MR. JOHN MORLEYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been drawn to the action of the police in Newcastle on Tyne on the 23rd instant, in entering two public houses and there arresting sixty-nine persons, of whom sixty-four were shortly afterwards unconditionally released; and, whether he will take step3 to discourage too stringent an application of the Betting Act?
§ SIR WILFRID LAWSONwished to ask this further Question—Whether the right hon. Gentleman would take steps to put down betting among the gentlemen who frequented Tattersall's?
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, with the leave of the House he would answer the Question on the Paper. His hon. Friend (Mr. J. Morley) must know that he (Sir William Harcourt) had no control of the Newcastle-on-Tyne police, nor could he prescribe to the magistrates of Newcastle how they should perform their duty in the administration of the law. If he were to offer advice in a case where he had no power, it would be of no avail. With regard to the latter part of the Question, his hon. Friend was, no doubt, acquainted with the local authorities, and, having great influence, could enforce on them the views he entertained on the subject.
§ Subsequently,
MR. JOSEPH COWENwished to ask a Question of the Home Secretary with reference to his answer to his Colleague concerning the police raids on betting men at Newcastle. As he understood, the right hon. and learned Gentleman refused to interfere with this matter on the ground that he had no control over 1101 the police at Newcastle. Identical proceedings took place within half-a-mile of the Home Office every day, and he had control over the Metropolitan Police. He wished to know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman's answer amounted to approval of the action of the Newcastle magistrates; and, if so, whether he meant to apply the same law to the betting establishments near the Home Office?
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that he could answer for the action of the police over whom he had control; but he was unable to answer, either by way of approval or disapproval, for police over whom he had no control. If he were to express a judgment in this case upon the action of the Municipal authorities of Newcastle, he must consider the matter in an official way. He had not at present official information before him; and he could, therefore, express neither approbation nor condemnation of conduct he had not had an opportunity of considering.
§ SIR WILFRID LAWSONobserved, that the Question put by the hon. Member for Newcastle had not been answered. The Question was, whether the Home Secretary would take the same action with reference to the betting establishments in London, which were under his control, as had been taken with regard to those of Newcastle, over which he had no control?