The effort to put down gambling at horse-races made by
-the Anti-Gambling League has so far failed. They prosecuted -the Jockey Club at Newmarket Police Court on a charge of keeping betting inclosures on their property at that place, from which, it was alleged, they made a profit of £30,000 a year. Everybody knows that the inclosures exist, and that they are the pivots of a vast system of betting, but the -question was whether the Jockey Club kept them for that purpose. It was argued that, although betting occurred there, the inclosures were not maintained for that purpose like the betting-houses which it was the object of the Act to suppress, and the Magistrates, who were of course strongly supported by local popular feeling, held by a majority that the evidence as to the facts was insufficient. It is a little farcical all that, though it may possibly be good law, the evidence of intention not being legally complete. We have but imperfect sympathy with the effort to suppress betting, which, though often most inexpedient, is not in itself immoral ; but we regret these proceedings. It is at least unfortunate that two of the Magistrates should have been connected, however distantly, with the Jockey Club; that the snit should have been heard at Newmarket, where, if it had succeeded, most people would have been ruined ; and that an impression should be left upon the popular mind that great people may allow betting-stands and little people may not. As the general public wish the great people to be let alone, the resentment created is not deep; but the sup- posed fact will be used by popular orators for a good many years. We hope the sporting group within the House of Commons, which is numerous enough in all conscience, will have the courage to ask Parliament to define its own meaning unmistakably.