|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1300
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 1:48 pm: | 
|
Sorry, but once again I have been unable to find the original thread, so have started this one in despair.
Researching the circumstances of 'HMMGP' I have discovered the original remit for such rare events and transcribe a slight portion of the massive text here.
It does reward careful study, and provides a useful insight into just why such a pardon might have been granted in the case of the murder of Mary Jane Kelly.
I have formed my own opinion but would like to hear others comment on the unusual situation of such a pardon being granted.
From 'Commentaries on the Laws of England' by William Blackstone (date unknown but very ancient), Book 4, Chapter 31 'Of reprieve, and pardon':
'1. AND, first, the king may pardon all offenses merely against the crown, or the public; excepting, 1. That, to preserve the liberty of the subject, the committing any man to prison out of the realm, is by the habeas corpus act, 31 Car. II. c. 2. made a praemunire, unpardonable even by the king. Nor, 2. Can the king pardon, where private justice is principally concerned in the prosecution of offenders: "non potest rex gratiam facere cum injuria et damno aliorum."17 Therefore in appeals of all kinds (which are the suit, not of the king, but of the party injured) the prosecutor may release, but the king cannot pardon.18 Neither can he pardon a common nuisance, while it remains unredressed, or so as to prevent an abatement of it; though afterwards he may remit the fine: because, though the prosecution is vested in the king to avoid multiplicity of suits, yet (during its continuance) this offense favors more of the nature of a private injury to each individual in the neighborhood, than of a public wrong.19 Neither, lastly, can the king pardon an offense against a popular or penal statute, after information brought: for thereby the informer has acquired a private property in his part of the penalty.20
THERE is also a restriction of a peculiar nature, that affects the prerogative of pardoning, in case of parliamentary impeachments; viz. that the king's pardon cannot be pleaded to any such impeachment, so as to impede the inquiry, and stop the prosecution of great and notorious offenders. Therefore when, in the reign of Charles the second, the earl of Danby was impeached by the house of commons of high treason and other misdemeanors and pleaded the king's pardon in bar of the same, the commons alleged,21 "that there was no precedent, that ever any pardon "was granted to any person impeached by the commons of high "treason, or other high crimes, depending the impeachment;" and therefore resolved,22 "that the pardon so pleaded was illegal and "void, and ought not to be allowed in bar of the impeachment "of the commons of England:" for which resolution they assigned23 this reason to the house of lords, "that the setting up a "pardon to be a bar of an impeachment defeats the whole use "and effect of impeachments: for should this point be admitted, or stand doubted, it would totally discourage the exhibiting any for the future; whereby the chief institution for the "preservation of the government would be destroyed." Soon after the revolution, the commons renewed the same claim, and voted,24 "that a pardon is not pleadable in bar of an impeachment." And, at length, it was enacted by the act of settlement, 12 & 13 W. III. c. 2. "that no pardon under the great seal of "England shall be pleadable to an impeachment by the commons "in parliament." But, after the impeachment has been solemnly heard and determined, it is not understood that the king's royal grace is farther restrained or abridged: for, after the impeachment and attainder of the six rebel lords in 1715, three of them were from time to time reprieved by the crown, and at length received the benefit of the king's most gracious pardon.
2. AS to the manner of pardoning: it is a general rule, that, wherever it may reasonably be perfumed the king is deceived, the pardon is void.25 Therefore any suppression of truth, or suggestion of falshood, in a charter of pardon, will vitiate the whole; for the king was misinformed.26 General words have also a very imperfect effect in pardons. A pardon of all felonies will not pardon a conviction or attainder of felony; (for it is perfumed the king knew not of those proceedings) but the conviction or attainder must be particularly mentioned:27 and a pardon of felonies will not include piracy;28 for that is no felony punishable at the common law. It is also enacted by statute 13 Ric. II. St. 2. c. 1. that no pardon for treason, murder, or rape, shall be allowed, unless the offense be particularly specified therein; and particularly in murder it shall be expressed, whether it was committed by lying in wait, assault, or malice prepense. Upon which Sir Edward Coke observes,29 that it was not the intention of the parliament that the king should ever pardon murder under these aggravations; and therefore they prudently laid the pardon under these restrictions, because they did not conceive it possible that the king would ever excuse an offense by name, which was attended with such high aggravations. And it is remarkable enough, that there is no precedent of a pardon in the register for any other homicide, than that which happens fe defendendo or per infortunium: to which two species the king's pardon was expressly confined by the statutes 2 Edw. III. c. 2. and 14 Edw. III. c. 15. which declare that no pardon of homicide shall be granted, but only where the king may do it by the oath of his crown; that is to say, where a man slayeth another in his own defense, or by misfortune. But the statute of Richard the second, before-mentioned, enlarges by implication the royal power; provided the king is not deceived in the intended object of his mercy. And therefore pardons of murder were always granted with a non obstante of the statute of king Richard, till the time of the revolution; when the doctrine of non obstante's ceasing, it was doubted whether murder could be pardoned generally: but it was determined by the court of king's bench,30 that the king may pardon on an indictment of murder, as well as a subject may discharge an appeal. Under these and a few other restrictions, it is a general rule, that a pardon shall be taken most beneficially for the subject, and most strongly against the king.
A PARDON may also be conditional: that is, the king may extend his mercy upon what terms he pleases; and may annex to his bounty a condition either precedent or subsequent, on the performance whereof the validity of the pardon will depend: and this by the common law.31 Which prerogative is daily exerted in the pardon of felons, on condition of transportation to some foreign country (usually to some of his majesty's colonies and plantations in America) for life, or for a term of years; such transportation or banishment32 being allowable and warranted by the habeas corpus act, 31 Car. II. c. 2. §. 14. and rendered more easy and effectual by statute 8 Geo. III. c. 15.
3. WITH regard to the manner of allowing pardons; we may observe, that a pardon by act of parliament is more beneficial than by the king's charter: for a man is not bound to plead it, but the court must ex officio take notice of it;33 neither can he lose the benefit of it by his own laches or negligence, as he may of the king's charter of pardon.34 The king's charter of pardon must be specially pleaded, and that at a proper time: for if a man is indicted, and has a pardon in his pocket, and afterwards puts himself upon his trial by pleading the general issue, he has waived the benefit of such pardon.35 But, if a man avails himself thereof as soon as by course of law he may, a pardon may either be pleaded upon arraignment, or in arrest of judgment, or in the present stage of proceedings, in bar of execution. Anciently, by statute 10 Edw. III. c. 2. no pardon of felony could be allowed, unless the party found sureties for the good behavior before the sheriff and coroners of the county.36 But that statute is repealed by the statute 5 & 6 W. & M. c. 13. which, instead thereof, gives the judges of the court a discretionary power to bind the criminal, pleading such pardon, to his good behavior, with two sureties, for any term not exceeding seven years.
4. LASTLY, the effect of such pardon by the king, is to make the offender a new man; to acquit him of all corporal penalties and forfeitures annexed to that offense for which he obtains his pardon; and not so much to restore his former, as to give him a new, credit and capacity. But nothing can restore or purify the blood when once corrupted, if the pardon be not allowed till after attainder, but the high and transcendent power of parliament. Yet if a person attainted receives the king's pardon, and afterwards has a son, that son may be heir to his father; because the father, being made a new man, might transmit new inheritable blood: though, had he been born before the pardon, he could never have inherited at all.37'
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1301
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 2:05 pm: |
|
Examples of 'HMMGP' are rare jewels indeed, but here is one (from the colonies which is the usual case):
'NEW SOUTH WALES
CONDITIONAL PARDON
By His Excellency Charles Augustus Fitz Roy, Knight Companion of the Royal Hanoverian Guelphic Order, Captain General and Governor-in-Chief in and over Her Majesty's Territory of New South Wales, and its Dependencies, and Vice-Admiral of the same, &c.
Whereas by an Act of the Imperial Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland, passed in the Sixth year of the Reign of Her Majesty Queen Victoria intituled "An Act to amend the Law affecting Transported Convicts, with Respect to Pardons and Tickets of Leave," it was amongst other things enacted, that, after the taking effect of the said recited Act, in any place to which Felons and Offenders had been or might be transported by Law, the Governor or Lieutenant Governor should from time to time, by an Instrument in Writing, under his hand, recommend such Felons or other Offenders as he should think fit to be recommended, to Her Majesty, for an Absolute or Conditional Pardon; and in case Her Majesty should, through one of Her Principal Secretaries of State, signify Her approval of any such recommendation, it should be lawful for the Governor or Lieutenant-Governor to grant an Absolute or Conditional Pardon, pursuant to such Instructions as should be sent to him by the Secretary of State, by an Instrument in Writing, under the Seal of his Government, which should be deemed from the Day of the Date thereof, to have within such Place or Places, as should be specified in such Pardon, but not elsewhere, the same effect in the Law, to all intents and purposes, as if a General, Absolute or Conditional Pardon had passed on that Day, under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom; And whereas the said recited Act has taken effect in the said Colony of New South Wales; and whereas ....Joseph Ray...., whose description is hereunto annexed, having been indicted and convicted at .... Stafford Assizes .... on the .... second .... day of .... August .... One thousand eight hundred and .... twenty seven .... , of the Crime of .... House Robbery ...., was, in pursuance of the said Conviction, sentenced to Transportation, and was accordingly Transported to the said Colony, for .... the period of his natural life .... : And Whereas, in consideration of the good conduct of the said .... Joseph Ray .... since his arrival in the said colony .... I Sir Charles Augustus Fitz Roy .... Governor of New South Wales, recommend the said .... Joseph Ray .... to her Majesty for a pardon, to take effect in all parts of the World, except ..... The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland .... ; and Whereas Her Majesty has been graciously pleased to signify Her approval of such recommendation, through Her Principal Secretary of State for the Colonies;
NOW KNOW YE, that I, SIR CHARLES AUGUSTUS FITZ ROY, in pursuance of the Power and Authority so in me vested by the said recited Act, and of Her Majesty's gracious approval so signified, and of the instructions of the said Secretary of State in this behalf, do hereby grant unto the said .... Joseph Ray .... , a Pardon for the Offence, in respect of which such Sentence of Transportation was passed as aforesaid, which shall take effect in all parts of the World, except .... The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland .... ; PROVIDED ALWAYS, and it is hereby expressly declared to be a Condition of the Pardon, that the said .... Joseph Ray ..... , shall at any time during the continuance, go to, or be in any part of .... The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland .... , then this pardon shall thenceforth be and become wholly void, as by Her Majesty's Commands expressly limited and directed; and all Her Majesty's Officers and Ministers of Justice, and all other, Her Majesty's subjects, are hereby required to take notice accordingly.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have caused these Letters to be made Patent, and to be Sealed with the Seal of the said Territory.
GIVEN under my Hand at Government House, Sydney, this .... Thirtyfirst .... day of .... December .... in the .... Eighteenth .... Year of the Reign of Her Majesty , and in the Year of our Lord, One Thousand Eight Hundred and Forty .... seven.
........................................................
(Signed) CHAS. A. FITZROY
ENTERED upon Record at Pages .... 483.... and ..... 484 .... Register No. ..... 95 .... this ..... first .... day of .... February ..... One thousand eight hundred and forty .... eight
...........................................
for the ...... Colonial Secretary and Registrar.
DESCRIPTION
NAME................................ Joseph Ray
SHIP.................................. Bussorah Merchant (1)
MASTER............................ Baigrie
YEAR OF ARRIVAL............ 1828
NATIVE PLACE.................. Staffordshire
TRADE OR CALLING.......... Labour
OFFENCE........................... House Robbery
PLACE of TRIAL................. Stafford
DATE OF TRIAL.................. August, 1827
SENTENCE.......................... Life
YEAR OF BIRTH.................. 1807
HEIGHT................................ 5 feet 6 inches
COMPLEXION....................... Ruddy
HAIR..................................... Brown
EYES..................................... Hazel
GENERAL REMARKS..........Scar on Right side of neck
.............................................Blue mark on Left arm
.............................................Small finger of Left hand contracted
............................................ Small finger of Right contracted '
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2877
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 3:07 pm: |
|
Very interesting, AP. Where did you dig that lot up from? Has AP Wolf been talking to Lord Woolf?
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the power of pardon was very circumscribed - the monarch could only pardon in certain situations, and it had to be clear precisely which crimes were being pardoned. Which is what puzzles me about the Kelly pardon. For it was definitely stated that the pardon applied only to accomplices to the Kelly murder - the previous crimes were expressly ruled out. So, presumably, the Government must have felt fairly sure that the murderer had not been aided and abetted with the previous crimes, though he may have been helped with the Kelly murder. Else, what use would a pardon have been to an accomplice? If he was pardoned for the Kelly crime, he'd still have been wide open to being prosecuted for aiding the murderer with Eddowes et al. Yet how could the Goverment have been so confident that the murderer hadn't been aided and abetted previously?
It's all rather confusing!
Robert |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1302
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 4:24 pm: |
|
Yes, Robert, you are right, it is all rather confusing.
However I do think that the original remit sheds some dim light on the dark situation, in that the monarch is recommended to use parliament at all times rather than his or her own 'pardon' - therefore when dung hits the fan monarch is not covered in the brown stuff - and that said 'pardon' is invalid if the monarch has been misinformed - or deliberately lied to - and again avoids a shower of the brown stuff, merely allowing his ministers to sit up to their necks awash in the stuff.
More importantly - and I think highly relevant in the singular case of Mary Jane Kelly - is that Her or His Majesty's Most gracious Pardon has never been granted in a single case where the name of the person has been unknown to the monarch. The pardon has usually only ever been offered as an inducement to people known to the monarch - or his officers of state - to turn evidence against other people who have visibly harmed the interests of the monarch.
Here I refer to mutinies in the ranks of serving soldiers or piracy in the colonies.
Privately it has been used in exceptional circumstances - in my previous post and almost always in the colonies - for individuals who have proved their loyalty to crown and its servants.
But, and this is a big 'but', I can see no possible or exceptional circumstance where 'HMMGP' would be offered to an individual unknown to the crown or its officers.
This has never happened and never will.
So what I am saying is that the crown or its officers were already aware of the identity of the person they were offering the pardon to.
The pardon could not have been offered otherwise.
This seems to be implicit in the original remit.
I will post more examples of this rare thing, and as you will see, the person or persons concerned are always known to the crown or its officers.
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1305
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 6:11 pm: |
|
Sorry Robert
fuelled on high octane SSB I have found the single exception that provides the case.
In acts of high terrorism the monarch may issue 'HMMGP' for person or persons unknown.
The following for the monarch of the day was the 'Twin Towers' for Bush, but I still do not believe that the case of JtR posed a real threat of national security, but here you go, it exists:
'Whitehall, April 12. 1758Whereas it hath been humbly represented to his Majesty, that on Tuesday the 11th instant, at Eleven o'Clock at night, the Temporary Bridge erected for a Passage during the Alteration of London Bridge was set on Fire, and in the Space of a few Hours burnt down and entirely consumed, whereby the Passage over the said bridge is totally destroyed; and whereas there are the strongest Grounds to believe, that the said Temporary Bridge was wilfully and maliciously set on fire by the Contrivance or Conspiracy of evil disposed and wicked Persons, his Majesty for the better discovery and bringing to Justice the Perpetrator or Perpetrators of a Crime so very infamous and detestable, is hereby pleased to promote his most gracious Pardon to any one of the Persons concerned in contriving the same, (except the Person or Persons who actually set the said Temporary Bridge on Fire,) who shall discover the Person or Persons who set the said Bridge on Fire, so that he, she or they, be apprehended and convicted thereof. W. PITT.
And, as a further Encouragement, the Mayor, Aldermen, and Commons of the City of London, in Common Council assembled, do hereby promise a Reward of 20l.? to any Person making such Discovery as aforesaid, (except the Person or Persons who actually set the said Bridge on Fire,) to be paid by the Chamberlain of London, on Conviction of such Offender or Offenders.
Guildhall, April 12, 1758. Hodges.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2881
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 6:51 pm: |
|
Hi AP
Well, I wonder what the circumstances were in the Kelly murder, that were wanting in the previous murders. And what assistance was supposed to have been given to the murderer.
I'd also like to know how long these posters were put up for. Throughout 1889? 1890? And, bearing in mind the Polish Jew theory, were there Yiddish versions?
It's interesting that they decided on the pardon and then announced it to the Queen, and just expected her to go along with it. This pardoning of the guilty is the sort of thing I would have expected Victoria to disapprove of - at least to the point of needing to be talked into it.
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1027
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 28, 2004 - 4:55 am: |
|
Hi Robert,
Circumstances?.
how about the police believed the murder happened in later daylight hours, this was not evident in past murders of this series, the latest was that of Chapman, and that was at around 530am.
It would also be a reason to suspect the ripper may have had a accomplice as he would have returned to his abode during the mid morning hours, in a disrevelled state.
Regards Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2885
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 28, 2004 - 5:06 am: |
|
Hi Richard
Yes, that's a good suggestion. I just wonder, though : the decision to offer a pardon was made on Nov 10th. Would the police have made up their minds so early on, that this was a daylight killing?
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1028
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 28, 2004 - 3:40 pm: |
|
Hi Robert,
They would have done if originally they believed Maxwells account, also the condition of the fire, and the recent origin of blood.
The fact is if my suggestion is correct they could have received evidence or eye evidence that the carnage must have been recent.
Richard. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1307
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 28, 2004 - 3:49 pm: |
|
Robert
I feel that Her Majesty may have wanted it to appear that her arm had been twisted in the case of this highly unusual pardon... as I said before then the brown stuff would hit her ministers and not her.
I still have not found a similar pardon in a case of murder - apart from crown sponsored piracy of course - and reproduce below another example of ancient pardon:
The Whiteboys of Ireland
'However towards the end of the 1760's Whiteboy activity increased dramatically in Kilkenny. One of the most notorious episodes of this period concerned the tithe-collector, Patrick Shee of Thomastown. On March 3rd 1770 a large body of Whiteboys, estimated at over 300, attacked the house of William Shee of Thomastown, a prosperous merchant. They broke open the windows and doors with sledges while at the same time firing several shots into the ceiling and floors. They then dragged William Shee and his father Patrick (who was an old man aged between 70 and 80 years) from their beds and after severely beating both of them they mounted Patrick on horseback and carried him 'upwards of four miles' from his house where he was later found 'senseless and battered terribly on the body with one of his ears slit through with a penknife.' His attackers were described as 'all clad in white uniforms, armed with guns, muskets, swords and hangers; mounted on choice cattle that seemed regularly trained to firing; headed by officers whose heads were covered with fine sprigged muslin and from whose sides white sashes, knotted at each end with ribbonds, were suspended and preceded by music and sound of horns.' The only reason put forward for this attack was that Patrick Shee 'had farmed some tythes from Dr. Cockburn.'
The Earl of Carrick, who lived at Mount Juliet, immediately brought this assault to the attention of the Lord Lieutenant who issued a proclamation at once offering a reward of £100 each for 'the discovery and prosecution to conviction of the three persons distinguished by the names Capt. Fearnought, Lieut. Calfskin and Ensign Leathercoat,' who were thought to be the leaders of the Whiteboys in the attack, and also a reward of £50 'for each and every of the first six persons concerned therewith, together with His Majesty's most gracious pardon and the said rewards to any persons concerned in the said felony and who shall discover his accomplices.'
No murder was committed it must be noted and as the proceedings proceed it becomes clear that all concerned in the 'Whiteboy' fracas were known to the crown by name.
I will attempt to find a pardon issued in the case of a murder but I feel the search will prove barren.
As I have stated before I have long felt the circumstances of the pardon in the murder of Mary Jane Kelly hinges on the premise that the killer was aided and abetted by a person of some authority - not in the actual murder but in the aftermath - and this pardon was a direct appeal to that person to honour his allegiance to the crown, which he served.
Vested interest prevents me from speculating that the third party was a senior police official with direct links to the case.
Well, sort of prevents me.
It was uncle Charles.
I wish. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2889
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 28, 2004 - 4:24 pm: |
|
Hi AP
Well, if that's right then I think that Tom must certainly have been put away in Peckham House or some such place directly after the murder, otherwise the authorities would have applied suitable pressure on Uncle Charles to spill the beans. The trouble is, I've an idea the Peckham House records are no longer extant.
I notice in the Irish case above that the pardon offer was accompanied by a reward offer. However, in the case of Kelly no reward offer accompanied the pardon offer. A sign that the authorities had crossed penniless people off their list - believing the accomplice was sufficiently well-off not to be swayed by the reward? After all, a reward here couldn't have done any harm - they were hardly likely to be bombarded by reward hunters and chancers all eager to claim the role of JTR's accomplice.
Robert |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1308
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 28, 2004 - 4:37 pm: |
|
Of course it is all speculation, Robert, but no harm in that, if it brings us insight into the reasoning behind the granting of 'HMMGP' in the case of Mary Kelly.
My instinct doth tell me that the pardon holds some great clue as yet undiscovered and unremarked.
The direction would seem to lead one to the conclusion that the authorities were perfectly aware that in the case of Mary Kelly an accomplice was involved in some manner or form.
Here is a murder case for you where 'HMMGP' has been offered, and careful reading will show that the pardon is specifically directed at person - or persons - involved in the circumstances of but not the actual crime. This is in a case that falls into the LVP, a most unusual case of men dressing as women - 'Daughters of Rebecca' - and then attacking the offices and officers of the crown in Wales:
'Transcription:
Carmarthen, 13 Sept., 1843.
My dear Sir,
As I understand Mr. Chambers is absent I must address my letters now to you, and I have to inform you that the Secretary of State will authorise the offer by you of Her Majesty's most gracious pardon to any person concerned in the murder of the woman at Ponthendy gate, who shall give information and evidence so as to convict the offenders, excepting such persons as actually fired the shot which deprived her of life. And also that he will recommend of the payment of a further reward of £200 in addition to that sum offered by Mr. Chambers for the detection of the persons who set her property on fire, excepting always anyone who actually set fire to the premises and stacks, and so that no principal offender shall receive any part of the award in question. He will advise in this case the grant of Her Majesty's most gracious pardon to an accomplice under the same restriction, namely, that it is not to be extended to any one who actually set fire to any of the property consumed.
.....I shall be glad to be accurately informed as to the circumstances attending the threats used to Mr. Chambers if he did not release his prisoner. Can you send me a copy of the verdict?
Bonville [the coroner] is not here.
I am, dear Sir,
Yours,
Geo. Rice Trevor.
Vice-Lt.
[Source: George Eyre Evans, 'Rebecca Riots: Unpublished letters, 1843-44', The Transactions of the Carmarthenshire Antiquarian Society and Field Club, vol. XXIII, pp. 65-6] (Repository ref: MUS 368, CAS)'
My own feeling is that when Her Majesty's Most Gracious Pardon fails it leads directly to Her Majesty's Pleasure.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2890
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 28, 2004 - 5:08 pm: |
|
Yes, AP. I just wish we could get some idea of the state of play for the years 89 - 91.
Forgive me for being dense here AP, but surely the pardon mentioned above was offered to some person or persons whose identity wasn't known. But earlier you said that such pardons were offered only when the identity of the person was known. I don't understand.
Robert |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1311
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 28, 2004 - 5:39 pm: |
|
It's a learning curve for me as well, Robert.
I meant that the pardon was only offered to the perpetrator of an actual crime, particularly in the case of murder, when that perpetrator was known to the crown, as in the famous cases of piracy... the pardons here are offered directly to accomplices not involved in the actual crimes, in the hope of discovering the name of the perpetrator.
I'm beginning to sound like Groucho Marx here.
Pardons being exchanged for absolute loyalty to the crown are not unusual, in other words murder will be excused by loyalty.
The pardon in Mary Kelly's murder was probably directed at an individual known to the crown.
But that wouldn't be Jack.
Give me a week, I'll get my old head around this elastic band. |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 458
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 28, 2004 - 10:04 pm: |
|
Hi all,
I don't know if this helps but I've been considering two items of information that have appeared on these boards before. First is the story of Mr. Larkins the Customs Official. Here's Tom Cullen's account if AUTUMN OF TERROR (American title: WHEN LONDON WALKED IN TERROR) (New York: The Hearst Corporation - Avon Books, p. 1965), P. 188 - 189:
"Most assiduous of the early amateurs was Edwin K. Larkins, an employee of Her Majesty's Custons, who over a period of three years, made himself a thorough nuisance at the Home Office and at Scotland Yard. Larkins claimed that the murders were the work of not one, but two killers, whom he identified as Portuguese seamen working aboard the cattleboats CITY OF OPORTO and CITY OF CORK. THe two men, however, were not accomplices, according to this Cusoms official."
" "The first murder, I assume, was committed by one man out of revenge; those which followed were committed by another man in a spirit of deviltry," Larkins wrote in a memorandum dated March 8, 1889. He then named his suspects. "The cattlemen who were in this country on board the vessels when these murders took place were Manuel Crux Xavier and Jose Laurence.""
"Larkins worked out an elaborate chart showing that the CITY OF OPORTO, with Xavier aboard, had been tied up in the London docks on August 31, when Mary Ann Nicholls was found murdered, while Laurence had been in London aboard the CITY OF CORK on the dates of the other four murders. On the strength of this evidence Larkins urged the British Consul at Oporto to have the two culprits arrested and extradited to England at once. When the Consul declined to do so, Larkins sent off a scorching letter. "Immediately the excitement is over I shall...invite the opinion of the public as to whether you are a fit person to be in charge of British intersts abroad," the Cusoms official warned. As late as 1891 Larkins was still bombarding the Home Secretary and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner with memoranda concerning the Ripper case."
Personally this was one of the oddest suggestions for named suspects to pop up in the Whitechapel Murder Case. However, we are not arguing the successful discovery of the truth by Edwin Larkins. Instead, I propose to suggest that Larkins' bombardments may have had more impact in certain circles than we imagine. I am now quoting from QUEEN VICTORIA IN HER LETTERS AND JOURNALS: A SELECTION BY CHRISTOPHER HIBBERT (Harmondsworth, England; New York, New York: Penguin Books, 1984, 1985), p. 314. The Queen was writing to Henry Matthews:
"13 November 1888
The Queen fears that the detective department is not so efficient as it might be. No doubt the recent murders in Whitechapel were committed in circumstances which made detection with difficult; still, the Queen thinks that, in the small area where these horrible crimes have been perpetratred, a great number of detectives might be employed, and that every possible suggestion might be carefully examined and, if practicable, followed.
HAVE THE CATTLE BOATS AND PASSENGER BOATS BEEN EXAMINED?
Has any investigation been made as to the number of single men occupying rooms to themselves?
The murderer's clothes must be saturated with blood and must be kept somewhere.
Is there sufficient surveillance at night?
These are some of the questions that occur to the Queen on reading the accounts of this horrible crime."
I have capitalized one line of Victoria's letter to Matthew to show that it is apparent that the idea of the murderer being a member of a cattle boat was being bandied about - maybe through Larkins' bombardments, or possibly by some other reason. But, if it was Larkins who had set up this possible scenario that attracted the Queen's attention, his view of the two killers was that Mary Nichols was killed for revenge, while the others, culminating with the butchered Mary Kelly, were out of a love of cruelty. This might possibly explain the crazy wording of that pardon offer. If the Queen and the Cabinet believed in what Larkins suggested, they would have a choice -give a pass to the first killer, and they'd catch the second one who was worse.
Best wishes,
Jeff |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1313
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 1:34 pm: |
|
Nicely reasoned, Jeff, and a nice quotation which I don't think I have seen in such depth before.
I'm still trying to get my old head around all this, but there was certainly something in the circumstances of Mary Kelly's murder that made the crown offer the pardon, whether that was purely based on pressure from Her Majesty for something to be done we don't know...
However I'm inclined to see another explanation for the pardon. I just need to find that explanation. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1315
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 1:57 pm: |
|
The following rare 'HMMGP' concerning a case of murder is of interest as it does mention that certain persons of influence were able to petition a pardon with some hard cash... Her or His Majesty it appears was not adverse to a back-hander arriving in the Privy Purse:
'Governor William Bull's Letter
to
William Pitt, Secretary of State
Requesting Pardons
for
Hannah Wieber, John Geiger, & Jacob Bourghardt
26th April 1761
Charles Town, South Carolina
Received 23 July 1761
Compiled by Brenda Helen Keck Reed
This letter was generously provided by Gene Jeffries as "working papers" and not as a quotable source as taken from the British Public Records Office, America and West Indies, Volume 73, page 80, Charles Town, South Carolina, 26th April 1761. This researcher has written to the South Carolina Archives for a copy of this letter and will confirm the accuracy once received. There are differences in spellings and grammar representative of the 18th century and between Germans and the English.
"Sir,
"I am to acquaint you that at the last General Sessions of the Peace, Oyer and Terminer, Assize and General Goal delivery held at Charles Town, Jacob Weiber, Hannah Wieber, John Geiger and
Jacob Bourghart were tried and found guilty of murder, and received sentence of deaths on the thirty first of March last, and in pursuance thereof Jacob Weiber was executed. I thought Hannah Wieber, John Geiger and Jacob Bourghart, who acted by his commands, to be objects of His Majesty's mercy and therefore reprieved them till His Majesty's pleasure therein shall be known. I beg leave to inform you of the nature of their ence. In the remote part of the Province beyond the Congarees, where there is no Dutch Minister, these ignorant Germans from a pious desire of having some religion had unhappily formed a Sect of Enthusiasts.
Jacob Weiber who unpiously called himself the most High, pronouced to them that Smith Pieter, the person murdered, who it seems differed with him in some points of doctrine, was the old Serpent, and unless he was put to death, the World could not be saved. The deluded people immediately seized Smith Pieter and with all the rage of religious perseution beat him to death without remorse.
"In order to put a stop to this Goil, I thought it necessary that one, the Chief, should suffer, and as Public Justice is thereby satisfied for the blood of Murder, and as Hannah Wieber, John Geiger and
Jacob Burghart each with numerous Families, bear the character of being long known, orderly and industrious to recommend them as Objects worthy His Majesty's most gracious Pardon. I must further take the liberty of representing to you, that as they are very poor, they have no Friend but your Compassion to solicit for their Pardon, no money to defray the expense of issuing this Act of Royal Grace through the usual Channel particular persons, and stand no chance of receiving this Benefit, if they shall fortunately be thought worthy of it, but by being inserted in some General Pardon.
"I have the Honor to to be with the greatest respect,
Sir,
Your most humble servant
William Bull
To the Right Humble
William Pitt Esq., one of
His Majesty's Principal
Secretaries of State
Received 23 July [1761]"
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1316
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 2:04 pm: |
|
Robert, I am trying to get to the time period required but it is hard work.
I think this one - 1828 - highlights the points I have been attempting to make in this discussion:
'TWO HUNDRED POUNDS REWARD.
-------------------------------------------------
WHEREAS, on the Night of Friday the
23d, or early on the Morning of Saturday
the 24th day of November last, whilst PETER
M’CANN, one of the Coast Guard party stationed
at Balbriggan, in the County of Dublin, was on
duty at or near Rogerstown (between Pertrane
and Rush, in said County of Dublin,) some per-
son or persons on board a Smuggling Boat, or
aiding and assisting in landing Tobacco, or other
Illicit Goods, from said boat, or some other person
or persons unknown, most inhumanly Murdered
the said Peter M’Cann, by beating in the crown
of his head with some large implement.
Now the Commissioners of his Majesty's Cus-
toms hereby offer a Reward of
TWO HUNDRED POUNDS,
to be paid to any person or persons who shall,
within Six Months from the date hereof, discover and
prosecute to conviction any of the persons concerned
in the said Murder.
And the said Commissioners do hereby further
offer a Reward of
FIFTY POUNDS
to any person or persons who shall, within the time
aforesaid, give such private information as may
lead to the discovery and conviction of any one or
more of the persons concerned in the said Murder.
By order of the Commissioners,
C. I. A. MAC LEAN, Secretary.
Custom-House, Dublin.
1st Dec. 1827.
Dublin Castle, 7th Dec. 1827.
The Lord Lieutenant, for the better apprehend-
ing and bringing to justice the persons concerned
in the Murder committed upon Peter M’Cann,
mentioned in the foregoing Advertisement, is pleased
hereby to promise his Majesty’s most gracious par-
don to any one of them, (excepting those who
actually struck the said Peter M’Cann) who shall,
within Six Months from the date hereof, discover
his Accomplice, so that they, or any of them, be
convicted.
By his Excellency’s command,
573 WM. LAMB.' |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2895
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 3:18 pm: |
|
Hi AP, Jeff
AP, I think I've got it now : the pardon was offered as a grateful reward to people who'd shown loyalty to the sovereign in matters that touched on the rights and privileges of the sovereign or the peace and security of the sovereign's realm - as in the terrorism and smuggling cases quoted. And, of course, it's difficult to think of something that less (in those days) concerned the sovereign than the fate of five whores.
Jeff, you could be right with that cattleboat idea. I think the Queen's wording rather highlights it, when she says "the Queen thinks....every possible suggestion might be carefully examined".
Robert |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 459
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 12:53 am: |
|
Hi Robert,
As a kind of side issue, as far as you know (or anyone reading this) has anybody done any research into Larkins and his odd theory. I realize the "Cattleboat" aspect of it has not been totally rejected - it plays some role in theories regarding some recently suggested Ripper suspects, like Arbie Le Bruckman in the background of the "Old Shakespeare" murder in New York. But what surprises me about Edwin Larkins is his specifically naming Manuel Xavier Cruz and Jose Laurence on those two cattle boats as the killers, and then subdividing the victims. What on earth led Larkins into choosing these two men as his suspects, and why did he feel so certain about them and their movements and involvement that he even pestered the British counsel in Oporto with ignominious dismissal if he did not get their arrest! It sound really odd. Because it sounds laughable nobody may have taken Larkins seriously all these years to gather how he arrived at his conclusions.
Jeff |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2903
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 9:03 am: |
|
Hi Jeff
I don't know whether anyone has done a serious analysis of Larkins's claims. It may well be that Victoria got to hear about them, and wanted them checked out. I myself feel that the police were right to dismiss him as a faddist.
He seems to pile assumption on assumption - not tentatively, but in the certainty that he's on the right track. Also, he seems determined to make the facts fit the theory. And I estimate a good 50% of his theory is simply due to his dislike of the Portuguese!
I haven't seen his medical student theory. Surely he hadn't found a Portuguese medical student training in London?
Robert |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1318
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 4:19 pm: |
|
I’ve been dwelling on the pardon offered in the case of MJK, taking into consideration what one has learnt from previous pardons offered in murder cases and have reached some conclusion at last.
Of vital importance to note is that the pardon is being offered to persons who may have aided, abetted or assisted in the murder of MJK… not directly to the murderer.
Now such a pardon by its very nature must be discrete in its origin, purpose and execution, for such pardons resulting in the conviction of a killer would by necessity confer on the accomplice a high degree of secrecy, for failing such a caution the accomplice would be placed in a highly dangerous and compromising situation whereas if his or her name became known it could well result in a life threatening situation should the name of the accomplice be released into the public domain.
Hence the modern Witness Protection Scheme which does have its origins in such gracious pardons.
In other words, such a pardon - as in this case offered to an accomplice of murder - must assure complete and utter anonymity to the person it is directed at.
If it does not it fails in its initial purpose.
In the cases we have reviewed here, the right of anonymity and security is inherently implicit in ‘HMMGP’ when it is extended to an accomplice of a crime, particularly in murder cases.
Public records do show that actual murderers - or other criminals - to whom ‘HMMGP’ has been extended have been named in the pardon.
It would be both illogical and unreasonable of us to suppose that a document exists in which the accomplice of a killer is named by the authorities in the case of ‘HMMGP’ being granted.
We do know that such a pardon was extended in the case of MJK, but I fear we may never know whether that pardon was confirmed.
But hey, it is good fun.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2910
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 6:08 pm: |
|
AP, if I'd been the accomplice, I'd have been very wary of going for the pardon. The terms were, that it would be issued in exchange for information leading to the conviction of the murderer. But what if the murderer proved too ill to stand trial? Would the accomplice be open to prosecution? Machiavellian I know, but we're dealing with politicians here.
Robert |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1324
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 2:36 pm: |
|
Robert, yes it will be convulated.
This article is well worth a browse:
http://ncf.canberra.edu.au/events/pardonsperspective.pdf.
A small sample:
'This story of curbing of executive pardoning powers has a parallel in the Common Law world. Danby, the chief minister of Charles II, was about to be impeached by Parliament, but the king stepped in with a royal pardon (Rolph, 21). As part of the establishment of constitutional monarchy that followed the departure of the Stuarts, it was prescribed that the royal pardon could never again be used to block impeachment (Kobil 587). By 1830 it was clear that the king had lost the rest of his pardoning power.'
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2916
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 3:38 pm: |
|
Very interesting article, AP. And a very funny Lincoln quote.
I'm just wondering whether this offer of HMMGP stood for all time, or whether it had to be renewed by each incoming Government - i.e. had the accomplice come forward while Gladstone was back in power, would Gladstone have felt bound by Salisbury's earlier decision (even if he disagreed with it).
Robert |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1328
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 4:32 pm: |
|
This sparks. We have the 'Whiteboys', the Pope and Henry Matthews all in one... sorry I lost the sauce.
'This last series consists of: memoranda by the Irish Law Officers about Whiteboy offences and agrarian agitation in 1879; confidential memoranda by A.J. Balfour on the 'Plan of Campaign' in 1887 and on the political condition of Ireland in 1889, the former being also among the Cabinet Papers; a confidential memorandum by Henry Matthews on diplomatic relations with the Pope in 1887;' |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1329
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 4:46 pm: |
|
I'm nearly there Robert, only another 15 years to go, from the New South Wales official government website:
4. Copies of Royal Pardon Warrants, Feb 1858-Jul 1873, CGS 10994
(4/4428; microfilm copy SR Reel 772, photocopy [City] COD215). 1 vol.
These are copies of warrants from Queen Victoria authorising the grant of a pardon registered by the Inspector General of Police. Personal details of the convict are frequently noted.
This series is continued from Colonial Secretary: Copies of Royal Pardon Warrants, 4 Feb 1791-Jan 1857 (4/4495, 4/4428).
I'll check these out when the brandy bottle runs dry. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1330
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 4:42 pm: |
|
I think the following would make a useful addition to the discussion:
Discontent and Authority, 1820-1840PRO Class HO 64, Boxes 1-19: Rewards, Pardons and Street Service. This material provides illuminating insights into the reactions of the governing elite towards urban and working-class discontent and into the methods employed to stamp out any hint of sedition. Central to this class are secret service and police reports which provide an in-depth view of the attitudes and methods of those responsible for public law and order during the period. This collection also contains an abundance of material relating to the offer of pardons and rewards in exchange for information leading to the arrest of criminals. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1331
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 5:28 pm: |
|
Astonishing to realise that in 1993 '56' royal pardons were extended to criminal offenders... and not one of them ever appeared named in the media.
From the HP sauce:
Royal Pardons
Mr. Kilfoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many royal pardons of convicted criminals were agreed by the Home Secretary in each year between 1983 and 2003. [154575]
Mr. Blunkett: The two forms of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy (RPM) used to grant pardons to convicted criminals are:
(1) Free pardon ("free" in this context means that the pardon is free from any conditions); and
(2) Remission (the mitigation of punishment by releasing a prisoner from having to serve some or all of the remainder of his sentence; or releasing one who has been subjected to a monetary penalty from the obligation to pay it or part of it).
The figures from 1992 are in the following table—Figures for earlier years are not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
Free Pardons Remission(62)
1992 19 42
1993 22 34
1994 12 29
1995 12 1
1996 1 4
1997 0 3
1998 0 0
1999 0 0
2000 0 2
2001 0 0
2002 0 3
2003 0 0
Food for thought indeed.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2923
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 5:48 pm: |
|
Indeed, AP. By the way, I'm not surprised that they're too sloppy to have the figures for previous years available. Nothing's changed at the top in 116 years.
Robert |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1332
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 6:13 pm: |
|
Not too sloppy, Robert, too frightened is the word.
For the records reflect those much-loved Fenians, back then and now, and royal pardons were flying around like confetti at a royal wedding.
Royal Pardons do reflect a 'wobble' in national security, that much I have found. |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 460
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 10:12 pm: |
|
Hi all,
My computer has been acting up for a couple of days. I have looked up something of interest in this pardon issue.
In the book THE FATAL GALLOWS TREE: AN ACCOUNT OF THE BRITISH HABIT OF HANGING, by John Deane Potter
(London: Elek Books Limited, 1965), p. 160 - 161, there is an account of the end of unencumbered Royal pardoning power in 1830. The passage is this -
"The reformers [on the death penalty] found an
unexpected ally in King George IV, 'The First Gentleman in Europe', who in spite of the gross, gouty portraits which have come to us was the most enlightened monarch of his time [this is Mr. Deane's opinion]. Je dos;oled jamgomg especially for trivial offences. Or if there was the slightest doubt concerning the condemned person's guilt he constantly recommended reprieves which were still within the royal perrogative as the King had to sign all death warrants. His reluctance to do so made the Newgate hangmen refer to him as 'too gallows merciful'."
"One of his actions to stop a hanging provoked a first-class political storm. In 1830 Peter Comyn
of County Clare, Ireland who had burt down his house was due to be hanged for arson. Property was still so all-important that to destroy even one's own property was as serious as murder."
"Comyn was very popular and his neighbours petitioned King George IV for his reprieve. The King was 'much moved' by the petition and,
without consulting his ministers, wrote directly to the Lord-Lieutenant of COunty Clare directing him not to proceed with the hanging but to substitute wome lighter punishment as he might think fit."
"When he referred the matter to the Irish Law Officers it caused a constitutional crisis. Although mercy and reprieve had always been the kings' own privilege, for a long time no monarch had taken such a step withot first asking the advice of his ministers."
"The Prime Minister was the Duke of Wellington who had no love for King George. Both he and the Home Secretary, Sir Robert Peel, told him he had acted unconstitutionally. Later Peel wrote threatening to resign if Comyn was not hanged. The King gave in and withdrew his order. Comyn was executed to save the politician's pride."
"This row had one far-reaching consequence which has lasted until the present day. Seven years later, when the young Queen Victoria came to the throne, the ministers seized the opportunity to change the law. They argued that a young girl like the new Queen should not be asked to sign death warrants -- which she would have to do or exercise the royal right of mercy -- so the Home Secretary was assigine to deal with the matter on her behalf."
"This is how the situation arose by which one single politician appointed as Home Secretary, and often a dullard, was placed in the position of over-ruling the law in the matter of life and death of any English person sentenced to be hanged."
Hi Robert,
Larkin is ridiculous in his theories, but he pinpointed two names. Why were Cruz and Laurence chosen? What attracted Larking to them, out of all the men on those two cattleboats. Probably something that struck him as odd, but it is something that nobody seems to know today.
He does have a considerable concern about the murders being done by Portuguese nationals. But
there might be some historical reason for that.
The last major mass murder case in Great Britain was in 1877 when the Watkin Family (five members) was wiped out by a sailor named named
Garcia, at Llangibby, Wales. But Garcia (who was
hanged) was Spanish, not Portuguese. I wonder if
Larkin got the two confused somehow. The killings were done with a knife.
I would think a medical student from Portugal would have gone to Germany or Edinburgh before going to London.
Best wishes,
Jeff |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1334
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 2:16 pm: |
|
Good point about the Royal Pardons, Jeff.
I think this is going to take a lot more looking into before we resolve it. Recently I read a ministerial Home Office reply in Parliament where the Home Office admitted it did not have a clue as to how many Royal Pardons had been exteneded or granted in the last hundred years.
Such Royal Pardons have always been dodgy, you could buy the things not so long ago - and you probably still can today - but I'm beavering away at the issue:
'Louise Jackson (2000) in a study of reactions to child abuse in Victorian England reports a Bow Street (London) magistrate in 1830, unable to convict an alleged child molester for lack of evidence, encouraging in his closing speech the 'rough justice' of the mob waiting outside the court house who acted accordingly. Similarly, older traditions of settling disputes within the community with monetary payment persisted. Jackson cites an example, as late as 1860 of a jury regarding a prior monetary payment as indication of the prior settlement of a case (of child molesting) and acquitted the defendant accordingly. Increasingly, however, the community withdrew. The crowd outside the courthouse came to be seen as disturbance and illegitimate public disorder while attempts to make compensation payments were seen as evidence of guilt and regarded as illegal. (Jackson 2000: 38-40)'
(taken from 'Courts and prosecution during the 19th Century' by John Lea.)
Money paved the way in a lot of these cases and there is no doubt in my mind that in both cases of Cutbush and Colicitt, there was a great deal of financial influence at work... I suppose it is the political influence that concerns us more, and it is that I busy my good self with, in the vain hope of discovering just why a Royal Pardon was offered in the case of Mary Jane Kelly's murder.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2926
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 3:22 pm: |
|
Hi Jeff, AP
Jeff, thanks for that interesting information about George 1V and pardons. Obviously the powers that be thought that William 1V was quite a safe man to exercise these powers, whereas an 18-year-old girl was taking a bit of a risk!
I have looked in my "Harris's Criminal Law" but there isn't much about pardons. "Halsbury's Laws" might turn something up.
Re Larkins, I suppose he had some sort of reason for mentioning these names. The odd part is that Cruz is a one-off - why pick on him?
AP, I'm going from memory here, but I think I found in the 1891 census that Swanson was living fairly close to Supt Cutbush. I wonder whether visits were exchanged?
Robert |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1335
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 3:23 pm: |
|
Forgive me for posting this in its entirety, but it does cover exactly the points we have been discussing, and explains the ancient remit of Royal Pardon, its actions and consequences better than anything else I have yet read.
Be not disturbed that is a reference to the Governor General of New Zealand, for he is the direct representation and representive of the Monarch and enjoys exactly the same graces and benefits as the Monarch.
We are reading English law here.
The Prerogative of Mercy in New Zealand
M.Travis
May 1998
1: Historical origins of the prerogative of mercy
The 'royal prerogative of mercy' is a power designed to allow the Crown to exercise mercy in criminal sentencing. It can be used to reduce sentences, and to grant pardon. In New Zealand this power has traditionally belonged to the Governor, and in more recent times to the Governor-General, on behalf of, and by way of delegation from the Sovereign. Hood Phillips' Constitutional and Administrative Law describes prerogatives as "a relic of the powers which the King had when he really governed the country."
The 1874 Letters Patent allowed for continuing delegation of the prerogative to be made toward the Governors of the country, and in 1892 it was made clear by Royal Instruction that the Governor must consult with either the Executive Council (in capital cases) or a fellow Minister before exercising this power. This was set out in clause VII of the 1917 Letters Patent:
"The Governor-General shall not pardon or reprieve any offender without first receiving in capital cases the advice of the Executive Council, and in other cases the advice of one, at least, of his Ministers."
Clause VIII investigated the properties and operation of the prerogative:
"The Governor-General may as he shall see occasion, in Our name and on Our behalf, grant a pardon to any accomplice in such crime as shall lead to the conviction of the principal offender."
The concept of pardon is later raised in s2 of the Public Offender's Disqualification Act 1882, and s452 of the Crimes Act 1908 in the capacity of restoring civil rights to those who had been deemed to have suffered the punishment of their convictions. Pardon is mentioned in s17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1945, an Act which allows for the Governor-General to consult the opinions of the Courts when considering whether to exercise the prerogative. s407 of the Crimes Act 1961 then describes the "effect of free pardon", giving a brief description of how free pardon operates.
The Letters Patent 1983 features a rewording of previous entries, with clause 11 describing the "exercise of [the] prerogative of mercy." Finally, the most recent is s3 of the Constitution Act 1986, "exercise of royal powers by the Sovereign or the Governor-General", which again describes the delegation of royal powers "exercisable by the Governor-General on behalf of the Sovereign."
2: Current nature and limits of the prerogative of mercy
Nature:
The nature and limits of the prerogative of mercy has always been a recurring source of debate within the Courts. Re Royal Commission on Thomas Case 1 NZLR [1980] describes it as a matter of great importance since the seventeenth century, and gives the following statement as to its implied nature at the time:
"Prerogative pardons could be absolute or conditional. The absolute or 'free' pardon could 'forgive' the crime specified, and could restore any attainder."
Since then this definition has been augmented by the "effect of free pardon", in s407 of the Crimes Act 1961 which states that:
"Where any person convicted of any offence is granted a free pardon by Her Majesty, or by the Governor-General…that person shall be deemed never to have committed that offence."
A similar view is shared in 8 Halsbury's Laws of England , that:
"The effect of a pardon…is to clear the person from all infamy, and from all consequences of the offence for which it is granted, and from all statutory or other disqualifications following upon conviction. It makes him, as it were, a new man, so as to enable him in respect of the offence for which he was convicted."
Already we can see the opposition that has provided so much trouble; whether a pardon merely 'forgives' the crime, or whether it entirely absolves the defendant of culpability. There is no apparent rule to this, but one can infer, from logic, how to distinguish between the two. Clause VIII of the Letters Patent 1917 indicates one purpose of the power - to felicitate profitable exchange of information between Crown and defendant, with the attraction and 'reward' of reduced/absolved sentence. The Governor-General may "grant a pardon to any accomplice…who shall give such information as shall lead to the conviction of the principal offender." In such a case I think it is unlikely that the pardon absolves the defendant of guilt, but does remove the element of criminal penalty. In either case, this proposed purpose no longer exists in clause 11 of the Letters Patent 1983.
In the case of Arthur Allan Thomas however, "the effect of the pardon [was] that [he was] deemed never to have committed the offence; that, in law, and fact, he is to be treated as a person who was never guilty of it." This seems to indicate that in the majority of cases a pardon does more than protect the defendant from punishment but also removes all consequences, such as infamy. In Hay v Justices of the Tower Division of London (1890), Pollock B refers to free pardon as removing "the penalty and the guilt." In fact, in Cuddington v Wilkins (1615) a man successfully sued for defamation after being called a thief, in reference to a conviction for stealing sheep that had been pardoned, "[clearing] the person of crime and infamy." A final wording of the same point can be found in R v Cosgrove [1948] Tas SR 99, where Morris CJ found that pardon was not the equivalent of an acquittal but rather "contains no notion that the man to whom the pardon is extended did in fact commit the crime."
Another possible use of the prerogative is that of manipulating sentences to meet a social purpose. Recently, the prerogative of mercy has been used to "exercise justice tempered with a considerable measure of mercy" when sentencing clients who have shortened life expectancies or ill health; such as R v Stark (1991), a case involving a terminally ill AIDS patient.
Limits:
It would appear at first that the Governor-General is not particularly limited in exercising this prerogative. Under clause VIII of the Letters Patent 1917 he must receive the advice of the Executive Council in capital cases and his Ministers in others; but a later extract reveals that he may also exercise this power purely at his own discretion, despite what suggestions are made to him. He:
"May grant to any offender convicted in any Court…a pardon, either free or subject to lawful conditions, or any remission of the sentence passed on such an offender, or any respite of the execution of such sentence for such period as the Governor-General thinks fit; and further may remit any fines, penalties, or forfeitures due or accrued to Us."
s407 of the Crimes Act 1961 allows for the operation of the prerogative, with the limit "that the granting of a free pardon [does] not affect anything lawfully done or the consequences of anything unlawfully done before it is granted." Elsewhere it is recognised that pardon can be exercised as long as it does not create any 'factual fiction', such as in the Royal Commission on Thomas Case.
Another consideration of limits is whether the prerogative can be limited by judicial rule, or the threat of judicial review. This issue is extensively explored in Burt v Governor-General s7 NZAR (1987-89) and 3 NZLR [1992], but shall be fully discussed under s5, "Mechanisms that control the use of the prerogative."
3: Reason for its continued existence and why it has not been codified under statue
In s1 I gave an account of the history of the prerogative, including a description of its recent legislature. It has continued to exist as a power and function of the Sovereign under the Letters Patents, first in 1917 and then in 1983. It still exists because it is necessary for there to be a capacity of mercy where all legal proceedings are extinguished.
It has never been codified under statute as it needs to remain extra-legal and extra-judicial to retain its unique properties. As stated in de Freitas v Benny [1976] AC 239, "mercy is not the subject of legal rights. It begins where legal rights end." If the prerogative of mercy were to be codified, then once all legal remedies had been exhausted in the courts there would be no other recourse for pardon. As a prerogative power, the Governor-General has the ability to dispense it at his discretion, above all other legal conditions. As a statutory power the courts would have no option but to be bound by issues of culpability and guilt, whereas pardon can theoretically be granted even to rightfully convicted individuals.
Although this may sound suspicious it is also very necessary, if at least under the archaic s7 of the 1917 Letters Patent, to allow for reduced sentencing/pardoning as a reward for leading "to the conviction of the principal offender." Under the modern Letters Patent we can still assume this to be a possible use of the power - although no longer mentioned, it is not disapproved against either.
Further, while the courts can accept an adjustment of sentence as a matter of mercy (e.g. for terminally ill defendants), they cannot go to the extent of dealing with what would be punishment by imprisonment through a non-custodial option. As a prerogative power though, the Governor-General can exercise mercy as a social option - in cases involving particular personal needs for example (often medical). Stephen Gilchrist described this possibility as the prisoner being "left to the tender mercies of a political appointee on the advice of civil servants." This is a possibility that would have no provision as a statute.
4. Examples of use of the prerogative in New Zealand
The issues concerning this prerogative have been before court on several occasions, most notably in Burt v Governor-General and its appeals, and in such far ranging cases as the Slipper Island Resort Ltd v Minister of Works and Development [1981] 1 NZLR 136 and R v Stark (1991). However, actual exercise of the prerogative of mercy seems relatively scarce. There are precedent examples from the English courts, e.g. Cuddington v Wilkins (1615), but in New Zealand the most obvious example is R v Thomas.
On the 17th December 1979, the Governor-General granted a free pardon to Arthur Allan Thomas in respect of his conviction for the murders of David and Jeanette Crewe. Having served some eight years of a life sentence, Thomas was found to have been wrongly convicted of the murders. The Governor-General explained that there was "real doubt whether it [could] be contended that the case against … Thomas was proved beyond reasonable doubt," and consequently issued the pardon, defined by the Investigative Commission that Thomas was "deemed never to have committed the offence." He was cleared of all guilt and implication never again to "be charged with the murders of the Crewes."
The R v Thomas case was one of wrongful conviction, but there is also evidence of the prerogative of mercy being used in New Zealand as a consideration during sentencing. In 1991 the Court of Appeal was faced with R v Stark, a case involving a conviction for possession of heroin with intent to sell. Under exceptional circumstances the Crown court allowed for the matter to be stayed - the defendant George Michael Stark had contracted AIDS and his life expectancy was no more than two years.
However, Stark was again arrested for possession of drugs and the case was reopened. The Court of Appeal ruled that although some sentencing consideration could be made as a matter of mercy, there would be no justification for dealing with the case in a non-custodial way. Anything more was deemed to be "a matter for the royal prerogative" but nonetheless this prerogative was considered during sentencing.
5: Mechanisms that control the use of the prerogative
The prerogative of mercy seems limited only by the discretion of those who have the power to exercise it - the Sovereign, and the Governor-General by way of delegation in the Letters Patent 1983. Fortunately a precedence has been set by the practice of successive Home Secretaries that, in the words of Ivan Hare , "a free pardon should only be granted in cases where it was established that the convicted individual was both technically and morally innocent." Although only a precedent and in no way binding, this is most compelling and surely to be followed by successive Governor-Generals.
The only major mechanism that has been suggested for controlling the use of this prerogative is the possible threat of judicial review. So far there has not been a successful appeal for review, but there are many arguments on either side of the issue.
In de Freitas v Benny [1976] (Court of Appeal in Trinidad), Lord Diplock observed that "mercy is not the subject of legal rights [but] begins where legal rights end." Christopher Gelber considered this a ruling that "the exercise of the prerogative of mercy was inherently extra-legal in nature and therefore not justiciable," as did Lord Roskill in the G.C.H.Q. case [1985] A.C. 374. Furthermore it cannot be denied that the Crown's ability to pardon displays the necessary characteristics of a true prerogative; yet there are those like Watkins L.J. who reject the test of justiciability "in favour of an examination of the court's capacity to weigh the competing issues of principle in each case." Watkins considered the courts to be competent enough to review the prerogative of mercy.
Nonetheless, a judicial review of the prerogative has never been undertaken in a New Zealand court. The closest thing so far was the 'review via invitation' in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Benley [1993] 2 W.L.R. 101; where the Divisional Court did not order a formal review but "[invited] the Home Secretary to look at the matter again." Ivan Hare saw this invitation as attempting to "impose narrower parameters on the discretion of the Home Secretary" via the informal mechanism of invitation, but he seems dubious as to its ability in having any real effect. This is because it is beyond the role of the courts to suggest a particular result, and because any purported limitation on the role of the Home Secretary is illegitimate.
The issue is also a live one in Burt v Governor-General [1989] 3 NZLR 64, (1987-89) 7 NZAR and [1992] 3 NZLR 672, and some very important contributions to the argument are made. In these cases, Mr Burt sought a judicial review of the Governor-General's refusal to exercise the prerogative of mercy in granting him a free pardon. Although unsuccessful, Cooke P said that:
"It would be inconsistent with the contemporary approach to say that, merely because [the prerogative of mercy] is a pure and strict prerogative power, its exercise or non-exercise must be immune from curial challenge."
He states that the Courts' wish to review the refusal to exercise the prerogative is not "absurd, extreme or contrary to principle" as it is at the very least attempting to ensure that fair procedure has been followed. Moreso he adds that the prerogative of mercy is not "an arbitary monarchical right" but "an integral element in the criminal justice system…a constitutional safeguard against mistakes."
In conclusion, the prerogative is not to be touched by the Courts or judicial review, yet the concept is one that is winning favour amongst the Judges. It is possible that in a few years there will be mechanisms like judicial review to control the use of the prerogative, but it is very unlikely that it should ever become part of a statute.
ENDNOTES
(6th edition, 1978)
(4th edition)
Re Royal Commission on Thomas Case
The Cambridge Law Journal [1994]
The Modern Law Review, July 1997, Vol. 60
It is worth reading. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1336
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 3:32 pm: |
|
From the HP sauce 2002:
'Terrorist Prisoners: Royal Prerogative of Mercy
Lord Laird asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the guidelines and procedures for the use of the Royal Prerogative; and whether the Royal Prerogative has ever been used for terrorist prisoners. [HL3540]
Lord Williams of Mostyn: By constitutional convention, the Government are responsible for recommending to Her Majesty the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy. The Royal Prerogative of Mercy has traditionally been exercised in three ways: in a free pardon, a conditional pardon or the remission, or partial remission, of the penalty imposed by a court. This is a flexible remedy, and the Government cannot restrict themselves as to how they might recommend its use. It is necessarily reserved for the most exceptional of circumstances.
The Royal Prerogative of Mercy has been used in relation to terrorist prisoners.'
So the Fenians make use of Royal Pardons.
But more interesting is the quote that such pardons are 'reserved for the most exceptional of circumstances'.
Now what exceptional circumstance was attached to the murder of Mary Jane Kelly?
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1337
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 3:59 pm: |
|
Oh, and by the way Jeff, Queen Victoria was able to use her Royal Prerogative of Mercy as the following extract shows:
'If the result is extremely unjust, the state may be expected to intervene and prevent injustice without damaging the legal rule. In one famous case, for instance, shipwrecked sailors killed and ate a cabin boy. The circumstances of the crime were such that popular sentiment was behind them, and they did not believe they had done wrong. Nonetheless, the courts found them guilty of murder, in order to keep a clear legal rule. Queen Victoria, however, exercised her prerogative of mercy, and reduced their sentence from death to a small period of imprisonment.'
source:
www.uclan.ac.uk/facs/class/ legalstu/courses/pgcemp/wkshp02.htm
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2927
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 4:09 pm: |
|
AP, Jeff
One thing that strikes me is that the cabinet meeting took place on a Saturday (the 10th). I might be misremebering this here, but I think I've read that Salisbury was in the habit of leaving London promptly each Friday night. The carriage had to be waiting outside at the same time each Friday, he would climb into it, and then be taken to catch the train down to his estate, arriving there in time for dinner. So maybe the fact that he (presumably) stayed on in London indicates how grave he felt the matter was? (I know they also transacted a bit of other business at the meeting, but maybe it was a case of "While we're here"?)
Robert |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1339
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 4:37 pm: |
|
I certainly wouldn't be a happy chap if I was a cabin boy and someone ate me. I bet they claimed that said cabin boy fell down the stairs.
Thanks Robert, I can't imagine anyone living within twenty miles of uncle Charles, but well worth following up.
The matter must have been grave for the pardon to have been issued... most exceptional circumstance in that time and age.
One supposes that if Queen Vic is going to pardon crew members for eating cabin boys then the sky is truly the limit. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2928
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 4:55 pm: |
|
AP, that's why they spent so much time in the crow's nest. Only place they were safe.
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2929
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 5:38 pm: |
|
Re Comyn, I couldn't find anything in the "Times" about the legal niceties, though in describing his execution the newspaper called him unfortunate, so it sympathised with him.
Here's a pardon offer from the "Times" June 12th 1801 :
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2933
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 6:49 pm: |
|
This one's a bit nearer the period. From a long article about the Balham mystery, "Staffordshire Sentinel" Aug 19th 1876.
Robert |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 461
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 7:56 pm: |
|
Hi Robert,
Interesting about that 1876 notice of a pardon in the Bravo Poisoning Mystery. The public, and the
authorities, had their sites set on three main suspects (Florence Bravo, Jane Cox, Dr. James Manby Gully) and two possible susidiary suspects
(one was a discharged coachman, I believe). With
a limited number of suspects, the pardon was offered in terms remeniscent of those for Mary Kelly's murderer. Could there be a real pattern here? [Coincidentally, if you have forgotten - not that I am suggesting guilt by association - Dr. Sir William Gull was one of the physicians who tried to save Charles Bravo the night he was
poisoned.]
The case about the two sailors who ate the cabin boy is the 1883 "Mignonette" Case, which has been the subject of two books in the last decade (the most recent had the title CUSTOM OF THE SEA or something like that).
Jeff
|
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 231
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 4:53 am: |
|
Hi Robert,
I think they caught your highwayman James Snooks, because I remember that on Boxmoor Common at Hemel Hempstead, is the grave of one Snooks, who is notable for having been the last highwayman to be hanged.
Best Regards
John Savage |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2936
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 3:33 pm: |
|
Hi Jeff, John
Jeff, the same article relates a seance, at which the spirit of Bravo declared that it had been suicide, committed in a fit of temper against "Dr G", whom the sprit curses!
John, I'm not surprised Snooks was caught, if he rode around dressed as a dandy!
Robert |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1341
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 4:28 pm: |
|
Thanks Jeff.
The case of the edible cabin boy still rears its ugly head in modern law as this court notice from 1997 shows:
'39 - The Judge-Advocate stated: "[The] defence of 'duress and coercion' is not a defence in law. You are not entitled, even if you wished to save your own life, to take the life of another. There I may remind you of a case which is known as the Mignonette case [i.e., the Dudley and Stephens case], and in which a number of shipwrecked sailors, seeing no hope of reaching land, decided to kill one of their companions and to eat him. Lots were drawn, and in the end this object was carried out and one of these companions found his death in that way. Fortunately or unfortunately for these sailors, they were picked up and duly brought to trial . . . and they raised just this defence. They said: 'If we had not killed our companion, and had not eaten him, all of us would have starved and none of us would have been alive today'. This defence, Gentlemen, was rejected by the Court, and it was said that you must not take another’s life in order to save your own" (ibid., file WO 235/525, p. 6). 40 - R. v. Dudley and Stephens, (1884) 14 QBD 273, also known as the Mignonette case. Moreover, although the case is often held up as authority that necessity is no defence to killing, the court held in that case that the killing of the victim was not, as a matter of fact, necessary. As Lord Coleridge, C.J., pointed out: "They might possibly have been picked up the next day by a passing ship; they might possibly not have been picked up at all; in either case it is obvious that the killing of the boy would have been an unnecessary and profitless act" (emphasis added). In other words, that it was necessary to kill the victim was, at the time, pure speculation on the part of the accused. It is interesting to note that a fairly similar occurrence, the killing and eating of their companions by 15 shipwrecked survivors on the raft of the Méduse in 1816, had a different judicial outcome in France. No prosecution was initiated for such killing and eating, but criminal proceedings were instituted in 1817 against the ship’s captain for causing the shipwreck and abandoning the ship.'
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1342
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 4:43 pm: |
|
I think this to be the best evidence yet that 'HMMGP' has not been hindered by parliament or Home Office... ever.
It appears that the monarch maintains unique discretionary powers despite Parliamentary breaking of wind as this quote from HP sauce in 2003 shows:
'Memorandum by Mr Peter Browning (MPP 05)
1. INTRODUCTION
The Public Administration Select Committee (PASC) invites replies to a list of questions, which in the accompanying paper it says is not exhaustive. Thank goodness. For opportunities to discuss the royal prerogative are rare indeed. This chance must be seized. The issues paper which precedes the four questions provides a useful basis for that discussion.
2. THE ISSUES PAPER
2.1 What are prerogative powers?
The paper begins by stating that "no authoritative definition exists of what is known as the `royal prerogative'". How amazing. So it is not high time that parliament and the monarchy agreed on such a definition?
2.2 The Queen's constitutional powers (3.1)
The statement that "the queen's constitutional prerogatives are the personal discretionary powers which remain in the Queen's hands" is most misleading. I know that the reality—that the monarch accepts ministerial advice—is stated later in 3.1. Even so, it is qualified by the phrase "in ordinary circumstances". This is another example of the hazy nature of the British Constitution. Should not the extraordinary circumstances in which the monarch might exercise some or all of her discretionary powers be defined? After all, some of them are potentially of great political significance.' |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2954
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 5:07 pm: |
|
Hi AP
As far as I can understand it, the British constitution is built on custom and tradition, whereby accepted practices gradually emerge (though the EU is changing all that).
Royalists are always telling us that the monarchy is the last bastion of freedom in the event of a Prime Minister, say, deciding to cancel all elections for the foreseeable future, or deciding to outlaw the main opposition party, etc etc. The theory is that the monarch would simply refuse to sign the legislation making this possible. I imagine that whether the monarch would actually do this would depend on how popular or unpopular the Prime Minister was at the time, how popular or unpopular the monarch was, and so on. But as far as I know, legally speaking the monarchy doesn't have to sign a thing - though practically, it's different.
I suppose the US equivalent of the monarchy is the Constitution.
Robert |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 465
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 7:06 pm: |
|
Hi A.P.
Although THE CUSTOM OF THE SEA was published in the last two years, I have a copy of an excellent account about the MIGNONETTE tragedy and the trial of Tom Dudley and Edward Stephens entitled,
CANNIBALISM AND THE COMMON LAW by A.W.Brian Simpson (London, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984). It is instructive to read the
background, because of the unintentional bad side effect this decision had.
For centuries, unfortunately, when shipwreck survivors had no choice they drew straws or chose by some other method one among them for the ultimate sacrifice - to be killed for food to sustain the others. This was a well-known by-product of really bad shipwrecks. W.S. Gilbert pokes a bit of fun at it in one of his Bab Ballards, "The Yarn of the Nancy Brig" which is a type of parody (in style) of Coleridge's "The Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner". The seaman telling the story keeps repeating (like a "mantra")
"Oh I am the cook and the Captain bold,
And the mate of the "Nancy Brig",
And the bosun tight, and the good ship mite,
and the crew of the Captain's Gig!"
That's because this fellow has eaten his way through the entire crew (the cook and he are the last two to go, and he just gets the upper hand).
It was an unpleasant reality of shipwreck. Many died of starvation (an example from centuries ago was the great anatomist Vesalius). This was the only way to survive in extremity. But the side
effect was also that the family of the killed and eaten were informed that so-and-so died, but was
willing to be sacrificed to save the others. Small comfort, but given the risks of seafaring life it was accepted - because you knew what happened to the lost loved one.
But Mr. Justice, Baron Huddleston, was a "strong" judge who had it in his head to change this custom. Having never been in an extremely bad
shipwreck (indeed, having never been in a shipwreck at all, or a ship for that matter), Huddleston decided that murder was murder no what the circumstances. His personality moved the jury to find Dudley and Stephen guilty of the murder of Richard Parker. Apparently he did not fight the pardon.
But the side effect was something he never expected. After 1884 many people were no longer told about the fate of loved ones in shipwrecks.
Seamen, who had been rescued after long periods of starvation or privation, when asked about seamen "so-and-so" would clam up and either claim no knowledge, or say they may have been on another
piece of wreckage or another lifeboat. So, instead of having a closure that was upsetting because it involved violent death and cannibalism, many families were left with no closure at all...and lived out long lives wondering if the missing loved one was dead or not.
There was a third, earlier study of the case called BLOOD ON THE SEA, by a man you may have
heard of: Donald McCormick. Brian Simpson comments on this account, and he finds some problems using McCormick's account - questionable source material. It all sounds very familiar.
As for the wreck of Le Medusa off Senagal in 1816,
the best account of it's dreadful loss (best remembered by Gericault's famous portrait of the survivors on the raft) is Alexander McGee's DEATH
RAFT (New York: CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS, 1975).
Captain De Chaumaray was imprisoned for three years, and lost his orders and decorations. Actually, in retrospect, the court-martial was too easy on him, and on the other officials who survived, including the new French Governor of Senegal, Colonel Schmaltz. The aristocrats took to the lifeboats, and abandoned most of the crew on the raft, whose numbers slowly dwindled due to the elements, starvation, pitched battles between factions, and cannibalism. Only a handful survived (as did three in on the wreck on a reef off Senegal). By the way, H.G.Wells mentions the Medusa in the opening paragraph of THE ISLAND OF DR. MOREAU, when Charles Prendick (the narrator) is the sole survivor in a dinghy, after his two fellow seamen kill each other in a fight over cannibal rights.
Hi Robert,
Theoretically anything might happen in English or American politics. Back in 1930, Bernard Shaw postulated how a popular future British monarch might destroy the careful calculations of a Prime Minister by threatening to abdicate, and then run for Parliament as a potential Prime Minister himself. See THE APPLE CART.
Best wishes,
Jeff |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 893
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 06, 2004 - 2:44 pm: |
|
Hi Jeff et al.
All very fascinating stuff. I wonder if after one had to eat the new French Governor of Senegal, Colonel Schmaltz, one would come over all fuzzy and romantic?!!!  
All my best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
