§ As amended, considered.
§ THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY, Liverpool, Exchange) moved to insert the following clause: "(4) In Ireland where in pursuance of this Act an order is made by a court of summary jurisdiction for a term of imprisonment not exceeding one month, without the option of a fine, the party against whom the order is made shall be entitled to appeal in like manner as if the term of imprisonment exceeded one month." The right hon. Gentleman said that in Ireland, as hon. Members were aware, no appeal lay against any term of imprisonment which did not exceed one month. The Government thought however, that, as the offences under this Bill were not criminal acts in the ordinary sense of the word, and would be extended to people of better standing than the ordinary criminal—people to whom any sentence of imprisonment, however short, would be a great degradation, where the penalty of imprisonment was imposed under this measure the right of appeal should be given to quarter sessions.
(4) In Ireland where in pursuance of this Act an order is made by a court of summary jurisdiction for a term of imprisonment not exceeding one month, without the option of a fine, the party against whom the order is made shall be entitled to appeal in like manner as if the term of imprisonment exceeded one month.'" — (The Attorney-General for Ireland.)—
§ Brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
§ * MR. CLAUDE HAY
opposed the clause, which he said was only introduced at the eleventh hour, and was quite inconsistent with the general conduct of the Bill by the Government. They had never heard a word either from the Government or from Irish Members, that this Bill was needed in Ireland, and the Amendment would strike at the root of the principle of the Bill.
§ Question put, and agreed to.1648
§ Clause read the second time, and added to the Bill.
§ *MR. CLAUDE HAY moved in Clause 1, after the words "any person," to insert "being a bookmaker or habitual bettor." He said this Amendment raised the vital point in this Bill, because they had always understood that the purpose of the measure was to penalise the bookmaker rather than the innocent person who might be led astray by his wiles. As the Bill stood without the Amendment the innocent person became subject to the penalties imposed by the Bill, and the Amendment would relieve him of those penalites. The first of those penalties was the hateful one of being subject to arrest without warrant and standing in the eye of the law as being guilty until the accused party could prove himself to be innocent. He might instance the case of a man who had never betted in his life, but who was personally acquainted with a bookmaker who did not conduct his business in the town in which the man resided. The bookmaker might however visit the town where the man lived, and, being on friendly terms, they might be seen in the street in conversation two or three times in the course of the day. Under the Bill without his Amendment the bookmaker and this innocent person might be liable to arrest without warrant. They might be taken to the police station and searched, and if papers relating to betting were found upon the bookmaker the innocent person who had never made a bet in his life would be prejudiced, and even if acquitted might get a reprimand from the magistrate for having been seen in such company. The real fact was, that while men of all schools of opinion were convinced that betting was a great evil, the Government had not had the pluck to bring in a Bill to prohibit it altogether. Unless the words he proposed were accepted, any member of the public, if he happened innocently to ask the way once or twice of a bookmaker who was standing in the street, would be exposed to the risk of prosecution and the possibility of long imprisonment. He submitted also that the word "frequenting" exposed innocent men to the very gravest danger, and 1649 the views of the Judges in regard to what was "frequenting" did not always agree. There was nothing laid down as to how often a man must be seen in a particular place before he could be arrested on the charge of "frequenting" a place for a particular purpose, and unless the Bill was made clear in that respect it might render it impossible for a man to go about his lawful business. It would expose a man who like himself did not bet to the risk of being arrested, and it was because he believed that they would not stay the evil of betting by this proposal without the words he suggested that he begged to move.
§ MR. BOTTOMLEY (Hackney, S.)
, in seconding, said the Amendment was not only one that was received with favour by the whole House, but one that the right hon. Gentleman had pledged himself to accept. Its object was to make it quite clear that the person aimed at by this Act was the man who carried on business as a bookmaker and who betted in the public streets. It was to prevent an innocent man who asked his way, or if they liked, made a bet, being arrested. The object of the Bill was not to lock up the silly workman who put his shilling on a horse, but the professional bookmaker who afforded the opportunity and the temptation to do so in the public street. A few weeks ago a letter, of which he possessed no copy, was written to the Home Secretary upon this subject, and the right hon. Gentleman replied through his secretary as follows:—I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that your society appear to have misapprehended the object of the Bill, which is not directed against the working man who may
make a bet, but to suppress the practice of the bookmakers plying their trade in the streets.
§ That was the declaration of the Minister in charge of the Bill. If that was the only object of the Bill, this Amendment gave expression to it. He therefore hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In page 1, line 5, after the word 'person,' to insert the words 'being a bookmaker or habitual bettor.'"—(Mr. Claude Hay.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ * MR. GLADSTONE
said the hon. Member was not quite correct in saying he had pledged himself to accept this Amendment, but the hon. Gentleman had read his letter quite fairly. It was true the desire was to clear the streets of bookmakers, but this Amendment would really weaken the existing law. The actual bookmaker was so well known to the police that it was easy to stop him from carrying on his trade. The object of the Bill was to get at the bookmakers through their touts, the men whom they employed. That being so, the Government could not accept the Amendment. The Bill followed in the main the existing law, and at, present in London, Birmingham, and Manchester men could be arrested for betting in the streets. Thousands of these cases occurred in London every year, and there was no evidence whatever to show that the innocent man suffered under the existing law. He hoped the House would reject the Amendment.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 5; Noes. 285. (Division List No. 482.)1653
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Claude Hay and Mr. Bottomley.|
|Barnard, E. B.||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)||Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Balfour, Robert (Lanark)|
|Adkins, W. Ryland D.||Armitage, R.||Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)|
|Agnew, George William||Armstrong, W. C. Heaton||Barker, John|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Astbury, John Meir||Barlow, Percy (Bedford)|
|Alden, Percy||Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)|
|Beale, W. P.||Fell, Arthur||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)|
|Beauchamp, E.||Fenwick, Charles||Maclean, Donald|
|Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (H'x'm||Ferens, T. R.||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift|
|Beck, A. Cecil||Ffrench, Peter||Macpherson, J. T.|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Fiennes, Hon. Eustace||MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)|
|Bell, Richard||Findlay, Alexander||MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.|
|Bellairs, Carlyon||Flavin, Michael Joseph||M'Arthur, William|
|Benn, Sir J. Williams (D'v'np'rt||Fuller, John Michael F.||M'Callum, John M.|
|Bennett, E. N.||Fullerton, Hugh||M'Crae, George|
|Berridge, T. H. D.||Gibb, James (Harrow)||M'Kean, John|
|Bertram, Julius||Ginnell, L.||M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)|
|Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, R'mf'd)||Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John||M'Micking, Major G.|
|Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Glover, Thomas||Maddison, Frederick|
|Billson, Alfred||Goddard, Daniel Ford||Mallet, Charles E.|
|Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordsh.||Gooch, George Peabody||Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln|
|Boland, John||Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||Marnham, F. J.|
|Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)||Greenwood, Hamar (York)||Meagher, Michael|
|Brace, William||Gulland, John W.||Meehan, Patrick A.|
|Bramsdon, T. A.||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Micklem, Nathaniel|
|Branch, James||Gwynn, Stephen Lucius||Money, L. G. Chiozza|
|Brigg, John||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis||Montagu, E. S.|
|Bright, J. A.||Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||Mooney, J. J.|
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)||Morse, L. L.|
|Brodie, H. C.||Harrington, Timothy||Murnaghan, George|
|Brooke, Stopford||Hart-Davies, T.||Murphy, John|
|Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Murray, James|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Nannetti, Joseph P.|
|Burnyeat, W. J. D.||Haworth, Arthur A.||Napier, T. B.|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Hayden, John Patrick||Nicholls, George|
|Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles||Healy, Timothy Michael||Nolan, Joseph|
|Byles, William Pollard||Hedges, A. Paget||Norman, Sir Henry|
|Cairns, Thomas||Helme, Norval Waton||Nuttall, Harry|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Hemmerde, Edward George||O'Brien, Kendal (Tip'rary Mid|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Henry, Charles S.||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||O'Doherty, Philip|
|Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Em'ds||O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Higham, John Sharp||O'Hare, Patrick|
|Cleland, J. W.||Hobart, Sir Robert||O'Kelly, James (Roscomm'n, N|
|Clough, William||Hogan, Michael||O'Malley, William|
|Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.||Holland, Sir William Henry||O'Mara, James|
|Cogan, Denis J.||Hooper, A. G.||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. P'ncr's, W)||Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)|
|Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Gr'st'd)||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n)|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Hudson, Walter||Pollard, Dr.|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Hutton, Alfred Eddison||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Cory, Clifford John||Hyde, Clarendon||Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)|
|Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Illingworth, Percy H.||Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||Isaacs, Rufus Daniel||Priestley, W. E. B. (Br'df'd, E.)|
|Cowan, W. H.||Jardine, Sir J.||Radford, G. H.|
|Cox, Harold||Jenkins, J.||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Crean, Eugene||Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Rea, Russell (Gloucester)|
|Cremer, William Randal||Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')|
|Crooks, William||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Reddy, M.|
|Crossley, William J.||Joyce, Michael||Redmond, John E. (Waterford|
|Delany, William||Kearley, Hudson E.||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.||Kelley, George D.||Rees, J. D.|
|Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.||Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Rendall, Athelstan|
|Dillon, John||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'h|
|Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon||Laidlaw, Robert||Richardson, A.|
|Dolan, Charles Joseph||Lambert, George||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Lamont, Norman||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Du Cros, Harvey||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness||Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accr'gton||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Br'df'd|
|Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley||Lehmann, R. C.||Robinson, S.|
|Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne||Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich||Robson, Sir William Snowdon|
|Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)||Levy, Maurice||Roche, Augustine (Cork)|
|Elibank, Master of||Lewis, John Herbert||Rogers, F. E. Newman|
|Erskine, David C.||Lough, Thomas||Rowlands, J.|
|Essex, R. W.||Lundon, W.||Russell, T. W.|
|Everett, R. Lacey||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)|
|Faber, G. H. (Boston)||Lyell, Charles Henry||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Farrell, James Patrick||Lynch, H. B.||Sears, J. E.|
|Seaverns, J. H.||Taylor, John W. (Durham)||White, Patrick (Heath, North)|
|Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)||Toulmin, George||Whiteley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Sherwell, Arthur James||Trevelyan, Charles Philips||Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer|
|Shipman, Dr. John G.||Ure, Alexander||Wiles, Thomas|
|Silcock, Thomas Ball||Vivian, Henry||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John||Walrond, Hon. Lionel||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.|
|Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie||Walters, John Tudor||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|Smith, F.E. (Liverpool, Walton||Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)|
|Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.||Ward, W. Dudley (South'mpt'n||Winfrey, R.|
|Soares, Ernest J.||Wardie, George J.||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Stanger, H. Y.||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney|
|Steadman, W. C.||Waterlow, D. S.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.|
|Strachey, Sir Edward||Watt, H. Anderson|
|Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Sullivan, Donal||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire|
|Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
§ MR. CLAUDE HAY moved an Amendment which raised the question of how far the transmission of telegraphic communications should be brought within the purview of the Bill. He hoped the Postmaster-General would inform the House as to the amount of revenue derived by the Post Office from correspondence over the telegraphic system connected with racing and betting. An immense staff, paid out of public funds, was engaged in transmitting these telegrams, and the State had laid out a large amount of capital on the necessary instruments in order that these communications might pass. If street betting were an evil, still more so was betting which was protected by a Government Department, and out of which the State made a profit. It was all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to state that he was not quite certain whether a post office was a public place which came within the meaning of the Bill.
§ MR. RAWLINSON (Cambridge University)
said the words were "any street or public place." The point was that a post office was a public place.
* THE DEPUTY SPEAKER
The Amendment before the House is one which deals only with persons frequenting a public place for the purpose of transmitting bets or wagers, and it does not deal With the post office.
§ MR. CLAUDE HAY
said his Amendment dealt with a person who might be in a street transmitting a telegram relating to racing. His point was that they were proposing to punish a man, who might be an innocent party, because he had received an envelope addressed to him in which there might be matter relating to a wager.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In page 1, line 9, after the word 'wager' to insert the words 'or transmitting bets or wagers.'"—(Mr. Claude Hay.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ * Mr. GLADSTONE
hoped the Amendment would not be accepted. The Bill had come down from the Lords, and he understood the Lords would take only a limited amount of it. Therefore any Amendment extending the scope of the Bill would at this period of the session greatly endanger its passage into law. This point was debated at considerable length in Committee, and the arguments for and against were thoroughly well-known. As to whether the post office was a place within the meaning of the Act he did not think it mattered very much for the purposes of this Bill. The proposal of the hon. Member was quite impracticable, and he hoped the House would reject it.
§ SIR FREDERICK BANBURY (City of London)
said the Home Secretary had stated that the other place would not 1655 stand more than a certain amount. Personally, he had had no experience of administering anything to the other place, and he did not know what the House of Lords would stand. The Home Secretary, however, had had some experience in that direction, and so he would accept his statement and act accordingly. He would have great pleasure in voting with the Government on this occasion if the Amendment was pressed to a division He was opposed to the Bill because it interfered with the rights of grown men to do what they liked provided they injured no one else, and therefore he was opposed to an Amendment which would extend its scope.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. BOTTOMLEY moved to amend the clause by raising from sixteen years to eighteen years the age of a person with whom a betting transaction rendered the bookmaker liable to a fine of £50 or imprisonment for six months. He wished to prevent any bookmaker from inducing anyone under the age of eighteen to take part in any betting transaction. Most of the betting done by young persons was by boys between sixteen and nineteen years of age, and that was why he wished to raise the age limit.
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Beck, A. Cecil||Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles|
|Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F||Bell, Richard||Byles, William Pollard|
|Agnew, George William||Bellairs, Carlyon||Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Benn, Sir J. Williams (D'v'np'rt||Carr-Goman, H. W.|
|Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch||Berridge, T. H. D.||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Bertram, Julius||Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.|
|Armitage, R.||Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, R'mf'd||Clancy, John Joseph|
|Armstrong, W. C. Heaton||Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Clarke, C. Goddard|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Billson, Alfred||Cleland, J. W.|
|Astbury, John Meir||Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.|
|Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordsh.||Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Gr'st'd)|
|Balfour Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond||Boland, John||Cory, Clifford John|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)||Cotton, Sir H. J. S.|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Bramsdon, T. A||Cox, Harold|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Branch, James||Crean, Eugene|
|Barker, John||Brigg, John||Cremer, William Randal|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Brocklehurst, W. B.||Crombie, John William|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Brodie, H. C.||Crooks, William|
|Beale, W. P.||Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)||Crossley, William J.|
|Beauchamp, E.||Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Delany, William|
|Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (H'x'm||Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.|
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In page 1, line 18, to leave out the word 'sixteen,' and insert the word 'eighteen.'"—(Mr. Bottomley.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'sixteen' stand part of the Bill."
§ * MR. GLADSTONE
said he could not accept this Amendment. Section 1(1) (c) imposed severe penalties in regard to betting with persons under the age of sixteen. It was clear that there ought to be a distinct limit of the age to which these penalties were applicable. The usual age limit for what was known as a young person was sixteen.
§ MR. RAWLINSON
asked the Government to reconsider this point. If there was an evil to be got rid in connection with betting on the part of young people, it was surely desirable that the age of eighteen should be substituted for sixteen in the sub-section. It was a farce to make the limit sixteen, for the evil aimed at prevailed among young people employed as servants, waiters, and in other ways, and the sub-section as it appeared in the Bill would be inapplicable in the case of many of the persons who required attention.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:— Aye?, 237; Noes, 87. (Division List No. 483.)1659
|Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.||Lewis, John Herbert||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col.A.R.||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness||Lough, Thomas||Robinson, S.|
|Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)||Lundon, W.||Robson, Sir William Snowdon|
|Elibank, Master of||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Roche, Augustine (Cork)|
|Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward||Lyell, Charles Henry||Rogers, F. E. Newman|
|Erskine, David C.||Lynch, H. B.||Rowlands, J.|
|Everett, R. Lacey||Macdonald J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs||Russell, T. W.|
|Farrell, James Patrick||Maclean, Donald||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland|
|Ferens, T. R.||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Ffrench, Peter||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Scarisbrick, T. T. L.|
|Findlay, Alexander||Macpherson, J. T.||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||M'Arthur, William||Seaverns, J. H.|
|Fuller, John Michael F.||M'Callum, John M.||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Fullerton, Hugh||M'Crae, George||Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.|
|Ginnell, L.||M'Kean, John||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John||M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||M'Micking, Major G.||Silcock, Thomas Ball|
|Greenwood, Hamar (York)||Maddison, Frederick||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John|
|Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie|
|Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Marnham, F. J.||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrin., S.|
|Gwynn, Stephen Lucius||Massie, J.||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||Meehan, Patrick A.||Spicer, Sir Albert|
|Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis||Micklem, Nathaniel||Stanger, H. Y.|
|Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)||Money, L. G. Chiozza||Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Ches.)|
|Harrington, Timothy||Montagu, E. S.||Steadman, W. C.|
|Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Mooney, J. J.||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Haworth, Arthur A.||Morse, L. L.||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
|Hayden, John Patrick||Murnaghan, George||Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)|
|Healy, Timothy Michael||Murphy, John||Sullivan, Donal|
|Hedges, A. Paget||Murray, James||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Helme, Norval Watson||Napier, T. B.||Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ|
|Hemmerde, Edward George||Nicholls, George||Thompson, W. H. (Somerset, E|
|Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.||Nolan, Joseph||Toulmin, George|
|Henry, Charles S.||Norman, Sir Henry||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Ure, Alexander|
|Higham, John Sharp||Nuttall, Harry||Verney, F. W.|
|Hobart, Sir Robert||O'Brien, Kendal (Tipper'ry Mid||Vivian, Henry|
|Hobhouse, Charles E. H.||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Walters, John Tudor|
|Hogan, Michael||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.|
|Holland, Sir William Henry||O'Doherty, Philip||Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n|
|Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N||O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)|
|Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N||Whitbread, Howard|
|Hyde, Clarendon||Paulton, James Mellor||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Illingworth, Percy H.||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire|
|Isaacs, Rufus Daniel||Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Jardine, Sir J.||Pollard, Dr.||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)||Power, Patrick Joseph||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Joyce, Michael||Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Kearley, Hudson E.||Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.||Wiles, Thomas|
|Kelley, George D.||Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.||Radford, G. H.||Wilson, Hon. C. H. W. (Hull, W.|
|Kincaid-Smith, Capt.||Reddy, M.||Wilson, J. W. (Worc'stersh., N.)|
|Laidlaw, Robert||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)||Winfrey, R.|
|Lambert, George||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Lamont, Norman||Rees, J. D.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.|
|Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accringt'n||Renton, Major Leslie|
|Lehmann, R. C.||Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'h|
|Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich||Richardson, A.|
|Levy, Maurice||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Barnard, E. B.||Burnyeat, W. J. D.|
|Adkins, W. Ryland D.||Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.||Butcher, Samuel Henry|
|Alden, Percy||Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks||Carlile, E. Hildred|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Cave, George|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Bennett, E. N.||Channing, Sir Francis Allston|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.||Boyle, Sir Edward||Cheetham, John Frederick|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.||Brace, William||Clough, William|
|Balcarres, Lord||Bridgeman, W. Clive||Cogan, Denis J.|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Bright, J. A.||Cooper, G. J.|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)|
|Dolan, Charles Joseph||Jowett, F. W.||Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk|
|Du Cros, Harvey||Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Starkey, John R.|
|Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)||Keswick, William||Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.|
|Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Faber, Capt, W. V. (Hants, W.)||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)|
|Fell, Arthur||MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Fenwick, Charles||MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.||Walsh, Stephen|
|Fiennes, Hon. Eustace||Mason, James F. (Windsor)||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||Meagher, Michael||Watt, H. Anderson|
|Gibb, James (Harrow)||Morpeth, Viscount||Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer|
|Glover, Thomas||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||O'Hare, Patrick||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|Gulland, John W.||O'Malley William||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Hamilton, Marquess of||O'Mara, James||Younger, George|
|Hay, Hon. Claude George||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Helmsley, Viscount||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Bottomley and Mr. Rawlinson.|
|Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Ed'ds||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Hills, J. W.||Rendall, Athelstan|
|Hudson, Walter||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Jenkins, J.||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Br'df'd)|
§ MR. BOTTOMLEY moved an Amendment making it an offence punishable by fine or imprisonment for any bookmaker to bet in any public place with any female. With some practical experience on the subject of betting he could assert that a large amount of betting took place every day between bookmakers and the wives and daughters of working men. He expressed astonishment that the right hon. Gentleman had not noted this omission in the Bill.
§ MR. O'HARE
hoped the Home Secretary would accept this Amendment. If street betting was looked upon as an evil, every opportunity should be taken to eradicate it. At the present time he believed that a number of bookmakers were women, and women and girls were used as intermediaries between the men who wanted to make bets and the bookmakers. That was bad enough for the men, but worse for the women. Street betting seemed to be infectious, and was spreading rapidly, particularly among women, because it was believed that the women could carry out the transactions with the bookmakers with less danger than the men.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In page 1, line 18, after the word 'years,' to insert the words' or with an female.'"—(Mr. Bottomley.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."1660
§ * MR. GLADSTONE
said he could not see any reason for discriminating between females and men in this matter. As far as his experience went, he believed that women were better able to take care of themselves, and did take better care of themselves, in respect to betting than the men.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ MR. BOTTOMLEY moved an Amendment providing that when a bookmaker was arrested he should be liable to have all the books found in his possession impounded. It was an open secret that since this Bill had been before the public, bookmakers on certain occasions had refused to pay their obligations, because they said that all their books and papers had been seized by the police, and that therefore they could not say how much they owed their clients.
§ The Amendment was not seconded.
§ MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON (Lanarkshire, N.W.) moved to insert in Clause 1, after "other" the word "similar." He thought that amongst the articles which bookmakers should not forfeit was money.
Amendment moved to the Bill—
In page 2, line 2 after the word 'other' to insert the word 'similar.'"—(Mr. Mitchell-Thomson.)
§ Question proposed '"That that word be there inserted in the Bill."1661
§ THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON,) South Shields
said the word was quite unnecessary. Money was not a "similar" article.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ *MR. F. E. SMITH (Liverpool, Walton) moved on behalf of the hon. Member for Blackpool the omission of subsection (2) of Clause 1, which provided that any constable might take into custody without warrant a person loitering or besetting the streets either on behalf of himself or others for the purpose of betting or paying or receiving money in respect of bets. The issue raised by the Amendment was a clear one, and one which was receiving great attention at the present moment as a Commission was sitting to inquire into the relations which existed between the police and various other sections of the community. The question which the Committee should ask themselves was whether they were prepared to give an extension of power to the police to arrest any person who was loitering in the street for the purpose of bookmaking. What did that mean? They gave the police constable using his own unassisted intelligence —and the evidence before the Commission showed some startling results as to what that unassisted intelligence might lead to—it gave him power to arrest a man, not because he had committed an offence, but because he was frequenting the street and a conviction-hunting constable inferred that he was there for the purpose of making bets. This was, it was true, not the first Bill which gave a constable the power of arrest without a warrant, and there was a power under the Common Law. It was familiar law that a constable was entitled to arrest a man if there was a felony or a breach of the peace actually committed. In those cases and only in those cases had the constable a right to arrest a person, but in the case of mere suspicion that a man was loitering for the purpose of making a bet such a power was novel and menacing to the liberty of the subject. He sympathised with the legitimate object which the Government had in view, but he was not in favour 1662 of the means by which they desired to carry it out. Having regard to cases which had arisen and to the abuse of duty which had been committed by the force, this power was a very dangerous one to give them. He was not speaking on a subject of which he had no experience, because on one occasion he had been arrested by the police without a warrant, although by the indulgence of a charitable tribunal he was afterwards acquitted of the charge which was made against him. He thought the Government would spoil a reasonable measure by grafting upon it an unreasonable power.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In page 2, line 4, to leave out sub-section (2) of Clause 1."—(Mr. F. E. Smith.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'any constable may take into custody' stand part of the Bill."
§ * MR. GLADSTONE
sympathised very much with the hon. Member in the experience he had had when arrested by the police, but was glad to see that it had done him no harm physically or morally. He could, however, readily understand that it was the warmth of his feelings which had led him to make this protest. In the three great towns of Manchester, Birmingham, and London, the police had exercised their powers of arrest for obstruction by means of street betting, and in London there were something like 3,000 cases of arrest in the year. If this sub-section was knocked out of the Bill he was afraid it would weaken it considerably. As he had heard no protests up to the present time against these arrests he had no reason to think that the widening of the powers so as to extend them to other parts of the country would have any evil effects.
§ MR. RAWLINSON
supported the Amendment on broader grounds than those mentioned by the Home Secretary. Surely it was not necessary to put into this Bill anything which would make it unnecessarily unpopular. Arrests without warrant could only be justified by one consideration, and that was that if the police had no power to make them they could not bring the 1663 offender to justice. He could conceive of no class of case where that contention was less justified than in a Bill directed against bookmakers and their touts. The policemen would see a bookmaker and ask for his name and address. If the man gave the correct address he could be summoned, and if he did not he could be traced at once. If he gave a false name and address the summons could not be served by the police, and one of two things would happen. Either he would be arrested by the police or he would bolt altogether, and if he took the latter course the neighbourhood would be the better for his bolting, and the Government would gain their end in that way. All those who knew police courts, however, would tell the Government that to take the remedy of bringing a man up by summons was sufficient. A bookmaker would be known in a district and was not likely to leave it because a police constable spoke to him once. In 99 cases out of 100 they would be able to secure his attendance upon a summons and without arresting him. He did not agree with the provision, although the Home Secretary had stated that in certain towns where it had been exercised he had no knowledge of any abuse of it. This was a very dangerous power to place in the hands of the police. The power to arrest without warrant gave the police power to arrest a man who had committed no offence, and take him through the streets, and it would give rise to the objectionable state of affairs, which was necessary in the case of crime but not in such a case as this, of deciding whether he should be held to bail. There had been cases in London where this power had been abused by the police, and there was grave suspicion that they had in many cases taken sums of money from bookmakers as a bribe not to arrest them. He submitted that it was not necessary, that it would make the Bill unpopular, and that to put this power in the hands of the police was dangerous nor only to the police themselves, but to the public at large.
MR. J. W. WILSON (Worcestershire, N.)
said these two lines in the sub-section were the most important lines in the Bill, if it was going to be operative. The hon. 1664 Member for the Cambridge University had passed over the difficulty of the policeman seeing a man making a bet. The police were compelled to put their new recruits on to this job to try and detect when a bet was being made, and how could they be certain that a bet had been taken, unless they could look at the piece of paper which had gone into the bookmaker's pocket? The power of search therefore was the whole essence of the Bill. In the country districts this power was being sought, and where it had been given it had had a beneficial result. The form in which it was generally given was that the officer in charge at the police station had the power of search and retaining any articles found. It was not given to the policeman who made the arrest. It was a most valuable power if it was desired to make the the Bill repressive. The argument that policemen were liable to make mistakes would apply in every case where it was suggested that power should be given to them. He appealed to the House to retain this clause and not to be led away by a fear that in some isolated instance injustice might be done.
§ SIR SAMUEL SCOTT (Marylebone, W.)
said it was well known that policemen were not immaculate, and if ever there was a clause which offered temptation to the police to take bribes, it was the one under discussion. The Government had recently appointed one of their many Commissions to inquire into the question of the police. There had been brought before that Commission many cases of wrongful arrest, through mistakes made by the police. Yet in spite of all that, apparently owing to the pressure put upon them, the Government put a clause into this Bill giving to the police powers far beyond anything they were entitled to exorcise, and which went perilously near infringing the rights of the subject. Under this clause an active and intelligent constable might see two gentlemen walking down a street, and he might overhear them making a bet between themselves. He then had power to arrest them without warrant. Surely that was not a thing that should be allowed. He would also like to know what exactly was meant by frequenting.
§ SIR W. ROBSON
said the fears which had been expressed with regard to this clause might have come with some force if the House was now passing a measure of this kind for the first time; but they were acting upon extensive and remarkable experience in this matter. A Commission had been appointed to inquire into every case of abuse of power by the police in London. Though there had been so many cases of arrest there had not been a single allegation made before the Commission of the arrest of an innocent man. There had been charges of abuse by the police, but not against innocent men. So far as the betting man was concerned, there had been no case where an innocent man had been arrested in place of the betting man. Hon Members were afraid of arrest on suspicion. They forgot that behind the intelligent police-constable there was the intelligent magistrate. The case had been supposed of two gentlemen walking along the street being overheard by a constable to make a bet and being taken by him before the magistrate. What would be the position of the constable when the magistrate heard the facts? It would not add to his chance of promotion. He asked the House to consider the practical side of the question. Policemen were by no means in a hurry to drag before a tribunal cases which they were not able to substantiate. In the majority of instances the policeman would take the name and address of the bookmaker, and it would be only in exceptional cases that he would need to make an arrest. The provision was valuable, because it was most difficult ever to bring home a charge of this kind. It could be brought home in a case of frequenting, but the policeman must know his man, and be able to say, "I saw him to-day, and I saw him yesterday, and I have seen him again and again; he makes it his place of business." That had to be backed up by other evidence. Frequenting was always difficult to prove, especially when so much corroborative evidence had to be brought forward, and if the charge were altered to one of loitering the constable had only changed his difficulties. If he were able to produce documentary evidence which was satisfactory to the magistrate, and be was given the power of arrest without 1666 warrant, the rights of justice would more often be ensured.
asked whether it was not a fact that the only two towns where there was the power to arrest without warrant any person suspected of betting were Halifax and Accrington, and all other towns which had powers for dealing with street betting exercised those powers under a by-law. Certainly it was the case as regarded London, for under a London County Council by-law of 1898 it was laid down that—No person shall frequent and use any street or other public place on behalf of himself or any-other person for the purpose of book-making or betting, or wagering, or agreeing to bet or wager with any person.The Solicitor-General had not quite fairly stated the case when he endeavoured to show that there was nothing novel in conferring the power of arrest without warrant.
§ MR. BOTTOMLEY
said he could not reconcile it with what the poverty of the English language compelled him to call his conscience to give a silent vote on this clause. He had been more confirmed than ever in his view that this was a wrong clause by the arguments adduced by the hon. Member for North Worcestershire and the speech of the Solicitor-General in support of it. For generations the recognised principle of law had been that the power of arrest without warrant should be limited to cases which could obviously be proved or were seen by a constable. The argument of the hon. Member for North Worcestershire, which the Solicitor - General confirmed, that this was a difficult offence to find out and prove, had been the one argument of every learned Judge, such as Mr. Justice Hawkins and other great criminal lawyers, against giving the police power of arrest without warrant under such circumstances. Inasmuch as it was difficult to ascertain whether in offence was being committed or was about to be committed, was the policeman, of all people in the world, to be able to put his hand on anyone's shoulder and say, "I think you are going to commit this offence?" For in this case it was not necessary even that the act should be committed. If in the opinion of the 1667 constable a man was loitering with the intention of committing this horrible crime of wagering, the constable would be able to run him in. It was said "Do not forget this Bill has to go back to the House of Lords." That argument had lost its terror. He believed that that House would look with a lenient eye upon any measure coming from this House except one, and that this Bill would not be the exception. In any case, he understood the House of Lords was going to be abolished, and that argument, therefore, did not count.
§ MR. BOWLES (Lambeth, Norwood)
said he regarded this section as a very serious matter. It was no light thing to give a constable power under any circumstances whatever to arrest people without a warrant, and the House ought very carefully to consider the proposal before assenting to it. He did not see in the Bill any justification for the enormous departure which was being made. The Solicitor-General had stated that the real mischief against which the Bill was aimed was not so much betting, as the offence of frequenting, and that was the reason put forward for giving this enormous power to a constable. If a man was a known frequenter what difficulty was there in dealing with him under the operation of the ordinary law? Powers of this nature ought to be given very sparingly, and only in cases where without such special powers the law would be certain to fail. The case was exactly the reverse of this where a man frequented a place for the purpose of betting. Such a power as was now proposed to be given to a constable had been shown to be capable of serious abuse, and there was absolutely no reason why it should be given in this instance. There was a good deal to be said for the objects of the Bill. Personally, he had never made a bet, and consequently he had only a detached interest in the matter. No case had been made out for this proposal, and if a division were taken he felt bound to support the rejection of this sub-section.
§ SIR FREDERICK BANBURY
said it had been stated that if a constable arrested a person on insufficient grounds he would have very little chance of promotion. Upon a matter of this kind they were not 1668 concerned with the promotion of constables, but with the protection of the public from unjust arrests. If the Solicitor-General happened to be arrested, and was confined in a cell all night on suspicion of frequenting, it would be no consolation to him next morning to be told that the constable who arrested him had forfeited all chance of promotion. The police hardly ever abused their power. On the whole the evidence before the Commission at present sitting showed that that was so. Of course, there were exceptions where a policeman exceeded his duty. If they passed this clause they would be putting quite unnecessarily great temptations before police constables. There had been instances, as they knew, in which betting men had bribed the police. That had been proved so far as anything could be proved. If this clause were passed a policeman who suspected a man of loitering about the street for the purpose of betting might jump to a conclusion, and arrest him, although the man was not there for that purpose. That would be inflicting very great hardship on the community as a whole, and exposing the police to great temptation. The Bill would only be injured in one way by the omission of the clause, and that was in the case of a man who gave a false address. If a man frequented a certain street, the fact that he gave a false address would be prima facie evidence that he had some reason for not wishing to appear before a magistrate. It would be perfectly easy for the policeman to give word to the constable on the neighbouring beat, and the man could be arrested. If the police had power to summon betting people, it appeared to him that that was all that was necessary in the circumstances. Betting was not a crime.
MR. J. W. WILSON
said he did not object to the hon. Member betting, but he disagreed with the system of allowing "bookies" in the streets.
§ SIR FREDERICK BANBURY
said that was an extremely important admission on the part of the hon. Gentleman opposite. In the opinion of the hon. Gentleman it was the poor working man who must not bet. [Cries of dissent.] 1669 He was not surprised that hon. Members howled at him. They did not want the real object of this Bill exposed. It was not betting altogether which was to be stopped, but only betting on the part of a certain number of people who frequented the streets.
§ * MR. RADFORD (Islington, E.)
said he had not the extensive and peculiar knowledge of this subject which was possessed by the hon. Member for South Hackney, but he knew something about it, and had taken part in the preparation of the London County Council by-laws in 1898 on the subject of street betting. He felt a strong inclination to vote for the Amendment. He was not moved by the argument of the Home Secretary that because certain powers existed in London they should be extended to the whole country, nor was he altogether convinced by the official optimism of the Solicitor-General, who had told them that there had been 3,000 arrests in London under the existing law, and no complaints made. Did the horn, and learned Gentleman expect these poor devils who had been arrested and perhaps imprisoned to come before him or some other great legal authority with a complaint? A considerable number of innocent men were now, he believed, serving imprisonment because they had been convicted wrongly of street betting upon the evidence of police constables, and in the inevitable hurry of criminal administration stipendiary magistrates lea led too much on the evidence of the police. There were in the police force men whose presence was a public danger, and it was for that reason that he was unwilling to give the extensive powers contained in the clause. If one innocent man were to be convicted out of every thousand arrested, he should be sorry to see the clause passed, even if in other directions the Bill were to promote the good administration of the law.
§ MR. JOHN O'CONNOR (Kildare, N.)
said he had invariably supported the Government on this Bill since it was brought forward, believing that it was drawn on lines calculated to meet the great scandal which existed in the streets day by day. But after looking into the Bill and listening to this discussion, 1670 he felt that the point now before the House was a serious matter. It was proposed to give to the police a power which would be capable of very great abuse. He was against the arrest of any person without a warrant. He had read that the use made in the eighteenth century of general warrants for the arrest of persons for offences was resisted almost to the point of revolution. They all knew the abuse made of general warrants in past days, and their use had been dropped since the time of Wilkes. Coercion Acts had been passed by Parliament during the last twenty years, but never for a single moment had the most tyrannical of Governments proposed to introduce into Ireland a law whereby a policeman would be allowed to arrest a man without a warrant. He had been a constant supporter of this measure up to the present time, but he was now strongly of opinion that they were going on the wrong track. He was surprised that this proposal should have been allowed to pass without a protest, not only from Nationalists but from Ministerialists, who had been regarded as the guardians of the rights of English subjects.
§ * THE UNDER-SECRETARY or STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL,) Yorkshire, Cleveland
said that the hon. Member for North Kildare had said that they were introducing new and revolutionary legislation, but, instead of these powers being new and revolutionary, they were now enforced in London, Manchester, Birmingham, Accrington, and other large towns. Under this Bill there could be no arrest and no imprisonment except in very rare cases, and he was sure that the hon. Member's fear was unwarranted.
§ MR. RADFORD
said that he knew of a case where a perfectly innocent man was arrested and searched, but no betting slips were found upon him.
§ * MR. HERBERT SAMUEL
said that if a man was subject to a fine, and he was unable to pay that fine;, he must go to prison. That would be the case with respect to penal legislation of any kind. The hon. Gentleman had stated that there ought not to be an arrest for this particular offence without a warrant; but the 1671 Home Office were informed that there had been no complaints before the Royal Commission on the Metropolitan Police of wrongful arrests for street betting, He would point out further, that the Committee of the House of Lords had recommended that this power to arrest without warrant should be given, and without it the Bill would be almost worthless.
§ MR. MITCHELL - THOMSON
asked whether there would be no imprisonment except in cases of a third offence?
§ MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON
said that what he wanted to know was what these exceptional circumstances were? Was it a case of a person betting with a youth who appeared to be under sixteen years of age?
§ MR. MORTON (Sutherland)
said that the Under-Secretary for the Home Office had told the House that there would be no imprisonment, except after the third offence, but if a man was fined £10 and could not pay it, he was imprisoned. What, then, was the difference? All Governments seemed bent on attempting to take away the liberties of the people, and it was the business especially of the independent Members of Parliament to look after the interests, not of one class of the community, but of all classes, and to prevent the introduction here of Russian methods of administering the law. They were only doing their duty in calling attention to such an important matter as this, and he thought that it should not be left to the police to make an arrest without a warrant. After reading the papers recently, they had not too much confidence in the police. He did not think it was desirable that we should make this sort of laws, which put the policemen in the way of receiving bribes, and he could conceive that some poor wretched person who had been found betting in the streets might be prepared to pay something, as they had heard people of this class had done in the past, to prevent themselves being arrested. He was always loth to vote against a Liberal Government, but the Under-Secretary had given as one of the reasons 1672 for supporting this proposal that it had been recommended by a Committee of what he called the House of Lords, but which they usually knew as "another place." He had never heard that a Liberal Government placed very much confidence in that other place, and he did not place any confidence in it at all. But this ought not to be a Party or a political matter. They all wished to put an end to betting, especially among a class who robbed their employers to find money to bet with. It was not necessary, however, to violate the Constitution in order to do that, and it was better that two guilty men should escape punishment than that one innocent man should be convicted. He hoped that the Government would do something to limit the discretion of policemen.
* CAPTAIN FABER (Hampshire, Andover)
said he should not like it to go down to posterity that the hon. Member for South Hackney was the only Member with a conscience, and when he looked at his conscience he had to confess that probably he knew more about betting than many Members in this House. He would be sorry to see the poor man convicted of betting while he made his bets in Tattersall's ring without anybody complaining. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman opposite would think twice, nay several times, before he proceeded with this provision.
§ MR. HILLS (Durham)
did not know that the police in London had the power to arrest people without a warrant on suspicion of betting under the County Council by-laws. If a warrant had not been issued they could summon them. It was true that under the Police Act if two or three men assembled for the purpose of betting they could be arrested for obstruction, but the polite had no power to arrest a person on suspicion of betting.
§ * MR. HERBERT SAMUEL
pointed out that nobody had ever said that a man could be arrested under the County Council by-laws, but men were arrested without warrant every day in London for street betting. The power was given by the Metropolitan Streets Acts. In 1905 over 4,900 persons were in the Metropolitan Police district convicted of 1673 street betting, and of that number 3,958 were arrested without a warrant.
§ * MR. F. E. SMITH,
who was received with loud cries of "Order," asked whether the courtesy was refused to him which had just been shown by his friends to the hon. Gentleman on the other side. He wished to point out that under the section which had been cited there was only power of arrest in a case where three
§ or four men were actually engaged in betting. The only objection taken here was that the Government would arm the police constable with the power of arrest if he thought people were in the street for the purpose of betting.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 191; Noes 98. (Division List No. 484.)
|Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.||White, George (Norfolk)||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Toulmin, George||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Trevelyan, Charles Philips||White, Luke (York, E. R.)||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)|
|Ure, Alexander||Whitehead, Rowland||Winfrey, R.|
|Verney, F. W.||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)||Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer|
|Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.|
|Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)||Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n)|
|Wedgwood, Josiah C.||Williamson, A.|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Flavin, Michael Joseph||O'Malley, William|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir. H.||Ginnell, L.||O'Mara, James|
|Balcarres, Lord||Glover, Thomas||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Gwynn, Stephen Lucius||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Haddock, George R.||Radford, G. H.|
|Barker, John||Hamilton, Marquess of||Rawlinson, John Federick Peel|
|Barnard, E. B.||Harrington, Timothy||Reddy, M.|
|Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks||Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Boland, John||Hayden, John Patrick||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Bottomley, Horatio||Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Edm'ds||Richardson, A.|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Hills, J. W.||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Hogan, Michael||Roberts, S. (Sheflield, Ecclesall)|
|Butcher, Samuel Henry||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Rose, Charles Day|
|Bylas, William Pollard||Hudson, Walter||Rutherford, John (Lancashire)|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Hunt, Rowland||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Cave, George||Jowett, F. W.||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Kincaid-Smith, Captain||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.||Smyth, Thomas F.(Leitrim, S.)|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)||Lupton, Arnold||Starkey, John R.|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Macpherson, J. T.||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
|Cogan, Denis J.||MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)||Sullivan, Donal|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||Meehan, Patrick A.||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Crean, Eugene||Mooney, J. J.||Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)|
|Delany, William||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Walrond, Hon. Lione|
|Dolan, Charles Joseph||Murphy, John||Walsh, Stephen|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Watt, H. Anderson|
|Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants. W.)||Nolan, Joseph||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Farrell, James Patrick||O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid||Wilson, Hn. C. H. W. (Hull, W.)|
|Fenwick, Charles||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Ffrench, Peter||O'Doherty, Philip||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. F. E. Smith and Mr. John O'Connor.|
|Fiennes, Hon. Eustace||O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)|
|Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)|
§ MR. BOTTOMLEY
said the object of his next Amendment was to ensure that there should be a nominal prosecutor in the same way as a nominal prosecutor had been introduced into the Musical Copyright Act. The clause just passed gave a constable power to arrest and take anybody into Court without warrant; his suggestion was that, the constable should only take a man into custody on complaint being made. He suggested these words to the House, with the submission that it was the very least qualification that they could adopt.
§ MR. LUPTON (Sleaford)
rose to second the Amendment. He was understood to say it was a very good Amendment indeed. Power to arrest any- 1676 body they liked and to accuse him of making a bet was a very great power and one which ought not to be given to the police. Experience showed that it was desirable in these cases for the constable to act only upon some kind of charge. If complaint was made by anyone that a man was betting in the street the police, if they took that man up, were provided with a nominal prosecutor in the shape of the person who called attention to the grievance, who might himself, if he made an unfounded charge, be subjected to a trial on the charge of false imprisonment. He thought the person accused of betting in the street should stand in the same position as the person accused of selling pirated music. Betting was a perfectly 1677 moral and proper thing to do at the proper place and at the proper time. Betting was only disapproved of when done possibly in the right place but at the wrong time, or the wrong place at the right time, or the wrong place at the wrong time. Then it became an offence punishable with six months imprisonment, but it was wrong that the policeman should have the power of arresting a man without complaint being made, because in that case he became prosecutor and witness at the same time, and nobody could tell what his motive might be for arresting the man. He thought they should wait for the Report of the Royal Commission on the action of the police before this Bill was passed. It would go a long way to reconcile everyone to the Bill if they knew that there was to be an independent prosecutor in each case. It was for these reasons that he seconded this very moderate Amendment which he hoped the Government would accept.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In page 2, line 4, to leave out the words 'without warrant,' and insert the words 'upon complaint made.'"—(Mr. Bottomley.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'without warrant' stand part of the Bill."
§ * MR. GLADSTONE
said the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had only recently come into the House and therefore had not had the advantage of listening to the debate which took place on the last Amendment, and occupied over an hour and a half. Had the hon. Member been present during that discussion he would have known that the whole of this matter was then threshed out; therefore he would not now go into the question at greater length. He could not accept the Amendment.
§ MR. F. E. SMITH
said that, as the Member responsible for initiating the previous discussion, he might be allowed to say that this Amendment was covered by the decision the House had already arrived at, and therefore he hoped it would not be pressed.
§ Amendment negatived.1678
§ MR. BOTTOMLEY
hoped the Amendment he now moved would in the Government's opinion be worthy of consideration. Its object was to give to a person charged under this Act the same opportunities of defence as those given to a prisoner charged with an offence under the Criminal Law Amendment Act. There were such things, as everyone knew, as police traps and it was not an uncommon thing for the police to resort to the theatrical device of disguising persons for entrapping a bookmaker. He saw that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was prepared to accept this Amendment, and therefore it was not necessary to trouble the House further.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In page 2, line 9, after the word 'proved.' to insert the words 'or unless the person charged shall satisfy the Court that he had reasonable ground for believing otherwise.'"—(Mr. Bottomley.)
§ Question "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and agreed to.
§ *MR. CLAUDE HAY moved an Amendment to prevent betting by means of the Government telegraphs. He said that not only was a large staff held specially in reserve, if not actually engaged, day by day transmitting telegrams relating to betting, but there was a large and expensive apparatus at various post offices in London and elsewhere which had been erected for the sole purpose of treating the business connected with the transmission of telegrams entirely confined to betting transactions. If they wanted to check the evils connected with street betting they must prevent all telegraphic communications coming into the hands of those who used the streets as a medium for what the Government regarded as a nefarious business. Those who opposed this Bill were animated by the desire, not merely to whittle down its provisions, but to purify the whole of our social organisation by removing temptations from great masses of the people. One salient fact in connection with the transmission of betting arrangements by telegraph was that every facility was given to the well-to-door rich person to indulge in the practice, whilst the workman who betted for so small a sum that it 1679 was not worth his while, if he could afford it, to use the telegraph was punished. They ought not by any section of this Bill to tolerate any sort of arrangement which made one law for the rich and another for the poor. On that ground he moved this Amendment, believing that if it were not carried they would be stultifying themselves by allowing the rich man to bet, but punishing the poor man for betting.
§ MR. F. E. SMITH
seconded the Amendment, which, he said, raised the question of whether this House was determined to use its influence to prevent a far wider source of corruption than street betting, namely, that which was rendered possible by means of the telegraph. There were reformers on the other side of the House who thought there was no more fruitful source of corruption than betting, and if they held that view how could they consistently regard this Amendment as a subject of humour. Whilst hon. Members were prepared to allow a constable to arrest poor men in the streets without warrants, they were content to permit people in the class of life from which they themselves were drawn to send telegrams, well knowing that when any of our great national sporting events occurred bets were made wholesale and the State was profiting by them. Was this a consistent, or a complete method of dealing with a moral outrage? It was said that it would be difficult to detect a betting telegram because ciphers might be used, but if Parliament decided that it should be unlawful to send a telegram which dealt with a bet they would be able to strike off at once 75 per cent. of the betting telegrams. The men who sent these telegrams were not going to expose themselves to the risk of setting the criminal law in motion. He would press the point, which was not a Party one, upon hon. Members who honestly wished to deal with the national love of gambling to deal with it as practised not by poor men at street corners, but by influential men at their clubs and on race courses. It was nothing but organised hypocrisy to interfere only with poor people who betted.
Amendment proposed to the Bill —
In page 2, line 13, after the word 'any,' to insert 'post or telegraph office.'"—(Mr. Claude Hay.)
§ Question proposed. "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON, Tower Hamlets, Poplar)
said that if he could see his way to diminish the evils of betting by post or telegraph he would certainly do something in that direction, but the Amendment appeared to him to be perfectly impracticable from the administrative point of view. It would really create an offence without any adequate power of meting out punishment. It was no use creating a crime by Act of Parliament if it were certain they could not carry out the law. To make it an illegal act to send a betting telegram or a bet by post put. the responsibility on the various officials of the Post Office to stop these messages. He thought the hon. Member would see the administrative difficulty in connection with the matter. It would mean that every telegram must be read and supervised by someone responsible in every office throughout the kingdom. He did not think the hon. Member could really have any experience of the method by which telegrams were dealt with.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTON
regretted to say that even there great difficulty was often experienced, and that telegrams were often sent which, by right, should be stopped. But that was a different matter. The definition of an obscene telegram was obvious to the ordinary operator, but the question of what was or was not a betting telegram would have to be decided by a person of some responsibility in the office, and not be left to the ordinary operator, who at present was the only person who handled the telegram. The delay that would be incurred would greatly affect the convenience of the general public, and in 1681 addition he did not think they could put the responsibility upon the 20,000 postmasters and sub-postmasters of saying what was or was not a betting telegram. The practical difficulties of the proposal were absolutely overwhelming, and although he could assure the hon. Gentleman he would be very glad indeed if he could see his way to take some step in this direction, he was afraid that in regard to offensive circulars he had already strained his legal powers in order to prevent them so far as he could. He was not dealing with the matter in any way from the point of view of the revenue of the Post Office, but on account of, in the first place, the absolute impossibility of defining these telegrams, and, in the second place, the great delay and inconvenience that would be occasioned to the public.
§ LORD BALCARRES
said the right hon. Gentleman had dealt with the subject very candidly. He had admitted the principle of the Amendment, and that was a considerable step. The whole difficulty was administrative. Of course the telegrams would have to be inspected, but if the telegraphic operator made a mistake he would have the whole force of the Department behind him. Mistakes would occur, no doubt, very rarely. Then the right hon. Gentleman said a betting telegram would have to be defined, but a telegram dealing with | horse-racing required very little definition. It was perfectly obvious that if anything were put on a horse it must be for racing. It was purely an administrative difficulty. The further administrative difficulty was that it would be an inconvenience to the public; but the inconvenience of the betting public was not considered by this Bill. He would remind' the right hon. Gentleman that there were certain telegraph offices in this country which were founded exclusively for betting purposes, and were used for nothing else. Many of them were closed every day in the year except race days. If the right hon. Gentleman really wished to deal with this matter it would be perfectly easy to make a start with some of these offices. A complete record was made of every telegram sent, and even though mistakes were made by the operator as to what 1682 were betting telegrams, when they were dealing with a great evil these small risks had to be taken. He considered that as the Postmaster-General had conceded the principle without reservation, and had only based his opposition purely on administrative grounds, his hon. friend who moved the Amendment might consider whether he should not withdraw it, although he would express a hope that during the next session the right hon. Gentleman might see if the administrative difficulties could be overcome.
§ MR. BOWLES
hoped hon. Gentlemen who were as strongly in favour of the principle of the Amendment as was the Postmaster-General, would not be misled by the terms of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, because it was abundantly clear that he had missed the point of the Amendment. Betting was not made an offence by this Bill, and sending a betting telegram would not be an offence under the Amendment. The offence his hon. friend aimed at was the frequenting or loitering at a post office for the purpose of betting by telegram or otherwise. There was not the slightest difficulty in dealing with a man under this Act who frequented or loitered in a post office or telegraph office for the purpose of carrying on betting transactions, and that being so there was not the slightest reason why the Amendment should not be accepted. There was no reason why it should be more difficult to deal with loiterers and frequenters in a post office than in the streets. For his part he deprecated all interference of this kind. He thought it brought the law into contempt, and to say that it could only be enforced by taking enormous powers, such as arresting without warrant, was a condemnation of the whole scheme. If hon. Members were sincere in their desire to stamp out this evil, they should interfere with the rich as well as the poor. He was convinced that they would fail, but if they meant to try let them at least be fair all round.
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMOND
said he did not pretend in any way to be an authority on this question, and he did not doubt that the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment and the hon. 1683 and learned Gentleman who seconded it were quite sincere in their declarations that they did not indulge in the habit of betting.
§ * MR. CLAUDE HAY
The hon. Member included me in his remarks. Personally I never bet. I do not think I have had a bet on a race for more than twenty-five years.
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMOND
thought the Postmaster-General had pointed out very properly that it would be absolutely impossible to refuse telegrams on the subject of betting. Most of these telegrams were sent in cypher, and even the Postmaster-General himself would be unable to decide on some of these telegrams. A person might want to put £5, say, on a race horse called "Scots Grey," and he might use the code "Rosebery Sulking." How was the right hon. Gentle-man to know that that referred to a particular horse? He would probably say it was a piece of ordinary political intelligence. The Amendment would not at all meet the case. As to loitering within the precincts of a post office being made a crime, hon. Members would be afraid to go to the post office in the Lobby for fear that if they waited for their letters more than a minute they might be arrested by Inspector Scantlebury on the charge of loitering for the purpose of sending betting telegrams. Everybody knew that as it approached three o'clock on the day of a big race, it was merely by coincidence, and nothing else, that half the Members went down to the cloak room to get their umbrellas. I f this question was to be dealt with, there ought undoubtedly to be one law all round. Everybody knew that the greatest people in the country, men of the
|Balcarres, Lord||Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.||Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton|
|Barrie, H.T. (Londonderry, N.)||Morpeth, Viscount||Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Paul, Herbert|
|Cooper, G. J.||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Claude Hay and Mr. Hills.|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington|
|Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
§ most exacted stations, were patrons of sport. They all knew that betting took place. The House ought not to make one law for the poor, while entirely excluding the rich, and he asked them not to interfere with telegrams which nobody except those who were "in the know" could understand.
§ MR. LUPTON
said he was delighted to find himself in agreement with the Government. The Bill was aimed at persons who carried on betting in the streets, and it was to relieve working men and women from the temptation to that particular form of gambling that the measure had been brought forward. It was never intended to prevent people from betting at a racecourse. It was, therefore, unjust to say that the Government were making one law for the rich and another for the poor.
MR. PIKE PEASE
asked whether the Postmaster had not made a mistake in his reply. The Amendment was to prevent loitering for betting in any "post or telegraph office." That had nothing to do with the transmission of telegrams.
§ MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON
said the right hon. Gentleman had replied to his hon. friend on a wrong assumption. He thought the House was entitled to a further answer.
§ * MR. GLADSTONE
said the Post Office already had power to deal with persons loitering in or frequenting post offices for the purposes of betting, either as trespassers or under the Post Office Protection Act of 1884.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 14; Noes 205. (Division List No. 485.)
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Haddock, George R.||O'Mara, James|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||Paulton, James Mellor|
|Adkins, W. Ryland D.||Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)||Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)|
|Agnew, George William||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Pollard, Dr.|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Haworth, Arthur A.||Price, Robt. John (Norfolk, E.)|
|Armitage, R.||Hayden, John Patrick||Radford, G. H.|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Hazel, Dr. A. E.||Rainy, A. Rolland|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Hedges, A. Paget||Reddy, M.|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Helme, Norval Watson||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Barnard, E B.||Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Henry, Charles S.||Renton, Major Leslie|
|Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks||Higham, John Sharp||Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th.)|
|Beale, W. P.||Hobhouse, Charles E. H.||Richardson, A.|
|Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (Hex'm||Hogan, Michael||Roborts, Chas. H. (Lincoln)|
|Beck, A. Cecil||Hooper, A. G.||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Bellairs, Carlyon||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Robinson, S.|
|Bennett, E. N.||Hudson, Walter||Runciman, Walter|
|Bertram, Julius||Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Russell, T. W.|
|Boland, John||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)|
|Bottomley, Horatio||Jowett, F. W.||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Brace, William||Kearley, Hudson E.||Scarisbrick, T. T. L.|
|Bramsdon, T. A.||Kelley, George D.||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Bridgsman, W. Clive||Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Brodie, H. C.||Kincaid-Smith, Captain||Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Burnyeat, W. J. D.||Laidlaw, Robert||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.||Lambert, George||Silcock, Thomas Ball|
|Byles, William Pollard||Lamont, Norman||Smyth, Thos. F. (Leitrim, S.)|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight||Lehmann, R. C.||Stanger, H. Y.|
|Cave, George||Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)||Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chosh.)|
|Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Levy, Maurice||Starkey, John R.|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Lewis, John Herbert||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Lough, Thomas||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
|Clough, William||Lupton, Arnold||Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)|
|Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Sullivan, Donal|
|Corbett, C. H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd||Lyell, Charles Henry||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Maclean, Donald||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Cory, Clifford John||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Thompson, J. W. H.(Somerset, E|
|Crean, Eugene||Macpherson, J. T.||Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)|
|Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.||Toulmin, George|
|Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Delany, William||M'Arthur, William||Ure, Alexander|
|Dolan, Charles Joseph||M'Crae, George||Verney, F. W.|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness||M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)||Maddison, Frederick||Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)|
|Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)||Manfield, Harry (Northants)||Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton|
|Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)||Meagher, Michael||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)|
|Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)||Meehan, Patrick A.||Watt, H. Anderson|
|Elibank, Master of||Micklem, Nathaniel||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Essex, R. W.||Mooney, J. J.||Whitbread, Howard|
|Evans, Samuel T.||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Everett, R. Lacey||Morse, L. L.||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|Farrell, James Patrick||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Fenwick, Charles||Murnaghan, George||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Ferens, T. R.||Murphy, John||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Ffrench, Peter||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Fiennes, Hon. Eustace||Nicholls, George||Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer|
|Findlay, Alexander||Nolan, Joseph||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Williamson, A.|
|Fuller, John Michael F.||Nuttall, Harry||Wilson, Hn. C. H. W. (Hull, W.|
|Fullerton, Hugh||O'Brion, Kendal (Tipperary Mid||Wilson, Henry J.(York, W.R.)|
|Ginnell, L.||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)|
|Glover, Thomas||O'Doherty, Philip|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.|
|Gulland, John W.||O'Haro, Patrick|
|Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)|
|Gwynn, Stephen Lucius||O'Malley, William|
§ MR. CLOUGH (Yorkshire, W. R., Skipton) moved the omission of Clause 2, which exempted racecourses from the operation of the Act. He thought that that was class legislation of a very invidious kind. It attempted to deal with an evil affecting the working and industrial classes—for which many Members were grateful—but it specially reserved the racecourse for the indulgence of the drones and butterflies of society. In dealing with this evil in the streets they were only dealing with effects; they ought to remove the causes, and the racecourse was the fount and source of the mischief, the seat of the cancer and canker. It was doubtful, even if this clause were left out, whether or not racecourses would he exempted. He quite agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this Parliament ought to set new precedents, but they should be good and wholesome, and not bad and reactionary precedents, such as this special exemption of racecourses. He objected to this Racecourse (Removal of Doubts) Clause. This Bill had come from another place where they were adepts at construing the real minds of the authors of proposed measures. But he was perfectly certain that Clause 2 was not in the Bill as introduced in another place, and at any rate it had never been in the mind of Lord Davey, the original author of the Bill. Therefore they should reconstitute it in this respect. What were the objections to the omission of the clause? It had been said that this was not a racecourse Bill, but a street betting Bill; but if they looked at the measure they would find that it was a Bill for the suppression of betting in streets and in other public places, and there-fore he did not see why race courses should be exempted from its operation when the Bill became law. Besides, their well-beloved Prime Minister had said, "a rose by any other name will to the same thing," and this Bill by any other name would be the same Bill. He did not think that if this clause was struck out they would lose the Bill altogether; and he hoped that the Government would not "tell" against the Amendment. In another place they had struck out clauses from measures sent up to them, and under Mr. Speaker's direction the House of Commons had struck out clauses in measures sent to 1688 them, and they had not lost those Bills has yet. He and those who agreed with him liked the Bill; they thought it a good Bill; but they believed it would be improved by the omission of Clause 2.
§ MR. LUTTRELL (Devonshire, Tavistock)
seconded the Amendment. He could not see why a man was to be prevented from betting in the street and yet allowed to bet on a racecourse.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In page 2, line 22, to leave out Clause 2."—(Mr. Clough.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'or,' in line 23, stand part of the Bill."
§ * MR. GLADSTONE
said that he proprosed that this should be left an open question. So far as the merits of the Bill were concerned, it would make no difference whether the Amendment was carried or not. Personally he should vote with a clear mind for the clause as it stood. It had been said that the Bill was aimed against the poor man and was in favour of the rich man; but the poorer classes went to race meetings and betted with wandering bookmakers. If the clause were omitted he thought a good deal would be done to organise betting in rings.
§ * MR. HICKS BEACH (Gloucestershire, Tewkesbury)
hoped the clause would be retained in the Bill, the object of which was to prevent betting in the streets. Betting in a racecourse and betting at street corners were totally different things. Frequenters of racecourses wont there knowing that they would see horses race and that they would also be tempted to bet. To say that a man should not be allowed to make a bet, whether of sixpence, half a crown, or £500 or more, under those conditions, would be grandmotherly legislation of the worst description, and went far beyond the scope of the Bill, which was only intended to put a stop to the temptations of betting at street corners. The hon. Member who moved the rejection of this clause talked about the Bill in its present form as being class legislation of the most invidious type, and mentioned some words which dealt with a 1689 society of drones and butterflies. He did not know what that had to do with those who attended racecourses, but he would remind the hon. Member that frequenters of racecourses in the neighbourhood of large towns were drawn far more largely from the working class than from that class which he described as consisting of drones and butterflies. It was essential for the protection of the racecourse that this clause should be kept in, and he hoped hon. Members would consider very seriously before they supported the Amendment of the hon. Member.
MR. J. W. WILSON
hoped that hon. Members would not vote against Clause 2 as he felt it would endanger the passing of the Bill; it would not prevent rich folk from betting, and it would leave street betting in the position in which it was before. It was quite a different thing to deal with betting on racecourses and to deal with it in the streets. If there was one thing for which they had a mandate it was to put down the nuisance which existed outside large works, when the men with their wages in their pockets were tempted to bet. It was quite a different thing when the same set of people put on their best clothes and went to a racecourse, and it was idle to suppose that even this Radical Parliament was resolved to put a stop to betting on racecourses. They were, in attempting to do it, running their heads against a brick wall, and aiding and abetting those who wished to see this Bill defeated.
§ LORD BALCARRES
asked whether the words "adjacent thereto," as applied to a racecourse meant a hundred yards or a quarter of a mile away. There might be factories or workshops within a few yards of a racecourse, and a man might still, in spite of the Bill, be tempted to bet at a street corner. It was not right to leave such slovenly, general, indiscriminate, and ill-defined words in an Act of Parliament if it was meant to be effective. He thought this clause was the first recogni-
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Agnew, George William||Armitage, R.|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Ainsworth, John Stirling||Barlow, Percy (Bedford)|
|Adkins, W. Ryland D.||Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Barran, Rowland Hirst|
§ tion of betting contained in an Act of Parliament dealing with criminal matters.
§ MR. BYLES (Salford, N.)
thanked the Government warmly for allowing them to vote as they liked on this question, without the pressure of the Government Whips. For once they were not putting them in the dilemma, which some of them were so often put into, of having either to vote against the Government or against their consciences. The Home Secretary would remember very well that in Committee they had a very close division about this matter, and he was not so sure that if the House had been as full as when the Minister for Education made his statement that afternoon, this House would not strike the clause out of the Bill. The Bill was directed to preventing people from waiting and loitering in streets in order to make bets, but then this clause was dropped in so that a rich man could go to Newmarket, and there was nothing to prevent his making bets. That meant that while certain aristocratic gentlemen wanted to be protected themselves, they were perfectly willing to prevent poor men betting in the streets, so long as they were enabled to do what the poor man could not. He intended to vote against the clause.
§ MR. EUGENE WASON (Clackmannan and Kinross)
said the hon. Member was thankful for small mercies. He had not been on a race-course for twenty-five years, and knew nothing about them. He did not bet on horse-races or any thing else, not because he thought it wrong, but because his vices did not lie in that direction. He should vote for the retention of the clause on the ground, that the Bill was intended to stop street betting, and that if they attempted to strike out the clause, it would imperil the passage of the measure, which they would all deplore.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 144; Noes 40. (Division List No. 486.)
|Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks||Hills, J. W.||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Beale, W. P.||Hobhouse, Charles E. H.||Renton, Major Leslie|
|Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (Hexh'm||Hogan, Michael||Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th)|
|Bennett, E. N.||Hooper, A. G.||Richardson, A.|
|Bertram, Julius||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Boland, John||Hunt, Rowland||Robinson, S.|
|Bottomley, Horatio||Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Kearley, Hudson E.||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Kelley, George D.||Scarisbrick, T. T. L.|
|Brace, William||Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Bramsdon, T. A.||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Brodie, H. C.||Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Burnyeat, W. J. D.||Levy Maurice||Silcock, Thomas Ball|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Lewis, John Herbert||Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)|
|Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight||Lough, Thomas||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Lupton, Arnold||Stanger, H. Y.|
|Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd||Lyen, Charles Henry||Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Maclean, Donald||Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffs'h.)|
|Cory, Clifford John||MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||M'Arthur, William||Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)|
|Crean, Eugene||M'Crae, George||Sullivan, Donal|
|Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Maddison, Frederick||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Delany, William||Manfield, Harry (Northants)||Toulmin, George|
|Dolan, Charles Joseph||Meagher, Michael||Verney, F. W.|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness||Meehan, Patrick A.||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)||Micklem, Nathaniel||Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)|
|Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)||Mooney, J. J.||Ward, W. Dudley (Southamptn|
|Farrell, James Patrick||Murnaghan, George||Watt, H. Anderson|
|Fenwick, Charles||Nicholls, George||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Ffrench, Peter||Nolan, Joseph||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Fiennes, Hon. Eustace||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||Nuttall, Harry||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Fuller, John Michael F.||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Fullerton, Hugh||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer|
|Ginnell, L.||O'Hare, Patrick||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John||O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)||Wilson, Hn. C. H.W. (Hull, W.)|
|Glover, Thomas||O'Malley, William||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Gwynn, Stephen Lucius||Paulton, James Mellor||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Haddock, George R.||Pease J. A. (Saffron Walden)|
|Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. J. W. Wilson and Mr. Eugene Wason.|
|Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Pollard, Dr.|
|Haworth, Arthur A.||Radford, G. H.|
|Hay, Hon. Claude George||Reddy, M.|
|Hayden, John Patrick||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Hazel, Dr. A. E.||Paul, Herbert|
|Barnard, E. B.||Hedges, A. Paget||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Helme, Norval Watson||Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)|
|Byles, William Pollard||Higham, John Sharp||Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.|
|Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Hudson, Walter||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Russell, T. W.|
|Cooper, G. J.||Laidlaw, Robert||Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick, B.)|
|Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)||Lehmann, B. C.||Smyth, Thos. F. (Leitrim, S.)|
|Essex, R. W.||Macpherson, J. T.||Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.|
|Evans, Samuel T.||MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)||Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)|
|Everett, R. Lacey||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas|
|Ferens, T. R.||Murphy, John||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Clough and Mr. Luttrell.|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||Nannetti, Joseph P.|
|Gulland, John W.||O'Doherty, Philip|
|Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)||O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)|
§ Bill read the third time, and passed with Amendments.