The Chieftain: Victorian True Crime Through The Eyes of a Scotland Yard Detective (43 page)

Whatever Clarke’s reasons for joining, he appears to have been committed to Freemasonry’s aims and objectives, as he also chose to become a Royal Arch Mason, joining on 23 November 1871, and remained a Mason until his resignation in June 1890, long after his retirement from the police.
⁴³
At the end of 1876, both he and Palmer were officers of the Domatic Lodge. Palmer had the more senior position of junior warden while Clarke was a deacon, whose responsibilities included guarding the inside of the main door of the lodge during the arrival of members for their meetings. This was a task that he fulfilled on the 10 November 1876 when the lodge met at their usual venue, Anderton’s Hotel in Fleet Street.
⁴⁴
For reasons that will become clear later, the date and location of this meeting became significant in subsequent events.

Apart from Meiklejohn and Palmer, Druscovich also had some questions to answer concerning his conduct of the investigation into the turf fraud. Firstly, what had happened to the letter that had been sent by the Chief Constable of Leeds to Williamson, which should have arrived in the detective department on 26 September 1876 when Druscovich was in charge of the office? Druscovich had denied knowing anything about it, and the letter was never found. Secondly, it was discovered that Druscovich failed to report that he had received a compromising telegram from Meiklejohn, when in Edinburgh in November 1876. When asked to explain the omission, Druscovich said that he thought it hardly worth mentioning, only later telling Williamson that he had withheld the telegram to shield Meiklejohn from trouble.
⁴⁵
Thirdly, Druscovich’s colleague, John Reimers, had told Williamson in early December 1876 of a conversation that took place between Reimers and Druscovich in late November that year:

I said, ‘How are you getting on with the turf swindle?’ He [Druscovich] said, ‘Damn the turf swindle! I wish I had never heard anything of it’. He then added ‘I have documents in my hand with which I could smash two’. Just before he said this I had said ‘I believe there is some one else in it besides Meiklejohn’. Then he made the remark about the documents. I then said to him ‘Have you told the Governor so?’ (Meaning Mr Williamson.) To that he replied ‘No, I have not; let him find out like I have done’. I then said to him ‘Surely you will not jeopardise your position for the sake of screening others’. He made no reply.
⁴⁶

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’, (probably 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