The first portion of this issue's report from "Every effort to find Annie Phillips…" to "…He heard no cries for help." is reproduced in "News from Whitechapel" page 166. Immediately following on from that portion the Telegraph reported:

Some excitement was caused in the City yesterday by the publication of a report that at 4.30 a.m. a man was seen to go behind a hoarding in High-street, Shadwell, with a woman, and that the watchman on duty, having his suspicions, followed them, and called the police. The man, it was stated, killed the watchman with a knife, but was secured by several constables who hurried up. Inquiry into this rumour at once discredited it. At the Leman-street Police-station the inspector on duty was able to say frankly that he was sure there was no truth in the report. Further investigation proved that the hoarding to which reference had been made was opposite St. Paul's, Church-street, in the High-street, Shadwell, where some premises are about to be rebuilt. Here early yesterday morning a watchman was stationed, but no attack was made upon him. The sensational story seems to have originated in the exaggerated account of an arrest on the previous evening, a man having been detained on suspicion until yesterday morning, when the satisfactory result of inquiries allowed of his discharge. The man in the first instance was taken to King David's-lane Police-station in Shadwell, and an excited crowd congregated outside, when, of course, the most idle tales rapidly spread. From other inquiries in the neighbourhood of Shadwell it was learned that the attention of a watchman was called in the course of the night to a man and woman in the shadow of a hoarding, and, when asked their business, the man said something about "ripping" up the watchman, but the couple moved away. Such a threat as this in the East-end has latterly become by no means uncommon.

At the meeting on the Common Council, yesterday, the Lord Mayor said that, as the Court was aware, he had been advised to offer a substantial reward for the apprehension and conviction of the murderer of the woman in Mitre-square. He saw from the paper of business that several of the members had motions of a similar character, and therefore he felt sure that the public would feel satisfied with what the City had determined to do, and he had only to endorse the earnest hope, expressed in all quarters, that the perpetrator of the crime would speedily be in the hands of the police. - Mr. Frank Green, the chairman of the City Lands Committee, was sure the court would endorse the action that had been taken by the Lord Mayor. (Hear, hear.) The metropolis, and indeed all England, had been for weeks past shocked at the particulars of outrages of a horrible character, and he could assure the public that no stone would be left unturned that would lead to the apprehension of the murderer. He moved that the proposition of the Lord Mayor, offering a reward of £500 for the arrest and conviction of the murderer, be approved of, and that the amount be paid out of the City's cash.

Mr. Alderman Cowan, who had a motion on the paper for granting £500, seconded, and it was agreed to unanimously.

At the Coroner's Court, Golden-lane, yesterday, Mr. S. F. Langham, coroner for the City of London, opened the inquest into the death of Catherine Eddowes, or Conway, or Kelly, who was murdered in Mitre-court, Aldgate, about half-past one o'clock on Sunday morning last. The court was crowded, and much interest was taken in the proceedings, many people standing outside the building during the whole of the day. Mr. Crawford, City solicitor, appeared on behalf of the Corporation, as responsible for the police; Major Smith and Superintendent Forster represented the officers engaged in the inquiry. After the jury had viewed the body, which was lying in the adjoining mortuary,

Mr. Crawford, addressing the coroner, said: I appear here as representing the City police in this matter, for the purpose of rendering you every possible assistance, and if I should consider it desirable, in the course of the inquiry, to put any questions to witnesses, probably I shall have your permission when you have finished with them.

The Coroner: Oh, certainly.

The following evidence was then called -

Eliza Gold deposed: I live at 6, Thrawl-street, Spitalfields. I have been married, but my husband is dead. I recognise the deceased as my poor sister (witness here commenced to weep very much, and for a few moments she was unable to proceed with her story). Her name was Catherine Eddowes. I cannot exactly tell where she was living. She was staying with a gentleman, but she was not married to him. Her age last birthday was about 43 years, as far as I can remember. She has been living for some years with Mr. Kelly. He is in court. I last saw her alive about four or five months ago. She used to go out hawking for a living, and was a woman of sober habits. Before she went to live with Kelly, she had lived with a man named Conway for several years, and had two children by him. I cannot tell how many years she lived with Conway. I do not know whether Conway is still living. He was a pensioner from the army, and used to go out hawking also. I do not know on what terms he parted from my sister. I do not know whether she had ever seen him from the time they parted. I am quite certain that the body I have seen is my sister.

By Mr. Crawford: I have not seen Conway for seven or eight years. I believe my sister was living with him then on friendly terms.

Was she living on friendly terms with Kelly? - I cannot say. Three or four weeks ago I saw them together, and they were then on happy terms. I cannot fix the time when I last saw them. They were living at 55, Flower and Dean-street - a lodging-house. My sister when staying there came to see me when I was very ill. From that time, until I saw her in the mortuary, I have not seen her.

A Juryman pointed out that witness previously said she had not seen her sister for three or four months, whilst later on she spoke of three or four weeks.

The Coroner: You said your sister came to see you when you were ill, and that you had not seen her since. Was that three or four weeks ago?

Mrs. Gold: Yes.

So that your saying three or four months was a mistake? - Yes. I am so upset and confused.

Witness commenced to cry again. As she could not write she had to affix her mark to the deposition.

John Kelly, a strong-looking labourer, was then called and said: I live at a lodging-house, 55, Flower and Dean-street. Have seen the deceased and recognise her as Catherine Conway. I have been living with her for seven years. She hawked a few things about the streets and lived with me at a common lodging-house in Flower and Dean-street. The lodging-house is known as Cooney's. I last saw her alive about two o'clock in the afternoon of Saturday in Houndsditch. We parted on very good terms. She told me she was going over to Bermondsey to try and find her daughter Annie. Those were the last words she spoke to me. Annie was a daughter whom I believe she had had by Conway. She promised me before we parted that she would be back by four o'clock, and no later. She did not return.

Did you make any inquiry after her? - I heard she had been locked up at Bishopsgate-street on Saturday afternoon. An old woman who works in the lane told me she saw her in the hands of the police.

Did you make any inquiry into the truth of this? - I made no further inquiries. I knew that she would be out on Sunday morning, being in the City.

Did you know why she was locked up? - Yes, for drink; she had had a drop of drink, so I was told. I never knew she went out for any immoral purpose. She occasionally drank, but not to excess. When I left her she had no money about her. She went to see and find her daughter to get a trifle, so that I shouldn't see her walk about the streets at night.

What do you mean by "walking the streets?" - I mean that if we had no money to pay for our lodgings we would have to walk about all night. I was without money to pay for our lodgings at the time. I do not know that she was at variance with any one - not in the least. She had not seen Conway recently - not that I know of. I never saw him in my existence. I cannot say whether Conway is living. I know of no one who would be likely to injure her.

The Foreman of the Jury: You say you heard the deceased was taken into custody. Did you ascertain, as a matter of fact, when she was discharged? - No. I do not know when she was discharged.

What time was she in the habit of returning to her lodgings? - Early.

What do you call early? - About eight or nine o'clock.

When she did not return on this particular evening, did it not occur to you that it would be right to inquire whether she had been discharged or not? - No, I did not inquire. I expected she would turn up on the Sunday morning.

Mr. Crawford: You say she had no money. Do you know with whom she had been drinking that afternoon? - I cannot say.

Do you know any one who paid for drink for her? - No.

Had she on a recent occasion absented herself from you at night? - No.

This was the only time? - Yes.

But had not she left you previously? - Yes, a long time ago - some months ago.

For what purpose? - We had a few words, and she went away, but came back in a few hours.

Had you had any angry conversation with her on Saturday afternoon? - No, not in the least.

No words about money? - No.

Have you any idea where her daughter lives? - She told me in King-street, Bermondsey, and that her name was Annie.

Had she been previously there for money? - Yes, once last year.

How long have you been living in this lodging-house together? - Seven years, in the self-same house.

Previous to this Saturday had you been sleeping there each evening during the week? - No; I slept there on Friday night, but she didn't.

Did she not sleep with you? - No.

Was she walking the streets that night? - She had the misfortune to go to Mile-end.

What happened there? - She went into the casual ward.

What was the evening you two slept at the lodging-house during that week? - Not one.

Where did you sleep? - On Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday we were down at the hop-picking, and came back to London on Thursday. We had been unfortunate at the hop-picking, and had no money. On Thursday night we both slept in the casual ward. On the Friday I earned 6d at a job, and I said, "Here, Kate, you take 4d and go to the lodging-house and I will go to Mile-end," but she said, "No, you go and have a bed and I will go to the casual ward," and she went. I saw her again on Saturday morning early.

At what time did you quit one another on Friday? - I cannot tell, but I think it would be about three or four in the afternoon.

What did she leave you for? - To go to Mile-end.

What for? - To get a night's shelter in the casual ward.

When did you see her next morning? - About eight o'clock. I was surprised to see her so early. I know there was some tea and sugar found on her body. She bought that out of some boots we pawned at Jones's for 2s 6d. I think it was on Saturday morning that we pawned the boots. She was sober when she left me. We had been drinking together out of the 2s 6d. All of it was spent in drink and food. She left me quite sober to go to her daughter's. We parted without an angry word. I do not know why she left Conway. In the past seven years she only lived with me. I did not know of her going out for immoral purposes at night. She never brought me money in the morning after being out at night.

A Juryman: Is not eight o'clock a very early hour to be discharged from a casual ward? - I do not know. There is some tasks - picking oakum - before you can be discharged. I know it was very early.

Mr. Crawford: Is it not the fact that the pawning took place on the Friday night? - I do not know. It was either Friday night or Saturday morning. I am all muddled up. (The tickets were produced, and were dated the 28th, Friday.)

She pawned the boots, did she not? - Yes; and I stood at the door in my bare feet.

Seeing the date on the tickets, cannot you recollect when the pawning took place? - I cannot say, I am so muddled up. It was either Friday or Saturday.

The Coroner: Had you been drinking when the pawning took place? - Yes.

Frederick William Wilkinson deposed: I am deputy of the lodging-house at Flower and Dean-street. I have known the deceased and Kelly during the last seven years. They passed as man and wife, and lived on very good terms. They had a quarrel now and then, but not violent. They sometimes had a few words when Kate was in drink, but they were not serious. I believe she got her living by hawking about the streets and cleaning amongst the Jews in Whitechapel. Kelly paid me pretty regularly. Kate was not often in drink. She was a very jolly woman, always singing. Kelly was not in the habit of drinking, and I never saw him the worse for drink. During the week the first time I saw the deceased at the lodging-house was on Friday afternoon. Kelly was not with her then. She went out and did not return until Saturday morning, when I saw her and Kelly in the kitchen together having breakfast. I did not see her go out, and I do not know whether Kelly went with her. I never saw her again.

Did you know she was in the habit of walking the streets at night? - No; she generally used to return between nine and ten o'clock. I never knew her to be intimate with any particular individual except Kelly; and never heard of such a thing. She use to say she was married to Conway; that her name was bought and paid for - meaning that she was married. She was not at variance with any one that I know of. When I saw her last, on Saturday morning, between ten and eleven, she was quite sober. I first heard from Kelly on Saturday night that Kate was locked up, and he said he wanted a single bed. That was about 7.30 in the evening. A single bed is 4d, and a double 8d.

By a Juryman: I don't take the names of the lodgers, but I know my "regulars." If a man comes and takes a bed I put the number of the bed down in my book, but not his name. Of course I know the names of my regular customers.

Mr. Crawford: When was the last time Kelly and the deceased had slept together in your house previous to last week? - The last time the two slept at the lodging-house was five or six weeks ago, before they went to the hop-picking. Kelly slept there on Friday and Saturday, but not Kate. I did not make any inquiry about her not being there on Friday. I could not say whether Kate went out with Kelly on Saturday, but I saw them having their breakfast together. I saw Kelly in the house about ten o'clock on Saturday night. I am positive he did not go out again. I cannot tell when he got up on Sunday. I saw him about dinner time. I believe on Saturday morning Kate was wearing an apron. Nothing unusual struck me about her dress. The distance between our place and the scene of the murder is about 500 yards.

Several Jurymen: Oh, more than that.

Mr. Crawford: Did any one come into your lodging-house and take a bed between one and two o'clock on the Sunday morning? - No stranger came in then.

Did any one come into your lodging-house about that hour? - No; two detectives came about three, and asked if I had any women out.

Did anyone come into your lodging-house about two o'clock on Sunday morning whom you did not recognise? - I cannot say; I could tell by my book, which can soon be produced.

By a Juryman: Kelly and the deceased were at breakfast together between ten and eleven on Saturday morning. If they had told me the previous day that they had no money I would have trusted them. I trust all lodgers I know. The body was found half a mile from my lodging-house.

The deputy was dispatched for his book, with which after an interval he returned. It merely showed, however, that there were fifty-two beds occupied in the house on Saturday night. There were only six strangers. He could not say whether any one took a bed about two o'clock on Sunday morning. He had sometimes over 100 persons sleeping in the house at once. They paid for their beds, and were asked no questions.

Edward Watkin, No. 881 of the City Police, said: I was on duty at Mitre-square on Saturday night. I have been in the force seventeen years. I went on duty at 9.45 upon my regular beat. That extends from Duke-street, Aldgate, through Heneage-lane, a portion of Bury-street, through Cree-lane, into Leadenhall-street, along eastward into Mitre-street, then into Mitre-square, round the square again into Mitre-street, then into King-street to St. James's-place, round the place, then into Duke-street, where I started from. That beat takes twelve or fourteen minutes. I had been patrolling the beat continually from ten o'clock at night until one o'clock on Sunday morning.

Had anything excited your attention during those hours? - No.

Or any person? - No. I passed through Mitre-square at 1.30 on the Sunday morning. I had my lantern alight and on - fixed to my belt. According to my usual practice, I looked at the different passages and corners.

At half-past one did anything excite your attention? - No.

Did you see anyone about? - No.

Could any people have been about that portion of the square without your seeing them? - No. I next came into Mitre-square at 1.44, when I discovered the body lying on the right as I entered the square. The woman was on her back, with her feet towards the square. Her clothes were thrown up. I saw her throat was cut and the stomach ripped open. She was lying in a pool of blood. I did not touch the body. I ran across to Kearley and Long's warehouse. The door was ajar, and I pushed it open, and called on the watchman Morris, who was inside. He came out. I remained with the body until the arrival of Police-constable Holland. No one else was there before that but myself. Holland was followed by Dr. Sequeira. Inspector Collard arrived about two o'clock, and also Dr. Brown, surgeon to the police force.

When you first saw the body did you hear any footsteps as if anybody were running away? - No. The door of the warehouse to which I went was ajar, because the watchman was working about. It was no unusual thing for the door to be ajar at that hour of the morning.

By Mr. Crawford: I was continually patrolling my beat from ten o'clock up to half-past one. I noticed nothing unusual up till 1.44, when I saw the body.

By the Coroner: I did not sound an alarm. We do not carry whistles.

By a Juror: My beat is not a double but a single beat. No other policeman comes into Mitre-street.

Frederick William Foster, of 26, Old Jewry, architect and surveyor, produced a plan which he had made of the place where the body was found, and the district. From Berner-street to Mitre-street is three-quarters of a mile, and a man could walk the distance in twelve minutes.

Inspector Collard, of the City Police, said: At five minutes before two o'clock on Sunday morning last I received information at Bishopsgate-street Police-station that a woman had been murdered in Mitre-square. Information was at once telegraphed to headquarters. I dispatched a constable to Dr. Gordon Brown, informing him, and proceeded myself to Mitre-square, arriving there about two or three minutes past two. I there found Dr. Sequeira, two or three police officers, and the deceased person lying in the south-west corner of the square, in the position described by Constable Watkins. The body was not touched until the arrival shortly afterwards of Dr. Brown. The medical gentlemen examined the body, and in my presence Sergeant Jones picked up from the foot way by the left side of the deceased three small black buttons, such as are generally used for boots, a small metal button, a common metal thimble, and a small penny mustard tin containing two pawn-tickets. They were handed to me. The doctors remained until the arrival of the ambulance, and saw the body placed in the conveyance. It was then taken to the mortuary, and stripped by Mr. Davis, the mortuary keeper, in presence of the two doctors and myself. I have a list of articles of clothing more or less stained with blood and cut.

Was there any money about her? - No; no money whatever was found. A piece of cloth was found in Goulston-street, corresponding with the apron worn by the deceased. When I got to the square I took immediate steps to have the neighbourhood searched for the person who committed the murder. Mr. M'Williams, chief of the Detective Department, on arriving shortly afterwards sent men to search in all directions in Spitalfields, both in streets and lodging-houses. Several men were stopped and searched in the streets, without any good result. I have had a house-to-house inquiry made in the vicinity of Mitre-square as to any noises or whether persons were seen in the place; but I have not been able to find any beyond the witnesses who saw a man and woman talking together.

Mr. Crawford: When you arrived was the deceased in a pool of blood? - The head, neck, and, I imagine, the shoulders were lying in a pool of blood when she was first found, but there was no blood in front. I did not touch the body myself, but the doctor said it was warm.

Was there any sign of a struggle having taken place? - None whatever. I made a careful inspection of the ground all round. There was no trace whatever of any struggle. There was nothing in the appearance of the woman, or of the clothes, to lead to the idea that there had been any struggle. From the fact that the blood was in a liquid state I conjectured that the murder had not been long previously committed. In my opinion the body had not been there more than a quarter of an hour. I endeavoured to trace footsteps, but could find no trace whatever. The backs of the empty houses adjoining were searched, but nothing was found.

Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown was then called, and deposed: I am surgeon to the City of London Police. I was called shortly after two o'clock on Sunday morning, and reached the place of the murder about twenty minutes past two. My attention was directed to the body of the deceased. It was lying in the position described by Watkins, on its back, the head turned to the left shoulder, the arms by the side of the body, as if they had fallen there. Both palms were upwards, the fingers slightly bent. A thimble was lying near. The clothes were thrown up. The bonnet was at the back of the head. There was great disfigurement of the face. The throat was cut across. Below the cut was a neckerchief. The upper part of the dress had been torn open. The body had been mutilated, and was quite warm - no rigor mortis. The crime must have been committed within half an hour, or certainly within forty minutes from the time when I saw the body. There were no stains of blood on the bricks or pavement around.

By Mr. Crawford: There was no blood on the front of the clothes. There was not a speck of blood on the front of the jacket.

By the Coroner: Before we removed the body Dr. Phillips was sent for, as I wished him to see the wounds, he having been engaged in a case of a similar kind previously. He saw the body at the mortuary. The clothes were removed from the deceased carefully. I made a post-mortem examination on Sunday afternoon. There was a bruise on the back of the left hand, and one on the right shin, but this had nothing to do with the crime. There were no bruises on the elbows or the back of the head. The face was very much mutilated, the eyelids, the nose, the jaw, the cheeks, the lips, and the mouth all bore cuts. There were abrasions under the left ear. The throat was cut across to the extent of six or seven inches.

Can you tell us what was the cause of death? - The cause of death was haemorrhage from the throat. Death must have been immediate.

There were other wounds on the lower part of the body? - Yes; deep wounds, which were inflicted after death. (Witness here described in detail the terrible mutilation of the deceased's body.)

Mr. Crawford: I understand that you found certain portions of the body removed? - Yes. The uterus was cut away with the exception of a small portion, and the left kidney was also cut out. Both these organs were absent, and have not been found.

Have you any opinion as to what position the woman was in when the wounds were inflicted? - In my opinion the woman must have been lying down. The way in which the kidney was cut out showed that it was done by somebody who knew what he was about.

Does the nature of the wounds lead you to any conclusion as to the instrument that was used? - It must have been a sharp-pointed knife, and I should say at least 6 in. long.

Would you consider that the person who inflicted the wounds possessed anatomical skill? - He must have had a good deal of knowledge as to the position of the abdominal organs, and the way to remove them.

Would the parts removed be of any use for professional purposes? - None whatever.

Would the removal of the kidney, for example, require special knowledge? - It would require a good deal of knowledge as to its position, because it is apt to be overlooked, being covered by a membrane.

Would such a knowledge be likely to be possessed by some one accustomed to cutting up animals? - Yes.

Have you been able to form any opinion as to whether the perpetrator of this act was disturbed? - I think he had sufficient time, but it was in all probability done in a hurry.

How long would it take to make the wounds? - It might be done in five minutes. It might take him longer; but that is the least time it could be done in.

Can you, as a professional man, ascribe any reason for the taking away of the parts you have mentioned? - I cannot give any reason whatever.

Have you any doubt in your own mind whether there was a struggle? - I feel sure there was no struggle. I see no reason to doubt that it was the work of one man.

Would any noise be heard, do you think? - I presume the throat was instantly severed, in which case there would not be time to emit any sound.

Does it surprise you that no sound was heard? - No.

Would you expect to find much blood on the person inflicting these wounds? - No, I should not. I should say that the abdominal wounds were inflicted by a person kneeling at the right side of the body. The wounds could not possibly have been self-inflicted.

Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston-street? - Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.

Have you formed any opinion as to the motive for the mutilation of the face? - It was to disfigure the corpse, I should imagine.

A Juror: Was there any evidence of a drug having been used? - I have not examined the stomach as to that. The contents of the stomach have been preserved for analysis.

Mr. Crawford said he was glad to announce that the Corporation had unanimously approved the offer by the Lord Mayor of a reward of £500 for the discovery of the murderer.

Several jurymen expressed their satisfaction at the promptness with which the offer was made.

The inquest was then adjourned until next Thursday.

The next portion of this issue's report from "THE WHITECHAPEL MURDER…" to "…and was speedily released." is reproduced in "News from Whitechapel" pages 116 - 117. The Telegraph then reported:

The police are still busily engaged making inquiries in order to obtain some clue to the identity of the young lady whose body, from which the head and limbs had been severed, was found in the basement archways of the new police buildings on the Embankment. A large number of constables have been instructed to ascertain what persons, if any, are missing in Westminster and the immediate neighbourhood, and this they are doing with the greatest possible care and diligence. Detective-inspector Marshall, assisted by a number of colleagues is also pursuing the search for a clue in another direction, and as already stated, difficult as the task seems, they by no means despair of establishing the identity of the deceased woman. Since the publication of the fact of the finding of the body quite a number of persons have been in communication with the police both with reference to missing friends, whom they thought more or less answered the description of the victim, as well as to communicate suspicious circumstances which they had observed leading them now to suspect that a crime had been perpetrated. Every instance of the kind is being thoroughly investigated under the direction of Chief Superintendent Dunlap and Chief Inspector Wren, of the A Division. There does not now seem much doubt but that the maker of the skirt will ultimately be found, whilst there are two other possible clues which the police are also working upon, but of which it is not advisable to give the details at present. Dr. Bond and his colleague are inclined to place the possibility of the woman's death as having occurred so long ago as August last, somewhere about the 24th of that month. Owing to the condition in which the body was at the period of its discovery, this date is, of course, more or less conjectural.

Should the murderer again attempt to give effect to his infamous designs in the Whitechapel district he will require, in the interests of his own personal security, not only to avoid the uniformed and plain-clothed members of the Metropolitan Police Force, but to reckon with a small, enthusiastic body of amateur detectives. Convinced that the regular force affords inadequate protection to life and property in this densely-populated neighbourhood, a number of local tradesmen decided a few weeks ago to appoint a Vigilance Committee of a novel and interesting character. The duties of the newly-formed band were twofold. In the first place, they were to publish far and wide their disagreement with the Home Secretary by offering a substantial reward to "any one - citizen or otherwise," who should give such information as would bring the murderer or murderers to justice; and, in the second place, they were themselves to patrol the most secluded parts of the district in the dead of night with a view to running the criminal to earth. So worthy a motive they felt confident would at once command the sympathy and support of "the tradesmen, ratepayers, and inhabitants generally." Unfortunately, however, for the realisation of their hopes, experience has proved that those to whom they appealed were more ready to commend than co-operate. Excluding one or two subscriptions of considerable amounts, they have been compelled to admit that funds have not "rolled" in. Nor has the suggestion to hold a large public meeting in furtherance of the objects of the vigilants been responded to with alacrity. Yet, undaunted by these disappointments, the committee have worked persistently on. Night after night, at nine o'clock, meetings have been held in the upper room of a public-house in the Mile-end-road, placed at the disposal of the committee by the landlord, who occupies the post of treasurer. The leaders of the movement are drawn principally from the trading class, and include a builder, a cigar-manufacturer, a tailor, a picture-frame maker, a licensed victualler, and "an actor."

Inexperienced in practical police duty, the committee decided to call in professional assistance rather than rely solely upon their own resources. For this purpose they engaged the services of two private detectives - men who, though unattached to either the Metropolitan or City police forces, hold themselves out as experts in the unravelling of mysteries. At the disposal of these executive officers are placed about a dozen stalwart men possessing an intimate acquaintance with the highways and byeways of Whitechapel. We are informed that only those have been selected who are "physically and morally" equal to the task they may any night be called upon to perform. As they were previously numbered among the unemployed, it became unnecessary to fix a high scale of remuneration. Shortly before twelve o'clock these assassin-hunters are despatched upon their mission. Their footfall is silenced by the use of goloshes, and their own safety is assured by the carrying of police-whistles and stout sticks. The area over which this additional protection is afforded is divided into beats, each man being assigned his respective round. Nor is this all. At half-an-hour after midnight the committee-rooms close by Act of Parliament, and thence emerge those members of the committee who happen to be on duty for the night. Like sergeants of police they make their tours of inspection, and, while seeing that their men are faithfully performing their onerous duties, themselves visit the most sequestered and ill-lighted spots. The hour at which they "come off" has been variously described as "at daybreak," "when the cock crows," and "when the houses open." Without questioning the synonymity of the phrases, it appears that usually the volunteer policemen leave their beats between four and five o'clock in the morning. It should be added that supervision in this way by the members of the committee is not forthcoming every night. The fact that most of them are engaged from early in the morning until late at night in the transaction of their own businesses obviously renders such constant effort physically impossible. If it were practicable there are several who would undoubtedly devote night after night with the utmost willingness to ferreting out the being who has caused terror to prevail in the hearts of thousands of residents in the back streets of the district.

Although the work of the committee has not yet been crowned with success, it is claimed on their behalf that they have gained much information that may be of service hereafter. By the regular police, it is satisfactory to add, they have not been thwarted in their endeavour to bring the criminal to justice. Suspicions, surmises, and possible clues are notified to the nearest police-stations from time to time, and one member of the committee at least honestly believes that he is on the right track. Whether his private opinion is justified by fact, time alone can reveal. Meanwhile, he and his colleagues are determined to leave no stone unturned, and firmly continue to maintain that the dark places of Whitechapel demand a more thorough watchfulness on the part of the police than is at present devoted to them. They further report that the number of women of the class to which the victims have belonged has appreciably diminished in the district within the past week.

The state of panic under which many of the letters addressed to us have been written has passed into what may be called the sympathetic phase of the subject. In addition to the correspondence which follows these notes we have received numerous other suggestions that charitable action should be taken in the interest of "the wretched women of the East-end." "A Mother" would at once "help in providing refuges for houseless wanderers." "Matron" says "such refuges should be altogether distinct from casual wards, and be conducted with a view to save miserable creatures from the stony wretchedness of the streets." "An Englishwoman" points out that "there was last season a good deal of that social craze called 'slumming,' but it was only a fad; it did not go down into the gutter, or if it did, not with practical grip and intention; it ought to be impossible in a great Christian and powerful city such as ours that a woman should wander about homeless and penniless." "T. W. S.," following up this train of comment, dwells upon "the failure of our Poor-law system, and the utter inadequacy of the police relief that is given through the means of casual wards, &c.," and proposes that the "Primrose League should form out of its own ranks 'a League of Mercy,' to aid the City missionaries, clergy, relieving-officers, and police in ameliorating the lot of the unfortunate women upon whose dreadful lives recent investigations have shed a red and realistic light." The detective system of the London police is discussed by "Vindex," T. Jones, M. Williams (Liverpool), and many others rather in a spirit of suggestion than criticism. J. Morris (Manchester) believes that "the detectives of the great cities of the North are a better trained body of men than the London force." "A. W." says: "We must have detective officers with whom the criminal cannot make himself familiar. We must have a body of men who are unknown, and are able to make their way unsuspected and, in fact, trusted by the very criminals themselves. It is worth while to remind the public of what has occurred several times in France, where, perhaps, the secret police is the most efficient in the world. It has not unfrequently happened that members of the secret police there, even women, have become trusted members of bands of ruffians, and have taken a leading part in the planning and preparation of a crime. At the right moment they have, of course, arranged for the capture of the whole gang, and stood side by side in the dock with the criminals unsuspected and believed to be virtually of their class, and have received at the hands of the judges sentences as if they had actually participated in the crime. They have subsequently, of course, been removed to a place of safety, and rewarded as their valuable services deserved." Several correspondents refer to the caligraphy of the "Ripper." "F. C." says "the writing is a decided Civil Service hand." "M. S." has no doubt "the writer is an American." H. E. Bell sets forth many reasons for thinking that "the man is a fish-cleaner in one of the markets or elsewhere." Henry Harrison, on the other hand, thinks the expression "squealed" points to a pig-sticker, and "Amateur Detective" emphasises the fact that "there are slaughterhouses near the scene of the tragedies, and one is a place where decayed and 'played-out' horses are butchered." Among the various "hints to the police" are many which have already been acted upon. "F. T.," however, thinks "that the empty warehouses and factories of the district have not been sufficiently searched"; and Alfred C. Calmour (Arundel Club) "ventures to suggest that the sewers in the neighbourhood of the late murders should be searched, as there is just the possibility of the murderer having escaped by them." "M. H." says: "A man could escape through the sewers to more than one place of safety, and could hide his changes of clothing on his way to and from the scenes of his dreadful 'work,' as the 'Ripper' calls it." "Bloodhound," combating the idea that the murderer is a madman, says: "I have had a larger practical acquaintance with homicidal maniacs than Dr. Forbes Winslow ever had, for I have lived with them, and I emphatically assert that this series of crimes is the work of no lunatic, homicidal or otherwise. There is too much coherence of idea, too much fixity of purpose, too much self-control displayed. Insanity has its saving clauses, and this is one of them. These atrocities are the handiwork of no individual, but of a confederacy. This explains everything: the amazing audacity, the ease with which detection has been evaded, and the commission of two consecutive murders in one night, obviously by the same agency, but not, possibly, by the same hand." "W. H.," "Citizen," and "Ellerford" express satisfaction with Sir Charles Warren's letter; but "Wideawake" is of opinion that the police will never unravel the mystery unless the Government supplements the rewards now offered by the promise of "a free pardon to any confederate who may confess to a guilty knowledge of the assassinations."

SIR - In your report of the proceedings at the Worship-street Police-court on Tuesday last, and which appeared in your columns of yesterday, I am stated to have made an observation to the magistrate, Mr. Montagu Williams, which - in consequence perhaps of addressing the magistrate, and not the reporter - has been somewhat misrepresented. The magistrate denounced in strong language the tendency to immorality and crime which the common lodging-houses of the East-end fostered, and the facilities they afforded for the concealment of the criminals and outcasts of society.

The inspector of police present made a remark to the magistrate, and I, as amicus curia, said, not as reported, that there was only one section in the Criminal Law Amendment Act which could deal with these cases, but that such cases - indiscriminate letting of beds to strangers of both sexes - could not be dealt with under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, unless it could be proved that the premises were used for habitual prostitution. The magistrate suggested that further legislation was required. That may be desirable, but does it not suggest to any ordinary observer that the same law which would prevent a travelling tinker and his wife, or companion, from staying in a common lodging-house in a "double" would also apply to Lord Boldash and Lady Nocash staying at the Grand or any other hotel? I agree with the magistrate that these houses are the haunts of, to a large extent, the criminal class, but these houses are inspected by and are under the eyes of the police.

Suppress the houses, and what becomes of the habitué? They are not suppressed. So long as the class exists they will have their haunts and resorts. You do not destroy the vermin by simply destroying their nests. Neither can you suppress wickedness and crime by driving them into holes and corners. Mr. Montagu Williams professes to have had large experience with this class of people. Suggestions from an authority such as Mr. Williams for the amelioration of the criminal class and for the prevention of criminal practices are what society is now anxiously waiting for. - I am, &c.,

London, Oct. 4.

SIR - Permit me to suggest, in reference to the tragedies that are at present occupying the mind of everyone -

1. That the idea that the letters attributed to the murderer could have been a "practical joke" or "hoax" is quite untenable. It is inconceivable that any human being, even the most degraded, could joke on such a subject. Rather, the more degraded the class, the more sympathy there would be with these unfortunate women. Besides, the letters breathe the very spirit of such a murderer.

2. It is unlikely that the man's dress or exterior is at all in keeping with his crimes. Probably he is well dressed, and his entire appearance is such as to totally disarm suspicion, otherwise women would not trust themselves in his company in the way they seem to do.

3. His letters favour far more of American slang than of home. They are the exact reprint of the Texas rough's style, and probably the Texas solution of the mystery is the true one. - I am, &c.,

Edinburgh, Oct. 3.

SIR - I am anxious to make one suggestion in the matter of the late horrible murders which, to my mind, is a most important one, and has evidently been overlooked.

Supposing this "living monster" has an accomplice (which I cannot but think he must have in some shape or form), would the said accomplice be tempted, even by the offer of a large money reward, to give information respecting the actual murderer until he was assured that a "free pardon" would be granted him (the accomplice), seeing that the very moment he gave information he might be charged with being an "accessory" both before and after the fact?

The Home Secretary has stated that he does not see his way clear to offer on the part of the Government a money reward, but I question whether he would not be prepared to concede this point if his attention were drawn to it. - I am, Sir, yours obediently,

London, Oct. 4.

SIR - A letter in your columns to-day has expressed thoughts which have been for some days in my mind. Your correspondent points out the ease with which an immense sum was contributed by the Women of England for a Jubilee offering. Also the urgent need of a night shelter for those unfortunate ones in the East-end, who cannot afford the price of a night's lodging, and are therefore forced to buy a few hours rest with the wages of sin.

I feel sure most Englishwomen's hearts burn with shame for these poor unfortunates; but they would gladly stretch out a hand to raise and help them, if they only saw a way of doing so. Were the women of London appealed to they would eagerly contribute towards a scheme for helping their fallen sisters. What is wanted is someone to set the ball a-rolling, and the women of London will not let it stop until sufficient means have been raised for building and placing on a working basis this much-needed refuge.

Is there no one in London capable of starting such a scheme and of bringing the matter to a successful issue? - I am, Sir, yours obediently,

Kensington, Oct. 3.

SIR - I am requested by the committee of the Leavesden Asylum to advert to the letter signed "X" in your issue of this date, respecting the escape of a patient from this asylum some twelve months ago, and to forward you the following certificate respecting the condition of the patient prior to and at the time of his escape from the asylum.

Oct. 3, 1888.

"The patient who escaped from this institution whilst out with a walking party on Sept. 16, 1887, was, during his residence here, perfectly quiet and harmless, and certainly had no homicidal tendency. - H. CASE, Medical Superintendent."

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

SIR - What we really need in the detective service, is a staff of men selected more for their brain power and ability to meet cunning with cunning, than for their height and chest measurement. We want a detective force whose members shall be unknown except to a few superiors, and shall be trained to patiently investigate and follow up criminals, something after the manner of Lecoeqs and Pinkertons, and who shall be selected without reference to their physical development; the only qualification needed being brains and ability to use them. A body of men such as this, unhampered by red tape, would do more to rid the metropolis of crime than double our present automaton militarised police force. - I am, Sir, yours faithfully,

London, Oct. 3.

SIR - According to the account of the Mitre-square murder in your paper of yesterday's date I understand this poor woman, who was so brutally mutilated in the early hours of Sunday morning last, was arrested for drunkenness on the previous evening, taken to Bishopsgate Police-station, and retained there until one o'clock in the morning, and then sent out into the streets. What for, but to be driven to and fro by the police?

Such treatment as this is inhuman to the very extreme. Here is a poor woman, with no friends and no home, sent adrift at an early hour in the morning, and barely twenty minutes after is led to the slaughter by a fiend.

If it had been a respectable person, who had taken an extra glass, she would have been retained until about eight or nine o'clock, and fined for being drunk and incapable. But in this case it is a poor creature without a cent in her pocket towards payment of a fine, and she must suffer, being sent away immediately she is sober.

If she had been retained like a respectable person would have been, she could not have met with her death.

Would to God these poor creatures were treated kindly on every hand, and pointed to Christ, which is the only way to check them in their downward walk in life. - Yours, &c.,

Leyton, Oct. 4.

SIR - The recent dreadful crimes in London must have filled every heart with pity and sorrow for the poor forlorn outcasts of the East-end of our beloved city. Poor creatures, whose history shows them to have been at one time in quite respectable positions, but have most surely sunk to the lowest depths through that great curse - drink. Here in the North one hears nothing but pity and indignation that such a state should exist, while subscriptions are being continually raised for foreigners in distress. Is it not time something was done to help the poor creatures in our cities, and let them know they are not so utterly God-forsaken as one of your correspondents feelingly remarks? It was while seeking a shelter that these poor lost sheep have met their deaths. I am sure if a fund were opened every woman in England would gladly and thankfully offer their mite to help our poor and fallen sisters to feel that while there is life there is hope. If you will kindly insert this, believe me, yours,

Birkdale, Oct. 3.

At the close of his Thursday morning service in the City Temple, yesterday, Dr. Parker referred at length to the East-end murders. Replying to the question how far the pulpit was responsible for such crimes, the rev. gentleman said that the pulpit had undertaken instrumentally to convert society, and it had signally failed. Always allowing for exceptions, the pulpit was the paid slave of respectable society. The pulpit loved respectability; the pulpit boasted of respectable intelligent congregations. The pulpit had lost its hold on the tragic and impetuous life of the world. The outcasts of society turned away from the preacher as from a man who talked in an unknown tongue, and troubled himself about antiquities and metaphysics, for which the sad and maddened heart of the world cared nothing. If they looked into most of the theological colleges at that moment their hearts would ache with pity, because of the kind of education which was being given to young men - an education relating largely to ancient controversies, pedantic differences amongst men not worth remembering, grammatical niceties which affected neither the providence of God nor the duty of men - an education falsely so-called, which was rearing a race of little priests, who, having forgotten their mother tongue, had imperfectly acquired a professional jargon. Away with such machines and such machinery. What was wanted were men who knew the country they lived in, the sorrows which surged in billows around their very homes, the poverty that was completed by hopelessness, and the mental unrest which could not be touched by dead fathers or living pedagogues. Badly-conducted theological colleges were the curse of Christianity. Every pulpit in the world should denounce the crimes which London mourned, but denunciation was a poor part of pulpit duty. Every Christian congregation should offer a reward for the discovery of the criminal. What the Home Secretary was doing or thinking of doing passed his comprehension. If offering a reward for the discovery of the criminal would not detect the perpetrator of the crime, what harm would be done? But if offering a reward should end in the detection of the criminal great good would be effected. This quick murder of women was nothing compared to the slow murder that was going on every day. Compared with many who were cruel deliberately, the perpetuation of these East-end crimes was gentleness, mercy itself. The magistrates should be armed with greater powers. Nothing would really make a certain class of criminals feel their crime but bodily chastisement. It was no use trying moral suasion upon garotters, violent robbers, cruel husbands and fathers; they must be flogged. A creature in Wiltshire recently felled his helpless wife, kicked her, used her infamously; she fled for refuge under the bed, he dragged her out, tore every rag from her body, made her walk in nakedness before her children for two hours, dragged her round the room by the hair of her head until the poor maddened creature flew through the window, and the husband was sentenced to three months' imprisonment. (Shame). Church congresses and Nonconformist assemblies should suspend their sittings that these tremendous grievances might be attended to. They had had papers enough upon distant subjects, addresses enough upon things that were only in the air. What were they to do with the real concrete intolerable life immediately around them? It was in vain to meet as quiet, respectable, gospel-imbibing congregations, drinking orthodoxy to the full and setting down the empty goblet with a sigh of impious satisfaction. The devil laughed at the sacrifice, and bade the feast of wind to go on and prosper. As to denouncing the criminal, better ask how far they were responsible for his creation, by making labour a disappointment, by running profits down so small as to turn young men to gambling, by surrounding men with drunkenness and then fining them for drinking.

The Bishop of Liverpool last night, addressing the Curates' Society, said he knew East London intimately, and clergymen in that district, and could quite understand such tragedies as had horrified the Christian world taking place. Men were there living little better than beasts, and the state of that district illustrated the opinion of an old divine that if man was left to himself he was half-devil, half-beast. Whilst such tragedies aroused people, it brought them to a sense of what should be done for neglected classes, so that no room and no house should be left unvisited by clergy.

Mr. Langham, coroner for the City of London, opened an inquest, yesterday, touching the death of Catherine Eddowes, who was found murdered and mutilated in Mitre-square, early on Sunday morning last. After evidence of identification had been given, Police-constable Watkin stated that he was on duty on Sunday morning, and passed through Mitre-square at 1.30. He examined the corners and passages, but saw nothing to excite his attention. On his return, however, fourteen minutes later, he discovered the body of the murdered woman. Other testimony having been given, Dr. Gordon Brown, surgeon to the City Police, who was called to the spot soon after two o'clock, gave a detailed description of the injuries. He stated that the manner in which certain parts had been cut out exhibited anatomical skill, and added that he was sure there was no struggle. The inquiry was adjourned for a week.

By a unanimous vote the Common Council yesterday approved the action of the Lord Mayor in offering a reward of £500 for the apprehension and conviction of the murderer of the woman in Mitre-square. It was decided to pay the amount out of the City's cash.

Dr. Parker, in his discourse at the City Temple yesterday morning, referred at length to the recent crimes in the East-end.

SIR CHARLES WARREN'S apology for the failure of the police as regards the Whitechapel tragedies deserves every consideration. His statements are obviously just. It is perfectly true that the characters of the victims and the absence of the motives that commonly characterise murder

throw, in these terrible cases, additional difficulties in the way of detection. If murder and robbery are combined, the police obtain some light by carefully considering the circle of relatives, intimate friends, or domestics who were aware of the possession of property, and could obtain access to the house. If revenge be apparently the mainspring of the crime, some clue may be afforded by tracing out recent quarrels or discovering some older cause of hatred. When, however, a man murders four, five, or six women of one class, all probably strangers to him and too poor to suggest the possibility of gain from the deed, we are confronted with an outburst of homicidal fury that affords little clue. The manner of the savage outrages supplies the only suggestion. Either the ruffian is a medical student or slaughterman expert in the use of a knife and with some knowledge of anatomy; but this suggests a wide range. The East of London swarms with Englishmen and foreigners who have the necessary knowledge; the rough, unsavoury, and unseemly callings carried on in the neighbourhood make concealment easy, while the people are accustomed to the sight of queer and repulsive haunters of their alleys and slums. Then, as Sir CHARLES WARREN points out, the wretched women who ply their dreadful trade afford facilities to the assassin. They are too poor to pay for beds; they go by stealth, lest a policeman should catch them, to the dark corners of lonely yards or lanes; accustomed to violent company, they are not on their guard against assault, and the wages of their sin is sudden death. Then we must consider the difficulty of controlling or protecting these forlorn creatures. They hate all idea of regulation; they love liberty and licence; they would resent police protection. To the present day there are noble ladies and well-meaning men who invoke Magna Charta, the Constitution, and the sacred rights of woman, if a single policeman lays a hand upon the most degraded street walker in order to restrain her from the pursuit of her calling. This "liberty of the subject" floods the East-end of London with men and women who are known for the daily and nightly practice of crime and vice. Behind the impotence of the police lies the unwillingness of Englishmen to allow any interference with even the very vilest members of the community. We have practically no preventive system.

Yet one of the most damning defects of the Metropolitan Police is declared by Sir CHARLES WARREN himself. He writes: "I have to observe that the Metropolitan Police have not large reserves doing nothing and ready to meet emergencies; but every man has his duty assigned to him, and I can only strengthen the Whitechapel District by drawing men from duty in other parts of the Metropolis. You will be aware that the whole of the police work of the Metropolis has to be done as usual while this extra work is going on, and that at such times as this extra precautions have to be taken to prevent the commission of other classes of crime being facilitated through the attention of the police being diverted to one special place and object." Surely it is a most ill-judged economy on the part of our rulers to leave London without an adequate police reserve. There should be at least five hundred extra men always disengaged, and ready to repair, in uniform or plain clothes, to any district where crime had broken out. This means, of course, an addition to the rates; but when we think of the enormous wealth of all London, and the value to its inhabitants of their possessions of all kinds, as well as their personal security, no price can be considered too high to secure a reasonable amount of safety. We are glad that Sir CHARLES WARREN is able to contradict the assertion made by a clergyman that there is "a new system of police, whereby constables are constantly changed from one district to another, keeping them ignorant of their beats." This statement is, it appears, "entirely without foundation." "The system at present in use," says Sir CHARLES WARREN, "has existed for the last twenty years, and constables are seldom or never drafted from their districts except for promotion or for some particular cause." Still it is obvious that, when a district becomes disorderly or dangerous, or is the scene of a series of outrages, the local knowledge of the police should be supplemented by a reinforcement of trained men, who would bring fresh minds to the solution of mysteries. It would strike something like awe into offenders if they knew that a swarm of reserved men would be at once let loose upon their tracks. Meanwhile, we must retain the existing local system, through which the individual policeman obtains knowledge of the bad characters of the neighbourhood, and can study their ways and tricks. The habitual criminals of London are well known; the defect of our present plan is that they are not sufficiently watched, and this obtains simply because the ordinary patrolling duty of the police over the miles of London streets is so incessant and so severe. It would "pay" the owners of portable property in London to organise a special corps of men, who would never lose sight of the burglars and thieves of the Metropolis, and who would lay quiet siege to the houses of the receivers of stolen goods. We watch half a million houses; it would be easier to keep a steady eye on the three or four hundred known men who occasionally break into them. In addition, if we offered handsome rewards to thieves who betrayed receivers and to receivers who turned traitors, we should destroy that confidence between the two classes which is now the basis of crime.

But the Whitechapel District Board of Works who call Sir CHARLES WARREN to account ought first to pluck the beam out of their own eye. What were the scenes of all the murders? Dark corners. And why are they dark? Because the local authorities wish to economise gas. Let any one make a personal inspection at the best part of the West-end of London at night and note its characteristics. There are plenty of mews, lanes that lead nowhere, passages and culs-de-sac, odd corners of ground. Yet almost all are paved and cleaned, and, above all, well lighted. At the East-end the contrast is remarkable. In Whitechapel and its neighbourhood there are scores of ragged corners where rubbish has been shot for years; bits of "no man's land" unkempt and unlighted. There are yards and lanes that have little or no gas. There are innumerable private spaces unfenced and uncared-for, and in all these sin and wrongdoing find their opportunity and haunt. Why does not the District Board deal with these? If the land belongs to a builder or private owner, he should be compelled to fence it in; if it is public property, it should be thoroughly lighted up. There should be in no part of London a hidden corner out of doors where vice can lurk and crime find the darkness it delights in. One good gas-lamp is worth two policemen in preventing the scandalous and shameless traffic of our streets. Then again, why should the "common lodging-houses" be allowed to conduct their business on the present system? If in the West-end of London an hotel or coffee-house opened its doors to all men and women, bad and good, it would be indicted by the neighbouring tradesmen as a disorderly house, and suppressed accordingly; but the East-end lodging-house does openly avowedly what the West-end house is suppressed for doing by subterfuge and stealth. Surely it is not interfering too much with the sacred liberty of the subject to insist on a separation of the sexes in places where all comers get beds for a few pence per night. No doubt any regulation of the kind would be fiercely resented by the wretched women and the rough men who consort with them. That is a matter of course, because they are, in many instances, wild savages who detest every restraint and abhor order and law. They require all the more an iron hand to save them from themselves. What would be the consequences of lighting up the dark corners, shutting up the waste places, and clearing out the noisome dens where these unfortunate beings of both sexes and all ages huddle together? They would be driven into decent and strict lodging-houses, constantly watched by the police, or compelled to take shelter in voluntary refuges and the casual wards. Here they would come into contact, perhaps for the first time, with several civilising agencies - first and foremost a warm bath. Kind women and judicious men would speak to them, and they would be offered some chance of escape from their horrible surroundings. The necessary first step to all reform is a rigid supervision of common lodging-houses, a stern separation of the sexes in their dormitories, and a thorough cleansing and lighting of every corner and every entry, alley, and lane. "Light more light," is badly wanted all over the East-end, from the policeman's bull's-eye to the pouring forth of unstinted gas or the radiance of the electric lamp.

The "London murders" continue to be talked about and discussed with the greatest animation in Paris. The correspondents of the principal French papers have sent over here copious details of the awful crimes, and stress has been laid by them in due proportions on the vigorous campaign which has been led by The Daily Telegraph against the astounding inactivity of Mr. Henry Matthews. One correspondent in particular alludes to the difficulty of finding a copy of The Daily Telegraph after ten o'clock in the morning, and he attributes this difficulty partly to the eagerness for information respecting the "murders," and partly to the fact that the majority of the public have joined in the campaign against the Home-Secretary. The Paris commentators on the crimes in Whitechapel expend much sarcasm on the inability of the London police to track the murderer or murderers. It would, however, be difficult for an assassin to commit six murders in quick succession in one particular part of Paris, and there is no locality in this Metropolis which contains such a vast network of small streets, squares, and "slums" as that gigantic hive of humanity the East-end of London. Moreover, the limiers or "detectives of the Sûreté" have a better machinery at hand for the detection of crime than the experts of Scotland-yard. Nevertheless they too have frequently been baffled in their efforts to track out criminals. The only Parisian counterpart of the presumable murderer of Whitechapel - that is to say, of the person who wrote certain letters which have been published - was a cabman named Philippe, called "Le Tueur de Filles," who was "guillotined" at La-Roquette many years ago. This criminal, however, proceeded on different lines from the Whitechapel assassin. He first embraced his victims and then cut their throats. He boasted of his exploits in prison, and said that he liked women immensely - but after his own fashion. Of late years the murders of "unfortunates" have been extremely common in Paris, the victims being of the wealthiest as well as of the poorest classes. One of the most sensational was that some years ago of a woman who lived in a notorious street off the Rue Saint-Denis, which was called rather ironically "Rue des Filles-Dieu." Some workmen were one morning passing by a house in this "slum," when on looking up at a window they saw a woman, with blood streaming down the front of her white dress, who was endeavouring to gesticulate. After having made some signs to those in the street the woman fell back from the window, and the men rushing upstairs to her room found that her throat had been cut from ear to ear by some one whose motives were evidently dictated not by plunder but by personal revenge. The Rue des Filles-Dieu had for a long time the monopoly of crimes of this description, but it exists no longer, having quite lately been pulled down to make room for metropolitan improvements. The latest sensational murder of a "gay woman" in Paris was, of course, that of Marie Regnault, by Pranzini. In that instance, however, the woman was wealthy, and the object of her murder was obviously plunder. In the case of the woman of the Rue des Filles-Dieu, as well as in those of many of her class, the cut-throat was simply and solely actuated by revenge - a fact to which the police-annals of this City will bear ample testimony; but all these Paris crimes, although analogous in some details to those which are now stirring London to its depths, "pale their ineffectual fires" before the bloodthirstiness, the atrocity, and the magnitude of the "Whitechapel Murders."