The Suckered! Plus Quadrilogy

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Anderson felt Victoria's life had been spared that day.

"On the other hand, an outrage in the Abbey at the Jubilee service would have been a disaster of such magnitude that some might think any means legitimate to avert it. Fiat justitia, ruat cœlum, is a pagan maxim. The Christian version of it is, fearlessly to do the right and trust to an overruling Providence. But it needed a strong man to accept the risks, and such a man was then at the helm. But he never received the credit which was his due, for the public knew nothing of what I have here detailed.

"Men engaged in work of this kind do not indulge in hysterical emotion. But I remember as though it happened yesterday my visit to Monro on that eventful day, after the Queen had reached the Palace and the Abbey guests had scattered. The intense anxiety of many days was at an end, and we gripped each other by the hand without a word from either of us."

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

The plot being bogus kinda sorta explains Monro's gonglessness.

As does the fact that he set himself up in direct opposition to the Government and sabotaged its Pensions Bill.

[David Orsam]

To Simon and Paul,

I rather think that "saving the life of the Queen" as a description of Monro's role in foiling the so-called Jubilee Plot is stretching the use of the English language to beyond breaking point.

According to Monro's memo to Sir Charles Warren dated 10 February 1888 what he and his officers had prevented, in his own words, was 'an outrage at the time of the Jubilee' (HO 144/211/A48482). He said nothing about a plot to murder Queen Victoria and, indeed, even if such a plot had been in the works, a police operation to foil it hardly involved saving anyone's life, an expression usually used when someone is in imminent and immediate danger of being killed.

I think I am right in saying that Monro was awarded a C.B. in 1888 for his part in foiling the dynamite outrage planned in 1887, so he was fully honoured for what he did.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Paul,

"Assuming the plot was genuine and not bogus" is the operative phrase.

The plot being bogus kinda sorta explains Monro's gonglessness.

Regards,

Simon

[PaulB]

Thanks Paul. For me, I have to wonder if knighthoods are ever given to officials who dramatically and loudly resign on a point of principle in order to embarrass the government of the day, thus forcing it to make a policy change, at cost to the ratepayer. These honours usually seem to be given to those who 'play the game' and keep their heads down. That's essentially why I think Monro described his resignation as a 'sacrifice' on behalf of his men, and why I don't personally think there is anything odd about him not receiving the knighthood.

That could certainly be the case, David, although on the face of it Monro did serve his country, perhaps with distinction, as Assistant Commissioner, Commissioner and head of the Secret Department, perhaps even saving the life of Queen Victoria in 1887 (which is perhaps what Simon means), assuming the plot was genuine and not bogus. If so, it would appear uncommonly churlish to have denied him his gong because he was a principled man who caused them some fuss and bother.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

I was thinking about the 1887 Jubilee Plot.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

Looking upon the other side of things, aren't knighthoods usually bestowed upon people who save the life of their Sovereign Lady Queen Victoria?

Hi Simon,

Not for the first time, I have no idea what you are getting at or what point you are trying to make and somehow doubt I will ever find out.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Looking upon the other side of things, aren't knighthoods usually bestowed upon people who save the life of their Sovereign Lady Queen Victoria?

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Hello David,
In the 1990s we were treading new ground and trying to understand what was going on. I wholly agree with you that the Pensions Bill was of considerable importance to Monro and he certainly saw his resignation as entirely to do with it. He was probably right, but, as said, it seems that he was in bad odour. I don't know, but I feel that not receiving a knighthood was a very hard slap in the face and I'm not sure if his actions over the pensions fully explains it. Mind you, I have no idea what he could have done to deserve it. I think our 1990s thinking was that Monro seemed almost to be Teflon Man, standing alone in defence of his men, but that the absence of a knighthood might reveal that he wasn't so pure and clean.The important thing, I think, is that we really don't know a a lot about these men andwe need to if we are to properly assess them.

Thanks Paul. For me, I have to wonder if knighthoods are ever given to officials who dramatically and loudly resign on a point of principle in order to embarrass the government of the day, thus forcing it to make a policy change, at cost to the ratepayer. These honours usually seem to be given to those who 'play the game' and keep their heads down. That's essentially why I think Monro described his resignation as a 'sacrifice' on behalf of his men, and why I don't personally think there is anything odd about him not receiving the knighthood.

[Mayerling]

Hello David,
In the 1990s we were treading new ground and trying to understand what was going on. I wholly agree with you that the Pensions Bill was of considerable importance to Monro and he certainly saw his resignation as entirely to do with it. He was probably right, but, as said, it seems that he was in bad odour. I don't know, but I feel that not receiving a knighthood was a very hard slap in the face and I'm not sure if his actions over the pensions fully explains it. Mind you, I have no idea what he could have done to deserve it. I think our 1990s thinking was that Monro seemed almost to be Teflon Man, standing alone in defence of his men, but that the absence of a knighthood might reveal that he wasn't so pure and clean.The important thing, I think, is that we really don't know a a lot about these men andwe need to if we are to properly assess them.

Hi Paul (and David - good job again by the way);

It's an interesting point you brought up Paul about our need to know more about the people involved in the police and authority before making assessments. A number of years back I did an essay (it was republished in The Ripperologist) in which I looked at what grounds were there for considering Charles Warren for his position at Scotland Yard. I discovered that he had been involved in 1882-83 in locating the remains of the ill-fated military mission of Professor Edward Palmer and his associates in the Sinai, and that while he did find those involved in the mission's destruction his work may have been misread as "brilliant detective work". The incident did show me that in a war zone Warren was capable of achieving some police-type discovery and action, but that it was not really the sort of background needed for policing (or leading the police) in a major urban metropolis.

I know very little about James Monro, except whatever I read in the various Ripper studies of the 1970s to the 1990s or so. The result was I got the impression that he became a kind of reverse straw man. He resigns from one position out of disgust (so it seemed) and due to conflicts with Warren. When Warren resigns in November 1888 Monro replaces him, only to be out again within a year or two. The gist of what I read was he was a superior police chief (in comparison to Warren) but grated on the wrong people. His chief importance was as a bridge between (if you will) the "age of Warren" and "the age of Macnaughten" in terms of competence. This possibly was a total misreading of the situation. It also ignores the contributions of others at the Yard in 1888-90 who survived this see-sawing affect (like Anderson).

Maybe it is about time a serious biography (if possible) on Monro was attempted.

Jeff

[Hunter]

Totally agree with that last sentence... You bet.

[PaulB]

Hi Paul,

I don’t think that Monro was flavour of the month with the government when he resigned and then went on to lead the opposition to the Pensions Bill, stirring up the pot at a time when police officers were talking about going on strike and engaging on various forms of disobedience. I never really got the impression that he was about to be sacked - there was no public or parliamentary agitation for this - but I have no doubt that he was seriously annoying the Home Secretary by almost turning into Charles Warren, in believing that he was running an organisation that was independent of the Home Office. Relations certainly weren’t good and perhaps the proposed appointment of Ruggles-Brise was designed to provoke him to quit but, for all the reasons I have given in the article, I have no doubt that the pensions issue was so important to Monro that the government’s failure to give him what he wanted in the Pensions Bill was a sufficient reason for him to resign on its own.

Have your own views changed at all since the 1990s?

Hello David,
In the 1990s we were treading new ground and trying to understand what was going on. I wholly agree with you that the Pensions Bill was of considerable importance to Monro and he certainly saw his resignation as entirely to do with it. He was probably right, but, as said, it seems that he was in bad odour. I don't know, but I feel that not receiving a knighthood was a very hard slap in the face and I'm not sure if his actions over the pensions fully explains it. Mind you, I have no idea what he could have done to deserve it. I think our 1990s thinking was that Monro seemed almost to be Teflon Man, standing alone in defence of his men, but that the absence of a knighthood might reveal that he wasn't so pure and clean.The important thing, I think, is that we really don't know a a lot about these men andwe need to if we are to properly assess them.

[David Orsam]

[I]apart from which I have nothing further to say on the matter..except one thing. I reply to things in my own time. Whether or not, or when or not as the case may be, I wish to reply I do so..In my own time. I do not sit at any body's beck and call sir. I don't press nor expect everyone reply from you to this. You choose as you see fit. So do I.

I repeat. I am happy with the points I have made, and shall reply no further. I hope that will be respected. As regards replying to anyone else, that is for me to decide on the merits of the post. As you can see, I only reply as and when I wish to. Whoever it may be.

Phil,

You will have to forgive me for not understanding. At no time have I pressed you to respond to me, nor do I care if you do or don’t. I didn’t invite you to post in this thread and I assume you did so of your own free will. I also assume that, if you post something plainly inaccurate, you would want to know about it, although I admit to some uncertainty about this. In my last posts I simply responded to your posting and it is entirely up to you if you want to reply further and in whatever timescale you choose.

What does surprise me is that you say that you are happy with the points you have made. I fail to understand how you can be happy in saying that I "diligently relied upon" the book by Paul Begg and Keith Skinner when that is the complete opposite of the truth. Furthermore, from this misreading of my article you went on to suggest that I have shown "unadmitted bias toward their work". Why you seem to think that I am biased towards anyone remains an absolute mystery to me – although I’m aware you have some incomprehensible theories - but certainly in this case when I was disagreeing what they said, the notion does not strike me as logical.

[David Orsam]

I was only referring to your 4th effort only. As far as I can see, book wise, it was the only book referred to. References to other things such as letters, newspaper articles etc, I have no problem with.I have made no mention of your previous efforts on this thread. I am sticking to this thread reference.

having read all of the above works, often, I can assure you that balance of argument on the subject of the goings on at the time within and connected to Special Branch, cause one to rethink ones opinion on what we have been led to believe is true. If you are going to attack one piece of work by one author that contradicts your viewpoints, then I humbly suggest you do read the other works mentioned. Any fair minded person..to quote you, would need to do this to get a balanced view before stating what their opinion is on this subject. .For they are important reference works. I have read many books relating to this topic than many, but less than some. However, each of the above works..and there are others besides, are important pieces of literature. That is then, in my humble opinion, something you need to also thoroughly take into condidrrstion with these pieces of work, and take them apart as well. For much of what is written in them contradicts your thesis. I refer to your 4th effort only.

quoting one passage from Porters excellent, but dated offering that happens to tie in with something you wrote about previously has no bearing on your 4th effort..which is what, again, I referred to. Your other efforts have been discussed enough. This is a new thread on a new topic.

Phil,

I have extracted your words from mine above.

I see that, not having mentioned part 4 of my quadrilogy in your previous post, you now want to focus on part 4 of the quadrilogy only and state "This is a new thread on a new topic". Yet, in your first post in this thread you said:

"I personally equate reading your "..ilogy" series to 1st year "Janet and John" books."

AND

"I just find your repeated works on the subject not to my taste."

Both comments refer to my previous articles. You also said: "my original comment as to your actual intention with this "work" stands" which was a clear reference back to what you posted in the other thread.

But if we do focus on part 4 of my quadrilogy, you will find that you did not read it properly because, I repeat, at no time in that article have I relied on Begg & Skinner’s 'Scotland Yard Files' as you claimed. I was, in fact, doing the exact opposite and challenging it.

The other thing you will find if you read my fourth article carefully is that I rely entirely on primary sources. I don’t rely on any secondary sources at all. For that reason, I don’t feel any need to read any of the works you have cited. I very much doubt that they contradict the thesis in part 4 of my quadrilogy but what I feel I can say with certainty is that nothing in Bernard Porter’s 'Origins of the Vigilant State' contradicts anything I have said about the resignations of Sir Charles Warren or James Monro.

Should you feel that there is any evidence which contradicts what I have stated in part 4 of my quadrilogy I am sure that you – or someone else – will post that evidence but until that evidence is posted I will just have to happily assume that everything I have said is correct.

[David Orsam]

Hi David
As best I can recall, when we wrote the book back in the early 1990s our feeling was that Monro's resignation was a case of a fall before he was pushed. We were aware of the remark made by Lord Salisbury to Queen Victoria about Monro being the cause of many of the troubles, and, of course, Monro was and remains the only Commissioner not to have received a knighthood, which, given the highly sensitive work Monro must have overseen, perhaps suggests that he was very much out of favour.

Hi Paul,

I don’t think that Monro was flavour of the month with the government when he resigned and then went on to lead the opposition to the Pensions Bill, stirring up the pot at a time when police officers were talking about going on strike and engaging on various forms of disobedience. I never really got the impression that he was about to be sacked - there was no public or parliamentary agitation for this - but I have no doubt that he was seriously annoying the Home Secretary by almost turning into Charles Warren, in believing that he was running an organisation that was independent of the Home Office. Relations certainly weren’t good and perhaps the proposed appointment of Ruggles-Brise was designed to provoke him to quit but, for all the reasons I have given in the article, I have no doubt that the pensions issue was so important to Monro that the government’s failure to give him what he wanted in the Pensions Bill was a sufficient reason for him to resign on its own.

Have your own views changed at all since the 1990s?