The Sun.
London, England, 1839-07-11 00:00:00

boy " tossing up" inside a house should do it with Im-
punity, while a boy tossing up outside a house should be
liable to a penalty of five shillings.
Mr. ESTCOURT said the habit of gaming was
pernicious, whether for money or not.
Mr. C. BULLER objected to giving the police so
vague a power, to interfere with a practice generally, in
the custom of the country, considered harmless.—
(Hear, hear.) Take, for instance, the case of betting
on a division—l meet a Tory in St. James's street—
he says, " We shall have a majority on the Education
question ;" I'll bet you so-and-so you'll not." Why, a
police officer might carry us both to the Magistrates.
—(Laughter.) Or suppose betting in this House—
it is a public •house—(Laughter)—and there is scarcely
a great division in which I don't pick up a shilling or
two in an honest bet-4 Loud laughter)—yet under the
words " or betting,' this would be unlawful.

Mr. FOX MAULE would have no objection to
leave out the words " or betting."
Captain WOOD thought bets of the nature alluded
to were very culpable.
Mr. HUME thought, if it were considered advisable
to remedy the vices of the age it should be made the
subject of a general Bill, but he objected to making that
a crime in one place which was not so in another.
Mr. WAKLEY would suggest the propriety of ex-
punging the clause altogether, as there was no difference
in principle between that and the present law. He had
seen the metropolitan police on Epsom Downs, where
gaming tables were in active operation, and the police
did not interfere.

Mr. FOX MAULE—They bad no power to inter-
fere.

Mr. WAKLEY—Then why are they there?
Mr. FOX :MULE—Because they were applied
for by the Stewards, to prevent accidents and to keep
order, but by law they ltave no power to interfere with
gaming tables.
Mr. LAW thought it desirable, if the Vagrant Act
were defective, that it should be amended, but he did
not see why a measure of such a stringent nature
should be introduced, applicable solely to the Metro-
politan districts.

Mr. E. TURNER said he understood it was
proposed by this clause to make it illegal to toss
pence ; he wished to know if it would be illegal to
play quoits ?

Mr. G. W. WOOD said playing at quoits was a
game of skill, but chuck-farthing was a game of hazard.
Then question was then put, and the words " or bet-
ting " were ordered to be struck out of the clause.
Mr. AGLIONBY asked what was the meaning, of
" any other public place"—was it a street, or such a place
as Tattersall's, or the Hippodrome, or any other place of
public amusement? because if it were the latter, all
sorts of games would be prohibited. _ _

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that the
words " public place" were to be considered as synony-
mous with the word thoroughfare.
Mr. HUME said that it really was a clause intended
to put down chuck-farthing, and it ought to be so
stated. Was it fit that the House should spend three
hours in legislating about chuck-farthing ?
Mr. C. BULLER could not judge whether the in-
tention of the clause was to put down obstructions to
the public thoroughfare, or to put down gambling.
What was the meaning of the Solicitor-General's ar-
gutnent ? At Harrow-on-the-Green, by the road-side,
the rustics were in the habit of playing quoits—now
if they betted a pot of porter on the game it would be
against the law according to the Solicitor-General's
opinion. Although his Honourable Friend, on his
suggesting that the words on betting would effect gen-
teel people, bad very properly consented to withdraw
them—(A laugh)—yet he agreed with the Learned
Recorder of London that the clause should be ex-
punged.
Mr. CLAY moved the omission of the clause.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
Committee divided, when there appeared—
For the clause 27
Against it
Majority against the clause —9
On the next clause being put relative to gaming in
gaming-houses, its omission was moved.
Mr. HAWES thought the Bill might be as well
given up altogether as to :omit the clause.
Mr. F. MAULE defended the clause from the help
of Mr. Hawes.
Mr. LAW objected to the clause in its present
shape.
Mr. AGLIONBY said the clause was so vague,
that he would defy any magistrate or lawyer to act
upon them.
Mr. DARBY thought, as far as common gaming-
houses were concerned, the clause would be extremely
beneficial.
Colonel THOS. IN 00D, notwithstanding all that
had been said by the Hon. Member for Lambeth, con-
sidered the clause as perfectly useless.
The clause, as amended, was then agreed to.
Clauses 61 and 62 were, after some discussion,
agreed to.
Clauses 63, 64, and 65 were agreed to without ob-
servation.
On clause 66 being read,
Colonel WOOD proposed the insertion of the
words 44 within the weekly Bills of Mortality, all the
streets of any town within the metropolitan police
districts." His object was to confine the operation of
the clause to towns, and prevent their extending to the
rural districts.
Mr. F. MAULE objected to the insertion of the
words.

Colonel WOOD reminded the Hon. Member that
he had given a pledge when the Bill was last before the
House that he would devise means. to prevent the
clause extending to the rural districts.
Mr. F. MAULS said the Hon. and Gallant Mem-
ber was mistaken. His promise referred to the 68th,
and not to the 66th clause. He wished to expktin to

the Committee that the clause contained 19 sections,
every one of which was at present the law of the
land ; but his object was to bring them all together, so
that it could be ascertained at once what was the po-
lice law, instead of being obliged to refer to various
Acts of Parliament.
Mr. C. BULLER alluded to the preposterous state
of the police law, under which a police constable durst
not take up a man for an assault unless he saw it com-
mitted. Colonel Rowan had told him that such was
the case. He thought a general power should be given
to the police to take persons into custody upon a charge;
whether the constable should have witnessed the com•
mission of the offence or not.
Mr. LAW proposed the introduction into the clp.use
of the words " any person who in the view of such con-
stable." •

Mr. AGLIONBY said it would be better first to
decide the principle as to the permitting constables to
take into custody on the charge of persons complaining
of having been aggrieved or assaulted. He was in
favour of that principle, and would propose the introduc-
tion of words to carry that principle into effect.
Mr. Alderman HUMPHERY objected to Colonel
Wood's amendment, as by confining the operation of
the clause to the Bills of Mortality it would exclude
Greenwich, Woolwich, Bromley, and other large places.
• After a few words from Mr. HUME and Mr. FOX
M AU LE,
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
Committee divided on Col. Wood's amendment, when
there appeared—
For Col. Wood's amendment l9
Against it
Majority against the amendment —6l
Mr. AGLIONBY then moved the amendment of
which be had given notice to empower the police con-
stable to take a party into custody on the complaint of
the party aggrieved.
Mr. J. JERVIS objected to the amendment. It
would give rise to a most vexatious interference with
the liberty of the subject, and unless the Hon. Secretary
meant to change the law altogether, he hoped he would
not sanction it.
Mr. J. JERVIS moved the omission of the words
" feed or fodder any horse."
On which the Committee divided, when there ap-
peared—

For the omission
Against it
Majority in favour of the words re-
maining part of the clause
The remaining sections of clause 86 were then agreed
to, and the clause ordered to stand part of the BM.
On clause 67 being read,
Mr. T. DUNCOM 13E moved the insertion of a
passage, to the effect that persons of the higher classes
found drunk in the streets should be sent to the House
of Correction, for a period not exceeding seven days.
The amendment was negatived without a division.
Alderman THOMPSON objected to the clause
altogether. It was unjust to say that in cases of
drunkenness Magistrates made one law forthe poor and
another for the rich. He had been a Magistrate of
London twenty years, and had always seen drunkards
of all classes impartially dealt with. He thought the
law as it now stood was sufficiently severe. Ile would
divide the House on the clause.
The Committee then divided—
For the omission of the clause
510
For retaining it
Majority ........................... —47
Mr, BROTHERTON moved that the Chairman
do report progress, as it was now one o'clock.
Sir B. HALL supported the motion of the Hon.
Member for Salford.
Mr. FOX MAULE thought as the discussion
would not occupy much longer he might be permitted
to proceed.
Mr. WAKLEY said that as the Bill had gone
through Committee previously, and it was an act of
courtesy on the part of the Right Hon. Gentleman to
permit the discussion to be renewed that evening he
thought he ought to be permitted to proceed. -
Mr. BROTHERTON then withdrew his thotion.
Clause 68 was then agreed to with sundry amend-
ments calculated to prevent its affecting the rural dis-
tricts vexatiously.
Clause 69, with some verbal amendments, was then
agreed to.
Clauses up to 86 were agreed to.