NOTE.—Lord Davey has just introduced another Bill entitled “An Act for the Suppression of Betting in Streets and other Public Places” (Eyre and Spottiswoode, London, ½d.). It is a very valuable measure, but has been confined for good reasons to offences coming under the title of Street Betting. In any further legislation it will be necessary to bring the advertisements of Betting Houses, the proprietors of which call themselves Commission Agents, whether British or Foreign, under such provisions as those of the Betting Act 1853 (section 7), as pointed out by the Lord Chief Justice. III SUMMARY OF LORDS’ COMMISSION HOUSE OF LORDS SELECT COMMITTEE ON BETTING EXCERPTS FROM EVIDENCE WITNESSES: Mr. JOHN HAWKE, Honorary Secretary, National Anti-Gambling League, and Mr. G. H. STUTFIELD, Counsel for the Jockey Club, and for the Bookmakers and Street Bookmakers. Mr. HAWKE gave evidence as to the great increase during late years, especially in street betting at starting prices, and newspaper coupon betting; also as to betting at athletic sports and in public-houses; as to the bye-laws being passed by local authorities on street betting, and the enormous scale upon which coupons are carried on, one proprietor of an insignificant newspaper receiving between £2000 and £3000 a week in postal orders, etc., as acknowledged by himself in evidence. After his conviction his newspaper was advertising the business as continued from Holland. Mr. STUTFIELD (Q. 299) said he believed that artisans of all ages and all classes, including women, put their small coins on horses through the street bookmakers. He did not think (Q. 300, etc.) that such backers—he could not say about the children—required protection against being over-matched by the bookmakers. He did not see any reason in legal principle (Q. 435-36) why foreign coupon houses should be allowed to advertise in English papers, but he did not think it would do any good to prohibit it. He agreed that all, or nearly all, such betting as street betting was now done at starting prices (Q. 308-9), guaranteed by the bookmaker to the customers by the publication in newspapers of the starting-price odds (Q. 315-16), but he did not think (Q. 266) its prohibition would stop starting-price betting, as he expected that bookmakers would form some plan to reassure their clients (Q. 269) as to their being fairly dealt with. He considered that a result of the Kempton Park case was that it was no infringement (Q. 475-76) of the Betting Act of 1853 for bookmakers to carry on their business in athletic sports grounds, and that under that decision (Q. 573) public-houses may practically become betting exchanges, and sometimes do. The Kempton Park case did not decide that the race-course ring could not be a place under the Act, but that it was not used by a person in the position of an occupier or owner (Q. 447-53).