EditIntroduction
As a result of a police drive in the Autumn and Winter of 1953-4 a number of men were prosecuted. Some of the higher profile individuals were:
- Rupert Croft-Cooke, aged 50, a novelist, playwright, biographer, travel writer, and book critic of The Sketch.
- Edward John Barrington Douglas-Scott-Montagu (known as Lord Montagu), aged 27, third Baron Montagu of Beaulieu, an old Etonian, ex-Grenadier Guards Officer, and best known for his vintage car museum at his historic Hampshire home, Palace House at Beaulieu.
- Michael Pitt-Rivers, a second cousin of Edward Montagu, and great-grandson of the famous archeologist, Augustus Henry Lane-Fox Pitt-Rivers (1827-1900).
- Peter Wildeblood, aged 31, journalist and diplomatic correspondent of the Daily Mail.
- See also the conviction of John Gielgud in 1953.
EditThe Croft-Cooke/Alexander Case
Rupert Croft-Cooke lived quietly in his home in the Sussex village of Ticehurst with his Indian secretary, Joseph Alexander. Rupert Croft-Cooke and Joseph Alexander were in the Fitzroy Tavern, a pub near Oxford Street in London, on a Friday evening when they met two Royal Navy cooks, Harold Altoft and Ronald Dennis, on 48-hours’ leave from Chatham. The two naval cooks were invited to spend the week-end at the Sussex home. Rupert Croft-Cooke says that he did not see much of Altoft and Dennis over the week-end because he was working. When they had difficulties getting back to Chatham on the Sunday evening they got involved with trouble, including trying to steal a bicycle, and they were arrested. Under police questioning they claimed to have committed indecencies over the week-end. Rupert Croft-Cooke and Joseph Alexander were arrested in the middle of the night. The house was searched even though the police had no search warrants, but no evidence was found. Altoft and Dennis recanted their allegations in writing but this was deemed inadmissable during the trial. Rupert Croft-Cooke was convicted on the virtually uncorroborated testimony of the two naval ratings, and was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment. He was sent to Wormwood Scrubs and was released after six months. Joseph Alexander was sentenced to three months in prison which he spent in Brixton. (Reported in The Times 10 October, 1953.) Rupert Croft-Cooke was visited after his release by a stranger who tried to warn him off writing about the case. “I hear you’re going to write a book about all this. Are you going to give details of how your conviction was brought about?”
“Of course,” I told him.
“I shouldn’t do that, if I were you. It won’t do you any good and it might do you irreparable harm. If ... mistakes were made by anyone, if anyone went too far, I mean, it’s best forgotten now.”
“I don’t agree with you at all,” I replied, for I had not yet perceived where this was leading him. “There are other people to consider. This filthy witch-hunt is still going on.”
“That’s what I mean,” he said, smiling. “It is. And, you know, a second conviction is very much more easily obtained than a first, especially when the first has been well publicized.” The Verdict of You All, (1955), chapter 14, section 8.
This quotation is taken from the book that Rupert Croft-Cooke wrote in defiance of the warning. However he went to Morocco to write it.
EditThe Montagu/Hume Case
On the August Bank Holiday week-end in 1953 Edward Montagu and film director Kenneth Hume took two boy scouts to a beach hut at Beaulieu for a bathe. Edward Montagu had reported the loss of a camera to the police and the purpose of the visit to the beach hut had originally been to look for the camera. When the police arrived they took more interest in what had been happening and the boy scouts said that they had been indecently assaulted in the beach hut. Edward Montagu was charged with an unnatural offence and an indecent assault and his trial took place at Winchester Assizes in December 1953. Edward Montagu was aquitted on the more serious charge of committing an unnatural offence but the jury disagreed on the lesser charge of indecent assault. The Director of Public Prosecutions decided that Edward Montagu and Kenneth Hume should be tried again on the charge of indecent assault. (Reported in The Times 15, 16, and 17 December, 1953.)
EditThe Montagu/Pitt-Rivers/Wildeblood Case
Michael Pitt-Rivers and Peter Wildeblood were arrested three weeks after the end of the first Montagu/Hume trial. Their premises were searched without a warrant. They were charged with several specific indecency charges with two R.A.F. men, Edward McNally and John Reynolds, at the beach hut near Beaulieu and also at the Pitt-Rivers estate in Dorset. They were also accused of conspiring with Edward Montagu to commit these offences. This would prejudice the chances of Edward Montagu’s aquittal at his re-trial. Peter Wildeblood had borrowed the beach hut for a holiday in 1952, and there had been a party on the first night attended by Edward Montagu and some of his house guests from Beaulieu. The prosecution tried to suggest that this developed into a revolting Bacchanalian orgy. The prosecution counsel at the magistrates court was ‘Khaki’ Roberts who had defended Rupert Croft-Cooke a few weeks before. The two principal witnesses against the three defendents were the two airmen who had been shown to have been involved in twenty-four other homosexual affairs. Edward McNally also had a friend called Gerry, a male nurse, whom he described as ‘my husband’. The Director of Public Prosecutions gave his assurance that Reynolds and McNally would not be prosecuted in any circumstances no matter how many offences they admitted to. It looked like the Crown were determined to put Edward Montagu behind bars. Edward Montagu, Michael Pitt-Rivers, and Peter Wildeblood were tried together in a trial which began on 15th. March, 1954 in the hall of Winchester Castle. The trial lasted eight days and all three defendents were convicted. Michael Pitt-Rivers and Peter Wildeblood were sentenced to 18 months in prison, and Edward Montagu was given 12 months. (Reported in The Times 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, and 25 March, 1954.) They were first sent to Winchester prison, but after five weeks Edward Montagu was transfered to Wakefield in Yorkshire, Michael Pitt-Rivers to Maidstone, and Peter Wildeblood to Wormwood Scrubs in London. A photograph of Edward Montagu, Michael Pitt-Rivers, and Peter Wildeblood at the time of their trial in 1954 is shown inJivani (1997), page 113.
EditThe Aftermath
After the end of the Montagu/Pitt-Rivers/Wildeblood trial the Sunday Times, (28 March, 1954), devoted a whole leading article to the subject entitled “Law and Hypocrisy”. This was followed by an article in the New Statesman entitled “The Police and the Montagu Case”, (10 April, 1954). While the charges had been pending, an interim report was issued for private circulation by a group of Anglican clergy and doctors through the Church of England Moral Welfare Council, which made a plea for a change in the law. A month after the Montagu trial the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland agreed to the appointment of a Departmental Committee to examine and report on the law of homosexual offences and also on the law relating to prostitution. The official announcement was made in the House of Commons on 18th. April, 1954 by the Joint Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Home Office, Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth, M.P. In an adjournment debate Labour back-bencher Desmond Donnelly pressed for the appointment of a Royal Commission “to investigate the law relating to the medical treatment of homosexuality”. Sir Robert Boothby (later Lord Boothby) gave his support, referring to “recent cases which have caused distress to the country as a whole” and “recent discussions in responsible newspapers”. The composition of the Wolfenden Committee was officially announced on 26th. August, 1954.