|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 501
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 12:42 pm: |       |
While I was transcribing articles from the 13 Nov 1888 edition of the Daily News that Stephen has sent me, I found the Home Secretary's explanation of Home Office policy towards rewards of interest:
Mr. MATTHEWS—Owing to the public interest taken in this question I hope the House will allow me at greater length than is usual in answering a question to state why I have hitherto refrained from offering a reward in the Whitechapel cases. Before 1884 it was the frequent practice of the Home Office to offer rewards, sometimes of large amounts, in serious cases. In 1883, in particular, several rewards ranging from 200l. to 2,000l. were offered in such cases as the murder of Police-constable Boans and the dynamite explosions in Charles-street and at various railway stations. These rewards, like the 10,000l. reward in the Phœnix Park case proved ineffectual and produced no evidence of any value. In 1884 there was a change of policy. Early in that year a remarkable case occurred. A conspiracy was formed to effect an explosion at the German Embassy, to plant the papers upon an innocent person, and to accuse him of the crime in order to obtain the reward which was expected. The revelation of this conspiracy led the then Secretary of State (Sir W. Harcourt) to consider the whole question. He consulted the police authorities both in England and Ireland, and the conclusions which he arrived at were that the practice of offering large and sensational rewards in cases of serious crime is not only ineffectual but mischievous; that rewards produce, generally speaking, no result beyond satisfying the public demand for conspicuous action, but operate prejudicially by relaxing the exertions of the police, and that they tend to produce false rather than reliable testimony. He decided therefore in all cases to abandon the practice of offering rewards, as they had been found by experience to be a hindrance rather than an aid in the detection of crime. These conclusions were publicly announced and acted upon in very important cases in 1884—one a shocking murder and violation of a little girl at Middlesbrough and the other the dynamite outrage at London-bridge, in which case the City offered 5,000l. reward. The principle thus established has since been adhered to. The whole subject was reconsidered in 1885 by Sir R. Cross in a remarkable case of infanticide at Plymouth and again in 1886 by the right hon. member for Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) in the notorious case of Louisa Hart. On both occasions, with the concurrence of the best authorities, the principle was maintained and a reward refused. Since I have been at the Home Office I have followed the rule thus deliberately laid down and steadily adhered to by my predecessors. I do not mean that the role may not be subject to exceptions, as for instance where it is known who the criminal is and information is wanted only as to his hiding-place or on account of other circumstances of the crime itself. In the Whitechapel murders not only are these conditions wanting at present, but the danger of a false charge is intensified by the excited state of public feeling. (Hear, hear.) I know how desirable it is to allay that public feeling, and I should have been glad if the circumstances had justified me in giving visible proof that the authorities are not heedless or indifferent. I beg to assure the hon. member and the House that neither the Home Office nor Scotland-yard will leave a stone unturned in order to bring to justice the perpetrators of these abominable crimes, which have outraged the feelings of the whole community. (Hear, hear.) With regard to the question put by the hon. member for Aberdeen, I will carefully consider his suggestion.
Mr. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM—I thank the right hon. gentleman for his explanation, and beg to assure him that I heartily agree with him.
Mr. MONTAGU said he wished to explain why he offered a reward in the case of the last murder.
The SPEAKER reminded the hon. gentleman that he would scarcely be in order at this stage.
Montagu trying to get a word in is also of interest: In the May 2004 issue of Ripperologist, Chris George writes about M.P. Montagu's reward offer to Chief Inspector John West (this was after the Chapman murder); Montagu apparently wasn't aware of Home Office policy--sounds like Pemberton and Warren were quick to inform him, although Montagu was offering to pay the reward out of his own pocket.
(Message edited by oberlin on October 25, 2004) |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
