Hate

[jerryd]

House of Commons
November 12, 1888

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.)

[Phil Carter]

House of Commons
November 12, 1888

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.)

Thanks jerry ☺


Phil

[Pierre]

Hello Pierre,

Do you accept Matthews statement in the House of Commons that Warren had "offered his resignation on the 8th", which Matthews said that he accepted?

Surely that indicates a source that says without a doubt, the 8th was the date of his resignation?

Perhaps I am being obtuse?

Phil

Hi Phil,

I don´t know what you mean by "accept". The problem is that there is no other source with the date of 8th November than the source produceed by Warren himself.

Warren was sitting at his desk (probably), writing a letter, and writing down 8th November on that paper.

So we have "8th November" constructed by Warren, and that is the only source we have for Warren´s resignation dated with the 8th.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Hi Phil,

I don´t know what you mean by "accept". The problem is that there is no other source with the date of 8th November than the source produceed by Warren himself.

Warren was sitting at his desk (probably), writing a letter, and writing down 8th November on that paper.

So we have "8th November" constructed by Warren, and that is the only source we have for Warren´s resignation dated with the 8th.

Regards, Pierre

Pierre,

I am sure that Phil will reply himself.

However you are wrong when you say we have only one source.
We have the source from Matthews, recorded I assume in Hansard that Warren had offered his resignation on the 8th.


I really fail to understand the historical reasoning on this approach?

We have an historical fact:

Warren resigned from his position as commissioner of the Met.

The primary source for this is the letter of resignation itself, In addition the secondary sources 10th his statement to the House, in which he confirms these points.

While the number of sources supporting a date of the 8th is limited, there are none which I am aware of that say the dates are incorrect.

It appears to this non historian, that you are building an hypothesis without and historical data.



Steve

[Elamarna]

Hi Phil,

I don´t know what you mean by "accept". The problem is that there is no other source with the date of 8th November than the source produceed by Warren himself.

Warren was sitting at his desk (probably), writing a letter, and writing down 8th November on that paper.

So we have "8th November" constructed by Warren, and that is the only source we have for Warren´s resignation dated with the 8th.

Regards, Pierre

Pierre,

in addition to the letter with the date of 8th, what other source could one reasonably expect to have existed to confirm this date?


A reply from Matthews dated before the 9th is highly unlikely, even if Matthews had received the offer on the 8th, debatable in itself, it is highly unlikely he would accept such an offer without taking soundings form parliamentary colleagues, in particular the PM,and other senior police officials.

In those circumstances I wonder why you see the presence of ONLY 1 source as being of possible significance?


steve

[jerryd]

Pierre,

The date of the resignation is really irrelevant as the historical facts reveal that the reasoning behind the resignation had to do with the Murray's Magazine article that the HS was rebuking Warren over breaking a rule. Not anything to do with the murders. If it is otherwise suggested by you it pertained to the murders, it is only a theory, with no proof or backing of the source/s.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;400420]

Pierre,

I am sure that Phil will reply himself.

However you are wrong when you say we have only one source.
We have the source from Matthews, recorded I assume in Hansard that Warren had offered his resignation on the 8th.

Dear Steve,

I´m afraid you do not understand.

It is an historical fact that we do not have any other source dated 8th November. The only source we have with that date, the 8th, is the letter dated by Warren.

Do you understand this?

I really fail to understand the historical reasoning on this approach?

We have an historical fact:

Warren resigned from his position as commissioner of the Met.

That is right. The source dated the 8th says that.

The primary source for this is the letter of resignation itself, In addition the secondary sources 10th his statement to the House, in which he confirms these points.

They are secondary sources for the date of resignment and primary sources for what others thought was the date for resignment.

So they - the producers of the sources - can not be held responsible for the establishing of the resignment date. They have got it from Warren. Do you understand this?

While the number of sources supporting a date of the 8th is limited, there are none which I am aware of that say the dates are incorrect.

We do not need sources discussing other sources. We need independent sources. But there are no sources at all dated 8th November except from the letter with the construction of the date made by Warren. We do not know if he wrote it the day of the murder. There are 356 days in a year. Warren chose to put the day before the murder as the date for his resignment. It is the only day in a year which preceeds the 9th with one single day. Warren could have resigned on one of the other 365 days. But he chose the 8th.

Is that construction made to avoid resigning on the 9th? And what could have been negative with resigning on the 9th? What problems could there have been, had he written "9th November" on the letter?

It appears to this non historian, that you are building an hypothesis without and historical data.

Steve, no, an hypothesis is just that: a testable temporary assumption. So it must have some data. I think 8th November is a very significant date. So that letter is the data.

Best wishes, Pierre

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jerry,

You have to ask yourself why in the Commons on 8th November Matthews announced that he had delivered a rap over the knuckles [don't do it again] to Warren regarding the magazine article, but on 10th November accepted his resignation, allegedly because of the same magazine article.

Could something have happened on 9th November to change Matthews' mind?

Regards,

Simon

[Pierre]

Hi Jerry,

You have to ask yourself why in the Commons on 8th November Matthews announced that he had delivered a rap over the knuckles [don't do it again] to Warren regarding the magazine article, but on 10th November accepted his resignation, allegedly because of the same magazine article.

Could something have happened on 9th November to change Matthews' mind?

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

I am not at all familiar with what you write here. But I will look into it. I always appreciate new and different approaches, I think it may lead the case forward. And I am not afraid of making mistakes on the way. On the contrary.

Best wishes, Pierre

[Simon Wood]

Hi Pierre,

It's all a matter of official record.

Try Hansard.

Regards,

Simon

[Elamarna]

It is an historical fact that we do not have any other source dated 8th November. The only source we have with that date, the 8th, is the letter dated by Warren.

Do you understand this?

Yes of course

Warren could have resigned on one of the other 365 days. But he chose the 8th.

Other sources indicate he did this in response to a rebuke from Matthews.

Steve, no, an hypothesis is just that: a testable temporary assumption. So it must have some data. I think 8th November is a very significant date. So that letter is the data.

How is this idea testable?

There is no source or data to test it against, only what appears to be unsupported superstition.

There is only the single source.
That source says the 8th. there is no data to suggest anything else!


Steve

[Elamarna]

Hi Jerry,

You have to ask yourself why in the Commons on 8th November Matthews announced that he had delivered a rap over the knuckles [don't do it again] to Warren regarding the magazine article, but on 10th November accepted his resignation, allegedly because of the same magazine article.

Could something have happened on 9th November to change Matthews' mind?

Regards,

Simon

Simon,

Yes something obviously happened between the statement on the 8th, and the resignation.

It is possible that after the statement, Warren resigned, not being prepared to accept the public rebuke, on top of a private one.

Matthews in effect humiliated Warren to an extent by that statement.

No reason to think it could not have happened that way, on the 8th.




Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;400431]

Yes of course

Thank you.

Other sources indicate he did this in response to a rebuke from Matthews.

Interesting.

How is this idea testable?

There is no source or data to test it against,

How about testing it against the source above to start with?

only what appears to be unsupported superstition.

I do not believe in the supernatural.

There is only the single source.
That source says the 8th. there is no data to suggest anything else!

Relax, Steve. There is always some data. For example the sources that Simon refers to.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

Simon,

Yes something obviously happened between the statement on the 8th, and the resignation.

It is possible that after the statement, Warren resigned, not being prepared to accept the public rebuke, on top of a private one.

Matthews in effect humiliated Warren to an extent by that statement.

No reason to think it could not have happened that way, on the 8th.

Steve

Steve,

You should read some Max Weber. You would like it.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

How about testing it against the source above to start with?

I have alluded to that in a reply to Simon, and briefly give more below.

I do not believe in the supernatural.

I hope not in this case

spellcheck let me down, was meant to be superposition!

Relax, Steve. There is always some data. For example the sources that Simon refers to.

yes and I believe that gives a good and completely believable reason for the resignation on the 8th.

Having been reprimanded in private, Matthews made this public, Warren from my reading on his life, appears to be a proud man.
The humiliation of being Publicly rebuked could have been enough to make him resign on its own.

Steve