by Payne, Chris
I first became acquainted with the associates of these men [Kurr and Benson] in 1871, by complaints being received respecting a betting agency carried on at Myrtle-terrace, Hammersmith, and I ascertained that it was carried on by the man Walters. I obtained evidence, and submitted a report of details to the Treasury. In the result I obtained a warrant and arrested Walters, who pleaded guilty, and was fined £100. In 1872 I ascertained that this man was again carrying on betting. Again I reported to the Treasury. Again obtained a warrant against him. Again arrested him and he was fined £100. I lost sight of him until 1873, when Walters applied for a transfer of the license of the Grapes public house, Red Lion-street, Holborn. I gave evidence to the licensing magistrates of the two convictions, all I then knew of him; and on his counsel (Mr Besley) stating that Walters wanted the house for his mother, who had formerly kept a public house at Kingsclere, Berkshire, and would give up betting, the magistrates granted the transfer. Walters followed me out of the building, and said that he intended to conduct the house in a respectable manner, and that if he could assist me at any time by giving information he would be glad to do so. I never entered his house, and I saw nothing more of Walters until the spring of 1874, when the late Inspector Pay having informed me that there was every reason to believe a burglary with violence at Nayland, Suffolk, had been concocted at Walter’s public house, that one of the men arrested on the charge had had his defence paid for by Walters. I, at Pay’s request that I should see Walters, wrote a letter to Walters asking to meet me. Before sending that letter I submitted it to Superintendent Williamson. I met Walters, who denied all knowledge of the burglary and of the men, who, however, were all arrested, the last exclusively through my exertions.
I heard nothing more of Walters until January 1875, when a betting man named Charles Berkley [sic], together with Daniel Potch [sic] and George Manning, called at Scotland Yard. Berkley stated that his name was being improperly used by some men having offices in the City, and carrying on a betting swindle under the title of ‘The General Assurance Society Against Losses on the Turf’; that the principals in the ‘Society’ were a man named Edwin Murray and William Kurr; that upon Berkley complaining of his name being improperly used, the man named gave him a document holding him harmless, and promised him a sum of money for the use of his name; that by false telegrams and letters he had been induced to meet them at a wine shop in the Holloway-road for the purpose of settling the matter; and that on going there he was invited into a back parlour, where Murray, Walters, Kurr, and four or five others, armed with revolvers, under threats of his life, took the documents he possessed from him. I submitted a report to the Commissioner, and accompanied by Berkley I obtained warrants at Clerkenwell against the men named. I apprehended Murray on the same evening, but Walters and Kurr absconded. The evidence of Berkley and his friends before the magistrate was very confused, and Murray was remanded on bail. I was directed by the magistrate not to execute the other warrants, but to give the parties charged notice to attend on the remand day. I succeeded in arresting Walters on the 18th of February, and used, without success, every endeavour to arrest Kurr. During the remand till the 26th I obtained evidence connecting these men to the fraud (the ‘General Assurance Against Losses on the Turf’). I submitted a report to my superiors, asking for legal aid, and the solicitor of the Treasury obtained warrants at the Mansion House for the arrest of these men. The men in custody at Clerkenwell, Murray and Walters, were discharged, and I re-apprehended them, Kurr still keeping out of the way. They were remanded from time to time until the 27th of April. By that time, by my own exertions, I had obtained a chain of evidence connecting these men and others with the frauds which had been extensively practised in Russia, Germany and France – this evidence being reported verbally and in writing to the solicitors to the Treasury. After the committal for trial an application was made by the late Mr. Justice Archibald to the admission to bail of Walters and Murray. This was granted, though at the time I reported that the men would abscond. I said to Mr. Thomas at the Treasury, ‘I feel sure these men will abscond,’ to which he replied ‘We cannot help it, we cannot resist any longer’.
The men did not appear at the Central Criminal Court, and I found that they had absconded to America. I made inquiries from time to time, and in January, 1876, I was informed that they were in Havre, in France. I reported this to the Commissioner, and at my suggestion my report was forwarded to the French police on January 19th, 1876. The man (convict) Kurr had succeeded in keeping out of the way, but during June 1875, I heard that he was in London, and I had several conversations with Mr. Pollard as to the steps to be taken if he should be found. It was decided that it would not be advisable to apprehend him in the absence of the other two, and I inserted a ‘memo’ in the ‘police information’ to the effect that Kurr was not to be apprehended, but that if found a report was to be made in order that the solicitor might be consulted. No report was received from divisions as to Kurr’s being seen in London. During that autumn (1875), however, I received a letter from Kurr, offering to surrender himself. This I submitted to the Treasury but no steps were taken in this matter.
During the remands of Murray and Walters in 1875 I was made aware that the letter I had written to Walters respecting the burglary, asking him to meet me, had been photographed and copied and put in the hands of counsel for the purpose of making an accusation against my honesty. This was not carried into effect, owing, I believe, to the honest advice given by their counsel, Mr. D. Straight. I felt much annoyed that my letter should be in the hands of this class, and I endeavoured to recover it. Early in 1876, upon going home one evening, my wife handed me the identical letter and a copy of it. These had been left by a man in my absence. I have no doubt now that it was Kurr who left the letter. As soon as I found that this letter was of importance in the inquiry at Bow-street I handed it to Mr. Pollard and by the newspaper reports I see that it is admitted by Mr. Poland that the letter was honest, and written in the interests of justice. It follows, therefore, that the present convicts, wilfully and deliberately contemplated in 1875 making a false charge against me in respect to this very letter.
I now commence the history of my acquaintance with the convict Harry Benson.
On a Sunday, about the 11th of April 1875, a Mr. Andrews of 9 Mincing-lane (a merchant and a gentleman of undoubted respectability), called at my house, and said that a friend of his, ‘Mr. Yonge’, of Rosebank, Shanklin, Isle of Wight, could give me some information respecting the frauds I was then inquiring about, and the persons who had committed them. Mr. Andrews offered me £5 to pay my expenses as ‘Mr. Yonge’ was an invalid, and could not come to London. I declined to receive the £5, but promised Mr. Andrews to attend to the matter. The next day I was instructed by the Treasury to see ‘Mr. Yonge’ at Shanklin, and on arriving there late in the evening, I was by Mr. Andrews introduced to the convict Benson, who was then passing under that name. ‘Mr. Yonge’ was living with all the surroundings of wealth. He was spoken of as the proprietor of the principal newspaper in this island, kept a carriage, upon the panel of which was a coronet; he lived in a villa standing in its own grounds, and in all kept an establishment such as only the wealthy could keep. He professed to have become acquainted with men of the description of Walters and Murray through an advertisement, and that he had been engaged in drawing up newspaper articles for them for a mining speculation in Wales. He promised me information regarding the men on the conditions that his name was not to be mentioned, and by reason of his being a helpless cripple, he was not under any circumstances, to be required to give evidence. I told him that I would be glad of any information, and that I would report his helpless condition to the Treasury. I then left ‘Mr. Yonge’ and spent the night with Mr. Andrews at an hotel, seeing ‘Mr. Yonge’ in the morning before I returned to London, to ask him some questions which had occurred to me in the interval; and on my return that morning I reported all the particulars in writing. During these interviews ‘Yonge’ told me incidentally th
at he had met with his lameness by a railway accident, and that he had recovered large compensation. He showed me a bill of Mr. Andrews’s for £1,000, and led me to believe that he was connected with a firm of money-lenders. As I have said, I found him living in apparent wealth, and finding him associated with a gentleman of undoubted respectability like Mr. Andrews, perhaps I spoke more freely of the persons connected with the fraud than I should have done to the ordinary class of ‘informants’. Before leaving Yonge I had a strong suspicion that he was a mischievous, cunning man, and this suspicion I mentioned to Superintendent Williamson on my return. Some time after my return to London I received a few communications from Yonge, but they were confused, and did not afford any information, but I have no doubt I acknowledged the receipt of these letters by replies to Yonge. I visited the island in June, 1875, to seek for lodgings for my daughter, who was ill, and I took this opportunity to call upon ‘Yonge’ to see if he had any information. The interview was short, and I returned with my wife to London, not having taken lodgings as I found them more than I could afford. In August I took my sick daughter a trip to the Isle of Wight during the time I was on leave, and I had again a short interview with Yonge. I was only in the island from the 14th to the 17th. Shortly after this date a gentleman from the Isle of Wight called at the office. His name was either Young or Harvey; both names were mentioned but I do not remember which was the gentleman’s. [It was Harvey.70] He told me that ‘Mr. Yonge’, the proprietor of a newspaper, had slandered every one of any respectability in the island, and as ‘Mr. Yonge’ had publicly stated that he was attached to the French Embassy to England, the gentleman was anxious to establish who Mr Yonge really was. I referred the gentleman to the Commissioner who directed me to make enquiries at the French Embassy. I inquired, and reported in writing that Mr. Yonge was in no way connected with the Embassy. Soon after Yonge called at my house one evening with a man-servant, and said he wished to speak to me at the Westminster Palace Hotel. I promised I would call upon him in the course of the evening. I did so. ‘Mr. Yonge’ then stated that he had reasons to believe that I was in correspondence with a private inquiry agent named Nichols respecting his (Yonge’s) antecedents, and that he thought it very unfair that the police should be engaged with private inquiry men. I told him that his belief was not founded on fact; that I had not seen Nichols [who was employed by Harvey71]. Yonge told me either that he had communicated with the Commissioner or that he was about to communicate with the Commissioner on this matter. I told him he was at liberty to do as he pleased; adding the remark, ‘There’s a good deal of mystery surrounding you’. To this he replied, in seeming confidence, that the fact was he was one of the Princes Murat, and was here on a political mission, showing at the same time a handkerchief with a coronet upon it. I doubted his statement, but I do not recollect whether I told ‘Mr. Yonge’ my doubts. He appeared to me altogether a romantic man, whom I could not understand. I saw him again at the Langham Hotel, and later at 3, Bentinck-street, at his invitation, both times. These interviews were very short, and with those I have already spoken of, are all I have had with him. On every occasion he professed to be anxious to give me information respecting the turf frauds, and particularly mentioned the name of Trevelli (who under some name is undergoing penal servitude) as being engaged in a similar fraud; but I could never get ‘Yonge’ to enter into definite details. Shortly before the Christmas after I saw him last I received a letter from him, saying that he had given me a great deal of trouble and asking me what wine I would prefer for Christmas. I made no reply. During all the time I knew him he was living in excellent style. I had strong suspicions he was telling falsehoods, but I never understood his true character. The statement that he gave me £100 and the construction he puts on my acquaintance with him is wholly untrue, and I beg to point out there were no secrets in the case which it was possible for me to have told him; that I had no control on any action which might be taken by the Treasury respecting Kurr; that I used every endeavour to rearrest Walters and Murray; that by my exertions I completely exposed the whole system and broke it up for the time being, and I was the means of recovering a large sum of money which would have fallen into the hands of these men; that I knew nothing of this man ‘Yonge’ at the time I was in communication with him, and could not suspect that he was one of the principals in the fraud; and that I did not know Kurr but by his bad repute, and should not have known him if I had met him. In further proof of my innocence of all complicity with these men or their actions, I submit the letter I received from Yonge in September 1875, and copies of these he returned to me of my own, dated 14th, 22nd and 28th September, 1875.72
Clarke went on to deny in detail the statements of Kurr as to meeting him at Clarke’s house, the alleged payment to Clarke of £200, and appointments at the steps of the Duke of York’s Monument. He concluded:
I beg to state that these allegations can only have been made from motives of revenge against me for the active part I have taken in the prosecution of this class. From the fact that Kurr made no mention of my name in his original statement to the Treasury, which is admitted in his evidence, the statements regarding myself show them to be self-contradictory and an afterthought. I had no control in conducting inquiries respecting the fraud on Madame de Goncourt. I had nothing to do with sending the information to the several ports. I personally arrested the first prisoner in connection with the case, Murray, on the 27th of November, the information which led to his arrest being in my possession from the 25th; and the least word from me would have been sufficient to have prevented this initial step in bringing those who are now convicts to justice. I submit all my reports on these turf frauds and my correspondence with Yonge. Any letters which have passed, and are not here, were destroyed at the time when I had sought to retire from the service (before these frauds were discovered) and about which I spoke to Superintendent Williamson. The letters which were not destroyed at this time were preserved by accident.73
Returning to the Bow Street dock on 13 September, Clarke faced the rare experience of being on the opposite ‘side’ in a courtroom to Harry Poland, and at the receiving end of Poland’s prosecution case against him. The principal evidence, relating to the charge of conspiring to defeat the ends of justice, was based on the statements made in court by Kurr and Benson. The main accusations were:
1 That Clarke had been bribed by William Walters not to oppose the granting of a publican’s licence. In addition, the unsigned letter written by Clarke to Walters provided grounds for suspicion of their relationship, particularly because Clarke had been anxious to recover his letter when he discovered it had fallen into the hands of Kurr and Benson. Kurr had also claimed that when Clarke had searched Murray’s lodgings after arresting him in November 1876, Walters had also been at the property and that Clarke had allowed Walters to escape.
2 That Clarke corruptly instigated the withdrawal of the arrest warrant that had been issued for William Kurr’s arrest in 1875 (in the context of the ‘General Society for Assurance against Losses on the Turf’).
3 That Clarke had accepted money from Benson since 1875. The fact that he had only reported one of three meetings with Benson on the Isle of Wight was seen as suspicious. In addition, Clarke had maintained a subsequent correspondence with Benson; copies of several letters had been kept by Benson and his housekeeper Mrs Avis, and several others (that had been misdirected in the post) were discovered in a ‘dead letter office’ in late August 1877. The late discovery of these letters only reinforced suspicions that the relationship between Clarke and Benson was not an innocent one.
4 That Clarke had accepted money from Kurr during 1876 and had provided information that had assisted the fraudsters to evade arrest during the turf fraud investigations. The failure of Druscovich and Clarke to send a telegram (rather than a letter) to the Glasgow police on 3 October 1876, after Bank of England notes obtained by the fraudsters had been ‘passed’ in Glasgow, was interpreted by the prosecution to have been a contri
butory factor in delaying the arrest of the fraudsters. In addition, Kurr claimed that he had several meetings with Clarke during this period, at Clarke’s house and other venues.
5 That Clarke had committed perjury at the turf fraud trial by stating that William Kurr had been at Sandown Park on 31 August 1876; Kurr now denied that he had been there on that day.
After Poland had finished his presentation of the evidence, the hearing for the rest of the day moved on to other prosecution witnesses including Superintendent Williamson.74
Up to this point, Clarke had not obtained legal representation but, by 14 September, he had arranged for George Lewis to represent him. This was a good choice, not only because Lewis was an extremely competent solicitor, but also because he had been in court throughout the magistrate’s hearings (representing Froggatt) and was therefore well acquainted with the case. As soon as he was engaged, Lewis asked the court for permission to recall those prosecution witnesses who had earlier given evidence relevant to Clarke’s circumstances. With the agreement of Sir James Ingham, and deep sighs from the press correspondents (who had already fought for seats in the crowded Bow Street Court for about twenty days and would now have to continue), Lewis’ request was granted. Once more, Kurr’s and Benson’s solitary confinement was interrupted; however, their cross-examination added little. In contrast, when Superintendent Williamson was recalled, Lewis extracted several helpful comments. Firstly, that Clarke’s use of Walters and Benson as potential informants was not unusual:
He [Williamson] considered it was the duty of any detective officer to visit persons who volunteered to give valuable information relative to the commission of crime, and to report the results to him. They might volunteer the names of their informants, but were not bound to do so … He considered that there was nothing even suspicious in Clarke’s calling on Benson when he was in the Isle of Wight with his wife and daughter. He would not be required to report small details like that.75