Anderson, the Home Office & a reward-request

[Daniel Cazard]

Hi everyone,

as always my tentative apologies in case I missed a thread where this has already been discussed, but I don't believe it has been on this SRA-forum, just combed through it a bit.

My questions, and please correct me on everything I might be wrong about:

Sir Robert had formerly been a Home Office advisor concerning political crime, but had been relieved of this in 1886 after getting into some pickles with then Home Secretary Hugh Childers.

In August 1888 (either 31st, or 1st of Sept.?), just after Anderson was made Assistant Commissioner for Crime, a request addressed at the Home Office was made for having a reward offered for the capture of the perpetrator who'd murdered Polly Nichols.
This request was denied by E. Leigh Pemberton.

1. Would such a request for reward have been issued by or at least with the involvement of Anderson?

2. Who was Home Secretary at this point, still Childers? Can't seem to find this.

3. If 1. & 2. are a yes, could the denial have personal reasons, or what would have been plausible reasons for the denial?

I'm sure the answers are in Neil Bell's book, but I don't have it at hand at this point.

Any help is greatly appreciated

Cheers, have a good day.

[Daniel Cazard]

p.s.

Pemberton, if I'm correct, and if it was the same man, had been member of parliament until - I think - 1885 (??). I'm not sure what position entitled him to deny reward-requests.

[Chris G.]

Hello Daniel

Edward Leigh-Pemberton, D.L., J.P., was Legal Secretary, Home Office, from 1885 to 1892. He was knighted (K.C.B.) in 1898. Henry Matthews, later Viscount Llandaff of Hereford, served as Home Secretary, 1886-1892.

I hope this helps.

Best regards

Chris

[Daniel Cazard]

Hello Daniel

Edward Leigh-Pemberton, D.L., J.P., was Legal Secretary, Home Office, from 1885 to 1892. He was knighted (K.C.B.) in 1898. Henry Matthews, later Viscount Llandaff of Hereford, served as Home Secretary, 1886-1892.

I hope this helps.

Best regards

Chris

Hello Chris,

it does!

Thanks so much!

The denial for a reward wasn't such an unexpected matter, I'd presume, given how early into the murders it was?

[Chris G.]

Hi again

It was Home Office policy not to offer rewards, although Matthews reversed himself after the Mary Jane Kelly murder when it seems the Home Secretary thought that a reward might lure an accomplice into giving away the killer's identity. Not, that is, that there was any clear evidence, as far as we know, that an accomplice was involved, just that the Home Office seemed to think that such might have been the case that someone knew the murderer or actually helped him in the crime.

Best regards

Chris

[Daniel Cazard]

Hi again

It was Home Office policy not to offer rewards, although Matthews reversed himself after the Mary Jane Kelly murder when it seems the Home Secretary thought that a reward might lure an accomplice into giving away the killer's identity. Not, that is, that there was any clear evidence, as far as we know, that an accomplice was involved, just that the Home Office seemed to think that such might have been the case that someone knew the murderer or actually helped him in the crime.

Best regards

Chris

Hi once more,

and thanks. Yes, I gathered the intentions after the Kelly-murder.
About the strict policy before that I didn't know.

Matter swiftly clarified, thank you very much, it helps a lot!

Have a great day!