The Secret Special Branch Ledgers

[Phil H]

There was a piece in The Times this morning - in connection with the Queen's current State Visit to Ireland - which made, I thought, a relevant point.

It was discussing the views of those who oppose the visit and included remarks to the effect that the Queen was not welcome as she was head of the armed services that had opporessed the irish people. The remarks, which may well represent the views of only a small minority of Irish people (10% I have seen quoted) nevertheless show that the past is very much alive in certain quarters, very real and that the anger remains.

Italso said, I recall, that some Irish citizens are trying to extract names from the security services. If they are fighting to keep confidential more recent records, they may well see the historic equivalents against that background and there could even be legal advice that to release the registers now might wweaken any position in law in regard to newer records.

Postscript: I found the following quote in the Irish Times website: Mr Kenny repeated to both leaders that he had raised and would raise the issue of the publication of the files with British prime minister David Cameron. He also pointed out that there were many issues and atrocities “about which we do not have the full facts”. This is close to what i recall reading in the Times.



Just supposition, I know, but soundly based I believe.

Phil

[mariab]

But it is difficult to reconcile such a Piranha Brothers approach with an, "Everything is all right here--no conspiracy afoot" attitude. Those ledgers must be bloody well important to evoke that kind of reaction.

To me it sounds more like a “It's OUR bloody ledgers, hands-off“ 'ttitude. Mainly territorial.
And I really don't think that there's such a thing as “an impossible task“. In my humble experience, these ones are the most fun and worth attempting.

[Phil H]

Two things:

1) We seem on here (understandably perhaps because this is Casebook) to assume that the SB registers are sensitive because of JtR. I doubt that that is much in the mind of the authorities, frankly. They may have concerns in that direction because the FOI case is being pursued by a "Ripper" author and enthusiast, but I am certain in my own mind that their principal interests will be in precedent (impact on future confidentiality) and risks (of harm to others) because these are SPECIAL BRANCH registers, mention informers and will be perceived in that light by at least some areas of the public.

2) In my experience (37 years odd as a Crown servant) public authorities including the security ones are pretty law-abiding. I don't doubt that the words Mr Evans cites were spoken - they may well indicate the views of individual officers or officials, but history shows that few documents and records, even sensitive or embarrassing ones are actually destroyed. That is why they turn up when there are public inquiries into things like the Iraq dossier - all sorts of embarrassing material was released then, and could readily have been destroyed (BUT WASN'T!). I could also cite material released (eventually) on rendition and in other parts of Government on newspapers hacking into phones and cash for peerages. People say things, and no doubt those who are in the business of security etc will act menacingly, but history seems to show that they act differently.

I also think that destroying these registers NOW would be very hard. They are known to exist, there is public interest in their release, senior "independent" figures such as the Information Commissioner and those on the Information Tribunal are engaged and aware, extracts have been released albeit in a redacted form. Thus destruction would be a BLATANT act, not only illegal but sending messages of a different sort to the wider authorities and the public and with ramifications for the whole security world in terms of what Parliament might do in response (shackling them as the US Congress did the CIA in the 70s) and for public opinion in terms of believing services which have to be increasingly open in their dealings with the world/the public.

So I hear what is said, I acknowledge that I may be wrong, but my professional judgement as a long-serving civil servant is that while the registers may not be released they will not cease to exist.

To end on what (I hope) is a more humourous note, in the 30s one of Queen Victoria's daughters (Beatrice I think) asked King George VI if she could borrow from the Royal archive her mother's diaries of her sex life with Albert (these were separate from the main diaries which had been edited and destroyed decades before). Later she told the king, "...after reading them I thought they were not suitable to be read by others, so destroyed them!"

George VI replied: "I thought you might do that, so I had a copy made before giving them to you!"

Phil

[belinda]

Hello Belinda. Perhaps not. But it is difficult to reconcile such a Piranha Brothers approach with an, "Everything is all right here--no conspiracy afoot" attitude. Those ledgers must be bloody well important to evoke that kind of reaction.

Cheers.
LC

There must be something that goes way beyond the Ripper indeed, the reaction is out of proportion if we are only talking about a lone kiiller acting out his rage on destitute women.

[lynn cates]

reconciliation

Hello Belinda. Perhaps not. But it is difficult to reconcile such a Piranha Brothers approach with an, "Everything is all right here--no conspiracy afoot" attitude. Those ledgers must be bloody well important to evoke that kind of reaction.

Cheers.
LC

[belinda]

Yes, the words were spoken and I don't even know who the gentleman was who made the statement.

If the ledgers were simply to disappear how would anyone be able to prove they had been destroyed? You need evidence to prove just who was responsible for the items going missing and I don't think you would find too many witnesses behind those closed doors. And if the hierarchy were sympathetic to the non-production of the material then I should think the task would be impossible.

This is what I was trying to say.

I don't think this material is going to be made public for a very long time, if ever.

[mariab]

Perhaps most perplexing of all is that this all turns up AFTER Sir Edward averred that he burnt all his records.

Sir Edward reminds me of the SB (decisive) members SPE was quoting.
Apologies for the irreverence, it's the late hour, peace, out. :-)

[lynn cates]

fire in the hole

Hello Chris. Perhaps most perplexing of all is that this all turns up AFTER Sir Edward averred that he burnt all his records.

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

As per the Tanner entry, too beat to read that entire Hansard thing now. Going to sleep...

[Chris]

I think it's because some entries--like the Kerwin--describe events in the distant past. Similarly, the Jenkinson material seems to refer to BEFORE he was sacked (end of 1886--beginning of 1887).

Debs conjectured that all these entries refer to proceedings from the Parnell commission. Perhaps so.

It's certainly very perplexing.

I note that Clutterbuck comments on Jenkinson's presence in the ledger as follows:
"One question remains unanswered, even after reading the Monro memoirs. If Jenkinson had departed in january 1887, be it through resignation or dismissal, why are there numerous references to him in the Chief Constable's Register which appears not to have commenced until April 20th, 1888? These references are not historical leftovers from previous years but appear to be current issues e.g. "Jenkinson, Mr - attention of Home Office again called to papers with - 3622/2" and "Jenkinson, E. G. Esq - forwarding file re detaining files of Irish papers - 3622/2". The most likely explanation is that Jenkinson returned to his previous duties as Assistant Under Secretary for Police and Crime at Dublin Castle. This would account for his involvement with correspondence relating to Irish extremism and the continuing references to him in the Chief Constable's Register."

Or could he have just been gradually sorting out his old files and sending them on to Special Branch?

Also, where there are numbers in the final column, identified by Clutterbuck as containing folio numbers in the correspondence register, they appear to run in sequence, which again suggests to me that the order is chronological.

I assume the entry "re warrant for arrest of Pat Molloy" relates to the warrant issued for his arrest on 5 December 1888 to force him to attend the Parnell Commission. That would be reasonably consistent with the possible timing I suggested before for the Tanner entry.

[mariab]

Similarly, the Jenkinson material seems to refer to BEFORE he was sacked (end of 1886--beginning of 1887).

Obviously. ;-)

[lynn cates]

tempus fugit

Hello Chris.

"I'm not really clear why people think the order isn't chronological, though, because that would be the norm in a record arranged like this."

I think it's because some entries--like the Kerwin--describe events in the distant past. Similarly, the Jenkinson material seems to refer to BEFORE he was sacked (end of 1886--beginning of 1887).

Debs conjectured that all these entries refer to proceedings from the Parnell commission. Perhaps so.

Cheers.
LC

[Stephen Thomas]

Whilst making tentative enquiries about the ledgers a few years ago we were warned that it was a sensitive subject and was best steered clear of. I took part in a public debate about the Whitechapel murders and I mentioned the Special Branch material. After the talk I was approached by someone who informed me that the material would never be released and if it appeared that it was going to be accessed it would be destroyed.

Thanks Stewart. These people are not to be messed with, I'd say.

[mariab]

The comparison is a bit unfortunate, but this reminds of working with the Vademecum notebooks of librettist Eugène Scribe, which are mainly chronological and sometimes even dated, but sometimes Scribe goes back and writes things subsequently – and not just additions/corrections, but also new entries.

[Chris]

I'm not comtemplating for a minute that this isn't a basically chronological entry system, but I suspect that there might have been subsequent/additional entries, added out of order. I think that Debra Arif also sees it that way. (If I'm not mistaken.)

I suppose it's possible, if for some reason there were delays before some classes of items were entered.

I'm not really clear why people think the order isn't chronological, though, because that would be the norm in a record arranged like this.