The Sun.
London, England, 1844-02-22 00:00:00

ble Lord were to say so, of course it was needless for
I him (Mr. Christie) to say that he should place im-
plicit confidence in the statement; but he must say
that, under the circumstances, that which had been. --
stated by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman (Mr. Wort-
ley) ought to be confirmed by the Noble Lord himself.
He asked the House to alter the Bill so that the peo-
ple whom it was desired to benefit should be relieved
by the just application of a general Bill ;. and his
great object in supporting the instruction was in
the hope of superseding all other such proceedings
as might be instituted by common informers.
Such informations for penalties ought, in his
opinion, never to be allowed, except originated by
the clerk of the peace or some other public officer.
He wanted a broad, general, just, and impartial ap-
plication of a wholesome principle, and that legisla-
tion in that House should not be for individuals but
for the whole people.
Mr. C. BERKELEY would yield to no man in
his desire to extend every protection to the sports of
the poor, as well as the rich.—(Hear, hear.) The
Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Christie) said the
other evening, that if they passed this Bill,
then they would be legislating for a class
only. He had offered to support the instruction of
the Hon. Gentleman, provided he would consent to
engraft on it a pledge to extend the provisions of the Bill
to all statutes which relate to the sports of the people.
He now, therefore, gave the Hon and Learned Gentle-
man (Mr. Wortley) notice the, on the bringing up of
the report of the Bill, he should move a clause to that
effect.
Mr. HUTT said, that within the last few years,
no less than five or six Bills of a similar character and
principle to the one now before the House had been
brought in and passed without a dissentient voice from
Hon. Members on either side. If the Hon. Member
for Manchester and others had not opposed (as he
had not) these measures at the time of their passing,
it was rather remarkable they should now set their
faces so strongly against an ex post facto law which
was quite as just and necessary as any of those
entertained by the House on former occasions.
He regretted exceedingly that he was compelled to
dissent from those for whom he felt personally
so much respect ; but still he thought some of his
Hon. Friends were influenced more by prejudice than
cool judgment.

After-a
few words from Mr. MANWAIRDTG and
Colonel WYNDHAM,
Captain PECHELL rose, amid much confusion
and loud cries of " Divide, divide," and said,. as well
as we could catch his words, that he was sure there
were many Hon. Gentlemen near him who would
wish to hear the Hon. and Learned Gentleman op-
posite, and the Noble Lord who had brought in the
Bill express their opinion on the matter before the
House proceeded to a division.
Mr. IVAKLEY entirely disagreed from the Hon.
and Learned Member for Gateshead, who had com-
p!etely mistaken the nature of the present Bill. Its
object was to frustrate the designs of certain parties,
who were sueing others for the very acts which they
themselves had committed.—(Hear, hear.) His
principal object in rising was to call the attention of
the Right Hon. Baronet to a practice that was preva-
lent in that town. He alluded to the practice adopted
by the stipendiary magistrates with respect to little
boys who were brought before them for playing at pitch
and toss. It was only two days ago that three little
boys, who believed that they had been enjoying a per-
fectly innocent amusement, were brought before the
magistrates and were sent to the treadwheel at the House
,of Correction, for playing at pitch and toss. Now, he
thought it would be well if the Right Hon. Baronet the
Home Secretary were to intimate to the magistrates that
he disapproved of the practice pursued by them, and
order these little fellows to be at once liberated.
After a few words from Mr. M. GIBSON and Mr. J. S.
WORTLEY,

• Mr. CHRISTIE withdrew his amendment.
Nlr. HUME wished it to be distinctly understood
that though he had expressed his intention not to oppose
the Bill, lie should consider it a violation of the under-
standing which had been come to if the Bill which had
been sent to them from the Lords was proceeded with.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said it was clear to
him that Hon. Gentlemen were labouring under a mis-
apprehension in regard to this second Bill. It was
simply a Bill of Indemnity to protect from future conse-
quences the witnesses who gave evidence on the subject
of games and gaming before the Committee of the House
of Lords. It enacted thai the certificate of the
chairman of that Committee should protect a party
giving evidence from the penalties he might otherwise
be subjected to for acts disclosed by him in that evidence
—but it interfered not with the operation of the law be-
yond those specific circumstances.
The House then went into Committee, the preamble
was postponed, and on Mr. Wortley moving the first
clause,

Lord HOWICK said—Unfavourable as he was to
betting in any shape, he still agreed in the propriety of
the Bill ; but he hoped the House, in passing it, would
effectually guard itself against doing anything
that might encourage the habit of betting. The
measure before
.the House went to stop not
only the actions which were commenced, but also
any that might he commenced. This he could not ap-
prove of. He looked upon the question of betting which
now existed in this country, as most injurious to the
character, morals, and happiness of the people. This
Bill was brought forward nominally to shelter persons
who had been taken by surprise ; but its practical ope-
ration would extend further. Perfect warning had
now been given to all parties, and the House ought
therefore to take care that any gaming which hereafter
took place, should have no protection from it.— •
(Hear, hear.) With this view he should move
that after the word " thereat," in clause 1, line 41,
the following words should be added—" Such gaming or • -
betting being alleged to hare taken place previous to
the 21st of January, 1844." The protection would thus
extend to the time at which he (Lord Howick) was
speaking, and no longer.
Mr. WORTLEY quite concurred with the Noble
Lord in his desire to devise means for limiting and re--3
gulating betting in this country. He did not think that
the Noble Lord was quite aware of the effect of the
clause as it at present stood. The Bill itself was only
to extend till the end of the session, or for three months,
or some other limited time, to be filled up in Committee,
the object being to give time to the Committee to sit and
report to the House, when the House, doubtless, would
frame and pass a measure founded on its recommenda-
tions for checking and regulating betting and games. If
the House did not pass such a measure, the present Bill
would drop at the period named for its duration, or at
the end of the session, and all parties would be again
liable to the penalties which the present law ordained.
just as much as if the relief now proposed had nerer
been heard of.

Lord HOWICK said the upshot of this would be that
if the Committee did not report for some time, or if a
measure were brought into Parliament, as would probably-
be the case, towards the end of the session, then, on account
of the lateness of the session, such measure or Bill would
be withdrawn, and the proposed enactment now befi)re
the House'would be renewed in a hurry, and then al-
lowed to settle down quietly as a permanent law. Thus
they would practically protect the betting which they
now wished, or professed to wish, to put down or regu-
late. The object he desired to attain could only be ef-
fected by the introduction of the words he had submit-
ted to the House. He thought it fair to state, that if his
amendment was rejected, he should regard the Bill as
giving facilities for betting, and in that view he should
deem it his duty to divide against it in its subsequent
stages.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said he agreed in the general _
principle of disfavour as to betting laid down by the
Noble Lord (Howick), and he was most anxious that the
whole subject of gaming should be referred to a Com-
mittee, with the view of devising means to place checks
generally on betting. If the Noble Lord opposite was
determined to persevere in his motion, he (Sir James
Graham) would feel bound to divide the House against
him.

Mr. lIUME approved of the proposition of the Noble
Lord, because it would be likely to guard against future
betting. A due notice would be given by this law, that
every person who betted did so at their own peril ; yet
the Right Hon-. Baronet the Secretary for the Home
Department said he felt bound to vote against the mo-
tion of the Noble Lord.

Mr. DARBY said that at the expiration of a certain
period—either three months, or twelve months, or two
years, parties could prosecute these actions again.
Lord EBRINGTON thought, perhaps, it might be
as well if an immunity were given for all past transac-
tions, and leave the. law alone until the Committee
should have had time to consider the matter more care-
fully. However, he should support the motion of his.
Right Hon. Friend, if the House divided.
Captain RODS said that, as almost every one now
made up a book on the Derby—(Hear, and laughter).—
the present measure was of some importance. He
thought the Hon. Member for Gateshead had quite mis- • -
stated the cases to which he had alluded. He thought
the best plan would be to let betting alone, and it would
cure itself. What was to be deplored was, that bets.
came into a court of law. He thought the Legislature
should never have interfered with betting, and as for
their injuring the morals of the people, it was down-
right humbug. Those races he contended had a good
influence on the community'; they brought persons of
different parties together, and the fury and rancour of
party strife was forgotten in the pleasures of the amuse-
ment.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord PALMERSTON professed that he would rather
have the Bill as it stood. A Committee was about to
be appointed to consider the general relations of the Bill,
and he thought it was better to leave the Bill as it was.
After a few words from Lord EBRINGTON and Mr.
S. WORTLEY,
Lord G. BENTINCK said, that no bets on the en-
suing Derby races could, according to the present state
of the law, be the subject of qui tam actions until the Ist
of September next.
none took place, and the Bill was p
The gallery was then cleared
.tobcree
The clause, as amended, was then agreed to.
adeddivision,
but
i
The remaining clauses,were agreed to.
thought the line in the pre-
On the preamble being proposed,
with some verbal alterations,
amlrlre.,C•aililielhiSsLitEedsutihdabt he thought
parties against whom the
lute qui tam actions had been brought, were ignorant
that in making the bets respecting which the actions
had been brought against them, they were committinc,
an illegal act, should be struck out. .! •
Lord GEORGE BENTINCK said he had believed,
and he believed still, that in making bets on horse
racing he was doing a perfectly legal act.
Mr. ROEBUCK said this was a novel principle of