HL Deb 05 February 1844 vol 72 cc216-20
The Duke of Richmond

moved the second reading of the Bill to repeal Penalties on Horse-racing, &c.

Lord Brougham

had considered a good deal the framework of this bill, which was a most important one. He knew that great objection existed to this bill in several most respectable quarters, all founded on the general subject of gaming. There was no objection, however, to one part of this bill, and he, therefore, advised his noble Friend to restrict the enactments of his measure, which were at present too general. He recommended the noble Duke to withdraw the bill for the present, and introduce one which should have the effect of quashing the qui tam actions already brought upon the existing statutes upon payment of costs. By taking that step first, and by reconsidering the clauses of his present bill, his noble Friend would do everything that the occasion required.

The Bishop of London

hoped, if the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord were adopted, and another bill were brought in upon this subject, it would be a very different bill to the present one. If, on the contrary, it should in any degree tend to do that which this bill did and must, effectually increase the evil of gambling, he should certainly give it his most decided opposition. Whatever contingent advantages might result from the promotion of manly sports and pastimes, if they were to be purchased at the expense of facilitating betting by the removal of legal restraints, he repeated he should feel bound to give them his determined opposition.

The Duke of Richmond

complained, that the right rev. Prelate had hazarded an opinion with regard to this bill before an opportunity had been afforded him (the Duke of Richmond) of stating its object. His object was to destroy frau- dulent betting, and to restrict considerably all other betting. He objected to the right rev. Prelate's description going forth to the country, when the very object of his bill was the reverse. He was not, however, obstinate on this subject. He (the Duke of Richmond) did not bet himself, and he objected to a great deal of the betting which took place on the turf at present. Indeed, he believed that, if the system of betting was not checked, the turf would soon be deserted. His bill was intended to protect other manly sports. At present no one could play a game of cricket where the loser paid the expenses of the ground without rendering himself liable to a qui tam action. He happened to be one of those who wished to encourage manly sports; he thought them of great importance, and that they had been of late too much discouraged. He hoped that their Lordships and the other House of Parliament would, in all future enclosure bills, if not in separate bills for the purpose, set aside a portion of land near the large towns, to which the people might resort for manly amusement. It was better that they should do so than go to the beer-shops, where they became sullen and discontented—for all men, rich as well as poor, stood in need of amusement. It was this object which induced him to take up the question, and he believed that his bill would effect all that he said. He did not wish to put himself in opposition to his noble and learned Friend, he would postpone his bill for the present; but he hoped that the bill, which would get rid of the qui tam actions, would be allowed to go through as quickly as possible. He hoped that their Lordships would adopt at once a measure which would defeat the attempts of a set of scoundrels who had been turned off the turf during the last year for not paying the bets which they had lost. They had endeavoured to wrench acts of Parliament to their own purposes, not with the view to promote the public good, but to gratify their revenge and to fill their pockets. Desiring to act upon the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord, he would rather postpone the Order of the Day for the second reading of the bill before the House, and bring in another bill to prevent the mischief intended to be perpetrated by these qui tam actions. He hoped that none of their Lordships would suppose that he had any intention by this bill to increase or promote the practice of gambling.

Lord Brougham

thought that it would be better that all the statutes relating to betting and gambling should be referred to a select committee. Those laws had two defects; in one direction they were too stringent and severe, and, as it always happened in such cases, in another they were too lax and too easily evaded. He wished to apply a remedy to such a state of things. Many of their Lordships might not be aware, and he himself, albeit a lawyer by profession, was not aware till that day, that some of the most exalted personages in the country were liable to prosecution at the suit of a common informer; and, if convicted, to be sent to, and imprisoned in the common gaol of the county in which the offence was committed for the space of twelve calendar months, for having engaged in a raffle, to which they might have given a guinea out of pure charity. He had no doubt that some of their Lordships might at that very moment be liable to a benefit of that description, and this circumstance was an illustration of his assertion that the laws with respect to gambling required to be looked into.

The Bishop of London

thought, that the noble Duke had no greater cause of complaint against him than he had against his noble and learned Friend opposite. He had never for a moment imputed to the noble Duke any design to increase the evils, which he nevertheless thought this bill calculated to augment. The bill appeared to him to be a wholesale abrogation of the restraints on betting, and consequently calculated to increase that evil, and he had therefore desired to call the noble Duke's attention to it. If, however, the noble Duke should introduce any measure with a view to promote the moral and social improvement of the people, he hoped it would be such a measure as he could concur in. No person in the House more entirely concurred in the sentiments expressed by the noble Duke as to the expediency, and he would almost say duty, of providing manly recreations for the poor. He had always held the same language, and had laboured in every place where he had resided to provide means of rational amusement for the people. He held it to be especially incumbent upon them at the present time when they were about to continue the New Poor-law, and to place restraints upon the poor, which nothing but the necessity of the case could justify, to introduce also measures for their solace and relief. He only feared that the vast increase of building of late years would interpose an almost insurmountable difficulty in providing suitable places for the recreation of the people.

Lord Campbell

took nearly the same view of this subject as his noble and learned Friend. He thought that all these qui tam actions should be stopped quam primum. A bill for that purpose could be passed through the House without delay. With respect to the law itself, he must observe that indictments and penalties for putting down gaming never had succeeded, and never would succeed. Like the noble Duke, he would fain see manly sports encouraged; but he could not go so far as the noble Duke was prepared to go in his present bill, which made all bets lawful contracts, capable of being enforced in a court of law. A love of the sport ought to be a sufficient inducement to parties to engage in it without laying bets to be enforced in courts of law. If betting were to be allowed at such recreations, the bets should be considered debts of honour, without any remedy for it than by an action at law.

Lord Denman

thought the noble Duke had a right to complain, that after he had put his Bill off, it should be thus attacked, and before he had been heard to say a word in defence of it. He would venture to suggest, that the Bill, and also the whole subject, should be referred to a committee, to consider how the law now stood, and what it ought to be for the future. With regard to the qui tam actions, he was not aware that they were now proceeding, but thought it might be perfectly right to prevent these actions.

The Marquess of Normanby

said, that as his noble Friend proposed to divide his Bill into two distinct Bills, they might get into some difficulty by postponing it, especially if they wanted to proceed at once with the Bill for stopping the qui tam actions.

The Duke of Richmond

did not agree with his noble Friend (Lord Campbell) that these debts should be made debts of honour. They were debts of honour now, but men made bets who had no honour, and what was to be done with them? This was the cause of the qui tam actions. These fellows had no character to lose. If they lost 5,000l, they did not think their characters worth that sum, and, therefore would not pay it. The best way, therefore, was to make a man pay when he lost. He entirely concurred with the Lord Chief Justice, and would, therefore, move that the order of the day for the second reading of the Bill should be discharged, so that his noble Friend might move that the whole subject should be referred to a select committee. The existing law was absurd and contradictory. At the present moment they might bet 100,000l. on a race which was run, if by means of a pigeon or otherwise, they had obtained information of the result, and this bet, it had been decided again and again, could be recovered in a court of law. In like manner, one of their Lordships might bet that he would go to Palace-yard and meet twenty lawyers in their wigs in the course of an hour, and this bet could be recovered; but if he bet upon a race-horse, it would not be recoverable. If, however, the race-horse ran for nothing, the bet could be recovered. The subject was, therefore, most worthy of their Lordships' attention.

The Order of the Day for the second reading was then discharged; and the subject, on the motion of Lord Denman, ordered to be referred to a select committee.