Fraudsters and Charlatans (39 page)

‘Now just listen to me,' said Avory, dangerously. ‘Suppose these underground rooms, picture gallery and ballroom were never constructed until 1872, your whole story must be untrue?'
¹⁹
Under this barrage of questioning Caldwell could do little more than stubbornly insist that he was telling the truth.

Avory later established that Caldwell had been in service with a Mr Christy of Londonderry between 1863 and 1871, the period when he was supposed to have been such a favourite of the Duke, and Caldwell was reduced to the ridiculous excuse that the Londonderry man had been his brother, with whom he had exchanged names.

The next star witness was the writer of the missing diary, a lady who stated her name as Miss Robinson, her age as 56 and that she was originally from America, where her father had owned a tobacco plantation. Not one of these statements was true. She said that as a schoolgirl she had been introduced to Druce and had once attended a party at Gadshill, the home of Charles Dickens, where Druce sang songs to entertain the children. In May 1868 she had met Dickens again in Boston, and he had suggested that she should become a secretary for Druce at Welbeck Abbey. Dickens later took her to Welbeck, where she recognised Druce as the man she had met when she was a child. Her duties were to receive packets for the Duke at her lodgings, which were sent to her under the name of ‘Madame Tussaud' and contained letters for him in the name of Druce, and she also posted letters for him. She ceased to be on friendly terms with the Duke in 1876, and went to New Zealand.

Avory naturally pressed her as to how much she had received in expenses to come to England, and led to a slip of the tongue that the court found hilarious:

‘Have you had anything on account from anybody?'

‘I have.'

‘How much?'

‘Not overmuch. I cannot tell you how much. I have not kept a diary.' (Laughter)
²⁰

It was easy for Avory to cast doubts on the veracity of her claims with questions such as ‘Supposing Mr Dickens left America in April and was in Liverpool on 1 May 1868, how can you reconcile that to your story?', and ‘Are you aware that it has been publicly proclaimed by the Dickens family that Mr Dickens had nothing to do with the Duke?'
²¹
Shown samples of handwriting, the supposed secretary was unable to identity that of the Duke and was obliged to admit that samples of the Duke's and Druce's writing had been written by different hands. She was also unable, despite several attempts, to spell ‘Tussaud'. Further questioned about her meetings with Dickens, Miss Robinson was reduced to pleading that her memory was fading, and after being allowed a break of ten minutes returned to the witness box and sat still, her eyes closed, saying she felt unwell. She later denied all knowledge of the mock funeral.

Mrs Hamilton, another prolific liar, stated that she had been born in Rome, the daughter of Robert Lennox Stuart, a great friend of the 5th Duke of Portland. From the age of about 14 she had known the Duke as Mr Druce and visited him at the Baker Street Bazaar; he used to refer to her affectionately as ‘Madge'. On being shown a photograph of Druce, she at once identified the sitter as the Duke, or ‘Dear old Scott'. The Duke, she said, had always gone around with a false beard in his pocket, confiding ‘Well, of course, you know I am Mr Druce when I put that on.'
²²
She also claimed that the Duke had wanted to marry her, but her father had refused permission. The Duke had told her about the supposed death of Druce, and she had seen him after the mock funeral. In her earlier affidavits she had said nothing about the Duke having a affliction of the nose, but she now said there had been some ugly lumps on his nose and that she had heard a gentleman she thought was named Cardwell was going to help cure him.

The remaining witnesses called by the prosecution were a parade of past employees or associates of Druce and the Duke. They did their best to recall events more than forty years in the past, peered at old photographs and gave their impressions of whether either man wore wigs, false whiskers or eyebrows. So many claimed to be privy to the ‘secret' that the onlookers must have wondered just how it had remained a secret for so long. Henry Marks, the son of Druce's fishmonger, said he had seen a coffin being made and some rolls of lead, but contradicted Caldwell's story by saying there had been only two funeral carriages and not fifty. (This was confirmed by the records of the funeral directors.) He recalled that the coffin had been made at the time of his marriage, but his evidence foundered when Avory produced a certificate showing that Marks had been married in 1865. An engineer named James Rudd who had worked at Welbeck from 1872 said that the Duke did not entertain visitors and that he had never heard of Miss Robinson or ‘Madge' and was not aware of the alleged friendship with Mr Stuart.

Many of the shareholders of G.H. Druce Ltd were, like the public, convinced that Caldwell was lying, but Coburn said he still thought the man was truthful. The committee met to discuss the matter and decided to send one of their number, a Mr Hill, to Londonderry to make enquiries. When Hill returned he described Caldwell as ‘a damned old fraud'.
²³
The committee decided to have no more to do with him. Caldwell called on George and Coburn, asking them for money to go to America to get documentary proof of his statements. They told him he was no longer wanted. Borrowing £10 from the company secretary, he went away.

On Friday 13 December Atherley-Jones, having closed his case, made an extraordinary announcement: he disowned one of his own witnesses. After the suspicion cast upon Caldwell's evidence, he said he felt that it would not be proper to rely upon his testimony. The following day the Bow Street Magistrates granted a warrant to arrest Caldwell for perjury, and the police went at once to the home of Charles Crickmer, where Caldwell had been lodging. They were too late. The previous Thursday Caldwell had taken a cab to Waterloo, where he caught the train to Southampton. That afternoon he departed by liner for New York.

On 16 December Avory opened the case for the defence. He wasted little breath on Caldwell, except to describe him as ‘the most noxious perjurer that ever polluted the fountain of justice'.
²⁴
He had few witnesses to call. Alexander Young had died the preceding August, and Dr Shaw was too infirm to travel to court. Perhaps the prosecution had hoped that Miss Bayly would also be unable to testify, but, aged almost 77, she appeared and was able to confirm everything she had said previously. Additionally, she insisted that from 1848 to the date of his death Thomas Druce had never spent a night away from his home except in the company of his family – a statement which, if true, would have rendered his appearance as the Duke impossible.

Herbert Druce, under enormous public pressure to stop the undignified proceedings, finally relented, and on 21 December
The Times
announced that consent had been given to open the grave of Thomas Druce. On the same day, Robert Caldwell arrived at Hoboken, New Jersey, well aware of what lay in store for him. The news of the warrant had been transmitted by wireless telegram, and he and the other passengers were able to read about it in a daily paper that was published on board ship. Taken into custody by a US Marshal, he was arraigned before a US Commissioner, who appointed doctors to examine him. On being told that Caldwell was ‘desperately ill',
²⁵
the Commissioner fixed bail at $5,000 and Caldwell went home to Staten Island to stay with his daughter.

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.