Fraudsters and Charlatans

by Linda Stratmann

  As the hoardings started to go up around the Druce grave, the seasonal pantomimes made topical allusions to the case that was the sensation of the day. The meeting of the Consistory Court on 27 December to hear the application to exhume was a formality. Three days later the lid of the coffin was lifted to reveal, not as many had supposed, a skeleton, nor a wax effigy or even lead weights, but ‘a shrouded human figure which proved to be that of an aged, bearded man’.26 The body was stiff, desiccated and partially mummified. The features were easily recognisable, and the reddish brown hair, eyebrows and beard were entirely natural and still attached to the skin. George William Thackrah, who had worked for Druce from 1860 until just before his death, was present, and at once identified the body as that of his former employer. Two journalists, who had been instructed not to publish prematurely and were guarded by a policeman, nevertheless managed to signal the result. On emerging from the shed, one blew his nose on a red handkerchief, and colleagues with field glasses and a telescope understood from this that a body had been found and alerted the press.

  A few days later, after George had held two long conferences with his legal advisers, Coburn told the press that Atherley-Jones was satisfied that the body was not that of Druce; however, Dr Pepper’s subsequent report left little doubt that the body was indeed that of the shopkeeper. On 6 January Atherley-Jones withdrew the prosecution and Herbert Druce was discharged, ‘his character for truthfulness absolutely and conclusively vindicated’.27

  Soon afterwards, Mary Robinson was arrested and charged with perjury. In court she adopted a vacant stare and pretended not to understand what was happening, while Kimber said he thought she was of unsound mind. She was committed for trial. The police had been suspicious of her ever since she claimed to have been robbed on the voyage, and had been gathering information from the New Zealand authorities. Born Mary Anne Webb in May 1841, she was the daughter of a police sergeant of Mortlake, Surrey. In 1863 she had married a butcher, William Robinson, who in 1869 was employed as a shepherd on the Duke of Portland’s estate, but was dismissed after three months for neglecting the sheep, while Mrs Robinson was known to be ‘a loose character in Worksop’.28 The couple then emigrated to New Zealand, where William worked as a butcher. After his death there in 1884, Mrs Robinson went to live in Christchurch with her four children. Maude ‘O’Neill’ was in fact one of her daughters. In Christchurch Mrs Robinson was suspected of some minor thefts, but there was insufficient evidence for a prosecution. In 1906 she and Maude were living in Thomas Street when the house burned to the ground. An insurance claim stated that, apart from a cash-box, all her possessions, including plate and jewellery, had been destroyed. The police suspected that the valuables had been removed before the fire broke out, but in the absence of proof the money was paid. The Robinsons next moved to Falsgrave Street, Christchurch, but in February 1907 were ordered to leave following complaints made to the landlord by neighbours. They had observed that Mrs Robinson had been in the habit of leaving her daughter alone in the house, which had then been frequented by men.

  Waiting in Holloway prison for her trial, Mrs Robinson had ample opportunity to consider her position, and on 27 January she indicated that she wished to make a statement. Admitting her true origins and confessing to many of her lies, she nevertheless omitted the fact that she had forged letters that purported to show that she had been the Duke’s mistress. Given her history, the story she now told, which shifted much of the blame to others, may not be entirely believable. She said that in 1906 she had read an account of the Druce case in a newspaper, which claimed that the Duke had been a wizard. The newspaper gave the address of a Mr Druce, to whom she wrote saying that the article was mistaken and that she had known the Duke. About a month later, she said, a man called at her house with an offer. He gave his name as Druce and said the case needed funds and if she would write what he asked she would receive £4,000. He wanted her to write a book with all that she could say or invent, and as there was another witness coming from America she was to claim she came from there too. She never saw the man again, but when she met George Hollamby Druce in London she felt sure that the two were related. As she compiled her history, George Druce and Mr Coburn kept in touch with her by letter, sending her pamphlets about the case, and cabled her £250 to enable her to come to England. When she arrived in Plymouth early in 1907, Coburn and Kimber immediately demanded the diary. She gave it to them, but later asked for it back on two occasions, since she wanted to refresh her memory before she gave evidence. Kimber refused, saying it was at his bank. When George called on her, however, he said that investors were being brought round to Kimber’s office to look at the diary and that it was raising a lot of money for them. Mrs Robinson and her daughter lodged at Sisters Avenue, Clapham, where they waited in vain for Kimber to bring them some funds. Instead, they received a letter from him claiming that Scotland Yard was after her and that she was a bad character who had been chased out of New Zealand by the police there. As a final resort they called on Mr Watt, chairman of the committee of shareholders of G.H. Druce Ltd, and after that a Mr Crickmer called a few times to bring them money. Kimber later wrote to her with a list of things he wanted her to swear to in court, many of which she was unhappy about, and Coburn called and said he wanted her to swear she had seen lead put in the coffin, which she refused to do.

  After several efforts to get the diary back, Mrs Robinson paid a solicitor to retrieve it for her. She then read it though and made a copy. ‘I wanted my tale in the witness box to appear a little feasible, even though it was all lies.’29 She insisted that the story she had told about the diary’s theft was true. Several people had been eager to get hold of it: Freshfields, the defence solicitors, Kimber, who undoubtedly wanted it back, Coburn, who said he wanted to make copies of it, Allen, Caldwell’s solicitor, who said he could make money out of it from the newspapers, and Watt, who was anxious on behalf of the shareholders. On 10 April 1908 Mrs Robinson was sentenced to four years in prison.

  Mrs Hamilton was also arrested and tried for perjury. Born Margaret Jane Atkinson in Holme, Westmoreland, in March 1830, she claimed to have married William Hamilton, a master mariner, in the 1850s. There is no record of such a marriage, but in 1861 the couple were living as man and wife in Great Crosby, Lancashire, with a son and daughter.30 She later parted from Hamilton and claimed to have worked as a housekeeper before coming to London. Mrs Hamilton’s case was considered to be far more serious than that of Mrs Robinson. She had told, retold and embellished her lies for ten years and continued to persist in them. Her stories had been the foundation of the prospectus of G.H. Druce Ltd, on the basis of which many people had bought worthless shares. Mr Justice Grantham believed she ought to have been imprisoned for seven years, but in view of her advanced age she was sentenced to eighteen months’ hard labour.

  Robert Caldwell never stood trial. An application for his extradition was adjourned when medical reports showed he was suffering from paranoia. His daughter revealed that she had long suspected him to be insane. For many years he had been claiming friendships with distinguished men and special knowledge of sensational cases. When he began to talk about the Druce affair she had been about to take steps for his committal, but had not done so because London solicitors arrived and said that his stories could be corroborated. In February 1908 Caldwell was sent to the Manhattan State Hospital for the insane on Ward’s Island. He died on 12 January 1911, aged 76.

  Thomas Coburn, afraid of prosecution, had burned all his papers. Reduced to penury, he wrote begging letters to his friends, asking for ‘a few shillings, for I am actually without money for stamps and fares’ and for work: ‘If only a pound a week to keep me from actual physical want.’31 What became of him later is unknown. The Director of Public Prosecutions gave serious thought to taking action against George Druce, Kimber, Henderson, Coburn and Sheridan, but eventually decided not to proceed in view of the difficulty in proving fraudulent intent.

  In March 1908 George
presided at a meeting of the shareholders of G.H. Druce Ltd. The company had ceased to trade, all its capital was exhausted and there were liabilities of £300. He wanted it clearly understood that the proposed liquidation would not affect the continuation of proceedings to establish his claim, adding that he was unable to answer any questions that might affect litigation involving the directors. Whether any of his listeners still believed in him was not recorded. Charles Crickmer seconded the resolution to wind up the company, which was carried without discussion. The investors received nothing. The shareholders in the two companies formed by Sheridan were more fortunate. On 6 December 1907 a restraining order had prevented the directors from parting with any of the money subscribed. The holders of the 5s shares eventually received 4s a share.

  George Druce settled in Oakland California, where in 1913 he told the correspondent of the Oakland Tribune that there was a tunnel between the Duke of Portland’s London mansion and the Baker Street Bazaar and that the coffin had contained only a dummy. He claimed to have been offered ‘ample funds … by several wealthy women’, the consideration in return being marriage. The lawsuit he had lost he described as ‘a skirmish’,32 and announced his intention of returning to England to continue the fight. Gradually his funds were exhausted and his dreams became wistful thoughts of what might have been. He remained in Oakland, working as a carpenter and janitor. By 1937 he was living in a rooming house at 723 Sixth Street, blind and existing on a pension. He died in 1942.

  Herbert Druce died on 11 April 1913. In a deliberately low-key funeral, he was buried in the family vault. Anna Maria Druce died in the London County Asylum on 17 March 1918.

  It is to Mr Plowden, the magistrate for the Druce case, that the final words can be left. ‘No-one can now doubt that Thomas Charles Druce existed in fact … Sufficient to say that this case is an illustration of that love of the marvellous which is so deeply ingrained in human nature, and is likely to be remembered in legal annals as affording one more striking proof of the unfathomable depths of human credulity.’33

  Notes

  Chapter 1: The Price of Omnium

  1. Anon., The Trial of Charles Random de Berenger, Sir Thomas Cochrane, commonly called Lord Cochrane, the Hon. Andrew Cochrane Johnstone, Richard Gathorne Butt, Ralph Sandom, Alexander McRae, John Peter Holloway, and Henry Lyte for a conspiracy in the court of King’s bench Guildhall, on Wednesday 8th and Thursday 9th June 1814, with the subsequent proceedings in the court of the King’s bench (London, Butterworth and Son, 1814), p. 5.

  2. S. Johnson, A Dictionary of the English Language (London, Thomas Tegg, 1813), p. 762.

  3. S. Pope, Considerations, political financial and commercial relative to the important subject of the public funds, addressed to stock-holders in general, and more particularly to the holders of Omnium (London, Oriental Press, 1802), p. 2.

  4. London Chronicle, 21 February 1817, p. 176.

  5. Anon., The Case of Thomas Lord Cochrane K.B., Containing the History of the Hoax, the Trial, the Proceedings the House of Commons, and the Meeting of the Electors of Westminster (Edinburgh, J. Dick, 1814), p. 8.

  6. Sir Leslie Stephen and Sir Sydney Lee (eds), Dictionary of National Biography (repr. London, Oxford University Press, 1973), vol. 10, p. 959.

  7. This is the only extant account of the conversations between de Berenger and Cochrane Johnstone, but it is consistent with what is known of both men.

  8. Baron C.R. de Berenger, The Noble Stock-jobber, or Facts Unveiled, Irrefutably to Disprove Lord Cochrane’s Affidavits (London, R.S. Kirby, 1816), p. 49.

  9. De Berenger, Noble Stock-jobber, pp. 64–5.

  10. Ibid., p. 257.

  11. Ibid., p. 293.

  12. Anon., Trial of de Berenger, p. 25.

  13. Ibid., p. 144.

  14. John Brown (ed.), An Antidote to Detraction and Prejudice, respecting the Family, Character, and Loyalty, of Charles Random Baron de Berenger; with a biographical Memoir; an account of his arrest at Leith; his singular progress to, and treatment in, London, Correspondence &c. (London, printed for the editor, 1814), p. 56.

  15. Anon., Trial of de Berenger, p. 487.

  16. De Berenger, Noble Stock-jobber, appendix, p. 68.

  17. Ibid., p. 67.

  18. ‘Court of Kings Bench, Saturday June 18’, Observer, 19 June 1817, p. 3.

  19. Anon., Parliamentary Debates (London, T.C. Hansard, 1816), vol. 32, p. 1146.

  20. The Times, 8 March 1817, p. 3.

  21. The National Archives (TNA): PRO TS 11/44/165, ‘The King agt Richard Gaythorne Butt’, p. 2.

  Chapter 2: The Princess of Javasu

  1. J.M. Gutch, Caraboo. A Narrative of a Singular Imposition Practised upon the Benevolence of a Lady Residing in the Vicinity of the City of Bristol, by a Young Woman of the Name of Mary Willcocks, alias Baker, alias Bakerstendht, alias Caraboo, Princess of Javasu (London, Baldwin Cradock and Joy, 1817), p. 50.

  2. Gutch, Caraboo, p. 51–2.

  3. Ibid., p. 37.

  4. Ibid., p. 68.

  5. Ibid., p. 1.

  6. Ibid., p 1.

  7. Ibid., p. 3.

  8. Ibid., p. 68.

  9. Ibid., p. 7.

  10. ‘Caraboo’, Notes and Queries, 3rd series, vol. 7, 1 April 1865, p. 269.

  11. Gutch, Caraboo, p. 14.

  12. Ibid., p. 15.

  13. Ibid., n. 10 p.12.

  14. Archbishop R. Whateley, ‘Notice of the Pretended Princess Caraboo’, The Rose the Shamrock and the Thistle, April 1863, p. 517.

  15. Gutch, Caraboo, p. 20.

  16. Ibid., p. 19.

  17. ‘Curious and Authentic Particulars of the Life and Adventures of Carraboo, Alias, Mary Baker, Alias - - !’, Bristol Mirror, 21 June 1817, p. 3.

  18. Gutch, Caraboo, p. 27.

  19. Ibid., p. 47.

  20. Ibid.

  21. ‘Curious and Authentic Particulars’, p. 3.

  22. ‘Caraboo’, Notes and Queries, 3rd series, vol. 8, 29 July 1865, p. 94.

  23. ‘Inquest’, Bristol Daily Post, 29 December 1864, p. 2.

  Chapter 3: The Viscount of Canada

  1. Archibald Swinton, Report of the Trial of Alexander Humphreys [sic] or Alexander, claiming the title of Earl of Stirling, before the High Court of Judiciary at Edinburgh for the crime of forgery (Edinburgh, Thomas Clark, 1839), p. 189.

  2. Abel Stevens (ed.), ‘Mademoiselle Le Normand’, National Magazine, vol. 2 (New York, Carlton and Phillips, 1853), p. 439.

  3. International Genealogical Index.

  4. William Turnbull (ed.), The Stirling Peerage. Trial of Alexander Humphrys or Alexander styling himself Earl of Stirling (Edinburgh, William Blackwood and Sons, 1839), footnote p. 8.

  5. Anon., Remarks on the trial of the Earl of Stirling by an English lawyer (London, Lewis and Co., 1839), p. 30.

  6. Swinton, Report of the Trial of Alexander Humphreys, p. ix.

  7. Ibid.

  8. Thomas C. Banks (as Sir Thomas C. Banks Bart. N. S.), An Analytical Statement of the Case of Alexander, Earl of Stirling and Dovan &c. &c. &c. (London, James Cochrane and Co., 1832), p. 99, appendix 6: Copy of the Minutes of Election of the Sixteen Peers of Scotland 2 September, 1830.

  9. Banks, An Analytical Statement, Appendix 13, p. 118.

  10. Ibid., Appendix 7, p. 104.

  11. Revd Charles Rogers, ‘History of Alexander Humphrys or Alexander, Claimant of the Earldom of Stirling’, in Memorials of the Earl of Stirling and of the House of Alexander (Edinburgh, William Patterson, 1877), vol. 2, appendix 4, p. 218.

  12. Turnbull (ed.), The Stirling Peerage, p. 13.

  13. Ibid., pp. 14–15.

  14. Banks, An Analytical Statement, appendix 9, p. 112.

  15. A.H. Alexander (as Earl of Stirling), Narrative of the oppressive Law Proceedings, and other measures, resorted to by the British government, and numerous private individuals, to overpower the earl of Stirling, and subvert his lawful rights (Edinburgh, James Walker, 1836), p. 20.

  16. Rogers
, ‘History of Alexander Humphrys’, p. 219.

  17. Alexander, Narrative of the Oppressive Law Proceedings, p. 13.

  18. Ibid., p. 14.

  19. Turnbull (ed.), The Stirling Peerage, pp. 24–5.

  20. ‘Sales by Auction’, The Times,22 October 1832, p. 8.

  21. ‘Advertisement’, The Times, 6 November 1832, p. 4.

  22. Turnbull (ed.), The Stirling Peerage, p. 30.

  23. Rogers, ‘History of Alexander Humphrys’, p. 222.

  24. Ibid., p. 222.

  25. Turnbull (ed.), The Stirling Peerage, footnote p. 10.

  26. Alexander, Narrative of the Oppressive Law Proceedings, p. 1.

  27. Ibid., p. 4.

  28. Ibid.

  29. Ibid., p. 2.

  30. Ibid., p. 19.

  31. Ibid., p. 22.

  32. Ibid., p. 29.

  33. Swinton, Report of the Trial of Alexander Humphreys, appendix 8, p. xxxix.

  34. ‘Private Correspondence’, The Times, 28 April 1838, p. 5.

  35. Swinton, Report of the Trial of Alexander Humphreys, p. 258.

  36. Turnbull (ed.), The Stirling Peerage, pp. 39–40.

  37. Swinton, Report of the Trial of Alexander Humphreys, p. 144.

  38. Ibid., p. 274.

  39. Ibid., p. 292.

  40. Ibid., p. 192.

  41. Ibid., p. 299.

  42. Ibid.

  43. Ibid., p. 300.

  44. Ibid.

  45. Ibid., p. 347.

  46. Joseph Babington Macaulay, The Life of the Last Earl of Stirling (Paignton, W.A. Axworthy, 1906), p. 62.

  47. Stevens (ed.), ‘Mademoiselle Le Normand’, pp. 439–40.