The Curtis Bennett Inquiry

[David Orsam]

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.

[Robert]

Yes, strange coincidence.

[Mayerling]

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

[David Orsam]

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.

[David Orsam]

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.

[David Orsam]

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...

[David Orsam]

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.

[Robert]

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.

[David Orsam]

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".

[Mayerling]

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.

I love that last line - the whole point of inquiries of government agencies and branches is to publish the results, not to hide them.

My suspicion is that given the 1877 Detective Bribery Scandal, the Yard was very, very careful to look at any potentially similarly black incidents that involved it's personnel. But the 1877 scandal led to three Inspectors (Druskovitch, Meiklejohn, and Palmer) going to prison for taking bribes from a con-artist named Henry Benson, and ruined the reputation of their boss, Chief Inspector Clark, and made Commissioner Williamson look very incompetent (though he did weather the storm). No doubt, if the "investigations" of 1888 shown much that was not creditable of the Receiving Department, they probably were left with suspicions of corruption but no final real proof. It would be the only valid reason not to publish results (for fear of libel suits).

By the way, the contracting for supplies by the Yard did occasionally cause some odd results. In the 1870s, a contract to supply brushes to the Yard was won by of all people Henry Wainwright, who in 1874 would murder Harriet Lane (his mistress) in Whitechapel, but not be arrested, tried, convicted and hanged until 1875.

Jeff

[Robert]

I suspect that Evans's second wife Katharine brought her own funds to the marriage, because in 1911 she is still widowed and living on private means in a seven room house in Tonbridge with her two children and a servant.

[Robert]

Katherine left c £4000 when she died in 1941.

[David Orsam]

Some more on Mr Evans' financial difficulties in early 1888:

Letter from the Home Office to the Receiver of the Metropolitan Police dated 24 January 1888 (HO 151/4):

In reply to your letter of the 17th instant respecting the case of Mr. H.K. Evans, of your office, I am directed by Mr. Secretary Matthews to request that you will favour him with a confidential report as to the circumstances which have led to Mr. Evans’ insolvency. Whether Mr. Evans’ conduct has brought him within the operation of Rule 2 or Rule 3 or Rule 4 of the Treasury Minute of 30th November 1868: and if within that of Rule 4, whether Mr. Evans has been suspended from duty and salary.

[David Orsam]

Should do this one next.

This is from the Home Office to the Receiver on 8 February 1888 (HO 151/4):

With reference to your letter of the 1st Inst. on the subject of the Bankruptcy of Mr. Evans, a Senior Clerk in your office, I am directed by the Secretary of State to inform you that he agrees as to the adoption of the proposal contained in your letter of the 17th ult. for the assignment of one third of his present salary and one half of any future salary he may receive for the benefit of Mr Evans' creditors.

[David Orsam]

But there is still hope for his pension!

This is from the Home Office to the Receiver on 14 July 1888 (HO 65/61):

With reference to the application for a Pension from Mr. Evans, a Clerk in your office, I am directed by the Secretary of State to inform you that he has requested Dr. Gover, Medical Inspector of Prisons, to examine this gentleman with a view to a further medical certificate and to request that you will be good enough to make arrangements accordingly.