HC Deb 06 July 1928 vol 219 cc1743-819

Order for Consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.


On a point of Order. May I ask whether, in view of the attendance and vitality of Members this afternoon, you will allow me to move the Adjournment of the House in order to discuss the poverty and distress in this country?


There is no point of Order under which I could do that.


Before we enter on the business on the Order Paper, I would like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, to give the House at any rate some guidance about the Bill that is now before us. I wish to ask that guidance from you quite apart from and independent of the merits of the Bill itself. The question I want to put to you is whether we can proceed any further with this Bill? The point has very often been raised, and I venture to submit that in every similar circumstance your predecessor has either ruled or has expressed the opinion that a Bill that has been altered in the way that this one has been altered, should be made the subject of a re-draft, which will be brought before the House in the ordinary way to receive a Second Beading. Sir Erskine May has laid it down quite clearly that Amendments to a Bill must be a fair interpretation of the rule concerning what is relevant, and we have further instruction and guidance from Sir Erskine May in that part of his book which relates to what may be the subject of a relevant instruction to a Committee, where he says: No instruction is permissible which is irrelevant, foreign or contrary to the contents of the Bill, or that seeks the subversion thereof, by substituting another scheme for the mode of operation therein prescribed. I think that those words are perfectly definite, and if, on examination of the Bill now before us, it can be shown that another scheme has been substituted for the mode of operation prescribed in the Bill which received a Second Reading in this House, then the rule, I think, must be at once put into operation. The point has been raised very frequently. There was the case of the Partnership Amendment Bill of 1856, wherein Clauses were inserted and—I quote— the principles of which had not been affirmed at the stage of Second Reading. That Bill was dropped and had to foe dealt with as a new Bill.

Then again, in connection with the Tithe Rent Charge Bill, on 16th August, 1889, your predecessor gave a pronouncement which I hope the House will allow me to read, and which I hope you, Sir, have carefully considered since I submitted it to you. The Speaker of the day said: I express the practice of the House rather than the rules of the House, if I may distinguish between them. The practice of the House has unquestionably been when a Bill has been so transformed, as in my opinion this Bill has been, that a new Bill should be introduced and that leave should be given to introduce it and that the Second Reading stage should be gone through when the general principles of the Measure as distinct from its component Clauses can be affirmed. No general principle can be affirmed or even discussed on the Report stage of a Bill. I proceed with the quotation:— I express my opinion upon this point without the least hesitation and I desire to affirm that opinion very strongly. Having said this much, I think I ought now to leave the matter in the hands of the House and the Government. I could not stop the Bill on the point of Order as constituting a new Bill, but I do unhesitatingly affirm that the practice of the House has been in a case of this kind to withdraw the old Bill and then to introduce a new Bill in the amended form. I am sure, Sir, you are perfectly well aware of it, but I again draw your attention to the position that another predecessor of yours—one of the greatest of our Speakers, Mr. Lowther—took up regarding this very point in reference to the Franchise and Registration Bill on 27th January, 1913. This was a very curious case. The Government itself, with all its authority and responsibility, introduced a Bill which it intended, and declared it intended, should be a means for allowing an Amendment to be moved in favour of female franchise. There was no doubt about that, and Mr. Speaker Lowther gave a ruling before the question was actually before the House. It was a ruling by anticipation for the convenience of the House. So important is this principle—that the House should safeguard itself against Bills being introduced, and afterwards expanded in such a way that the expanded Bill is practically a new Bill—that the Speaker on that occasion gave a ruling in anticipation. He said that if certain Amendments on the Paper were carried, it would constitute the Bill then before the House a new Bill,

And then he said— In accordance with the practice of the House it ought to be withdrawn and a fresh Bill ought to be introduced."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th January, 1913; col. 1020, Vol. 47.] The practice and the rulings are both perfectly plain. May I now refer to the actual changes which have taken place in the Bill now before us as compared with the Bill to which we gave a Second Reading? I shall do so without in any way entering into the merits of the changes. If hon. Members are armed with copies or the original Bill to which we gave a Second Reading, they will find that it is a one-Clause Bill. They will also find the intention of the promoters very clearly and succinctly expressed in the Memorandum to the Bill. The object, according to the promoters, was to allow the Jockey Club or the National Hunt Committee to use racecourses under their authority in a certain way which at the present moment is not permissible on account of the existence of the Betting Act of 1853. Therefore, the object and the sole object of the Bill to which we gave a Second Reading was to amend the Betting Act of 1853 in such a way as to allow what was narrowly specified in the Bill, namely, for the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee to regard betting as legal and so regulate it. The final clause in the Memorandum is—and I emphasise this and draw your attention to it, Sir: The racecourse authorities by virtue of their proprietary interest in the course will control both the totalisator and the bookmaker. In order to do that, the only thing necessary was to ask that it should be enacted in accordance with Clause 1 of the Bill. That is a complete idea—a perfectly simple idea, water-tight in itself. What has happened? If hon. Members will now turn to the Bill which is before us they will find that the very first thing which has happened is visible to the eye. In the original Bill there were two Clauses—the Title Clause and the operative Clause. The operative part of the original Bill consisted of seven lines, and the total number of lines in the Bill was 17. The Bill now before us is a Bill of five Clauses. It consists of 149 lines of which 141 are operative. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, the operative part leaving out the Title and so forth consists of 141 lines, compared with the five lines of the original Bill. That of course is a very important consideration but I wish to draw attention to something more. Of the original Bill, only a line and a quarter now remains. The only words in this Bill, put in proper place and put with operative effect, that are common to this Bill and the Bill to which the House gave a Second Reading are: Nothing contained in the Betting Act, 1853, shall apply to any— I now draw attention to the change that has taken place in the definition of the ground that is to be subject to the operations of the new law. In the old Bill the ground to be subject to the benefit of the amended law was ground owned by the Jockey Club or the National Hunt Committee. This Bill extends that definition substantially and extends it by changing the reasons upon which the original Bill was drafted. It is now proposed to apply this to any approved racecourse and "approved racecourse" is defined as: Any ground … and any ground adjacent thereto in respect of which there is in force a certificate of approval issued under this Act. I submit that that first point, when you consider what its actual and practical meaning is, is an alteration of such importance that it becomes an alteration of principle.

The second point that I wish to draw to your attention is this. The original Bill to which we gave a Second Reading prescribed quite definitely that the authorities that were going to exercise this new power were the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee. These disappear, or practically disappear, and in their place is created a totally new and unheard of authority, an authority which raises points of principle and not merely points of convenience. That authority is the Racecourse Betting Control Board. I want to draw your attention in a minute to another enormous change that has taken place, but this alone is a change of principle, setting up a committee on new principles of an unknown character, a committee the existence of which was never indicated by anybody in this House, and certainly not at all indicated in the original draft of the Bill. There is a minor point, but one which I must mention because it is of some substance. We gave no directions regarding the rules that were to be drafted in order to carry out the original Bill at all. The House felt that it belonged to the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee, and although the word "totalisator" appeared in the Memorandum of the original Bill, there was nothing of a totalisator in the operative part of the original Bill. That is an important point too, that we now take upon ourselves the responsibility of prescribing rules as well as simply handing over authority to deal with certain properties, because they were properties, to two well recognised and most highly reputable racing authorities in this country.

I wish further to draw your attention to what has taken place in Clause 2. This, as I said, is a new Clause altogether, setting up a new principle, and I wish to draw your attention to this. So far as the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee are mentioned, it is provided in this Clause that they can appoint five members out of a Board of 12. Therefore, these racing authorities that were to be the sole authority under the original Bill have become altogether subordinate. In the constitution of this Board, moreover, new elements come in which again raise new principles bearing on the relation between the State and betting in this country. For the first time, the Home Secretary is going to appoint the Chairman of this Board, who is going to have a salary, a statutory salary, and I submit to you that in respect to Clause 2, that change that I have briefly indicated is so fundamental that nobody can possibly rule that a Bill with this brought in as an Amendment is the same as the Bill that was introduced by the hon. and gallant Member a few weeks ago.

In Clause 3, there are big changes, but I will not refer to them, because it might be regarded that although the changes are big, they do not amount to matters of principle. But in Sub-section (7) of Clause 3, we come to a point which is absolutely fundamental. It is a point of the greatest principle, and I am almost inclined to invite the Home Secretary to associate himself with me—a very unusual thing—in this matter. The Subsection—and I wish rather to press this point upon you—reads as follows: It says that the Racecourse Betting Control Board shall submit annually to the Secretary of State a report of their proceedings, together with an account, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State, of the moneys received and expended by them during the year, and such report and account shall be laid by the Secretary of State before both Houses of Parliament. How can anybody who has got respect for order and the control of this House, respect for those limits within which, however inconvenient it may be sometimes to hon. Members opposite and sometimes to hon. Members around me, this House must do its business, agree with that? I say that the insertion of that Sub-section strikes so deeply, not only at political but at moral principles, that whether it is right or wrong—and I am not taking sides at all; I am describing the nature of the change, and whether that change is right or wrong—it is a gross abuse of the liberties of discussion and amendment of this House to put it in, embodying as it does such a fundamental distinction and such a conflict between fundamental conceptions of morality and politics without any Instruction from this House on the Second Reading. This is a tremendous change in principle. The original authorised certain authorities, two groups of authorities, that were specified and named, and specified and named in a most exclusive way, to authorise betting in certain places, which again were defined.

This Bill makes the State directly responsible for the betting machinery set up and makes the Secretary of State responsible to this House and answerable to this House for these transactions. No such thing as making the State a partner in the betting system of the country was involved in an Amendment of the Act of 1853 or authorised by this House, and if hon. Members will again read the final sentence of the Memorandum to the original Bill, they will see that: The racecourse authorities by virtue of their proprietary interest in the course will control both the totalisator and the bookmaker. That now, they must see, is an absolutely grotesque description of the provisions of the Bill as it now reaches us. Therefore, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the changes that have taken place in this Bill are changes of great principle, and that the original decision of this House cannot be expanded and cannot be set aside by any perfunctory reference that has been made in speeches during the Second Reading of the last Bill. A reference by any Member during the Debate on the Second Reading to something which was in his mind when that Bill was under discussion before it received a Second Reading cannot justify what has happened since that Bill left this House, while it was assuming its present shape. Even if they had made a definite declaration at the time when they were asking for a Second Reading of that Bill, they could not now ask for their Bill to be ruled in order, because that is the ruling of Mr. Speaker Lowther on the Franchise Bill of 1913, to which I have referred. That it was in order in Committee has been ruled again and again, by the Speakers of this House, does not carry any obligation to this House, when the Bill reaches the Report stage, to reconsider the re-drafted and amended Bill as being in order. If it was contemplated, in any event it should have been made the subject of an Instruction, and I venture to say that if an Instruction had been moved, it would not have been given to expand the Bill as it has been expanded. On these grounds, and after that examination and explanation of what is in my mind, I ask you most respectfully, Mr. Speaker, if you will be good enough to give us guidance in regard to the order of this Bill.


Before I reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, if any other hon. Member wishes to make any remarks, I would like to know first whether be has anything to add to what has already been said.


I desire to put before you, Mr. Speaker, some considerations which have not been touched upon by the right hon. Gentleman. I wish, first of all, to say that one of the precedents to which the right hon. Gentle- man referred, that made in 1889 on the Tithe Rent Charge (Recovery) Bill, rests upon what is termed, in Erskine May, "Extensive Alterations." I want to submit to you, first, that what has taken place in this Bill cannot appropriately be called "Extensive Alterations" of the Clause. It is, in fact, a new Bill, built up entirely upon a tiny fragment which still remains of the few words of the first Bill. The point I want to make on that, is that those words which remain are not relevant to the main purpose of the Bill. It was found upstairs, and referred to by the learned Solicitor-General, that the Betting Act, 1853, was not the only Act against which protection was required in order to set up totalisators. They, therefore, started off, in Sub-section (2) of Clause 1, with the very wide words: Notwithstanding any rule of law or enactment to the contrary—— provision may be made for the setting up of totalisators, and on any ground of reasonable draftsmanship, the subsidiary purpose of the original Bill, which was explained in the Memorandum, to legalise places on racecourses for bookmakers, would naturally have followed, and would have been in what is now Sub-section (2) of Clause 1. I submit to you, therefore, that not only are there only 11 words left of the original Bill, but those words are left in the Bill to give a kind of semblance of similarity to the present Bill which, on any reasonable drafting, they could not have possibly maintained. With regard to Clause 2, the right hon. Gentleman, I think, has adequately laid the point before you. The fundamental point of principle is that the House decided, on Second Reading, that certain racecourse authorities should have control of these matters which the House proposed to legalise. In Committee a totally different principle has been adopted, namely, a partnership between the Government and certain racecourse authorities, and even with bodies such as the committee of Tattersalls and the Association of Racecourse Owners—a partnership in which, on a division, the Government might have a controlling vote. That is uncertain. But it is undoubtedly a partnership which may be regarded as an equal partnership between the Government and these authorities.

The right hon. Gentleman did not refer at all in his remarks to Clause 4 of the Bill. Clause 4 prohibits juvenile betting with these totalisator machines. The Title of the original Bill was "to amend the Betting Act, 1853." I have referred carefully to that Act, and I find in it nothing whatever with regard to any prohibition of betting by juveniles. That question was not legislated upon, and, therefore, I would submit to you that Clause 4, while it is suitable matter for a Bill dealing with juvenile offenders, or matters of that sort, is not only wholly outside the scope of the Bill which passed Second Reading in this House, but is outside the Title of the Bill, and on that ground alone this is entirely a new Bill. I do not want to add anything further, as the right hon. Gentleman has laid the case so clearly before you, but I should like to ask your advice to the House whether this Bill, in the circumstances, should not be withdrawn.


The right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, was good enough to give me notice that he would raise this question before the House entered upon the Report stage of the Bill, and, as a very important principle is involved, I will, with the leave of the House, give my reply fully. In the first place, I would like to say that I have fully considered the precedents in the cases which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has brought to my notice, and, of course, while I must pay the greatest possible respect to decisions which have been given by my predecessors, at the same time I must say that, valuable as precedents are, I have come to the conclusion that this particular case has very little similarity to the precedents which have been quoted, and that, therefore, they themselves do not really have much bearing on the question I have to decide to-day, and I have looked at the question brought before me entirely on the merits of this particular case. The right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) have suggested that this Bill as it is now proposed to enter upon the Report stage has been fundamentally altered in its passage through Committee; in other words, that it is an entirely different Bill from that to which the House gave its assent on Second Reading. The suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition is that I should advise the House on those grounds that the Bill should be withdrawn. The other procedure would be that the House order the Bill to be recommitted and that, of course, is a matter entirely for the House itself.

After giving the matter all the consideration that I can, I have come to a definite conclusion on the matter, and I should like to give to the House the reasons which made me come to the decision to which I have come, and, in doing so, I think I can go over most, if not all of the points referred to by the Leader of the Opposition. The Betting Act, 1853, made illegal the keeping of a house, room or place for the purpose of betting with persons resorting thereto, and Clause 1 of this Bill, to which the House gave a Second Reading, is designed to exempt from the provision of the Act of 1853 grounds used for horse-racing under the Jockey Club or National Hunt Committee Rules, or both of them. In other words, it proposed to legalise the erection of a building on a racecourse for betting purposes.

In giving these powers which the House proposed to give under the original Bill, it intended that they were to be made effective. The original Bill was something in the nature of a skeleton Bill. The Bill with which we are now asked to proceed is indeed the same skeleton, but the Committee in the exercise of their duties during the course of their debates, have clothed that skeleton with flesh and blood, and have, as it were, created the machinery by which the powers given under that Bill can be made effective. Let me say this, that the Amendments that have been made to the Bill are certainly not an extension of the powers which were given by the House on Second Reading, but they consist of a restriction of persons who may use these powers.

The Leader of the Opposition, in asking me for my Ruling, referred to the Clauses as they come in the Bill. As regards Clause 1, I do not think that it can be said that the instruments known as the totalisator or pari-mutuel were not in the mind of the House during the Second Reading Debate, while the provision of rooms in which bookmakers can conduct their business is a procedure which was obviously contemplated in the Title of the Bill. As regards the Boards which it is proposed to set up under Clause 2, instead of, as under the original Bill, these powers being available to persons owning or controlling racecourses, they are to be exercised by a Board, or persons licensed by the Board, the constitution of which is defined in the Bill. As regards Clause 4, on which I think the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) has laid particular stress, that clearly seems to me within the scope of the Bill as a limitation of the people entitled to make use of the totalisator.

Taking all these things into consideration, and having given this matter all the thought I could, I have come to the definite conclusion that the Bill is really the same Bill to which the House gave its assent on Second Reading, and I cannot, therefore, advise its withdrawal.


May I with respect, Sir, ask whether you have considered the meaning of the fundamental change which has taken place in these Clauses by associating the Government officially with this Board, and making this Board responsible first of all to the Home Secretary, and the Home Secretary responsible to this House, so that questions may be put on the Paper regarding the operations of this Board to the Home Secretary, if this Bill is carried? As you have not been good enough to refer to it, have you considered what really that principle amounts to?


I have certainly given that particular point consideration, and I have come to the conclusion that it cannot be considered to be outside the scope of the Bill. In that respect, I am not prepared to alter my decision.


I beg to move, "That the Bill be re-committed to a Select Committee,"

The course which we are proposing may be regarded as quite unusual for a Measure of this kind, but it must be remembered that this Bill was conceived in extraordinary circumstances. It was born under unusual conditions, and its passage through the Standing Committee upstairs was the most amazing in the annals of Parliamentary history. I submit that there are two or three points in connection with the passage of this Bill through a Standing Committee that require attention by a body quite apart from that Committee, a body representative of this House. The Chairman of the Committee which handled this Bill was actually a backer of the Measure, and I felt all along that that was an unfair position. We were called together at unusual hours, and, so far as I have been able to gather, never in the history of this House has a Committee been sitting when the House of Commons has actually risen for the night. The Chairman waited for three-quarters of an hour one day for a quorum, and I am positive that, if a Chairman who was an hon. Member of this side of the House at any time waited for a quorum——


May I draw the attention of the hon. Member to the Standing Order No. 40A which says: If a Motion to re-commit a Bill be opposed, Mr. Speaker shall permit a brief explanatory statement of the reasons for such re-committal from the Member who moves and from a Member who opposes any such Motion respectively, and shall without further debate put the question thereon. We cannot, therefore, go into the question of what took place on the Committee stage.


There is no Member of the House more ready to accept the Ruling of the Chair than I am, and I will proceed at once to give the reasons for recommitting this Bill to a Select Committee. Such a Committee will have power to call witnesses and ask for evidence, probably on oath, as to the fundamental changes that have taken place in this Measure. They have already been mentioned, but I do not think it has been explained what fundamental changes have taken place in this Bill. There are some of us who object absolutely to the State coming into partnership in any betting transactions. We ought to get evidence from social workers, from magistrates, and from members of the Church. I am sure that the Church ought to have a voice on this subject, because, as I have already hinted to the right hon. Gentleman, the Church of England will want to know how he can have one hand on the Prayer Book and the other on the totalisator. The Select Committee would be entitled to ask for the opinions not only of the Churches, social workers and magistrates, but for evidence from representatives of countries where the totalisator has already been established. I know that in the past Commissions have been appointed to inquire into the specific point of whether a duty ought to be imposed on betting receipts—I believe that has been inquired into on more than one occasion—but there has never been an inquiry into the specific point of whether the State shall become a partner in the doubtful, and I say the vile, transaction of betting. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, so far as I can see his facial expression, is with me all the way. I can read him very well by this time.

I am positive the Select Committee would ask for evidence as to whether—and this is a very important point—in those countries, in India, in Australia and America, where the totalisator has been established, it has had a tendency to increase betting. Then there is the question of the machine itself. It is a huge affair; in one place it will cost £35,000 to establish one machine, with the electrical plant necessary for running it. Evidence ought to be forthcoming as to whether this is not merely a Measure to help the Chancellor to raise more revenue from betting; but whether, in fact, it is not a huge capitalist venture to exploit a vice. As you have indicated, Mr. Speaker, I must be brief, and I will close with this point. I am as sure as I stand here that the conscience of the majority of the British people is offended by the provisions of this Measure. If I accepted for a single moment the idea which some people hold that betting is not wrong, and that it is not undesirable, and if I accepted, further, the right of the State to become a partner in exploiting betting, I would prefer the totalisator to the human bookmaker. Let me make that perfectly clear.

I say there ought to be an opportunity to give evidence before the Select Committee to show two or three things. First of all, that betting is an evil and a curse, that it has been the cause of the downfall of thousands of decent men and women, and that the establishment of the totalisator would increase betting, would perpetuate the vice, and would make it appear respectable because the State has entered into a partnership in betting. There ought to be evidence from the courts of the land and from the Home Office itself. If the right hon. Gentleman turned up the Report of the Departmental Committee on Juvenile Offences, he would find that betting is on the increase in this land, and that the Committees which have been appointed to report on betting have declared emphatically that it ought to be stopped by all means in our power. A Select Committee ought to be appointed to secure this evidence from social workers, from the Churches, from magistrates and from people who can say what the totalisator has meant in other countries, and, above all, to find out definitely whether this Bill is not clothing a doubtful financial transaction with the sanctity of the law. It is for these reasons that I am moving that the Bill should be re-committed to a Select Committee, and I trust the majority of this House will vote in favour of this Motion and kill this vile thing once for all.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks)

I think the House would desire that I should say a few words on the Motion now before the House——


What about the Prayer Book?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

Ettu, Brute!


—a Motion which has been moved by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) in such a vivacious speech. Everybody knows that to refer a Bill to a Select Committee at this stage of the Session means killing the Bill. I understand that the Bill was before the Committee upstairs on 11 days. That Committee sat for very long periods, and sometimes late in the evening, and devoted itself with great care and with great ability to remodelling some of the provisions of the Bill. The House is now asked to throw over the whole of that work, the whole of the ability expended by one of its own Committees in order nominally to refer the matter to a Select Committee but actually to destroy the Bill for the Session. I am not going to enter into details of the Bill. I am not going to make a Second Reading or a Third Reading speech, as the hon. Member opposite, if he will forgive me for saying so, very nearly did. I am not going to discuss the merits of the Bill; all I am going to ask the House to say is, that when a Committee of its own Members have devoted all this time to producing a Bill to be considered on the Report stage, and the House is now prepared to take into consideration those Amendments and to deal with them; and to remodel them if hon. Members so desire, it would be a breach of the ordinary usage of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about the Church Assembly and the Prayer Book?"]—if we were now to transfer the Bill to a Select Committee with the deliberate intention of killing it.

I hope that hon. Members on all sides of the House, whatever may be their views on particular Clauses of the Bill, will say that in deference to the action of their own Committee—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about the Church Assembly?"]—it is only fair that the House should allow the Bill to proceed.

Question put, "That the Bill be recommitted to a Select Committee."

The House divided: Ayes, 104; Noes, 144.

Division No. 254.] AYES. [12.4 p.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon W. (File, West) Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Hirst, G. H. Salter, Dr. Alfred
Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Scrymgeour, E.
Ammon, Charles George James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert Scurr, John
Attlee, Clement Richard Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Sexton, James
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) John, William (Rhondda, West) Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Barnes, A. Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Batey, Joseph Kelly, W. T. Snell, Harry
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Kennedy, T. Stamford, T. W.
Broad, F. A. Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. Stephen, Campbell
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Lansbury, George Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Buchanan, G. Lawson, John James Storry-Deans, R.
Burton, Colonel H. W. Lee, F. Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Compton, Joseph Lindley, F. W. Thurtle, Ernest
Connolly, M. Livingstone, A. M. Tinker, John Joseph
Cove, W. G. Lunn, William Tomlinson, R. P.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon) Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Crawfurd, H. E. March, S. Varley, Frank B.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) Montague, Frederick Viant, S. P.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Morris, R. H. Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Day, Harry Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Dennison, R. Naylor, T. E. Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col, D. (Rhondda)
Dunnico, H. Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Wellock, Wilfred
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Oakley, T. Westwood, J.
Gibbins, Joseph Oliver, George Harold Whiteley, W.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Owen, Major G. Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Palin, John Henry Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Paling, W. Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Groves, T. Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Windsor, Walter
Grundy, T. W. Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Wright, W.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Potts, John S. Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Hardie, George D. Ritson, J. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.
Haslam, Henry C. Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) Sir Basil Peto and Mr. Barr.
Hayday, Arthur Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. Cautley, Sir Henry S. Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Cayzar, Sir C. (Chester, City) Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) Everard, W. Lindsay
Balniel, Lord Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Charteris, Brigadier-General J. Ganzoni, Sir John
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) Chilcott, Sir Warden Gower, Sir Robert
Bennett, A. J. Cobb, Sir Cyril Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Berry, Sir George Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Cope, Major Sir William Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart Courtauld, Major J. S. Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim) Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Brass, Captain W. Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe) Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Brassey, Sir Leonard Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) Gunston, Captain D. W.
Briscoe, Richard George Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Brittain, Sir Harry Curzon, Captain Viscount Hammersley, S. S.
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Dalkeith, Earl of Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford) Hartington, Marquess of
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) Dean, Arthur Wellesley Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Butler, Sir Geoffrey Eden, Captain Anthony Henderson, Capt. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Campbell, E. T. Edmondson, Major A. J. Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Henn, Sir Sydney H. MacRobert, Alexander M. Sanderson, Sir Frank
Hilton, Cecil Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn Savery, S. S.
Holt, Captain H. P. Margesson, Captain D. Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) Marriott, Sir J. A. R. Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)
Hopkins, J. W. W. Mason, Colonel Glyn K. Skelton, A. N.
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities) Meyer, Sir Frank Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N. Milne, J. S. Wardlaw- Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) Smithers, Waldron
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Hume, Sir G. H. Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Hurd, Percy A. Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive Sprot, Sir Alexander
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Iliffe, Sir Edward M. Nicholson, O. (Westminster) Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Iveagh, Countess of Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.) Wallace, Captain D. E.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) Nuttall, Ellis Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William Oman, Sir Charles William C. Warrender, Sir Victor
Knox, Sir Alfred Penny, Frederick George Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Wells, S. R.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Perring, Sir William George White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Loder, J. de V. Price, Major C. W. M. Winby, Colonel L. P.
Looker, Herbert William Rentoul, G. S. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) Womersley, W. J.
Lumley, L. R. Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford) Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Sandeman, N. Stewart TELLERS FOR THE NOES.
MacIntyre, Ian Sanders, Sir Robert A. Sir Berkeley Sheffield and Major Glyn.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.


The new Clauses—(Limitation of percentage retained), (Control by County and Borough Councils), (Access of persons under seventeen), (Local Authority to have power to issue and revoke certificates in respect of racecourses) and (Prohibition of use of totalisator on Sunday)—on the Paper seem to me to raise questions which, if they are to be raised at all, would come in more appropriately as Amendments to Clause 3.


I take it that it we put in manuscript Amendments on these points we can move them when we reach Clause 3.



  1. CLAUSE 1.—(Betting Act, 1853, not to apply to racecourses.) 24,525 words, 3 divisions