§ Any person who in the United Kingdom writes, prints, publishes, or knowingly circulates any advertisement, circular, or coupon of any ready money football betting business, whether such business is carried on in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, or who causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, any of those things to be done, or assists therein, shall be liable—
- (a) for a first offence, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds, or to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a period not exceeding three months;
- (b) for a second offence, on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a period not exceeding six months;
- (c) for a third or subsequent offence, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a period not exceeding twelve months.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe first Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Macclesfield is out of order. He cannot move to omit the Clause, which is practically the whole Bill. The second Amendment, I think, is in order.
§ Mr. REMERI desire to move to leave out the word "coupon."
I cannot see what effect this word has in this Bill. It might have very serious consequences in other directions. I am not at all sure that it might not have even the effect of destroying the last General Election, and have several other results of an equally disadvantageous character. To put in the word "coupon" here is very dangerous. It will have serious effects on other things than the betting business, and to deal with this one type of coupon and not deal with coupons that refer to other things is a mistake.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI do not think that the Clause would read if this Amendment 778 were carried. It would be necessary first, after the word "advertisement," to insert the word "or."
§ Colonel Sir HENRY NORRISI cannot understand why this Amendment has been moved, unless it be to confess on the part of the hon. Member an ignorance which is foreign to every other Member of the House. "Coupon" is a word which is well understood by all those who have any knowledge of football and the coupon betting which this Bill is introduced to prevent. I have in my hand one of the circulars or coupons, as the word is generally understood, and it is used by the whole of the various bookmakers throughout the country. I cannot understand the object of leaving out the word. It certainly does not do any harm, and the suggestion that the word "coupon" as applied to this Bill is synonymous with the word "coupon" as applied to candidates at an election is of a piece with the whole argument of the hon. Member. I hope that the House will not accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. HOGGEI hope that the House will not agree to this Amendment. The hon. Member has given no reason for leaving out the word. This word does cover the most effective instrument of destroying the game of football in this country. If my hon. Friend knows anything about the efforts of the Football Association for many years to keep the game as purely a sport as possible, he will see that it would destroy the object of this Bill to leave out the word, and would weaken the effectiveness of the law in dealing with this matter.
§ Mr. MARRIOTTThe object of this Amendment is to destroy the effect of the Bill. On that ground I must oppose it very strongly. I have had many communications from my constituents and others in this matter. I believe that all pure and keen sportsmen are anxious to pass the Bill, and therefore I hope that the House will not accept the Amendment.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe next two Amendments, which deal with horse racing and golf, are out of order, as they are beyond the scope of the Bill.
§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Major Baird)I beg to move, to leave out paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), and to insert instead thereof the words
on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds or imprisonment for not exceeding one month or, in case of a second or subsequent conviction, to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or imprisonment for not exceeding three months.I move this Amendment with a view to simplifying the penalties, and I do not think that any explanation is required. The penalties which are now proposed are less complicated than those at present specified in the Bill, and I think that they are equally effective.
§ Sir H. NORRISI am prepared to accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. HOGGEI notice the Bill uses the expression "with or without hard labour." If a man persists in trying to break down this machinery, and can avoid it always by payment of a fine, that fine will almost invariably be provided out of the money he makes. There ought to be some other restraint accompanied with or without hard labour when the offence is repeated ad libitum.
§ Mr. REMEROn a point of Order. I have two Amendments later dealing with this point. Ought I to move them now?
§ Mr. SPEAKERIf the House accept this Amendment, of course the hon. Member's Amendments will be cut out.
§ Mr. SPEAKERWhen we have got the words struck out, and the words proposed to be inserted become substantive, then the hon. Member can move an Amendment to them.
§ Major BAIRDI am advised that "with or without hard labour" is a phrase which is put into certain Acts as a consequential phrase, but it has no effect so far as the passing of sentence is concerned. I believe that is perfectly correct.
§ Lieut.-Colonel HURSTI think the penalties upon anyone guilty of an offence for the first time are unduly excessive. There is no doubt that this Bill is legislating far ahead of the present state of public opinion. It is making illegal and harmful something which at present the great bulk of the population rightly regard 780 as legal, and rightly or wrongly regard as harmless. It is class legislation and piecemeal legislation. What moral differentiation can be drawn between coupons issued by a betting tout and those issued by newspapers? In the very narrow definition of a betting business later on in the Bill it is clear that coupons issued by newspapers will be absolutely immune from the penalties attached to this offence. I think the public have a right to ask why it is that that differentiation has been drawn. Why are we to regard it as immoral to have bets upon football and as perfectly moral to—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. and gallant Gentleman is discussing the general principles of the Bill. We are not concerned with that now, but with the question of penalties.
§ Lieut.-Colonel HURSTThe point I wanted to make is that it is quite clear, in the present state of public opinion, that this offence of betting on football is regarded as an absolutely venial one, and that when you are making a new offence by Act of Parliament the penalty for a first commission of such offence should be as light as possible. It is clear that the working man who is going to be penalised by this Bill cannot regard his betting on football as being in any way worse than the betting of the rich man on the Derby or the boat race or anything else. That being so, it seems to me unfair to the particular class singled out for this penal legislation to impose such a penalty as imprisonment for a first offence.
§ Mr. REMERI associate myself with the views of my hon. and gallant Friend. It seems to me utterly ridiculous that a man should be liable to a penalty of imprisonment with hard labour simply because he puts a shilling on a coupon or on a football match. I think it is against the liberty of the subject. The penalty is altogether too severe. Working people in this country do not know that this legislation, with the penalties proposed, is likety to be inflicted upon them.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat is really not relevant to the question now before the House. It will be relevant to the hon. Member's Amendment when we reach it. The Amendment now before us is to strike out all penalties. With that the hon. Member will probably agree.
§ Question. "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ Mr. REMERI beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "twenty-five pounds" and to insert instead thereof the words "one pound".
§ Lieut.-Colonel HURSTI beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment. Everybody knows that this type of betting is confined entirely to working people, and if the Bill be passed as proposed by the Government, it means that we are going to impose upon working people penalties which do not exist in the case of absolutely analogous offences committed by those who are richer. I remember during the war, when I was on board a troopship, we were all playing in the officers' mess a game of bridge for money, the ship's adjutant was sent for and asked in great perturbation to go and stop the men below from playing "crown and anchor." That struck me as an instance of class legislation. This Bill is another.
§ Major HAMILTONThe Mover and Seconder of this Amendment do not appear to have read the Bill. So far as I can see there is no penalty imposed on any working men who indulges in betting. The penalty is imposed on the person who writes, prints, publishes or circulates, or touts for people to bet. Surely that is not class legislation. I am opposed to class legislation, and I have undertaken to criticise this Bill wherever in my opinion it appears to be unfair to working men to want to put their shillings on football, as compared with my hon. and gallant Friend's plunging on the Derby. The Clause uses the words "circulates any advertisement." That may catch the newspaper proprietors. I hope it will.
§ Mr. WIGNALLThis Amendment reduces the whole thing to an absolute farce. If the thing is wrong it is wrong, and to impose a penalty of a pound is simply playing with the whole business. The question of the working man always comes in when it suits a purpose. I think that even a £25 penalty is very small, because the people who are engaged in this business are out to make money, and such 782 penalties do not deter them. Even penalties of £50 on betting organisations do not do so, and as soon as the penalty is imposed the money is on the table. I think the proposed penalty is too small.
§ Mr. SEDDONI wish to associate myself with my hon. Friend who has just spoken, and to make an emphatic protest against the two speeches in support of this Amendment, and the dragging in of the working man who is not touched by any stretch of imagination. The Bill merely deals with that class of people who issue, publish or circulate those coupons. As far as I am concerned, instead of reducing the fine I should be delighted to see it increased to £100. I repeat my protest against the dragging in of the working man as a kind of cheap notoriety, because he is not touched by this Bill.
§ Mr. PERRINGThe original Amendment states that the fine shall not exceed £25, and that leaves a discretionary power in the hands of the magistrate who can inflict a small fine if the circumstances justify that. Therefore the ground is covered. It would be the utmost folly to pass this Bill if we seriously desire to stop this kind of coupon betting unless we give power to inflict a heavy fine. Many bookmakers would be willing to pay a small fine because they would still have a large profit, and any proposal of that kind would nullify the whole effect of the Bill.
§ Mr. MARRIOTTI would like to have some authoritative statement as to the difference of opinion between the hon. Members who have moved and other hon. Members. According to my reading of the Bill, this penalty will only fall upon those who invite betting, and will deal with those betting touts we are exceedingly anxious to get rid of. I am as strongly opposed as any hon. Gentleman to anything in the nature of class legislation, but this does not seem to me to be of that description. The penalty is not intended to fall on a man who puts the shilling on, but on the person who incites him to do so.
§ Mr. CHARLES EDWARDSI desire to support the Amendment, as I think the penalty for a first offence ought to be a light one, and that every man ought to get a chance. If we were dealing with penalties for betting generally the position would be different. This does not touch the problem of betting, but simply 783 deals with one phase of it and only a part of that particular phase. We see newspapers touting weekly for this sort of thing.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "or" ["twenty-five pounds or"], to insert the words "in default of payment."
The object of that is to prevent a man being imprisoned for a first offence unless he pays the fine. I do not think it right that on the first offence a man should be sent to prison for one month without option of a fine, although I am quite willing that he should go to prison for three months for a second offence; but to leave it entirely in the discretion of the curious justices who are being appointed in these days, in ho have not always the judicial mind, is, I think, a mistake.
§ Sir H. NORRISI am prepared to accept the suggested Amendment.
§ Question put, "That the words 'twenty-five pounds' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 117; Noes, 4.
783| Division No. 134.] | AYES. | [12.31 p.m. |
| Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S. | Gilmour, Lieut-Colonel John | Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross) |
| Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James | Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.) | Myers, Thomas |
| Archdale, Edward Mervyn | Greenwood, William (Stockport) | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Greig, Colonel James William | Parker, James |
| Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. | Grundy, T. W. | Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry |
| Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.) | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Percy, Charles |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Hallas, Eldred | Perring, William George |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Hamilton, Major C. G. C. | Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles |
| Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith- | Hanna, George Boyle | Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N. |
| Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. | Hartshorn, Vernon | Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich) |
| Breese, Major Charles E. | Haslam, Lewis | Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor) |
| Briant, Frank | Henderson Major V. L. (Tradeston) | Royce, William Stapleton |
| Burdon, Colonel Rowland | Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.) | Seager, Sir William |
| Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay) | Hinds, John | Seddon, J. A. |
| Cape, Thomas | Hogge, James Myles | Simm, M. T. |
| Casey, T. W. | Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian) | Stanier, Captain Sir Beville |
| Cautley, Henry S. | Hopkins, John W. W. | Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F. |
| Child, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Hill | Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster) | Stanton, Charles B. |
| Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale | Inskip, Thomas Walker H. | Sturrock, J. Leng |
| Conway, Sir W. Martin | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Sugden, W. H. |
| Coote, William (Tyrone, South) | Jodrell, Neville Paul | Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C. |
| Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke) | Sutherland, Sir William |
| Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe) | Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. | Talbot, Rt. Hon. Lord E. (Chich'st'r) |
| Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh) | Kenyon, Barnet | Taylor, J. |
| Dawes, Commander | Lindsay, William Arthur | Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham) |
| Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T. | Loseby, Captain C. E. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) |
| Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham) | Lyle-Samuel, Alexander | Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince) |
| Dockrell, Sir Maurice | Lynn, R. J. | Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull) |
| Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon) | M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P. | Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T. |
| Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) | Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray | White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport) |
| Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M. | McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern) | Wignall, James |
| Farquharson, Major A. C. | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett) |
| Fell, Sir Arthur | M'Micking, Major Gilbert | Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading) |
| Finney, Samuel | Mallalieu, F. W. | Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton) |
| Foreman, Henry | Marriott, John Arthur Ransome | Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.) |
| Fraser, Major Sir Keith | Matthews, David | Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H (Norwich) |
| Freece, Sir Walter de | Moles, Thomas | Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon) |
| Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Morgan, Major D. Watts | |
| Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C. | Morison, Thomas Brash | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham | Murray, Lieut.-Colonel A. (Aberdeen) | Colonel Sir Henry Norris and Sir William Bull. |
| NOES. | ||
| Blair, Reginald | Sexton, James | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Stevens, Marshall | Mr. Romer and Lieut.-Colonel Hurst. |
§ Mr. SPEAKERI have already put the Amendment coming after the word "or." Therefore the word "pounds or" stand part.
§ Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
§ Proposed words, as amended, there inserted in the Bill.