Lords Sitting of 4 February 1913

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT, 1911.
Provisional Regulations, dated 31st January 1913, made by the Insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health Insurance (Insurance Committees Election of Medical Representatives) Regulations (England), 1913: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and to be printed. (No. 200.)
Regulations, dated 27th January 1913, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and the Scottish Insurance Commissioners acting jointly, entitled the National Health Insurance (Collection of Contributions) Regulations (Scotland), 1913: Laid before the House on Thursday last; ordered to be printed. (No. 201.)

SHEFFIELD CORPORATION BILL.
Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments considered (according to Order).

COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING To TWO OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS.
[The Commons Reasons are printed in italics.]
Lords Amendments.
Clause 90, page 57, line 33, leave out ("sell").
Clause 90, page 58, line 6, leave out sub-clause (2) and insert the following new sub-clause (2):
"(2) The corporation shall not under the powers, of this section themselves execute the wiring of private property except between the main of the Corporation and the consumer's meter but they may enter into contracts for the execution of any of the powers of this section including the wiring of private property, provided that the contractor acts independently of the Corporation in the execution of the contract. The Corporation shall not under such powers sell any such electrical fittings except through a contractor carrying on his business independently of the Corporation."
The Commons disagree to these Amendments:
1. Because in 1898 the Sheffield Corporation under express Parliamentary sanction purchased their electricity undertaking which included a fitting and wiring business.
2. Because the price paid by the Corporation for the wiring and fitting business was £13,344 and further capital to the extent of upwards of £7,000 has been invested therein and the said sums were borrowed with the sanction of the Local Government Board.
3. Because the Corporation carried on and developed the business bona fide believing themselves to have the necessary powers until the beginning of this year when the courts decided otherwise notwithstanding proceedings pending since 1906.
4. Because there is only one electrical contractor in Sheffield who commenced business before the wiring and fittings business was established, and only 15 who commenced business prior to the acquisition of the business by the Corporation.
5. Because the Corporation have conducted the business so that it has never been a charge upon the rates, but, on the contrary, has contributed towards the other portion of their electricity undertaking.
6. Because the Committee of the House of Commons, after hearing opponents and fully considering the matter, were of opinion that the powers should be granted, and Sir Henry Kimber, the Chairman of the Committee, stated that—
"The Committee do not ignore, but they quite recognise the principle of municipal trading not being encouraged beyond what is necessary and expedient in the special circumstances of this case for the inhabitants"
Also that—
"It is a case in which, although there is the objection to municipal trading in principle, yet in the circumstances which have transpired in the course of the last 14 years, including the fact that Parliament in 1903, granted an analogous power as regards motors, powers to sell fittings, and so on, the word 'sell', giving the power to sell, may be retained in the clause."
He further stated that—
"The Committee have given most anxious attention to the principle embodied in the model clause of avoiding municipal trading, bat we think this, as an exceptional case, might be allowed."
LORD SOUTHWARK LORD SOUTHWARK had given notice of the following Motion—
That this House do not insist upon their Amendments disagreed to by the Commons, but propose the following new sub-clause to clause 90 in lieu of sub-clause (2):
"(2) The Corporation may enter into contracts for the execution of any of the powers of this section including the wiring of private property. The Corporation shall not under the powers of this section sell any such electrical fittings (other than lamps and electric lines, fuses and switches and such other electrical fittings as are used in connection with the wiring of private property) except through a contractor carrying on his business independently of the Corporation."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, a short time ago I thought I should have had to occupy the attention of your Lordships for a considerable time with regard to the Motion which appears on the paper in my name, but I am happy to say that within the last hour wise counsels have prevailed

821
and the Corporation of Sheffield and the traders have come together. I therefore propose, with your Lordships' permission, to move my new sub-clause in an altered form, which I hope will be acceptable to the House and do away with any long discussion. I propose to omit from the new sub-clause as it appears on the Paper the words "lamps and," and to insert, after "switches," the words "ceiling roses," and after the word "property" where it last occurs to insert "from the distribution main as far as the ceiling, wall, or floor outlet only." It practically means that the Corporation will only have power to carry the wiring as far as the walls and ceilings, and the rest of the work will be left in the hands of the traders. As a matter of fact, the Corporation of Sheffield have never desired to interfere with the private trader. As far back as 1898 they obtained powers from Parliament to carry on this electric lighting work, which they have done, I believe, with considerable success and benefit to the City of Sheffield. Moreover, the Local Government Board gave them power to borrow money to buy the undertaking which they took over when they started this work. If the matter had been warmly contested this evening, I should have been able to make out a very good case for continuing these powers to the Sheffield Corporation on exceptional grounds. This is quite an exceptional case. The Sheffield Corporation have not come here with any desire to cultivate municipal trading. As far as I am personally concerned I am a very limited municipal trader; I only go as far as national matters of great importance. Therefore I am not advocating municipal trading this evening, but what I should have advocated, had it been necessary to go into this matter, would have been that an act of great injustice would have been inflicted on Sheffield if the new sub-clause which I should have moved had not been accepted. I am glad, however, that there has been a little give and take on both sides, and I believe that in future the Corporation of Sheffield and the traders, as far as regards this matter, will live on friendly terms if your Lordships are good enough to pass the new sub-clause in the altered terms in which I now beg to move it.
Moved, That this House do not insist upon their Amendments disagreed to by the Commons, but propose the following
822
new sub-clause to clause 90 in lieu of sub-clause (2):
"(2) The Corporation may enter into contracts for the execution of any of the powers of this section including the wiring of private property. The Corporation shall not under the powers of this section sell any such electrical fittings (other than electric lines, fuses, switches, ceiling roses, and such other electrical fittings as are used in connection with the wiring of private property from the distribution main as far as the ceiling, wall, or floor outlet only) except through a contractor carrying on his business independently of the Corporation."—(Lord Southwark).
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, the noble Lord has stated the events of the last hour to your Lordships perfectly correctly. It is, as far as I am concerned, only thirty-five minutes since I saw the parties, who informed me that they had been able to come to an agreement on this point. Naturally I am glad that an agreement has been come to, for I should have been sorry had the fate of this Bill, which deals with a great many subjects, been at all prejudiced by any small disagreement on this point, and I think your Lordships would do well to agree to this settlement by agreement between the parties in this particular case. I do not think I need say more than that. I should have been quite ready, as other of your Lordships would have been, to argue the merits with the noble Lord behind me if it had been necessary to do so. In fact, he only hinted one point in regard to which I venture to differ from him. He said that the Corporation of Sheffield obtained these powers in 1898. I think I should have been able to show your Lordships that the Sheffield Corporation did not get these powers in 1898, though they believe they got them then. I only say that as a matter of caveat and for the purposes of record. In leaving this case, all I would like to say is this. Whilst advising your Lordships to accept this compromise on the present occasion I hope it will be distinctly understood—I believe when I say this I am expressing what is the almost unanimous opinion of your Lordships—that this House is not at all weakening on the attitude which it has taken up in recent years on this question of electrical wiring and fittings. Not only is there a model clause

823
of your Lordships' House on the subject which has been insisted on in Bills time and again but there is also the record of what your Lordships did in 1909 in the case of the Electric Lighting Act of that year. That, your Lordships will remember, was a Government Bill introduced into this House by Lord Hamilton of Dalzell—a Bill in which your Lordships inserted the model clause on the Report stage. The House of Commons disagreed with the model clause, and the Act leaves the question severely alone. Anyhow I am not going too far when I say that your Lordships insisted upon the policy of your model clause in the Public Bill of 1909. Very largely on the action you then took we have, on your behalf, insisted on the model clause in all private Bills since 1909; and I hope it will be understood that, whilst we accept this compromise—if your Lordships think right to accept it in regard to this Bill—it in no way weakens the action your Lordships have taken in years past on the question of wiring or the supplying of lamps by public authorities.
LORD FABER: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Earl who has just sat down whether it is not correct that the Chairman of Committees in the House of Commons and the Chairman of Committees in your Lordships' House met only last year and strengthened the model clause in so far as contractors are concerned, so as not to permit of dummy contractors being appointed by a corporation who wanted to do this work through the dummy contractors. That shows that the mind of the House even as late as last year was emphatic that the model clause should be put in. In the circumstances I shall not, of course, go into the merits of the question, but I can say, without going into the merits, that the other side versus Sheffield had a very strong case.
THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON: My Lords, as Chairman of the Committee of your Lordships' House who considered this Bill I should like to be allowed to say that, although we are glad that the matter has been compromised and accept the compromise, we still think the model clause met the justice of the case. The question was very carefully considered by your Lordships' Committee. Several more witnesses were heard on both sides by us than was the case in the Committee of the
824
House of Commons; and, with one exception, we came unanimously to the conclusion that the model clause was a proper one to insert. I agree that it would be a great pity if this Bill were to be lost, and as the parties have agreed to a compromise there is nothing more to be said.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: My Lords, may I, as a member of the Committee who considered this Bill, support what has fallen from our Chairman. The Committee felt that the application made on behalf of the Corporation of Sheffield was excessive; it opened up an entirely new field of discussion, and the power sought for introduced a dangerous precedent for future cases. It is true that there are many things which it is necessary that municipal bodies should carry out, such as water and similar undertakings; but clearly this is a class of municipal trading which Parliamentary Committees have at all times been very disinclined to allow. I noticed in the discussion elsewhere that the principal point for allowing this clause to stand as desired by the Sheffield Corporation was the number of years that the Corporation had carried on this work. With all respect I do not see that the number of years a Corporation has been doing a thing which is wrong is any excuse for allowing it to continue to do so in the future. I am glad a compromise has been arrived at; and while your Lordships may be willing to sanction this to-day I hope that it will not be taken as a precedent for the future, but that the model clause, which has been drawn up on this point will be at all times closely adhered to.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bill returned to the Commons.

CLERKS OF SESSION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  SHERIFF COURTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons.

BETTING INDUCEMENTS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Newton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Penalties.
1. Any person who in the United Kingdom writes, prints, publishes, or circulates any advertisement of any betting or tipster's business, whether such business is carried on in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, or who causes or procures any of those things to be done, or assists therein shall be liable—

(a) For a first offence, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds, or to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for three months;

(b) For a second or subsequent offence, on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or to imprisonment, with or without hard labour for six months.

THE EARL OF DERBY THE EARL OF DERBY moved to amend the clause, after the words "Any person who in the United Kingdom," by inserting the word "knowingly." The noble Earl said: The whole essence of this and similar enactments is that a person should not be punished for committing a crime unless he does it knowingly. It appears to me that the word "advertisement" covers a very wide area, and that it would not only include the publisher and the printer but also those who sold the paper, whether it be a newsagent or even a newsboy in the street. I admit that it is not likely that the latter would be proceeded against, but still if anybody had a prejudice against any particular newsagent it would be within his power, if that newsagent had sold a paper against which there had been a conviction, to equally bring a case against him for selling the paper. I hope, therefore, as it does not interfere with the scope or with the principle of the Bill, that my noble friend will see his way to accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 5, after ("Kingdom"), insert "knowingly").—(The Earl of Derby)
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD STRACHIE): Before the noble Lord in charge of the Bill states whether or not he can accept this Amendment, may I point out that the insertion of this word would, in the opinion of my advisers at the Home Office, raise a good deal of difficulty, and they think it would be really mischievous in some cases. I quite appreciate what the noble Earl has said as regards persons selling the paper quite innocently, but I
826
think that point ought to be met by exempting those persons or by a more strict definition. The word "knowingly" does not occur in either the Betting Act of 1853, the Betting Act of 1874, the Gaming Act of 1838, or the Lotteries Act of 1836, and no difficulty has been found in administering them. The only Act in which the word appears is the Betting and Loans (Infants) Act, and in the case of minors it is, of course, right that the word "knowingly" should be inserted.
THE EARL OF DERBY: The Act of 1901 dealing with the sale of intoxicating liquors to children contains the word "knowingly."
LORD STRACHIE: Where infants are concerned it is right, as I have said, that the word "knowingly" should be inserted in the Act.
THE EARL OF DERBY: Does the noble Lord say that a newsagent is bound to read through the whole of the newspapers he sells to see that there is nothing contained in them which contravenes any Act of Parliament?
LORD STRACHIE: I admit that there are exceptional cases where the word "knowingly" should be inserted, but the Amendment in this case is much too sweeping.
THE EARL OF DERBY: Perhaps the noble Lord will tell me the official way of dealing with this matter. He admits that it is necessary to make some provision for safeguarding those who sell newspapers. How would he propose to deal with it?
LORD STRACHIE: I am not prepared at once to redraft this clause. I may say that in my opinion the Bill is very badly drafted indeed. I should be sorry to take any responsibility for the Bill as it now stands.
EARL RUSSELL: There are, it seems to me, two difficulties here. The words "any person who … circulates any advertisement" would carry the provision further than the newsagent. If there happened to be a tipster's advertisement in a newspaper and you handed the newspaper to a friend in a railway carriage, you might be said to be circulating it. But with regard to the Amendment now before

827
us, is not the difficulty met by the fact that the person prosecuted must have a guilty mind? In my opinion there is no necessity to insert the word "knowingly," and it might create a difficulty.
THE EARL OF DERBY: How can you incorporate a guilty mind in an Act of Parliament?
EARL RUSSELL: It is obvious that a person cannot be guilty of the offence unless he has a criminal mind.
LORD NEWTON: Apart from other objections, it appears to me that my noble friend Lord Derby proposes to insert the word "knowingly" in the wrong place. I cannot conceive how anybody could write anything unknowingly, independently of circulating or anything else. I have taken the precaution of obtaining legal advice on the point, and I am informed that the word "knowingly" is entirely unnecessary and might prove to be somewhat objectionable. It is obvious that anybody charged with an offence of this kind would naturally plead that it was done in ignorance. I submit that this is almost entirely a legal point. I am not disposed to accept the Amendment at the present moment, but if any legal authority in this House will undertake to say it is necessary I shall be prepared, perhaps, to reconsider my decision.
THE EARL OF DESART: The noble Earl who has moved this Amendment need not, I think, be at all uneasy on this point, because I am perfectly certain that in the hypothetical case put by Lord Russell there would be no conviction. It is for the prosecution to establish, either by evidence or by inference, that there is mens rea, or guilty knowledge. There are exceptions to this rule, but the general rule is that the jury must come to the conclusion that the man had a guilty mind. It is open to anybody who is accused of au offence under this Bill to show that he had no knowledge of what had been done, and my strong opinion is that if he were able to establish that he would be acquitted. But if you put in the word "knowingly" you emphasise that which is unnecessary and you may produce this result. You charge, say, the editor of a newspaper with an offence under the Bill. He may show that at the time the paper came out he was in Sicily or South
828
Africa and not in the newspaper office, and he would then be acquitted. But by inserting this word you may put on the prosecution a special obligation to prove that he was in the office on, say, the Wednesday night, the paper being the Thursday morning's issue, and that his attention had been called to the advertisement. My own opinion is that the word "knowingly" is quite unnecessary and might in some cases defeat the purposes of the provision. I do not think the noble Earl need be under any apprehension as to the consequences arising from passing the clause without the insertion of this word.
THE EARL OF DERBY: After what the noble and learned Earl has just said, I accept his view and withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKEFIELD THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKEFIELD had an Amendment on the Paper, after the words "tipster's business," to insert "or of the business of any gaming scheme, competition, or coupon." The right rev. Prelate said: The Amendment which I rise to move is to insert—
THE EARL OF DERBY: I apologise for interrupting the right rev. Prelate, but I would ask whether this Amendment is not out of order. I do not quite know the rules of your Lordships' House, but there is not the slightest doubt from the House of Commons point of view that the Amendment is outside the scope of the title of the Bill and therefore would not be in order in the other House.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The noble Earl was good enough to give me private notice of the fact that he was going to raise tins point, and I have been into it as carefully as I can, although, of course, your Lordships understand I have no right to give a decision. I can only advise your Lordships, and it is for the House as a whole to decide what procedure they will follow. I have had a good deal of difficulty in understanding the effect of this Amendment on the Bill, and the point is more particularly difficult because the rules of your Lordships' House are not so clearly laid down as the rules of the other House. Erskine May, who, of course, is the authority on these matters, deals on this

829
point entirely with House of Commons cases, and I have not been able to find—there may be one, but I have not been able to find it—any decision in that book based upon proceedings in your Lordships' House. The main point is that in the House of Commons, and I presume your Lordships would follow the same line, Amendments are out of order which are irrelevant to the Bill. This is a Bill to prevent the writing, printing, publishing, or circulating of any advertisement of a betting or tipster's business, and a betting business and a tipster's business are both defined in Clause 2. A betting business is defined as meaning any business or agency for the making of bets or wagers or for the receipt of any money or valuable thing as the consideration for a bet or wager in connection with any race, fight, game, sport, or exercise; and later a tipster's business is defined as meaning any business or agency carried on solely or mainly for receiving money or any other payment for advice relating to bets or wagers in connection with any race, fight, game, sport, or exercise. It seems to me that the right rev. Prelate's Amendment goes a great deal further than that. His Amendment would also apply the Bill to the business of any gaming scheme, competition, or coupon; and the business of any gaming scheme, competition, or coupon is defined in a further Amendment standing on the Paper in the name of the right rev. Prelate as meaning such a business depending wholly or partly upon chance from which the promoter expects direct or indirect profit. That is almost as wide a definition as you could have, and your Lordships could think of any number of cases that would come under that definition which certainly would not come under the governing definition of the Bill, which is a "competition in connection with any race, fight, game, sport, or exercise." It has been suggested to me that a race meeting is a competition depending wholly or partly upon chance. It has been further suggested that the coupon which your Lordships receive when you buy your diary at the beginning of the year, as issued by the insurance company, depends wholly or partly upon chance. It depends on the chance whether your Lordships make use of the coupon, and the insurance itself might almost be held to come under this definition. For what my opinion is worth, therefore, I feel that the right rev Prelate's Amendments go beyond the scope of the
830
Bill, and my advice to your Lordships would be to the effect that they are not relevant to the Bill in the sense that Erskine May uses the phrase.
THE EARL OF DERBY: In those circumstances I beg to move "That the Amendment be not, considered, being outside the scope of the Bill."
THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKEFIELD: Before that Motion is put I should like to say that in this matter I am entirely in the hands of the House. My object in putting the Amendment on the Paper was to include, if possible, the widely prevalent system of coupon betting on football matches. I should have been glad to have had the opportunity of placing before your Lordships the reasons for my Amendment. But I and others who are very anxious to do something to check this widespread evil are so grateful to the noble Lord opposite for introducing this Bill that rather than make any discordant note I would gladly withdraw the Amendment if it is the sense of the House that it goes beyond the scope of the Bill. On that point I should be glad if we could be favoured with the opinion of some noble and learned Lord.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: If the right rev. Prelate does not withdraw his Amendment I must put the Motion moved by Lord Derby, "That the Amendment be not considered, being out of order inasmuch as it is outside the scope of the Bill."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: As I understand, the right rev. Prelate has not actually moved his Amendment, and unless he does so there will be no occasion for Lord Derby's Motion. I am quite sure the right rev. Prelate will understand that I have great sympathy with much that is in his mind in regard to this Amendment, but I hope in the circumstances that he will refrain from moving it and putting the House to the necessity of definitely ruling it out of order. I feel very strongly that it would be a dangerous thing for us to agree to a Motion of the sort moved by Lord Derby without very careful investigation, for any such Motion would be regarded as a precedent. As the sense of the House is clearly in the direction that the Amendment is outside the scope of the Bill, I hope the right rev. Prelate will not move it.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I should like to say that as to a great deal of what the right rev. Prelate wishes to cover by his Amendment I agree with him, but in my opinion the Amendment as drawn is far too wide. Had it been more restricted, I should have been ready to support it.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKEFIELD: In view of what has fallen from the noble Marquess and from the noble Earl who has just sat down I shall certainly not move my Amendments. At the same time I hope on some future occasion when this question comes up I may claim the assistance of the noble Earl who has just spoken in dealing with it.
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: I move, after the word "elsewhere" ["whether such business is carried on in the United Kingdom or elsewhere"], to insert "or who writes, prints, publishes or circulates any betting coupon or list of odds offered in connection with any such business." I should like to say at the outset that I am one of those who are very grateful to Lord Newton for introducing this Bill, and I should be very loth to press any Amendment that would interfere with its harmonious and successful course. At the same time, those of us who have had anything like a close association with the game of football have come to feel that this system of trading which is known as football coupon betting is producing an immense amount of mischief in the national life. I am informed on good authority that football betting coupons, several of which I hold in my hand—they are at the disposal of any noble Lord who would like to see them—are issued by these betting tradesmen in tens of thousands Saturday after Saturday, and I cannot but feel that it is our duty, if possible, to stop the degradation and misery which they produce. There can, I think, be no question at all that they are producing a new kind of evil. Ten or twelve years ago, as all those who were connected with the game of football will tell you, the game did not suffer at all, or very little, from this kind of mischief; but now every great game has to take its place in one or other of these betting coupons.
Having some connection with the North of England, I have received information that there is a very strong general feeling in that part of England against this system.
832
Employers of labour are complaining of it. I have communications stating that no fewer than 375 large employers of labour in Lancashire and Cheshire are strongly in favour, not only of this Bill, but of the Amendment standing on the Paper in my name. They hold this view because the craze of betting through the instrumentality of these betting traders is becoming so strong that it actually interferes on the day of any great competition with the proper performance of the work on their business concerns. I learn that all the four great football associations are strongly in favour of the Bill and of the Amendments. A very distinguished member of one of these associations the other day in Manchester went so far as to say that all lovers of football are in favour of this Bill provided it can stop this system. No fewer than thirty-nine trade unions have declared themselves in favour of these Amendments as well as of the Bill, as well as between 500 and 600 religious organisations in Lancashire and Cheshire, to say nothing of 200 football clubs in that district; and in the short time during which this Bill and these Amendments have been before the public there have been held in that district no fewer than twenty-five public meetings, at every one of which they were unanimously approved, and from 60,000 to 70,000 signatures of citizens in Lancashire and Cheshire and the Midlands have been given in favour of these proposals. So that I venture to think your Lordships will feel that there is a very strong desire on the part of the great mass of the people in that part of England, which is representative of the rest, I imagine, in favour of this Bill being passed with such additions as are proposed should your Lordships consider them wise and agree to them.
There is another aspect of the question which I venture with some hesitation to put before your Lordships. For twenty-five years or more of my life I was intimately associated with the game of Rugby football. It is one of the best gifts of Rugby to the national life of England, because it has done so much while unadulterated, and is doing so much wherever it is unadulterated, to cherish and to strengthen many of the best qualities of our race. Pluck and endurance and self-control and unselfishness and public spirit—these are all exhibited in the unadulterated game of Rugby football, and I confess, feeling a

833
pride in the game and feeling thankful for the good which it does to our national life, that I resent the degradation and the debasement of this game, and I feel it my duty to do everything I can to limit this degradation and debasement. That is why I have ventured to put this Amendment before your Lordships. At the same time, as I have said, I feel so grateful to the noble Lord who introduced this Bill that I should not like to press anything which would interfere with its passage through this House and with its immediate passage through the other House. If the withdrawal of my Amendment would be likely to obviate any opposition and to secure the passing of the Bill without loss of time through this house and its inclusion in the list of agreed Bills in the other House so that it might become law during the present session, I should be content. But before saying or doing anything more in the matter I should very much like to hear, though I do not know whether it is a proper question for me to ask, whether His Majesty's Government are prepared to give us any assistance in this matter.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 8, after ("elsewhere") insert ("or who writes, prints, publishes or circulates any betting coupon or list of odds offered in connection with any such business").—(The Lord Bishop of Hereford.)
THE EARL OF DURHAM: It is my misfortune to nearly always be in antagonism to the right rev. Prelate, but on this occasion I can say that I fully agree with his views on football. I listened with interest to what he said regarding that game, but he gave us no definition of his Amendment and no explanation of half of it. The right rev. Prelate proposes to insert in the clause the words "or who writes, prints, publishes, or circulates any betting coupon or list of odds offered in connection with any such business." He has not said one single word about betting odds. In the last twelve years I have not had a dozen bets myself, so I am not a great authority on betting, but I think I know as much about it as the right rev. Prelate does, and I must say I do not know what is meant by betting odds, and the right rev. Prelate has not given us any information as to what the phrase means.
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: I spoke of betting coupons.
THE EARL OF DURHAM: The term "betting coupons" conveys nothing to me. The right rev. Prelate talked about football coupons, but the word football is not mentioned at all in the Amendment. As to the term "betting coupons," I think there should be another Amendment defining what it means. I agree that football, cricket, or any other game is spoilt if there is excessive betting connected with it. But this Amendment does not deal definitely with football or cricket. It may touch every game, sport, or exercise. The right rev. Prelate has handed me one of these coupons. I have never seen one before, and I do not in the least understand it. I want to know why he has not explained to your Lordships what a betting coupon is. During the Second Reading debate on this Bill the right rev. Prelate laid great stress on what he called starting prices. I do not wish to ask the right rev. Prelate too many questions, but does he know what starting prices are?
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: I do not think that, is a relevant question.
THE EARL OF DURHAM: Starting prices are very relevant to betting odds. They are the prices which are published in the newspapers after the event. You cannot know what the starting prices are until the contest is actually taking place. Betting odds are published before the race. If the right rev. Prelate looks at the newspapers he will see at the moment the betting on, say, the Oxford and Cambridge boat race. Does he wish to make that illegal? If so, no newspaper would be allowed to publish the betting odds on any event of any kind. The right rev. Prelate says that starting prices are not relevant, but they are. I am no lawyer, but if there is any noble and learned Lord here who is willing to tell me that starting prices would not be affected I will accept it. But in my opinion this Amendment would prevent the publication in newspapers of any betting news whatever. I submit that that would be injurious to public morals. The publication of these odds is a safeguard to the public who bet—and the public will continue to bet whatever you do—for they see in the newspapers what are the fair odds which they have obtained by investing their money. This Amendment would destroy all that security, and if it were inserted in the Bill no newspaper would be able in the future to publish any betting

835
or starting prices. I really do not know what "betting coupons" means or how these two words, if they formed part of the Bill, would be interpreted, and the right rev. Prelate has not defined them. I therefore hope your Lordships will not accept this Amendment. The right rev. Prelate has quite fairly stated that he would consent to withdraw the Amendment rather than prevent the Bill going through your Lordships' House. There are other noble Lords besides myself who do not wish to see this Bill go through with this Amendment in it, and if the Amendment is pressed we shall have to take what action we think proper.
LORD NEWTON: I should like to give the right rev. Prelate every credit for his exertions, and at the same time I should like to credit him with greater knowledge of the question than is attributed to him by the noble Earl who has just spoken. The right rev. Prelate does not know as much, perhaps, as the noble Earl about starting prices, but I expect, he does know perfectly well what that expression means, and I think he must have realised that if his Amendment is inserted in the Bill the publication of starting prices will be put a stop to. Whilst I have—I admit it without shame—a considerable amount of sympathy with the right rev. Prelate, it is obviously impossible for me to accept this Amendment. This Bill, which is, as I said on the Second Reading, a very mild and innocuous measure, is really the result of a compromise. It is a compromise with those whom I may, perhaps, be allowed to term, for the sake of brevity, sporting people. Their consent has been obtained to two proposals which everybody admits are perfectly fair and reasonable; and, strange though it may sound, I believe there is a remote chance of this Bill passing provided it retains its present shape, but if extraneous matter is going to be introduced into it that remote chance will disappear altogether. Therefore, with a certain amount of reluctance, I cannot entertain the idea of accepting the right rev. Prelate's Amendment, and if he will condescend to accept advice from me I should recommend him to ask the leave of the House to withdraw it.
LORD ST. DAVIDS: I would venture to suggest to the right rev. Prelate that a good deal of what he aims at is already covered in the Bill. The Bill seeks to prevent the printing, publishing, etc., of the advertise-
836
ments of any betting business. It seems to me that if the advertisement of a betting business is made illegal the publishing or circulating of any list of odds offered in connection with any such business is also illegal, for surely advertising a list of odds in connection with that business is advertising the business. As regards the part of the right rev. Prelate's Amendment which deals with betting coupons, I am in the position of the noble Earl, Lord Durham. I have never seen a betting coupon. It is a thing that has never come before my notice, and I do not know anything about it. I believe nine-tenths of us in this House are quite in sympathy with him if the position is what the right rev. Prelate says it is, that there is in existence some system of betting coupons on football matches, and that the four great football associations in the country are against the system. I should say, if that were so, that the system was a very bad one indeed. But I do not see that it has anything to do with this Bill. I am sure there must be many members of your Lordships' House who, like Lord Durham and myself, have never seen these betting coupons and do not know anything about the evil. So far as I individually am concerned, if the position is what the right rev. Prelate has described it to be and he would bring in a short Bill doing away with this evil in connection with football matches I should be quite prepared to give any proposals which he might make very friendly consideration. But as regards advertisements of betting businesses I believe that this Bill hits them and will stop them, and that the provision in the Amendment which the right rev. Prelate has moved—except the part which deals with football coupons, which is not relevant—is covered by the Bill.
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: My difficulty in the matter consists in the fact that I do not know what the word "advertisement" covers. Supposing one of these betting men sets up an office and employs a score of agents to distribute these thousands of temptations to bet, does that come within the scope of advertising? That will have to be thought out. The noble Earl, Lord Durham, spoke of starting prices. I venture to submit that my Amendment does not deal with starting prices. It deals with coupons or lists of odds in connection with the betting business. I am, however, in the hands of the House,

837
and I am quite content to withdraw my Amendment if it is the general feeling of your Lordships that it would be better that I should do so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD*THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD had an Amendment on the Paper, after the word "procures" ["or who causes or procures"], to insert the words "or attempts to cause or procure." The right rev. Prelate, said: We were informed in the Betting and Gambling Committee, over which the noble Earl, Lord Durham, presided, by more than one witness and by one in particular who was a very experienced witness that these prophecies of sporting prophets which appear in newspapers are the most insidious and the very worst form of betting temptation; and I think I remember Lord Durham himself saying of these newspaper prophets that it was very difficult to understand how they obtained the information on which they prophesied—either it must have been obtained improperly or they had not obtained it at all, so that they were either offering to the public knowledge which was improperly obtained or professing to have knowledge which they did not really possess.
THE EARL OF DURHAM: I was referring to advertising tipsters, not to sporting writers in newspapers.
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: The noble Earl was speaking of racing prophets, who, according to an experienced witness before our Committee, are wrong six times out of seven. In the circumstances, however, I do not wish to move this Amendment.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Commencement and Short Title.
5. This Act shall come into operation on the first dry of May one thousand nine hundred and thirteen, and may be cited as the Betting Inducements Act, 1912.
LORD NEWTON: I move to substitute "1913" for "1912."
Amendment moved—
Page 2,1ine 19, leave out ("1912") and insert ("1913").—(Lord Newton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
The Report of Amendment to be received To-morrow and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 204.)

MARKET GARDENERS COMPENSATION (No. 3) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD LUCAS): My Lords, the Market Gardeners Compensation Act of 1895 awarded compensation for market garden improvements, and this compensation was made applicable to land which was held on yearly tenancies and which was cultivated with the knowledge of the landlord as a market garden. This has been acted upon ever since until the decision of the case of Kedwell v. Flint in the Court of Appeal in 1911, which decided that no holder of a tenancy current when the Market Gardeners Compensation Act, 1895, came into force could receive any compensation for market gardening improvements executed since the date on which that tenancy could have been determined if notice had been given when the Act came into force—that is to say, in most cases Michaelmas, 1897. This decision of the Court of Appeal was contrary to the intentions of the framers of the Act, and was also entirely contrary to the general practice that had obtained up to that time of awarding compensation, because that reading had never been given to the Act and compensation had been awarded in respect of market garden improvements that had been made since 1897 on exactly the same scale as before. I think it is quite clear that this decision of the Court of Appeal came as a general surprise to everybody, as hitherto practically no objection whatever had been taken to the general practice. This Bill is simply intended to restore the position to what it was before the decision in the case of Kedwell v. Flint. The Bill is absolutely noncontentious. It passed through the House of Commons without any opposition at all. It has the general support of agriculturists, and the land owning interests, I believe, are quite satisfied with it. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Lucas.)
LORD BARNARD: My Lords, being this year Chairman of the Central Chamber of Agriculture I desire to thank the Government and the noble Lord opposite for

839
introducing this Bill. The case of Kedwell v. Flint, to which he alluded, did create a serious grievance amongst market gardeners, and as soon as the result of that decision became known the Central Chamber of Agriculture moved in the matter and used every effort in their power to try and get the grievance remedied. On their behalf I desire to express thanks to the Board of Agriculture and the noble Lord for introducing this Bill, and I hope it will pass through all its stages without opposition and as speedily as possible.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

SHERIFF COURTS (SCOTLAND) BILL. (No. 203.)
Read 1a, and to be printed.

THE NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL had the following Notice on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government to meet the convenience of the public by issuing stamps representing the value of four weekly contributions under the National Insurance Act; and to call attention to certain correspondence with the National Health Insurance Commission (England).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, at the request of the Department concerned, I propose to postpone this Question until Monday, but I think I have reason to complain in connection with this matter. This Question has been on the Paper a good many weeks, and I should have thought that the answer might have been forthcoming by now. But on coming down to the House to-day I received a communication asking me to postpone it. Whilst, of course, complying with the request, I venture to say that the course adopted is a very inconvenient one.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.