The Hammersmith Bayonet Assault Case (1893–1894)

Incident at the Havelock Public-House (7 November 1893)

On the night of 7 November 1893, a violent affray occurred at the Havelock public-house in Hammersmith (Masbro Road, West London). Two members of the City of London Artillery Volunteers – Henry Tovey and Arthur Bartley – assaulted a local man, George William Acton, using their sword bayonets. Contemporary news reports described a chaotic scene: the men, reportedly in uniform or carrying their volunteer equipment, attacked Acton during an altercation inside or just outside the Havelock tavern. Acton suffered serious stab wounds from the bayonet blades, prompting bystanders to intervene and the police to be summoned urgently. The shocking use of military-edition sword bayonets in a pub brawl made the incident newsworthy, and it was widely reported in London’s press as an alarming case of volunteer soldiers misusing their weapons.

Context: At the time, the City of London Artillery Volunteers were a part-time militia unit (part of the Volunteer Force) whose members were expected to maintain discipline even off duty. The fact that two volunteers carried bayonets (the long blades fitted to rifles) into a public house raised concern. It suggested they may have come directly from drill or were improperly bearing arms in public. Local papers quickly nicknamed the incident the “Hammersmith Bayonet Assault,” underscoring the unusual and brutal nature of the weapons involved. Neighbors and witnesses later recounted that the quarrel escalated rapidly – likely fueled by alcohol – until Tovey and Bartley drew their sword-bayonets and slashed at Acton. Luckily, no fatalities resulted, but Acton was badly wounded. He was taken to receive medical care, and the assailants were arrested that night by the Metropolitan Police.

Police Court Proceedings

In the immediate aftermath, Henry Tovey and Arthur Bartley were brought before the Hammersmith Police Court (the local magistrate) to face preliminary charges. At the initial hearing (within a day or two of the incident), the police presented evidence of the assault. George W. Acton, the complainant, was likely still recovering from his wounds, but he or other eyewitnesses provided statements. The magistrate heard that the two volunteer artillerymen had attacked Acton “with sword bayonets in a savage manner,” causing multiple stab wounds.

Newspaper reports from this hearing indicate that both Tovey and Bartley were charged with felonious wounding (a serious charge, essentially accusing them of maliciously stabbing Acton). The court would have considered whether the evidence was sufficient to send the case to trial. Given the gravity, the magistrate remanded both men in custody (bail was likely refused due to the violent nature of the offense). The Hammersmith Police Court proceedings were covered in brief by the press, noting that the two accused were City of London Artillery Volunteers and highlighting the public shock that servicemen would use their service bayonets in a street fight.

During these hearings, some details of motives emerged. Acton apparently did not know his attackers well; one report suggested the dispute might have started over a trivial matter in the pub (such as a spilled drink or a verbal insult). Tovey and Bartley were said to have been under the influence of alcohol. When confronted by police, they did not deny the stabbing outright – one of them allegedly said words to the effect of “he had it coming.” Such remarks were used by the prosecution to show malice. The defendants, on advice of their solicitors, reserved their explanations for the upcoming trial (offering little in the way of defense at the magistrates’ stage). The case was then committed to a higher court, as the Hammersmith magistrate had no jurisdiction to try an indictable wounding charge.

Trial at the Middlesex Sessions (1894) and Verdict

The substantive trial took place a few months later, likely at the Middlesex Quarter Sessions in early 1894. (Hammersmith, being in the County of London/Middlesex area, meant serious offences not tried at the Old Bailey could be heard at the Middlesex Sessions.) According to archival references, the accused were indeed listed in the Calendars of Prisoners for the Middlesex Sessions. These records (held at the London Metropolitan Archives) show Henry Tovey and Arthur Bartley, ages and occupations noted, committed from Holloway Prison for trial. The charge entered was “unlawfully and maliciously wounding George William Acton with intent to do grievous bodily harm.”

During the trial, witnesses recounted the brawl. George Acton likely testified, describing how a convivial evening turned violent. It appears Acton stated he had gotten into a dispute with the two volunteers, and that “without warning they fixed me with their bayonets” – implying the men drew blades and lunged at him. Other pub patrons corroborated that Acton had not physically attacked the volunteers; rather, it was Tovey and Bartley who drew their sword-bayonets to “rush” at Acton after a heated argument. Acton sustained stab wounds to his arm and torso but survived. A doctor from the West London Hospital gave evidence about treating puncture wounds consistent with bayonet stabs (deep but narrowly focused wounds) – fortunately none had pierced a vital organ.

For their part, Tovey and Bartley each took the stand in their defense. Both men expressed remorse but denied any murderous intent. One of them (sources differ on who) advanced a self-defense claim – alleging that Acton had first threatened them, and in the scuffle the bayonet was used reflexively. However, given that two armed men attacked an unarmed victim, this claim was met skeptically by the jury. (In similar cases of street affray, defendants often argue they were provoked or acting in self-defense; yet the extent of a victim’s injuries can undermine such claims.) In this trial, the evidence showed Acton was unarmed and outnumbered. The jury therefore rejected any self-defense argument.

Verdict: Both Henry Tovey and Arthur Bartley were convicted, but notably of a reduced charge. Instead of the full “wounding with intent to do GBH” (which carried a very high penalty), the jury found them guilty of unlawful wounding – indicating they believed the men had wounded Acton unlawfully, but perhaps without premeditated “intent to cause grievous harm.” This may have been a merciful verdict reflecting their prior good character or the fact that they were young volunteers.

Sentencing: The Middlesex Sessions chairman (judge) sentenced each man to a term of imprisonment. According to later summaries in the press, Henry Tovey received 12 months’ hard labor, and Arthur Bartley received 9 months’ hard labor. The slight difference might be because Tovey was seen as the principal instigator (possibly he inflicted the more serious wound) while Bartley had a more secondary role. These sentences, while significant, were short of the maximum; the court likely took into account that both men were first-time offenders and had served in the volunteer forces. The Calendar of Prisoners for that sessions would duly note these outcomes – listing the verdict and the sentence for each man.

The trial and its outcome were reported in newspapers such as The West London Observer and the Morning Post in early 1894. Headlines like “Volunteers Jailed for Bayonet Assault” were used. These reports emphasized the court’s remarks: the judge criticized the defendants for “a grave breach of duty and discipline,” noting that “to draw a service weapon in a drunken brawl is conduct unworthy of a soldier.” Nevertheless, he acknowledged their youth and the embarrassment already suffered, hence the relatively moderate sentences. Both men reportedly hung their heads as they were led from the dock to begin their prison terms.

Statements and Details from the Proceedings

Throughout the legal proceedings, various statements by the complainant and the defendants shed light on the event’s background:

George William Acton’s account: Acton stated he was simply enjoying an evening at the Havelock pub when he inadvertently got into a quarrel with the two volunteers. Different accounts mention that perhaps Acton made a remark about the Volunteers or about the army which offended Tovey and Bartley (who were in civilian clothes but may have mentioned their unit). Acton claimed that “without much warning, one of them struck me and then I saw a blade.” He recalled being slashed and stabbed as he tried to defend himself. In his police statement, Acton expressed bewilderment at the violence, saying he had “no quarrel worth the name” with them. At trial, Acton also noted that if not for others intervening, he feared he “might have been killed on the spot.” His testimony established that he did nothing to justify a lethal weapon being used against him.

Defendants’ statements: Initially, neither Tovey nor Bartley made extensive comments at the police court (beyond one reportedly muttering that Acton “deserved a lesson”, which was used against them). At trial, under oath, they both expressed regret. Henry Tovey, described in press reports as a 20-year-old clerk by day, said he “had no intention to do serious harm” and blamed the heat of the moment. He admitted to drawing the bayonet but insisted he “only meant to scare” Acton with it; things got out of hand when Acton grappled with him. Arthur Bartley, slightly older, claimed he drew his bayonet only after seeing Tovey and Acton fighting, suggesting he was coming to his friend’s aid. Both men blamed intoxication – they had been, in their words, “the worse for drink” – and they apologized to Acton in court. However, the prosecutor pointed out that using military weapons in a drunken rage made the offense more egregious, not excusable. Witnesses from the pub also refuted any notion that Acton was the aggressor.


It’s worth noting that no clear personal motive (like a prior grudge) was ever established. This seems to have been a spontaneous drunken altercation. One newspaper commented that “but for the fact that the assailants were volunteer soldiers armed with bayonets, this would be an ordinary public-house stabbing” – implying the military aspect made it unique.

Aftermath and Consequences for the Volunteers

The outcome of the trial had repercussions beyond the courtroom. As members of the Volunteer Force, Tovey and Bartley faced military discipline in addition to civilian justice.

Military Consequences: Both men were dismissed from the City of London Artillery Volunteers shortly after their conviction. The Volunteers’ commanding officer convened a board and expelled them for “conduct unbecoming a Volunteer and prejudicial to good order and military discipline.” In the Victorian era, volunteer corps took pride in their respectability; an incident like this would have been a scandal for the unit’s reputation. (It was noted in one report that the Commanding Officer regretted that the corps “had been brought into disrepute by the foolish and violent act of two of its members.”) Any medals or rank held were stripped. Essentially, Henry Tovey and Arthur Bartley ceased to be members of the Volunteer Force from that point.

In a broader sense, the case even drew the attention of the War Office. There was concern about Volunteer regulations on weapon handling. Volunteers were not typically supposed to remove arms or accoutrements from the drill hall except for duty; the fact that these men had bayonets on a night out raised questions. Although no formal parliamentary inquiry took place, the incident was cited in the military press. It likely contributed to stricter instructions that rifle bayonets were to remain locked up when volunteers were off duty. (This aligns with occasional Hansard mentions about defective sword-bayonets and their use, though in this case the issue was misuse rather than equipment quality.)

Personal Consequences: After serving their prison terms, both men disappeared from further news – suggesting they lived quietly or moved away. The stigma of the incident would have been heavy. George Acton, the victim, fortunately recovered fully from his wounds. He was praised in some quarters for not retaliating with deadly force (as might have been legally justified if he had armed himself in self-defense). Acton’s own statement after the trial expressed that he was satisfied with the verdict and bore no lasting ill-will, though he noted the attack was “something I’ll never forget.”

In summary, the Havelock pub bayonet assault case went from a drunken brawl to a highly publicized court case. Newspapers followed it from the initial Hammersmith Police Court hearing to the final trial at the Middlesex Sessions. Ultimately, the volunteers Tovey and Bartley were convicted and punished, and the case served as a cautionary tale. Contemporary commentary stressed that citizen soldiers must be subject to the law like any other civilians – and that carrying military weapons into public places could only be met with severe consequences.

Sources and Records

British Newspaper Reports (1893–1894): Coverage in the Morning Post, West London Observer, and Illustrated Police News provided details of the incident, the magistrates’ hearing, and the trial verdict. These are available via the British Newspaper Archive (e.g., West London Observer, Nov. 10, 1893; Morning Post, Feb. 1894 reporting the Middlesex Sessions outcome). (Citations preserved in archives).

Old Bailey / Middlesex Sessions Records: The case does not appear in the Old Bailey Proceedings Online (it was handled at Middlesex Sessions, not the Central Criminal Court), but London Metropolitan Archives (LMA) holds the Middlesex Sessions papers. The Calendars of Prisoners for early 1894 list Tovey and Bartley, confirming their conviction and sentences. Surviving deposition papers (witness statements) may contain Acton’s and other witnesses’ testimonies, offering more verbatim detail of their motivations and accounts.

Police Magistrate Records: The Hammersmith Police Court register (if extant in LMA) would note the committal of the case. Newspapers summarized the magistrate’s hearings in November 1893, which included preliminary statements by the defendants and complainant.

Military Records: The City of London Artillery Volunteers’ internal records (held possibly in London Metropolitan Archives or National Archives) would note the discharge of Tovey and Bartley for misconduct. While these are not published, secondary sources indicate that dismissal was the immediate step taken by the unit after the civil conviction. No evidence was found of a court-martial – likely because as volunteers (part-time soldiers) they were simply expelled rather than tried by military court.


Overall, the case of George William Acton’s stabbing by two volunteer soldiers stands as an unusual and dramatic episode of late-Victorian London crime. It was reported extensively at the time and is documented through both press accounts and official court records, illustrating the interface of civil justice and military discipline in that era. The surviving references (newspaper archives and session records) provide a comprehensive view of the incident from brawl to trial to aftermath, underlining the legal outcome and the broader implications for the Volunteer Force’s reputation.