ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.

HC Deb 05 February 1891 vol 350 cc24-50

(4.15.) MR. JAMES LOWTHER,

Member for the Isle of Thanet, rose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the sentence and reduced sentence upon Walter Hargan;" but the pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. Speaker called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than 40 Members having accordingly risen:—

MR. J. LOWTHER

It is unnecessary for me to detain the House at any length in referring to the circumstances under which this case comes to be brought forward. Perhaps it will be in the recollection of hon. Members that before the adjournment for the Christmas holidays a Motion stood on the Paper in my name, to the effect that a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying her to grant a free pardon to Walter Hargan, but I postponed that Motion in consequence of an appeal from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I deferred to the wishes of my right hon. Friend, but not until it had been pointed out to me that I could obtain the object I desired in another way, namely, by moving the Adjournment of the House. On that understanding I postponed the Motion. The case is fortunately a very simple one. There is, practically, no dispute as to the facts or any controverted question of law. The prisoner Hargan was a soldier who had served with distinction in the Army, and having got his discharge had gone to America for the purpose of pushing his fortune. Hargan had returned to this country only five days before this unfortunate occurrence took place. In a public house in the Kingsland district he found himself called upon to intervene on behalf of the landlady of the public house, who was being threatened with personal violence by a gang of bad characters who were drinking in the house. Hargan, who had taken no part in the dispute, gallantly came to the rescue of the landlady, and thereby incurred the hostility of the ruffians congregated in the house. During the altercation a revolver which Hargan had in his possession was shown to those present, and it had the momentary effect of quelling the disturbance. The landlord came downstairs and intervened, and the leaders of the disturbance were ejected, and order to a great extent restored. Wishing to avoid being the occasion of any further disturbance, Hargan very properly made his escape by a back window, and made a circuit round the back of the house, but, in order to get to his lodgings, he was obliged to pass the front door of the public house, which he did on the other side of the road. As he passed, attention was called to him, and he was followed by three of the men who had been ejected, who signified their hostility by imprecations and otherwise. Hargan had already shown these men that he was armed, and it was only likely that he should imagine that they would provide themselves with some weapon of offence. Consequently, when they came within a very few yards of him he produced his revolver, and, failing to deter them, he fired with fatal effect as regarded two of the men. The taking of human life by means of weapons of this description is, I own, a matter upon which I myself have a very strong feeling. When first my attention was called to this case, I did not see my way to taking any action upon it, but in cases of this kind some regard must be had to the character of the persons concerned. Upwards of 20 years ago I urged upon Mr. Ward Hunt, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the propriety of imposing a heavy duty upon the carrying of revolvers, and I recently made a similar suggestion to my right hon. Friend the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. What are the facts of the present case? I should like the House to hear what is the relative record of the prisoner and his assailants. Hargan was a soldier of good character, educated at the Hibernian School in Ireland, from the commandant of which institution a character was produced giving the highest possible testimony to his reputation. He was for some years in the 1st Battalion Queen's Royal West Surrey Regiment, in which regiment his father and four brothers had likewise served; he was rapidly promoted to the positions of lance-corporal, corporal, colour-sergeant, and finally acting sergeant-major. His officers give him the highest character. He served in the Burmese campaign, obtaining the medal and clasp. Unfortunately, no witnesses were called to speak to the character of the prisoner, but I think the testimony of the officers has been before the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. [Mr. MATTHEWS was understood to dissent.] The dissent of my right hon. Friend encourages me to hope that I am placing new matter before him which will lead him to review the case. I will, however, only read the character given to Hargan by his Colonel, Colonel Holt. That gentleman writes— I have much pleasure in bearing testimony to the excellent character of Walter Hargan. He served under my command in India, and as commanding officer I have the highest opinion of him as a most trustworthy, good, and brave soldier, and I cannot imagine him capable of injuring any man except in his own defence. That opinion of the Colonel's was fully endorsed by the Major, the Adjutant, and other officers under whom Hargan served. It was also endorsed by an authority to whom I think my right hon. Friend will be prepared to listen, namely, Mr. Justice Charles. That learned Judge, in summing up, said— The prisoner bore an excellent character hitherto as a steady and well-conducted man, as well as a good soldier. At the same time, I ought to point out what was the character of the persons by whom Hargan was assailed. I will not weary the House by going through the long category of offences recorded against them. I will again confine my self to the authority of Mr. Justice Charles, who said— Although he did not care to apply hard language to persons who were no more, it would not be going too far to say that the character of the deceased men was about as bad as it could be. One of these men appears to have gone by the name of "Half-pint Jack." He was in the habit of going to public houses, calling for drinks, refusing to pay for them, and assaulting the persons defrauded. I am perfectly well aware that the good character of the man assailed, and the bad character of his assailants, are no excuse for having recourse to a greater amount of violence than was necessary; but did Hargan use a greater amount of violence than was necessary? He did no more than he was bound to do, unless he was prepared to hand his life over to those who attacked him. I know that those who took the armchair view of the subject say that Hargan ought to have given notice that he was going to shoot, somewhat in the same way that a four weeks' Notice of Motion is given in this House; but I have already stated that he had shown these men that he was armed, and he was justified in thinking that men who knew they were pursuing an armed man had provided themselves with some effective means of dealing with him. Thus, he must have known that if he allowed his assailants to grapple with him at close quarters he would not have much chance. Indeed, they would have found ready at their hands Hargan's own means of defence—the revolver. Who in this House would have acted differently in such circumstances? I, at all events, would have acted in an exactly similar manner, with this unfortunate difference, that I should very probably have missed the men. I undertake to say that if the Secretary of State for War under these circumstances, should have been walking, with one of his magazine rifles in his hand, he would have availed himself of the opportunity of testing the accuracy of the weapon. It is notorious that this unfortunate man was obeying a law far older than any Statute Law—he was obeying the instinct of self-preservation, which I have always understood to be a law which would override any Statute Law of any civilised nation. But, for a moment, I would ask the attention of the House to the character of the district where this took place. Many people would say, and, in fact, friends of mine have said outside the House, "Why did not this man call for the police, or ask bystanders to assist him?" Well, the Secretary of State will be in a position to confirm what I am now going to say, namely, that the inadequacy of police protection in this district had long been a matter of notoriety. Amongst the documents that my right hon. Friend had recently before him I have no doubt he had his attention drawn to a communication addressed to the Commissioner of Police by a Special Committee, appointed by the Parish and Vestry of St. John's, Hackney, complaining of the inadequate arrangements made for the preservation of order in that neigh bourhood. It is notorious in that district, and I defy any one in any part of the House, or out of it, to deny that this is a neighbourhood where a respectable person who had incurred, by any means, the hostility of the roughs, who apparently hold supreme power in that neighbourhood, would have a very poor chance unless he took adequate means for his own protection. Now, this Committee, composed of the Vestry of the parish to which I have referred, drew the attention of the Chief Commissioner of Police to the following state of affairs:—They say, "The numerous cases of highway robbery, burglary, and other crimes that have appeared in the public papers, together with the difficulties in obtaining ready assistance from the police in cases of immediate need, is conclusive proof that, certainly in this parish, we are undermanned." They go on to place before the Chief Commissioner of Police the fact that, whereas, taking the whole of the Metropolis together, the proportion of the police to the population is as 1 to 646; in that particular district it is only 1 to 1,185 —that is to say, that the police force is about in proportion, roughly speaking, one-half of what it stands in the Metropolitan area at large. I will not detain the House by referring to other documents, which I might do, in a similar sense. The Debenvoir Park Ratepayers' Association, a body which represents a portion of the same neighbourhood, has also addressed a very strong representation to the Home Office, or rather to the Chief Commissioner of Police. upon this subject. The disturbances which have continually occurred in that neighbourhood, leading to scenes of violence, the right hon. Gentleman will be able to confirm from the official evidence he has at his disposal. He will know that within 24 hours of the melancholy occurrence when these men were killed the landlady of the same public house in which Hargan originally intervened was very seriously wounded by an instrument called a "muller," which I understand is a kettle, and a very formidable, heavy engine. This was thrown at her head by a dastardly person, who was believed to have been a member of the gang with which the deceased men associated. I could mention innumerable cases of assaults which have occurred in this district, but it is enough for me to say this: that the neighbourhood was an extremely disorderly one, and that life and property were in an extremely insecure condition there. There is another essential difference between that and other portions of the Metropolis with which hon. Members in this House are more familiarly acquainted, in so far as the public opinion of the district and of ordinary passers-by is by no means disposed to aid in protecting the life and limbs of attacked persons; but is rather, for the most part, in favour of the organisers of disorder. That is a most important element of consideration in regard to this case. You have here a disorderly district; you have a man who finds himself surrounded by hostile elements; you have an attack made upon him, he is known to be armed, he avails himself of the only means he has for his defence, with the unfortunate result that human life is lost. I can only ask the House, in conclusion, to believe that I am taking up this matter with no desire to obstruct the administration of justice. Throughout the time that I have been in this House I cannot recall to mind having taken up more than two other cases in which remission of sentence was asked for. In one of these cases a free pardon followed the discussion, as I hope it will to-night after my right hon. Friend has had further opportunity, which he has intimated he shall be glad to have, of considering the case I now put before the House. Nor shall I be accused of in any way under-rating the enormous responsibility, and the very trying character of the duties which are cast upon the Home Secretary in connection with this matter. I have had myself to share responsibilities of that kind, and I am fully aware that they are perhaps the most trying duties that any Minister has to discharge. My right hon. Friend, I need hardly say, has my entire sympathy in the great difficulties with which cases of this kind inevitably are surrounded. I trust, however, my right hon. Friend will look once more into this matter, and will consider points which probably have not hitherto been brought before him, and I trust that the result will be that a grievous miscarriage of justice will be redressed.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— (Mr. James Lowther.)

(4.39.) COLONEL DAWNAY (York, N.R., Thirsk)

I rise to second the Motion. I am one of those who concur with my right hon. Friend that Hargan no more deserves 12 months' imprisonment with hard labour than 20 years' penal servitude, and that the sentence ought to be remitted altogether. In the first place, it must be remembered that Hargan did not voluntarily enter into this fray. He was not in the bar when the attack on the landlady commenced, but gallantly came from a back room to defend her; but it is clear that he had no desire to provoke the roughs, for, finding that his interference was making matters worse, he allowed himself to be smuggled out of the house by the kitchen window. This, on the part of an ex-colour-sergeant of the Royal West Surrey Regiment, is a convincing proof that he did all in his power not to provoke a breach of the peace. It is said that the men were too drunk to be dangerous; but the fact that they pursued Hargan and caught him up in spite of his efforts to get away shows that they were quite sober enough to commit a murderous outrage. And it must be remembered that most of the evidence given against Hargan was most unreliable, being mainly that of witnesses who were friends of the men who were shot, while the landlady, who was the principal witness for Hargan, was so broken in body and mind by the brutal assaults upon her, and so terror-stricken that her evidence was almost worthless. Grave injustice has been done to Hargan by a letter of Lord Bramwell's which appeared in the Times of December 26, in which he said that "Hargan, without any warning and when the men were almost teaching him, fired in their faces." But against this one of the hostile witnesses swore that Hargan did give warning before he fired, and Hargan's own account was that he only fired after seeing the glitter of what he thought was a knife. However, the fact remains that it was only when the men were close to him, and he was in fear of his life, that he fired. Lord Bramwell appears to think that it is a point against Hargan that he did not fire till the men were close on him, but that rather shows that he waited as long as he could before defending himself. These men were not ordinary ruffians, but ruffians of a most desperate description. They had previously threatened the life of the landlady of the public house where the disturbance commenced; they were described by Mr. Justice Charles himself as men of the worst possible character; and the fact of their waiting for and following Hargan outside the public house shows that they had a deliberate and deadly intention. Hargan had to decide in one moment whether he would submit to be murderously assaulted and most likely murdered, or whether he would defend himself, and it was because he chose the latter alternative that Mr. Justice Charles, after summing up dead for "wilful murder," and failing to carry the jury with him, sentenced him to 20 years' penal servitude. Lord Bramwell described Mr. Justice Charles as a kind and considerate Judge when he sent Hargan to 20 years' penal servitude. If this be an example of Mr. Jus- tice Charles' kindness and consideration, Heaven help the prisoner who was brought before him when in one of his sterner moods! It is said that Hargan ought not to have carried a revolver. Perhaps not. I do not think it is illegal to do so, but I quite admit that it ought to be; however, so long as the Police Authorities fail to provide adequate protection in these dangerous neighbourhoods it is not astonishing to find people taking measures themselves for their defence. The Coroner's jury were only induced to return the verdict they did by the intervention of the Coroner. Of the Grand Jury, 13 to 10 only were in favour of finding a true bill; and of the petty jury, four jurors were originally in favour of an acquittal; and I believe that since the trial the other jurymen have stated that if they had known what the verdict would have been they would have been in favour of an acquittal. Hargan fell amongst the Philistines, and had nothing to trust to except his own right hand. The case ought not to be judged from the West Bad point of view—for you see plenty of policemen in the fashionable quarters—but it should be considered from the Kingsland Road point of view. At the West End serious breaches of the peace are comparatively rare; but in the Kingsland Road brutal, unprovoked attacks are looked upon as common occurrences. Hargan was the last man to give way to unreasoning panic, for he had looked death in the face in his military career, and that he had risen from the ranks to the position of colour-sergeant and acting sergeant-major proved that he was a good soldier. Only a few weeks ago in Dublin a man was convicted of throwing vitriol over a girl, thereby destroying her sight and every feature in her face, and dooming her to life-long misery, and yet the sentence in that case was only seven years' penal servitude. What, I ask, is Hargan's guilt in comparison with that of this scoundrel? By remitting 95 per cent, of the terrible sentence passed on Hargan the Home Secretary has shown that his opinion and that of the supporters of the present Motion are almost identical with regard to the injustice of the sentence. We ask the right hon. Gentleman to go a little further. We ask him not to condemn a man who has served his Queen and country faithfully and well; not to allow his life to be blasted and his character to be ruined; not to condemn him to bear the brand of a convicted felon for an act of self defence which most people consider justifiable, and which even at the worst has already been punished far more heavily than it deserves.

(4.47.) MR. A. E. GATHORNE-HARDY (Sussex, East Grinstead)

I hope the House will pause before it takes upon itself the function of criticising the judiciary and the conduct of the Executive in these cases. The course which we are asked to take would constitute a most dangerous precedent. I cannot agree that there are no facts in dispute in this case. The main fact in dispute is as to the amount of provocation that was given. And as to that, there is no doubt very considerable difference of opinion, as some seem to say that Hargan was fully justified in the shooting, whilst others consider that he was guilty of wilful murder. For myself, I cannot but think that the case is one of those that point out the need for a Court of Criminal Appeal, and I cannot but think that the Home Secretary would have been glad to be relieved from this duty, and to have the assistance of another Court, which would have had the advantage of seeing the demeanour of the witnesses. But while I consider that the tribunal of the Home Secretary is a necessary one, even where there is a Court of Appeal, it is an imperfect one, because it works, and must necessarily work, secretly, and because those who criticise it can have had no opportunity of seeing the facts on which it has acted. Notwithstanding that, I cannot but remember that the Home Secretary has the advantage of trained assistants in sifting the evidence brought before him, and has not only ex parte statements of one side, but the evidence on both sides, as well as the assistance of the Judge. Notwithstanding the fact that the Home Secretary probably thinks the sentence was excessive—and I entirely agree with him that the original sentence was excessive—I cannot allow the language used respecting the learned Judge to pass unnoticed, having myself had his personal acquaintance for so many years, and believing as I do that no more humane man sits at this moment on the judgment seat, whether or not in this particular instance he was betrayed into an excessive sentence. The last speaker said that 10 out of the 13 Grand Jurymen were in favour of throwing out the bill. I ask him, what bill? The bill the Grand Jury found true was a bill for murder. I do not believe any portion of the Grand Jury was in favour of throwing out the bill for manslaughter, which was all this man was punished for. I look with extreme suspicion upon the secrets of the jury box being thus brought before the House of Commons. I may be asked, is the House never to interfere in reference to the conduct of an Executive Officer? Of course it has such a right, but I say it has no right to interfere, and ought not to interfere, unless we are prepared to dismiss the Executive Officer, who has, in the exercise of his discretion, done the best he could. Some Members of the House may be prepared to take that extreme course. If so, I entirely disagree with them. The exercise of the prerogative of mercy is the most difficult and anxious duty any Executive Officer has to fulfil, and my right hon. Friend has before this withstood the bullyings of the Press, and in the end has turned out to be perfectly right. I believe, myself that as he was right then so he is right now. I give Hargan credit for all that has been said with regard to his good character; but I hope this House will never try in this extreme way to justify the deliberate shooting of two men at close quarters with a revolver, and the bringing into our Institutions of that which is the great blot of American Institutions. My right hon. Friend has said that he believes that if he had been in the same position as Hargan, he would have acted in the same way. I remember the story of a Sheriff of Kent, who was entertaining the Judge of Assizes, telling the Judge how he had driven a man out of his house like a ferret and shot at him. The Judge thanked the Sheriff for his hospitality, and said, "If you had killed that man, I am afraid yon would have been in very great danger of being hung." With all respect for my right hon. Friend, I am afraid that if he had acted in the same way as Hargan under similar circumstances he would have incurred something like the same danger. We have heard a great deal about this "band of ruffians," and a great deal of pity has been expressed for the man who is now undergoing a sentence of imprisonment. I cannot but think that some, at least, of that pity might have been bestowed upon the two men who, without a moment's warning, met their doom at the hands of Hargan.

(4.56.) THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS, Birmingham, E.)

Although I cannot go to the length to which my hon. Friend who has just sat down is prepared to go in barring the way to Motions of this kind, I cannot but think that the present circumstances prove the great inconvenience in cases such as this of the course which has been taken. This is a case in which a minute examination of the evidence is necessary in order that a right conclusion may be arrived at. There have been four inquiries—an inquiry before the Coroner, when the jury found a verdict of murder; an examination before the Police Magistrate, an experienced, learned, and kindly man, who committed Hargan for murder; an inquiry before the Grand Jury, as to which we have heard I know not what gossip today; and the inquiry before the petty jury, and as learned, conscientious, and kindly a Judge as any that sits on the English Bench. Against the prisoner, who was defended by a most able and skilled counsel, this jury returned a verdict of manslaughter. Now the House of Commons is asked, upon hasty and imperfect statements, and upon documents which are not before the jury and have not come before myself, for my right hon. Friend had not had the courtesy to submit his materials to me—

MR. J. LOWTHER

I was told that the documents had been laid before the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. MATTHEWS

All I can say is, that the particular documents which have been read to-day have not previously come before me. It is an inconvenient course to take to ask the House of Commons, after these four inquiries, to overrule the result upon ex parte statements. I propose to point out some of the misleading statements that have fallen from the Proposer and Seconder of the Resolution. In the first place, it has been said that the two unhappy men who met their death at Hargan's hands were ruffians of the worst type, men in whose presence it was hardly safe to be. The real truth, as far as I have been able to ascertain, is that these men were public house loafers, who did bear a bad character, and deserved to bear it, but whose misdeeds were for the most part of a trivial, insignificant kind, and certainly were not worthy of the strong language used by my right hon. Friend. Now, against Lambert, one of the two men shot, there were eight convictions; but all these were of a trivial character except one, which was a case of assault, occurring 20 years ago. For this offence he received six months' imprisonment, and therefore I apprehend the assault was of a rather serious character; two of the other convictions were for being drunk, and being drunk in charge of a horse and cart; the rest were trivial, and the last was committed as far back as 1886. Lambert, no doubt, was disreputable enough; he was a public house loafer; but to describe him as a ruffian against whom the use of a deadly weapon was necessary is an exaggeration against which I must protest.

COLONEL DAWNAY

The Judge himself said the men were of the worst possible character.

MR. MATTHEWS

Yes, and I dare say the prisoner had the benefit of that statement. But when we find the Mover and Seconder of the Motion amplifying the words of the Judge by describing the men as ruffians of the worst type, and as men whom it was justifiable to shoot at, I say that that becomes an exaggeration. Wheeler, the other man who was shot, had only two convictions recorded against him, the last of which was in 1881, just 10 years ago, for breaking a public house window. That is hardly a record which makes it right or fitting to help out an argument in this House by blackening the character of this man. With regard to the neighbourhood itself, my right hon. Friend has represented that Hertford Road is a place where police protection does not exist—

MR. J. LOWTHER

I said it was inadequate.

MR. MATTHEWS

And not only that, but he also implied that it was necessary to go there armed, and that to use weapons upon such provocation as Hargan received was justifiable homicide. These appear to me to be assertions more suited to the atmosphere of a South American bar than to any district of London. I have taken pains to inquire as to what the condition of this district is, and from the Report I have received I find that it is by do means so bad as has been represented. It is anything but a specially criminal district. It is rough, no doubt, but nothing more, and it has never been thought necessary to employ extra police there, or to take extra precautions such as are taken in certain parts of London. It is not nearly so bad as some parts of White chapel, and is not worse than Islington. Therefore the crime is not justifiable from the nature of the district. The hon. Member who seconded the Motion stated that attacks in this neighbourhood were so common that most of them were not worth mentioning.

COLONEL DAWNAY

The landlady of the hotel was attacked three times in one month.

MR. MATTHEWS

With regard to the landlady, some of the assaults followed these particular events. The information I have received is that there was a strong feeling against the woman after the trial, and that this led to a stone being thrown at her by one of the witnesses who was examined at the trial, and to other assaults which took place in her house. But to say that there was a strong local feeling, such as has been referred to by my hon. Friends, really seems to me to be an exaggeration. I trust there is no part of London so bad, so disorderly, and so riotous that there should be an exceptional licence for the use of firearms in that part such as does not exist in any other portion of the Metropolis, nor such as to justify anything which the law does not justify anywhere else. I have very little to add to the statement of the facts given by my right hon. Friend, but I have some corrections to make. I believe that Hargan behaved extremely well at the beginning of the row. The landlady got into an altercation with three or four drunken men in the bar. They wanted more drink, although they had no money to pay for it She refused to give it to them, and they became violent, abusive, and offensive to the highest degree. One of them began to clamber over the bar to get more drink; and Hargan, hearing- words of distress from the landlady, came to her assistance in a very manly way, and thereupon did what I am bound to say seemed to me to be more in accordance with American than English manners. He produced a revolver and threatened to shoot the men at that early period of the transaction. Of course, that was a proceeding which was entirely unjustifiable, because at that time there had been no assault or violence practised. But the unfortunate landlady appeared to be much more frightened by her protector than by the men, because she proceeded to push Hargan out of the bar and away out of the back premises, to get rid of him and his pistol. On this Hargan was cut off from the scene and proceeded to do what my right hon. Friend has stated—and this is a point on which chiefly I thought it my duty, to commute the sentence—to escape by the window and make the best of his way off. Had it not been for that circumstance I should have thought once, twice, and thrice before venturing to review the Judgment of Mr. Justice Charles. This, no doubt, was strongly in his favour, as there was doubtless something in his mind which made him feel that he was in danger from the other men in the public house; and, therefore, he made his escape in that secret way. Now, what followed it is important to notice. The landlord, who had been asleep upstairs, came down and turned the three "desperate ruffians" out of the house without their committing any assault upon him—all three of them, the men who were shot and the man who providentially escaped the second shot! They were at the time so drunk that the witnesses say they were falling about outside the public house. They were, therefore, certainly not in a dangerous condition. [Laughter.] I do not know the cause of the laughter, for if a man be so drunk as to be almost unable to stand, and falls about, he cannot be a very dangerous antagonist.

MR. J. LOWTHER

Who made that statement?

MR. MATTHEWS

This particular statement was made by Corcoran the cooper, who had been drinking at the bar with these men. He came to the door to see them turned out, and in his deposition before the Magistrate he alluded to having seen them falling about through drink. The right hon. Gentleman did not do me the honour of asking to see the depositions which were taken before the Magistrates and the Coroner. Had he taken the trouble to read up all these sources of information he might have come to a different conclusion.

MR. J. LOWTHER

I read the depositions made before the Magistrate.

MR. MATTHEWS

If the right hon. Gentleman read the depositions he would have found that the deposition of Corcoran was almost conclusive. The right hon. Gentleman, over and over again, has spoken of these ruffians having attacked Hargan. There was no attack at all, and it was really on this point that my decision turned. Therefore, I think, it is singular that the right hon. Gentleman omitted all notice of that fact. There was absolutely no attack upon Hargan. He was seen making off, very properly and wisely, as well as he could, and that again is much in his favour. He was seen by one of the three companions who pointed him out, and then these three drunken fellows followed. It is a little doubtful, and the fact is one that requires minute examination of the evidence, whether they could have overhauled him. It is said that all they did was to cry "Hi!" twice, to attract his attention. Hargan turned round on the first cry, he being some 30 or 40 yards in front of them. He turned round once and they followed, and he heard them cry "Hi!" again. Hargan turned round, stepped forward a few paces, drew his revolver, and at a distance of 12 yards fired three times, bringing down the first man with his first shot, missing the second only because he dropped on his hands and knees, and killing the third man with the third shot. This, it must be remembered, was when the men were 12 yards off. It is highly probable that had these three drunken men got hold of Hargan they would have hustled him. There had been a quarrel, they had been irritated by the production of the revolver in the public house, and, therefore, it was extremely probable that if they had got up to Hargan they would have assaulted him; although they might have done no more. But for the extravagant conclusion which my right hon. Friend drew that they would not only have assaulted Hargan, but would have killed him, there is absolutely nothing in the evidence to support. Was the act of Hargan under these circumstances a perfectly justifiable one, for that is the proposition which my right hon. Friend has put before the House. Assuming that Hargan was a man of excellent character, is it to be declared by the House of Commons that such a man is entitled to shoot down two others who have done no more than I have described? That is the question, but it is one not for me but for the law to determine. It is perfectly true that the law does not allow a man to use a lethal weapon even in self-defence except it be to save his life or to save himself from some such grievous bodily injury as may endanger his life. That is true, but it is also true that the right of self-defence does not arise unless an assault on him is not merely apprehended or likely to occur but is in actual progress, and is of such a nature that loss of life or grievous injury to life, or limb, or body would be the inevitable consequence. I should like to know, if the right hon. Gentleman's doctrine were accepted by this House, what answer I should be able to make if the police were armed with revolvers and were to use them? Constables come in contact with these loafers, and not only in contact but in conflict with them, often being assailed by these bad characters, and my right hon. Friend's contention involves this consequence, that a policeman might shoot his assailants in order to shake them off. As to hon. Members below the Gangway, who rose in support of this Motion, I invite them to apply the law, which they apparently approve, to Ireland. Suppose an Irish constable were followed by two drunken men, of however desperate a character—moonlighters, if you please—of any type you like; and suppose that these two men simply shouted "Hi!" twice to attract his attention, would he be entitled to turn round and at once shoot these men at 12 yards distance? Would the hon. Members below the Gangway consider that act perfectly justified, and allow the constable to go scot free? I put the example of a constable in the discharge of his duty because he is entitled to greater protection and favour in the eyes of the law than any other single individual. It seems to me that the proposition of my right hon. Friend would lead to consequences which we could not entertain for a moment. It is true that a man is justified in inflicting death when his own life is actually in danger. But my right hon. Friend actually used this proposition—that Hargan fired his revolver at the two men lest they should get hold of it and shoot him with his own weapon. That is really a most extraordinary doctrine. Why, it would lead to this: that if an armed poacher came in contact with an unarmed gamekeeper, the poacher would be entitled to shoot him, lest the gamekeeper should get hold of his gun. I do think that is an extravagance which my right hon. Friend will not defend. It is not for me to attempt to defend Mr. Justice Charles, who is far above any words that I can use in his praise. But, as he has been criticised, I would draw attention to this: that there were circumstances in the case which might lead to a conclusion very hostile indeed to Hargan. When he had shot these two men, he used an extraordinary and unpardonable expression. ["Oh!"] That excites the merriment of the hon Member for Northampton. "Lie there dead," he exclaimed, using a foul expression. That is an expression which might legitimately lead a judge of the facts to the conclusion that he fired in anger and irritation, on being followed, and if he fired in anger and irritation he was undoubtedly guilty of murder. I myself took a different view from that which appears on the statement of the learned Judge. I should be sorry to allow the House to suppose that there were not circumstances in the case which supported the learned Judge in the severe view which he appears to have taken after a most careful, complete, and anxious consideration. I think, on the whole, the safer conclusion was that Hargan fired because he believed himself about to be attacked, because there was a reasonable probability that he would be assaulted, badly assaulted, if you please, by men who certainly had shown that they could not be trusted or relied upon. That was, therefore, in his favour; that took from his act the character of malice, which alone could justify the severer sentence. I believe, myself, that I should be deserving of the greatest censure, and unfit for the duties I have to discharge, if I allowed, without punishment following, two men to be shot in the London streets in broad daylight, in a neigh bourhood where there were many respectable shops, where the people, so far from having sympathy with crime, at once assisted the police in securing Hargan, and where there were many witnesses of unimpeachable character, bystanders who saw the occurrence, and who would undoubtedly have assisted Hargan against any attack that might have been made upon him. In such a neighbourhood, with such surroundings, and to allow two men to be shot without an attempt having been made to escape, for me to advise Her Majesty to grant a free pardon to the person who fired would be to imperil justice and to commit a most blameable act.

(5.22.) SIR W. HARCOURT (Derby)

Mr. Speaker, for some years I shared the heavy responsibility now lying on the right hon. Gentleman, and, after the discussion that has taken place, I, at least, have come to the conclusion that he arrived at a right decision, and I think I ought to support him. I speak of this matter really with the knowledge principally derived from the statement made in this Debate, and I agree that it could only be in cases of high necessity or of gross and palpable error that the House of Commons could be induced to review those cases. We here have conflicting statements made on very many particulars between the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State and others, and we are very little able to find a verdict or pass a sentence in such cases. If we did so, we should reverse the decisions of four tribunals which had previously heard evidence. I take it that the only cause which brought this case under the recognisance of the House of Commons, was the unfortunate sentence passed by the Judge upon the prisoner in this particular case. I have long entertained the opinion, which I have expressed in public and private on several occasions, that in a great deal too many instances, I should say in the majority of instances, criminal sentences in this country are far too heavy. When I was at the Home Office, I addressed to the Judges a paper on that subject through the Lord Chancellor (Lord Selborne), which was supported by the Chief Justice of England, and which unfortunately did not have the results I had hoped. But I was able to say on that occasion, upon the authority of the Chief Commissioner of Prisons, that probably sentences of a lighter character would have a more beneficial effect than those now passed in this country. I remember an admirable Judge, a friend of mine, asked me to give him an order to see Portland Prison. He wrote me afterwards saying:— If I had had the remotest idea of what a sentence of penal servitude was, I should never have passed the sentences that I have passed whilst I was on the Bench. I think when you consider and know what a sentence of penal servitude is, you will feel that it is only the extremest crimes to which sentences of that magnitude ought to be applied. There is another habit of making jumps in sentences from 5 to 10, 10 to 15, and 15 to 20 years, which is totally irrational, and has the worst possible effect. And if this Debate has the result of inducing the Judges more carefully to consider the legality of the sentences which they pass. I think it will be a very useful Debate. What the House is now asked to say is, that Hargan has committed no offence at all, and unless we are of that opinion we cannot support the right hon. Gentleman in his Motion. The Home Secretary has most truly laid down the law that no man is to take the life of another except in circumstances of imminent danger to his own life. The question of whether a man is of good character or bad has nothing whatever to do with the case. The best man in the world has no right to take the life of the worst man in the world unless he is in danger of his life. To do justice to my right hon. Friend, I understood him to say that the badness of the character of this man led to the probability of Hargan's life being in danger. Bat I have heard of no facts to prove that there was imminent and immediate danger to justify Hargan in shooting the men. I heard one suggestion by my hon. Friend, which was that Hargan, having exhibited his revolver, might have believed that the men had armed themselves with revolvers or some other weapons.

MR. J. LOWTHER

I did not say with revolvers, but with some weapon, or other.

SIR W. HARCOURT

I confess that that seems to me a strange assumption. I listened with some alarm to the dangerous doctrine propounded by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet. If the object of his Motion is to induce the House of Commons to affirm such a doctrine as he has laid down in regard to the use of dangerons and mortal weapons, that would be in itself a reason for rejecting the Motion. It is impossible to be too careful in this matter of the use of firearms. We know that in some other countries the practice has grown to an undesirable extent, but, happily, the practice of "shooting at sight" has not yet extended to this country. The question is simply this: Is it absolutely certain that Hargan was in imminent, immediate, inevitable danger of his life? I am not satisfied that this was so, and if it were not so Hargan was guilty of manslaughter. Then, of course, the question of character comes in, and it rests with the Secretary of State to say what ought to be the mitigation of the sentence passed. We are dealing with the case of a man whom you cannot declare to be absolutely innocent, whom you cannot say was guilty of justifiable homicide, who has been convicted of manslaughter, and I earnestly beg the House, as long as it leaves the responsibility of determining the remission of sentences in the hands of the Secretary of State, not to interfere with it. Of course, if the Secretary of State were to take some course which clearly demands the censure of the House, it is in the power and it would be the duty of the House to pass that censure. But I am not, in this case, prepared to support such censure. The men who followed Hargan were not armed with lethal weapons, and therefore Hargan acted rashly, and was guilty in the law. Some punishment ought to be inflicted, and I am not prepared to say that the commutation of the Home Secretary is an improper one. Therefore, I shall vote against the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet.

(5.34.) MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

This Debate has been infinitely refreshing to me, as I have often complained of the want of independence on the Government benches. I was, therefore, pleased to hear one hon. Gentleman opposite telling another that he ought to be hanged, and a right hon. Gentleman saying to another right hon. Gentleman that his sentiments were only fitted for some American bar. I have also remarked often upon the deterioration of our best men through having occupied public office. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby is an instance of this. Any right hon. Gentleman who has been a Home Secretary seems to regard the office as a species of sacred priesthood which ought never to be attacked in the House, and rarely have I heard one Home Secretary attacked without an ex-Home Secretary getting up to defend him, however widely they may differ in politics. I have arrived at quite a different conclusion from that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby. If I may venture to criticise the right hon. Gentleman, I think the Home Secretary would do well if he realised more that the House of Commons is not an Old Bailey jury. The right hon. Gentleman is 'perpetually exaggerating, and he seems to be under the impression that he is either defending or bringing an accusation against somebody in the dock. He assails every one who disagrees with him. The right hon. Gentleman declared it to be monstrous that the men who followed Hargan should be styled ruffians; but he admitted that they were of very bad character; that they had tried to assault the landlady; and that they had been periodically put in prison. It is true the Judge said they were men of the worst possible character, but, says the Home Secretary, "to call them ruffians in this House is monstrous." It seems to me that their conduct was ruffianly. The right hon. Gentleman said that the men who followed Hargan, and who had already attempted an assault in the public house, were not dangerous because they were drunk. This was an extraordinary doctrine. I can understand that a person who is absolutely dead drunk may not be dangerous, but the person excited with liquor was always the most dangerous of any. It is in evidence that Hargan was walking along, and that the men were running after him; and the counsel for the prosecution himself stated that the men were only three yards from Hargan when he fired, not 12 yards, as the right hon. Gentleman stated. That makes all the difference. Two Home Secretaries have laid down the law that a man may not take life unless he is in immediate danger. I agree with that. But surely a man who has been already assaulted, who has been compelled to get out of a back window, and who is being followed by his aggressors, may legitimately consider himself in danger. When is the danger to begin? Is a man to defend himself after he has been killed? Hargan knew the men from their previous behaviour to be desperate characters; and, under the circumstances, the police not being present, he was perfectly right to shoot the men. I deprecate the practice of carrying pistols as much as any one; I think it would be well if the law forbad the practice. But it does not, and therefore you must not punish this man for being in possession of the weapon. He had the pistol in his pocket, and, as I think, he properly used it in self-defence. I shall vote for the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet.

(5.45.) SIR F. MILNER (Nottingham, Bassetlaw)

I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet will not put the House to the trouble of dividing. I have always looked upon him as a veritable pillar of the Constitution, and never expected to see him joining hands with the hon. Member for Northampton in attacking the prerogative of mercy exercised by the Sovereign of these realms, or combining with hon. Members from Ireland in an attack on the law of the land. There is little doubt that, in passing the original sentence of 20 years the Judge made a grave mistake; and there is a practical unanimity of feeling that in reducing the sentence to 12 months the right thing has been done, It has been made abundantly clear from the evidence that the attack on Hargan was made by three men the worse for liquor, and unarmed. Under the circumstances, Hargan ought first to have had recourse to his fists instead of at once using a lethal weapon. Whether there was criminal intent or not, Hargan showed a most reckless disregard of human life, and it would be impossible to pass over his offence without a severe sentence. Otherwise a most dangerous precedent would be set. It is the custom of people in the House and out of it to attack the Home Secretary on every opportunity; but I think events have shown that in the exercise of the prerogative of mercy, or otherwise, the Home Secretary has been generally right. Subsequent events have always borne out the correctness of the judicial decisions given by the Home Secretary in such cases as this. No one who knows me would consider me to be a hard-hearted man, indeed my known dislike to sending first offenders to prison has made me a greater favourite with the gentlemen in the dock than with those at the bar. But in this case I hold that a grievous offence has been committed, and that it was necessary to mark its seriousness by imprisonment. I hold that the course which the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has taken has been the right one, and I do trust the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet will rest satisfied with the explanations given.

(5.47.) MR. J. ROWLANDS (Finsbury, E.)

I cannot congratulate the hon. Member who last spoke on the way in which he follows his own precepts. He asked that the time of the House should not be wasted by pressing this matter to a Division, and yet all the time he was speaking I was at a loss to discover the relevancy of his remarks to the subject under discussion. I was one of those who signed the original Memorial to the Home Secretary, asking him to mitigate the very severe sentence passed by Mr. Justice Charles. Now, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that when I signed that Memorial I had a thorough knowledge of the neighbour-hood where these men were shot; and I cannot help thinking that the hon. Members who have brought forward this subject have been guilty of a little exaggeration, possibly because they do not know the locality. I agree to a large extent with the description of the locality given by the police. The neighbourhood where the crime was committed is a very bad part, but it is surrounded by a very respectable district. It is not a neigh- bourhood that needs a special police force, but the inhabitants assert that, taking an average with the rest of London, the district is undermanned by police. I know the right hon. Gentleman may say that many other parts of London are in the same position. We are aware that, unfortunately, outer districts are denuded of police in order that the centre of London may be overmanned with the force. That is one of the grievances we have against the present administration, and that will have to be altered when any new form of administration is obtained. I listened to the defence of the right hon. Gentleman with astonishment. I had hoped to hear some sober remarks on so serious a matter, but the Home Secretary treated it with much levity—at least, so it seemed to us on this side of the House. But if the defence was a sound one, how is it that the right hon. Gentleman made the extraordinary reduction in the sentence of from 20 years to one year? Does not that show that he went as far as he thought it judicious to go? I must repudiate his suggestion that we on this side believe in people carrying revolvers and using them as they do in the wildest parts of America. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that if he will bring in a Bill making the carrying of revolvers illegal, I will support the Second Reading. I believe this unfortunate man if he had not been armed would have been seriously assaulted, and I have strong testimony that the loafers at this spot have been a disgrace and terror to the neighbourhood; and now I ask the Home Secretary and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby whether this case does not show the necessity of a Criminal Court of Appeal? I hope that the First Lord of the Treasury, before the Debate closes, will, on behalf of the Government, promise to bring in a Bill constituting such a Court. Finally, I will ask the Home Secretary to consider whether this man Hargan has not suffered enough already, and whether he cannot now see his way to set him at liberty? I hope that a fair number of police will be put in the district of Hackney in future.

(5.58.) MR. T. FIELDEN (Lancashire, S.E., Middleton)

Are we going to divide on this question or not? That is what I want to know. I am in favour of prohibiting the carrying of revolvers in this country. The hon. Member for Northampton appears to argue that Hargan was justified in shooting the two men because he thought they were ruffians. Seeing the hon. and learned Member for South Hackney sitting opposite, I should like to ask whether I would be justified in shooting the hon. Member for Northampton if I thought him to be a ruffian? What difference is there in the argument? This Debate has been brought on by a right hon. Gentleman who is a Yorkshire man by birth, but who has had to seek a seat in Kent. He says it is quite right to use a revolver to shoot ruffians; but if he is going to argue on the basis that a man is justified in shooting anybody whom he supposes to be a ruffian, I am afraid it will be a very bad time for England. Again, his Seconder says this man ought not to be imprisoned because 10 of the 23 grand jurymen were in favour of this man. How does he know that? It is not usual to disclose the secrets of the grand jury room. Did he get his information from the papers, or from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet? I do hope the House of Commons will come to its senses to-night. This is simply a sentimental question. The Secretary of State for the Home Department has gone into the matter: he knows more about it than any of us, and he has acted upon his information. I shall not vote for the Resolution of my right hon. Friend, simply because I protest against men carrying revolvers in this country.

(6.1.) MR. J. LOWTHER

I have been asked whether it is my wish to take the sense of the House on this subject. It is for the House itself to decide whether it will go to a Division. I personally have no wish to ask the House of Commons to give up at 6 o'clock the opportunity of discharging business which lies before it, and therefore I shall not urge it to go to a Division. I desire to say, however, that I fear several very important documents affecting this question have been withdrawn from the right hon. Gentleman's perusal. My right hon. Friend talked of Hargan as having for some time had more experience of South American bars than of the service of his country.

MR. MATTHEWS

No; I did not say that, I said the carrying of a revolver was more suited to a South American bar than to London.

MR. J. LOWTHER

My right hon. Friend very properly drew attention to the circumstance that Hargan was in the habit of carrying a revolver, owing to the fact that he had been in America. The right hon. Gentleman also said that Hargan had seen more of South American bars lately than of the barracks of his country. But the facts are that Hargan had had a distinguished service in the Army, and had risen rapidly as a non-commissioned officer, and that he purchased his discharge, and then joined the Corps of Commissionaires, into which, as is well-known, no one is admitted without a good character. Through the instrumentality of that corps he obtained employment with a contractor. He only left that employment in June, 1890, when he went to America. There he stayed only a few weeks, and this catastrophe took place in July, only five days after his return. There was only one witness who spoke of his assailants as being drunk; that was not confirmed by the other witnesses, and the witness himself was one who, my right hon. Friend said, was in the house drinking with the men. There being certain documents which the Home Secretary is not in possession of, I will supply my right hon. Friend with them, and I trust that the result of his perusal of them may lead to a re-consideration of the case.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.