Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Curtis Bennett Inquiry

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • David Orsam
    replied
    Yes, he appears to have worked as an accountant in the private sector after his resignation (being appointed liquidator of a limited company wouldn't have been a government appointment). By the time of the 1891 census, though, his occupation is stated to be "Retired".

    Leave a comment:


  • Robert
    replied
    Between his dismissal/resignation and his death, he seems to have been appointed liquidator of two companies, so he wasn't completely out in the cold.

    Leave a comment:


  • David Orsam
    replied
    H.K. Evans was Harry King Evans.

    As we can see, he was an accountant in the office of the Receiver of the Metropolitan Police who tendered his resignation in June 1888. He was aged 42 at the time.

    He might have been suffering financial difficulties because there is an entry in the Edinburgh Gazette of 17 February 1888 saying that a Receiving Order against him had been rescinded; a Receiving Order meaning that his assets had been placed under the control of the Official Receiver due to unpaid debts.

    After his death in 1896, his estate was the subject of legal action by his creditors.

    Leave a comment:


  • David Orsam
    replied
    Home Office register of correspondence contains the following entry for 23 June 1888, referring to a letter from the Receiver of the Metropolitan Police to the Home Office:

    Vacancy in Receiver's Office caused by resignation of Mr H.K. Evans - Recommends appointment of Mr. A.E. Hall to vacancy

    A further letter from the Receiver to the Home Office dated 24 June 1888 states:

    Mr H.K. Evans (Accountant) - Forwards resignation...

    Leave a comment:


  • David Orsam
    replied
    The Star returned to the story four days later, on 16 July 1888, and its report reveals a little twist to the tale:

    THE SCOTLAND YARD SCANDALS.

    An Inquiry Into Suspected Jobbery with Contractors.

    The Scotland-yard inquiry, to which we referred to other day is, we understand, now finished. It seems that someone in the Receiver's Department had been suspected of taking bribes or commissions from contractors. This department deals with all contracts and money transactions in connection with the police force. Sir Charles Warren employed Mr. St. John Wontner to make inquiries for him. Mr. Wontner in his turn engaged a private detective – Mr. Moser – to ferret out information. The result was that Sir Charles Warren got the accountant, Mr. Evans, discharged. But Mr. Evans was not to be got rid of so easily. He wanted to find out why he was discharged and deprived of his pension. He was the means of getting up the private inquiry which has just taken place under Mr. Curtis Bennett. The Home Secretary was very reluctant to grant this inquiry at first, and had to be appealed to several times before he conceded. The result of the investigations has not been very creditable to the administration of the Receiving Department. The report, of course, will not be made public.

    Leave a comment:


  • David Orsam
    replied
    So here's a bit of clue as to what was going on with this inquiry. The story from Reynolds's Newspaper of 15 July 1888 that I quoted in the OP originally appeared in The Star of 12 July 1888 with some additional information as follows:

    A Scotland-yard Scandal

    For some time past a secret inquiry has been proceeding at the Home Office before Mr. Curtis Bennett, the Westminster magistrate, into the conduct of certain officials at Scotland-yard, which promises to rival in public interest the revelations at the Board of Works inquiry. The affair has hitherto been kept a profound secret. Charges have been brought against the officers of having received bribes in connection with the clothing and building contracts. The whole of the Police Accounts are under scrutiny, and the evidence elicited has, it is stated, already justified the holding of the inquiry.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mayerling
    replied
    Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
    Well Sir Henry senior was at the Mansion House having tea with the Lord Mayor when he suddenly staggered and fell, striking his head on a marble table, being pronounced dead soon after. Cause of death was angina. His son was replying to a toast at a dinner of the National Greyhound Racing Society at the Dorchester Hotel, joking about his weight, when he collapsed and fell to floor, dying in a hotel bedroom to which he was carried. I'm thinking more coincidence than murder. Another coincidence is that they both died on the second day of a month. Sir Henry senior died on 2 June 1913 and Sir Henry junior died on 2 November 1936.
    Probably just mere coincidence, as there are twelve days that are the 2nd day of a month in the course of a year. It's like the fact both of my parents died in April (my birth month) but Dad on April 26th, and Mom on April 18th. Neither is my particular birthday.

    Same thing with the fact that the anniversary of Lincoln's assassination is April 14th-15th, as is the sinking of the Titanic. But the former was in 1865, and the latter in 1912. The link is therefore really non-existent.

    It reminds me of how in 1956 former Vice President Alben Barkeley, now a U.S. Senator again, spoke at some college event, and made a ringing declaration of being ready for the Lord's presence (or something like that), and dropped dead shortly after.

    Jeff

    Leave a comment:


  • Robert
    replied
    Yes, strange coincidence.

    Leave a comment:


  • David Orsam
    replied
    Well Sir Henry senior was at the Mansion House having tea with the Lord Mayor when he suddenly staggered and fell, striking his head on a marble table, being pronounced dead soon after. Cause of death was angina. His son was replying to a toast at a dinner of the National Greyhound Racing Society at the Dorchester Hotel, joking about his weight, when he collapsed and fell to floor, dying in a hotel bedroom to which he was carried. I'm thinking more coincidence than murder. Another coincidence is that they both died on the second day of a month. Sir Henry senior died on 2 June 1913 and Sir Henry junior died on 2 November 1936.

    Leave a comment:


  • Robert
    replied
    You're not suggesting they were bumped off, David?

    Leave a comment:


  • Elamarna
    replied
    [QUOTE =David Orsam;412337]Yes, accepting money and/or gifts from police contractors.[/QUOTE]


    Thank you David.

    I see now why this is posted in this section.


    Steve

    Leave a comment:


  • Mayerling
    replied
    Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
    Yes indeed it was Jeff.

    Both men died suddenly shortly after major appointments. Henry senior died on 2 June 1913 within a month of his appointment as Chief Magistrate and weeks after he was knighted. Henry Honywood died only a few weeks after his appointment as Chairman of the London Sessions.
    I can't speak about his father, but Sir Henry the barrister had a weight problem he could not (or would not) address, that affected his heart problems.

    Jeff

    Leave a comment:


  • David Orsam
    replied
    Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
    Any idea about the form of the possible corruption?
    Yes, accepting money and/or gifts from police contractors.

    Leave a comment:


  • Elamarna
    replied
    Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
    No Debs it was actually an inquiry into corruption within Scotland Yard.
    David

    Any idea about the form of the possible corruption?


    Steve

    Leave a comment:


  • David Orsam
    replied
    Originally posted by Debra A View Post
    Further inquiry in to the Trafalgar Square Riots of 86? Police brutality and poor police command?
    No Debs it was actually an inquiry into corruption within Scotland Yard.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X