committed to Clerkenwell prison for a short period for disorderly conduct. While in the House of Detention, he exhibited great fear for his life. It appeared that he had betrayed the confi dences of his associates and that they had promised to revenge themselves upon him. After his release, he was not noticed by the police again and it was later learnt that he had enlisted at Gravesend in a regiment which was already under orders for India.
Sergeant Verity also begs to state that a young woman of a bad reputation, answering both the name and description of the girl Jolie, was taken up in Lang ham Place in March 1856, upon a gentleman complaining of her to a constable.
In conclusion, Sergeant Verity is of opinion that a crime of considerable significance may be in contemplation by conspirators of resource and experience. If such men contrived the death of Thomas McCaffery in India, Sergeant Verity believes the proposed felony must relate to property of the greatest value. Sergeant Verity therefore respectfully begs that orders be given for the pursuit of fuller investigations.
Sergeant Verity has the honour to remain Inspector Croaker's obedient humble servant.
W. Verity, Sgt. 25th of May, 1857.
Inspector Croaker presents his compliments to Sergeant Verity, and is in receipt of Sergeant Verity's request of 25th of May instant.
Mr Croaker cannot help expressing surprise that Sergeant Verity should think fit to address his superior officers in a manner as if he knew the business of the Division better than they. It appears to Mr Croaker that Sergeant Verity would best serve his own interest by satisfactory completion of those duties already allotted to him. Upon consulting the defaulters' sheet, Mr Croaker observes that Sergeant Verity has been paraded twice in the past twelve months, once for insubordination and once for an assault upon a member of the public. Mr Croaker hopes that Sergeant Verity will reflect upon this.
However, Mr Croaker has carefully perused the letter from Corporal Alfred French and the paragraph from the Morning Chronicle. This is not a paper which Mr Croaker normally has the pleasure of reading. Mr Croaker is bound to say that, even were it his privilege to do so, he could find no fault whatever with the verdict and sentence in the case of Private Thomas McCaffery.
McCaffery was not convicted in respect of any offence against the young woman, Jolie, nor was the girl a material witness. However, Sergeant Verity must be aware that her evidence, such as it was, appeared abundantly supported by Surgeon-Major Fitzgerald. No positive proof exists to identify this unfortunate young woman with the street-walker to whom Sergeant Verity refers. Even if there were such proof, a common prostitute in a case of violence is no less entitled to the protection of the law. Mr Croaker trusts that Sergeant Verity will remember this in future.
Mr Croaker is disturbed at the apparently easy terms upon which Sergeant Verity associates with low women and others of the criminal class, and the reliance he seems to place upon their evidence. The man Edward Roper is a person whose earnings may possibly accrue from gaming or prostitution. He stands convicted of no crime, however. Mr Croaker is dismayed that Sergeant Verity should regard a threat by Roper or McCaffery to rob the Bank of England as anything but a drunken boast.
Mr Croaker must solemnly remind Sergeant Verity that the use of a plain-clothes detail is confined to detecting crime and is not to extend to espionage upon men who may be in contemplation of a crime. This limit is imposed by the good sense of the Home Office. If Sergeant Verity feels unable to perform his duties within this limit, Mr Croaker will expect to be informed at once.
If Sergeant Verity should possess knowledge of a crime to be committed and should alloio such crime to be committed for the purpose of a pprehending the criminals, he w ill be in danger of being charged as
David G. Hartwell and Kathryn Cramer