The Jewel of Knightsbridge

by Harrod, Robin;

  The area was quite cosmopolitan and has accommodated waves of immigrants over many generations. It was renowned as an area for Dissenters and Nonconformists. It was home to several German owned sugar refineries and warehouses, and part of the surrounding area was also known as Rag Fair, as it was the district for the sale of second-hand clothes. George Godwin, in London Shadows (1854), described the wares available:

  A missionary, who recently explored Rag-fair, reported that a man and his wife might be clothed from head to foot for from 10 to15 shillings. Another missionary stated that 8 shillings would buy every article of clothing required by either a man or a woman, singly … A third missionary reported: There is as great a variety of articles in pattern, and shape, and size, as I think could be found in any draper’s shop in London. The mother may go to ‘Rag-fair’ with the whole of her family, both boys and girls, – yes, and her husband, too, and for a very few shillings deck them out from top to toe. I have no doubt that for a man and his wife, and five or six children, £1 at their disposal, judiciously laid out, would purchase them all an entire change. This may appear to some an exaggeration: but I actually overheard a conversation in which two women were trying to bargain for a child’s frock; the sum asked for it was 1½d and the sum offered was a penny, and they parted on the difference.

  During the first half of the nineteenth century, it was one of several no-go areas for the authorities in East London, so-called safe havens for the criminal elements of the day. The illustrations of London by Gustave Doré, especially those of the East End, published in 1872 in his London, A Pilgrimage, show the industry in the docks, the riverside, and the pitiful state of the streets in the area. This was the area where many Dickens novels were set, north and south of docklands. As a young man Dickens lived in the worst parts of London, and although his novels were not published until after the mid 1800s they drew on his earlier experiences. His father and the whole family, apart from Charles, were sent to Marshalsea Debtors’ Prison in 1824, whilst Charles continued at work.

  So, Charles Henry and Elizabeth had settled and started to bring up their family in an area that was far from gentrified and salubrious. Later evidence suggests that by the time of their move from Southwark to east London, they already had one child. Elizabeth, their second child, was born in 1835 after their move. By 1836, they had two young children and as far as I can ascertain, a functioning grocery business.

  At one stage in my research, when I knew nothing about the first child, and thought Elizabeth was the first, and I knew that their next child had been born in 1841, I was puzzled by the pattern of pregnancies. Charles Henry and Elizabeth had married in 1830, and had no children until 1835, which was unusual in those days of limited or no contraception. It was possible that they had lost children in earlier pregnancies or in early childhood during this period in Southwark, but there was no evidence to support this idea. Then there was a five or six year gap between Elizabeth and their next child, following which children had followed with the regularity normally expected. Had something happened in those intervening years or was this just serendipity?

  In the early years of this century the Ancestry.com website added a search facility for the England and Wales Criminal Registers, including details of Proceedings of the Old Bailey between 1674 and 1913. A search for ‘Harrod’ threw up several results. There were reports of thefts from Harrods Stores, but two reports where a Charles Harrod or Charles Henry Harrod was the defendant – this rapidly got my attention.

  A ‘Charles Henry Harrod’ was accused in 1888 of breaking the peace and libel, and appeared at the Old Bailey on 30 July of that year. He pleaded guilty to ‘unlawfully publishing certain libels of and concerning Sir Reginald Hanson’. Sir Reginald Hanson Bt Kt JP DL FSA and his family had a large wholesale grocery business. This led me to assume that this was our Charles Henry, but I was proved wrong.

  Sir Reginald was born in 1840 and after education at Tonbridge, Rugby and Trinity College joined the Commercial Union Assurance Company which had been founded by his father, Samuel. He was made a director a year later, and then joined the family business, Samuel Hanson & Son Limited. After a number of City appointments, he became Lord Mayor of London in 1886, during which time Queen Victoria celebrated her jubilee year, and was entertained by Sir Reginald at the Mansion House, where his creation as a baronet superseded his previous knighthood. He was the Conservative Member of Parliament for the City of London from 1891 to 1900, and an honorary colonel in the 6th Battalion, Royal Fusiliers, City of London Regiment. Not a man to libel or take on lightly!

  Wisely, Harrod apologised for his conduct, and pledged his word not to repeat the offence. He was sentenced ‘to enter into his own recognisance in £40 to appear for judgement if called upon, and to keep the peace for Twelve Months’. Despite the initial excitement, I realised it was obviously not our Charles Henry, who I then realised had died three years earlier in 1885.

  My research then unearthed several other Charles Henry Harrods in Southwark – three, in fact – all in the same family, whose origins were in Lincolnshire. To date, no connection to our family has been found, but the proximity of this family in Southwark to our Charles Henry and their origin in Lincolnshire might suggest we were connected by previous generations. This Harrod family originated in the Billinghay/Kyme area of Lincolnshire, midway between Lincoln and Boston, and were mostly agricultural labourers.

  John Harrod (1826–63) made the move to Southwark somewhere between 1853 and 1861 and was the only branch of that family to have moved away from Lincolnshire. John became a ‘fellowship porter’, and lived with his family in Great Maze Street, in the parish of St Olave’s, Southwark. This street no longer exists; it was swallowed up by the development of Guys and St Thomas’s Hospital and London Bridge Station in the area east of Borough High Street and south of Tooley Street. His second son, Charles Henry Harrod (1851–1904), after a spell as a seaman on the river in Bermondsey, also became a fellowship porter – this was the man in the libel case.

  The Index of Old Occupations states that a fellowship porter was a kind of uniformed, bonded messenger, vetted for honesty etc., before admission to the Guild of Fellowship Porters, to whom they were accountable. You could trust your valuables to them for transport from your London office to another warehouse, shop or office – the equivalent of today’s couriers.

  The second and the more interesting case proved to be that of my Charles Harrod, held at the Old Bailey on 8 May 1836 before the Recorder, T. Clarkson Esq:

  RICHARD MORAN was indicted for stealing, on 2 April, 112lbs weight of currants, value £3 5s; and 1 bag, value 6d; the goods of John Healey Booth and others, his masters; and CHARLES HARROD for feloniously receiving the same, well knowing them to be the same, well knowing them to be stolen; against the statute.

  I asked myself if this could be the previously squeaky-clean Charles Harrod, founder of the prestigious shop – and indeed it was.

  Richard Moran, a year older than Charles Henry, was a porter at Messrs Booth, Ingledew & Co., who were wholesale grocers at 68 Upper Thames Street. From the evidence presented, it was likely that Harrod had been accepting stolen goods for some time and that the police had been watching him, and persuaded the carman involved (the cart driver named John Warner) to turn Queen’s Evidence.

  The quite complex and co-ordinated police operation was undertaken by the Thames River Police, or Mariners, as they were then called. They had been formed at the beginning of the nineteenth century to cut down the huge amount of theft taking place from ships and wharves on the river. They used auxiliaries called surveyors, or watchers, to collect evidence. This force was one of the first organised full-time forces and joined up with the land-based ‘Peelers’ in 1839 to form the Metropolitan Police.

  The case was widely reported and followed blow by blow in the press, including the Public Ledger & Daily Advertiser, the Evening Chronicle,Bell’s New Weekly,Bell’s Life in London & the Sporting Chronicle, Bell’s Weekly Messen
ger, the Evening Standard, the Morning Post, and last but not least, the London Times. What follows is a short version taken from many reports. The reports contained some errors, at times mixing up dates and the sequence of events.

  Those involved were initially brought before the Recorder for a preliminary examination, but it became evident from the evidence that Moran and Warner, the employees at the wholesale grocer, had been apprehended and examined previously:

  4 May 1836,Public Ledger & Daily Advertiser

  Police Intelligence – Thames office. Extensive System of Robbery

  Yesterday, John Warner, a carman, and Richard Moran, a porter, late in the employ of Messrs. Booth, Ingledew and Knott, wholesale grocers, in Upper Thames Street, and Charles Henry Harrod, a grocer and tea-dealer, who had for many years carried on business in Rosemary Lane, were brought before Mr Clarkson yesterday, charged, the two former with stealing property to a large amount, the property of their employers, and Harrod with receiving the same knowing it to be stolen.

  Mr Hobler, jun., appeared for the prosecution, and Mr Wooler for the prisoners. The examination lasted several hours.

  Mr John Preston said he was clerk and assistant to Messrs. Booth and Co., the prisoners Warner and Moran were in their employ as carman and porter. On Monday, 4th April, the firm received a letter stating that a system of robbery had been carried on for some time to a great extent. On the Saturday previous stock had been taken, and considerable deficiencies were discovered. On the receipt of the letter –

  Mr Wooler – Which you have no business to mention, unless you have the person here who wrote it to give evidence.

  Mr Clarkson said the witness must relate what he saw, not what he heard.

  The witness then proceeded to state, that understanding the prisoners Moran and Warner had been delivering goods to Harrod, stock was taken on the Saturday previous to the receipt of the letter, and on the following Monday, a bag containing 100lbs of currants was missing. The currants had not been sold, nor were any goods consigned to Harrod nor any other person in Rosemary Lane.

  Warner was taken into custody, and his wife afterwards brought me a paper produced by Mr Hobler, which stated –

  Mr Wooler – The paper can’t be made evidence unless the party is here who wrote it.

  Mr Hobler said it was a confession of the prisoner Warner, and written at his dictation, by a man who was now in confinement in the Giltspur Street Compter. He had not brought him here. [The Giltspur Street Compter was a small prison, mainly used to hold debtors. It was situated in Smithfield, close to Newgate, in the City of London.]

  Mr Clarkson – Then you can’t make it evidence.

  In cross-examination by Mr Wooler, Mr Preston said the porter and Warner had been taken before the Lord Mayor, remanded twice, and finally discharged. They could make nothing of the case before the Lord Mayor. [Before 1856, cases could be brought before the Lord Mayor of London at his Sessions.]

  Mr Wooler – Then what charge have you against them?

  Mr Hobler – Stop; we have other evidence.

  Mr J.C. Evans jun., a surveyor of Thames police [or watcher], stated that on the evening of Saturday, 2 April, about half-past nine o’clock, he saw a woman drive a cart belonging to the prosecutors to Harrod’s door. The after-part of the tilt [usually a fabric weather cover above the cart] was hanging down and the forward part was over some bales. He saw the carman, and saw him take a bag out of the cart and leave it in Harrod’s shop. He received no bill of parcels. He kept his eye on the shop a short time, but was compelled to leave for a short time, and on his return the bag was gone. He had seen bags in Messrs. Booth and Ingram’s warehouse exactly similar.

  Luton, a river constable, said that by direction of his surveyor, the last witness, he went into Harrod’s shop to purchase some tea for the purpose of hearing the conversation between Warner and Harrod. The carman left a bag of currants with the grocer, and said that is all I have got tonight. Harrod said, ‘Very well,’ and that was all that passed. No bill of parcels was delivered.

  James Fogg, a surveyor of the Thames police, said that in consequence of information that Harrod was in the habit of receiving large quantities of grocery from the other prisoners, he watched his shop, and saw Warner and Moran repeatedly there towards the end of March. One night he saw Warner drive up to the door. He left the horse and cart in the street, and went into the shop; while he was there witness lifted up the tilt of the cart, and saw beneath it several bags of currants and sugar. Warner had some conversation with Harrod. The shop at the time was full of customers. Warner left nothing at Harrod’s shop that night, and drove to Scott’s stables, in Princes Street, Drury Lane, and left the cart and horse. [Despite extensive searches of old London maps and gazettes, I have not found a Princes Street, Drury Lane, anywhere near Cable Street or Rosemary Lane. There is, of course, the famous theatre-land Drury Lane some distance away, but no Princes Street near it; and there was a Princes Street in Spitalfields.]

  On Tuesday week last he searched Harrod’s house. He was not then at home, nor did he return until last Friday, two days after Moran and Warner had been discharged by the Lord Mayor. On seeing him, the prisoner Harrod said, ‘Step into the parlour, Mr Fogg, what is the charge against me.’ Witness said, ‘I suppose you are aware we searched your house the other day.’ The prisoner said he was; and witness informed him that Booth, Ingledew and Knott had been robbed by their carman and porter of currants, pepper, sugar and many other things, to a very great extent.

  Harrod said, ‘What am I to do? I am a guilty man: but look at my wife and children. She is in bed; come and look at her.’ Witness told him he could do nothing for him, but take him into custody. Harrod said, ‘Yes, you can if you like; let me run away, and I’ll never come in the neighbourhood any more; nobody shall see me here; and I’ll give you £20, or anything you require; or £50, if you like.’ Witness then took him into custody.

  Mr Wooler said that upon this evidence there was nothing to warrant the detention of the prisoners. The case had been given up before the Lord Mayor, and was now dragged before a county magistrate.

  Mr Hobler said the fact was, the prisoners Warner and Moran were under certain advice, prematurely apprehended in the city, and Harrod, the receiver, kept out of the way. They suffered the case to drop, and directly after the carman and porter were discharged Harrod returned to his shop and was taken into custody. The ruse, as he expected, had so far succeeded.

  Mr Wooler said it was not fair to drag the prisoners a second time before a magistrate. There was not a tittle of evidence to inculpate Moran.

  Mr Austin said Moran assisted to load the cart on the night the bag of currants was left in Harrod’s shop.

  Mr Wooler – There was evidence a bag of something was left in the shop, but what was it or who it belonged to no one can tell.

  Mr Hobler said Warner had dictated a confession to a prisoner in Guiltspur Street Compter, in which he acknowledged selling his employers’ bag of currants to Harrod on the Saturday night, for £2 5s, and disposing of other property belonging to his employers.

  Warner – No, I have nothing to do with it.

  Mr Hobler – Here is the document – a complete confession of the whole case. The horse and cart were kept close to Harrod’s house all night.

  Mr Wooler – that singularity is explained away at once. The horse and cart is kept in Scott’s stables, near Harrod’s house. That has been done for some time – This was admitted.

  Mr Clarkson said robberies to a great extent had been committed, and the case was one of great importance.

  He should remand the prisoners for a week. Bail was offered, but declined.

  They were all brought back for a final examination before Mr Clarkson six days later. Much of the evidence presented was as before, though there was some new evidence, as Warner had decided to tell all to save his own skin:

  10 May 1836,Public Ledger & Daily Advertiser

  Police Intelligence – Thames offi
ce. Extensive System of Robbery

  Mr Hobler, jun., said he appeared as solicitor for the prosecutors. Since the last examination, the prisoner Warner had offered to disclose all he knew of the transactions in which he and the other prisoners had been engaged, and with the permission of the magistrate he should now put him in the box as a witness for the Crown.

  Mr Clarkson consented to take Warner’s evidence.

  Others gave evidence that ‘The cart and horse were then driven to Scott’s stables at the back of Harrod’s premises (the place where they were always kept) and left there.’

  Fogg proceeded to the place early next morning, when he found the cart gone. On the night of Saturday, 2nd April, Evans was watching Harrod’s shop with one of his men named Luton, and the prosecutor’s cart again stopped opposite the house. Warner took out a bag and carried it into the shop. Luton was sent in to buy some tea; and he saw Warner leave the bag at the back of the shop. He brought no bill of parcels with it, and said that was all he had got. Luton returned to Evans, and related to him what he had seen. He was sent in a second time, and the bag was gone. Information was immediately forwarded to Messrs. Booth and Ingledew, and the porter and carmen were prematurely apprehended under their directions by a City officer, and Harrod absconded.

  After the two men had been in custody for a fortnight, and undergone three examinations by the Lord Mayor, they were discharged for want of sufficient evidence, though Warner made a confidant of a person in Giltspur Street Compter for a breach of the peace, and related to him a series of depredations on the property of his employers which could not be used in evidence. Two days after the carman and porter were liberated, Harrod returned to his house, and Fogg went there to apprehend him.