THE GAMING AND LOTTERIES BILL.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XVI, Issue 311, 31 December 1881, Page 4

THE GAMING AND LOTTERIES BILL.

In defending the man W^on, charged ai Oanoaro (he other day with holding & half-crown sweep, Mr O'.VfpagHsr is reported by the North Otago Times to have addressed to the Baseh this fi?,rca denunciation of the Ac* :•—" When the Bill was framed the preamble stood precisely as it did cow, and he did not thick it was ever tbe iotPDtion of the Legislature to go farther tban the intension foreshadowed by the preamble— namely, the suppression of op.nnos and betting-housea, and the more effeetnal abolition of lotteries. After the Bill came baVe Parliament there wrb a great deal of wroogling about various clauses of the Bill, tbon^h perhaps not so much 88 there Bboul.l have been ; and the Bill had pa»«ed in a form which made a sweep--Bt&ke, if it was only of a penny or lixpence, a lottery within the meaning of the Act. If it was ihe intention of the Lfcnidhfcure to put & stop to little halfcrown sweepstakes amongst a few friends on such occasions &e the Oamaru r&cep, til that he could say was that tbey bad precious little to do with the time of the country. A more iniquitous Act, he thought, bud not been passed since the days of Caligula Section 28 of the Act showed particularly how the liberty of tlu ..object had been trampled upoo, aqJ \h.- eff-ct of tbi3 would be to give ii<a 'police pewvr to enter any private bouse where a gentleman *ms bsvirg a game of whist for Hxpenny points with his friends ; end there was no eayinjr how far tbis poagr might be ehu3ed. TJcilei section j ■bo ! 28, His Worship wOilid obil^Bf, the maximum p^n-tltite were enojlgPpua — £200 and £400 and he Submitted that it was a monstrous thins for such a power to be placed in the hands cf any one man. The former wa3 donble tbe aiicuct that could be inflicted lor p. v breach cf ?bt rtvenut laws — as tflfe -e ih- so; strictly deali witb. 'ihfre R'«'. so Jy-^gH on any Bench ia ? hc Tyiris}- dcosiDicn who had such povvr a> ITie WorsLip had ucder thia .ict. It »as u cost daDgerca; &J oppressive Acf, and ought to ba si^c'cistered with grpai care and cautiot. 1 '" . Mr RobfneoD^ RM ; I agree with yoa entirely on that point, Mr O'Meagber. Mr O'Meagher qqxxM not entirely understand how the Act ever passed, unless it was by members ekulking oat of the House when a division came on, thus defrauding tbe people of their liberty ly their wilful absence. The voiod c f the country ha maintained, had never been heard on the Act — the voice of the country was either sneaking about in tbe lobbies, or else away from (h? Hoote on pretence of being ill. To show fait Worship bow tbe times were out of joint with regard to this Act, he would allude to the fact thai they bed in this district a handsome endowment of a racecourse which bad been C owngranted to a trust for the purpose of encooreging racing and a good breel of horses. This intention wbh being frustrated by tbis Act, sod lest race meet ing et G&maru had bceu more like a prayer naeeiir.g than a race meeting. And yet the Government legalised betting by macbioery, which he did not.] consider a rit more honest, if bs much eo, as harmless Bweep3takes. Tbe Act waa clearly an infriogement of tbe liberties of ihe aabjeet, &nd one worthy of Nicholas the First of Kue6ia, Melu ktff, or Igcntitff. Liberty was the oxerciee of &il their rights, natural and political — rigtita eecored to tbetn and their poiierity by a real representation of tbe people. The passing of the Act must fill tbe minds of all reasonable men with a fear of despotism that left eo hope to the people of preserving themselves end their children from ch&iss bat in common confederacy for the common safety. There should be a common confederation of the people of tbe colony to have the Act repealed, and he hoped that during the next session it would be swept from the Btatnte book of the country.