Box Turtle Bulletin

Today In History, 1854: The Surprising Twists and Turns of a Cross-Dressing Case In London

This odd case began as yet another police round-up of cross-dressing men at a drag ball off of Farringdon Street just a little to the northwest of St. Paul’s Cathedral. Before this story was over, the drag ball would become a masquerade ball, but as you will see, at least one masquerade continued for several days after the ball had been put to an end. We’ll get to that in a moment, but first, let’s start at the beginning: The Times of London reported the following small item on July 27 1854:

GUILDHALL – John Challis, an old man about 60 years of age, dressed in the pastoral garb of a shepherdess of the golden age, and George Campbell, aged 35, who described himself as a lawyer, and appeared completely equipped in female attire of the present day, were placed at the bar before Sir R.W.CARDEN charged with being found disguised as women in the Druids’-hall, in Turnagain-lane, an unlicensed dancing-room, for the purpose of exciting others to commit an unnatural offence.

Inspector Teague said, — From information I received relative to the frequent congregation of certain persons for immoral practices at the Druids’-hall, I proceeded thither in company with Sergeant Goodeve about 2 o’clock this morning. I saw a great many persons dancing there, and among the number were the prisoners, who rendered themselves very conspicuous by their disgusting and filthy conduct. I suspected that the prisoners and several others who were present in female attire were of the male sex, and I left the room for the purpose of obtaining further assistance, so as to secure the whole of the parties, but when we got outside Campbell came out after us, and, taking us by the arms, was about to speak, when I exclaimed, “That is a man,” upon which he turned round and ran back immediately to the Druids’-hall. I returned and took Campbell into custody and observing Challis, whom I have frequently seen there before, behaving with two men as if he were a common prostitute, I took charge of him also.

When Campbell was brought before the three magistrates empaneled for Guoldhall, a baker came forward to accuse Campbell of pickpocketing:

Isaac Somers said, — I am a journeyman baker, and have used the White Hart, in Giltspur-Street, for the last 20 years. About seven weeks ago I met a woman dressed in muslin, and wearing a white veil. She took me to the Druids’-hall, and I had a glass of brandy-and-water and a cigar, for which I paid 1s. I changed a sovereign, and while in the company of that woman I felt her arms close round my waist, and shortly afterwards I missed the 19s. I had received in change. I believe that person, whom I took for a woman, was the prisoner Campbell, in women’s clothing.

Campbell denied the charge, but the lead magistrate ordered him held for further investigation. Challis was offered bail in two sureties of 25 shillings each and his own recognizance at 50 shillings.

Campbell and Challis were called before the magistrates five days later for further examination. With Campbell being charged with the more serious crime of theft, the proceedings that day focused mainly on him. This is where the first surprise comes in: it turns out that Campbell was no ordinary pervert, but was a trained lawyer from Scotland. And his performance in court impressed the lead magistrate who, it appears, had taken a rather dim view of the police officers’ performance in the case. According to The Times:

The prisoner Campbell cross-examined the inspector and sergeant with great adroitness with the view to shake their evidence, and succeeded in showing a discrepancy in their statements with regard to certain portions of the disguise he had on at a particular hour in the evening, and which he urged was an important point established in his favour, as he should prove that the inspector was mistaken in his identity.

Sir R.W. CARDEN.– After all, Campbell, it is entirely a question of character, and if you can show me that you are a respectable person, it will have more weight in my mind than anything you can elicit from the officers.

Campbell.– I wish to ask the inspector another question. Was I dancing when you entered the hall?

Inspector Teague.– You were not; but I afterwards saw you dancing with a man.

Campbell.– How do you know it was a man?

Inspector Teague.– Because he had a beard and whiskers.

Sir R.W. CARDEN.– That is no criterion, for Campbell has ringlets, and yet he is not a woman. (Laughter.)

Campbell.– I had but one dance all evening, and that was with an elderly lady who knew what I was.

Sir R.W.Carden.– I should think it must have been an elderly lady, for no young man would have danced with you (Laughter) … It seems to me very extraordinary, if these immoral practices have been going on for some time as the inspector and sergeant intimated, that they should not have taken greater precautions to apprehend the parties before, or, at all events, to have come prepared with a clearer case. It does appear exceedingly improbable, if Campbell is what he has represented himself, and a clever fellow, that he should have been guilty of the conduct imputed to him in an assembly of 100 persons, and while aware that two policemen in uniform were present watching him. If the police suspected immoral practices were going on there, it was not the way to detect them by going in in full uniform.

The baker, Somers, was then called to the stand. This time, he couldn’t swear that Campbell was actually the one who robbed him. Based on this testimony, the charge of robbery was dismissed, and the rest of the proceedings were dedicated to exactly what on earth was going on at Druids’ Hall.

Unlike a number of other raids that took place in pubs and other public places, Druids’ Hall was a meeting house for the Ancient Order of Druids, a fraternal order in London much like the Oddfellows or the Elks in the U.S. The AOD supplemented their offers by renting out their hall for any number of occasions. There is on archive.org, for example, a report of an early Mormon meeting that took place at Druids’ Hall four years earlier. Undoubtedly, the Ancient Order must have found this kind of publicity deeply embarrassing. A representative from the Order also testified:

John Bestow said, he had the care of Druid’s-hall, (sic) for the Ancient Order of Druids, and he occasionally let it for meetings, lectures, and dancing. On the evening in question there was a bal masqué, and admission was given by tickets issued by Harris, who took the room.

Sir R.W. CARDEN.– Is not money taken at the doors?

Bestow.– I never saw any. I believe Harris gives the balls, and always loses by them.

Sir R.W. Carden.– There was music there on the night of the ball in question?

Bestow.– Yes, Sir. There were four musicians.

Skir R.W.Carden.– And the place is not licensed!

Bestow.– Certainly not, Sir.

Madeleine Vincent said, she attended to the refreshment department in the ballroom, and saw the prisoners there, but saw nothing disguting in their conduct, and never told the police that she had. She had said their conduct was disgraceful because they made such a noise, but that was the only impropriety she saw or complained of.

So now it’s a bal masqué, which, I suppose could be something different from a tawdry drag ball. But not necessarily. Another witness testified that he had seen “disgusting conduct” at these balls and had been complaining about it for the past eighteen months:

Joseph Brundell said, he was formerly in the city police and for 18 months he was on duty near Druids’-Hall. Harris had got up several of these balls and the prisoners frequently attended them dressed in female attire. Witness on such occasions had noticed disgusting conduct on the part of other men towards the prisoners while in their company.

Sir R.W.CARDEN.– Do you mean to say that you saw these things going on for 18 months and reported them to your sergeant.

Brundell.– I did, Sir, and he told me not to interfere unless I saw such conduct take place in the public street.

Sir R.W.CARDEN.– You are bringing a very serious charge against the sergeant, and one that ought to be investigated by the commissioner, for it is monstrous that a house of this character should be allowed to exist in the city of London for two years and no steps taken to suppress it.

Inspector Teague.– It is very difficult to catch them in the act, as they have men placed at every outlet to keep a lookout.

Sir R.W.CARDEN.– And so they have at the west-end gambling houses; but the police there always interfere.

Inspector Teague.– But the police go in with a force, and it is not safe to do so without proof.

Sir R.W.CARDEN.– And surely you can have force where it is required. If you always waited for direct proof, there would be very little chance of detecting or preventing crime.

After dismissing the robbery charge, Carden released Campbell on bail pending the disposition of the misdemeanor charge of cross-dressing. Campbell and Challis were called before magistrates again the next day, but only Campbell showed up. Challis had apparently skipped bail. If the previous day’s events were surprising, this day’s proceedings started with a bombshell: Campbell wasn’t the Scottish lawyer he claimed to be, but the Rev. Edward Holmes, a member of the Scottish Independent Church. Campbell maintained that he was a lawyer, but conceded this true identity as the Rev. Holmes, saying the only reason he had dressed as a woman and attended the ball was “to see vice in all its enormity” so he could “correct it from the pulpit.” For the past twelve to eighteen months! Surprisingly, the magistrates bought it:

Campbell.– It is a quite a mistake. I certainly did wish to see a little of London life without mixing with its abominations.

Sir R.W.CARDEN.– And you thought that dressing yourself in women’s attire was the best way of avoiding those abominations? I must say it was a very imprudent course.

Campbell.– I dare say it was, and I am extremely sorry for my folly…

Sir R.W.CARDEN– I certainly hope you now see the folly of indulging in such extraordinary freaks, as you term them, and that you deeply feel how degrading it is to a man of education — wehther you belong to the church or the law it matters not — to be placed in such a position. …However, under the circumstances, I am willing to believe it was nothing more than an act of the grossest folly, and that you now sincerely repent your imprudent conduct.

Alderman CARTER.– As the sitting magistrate, I can only express my utter disgust at the prisoner’s conduct in so attiring himself as a woman, and, had it not been for Sir F.W. Carden’s concluding remarks, I should have felt inclined to commit you to prison as a rogue and a vagabond. You may go now, and I hope I may never see your face here again.

…Campbell, alias Holmes, was then discharged.

[Sources: The Times (London, July 27, 1854): 12; The Times (London, August 1, 1854): 12; The Times (London, August 2, 1854): 12.]