I
have to say that Sir Charles Warren, Commissioner of the Metropolitan
Police, was not lacking suggestions as to how to catch the
Ripper. Queen Victoria – yes, THE
Queen Victoria - suggested the Ripper might work on one of the
cattle boats that docked in London every Thursday and Friday. It was
investigated.
It was suggested that East End boxers might be dressed
as women and sent out as decoys. No boxers volunteered. Mr Fred
Wellsely wrote the Times, suggesting the police should be mounted on
bicycles, to cover more ground. It was never acted upon.
Congregationalist Dr. William Tyler,
reverend of the King Edward Street Mission, assured a meeting of the
Young Men's Christian Association that the murders were, “largely
brought about by the wholesale importation of the scum of other
countries.” Closing the borders was considered an over reaction.
It was often suggested that a reward should be offered. The
government always said no.
Mr. Percy Lindly, wrote the London Times
on Sunday, 1 October that, “...as a breeder of bloodhounds...I have
little doubt that had a hound been put on the scene...it might have
done what the police have failed to do.” The police were receiving
1,200 letters a day offering suggestions, and 800 of those mentioned
bloodhounds
And it wasn't that Sir Charles had no ideas of his own. He did a
house-to-house search of Gouldston Street - over 2,000 people were
questioned, 300 were “investigated” and 80 were detained. The
effort produced nothing. Elsewhere in Whitechapel, 76 butchers and
animal slaughterers were asked about their employees, going back 6
months. Nothing, again. Doctors were investigated. Again, nothing.
But
always fueling the public's frustration was Sir Charles’s huge ego.
On 12 October The Paul Mall Gazette, declared that washing the
message off the wall above the bloody apron provided “...the last
conclusive demonstration...of the utter unfitness of Sir Charles
Warren....” And when the Home Secretary reaffirmed his confidence
in Warren, the Gazette pounced. “Mr Matthews is satisfied with Sir
Charles Warren," said the newspaper, "But he is alone in his satisfaction.”
And
when the Whitechapel District Board of Works passed a resolution
urging “Sir Charles Warren...to regulate and strengthen the police
force...", Sir Charles took the opportunity to respond in a
lengthy written lecture about the difficulties of police work, before
adding, “I have also to point out that the purlieus about
Whitechapel are most imperfectly lighted...” It other words, the
murders were in part the board's fault.
The London Daily News
responded to “the oracle of Scotland Yard”, by asking that if the
problem was lack of lighting, “why he waits until he is
challenged...then only delivers this important suggestion by way of a
crushing retort?”
It
was arrogant public relations disasters such as these which drove
Home Secretary Henry Matthews to push Warren to at least try one of
the public's suggestions. So after the “double event” Warren
contacted North Yorkshire dog breeder Mr. Edwin Brough, in
Scarborough. Doubtful as well about how the dogs would do on the
crowded streets of London, Mr. Brough still sent two of his best
bloodhounds – Barnaby and Burgho – for a series of tests in
Regent's Park, “as much to please the public as for any other
reason”.
After endless calls for Warren to “do something”, as
early as Monday, 8 October, the Daily Telegraph threw cold water on
the new project, pointing to the many ways criminals might avoid the
dogs, by using “...'buses, and trams, and there are the railways to
be reckoned with.”
Days
were spent with the dogs chasing human prey around Regent's Park. Once Sir Charles himself was even run to ground. On 20 October the
Boston Police News reprinted a story describing “Sir Charles
Warren, in his tight military dress...puffing and blowing with his
excretions”, after running from the dogs. “He was very mad when
the evening papers came out with reports of his mornings doings,
which doubtless, were also read and noticed by the murderer.”
The
truth was the dogs worked better than expected, but still regularly
lost the trail when it was crossed by many other human paths. Still,
Warren issued orders that after the killer struck again – as
everyone was certain he would – the victim's body should be
undisturbed until the dogs could collect “the killer's scent.”
But
the real problem with the dogs was the marking of territory. Warren
did not want to pay for the dogs out of his own budget, and the
bookkeepers at Scotland Yard (above) didn't either. They sent the bill to the
Home Office. It was the Home Secretaries' idea, wasn't it? But the
Home Office accountants saw no reason they should pay for this
harebrained idea either.
And while the bureaucrats were passing the
bill back and forth, Mr. Brough decided he could wait no longer to be
paid. At the end of October Burgho was shipped to participate in a
Dog Show in Brighton, while Barnaby returned to his kennel in
Scarborough. But nobody told Scotland Yard.
The
scorn continued to pile upon Sir Charles. Two wits, Geoffrey Thorn
and Edmond Forman, wrote a parody of the popular tune, “Who Killed
Cock Robin”. “I said to the Home Secretary, I broke his neck, I
killed Cock Warren...Who saw him die? I said the “Pall Mall”, for
I'm not his pal. I saw him die, and the “Globe” and the “Star”
fell a sighing and sobbing... And the un-muzzled dogs fell a sighing
and a sobbing, When they heard of the death of poor Cock Warren...
"Who'll have his place? I said Munro (above), I'll boss that show, I'll
have his place, And the bobbies and the tarts fell a sighing and a
sobbing...Who'll toll the bell? Mathews" said all, For he's next
to fall, He'll toll the bell. And then even he fell sighing and a
sobbing, When he thought of the death of poor Cock Warren.”
Other wits rewrote a poem on hunting, to read, "So
when Warren (Sir Charles), Makes a miss, he may halt
And
declare, with some snarls, That 'twas Matthews's fault. Matthews
vowing 'twas not, But 'twas Warren's bad shot. Then perhaps
both come hard, Down on poor Scotland Yard. But
whosever the miss, And whatever is said, One is certain of
this -- That a criminal's fled."
On
Saturday, 13 October, Mr Edward Pickersgill, Liberal M.P from Bethel Green,
told a crowd gathered to call for more police, “Sir Charles Warren
was doubtless a brave soldier...but he knew nothing whatever about
the duties of policemen, and ought never to have been put in the
position he now occupied.” After waiting for the cheers to die
down, Pickersgill blamed Warren for “the demoralization and the
corruption of the Metropolitan Police force,” This conclusion was
met with loud applause.
Desperate
to defend himself, Sir Charles sought out the friendly pages of
“Murray's Magazine, a Home and Colonial Periodical for the General
Reader”. Scotsman John Murray had been a Royal Marine, and found
all his editors at Oxford. Being dedicated to “useful and
entertaining” information, but offering “nothing offensive”,
the subscription numbers barely rose above 5,000 copies each month. Sir
Charles’s November 1888 article, “Policing the Metropolis”, was
at once boring, infuriating, self-serving, self-congratitory, self
pitying, pedantic and absurd.
“London
has for many years past,” he began, “been subject to the
sinister influence of a mob stirred up into spasmodic action by
restless demagogues...It is to be deplored that successive
Governments have not had the courage to make a stand...and have given
way before tumultuous proceedings which have exercised a terrorism
over peaceful and law-abiding citizens....The whole safety and
security of London depends...upon the efficiency of the uniform
police constable...the primary object of an efficient police is the
prevention of crime , the next that of detection and
punishment....criticism leveled at police…is based upon absolutely
incorrect premises...If the people of London choose to create panics
and false alarms, they must prepare themselves for some extra
safeguards than the present number of police..."
The
Daily News was not impressed. “Sir Charles Warren's splendid
endowment of self satisfaction has never been so conspicuous” they
said, “as...his article in the new number of Murray's Magazine...
The inferential boasting is particularly striking...everyone and
everything is wrong excepting Sir Charles Warren...His "poverty
of originality" is shown...hundred letters on the Whitechapel
murders have contained no more than four proposals...four more than
occurred to the police.”
“The
Star” had been gunning for Warren since the suppression of the
protest in Trafalgar Square. Now, sensing their prey was wounded,
they described Warren's article as “a comic interlude”, deciding
“the problem is...reduced to very simple proportions....Are we
going to stand for...our reactionary monomaniac in Scotland Yard?”
They called his lecture, “Warrenism...The whole gospel of military
despotism...of grapeshot and bludgeon...Sir Charles (above) seems to have
some dim idea of isolating our criminal characters in a kind of
burglars' retreat. Why not send him down to organize and manage it?”
It
was the kind of stupid arrogant statement Charles Warren had made
before – the self-satisfied arrogance typical of a “Gilded Age”
upper crust Victorian ruling class bureaucrat But of course a
Conservative Government was not going to fire Sir Warren because he
was a fair representative of their base. They might, however, fire
him if he was embarrassing the leadership – which he was.
On 8
November, Home Secretary Henry Matthews (above) sent Sir Charles a copy of a nine
year old Home Office order that department chiefs were not to issue
statements without first receiving his approval. Matthews ordered Sir
Warren comply with that order in the future.
As
expected Warren (above) wasted no time in refusing to take orders. That same
day his reply arrived in Whitehall. "Sir....had I been told that
such a circular was to be in force, I should not have accepted the
post of Commissioner of Police. I have to point out that my
duties...are governed by statute, and that the Secretary of State...has not the power...of issuing orders for the
police force. This circular...would...enable every one
anonymously to attack the police force without...permitting the
Commissioner to correct false statements, which I have been in the
habit of doing...for nearly three years past...I entirely decline to
accept these instructions...and I have again to place my resignation
in the hands of Her Majesty's Government."
Warren (above, left) was, of course, technically correct. His position was governed by
law. But he served at the pleasure of the Home Secretary, who was now
very displeased with his argumentative, arrogant jackass of a Police
Commissioner. Sir Charles had threatened to resign too often. This time the
Home Secretary had a replacement all lined up. Still, Henry Matthews
waited until morning to send his reply. “In my judgment the claim
...to disregard the instructions of the Secretary of State is
altogether inadmissible, and accordingly, I have only to accept your
resignation.”
It
was done. With that act, one of the primary sparks that ignited the
Jack the Ripper case was dampened down. It would take a little while for the loss to be seen and felt because Sir Charles' resignation was accepted on the
very morning that yet another victim would be found horribly mutilated
in the very heart of Whitechapel.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please share your reaction.