STOLEN CROWN JEWELS.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXV, Issue 19, 21 January 1913, Page 2

STOLEN CROWN JEWELS.

* RUMOURS OF RESTORATION

DUBLIN CASTLE MYSTERY?

(Daily Telegraph’s Correspondent.) London, December 13.

From time to time, the mystery surrounding the disappearance from Dublin Castle, of the St. Patrick’s, installation regalia, or the Irish Crown Jewels, as they are generally called, has been revived in the newspapers, but during the past few days statements of a remarkable nature have been made, in regard to them, and there seems to be some probability that the mystery will soon bo cleared up. In well-informed circles the mystery is no mystery at all—that is to say, the facts concerning the disappearance of the jewels are known to a number of people. But even outside the circle there is a decided opinion that the authorities at Dublin Castle have been more interested in hushing up .the truth in connection with the matter than in revealing it. Time after time’ it has been openly stated that the relatives of persons in high authority are implicated in the scandal attached to the disappearance of the gems, and that powerful influence has been exerted to prevent the facts being made public. Mr L. Ginnell, an Independent Nationalist, who represents Westmeath North, in the House of Commons, has made several attempts to ventilate the matter in Parliament, but so far he has been prevented from doing so by points of order, or by the House being counted out while he was speaking. On the motion for the adjournment of the House on N December G, he rose in his place to discuss the theft of the Irish crown jewels, which disappeared in July, 1907. He opened his speech with the declaration that-“the police who had been instructed to collect evidence of criminal debauchery committed in the Castle by officials, army officers, and others of such position, that their exposure and conviction would lead to an upheaval from which the Chief Secretary and the Government shrank, and that in order to prevent this, the Government appointed a hush-commission, with the result intended, and even now it refused to give the names of the criminals to the Director of Public Prosecutions.” They had often heard and' read idle platitudes about tbo purity of public life, be continued. He was going to test whether anything practical could be done towards securing that purity by grappling with a concrete case of gross impurity, tearing the mask from it, and affording persons in public life, who might find themselves implicated, an opportunity of vindicating themselves if they could, or of taking the consequences if they could not. He went on to declare that powerful influence had been brought to bear to induce the newspapers to prevent any disclosures in regard to the scandal *af Dublin’ Castle reaching the public, but at the state of the House, and as there was not a quorum of 40 members present the House was counted out.

Mr Ginnell’s change of suppression on .the part of the newspapers does not carry conviction, and its falsity was demonstrated a few days after he had spoken in tire House. The London “Daily Telegraph,” which disputes with “The Times” the premier position amopg English newspapers, revived in its issue of December 10 the subject of the theft of the Irish Crown jewels, and published a report that the jewels had been replaced intact, in the safe from which they had been stolen over five years ago. This report has been officially denied, but the denial of the Ulster King of Arms (Captain Nevile Wilkinson), who has charge of the safe from which the jewels were stolen, might easily be of a more positive nature. All he would say in reply to the question of a press interviewer, whether the jewels had been restored, was, “1 have no information to give you.” Mr BirreU, Chief Secretary for Ireland, declared in the House of Commons, in reply to a question, that there was no truth in the report that the jewels had been restored. But the “Daily News and Leader,” a Radical newspaper, which strongly supports the Government, and for that reason may be assumed to get an occasional insight into official secrets, publishes an article asserting not merely that the jewels have been restored, but that those people who took the jewels never meant to steal them, that they were put back in the safe within six weeks of the discovery that they were missing, and that all the official proceeding's in regard to them—the police inquiry, and the Vice-Regal Commission, which was appointed by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, were merely an empty farce. It was stated after the disappearance of the jewels had been made public, that replicas of the St. Patrick’s regalia had been made by order of the Government, and would be used in place of the originals. It is contended by the “Daily News and Leader” that no replicas were made, and that the real jewels are in their proper place. The following are the chief passages in the article in the “Daily News and Leader” on the subject:— We are assured on unimpeachable authority, that the statement *’’at the jewels arc back is true, in spite of strenuous assertions to the contrary, and wo are further in a position to state that on a certain day in August, 1907, within six w.mks of the date on which they were reported to be missing, they were back, if not in the safe from which they had been removed, at least in the hands of the authorities. They have been there over since, and no replicas have been made to replace them. Ever since the scandal of the disappearance of the jewels was made public, the most strenuous efforts have been made to shroud the whole un pleasant business in mystery, and influence in high quarters lias been brought to bear, to throw dust into I everybody’s eves. ft had never been]

intended that the fact of the temporary disappearance of the jewels should be made public at all. But it slipped out by mistake, and, as a consequence, the utmost consternation was caused among those concerned. With the jewels gone, and the cat out of the bag, the best had to be made of a bad job, and what followed can now l>est be described as a ludicrous farce.

Dublin Castle called in the assistance of Scotland Yard, and Inspector Kane, a most astute officer, was sent over to the Irish capital to make full inquiries, and to report from time to time to headquarters. But so far as the public were allowed to know, the mystery only deepened, and the actual result of what Mr Kane managed to unravel is still carefully shrouded in the archives of the official bureau. No arrests were ever made, and it is very highly probable that no arrests ever will be made in connection with the “robbery.” That the regalia is now back in its old place, complete, is sufficient for the day, and it some satisfaction at least to know that there is no likelihood of any repetition of the old regime at the Castle, which made the appalling “adventures” of the regalia possible. We understand that it is nighly probable tiiat in the next few weeks, a full statement of what exactly happened on and previous to July 5, 1907, both in Dublin Castle and in Paris, in regard to the jewels, will be at the disposal of the House of Commons, to do as they think fit with it. The official description of the jewels given at the time of their disappearance was as follow : Diamond star of the Grand Master of the Order of St. Patrick, composed of brilliants (Brazilian stones), consisting of points isuing from a c(metre, enclosing a cross of rubies and a trefoil of emeralds and sky-blue enamel, with “Quis Separabit MDCCLXXXIIi.” in rose diamonds, value £30,000.

Diamond badge of the Grand Master of the Order of St; Patrick, set in silver, containing a trefoil in emeralds, on a ruby cross, surrounded by a skyblue enamelled circle, with “Quis Separabit, MDCCLXXXIII.” in rose diamonds, in a circle of large Brazillian stones, and a value -£16,000.

Five collars of the Knights Companions of the Order of St. Patrick, composed of gold, with roses and harps alternately tied together, with knots of gold leaves, enamelled, and an Imperial jewelled crown surmounting a harp of gold, one having attached a badge of the Order composed of Brazilliau stones and the Cross of St. Patrick in rubles in blue enamel circle, with motto, “Quis Separabit, MDCCLXXXIJI.” in ]*bso diamonds, the whole enclosed by a wreath of trefoil in emeralds on a gold ground, enamelled in colours, value £IOOO.

It was afterwards stated that a number of jewels which had belonged to Mrs Vicars, and at her death became the property of her son', Mr G. Mahony, had also been taken from the safe. Among these were : —A large drop of gold and silver, with one large Brazilian diamond, and smaller stones, worth £350; a large oval Brazilian diamond, worth• £250; a pair of diamond earrings,., jworth £200; a diamond half-hoop ring, worth £250; a pearl half-hoop ring,,-worth £100; other jewels, making a total value of about £ISOO.

- The, st fl r>^. ! o|...^9,^;o|}boj^ r ,7is f; % closed in the newspapers in July, 1907, was in itself sufficient to indicate that someone familiar with the, ways of official life in Dublin Castle was responsible for the disappearance of the jewels. They were kept in a safe, which was in the library an the office-of-arms at Dublin Castle, and, therefore, were nominally in charge of the Ulster King of Arms—-a, position which was filled at that tjmc by Sir Arthur Vicars. There was also a strongroom in the office-of-arms, and a quantity of valuable jewels was kept in it, but the safe containing the St. Patrick’s regalia was not in the strongroom. It is supposed that the robbery took place on the night of July 5, 1907, as on the afternoon of July 6 it was found that the jewels were missing, when the safe was opened for the purpose of placing in it the collar of a deceased Knight of St. Patrick. But the safe had not previously been opened since June 11. It is remarkable that on the morning of July 6 the woman who cleaned out the offices found on her arrival that the door of the strong room was open, but on subsequent investigation it was found that none of the jewels in the strong room were missing. On the morning of July 3 the woman who cleaned out the offices had found the strong room door open, but on the matter being reported to Sir Arthur Vicars, Ulster King of Arms, he did not regard it as of sufficient importance 'to take any action. It was the practice for a detective stationed at the Castle to make a round of the offices each night, and there were also guards in the courtyard outside. But the disclosures made before the \ iceRegal Commission, which was appointed in 1908 to inquire into the disappearance of the gems, in consequence of tlie reports that the culprits were being shielded from exposure, showed that a happy-go-lucky state of affairs prevailed in the Office of Arms, and that numbers of officials had access to the strong room, and to the safe in which the Crown jewels were kept. The robbery or abstraction was carried out by someone who was not pressed for time, and entertained no fear of interruption. There were no marks of violence on the safe, and it was evident that it had been opened by a key. The thief spent at least half an hour in unfastening from a series of hooks the collars of the Knights Companions of the Order of St. Patrick, although he might have obtained possession of them without delay, by cutting the ribbons with which they were tied. As already stated, the door of the strong room was found open in the morning after the night on which the rubbery was supposed to have been committed, but none of the jewels in tbo strong room were missing. All these facts indicate that the person who removed the(

St. Patrick’s regalia was not an ordinary thief intent on securing the utmost booty. Mr F rancis Richard Shackleton, a brother of Sir Ernest Shackleton, the

Antarctic explorer, was suspected of

complicity in the crime, and he was examined at, considerable length by the Vice-Regal Commission which inquired into the matter. In October, 1899, he had been appointed assistant secretary to the Office of Arms, at Dublin, a position, however, which carried no salary with it. He subsequently served in the South African War as an officer of the Royal Irish Fusiliers, and in 1905 lie became Dublin Herald at the Office of Arms, but this position also carried no salary. Ho occupied this position when the robbery took place. In his evidence before the commission he stated that he had never had a key of the safe in which St. Patrick’s regalia was kept. Neither had he a key of the strong room at the Office of Arms, but he had frequently been in the strong room. Over and over again ,3 he declared that he had not the slightest idea as to the theft of the jewels, though he knew that suspicion had been thrown on him.

“Did you, or did you not take the. jewels?” asked the Solicitor-GeJicral. “I did not take them ; I know nothing of their disappearance,” was the reply. “I have no suspicion of anybody.” “Were you concerned, directly or indirectly, with their taking?” “No,” said the witness. “I know that I am suspected because J. travelled from Paris to Italy about the end of the year. I went there on business.” Mr Shackleton told the commission a remarkable story about a clairvoyant seance he took part in at the Irish Exhibition with Sir Arthur Vicars, the Ulster King of Arms, when .an attempt was made by a lady seer to “seance” the whereabouts of the missing jewels. Sir Arthur Vicars, in obedience to the clairvoyant, searched all sorts of unlikely places, including a hollow under a tombstone in a Dublin cemetery, but no trace of the jewels was discovered. The commission in its report stated that Mr Shackleton appeared to be “a truthful and candid witness,” and that there was no evidence before the commission that ho had been implicated in any way “in this great crime.” But before the commission was appointed, Mr Shackleton and other officials of the Office of Arms at Dublin, including Sir Arthur Vicars, were asked to resign their positions. Sir Arthur Vicars publicly protested at the time that he was being sacrificed to shield the real culprits, who were known to the authorities. At the instance of the Public Prosecutor, a warrant was recently issued for the arrest of Francis 'Diehard Shackleton on a charge of obtaining money by fraud from Lord Ronald Sirtherland-Gowcr and others. He was arrested in Portuguese East Attica a few weeks ago, and is being extradited to England, but owing to the long intervals in the departure of strainers from Portuguese East Africa for England he will not arrive in Lontlon until February. The charge has "arisen" in connection with the bankruptcy of Lord Ronald SutherlandGowcr, whose liabilities were returned a5"£27,442, and his assctr+ as £6589. 'The report of the assistant official receiver in bankruptcy stated that Lord ! Ronald “had no business experience.” His affairs »were conduct yd by an agent, who, however, died in 1907. Lord Ronald at that time was worth £60,000, and after the death of his agent Shackleton obtained considerable influence over him. “Shackleton and an accountant,” continues the report of the assistant official receiver, “obtained possession of almost all the property, and used the greater part of the proceeds in speculative companies in which they were interested, or in other speculation.”

There was considerable litigation over the matter, hut the charge of fraud against Shackleton was not laid until a few months ago. In October, 1911, he had become bankrupt, his liabilities being £100,386, and his assets £9620. The evidence at the bankruptcy proceedings showed that he had been extensively engaged in company promoting. After his bankruptcy he loft England for New York, but was subsequently heard of at Paris and other places on the Continent. Just before the warrant for bis arrest was taken out lie disappeared, but the public prosecutor ascertained that be was living up country in Portuguese East Africa. The police authorities at Lorenzo Marques were communicated with, and he was arrested. It is unlikely that the criminal proceedings against him will throw any light on the disappearance of the Irish Crown jewels, but from the events that have recently taken place, it is extremely probable that further disclosures in regard to the mystery will soon bo made public.