12 SEPTEMBER 1924, Page 11

" RACING VERSUS WORK."

[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] Sni,—There are two points made by Sir Leo Chiozza Money, in his interesting and valuable article (Spectator, August 23rd), which have not yet received the attention they demand. He points out the deplorable effect of betting upon work, which in the aggregate must involve enormous loss upon the nation. I am not the only one amongst those who followed closely the inquiry of the Betting Duty Committee, who was surprised that no witness was called who could speak with expert knowledge on the economic effects of betting. The employment of some £200,000,000 in betting, to take the estimate of the Chairman of the Committee, must have a weakening and disturbing effect upon certain economic factors. That side of the question was almost entirely ignored by the Select Committee, and only referred to inci- dentally by one or two witnesses, though its importance is evident. Canon Peter Green has suggested that the absorp- tion of interest in betting involves a reduction in output amounting to as much as 20 per cent., and though some have turned down that estimate as an ecclesiastical exaggera- tion, it is only the actual figure that can be questioned. None, knowing the situation, can deny the fact of considerable loss.

Sir Leo Chiozza Money finds his chief difficulty, as do all who are concerned with this problem, when he discusses possible remedies, but he makes an important constructive suggestion when he urges that it is most necessary " to provide abundant opportunities for the exercise of genuine sport." The Prime Minister said, years ago, that betting would not be stamped out, but elbowed out. One of the most fruitful methods is unquestionably the provision for genuine sport. It was urged by C.O.P.E.C., when considering this question, that there should be " more definite endeavour to provide for sport and games of all kinds free from the evil associations of gambling." There are leaders in the realm of sport who

could help enormously along these lines. The money interest is altogether too large a feature. A boxing contest for a purse of £10,000 can hardly be claimed to be " genuine sport."

The game for the sake of the game is the healthful spirit of true sport, and the wider practical acceptance of this would do much to elbow out betting.

In some of his other conclusions Sir Leo is open to correction. The paragraph quoted from the Report of the Select Com- mittee hardly does justice to these conclusions. The terms

of reference were " the practicability and the desirability " of a Betting Duty. While a • majority of the Committee supported the statement as quoted, that a Betting Duty is

practicable, the proposed recommendation of the Chairman's draft that it was also desirable was rejected by eleven votes

to seven. This is a particularly important decision of the Committee. It should also be remembered that a draft

report, expressing a strong and considered judgment against a Betting Tax, was presented by Mr. Isaac Foot, and the proposal to consider this rather than the Chairman's draft report was only lost by two votes. While recognizing the incompleteness of the Report of the Committee, it is clear that there was a majority opinion against a recommendation of a tax on betting as a desirable thing for the nation to adopt.

In his reference to the Totalisator, Sir Leo might have gone further and indicated that the Chairman of the Select Com- mittee, in his draft report, expressed a judgment against the Totalisator or Pari Mutuel system as offering any prospect of a solution of the problem in this country.

In the closing paragraph of the article Sir Leo gives expres- sion to the familiar condemnation of the law relating to betting as being confused and unjust, but surely that needs some qualification. No one, as far as I recall, suggested to the Betting Duty Committee that the law should be amended in some of these particulars. There was a consensus of opinion, for instance, against making betting debts recoverable by law, and equally against the legalizing of street betting. The main attack upon the injustice of the law centres round the Act of 1853, which was passed in order to make the establishment of betting houses illegal. When the Act was passed it seems to have had the effect desired, but since

then the telegraph and telephone have beeiune universal,

and a way is thus opened for those who can afford it to get round the Act. In other words they can place a bet on credit without personally resorting to the office. During the debate in the House of Lords a few months ago, Lord Darling stated that if he had been called upon to interpret the Act of 1853 he would have given it as his judgment that placing a bet by telephone or telegram was " resorting " within the meaning of the Act. The decision upon which rests the interpretation of that Act, however, allowed this loophole. Hence the apparent injustice which favours the wealthier section of the community as against those not thus privileged. The remedy surely is plain. Let the full intention of the Act be carried out and such amending Act be passed as would penalize credit betting equally with cash betting. This at any rate would remove one of the grounds of injustice which was referred to repeatedly during the inquiry of the Betting Duty Committee.—I am, Sir, &c.,

E. BENSON PERKINS.

1 Central Buildings, Westminster, S.W.1.