Mary Kelly's West End Madam

I was wondering who Mary Kelly's west end, "high class" madam might be. Couldn't it be the infamous Mary Jeffries? She had a brothel in Kensington.

I not expertly apprised of your theories, Karen, but here is some info on Jeffries.

http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com/cgi-bin/res.pl?keyword=Mary+Jeffries&offset=0

MARY JEFFRIES


Mary Jeffries was an English brothel-keeper. She was born in 1854 (incorrect) and died in 1907. She owned three fashionable brothels in Church Street, Kensington, a flagellation house in Hampstead and a chamber of horrors in Gray's Inn Road. Her clients included the King of Belgium and many rich
and important members of British society, including at least one member of the House of Lords and a titled Guards officer. It is likely that she also operated a white slave house by the river at Kew, from where kidnapped drugged women were exported to foreign countries.

Hi Rhochiy:

I have always held that Mary Jane Kelly's West End madam was Charles Hammond's wife. As you may or may not know, Charles Hammond was the man who managed the Cleveland Street gay brothel. His wife was French, and in the details of Mary's past life in London (prior to 1888) she lived/worked for a French woman.

As for Mrs. Mary Jeffries, perhaps that was the real name of Charles Hammond's wife? All I could find on Jeffries was the following, and I couldn't help but notice that the attorney for the defendant was Mr. Arthur Newton. Mr. Newton was the attorney for the Earl of Euston in his connection with the Cleveland Street telegraph boy scandal.

THE PROSECUTION OF MRS. JEFFRIES.

SURRENDER OF THE ALLEGED PARTNER.

At Westminster police-court yesterday, Elizabeth Hobbs alias Travers, 24 years of age, described as of no occupation, and giving the address 39, North-bank, St. John's-wood, was charged on a warrant with being concerned with Mary Jeffries in assisting in the management of a disorderly house at 15, Brompton-square.
Mr. Arthur Newton, solicitor, appeared for the accused, who surrendered to the police.
Inspector Adams stated that when he read the warrant to the accused she merely said "It's not true." She admitted that she had passed in the name of Travers.
Mr. Partridge: That is the name mentioned in the warrant?
Mr. Newton said it was not the time to go into the merits of the case, but, as the defendant gave herself up, and it was in evidence that she was only connected with the other defendant, Mrs. Jeffries, since a very recent period, he hoped that his worship would not require what was sometimes called exemplary bail.
Mr. Partridge: I must have very substantial bail - two sureties in 200 pounds each.
Mr. Newton said the sureties were in attendance.
Bail was immediately put in, and the defendant left the court with her solicitor and friends.

Source: Lloyd's Weekly London Newspaper, October 2, 1887, Page 12

I just located another mention of Mrs. Jeffries:

THE NOTORIOUS MRS. JEFFRIES was on Monday brought before the Assistant-Judge at the Middlesex Sessions for sentence. She was convicted at last Sessions of keeping a disorderly house at 15, Brompton-square. The sentence upon her was six months' imprisonment as a second-class misdemeanant.

Source: The Penny Illustrated Paper and Illustrated Times, Saturday November 26, 1887; Page 343; Issue 1382

THE CASE OF MRS. JEFFRIES.

PROCEEDINGS TODAY.

At the Middlesex Sessions, today, the trial was resumed of Mary Frances Jeffries, 72, who describes herself as an hotel-keeper, for having kept a disorderly house at 15, Brompton-square.
Mr. Mead prosecuted on behalf of the Kensington Vestry, and Mr. Forrest Fulton defended, and called the following witnesses: -

Thomas W. Carpenter, auctioneer and house-agent, 152, Brompton-road, said that in the ordinary course of his business he had the letting of 15, Brompton-square. The letting of the house was placed in his hands in January, 1886, by Mrs. Parker.
The agreement was here produced, but, on the application of counsel, the name was suppressed of the person who had taken the house at a rental of five guineas a week.
The witness, proceeding, stated that he had again let the house to another person, and the tenancy had continued until a considerable time after the period in which a portion of the indictment against the prisoner was laid. Mrs. Parker died during her tenancy this year, and he then saw the prisoner, who came to his office. The prisoner called for the rent due by Mrs. Parker, and he had been in the habit of collecting it for her. The house was again let three months afterwards, but not by him, to Mrs. Travers.
Cross-examined: - On the 4th March, 1886, he saw Mrs. Jeffries, who said that Mrs. Parker was not paying her way very well, and she had advised her to let the house if she could. There might have been a difficulty at that time for anyone using the name of "Mrs. Jeffries" to obtain possession of a house, and consequently another name might probably be used. There was no discussion as to the advisability of not using Mrs. Jeffries's name. The rent was paid by cheque, and he had handed it over to the proprietor of the house. He could not say that he had handed it over to Mrs. Jeffries. Mrs. Jeffries might have called at his office before the second letting of the house, and told him that somebody would call regarding the house. Mrs. Jeffries settled the rent to be paid, but on that occasion Mrs. Parker was not present. After that time he received the rent monthly by cheque, and paid it over to Mrs. Jeffries or her niece.
Mr. Fulton said that he had abundantly established that, at the period at which it was alleged Mrs. Jeffries was keeping the house in question, it was actually let to Mrs. Parker.
The Assistant-Judge said that there must be a knowledge that the house was kept as a brothel, at an additional rent.
Frank Charles Campbell said that he hired the drawing-room at 15, Brompton-square, and at that time Mrs. Parker was the landlady. He arranged with her to pay 35s. a week, and Mrs. Parker was then living in the house as landlady. He resided with his wife there for three months, and during that time he had certainly not seen Mrs. Jeffries. On one occasion, at the commencement of April, he had the misfortune to have a misunderstanding with his brother-in-law, and he got his head cut. It was necessary for him to go to the hospital to have the wound dressed, and a few persons, hearing the disturbance, gathered round the door.
Cross-examined - His brother-in-law was dining with him on the night in question. He did not remember calling out "Police!" and "Murder!" His full name was Frank Charles Colin Campbell, and he could not recollect having contracted debts in the name of "Colin Campbell."
Edmund Hannay said that he was lodging at 15, Brompton-square, in February last, and was there for a couple of months. He rented the third floor back at half-a-guinea a week, which he paid to Mrs. Parker's servants. He had never paid any rent to Mrs. Jeffries, nor had he seen her there.
Cross-examined - He was not at home during the day time, and usually returned at seven o'clock in the evening, so that he could not possibly tell what visitors might have called during the daytime.
This closed the case for the defence, and there then ensued a long legal argument as to whether the evidence on behalf of the prosecution would uphold the indictment, Mr. Fulton arguing that he had conclusively shown by the evidence of the last two witnesses that the house was neither occupied by Mrs. Jeffries, nor had they ever seen her call for the rent.
The learned counsel, in his speech for the defence, said that his learned friend, Mr. Mead, was acting in the face of the decision given in a case in the Queen's Bench of Crown Cases Reserved. In the whole of the history of Middlesex Sessions no such proceedings had been adopted as those used by the counsel for the prosecution, who knew that the law was dead against him. He was relying on the prejudice which was against the prisoner and asked them (the jury) to act contrary to the law of the land. His learned friend perfectly well knew that every one of them was aware of the fact that Mrs. Jeffries had been previously convicted at that Court of keeping a disorderly house in Church-street, Chelsea, and that she had been heavily fined for so doing. His learned friend was acting in that manner because he had made a blunder. He had caused a warrant to be issued against the prisoner for a summary offence, because only recently an Act had been passed which renders the lessor, owner, or occupier amenable to the law when a house of the nature complained of was kept. It was abundantly proved that she had taken no part in the management of the house, although the persons living next door said they had seen her coming there almost every day. That might have been the case, as Mrs. Jeffries had to call, as unfortunately many landlords and landladies had to call, upon more occasions than one in order to receive the rent. The learned counsel concluded by urging on the attention of the Jury that no evidence whatever had been adduced which had shown that Mrs. Jeffries was the actual occupier of the house.
Mr. Mead, in replying on the case, said that the speech by his learned friend was very entertaining, but there was no necessity for him to boil over with anger. They had listened to the evidence, which showed the conduct of the women inhabiting the house, and it had also been shown that cabs were being continually driven up during the early hours of the morning, from twelve to three or four o'clock. They had listened to evidence which conclusively proved that the prisoner was, if not actually resident on the premises, a continued caller there for the purpose of receiving the money from the persons in charge of the house. He argued that the case mentioned by the counsel for the defence had not the bearing upon the present one which he wished to impress on the Jury.
Inspector Cronin, T Division, said that he was present in the Court on the 17th April, when the prisoner was convicted of keeping two disorderly houses in Church-street, Chelsea, and she was then fined 200 pounds, and ordered to enter into her own recognisances in 400 pounds, and to find two sureties in 200 pounds each, for her good behaviour for two years.
Mr. Fulton asked that judgment should be postponed in order to give him an opportunity of stating a case to the Superior Courts as to the admissibility of evidence given on the part of the prosecution. The learned counsel then handed in a certificate that the prisoner was suffering from diabetes, and would probably not live long.
Sentence was postponed until later in the afternoon.

Source: The Echo, Friday November 11, 1887, Page 3

THE CASE OF MRS. JEFFRIES.

Mary Frances Jeffries was indicted for having kept a disorderly house in Brompton-square. Evidence for the prosecution was given to the effect that she had rented the house, although she did not herself live in it, and that she had from time to time let it to different women, who had carried it on improperly. She was a frequent visitor, and had caused repairs to be effected. The Jury found a verdict of "Guilty" in respect of the time during which two women, named Parker and Warren, had been in possession of the house. Inspector Cronin gave evidence of a previous conviction in 1885, when the defendant was convicted of a similar offence, and fined 200 pounds and required to find sureties. Mr. Fulton called attention to the fact that the jury had come to their conclusion in the absence of evidence and not because of evidence produced by the prosecution. He asked that a case should be reserved for the Court of Appeal. The Assistant-judge said he could only reserve a case on the ground that he himself was wrong in submitting the matter to the jury in the absence of sufficient evidence. He would take time to consider what course he should adopt. Later in the day he expressed his intention of sentencing the defendant next sessions, and in the meantime she would remain in custody.

Source: Lloyd's Weekly London Newspaper, November 13, 1887, Page 4

SENTENCE ON MRS. JEFFRIES.

Mary Frances Jeffries, 72, described as an hotel keeper, was brought up and sentenced to six months' imprisonment as a second class misdemeanant for keeping and maintaining a disorderly house at 15, Brompton-square. A recognisance of 400 pounds imposed at the last trial was ordered to be forfeited. A medical certificate was handed in, showing that the prisoner was suffering from diabetes, and unable to undergo hard labour.

Source: Lloyd's Weekly London Newspaper, November 27, 1887, Page 4

PROSECUTION OF MRS. JEFFRIES.

At the Westminster Police-court, on Thursday, the hearing of the charge against Mary Jeffries, 68, of keeping and assisting in the management of a disorderly house at 15, Brompton-square, was resumed. Prisoner had been arrested on Tuesday, and, in default of finding bail, remained in custody in the House of Detention. In opening the case, Mr. Mead said the prosecution was under the Criminal Law Amendment Act. The house in Brompton-square, in respect of which the defendant was charged, was of a superior character, the rateable value being from 80 pounds to 90 pounds a year. There was a back as well as a front entrance. The house had been a nuisance for years, but a climax had been reached in August of the present year, when new occupants arrived. From the 20th of August five women lived in the house, and scenes of riot and disorder were of very frequent occurrence. He (Mr. Mead) intended to show that Mrs. Jeffries had been the tenant of the house for many years, and that she put it in the hands of an auctioneer from time to time as a furnished house. It was recently let to a tall woman, who had absconded, and for whom there was a warrant; but during the whole of her occupation Mrs. Jeffries - as she was before - was a constant visitor. She was either assisting in the management of the house, or was liable under another section for being a person who knowingly allowed her premises to be used for certain purposes.
Mr. Jesse Holt deposed that he resided at 13 and 14, Brompton-square, and was a builder and lodging-house keeper. He had resided at the premises since March, 1881, and had been acquainted with the house, 15, Brompton-square, from that time up till the present. Up till August 26 this year several persons occupied the premises on and off. On the day mentioned fresh residents came - there were three or four women, and a stout man with the luggage. The women took up their abode in the house, and the witness saw them from time to time from that date until he laid the information. They were quiet enough up till nine or ten at night, but later became disorderly. They often brought men to the house, who left at two or three in the morning. His bedroom was next to this house, and in the dead of the night he had frequently heard bad language and rows. The women had threatened to throw each other out of the house. He had heard men's voices up till one or two o'clock. Since the new arrivals came he had never slept till three or four o'clock in the morning in consequence of the brawling. Cabs were frequently driving up from 11 until two in the morning, and many times he had been annoyed by men coming to his house by mistake. After describing various disorderly scenes, the witness said he had seen the defendant come frequently to the house from the 26th of August. Sometimes she was there twice a day, and on one occasion he had seen her three times in one day. She walked to the house occasionally, but generally came in her brougham. Her visits lasted from half an hour to an hour. He had seen her bring small articles of furniture and decorations to the house in her brougham.
Cross-examined: The back entrance led into an avenue for foot passengers only. It was often used by tradespeople. He had not had one night's sleep for a month. A tall woman, who was in the house until Tuesday afternoon, had gone. He knew her by the name of Travers. He did not go to the police, because it was useless. Sir Charles Warren gave his men orders not to interfere with such houses. The witness complained to the vestry, who instituted these proceedings. Edward William Pollard, divisional surgeon of the police, who had lived in Brompton-square for upwards of 50 years, having given evidence as to the character of the house, the case was adjourned.

Source: Lloyd's Weekly London Newspaper, October 2, 1887, Page 8

Thanks, Karen. Now that I have her correct age, I was able to find her in the 1881 Census
: :

Mary F. Jeffries

61

abt 1820

Head

Female

Born Brompton, Kent, England

Chelsea

London

England

125 Church Street

Widow Other household members: Elizabeth Bromwich 58, dom servant "Mrs Jeffries was the most notorious, and the most prosperous, of the fashionable brothel-keepers in London. Her chain of establishments included four in Chelsea alone (Nos 125, 127, 129 and 155, Church Street)"Glen Petrie 1971, A Singular Inquiry Here are the residents of 15 Brompton Square in 1881 May Jameson 24 actress, Head, born Ireland Agnes Anderson 38 cook domestic, born London Elizabeth Robertson 60 cook domestic, born London Lile De Lisle 27 actress boarder, born Hereford

Now for some information on the 1885 conviction of Madame Jeffries for managing a disorderly house that catered to the aristocratic set of West London and the discovery of a sex slave trade ring of young girls sent over to France for "situations":

THE PROTECTION OF OUR GIRLS.

As the result of a conference held among the pastor, deacons, and male members of the Wesleyan Chapel, Hackney-road, on Sunday last, a large and crowded meeting of men was held in the chapel on Thursday, presided over by the pastor, the Rev. James R. Berry. Upon the platform were the Rev. T.T. Lambert, Messrs. H. Varley, Wookey, Boys, Nokes, and many others. After a few preliminary observations by the chairman, Mr. Henry Varley addressed the meeting. He said - Mr. Chairman and friends, I am very glad to be present with you this evening, and to have an opportunity of moving a resolution, expressing a feeling of shame and humiliation at the immorality and vice of this great city. I cannot tell you how thankful I was when, in New York, I received a telegraphic message announcing the recent revelations through the columns of the Pall Mall Gazette. Some of you present may know that a party of us have been earnestly working for two years to get these facts out. East and west, north and south, I have been almost through every city in this country, and during the past two years have spoken to over ten thousand persons upon this subject of social purity - upon the moral phase of this question as distinct from its criminal aspects. I rejoice very much that this matter is at last before the light. I think you will be pleased to know that as early as March of last year, I wrote in the following words: -

"It is high time that something was done to lift this whole question out of the slough of festering and criminal silence into which it has been allowed to drift. It is crushing our national and individual life to an extent that words cannot exaggerate."

Church and chapel ministers have been fearfully negligent upon the subject. They have allowed these horrible vices to go unrebuked and unchallenged. They have permitted this horrible storm to spread its withering blast on all sides, without taking any action to prevent it. They have permitted our country to be honeycombed with licentiousness. Church silent, Parliament laughing at it. Many magistrates and police winking at it. Hundreds of public halls and theatres conniving at and exhibiting it. Down at one house in the West End three women were dressed in tight-fitting clothes, so as to exhibit to the spectators as women perfectly nude. The Home Secretary knew it, and winked at it; the Metropolitan Board of Works, the landlords of the house knew it, and winked at it. (Shame.) The magistrates knew it, and winked at it - (Shame) - and when I remember we are met here tonight to record our protest and sense of shame and humiliation, I will identify with that sense of shame and humiliation our strongest denunciation of the conduct of those in high places upon the subject. One hundred and forty-five thousand women in this nation, blasting it with their immorality; millions of educated and sensual pests, breathing in the form of men, ready to support it. Such is the position of England in regard to her moral character. (Shame.) Shall we slumber while this fetid lust lies festering in our midst, and breeding a cancer horrible to contemplate? (Cries of "No!") Shall dear little children be outraged, diseased, cursed, and ruined by men who sit in high places in our land? (Cries of "No!") At any price it shall not be. By His name who has come to be the Saviour of the world, and the Saviour of the body as well as the soul, this iniquity henceforth shall not go unchallenged. Intelligent and faithful exposure of the social pestilence which walketh in darkness, and the moral and physical destruction which wasteth at noonday, shall mark our experience in time to come. We have put our hands to the plough, and we will do our best to create a strong and righteous feeling throughout the country, until these evils are blotted out. (Cheers.) I want you to understand that this vice is not prompted in the same way as a man would commit murder in a passion, but it is of long and steady growth. I want you to notice the dreadful extent of the crime of rape upon a girl of 10, 11, or even 12 years of age, and some of these rapes are committed by well-known aristocrats. (Shame.) Some are men in high positions - (Shame) - and these acts are not merely of a present growth, they represent a long and deadly career. Those of use who have been years in this great city remember the Argyle Rooms, and it is not too much to say that the legislature connived at those rooms, and the London magistrates winked at them - that is to say, they did not bring the law to bear upon them. Gentlemen, it is a well-known fact, if you do not bring the law to bear upon an evil, you practically ignore it. I am aware there are those who hold there is a great distinction between vice and crime. I know there is a difference, but I think you will argue with me they are twins, and belong to the same parent. They are so like each other that you cannot well separate them. They work hand and glove, and it is because the "powers that be" have not brought their restraining force to bear upon the moral dens, vice has been permitted to grow, until the streets of this metropolis have been literally inundated with immoral women and well-educated pests. (Cheers.) You are aware from Regent's-circus down to Charing Cross is very hell itself after night-fall. Waterloo-place is a scandal to the City. The surroundings of Leicester-square are horrible to contemplate. Charing Cross is merely a disgrace to our land, especially about the railway station, where the police wink and connive at it, and let me say, the police shall not continue to shut their eyes to this state of things. (Hear, here. A voice: "That's it, walk into the peelers!") It's a shame that our railway stations should be made the meeting-place for immoral women. As evening deepens you can observe the women nearing our railway termini, to the annoyance of hundreds of passengers who wish to return to their homes, or go into the country. It seems to me that the officials in charge at the various stations have no right to permit these immoral women to remain on their premises. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) The police assist them to an alarming extent, and often levy black-mail upon them. People say this is a land of freedom, but gentlemen, liberty means such a course of conduct which shall not injure others. I have the liberty to do in this house tonight anything which does not interfere with the welfare of my fellow men. We must draw the distinction between right and power. There are hundreds of things we have the power to do, but we have not the right. The police have the power to wink at immorality, but they have not the right. They have the power to levy black-mail upon those wretched women, but they have not the right to do so, and never possessed that right. A young man in this assembly has power to take from a loving mother's home a bright pure girl, and by spinning a web around her affections, decoy her to a wretched hovel, and there ruin and blast her moral and social life, but he never had the right. (Cheers.) He never will have it. A man has power to outrage a tender child, who has been stolen from a loving mother, and then to cast her adrift upon the world, helpless and degraded, but he never had the right. I say he never will have it. A man has power to steal, but he never had the right. (Cheers.) The Home Secretary has the power to close those houses where these outrages are effected, but he does not do so (Shame.) Yes! it stands to his shame. (Hear, hear.) I have no wish to speak against existing authority, but I tell you the time has come when I must speak out. (Cheers.) I care not whether a man be a prince or a nobleman. (Cheers.) If these men in high places lend themselves to this harlotry, I, for one, will denounce them. We have had our country cursed a great deal too much already. (Cheers.) The Press has been silent upon the matter, more to their shame. But I care not for the Press, or anyone else; there is a power far surpassing theirs - when men congregate to see right done, and if there ever was a time when men should congregate, it is now. You are aware of that notorious Jeffries case. We should demand the reopening of that case, and that justice might be done in the punishment of that procuress. (Cheers.)

The Speaker here read an extract from The Sentinel, a journal advocating social purity, in which the names of several distinguished peers were mentioned as having been seen in questionable houses. After adverting to the outrages exposed in the columns of an evening contemporary, the speaker continued - I am not going to speak with bated breath any longer, but I intend to expose those vile seducers. I know that an English girl was sold for hundreds of pounds to a foreign king. (Shame.) I have no pleasure in the position I occupy, on the contrary, I detest it. I love to be preaching the Gospel, but I tell you, I have five sons and two daughters. I feel as a Christian man, and as a father. Englishman and citizen, I cannot, and dare not, be quiet. (Cheers.) The magistrates fined Mrs. Jeffries 200 pounds. She might have had two years' imprisonment, and there is not a man here who would think that imprisonment too much. (Cheers.) Why did not the barrister for the prosecution tell of the splendid houses of this woman. (Cheers.) I am loyal to my Sovereign. I thank God for the prolongation of her life, but I am here to say tonight solemnly before God, and before you, may the day never dawn upon England, when the present heir apparent should succeed to her throne (sensation). I speak knowingly upon the matter, I hear the cry, the piteous appeal of the little children who are being outraged, perhaps, this very night, by those who occupy the highest positions in our land. Great God, what is it coming to? Here are people complaining of depression. Why, if drunkenness and licentiousness were entirely annihilated, England would scarcely be able to bear her prosperity. Arise, ye watchmen, arise! and stay no effort until these abominable evils are entirely blotted out (Cheers.)

Mr. George Nokes, in a vigorous speech, moved a resolution, pledging the meeting to assist the Government in the faithful execution of the "Criminal Law Amendment Act," and, being seconded by the Rev. T.T. Lambert, was put to the meeting and carried nem. con.

Mr. J.B. Wookey, of the Gospel Purity Association, then addressed the meeting, and stated he had received that day a communication from a Mr. Jeffries in the City, who had received a letter, insufficiently addressed, in error. The missive should have been delivered to Mrs. Jeffries, the noted procuress of Chelsea, as it was from a foreign prince, who desired a girl, whom he described, for 250 pounds. The person who brought the child to him was to receive 60 pounds. The letter contained a postscript that the recommendation was from an ambassador to a foreign potentate. (Sensation.) He (Mr. Wookey) had the communication in his possession. (Cheers.)

Mr. Stuart, a Christian worker in the East End, closed the proceedings, by an appeal to his hearers on the necessity of social purity, and at his bidding the whole audience stood, and pledged themselves to protect and shield from danger the young girls of their various districts. The meeting then closed with the Benediction.

Source: The Hackney Mercury and North London Herald, Saturday, August 22, 1885

The following advertisement appeared in the East London Press of July 18, 1885:

[img][/img]

Source: East London Press, July 18, 1885, Page 5

Inspector Minahan was forced to retire from the Police due to the Madame Jeffries case. I also intend to show how various witnesses were subsequently threatened after their testimony in the case:

A Committee has been formed to raise a testimonial to ex-Inspector Minahan, whose exertions resulted in the prosecution of the woman Jeffries. Ex-inspector Minahan, it will be remembered, had to retire from the Police through this case. The hon. Secretary is Mr. J.B. Wookey, 31, Paternoster-square.

Source: The Echo, Monday, June 15, 1885, Page 3

BUSINESS FOR THE NEW PARLIAMENT.

The following notices of motions now stand in the order book of the House of Commons for the next session. The probability is that all the gentleman named, with the exception of one or two, will be reelected:

Mr. Callan - Mrs. Jeffries - Address for copies of report of Mr. Batchelor, of the Solicitors' Department of the Treasury, who, by the direction of the Home Secretary, watched the case of Mrs. Jeffries at the Westminster Police-court on the 16th day of April, 1885; and of the report or reports made by the official of the Home Office previous to the institution of the prosecution in the case with reference to any character of the houses kept by Mrs. Jeffries.

Mr. Callan - Inspector Minahan - Address for copy of special report, T Division, under date of the 9th day of April, 1883, made by Inspector Minahan, and corroborated by police-sergeant 44, Jones; police-constables 618, Walsh; 362, Grover; and 202 Webbe, in their statements made in the divorce case of "Macintosh v. Macintosh."

Mr. Callan - Westminster Police-court - to direct attention to the reports of the police 1883, and the evidence given at the police-court, Westminster, April, 1885, and to the conduct of Mr. Edlin, and the inadequate sentence imposed by him in the Jeffries case, and to move that in view of the evidence given and the new facts disclosed in the course of the trial of the Jeffries case, this House is of opinion that an inquiry by an independent and impartial tribunal should be instituted in the case of ex-Inspector Minahan.

Source: The Journal of the County of Surrey, Wandsworth & Battersea District Times, and Putney, Roehampton, and Wimbledon News, Saturday August, 22, 1885

N.B. I wonder if this Mr. Batchelor of the Solicitor's Department of the Treasury is the same individual who, along with Charles Grande, who were of the British and Foreign Private Inquiry Agency, was the man who brought Matthew Packer to see Inspector Abberline (the only police official who could honestly be trusted, at the time.)

The Sentinel for June publishes some extraordinary particulars as to the notorious Jeffries case, which was hushed up so comfortably at the Middlesex Sessions. The names of some of the aristocratic patrons of this woman's establishment are published. If the statements made are true - and they appear to be founded on the depositions of witnesses who would have been examined, had not the woman pleaded guilty - we can well understand the eager anxiety to bring the case to a sudden end. According to the Sentinel the doors of the Middlesex Sessions were virtually closed against the public by the police, who declared that they had order to admit no one. One member of the committee only succeeded in obtaining entry into court with great difficulty, and he was the only spectator in the space allotted to the public. The Sentinel further not only declares that the counsel on both sides retired for a private consultation, but adds that it was understood in court that the Judge closeted himself with them. Mr. Besley, the counsel for the prosecution, it will be remembered, made an extraordinary speech which would have better become the counsel for the defence, in which he said that Mrs. Jeffries's proceedings were free from public scandal in the ordinary sense of the word. Yet one of the witnesses whom he was instructed to call was a gentleman who was prepared to swear that he had repeatedly complained in vain to the local inspector of police; while another witness, a former servant of Mrs. Jeffries, would have said that she left the house because of an outrage committed on a child of thirteen who had been brought up from the country. It only remains to be added that although Mrs. Jeffries has pleaded guilty, and thus in great part established the statements of ex-Inspector Minahan, that officer has been punished by being degraded in rank, and thus virtually thrust out of the service, and that his appeals to the Home Secretary for an impartial investigation of his case have proved fruitless.

Source: The Echo, Thursday May 28, 1885

N.B. I can't help wondering who this servant of Mrs. Jeffries could have been, who had information of a child of thirteen being outraged.

Here is just one example of documents being stolen or destroyed in cases which involve high profile personages. It may sound familiar to many:

EX-INSPECTOR MINAHAN AND THE JEFFRIES CASE.

The Christian Commonwealth says: - While stationed at Chelsea he became acquainted with Mrs. Jeffries, some of whose houses were in his district. The vile woman, assuming that he was made of the same stuff as other policemen, told him the nature of her business, and boasted that her patrons belonged to the aristocracy, and that the police were powerless to interfere with her. She finished up by offering him a bribe in gold. He refused to take it, and reported the matter to his superintendent. The superintendent called him a fool, and laughed at him. His brother inspectors did the same. Then they turned against him, encouraged his men to disobey him, and the reports which he had written on the Jeffries case were stolen and destroyed. In consequence of this hostility and insubordination he had to resign. This was his only chance of getting his case inquired into, the rule of the force being that resignation must precede inquiry. But though he resigned, he was, as anybody can see, practically driven out of the force. He asked to have his case inquired into, and his request was refused. Professor Stuart the other day asked Sir W. Harcourt if he would order an investigation into the facts, but an official and evasive reply was given. It is, we believe, the rule in cases like that of Mr. Minahan to have an inquiry by a Committee; so that in this case the rule has been departed from. Mr. Minahan is a badly used man. He is suffering simply and solely for his brave exposure of wrong and for his simple fidelity to duty. His pension and position are sacrificed, and it is impossible for him to obtain redress. And Members of Parliament and electors are content to sit down with this! But for Mr. Minahan we should have heard nothing of the Jeffries case, and of the corruption which it has revealed, both in the police force and in "high" life. We demand either that Mr. Minahan's charges be inquired into, or that he be prosecuted for perjury.

Source: The Echo, Thursday June 4, 1885, Page 5

THE JEFFRIES CASE AND THE DERBY ELECTION.

SIR, A challenge was thrown out in the Derby Daily Telegraph, to Mr. Varley and myself, to meet Sir W. Harcourt face to face. We accordingly went to the Drill Hall on the 23rd inst. Mr. Varley was given no opportunity of speaking, as he was seized and dragged from the platform by persons who appeared to be gentlemen. I myself was repeatedly directed to leave, but declined doing so. The Chairman announced that no questions would be answered except those sent in by electors; consequently, I did not attempt to ask any. Sir W. Harcourt stated that he took no part in hushing up the Jeffries prosecution. I beg to contradict this. Whilst the Jeffries case was pending, Sir William said, in answer to Mr. Shiel in the House of Commons, that he had reason to believe that the evidence given by me at the Police-court was untrue. I leave the electors of Derby to judge whether that answer was not intended to have a great effect on the Jeffries case, which had not at that time been submitted to a Jury. If he believed me to have been guilty of perjury, why was I not prosecuted? In answer to Mr. E.D. Gray's speech in the House of Commons, Sir W. Harcourt made the extraordinary assertion that I had taken up the Jeffries case in order to force myself back into the Police force. Is it not monstrous to assert that an humble individual like myself could take up the case of a procuress who had plied her trade for twenty-seven years in Chelsea, and who "did business," to use her own words, "amongst people in the highest ranks of life"? What was his object in saying this? Sir William further declared that I had been dismissed from the force for insubordination, which is absolutely untrue. I also beg to repeat that the usual Home Office inquiry was not held in my case. It is usual to appoint a committee of gentlemen outside the Home Office, and unconnected with the persons appealed against, to investigate such matters. I believe it is not generally known that no action for libel can be taken for statements made in the House of Commons, however untrue they may be. It is for that reason that I am unable to prosecute Sir W. Harcourt for his reckless and libelous imputations on my character. It was amusing to hear the ex-Home Secretary preach to the people of Derby on the Ninth Commandment, the very one which he had broken so often with regard to me. I quite expected him to follow it up with an exposition on the Seventh Commandment, but was disappointed to hear nothing respecting that clause of the Decalogue. - I am, Sir, your obedient servant, J. MINAHAN.
Oct. 26

Source: The Echo, Monday November 2, 1885, Page 2

N.B. I like this guy! lol

Many citizens in the West End were also outraged by the Jeffries case, as evidenced by another conference for the protection of young girls, held at St. James's Hall:

THE PROTECTION OF GIRLS.
CONFERENCE IN ST. JAMES'S HALL.

A "National" Conference was held at the St. James's Hall, today, to promote the movement for the protection of girls, and the suppression of vice. At the morning meeting, Mr. G.W.E. Russell, M.P., took the chair at eleven o'clock, being accompanied on the platform by Viscount Lymington, M.P., Mr. Stansfeld, M.P., and others. Admission was by ticket, and the great hall was about one-fourth full.
The Chairman, in opening the proceedings, said hitherto all attempts to obtain organised and public effort in the suppression of vice had been put down. The press, the pulpit, parents, and teachers had, from mistaken motives, ignored the subject. The Criminal Law Amendment Bill had passed, but that it had passed, and in its present form, was due to the manner in which the national conscience had been awakened during the last few weeks. The Bill did not meet all their wishes, but they had strengthened it by the insertion of many amendments. Their great object now should be to obtain the enforcement of the Act; and it was to this object the Conference had to address itself. As embodied in the resolutions to be submitted to the Conference, he thought this object could be secured best by the formation of a National Vigilance Association. (Cheers.) Referring to the Jeffries case, he thought the proceedings in that case - particularly the private interview of the Judge with counsel - were very unsatisfactory. Quoting from The Echo, he expressed the opinion that when such an influential and respectable journal so severely criticised the administration of justice in the case, there should be an investigation so as to vindicate or commit the guilty persons. (Cheers.)
Mr. Stansfeld, M.P., moved the first resolution, recommending the formation of a National Vigilance Association of men and women for the enforcement and improvement of the laws for the repression of criminal vice and public immorality. He regretted that he had failed to carry some of his amendments to the Criminal Law Amendment Bill, especially that to include alcoholic liquors in the term "drugs." But he had no doubt that, as a result of the movement they were now engaged in, he should succeed in carrying these amendments at a later period. (Cheers.) In the Act they had gained a great principle - that the State should no longer recognise sexual vices as a human necessity. (Applause.)
Mr. Montague Cookson, in seconding the resolution, admitted that there might be a difference of opinion as to the wisdom of the means that had been taken to promote the movement, but, for his part, he was convinced of the honesty and integrity of purpose of the editor of the Pall Mall Gazette. (Cheers.)
The Rev. Webb Peploe, while seconding the resolution, explained that the Central Vigilance Committee was already in existence, and suggested an affiliation between it and the new body proposed to be formed.
Mr. Percy Bunting having expressed similar views, Mr. H. Rowlands (Secretary of the Cabdrivers' Society) declared that the establishment of Mrs. Jeffries had existed for ten years without hindrance within sight of the residence of the Chairman of the Central Vigilance Committee. He attributed much of the vice prevalent to poverty and overcrowding. (Cheers.)
The resolution was unanimously carried.
Lord Lymington, M.P., moved the second resolution, in favour of the affiliation of all existing bodies to the new Association, and the acceptance of the assistance of all persons offering it to the Association.
The Rev. Mr. Murphy seconded the resolution, which was also adopted.
The Conference then adjourned till three o'clock.

Source: The Echo, Friday August 21, 1885, Page 3

THE TRAFFIC IN ENGLISH GIRLS.
THE CHELSEA CASE.

ALLEGED CONNIVANCE OF THE POLICE.

At Westminster Mary Jeffries, 65, widow, surrendered to her recognisances to further answer the charge of keeping houses of a disorderly character in Church-street, Chelsea. Mr. Besley and Mr. Purcell, instructed by Mr. W.W. West (Shaen and Roscoe), appeared for the prosecution; and Mr. Montagu Williams and Mr. T. Duerdin Dutton defended the accused. Mr. Batchelor, of the Solicitor's Department, watched the case by direction of the Home Secretary. The proceedings seemed to occasion extraordinary interest, judging from the number of persons who endeavoured to obtain admission to the Court. The evidence previously given is that the accused had several houses in Church-street, Chelsea, inter-communication existing for the convenience of male visitors who patronised the premises.
Although the names and addresses of well-known courtesans, who were sent for at different times by the defendant, have been freely given in the course of the inquiry, a veil has been thrown over the identity of her male aristocratic clientele, the counsel repeatedly cautioning the witnesses not to mention the names of gentlemen to whom they had taken letters, &c, from Jeffries. A very remarkable feature in the investigation has been the testimony given by an ex-Inspector of Police named Minahan, who alleged that three years ago, when stationed at Chelsea, he had a conversation with defendant, who admitted to him, inter alia, that she kept eight houses of a particular class, and that she did such a "high-class and aristocratic business" that the police could not interfere with her. Defendant also mentioned that she exported young English girls to Paris, Brussels, and Berlin, and that she kept her houses and connection as quiet as it was possible to do. The deponent further alleged that she offered to bribe him with gold, and that on reporting this fact and the purport of the communication before mentioned to his Superintendent and brother inspectors, he was laughed at for his pains, and told to be careful what he was saying.

Nellie Thompson, a young woman residing in Maude-grove, Chelsea, deposed that she attended on subpoena, and not willingly. In October, 1882, she knew Mrs. Jeffries' houses in Church-street, Chelsea. She had received gentlemen there, and money from both defendant and her servants. She met other girls at the houses at various times. She lived at 155, Church-street for one month, and made the acquaintance of from a dozen to twenty different gentlemen there. Afterwards she went to live at 70, Church-street, another of defendant's houses. She was fetched from No. 70 by the servants to other houses.
Cross-examined - She ceased to go to Mrs. Jeffries in January, 1883. She was asked to attend at the Court by a discharged servant of the defendant, named Bellchambers. He brought her a subpoena, but she declined to say what passed between them when it was served. She had taken a temporary lodging, so that her present address should not be made public.

Frederick Beales, butler in the service of the Rev. Alfred Povah, of 123, Church-street, Chelsea, deposed that this residence was right opposite defendant's house, No. 125. He had been with the Rev. Mr. Povah for eighteen months, and during that period he had seen cabs drive up to the defendant's houses at all hours of the day and in the early morning. The women who went there appeared to be of the class called "gay." They had called at his master's house by mistake, and asked for Madame Jeffries.
Mr. Williams - That don't make them gay.
Mr. Besley - They called on the clergymen instead of Mrs. Jeffries. (Laughter.)
By Counsel - He had watched from his window until three o'clock in the morning, and seen cabs at the houses.
Mr. Williams - I suppose he was star-gazing. (Laughter.)

Michael Walsh, Constable 618T, who was examined as an hostile witness by Mr. Besley, deposed that three or four years ago, while on duty in Church-street, a person resident there complained of the annoyance of cabs driving up to the defendant's house, at the corner of Elm-park-road. He had never seen women go to the houses although "he kept his eyes open." He once made a statement to a solicitor for a divorce case relative to what he had seen, but he could not now remember what was taken down.
Mr. Williams objected to Mr. Besley cross-examining his own witness.
Mr. Besley said the witness was a policeman. They knew well enough what the police were doing in this case. They were trying to screen the defendant.
Mr. Williams observed that this was a scandalous insinuation against a respectable body of men.
After a good deal of evidence as to the results of observation kept on the defendant's premises, defendant was committed for trial, reserving her defence by the advice of her counsel.

IMPORTANT APPLICATION.

A young woman, who appeared to be in great distress, applied to Mr. D'Eyncourt, at Westminster Police-court, this morning, respecting her sister, a young girl not nineteen years of age, who she stated had been sent over to France to a house of bad repute, she believing that she was being sent over to take a respectable situation.
Mr. D'Eyncourt inquired how it was the girl obtained the situation.
Applicant said that her sister was in want of a place as barmaid, and she obtained a situation at Havre through an agency in the Strand. She went over to France a week ago, in company with another respectable English girl, and both were now in danger of being ruined. Her sister had written her a piteous letter for help, which she would hand to his Worship.
Mr. D'Eyncourt read the letter, which was addressed to the applicant, Mrs. Blanchard, of 143, Regency-street, Westminster, from Havre. The writer said that after being in the place a few days she had found out it was used for a certain purpose. "Poor Sissie!" her friend who went over with her, was "crying her eyes out" because she feared the fate that might befall her. The proprietors of the cafe would not let them out, but she had written to the English Consul, and hoped that his help would be in time. At the place every effort had been made to introduce them to men. The communication went on: -

"An English gentleman came here last night and said what a pity it was we should come to such a place. He said that he came to stay with a girl, but that he could not find it in his heart to ruin respectable girls as we were, and especially his own country-women. I told him it would break my sister's heart, and he said that he was very sorry for you, and he told the woman that if we were injured he would have the place indicted."
Mr. D'Eyncourt told the applicant that immediate inquiries should be made into the case.
Applicant said she did not know what to do; she was afraid interference and help might come too late.
Mr. D'Eyncourt told her to place herself in communication today with Mr. W.W. West, the legal gentleman instructing counsel in the prosecution of Mrs. Jeffries for keeping disorderly houses. Mr. West represents the Society for the Suppression and Exposure of the Traffic in English Girls for the Purposes of Continental Prostitution.

Source: The Echo, Thursday April 16, 1885

N.B. Mary Jane Kelly was reported to have gone to France with a gentleman but returned to London because she did not like the situation there.

Readers, you will scarcely credit it - I can assure you it is no fancy - I was privileged to be allowed to take part in a semi-private meeting to present ex-Inspector Minahan with a testimonial of 130 pounds. Men and women were present who were the leaders of the movement for social purity, and were urging a reform of the House of Commons when in walked a member of that honourable body in a state of intoxication and incoherency. And this is one of our Heaven sent legislators who we ask to make just and equitable laws, and are disappointed if they do not. It was the most painful incident I ever witnessed.

The police have been showing their spite to all connected with the Jeffreys business, if in the smallest degree; and men in the cab trade have suffered. An unwilling witness in the case has had to suffer. A cabdriver in Chelsea was to have given evidence; but the plea of guilty precluded evidence. The police, knowing the witnesses to be called, trumped up a charge of drunkenness against him, got a conviction, and, although he had no conviction for nearly 10 years before, the authorities stop his license for a month, with this suggestive sentence from the pigeon-hole at Scotland-yard, namely - Are you a cabdriver or detective? Surely this is unwise of the police authorities, to say the least of it. If an inquiry is started, or a Royal Commission, something strikes me many police crimes can be exposed if but the cab trade care to turn detective.

In this column I do not air my grievances, but still one day last week a young policeman at my garden gate interfered with me, telling me to go indoors, as I was drunk. He did not push me nor accept my invite to come into the garden. But I ought to say I warned him that if he did follow me he would find that I was neither drunk nor paralysed, and that my stick was nearly as heavy as his. He turned on his heel and passed on. Had indulgence in drink been my forte, I might have been now doing a "moon," and perhaps been recognised by many companions as

GARDENER.

Source: The Centaur, Saturday July 25, 1885

lmao

The answers which Sir Richard Cross gave last night to the various questions put to him concerning the conduct of the police in dealing with the social evil were apparently of a contradictory and unsatisfactory character. In reply to a general question from Mr. Hibbert, the Home Secretary declared that if any facts were stated and names given he would take care that a full inquiry was made; but it has already been stated by those who have made general charges against the police that names would not be given; in that case there is not much probability of a searching inquiry. The notorious Jeffries trial, however, stands in quite a different category. With great difficulty this woman has been prosecuted by a private association, and a conviction has been obtained. To a large extent the result was due to Mr. ex-Inspector Minahan, who made certain statements in Court with regard to his brother officers, and who has been disgraced and virtually driven from the force. The conviction of Mrs. Jeffries affords prima facie ground for believing that ex-Inspector Minahan is an ill-used man, and that he has been severely punished for doing his duty. Sir Richard Cross, when questioned by Mr. Stuart last night, threw the responsibility on his predecessor, and held out no hope of a re-opening of the question. We have already condemned the conduct of Sir William Harcourt in this matter, but Sir Richard Cross must henceforth divide the responsibility, if an inquiry is refused. In the absence of specific statements the Home Secretary can hardly be expected to make inquiry into the general conduct of the police; but here is a case in which the statements were most explicit. What the public complain of is that the man who brought the Jeffries scandal to light has been punished instead of rewarded.

Source: The Echo, Tuesday July 14, 1885

THE POLICE.

The action taken, or, perhaps, we should rather say the prominence given by the daily press during the last few weeks, and the hasty and quasi criminal conduct of the London police, lead us to again say how necessary it is that this department of our civil life should be immediately overhauled, and that effectually. We urge this because a step is being taken that, when pushed to its logical conclusion, those who, to gain a little popularity, of desirous of enfranchising the policemen, will not, I suppose, refuse it to our soldiers and sailors. The action of the Chelsea police in the Jeffries' case, and their organised and continued persecution of all those supposed to have anything to do with the matter either directly or indirectly certainly deserves some notice at our hands. Our readers will, doubtless, have read of a Sergeant Smart and his illegal arrest of a young man whose only offence seemed that he had objected to the rough-handling of a prisoner who was to have been called in the Jeffries case by some policemen. After some trouble the matter was got over by the young man being discharged, but the Jeffries witness was fined heavily. The same police at present are under a charge of assaulting a well-known cab-driver's wife, Mrs. George Blake. Here, again, some feeling, doubtless, it at the bottom of the matter. We know how successful he was in his great case against the police and Mr. Cecil Chappell in the Queen's Bench now nearly nine years ago, and although the sense of the special jury that tried the case in the Guildhall, and the learned present Chief Justice of England was favourable to Blake and against the police, as exemplified by the verdict, still the police implicated have since been loaded with honours. The police are also aware of the fact that Blake is a distant relation to the prime mover in the bringing of Mrs. Jeffries before the courts. However, in Mrs. Blake's case the tactics always adopted when the police are complained of are being adopted. Adjournments are taking place quite unnecessarily. Thrice has the simple issue been before the police magistrate, namely, did the policeman kick Mrs. Blake or not? and yet thrice already had the magistrate adjourned it. For what purpose, we ask, and can only think of the reply that it is done to weary the prosecution by wasted time and costly legal assistance. The last adjournment on Thursday being granted on the ground that Smart had small-pox in his house and it would not be safe for him to attend the court, yet he is still doing duty. Such a case as this is nothing short of a scandal.
The arrest on Monday night of the two gentlemen outside the Criterion is again an example of the absolute inability of the police to manage these every day matters properly, and certainly a vigilance committee of inhabitants should be at once formed to act, now that the police so determinedly are moving for the power of the vote. We cannot conclude without saying that if in Mrs. Blake's case another wearying adjournment takes place, we hope those that know both him and her will do their level best to show them that they will each subscribe their mite to ensure, by legal assistance, justice being done in spite of the questionable tactics we allude to.

Source: The Centaur, Saturday July 11, 1885

For more information on the Jeffries case, click the following links:

VICTORIAN CALENDAR, NOVEMBER 21, 1887 - A FALLEN FLESH BROKER

http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://1.bp.blogspot.com/--VeuQAocHBo/TtIcVZmAjNI/AAAAAAAAAb4/lP1ZEuY9B0M/s320/21%2BNov.jpg&imgrefurl=http://victoriancalendar.blogspot.com/2011/11/november-21-1887-fallen-flesh-broker.html&usg=__Bwa7tJm5peiUMvq1LRVFU1nHsdo=&h=320&w=235&sz=16&hl=en&start=30&zoom=1&tbnid=ymP51vGC7_8syM:&tbnh=118&tbnw=87&ei=hFfyToqED-Xh0QGQuoy2Ag&prev=/search%3Fq%3DMary%2BJeffries%26start%3D21%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26gbv%3D2%26tbm%3Disch&um=1&itbs=1

HOW AN INSPECTOR OF THE METROPOLITAN POLICE WAS PUNISHED FOR FAITHFULLY PERFORMING HIS DUTY TO THE PUBLIC, JEREMIAH MINAHAN, 1884

http://books.google.ca/books/about/How_an_inspector_of_the_Metropolitan_Pol.html?id=jdVbAAAAQAAJ&redir_esc=y

THE HAPPY FOX (SCROLL DOWN TO "VICTORIAN VALUES")

http://www.sxolsout.org.uk/43.html

It's amazing that none of this has ever been investigated in connection to Mary Jane Kelly. Too much effort is still being made to distance her, and therefore Jack the Ripper, from the elite and the aristocrats.

But the truth is finally coming out.

Jeffries had a brothel at 15 Brompton Square. http://victoriancalendar.blogspot.com/2011/11/november-21-1887-fallen-flesh-broker.html

Interestingly, 15 Brompton Sq., vacant in 1881, was the family home of W.S. Gilbert of Gilbert and Sullivan.

Gilbert and Sullivan: Dual Biographies p. 20 http://books.google.ca/books?id=rnCTyQ5xziMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=dual+biographies+gilbert&hl=en&sa=X&ei=THbyTvvSOYXy0gGi9ZG1Ag&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=brompton&f=false

METROPOLITAN GOSSIP.
(FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.)

Mr. Edlin, the permanent chairman of the Middlesex Sessions, is having a disagreeable time. He has been compelled to offer explanations of his conduct in reference to the Jeffries case; and he is threatened with an action for libel by a barrister. This gentleman is said to have sent a pencilled note in court to a person who had been tried for theft, and acquitted. The communication came to the knowledge of the judge, who thought it improper, and brought it before the Bar Committee. The Barrister considers this a serious injury to his professional position, and has taken the preliminary steps in an action for libel, while the judge declares that his reference of the matter to the Bar Committee was privileged. It is a very pretty quarrel, and is not likely to have a peaceful termination, as the barrister is a determined personage who is famous for his encounters with railway porters and other officials who are in the habit of interfering with his prerogative of withholding his ticket from examination.

Source: The Putney and Wandsworth Borough News, Saturday August 22, 1885, Page 7

Well, at ten we started, and a jolly ride down we had. Many, many friends we met en route, but perhaps the most notable was young Sam Maynard and his trotter just getting into Epsom town. Sam, my boy, you should go a little steadier. I saw a "copper" look after you with as wistful an eye as the police looked at ex-Inspector Minahan when being examined in the Jeffries scandal at Westminster the other day.

Source: The Centaur, Saturday May 2, 1885