The Suckered! Plus Quadrilogy

[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.

[Hunter]

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

[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

[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.

[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]

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,

I was thinking about the 1887 Jubilee Plot.

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 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

[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.

[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.

[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]

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."

Well, Simon, there are two separate events involved here.

There was the foiling of a dynamite plot in the Jubilee year by the arrests of Callan and Harkins in late 1887. It was their conviction on 3 February 1888 that prompted Monro to write his memo to Sir Charles Warren on 10 February 1888 (to urge him to financially reward the officers involved) in which he referred to those arrests as being part of the prevention of a planned 'outrage at the time of the Jubilee'. As far as I know, there is no evidence to suggest that Callan and Harkins intended to carry out an attempt on Queen Victoria's life and I don't believe that it was regarded at the time that Scotland Yard, or Monro, had saved the Queen's life.

Then, the event you are referring to, we have the day of the Jubilee itself - 21 June 1887 - when absolutely nothing happened and no-one, least of all Monro, saved the Queen's life or, in fact, did anything at all. As the passage you have quoted reveals, Monro and Anderson had no idea what was going to happen on that day and clearly feared that there would indeed be some form of explosion at Westminster Abbey but it was all out of their control and they were powerless to prevent such an outrage, if it was going to occur. As Monro also said: ' I prayed, and in the end resolved to do nothing, but trust that God, who had ever helped me, would do so now...' (quoted in 'Fenian Fire' by Christy Campbell, p.241).

Yes, Monro believed he had done some good work in Paris to monitor and scare off plotters prior to the Jubilee but, as the passage you have quoted makes clear, he didn't know if it had been effective. Equally, no-one else within Whitehall, who knew of the Paris operation, could say that it had had any effect at all, least of all saving the life of the Queen. I don't believe that it was a view widely held at the time (even on a false basis) that Monro had saved the Queen's life. Perhaps Monro always believed he had done it, due to his Paris operation, but unless others did too that would explain why no-one was thinking of giving him a knighthood.

In the passage you have quoted, Anderson does not say that Monro saved the Queen's life. He says he 'never received the credit he was due' which is a different matter and certainly supports my point that no-one else thought he had done anything out of the ordinary (such as saving the Queen's life). Nor does he say that the Queen's life was spared that day, it's your interpretation. If you read it carefully he is basically just saying that Monro did everything he possibly could to prevent an outrage occurring that day. That's all. A lot of hard work - that was his job - but nothing specific or amazing that guaranteed the safety of the monarch.

In any case, as I mentioned earlier, but you have ignored, Monro was (in June 1888) decorated with a C.B.; ample acknowledgement for anything he had achieved in respect of foiling Fenian plots against the Queen or otherwise.

You see, I thought you were trying to say that Monro saved Queen Victoria's life and that it is therefore baffling that he was not knighted after he resigned in 1890. If that is what you mean then I'm afraid I don't know what the relevance of this is to this thread. Are you saying that Monro resigned in 1890, three years after the Jubilee plot, because he suddenly realised that plot had been bogus? Or was he 'constructively dismissed' (to use an anachronistic expression) because the Home Secretary discovered the plot was bogus?

I've read your book carefully Simon and I can't work out what you think the reason for Monro's resignation was in June 1890 - perhaps you would care to tell us - or perhaps I have convinced you that it was basically over the pensions issue and the proposed appointment of Ruggles-Brice in the context of bad relations generally between the Commissioner and the Home Office.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

"Monro was (in June 1888) decorated with a C.B.; ample acknowledgement for anything he had achieved in respect of foiling Fenian plots against the Queen or otherwise."

In June 1888 Edward Jenkinson, whom Monro had persuaded Henry Matthews to fire in January 1887, received a KCB, making him Sir Edward Jenkinson.

I'll bet James Monro was really pissed.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

In June 1888 Edward Jenkinson, whom Monro had persuaded Henry Matthews to fire in January 1887, received a KCB, making him Sir Edward Jenkinson.

I'll bet James Monro was really pissed.

Well, Simon, I think the point Paul was making was that Monro, in time honoured fashion, would have expected, as a matter of course, to receive a K.C.B. after he resigned as Commissioner following years of loyal service. My point is that (after a short period of service of less than two years) he consciously threw that opportunity away by unselfishly making the ultimate sacrifice in respect of his career and knighthood – leading a police rebellion against the Government on its Pensions Bill – because he believed that this was the morally right thing to do on behalf of his men.

Consequently, I don't see anything odd about his failure to be awarded a knighthood – certainly not in 1887 or 1888 when, as a serving Assistant Commissioner, he surely would not have expected to get one (and, as far as I am aware, never complained that he wasn't awarded one) - and can't see that this failure affects consideration of the reasons for his resignation.

Whether Monro was or was not pissed at Jenkinson being awarded a knighthood in time honoured fashion following the conclusion of Jenkinson's career in service to the government (about which there is no evidence) is irrelevant to my quadrilogy and thus to this thread. You have avoided responding to the final paragraph of my last post which dealt with the relevant issue of why Monro resigned as Commissioner in June 1890.

I have put forward a positive case to explain this resignation in part 4 of my quadrilogy. If you are not here to challenge my argument on this point and explain for us why you think Monro resigned, or to otherwise comment on anything else in my quadrilogy, then I simply don't understand why you are posting in this thread.