Tweet
This remarkably frank interview with Charles Warren just a few days after his resignation is one I had not seen before
Chris S
Boston Daily Globe
13 November 1888
IN A SACKVILLE SCRAPE
It Was A Magazine Article that Caused Sir Charles Warren's Resignation.
New York, Nov. 13.
A Herald cablegram from London says:
Sir Charles Warren has copied Lord Sackville, and, in consequence, shares his fate. John Murray invited the commissioner to use his pen, and he produced an article on the police in Murray's Magazine, defending himself. The matter came up in Parliament, and his superior, the Home Secretary, snubbed him, saying, "Sir Charles was ignorant of a rule in the department that no attache should write of his office without permission."
This was tantamount to stating that Sir Charles was inattentive, so he resigned. He and Lord Sackville will therefore soon meet and compare notes.
I called upon Sir Charles in consequence. He is a handsome, military man, looking little over 40 and considerably bronzed. He wears a moustache suggestive of silence and his features are regular and handsome. Instead of the military martinet which he is represented to be in some quarters, I found a gentleman of courteous manner and amiable disposition, with much dignity. His manner had more of the suavity of the diplomatist than the rough and ready style of a military man.
"Can you give any details about your announced resignation?"
"Well, not much. You must understand that until the government has appointed some one in my place I can say little. However, there is one thing I wish to be understood; that is that Mr. Matthews is speaking for the government, but he is not doing so for me. I, the commissioner, will, when the time comes, have my say. At present I am still commissioner, and responsible for the London police, therefore I may not speak."
"Yet, can you not suggest the reason of your resignation?"
"Not fully; but I will say that a great grievance has been the interference of the home office in the police department."
"Is that of recent date?"
"No. It has been so for two years. The police department had by law been originally placed under control of the chief secretary of state. The charge was next made over to the home secretary. However, this did not make us a department of the home office. I have resisted this latter assumption throughout.
When it came to orders being written to us by the home office clerks it was a little too much."
"Were you not consulted?"
"Not directly. A curious feature of the whole business was that the government, represented by Mr. Matthews, held me personally responsible for all the crime in London, and yet they made communications to my subordinates. It was first Assistant Commissioner Munro, now it is Mr. Anderson."
"Is there any trouble with the police?"
"No, that is all nonsense. No feeling such as has been represented exists. I think you will find that the metropolitan police are more contented now than they have been for years."
"You did not resign on account of the last Whitechapel murder?"
Sir Charles adjusted his glasses and smiled.
"No," he resumed, emphatically,"no, I sent in my resignation before the Kelly murder, on the 8th of this month, and immediately after Mr. Matthews's statement in the House of Commons in reference to my article in Murray's Magazine. The resignation was accepted yesterday. That article was perfectly innocuous, and could not do any harm."
"Have you any new information about the Whitechapel murders?"
"No. We are following up slight clews all the time. We received about 1400 letters. Every single idea was investigated. For example, we were asked to drag a canal at a certain spot. We did so, but there was nothing to be found. People talk as if nothing had been done.
As for the Malay story, it cannot hold. We have had the water police on the alert from the first. Then we have followed up the idea of the murderous cook, and every slaughter house is under watch for a murderous butcher. In fact, every clew has been closely followed up, and there are some clews and ideas which still occupy our attention, but which it would be impolitic to foreshadow to the public."
Chris S
Boston Daily Globe
13 November 1888
IN A SACKVILLE SCRAPE
It Was A Magazine Article that Caused Sir Charles Warren's Resignation.
New York, Nov. 13.
A Herald cablegram from London says:
Sir Charles Warren has copied Lord Sackville, and, in consequence, shares his fate. John Murray invited the commissioner to use his pen, and he produced an article on the police in Murray's Magazine, defending himself. The matter came up in Parliament, and his superior, the Home Secretary, snubbed him, saying, "Sir Charles was ignorant of a rule in the department that no attache should write of his office without permission."
This was tantamount to stating that Sir Charles was inattentive, so he resigned. He and Lord Sackville will therefore soon meet and compare notes.
I called upon Sir Charles in consequence. He is a handsome, military man, looking little over 40 and considerably bronzed. He wears a moustache suggestive of silence and his features are regular and handsome. Instead of the military martinet which he is represented to be in some quarters, I found a gentleman of courteous manner and amiable disposition, with much dignity. His manner had more of the suavity of the diplomatist than the rough and ready style of a military man.
"Can you give any details about your announced resignation?"
"Well, not much. You must understand that until the government has appointed some one in my place I can say little. However, there is one thing I wish to be understood; that is that Mr. Matthews is speaking for the government, but he is not doing so for me. I, the commissioner, will, when the time comes, have my say. At present I am still commissioner, and responsible for the London police, therefore I may not speak."
"Yet, can you not suggest the reason of your resignation?"
"Not fully; but I will say that a great grievance has been the interference of the home office in the police department."
"Is that of recent date?"
"No. It has been so for two years. The police department had by law been originally placed under control of the chief secretary of state. The charge was next made over to the home secretary. However, this did not make us a department of the home office. I have resisted this latter assumption throughout.
When it came to orders being written to us by the home office clerks it was a little too much."
"Were you not consulted?"
"Not directly. A curious feature of the whole business was that the government, represented by Mr. Matthews, held me personally responsible for all the crime in London, and yet they made communications to my subordinates. It was first Assistant Commissioner Munro, now it is Mr. Anderson."
"Is there any trouble with the police?"
"No, that is all nonsense. No feeling such as has been represented exists. I think you will find that the metropolitan police are more contented now than they have been for years."
"You did not resign on account of the last Whitechapel murder?"
Sir Charles adjusted his glasses and smiled.
"No," he resumed, emphatically,"no, I sent in my resignation before the Kelly murder, on the 8th of this month, and immediately after Mr. Matthews's statement in the House of Commons in reference to my article in Murray's Magazine. The resignation was accepted yesterday. That article was perfectly innocuous, and could not do any harm."
"Have you any new information about the Whitechapel murders?"
"No. We are following up slight clews all the time. We received about 1400 letters. Every single idea was investigated. For example, we were asked to drag a canal at a certain spot. We did so, but there was nothing to be found. People talk as if nothing had been done.
As for the Malay story, it cannot hold. We have had the water police on the alert from the first. Then we have followed up the idea of the murderous cook, and every slaughter house is under watch for a murderous butcher. In fact, every clew has been closely followed up, and there are some clews and ideas which still occupy our attention, but which it would be impolitic to foreshadow to the public."
Comment