his habit, James freely admitted to using arsenic as an aphrodisiac.

More about West End Clubs in a mo...

Love,

Caz
X

[Caroline Morris]

Weedon Grossmith writes:

'...in the middle eighties there were numerous lively clubs started in London - the Corinthian in St. James’s Square, the Gardenia in Leicester Square, the Waterloo, and Regency in Waterloo Place, the Palm in Oxford Street, and the Percy Club in Percy Street off Tottenham Court Road. These clubs were not difficult to become members of, though you had to be properly proposed and seconded; this was frequently accomplished, so said a famous wag who drew for [I]Vanity Fair, by the aid of the Hall Porter as proposer, and a cabman as seconder. There was a big dancing club in the Upper Street, Islington, called “The Sporting and Dramatic Club”. I was not a member, but I was “taken there” ten years later, one night, by an honorary member, Mr. Tom Heslewood.'

Weedon, it seems, was making a distinction between these and the more exclusive and elitist gentlemen’s clubs which he frequented (including the Savage, the Garrick and the Beefsteak), whose rules of membership and 'guest' status I imagine were rather more strictly applied and enforced.

But I can still see the old 'it's who you know, not what you know' policy working quite well, whenever a full member wanted to get a close (or should that be 'closet'?) friend or family member admitted for the night.

Love,

Caz
X

[A.P. Wolf]

Glad you enjoyed that, Caz.
You might also be interested in a report in the NYT from July 24th 1883 which gives details of a Savage Club performance at the Albert Hall for the Prince of Wales where listed in the 'guard of honour' for the Prince is a 'Mr. Maybrick'.
Sadly they don't say whether it was James or Michael.

[Joe Chetcuti]

When Hughes-Hallett talked with The World reporter on Oct 6th, he provided many hints about his suspect. (The killer is a phony medical man who preserves the body parts that he took from his victims; he is a clubman who lives in the West End; etc.) My personal opinion is that on Oct 6th the Colonel also privately provided The World with the name of this fellow clubman of his.

On post #8, Chris spoke of the cat-and-mouse game that was played between the Colonel and Tumblety.

Hughes-Hallett's Oct 6th statements were 'round one' of the battle of wits. The World joined in this witty game in mid-November as soon as Tumblety's name came over the cable wires from England. Because of their Oct 6th talk with the Colonel, The World had six weeks of preparation time to gather information on Tumblety. Then on November 19th, The World played the game:

(Tumblety) was last seen here (in NY) about five months ago, when he appeared on Broadway, just as he did twenty years ago, with his leather-peaked cap, white over-gaiters and button hole bouquet.

This white button hole bouquet chatter was so typical of the witticism of that era. Look at the photos of HH on this thread and you'll see how the white button hole bouquet was his forte. (The British Vanity Fair pointed this out as well.)

But Tumblety was never said to have attired himself in this manner until it was spoken on Nov 19, 1888 by the NY World. This white button hole bouquet talk was held back by The World until the murder suspicions against Tumblety were publicly made known. I'd say this was The World's way of subtly linking Tumblety with Hughes-Hallett.

The World fired another salvo in this game of wits by hiring Conover to write the uteri jars account. That story was held back until it could be presented to New Yorkers on the same day that the La Bretagne arrived in Castle Garden. The uteri jars story seemed to have been the fulfillment of Hughes-Hallett's Oct 6th hint about how the Ripper preserves the body parts of his victims. Whether Conover's account is truthful or not isn't the issue here. The World's subtle linkage between Tumblety and Hughes-Hallett is what caught my eye.

Tumblety's retaliation to all of this was flagrant. In his January 29th interview, the doctor claimed he is a frequenter of the Carlton Club. HH was a member of this Pall Mall political club. That was an antagonistic response by the doctor. Tumblety fired shots at HH's anti-Irish history by writing:

"Like Parnell, I have emerged from the battle entirely unscathed..."

Tumblety also directed his witty ammo at The World by writing:

"Now let me say a word about the attacks which certain American newspapers recently made upon me, attacks as unfounded as the onslaught made on the great Irish leader."

I'm glad Mosley posted up the Monty Python thread. It's always good to review the Oscar Wilde sketch before trying to figure out old time public witticism.

[Scott Nelson]

Popping in to say..great stuff. Caroline on the Grossmith brothers, Joe on the follow-up info to the Beefeaters Club and A.P. for providing the New York Times article.

[Joe Chetcuti]

Thanks Scott. Yes, Caroline's input is always welcome.

And A.P. usually has something up his sleeves to share with us.

I was so sad to see that the Oscar Wilde sketch is no longer part of the Monty Python videos that Tim posted up. The famous line "His Majesty is like a stream of bat's piss" originated from that sketch!!

OK Robert, think quick, who delivered that line? Whistler, Wilde, or Shaw? :mmph:

[Robert Linford]

Er, Whistler, Joe.

And if that's wrong, don't blame me, because it was you who gave me the answer.

[Caroline Morris]

Glad you enjoyed that, Caz.
You might also be interested in a report in the NYT from July 24th 1883 which gives details of a Savage Club performance at the Albert Hall for the Prince of Wales where listed in the 'guard of honour' for the Prince is a 'Mr. Maybrick'.
Sadly they don't say whether it was James or Michael.

Hi AP,

Great stuff indeed! I imagine that would be Michael, who was busy at the time making a name for himself in the field of performing arts. His fame as a musical composer of merry tunes came along a little later I believe.

Works for me. 'Sir Jim' got his own chance to be 'but a few feet away' from His Royal Highness at the 1889 Grand National. And 'if the greedy bastard would have known he was less than a few feet away from the name all England was talking about he would have died there and then. Regret I could not tell the foolish fool. To hell with sovereignity, to hell with all whores, to hell with the bitch who rules'.

Now how well does that all fit with a Maybrick honouring the Prince in 1883 at the Savage performance and the 1886 piece, describing a pretentious Liverpool merchant who thought he was seeing through a joke played at his expense, and that the whole arty-farty nobility thing going on at the Beefsteak was that joke? ;)

And then there's that nagging Aigburth link between the Maybricks and the brothers Grossmith, who were both members of the Savage and the Beefsteak Clubs...

What the hell was George doing, spending his honeymoon in Aigburth? That's what I want to know.

What did Joe say about coinkidink upon coinkidink upon coinkidink?

Love,

Caz
X

[Caroline Morris]

Apologies again Joe. I have now taken the off topic part of this discussion over to its own thread in the appropriate place.

Carry on chaps! :)

Love,

Caz
X

[Joe Chetcuti]

Correct Robert! James McNeill Whistler delivered the line, but he blamed it on George Bernard Shaw. Like Don always says, when it doubt... blame the Irish! Then Michael Palin had to explain the meaning of it all to King Edward VII. Boy oh boy, when you English do your comedy, you sure go all the way!

Hughes-Hallett's kids didn't follow in the Colonel's footsteps. I checked the military school where HH graduated from (Woolwich) and I discovered that none of the Colonel's offspring passed through there. I'd like to communicate with Hughes-Hallett's descendants some day, but English genealogy really isn't my bag. I'd have a tough time finding them. Fortunately, Chris Scott provided us with a good head start by posting up the birth information on all of the Colonel's children.

[Robert Linford]

Joe, it should be possible to trace descendants. I'll put it on my list.

[A.P. Wolf]

Caz
I'm sure you must be aware that Michael Maybrick actually gave a 'smoking concert' for the Prince of Wales on February 16th 1888?
Something that bothers me though, with Michael Maybrick's activities as reported by the press, is that in the years leading up to 1888 he's a very busy boy indeed with numerous accounts of his activities, then comes 1888 and the press fall very silent indeed - let's say two references for 1888 in comparison to like twenty or so for other years.
Was it a bad year for the Maybricks?
Or was Michael perhaps not in London?
(sorry for posting this here but I can't post on Caz's Maybrick thread).

[Joe Chetcuti]

That's ok A.P.

You have my permission to post here, heh heh. You just got to give us the secret Beefsteakers handshake first, and then you'll receive admittance into this thread.

I spoke of information previously posted by Chris Scott concerning Hughes-Hallett's offspring. Sad to say, it sounds like Chris's info bit the dust over at the Casebook yesterday. But fortunately, Joe the Squirrel recognized the value of those walnuts the moment Chris posted it, and so many months ago I had the material printed out and saved.

I preserved it just in case there would be a day when A.P. spills his cheap whiskey all over Stephen's hard drive and short-circuits everything. You've got to be a smart squirrel to survive in the cruel Ripper World. Ok, here we go... compliments of Chris Scott.


Hughes-Hallett's first three children were:

Frank Victor Hughes-Hallett (January 9, 1872 - July 1937)
Egerton Hughes-Hallett (July 3, 1873 - August 14, 1890)
Sybil Rosalie Hughes-Hallett (July 5, 1875 - 1958)

On the day after Sybil's birth, the Colonel's first wife Catherine Rosalie Greene died.


The Colonel had no children with his second wife, the Belle of Philadelphia, but he had three more children with his 3rd wife.

Annie J. Hallett was born around 1898.
Beryl Hallett was born around 1899.
Guy M. Hallett was born in 1900.

The Colonel's 3rd wife was Annie E. Hallett. She was born in Paddington around 1869. She had a son from a previous union. His name was Harry J. McCarthy. Harry was 17 years old when his name appeared on the Colonel's death certificate.

As for any of the Colonel's six offspring having children of their own, the only info I have on this concerns the Colonel's eldest son:

Frank Victor Hughes-Hallett was 36 years old when he married Hilda Marion Cook in 1908. They had two children. These two kids were the Colonel's grand children:

Humphrey Raymond Hughes-Hallett and Rosemary Selwyn Hughes-Hallett. I don't know their birth years.

[Caroline Morris]

Caz
I'm sure you must be aware that Michael Maybrick actually gave a 'smoking concert' for the Prince of Wales on February 16th 1888?
Something that bothers me though, with Michael Maybrick's activities as reported by the press, is that in the years leading up to 1888 he's a very busy boy indeed with numerous accounts of his activities, then comes 1888 and the press fall very silent indeed - let's say two references for 1888 in comparison to like twenty or so for other years.
Was it a bad year for the Maybricks?
Or was Michael perhaps not in London?
(sorry for posting this here but I can't post on Caz's Maybrick thread).

Hi AP,

I'm afraid I wasn't aware of that, since I haven't seen too much reason (before now) to look into Michael Maybrick's pre-1889 activities in any detail.

The diarist would have hit trouble if Michael had been found away from London at certain times in 1888. So the paucity of info on the subject is presumably what allowed 'Sir Jim' to visit his infinitely more talented bruv in the Capital without worrying that he wouldn't actually be there.

You only have to ask, AP, and Tim the Doorman will grant you membership of the Maybrick Club. ;) I would certainly welcome your input there, and Joe can then continue without being rudely interrupted by Jim frequenting his more upmarket Tumblety Club.

Love,

Caz
XX

[A.P. Wolf]

Joe, I was fascinated to find this strange report in 'Reynold's' of June 15th 1888 detailing an alarming amount of friction between Hughes-Hallett and the Archbishop of Canterbury... what's going on 'ere then?
I won't even mention the report below about 'the conduct of certain officers at Scotland Yard being the subject of a secret inquiry at the Home Office'.
Best save that for another thread, eh?

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/hh1.jpg

[Joe Chetcuti]

So an invitation was sent to HH for the Archbishop of Canterbury's garden party in the summer of 1888. Then a chaplain named Montagu Fowler (who was authorized to represent the Archbishop) rescinded the invitation.

This sounded like a private correspondence between the Archbishop's office and HH, but word of it got out to Stead's Pall Mall Gazette. Stead and HH had a long running feud that was still humming strong in the summer of 1888. The PMG called attention to the Archbishop's invitation to HH, and this prompted Fowler to respond to Stead. Fowler then sent Stead a copy of the letter that rescinded HH's invitation.

Fowler's comments to the PMG, along with a copy of the rescinded letter, was then published in Reynold's Weekly Newspaper. George Reynolds and his brother Edward were in charge of this newspaper which was "devoted to the cause of freedom and in the interests of the enslaved masses." It was into Chartism. A Liberal member of Parliament named James H. Dalziel would later run this newspaper. Reynold's periodical appealed to those who wanted Political and Social reform. Its mind set was very much in agreement with the PMG.

It appeared that the PMG and Reynold's Weekly combined their efforts to make their political target, Sir Hughes-Hallett, look pretty bad here. The question is... who tipped the PMG off about the Archbishop mistakenly sending an invitation to the Colonel and then rescinding it? You'd think that both the Archbishop and the Colonel would have wanted to keep that mistake private.

[A.P. Wolf]

Thanks Joe, but I have been bossing up on HH in the meantime.
What a pickle of a fellow he was!
I never realised what a bad boy he was.

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Joe, but I have been bossing up on HH in the meantime.
What a pickle of a fellow he was!
I never realised what a bad boy he was.


-----apparently just a few hours after Martha Tabram was found dead ,he placed himself at the scene of the crime [George Yard], claiming he knew the murderer! I thought this very strange.Either he must have had prior knowledge that just such a murder was going to take place-presumably from someone who the Ripper had fore -warned by letter or via the United Service Club or HH himself was treading the path of certain serial killers who like placing themselves at their crime scenes and joining in the investigation .

[Joe Chetcuti]

Hello Natalie,

Before the spring is over, we'll hear more new things about the Colonel.

If we recorded and numbered every answer that was given by people in response to the Whitechapel mysteries, that numbered list would be in the millions. We'd have 120 years' worth of answers from generations of people. It would be one heck of a list.

But out of all the answers, the very first one given, answer #1, is the answer that turns the key in the lock. This Parliament Colonel knew what the score was the moment the first victim fell in George Yard. He had an answer to the mystery even before Londoners knew that a city crisis was on the horizon.

I'm glad you and A.P. have taken notice of Hughes-Hallett. He wasn't an easy beacon to see for well over a century. Fortunately, when archival newspapers became available for public viewing, we began to see his light and read his answer.

Hughes-Hallett had to come to America to speak. He had been disgraced in England, and it's doubtful that his Pall Mall revelation would have been printed in the English newspapers. As I mentioned privately to you once before Nats, there was something about crossing over the border line to Westminster that the English newspapers respected. 48 years after the Whitechapel murders, the entire world seemed to know that Wallis Simpson was King Edward VIII's woman. Everybody knew this except for the English people who were kept in the dark about the matter by their own newspapers. The same rule would have gone into effect for a news story concerning a Parliament member's claim about a Pall Mall origin to the Whitechapel mysteries.

Hughes-Hallett needed to leave England if he ever wanted to have his answer printed in newspaper ink.

[A.P. Wolf]

Joe, I don't want to step on your toes, as I know you be in the throes of compiling some new material on HH, but I'd like to discuss the circumstances of his fall from grace; and just why everyone else in the UK washed their hands of him in 1888, apart from Queen Victoria that is... if that's okay with you?

[Joe Chetcuti]

Feel free to spout off, Old Faithful.

You are correct when you imply that the Colonel had plenty of enemies. I hope you find more information on John Arthur Chandos. He was the Colonel's crooked financial agent who had been accused of working in cahoots with Stead during the HH-PMG war. Chandos even tricked Mrs. Emily Hughes-Hallett into granting him power of attorney over her household's affairs.

Chandos is the first person I'd suspect when wondering how the Archbishop of Canterbury-HH matter got leaked to the PMG.

[A.P. Wolf]

Thanks Joe
it certainly was not wise of HH to be caught in a locked room with his neice, undressed, and in a state of - how shall I call it? - fecundity?
Worse still, HH had been drawing of his neice's fortune - bestowed upon her by HH's ex-wife who died very young and suddenly - to the tune of some £10,000.
Telegraphic exchanges on the incident dribbled electricity.
Only the queen stood by him.
It was not the complicated politics of the time that did for him, just the simple fact that he was capable of seducing his daughter in law to get at her fortune... for the Victorians this was beyond the pale.
So we look at man beyond the pale.

[Joe Chetcuti]

The Sept 22, 1887 Chicago Tribune reported that Miss Selwyn was the Colonel's step-niece. Other reports said she was his step-daughter. It sure was an embarrassing scene for Hughes-Hallett. The PMG naturally led the way in publicly chastising the Colonel because of the scandal. But even before this Aug 1887 bedroom incident occurred, the Colonel had already created a slew of enemies for himself. The British Vanity Fair drew attention to this in 1886.

The Colonel was said to have been quite an orator who used dramatic recitations in Parliament. He sure knew how to anger the Irish with his talk.

[A.P. Wolf]

Yes, Joe, from my understanding the girl was HH's step-daughter, so I think legally he had done no wrong, but the moral high ground of the LVP would not allow for such lewd behaviour from its ruling classes. Even though we know it went on all the time.
I think what got the PMG's goat was that Queen Victoria would not rescind HH's commission in the British army, after being caught with his trews down, so to speak.
I suppose what made the delicious situation even spicer was the fact that HH had been making good use of the young lady's considerable fortune.
All in all HH was something of a rogue, who appeared capable of the sort of stunts that we associate more with dear old Tumblety; and I'm sure your good endeavours in digging out more material on this fascinating and lively character will forward our understanding of the case.
Well done, old boy.

[Natalie Severn]

....I second that AP.All kudos to Joe[meant sincerely Joe]
But seriously,this really and truly was one helluva conman [as well as disgusting old goat].And as I said in another post just now,it takes one to know one.He had probably sniffed Tumblety out at this Gentleman"s club before he even saw him!Sounds more like a "school for scoundrels" than a "Gentleman"s Club"actually ----pah!

[Robert Linford]

It's a pity they never made a film about HH 50 years ago, when Guy Middleton was around.

[Joe Chetcuti]

Washington Post
Oct 17, 1920

Mrs. Hughes-Hallett Reigns and Dances at Dinard

London Oct 16. - When I was a little girl, my mother, who was an American, used to recount for my delight stories of her youthful days in Philadelphia, which was her native city. Particularly did I enjoy her tales concerning a famous beauty of the time, whose name - Emilie von Schaumberg - greatly fired my imagination. It seems that my mother when she was a child went to a school at which Miss von Schaumberg was a "finishing pupil." The romantic stories of the loveliness of this young woman and the adoration that was extended to her by every masculine creature who ever saw her were to me perfectly thrilling.

And now, though many years have rolled by, the lady who was once upon a time Emilie von Schaumberg, but is now Mrs. Hughes-Hallett, still flourishes exceedingly and apparently is still beautiful, in the fashionable French seaside resort of Dinard where she has reigned as a sort of uncrowned queen for the past twenty five years.

She lives in a lovely villa called Mon Plaisir, which she had built according to her own design more than a quarter of a century ago. There is a huge ballroom attached to the villa with a stage at one end where she gives famous theatrical entertainments. In counting up the years recently, I have come to the conclusion that this amazing American woman is considerably more than fourscore years of age, but, marvelous to narrate, she still dances (foxtrots are her specialty) and I heard of her the other day receiving her guests in a dress of rose red charmeuse, wearing a bandeau of diamonds around her dark hair and dancing energetically with various partners.

[A.P. Wolf]

I had lunch in Dinard today, Joe, sea food platter and then king prawns in whisky sauce. A nice Ricard to start, bottle of Cote Rhone during and a spiky Calvados to finish.
Then sit on the beach and watch the ferry go home without you.
Which means you have to eat dinner at an expensive hotel, stay the night at an expensive hotel, and then throw rubber bands at the free internet connection, while quaffing your duty free Tullamore Dew.

[Robert Linford]

How much do they charge for a pot of tea, AP?

[Joe Chetcuti]

I had lunch today in my kitchen, A.P.

A Mama Celeste pizza and a beer. The meal was complimented well with my Hostess Ho Ho dessert.

If you really are in Dinard, you should check out Mon Plaisir. I'm not kidding, I heard that Emilie's gorgeous villa still stands. It was turned into a high class hotel.

[A.P. Wolf]

Robert, you'll be pleased to hear that the tea is free. But have you ever tried what the French call 'tea'?
Joe, my understanding is that the Villa is now the town hall, but jeez after what I just drunk it could be the starship Enterprise.
Eddie, the Prince of Wales was often at the Villa, killing time, or was it something else he was killing?
Oscar as well. Bolt hole from bolt holes.
My only sage advice?
Dinard has an airport, it is about as big as a penny red. On the approach the retired RAF pilots in their trilanders think that they are over Germany dog fighting Messers.
****ing hell! Take the ferry.
Or sit on the beach and miss it.

[Joe Chetcuti]

I found this off the Internet:

"...the beau monde would compete for invitations to the fabulous parties held by the Philadelphian-born Mrs. Hughes-Hallett, known locally as the queen of Dinard, at her sumptuous villa Mon Plaisir (now Dinard's town hall.)"

Sonofagun, I remember reading something a few years ago about Mon Plaisir having been turned into a fancy hotel. Maybe this occurred between the time when Emilie died and the villa becoming Dinard's town hall.

Hey A.P. why don't you stumble on over to Dinard's town hall and check out good old Mon Plaisir before you head back home to Soho. Maybe you'll run into the town hall's historian who can give you a tour of the place. Let them know that despite your outward appearance, you really are a member of the beau monde, heh heh. The French locals are always cheerful to the English, so you'll have a nice time. :) Just tell them you know how to foxtrot better than Emilie and they'll roll out the red carpet for you.

Maybe they have some portraits of Emilie on the wall. Or a painting of one of her great parties at Mon Plasier. Go for it, A.P. You're so close to the place! I hear they're serving up free bottles of Cote Rhone to all Englishmen over there today, too.

Let us know what Emilie's palace looks like!

[A.P. Wolf]

The confusion about the villa comes from the fact that the town hall of Dinard is also known as 'L'hotel de Villa'.
Below hopefully is an image of the building as it is today.

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/Photo%20Thanksgiving/photo-mairie-dinard.jpg

[Robert Linford]

If that's the town hall then there'll be plenty of tea in there.

[Joe Chetcuti]

I found a nice snapshot of Dinard on the Internet. It came with the quote, Evenings at the Casino and dinners at the home of Mrs. Hughes-Hallett drew the Who's Who of Dinard society. For after all, in social terms, Mrs. Hughes-Hallett was the "Queen of Dinard" and Dinard was her kingdom.

[Joe Chetcuti]

Here is a nice quote from France Magazine: Every evening (Mrs. Hughes-Hallett) entertained princes and princesses, lords and ladies, counts and viscounts. Her parties would last all night, and she would sleep all day. No one ever saw her before five in the evening!

[Joe Chetcuti]

During the Autumn of Terror, the Hughes-Halletts lived at 108 Cromwell Road in Kensington. I checked the Internet but I could not find a current photo of 108 Cromwell Road. I did find 110 Cromwell Road though!

http://book.bestwestern.com/props/83871/83871_b1.jpg

It looks like the Colonel and The Belle of Philadelphia lived in a pretty cool part of town. :cool:

[Chris G.]

During the Autumn of Terror, the Hughes-Halletts lived at 108 Cromwell Road in Kensington. I checked the Internet but I could not find a current photo of 108 Cromwell Road. I did find 110 Cromwell Road though!

http://book.bestwestern.com/props/83871/83871_b1.jpg

It looks like the Colonel and The Belle of Philadelphia lived in a pretty cool part of town. :cool:

Is it this one, Joe?

http://www.hotel-london-hotel.co.uk/cheap/Best+Western+The+Cromwell

-- in other words 108 and 110 Cromwell Road seem to be the same address, with the different properties now merged to form the Cromwell Hotel.

Bear in mind of course that street numbers do change over time. Hopefully this is still the same address though.

Chris

[Joe Chetcuti]

Hi Chris,

http://www.milesfaster.co.uk/london-hotels/sw7/best-western-cromwell-hotel.htm

This link calls it 110-112 Cromwell Road. The place looks huge though. We might as well include "108 Cromwell Road" in the hotel's address. :rolleyes: Maybe both of our web links are correct.

I have an idea. When you arrive in London this October for the conference, have Adam Wood treat you & Donna for lunch at The Cromwell. Then just give the waiter a 30% tip and ask him what the exact address of the establishment is.

You're right about how street numbers may change after 120 years. You better make it a 40% tip and ask the waiter if The Cromwell is located at the same location where 108 Cromwell Road had been located in 1888. :happy:

And since Adam is paying, order the Filet Mignon.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

When it comes to Jack the Ripper I distrust coincidences.

In Joe Chetcuti's Rip 87 article "Knocking on Pall Mall's Door" the following information appears—

The United Service Club membership records include the following entries:

[1886] Hughes-Hallett, Francis C., Colonel & Lt.-Col. 2nd Brigade Southern Div. R. Arty. [Royal Artillery] My brackets.

[1889] the same entry appears except it says ‘late of 2nd Brigade Southern Div. R. Artillery’.

And this is from Inspector Abberline's 19th September 1888 report—

" . . . [Edward] Stanley has been found and interrogated and from his statement it has been clearly established that on the night of 30th ult he was on duty with the 2nd Brigade Southern Division Hants Militia at Fort Elson, Gosport and during the night of 7th inst he was in bed at his lodgings from midnight until 7 am 8th an hour after the body was discovered . . ."

The attached is from Hart's Annual Army List, Militia List and Imperial Yeomanry List 1889. The information is corrected to 31st December 1888.

4800

We can conclude that in 1888, the year missing from the United Service Club membership records, F.C. Hughes-Hallett MP, was Lieutenant Colonel with "2nd Brigade Southern Div. R. Arty", based at Gosport and Edward Stanley's commanding officer.

Fancy that for a coincidence.

On a different note, Hughes-Hallett arrived in New York on September 30th [an auspicious date] aboard the [I]SS Servia from Liverpool.

Regards,

Simon

PS. Thanks for your encouragement, Joe

[Joe Chetcuti]

You've helped make this one of the more enjoyable weekends I've had in quite awhile.

It makes one wonder if Edward Stanley and Hughes-Hallett were familiar with each other at Gosport.

I got in touch with Tim Riordan, and he has now confirmed that Hughes-Hallett was on the Servia when it arrived in New York. Tim said the ship's passenger list was dated Oct 1, 1888. The Servia was a very large ocean liner for its day:

http://www.clydesite.co.uk/clydebuilt/ships/1881/SERVIA_179.jpg

The Chicago Daily Tribune reported that Hughes-Hallett arrived in New York in early October 1888. This was a fairly accurate estimate. Simon found out through the NY Times that the Servia arrived on Sept 30th.

We now know for sure that the Tabram, Nichols, and Chapman murders took place when Hughes-Hallett was still in England gathering his Whitechapel information.

When the Colonel landed in New York, he was greeted with the headlines of the double murder. He would publicly speak to the press about the Whitechapel murders on the following Saturday Oct 6th.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

I have only recently taken an interest in Hughes-Hallet [see previous posts on this page]. Apart from his inappropriate affair with his step-daughter Beatrice Eugénie Selwyn, I today discovered this item for sale at £200—

A letter from Henry Smith, MA, JP, to Mrs. Emilie Hughes-Hallett, 11 sides on 3 folded sheets, 8vo, Ellingham Hall, Bungay, 16th August 1887, with envelope bearing a stamp, regarding her husband’s gross misconduct under his roof.

"....I met your husband by appointment at the House of Commons. He appeared to be in great trouble and distress about his relations with yourself. I invited him over to Ellingham and he came on Saturday 6th August. On the following Monday there arrived a young lady .......... I was not in the least aware that there existed between your husband and this young lady any other feelings beyond those of friendship ......... my suspicions were aroused – I went to your husband’s bedroom shortly before midnight and found that he was not there. I then called upon a housekeeper ...... as well as the young lady’s maid and I gave them instructions to enter her room. You know the rest. I gave him half an hour to pack up his things and turned him out of the house." Smith goes on to relate details of things said and written by Colonel Hughes-Hallett about his wife, admitting "I thought him to be an ill-used man and I formed what I now believe to be a most unfair and unjust opinion of yourself."

HH was a bit of a cad and a bounder.

Regards,

Simon

[Joe Chetcuti]

Hi Simon,

There was a time in the past when I too had looked upon the Colonel as a "Bill Clinton" type of a politician. A man of power who screws around. (But when it comes to talking politics or economics, you damn well better pay attention to what the guy is saying.) That type of a man.

That was how I viewed him. But my opinion of him changed once I read his private letters to Beatrice Selwyn.

If you click into the link below and scroll down to the part that says Appeals to Judgment, I think you'll find that the Colonel was really into his romance with Beatrice. This was more than just a bed-hopping experience for Hughes-Hallett.

http://passmoreedwards.org.uk/pages/Misc/west%20briton%204%20may%201893.htm (http://passmoreedwards.org.uk/pages/Misc/west%20briton%204%20may%201893.htm)

Regardless, the Colonel was a married man at the time, and the young woman was his step-daughter for crying out loud. He should have known better.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Joe,

Many thanks for the link.

So the two episodes in my post were one and the same.

If I was feeling charitable I would put his behaviour down to poor judgement, but to bed his stepdaughter under her uncle's roof betokens a colossal arrogance. HH obviously thought he was flameproof. Despite his lovelorn protestations I believe his relationship with Beatrice had more to do with keeping her sweet about the £5000 he had "procured by improper representations" rather than any deep feelings of love. Much the same was said about his marriage to Emilie Von Schaumberg.

Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 21st September 1892—

"It is not worth anyone's trouble to waste sympathy on this couple, because of the notoriety of their marital infelicities. The marriage was evidently a commercial transaction and any litigation arising from it is of no more sentimental importance than litigation because of disagreement between John Doe and Richard Roe, dealers in pork."

Do we know what happened to Beatrice and her child?

Regards,

Simon

[Joe Chetcuti]

Beatrice "...never saw Col Hallett again. She had been kept out of his reach...she was now honourably and happily married, and the mother of children."

That was the last I heard of Beatrice Selwyn. Apparently she got her life back together. The Colonel, on the other hand, had financial trouble throughout the last dozen years of his life.

As for the Colonel's ex-wife, Emily, she lived it up lavishly in Dinard, France. She had received a large inheritance from her mother.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Joe,

Beatrice Eugenie Selwyn married Patrick Coghlan Herbert Herbert [sic], a civil servant [India Office], at St. George's Church, Hanover Square, London, 1889.

Their first son, Alan Patrick [b. 1890], went on to become Sir Alan Patrick [AP] Herbert, barrister, MP and humourist, died 1971. Their second son, Sidney Jasper Herbert, born 1891, died aged 50 [Captain (E) Engineering] when HMS Hood was sunk in 1941.

Beatrice Eugenie Herbert died in the summer of 1898, age 33.

There is no mention anywhere of the child she bore Colonel Hughes-Hallett.

Regards,

Simon

[Joe Chetcuti]

Thank you Simon,

I never knew that. She died quite young.

The 5,000 pounds that were in question was the basis of a tremendous amount of political mudslinging between the Conservatives and the Liberals during the autumn of 1887. It spilled over into the newspapers with William Stead leading the cause to oust Hughes-Hallett from his Parliament seat. Here is what the Colonel had to say in his defense:

Regarding the money part of the question, Miss Selwyn some time ago asked me to try to get her better interest on 5,000 pounds than she was getting. She covenanted by a deed in my possession to lend money for five years. Some weeks ago her solicitors suddenly called the money in. Within twenty-four hours the principal, with interest, was handed my solicitors for transference to her solicitors. - Chicago Tribune Sept 21, 1887.

As you pointed out, the Brooklyn Daily Eagle reminded us of the "marital infelicities" of Mr. and Mrs. Hughes-Hallett. The Colonel's affair with Miss Selwyn was well-broadcasted by the Pall Mall Gazette. There also were plenty of whispers about Mrs. Hughes-Hallett being in an affair with John Arthur Chandos at the time of her marriage to the Colonel. Chandos was the crooked business agent for the Hughes-Halletts. He was financially breaking the Colonel. Chandos had been accused of working in cahoots with William Stead.

(PS. You mentioned the HMS Hood in your last post. My Dad once stood on the deck of that famous ship. He was 5 years old and it was fleet week on the island of Malta. He never forgot that experience. The ship was a paper lion though. It looked beautiful, but it had very thin armour to protect its ammo magazine.)

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

I've been re-reading Hughes-Hallett's story in the 7th October 1888 Atlanta Constitution and do not believe he visited George Yard. In fact I don't believe he visited Whitechapel.

Firstly, because Tabram was not "sliced to suit the murderer's purpose with anatomical accuracy"; nor was she "disemboweled". HH was jazzing up his 7th August "I was there" narrative with events which would not take place until 31st August and 8th September.

Secondly, he said—"So short is the distance from Club Land to the dens of the East End, that I had not been out on my expedition more than three quarters of an hour now, and I was already at the door of the house where the latest disemboweled and murdered woman had been found."

HH was describing Hanbury Street, which he mentioned twice in his narrative. No door to a house figured in the murders of Smith, Tabram or Nichols.

Thirdly, HH describes venturing forth to Whitechapel on a bright moonlit night, then tells of talking to a policeman who "described the appearance of the latest victim, where she was found a few hours before . . ."

Annie Chapman was discovered at 6.00 am. This put HH's encounter with the policeman on Saturday morning in broad daylight.

Regards,

Simon

[Joe Chetcuti]

Colonel Hughes-Hallett, who is staying at the Breevort during his present visit to New York gave a World reporter yesterday a thrilling account of his midnight visit to the scene of the monster's carnival of crime, made just after the commission of the second atrocity... - John Paul Bocock, The Atlanta Constitution Oct 7, 1888.

The article went on to fully define the "second atrocity" as having been the George Yard murder. The Emma Smith murder was looked upon as the first atrocity. Hughes-Hallett plainly stated, "You may remember that the second of the mutilated bodies discovered in Whitechapel was that of Martha Turner..."

There is no doubt whatsoever that John Paul Bocock and Hughes-Hallett were speaking of the Colonel's Aug 8th George Yard investigation. An investigation that was "made just after the commission of the second atrocity."

The Colonel was an amateur actor and he inserted a lot of theatrical verve into his account. He obviously embellished it at times, as well. But you would just be fooling yourself to call it fictitious. I've personally talked with the descendants of the Bocock family. John Paul Bocock was no Sanford Conover.

Hopefully we won't have a reenactment of "the Bismarck vs the Hood" on this thread.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Joe,

I have no doubt that John Paul Bocock believed HH's story.

I am no Bismarck. Anyway, I cannot believe you have thin armour protecting your ammo magazine.

Regards,

Simon

[Joe Chetcuti]

Hughes-Hallett addressing the House of Commons:


"...even Home Rulers must concede this - that the National League coerced - (Home Rule cries of "No!") - ...but it was none the less the fact...the principles of the National League, it must be conceded, were principles of coercion. (No, no!") When, for example, (an Irish) tenant was not allowed to pay the judicial rent fixed by the Land Act of 1881, on pain of being Boycotted or outraged...was that not coercion of the worst kind?...which form of coercion should be in force - the coercion of the National League and its forms of intimidation and outrage, or the coercion necessary to enforce order and obedience to the law of the land?



Here is an excerpt from Francis Tumblety's 1889 autobiography. It was a book that was written for the purpose of refuting the Whitechapel accusations that were made against him:


At a dinner given in Boston, to Dr. Tumblety, by some of the leading Irish-American citizens of the Hub, he delivered this address in answer to the toast of the "Irish soldiers in America."

The privilege in being permitted to show our appreciation of an officer who for years has faithfully discharged his duty is indeed a pleasure. He has greatly assisted an organization that has stood at the main portal to this grand republic, and extended a thousand welcomes to many hundred thousand Irish men and women, victims of rack-renting (Irish) landlords and of coercion. (Applause.)



Hughes-Hallett addressing the House of Commons:


...the land agitation in Ireland had sprung from a sort of hatred not against (Irish) landlords, but was due really to a hatred of England, and thus the Irish landlords were attacked for the reason that they were at one and the same time the existing owners of the soil and the supporters of the Union. Under the cloak of that hatred an attack was made upon the (Irish) landlords because they were friends of England..."

[Joe Chetcuti]

Hughes-Hallett once again addressing the House of Commons:


...(the) ultimate object (of the Irish Party is) the separation of Ireland from this country. [Cries of "No, no!"] It was of no use for honorable Members opposite to deny that, unless they were also prepared to repudiate the speeches delivered by their Leader (Mr. Parnell) and his able lieutenant, (Mr. Healy), not only in England and Ireland, but also in America—at Cincinnati, Chicago, and Castlebar. Those speeches made it impossible for the Parnellite Members to conceal what was their real objective in Ireland. With respect to the grievances of Ireland it seems to me that the only hope of arriving at a satisfactory solution of (these grievances) is by firmly suppressing the power of (Irish) associations and secret societies, whose object was to set class against class; the questions between landlord and tenant (can be settled) through the intervention of an authority that knows how to respect the general principles of justice, and not of an authority self-elected, or elected by Irish farmers or labourers, whose main desire was to wage war against and to dispossess the Irish landlord.

[Joe Chetcuti]

TRAVESTY DELIGHTS PARIS.

Daring Play Aimed at Fashionable Entertainment Planner.

Special Cable to THE NEW YORK TIMES.

PARIS, Jan 29. - Americans in Paris who in the Summer have been the guests at Dinard of Mrs. Hughes-Hallett, formerly of Philadelphia, the widow of the man who engaged in a famous duel, will be greatly amused by a travesty of Andre de Fouquieres in "Le Rubicon," an extremely risquee piece now running at the luxurious little Theatre Michel.

De Fouquieres has been in the habit of arranging all of Mrs. Hallett's entertainments for her, and this Winter he has also been lecturing at the Gymnase on the theatrical talent that is to be found in high society. Among other Americans recently seen at these lectures, which are mostly laughed at because of the affectations of the speaker, were Mr. and Mrs. Wilmer Biddle of Philadelphia.

At Dinard Mrs. Hallett, who a generation ago was known as the beautiful Miss Emily Schaumberg of Philadelphia, rules the transient colony much as Mrs. Astor formerly did at Newport.

[How Brown]

Joltin'Joe:

I don't know if you remember the moderately infamous case of the Mayflower Madam, that woman who was involved with prostitution and who has roots in Philly...named Biddle. Well, those are her Biddle's in your post. She's a disgrace...her people weren't.

[Joe Chetcuti]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Everybody+knows+that+Mrs.+Hughes-Hallett%2C+nee+Von+Schomberg%2C&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Everybody+knows+that+Mrs.+Hughes-Hallett%2C+nee+Von+Schomberg%2C&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi)=

The first item to appear should be a 19th century drama review. On page 119 of that review you'll read that the Colonel's poetry had been recited while his wife sang in front of an audience.

[Joe Chetcuti]

I received an e-mail today from The Revd Gareth Randall of St. Bartholomew's Church in Dinard, France. He had this to say:

There is a history book entitled "Anglicans in Brittany" that was written by my predecessor, The Revd Alan Charters. I quote this from page 91, 'Amongst the leading ladies of the day, Mrs. Hughes-Hallett, popularly known as the Queen of Dinard, who was well known for her lavish entertainment and hospitality. She left a substantial legacy to the church on her death in 1922.'

So the Belle of Philadelphia passed away in 1922. I wonder if she left behind any memoirs?

[Joe Chetcuti]

Here are a few tidbits from a New Zealand newspaper called Star.


January 14, 1889

COLONEL HUGHES-HALLETT

Colonel Hughes-Hallett is suffering from a stroke of paralysis.

(He would vacate his seat in Parliament a few months later for health reasons.)



September 1, 1891

"...Mr. Stead has been openly accused of accepting money bribe for ceasing to persecute Hughes-Hallett. Everyone will remember how suddenly the P.M.G. ceased the Hughes-Hallett campaign, but that, one understood, was because the gallant officer was ill. It is now stated that Mr. Stead was induced to drop the subject by friends of the Colonel, who undertook to help "The Modern Christus" in financing the big morning paper, which (Stead) was then trying to promote. No one would pay any attention to this charge, but for a single awkward fact. It is backed up by fac simile letters from Stead himself, which certainly read oddly."

[Joe Chetcuti]

Clutha Leader
November 18, 1887

Mrs. Hughes-Hallett has addressed an appeal to the Conservative Committee of Rochester asking them not to call upon her husband to resign his seat in Parliament.



Marlborough Express
February 13, 1888

The Rev. Mr. Hughes, preaching in one of the city churches, denounced Colonel Hughes-Hallett, and expressed surprise that he had not been expelled from the House of Commons and from the army. The Clubs should also refuse him admittance. The rev gentleman expressed the opinion that the gross immorality of the nature of which Colonel Hughes-Hallett had been guilty, should disqualify any member found guilty of the charge from taking his seat in the House of Commons.



Hawke's Bay Herald
November 1, 1888

New York Oct 28.

Colonel Hughes-Hallett, who is now on a visit in the United States, was interviewed by a representative in this city. He declared that the reason the Queen had never manifested her displeasure at his conduct by depriving him of his military rank, or in other ways putting him under the ban of society, was because she was fully aware of the real facts of the case, which went to prove that he was not so guilty as reports averred.

[Joe Chetcuti]

I just came across this New Zealand newspaper article a few minutes ago:



Te Aroha News
August 11, 1888

London, August 6.

In the House of Commons an attempt was made to revive the Hughes-Hallett scandal, on a motion for the expulsion of the member for Rochester from the House, but the Chairman of Committees declined to allow the notion to be tabled.


So it was reported on Monday August 6, 1888 that a motion to oust the Colonel from Parliament had failed. Before the sun would rise the next day, Tabram would be murdered. Then the Colonel conducted his East End hunt for Tabram's killer just hours after that. And then the Colonel voted in favor of the Special Commission Bill in the House of Commons on Wednesday afternoon August 8th.

[How Brown]

Good find Joe. Sure is a short period of time between events.

What does it represent to you and is this news to you as well as us ?

[Joe Chetcuti]

Howard,

To answer your question, I'd say that I wasn't surprised that we'd eventually find something confirming that a political pressure tactic was used against Hughes-Hallett during the first week of August 1888. It makes sense to me that the Irish Party and the Radicals would have tried to pull something on the Colonel around the time of the Special Commission vote in the House of Commons.

But there were two things I didn't expect. I'd have never thought that I'd find a key Parliament news item in an obscure newspaper in New Zealand!! And I didn't think the "Beatrice Selwyn" scandal would get resurrected in Aug 1888. I figured that old matter was a dead issue by the summer of 1888. But here they were trying to expel the Tory Colonel from Parliament by reviving a scandal that had long since been diffused.

Irish blood was boiling during the first week of August 1888. The Irish leader, Parnell, was about to endure a lengthy ordeal because of a false accusation. Hughes-Hallett was a logical target for the Home Rulers to strike back at. The Colonel was hated by the Irish. He was referred to as the "saviour" of Salisbury's Government because of his strong support of the Coercion Bills against Ireland. The Colonel was an obvious choice for the Irish Party to strike back at in retaliation against the harassment directed at Parnell. Hughes-Hallett was a very unpopular figure with the English public and the clergy.

But the attempt to expel the Colonel from Parliament in early August 1888 fell way short. Robert Linford just told me that he found another story where a motion to expel Hughes-Hallett was presented. It occurred shortly after the August 6th report was printed. Maybe Robert will post that information up if we offer him a plate of apple strudel.

Howard, as for your question about what all this represents to me, I'll reply to that tomorrow night.

[Robert Linford]

Joe, it wasn't a motion but an article in Reynold's Newspaper calling for a motion.

Aug 12th 1888

[Joe Chetcuti]

Thank you for posting that, Robert. I knew the bribe of apple strudel would be too tempting for you. ;)

My guess is that after the Radicals failed in the House of Commons on Aug 6th, they got a religious group to help them 'save face' a week later by passing this odd vote of censure.

Howard, what all this information represents to me is that the George Yard murder, unlike the other Whitechapel murders, was surrounded by political overtones. Even more so than I suspected.

* Monday Aug 6th, the attempt to expel Hughes-Hallett from Parliament failed.

* Tuesday Aug 7th, Martha Tabram was murdered in George Yard.

* Wednesday Aug 8th, Hughes-Hallett hunted for Tabram's killer in Whitechapel, and then he went to the House of Commons to vote for the Special Commission Bill.

* During the next two days, Aug 9th and 10th, the CID swarmed the House of Commons and harassed the Irish members of Parliament. James Tuohy reported of this CID incident on Sept 1, 1888. Tuohy presented his report in conjunction with his report on the Buck's Row murder.

All of these things are tough to ignore.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Joe,

"During the next two days, Aug 9th and 10th [1888], the CID swarmed the House of Commons and harassed the Irish members of Parliament." [my brackets]

Are you certain about this?

Regards,

Simon

[Joe Chetcuti]

Mr. Monro and his detectives, instead of confining their attentions to the men who come to London to blow up bridges, made a set upon all Irish Nationalists. They followed and dogged men who have as hearty abhorrence of crime as themselves. They swarmed about the House of Commons for the past two sessions, subjecting Irish members to the most offensive form of espionage, and creating such a scandal that English members like Mr. Bradlaugh and Sir Wilfrid Lawson avowed with shame from their places in the house that no such humiliating spectacle could be seen in any capital in Europe. This being the sort of work done by the Criminal Investigation Department, nobody will regret that Sir Charles Warren has given it a knock on the head. - James Tuohy Sept 1, 1888.


Simon, you mentioned a few days ago that Parliament was in recess from Monday Aug 13 - Nov 6, 1888. So the "past two sessions" should have been Thursday Aug 9th and Friday Aug 10th. (Assuming that Parliament did not meet on weekends.)

Feel free to share another interpretation of this if you like.

[How Brown]

This one in particular is unusual, isn't it Joe ( all...) :

* Wednesday Aug 8th, Hughes-Hallett hunted for Tabram's killer in Whitechapel, and then he went to the House of Commons to vote for the Special Commission Bill .

Not to attempt to link or un-link the two colored parts of the above sentence....but does anyone else find Hallett's attempt to insinuate himself into the search for Tabram's killer unusual ?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Joe,

I checked Hansard and The Times for August 9th and 10th 1888 and came up with nothing. Then I realised Tuohy was writing about "sessions".

Parliamentary "sessions" are the periods during which the house actually sits in given years, so working backwards from September 1st the incidents he describes as happening "for the past two sessions" took place at some time during the periods February to August 1888 and January to September 1887.

I hope your team wins.

Regards,

Simon

[Joe Chetcuti]

A few definitions of the word Session:

1. A period of time during which a group of persons meet to pursue a particular activity. (A few of the kids got together for a study session.)

2. The sitting together of a court, council, legislature, or the like, for conference or transaction of business: (This council is now in session.)

Although those definitions of the word session reflect a time period of less than one day, Parliament's usage of the word session is different. As Simon mentioned, it can extend to a longer period of time.

http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/occasions/calendar.cfm (http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/occasions/calendar.cfm)

Although it now appears that the CID harassment of the Irish members in the House of Commons could have happened at an earlier date than Aug 9th, it is noticeable that James Tuohy decided to include this CID incident with his Sept 1st report of the Buck's Row murder. Thanks for your input Simon. It's a tricky business when American definitions are applied to English writing.


Yes Howard, it was striking that a man of Hughes-Hallett's stature would voluntarily take such an immediate personal interest in the death of an East End prostitute. What sparked his involvement was the dark suspicions he harbored against a fellow Pall Mall clubman of his.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Joe,

This could be the basis of Tuohy's CID in the House of Commons story.

Sir Wilfred Lawson, Adjournment Debate, 11th August 1888—

" . . . Outside the House detectives had being lying in wait ready to pounce upon and arrest the Representatives of the Irish people. Many of the Members of that House had seen the hon. Member for West Cork arrested just beyond the precincts, and hurried off to the police station by the myrmidons of the law on a cold winter's night. It was a most distressing scene, and one which he should never forget . . ."

And this—

PRIVILEGE—ARREST OF MR. O'KELLY, M.P.
House of Commons Debate, 27th July 1888—

MR. J. E. ELLIS (Nottingham, Rushcliffe) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Who is responsible for the placing this week of a number of detectives within the precincts of the Houses of Parliament; and, whether it is correct, as announced in The Times of July 26, that the authorities of Scotland Yard have decided it is most expedient the arrest should be made "after dark?"

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.) I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that no extra detectives have been placed within the precincts of the Houses of Parliament during this week. No such decision has been arrived at as suggested in the second paragraph of the Question.

MR. J. E. ELLIS asked, was the House to understand that no extra detectives had been employed, or that they had been withdrawn?

MR. MATTHEWS said, that there had been detectives for a considerable period employed in the neighbourhood of the House of Commons. That had been part of the regular arrangement.

Hope it helps.

Regards,

Simon

[Joe Chetcuti]

Fabulous find, Simon. It looks like you may have gotten to the heart of it all.

If we can take a look at the July 26, 1888 London Times, we should be able to find out why Scotland Yard detectives were inside the Houses of Parliament and harassing Irish members.

Then 11 days later on Aug 6, 1888 the political assault on Hughes-Hallett was resurrected. (See post 79.)

All of this stuff reads like a book.

Check out the bottom of this 1887 article on Hughes-Hallett. He was looked upon as the saviour of Salisbury's Government because he personally prevented the Coercion Bill against Ireland from going down to defeat.

http://newspapers.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/3114187?searchTerm=Hughes-Hallett (http://newspapers.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/3114187?searchTerm=Hughes-Hallett)

[Robert Linford]

Hi all

Joe and I were wondering if anyone out there can help us access this :

http://books.google.com/books?id=QhEZTwEACAAJ&dq=hughes-hallett&hl=en&ei=pRT4TMimBoaKhQensNhr&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAQ

[How Brown]

Robert Chazz:

I tried ( The "book" has 4 pages, according to the link)...but to no avail.

Here's a photo of HH while others give it a try

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/October%202010/hh-1.jpg