by which to regulate our sports. That House, based as it was upon a large franchise, was bound to deal with that which was injurious to public morality. He regretted that there was no clause in the Bill to meet the evils resulting from "P.P. betting" and handicapping, and he himself, if no other Member should do so, would introduce clauses on the subject. There was scarcely a Member in that House who did not know persons who had been led into immoralities by the present system, and something ought to be done to render racing what it once was-the sport of English gentlemen. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Laws relating to Horse Racing."(Mr. Hughes.) there was a committee of the Jockey Club appointed to consider these matters, and of that committee the two very high authorities which the hon. Gentleman had quoted Member for Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) namely, the hon. and Sir Joseph Hawley-were members. That should be some guarantee that the various matters which formed the subject of inquiry would not be lightly passed over. The hon. Gentleman had been somewhat hard upon the members of the Jockey Club for a period of years, and had gone back half-a-century to show how they had deteriorated. The hon. Gentleman was not quite justified much as there was no evidence to show in what he had said on that point, inasthat, if the same circumstances arose, they would be inclined to deal more leniently than the Jockey Club had done in the case referred to. Such circumstances had not arisen, and he trusted would not arise; but he had no hesitation in saying that if any member of the Club were proved to be guilty of such practices as were shadowed forth by the hon. Gentleman he would be dealt with in like manner. SIR HEDWORTH WILLIAMSON did not offer any opposition to the introduction of the Bill; but he considered that neither the Mover or Seconder knew anything of the subject of which it dealt. The hon. Member (Mr. T. Hughes) had shown himself utterly wanting in the most elementary notions about racing, and the hon. Gentleman who had in- MR. M. J. GUEST said, he had great troduced the subject of the popular fran-pleasure in supporting the Motion of chise knew just as little about it. He reserved any observations he might have to make on the measure for the second reading. LORD GEORGE MANNERS said, he did not intend to offer any opposition to the introduction of the Bill. What he considered the real part of the measure should have his cordial support, and he might say also the cordial support of the body which had hitherto watched over racing in this country. When he said "the real part" of the Bill he meant that portion of it which dealt with the betting that had grown up among us to such an extent of late years. The Jockey Club felt that that was an evil with which they were not competent to deal, and, therefore, they would most cordially welcome the action of that House in correcting so great an evil. But when the hon. Gentleman proposed to legislate on other matters which more nearly affected the details of racing, these were things which he ventured to say the Jockey Club were more competent to deal with. It might not be within the knowledge of all the Members of that House that at this moment the hon. Gentleman. The only thing he would suggest would be this, that a clause should be introduced in the Bill to suppress Tattersall's; and now that public lotteries were forbidden, it would be a great means to put a stop to betting if the publication of the odds in this kingdom were not allowed. MR. HAMBRO said, he was opposed to the Bill, and he trusted that the House would not consent to its introduction. In almost every club there were Derby lotteries, in which were the names of Members of that House and some of the most distinguished names in the country. Those lotteries had nothing to do with horse racing. They had nothing to do with the evil effects of horse racing. Neither had Tattersall's. He was of opinion that the evils connected with the present condition of the turf had been greatly exaggerated, and that betting, when legitimately conducted, was a very fair business. He did not think the House was called upon to legislate for foolish young men and foolish old men who might choose to throw away their money. He did not know that the breed of horses had deterio rated in consequence of horse racing. | and, therefore, he thought the better Only the other day a horse was sold for course would be to read the Bill a first £5,000. If the House consented to time to-night, and postpone the second read the Bill a first time, he hoped its reading till after the Jockey Club had rejection would be moved on a future come to a decision. stage. VISCOUNT ROYSTON could not help MR. W. H. GREGORY desired to expressing his astonishment that a subsay a few words on this subject, be- ject of this kind should have been brought cause it was one on which he had had forward in that House. Whatever might some experience. He entirely concurred be the mischief arising from the wrongin the judicious observations of the noble doings of young men or of old men, or Lord the Member for Cambridgeshire however bad the running of young horses (Lord George Manners). The Bill was or of old horses, he did not think the intended to do away with great abuses. time had arrived when such subjects They had the avowal of the two great should become matters of argument in heads of the Turf on different sides-of the House of Commons. The discussion Sir Joseph Hawley on the one side, and of this question had been raised by Admiral Rous on the other, that un-letters which had appeared in a portion limited betting, and especially list bet- of the Press; but the matter was of ting, was a very great evil. One of these such trivial import that he almost gentlemen said it was a gangrene in our blushed at having to address the House moral system; the other said its effects on it. It was true that, at a time when were such that one could hardly judge gambling had become a great evil to of the amount of evil they produced. society, Parliament did direct its attenThe 1st clause of the Bill met the question to the suppression of gamingtion of very early racing; the next por- houses; but no such necessity for legistion of it was to put a stop to three-lation existed in the present instance. year-olds running for Queen's Plates. He contended that a horse was an aniThe latter was a matter that fairly came mal — an animal like an ox or a cow, under the consideration of the House, which when in the possession of a perbecause there was a question of a grant son became his property. If stakes were of public money involved in it. The to be run for, and a man had a good great object of those prizes was, no horse which he thought would win, he doubt, to induce persons to keep hardy ran him for profit. ["No!"] He thought horses to run at a more advanced age; he knew more about the matter than but the most important portion of the the hon. Gentleman who cried "No!" Bill was that aimed at list houses. It Men did run horses for profit, and he was notorious that many men-servants, thought a man was entitled to exercise clerks, and other persons in responsible power over his own animal. Questions positions had been ruined by these like the one raised by the hon. Member houses. List betting had nothing what- for Frome (Mr. T. Hughes), and which ever to do with good racing. In his affected quadrupeds, were not interestopinion it was most injurious to good ing in a House which met to legislate racing, because it encouraged robbery for bipeds. He believed no gentleman and rascality. Young men were induced in the House could speak with more to enter into it by the hope that they touching feeling on this subject than might at once become rich. He would the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. W. not go into the question of the run- H. Gregory). The turf was a sport, ning of two-year-olds. He was not him- and he admitted that anyone who speself opposed to all "two-year-old run- culated upon it encouraged gambling to ning; but when two such authorities a certain extent; for speculation had its as Mr. Chaplin and Sir Joseph Hawley losses as well as its gains, and, he bethought it ought to be prohibited, he lieved, that the former much exceeded thought the point was not one which the latter. He, however, contended that could be discussed at 10 minutes past 12 the House had no right to interfere with o'clock. It was one of the gravest possi- the public in this matter. ["Oh, oh!"] ble subjects connected with racing. Cer- He did not understand these demonstratainly it was one on which there was tions. He had lived-he was not ashamd very great difference of opinion. The to own it-with gentlemen, and it was Jockey Club was now considering it; not the habit of gentlemen to receive Mr. Hambro opinions contrary to their own with demonstrations such as these, and which he had heard hon. Members of more experience than himself notice and condemn. He did not mean to oppose the introduction of this Bill. It might do good; he did not think it would do any. The evils of betting in "list-houses had, he believed, been much exaggerated, yet he admitted that they encouraged men-servants, and even maidservants, to embark in matters with which they ought not to have anything to do. But there was no more immorality in such transactions on the part of house-maids or kitchen-maids than on the part of hon. Members. If it was wrong for A. to speculate 6d., it was equally wrong for B. to bet £1,000. If the House attempted to legislate on betting, hon. Members would enter upon a difficult subject, and one with which they could not deal effectually, although, if the House would declare that no betting should be permitted in this country he would applaud the resolution, but he defied hon. Members to carry it out. A bet was a contract-it was an obligation upon honourable people which law could not enforce. The Jockey Club were willing to do all they could to put an end to what were called "turf abuses." He had, however, opposed Sir Joseph Hawley's propositions, on the ground that betting was a matter not for legislation, but for settlement between man and man. [Laughter.] No doubt many hon. Gentlemen who laughed had had a bet now and then; but they had probably never considered that if they made a bet and lost it they would probably have to pay. There was no law or Act of Parliament about it; but there was no question that a man was more fidgety about paying a bet of £10 than a grocer's bill of £5. The House of Commons had never hitherto interfered with questions of public sport. The hon. Gentleman might get excited about the turf-to which he believed he should not attend; and people who wrote for the public Press excited the public mind upon the subject; but he did not believe their legislation would produce any effect. He would not oppose the Motion; but he would oppose the Bill on its second reading, when he would make some comments, and would probably move its rejection. MR. OSBORNE: Sir, I had hoped that a question which has been represented as one not only appertaining to the dignity of this House, but also to the morality of the country would not have been left simply to the advocacy of members of the Jockey Club, of which I believe the noble Lord who spoke last is a distinguished representative. He is, at any rate, an esteemed Friend of mine. I had hoped that some Member of Her Majesty's Government, one or two of whom I see on the Treasury Bench, representing the racing interest as well as that of public morality, would have given us their opinion upon this Bill. Now, Sir, whatever may be the sentiment of this House upon this Bill-and some ridicule has been thrown upon it by the way in which it has been treated-I think it is only due to this House that some observation should have been made as to the course that Her Majesty's Government intend to pursue with regard to it. I do not feel that anxiety with respect to the female portion of the community that has been manifested by the noble Lord the Member for Cambridgeshire (Viscount Royston). He has made a noble speech, at all events, and has told us about his housemaids and his ladies'-maids. But there is another view to be taken of this subjectis the time of this House to be wasted in discussing questions with which we are totally incompetent to deal? It is said that this Bill contemplates legislating with reference to the racing of two-yearolds. This is a very respectable House of Commons, and the majority of its Members, as far as I can make out, keep gigs; but, as far as legislating upon the racing of this country is concerned, we all are pretty well aware that if we were to pass a Bill to put a stop to twoyear-old races, we should simply be wiping out racing altogether. It has been said by the hon. Member before me (Mr. W. H. Gregory)—a retired member of the Jockey Club-that Sir Joseph Hawley and the hon. Member for Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) contemplate abolishing two-year-old races altogether. Now, that is an entire mistake. All that those gentlemen propose is to delay those races. Well, we are asked to give leave for the introduction of this Bill, and the Government sits silent. I do not mean to refer to the Home Secretary, because I do not see him here [4 laugh.] Oh, is he there? Well, I did not see him. Well, then, I should prefer to leave the legislation upon the subject of this Bill to him. We shall probably give leave to bring in the Bill, and we shall read it a first time out of compliment to the hon. Member who introduces it; but would it not be more sensible of us not to allow him to bring it in ? He has got up his speech very carefully as far as the history of racing goes, although, were it not so late an hour, I might be able to point out one or two points in which he was in error; but is it not a work of supererogation for us to read the Bill a first time, in order that it may be printed at the expense of the country, after which we shall hear no more about it? The Jockey Club, in whom I have the greatest confidence, in spite of the speech of the noble Lord (Viscount Royston), held a meeting on Saturday last, and are about to legislate upon this matter. We had better leave the subject in their hands, and if they do not deal with it efficiently it will then be time enough for us to take up the question. The hon. Member (Mr. T. Hughes) has made an excellent speech-he has given us a synopsis of Ruff's Guide to the Turf, and he ought to be satisfied with his achievement. I say, therefore, let him withdraw his Bill, which is a sample of amateur legislation, and is full of moral crudities. If no one else does so, I shall move that we do not give the hon. Member leave. to introduce the Bill. I should like, however, to hear the opinion of the Government upon the matter. MR. BRUCE: In answer to the appeal of the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Osborne), I must say that I do not profess to possess much knowledge upon the subject of this Bill. I think that the hon. Member has given the hon. Gentleman who asks leave to introduce this Bill (Mr. T. Hughes) some excellent advice, although I myself would not be guilty of the discourtesy of moving the rejection of the first reading of the Bill. There is a great deal in what the hon. Member who spoke last has said about leaving the question of twoyear-old races in the hands of the Jockey Club. With reference to the betting question, I shall be happy to give every assistance in my power to put down what I believe to be a great source of evil. Mr. Osborne SIR LAWRENCE PALK, while acknowledging the right of the House to interfere where gambling became an evil from which society suffered, thought the hon. Member for Frome (Mr. T. Hughes) should be content with the promise of Her Majesty's Government to do their best to put down betting, and with the assurance of the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Osborne) that the question was now before the Jockey Club. MR. T. HUGHES said, he could not consent to withdraw his Bill without some assurance being given by the Home Secretary that the principle of his Bill would be incorporated in the Bill the right hon. Gentleman intended to introduce in the course of the Session. The Jockey Club had had opportunities of legislating; but since 1853 matters had been getting worse rather than better, and they had over and over again pledged themselves in 1860 to do something, but in vain. He was quite ready to accept the proposal of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. W. H. Gregory) to postpone the matter until the Jockey Club had had an opportunity of dealing with it. First Reading-Post Office* [144]. Second Reading Clerical Disabilities [49]; Game Laws Abolition [Mr. Taylor][73], debate adjourned; Admiralty District Registrars' [111]. Ordered-First Reading-Joint Stock Companies'] The result of that canon was to render Arrangement [143]; Telegraph Acts Extena seceding clergyman liable to ecclesiassion [142]. tical penalties at the hands of his Bishop. That was so ruled by the late Lord Denman in the case of Mr. Shore, whose licence to preach was withdrawn by the late Bishop of Exeter, and who afterwards performed the services of the Church of England in a building not belonging to it. He (Mr. Hibbert) Considered as amended-Benefices [141]. Withdrawn-Adulteration of Food or Drink Act (1860) Amendment * [44]. CLERICAL DISABILITIES BILL. (Mr. Hibbert, Mr. John Lewis, Mr. Biddulph.) (BILL 49.) SECOND READING. Order for Second Reading read. MR. HIBBERT, in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said that, as the grievances which it was proposed by the measure to remove were urgent in their character, a private Member might, perhaps, be excused in dealing with a subject the management of which it was impossible that the Government, with their press of work, could undertake. In 1862 his right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) had, though not successfully, introduced a Bill, which was to allow a clergyman to relinquish his calling if he professed to dissent from the tenets of the Established Church. He (Mr. Hibbert) thought, however, that a man's actions, and not his motives, ought to be examined, and therefore the present measure permitted a clergyman to relinquish his calling without assigning any reason. Several gentlemen who felt themselves aggrieved by the present state of the law had, at the commencement of the Session, presented a Memorial to the First Minister of the Crown, in which they set forth the mischief that must accrue to the Church and to religion, in insisting upon retaining men in the ministry who, from conscientious or other motives, were no longer willing or able to perform the duties of their position. They urged that the result of the system was shown in the growing disinclination on the part of the younger members of the Universities to take upon themselves Orders which were held to be irrevocable. The 76th canon, passed in 1603, which still remained in force, provided On that would not enter into the question of the indelibility of Holy Orders. The Bill did not deal with Holy Orders at all; but he might observe that, in the year 1603, when the 76th canon was framed, the Church of England did not hold the doctrine of the indelibility of Holy Orders. To the clause in the Bill permitting the return to the ministry, with the consent of the Archbishop or Bishop, of clergymen who had availed themselves of this Bill, he understood some objection might be urged. point he had personally no very strong feeling; but the clause was introduced to meet the wishes expressed by some members of the Church. A clergyman becoming a layman ought, in his opinion, to be placed in no worse position than any other layman, and he would be so placed if he could not again take orders as a layman could. This, too, was the opinion expressed in the Report pointed to consider the provisions of the of the Committee of Convocation, aphon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock. Bill formerly introduced by his right The Committee reported— "No legislation should finally shut the door against a return to the exercise of the ministry. clergymen may be tempted to forego their vows In moments of depression and disappointment for some worldly considerations. In these cases, as in several others, the locus penitentiæ should still be left. The experience of the last two years fully justifies this recommendation; for two, at least, of those who had left the ministry, and who were petitioners for the Clergy Relief Bill, have since returned to their former position in the Church." The next disability to which he would refer was that imposed by the statute known as Horne Tooke's Act, which declared that no person who had been ordained to the office of priest or deacon in the Church of England should be capable of being elected to serve in Parliament. Considering the time at which that Act was passed-namely, the be "That no man being admitted a deacon or priest shall from thenceforth voluntarily relinquish the same nor afterwards use himself in the course of his life as a layman upon pain of ex-ginning of the present century, and considering that since that period most of communication." |