“I hold, then, that betting is itself more or less wrong and immoral. But I hold, too, that betting, in three cases out of four, is altogether foolish; so foolish that I cannot understand why the very young men who are fondest of it should be the very men who are proudest of being considered shrewd, knowing men of the world, and what not.“They stake their money on this horse and on that. Now, judging of a horse’s capabilities is an art, and a very delicate and difficult art, depending first on natural talent, and next on experience, such as not one man in a thousand has. But how many betting young men know anything about a horse, save that he has four legs? How many of them know at sight whether a horse is sound or not? whether he can stay or not? whether he is going in good form or not? whether he is doing his best or not? Probably five out of six of them could not sit on a race-horse without falling off; and then such a youth pretends to himself that he is a judge of the capabilities of a noble brute, who is a much better judge of the young gentleman’s capabilities, and would prove himself so within five minutes after he had got into the saddle.“‘But they know what the horse has done already.’ Yes; but not what the horse might have done. They do not know—no one can, who is not in the secrets of the Turf—what the horse’s engagements really are; whether he has not been kept back in view of those engagements; whether he will not be kept back again; whether he hasnot been used to make play for another horse; and—in one word—whether he ismeantto win.“‘Ah, but the young gentleman has sent his money on commission to a prophet in the newspaper, in whom he has the highest confidence; he has prophesied the winner two or three times at least; and a friend of his sent him money to lay on, and got back ever so much; and he has a wonderful Greek name, Lynceus, or Polyphemus, or Typhlops, or something, and so he must know.’“Ah! fool, fool! You know how often the great Polyphemus prophesied the winner, but you do not know how often he did not. Hits count of course; but misses are hushed up. And as for your friend getting money back, if Polyphemus let no one win, his trade would stop. The question is, not whether one foolish lad hadwonby him, but whether five-and-twenty foolish lads did notloseby him. He has his book to make, as well as you, and he wants your money to pay his own debts with if he loses. He has his bread to earn, and he wants your money to earn it with; and as for sending him money, you may as well throw a sovereign down a coal-pit and expect it to come up again with a ton of coals on its back.”
“I hold, then, that betting is itself more or less wrong and immoral. But I hold, too, that betting, in three cases out of four, is altogether foolish; so foolish that I cannot understand why the very young men who are fondest of it should be the very men who are proudest of being considered shrewd, knowing men of the world, and what not.
“They stake their money on this horse and on that. Now, judging of a horse’s capabilities is an art, and a very delicate and difficult art, depending first on natural talent, and next on experience, such as not one man in a thousand has. But how many betting young men know anything about a horse, save that he has four legs? How many of them know at sight whether a horse is sound or not? whether he can stay or not? whether he is going in good form or not? whether he is doing his best or not? Probably five out of six of them could not sit on a race-horse without falling off; and then such a youth pretends to himself that he is a judge of the capabilities of a noble brute, who is a much better judge of the young gentleman’s capabilities, and would prove himself so within five minutes after he had got into the saddle.
“‘But they know what the horse has done already.’ Yes; but not what the horse might have done. They do not know—no one can, who is not in the secrets of the Turf—what the horse’s engagements really are; whether he has not been kept back in view of those engagements; whether he will not be kept back again; whether he hasnot been used to make play for another horse; and—in one word—whether he ismeantto win.
“‘Ah, but the young gentleman has sent his money on commission to a prophet in the newspaper, in whom he has the highest confidence; he has prophesied the winner two or three times at least; and a friend of his sent him money to lay on, and got back ever so much; and he has a wonderful Greek name, Lynceus, or Polyphemus, or Typhlops, or something, and so he must know.’
“Ah! fool, fool! You know how often the great Polyphemus prophesied the winner, but you do not know how often he did not. Hits count of course; but misses are hushed up. And as for your friend getting money back, if Polyphemus let no one win, his trade would stop. The question is, not whether one foolish lad hadwonby him, but whether five-and-twenty foolish lads did notloseby him. He has his book to make, as well as you, and he wants your money to pay his own debts with if he loses. He has his bread to earn, and he wants your money to earn it with; and as for sending him money, you may as well throw a sovereign down a coal-pit and expect it to come up again with a ton of coals on its back.”
A simple and effective way of exposing the folly of betting on horses is to take some leading sporting papers for a week and to put an imaginary pound upon each of the selected winners, and then count the losses and gains at the end of a week. The result of such an operation was sent to theDaily Newssome time ago, and is given below.
The predicted winners were by “Augur” of theSporting Lifeand “Vigilant” of theSportsman, who are recognised authorities in racing circles. An imaginary pound was put on each race. In thecase where two selections were made, 10s. was put on each.
Summary of Week
It is indeed astonishing how far men will go on the chance of a run of luck when the probabilities are that they will lose. At Monte Carlo there are eight gambling-tables, each of which averages a profit of £500 daily from the public, yet players are always to be found.
Whilst the direct combating of gambling practices is important, it must never be forgotten that betting and gambling are symptoms of a social disease, and to get rid of the symptoms the disease itself must be attacked. In this connection anything done on right lines to make life less monotonous for the working classes, to improve the conditions of employment, and to secure adequate wages will tend to diminish the evil in question.
Take themonotony of life, whether amongst rich or poor. In so far as betting and gambling are indulged in because of this, the efforts of the reformer must be directed towards its removal. Perhaps the most desirable way of accomplishing it is to get men interested in some great religious, political, or social movement. Life ceases to be aimless even for the wealthy man as soon as he begins to work in a great cause. We have, fortunately, manyinstances of those whose every material want is ready to their hands without any personal effort, and yet whose lives are in the highest degree useful to the community owing to their efforts in various social or political movements. People such as these have probably no temptation to bet, their time and attention being occupied with that which is vastly more interesting and satisfies more completely the craving for fulness of life. The same thing applies to the workman who seeks to break the monotony of his life by betting. Once get that man really interested in political, social, or religious work, and it will usually be found that the desire to bet will go, because, as in the ease of his wealthier brother, his mind is filled with things which interest him more. Social workers have no time to bet. And as almost all social movements are suffering for want of workers, we shall be doing a double good if, while meeting this want, we can at the same time be helping some one to overcome a great temptation. It is not possible, of course, to interest every one in movements such as those indicated, but this is only the stronger reason for endeavouring to get the life of the community so organised that every one has the opportunity placed within his reach of introducing into his life interests suited to his tastes. If this, however, is to be done, much more attention must be given to the matter than has been the case hitherto. Consider, for example, the lamentable absence of counter-attractions to those offered by the publicans. Temperance reformers are now realising that no scheme of reform is likely to bepermanently successful which will not provide such counter-attractions upon a scale far beyond anything existing at present. Much the same conditions attach to the repression of gambling. What is bad needs replacing by what is innocent. Fortunately, the solutions of the two questions are complementary, and counter-attractions provided against either temptation will be equally helpful against the other. The lectures and religious meetings constantly held in our towns appeal, unfortunately, to but a small section of the community. We want more social clubs; we want free concerts, elevating although popular in character; we want places where young men and women can meet socially, apart from the public-houses, and yet where they have full liberty to enjoy themselves without licence. We want, indeed, in every town people’s palaces, where people can be thoroughly at home, and where they can spend a social evening pleasantly and rationally.[13]
On similar lines the provision of an adequate number of allotments in the neighbourhood of towns would undoubtedly do much towards reducing the betting evil. Experience shows that the proportion of working men who would find in gardening an absorbing interest is very considerable, yet in most towns the supply of allotments is entirely inadequate. Considered either as counter-attractions to the public-house and the bookmaker, or as a benefit to the cultivators in point both of profit and of health, there is no doubt that it would amply repay municipalities to provide allotments far more liberally than is done at present.
It is clear, then, that the provision of better housing for the working classes would tend to decrease the betting evil. Men who have a house of which they are proud and a garden to cultivate, in which they may keep poultry, rabbits, or pigeons, are much less likely to indulge in betting than the inhabitants of an overcrowded town district, with small means of spending their leisure. Nor will villages produced by the decentralising of the towns suffer from the monotony of life that at present afflicts many agricultural districts. Rapid transit will enable them to share in the interests of the life of the adjacent towns.
The connection between the housing problem and the betting evil well illustrates our position that betting is, to a large extent, a symptom of a social disease, and that if we would be successful in eradicating the symptom, we must seek to remedythe disease. The provision of a more adequate education for the children of the poor would tend in this direction. By teaching the children to read we make it easy for them to follow the betting news in the newspapers and to keep their betting-books, yet we take them from school before the thirst for knowledge has really been awakened. Better education is especially needed in the case of girls, who will be the mothers of the future. If their mental horizon is limited, they cannot awaken in their children interest in those various branches of knowledge which provide, in the case of those who are better educated, the mental landscape which enriches their lives. All such movements, therefore, as the Home Reading Union, or anything which tends to the better education of the people, will tend at the same time to decrease the monotony of life, and lessen the temptation to resort to demoralising excitements.
There can be little doubt also that much of the monotony of life on which we have been dwelling is due to the low wages paid to unskilled labourers. The writer is convinced that upon the average the wages paid in towns to such are insufficient for the maintenance of a man and a moderate family in a state of merely physical efficiency, to say nothing of any margin for developing the higher sides of their natures. It would be out of place here to enter into detail on the subject of wages, but the question has so vital a bearing upon the betting evil that it cannot be altogether omitted. The nation should not be satisfied until the wagesof unskilled labour are such as will provide the necessaries of physical efficiency for a family of moderate size, and, in addition, sufficient margin to enable the members of a labourer’s family to provide what is required for the development of the higher sides of their natures. At the present time, as stated above, the average wages paid to unskilled labourers in towns are insufficient for this purpose. So long as this continues we cannot be surprised if large numbers of working men live with the better sides of their natures undeveloped, and thus fall an easy prey to the publican and bookmaker.
Increased wages, however, as we well know, will not by themselves achieve the desired results. They must be accompanied by influences which will help men to spend them wisely. In this connection it would be difficult to lay too much stress on the responsibility which rests upon all employers of labour to see that the tone in their shops, factories, or offices is a good one. We scarcely realise how great is the power for good possessed in this respect by an employer. We know that, when the selection has to be made of a school for a child, the consideration of the tone in the school is, in the case of all careful parents, regarded as paramount, and no careful parent will knowingly send a child to a school in which the tone is known to be bad. The tone in factories and shops is an equally important factor in moulding the characters of those employed in them. Probably much more beneficial influence upon thecharacter of the working classes may be exercised through the medium of their places of employment than is at present exercised through the churches. How few working people attend church or chapel for even one hour in a week, yet perhaps for fifty hours every week they are under such influences as are exerted in their factories or workshops. If those influences are thoroughly good: if in the appointment of overlookers not only proficiency in work or power of control is considered, but also the moral influence which they will exert upon those working under them; if only such foremen are appointed as will encourage all that tends to elevate the employees, and discourage drinking, gambling, and all that tends to degrade, the good that may be done is incalculable. To the present writer it appears that there is no way of producing among the working classes a sound public opinion on such a question as the one we are considering, more immediately effective than through the appointment of men of high character to positions of responsibility in factories, offices, and shops. If any of us who are seeking to combat the gambling evil could impress this single fact upon one large employer of labour, we should probably be sowing seeds from which we might expect to reap a very abundant harvest.
Whilst the influence of the employer and of his foremen is of widest importance, we should not underestimate that of even one ordinary workman, inasmuch as those who work alongside him are likely to be even more influenced by his actionsand opinions than by those of men in higher position.
In conclusion, the writer may state his belief that the solution of the gambling evil, as of many other social evils, will never be permanently effected without a great deepening of the moral and spiritual life of the nation. Our churches do well to bear in mind that they are not ends, but merely means to an end. Nay, that religion itself exists for the production of men and women of high moral character, strong to resist temptation, strong in their desire after the Kingdom of God and His righteousness. We want, in our churches, to develop persons with a vigorous faith, who fully realise the social as well as the spiritual character of this Kingdom. To this end let us keep the spiritual flame burning. For a vital, religious faith—the faith that worketh by love—is at the root of all true and permanent social reform.
The Select Committee appointed to inquire into the increase of public betting amongst all classes, and whether any legislative measures were possible and expedient for checking the abuses occasioned thereby, reported as follows in June 1902:—
1. After hearing much evidence, the Committee are of opinion that betting is generally prevalent in the United Kingdom, and that the practice of betting has increased considerably of late years especially amongst the working classes, whilst, on the other hand, the habit of making large bets, which used at one time to be the fashion amongst owners and breeders of horses, has greatly diminished. Betting is not confined to horse-racing, but is also prevalent at athletic meetings and football matches.
2. Various suggestions have been made to the Committee in explanation of the alleged spread of betting. It has been urged that the increase in the practice is only proportional to the growth and increased prosperity of the industrial population of the country, and that the operation of the Betting Houses Act, by driving bookmakers into the streets, has brought their business more to the notice of Magistrates.
3. The Committee are, however, of the opinion that even when due allowance has been made, both for theincrease in the population of towns, and the rise in wages, betting is undoubtedly more widespread and general than it used to be.
4. Although the Committee do not look upon betting as a crime in itself, they yet deplore the spread of a practice which, when carried to excess, they consider opposed to the true interests of sport, injurious to the general community, and apt to degenerate into one of the worst and most mischievous forms of gambling.
5. The Committee consider that the increased prevalence of betting throughout the country is largely due to the great facilities afforded by the press, and to the inducements to bet offered by means of bookmakers’ circulars and tipsters’ advertisements.
6. In support of this opinion, the Committee point to the great increase of newspapers devoted entirely to sporting matters, and to the publication of articles upon racing news, and of sporting tips or prophecies.
7. There can be little doubt that the almost universal practice of publishing in newspapers what are known as “starting-price odds” greatly facilitates betting upon horse-races, and several witnesses have urged that the practice should be forbidden by law. Others, however, have expressed their conviction that the chief results of such prohibition would be to facilitate and encourage dishonesty among bookmakers.
8. The Committee, having given careful attention to both of these divergent views, are not prepared to recommend the prohibition.
9. The Committee cannot condemn too strongly the advertisements of sporting tipsters and others which appear in the columns of many newspapers. The Committee believe that such advertisements are a direct inducement to bet, and that much of the news which they profess to give could only have been obtained by inciting persons employed in racing stablesto divulge secrets. The Committee are therefore of the opinion that all such advertisements are highly objectionable.
10. The Committee would point out that in France advertisements of this character are forbidden by law, and several witnesses have urged that repressive legislation on the same lines should be introduced into this country. The Committee are of opinion that all such advertisements, as also betting circulars and notices, should be made illegal.
11. The Committee are convinced that it is impossible altogether to suppress betting, but they believe that the best method of reducing the practice is to localise it as far as possible on race-courses and other places where sport is carried on.
12. Four different means have been suggested of effecting this object:—
(1) The licensing of bookmakers.(2) The establishment of the system of betting known as the “Pari Mutuel” or “Totalisator.”(3) More effectual methods for stopping betting in the streets.(4) To make it illegal for a bookmaker to bet in any place of public resort except at the place on which the sport is being carried on, and there only in an enclosed space under the control of managers who should be held strictly responsible for the maintenance of order.
(1) The licensing of bookmakers.
(2) The establishment of the system of betting known as the “Pari Mutuel” or “Totalisator.”
(3) More effectual methods for stopping betting in the streets.
(4) To make it illegal for a bookmaker to bet in any place of public resort except at the place on which the sport is being carried on, and there only in an enclosed space under the control of managers who should be held strictly responsible for the maintenance of order.
13. The plan of giving licences to bookmakers has been adopted in some of the Australian Colonies, and, if it were introduced into this country, it might possibly diminish street betting, and also do much to check fraud and dishonesty both on the part of the bookmaker and of the backer.
14. But the establishment of such a system in thiscountry is open to serious objections. In Australia, as the number of bookmakers is comparatively few, it is possible for the racing clubs, which grant the licences, to exercise a strict supervision and control. In this country, where the number of bookmakers is so much greater, it would be practically 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 law.
15. The Committee after mature consideration do not think it would be desirable to legalise betting in this manner, and are also of the opinion that the establishment of such a system would rather increase than lessen the amount of betting prevalent at the present day.
16. The latter objection can also, of course, be brought with equal truth against the “Pari Mutuel,” as the absolute fairness of the “Totalisator” system of betting is a protection to the small bettor, who might otherwise not care to risk his money with a bookmaker.
17. In some of the Australian Colonies, in India, and in France this system has been adopted, and is said to work satisfactorily. In France the money invested annually in this way amounts to between six and seven millions sterling. Two per cent of this sum is given to public charities, and one per cent goes to the Minister of Agriculture and is devoted to the encouragement of horse-breeding and to other similar purposes. The Committee, however, fear that the evil of adopting this system would by its encouragement of the gambling instinct far outweigh any gain that might accrue, and therefore cannot recommend it.
18. It has been proved conclusively to the Committee that the practice of betting in the streets has increased very much of late years, and is the cause ofmost of the evils arising from betting among the working classes.
The fact that bookmakers can ply their trade in the open street, and lie in wait to catch working men in their dinner hour outside factories and workshops in order to induce them to bet, is undoubtedly a great source of evil.
19. Evidence has also been brought before the Committee to show that street bookmakers bet not only with men, but also with women and children.
20. At the present time such offences can only be dealt with as “obstruction” under various local Acts, or under particular bye-laws in each town, the penalty in either case and the powers of the police being inadequate to check the practice.
21. When a street bookmaker is convicted 25 times in four years and is able to pay £137:8s. in fines and costs (to take a typical example of many cases which have been brought to the notice of the Committee), it is obvious that the profits of his calling must be very great, and that the penalties provided by the law to restrain his trade are not sufficiently strong.
22. The Committee, therefore, recommend that, in view of the acknowledged evils of this form of betting, there should be further legislation, enabling Magistrates to send bookmakers to prison without the option of a fine for the first offence, who have been convicted of betting in the streets with boys or girls, or otherwise inducing them to bet.
The Committee further recommend that bookmakers convicted of betting in the streets should be liable to a fine of £10 for the first offence, £20 for the second offence, and that for any subsequent offence it should be within the discretion of the Magistrate either to impose a fine of not more than £50 or to send the bookmaker to prison without the option of a fine. The Committee also recommend that the police should begiven the same power of summary arrest which they possess in cases of obstruction of the highway.
23. The Committee recommend that the following amendments should be made in the Betting Houses Act of 1853:—
(i.) That in view of the uncertainty which has arisen since the decision of the Kempton Park case as to what constitutes a “place” within the meaning of the Act, further legislation should make it quite clear that bookmakers are prohibited from carrying on their business in public-houses or in any public place.(ii.) That the meaning of “resorting thereto,” that is, to a betting-house, in Section 1 should be extended so as to include persons making bets by correspondence or through an agent.(iii.) That, if thought necessary, having regard to recent decisions, it should be made clear that it is an offence under Section 1 for persons to use an office in the United Kingdom for obtaining the receipt of money elsewhere, whether within or without the United Kingdom, or for the proprietor of the office to permit such user.(iv.) That Section 7 should be extended so as to include the advertisement in this country of any betting-house within the meaning of the Act which is kept abroad.
(i.) That in view of the uncertainty which has arisen since the decision of the Kempton Park case as to what constitutes a “place” within the meaning of the Act, further legislation should make it quite clear that bookmakers are prohibited from carrying on their business in public-houses or in any public place.
(ii.) That the meaning of “resorting thereto,” that is, to a betting-house, in Section 1 should be extended so as to include persons making bets by correspondence or through an agent.
(iii.) That, if thought necessary, having regard to recent decisions, it should be made clear that it is an offence under Section 1 for persons to use an office in the United Kingdom for obtaining the receipt of money elsewhere, whether within or without the United Kingdom, or for the proprietor of the office to permit such user.
(iv.) That Section 7 should be extended so as to include the advertisement in this country of any betting-house within the meaning of the Act which is kept abroad.
24. The Committee further recommend that the Betting Act of 1874 should be extended to the advertising of information or advice to be obtained from any person or at any place, though it may not come within the description of a betting-house within Section 1 of the Act of 1853, and whether within or without the United Kingdom.
25. The Committee recommend that the Betting and Loans (Infants) Act 1892 (Lord Herschell’s Act) should be extended to ready-money betting with infants, that is to say, the receipt of money from an infant as consideration for a bet to be made with such infant.
26. The Committee recommend that on any race-course bookmakers should only be allowed to carry on their business within definite rings and enclosures.
27. Various witnesses have given evidence as to the prevalence of betting at athletic meetings, and to the difficulty which owners of athletic grounds have in preventing a practice which they with justice consider opposed to the best interests of amateur sport.
28. Since the decision in the Kempton Park case, it has been impossible for the police to stop bookmakers carrying on their trade at athletic meetings, except at the direct request of the proprietors of the ground.
29. The Committee, therefore, recommend that on any race-course or other ground on which a sport is being carried on, where a printed notice is publicly exposed by the responsible authorities to the effect that “No betting is allowed,” a bookmaker who continues to bet shall be liable to summary arrest and a fine.
30. It has been suggested in evidence before the Committee that powers should be given to the Postmaster-General and his principal assistants in Scotland and Ireland, to open all letters supposed to contain coupons or betting circulars sent from abroad.
In this connection the Committee have received valuable evidence from Mr. Lamb, C.B., C.M.G., and Sir Robert Hunter, on behalf of the Postmaster-General, which makes it impossible for them to recommend the proposed suggestion.
31. The Committee are, however, of the opinion that the same power as the Postmaster-General already possesses to stop letters sent in the open post relatingto lotteries should be given to him to stop circulars relating to coupon competitions, or advertisements of betting commission agents and sporting tipsters.
32. The Committee do not consider that it would be possible for the Postmaster-General to make any distinction between the facilities afforded to betting telegrams and other telegrams.
A Bill intituled “An Act to amend the Betting Acts 1853 and 1874, and for other purposes.”
Be it enacted by the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—
1. The word “resorting” in section one of the Betting Act 1853, and this Act, shall include applying by the agency of another person or by letter, telegraph, telephone, or other means of correspondence, and the word “resort” in section seven of the said Act, and in this Act, shall have the same meaning.
2. The provisions of section three of the Betting Act 1853 shall extend and apply to any person opening, keeping, or using, within the United Kingdom, any house, office, room, or place for the purpose of any money or valuable thing being received by or on behalf of the keeper of any betting-house or office situate either within or without the United Kingdom.
3. The provisions of section seven of the Betting Act 1853 shall extend and apply to any person exhibiting or publishing, or causing to be exhibited or published, any placard, handbill, card, writing, or otheradvertisement whereby it shall appear that any house, office, room, or place is opened, kept, or used either within or without the United Kingdom for the purposes in the said section mentioned or referred to, or any of them, and to any person who shall invite other persons to resort to any house, office, room, or place either within or without the United Kingdom for the purposes aforesaid or any of them: Provided that, if it appear that any such advertisement or invitation has been published in any registered newspaper inadvertently and without knowledge on the part of the proprietor or manager of the newspaper of the nature of the business advertised or the meaning of the contents of the advertisement, the penalty may be remitted by the court.
4. (1) Any person exercising the business of a bookmaker or betting agent by betting or offering to bet with other persons or inciting other persons to bet with him, or receiving money or other valuable thing as consideration for any bet, or paying or settling any bets in any street or other public place, or any place to which the public have unrestricted access, or any house licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and shall be liable, if convicted for the first offence, to a fine not exceeding ten pounds, and for the second offence to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, and for any subsequent offence, if convicted on indictment, to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding six months, without the option of a fine, and, if convicted on a summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding thirty pounds or to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding three months, without the option of a fine: Provided always, that if a person be convicted under this section of betting with any person under the age of sixteen years or receivingmoney from or paying money to any such person or inciting any such person to bet with him he shall be liable for the first and every subsequent offence to the maximum penalty or imprisonment hereinbefore imposed for the third and subsequent offences.
(2) All books, cards, papers, and other articles connected with such betting as aforesaid shall be deemed to be instruments of gaming, and any person so offending as aforesaid shall be deemed to be a rogue and vagabond within the meaning of fifth George the Fourth, chapter eighty-three, and shall be subject to be arrested and searched in accordance with the provisions in that behalf therein contained.
(3) Any person who appears to the court to be under the age of sixteen years shall for the purpose of this section be deemed to be under that age unless the contrary be proved.
(4) For the purpose of this section, the word “street” shall have the same meaning as in the Public Health Act 1875.
5. The proprietors or persons having the control of any area within which sports are carried on may exhibit at the entrance or in some conspicuous place within the same, notices that betting is prohibited within the said area or some part thereof, and, in that case, any person who shall hold himself out as ready to bet with other persons, or incite other persons to bet with him, within the area where betting is so prohibited, shall be guilty of an offence under this Act, and shall be liable to the same penalties as he would have been under this Act if he had been convicted of betting in the street.
6. Any person who knowingly receives money from an infant as consideration for a bet to be made with him shall be guilty of an offence within section one of the Betting and Loans (Infants) Act 1892, and shall be liable to the penalties imposed by that section, andthe other provisions of the said Act shall be applicable to him.
7. (1) The penalties imposed by this Act may be recovered by proceedings under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, and, in Scotland, in the manner provided by section four of the Betting Act 1874, save where otherwise provided; and, in Scotland, “indictment” has the same meaning as in the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1887.
(2) The provisions as to arrest and search contained in Statute of fifth George the Fourth, chapter eighty-three, shall, by this Act, be applied to offences under sections four and five of this Act committed in Scotland.
8. In this Act—
The word “bookmaker” means a person exercising the business of betting with persons resorting to him for the purpose:The word “betting agent” means a person acting as agent for a bookmaker or for making bets between any two persons.
The word “bookmaker” means a person exercising the business of betting with persons resorting to him for the purpose:
The word “betting agent” means a person acting as agent for a bookmaker or for making bets between any two persons.
9. This Act may be cited as the Betting Act 1903, and shall be read with the Betting Acts 1853 and 1874.
Note.—Lord Davey has just introduced another Bill entitled “An Act for the Suppression of Betting in Streets and other Public Places” (Eyre and Spottiswoode, London, ½d.). It is a very valuable measure, but has been confined for good reasons to offences coming under the title of Street Betting. In any further legislation it will be necessary to bring the advertisements of Betting Houses, the proprietors of which call themselves Commission Agents, whether British or Foreign, under such provisions as those of the Betting Act 1853 (section 7), as pointed out by the Lord Chief Justice.
Note.—Lord Davey has just introduced another Bill entitled “An Act for the Suppression of Betting in Streets and other Public Places” (Eyre and Spottiswoode, London, ½d.). It is a very valuable measure, but has been confined for good reasons to offences coming under the title of Street Betting. In any further legislation it will be necessary to bring the advertisements of Betting Houses, the proprietors of which call themselves Commission Agents, whether British or Foreign, under such provisions as those of the Betting Act 1853 (section 7), as pointed out by the Lord Chief Justice.
House of Lords Select Committee on BettingExcerpts from Evidence
Witnesses: Mr.John Hawke, Honorary Secretary, National Anti-Gambling League, and Mr.G. H. Stutfield, Counsel for the Jockey Club, and for the Bookmakers and Street Bookmakers.
Mr.Hawkegave evidence as to the great increase during late years, especially in street betting at starting prices, and newspaper coupon betting; also as to betting at athletic sports and in public-houses; as to the bye-laws being passed by local authorities on street betting, and the enormous scale upon which coupons are carried on, one proprietor of an insignificant newspaper receiving between £2000 and £3000 a week in postal orders, etc., as acknowledged by himself in evidence. After his conviction his newspaper was advertising the business as continued from Holland.
Mr.Stutfield(Q. 299) said he believed that artisans of all ages and all classes, including women, put their small coins on horses through the street bookmakers.
He did not think (Q. 300, etc.) that such backers—he could not say about the children—required protection against being over-matched by the bookmakers.
He did not see any reason in legal principle (Q. 435-36)why foreign coupon houses should be allowed to advertise in English papers, but he did not think it would do any good to prohibit it.
He agreed that all, or nearly all, such betting as street betting was now done at starting prices (Q. 308-9), guaranteed by the bookmaker to the customers by the publication in newspapers of the starting-price odds (Q. 315-16), but he did not think (Q. 266) its prohibition would stop starting-price betting, as he expected that bookmakers would form some plan to reassure their clients (Q. 269) as to their being fairly dealt with.
He considered that a result of the Kempton Park case was that it was no infringement (Q. 475-76) of the Betting Act of 1853 for bookmakers to carry on their business in athletic sports grounds, and that under that decision (Q. 573) public-houses may practically become betting exchanges, and sometimes do. The Kempton Park case did not decide that the race-course ring could not be a place under the Act, but that it was not used by a person in the position of an occupier or owner (Q. 447-53).
He did not think that new forms and new kinds of betting should be dealt with in the same way as the 1853 Act dealt with what existed at that time; and he did not advocate any extension of it (Q. 443-44), as he did not consider that it was really intended to suppress betting (Q. 443) but that it may have done a certain amount of good in preventing crowds of people resorting to a particular house and creating scandal (Q. 438).
He did not, however, consider that the betting in public houses was very desirable (Q. 517), and would amend the Licensing Act. He did not think that bye-laws could deal with licensed houses, but that they might put down betting in streets and public places (Q. 602-3).
He said that if the bookmaker were suppressed there would be no betting (Q. 535-36), as he thought occasionalprivate bets between individuals without a bookmaker could not be satisfactory (Q. 532).
With regard to thefriendlyactions in which Mr. Stutfield had been engaged as counsel on behalf of the betting men, viz. theKempton Parkcase,StoddartofSporting Luckagainst his printers, theArgus Printing Co., andThomasv.Sutters(the street bookmaker’s appeal against the bye-law), he maintained that there was nothing improper about them (Q. 411, 552, 561).
Mr.Hawkealso gave evidence as to the corruption of the public services and British sports by the professional betting system, and of its disastrous effects, especially among the wage-earning classes. Amongst the records of his Society taken from the courts of law in five and a half years were 80 suicides, 321 embezzlements, and 191 bankruptcies, the witness pointing out reasons for believing that these numbers were very much below the true totals.
Mr.Hawkesaid that his Society held the same opinion as that published by Sir Fitzjames Stephen (author of theDigest of the Criminal Law) in theNineteenth Century Magazine, July 1891, who said that the business of a betting agent was carried on in defiance of the general body of the law, and added, “The existence of such a person appears to me to be an insult to the law.” The National Anti-Gambling League made the following recommendations, based upon a study of the question lasting over eight years:—
ColonelFludyer(commanding Scots’ Guards), Chairman of Tattersall’s Committee, said that they spent a great deal of time in adjusting betting disputes. He advocated licensing bookmakers who plied their trade away from the race-course, but leaving things at races as they are.
Chief Constable of Manchestersaid that the increase in betting was chiefly among artisans and the working classes generally, resulting in neglect of wives and children, disregard for parents, becoming careless and indifferent in their occupations, and frequent embezzlements from their employers. Betting was general at athletic meetings in the Manchester district, many of them depending on it for financial success. The Kempton Park decision had prevented police action. In many instances competitors perform only to suit the books of the betting men. Street betting was the most pernicious form of the evil. Some publicans pay street bookmakers to carry on in proximity to their houses. He advocated a large fine and imprisonment for street offenders. Incitements to betting in newspapers should be restrained, and the transmission by post of betting matter should be made illegal.
SirAlbert de Rutzen, chief Metropolitan Police Magistrate, spoke with twenty-five years’ experience ofthe Bench in saying that more mischief was brought about by betting than by almost any other cause, especially street betting, which could very well be put down if proper steps were taken. He would increase the fine for a second offence, and for the third treat a bookmaker as a rogue and vagabond under the Vagrants Act. From personal knowledge he could say that the evil arising from betting was as deep-seated as it was possible to be. In cases where persons prosecuted for embezzlement and betting was mentioned as the cause, his Court was in the habit of making inquiries, which invariably confirmed the statements. With regard to the Kempton Park case, he could not understand how they were not committing an offence on the race-course while they were condemned for doing the same thing in public-houses.
Mr.Horace Smith, Metropolitan Police Magistrate, said he entirely concurred with what Sir A. de Rutzen had said with regard to the need for more repressing laws. Where the crime had been one of fraud or embezzlement he had invariably found that betting had been at the bottom of it.
Mr.Luke Sharp, Official Receiver for Birmingham, gave evidence upon betting as a cause of bankruptcy.
Master of Harrow: Betting in the school was largely due to the parents, who encouraged it. It was chiefly in the form of sweepstakes on big races. They also suffered by circulars from foreign betting-houses, which the Post Office transmitted.
F. W. Spruce, a betting man, thought that the number of bookmakers had greatly increased, that the trade would be improved and street betting reduced by licensing, but that otherwise there should be free trade in professional betting.
James Sutters, another betting man, also advocated licensing. He thought that street betting might with advantage be restrained, but considered it a veryrespectable trade, although he agreed that it was not becoming for women.
Mr.Charles Gould, J.P., Epsom, had complained to the Home Office of the inadequacy of the police force sent to Epsom Races. The last communication he had received was to the effect that the Home Secretary had been informed that as there were several thousands of these dishonest betting men, it would be impossible to provide sufficient police protection.
Mr.Russell Allen, managing proprietor of theManchester Evening News, gave evidence as to the harm done by the betting press, particularly the halfpenny papers, with their racing editions, which conduced largely to the class of betting done in the street by working men, concerning which he read letters from employers of labour attributing fraud and embezzlement to their work-people betting. Great numbers of bets were also made inside the works. His own newspaper had given up tips and tipsters’ advertisements, and had suffered accordingly. It was not prudent for a newspaper to go beyond that single-handed. If starting prices were made illegal of publication for all alike, it would have a great effect.
SuperintendentShannon, of the L Division, Metropolitan Police, had had great experience of the evils of street betting. Last year[14]in Lambeth 441 persons had been proceeded against. They were fined over £2000 in all. One man was fined sixteen times in the year. Every large firm’s employees in South London were waited on by one or more bookmakers. All the bookmakers employed scouts to give them warning.
SuperintendentWells, of the Limehouse Division, said there had been a great increase in street betting in East London in the last few years. One man was fined twenty-eight times and one twenty-seven. The bookmakerstook up their stands outside the railway stations and factories, and in the busy streets. They were thus enabled to catch the workmen going to or from their work.
Lord ProvostChisholm, of Glasgow, gave evidence with the knowledge and sanction of the Corporation. Betting had increased all round, especially street betting with the industrial classes. He spoke both from personal knowledge and the complaints made to him by citizens. Betting was carried on to a large extent in factories and workshops, the bookmakers sometimes having their own agents employed in them. He would make the penalties more severe, and would seize all money found on bookmakers and imprison them. He believed public opinion would support such measures. He was opposed to licensing bookmakers. Women were in the habit of betting with bookmakers like men.
Chief Constable of Glasgow: He agreed with the evidence of the previous witness. Licensing would only encourage the bookmakers. They ought to be imprisoned. There was very great risk of the police being tampered with by bookmakers. Some had already been bribed. Many Glasgow bookmakers did business by telegram and letter. The Post Office had been complained to, but could do nothing.
Mr.Bryan Thomas, Hon. Sec. of a Labour Organisation, said he had forty years’ experience among the working men of East London. He would do away with street betting entirely. He would treat the bookmakers as rogues, and give them three months’ hard labour.
Rt. Hon.Jas. Lowther, M.P., a member of the Jockey Club for twenty-five years, did not think that large bets had increased of late years, but betting was more widely diffused, and not confined to sporting circles. He considered that there had been a great increase of betting all round. He could not suggest any way ofreducing the misery caused by it. He saw difficulties in the way of licensing bookmakers.
Mr.W. B. Woodgate, the well-known aquatic authority, would license bookmakers, and would fine any of them practising without a licence £500 or six months’ hard labour. The witness related a case of police bribing which he had brought before the authorities at Scotland Yard, but it ended in nothing owing to their careless handling of it.
Mr.Edward Hulton,[15]jun., of the ManchesterSporting Chronicle, was against the prohibiting the publication of the odds, and in favour of licensing bookmakers.
Mr.J. Bain, formerly a member of Tattersall’s Club, also of the Victoria, Beaufort, and Albert Clubs, gave evidence as to the poisoning of race-horses for the purposes of the betting market, and how leading bookmakers were laying heavily at the club against the poisoned horses before the general public knew of what had been done. He also showed that many of the prices quoted in the newspapers were mere bogus quotations to induce the outside public to bet.
ColonelTannett Walker, a large employer of labour at engineering works near Leeds, said that betting was the very worst thing any one could take to, and did a great deal of harm. The workman very often knew nothing whatever of horses. His usefulness was destroyed by betting, however skilful he might be, as so much of his time and thought were taken up with it. He would favour anything that would put a stop to street betting. The boys were encouraged to bet in the workshops.
Mr.Lamb, second secretary to the Post Office, said there were 82 special telegraphists engaged at Doncaster Races; 30,000 private telegrams were sent off. Gamblingin any form was regarded as a most serious offence in that Department, and any of its servants are thereby rendered liable to dismissal. Employees were often tempted in the course of their duty while attending to betting telegrams.
SirRobert Hunter, solicitor to the Post Office, explained that there was not the same power over betting as over lottery communications, owing to an interpretation of the Advertising Act of 1874 confining it to such betting as was localised in a particular house or place.
TheDuke of Devonshire, Minister for Education, had been engaged on racing for a considerable time. Thought that there was nothing wrong or immoral in betting. He would very much regret its being stopped: it would seriously injure the national amusement of horse-racing. He thought betting the support of racing. Saw nothing wrong in the bookmaker’s profession, and, in reply to a question as to their taking small sums from children in poor neighbourhoods, he said he had no knowledge of that sort of betting. He could not give any opinion about licensing. He did not know at what point betting was too general.
Mr.Robert Knight, J.P., Newcastle, for twenty-nine years secretary of a Trades Union numbering 50,000 members, had thirty-two years’ experience of the working classes. Betting was largely on the increase among them, especially young men and women. In three and a half hours a bookmaker in South Shields was seen to take 236 bets. Bookmakers went from door to door inducing women to bet. Some took as little as sixpence. Employers found that intelligent, concentrated effort cannot be got from minds absorbed in betting. He would neither employ nor trust men who indulged in it. The facilities offered by the press are largely responsible. Betting among the young had become rampant. Lads of bright intellect were found to developcunning instead of character. If the betting craze was not checked the sober youths of Germany would take the reins of the commercial world. The odds, tips, and bettings news should be abolished from the newspapers. The Trades Unions endeavoured to stop betting, and would not appoint a man known to indulge in it to any place of authority or trust.
Rev.J. W. Horsley, M.A., J.P., Rector of St. Peter’s, Walworth, for ten years prison chaplain, during which time 100,000 people passed through his hands, said betting was a frequent source of trouble. In one gaol there was a whole wing set apart for these prisoners. It was now increasing more than ever. He considered the example of the aristocracy greatly to blame; and said that if the King would stay away from race-courses where professional betting went on it would do more than anything else to assist in putting an end to it.
The late Chief-Justice Russell.—“Street betting is a most undesirable practice. A state of things exists which, if it can be stopped, ought to be stopped.”
Mr. JusticeWills.—“When I first came upon the Bench I used to think drink was the most fruitful cause of crime, but it is now a question whether the unlimited facilities for illegitimate speculation on the part of people who have no means of embarking on it are not a more prevalent source of mischief and crime even than drink.”
Mr. JusticeHawkins.—“I know nothing more likely to ruin a young and inexperienced man than the system of betting which goes on around us.”
Mr. JusticeGrantham.—“Gambling with bookmakers is the cause of more crime and misery than anything else in the land.”
Mr. JusticeDarling.—“No one could attend the Civil and Criminal Courts without knowing that many persons spent a much larger amount of time in betting than they devoted to their own business.”
Mr.Horace Smith(London Stipendiary Magistrate).—“Nearly every case of embezzlement I try has resulted from betting, and then to pay their losses they rob their employers.”
AldermanSutton(Newcastle Magistrate).—“The working men of the north of England put money on horses, and when they lose take their employers’ property.”
Chairman of Magistrates(Seacome Bank embezzlement case).—“The whole secret of the wrongdoing seems to be in the systematic agency employed all over the country to tempt men from the path of rectitude and virtue.”
Mr.Bros(London Stipendiary Magistrate).—“Betting is generally the downfall of clerks and servants who are charged with embezzlement.”
Coroner for Mid-Surrey.—“The poor lad, like many thousands of others, was led away by the fallacious idea that he was going to make money by backing horses. Men earning fifteen or twenty shillings a week cannot afford to lose sixpence in betting.”
Chief-Constable of Southampton.—“Street betting is a disgrace to the town. One man is making £1000 a year by it.”
Birmingham Official Receiver.—“Half of the bankruptcies which come before me are due to gambling.”
GeneralWavell.—“I have been speaking to an officer, who says it is perfectly piteous to see the way our young soldiers, drummer boys, trumpeters, and others rush off to get the halfpenny newspapers, not to ascertain how their comrades are faring, but simply to get the betting odds and nothing else.”
Bradford School Board Resolution.—“The attention of the Board having been called to the general prevalence of betting and gambling, and the appalling evils arising therefrom, it is hereby resolved that the teachers be requested to take every opportunity to point out to the scholars the injurious effect of the vice.”
Mr.Curtis Bennett(Marylebone Police Court).—“Iam convinced from my experience as a Magistrate that nothing is so productive of crime among young people as street betting. It is an evil far worse than drunkenness, and I agree with Mr. Justice Wills that it is the greatest curse of this country.”
Chairman of Croydon Bench.—“It seems a very good paying game. I think the Government, as soon as they have time, will have to take into consideration whether the law should not be altered.” These remarks were called forth by a bookmaker who had been summoned, producing a handful of sovereigns, and suggesting that it would save time for him to pay the fine at once without the evidence being heard.
Luton Town Councillors:—