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

by Payne, Chris

  Following this satisfactory outcome as far as the police were concerned, Superintendent Howie produced a summary report of the case for Mayne and for the Treasury Solicitor’s Office. There had been some investigation of Köhl’s German background, which confirmed that he was a native of Splietau near Dannenberg, and had returned from Germany to Britain on board the ship Berlin in company with Führhop.123 During the next few weeks Clarke and Howie spent time with the Treasury Solicitor’s team, helping to build the case for the prosecution. This included some work on Clarke’s part to investigate the alibi that Köhl’s defence team would present on his behalf – more of that later. The Treasury also reconsidered the need to obtain further background information on Köhl and the identification of Führhop’s effects.

  In the Plaistow Murder Case some further evidence has been thought necessary for the identification of the clothes and effects of the deceased – and as to the previous acquaintance of the prisoner and the deceased, and the relations existing between their families. For this purpose it is proposed to send an intelligent and trustworthy person to Hamburg – Probably no better person could be suggested than Mr. Clarke (in the Detective Force) who has been engaged in the case throughout. But if you could suggest a better man and would kindly allow us his services we should be extremely obliged.124

  On 21 December, following confirmation from Inspector Williamson that no better man could be found, Clarke headed off on his international travels again, this time to Germany. Clarke subsequently reported his visit:

  I arrived at Hamburg on the 23rd and delivered the letter of introduction to Mr. Ward, Her Majesty’s Consul in that town, who granted me every assistance. I shewed [sic] the property to the family of the deceased and it was all identified by Carl Henry Theodor Fuhrhop, the youngest brother, who I brought with me to London. On the 25th I left Hamburg for Splietau in Hanover, accompanied by an interpreter for the purpose of ascertaining the antecedents of the prisoner ‘Köhl’ which I found to be generally bad. He enlisted in the Kings Regiment of Hussars in 1860 for ten years but after serving 2½ years he was convicted and sentenced to three months in a Military Prison for stealing from his comrades, and was then dismissed the service. In the early part of 1864 he was charged with stealing a quantity of harness at Ledorf near Splietau, but he then absconded to avoid punishment and came to England.125

  These days, a journey of that nature might be straightforward. In the middle of winter in 1864 it was undoubtedly less so, and Germany was not at that stage an integrated country. The village of Splietau, to which Clarke travelled to seek further information on Köhl, was in the county of Dannenberg (Lower Saxony) and was part of the Kingdom of Hanover until it was later annexed by Prussia in 1866. Hamburg, where Führhop’s family were based, was one of thirty-nine sovereign states of the German confederation.126

  Clarke’s expenses claim for the visit totalled £39 19s 10d (about £1,750 today). It included 17s for the purchase of a lockable packing case for Führhop’s property; £1 4s 6d for the cost of transporting the extra luggage around northern Europe; £3 6s for extra pay while outside the London area (6s a day for eleven days); and £1 10s ‘paid to four persons for loss of time and refreshments whilst assisting me in gaining information of Köhl’s antecedents’. It took some persuasion for the authorities to fully reimburse him, and he was asked to supply further information on expenses claimed ‘which are not strictly in accordance with the Regulations’. Inquisitions in relation to expenses claims were indeed a thorn in the flesh for the poorly paid detectives, but Clarke on this occasion was reimbursed in full.127

  Köhl’s trial at the Old Bailey started on Wednesday 11 January 1865. Lord Chief Baron Pollock was the senior judge, as he had been at the Müller trial, but on this occasion was assisted by Mr Justice Blackburn. The prosecution team for the Crown contained some other familiar faces from the Müller trial, including the solicitor general Sir Robert Collier, Serjeant-at-Law Ballantine and Hardinge Giffard. Köhl was represented by Mr Best of the Oxford Circuit and Mr Palmer. The start of the trial was described by The Times:

  The prisoner is 26 years of age, and was described as a sugar baker. He is a short thick-set man with dark-brown hair and somewhat florid complexion. When asked to plead, he replied ‘Not Guilty’ in an emphatic tone of voice, and speaking in English. He elected to be tried by a mixed jury, and one, composed half of Englishmen and half foreigners, was impanelled, the foreman being Mr Julius Schullze. He folded his arms on the front of the dock and listened with intense interest to the opening statement of the Solicitor General, at parts of which he smiled. At times during the day his manner was unbecoming, and he appeared to have no adequate sense of the peril in which he stood.128

  In his introductory statement, the solicitor general emphasised Köhl’s poverty, clearly perceiving that as a contributory factor in the murder. Although Köhl had claimed that he had known Führhop for a long time, the prosecution case was that the two men had met for the first time on the steamer Berlin, when Köhl was returning from Germany. With regard to the mud that had been seen on Köhl’s clothes on 3 November, the solicitor general emphasised that it was a lightish colour (consistent with Plaistow Marshes) and not like the mud ‘found on the streets of London’.129 This comment was clearly included in the prosecution’s introductory statement to deal with Köhl’s alibi that, on the morning of 3 November, he and Führhop had gone to Commercial Road where Köhl claimed to have visited a sugar-bakers’ to look for work. After the prosecution statement had been concluded, the battery of witnesses that had been assembled for the earlier magistrate’s hearings were paraded before the court, including Clarke. Köhl’s defence counsel failed to dent the credibility of any of the prosecution witnesses. The few witnesses that had not appeared at any of the preliminary hearings now included Führhop’s brother, who Clarke had brought to England. Carl Führhop confirmed that his brother had left for England in September with plenty of money and clothes for his short-term needs. He recognised the pawned items as having belonged to his brother, and he stated that he did not recognise Köhl as someone who had met his brother when he was living in Germany. Three new witnesses were called to deal with aspects of Köhl’s alibi for the morning of 3 November. James Longman, a gatekeeper at a sugar bakery at Church Lane, Whitechapel, gave evidence that he had never seen Köhl at any time, as did James Thomas, the general manager of a sugar bakery on Commercial Road. Finally, Frederick Kaiger, a surveyor, indicated that the distance from the Plaistow Marshes location, where Köhl and Führhop had been seen together by Lees at around 10 a.m. on the morning of 3 November, was 40yds short of 5 miles from the sugar bakery off Commercial Road, where Köhl claimed to have been that morning. The implication being that Köhl would have had to make a return journey of almost 10 miles, plus visit a sugar bakery, all in two hours or so. The court then adjourned until the following morning.130

  In Köhl’s defence his counsel Mr Best made a statement, but called no witnesses. Best emphasised that Köhl’s reaction when seeing Führhop’s body was simply the reaction of a close friend. Likewise, when Köhl had pawned some of Führhop’s possessions, it had been a helpful gesture by a friend for someone who spoke little or no English. He pointed out that the knife found in the reed bed was of a commonplace style and could have belonged to anyone. He stressed that none of the witnesses had noticed any substantial amounts of blood on Köhl’s clothes, and that Führhop’s missing clothes when murdered had not been traced to Köhl. He also suggested that the journey that Köhl had claimed to have made on 3 November was feasible if he had travelled in a butcher’s cart, which Köhl said he had done. The jury’s deliberations lasted half an hour, including seeking some further information on the distances between places, from the surveyor Kaiger. They returned to the court with a ‘guilty’ verdict. This time restraining any tearfulness on his part, Lord Chief Baron Pollock sentenced Köhl to death and committed him to the custody of the High Sheriff of Essex.131

  Unlike t
he Müller case, there is no evidence in the contemporary newspaper coverage (which was much more low-key than for Müller) that any pleas for a respite or for mercy were made on Köhl’s behalf. The Reverend Dr Cappel, who had been at Müller’s side in his last moments, also visited Köhl, and was with him on execution day. During his final days at Springfield Gaol, Chelmsford, Köhl continued to protest his innocence. He asked if his sentence might be commuted to transportation, and later acted with anger and aggression, including a suicide attempt in which he kept hitting his head against a wall before he was restrained. On his way to the gallows on Thursday 26 January 1865, Köhl is reported to have said that ‘I had no hand in it; I die an innocent death’.132 Cappel did not at the end receive any confession from Köhl, who became the last person to be executed in public at Springfield Gaol. George Clarke was probably not in attendance at the execution; he was already working on his next case, a theft at Windsor Castle.133

  The Briggs and Führhop murder cases demonstrate several aspects of the effectiveness of the Metropolitan Police in the mid-Victorian era. Not least, they illustrate the speed in which decisions could be made and actions put in place. Particularly in the Briggs inquiry, when in less than forty-eight hours from receiving important new evidence, two detectives and two witnesses equipped with arrest warrant and new passports were on a ‘fast’ boat to America; all achieved without our modern benefits of telephone, fax and e-mail. The intense public and media interest surrounding the murder of Thomas Briggs also illustrated the challenges that the police faced from the efficiency of the ‘bush telegraph’ in spreading information amongst the population and ‘mobs’ within city communities, whether it be London, Liverpool or New York. However, in all but the incidents associated with Müller’s execution, the policing strategy fulfilled its objectives. Both cases also demonstrate that, by 1864 at least, the police were prepared to operate on an international scale when the need arose, using the network of British consulates to assist their inquiries and, as in the Briggs case, achieving the successful extradition of a suspect despite the political difficulties prevailing at the time.

  The legal system in place in 1864, and the manner in which trials were conducted, clearly differed in a number of aspects from the manner in which such trials would be conducted today. For example, there was no Director of Public Prosecutions in place, and many criminal cases less serious than the two murders described above would have been brought to court by the police themselves or by private individuals. In situations where it was felt to be in the public interest for the Crown to be the prosecuting body, then this was dealt with by the solicitor general’s office in the Treasury, as with both the Briggs and Führhop murders. There was no formal legal aid system and, by comparison with the arrangements in place in the twenty-first century, it could be considered that Victorian defendants were at a disadvantage as a consequence. In addition, defendants were not allowed to enter the witness box to give evidence on their own behalf, although this was sometimes a mixed blessing for the defendant’s case during their cross-examination by the prosecution; this situation did not change until the passing of the Criminal Evidence Act in 1898. Finally, in 1864, defending counsels had to make their statements before calling any witnesses for the defence; however, this was to change from 1865 onwards, when witnesses were called before the defending counsel’s statement.

  The two murder investigations undoubtedly brought George Clarke’s name into the public arena and consolidated his position within the detective department at Scotland Yard. Although no ‘high flyer’, the skills that he had developed during his twenty-four-year-long service in S Division, and since 1862 in A Division, had contributed significantly to the successful completion of both investigations. It is often difficult from the available contemporary records to tease out the individual contributions of the members of the police teams on a major case. However, it is clear that in the Briggs murder case Clarke carried out much of the work involved in contacting the pilots on Staten Island, and of course directly participated in the moment of Müller’s arrest. While Tanner has historically taken (and probably deserves) much of the credit associated with the arrest and conviction of Müller, some authors have suggested that Clarke’s contribution deserves greater recognition than it has historically been given.134 On the Führhop murder inquiry, Clarke undertook on his own the information-gathering visit to Germany over Christmas 1864 and undoubtedly led the specific inquiries into the fate of Führhop’s possessions. Though pawnbrokers don’t always get a good press, their contribution to both the Briggs and Führhop inquiries was such that Clarke could well have echoed the words of a contemporary of his, Superintendent James Bent of the Manchester Police, on this subject: ‘Few men have had more extended or extensive dealings with the pawnbroking class than myself, and I am ready and glad to bear witness to the fact that the police are often indebted to them far more than the public would imagine for the speedy detection of crime.’135 If determination and devotion to duty were amongst the principal attributes of Victorian detectives, then George Clarke did not fall short on either front. His superiors and the Treasury Solicitor undoubtedly appreciated his value. Clearly, by the beginning of 1865, Clarke’s star was in the ascendant.

  3

  THE FENIANS ARE COMING

  1865–68

  Wherever we go, wherever we be,

  Some wonders of wonder we daily do see;

  All classes through Britain are trembling with fear.

  The Fenians are coming – oh, don’t things look queer?

  The land of old Erin looks bashful and blue,

  Colonel Catchem and General Doodlem doo,

  Has crossed the Atlantic, poor Erin to sack,

  And carry Hibernia away on their back.

  Chorus

  There’s a rumpus in Ireland by night and by day,

  Old women and girls are afraid out to stray;

  Cheer up and be happy on St Patrick’s day,

  The Fenians are coming, – get out of the way!

  Anonymous1

  On 21 January 1865, Commissioner Mayne received a letter from the Treasury stating that Detective Sergeant Clarke ‘had proved himself very useful’ in the Führhop murder inquiry, and that they proposed to provide Clarke with a £3 gratuity, subject to Mayne’s approval.2 On the same day, Clarke was attending a magistrate’s court hearing at Windsor Town Hall. The hearing was linked to an event that had occurred some two days previously, when Scotland Yard had been contacted by Oxenhams auction house, Oxford Street, about a suspicious parcel that they had received from Windsor Castle containing some particularly fine silk bed furniture, together with a request that the items should be sold at auction. Clarke had been asked to make enquiries and had visited Oxenhams to collect the parcel, finding it to contain several pieces made from Indian silk, plus two embroidered silk curtains and matching valances. Travelling to Windsor Castle to pursue enquiries, Clarke interviewed two men and arrested both of them.

  One was William Wilson, foreman of the castle’s upholsterers, who had been in post for nine months and had been recently told to overhaul the stores. The second was George Hammond, a long-serving head porter in the lord chamberlain’s stores, who had taken the parcel to Windsor station at Wilson’s request. At the magistrate’s hearing on 21 January the case ‘excited great interest and the court was crowded during the examination of the prisoners. The articles stolen were of the richest possible character, and the bed furniture is said to have belonged to the marriage bed of King George IV’.3 At their trial at Reading Crown Court on 27 February, Wilson pleaded guilty and was sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment. The jury acquitted Hammond, who had been of good character, had worked at the castle for nine years and claimed to have been unaware of the contents of the parcel he had been asked to send.4

  From a case in which the criminal had been readily located, Clarke and his Scotland Yard colleagues were about to find themselves tackling a completely new challenge that was to dominate t
heir lives for the next three years. The cause was a resurgence of Irish Nationalism, historically recorded as the ‘Fenian Conspiracy’. This was to involve political-policing activities that, in the present day, would probably be within the purview of Special Branch, a section of the police that did not exist in the 1860s and 1870s. The public record of the activities of Clarke and his colleagues between 1865 and 1868 is scanty and incomplete. However, a police document published on 7 November 1868 provides evidence of the extent of the department’s involvement: ‘Gratuities to Detective Police. – Fenian Conspiracy. – The Secretary of State, on the recommendation of the Commissioner, has been pleased to allow the following gratuities to the several Officers of the Detective Force, on account of duties performed beyond the Metropolitan Police District in connection with the Fenian Conspiracy.’5 There followed a list of awards, totalling £160, to thirteen men of the detective department: the largest amount, £58 19s 10d, to Inspector Williamson; and the second-largest sum, £38 13s, to Sergeant George Clarke. The money Clarke received represented about 35 per cent of his annual salary as a sergeant; it was therefore clear that the Fenian conspiracy involved Clarke (and others) in a considerable amount of work, much of it scarcely reported in the press and little retained within the surviving archival records.

  Before concentrating on the events of 1865–68, it is necessary to provide some background on the Fenians by way of a concise introduction (which for the reader interested in pursuing the subject in more detail can be developed further by exploring several excellent books on the subject).6

  The Fenians

  During Clarke’s lifetime Ireland was part of the United Kingdom, electing parliamentary representatives to the House of Commons in London. The Act of Union of 1800 had abolished the Irish Parliament and had united (in practice if not always spirit) Britain and Ireland.7 Popular agitation for the repeal of the Union flourished in Ireland in the early 1840s, but concerted efforts were temporarily halted by a greater emergency. In the summer of 1845 the staple carbohydrate source of the Irish population, the potato, was devastatingly attacked by the fungal disease potato blight, with an estimate of 33 per cent crop losses that year and 75 per cent in 1846. Though the worst was over by 1850, there had been approximately 1.1 million deaths from starvation in Ireland, with the government’s free-market approach exacerbating the problem.8 One possible escape from the grinding poverty and hunger was emigration to other destinations in the UK, to continental Europe, North America and Australasia; many Irish-born men, women and children with the necessary courage and physical resources took that option (about 1.5 million).9