THE BETTING QUESTION IN ENGLAND.

Otago Witness, Issue 2509, 16 April 1902, Page 46

THE BETTING QUESTION IN ENGLAND.

The latest English files to hand give further particular? of the cMcleuce which is being collected by the Select Committee of the House of Lords which was establi°hed to inquire into the gambling evil as it exists at present in Kngland. Amongst those who have been giving evidence before the committee aro the Right Hon. James- Lowthor, M.P. ; Mr H. Batty Smith, a managing director of tlio London Sportsman ; Colonel Teunet Walker, a large employer r>f labour m Lee-k : Mr J. C. Lamb. second secretary to ihe London Post Office: Mr Robert Hunter, solicitor to the Post Office ; Mr W. li. Woodgate, barrister and sporting writer ; Mr Chisholm, the Lord Piovost of GUs^ow : the chief constable of Glasgow, and other-. The Lord Provost of Glasgow stated in his evidence that betting had increased to an alarming extent during the past six or seven years in Glasgow, and to cope with the evil he proposed very drastic measure.*, such at increasing the fine for street betting froia £5 to £100, and imprisonment without fine. He fuither suggested that al! money found on a man convicted of betting in the streets should be confiscated, even if he wero a bank clerk, and the money in hi» possession might belong to the customers of the bank employing the clerk. The Lord Probst also said it would not matter if a bookmaker was unable to pay his clients because his money had been confiscated. He did not believe in licensing bookmakers, and Mr King, senior magistrate of Glasgow, gave evidence in the same strain. Colonel Teunet Walker said that he employed ato':t 1000 men in his engineering works at Leeds, aud that he would not object to any of his men attending: a race meeting and backing his fancy. What he thought necessary to put down was street betting. He considered that a workman who bets is not as much use to his employer as the workman who doeo not bet, as the former is continually thinking about racing find his mind is distracted from his work. The Hon J. Lowther's (M.P.) opinions of betting were that "leviathan" betting amongst the upper < last-es ua- not nearly so much indiilgpd in a-, was the case 20 years agu. The Jockey Club had. ho said, taken strong measures to ensure the elenu nation of the undesirable elements from betting as carried on at Newmarket Heatii. in hi-* opinion tl.p number of petrous who bet is distinctly larger than it was vi pa>t times-. He believed m having profe-~.io.ial .inoe-inaker-v properly tupervised, but thought tlnit there would be difficulty in the wav of the .State licensing bookmakers. A e kctl whether he had any >ugge^tio:i^ o in: !•" in the way of rpprPssne legislation on the subject of botl'iitf. witncsh '■aid the ••roinot<;i> of bill-- had ,ilway«. f:iilc<l to ir.-t'i'-e the L>.'*at ioiie (.f publii rpr..>.>'. ii^Jn.-t them, not only in tho racing world but among people who had general ideas on sport, and who had banded them-elves t<>gethiM for the purpose of resisting any attempt to interfere with what they regarded hf a perfectly legitimate amusement. Mr W. B. Woodgate stated that he was in fa vonr of licensing bookmakers by the State, because it was necei-sary to have the penalty for infringing the rule as to licenun^ sufficiently Ftringent to act as a deterrent. By licensing bookmakers he would not give them any privilege they did not now noi!SC-->5, ord if a man were found offering to lay odds or to make a book in a public place, and had not a license from Scotland Yard and a badge, he should be subject to a minimum penalty of a fine of £500, and as a maximum penalty a Kentem-e of fix months' bard labour. This would practically have the effect of restricting bookmaking to the bij? men who bot in the largei rings and the pinallei ami no le"* reaper table men who bet in the small nngb. and would at the tame tune make the game of wels-hmg and f-treet betting not worth the candle Mr H Batty Smith taul licensing of book makers was a very desirable, thing, but it would be open to the objection that it would be l"<?ihlatinK rather in favour of the big bookmaker!:, while f-maller bookmakers, though quite as honest, would very hkelv have to go to the wall. Moreover, it would ha\e the appearance of clasb legislation, in that the poorer elates would find themselves interfered with, whilst the richer folk went on as before. Those persons who talk of the rum and desolation that are brought about by e\ee?si\p gambling should place in the balaiHP a due (onudoiation of the p-at industry that rat ing lias now become, and remember that many thousand* of haidwoiking. tV,eiMnjj people g<H their living out of the "-uoit in variou* capacities. Sup piesMon of rating would moan rum to all thc.-e familn - ; in fact, -u» h a plac e ,i f Newmarket would < ea<-e to ex'st- — a whole town, to all intent-, and puipo-e-, wiped out of evi-tem c. Dealing with the <jue«ti<m of >-t<ikcho]dmg and matches for money in on liodion with ath'etir contests, ->u< h at- box nitf. rowing, and billiards, witne»» c\pre B ied the \H-tt that the law a- at pre-ct '.. d down, favoured di«honcny and led to what aro known a=- v\ in tie or wrangle* matche-, ni which a dishonest lo»or --imply did not pay Ins lo'sc- Legislation on thn whole cpietion of gaming might be generally to fa\our the logue and the sharp. Referring to a distinction which he had drawn between (he sporting <-i<le of racing and the gambling aspect, he could not >-ua!?cf-t any moan? by which the gambling e\il <ould be reduced and the purely =portmg element encouraged , ■R.unau nature beiryj what it ii, 1 do not ,

see how it could be done. If people wisb' | to gamble there are always others who ara ' willing to pander to their taste. You may stop betting on horse racing by stopping; racing, but people would then bet about something else. I At another sitting the Duke of Devon.* shire was invited by the chairman to give 1 his views on the matters into which the committee were inquiring. He said that he had been more or less engaged in racing for a considerable time, and was well acquainted with the system of betting which goes on at races. His opinion, was that it was quite impossible to stop betting, and he was not in favour of tryi«g to stop it. He did not conceive that any reasonable person would wish to attempt to put a stop to that which he deems it impossible to stop. If ho were asked why he thought it was impossible to stop betting, his answer would be that, in his opinion, there was nothingwrong or immoral in one man making a wager with another as to the merits of their respective horse?. It seemed to him quit* impossible to attempt to impose penalties for an act which is not in itself either wrcug; or immoral, and which at tho same- time dees not. at all events directly, injure anyone else. If you cannot make penal the making of a wager with a personal friend, he could not see how it could possibly lie made penal to do the same thing with aprofessional bookmaker. Ihe police may have detected and possibly prosecuted individuals who were detected recording betF, but as far as he was aware that did not in. the least stop betting. If it were- possible to stop betting on racecourses, he should not be in favour of doing iso, as such a step wculd seriously injure or put a stop tt» racing altogether. If betting were stopped, it was possible that a few horses would still be bred and trained to compete for the Derby and jther great prizes of the turf, but there would be no inducement to race for small handicaps. He would very much regret anything which would either put a atop to or seriously injure racing — in the fi:?t place, because he regarded the breeding and training of racehorses as a great national industry, and ono which is of great importance, a-, tending to improve the breed of horses ki our country, and, further, because he bche\ed that, though it may b* attended by considerable evils, racing does provide a very large amount oi amusement to a \ cry great number of people, and ho s-hould very mud' regret anything which would materially interfere with that which is a perfectly legitimate source of nmiuen:ent to a very large section of the public. Others well known in the ra^cini? world who gaie evidence were Mr John Corlett, Mr John Porter, aud Mr Pitman, a racing coi respondent, who advocated the adoption of the pari-mutue! syetem of betting aud universal gate meetings as tho best means of keeping the scum of the population away from the turf. Mr Porter considered S.P. bottiiiK as a. great c\ il, and Mr Corlett cle-f-cribeil bookmakers as bnuig fc ui honest, conciientioiiß, and murh-niajigued class of men, and advocated their being licensed.