Argyll Rooms Libel

The Argyll Rooms was a notorious night-club in mid-Victorian London, closed in 1878 by magistrates increasingly concerned about West End prostitution (though, as a group, bitterly divided on how to tackle the subject). A letter from a prison chaplain, given in evidence, alleging the Argyll Rooms were a favourite resort not only of prostitutes but burglars, did not help their cause. This letter led to a libel trial, the transcript below:

BIGNELL V HORSLEY

This was an action by the proprietor of the Argyll Rooms, against the chaplain of the House of Correction for Middlesex, for alleged libel contained in a letter written by him on the 8th October last to the chairman of the Licensing Committee of the Magistrates, which was in these terms:

"When I wrote to you last year on the subject of the licence granted to the Argyll rooms, you were good enough to express a wish that you had received my letter earlier, in order that you might have brought before the Court the facts and arguments therein adduced. I therefore venture this year to write again to you on the subject. It not unfrequently happens that in the course of my prison work the name of the Argyll is casually mentioned, and without any leading questions I have gathered much information about its effect upon certain classes of society. I could not, for example, talk long with a burglar of the higher rank without finding the ''Gyll' mentioned as his familiar resort, not merely when enriched by some recent exploit, but also as a place wherein opportunities might be found and information gathered which might lead to fresh crime. Thus one man, an experienced and successful burglar, first directed my inquiries into this channel by mentioning casually the name of the Argyll. I naturally pointed out the non-necessity of impurity being added to dishonesty; but he affirmed that the chief reason of his going there was to meet gentlemen's servants and be put up by them to good burglaries. Another - now doing 20 months - told me that he had seen lots of burglars there, and knew that they used the place to get at footmen and butlers for dishonest purposes. Almost simultaneously I knew well two footmen who were in for separate plate robberies; both used the rooms, and saw many of their class there, and one said that he met there many whom he knew to be burglars. I was more careful in these and all cases not in any way to lead them to suspect that I had any special reason for dwelling on this point. By a fortunate coincidence there came to me while I was writing the letter a fallen girl of much intelligence and fair education, whom I have known well for two years. Without a word to indicate the reason of my query, I asked her what she considered the most destructive place in London to female virtue; she said at once the Argyll, and in response to further questions she told me she considered more ruins could be traced to that place than to any other; that its pseudo-respectability made it all the more insidious; that she had heard innocent girls told that it must be all right because it was licensed; that she had known swell mobsmen to frequent the place, and many gentlemen's servants; that she had known it for eight years, and that iwas worse now than at the beginning of that time - a fact she attributed a great deal to the migration of the habitués of the Holborn when that was closed. . . . They [the better class of working men] have a special and mournful right to be heard, insasmuch as a very large, if not the largest proportion of fallen girls comes from their ranks, and the glitter of the place casts a gloom upon more homes in their class than in any other. I refrain from urging other points, and have purposefully confined myself to those of which I claim to have some special knowledge. Earnestly hoping that you and those to whom you speak may be strengthened to remove from their brothers and sisters a temptation which has ruined thousands, from themselves any shadow of complicity in a gigantic wrong, and from the State the reproach of giving a licence to licentiousness and a protection to destruction, I am, yours faithfully,  J.W.Horsley, Chaplain."

The plaintiff sued for this as a libel, stating that he was at the time, and had been for many years, proprietor of the Argyll Rooms, and that he, in order the better to fit out the rooms for the purposes of  a place of public entertainment, had expended £100,000 in decorations, &c.; that by the letter complained of he had been injured in his credit and reputation as proprietor of the place and in his business as proprietor; and that, in consequence of the libel, the magistrates, on the 11th of October, refused as heretofore, to license the place for the purposes of music and dancing, and that the plaintiff thereby lost the licence and the benefit thereof  and profits he made thereby, and he claimed as damages £10,000/ The defendant in his statement of defence, stated that the letter was written by him as chaplain of the House of Correction to the chairman of the Visiting Committee of Justices, as such chairman, and at his request as chairman, and was written and sent in the pursuance and discharge of his duty as chaplain, and at the request of his official superior; that the circumstances stated in the letter came to his knowledge as chaplain, and that they were privileged as being written in discharge of his duty, bona fide, without malice, and upon a matter in respect of which he and the chairman had a duty, interest and obligation; and further, that the Argyll Rooms, being a place of public entertainment, duly licensed by the magistrates, the defendant, as one of the public, was interested in its conduct and control, and wrote to the chairman upon it as a public matter, the Chairman having control over it as a magistrate, and that he wrote the letter in the interest of the public, and without malice; all which the plaintiff denied.
    ... Mr Serjeant PARRY in opening the case for the plaintiff stated his position with reference to the rooms, and read the letter at length, pointing out that it was necessarily calculated to do his client very serious injury, and was likely to cause, as in fact it did cause, his licence for a place of entertainment to be withdrawn. The refusal of that licence was a matter of a very serious nature, and was calculated in fact to destroy the place as a place of public entertainment. He was in a position to prove that the place had been most respectably conducted, and there was no reason to suppose that there was any truth in the statements contained in the letter. If the defendant had received from any prisoners or convicts statements to such effect as he represented he had been imposed upon, and he ought to have known that the statements of such persons were not likely to be reliable. He ought not, therefore, to have made such statements in his letter, the result of which had been to cause so serious an injury to the plaintiff.
    The plaintiff was called as a witness, and stated that in 1848 he had taken the rooms from Sir J. Musgrove at a rent of £240 a year, and carried it on as a place of musical entertainment, under a licence to his predecessor, Mt. Laurent, renewed every year. In 1857 Mr. Laurent died, and he himself after that renewed a licence for the place. In 1864 he bought the freehold from Sir J. Musgrove, giving £10,400 for it, and expending £1,500 or £2,000 a year on decorations &c. Altogether he had spent about £70,000 or £80,000 on the place. He had taken every care that the place should be respectably conducted; he had engaged respectable men as managers, usually retired police officers - and he always had constables present, who had orders to exclude drunkards or improper characters - that is, those who were known to be so, and to his knowledge it was not a place of resort for burglars or persons planning burglary. He thought it impossible that it should be so. Two shillings was the sum demanded for admission. He heard the letter read at the licensing meeting of the magistrates, and the licence was refused. The loss this had caused to him was £10,000 a year - had paid income-tax on that amount.
    In cross-examination he said this £10,000 a year represented his profits. His object was to keep the rooms as respectable as possible. His orders were to keep out disreputable persons, but he could not keep out prostitutes, as long as they were well conducted; it was impossible to discriminate except as to persons badly conducted.
    Did you give orders to shut out well-known prostitutes?
    - I did.
    Suppose a woman known to be prostitute, but no ill-conducted, would you shut her out? - No.
    Was it your view that all who went there were virtuous? - Some were respectable.
    Some were virtuous? - Yes.
    Some were prostitutes? - I should say so.
    Some of those who were virtuous were young? - Not under 20, if we could help it. Many foreign ladies came there, it being an entertainment they fully understood.
    They all mingled together? - I do not know; there were no reserved seats.
    Men would address women there and women men? - Yes.
    Do you think the women not virtuous came there to follow their trade? - I do not know. They came for entertainment. They were of a superior order, well-dressed, and well-conducted.
    Did they come to follow their trade? - That I do not know; they were well conducted.
    Did they not follow their calling there? - That I cannot say.
    Did not men and women go away together from the rooms? Sometimes, I suppose; often they would come together and go together.
    Did many dance? - A great many of them.
    Were men paid to dance at the rooms? - Never.
    What class of men were dancing with these prostitutes? - Apparently very respectable gentlemen.
    Clerks and persons in that position? - No; gentlemen.
    What class? - I cannot say. I will not compromise my customers' character. Some of them were the first men in the country.
    Why should it compromise any one's character to be known to dance at your rooms? - I do not say so.
    Then why not say to what class they belonged? - I can hardly say; they were of various classes-  officers, men at the Bar. (Loud laughter)
    Well, officers and members of the Bar. Were they ever dancing there? - No; I never saw them doing so.
    Then why mention them? What class of young men were dancing there? - They seemed to me to be gentlemen; of course, most of them were strangers to me.
    If any one was well-dressed and paid his 2s., he would be admitted? - Justly so.
    Suppose a gentleman's servant came so dressed? - Well, we might not know it; but if we knew it, we should not admit him.
    He would obtain admission? - I do not think so. It is not likely that gentlemen's servants would come there to meet their masters, perhaps.
    Were order given to exclude them? No, I do not say so.
    Then can you say that gentlemen's servants were not there? - I cannot say they were never there.
    Suppose a man engaged in a burglary, he might be there? - I think it very unlikely; there were detectives there, and would be acquainted with criminals. Practically it would be impossible tthat they should frequent the rooms.
     There would be nothing to prevent them from going there? - Of course, they may go anywhere; but would be very unlikely they should go there.
    The Foreman here interrupted and said - The jury are of the opinion that this cross-examination is a waste of public time.
    The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.- Why?
    The Foreman - Because we think the plaintiff is not responsible for those who go to the place.
    The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.- You had better not, I think, express an opinion prematurely; you will shake our confidence in your verdict. Depend upon it, Sir H. James has not asked these questions without very good reasons.
    One of the jury said all the jury did not concur in the observations of the foreman.
    Sir H. James, upon the interposition of the foreman, sat down, and
    Serjeant PARRY, in re-examination, said to the plaintiff. - You have taken every means in your power to prevent improper character from frequenting the rooms? - Yes.
    The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE observed that this was the plaintiff's view of his own conduct, but it might not be acquiesced in by the other side. Consistently with the admission of a certain class of improper characters, perhaps it might be admitted that the plaintiff had done all he could to preserve order.
    The Police-Inspector of Vine-street Station stated that he had often attended the room and had seen nothing improper there. He had never known burglars go to the place or persons planning burglaries.
    In cross-examination by Sir H. JAMES, he said that the prostitutes no doubt did follow their vocation there and did sometimes address men there. Any bad character known to the police would be shut out, and the police knew many of them; but if a burglar were well dressed and not known to the police, he would be admitted.
    In re-examination, he said the place was well conducted.
    Another of the inspectors at Vine-street Station gave similar evidence. He had, he said, habitually visited the rooms during the last six years and had never had occasion to report anything wrong there. He never knew of any of the criminal class being there, especially "burglars or swell-mobsmen." Servants in livery were not admitted.
    In cross-examination, he said no doubt the majority of the women there were prostitutes or "fast women," and he could not say that any respectable women visited the rooms there; there might be some, but he did not know of any, and as rule the women addressed the men. Burglars  well dressed but not known to the police might go there, but he had never known of any there.
    Sergeant PARRY. - A well-dressed burglar might go into a church, or into this court? - He might.
    The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE - How long can a burglar carry on his business without being known to the police? - I think before long something would transpire to raise suspicion against them.
    Mr. Serjeant PARRY - Pray, are burglars usually well-dressed? - Yes, they are.  (Laughter)
    Swell-mobsmen, of course, are so? - Yes.
    Another police-inspector from Vine-street Station gave similar evidence. He had never known of burglars there; a burglar there would have to run the risk of detection by several experienced police officers.
    Sir H. James in cross-examination -  If the burglar were not known to the police, he would run no risk? - No.
    Another police-inspector, who said he had known the place since 1852, gave similar evidence. The place was not to hos knowledge or belief a place of resort for burglars or other criminals; a single burglar might possible come in, but he knew of none. Gentlemen's servants, if they came nightly in any number, would be certain to be observed; and persons of an objectionable class were excluded.
    Sir H. James in cross-examination - What do you mean by "objectionable" persons? - Persons known as bad characters or disorderly.
    You would not exclude a woman known to be a prostitute, if well dressed? - No.
    You cannot know all gentlemen's servants? - No, not in all cases; but in some cases they would be known.
     The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE here said to Mr. Serjeant Parry, - You have done enough to show the character of the rooms. It is not disputed that they are conducted respectably, so far as possible; but it is said, and it is not denied, that majority of the women were prostitutes, and that as to burglars or others not known to the police, it is possible that they may sometimes have got in, but that they are not known there.
    Mr. Serjeant PARRY said he could not carry the evidence further, and this was the case for the plaintiff.
    Sir H. JAMES submitted that there was no evidence of the letter, except in the admissions of the defendant, coupled with statements which showed it to be prima facie privileged.
    Mr. Serjeant PARRY said he would then given evidence of the publication of the letter.
    Mr. Benjamin Sharpe, Chairman of the Visiting Committee of the Justices, was then called, and in examination by Serjeant PARRY, stated that he received the letter from the defendant, which, he said, was addressed to him as chairman, and was written by the defendant as chaplain, and he submitted that it was privileged.
    The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE - That we shall judge of when it is produced.
    Mr. Sharpe went on to state that he had read the letter.
    The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said the letter must be produced; it was not privileged from production.
    The letter was produced and put in.
     In cross-examination by Sir H. JAMES, the witness stated that he had no communications with the defendant, except as to matters of business in his official position. He had conversed with him on the subject in a previous year, and last year had desired him, if he had any facts which would throw light on the subject, to state them in a letter to himself. That was a few days before the meeting of the licensing magistrates, and in consequence of that the letter was sent to him. The notice paper of the Sessions stated that the licence was to be opposed; the press, he believed. were unaminous against it, and it was discussed among the magistrates.
    Sir H. JAMES proposed to show on what the witness acted in refusing the licence, in order to show that it was not, as alleged by the plaintiff, in consequence of the defendant's letter.
    The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said it was competent to show this on the testimony of any magistrate.
    The witness stated that he had voted against the licence, and had done so for years, and certain magistrates had drawn certain matters to his attention. In particular, a certain magistrate had stated -
    This was objected to, and
    The witness said he had acted in a great degree upon what had been stated by the police.
    Sir H. JAMES urged that other matters had influenced the magistrates in refusing the licence.
    Serjeant PARRY objected; but
    The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said the plaintiff alleged that his licence was refused in consequence of this letter, and he could not say that it was not open to the defendant to disprove this.
    The witness then repeated some strong statements made by one of the magistrates as to his knowledge of the place. The magistrates voted 38 against the licence; 16 for it.
     In re-examination he stated that on a former occasion the licence had been granted by a majority of one. He denied that in asking Mr. Horsley to send a a letter he had any desire to get up a case against the licence; he only desired to get at the truth.
    The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE  - Did you take any means to sift the grounds of his statements? - No. I took his statements; it would be difficult for me to sift them; they might have been statements made to him by prisoners who had left.
    In answer to further questions, the witness sated that Mr. Horsley had not been examined as a witness; if he had been, he might have been cross-examined.
    This being the case for the plaintiff,
 
....

The defendant, the Rev J W Horsley was then called and examined as a witness and stated that he had been chaplain since November 1876. Mr. Sharpe, to whom the letter was written, was chairman of the Visiting Justices. In 1877 he became aware that Mr. Sharpe had opposed the renewal of the licence to the Argyll Rooms, and seeing the fact in the papers he wrote to him on the subject. A few days before the licensing meeting in October 1878, on the 7th or 8th of October, he saw Mr. Sharpe at the prison ,while he was there in the performance of his official duties, and Mr. Sharpe reminded him of the letter he had written last year, and asked him to write a letter of a similar character, such as might be produced in court. In consequence of that, the witness said he wrote  the letter in question. While he was writing it a young woman called upon him in the prison. She was not then a prisoner, although she had been many times in prison for drunkenness arising out of assault. Her name was Mary Cummings, and she was present at all events in the precincts of the court. She had to him the statements in the letter.

...

The witness went on to state that he asked the girl what, in her opinion, was the worst place for female virtue in London, and she answered the Argyll Rooms. He asked if she knew that innocent girls sometimes went there, induced to go by the place being licensed and so presumed to be respectable, and she said that they did. He asked if he had seen any of the criminal classes thyere, and she said that she had, and that swell mobsmen sometimes took home girls from the place in cabs and robbed them. She further stated that gentlemen's servants were sometimes there. The witness went on to state that he had received a statement contained in his letter (as to burglars going to the rooms &c.) from an experienced and successful burglar, whose name being asked to give he gave, though, he said, under protest and in obedience to the order of the Court. The name was Britton. He said he had been in the habit of taking down notes or minutes of prisoners statements to him, but he had lost his note of Britton's statement. He produced his notes of several cases - that is, the rough notes he took at the time, afterwards reducing them more into form, under different heads of moral or social interest, in separate books, one of which he produced and contained his account of Britton, which he read, to the effect that he used to frequent the Argyll Rooms in order to meet servants.
    The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE - What led to this?
    The witness - The man had let out that he was at the rooms, and I asked him how he came to be there. He stated that he used to got to the rooms to meet gentlemen's servants there, to be "put up" to good "jobs" or burglaries. Britton himself was on remand for burglary. There was another prisoner in custody for burglary whose name was Howard, and he also, the witness said, made a communication to him and stated ot him that he had seen burglars there.
    The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE  - What led to that?
    The witness said he could not remember at the moment; probably  the man mentioned being at the rooms, and then at the mention of the place he would "prick up his ears." Looking at his note of what Howard had said as to burglaries, he read these words,- "Argyll Rooms - largely used by burglars to 'get at' gentlemen's servants." (The jury here asked to look at the book, and were told they should have it when it was done with.) The witness stated that he had been able to trace Howard, and his case was transferred to his fair-book. There was another prisoner in custody about the same time, whose name was Charles Bagnall, and he produced his notes as to him. This man had been a gentleman's servant and was "in" for stealing silver spoons. Having heard that gentlemen's servants went to the rooms, he asked the man if he knew of it, and he read the note of the man's answer. - "Argyll Rooms. - Often seen gentlemen's servants there." There was another man, also a gentleman's servant, there, named Block, who had been convicted of robbery of plate, and he stated that he used to frequent the rooms, and knew many "flash" men to be there, and he produced his entry as to the man's answer, - "Argyll Rooms - Knew many flash men there; knew burglars there." The paragraph in his letter as to two footmen "in" for plate robberies referred to these two men. The witness being ask whether he believed the statements of these men and of the girl to be true, he answered firmly that he certainly did; and being asked whether when he wrote the letter he honestly believed its contents to be true, answers that he did believe them then, as he believed them now, to be true.
     The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE referred to a passage in the letter, "I could not talk to a burglar of the higher rank without finding the 'Gyll' mentioned as a place of resort," &c. What foundation was there for that statement?
    The witness - Partly what I have already stated, and partly many other similar statements made to me by other prisoners whose names I cannot now recollect. Nearly 11,000 prisoners passed through the prison last year, the majority of them unconvicted, others bail-prisoners, and it was his duty as chaplain to see them all. Of course he did not take or keep notes of all his conversations with prisoners, but only in cases that appeared to him remarkable, or such as for any reason happened to  be preserved.
    In cross-examination by Mr. Serjeant PARRY the witness stated that there were about 11 Visiting Justices and Mr. Sharpe had been one of them for many years. He first wrote to Mr. Sharpe on the subject in 1877, when he had been chaplain about a year. He had been always opposed to the granting of a licence to the Argyll Rooms, but his object in writing the letter now in question was simply that he was asked to do so. Referred to a passage in his letter as to complicity in a "gigantic wrong, and giving licence to licentiousness," he said he avowed the statements there expressed and had always entertained them. He avowed that he was anxious that the licence should be refused. He knew that the plaintiff was the proprietor of the rooms. He did not object to theatres; he thought they were quite different. He knew that his letter was to be read to the magistrates, giving to it whatever weight might attach to his position and character. He did not attend the licensing meeting; he happened to be otherwise engaged, but had he attended he should have had no objection to be examined as a witness. He wrote the letter as a witness. Asked, with reference to Britton, he said he knew the man had been several times in prison, and was now in penal servitude. He avowed that he had cut out or erased names, as he did not think the names should be disclosed. There was an entry in his fair book "Argyll Rooms" and the cases of Britton and Howard were entered under that head. The case of Britton was in December 1876, and that of Howard was in 1877. They were probably entered not long after the cases occurred. Asked whether they were not entered as the same time, he said, looking at the writing, he should say so, but according to his memory it was not so. The man Block was under his charge for several months, convicted. As to Bagnall, he knew him two or three week awaiting trial. The girl Cummings had been imprisoned a great many times - perhaps 30 or 40 times - almost a hopeless case of dipsomania, i.e. a passion for drink so strong as to amount to a mania.
    The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE  - Did she represent herself as still frequenting the Argyll Rooms? - No, not at that time; nor, I believe, for three or four years.
    The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE  - Did you always give implicit credence to all that such persons as prisoners state? - Very rarely.
    The witness being asked as to Britton, said he had know him well and he knew many other prisoners.
     Mr. Serjeant PARRY - Have you not made every possible inquiry in the prison with a view to injure the Argyll Rooms? - Not at all.
    Had you a heading in your book of any other place of public amusement except the Argyll Rooms? - No other institution or establishment; but I have a heading as to public houses.
    In re-examination, the witness pointed out numerous other headings - "home influence", "want of education", "public houses" &c. He had not entry as to promenade concerts or other places, because he had not special information about other places. He had no reason for discrediting the statements made to him and believed them to be true.
    Dr. Clark, the medical officer of Millbank, was called to prove that Britton was under his special charge in hospital, suffering from disease of the brain, his recovery being improbable and his condition being such that he was unfit for attendance as a witness. He was under a sentence of penal servitude for burglary.
    Evidence was also given that Britton's evidence had been taken for the defence before his illness came on, and a Judge's order had been made for Block, but he could not be found; but it was found that he had been in the prison while Mr. Horsley was chaplain there. He had, however, found Howard and Bagnall (and they were in attendance as witnesses).
    Mary Cummings was then called and examined as a witness. She stated that she remembered seeing Mr. Horsley at the House of Detention in October last year, and making certain statements to him as to the Argyll Rooms. He asked her -
    Mr. Serjeant PARRY objected to this.
    The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE  - How can you object? The evidence is to prove that the statements were made. If you admit that they were made, then, of course, the evidence need not be given; but if you deny it, it is for them to prove it.
    Mr. Serjeant PARRY said he objected to it as evidence of an accidental conversation between two persons in the absence of the plaintiff.
    The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE - It is admissable to support the case for the defence - that these statements were made to the defendant and used by him bona fide.
    The witness went on to state that she told Mr. Horsley she had been at the rooms, and that she had seen gentlemen's servants there and swell mobsmen, and that innocent girls sometimes went there to see the dancing and that in that way they fell. She stated further that it was very much lowered of late from what it was when she first knew the place, especially since the Holborn Casino was closed.
    In cross-examination by Mr. Serjeant PARRY she said it was four or five years ago since she went to the rooms. It was true that she had been very frequently in prison.
    In re-examination, she said she first went to the Rooms in 1870 or 1871, and went there three or four years.
    In answer to the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, she stated that she had tild Mr. Horsley that girls were sometimes ruined through going to the rooms.
    The next witness was Howard, who appeared in charge of two warders, and in the yellow garb of a convict, and he stated that he was in penal servitude under a sentence for burglary. He remembered, he said, see Mr. Horsley, the chaplain of the prison, in October 1877, and had a conversation with him about the Argyll Rooms - that is, Mr. Horsley had a conversation with him about the place, and asked him questions about it. He asked me (said witness) if ever I went there, and I said, "Yes, I did." He said, "Did you go there to get information for burglaries?" and I said, "No."
    The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE - What else?
    That is all as I know of.
    Sir H. JAMES - Did you tell him you saw many men of your own class there? - Yes.
    What did you mean by men of your own class? - Men of the world. (Much laughter)
    You mean of the criminal class? - Yes.
    Did you tell him you saw gentlemen's servants there? - No.
    Are you certain you did not say so? - Yes, I am.
    Did you say the rooms were resort of "cross life" people? - No.
    Who are they? - Of the criminal class.
    You said you had seen persons of that class there? - Yes.
    The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE - How often had you been there yourself? - Lots of times.
    Were you convicted more than once? - Yes.
    In cross-examination by Mr. Serjeant PARRY, the convict said he went to to other places of amusement as well as the Argyll Rooms, dressed like other persons.
    The other convict, Bagnall, under sentence of five years' penal servitude at Chatham, for stealing plate, was then called and examined as a witness. In 1877 he was at the Clerkenwell Prison, and the chaplain saw him., and asked him how he came to be in trouble, and he told him that he spent his evenings and money at theatres and music halls. He then asked him if he had been at the Argyll Rooms, and he told him that he had been there and that he had seen other gentlemen's servants there.
    In cross-examination by Mr. Serjeant PARRY, he said that Mr. Horsley did not ask particularly as to any other place of entertainment but the Argyll Rooms.
    The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE  - had your going to the Argyll Rooms anything to do with your getting into trouble? - No.
    That was the case for the defence.

Times 2 & 3 May 1879

The result? The jury failed to reach a verdict and the case was discharged. Mr. Horsley was left with a £300 legal fee, more than his annual income. The Chaplain to the Archbishop of Canterbury proposed a public subscription to defray these costs.