The 'Suckered!' Trilogy

[Mayerling]

Hi Wolf,

When the action of issuing a warrant for Piggott’s arrest was discussed Parnell and Russell were adamant that it not be handled by Scotland Yard because they didn’t trust them to carry it out in a timely manner or, possibly, at all. It was finally decided that what we would now call an “all points bulletin” would be issued so that as many police, nation-wide, would be looking for Piggott rather than just Scotland Yard. Russell (and others) would later state that they believed that Piggott was bundled out of the country by members of Scotland Yard. Exactly why Russell would believe this to be true, even years later, is not clear.

My guess is that Russell, having been Attorney-General a few years earlier, had gotten some idea of how Scotland Yard might be selectively choosey about when to act and when not to act concerning watching or slowing down the movements of potential "flight risks" from serious legal actions. Oddly enough I can think of three incidents (in 1889, in 1892, and in 1895) which somewhat mirror this (one has to say "somewhat" because one is left with one's own feelings and speculations on these matters - nobody in any authority leaves any paper trail if they are sane).

The first incident I can recall were the flight of Lord Arthur Somerset in 1889 in the wake of the investigation into the male bordello on Cleveland Street, and how not only was it amazingly easy for him to flee but he even managed to have a fairly comfortable exile in France for the rest of his life (why no attempt at extradition there I wonder?). His connection to the Royal Family and the fact that (like Piggott the same year) it occurred under a Tory Government (the same one as a matter of fact) looks rather interesting.

The 1892 incident was the flight of Mr. Jabez Balfour, member for Croyden, upon the collapse of his "Liberator" group of businesses. In the words of Edward Marjoribanks in his biography of Marshall-Hall, Balfour multi-million pound failure made him "the thief of the 19th century". Yet in the face of the disaster he was able to flee Britain and reach Argentina (though - to be fair - Inspector Froest of Scotland Yard managed to kidnap Balfour and drag him back to England for trial a few years later). Balfour (like Labouchere) was a Liberal MP, but actually had been considered for cabinet rank. As his "Liberator" group, in their vast building schemes in London, built property they named "the Hotel Cecil", I have frequently wondered if Balfour also had close ties to upper echelon Tory leadership (i.e. Lord Salisbury himself). In which case having a foot in both camps the ease of his flight makes sense somehow. However the anger of the public in this case was too big to push aside - hence Fred Froest's trip to the pampas.

The last was the fate in 1895 (after the Queensbury trial fiasco) of Oscar Wilde. The Rosebery Government dragged it's feet for a long afternoon and evening before getting about to arresting Wilde at his hotel. It was latter, again, assumed that the authorities hoped that Wilde would quickly pack some luggage and take a boat train to Dover and then get to the continent, before the warrant for his arrest was presented. They little realized the powers of persuasion of "Bosie".

Jeff

[Mayerling]

Hi All,

THE SPECIAL COMMISSION—THE CASE OF MR. PIGOTT.
House of Commons Debate 26 February 1889 vol 333 cc481-4

MR. FORREST FULTON (West Ham, N.) I desire to ask the Home Secretary whether he can now explain the delay which is alleged to have taken place on the part of the police in dealing with the warrant for the arrest of Mr. R. Pigott? I understand that the warrant was issued early in the day by the Special Commission.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,) Birmingham, E. Yes, Mr. Speaker; I am able to state that there was no delay whatever on the part of the police. Since I was questioned on the subject by the hon. and learned Member for Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy), I have received information that the Bench warrant issued this morning by the Commission Court was not brought to Scotland Yard till a quarter past 6 by a person in the employment of Messrs. Lewis and Lewis. It was not, therefore, until that hour that the police could possibly take any steps for the arrest of Mr. Pigott. Immediately the warrant was received, every step that was possible was taken by telegraphing to the ports and by employing persons to watch at all railway stations.

MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.) As this question has been raised, evidently by arrangement, I beg leave to remind the House that my first question was whether any kind of surveillance had existed with regard to the Times witnesses, and undoubtedly it had; and my question to the Government was why, that being so, the police let Mr. Pigott slip out of their fingers? Now, an illusory question is put by the hon. and learned Member with regard to the execution of the warrant. That point was not raised at all by me. If the Government are now taking the point that the warrant was not brought to Scotland Yard till 6 o'clock, I respectfully submit to them, in the interests of justice, that as hundreds of officials were in the neighbourhood of the Court they must have known at 12 o'clock, or at 1 o'clock at the latest, that the warrant was issued, and it was their duty to see that the closure, with which we are familiar in this House, was put upon the ports of the kingdom. But that was not my complaint or allegation at all. My complaint is, that you had delegated two sergeants of the Royal Irish Constabulary to look after Pigott—Sergeants Fawcett and Gallagher—and that precious consignment having been committed to their keeping, and they having got him, why did they not keep him? Therefore, the point of my observation remains—namely, that the Irish Government, having paid two police sergeants to watch Mr. Pigott, when the critical hour of 6 o'clock (at which the Continental train leaves Charing Cross) arrived, those two sergeants found it convenient to shut their eyes to the absence of Mr. Pigott. A more convenient opportunity will be taken to find how it was that "our old friend Walter" had put at his disposal those two sergeants to guard his precious charge Pigott, and why, when it became suitable, "our old friend Walter" allowed Pigott to escape.

MR. MATTHEWS I must correct the hon. Gentleman a little. His questions, addressed to me this afternoon with less courtesy than is usual even with him, implied that I was acting in collusion with Mr. Richard Pigott, and had allowed him to escape. I replied that no knowledge or information of Mr. Pigott's escape had reached me. That has been explained by the fact that Scotland Yard, through which alone I could get information, and which has nothing to do with the Irish police, and which alone has authority to execute Bench warrants issued in England, did not obtain information from Messrs. Lewis and Lewis, who had charge of this Bench warrant, until 6 o'clock in the evening. It is, therefore, not surprising that I should have had no information, and I should have expected from the hon. Member some sort of apology for the insinuations he addressed to me about 4 o'clock this afternoon.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

I have a book about Sir George Lewis's firm of solicitors, which (in this case) were representing Parnell and had given the brief to Russell (one of the barristers they frequently used - Sir Edward Clarke was another). It is odd that they apparently were delayed in bringing the warrant to the Yard. Either something official managed to delay them fully getting the warrant from the Commission as Matthews said, or they purposely were slow delivering it to the Yard. Lewis was a very skillful solicitor, who knew many secrets about the upper crust of his period and tactfully did not make much about these secrets if he could avoid it. It is possible he might have felt Piggott fleeing the borders was a good thing - again though this is just my speculation.

Jeff

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jeff,

Thank you. Here's a later take on events.

House of Commons, 14th April 1910.

Winston Churchill [Home Secretary]—

Sir Robert Anderson was at Scotland Yard at the time of Pigott's escape, and it was by officers belonging to his Department that Pigott was traced from place to place until finally his arrest was secured in Madrid.

Previous to his flight he was not in any way under the surveillance of Scotland Yard officers; he was attended by two officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary, not for the purpose of watching him, but to protect him from molestation.

These officers reported his disappearance on the afternoon of 25th February, 1889, and the following day the Commission issued its warrant for his arrest.

The warrant was directed to the Commissioner of Police, and thus for the first time brought Scotland Yard into the case, with the result that he was pursued and captured, though at the moment of capture he committed suicide. There was no occasion for any official inquiry, all the facts being notorious.

Regards,

Simon

[Mayerling]

Hi Jeff,

Thank you. Here's a later take on events.

House of Commons, 14th April 1910.

Winston Churchill [Home Secretary]—

Sir Robert Anderson was at Scotland Yard at the time of Pigott's escape, and it was by officers belonging to his Department that Pigott was traced from place to place until finally his arrest was secured in Madrid.

Previous to his flight he was not in any way under the surveillance of Scotland Yard officers; he was attended by two officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary, not for the purpose of watching him, but to protect him from molestation.

These officers reported his disappearance on the afternoon of 25th February, 1889, and the following day the Commission issued its warrant for his arrest.

The warrant was directed to the Commissioner of Police, and thus for the first time brought Scotland Yard into the case, with the result that he was pursued and captured, though at the moment of capture he committed suicide. There was no occasion for any official inquiry, all the facts being notorious.

Regards,

Simon

Thanks Simon. Now I wonder why Churchill was discussing it in April 1910.

Jeff

[David Orsam]

But I would consider that extremely relevant. If Anderson, Monro, etc were indeed doing some sly stuff in support of the Times it provides a context in which the American papers and Labouchere made their accusations and lends some measure of credibility to Labouchere (although would still fall short of proof regarding Jarvis).

I entirely agree that it would be relevant because it would explain why Labouchere misled himself so disastrously into thinking so emphatically that the allegations he was making were true. To that extent, it is not really important whether Anderson, Monro etc were doing sly stuff or not - only that Labouchere believed them to be doing it.

If, however, they really were doing sly stuff - and made admissions about it to the Commission - I would have expected to have read all about this in Simon Wood's book but I don't recall it.

and lends some measure of credibility to Labouchere (although would still fall short of proof regarding Jarvis).

This I find to be a contradiction in terms. The Labouchere allegations were the Jarvis allegations. They were the same thing.

But if we allow for this, then fine. First, prove that Anderson and Monro were committing illegal acts to assist the Times. You can't just rely on Labouchere's understanding of what he thinks had happened. The evidence to the Commission was in public so easily available. Then you have a starting point - but even then it can't in any universe place Jarvis in Del Norte when he wasn't there and had never been to within hundreds of miles of the town!

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jeff,

Busily protecting Anderson's pension, no doubt.

Regards,

Simon

[Tom_Wescott]

Wolf and Simon,

This police/Parnell stuff is very compelling. I think it's a shame there isn't a modern, discursive work on the subject. An open-minded one, that is.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Mayerling]

Hi Jeff,

Busily protecting Anderson's pension, no doubt.

Regards,

Simon

You are not far from wrong Simon - on April 21, 1910 the Commons was discussing Anderson's article in a magazine about the "Parnellism and Crime" Commission and his involvement at the time. I was just checking Hansard.

Best,

Jeff

[Mayerling]

Wolf and Simon,

This police/Parnell stuff is very compelling. I think it's a shame there isn't a modern, discursive work on the subject. An open-minded one, that is.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom,

It is very compelling - I'm not sure if there is any book on the subject at all. I have a volume in my crime / law library about Parliamentary commissions which has a chapter on Parnellism, but aside from biographies on Parnell I have never come across a whole book on the Commission. Possibly I just missed one that is out of print. One of the reasons for the lack of interest is that Piggott did confess, so that sort of deflates the issue to most people, and then Parnell himself would face the disaster of the O'Shea Divorce, which strikes both a romantic chord and a tragic one for the Irish leader's fall.

Jeff

[David Orsam]

One thing that I have wondered about is your lack of any mention of Stewart Evans and Paul Gainey’s work on the Andrews’ journey. It was their book, The Lodger, the Arrest and Escape of Jack the Ripper, which started the ball rolling with their claim that the return of R.G.I Barnett to Canada by Andrews was a cover to hide a secret mission to trail and arrest Tumblety. It was even Stewart who suggested, here on the boards if memory serves, that the extradition process was manipulated in order to get Andrews to North America on a free ride from the Canadian authorities, the Whitechapel Murders Investigation being notoriously penny-pinched by the Home Office. The chronology on this subject starts with The Lodger and moves on from there. Arguably, I suppose, you could argue that it was Logan who started it all off, and you briefly mention him, yet, oddly, you make no mention of Evans and Gainey, the modern theorists on this subject, in your three articles. I was just curious why?

There's no mystery to this.

In the first place, R.J. Palmer's trilogy was the latest, up-to-date, work on the subject and, as far as I am aware, the leading argument in favour of Andrews' visit to Canada being connected with Tumblety. I had never read it before it was sent to me a few months ago by a very kind member of this forum. I had been told it was compelling but I just wasn't convinced and it prompted me to find out more.

Secondly, when reviewing all the internet forum postings on the subject I found posts from Stewart Evans saying that when he and Paul Gainey wrote The Lodger all they had to go on was Logan and what they found in the newspapers saying that Andrews, or a Scotland Yard detective, was chasing the Whitechapel murderer in America. He seemed to me to be very frankly and reasonably accepting that he did not have all the available information at that time, and my interpretation of his postings was that he was saying that things had moved on since the publication of his book.

I bought and read the book in the year of its publication but that was 20 years ago. I didn't think there was much point in responding to a 20 year old book in view of the existence of Palmer's more recent trilogy and Stewart Evans' internet posts. It remains in my old room at my parents' house and I didn't even consult it when writing and researching these articles.

I can't help feeling there is a sort of underlying suggestion in your question that I have somehow given Evans & Gainey a free pass but that's not the case at all. If, however, you think there is an argument in The Lodger which supports the notion that Andrews was in America on Tumblety related business that I have somehow missed and not rebutted then please do let me know.

I just want to stress that my attention was not focussed on the personalities involved. The 3 articles to which I was responding could have been written by X, Y and Z. It is the arguments and the evidence which interests me.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jeff,

Check out this link to the Parnell Commission.

Hope it helps.

https://archive.org/details/verbatimcopyofpa00grea

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Busily protecting Anderson's pension, no doubt.

I very much doubt that Simon. Considering that the very next day Churchill made efforts to stop Anderson's pension.

Thus we find in HO 144/926/A49962 the following draft memorandum entitled "Sir Robert Anderson's Pension: Memorandum for the Law Officer and Opinion" dated 15 April 1910 which begins:

"The Secretary of State desires to have the opinion of the Law Officers on the question whether it is possible to take any action with regard to the pension granted to Sir Robert Anderson on his retirement from the post of Assistant Commissioner of Metropolitan Police."

And in the passage that you quote, Churchill was simply answering a question asked of him by a member of parliament in response to Anderson's recently published revelations about the Times articles on "Parnellism and Crime". I appreciate that you don't seem to think that any answer provided by Home Secretary in Parliament is genuine and true but perhaps it is time to adopt a different approach to viewing the world.

[Mayerling]

Hi Jeff,

Check out this link to the Parnell Commission.

Hope it helps.

https://archive.org/details/verbatimcopyofpa00grea

Regards,

Simon

Thanks very much Simon. I have put it on my favorites to review at leisure.

Best,

Jeff

[mklhawley]

I had the same thoughts, which is what prompted my earlier observations that Tumblety, over time, has become a minor character in the sagas of Andrews & Co. I'm interested in David's answer as well.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Sorry Tom. Although David's research is excellent, there's actually more to the picture with Tumblety, but it'll have to be a later discussion.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Hi David.

Interesting. So you are fascinated with questions regarding Andrews’ trip to Canada enough to do a hell of a lot of impressive research which, obviously, took some time and effort to carry out. You track down various old articles on the subject (mine were published ten years ago) and went through them with a fine-toothed comb. You read Simon’s book. You also troll through posts on Casebook looking for further material. You then write a lengthy three part article on the subject (in which you mention, and deservedly dismiss, Logan’s 1928 statement) but, oddly, leave a huge yawning gap in the written history of this subject: the 1995 publication of Stewart Evans and Paul Gainey’s Tumblety based The Lodger, as well as the 1998 updated reprint?

Odder still, you say that you, apparently, weren’t interested enough to even re-read the book that laid the groundwork for the later theories. And you even fail to mention Stewart’s later thoughts on Inspector Andrews’ trip found in his and Don Rumbelow’s excellent 2006 book Jack the Ripper, Scotland Yard Investigates?

If, however, you think there is an argument in The Lodger which supports the notion that Andrews was in America on Tumblety related business that I have somehow missed and not rebutted then please do let me know.

Since you don’t even bother to mention the Evans/Gainey 1995 (Century Random House U.K. Ltd.)/98 (Kodansha America Inc.) Tumblety theory at all, let alone Evans’ 2006 (Sutton Publishing Ltd.) words, and since these theories differ from Palmer’s (The Casebook Examiner e-zine) then, yes, you have (purposely?) missed arguments and failed to rebut what is the most important and long lasting Andrews/Tumblety theory out there.

As I said, interesting.

Wolf.