Fraudsters and Charlatans (37 page)

In March 1898, however,
The Times
published some highly damaging revelations. Dr Harmer's widow had been disturbed by the suggestion that her husband had been other than himself, and it was pointed out that Harmer had died aged 63 in 1893, when Thomas Druce would, if alive, have been 99. Dr Forbes Winslow soon backtracked on his identification, saying only that the photograph resembled Dr Harmer.
The Times
also recalled Anna Maria's original suggestion that Druce was the Duke of Portland, which was implausible if she claimed he was alive in 1884. The article also mentioned, but did not explore, the implications of a codicil in Druce's will, the bequest of £1,000 to a son George, of a former marriage.

Anna Maria's reasons for the Duke's imposture as reported in
Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper
were both romantic and tragic. Although there was no evidence that the future 5th Duke of Portland and his younger brother, 46-year-old George Bentinck MP, had ever known Annie May, it was claimed that in 1848 they had both been in love with her, which had led to a quarrel. Their father, said Anna Maria, had not only encouraged the suit of the younger brother, but had behaved insultingly towards his eldest son, who suffered from an unpleasant skin disease. The only true part of her story was that on 21 September 1848 George, who had been walking to a dinner engagement, failed to arrive and was found dead outside the gates of Welbeck Park. The cause of death was given as heart disease.

Anna Maria also claimed that, following his brother's death, John had suffered ‘the keenest remorse and the most abject fear',
²
though whether this was guilt at having precipitated a fatal heart attack or something more sinister she would not say, but added that it was for protection that he adopted a new persona, that of Thomas Charles Druce. In 1864, said Anna Maria, anxious that the complexities of his double life could increase his risk of exposure, he determined to rid himself of his fictitious alter ego. She further claimed that George Vassar, an employee of Thomas Druce, had told her that shortly before the burial he had been asked to bring lead down from the roof of Druce's house to put in the coffin. (Vassar, now 70 years old, denied this story with tears of indignation in his eyes.) Even after the sham burial, she said, the Duke remained in fear and decided to feign madness, under the name of Harmer, so that he might be able to plead insanity if accused of any crime. This contradicted what was said at the Consistory Court, but Anna Maria was adept at changing her story when it suited her. She also claimed that the marriage of Thomas Druce and Annie May had been delayed because of uncertainties about the lady's birth – she was purportedly the illegitimate daughter of the 5th Earl of Berkeley. This was demonstrable nonsense, as Annie May had been born many years after the Earl's death.

As the year progressed, and Herbert Druce successfully delayed all endeavours to have the vault opened, Anna Maria became obsessed with the idea that he would try to steal her father-in-law's coffin. She consequently went to Highgate Cemetery almost every day, accompanied by a mining engineer, to check that all was well. In June she saw some workmen digging new graves and ordered them to stop what they were doing, convinced that they were tunnelling to the Druce vault. It took more than two hours for cemetery officials and the mining engineer to persuade her that from the point where the men were working such a feat would have been impossible.

In the same month she issued a writ against Mr Alexander Young, the only surviving executor of Thomas Druce's will, with the object of obtaining revocation of probate on the grounds that Druce had not died in 1864. She also gained a new witness. An appeal for information in
Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper
had been answered by 68-year-old Mrs Margaret Hamilton, who said she had known Thomas Druce since girlhood and had seen him after 1864. The Duke, she added dramatically, had been directly responsible for the death of his brother after striking him in the chest during a quarrel. Protests by the Bentinck family that the future 5th Duke had been in London on the date of his brother's death were ignored.

It is not surprising that both press and public took the view that Herbert Druce's opposition showed he had something to hide. ‘The remark heard on every hand is: “If Mrs Druce be a deluded lady, why not have this straight-away proved by opening the grave and the coffin therein?” An impartial public naturally infers that Mrs Druce's contention gives her opponents an uneasy feeling of uncertainty as to the contents of that coffin . . .'.
³
Herbert's solicitors were convinced that, even if the coffin was opened, after thirty-four years the contents were unlikely to be more than an unidentifiable skeleton. In December 1898 Herbert succeeded in regaining ownership of the vault.

In February 1899 Anna Maria's entire case collapsed. The newspapers had been digging into Thomas Druce's past and had uncovered the story of his first marriage. On 19 October 1816, Thomas Druce, declaring his age to be 21, had married Elizabeth Crickmer in Bury St Edmunds, both bride and groom showing their father's occupation as ‘farmer'. (The future 5th Duke of Portland was then only a month past his sixteenth birthday.) Their children, Henry Druce, Charles Crickmer Druce, George Druce and Frances Elizabeth Druce, were born in 1817, 1818, 1819 and 1821 respectively. Perhaps this rapid family expansion was too much for Druce, since he deserted his wife before the birth of their daughter, leaving her to bring up the children in poverty. Elizabeth later traced him to London, where he had established himself as a successful draper, and persuaded him to provide an allowance. Henry joined the Navy and died at sea, while the two younger sons went to Australia. Frances married a butcher named John Izard and settled in London. Elizabeth Druce died in the summer of 1851, and soon afterwards Thomas Druce and Annie May were married.

Anna Maria was able to cope with this development only by denying it was true, but her day was almost done. She was about to be challenged by a new pretender to the Portland millions, George Hollamby Druce. A widower with several children, he was the son of George Druce snr, the third son of Thomas's Druce marriage to Elizabeth Crickmer. George snr had gone to Australia in 1851 and become first a miner and then a farmer. He had married a widow, Mrs Cadle, the former Mary Hollamby. George jnr (referred to from now on as George) was born at Campbell's Creek, Victoria, in 1855. A carpenter by trade, he maintained a keen interest in mechanical engineering, through which he hoped he would make his fortune. He had a workshop where in about 1893 he began to work on the invention of a perpetual motion machine. Patiently he built model after model, and despite repeated disappointment never gave up. In 1898 he read about the Druce case in the newspapers, without at first realising that he was a descendant of Thomas Charles, but in 1901 he made an application to intervene in Anna Maria's case against Alexander Young. Anna Maria was adamant that George was no relation at all of Thomas Charles Druce, but ‘an impudent, audacious, and absolute [
sic
] ignorant impostor'.
⁴

The hearing of the application to revoke probate in December 1901 was effectively the end of Anna Maria's case. Dr Edmund Shaw gave evidence that he had attended Thomas Druce in his final illness, as did Dr William Blasson and an elderly servant, Catherine Bayly. All vividly recalled Druce's unpleasant death. He had died of gangrene of the bowel, and the body had smelt so offensive it had been necessary to wrap it in a sheet sprinkled with chloride of lime. Herbert testified that he had seen his father's body and had signed the death certificate as informant. The apparent inconsistency about the lack of a doctor's signature was clarified when it was established that until 1874 doctors were not required to sign death certificates. Anna Maria was by now in a state of hysterical agitation, accusing all the witnesses of lying and declaring that Thomas Druce's coffin contained a wax effigy made by Tussauds. She claimed that Mrs Hamilton was really the late Duchess of Abercorn and had sworn on her deathbed that Druce was the 5th Duke. She would not believe that Mrs Hamilton was still alive, and referred to a Henry Walker, who had once stoked the fires at Welbeck, refusing to believe that he had been dead for many years: ‘I have seen him alive . . . I said “You're Henry Walker.” He said “I'm not,” I said “You're a liar, you are living in the same house as he lived,”' she exclaimed unconvincingly.
⁵

The jury did not need to deliberate. They found that the will had been properly executed and that Thomas Druce had indeed died in 1864. Thereafter Anna Maria's appearances in court were less frequent, and increasingly desperate and pathetic. Edward Phillips was unable to do any more for her, and retired from the case.

George Hollamby Druce arrived in England in May 1903, together with 38-year-old Thomas Kennedy Vernon Coburn, a barrister and solicitor who had abandoned his practice in Australia to devote all his energies to securing his client's rights. Perhaps he had not a great deal to lose: Coburn had achieved some notoriety in Australia during his involvement in the land-boom period, had almost been struck off the rolls and was twice declared insolvent – ‘his career has been rather a checkered one,' observed J. Howden, a Melbourne finance agent. ‘He is very clever and smooth-spoken, but is regarded with suspicion here, and is considered unreliable.'
⁶
George had little money or education, but with Coburn's assistance had raised funds for travel and research by selling mortgage debentures at £50 apiece. George was ‘a quaint little fellow, as eccentric as his grandfather',
⁷
said the writer Bernard O'Donnell, who shared lodgings with him. He appeared quite serious and earnest about his claim, but any spare moments were devoted to his perpetual motion machine. Assisted by Coburn, he gathered information about the Bentinck and Druce families, interviewing people who had known Thomas Druce and the 5th Duke. The one thing he was never able to find was a baptismal record of Thomas Druce, whose exact age must remain a mystery.

George tried to raise further funds by selling Druce bonds to investors in England, who were told that George's father was the eldest son of Thomas Charles Druce. A meeting of supporters was held, but the plans abruptly fell apart. Someone had been researching the Australian Druce family and discovered a fact that both George and Coburn had tried hard to conceal: there was a grandson of Charles Crickmer Druce, named Charles Edgar, born in 1870, who clearly had priority over George. In 1899 Charles Edgar and a family syndicate assisted by Arthur Trewinnard, a relative by marriage, had attempted to promote his claim, but after a dispute the syndicate broke up. Trewinnard later described Charles Edgar as ‘a dull and stupid man, [who] could not be induced to take any active part in the matter, and the result was that the arrangements for prosecuting his claim fell through'.
⁸
It was only after this that George saw his chance. Trewinnard was of the opinion that George did not have the intellectual capability to commit a complex fraud, but he knew who did – Thomas Coburn.

As soon as Charles Edgar's name was mentioned, George flew into a temper. He said his cousin was illegitimate, and he would have nothing to do with him. Efforts were made to persuade George that someone should be sent to Australia to get a signed agreement from Charles Edgar renouncing his claim, but George would not be reasoned with and the potential investors withdrew. George's cousin, John Ebenezer Crickmer, a stockbroker of Messers Crickmer Hilder and Towse, then suggested that his firm should incorporate a company and sell shares to the public. This plan was agreed, but John failed to mention the existence of Charles Edgar to his partners. When they found out, they withdrew, refusing to pay any costs, saying they had been misled. As a result, John Crickmer left the firm and registered the company himself. Coburn went to Australia, and on 17 April obtained a signed statement from Charles Edgar Druce in which he agreed to share the Portland estates equally with George if the claim was successful.

Despite these difficulties, George had some valuable allies, Mrs Hamilton, whose stories about her youthful friendship with the Duke were full of intricate detail, and the
Daily Express
, which by July had interviewed both George and Coburn and was publishing daily articles about the case. John Sheridan Sheridan, once Anna Maria's champion, abandoned her and threw in his lot with George, who eventually rewarded him with commission notes entitling him to 10 per cent of the proceeds of his claim. Sheridan was well aware of the necessity of shoring up George's case, since he had been introduced to Trewinnard and had learnt all about Charles Edgar Druce. Obtaining an introduction to Mrs Hamilton, he carefully nursed her as a potential witness, distancing her from possible rivals and providing for her financially. Sheridan tried to draw Phillips into the case again, but, suspicious of Mrs Hamilton's story, Phillips asked Sheridan if he had been coaching her, to which he replied: ‘Of course I have, what do you think?'
⁹
Among the many letters Phillips had received about the case was one from a Robert Caldwell in America, who had claimed to have important information. Phillips had treated the letter as ‘one from a maniac',
¹⁰
and left it in his file, but shortly after Sheridan had looked at the file Phillips found that the letter was missing. Phillips declined to have anything further to do with Sheridan.

Anna Maria was soon back in court waving a copy of the
Daily Express
, which she said was printing lies, and she demanded costs, which had never been awarded to her. This appearance was her last despairing act in the Druce case. She seems to have been utterly alone, abandoned even by her children. Her funds all gone, she was later admitted to Hampstead Workhouse.

On 22 July 1905 G.H. Druce Ltd was incorporated with capital of £11,000 in shares (about £750,000 today). There was no lack of takers, and blocks of shares were soon changing hands at a substantial premium. The directors were George Hollamby Druce and two Crickmer cousins, Charles James, a retired wine merchant, and John Ebenezer. George had transferred the rights under his claim to the company, and if successful, shareholders were promised £100 for each £1 share they held. This breached the agreement with the Australian debenture holders, who contacted George to establish their rights, but he failed to respond.