The laws relating to horse-racing have undergone curious revisions and interpretations. 'The law of George II.'s reign, declaring horse-racing to be good, as tending to promote the breed of fine horses, exempted horse-races from the list of unlawful games, provided that the sum of money run for or the value of the prize should be fifty pounds and upwards, that certain weights only might be used, and that no owner should run more than one horse for the same prize, under pain of forfeiting all horses except the first. Newmarket, and Black Hambledon in Yorkshire, are the only places licensed for races in this Act, which, however, was also construed to legalize any race at any place whatever, so long as the stakes were worth fifty pounds and upwards, and the weights were of the regulated standard. An Act passed five years afterwards removed the restrictions as to the weights, and declared that any one anywhere might start a horse-race with any weights, so long as the stakes were fifty pounds or more. The provision for the forfeiture of all horses but one belonging to one owner and running in the same race was overlooked or forgotten, and owners with perfect impunity ran their horses, as many as they pleased, in the same race. In 1839, however, informations were laid against certain owners, whose horses were claimed as forfeits; and then everybody woke up to the fact that this curious clause of the Act of George II. was still unrepealed. The Legislature interfered in behalf of the defendants, and passed an Act, repealing in their eagerness not merely the penal clauses of the Act, but the Act itself, so far as it related to horse-racing. Now, it was supposed that upon the Act of the thirteenth of George II. depended the whole legality of horse-racing, that the Act of the eighteenth of George II. was merely explanatory of that statute, which, being repealed, brought the practice again within the old law, according to which it was illegal. By a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas it was decided, however, that the words of the eighteenth of George II. were large enough to legalize all races anywhere for fifty pounds and upwards, and that the Act was not merely an explanatory one. Upon this basis rests the existing law on the subject of horse-racing. Bets, however, as before stated, on horse-races are still as illegal as they are on any of the forbidden games—that is to say, they are outside the law; the law will not lend its assistance to recover them.'(152)
(152) Ubi Supra.
The extent to which gambling has been carried on in the street by boys was shown by the following summary laid before the Committee of the House of Commons on Gaming, in 1844:—
Boys apprehended for gaming in the streets—
Convicted. Discharged.
1841.... 305.... 68.... 237
1842.... 245.... 66.... 179
1813.... 329.... 114.... 185
—— —— ——
879 278 601
Only recently has any effectual check been put to this pernicious practice. It is however enacted by the New Gaming Act, that—'Every person playing or betting by way of wagering or gaming in any street, road, highway, or other open and public place to which the public have or are permitted to have access, at or with any table or instrument of gaming, or any coin, card, token, or other article used as an instrument of gaming or means of such wagering or gaming, at any game or pretended game of chance, shall be deemed a rogue and vagabond within the true intent and meaning of the recited Act, and as such may be punished under the provision of that Act.'
On this provision a daily paper justly remarks:—'A statute very much needed has come into force. Persons playing or betting in the streets with coins or cards are now made amenable to the 5th George IV., c. 83, and may be committed to gaol as rogues and vagabonds. The statutes already in force against such rogues and vagabonds subject them, we believe, not only to imprisonment with hard labour, but also to corporal punishment. In any case the New Act should, if stringently administered, speedily put a stop to the too common and quite intolerable nuisance of young men and boys sprawling about the pavement, or in corners of the wharves by the waterside, and playing at "pitch-and-toss," "shove-halfpenny," "Tommy Dodd," "coddams," and other games of chance. Who has not seen that terrible etching in Hogarth's "Industry and Idleness," where the idle apprentice, instead of going devoutly to church and singing out of the same hymn-book with his master's pretty daughter, is gambling on a tombstone with a knot of dissolute boys? A watchful beadle has espied the youthful gamesters, and is preparing to administer a sounding thwack with a cane on the shoulders of Thomas Idle. But the race of London beadles is now well-nigh extinct; and the few that remain dare not use their switches on the small vagabonds, for fear of being summoned for assault. It is to be hoped that the police will be instructed to put the Act sharply in force against the pitch-and-toss players; and, in passing, we might express a wish that they would also suppress the ragged urchins who turn "cart-wheels" in the mud, and the half-naked girls who haunt the vicinity of railway stations and steamboat piers, pestering passengers to buy cigar-lights.'
END OF VOL. I.