13 November 1888
Mr. PICKERSGILL asked the Home Secretary who was at present the head of the Criminal Investigation Department; whether the Home Office communicated with him directly or through the Chief Commissioners of Metropolitan Police; and whether arrangements had been made at the Home Office for the investigation of crime apart from Scotland-yard?
Mr. MATTHEWS-Mr. Anderson is at present at the head of the Criminal Investigation Department. The practice at the Home Office has been to communicate directly with him on matters relating specially to his department. Where more than departmental interests are involved communications are made to the Commissioner. The answer to the third question is in the negative. The investigation of crime committed in the metropolis is entirely in the hands of the department in Scotland-yard.
Mr. PICKERSGILL asked whether the right hon. gentleman would now take the opportunity of giving the House some definite information with regard to the position of Mr. Monro. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. GENT-DAVIS, who was received with Opposition cheers, asked whether the reason given by Mr. Monro for resigning the Assistant-Commissionership of the Police was that under the system pursued by the Chief Commissioner he could no longer be responsible for the administration of the Criminal Investigation Department; and if the papers on the subject could be laid on the table. (Opposition cheers.)
Mr. MATTHEWS replied that he had given the hon. member for Bethnal-green information upon the subject on which he had clearly put a question to him with regard to the functions of Mr. Monro. He had informed the hon. member that he was deriving the benefit of the advice of Mr. Monro on matters relating to crime. Among these matters he might mention that he had had a consultation with Mr. Monro on the whole subject of the organization of the Criminal Investigation Department with which he was more familiar than anybody else in this country. He need hardly say that his advice was most valuable on that subject. As to the question put by his hon. friend the member for Kensington, he had stated to the hon. member for Bethnal-green that Mr. Monro resigned because differences of opinion had arisen between himself and the Commissioner on questions of police administration.
Mr. GENT-DAVIS inquired if the Home Secretary was in a position to lay documents on the table which would exactly show to the House the position in which Mr. Monro at present stood, and the absolute reasons which caused his resignation form a most important public office. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. MATTHEWS said that he had quoted with literal accuracy the reason assigned for the resignation, but it was not the custom to lay papers of this character before the House of Commons.
Mr. GENT-DAVIS-Then I am afraid, Sir, we must get them to-night. (Opposition cheers and laughter.)
RESIGNATION OF SIR C. WARREN.
Mr. CONYBEARE asked the House Secretary whether he could state the exact reason why the late head of the Detective Department in the Metropolitan Police resigned his position; whether it was the fact that Sir C. Warren has now practically the direct control of the Detective Department; and whether, in view of the constant recurrence of atrocious murders, and the failure of the new organization and methods to detect the murderer, he will consider the propriety of making some changes in the arrangements of Scotland-yard. He further asked whether it is true that Sir C. Warren has tendered his resignation, and, if so, whether it has been accepted.
Mr. MATTHEWS-I have already stated more than once the reason why Mr. Munro resigned. I have not got the document with me, but I have no objection to read to the House the letter-
Mr. GENT-DAVIS-Some time this evening. ("Hear, hear," and "Order.")
Mr. MATTHEWS-Mr. Anderson has now the direct control of the Criminal Investigation Department, but under the superintendence and control, as provided by statute, of the Chief Commissioner. The failure so far to detect the person guilty of the Whitechapel murders is due, not to any defect in the existing system, but to the extraordinary cunning and secrecy which characterized these atrocious crimes. I have already for some time had under consideration the whole system of the Criminal Investigation Department, with a view to introducing any improvements that experience might suggest. I have now to inform the House that the Chief Commissioner of Police, on the 8th inst., tendered his resignation, and that it has been accepted. (Loud Opposition cheers.)
Mr. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM rose to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he contemplates offering any additional reward for the capture of the Whitechapel murderer. The hon. member explained that he did not ask this question from any desire to embarrass the Government, but simply because considerable excitement prevailed in the East-end of London.
Mr. HUNTER asked whether the right hon. gentleman had taken into consideration the propriety of extending the offer of a free pardon, which he understood applied only to the last murder, to the others also, especially having regard to the fact that in the case of the first murder, committed last Christmas, according to the dying testimony of the victim several persons were concerned in the murder.
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
The Press Association, in reference to Sir Charles Warren's resignation, learns on the highest authority that the relations between Sir Charles Warren and the Home Office have for some time been strained. The action of the department in reference to the resignation of Mr. Monro caused the first serious difference of opinion. Sir Charles took exception to certain of the methods of the Assistant Commissioner, and he intimated to Mr. Matthews that either he or Mr. Monro must resign. A few days afterwards Mr. Monro's resignation was announced. Sir Charles complains that Mr. Monro's resignation as accepted without consultation with him, and that prior to the Home Secretary's statement in the House of Commons last evening he (Sir Charles Warren) was not even aware of the reason assigned by his subordinate for severing his connection with Scotland-yard. Since Mr. Monro's transference to the Home Office matters have become worse. Sir Charles complains that, whereas he has been saddled with all the responsibility, he has had no freedom of action, and in consequence his position has become daily more unbearable. Although Mr. Monro has been no longer in evidence at Whitehall-place, he has to all intents and purposes retained control of the Criminal Investigation Department. Indeed, Mr. Matthews, last evening admitted that he was deriving the benefit of the advice of Mr. Monro in matters relating to crime, and was in communication with him at the present time on the subject of the organization of the detective staff. This division of authority Sir Charles Warren has strenuously fought against. He maintains that if the Commissioner is to be responsible for the discipline of the force instructions should be given to no department without his concurrence. Latterly, in spite of the remonstrances of Sir Charles Warren, the control of the Criminal Investigation Department has been withdrawn more and more from Whitehall Place. Every morning for the last few weeks there has been a protracted conference at the Home Office between Mr. Monro, Mr. Anderson, and the principal detective inspectors, and the information furnished to the Commissioner in regard to these conferences has been, he stated, of the scantiest character. These facts will explain how, apart from any other consideration, it was impossible for Sir. Charles Warren, holding the views he did in regard to the functions of the Commissioner, to continue in command. The reproof of the Home Secretary last week in reference to the article in Murray's Magazine completed the rupture. Sir Charles thereupon took counsel with his friends, and immediately tendered his resignation to the Home Secretary. Yesterday morning his books and papers were removed from the Commissioner's office, and this was the first intimation in Whitehall-place that he had relinquished the position.
Last night's meeting of delegates from the various Liberal and Radical clubs and associations in the metropolis took place at the Memorial Hall, Farringdon-street, with the object of considering what steps should be taken to secure a decision in the High Courts with reference to the action of Sir Charles Warren in connection with the Trafalgar-square meetings. Dr. PANKHURST took the chair, and there were present Mr. Cunninghame Graham, M.P., Mr. Conybeare, M.P., Dr. Reed, and Mr. Edward Dillon Lewis. Mr. Cunninghame Graham proposed a resolution to the effect that this meeting rejoiced to hear of the resignation of Sir Charles Warren, and was of opinion that no military man should be appointed to fill his place. The meeting further hoped that in future the duties of the office would not be discharged without regard to public liberty and the right of public meeting.-Mr. Conybeare seconded the resolution, which was carried, and both speakers dwelt on the importance of the police affair of the metropolis being placed in the hands of the people themselves, pointing out that in provincial towns this method worked satisfactorily. Reference was next made to the legal question as to the right of public meeting in Trafalgar-square, in connection with which an appeal is pending against a decision arrived at by Mr. Vaughan, police magistrate, sitting at Bow-street, against a man named Borgia. Mr. Edward Dillon Lewis addressed the meeting at great length on the points of constitutional law that were to be raised, and it was announced that to fight the case a sum of 50l. had been subscribed amongst members of Parliament and others, including Mr. Samuel Montagu, Mr. E.H. Pickersgill, Mr. Rowlands, Mr. R. Causton, Mr. Sidney Buxton, Mr. G. Howell, Mr. O.V. Morgan, Mr. H.L.W. Lawson, and Mr. Cremer. A letter was also read from Sir Charles Russell, Q.C., expressing his doubts as to whether the question of the right of meeting would be settled by a stated case. Letters were also read from Professor Stuart and others expressing sympathy with the object of the meeting, and after a resolution approving and thanking Mr. E. Dillon Lewis for the manner in which he had brought the points of law in the dispute under notice the meeting terminated.
A man, apparently of the labouring class, has informed the police on Friday morning he saw the murdered woman, Marie Janet Kelly, in company with a well-dressed man, of whom he has given a minute description, in Commercial-street, Spitalfields. The police attach importance to the statement.
Dr. Macdonald, Coroner for North-East Middlesex, opened an inquest at Shoreditch yesterday on the body of Marie Janet Kelly, whose dead and mutilated body was found in a house in Miller's-court, Dorset-street, Spitalfields, on Friday morning last. Joseph Barnet, a fish-porter, identified the deceased, and gave an account of the life which she had led. He had lived with her for about eight months. Several women gave evidence as to having seen the deceased shortly before the crime was committed, and, other witnesses having been heard with reference to the finding of the body, Dr. Phillips attributed death to the severance of the right carotid artery. The jury returned a verdict of "Wilful [sic] Murder against some person or persons unknown."
THE announcement made by the HOME SECRETARY in the House of Commons last night did not take the House or the country by surprise. Sir CHARLES WARREN'S resignation of his office as Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis has been more than half expected for some time past. It had become too painfully evident that his administration was entirely unsuccessful, and that nothing could restore the efficiency of the Metropolitan Police, nor heal the unfortunate breach between them and the London populace but an entire change of government at Scotland-yard. Sir CHARLES WARREN has taken the course which his own personal dignity suggested and the interest of the metropolis demanded. He has recognised his failure by giving up a position which had become untenable. The immediate occasion of the resignation seems to have been the remonstrance which Mr. MATTHEWS addressed to him last week on his indiscreet article in Murray's Magazine for the present month. We expressed our opinion of this article as soon as it was published, and pointed out the tone of confidence in himself and in his management of the police which ran through it. That article moreover showed a fundamental incapacity in Sir CHARLES WARREN for the management of a purely civic force. It lectured everybody. It convicted all the world-successive Governments, the Press, and the public-of failure to appreciate the value of a force which was keeping revolutionary disorder at bay. After reading such an article, it was impossible to hope that under Sir CHARLES WARREN the police would not go from bad to worse. It had for some time been evident that within the force itself Sir CHARLES WARREN was introducing disorganization and discontent. The resignation of Mr. MONRO, and his subsequent appointment to a post at the Home Office, were outward and visible signs of serious internal disturbance. In a statement which one of the news agencies circulates "on the highest authority," the public are told that the quarrel has arisen over the proposed reorganization of the Criminal Investigation Department. Sir CHARLES WARREN complains, we are told, that Mr. MONRO's resignation was accepted without consultation with him, and that prior to the HOME SECRETARY'S statement in the House of Commons he was not even informed of Mr. MONRO's reasons for resigning. Mr. MATTHEWS seems, in fact, to have lost confidence in the Commissioner, and to have been communicating directly with the detective inspectors behind Sir CHARLES WARREN'S back. According to this statement, therefore, the direct cause of Sir CHARLES WARREN'S resignation is a difference of opinion with the HOME SECRETARY. This entirely agrees with the very vague explanation given by Mr. MATTHEWS last night. He informed the House that he had had under consideration the whole system of the Criminal Investigation Department, with a view to its improvement; and, in the next sentence, said that Sir CHARLES WARREN had resigned. The Detective Department needs complete reconstruction, and the very first requirement of its efficiency is that it should be kept entirely distinct from the ordinary police organization and work. If therefore Sir CHARLES WARREN has resigned as a protest against this division of work, or of any step towards it, the resignation will be received without regret.
We say this, however, from the point of view of the public interest only. Sir CHARLES WARREN has been so excellent and so efficient a public servant on other fields of work, that even while recognizing his failure as Chief Commissioner of Police we feel bound to express the greatest sympathy with him as a public man. As a soldier Sir CHARLES WARREN has always been distinguished for energy, capacity, and chivalrous public spirit. He has probably as much disinterested desire to serve his country as any of his contemporaries. The high post he has held for the last two years and a half was not of his seeking. He was invited to take it; and his appointment gave at the time universal satisfaction. It was felt that the Metropolitan Police wanted an infusion of new vigour, and that Sir CHARLES WARREN, of all men, could breathe a new spirit into it. He went into his work with characteristic energy. Had he understood it, he might have achieved striking success. But it was not a post for which he had had scarcely any proper training. He was a soldier, and London wanted a policeman. His training and experience were military, and his new duties were purely civilian. The thing to avoid in the police of a great city is the very thing that Sir CHARLES WARREN was sure to bring into the Metropolitan Police-the military spirit. It was no fault of his that this was the case, the fault lay in the whole system under which the Metropolitan Police is dissociated from the local government of the metropolis; but Sir CHARLES WARREN has succeeded in making the worst instead of the best of a bad system. It is not clear how far he is responsible for the unfortunate division that has grown up between the police and the populace; Mr. MATTHEWS probably deserves a large share of the blame. But the division exists. The police have never been so unpopular in London as they now are. They are a class apart. The better portion of the working people avoid [sic] them almost as much as the criminal classes. There is a feeling that the Government have [sic] been employing them for political repression. This is not Sir CHARLES WARREN'S fault, who, in this matter, has only done his duty; but the populace visit [sic] it upon him. Every law-abiding person in the community ought to look upon the police with sympathy. Our London populace regard them with suspicion and dislike. Sir CHARLES WARREN, by his military habits, has certainly increased this feeling; and nothing but a complete change of system will remove it. Sir CHARLES WARREN nevertheless deserves sympathy and commiseration in a failure which is his misfortune rather than his fault. He is, however, to be congratulated on having so promptly cut himself free from a position in which his training and qualities must always have prevented him from succeeding.
The only regret which is likely to be felt at Sir CHARLES WARREN'S resignation is that Mr. MATTHEWS will have to fill up the vacant place. If the HOME SECRETARY could make the best of great opportunity, he might be congratulated. He has a chance of distinguishing himself by appointing a real policeman to fill a policeman's place. If he does this, and organizes a detective department entirely distinct from the Chief Commissioner, he will put the great police problem in a fair way for solution. Lord CHARLES BERESFORD was spoken of in the House of Commons last night as a probable successor. If Mr. MATTHEWS has any idea of such an appointment he fails to grasp the position. The mistake of appointing a distinguished soldier like Sir CHARLES WARREN would be reproduced in the nomination of an eminent sailor like Lord CHARLES BERESFORD. To put at the head of a great business a man who knows nothing about it, is one of those miraculous mistakes which are never made except by British Governments. Here is a vast army of police, and it should be put under a man who has had large experience as a superintendent of police. Till this is done the Metropolitan Police will fail to recover public confidence. We agree largely with the HOME SECRETARY, that the failure to detect the Whitechapel murderer is due, not to defects in the existing system, but to the extraordinary cunning and secrecy which have characterized these atrocious crimes. We should, however, prefer to say that it is less due to the bad system than to the peculiar circumstances. But the Detective Department needs to be entirely reorganized in a different spirit. Where but in London would every clue be at once announced and published? A proper detective organization would probably be able to baffle even the extraordinary cunning which has so much impressed the HOME SECRETARY'S imagination. Nor is it wise to put this important department under the Commissioner, though an Act of Parliament would be required in order to take it from under his supervision. The control of an army of 12,000 constables is enough for one head; and the force can only suffer if its chief has to occupy himself with the infinite details of criminal detection. Separate the two, and place them under proper heads, men accustomed to and trained in the work-and both may succeed.
INQUEST AND VERDICT.
INQUEST AND VERDICT.
The inquest into the death of Marie Janet Kelly opened somewhat stormily yesterday morning at Shoreditch Town Hall, before Dr. Macdonald, M.P. The murder had been committed in Whitechapel, and some of the jurymen who were empanelled for Shoreditch appeared to think it unfair that they should be called upon to do duty for Whitechapel. The body, however, had been removed to Shoreditch mortuary, and, as the coroner explained, jurisdiction arises where the body lies. Not until Dr. Macdonald had given expression to something very like a threat did the recalcitrant jurymen settle down to business. They of course went to view the body, and afterwards inspected the room in which it had been found, and then returned to the Town Hall and began to hear what the witnesses had to say.
The first was Joseph Barnet. He had lived with the deceased for a year and eight months, and appeared to be in pretty full possession of all the main facts in the unhappy woman's history. A very deplorable history it proved to be. She had been married at 16 to a Welsh collier, who was killed in an explosion. She had then gone to Cardiff with a cousin, who, the witness said, had been the cause of her downfall, and from there had come to London, to a Madam somebody in the West-end. A gentleman had then taken her to France, and from France, after a short time, she came over to Ratcliff Highway. Subsequently she had lived with two men in succession, to the latter of whom she had been greatly attached. He (the witness) had met her casually in Whitechapel, they had drink together, and arranged the compact which seems to have held good till the 30th of last month, when, out of compassion, she had taken into her room an immoral woman, and over this they quarreled and parted. The main interest of this man's story runs in the gruesome light it threw on a profligate career of eight short years. It did nothing to elucidate the mystery of her death, nor indeed did any of the evidence given. Through the phantasmagoria of the Coroner's Court there did indeed flit figures, probably more or less apocryphal, of men who might have done the deed. One doleful-looking little body, with a negress-type of features, told how she and another had been frightened by a mysterious stranger who had tried to lure them by the offer of money into a retired spot; but they both took to their heels and ran away. Not much importance was to be attached to this testimony, probably, nor to that of one or two others who had seen men under suspicious circumstances. Perhaps the most sensational bit of evidence tendered was that of a garrulous young woman who, with some dramatic force, imitated by voice and action a sort of nightmare cry of "Oh! murder!" which she declared she had heard just after she had been woke up by her kitten rubbing its nose against her face about half-past three or four o'clock on the morning of the murder. It was a faintish cry, she said, as though somebody had woke up with the nightmare, and though the evidence must be taken with the reserve that should attach to all such testimony, the time at which she believes she heard the cry would tally very well with all the circumstances of the case, and it is not impossible that that really was the death gasp of the poor woman in the clutches of her murderer. Some confirmation is added to this supposition by the evidence of another witness, Sarah Lewis, who lived a short distance off, but had had some falling out at home, and went to stay the night with a friend in Miller's-court, where she sat and dozed in a chair. She woke up about 3.30 by Spitalfields church clock, and a little before four o'clock-agreeing in this with the other witness-she also heard one cry of "Murder!" She, however, says it was a loud shout, whereas another witness, who was awake the whole night, and who believed she must have heard any such cry if it had been made, swore that she heard not a sound. As to the evidence of the woman Caroline Maxwell, who swore that she saw the deceased at eight or nine o'clock on Friday morning, that is regarded by the police as merely an error of date. No doubt she did see the woman, and spoke to her as she stated, but on Thursday morning instead of Friday. Nothing was said yesterday as to the probable time of the murder, but we have reason to believe that the conclusion arrived at by several medical men who were on the spot shortly after the discovery of the body was that the deed had been done certainly not later than six or seven on Friday morning, and it might have been a good deal earlier.
In Maria Harvey, the woman who had been compassionately taken in by Kelly, the Court had its one amusing witness. She was the Mrs. Gamp of the day, and when she and the Coroner got at loggerheads over the question as to whether certain articles of apparel were two shirts belonging to one man or one man's two shirts, there was general laughter at Mrs. Harvey's decisive dogmatism of manner. Inspector Abberline, of the Scotland-yard detectives, confirmed the statement made in Saturday's Daily News as to the telegram about the bloodhounds, and in reply to questions as to the probable reason of certain articles of clothing having been burnt in Kelly's grate, he expressed his belief that they had been burnt to light the murderer in his ghastly work. Dr. Phillips's evidence was conclusive as to the cause of death. It had resulted from the severance of the right carotid artery; and after the throat had been cut, the body, said the doctor, must have been removed from one side of the bed to the other. As to the mutilation of the body, no evidence was given beyond that of the death wound; and, as Dr. Phillips's evidence was absolutely conclusive as to the cause of death, and the police had no testimony to produce indicating the criminal, Dr. Macdonald put it to the jury whether it was necessary to go any further. He did not wish unduly to influence them, but all they had to do was to determine the cause of the woman's death, and if they thought that had been sufficiently proved, there would be no occasion for adjournment. After a brief deliberation the jury came unanimously to the conclusion that they had carried the inquiry far enough, and that the matter might now be left in the hands of the police. They accordingly returned a verdict of "Wilful murder against some person or persons unknown."
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBABLE MURDERER.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBABLE MURDERER.
Yesterday evening the police received information of a most important nature which not only establishes a clue to the perpetrator of the Dorset-street murder, but places the authorities in possession of an accurate and full description of a person who was seen in company with the murdered woman during the night on which she met her death. A man, apparently of the labouring class, but of a military appearance, who knew the deceased, last night lodged with the police a long and detailed statement of an incident which attracted his attention on the day in question. The following is a summary of the statement, and it may be said that notwithstanding examination and re-examination by the police, the man's story cannot be shaken, and so circumstantial and straightforward were his assertions that the police believe they have at length been placed in possession of facts which will open up a new line of investigation, and probably enable them to track the criminal. This man states that on the morning of the 9th instant he saw the deceased woman, Mary Janet Kelly, in Commercial-street, Spitalfields (the vicinity of where the murder was committed), in company with a man of respectable appearance. The man was about 5 feet 6 inches in height, and 34 or 35 years of age, with dark complexion and dark moustache curled up at the ends. He was wearing a long dark coat trimmed with astrakhan, a white collar with black necktie, in which was affixed a horseshoe pin. He wore a pair of dark gaiters with light buttons, over button boots, and displayed from his waistcoat a massive gold chain. The highly respectable appearance of this individual was in such great contrast to that of the woman that few people could have failed to remark them at that hour of the morning. This description, which substantiates that given by others of the person seen in company with the deceased on the morning she was killed, is much fuller in detail than that hitherto in the possession of the police, and the importance they attach to this man's story may be imagined when it is mentioned that it was forwarded to the headquarters of the H Division as soon as completed by a special detective. Detectives Abberline, Nairn, and Moore were present when this message arrived, and an investigation was immediately set on foot.
Mrs. McCarthy, the wife of the landlord of the house where the murder occurred, yesterday received a postcard bearing the Folkestone postmark, and signed "Jack Sheridan, the Ripper." In bad spelling and equally bad calligraphy, the writer said, "Don't be alarmed. I am going to do another; but this time it will be a mother and daughter." The postcard, unlike any of the previous communications of a similar character, was written in black ink, and the writing did not bear any resemblance to that of previous communications. It was at once handed over to the detectives. Throughout the day a large crowd loitered about Dorset-street. The visitors were not confined to the poorer classes, for besides two officials of the Royal Irish Constabulary and two or three members of Parliament, a prominent Post Office official inspected the scene of the murder. Several men were hawking a publication which professed to be "A Complete History of the Whitechapel Horrors," but the demand for it could not by any means be considered great. At the time of writing no one was in custody on suspicion at any of the neighbouring police-stations.
REVELATIONS OF SLUM LIFE.
REVELATIONS OF SLUM LIFE.
Dr. Macdonald, the coroner for North-east Middlesex, opened his inquiry yesterday, at the Shoreditch Town Hall, into the circumstances attending the death of Mary Janet Kelly, aged about 24, an unfortunate whose dead body was discovered on Friday morning last horribly mutilated at a house in Miller's-court, Dorset-street, Spitalfields.
On Hammond, the coroner's officer, proceeding to swear the jury, some of that body objected to having been summoned, on the ground that the murder had not taken place in their district.
The Coroner-Do you think that we do not know our district-that we are doing what is wrong? The jury has no business to object in this manner. They are summoned here in the ordinary way, and if they persist in their objections I know how to deal with them.
A Juryman-Spitalfields is in Whitechapel and not in Shoreditch.
The Coroner-The murder happened within my district. I am not going to discuss the subject with jurymen at all. If any juryman objects to serving let him say so. The jurisdiction lies where the body lies.
After some hesitation the jury then elected a foreman, and allowed themselves to be sworn. They afterwards inspected the remains of the deceased, and visited the scene of the murder.
On the return of the jury,
The Coroner repeated there could be no doubt as to the body being in his district. He had had no talk whatever with Mr. Wynne Baxter, and there was no foundation for the reports which had appeared in the newspapers as to any dispute between the coroners on the subject.
The first witness called was Joseph Barnet, who said-I am a fish porter and have lately been living with my sister in Portpool-lane, Gray's-inn-road. I lived with the deceased as near as I can calculate about eight months. She told me that Marie Jeannette Kelly was her maiden name. I have seen the body of the deceased and I identify it as that of the woman I have mentioned. I used to live with her in No. 13 room, Miller's-court. I separated from her on the 30th of last month. I left her because she took an unfortunate out of compassion to stop in the room. My being out of work had nothing to do with my leaving her. I last saw her alive at about quarter to eight the night before she was murdered. That would be Thursday night. I was in her company about a quarter of an hour. We were on friendly terms, but on leaving I told her I was out of work and was sorry I could not give her anything. We did not have a drink together, and she was quite sober. As far as I know she was of sober habits-but I have seen her drunk on a few occasions. A woman was with the deceased when I visited her. She used to tell me that she was born in Limerick, and that from there she went to Wales which she was very young. She did not say how long she lived there. It would have been about four years ago since she came to London. Her father's name was John Kelly, and he was a "gaffer" (ganger) at an ironworks in Carnarvonshire or Carmarthenshire. She told me she had a respectable sister, who was very fond of her, and six or seven brothers, one of whom was in the army. I never met any of the brothers. She used to tell me that she was married when she was very young, in Wales, to a collier named Davies. This man was killed some time afterwards in an explosion. She said she was married when 16 years of age. After her husband's death she went to Cardiff where a cousin of hers resided. She was in the infirmary there for between eight and nine months. She lived a bad life in Cardiff with her cousin, who I have often told her was the cause of her downfall. After leaving Cardiff she came to London and lived in a gay house in the West-end with a "Madame." She then went to France with a gentleman, but did not remain long there as she did not like it. When she came back from France she lived in Ratcliff-highway, where she must have stopped some time. After that she lived with a man named Morganstone, near the Commercial Gas Works, Stepney. I believe she went from there to live with another man in Pennington-street. The man's name I think was Fleming, and he was a mason's plasterer. I picked up with the deceased in Commercial-street, and made arrangements to live with her from that time. I took lodgings in a place in George-street, Commercial-street, where I was known.
Have you ever heard her express fear of anybody?-Yes. She was always very anxious to hear about the murders, and used to ask me to read what was in the papers about them. She never expressed fear of any particular man.
Thomas Bowyer, 27, Dorset-street, Spitalfields, said-I am a shop assistant to a chandler at that address. At a quarter to eleven on Friday morning I was ordered by Mr. McCarty, my employer, to go to Mary Jane's room, No. 13, Miller's-court, to ask for the rent, which was in arrear. I knocked at the door, but got no answer. I went round the corner to where there was a broken window, through which I could see into the room after pulling the curtain on one side. I looked in, and saw two lumps of flesh lying on the table. The table was close against the bed. Then I saw a body lying on the bed, and blood on the floor. I at once went, very quietly, back to my master, who was in the shop, and told him what I had seen. We both at once went back to the window, and then to the police-station, where we related what we had seen. Nobody knew what had happened except ourselves. The inspector came back from the police-station with us. I knew the deceased as going in and out of the house in question. I never saw the deceased drunk except once. I also knew Joseph Barnet, but never saw him drunk.
By the jury-I had not seen the deceased since the Wednesday afternoon.
John McCarty deposed-I am a grocer and lodging-house keeper, and live at 27, Dorset-street. About half-past ten or a quarter to eleven I sent my man Bowyer to No. 13, Miller's-court, to ask for rent. He went there, and came back in about five minutes. He said, "Governor, I knocked at the door, and could not make anybody hear. I looked through the window and saw a lot of blood." I went and saw for myself what had happened, and then told Bowyer not to say anything, but to fetch the police. I knew the deceased as Mary Jane Kelly, and have no doubt as to her identity. I went with Bowyer to the police-station, where we saw Inspector Beck, and told him what he had seen. He at once put on his coat and hat, and came with us. The deceased had lived in the room with Barnet for ten months. I did not concern myself to know whether they were married or not. They seemed to live comfortably together. The furniture and everything in the room belonged to me. The rent was 4s. 6d. a week-at least, that was supposed to be the rent. The deceased was 29s. in arrear. The room was let weekly; but when they get in arrear you have to get your money the best way you can. I used frequently to see Kelly the worse for drink. She was an exceptionally quiet woman when sober, but when she had had a drop of drink she became noisy, and would go about singing. I never saw her unable to walk through drink, or helpless.
Mary Anne Cox-I live at No. 5 room in Miller's Court. I am a widow, and get my living on the streets or as best I can. I have known the deceased for about eight months as "Mary Jane." I last saw her alive on Thursday night at about midnight in Dorset-street. She was very much intoxicated. She was in the court in company with a short stout man, shabbily dressed. He had on a long dark coat, and carried a pot of ale in his hand. He wore a black billycock hat, had a blotchy face, and a full carroty moustache. His chin was shaven. I saw them both go into the house, and Mary Jane banged the door. I said "Good night" to her, and she turned round to me and said "Good night. I am going to have a song." I went into my room, and as I did so I heard her singing, "A violet I plucked from my mother's grave when a boy." I remained a quarter of an hour in my room, and then went out and returned about one o'clock. The deceased was singing then. I came in to warm my hands, as it was raining heavily, and went out again. I returned for the second time about three, and then all was quiet. I laid on the bed in my clothes, but did not sleep. I heard nothing during the night. In the morning about a quarter-past six I heard a man go out of the court, but I do not know who he was. I should think the age of the man I saw with the deceased was about five or six and thirty. He made no noise as he walked up the court, perhaps because his boots were so dilapidated.
By the Jury-I should know the man again if I saw him. There was no noise during the night, and if there had been a cry of "murder" I should certainly have heard it.
Elizabeth Prater said-My husband is a boot machinist, but he has deserted me this five years. I live in No. 20 Room, Miller's-court, and the deceased lived below me. On Thursday morning about 1 o'clock I was waiting for a young man outside the house. I was then on a level with the deceased's window, but I do not recollect whether there was a light in it. I went into my room about 1.30, and went to sleep directly in my clothes, as I had been having something. I slept very soundly. In the morning between 3 and 4 I was woke up by my kitten walking across my face. Just as I was turning over again I heard a faint voice, like that of a person awaking from a nightmare, say "Oh! murder."
You took no particular notice of it?-No, such a cry is nothing in the streets, Sir, and nobody takes any notice. The cry seemed to come from the court. I heard nothing whatever further. The cry was not repeated. At about 5.30 o'clock I woke again and heard some men harnessing their horses in Dorset-street. I got up and was in the Ten Bells publichouse by about six o'clock for the purpose of having something to drink. After that I went home again to bed and slept till 11 o'clock. I did not hear any singing from the deceased's room at half-past one.
Caroline Maxwell, 14, Dorset-street-I am the wife of a lodging-house deputy. I know Mary Jane Kelly by the name simply of "Mary Jane." I also know Joe Barnet. I believe Mary Jane was an unfortunate girl. She did not have much to say to the people about, nor did she associate much with them. I saw her standing at the corner of the court on Friday morning at about eight or half-past eight o'clock. I was then coming out of the house where my husband acts as a deputy.
Did you speak to her?-Yes, I did. I thought it odd. I said, "Why, Mary what brings you up so early?" She said, "Oh, Carry, I do feel so bad." I asked her if she would have a drink, and she replied, "I have just had half-a-pint of beer and brought it all up again." I saw it in the road, about three yards from where she stood-on the pavement. I should think she had had the drink in the "Britannia," at the corner of the street. I left her saying, I pitied her feelings. I then fetched my husband's breakfast and, returning, saw her standing outside the Britannia talking to a man. That would be between eight and nine o'clock, about twenty minutes after I first saw her. I can give no definite description of the man. I am perfectly certain it was Mary Jane I saw. He was a short, stout man, dressed in dark clothes, and a sort of plaid coat. Mary Jane was wearing that morning a dark skirt, a velvet bodice, and a knitted shawl. She was wearing no hat. I have occasionally seen her the worse for drink.
Would it not strike you as peculiar if the man had worn a tall silk hat?-No, I do not think so. In my street people are so used to seeing women walking about with all sorts of people that we don't take any notice.
Sarah Lewes, 24, Great Pearl-street, a laundress, said-I know a Mrs. Keiller, in Miller's-court, and went to see her on Friday morning at 2.30 o'clock by Spitalfields Church clock. In the doorway of the deceased's house I saw a man in a wideawake hat standing. He was not tall, but a stout-looking man. He was looking up the court as if he was waiting for some one. I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court. I stopped that night at Mrs. Keiller's because I had had a few words at home. I slept in a chair and woke up about half-past three. I sat awake until nearly four, when I heard a female voice shout "Murder!" It seemed like a young woman's voice. There was only one scream. I did not take any notice, especially as a short time before there had been a row in the court.
Have you seen any suspicious characters knocking about the district?-On Wednesday evening I and a female friend were going along the Bethnal-green-road about 8 o'clock when a gentleman passed us. He spoke to me and my friend. He wanted us to follow him, but we refused. He said he did not care which of us it was. He had a shiny black leather bag in his hand. He offered to treat us if we followed him down a certain entry. My friend said, "I don't like the look of this man-come away." The man put down the bag and said "Do you think I have got anything in the bag." We then ran away. The man was short and pale faced with a rather small moustache. He seemed about 40 years old. The bag was from 6 to 9 inches long. He was wearing a high round hat. He had on a long brownish overcoat and a short black coat underneath, and dark trousers. On Friday morning as I was going to Miller's-court, about half-past two, I saw him again with a female in Commercial-street. He had not his long overcoat on then, but he was carrying the bag. He was standing talking to the female. I looked at him as I remembered him-but I do not know whether he recognized me. I should know the man again if I were to see him.
Dr. Phillips, surgeon to the H Division of the Metropolitan Police, said-On Friday morning about 11 o'clock I was called by the police to Miller's-court, which I entered at 11.15. I found a room numbered 13, having two windows, of which I produce a photograph. Two of the panes in the window nearest the passage were broken, and finding the door locked I looked through the lower of the broken panes and satisfied myself that the mutilated corpse lying on the bed was not in need of any immediate attention from me. I also came to the conclusion that there was nobody else upon the bed or within view to whom I could render any professional assistance. Having ascertained that probably it was advisable that no entrance should be made into the room at that time, I remained until about 1.30, when the door of the room was burst open by the direction of Superintendent Arnold. On the door being opened it knocked against a table, which was close to the left-hand side of the bed, which was close up against a wooden partition. The mutilated remains of a female were lying two-thirds over towards the edge of the bedstead nearest to the door of entry. She had only her chemise upon her, and, from my subsequent examination, I am sure the body had been removed subsequent to the injury which caused her death from that side of the bedstead which was nearest to the wooden partition. The large quantity of blood under the bedstead, the saturated condition of the palliasse, pillow, and sheet at the corner of the bedstead nearest to the partition leads me to the conclusion that the severance of the right carotid artery, which was the immediate cause of her death, was inflicted while the deceased was lying at the right side of the bedstead, and her head and neck in the top right-hand corner before alluded to.
The court here adjourned for luncheon. On resuming
The Coroner said: Since this adjournment it has come to my knowledge that some person outside has been making statements to the jurors as to their having no right or duty to be here to-day. Is that so? Has any one spoken to a juryman saying he ought not to be here to-day?
The jury disclaimed having heard any such remarks.
The Coroner-Then I must have been misinformed. I would have taken care that he had a quiet life for the next week if I had found any one who interfered with my jury.
Julia Vanterny, No. 1 Room, Miller's-court, said-I live with a man named Harry Owen at that address. I knew Kelly, and also Joe Barnet. They seemed to live fairly happily together. She used frequently to get drunk. Barnet used to object to her going on the streets. She has told me that she was fond of another man, whose name was also Joe. I last saw her alive on Thursday morning last. On Thursday night I hardly dozed at all. I did not hear any sounds. I must have heard the deceased singing if she had sung at all. She generally sang Irish songs.
Maria Harvey, living in Dorset-street, said-I slept with the deceased last Monday and Tuesday nights. We were together on Thursday evening. I was in the room when Joe Barnet called. I left a quantity of things in the deceased's room by her permission, amongst them being two men's shirts and a man's overcoat. Kelly never told me she was fond of any other man besides Barnet, and she never said she went in fear of any man.
Inspector Beck, H division, said-About eleven o'clock on Friday morning I was informed of the murder. I at once went to Miller's-court, sent for the doctor, and prevented any person from leaving the court. I cannot say whether the deceased was well known to the police of the neighbourhood.
Inspector Abberline, of Scotland-yard, said-On Friday last I arrived at the scene of the murder about 11.30. Dr. Phillips told me not to open the door, as an intimation had been given that the bloodhounds had been sent for, and he thought it would be better not to enter the room before they came. We remained outside till about 1.30, when Superintendent Arnold arrived and told me that the order for the dogs had been countermanded, and gave orders for the door to be forced open. I corroborate everything that Dr. Phillips has said in regard to the finding of the body. There were traces of a large fire having been kept up in the grate and the spout of the kettle was burned off. From what we could make of the ashes a quantity of women's clothing had been burned off. The only reason I can suggest for this having been burned is that the murderer might have sufficient light to see by. There was only one small piece of candle stuck in a broken wine glass in the room. The key of the room has been missing for some time, so it is evident the murderer did not take it away with him.
The Coroner said this was all the evidence which could at present be laid before the jury, supposing that they desired more. For his own part he though more was unnecessary, as a jury in sitting on such an inquiry as this had only to find the cause of the death of the deceased person, and to leave the other circumstances to be investigated by the police authorities. He did not of course desire to take the case in any way out of the hands of the jury; but if they shared his opinion, and believed that the deceased woman met her death from the severance of the carotid artery, according to the medical evidence, they might just as well bring in a verdict at once.
After a few moments' consultation,
The Foreman of the jury announced that he and his colleagues did not think they required any more evidence in the case, and they accordingly returned as a verdict that the deceased woman was Mary Janet Kelly, and that she had been murdered by some person or persons unknown.
In order to arrive at the truth of the conflicting statements which have appeared as to the use or non-use of bloodhounds in the attempts to track the murderer of Marie Janet Kelly, the last Whitechapel victim, a representative of the Central News had an interview with Mr. W.K. Taunton on the subject yesterday evening. It will be remembered that at Sir Charles Warren's request Mr. Brough, the well-known bloodhound breeder of Scarborough, was communicated with shortly after the Mitre-square and Berners-street tragedies, and asked to bring a couple of trained hounds up to London for the purpose of testing their capabilities in the way of following the scent of a man. The hounds were named Burgho and Barnaby, and in one of the trials Sir Charles Warren himself acted as the quarry, and expressed satisfaction at the result. Arrangements were made for the immediate conveyance of the animals to the spot in the event of another murder occurring, and in order to facilitate matters Mr. Brough, who was compelled to return to Scarborough, left the hounds in the care of Mr. Taunton, of 8, Doughty-street. Mr. Taunton said: After the trial in Regent's-park Burgho was sent to Brighton, where he had been entered for the show, which lasted three days. In the meantime Barnaby remained in my care. Burgho would have been sent back to me, but as Brough could not get anything definite from the police he declined to send the dog, and wrote asking me to return Barnaby. I did not do so at first, but, acting on my own responsibility, retained possession of the dog for some time longer. About a fortnight ago I received a telegram from Leman-street Police-street asking me to bring up the hounds. It was then shortly after noon, and I took Barnaby at once. On arrived at the station I was told by the superintendent that a burglary had been committed about five o'clock that morning in Commercial-street, and I was asked to attempt to track the thief by means of the dog. The police admitted that since the burglary they had been all over the premises. I pointed out the stupidity of expecting a dog to accomplish anything under such circumstances and after such a length of time had been allowed to elapse, and took the animal home. I wrote telling Mr. Brough of this, and he wired insisting that the dog should be sent back at once, as the danger of its being poisoned if it were known that the police were trying to trace burglars by its aid was very great, and Mr. Brough had no guarantee against any pecuniary loss he might suffer in the event of the animal being maltreated. Therefore there has not been a "police bloodhound"-that is to say a trained hound-in London for the past fortnight. The origin of the tale regarding the hounds being lost at Tooting whilst being practiced in tracing a man I can only account for in the following way: I had arranged to take Barnaby out to Hemel Hempstead to give the hound some practice. The same day a sheep was maliciously killed on Tooting Common, and the police wired to London asking that the hounds might be sent down. I was then some miles away from London with Barnaby, and did not get the telegram until my return late in the evening. Somebody, doubtlessly, remarked that the hounds were missing, meaning that they did not arrive when sent for, and this was magnified into a report that they had been lost. At that time Burgho was at Scarborough. Under the circumstances in which the body of Marie Janet Kelly was found I don't think bloodhounds would have been of any use. It was then broad daylight and the streets crowded with people. The only chance the hounds would have would be in the event of a murdered body being discovered, as the others were, in the small hours of the morning and being put on the trail before many people were about.
At Marlborough-street Police-court yesterday, William Avenall, 26, chimney-sweep, Adam and Eve-court, Oxford-street, and Frederick W. Moore, 28, carver and gilder, Carlisle-street, Soho, were charged with being disorderly, and with assaulting Henry Edward Leeke, and oil and colourman, of Gilbert-street, Oxford-street, on Saturday night.-Leeke said that on Saturday evening about five o'clock he went into a public-house at the corner of the street, when several persons accosted him. The prisoners accused him of being "Jack the Ripper," and told him that they were detectives in private clothes, and that they should arrest him as the Whitechapel murderer. They took him outside, and dragged him in a brutal manner through Castle-street as far as Newman-passage. They struck him with a stick, and he implored them not to be so brutal. He resisted as best he could, and they struggled in the streets together for about three-quarters of an hour. Persons stopped and looked at them, and when the prisoners called out "He's Jack the Ripper, we are detectives," they made off, and did not attempt to render him assistance. He got no protection, and was shaken and bruised until he felt quite disabled. When he got near 62, Berners-street, he managed to get away form his assailants, and sprung down the stairs of that house into the basement, got into the kitchen, and momentarily lost sight of his pursuers. A number of young ladies were at tea, and when Avenall followed and told them they had a strange man in the house, and that he (Avenall) was a private detective, they became terribly frightened and screamed loudly for the police. Avenall finding him again dragged him up to the stairs, exclaiming, "He's Jack the Ripper."-Madame Muntz, the landlady of 62, Berners-street, deposed that the man Leeke had been in the habit of bringing oil, wood, and other articles to the house, and she therefore knew him. Being unacquainted with the prisoner Avenall, she sent for a constable and he was taken into custody. Leeke became so unwell after the affair that he had to take to his bed.-In defence Avenall said that he and his friends were in the public-house where they saw Leeke sitting in a corner. He had his head down and was mumbling something to himself. As he seemed strange in his manner they asked him what was the matter, and he replied "Don't bother me, I'm in serious trouble." They asked him if they should see him home, and when he told them he lived at 62, Berners-street he (Avenall) doubted it, as he did the chimney sweeping there, and knowing that it was only occupied by females he expressed his intention of taking him there to ascertain if that statement was correct. On reaching the house Leeke ran down the steps into the basement and shouted to the inmates "There's a strange man in the house." He (Avenall) followed and, finding Leeke crouching in the cellar, dragged him out. Madame and all the young ladies screamed, until one of them, recognizing the prosecutor, exclaimed "Why it is our little oilman," and then they became calmer and less excited.-The prisoner Moore said that when he descended the steps he tried to pacify the ladies, telling them that it was only a foolish joke.-Constable Downey, 364 D, said that he saw Avenall holding the prosecutor outside the house in Berners-street. He (Avenall) called out, "Here he is; I have got him. This is Jack the Ripper. I mean to take him to the police-station. If the -------- police can't do their duty, I can." Being asked who he was, Avenall said he was a private detective. The prisoner Moore rushed out of the house, but was pursued and taken into custody. Eventually both the men were conveyed to the police-station. The prosecutor was conveyed to the police-station. The prosecutor was sober, but the prisoner Avenall had been drinking.-A witness for the defence was called, who stated that when the prosecutor entered the public-house someone exclaimed, "Here's a funny little man-perhaps he's Jack the Ripper." On being questioned, Leeke said his name was Smith, and that he was a tinplate worker. That statement being doubted, it was resolved to ascertain who and what he was; and in this way the affair at first commenced.-Mr. Hannay said that it was a very dangerous thing for people to personate detectives, and directed Inspector Ettridge to see whether the prisoners could not be further charged with that offence. Very serious results might have arisen out of the affair, which required further inquiry, and he would therefore adjourn the case for a week, allowing bail in the sum of 10l. for each of the prisoners.
At Clerkenwell Police-Court yesterday Charles Thomas, aged 51, a labourer, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Crowndale-road, St. Pancras. Police-constable 550 Y said the prisoner, whom he saw drunk and surrounded by a crowd of persons early on Sunday morning, kept shouting out, "I'm Jack the Ripper."-The prisoner, in defence, simply said he was sorry.-Mr. Bros sentenced Thomas to 14 days' imprisonment with hard labour, and said that he should send every man to prison, without the option of a fine, who was brought before him for shouting out in the street that he was the Whitechapel murderer.
Sir Charles Warren's resignation had no connection with the murder in Miller's-court, Dorset-street. It was in the hands of the Home Secretary twenty-four hours before disclosure of the crime was made on Friday, the 9th inst. Nevertheless, the proclamation of pardon to accomplices in the crime, not being the persons who contrived or actually committed the murder, is signed "Charles Warren, Commissioner of the Police" and is dated "Saturday, Nov. 10th."
The Prince of Wales arrived at the Great Northern station of Derby yesterday afternoon by special train from Sandringham. He was met at the station by Lord and Lady Hindlip, whose guest he will be at Doveridge Hall during his stay in Derbyshire. His Royal Highness drove through the streets in an open carriage, and was heartily cheered by large crowds of people. On his arrival at the racecourse he was received by the directors of the Recreation Company, and at the close of the racing he was driven back to the railway station, whence he proceeded to Uttoxeter.
The Princess of Wales, with Prince Albert Victor and other guests lately staying at Sandringham, also left, and proceeded by the Great Eastern Railway to St. Pancras, driving thence to Marlborough House. Her Royal Highness, accompanied by Prince Albert Victor, left London last evening for Copenhagen, to take part in the festivities in connection with the twenty-fifth year of the reigning of the King of Denmark.