BETTING AND WAGERING

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1536, 7 August 1901, Page 63

BETTING AND WAGERING

THE BISHOP OF HEREFORD'S BILL.

DEBATE IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.

In view of a recent debate on the totalisator in the House of Representatives the following report from an English paper of May 21st is interestingly apposite : In the House of Lords last evening the Bishop of Hereford moved that a Special Committee be appointed to inquire into the increase of public betting among all classes, and whether any legislative measures were possible and expedient for checking the abuses occasioned thereby. The Bishop said that since he placed his motion upon the paper. he had been informed by a very high authority it was not quite correctly worded ; in so far as he had stated that, there ‘was an increase cf betfcing among all classes. He was told that, as a matter of fact, there was a decided decrease of betting among the class to which their Lordships belonged. (Laughter.) He was very thankful to hear that that was so, because it made the House a stronger body for taking up and dealing with this question. He had ventured to plac e the motion on the paper instead of the Bill he introduced a short time ago, because he had deferred to the judgment of the right rev. prelates around him and their friends, first, because in any case there was little hop© of passing such a Bill during the present session; and in the next place because he had thereby secured their suppqrt for this motion. Still, he had to confess to a lingering hope that it would not be long before such a Bill as the one he had introduced was brought before the House for its consideration. It. was, in his opinion, quit e time that they began tp do something with regard to this question. He might say he had received something in the nature of a threatening letter from gentleman, who pointed out that sporting gentlemen” were, as a I ole, very good Conservatives and loyal supporters of the Established Church; and then he added very emphatically ** at present.” (Laughter.) But the writer went on to say that if th© Bishops wer© so misguided as to make an attack upon the betting trade they might endanger the establishment of the Church, and he went on to ask why th e Bishops should not leav e the betting question to the Nonconformist Conscience. In his (the Bishop’s) opinion, the House would do a great service if it took tip this matter seriously. He was

prepared to take his stand upon the report of the 1884 Parliamentary Committee who inquired into the question. Th© law of a popular Government was, he considered, the natural expression of the people’s own opinions; so that if the House gav e careful consideration to the matter,, and proposed suitable legislation, they would simply be speaking the voice of the great mass of the people. The rights reverend prelat e went on to quote the opinions of his Majesty’s judgges upon the evils of betting, and also the ©pinion of a working engineer, who said that bookmakers waited outside the works, and even had agents inside for the purpose of collecting the stakes of th© workers, who often mortgaged their wages in order to carry on their passion for betting. In proportion as the peopl© had a stronger voic e in the government of the country, it would be possible for a strong Government to take some further steps than a Government less popular, in the direction of social legislation. He ventured 'to think that if the H.ous e gave careful consideration to the question, and prepared som e reasonable legislation it would be simply speaking with the voice of the great of the people. Wbat he desired to see changed was the noxious trade which had gathered around English sport. The Earl of Aberdeen said h e did not gather that there was any very great eagerness on the part of their Lordshios to take part in the discussion on the subject. It was certainly a rather delicate question, as the people might resent anything in the nature of an inquisitorial interference with their habits, but in his opinion a great deal in the way of remedying th e e vil might he done short of actual suppression. An inquiry, howmight be useful in gauging public opinion upon the question. The Bishop of London, in a maiden speech, said that living as he had done for a great many years in the east end of London he had had the evils of betting and gambling brought forward forcibly before his notice. He had watched for an hour , and a half a man who took up his position at a street corner for the purpose of receiving bets. He bad that man arrested and fined, but the bookmaker laughed at the penalty of £5 which was inflicted, and within twenty-four hours he was at another street corner, pursuing his avocation as before. An "inquiry might do good in bringing public opinion to bear upon those whose duty it was to enforce the law. The law, as it seemed to him, was weak ’u three respects. In the first place, it did not touch the selling of tips ; secondly, the fines imposed were not sufficiently deterrent; and in hb e last place one person belting with a bookmaker should constitute an offence.

The Archbishop of Canterburv said it had been commonlv remarked that betting and gambling had gone on always ; and that the vice could not be stopped, being rooted in human nature. ~ But whether that, was so or not, thev- were confronted with the fact that this vice was increasing, and an inquirv would be useful in seeing whether steps could not be taken to prevent that increase. The Marquis of Salisbury said that however much their svmpathies and their feelings were with the views of the right rev. prelate, he hesitated to follow with any great confidence the suggestions which had been made. He did not suppose any of them would differ in admitting the growth of betting, and, worst of all, that it was growing among the working classes and young people who were not strong enough to resist the temptations. Whether betting was actually increasing now or not he did not know. If the right rev, prelate would inquire into the • matter he thought he find the evil was very old indeed. But he could not admit, the argument that because an evil was a great one, therefore they ought to try and do. something, though they knew they could not succeed. It seemed to him that the weakness of this policy was that, as the matter stood now. they would not succeed; and if they did not succeed, such remedies as were proposed would produce grave injustice and great social conflict, and would only bring the evil more before the world, and give encouragement for the imitation of it to those who did not practise it at present. He wished to know precisely what evils it was intended to strike against, and the remedies it was intended to apply. He was much struck by an observation of the right rev prelate when ' h© told them that one of the horrors of betting was that even nursery maids put a shilling on each succeeding race, and consequently the phrases and ories of the bettimr ring were inculcated to the children they brought up. But was that a kind of public betting which they could stop? If they wer© to pass some legislation of that kind, every time a servant was dismissed he or sh e might bring their master or mistress. before the Magistrate ©n the allegation that they had been guilty of the crime of betting, and such allegation might be very difficult to disprove. If they were going to follow up this kind of legislation with a sort of control or supervision it would very seriously affect the comfort and hap, piness of many members of society. Did they seriously imagine _ that any machinery they could contrive would put a stop to all the many forms of betting; and if they did not stop them, great facilities would he afforded for annoyance and conspiracy. He felt the difficulty was o» te which would not diminish the more they looked into the question. Nothing they could do would, for instance, stop the publication by newspapers, as a matter of public interest.

of the state of odds in respect of a popular race. His sympathies were so entirely with those who had brought forward this subject that he did not. like to go far into the arguments which might be urged upon the other side; but be did consider they were undertaking a business of enormous magnitude if they were going against the feelings and de_ sires of a> vast mass of people to whom—such was our political constitution—they had in other matters to defer. He doubted very much whether the result

would be satisfactory to th© minds of those who undertook it. If the motion was passed he would not resist it, but he would leave the responsibility entirely with the right rev. prelate and his friends. Speaking on behalf of the Government, he could not accept any responsibility for this inquiry, or give any pledge for putting upon the statute book any enactments which might be recommended.

The motion was agreed to without a division.