The Great Train Robbery (25 page)

“You think he’s playing us for a pigeon?”

“We must entertain the thought, however distasteful,” Harranby said. “Is it well known that Bill’s a nose?”

“Perhaps.”

“Damn your perhapses. Is it known or not?”

“Surely there are suspicions about.”

“Indeed,” Harranby said. “And yet our clever Mr. Simms chooses this very person to arrange for his five barkers. I say it smells of a fakement.” He stared moodily at the glowing tip of his cigarette. “This Mr. Simms is deliberately leading us astray, and we must not follow.”

“I am sure you are right,” Sharp said, hoping his boss’s disposition would improve.

“Without question,” Harranby said. “We are being led a merry chase.”

There was a long pause. Harranby drummed his fingers on the desk. “I don’t like it. We are being too clever. We’re giving this Simms fellow too much credit. We must assume he is really planning on Greenwich. But what in the name of God is there in Greenwich to steal?”

Sharp shook his head. Greenwich was a seaport town, but it had not grown as rapidly as the larger ports of England. It was chiefly known for its naval observatory, which maintained the standard of time—Greenwich Mean Time—for the nautical world.

Harranby began opening drawers in his desk, rummaging. “Where is the damned thing?”

“What, sir?”

“The schedule, the schedule,” Harranby said. “Ah, here it is.” He brought out a small printed folder. “London & Greenwich Railway … Thursdays … Ah. Thursdays there is a train leaving London Bridge Terminus
for Greenwich at eleven-fifteen in the morning. Now, what does that suggest?”

Sharp looked suddenly bright-eyed. “Our man wants his guns by ten, so that he will have time to get to the station and make the train.”

“Precisely,” Harranby said. “All logic points to the fact that he is, indeed, going to Greenwich on Thursday. And we also know he cannot go later than Thursday.”

Sharp said, “What about the guns? Buying five at once.”

“Well, now,” Harranby said, warming to his subject, “you see, by a process of deduction we can conclude that his need for the guns is genuine, and his postponing the purchase to the last minute—on the surface, a most suspicious business—springs from some logical situation. One can surmise several. His plans for obtaining the guns by other means may have been thwarted. Or perhaps he regards the purchase of guns as dangerous—which is certainly the case; everyone knows we pay well for information about who is buying barkers—so he postpones it to the last moment. There may be other reasons we cannot guess at. The exact reason does not matter. What matters is that he needs those guns for some criminal activity in Greenwich.”

“Bravo,” Sharp said, with a show of enthusiasm.

Harranby shot him a nasty look. “Don’t be a fool,” he said, “we are little better off than when we began. The principal question still stands before us.
What is there to steal in Greenwich?
”

Sharp said nothing. He stared at his feet. He heard the scratch of a match as Harranby lit another cigarette.

“All is not lost,” Harranby said. “The principles of deductive logic can still aid us. For example, the crime is probably a robbery. If it has been planned for many months, it must figure around some stable situation which is predictable months in advance. This is no casual, off-the-cuff snatch.”

Sharp continued to stare at his feet.

“No, indeed,” Harranby said. “There is nothing casual about it. Furthermore, we may deduce that this lengthy planning is directed toward a goal of some magnitude, a major crime with high stakes. In addition, we know our man is a seafaring person, so we may suspect his crime has something to do with the ocean, or dockyard activities in some way. Thus we may limit our inquiry to whatever exists in the town of Greenwich that fits our—”

Sharp coughed.

Harranby frowned at him. “Do you have something to say?”

“I was only thinking, sir,” Sharp said, “that if it is Greenwich, it’s out of our jurisdiction. Perhaps we ought to telegraph the local police and warn them.”

“Perhaps, perhaps. When will you learn to do without that word? If we were to cable Greenwich, what would we tell them? Eh? What would we say in our cable?”

“I was only thinking—”

“Good God,” Harranby said, standing up behind his desk. “Of course! The cable!”

“The cable?”

“Yes, of course, the cable. The cable is in Greenwich, even as we speak.”

“Do you mean the Atlantic cable?” Sharp asked.

“Certainly,” Harranby said, rubbing his hands together. “Oh, it fits perfectly. Perfectly!”

Sharp remained puzzled. He knew, of course, that the proposed transatlantic telegraph cable was being manufactured in Greenwich; the project had been under way for more than a year, and represented one of the most considerable technological efforts of the time. There were already undersea cables in the Channel, linking England to the Continent. But these were nothing compared to the twenty-five hundred miles of cable being constructed to join England to New York.

“But surely,” Sharp said, “there is no purpose in stealing a cable—”

“Not the
cable
,” Harranby said. “The
payroll
for the firm. What is it? Glass, Elliot & Company, or some such. An enormous project, and the payroll must be equal to the undertaking. That’s our man’s objective. And if he is in a hurry to leave on Thursday, he wishes to be there on Friday—”

“
Payday!
” Sharp cried.

“Exactly,” Harranby said. “It is entirely logical. You see the process of deduction carried to its most accurate conclusion.”

“Congratulations,” Sharp said cautiously.

“A trifle,” Harranby said. He was still very excited, and clapped his hands together. “Oh, he is a bold one, our friend Simms. To steal the cable payroll—what an audacious crime! And we shall have him red-handed. Come along, Mr. Sharp. We must journey to Greenwich, and apprise ourselves of the situation at first hand.”

“And then?” Pierce said.

Miriam shrugged. “They boarded the train.”

“How many of them were there?”

“Four altogether.”

“And they took the Greenwich train?”

Miriam nodded. “In great haste. The leader was a
squarish man with whiskers, and his lackey was clean-shaven. There were two others, jacks in blue.”

Pierce smiled. “Harranby,” he said. “He must be very proud of himself. He’s such a clever man.” He turned to Agar. “And you?”

“Fat Eye Lewis, the magsman, is in the Regency Arms asking about a cracker’s lay in Greenwich—wants to join in, he says.”

“So the word is out?” Pierce said.

Agar nodded.

“Feed it,” he said.

“Who shall I say is in?”

“Spring Heel Jack, for one.”

“What if the miltonians find him?” Agar said.

“I doubt that they will,” Pierce said.

“Jack’s under, is he?”

“So I have heard.”

“Then I’ll mention him.”

“Make Fat Eye pay,” Pierce said. “This is valuable information.”

Agar grinned. “It’ll come to him dear, I promise you.”

Agar departed, and Pierce was alone with Miriam.

“Congratulations,” she said, smiling at him. “Nothing can go wrong now.”

Pierce sat back in a chair. “Something can always go wrong,” he said, but he was smiling.

“In four days?” she asked.

“Even in the space of an hour.”

Later, in his courtroom testimony, Pierce admitted he was astounded at how prophetic his own words were, for enormous difficulties lay ahead—and they would come from the most unlikely source.

Henry Mayhew, the great observer, reformer, and classifier of Victorian society, once listed the various types of criminals in England. The list had five major categories, twenty subheadings, and more than a hundred separate entries. To the modern eye, the list is remarkable for the absence of any consideration of what is now called “white-collar crime.”

Of course, such crime existed at that time, and there were some flagrant examples of embezzlement, forgery, false accounting, bond manipulation, and other illegal practices that came to light during the mid-century. In 1850, an insurance clerk named Walter Watts was caught after he embezzled more than £70,000, and there were several crimes much larger: Leopold Redpath’s £150,000 in forgeries on the Great Northern Railway Company, and Beaumont Smith’s £350,000 in counterfeit exchequer bonds, to name two examples.

Then, as now, white-collar crime involved the largest sums of money, was the least likely to be detected, and was punished most leniently if the participants were ever apprehended. Yet Mayhew’s list of criminals ignores this sector of crime entirely. For Mayhew, along with the majority of his contemporaries, was firmly committed to the belief that crime was the product of “the dangerous classes,” and that criminal behavior sprang from poverty, injustice, oppression, and lack of education. It was almost a matter of definition: a person
who was not from the criminal class could not be committing a crime. Persons of a better station were merely “breaking the law.” Several factors unique to the Victorian attitude toward upper-class crime contributed to this belief.

First, in a newly capitalistic society, with thousands of emerging businesses, the principles of honest accounting were not firmly established, and accounting methods were understood to be even more variable than they are today. A man might, with a fairly clear conscience, blur the distinction between fraud and “sharp business practices.”

Second, the modern watchdog of all Western capitalist countries, the government, was nowhere near so vigilant then. Personal incomes below £150 annually were not taxed, and the great majority of citizens fell beneath this limit. Those who were taxed got off lightly by modern standards, and although people grumbled about the cost of government, there was no hint yet of the modern citizen’s frantic scramble to arrange his finances in such a way as to avoid as much tax as possible. (In 1870, taxes amounted to 9 percent of the gross national product of England; in 1961, they were 38 percent.)

Furthermore, the Victorians of all classes accepted a kind of ruthlessness in their dealings with one another that seems outrageous today. To take an example, when Sir John Hall, the physician in charge of the Crimean troops, decided to get rid of Florence Nightingale, he elected to starve her out by ordering that her food rations be halted. Such vicious maneuvers were considered ordinary by everyone; Miss Nightingale anticipated it, and carried her own supplies of food, and even Lytton Strachey, who was hardly disposed to view the Victorians kindly, dismissed this incident as “a trick.”

If this is only a trick, it is easy to see why middle-class observers were reluctant to label many kinds of
wrongdoings as “crimes”; and the higher an individual’s standing within the community, the greater the reluctance.

A case in point is Sir John Alderston and his crate of wine.

Captain John Alderston was knighted after Waterloo, in 1815, and in subsequent years he became a prosperous London citizen. He was one of the owners of the South Eastern Railway from the inception of the line, and had large financial holdings in several coal mines in Newcastle as well. He was, according to all accounts, a portly, tart-spoken gentleman who maintained a military bearing all his life, barking out terse commands in a manner that was increasingly ludicrous as his waistline spread with the passing years.

Alderston’s single vice was a passion for card games, acquired during his army days, and his outstanding eccentricity was that he refused to gamble for money, preferring to wager personal articles and belongings instead of hard cash. Apparently this was his way of viewing card-playing as a gentlemanly pastime, and not a vice. The story of his crate of wine, which figures so prominently in The Great Train Robbery of 1855, never came to light until 1914, some forty years after Alderston’s death. At that time, his family commissioned an official biography by an author named William Shawn. The relevant passage reads: