ORDER OF REFERENCE. [Tuesday, 1st May, 1923]:-Betting Duty,-Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the question of im- posing a duty on betting, and to report whether such a duty is Ordered, That the Committee do consist of Nineteen Members. Committee accordingly nominated of,-Sir Leonard Brassey, Sir Alfred Butt, Mr. Cautley, Mr. Foot, Mr. Forestier-Walker, Mr. William Graham, Mr. David Grenfell, Sir George Hamilton, Mr. Hughes, Mr. Morgan Jones, Mr. Lyle-Samuel, Sir Henry Norman, Mr. Rawlinson, Sir Beddoe Rees, Mr. Rentoul, Sir Berkeley Sheffield, Lord Stanley, Mr. Gershom Stewart, and NOTE. The marginal references are to the numbers of the questions as printed 42225 in the Minutes of Evidence. a 2 Dowson, 9. REPORT. The SELECT COMMITTEE appointed to consider the question of imposing a duty on betting, and to report whether such a duty is desirable and practicable, have agreed to the following Report: INTRODUCTORY. 1. Your Committee have held 19 sittings, and have examined 40 witnesses. Your Committee received offers from numerous persons to give evidence, but they decided to limit, in the main, the witnesses called to persons of an official position or a representative character and not to hear opinions of individuals. For the most part Your Committee, having decided on the class of witness they wished to hear, left the selection of the witness to the society, association or organised body representing that class. For example, the selection of the two witnesses called to speak for the Free Churches was left to the Free Church Council, and the selection of the bookmaker witnesses to the trade association or protection society of the particular class of bookmaker. Your Committee selected the police witnesses, mainly on geographical grounds, with a view to covering the country, and availed themselves, with gratitude, of the services of representative persons from our Dominions who happened to be over here and were willing to assist them. 2. At the outset it is desirable to understand the attitude displayed by Parliament towards betting since it first took any active interest in the subject. This is best appreciated from the short historical survey of the legislation affecting betting which follows. For purposes of clarity in this survey Your Committee deal first with the position of betting in the civil courts, and then with its criminal aspect. HISTORICAL SURVEY. 3. At common law, bets-which are wager contracts-were neither illegal nor void: they could, like any other legal contract, be enforced by an action at law. Causes to enforce bets became very numerous, and in the early part of the nineteenth century the Judges, grudging the amount of time consumed upon what were often exceedingly frivolous wagers when other more important causes were awaiting trial, took upon themselves to postpone all actions of this kind until the rest of the business had been disposed of or, in the words of Lord Ellenborough, “until the Courts had nothing better to do." Prior to this action of the Judges, Parliament had provided by the statute of 16 Car. II, c. 7 (1664), that anyone who lost more than £100 by betting on certain specified sports and pastimes (in which horse-racing was included) on credit should not be compellable to make good the same; and by 9 Anne, c. 14, s. 2 (1710), Dowson, 25. that any person who lost at one time more than £10 and paid it was entitled to recover the same by action of debt; by 18 Geó. II, c. 34 (1744-5), the test of excess was extended to the loss of £20 within 24 hours. Up till that time only betting on certain specified sports and pastimes was dealt with, but in the year 1845 wager contracts were dealt with as a whole, and by the statute 8 & 9 Vict., c. 109, s. 18, the Acts of Charles II, Anne and George II were repealed, and all contracts by way of gaming and wagering were declared null and void and made unenforceable by action in any Court of law or equity. By this statute, which is still in force, a betting contract is avoided but it is not illegal. It gives rise to no rights Dowson, or obligations enforceable at law. It cannot be enforced, but it remains a debt of honour; or, in the language of the late Mr. Justice Lush in Haigh v. Town Council of Sheffield (L.R. 10, Q.B. 109), a wager is made "a thing of neutral character, not to "be encouraged but, on the other hand, not to be absolutely forbidden it leaves an ordinary betting debt a mere debt of "honour, depriving it of all legal obligation, but not making it "illegal." 66 10-11. 4. By the criminal law, betting has been little noticed until recent times. The earliest statute is the 16 Car. II, c. 7. A Dowson, 20. great improvement had been introduced into the breed of horses by the importation of a number of horses from Tangier, which formed part of Queen Catherine's dowry, and racing, under the patronage of Charles II, was fast becoming a national pastime. As a natural consequence, the practice of betting increased at a proportionate rate and to such an extent as to interfere with individuals pursuing their ordinary avocations. This statute aimed solely at (i) cheating at play . . and horse races, "or in or by betting on the sides or hands of such as shall "play, act, ride or run as aforesaid "'; (ii) excessive gaming on credit. It did not make betting illegal so long as it was unaccompanied by fraud, and the parties were at liberty to wager to any extent provided they paid ready money or did not lose more than £100 at a sitting. For this gaming on credit there was no penalty; the debt was only made non-recoverable. By the Statute 9 Anne, c. 14, additional penalties were prescribed for fraud in gaming or betting, and £10 was substituted Dowson, 25. for £100 as the maximum sum which a person might lose. For the first time it was made penal to exceed the limit thus laid down, instead of merely making the money irrecoverable. The statute did not deal with gaming or betting generally, but only with gaming and betting at games, sports and pastimes therein mentioned, which included horse races. Then, by the statute 18 Geo. II, c. 34, amending the statutes of Charles II and Anne, a person was rendered liable to be Dowson, 27. 42225 a 3 Dowson, 33. Dowson, 41-47. Appendix indicted and punished for winning or losing £10 at any one sitting or £20 within 24 hours. It is worthy of note that this effect of the three statutes was expressly repealed by Section 18 of the Gaming Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Vict., c. 109, s. 18), and that after 1845 betting, unless fraudulent, was not subject to the criminal law, and that up to that date, whenever the criminal law had been made applicable it had always been limited to fraudulent or excessive betting. 5. In 1853 was passed an Act for the Suppression of Betting Houses. For some years previously a new form of betting had grown up. Instead of persons betting with each other, a certain number (the predecessors of the present bookmakers) had established themselves in offices, particularly in London and other large towns, displayed in their offices lists of horses about to run in future races and the then current odds, and held themselves out to bet for cash or on credit with all comers. The establishment of the Betting Office led to the collection of a number of idle people in these offices, and they became a nuisance. This statute made it illegal to open, keep or use a house, office, room or place for the purpose of betting with persons resorting thereto, or receiving deposits on bets, and such offices were declared to be common nuisances and also Common Gaming Houses under the statute 8 & 9 Vict., c. 109. Numerous legal fights have taken place over the meaning of the words "place and "persons resorting thereto," with the result, speaking generally, that under this Act the law now is as follows: A bookmaker may carry on business and bet for cash or on credit with anybody on racecourses provided he does not appropriate or monopolise any definite part of it and give that part anything of the character of an office, as, for instance, by fixing a large umbrella in the ground or standing on a box. The same applies to all public places except parks and gardens. A bookmaker may bet in his office on credit with any person who communicates the bet to him by letter, telephone or telegram-as such person does not "resort" to the office-but he may not bet there with any person for ready money, nor on credit with anyone who comes to his office to make the bet. The penalty provided by the Act is a fine of £100, or six calendar months' imprisonment. It is of interest to note that, in his speech introducing this Bill in the House of Commons, the then Attorney-General refused to consider the suggestion of licensing betting offices and believed that by this Bill he would prevent betting with bookmakers. 6. The result of the suppression of the betting houses, so far as ready money betting is concerned, was that the bookmakers took to receiving bets in the streets. Since 1853 the habits of the people have very much changed. Prior to that date the bulk of the betting done in this country was done by the richer mem |