HC Deb 20 November 1888 vol 330 cc1657-9

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been directed to the second paragraph of a letter addressed by Sir Charles Warren to The Times of the 17th instant, in which he says that— Whilst in many cases he has received instructions apparently contrary to Statute, he has protested, and, in protesting, taken legal advice; and, if he will inform the House what those instructions "apparently contrary to Statute" were?

MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.)

also asked, Whether the right hon. Gentleman will lay upon the Table of the House the Correspondence which passed between the late Chief Commissioner of Metropolitan Police and the Home Office, and to which Sir Charles Warren appeals in his letter published in The Times of Saturday last?


I presume that Sir Charles Warren's published letter refers to the voluminous Correspondence on Departmental matters between the Home Office and Scotland Yard. It is unusual to lay a Correspondence of this kind upon the Table of the House; and part of it is altogether confidential. I will, however, state generally that I know of no occasion on which I have given to Sir Charles Warren directions apparently or really contrary to the Statute. But if the hon. Members wilt put upon the Paper a Question addressed to any specific subject on which they suggest I have done so, I will inform them, as fully as public duty permits, what directions I did give, and they will be able to form their own judgment.


In what manner am I to obtain information only obtainable by the Home Secretary or Sir Charles Warren? [A laugh.] It is no laughing matter; it involves the question of the death of two Englishmen killed in London; and I want to know who is responsible?

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

Are not the circumstances of the case altogether unusual—that is to say, the question is between Sir Charles Warren and the Home Office; and as the whole question turns on the relations that have existed for some time between the late Chief Commissioner and the Home Office, is it not desirable to enable the House and the public to arrive at a conclusion between the Home Office and the late Chief Commissioner? In order to do so, should not the whole of the Correspondence be laid before us?


I do not think it is necessary that the whole Correspondence should be laid before the House. As I have stated, a great deal of it cannot be. But any matter in which it is suggested that I have gone beyond my powers, I shall be happy to state fully.