The Curtis Bennett Inquiry

[Robert]

METROPOLITAN POLICE FORCE EXPENDITURE—INITIATION OF POLICE RECEIVER.

HC Deb 21 December 1888 vol 332 cc956-7 956

§ MR. KELLY(for Sir GEORGE BADEN-POWELL) (Liverpool, Kirkdale) (Camberwell, N.) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he can state for how long ‘all proposals involving police expenditure, except as to repairs to stations, have been initiated by the Chief Commissioner of Police;’ whether the late Commissioner made strong recommendations to the effect that the Police Receiver should cease to initiate expenditure in regard to stores and buildings; and, whether the Secretary of State declined at the time to accept those recommendations; and, if so, at what date, and for what reason, were those recommendations subsequently accepted?



§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.) The practice as to the police expenditure, which I described generally in answer to my hon. Friend on the 3rd instant, has been in existence for very many years. The late Commissioner made various recommendations from time to time, to the effect that economy would result from giving to the Commissioner the initiative as to the repair of stations, and greater control over the contracts and other financial arrangements made by the Receiver. All these recommendations, and the whole subject of the relations between the Commissioner and Receiver, were referred by the Secretary of State to examination by a Com 957 mittee, of which my hon. Friend is aware, and, pending the inquiry, the old practice has been continued. The subject is too complex to be adequately explained by Questions and answers in this House.

[David Orsam]

Keep going Robert! Hansard of 21 Dec 1888 might have something about it.

[Robert]

Hi David

It looks as though Cunninghame Graham was closed down pretty quickly :


METROPOLITAN POLICE—AUDIT OF ACCOUNTS.

HC Deb 29 November 1888 vol 331 c498 498

§ MR. HENRY H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the accounts of the Receiver General of the Metropolitan Police are independently audited; and, if so, by whom?



§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.) , in reply, said, that the accounts were audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General of the Exchequer.



§ MR. HENRY H. FOWLER asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman would lay the Report on the Table?



§ MR. MATTHEWS said, he would make inquiry.



§ MR. HENRY H. FOWLER believed that it would be found that the accounts were audited technically by the gentleman mentioned, but not literally. They were not laid before the Public Accounts Committee.



§ MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM (Lanark, N.W.) Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Sir Charles Warren was in conflict with the Receiver General—



§ MR. SPEAKER Order, order!

[David Orsam]

On 17th July 1888 in Parliament :


THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.) I have directed an inquiry into the Financial Regulations and the system of accounts of the Metropolitan Police, which is still proceeding. There has also been a special inquiry, now completed, into the conduct of a clerk in the Receiver's Department.



§ MR. PICKERSGILL Will the proceedings at that inquiry be made public?



§ MR. MATTHEWS No, Sir.


So it looks as though Matthews was blocking publication of only the special enquiry, although the other enquiry seems to have remained unpublished too.

Thank you Robert, I wasn't aware that the existence of the Curtis Bennett inquiry had been raised in Parliament.

The other inquiry referred to is, I believe, an inquiry of the Metropolitan Police Committee into relations between the Commissioner of Police and the Receiver, chaired by Hugh Childers, which took evidence on 11th, 18th, 23rd, 25th and 30th July. It never reported, supposedly as a result of the resignation of Sir Charles Warren.

[David Orsam]

Is there any point to this thread?

What connection has it to the Whitechapel murders?

The point of this thread is set out very clearly in the OP in which I asked if anyone has any information about the Curtis Bennett inquiry.

Whether the result of that inquiry has any connection to the Whitechapel murders remains to be seen but I can tell you for certain that the Curtis Bennett inquiry is 100% relevant to this forum and if you are able to contain yourself a little bit longer you actually might learn something about that.

[Robert]

On 17th July 1888 in Parliament :


THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.) I have directed an inquiry into the Financial Regulations and the system of accounts of the Metropolitan Police, which is still proceeding. There has also been a special inquiry, now completed, into the conduct of a clerk in the Receiver's Department.



§ MR. PICKERSGILL Will the proceedings at that inquiry be made public?



§ MR. MATTHEWS No, Sir.


So it looks as though Matthews was blocking publication of only the special enquiry, although the other enquiry seems to have remained unpublished too.

[Observer]

Is there any point to this thread?

What connection has it to the Whitechapel murders?

[David Orsam]

Mr Moser was, of course, our old friend, former C.I.D. detective-inspector Maurice Moser who had resigned from the Metropolitan Police in January 1887 and set up his own private detective agency in the Strand.

[David Orsam]

The Star returned to the story four days later, on 16 July 1888, and its report reveals a little twist to the tale:

THE SCOTLAND YARD SCANDALS.

An Inquiry Into Suspected Jobbery with Contractors.

The Scotland-yard inquiry, to which we referred to other day is, we understand, now finished. It seems that someone in the Receiver's Department had been suspected of taking bribes or commissions from contractors. This department deals with all contracts and money transactions in connection with the police force. Sir Charles Warren employed Mr. St. John Wontner to make inquiries for him. Mr. Wontner in his turn engaged a private detective – Mr. Moser – to ferret out information. The result was that Sir Charles Warren got the accountant, Mr. Evans, discharged. But Mr. Evans was not to be got rid of so easily. He wanted to find out why he was discharged and deprived of his pension. He was the means of getting up the private inquiry which has just taken place under Mr. Curtis Bennett. The Home Secretary was very reluctant to grant this inquiry at first, and had to be appealed to several times before he conceded. The result of the investigations has not been very creditable to the administration of the Receiving Department. The report, of course, will not be made public.

The above story in the Star did not go unnoticed in Whitehall. On 18 July 1888, Edward Leigh Pemberton at the Home Office sent the following letter to Sir Charles Warren (HO 151/4):

I am directed by Mr. Secretary Matthews to acknowledge receipt of the report from Mr. M. Moser as to a paragraph appearing in "The Star" of the 16th instant which was forwarded by you to Mr. Ruggles Brice.

[David Orsam]

But there is still hope for his pension!

This is from the Home Office to the Receiver on 14 July 1888 (HO 65/61):

With reference to the application for a Pension from Mr. Evans, a Clerk in your office, I am directed by the Secretary of State to inform you that he has requested Dr. Gover, Medical Inspector of Prisons, to examine this gentleman with a view to a further medical certificate and to request that you will be good enough to make arrangements accordingly.

[David Orsam]

Should do this one next.

This is from the Home Office to the Receiver on 8 February 1888 (HO 151/4):

With reference to your letter of the 1st Inst. on the subject of the Bankruptcy of Mr. Evans, a Senior Clerk in your office, I am directed by the Secretary of State to inform you that he agrees as to the adoption of the proposal contained in your letter of the 17th ult. for the assignment of one third of his present salary and one half of any future salary he may receive for the benefit of Mr Evans' creditors.

[David Orsam]

Some more on Mr Evans' financial difficulties in early 1888:

Letter from the Home Office to the Receiver of the Metropolitan Police dated 24 January 1888 (HO 151/4):

In reply to your letter of the 17th instant respecting the case of Mr. H.K. Evans, of your office, I am directed by Mr. Secretary Matthews to request that you will favour him with a confidential report as to the circumstances which have led to Mr. Evans’ insolvency. Whether Mr. Evans’ conduct has brought him within the operation of Rule 2 or Rule 3 or Rule 4 of the Treasury Minute of 30th November 1868: and if within that of Rule 4, whether Mr. Evans has been suspended from duty and salary.

[Robert]

Katherine left c £4000 when she died in 1941.

[Robert]

I suspect that Evans's second wife Katharine brought her own funds to the marriage, because in 1911 she is still widowed and living on private means in a seven room house in Tonbridge with her two children and a servant.

[Mayerling]

The Star returned to the story four days later, on 16 July 1888, and its report reveals a little twist to the tale:

THE SCOTLAND YARD SCANDALS.

An Inquiry Into Suspected Jobbery with Contractors.

The Scotland-yard inquiry, to which we referred to other day is, we understand, now finished. It seems that someone in the Receiver's Department had been suspected of taking bribes or commissions from contractors. This department deals with all contracts and money transactions in connection with the police force. Sir Charles Warren employed Mr. St. John Wontner to make inquiries for him. Mr. Wontner in his turn engaged a private detective – Mr. Moser – to ferret out information. The result was that Sir Charles Warren got the accountant, Mr. Evans, discharged. But Mr. Evans was not to be got rid of so easily. He wanted to find out why he was discharged and deprived of his pension. He was the means of getting up the private inquiry which has just taken place under Mr. Curtis Bennett. The Home Secretary was very reluctant to grant this inquiry at first, and had to be appealed to several times before he conceded. The result of the investigations has not been very creditable to the administration of the Receiving Department. The report, of course, will not be made public.

I love that last line - the whole point of inquiries of government agencies and branches is to publish the results, not to hide them.

My suspicion is that given the 1877 Detective Bribery Scandal, the Yard was very, very careful to look at any potentially similarly black incidents that involved it's personnel. But the 1877 scandal led to three Inspectors (Druskovitch, Meiklejohn, and Palmer) going to prison for taking bribes from a con-artist named Henry Benson, and ruined the reputation of their boss, Chief Inspector Clark, and made Commissioner Williamson look very incompetent (though he did weather the storm). No doubt, if the "investigations" of 1888 shown much that was not creditable of the Receiving Department, they probably were left with suspicions of corruption but no final real proof. It would be the only valid reason not to publish results (for fear of libel suits).

By the way, the contracting for supplies by the Yard did occasionally cause some odd results. In the 1870s, a contract to supply brushes to the Yard was won by of all people Henry Wainwright, who in 1874 would murder Harriet Lane (his mistress) in Whitechapel, but not be arrested, tried, convicted and hanged until 1875.

Jeff