HC Deb 19 February 1818 vol 37 c567
Mr. Ogle

moved the order of the day for the second reading of this bill.

Mr. Bankes,

conceiving that the bill would not tend to suppress the vice of gaming, moved that it be read a second time on that day six months.

Sir F. Flood

said, that so far from putting down gaming, this bill went to encourage it. This was evident from the title of the bill, for it professed to have for its object to regulate houses kept for the purposes of play; and regulation, he observed, was not suppression. He thought nothing could he more injurious to property, reputation, and life than the vice of gaming. It had brought many individuals to ruin, had produced great private misery, and had deprived the country of many persons who might otherwise have been useful and valuable members of society. Upon these considerations, it ought to be suppressed but this, he repeated, was a bill which professed to regulate, and not to suppress. Me should, therefore, vote for the amendment, for he could never consent to license the practice, as was done in France, both for gaming and brothelkeep-ing.

Mr. Lockhart

said, it was impossible to give effect to this bill, for at common law a gaming house was a nuisance, and there was no power vested in magistrates to grant a licence under such circumstances.

Mr. Ogle

remarked on the extent of ginning houses in London. There were more than a thousand of them creating all sorts of mischief. He did not think that the bill, would, interfere with the common law of the laud, he would, however, consent to withdraw it.

The amendment was then agreed to.