HC Deb 01 August 1906 vol 162 cc1144-70

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1:—

MR. GLADSTONE

moved an Amendment providing that any person frequenting "or loitering in streets or public places" for the purpose of betting shall be liable to the specified penalties.

*MR. CLAUDE HAY

wished to know whether they could have some clear definition of the word "loiter," and he reminded the Secretary of State that he had already this year appointed a Royal Commission to ascertain the meaning of the word "loitering" as understood and used by the police in London.

*MR. GLADSTONE

It is a well-known word in the English language.

LORD BALCARRES

asked if a telegraph office was a public place. Would this Act prevent a man standing about a telegraph office and making bets by telegram?

*MR. GLADSTONE

said he had a great deal of sympathy with the noble Earl's object and he believed that as a matter of law a Post Office was a public place. The difficulty of deciding whether a man who was sent to bet by telegram really came within the scope of the Act was so great that it was impossible to draft an Amendment to cover it.

SIR E. CARSON

said he was sorry that the Home Secretary had come to that conclusion. The Government had not given much time for Members to put down Amendments, because it was past 2 o'clock, after midnight, when the Bill was passed. The right hon. Gentleman last night made a very able and powerful and useful speech upon this question of betting in streets and public places, but would the public believe he was in earnest if a man was permitted to be arrested outside a telegraph office for betting whilst the Government were receiving hundreds of thousands of pounds inside the telegraph office for the purpose of transmitting bets to bookmakers? He did not see what the practical difficulties were. If the right hon. Gentleman issued an instruction that no telegraph clerks should receive a bet, that might meet the case. If it was enacted that it was punishable by fine to send a bet by telegraph, there would not be much difficulty in the matter. The great difficulty was that the Government, while they pretended to wish to do something to put down an admitted evil of a very great character, desired themselves to countenance this system of betting for the sake of revenue. It was purely and solely a question of revenue which prevented the Government dealing with it. If in this Act they had a section really preventing and legislating against the transmission of bets by telegraph, it would smash up the whole bookmaking system throughout this country. There was nothing more pitiable than to go into a country post office, close to some small local races, and see the men there who were hardly able to buy their own dinners waiting to telegraph 5s. or 2s. 6d. to have a bet on some of those races. So long as that practice existed the public would consider the Government particeps criminis in this matter; if the right hon. Gentleman had given them a little more time to put down Amendments to make it perfectly clear that the Government were determined to alleviate the evils, they would have done much to put an end to this disastrous system which went on throughout the whole country.

*MR. GLADSTONE

reminded the right hon. Gentleman that there was still a Report stage upon which he could exercise his legal ingenuity to draft an Amendment which it would be possible to accept. If he would do that the Government would be extremely glad to consider it. He did not know whether this Amendment would cover that. He did not know whether a telegraph office was a public place. He was not a lawyer, but he should have thought it was outside the scope of this Bill, which was one for "the suppression of betting in streets and other public places." He would remind the hon. and learned Gentleman, who was a distinguished Member of the late Government, that this Bill was sent down from the Lords in the past two sessions, and that it never advanced to the present stage in this House [An HON. MEMBER: It was blocked.]. He did not know who blocked it, but what the Government were doing now the late Government could easily have done. It was a Bill which at any rate provided a partial solution. He did not claim anything more for it. If they could pass this Bill, however, he would suggest to the Postmaster-General and his colleagues that perhaps a Bill might be brought in next year aimed at betting by telegraph.

MR. PAUL (Northampton)

said this was not a question of legal ingenuity. It was a very serious matter. Betting by telegraph was more injurious than betting at street corners. He did not understand why the right hon. Gentleman could not accept the Amendment. If a telegraph office was not a public place it was not a private place. The Government did not allow messages of an improper or immoral character to be sent by telegraph, and he wished they did not allow messages to be sent in regard to betting transactions. He hoped words would be introduced at this stage, or on the Report stage, to stop this system of betting, which caused untold misery to the public.

SIR E. CARSON

said that if betting by telegraph were not within the scope of the Bill the Bill was not worth anything. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman would find the least difficulty in legislating to prevent the transmission of betting messages by telegraph. He admitted that the law might sometimes be evaded, but let them put on the face of the Bill that this House disapproved of the system.

MR. CHARLES CRAIG (Antrim, S.)

said it seemed to him that this Bill was framed for a certain specific object, and that was to put a stop to the system of street betting which enabled the poorer classes to put small bets on horse races. What was now proposed was that they should graft an entirely different principle on the Bill at the last moment. Were they to understand, for instance, that if Lord Rosebery, who was an excellent type of sportsman, went to a post office and put on a bet he was to be liable to a fine? [An HON. MEMBER: Why not? He would tell the hon. Member. He was endeavouring to explain that this Bill was not framed to deal with a case of that kind. The Bill was intended to deal with the case of the poor man. [An HON. MEMBER: Why?] He thought that the acceptance of the Amendment would do what the framers of the Bill did not really intend, and he hoped that the Home Secretary would make the point perfectly clear.

*MR. GLADSTONE

said that he quite agreed with the hon. Member that there were great difficulties which had not been not by the Bill. Besides betting by telegraph, there was the difficult case of betting by telephone.

SIR E. CARSON

said that most people now bet by telephone because there was no record of it.

*MR. GLADSTONE

said that they had also to consider the legitimate secrecy of the telegraph. The Government would put this Bill when passed on trial, and would consider whether afterwards any Amendment could be made upon it.

MR. BOTTOMLEY (Hackney, S.)

said that this was a very important question. A post office had been held by competent Courts of Law to be a public place. Was it to be distinctly understood that the Government in passing this measure would render liable to arrest Lord Rosebery or the Duke of Devonshire who entered a post office in order to put a bet by telegraph on a horse they fancied, or even to make a bet on the life of the present Government?

Amendment agreed to:

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 7, to leave out the words ' or wagering' "—(Mr. Gladstone.)

MR. CLAUDE HAY

asked why these words "or wagering" should be left out? Was it designed to cover any transaction now conducted in the streets which was connected with matters of business in different parts in the United Kingdom? He understood that the Lord Chancellor and Lord Davey had thought it necessary to put these two words into the Bill.

SIR E. CARSON

said he was very sorry that the right hon. Gentleman proposed to leave these words out of the Bill.

*MR. GLADSTONE

said he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. BOTTOMLEY

said that the first amendment standing in his name was to reduce the fine from £10 to £5, which he submitted was quite sufficient.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 11, to leave out the word 'ten' and insert the word 'five.' "—(Mr. Bottomley.)

Question, "That the word ' ten ' stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.

MR. BOTTOMLEY

said that after the decision just arrived at he would not proceed with his other Amendments.

MR. LUPTON

moved an Amendment with a view to omitting the provision that in the case of a third or subsequent offence or in the case of a person committing the offence of having a betting transaction with a person under the age of sixteen years he should be liable to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for six months, without the option of a fine. He thought the punishment was monstrous.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 20, to leave out from the word ' pounds ' to the word ' tine ' in line 22. — (Mr. Lupton.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."

MR. CHARLES CRAIG

supported the Amendment, and said the penalty was an extremely heavy one for a person who perhaps only bet half-a-crown three times. Such a provision was unworthy of any assembly which called itself an assembly of reasonable men.

MR. J. W. WILSON (Worcestershire, N.)

, thought this was a very serious question, and pointed out that bookmakers employed men and paid them well to bet with youths, women, and children. If the penalty was made severe they would not be able to get men to do this dirty work.

SIR E. CARSON

said his hon. friend who moved the Amendment seemed to have overlooked the fact that the im- prisonment only followed upon a third offence having been committed. Therefore a person convicted must have determined to defy the law. The penalty for a person willing to enter into such transactions with a boy of sixteen was not one whit too large.

*MR. GLADSTONE

said the Government could not accept the Amendment, because if they did so the Bill would become useless.

Amendment negatived.

MR. BOTTOMLEY

moved the omission of Sub-section 2, which provided that any constable might take into custody without warrant any person found committing an offence under the Act, and might seize and detain any article liable to be forfeited under the Act. He submitted that in view of the fact that the telegraph and telephone offices might be places within the meaning of the Act, to give a policeman liberty to loiter round those places in the hope of making an arrest was not desirable. He asked the Government if they would not accept his Amendment or find words to limit the power of arrest to cases where there was a complaint. He moved to omit the sub-section.

Amendment proposed— To leave out Sub-section 2".—(Mr. Bottomley.)

*MR. GLADSTONE

said he could not accept the Amendment. The custom at present was to arrest without warrant, and in this case it seemed to be necessary.

MR. LUPTON

supported the Amendment. It was, he said, a monstrous thing that if two men happened to meet in the street and had a bet a constable should come up and run them in. There was something more important even than putting betting down, and that was upholding justice. This was a prostitution of law and justice. Under this Bill it would be legal for a lord or a rich man to make a bet on the racecourse, but if a poor man made a bet in the street he was to be run in. Was this great Liberal Government going to begin its work by filling the gaols of this country with, innocent men?

MR. J. W. WILSON

said he merely wished to confirm what he had said on the previous evening, that powers of this kind had already been conferred on three towns.

MR. SHACKLETON (Lancashire, Clitheroe)

said this Bill was aimed at the professional bookmaker, who was far better engaged serving his time in prison than in demoralising working men. In this case these people were well known, and to give a man a chance of running away every time a policeman saw him was absurd.

MR. BOTTOMLEY

said it was not only the wicked bookmaker but the poor innocent working-man who put his 6d. on who was liable to arrest.

MR. CULLINAN

asked whether the Bill was designed to punish the bookmaker?

*MR. GLADSTONE

said the Bill was designed against the men who made a profession of betting, and frequenting places for that purpose. They were the bookmakers.

MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON (Lanarkshire, N.W.)

asked for an interpretation of the words "articles relating to betting." He pointed out that those words were sufficiently wide to comprehend money passed to the bookmaker, which he was sure the right hon. Gentleman did not intend. If the right hon. Gentleman agreed with him he hoped he would consider the matter and make it clear before the Report stage.

MR. GLADSTONE

agreed that there was something in the point of the hon. Gentleman, and said he would look into it very carefully. If it was as the hon. Gentleman said, he would take care to alter it on Report.

MR. CLAUDE HAY

asked whether the Bill was designed to punish bookmakers plying their trade, and not those who made occasional bets.

*MR. GLADSTONE

said a man must be frequenting a place for the purpose of betting.

MR. LUPTON

said that Clause provided that if a man made a bet h was to be run in.

SIR E. CARSON

said he did not think the observations of the Home Secretary ought to go unchallenged. If the right hon. Gentleman meant that this Act was only to apply to those who were known as bookmakers, taking bets in the street, he thought he was mistaken; any person found in the street making a bet could be punished under this Bill.

*MR. GLADSTONE

said all he did was to answer a specific question put to him as to whether if a man made a bet in the street for the first time he would be sent to prison. He did not think any magistrate would find a person in a case like that guilty of loitering or frequenting public places for the purposes of betting.

Amendment negatived.

*MR. WATT (Glasgow, College),

said that he was under the impression that a recent deputation to the Undersecretary had converted him to their views upon this point, but the Government had not adopted their suggestion. The Bill gave power to "seize and detain," but not the right of search. It stood to sense that such articles as books, cards and papers relating to betting would be secreted about the person. By the law of Scotland the police officer in charge of the station had not the right to search, and the object of this Amendment was to give the power under this Bill. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 5, after ' and,' to insert' the officer in charge of the police station to which such person is taken may cause such person to be searched and."'—(Mr. Watt.)

*MR. GLADSTONE

said the Government could not accept this Amendment because any constable at the present time had the right of search, and why should that right be limited to the officer in charge at the station? His hon. and learned friend informed him that the law in Scotland with regard to search was the same as in England.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. BOTTOMLEY

moved to leave out Sub-section (3) of Clause 1. A person might be sent to prison for six months if, in the opinion of the Court, he had made a bet and was under the age limit allowed by this Bill. This sub-section threw the onus upon the prisoner of proving his own innocence. The proceedings under this Bill might be either in a Court of Summary Jurisdiction or by indictment. What was the position of a bookmaker who was charged with betting with someone under the age of sixteen and who honestly believed that the person he was betting with was over that age? Probably some short-sighted stipendiary magistrate would take a casual glance at the prisoner and say that he looked under the age of sixteen. Probably the boy would be sent down to the Criminal Court and possibly they would have in the end to search the register at Somerset House. [Cries of "Oh."] Hon. Members should remember that they were dealing with a Bill which immediately it became law would be construed literally according to the laws of evidence. If they gave a prisoner the benefit of such a safeguard as that which he was suggesting no man could be deprived of this plea—that he had reason to believe the prisoner was above the statutory age. He hoped they would not violate every fundamental principle of justice in the Law Courts by passing this sub-section,

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 7, to leave out Sub-section (3)."—(Mr. Bottomley.)

*MR. GLADSTONE

said this sub-section referred to the lads under the age of sixteen, with whom a bookmaker made bets. There were precedents for this proposal. Surely if there was any doubt in the mind of the Court about the lad's age, they would take precautions to call for his birth certificate.

MR. LUPTON

said this was another case of making a prisoner prove his innocence when it was the duty of the prosecution to prove him guilty. A more monstrous proposition he had seldom heard placed before this House.

Amendment negatived.

MR. BOTTOMLEY

moved to leave out Sub-section (4,) because it professed to be an interpretation clause, and this was the opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to introduce his proposal to amend the Act so as to apply to telegraph offices and make it quite clear that the Act was intended to apply in such cases.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 10, leave out Sub-section (4).

*MR. GLADSTONE

said this subsection was intended to remove any doubt about certain places which it might be held would not come within the meaning of the Act.

*MR. HICKS BEACH

said that some race meetings were conducted upon open ground to which the public had free access. What the Home Secretary said was that it was the intention of this Bill simply to prohibit bookmakers frequenting the street in order to induce people to bet on things which they did not see. If there was any doubt about this question it was desirable that the Government should consider the advisability of including some proviso to exempt coursing meetings.

Amendment negatived.

Drafting Amendment agreed to.

*MR. CLAUDE HAY

moved the omission of the word "unenclosed." If betting was an evil it should be dealt with as a whole and not piece-meal, and if persons who possessed much of this world's goods were to be allowed to bet because they went to an enclosed ground for access to which they paid an entrance fee, then they were tolerating within a ringed fence that which they considered an offence if it was done in a club or in a street. They must deal with the rich man as well as the poor man.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 14, to leave out the word ' unenclosed.'

Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

*MR. GLADSTONE

said this word was extremely necessary. The definition clause was subjected, to the closest scrutiny by eminent legal members of the House of Lords, and he was very much afraid that if any alteration were made it might endanger the passage of the Bill.

MR. CLAUDE HAY

said the right hon. Gentleman had already thrown over the House of Lords by accepting an Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman had given him no answer. If betting was an evil it was the same whether carried on by rich or by poor.

SIR E. CARSON

said he did not see any reason why the word "unenclosed" was there. In the case of a football match or a cricket match he thought the sport was often spoiled by the betting which went on. What difference did it make whether the place was enclosed or unenclosed if the public had unrestricted access? They could not apply this Bill to private grounds, because, of course, the police could not go in.

*MR. GLADSTONE

said he would consider the matter, and if necessary propose an Amendment at a later stage.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said the right hon. Gentleman should accept the Amendment, and then tell the House of Lords that it came from the Tory Party in the House of Commons.

MR. CLAUDE HAY

said that in view of the promise made by the Home Secretary he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. FORSTER (Kent, Sevenoaks)

moved an Amendment to make the Clause apply to any enclosed ground used for the holding of any atheltic sports or cycle racing. He wished to know the views of the Home Secretary on this matter. He believed that the National Cyclists Union was anxious that an Amendment of this kind should be inserted. It was in the interest of clean and healthy sport that the Amendment should be made

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and question proposed, "That Clause 1, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

MR.T. M. HEALY

asked the Government to consider whether in Ireland the right of appeal should not be given in the case of sentences of under one month's imprisonment. It was a real hardship that a police magistrate should be able to pass such a sentence and that the accused should not have the right of appeal. He was quite with the Government in regard to this Bill. He thought they were taking a proper step, but he held a man should not be liable to lose his liberty for a month without having the right of appeal. There was the right of appeal in England and Scotland, and he thought it was time that the whole question of public liberty should be put on the same footing in Ireland.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY, Liverpool, Exchange)

said the matter was one worthy of consideration. He could say for himself, and he thought he could say also for the Home Secretary, that it was a very desirable thing that there should be the right of appeal.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 2:—

MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON (Lanarkshire, N.W.)

said he was not quite sure of the meaning of the words "procedure before provided for." He hoped that some exception would be made, and he proposed to insert words so that the clause should road: "Nothing contained in this Act shall, save as hereinbefore provided, apply to any racecourse" He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 10, after the word 'shall,' to insert the words ' save as hereinbefore provided.' "—(Mr. Mitchell-Thomson.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

*MR. GLADSTONE

said that the point would be considered before the Report stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON

said he wished to move an Amendment to add to Clause 2 the words "or other quantity." He admitted that the words were somewhat curious in their present form, but if they were going to exempt racecourses, it should be remembered that there were racecourses in large numbers, especially in the north of England and in Scotland, where there were other than horse races. He referred to dog races. He maintained that a dog race was as clean as any horse race, and if exemption was desirable in one case it was also desirable in other cases. There was also the question of foot racing as well as cycling racing.

*MR. GLADSTONE

said that there was no exact analogy between coursing and horse racing. The people who attended the former meetings did not go there for the purpose of betting professionally, and those who went to enjoy legitimate sport should not come under the operation of the Act. He undertook, however, to look into the question.

MR. CHARLES CEAIG

said he presumed that most people regarded the coursing match for the Waterloo Cup as an ordinary race meeting, but the question of extending this Bill to all coursing meetings as well as to horse race meetings should be very carefully considered.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR E. CARSON

moved to amend Clause 2 by leaving out the provision that nothing contained in the Act should apply to ground "adjacent to" a racecourse on days upon which races took place. He did not see the necessity for the words.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, clause 2, lines 17 and 18, to leave out the words ' or adjacent thereto.' "— (Sir H. Carson).

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."

*MR. GLADSTONE

said that there were certain parts adjacent to a racecourse which might not come within the legal definition of a racecourse. Therefore it was necessary, he thought, to have these words in. It was the first time that his attention had been drawn to this matter, however, and he would consider it.

LORD BALCARRES

said these were rather important words, and, like many other expressions in the Bill, would require legal definition. Did "adjacent thereto" mean fifty or 100 yards or a quarter of a mile? That would have to be settled by a Court of law. The provision meant that on Monday when races were being held you could bet at a particular place or upon a particular road, but on Tuesday when races were not being held you would get six months for doing so. He thought it was desirable that there should be some machinery established for determining this question in advance, and he hoped before the Report stage the Home Secretary would consider the matter.

MR. T. M. HEALY

thought that the Liberal Party were playing into the hands of their opponents, because they were endeavouring to put down betting in every part of the country except those which were resorted to by the aristocracy.

*THE CHAIRMAN

said the hon. Member was making remarks which should be made on the clause rather than on the present Amendment.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said in that case he should have to make a second speech.

MR. CLAUDE HAY

asked whether the words "adjacent thereto" might not be held to include the betting ring.

*MR. GLADSTONE

No; that is not a public place.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Report made, and Question proposed "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill."

MR. T. M. HEALY

said that the Government proposed to put down the miserable people who betted sixpence while they allowed peers and monarchs to bet in hundreds and thousands of pounds. And this was said to be the Party of the democracy. This Bill and this clause, moreover, came from the House of Lords, and no doubt the Government case was that they must take the moat they could from that House. He thought, however, that the best thing to do was to take this clause out and send the Bill back to the House of Lords and leave upon them the responsibility of restoring it.

*MR. GLADSTONE

said he had already pointed out that if they omitted this clause it would strike at the poor man and would not affect the rich, because the betting ring was protected inasmuch it was not a public place. Therefore the rich people could bet there but the poor man could not bet even upon a racecourse when races were being run. This was the result of the Kempton Park case.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken about the Kempton Park case, which only applied to a house, office, or place, and not to a racecourse. The decision was under the Betting House Act, which dealt with betting houses. He was as anxious as anybody to put down this nefarious system of betting, and if the Government was honest in the matter they would put it down in the post offices. They had now left themselves open to the taunt that they put down Tom, Dick, and Harry, and allowed to go free the peers and other persons and rich people, who were the tempters in this matter, who spent their tens of thousands in so-called sport and tempted the working men. They gave the little men six months while they allowed the protectors of this vice to go free. It was the Liberal Party who were making themselves this rod to be laid on their own backs by the Conservative Party.

*MR. GLADSTONE

said he would no put himself in competition with the hon. and learned Member on a question of law, but he was advised that the law was perfectly distinct on this point, and that it was against the view taken of the hon. and learned Member.

SIR E. CARSON

What view?

*MR. GLADSTONE

said if this clause were struck out the betting rings on the racecourse would be perfectly immune. The words of Clause 1 were "unrestricted access." these people had not unrestricted access to the betting rings.

MR. T. M. HEALY

Epsom Downs.

*MR. GLADSTONE

That was his whole point. People did not wander up Epsom Downs making casual bets. But the class of society using the betting rings did not. If this clause was struck out the betting rings would still be immune, and they would not strike at the betting tendency of the wealthy by taking out the clause. All the criticism of this Bill had been that it was a Bill dealing with the poor and not striking at the rich, and it had been argued on that basis. If the rich man frequented a street for the purpose of betting, or if he betted with a bookmaker in the street, he would come within the provisions of the Bill. But they were now talking of omitting this clause, and he was pointing out that if it was omitted the omission would not effect the purpose they all desired to secure.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said that if this Bill raised the whole question they would have no difficulty in assenting to the clause, because they would rather have the Bill with the clause than lose it altogether; nevertheless, many Members had had great difficulty in supporting this exceptional legislation. If they could legislate against betting at street corners why could they not legislate against betting on racecourses? He had a distinct objection to saying even by implication that a thing was right on a racecourse but wrong in the streets.

*MR. GLADSTONE

said he would leave the matter to the House.

MR. SHACKLETON

said it appeared to him that the point they were missing was that the avowed object was to get rid of the professional bookmaker who took money from the State and gave nothing to the State back again. Taking the right hon. Gentleman's own version, a bookmaker might be in the street on Monday taking bets and he would be liable under this Act, but on Tuesday he might go on the racecourse where he would be absolutely free to bet. He did not see why they should prevent betting in the streets and legalise it on the racecourse. He thought the Home Secretary had taken a wise course by leaving the question to the House.

*MR. H. H. MARKS

said there was one point in connection with this clause to which he desired to allude. The object of the clause was not so much a question of the protection of the rich; it was intended to protect the poor, and more particularly the class of men who were induced to bet 1s. or 6d. in the street on a race which they did not go to see and about which they knew nothing at all. If this clause was allowed to stand, and if an exception was made in favour of the racecourse, the Committee should bear in mind what that meant. If they were serious in their desire to stop the working classes being induced to bet, surely the most effective way was to stop betting altogether, and they could do it by eliminating this clause. It was within the knowledge of everybody who knew anything of the subject that the prices which were the basis of the bets made by the working classes were what were known as starting prices, and that meant the prices which prevailed at the time the horses started. If there was no betting on the racecourses there would be no starting prices and then there could be no street betting. If they loft out this sub-clause they would stop betting at its very foundation.

MR. CLOUGH

said he should vote against this clause, because it was class legislation of the worst type. The House of Lords seek to take the mote out of the eye of the working class, whilst they keep the beam in the eye of their own class by carefully preserving the race-courses for their indulgence. To reject this clause at this stage does not necessitate losing the Bill, because the House of Lords frequently reject clauses which are sent up to them by the House of Commons, and we are perfectly within our right by now rejecting a clause in a Bill which has come from them to us.

SIR E. CARSON

said he did not think they ought to assume that the House of Lords would at all insist upon this clause. It was plain that the Bill was drawn to put down street betting, but if there was a general expression of opinion that the Bill ought to be made wider in its scope he did not think it was fair to assume that the House of Lords would not adopt the measure in its wider form.

MR. CHARLES CRAIG

said that anything more ridiculous for the House to do than to strike out this clause he had never heard. The Bill was intended to deal with street betting, and this kind of betting was as different from betting on the racecourse as black was from white. It was now proposed to extend the Bill in a way that was never intended, and to place the onus on the House of Lords. The measure dealt with an admitted evil, and to say that they should include betting of all sorts would be a very injudicious course to pursue. He suggested that the Bill should be allowed to pass as it was because it struck at a very serious evil. Nobody had made a case beyond a sentimental one for the proposition which had been made. If this Bill passed there would be no street betting, and when street betting disappeared hon. Members would have carried out what they intended by this Act.

LORD BALCARRES

said he gathered that the opinion of the Committee was against this clause. He did not take that view, and he rose to ask the Home Secretary if this clause was thrown out to postpone the Report stage.

THE CHAIRMAN

I think a question of that kind should be brought on later.

LORD BALCARRES

said that if they left out Clause 2 they would make it a fresh Bill altogether. The most sanguine supporter of the Bill could not claim any mandate to suppress betting altogether in Great Britain. Therefore they ought to pause before they dropped this subsection. If they stopped betting in the street they should also stop betting by telegraph, and that alone would cost the country £250,000 a year. If they made betting illegal it did not follow that they would stop betting. He hoped the Home Secretary would at least consent, in view of the enormous change which would be made by this proposal in the whole scope of the Bill, to postpone this question until the Report stage.

MR. J. W. WILSON

said that upon street betting the opinion of the country was ripe for legislation, but not one hon. Member had advocated at the election the putting down of race meetings.

MR. BOTTOMLEY

said that as one who did go to race meetings he wished to point out that there were two kinds of racecourses, those which were known as enclosed and those which were open. If this clause were omitted it would still be possible for anybody who went to Kempton Park races to be entirely outside the scope of the Bill, whereas at Epsom, on Derby Day, the Bill would not prevent the working man indulging in a little betting. He hoped the operation of this Act would be confined to street betting.

MR. CROSSLEY (Cheshire, Altrincham)

said he was anxious that street betting should be put down. All employers of labour must know what a nuisance this street betting was. Not long ago a poor widow told him that a bookmaker was hanging about his works, inducing boys to bet. He would prefer to carry a measure suppressing street betting rather than risk the chance of dealing with this question altogether by accepting the proposal before the House.

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. THOMAS SHAW, Hawick Burghs)

said he was very anxious that this Bill should pass into law this session, and if possible this month. The proposal had been made that this clause should be omitted. He should deplore that extremely. There was no doubt whatever that if that course were taken this Bill would not see the Statute-book until October, and that would be a great calamity. The urgency for this Bill was great. They were legislating not for the whole of the betting evil in the country—he wished they were —but for betting in its most acute and urgent form.

MR. DICKINSON (St. Pancras, N.)

said this clause placed on the Statute-book words which recognised racecourses as places suitable for betting. That made him and some others hesitate about giving it support. He hoped the Government would not force them into the position of recognising betting upon race-courses in that way.

MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON (Durham, Barnard Castle)

said that every night in order to expedite legislation in these late discussions they were asked to water down measures containing important principles which some of them had taken an active part in advocating in the country. He thought they would, do better to delay for a few months, or Bill another session, legislation on some of these great questions, in order to get something that would effectively deal with the evils. What he and those associated with him had to guard against was the creation of a suspicion that they were seeking in this case to put down an evil by which the working classes were very much touched, while permitting the evil to exist so far as their so-called social superiors were concerned. They had been told repeatedly by the Home Secretary that the object of the measure was to get at the professional bookmaker. Did they only want to get at the professional bookmaker in the public thoroughfare on Monday, and leave him absolutely free to go to the racecourse on Tuesday? If betting was wrong in the one case, he did not think this House should give its approval to betting in the other. They must guard against the impression that they were guilty in this House of promoting class legislation. The front Ministerial Bench was divided on this question. [An HON. MEMBER: No.] He said "Yes." the Home Secretary left this question open to the House, and the Lord Advocate solemnly appealed to them to take a particular course.

MR. THOMAS SHAW

said he did not presume to interfere with what was said by his right hon. friend, but the interests of the Bill were to him very sacred. He had pointed out what might happen if this Amendment were carried, and he was within his rights in doing that.

MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON

said he was not disputing the rights of the Lord Advocate.

*MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE

That is not in the least inconsistent.

MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON

said he had not stated that it was inconsistent. The right hon. Gentleman said he was prepared to leave the question open, and then the Lord Advocate made an earnest appeal to the Committee to leave the clause in the Bill. He thought he was right in saying that there was a division of opinion on the front bench. He hoped the Committee would reject the clause.

MR. A. E. W. MASON (Coventry)

said that, although he had every sympathy with the object of the hon. Member for Barnard Castle, he did not think the leaving out of the sub-section would have the effect he supposed, for it would still be limited by the definition of "public place" as including "any public park, garden, or sea beach, and any unenclosed ground to which the public for the time being have unrestricted access." So far as he knew there were only two racecourses in England to which the public had unrestricted access. To his mind the question opened up was too wide to be settled at that hour of the morning.

*MR. BERTRAM (Hertfordshire, Hitchin)

said he entirely sympathised with the hon. Gentleman in saying that the Party to which he belonged would be made thoroughly unpopular in the country by this kind of legislation. He recognised that there was a difference between a man making a bet on an event which he saw, and making a bet at a street corner on an event which he could not see. The hon. Member for Barnard Castle talked about watering down the measure; but the omission of the Clause would vastly enlarge the scope of the Bill, which was only meant to put down betting at street corners; and it would be very unwise to risk the Bill by insisting on Amendments which would be refused in another place, and which would have a far greater effect than this Bill was ever intended to have. He should vote for the retention of the Clause.

*MR. GIBBS (Bristol, W.)

said that the Bill was directed against bookmakers who made bets at street corners with poor people; and if the clause under discussion was omitted it would not be legislating in the interests of the poor. They were dealing with the case where the bookmaker came to the people, and not where, as on Epsom Downs, the people went to the bookmaker.

MR. ESSEX (Gloucestershire, Cirencester)

asked whether the clause gave additional sanction to betting on racecourses. If it did strengthen the right to bet on racecourses he would vote against it.

VISCOUNT MORPETH

said that an hon. Gentleman on the Ministerial side was afraid that the popularity of the Government would be weakened if any attempt at legislation were made without a mandate from the country. If he thought this clause would make the Government unpopular it would be an inducement to some hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House to vote for it. Almost every Member who had supported the Bill had declined again and again that this was a class measure and was intended to prevent a poor man putting a shilling on a horse on a race, but would not prevent the wealthy man from betting his £50 or £100. The first thing this democratic Government did was, instead of protecting the mill hand and other members of the working class, to introduce a piece of class legislation.

MR. RICHARDSON (Nottingham, S.)

bore testimony to the mischief which the street betting carried on by the bookmaker with men, women, and children wrought, and said that although it might make him unpopular with some of his constituents for a time, as the result of a choice of evils he intended to vote for this clause. He would leave the question to the common sense of the working men later on.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said it was an extraordinary fact that this Bill was brought forward to defend a child from

betting anywhere except on a racecourse. Formerly there was a right of sanctuary in this country, but it was confined to cathedrals, but now the right of sanctuary was only to be found upon a gambling ground. It was said that the Government would be unpopular if the Bill were passed, but at all events it could not be accused of not having the courage of its convictions, although it might be considered hypocritical, as this was the first time that it had been laid down that a racecourse was a sacred place.

MR. J. M. ROBERTSON (Northumberland, Tyneside)

said it was idle to legislate in advance of public opinion, and if they tried to put down betting on a racecourse the Act would be a dead letter.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 77 Noes 69. (Division List No. 299.)

AYES.
Acland, Francis Dyke Forster, Henry William Raphael, Herbert H.
Allen,A.Acland (Christchurch Fuller, John Michael F. Rees, J. D.
Balcarres, Lord Fullerton, Hugh Rendall, Athelstan
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) Richardson, A.
Barran, Rowland Hirst Gladstone,Rt.HnHerbertJohn Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Beach, Hn.MichaelHughHicks Haworth, Arthur A. Rose, Charles Day
Beale, W. P. Hayden, John Patrick Runciman, Walter
Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham) Illingworth, Percy H. Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)
Benn, W.(T'w'rHamlets,S.Geo. Jones, William(Carnarvonshire) Shaw,Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.
Bertram, Julius Kearley, Hudson E. Shipman, Dr. John G.
Billson, Alfred Levy, Maurice Simon, John Allsebrook
Bottomley, Horatio Lewis, John Herbert Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Bridgeman, W. Clive Lyell, Charles Henry Stanley,Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)
Bryce, J. A. (InvernessBurghs) MacVeigh,Charles(Donegal,E. Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Carr-Gomm, H. W. M'Kenna, Reginald Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Cawley, Frederick Marks, G.Croydon(Launceston Stuart, James (Sunderland)
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) Thompson,J.W.H.(Somerset,E.
Cobbold, Felix Thornley Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) Ure, Alexander
Corbett,CH.(Sussex,E.Grinst'd Morse, L. L. Ward,W.Dudley(Southampt'n
Craig,CharlesCurtis(Antrim,S. Nicholls, George Watt, H. Anderson
Crossley, William J. Norton, Capt. Cecil William Wilkie, Alexander
Duckworth, James Nuttall, Harry Wilson.Henry J. (York,W.R.)
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Winfrey, R.
Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Elibank, Master of Paulton, James Mellor TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
Ferens, T. R. Pease,.J. A. (Saffron Walden) J. W. Wilson and Mr. John
Flavin, Michael Joseph Philipps,Col.Ivor(S'thampton Robertson.
NOES.
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Bowles, G. Stewart Byles, William Pollard
Barnard, E. B. Brooke, Stopford Channing, Francis Allston
Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire) Brunner, J.F.L.(Lancs.,Leigh) Clancy, John Joseph
Clough, W. Johnson, John (Gateshead) Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Collins,SirWm.J.(S.Pancras,W. Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) Scott,A.H(Ashton-under-Lyne
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Lamont, Norman Seely, Major J. B.
Cory, Clifford John Lever, A. Levy(Essex,Harwich Shackleton, David James
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David Silcock, Thomas Ball
Cullinan, J. MacVeagh,Jeremiah (Down, S.) Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Dickinson, W.H.(St.Pancras,N M'Killop. W. Sullivan, Donal
Dobson, Thomas W. Marks, H. H. (Kent) Sutherland, J. E.
Essex, R. W. Mond, A Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Everett, R. Lacey Montagu, E. S. Tennant,Sir Edward(Salisbury)
Fenwick, Charles Montgomery, H. G. Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark
Ffrench, Peter Morpeth, Viscount Verney, F. W.
Gill, A. H Murphy, John Waterlow, D. S.
Glover, Thomas Nolan, Joseph White, George (Norfolk)
Goddard, Daniel Ford O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid) White, Patrick (Meath,North)
Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) O'Malley, William Whiteley,George (York,W. R.)
Hay, Hon. Claude George O'Mara, James
Hazleton, Richard Paul, Herbert TELLERS FOK THE NOES—Mr.
Healy, Timothy Michael Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek) Arthur Henderson and Mr.
Higham, John Sharp Price, C. B. (Edinb'gh, Central) Ramsay Macdonald.
Hyde, Clarendon Rickett, J. Compton
Jenkins, J. Russell, T. W.

Resolution agreed to.

MR. LUPTON

moved to report progress.

THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

said the rule was suspended in order to get through business.

Clause 3:—

Mr. THOMAS SHAW

said Scotland was very much interested in this matter of street betting. In Scotland there was a system of houses—of flat tenements approached by a passage or a common stair. The passage and common stair had been found to be a very convenient situation for bookmakers to take up a position in. They stood in one of these passages during the dinner hour when the working men were coming home to their meal, and there was an instance where a bookmaker induced in thirty minutes fifteen men to make bets with him. In 1903 there was a decision in Scotland which held that a passage or common stair was not a place within the meaning of the Act. He begged to move an Amendment to deal with this point.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 20, at end, to add the words and "passage" Includes common close or common stair or passage leading thereto; and, in the event of an offender failing to make payment of a fine imposed under Section 1, (1), (a) or (b) of this Act, he shall be liable to imprisonment in accordance with the provisions of the Summary Jurisdiction Acts.'"—(Mr. Thomas Shaw.)

Question proposed, 'That those words be there added."

MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON

entirely agreed with what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman. All he desired to know was whether under the Summary Jurisdiction Act in England imprisonment was contemplated, because if so he thought Scotland should be placed on an equality in that regard.

MR. THOMAS SHAW

said he believed that was so.

MR. THOMAS SHAW

said he hoped the Committee would permit him to add the following words, which he thought were necessary— Any offence under this Act may be tried before the Sheriff Court.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3 amended, and agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.