STOLEN NELSON RELICS.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1695, 24 August 1904, Page 51

STOLEN NELSON RELICS.

(From Our Special Correspondent.) LONDON, July 8. On the night of December Bth, 1900, some conscienceless scoundrel stole from the famous Painted Hall at Greenwich Hospital a number of articles which visitors were wont to gloat over in reverence, for they were mementoes of England’s greatest sailor. Tlie Nelson relics stolen included a gold watch, an enamel portrait, two gold sword-hilts, seven medals, and other less valuable trifles. For a long time the police were quite unable to discover even the slenderest clue to the perpetrator of the outrage, and, indeed, they could never even satisfactorily explain hoiv the robbery had been committed. The most plausible surmise was that the miscreant had concealed himself in the ITall just before it was closed for the night, had broken open the cases in which the relics were exhibited, and had made his escape when the pensioners in charge of the Hall opened it next morning. But nobody connected with the hospital had noticed any strange person about the building, and it was not until tlie Hall had been open some little time that the lobbeiy was noticed. Then there were “alarums and excursions” with a vengeance; detectives by the dozen were put on the trail, and

the London "fences’’ had an unhappy time of it owing to police vigilance. But Scotland Yard’s best efforts were all to no puriio.se; the thief and his precious booty had vanished into thin air, and it was not until last March that anything more was heard of the relics. In that month the head of the British Museum was surprised to receive a letter dated from the Sailors’ Home at Melbourne, and signed “Eucalyptus/’ which ran as follows: “Sir. —I believe you were relieved some years ago of the custody of Lord Nelson’s relics. Among the relics was Nelson’s watch. I am led to believe that I have the identical watch in my possession. I will tell you how I came by it. Some time ago a sailor accosted me in Flinders street. He appeared tobe in an intoxicated state, and I . . . offered to see linn to bis ship. He said he had no ship. . . : and was in a penniless condition. I gaxe him a shilling, and bid him good-bye. Three days after I saw him loafing round the docks. ... I asked him if he had

any idea of the time. He said he had a watch, but it was not in working order. He produced the watch, and I asked him if he wished to dispose of it. He said he would not part with it under any consideration. ... I was de-

termined to get it. and plied him freely with liquor. He began telling me some of his experiences, and admitted that he had been connected with thefts in England and America, one of which was Die theft of Nelson’s relics. I asked him if the watch was one of them. Seeing that he was committing himself, he said ‘No/ I shall not describe hoiv I obtained the articles. I will now describe the watch. ... It was rather

larger than a lady’s, but bulkier. At the back of the outside case is inscribed the stern of an old man-o’-war. . . . It bad written across the stern, San Josef. The hours are marked in ordinary figures. It lias attached to ib a small gold slip ring ivith a seal of red stone and a common watch key. The seal pourtrays a woman holding a snake in her right hand extended. If all the above should tally with the lost relic) you * will kindly let me know. You ivill address communications to ‘Eucalyptus, G.P.0., Melbourne.’ I expect to receive a fair reward if it •should be the right one. . . I might add that it ivould be very_foolish to communicate this to the police, as I would have it destroyed. Should you feel inclined to get it back without undue publicity and fuss, the 'best way is through the curator of the Melbourne museum. By sending a full description of the relics, and a promise not to prosecute, with £IOO to the director of the museum, he will probably give it back.” Appended to the letter ivas an excellent pencil drawing of the watch. The letter was handed over to Scotland Yard, but what steps were taken in connection with it Ido not know,. A few days ago, however, a seaman named William Carter visited Scotland Yard, and acknowledged himself to ,bo the writer of the letter. He had, he said, come to give information for the recovery c-f the relics, and professed to have in his possession the watch and seal referred to. They were, ho said, in his luggage at his rooms in Woolwich. But when Inspector Arrow visited and searched his rooms no trace of the watch or seal could be found. In his statement to Die police, Carter endorsed all the facts related in the “Eucalyptus'” letter, and added: “Besides what I have got (the watch and seal) I have seen a medal which was in tho possession of the man from whom I took the watch and seal, and he said it ivas one of the Nelson relics. . . I have also seen a snuff-box —a gold one—in the possession of a man at Melbourne ivho has befriended mo , and I won’t give him away. He is a receiver out there, who keeps a tobacconist’s shop as a blind. I refuse to say what his name is. The man that I took tho watch and seal from told me that he was one of a crowd that got some stuff away hero, and that was his share. I met him in Flinders street, and I believe he loft on the Borealis three days after I left., and that ivas February 18. I don’t know - his name. I won’t describe him. I have seen nothing else except the wat oil and seal which I have, and the snuff-box and medal, which, I believe, are in Melbourne. . • I ivas staying in Woolwich about five years ago, but I have never been in Greenwich Hospital, and did not know the Nelson relics were stolen from there. I thought they were stolen from the British Museum.” Inspector Arrow being unable to persuade Carter to show him the watch and seal, except under a promise not to prosecute, which tho Inspector could not give, arrested the fellow, and charged him with theft. Carter protested that lie could prove an alibi, and that he had left England in 1899 for Australia, and had not been in this country till he landed on Monday week last. The police, however, fancy they can prove Diat Carter is a poison whose real name is McCarthy, who has “ antecedents ” which have caused a record of his finger-prints to be kept at Scotland Yard, and who was certainly in London at the time of the robbery, and soon afterwards. To enable them to substantiate their allegations Carter is now on remand in custody.