Daily News
United Kingdom
14 November 1888

Mr. Matthews, in reply to Mr. S. Smith, said the hon. member might be quite justified in supposing that there was a large circulation of demoralising literature among the young, and he had already stated that the Government were prepared to take such steps as prudence dictated, and the law enabled them to take, for checking the circulation. He would undertake to give careful consideration to the question - "Whether a record could be kept of the class of books or papers found on the persons of youthful criminal when arrested, as a guide to future legislation on the subject."

Mr. Matthews - In order to avoid misunderstanding as to the grounds of Sir C. Warren's resignation, which I announced yesterday, I ask the leave of the House to make a statement. On the 8th of November I directed the following letter to be written to Sir C. Warren:

"Sir,

Mr. Secretary Matthews directs me to state that his attention has been called to an article signed by you in this month's number of Murray's Magazine relating to the management and discipline of the Metropolitan Police Force. He desires me to forward to you the enclosed copy of a Home Office Circular which was duly communicated to the Commissioner of Police in 1879; and to state that the directions in that circular were intended to apply to the Metropolitan Police, and to every officer in the force, from the Commissioner downwards. I am accordingly to request that in the future the terms of this order may be strictly complied with."

The enclosed Home Office minute is in these terms:-

"The Secretary of State, having had his attention called to the question of allowing private publication by officers attached to the Department of books on matters relating to the department, is of opinion that the practice may lead to embarrassment, and should in future be discontinued. He desires, therefore, that it should be considered a rule of the Home Department that no officer should publish any work relating to the Department unless the sanction of the Secretary of State has been previously obtained for the purpose."

I received on the same day the following reply:-

"Sir,

I have just received a pressing and confidential letter stating that a Home Office circular of 27th May, 1879, is intended to apply to the Metropolitan Police Force. I have to point out that had I been told that such a circular was to be in force I should not have accepted the post of Commissioner of Police. I have to point out that my duties and those of the Metropolitan Police are governed by statute, and that the Secretary of State for the Home Department has not the power under the statute of issuing orders for the police force. This circular, if put in force, would practically enable every one anonymously to attack the police force without in any way permitting the Commissioner to correct false statements, which I have been in the habit of doing whenever I found necessary for nearly three years past. I desire to say that I entirely decline to accept these instructions with regard to the Commissioner of Police, and I have again - (Lord. R. Churchill: Again) - to place my resignation in the hands of her Majesty's Government.

I am, Sir, your most obedient servant,
Charles Warren"

I answered this letter on the 10th of November in the following terms:-

I beg to acknowledge your letter of the 8th inst. In that letter, after contending that the Secretary of State has not the power under statute of issuing orders for the Metropolitan Police, you decline to accept his instructions, that the Commissioner and all officers of the force should comply with the Home Office Minute of the 27th May, 1879, by which officers attached to the Home Department were enjoined not to publish any work relating to the Department without the previous sanction of the Secretary of State; and you place your resignation in the hands of her Majesty's Government. In my judgement, the claim thus put forward by you, as Commissioner of Police, to disregard the instructions of the Secretary of State, is altogether inadmissible, and, accordingly, I have only to accept your resignation. At the same time, I am glad to acknowledge the services which you have rendered to her Majesty's Government during the course of your administration of the police force." The Government accepted the resignation of Sir Charles Warren on the ground stated in the correspondence I have read, and on no other ground. The failure of the police to discover recent crimes in the metropolis and the differences of opinion between Sir. C. Warren and Mr. Munro had nothing to do with the action of the Government in parting with an officer so distinguished and so zealous in the discharge of his office as Sir C. Warren has been. I wish to add, in justice to Mr. Monro and Mr. Anderson, that since Mr. Monro's resignation he has not interfered in any way with the conduct of the business of the Criminal Investigation Department, nor has he been consulted by myself, or by anyone else to my knowledge, on that subject. The advice which I have sought from Mr. Monro was confined to the general question of the organization proper for the department in the abstract, without any reference whatever to the daily current business of the department.

Mr. C. Graham - May I ask the right hon. gentleman to what the word "again" refers. (Hear, hear.) Are we to understand that this is not the first occasion on which Sir C. Warren has sent in his resignation?

Mr. Matthews - There had been previous differences of opinion which led to his tendering his resignation.

Mr. C. Graham - May I ask at what time?

Mr. Matthews - I do not think it necessary to enter into that matter.

Mr. Labouchere - What is the precise position of Mr. Monro present? Is he being consulted, or his opinion taken, in departmental matters?

Mr. Matthews - Mr. Monro holds no office of any kind, and is in no way connected with the department.

Mr. J. Stuart - Will the right hon. gentleman lay the correspondence on the table?

Mr. Matthews - If the hon. member wishes it I will do so.

Mr. Bradlaugh - I believe that as a question of order the right hon. gentleman is bound to lay the correspondence on the table. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. Conybeare - May I ask whether the report in the St. James's Gazette is true, that the post of Commissioner has been offered to the hon. member for the Central Division of Sheffield. (Mr. H. Vincent.)

Mr. Matthews - The statements which have appeared in the public papers on this subject, so far as I have seen, are without any foundation whatever. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. Matthews, in answer to Lord H. Bruch, said he was informed by the Commissioner that the police in the metropolis were located according to the wants of each particular district, and not according to the population or to the rates. He had no reason to believe that they were overworked or undermanned, as to their ordinary duties; and when there were extra duties to perform these were always cheerfully undertaken.

Mr. Johnston - Who is the Commissioner who gave the information?

Mr. Matthews - Sir Charles Warren.

Mr. Matthews, in reply to Mr. C. Graham, said that under the scale of pensions authorised by the Secretary of State in 1873, the cases of police officers wholly incapacitated by injuries received in the execution of their duty were specially considered, and such officers might be granted full pensions irrespective of the period of service. Smaller amounts were granted to officers partially incapacitated.

There was a largely attended meeting yesterday at Dr. Barnardo's Homes. Stepney causeway, E. Dr. Barnardo, who presided, said that the crimes of the past few months had revealed to them a state of things which made them heartsick, and the phase of the subject which came more prominently before them was in relation to the young. Large numbers of children lived among persons of the degraded and vicious class, and they would naturally yield to the influence of their evil surroundings. He thought, therefore, that some practical legislative step should be taken, but pending this, they must do what they could, and experience led them to begin their work by the rescue of the young. In this they must seek to make the admission of children into common lodging houses illegal. Objections might be urged against this, but they could be overcome by the establishment of lodging houses solely for children. He had already begun negotiations for the acquiring of two houses, one of which would be devoted to girls and the other to boys. A nominal charge of one penny would be made, and for this a warm meal would be given. If this experiment were successful, he intended to open a shelter in each of the lodging house districts. It would, moreover, result, he hoped, in legislative enactments under which the work would be carried out on a larger scale. It was urgently needed, for he computed that no fewer than 50,000 people found shelter in lodging houses of various kinds each night, and of this number he confidently believed that 25 per cent were children. An address was given by the Rev. Walter J. Mayers, and he was followed by Mr. Rankie, M.P., who spoke with satisfaction of the success of Dr. Barnardo's institutions in Canada.

In the House of Commons, Mr. Matthews read letters relating to Sir C. Warren's resignation. From them it appeared that Sir Charles had previously placed his resignation in the hands of the Government. In Committee of Supply, an important debate took place on a vote to complete the sum on account of the Supreme Court of Judicature.

A description, regarded as important, was given to the police last night of a man who was seen with Mary Janet Kelly at two o'clock on the morning of Friday last, shortly before she was murdered at Miller's court, Spitalfields. Several men who had said they were "Jack the Ripper" or were looking for some one to whom that name had been given, were brought before London magistrates yesterday on various charges.

The Home Secretary exhibits that well known symptom of an uneasy conscience which consists in a desire to volunteer personal explanations. Yesterday, in the House of Commons, without being asked, he entered further into his differences with Sir Charles Warren, and read the remarkable Correspondence which recently took place between them. The letters show that the cause of the Commissioner's final resignation was simply and solely the rebuke administered to him by Mr. Matthews for writing the now famous article in Murray's Magazine. It would indeed have been absurd to dismiss the head of the Metropolitan Police for not having yet caught the Whitechapel murderer or murderers, the dispute between Sir Charles and Mr. Monro had already been decided in favour of Sir Charles, and the disturbances in Trafalgar square are a year old. We doubt very much whether the public will be satisfied with the reasons assigned for Sir Charles Warren's resignation, and the temporary victory which Mr. Matthews has gained is likely to prove for him a Pyrrhic or Cadmeian one. Sir Charles Warren's article was indeed most improper. He had no business to write it at all, and the general attacks upon various sorts of persons which it contained were highly unbecoming in an officer responsible for the protection of a vast community. Nor was there any intrinsic merit in this unfortunate paper to atone for the indiscretion and indecency of which the author was guilty. Nevertheless, the tone of the Home Secretary's reproof is open to just censure, while there is much force and dignity in Sir Charles Warren's reply. We have a strong belief in the soundness of the rule that members of the permanent Civil Service, however eminent, should not engage in public controversy with regard to the business of their Departments. If they did they would not only forfeit the confidence of their subordinates, but would also render themselves unfit to serve with impartial fidelity under successive chiefs of opposite politics. But the communication addressed by Mr. Matthews to Sir Charles Warren is not warranted by their respective positions, even under the present very bad arrangement for the administration of the Metropolitan Police. Mr. Matthews forwarded to Sir Charles, through the Under Secretary, the copy of a Home Office Minute issued in 1879, when the present Lord Cross was Secretary of State. This document laid down the principle that no officer "attached to the Department" should publish any work relating thereto without the previous sanction of the Home Secretary. Mr. Matthews proceeded to say that the Minute applied "to the Metropolitan Police, and to every officer in the force from the Commissioner downwards," and Sir Charles was accordingly directed strictly to comply with the terms of the order. No clerk or messenger in Whitehall could have been lectured in more severe, peremptory, and discourteous language.

But the substance, no less than the style of the Home Secretary's reprimand, is open to very grave objection. In the first place it is wholly inaccurate to describe the Commissioner of Metropolitan Police as an officer attached to the Home Department. The Commissioner holds his office under a statute which defines the limits of his authority, and which places him at the head of the London Police. It is true that he has subject to the general control of the Home Secretary, who appoints him, and who can dispense with his services. For this there is an obvious constitutional reason. The Secretary of State is responsible to Parliament for the security of London, and he must therefore be able to dictate a policy for which he has to answer. We trust that this state of things will soon be altered, and that the police of London will be placed, as they ought to be, under a body elected by the rate payers. Meanwhile it is quite impossible that any Commissioner should do his duty, or give satisfaction to the public, if he is to be treated by the Home Secretary as a mere clerk, who must hold his tongue and obey orders. There is a very wide difference between acknowledged official supremacy and active officious interference. If the Home Secretary cannot trust the Commissioner with the management of the force, it is quite plain that one of the two should go, and it is by no means clear that that one should be the Commissioner. The interesting debate in the House of Commons on Monday with reference to the Director of Public Prosecutions showed, among other things, how utterly useless it is to maintain a functionary without independent powers of initiative. The Solicitor to the Treasury, in his character of Public Prosecutor, cannot move hand or foot without the leave of the Attorney General, and the result is that the office is a farce. We do not think much of Sir Charles Warren's plea that the Commissioner is bound to answer all attacks or criticisms made upon him, and that if he does not his usefulness will be impaired. Greater men than Sir Charles Warren have submitted to these conditions, and have, as Baron Downes humorously put it, consoled themselves with the reflection that there are four quarters in a year. But when Sir Charles says "I have to point out that my duties and those of the Metropolitan Police are governed by statute, and that the Secretary of State for the Home Department has not the power under the Statute of issuing orders for the Police Force," he is on very much stronger ground, ground indeed from which Mr. Matthews would find it very difficult argumentatively to dislodge him. Of course, as Sir Charles "entirely declines to accept" the instructions given him, it is natural for the Home Secretary to accept Sir Charles's resignation. But Mr. Matthews deceives himself if he supposes that he has heard the last of this Correspondence, which is to be laid upon the table of the House.

It appears from the Correspondence that this is not the first time Sir Charles Warren has thought it necessary to tender his resignation, and Mr. Matthews admitted that there had been "previous differences of opinion," though he declined to say what they were. It will be remembered, however, that in the early part of last autumn, when the crowds in Trafalgar square first began to attract attention and to excite complaint, Mr. Matthews came up from the country and ostentatiously overruled the decision of the Commissioner. With regard to the ultimate cause of severance, Sir Charles says that he did not know of the existence of the Minute, and his ignorance is exceedingly strange if Mr. Matthews has correctly interpreted the language of his predecessor. But there is nothing whatever to show that Lord Cross, who was a much better Home Secretary than Mr. Matthews, intended that the order should apply to the Metropolitan Police at all. The whole of this most interesting and curious transaction throws a strong and salutary light upon the government of London. Here there are two men, neither of whom has any special connection with London, or any special responsibility to Londoners, quarrelling over the right to administer the most important part of the affairs of the greatest city which has ever existed in the world. Next January every rate payer within the metropolitan district will be called upon to elect a representative on the London Council. But this Council, the Parliament of London, will have no power over a single policeman from Hammersmith to Whitechapel, from Hampstead to Norwood. It is much to be hoped, as we have already said, that Sir Charles Warren's successor will not be a military man. When Mr. Childers appointed Sir Charles, great things were expected; and great things in a sense have happened. But they have not included a remarkable detection of crime, and they have comprised the creation of an almost universal belief that the intelligence of the force was being sacrificed to the mechanical precision of their drill. The great mass of Londoners, without distinction of ability or class, are among the most law abiding people in the world. They are ready to obey the law, whether they approve of it or not, because they know that public opinion is sure in the long run to make the law. But they very reasonably say that the police ought to be their servants, not their masters; and that the authorities at Scotland yard or the Home Office should so act as to invite the co-operation of every respectable citizen. Mr. Matthews is on his trial as much as Sir Charles Warren, and the system which they have come to loggerheads over more than either of them. Mr. Matthews will assuredly not escape whatever blame may be his due by offering up an unpopular subordinate to the Nemesis of pedantic bungling.

---

The following important statement was made last evening by George Hutchinson, a groom by trade, but now working as a labourer. Hutchinson said:-

On Thursday last I had been to Romford, in Essex, and I returned from there about two o'clock on Friday morning, having walked all the way. I came down Whitechapel road into Commercial street. As I passed Thrawl street I passed a man standing at the corner of the street, and as I went towards Flower and Dean street I met the woman Kelly, whom I knew very well, having been in her company a number of times. She said, "Mr. Hutchinson, can you lend me sixpence?" I said, "I cannot, as I am spent out going down to Romford." She then walked on towards Thrawl street, saying, "I must go and look for some money." The man who was standing at the corner of Thrawl street then came towards her and put his hand on her shoulder, and said something to her which I did not hear, and they both burst out laughing. He put his hand again on her shoulder and they both walked slowly towards me. I walked on to the corner of Fashion street, near the public house. As they came by me his arm was still on her shoulder. He had a soft felt hat on, and this was drawn down somewhat over his eyes. I put down my head to look him in the face, and he turned and looked at me very sternly, and they walked across the road to Dorset street. I followed them across and stood at the corner of Dorset street. They stood at the corner of Miller's court for about three minutes. Kelly spoke to the man in a loud voice, saying, "I have lost my handkerchief." He pulled a red handkerchief out of his pocket, and gave it to Kelly, and they both went up the court together. I went to look up the court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood there for three quarters of an hour to see if they came down again, but they did not, and so I went away. My suspicions were aroused by seeing a man so well dressed, but I had no suspicion that he was the murderer. The man was about 5ft 8in in height and 34 or 35 years of age, with dark complexion and dark moustache turned 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 horseshow pin. He wore a pair of dark "spats" with light buttons over button boots, and displayed from his waistcoat a massive gold chain. His watch chain had a big seal with a red stone hanging from it. He had a heavy moustache, curled up, and dark eyes and bushy eyebrows. He had no side whiskers, and his chin was clean shaven. He looked like a foreigner. I went up the court and stayed there a couple of minutes, but did not see any light in the house or hear any noise. I was out last night until three o'clock looking for him. I could swear to the man anywhere. I told one policeman on Sunday morning what I had seen, but did not go to the police station. I told one of the lodgers here about it yesterday, and he advised me to go to the police station, which I did last night. The man I saw did not look as though he would attack another one. He carried a small parcel in his hand, about eight inches long, and it had a strap round it. He had it tightly grasped in his left hand. It looked as though it was covered with dark American cloth. He carried in his right hand, which he laid upon the woman's shoulder, a pair of brown kid gloves. One thing I noticed, and that was that he walked very softly. I believe that he lives in the neighbourhood, and I fancied that I saw him in Petticoat lane on Sunday morning, but I was not certain. I went down to the Shoreditch mortuary today and recognised the body as being that of the woman Kelly, whom I saw at two o'clock on Friday morning. Kelly did not seem to me to be drunk, but was a bit "spreeish." I was quite sober, not having had anything to drink all day. After I left the court I walked about all night, as the place where I usually sleep was closed. I came in as soon as it opened in the morning. I am able to fix the time, as it was between ten and five minutes to two o'clock as I came by Whitechapel Church. When I left the corner of Miller's court the clock struck three o'clock. One policeman went by the Commercial street end of Dorset street while I was standing there, but not one came down Dorset street. I saw one man go into a lodging house in Dorset street, but no one else. I have been looking for the man all day.

It will be observed that the description of the supposed murderer given by Hutchinson agrees in every particular with that already furnished by the police, and published yesterday morning. There is not the slightest reason to doubt Hutchinson's veracity, and it is therefore highly probable that at length the police are in possession of a reliable description of the murderer.

During the small hours of yesterday morning the police made a thorough search of casual wards and other places of a similar character, but their vigilance was not rewarded by any discovery of importance. The visit served to stimulate the vigilance of people connected with such places, with the result that word was sent in the course of the night from the Holborn casual wards, one of those visited, of the very suspicious behaviour of one of the temporary inmates. Constables were at once sent to the place, and arrested a rough looking fellow, who gave the name of Thomas Murphy. He was taken to the police station at Frederick street, King's cross road, where, on being searched he was found to have in his possession a somewhat formidable looking knife with a blade about ten inches long. He was therefore detained in custody on suspicion, and the police proceeded to make inquiries at Woolwich and other places, he being evidently a sailor. Last evening he was the only man in custody, no one being detained at either Commercial street ot Leman street Police stations. The excitement in the locality is subsiding, and the crowd which loitered about Dorset street was quite small compared with the attendance on Monday or the day before. The funeral of the deceased woman Kelly will not take place till after the arrival from Wales of some of her relatives and friends who are expected to reach London this evening. The remains, according to present arrangements, will be interred wither tomorrow or on Friday, at the new Chingford cemetery. The plate on the coffin bears the inscription:- "Mary Jeanette Kelly, died Nov. 9, 1888, aged 25 years." With regard to the question of Coroner's jurisdiction, it is perhaps not generally known that in the case of Annie Chapman, who was murdered in Hanbury street, the crime was not committed in Mr. Wynne Baxter's district but in Dr. McDonald's. The body, however, was removed to the Whitechapel Mortuary, which brought the matter within Mr. Baxter's jurisdiction.

Several cases arose at the different metropolitan police courts yesterday in which "Jack the Ripper" played a prominent part. At Westminster, Daniel Jones, 38, was remanded on a charge of loitering with intent to commit a felony. He was seen to climb a railing about two o'clock yesterday morning in Little George street, and try to open a ground floor window. He was arrested, and said he was looking for Jack the Ripper.

At Worship street, George Bartlett, 38, described as a jeweller, was charged with the unlawful possession of a silver sceptre and other articles, supposed stolen. Detective Inspector Reid, H division, deposed that on the previous night in Spitalfields his attention was drawn to the prisoner, who was carrying a black shiny bag (produced.) In appearance he somewhat answered the description circulated of a man who had been seen in the neighbourhood of the recent murders. He was followed in Brick lane, stopped, and requested to give some account of himself, particularly as to what he had got in the bag. He displayed great objection to exhibit the contents, and the police found the bag secured with a padlock. The man was removed to the station in Commercial street, and there produced the key of the bag. On opening it various articles were seen, consisting of ladies' handkerchiefs, a book, a screwdriver, and the silver staff (described as a sceptre) in question, but no knives. In a back pocket of the prisoner's trousers there was also found a shell, silver mounted. The prisoner was charged with the unlawful possession, but during the day it transpired that the church of Old St. Pancras had been broken into, and the articles, with others - one stated to be a cross given by the Duke of York - carried off. On the application of the inspector the prisoner was given back into his custody to be charged at Clerkenwell with sacrilege. The magistrate (Mr. Montagu Williams, Q.C.) commended the inspector for the "intelligence and activity" he had shown in the capture.

John Avery, aged 43, a ticket writer, of Southwick House, Vicarage road, Willesden, was charged at the Clerkenwell Police court with being drunk and disorderly in York road, the previous night. John Carvell, a private in the 11th Hussars, said that on Monday night he was standing on the corner of York road, Islington, when the prisoner came up to him, caught hold of him and said, "I'm Jack the Ripper; I'll show you how I do all the lot." The witness told him to go away and not to talk nonsense; but Avery, who was intoxicated, followed him and threw his right arm round his neck. A scuffle ensued between them, and the witness's nose was scratched. He soon, however, shook off the prisoner, who said, "Come and have a glass of beer, and I will tell you a secret and you can make some money." They accordingly went into the Duke of York public house, Caledonian street, and there, in the bar, Avery repeated two or three times that "he was Jack the Ripper." The witness then thought it best to give the prisoner into custody, and accordingly dragged him outside and gave him in charge of a policeman, who was on duty nearby. It was stated by the police that the prisoner had caused them a deal of trouble, telegraphing and corresponding to find out who and what he was. The name and address he gave were correct, and he was respectably connected. The prisoner, in defence, said he was under the impression that he had only discussed the method by which the murderer might be discovered. He was very sorry for what had occurred. Mr. Bros: You have done an exceedingly foolish and wicked thing. I shall send all persons who are brought before me for acting as you have done to prison without the option of a fine. You will be imprisoned for fourteen days with hard labour. The Prisoner: Do not send me to prison; it will ruin me. Can you not fine me? Mr. Bros: No, I will not; you must go to prison.

John Brinckley, 40, a porter, of Wilmington place, Clerkenwell, was charged before Mr. Bros with being drunk and disorderly in Goswell road late on Monday night. A police constable proved seeing the prisoner drunk in Goswell road, with a woman's skirt on over his other clothes. There were several persons round him, and he cried out, "I'm Jack the Ripper; I'm going down City road tonight, and I'll do another there." The constable took him into custody. The gaoler said he knew the prisoner to be a hard working man; but often acted foolishly, and had on more then one occasion been fined at that court. Mr. Bros sentenced prisoner to 14 days' imprisonment.

John Newman, a respectable looking man, described as a fitter, of 57 Lower Kensington Lane, was charged before Mr. Slade of the Southwark Police court with being drunk and disorderly in Blackman street. Police constable Tilley said that early that morning he was on duty outside the Blackman street Police station, when the prisoner came up, holding a man by the collar, and said he wished to give him into custody, as he was "Jack the Ripper." As he (the constable) knew the gentleman to be a respectable man, who had lived for a long time in the neighbourhood, he told the prisoner to let him go, and the prisoner did so after some demur. The prisoner was told that he had better take himself off home, and he went away, but returned a few minutes afterwards, saying he was not going away. The witness was obliged to take him into custody and charge him. The prisoner charged the police with ill treating him, and he was remanded for inquiries.

George Sweeney, twenty seven, labourer, of 20 Chigwell street, Camberwell, was charged at the Southwark Police court with being drunk and disorderly in the Borough High street. Police constable Robert Walsh stated that he found the prisoner in the Borough shouting that he was "Jack the Ripper." A crowd assembled and became very much excited, and consequently the witness asked the prisoner to go away. The prisoner said it was all through the toothache. Mr. Slade said the man's conduct was disgraceful, and fined him 40s. or fourteen days' hard labour.

A very painful scene occurred in Marylebone Police court on the reading of a charge against Philip Gad Cornish, twenty three, a schoolmaster, of Ratling Hope School, Pontesbury, near Shrewsbury, who was said to be a lunatic wandering at large and not under proper control. Being brought into court the poor fellow was heard shouting and kicking violently at the door. When brought into court by two officers both his hands were tightly grasping the top of his head, his eyes were glaring widely and he generally presented a very disturbing appearance. A police constable said he found the man in Praed street about five o'clock on Monday, behaving in such a way as to convince him that he was not of sound mind, so he arrested him. There was a companion with Cornish, and from the two he learned they had come to London to catch the Whitechapel murderer. The witness's evidence was frequently interrupted by the violent behaviour of Cornish, who shouted at the top of his voice. threw himself about, and stamped with his foot, and demanded that the witness, who was, he said, the son of perdition, should be made to tell the truth. The young man who accompanied the prisoner said he was a blacksmith. On Monday morning Cornish asked him to accompany him from Ratling Hope to London, as he had been appointed to come up and catch "Jack the Ripper," the author of the Whitechapel murders, for which service he was to receive a large sum of money. The witness thought it was all right, so he left his work and accompanied Cornish, and they arrived in London in the afternoon. He thought Cornish was all right when they started. but he saw a change come over him while on the journey. Mr. de Rutzen directed that the poor fellow should be taken to the workhouse in a cab, which was at once done.