He did not think that new forms and new kinds of betting should be dealt with in the same way as the 1853 Act dealt with what existed at that time; and he did not advocate any extension of it (Q. 443-44), as he did not consider that it was really intended to suppress betting (Q. 443) but that it may have done a certain amount of good in preventing crowds of people resorting to a particular house and creating scandal (Q. 438). He did not, however, consider that the betting in public houses was very desirable (Q. 517), and would amend the Licensing Act. He did not think that bye-laws could deal with licensed houses, but that they might put down betting in streets and public places (Q. 602-3). He said that if the bookmaker were suppressed there would be no betting (Q. 535-36), as he thought occasional private bets between individuals without a bookmaker could not be satisfactory (Q. 532). With regard to the _friendly_ actions in which Mr. Stutfield had been engaged as counsel on behalf of the betting men, viz. the _Kempton Park_ case, _Stoddart_ of _Sporting Luck_ against his printers, the _Argus Printing Co._, and _Thomas_ v. _Sutters_ (the street bookmaker’s appeal against the bye-law), he maintained that there was nothing improper about them (Q. 411, 552, 561). Mr. HAWKE also gave evidence as to the corruption of the public services and British sports by the professional betting system, and of its disastrous effects, especially among the wage-earning classes. Amongst the records of his Society taken from the courts of law in five and a half years were 80 suicides, 321 embezzlements, and 191 bankruptcies, the witness pointing out reasons for believing that these numbers were very much below the true totals. Mr. HAWKE said that his Society held the same opinion as that published by Sir Fitzjames Stephen (author of the _Digest of the Criminal Law_) in the _Nineteenth Century Magazine_, July 1891, who said that the business of a betting agent was carried on in defiance of the general body of the law, and added, “The existence of such a person appears to me to be an insult to the law.” The National Anti-Gambling League made the following recommendations, based upon a study of the question lasting over eight years:— _Street and Public Place Betting._ Increased fines and imprisonment. _Newspaper Coupon Betting._ Making it illegal to publish Advertisements of English and foreign betting-houses. _Tipsters’ Circulars._ Making illegal to issue. _Paying Bets in Public-houses._ Making illegal. _Areas controlled by Private Amending the Act of 1853 if Proprietors._ the _Powell_ v. _Kempton Park_ case should be accepted as the correct construction of the Act.