Sitting of 20 June 1825

SHOOTING AND STABBING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
On the order of the day for the third reading,
Mr. J. P. Grantsaid, he had no objection to the extension of lord Ellen-borough's act to Scotland; but the bill now went a great deal further, and created, in the last clause, quite a new law. It was there enacted, that if any person threw vitriolic acid on the person of another, for the purpose of doing him any bodily harm, that act should be deemed a capital offence. This provision was introduced in consequence of certain proceedings that had recently taken place in Glasgow. Vitriolic acid, it appeared, had been thrown on the clothes, and sometimes on the Persons, of individuals who refused to join the workmen in their unlawful proceedings. It was fit that this practice should be put down; but the way to put it down was not by enacting a penalty at which the public mind revolted. There was, too, a strange anomaly in this bill. By lord Ellenborough's act it was provided, that if A fired a pistol with intent to kill or maim B, and that, in doing so, he missed his object, and killed or maimed C, he should be subjected to the penalty of death, just as if he had succeeded in h s original intention. But here, if A threw vitriolic acid at B, and deprived C of sight, he was not liable to the penalty, since it was only the absolute act, and not the intent, that was punished; and he believed that there would not be found in the legislation of this or of any other country a measure which did not visit the intent with punishment, except where it succeeded. He should therefore move the third reading this day six months.
The Lord Advocateof Scotland said,
1246
there was no man more unwilling than he was to extend the penal code of the country; and he was sure, if gentlemen connected with Glasgow were then present, they would state the fact, that for three years past he had refused all applications to resort to the present measure. But the scenes which had occurred in the west of Scotland for a considerable time compelled him, however reluctantly, to legislate on this subject; and he felt convinced that he could not devise an adequate remedy for this evil, if this clause was not introduced. Much information would be found on this subject in the evidence given before the committee on the combination laws. He held in his hand two certificates from Dr. Corkendale of Glasgow, detailing the deplorable state to which two workmen had been reduced, in consequence of sulphuric acid having been thrown in their faces. Several persons were tried for this offence, and sentenced to transportation; but that punishment had not the effect of diminishing the crime. Every clause of lord. Ellen-borough's act applied to this case. If a man were cut in the slightest degree with, a sharp instrument, he was liable to the. penalty of death for the act; and surely there could be no comparison between: a slight injury of that kind, and the misery which an individual must suffer when vitriolic acid was thrown in his face. The man who inflicted a wound, might have had the knife in his hand, by chance, at, the moment; but, when vitriolic acid was flung on an individual, it must have been purchased for that diabolical purpose. If this clause were thrown out, he would withdraw the bill altogether. In cases of shooting and stabbing, the probability was, that the person injured, or some passing individual, could give evidence as to the hand that inflicted the wound; bus where vitriolic acid was made use of, such precautions were taken as rendered it extremely difficult to procure evidence. It did not however follow, that though the offence was capital, capital punishment would always be inflicted. A discretionary power was left in the hands of the judge. Neither was it intended that this should be a permanent measure. It was meant to confine it to five years; at the expiration of which time he hoped the necessity for it would have ceased.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, he was about to suggest to the learned lord the propriety of restricting the measure to a cer-

1247
tain period. He was happy to find that the learned lord saw the subject in the same point of view; because he felt that it was due to the moral character of the people that the bill should be temporary.
Mr. Humesaid, that the forbearance shown by the learned lord, when he was called on to legislate on this subject, did him the greatest credit; and any hon. member who looked to the evidence taken before the committee on the Combination laws, would see that the best possible results had been attained by that forbearance.
Mr. J. P. Grantsaid, that as this was to be a temporary measure, he was willing to withdraw his opposition.
The bill was read a third time.