Lords Sitting of 12 December 1912

CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
Returned from the Commons with several of the Amendments agreed to: One other disagreed to, but an Amendment made in lieu thereof, and one other disagreed to, with a reason for such disagreement: The said Amendment and reason to be printed. (No. 186.)

NORFOLK FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 13) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 15) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered (according to Order), and agreed to.

BETTING INDUCEMENTS BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND RENDING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, it will be in the recollection of the House that at an earlier period in the session the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Hereford brought in a Gambling Advertisements Bill. That Bill, in consequence of its somewhat drastic provisions, met with very little support in this House, and the right rev. Prelate withdrew it. But in the course of the discussion the most rev. Primate pointed out, I thought with very great force, that those persons who consistently opposed proposals of this nature and at the same time admitted that something ought to be done should in common fairness bring forward proposals themselves. I was so much impressed with that argument that I have brought in the present Bill.
178
In framing this measure, which I think I may fairly describe as one of the most modest and half-hearted proposals that have ever been brought before Parliament, I have adopted a somewhat unusual course. I have adopted the course of consulting persons who really do know something about betting and racing. We have it in record—it was established by the Betting Committee of which I was a member upon the authority, amongst other persons, of the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Hereford—that betting is not a crime in itself, and I certainly am not prepared to condemn it unreservedly. For my part I do not hesitate to say that betting possesses certain recommendations which perhaps are not apparent to everybody. It appears to me to be occasionally the only method by which you can discover whether a man's opinion is an honest one or not, and I dare say there are many here present who remember very well, as I do, the formula which used to be very common in our younger days. I remember that when a boy made a statement which appeared capable of dispute, he used to be asked this question, "Will you swear that it is true?" The answer usually was "Yes." Then he was asked, "Will you take your dying oath that it is true?" and the answer again was habitually "Yes." Then he was asked the crucial question, "Will you bet upon it?" and if he refused to do so then the statement did not obtain the credit which was desired for it. As far as I am concerned I frankly admit that I am prepared to bet in reason upon almost any subject, even upon such a matter, for instance, as the prospects of this Bill.
But there is all the difference in the world between wagers of this kind, wagers made between private persons, bets upon games and things of that sort, and systematic betting through intermediaries—that is to say, professionals—a system which has now reached perfectly colossal dimensions, and which, in the opinion of those who know a great deal more about this question than I do, is undeniably responsible for a large proportion of crime in this country; and I think it must also be admitted in common fairness that whereas we might not be justified in preventing people actually committing an act of folly, vet nevertheless it is justifiable to legislate in order to prevent ingenious

179
and persistent efforts being made to induce people to commit acts of this description. The outstanding fact with regard to betting at the present day is, as everybody knows, that whereas it was formerly confined to a few persons who made bets in large sums, now it is infinitely more widely spread throughout the whole community, although the sums which are ventured may be smaller in amount. This fact was completely established before the Committee to which I have already referred, and anybody who takes the trouble to study the Report of that Committee will observe that the tremendous spread of betting to which I have alluded was pronounced to be due in large measure to the great facilities afforded by the Press and to the inducements to bet offered by means of bookmakers' circulars and tipsters' advertisements. And it will also be discovered by anybody who takes the trouble to read this Report that the Committee considered that the best possible method of reducing betting was to confine it as much as possible to race-courses.
I do not think it is thoroughly realised that the bulk of betting business at the present day is carried on apart from racecourses altogether. Starting-price betting has now become a gigantic business in which vast numbers of people take part, and there really is not very much to be said in favour of it. It certainly is perfectly clear that these vast numbers of people who indulge in starting-price betting away from the course do not contribute towards the prosperity of the Turf. It is perfectly obvious that that is so, because, so far as we know, they never attend race-courses at all, and although any proposition put forward to deal with this particular kind of betting is denounced as very unsportsmanlike action, personally, although I have done it myself, I never saw anything particularly sportsmanlike in backing a horse you had never seen, which you were never likely to see, and on which the sole information you possessed was derived probably from one of the advertising tipsters to whom I have alluded. The exceptional facilities which are offered for this particular kind of speculation have led to extremely unsatisfactory results. They are known to all, and I am not going to say anything about them at the present moment. But there is one result in particular the disadvantages of which must have been realised by bookmakers
180
themselves, and that is that this course of speculation has developed a very strong tendency on the part of starting-price betters to discover what has won first and then to back it afterwards. That is an operation which requires a considerable amount of ingenuity, and it has been the cause of a certain amount of crime in connection with it. The effect of this Bill will obviously be to render betting of this particular description rather more difficult in the future than it has been hitherto. At the present moment a large portion of the Press voluntarily or involuntarily does everything that it can, not only to teach the people to bet, but to make things as easy as possible for them, and a section of the Press is perpetually dangling temptation, so to speak, before the eyes of a credulous public.
By this Bill, if it becomes law, it will be seen that betting upon race-courses is not interfered with at all. The publication of starting-price odds will also not be interfered with. The Bill will not even interfere with the newspapers' own particular prophets, those gentlemen to whom I am told great respect is due owing to the care which they take in making their selections for the benefit of the public, and so forth; and the Bill will not, I need hardly say, interfere with betting between private individuals, and I even doubt in my own mind whether it will prevent betting with bookmakers provided the initiative is taken by the private individual. On the other hand, what the Bill will do is this. It will prevent the issue of betting circulars; it will prevent the advertisements of so-called commission agents; and, of course, it will prevent the publication of tipsters' advertisements. I do not think there are very many people who defend the publication of betting circulars. I am informed on good authority that it really is quite unnecessary to issue these circulars at all, and I am quite disposed to agree with that opinion, because if a man has a good and well-established business, no matter what it may be, it very seldom requires any advertising whatsoever. But as for tipsters' advertisements, nobody yet, so far as I know, has ventured to say a solitary word in their favour. As a matter of fact, the tipster is not only a blatant fraud in many instances; he is an insult to common-sense, because as a rule he postures as a philanthropist who is in possession of particularly valuable information which he is ready to

181
impart to any person who is foolish enough to entrust any money to him.
I think I may fairly say that this Bill represents the irreducible minimum of what everybody knows in his own mind to be urgently required, and I do not think it necessary to waste the time of the House in bringing forward any additional arguments in its favour. All I have to say further is this, that I have received most unsuspected support for this measure from quarters where I least expected it. I announced that I had consulted persons who really knew something about racing and betting, and I have been fortunate enough to obtain the support of certain noble Lords who, I believe, will address you this evening and who are recognised authorities upon racing. I also observed in The Times only yesterday that Tattersall's Committee were strongly in favour of the proposals in the Bill, and I need hardly say that I have received many promises of support from other quarters. The only objections which I have hitherto noticed to the proposals in this Bill—and it gratifies me to see that there is no hostile Motion on the Paper with regard to it—proceeded from a section of the sporting Press, and I confess that it appears to me that these objectors are suffering under a double hallucination. They seem to be under the strange and remarkable hallucination that because a thing appears in print, especially in one of their own newspapers, therefore it is above suspicion, and that the man who advertises must be absolutely honest and straightforward, a view which I entirely decline to accept. The second hallucination is that in their opinion Parliament exists mainly for the purpose of preventing people being "welshed." I know from sad experience how disagreeable it is to be "welshed," but I altogether dissent from the view that this is our especial business. It appears to me that it is not the special business of this House or of either House to prevent people from being what is vulgarly termed "welshed," but it is our business to do something, although it may be very little, to attempt to reduce the temptation with which the credulous and the ignorant are beset on all sides at the present moment, and it is with that view that I urge the acceptance of this Bill by your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Newton.)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I desire to say a few words only upon this Bill. I gather from the noble Lord's speech as well as from such other indications as have been available that this Bill is likely to be welcomed in all parts of your Lordships' House. That is a matter of supreme satisfaction even to those who may think that the Bill might with advantage have gone a little further than it does go. I am not numbering myself among those, because I believe that our best mode of action in a difficulty of this kind is to secure that which we are quite sure of being able to get general support for rather than try to get ahead of what public opinion will at the moment allow.
The provisions of this Bill have been a long time coming to birth. Ten years have passed since the Select Committee to which the noble Lord referred reported to the House upon the subject as a whole of which this is only one part. But with regard to this, the Committee said—
"The Committee cannot condemn too strongly the advertisements of sporting tipsters and others which appear in the columns of many newspapers. They are of opinion that all such advertisements and also betting circulars and notices should be made illegal."
That was a recommendation agreed to apparently after very careful consideration, as it was discussed on two separate days and finally was agreed to without a recorded Division. During the ten years that have elapsed since then there have been many debates on the subject in this House. Five or six Bills have been introduced dealing with one or other part of what was then reported upon by the Committee; and one of those introduced by a noble and learned Lord whose loss this House has for years lamented, Lord Davey, became law a few years ago—I refer to the Street Betting Act. But as regards the rest, we have been told five times in debates that His Majesty's Government are considering a Bill on this subject. I venture to hope that His Majesty's Government's consideration of it has been facilitated by the noble Lord's action to-night in bringing forward a Bill in practical shape, and that we may now feel that their consideration may take fruit in practical and vigorous support of a measure which is, I think, on all sides recommended and supported.

183
In the previous measures no effectual attempt has been made to meet the advertising and circular difficulty. The last discussion took place upon it five months ago, when my brother the Bishop of Hereford was urged by those who were, as I think reasonably, opposed to the Bill in the form in which he introduced it, to leave these matters to those who really understood the question in all its bearings. It is, therefore, absolutely right and in accordance with what was then put forward that those who felt, with a full knowledge of the subject—a knowledge which I certainly do not possess—that the Bill introduced five months ago was impossible to support, should now themselves formulate the proposals which seemed to be what the noble Lord has called the irreducible minimum of what is desired. This is not a Government measure, but I hope that after what has been said upon the subject for so many years we may believe that we shall have something more than a kindly view of it taken by the Government and that we shall have their practical support both here and elsewhere. For, my Lords, this thing is wanted. It is wanted with increasing urgency year by year. There is absolutely universal testimony both to the increase and to the mischief of the evil which this Bill is intended to remedy—the evil of that inane form of gambling which is made easy for people wholly and entirely ignorant of the subject with which they are dealing, who merely speculate about this as they might about any other subject under the sun of which they know practically nothing.
It was proved before the Committee of 1902 how great was, even then, the increase of these advertisements and circulars, and how harmful they were in their consequences to those among whom they were circulated; and there can be no question, I think—indeed, it was proved even then and it is much more true now—that the increase in gambling of the kind here described is due in very large measure, perhaps almost wholly, to the advertisements and circulars with which this Bill is intended to deal. Since 1902 the increase has been very much greater. The information which any one can obtain for himself by studying certain of the sporting papers will show how column after column is now filled with advertisements of the very kind that this Bill refers to—tipsters'
184
advertisements—and we have been told on high authority within the last few days that these advertisements have a double evil. They are not merely mischievous directly and in themselves, but they are doing their mischief by a process which can hardly be called other than somewhat fraudulent—that is to say, the same firm will advertise in the same newspaper under twenty different names, so that it appears like a concurrence of testimony from various quarters in the way of recommendations given in answer to appeals, whereas it is the same people doing the same thing under twenty different names. That has been brought before us lately on high authority, and though I am not able myself to vouch for the accuracy of the fact—I have no means of tracing these advertisements to their source—I have no reason to doubt that it is true.
It is sometimes forgotten in our modern legislation and in the progress of what we may call our civilisation that the facilities which are for the public convenience multiplied every day as regards communication and publication and the rest have their mischief as well as their gain; that while it is possible naturally and wholesomely to use these facilities to the uttermost, facilities of cheap and quick printing, rapid circulation through the Press, constant and rapid communication by telegraph—that those things are capable of being misused in a way that is fraught with great peril; and just in proportion as we encourage the increase of these facilities for ordinary communication we ought to be on our guard against evils which may result from those very facilities, and which we must do our best in some way or other to meet and counteract. At this moment the facts are beyond dispute, that not merely men and women throughout the country receive these circulars at home, but boys and girls at school, even in our elementary schools, are getting these circulars day by day and getting access to betting through the advertisements which are placed readily within their reach, and, as I say, through actual circulars which in many cases are given out to be handed round in schools to encourage children to start in this matter. The temptations which are thus placed in the way of those least able to understand their gravity or to resist them are a cause of mischief which it is, I am quite sure, the wish of every one of your Lordships to

185
take away and to destroy if we can possibly do it.
The noble Lord has described the purpose and the intent of this Bill, and, indeed, the subject has been so often spoken of in this House that I will not do more than press that we may have not merely a Second Reading given to the Bill, but that every effort may be made by those who can best make those efforts to carry the Bill with the utmost possible speed into law. Not necessarily because it does all that we want. I recur to the noble Lord's phrase that it is the irreducible minimum. I should like to see a little more than this. But I believe that the noble Lord is right in asking for the irreducible minimum now, and leaving us to consider hereafter how we can strengthen the provisions of the Bill or add to our power of dealing with this evil. It is because I believe that the Bill will go far towards throttling a peculiarly baneful form of gambling made easy now for those who understand its meaning least, and counteracting an evil which is wrought upon those who are most helpless to resist it that I hope your Lordships will, with undivided voice, give a Second Reading to this Bill and encourage its being pushed forward elsewhere so that it may rapidly become law. I hope His Majesty's Government will realise the gravity of this question and the responsibility of the Executive Government for seeing, not only that no hindrance is placed in the way of the Bill, but that every facility is given to it so that it may become law as speedily as possible.
THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord upon having produced what in my humble opinion is a very sensible Bill in regard to this difficult question of betting. We have had other Bills of a similar nature introduced into this House, but I have not seen my way always to support them; but in this instance I do think we owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord for having introduced a Bill which I think may very well pass into law. I do not for one moment believe that you can make people virtuous or sensible by Act of Parliament, but I do think that Parliament can do a great deal to take away temptations which lead the young into folly or into crime, and I am afraid that there are a great many
186
who are led into crime as well as into folly through these tipsters' advertisements and circulars. I hope that his Majesty's Government will do their best to try and release at all events the young, those mentioned by the most rev. Primate, from temptations of which they know very little, which do not appear to them to be temptations but which have led many a young man into a life of crime. Anything that Parliament can do to prevent the young from being led away is worth trying to do.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, I am sure we all feel indebted to the noble Lord for having introduced this Bill, and there is not likely to be any note of opposition introduced in the course of these proceedings. The need for this Bill is generally admitted from both sides of the House, and on behalf of His Majesty's Government I may say that we take a view favourable to the Bill, although in the present state of business in another place it is difficult to promise for it a speedy passage through that Assembly. I suppose really the chief difficulty which measures of this kind have had in the past has been that they were so extreme that a large number of members of this House have been I unable to support them; but on this occasion we have a Bill dealing with part of the subject at any rate on which no adverse criticism has been passed. The chief value of this Bill, if it passes, will be in its making betting agents' business more difficult to carry on. It will not prevent the circulation of betting agents' literature through the post, though it would enable the Postmaster-General, if he chose to do so, to suppress circulars advertising betting and tipsters' advertisements which may be found in open postal packets. We have every sympathy with the object of the Bill, and the Home Office will be glad to co-operate with the noble Lord in any Amendments which it may be considered necessary to insert in Committee. Therefore I hope the noble Lord will proceed with the Bill so that, should it be impossible to carry it this session, it may when reintroduced in a final and amended shape pass more speedily into law.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I do not like to leave my noble friend who brought this Bill before the House without a word of support. He

187
described his measure as one of the most half-hearted measures ever introduced into this House. I think he was a little unjust to his own Bill. It seems to me that his Bill is not wanting in courage, and for my part, and I speak only for myself, I like it both for what it does and for what it leaves undone. The love of sport is, I believe, ineradicable in the people of this country, and I hope it will always be so. There will always be people who will desire to what is called "back their opinion." This Bill does not interfere with them. It leaves betting on race-courses without any interference. But what the Bill does touch is what the noble Lord described in I thought a very well chosen phrase as the "attempt to dangle temptation before the eyes of a credulous public." That is what I think we shall do well to endeavour to put a check to. We know that the methods pursued by the people who do this are fraudulent methods. We know that the evil is a growing one. We know that for at least ten years we have recognised that it is desirable to make some attempt to cope with the evil. I therefore, for one, am grateful to my noble friend for having brought forward this Bill.
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: My Lords, I am glad to feel able to infer from the course of the debate that this Bill is likely to be adopted by your Lordships' House, and I desire to express my personal gratitude to the noble Lord for introducing it, because I look upon it as in some sense a sort of first fruit of the unlucky Bill which I ventured to introduce last summer. Personally I have to confess to your Lordships that I adhere to that Bill as embodying the opinions of some of the most experienced and enlightened Judges as to what ought to be the law of the land on this subject, and though I do not myself expect to live to see such legislation carried in this House or in the other House I hold the belief that your Lordships' grandsons will certainly be in support of such Legislation and will wonder that their forefathers allowed the mischief which is working through all parts of English society to go on so long unchecked. As I have said, I am grateful to the noble Lord opposite for introducing this Bill, though I agree with him that it is a very modest Bill. But he knows the possibilities, and I feel that he is wise in the method that he has adopted. But this Bill is so limited in its operation that I am afraid it
188
will leave the betting trade to flourish very much as before.
The noble Lord himself reminded us that the Bill will not interfere in any way with the publication of starting-price lists, and I am told by those who are familiar with the matter that a very great portion of the popular betting on races is done by way of starting-price lists. That will go on as before. The noble Lord reminded us that the betting habit is a growing habit among the great mass of the people. We have evidence of that every week in the newspapers and in the vast multitudes of people who gather to witness football matches and so on. This Bill, as I understand it, will not in any way interfere with that part of the betting trade which depends upon what are called football betting coupons. I have the hope that it may be possible to introduce into this Bill in Committee some slight addition which would render illegal the trade in football and other betting coupons. That portion of the trade brings an immense amount of temptation into the way of vast multitudes of poor people, and is doing a great amount of harm.
The defect that I see in the Bill is that it is too restricted in its operation. The noble Lord might have ventured a little more. I cannot but think that we overlook to a considerable extent the fact that the men who are engaged in this trade are for the most part very clever persons, and they will easily evade a Bill of this kind to a large extent by altering their methods of procedure. They are a very clever and resourceful class of people. The noble Lord will remember that we had various representatives of this trade before us in the Betting and Gambling Committee, and they certainly struck one as men who would have made their mark in any walk of life which they might have adopted. I remember one in particular who had begun life by working at an honest trade, but very soon this ceased to satisfy his ambitions and he next appeared as a member of a Metropolitan vestry actively interested in the public life of London. That, again, did not last very long. We next find him as an omnibus conductor, and while thus engaged he established a trade union of the people connected with the omnibus business; but that, again, did not last very long. He next took to journalism in

189
connection, I think, with the labour interest; and then he came before us as the secretary of a newly-formed tipsters' association—he was careful to tell us that he was the honorary secretary of that association. This gentleman was a man of unusual ability. I think I identified him a little later as conducting a Tariff Reform campaign in Herefordshire as one of Mr. Chamberlain's Tariff Reform missioners. What occupation he may be following at this moment I do not know. The point I wish to make by these illustrations is this, that by any legislation on this subject you are endeavouring to circumvent an unusually clever class of men, very resourceful and versatile, and they will very largely, I think, get round this little Bill. At the same time I heartily support it and am very grateful to the noble Lord for introducing it.
But I desire before sitting down to repeat my hope that in Committee, supposing the Bill is given a Second Reading, it may be found possible to introduce some clause which will put a stop to the very great mischief arising from the prevalence of football betting coupons. I have some friends in the North, in Manchester, in Cheshire, and in Liverpool, who, feeling the pressure of this great evil amongst the industrial classes, have formed themselves into an anti-gambling league. There are thousands of members belonging to the league, and while giving their hearty support to this Bill they feel that it will be to a great extent ineffective over all those masses in whose interest they are specially concerned unless football betting coupons can be dealt with in connection with the Bill; and I am quite sure that unless some provision regarding starting-price lists can be introduced, you will only touch the fringe of this great subject and deal in a very inadequate manner with a trade which is doing an untold amount of mischief, a mischief which is desolating multitudes of homes.
THE EARL OF DURHAM: My Lords, this debate has furnished us with two interesting examples from the Episcopal Bench of tolerance and intolerance. I have listened with interest to the speech of the right rev. Prelate who has just sat down because I was fully aware that he would not be satisfied with my noble friend's
190
Bill, that he would wish to amend it in Committee, and that he would grumble, if I may use the word, that it was not more extreme and more comprehensive. I may frankly tell your Lordships that that is the reason why for the last ten years members of the Jockey Club have not introduced a Bill on the subject into your Lordships' House. I should have been very glad to have done so many years ago, before the Betting Committee was appointed. We are all opposed to tipsters' advertisements appearing in sporting newspapers, and I venture to say there is not a single member of the Jockey Club, there is not a respectable owner of racehorses, not a respectable trainer or bookmaker who will not approve of Lord Newton's Bill. As I have said, we members of the Jockey Club would have taken action ourselves but for the intolerance of persons like the right rev. Prelate. I should be very sorry to be responsible for a Bill like Lord Newton's if I thought it was to be entirely altered in Committee in accordance with the extreme views held by the right rev. Prelate. On the other hand, I have heard with the greatest; satisfaction the speech of the most rev. Primate. It was a very tolerant and broad-minded speech, and he, I venture to say, quite rightly urged your Lordships not to amend this Bill in Committee or not to any serious extent alter the scope of it or enlarge its provisions. Lord Newton described the Bill as a modest one. It is a modest and sensible Bill because it deals with a specific evil and does not try to comprehend and include other evils that exist and which are not confined to racing. Lord Newton deals with one specific subject and asks your Lordships to pass a simple plain Bill which will not affect any interest which ought not to be affected, but which will do a great deal of good and destroy what is an increasing evil—these betting advertisements and circulars. Newspapers have been warned for years that they ought not to receive money from these advertisers, who merely gull the public and deceive the credulous, but they have taken no notice; and I for my part am delighted that my noble friend has brought in a Bill which will in future prevent them receiving these advertisements. I heartily support my noble friend's Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole Douse on Tuesday the 21 st of January next.

WARREN HASTINGS.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, I rise to ask the First Commissioner of Works the Question which stands in my name on the Paper—namely, whether he will consider the desirability of adding to the commemorative tablets on the floor of Westminster Hall a tablet designating the spot on which Warren Hastings stood for his trial. Those of your Lordships who pass through Westminster Hall on your way to and from the debates of this House will no doubt have noticed that four incidents or persons are commemorated by brass tablets let into the pavement of the Hall. Two of these tablets mark the spots where rested the bodies of King Edward VII and of the late Mr. Gladstone on their way to their final interment. The two other tablets denote the spots where King Charles I and Thomas Wentworth, Lord Strafford, stood for their trial. I venture to think that Warren Hastings deserves equally to be commemorated with those illustrious and ill-fated men. He was more fortunate than they in the issue of his trial in Westminster Hall, but he shared with them the distinction of being one of the most remarkable, and I think even the most pathetic, figures in English history. I cannot say that his countrymen were over grateful to him in his lifetime or that they showed any excessive feeling upon his death, and I believe that the bust of him in Westminster Abbey, which I fancy is the solitary public memorial to that great man, was the gift, not of his admiring countrymen or of a grateful Government, but only of a sorrowing and devoted wife. I think, therefore, if the noble Earl can see his way to answer my suggestion in the affirmative, he will not merely be commemorating one of the most famous episodes in our history, although it is one that does not do us much honour, but he will also be offering a tardy reparation to a great and singularly ill-treated Englishman.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I shall be very glad indeed to comply with the suggestion of the noble Earl and put such a commemorative tablet as he suggests upon the floor of Westminster Hall. I hope that he will allow me to consult with him privately as to the exact spot on which Hastings stood for his trial in order that we may make no mistake in this matter and may mark the exact spot. I think your Lordships will all agree that the importance of the occasion fully justifies the tablet which we propose to place in Westminster Hall.

THE TRIAL OF CHARLES I.
LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I have listened with pleasure to the statement made by the noble Earl who has just spoken for His Majesty's Government. Warren Hastings left a name and a fame that were long connected with Westminster Hall, for I think the impeachment and its completion occupied something over seven years. My noble friend Lord Curzon, in introducing the subject this evening, mentioned two other tablets which are in Westminster Hall, and I intimated privately to the noble Earl that I would take the opportunity of referring to one of these tablets, that relating to Charles I, which in my opinion contains words that are inaccurate and therefore misleading.
The words on that tablet are as follows:—
"This tablet marks the spot where Charles Stuart, King of England, stood before the Court which sat pursuant to the ordinance for erecting a High Court of Justice for his trial which was read the first, second and third time and passed by Parliament on the 4th January, 1648–9."
Casual circumstances drew my attention particularly to this tablet, and on reading it closely I was struck by the fact that it was false in fact and therefore false in history. Any one reading the inscription on that tablet would think that the King "stood" like any criminal before the Court. That is not according to history. I do not discuss now the position of Charles I, or the trial, or anything connected with it; but every one knows that Charles I repudiated the whole tribunal, its constitution as a Court of Justice and everything connected with it. So far from standing before the tribunal he sat the whole time with his head covered. He did not acknowledge them in the smallest degree.
I looked this afternoon at a most interesting volume in your Lordships' library entitled "The Trial of Charles I," which records everything that was done and every syllable that was said from the beginning to the end of the proceedings. The King had no counsel and no advisers, and his position throughout was uniform and clear. He said—
"I do not recognise you as a Court. You are not a Court. No law has brought me here. I repudiate the whole position."
And he remained throughout, not standing

193
before the tribunal but sitting and covered, and any one will find that Clarendon in his "History of the Civil War" has an interesting picture of the trial showing the King sitting in his seat and covered. It is worthy of note that that picture was copied into Lord Morley's "Life of Oliver Cromwell," a book that I am sure many of your Lordships have read with the attention and respect which every one would give to a work by such a distinguished writer as Lord Morley. The noble Viscount introduced the picture and has many statements in reference to this trial that are of the highest interest. Speaking of the constitution of the tribunal he says that it might he called "neither better nor worse than a drumhead court martial," and he points out that, the word "ordinance" should have been "resolution." "Parliament" is an unfortunate word to bring into the inscription when we remember that only fifty Members of the House of Commons could be found to assemble to pass the resolution, and that any Peers who could be collected at the time declined to give their assent to it. In these circumstances Lord Morley points out that the legal authority of the tribunal was small, and not to be regarded as stronger.
I do not wish to discuss these matters of history. All I am suggesting is that the tablet should only record facts that are past controversy. The present tablet is a misleading one. It states in terms that the King "stood" before this tribunal, and that the tribunal was one which had the sanction of being passed by Parliament. I submit that a statement of the bare facts is all that should appear on the tablet. My point is that the word "stood" is improper and misleading, and that the reference to Parliament, unless seriously qualified, is untrue in fact. If the words about standing or sitting suggest any difficulty, words could be placed on the tablet stating that it marked the position occupied by the King on the occasion I have referred to. I think it would be well, when considering the tablet to be placed to commemorate the great name referred to by Lord Curzon, that the noble Earl should also consider the removal of the present tablet concerning Charles I and substitute one more in harmony with the facts of the case.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I am sure your Lordships will agree that this subject, if it is less important than many we discuss in this House, is also more interesting than some. I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord for having been good enough to give me notice of his intention to raise this question, because it has enabled me to discover more mistakes in the inscription than those to which the noble and learned Lord has referred. I am not quite sure that I should approve of the alternative he suggests or that in the particular he mentions there is any real need for alteration. The tablet states that it marks the spot where King Charles stood for his trial.
LORD ASHBOURNE: No; stood before the Court.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I submit that what the phrase means is that he stood for his trial. That is a common phrase, and one which I think is used quite irrespective of the particular attitude assumed by the person who is undergoing his trial. "Stood for his trial" is not a phrase which is very easy to improve upon. But I have been able to make some inquiries as to a similar use of the word "stood," and I came down prepared with a large number of quotations from classical authors which would, I hope, have convinced the noble and learned Lord opposite that there was nothing improper in the use in this case of the word "stood."
LORD ASHBOURNE: Not improper, but wrong.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Our distinguished librarian has furnished me with a quotation from Wordsworth's Prelude, which I hope will by itself, without the necessity of reading the other quotations, be sufficient to satisfy the noble and learned Lord. Of course, nobody thinks that the word "stood" in this connection means the particular attitude assumed, but that that was the spot where he remained during his trial. This quotation runs, "Rising or sitting would he stand alone," the word "stand" obviously referring to either attitude of rising or of sitting.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: To whom does that refer?
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I am not sure. The real point is that it is a question of remaining in one spot. The notice of the noble and learned Lord's Question enabled me to discover one or two other mistakes which seem to have been made in this particular inscription. One of them deals with the word "Ordinance." The proper word should be "Act," seeing that in Gardiner's History of the great Civil War he says that the word "Ordinance" had been dropped and that the word "Act" was the proper one.
LORD ASHBOURNE: Lord Morley says "resolution" is the proper word.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Then, again, the date, instead of being January 4, ought to be January 6; and I am also told that the First, Second, and Third Readings of the Act were not on one day as they are stated on the tablet to have been. Therefore there is something very wrong with this tablet, and I shall be happy to consider the question of making an alteration in it. But I confess that I cannot feel quite sure when I do make an alteration that the word "stood" will not remain in the inscription. I shall, however, be glad to consider the matter, and will try to consult with some such literary authorities as those mentioned, and I hope the noble and learned Lord opposite will be willing to abide by their judgment. There is justification, and a very curious justification, for fixing tablets of this kind with proper inscriptions upon them from the fact that in St. Stephen's Hall at the present time there are eight little brass tablets in the floor, four of which mark the spot where the Speaker's Chair used to stand before the burning of the House, and four mark the place where the Table used to be; and there is also in the Hall a tablet which marks the spot where the Bar of the old House of Commons used to be. There are those nine little brass tablets, but I doubt if any large number of your Lordships who go through that Hall either coining to or going from this House have ever remarked the fact. I think there is great justification for seeing that a proper inscription is put on both of the tablets referred to.
THE EARL OF VERULAM: I suggest that the wording should be "stood his trial" instead of "stood for his trial." That would explain the position and would be in accordance with common-sense.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I will gladly consider the suggestion.

THE NORTH-EASTERN RAILWAY STRIKE.
LORD CHARNWOOD*LORD CHARNWOOD rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether it is true, as has been stated in the newspapers, that the Home Secretary has sent a Commissioner to Newcastle to make a special inquiry into the case of the engine-driver Knox who was lately convicted by the Newcastle magistrates of drunkenness; and if so, whether this is an unusual proceeding due to the existence of the strike on the North-Eastern Railway or a proceeding which is, or will be, frequently taken in the case of persons who complain to the Home Office that they have been wrongly convicted by the magistrates.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am not sure that even the most diffident new-comer to this House need apologise very much for asking your Lordships' attention to the subject of my Question, but I am afraid I do owe an apology to my noble friend who is going to answer me because I am afraid, through unintended negligence on my part, he received notice of this Question rather late. First may I briefly state the facts of this matter so far as I am able to gather them from the newspapers? Some weeks ago an engine-driver on the North-Eastern Railway was convicted by the Newcastle magistrates for drunkenness. It appears that there was some other charge against him which the magistrates dismissed and upon which the evidence against him was unsatisfactory. That fact may have given some colour to the impression which got about that he had been wrongly convicted, but the magistrates, rightly I fancy, have taken the unusual course of publicly explaining the circumstances and stating that they have no doubt whatever of the evidence on which he was convicted of drunkenness. The North-Eastern Railway Company did what it might have been supposed regard for public safety imperatively required of them. They reduced this man from his employment as an engine-driver to a lower grade in their service, and the company, I understand, are absolutely willing to reinstate him as an engine-driver if his conduct is satisfactory after a year's further trial.
Then there occurred a strike upon the North-Eastern Railway based upon a demand that this man should be im-

197
mediately reinstated as an engine-driver upon the ground that the magistrates had been mistaken in convicting. The strike, I understand, was not authorised by the trade union concerned, though I am not aware that that trade union has taken any active measures to prevent it. The strike also involved breaches of agreement with the railway company on the part of a considerable number of the strikers. The Home Secretary was asked whether if the men at once returned to work he would hold a judicial inquiry into the rightness or wrongness of the man's conviction, and the Home Secretary in response has sent down to Newcastle a Metropolitan Police magistrate, who, I understand, is to-day holding a public inquiry into this matter at which all parties concerned are represented by legal gentlemen. To complete the story, the last news which I have received on the subject is that the men are now ready to go back upon the further condition that the railway company will withdraw all the summonses which have been taken out against the men who struck in breach of their agreement.
I confess I am myself ready to assume that when there is a state of indiscipline in a great service like that of a large railway company there is probably some abiding cause of friction that gives rise to that feeling on the part of the men, and I am not myself one of those who regard the impulsive class loyalty which actuates workmen very often on these occasions as not having its commendable, even its admirable, side; and if, as I sincerely hope, the strike is now coming to an end, and if, as may be the case, the action of the Home Secretary may have contributed to that result, I think possibly the criticism which I am venturing to pass upon the action of the Home Office might seem pedantic or cantankerous were it not for two considerations which I submit to your Lordships are really very serious considerations. This is a matter affecting not only the course of a strike but affecting the ordinary administration of justice in a class of cases of which there are thousands every year. It would be deeply unfortunate if even in a singular and very peculiar instance it were proved that the Home Secretary was more or less attentive to the case of a poor and ignorant man and more or less obliging to him according as that man had or had not powerful friends behind him, whether those friends are a trade union who are in
198
a position to inflict great inconvenience upon the public at Christmas time and check the course of trade, or whether they are powerful individuals of any sort whatsoever. I do not wish to enter upon any lurid prophecy, but I think one can easily imagine evils which may and which must little by little spring up if it should come to be generally the case that a man convicted in a Court of justice will, if a strike causing great damage to the public could be brought about in his favour, receive what is practically a new trial of, I believe, a somewhat unprecedented form, and a new trial in which there must inevitably be a strong desire on the part of the Court to acquit him if possible.
Then again, my Lords, this North-Eastern Railway strike is not an isolated occurrence. It is the culmination, not indeed in its magnitude but in what I can only call its phantastic character, of a series of labour disturbances about which those who pay the most careful attention to the possible grievances of the men feel most strongly that the action taken by the strikers is utterly disproportionate and even irrelevant to any grievances which they may have, and the Government—I say so very respectfully—must be aware of the growing feeling on the part of many who are keenly interested in the progress of labour that the Government in some instances of late have done something themselves to encourage this lamentable tendency. I will not dwell much upon that point at this moment, because if I can secure your Lordships' indulgence I desire on some future occasion to say a few words on the more general aspects of the question. But an impression is growing up that if a strike can only be made sufficiently injurious to trade and if it can only cause sufficient suffering to the poor, then the Government will in some way or other intervene. Labour leaders are becoming apt to say, "We know that the men have made a great and deplorable mistake, but we won't call them back now. If we wait for a while the Government or Parliament or some great persons will do something or other which will make it easier for the men to come back and possibly secure some advantage for them as the issue of the strike into which they have so rashly entered."
Reluctant as I am in any way to criticise the action of the Government in a difficult matter of this kind, I do seriously suggest

199
to them that in this instance they would have acted more wisely, and in view of larger public interests, if, even at the cost of very considerable public inconvenience for the time, they had allowed the strike and had allowed the administration of justice to take their natural course. Nobody will be better pleased than I if my noble friend who is going to reply to me can entirely demolish my argument. He can sweep away the very ground of my Question if he will assure me that any carter on a farm who may be convicted of drunkenness and who may lose his situation in consequence and who represents to the Home Office that he has been wrongly convicted will, if the circumstances present any difficulty or doubt, have a Metropolitan Police Magistrate sent down from London to re-try his case. I am sorry to have detained your Lordships so long, but I would like to say this in conclusion. I do not raise this question from any sort of hostile feeling to trade unions, or, indeed, from any objection on general principle to all strikes that may occur. I have only done so because I am completely convinced that an attitude on the part of the Government or on the part of the public of lax and cheap good nature towards the aberrations of the labour movement does the greatest disservice to the interests of labour generally and to trade unionism in particular. I beg to ask the Question standing in my name.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, as my noble friend probably anticipates the answer to the first part of his Question is in the affirmative. The action that has been taken by the Home Office in this matter has been taken in view of the very special circumstances of the present case. If any person petitions the Home Office with regard to his conviction by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction and can produce new evidence, or show other good prima facie reason for believing that he has been wrongly convicted, and give also a satisfactory explanation of his having failed to appeal—in those cases, of course, where appeal is open to him—it is now the practice of the Home Office to consider the petition, and, if necessary, they do make inquiries with regard to the matter—although cases in which the Home Secretary finds himself justified afterwards in interfering actively with the decision of the Justices are as a matter of fact comparatively rare. If there appear to be conflicting evidence and serious doubt a special officer may be sent down to make
200
inquiry on the spot and report to the Home Office, but it is only in exceptional cases that this course can be taken. But it was taken quite recently in a case where some new evidence was produced after a prisoner had completed a short sentence of imprisonment, and the result was that a grant of pardon was issued which restored his character and removed the difficulty in the way of his being re-employed. That shows a recent instance of the exercise by the Home Secretary of a similar right to that exercised in the present case of asking for further information.
In the present case the circumstances are exceptional. The driver in question, after a long hearing involving much more serious charges than that of drunkenness, was acquitted on the more serious charges, but convicted of being drunk and disorderly and fined 5s. Against this conviction he might have appealed, but as the amount at stake was only 5s. he did not think it worth while to do so. It was only a fortnight after his conviction, when the time for appealing had expired, that he found that disciplinary action was taken against him by the company, and he was severely dealt with in consequence of his conviction. The driver asserts his innocence, and states that had he known the sentence would have involved such serious consequences he would have appealed at once; but unfortunately the time during which it was possible for him to appeal had elapsed, and therefore he has applied to the Home Secretary to review the circumstances of the case with a view to the exercise of the prerogative of mercy. The case was admittedly one of exceptional difficulty, and there was a most serious conflict in the evidence given before the magistrates. Further, it could not be overlooked that very grave issues affecting the whole community have been raised by the action taken, in consequence of this conviction, by the North-Eastern Railway Company and by its employees. The Home Secretary, therefore, has felt that in these circumstances he was justified in taking the present course and sending an experienced metropolitan magistrate to review all the facts and advise him whether he could or could not recommend any exercise of the Royal Prerogative. In view of the exceptional character of the case and the gravity of the issues involved, I am bound to say that I think the course taken is one which is fully justified. The Home Office do not interfere unless the ordinary

201
channels of appeal have been closed for some reason. In this case the ordinary channels have been closed because the man did not appeal within the time allowed, and I think the noble Lord who has put the Question rather omitted to take into consideration the fact that the time for appeal had elapsed and that therefore this was the only course open to the driver. The noble Lord, I am sure, will see that in this matter all that the Home Secretary has done has been to arrange for further inquiry, and that for the present at any rate no action has been taken beyond seeing that there is an opportunity of further investigation into this case.
As to the direct challenge from my noble friend behind me as to whether the same course would be followed in the case of a carter who had been dismissed, I can assure the noble Lord that in similar cases the Home Office would consider the advisability of taking such measures. But it must be realised that, generally speaking, in such a case as this the man does appeal, and if he does not appeal he must have very serious reasons to put forward before the Home Office would be likely to interfere on his behalf. In view of the grave inconvenience to the public and the great misfortunes which often arise from a strike so serious as this is in its nature, I venture to think that my right hon. friend the Home Secretary was fully justified in taking this measure of investigation which he has taken by sending down Mr. Chester Jones.

CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
Commons Amendment in lieu of Lords Amendment and Commons Reason for disagreeing to another of the Lords Amendments considered (on Motion).

COMMONS REASON FOR DISAGREEING TO ONE OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS AND COMMONS AMENDMENT IN LIEU OF ONE OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS.
[NOTE.—The page and line refer to Bill (169) as first printed for the House of Lords.
The Commons Reason and Amendment are printed in italics.]
Lords Amendment.
Clause 6, page 3, line 31, leave out from ("months") to the end of subsection (2).
The Commons disagree to this Amendment because they consider that flogging, except after the verdict of a jury, is undesirable.
Lords Amendment.
Clause 6, page 3, line 40, after subsection (3) insert the following new subsection:
"(4) Every person, of either sex, who acts as a pimp, souteneur, or bully, or otherwise for the purposes of gain aids or abets prostitution, shall be guilty of an offence under the Vagrancy Act, 1898, or in Scotland under the Immoral Traffic (Scotland) Act, 1902, and those Acts as amended and extended by this section shall apply accordingly."
The Commons disagree to this Amendment, but propose the following new subsection in lieu thereof.
Clause 6, page 3, line 40, after subsection (3) insert the following new subsection:
"Every female who is proved to have for the purposes of gain exercised control, direction, or influence over the movements of a prostitute, in such a manner as to show that she is aiding, abetting, or compelling her prostitution with any person, or generally, shall be guilty of an offence under The Vagrancy Act, 1898, or in Scotland under The Immoral Traffic (Scotland) Act, 1902, and those Acts as amended and extended by this section shall apply accordingly."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, the first of the Amendments relates to words which were inserted on the Motion of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice. The purpose of his words was to keep alive the jurisdiction to administer corporal punishment which Quarter Sessions at present possess. Some question has been raised as to its existence, and there had been a decision in the Court of Criminal Appeal which supported the view that this jurisdiction existed. The Bill itself enacts corporal punishment for a certain class of offences, and therefore it is no longer quite as necessary that we should retain the old jurisdiction as it was before there was a prospect of this Bill becoming law. As your Lordships doubtless concur with me in thinking that we ought to make sure of this Bill as it stands, I move that we do not insist on the first Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.
Moved, That the House do not insist on the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As regards the second Amendment, in connection with which the Commons propose a new subsection instead of the subsection which was inserted in this House, the subsection as redrafted by the Commons is, I think, a little more guarded, but in substance it is the same as the subsection which your Lordships inserted. I therefore propose

203
to move, as regards this Amendment, that your Lordships do not insist on your subsection but agree with the Commons in the subsection which they propose in lieu thereof.
Moved, That the House do not insist upon the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons Amendment substituting a new subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Your Lordships having agreed to the Motions which I have submitted, I hope it will be possible for the Royal Assent to this Bill to be signified to-morrow morning.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I do not know whether the noble Marquess who leads the House is able to give us any information as to the order of business after the reassembling of the House in the month of January.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: So far as I can gather it seems clear that the course which I suggested as a possible one on a former occasion, that of holding a formal sitting before Tuesday, January 14, in order to receive the Government of Ireland Bill, will not be one which it is necessary for us to take. I understand that we shall in all probability receive that Bill somewhere about January 14. There is a Motion on the Order Paper for that day for the Report stage of the Scottish Temperance Bill, and there are two Notices on the Paper for Wednesday, January 15, in the names of Lord Portsmouth and Lord Midleton dealing with military questions. I am afraid that is all the information I am able to give the noble Marquess at this moment.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Could the noble Marquess give the House any undertaking that the Second Reading of the Home Rule Bill would not be taken before a certain date?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: In that matter I am very largely in the hands of noble Lords opposite. The general character of the Bill is no doubt familiar to
204
many of those who would desire to take part in the debate. I assume, therefore, that no very long interval would be required so far as the Second Reading is concerned. But we should not desire to take it for at any rate a week after we met. If noble Lords agree, Tuesday or Wednesday in the week following the one on which we reassemble would be a convenient time at which to begin the debate. Of course, I cannot say for certain that we shall receive the Bill in time to give it a First Reading on January 14, and that makes it difficult to fix a precise date for the Second Reading.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: It would be very convenient to know the exact date of the Second Reading, and I suggest that the noble Marquess should say January 27. It would be certain that the Bill would have been read a first time a week before that date.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: As I say, I am very much in the hands of the House. It is possible that if we decide not to take the Second Reading of the Government of Ireland Bill before January 27 it might so happen that we should desire to take the Established Church (Wales) Bill immediately on the top of it, whereas it would probably be more convenient to your Lordships to have rather more of an interval between the two. But so far as my personal convenience is concerned I should certainly make no objection to taking the Motion for the Second Reading of the Home Rule Bill on the 27th.

THE MURDER OF A BRITISH OFFICER IN PERSIA.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, on the Motion for the adjournment of the House I should like to ask the noble Marquess a Question upon an occurrence which I see reported in the newspapers to-day. On Tuesday last I asked the Government some Questions about a British Indian force at Shiraz, and pointed out that this force was unable to leave the town. I also pointed out that the Consul of that town had been severely wounded in an attack, and that no redress whatever had been obtained with regard to that proceeding. Now I observe in the Press that a portion of this force either engaged upon a sporting expedition or in process of escorting a caravan has been attacked, and that a field officer has unfortunately been murdered. I should like to ask the noble Marquess whether he has any information with regard to this

205
occurrence. It is hardly necessary to point out that it shows that an extremely serious state of affairs obtains in that part of Persia. Whether or not the noble Marquess has any information to give the House, I hope that at any rate we shall have some assurance that the interests, and I might add the prestige, of this country in that part of the world will be duly safeguarded without further delay.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I have received no information up to the time I left my office beyond what is in the possession of noble Lords and everybody else who has read the newspapers. The occurrence is not merely one of a most unfortunate character. We should all deeply regret, I am sure, the loss of life which has taken place. But it is, as the noble Lord has pointed out, a serious one from the point of view of the maintenance of order in that district. Of the circumstances in which the event occurred I have no information whatever. I think the noble Lord was not speaking entirely by the card when he said that it was impossible for this force to leave Shiraz, because I do not think any admission of that kind was made by my noble friend the Lord President when he replied the other day to the Question put by the noble Lord. It is quite evident that some small portion of the Consular guard did leave Shiraz—whether on a shooting expedition, as I saw stated in one newspaper, or in order to escort this officer for some other purpose we are not yet aware; but it is apparently clear that the lamented officer went on this expedition accompanied by what was, I assume, locally considered to be a sufficient escort, and was attacked by a considerable force of tribesmen of one of the wild and less known tribes in that country, with the unhappy result which we have seen in the Press. I can assure the noble Lord and the House that we are fully sensible of the gravity of such an occurrence as that which he has mentioned. He will not, I am sure, expect me now to make any statement of policy with regard to it, but the matter is one which we shall carefully consider in the light of the previous disturbances and outrages which have taken place in that quarter, and we can, I can also assure him, by no means neglect the consideration of British credit and, if he likes the word, prestige involved in such an attack on one of His Majesty's officers.
House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, Eleven o'clock.