The Times.
Tuesday, 13 November 1888.
PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
MONDAY, Nov. 12.
THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT.
Mr. PICKERSGILL asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department who was at
present the head of the Criminal Investigation Department; whether the Home
Office communicated with him directly, or through the Chief Commissioners of
Metropolitan Police; and whether arrangements had been made at the Home Office
for the investigation of crime apart from Scotland-yard.
Mr. MATTHEWS. - Mr. Anderson is, at present, the head of the Criminal Investigation
Department. The practice at the Home Office has been to communicate directly with
him on matters relating specially to his department. Where more than departmental
interests are involved, communications are made through the Commissioner. The
answer to the third question is in the negative. The investigation of crimes
committed in the metropolis is entirely in the hands of the department in Scotland
Yard.
Mr. PICKERSGILL asked whether the right hon. gentleman would now take the
opportunity of giving the House some definite information with regard to the
position of Mr. Monro. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. GENT-DAVIS asked whether the reason given by Mr. Monro for resigning the
Assistant-Commissionership of the Police was that under the system pursued by
the Chief Commissioner he could no longer be responsible for the administration
of the Criminal Investigation Department; and whether papers upon the subject
could be laid upon the table. (Cheers.)
Mr. MATTHEWS said that he had given the hon. member for Bethnal-green information
upon the subject, on which he had clearly put a question to him with regard to the
functions of Mr. Monro. He had informed the hon. member that he was deriving the
benefit of the advice of Mr. Monro on matters relating to crime. Among these
matters he might mention that he had had consultations with Mr. Monro on the whole
subject of the organization of the Criminal Investigation Department with which he
was more familiar than anybody else in the country. He need hardly say that that
advice was most valuable upon the subject. As to the question but by his hon.
friend the member for Kennington, he had stated to the hon. member for
Bethnal-green that Mr. Monro had resigned because differences of opinion had
arisen between himself and the Commissioner on questions of police administrations.
Mr. GENT-DAVIS asked whether the Home Secretary was in a position to lay the
documents upon the table which would exactly show to the House the position in
which Mr. Monro at present stood, and the absolute reasons which caused his
resignation from a most important public office. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. MATTHEWS said that he had quoted with literal accuracy the reason assigned
for the resignation. It was not customary to lay papers of this sort on the
table of the House.
Mr. GENT-DAVIS. - Then I am afraid, Sir, we must get them to-night. (Cheers.)
RESIGNATION OF SIR CHARLES WARREN.
Mr. CONYBEARE asked the Home Secretary whether he could state the exact reason
why the late head of the Detective Department in the Metropolitan Police resigned
his position; whether Sir C. Warren had practically the direct control of the
Detective Department; and whether, in view of the constant recurrence of atrocious
murders, and the failure of the new organization and methods to detect the
murderer, he would consider the propriety of making some change in the
arrangements of Scotland-yard. Supplementing the question of which he had
given notice, the hon. member further asked whether it was true that Sir
Charles Warren had tendered his resignation, and whether it had been accepted.
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. MATTHEWS. - I have already stated the reason why Mr. Monro resigned in answer
to a question from the hon. member for Bethnal-green on the 6th inst., to which I
beg to refer the hon. member. Mr. Anderson has now the direct control of the
Criminal Investigation Department, but under the superintendence and control of
the Chief Commissioner, as provided by statute. The failure, so far, to detect the
persons guilty of the Whitechapel murders is due, not to any new organization, or
to any defect in the existing system, but to the extraordinary cunning and secrecy
which characterize these atrocious crimes. I have already, for some time, had under
consideration the whole system of the Criminal Investigation Department, with a
view to introducing any improvement, that experience may suggest. With regard to
the final question of the hon. member for Camborne, I have to say that Sir Charles
Warren did, on the 8th inst., tender his resignation to Her Majesty's Government,
and that it has been accepted. (Loud Opposition cheers.)
THE WHITECHAPEL MURDERS.
Mr. GRAHAM asked the Home Secretary whether he contemplated offering any
additional reward for the capture of the Whitechapel murderer.
Mr. MATTHEWS. - I hope the House will allow me, at greater length than is usual
in answering a question, to state why I have refrained from offering a reward in
the Whitechapel cases. Before 1884 it was the frequent practice of the Home
Office to offer rewards, sometimes of large amount, in serious cases. In 1883, in
particular, several rewards, ranging from £200 to £2,000, were offered in such
cases as the murder of Police-constable Boans and the dynamite explosions in
Charles-street and at various railway stations. These rewards, like the reward of
£10,000 in the Phoenix Park murders proved ineffectual, and produced no evidence
of any value. In 1884 there was a change of policy. Early in that year a remarkable
case occurred. A conspiracy was formed to effect an explosion at the German
Embassy; to "plant" papers upon an innocent person; and to accuse him of the
crime in order to obtain the reward which was expected. The revelation of this
conspiracy led the then Secretary of State (the right hon. gentleman the member
for Derby) to consider the whole question. He consulted the police authorities
both in England and in Ireland, and the conclusions he arrived at were - that the
practice of offering large and sensational rewards in cases of serious crime is
not only ineffectual, but mischievous (hear, hear); that rewards produced,
generally speaking, no practical result beyond satisfying a public demand for
conspicuous action; that they operate prejudicially by relaxing the exertions of
the police; and that they tend to produce false rather than reliable testimony.
He decided, therefore, in all cases to abandon the practice of offering rewards,
as they had been found by experience to be a hindrance rather than an aid in the
detection of crime. These conclusions were publicly announced, and acted upon in
two important cases in 1884 - one, a shocking murder and violation of a little
girl at Middlesbrough; the other, the dynamite outrage at London-bridge, in which
case the City offered a reward of £5,000. The principle thus established has since
been adhered to, I believe, without exception at the Home Office. The whole subject
was reconsidered in 1885 by Sir Richard Cross in a remarkable case of infanticide
at Plymouth; and again in 1886 by the right hon. member for Edinburgh in the
notorious case of Louisa Hart. On both occasions, after careful consideration, and
with the concurrence of the best authorities, the principle was maintained, and
rewards were refused. Since I have been at the Home Office I have followed the
rule thus deliberately laid down and steadily adhered to by my predecessors. I do
not mean that the rule may not be subject to exceptions, as, for instance, where
it is known who the criminal is, and information is wanted only as to his hiding
place, or on account of other circumstances of the crime itself. In the Whitechapel
murders, not only are these conditions wanting at present, but the danger of a
false charge is intensified by the excited state of public feeling. I know how
desirable it is to allay that public feeling, and I should have been glad if the
circumstances had justified me in giving visible proof that the authorities are
not heedless or indifferent. I beg to assure the hon. member and the House that
neither the Home Office nor Scotland-yard will leave a stone unturned in order to
bring to justice the perpetrator of these abominable crimes, which have outraged
the feelings of the entire community. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. HUNTER asked whether the Home Secretary had taken into consideration the
propriety of extending the offer of pardon to an accomplice to the murders
preceding the last, having regard to the fact that in the case of the first
murder committed last Christmas, according to the dying woman, several persons
were concerned in the murder.
Mr. MATTHEWS said it would not be proper that he should give an answer on the
instant, but he would consider the suggestion.
