§ Amendment reported (according to order).
§ LORD DAVEY moved an Amendment in Clause 1, including the sea-beach among the public places in which betting was to be an offence. He said he had received representations from authorities at sea-side places stating that the sea-beach was in many places the recreation ground of the town, and a place to which inhabitants and visitors resorted for their recreation and enjoyment. The sea-beach at places like Bournemouth stood exactly in the same category as a public park or garden. What Hyde Park was to the Londoner the sea-beach was to the inhabitant and visitor at a 160 seaside town. He was told that at present when a street bookmaker was convicted of carrying on his business in the streets of a seaside town he resorted to the sea-beach, and that the police had no power to deal with him there. As the Bill stood, without his Amendment, the same thing would happen, and the bookmaker would only have to leave the streets and resort to the beach.
§
Amendment moved—
In Clause 1, page 1, line 6, after the word 'garden' to insert the words or the sea-beach.' "—(Lord Davey.)
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY)said he was very sorry his noble and learned friend had thought it right to alter the very useful Bill as it was introduced. On a previous occasion, when it contained other clauses which he did not think desirable, he opposed the Bill, and it was thrown out. The Bill, as brought in this session, was a useful one. Betting in public streets was a nuisance, and one it was desirable should be abated, but by this Amendment the character of the Bill was changed. Instead of putting an end to street betting, it was aiming at putting an end to betting altogether. He would not argue whether betting was or was not an improper thing, but if it was considered improper it would be more reasonable to prohibit it altogether instead of these injurious distinctions being made in the regulation of the amusements of the poor and the rich. There was an Amendment down in the name of Lord James of Hereford of the same character. He thought the line taken in the Amendment was an undesirable one. He would certainly oppose it himself. He thought the Bill as it was originally framed a useful one, and one which might have had some chance of passing the other House. But if the noble Lord insisted on the Amendment he was certain the Bill would not find its way on to the Statute-book.
§ LORD JAMES OF HEREFORDwas sorry to hear the views of the Lord Chancellor. This was a Bill for the suppression of betting in streets and "other public places." The Amendment Lord Davey had moved referred to other 161 public places only. Surely the sea-beach was a public place.
§ THE EARL OF HALSBURYNo, it is not. There is a strong decision of the Courts that it is not a public place, and the public has no right of access to the beach.
§ LORD JAMES OF HEREFORDsaid that if the noble and learned Lord were to advise the Government to prevent the public from going to the beach, there would be a great outcry. Practically the beach was a public place. Lord Davey, when he originally introduced the Bill, made it much wider, but the Home Office interfered, and said the Bill must be confined to streets. But such a restriction was useless. Betting men did not carry on their business in crowded thoroughfares. The Bill not only referred to streets, but also to any public park or garden. Betting men frequently assembled on vacant spaces, under railway arches, and on the sea-beach, but the Lord Chancellor now laid it down that these must not be interfered with. The Lord Chancellor said, in fact, to these men, "We permit you to go to the sea-beach, under arches, or on vacant ground if you like." Was this good legislation? Was it calculated to put a stop to the betting nuisance? The object of the Bill was not to interfere with a poor man betting as against the rich man. It was an emdeavour to stop betting that was done in public places, and was thereby an evil. He knew the strength of the Lord Chancellor's battalions. He could not say that he yielded to the weight of the noble and learned Lord's argument, but, if his battalions were brought to bear, he was afraid Lord Davey and himself would be compelled to yield to superior forces, but not to superior arguments.
§ LORD DAVEYsaid that in the circumstances he would not persist in his Amendment.
§ LORD TWEEDMOUTHexpressed a hope that the noble and learned Lord would not drop the Amendment. The Lord Chancellor had said the sea-beach was not a public place. He would be quite willing to meet the Lord Chancellor 162 by saying that where the sea-beach was not a public place the Bill should not apply to that particular sea-beach, and that could be easily effected by altering the clause and making it run: "Public park, garden, or sea-beach." The word "public" would then cover both park, garden, and sea-beach, and put them in the same category.
§ LORD DAVEYwas prepared to accept his noble friend's suggestion, and moved his Amendment in that form.
§ Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
§
Amendment moved—
In Clause 1, page 1, line 5, to leave out the word 'or,' and in line 6, after the word 'garden,' to insert the words 'or sea-beach.'"—(Lord Davey.)
§ THE EARL OF HALSBURYdoubted very much whether the Amendment would effect what the noble Lord suggested. He would, however, put it to the House.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD moved an Amendment making the definition of the word "street" include "any vacant ground open to the public, common ground not used for the purpose of a racecourse or adjacent thereto, or any space under a railway arch." He was very much encouraged by the decision which had just been given to move his Amendment. Unless they extended the definition of the word "street" in the manner he proposed, the Bill would have little effect. On page 2, line 10, the words occurred—
For the purpose of this section the word 'street' shall include any highway, or any public bridge, road, lane, footway, square, court, alley, or passage, whether a thoroughfare or not.
That, he understood, was not objected to by the Lord Chancellor. He (Lord James) wished to amend the definition by making it apply also to any vacant ground open to the public, common ground not used for the purpose of a racecourse or adjacent thereto, or any space under a railway arch. He did not wish to argue the case in a spirit of hostility
163
with the Lord Chancellor, but he hoped the noble and learned Lord would give way on this point.
§
Amendment moved—
In Clause 1, page 2, line 12, after the word 'not' to insert the words' or any vacant ground open to the public, common ground not used for the purpose of a racecourse or adjacent thereto, or any space under a railway arch.' "—(Lord James of Hereford.)
§ THE EARL OF HALSBURYpointed out that the Amendment of Lord Tweed-mouth came within the ordinary limits of the Bill as originally designed. The present Amendment, however, was different. He thought that no better example could be forthcoming of the injurious suggestion that ground used as a racecourse or any space adjacent thereto should be excepted from what he might call the moral and physical aspects of what it was intended to prohibit. It was a bad example of class legislation, and he reserved his opposition until the Third Reading, when he would move the rejection of the Bill.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
*THE EARL OF CREWE moved to insert after Clause 1 the following new clause—
Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to any ground used for the purpose of a racecourse or adjacent thereto on the days on which races take place.
This Amendment neither added to nor subtracted anything from the Bill. It was merely designed to make its intentions perfectly clear. The Bill as introduced was a Street Betting Bill, but its scope had been somewhat enlarged. He would call their Lordships' attention, in particular, to the phrase "public park." There were several racecourses in England which were in parks, the property of corporations or large bodies of townspeople. Whether these were public parks in the sense intended by this Bill he was not prepared to say, but he thought it possible that some people might be disposed to imagine they were, and bring actions into Court to stop betting there. It would, therefore, in his opinion, be desirable to save their money and the time of the courts. He believed
164
they would all agree with what the Lord Chancellor had said, that if there was any question of dealing with betting on racecourses it should be done explicitly by the direct instruction of Parliament, and not by a side road of this kind. He understood that Lord Davey approved of his Amendment, and he hoped the House would accept it unanimously.
§
Amendment moved—
After Clause 1, to insert the following new-clause, 'Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to any ground used for the purpose of a racecourse or adjacent thereto on the days on which races take place.'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)
§ LORD DAVEYsaid it was rather strong to say that he approved of the Amendment. He was of opinion that the Amendment was not necessary at all. The Bill was not framed with the intention of including a racecourse, but was constituted on a rather different footing, and he could not conceive that excluding a racecourse could be said to be legislating for the rich. On the contrary, he thought that by not including racecourses in the Bill he was avoiding that difficulty. He would dislike extremely to legislate differently for one class as against another, but the poor enjoyed betting on racecourses just as much as the rich. If the noble Earl thought it worth while to persist in his Amendment he would not object to it, as it only expressed what was proposed.
§ THE EARL or HALSBURYthought that the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord (Lord James of Hereford), which had been accepted, introduced an element of incongruity with this Amendment.
§ LORD DAVEYwas afraid the noble and learned Lord was under a misapprehension. Lord James of Hereford's Amendment expressly excluded grounds used for the purpose of a racecourse, and the object of Lord Crewe's new clause was also to exclude grounds used for the purpose of a racecourse.
§ *THE EARL OF CREWEexplained that the Amendment of Lord James of Hereford would allow betting to take place on 165 all land used as a racecourse all the year round, but by his Amendment it could not take place except on the days set apart for racing.
§ THE EARL OF HALSBURYsaid he would put the Amendment, but it would be found that the construction would land them in a difficulty.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Bill to be read 3aon Monday next; and to be printed as amended. (No. 30.)