THE HOUSE OF LORDS BETTING COMMITTEE.

Otago Witness, Issue 2528, 27 August 1902, Page 46

THE HOUSE OF LORDS BETTING COMMITTEE.

! By the latest English mail to hand cornea tho report of the Select Committee appointed by the- House of Lords to inquire into the increase of pnh-lic betting-, and wither any legislative measures are possible and cxp*rK -i- e for e'leekinir tlie "abuses •n<-cj»3ione;T thereby. Tho committee appointed consigtvd of the Bisho»> of Hereford, Vir^ituife Cobham, the Karl of Aberdeen, Viscount' Peel, Lord. Davey, the Earl of Derby, the Earl of Ha'rewood, the Earl cf Durham, ar.d Lord Newton. The- Bishop of Hereford was a representative of those who would not tolerate batting in any form, Lord Derby and Lord Harewood are two gp-ntlemen who have a thorough knowledge of racing, Lord Davey represented the law, and Lords Cobban), Peel, and Newton are allowed to be men who would not take a narrow or one-sided view of anything. Tl.e committee heard evidence' from, all sorts and conditions of men on the gambling- question, and thoir first finding was that they were agreed ttfiat betting* wa» generally prevalent in the United" Kingdom, and that the practice" of betting has largely increased' of late years, especially amongst the working clause*. But,, on tho other hand, the habit of making large bets, which used to be the fashion amongst owners and breeders of hordes, has- greatly diminished. The committee did not look upon betting as a crime in itself, but deplored the spread of a practice which, when carried to excess, they considered to be opposed to the true interest* of sport. It may be ta.'<en for grauted ; the honourablo gentlemen who composed j the- committee did not give- their verdict hastily or without mature consideration. In fact, the time spent in collecting and* weighing the evidence extended to- close on six month*. In their report*, the committee stated^ they were- convinced that it was im* poasinle- altogetHer to suppress betting; but they belierred ths« the-- best method of reducing the practice w.aa to localise it as far as* possible on racecourses*. * There were four different** means -juggeßtesd' tfoat" would be capable- of ©ffeetihg- tttia o-bj-pctr 1. The liootreing of bookmakers.

2. The establishment of the. system of betting, known as the parirmutuel, or totalizator.

3. More effectual methods for stopping betting in the ncreets.

4. To make it illegal, for a- bookmaker to bet in &M jjUttt: 0/ Jiubiwj k9&HJU, ttXS&ttt §£

the place on which the sport is- being carried on, and there only in an enclosed space under the control of managers, who should b» held directly responsible for the inaintainance of order.

The plan of licensing bookmakers was not approved 1 of, because the number of bookruukers was 1 sg great that the committee considered it impossible for the Jockey Club to undertake the duty of licensing, and if the work were undertaken, by the State, it would mean the legal recognition of the Bookmaker and necessitate the making of betting debts recoverable by luw. The committee could not recommend the adoption of the- totalisator, on the ground that it encourages gambling, and the adoption of die system would by its encouragement of the gambling instinct, far outweigh any gain that might accrue. With the object of suppressing street betting, the committee recommended that bookmakers convicted of betting in tho afreets be liable to' a fine of £10 for the first offence, £20 for. the second, and that for any subsequent offence: it should 'be willun the discretion of the magistrate either to impose a fine of not more than £50 or to sendr Bthe bookmaker to prison without the option of a fine. In. another part of the report tho committee stated that they were not prepared to recommend the prohibition of start-ing-price betting: *»

The gist of the- committee's report is that prohibition, is not the. remedy' for tha gambling evil, and while i^ was- open to the- coins mittee- to suggest; trim betting in every shape should .be- declared itfogai, they did ::ot propo»e mat betting should be made it .ux.v.ev nor would they- sanction, any method oil legalising, or attempt in any practical spanner t<r regulate ifc" 'llioso who were in favour of legalising^ bettingr were Lord" fierby , Eard> Hovewoed-, the Earl 1 o£ DurttanvjwiTl Lord Newton, and the opposite party consisted of the Bishop of Hereford, Viscount Cobham, the Earl of Aberdeen, Viscount Peel; and Lord Davey. The question that arises is, I£ an. admitted evil exists, is it better to have it under strict control by means of laws, or is it more desirable that the evil should bo allowed to flourish in every hole and corner by shutting one's eyes to its existence? Legislation: would bring it into the light- of day, and perhaps admit of its being properly controlled 1 . It is wisely admitted that tho evil cannot be entirely suppressed, and what good did connivance ever do towards the suppression or control of anything? Mankind will probably gamble whilst thero is anything to gamble about, and there appears to be only one thing to do, and that is to wait until the march of education and its consequent enlightenment clearly show the dangers of excess in anything, and. then we may expect to see the attendant evils of gambling diminished, a* has proved to be- the case with many other and worse evils.