Tweet
One of the complaints against Sir Charles Warren, which clearly emerged from senior officers within the Metropolitan Police, and which featured in the press during the summer of 1888, was the fact that he was constantly sending out orders, regulations and memoranda relating to administrative matters, thus making everyone’s life a nightmare of paperwork. As the Daily News commented on 31 August 1888:
"With the best possible intentions, he [Sir Charles Warren] rides roughshod over everybody's feelings and susceptibilities, and some of his oldest and ablest superintendents feel themselves under a military despotism quite new to their experience. Every detail of the service has been upset, and they are in continual receipt of "Orders" and circulars, the study and carrying out of which they find add very greatly to their work and anxiety. All sorts of petty details of the service, formerly left very much to the direction of the officers, are made the subject of stringent and minute instructions."
One of the new orders, of course, was introduced on 9 February 1888 in respect of the submission of special reports to Central Office.
By way of history, it seems clear that, during the 1870s, special reports were submitted to the A.C.B., who was William C. Harris. His initials are, for example, all over reports from 1877 in MEPO 3/128, MEPO 3/129. After the appointment of Howard Vincent as Director of the Criminal Investigation Department in 1878, however, it seems that he received the reports, as covers of Special Reports from June 1884 (e.g. MEPO 3/137) have "To the Director of Criminal Investigation" stamped on the cover.
In July 1884, the position of A.C.C. was created, with James Monro being the first appointment to this post. Received stamps on the special reports from late 1884 say "Metropolitan Police Criminal Investigation Department" (MEPO 3/137) and subsequently printed forms were introduced on which was printed on the cover "To the Assistant Commissioner Criminal Investigation Department".
The likelihood is that divisional reports were submitted by superintendents directly to the A.C.C. However, I am going to suggest that, after Chief Superintendent Williamson was appointed as District Superintendent, a.k.a. Confidential Assistant to the A.C.C., in July 1886, and subsequently became Chief Constable, the likelihood is that he received/read the special reports from the divisions (and from C.I.D. detectives) and forwarded them to the A.C.C. I cannot cite any documents to support this, although I note that the Commissioner’s Memo of 8 December 1886 states that all Morning Reports of crime from the divisions would be seen in the library by the Chief Constables and would then go to the A.C.C. before going to Executive Branch (MEPO 7/134). If special reports were being sent to Williamson for him to forward to the A.C.C. it would make sense of what followed.
Police Order of 9 February 1888 (MEPO 7/50) is very long but one key element states:
"A special report, containing the fullest obtainable information and the steps taken by Police, with the names of officers engaged in the inquiry, is to be sent to the Executive Branch immediately on the occurrence of a Crime of such importance as to require the submission of special reports".
Why did Sir Charles Warren introduce a system whereby special reports were sent not to the Criminal Investigation Department but to the Executive Branch? I offer three possible but speculative explanations:
1. As at 9 February 1888, Chief Constable Williamson was very ill. Two days earlier, a letter from James Monro to Sir Charles Warren forwarding a medical certificate from Dr Bond stated: "Mr Williamson has been very seriously ill…he must take long leave" (MEPO 2/210). Williamson was granted sick leave on 10 February and a Police Order of 17 February 1888 stated: "A.F. Williamson Esq., Chief Constable, has, by Secretary of State’s Letter dated 10th inst., been granted leave for three months, on full pay". In the knowledge that the Williamson was not well, did Sir Charles Warren decide that the workload on the A.C.C. would be eased if reports were submitted to the Executive Branch (for the Superintendent in the Executive Branch to decide whether to forward to the ACC rather than the District Superintendent/Chief Constable)? I suspect, however, that the timing of Williamson’s illness and the PO of 9 February 1888 is a coincidence as it is seems unlikely that Sir Charles Warren would have issued an order involving such a change of procedure based on the temporary illness of one individual.
2. The second possible reason for the new procedure could that Sir Charles did not trust Monro to keep him properly informed on criminal matters so he wanted all information to be routed through the Executive Branch which he trusted more than C.I.D..
3. A third reason is less Machiavellian and may simply have been that C.I.D was being swamped with special reports which should not properly have been sent to C.I.D. It is certainly the case that later in the year, on 6 November 1888, Sir Charles issued a memorandum saying that "A great number of subjects have gradually drifted over to the C.I.D. registry, which are not connected with crime" and he listed 10 such subjects including "insane persons" and "Attempted suicides when not connected with murder" which were inappropriately being addressed to C.ID. So it is possible that this was in his mind in February although, if so, one would have thought he would have issued such a memorandum in February rather than changing the process of submission of reports.
Any further suggestions as to why special reports were required to go through the Executive Branch gratefully received.
The P.O. of 9 February 1888 would not have affected Chief Constable Williamson at first because he was on leave for three months and would not have returned to work until May. Whether he was irritated that the superintendent at the Executive Branch (Charles Cutbush) got to see all special reports on crime before him can only be guessed at but if the Globe newspaper is to be believed (see below) there seemed to be a catastrophic failure in respect of the murder of Martha Tabram whereby the news of her murder on 7 August 1888 was not communicated to Chief Constable Williamson until about 14 August.
In this respect, a couple of points are worth noting.
The only surviving special report before 14 August is the report of Inspector Ellisdon dated 10 August 1888 and, in the absence of the cover of this report, we have no information as to how it was submitted and whether it even reached C.I.D. and the A.C.C. at all.
There were, apparently, two special reports before the special report by Inspector Reid of 16 August, and, as Superintendent Cutbush has noted that this report was the "third" special report, it would appear to be the case that he had received the first two. The pertinent question, however, is whether he successfully forwarded them to the A.C.C. On this issue, it may be that James Monro was not fully concentrating. He apparently handed in his notice on 16 August (according to a post dated 16.06.08 in this forum by Simon Wood) before leaving his position at the end of the month, so there might have been an element of disorganisation within C.I.D. which prevented news of the murder reaching Williamson.
In any event, Williamson was not happy and it seems that he blamed Sir Charles Warren for the breakdown of communication to the extent that he appears to have briefed against the Commissioner in September (or at least someone did on his behalf). As previously posted in other threads, the Globe of 10 September published an article containing the following statement:
"It seems hardly credible, and yet it is perfectly true, that when the first of the three recent diabolical murders in Whitechapel occurred about a month ago, Mr Superintendent Williamson, though attending daily at Scotland-yard, in charge of the Detective Department, received no notice whatever for a whole week that any such crime had been committed, and that this happened not accidentally or through carelessness, but in accordance with a deliberate plan on the part of the Commissioner of Police."
It may be noted that the issue here seems to have been historic, relating to a problem in early August, and there is no reason to think that any problem of communication continued during the rest of August and September in respect of the murders of Nichols and Chapman, but the fact that something was being referred to as a "deliberate plan on the part of the Commissioner" suggests to me that senior officials of C.ID., and Williamson in particular, did not like the new procedure for submitting special reports (because what else could the Globe have been referring to?).
Can it be a coincidence that a mere two days after the Globe article was published, Sir Charles Warren effectively rescinded that part of P.O. of 09.02.88 which related to the submission of special reports?
In two separate memoranda issued by Sir Charles Warren on 12 September 1888 (MEPO 7/134) it was announced, firstly:
"C.I. Department – Reports on Crime
...
Special reports to be addressed to Asst Commr C.I.D. and sent direct to C.I.D. and filed there.
....
Special reports need not in future be sent in weekly, but from time to time when Supt considers it necessary"
Then, in the second memorandum:
"Correspondence –Special Reports and Returns
Orders, Sec X, page 542
With reference to para 51 of the above order the special reports of serious crime directed to be made are in future to be sent in as follows
(a) addressed to Asst Commr, C.I. Department in lieu of Executive Branch.
(b) The reports of progress of cases will not be required weekly but only from time to time as circumstances may, in the opinion of the Supt, render it desirable.
Consolidated Orders to be amended accordingly "
I cannot say for sure to how these instructions were interpreted within the upper echelons of the police force but, in my opinion, especially in the context of the Globe article, it is difficult to view this change of policy as anything other than a humiliating climb down by Sir Charles Warren, whose position had recently been undermined by the resignation of Assistant Commissioner James Monro, and who was being severely criticised in the press for the failure of his force to catch the man believed to have committed three murders in Whitechapel (amongst other things).
The resignation of Chief Constable Williamson on a point of procedure at this stage in September might well have been the end of Warren. So my guess is that the change of procedure was forced upon him, although that is no more than a guess.
It is notable that, after 12 September, no special reports were submitted to the Executive Branch but, instead, were almost invariably sent direct to C.I.D., either being addressed to the A.C.C. or to Chief Constable Williamson. In particular, I believe that the Commissioner’s memorandum of 12 September explains the following statement by Inspector Abberline in his report of 14 September 1888 (p.54 of the Sourcebook) in which he says:
"With regard to Commissioner’s memorandum of 13th I have submitted special report".
I believe that 13th is an error for 12th as there were no memoranda issued by Sir Charles Warren on 13 September according to MEPO 7/134 (being the Commissioner’s Memoranda). Note that Abberline’s report of 14 September expressly states on the cover "Submitted to A.F. Williamson Esq".
As far as I have been able to establish, this change of procedure was never announced in Police Orders (a sign of the Commissioner’s embarrassment?) although it did feature in the Consolidated Orders which were amended to state:
"A special report, containing the fullest available information and the steps taken by Police, with the names of officers engaged in the inquiry, is to be sent to Assistant Commissioner, C.I. Department, immediately on the occurrence of a Crime of such importance as to require the submission of special reports".
No longer would special reports be sent to the Executive Branch but instead came in direct to C.I.D.
As a result, Mr Williamson was, no doubt, a happy, if rather unwell, man!
"With the best possible intentions, he [Sir Charles Warren] rides roughshod over everybody's feelings and susceptibilities, and some of his oldest and ablest superintendents feel themselves under a military despotism quite new to their experience. Every detail of the service has been upset, and they are in continual receipt of "Orders" and circulars, the study and carrying out of which they find add very greatly to their work and anxiety. All sorts of petty details of the service, formerly left very much to the direction of the officers, are made the subject of stringent and minute instructions."
One of the new orders, of course, was introduced on 9 February 1888 in respect of the submission of special reports to Central Office.
By way of history, it seems clear that, during the 1870s, special reports were submitted to the A.C.B., who was William C. Harris. His initials are, for example, all over reports from 1877 in MEPO 3/128, MEPO 3/129. After the appointment of Howard Vincent as Director of the Criminal Investigation Department in 1878, however, it seems that he received the reports, as covers of Special Reports from June 1884 (e.g. MEPO 3/137) have "To the Director of Criminal Investigation" stamped on the cover.
In July 1884, the position of A.C.C. was created, with James Monro being the first appointment to this post. Received stamps on the special reports from late 1884 say "Metropolitan Police Criminal Investigation Department" (MEPO 3/137) and subsequently printed forms were introduced on which was printed on the cover "To the Assistant Commissioner Criminal Investigation Department".
The likelihood is that divisional reports were submitted by superintendents directly to the A.C.C. However, I am going to suggest that, after Chief Superintendent Williamson was appointed as District Superintendent, a.k.a. Confidential Assistant to the A.C.C., in July 1886, and subsequently became Chief Constable, the likelihood is that he received/read the special reports from the divisions (and from C.I.D. detectives) and forwarded them to the A.C.C. I cannot cite any documents to support this, although I note that the Commissioner’s Memo of 8 December 1886 states that all Morning Reports of crime from the divisions would be seen in the library by the Chief Constables and would then go to the A.C.C. before going to Executive Branch (MEPO 7/134). If special reports were being sent to Williamson for him to forward to the A.C.C. it would make sense of what followed.
Police Order of 9 February 1888 (MEPO 7/50) is very long but one key element states:
"A special report, containing the fullest obtainable information and the steps taken by Police, with the names of officers engaged in the inquiry, is to be sent to the Executive Branch immediately on the occurrence of a Crime of such importance as to require the submission of special reports".
Why did Sir Charles Warren introduce a system whereby special reports were sent not to the Criminal Investigation Department but to the Executive Branch? I offer three possible but speculative explanations:
1. As at 9 February 1888, Chief Constable Williamson was very ill. Two days earlier, a letter from James Monro to Sir Charles Warren forwarding a medical certificate from Dr Bond stated: "Mr Williamson has been very seriously ill…he must take long leave" (MEPO 2/210). Williamson was granted sick leave on 10 February and a Police Order of 17 February 1888 stated: "A.F. Williamson Esq., Chief Constable, has, by Secretary of State’s Letter dated 10th inst., been granted leave for three months, on full pay". In the knowledge that the Williamson was not well, did Sir Charles Warren decide that the workload on the A.C.C. would be eased if reports were submitted to the Executive Branch (for the Superintendent in the Executive Branch to decide whether to forward to the ACC rather than the District Superintendent/Chief Constable)? I suspect, however, that the timing of Williamson’s illness and the PO of 9 February 1888 is a coincidence as it is seems unlikely that Sir Charles Warren would have issued an order involving such a change of procedure based on the temporary illness of one individual.
2. The second possible reason for the new procedure could that Sir Charles did not trust Monro to keep him properly informed on criminal matters so he wanted all information to be routed through the Executive Branch which he trusted more than C.I.D..
3. A third reason is less Machiavellian and may simply have been that C.I.D was being swamped with special reports which should not properly have been sent to C.I.D. It is certainly the case that later in the year, on 6 November 1888, Sir Charles issued a memorandum saying that "A great number of subjects have gradually drifted over to the C.I.D. registry, which are not connected with crime" and he listed 10 such subjects including "insane persons" and "Attempted suicides when not connected with murder" which were inappropriately being addressed to C.ID. So it is possible that this was in his mind in February although, if so, one would have thought he would have issued such a memorandum in February rather than changing the process of submission of reports.
Any further suggestions as to why special reports were required to go through the Executive Branch gratefully received.
The P.O. of 9 February 1888 would not have affected Chief Constable Williamson at first because he was on leave for three months and would not have returned to work until May. Whether he was irritated that the superintendent at the Executive Branch (Charles Cutbush) got to see all special reports on crime before him can only be guessed at but if the Globe newspaper is to be believed (see below) there seemed to be a catastrophic failure in respect of the murder of Martha Tabram whereby the news of her murder on 7 August 1888 was not communicated to Chief Constable Williamson until about 14 August.
In this respect, a couple of points are worth noting.
The only surviving special report before 14 August is the report of Inspector Ellisdon dated 10 August 1888 and, in the absence of the cover of this report, we have no information as to how it was submitted and whether it even reached C.I.D. and the A.C.C. at all.
There were, apparently, two special reports before the special report by Inspector Reid of 16 August, and, as Superintendent Cutbush has noted that this report was the "third" special report, it would appear to be the case that he had received the first two. The pertinent question, however, is whether he successfully forwarded them to the A.C.C. On this issue, it may be that James Monro was not fully concentrating. He apparently handed in his notice on 16 August (according to a post dated 16.06.08 in this forum by Simon Wood) before leaving his position at the end of the month, so there might have been an element of disorganisation within C.I.D. which prevented news of the murder reaching Williamson.
In any event, Williamson was not happy and it seems that he blamed Sir Charles Warren for the breakdown of communication to the extent that he appears to have briefed against the Commissioner in September (or at least someone did on his behalf). As previously posted in other threads, the Globe of 10 September published an article containing the following statement:
"It seems hardly credible, and yet it is perfectly true, that when the first of the three recent diabolical murders in Whitechapel occurred about a month ago, Mr Superintendent Williamson, though attending daily at Scotland-yard, in charge of the Detective Department, received no notice whatever for a whole week that any such crime had been committed, and that this happened not accidentally or through carelessness, but in accordance with a deliberate plan on the part of the Commissioner of Police."
It may be noted that the issue here seems to have been historic, relating to a problem in early August, and there is no reason to think that any problem of communication continued during the rest of August and September in respect of the murders of Nichols and Chapman, but the fact that something was being referred to as a "deliberate plan on the part of the Commissioner" suggests to me that senior officials of C.ID., and Williamson in particular, did not like the new procedure for submitting special reports (because what else could the Globe have been referring to?).
Can it be a coincidence that a mere two days after the Globe article was published, Sir Charles Warren effectively rescinded that part of P.O. of 09.02.88 which related to the submission of special reports?
In two separate memoranda issued by Sir Charles Warren on 12 September 1888 (MEPO 7/134) it was announced, firstly:
"C.I. Department – Reports on Crime
...
Special reports to be addressed to Asst Commr C.I.D. and sent direct to C.I.D. and filed there.
....
Special reports need not in future be sent in weekly, but from time to time when Supt considers it necessary"
Then, in the second memorandum:
"Correspondence –Special Reports and Returns
Orders, Sec X, page 542
With reference to para 51 of the above order the special reports of serious crime directed to be made are in future to be sent in as follows
(a) addressed to Asst Commr, C.I. Department in lieu of Executive Branch.
(b) The reports of progress of cases will not be required weekly but only from time to time as circumstances may, in the opinion of the Supt, render it desirable.
Consolidated Orders to be amended accordingly "
I cannot say for sure to how these instructions were interpreted within the upper echelons of the police force but, in my opinion, especially in the context of the Globe article, it is difficult to view this change of policy as anything other than a humiliating climb down by Sir Charles Warren, whose position had recently been undermined by the resignation of Assistant Commissioner James Monro, and who was being severely criticised in the press for the failure of his force to catch the man believed to have committed three murders in Whitechapel (amongst other things).
The resignation of Chief Constable Williamson on a point of procedure at this stage in September might well have been the end of Warren. So my guess is that the change of procedure was forced upon him, although that is no more than a guess.
It is notable that, after 12 September, no special reports were submitted to the Executive Branch but, instead, were almost invariably sent direct to C.I.D., either being addressed to the A.C.C. or to Chief Constable Williamson. In particular, I believe that the Commissioner’s memorandum of 12 September explains the following statement by Inspector Abberline in his report of 14 September 1888 (p.54 of the Sourcebook) in which he says:
"With regard to Commissioner’s memorandum of 13th I have submitted special report".
I believe that 13th is an error for 12th as there were no memoranda issued by Sir Charles Warren on 13 September according to MEPO 7/134 (being the Commissioner’s Memoranda). Note that Abberline’s report of 14 September expressly states on the cover "Submitted to A.F. Williamson Esq".
As far as I have been able to establish, this change of procedure was never announced in Police Orders (a sign of the Commissioner’s embarrassment?) although it did feature in the Consolidated Orders which were amended to state:
"A special report, containing the fullest available information and the steps taken by Police, with the names of officers engaged in the inquiry, is to be sent to Assistant Commissioner, C.I. Department, immediately on the occurrence of a Crime of such importance as to require the submission of special reports".
No longer would special reports be sent to the Executive Branch but instead came in direct to C.I.D.
As a result, Mr Williamson was, no doubt, a happy, if rather unwell, man!
Comment