by Payne, Chris
In the next days and months many personnel changes occurred in the department that must have taken some time to settle down. Inspector Richard Tanner finally retired on 3 July 1869 on the grounds of ‘bodily infirmity’ despite being only 38 years old.16 He moved to Winchester to become landlord of the White Swan hotel, but died in 1873 from a stroke and heart disease. Chief Inspector James Thomson decided to further his career by returning to uniform and was promoted to superintendent of E Division (Holborn) on 6 July 1869.17 These two changes created the situation where Clarke was now, on grounds of seniority, second only to Williamson within the department, and from this time onwards whenever Williamson was away Clarke became the acting senior officer. Nathaniel Druscovich and William Palmer were both promoted to the rank of inspector, followed in October 1870 by their further promotion to chief inspector. From which time, with Clarke, they filled these three senior posts until 1877.18 Over the coming months John Mulvany and John Shore became inspectors. The other vacant detective posts at Scotland Yard were filled from recommendations made by divisional superintendents and, to a lesser extent, from external appointments. In the process the department added to its staff a greater linguistic ability (including John Reimers, the German-born sergeant who had lost his way in the London sewers in December 1867), to help deal with an influx of foreign criminals.19 In the meantime, Clarke had already become acquainted with some of the challenges posed by foreign criminals.
Burglary and the Stratford Murder
Towards the end of 1868, the principal emphasis of Clarke’s work switched to an outbreak of burglaries in some well-to-do areas on the fringes of London. One of the first of these, on 1 September, was at Copped Hall, a mansion in the Totteridge area near Barnet and previously the birthplace of Cardinal Henry Manning, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster.20 Other burglaries took place in the Windsor area where various substantial properties had been targeted, including the residences of Equerry to the Queen Lord Bridport, and Sir Edward Sullivan, an Irish lawyer, MP and solicitor general for Ireland.21 A common feature linked each of the robberies:
When the robbery was discovered in the morning it seemed that the entry had been effected through the drawing-room window. A chisel appeared to have been thrust in the window, and a piece of wire inserted with a bent end, which caught the spring catch of the window, and thus the window catch being drawn back the window was opened. The shutter was opened by means of a hole being made by a chisel and the bolt of the shutter lifted-up. It was said by Inspector Clarke that this particular mode of entry is a novel introduction and was introduced from the Continent.22
Given the spate of burglaries at properties owned by wealthy and influential individuals, the investigation took a high priority within the detective department and Inspector Clarke, Detective Sergeants Druscovich and Meiklejohn were put on the case. Clarke and Druscovich soon arrested several foreigners suspected of the burglary at Copped Hall, who they brought before the magistrate at Barnet petty sessions on 5 October 1868. Evidence was presented that holes cut in the drawing room and internal doors were exactly fitted by the gimlet and chisel found on one of the prisoners, Joseph Bleiler. Another, Auguste Blanche, was found in possession of an umbrella stolen from Copped Hall. Clarke had also located a female acquaintance of the two men who had pawned several items stolen in the Copped Hall and Windsor burglaries.23 On 17 October, acting on information received during their enquiries, Druscovich arrested another Frenchman, Charles Maurien, at the Mogul Music Hall, Drury Lane. Maurien was found to be carrying a gimlet and wire and £60 in banknotes, taken from a robbery at a banker’s residence in Leatherhead, and had also been seen by witnesses loitering in Windsor Great Park on the day when one of the Windsor properties was burgled. Bleiler and Blanche were found guilty at the Hertford assizes of the burglary at Copped Hall and were each sentenced to seven years’ penal servitude. Maurien was found guilty of the burglary at Windsor and received the same sentence at the Reading assizes.24 In addition to commendations and £5 rewards that Clarke and Druscovich received from the judge at Hertford, they were also commended and awarded £2 10s by Mr Justice Keating at Reading.25
Meiklejohn’s memories present a rather different perspective and, if accurate, are revealing of certain tensions and jealousies in the detective department at that time:
A sergeant from the Yard was detailed to look into the matter. He spent much time examining the scenes of the various robberies and making local inquiries, which brought him no nearer his end, and all the while the burglars were coolly pursuing their avocation, now in one place, now in another … After some time I was ordered to his assistance … I set about looking for my men in London … I learned of the existence of a gang of French thieves in Soho, who, upon further inquiry, involving the expenditure of a good deal of loose cash upon informants, proved to be the very men I sought … With some little trouble I succeeded not only in arresting the lot, but in recovering a considerable amount of the proceeds of their robberies. Unfortunately, I knew no French, so officers who spoke that language fluently, had then to be brought into the case. Next morning on my appearance at the office I was informed that there was no necessity for my going to Barnet to testify against the men I had arrested, as two others had gone down. To complete the farce these two officers were highly commended for their clever capture of the thieves and awarded a gratuity of £5 each and I was left to whistle even for my out-of-pocket expenses … It was always thus.26
Although Meiklejohn’s comments demonstrate an awareness of some of the details of the case, and therefore have a ring of truth to them, his recollections of his time as a detective also include some dubious claims which appear to have no substance to them (e.g. that it was he who arrested the Fenian arms organiser Ricard Burke on 20 November 1867), and should therefore be interpreted with some caution.27
Being foreign wasn’t a prerequisite for Victorian burglars, but for Clarke it must have appeared to be. On the night of 25 October 1869 he was called out to 9 Baker Street, Portman Square, concerning a burglary at the premises of Benjamin Lee, a jeweller and hair-worker, where property to a value of £500–600 had been stolen by burglars who had entered through a fanlight. Working together with Inspector Hinds of D Division (Marylebone), Clarke received information that encouraged them to place under surveillance individuals at 11 Gerrard Street, Soho. They then raided this address on 28 October and found, in rooms occupied by Frenchman Hippolyte Longuet: ‘82 duplicates [pawn-shop receipts], seven bracelets, 31 eardrops, nine hair rings, 19 brooches, nine necklets, two crosses, a key, 21 odd pieces of hair guards, silver coins, 10 pair ear-rings, one ear-ring, 16 watch-guards, seals, fish-slice, rings on keys, jewel cases, indecent photographs and other articles.’28 Several of these were recognised as items taken from the jeweller’s premises. Longuet stated that three other men had asked him to pawn the items for them on the morning after the robbery. Two of the men were known to the jeweller, as he had employed them to paint his premises during the previous summer. All three men were arrested within the next few days, with one being found in possession of a bag containing many items of jewellery, plus the tools of a burglar’s trade: ‘23 skeleton keys, two centre-bits and stock, a keyhole saw, a gimlet, eight common keys and a file.’29 At the Old Bailey the three burglars were found guilty and sentenced to five or seven years’ penal servitude, depending on their previous record.30 Longuet was found not guilty of burglary, but Clarke pursued charges against him of ‘unlawful possession’. At a subsequent Old Bailey trial, Longuet was found guilty on that charge and sentenced to eighteen months’ hard labour.31 So within less than a month of the break-in, the burglars had been traced, tried, convicted and sent to prison; administering justice to the ‘fence’ had taken only two to three weeks longer.
The third major burglary case that Clarke worked on occurred in February 1871 in a middle-class neighbourhood in Stratford. The attempted burglary involved a style of entry that was favoured by the native English criminal, in
which the burglar sought to gain entry to a property through a first-floor window, by climbing up the portico above the front door. Clarke’s report describes the events:
13th February 1871
With reference to the attempted larceny at the residence of Mr Galloway, No. 2 Oxford Villas, Romford Road (K Division) and the attempt made on this gentleman’s life by the thieves.
I beg to report that in conjunction with Sergeant Gibbs of this Department and Inspector Mason, and P.S. Briden (Detective) K Division, I have made enquiry and ascertained the subjoined particulars. The persons committing this outrage must have been in the neighbourhood for at least an hour and a half during which time they made two separate attempts to enter houses viz. at Mr Pedlar’s, Romford Road, and Mr Paize’s, 10 Vicarage Terrace, both houses being within a distance of three hundred yards from Mr Galloway’s.
Martha Barker, servant to Mr Pedlar states that at 7.15 p.m. 9th Inst. she heard the gate bell ring and upon going to the front door saw a man who had one leg over the iron fence, and two other men were standing on the footway. She called out to the man saying ‘You have no business there, go away’. At this time a constable came up and in his presence repeated that the men had no business there; she then shut the door. Shortly after, the bell again rang and upon answering it she saw [another] policeman who enquired if she knew the men, and she replied no. Upon examining these premises I find that the wire in connection with the bell runs along the iron fence and the man catching his foot in it caused the bell to ring, and was, when seen by Barker in the act of making off. I have seen the Constable spoken of, Edward Blackett 542K who states that on passing he saw three men standing on the footway. He said ‘what are you doing here taking up the whole of the footway’. They replied they were only having a lark, upon which he told them to go away. This they did turning down Vicarage Lane. The P.C. denies seeing either Mr Pedlar’s servant, or any other person on the force. I have however no doubt that this is untrue the statements being made to screen himself from having neglected his duty in not either satisfying himself who these men were or keeping some observation on them. He is further unable to give any description of the men and I place but little reliance upon what he says.
About 8.15 p.m. a man was seen by Miss Elizabeth Green of No. 4 Stratford Green to slide down the pillar of the portico in front of the residence of Mr Paize; two other men were also standing on the pavement; she thought the circumstance a very suspicious one and called the attention of a gentleman to it who happened to be passing. She gives a description of them and could identify them.
About 8.40 p.m. Miss Howlett niece of Mr Galloway saw a man on the front door step, and acquainted her uncle with the circumstance. He at once went to see what was the matter followed by his wife. Mrs Galloway states her husband ran out of the house and overtook a man about twenty yards distant whom he seized and accused of attempting to rob his house. Upon this two men crossed from the opposite side of the road, one of whom, struck the husband in the face. He fell and upon Mrs Galloway screaming out, a policeman came up and assisted Mr Galloway in-doors. She informed the P.C. her husband had been attacked by three men who ran down the road in the direction of Romford. The P.C. endeavoured to find some trace of them but being unable to do so, went to West Ham police station and acquainted Inspector Mason with the particulars. Constables were at once despatched to the several Railway Stations and other places in the neighbourhood with a view of intercepting the persons guilty of the outrage but without success. P.C. Young 53K, who went to Mrs Galloways assistance states that he found Mr Galloway lying on the foot path, but the men had escaped and, after assisting to remove the gentleman into the house, went to West Ham Station and reported the circumstance to Inspector Mason by whose direction he then returned to Forest Gate Railway Station where upon his arrival at 9.56 p.m. he found the train had just left. Upon enquiry of the porter Henry Pickett he was informed that two men who seemed excited and appeared to have been in a scuffle had entered the station at the last minute and left by the train referred to. They both took third class tickets to Shoreditch. In consequence of there being no telegraph at the station no communications could be sent.
From the description given by the porter I have no doubt these were two of the men engaged in the three successive attempts at robbery on the night in question.
In addition to the persons whose names have been given as having seen these men, they were observed to run away from the neighbourhood of Mr Galloways house (after he had been stabbed) by William Nott, 7 William Cottages and Thomas Whitmarsh, 7 Back Barracks, Stratford, both of whom would be able to identify them. I beg to add that every exertion is being used to effect their apprehension. Mr Galloway was alive at a late hour yesterday, but was still unconscious and Mr Kennet his medical attendant informs me there is no hope that his life can be spared.32
Samuel Galloway died on 15 February without regaining consciousness and a ‘£100 Reward. Murder’ poster containing a description of the three men was issued on 16 February. The reward was later increased to £250 by sums donated by residents of Stratford and other private individuals. A few days later Clarke reported the latest developments:
21st February 1871
I beg further to report … On the evening of 15th Inst. Sergeant Briden and P.C. Chapman Divisional Detectives K Division having been informed by a person (whom they introduced to me) that the murder was committed by three men who were known to the informant as ‘Michael Campbell’, ‘James Bouger’ alias ‘Montague’ alias ‘May’, and ‘Charles Skinner’ and who up to this time frequented the ‘Seven Stars’ and other Public Houses in the neighbourhood of Brick Lane, Spitalfields and further stated that about 4 p.m. 9th Inst. he saw the man ‘Bouger’ who said he was going with others to ‘do a climb’ (Portico Larceny) and asked him (the informant) if he would lend him a knife for the purpose of pushing back the window fastenings, which he did not do.
The following day the informant again saw ‘Bouger’ who said ‘we were damned near caught last night down below Stratford, a gentleman came out caught hold of me and accused me of trying to get in his house, but Campbell who is a good mate come up and struck the gentleman on the head with the Jemmy and we all run away. I struck across the fields and found myself at Forest Gate Railway Station.’
In consequence of this statement which I believed to be true, I used every exertion in conjunction with the Officers above named and Divisional Detective P.C. Foster H Division and yesterday P.C. Foster ascertained that Mrs Campbell the mother of the man ‘Campbell’ resided in some Court in the neighbourhood of Samuel Street, St Georges in the East; upon being informed of this I went to the Vestry Hall, St Georges and saw Mr Pritchard Inspector of Nuisances and induced him with Dr Reigate of the Parish to accompany me into some of the small Courts under the pretence of inspecting the houses. On going to No. 18 Waterloo Court, in a room upstairs I found a woman and two young men, one of whom answered the description which I had received of ‘Campbell’. I then left and fetched P.C. Foster (who knew Campbell) who was waiting in the immediate neighbourhood with Inspector Mason K Division; upon going into the room he told me that he recognized ‘Campbell’ as the person alluded to by the informant.
I at once arrested him and conveyed him to Leman Street Police Station and thence to West Ham Station when I met Superintendent Worels, and it was arranged to call in 5 young men who were passing, for the purpose of placing the prisoner among them for identification.
On Mrs Galloway going into the room she at once recognized the prisoner ‘Campbell’ who (to the best of her belief) was the man who struck her husband. I then took in Miss E. Green who at once identified Campbell as the person who she saw on the Portico of the house of Mr Paize, 10 Vicarage Terrace, about half past 8 o’clock on the night of the attack on Mr Galloway. I then took in William Nott of 7 William Cottages who identified Campbell as one of three men whom he saw near the spot a few minutes before the attempted robbery took place, and subsequently ran aw
ay from Mr Galloway after he had fallen on the pavement.
I then took in P.C. 87 John Barnes K Division who identified Campbell as one of three men whom he saw near this spot on the night in question; he was then charged with being concerned with others with the Wilful Murder of Mr Galloway; he was this day taken before J. Spicer Esq. and Mr. Howard of the Town Hall Stratford and remanded to the Petty Sessions Ilford Saturday 25th Inst.
The other two men are still at large but the enquiry is being continued.33
St George’s in the East, where Clarke arrested Campbell, was an infamous area in which the tenement rooms were usually filled with as many beds as could be fitted in.34 The scene of the arrest would probably have graced any Dickensian description of crime and poverty in London’s East End.
Four days later Clarke was able to report that a second man, ‘Charles Skinner’ who gave the name John Calbraith, was successfully apprehended, and had also been identified by several witnesses as one of the three men seen at the time that Samuel Galloway had been assaulted. The jury at the inquest on Samuel Galloway on 24 February recorded a verdict of wilful murder against Campbell, and wilful murder of the second degree against Calbraith.35 Clarke also followed up the concerns that he had expressed about P.C. Edward Blackett and also a second P.C., John Barnes, reporting that: ‘had the Constables performed their duty with any intelligence they would have arrested the men at the time, and I am of opinion that they now deny the facts to cover their negligence.’36 As a consequence of Clarke’s report, Blackett was dismissed without pay and Barnes was resigned compulsorily.37
