1888 'Manual of Vigilance Law' (British, Full Text)

[Archaic]

Sir Charles Warren, the NVA, Prostitution, Miss Cass, & the WCM's

Hi Hunter. Yes, the case of Miss Cass was an interesting one.

For those of you not familiar with her story, please click on the link in post #14 for some brief but very helpful background information regarding Sir Charles Warren, the National Vigilance Association, and their efforts to pass and enforce the 1885 'Criminal Law Amendment Act' cracking down on Prostitution.

That link mentions the case of Elizabeth Cass. I'll try to give the basics of her case and explain why it was important to the Whitechapel Murders. (This is going to be an abbreviated version of events.)

Elizabeth was a young woman who worked in a respectable London shop as a dress-maker. In late June of 1887, after leaving her place of employment one evening she decided to go for an stroll in Regent Street to see if a particular shop was still open. It was an unusually warm summer evening and the streets were still crowded with people.

Elizabeth was utterly shocked to be suddenly arrested by a police constable for "Soliciting". She protested but to no avail- in the police report she was described as "a prostitute". Still protesting her innocence, Elizabeth was brought before a Magistrate. The police constable and the Magistrate clung to the position that "no respectable woman would walk alone in Regent Street"- and that therefore she must be a prostitute!

However, Elizabeth's employer and other witnesses testified that she was a perfectly respectable young lady of good character and steady employment. The Magistrate was not at all convinced of Elizabeth's innocence (in fact, he believed her to be guilty) but he had to release her. As he did so he gave her a warning: "Take my advice- if you are a respectable girl, as you say you are, don’t walk in Regent Street at night, for if you do you will either be fined or sent to prison after the caution I have given you!"

A day or two later, Elizabeth's outraged employer wrote to the headquarters of the Metropolitan Police complaining about the shameful treatment the young woman had received. The next day the case was brought to the attention of Parliament, and soon it filled the newspapers. (W.T. Stead was among those that wrote about it.)
The Lord Chancellor became involved. The police-constable who had arrested Miss Cass faced Perjury charges.

As a result of the furor over this case, Sir Charles Warren ordered his men to refrain from active enforcement of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and to only arrest prostitutes if there was clear proof of soliciting or if a direct complaint was made against them. Without ongoing police cooperation, the NVA was forced to scale back their own 'vice-suppression' efforts as well. The police returned to largely ignoring the existence of Prostitution, prostitutes quickly learned that they ran little risk of being arrested, and this was the basic state of affairs when the Whitechapel Murders began the following year.

Best regards,
Archaic

[Hunter]

Thank you for that, Archaic.

Below is the text of a letter sent by Commisioner Warren to the Home Office in regards to a query about the number of prostitutes, brothels and common lodging houses in the Whitechapel district on Oct 25, 1888. ( Mepo file 3/141, ff. 158-9)

I have carried this over from another thread to give an idea as to Warren's position on the matter by the time of the murders, what he thought of the vigilence committees in that regard and the situation the police faced.

'In reply to your letter of 22nd October there has been no return hitherto of the probable numbers of brothels in London, but during the last few months I have been tabulating the observations of Constables on their beats, and have come to the conclusion that there are 62 houses known to be brothels on the H or Whitechapel Divn and probably a great number of other houses which are more or less intermitently used for such purpose.

The number of CLH's ( Common lodging houses) is 233, accomodating 8,530 persons. We have no means of ascertaining what women are prostitutes and who are not, but there is an impression that there are about 1200 prostitutes, mostly of a very low condition.

...Mr. Charrington has been very active in evicting the holders of brothels... the result however is not conductive to morality. The unfortunate women are driven to plying for hire among respectable people, or else execise their calling in the streets.

The lower class of CLH's is naturally frequented by prostitutes, thieves and tramps as there is nowhere else for them to go, and no law to prevent their congregating there.

I fear that in driving the brothel keepers away from certain neighbourhoods much is being done to demoralize London generally. It is impossible to stop the supply when the demand exists...

I think that it is probable that a good number of people who are not married live together at the CLH's, but this also takes place in hotels in the West End.

I do not think there is any reason whatever for supposing that the murderer of Whitechapel has necessarily any connection with the condition of Whitechapel (or) is one of the ordinary denizens of that place..."

[Archaic]

re: Warren's Oct. 25, 1888 Letter To The Home Office

Hi Hunter. That's a fascinating letter; thank you very much for providing it.

I found myself agreeing with some of the points Warren made in his letter. For instance, that closing the brothels merely drove their female inhabitants into the streets, forcing them to 'conduct business' in a much more public way, and that although "a good number of people who are not married live together in Common Lodging Houses", this practice also took place in West End hotels.

But I'm a bit stumped by Warren's last sentence, and curious as to what you and others think he meant by this statement: "I do not think there is any reason whatever for supposing that the murderer of Whitechapel has necessarily any connection with the condition of Whitechapel..." ???

> Wasn't it the very fact that impoverished Whitechapel prostitutes serviced their clients in the public streets and could be easily lured off alone into dark corners that made it possible to murder them?

I double-checked the date, and Warren didn't write this letter to the Home Office back in September 1888, he wrote it on October 25, well after the double murder of Liz Stride and Catherine Eddowes.

Is Warren simply trying to deny that the actions (or inactions) of the police were in any way responsible for the deplorable conditions in which the Whitechapel Murders occurred, and by extension implying that there was nothing the police could have done which might have helped to prevent the murders?

Thanks and best regards,
Archaic

[Archaic]

re: Conditions In Whitechapel- The Lancet, Oct. 6, 1888

I'm still mulling over Warren's letter.

Here's an example of a contemporary article stating the view that the Whitechapel Murders were linked to the deplorable social and sanitary conditions existing in Whitechapel, and that the prevailing squalor, misery, and degradation could be expected to have influenced the killer.

It's from the medical journal The Lancet and is dated Oct. 6, 1888, so it was published about 3 weeks before Warren's letter to the Home Office was written.

Best regards,
Archaic

[Archaic]

The Social Purity Movement

Hi everyone. I meant to mention something earlier. Back in Post #14, with the link to the 'Jack the Ripper 1888' site, there's a mention of the "Social Purists" working in conjunction with the National Vigilance Association.

"Social Purity'' was a polite euphesim for "Sexual Chastity".

The 'Social Purity Movement' was active all over England, the Unites States and Canada. Its aims and activities were very broadly based. The "movement" itself was composed of many very loosely-affiliated groups, but one of its chief aims was to combat prostitution and the sexual exploitation of women and children. However, rather than damning all prostitutes as many in society did, the Social Purists attempted to rescue "fallen women" and find them alternative means of employment.

Social Purists lobbied the Legislature urging reform, and even pushed for basic sex education in schools, but their members tended to be ultra-conservative. Some groups took vows of chastity, and virtually all believed that the only proper purpose of human sexuality was that of procreation. For this reason almost all Social Purists opposed the use of any form of contraception. Their tireless efforts in this regard were remarkably successful, and contraception remained illegal for many decades to come, well into the 20th Century.

Best regards,
Archaic

[Phil Carter]

Hello Hunter,

Warren + Home Office = Involvement of internal political agenda. Matthews wasn't exactly the best friend of Sir Charles Warren. I'll bet Warren tried to cover his rear end with every word he wrote in correspondance with Henry Matthews.

best wishes

Phil

[Hunter]

Acually, Phil, Warren was being quite frank with Matthews as to the options available in conducting an investigation. Mr. Ellis, former Lord Mayor and present MP, had written to Matthews suggesting that a large portion of Whitechapel/Spitafields should be cordoned off and every dwelling searched, without warrant or even probable cause. Matthews passed this on to Warren as an idea. Warren saw this for exactly what it was; a suggestion for him to do something illegal that might get more people killed than already had been; and something that he would be totally responsible for. If it produced positive results, Matthews would take credit for it. If it failed, Warren would get the blame. That's how politicians operate.

From a letter to the HO by Warren, dated Oct 4:

'...Of course, the danger of taking such a course, as that proposed by Sir W. Ellis is that if we do not find the murderer our action would be condemed - and there is danger that an illegal act of such a character might bond the social democrates together to resist the police & might be then said to have caused a serious riot. I think I may say without hesitation that those houses could not be searched illegally without violent resistance and bloodshed and the certainty of one or more Police officers being killed and the question is whether it is worth while losing the lives of several of the community and risking serious riot in order to search for one murderer whose whereabouts is not known.

...In this matter I have not only myself to think of but the lives and protection of 12000 men, any one who might be hanged if a death occurred in entering a house illegally."

Yes Phil, there was some political wranglings going on. but it was pretty much one sided. Whatever one thinks about Sir Charles Warren, he was decisive when he had to be... far from the vascilating politicians he had to deal with. His asessment in the letter previously posted (more on that, Archaic, in my next post) was practical and to the point. He saw the folly in casting these women into the street only to be further at risk of being butchered. He came to agree with Lusk, and a host of others, on offering a reward or, at least, a pardon for anyone who might know who the murderer was. The Home Office offered him nothing in return but jargon about policies that were anything but concrete.

And, ironically, in the end, after the Kelly murder forced their hand and the Queen herself intervened, Matthews had to backpeddle and offer a pardon. But, by then Warren on his way out... fed up with the indecision of the Home Office; fed up with the ridicule of his force that was already stretched to its limits of endurance... without proper uniforms and fair pay for the extra time and effort that nearly every man - from constable to inspector - was now asked to do... and unable to even publicly defend their actions because of some little beauracratic edict that was put into place to cover those very beauracrats asses from being questioned about their motives.

Warren was a soldier. A man who knew that unit cohesion was essential to victory. He wasn't perfect, but he understood that it was vital that everyone needed to be on the same page if any success was possible; and someone needed to be in charge; without question. He had Matthews to contend with, along with Monro who was still advising the Home Office... and the backbiting Anderson, who, after being absent during the first four murders, comes in and condemns everything Warren had tried to do... of course, behind his back.

I believe Sir Charles Warren was relieved to get back into military service... where he knew who his compatriots were... that because they shared a common danger, they had to depend on each other... and at least, he could face his enemies head on with a common resolve.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Cris,

Many thanks for this posting. I also believe Warren was glad to be out of it all, and back to the military. Yes, it does seem to be one sided, for whatever Warren did do during this period, Matthews was not exactly the most helpful and cooperative Home Secretary. Monro's position in all of this is interesting. He says himself in his memoirs..

"...whilst Asst. Commissioner, the Commissioner, Sir Charles Warren made life so intolerable that I resigned.What the Home Secretary thought of the merits of the matterat issue between us may be gathered from the fact that he retained me as Cheif of the Secret Department, where all things of discretion were indespensible. My full vindication came when Sir C.Warren resigned. I was recommended by the Home Office authorities to apply for the Commissionership, and I distinctly refused to do anything of the kind.In spite of this refusal my name was the only name sent up to the Queen as recommended for the Commissionership, and I was appointed to that post....
...And I was still continued in the post of Chief of the Secret Department, although I asked to be relieved of the duties, and declined to take any salary for performing them. (Howells and Skinner, The Ripper Legacy, p.93-94, Sphere, paperback, 1988)

Howells and Skinner then wrote..

"So now we know what Monro was doing at the Home Office....Monro had filled the position previously occupied by the now Sir Edward Jemkinson, KCB..."

and further..

"...Though we were initially disappointed by the contents of Monro's memoirs, we could see that there had been far more opportunity for covert activity within Whitehall than would have been possible beneath Scotland Yard's leaky umbrella."

They also go on to explain that Monro in his memoirs constantly refers to the "mischievous" attempts by this secret department to do police work in London, and that it was clear that the SD in Whitehall saw itself not as just an intelligency gathering department but an independant and covert detective force. (also shown in full on page 94 of the above quoted book)

All of which means that here we see that the Secret Department, or Special Branch, were involved in the criminal happenings in the capital, and this is shown by the known entries in the ledgers that are currently at Scotland Yard which Trevor Marriott is trying to gain access to. The Special Branch ledgers have entries referring to The Whitechapel murders, an investigation that was being run by Metroplitan Police.

Therefore, Warren had a problem here too. Whatever he did, or put into being, he didn't know, and wasn't allowed to know what Monro's Secret Department were doing. All backed by Matthews, Home Secretary.

best wishes

Phil

[Archaic]

1887: NVA Publication 'The Vigilance Record' Mentioned

I found this mention of the NVA publication 'The Vigilance Record'.

It was in an 1887 publication put out by the Railway Mission called 'The Railway Signal'. The Railway Mission was established in 1881 and is still active today.

Sure would be cool to see a copy of the 'Vigilance Record[/B]' dating to the autumn of 1888!

Best regards,
Archaic

[Archaic]

Photo of #265 Strand, London- Maybe Shows #267 Too?

The National Vigilance Association was located at 267, Strand, London.
I found a photo of 265, Strand, London which may include a view of 267, but it's hard to tell from the angle they used. The building is near the Temple Underground station and overlooks the Royal Courts of Justice.

Best regards,
Archaic

[Archaic]

1885 Author's Bio, Wyndham A. Bewes

Attached is a short bio of the author of 'A Manual of Vigilance Law', Wyndham A. Bewes. It was published in an 1885 lawyer's registry, close to the beginning of Bewe's career.

Wyndham A. Bewes was born in Dublin in 1857, the son of Colonel Wyndham E. Bewes of the 73rd Regiment. He graduated with honors from London University, and became a lawyer. He was about 31 years of age when he wrote the Manual of Vigilance Law. Bewes was a very learned man and wrote a number of books on law, justice, treaties and commerce, including a book in 1918 called 'Reciprocity In the Enjoyment of Civil Rights'. He was highly respected among his peers, who frequently consulted him on special points of law. Bewes passed away in 1942, and many books and journals from that time include prominent memorials to him.

Best regards,
Archaic

[lynn cates]

Nva

Hello Bunny. Here's another for your collection.

How ironic that, just a few doors down, a villain was getting his living from the very "vocation" they sought to eradicate.

(Snippet is from "The Echo" October 13, 1888.)

Cheers.
LC

[Archaic]

NVA In 1909 Encyclopedia of Social Reform

Hi Lynn, how are you? Thanks for the article.

Sorry, I'm not sure which 'villian' you are referring to. (I'm a bit sleepy-headed this morning, so if the answer is something obvious, please excuse me. )

Here's an entry from the 1909 'Encyclopedia of Social Reform'.

Cheers,
Archaic

[lynn cates]

Clg

Hello Bunny. I was referring to Charles La Grand whose PI office was located at #283 Strand.

Cheers.
LC