BETTING INDUCEMENTS

Otautau Standard and Wallace County Chronicle, Volume IX, Issue 428, 22 July 1913, Page 7

BETTING INDUCEMENTS

♦ BILL THROUGH THE LORDS. In committee of the House of Lords on th© Betting Inducements Bill, the Earl of Derby moved to introduce th© following amendment into clause 2: — "Advertisement, m relating to -a betting business, shall mean any anno lincement which contains any statement relating to or descriptive of that biisincss other than th© nam© and address of th© person who is carrying on th© business, but shall not include any . announcement which is sent to any person at his own request." H© should, he said, like to know what effect this Bill would have on the dady Pjess who had articles on betting winding up with tips. Would those articles come under the scope of the Bill? He was heartily m accord with th© Bill, •60 far ac tipsters were concerned. The more tipsters were suppressed the better he would be pleased. Ihe principal newspapers had already agreed to exclude these tipsters' advertisements. His amendment only applied to bookmakers' advertisements, and th© object was to get them to advertise their names. The Jockey Club did not tak© any /cognisance of betting, but TattersaU's did. The latter body made it their business to inquire into any case where th© integrity or solvency of 'a bookmaker was concerned. Betting was not a crime. Thei-© was no law against it. it was difficult to differentiate between betting and speculaing m shares. If the Bill passed as it stood, they would penalise the sporting Press to such an extent that it was doubtful if some of th© papers could survive. That would be a heavy blow to the purity of spoa*£. It could only accentuate the evils they desired .to cure. Th© small bookmakers would be left, over whom there would be no control, and this would result m more swindling and welshing. H© mentioned that Lord Durham supported his amendment. He was prepared to strike out* the last words — "shall not include any announcement which is sent to any persrfi at his own request." Lord. Newton opposed the amendment. The object of the Bill was not to distinguish between honest and. dishonest bookmakers or welshers. Its object was to make _ betting more difficult. The vast majority of tn© daily newspapers were m favor of th© Bill. He asked the House not to emasculate the Bill further, as it had already been reduced to small proportions. FOOTBALL COUPONS. The Bishop of Wakefield, said th© Archbishop of Canterbury, who was unable.tobe present, took a great interest m this Bill, and he was hostile to this amendment. This Bill was not a harsh, tyrannical interference with sport. It was solely directed against excessive inducements to cetting. It was directed against a class which had. grown up like parasites round every kind of sport. Noble Lords had to recollect that betting did not present the fame temptation to them as to members of the working classes and to young people. Personally, he would like to see the Bill extended so as to check coupon betting m connection with football. Lord Strachie said th© view of the Horn© Office was that the amendment would serve •■■ no useful purpose. The Marquis of Salisbury had some doubt as to the efficacy ttf this legislation. People who wanted to bet would bet, but he had been profoundly impressed with the evil of betting. It* was, he believed, a more formidable evil even, than intemperance. Tli© Lord Privy Seal (Marquis of Crewe) opposed the amendment. As far as ordinary bookmakers were concerned, he did not believe the amendment would, make any serious difficulty, but he' did not consider the amendment was necessary. The Bishop of London said if tliie amendment were carried th© objectionable advertisements would still remain m the newspapers. The committee divided : For the amendment, 12 ; against, 43. Majority against, 31. \ Th© Bill passed through committee, aiwjl the Standing Orders being suspended, it wns read a third time and pas9«l.