The Secret Special Branch Ledgers

[Simon Wood]

Hi Phil,

There's good reason to believe that the Dr Tanner mentioned in the Chief Constable's Register was Dr Charles K.D. Tanner MD, MP.

On 1st March 1889 Dr Charles Tanner was arrested in the smoking room of the Westminster Palace Hotel, London, on a warrant served by Sergeant John Sweeney [one of Littlechild's Section D officers], in respect of a speech he had made at Tipperary on 17th October 1888.

On 2nd May 1889 at the Tipperary Quarter Sessions, Tanner, together with MPs John O'Connor and Thomas Condon, was sentenced to three months' imprisonment at Clonmel jail for "alleged conspiracy to induce persons not to take evicted farms".

The "J. E. Kennedy" whose police observation Dr. Tanner was complaining about in the Chief Constables's Register may have been a clerical error. In June 1888 Mr E. J. Kennedy, MP for Sligo South, announced his resignation and applied for and received stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds.

BTW: Happy Birthday.

Regards,

Simon

[mariab]

Wow, even as a newbie I san see that this is an important find, Mr Carter!
Does anybody know if there's such a thing as Hansard (the official report of debates in Parliament) in France as well? (Or in Norway, for that matter?! Just to see if other countries in the word feature such tools for databases.) In France there is the Bibliothèque du Sénat (where I've worked before), but they don't feature any historical information online.
I'm also wondering, how does it work with the copyright law if someone needed to quote information from Hansard and their XML files in an article or book?
By the by, Happy Birthday for yesterday to Phil Carter!

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

Just a quick back up about Dr. Tanner's arrest in March 1889. It seems indeed that the Dr. Tanner mentioned in the SB files may well be the same man as above. Here are some details of his arrest.

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887 (ARREST OF DR. TANNER.)
HC Deb 04 March 1889

MR. SPEAKER acquainted the House that he had received the following letter relating to the arrest of Dr. Tanner, a Member of this House:— "March 2nd, 1889." "Sir," "I have the honour to acquaint you that I have received a communication from the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, informing me that Dr. Charles K. D. Tanner, a Member of the House of Commons, was arrested at an early hour this morning, within the Metropolitan Police District, under a Warrant granted by H. F. Considine, Esq., a Justice of the Peace for the County of Tipperary, for offences therein specified against the provisions of "The Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887," and duly backed by me on February 20th last, for the purpose of being executed within my jurisdiction." "I have the honour to be, Sir," "Your obedient Servant," "J. VAUGHAN." "A Metropolitan Police Magistrate." "The Right Hon. the Speaker," "House of Commons."

More details can be found here:-

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/search/Dr%20Tanner%20arrest

Dr. Charles K.D.Tanner MP died 21st April 1901, and was buried at Kensall Green Cemetary.

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Dr. Tanner

Hello all,

Here is a transcript fron Lloyd's Weekly dated 30th December 1888, page 4 that refers to a Dr. Tanner, a name previously mentioned in this thread. Given that a Dr. Tanner was apparently under the watch of the SB, and given this man's background (Member for Cork, Ireland), as stated underneath, it may well be possible that this Dr. Tanner is the one which is written of in the SB Ledgers. It appears that this is one Dr. Charles Tanner, MP.


The Appropriation Bill.

The House then went into committee on the Appropriation bill, Sir J. Gorst in the chair.
Dr. TANNER, on the question whether Clause 1 should stand part of the bill, rose, as he said, for the specific purpose of getting an answer to a question which heasked on Thursday.
SIR JOHN GORST ruled the hon. member out of order, and despite Dr. Tanner's noisy protests put the question.—
Dr. TANNER was the only dissentient, and Sir J. GORST said: The "Ayes" have it.—Upon this Dr. TANNER shouted: The " Noes " have it.
A division was then announced, but before the members left the House Dr. TANNER said he withdrew his demand for a division.

SUSPENSION OF DR. TANNER.

Dr. CLARK, Dr. CALDWELL, and Dr. TANNER each proposed amendments on different parts of the bill, but the CHAIRMAN ruled each of the amendments out of order, and as each was ruled irrelevant much merriment was
caused on the Ministerial side of the House. One of Dr.TANNER'S amendments was to reduce the salary of the Under Secretary for India, but the chairman ruled that-it was too late to propose that now.—After nearly
half-an-hour had been spent in this way, the CHAIRMAN said that the question before the House was that Schedule B be part of the bill.
Dr. TANNER: As I disapprove strongly of the policy of murder and assassination, backed by lying, and as I'disapprove of the employment of such means, although they may be congenial to certain people—I wish to put it as mildly as I possibly can, in order that the Chief Secretary
may understand it—I move that this Schedule B be not appropriated.
The CHAIRMAN: Order, order; it is now too late for that (laughter).
Dr. TANNER: When we are here in Committee of Supply appropriating money to a swindler and a thief, the servant of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, the Chief Secretary ought to be in his place, and it is a coward
he is The CHAIRMAN : Order, order. I call upon the hon. member to resume his seat.
Dr. TANNER: I say the Chief Secretary is a coward, and I call him a coward (cries of " Order, order").
The CHAIRMAN .- I ask the hon. member to withdraw the name " coward."
Dr. TANNER, in a loud voice: I call him a coward and a liar, and he is both (" Order, order," and uproar).
The CHAIRMAN : The hon. gentleman has refused to withdraw, and repeated it. I have no alternative but to name yon, Dr. Tanner, for disregarding the authority of the chair.
Dr. TANNER shouted, "With the greatest pleasure."
Mr. GOSCHEN moved that Dr. Tanner be suspended from the service of the House.
The motion was agreed to without a discussion, and the Speaker having returned to the chair.
Sir J. GORST reported that the committee had resolved that Dr. Tanner, member for Mid-Cork, should be suspended for disregarding the authority of the chair. Mr. GOSCHEN then moved that Dr. Tanner be suspended,
and this was agreed to, there being no dissentient voice.
The House having again gone into committee, The bill was then reported without any amendments, and the third reading was fixed for noon on Saturday.

I will endeavour to try to find more eamples of this "Dr. T"...Dr. Charles Tanner was apparently at one time in March 1889 arrested and taken to Scotland Yard where he spent the night sitting in an armchair! It seems the man had much to say in the House, according to references in Hansard.
I am also wondering how many of the MP's that represented parts of Ireland were under watch at this time from the SB, given the Parnell situation.


best wishes

Phil

[spyglass]

Trevor,
Good luck with your efforts.

[mariab]

3 suspects for the Ripper referred in the SB ledgers?

As a newbie I have a question pertaining to the Special Brand ledgers and their alleged referring to 3 “suspects“ for the Ripper, including “William Mac Grath“. Would the experienced Ripperologists among you be perhaps willing to explain to me what Mr. Marriot meant when he posted the quote below on the thread about Examiner 2?
Trevor Marriot quote:
The ledgers as I have seen do list the names of 2 suspects in addittion to the entry regarding McGrath so we must sit, wait, wonder, and hope. These may be names we are familiar with or may be completely new.
One way this quote makes sense is if Mr Marriot is relying on Clutterbuck's thesis, which only quotes "William Mac Grath“'s name as a suspect mentioned in the ledgers. Otherwise, if Mr. Marriot has indeed perused the ledgers, then his “we must sit, wait, wonder, and hope“ can only mean that the 3 suspects' names in the ledgers have been redacted in their current form, but we already knew about “William Mc Grath“ from Clutterbuck's thesis, so one of the 3 “suspects“ referred in the ledgers is clear already.
Clutterbuck, interestingly enough, has also claimed that he found no reference to Tumblety in the ledgers. A thought I'm having is, “Mc Grath“ is referenced in the ledgers not directly as a suspect, it only says "in connection with the Whitechapel murders“. Could it be that Magrath was questioned by the MET as a witness/informant pertaining to Tumblety, IF he happened to know Tumblety? This might make much more sense than to conjecture another painter as a Ripper suspect!
I can't wait for Examiner 4 to come out, so as to read the last part of R.J. Palmer's new research on Tumblety.
Could perhaps someone corroborate me if my above assumptions about the “3 suspects“ referred in the SB ledgers are correct or not?
Thank you very much and

[Steven Russell]

Yes, good luck, Trevor.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Trevor,

I wish you the best of luck in your efforts. Let us all hope that the verdict falls in your favour.

best wishes

Phil

[claire]

Good work, Trevor, and good luck!

[lynn cates]

forefront

Hello Trevor. I hope your meaning is that some wish to be in the forefront of forcing the truth from the ledgers in order to eradicate all the erroneous accretions that have built up in ripperology over the years.

That would be a service indeed!

Cheers.
LC

[Trevor Marriott]

Thank you Lynn

I wish that were the case but it seems some are trying to get in front !

[lynn cates]

good luck

Hello Trevor. Thanks for the update!

Good luck--we are all behind you.

Cheers.
LC

[Trevor Marriott]

UPDATE

As most of you know in February 2009 I started to take steps to secure free and unlimited access to the Special Branch registers and the ledgers. In addittion to trying to secure this access I also made several specific requests relating to several entries appertaining to The ripper which i knew were contained within the registers.

The Met Police refused to acceed to any of my requests and since then I have taken the matter to the Freedom of Information commissioners. They in turn took up the case and in turn contacted the Met Police who have now responded.

The Freedom of Information commissioners having now received the response are now obliged to issue a formal decison notice to both parties. I do not know what that decision is at this time and it may be several more weeks before I am officially notified.

If they rule in favour of the police then I am at liberty to appeal that decision and ask for an independent tribunal hearing which of course I will automatically do.

I have put together a strong case to support my appeal. This is based on

1. Being able to prove that Special Branch officers provided information that was misleading to a previous tribunal (Butterworths Feb 2009) which resulted in the decison to redact all proper names from the ledgers/registers

2. Being able to prove that the vast marjority of enries in the ledgers/registers do not relate to informants as the police suggest, hence their previous objections.

Finally I have to say that all of these problems with the ledgers and access could well have been resolved in 2009 when Butterworth made his appeal to have un restricted access. However despite being the appellant he was never notified of the appeal hearing date and they went ahead without him being present, and being given the opportunity to present his case. Had he been there i have no doubt that he would have been successful.

I spoke to him following the appeal and made him aware of the appeal procedure which could only be done in The High Court and he decided against it. Had he done so he could have had the tribunal decision set aside and a new tribunal convened.

As andwhen there are any new developments I wil update everyone.

[Chris]

Talking of which, Clutterbuck also writes..

"The proposition that there was a possible Irish suspect for these murders is not as incongruous as it seems. At least one book, "The Lodger" (Evans and Gainey, 1995) is based on a Home Office memorandum relating to this idea and there are more relevant entries in the Chief Constable's Register. It does not corroborate their theory but does enable an outline to be constructed of a intriguing story involving an extreme Irish nationalist who is suspected of being "Jack the Ripper", an alleged plot to assassinate the Secretary for Ireland, Balfour, and the activities of a private detective agency."
(my emphasis)

Intruiging indeed. For here we have another reference that matches Douglas G. Browne's 1956 comment in his book The Rise of Scotland Yard.

I think the important question has to be whether Clutterbuck is saying that outline can be constructed solely from information in the ledger, or whether it also requires ingredients from other sources, such as Browne's book.

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

Looking through Clutterbuck's thesis An Accident of History, submitted to Portsmouth University in June, 2002, he note the dates of the following. He lists when each of the points hereunder were first brought into action within Special Branch:-

Intelligence gathering from convicts & their visitors/contacts 1888/90
Specific tasking of informants 1888/90
"Lifestyle" payments to informants 1888/90
Gathering overt information from the media 1880/90
Interception of communications (postal & telegraphic) 1880/90
Systemised collection/collation/recording of intelligence and
information 1880/90

From the Chief Constable's Register, Clutterbuck noted few references that can be looked into re the Whitechapel murders. He quotes directly from a few, though not many, of the estimated 30,000 one line entries. His thesis was primarily directed towards the Fenian Issue, that notwithstanding, he noted the following:-

"Fitzgerald,Dr - Observation kept on his house, re. Dr Tanner" .

"Tanner, Dr - Complaining of police watching J.E. Kennedy".

I notice that here we have two mentions of the same doctor. Ironically, a "Dr.T"...

Talking of which, Clutterbuck also writes..

"The proposition that there was a possible Irish suspect for these murders is not as incongruous as it seems. At least one book, "The Lodger" (Evans and Gainey, 1995) is based on a Home Office memorandum relating to this idea and there are more relevant entries in the Chief Constable's Register. It does not corroborate their theory but does enable an outline to be constructed of a intriguing story involving an extreme Irish nationalist who is suspected of being "Jack the Ripper", an alleged plot to assassinate the Secretary for Ireland, Balfour, and the activities of a private detective agency."
(my emphasis)

Intruiging indeed. For here we have another reference that matches Douglas G. Browne's 1956 comment in his book The Rise of Scotland Yard.

All of which give us a tiny peep into something that could well open up Ripperology for years to come should more light be shone on these now infamous ledgers.

best wishes

Phil