Did Anderson Know

[The Good Michael]

Why is it that some people are so reluctant to entertain the idea that Anderson was an untrustworthy S.O.B?

Simon,

Of course spies are untrustworthy to an extent, yet they are trustworthy enough to get the job. Regardless, how does Swanson factor into this? An aging spymaster's friend shoring up his lies way after the fact? I don't see that.

Cheers,

Mike

[The Good Michael]

If you add the opinions of Abberline, Littelchilld and Monro with Anderson and Mchaghten you get 5 different variations. Truth be told no one had a clue .

Right. There are variations, but there are connections as well that either smack of some common belief or a vast conspiracy of lies that inundated all of the government and may even have stretched across the pond to Teddy Roosevelt.

Cheers,

Mike

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Norma,

Lets jst get this clear:

There were two series of article published in The Times. One, called ‘Parnellism and Crime’, tried to implicate Charles Parnell in the terrorist activities of the Fenians/IRB. It was this series of articles which included the letter forged by Pigott which suggested that Parnell supported the Phoenix Park murders. This series of articles was written by a Times journalist named John Woulfe Flanagan.

There is no evidence that Anderson had any connection with these articles. Anderson wrote a relatively innocuous series of follow-up articles called ‘Parnellism and Crime – Behind the Scenes in America’, which made no accusations against Parnell, but was about Fenian/IRB activities and conspiracies in America and was intended to alert conspirators that their plans were known, and to prevent intended outrages in London. Anderson’s articles did not cause the Parnell Commission, Flanagan’s did.


Parnell was fighting for Irish idependence. Your assumption that he was not involved at some level is pie in the sky. Thank god he was. (and not the catholic one)

Contin:
In his book Sidelights on the Home Rule Movement (1906) Anderson wrote: ‘The Phoenix Park murder was instigated by officials of the Land League. Of this I obtained clear and cogent proof. Was it known to Parnell? I can only say that he was one of many whose opportunities of knowing everything were vastly better than mine. The charge against him is “not that he himself either directly planned of perpetrated outrages and murders, but that he either connived at them, or that, warned by facts and statements, he determined to remain in ignorance.’ (pg.113)

The Parnell Commission concluded that “there is no foundation” for the charge that “Parnell was intimate with the leading Invincibles”. But Tom Corfe observed in The Phoenix Park Murders (1968) “Ther conclusions might have been more definite and probably different had they been able to examine in the witness box Patrick Egan or Frank Byrne, who preferred to remain in America, or had they been given a chance to study elusive account books relating to the Paris funds of the League.
Parnell, as for example in his interviews with Lomasney and Le Caron, was eminently skilful at impressing others with the belief that he sympathised with their violent plans and activities despite the fact that he could not publicly commit himself…”

There were therefore those, Le Caron among them, who believed that Parnell sympathised with the Invincibles, and it is entirely possible that Parnell gave that impression, but whether he gave gave or implied just general support or actually supported specific plots, such as the Phoenix Park murders, remains to be seen. The father of Joe Brady, who was hanged as an Invincible, later claimed “Parnell knew well what was being done, thought all the bridges were cut that might lead up to him.” Alternatively, of course, the leaders of groups like the Invincibles may have wanted to impress on the lower ranks on new recruits the belief that they had Parnell’s support. The problem is, how would Anderson or anybody else have known the difference? As Anderson effectively said in the quote above, Parnell was there and he was in a position to know, and if he didn’t know then was that a conscious decision. To know that something is going to happen, but prefer to stay in ignorance of what and where and when, is in some eyes no less complicit than knowing everything.

Anderson did find himself in trouble with the Parnell Commission, but it wasn’t for writing the articles in The Times; Henri Le Caron had elected to gives evidence at the Commission for The Times and had requested from Anderson the return of letters he had written to him. It had been agreed with Anderson that the letters were to be “deemed private”. Anderson duly let Le Caron have the letters and for this he found himself in serious hot water, especially with Sir William Harcourt, and the spineless Henry Matthews was even prepared to throw Anderson to the wolves, it being argued that the material constituted “the secret papers of the Home Office”.

This was one of those situations were both sides were right: Le Caron was arguably in the pay of the English government as a spy and therefore the government could rightfully claim that they had a right to all the information he obtained. On the other hand, Le Caron and Anderson did apparently have an agreement that Le Caron’s letters were private and personal correspondence to Anderson. The government could – and did – magnify their position out of all proportion, whereas Anderson’s defence was equally solid. According to Anderson, Harcourt subsequently apologised, drawing attention to differences between the two men in their “modes of procedure” (i.e., they would do things differently)and concluding: “Pray go on as you have done in your useful work, and you may rely on entire sympathy and support from me. I am always most grateful for your reports and advice.”


Can you plase please supply some evidence that I can check, something that backs up what you are claiming.

Many thanks Jeff

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jeff,

"There were two series of article published in The Times. One, called ‘Parnellism and Crime’, tried to implicate Charles Parnell in the terrorist activities of the Fenians/IRB. It was this series of articles which included the letter forged by Pigott which suggested that Parnell supported the Phoenix Park murders. This series of articles was written by a Times journalist named John Woulfe Flanagan.

"There is no evidence that Anderson had any connection with these articles."

Sir Robert Anderson, Blackwoods Magazine, April 1910—

"To the present hour I do not know whether the Home Secretary was then aware of my authorship of 'The Times' articles of 1887 on 'Parnellism and Crime' . . ."

On 12th April 1910 a letter appeared in The Times in which Anderson backpedaled on having written them. He now said he had only written the three Behind the Scenes in America articles which appeared under the Parnellism and Crime banner in May and June 1887. Any confusion, he explained, was due to a typist’s error. If Anderson was telling the truth, then the author of the original Parnellism and Crime articles had to have been John Woulfe Flanagan.

But twenty years earlier on 10th March 1890, during an adjournment debate on the Special Commission, Thomas Sexton, Nationalist MP for Belfast West, told the House—

“ . . . That infamous libeller, Mr Woulfe Flanagan, the son of an Irish Judge, presented himself the other day for admission to the Athenæum Club, but the number of black balls deposited against him was the largest ever known against any person seeking admission, although his patron, Mr. Buckle [The Times editor, George Earle Buckle], pleaded piteously on his behalf that he had not written all the articles in The Times, but only three of them, and those not by any means the worst.”

Which of the articles were “not by any means the worst”? On balance they would appear to have been the Behind the Scenes in America articles. So who wrote what? Both men could not have written and not written the same articles. Anderson’s 1910 confession only compounded the mystery, and the British Library further complicated matters by listing him as author of the original 7th 10th and 14th March 1887 Parnellism and Crime articles.

It is therefore impossible to state categorically that Anderson did not author the Parnellism and Crime articles.

It's a bugger's muddle.

Regards,

Simon

[Stewart P Evans]

Ineptitude

...
As for his supposed 'ineptitude' as a spy master, again there is NO evidence for this. His successor Gosselin failed in equal measure as would most in Ireland for generations to come.
We again and again here criticism of Anderson on this thread without any supported evidence or twisted half truths. The only person who takes it seriously is SPE who at least recognizes the complicated nature of Anderson's character and try's to place him in some historical context.
Pirate

The description of Anderson's ineptitude was written by Bernard Porter, after studying and considering all the known facts about the secret service, the Special Branch and the other people involved -

[Phil Carter]

Stewart,

Sort of says it all really...very nice posting, thank you!

best wishes

Phil

[Jeff Leahy]

Thanks for that SPE. What I was getting at is that opinion on Anderson’s ability is mixed and indeed complicated as you have stated. I came across this:

“Brian Jenkins, an emeritus professor of history, in his book The Fenian Problem (2008), which looked at Fenian activities between 1858-1874, does not share the view that Anderson was inept, but says that “[Percy] Fielding and Anderson had created a well-organised, thorough, and coordinated system for the gathering of the foreign and domestic intelligence so essential in counter-terrorism.” (pg. 171) “


Here we have Anderson sited as a crack anti-Fenian specialist hardly inept or failing in his job. But then Anderson is indeed one of the more complicated characters in the case to fathom and I neither claim to be authority or expert. My interest is getting at the facts and both sides of a complicated argument.

Many thanks for your contribution

Jeff

[jason_c]

Thanks for that pirate jack.

We shouldnt rely on one single author to jump to conclusions about Anderson (or indeed any other historical figure).

Im willing to entertain the idea that Anderson lied, or was loose with the facts concerning Kosminski. The most likely explanation is that he was trying to save face.

A conspiracy is far more far fetched.

[Stephen Thomas]

And of crucial note here is the fact that the moment Anderson said "he knew" -devoting no more than a handful of paragraphs to it in his entire book, another, equally senior policeman at the time , but from the London City Police force ,surprisingly charged in and said HE DID NOT KNOW---and then ferociously rebuked him in his own autobiography of 1910.This was the Chief Commissioner of the City of London Police ,Major Smith,who as we know,stated categorically and unequivocally that "nobody had known" that the ripper had them ALL [ie BOTH SCOTLAND YARD POLICE and CITY OF LONDON POLICE ] "completely beat" and that Anderson"s "reckless claim" about knowing where the ripper lived was not true.He stated "NOBODY KNEW WHO THE RIPPER WAS OR WHERE HE HAD LIVED".How do you deal with that Stephen? Dont forget he wasnt alone in refuting Anderson"s statement.

Hi Norma

Thanks for your considered reply in a very nice post. Yes, of course I know all that. But please understand that the rank of Major in the British Army is a fallback rank reserved for misfits, the cads and bounders and womanisers and gamblers and general inadequates (cf James Hewitt, the old boy in Fawlty Towers, the Galloping Major etc etc etc). Saying Major So and So said this and that or the other is neither here nor there as regards this very great mystery.

[Supe]

Stephen,

Major in the British Army is a fallback rank reserved for misfits, the cads and bounders and womanisers and gamblers and general inadequates

I think you have just unfairly libelled a good many brave men, many of whom died in battle holding that rank.

Don.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jeff,

Far be it from me to take issue with an emeritus professor of history, but Percy Fielding has been mistaken for his brother William Fielding, Lieutenant Colonel in the Coldstream Guards and senior army intelligence officer in Ireland. His civilian secretary in the new Secret Service Department [formed in December 1867 following the Clerkenwell explosion] was Robert Anderson. The department operated until April 1868, after which it was disbanded and Anderson went on to work at the Home Office.

Four months doesn't sound long to me in which to create a well-organised, thorough, and coordinated intelligence gathering system.

Regards,

Simon

[Jeff Leahy]

John Woulf Flanagan was the author of The Times articles called ‘Parnellism and Crime’.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jeff,

Of course he was. There there.

Matron will be along in a moment with your medication.

Regards,

Simon

[Chris]

Far be it from me to take issue with an emeritus professor of history, but Percy Fielding has been mistaken for his brother William Fielding, Lieutenant Colonel in the Coldstream Guards and senior army intelligence officer in Ireland.

But I assume the implication of the brackets is that the emeritus professor simply wrote "Fielding", and that someone else has supplied the "Percy".

[robhouse]

"Im willing to entertain the idea that Anderson lied, or was loose with the facts concerning Kosminski. The most likely explanation is that he was trying to save face."

And of course the rarely mentioned alternative is that Anderson was telling the truth and not confused. This, of course, did not make it into Simon's three options, which is not surprising given the level of bias against Anderson on these boards.

I will only repeat that nothing Anderson ever wrote about the "Polish Jew suspect" is inconsistent with what is known about Aaron Kozminski, with the apparent exception of his statement that the identification took place "when the individual whom we suspected was caged in an asylum." This was removed from the book version, possibly because Anderson realized it was an error.

The idea that Anderson was either lying, had failing memory, or was being "boastful" and embellishing the facts is simply an assumption on the part of those who either find what he said implausible, or who simply don't wish to believe that he may have been telling the truth AND not wrong.

I personally doubt that the police had sufficient hard evidence to justify Anderson's "definitely ascertained fact" remark. However, I do believe that Anderson was telling the truth... in other words, expressing what he believed to be true beyond a doubt, in his mind. Hence his use of the phrase "moral proof" or "moral certainty."

Moral certainty: n. in a criminal trial, the reasonable belief (but falling short of absolute certainty) of the trier of the fact (jury or judge sitting without a jury) that the evidence shows the defendant is guilty. Moral certainty is another way of saying “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Since there is no exact measure of certainty it is always somewhat subjective and based on “reasonable” opinions of judge and/or jury.

Rob H