698
edits
Changes
Created page with "== Who was Home Secretary when Jack The Ripper was killing? == Henry Matthews was the Home Secretary whilst Jack The Ripper was at large. In fact, on 31st August 1888, the d..."
== Who was Home Secretary when Jack The Ripper was killing? ==
Henry Matthews was the Home Secretary whilst Jack The Ripper was at large.
In fact, on 31st August 1888, the day of Mary Nicols' murder, L. & P. Walter & Son of Church Street, sent a newspaper clipping and a letter to Henry Matthews, the Home Secretary.
The letter said:
<blockquote>We beg to enclose you [a] report of this fearful murder & to say that such is the state of affairs in this district that we are put to the necessity of [having] a nightwatchman to protect our premises. The only way in our humble opinion to tackle this matter is to offer at once a reward.</blockquote>
A reply, Signed by Edward Leigh-Pemberton, Legal Assistant Under-Secretary at the Home Office, and dated 4th September 1888, was sent back to the company. It informed Walter & Son that "the practice of offering rewards for the discovery of criminals has for some time been discontinued; and that so far as the circumstances of the present case have at present been investigated, they do not in his [i.e. Matthews’] opinion disclose any special ground for departure from the usual custom".
Henry Matthews was the Home Secretary whilst Jack The Ripper was at large.
In fact, on 31st August 1888, the day of Mary Nicols' murder, L. & P. Walter & Son of Church Street, sent a newspaper clipping and a letter to Henry Matthews, the Home Secretary.
The letter said:
<blockquote>We beg to enclose you [a] report of this fearful murder & to say that such is the state of affairs in this district that we are put to the necessity of [having] a nightwatchman to protect our premises. The only way in our humble opinion to tackle this matter is to offer at once a reward.</blockquote>
A reply, Signed by Edward Leigh-Pemberton, Legal Assistant Under-Secretary at the Home Office, and dated 4th September 1888, was sent back to the company. It informed Walter & Son that "the practice of offering rewards for the discovery of criminals has for some time been discontinued; and that so far as the circumstances of the present case have at present been investigated, they do not in his [i.e. Matthews’] opinion disclose any special ground for departure from the usual custom".
