The Sun.
London, England, 1844-02-09 00:00:00

rBLISHED

• IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
• ' HOUSE OF LORDS, Feb. 8.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool
sack at Five o'Clock.
ACTIONS FOR PENALTIES ON GAMING DIS.
CONTINUANCE BILL.

Lord BROUGHAM, in the absence of the Duke of
Richmond, moved the second reading of the Actions for
Penalties on gaming Discontinuance Bill. Their Lord-
ships were aware that the Legislature had at various
times passed laws for the suppression' of gambling,
and among those laws was one imposing
certain 'penalties on parties who should lose
more than 101. at a sitting at any game. The courts of
law had chosen to apply this statute to horse racing,
although he was at a loss to understand how they could
come to such a conclusion ; yet such was the case. The
Legislature, however, always reserved the power of pre-
venting its decisions being abused, and in the case to which
he referred, many must respectable persons, among them
many Noble and Hon. Friends of his own, had had qui
lam actions brought against them to recover penalties
to an immense amount on account of their having betted
on horse-races. These Noble and Honourable persons
were merely desirous of encouraging manly sports, and
of improving the breed of horses, in which we surpassed
all Europe. :They were ignorant of the law on the sub-
ject. They betted, and when they lost they paid their
bets honourably ; but many of the persons with whom
they betted were dishonourable persons, who refused to
pay when they lost. Steps had of late been taken at all
respectable meetings to drive these dishonourable persons
from the turf, and, not from any honest and honourable
motive—not from any desire to put down gambling,
but from motives of mere spite—these persons had raked
up the penal clauses of these Acts of Parliament,
and had brought qui tam actions for the recovery
of penalties against these noble persons. He did
not know the exact amount of the penalties
sought to be recovered, but one Noble Friend of his
was liable to 68,0001., another Noble Friend to 102,0001.,
and a county Member, a gentleman whose character
stood very high, to no less than 120,000/. The whole
amount was probably 300,000/. He understood that all
these actions were brought by the sons of the keepers
of places, the name of which respect for his audience
prevented him from stating.—(Laughter.) But it was
notorious that these actions were brought by the
keepers of gaming-houses of the worst description. He
had no knowledge of gaming whatever, but he had been
assured that the case was as he had shortly stated it.
What the Bill proposed was, not that any prospective
law should be passed, but only that the bad parts of the
old law should be repealed, and some good and sound
provisions substituted in their stead. It was proposed
that, on application to the Judges in chambers, an order
should be obtained to stop the pending actions on pay-
ment of the costs out of pocket of the parties bringing
them. The Bill had the full approval of the Chief Justice of
the Queen's Bench, the greatest common-law Judge in
England. He proposed also to add a clause, on the third
reading, for suspending future actions, as, if they did
not, the moment the present writs were ended new
actions would be commenced.
Lord CAMPBELL felt much pleasure -in supporting
the Bill. He was assured that the actions were brought
by infamous persons—that was clear—either for the pur-
pose of extorting money, or to avenge themselves for
some supposed wrong. At the same time he thought the
Noble Lord, out of respect to the grave and venerable
sages of the law might have spoken less severely of the
decisions pronounced for the last hundred years in
Westminster Hall on this question. The Act against
gambling, included " any other games whatsoever ;"
now horse-racing was a game ; chariot-racing was a
game ; it was one of the ancient Olympic games. He
agreed that the common informer was a pestilent cha-
racter; but the law had hitherto given them the penalties
on convictions and the costs of action. He thought to
deprive them now of what the Legislature had always
awarded them was unadvisable.
The Bishop of LONDON did not intend to oppose
the • second reading of the Bill. Some doubts that he
had felt with regard to it had been removed by the
Noble and Learned Lord who had moved the second
reading. He apprehended that the third clause only
extended to such a time as would enable the House to
give a due consideration to the subject.
Lord BROUGHAM—Nothing more.
The Bishop of LONDON said, the principle of
admitting common informers to give evidence was
similar to that which admitted particeps cri-
minis to give evidence against their confederates.
The whole proceeding appeared to him somewhat ob-
jectionable, and partook of the nature of modifying the
existing laws on behalf of the rich at ,the expense
of the poor. If poor persons incurred debts and
responsibilities which they were unable to pay, the Legis-
lature would not interfere on their behalf to relieve them
from the payment. Unless they also made the law
stringent and salutary against gaming, he thought the
present Bill might be considered as rather favourable to
it. Ile could not approve of any measure that tended
to encourage betting, especially among the poor. They
might leave the rich to do what they chose with their
property, but they ought to interfere to protect the poor.
Lord BROUGHAM said the law had always ad-
mitted common informers to put the law in force. It
was a great anomaly, but the law having trusted to the
popularis actio, and confided to common informers the work-
ing of different Acts, he thought it ought not now to deprive
these men of their costs out of pocket, and the penalty
also. But were they to go on for ever on this most bar-
barous system, with no one to watch over and enforce the
laws, no public prosecutor, the enforcing of Acts
being given either to the worst possible characters, or
to the offended and aggrieved parties ? The want of a
public prosecutor was productive of great mischief. He
knew a case in which forgery to the amount of 5,000/.
was committed at Plymouth, and the party escaped,
by his friends subscribing and buying off the prosecutor,
so that when the trial was called on, no one appeared.
He remembered once to have seen a most respectable
gentleman—a man worth 20,000/. a year—standing in
the dock to be tried for his life on a charge of murder ;
and he believed That his not being of the same sect
as the grand jury entered very much into the
cause of his being so charged. The murder
consisted of not his, but his bailiff's, having neglected
to hang a lamp across a road which he was getting
mended, in consequence of which an old woman
lost her life. He should never forget the indig-
nation of the Learned Judge when he asked where
was the grand jury, and had ascertained that
they were gone. The man, of course, was acquitted.
This was an instance of the system that he deprecated
of committing the execution of the laws to the irrre-
sponsible conduct of private individuals.
The Bishop of EXETER said it was his painful duty
to give expression to sentiments at variance, not only
with those of the Noble and Learned Lord who had just
sat down, but also with those of the whole House.
It appeared to him that the law of the land having
given certain rights to these informers, the Legislature
should he reluctant in repealing them. It had
been said that the sovereigns of the country
for the last two centuries had, by giving King's
and Queen's plates, encouraged this sort of amusement.
In the reign of Charles the Second, however, who had
very much encouraged that species of amusement by
giving such plates, a statute was introduced to put down,
what ? Not horse-racing—not to restrain betting—but
to restrain excessive gaming. Now what was the great
plea upon which the Clouse was called on to put an end
to those outrageous cases ? It was, that if those actions
would proceed, it was possible that all the damages that
might be awarded would amount to half a million. He ven-
tured to ask any of their Lordships if that were not execs-
sive gaming 'I hey were asked toput an end to the statute
which would check that excessive gaming ; and why ?
because the Legislature found that there were
persons base enough to avail themselves of the
faults of others, to enrich themselves. But it
must be remembered that the law gave to these
very individuals the right of action. It had
been said that this was not the first time that a measure of
this sort had been brought before their Lordships. He was
aware of a remarkable case that had reference to the penal-
ties incurred by the clergy. A person availed himself
of information obtained in an office, to inform the
proper authorities that certain clergymen being
resident in one living were not resident at
other livings in their possession. Of course the Legis-
lature gave them relief from the action that was brought
against ,them, but it was coupled with the condition
that they should be allowed a certain time to put up a
notification of their intended absence, and that if such
notification were not well founded, then that the ac-
tions should proceed. Thus the Legislature in 1814, in
that case stepped in to protect the objects of the law.
That was a precedent for their Lordships to follow
and it, was for their Lordships to consider whether the
parties who came for relief in the present ease, had
offended or not against the principle of the law, which it
was now sought to repeal. The object of
the law they were called on to suspend—was to prevent
excessive gaming ; and the question to be considered was,
whether those parties who now came before the House
had or had not offended against the principle of the
law. He had come down intending to propose that the
Bill should not be proceeded with for six months, but,
after hearing the authority of the Lord Chief Justice on
the subject, he would content himself with saying " Not
Content."

Lord BROUGHAM said, that although it was quite
true that the penalties to be recovered against some of
these parties were:very heavy, the fact was that they
were not -their own debts. It was well known
that a man's friends betted for him in various parts of
the country, and thus the aggregate sum was made up
of various independent debts. He should move an
amendment with regard to costs and the limitation of
time, on the third reading.
Lord CAMPBELL said the ground on which he
supported this Bill was, that the statute in question had
become obsolete, and no action had been brought upon
it, for, he believed, fifty years. According to the law
of some countries, as of Scotland, for example,
this desuetude of the law would be tantamount to its
repeal. In this country, however, it could be revived
for vexatious and oppressive purposes. When the object
was to put the law in force for such purposes, and
not tocarry out the just intents of the law, he thought
the Legislature ought to interpose to stop those actions.
After a few words from the Bishop of EXETER,- the
Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be read a
third time to-morrow.

THE TEACHERS OF SCHOOLS (IRELAND) BILL.
This Bill was read a second time.

The House then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, Feb. 8.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'Clock.
METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENTS.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented petitions from St.
Giles's-in-the-Fields, and St. George's, Bloomsbury,
complaining of the manner in which the Commis-
sioners of- Woods and Forests conducted what was
called the metropolitan improvements. The peti-
tioners stated, that in order to carry out these improve-
meats the Commissioners pulled down streets, but they