Tweet
THE STUDENTS' JOURNAL AND HOSPITAL GAZETTE, March 4, 1882, Page 93
The times of Dick Turpin and of Claude Duval appear to have returned, and it is even unsafe to venture out, after dark, unprotected. Gangs of roughs appear to take possession of some of our most important but secluded thoroughfares at night, and rob and murder any victim that may chance to fall into their clutches. The Thames Embankment, in particular, is nightly infested by gangs of roughs who defy the police, and waylay and assault inoffensive pedestrians who happen to fall into their hands, and it is feared that many foul murders have been committed, as no fewer than eight bodies of adult men have been taken out of the Thames between the 15th and 28rd of February. The modus operandi appears to be for two or three of these ruffians to attack their victim, knock him down, strip him of his valuables, and then, if he offers much resistance, to throw him over the Embankment into the river. But it is not on the Embankment only that these outrages take place. I have heard of several cases lately of persons who have been returning home late at night having been set upon by two or three roughs, and rushed down a dark passage or court where they have been brutally assaulted and robbed of watch, chain, and purse. That such cases should occur within a few minutes' walk of Scotland Yard is most discreditable to our police authorities, and every one must be glad to see that the attention of the Home Secretary has been directed to the matter.
--end
Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, March 2, 1882, Columns 1918-1919
Commons
LAW AND POLICE (METROPOLIS) — PERSONAL SECURITY ON THE THAMES EMBANKMENT.
Mr. Alderman W. LAWRENCE asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been drawn to the insecurity of the Thames Embankments at night in consequence of gangs of roughs infesting them, and to the fact that there have been taken out of the Thames between Vauxhall Bridge and Blackfriars Bridge eight bodies of adult men between the 15th and 23rd February; and, whether he will consult with the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis with a view of placing some mounted patrols and additional police on the Embankments after dark?
Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, I have communicated with the Chief Commissioner of Police on this subject, and he assures me that there is no connection whatever between the fact that eight bodies have been taken out of the River Thames recently and any supposed acts of violence or disorder on the Thames Embankments. Each of the cases referred to in the Question has been carefully investigated, and on that investigation there is no reasonable doubt that these have been cases of suicide, and not of deaths by violence. The register of crime shows that no outrage or any serious offence has occurred anywhere on the Thames Embankments since the beginning of the year. There was a violent outrage committed on the 8th of December, 1881, on the Thames Embankment near the City Boundary; and two men charged with the offence are now awaiting trial. In these circumstances, there being no report since that time of any acts of violence whatever on the Thames Embankments, there is no occasion for any further measures on the part of the police than those that are at present taken.
Mr. MONTAGUE GUEST asked, whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman had seen in that day's Pall Malt Gazette, a statement that last year 108 bodies were taken out of the Thames and few were identified, and also a description of the insufficient accommodation provided for the exhibition of those bodies with a view to their identification; and, whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman would consider the expediency of providing some central place at which bodies could be kept for identification?
Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: I am afraid I cannot answer my hon. Friend at the present moment. My hon. Friend asks me whether I have seen a statement in The Pall Mall Gazette? I have had a good deal to occupy me today, and have had no time to read The Pall Mall Gazette.
--end
Possibly the December, 1881, case referred to above. From the Old Bailey Online.
THOMAS GALLIERS, JAMES CASEY, Killing > murder, 27th February 1882.
Reference Number: t18820227-328
328. THOMAS GALLIERS (20) and JAMES CASEY (20), were indicted for the wilful murder of Frederick James Wilmore.
MESSRS. POLAND and MONTAGU WILLIAMS Prosecuted; MR. GEOGHEGAN defended Galliers and MR. WILLES defended Casey.
[...]
GALLIERS— GUILTY.— Ten Years' Penal Servitude . The Jury being unable to agree as to CASEY were discharged without a verdict.
--end
Punch, June 17, 1882, Page 279
We may recommend the following slight alteration of an old song to the serious and immediate attention of the Seldom-at-Home Secretary:—
"If a Bobby sees a body
Floating high and dry,
Need a Bobby seize that body—
Need a Bobby cryf"
We know that Sir W. V. H. is a firm believer in the perfectibility of everything, from Convict Prisons and Industrial Schools to Police efficiency and the Arcadian state of the Metropolis. He can no more believe in the disgraceful fact that one or two people die every week in London of absolute starvation, than he can believe in the dangers of the Thames Embankment. A Blue-Book just published, which states that for the last five years nearly two thousand bodies have been found in the Thames within the Metropolitan District, or an average of one body a day, and that six hundred and thirteen of these bodies, or nearly three a week, may be taken to represent undiscovered murders, is doubtless regarded by the Seldom-at-Home Secretary as a collection of stories that may be told to the Marines. If some eccentric capitalist would buy the hideous abortion on the Thames Embankment which was meant for an Opera-House, and turn it into a gigantic Morgue for the reception of these bodies, perhaps the Seldom-at-Home Secretary would then believe his eyes, or, failing his eyes, the evidence of his other senses?
--end
Something in a similar vein from 1886.
The Lancet, September 25, 1886, Page 594
INQUESTS WITHOUT NECROPSIES.
An inquest was recently held by Mr. William Carter, coroner for North-East Surrey, at the Windmill Tavern, High-street, Lambeth, touching the death of Mr. Everard Woods, L.K.Q.C.P.I., aged twenty-six. From the evidence it transpired that deceased was assistant to a medical man in Whitechapel, and that by reason of ill-health he had quite recently resigned his situation for the purpose of taking a trip to New Zealand. He was in easy circumstances, and more than one witness deposed that there was nothing in his habits or demeanour to suggest the likelihood of his committing suicide; in fact, there was absence of any known motive to such an act. The facts, as related to the jury, seem to us far more consistent with the theory of murder. Mr. Woods, on the evening of his death, had visited a friend, and had expressed himself as feeling better. A short time after this two strange men accosted a waterman, who was standing on the Lambeth Pier, and asked if he had a boat, adding that a man had jumped from the Albert Embankment. Having given this information they disappeared, and nothing further was seen of them. They neither offered to assist the waterman to recover the body nor gave notice to the police of the tragic occurrence. On the body of deceased some silver and copper coins were found, but his gold watch and pocket-case were missing. It is not probable that he had pledged them, for he had left seven or eight sovereigns at his lodgings. No medical evidence was taken at the inquest, and, if report is true, the coroner took the statement of his officer as to the absence of bruises. The jury returned an open verdict of "Found drowned." If ever there was a case where it was important to ascertain the exact cause of death it was this. From a scientific—that is a reliable—standpoint, there was nothing tendered in evidence to show that death was not occasioned by violence, and the corpse thrown into the water. The mere ipse dixit of a coroner's officer on a subject requiring skilled expert inquiry is worse than worthless. It serves to beguile a jury, and it seems to satisfy the judicial mind of a coroner, but it fails to help the investigation as to when, where, and by what means a certain person came by his death. The mysteries of the Thames are not likely to diminish in number so long as they are intentionally left as "open questions." We maintain that it is the function and the duty of a coroner's court to leave no stone unturned in order to satisfy the public mind and the demands of justice, in the question of the equivocal nature of a person's death. It is high time the attention of the Home Secretary was directed to the fact that many inquests are frequently of worse than negative value.
--end
The times of Dick Turpin and of Claude Duval appear to have returned, and it is even unsafe to venture out, after dark, unprotected. Gangs of roughs appear to take possession of some of our most important but secluded thoroughfares at night, and rob and murder any victim that may chance to fall into their clutches. The Thames Embankment, in particular, is nightly infested by gangs of roughs who defy the police, and waylay and assault inoffensive pedestrians who happen to fall into their hands, and it is feared that many foul murders have been committed, as no fewer than eight bodies of adult men have been taken out of the Thames between the 15th and 28rd of February. The modus operandi appears to be for two or three of these ruffians to attack their victim, knock him down, strip him of his valuables, and then, if he offers much resistance, to throw him over the Embankment into the river. But it is not on the Embankment only that these outrages take place. I have heard of several cases lately of persons who have been returning home late at night having been set upon by two or three roughs, and rushed down a dark passage or court where they have been brutally assaulted and robbed of watch, chain, and purse. That such cases should occur within a few minutes' walk of Scotland Yard is most discreditable to our police authorities, and every one must be glad to see that the attention of the Home Secretary has been directed to the matter.
--end
Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, March 2, 1882, Columns 1918-1919
Commons
LAW AND POLICE (METROPOLIS) — PERSONAL SECURITY ON THE THAMES EMBANKMENT.
Mr. Alderman W. LAWRENCE asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been drawn to the insecurity of the Thames Embankments at night in consequence of gangs of roughs infesting them, and to the fact that there have been taken out of the Thames between Vauxhall Bridge and Blackfriars Bridge eight bodies of adult men between the 15th and 23rd February; and, whether he will consult with the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis with a view of placing some mounted patrols and additional police on the Embankments after dark?
Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, I have communicated with the Chief Commissioner of Police on this subject, and he assures me that there is no connection whatever between the fact that eight bodies have been taken out of the River Thames recently and any supposed acts of violence or disorder on the Thames Embankments. Each of the cases referred to in the Question has been carefully investigated, and on that investigation there is no reasonable doubt that these have been cases of suicide, and not of deaths by violence. The register of crime shows that no outrage or any serious offence has occurred anywhere on the Thames Embankments since the beginning of the year. There was a violent outrage committed on the 8th of December, 1881, on the Thames Embankment near the City Boundary; and two men charged with the offence are now awaiting trial. In these circumstances, there being no report since that time of any acts of violence whatever on the Thames Embankments, there is no occasion for any further measures on the part of the police than those that are at present taken.
Mr. MONTAGUE GUEST asked, whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman had seen in that day's Pall Malt Gazette, a statement that last year 108 bodies were taken out of the Thames and few were identified, and also a description of the insufficient accommodation provided for the exhibition of those bodies with a view to their identification; and, whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman would consider the expediency of providing some central place at which bodies could be kept for identification?
Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: I am afraid I cannot answer my hon. Friend at the present moment. My hon. Friend asks me whether I have seen a statement in The Pall Mall Gazette? I have had a good deal to occupy me today, and have had no time to read The Pall Mall Gazette.
--end
Possibly the December, 1881, case referred to above. From the Old Bailey Online.
THOMAS GALLIERS, JAMES CASEY, Killing > murder, 27th February 1882.
Reference Number: t18820227-328
328. THOMAS GALLIERS (20) and JAMES CASEY (20), were indicted for the wilful murder of Frederick James Wilmore.
MESSRS. POLAND and MONTAGU WILLIAMS Prosecuted; MR. GEOGHEGAN defended Galliers and MR. WILLES defended Casey.
[...]
GALLIERS— GUILTY.— Ten Years' Penal Servitude . The Jury being unable to agree as to CASEY were discharged without a verdict.
--end
Punch, June 17, 1882, Page 279
We may recommend the following slight alteration of an old song to the serious and immediate attention of the Seldom-at-Home Secretary:—
"If a Bobby sees a body
Floating high and dry,
Need a Bobby seize that body—
Need a Bobby cryf"
We know that Sir W. V. H. is a firm believer in the perfectibility of everything, from Convict Prisons and Industrial Schools to Police efficiency and the Arcadian state of the Metropolis. He can no more believe in the disgraceful fact that one or two people die every week in London of absolute starvation, than he can believe in the dangers of the Thames Embankment. A Blue-Book just published, which states that for the last five years nearly two thousand bodies have been found in the Thames within the Metropolitan District, or an average of one body a day, and that six hundred and thirteen of these bodies, or nearly three a week, may be taken to represent undiscovered murders, is doubtless regarded by the Seldom-at-Home Secretary as a collection of stories that may be told to the Marines. If some eccentric capitalist would buy the hideous abortion on the Thames Embankment which was meant for an Opera-House, and turn it into a gigantic Morgue for the reception of these bodies, perhaps the Seldom-at-Home Secretary would then believe his eyes, or, failing his eyes, the evidence of his other senses?
--end
Something in a similar vein from 1886.
The Lancet, September 25, 1886, Page 594
INQUESTS WITHOUT NECROPSIES.
An inquest was recently held by Mr. William Carter, coroner for North-East Surrey, at the Windmill Tavern, High-street, Lambeth, touching the death of Mr. Everard Woods, L.K.Q.C.P.I., aged twenty-six. From the evidence it transpired that deceased was assistant to a medical man in Whitechapel, and that by reason of ill-health he had quite recently resigned his situation for the purpose of taking a trip to New Zealand. He was in easy circumstances, and more than one witness deposed that there was nothing in his habits or demeanour to suggest the likelihood of his committing suicide; in fact, there was absence of any known motive to such an act. The facts, as related to the jury, seem to us far more consistent with the theory of murder. Mr. Woods, on the evening of his death, had visited a friend, and had expressed himself as feeling better. A short time after this two strange men accosted a waterman, who was standing on the Lambeth Pier, and asked if he had a boat, adding that a man had jumped from the Albert Embankment. Having given this information they disappeared, and nothing further was seen of them. They neither offered to assist the waterman to recover the body nor gave notice to the police of the tragic occurrence. On the body of deceased some silver and copper coins were found, but his gold watch and pocket-case were missing. It is not probable that he had pledged them, for he had left seven or eight sovereigns at his lodgings. No medical evidence was taken at the inquest, and, if report is true, the coroner took the statement of his officer as to the absence of bruises. The jury returned an open verdict of "Found drowned." If ever there was a case where it was important to ascertain the exact cause of death it was this. From a scientific—that is a reliable—standpoint, there was nothing tendered in evidence to show that death was not occasioned by violence, and the corpse thrown into the water. The mere ipse dixit of a coroner's officer on a subject requiring skilled expert inquiry is worse than worthless. It serves to beguile a jury, and it seems to satisfy the judicial mind of a coroner, but it fails to help the investigation as to when, where, and by what means a certain person came by his death. The mysteries of the Thames are not likely to diminish in number so long as they are intentionally left as "open questions." We maintain that it is the function and the duty of a coroner's court to leave no stone unturned in order to satisfy the public mind and the demands of justice, in the question of the equivocal nature of a person's death. It is high time the attention of the Home Secretary was directed to the fact that many inquests are frequently of worse than negative value.
--end
Comment