The former MP and the murder plot
When Hugh Watt's wife refused to finalise their divorce, he tried to get a private detective to kill her instead
Last week, I started to detail the life and career of London-based private detective Herbert Marshall. This week, I continue by looking at his involvement in an infamous Edwardian trial
In 1905, the newspaper were full of a scandalous case that had started with a marital separation and ended with a man's attempt to hire men to murder his wife. The fact that the husband was a former MP made this a case that really stood out, and it got substantial attention.
The couple at the heart of the case were Hugh and Julia Watt. The middle-aged Hugh was charged with unlawfully soliciting and endeavouring to persuade three men to kill Julia. One of those men was Herbert Marshall.
Hugh and Julia had had an unhappy marriage, where at frequent intervals, they had decided not to be together, before changing their minds. After 15 years of marriage, Julia had petitioned for a divorce in October 1895, accusing Hugh of committing adultery, and then, in May 1896, she asked for a judicial separation on the grounds of Hugh's adultery. Four years later, in November 1900, Julia again petitioned for a judicial separation, alleging that Hugh had been having an affair with Lady Violet Beauchamp.
Eventually, the couple agreed to have the petition dismissed, and briefly reconciled (although Sir Reginald Beauchamp, who petitioned for a divorce from Lady Violet in 1900, persevered and gained his divorce). At the time of their reconciling, in January 1901, they drew up a deed setting out what would happen to their finances in the event of their deaths. Each would benefit financially if the other one predeceased them.
Sir Reginald and Lady Violet Beauchamp, apparently living happily in Norfolk in 1881 (TNA/TheGenealogist)
The marriage took a downturn again, allegedly because of Hugh's continued relationship with Lady Violet. On 18 April 1901, Julia petitioned for a divorce, but although a decree nisi was issued two years later, she took no step to make the decree final. That summer, Julia Watt accused Lady Violet of libel, and on 30 October was awarded £5,000 (later reduced to £1,500 at the Court of Appeal). It was clearly a difficult relationship, one that centred on adultery, reputation and money.
How was Herbert Marshall, the rector's son from Clapton in Gordano, involved? For two years, he had been in partnership with another private detective, Sweeney, with the pair having an office at 5 Regent Street. Their agency was named Sweeney & Marshall, with Sweeney as the senior partner. At 11am on 10 August 1905, Hugh Watt turned up for a scheduled appointment at the agency, but his appointment was with Sweeney. Sweeney introduced him to Marshall, but did not tell him what the meeting was about.
The next day, though, Hugh Watt returned and this time told Marshall what he wanted. He asked for the detectives to watch Julia Watt at her house at 15 Chapel Street. "I want the life she is leading found out," he told him, and expressed his desire to get her to take the steps to have their divorce made final. He was willing to pay the usual charges of a guinea per officer working on the case, plus out of pocket expenses. If the detectives were successful in getting the decree final issued, and all other Watt disputes settled, they would get a bonus of £1000.
Hugh Watt told Marshall that he thought his wife was living an immoral life, and showed him a 'scurrilous postcard' she had written. But his priority was Lady Violet Beauchamp, who, he said, had been 'assaulted by hooligans' near Sloane Street - he believed his wife was responsible for arranging for the assault. Marshall began his investigations, which included speaking to Mrs Watt - he thought she was very frightened about her husband's violent behaviour towards her, as he had previously hit her.
At a later appointment, Marshall asked Hugh about the alleged assault detailed by Julia. He became cross, saying, "I will do for her!" before producing a case from his writing desk, which contained a bottle of chloroform. He then turned to Marshall, saying,
"You get Mrs Watt to come here. We will get her downstairs, where I have a room prepared. I will give her a push, chloroform her, and when it is all over, you are to go for Dr Francis Blake of Putney, who will certify death to be heart disease."
Hugh added that his wife had a weak heart, and so the cause of death would not be viewed with suspicion. "You must be mad!" Herbert claimed to have responded, before immediately leaving Watt's house in Knightsbridge.
But Hugh Watt returned the next day to the detective office, and refused to change his plan to have his wife killed. He asked Marshall to get his wife to come to the Knightsbridge house "and induce her to come downstairs. I will give her a push, chloroform her...I will have her cremated within 24 hours, and I will give you the sum of £5000."
Marshall did not agree to the plan, and instead left and went straight to Scotland Yard, where he reported Hugh Watt's plan to the acting superintendent. Now the accusations were put to a magistrate, and a warrant issued for Hugh Watt's arrest. The case went to the police court, and it was decided that Hugh should face the charge of inciting others to help kill his wife at the most famous court in the land: the Old Bailey.
The Central Criminal Court (Old Bailey) today (© Nell Darby)
When the case was initially heard at the police court, Herbert had been asked to detail his life and marital status. He clearly told the magistrates that he had divorced his wife in 1897 or 1897, that he had the final decree, and that his wife was dead. In fact, he had sought a divorce in 1899, and it had not been made final, because the Queen's Proctor had intervened to get it dismissed. When the case was tried at the Old Bailey, he was challenged on this, and clarified that he didn't know whether his wife was alive or dead. He had been to Charles Carey's house, and asked to see his wife, but she wasn't there. However, Carey had told her she was alive. Asked whether he knew perfectly well that she was alive, he denied it: "No, I do not. I have not seen her. He told me that she was alive."
He claimed to have received an anonymous letter that Emily had died, but his private detection skills had failed to locate her. Therefore, he assumed that she was dead. Now, the court called somebody in. It was a well-dressed woman in her early 40s. The defence counsel pointed to her, and, addressing Herbert, asked, "Now, isn't that your wife?"
Herbert, taken aback, immediately recognised Emily Marshall. "Yes, that is her." Her short role done, Emily turned and left the court.
Much of the evidence centred around Herbert Marshall's testimony, and so it was clear that the defence wanted to discredit him as a witness. Herbert's alleged relationship with Mrs Williamson was brought up, as it was made clear that this individual was a clergyman's widow and had a lot of money. The implication was that Herbert was both immoral and preoccupied with amassing wealth. He admitted having opened a bank account in his name, using some of Mrs Williamson's money. By the time the couple had split up in the summer of 1900 - after she found out he was having affairs with other women - he had left Mrs Williamson in debt.
Marshall had a long affair with a widow - one in which he spent her entire fortune
Marshall's detailing of his personal life was chaotic and contradictory. He was exposed as a man who used threats to get what he wanted, and who drained his lover's bank accounts for his own needs and wants. He had also threatened Mrs Williamson, telling her he would go to solicitors to lose her the guardianship of her children and make her a 'public scandal' unless she put the ownership of her houses into his name.
But Marshall was clear and unwavering about what Hugh Watt had said to him, and his evidence was backed up by his staff, particularly the young clerk Henry Drummond, who had worked with Marshall since he was 14. Former convict James Shuttle and newsagent Thomas Worley, the two other men who Watt had talked to about killing Julia also gave evidence. Marshall's personal reputation was trashed in court, and although Hugh Watt was found guilty, it was of the charges of breaking the peace and wounding, resulting in a sentence of five years in prison. The public, however, felt that he had been imprisoned on the basis of false testimony, not believing Marshall's tale, and Watt ended up serving only a year of his sentence.