IRISH SWEEPSTAKE TICKETS (CUSTOMS SEIZURE). (Hansard, 30 April 1931)

§ Colonel HOWARD-BURY
I wish to raise a question of great interest to many Members of this House, and that is the action that has been taken by the Government in various ports with regard to the bringing into this country of what are known as Irish Sweepstake tickets. What has happened in the past? In this country sweepstakes are forbidden by law, but the Irish Free State Government have passed laws which enable certain sweepstakes to be held in that country. Those sweepstakes are most carefully governed and regulated, and before one can be held it has to be permitted by the Irish Free State Government. Irish citizens who come over to this country, or it may be American citizens who land in Ireland and who come over to this country, are to-day being subjected by the Treasury to an inquisition which ought not to happen. Any Irish subject is entitled to buy a ticket in his own country. That action is perfectly legal. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury bases his action in seizing tickets on the Revenue Act, 1898, Section 1. I have looked into that 1891 Act carefully, and I have asked lawyers for their opinion with regard to the action that is being taken. I am glad to see that the Attorney-General is here. Perhaps he can give me certain advice. I am sure that other lawyers would be prepared equally to argue the matter. Section 1 of the Revenue Act, 189S, prohibits Any advertisement or other notice of, or relating to, the drawing or intended drawing of any lottery, which, in the opinion of the Commissioners of Customs, is imported for the purpose of publication in the United Kingdom.… Does the Financial Secretary mean to say that a person who has legally in his possession the counterfoil of an Irish sweepstake ticket is bringing it into this country for the purpose of publication? Are his Customs officials entitled to demand and take away that document from that person? The Act does not give his officials power to do that. The Section further quotes the Lotteries Act of 1836. That Act forbids a person to print or publish or cause to be printed or published any advertisement or any other notice of, or relating to, the drawing or intended drawing of any lottery not authorised by Parliament. A person who brings in a ticket which he has bought legally is not advertising it. It is his own possession. The Financial Secretary in answer to a question which I put to him said that he was advised that such tickets are lottery advertisements. When he buys a railway ticket, is that an advertisement of that railway? When he goes to the theatre and buys a ticket, is that an advertisement of that theatre? I have never heard of such a ticket being called an advertisement. He is shutting his eyes to the Danish lotteries whose tickets and advertisements are coming in by thousands. What we ask for is to be entitled to bring our own possessions in. We say that they are not advertisements and that the Financial Secretary is acting beyond his powers.
In this country we are not entitled to have sweepstakes for the benefit of our hospitals, and the hon. Member is determined that the Irish Free State shall not have sweepstakes for its hospitals, if he can help it. He has adopted a dog-in-the-manger attitude. He says: "We cannot benefit therefore you shall 1892 not, and we are going to take every step to prevent you." On that he is basing his action. The Postmaster-General was told by the Home Office to open letters, but they found that that was not sufficient. The tickets are coming into this country. There is hardly a Member of this House who has not one of these illegal, or supposed to be illegal, documents.

§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
No.

§ Colonel HOWARD-BURY
Speak for yourself.

§ Mr. MILLS
Or a member of the Press Gallery.

§ Colonel HOWARD-BURY
Probably nearly every Member has them. I suggest that the action of the Financial Secretary is mere bluff, and that his action is not legal. I wish some rich citizen from America or the Irish Free State, who has sufficient money, or some of the leagues for freedom that we have in this country would test the case in a court of law, because it is an attack on the liberty of the subject. It needs a rich man to be able to attack the Treasury. If the point were argued in a court of law it could be proved that the action taken by the Financial Secretary is illegal. It is not doing us any good in this country, and I ask him to stop this inquisition which is going on to-day in all the ports adjacent to Ireland.

§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE
The hon. and gallant Member professes to take the view that the action of the Customs is illegal. What is his ground for taking that view He says that a ticket is not a notice or an advertisement, and in the second place he says that even if it were a person is not importing it fur the purpose of publication.

§ Colonel HOWARD-BURY
It is a receipt.

§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE
The hon. and gallant Member suggests that the ticket is not a notice or advertisement but merely a receipt. In any event he suggests that the ticket is not brought in for the purpose of publication. Those are two points that I can deal with very simply. There are tickets for certain 1893 things which certainly are not notices or advertisement, but anyone who has seen one of the Irish Free State Hospital Subscribers' Fund tickets, as I have—I have one in my possession at the present time—can have no doubt—

§ Colonel HOWARD-BURY
May I ask how the Financial Secretary got the ticket?

§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE
As the Minister in charge of the Customs I have been given a ticket, but I should have no right to claim any benefit, because I got it in my representative capacity.

§ Colonel HOWARD-BURY
What if it wins?

§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE
Any one who has seen one of these tickets can have no possible doubt that it is not like an ordinary ticket. It is, in fact, an advertisement and a notice of the lottery. It describes what the lottery is about. It gives particulars of the prizes. It tells how other tickets are to be obtained, and it gives all those particulars and descriptions which one would expect a notice and advertisement to give. Therefore, while it may be argued that it is not a notice or advertisement, any one who has seen one of these tickets can have no doubt that they do come within the meaning of Section 1 of the Revenue Act of 1898. In order that there might be no question on the matter, legal opinion was taken and it confirmed the view of the Customs in the matter. If any member of the public chooses to dispute that view it is open for them to take the matter to the Courts and test it for themselves. We shall be very happy for the test to be taken. We have not the smallest doubt, and I do not think that anyone who impartially views the question could have the smallest doubt, as to what the result would be. The Section says: any advertisement or other notice of, or relating to, the drawing or intended drawing of any lottery which, in the opinion of the Commissioners of Customs, is imported for the purpose of publication in the United Kingdom, in contravention or the Lotteries Act, 1836, or any other Act relating to foreign lotteries. I will explain to the hon. and gallant Member how the Customs have interpreted the phrase which, in the opinion of the Commissioners of Customs, is imported for the purpose of publication. 1894 It has not been their practice to confiscate single tickets in the possession of passengers which they have, presumably, purchased for themselves and not for publication. What they have confiscated, and what there can be no possible doubt have been imported for the purpose of publication, are books of tickets, which have been imported quite clearly for resale and distribution and for other methods of advertising the lottery. In view of these facts, the Customs are perfectly justified in taking the course that they have done. They are bound to do it in pursuance of the law. In view of the nature of the tickets, the action of the Customs is not merely justified but it would be entirely reprehensible if we did not see that the law was carried out.
The hon. and gallant Member at Question Time put forward the point of discourtesy on the part of the Customs officials, but he has not referred to that to-night. He has not done what I asked him to do. I said that if he had any instance to which he wished to direct my attention, I should be happy to deal with it. That was last Tuesday. He has not given particulars of any case, therefore I can only conclude that in regard to that part of his accusation he has no evidence whatever and that I have nothing to answer. I have made such inquiries as I could in the absence of any particular case and I can find no trace of any discourtesy, but I am quite willing, if the hon. and gallant Member furnishes me with any proofs of any alleged discourtesy on the part of Customs officials, to make it my duty to look into the charges and see whether there is any foundation whatever for them.

§ Colonel HOWARD-BURY
I will give the hon. Member a case.

§ Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON
I am convinced, with the utmost respect for this House, that this is really and truly nothing more or less than a simple question of law, and I have risen for the purpose of saying, with the utmost respect to those who have advised the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, that I have the gravest doubt whether this action is justified by the section to which he has referred. I speak with considerable hesitation because I have 1895 not had an opportunity of considering this legislation for some time past, but I desire to call the attention of the House to the fact that this Section, in express language, is aimed at the prohibition of advertisements or notices, or literature, relating to lotteries which are published in the British Empire. The language of the Section is quite precise. It says that it is to give— power to prohibit the introduction of advertisements or other notices and so on, and then follow the words— imported for the purposes of publication in the United Kingdom in contravention of the Lotteries Act, 1836, or any other Act relating to"— what?— to foreign lotteries. I do not think that this point has received the attention it deserves. I am far from expressing an opinion upon this section, or upon any other section in an Act of Parliament, without having a fuller opportunity than I have had to-day to consider this particular section, but I think the Act of 1898 was passed at a time when considerable scandal was occasioned by this country being flooded, through the Post Office, with literature in connection with foreign lotteries largely from Holland, and it was aimed at giving the Customs officials powers to intercept such documents, and to see that they were not used against the spirit of our Lottery Acts. I thought it right to let the Financial Secretary have this opinion because it may well be that, if this course of conduct is persisted in, someone who really cherishes his liberty—apparently there are not many people in this country who do so any longer—will take appropriate proceedings against officers who deprive him of that for which he has paid.
I should like to add that I have had an opportunity of seeing these tickets, and lest there may be any misconception about the mater it is well that I should state that I did not make any use of the ticket which was offered to me by making it my personal property and that I returned it to the gentleman who sent it to me. But it is quite obvious that there is behind this a very serious question indeed of public liberty, and that we should be perfectly certain of our ground before we intercept documents coming 1896 from a country which is still an integral part of the British Empire and which are published in circumstances which are perfectly lawful in the country of origin. The real truth is that the whole position with regard to lotteries and gaming, and the like, is one of incomprehensible confusion, and some of us think that this House might be usefully occupied if we had an opportunity of making some real attempt to try and reduce the welter of legislation which exists upon this subject to a somewhat reasonable, simple, and comprehensive single Act of Parliament.

§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
I only rise to make one or two comments upon the Debate which has been initiated by the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Colonel Howard-Bury). In the first place, I have for some years travelled pretty frequently between this country and Ireland and I was astonished to hear the hon. and gallant Member speak of discourtesy on the part of the Customs officials. I have always found the Customs officials on both sides of the English Channel most helpful in difficult circumstances, with crowded mail trains, and late at night. I have not crossed the Irish Channel since this recent traffic has grown up, but I am surprised to hear that there has been any deterioration in the courtesy of Customs officials. If there has been it is simply because of this fact. It is notorious that there has been growing up a regular traffic in sweepstake tickets between the Irish Free State and this country.
I am not going into the ethics of the matter, but there is no doubt that professional dealers have been going over to Ireland and bringing back tickets to sell on commission. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury could not possibly turn a blind eye to proceedings of that nature. If there is any complaint to make against the Government it is that they have been a little tardy in taking steps to stop it; it is an illegal traffic. The only other criticism that can be levelled against the Government is that perhaps they are not as strict as they might be in enforcing the existing law in regard to the Danish sweepstake and the Danzic Lottery, and in turning a blind eye to the blatant advertisements in this country of the results of these sweepstake lotteries, the Irish sweepstake, the Stock Exchange sweepstake, 1897 the Calcutta sweepstake and the Otley Club. It is, I know, a most difficult question and I do not want to be censorious, but, obviously, the law being what it is it must be applied, and I am glad that the Financial Secretary is standing firm on this matter.

§ Sir WILLIAM DAVISON
I desire to associate myself with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Colonel Howard-Bury) as to the grave infringement of the liberty of the subject which has been occasioned. The Section of the Act is quite clear in its terms. It says: imported for the purpose of publication in the United Kingdom. By a curious coincidence I happen to have in my pocket a copy of the Irish Free State Act authorising this lottery, and Section 7 of that Act definitely provides that certain information is to be given on the ticket. That information is: Every book of tickets in a sweepstake held under this Act shall have clearly printed thereon:

(a) where such sweepstake is held by the governing body of one hospital only, the name of such hospital, or where such sweepstake is held by the governing bodies of two or more hospitals, the names of such hospitals and the proportion in which the funds raised by means of such sweepstake will be divided amongst such hospitals, and,

(b) a statement to the effect that such sweepstake is held under this Act."

The Act also states that if these announcements are not made on the ticket the person issuing the tickets will be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50. It is idle to say that these tickets are imported for the purpose of publication as an advertisement. That is not the case at all. This statement on the ticket is issued under the precise provisions of the Act of Parliament of the Irish Free State, and any person who did not put this information on the ticket would be liable to a penalty of £50. The suggestion made by the Financial Secretary that these tickets are meant to be advertisements of a lottery is not accurate. The reason this information is printed on the ticket is because the Irish Free State Parliament, for the protection of the public, insists that every person buying a ticket shall have this information provided thereon. Before individuals coming from the Irish 1898 Free State are harassed by having their pockets turned inside out, on the suggestion that they are bringing advertisements to this country because particulars of the lottery are printed on the ticket, the Financial Secretary had better make further inquiries into the law on the subject.
It only shows how essential it is that the whole question of lotteries and sweepstakes should be dealt with by the Government. The law on the subject is in a state of chaos. It is not in the interest of the community that the law should be openly and flagrantly broken in this respect by all sections of the community with general approval, and it is high time that there was an inquiry into the subject and the law made to conform with public opinion. Having failed to get the Government to move in the matter, I am hoping at an early date to bring in a small Measure which will at any rate focus public opinion on the subject and show the Government how urgent is the need for a clarification of the law.

§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
I must tell the House that I have not considered this matter before this Debate, and the advice to which the Financial Secretary referred is not my advice. I have listened with interest to the arguments which have been advanced in the Debate. I have seen a, type-written copy of Section 1 of the Revenue Act, 1898, which I presume is accurate, and I have also seen a document which I have never seen before, and that is a ticket, or a counterfoil, which the Financial Secretary had in his hand just now and which I shall presently hand back to him. I do not think that anyone will doubt that this document is a notice relating to a draw or intended draw of a lottery; that is beyond doubt. It tells you all about the draw, where it is to take place, and so on. The next question is: Is it imported for the purposes of publication? The test words are: which in the opinion of the Commissioners of Customs is imported for the purposes of publication. Publication in law does not mean the putting up of a billposter on a hoarding. Publication is a well-known phrase, and may include the showing of a. letter by one individual to another. That is publication. I think it is quite obvious 1899 that if a man brings in, not one single lottery ticket, but a book of tickets, he is going to try to sell them to someone; and, if he does that, that is publication. Then comes a much more difficult question which was raised by the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson). I am bound to say that when I heard him put the point it seemed to me a very important one. I sent for the Lotteries Act of 1836. I think the answer to the hon. Member's question is that the Act was not an Act which related exclusively to foreign lotteries. It is thus described: An Act to prevent the advertising of foreign and other illegal lotteries. I argued a case myself before the courts only a week or so ago—a case in which we were dealing with the question of the legality of the sale in England of tickets in the Irish lottery, and the courts decided that that was illegal. It is illegal to sell in England a ticket in the Irish lottery. Consequently, it seems to me that the importation for the purpose of publication in the United Kingdom is in contravention of the Lotteries Act of 1836. It is unnecessary to consider whether the words "Foreign and other" in the Act relating to foreign lotteries would in this context be accepted by the Irish Free State. Ofcourse, the Irish Free State is entitled to enact what laws it likes for its own territory. It is not entitled to pass laws to govern us, any more than we are entitled to pass laws that will govern the Irish Free State. The sale of lottery tickets of the Irish Free State in this country is illegal, and I think that so long as that is the state of the law, my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary would be wanting in his duty if he did not take proper steps to see that the law was enforced.

§ Mr. FOOT
I do not want to intervene on the legal points raised as between the learned Attorney-General and other hon. Members; but in relation to the warning given by the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison), that he intends to bring in a Bill to enable public opinion to be canvassed upon this question of sweepstakes, I wish to say that if the Bill is introduced he must, expect very strong opposition from certain Members of this House. I have seen an intimation already as to the character of the Bill to be introduced. I think 1900 there would be general sympathy with a demand that there should be an inquiry into this matter, as there was in the year 1923 when a Select Committee was set up on the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin), who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, to consider a proposal for a tax upon betting. I hope it may be possible, before we commit ourselves to any legislation upon this very vexed and difficult subject, for us to have an inquiry in which there can be put strong evidence as to the social effects of betting and gambling, a canker which is eating into our national life very much more extensively than is generally appreciated. If the inquiry did give an opportunity for the ascertainment of the extent of the evil, many of us on this side would he prepared to support that proposal. If the Bill of the hon. Member is on the lines indicated in the Press, that is, on the lines of legalising sweepstakes in this country and going back to the conditions of many years ago, when public lotteries were generally allowed and gave rise to very grave and widespread evils, that proposal will meet with unrelenting opposition.

§ Sir D. HERBERT
My hon. and gallant Friend who raised this question has done some good if he has drawn from the Attorney-General one perfectly definite admission, and that is that there is no right to seize these tickets unless the Government can prove that. they are being imported for the purpose of sale. I gathered that from the Attorney-General's remarks.

§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
"Unless in the opinion of the Commissioners."

§ Sir D. HERBERT
Unless in the opinion of the Commissioners they are intended for sale?

§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
Unless in the opinion of the Commissioners the tickets are imported for the purpose of publication.

§ Sir D. HERBERT
The hon. and learned Gentleman is now referring to a different part of his speech from that to which I was referring. I understand that he quoted a Section from the Act of 1836, to the effect that these tickets could be seized under that Act if they were imported for the purpose of sale. The hon. and learned Gentleman appeared to be driven back from his first 1901 line of defence, the Act of 1898, to the Act of 1836. In falling back upon the Act of 1836, he could only defend his position so far as these tickets were for the purpose of sale. I think I am right in regard to that?

§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
I am sorry to interrupt, but there appears to be a complete misapprehension of my argument. What I did was to quote a Section of the Act of 1898, which prohibits the importation of any notice relating to the drawing of a lottery, which in the opinion of the Commissioners of Customs is imported for the purpose of publication in the United Kingdom in contravention of the Lotteries Act of 1836. I pointed out, first of all, that the words were "in the opinion of the Commissioners"—they are the judges—and I pointed out what the meaning of the word "publication" was, and I said it was unnecessary to consider anything about foreign lotteries, and that the Act of 1836 applies to "foreign or other" lotteries.

§ Sir D. HERBERT
The question here is the question of publication. Surely it is quite clear that people who bring over these tickets, which they regard as valuable things, and which they are not going to post on a hoarding or anything of that sort, are not bringing them over for the purpose of publication. There is another point which I mention with very great deference to the hon, and learned Gentleman. He referred to the advertisement or other notice. He said that these documents were notices. But he knows better than I do the importance of that word "other," if they are ejusdem generis. If the Attorney-Genenral is going to rely upon these documents being notices, he has a very weak case. It is certain that anyone who has one of these tickets takes very great care of it, and, if he does not keep it in his pocket, at least he locks it up in a safe or some secure place, and it is not used for the purpose of advertisement. It seems fairly clear that it is at least doubtful whether there is any right—indeed I do not understand that the Attorney-General or the Financial Secretary holds that there is any right—to seize tickets when a man brings them over—tickets which he has bought either for himself or for other people, so long as they are tickets which have been bought and which are not being imported into this country for the purpose of sale.

§ Mr. OLIVER STANLEY
I do not want to pursue the legal argument, but it seems to me that the learned Attorney-General, having given a legal opinion, has hastened to withdraw it as soon as someone promised to act upon it. I wished rather to refer to the speech of the Financial Secretary. Whether it is bluff or not on the part of the Government, it appears that, if they have a legal right to stop the entry of these tickets, it rests largely with the Commissioners of Customs to decide various questions. I understood from the Financial Secretary that he has laid it down for everyone to know that it is not and will not be the practice of the Commissioners of Customs to inquire after or stop or confiscate a single ticket or a few tickets in the possession of a man who obviously intends them for his own use. That, I gather, has been the practtice in the past, and that there are no cases where the Commissioners have exercised their discretion to confiscate single tickets in the possession of the man, and that that will continue to be their practice in future. I understand, therefore, that the traveller from Ireland will not be under the necessity of declaring a single ticket which he may have for his own use, nor will the Customs officers, if they should find such a ticket, be able, without prejudice to the Financial Secretary's pledge, to confiscate that ticket.

§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE
I am not giving any pledge. What I said was that these tickets are clearly advertisements or notices within the meaning of that Section. The point of the Section is whether "in the opinion of the Commissioners of Customs" they are being imported for the purpose of publication. All I said was—and I do not go beyond it—that it has not been the practice, and it is not the practice at the present time, to seize single tickets. I make no pledge for the future. I think it is likely, unless there are special reasons, that the Commissioners will continue the line that they follow now. But I make no pledge. I simply said what has been and is the practice of the Commissioners in this respect.