‘Violence only creates victims, that’s all it ever has done’: the aftermath of the ‘Clerkenwell outrage’ of 1867

gunpowederbig

At about a quarter to four in the afternoon of Friday 13 December 1867 a bomb went off in London. A barrel of gunpowder, hidden under tarpaulin, positioned next to the wall of Clerkenwell house of detention , exploded blowing a large hole in the prison wall. The bomb also destroyed a row of houses opposite killing a dozen of more occupants, sending at least one mad, and precipitating the premature births of up to 40 babies, half of whom subsequently died. In all at least a further 120 people were injured by the blast, and 15 were disabled for life.1

The incident, which was known by contemporaries as the ‘Clerkenwell Outrage’ is often considered the first serious act in the Irish Republican war against the British state. The bombers’ intention was to affect a prison break – rescuing comrades that had been captured in London earlier that year. In that respect they failed and six people were eventually put on trial for the ‘outrage’, charged with murder. On 26 May 1868 Michael Barrett was executed, the last man to be publically hanged in England, even though there was considerable doubt as to his guilt.

The problem the authorities had was in finding reliable witnesses who would testify. They had someone who turned Queen’s evidence (in other words agreed to inform on his colleagues in return for his own life) but doubts were raised as to the reliability of testimony secured in that way. The wife of Charles Page had given evidence in court in April 1868 and what happened in the days following the trial give us a sense of the difficulties the police and prosecution had in convicting those responsible for the bombing.

Charles Page was locking up his pawnbroker’s shop at 1 Pulteney Court on a Saturday night. He was chatting to his neighbour Mrs Cook when a voice cried out: ‘Let him have it!” A man rushed up to him and punched him in the eye, without any provocation. The police arrived and arrested the man, who appeared before the Marlborough Street Police court magistrate on the following Monday morning.

Here the defendant, who gave his name as James Cosgrove, offered an alternative explanation for his actions that night. He said he had seen Page abusing the woman and had intervened to defend her. Cosgrove was able to produce several witnesses that supported his version of events but Mrs Cook took the stand to swear she was the only woman present and confirm Page’s account.

PS Page of C Division said he ‘had no doubt whatsoever that the assault arose out of the Clerkenwell outrage’. He added that:

ever since the complainant’s wife had given evidence both husband and wife had been subject to such annoyance by persons in the neighbourhood that it had been found necessary to place an extra constable in the court for their protection’.

Cosgrove, he insisted, was ‘connected with the class of persons who committed the outrage’, meaning presumably, that Cosgrove was an Irishman or part of London’s large ethnic Irish community.

Mr Mansfield had heard all he needed to convict Cosgrove of violent assault. In normal circumstances I suspect he would have handed down a small fine of perhaps a few shillings with a week or two in goal for non-payment.  But these were not ‘normal circumstances’, London was still feeling the effects of the tragedy that left so many dead. The Queen had issued a letter of condolence and £10,000 had been raised to help the victims rebuild their homes.

This was a big moment in London’s history, its first real brush with terrorism. So Cosgrove was fined the huge sum of £4 18plus costs and warned he’d go to prison for two months if he didn’t pay. A woman who had made a scene in the court and had shouted abuse at Mrs Cook (no doubt calling her a liar) was bound over to keep the peace as well.

I pick these stories fairly randomly: the only link I have to today is the date. So it is a coincidence, but a sad one, that I find myself writing about Republican terrorism (or freedom fighting if you prefer) on the morning that news of Lyra McKee’s murder in Derry last night is reported.  The 29 year-old journalist was shot and later died of her wounds while she was covering an outbreak of rioting in the Creggan area of Londonderry. The ‘troubles’ were supposedly ended by the Good Friday Agreement but tensions in Northern Ireland are never far from the surface.  One local politician, the SDLP’s Mark Durkan tweeted:

Violence only creates victims, that’s all it ever has done. The thoughts and prayers of our city are with the young woman’s family and friends, may she rest in peace.’

That sentiment could equally well apply to those killed or injured by the Clerkenwell bomb, and indeed to Michael Barrett who most likely was hanged in error for it. Now, more than ever it seems, we need our politicians to dampen down on the rhetoric of division, and stop playing politics with people’s lives and economic futures.

[from Lloyd’s Weekly Newspaper, Sunday, April 19, 1868]

1. K.R.M. Short, The Dynamite War: Irish-American Bombers in Victorian Britain, (Gill & Macmillan, 1979), pp.8-10

Drew Gray is the joint author of Jack and the Thames Torso Murders, published by Amberley Books in June 2019. Details available here

Sibling rivalry or simply a case of looking after number one?

In early February 1866 a ‘decent looking young man’ was presented at Mansion House Police Court on a charge of robbery.

Joseph Searle was accused of ‘being concerned in an extensive robbery’ of Mr Scott’s mantle* factory in Bishopsgate Street, in the City of London. There was no doubt, according to the evidence, that the business had been robbed, and quite of lot of items stolen by several persons, not all of them in custody.

What puzzled or concerned the Lord Mayor (who presided over the Mansion House courtroom) was that the evidence against Searle in particular had been provided by his younger brother Frederick.

Indeed this lad was employed by Scott’s and was also (by his own admission) involve din the crime himself, for it was he who had handed over the stolen property to his elder sibling.

The Lord mayor asked the prosecuting solicitor for some clarification:

Was he, he asked, to understand that ‘it was to be attempted to convict the prisoner upon the evidence of the actual thief, who was in the position of getting out of the scrape himself by convicting his own brother of the crime?’

The lawyer said that was exactly the situation although he added that others were undoubted involved in the robbery and he believed that the younger brother was keen to ‘make a clean breast of it’.

The Lord Mayor said that while he was prepared to accept the evidence he was bound to add that it was ‘an unusual course to to call a person who had actually committed a robbery to convict his own brother’.

Unusual and ‘very painful’ he concluded.

Mr Scott then appeared to testify that he had released Frederick Searle from his service some weeks ago and had lost around £40-50 worth of stock in the robbery. He suspected Searle and so he found and questioned him until he admitted his involvement, and named others. He then ‘dobbed in’ his elder brother who was quickly apprehended.

Under the circumstances the Lord Mayor had little choice but to remand both brothers in custody, despite his reservations. The case doesn’t appear to have reached the Old Bailey so perhaps the prosecution found it hard to present a case which relied (as the magistrate feared) on a brother’s word against his sibling. It may have been downgraded from robbery to embezzlement and heard at the sessions. Whatever the case, both Fred and Joe Searle disappear from the records at this point.

[from The Morning Post, Saturday, February 10, 1866]

*a mantle, for those unaware, was ‘a mesh cover fixed round a gas jet to give an incandescent light when heated’.