§ Order for Second Reading read.
861§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
§ *MR. BOTTOMLEY (Hackney, S.)said he was surprised that the provisions of this Bill had never been explained to the House by any Member of the Government, and he did not see his way two nights in succession blindly to follow His Majesty's Government into the division lobby. He was present in pursuance of that much debated thing called a mandate to resist any legislation of the character contemplated by this Bill. This measure came before the House under these circumstances. A month ago the Home Secretary was approached by a deputation asking him to deal with what was alleged to be the serious evils of street betting. The hon. Gentleman expressed sympathy with the idea, and suggested that somebody should introduce a Bill on the lines of Lord Davey's Bill which was brought in in another place last year, and said that he would be disposed to look favourably upon it. He (Mr. Bottomley) ventured to take up the suggestion and proposed the outline of a Bill which he thought contained all the provisions necessary to stamp out what every man must admit to be an institution which if possible it was most desirable to get out of existence. But his proposal was received with the derision which perhaps his presumption merited. Time passed and other deputations waited upon the right hon. Gentleman, and ultimately an hon. Member introduced a Bill called the Street Betting Bill which after the First Reading was suddenly dropped in favour of the Bill now before the House. This Bill came down from another place, and was the second adopted child of His Majesty's Government. As to whether the right hon. Gentleman felt as much pride in it as in the other he did not know, but he ventured to express some surprise that the strongest Government of all time should find it necessary at the fag end of the session in order to get on the Statute-book some permanent record of its legislative genius, to resort to the expedient of disappointed and desperate women—to adopt a nondescript offspring and thrust it upon the House 862 without even giving it a decent christening or any kind of introduction. If the intention of the Government was to stamp out the evil of betting, surely it was strong enough to have dropped the system of instalment legislation in regard to this measure, and to have said that they would grapple with the whole difficulty, suppress it, and make it illegal in every shape and form. He did protest against the hypocritical spirit which underlay a measure of this kind, which asked the public outside to believe that this House was the enemy of all forms of betting, but had no more courage than to put its hand on the man who put his shilling on a horse in the street, leaving the rich and middle-class gambler absolutely free. He heard with a sense of guilt the impeachment of the hon. and learned Member for North Louth when he said that the Liberal Party once in power was more one-sided and more intolerant in its legislation than any Tory Government.
§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.)I said it was easier to get jobs through the Liberal Party.
§ *MR. BOTTOMLEYsaid it was another aspect of the same matter. The hon. and learned Gentleman used the phrase that Liberal majorities were in the habit of foisting upon this House measures of a character which hitherto he thought were the prerogative of Tory Governments. The House was to-night asked to pass a Street Betting Bill which could do no possible good. He objected to is first because it was class legislation in its worst form. It touched the little man, and left out the middle-class and big man entirely. He objected to it oven more strongly because it would have no other result than to aggravate the evil. If they removed the little man from the street, agencies would spring up in every workshop and factory in the land. They could not stamp out the instinct of a little gambling excitement in the human breast. There would arise little amateur bookmakers in factories and workshops, bringing facilities and temptations under the very noses of men. As an example, let them take the town of Crewe. There were only two 863 bookmakers in that town ten years ago, and they carried on their business as street bookmakers. A mistaken enthusiasm on the part of the authorities drove those men out of existence. There were to-day fifty bookmakers carrying an a lucrative business in Ore we in offices, shops, and works, and the betting going on among the workmen to-day in Crewe was a hundred-fold greater than when two men carried on business in the streets. As regarded the exclusion in favour of betting on racecourses, he might point out that on a big race day, such as the Derby, there was more betting than in the streets and betting offices throughout the year. Yet the Government said that workmen might go to the race-course and bet as much as they liked. To test how thoroughly this matter was understood in the constituency of Clitheroe, the hon. Member for which had opposed his Bill, he got a petition signed by the chief inspector of police, by various other members of the police force, ministers of every denomination; and one Catholic priest made it the text of his sermon and urged his congregation to sign it. The petition lay in the House to-day. There was not a police official whom he had privately consulted, and he had consulted many, who did not say that any such provisions as this Bill contained would not grapple with this evil. He ventured to say that this was another of those blind acts of surrender to Nonconformist and other ecclesiastical influences which told them that they had to put on the Statute-book a lot of puritanical social legislation of this character. [Cries of "No."] He asked the Government to tell the House what was their object in this Bill. If they said that street betting per se constituted the bane of the working men of this country, then they were bound to go a step further and show that suppression of the street bookmaker would remove that danger. In proportion as they removed the street bookmaker from the observation of the police and from places where he could be freely dealt with under by-laws, local Acts, and the general law of the country, they increased the facilities for betting in all the workshops and factories of the land. If the pro- 864 moters of the Bill objected to betting; he was surprised that they had not the courage to tackle the whole thing and say that betting altogether should be suppressed. He protested against this method of adopting the legislation of "another place" without receiving any explanatory statement The Bill was not called for; there had been no demand for it. It was never put before any of the constituencies at the late election. It would do harm rather than good. He did not say this with any desire to increase betting facilities among working men. He should like to see every working man give up betting, but it was mere hypocrisy to pretend that he would. He would be no party to a piece of class legislation of this kind. If they suppressed street betting, they would increase the evil indoors where it would be free from public supervision and control. He begged to move "That this Bill be read a second time upon this day six months."
§ *MR. CLAUDE HAY (Shoreditch, Hoxton), in seconding the Amendment, said the hon. Member for South Hackney had very properly shown that the evils which the promoters of this Bill desired to remove would not really be cured by the provisions of the measure. It was a Bill which made one law for the rich and another for the poor. It was notorious that at this moment there were in the West End of London offices known to the police, and to persons who desired to engage in betting, where betting could be indulged in. If any man in humbler circumstances desired to do that which the rich were allowed to do, he was made to suffer the full penalty of the law. He was not alone in opposing this Bill. Mr. Wharton, who took very great interest in this Bill when it was before Parliament in previous sessions, was satisfied that it would not in any proper fashion cope with the gigantic evil which the promoters of the measure desired to remove. That right hon. Gentleman had wide Parliamentary experience and was well known as a keen and most earnest social reformer. But he submitted that the way in which they should endeavour to reduce street betting was by imposing a fine so heavy that it would not be worth while for the 865 bookmaker to pursue his business in the streets. Under this Bill, however, an ignorant and practically an innocent person who had no knowledge of the law nor of the powers of the law might go and bet with a bookmaker in the street and subject himself to very serious penalties. That seemed to him utterly unreasonable, when this ignorant person knew that he was only doing what rich men were doing elsewhere with impunity. The Government by this measure were making one law for the rich in the West End and another law for the poor man in the streets of the East End. This was an attempt to pander to sentimentality and a bit of shop-window dressing for the Nonconformist conscience. The evils connected with betting must be dealt with in a different spirit and by different methods, and therefore he begged to second the Motion.
§
Amendment proposed—
To leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words ' upon this day three months.' "—(Mr Bottomley.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word ' now' stand part of the Question."
§ *MR. GLADSTONEsaid that the hon. Member for Hoxton had stated that this Bill had been introduced to satisfy the Nonconformist conscience. But what were the real facts? The Bill had come from the House of Lords, and special influence had been brought to bear on himself to forward its progress by a most influential deputation from both Houses of Convocation. The general law with which the authorities had had to deal on this question was that where an obstruction in the street was caused a fine not exceeding £5 could be imposed. There were in many places by-laws providing for the imposition of a fine not exceeding £5 for street betting; and in some large towns it was possible under the provisions of local Acts to inflict heavier penalties for second or subsequent offences. But the present system of fines was wholly insufficient; and some of these betting men snapped their fingers in the face of the police. The magistrates said that this street betting was a great national evil, and he agreed. Every one knew that under the existing law 866 there was no power of imprisonment for street betting. The question of dealing with the evil had been under the consideration of a Committee who had gone very thoroughly into the matter, taking a large amount of evidence, and that Committee, which included Lord Davey, Lord Aberdeen, Lord Compton, Lord Durham, Lord James of Hereford, had come to the conclusion that this was an evil that ought to be dealt with by legislation. Hence their Report and this Bill. It had been conclusively proved by inquiry by a House of Lords Committee that the practice of betting in the streets had increased enormously of late years, and had resulted in much evil among the working classes. It appeared that these street bookmakers betted not only with men but with women and children. The Committee recommended, in view of the acknowledged evils which existed, that there should be further legislation, and they also recommended amongst other things that the magistrates should have power to send bookmakers to prison without the option of a fine for inducing boys and youths to gamble. They also recommended that there should be a £10 fine for a first offence, £20 for a second offence, and £50 for any subsequent offence with power to send a bookmaker to prison without the option of a fine. These were the recommendations which the Government had adopted. There were cases given in which one bookmaker had been fined fifty-four times in four years; twenty-one had been fined eighteen times; twenty-six seventeen times; twenty-eight twelve times and so forth. The total number of summary convictions during the last three years in the Metropolitan Police district was no less than 6,263, and the significant fact was that the number of persons convicted only numbered 1,882. In the evidence before the House of Lords Committee the case of a man who was fined £5 was quoted. The man said he hoped the magistrates would not trouble him next time to come to the Court, but he should be happy if fined again to send the £5. The present state of the law was farcical, and the only question was whether this Bill was the right way of dealing with it. If betting men were licensed the House would 867 have to make bets recoverable. This Bill was not directed against the poor man's betting at all, and if betting were removed from the streets there were plenty of opportunities for the working man to bet as much as he chose. Let him bet with his friends He was no purist in this matter, but everyone knew the difference between the evils of betting with a bookmaker and backing one's opinion with a friend. They did not wish to interfere with anybody's freedom, but they wished to stop the weaker brother and women and children from ruining themselves. They also wished to save our streets from what they considered a scandal. He should like to abolish betting on racecourses but it was a big question, and must be done by a direct Act of Parliament, and this was a smaller question which they were going to deal with separately by this Bill.
§ SIR E. CARSON (Dublin University)said he was entirely in favour of this Bill, but he desired to see it carried further. What he wished to know was this: If this Bill was carried it had occurred to him that it might be made to apply to bets made by telegraph, and he did not see why it should not. Through the telegraph the Government was made the means of betting all through the country, and received a revenue from it. He hoped, therefore, it would not be going too far if the right hon. Gentleman said that, so far as the Government could do it, betting by telegram should be prohibited. If that were done, he thought they would have gone a great way to make this Bill a success.
MR. J. W. WILSON (Worcestershire, N.)said that the Committee which considered this Bill had had before them not only this year but last applications and petitions from large towns in the north in favour of these very powers. And, in fact, the powers given by this Bill had been in force during all the present year in Halifax and Accrington. At least three Bills giving these same powers to certain towns had gone through both Houses, and the working classes in those towns had deliberately supported their local bodies in obtaining them. He felt that these 868 powers ought to be extended. It was not a question of making a new law, but of making an old law more efficient. He believed that there was no measure before Parliament that would receive such universal acceptance as this, and he was only surprised that such a Bill should have come down year after year from the Lords and never have been taken up by the Government then in power.
§ MR. SHACKLETON (Lancashire, Clitheroe)said the Bill before the House was not satisfactory so far as he was concerned. There were no doubt good reasons for Clause 2, but he could assure the House that he and those associated with him were quite as anxious to get at the professional better in the ring as the other. In their opinion the man in the ring was equally guilty. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Trinity College and give effect to it in this Bill. If he did the Labour Party would give him all the support they could. There was no doubt as to the views of the Labour Party in this House. He knew the temptation put in the way of the working men. The working men were as anxious as anybody to deal with the matter. They desired to curtail this evil but not in the way suggested by the hon. Member for South Hackney, by registration, and elevating the betting man to a position of respectability. The object of the hon. Member for South Hackney was to make the bookmaker a respectable tradesman with an open door into his office. The working men were not prepared to do that. What the hon. Gentleman had said about Clitheroe was true, but the paragraph inserted in the paper to which he had referred asking that the bookmaker and other persons connected with betting should, be put under supervision and control was slipped in by a trick.
§ *MR. BOTTOMLEYHas anyone withdrawn his signature?
§ MR. SHACKLETONsaid he had received hundreds of postcards from his constituents who said they had signed the petition under a misapprehend on. 869 He had heard, from the Temperance Association, the Free Church Council, and many ministers of religion pointing out how they had been "let in." He had the honour of fighting a gentleman on this question at the last election who backed up betting in his address, saying that every man ought to be allowed to put a shilling on a gee-gee. He beat his opponent by over 8,000 votes, which, he took it, was a better record of what his constituency thought about betting than any such trek as he had referred to. He would be prepared to support the Second Reading of this Bill, but on the strict understanding that if there was an opportunity of dealing with street betting in a wider sense he should support it.
§ MR. MACVEAGH (Down, S.)asked whether the Bill applied to Ireland.
§ MR. LUPTONsaid he had been for many years an ardent opponent of street betting but it was impossible to support this measure. [Cries of "Divide."] If it were right to put down Bilk for discussion at one o'clock in the mornng it was right that they should be discussed at that hour [the further remarks of the hon. Member were rendered inaudible by cries of "Divide" and "Order."]
§ MR. CLOUGHrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."