§ SIR EDWARD GREY (Northumberland, Berwick)I beg to ask the Home Secretary if he can state to the House if any decision has been arrived at with reference to the carrying out of the sentence passed upon the men recently convicted of murder near Thring?
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,) Birmingham, E.No decision against a prisoner is irrevocable until the last moment, and I shall keep my mind open to receive and give full weight to any fresh facts that are brought before me. But, after giving the most careful consideration to the evidence, to the depositions, and to information received since the trial, the conclusion to which I am driven is that this was not a case of death unintentionally caused in the course of 1029 an affray, or of murder only by construction of law. It was a case in which the death of two men was caused by frightful violence inflicted with formidable weapons and with the deliberate purpose of taking life. Both the victims had their heads battered in by repeated blows after they had been felled to the ground, and one of them, having attempted to escape, was pursued and killed in his flight.
§ MR. COBB (Warwick, S.E., Rugby)I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in recent years, there has been any case connected with a poaching affray like this in which sentence of death has been carried out, and where there has been no evidence whatever of any previous intention or willingness expressed on the part of the men convicted to commit murder? I would also ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in reference to this case, he has received any communication from several of the jury engaged in the trial intimating that there was considerable difference of opinion among them as to the verdict they should give, and that the minority finally gave way to the majority?
§ MR. MATTHEWSThe first part of the hon. Gentleman's question I think he will see it is impossible for me to answer without abundant notice. It is impossible to suppose that without such notice I could refer to all the cases tried in late years. With regard to the latter part of the question, I have to say that I have received a letter from a gentleman, who, I believe, was one of the jury—who states he was on the jury—to the effect that he and some others were at first inclined to return a verdict of manslaughter, and that the majority of the jury were of a contrary opinion, and that those who thought with him had yielded to the opinion of the majority and concurred in a verdict of murder.
§ MR. BRUNNER (Cheshire, Northwich)Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to say whether he thinks a diminution of the severity, not to say the savagery, of the punishments for poaching would not have the effect of diminishing these murders?
§ MR. MATTHEWSThe punishments for poaching do not enter into this question at all. Had these men been perfectly independent both of the owner of the land and of the owner of the game their conduct might have been what it was; anyone other than the two keepers might have attempted to arrest the poachers on the night in question.
§ SIR WILFRID LAWSON (Cumberland, Cockermouth)The right hon. Gentleman in his first reply alluded to some evidence laid before him since the trial. May I ask him whether the friends or representatives of the prisoners have had an opportunity of sifting that evidence, and also whether that evidence is to be laid before the Judge who tried the case?
§ MR. MATTHEWSThe principal information to which I referred is contained in lengthened communications from the prisoners themselves. The only other information I have received consists of answers to questions I put to the learned Judge upon points in the evidence with comments he desired to make.
§ MR. WINTERBOTHAM (Gloucester, Cirencester)With the greatest diffidence, may I address a further question to the right hon. Gentleman, who has promised to keep an open mind to the very last moment? May I ask him to remember a case which I think is on all fours with this—a case in which the right hon. Gentleman reprieved a man, named Long, on the express ground that there was no evidence of premeditation, though the murder of a keeper, or two keepers, resulted exactly in the same way as in this case, while other two men were left for execution on the ground that they had uttered threats the night before as to what they would do if they met the keepers? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to refresh his memory before it is too late by reference to this case, and I think he will find that the man was reprieved on the express ground that there was no evidence of premeditation.
§ MR. MATTHEWSI do not carry in my mind the exact details of the case the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, but, may I point out, that premeditation does not mean, and 1031 ought not to mean, either in law or in common sense, a design to kill formed beforehand? It means a deliberate purpose to kill, formed at the time and executed not merely in the heat of blood, but when the heat of blood should have ceased, as it ought to do when an adversary is felled to the ground or is actually in flight.
§ MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)I should have thought it would have been desirable to place this matter upon the usual principle, and that where there is no evidence that these men went out to murder the keepers, that they only went for the purpose of bagging a pheasant, I should have thought that the usual principle would have held, that as there was no intention to murder at the time they entered on the trespass, and that on that ground the right hon. Gentleman would have advised Her Majesty to exercise the prerogative of mercy. In the second place, it is not denied in the evidence, so far as I have been able to ascertain, that these men now under sentence of death were first attacked by the keepers, and, surely, whether or not an intention to kill entered the minds of the men after they were attacked, we must, in estimating their guilt, remember that they were engaged in a struggle which lasted some time. It is unfair to adjudge the men guilty of murder, putting it on the lowest ground, when they, being attacked, engaged in a struggle in defence of their lives. In addition to that, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, with reference to the statement he has made that he has received communications from the prisoners, whether it is a fact that Eggleton reiterates the statement that he remembers nothing after he had been struck on the head and rendered senseless? I do not know if that is the case. I do not know how Eggleton can be hanged for battering in the head of the keeper, after the keeper had been felled to the ground. That is the statement made to us by the right hon. Gentleman.
§ MR. MATTHEWSNo.
§ MR. CONYBEAREYes, the right hon. Gentleman stated that one of the keepers, if not both, had been brutally done to death after being felled to the 1032 ground. That was the statement. I want to know, as the right hon. Gentleman has referred to material evidence received by him since the trial, and which has had full weight with him in arriving at the conclusion that the sentence shall be carried out. I want to know whether Eggleton reiterates the assertion that he has no recollection of anything after having been rendered senseless by a blow on the head. Is this man to be judicially murdered by the right hon. Gentleman? (Cries of "Oh, oh," "Order" and "Withdraw.") That is the issue just before us. (Renewed cries of "Withdraw.") If I have transgressed the Rules of Debate I certainly will, with great pleasure, withdraw my expression if the ruling of Mr. Speaker directs me to do so.
§ MR. SPEAKERI should hope that any discussion on this painful case and in reference to a judicial decision will be conducted in a judicial spirit.
§ MR. CONYBEAREI have not the slightest desire, Mr. Speaker, to aggravate the feelings of the right hon. Gentleman, and I withdraw the expression. I did not, of course, mean to use it in any personal sense, but in the ordinary meaning of the word. I wish also to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has received a memorial signed by upwards of 1,500 people resident in the locality where these prisoners lived, begging for mercy for these unfortunate men.
§ MR. WEBB (Waterford W.)rose to ask a question, but Mr. Speaker reminded him that time would not allow of an answer.
§ MR. MATTHEWSObviously I have not time to answer the hon. Member, and even if I had the time I should decline to follow the hon. Member's argument. I may, however, remind him that the jury decided the case. Application is made to me as adviser to Her Majesty to see whether there is any real or substantial ground for recommending mercy, notwithstanding that the guilt of the men was ascertained by the jury. I have concisely, but I hope with sufficient fulness, stated the view at which I have arrived after most careful consideration, and at this hour I can say no more.
§ House adjourned at Six o'clock.