|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 607
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 17, 2005 - 6:20 pm: | 
|
Hi all,
This is a slightly off center question, but what exactly was Charles Cutbush's connection (via his job at Scotland Yard, and feelings about fenians) regarding the 1887 - 1889 "Parnellism and Crime" investigation and hearings. I may have missed some earlier posts on this. In particular, what were his movements in late February to early March 1889, if anyone knows.
Best wishes,
Jeff |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1974
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 18, 2005 - 1:11 pm: |
|
Jeff
haven't yet seen a reference to that but I'll have a look to see what is about.
If I know my uncle Charles he was probably at the Seaside Home in Hove in 1889 quaffing brandy and blasting seagulls out of the sky with his service pistol. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1776
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 18, 2005 - 5:34 pm: |
|
I did wonder as I was writing the post above whether it was Thomas Cutbush who was identified[soon after entering the asylum]by "uncle" Charles Cutbush in the famous Seaside Home.Maybe he was"recuperating" from one of his paranoid bouts re the poisoned water supplies!This would have been about 1892/3 when Charles himself appears to have been gaining his reputation for
increasingly odd behaviour!
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1984
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 1:13 pm: |
|
Sorry Jeff
I've found nothing at all relating to 'Parnellism' and Charles Henry Cutbush, but that doesn't mean to say it's not there.
The only points of contact that come to mind are I suppose the Hyde Park and Trafalgar riots, where Fenian heads were soundly thumped by the likes of uncle Charles - incidentally Lord Grimthorpe signed up as a special constable for the joyous occasion so that he could crack a few Catholic heads as well, and it might be worth your while studying the long list of names of other special constables on those days.
Given uncle Charles overwhelming hatred for all things Catholic, I guess he would have made a superb Rotweiller for Scotland Yard at such events. There is also the incident where he threw an entire delegation out of Scotland Yard, but I can't now remember who they were.
Natalie
I do think that uncle Charles spent time down there, and that the mysterious identification of the suspect involved the mad old chap. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1781
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 4:35 pm: |
|
I have been thinking similarly AP.
In fact I have been looking in on the "Did Kidney kill Stride?" thread and wondering about two burning issues emmanating from Whitechapel that would have had the Home Office desperate for "informers".One was the Fenian issue where it has been rumoured Mary Kelly might have been
"helping police".The other was the Radical Jewish issue and papers like "Arbeter Freint"-I mean these surely were the "hot potatoes" that Monroe could have been referring to?
I was thinking about Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes being rumoured to have worked for Jewish families,both bright,both known to the police---could they also have been "helping" the police re "potential insurgents" in Jewish clubs?
Returning to Mary,given Charles Cutbush"s paranoia about all things catholic might he have known one or two things about her - a fenian lover perhaps?
All these women were given to drunken outbursts---could each of them have had an outburst about something iffy?
Maybe they did need to "disappear" in amongst the crimes of JtR,the odd domestic etc....did JtR have his uses in this respect by obscuring such events?
Sorry,these are just random thoughts but this Charles Cutbush seems to have been almost as much of a hothead as his "nephew"! |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1988
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 6:07 pm: |
|
Don't be sorry, Natalie.
I'll have to read your post again when soberano, but I have always felt that Thomas Cutbush was the lock while uncle Charles was the key.
I'll dwell on what you say and get back to you after the rush hour... like when the brandy bottle stops saying drink me. |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 609
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 9:15 pm: |
|
Hi AP,
It was worth a shot. Today is my 51st birthday, and last weekend I had treated myself to going to the Argosy bookshop on Lexington Avenue and East 59th Street. I have developed a new collecting mania (one of many unfortunately). I collect those caracatures by "Spy" from the Victorian / Edwardian magazine "Vanity Fair". But my selection tries to pick out people involved in scandals or cover-ups (so far General Boulanger, Col. Valentine Baker, Joseph Chamberlain, Lord Lucan). I found a lovely one of Richard Pigott from the issue of 9 March 1889 (which probably announced Pigott's suicide in Madrid). As I looked at it at home I was considering the issue of the Parnell Commission of 1887-89 which tried to prove the Home Rule leader was in cahoots with the Phoenix Park Assassins. It was the most burning political problem of that period. Pigott was ripped apart on the witness stand by Parnell's ally, Sir Charles Russell (who would shortly fail to help his other client, Florence Maybrick) in one of the all time great cross-examinations. It proved that Pigott forged the letter that was the crux of the case against Parnell.
Pigott fled London in the middle of February 1889, humiliated by his admissions and prevarications in the witness box. He got to Madrid, only to be followed by two Scotland Yard detectives. He blew out his brains in his hotel suite, to nobody's regret (except his children).
I have always felt that the key to finalizing our solution (if we ever get one) of the Ripper mystery is to concentrate of chronology - how do the events of the autumn of terror fit into the world of 1888? Of course it may be something trivial going on in the background that the autumn of terror is tied to, but it could be grander events. In England it can be (I repeat, "can be" not "must be") the Parnell Commission. Don't ask me how, it is just a type of shot in the dark. I think it is because of the name "Kelly". If Mary Kelly was actually from Ireland, she probably would have been a supporter of Parnell - a very weak point, I agree, but one that keeps making me wonder.
I have a biography of Charles Stewart Parnell by Joan Haslip. I looked into the passages dealing with Pigott's decline and fall in February - March 1889. The following is on pages 353 - 354 of the edition by Frederick Stokes, Inc. in 1937.
"On Friday afternoon of the 22nd February the court adjourned till the following Tuesday, and when Pigott left the witness-box Parnell turned to his lawyer and said: "That man will not come into the box again. Let him be watched. If you don't keep your eyes on him you will find that he will leave the country." Whereupon [Sir George] Lewis [Parnell's solicitor] replied: "It's little matter to us now, Mr. Parnell, whether he stays or goes." THe last days of Richard Pigott make pathetic reading. Pinning his ultimate hopes on [Henry] Labouchere [Liberal M.P., and editor] he called at his house and made a valueless confession in the presence of the well-known journalist George Augustus Sala. Then he fled the country, only to blow out his brains a fortnight later in a hotel bedroom in Madrid, while the police were waiting outside with a warrant for his arrest. There are many unexplained mysteries surrounding his flight. How and why was he allowed to evade the vigilance of the detectives? Who supplied him with funds? And why, once he had got to Spain, a country where no extradition law existed, did he commit suicide? All are questions which have never been cleared up. Curiously enough, the last Englishman who saw him alive was William O'Shea, who caught sight of him in a Madrid cafe the day before he shot himself, a coincidence which confirmed Parnell in his belief that there was an understanding between them [Pigott and O'Shea, the husband of Kitty O'Shea, Parnell's lover.]"
See what I mean. Cutbush is not mentioned in the book, but he's a leading figure in Scotland Yard at the time. He is fanatically anti-Catholic, and anti-Fenian (and would lump Parnell together with the Fenians and other similar groups]. I am very curious at what his activities were in February - March 1889 - could he have gone to Madrid? Was Pigott actually a suicide, or a well arranged execution to shut him up? Not a shred of evidence to support all these wild thoughts, but one can't help wondering.
Best wishes,
A confused Jeff |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1990
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 1:13 pm: |
|
Thanks for all that, Jeff.
I did speed read the Times reports on Parnellism etc. but will have to read it all again slowly... quite a lot to take in there.
Something that should cheer your good self and Natalie up a bit is that I'm hoping soon we might have a bit more information on Charles Henry Cutbush. I know Robert (RCF) is organising some serious research to be done at Kew, and perhaps something will come up to bite us all on the knee?
I'll still keep looking Jeff, particularly for Charles' whereabouts in 1889. I do know Charles' was based in Whitechapel early 1888, and does appear to have moved to Scotland Yard in that year, but then again Debra has found a reference to him being at Scotland Yard (or should I rather say Whitehall Place?) in 1882.
One thing is for sure though, when it came to bashing Catholics, uncle Charles was your man.
Natalie
I think things might be a lot neater than the situation you speculate on, and would go so far as to say that in the next few years it wouldn't surprise me one bit at all if we found out that Charles Henry Cutbush had personal and intimate contact with each and every victim.
The doctors at his inquest fluffed it all a bit to do the right thing by a high ranking police officer from Scotland Yard who had just shot himself in the head. But I reckon the old buggar had syphillis - his symptoms certainly sound like it - because he used his position as 'Executive Superintendent in Charge of Common Lodging Houses' to get a few free tricks. |
Debra J. Arif
Sergeant
Username: Dj
Post Number: 14
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 1:52 pm: |
|
Hi AP
I am a little confused here, wasn't Charles Henry Cutbush always attached to Scotland Yard?
I was sure that The Times described him in most cases as either Chief Inspector Cutbush Scotland Yard up until about 1886 ,or Superintendent Cutbush Scotland Yard after that time.
I may be wrong, I'll have another look
Debra
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1789
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 5:11 pm: |
|
It all sounds quite plausible to me AP.I cant wait for Robert to come up with a few titbits from Kew!
Jeff,
I have just been reading up on WBYeats who lived for a long time in the 1880"s in Chiswick near a group of arty types that included William Morris who lived next door[he remember was fond of giving lectures at the Berner Street club!
Also nearby was Bernard Shaw and Oscar Wilde apparently a frequent visitor.
Anyway Yeats was fixated on this Irish Republican
political activist Maud Gonne.She was so distressed at the death of Parnell and the collapse of the Irish cause in the House of Commons and hopes for home rule that she returned to Dublin in the ship that carried his coffin wearing sombre black.
Natalie |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1993
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 5:36 pm: |
|
Debra
yes confusing isn't it, but that's half the fun.
I'm going on two reports here from 1888, the first being a report on the murder of Tabram, dated 16.8.88 which appears to be signed by CH Cutbush Supt, H Division; and the second, also concerning the murder of Tabram, dated 24.8.88. similarly signed.
However to clear up the confusion I'm perfectly prepared to admit that I've got this arse about face and that these reports were not written by CH Cutbush Supt. but actually sent to him at Scotland Yard when he was 'Executive Assistant Commissioner, Criminal Investigation Department'.
I think this would clear the confusion.
Sorry. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1995
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 2:11 pm: |
|
Debra
you haven't come across a Horace R. Cutbush, residing at 'The Hobby', Maidstone, who was a Justice of the Peace for Maidstone before his death in 1929, have you? |
Debra J. Arif
Sergeant
Username: Dj
Post Number: 15
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 2:32 pm: |
|
AP
The name vaguely rings a bell, there aren't many Cutbushes that I haven't encountered on my many digging expeditions! so I may have saved something, somewhere among my files. I will have a look and let you know. |
Debra J. Arif
Sergeant
Username: Dj
Post Number: 16
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 5:06 pm: |
|
AP
Horace R. Cutbush was the son of Horatio Cutbush, born in Maidstone c 1869.
Horatio Cutbush was proprietor of a Maidstone newspaper on the 1881 census.
I think there are a few libel cases in The Times connected to a Maidstone newspaper owned by a Cutbush, not got the details to hand though, so not sure if it is the same family, but I think that at least one of the early Cutbush V. cases that we keep coming across concern these newspaper libel actions.
|
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 610
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 6:10 pm: |
|
Hi Natalie,
I might remind you how shattering the collapse of Parnell was to his countrymen in 1891. If you recall James Joyce's first novel, PORTRAIT OF THE ARTIST AS A YOUNG MAN, one man is reduced to tears thinking of "Parnell, Parnell, my King", when confronted by a rigid, elderly woman who is a religious bigot enjoying Parnell's fall through his adultery with Kitty O'Shea. What Maude Gonne felt was shared by millions.
Since Yeats neighbors included Morris, a socialist, it would explain Shaw popping up - again Shaw gets into a periphery position in the events of this period - although here it is dealing with Parnell and his supporters. By the way, Shaw, due to his being in Morris's circle, got to know Morris's business associate George Wardle (an artist and artesan). He also met Wardle's wife Lena, who was formerly Madeleine Smith of Glasgow, Scotland.
Jeff |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1996
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 6:59 pm: |
|
Thanks for that Debra
I'm following up a very compicated trail which seems to imply that Henry Mayhew the famous writer on whores and other things nasty in the East End of London was actually related to the Cutbush family of Maidstone.
This through Horace Mayhew Cutbush and Frederick Mayhew Cutbush of Maidstone, which then links to the Horace R Cutbush, the JP of Maidstone.
They all seemed to live at 'The Hobby', Maidstone.
Incidentally have you seen the reports on the 'Prevention of Corruption Acts' from the early 1900's featuring the star-studded cast of the mad Cutbush family? |
Debra J. Arif
Sergeant
Username: Dj
Post Number: 17
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 5:22 am: |
|
AP
As you mentioned Mayhew I thought I should post the 1881 census details for the family( not had any luck anywhere else)
Horatio Cutbush's wife was Jane Mayhew if this helps with your trail at all, her sister Maria was living with the family:
Horatio R. CUTBUSH Head M Male 56 Maidstone, Kent, England Publisher I P Newspaper Proprietor
Jane CUTBUSH Wife M Female 48 Southwark, Surrey, England Publisher I P Newspaper Proprietor Wife
Frederick M. CUTBUSH Son U Male 18 Maidstone, Kent, England Scholar
Horace CUTBUSH Son Male 12 Maidstone, Kent, England Scholar
Bertram CUTBUSH Son Male 9 Maidstone, Kent, England Scholar
Maria MAYHEW Sister In Law U Female 56 Southwark, Surrey, England
Anne M. HUMPHREY Serv U Female 21 Biddenden, Kent, England Domestic Cook
Mercy MASTERS Serv U Female 23 Snodland, Kent, England Domestic Housemaid
Helen BRISTOW Serv U Female 17 Staplehurst, Kent, England Domestic Under Housemaid
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Information:
Dwelling The College
Census Place Maidstone, Kent, England
Family History Library Film 1341221
Public Records Office Reference RG11
Piece / Folio 0927 / 99
Page Number 22
I have not seen anything on 'The Prevention of corruption acts'which family members were involved? sounds interesting!
I keep coming across the lunacy act in relation to property inheritance involving a Cutbush, presumably THC, which I think Robert has looked into. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1997
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 11:30 am: |
|
Thanks once again, Debra, I’ll chase that and see what comes up.
The business with the ‘Prevention of Corruption Act’ involving the Cutbush family and various landed gentry - such as Lord Cowley - was, on the face of it, some kind of innocuous scam where bottles of whisky were being skimmed off from somewhere, labelled as ‘Cutbush Insecticide’, and then given as presents to the gardeners of the landed gentry, who had been placed in that employment by the Cutbush family in the first place. The family was found not guilty, but if you read between the lines there was certainly something going on which smelt as fishy as Joe’s old cod. This was in 1910, however I did notice when trawling through The Times classified pages that practically every other issue throughout almost the entire LVP carried an advertisement from the Highgate Cutbush wanting to place gardeners in country houses and the like. Hundreds of such adverts appeared, and they were always for different young men who had been trained by Cutbush at Highgate. Methinks he was doing so, because then the landed gentry would obviously buy his plants and other materials at the recommendation of ’their’ gardeners, especially if the soused gardener got a case of whisky from time to time.
I believe Cutbush was cleared because of the influence his family and powerful friends enjoyed, such as Chamberlain the PM who was practically sitting on Cutbush’s lap and kissing him at their regular meetings of the Gardeners Royal Benevolent Institute in 1891.
I also found a very nice obituary for James Cutbush in The Times, August 3rd 1885.
The Maidstone connection appears pivotal, WH Cutbush was still presenting prizes at agricultural shows there in the 1930’s.
I tracked down a George Charles Cutbush of Dean, Australia, but lost him again.
By the way it does appear that many of the Cutbush family from the LVP might be buried in Highgate cemetery, so if anyone has a spare afternoon?
Going on the Henry Mayhew connection to the Cutbush family, I do know he married one of the ’Jerrold sisters’ and I’m fairly convinced I have seen this surname in connection with a couple of Cutbush births, deaths and marriages. |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 612
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 2:02 pm: |
|
Hi A.P.
I think you got two Chamberlains confused. The Prime Minister Nevil Chamberlain does not appear until the 1920s and 1930s (Munich is in 1938). His father, Joseph Chamberlain, was Foreign Minister and Colonial Minister for Salisbury for most of the 1890s. He did want to become Prime Minister but never got there (he was quite gifted in the art of back-stabbing rivals and opponents, like Parnell, Dilke - Chamberlain was originally allied to the Liberal Party, and Lord Roseberry). His final act of political chicanery was against Tory P.M. Arthur Balfour.
He is more likely the one who would have been close to the Cutbushes.
Jeff |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1998
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 4:53 pm: |
|
Quite right Jeff.
Flipping back and forth I did get confused, and just before I sent the note I thought that, so thanks for clearing that up.
He was the 'peace in our time' chap wasn't he?
When all else fails, I blame the brandy.
I think it worth looking back at the 'Miss Cass' fiasco in regard to Cutbush.
Debra
I've found a reference from 1828 which has a Mr. Cutbush resident at 30 Whitechapel Road, but I thought the Floods were in residence then? And the Cutbush connection came later?
Maybe that's down to the brandy as well.
I'm a bit miffed that we haven't been able to track down more about a certain Thomas Hayne, Superintendent of Maidstone police in 1878, as I'm sure he has got to fit in somewhere.
Two superintendents of police in the 1880's, one called Charles Henry Cutbush, from Maidstone, the other called Thomas Hayne, from Maidstone, and then a child with a toy sword stabbing girls who gets HMP'd, called Thomas Hayne Cutbush?
Stretching it a bit here. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1799
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 5:53 pm: |
|
Hi AP,
I will bear this in mind about Highgate cemetary.I may be able to get over there in a few weeks.Meanwhile if anybody picks anything more up about whereabouts such plots might be---I suppose you give the period to whoever is in charge of such things at Highgate ? |
Debra J. Arif
Sergeant
Username: Dj
Post Number: 18
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 5:54 pm: |
|
Hi AP
Luke Flood Cutbush lived at no. 30 when he married one of the Mears sisters c 1831, and Luke Flood lived ( or carried on his business there) there prior to 1800 I think.
I have seen the property for sale in The Times, I am sure it was a house and shop premises though not certain. After Luke Flood took off to a villa at Lea Bridge, I think a tailor or habadasher was living there.
I have not had much luck finding Superintendent Thomas Hayne, the one I originally saw was attached to M division Southwark (but I may have mixed two people up here your guy and the one below!)
I did find a Thomas Hayne a London policeman, on the 1881 and 1891 census but he was only at the rank of Inspector by 1891. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1999
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 6:10 pm: |
|
Thanks Debra
so it was Mr Flood Cutbush there in 1831 at 30 Whitechapel Road rather than a Mr Flood?
That's okay then.
Yes, in the 1850's it passed to a John Thomas, draper.
As regards Thomas Hayne, superintendent of police, he may have been sent down from London to investigate the Maidstone trouble, so you are probably right.
Still worth our trouble though.
Have you come across the 'Borough Dignities' of Maidstone, from November 7, 1817, where a certain Thomas Cutbush, painter and glazier, is elected into the 'Burghmote' of Maidstone, and a fine party is held where much brandy is imbibed and I wished I had been there? |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2001
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 5:06 pm: |
|
And Debra
if we can accept that a Superintendent Hayne could be reported in the press as Superintendent Haynes - and it was very common to do just that in the LVP, add the 's' to the Hayne name I mean, I've found several court reports where this is mentioned - then yes, we do have an senior police officer named Haynes who shared an office with both Abberline and Cutbush in the 1880's.
By the by, Charles Henry Cutbush sort of ran two different departments of the Met Police in 1888, this info has been around for ages but I didn't react to it:
'C.O. or Commissioners' Office.
Charles H. Cutbush, Supt. Executive Branch;
Edward Ware, Supt. Public Carriage Branch;
John Shore, Supt. Criminal Investigations Dept.;
Inspectors 43, Sergeants 63, Constables 120. Total 229.
Police Office (Metropolitan)
4 Whitechapel Place, S.W.
Commissioner ~ Colonel Sir Charles Warren, G.C.M.G.
Assist. Commissioners ~ Lieut-Col R.L.O. Pearson, A.C. Bruce, Esq. and J. Monro, Esq.
Legal Advisor ~ J.E. Davis, Esq.
Chief Constables ~ A.C. Howard, Esq., Lt-Col Roberts, Lt-Col B. Monsell, Major W.E. Gilbert, and A.F. Williamson, Esq. (Criminal Investigation Department).
Chief Clerk ~ W.F.M. Staples, Esq.
Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District and Courts of the Metropolis ~ Alfred Richard Pennefather, Esq.
Chief Clerk ~ E. Mills, Esq.
Surgeon-in-Chief ~ A.O. Mackellar, Esq.
Acting Surveyor ~ J. Butler, Esq.
Engineer under Smoke Nuisance Abatement Acts ~ W.R.E. Coles, Esq.
Storekeeper ~ Mr. J. Mole.
Criminal Investigation Department ~ John Shore.
Executive Branch & Common Lodging Houses Branch ~ Chief Inspector Cutbush.
Public Carriage Branch ~ Chief Inspector Ware.
Lost Property Office ~ Chief Inspector Beavis.
|
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 613
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 8:04 pm: |
|
Hi all,
A.P. - "Peace in our times" is linked to Neville Chamberlain (I do have problems with his first name). It is supposedly what he said upon landing after Munich, waiving that signed agreement. It is hard to seperate these Chamberlains (particularly as Joe is Neville's father). There is also another son, Austen Chamberlain, who was a high ranking Tory in the 1920s and early 30s (Neville outstripped him because - outside of foreign misadventures - Neville had some clever ideas on reducing tax structure and fixing the educational system). Austen probably would not have been any better than Neville as Prime Minister - he felt that Mussolini was a great man. [To add to the confusion of Chamberlains, Richard Wagner's son-in-law was Houston Stewart Chamberlain, who wrote some notoriously anti-Semitic works championed by the Nazis. As far as I know, Houston is not a relative.]
Joseph Chamberlain was a successful manufacturer from Birmingham who rose in the Liberal Party, but created a block of supporters called "Unionists" who believed in turning the huge British Empire into a real trading block to counter the rising industrial threats from Germany and the United States. Unionists also believed in opening settlement of all British colonial possessions to white English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish Protestants emigrants to encourage closer blood ties between the colonies and the mother country (apparently Joe Chamberlain never really studied the story of the American Revolution too well). As he emphasized Northern Ireland, he was suspicious of Parnell - and there is more than suspicion that he was behind the campaign of "Parnellism and Crime", as well as encouraging the "O'Shea" Divorce - after it was over, and Parnell's name was mud, Captain O'Shea kept getting nice little sinicures from the Tory Party, at least as long as Chamberlain was one of it's leaders.
Chamberlain is also suspected of encouraging Mrs. Fanny Crawford to name Sir Charles Dilke as one of the correspondents in that divorce case. There is some suspicion that Ms Crawford was a very gifted liar, although (to be fair) Dilke did have a reputation. Roy Jenkins, in his study of the Dilke Case (in the U.S. VICTORIAN SCANDAL, I think in England, THE RIGHT HONOURABLE GENTLEMAN) feels that the pursuasion and assistance given to Fanny in her legal fight was due to either Lord Rosebery or Chamberlain, both of whom were rivals to Dilke to succed Gladstone as head of the party. Jenkins rules out Rosebery, and makes Chamberlain look very guilty.
In 1885, claiming disgust with Gladstone's "Little England" policies and pro-Home Rule policy, Chamberlain walked out of his Liberal Party contacts. His position was similar to that of Parnell in that the Liberals required Parnell for any chance at a majority, and the Tories needed Chamberlain for any chance of a majority. If you follow the political fragmentation in the late 1880s, with Tory and Liberal governments holding offices for months instead of years you can see the results. By smashing Parnell, Chamberlain really hurt the Liberals. It enabled (after 1895) the Tories to maintain office for a decade.
On the other hand, Chamberlain noted what he and his bloc might do. He hoped that Salisbury would make him his successor in 1902, but Salisbury never liked Chamberlain, and appointed his nephew Arthur Balfour to be P.M. Chamberlain was kept in as Colonial Minister, until 1905, when he denounced Balfour's policies on Imprerial Preference, and took his bloc out of the Tory bloc. Balfour had to call for a new
election. Unfortunately for Chamberlain's calculations, the British public was tired of nearly twenty years of Tory Government (with one three year Liberal interlude in 1892-95), and voted in Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman's Liberals with a smashing majority. Whatever future damages Chamberlain planned were halted by a serious stroke in 1906, which basically ended his political career. He died in 1914, not especially mourned.
His weird antics (of which these three incidents are the best examples) showed how ruthless he was on climbing the political tree. Given his views at opponents and rivals, it is more than a little ironic that his business success was as a screw manufacturer. His contemporaries must have noted his ability to dig up the necessary dirt when needed. Max Beerbohm said of him (I wish I recall where) that everyone knew that Scotland Yard lost it's best detective when Joe Chamberlain turned to politics.
As far as I can find only one person ever was able to checkmate him (or set up a Mexican stand-off, which here comes to the same thing). It would be Cecil Rhodes. When the Jameson Raid Inquiry of 1896 occurred, Chamberlain (as Colonial Minister) had to set it up. According to Geoffrey Wheatcroft, in his book THE RANDLORDS, Chamberlain summoned Rhodes (Premier of the Cape Colony at the time, where the raid originated in) to come for the inquiry. Rhodes showed up. For vague reasons, outside of such parties as Dr. Jameson (who led the raid), major conspirators like Rhodes were not touched. The reason was that Rhodes politely reminded Chamberlain of various communications between them concerning advanced knowledge of the raid.
If Rhodes had gone down with Jameson, so would have Chamberlain.
Anything this fellow touched is sullied. I have reason to believe he may have helped marshal aid to the Marquis of Queensberry in the Oscar Wilde business, because the Marquis also was aiming at another target (Wilde had been the lover of the younger son of the Marquis, Lord Alfred Douglas, but an older son of the Marquis had been the secretary to the Prime Minister, Lord Roseberry, and the Marquis had been openly accusing them of having a gay relationship - the older son committed suicide in 1894, and Roseberry's weak Premiership ended on a ridiculous unimportant vote on an explosive for the military). I've seen nothing to prove this but with Chamberlain anything is possible.
Enough about Joe Chamberlain.
I looked at the list of officials at Scotland Yard, with Charles Cutbush popping up at two points. But I wonder if they may be much closer jobs than we think. Under "Commissioner's Office" he is listed as "Superintendent" of the Executive Branch. Under "Police Office" he is listed as head of "Executive Branch & Common Lodging House Branch". Could both "Executive Branch" titles be the same division, with an extension of it called "Common Lodging House Branch"?
Jeff
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2002
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 4:20 pm: |
|
Thanks for all that Jeff.
Strangely enough the Cutbush family back in Maidstone were involved in the production of some Liberal rag, and they got into a hell of a lot of litigation with it on account of the posh folk up in London.
Interesting what you say about the duality of the posts occupied by CHC within the Met., but I’m still sort of looking at that.
My initial impression of the Met. in those days of the LVP is that we are looking at a monster much like the modern NHS in England where a few overpaid ‘executives’ sit like big fat spiders at the centre of various webs and control virtually everything, but do nothing.
For instance we can see that in 1875 the Executive Branch at Scotland Yard was able to control the entire machinations of the entire Met. Police organisation, from constables on the street, to orders from the Home Office, by their simple domination of the still primitive ‘telegraphic messaging system’, which began and ended with the Executive Branch at Scotland Yard.
In that year more than 85,000 telegraphic messages were dealt with by this branch of Scotland Yard.
And it was increasing daily, with messages flying in from every division and subdivision at an alarming rate.
This sort of throws buckets of dung on people who maintain that there was virtually no communication between Scotland Yard and its divisions in 1888, therefore CHC would not have known that Catherine Eddowes was about to be released… of course he would.
He sat like the big fat spider at the centre of all communication within the entire Metropolitan Police organisation.
If the rate of telegraphic was increasing from 85,000 in 1875 on a daily basis then we could expect to see something like 200,000 messages flowing through the Executive Branch by 1888.
Uncle Charles may have been reduced to a glorified clerk by 1888, but by god he was still on the pulse of policing in the capital.
By 1886 we see a very explosive situation within Scotland Yard where the Commissioner of the Force is in open conflict with his Executive Branch in this exact regard - the control of information and the proper distribution of that information through the medium of telegraphy - leading to many incidents that could have been prevented… the many riots of the time as a for instance.
This needs a lot more looking at.
Incidentally I have found that the name Cutbush is often reported in The Times as ‘Cuthbert’, thereby much information slipping out of our grasp. CHC is often given the name ‘Cuthbert’, the Trafalgar and other riots being good examples, like in 1885 an Inspector Cuthbert is presented with a gold watch and chain by the grateful traders of Bond Street for protecting them from the angry crowd… but I was unable to find an Inspector Cuthbert from Scotland Yard at all - which doesn’t mean he isn’t there as I’ve been drinking and might have missed him - in fact the only Inspector Cuthbert I’ve found from that period was an inspector for the RSPCA.
Anyways all good stuff and I’m off to the pub to celebrate the fact that my publishers have just realised that I’m still alive. |
Paul Boggs
Police Constable
Username: Pboggs
Post Number: 3
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 10:04 am: |
|
To AP Wolf in re your posting on Mon. 25.05.05 at 4:20
Hello AP!
Without wanting to sound flattering or ingratiating, I need to preface my following re-sponse by saying that I always read your postings with great interest and find your voice one of the most sane and reliable among others, many of which seem to come directly from Bedlam. That said:
I may be misinterpreting the thrust of this posting, but I find it a bit rushed.
The information which you provide about the telegraph communications in the Met. is quite impressive indeed and answers several questions which have been buzzing around in my head about that topic. Thanks for that info and keep up the valuable work!
Aren’t you perhaps being a bit to – shall we say – conspiratorial (sic) in your claims that “therefore CHC would not have known that Catherine Eddowes was about to be re-leased… of course he would. He sat like the big fat spider at the centre of all communi-cation.”?
If, as you further state, “we could expect to see something like 200,000 messages flow-ing through the Executive Branch by 1888,” then that casts up at least three questions in my mind.
#1: How could any one person (i.e. CHC) have monitored more than just a mere fraction of such a huge volume. (An annual volume of 200,000 figures out to about 550 per day based on 365 days, and I doubt if CHC and others in similar postions spent their week-ends, holidays, etc. monitoring those telegrams, so the number on working days would have been about 750.) Obviously, there were no “search machines” ala Google function-ing at the time. (Sounds a bit sarcastic, but is not meant to be.)
#2: For CHC to keep track on Eddowes’ release, he would have had to know about her incarceration. That means monitoring about 550/750 telegrams twice in one day.
#3: Even in view of that impressive volume, I must wonder if the local branch would have telegraphed the HO about such a mundane event as the jailing of a drunken “prostitute” like Eddowes.
In light of these questions, I can’t help but feel that you are “shooting from the hip” when you claim, “….. of course he would” (see above.)
I’m looking forward to your response!
PB
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2004
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 5:52 pm: |
|
Paul, no worries, and thanks for your kind comments.
Shooting from the hip has always been part of my style, but when I fire I usually have a solid target, and very often hit it.
Some might call this reckless, and I can live with that; as much of the information we have dug out in the last two years has been the result of an initial shot from the hip… the discovery of Thomas Taylor’s bigamous marriages abroad and his numerous offspring being a very good example; and the intimate relationship of the Mears & Cutbush family providing at last a link between Thomas Hayne Cutbush and Lord Grimthorpe, whom he wrote to at the height of his madness.
As I wildly fired off rounds I just seemed to hit some solid targets.
Probably luck.
But I will not deny you your very valid point.
Of course you are right, CHC could not have possibly dealt with the telegraph traffic alone, but he had about fifteen officers and clerks in his Executive Office - I have the exact figures at work at the moment but will post them in due course - and incoming and outgoing telegraphs would have been dealt with on a 24 hour basis.
With such an advanced and sophisticated system of communication it would not be unreasonable to suggest that each division and subdivision submitted a daily report to the Executive Office at Scotland Yard where the information was then duly processed.
Information such as police officers on duty or sick, and their hours and overtime payments; reports of general and specific criminal activity; and of course records of arrests, overnight imprisonment and releases.
Now I agree it is a shot from the hip to suggest that CHC may have been involved in the untimely release of Eddowes, but that he was involved in the entire process cannot be denied.
CHC may not have been in his office that night, but somebody was, and whoever that was would very likely have been aware that Eddowes was in custody.
Personally I have always been completely unhappy with the release of Eddowes from her cell at the time she was released, and still do not think it was ‘usual’ for the police to clear their cells of drunks when those drunks were sober, especially at such a time of night.
Normal procedure is - and probably was - that once a person is placed in the cells for drunken behaviour, they will then remain there overnight and either be charged in the morning when they are sober or released without charge. I believe a drunken person cannot be charged.
The story of Eddowes’ release from the cells is all very twee and nice with all the little tales from the coppers at the station, and a jocular Eddowes happily leaving her warm cell - where she would have been fed and watered - to trudge the cold streets of Whitechapel looking for a bed for the night with nothing in her pockets to pay for it.
This has always sounded like pure fiction to me.
The normal procedure would have been to hold her in the cells all night, charge her with drunken behaviour in the morning and then send her to court where she would have been remanded or passed on to a woman’s institution where she would have been looked after.
It was not right and proper procedure to sling her out of her cell after midnight.
Anyways I hope that helps to answer your pertinent points, and rest assured that I shall continue to aim carefully from the hip.
One other thing we have to consider is that in 1870 there were a mere 140 miles of telegraphic wire in the UK, by 1880 this had increased to 100,000 miles of telegraphic wire… and then we have the Pneumatic Despatch Company who were blowing messages all over London. Communication had never been like this before, and the Met. made full use of it.
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1821
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 3:49 am: |
|
Superb stuff AP.I am duly impressed!
Natalie |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2007
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 1:41 pm: |
|
Thanks Natalie, you almost make me blush... almost!
I'm reposting this post from the 'atmospheric railways' thread as I think it does add weight to the argument. I would urge anyone contributing to the Eddowes thread to read this entire thread.
'I harp back to a previous thread concerning Catherine Eddowes and my wacky idea that the police would have been able to communicate from Scotland Yard with outlying police stations by telephone - the implication being obviously that certain policemen at Scotland Yard with a vested interest in the incarceration of Kate would have been well aware of her movements that fateful night - and at the time my idea was shot down because telephones did not yet ring at the midnight hour in police stations.
Well, we forgot the ‘atmospheric railway’ and that was certainly ringing loud and clear by 1888, as these two quotes will show:
The spread of railways stimulated communication, and Rowland Hill's standardisation of postal charges in 1839 saw a boom in mail services. But this was nothing compared to the revolution of the telegraph. If you think the internet is big (and given you're reading this online the chances are you do) then just imagine how much bigger it would seem if you had never before seen a computer or telephone. That's what the telegraph was to the Victorians. If rail travel shrank the country, the telegraph crushed it. It opened in the 1840s and soon went stratospheric - within ten years exchanging telegrams had become part of everyday life. By the mid 1860s London was connected with New York and ten years later messages could be exchanged between London and Bombay in minutes.
It was not until the development of the 'double sluice valve' by J. W. Willmott in 1870, that significant networks of telegram conveying tubes developed. The double sluice valve overcame the problems associated with more than one message in a tube at one time. By 1874 an extensive system of tubes was in place, linking the Central Telegram Office at Martin's le Grand in London, with London's district post offices [2], distributing around 4.5 million messages annually [1]. By 1886 London had 94 telegram tubes totalling 34 1/2 miles, powered by 4 50 hp engines.
If one takes the time to examine Metropolitan Police files of 1888 it soon becomes apparent that the Metropolitan Force was indeed using the ‘atmospheric railway’ to communicate between Scotland Yard and certainly ‘H’ division, so I see no reason why the scenario I set out using the telephone is not quite plausible when one considers the ‘atmospheric railway’.
Records are kept - for instance the Guildhall Library has an extensive collection as do other similar institutions - and I could see an enterprising researcher finding some real gold dust in this direction.'
|
Paul Boggs
Police Constable
Username: Pboggs
Post Number: 5
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 3:19 pm: |
|
AP: In response to your post on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 5:52 pm:
To continue with the weapons analogy, you present your basic approach as a form of “shot-gunning from the hip”: blast away with a shotgun and you’re bound to hit some-thing! I think you do yourself a disservice in making such a claim, but that is, of course, your prerogative.
I will be quite interested to see your figures on the officers and clerks in the EO. Where did you get them from?
Your list of the information possibly/probably contained in the daily reports to the EO seems logical. No points of contention there.
The inherent logic of your explanation of why you consider Eddowes’ release to be so “twee” (catchy little word that!) also leaves little room for challenge, although – as I am sure you would agree – it presents but one possible scenario. I’m certain that other plausible scenarios could be presented, but consider it an exercise in futility, as they would all be pure speculation.
Speaking of speculation, though: one point in your arguments that is a bit too speculative for me to swallow is your shot from the hip “that CHC may have been in-volved in the untimely release of Eddowes.” Even if that “somebody” who was in the of-fice that night “would very likely have been aware that Eddowes was in custody”, I find that it stretches credibility to propose that that person and his knowledge played a role in Eddowes’ release, let alone that CHC himself received and acted on that knowledge in the middle of the night.
To summarize: I ain’t fully convinced, but can certainly live with your analysis and have no better alternatives to offer. Again, we will just have to wait and see what else comes to light.
Thanks again for the additional information about the communication system(s) in place at the time.
PS: I wrote and was preparing to post this when I discovered your post to Natalie about the “atmospheric railway.” While that does present some new technical info and points out a former thread (which I will certainly take a look at), it does not affect the contents of this posting, so I’m going ahead with it anyway. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2008
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 5:14 pm: |
|
Paul
If you go up a few posts you’ll see that I posted a fairly comprehensive list of all involved in the Executive Office of Scotland Yard, but this is not the listing I refer to, as that is an official breakdown of all the civilian staff and others employed at the office, and if I ever get sober and back to work I will post it for you. That’s a bloody big ‘if’ though.
Meanwhile I thought this comment from Colonel Henderson, Secretary of State for the Home Office in 1871, might add some weight:
‘To provide more extended telegraphic system between the various police stations… those now existing are shown on the map… the benefit to the police has been very great. The number of messages transmitted has increased from 14,719 in 1868 to 43,853 in 1870; in fact, it has become an indispensable adjunct.’
In other words, even in 1870 - a full 18 years before the crimes of Jack - some of the various police stations of the Metropolitan Force were connected by the telegraphic system, by 1888 I would reckon it would have been a complete and instant communication system.
I’m still looking at this.
If you do read the ‘atmospheric railways’ thread you will also see that the use of telephones must be an issue in this case. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2009
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 1:09 pm: |
|
Sadly I have not yet been able to find the staffing quota of the Executive Office of Scotland Yard in 1888... It will be out there, as every year the Metropolitan Police released facts and figures to the press and staff quotas were included. Just finding the damn thing!
The closest I can come at the moment is 1878 when there was a good deal of reorganisation within the Met., and the following concerning staff quotas at the Executive Branch of Central Office was reported in The Times:
‘1 chief superintendent.
3 chief inspectors.
3 first class inspectors.
17 second class inspectors.
Office staff:
1 first class sergeant.
2 second class sergeants.
1 third class sergeant.
2 first class constables (ordinary).
The clerical staff at the central office under the immediate supervision of Chief Inspector Harris of the Executive Branch.’
Chief Inspector Harris being one assumes the uncle Charles of his day.
So all in all quite a neat little nest of the varmints in 1878.
Given the ten-fold increase - in the period from 1878 to 1888 - in the use of the telegraphic system (and this not including the ‘atmospheric railway’ - which was delivering over 4 million messages a year around London one must remember, and the telephone which by then was being used all over the capital, there were even public call boxes in Whitechapel.) I would imagine that the staff at the Executive Branch must have at least doubled by 1888.
I’ll keep looking though. |
Debra J. Arif
Sergeant
Username: Dj
Post Number: 30
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 7:34 pm: |
|
Hi AP
I couldn't find the Charles Cutbush 1871 entry either on my computer or on the casebook, but I am almost certain that either Robert or Chris Scott posted it here somewhere!
Anyway while I am here and feeling more at home than elsewhere, I don't know if Robert mentioned it to you but a descendant of Luke Flood has been in touch with me, she is from the Flood Page clan.( just to recap Luke Flood had two daughters, one married a Cutbush and one married a Page)
One of her ancestors travelled to New Zealand and then along to Australia about the same time as TTC, I have encouraged her to post here and she said she would have a look in, maybe she will be able to give us some idea of why TTC left for New Zealand in the first place.
By the way I found that the Flood pages may also have had a link to Lord Grimthorpe and the colonial deceased wife's sisters' bill...still digging on that though!
Debra |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2033
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 1:19 pm: |
|
No worries, Debra, I'm sure the census results will turn up. I was kind of hoping that it might show uncle Charles and family residing in the Darlington area, but I guess it won't.
Wonderful news about the modern descendant, this could really firm up the NZ and Oz connection.
I also found a descendant in Oz but the second I mentioned that dreaded name 'JACK!!!!!', they sort of disappeared.
There was something I stumbled on a long time ago that did make me think there was a vague connection between Lord Grimthorpe and the Floods - and it had something to do with the Colonies - but I'm devilled if I can remember what it was now?
Any news on when Robert is back with us?
I certainly miss his valuable contribution. |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 376
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 9:04 am: |
|
Hello A P,
Don't know if this is any use to you. And hopefully, not previously discussed.
I live in Sydney Australia,and have a biog. publication which lists:
CHARLES AUGUSTUS CUTBUSH
(1865-1927) Businessman and mayor of Kalgoorlie in Western Australia - a goldmining town.
Born Sydney 2 Jan 1865 son of WILLIAM MONTAGUE CUTBUSH. Died Woorooloo, WA, Feb. 1927; married (1)MAY ENGLISH ; (2) 1905 ADELINE MAY SMITH; (3)
MELB.(?) EFFIE ALLEN.
Educated State School and Sydney Grammar; membr.F L.EDWARDS DUNLOP Ltd, 1882-91; to West Aust.; tobacconist and sporting goods business, Perth; joined Kurnalpi goldrush, 1892; joined FIMISTER in Kalgoorlie store 1894; mining investor; sec. first Progress Committee Kalgoorlie; member Municipal Council 1906; mayor 1912; sec. Kalgoorlie Racing Club; chairman hospital committee; memorial outside Kalgoorlie District hospital.
SOURCES: CYCLOPAEDIA OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Vol 2 p 1882 (port); Kimberly p 213; Matters (Yes, Leonards wife: wrote a book PEOPLE FROM W A WHO MATTER);W A Parl'y Votes & Proceedings 1893 no A14; "Kalgoorlie Miner" (WA) 4 July 1961 page 8.
The name FLOOD is known to me as that of a business house in the Sydney of the 19th century.I think one of the principals of that firm (a Flood) was mayor of Waverley (which embraces Bondi Beach).There is a Flood Street in Bondi.
If you provide me with the name of a Flood who emmigrate to Australia, I'll track him down for you.
The name of the book I quoted the above from is:
A BIOGRAPHICAL REGISTER 1788-1939: Notes from the name index of the Australian Dictionary of Biography: Volume A-K. Compiled & Edited by H J Gibbney and Ann G smith. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2040
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 2:14 pm: |
|
Thanks for that John.
I have come across some of the references before, but by no means all of them, so I will check them out, and I'm sure Debra will as well.
Cutbush/Flood and gold digging seems to be a common theme to the family.
Your help much appreciated! |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4382
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 2:48 pm: |
|
Hi all
I'm glad to be back, albeit in a somewhat ghostly form.
Re CHC in 1871, Chris posted his details on this thread on April 14th.
Robert |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1927
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 3:14 pm: |
|
Hi Robert,
Glad to see you back.Are you OK?Are you back to stay...or just for today?
Natalie |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4383
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 4:09 pm: |
|
Hi Natalie
Thanks. I'm OK but am being bombarded from all sides so it'll be a while before I can get back into my normal mode. Still, never mind : I have cigarettes and teabags to fall back on!
Robert |
Debra J. Arif
Sergeant
Username: Dj
Post Number: 39
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 4:39 pm: |
|
Hi Robert
Nice to see you back
Thanks for pointing out where the CHC 1871 entry is, I had still never found it again...see how rubbish we are without you here!
Debra |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4385
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 5:19 pm: |
|
Thanks Debra. But on the contrary, the Cutbush thread seems to be moving along nicely.
I have hopes that Mark may be able to turn up something interesting at Kew, but he apparently has some important pub research to do first....
Robert |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2071
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 5:23 pm: |
|
Your ghostly form is the most welcome form I have ever seen, Robert.
I have missed your considerable wit and adroit knowledge most sorely.
You are allowed one cup and two fags, and then I expect to see some action.
Welcome back, my dear comrade. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4386
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 5:43 pm: |
|
Thanks AP. It's good to be back. At one point during my internet exile, I was reduced to switching on the TV and watching...snooker.
Robert |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2074
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 15, 2005 - 12:57 pm: |
|
Robert, my email seems to have gone on strike for the night, so I can't reply to your note.
I'm just so glad to know that you are back in the land of ether, so take your time buddy.
No worries.
I do have some bits and pieces on the Cutbush clan, so must dig them out, but I think the lively debate - concerning telegraphs and the like - in which it was firmly established that uncle Charles could well have known about Eddowes being locked up for the night was an important milestone. |
Paul Boggs
Police Constable
Username: Pboggs
Post Number: 7
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, May 15, 2005 - 3:46 pm: |
|
Hello AP & co.:
I have been reviewing the Evans/Skinner sourcebook, and took a close look at the two documents bearing Charles Cutbush signature block in the Martha Tabram case. I am, of course, interpreting, but it appears that, in both cases (16 Aug & 24 Aug), the following procedure was involved:
Edmund Reid wrote two extensive reports on the state of the investigations and sent them “To/AC (CID) [ACB]” Evans/Skinner identify “ACB” as Alexander Carmichael Bruce, Assistant Commissioner (CID). Thus Reid’s reports appear to have been ad-dressed directly to Bruce.
From this point on, I must resort to some interpretation, but will try to substantiate that interpretation.
The two documents seem to indicate that Cutbush received Reid’s reports, compiled a “Summary of Contents” for each (the subject head used on his documents) and then forwarded his summaries, together with Reid’s original reports, on to the “Assis-tant Commissioner, Criminal Investigation Department”. The Cutbush documents are obviously what he titles them as: summaries. Further, the signature block at the bot-tom of these summaries carries the title “C.H. Cutbush, Supt.” Both of them bear the same dates as those on Reid’s original reports, so they were obviously processed on the same day, the day that they were received.
Synopsis: it seems that Cutbush received the Reid reports, reviewed and summa-rized them, and then forwarded them on, probably to Bruce as that is the “AC” to whom Reid had addressed them.
Now, please do not think it condescending if I add a comment here for the benefit of those who might not be familiar with office procedures in many large organizations, i.e. businesses, military, etc. Summaries such as those by Cutbush are often made by assistants, etc. to their higher level superiors. These reduce the volume of actual information which such superiors have to read through and yet keep them up to date on developments. The original reports are usually included so that the superior can, if he wishes, read the original to inform himself in more detail. Accordingly, the course of the paperwork here seems to follow what is SOP in many such organisations.
At this point, then, we have to take a closer look at the hierarchical structure of the office. The information which I have on Bruce (also taken from Evans/Skinner’s sourcebook) is as follows: “promoted to Senior Assistant Commissioner in August, 1888, on ap-pointment of Robert Anderson as Junior Assistant Commissioner. (PMB note: that was on August 31) Bruce appears to have performed Anderson’s duty as head of the C.I.D. whilst Anderson was on sick leave from September 7 to early October 1888.” (In his earlier (1988) work “JtR: the Uncensored Facts”, Paul Begg briefly describes Bruce as “Ass. Comm. December 1884 – March 1914.)
At the time of the Tabram murder, Cutbush was “Executive Superintendent” in the Commissioner’s Office. If I am correct, this was after his “demotion” from Chief Inves-tigator to Superintendent, and the chain of command which I propose above seems to be confirmed by this information. (I am a bit shaky on this information, so please correct me if I have made a mistake.)
IF this is the case here, then it does throw open the question of Cutbush’ actual in-volvement in and importance for the matters at hand – even as early as the Tabram murder! As far as the only paper trail which we have of him (the two documents dealt with here) it almost seems as though he is functioning as little more than an adminis-trative assistant (clerk would perhaps be a bit too derogatory a term) for his superior, in this case probably Bruce.
Any comments? (Knowing the Casebook as I do, I am certain that some will follow!)
Paul B.
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2076
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 15, 2005 - 5:52 pm: |
|
I have no problems with that, Paul.
It seems a very likely summation of Charles Henry Cutbush's official involvement in the crimes of Jack the Ripper.
It is, however, his unofficial involvement that I have interest in.
Also it might be a tad premature to downgrade Cutbush's career within the Metropolitan force at the time you do, when he was showered with fifty gold sovereigns - that was a hell of a lot of money in them days - and widely held as the 'best man in a tight corner' by his fellow officers.
The riots that took place in the same time period you mention also show that Cutbush was still very much hands on when it came to policing. They would hardly have had a clerk out there in Trafalgar Square smashing Fenian heads.
Yes, much later, he was reduced to that, but no, not in 1888. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4389
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 16, 2005 - 11:09 am: |
|
Thanks AP. Paul, interesting post but CHC would have been in a position to access the investigation, even if he wasn't a prominent participant in it. And his lodging-house responsibilities would have drawn him into the case to a certain extent anyway.
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4390
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 16, 2005 - 1:18 pm: |
|
AP, there probably was an Inspector Cuthbert. At least, the "Times" Feb 10th 1893 has a reference to a Supt Cuthbert, and this of course would have been 2 years after CHC was pensioned. Unfortunately I can't get onto the police orders website to check further - I've probably not enabled my cookies, or some such crap.
Robert |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2079
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 16, 2005 - 1:38 pm: |
|
I've never enabled a cookie in me life, Robert, in fact as soon as I see one of those varmints I pull out my trusty service pistol and plug it square between the eyes.
I was interested in the fact that CHC's name is often spelt as 'Cuthbert' in press reports - most obvious in the riots and other disturbances in London where we do know it was actually Cutbush and not Cuthbert - therefore when I found an obscure report concerning a Sergeant Cuthbert who was beating Fenian heads in Darlington in 1872, and was up before the Beak for 'alleged police violence', I was sort of hoping it would be uncle Charles. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
