§ Sir Robert Inglisrose to submit to the House the Motion of which he had given notice, for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the origin and present state of a lottery 402 purporting to be carried on under the authority of Parliament, and entitled the Glasgow Lottery, and into any other lotteries, foreign or otherwise, of which (since the legal discontinuance of lotteries) schemes, tickets, or shares, have been circulated in the United Kingdom. From the manner in which the announcement of the particular lottery to which be wished especially to call the attention of the House had been made, it had been promulgated to the community, that it was carried on under the sanction and authority of Parliament; yet not a single Member of the House was aware that he had ever given his sanction to the revival of lotteries in this country, and the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had himself on a former occasion declared, that he was not in any degree cognizant of any measure at all tending to sanction such a proceeding having been submitted to or passed the Legislature. The noble Lord had characterised the measure in terms so strong and so just, that he (Sir Robert Inglis) might almost rely upon that declaration as the foundation upon which to rest the present Motion. The noble Lord had characterised the transaction as connected with a fraudulent proceeding. With such a declaration, that the authority of Parliament had been fraudulently obtained, he felt satisfied that the House would think him justified in insisting upon an inquiry. The title of the Bill from which the alleged authority was derived, was completely at variance with the provisions which it established. The title was a Bill for Altering and Improving certain Streets, from the Cross of Glasgow, to Monteith-row, and in its provisions the word lottery was never mentioned. Such, however, had been the case in all bills passed for the purpose of enabling parties to dispose of property by lottery, and he would instance the Bill for disposing of the buildings in Pickett-street and Snow-bill, wherein the law affecting lotteries was specially alluded to, and a clause inserted to relieve the parties from liability to the penalties to which under the old law they would be exposed. So also in the cases of the Boydel, Tomkins, and other property, but otherwise in the present instance. He did not understand the noble Lord in his remark to attribute personal fraud to the parties who obtained the Bill, to the solicitor who had framed it, or to the contractors. Neither 403 did he make such an accusation, but he did contend that the House, with such a Bill before it, never could have conceived it possible that such a proceeding as the Glasgow lottery was contemplated; nor did he believe such a proceeding could be warranted or sustained under the Bill. He thought, however, that though the parties might have been guilty of no fraud in bringing the Bill before the House, yet they had made themselves responsible for all that might ensue under the old law passed in the reign of Queen Anne. The great object, however, he had in view, was not so much to punish any party, however improper might have been their conduct, as to prevent a recurrence of similar measures in future. If any encouragement was given by the House to such a course of proceeding, this mode of raising money, not for the fiscal purposes of the State, but for contractors, would in twenty instances be revived and repeated in the course of next year. He had heard with regret, in the course of last week, the hon. member for Sussex, and the hon. member for the city of Dublin, urge the establishment of lotteries, not for national purposes, but to carry into effect particular objects. The hon. and learned member for Dublin had claimed a lottery in aid of a ship-canal; and another hon. Member sought for similar assistance for the completion of the Thames-tunnel. However he might look with anxiety for the complete termination of the latter undertaking, yet he should object to recourse being had to such suspicious aid as that to be derived from the revival of lotteries—a system of raising money which had ceased even for fiscal purposes, and ought not to be renewed in aid of the shareholders in a tunnel or a canal at the expense of increasing a spirit for gambling, which was at once destructive of the morals of the people, and injurious to the best interests and resources of the nation. There had been transmitted to him from Ireland a circular letter, bearing the signature of the hon. member for Leominster, in which that hon. Gentleman lamented that lotteries were not more prevalent in this country. He entertained no such feelings of regret, but, on the contrary, he maintained, that if the Government entertained such a principle, instead of being (as it ought to be) the guardian, it would become the corruptor of the public morals. He had first called the attention of the 404 House to this subject in the month of April, 1833, when the announcement of only one lottery had been made, but had not followed it up, under the perfect conviction that the whole business would be closed with that single transaction, and that therefore it would be unnecessary for Parliament again to interfere. Besides this, an appeal ad miscricordiam had been made, and it had been represented that any parliamentary interference would he ruinous in its effects to many individuals. This information, coupled with the feeling that the evil would soon cease, had induced him not to revive the matter. But no sooner was the Parliament prorogued than new advertisements appeared, announcing a second lottery; and the House need not be reminded that a third was now about to be proceeded with. He had been informed by a gentleman who had authorized him to state his name if required by the House, that if Parliament had interposed before the second drawing, the contractors would have suffered no loss, as the contract was not completed; but now, from the implied sanction of the Legislature, consequent on its not having interposed, a third lottery had been determined upon and announced. He had stated sufficient ground he thought to induce the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the House, to accede to his Motion for inquiry: indeed, he did not anticipate any opposition from more than one hon. Member. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving for the appointment of a Select Committee in the terms already stated.
§ Mr. Sinclairsaid, that upon a subject so immediately referring to Scotland, where lotteries were so generally deprecated, he felt it his duty to second the Motion of the hon. Baronet. He had himself much regretted to hear propositions suggested to the House for the revival of lotteries, for the advancement of either public or private works. Rather than see such a course adopted he should hope that measures would be taken by the Legislature to prevent any participation by the people of this country even in foreign lotteries.
§ Mr. Bishsaid, that as his character had been in some degree involved in the question before the House, he begged to state that he knew no more of the Bill which had been alluded to than did the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair. He 405 stood merely in the situation of one of the lottery-office keepers of the metropolis, and though it might be conceived he was implicated in the expression of the noble Lord opposite, that the Bill had been fraudulently obtained, he must disclaim all knowledge of the measure, which was introduced and passed before he had the honour of a seat in the House. It appeared that the Bill received the Royal Assent on the 30th of July, 1831, and it was not until the month of February following, that any person connected with lotteries knew that such an object could be effected by its provisions. It was not until six months after the passing of the Bill that he heard from Glasgow that such a lottery was to be disposed of, and he was just as much surprised when he learned that lotteries were to come up again, as if he had been informed that St. Paul's-church had walked to Tower-hill. He hesitated not to declare, that the conduct of the lottery-office-keepers in the transaction would bear the fullest and strictest investigation. To that investigation he was ready to give every facility in his power, and had even communicated to the hon. Baronet, the member for Oxford, his perfect willingness to second the Motion for an inquiry. He had hoped that the hon. Baronet would have pursued the usual courtesy in such cases practised by hon. Members, by informing him (Mr. Bish) of his intention to bring forward the subject twelve days subsequent to the first drawing, so that he might have been in his place upon the occasion. The next occasion on which the subject was brought under the consideration of the House, was on the presentation of a petition from some gentleman, complaining that he had purchased a sixteenth share which had come up a blank. He (Mr. Bish) was not present on that occasion, the petition having been presented at the morning sitting, at a time when he was engaged upon the Warwick Election Committee. The next thing that he had heard of the matter was, an allusion made to it by the hon. member for Bridport. It was then postponed, though several gentleman had come up from Glasgow, and other long distances, for the purpose of meeting the investigation, from which he had never shrunk, feeling satisfied that the office-keepers and those with whom he was concerned would come off with honour to themselves, and with satisfaction to the 406 country at large. In answer to the allegation, that the Bill was smuggled through the House, he begged to state, that no Bill had been subjected to closer scrutiny. The alleged smugglers of the Bill in the first instance were, Mr. Monteith and Mr. Archibald Campbell—gentlemen holding the highest character of honour and integrity in that part of the country. The Bill went regularly through every stage, and was all but out of the House when Parliament was dissolved, in consequence of the result of General Gascoyne's Motion. In the succeeding Session it had been introduced by Mr. Dixon and Sir Michael Stewart. He was himself a very humble individual, perhaps the most humble individual in that House; but then he was a Member of Parliament, thanks to his constituents at Leominster; and he thought that the hon. Baronet, the member for Oxford, had not treated him with the courtesy due from one Member to another. The hon. Baronet had forfeited his word, at least he had written to him on one occasion to say, that he would bring this question forward at a particular time, which he did not. The hon. Baronet had, in the course of his speech, said something about the Thames Tunnel as well as lotteries in general. He must acknowledge that he was favourable to lotteries, and as the House had lost 4,000,000l. by abolishing lotteries, he thought they ought to have some good reason for it. They had, however, confounded the illegality with the legal part of a lottery. They might as well say, that a newspaper was bad, because a scurrilous article occasionally appeared in it; or that religion was a bad thing because we had some times profligate parsons. But to return to the Thames Tunnel. He had the opportunity of knowing that many persons of the highest distinction approved of its plan, and were desirous of seeing it completed. The Duke of Wellington had signified his admiration of the undertaking; and he had no doubt that, if it had not been for the change of the Government, that it would have been completed. By lotteries 4,000,000l. had been lost to the country, as he had said before; he thought he had as good a sense of morality as the hon. member for Oxford, but though we had lost 4,000,000l. of revenue, we had not gained four pennyworth of morality, by doing away with lotteries. There was less gambling in a 407 lottery than in any Bill that was brought into Parliament. All he saw around him were gamblers; all men were gamblers; and he could not help, on that point, reading to the House the opinion of Mr. Jefferson, not long since President of the United States. Mr. Jefferson said,—'If we consider games of chance immoral, then every pursuit of human industry is immoral, for there is not a single one that is not subject to chance; not one wherein you do not risk a loss for the chance of some gain. The navigator, for example, risks his ship in the hope (if she be not lost in the voyage) of gaining an advantageous freight. The merchant risks his cargo to gain a better price for it. A landholder builds a house on the risk of indemnifying himself by a rent. The hunter hazards his time and trouble in the hope of killing game. In all these pursuits you stake some one thing against another, which you hope to win. But the greatest of all gamblers is the farmer. He risks the seed that he puts into the ground—the rent he pays for the ground itself—the year's labour on it, and the wear and tear of his cattle and gear, to win a crop, which the chance of too much or too little rain, and the general uncertainty of weather, insects, waste, &c., often make a partial or total loss. These then are games of chances, yet so far from being immoral, they are indispensable to the existence of man.' In America, lotteries were employed to build chapels, to found seminaries, to clear swamps; thus promoting the benefit of the country, the benefit of towns, and the comfort of religious congregations. He dared say, that those people had as good a chance of going to Heaven, as if they went regularly to a parliamentary-built church.
§ Sir Robert Inglissaid, that the hon. Member had accused him of violating his word. With respect to the engagement which he contracted with the hon. Member, having thought that something of this kind would probably come before the House, he had come down with copies of the correspondence which passed between himself and the hon. Member on the subject. The hon. Baronet read the extract of a letter, to show that he had only bound himself not to originate the question at a particular time, but that he put in his claim to be heard at a future time.
§ Mr. Roebuckdid not know who had committed the offence, but all that the hon. member for Oxford had to do was, to substantiate the fact that an offence had been committed. It appeared, however, to him, that the House would trench upon the province of the Law-officers of the Crown if it proceeded to examine into this point. Lotteries by the common law were illegal, and therefore required a distinct Act of Parliament to make it lawful to engage in a lottery. But this was also illegal by Act of Parliament, and he would refer, to prove his assertion, to the wording of the Act itself. The hon. Member quoted the Act to show, that it only authorized the dividing the property into lots. Under these circumstances, he should vote with the hon. member for Oxford.
§ Mr. Warburtonwould not have mentioned in that place anything that had come to his knowledge in a private capacity relative to Mr. Monteith; but having a place which brought no emolument with it whatever, that of one of the Exchequer Loan Commissioners, he had occasion to meet the gentlemen who conducted the undertaking. Now, this gentleman, with one or two others, had come forward as guarantees to the Government for the repayment of an advance of Exchequer-bills. Now he thought that in this fact there was a good reason for his hon. friend's persisting in his Motion. As Shakspeare, who was a player, had said "All the world's a stage," so the hon. member for Leominster said "All the world's a lottery." As to the morality of lotteries, hon. Gentlemen should recollect the times when lotteries existed, to be able to form a judgment upon it. These held out a temptation to servants, and persons of small means, to invest their little savings in the purchase of a share of a lottery-ticket, instead of laying them up in a savings-bank. With regard to the question before the House, he thought facts enough had been adduced to show that inquiry ought to be made. Before he sat down he must observe that he had heard, shortly after the Bill was passed, that a lottery was to grow out of it; and he warned a gentleman who, from being connected with the Government, might have an influence over the promoters of the Bill, to take care that no lottery was established.
§ Mr. Spring Ricesaid, it was impossible for the Government to guard against the manner in which a money lottery had been 409 grafted on this Bill. He had had occasion to refer to the papers connected with the subject that morning; and, if the Motion were agreed to, they might be laid before the Committee. The individuals who had carried the Bill through the House had dealt with it as a mode of disposing of property by lot among purchasers; but the Government had never contemplated conferring on them a power of ingrafting money obligations, and money prizes, on the scheme. He believed that all the inconvenience which had arisen had sprung from a matter which was not at the time in the contemplation of those who had promoted the Bill.
§ Mr. Edward Romillysaid, that an inquiry ought to take place. It was proper to inquire if the Act was improperly obtained, or if the clause was improperly introduced. If money were taken in this way out of the pockets of the people, it would be a species of State swindling. That money, if wanted for State exigences, might be drawn from their pockets by a direct tax.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, he should not object to the Motion.
Mr. O'Connellhad read the Act with great attention before any notice had been taken of the power it gave, and he saw nothing about a lottery in it. The Law-officers of the Crown were certainly quite blameless in allowing the Bill to pass, but the best way to acquire information on the subject was to look at the Act itself. This, besides giving the power to divide the property into 3,000 shares, permitted that an unlimited number of additional shares should be created, when the original shares were hardly worth anything, and permitted the decision of everything relating to the shares to depend upon the shareholders, whose vote was to be final. As to the immorality of a lottery, to be sure as a species of gaining it was immoral, but he did not really mean to preach sermons in that House. What was stock-jobbing?—was that not gaming? There were many individuals who made their fortunes by a good lie. The fluctuation of a-half per cent. made many wealthy men. The rumours of a war—a bloody insurrection—might place a man in possession of a large estate. But on this point conscience was seared. Should, however, such a thing as a lottery come before the House, hon. Members would move heaven and—worse regions, to put 410 down the abomination. He did not know after all, whether, if a great public measure was to be promoted by a lottery, such iniquity attached to it as some hon. Members seemed to suppose. In his opinion, with great deference to those who dissented from his view of the case, as Parliament had allowed a lottery to be created, it ought not now to interfere; but if they objected to lotteries, why they need not allow them in future to be established.
Mr. Curteisobserved, that, when gambling was going on to such an extent as it notoriously was amongst the higher classes, it rather appeared to him that the House would be straining at the gnat after having swallowed the camel, if it should now exercise its power to put an end to this Glasgow lottery, the more especially as it was well known that tickets in any of the foreign lotteries might be obtained by persons who were so disposed. He contended that it would be unjust to put an immediate end to a speculation in which so many persons held shares. He begged to assure the House he was not of the number: he had no ticket.
§ The Motion was agreed to, and a Committee appointed.
§ Sir Robert Inglistook occasion to remark that he should not oppose the nomination of Mr. Bish on the Committee, although he had abstained from putting down his name, as by his own statement it appeared that he was a contractor. It would be most likely that the Committee would be happy to avail themselves of Mr. Bish's evidence as a witness.
§ Mr. Poulett Scrope moved, that Mr. Bish's name be added to the list of the Committee.—Agreed to.