During yesterday several arrests were made, but after a short examination in all cases the persons were set at liberty, as it was felt certain they had no connexion with the crime. Dorset-street still continues to be a thoroughfare of great interest, and during the whole of the day people, who were evidently drawn thither solely out of curiosity, passed up and down the street, while before the entrance of Miller's-court a crowd collected. They were not, however, allowed to enter the court, which was guarded by two police constables.
Some surprise was created among those present at the inquest in Shoreditch Town-hall by the abrupt termination of the inquiry, as it was well known that further evidence would be forthcoming. The Coroner himself distinctly told the jury that he was only going to take the preliminary portion of Dr. G. B. Phillips's evidence, the remainder of which would be more fully given at the adjourned inquiry. No question was put to Dr. Phillips as to the mutilated remains of the body, and the Coroner did not think fit to ask the doctor whether any portions of the body were missing. The doctor stated to the jury during the inquiry that his examination was not yet completed. His idea was that by at once making public every fact brought to light in connexion with this terrible murder, the ends of justice might be retarded. The examination of the body by Dr. Phillips on Saturday lasted upwards of six-and-a-half hours. Notwithstanding reports to the contrary, it is still confidently asserted that some portions of the body of the deceased woman are missing.
The explanation given of why the bloodhounds were not used is that they would be of no use whatever in the locality in which this murder took place. Had it occurred in an open, unfrequented part, the dogs might have had some chance of success.
The police yesterday evening received an important piece of information. A man, apparently of the labouring class, with a military appearance, who knew the deceased, stated that on the morning of the 9th inst. he saw her in Commercial-street, Spitalfields (near where the murder was committed), in company with a man of respectable appearance. He was about 5 ft. 6 in. 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 a black necktie, in which was affixed a horse-shoe pin. He wore a pair of dark gaiters with light buttons, over button boots, and displayed from his waistcoat a massive gold chain. His appearance contrasted so markedly with that of the woman that few people could have failed to remark them at that hour of the morning. This description, which confirms that given by others of the person seen in company with the deceased on the morning she was killed, is much fuller in detail than that hitherto in the possession of the police.
Yesterday morning Dr. Roderick M'Donald, M.P., coroner for North-East Middlesex, opened the inquiry into the cause of death of Mary Jane Kelly, the young woman who was found dead and horribly mutilated on Friday morning last, at a house in Miller's-court, Dorset-street, Whitechapel. The inquiry took place at the Shoreditch Town-hall. Great interest was manifested in the proceedings by the crowds which had assembled both inside and outside the hall. Some little difficulty arose at the outset, one of the jurymen objecting to be summoned, as, he contended, the death did not take place in Shoreditch, but in the adjoining parish of Whitechapel. The CORONER said he was quite aware what jurisdiction he had. The jury had no business to object on the ground mentioned, and if the objection was persisted in, he should know how to act. He was not going to discuss the matter of jurisdiction with the jury at all. The body lay in his district, and he should have to conduct the inquiry.
The jury proceeded to the mortuary at the rear of Shoreditch Church to view the body, afterwards, by the coroner's directions, visiting the scene of the crime. They were absent nearly an hour.
Superintendent Arnold and Inspectors F. G. Abberline and Nairn watched the proceedings on behalf of the authorities.
Before the first witness was called the CORONER said he should like to state that it was not correct, as had been asserted, that he had had any communication with Mr. Wynne Baxter on the question of jurisdiction. There was no question whatever as to his right to hold the inquiry. One of the previous murders had taken place in his district, but the body was removed into Mr. Baxter's district, and that gentleman, of course, conducted the inquiry.
Joseph Barnett was then called, and said he was a labourer working by the riverside, and up to Saturday last he lived at 24 New-street, Bishopsgate, having been staying at 21, Ponpool-lane since then. He had lived with the deceased Marie Jeanette Kelly for a year and eight months, and had seen the body in the mortuary, which he identified. He was quite positive the body was that of the woman he lived with. Kelly was her maiden name. He had lived with her at 13 room in Miller's Court about eight months, and ceased to live with her on October 30, because she insisted on taking in a woman of immoral character. It was not because he was out of work that he ceased to live with her. He last saw her alive about 7:30 on Thursday evening, when they were on friendly terms. She was quite sober at the time and did not have anything to drink with witness. Deceased occasionally got drunk, but generally speaking she was sober when she lived with him. She had told him several times that she was born in Limerick, but removed to Wales when quite young. Witness could not say whether it was at Carnarvon or Carmarthen that she lived, but her father was employed at some ironworks. She also told witness that she had a sister who resided with her aunt and followed a respectable calling. She had six brothers and sisters, one of the former being in the army. She told him she had married a collier named Davis in Wales when she was 16 years of age, and lived with him until he was killed in an explosion a year or two afterwards. After her husband's death she went to Cardiff with a cousin and came to London about four years ago. She lived at a gay house in the West-end for a short time, and then went to France with a gentleman, but did not like it and soon returned to London, living in Ratcliff-highway, near the gasworks, with a man named Morganstone. She afterwards lived with a mason named Joseph Fleming somewhere in Bethnal Green. Deceased told witness all her history while she lived with him. Witness picked her up in Spitalfields on a Friday night and made an appointment to meet her the next day, when they agreed to live together, and they had done so ever since. He did not think deceased feared anyone in particular, but she used to ask witness to read to her about the murders. She occasionally quarrelled with witness, but not often, and seldom with anybody else.
Thomas Bowyer said he resided at 37, Dorset-street and acted as servant to Mr. M'Carthy, the owner of a chandler's shop at 27, Dorset-street. About 10:45 on Friday morning he was directed by M'Carthy to go to deceased's room for the rent. Witness knew the deceased only as Mary Jane. He knocked at the door, but did not receive an answer. He knocked again, but still no answer was returned, and he then went round the corner where there was a broken pane of glass in the window.
Inspector Ledger, G Division, here handed in a plan of the premises, which was shown to the witness, who indicated the window he referred to.
Continuing his evidence, the witness said there was a curtain before the window, which he pulled aside and looked in. The first thing he observed was what appeared to be two pieces of flesh lying on the table in front of the bedstead. The second time he looked in he saw a body lying on the bed and blood on the floor. He immediately returned to Mr. M'Carthy and told him what he had seen. Mr. M'Carthy exclaimed "Good God, do you mean that Harry?" Mr. M'Carthy went and looked through the window, and then they both went to the police-station and told what they had seen. At that time no other persons in the court knew what had occurred. He returned to the room with Inspector Beck. He last saw deceased alive on Wednesday last in the court and spoke to her. He had seen deceased under the influence of drink once; and he was acquainted with the last witness, Joe Barnett.
John M'Carthy [McCarthy] said he was a grocer and lodging-house keeper at 27, Dorset-street. On Friday morning about half-past 10 he sent the last witness to No. 13 room in Miller's-court to call for the rent. He returned in about five minutes and told witness that as he could not get an answer to his knock he looked through the window and saw a lot of blood. Witness went to the room and looked through the window and saw the body. When he recovered from the shock the site gave him he went for the police. He knew the deceased, and, having seen the body, he had no doubt about her identity. At the police-station he saw Inspector Beck, who went back to the house with him. Deceased had lived in that room for about 10 months with the man Joe. He did not know whether they were married or not. A short time ago they had a row and the windows were broken. Deceased was supposed to pay 4s. 6d. per week for the room, but she was £1 9s. in arrear. Everything in the room, including the bed clothing, belonged to witness. He had often seen the deceased the worse for drink, and when she was in liquor she was very noisy; otherwise she was a very quiet woman.
Mary Ann Cox said she resided at the last house at the top of Miller's-court. She was a widow and got her living on the streets. She last saw deceased alive about a quarter to 12 on Thursday night. Deceased was very much intoxicated at the time and was with a short, stout man, shabbily dressed, with a round billycock hat on. He had a can of beer in his hand. He had a blotchy face and a heavy carrotty moustache. Witness followed them into the court and said goodnight to the deceased, who replied, "Good night; I am going to sing." The door was shut and witness heard the deceased singing, "Only a violet I plucked from mother's grave." Witness went to her room and remained there about a quarter of an hour, and then went out. Deceased was still singing at that time. It was raining, and witness returned home at 3:10 a.m., and the light in deceased's room was then out and there was no noise. Witness could not sleep, and heard a man go out of the court about a quarter past 6. It might have been a policeman for all witness knew. The man she saw with the deceased was short and stout. All his clothes were dark and he appeared to be between 35 and 36 years of age. She would know the man again if she saw him.
Elizabeth Prater, a married woman, living apart from her husband, said she occupied No. 20 room, Miller's-court, her room being just over that occupied by the deceased. If deceased moved about in her room much witness could hear her. Witness lay down on her bed on Thursday night or Friday morning about 1:30 with her clothes on, and fell asleep directly. She was disturbed during the night by a kitten in the room. That would be about half-past 3 or 4 o'clock. She then distinctly heard in a low tone and in a woman's voice a cry of "Oh! murder." The sound appeared to proceed from the court and near where witness was. She did not take much notice of it, however, as they were continually hearing cries of murder in the court. She did not hear it a second time, neither did she hear a sound of falling, and she dropped off to sleep again and did not wake until 5 o'clock. She then got up and went to the Five Bells publichouse and had some rum. She did not see any strangers in the publichouse. She was quite sure there was no singing in deceased's room after 1:30 that morning, or she would have heard it.
Caroline Maxwell, of 14, Dorset-street, wife of Henry Maxwell, a lodging-house deputy, said she had known the deceased about four months, and she also knew Joe Barnett. The deceased was a young woman who did not associate much with strangers, and witness had only spoken to her twice. On Friday morning between 8 and 8:30 she saw the deceased at the corner of Miller's-court. She was quite sure it was the deceased, and was certain about the time because it was the time her husband left off work. It being an unusual thing to see the deceased about so early, witness spoke to her and asked her to have a drink. Deceased refused, saying she was very ill and had just had a half-pint of ale, which she brought up again. Witness left her saying she could pity her feeling. On returning half an hour later witness saw the deceased standing outside the Britannia publichouse, talking to a man. That would be between 8 and 9 o'clock on Friday morning. She could not give any description of the man deceased was with because they were some distance off. She did not pass them, as she came from the other end of the court. She was quite positive it was the deceased, but could not describe the man. He was not a tall man. Deceased had on a dark skirt, velvet bodice, and maroon shawl.
Sarah Lewis, a laundress, of 24, Great Pearl-street, Spitalfields, said she went to the house of Mrs. Keyler, in Miller's-court, on Friday morning about 2:30, and saw a man standing at the lodging-house door by himself. He was stout, but not very tall, and had on a wideawake hat. Witness did not take any notice of his clothes. She did not hear any noise as she went down the court, but about 3:30, when she was in Mrs. Keyler's house, she heard a woman cry "Murder." As it was not repeated, she did not take any further notice of it. On Wednesday evening, as she was going along Bethnal-green-road with another woman, they were accosted by a man who was carrying a black bag, and who asked one of them to follow him into a court. They became alarmed and refused to do so. He was not a tall man. He had a black moustache and was very pale. He had on a round hat, a brown overcoat, a black undercoat, and "pepper and salt" trousers. Witness could not say where he went to, but on Friday morning about 2:30 she saw him again, speaking to a woman in Commercial-street, but he was dressed a little differently.
The CORONER said he proposed at that stage to take, briefly, the evidence of the doctor. They could not go into all the particulars at that stage.
Dr. George Bagster Phillips said, - I reside at 2, Spital-square, and am divisional surgeon to the H Division of police. I was called by the police on Friday morning about 11 o'clock and proceeded to Miller's-court, which I entered at 11:15. I went to the room door leading out of the passage running at the side of 26, Dorset-street. There were two windows to the room. I produce a photograph which will enable you to see exactly the position. Two panes in the window nearest to the passage were broken, and finding the door locked I looked through the lower of the broken panes and satisfied myself that the mutilated corpse lying on the bed was not in need of any immediate attention from me. I also came to the conclusion that there was nobody else upon the bed or within view to whom I could render any professional assistance. Having ascertained that probably it was advisable that no entrance should be made into the room at that time, I remained until about 1:30, when the door was broken open, by M'Carthy I believe. I know he was waiting with a pickaxe to break open the door, and I believe he did it. The direction to break open the door was given by Superintendent Arnold. I prevented its being opened before. I may mention that when I arrived in the yard the premises were in charge of Inspector Beck. On the door's being forced open it knocked against the table. The table I found close to the left-hand side of the bedstead, and the bedstead was close up against the wooden partition. The mutilated remains of a female were lying two-thirds over towards the bedstead nearest to the door. She had only her chemise on, or some under linen garment. I am sure the body had been removed subsequent to the injury which caused her death from that side of the bedstead which was nearest to the wooden partition, because of the large quantity of blood under the bedstead and the saturated condition of the palliasse and the sheet at the corner nearest the partition. The blood was produced by the severance of the carotid artery, which was the immediate cause of death. This injury was inflicted while deceased was lying at the right side of the bedstead.
The CORONER said it would not be necessary for the doctor to go into any further particulars then. If it was necessary they could recall him at a subsequent period.
After a short adjournment, Julia van Teurney, a laundress, of No. 1 room, Miller's-court, was called, and said she knew the deceased and Joseph Barnett. They appeared to live together very quietly, and Joe would not allow the deceased to go on the streets. She occasionally got too much to drink. She told witness that she had another man, named Joe also, of whom she appeared to be very fond. Witness believed this second Joe was a costermonger. She last saw the deceased alive about 10 o'clock on Thursday morning. Witness slept in the court that night, retiring to bed about 8 o'clock. She could not sleep, but did not hear any noise in the court during the night. She did not hear the deceased singing during the night.
Maria Harvey, No. 3, New-court, Dorset-street, said she knew the deceased, Mary Jane Kelly. Witness slept with the deceased on Monday and Tuesday nights. They were together on Thursday afternoon, and witness was in the deceased's room when Joe Barnett called. Witness left the house on Thursday evening, leaving several articles in the deceased's care, including sheets, an overcoat and a bonnet. She had not seen any of the articles except the overcoat since. The deceased and witness were great friends, but the deceased never said anything to witness about being afraid of a man.
Inspector Walter Beck, H Division, said on Friday morning he was called to the house and ascertained what had occurred. He did not give orders to force the door, but sent for the doctor, and gave orders that no one should be allowed to leave the court. He did not know whether the deceased was known to the police.
Frederick G. Abberline, detective-inspector, Scotland-yard, having charge of this case, said he arrived at Miller's-court about 11:30 on Friday. He did not break open the door as Inspector Beck told him that the bloodhounds had been sent for and were on the way, and Dr. Phillips said it would be better not to break open the door until the dogs arrived. At 1:30 Superintendent Arnold arrived, and said the order for the dogs had been countermanded, and he gave orders to force the door. Witness had seen the condition of the room through the window. He examined the room after the door had been forced. From the appearance of the grate it was evident a very large fire had been kept up. The ashes had since been examined, and it was evident that portions of a woman's clothing had been burnt. It was his opinion that the clothes had been burnt to enable the murderer to see what he was about. There were portions of a woman's skirt and the rim of a hat in the grate. An impression had got abroad that the murderer had taken the key of the room away, but that was not so, as Barnett had stated that the key had been lost some time ago, and when they desired to get into the room they pushed back the bolt though the broken window.
The CORONER said that was all the evidence he proposed to take that day. He did not know whether the jury considered they had had enough evidence to enable them to return a verdict. All they had to do was to ascertain the cause of death, leaving the other matters in the hands of the police.
The Foreman said the jury considered they had heard enough to guide them to a decision, and they desired to return a verdict of "Wilful murder against some person or persons unknown."
It will be remembered that, at Sir Charles Warren's request, Mr. Brough, the well-known bloodhound breeder of Scarborough, was communicated with shortly after the Mitre-square and Berner-street tragedies, and asked to bring a couple of trained hounds up to London for the purpose of testing their capabilities in the way of following the scent of a man. The hounds were name Burgho and Barnaby, and in one of the trials Sir Charles Warren himself acted as the quarry and expressed satisfaction at the result. Arrangements were made for the immediate conveyance of the animals to the spot in the event of another murder occurring, and in order to facilitate matters Mr. Brough, who was compelled to return to Scarborough, left the hounds in the care of Mr. Taunton of 8, Doughty-street, who is a friend of his. Mr. Taunton, who is a high authority on matters appertaining to the larger breeds of dogs, has ample accommodation in the rear of his residence for kennelling such valuable animals, and he was accordingly entrusted with their custody pending the conclusion of the negotiations which had been opened for the ultimate purchase of the dogs. Sir Charles Warren, however, it is said, would not give any definite assurance on the point, and the result was Mr. Brough insisted on resuming possession of the animals. Mr. Taunton has made the following statement:- After the trial in Regent's Park Burgho was sent to Brighton, where he had been entered for the show, which lasted three days. In the meantime Barnaby remained in my care. Burgho would have been sent back to me, but as Mr. Brough could not get anything definite from Sir Charles Warren, he declined to do so, and wrote asking me to return Barnaby. I did not do so at first, but, acting on my own responsibility, retained possession of the dog for some time longer. About a fortnight ago I received a telegram from Leman-street Police-station asking me to bring up the hounds. It was then shortly after noon, and I took Barnaby at once. On arrival at the station I was told by the superintendent that a burglary had been committed about 5 o'clock that morning in Commercial-street, and I was asked to attempt to track the thief by means of the dog. The police admitted that since the burglary they had been all over the premises. I pointed out the stupidity of expecting a dog to accomplish anything under such circumstances and after such a length of time had been allowed to elapse, and took the animal home. I wrote telling Mr. Brough of this and he wired insisting that the dog should be sent back at once, as the danger of its being poisoned, if it were known that the police were trying to track burglars by its aid, was very great, and Mr. Brough had no guarantee against any pecuniary loss he might suffer in the event of the animal's being maltreated. Therefore, there has not been a "police bloodhound" - that is to say, a trained hound, in London for the past fortnight. The origin of the tale regarding the hounds being lost at Tooting while being practiced in tracking a man I can only account for in the following way. I had arranged to take Barnaby out to Hemel Hempstead to give the hound some practice. The same day a sheep was maliciously killed on Tooting-common, and the police wired to London asking that the hounds might be sent down. I was then some miles away from London with Barnaby, and did not get the telegram until my return, late in the evening. Somebody doubtless remarked that the hounds were missing, meaning that they did not arrive when sent for, and this was magnified into a report that they had been lost. At the time Burgho was at Scarborough. Under the circumstances in which the body of Mary Ann Kelly [sic] was found I do not think bloodhounds would have been of any use. It was then broad daylight and the streets crowded with people. The only chance the hounds would have would be in the event of a murdered body being discovered, as the others were, in the small hours of the morning, and being put on the trail before many people were about.
As will be seen from our Parliamentary report, Sir Charles Warren tendered his resignation on Thursday last. A News Agency learns on the highest authority that the relations between Sir Charles Warren and the Home Office have for some time been strained. The action of the department in reference to the resignation of Mr. Monro caused the first serious difference of opinion. Sir Charles took exception to certain of the methods of the Assistant-Commissioner, and he intimated to Mr. Matthews that either he or Mr. Monro must resign. A few days afterwards Mr. Monro's resignation was announced. Sir Charles complains that this was accepted without consultation with him, and that prior to the Home Secretary's statement in the House of Commons last evening he was not even aware of the reason assigned by his subordinate for severing his connexion with Scotland-yard. Since Mr. Monro's transference to the Home Office matters have become worse. Sir Charles complains that, whereas he has been saddled with all the responsibility, he has had no freedom of action, and in consequence his position has become daily more unbearable. Although Mr. Monro has been no longer in evidence at Whitehall-place, he has to all intents and purposes retained control of the Criminal Investigation Department. Indeed, it was added, Mr. Matthews last evening admitted that he was deriving the benefit of the advice of Mr. Monro in matters relating to crime, and was in communication with him at the present time on the subject of the organization of the detective staff. This division of authority Sir Charles Warren has strenuously fought against. He maintains that if the Commissioner is to be responsible for the discipline of the force, instructions should be given to no department without his concurrence. Latterly, in spite of the remonstrances of Sir Charles Warren, the control of the Criminal Investigation Department has been withdrawn more and more from Whitehall-place. Every morning for the last few weeks there has been a protracted conference at the Home Office between Mr. Monro, Mr. Anderson, and the principal detective inspectors, and the information furnished to the Commissioner in regard to these conferences has been, he states, of the scantiest character. These facts will explain how, apart from any other consideration, it was impossible for Sir Charles Warren, holding the views he did in regard to the functions of the Commissioner, to continue in command. The reproof of the Home Secretary last week in reference to the article in Murray's Magazine completed the rupture. Sir Charles thereupon took counsel with his friends and immediately tendered his resignation to the Home Secretary. Yesterday morning his books and papers were removed from the Commissioner's office, and this was the first intimation in Whitehall-place that he had relinquished the position. In the lobby last evening Mr. Monro was looked upon as the most likely person to be selected to succeed Sir C. Warren. It was pointed out that the resignation of Sir Charles Warren practically arose out of a difference of opinion with Mr. Monro, and that, inasmuch as Mr. Monro, though nominally shelved, had really gained the day, therefore it was only natural that he should resume control of the force, and develop the system of administration, the proposition of which led to his transference to the Home Office. On the other hand, it is believed in some quarters that the present opportunity will be seized to emphasize the distinction between the Criminal Investigation Department and the ordinary members of the force to which Sir Charles Warren takes exception, in which case a provincial chief constable, who has attracted much notice for his successful organization and disciplinary tact, is mentioned as the probable head of the "uniform" police, with Mr. Monro at the head of the detective branch, as an independent branch of the force.
In reply to a question, the HOME SECRETARY announced yesterday, in the House of Commons, that SIR CHARLES WARREN tendered his resignation on Thursday last, and that it has been accepted by the Government. The loud Opposition cheers that followed this announcement were undoubtedly prompted by a recollection of the important services rendered by SIR CHARLES WARREN to the Government upon a critical occasion, rather than by dispassionate solicitude for the efficiency of the police. They may serve to remind Ministers that, whatever may be the merits of the disputes that have involved SIR CHARLES WARREN'S retirement, the net result to them is the loss of a valuable servant. It has been tolerably well known for some time that the relations between SIR CHARLES WARREN and his official chief have not been of an entirely pleasant or harmonious nature. For the beginning of discord we should probably have to go back to the Trafalgar-square riots, when SIR CHARLES WARREN clearly knew his own mind, and how to carry out a definite policy, while MR. MATTHEWS as evidently did not know his own mind and showed no capacity for action. A rupture might, however, have been avoided had nothing occurred to throw an exceptional strain upon the department. But the series of brutal and mysterious murders in Whitechapel concentrated public attention upon the constitution and management of the police and detective forces. The defects of a faulty organization were dragged into daylight, and the men responsible for the time being came in for the severe criticism which ought in justice to have been bestowed upon their predecessors and upon the public which had long acquiesced in what is now unsparingly condemned. SIR CHARLES WARREN in particular was held responsible for the failures of the Criminal Investigation Department, which he did not construct and which he found himself powerless to reorganize. That department is largely, if not exclusively, manned by the ordinary police, but appears to be, nevertheless, provided with a chief who has direct relations with the Home Office, behind the back of the man actually responsible for the discipline, organization, and efficiency of the whole police force. In such circumstances friction is inevitable as soon as the Chief Commissioner, either from choice or necessity, makes any sort of energetic and thoroughgoing effort after efficiency. The resignation of MR. MONRO showed that the situation had become acute, but it now turns out that he continued after resignation to advise the HOME SECRETARY, and that the control of the detective arrangements was withheld from the Chief Commissioner as completely as before. The reproof administered to SIR CHARLES WARREN by the HOME SECRETARY for defending himself in the pages of a magazine was merely the accident which determined a resignation sooner or later inevitable.
MR. MATTHEWS says that he is considering the whole system of the Criminal Investigation Department with a view to introducing any improvements that experience may suggest. This is a very lame and feeble announcement to put forth in the circumstances. The public will not rest satisfied with what amounts to nothing more than a promise of languid tinkering at details. Some new chief will have to be found for the police force. If MR. MONRO is promoted, as some seem to expect, he will either retain the control of the detective department or he will hand it over to another. In the first case, the reform on which SIR CHARLES WARREN insisted will be made the excuse for shelving him, and will be carried out for the benefit of another man who was a party to opposing it. In the second case, the ineffective system now in operation will be perpetuated, and although MR. MONRO may acquiesce in the division of authority to which SIR CHARLES WARREN objected, he will do it at the expense of the public interest. Exactly the same thing will happen if MR. MONRO retains control of the detective department while some new man is put in SIR CHARLES WARREN'S place. Most of our detectives are ordinary policemen detailed for special duties, and they cannot serve two masters. There is plenty to be said for entirely separating the detective branch from the ordinary constabulary, giving it an independent head and making him directly responsible to a Secretary of State. There is much to be said in favour of placing detectives and constabulary alike under the control of a single official who should work the two branches together. But there is nothing at all to be said for what seems to be the present system of dividing authority without making any clear separation of functions. The detectives are a part of the ordinary constabulary, but they are under the orders of a special officer who reports direct to the Home Office. This arrangement is destructive of all discipline and all real efficiency among the men, while at the same time it reduces the responsibility of the chiefs to a farce. For once in a way we may throw all the resulting inconvenience upon a public servant. But we cannot permanently carry on our business with any success by making believe that a Chief Commissioner is responsible for that over which he has no authority. We do not know whether MR. MATTHEWS really imagines that he can stop inquiry with the answer he gave last night-that MR. MONRO resigned because differences of opinion had arisen between the Chief Commissioner and himself. If he does he is preparing a serious disappointment for himself; and if his colleagues wish to escape discredit they will endeavour too convince him that the whole matter will really have to be dealt with in a very difference spirit.
The inquest on the last victim of the Whitechapel murderer has terminated like its predecessors. There is no clue to the perpetrator of an outrage which in deliberate and cold-blooded brutality outdoes even the previous ghastly murders by the same hand. Nor is there any very good ground for hoping that the miscreant will be discovered so long as he retains his diabolical cunning and nerve. His victims are so far accessory to their own deaths, and his operations are conducted amid a population so utterly careless of what goes on at its very doors that most of the conditions are wanting upon which the efficiency of ordinary protective arrangements depends. Great as are the terror and excitement in the district, they do not seem to affect the class from which the murderer chooses his victims. It might have been supposed that they would have organized some system of mutual supervision and companionship in their dreadful trade, but instinct and habit are apparently too strong, and in spite of warnings they place themselves in the power of any stranger. It is quite unreasonable to blame the police in such circumstances for failing to give protection, and hardly less unreasonable to condemn them for failing to detect the murderer. With certain qualities and certain external advantages the doer of evil deeds has little difficulty in so managing matters as to leave no trace of his identity. In this case he is evidently very minutely acquainted with his ground, he chooses spots where there is a population so dense as to render identification next to impossible, and he is endowed with exceptional coolness and cunning. It is rather remarkable that accident has not effected what is beyond the reach of calculation. In all cases of secret crime and its detection accident plays a very large part. It constitutes the permanent odds on the side of society. But nothing has occurred to disturb the calculations of this Whitechapel fiend, and so to redress the heavy disadvantages under which justice labours. The demand for the offering of a reward will probably be silenced by the explanation given last night by the HOME SECRETARY. SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT seems to have thought the matter out, and arrived at the conclusion that except where a confederacy exists, or where search is made for a known individual, the offering of rewards does no good and may do much harm. The Home Office has acted on that view ever since, and although it is received with impatience by the people who are given to exclaiming that "something must be done", we believe it will commend itself to the common sense of the community at large.
Sir, -Occupying as I do the rectory-house of St. Botolph, Bishopsgate, which is agreeably situated, with Mitre-square within easy access at the back and Dorset-street in the front, flanked by Petticoat-lane on the east and Liverpool-street, which is the focus of harlotry, on the west, I confess that at this crisis I share with my neighbours in the horror of the situation. "Our hearts are disquieted within us, and the fear of death is fallen upon us," and we ask, What is to be done? Murder succeeds to murder, and for a time we are staggered. A number of people are arrested who ought to have been let alone, but gradually the excitement passes off, the faithful bloodhounds are sent back to their kennels, the tide of business flows on, and the murders seem to be forgotten; but I really do hope that the event of Lord Mayor's day will not be allowed to pass off so quietly, and that some measures will be adopted to assure our disquietude. But what is to be done? It is not so much the murders, ghastly as they are, that sadden and appal us, but it is the awful state of things which these murders reveal-the disorderly and depraved lives which these poor people lead. What is to be done to remedy this state of things? That is the problem to be solved. Having had some experience in these matters, and having lived among these people for nearly half a century, I venture to think that I speak with some authority, and I offer two suggestions. The first is that all those women who ply the meretricious trade should be registered, and if need be licensed. I know the cry that will be raised against this, but I ask, Are the interests of society to be sacrificed to a blatant prudery? Secondly, there should be a house to house visitation, which would throw light into these bleak dwellings. As a Christian minister I should like to see this carried out by devoted men living in these districts, and by their self-sacrifice and sympathy gaining the confidence of the inhabitants. This, however, would require organization and some leader to set it on foot. I should like to do it myself, but non sum qualis eram, and I cannot undertake it. Failing this, the work should be carried out by the police-police dressed as the "new police" were when they were first introduced by Sir Robert Peel, in the dress of civilians-men set apart for the work, going in and out among the people and mingling with them. As friends they would be in correspondence with the various philanthropic societies who would render assistance for rescue and relief. Of course there will be a cry raised against such a movement, which would be said to interfere with the rights of the Englishman. Every man's house is his castle, &c. What was poor Mary Ann Kelly's castle?
However, if judiciously carried out it would, I am sure, eventually become popular; at all events the plague would be stayed.
Your faithful servant,
At MARLBOROUGH-STREET, WILLIAM AVENELL, 26, chimney sweep, Adam and Eve-court Oxford-street; and FREDERICK W. MOORE, 28, carver and gilder, Carlisle-street, Soho, were charged with being disorderly and with assaulting Henry Edward Leeke, an oil and colour man, of Gilbert-street, Oxford-street, on Saturday night. Leeke said that on Saturday evening about 5 o'clock he went into a publichouse at the corner of a street when several persons accosted him. The prisoners accused him of being "Jack the Ripper," and told him that they were detectives in private clothes, and that they should arrest him as the Whitechapel murderer. They took him outside and dragged him in a brutal manner through Castle-street as far as Newman-passage. They struck him with a stick, and he implored them not to be so brutal. They would not let him go, they said, until they knew who he was and where he had been. He told them he had just delivered two gallons of oil at 62, Berners-street, whereupon they said they would take him back and ascertain whether his statement was true. He resisted as well as he could, and they struggled in the streets together for about three quarters of an hour. Many persons stopped and looked at them, and when the prisoners called out "He is Jack the Ripper, we are detectives," they walked away and did not attempt to render him assistance. He therefore got no protection, and was shaken and bruised until he felt quite disabled. When he got near 62, Berners-street, he managed to get away from his assailants, and sprang down the steps of that house into the basement, got into the kitchen, and lost sight of his pursuers for a few moments. A number of young women were at tea in the room, and when Avenell followed and told them they had a strange man in the house, and that he (Avenell) was a private detective, they became very much frightened and screamed for the police. Avenell finding the prosecutor dragged him up the stairs, exclaiming, "He's Jack the Ripper." Madame Muntz, the landlady of 62, Berners-street, deposed that the man Leeke had been in the habit of bringing oil, soap, wood, and other articles to the house, and she therefore knew him. She sent for a constable, and Avenell was taken into custody. Leeke became so unwell after the affair that he had to take to his bed. In defence, Avenell said that he and his friends were in the publichouse when they saw Leeke sitting in a corner. He had his head down, and was mumbling something to himself. As he seemed strange in his manner they asked him what was the matter, and he replied, "Do not bother me; I am in serious trouble." They asked him whether they should see him home, and when he told them he lived at 62, Berners-street, he (Avenell) doubted it, as he did the chimney-sweeping there, and knew that it was only occupied by women. He therefore expressed his intention of taking Leeke to the house to ascertain whether that statement was correct. On reaching the house Leeke ran down the steps into the basement and shouted to the inmates, "There's a strange man in the house." He (Avenell) followed, and finding Leeke crouching in the cellar, dragged him out. Madame Muntz and all the young women began to scream, until one of them, recognizing the prosecutor, exclaimed, "Why it is our little oilman," and then they became less excited. The prisoner Moore said that when he descended the steps he tried to pacify the young women by telling them that the affair was only a foolish joke. Constable Downey, 364 D, said that he saw Avenell holding the prosecutor outside the house in Berners-street. Avenell called out, "Here he is; I have got him. This is Jack the Ripper; I mean to take him to the police-station," adding, with a coarse expression, "If the police cannot do their duty I can." Being asked who he was, Avenell said he was a private detective. The prisoner Moore ran out of the house, and was pursued and taken into custody. The prosecutor was sober, but the prisoner Avenell had been drinking. A witness for the defence was called who stated that when the prosecutor entered the publichouse some one exclaimed, "Here is a funny little man; perhaps he is Jack the Ripper." On being questioned Leeke said his name was Smith, and that he was a tin plate worker. That statement being doubted it was resolved to ascertain who and what he was; and in this way the affair began. Mr. Hannay said it was a very dangerous thing for people to personate detectives, and directed Inspector Ettridge to see whether the prisoners could not be further charged with that offence. Very serious results might have arisen out of the affair, which required further inquiry, and he would therefore adjourn the case for a week, allowing bail in the sum of £10 for each of the prisoners.
