The Chieftain: Victorian True Crime Through The Eyes of a Scotland Yard Detective

by Payne, Chris

  Arrest and Trial of the Tichborne Claimant

  1872–74

  Inspector Eleazar Denning was a long-serving member of the executive branch of A Division, and had been the senior uniformed officer helping maintain order within and outside the courtroom during the Tichborne v. Lushington proceedings.10 The Claimant was not difficult to track down as he had taken rooms at the Waterloo Hotel, and the three Scotland Yard officers arrived there during the evening of 6 March. Williamson read out the lengthy arrest warrant and the Claimant expressed surprise that he was being arrested in the name of Thomas Castro, a name which he refused to acknowledge. The charges included multiple charges of perjury: having falsely sworn that he was Roger Tichborne; that he had claimed to have seduced ‘his’ cousin Katherine, now married to Lord Radcliffe; and that he had also claimed not to be Arthur Orton.11 An additional charge of forgery was later dropped.12 The Claimant, described as calm and composed, was then taken in his brougham, accompanied by Williamson, to Newgate Prison; Clarke and Denning followed in a cab.13 The Claimant had emerged as a popular hero during the civil trial, particularly amongst the working classes, and it was no surprise that a good-sized crowd had assembled at Newgate to greet him on arrival. Bail of £10,000 (equivalent to £460,000 today) was hard to find, and the Claimant remained in Newgate Prison until 26 April when securities were provided by supporters, including the MPs Guildford Onslow and George Whalley (the Liberal MP for Peterborough). Montagu Williams was on the team that acted for the Claimant in obtaining bail but not in the subsequent trial. In his reminiscences, Williams later commented: ‘I always thank my stars for the escape that I had over the Tichborne case.’14

  The Claimant’s trial for perjury eventually started at the Court of the Queens Bench on 23 April 1873. Since the previous April, the Claimant and his supporters had been speaking at meetings round the country to maintain support and finance. In the process several of them, including the Claimant himself, Onslow and Whalley, had been charged and found guilty of contempt of court (for sub judice reasons), further enhancing the popular impression that the Claimant and his supporters were the oppressed victims in this saga.15 The prosecution team for the Crown was led by Henry Hawkins, and, in view of the national importance of the case, three judges were appointed: Lord Chief Justice Cockburn being supported by two other distinguished judges, Justices Mellor and Lush. The Claimant’s defence team was headed by Dr Edward Kenealy, an Irish-born lawyer who had previously been the counsel for the Fenian Ricard Burke, but had resigned from that position after the Clerkenwell explosion. Kenealy’s performance did his client few favours:

  He was I think a conspicuous example of a clever man with all the external arts of the advocate, but hopelessly deficient in the most important quality of all – judgement … He seems never to have understood that vituperation or even harsh treatment of a witness, unless it is clearly justified, does a case far more harm than good, and that it is most unwise to quarrel with the Judge unless you are confident that you have the sympathy of the jury with you.16

  Both Clarke and Whicher were to find themselves facing the sharp edge of Kenealy’s tongue during the trial’s proceedings, though it did neither of them any significant harm.

  Whicher’s role in the case was clear-cut. He had been engaged to obtain evidence of the fraudulent nature of the Claimant and also attended the second trial in that capacity. Clarke’s role is less well documented, but what is almost certain is that Clarke was regularly present throughout proceedings and worked behind the scenes with the Treasury Solicitors’ office, helping to assess the accuracy of defence evidence presented in the second trial.17 That he was a frequent attendee at the court (which was close to his home in Great College Street) is clear from the following extract from the Bradford Observer’s atmospheric word sketch of court events:

  It is not so easy as it might be supposed to get a seat in Court for the Tichborne case, and a good look at Sir Roger. You must wind your way down to Westminster Hall, picking a dirty day for choice, and be at the great northern doors that open into Palace Yard by at least nine. They will be opened from within by about half-past. Then wedge yourself through, as if you were fighting your way into the pit of Drury Lane on Boxing night, wheel sharply to the right, and rush like a maniac up a flight of stone steps and against a heavy beetle-browed archway, over which is painted in big letters ‘Queens Bench’. Plant yourselves resolutely against the double doors that here bar your way. They, too, will be opened at about a quarter to ten, and you have then only to race at full speed along a stone passage, to pass a set of swing doors, guarded jealously by tall constables of the A Division, then a second set similarly guarded, and so to find yourself in Court … I advise no one to attempt it whom cannot stand three-quarters an hour of very rough work indeed. For each seat in Court there are at least 50 combatants … An old gentleman who sits by you relieves the monotony … [the] cheery-looking inspector of police who stands by the door with his eye intently fixed on the defendant is Mr Denning, who is the nominated prosecutor, and that again, is Mr Whicher, and side-by-side with him is Inspector Clarke…18

  As the trial progressed it became clear that one of Kenealy’s strategies on behalf of his client was to undermine the credibility of the evidence assembled by Whicher.19 The same was equally true for Clarke’s involvement in the case. On 20 May 1873, Mrs Mina Jury gave evidence that the Claimant was Arthur Orton; information that came from her family’s association with the Ortons, as her brother George had married one of Arthur Orton’s sisters. In cross-examination, Kenealy asked her whether she knew Clarke. She replied, ‘Yes, he is a detective’. Kenealy then followed this with a question asking how much money she had been promised to give evidence. The feisty Mrs Jury replied, ‘I do not suppose you come here for nothing any more than me’, a response that was greeted by cheers within the crowded courtroom.20 On 27 May, while questioning a prosecution witness from Wapping who, like Mina Jury, had recognised the Claimant as Orton, Kenealy again sought to undermine the integrity of Whicher and Clarke, as he did repeatedly throughout the trial.21

  By mid-August the prosecution had completed their evidence. It was now the turn of the defence to make their case. Between 8 and 17 October Kenealy introduced two new witnesses, relevant to events in Rio de Janeiro and to the Claimant’s contention that he had been rescued after the sinking of the Bella. The first of these, Captain James Brown, claimed that he had been in Rio in 1854 working as a shipping clerk. He told the court that he had met a man called Roger Tichborne and, after drinking together, they had shared a room at Brown’s lodgings where Brown had noted several physical marks on Tichborne’s left side and on his arm, which the Claimant also possessed. He had also seen the Osprey in Rio harbour at that time. During cross-examination it emerged that some of the detail of Brown’s time at Rio, such as the ships in port at that time, appeared to be false.22 However, Brown’s testimony was followed by sensational new evidence given by the second witness, Jean Luie.

  Luie appeared in court on 14 October, presenting himself as the steward of the Osprey. He stated that the ship had called in to Rio in 1854 during a voyage from Staten Island, New York, to Melbourne. After leaving Rio in April 1854, Luie claimed that the Osprey had come across a sharp-sterned lifeboat containing six survivors from the Bella, four of whom were in a delirious condition. One young man, who remained delirious during the entire three-month voyage to Melbourne, had been looked after by Luie; his name was Roger and, because Luie had washed him regularly, he had noticed an olive-coloured mark above the young man’s hip (a mark which the Claimant was also known to possess). Luie claimed that it was not until the summer of 1873, when he arrived in England, that he had heard about the Tichborne case. He had then made himself known to one of the Claimant’s supporters, George Whalley, and had been introduced to the Claimant who he recognised, in physical appearance and voice, as the man he had looked after in 1854. The evidence given by Luie was a serious blow to the prosecution and, on 16 O
ctober, Henry Hawkins asked the court for further time to cross-examine Luie, as the witness had been sprung on him at very short notice. The Lord Chief Justice agreed to Hawkins’ request.23

  It is highly likely that the Treasury Solicitor’s office called on Clarke, who had been present in court throughout Luie’s appearance, to assist them in investigating aspects of Luie’s evidence, as well as sending a barrister to America to investigate Luie’s claims.24 Clarke’s familiarity with Staten Island harbour and the record-keeping there for ships arrivals and departures (from time spent in New York in 1864 prior to his arrest of Franz Müller) may have come in useful.

  After Kenealy had concluded the defence evidence, Hawkins introduced several prosecution witnesses to give evidence in reply. Two of these, Captains Oates and Hoskins, had been in Rio at the time that Roger Tichborne was there and denied any knowledge of Captain Brown and several people that Brown had mentioned. Witnesses also indicated that the Bella’s lifeboats had been square-sterned, rather than sharp-sterned as described by Luie.25 On 31 October Hawkins sought, and obtained, a prolonged adjournment in the trial proceedings ‘to enable him to adduce further evidence to contradict the witness Luie’ and to allow sufficient time for witnesses to arrive from America. The trial did not recommence until 27 November.26

  During the first two days after the adjournment several prosecution witnesses from America were called by Hawkins, and their evidence raised serious doubts about Luie’s version of events. The Osprey had apparently not been at Staten Island when Luie had said, and the crew list of the Osprey did not have Luie’s name on it.27 But the real fireworks were saved for the end of the hearing on 28 November when the assistant Treasury Solicitor, Pollard, made a clumsy attempt to stop Luie leaving the court, apparently to enable a visitor in the court to make an identification of him. At about this time an office clerk had come forward to the police, having seen a photograph of Luie in a shop window; the clerk had recognised Luie as a man that he knew as ‘Sorensen’, who was believed to have committed a fraud in Britain earlier in the year.28 On the following morning, in what The Times described as ‘the most exciting day which has yet occurred in the course of the trial’, Kenealy complained vigorously at the previous evening’s events, which he described as a contempt of court and an attempt to poison the jury’s minds against the witness Luie. He was to regret his actions, as they opened the door for the prosecution to produce new witnesses who declared that they knew Luie as ‘Captain Sorensen’, and that he had been in England in March 1873, several months before the date stated in his initial evidence.29 As a result, Lord Chief Justice Cockburn held Luie for a potential perjury charge. Although Luie was granted bail, all the sureties were not forthcoming and he was taken to Holloway Prison.

  By what precise route Clarke discovered Luie’s true identity is unclear, but it proved not to be either ‘Jean Luie’ or ‘Captain Sorensen’. Like so many members of the criminal fraternity, Luie had proved to be adept at the use of aliases in an attempt to hide his past. By 4 December, Clarke had identified that ‘Luie’ had been a resident of Chatham Prison, where he was known as ‘John Lundgren’ and had been serving a sentence of seven years’ penal servitude until he had been released on ticket of leave on 25 March 1873.30 By 8 December, Clarke had assembled a battery of identification witnesses who appeared at the trial of the Claimant. ‘In anticipation of the revelations respecting the antecedents of the witness Jean Luie, the court was crowded to excess.’31 The witnesses from Chatham Prison identified Luie as John Lundgren. A Bristol policeman identified him as Charles Lundgren (who had been arrested and sentenced to five years’ penal servitude between 1862 and 1867) and some Bristol-based former employers of Luie identified him as Carl Lundgren. Much laughter was heard in court when it was learnt that Luie had been married to a woman who now called herself Mrs Hawkins, and that her maiden name was Cockburn (actually Coulburn).32 Later events demonstrated that Luie had also bigamously married a second wife in the name of ‘John Smith’, and had briefly been imprisoned for assaulting her.33 Following this evidence, the Claimant’s defence team were given a day’s adjournment to consider their position. It was also decided to provide a medical examination of Luie and compare this with the medical records at Chatham Prison of John Lundgren. When the two proved identical, the court formally committed Luie to prison on a charge of perjury. Clarke took Luie into custody and also searched his lodgings, removing several letters and papers that were later produced in court.34 From that point, the proceedings in the trial of the Tichborne Claimant and the trial of ‘Jean Luie’ became separate events but remained intimately linked.

  At the trial of the Claimant, Kenealy was presenting his closing summary for the Claimant’s defence and commented that no matter what crimes might be proved against Luie, he would uphold Luie’s evidence as true and that no subsequent criminality could destroy its truth. When he also claimed that Captain Brown’s evidence in favour of the Claimant was also ‘confirmed’, the jury burst into laughter.35 Surely things couldn’t get worse for Kenealy and the Claimant? But they did, and Clarke had a large hand in it.

  On Saturday 13 December 1873, Clarke transported Luie from Holloway Prison to Bow Street Police Court for the first magistrate’s hearing of the charge of perjury against the prisoner. Luie, having forfeited his ticket-of-leave licence, was then remanded in custody and taken by Clarke to the Clerkenwell House of Detention. During these journeys to and from prison, Luie apparently spoke freely to Clarke about his situation. Details of this conversation emerged at the next Bow Street hearing on 8 January 1874 when Luie arrived at court manacled and close-shaven, as he had been moved to the convict prison at Millbank to complete his previous penal servitude sentence. Clarke was the principal witness, and the evidence of his conversations with Luie was explosive:

  I took the prisoner from this court to the House of Detention on 13th December. I had some conversation with him. I had first some conversation with him in the cab from Holloway Prison. He asked me what he had better do in the matter. I said ‘You are old enough to advise yourself’. He said nothing more particularly to me, but after leaving this court he said ‘I wish you would advise me; you know more of the matter than I do’. I said ‘I can’t advise you’. He said ‘I was first spoken to about the matter in the spring of the year at Brussels by Mr. Whalley who was stopping there with his daughter. I got into conversation with him and he said there was a trial pending in this country, which made him ashamed of his country, and seeing that I was a sailor he said he had never been able to find any of the crew of a shipwrecked vessel, which it was important he should do. I said to him, I don’t think that would be very difficult as I have been a sailor myself. But nothing was arranged particularly at this interview.’ The prisoner further said ‘I first went to Poets-corner [location of the Claimant’s residence] about the 4th or 5th of July. I met a man there with something the matter with his eye.’ The prisoner afterwards stated this was Baigent [Francis Baigent; old friend of the Tichborne family and a Claimant supporter]. Baigent asked him who he was, and he replied ‘I am Jean Luie’. Baigent said ‘I know all about it’. But nothing further was done that day. On Monday the 7th, Baigent said it was all arranged, and that he [The Claimant] knew he was coming. He [Luie] then continued, ‘I showed my fingers to the little black fellow, Bogle [old family servant of the Tichborne’s and a Claimant supporter], who ran into the inner room, I believe, to tell Sir Roger. Sir Roger [the Claimant] came out to me and said, if you are the man who saved me, your fingers are crooked.’

  I afterwards saw the prisoner Luie the same day in the House of Detention by his own request and he then said. – ‘If I thought they would not prosecute me I would tell all particulars’. I replied that I could make him no promise, but if he wished to make a statement I would rather he did it through the solicitors. Luie then said ‘Very well, let them come on Monday’. This was on the Saturday. I left him then. On Monday, the 15th, I went with Mr Pollard [assistant Treasury Sol
icitor] to the House of Detention, and there saw the prisoner. The warder then said to him ‘This is Mr Pollard and Mr Clarke, do you wish to see them?’ Luie then led me to a corner of the room and said, ‘I will not now. I have been advised to hold my tongue’ … On the way here he said ‘Since you last saw me I have had a visit from Captain Nicholson [nephew of George Whalley]. He brought me a letter from Mr. Whalley, saying that he could get me remanded from time to time, and that I should not go to the convict prison and that he had given £5 to Harding [Claimant’s servant] to keep me … I should not have got into trouble had it not been for the folly of Dr Kenealy, who forced Mr Hawkins to call the rebutting evidence. It is not all my fault. I begged of them scores of times not to put me in the witness-box. Mr Onslow is a very violent man, and would not listen to me. He gave me a book of evidence given at the last trial, and marked the different passages in it which I had to learn at night time and had frequently to sit up all night. He told me about the brown mark on the side, and frequently made a drawing with his finger to show me the shape and size of it, and placed his hand on my side to show the position.’ … The prisoner said ‘that he never intended originally to give evidence.’ He expected to have made some money without, but they forced him to do it, and he was never allowed out by himself. One or the other of them was always with him … He said ‘I should have been put in the box earlier, only I could not learn my story correctly’.36