I managed to locate Clarke's correspondence to The Mercury (Hackney) that Hart mentioned. It's in the January 19th, 1889, edition, Page 7, Column 3. It's signed Charles M. Clarke LL.D., 27, Amhurst-road. His wife's name was Marion. The Clarkes provided The Mercury with letters from Robert Anderson.
Clarke/Anderson Correspondence from The Mercury, Jan 19, 1889
The Mercury (Hackney), Saturday, January 19, 1889, Page 7, Column 3
THE WHITECHAPEL MURDERS.
HACKNEY RESIDENT VISITED BY THE POLICE.
To the Editor of THE MERCURY;
SIR,—A report having been industriously circulated
in the neighbourhood by a Hackney tradesman,
that I was, if not the actual perpetrator of
the Whitechapel outrages, at any rate a reasonable
object of suspicion—and information to this
effect having been communicated to the authorities
at Scotland Yard, resulting in considerable
personal annoyance—I shall feel very greatly
obliged by your publishing in your columns the
annexed correspondence between the Assistant
Commissioner and myself relative to the rumour
and its results, pending the action for libel and
slander which my solicitor has commenced in the
court of Queen's Bench against the originator of
the report in question.
I am, Sir,
CHARLES M. CLARKE, LL.D.
12th January, 1889.
"Great Scotland Yard, S.W.
"1st December, 1888.
"To Mrs. Marion Clarke.
"MADAM,—I am directed by the Commissioner
of Police of the Metropolis to acknowledge the
receipt of your letter of the 28th ultimo, and to
acquaint you, in reply, that the police entertain
no suspicion of your husband in connection with
any criminal charge.
"I am, Madam,
"Your obedient servant,
"27, Amhurst-road, E.
"6th December, 1888.
"To the Assistant-Commissioner.
" SIR,—Your letter, bearing date 1st inst., was
duly received by Mrs. Clarke on Tuesday [4th] morning,
in which she was assured that the police entertain
no suspicion of myself in connection with any
criminal charge. The first result I find of this
absence of suspicion is a visit from Inspector
Jamieson on Tuesday night, and two domiciliary
visits at an early hour on the following morning
from two unmistakable gentlemen in plain clothes.
I must request an explanation, failing which I
shall get one of my numerous friends, who are
members, to ask the question in the House, and
see if any satisfaction can be elicited from the
"I am. Sir,
"CHARLES M. CLARKE, LL.D."
"Great Scotland Yard, S.W.
"12th December, 1888.
"To Charles M. Clarke, Esq., LL.D.
"SIR,—I am directed by the Commissioner of
Police of the Metropolis to acknowledge the
receipt of your letter of the 6th inst, and to
acquaint you, in reply, that I have inquired into
the matter, and find that the visit of which you
complain took place in consequence of a report
that a man, whose movements had excited suspicion,
entered your house on the night of the 29th
ultimo. The constables followed this man for
some time, and finally lost sight of him at the
gateway of No. 27, Amhurst-road. I have only
to add an expression of regret that you should
have suffered any inconvenience in the matter.
"I am, Sir,
"Your obedient servant,
"27, Amhurst-road, E.,
"15th December, 1888.
"To the Assistant-Commissioner.
"SIR,—In your communication of the 12th
inst., permit me to draw your attention to the
discrepancy in the report to which you refer.
You state that 'that the man entered my house,'
but in the succeeding paragraph, that 'the constables
who followed him finally lost sight of him
at the gateway of 27 Amhurst-road.' I am now in
possession of the whole particulars of the original
information laid at your office some five weeks
since, which is a tissue of falsehood from
beginning to end. As I purpose instituting a
prosecution against the informant for libel and
slander, I should be glad to know whether I may look
to your department for any assistance in my
action, or whether it is your intention to shield
and defend the man?
"I am, Sir,
"CHARLES M. CLARKE, LL.D."
"Great Scotland-yard, S.W.,
"22nd December, 1888.
"To Charles M. Clarke,Esq., LL.D.
"SIR,—I am directed by the Commissioner of
Police of the Metropolis to acknowledge the
receipt of your letter of the 15th inst, and to
acquaint you that I have had the matter it refers
to investigated, but I am unable to afford you any
explanation of it.
"I am, Sir,
"Your obedient servant,
"Dromara, Co. Down [Northern Ireland],
"29th December, 1888.
"To the Assistant-Commissioner.
"SIR,—Your letter of the 22nd inst, does not
reply to the question which formed the principal
item in mine dated 15th December, viz.: As to
whether your department would assist me in the
action I have commenced for libel and slander,
or whether it was the intention of that department
to shield and defend the common informer,
who had furnished it with information, well-knowing
the same to be utterly untrue and false
in every particular.
"I am, Sir,
"CHARLES M. CLARKE, LL.D."
"Great Scotland-yard, S.W.
"4th January, 1889.
"To Charles M. Clarke, Esq., LL.D.
"SIR,—I am directed by the Commissioner of
Police of the Metropolis to acknowledge the
receipt of your letter of the 29th ultimo, and to
acquaint you, in reply, that the police are unable
to assist you in the matter indicated in your
"I am, Sir,
"Your obedient servant,
(For obvious reasons we have taken the liberty of
expunging the name [J. Carter Hart] of the gentleman against
whom our correspondent threatens legal proceedings,
and who is a well-known tradesman in
A transcription from the 1881 census lists a "CLARKE, Charles H. M." as a lodger at 17, St. Thomas Pl, Hackney. His date of birth was 1846 with no place of birth given. His occupation was given as "Publisher L L D & M A Philadelphia."
His wife Marion, was born 1842 in "Down, Ireland" and her occupation was "Author [of] Moral Fiction." The head of the household was Mary Hitch, widow, whose son Walter, 19, worked as a tobacconist's shopman.
The Library Table, Volume 4, August 17, 1878, Page 373
The superfluity of manuscript, deluging editor's desks and confounding publishers with its increasing proportions, has at last found a vent through a new society, likely to be a boon to publishers, whatever it may be to the public. "The Literary Production Committee " send out an elaborate prospectus, in which they announce themselves ready to bestow on unknown authors the same attention given to the known. Amateurs may become honorary members by paying five guineas per annum, but the Athenaeum suggests, apropos of the committee's hint that Miss Evans received 8,000£ for "Romola," that if amateurs do work in the remotest degree approaching that, publishers will gladly read and charge nothing.
PUSHING TRADE WITH A VENGEANCE.
To the Editor of The Bookseller.
Sir,.—As I know you are always ready to check
anything disgraceful in the Trade, I enclose you
a letter I received this morning from a publishing
firm. As it is such a novel thing to be threatened
by a publisher for not taking his books, I think
it worthy of being noticed. I may say that I
never heard of the firm or book before, and, on
enquiry, I find that Mudies' and another library
have received the same notice.
I remain, Sir, faithfully yours,
(Messrs. Coomes's Library.)
"From The Literary Production Committee,
"40, Southampton Buildings, W.C.
"I have repeated complaints of the impos-
sibility of procuring 'The Story of Stella Peel,'
by Harriet L. Childe-Pemberton, from your
library. Must I in future advertisements state
that it is procurable at all libraries except
"Charles M. Clark [sic], Sec."
The following is a copy of the reply :—
"Mr.CLAY objects to receiving letters of intimidation,
and if any more are sent to him by the
Literary Production Committee, he will place
the matter in his solicitor's hands.
"141, Regent Street, W.
"Sept. 8, 1880."
The Saturday Review of Politics, Literature, Science and Art (1880), Volume 50, Page 305 ("snippet" view)
THE STORY OF STELLA PEEL. This volume does much more than introduce us to a new author and a new heroine. It makes us acquainted with Tho Literary Production Committee, or, at all events, with so much of The Literary Production Committee as consists of its Secretary, Mr. Charles Montague Clarke, LL.D. Whoever may be the literary people who form the Committee — from motives of modesty they would seem to keep their names concealed — they are certainly to be congratulated on the good fortune by which they have secured the services of so distinguished a Secretary. The formation of their Society is due to one of the most amiable of causes. "The trials and disappointments which are too often the lot of young and unknown authors on first entering the literary arena have been the primary cause of the formation of this Association. They have been moved, they tell us, by the neglect which encountered Charlotte Bronte, Carlyle, Moore, Thackeray, Bulwer, James, and Miss E. Braddon. The way in which these famous authors "were drifted about from publisher to publisher " excites their astonishment at the blindness of publishers. We may say with Gray," they go on to write,
"Full many a flower is born to blush unseen,
And waste its sweetness on the desert air."
But these unhappy times have gone by for ever; for, in their own modest words, those who desire to enter the pleasing field of literature without encountering those stumbling-blocks to genius and progress — Neglect aud Prejudice— will find in The Literary Production Committee
A guide, philosopher, and friend.
The literary aspirant, as a rule, if we may trust the Committee, is very sensitive. "The harsh rebuff of an editor or publisher," we are told, "may quench for ever the spark of genius which needed only a little encouragement to fan it, may be, into a brilliant flame." If we might venture to suggest a slight verbal alteration to the Secretary, we would propose that in the next prospectus of his Society he should substitute in the sentence we have just quoted, a little puffing for a little encouragement. A moment's reflection will show him that thereby the metaphor will be better supported. For it is by a puff that a spark is raised into a flame. Though the primary cause of the Committee was, as we have seen, compassion, yet its objects both principal and minor, to adopt its own classification, seem to wander somewhat far from the fields of pure benevolence. At all events, it requires in each case at least half a guinea before it can even begin to ascertain whether there is a spark that requires encouragement. Certainly to honorary members of the Committee it offers its assistance at a very low price. We might even say that it charges for it considerably less than nothing. By the annual subscription of one guinea the following advantages can be obtained
1st. All MSS. forwarded by members will he read, and advice and revision given free of charge. 2nd. Their contributions will have priority of consideration and publication. 3rd. A copy of every work published by the Committee will be forwarded gratis. 4th. All Stationery, Music, Books, Publications, &c, will be procured for members at cost price.
It is not easy, by the way, to see how genius is to receive its due reward if all the productions of The Literary Production Committee can be had by an annual subscription of one guinea. When we turn to their list of publications we find six books each at half-a-guinea. Then, too, we have six of Mrs. Charles Montague Clarke's novels at two shillings each, and some other works, whose united price amounts to no less than six shillings and sevenpence. It is as plain as Cocker can make it that by the payment of one guinea an honorary member can at the present moment make a clear gain of three pounds and sevenpence. All the other advantages — advice, revision, priority of consideration and publication — are thrown into the bargain. We are reminded of those members of the medical profession who merely charge for their medicines and give their advice gratis. We have as yet only laid before our readers the principal objects of this benevolent Committee. In their minor objects they wander somewhat far from their primary cause. For It certainly is not easy to see the connexion between the trials and disappointments of the young authors and the Committee's offer to insert advertisements in newspapers at cost price. In their first minor object they might, perhaps, do something to encourage the oversensitive literary aspirants, for they are willing "to supply on short notice, at a small charge, original verses on any subject — valentines, birthday odes, &c; also to write to order descriptive articles, essays, &c. They must therefore, we imagine, keep a large stall of authors, for it is hardly to be expected that the Secretary, though he is an LL.D. and the author of "an exhaustive treatise on corns and bunions," can, besides attending to the important duties of his office, be at the same time the original poet and essayist of the Association. Nevertheless, the smallness of the charge to the purchaser cannot but be somewhat damping to the spark of genius which on the previous page had been encouraged by learning that 6000£ was paid for Lothair and 12000£ for Our Mutual Friend.
Dr. Clarke, we notice, is writing a work which might, we should fear, greatly mar the success of the Committee of which he is the Secretary. For the modest price of half-a-crown he is bringing out a "Complete Guide to Literary Success." "This book," he tells us with an assurance that is perhaps justifiable in the author of the exhaustive treatise on corns and bunions — "this book will embody in a plain and practical form an amount of information and illustration such as has never before been condensed in one volume — it will be, in short, a perfect Grammar of Composition and Guide to Authorship." It is a pity, by the way, that this Grammar of Composition was not written a year or two earlier. In that case, Dr. Clarke in his capacity of author might have been of some service to Dr. Clarke in his capacity of Secretary. Certainly, the prospectus of The Literary Production Committee might have been improved by the careful study of even an imperfect Grammar of Composition. The following sentence, for instance, even though it should pass unnoticed in the author of a treatise on corns and bunions, is scarcely up to the high, standard of the perfect grammarian : —
The objection of publishers to recognize works by unknown authors is not necessarily caused by any deficiency of merit in them, but by their ignorance of the existence of merit owing to the owing to the non-perusal of the works submitted ; whilst in consequence of a prejudice in favour of well-known names few publishers now employ a reader on their staff; and, when they when they do, only submit to him a small portion of the MSS. forwarded to them, which he, after hastily perusing, rejects or accepts, too often most arbitrarily.
But, to return to Dr. Clarke's "Complete Guide to Literary Success." Why we may ask, when such a work is to be had for half-a-crown, should any one think of becoming an honorary member of the Literary Association at the cost of a whole guinea? What more is needed by the literary aspirant than literary success ? Whether the Secretary acts quite fairly towards his Committee in thus under-bidding it, we must leave it to his own conscience to settle. Against the consequences of his revolt he is doubtless secured. A nameless Committee is not often found to act in opposition to its own secretary. He can generally manage to command a majority of one. We must not linger so long over The Literary Production Committee as to leave ourselves neither space nor time for considering its product. The Story of Stella Peel, however is not of so remarkable a character as to require any minute criticism. It forms the first number of The Boudoir Library, and, for all that we can see, it may be as well read in a boudoir as anywhere else. It is a little tedious, but boudoirs usually have a sofa and an easychair, so that the reader will not be without the means of enjoying a peaceful slumber should drowsiness overcome her. [...]
The Story of Stella Peel (London: Literary Production Committee, 1880?), Title Page
by Harriet Louisa Childe-Pemberton
A Complete Guide to Literary Success.
By CHARLES M. CLARKE, LL.D.
This book will embody in a plain and practical form an amount of information and illustration such as has never before been condensed in one volume—it will be, in short, a perfect Grammar of Composition and Guide to Authorship.
On Sale at all Booksellers and Railway Bookstalls throughout the Kingdom, or post-free on receipt of Thirty Stamps from
CORNS AND BUNIONS: Their Causes and Cure. An exhaustive Treatise on the Subject. By Dr. Charles M. Clarke. Post-free 14 stamps.
MRS. CHARLES MONTAGUE CLARKE'S NOVELS.
Price 2s. each, in Boards.
OUGHTS AND CROSSES: A Novel with a Moral.
NOT TRANSFERABLE; or, Wooing, Winning, and Wearing.
NO SECURITY: A Story of Rights and Wrongs.
THE THIEF OF TIME; or, Results of Procrastination.
SHARP OR FLAT; or, the Discords of Life.
MUNRO OF FORT MUNRO.
STRONG AS DEATH: A Story of the Rebellion.
MANY YEARS OF FRAUD.; SENTENCES OF MEN WHO SWINDLED ARTISTS AND AUTHORS.
The Publishers' Circular, June 18, 1892, Pages 692-693
THE ALLEGED FRAUDS BY LITERARY SOCIETIES.
Sir Gilbert Edward Campbell, 8 Barnard's Inn; Charles Montague Clarke, Glen Lagan, Droma, Ireland; William James Morgan, 38 Lynette Avenue, Clapham Common; David William Tolmie, accountant, 84 Lady Margaret Road, Camden Town; and Edward Sherwin, were charged at Bow Street, on Tuesday, with conspiring to defraud the Rev. Marcus Richards and others. Mr. C. F. Gill and Mr. A. Gill instructed by Mr. Frayling, of the Treasury) prosecuted; Mr. St. John Wontner defended Sir Gilbert Campbell; Morgan and Clarke were defended by Mr. Crawshaw; and Mr. Eastwood appeared for Sherwin. Two of the persons charged with complicity in the alleged frauds, Stedman and Tompkins, have not up to the present been apprehended.
Mr. Gill, in opening the case, explained at some considerable length the nature of the allegations against the defendants. The Charing Cross Publishing Company started in July 1873, and soon after the City of London Publishing Company, having the same persons, Mr. Morgan and Mr. Tompkins, as its managers, took its place. The method was, said Mr. Gill, to advertise for manuscripts, to extract fees from authors, and then at last to fade away and give place to some other society. The next phase was the Authors' Alliance, which came into existence in November 1887. The officers of the Authors' Alliance were Sir Gilbert Campbell, Bart., Messrs. Clarke, Morgan, and Tolmie. The next phase was the National Artistic Union, and the Berners Street Gallery took over the business. The Gallery did not last long. In November 1889 the Artists' Alliance took its place. Sir G. Campbell, Bart., was in all cases the chairman of the Council. The societies mentioned, said Mr. Gill, were not all the enterprises in which the defendants had been concerned. But they led directly up to the latest International Society of Art, Literature, and Science, which went so far as to sell the right to wear a hood and gown. The real business of the society, Mr. Gill said, consisted in writing letters in connection with the sale of diplomas and so forth. Complaints were made in the Press as to the way in which the society was carried on, and Mr. Labouchere came into possession of a document which showed the arrangement made between Morgan and Stedman as to the manner in which the business should be conducted. Morgan was to pay the rent and Stedman was to pay the postages on letters written asking people to subscribe. They were to share results. Stedman sent out so many letters on these terms that sometimes he had to take a cab to get them to the post office; and in little more than a year a sum of £2,400 was received from the public in response. It would be sufficient, Mr. Gill said, if he confined the evidence to the recent societies.
Only the formal evidence of a clerk from Somerset House, who produced the official documents connected with the registration of the various companies, was given, the further hearing being adjourned till Tuesday next. Bail was refused for Morgan; but Sir Gilbert Campbell, Tolmie, Clarke, and Sherwin were admitted to bail.
Sir Gilbert Edward Campbell, William James Morgan, David William Tolmie, Charles Montague Clarke, and Edward Sherwin were charged on remand, before Mr. Vaughan, at Bow Street Police-court, on Tuesday, with conspiring to [line cut off] tion of the prisoners with a series of societies, amongst them the Authors' Alliance and the International Society of Literature, Science, and Art, the allegations being that these were mere bogus affairs established to mislead and fleece the public. Mr. C. F. Gill and Mr. A. Gill (instructed by Mr. Frayling, of the Treasury) prosecuted; Mr. St. John Wontner appeared for Morgan and Tolmie; Mr. Crawshaw for Clarke; Mr. Eastwood for Sherwin; and Mr. H. J. Booth for Campbell. Mr. Gill withdrew the charge against one of the defendants. This was the young man Edward Sherwin. When he was arrested Sherwin said Morgan had obtained £100 from him when appointing him an assistant secretary, and that he was only staying in the hope of getting his money back. This statement, Mr. Gill said, had been confirmed, and he therefore proposed to withdraw the charge against this one of the defendants and put him in the witness-box later. Sherwin was accordingly discharged.
William George Palmer, a clerk at Messrs. W. H. Smith & Sons' bookstall at West Kensington Station, said that he let lodgings at Talgarth Road. Last year William Nathan Steadman came there about taking apartments. Witness let him the drawing-room floor. He left without notice in October, owing between £12 and £13 for board, lodging, &c. After he left,several people called to know where he was. He wrote letters on the notepaper of the International Society of Literature, Science, and Art. He might say that he wrote 'heaps' of letters. On one occasion he had a cab to take a bagful of them to the post. Amongst the papers left behind him by Steadman was an agreement between Morgan and Steadman for the starting of the International Union of Art, Literature, and Science.
George Maunder Hill, of 9 Langham Street, said that, in December 1890, he was looking for employment, and saw an advertisement relating to 'light und pleasant occupation,' which would bring in from £3 to £5 per week. It mentioned that a preminm of £50 was required. He wrote, and received an answer from Morgan, making an appointment at 3 York Buildings, the offices of the International Union of Literature, Science, and Art. Morgan told him that he was the manager of the Union, and wanted an assistant secretary. He told witness he would have a commission on members enrolled by him. Witness was to write on an average forty letters a day, and was to get one-third of the amount subscribed as commission. Witness accepted the situation. When be began it was the International Union of Literature, Science, and Art, and afterwards became the International Society. During the time he was connected with the societies, Steadman and himself were secretaries, and Mr. Russell Locke. Mr. Roden Pearce, Mr. Sergeant, Mr. Stone, Mr. Dwerryhouse, and Mr. Girling assistant secretaries. He had written letters like one produced, telling people they had been made felloew of the society on payment of subscription only and without entrance fee by special resolution. He had written hundreds of such letters. When they got to Great Marlborough Street he sometimes attended meetings of the council. Sir Gilbert Campbell used to take the chair. Morgan was there and Tolmie. Tolmie took the chair after Sir Gilbert Campbell resigned. About March, the first and only number of the Pantheon, an organ of the society, was published. It was written by Morgan. It was described as the official journal of the International Society of Literature, Science, and Art, and stated that the council offered its gold medals for the best essay on 'The Reward of Toil'; for the best essay 'On Parasitical Journalism as exemplified by the so-called Society Journals, and the Best Bemedy for that Pest'; and for improvements in school furniture. A testimonial running: 'Sir G. Campbell says: "Your society deserves the support of every man and woman of culture "' was sent out. He did not know whether Sir G. Campbell wrote it. From August last year he had received £55. 6s.
The hearing of the case was adjourned till Tuesday next.
Sir Gilbert Edward Campbell, Bart., William James Morgan, David William Tolmie, and Charles Montague Clarke were again charged on remand at Bow Street Police Court on Tuesday with conspiring together to obtain money by means of bogus art and literary societies.—Mr. Arthur Gill and Mr. Guy Stephenson (instructed by Mr. Frayling) prosecuted for the Treasury; Mr, St. John Wontner appeared for Tolmie and Morgan; Mr. Crawshaw for Clarke; Mr. BaUock for Sir Gilbert Campbell; and Mr. Lever for Tolmie.—George Maunder Hill, who gave his evidence in chief on the last occasion, was crossexamined by Mr. Wontner. He said when he consented to act as secretary to the International Society of Science, Literature, and Art, Morgan explained the scheme to him. There were about 1,300 fellows of the society. There was an exhibition in connection with the society, and about '250 pictures were exhibited. Concerts were given, and circulars were sent out inviting the members and fellows to attend. The concerts were used as a means of introducing the members to wealthy patrons. There were literary, educational, and artistic departments in connection with the society. He saw nothing dishonest in connection with the affair. Books were kept, but he did not know that when the society was attacked by Truth the Public Prosecutor was invited to inspect them. Some people wrote asking that their names should not appear as fellows and members. Witness had seen no gold medals at the office, but the competitions for which they were offered were not to conclude until the end of the present month. A meeting of the subscribers had been convened for May 25, but as there was no quorum it was adjourned. According to the minute-book Morgan was to receive £300 a year for his services. He had to pay all expenses and take receipts. The money received was banked with the British Mutual Company, Morgan keeping possession of the pass-book. At one time a man named Steadman was secretary, and had several assistant secretaries. These men paid a premium for their positions. They complained of the way in which they were treated, and in July last he was discharged by the society.
Mrs. Alice Emery, 13 Wells Street, Gray's Inn Road, said that about January 1891 a man giving the name of William Nathan Steadman, and an address at 20 York Buildings, took a room at her house at 5s. per week. He gave Morgan as a reference. He occupied the room till May. She had difficulty in getting the rent. He advertised from her house for an assistant secretary, and told her he had got one who had paid a premium of £50. He showed her some banknotes when he was leaving.
The accused were remanded till Tuesday next, the magistrate agreeing, on Mr. Crawshaw's application, to take one surety in £50 for Clarke.
At Bow Street on Tuesday, before Mr. Vaughan, Sir Gilbert Campbell, 8 Barnard's Inn, Holborn; Charles Montague Clarke, Glen Lagan, Droma, Ireland; William James Morgan, 38 Lynette Avenue, Clapham Common; David William Tolmie, accountant, 84 Lady Margaret Road, Kentish Town; and I. Nathan Steadman were charged with conspiring to defraud. Mr. C. F. Gill (instructed by Mr. Frayling) appeared to prosecute on behalf of the Treasury; Mr. Bonner appeared for Sir Gilbert Campbell, Mr. St. John Wontner for Morgan, and Mr. Crawshaw lor Clarke, and Mr. Lewis for Tolmie. Steadman was unrepresented by counsel.
Detective-sergeant Sexton proved the arrest of the last-named prisoner at Brighton. When charged, Steadman said: 'I am perfectly innocent of the charge. Lord Salisbury is severely to blame that I am mixed up in this unpleasant business. Now, officer, do your duty, I am ready to do mine.'
Mr. Russell Lark deposed that he lived at Cornwall Road, Notting Hill. In April 1891 his attention was directed to an advertisement for an assistant secretary. He applied for the post. In reply he received a letter saying he would be required to pay a premium of £50 for the appointment, which was described as a lucrative one. His duties would be to write at least 300 letters per week. Witness subsequently saw Steadman at the office of the Society in the Adelphi, and Steadman introduced Morgan to him as the curator of the Society. Morgan guaranteed that his salary would not be less than £150 for the first year, and an agreement was then entered into by witness, who paid a bonus of £50 for the appointment. For about four weeks witness was regularly paid his salary by Steadman, but after that he was unable to get his salary, and the excuse given was that Steadman was away ill. He afterwards sued Steadman for arrears of salary, and obtained judgment against him in default of appearance. Witness afterwards saw Morgan and Steadman at York Place, Adelphi, and the latter paid him a few pounds on account of the judgment against him. Morgan then informed him that Steadman had nothing further to do with the Society, having been asked to resign by the council. Morgan re-engaged witness to write letters for the Society at a salary of £1 per week and 15 per cent, commission, and under this arrangement he continued to write letters up to April of the present year, when he asked Morgan to take his name off the prospectus. During the twelve months he was connected with the Society witness received about £51 salary and commission, just £1 more than the premium he had paid. The only persons he knew in connection with the Society were Morgan, Tolmie, and Steadman. He did not know Clarke in connection with it. By Mr. St. John Wontner: Witness was giving evidence at the request of the Public Prosecutor. He did not complain of the Society—he complained of the conduct of the prisoner Steadman. The £50 bonus was paid to the prisoner Steadman, who gave him a receipt for it in his own name. The objects of the Society were fully set out in the prospectus, and there was, in witness's judgment, nothing whatever wrong in the letter and documents sent out by him.
George Hookman deposed that he was manager of Mr. Clarke, the owner of 59 Chancery Lane. In March 1888, the prisoner Morgan, who described himself as the manager of the Authors' Alliance,' made an application for offices in that building, and gave as references Dr. Clarke and Mr. Tolmie. These references being apparently satisfactory, the Authors' Alliance was accepted as a tenant. The Society occupied the offices for about nine months, and gave up possession on a distraint being made for rent due.
By Mr. Wontner: It was not an unusual thing for limited companies to smash up and have distraints put in for rent.
Mr. Henry Price, solicitor, proved the letting of offices in John Street, Adelphi, to Morgan in November 1889. In this instance Tolmie and a solicitor were given as references. Shortly after Morgan had taken 'possession, the name 'The Artists' Alliance' was painted on the door. In consequence of a communication received by him, witness gave Morgan notice to quit.
Mr. Frederick Dubois, a solicitor of East Molesey, said that in July of last year he answered an advertisement for an assistant secretary in connection with literature, art, and science. He went to 39 Great Marlborough Street, where he saw the prisoners Steadman and Morgan. Steadman described himself as the secretary of the ' International Society of Literature, Art, and Science,' and said that as he was engaged in writing a book he required an assistant secretary to do his ordinary work. He offered a salary of £150 per year, and said he should require a premium of £200 for the appointment. An agreement between the prisoner Steadman and witness was duly entered into and the premium paid, and the latter entered upon his duties, which consisted of writing letters, a draft of which was given to him by Steadman. After receiving his first month's salary, witness only saw Steadman on one occasion. He spoke to Morgan about the £200 he had paid to Steadman, and Morgan told himt hat Steadman had been requested to resign, and told witness that it would be no use taking any proceedings against him, as he was worth nothing.
At this point the further hearing of the case was adjourned, Clarke being admitted to bail in his own recognisance of £50, and Sir Gilbert Campbell in the same bad as before. Bail was refused for the other prisoner.
On Wednesday James Sidney Tomkins was charged with conspiring, with Sir Gilbert Campbell and others, to obtain money by means of bogus literary and art societies. Mr. Frayling, of the Treasury, asked for a formal remand, in order that the accused might be brought up with the other prisoners.
Detective-sergeant Hayter proved having arrested the prisoner at Hackney. He admitted that his name was Tomkins, but refused to give his address or occupation. He made no reply to the charge.
The trial of "William James Morgan, David Tolmie, Sir Gilbert Campbell, Charles Montague Clarke, Joseph Sidney Tomkins, and William Harry Steadman, for conspiring to defraud various persons in connection with certain socalled literary and artistic societies, was continued last week at the Central Criminal Court before the Common Serjeant.
The case for the prosecution closed on Thursday, and on Friday evidence was taken for the defence. Among the witnesses were Mr. Edmund Rogers, manager of the National Press Agency, who stated that Morgan sent the agency MS. to print for the Artists' Alliance in June 1888, and subsequently paid two cheques for £15 each for the same. Evidence was also given as to the printing of various books and magazines in connection with the societies mentioned in the indictment.
On the resumption of the case on Monday, General Bates, of Hill-grove, said he was the Chairman of the City of London Publishing Company (Limited), qualifying for the post by taking £50 worth of shares. Major-General Scovell, and Mr. Douglas Onslow, J.P., were codirectors, and board meetings were regularly held. The company was voluntarily wound up. The company published books and magazines.
Other witnesses having given evidence, Morgan, who defended himself, addressed the jury in a speech which occupied three hours. He said he did not feel at all criminal, having always done his best for those who had been engaged with him in business relations. The allegations made against him were that since 1883 he had pursued a career of crime, swindling everybody and never paying any rent, but there was no evidence that he had so acted in a single case, except in regard to the Authors' Alliance, for which he denied responsibility. Attempts had been made to fasten upon him acts done by others, and the conduct of the Crown in the case had been abominable. He complained that difficulties had been thrown in the way of the preparation of his defence by the authorities at Scotland Yard. The case against him was built up entirely of prejudice, and not a single instance of fraud had been proved against him, whilst many persons had expressed satisfaction at his conduct. Reviewing the companies, he said that the Charing Cross Company continued in existence seven years, and, without desiring to pun, he might say that the books published by the Company spoke volumes.
Dealing with the City of London Publishing Company (Limited), he said no one had come forward to complain, and it was voluntarily wound up. This company was not sold to the Authors' Alliance, but it was the City of London Publishing Company unlimited—a company which was carried on by Tomkins for three years with considerable success, but which got into low water, and was subsequently transferred to the Authors' Alliance (Limited). The 8 per cent, guaranteed in the prospectus was under a bond which, he contended, existed, and which was open for inspection. That bond had been wilfully suppressed by the prosecution. This Alliance endeavoured to continue the work of the City of London Publishing Company unlimited. The company got into difficulties, and the books of the few authors who had been called could not be published, and he honestly sympathised with them. (A laugh.) It constituted one of the painful episodes of his experience upon which he looked back with regret, and he admitted that the formation of the Company was a great mistake, and he made nothing out of it. Since that time he had had nothing to do with any publishing company.
He denied that he was 'W. James, secretary' of the company, as counsel had insinuated. That gentleman was his wife's cousin, who was a prospective partner of 'James Longman and Co.,' which, however, was never formed, and 'W. James' went to Chicago. As to the cheques drawn to Mr. Gardner and Sir Gilbert Campbell, which were dishonoured, it was not intended that they should be presented until there were funds, and he had no idea that they were discounted. The National Artistic Union never went beyond an idea, and the few subscriptions and pictures sent were returned.
He denied that he had anything to do with Bevington & Co., which was conducted by Mr. Bellamy, but explained that he purchased the interests and goodwill of Bevington when the firm was sold up. That was his only connection with that company. As to the Artists' Alliance, only one out of the 400 members had expressed himself as dissatisfied with the society. They did their best for their members. Alluding next to the International Union of Literature, Science, and Art, and to the fact that it was established under the Mortmain Act, he denied that there was any fraudulent intent.
Proceeding, Morgan said that artists were having a very hard time of it, and could not get their pictures exhibited in London unless they had made some kind of name, and therefore they were doing these artists real good in affording them a means of exhibiting their pictures. A great deal of fun had also been made of the diploma; but other societies had diplomas, and why not this one? It was part of the case of the police to put all these things before the jury in as dirty and dilapidated a condition as possible, but he could assure the jury that when the diploma was framed and hung in a library it looked very nice indeed. With regard to his having obtained premiums, he submitted there was no harm in it so long as he kept faith with the persons from whom he took them, which, he maintained, he did. He therefore contended that the whole transactions were bond fide, and he was proud to say he was the head and front of the whole thing. He had endeavoured to be honest, with the higher pleasure of endeavouring likewise to be useful to others. In conclusion, he said his whole life had been an honest one, and he asked to be judged by that life, and not by tho innuendoes which had been made in the course of the case.
Mr. Matthews, the prosecuting counsel, replied upon the evidence produced and statements made by Morgan.
Tomkins, in defence, urged that his position in the companies was simply that of an employe.
Mr. Leaver having addressed the Court for Tolmie, and contended that his participation in the companies was perfectly bond fide, Steadman, in reply to the Common Serjeant, said he didnot propose to say anything, being content to leave his case in the hands of his lordship.When the case was resumed on Tuesday, Clarke, in a written statement, said he had always known Morgan as a perfectly honourable man. He (Morgan) had been an officer of Volunteers, and for years he was the intimate friend of Tomkins, who at the time was a member of the Corporation of London. Besides, Morgan was engaged in a good business. The only connection he had ever had with him was as a director of the Authors' Alliance. With regard to this company he gave no consent to Morgan allowing him to use his (Clarke's) name as a director. For years, however, he had had nothing to do with either that or any other company. As to the passing of the cheques he never heard of them being dishonoured until months afterwards. If he had erred through a technical illegality, he had dearly paid for it because he had been seven weeks in gaol, put to £150 expenses, and last week he was handcuffed and chained to a prisoner who had since been condemned to death for murder. Was this not punishment and degradation enough?
Sir Gilbert Campbell said he desired to say a few words before his counsel addressed the jury. He never heard of or saw the prospectus of the International Society until it was produced at Bow Street, and he certainly in all his proceedings had no idea of fraud or anything of the kind, but believed that all his transactions were perfectly genuine and bond fide. As to the Authors' Alliance, he had nothing whatever to do with it, and did not even know where the offices were or who was connected with it. His had been an honourable career. When in the 92nd Highlanders he served through the Indian Mutiny, and was present at many of the most important engagements, for which he received the medal and clasp.
Mr. Bonner also addressed the jury for Campbell, who unfortunately was a titled gentleman with no money; but he asked the jury to use the utmost discretion in sifting the evidence, and to discriminate Campbell's case from that of the other defendants.
Tomkins said the case for the prosecution had somewhat narrowed since it had been before the Court. Of all the companies whose names they had had launched into this case he was only connected with two—the Authors' Alliance and the City of London Publishing Company. The latter he had successfully carried on for fifteen years, being a tenant of a justice of the peace, and all that could be said against him was that he did not pay his last quarter's rent. With regard to the Authors' Alliance, everything that was possible was done by the company to promote the interests of authors. It was not true that either of the companies was ooncerned in fraud, as was alleged, and this had been clearly proved by the witnesses. He had no doubt incurred debts, but there was not a particle of truth in the suggestion that he had acted fraudulently.
The Common Serjeant then summed up, and said allusions had been made to the conduct of Mr. Labouchere in the attacks which he had made upon these companies in Truth; but supposing that the charges should be found by the jury to be untrue, he could not help thinking that a great public service had been rendered to the accused themselves by enabling them to clear their characters at a much less cost than if they had brought actions for libel. Should, however, the jury find an adverse verdict against the prisoners, in his opinion he was bound to say Mr. Labouchere would be amply justified.
The jury, after two hours' deliberation, found Morgan, Tomkins, and Steadman guilty on all the counts of the indictment, except the second count; Campbell, Tolmie, and Clarke were convicted of conspiracy only, with recommendations to mercy in the case of Clarke and Tolmie. The Common Serjeant, in passing sentence, said that after a long and patient investigation Morgan had been found guilty on all the counts against him except the second, on which the jury had most properly acquitted all the defendants, because there was not sufficient evidence that the Charing Cross Publishing Company was used for dishonest purposes. Upon the sixteenth count, which was framed under the Larceny Act, Morgan was liable to seven years' penal servitude. One of the great dangers of the present day was tho floating of these bogus companies, and the frauds committed by their means. Happily, there was a diminution in the more serious kinds of crime, but in this class of offence there was a tendency to increase. A great number of companies had been palmed off on the public of late years, and this was becoming quite a serious national danger. He sentenced Morgan, therefore, on the sixteenth count, to five years' penal servitude, and on the other counts to three years' penal servitude— in all eight years, the sentences to be concurrent; Tomkins would go into penal servitude for five years, and Steadman would go to prison for fifteen months. With regard to Sir Gilbert Campbell the jury had very properly acquitted him of obtaining money by false pretences. It was sad to see a man with an honourable name, and one who had served his country well, in that position, and it was to be regretted that men in his position should lend themselves to these frauds. He must pass upon him an exemplary sentence—a more severe one than if he were not Sir Gilbert Campbell—and his sentence would be eighteen months' imprisonment with hard labour. Tolmie he sentenced to six months', and Clarke to four months', with hard labour.
The Old Bailey Online site has a page with the transcript of Clarke's 1892 trial. Here are some extracts with details about Clarke.
Reference Number: t18920912-847
847. WILLIAM JAMES MORGAN (35), JAMES SIDNEY TOMKINS (47), WILLIAM TOLMIE , CHARLES MONTAGUE CLARKE (42), Sir BART GILBERT EDWARD CAMPBELL (42), and WILLIAM NATHAN STEADMAN (31) were indicted for unlawfully conspiring by false pretences to defraud certain persons of their moneys. Other Counts, for obtaining and attempting to obtain money by false pretences.
I also produce the file of proceedings of a company called "The Authors' Alliance Limited," registered on 23rd November, 1887—among the signatories of association I find David Tolmie, journalist, of 20, Eresbys Road, West Hampstead; and Joseph Sidney Tomkins, of 5, Friar Street, described, as a secretary; the signatures are attested by W. J. Morgan, of 5, Friar Street, Broadway, S. E.—there is a list of shareholders, among whom David Tolmie appears to hold 21 shares, and Joseph Sidney Tomkins, 21; Charles M. Clarke, of 27, Amherst [sic] Road, literary agent, 20; Gilbert Campbell, of 8, Barnard's Inn, gentleman, 20; William Jas. Morgan, of 29, Chancery Lane, manager, 1,500 shares—there is on the file an agreement in which Morgan is described as the sole proprietor of the City of London Publishing Company, and David Tolmie as trustee of the Authors' Alliance, in consideration of 1,500 fully paid-up shares and £500 in cash—the address of the company is registered on 19th April, 1888, 59 and 60, Chancery Lane; the number of shareholders on this list is 17—no further returns reached our office, and in November, 1891, we sent the usual letter of inquiry, which was returned in the same way, and the company was dissolved on 16th August, 1892.
GEORGE CROSSWAY COOKMAN . I am manager to Mr. Clarke, the owner of 59 and 60, Chancery Lane—in March, 1888, Morgan, who described himself as the manager of the Authors' Alliance, Limited, 5, Friar Street, Broadway, saw me with reference to two rooms we had to let there—I received this letter from him, dated 23rd March. (This, signed "Morgan, Manager" asked if they would accept £40, as he was authorised by the board to offer that)—he gave, as two references, Clarke and Tolmie—I communicated with them, and received these answers. (That signed D. Tolmie was headed Printers' Register Office, 33A, Ludgate Hill, and recommended Morgan as a thoroughly respectable and responsible tenant; and stated that, having had many business transactions with him, he had always been found to fulfil his engagements with promptitude and integrity. The reply, signed Charles M. Clarke, LL. D., was headed 27, Amherst Road, Hackney, stated that the writer believed (he Authors' Alliance, Limited, would prove a trustworthy and desirable tenant; that he had known the manager, Morgan, for twenty years, and had always found him prompt and reliable in discharging his engagement)—the Authors' Alliance were accepted as tenants, and an agreement was executed by W. Morgan on behalf of the Alliance—I said the seal of the company ought to be attached to the agreement, and the signatures of two directors and the secretary—Morgan said he could act and sign for the company, and could pledge the company's credit—there was difficulty in getting the rent, and steps were taken to distrain—we never got the rent after they were turned out—the only rent paid was £7 10s. for the first half-quarter from April to 24th June.
GEORGE EDWIN GARDINER . I live at 30, Fleet Street—in 1888 I lived at 40, Amhurst Boad, Hackney—Clarke then lived at 27, Amhurst Road—I used to cash cheques for him from time to time—on 7th April, 1888, he brought me this cheque, on the Royal Exchange Bank, signed for the Authors' Alliance by W. J. Morgan, manager, for £4 4s., payable to Dr. Clarke, or order, and endorsed Charles M. Clarke, in Clarke's writing—he asked me to cash it; I did so, and paid it into my bankers—a few days afterwards it was returned marked "N. S."—I saw Clarke about it; he said he would make inquiries—he might afterwards have called and spoken about it, but I g. it no definite answer about it—I went to see him occasionally; I saw him at home once or twice; no proper explanation was given—I received this letter, which is written and signed by him. (This stated that he had seen Morgan yesterday, and that Morgan, who was just moving into new offices at 59 and 60, Chancery Lane, had promised to see Mr. Gardiner, and to settle the cheque this week; that if he did not keep his promise, Clarke must pay it himself, but that he should not have funds before Monday)—he never paid me the proceeds of the cheque—I put the matter into my solicitor's hands—he sued Morgan; but he was unable to effect any service of the County-court summons—I went to 5, Friar Street, and Chancery Lane, but was not successful in seeing Morgan—I did not get the money.
Cross-examined by Morgan. I swore an affidavit at Guildhall that the warrant officer could not serve you—I don't know what became of the plaint note; I could not do anything with it. (MR. MATHEWS produced the plaint note, which was against the Authors' Alliance, and not against Morgan)—I do not know that I re-presented the cheque for payment.
Cross-examined by MR. TAYLOR. I had known Clarke three or four years as a customer, and had frequently cashed cheques for him and his wife, and had never had reason to complain of those cheques not being met—none of them were cheques of the Authors' Alliance—I do not recollect at the time he asked me to cash the cheque his saying it was for money he had lent Morgan—I cashed this as I should have cashed any one of his private cheques, without inquiry and without any statement being made by him—he appeared annoyed when I first told him that the cheque had been dishonoured; I said before the Magistrate he appeared disturbed and annoyed—he said he would make inquiries, and he afterwards came to my shop, and I spoke to him about it, as far as I remember, and asked him about it—I might have asked him twelve or twenty times afterwards about it—he told me he would do everything in his power to get the cheque met—I handed the cheque to the solicitor, for him to use his discretion—I knew Clarke was in the habit of spending a considerable portion of each year in Ireland; he was arrested there—the matter was in my solicitor's hands—I did not see him after he had ceased to appear at my shop; I did not know whether he was in Ireland or not—I might have changed twelve or twenty cheques for Clarke and his wife before this.
By the COURT I did not say to Clarke that he had had the £4 4s., and he might try to pay it himself—soon after my business failed, and the solicitors had the matters in hand—I made a deed of assignment to my creditors, and they became entitled to recover the debt, and I had nothing more to do with it.
Re-examined. The cheques I had cashed before were his wife's, not Clarke's—I do not recollect Clarke telling me why this cheque had been paid» to him—it was the only cheque signed Morgan that I had ever cashed for Clarke.
FRANCIS MORGAN ALLEN . I am a member of the firm of Mallett, Allen, and Co., 42, Wardour Street—in November, 1888, Clarke and Sir Gilbert Campbell came to my premises—I knew Clarke, but not Campbell before—Clarke introduced him as Sir Gilbert Campbell—we had general conversation, and Clarke asked me to cash this post-dated cheque, which one of them produced—it was said it had been paid for directors' fees—it was in favour of Sir Gilbert Campbell for £5 5s., upon the Royal Exchange Bank, dated 21st December, 1888, and signed "W. J. Morgan, for the Authors' Alliance," and endorsed Sir Gilbert Campbell—they said it was post-dated, and I was to hold it over till 21st December—I gave £5 5s. to Clarke, Campbell being present—it was said that it would be an accommodation for Sir Gilbert Campbell if I cashed it—having got the money they went away—I sent the cheque to my bankers; I think it was paid in on 20th December, a day too soon, by mistake; I was away—it was returned, 'Refer to drawer"—I saw Clarke; I think he came to me—he was away at the time, but when he came back to his office I saw him—he said it would be all right—I was to let it be for a little while; I won't say those were the words—I never got the money—I sent my collector after Campbell, but never came into communication with him, and saw nothing more of him—Clarke introduced Campbell as a friend and as a writer who would perhaps put something in our way; we are publishers—I have been a member of the firm about five years.
Cross-examined by MR. TAYLOR. We published Dramatic Opinion, a perfectly bona fide journal, for Clarke—I have known him about four years, and he is of good character—he has been engaged, to my knowledge, in bona fide literary work during that time—I have seen him frequently—I have seen other dishonoured cheques in his possession—he had a settling up with me of his accounts in March last year, and he then took up in a bona fide way a dishonoured cheque of Morgan for £5 5s., which I had cashed for Clarke—I do not suggest there was any fraud on Clarke's part in cashing this cheque—there were 20,000 copies of Dramatic Opinion—I cashed a cheque for £5 5s. for Clarke a week previous to cashing this for Sir Gilbert Campbell; it was a similar cheque, except as to the name—I knew of the dishonouring of that about 28th December, I think—I was away—when I settled up my accounts with Clarke I said as to Campbell's cheque that I should get my money, and he said, "Give him time and he will pay"—I made no claim on Clarke for payment.
Cross-examined by MR. BONNER. I only saw Campbell that once—I changed another cheque for him about May in the same year—I should say it was about the same time as the other one—it was for £5 5s., and was drawn to Sir Gilbert Campbell by the editor of the Hawk—I cannot say if it was payment for an article—that cheque was honoured—the only occasion I yaw Campbell was not, I think, when I cashed the Hawk cheque; my brother may have seen him—Campbell's cheque came back the second time dishonoured—I never presented it again—I could not say when I sent my collector to see Campbell—I did not see him myself, nor did I take proceedings—I saw Clarke—I think some bankruptcy proceedings were going on which deterred me from taking proceedings—I did not attempt to get this money from Campbell after my settling up with Clarke; I let it go altogether.
Re-examined. At one time I had a dishonoured cheque, dated 21st December, payable to Dr. Clarke, drawn by Morgan—Clarke had brought me that a week before he came with Campbell, I should say—Clarke asked me to hold it for him, and advance him the money—he said he had received it for directors' fees from the Authors' Alliance—I held both that and Campbell's cheque till they went forward for presentation on 21st, December—they were both returned dishonoured—in March, 1891, Clarke came and took up the cheque payable to him—Campbell never took up his cheque—I am sure that this is the cheque Campbell presented to me—Dramatic Opinion, which we printed and published, only lasted for one number,; the twenty thousand copies were all printed at one time, and there was no further issue—it was a bona fide one number—to that extent we were publishers for Dr. Clarke—70, Wardour Street was the office of Dramatic Opinion—I did not know it when it purported to be published at 9 and 10, Southampton Buildings, Chancery Lane—it was "Dramatic Opinion, Limited," when I published it; limited to one issue—the four years I knew Dr. Clarke were from 1888 to 1892—I did not know him as a director of the Authors' Alliance, or as on the honorary council of the Artists' Alliance, or as among the councillors of the International Society of Literature, Science, and Art; or as a friend of Morgan or Tomkins—I did not know Tomkins or Morgan—I knew Tolmie, and I knew him as known to Clarke.
By the JURY. The twenty thousand copies of Dramatic Opinion was bought by Mr. Willard, who took them away—Clarke paid the whole of the expenses of producing: those copies; the money paid by Mr. "Willard went to Clarke.
SEGEANT HAYTER . I am a detective, of New Scotland Yard—on 7th June I arrested Clarke at the Banbridge Police-station, county Down—I said, "Is your name Charles Montagu Clarke?"—he replied, "Yes"—I said, "I am an officer of the London Metropolitan Police; I hold a warrant for your arrest"—I read the warrant to him—it charged hint with conspiracy and fraud—he said, "Very well, I know the persons you refer to, and I am not 'surprised at two of them getting into trouble, Tolmie and Morgan, but I cannot understand about Sir Gilbert Campbell, and I have read about the case in the paper, but I have had nothing to do with it; in fact, I caused my solicitor to write them a letter about my name being on the prospectus without my sanction"—I conveyed him to London, and charged him at Bow Street—he made no further reply—he said he was of no occupation—an officer at Banbridge offered me a pocket-book which he said, in Clarke's presence, he took from him—it contained letters and memoranda, including four cheques, one payable to Dr. Clarke for five guineas, also a card of Sir Gilbert Campbell, and two envelopes addressed in print of Dr. C. Montagu Clarke (documents produced)—I arrested Sherwin, who was afterwards discharged—I arrested Tolmie on 4th June—I took him to Bow Street, where he was charged—I found on Tolmie, or at his house, paper headed "Association of Accountants and Auditors, Sir G. Campbell, Bart., President;" visiting cards in the name of Ward; letters relating to the International Society, forwarding prospectuses; a letter addressed to Sir G. Campbell, which had passed through the post, threatening proceedings for rent, from 9, Prince of "Wales's Road • a letter to Tolmie that the authorities from Scotland Yard were after them; and several letters requesting return of money sent for Treatise on Double Entry from different persons—on Clarke I found paper headed "Dramatic Union, Wardour Street; Music conducted by Dr. C. M. Clarke, 1d. weekly;" a pawnticket in the name of O. M. Clarke, Amhurst Road, for 15s. for a belt, and dated 24th April, 1891—I had seen Clarke write, and know his writing—the reference stating the Authors' Alliance would be desirable customer, and that Clarke had known the manager, W. J. Morgan, twenty years, and they would always find him prompt in discharging his liabilities, is Clarke's writing; also the letter explaining the four-guinea cheque, and the endorsement on the cheque marked "N. S."—also the resolution of the Artists' Alliance, of 29th December, 1887, to open account with the Royal Exchange Bank, signed 'Authors' Alliance, Limited, W. J. Morgan, Managing Lirector; Charles M. Clarke, Chairman"—I arrested Tomkins on 5th July, about 8.15 p.m.—I saw him at Hackney Police-station—I charged him; he made no answer, but refused his address and occupation.
Cross-examined by MR. LEVER. I made no inquiries at 7, Prince of Wales' Road—I do not know the house was condemned by the sanitary inspector—I found six visiting cards of the name ot Ward—I did not see or know of books lying ready to be sent to persons complaining of not receiving them.
Cross-examined by MR. TAYLOR. The dates named in the warrant are 1881, 1883, 1886, 1887, 1890 and 1892—no specific company is mentioned—Clarke did not show disinclination to face investigation.
Re-examined. I also found at Tolmie's house, on paper headed "Association of Commercial Accountants and Auditors, President, Sir G. Campbell, Bart.," a letter to Messrs. Isaac Pitman, asking them to insert advertisements in the Phonetic Journal of an examination to be held on various commercial matters and foreign languages, signed by Tolmie.
By MR. LEVER. That letter had no envelope with post-marks upon it—I made no inquiry of Pitmans about it—I have heard Mr. and Mrs. Tolmie were carrying on a school of commerce; I do not know if it was at 38, Finsbury Pavement.
RICHARD BAXTER DOAKE . I live at 24, Stanley Gardens, Notting Hill—I am Clarke's brother-in-law—I am a retired Indian planter—I have known Clarke twenty years—his general reputation as a honest, respectable man is of the best—I am his bail in £200.
Cross-examined. He is an author and writer, and his wife is an authoress—he helped to publish her books—I have been out in India, and backwards and forwards, and saw very little of him, only as I came backwards and forwards—I retired from India in 1886—out of twenty years at least fifteen or sixteen were spent in India; while there I heard nothing against Clarke; I heard from home and heard of him—I have seen him from time to time since 1886, much oftener than once a year I believe his degrees of M. A. and LL. D. were given to him in America together—I don't know what he paid for them—he told me he was a director of the Authors' Alliance—I took no shares in it—I saw the prospectus with 8 per cent, guaranteed—we discussed it—I did not know Morgan was his friend of twenty years' standing—I did not know Morgan at all, I never heard his name mentioned—he told me before he was charged lately that he had got a cheque for his fees which had been dishonoured, and that he had retired from the Authors' Alliance—he told me that about 1st January this year—I do not know whether he had a banking account, or about his monetary position—before these proceedings were heard of directed his attention to something I had seen in the papers, and then he made the statement to me.
TOLMIE, CAMPBELL, and CLARKE, GUILTY of conspiracy, except as to the second count. TOLMIE and CLARKE were recommended to mercy by the JURY. MORGAN.— Eight Years' Penal Servitude. TOMKINS.— Five Years' Penal Servitude. STEADMAN.— Fifteen Months' Hard Labour. CAMPBELL.— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour. TOLMIE.— Six Months' Hard Labour. And CLARKE.—. Four Months' Hard Labour.