Commendations - Challenge!

[David Orsam]

I was going to attempt this myself but I know you guys love a challenge so I thought I'd throw it out to the whole board. Here is the complete list of the officers commended in Police Orders on 27 November 1888 by the Commissioner for their "zeal and activity in the discharge of their duties" and who "effected the apprehension of persons wanted for offences committed", with the relevant dates also listed. The challenge is to match any of the dates to an actual arrest by one or more of the named officers; the idea being to see if we can learn anything about how and why these commendations were made. If you accept the challenge, then the best of luck!

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Thanks for the challenge, but I'll leave it to you.

Just as a point of interest, Frank Froest, named on Tumblety's indictment documents, claimed to have been the only policeman reprimanded for his zeal in chasing the Whitechapel murderer.

You might like to track down that incident whilst you're at it.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

It wasn't only directed at you Simon, anyone can play!!!

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Thanks, but I'm not sufficiently arrogant to believe it was.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

No, I'm sure that's right, and I'm teasing you - it's just that you said to me "I'll leave it to you", as if your not doing it means there's only me left, hence my response.

But I'm still teasing.

[David Orsam]

This might help a little. It's a list of prisoners in the Old Bailey calendar for 1888 said to have been arrested (or "received into custody") on the dates referred to in the commendations. Unfortunately, I don't have the January or February 1889 calendar which might fill in some of the gaps:

September

15 – Horace Smith (forgery)

October

15 – George James (robbery with violence)

November

4

6

7

8

9 – Patrick Kenny (stealing)

10 – Elizabeth Smith (forged pawnticket, obtaining by false pretences)

11 – Thomas Brown (robbery with violence)

12 – Lilly Smith (concealment of birth), John Weston (Burglary), James Elliot (Burglary)

13 – George Collier (counterfeit coin), James Elphinstone Roe (obtaining by false pretences, stealing)

14

15 – Collingwood Hilton Fenwick (malicious wounding), Daniel Moore (robbery with violence)

16 – James Nye (obtaining by false pretences, stealing)

17

18

19 – James Edwards (stealing), William Rogers (stealing) Otto Zwink (intent to defraud, embezzling and stealing)

20 – Ellen Mulchay (killing a child)

[GUT]

G'day David

Are the dates in the original the date of the award or the date of the event that lead to the award?

[David Orsam]

Hi GUT, that is one of the things I am hoping that this exercise will confirm. While it is possible that the dates relates to the date on which a reward was recommended, this would be surprising because if you look at PS Hatley, the date given there is 15 September but if he had been recommended for a reward (or a note in favour) as far back as 15 Sept 1888 then why would that not have been included in one of the daily Police Orders before 27 November 1888? I can't think why it would have been held back once the recommendation had been made. The Police Orders regularly included lists of commendations and awards (and there was a similar list, for example, in Police Orders of 16 November 1888). That's the reason why I assume that the dates must relate to the date on which the reward was earned. But hopefully we shall see, if anyone decides to take this on.

[GUT]

Most are from Nov, with one Sept and one Oct, could those two have been delayed because the officers in question were off perhaps injured in the arrest.

I find t hard to believe that only 2 arrests were make in Nov that related to crimes not in November.

[GUT]

Until we can pin down the arrest dates we, in my opinion, have no chance of linking them to any specific offences.

[David Orsam]

Most are from Nov, with one Sept and one Oct, could those two have been delayed because the officers in question were off perhaps injured in the arrest.

I find t hard to believe that only 2 arrests were make in Nov that related to crimes not in November.

Perhaps I should explain what we are dealing with here. Police Orders were published daily throughout 1888 (but not on Sundays). At intervals, let's say roughly every week, the Police Orders include a section entitled "Commendations and Rewards". Sometimes this is a list exactly like the one we have which includes a list of officers, their divisions and dates with a note saying either "Recommended for award" or "Note in favour". On other occasions this list contains a list of officers and their divisions, with no dates, but the sum of money they have each been awarded as a reward is included. Thus, it seems to me that each officer recommended for an award, should that award be approved, will appear twice in the Police Orders. Once at the time of recommendation, the second at the time the sum of money they have been awarded has been decided (and approved).

Now, the list we have here appears in Police Orders of 27 November 1888. It is important to realise that there is nothing special about it. It's exactly the same as other lists in the Police Orders throughout the year. There was another list just the same in Police Orders of 16 November for example. So we are not looking at a complete lists of arrests in November or anything like that. It is a list of arrests for which the Commissioner, as of 27 November 1888, believed an award was deserved. The recommendation was being made on the date of the Police Order, namely, in this instance, 27 November 1888. So the individual dates cannot relate to the date of the recommendation. It is possible that there was some kind of note on file which is what the date refers to but it seems to me that the likelihood is that the individual dates are the dates of the relevant arrests. If, as you suggest, an officer was injured in September, I can't see why that would delay the date of a recommendation. More likely is that the significance of the September arrest has finally filtered through to the Commissioner.

But I agree that this whole thing needs more work for us to understand precisely what is going on, which is the purpose of the exercise. It may be that Monty will be able to help us (and, for my own sake, I hope he has not written all about this in his book otherwise I'm toast - I don't remember him doing so but I haven't checked).

[Bridewell]

There might be an interval of weeks or even months between an incident deserving of commendation and the commendation itself. Assuming the protocol hasn't changed significantly over the years, there has to be a written recommendation made by one or more (usually more senior) colleagues. This is then passed up the chain of command to the Commissioner/Chief Constable. Officers can also be commended by judges for outstanding police-work.

[David Orsam]

There might be an interval of weeks or even months between an incident deserving of commendation and the commendation itself. Assuming the protocol hasn't changed significantly over the years, there has to be a written recommendation made by one or more (usually more senior) colleagues. This is then passed up the chain of command to the Commissioner/Chief Constable. Officers can also be commended by judges for outstanding police-work.

Thanks Bridewell. So there are two possible dates in play here. The date of the incident and the date of the written recommendation. Would you say that is right? My view is that the date in the Police Orders is the date of the incident because why would a written recommendation dated 15 September not make its way into Police Orders until 27 November? Whereas I can see there being far more likelihood of a delay between the incident and the written recommendation (and thus the inclusion of that recommendation in Police Orders). I have no doubt that this issue can be solved with a bit of work but it might take time to confirm.

[GUT]

Thanks for the explanation David, but why then is the recommendation for say the events on the 4th not made till the 27th.

I am really struggling to get my head around it, but as you say Many may be able to help, his book is tucked away at the moment and I don't remember him covering this issue, but there is so much in it that I may be wrong.

[David Orsam]

Thanks for the explanation David, but why then is the recommendation for say the events on the 4th not made till the 27th.

To answer that I can only really point to what Bridewell said above that, "There might be an interval of weeks...between an incident deserving of commendation and the commendation itself". I can think of plenty of reasons why that might but there's no point me speculating.