Investigations Begin
In 1930, Davidson missed the Remembrance Day service. Major Philip Hamond, one of the landowners of Morston, who had disliked Davidson since he refused to allow him to be churchwarden in 1919 and had had several further altercations with him since, was furious and accused Davidson of insulting the war dead.
Hamond discovered, through a clergy relative, that if Davidson was accused of immorality the church would have to investigate. A complaint was made to Henry Dashwood, solicitor to the Church of England and adviser to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. It is not certain if this was done by the Bishop of Norwich, the Rt Revd Bertram Pollock or by Hamond through a relative who was a rural dean. There are no letters of complaint from the bishop to Dashwood at any time. Later letters confirm that nobody in the bishop's office was aware that he was under investigation until they received a notification of his impending trial a year later. The investigation was directed by Dashwood from London. He visited Hamond in early January 1931 and also met the churchwarden of Stiffkey who told him the rector was the best priest they ever had and warned Dashwood that he would find no one to say a bad word against him.
Dashwood then began investigating Davidson's activities in London and he hired the Arrows Detective Agency to follow the rector. Again the private detectives uncovered little; of the 40 girls they interviewed only one would say anything against him and then only when drunk (she recanted when sober).
Almost a year had gone by and a lot of money had been spent without result. Dashwood was under pressure and was being threatened with the Bar Council for the way he was conducting the investigation, threatening and mistreating the girl whom they got drunk and who was so traumatised that she tried to commit suicide. In December 1931, Dashwood attempted to get the rector to sign an open confession to immorality while denying him access to the bishop and the right to know of what he was being accused. The rector refused and immediately offered his resignation to the bishop in return for a church investigation into any accusations against him; his life was an open book he wrote; all the bishop had to do was ask. His family's advice was recorded and sent in to the bishop as well and remains in the archive. He offered to step down if his parishioners wanted him to and they refused.
In a final meeting with the bishop he tried once more to offer to resign in return for a church investigation. He claimed that it would do the church harm to allow the case to come to court. The bishop replied he was entirely in Dashwood's hands and the rector should sign the confession or go to trial. The rector asked how he could possibly sign a confession to charges his bishop couldn't even remember; if that was the choice then he could only choose trial.
Charges under the Clergy Discipline Act 1892 were served on the rector on 20 January 1932, with a Consistory Court trial date set for 1 February. The rector barely had 10 days to find himself a defence team and no money to do it with.
Dashwood sent detectives to serve sub poenas on everyone the rector knew. At the last moment his bishop changed his mind and agreed to accept his resignation rather than a trial but Dashwood released charges to one London newspaper to ensure the bishop could not withdraw. The newspapers were able to write stories that conveyed the impression of guilt.
Davidson later requested a trial in camera so he could present a defence. It was denied him. He never gave interviews to the press even after the trial but he did write a series of articles himself for the Empire News called "Why I am fighting" when the paper offered to defend him. It was quite usual for the media to come in when a defendant in a major trial had no money and offer to pay for his defence in return for exclusive access. In the rector's case a top counsel was retained, but the prosecution successfully sued for contempt of court so the paper and its counsel were obliged to withdraw. He finally got a Jewish defence team which offended the judge who considered a consistory court to be a court of Christian morals.
When the Daily Herald published its story it was fined £50 for contempt of court. The Empire News, to which Davidson had given a series of articles, was fined £100. Davidson was cleared of contempt.
Read more about this topic: Harold Davidson