Lords Sitting of 10 May 1904

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (Steam Vessels).
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
Croydon Gas Bill; St. Mary Woolnoth Bill [H.L.]; Brixham Gas Bill. Reported, with Amendments.
Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railway Bill [H.L.]—(on Recommitment). Report from the Committee, read, and ordered to lie on the Table. Bill reported with further Amendments.
Sheppy Gas Bill. The Lord Balfour informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The orders made on the 25th of April last and the 2nd instant discharged, and Bill committed.
London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway Bill. The Lord Balf ur informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The orders made on the 26th of April last and the 2nd instant discharged, and Bill committed.
Huddersfield Corporation Act, 1902 (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]. Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Chippenham Gas Bill. Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to be on the Table. The orders made on the 22nd of April last and the 2nd instant discharged, and Bill committed for Thursday next.
Wolverhampton Corporation Bill; Hamber Commercial Railway and Dock
866
Bill. Read 2a, and committed. The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill (No. 74): Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill (No. 75). Read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
Leicestershire and Warwickshire Electric Power Bill [H.L.]; Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire Electric Power Bill [H.L.]; Great Yarmouth Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Cardiff Railway Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Ryde Gas Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill: Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill. Brought from the Commons.
Crystal Palace District Gas Bill; Tottenham Improvement Bill. Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
Metropolitan Railway Bill [H.L.]; West Metropolitan Railway (Abandonment) Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
St. Marylebone Electric Lighting Bill. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the five Lords appointed a Select Committee on the Hutchesons' Hospital and Hutchesons' Educational Trust Bill [H.L.], and one other Bill, do form the Select Committee for the consideration of St. Marylebone Electric Lighting Bill: read, and agreed to; All petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bill.
Metropolitan Police Provisional Order Bill. House in Committee (according to order). Bill reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Friday next.
Education Board Provisional (Order Confirmation (Birmingham) Bill [H.L.], Read 2a (according to order).

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (RULES).
  Rule, dated 23rd April, 1904, as to Assistant Commissioners.

  LOCAL LOANS FUND (ACCOUNTS, 1902–1903).
  Accounts of receipts and payments by the Commissioners for the reduction of the National Debt in respect of the capital and income of the Local Loans Fund, for the year ended 31st March, 1903, together with the report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  STREET BETTING BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to order).
  Clause 1.
  LORD BELPERsaid the first Amendment standing in his name on the Paper was one of a series of drafting Amendments, the object of which was to substitute for the phraseology of the > Bill the words which were already in I general use in local Acts and by-laws. The words which had been embodied in the local Acts had been repeatedly considered and interpreted in the High I Court, and there had been found no difficulty with regard to convictions under them. It was thought better to adopt words which were well known to the Courts rather than a new set of words which possibly might give rise to difficulty.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 1, page 1, line 5, to leave out from the word 'person' to the second word 'any' in line 9, and to insert the word 'frequenting.'"—(Lord Belper.)
  LORD DAVEYsaid he had no particular affection for his own drafting, and had no doubt that the experienced draftsman who advised the Government was much better able to frame the Bill than he was. He had no hesitation, therefore, in accepting the Amendment. With one exception, he saw no reason
  868
  for objecting to the Amendments, which did not alter the substance of the Bill.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD DAVEYsaid he was satisfied in his own mind that the words which he proposed in his Amendment to delete were perfectly idle and might lead to difficulties in construction which had better be avoided.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 1, page 1, lines 9 and 10, to leave out the words 'or any place to which the public have unrestricted access.'"—(Lord Davey.)
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORDsaid this Amendment arose out of some observations which were made on the Second Reading by Lord Newton, who referred to the racecourses at Epsom and Newmarket as places to which the public had unrestricted access. But the noble Lord was wrong, for the public had not unrestricted access to either of those places. He (Lord James) would prefer that the words remained, and could not conceive why it was proposed that they should be struck out. That they were, of wide significance was an advantage, as it would prevent any evasion of the Act.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBUHY)concurred with Lord Davey as to the propriety of deleting the words. The object of the Bill was to prevent the nuisance of street betting—a very proper object. But he could not help thinking that if the wide words in question remained in the Bill, the result would be to sot His Majesty's Judges a series of somewhat puzzling conundrums to solve. If the words were insisted upon he should divide the House against their being allowed to remain in the Bill. He was very glad that Lord Davey proposed to omit them.
  LORD NEWTONsaid that when he instanced the two cases of Epsom Downs and Newmarket they were the only two that occurred to him at the moment; but there were numerous racecourses to which the public had unrestricted access. For instance, there was no racecourse in Ireland to which the public did not enjoy unrestricted access.
  LORD DAVEYsaid the word "street" would be denned in an Amendment shortly to be moved by Lord Belper to mean "any highway, public bridge, road, lane, footway, square, court, alley, or passage, whether a thoroughfare or not." Surely that definition was wide enough to suit Lord James.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDregretted the proposed omission of the words "to which the public have unrestricted access." If these words were left out it would surely lead to legal conundrums. According to his reading of the clause as proposed to be amended, it would be illegal for a bookmaker to ply his trade in St. James's Park or Kensington Gardens, but not illegal for him to ply it on Hampstead Heath or Wimbledon Common. In the city of Bristol, with which he was acquainted, he should like to know in which category Clifton Downs would be. He hoped that the Bill would put all such places on the same footing.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE)pointed out that according to an Amendment which Lord Belper would presently move, a "street" would mean "any highway, public bridge, road, lane, footway, square, court, alley, or passage, whether a thoroughfare or not." The places alluded to by the right rev. Prelate could not possibly come under that definition. The object of the Bill was to prevent the nuisance in places through which the public were in the habit of travelling.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDreferred to a portion of Clifton Downs which was intersected by roads and paths and said that in that case the bookmaker need only stand on the grass by the side of the road and he was apparently free to carry on his calling, notwithstanding the fact that he was within easy reach of people parsing to and fro.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BELPER LORD BELPER moved an Amendment to exclude from the places where betting should be illegal "any house licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors." It
  870
  would be remembered that on the Second Reading Lord Davey stated that these words were introduced in order to do away with a difficulty which had arisen in consequence of a decision in the High Court with regard to the use of public-houses for betting. It certainly did strike him (Lord Belper) that whether or not it was necessary to amend the law in that respect, it hardly seemed the proper way of effecting such amendment to extend for that purpose a Bill which dealt with street betting. He ventured to think that the extension of the Bill to betting in public-houses would raise a very contentious point, and one which would certainly not improve its chances of passing in another place. He therefore moved the deletion of the words, in order that the Bill should be strictly confined to the one object of making the law effective so far as street betting was concerned.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 1, page 1, lines 10 and 11, to leave out the words 'or any house licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors.'"—(Lord Belper).
  LORD DAVEYsaid the object of inserting these words in the Bill was to restore the law with regard to houses licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors to what it was supposed to be before the decision of their Lordships' House to which he referred on the Second Reading. He felt the force of the practical observation made by the noble Lord, that to include the words in this Bill would raise a question which might prevent the Bill becoming law this session, and therefore he agreed, with regret, to the Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BELPERsaid his next Amendment was consequential on the adoption of the first Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 1, page 1, line 11, after the word 'liquors' to insert the words 'on behalf either of himself or of any other person for the purpose of bookmaking, or betting, or wagering, or agreeing to bet or wager, or paying or receiving or settling bets.'"—(Lord Belper.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BELPERsaid the object of the next Amendment was to do away with any ambiguity which might exist. He was told that there were some points of difficulty in the words as they stood in the Bill, and it would be better to make the provision clear by the insertion of the words in his Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 1, page 1, line 11, to leave out from the first word 'shall' to the end of the sub-section, and to insert the words —(a) in the case of a first offence be liable, on conviction, under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, to a fine not exceeding ten pounds; (b) in the case of a second offence be liable, on conviction, under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds; and (c) in the case of a third or subsequent offence, or in any case where it is proved that the person whilst committing the offence had any betting transaction with a person under the age of sixteen years, ho liable on conviction or indictment to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding six months, without the option of a fine, or on conviction under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, to a fine not exceeding thirty pounds or to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding three months, without the option of a fine, and shall in any ease be liable to forfeit all books, cards, papers, and other articles relating to betting which may be found in his possession."—(Lord Belper)
  LORD DAVEY: The penalties in the Amendment are the same as in the Bill?
  LORD BELPER: Yes.
  LORD DAVEY: I accept it.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BELPERsaid the provision in the sub-section which he proposed to substitute was the better way of dealing with this matter. It did away with any necessity of referring to the Vagrancy Acts.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 1, pages 1 and 2, to leave out Subsection (2) and insert the words, 'Any constable may take into custody without warrant any person found committing an offence under this Act, and may seize and detain any article liable to be forfeited under this Act.'"—(Lord Belper.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BELPERsaid that, as defined in the Public Health Act. 1875, "street"
  872
  included any highway, but not a turnpike road, and for some reason or other a county bridge was not included. In those circumstances he thought the House would agree that it was desirable to amend the provision in the manner indicated in his Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 1, page 2, line 8, to leave out the words 'have the same meaning as in the Public Health Act, 1875,' and insert the words 'mean any highway, public bridge, road, lane, footway, square, court, alley, or passage, whether a thoroughfare or not.'"—(Lord Belper.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORintimated that he proposed to move the omission of Clause 2 when the Question was put from the Chair that the clause stand part of the Bill.
  LORD BELPERsaid that in order that the opinion of the House should be taken on the main Question he would not at this stage move the Amendments to Clause 2 standing in his name. He would postpone them till the Standing Committee stage, when they could be inserted if the clause still remained in the Bill.
  On Question, That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill.
  The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved to leave out the clause. The Bill, he said, was for the purpose of putting down the nuisance of street betting. But, obviously, what this clause meant was that, in a place which was selected for sport, Epsom Downs, Newmarket, or what not, permission was given to the owners, managers, or trustees to issue notices which should have the effect of making this place, or such portion of it as they chose to select, a place within the meaning of the first section, or to enable them to reserve some place where betting mighg take place, and only to prohibit bettint in some, part of it. He thought that was not at all within the spirit of the meaning of those who wished to prohibit betting. It was really giving a

  873
  licence to bet to a certain number of selected persons. He did not very much like the phrase about the difference between legislation for the rich and the poor, but this was really a very remarkable example of that, and an entire departure from the object of the Bill. If the object were to make betting itself a misdemeanour, why not say so and try whether the public mind would stand that? If it were not, then he objected to these subterfuges by which that object was to be effected without boldly stating what was meant.
  Amendment moved—
  "To leave out Clause 2."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD DAVEYsaid the reason for the insertion of the clause was t restore the law to what it was supposed to be before the Kempton Park decision. The Betting Committee were informed, and he believed rightly informed, that the police would refuse to interfere with the betting fraternity who carried on their trade in any ground where athletic sports of any kind were taking place, and there was a large body of evidence before the Committee that these men were a nuisance to the people who went to watch the sports. Areas where sports were carried on were for the time being public places. Therefore he thought it was appropriate to include this clause in the Bill. If it was thought inexpedient to include racecourses, he should not object to an Amendment which would exempt them.
  THE EARL OF ABERDEENinquired whether the omission of the words "or part thereof" would meet one of the objections of the noble and learned Lord. It would prevent the reserving of a special space for privileged persons to carry on betting. The Committee had before them in considering a clause of this character the fact that in many places the owners or managers of grounds on which sports took place desired to prohibit betting because of the nuisance which resulted from it.
  LORD NEWTONsaid that as a member of the Betting Committee he was as anxious as the noble and learned Lord
  874
  who had introduced it to see the Bill pass into law. As was not unnatural, the noble and learned Lord was to a certain extent in love with his own Bill, but he would be well advised in accepting the Amendment. This Bill was not-going to settle the betting difficulty or do away with the evils attending it. Something very much larger and more drastic would be required. He was anxious to see the portion of the Bill pass which dealt with street betting, and he thought the noble and learned Lord would run serious risk of losing his Bill altogether if he did not accept the Amendment and consent to the omission of this clause.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEthought the exhibition by persons controlling athletic grounds of notices to the effect that betting was prohibited, gave them a remedy against the inconvenience which the noble and learned Lord desired to remove. They would, lie understood, lie able to call n the police to turn out any persons who, in spite of such notices, persisted in betting or inviting bets within the grounds to which the notices had reference. It seemed to him that they might fairly leave the matter there.
  LORD DAVEYsaid it was quite true that if the proprietor of a ground posted up a notice to the effect that no betting was allowed, it might be contended that that was a condition of the licence to enter the ground which he granted by the acceptance of the gate money, and that he might revoke the licence if the condition was not observed. But whether he could invoke the aid of the police he had his doubts. The police stated that they could not interfere in such a case; that was given in evidence before the Committee. No doubt the proprietor could remove the offenders by his own assistants, but he (Lord Davey) was very strongly of opinion that if the police were called in they would very properly refuse to interfere unless there was a not or serious disorder. They would say that it was not their function to enforce the private rights of the owner of the ground. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would remember a case

  875
  in which a man who had his licence revoked at Ascot by the proprietors of the ground refused to leave and was ultimately removed, the case leading to litigation of an expensive and lengthy character.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, but it was decided in that case that the proprietors had a right to revoke the licence and that the man was properly turned out.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDexpressed his satisfaction that the discussion had brought out what he trusted would be undisputed law, that the proprietors of an athletic ground, if they placed up a public notice that betting was not allowed or had that prohibition printed on the admission tickets, would be at liberty to eject any bookmaker who was plying his calling on that ground. He hoped that was quite clear.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Perfectly clear.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDthought that in that case the Bill as it stood was better without the clause. He hoped that all proprietors of athletic grounds who desired to promote unadulterated sport would be made aware of the fact that if they took the proper precautions they could keep their grounds free from the betting nuisance.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 3.
  Consequential Amendments agreed to.
  Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 4.
  LORD BELPER LORD BELPER moved to omit this clause, which defined the words "bookmaker" and "betting agent." He said the definitions were not necessary in consequence of the alteration in the wording of Clause 1.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, to leave out Clause 4."—(Lard Belper.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Remaining clause agreed to.
  LORD DAVEYsaid it had been suggested to him, but he had not yet had time to look into it, that the Bill ought not to be made to apply to Ireland. The Betting House Acts originally applied to England only; they were extended to Scotland, but for some reason did not apply to Ireland. He did not know that that was any reason why this Bill should not apply to Ireland, and he was not aware of any difficulty in so applying it. Perhaps the noble Lord would ask those who were more conversant with the details of legislation of this kind whether there was any difficulty in applying the Bill to Ireland. If so, he would move a new clause in the Standing Committee.
  Bill reported, with Amendments, to the House and recommitted to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as amended. (No. 73.)

  NATIVE LABOURERS IN THE TRANSVAAL.
  EARL CARRINOTON: My Lords, I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies when he will be able to present the promised Blue-books containing the reports with regard to the alleged ill-treatment and scarcity of native labourers in the Transvaal, referred to in the Colonial Secretary's speech in the Commons on Thursday, 5th May.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STAT E FOR THE COLONIES (The Duke of MAKL-BOROUGH): My Lords, the Secretary of State promised in the House of Commons last week that these Papers should be published as speedily as possible. The necessary formalities have already been gone through, the Papers are at the present, time in the printer's hands, and we hope to be able to lay them before your Lordships' House in the latter part of this week.

  THE UNITED IRISH LEAGUE.
  LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government whether their attention has been directed

  877
  to a resolution of the South Galway Executive of the United Irish League, as reported in the Connacht Leader of 19th March last, according to which that body had decided on sending a circular to the secretary of each of its affiliated branches—
  "asking that the local committee would take into consideration what action should be taken by them, with a view of compelling the landlords to sell before the next May rents became due,"
  and containing a further instruction to these branches—
  "to send a delegation without fail to the next meeting of the executive to explain what is being done by each branch;"
  what steps, if any, the Government have taken to put a stop to such lawless conduct, or to meet the contemptuous defiance hurled by the South Galway Leaguers at the "voluntary principle" supposed to have been embodied firmly in the Irish Land Act of last session; and further, to ask, in the event of no action having yet been taken, whether the Government realise the effect of tamely ignoring such a menace, not alone to the property of those landlords affected thereby, but also to the agrarian peace of the West of Ireland.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGH: My Lords, the matter to which the noble Lord has referred has attracted the attention of His Majesty's Government, and I have to inform him that there is no doubt that the resolution referred to was mischievous and illegal, and any attempt to carry it out in action would involve the partise concerned in crime. The May gale has not yet been collected. Up to the present moment there has not been any overt act committed in furtherance of the objects of the suggested combination, but the police are giving the matter their close attention, and His Majesty's Government will be prepared to take all measures necessary to protect the liberty and property of individuals and to enforce the law.
  LORD CLONBROCK: My Lords, I, to some extent, anticipated the answer which has just been given. In fact, I expressed some doubt when my noble friend showed me his Question as to whether it would not be better to defer calling attention to the matter until
  878
  something more definite occurred, or at least until it had been seen whether the resolution to which the Question referred had been adopted by, or had commended itself to, other parts of the county. But while I thought the Question somewhat premature, I am extremely glad to hear that the matter has not escaped the notice of His Majesty's Government. In the West, especially, of Ireland, the expectations of the people have been raised to such a pitch by articles in the Nationalist Press and by speeches made in different parts of the country that the voluntary character of the Act of last year appears to be quite lost sight of, and the belief seems firmly fixed in their minds that a landowner is bound to sell his property to his tenants at whatever terms it may be perfectly convenient for the tenants to offer. The consequence is that only very ruinous terms are offered—terms such as no man who is prepared to sell, or even is anxious to sell, can possibly accept; and the Act to a very large extent remains a dead letter. The result is that there is great disappointment and a smouldering discontent which past experience teaches us may be fanned into a flame and lead to a renewal of the land war—a state of things which would not only be injurious to landlords, but most detrimental to the peace and prosperity of the whole country. I am very glad, therefore, to hear that His Majesty's Government have their attention directed to the subject, and I hope they will do their utmost to check any species of intimidation or agitation that might lead to such a result.
  THE EARL OF CORK: My Lords, I have heard with great pleasure the statement of the noble Earl who represents the Irish Office, for I am, perhaps, the last individual in this House who has suffered from the Land League. For a number of years I have never had the slightest difficulty with any one of my tenants. But, unfortunately, a short time ago a body of them suddenly appeared before my agent, and, almost putting a pistol to his head, demanded that he should sell my property at the ridiculous price of something like nineteen years purchase. Considering

  879
  that the property adjoins the city of Cork that offer could not, of course, be entertained for a moment. What has been the result? The Land League held a big meeting on Sunday. They abused me and my agent, and I was distinctly told that I should not receive any more rent until I agreed to come to terms with my tenants. Now that is a very serious state of things to be existing at this moment in Ireland, and if His Majesty's Government do not speedily take steps to attend to it the Act which we all looked to as creating peace and contentment in that country will have the opposite effect.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Five o'clock, to Friday next, half-past Ten o'clock.