Frank Weaver MARGRETT
Ancestral line as currently established: - Frank 1867, Thomas 1843, Thomas 1812, George 1780, ?............Family Tree number 9/17/24
Born: 23APR1867 at 5 Hampton Place, Reading, Berkshire, England
Eldest of five children of
Father: Thomas Margrett b.1812
Mother: Julia Anna Weaver
Frank Married: 28NOV1891 in the Parish Church of Brompton, London
Spouse: Alice Ann Cann
3 Children: Muriel Evelyn 1893,
Herbert Frank 1898,
Kathleen Alice 1898 (looks like twins)
2nd marriage might or might not have been in 1921 to Maggie Eliza Markham
from which there were no children
Frank Died: June 1940 aged 73, in Bangkok, Thailand
The origin of Frank's middle name appears on his Birth Certificate because it was his mother's maiden name. The certificate records "Ironmonger Master" indicating that his father was the proprietor of a business and inevitably employed staff. By the time of the 1871 Census, Frank is aged 3 and already has two brothers at Sonning, where his father is in trade aged 27.
Aged 13, Frank is at Weston School in Bath amongst another 40 or so others as a boarder under the Headmaster Albert Browning, married, assisted by 5 other teachers. His father is wealthy enough to send his eldest child to private school. Then in the April 1891 Census, Frank is aged 24 describing himself as a jeweller's assistant and living as a "boarder" at 9 The Strand in London. On the 28th November, just 7 months later he marries Alice, daughter of a Station Master. On his marriage, Frank now describes himself as a Goldsmith of 6 Grand Hotel Buildings. It sounds very progressive.
We get a clearer picture from the March 1901 Census. The ten-year married couple are living at 53 Wroughton Road, Battersea and he is 33 describing himself as a Jeweller in Gold. They've moved about in the ten years as shown by the birth-places of their three children; Muriel born in Wimbledon, Herbert and Kathleen both born in Wandsworth. What we don't know is whether at this stage he was working for himself, employed, or already a director of the Association of Diamond Merchants which he certainly will be in eleven years time.
The theft of the Queen of Siam's Pearls.
Whilst we know that Frank was in 1912 a director of the Association of Diamond Merchants, it is unsure whether that was so in 1908. However, in June 1908 King Chulalongkorn and his Queen of Siam commissioned Mr S Smith, governing director of the Association of Diamond Merchants, Jewellers, and Silversmiths Ltd., of Trafalgar Square, London, having had previous business with them. We will see soon how involved in this whole matter is Frank.
For the Queen’s birthday a rope of 251 pearls was ordered, measuring some five feet in length. It was later stated in the court in Singapore that the value and insurance cover taken out with Lloyds of London was for £8,200 (in 2012 worth in Sterling £768,094 , US$1,220,882, Argentine peso 5,754,997). The agreement was for the central pearl to be just over 19 grains and successive pearls to reduce in weight by 20%. There is conflicting evidence whether or not some of the pearls came from the King’s collection and others were purchased in Europe from the marketplace.
During 1909, Frank establishes his showrooms and workrooms for Siamese art work in Bangkok and we know this because we have a copy of the advertisement in a Bangkok Tourist Guide of 1938 which states "Mr F W Margrett F.R.C.I. Lon., English Craftsman, invites tourists to his showrooms and workrooms for Siamese art work at Tewksbury House, 179-181 New Road, (nearly opposite GPO) in Bangkok. Established 1909."
In April 1909, when the Pearl Necklace was complete in the London workshops, this precious item was packed, with other jewellery of not great value, in three boxes and in an outer wooden case, which was zinc-lined, 18 inches (460 cm) long, 15 inches (380 cm.) wide and "sufficiently deep". The zinc lining was soldered closed to give a damp-proof container with a wooden lid screwed down, and clamped with hoop-iron and seals at the top and bottom of the box. This packing was "standard" and the Diamond Merchants usually entrusted such packages to a P. & O. steamer, but on this occasion to a North German steamer "Luctzow" setting out from Southampton.
The newspaper in Bangkok, during the trial of the alleged thief in 1913, reported "By curious and undesigned coincidence, Mr Reginald Smith and Mr Frank Weaver Margrett, both directors of the Association of Diamond Merchants, and who delivered the precious case to Southampton, happened to travel to Singapore in the same boat to which they entrusted the case" It was conveyed as bullion; this "means that it was the subject of particular care". The cost of the freight was £125 (today equal to £11,581, US$18,408, Argentine pesos 87,957). When the NDL steamer Luctzow reached Singapore the case was transferred by the German purser to the steamer "Deli" which ran from Singapore to Bangkok. The case was personally handed to the head wharfinger, Jules Paul de Boseck, an employee of Messrs Windsor & Co, Bangkok at 9 or 10 o’clock on the morning of arrival.
After receiving notice of it’s arrival, Chamun Chong Kwa, Siamese Court Chamberlain, went to the harbour and signed for it, after checking that the seals were intact, and took it to his house to open it in the presence of his wife and possibly others. When the lid was lifted breaking the seals, it was found that "the zinc lining has been clumsily cut open on one side and the leather boxes inside were empty".
The Chamberlain immediately went to the hotel of Mr. Frank Margrett and Mr Reginald Smith, with the broken case. They determined how the lid, of two pieces of wood, tongued and grooved, had been easily separated and the smaller six-inch piece removed without disturbing the bands or seals, and glue and sawdust had concealed the fact that it had been opened. But where had the robbery taken place? In Southampton, at sea, or at Bangkok? At the opening of the trial three years later, the pearls were described as "the property of one Frank Weaver Margrett". Could that really be a personal cost? The Lloyds agent was notified immediately, but quickly declined to settle any claim for lack of evidence in the circumstances of the theft.
A second pearl rope was made and shipped in time for the Queens birthday, but obviously the business or Frank Margrett is out of pocket. In the days after April 1909, none of the 241 pearls from the rope were actually traced, but during 1910 a Singapore pearl dealer called Hamovitch bought pearls from Jules Paul de Boseck and other dealings by the accused were noted by the court in 1912 but the pearls could not be proved to be from the theft. In 1911 the accused obtained a loan of HK$800 using two significantly large pearls to secure the loan and then the lender sold them and they were taken to Australia which became known by agents, Messrs Allan & Gledhill who purchased them for Frank Margrett. Having been so involved with the preparation of the jewellery, Frank Margrett immediately recognised and was able to identify the unique centre pearl.
It might have been the life of Jean Paul de Boseck, between 1909 in Bangkok and arrest in London in 1912, aged 33, that helped convict him, on a charge of retaining stolen property, rather than theft.
He had left Bangkok sometime in 1910 and arrived at Singapore where he was employed by well-known local accountants which had gone out of business by the time of the trial. Whilst in Singapore, he gambled openly and on a fairly large scale with book makers. There was report of his selling pearls. "A long and assiduous investigation by the Singapore police" identified the sale of the two pearls which Frank Margrett purchased for HK$ 1,500. It was Frank Margrett who applied fora warrant for the arrest of the accused on 28 September 1911.
The arrest was made in London, and the Magistrates gave an order in 1912 for extradition, and Chief Inspector Bower, of Scotland Yard, (of the Moat Farm murder fame of a few years earlier) was entrusted with conveying him to Singapore.
At his trial in Singapore Jean Paul de Boseck explained he was aware the two pearls were stolen but claimed to have purchased them, after first lending money against them to one of the ‘kranis’ (steamer clerks) who called himself Siang Heng.
In the course of the trial, facts about the accused were presented to the court by witnesses. He was described as a journalist. He had used the name Charles Chilsworth "when making inquiries respecting a political offence in Java, the result of which he sent to the Chinese Minister at the Hague". Cross examined, he was asked, "if on 14 June (1910) he sold 23 pearls to Hamovitch in the name of Charles Melville Williams", replying "may have done". "How many other occasions?" "More than once." "Did you tell him the pearls belonged to you?" "I would not be able to sell them if I did not."
Did you sell him six pearls for $600?" "I believe there was a number sold, but I would not say the figure." "You were in want of money at the time?" "Yes, that is why I was disposing of the pearls." "When did you leave Singapore?" "On April 23, 1911, I returned to Singapore from Java on my way home." "Under what name did you come from Batava?" "Charles Chilsworth." "The name is that of a police officer in Bangkok, is it not?" "No, Sir."
Challenged, he admitted it was the name Charles Chilsworth he traveled under and not his own, and that when he landed at Colombo he had not touched the letters in the letter rack in his own name, arriving eventually in England in that assumed name.
"Why did you ask that all letters should be addressed to you, care of Sir George Reid, High Commissioner of the Commonwealth of Australia, London?" "I was writing a modern history of Java and Mr. Willis who was with me said that that was a good address to write to if I wanted any letters in London." "When did these political negotiations make it necessary for you to change your name?" "About fourteen days before I left Java." "You are quite certain you did not adopt this name when you went to Rangoon from Penang?" "It is quite possible." "Were there any international complications in Rangoon at the time?" I am not certain that I had changed my name. I have never been mixed up with international complications of any kind." "Any diplomatic matters?" "I believe there was also an enquiry into this matter when I went there." "Is that why you changed then to Chilsworth?" "I believe it is. It is not the first time I have assisted in these matters."
"From whom did you get the two pearls you gave to Cowan?" "Those are the pearls I say I received from Habib in 1908." "He was a well known man, is he not?" He is a very good friend of mine." "Do you know what happened to him?" "I do not." "Quite sure?" "Sure of it." "You don’t know that Habib, the well known pearl man, was drowned in the La Seyne?" "It is the first I have heard of it."
The accused was questioned why he did not report to the Bangkok police the possession of the pearls he lent money on and which he admitted he knew were stolen. He excused this because he was of poor health at the time, had just "made a continued attack in the press on the police and the rottenness of the system, causing one of the Royal princes to be transferred to another department, and finally, that native police usually retained stolen property for their own private benefit, rarely restoring it to the rightful owner."
Earlier in the case Frank Weaver Margrett was in the witness box and confirmed his circumstances and involvement in the case. He had not been present at the packing process carried out by Mr Samuel Smith and his two sons, and the zinc lining was soldered by the firm’s usual packing man. After consigning the box containing the pearls to the ship in Southampton, "he had returned to London, then joined the same ship in Genoa," (sounds like a mad rush by train from London to Genoa for some reason) only seeing the box next when the Chamberlain came to his hotel with it because it was empty.
The counsel for the defence cross-examined him establishing that he had not produced evidence of the order placed with his firm, thinking it unnecessary. Frank also added that, whilst his firm would not have hoarded pearls in anticipation of securing the order, it was a big order. Some time after the order he had obtained a large pearl and with a significant item it would be usual to record it’s weight but he had not brought the record with him.
Counsel got him to answer questions about the insurance cover and the court heard that Lloyds of London had refused to pay out. The defence counsel said, "Has it been suggested you ought to get somebody convicted before you can recover the money?" "It has not been suggested." "Have you considered it advisable?" "Well, to a certain extent it would be material to the issue of the case." Frank Margrett said he had discussed with his legal advisers at home the question of a conviction being material to the case.
But led by the counsel for the prosecution another strange revelation was made. A merchant, R.F.Mosley, of Oxford Street, London, had committed a libel against him (Frank) in a letter to Chamun Chong Kwa, the Siamese Court Chamberlain (after the theft) stating that Mr. Margrett had been discharged from the Association of Diamond Merchants and that the writer wondered what he knew of the missing necklace. In a public apology Mosley had said "the statements are totally untrue and are without any foundation," and that Frank could publish the apology in any place "including Siam, Bangkok, and the Federated Malay States." On this occasion a copy was available for submission as evidence to the court.
Frank told the court that he had been 26 years with his firm, ( that would be since 1885) having worked his way up from junior assistant to the position of manager and buyer. The centre pearl was a most unique one. It had a beautiful pink hue; on each side there were "broque" marks in a pronounced and regular manner. On it was a hatchet mark close to which was a small pinhole. The jewel was specially bought for the centre of the rope and, at the time the purchase was under discussion, considerable curiosity was exhibited in the trade.
When Inspector Bower was giving evidence, he disclosed that Frank Margrett had written to him when he was transporting the prisoner to Singapore, and that the letter reached him in Colombo. The Inspector had thrown the letter overboard, but it had inexplicably been recovered and was produced in court. The letter stated that the accused would be dealt with severely if taken to Siam and that the Inspector should look after the accused. "It was a silly letter" and he did not attach any importance to it.
The Inspector was asked, "Did you think it a proper thing for a man to write such a letter to you?" "It all depends on a man’s condition at the time he wrote it. I do not think Mr. Margrett would have written such a latter if he had seriously considered it. Mr Margrett had known me for many years, but perhaps he thought I could not look after both prisoner and myself at the same time."
Summing up, the defence counsel addressed the jury for 2 ½ hours observing the importance of the case due to the distances involved, and the exalted position of some of the participants. He claimed that the evidence for the prosecution seemed to have been made up of items and particulars which related rather to an effort on their part to make out some kind of suspicion against the accused than produce evidence. "The evidence of Mr. Margrett was to the effect that the pearls belonged to the Queen of Siam and as de Boseck had traded in pearls and was handed the box said to contain the same, therefore he was guilty."
The question of the property having been stolen rested on whether the pearls were ever placed in the box. "Are the statements of Mr. Margrett to be accepted?" The jury should have expected him to call at least one other witness from England to testify to the packing of the box. There was no record of what was supposed to have been sent out. "There was no doubt that the pearl weighed in court showed a great difference on the weight testified to by Mr. Margrett, who had had it in his posession quite long enough to be able to give it's accurate weight." Counsel admitted that it was a foolish thing to assume names, but the accused had given his reasons for having done so - there was a lady in the case. Finally, after the theft, there was no evidence that in Siam any steps were taken to detect the crime and why was there no offer of reward? He suggested that the box in which the vast value was shipped would not have been sufficient to ship whiskey.
The prosecution took only 45 minutes to sum up and likewise the judge 46 minutes. The jury were even more businesslike and made their "guilty" decision in 7 minutes. After a further hearing to decide three points of law that had arisen during the trial, a sentence was given down of two years’ rigorous imprisonment dating from May 14, 1912.
Frank Margrett acclaimed as a hero.
A London newspaper later reported on the 9 November 1912 "Our readers no doubt will recollect the mysterious disappearance of a valuable pearl necklace during transit to the Queen of Siam about 3 1/2 years ago. After a period of two years, during which time a most minute investigation had been taking place, the information reached The Association of Diamond Merchants that a warfinger at Bangkok had been selling pearls."
"Mr F W Margrett, one of the Directors of the Company (and a member of an old Gloucester family), who had for some time been representing them in the Far East, was at Singapore, and he obtained possession of two pearls, one of which he identified as being the centre pearl of the necklet (sic)."
"Criminal proceedings resulted in the conviction of the warfinger who was sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment. "
" A pleasing sequel took place on Wednesday night at the Grand Hotel, Trafalgar-square when Mr Margrett was presented with a massive silver loving cup of Early English design, which bore the inscription of tribute and appreciation. Mr Margrett, who was received with great enthusiasm, expressed in a few words his deep feeling of appreciation of the gift, which had come as an absolute surprise to him. Whatever fight he had put up, whatever he had done, was only dictated by the principles of duty. It is understood that Mr Margrett, who had already served 26 years in connection with the firm, will be leaving again for the Far East in the New Year."
And then, 28 years later, The Straits Times reported on Sunday 16 June 1940 -
"With the death of Mr. F. W. Margrett, one of the best known Bangkok personalities has passed on. Mr. Margrett was 73 and was a resident of Bangkok for 30 years. He first went to Thailand on behalf of his firm, S. Smith and Sons, London, and after the last war, in 1919, he became resident director of that firm. It then became S. Smith & Sons (Siam), Ltd."
"Later on, in 1924, he opened his own business as a jeweller and engraver which was in 1937, converted into the firm of F. W. Margrett (1937), Ltd. Mr. Margrett kept excellent health until three years ago, but since then he had been more or less an invalid. He, however, persisted in going to office until a month ago. In his younger days he was very keen on athletics, boxing, cycling and clay-pigeon shooting, but his main hobby was racing, and for many years he acted as a paddock steward."
"Another interest was amateur theatricals and several presentations at the Theatre Royal, Bangkok, owed their success to the long hours he put in at rehearsals, with Mrs. Margrett in the casts."
"Perhaps Mr. Margrett’s greatest thrill in his business life was the disappearance of "one rope of 251 pearls of Orient hue" dispatched by his firm in London in 1909 for the Queen of Siam. The box arrived in Bangkok in May 1909, and was delivered to the Queen’s representative. When opened it contained empty cases only. The centre pearl weighed nineteen grains and the remainder were matched in pairs with a graduation of 20 per cent. to the end."
"The firm replaced the stolen necklace, and after long negotiations the underwriters paid about £35,000 (sic) and the leading underwriter presented Mr. Margrett with a James II silver loving cup as a memento of his assistance in solving the mystery of the pearls disappearance."
Parts of the story of Frank Weaver Margrett's life have been in Margrett Magazines; number 6 of 1991, number 18 of 2005, number 19 of 2006, and number 26 of 2012, published and deposited with the British Library in those years under I.S.S.N 0269-0284