Queer History: Sheffield Men Arrested at Fancy Dress Ball in Manchester in 1880

‘Sheffield is no gay metropolis’ wrote Gay Life magazine in 1987, ‘but don’t make the mistake of believing that a city with no strong overt gay presence cannot make claims to being progressive and exciting’. Writer, Andrew Lowrey, was dispatched to the Steel City with his black leatherette valise to report back on Sheffield’s gay scene. His three-page article concluded that although ‘Sheffield is a bastion of solid working class politics and culture, and suffers from the inevitable heavy machismo which so many northern gays have to cope with… gay Sheffielders are doing more than cope. Rather than being disappointed by the lack of gay activity in Sheffield, I was impressed by how much was happening.’ 

Rewind the clock 100 years and it is fair to say that Sheffield was no gay metropolis then either! However, gay life still carried on behind closed doors and campaigners such as Edward Carpenter were already pushing for gay rights. A recently discovered newspaper article in the Sheffield and Rotherham Independent (dated 1 October 1880), headlined ‘Police raid on fancy dress ball in Manchester’ lifts the lid on what some gay Sheffield men did for entertainment in the 1880s. 

It was reported that 47 men (10 of them from Sheffield) had been arrested at a fancy dress ball at the Temperance Hall in Hulme. The men entered the court in ‘gentlemanly attire’ (having been allowed to change prior to the hearing to ‘appear more dignified before the magistrates’) although it was noted that some were very effeminate in appearance and some had their hair dyed in a ‘golden hue’. The names of the Sheffield men were read out: Albert Lomas, (married) teacher of dancing; Charles Speed, silver finisher; Edward Powell, gilder; William Oates, Porter; Nathaniel Saxton, barman; Thomas Whitworth, silversmith; George Bingham, metal dresser; Frederick Richardson, confectioner; Isaac Haslam, shopkeeper; William Frudd, carriage trimmer. They were charged with ‘soliciting and inciting each other to commit an abominable offence’ (the details of which were never made quite clear). 


The police apparently went to great (almost comical) lengths to catch the men up to no good. The men had booked the hall under the false pretence that it was for the Pawnbrokers Assistants Association’s annual ball. Of the 47 men present, 22 were dressed as women. The musical accompaniment for the evening was provided by a blind man who played a harmonium on a small stage and the men ‘danced some kind of strange dance in which they kicked their legs about a great deal’. It was also observed that ‘certain proceedings’ were taking place in an ante-room next to the dancing hall. The police watched the building for three hours, noting that all the windows were covered with blinds and some were steamed up. One of the officers managed to clamber onto an outhouse to get up on the roof of a neighbouring house to get a better view of the dance hall (dislodging a piece of mortar in the process). Some were dressed as men and some as women, he reported, and they were dancing the ‘can can’ dance to quadrille music. Furthermore, he was able to listen in on the ante-room and was shocked to hear the men speaking in feminine tones and calling each other ‘Polly’ and ‘Alice’. After observing proceedings for some time, the officer got down off the roof and went to knock on the front door of the Temperance Hall. He gained admittance by using the password ‘sister’; the door opened and the police raid took place, with every person (except the blind musician) arrested. 

The newspaper article goes into great detail about the cross examinations, and it would appear the court descended into laughter at various points, particularly when the police officer was asked to determine who was wearing trousers and who was not (‘can you be sure they were not theatrical tights?’) After listening to all the evidence, the magistrates retired, returning 15 minutes later and fined each man £25; if any of them could not fine sureties for this sum they were to be imprisoned for three months. 

The case clearly provoked a great deal of interest - the streets around the court were thronged with hundreds of people unable to get into the court on the day and the Sheffield and Rotherham Independent devoted three columns to proceedings. Amusing as this may seem by modern standards, it is a reminder that any public or overt displays of this kind were severely punishable by law. 

For more information on LGBTQ+ history in Sheffield see our Study Guide: https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/home/libraries-archives/access-archives-local-studies-library/research-guides/lesbian-gay-sources 

See also Steel City Queer History, a Sheffield based group of historians researching and sharing the LGBTQ+ history of the city: https://steelcityqueerhistory.wordpress.com/