13 November 1888
HOUSE OF COMMONS. MONDAY.
The speaker took the chair at three o'clock.
Mr. BROADHURST asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he would be in a position to inform the House what proposals the Government were prepared to make with regards to the Employers' Liability Bill.
Mr. MATTHEWS replied that when the Employers' Liability Bill came before the House he should be prepared to state what course the Government intended to pursue with regard to it.
Replying to Mr. PICKERSGILL and Sir H. JAMES, Baron H. DE WORMS stated that on the 29th July Thomas Taylor, after being sentenced to seven years' penal servitude for burglary, committed an assault upon the Chief Justice of the Bahamas. He was then sentenced to penal servitude for life and ordered to receive thirty lashes. He did not know whether this part of the sentence had been carried out. The increased punishment appeared to be inflicted for contempt of court. Instructions had been sent out that Taylor was to be released on the expiry of his sentence for burglary, and the Chief Justice had been informed that if any grave miscarriage of justice occurred in future it would have serious attention. - (Hear, hear.)
Mr. PICKERSGILL asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department who was at present the head of the Criminal Department; whether the Home Office communicates with him directly or through the Chief Commissioner 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 at Scotland-yard.
Mr. PICKERSGILL asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would take the opportunity of giving to the House some definite information with regard to the position of Mr. Monro. - (Hear, hear.)
Mr. GENT-DAVIS, rising amid Opposition cheers, inquired 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 be no longer responsible for the administration of the Criminal Investigation Department, and if the papers could be laid on the table. - (Opposition cheers.)
Mr. MATTHEWS replied that had he been given the hon. Member for Bethel-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 organisation of the Criminal Investigation Department, with which he was more familiar than anybody else in the country. He need hardly say that his advice was most valuable on the subject. As to the question put by his hon. friend the member for Kennington, he had stated to the hon. member for Bethel-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 from 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.)
Mr. RITCHIE, replying to HERBERT GARDNER, stated that the report and maps of the Boundary Commissioners laid upon the table of the House last July, would be in the hands of members on Wednesday or Thursday next.
RESIGNATION OF SIR C. WARREN
Mr. CONYBEARE asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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 had 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 organisation and methods to detect the murderer, he would consider the propriety of making some changes in the arrangements of Scotland-yard.
Mr. MATTHEWS. - I have already more than once stated the reason why Mr. Monro resigned. I have no objection to read to the House the letter.
Mr. GENT-DAVIS. - Some time this evening. - (Loud Opposition laughter.)
Mr. MATTHEWS. - With regards to the remainder of the letter of the hon. member, I have to say that 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 new organisation, but to the extraordinary cunning and secrecy which has characterised these atrocious crimes. I have already for some time had under my consideration the whole system of the Criminal Investigation Department with a view to introducing any improvements that experience may suggest. As to the final question of the hon. member, I have to inform the House that the Chief Commissioner of Police, on the 8th inst., tendered his resignation to her Majesty's Government, and that resignation was accepted. - (Loud Opposition cheers.)
Mr. C. GRAHAM asked Mr. Matthews whether he proposed offering any additional reward for the capture of the Whitechapel murderer. His desire was not to embarrass the Government, but he asked the question on account of the excitement prevailing in the East-end.
Mr. HUNTER inquired whether the right hon. gentleman had considered the propriety of offering a free pardon in the case of the former murders, as well as in that of the last, having regard to the fact that in the case of the first crime, according to the dying testimony of the woman, several persons were concerned in it.
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. - (Hear, hear.) Before 1884 it was the frequent practice of the Home Office to offer rewards, and sometimes a large amount in serious crimes. In 1883 in particular several rewards, ranging from 200£. to 2,000£., were offered in such cases as the murder of Police-constable Boans, and the dynamite explosions in Charles-street. These rewards, like the 10,000£. reward for the Phoenix Park murders, were ineffectual, and produced no evidence of any value. In 1884 there was a change in policy. A remarkable case occurred. A conspiracy was formed to effect an explosion at the German Embassy, to plant 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. - (Hear, hear.) He consulted the police authorities both in England and in Ireland, and the conclusions he arrived at were "that the practices of offering large sensational rewards in cases of serious crime is not only ineffectual, but mischievous; that the rewards produce, generally speaking, no practical result beyond satisfying a public demand for conspicuous action; that they operate prejudicially, by relaxing the exertions of the police, and that they have tended 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 hinderance rather than an aid in the detection of crime. These conclusions were publicly announced and acted upon in two important cases in 1884. One was a shocking murder and violation of a little girl at Middlesborough, and the other the dynamite outrage at London-bridge, in which case the City offered 5,000£. reward. 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. gentleman the member for Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) in the notorious case of Louisa Hart. In both cases, 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 laid down and steadily adhered to by my predecessors. I do not mean that the rule 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. 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 entire community. With regard to the question of the hon. member for Aberdeen, I will carefully consider his suggestion.
Mr. C. GRAHAM wished to thank the right hon. gentleman for the reply he had given, and to say that he thoroughly concurred with his decision. - (Ministerial laughter.)
Mr. MONTAGU wished to say a word or two as to why he had offered a reward.
The SPEAKER informed the hon. member that it would scarcely be in order to do so at that moment.
Yesterday morning Mrs. M'Carthy, the wife of the landlord of the house where the murder occurred, received a post-card bearing the Folkestone post mark 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 post-card, which, unlike many of the previous communications to a similar effect, was written in black ink, was at once handed over to the detectives. The handwriting was carefully compared with the other similar communications, and was found to be of a different character. Throughout the day a large crowd loitered about Dorset-street discussing the crime, and the most extraordinary statements were made by persons who professed to know everything about the matter. The visitors were not, however, confined to the poorer classes, for besides two officials of the Royal Irish 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.
A man, apparently of the labouring class, who knew the deceased, last evening lodged with the police a long and detailed statement of an incident which attracted his attention on Friday morning. He states that on Friday morning he saw the deceased woman, Mary Janet Kelly, in Commercial-street, Spitalfields, 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 astrachan, 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 the appearance 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. The police apparently attach some importance to the man's story, and the statement was forwarded to the headquarters of the H division by a special detective.
About midnight a man was apprehended in the neighbourhood of Clerkwell, or Islington, on his own confession that he was the Whitechapel murderer. On inquiries being instituted at the King's-cross-road police-station, the inspector on duty refused to give any information, stating that reference was essential, in the interest of justice. Inquiries have been instituted with a view of ascertaining the man's recent doings.
At the Marlborough-street Police Court yesterday, before Mr. Hannay, 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 Leake, an oil and colourman, of Gilbert-street, Oxford-street, on Saturday night.
Leake said that on Saturday evening, about five o'clock, he went into a public-house at the corner of a 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. They would not let him go, they said, until they knew who he was and where he had been. He told them he had just delivered two gallons of oil at 62, Berners-street, whereupon they said they would take him back and ascertain if his statement were true. He resisted as best he could, and they struggled in the streets together for about three-quarters of an hour. Persons 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 from his assailants and spring 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 dragged him up the stairs, exclaiming "He's Jack the Ripper."
Madame Munts, the landlady of 62, Berners-street, deposed that the man Leeks had been in the habit of bringing oil, soap, 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 defense Avenall said that he and his friends were in the public-house, when 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 screammed until one of them, recognising the prosecutor, exclaimed, "Why it is our little oil man," and then they became 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 b____ police can't do their duty, I can." Being asked who he was, Averall 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 sober, but the prisoner Averall had been drinking.
A witness for the defense 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 commenced.
Mr. Hannay said 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 10£. For each of the prisoners.
At the Clerkenwell Police Court yesterday, before Mr. Bros, Charles Thomas, aged 51, a laborour, was charged with being 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 the prisoner 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 in the street that he was the Whitechapel murderer.
At the Thames Police Court yesterday, before Mr. Saunders, Thomas Harrison, 42, was charged with being disorderly.
A constable said he found the prisoner in Whitechapel shouting, "Jack the Ripper you _____." As he would not go away witness arrested him.
By the magistrate: Prisoner did not say he was "Jack the Ripper."
Prisoner, who said he did not know what he said, was fined 2s 6d., or three days.
The inquiry into the cause of death of Mary Janet Kelly, who was found with her throat cut and horribly mutilated in Miller's-court, Dorset-street, on the morning of Friday last, was opened yesterday morning, at eleven o'clock, in the Shoreditch Townhall, before Dr. Macdonald and a jury of fifteen.
On the names of the jury being called over the coroner's officer asked the jury to name their foreman. One was named. But he objected, on the ground that the crime was not committed in Shoreditch, but in Whitechapel.
The Coroner. - Do you think, sir, we do not know our business as to where our jurisdiction runs? The jury have no business to object. If you persist in your objection I know how to deal with you; that is all.
Another Juryman. - I am on the list for Shoreditch, and not for Whitechapel.
The Coroner. - I am not going to discuss the matter of jurisdiction with the jury at all. The body lies in my jurisdiction; that is all I know, and all I have to say. Jurisdiction arises where the body lies.
The officer repeated his request several times; and one or two who were named refused to act as foreman; but at length one consented. He was accordingly sworn, and the jury went to view the body, the coroner directing that they should afterwards, be taken to see the place where the body was found.
Inspectors Nairn and Abberline appeared on behalf of the police, but no one represented the deceased.
The court is being held in a small committee-room on the ground floor, a place altogether inadequate for so important an inquiry.
Upon the return of the jury at noon, the following evidence was given:
Joseph Barnett was the first witness called. When the Testament was handed to him he at once kissed it, and on being checked by the officer he said, "Oh, well, I don't know nothing about such things. I've never been on such an errand before." The oath was then administered.
The coroner said that before commencing he had to request that there should be complete silence in the court. With regard to what the newspapers had said about the jurisdiction, he had not had any communication with Dr. Baxter as to jurisdiction. There was no doubt at all it was his duty to hold the inquest. A previous murder which took place in his jurisdiction, the body was taken into the district over which Dr. Baxter had direction, and Dr. Baxter of course held the inquest. There was no question whatever as to his right to hold the inquiry.
Joseph Barnett then deposed - I was originally a fish porter, but now am a labourer. I work at the riverside, and carry fish. I lived up to Saturday last at 24, New-street, Bishopsgate. Since Saturday last I have been staying with my sister, who lives at 21, Portpool-lane, Leather-lane. I have lived with the deceased for a year and eight months. Her name was Marie Jeannette. Kelly was her maiden name. I have seen the body of the deceased, and I identify it by the hair and eyes. I am positive that the deceased was the woman with whom I lived, and that her name was Marie.
How long have you lived with her at 13 Room, Miller's-court? - About eight months; but the landlord says it is more.
When did you cease to live with her? - Last Tuesday week, the 30th ult.
Why did you leave her? - Because she took in an immoral woman out of compassion. My being out of work had nothing to do with it.
When did you see her last? - About half-past seven on Thursday evening.
Were you and she on friendly terms? - Yes, very friendly. We were always good friends.
Did you have a drink together? - No, sir.
Was she quite sober? - She was.
Was she currently speaking, of sober habits? - Habits! As long as she was with me and had my hard-earned wages, she was sober.
Did she tell you where she was born? - Yes, hundreds of times. She said she was born in Limerick, and went to Wales when quite young. Then she told me her father was named John Kelly, and was a "gaffer" at some iron works. I don't know whether she said Carnarvonshire or Carmarthenshire.
Did she tell you anything about her other relatives, sisters, or others? - Yes, she told me about her sister, who was respectable, and lived with her aunt, following her occupation. That was going from place to place selling things. But I never saw any of her relatives. She said there were six of them at home, and one was in the army. I have never seen or spoken to them.
Did she say she had been married? - Yes; but she was very young at the time. The marriage took place in Wales. She told me that she was married to a collier in Wales, and his name was Davis or Davies.
Did she tell you how long she lived with him? - Until he met his death in an explosion. She did not tell me the exact time she lived with him, but it might have been a year or two. She said she married Davies at the age of 16.
She told you that she came to London about four years ago? - Yes, she did.
Was that directly after the husband's death? - After her husband's death she went to Cardiff with a cousin.
Did she live long in Cardiff? - Yes, from two to eight months, and she was in the infirmary there.
What was she doing in Cardiff? - She was carrying on with her cousin in a bad life. As I told her, it was her downfall.
When did she come to London? - About four years ago.
What did she do when she came to London? - She lived in a house at the West-end - a gay house - with a madam.
How long did she live there? - As far as she described it to me, a few weeks. Then some gentleman asked her to go to France, and she went, but, as she described it to me, she didn't like it, and came back in about a week or two's time.
Did she tell you the name of the place in France? - She told me, but she did not remain long, as she did not like it.
Did she live in France long? - No, about a fortnight.
When she returned from France where did she tell you she lived? - In the Ratcliff-highway.
Did you know how long she lived there? - She must have lived there for some time.
After that, where did she live? - Near the Commercial Gasworks, with a man named Morganstone. I have never seen him. I don't know how long she lived there. When she left the neighbourhood of the Gasworks she went to live, I think, as far as I can remember, at Pennington-street. She lived with another man named Joseph Flemming, but why she left him I don't know. She described him to me as a mason's plasterer.
Did she tell you where Flemming lived? - Somewhere in the Bethal-green-road.
Was that all that you know of her history until you came to live with her? - She told me her history while I was living with her.
Who lived with her before you? - I cannot answer whether it was Morganstone or Flemming.
Where did you first pick up with her? - In the parish of Spitalfields or Whitechapel.
Did you go to live with her the first time you saw her? - We had a drink together, and then we made arrangements to meet on the Saturday.
What did you arrange on the Saturday? - On Saturday we agreed to come together, to keep with one another.
Did you take a house then at once? - No; but we took lodgings.
Have you lived with her ever since? - Yes, ever since, until we parted quite friendly before her murder.
Did she have any fear about anyone? - No, not particular; but she used to ask me to read about the murders and I used to bring them all home and read them. If I did not bring one she would get it herself, and ask me whether the murderer was caught. I used to tell her everything that was in the paper.
Did she ever quarrel with you? - No, sir. Only with me now and again, and that was always shortly over; one moment rowing, and for several days and weeks always friendly. Often I bought her things coming home, and whatever it was she always liked it. She was always glad of my fetching her such articles - such as meat and other things, as my hard earnings would allow.
Thomas Bowyer, sworn. - I live at 37, Dorset-street, Spitalfields. I am a servant to M'Carthy, the owner of a chandler's shop. I serve in the shop. The shop is situated at 27, Dorset-street.
The Coroner. - Will you tell the jury, quietly and slowly, what occurred on this Friday morning?
Witness. - About a quarter to eleven on Friday morning I was ordered by M'Carthy to go to Mary Jane's room (No.13). I did not know her by any other name.
What were you going to do there? - I went for the rent. I knocked at the door, and I received no answer.
What did you do then? - I knocked again, but got no answer. I went round the corner by the gutter-spout, where there is a small pane of glass broken in the large window.
Inspector Ledger, G division, was sworn, and produced a plan of the premises. Before the examination of the witness was continued the plan was shown to Bowyer, who pointed to the window he had referred to.
Examination continued. - There was a curtain which covered both windows. I pulled the curtain aside and looked in.
What did you see? - I saw two lumps of flesh lying on the table.
Where was this table? - In front of the bed and close against it. The second time I looked in I saw the body of somebody lying on the bed, and blood on the floor. I at once went then very quietly back to my master, and I told him what I had seen. "Good God!" he said, "do you mean to say that, Harry?" We both went down to the police-station "momently." No, first my master went and looked. At the station we told the police what we had seen. No one in the neighbourhood knew what had occurred.
By a juror. - I saw her last alive on Wednesday afternoon, in the court. Mr. M'Carthy's shop is at the corner of the court. I spoke to her on Wednesday afternoon.
John M'Carthy, sworn. - I am a grocer and lodging-house keeper. My shop is No. 27, Dorset-street. On Friday morning, about 10.30, I sent Bowyer to No. 13 to call for rent. He went there and he came back. The court is called Miller's-court. The man came back in five minutes. He said, "Governor, I knocked at the door, and couldn't make anyone answer. I looked through the window and saw a lot of blood." I went out with him, looked through the window, and saw the woman and everything. I couldn't speak at first, but at last I said, "Harry, don't tell anyone: go for the police." I know deceased as Mary Jane Kelly, I have seen her alive and dead, and have no doubt about her identity. I recovered myself, and went with Bowyer to the Commercial-street police-station. I saw inspector Beck, and told him what I had seen. He put on his hat and coat, and went to the house with me at once.
How long has the deceased lived in the room? - About ten months.
With this man Joe? - Yes; I did not concern myself. I did not know whether they were married or not. They had a row sometime ago and broke two panes of glass. The bed, tables, and chairs in the room belonged to me, and the bed clothes and everything. She paid 4s. 6d. a-week for the room. The deceased was 29s. in arrear of rent. The rent was paid weekly. The deceased was an exceptionally quiet woman.
Mary Ann Cox said - I live at the last house at the top of the court - Miller's-court. I am a widow, and get my living on the streets. I've been unfortunate. On Thursday night, at 11.45, I last saw the deceased. There was a short, stout man, shabbily dressed, with her, and he had a pot of ale in his hand. He had a round black-billycock hat on. He had a blotchy face, and a full carroty moustache. The chin was bare. I followed them up into the court, and said, "Good night, Mary." She never turned round, and he banged the door. He had nothing but a quart can of beer in his hand. She said, "Good night. I'm going to have a song." Then the door was shut, and she sang, "The violet I plucked from my mother's grave." I remained a quarter of an hour in my room. She was singing all the time. I went out, returned about one o'clock, and she was singing then. I went to my room to warm my hands a bit. It was raining hard; then I went out again and returned at 3.10 a.m. Then the light was out, and there was no noise. I went in, but I could not sleep, and did not go to bed. I can't sleep when I owe anything. When the murder was discovered I had not had a wink of sleep. I had no sleep at all that day. There are men who go to work in Spitalfields-market and who leave early. One such man lives in the court now. I heard a man go out at 6.15. He might have gone out and come back again for all I know. It might have been a policeman. The man I saw with the deceased was short and stout. All his clothes were dark. He appeared to be between 35 and 36. I did not notice the colour of his trousers. He looked very shabby, and his boots made no noise whatever in going up the court. The deceased had no hat on, and a red pelerine, and a dark shabby skirt. The deceased scarcely had time to say "Good night," as the man shut the door.
By a Juror. - There was a light in the room, but I could not see anything, as the blind was down.
The Foreman. - Should you know the man again if you saw him?
Witness. - Oh, yes, I should.
By the Coroner. - I feel certain that if there had been a cry of "Murder" in the deceased's room after three o'clock in the morning I should have heard it. There was not the least sign of any noise whatever.
Elizabeth Prater, wife of William Prater, said - I was deserted by my husband five years ago. I live at No. 20, in Miller's-court. On Thursday I went out of the court at about five, and I returned close upon one on Friday morning. I stood at the corner of the court waiting for a young man, if the truth was known. No one came up to me. I never saw my young man. I went into my room and lay down. I went into M'Carthy's shop.
The Coroner. - Was it open at 1.0 a.m.?
Witness. - Yes, sir; and sometimes later. I told him to say to my young man that I had gone to my room. From where I was I could see if a light was in the room of the deceased. I have only spoken to her once or twice. I lay down on the bed at 1.30, in my clothes. I fell asleep directly, and slept soundly. I had a little black kitten, which need to come on to my neck. It woke me up from 3.30 to 4.0, by coming on to my face, and I gave it a blow and knocked it off. The lights were out in the lodging-house. The cat went on to the floor, and that moment I heard "Oh, murder!" I was then turning round on my bed. The voice was "a faintish" one, as though some one had woke up with a nightmare. Such a cry is not unusual, and I did not take any particular notice. I did not hear the cry a second time. I did not hear any bed or table being pulled about. I went to sleep, and was awake again about five o'clock. I was not awakened by the noise. I went downstairs and saw some men harnessing their horses. I walked out, and went into the "Ten Bells," where I had some rum. The last witness, Mary Ann Cox, could have come down the court and gone out, but I did not see her. I saw no one particular at the "Ten Bells." I was there at a quarter to six, and shortly afterwards I returned home again, and went to bed and slept till eleven o'clock on Friday morning. When I went home first, at half-past one, there was no singing going on in the deceased's room. If there had been, I should have heard it.
Caroline Maxwell, of 14, Dorset-street, wife of Henry Maxwell, said - My husband is a lodging-house deputy. I have known the deceased for about four months. I also knew Joe Barnett. I believe the deceased was an unfortunate girl. She was a young woman who never associated with anyone much, beyond bowing "Good morning."
The Coroner. - You must be careful about your evidence, because it is different to that given by anyone else.
Witness. - I am quite sure of what I saw, because she was so rarely out at that time. I saw her at the corner of Miller's-court on Friday morning at eight, because my husband had not left off, and he leaves off at half-past eight. My husband had a man call at seven a.m. That was the last call. I had never seen the deceased about that time in the morning. I spoke to her - "What, Mary, what brings you out so early?" and she said, "O, Carrie, I do feel so bad." I knew her name and she knew mine. I asked her if she would have a drink. She said, "I have just had half a pint of ale, and I have brought it up." She did not say where she had the beer, but by the motion she made I should imagine that she had it at the "Britannia" beer-house, at the corner of the street. I left the deceased then, saying I could pity her feelings. I then went to Spitalfields-market to get my husband's breakfast, and on my return I saw her outside the "Britannia," talking to a man. That would be about a quarter to nine.
The Coroner. - What description could you give of this man?
Witness. - I could not give any. I did not pass them, but I saw them from the distance. I was between 14 and 16 yards away from them. I am sure it was the deceased that I saw outside the public-house. The man I saw was not tall. He was short, and a little taller than I am. - (The witness was about 5 ft. 5 in. in height.) The man had a plaid coat on. I did not notice his hat. The deceased was wearing a dark skirt, velvet bodice, and a marone shawl. She had no hat on.
A Juror. - If the man that you saw the deceased with had worn a silk hat should you have noticed it?
Witness. - I don't know that I should. I am accustomed to see all classes of people, but I don't take any notice of them.
But would you have noticed his hat if it had been a silk one? - If he had worn a silk hat I might have noticed it.
Sarah Lewis, living at 24, Great, Pearl-street, Spitalfields, a laundress, said - I know Mrs. Keyler, in Miller's-court, and saw her on Friday morning about 2;30 a.m. This I noticed by Spitalfields Church clock. In Dorset-street I saw a man with a wideawake on stopping on the opposite side of the pavement. The man was alone, and was not talking to anyone. He was tall and "a stout looking man." He had dark clothes on. A young man went along with a young woman. The man, I noticed, was looking up the court, as though he was waiting for someone. I stopped at Keyler's that night. I had had a few words at home. The court was quiet. I sat in a chair and fell asleep. I woke up at 3.30 as the clock "went." I sat awake until nearly five. A little before four I heard a female shouting "Murder!" once. It was loud, and there was only one shout. The cry was from where the shop is. There was no repetition. It was a young woman's voice. I took no notice. I was not alarmed. I left the house at half-past five in the afternoon, I could not get out sooner, because the police would not let us leave. On Wednesday night I was going with a friend along the Bethal-green-road at eight o'clock in the evening, when a gentleman passed up, and he followed us back again. He wanted us to follow him; he said he didn't mind which of us. He went away, and came back to us, and said if we went along a certain entry he would treat us. He put down his bag, his black shiny bag, and said to my friend, "Are you frightened I've got something in my bag?" Then he began feeling about his clothes, and we ran away. He was a short, pale-faced man with a black moustache. The man appeared to be about 40. His bag was not very large, about six or nine inches long. The hat he wore was a round hat, rather high - a stiff felt hat. He had a long overcoat on and a short black one underneath. His trousers were dark pepper and salt. On the night of the murder I saw him again in Commercial-street. I cannot tell you where he went when we left him. We did not look behind us. On Friday morning, about half-past two, on my way to Miller's-court, I met the same man, who was accompanied by a female. They were in Commercial-street, near the "Britannia." He was wearing the same clothes, with the exception of the overcoat. He had the black bag with him. They were standing talking together. I passed on, but looked back at him. I went on my way. I did not tell a policeman, as I did not pass one on my way. I saw the man talking to the woman at the corner of Dorset-street, and left them there.
The Coroner. - Should you know the man if you saw him again?
Witness. - I should.
Dr. George Baxter Phillips, M.R.C.S., sworn - I am surgeon to the H division of the Metropolitan Police, and reside at 2, Spital-square. On Friday morning I was called by the police, about eleven o'clock, and proceeded to Miller's-court, which I entered at 11.15. I found a room numbered 13, having two windows, (Photograph of the premises produced.) There were two windows looking into the court. Two of the panes in the lesser window nearest to the passage were broken, and, finding the door locked, I looked through the lower broken pane, 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 it was probably advisable that no entry should be made into the room at the time, I remained until 1.30, when the door was broken open leading into the room. The door was broken by Mr. M'Carthy. The direction was given by Superintendent Arnold. The police before that prevented Mr. M'Carthy from breaking the door open. The yard was in charge of Inspector Beck. On the door being open, it knocked against a table, which was close to the left hand side of the bed, and the bedstead was close up against the wooden partitions. The mutilated remains of a female were lying two-thirds over towards the edge of the bedstead nearest the door of entry. She had only her chemise upon her, or some under-linen garment, and on my subsequent examination I am sure the body had been removed subsequent to the injury which caused her death from the side of the bedstead which was nearest to the wooden partition before named. The large quantity of blood under the bedstead, the saturated condition of the paillasse, pillow, and sheet, at top corner of the bedstead nearest the partition, leads me to the conclusion that the severance of the right artery was the immediate cause of her death, and 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 coroner said it was clear that the severance of the artery was the immediate cause of death, and unless the jury otherwise desired, this was all the evidence Dr. Phillips proposed to give that day.
The jury acquiesced.
The inquiry was then adjourned for a quarter of an hour for luncheon.
During the adjournment it was reported to the coroner that an official of the Shoreditch Vestry had been telling the jury that they ought not to have been summoned to this inquest at all.
On the jury reassembling,
The Coroner said - May I ask you, gentlemen, this? It has been reported to me that during your brief absence for luncheon someone has made a statement to you that you ought not to have been summoned here to-day. Is that the fact?
The Foreman. - So far as I know, nothing of the kind has taken place.
Several jurors added that there was no truth whatever in the statement.
The Coroner. - Then I must have been misinformed. I should have taken care that if I had found anybody interfering with my jury he would have had a quiet life next week.
The jury then proceeded.
Julia Venturney deposed - I occupy a room in Miller's-court, and the man I am now living with is named Harry Owen. I knew the deceased. It was some time before I became acquainted with her; but when I knew her she told me that her name was Kelly, and she was a married woman. I know the young man Joe Barnett with whom the deceased lived. They lived happily together. He objected to her walking the streets. She told me that she was fond of another man, that she could not bear the man Joe she was living with, although he was very good to her. Strangely enough, the other man, she said, was named Joe. I went to bed on Thursday night in Miller's-court about eight p.m. I did not sleep. Perhaps I dozed a bit. I heard a strange sound with some door, which was not like the way in which the deceased used to shut the door. There was no noise in the court that night, and I heard no singing. If there had been any singing I must have heard it. The deceased used to sing Irish songs.
Maria Harvey, of New-court, Dorset-street, knew the deceased. On Monday and Tuesday she slept with the deceased. She saw the deceased on the Thursday night about seven o'clock. Joe came in while she was there. She left some clothes to be washed, including two shirts, petticoats belonging to a child, and a black overcoat.
The Coroner. - Two shirts belonging to the same man?
Witness. - No, sir. I saw the coat again on Friday, when it was shown me by some gentlemen.
Inspector Walter Beck, of the H division, stationed at Commercial-street, said information was brought to the station at five minutes to eleven on Friday morning. He went at once, and gave directions to prevent anyone leaving the court, and he directed another constable to make a search.
Inspector G. Abberline, of Scotland-yard, said he was in charge of the case. He reached the court about 11.30 on Friday last. When he reached the place he was informed by Inspector Beech that the bloodhounds had just been sent for and were on their way; and Dr. Phillips said it would be better not to force the door until the dogs arrived. At 1.30 Superintendent Arnold arrived, and stated that the order for the dogs had been countermanded, and gave directions for the door to be forced. The witness looked through the window and saw how matters really were before he entered. He subsequently took an inventory of the things in the room. There were traces of a large fire having been kept in the grate, and the spout of the kettle had been melted off. The police since examined the ashes of the grate, and found portions of the brim of a hat and portions of a skirt. He thought that the articles were burnt to enable the murderer to see what he was about. There was a small piece of candle standing in a broken wine glass. The key of the lock had been missing for some time, and the door could be opened by putting a hand through the broken window and pushing the latch back. A man's clay pipe was found in the room, but it belonged to Barnett.
The Coroner said that was all the evidence they were at present prepared to lay before the jury. It was for them to say whether they were satisfied with it, or whether they would adjourn and hear the further evidence on a future occasion. If the coroner's jury came to the conclusion as to the cause of death, that was all they had to do. The police would take charge of the case, and it was for the jury to say whether they had heard sufficient evidence to enable them to come to a conclusion as to the cause of the death of Mary Jane Kelly. If that was the case, there was no occasion for a further adjournment, but the matter was one entirely for the jury.
The foreman said that the jury considered that they had heard enough evidence to justify them in coming to a verdict.
The Coroner. - Then, gentlemen, what is your verdict?
The Foreman. - Wilful murder against some person or persons unknown.
The Coroner. - You are satisfied as to the identity of the deceased?
The Foreman. - We are, sir, perfectly satisfied.
This closed the inquiry.
In the House of Commons yesterday, a large attendance of members assembled on both sides, and keen interest was evinced in a series of questions put to the Home Secretary having special reference to the East-end murders. Mr. Matthews, answering inquiries from Mr. Pickersgill, mentioned that he had held a conversation with Mr. Monro on the whole subject of the reorganisation of the Criminal Investigation Department. The right hon. Gentleman, declining to lay on the table papers relating to Mr. Monro's resignation, Mr. Gent-Davis declared that they must have those documents that night. As this remark was understood to mean that the hon. Member would move the adjournment of the House, it was loudly cheered by the Opposition; but, probably because of subsequent explanations, Mr. Gent-Davis did not take further action in the matter. Mr. Matthews, answering Mr. Conybeare, stated that Mr. Anderson had now direct control of the Criminal Investigation department, under the superintendence of the Chief Commissioner. The failure to detect the Whitechapel murderer was due, not to any defective organisation, but to the extraordinary cunning and secrecy which characterised these atrocious crimes. He had, however, under consideration the whole system of the Criminal Investigative Department, with the view of introducing any improvements which experience might suggest. The right hon. Gentleman added that on the 8th inst. the Chief Commissioner tendered his resignation, which had been accepted by her Majesty's Government; and his announcement was received with loud cheers and laughter by the Opposition. Being further interrogated by Mr. C. Graham and Mr. Hunter, the Home Secretary entered into a detailed statement of the reasons which had led his predecessors, Sir W. Harcourt and Mr. Childers, for the discovery of the perpetrators of serious crimes, and showed that sensational rewards had been ineffectual and mischievous, tending to relax the exertions of the police and to produce false testimony. Although he had acted on the principle of refusing rewards, adopted with the concurrence of the best authorities, he did not say the rule might not be subject to exceptions where it was known, for instance, who the criminal was and information was wanted as to hiding place, or other circumstances of the crime itself. In the Whitechapel case not only were those conditions wanting, but the danger of false charges was intensified by the excited state of public feeling. He assured the House that neither the Home Office nor Scotland-yard would leave a stone unturned in order to bring to justice the perpetrators of abominable crimes which had outraged the feelings of the entire community. The right hon. Gentleman was much cheered by both sides of the House. Mr. W. H. Smith, replying to Mr. Labouchere, promised to make a statement on Thursday with regard to the legislative intentions of the Government during the present Session. With regard to the Parnell Commission, a supplementary estimate would, if necessary, be presented next session, but at present the expenses were being defrayed in the ordinary way from the temporary commission vote. No sum had been expended from the secret service vote to secure evidence. Questioned by Mr. Campbell-Bannerman as to when he would give the House information as to the enlarged expenditure upon the navy of which he had spoken at Guildhall, Lord G. Hamilton said he had referred to a fresh and bold start and a sustained effort next year to improve the strength and efficiency of the navy. In reply to Lord R. Churchill, the First Lord of the Admiralty stated that the government did not intend to ask for any additional sum for that purpose in the present year. The House having resumed Committee of Supply on the Civil Service Estimates, a vote in aid of the Mercantile Marine Fund was agreed to. The vote for the Secret Service Fund was opposed by Mr. Bradlaugh, Mr. Labouchere, and others, but carried on a division by 214 to 94. A proposal by Mr. S. Buxton to reduce the vote for law charges by way of protest against the excessive emoluments of the law officers of the Crown led to an interesting but thorough discussion. Lord R. Churchill expressed a fear that the proposed remedies might be worse than the existing disease. Sir H. James suggested that the future law officers should abstain from private practice; and the amendment was withdrawn when Mr. Smith undertook that the Government would consider this and other suggestions. Prolonged discussion arose upon the portion of the vote relating to the Public Prosecutor; and a proposal by Mr. Pickersgill to reduce the amount by 1,000£. was negatived upon division by 180 to 90. The vote was passed, as was the vote for Criminal Prosecutions, when progress was reported at a quarter to twelve o'clock. Some other business having been disposed of, the House adjourned.
The inquest on the body of Mary Jane Kelly, who was found murdered in a house in Miller's-court, Whitechapel, was held yesterday, and terminated in a verdict of willful murder against some person or persons unknown. Evidence was given to the effect that the deceased was seen on Thursday night going into her house with a man, and a woman declared that she would be able to identify the man if she saw him again. It was also stated that at about 3.30 or four o'clock on Friday morning a cry of murder was heard. A witness, however, deposed that she spoke to the deceased at 8.30 on Friday morning. A man who knew the deceased last night made a statement to the police to the effect that on Thursday night he saw the woman with a well-dressed man whose appearance he describes with much fulness of detail.
Mr. Matthews' announcement in the Commons last night the Sir Charles Warren had resigned, and that his resignation had been accepted, was received by the Opposition with loud cheers, and by many supporters of the Government with expressions of satisfaction. It may be safely assumed that the general public will share the feeling of the House, and that the force directed by the ex-Chief Commissioner for the past two and a half years will be found very decidedly in line with members of Parliament and the public. Sir CHARLES WARREN lays down his office, it cannot be denied, under circumstances little flattering to himself. The cheers of the Commons last night were an emphatic judgment upon his management of the Metropolitan Police Force. It is only fair to say, however, that for the failures of his official career he is not wholly to blame; the responsibility must be shared by those who, in the face of much warning and protest, persisted in appointing him to a trust which his previous training and functions by no means fitted him to discharge. A zealous and, we believe, a capable soldier, he did good service as commandant of the Cape Mounted Police, and again as organiser of the police of the Red Sea Littoral. But both these were semi-military bodies performing duties widely different from those in which the London constable is employed. Unfortunately when Sir CHARLES WARREN succeeded Colonel HENDERSON he brought to his new position in too great a degree the experiences and the ideas of organisation and of duties acquired in very different spheres of effort. He was the round man in the three-cornered hole. Animated no doubt with the best intentions, he brought to his new office theories of reform and notions of improved system which were unsuited to the conditions with which he had to deal. The inevitable result was a series of mistakes, which created friction between himself and his colleagues, and spread discontent among the force. Sir CHARLES WARREN is a man of self-reliant, not to say obstinate spirit, and he adhered to his own opinions with a rigorous tendency to the methods of the martinet more calculated to prove irritation than to promote progress. It was complained that he applied himself to the work of reorganisation in a fussy, peddling, and pedantic way; that he formulated new rules and altered old ones in cases where there was no necessity for innovation or for change, and even where the change increased the labours and added to the discomfort of his men without any corresponding benefit to the public. The resignation of his second in command, Mr. MONRO, an exceptionally competent and valuable official, was regarded as grave evidence of want of harmonious relations between the heads of the force, and this incident had a serious influence in aggravating the prevalent sense of disappointment and dissatisfaction with which his administration was regarded.
It must be remembered in his official epitaph that the ex-Chief Commissioner took up his post at a time when the relaxed discipline and disorganisation of the Metropolitan Police Force were matters of vehement assertion and loud complaint. However defective his system may have been Sir CHARLES WARREN must be credited with having, upon the whole, successfully grappled with these undesirable conditions. If he was, as it is alleged, somewhat harsh and inconsiderate in his treatment, he corrected abuses, and has, in some important respects, left his wholesome mark upon the small army which forms the Metropolitan Police Force. Nor would it be just or generous to forget the energy and decision he showed in grappling with the ebullitions of social disorder and demagogue turbulence which for a time threatened the peace and even the property of the largest and perhaps the most sensitive community in the world. Sir CHARLES WARREN, at any rate, resigns his post able to look back with complacency on these phases of his official history. He was, moreover, ill-befriended by circumstances. The fates and events were hostile. Discontent received a powerful impetus from the East-end tragedies, which gave an alarmed public the spectacle of a succession of hideous murders perpetrated in the heart of London in the presence of a police organisation which seemed paralysed and helpless to deal with the emergency. Here, as we have already said, the popular alarm and anger were unjust to the Chief Commissioner as well as to his men. Probably no organisation we are likely to see would be infallible to detect a miscreant acting in solitary secrecy and with equal cunning and ferocity in the vast wilderness and amid the confined multitudes of London. But panic does not reason this way, and people naturally look for protection to, and expect rescue from, the authority whose business it is to ensure both. If the delivery fails to deliver, panic is apt to revenge upon him the terrors and anxieties which trouble it, and Sir CHARLES WARREN was made the scapegoat of occurrences which could not be prevented. Moreover, it is an argument which cannot be answered that perhaps a man with a more practical idea of what a police force ought to be, and a better notion of the duties they have to perform, and the manner in which they ought to be discharged, would have succeeded where a defective system failed. Be this as it may, it has been one of Sir CHARLES WARREN'S misfortunes that a succession of undetected and unpunished atrocities intensifies the dissatisfaction excited by other incidents of his administration. If there be no undue levity in the remark, it might almost be said that - in an official sense - "Jack the Ripper" has added the ex-Chief Commissioner to the list of his victims.
But there is reasonable ground for the belief that the rock on which Sir CHARLES WARREN actually wrecked himself was his communication to Murray's Magazine. The ex-Chief Commissioner, like Lord SACKVILLE, has committed official suicide with a goose quill, and sacrificed himself to an imprudent itch for scribbling. His apologia or defense was, in more respects than one, a curious indiscretion. That he should have published at all, in the form of a communication to the Press on his office, its duties, and other particulars relating thereto, was a grave breach of rule. He hit out, moreover, pretty hard at his critics, and did not hesitate to give a certain amount of political-personal colouring to his vigorous, but unpermitted, rejoinder. The error was very seriously aggravated in character by his confession that he committed it in ignorance of the rule. The first obligation of an official is to make himself thoroughly acquainted with the rules which are to govern his conduct and direct his administration. And to plead ignorance of one of the most important of these rules is to warrant the belief that the ignorance extends to others, and that duty was done without a knowledge of the regulations laid down for its discharge. A more damaging admission it would be hard to imagine, and the severity of the terms in which Mr. MATTHEWS last week referred to it in his reply to a question very plainly indicated the serious light in which the Government regarded it. We are probably not far out in concluding that the Government on the one hand and the ex-Chief Commissioner on the other felt a mutual consciousness that the article and the excuse constituted between them an occurrence grave enough to determine the tenancy of the office. It must be owned that many of his acts gave occasion for astonishment and impatience. It must be owed that many of his acts gave occasion for astonishment and impatience. There was, for example, his extraordinary order to the police to add to their onerous and varied labours by lying in ambush for, and skirmishing after, drunken people to find where they got drink. This absurd edict, issued at a time when five millions of people, horror-stricken by dreadful crimes, were looking to the police, and every energy of the force was needed by the emergency, was well calculated to excite indignation as well as another feeling to which we will not, under the circumstances, give a name. Now that Sir CHARLES WARREN has resigned, we dare say he will be able to distinguish himself in some more congenial sphere of action. Meanwhile the vacancy offers an opening for applying and carrying out on a proper and adequate plan that work of police reorganisation which is so urgently demanded. There is no longer any impediment to the undertaking. The Government have a free hand and a clear stage for the operation, and they will add one more claim to public confidence and gratitude by availing themselves of the opportunity.
A shocking discovery was made at Woolwich yesterday. It appears that a few months ago a soldier and a young woman, named Lily Smith, aged 22, engaged a room at No. 3, Ogleby-street, Woolwich, stating that they were married. Shortly afterwards the soldier was ordered to India, the young woman remaining in possession of the room until Friday last, when she left without having given notice. Yesterday morning Mrs. Pearce, the landlady of the tenement, burst the door open and was horrified at finding the body of a child with its head, arms, and legs cut off and missing. She sent for the police, and Lloyd, 234 R., conveyed the remains to Woolwich police station. It was examined by Mr. Haines, assistant police surgeon, who was unable, without making a post-mortem examination, to state whether the child had been born alive. Detective Alexander and Rogers, coroner's officer, were deputed to try to find the missing young woman, and after seeking some hours they discovered her at a house in Ritter-street, Woolwich-common. On telling her that she would be charged with concealing the birth of her child, she stated that the infant was born a month ago, but had since died, and that the legs, arms, and head had been burned. She further stated that she was very sorry, and that if she had not been half-starved it would not have occurred. On being taken before Mr. Marcham the same afternoon she manifested great mental distress, and was allowed a seat in the dock. The magistrate elicited that the coroner would hold an inquest on the remains, and he remanded the girl.
The Press Association states that Sir Charles Warren tendered his resignation of his appointment as Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police on Thursday last, but 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 was 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 connexion 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 organisation 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 principle detective inspectors, and the information furnished to the commissioner in regard to these conferences has been, he states, 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. The Press Association adds that there was much speculation in the lobby last evening as to Sir Charles Warren's successor, and in the best-informed circles Mr. Monro was looked upon as the most likely person to be selected for the vacant post. It was pointed out that the resignation of Sir Charles Warren practically arose out of a difference of opinion with Mr. Monro, and that inasmuch as Mr. Monro, though nominally shelved, had really gained the day, therefore it was only natural that he should assume control of the force, and develop the system of administration the proposition of which led to his transference to the Home Office. On the other hand, it is believed in some quarters that the present opportunity will be seized to emphasise the distinction between the Criminal Investigation Department and the ordinary members of the force to which Sir Charles Warren takes exception, in which case a provincial chief constable who has attracted much notice for his successful organisation and disciplinary tact is mentioned as the probable head of the uniformed police, with Mr. Monro at the head of the detective branch, as an independent branch of the force.
An inquest was held yesterday at Liverpool, on the body of Mr. C. P. Welby, a cotton broker of that city, who on Saturday committed suicide by shooting himself.
The evidence of Thomas Robinson, an attendant on the deceased, and of Dr. Hewson, under whose care the deceased had been for the past three years at Cotton-hill Asylum, Staffordshire, showed that the deceased, although of unsound mind, had never manifested any tendency of a suicidal nature during the period that he had been under medical care. He had been out on fishing expeditions at sea, and during his present visit to Riversley had been allowed considerable liberty. On Saturday, in the absence of the attendant, he appeared to have got out of bed, drawn up the window-blind, and then shot himself.
A son of the deceased stated that the pistol was hidden some two years ago at the bottom of a box, and that his father must have found it whilst rummaging the box, and placed it in his bedroom.
Dr. Hawson said that the deceased showed an intense horror of being left alone, and he believed he had taken his life under the impulse of this feeling.
The jury returned a verdict of "Suicide while in a state of insanity."
James Quinn, 24, described as an artist, of Albert-street, Barnsbury, was charged, before Mr. Bros, with being found in Goswell-road dressed in women's clothes, contrary to the law.
The prisoner was seen by a police-officer at an early hour on Sunday morning walking along Goswell-road in female attire. The officer at once saw that Quinn was a man, as he had not shaved off his moustache.
The prisoner, in answer to the charge, said "I only did it for a lark."
Mr. Bros, after cautioning Quinn, discharged him.
Speaking last night at a meeting at the Limehouse Townhall, held to promote the interests of the East London Church Fund, the Archbishop of YORK, who presided, said that in the course of events London had been dividing itself into two great parts - the prosperous and the unprosperous London. The division had no foundation in substance. The work that went on in the east of London turned to the profit of the west. The laborours who were crowded into the east were not for the benefit of its population. Only a part, and a small part, cleaved to its hands in the shape of wages, and the main part of the profit went to the west, to those who needed it least. There was, to his mind, one subject for modern politicians to consider, beside which all other subjects faded into insignificance, and that was the condition of the rich and poor in this country. There was no visible prospect of time and circumstance altering the conditions of the problem that now existed, there was no likelihood that an immense demand would create a great need for all commodities, so that everyone who now lacked work should by-and-by have it. For his own part he thought the problem would grow more acute, and the question was one that ought to exercise the attention of every statesman worthy of the name. If at present they could not see a full solution of this problem, there was one direction in which real substantial good could be, and had been, done, and that was in the ministers of Christ coming among the people and speaking to them those words of truth and wisdom which taught men in their distress to turn to God. Nothing was more remarkable in this great country than the patience of the poor, and this gave the poor the greatest claim on the sympathy and activity of the Church. The fund had another business to do, which was to make the rich think a little more of their duty to the poor. No doubt there was a strong inducement to put all unwholesome and painful things away. The sin of the rich man in the parable - that he declined to think of Lazarus at his gate - was the sin the rich of London were committing. Happily they were beginning to think. But the population of East London was growing, the difficulties were increasing, and he trusted the need would so be put forward that every rich parish in the west would make a point of sending its contingent to a poor parish in the east. - (Cheers.)
The Bishop of MARLBOROUGH urged that they should look upon the problem to which the archbishop had referred as citizens as well as Churchmen. To use medical terms, congestion and disease lay at the root of the distress. The congestion consisted in the excess of labour over the demand for it, the disease in the great congeries of the almost permitted crime which existed amongst us. This was likely to enlarge itself, for if we are allowed in any part of the great cities a great number of the vicions to congregate together without very strong restraints, encouragement would be given to vice and crime to make headway and fancy itself stronger in the social community than it really was. The friends of the country ought to try and look at the two sides of this problem. He advocated a generous, well-organised system of emigration, and a strict, rigid law concerning immigration. - (Loud cheers.)
Unless our great nation, with its wonderful record of progress and wisdom, was to become a sort of easy fool, she must take care what she was about with this great unhealthy flood of immigration pouring in at this moment. - (Cheers)
The Bishop of WAKEFIELD (who came in late, and who, as late Bishop of Bedford, received a most enthusiastic welcome) protested against the East-end murders being regarded as a sort of normal outgrowth of the state of things prevailing there. Nothing could be more unutterably foolish and false. - (Hear, hear.) These murders were something out of the common acts of madness, perhaps, which defied ordinary calculations. In the state of the East London there was much that was hopeful and full of promise. If they could only get an army of men and women of the right sort to labour in sufficient numbers amongst the poor parishes, he believed religion would win the day. - (Cheers.)
The Bishop of BEDFORD, speaking from his experience as vicar of Spitalfields, and referring to the murders, declared that the number of unfortunate women, whose state was now exciting so much commiseration, was much less now than eight years ago. He hoped that these atrocious crimes would be the means under God's providence, of drawing sustained attention to the condition of many of these poor women. - (Hear, hear.)
John Hurly, 17, was sentenced to seven days' hard labour for assaulting Constable 266 H while in the execution of his duty. On Sunday night the officer heard screams of "Murder" preceeding from Fieldgate-street, Whitechapel. On preceeding there a woman was given into his custody for assault and willful damage. Directly he arrested her he was set upon by a gang of roughs. Hurly caught hold of him by the throat, kicked him about the legs, and struck him in the face. The woman was rescued and Hurly was then arrested.