Tweet
Police Commendations and Rewards
The procedure for issuing rewards for acts of merit on the part of the police was set out in a memorandum by James Monro dated 2 February 1889 in which he said that: “Each case [is] sent up in a special report by the superintendent through the C.C. [Chief Constable] and [is] dealt with, with reference to recommendations made, and the circumstances of the incident by the Assistant Commissioner or Commissioner” (MEPO 2/194).
Office Regulation 286 by Sir Charles Warren dated 5 November 1888 also sets out the roles of the Assistant Commissioners in respect of the rewards as follows:
“The A.C.B. grants all rewards for Civil Business both to uniform and C.I.D. and the A.C.C. all rewards for criminal matters both to C.I.D. and uniform. There are certain yearly rewards granted by A.C.A. which he refers to A.C.B.”
The money for the rewards came out of a Reward Fund which, at the time in question, allowed £750 annually for payments to police officers.
Rewards could be awarded for a number of acts of meritorious conduct.
There were various different commendations and rewards (including a separate reward fund for acts of bravery) but during the relevant time period there were essentially two different types of commendations, some of which would lead to a financial reward, while others would lead to a note in favour (although some appear to have just been commendations with no further result). This would include things like stopping runaway horses, preventing attacks by dogs and saving lives. For the purposes of our discussion we can ignore these. The second type, and the type we are interested in, are commendations in respect of arrests. Within that category there were two sorts of commendation. The first would be made by magistrates, judges or juries about the conduct of a particular officer in an arrest or investigation into a crime. These would be noted in Police Orders, sometimes with a financial reward instantly awarded. The Bow Street Magistrates also had their own fund to reward officers if they so desired.
Secondly, there were recommendations for rewards for arrests, made by superintendents (or acting superintendents) as set out in James Monro’s aforementioned memorandum. The superintendent would complete a “recommended for reward” form which would be submitted to the A.C.C. (via the Chief Constable, as per Monro’s memorandum). This would then be published in Police Orders. Prior to June 1886, such recommendations would appear in the following form (to take one actual example):
COMMENDATIONS – E. Assault with intent to commit robbery. Apprehension, 17th. PC 73 Lane. Superintendent recommended for reward.
The above example is in respect of a constable in E Division. It can be seen that the date of arrest, or apprehension, is included in the summary.
In June 1886, the format changed to that we see in the Police Orders of 27 November 1888. Basically, the description of the specific crime was removed and phrase “Superintendent recommended for reward” which used to appear within each individual entry was now replaced with the single entry of “recommended for reward” down the right hand side, applying to all recommendations for reward. The date of apprehension was now placed down the left hand side. A preamble stated: “COMMENDATIONS – The Commissioner desires to place on record the conduct of the following officers who, by zeal and activity in the discharge of their duties, effected the apprehension of persons wanted for offences committed”.
As stated above, for the recommendations for rewards it was the relevant Superintendent in the Division who made the recommendation and, for all arrests, the form would go for approval to the Assistant Commissioner of Crime before being included in Police Orders. I cannot say for certain if the Commissioner himself saw the list before publication but he might have signed off on it.
In respect of the Commendations and Rewards in Police Orders of 27 November 1888, the key points are:
1. The dates listed down the left of the “recommendations for reward” list were supposed to be the dates of arrest (and, for ease of reference, I will refer to them as “Arrest Dates”).
2. From carrying out checks against newspaper reports of magistrate and sessions hearings, I found a number of Arrest Dates that, as expected, exactly matched the reported dates of arrest.
3. Annoyingly, however, I also found some Arrest Dates that were a day or so out when compared with the reported dates of arrest.
4. We saw an example earlier (regarding George Bartlett) where the Arrest Date was stated to be 19 November 1888 although it seemed that the “recommendation for reward” related to an arrest on 14 November 1888. The answer to this could be that the officers involved, Reid and Dolden, made arrests on both 14 and 19 November and I have misidentified the arrest for which they were recommended for a reward (although I regard this as unlikely).
5. I have established, as a matter of certainty, one occasion in 1896 (at a time when the procedure for recommendations for rewards was slightly different, although the recommendation for reward list was in the same format) when an arrest for murder was made on 14 April but the Arrest Date in the Police Orders was stated as 22 May (which was the day after the two arrested men were convicted). I should stress that this is a confirmed discrepancy as the information came from a MEPO file.
6. My theory to explain the fact that the Arrest Dates are not always the date of arrest is that the form on which the recommendations for rewards were made were badly designed. I have never seen these forms but I surmise that they had a column in which the superintendent would set out details of the arrest and a separate column for the date. Although that date was supposed to be the date of arrest, the superintendents over time would, perhaps, forget or ignore this and simply enter the date they completed the form. This date was then entered into Police Orders.
7. Some important points about these recommendations for rewards:
A. Recommendations for rewards for arrests were published frequently in Police Orders, at least once a week and often more.
B. After a recommendation for reward for an arrest was published in Police Orders during the period in question (i.e. 1888) it would take some time for the reward to be quantified; somewhere between one and three months was the usual time the officer had to wait to find out how much money he would be getting, then a second list, showing the sum awarded, would be published in Police Orders (an example of such a list, or extract from it, is below). The exact process as to how it was decided which officer would get what amount is unknown to me but it certainly took place within the Commissioner’s Office.
C. The fact that a recommendation for a reward was made did NOT necessarily mean that the officer would actually receive the award. While I have not found anything in writing about this, one can easily imagine that an arrest which seemed at first sight to have been a good one might have turned out not to have been so impressive, especially if the prisoner was acquitted, so that the recommendation was not accepted/approved.
D. In the case of our ‘gang of five’ (Marshall, Littlechild, Swanson, Andrews, Mott), their recommendation for reward, NEVER led to the approval of an actual reward.
E. Aside from the ‘gang of five’, all payment sums in respect of recommendations for rewards listed in Police Orders of 27 November 1888 were published in Police Orders of 8 February 1889. The only payments not listed were for the ‘gang of five’.
F. No payments were ever approved for Littlechild, Swanson and Andrews, but in Police Orders of 19 January 1889 a payment can be seen for Inspector Marshall of £1, followed by a payment to PC McEllistrim of 5s and a payment to PC Mott of 10s (see below).
G. The fact that Swanson never actually received a reward following the recommendation explains why Monty has noted that there is no mention of it in his personnel file. The personnel file only includes a note of rewards actually paid.
8. Some more important points about the recommendation for rewards for the ‘gang of five’:
A. Having reviewed all recommendations for rewards in the period 1887 to 1889, it has to be said that this grouping of five officers is highly unusual, in fact unique, by including two chief inspectors. Although recommendations of rewards for inspectors are not uncommon, I have not seen one other example of a recommendation for a reward for a chief inspector, let alone two, let alone two additional recommendations for two further inspectors within the same grouping.
B. The recommendations are usually listed in rank order within each division (i.e. inspector, followed by sergeant followed by constable). In this case we have an inspector, followed by two chief inspectors. Such an arrangement out of rank order is unusual but not unique (although, as I have said, I have not found any other such rewards for chief inspectors). I have found at least one instance where a sergeant was listed above an inspector in respect of the same arrest.
C. Thus, while it is not impossible that the recommendation for Inspector Marshall was in respect of a different arrest to the other officers, the likelihood is that all five were recommended in respect of the same arrest.
D. Normally, where a group of officers are recommended for reward for an arrest with an identical Arrest Date, this is marked by the fact that the date is repeated, as opposed to inverted commas being used to represent the same date. (Having said this there are only very few examples of this and I cannot confirm that this is always done).
E. The most important fact to note – and one that I have not seen mentioned before - is that the ‘gang of five’ are all listed under the head of ‘A’ Division, despite Littlechild, Swanson and Andrews being from C.O., not ‘A’ Division.
F. Until 18 November 1887, all Central Officers were within ‘A’ Division but Sir Charles Warren reorganised this so that Police Orders of 18 November 1887 stated: “The Police Officers of the Commissioner’s Office will in future be left out of the A Division Returns, and will be included in a Return under the head of "Commissioner’s Office"”. Thus, from that point onwards officers in C.O. were listed separately from ‘A’ Division in any rewards lists.
G. Consequently, the fact that Littlechild, Swanson and Andrews were recommended for a reward for an arrest within the jurisdiction of ‘A’ Division must mean that the arrest related to a crime that had occurred within ‘A’ Division (basically Whitehall/Westminster).
H. Additionally, I should note that, in the period Nov 1887 to 1889, there is not a single example of a Central Officer within C.O. being recommended for an award WITHIN the ‘division’ of C.O. Yet, when payments of rewards are listed, with the divisions listed in alphabetical order from A to Y, the heading of C.O. appears before A, right at the top of the list and Central Officers ARE included separately.
I. Central Officers, such as Dinnie and Froest, were certainly making their own arrests during the period – and Central Officers received reward payments - so what I think must have been happening here (although I have not seen this in writing) is that the process by which rewards for arrests for Central Officers were recommended was different to the process by which they were recommended by superintendents in other divisions. Either such rewards were decided directly by the A.C.C., or the superintendent filed reports which were immediately approved by the A.C.C. without the need to publish the recommendation in Police Orders. Thus, Central Officers by-passed the recommendation stage in respect of arrests on behalf of Scotland Yard so that any rewards due for arrests were first included in Police Orders as actual quantified payments. The exception would be when they were assisting other divisions, in this case ‘A’ Division, when the recommendations were made by the superintendent of that Division.
J. Interestingly, as at 4 November 1888, ‘A’ Division had a very new superintendent who had been appointed as recently as 1 November 1888. This was Superintendent Fisher (from T Division) who replaced the outgoing Chief Superintendent Dunlap (who retired after a period of ill health). Whether this recent change of personnel was responsible for the unusual recommendations at issue, and caused some form of administrative error, I am not sure but think there may be a connection.
K. The fact that the recommendations for reward for the ‘gang of five’ relate to an ‘A’ Division arrest seems to me to kill the idea that we are dealing with rewards for an arrest of a suspect for the Whitechapel murder because it must have had a bearing on something relating to Westminster. Having said this, Inspector Marshall of ‘A’ Division was in charge of the investigation into body parts (torso) found in Whitehall during September and October 1888 and this find was linked to the Whitechapel murders. If an arrest had been made as part of this investigation it might fit the recommendation for reward but as far as we know there was no such arrest (although it leaves open the possibility that Tumblety had become entangled in this investigation).
L. The most likely reason, in my opinion, for the inclusion of this ‘gang of five’ in the commendations list is that the reward was intended to relate to their work which had led to the conviction on 24 October 1888 of Annie Frost (a.ka. Mrs Gordon Baillie). She had been arrested by Inspector Marshall at Palmer Lodge, Westminster, on 30 June 1888. The investigation during the intervening period was led by Inspector Marshall. From newspaper reports, we know that Inspector Swanson and PC Mott were involved in this case. In respect of Swanson, I have found some more information about his involvement from the Westminster and Pimlico News of 7 July 1888 which, reporting on the arrest of Annie Frost and her husband, stated: “Inspector Marshall said in the early part of the investigation complaints had been made to him with regard to the prisoners. He saw some of the cheques produced, and communicated with Inspector Swanson, of Scotland Yard, and subsequently obtained an arrest warrant from Mr Partridge for the arrest of the prisoners”. This shows involvement of Swanson in the actual arrest of Annie Frost.
M. Annie Frost (“Mrs Gordon Baillie”) had conducted frauds over a 15 year period in several different countries, including Scotland, England, Belgium, Australia and New Zealand. She had been to America, Turin and Rome. She had used some 36 different aliases and the investigation into her case was a complex and complicated one. My suspicion is that Swanson enlisted the assistance of Littlechild and Andrews for background investigation. However, a recommendation for a reward for an arrest should only have been for officers involved in making the arrest, or providing information or intelligence which led to the arrest, so a recommendation in respect of the arrest for officers concerned only in the investigation was, presumably, improper. It is possible that this was a factor in the award not being granted.
N. However, rewards could also be made for meritorious conduct and I am certain that the payments to Marshall, McEllistrim and Mott on 19 January 1889 were for their work on the Annie Frost case. McEllistrim was identified by the Middlesbrough Daily Gazette on 3 July 1888 as “Detective Ellistrim” who, at one of the remand hearings, “hugged an immense bundle of letters and documents bearing on the antecedents and adventures of Mrs Gordon Baillie”. Marshall and Mott definitely also worked on this investigation, so all three can be connected with the case.
O. At the same time, in theory, the recommendation for a reward should have involved an arrest on the Arrest Date of Sunday 4 November 1888. As I have said, however, it seems to have been possible for the dates not to match.
P. It has been suggested that the reward for Andrews was related to the arrest of Roland Gideon Israel Barnett outside Wandsworth Police Court on 13 September 1888. While Barnett was initially brought to Bow Street Police Court, it appears to have been a pure Scotland Yard matter with no relation as such to ‘A’ Division and, if that is correct, then the recommendation for reward cannot be related to this arrest.
Q. If it can ever be shown that Tumblety was arrested on 4 November (and it is certainly possible that he was arrested well before 7 November) then the above conclusion would change but I don’t think it is possible to use the commendations and rewards to the ‘gang of five’ as evidence in support of an argument that Tumblety was arrested on 4 November.
Conclusion
Although the recommendation for a reward for the ‘gang of five’ was unusual in comparison to normal recommendations, I can’t see any reason to attribute the recommendation to the Commissioner. My belief is that if he had wanted to give a reward to any officers he had full authority to do so and could have by-passed the recommendation stage. The recommendations were specifically made by superintendents. Thus, the theory that this was a parting shot by Sir Charles Warren before he left Scotland Yard does not work because such a parting shot would surely have involved actual payments. I imagine that some might speculate that Warren made the recommendations which were then overruled by Monro but the rewards for arrests were under the control of the Assistant Commissioner for Crime, then Robert Anderson, and he was a constant presence throughout.
I tend to see some form of administrative error or confusion here, possibly due to the appointment of a new superintendent in A Division at the start of November, rather than anything else. I can’t absolutely rule out that the recommendations for rewards might have related to an arrest of Tumblety on suspicion on 4 November and that it was subsequently decided that a payment was not appropriate – certainly the date works better than the Mrs Gordon Baillie case (albeit only in that we don’ t know the actual date of Tumblety’s arrest) – but bearing in mind that (a) it needed to be an ‘A’ Division crime, (b) it is a little hard to believe that five officers, including four senior officers, were involved in the actual arrest of one man and (c) the most likely scenario seems to be that Tumblety was simply arrested on the streets on suspicion, and then had compromising papers found on him, so that the arresting officers were most probably Dinnie and Froest, I do not think this is very likely.
The procedure for issuing rewards for acts of merit on the part of the police was set out in a memorandum by James Monro dated 2 February 1889 in which he said that: “Each case [is] sent up in a special report by the superintendent through the C.C. [Chief Constable] and [is] dealt with, with reference to recommendations made, and the circumstances of the incident by the Assistant Commissioner or Commissioner” (MEPO 2/194).
Office Regulation 286 by Sir Charles Warren dated 5 November 1888 also sets out the roles of the Assistant Commissioners in respect of the rewards as follows:
“The A.C.B. grants all rewards for Civil Business both to uniform and C.I.D. and the A.C.C. all rewards for criminal matters both to C.I.D. and uniform. There are certain yearly rewards granted by A.C.A. which he refers to A.C.B.”
The money for the rewards came out of a Reward Fund which, at the time in question, allowed £750 annually for payments to police officers.
Rewards could be awarded for a number of acts of meritorious conduct.
There were various different commendations and rewards (including a separate reward fund for acts of bravery) but during the relevant time period there were essentially two different types of commendations, some of which would lead to a financial reward, while others would lead to a note in favour (although some appear to have just been commendations with no further result). This would include things like stopping runaway horses, preventing attacks by dogs and saving lives. For the purposes of our discussion we can ignore these. The second type, and the type we are interested in, are commendations in respect of arrests. Within that category there were two sorts of commendation. The first would be made by magistrates, judges or juries about the conduct of a particular officer in an arrest or investigation into a crime. These would be noted in Police Orders, sometimes with a financial reward instantly awarded. The Bow Street Magistrates also had their own fund to reward officers if they so desired.
Secondly, there were recommendations for rewards for arrests, made by superintendents (or acting superintendents) as set out in James Monro’s aforementioned memorandum. The superintendent would complete a “recommended for reward” form which would be submitted to the A.C.C. (via the Chief Constable, as per Monro’s memorandum). This would then be published in Police Orders. Prior to June 1886, such recommendations would appear in the following form (to take one actual example):
COMMENDATIONS – E. Assault with intent to commit robbery. Apprehension, 17th. PC 73 Lane. Superintendent recommended for reward.
The above example is in respect of a constable in E Division. It can be seen that the date of arrest, or apprehension, is included in the summary.
In June 1886, the format changed to that we see in the Police Orders of 27 November 1888. Basically, the description of the specific crime was removed and phrase “Superintendent recommended for reward” which used to appear within each individual entry was now replaced with the single entry of “recommended for reward” down the right hand side, applying to all recommendations for reward. The date of apprehension was now placed down the left hand side. A preamble stated: “COMMENDATIONS – The Commissioner desires to place on record the conduct of the following officers who, by zeal and activity in the discharge of their duties, effected the apprehension of persons wanted for offences committed”.
As stated above, for the recommendations for rewards it was the relevant Superintendent in the Division who made the recommendation and, for all arrests, the form would go for approval to the Assistant Commissioner of Crime before being included in Police Orders. I cannot say for certain if the Commissioner himself saw the list before publication but he might have signed off on it.
In respect of the Commendations and Rewards in Police Orders of 27 November 1888, the key points are:
1. The dates listed down the left of the “recommendations for reward” list were supposed to be the dates of arrest (and, for ease of reference, I will refer to them as “Arrest Dates”).
2. From carrying out checks against newspaper reports of magistrate and sessions hearings, I found a number of Arrest Dates that, as expected, exactly matched the reported dates of arrest.
3. Annoyingly, however, I also found some Arrest Dates that were a day or so out when compared with the reported dates of arrest.
4. We saw an example earlier (regarding George Bartlett) where the Arrest Date was stated to be 19 November 1888 although it seemed that the “recommendation for reward” related to an arrest on 14 November 1888. The answer to this could be that the officers involved, Reid and Dolden, made arrests on both 14 and 19 November and I have misidentified the arrest for which they were recommended for a reward (although I regard this as unlikely).
5. I have established, as a matter of certainty, one occasion in 1896 (at a time when the procedure for recommendations for rewards was slightly different, although the recommendation for reward list was in the same format) when an arrest for murder was made on 14 April but the Arrest Date in the Police Orders was stated as 22 May (which was the day after the two arrested men were convicted). I should stress that this is a confirmed discrepancy as the information came from a MEPO file.
6. My theory to explain the fact that the Arrest Dates are not always the date of arrest is that the form on which the recommendations for rewards were made were badly designed. I have never seen these forms but I surmise that they had a column in which the superintendent would set out details of the arrest and a separate column for the date. Although that date was supposed to be the date of arrest, the superintendents over time would, perhaps, forget or ignore this and simply enter the date they completed the form. This date was then entered into Police Orders.
7. Some important points about these recommendations for rewards:
A. Recommendations for rewards for arrests were published frequently in Police Orders, at least once a week and often more.
B. After a recommendation for reward for an arrest was published in Police Orders during the period in question (i.e. 1888) it would take some time for the reward to be quantified; somewhere between one and three months was the usual time the officer had to wait to find out how much money he would be getting, then a second list, showing the sum awarded, would be published in Police Orders (an example of such a list, or extract from it, is below). The exact process as to how it was decided which officer would get what amount is unknown to me but it certainly took place within the Commissioner’s Office.
C. The fact that a recommendation for a reward was made did NOT necessarily mean that the officer would actually receive the award. While I have not found anything in writing about this, one can easily imagine that an arrest which seemed at first sight to have been a good one might have turned out not to have been so impressive, especially if the prisoner was acquitted, so that the recommendation was not accepted/approved.
D. In the case of our ‘gang of five’ (Marshall, Littlechild, Swanson, Andrews, Mott), their recommendation for reward, NEVER led to the approval of an actual reward.
E. Aside from the ‘gang of five’, all payment sums in respect of recommendations for rewards listed in Police Orders of 27 November 1888 were published in Police Orders of 8 February 1889. The only payments not listed were for the ‘gang of five’.
F. No payments were ever approved for Littlechild, Swanson and Andrews, but in Police Orders of 19 January 1889 a payment can be seen for Inspector Marshall of £1, followed by a payment to PC McEllistrim of 5s and a payment to PC Mott of 10s (see below).
G. The fact that Swanson never actually received a reward following the recommendation explains why Monty has noted that there is no mention of it in his personnel file. The personnel file only includes a note of rewards actually paid.
8. Some more important points about the recommendation for rewards for the ‘gang of five’:
A. Having reviewed all recommendations for rewards in the period 1887 to 1889, it has to be said that this grouping of five officers is highly unusual, in fact unique, by including two chief inspectors. Although recommendations of rewards for inspectors are not uncommon, I have not seen one other example of a recommendation for a reward for a chief inspector, let alone two, let alone two additional recommendations for two further inspectors within the same grouping.
B. The recommendations are usually listed in rank order within each division (i.e. inspector, followed by sergeant followed by constable). In this case we have an inspector, followed by two chief inspectors. Such an arrangement out of rank order is unusual but not unique (although, as I have said, I have not found any other such rewards for chief inspectors). I have found at least one instance where a sergeant was listed above an inspector in respect of the same arrest.
C. Thus, while it is not impossible that the recommendation for Inspector Marshall was in respect of a different arrest to the other officers, the likelihood is that all five were recommended in respect of the same arrest.
D. Normally, where a group of officers are recommended for reward for an arrest with an identical Arrest Date, this is marked by the fact that the date is repeated, as opposed to inverted commas being used to represent the same date. (Having said this there are only very few examples of this and I cannot confirm that this is always done).
E. The most important fact to note – and one that I have not seen mentioned before - is that the ‘gang of five’ are all listed under the head of ‘A’ Division, despite Littlechild, Swanson and Andrews being from C.O., not ‘A’ Division.
F. Until 18 November 1887, all Central Officers were within ‘A’ Division but Sir Charles Warren reorganised this so that Police Orders of 18 November 1887 stated: “The Police Officers of the Commissioner’s Office will in future be left out of the A Division Returns, and will be included in a Return under the head of "Commissioner’s Office"”. Thus, from that point onwards officers in C.O. were listed separately from ‘A’ Division in any rewards lists.
G. Consequently, the fact that Littlechild, Swanson and Andrews were recommended for a reward for an arrest within the jurisdiction of ‘A’ Division must mean that the arrest related to a crime that had occurred within ‘A’ Division (basically Whitehall/Westminster).
H. Additionally, I should note that, in the period Nov 1887 to 1889, there is not a single example of a Central Officer within C.O. being recommended for an award WITHIN the ‘division’ of C.O. Yet, when payments of rewards are listed, with the divisions listed in alphabetical order from A to Y, the heading of C.O. appears before A, right at the top of the list and Central Officers ARE included separately.
I. Central Officers, such as Dinnie and Froest, were certainly making their own arrests during the period – and Central Officers received reward payments - so what I think must have been happening here (although I have not seen this in writing) is that the process by which rewards for arrests for Central Officers were recommended was different to the process by which they were recommended by superintendents in other divisions. Either such rewards were decided directly by the A.C.C., or the superintendent filed reports which were immediately approved by the A.C.C. without the need to publish the recommendation in Police Orders. Thus, Central Officers by-passed the recommendation stage in respect of arrests on behalf of Scotland Yard so that any rewards due for arrests were first included in Police Orders as actual quantified payments. The exception would be when they were assisting other divisions, in this case ‘A’ Division, when the recommendations were made by the superintendent of that Division.
J. Interestingly, as at 4 November 1888, ‘A’ Division had a very new superintendent who had been appointed as recently as 1 November 1888. This was Superintendent Fisher (from T Division) who replaced the outgoing Chief Superintendent Dunlap (who retired after a period of ill health). Whether this recent change of personnel was responsible for the unusual recommendations at issue, and caused some form of administrative error, I am not sure but think there may be a connection.
K. The fact that the recommendations for reward for the ‘gang of five’ relate to an ‘A’ Division arrest seems to me to kill the idea that we are dealing with rewards for an arrest of a suspect for the Whitechapel murder because it must have had a bearing on something relating to Westminster. Having said this, Inspector Marshall of ‘A’ Division was in charge of the investigation into body parts (torso) found in Whitehall during September and October 1888 and this find was linked to the Whitechapel murders. If an arrest had been made as part of this investigation it might fit the recommendation for reward but as far as we know there was no such arrest (although it leaves open the possibility that Tumblety had become entangled in this investigation).
L. The most likely reason, in my opinion, for the inclusion of this ‘gang of five’ in the commendations list is that the reward was intended to relate to their work which had led to the conviction on 24 October 1888 of Annie Frost (a.ka. Mrs Gordon Baillie). She had been arrested by Inspector Marshall at Palmer Lodge, Westminster, on 30 June 1888. The investigation during the intervening period was led by Inspector Marshall. From newspaper reports, we know that Inspector Swanson and PC Mott were involved in this case. In respect of Swanson, I have found some more information about his involvement from the Westminster and Pimlico News of 7 July 1888 which, reporting on the arrest of Annie Frost and her husband, stated: “Inspector Marshall said in the early part of the investigation complaints had been made to him with regard to the prisoners. He saw some of the cheques produced, and communicated with Inspector Swanson, of Scotland Yard, and subsequently obtained an arrest warrant from Mr Partridge for the arrest of the prisoners”. This shows involvement of Swanson in the actual arrest of Annie Frost.
M. Annie Frost (“Mrs Gordon Baillie”) had conducted frauds over a 15 year period in several different countries, including Scotland, England, Belgium, Australia and New Zealand. She had been to America, Turin and Rome. She had used some 36 different aliases and the investigation into her case was a complex and complicated one. My suspicion is that Swanson enlisted the assistance of Littlechild and Andrews for background investigation. However, a recommendation for a reward for an arrest should only have been for officers involved in making the arrest, or providing information or intelligence which led to the arrest, so a recommendation in respect of the arrest for officers concerned only in the investigation was, presumably, improper. It is possible that this was a factor in the award not being granted.
N. However, rewards could also be made for meritorious conduct and I am certain that the payments to Marshall, McEllistrim and Mott on 19 January 1889 were for their work on the Annie Frost case. McEllistrim was identified by the Middlesbrough Daily Gazette on 3 July 1888 as “Detective Ellistrim” who, at one of the remand hearings, “hugged an immense bundle of letters and documents bearing on the antecedents and adventures of Mrs Gordon Baillie”. Marshall and Mott definitely also worked on this investigation, so all three can be connected with the case.
O. At the same time, in theory, the recommendation for a reward should have involved an arrest on the Arrest Date of Sunday 4 November 1888. As I have said, however, it seems to have been possible for the dates not to match.
P. It has been suggested that the reward for Andrews was related to the arrest of Roland Gideon Israel Barnett outside Wandsworth Police Court on 13 September 1888. While Barnett was initially brought to Bow Street Police Court, it appears to have been a pure Scotland Yard matter with no relation as such to ‘A’ Division and, if that is correct, then the recommendation for reward cannot be related to this arrest.
Q. If it can ever be shown that Tumblety was arrested on 4 November (and it is certainly possible that he was arrested well before 7 November) then the above conclusion would change but I don’t think it is possible to use the commendations and rewards to the ‘gang of five’ as evidence in support of an argument that Tumblety was arrested on 4 November.
Conclusion
Although the recommendation for a reward for the ‘gang of five’ was unusual in comparison to normal recommendations, I can’t see any reason to attribute the recommendation to the Commissioner. My belief is that if he had wanted to give a reward to any officers he had full authority to do so and could have by-passed the recommendation stage. The recommendations were specifically made by superintendents. Thus, the theory that this was a parting shot by Sir Charles Warren before he left Scotland Yard does not work because such a parting shot would surely have involved actual payments. I imagine that some might speculate that Warren made the recommendations which were then overruled by Monro but the rewards for arrests were under the control of the Assistant Commissioner for Crime, then Robert Anderson, and he was a constant presence throughout.
I tend to see some form of administrative error or confusion here, possibly due to the appointment of a new superintendent in A Division at the start of November, rather than anything else. I can’t absolutely rule out that the recommendations for rewards might have related to an arrest of Tumblety on suspicion on 4 November and that it was subsequently decided that a payment was not appropriate – certainly the date works better than the Mrs Gordon Baillie case (albeit only in that we don’ t know the actual date of Tumblety’s arrest) – but bearing in mind that (a) it needed to be an ‘A’ Division crime, (b) it is a little hard to believe that five officers, including four senior officers, were involved in the actual arrest of one man and (c) the most likely scenario seems to be that Tumblety was simply arrested on the streets on suspicion, and then had compromising papers found on him, so that the arresting officers were most probably Dinnie and Froest, I do not think this is very likely.
Attached Files
Comment