by Payne, Chris
Reimers was not the most impartial observer at that time. He had been promoted to inspector in October 1876 following the secondment of Meiklejohn to the Midland Railway. However, in late December he had been ‘busted’ back to sergeant and believed that Druscovich had been responsible for this demotion.47 All in all, the Scotland Yard Detective Department was not a happy place to be in during 1876–77, except perhaps for George Greenham, who was promoted to inspector in place of Reimers. Undoubtedly Druscovich was feeling the pressure of events and it is probably no coincidence that this generally highly regarded young officer received a caution for irregular conduct in June 1877, when he was found to have been at fault in ‘failing to differentiate clearly between charges made and legally proved’ when giving evidence at a magistrate’s court.48 One imagines that his mind was on other things. Someone else who was being scrutinised was Froggatt, who was suspected of having offered to bribe a court official at Marlborough Street Police Court in 1876, to provide early warning of any warrants that might be issued against William Kurr. In addition, he had probably tried to bribe George Flintoff.49
Actions to investigate the suspected corruption became more apparent after the turf fraud trial. On 18 May 1877, Treasury Solicitor Sir Augustus Stephenson sent a confidential memorandum to the Home Secretary, stating that ‘there is no doubt of the complicity of Meiklejohn and Palmer’, but expressing uncertainty whether the men had committed an indictable offence, or whether they should be dismissed without attempting to prosecute them. Stephenson recommended that a submission should be made to counsel for advice.50 By then, Benson and Kurr had decided to make their own contribution to the investigations. Whether they initiated the approach to provide information, in the hope of getting a deal for an early release, or whether the Treasury approached them first is not known for certain.51 However, from Benson’s account of events, on 24 April 1877 he asked Stephenson to see him. This was followed on 9 May 1877 by a visit by William Pollard, assistant to the Treasury Solicitor, who questioned Benson in Pentonville Prison in the first of six meetings that Benson had with him and with Abrahams.52 Similar meetings were held with Kurr.
While these activities were underway, Clarke was preparing to travel to Austria with Detective Sergeant von Tornow for the trial of Henri de Tourville. The two men were away from Scotland Yard for three weeks from 15 June. For von Tornow at least, it seems to have been a bad time to be away because, on his return, he discovered that an accusation had been made against him that he had been seen drinking with William Kurr and, worse, that he had taken a bribe from Kurr to ensure that he would not locate the second cabman who had picked up Benson on 4 October 1876; accusations which von Tornow denied. Von Tornow’s reaction further enhanced suspicion, as he went missing in late July, returning to his family home in Germany. However, in his later and more considered response (which in the circumstances seems courageous rather than suspicious) he returned to Scotland Yard in August to ‘face the music’, and was reinstated in his post albeit with a reprimand and caution. Ultimately, he was never charged with any offence and remained in the detective department at Scotland Yard, later achieving promotion to inspector.53
Whether Clarke had been in communication with the office while he was away in Austria is not known, but he was soon to discover on his return that things had moved on. The Treasury Solicitor’s office had finally reached a decision on the actions that they should take. On 11 July 1877, arrest warrants were approved by the chief magistrate at Bow Street, Sir James Ingham, and on 12 July Williamson arrested Meiklejohn, Palmer and Druscovich, while Clarke was sent to arrest Froggatt. All four men were charged with conspiring to defeat the ends of justice. When they were placed in the dock at Bow Street Police Court, Williamson and Clarke gave formal evidence of the arrests. Their three colleagues were remanded in custody and only Froggatt received bail despite Palmer’s insistent efforts to achieve the same outcome.54
The magistrate’s committal hearings started on Thursday 19 July at Bow Street and continued intermittently until Saturday 22 September. The arrests had created a sensation. Although police officers had appeared in court before for various offences, nothing on this scale or level of seniority had previously been seen: ‘The three officers were brought up in custody and an immense concourse had gathered in front of the court to witness their arrival … The court was most inconveniently crowded and business was frequently interrupted by the struggles of persons to enter or to leave the building.’55 As several of the key witnesses were convicted criminals, the hearings attracted huge crowds who applauded and shouted encouragement to the Black Marias carrying the convicts and hissed at those containing the accused policemen. As a consequence, Bow Street was frequently blocked by large numbers of spectators throughout the summer of 1877, much to the annoyance of residents and local tradesmen.
The prosecution case was led by Harry Poland. The four accused were variously represented: Palmer by Mr Besley, Druscovich by Mr St John Wontner, Meiklejohn by Montagu Williams (on this occasion most certainly ‘the defender of lost causes’) and Froggatt by George Lewis (now famous for his inquisitorial performance at the Bravo inquest). Poland’s opening statement made it clear that the key witnesses against the accused were Kurr and Benson. The evidence against Meiklejohn was that he had been providing useful information to Kurr since 1872, which had been of value in helping Kurr and the other fraudsters to conduct their frauds and to evade arrest during their involvement in several criminal betting schemes. Meiklejohn had received substantial amounts of money from Kurr in return. Corroborative evidence included incriminating letters that Meiklejohn had written to Kurr (which Kurr had kept), and also evidence that Meiklejohn had purchased a house in 1874 with banknotes traced back to Kurr. It was claimed that Druscovich had fallen under the influence of Kurr in April 1876 when he had needed money to meet an outstanding debt that he had incurred on his brother’s behalf and, at Meiklejohn’s recommendation, had accepted a £60 loan from Kurr. As a consequence, from the first day that he was given responsibility for the turf fraud investigation, the prosecution case was that Druscovich had conducted his enquiries in a manner that had given the fraudsters every opportunity to evade arrest, receiving some additional money and jewellery from Kurr in the process. Evidence against Palmer consisted of the letter, in his handwriting, from ‘W. Brown’, addressed to ‘W. Gifford’ at Bridge of Allan, to warn Kurr of the imminent arrival of Druscovich. Further incriminating evidence had been found in the form of a telegram which had been sent on 10 November from the telegraph office in Fleet Street (close to Anderton’s Hotel where Palmer and Clarke were attending a Freemasons’ dinner that night). Kurr’s reply had been sent to Palmer’s home address. Finally, the case against Froggatt included evidence that he had sought to bribe a court official as well as the witness George Flintoff, and had been, in several other ways, involved with the fraudsters; being implicated in drafting the telegram that had been sent to Rotterdam in an attempt to free Benson, Bale and Frederick Kurr, and in discussions to ‘launder’ some Clydesdale banknotes.56
Clarke and Williamson appeared to be free of suspicion. Indeed, it seems plausible (though not certain) that Clarke’s plans to retire in 1876 may have been halted at the request of Williamson or Commissioner Henderson to help maintain a functioning detective department during the corruption investigations. However, with three senior members of his staff being apparently involved in criminal activity, Williamson must have felt vulnerable. One would think that his apparent lack of awareness of what seemed to have been going on should have raised questions at a higher level. However, there is little or no indication that it did, which says a great deal for the trust that his superiors placed in him. Indeed, even before matters were fully resolved, the Home Secretary approved a restructuring of the detective department early in October 1877 and Williamson, as superintendent, received a substantial pay increase of £100 a year.57 During late July and August, however, Williamson was ‘specially employed’, (probabl
y assisting the Treasury legal team and planning changes to the structure of the department) and Clarke was once again placed as inspector in charge.58 The detective department was busy with at least two murder investigations during August, which temporarily became Clarke’s overall responsibility.59 Yet, as events unfolded at Bow Street Police Court, Clarke’s mind soon became engaged on even more important matters: self-preservation.
On the first day of the hearings at Bow Street, Clarke’s name had cropped up during Poland’s introductory statement. It was mentioned that Clarke had previously met Benson (as ‘Yonge’) in 1875 on the Isle of Wight, and secondly that he had been present at a Masonic dinner with Palmer on 10 November 1876, the night a telegram had been sent to Bridge of Allan. On 26 July, Clarke was again mentioned in court during Kurr’s evidence when several letters written by Meiklejohn to Kurr were read out in court. Several of these made reference to Clarke, including a letter from Meiklejohn postmarked 11 October 1875: ‘… I had a letter from Poodle this morning, in which he says that he expects a letter from Chieftain saying that the matter of mine will be settled in my favour. I simply told him the matter was settled Saturday week, and C. never intended me to get it, as he recommended D. himself.’60 The letter requires some translation: ‘Poodle’ was Benson; ‘Chieftain’ and ‘C.’ refer to Clarke; ‘D.’ was Sergeant Davey who, at Clarke’s recommendation, had been promoted to inspector instead of Meiklejohn. One implication of this letter was that Clarke had been in correspondence with Benson (as Yonge), several months after he had first met him in the Isle of Wight in April 1875.
At Bow Street on 2 August, Kurr stated that he had not been at Sandown Races on 31 August 1876, although it had previously been stated at his April trial that he had been there on that day. Clarke had given evidence at the same trial that he had seen Kurr on that day at Sandown, and the inference was, if Kurr was now telling the truth, that Clarke must have lied. On 12 and 16 August Kurr gave evidence that he had bribed Clarke and had received up-to-date information of the turf fraud investigations from Clarke, via a prearranged signal in which Clarke would send a piece of blotting paper in a self-addressed envelope that Kurr had supplied. Kurr claimed that the blotting paper bearing the text ‘Keep the lame man out of the way’ had been sent by Clarke. Claiming that he had been sent other such envelopes, Kurr said that he had several meetings with Clarke at his home at 20 Great College Street, and elsewhere, including the Duke of York steps. On 17 August, Kurr mentioned the subject of the unsigned letter that Clarke had written to William Walters in 1874, a copy of which had been given to Kurr by Meiklejohn. The implication that Kurr put on this letter was that Clarke had also been in league with Walters and had accepted bribes from him. However, Kurr also confirmed that he had originally told the Treasury Solicitors that Clarke ‘was an honest man and not to be bribed’.61
Kurr was followed into the witness box by Harry Benson. On Saturday 25 August, Benson was in his fourth day of evidence when he also claimed that Clarke was in his pay. When cross-examined he claimed that Clarke had visited Rose Bank on at least three occasions during 1875. In addition, there had been meetings between the two men at the Langham and Westminster Palace hotels, and Benson said that he had given Clarke money on several occasions.62 Many of these comments had been extracted from Kurr and Benson during cross-examination by Meiklejohn’s counsel, Montagu Williams, who brought things to a head when he expressed the hope that it would be possible to cross-examine Clarke on 8 September.63 He explained later, during the subsequent Old Bailey trial, that his strategy for Meiklejohn in the magistrate’s court had been to ensure that Clarke was called as a witness:
… in order that he [Clarke] might have an opportunity of contradicting upon his oath the statements which had been made about him and asserting that they were a tissue of lies from the beginning to the end. If that course had been allowed, the magistrate would have had the alternative of either believing Clarke or the two convicts … Did the jury believe that such a man like Clarke, with his character, antecedents, and the position he had occupied for 35 years, would be guilty of this fraud? Did they believe he would be such a lunatic or candidate for Colney Hatch [lunatic asylum] as to put himself in the power of two such arrant knaves as those who gave their evidence?64
It was a strategy that did Clarke no favours, but it undoubtedly concentrated the minds of the Treasury legal team.
The claims made by Kurr and Benson, and the fact that several aspects of their ‘story’ appeared to be consistent, must have been enormously discomforting to Clarke, regardless of whether they were a fabrication or not. He therefore started to produce reports to rebut the accusations made. Meanwhile, the senior lawyers in government were increasingly concerned. Attorney General Sir John Holker and Solicitor General Sir Hardinge Giffard wrote to the Home Secretary on 29 August expressing their view: ‘We have come to the conclusion that Inspector Clarke ought to be charged along with the men now in custody. We may add that in our view the prosecution which has been instituted would probably be prejudicially affected unless such charge against Clarke is preferred at once.’65 Clearly, the two politicians felt that the charges against Meiklejohn, Druscovich, Palmer and Froggatt would be undermined unless Clarke was also charged, even though any case against Clarke at this stage was based solely on the uncorroborated evidence of two convicted criminals. This caused some disquiet and a measure of support for Clarke in the Home Office. The permanent secretary wrote to the Home Secretary suggesting that it would be better:
to see the whole case of Clarke’s statements before the final step is taken which is a very serious one for Clarke. I infer that the LO’s [Law Officers] have come to their decision upon the Newspaper reports:– which in effect is upon the uncorroborated statements of the convicts. Clarke professes in his statement to explain much of that and particularly the letter [to Walters] about which so much has been said, and I confess it seems fair to me that any thing that he has to say should be considered before the statements of unmitigated rascals uncorroborated should be taken as sufficient to inflict so serious a blow on so old and hitherto so trusted an official as Clarke. For whether he were convicted or discharged the blow would be fatal to him. I have seen Hodgson of the Treasury and he takes the same view.66
By 2 September, Poland and Abrahams were in favour of Clarke’s arrest while Williamson and Pollard were still of the view that Clarke was innocent, though Pollard’s opinion ‘was somewhat shaken on Friday [31 August]’, after Benson had described several meetings between Clarke and himself.67 Meanwhile, Clarke continued to assemble his response to the evidence given by Kurr and Benson, and submitted his final report to the Treasury Solicitor’s office on 7 September.
Arrest of Chief Inspector George Clarke
On the morning of Saturday 8 September, Clarke was arrested by his friend and colleague, Williamson, and suspended from duty without pay. The event became national news:
No subject has been so much talked about this week in London as the arrest of Chief Inspector Clarke. He is a well known and highly respected man, and I have heard more sympathy expressed for him than for the other three detectives put together. Why this should be I cannot say; but that is a fact, I can vouch. The arrest was made by Supt. Williamson, the Chief of the Detective Department, and I suppose he never did this duty more unwillingly in his life. He and Clarke had been neighbours and bosom friends for 29 years; and it is not surprising, under the circumstances, that he should have wept, as I am informed he did, when he told his lieutenant that he must consider himself in custody.68
Whether the increased expectation that Montagu Williams had created – that Clarke would be available for cross-examination on 8 September – was the principal trigger that influenced the timing of his arrest is not certain. It could be that the Treasury had finally made up their mind that there was a case against Clarke that needed to be answered in court. However, the fact that the prosecuting counsel, Harry Poland, was not fully prepared on 8 September to prese
nt the case against Clarke (his presentation was delayed until 13 September) suggests a degree of unplanned haste in the final decision to arrest him. Indeed, if Clarke had not been arrested when he was then he would have been eligible to give evidence at the magistrate’s hearing, and the Treasury case against the other prisoners could have been undermined in the way that Montagu Williams was seeking to achieve for his client. Once arrested and charged with the same offence, Clarke could not now give evidence on his own behalf or as a witness.
Immediately after his arrest Clarke found himself in the dock at Bow Street alongside his police colleagues and Froggatt. There was not room to fit them all in, so Froggatt was moved down to the front of the court. There are reports that Palmer and possibly Meiklejohn were in tears when Clarke entered the dock, and the events that morning were quickly captured in courtroom verse:
Clarke’s arrest at the Court was so suddenly planned,
It gives all the prisoners a shock;
But whilst the detectives are moved where they stand,
Mr. Froggatt’s moved out of the dock.69
At the end of the momentous day’s events, Poland did not oppose Clarke’s request for bail, which was granted on total sureties of £1,000.
Clarke’s arrest did not prevent his statement to the Treasury emerging into the public domain, and it soon appeared in the press. The fact that this did not raise any issues of contempt of court suggests either that Clarke released it himself before his arrest or that the Treasury Solicitor’s office, for reasons of their own, arranged for it to be available to the press. The following version was published in the Hertfordshire Express and would have been seen by friends and family living in the area where he was born: