The Curtis Bennett Inquiry

[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]

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.

[Observer]

Is there any point to this thread?

What connection has it to the Whitechapel murders?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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

[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]

That's the one. Gives the impression that the committee's inquiry is still continuing but it seems that with the resignation of Warren it lost all impetus and, in any event, it never produced a report.

[Observer]

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.

Yes, that much I understand

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

I also realise that certain incidents which at first glance might seem irrelevant to the case sometimes, very rarely in fact I might add, prove useful.

and if you are able to contain yourself a little bit longer you actually might learn something about that.

In this instance, I won't hold my breath. Another red herring I'll warrant.

[David Orsam]

Thank you for your invaluable contribution to this thread Observer.

[Observer]

Don't get me wrong, hopefully your discovery might shed a small beam of light into the case. However, I want to know who the killer was, and I doubt whether an enquiry into police corruption will achieve this end

[David Orsam]

Don't get me wrong, hopefully your discovery might shed a small beam of light into the case. However, I want to know who the killer was, and I doubt whether an enquiry into police corruption will achieve this end

Oh, Observer, I do sincerely apologise for starting a thread on this forum which does not reveal who the killer was. I had truly forgotten that this was the criteria for posting.

[Observer]

Oh, Observer, I do sincerely apologise for starting a thread on this forum which does not reveal who the killer was. I had truly forgotten that this was the criteria for posting.

Oh come now, enough of the sarcasm, it doesn't become you (not much). The thing is this forum is starting to get a tad boring don't you know. Detailed accounts of walking speeds, pedantic argument about triangular reference points of sound when considering whether the cry of "oh murder" emanated from Mary Kelly's room. Now a thread regarding enquiries into police corruption the content of which have now reached 44 posts without an inkling as to what the hell they have to do with the case. At least give us an inkling as to where you are leading with this, and relieve the very nervous tension you are trying to generate .....not.