Daniel Cambridge VC

On 22nd October, 1899, the Daily Mail reported that:


Little could the Daily Mail have known the impact their 5-line piece would have.

Some eight days later, on 30th October, the Daily Mail carried a fuller report:

 HOW AN ADVERTISEMENT LED TO
      A STRANGE DISCOVERY

     ("Daily Mail Special")
   It   is   only   now   and   again   a   Victoria
Cross finds its way into an auction sale-room
and is knocked  down  to  the  highest bidder.
  But,  as  the  outcome  of  the  advertisement
recently issued,  it  has  been  ascertained  that
within  a  period  of  two  years   two   of   the
much-coveted medals, and, strangely enough,
purporting  to  be  the  property  of  one  man,
have been announced for sale.                       
   The discovery of such a curious occurrence
has been  made  owing  to  an  advertisement
issued by Messrs. Debenham and  Storr, auc-
tioneers,  of  King-street,  Covent-garden,  in
which  it  was  stated  that  a  Cross  formally
the property of Sergeant  Daniel  Cambridge,
R.A., would be offered for sale shortly.        
   It was not offered, however, for the  reason
that Mr.  Fenton,  of  11  New Oxford-street,
was already in  possession  of  another  Cross
to which the  same  description  applies,  and
which  he  bought  at   Messrs.   Debenham's,
with three other medals,  in  December  1897
for £42.  Mr.   Fenton   informed   a    "Daily
Mail"  representative  that  he  had  no  doubt
as to the genuineness of  the Cross he has.    
   A representative of Messrs. Debenham  and
Storr,  when  spoken  to  on  the  subject,  ad-
mitted  there   was   some   doubt   about   the
authenticity  of  their  Victoria   Cross,   raised
by the fact  that  the  other  was  in  existence.
   "Still,"   he   said,   "that   does   not   argue
ours to be a  forgery,  for it  is  quite  possible
that  the  original owner having lost his  medal
might have                                                  
   OBTAINED A DUPLICATE
from  the  War  Office.  We  are  making   in-
quiries,  and  until   those    are   completed   I
think  it  wiser  to  say  nothing  more  on  the
subject.                                                       
   Additional interest is  lent  to  the  mystery
by the fact that a grandson of Sergeant  Cam-
bridge  has  for  some  time   been   trying   to
trace the  whereabouts  of  his  relation's  de-
coration.                                                    
   "My mother,"  said  Mr. Cambridge,  "used
to  wear the  Cross  as   a   brooch,  and  the
genuine one, which was awarded on Septem-
ber 8,  1855,  for  my  grandfather's  gallantry
with a spiking  party, and  for  saving  a  com-
rade during the  final  assault  on  the  Redan,
should bear traces of the pin which was fixed
to it.                                                            

Major Abbott, in his work published in the Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research in June, 1964, recorded that Danny's medals

". . . . . . first appeared in the market on 9th December, 1897, when they were auctioned by Messrs. Debenham, Storr & Sons and fetched £42. They were bought by a London dealer, Mr W. H. Fenton, who sold them to a gentleman living near Dundee. In turn, this gentleman sold them at Messrs. Sotheby on 1st December, 1943, where they were bought by a London dealer for £50. From thence they passed through two collections before coming in to the writer's (Maj. Abbott's) possession.

"However, during October, 1899, a second Cross and a single Crimean medal, both named to Cambridge, were offered for sale by Messrs. Debenham. In view of the transaction some years before, Fenton's curiosity was aroused and, according to a report in the Daily Mail, both items were withdrawn from sale. The report goes on to say that, when interviewed, a representative of Messrs. Debenham admitted that there was some doubt about the authenticity of the second Cross, but argued that a duplicate may have been issued. It seems likely, therefore, that from this unguarded if not unreasonable remark that the legend of the duplicate arise. The same report gives details of an interview with one of Cambridge's grandsons in which he says that his mother habitually wore the Cross as a brooch and that the genuine Cross [sic] should bear traces of the pin that had been fixed to it. The Cross illustrated here (in Maj. Abbott's originally published paper and the one in his possession) has such marks on the back of the suspender bar. The grandson goes on to say that in 1888 a younger brother (the relationship is not clear but one of Cambridge's sons seems intended) borrowed the Cross and medals but never returned them. Matters did not rest here, and in a later edition of the same paper a Mr. J. McCormick said that had a second Cross been issued he would have known about it, either from Cambridge himself or from his wife. McCormick goes on to say that Mrs. Cambridge resided with him after her husband's death and when she died he handed the group over to her eldest son in accordance with her wishes. It will be noted that this Mr. McCormick is almost certainly Cambridge's son-in-law mentioned above, who was present when he died.

"The whole matter was again ventilated in 1906 when proceedings were taken at the Guildhall Justice Rooms. After the withdrawal from sale of the second Cross, Fenton bought it from a jeweller named Goldman. In 1900 this Cross was stolen from the window of Fenton's shop and by 1906 had been pawned with a Mr. J.A. Russell. On learning of this Fenton took out a summons against Russell for the restitution of the Cross and the hearing took place on 13th July, 1906. In cross-examination Fenton was asked if the Cross in question was the original (sold in 1887) or its duplicate (sold in 1899) since clearly, if in fact it was the original, Fenton would have no claim to it as it would be the one he had sold some nine years before. The answers Fenton gave may be summarized and commented upon as follows:

     "1.  The Crosses were identical. By this he meant, presumably, that they were indistinguishable, one from the other. This is not so, since the second Cross has been traced and examined (see below) and a number of differences are immediately evident; but due to the lapse of time and the fact that Fenton never seems to have had both together at any one time, his answer is understandable.

     "2.  The first Cross was bought in 1887 at Sotheby’s. This is clearly a mistake for Debenham's and is of no great importance.

     "3.  He believed [sic] that Cambridge lost the original Cross and had successfully petitioned the Queen for a duplicate. This is manifestly the original theory put forward by Debenham's representative and Fenton himself seems to have been rather uneasy about it since, rather curiously, he volunteered the information that it was considered unfair to sell a duplicate. It is important to note here that in the War Office there is a copy of a letter dated 27th July, 1906, stating that no record exists of a duplicate Cross having been issued to Cambridge. Moreover, neither the records of Messrs. Hancocks (the makers of the Victoria Cross) nor those of the Yeomen of the Guard provide any evidence that a duplicate was issued.

"Both sides having been heard, the summons was adjourned on Fenton promising to produce evidence to satisfy Russell that the first Cross was still in Scotland, the Court making it clear that there was no personal reflection on Russell. The matter was finally settled on 18th July following when, from details supplied from the Guildhall records through the courtesy of the Senior Chief Clerk, it emerges that Russell accepted that the Cross in question was that stolen in 1900, and it was thereupon ordered to be restored to Fenton.

"Through the help of many correspondents, the writer (Maj. Abbott) has been able to trace the present owner of the second Cross who, very kindly, made it available for examination. Accordingly, Messrs. Hancocks were able to compare both crosses and the result of this examination was that the first Cross (i.e., that sold in 1897 and illustrated here (in Maj. Abbott's originally published paper and the one in his possession) was pronounced genuine while the second, by reason of its general appearance and method of engraving, was found to be fake."

Danny's medal group of Victoria Cross, Crimea Medal with Clasps for Inkerman and Sebastopol, Long Service & Good Conduct Medal, Sardinian Al Valore Militare and Turkish Crimea Medal (Sardinian Issue) was bought privately in 1966 by the Royal Regiment of Artillery, presumably from Major Peter Abbott. The medal group is prominently displayed in the Medal Room at Firepower, The Museum of the Royal Artillery, Woolwich, U.K.

It is understood that the second Cross, the Cross determined by Messrs. Hancocks as fake in 1964, was subsequently auctioned by Messrs Sotheby at their sale held on 3rd March, 1983, (lot 460) and purchased by an American.