HC Deb 06 November 1934 vol 293 cc967-1002

10.14 p.m.


I beg to move, in page 17, line 24, at the end, to add: except lotteries promoted under the authority of His Majesty's Government through the Post Office or otherwise which have for their object the raising of funds for the reduction of the National Debt, schemes for assisting unemployment, national afforestation, the provision of open spaces for public recreation, or other public service or purpose. The Amendment is one which I hope, after having heard a little discussion, the Government may see fit to accept. As they will know, it is a permissive one, the object being to retain in the hands of His Majesty's Government for the time being power to authorise a lottery, through the Post Office or otherwise, for any national object, including those which have been indicated in the Amendment. This is the law as it exists to-day and as it has existed in this country for some 300 years, and there would appear to be no reasonable object in altering the law as it has existed through all these centuries. If the law were to be altered, it would deprive any Government in future of the power that they now possess of authorising a draw through the Post Office for any national object, and it would require legislation to be specially passed to enable them to undertake that authority. Hon. Members will remember that the long series of Lotteries Acts which have been passed during the centuries from the time of Elizabeth, who was the first Royal patron of a national lottery in this country—a lottery for improving the harbours of the realm and other public purposes—have been with the object of protecting the power to hold a national lottery. The prosecutions which have occurred in connection with tickets coming to this country from Ireland have been under Acts which were passed to prohibit the advertisement in this country of foreign lotteries in competition with a possible national lottery.

These national lotteries fell into disuse some 100 years ago because of the manner in which they were conducted in the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth centuries. Some of these lotteries occupied in the drawing some 40 days. There was great pageantry on the steps of the Royal Exchange, and, I believe, on the steps of St. Paul's Cathedral, and I am not sure that the Archbishop of Canterbury of the day was not one of those who assisted in the draw. Blocks of tickets were sold at a discount to contractors, who went about the country and who were known as "morocco men," because they had red morocco books of these tickets, which they vended through the country, but I need scarcely say that scandals of this kind, owing to the changes of manners and the whole change that has taken place in the last 100 years, would not occur were we to retain the power in the Government to have a national lottery.

May I tell the Committee what our proposal is, by way of an example? We propose that 10s. tickets should be on sale at the post offices of the country in the same way as the Loterie Nationale in Paris, that they should be on sale just like postal orders. Here is a ticket of the French lottery, which is in rather a better style than our own postal order. You simply go in and buy one at a post office. No one is compelled to do so, and it is suggested that they should cost 10s., 5s. of which would be divided up in prizes and the other 5s. would go to the State for any of those national schemes which I have indicated or anything urgent which the Government of the day might think fit. They would be in blocks of £1,000,000, of which £500,000 would go to the State and £500,000 would be divided in prizes. There would be no exploitation of the individual for private gain, and, as far as I can see, there can be no objection whatever to the proposal. We have been influenced in the form of the Amendment by a paragraph in the report of the Royal Commission, which says, on page 131: It is, however, material to observe that a State lottery has certain marked advantages over other forms of lottery. In the first place, if the existing State machinery were to be employed for the purpose (and we are aware of no special difficulty in the matter), the lottery could be conducted with low administrative costs. The tickets could be purchased at any post office at a small overhead charge. If at any time it were desirable to put an end to the lottery, no large private vested interests would have been created. The Royal Commission evidently felt the great unpopularity which would fall upon any Government which introduced penalties prohibiting the taking of tickets in the Irish, French or other foreign lotteries, and at the same time did not give to the citizens of this country a lottery of their own. The Royal Commission made no similar rider in the case of other recommendations, as, for example, with regard to football pools or street betting, against which it made strong recommendations. The Government, on the other hand, have taken no notice of its recommendations with regard to football pools and street betting, but, on the one matter, where the Royal Commission has made a rider saying how simple a State lottery would be and how very little harm it would do the Government are apparently intending to force a prohibition of any kind of National Lottery through the House in the teeth of the strongest opposition throughout the country.

May I remind the Committee of the objects which the Government state they have in view in Part II of this Measure? They first state that they are not concerned in any way with the morality of betting and gambling. I ask then: Why do they alter the law which has obtained in this country for nearly 300 years in regard to national lotteries, and while retaining the law prohibiting people from getting tickets in foreign lotteries, give no British National Lottery in their place? Secondly, the Government state that they do not desire to interfere in any way with individual liberty. I ask then: Why do they interfere with the desires of millions of people who in no way wish to interfere with the freedom of other people? If the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) does not like lotteries, he need not go to a post office and take a ticket, so why should he interfere with the liberties of millions of people who desire to do so when no possible harm can be done? The third object which the Government say they have in view is to find a solution of the problem which will commend itself to the great mass of public opinion. Is there a Member of the Committee who would say that this Bill—there certainly is not a Member on the Conservative benches—commends itself to the great mass of public opinion? It is impossible to say that it does.

If anyone desires confirmation of the view that the proposal of the Government is unpopular and that the country desires some form of national lottery, will they allow me to draw their attention to a few facts? First of all, some £40,000,000 or £50,000,000 have left this country in the last four years for lotteries abroad, either in the Free State, in Paris or elsewhere. Secondly, whenever the question of the desirability or otherwise of having a national lottery in this country has been put before any body of people, other than a body specially organised for a contrary purpose, and these were comparatively few, there has been an overwhelming majority in favour of some form of national lottery under proper Government regulation and protection. Thirdly, the present House of Commons, in 1932, by a very substantial majority, gave a First Reading to a Bill proposed by myself and a number of other Members for the establishment of a national lottery for public purposes. May I remind my hon. Friends opposite of the famous "Daily Herald" hospital lottery offering £20,000 for 6d? I do not think the "Daily Herald" would have proposed it if they had thought that such a proposal was unpopular with their readers in the Socialist party.

In my own constituency of South Kensington, which has an electorate including 48,000 women, they are very much in favour of a national lottery. The annual meeting of the women's organisation of the National Union of Conservative Associations, held some two years ago, passed a unanimous resolution condemning the existing law and demanding some form of national lottery under proper control. I would also remind my Conservative friends of the conference at Bristol only a few weeks ago, when a proposal for a national lottery was carried with practical unanimity. I had the honour of moving the resolution, on behalf of the South Kensington Association, and as I told a member of the Government the other day, the reception I had made me think for a few moments that I must be a film star. I need not say that it had nothing to do with me personally, but was for the proposal which I made to that great conference representing delegates from all over the country. I am giving these instances to show the House that this question has been considered and that a national lottery is desired. The Conservative clubs throughout the country, bodies of working men and others all through the country—in the London and Home Counties, Liverpool, Manchester, Westmorland, Cheshire, and South Wales—have unanimously passed resolutions in favour of a national lottery. I will read one sentence from the "Conservative Clubs' Gazette" published this morning: In the Victorian era, when smug Puritanism ruled the roost, the prohibition of 'sweeps' might have reflected the public mind. But to-day there is a different and a broader outlook; a sporting spirit prevails, and the desire for a 'flutter' everywhere prevails. Even [Members of the Government must be aware of this, and yet, forsooth, it is sought in the Betting and Lotteries Bill, introduced under its aegis, to fly in the face of popular desires and make criminals of all who on and after next January have in their possession for sale any ticket for the Irish Sweep or foreign lottery, or who 'bring, or invite any person to send, into Great Britain any sweep ticket.' Even this, and the savage penalties for offences—fines up to £750 and a year's imprisonment or both—might be defended and excused if the Government provided a British substitute. The paper goes on to say: How much better it would he if we had a sweep to sweep away slums. Hon. Members opposite jeer at the proposal. It may seem to them ridiculous, hut do they realise that in the last 11 months the sale of tickets in the French lottery has produced no less than £13,500,000? A good many slums could be cleared for £13,000,000, and who, I ask, would be the worse? The popular Press on the whole are probably good judges of the opinions of their supporters, and they are in favour of this proposal. The "Sunday Pictorial," which is read very extensively by women in this country, said a short time ago: The proposal for a national lottery has the support we are sure of the great majority of electors. It is indeed time something was done to put an end to the present farcical position. Other countries have their official lotteries and nobody seems to suffer morally. How much more satisfactory it would be for all of us if the Government provided us with a lottery of our own. Now I will, if I may, refer to my own correspondence. I have had literally hundreds of letters from all over the country. I have here pages of extracts from them. People write to me because they know my views, and, as the Home Secretary is introducing a Bill with these savage penalties, they are not going to write to anyone of whom they are not very sure. The only way in which the Government's proposal can be enforced in future is by opening letters and a wholesale system of espionage. The people are going to have their letters opened, and they are not going to give their names away in advance. Well, that is my theory. Some hon. Members may get more letters than I imagine. I get hundreds. Let me read a few extracts. Here is one: Every luck to your Amendment to the Lotteries Bill. The Government are apparently trying to commit suicide. I hope they will see reason in time and accept your proposal. A woman writes: I do hope your proposal will succeed. It should have been done long ago. I don't believe in backing horses and card gambling, but like many of my friends I like taking a sweep ticket when I want to. Another says: I congratulate you on your action with regard to sweepstakes. I hope you will still keep it up. I am a farmer and am a law-abiding citizen. I do not bet but I love a little flutter in a sweepstake. I have a brother that has his little bets. Can you tell me why laws should be made to allow him to bet, but yet laws made to stop me having my little ticket in the Irish or other sweepstake? Surely, Sir, the only fair way if you prevent me, is to prevent my brother from having his little bets as well. Then he added a rather pathetic paragraph saying that his wife had recently died from cancer, and what a wonderful thing it would be if you could not only give relaxation to the people but also have a good bit of money out of which you could give something to aid Cancer Research.

A Birmingham working man writes: I am a working man, at least when they will let me work, and have always made it a point to buy one ticket in the Irish sweep. Many times I have been almost down and out, and, although I feel sure that I shall never win a prize, the fact that I may be lucky has kept me going. In fact I should have cut it long ago but for that. With all good wishes. Just two more letters. The first is: Please tell your colleagues in the House of Commons to leave us the privilege of spending our money as we like. There are four votes in our house, and we shall never again record one if we cannot get justice. We read of gentlemen going to race meetings, or telephoning to their bookmaker and backing their fancies. Why are we not allowed to bet our modest ten shillings in a sweep? The last one I will quote is this: For the past 24 years, I have been engaged as a collector, and I go into hundreds of working and middle-class homes every week, and I say definitely that the passing of this Bill into law, unless amended as you propose, will be the means of wiping out the present Government at the next election. I could go on quoting all night; I am grateful to the Committee for listening to me so patiently. I have had hundreds of letters on the same lines. It seems to me that the Government—I have noticed it before with other Governments—with their great international and other preoccupations, get entirely divorced from the opinions that are circulating among the ordinary men in the street and in the cottage and in the village. The complaint, so far as I can find in going about the country, is roughly this, that 90 per cent. of the Members of Parliament do not themselves think there is any harm in a national lottery, and a large number of Members take tickets in lotteries themselves; but then, it is said, at the same time Members of Parliament are proposing to pass a Bill to prevent any form of national lottery from being undertaken in the future, because they hypocritically assert that they know better than the electors themselves how they should expend their savings.

I must not tell the story again, but hon. Members will recollect what, as I told the House on the Second Reading, the bricklayer down in Berkshire said—that if they wanted advice as to how they should spend their savings they would ask the missus and not Members of Parliament. I said to a Member of the Government the other day: "I differ from you with regard to India, but, if I were up for a club where you were on the committee, you would not 'pill' me because I differ from you on India; but if I said to you, 'Why are you so mean? Why don't you give your wife a proper dress allowance?' you would say, 'What does that fellow want interfering with my private affairs? We will not have him in this club; he will always be interfering in other people's affairs.'" That is common sense. The Budget is beyond the ordinary working man; India is beyond the ordinary working man; but they all know whether or not they have 10s. over at the end of a week or a fortnight or a month, and they like to spend it in their own way without dictation.

Another important point is that the Bill is one which it will be impossible to enforce unless you have some kind of national lottery of this nature. The police and the Home Office, in the evidence which they gave before the Royal Commission, admitted that, notwithstanding all their espionage and opening of private letters—both of which are hateful to British people of all classes—notwithstanding all that, they cannot enforce the prohibition on taking foreign lottery tickets unless they have public opinion behind them. There is not a man in this country who would not rather take a ticket in a British Post Office lottery than send his money to Ireland, where it would be taxed by Mr. de Valera in order to get funds for the Free State while he does not pay its debt to this country. It is necessary to get public opinion behind these prohibitions, and, without that public opinion, this Measure, if it becomes an Act, will not be worth talking about, because it cannot be enforced. The ordinary citizen, as I have said, resents interference with his own personal affairs and his own personal liberty when he is doing no harm to others. The Royal Commission realised this, for they said: Stated broadly, we think the general aim of the State in dealing with facilities for organised or professional gambling should be to prohibit or place restrictions on such facilities only as can be shown to have serious social consequences if not checked. We regard it as of the utmost importance that no more prohibitions should be made than are absolutely necessary.


On what page is that?


I have not the page here, but will have it looked up. I submit that the only question which the Committee have to consider is: Are the social consequences so serious and so demoralising in taking a ticket like this at the Post Office that we should interfere with millions of people in the country who desire that form of relaxation? There is no national demoralisation. There was no evidence given before the Royal Commission of the breaking up of homes or the ruin of individuals, no evidence by the Churches and the Salvation Army of the demoralising and pauperising effect on many millions of people. They referred to the evils of street betting, and what is known as doubling up —putting on 2s., 4s. and 8s. if you are not successful. They spoke seriously about football pools, for the reasons that were given yesterday, but there was no evidence showing that any body of people had been demoralised or their homes broken up by the taking of tickets in a properly supervised national lottery. May I remind the Committee of the evidence given by the Charity Organisation Society, which has more knowledge of the poor than perhaps any other society in the country? After giving evidence on the lines to which I have just referred, they say: In conclusion, the society desires to emphasise that it has not expressed any opinion as to whether sweepstakes should or should not be legalised. If they had found that this was breaking up homes and demoralising the poor, they would not have ended their evidence in that way. So far from increasing betting and gambling, it will have exactly the opposite effect and will decrease it. There is a human instinct, not only in this country but in all countries, and especially among the vast mass of our industrial populations who lead very dull and monotonous lives, that they want some kind of a flutter. The great bulk of the community goes to work and returns from it, like a shuttle, and there is nothing to take them out of that monotony. The writer of the letter I read does not expect to win, and he is not terribly crestfallen if he does not win, but he thinks there is a chance that he may be taken out of this dull routine. It is difficult for us here, with so many interests, with so many things to do, with so many points brought before us, it is difficult even for Labour Members, some of whom know more about it than we on this side, to realise how dull and monotonous many lives are. The taking of an occasional sweep ticket, which is desired by millions of people, is just to stimulate hope. I had a letter from a doctor in the country three days ago who says, "If you only knew the value in health and mentality of these little fillips—the stimulating of hope." Until de Valera took part of the money of the Irish Sweep for his own affairs, I always took a ticket. I never won anything, and I did not suppose I ever would, but all the same it gave me a fillip of excitement. Mine is a busy enough life. How much more of a fillip does it give to the average worker?

Why should the Government interfere. It would do no harm and is desired by millions of our people? The State would benefit. Who would suffer? The Government are swallowing the camel of football pools and street betting and straining at the gnat of a national lottery because the millions who desire it are not organised and cannot speak for themselves. The Prime Minister the other day boasted that a National Government has secured freedom and liberty for our people whereas in other lands there are dictatorships, but liberty is not compelling the people to do what the Government think is good for them. That is dictatorship. Liberty is where there is freedom for the people to obtain and do what the people themselves desire.

10.45 p.m.


This is not a matter which is new to the House. We have debated it, as the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) has said, earlier in this House when he was fortunate enough to carry a Motion, but he will remember an earlier Debate in the year 1924 when he brought forward a Bill upon the same lines, and that on that occasion, when the House was differently constituted, he was defeated in the introduction of his Bill. This Parliament, I recognise, is differently constituted, but the arguments are pretty much the same now as they were then. I hope that we shall be able to discuss this matter without introducing irrelevant matters. We can discuss later whether or not it is right that large sums of money should go across the Channel. I object to that as strongly as the hon. Member for South Kensington, and I desire to stop that considerable export of money through the purchase of sweepstake tickets, but I hope that that matter will not be introduced. I hope that the hon. Member will agree with me that that ought not to be used as an argument in favour of lotteries in this country. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] We can take common ground in that we are opposed to the sending of this money across the Channel into the coffers of the Free State and still be opposed to lotteries.

I hope that the matter will not be complicated by the suggestion that we can deal with the cancer evil and carry out slum reforms by this method. If this country wants to deal with the troubles of cancer it should do it knowing what the expenditure is to be and that the expenditure is an honourable undertaking. I should be very sorry to see the campaign against disease in this country associated with cupidity and chance. The hon. Member has receded from his earlier position about hospitals. That is what we heard in earlier times. When the matter was debated in the House in 1924 his case was that we should support the hospitals in this country, as they were supported in Ireland, by the proceeds of the sweep ticket. He was still attached to the proposal when he introduced his Motion earlier in this Parliament, hut he has found that it is a very uncertain foundation for his case, largely because the hospitals of this country very wisely determined that they were not going to rest the great institutions for healing and the amelioration of human suffering upon the shifting quicksands of cupidity and chance. This scheme was not applied to hospitals because those who had to do with these great institutions knew that you could take no surer method of drying up the springs of charity, and that if you rested the hospitals upon this craze, which might be a temporary craze, when the craze had gone, the hospitals would be left the weaker.

The hon. Member is now talking not about hospitals but about social reform. I put it to Members of the Committee, that although at the last Conservative Conference there was a unanimous vote in favour of the proposal, I do not think that it would be fair to many of my Conservative friends to accept that position, for all that was put before the Conference was the speech of my hon. Friend. If there were a free vote in this House and nothing were said by my hon. Friend, there might be a majority in this House. I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith (Mr. Dixey) back in his place. I note that his name has been put down to many Amendments. I have missed him in his place. That is what happened at the Conference. I do not think many of the Conservative party, a party in which I have many friends, do anything but regret the necessity of discussing this proposal. Social reform in this country must be paid for by a people fully conscious of the burden they are carrying.

I should despair of the future of this country if it had to rest on these devices of tricks and cheating of the people by this gambling. It was a tragic letter that was read out just now. Gambling is the perversion of hope. Hope is one of the great virtues of life, and it is perverted by gambling. You can see the many ravages of this bastard form of hope throughout this country. Many countries reach the lowest stage of civilisation in their history when they rest upon this gambling method. Just now the hon. Member had the temerity to refer to the Royal Commission. He has appealed unto Caesar and to Caesar he must go. He himself stated that they had something to say about State lotteries. It is true that the Commission said that some objections to other large lotteries did not apply to State lotteries. With that concession they went on to condemn this proposal in unqualified language. He referred to the Royal Commission and I hope I can invoke some witness.


I did not dismiss it. The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. I did not desire him not to refer to it. I was only dismissing something he said before.


I thought he was angry with me.


Not at all.


I could not bear to think that. We have heard in the course of the Debate to-day the argument whether we ought to rely on the Royal Commission. I certainly concede the argument that this House is master of its own business. The Commission con- sisted of men of great ability, but we can decide these matters for ourselves. It would be a dereliction of our duty if a Royal Commission having been set up by the authority of Parliament and with the sanction of this House, and having made an investigation which was impossible to us, we did not give full weight to the report that it presented to us.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR

What about the Simon Commission's report?


On the question of setting aside the Royal Commission as being unimportant we are prepared to argue it on the Floor of the House and in the country. The Royal Commission was not made up of partisans. They were people who came with an understanding mind and great business experience. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nonsense."] I say that they came with an understanding mind and great business experience. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nonsense."] Certainly the hon. and gallant Member for Twickenham (Brigadier-General Critchley) cannot claim to have had an independent mind.

10.57 p.m.

Brigadier-General CRITCHLEY

I gave evidence before that Royal Commission, and I may say that a. more biased crowd I have never met. The Commission had not one person on it who knew anything about gambling. I asked them what six to four on the field bar two meant, and not one of them knew. Certain members of that Commission had definite axes to grind. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I make no excuse for that statement. On any gambling commission you ought to have a gambler who knows something about the other side. On any drink commission you ought to have a drunkard. To say that the Commission was unbiased is not to state the truth.


Whoever has the right to suggest that the Commission lacked independence of judgment, it is not the hon. and gallant Member.

Brigadier-General CRITCHLEY: Do

not forget that I gave evidence before the Commission. On the Commission were chairmen of anti-betting leagues, chairmen of football clubs, and people who were sitting as chairmen of big stores, who wanted to see money spent in the stores. I say to this House that the Commission was not unbiased.

10.58 p.m.


As the Commission has been challenged, I will deal with its composition. I said that there were people on it who were not partisans, who had been appointed by the Government of the day because they were able to bring an independent judgment to bear. The chairman of the Commission was Sir Sidney Rowlatt, one of the most distin-guished of our judges, a man who has not only presided over an inquiry like this in this country, but has presided over an inquiry into a matter of deep social concern in India, and did it with great credit to himsélf and with great advantage to this nation.

Brigadier-General CRITCHLEY

Had he ever betted?


The suggestion that a mail like Sir Sidney Rowlatt, one of His Majesty's judges, was a prejudiced person, is one which I suggest should never have been made in this House.



Brigadier-General CRITCHLEY

I beg to withdraw.


The other names were Lady Emmott, widow of Lord Emmott, Mr. C. T. Cramp, whose association with industry, particularly upon the workers' side, is one which would give to him a very real title to speak, Mr. R. F. Graham Campbell, Mr. William Lionel Hichens, one of the big men in industry, Sir James Leishman, Mr. Alexander Maitland, an eminent counsel in Scot-land, Sir David Owen, Mr. Arthur Shaw, Sir Sydney Skinner and Mrs. Mary Danvers. I have omitted one name which comes after that of Lady Emmott, but I give it with confidence to the Corn- mittee and would like to know if the hon. and gallant Member includes him in his general charge. It is the name of Sir Stanley Jackson, who has led the English cricket team on the field, whose name means more than most other names in the record of sport in this country and who after serving as the Governor of a Province in India came back to this country, gave his attention to this work and signed the report. The hon. and gallant Member who very generously was prepared to withdraw in respect of the Chairman might very well withdraw the suggestion he has made in respect of the other members.

Brigadier-General CRITCHLEY

I beg to withdraw.


Is it in accordance with the Rules of the House that the qualifications of members of a Royal Commission should be read out and discussed?


It is unusual for the personnel of a Royal Commission to be challenged on the one hand and commended on the other, but, at the same time a Royal Commission is not a judicial body and therefore is not protected from criticism under the Rules of the House. It must be a matter of taste on the part of hon. Members.


May I say that the names of the Royal Commission were not present in my mind when I rose to speak, and I have not looked at them for many months. If the hon. Member for Penrith (Mr. Dixey) suggests that I had the names in readiness, may I tell him that I had not, and that I had no intention of reading them to the Committee until the hon. and gallant Member made his charge. I am entitled, however, to refer to their recommendations, their unanimous recommendations. They say: A large lottery represents gambling in its easiest form. It calls for no skill or knowledge and thus appeals to many who would not, for instance, risk their money in backing a horse. The purchase of a ticket is all that is required to obtain an equal chance of winning one of the large prizes offered. These large prizes are a dazzling lure to the ordinary man or woman. To all but a few thousand people in this country, a sum of £30,000 seems to offer a transformation of their lives. They then go on to speak of the effect of large lotteries on character, and say: Lotteries depend for their success upon the blatant advertisement of large money prizes. They tend to exult the results of chance and to encourage a belief in luck, while the draw and the announcement of the results give raise to an unwholesome excitement. They go on to discuss the whole matter and their recommendations are set out on page 139, where they definitely and unanimously protest against the setting up of any large lottery in this country. They say: Our conclusions are that there is no justification for assuming that there is a sustained or insistent demand in this country for this type of gambling facility. The demand for the legalisation of large public lotteries in this country is based on insufficient appreciation of the difficulties and disadvantages involved. The Commission came to their conclusions and made their recommendations accordingly. That was not the only conclusion reached. I ask the hon. Member for South Kensington whether this is not true: Not only does this Commission report against this way of raising money, but every time in the history of this courary for the last hundred years that any Commission has been asked to inquire into the matter it has always reported in the same terms. I ask my hon. Friend to go back to the inquiry that was set up in 1806. It was a Select Committee of this House. They were up against it, for they had actual experience of what public lotteries meant in this country. They said: No mode of raising money appears to the Committee so burdensome, so pernicious and so unproductive; no species of adventure is known where the chances are so great against the adventurer, and where the infatuation is more powerful, lasting and destructive. The Committee went on to say that the lottery system was radically vicious, arid committed itself further to the strong statement that it was quite impossible for Parliament to adopt any kind of regulation which would divest the lottery of the resulting evils. As a result of that report, made in 1806, lotteries were wiped out altogether in 1823. A little later, or not many years ago, there was another Commission set up to consider premium bonds in this country. When that Commission was set up it was thought that they were going to report in favour of premium bonds. After inquiry they recommended this House not to adopt that proposal.


The hon. Member asks me to give him my attention. I pointed out in my speech that in the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth century the thing had become scandalous. The lottery draws took 40 days. There were great mobs in the City of London. The whole thing became a scandal. There were "morocco men" going through the country with red morocco books and getting enormous commissions. But all that is a thing of the past. There are different manners now; instead of all that we would have a simple draw at the Post Office with none of the advertisement. It would be something like the French national lottery in which there are only a few draws, numbers being taken from the first draw.


As far as this country is concerned, in comparison with others, I like to see what Members of the National Government have said of late as to the proud position we occupy, and I would not like to see the public finances of this country put on a lottery foundation. It is a fair argument that whenever in the last century this House has asked any commission or committee to inquire they have always replied in the same terms, and have said that this is a dangerous way of raising money and that it has serious social consequences. When this Bill is introduced and has for its manifest purpose the implementing of the recommendations that were made by the Royal Commission, it would be impossible for this Government to act against the plain and unequivocal advice given by that Commission. If they did so, they might get the approval of a majority of the House of Commons but they would gain the permanent condemnation of every sober part of the thinking people of this country.

That is my belief. There is certainly no mandate for this and I am glad that the Government have already affirmed that they intend not to recede from that position. They know that there are strong forces which have been supporting them in this matter. Some Members of the Committee had the opportunity of hearing the representatives of the Churches and it is a very remarkable think how the Churches have been united in their representations to the House of Commons on this matter. If this Amendment were adopted, it would give them a message, not of hope but of disappointment. I am certain that the carrying of this Amendment would do more than anything else to bring down the Government. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Rot"] The hon. Member for South Kensington has been quoting letters about the Government "committing suicide." Am I not entitled to say—


My opinion is as good as that of the hon. Member.


The difference is that the hon. Member was supported by hon. Members opposite when he spoke. Because I give the contrary view, I am condemned by them. I suggest, however, in these, my concluding words, that so far from the Government being strengthened by the passing of the Amendment, such a course would arouse against them forces which they cannot estimate. I do not believe that a National Government, not representing one party but professing to represent all classes in the country, would accept an Amendment which, in my opinion, strikes at good order and continued progress and which would do what has not been done in this country in the course of the last 100 years.

11.12 p.m.


I have not taken part in any of the discussions of yesterday or to-day until now because I felt that the matters under consideration were being fairly debated from all points of view. We are treating this subject not as something about which the party as a party is united; we each have freedom to speak and to vote upon it and we have not given a party vote at all on these matters because we feel that, at least up to the present, the questions brought before us are questions upon which men differ considerably. This particular Amendment and the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison)—who put his case both forcibly and logically from his point of view—raises a question, however, which is of more importance than anything else in the Bill. We are proposing here, in a way, to nationalise betting and gambling. In my opinion the growth of gambling in this country and especially in the place where I live, in the East End of London, is one of the most terrible evils of the day. Nowadays children are betting. If this Amendment were carried and it became known that the House of Commons had said that we needed a national lottery for the purpose of dealing with the National Debt and unemployment and the other matters mentioned in the Amendment, it would justify every man and woman and young person who at present often ruin themselves by gambling in one form or an other.

I have often said in this House that although people like me are not guilty of, or, rather, do not indulge in, either betting or gambling, we have probably got other vices or sins, about which people know nothing. I want to say that, because I hate to be considered self-righteous. I have never had a bet in my life, but then I have never saved any money in my life, and I do not put it from that point of view, but I would like the Committee to take my word that I have known scores—I think probably hundreds—of young fellows who have been absolutely ruined at the very beginning of their lives by the very insidious nature of arguments such as those put forward by the hon. Member opposite. Yes, they have had the hope, they have believed, that one more plunge would bring them home. One of the judges said lately to a prisoner who was up on very big charges of embezzlement, or, rather, of fraud of some sort, that the excuse he made was exactly the excuse that is made by every gambler who in the end stoops to thieving or fraud in the hope that a final plunge will bring him home. I cannot imagine that the hon. Member realises quite what he is doing by this proposal. We are not really arguing the rights and wrongs of private people in this matter; we are arguing whether the nation should sanction this sort of thing, whether, for the first time in modern history anyhow, Parliament should put into an Act a proposal to raise money by a lottery, which is gambling.

I most earnestly hope, in spite of the great reception which the hon. Member received when he was making his speech, that his Amendment will not be carried. I do not take much stock of what happens at conferences, neither do I trouble very much about pulling the Government down or keeping it on and on, because, honestly, if I can only make the Committee see it as I see it, this is far beyond any question of whether we pull the Government down or keep it up. It is the morale of our people. I believe that the thing that is wrong with us as a nation, the thing that is wrong with us in the world, is that all of us are trained to think it is better that we should get something for nothing than that we should earn our bread in the ordinary way. The children are taught right away that it is a fine thing not to work with your hands, but to work with your head. I think it is all wrong, and one day we shall have to go right back and teach our children that earning one's bread, even by manual labour, is one of the most worthy ways and worthy of the same recompense as other ways of living. The real thing is that if we enter on this proposal, we shall be teaching our children that the nation is only able to maintain itself by indulging in what is, after all, sheer gambling.

11.20 p.m.


I should not have intervened in this Debate had the only speech from the Opposition been that of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. Profoundly as I disagree with parts of it, it is not primarily the case against the Amendment which I rise to support. Naturally, we agree with a great deal that the right hon. Gentleman has said, but I do not think that the conclusions he draws are correct. He has talked a great deal about children gambling. That is itself a mixed evil. He has ventured to quote —and who has a better right?—his own personal experience. May I, with humility, quote mine? I started to gamble on horses when I was about 15. I found it was unpleasant to lose shillings at that age, and it taught me not to lose pounds when I grew older. That is a point of view worth considering. This Amendment does not really deal with the incitement to gambling among the young. The point of the Amendment—and this is the crux of the question—is that we have in this country what, for want of a better term, I might define as a gambling instinct. There are a large number of people who, whatever laws we make, will bet. The right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the evils of betting in the East End go to show that the street betting laws are not kept. Betting, legal or illegal, goes on.

The question which the Committee has to decide is whether an uncheckable vice or evil—if we like to call it so—is to be regulated and acknowledged, or made illegal and illicit. I do not believe that anybody, even the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. I. Foot), believes that if this Bill goes on the Statute Book as it stands, it will check people partaking in lotteries. It will make it illegal; it will involve a system of search, to which the hon. Member so much objects; it will involve all the evils of the agent provocateur, the detective, and of spying round and trying to detect an evil which it is impossible to detect.


The hon. Member voted for that last week.


I am going to deal with that point shortly.


The hon. Member referred to me. What I think is that if the inducements are not so many, betting will not be so extensive.


I do not think the hon. Gentleman quite understood what I said, but I accept his interruption. My contention is that whatever law we pass we shall not effectively prevent this particular form of gambling. We shall only make it subterranean and illegal. The choice which the Committee has to make is whether an evil is better left subterranean and unregulated, or acknowledged and disciplined. The purposes of my rising, which was engendered by the speech of the hon. Member for Bodmin, was to remind the Committee of the question, which he is always so anxious to stand up for, that of the freedom of the individual. Of course, it is always a question how far the liberty of the individual can be allowed to impair the good of the whole. That is a question in all our deliberations. Last week we were debating another Measure to which the hon. Member for Bodmin took the gravest exception, saying it was an assault upon the liberty of free speech. I contend that this proposal in this Bill is an assault on the liberty of free action, and I unashamedly hold the view that free action is more important than free speech.

I do not believe that we shall get a wholesome country by saying, "You can say what you like but you cannot do what you like." As a constituent of mine once said of the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor), "She has not yet realised that it is no satisfaction to me when I cannot get a drink at half-past three because it annoys her that she can make a speech at half-past three which annoys me." We have to decide in this Amendment—and it is very important, really the vital matter—whether, when we are having all this talk about free speech, we are also entitled to defend free action. The hon. Member for Bodmin—I take him not so much as a personal case, but as representing wholeheartedly and sincerely a point of view in this House, though one with which I profoundly disagree—takes the line, "It does not matter what people say, but you must fetter them in what they do if it is opposed to the morals of the nation." I disagree. I do not believe that we can check betting, and I do not believe that it is desirable to do so beyond a certain limit.; but if we have to put up with an evil thing I would rather see it open and acknowledged, rather have it regulated and properly controlled, so that the country can see how it is managed; and then, if it be a ramp, they will know that it is a ramp and not take part in it.

This is the crux of the matter. Do we propose to drive this business underground and have it carried on by hidden processes? I am talking now not to those who, like myself, believe that we should not over-protect a citizen against himself, who think that if he wants to spend his money on a lottery ticket or a bet he should be allowed to do so. It is as harmless a vice as spending it on buying the "Daily Herald" or, if you like, the "Daily Express" or on whatever intellectual vices hon. Members opposite may engage in. I am talking to those who believe this thing is an evil and I ask "Are you going to drive it underground; are you going to have it as a hidden thing, with a continual combat against the law; or are you going to have it an open and acknowledged and controlled amusement?"—or vice, whichever you like. I do not challenge the right of the hon. Member for Bodmin to talk on behalf of the Churches which he represents, or to quote Church opinion, but there are those of us holding a contrary view who claim to be as good Christians in our way, and as good churchmen as himself. They hold the view that it is better to achieve salvation by going through with the temptation and facing it than by having the temptation prevented by law, and better to make people good by precept and experience than by rigid and excessively restricted statutes.

11.31 p.m.


I think there is a danger of our laying too much stress on the moral aspect of this Amendment. If we start talking about the moral rights and wrongs of gambling we shall be here all night and still get no farther in consequence. What we need to consider is the economic aspect of the Amendment. The hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) and I went to the Treasury last summer and the hon. Member put forward his scheme. It was definitely turned down by the Treasury officials on economic grounds.


Forgive me for interrupting. I went with the hon. Member to the Treasury, and we put forward a scheme in the nature of premium bonds—


My scheme.


The hon. Member's scheme, and also a scheme for a lottery. The Treasury, as they always do, took the dignified attitude that British finance was not dependent upon such methods as lotteries. They said in the end: "If you want to do anything, we would prefer a lottery to anything in the nature of premium bonds." I said: "We never suggested that the finances of this country were going to be run by lotteries or premium bonds. We only said that as it is a matter of sport in which a large number of people want to indulge, it is much better that the Treasury should have the use of the money than private adventurers."


I think I am right in saying that the Treasury officials definitely turned down any scheme of State lotteries on economic grounds and on the ground that, as they maintained, it would endanger the credit of this country. Premium bonds, they said, would not have the same effect, but they could not answer for any political consequences. The Government have taken the view that this matter of the Irish Sweep, which is evidence of the growing desire to gamble, can best be dealt with by law, that is, by suppression. They believe that by taking away the opportunities of advertisement and the opportunities for the ordinary individual to get tickets easily and to fall intotemptation to get something for nothing in a very pleasant way, the lottery idea may fall into disuse. They may be right or wrong; my own view is that this should be given a trial to see whether the Irish Sweep idea does fall into disuse arid whether or not money is diverted into investing and other uses. I am a bit sceptical. I am afraid that the Irish Sweep, particularly in view of the enormous forces that appear to be driving it along, may be driven underground. It may work very hard in this country, putting pressure on hon. Members of both sides of the House, and touting in various ways, through sinister advertisements and with agencies in villages or at street corners. I am a little afraid that that may be the case—that the gambling fever may be driven underground and may flourish almost as some of the religious sects in the Middle Ages flourished when they were suppressed by the forces of the Church and of the law. That may or may not be the case.

Let us remember that the law is always founded on equity, and that you cannot enforce any law against the desire of the people. As a small illustration of that. I would mention the question of rear-lights on bicycles, which the police with all their forces tried to enforce, but found that they could not, simply because people would not light the rear lamps. That is only a small illustration of what has frequently caused the fall of dynasties and Governments. Should it be the case that the law is unable to deal with the Irish Sweepstake and other forms of gambling or lotteries with which the Government wish to deal in this Bill, I would ask them to consider the possibility of the alternative of producing something run on sound lines which would give better value for money, and which would not encourage the gambling instinct, but rather the investing instinct, of the people.

What I have in mind is something on the lines of tickets drawn on sweepstakes in connection with the major events in the racing world, on which the Irish Sweepstake relies—that is far better, to my mind, than an ordinary lottery—run by an independent and properly constituted association or board. These tickets, which would, I admit, be rather on the lines of premium bonds, would each be divided in half. Supposing that the tickets were for 10s., one-half of each ticket, of the value of 5s., would carry the possibility of a prize, less a small proportion for running expenses —which I am sure could be made far smaller than in the case of the Irish Sweepstake—and the other 5s. would be invested in a savings certificate bearing interest at 2½ per cent. That would mean that the buyer of the ticket would not lose his 10s. but would be actually investing it at 1¼ per cent., and there is no trustee whose lawyer would not agree that that is the safest and best form of investment. This is only an idea, and I do not put it forward for consideration at the present moment. I support the Bill, and hope that the Government may be successful with it, but, if they are not, I beg them, to consider, if they fail to suppress this desire for gambling, that there is that other alternative which was mentioned by my hon. Friend who spoke last, of guiding the spirit into channels where it is safe, and where the ordinary men and women of this country cannot be exploited, but can put their money into a form in which they get a full return.

11.39 p.m.


I intend to support my hon. Friend in his Amendment, but I should not like to do so without trespassing, though only for a few moments, on the Committee to explain the reasons which lead me to take this course. I certainly do not consider that the national finances stand in need of support from sweepstakes, lotteries or premium bonds. The national finances proceed entirely apart from the subject which we are now discussing. It is rather from the moral and ethical aspect that I think the House ought really to look at the blunt facts of the situation. I must confess I find myself completely puzzled to know what is the standard that is being set up in matters of betting and gambling. We have been discussing 20 or 30 Clauses of Part I of this Bill. I have been here a great deal, and I have given a great deal of thought to this matter. It seems to me a very extraordinary thing that the House should take it as quite a right and proper matter for them to occupy several days to deal with all the details of setting up hundreds of casinos for dog racing all over the country in which courses are to be run on 104 days in the year, and consider what proportion might be taken for the rake-off and so-forth, and indulge in all these discussions blissfully unconscious of the fact that they are legislating for and establishing the evil thing of betting and that when they have finished Part I of the Bill and a proposal is put forward to have two or three large national sweepstakes on great sporting events people should say, "But that would be encouraging betting. That would be countenancing the evil idea of gaining something for nothing—unearned increment—and naturally, defenders as we are of the morals of the nation, we cannot lend ourselves to that." What nonsense! Of all the forms that gambling can take, the purchase of a 10s. ticket in a great national sweep, like those that are so unpleasantly conducted for us from a neighbouring island, that is the least injurious and the least likely to lead to a family being ruined—a workman returning home without his wages.

I entirely associate myself with the mood in which the Leader of the Opposition approached the matter. It is a dreadful thing that people should be ruined and led into crime by betting and gambling, but they are far more likely to be led into crime by going night after night to dog racing establishments than if they buy once or twice a year a Hs. ticket, or a proportion of a, ticket, in a great national lottery. The very character of these competitions is such that no one can lose much money upon them. How rarely they take place! It is no good trying to buy a great number of tickets in a competition in which there are millions of chances.

What is the alternative? Do you think you are going to stop this thing? You cannot stop it. Even if you ransack the mails till you destroy the privacy of the correspondence of His Majesty's subjects you will not succeed in preventing it. You will only drive it underground It is a very unreasonable position into which we are being led. It is a position that is accountable to no theory of logic or morality that is represented in this Bill. It may well be that the existence of three or four large national sweeps a year would diminish the amount of money hazarded on gambling. The lives of many people who are at work nowadays are very monotonous. Their toil tends to reproduce itself with exact mechanical rotation and routine. Hour after hour a particular piece of labour has to he done. In my judgment this to a certain extent would be an anodyne which would diminish the amount of gambling that would take place and not increase it. There are many admirable and useful causes to which the fruits of such a competition could be devoted.

There is one other thing I wish to say before I sit down. I understand that the Government, following their usual practice, refuse to allow a free vote of the House. I cannot understand why they refuse to do so. One of the greatest mistakes which the Government make is the taking of more upon themselves than they need in a matter affecting the interests, opinions and social habits of the people about which we are just as good judges as any Government. We are representatives of the people. We are Members with constituencies comprising 30,000 or 40,000 constituents and are re-acted upon by opinions from the constituencies. We cannot bring those opinions to any consciousness when the Government Whips are put on and Government pressure is brought to bear upon them. I cannot understand it. Where, again, is the logic of your talk? You talk about democracy and respect for the will and wishes of the people. You would not hesitate to ask the opinions of the people who are returned to Westminster whether it was the League of Nations or any other great and complicated problem. Of them you would say, "It is a matter for their good judgment." But when it comes to this question about which they are just as capable of forming an opinion, and about which they have thought a great deal, and in which scores of thousands, and millions perhaps, are deeply interested, we say, "No, we must be the angels. We must come down from on High and guide them into the true channels and proclaim for them the great modern gospel at which our Parliament has now arrived, that you may ruin yourself on 104 days in a year by gambling on the dog course, but if you take a 10s. ticket on a Derby sweep, then you are lost beyond redemption.'"

11.57 p.m.


I confess that 1 have listened to the rhetoric of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) with the usual pleasure with which we listen to the speeches that he delivers, but I ask the Committee to consider for a moment whether anybody who has had the responsibility of being a Chancellor of the Exchequer of this country should come down to the House and ask hon. Members to say that the decision on an Amendment of this kind, which directs that the Executive Government of the day, whatever it may be, has to take on the responsibility for doing something which he well knows that during his period of office at the Treasury was contrary to the interests of the Treasury, and contrary to the interests and greatness of this country, should be left to a free vote of the House.


On a point of Order. The Home Secretary is not quoting the Amendment which I put down. It is a permissive Amendment and leaves the law as it is at present.


I cannot accept that statement of the understanding of the Amendment. It presumes to be permissive, but, in fact, what does it do? It takes the matter out of the authority of this House and leaves it for decision whenever His Majesty's Government may choose. It is desirable that we should come back and consider this problem from its historical aspect and the actual circumstances of the present time. The history of the problem has been referred to on more than one occasion in this House. It has a long history. It has touched vitally, through many periods, the lives and interests of the people of this country. It is quite certain that State lotteries existed in this country in past times. They became so vicious, not only from the commercial and credit point of view, but the moral, that those who lived in those days were forced by public opinion and necessity to appoint a commission to look into the problem. It is a matter of history that the City of London, speaking not from the moral but from the business point of view, came to this House and put their case so strongly that it was accepted, and followed by an announcement in the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at that time. From that time these things ceased. On all these matters there are men and women, irrespective of party or circumstance, who take diverse views. What is the more recent history? There has been growing in this country certain factors that have caused grave disquiet. Is it not true that the Royal Commission appointed to look into the problem called evidence of all kinds from people in every class of life, whether with real knowledge of betting or of social reform? They listened to all the evidence from every side and to every point of view. They approached the problem, as they stated when they began, with an open mind. They were prepared to examine it without bias and with some pre-disposition to think that some relaxation in the law on the subject might be made.

May I at this point say what is the law? All lotteries of whatever kind, large or small, are at the present moment illegal. It is true that some of the least harmful lotteries and sweepstakes have been by custom winked at, but as the law stands to-day, and has stood for a long period past, every one of these things is illegal. Let me add: Is it to be said that Parliament is not to see the executive administer the law as decided by Parliament up to the present time? As the Minister responsible for the control certainly of one section of the police force and a very large part throughout the country, I suggest that it would be grossly unfair that this House should not be perfectly fair and frank on the problem.

Now the question as to whether the Government themselves should run a lottery is a matter for the Government to settle. The Government have considered the problem, and, having considered it in all its aspects, have decided that it will not take that responsibility. Let me ask Members whether they think it is really a desirable thing that the Government should run a lottery, whether through the Post Office or any other Government Department, in which they will take contributions to a game of chance from people many of whom are not really able to or are not in sufficiently fortunate enough circumstances to afford? In what kind of position is a Chancellor of the Exchequer going to be, if every time he has to carry out a particular service there is to be talk on this indefinite and uncertain problem? I cannot conceive that any sober-minded Member of the House should desire to set up a system which would be so unequal and uncertain in its working.

The Royal Commission recommended very strongly against a large general lottery. The Government feel that you cannot prevent people gambling, that you cannot prevent them taking tickets in lotteries and chances, but we have accepted the decision of the Commission on the main problem. We are continuing in this Bill the existing law in regard to the large lotteries, but for the first time we are declaring that other lotteries of a smaller nature shall be legal. This is not a Bill of repression. This problem has had to be looked at from a great variety of angles. There is probably not a club in any part of the country or a trade union that is not doing something illegal to-day. What the Government are determined to do is to have no part or lot in a large central lottery.


Why not?


Because in the first place we do not think it is good business and in the second place we think that it would lead to an infinity of evils, which has been proved in the past.


If people want it, why interfere with the will of the people?


Do not talk to me about the will of the people. What is the will of the people? This Bill was produced many months ago. It has been discussed up and down the country and I have no reason to suppose that it has been the will of the people that a large Government lottery should be undertaken.


What about our own Party Conference?


We recognise that there are circumstances in which it is reasonable that the kind of Christmas draws which are connected with many trades unions and with other clubs ought to be legalised. They are kept in a smaller area and are for a definite purpose. There is something in them which is of benefit to the working men and the club. The Bill will legalise also the kind of draws which are for the purpose of helping a good social object, such as my hon. Friend might desire to do, but we feel constrained to limit it to these smaller efforts. There is the larger question of money going out of the country.

I think it is unfortunate that the flow of money should go, as it does, to another country, whether it be Ireland or any other. We are taking powers to try and tighten up the regulations in regard to this matter. It may well be that that may prove not to be as effective as some hon. Members have suggested, but we are honestly trying to make the administration possible and reasonable. In these circumstances I would ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.

12 m.


Although it is now midnight I am going to ask the indulgence of the Committee for two minutes, because I feel that it would be unfortunate if we went to a Division in the state of confusion in which the Home Secretary has left it. I wish to reinforce the powerful appeal of the right hon. Gentleman for Epping (Mr. Churchill) that a free vote of the Committee should be allowed on this important question. I do so in the interests of the Government themselves. When my hon. Friend tabled his Amendment I looked up the Division lists on his private Bill when it was introduced in March, 1932, in order to discover those hon. Members whom we might find with us in the Lobby to-night. I found a large and distinguished company, including the Patronage Secretary, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the hon. Members for Buckingham (Sir G. Bowyer), Grantham (Sir V. Warrender) and Kingston-onThames (Sir G. Penny); in fact, most of the Whips who are going to be put on to-night. That being the case how can the House of Commons preserve its dignity to-night and carry out the sorry farce of the big battalions marching up from the smoke room on the ringing of the bell to defeat a proposal endorsed by the conference of the Conservative Party and upon which strong views are held in the country? Whatever may be the attempt to whip us into the Lobby by those who endorsed the proposal two years ago, I hope that hon. Members will assert the independence of the House of Commons to-night when the Division is taken.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 47; Noes, 219.

Division No. 386.] AYES [10.7 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C. Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Albery, Irving James Duggan, Hubert John Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.) Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.) Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Dunglass, Lord Mabane, William
Apsley, Lord Eastwood, John Francis MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Aske, Sir Robert William Elliston, Captain George Sampson MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) Emrys-Evans, P. V. McCorquodale, M. S.
Atholl, Duchess of Entwistle, Cyril Fullard McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Bailey, Eric Alfred George Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.) McKie, John Hamilton
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Fleming, Edward Lascelles Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Ganzonl, Sir John McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell Gibson, Charles Granville Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.) Gillett, Sir George Masterman Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Bossom, A. C. Glossop, C. W. H. Marsden, Commander Arthur
Boulton, W. W. Gluckstein, Louis Halle Martin, Thomas B.
Brass, Captain Sir William Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C. Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.) Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Broadbent, Colonel John Greene, William P. C. Milne, Charles
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham) Grigg, Sir Edward Mitcheson, G. G.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Grimston, R. V. Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Burghley, Lord Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon, F. E. Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie Gunston, Captain D, W. Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Burnett, John George Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. Morrison, William Shephard
Cadogan, Hon. Edward Hammeresley, Samuel S. Moss, Captain H. J.
Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley) Hanley, Dennis A. Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Carver, Major William H. Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Nall, Sir Joseph
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (P'rtsm'th, S.) Harbord, Arthur Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring) Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. O'Connor, Terence James
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh,S.) Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston) Peake, Osbert
Christle, James Archibald Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge) Pearson, William G.
Clayton, Sir Christopher Horobin, Ian M. Peat, Charles U.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Howard, Tom Forrest Penny, Sir George
Colman, N. C. D. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney,N.) Percy, Lord Eustace
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J. Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H. Petherick, M.
Conant, R. J. E. Jackson. J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Cooke, Douglas Jamieson, Douglas Pownall, Sir Assheton
Cooper, A. Duff Joel, Dudley J. Barnato Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Copeland, Ida Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan) Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Courtauld, Major John Sewell Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Crooke, J. Smedley Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West) Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro) Ker, J. Campbell Ratcliffe, Arthur
Groom-Johnson, R. P. Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton Ray, Sir William
Cross, R. H. Law, Sir Alfred Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.) Rickards, George William
Culverwell, Cyril Tom Leighton, Major B. E. P. Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Denman, Hon R. D. Lennox-Boyd, A. T. Ross, Ronald D.
Denville, Alfred Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock) Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert Lindsay. Noel Ker Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Doran, Edward Lloyd, Geoffrey Runge, Norah Cecll
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy) Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine,C.) Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Spencer, Captain Richard A. Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury) Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H. Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Rutherford, John (Edmonton) Spens, William Patrick Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l) Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde) Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Salmon, Sir Isidore Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.) Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart Stones, James Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D. Stourton, Hon. John J. Whyte, Jardine Bell
Scone, Lord Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F. Wills, Wilfrid D.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar) Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W. Sutcliffe, Harold Womersley, Sir Walter
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles Worthington, Dr. John V.
Slater, John Thorp, Linton Theodore
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-In-F.) Titchfield, Major the Marquess of TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Smith. Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam) Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement Captain Sir George Bowyer and
Commander Southby.
Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke Foot, Dingle (Dundee) Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. Fuller, Captain A. G. Owen, Major Goronwy
Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe Gardner, Benjamin Walter Palling, Wilfred
Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton) Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Parkinson, John Allen
Banfield John William Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding) Perkins, Walter R. D.
Batey, Joseph Gritten, W. G. Howard Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Bernays, Robert Grundy, Thomas W. Pike, Cecil F.
Blaker, Sir Reginald Holdsworth, Herbert Rathbone, Eleanor
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg) Rea, Walter Russell
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield) Jesson, Major Thomas E. Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Buchanan, George Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Salter, Dr. Alfred
Cape, Thomas Lanabury, Rt. Hon. George Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn Sir A.(C'thness)
Clarry, Reginald George Lawson, John James Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Colfox, Major William Philip Leonard, William Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(Pd'gt'n,S.)
Cove, William G. Liewellyn-Jones, Frederick Tinker, John Joseph
Curry, A. C. Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander White, Henry Graham
Daggar, George Lunn, William Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) McEntee, Valentine L. Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
Davies, Stephen Owen Mallalleu, Edward Lancelot Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, s.)
Debble, William Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Edwards, Charles Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan) Milner, Major James Mr. Isaac Foot and Mr. T. Williams.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Division No. 387.] AYES [12.4 a.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Goodman, Colonel Albert W. Perkins, Walter R. D.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Greene, William P. C. Pike, Cecil F.
Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Bailey, Eric Alfred George Gritten, W. G. Howard Remer, John R.
Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury) Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Broadbent, Colonel John Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Christle, James Archibald Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg) Salt, Edward W.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd) Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Clarry, Reginald George Joel, Dudley J. Barnato Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Clayton, Sir Christopher Knox, Sir Alfred Stourton, Hon. John J.
Colfox, Major William Philip Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.) Tate. Mavis Constance
Dixey, Arthur C. N. Lennox-Boyd, A. T. Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.(Pd'gt'n,S.)
Donner, P. W. Marsden, Commander Arthur Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington. N.) Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.) Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Fox. Sir Gifford Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. [...]. Sir William Davison and Mr. Gurney Braithwaite.
Goff, Sir Park Nunn, William
Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke Evans, David Owen (Cardigan) McEwen, Captain J. H. F
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) Foot, Dingle (Dundee) McKie, John Hamilton
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin) Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Albery, Irving James Fremantle, Sir Francis McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.) Fuller, Captain A. G. Magnay, Thomas
Apsley, Lord Gardner, Benjamin Walter Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Aske, Sir Robert William George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea) Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Cot. Sir M.
Assheton, Ralph Gibson, Charles Granville Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton) Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Martin, Thomas B.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Glossop, C. W. H. Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Banfield, John William Gluckstein, Louis Halle Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Beauchamp. Sir Brograve Campbell Graves, Marjorie Milne, Charles
Bernays, Robert Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W.Riding) Mitcheson, G. G.
Blindell, James Grigg, Sir Edward Moison, A. Hugh Elsdale
Boulton, W. W. Grimston, R. V. Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. Groves, Thomas E. Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George Grundy, Thomas W. Nall, Sir Joseph
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield) Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd, Hexham) Guinness, Thomas L. E. B. North, Edward T.
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Gunston, Captain D. W. O'Connor, Terence James
Browne, Captain A. C. Guy, J. C. Morrison O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. Orr Ewing, I. L.
Butt, Sir Alfred Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Paling, Wilfred
Cadogan, Hon. Edward Hammersley, Samuel S. Parkinson, John Allen
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly) Harbord, Arthur Patrick, Colin M.
Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley) Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n) Peake, Osbert
Cape, Thomas Haslam, Sir John (Bolton) Peat, Charles U.
Carver, Major William H. Hepworth, Joseph Penny, Sir George
Cazalet. Thelma (Islington, E.) Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth) Percy, Lord Eustace
Chapman, Col.R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Holdsworth, Herbert Petherick, M
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh. S.) Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge) Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Horobin, Ian M. Pownall, Sir Assheton
Colman, N. C. D. Horsbrugh. Florence Procter, Major Henry Adam
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.) Radford, E. A.
Conant, R. J. E. Inside, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H. Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Cook. Thomas A. James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H. Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Cooper. A. Duff Jamieson, Douglas Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Copeland, Ida Jenkins, Sir William Ramsbotham, Herwald
Courtauld, Major John Sewell Jesson, Major Thomas E. Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro) Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan) Ratcliffe, Arthur
Cross, R. H. Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields) Rathbone, Eleanor
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard Jones, Lewis (Swansea. West) Rea, Walter Russell
Culverwell, Cyril Tom Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Reid, David D. (County Down)
Curry. A. C. Ker, J. Campbell Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Daggar, George Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Rickards, George William
Davidson. Rt. Hon. J. C. C. Lawson, John James. Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery) Leckle, J. A. Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd) Leighton, Major B. E. P. Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Leonard, William Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Davies, Stephen Owen Lindsay, Noel Ker Runge, Norah Cecil
Dickie, John P. Lloyd, Geoffrey Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley) Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Dobbie, William Logan, David Gilbert Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel Lovat-Fraser., James Alexander Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Dunglass, Lord Lumley, Captain Lawrence R. Salmon, Sir Isidore
Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony Lunn, William Scone, Lord
Edwards, Charles Lyons, Abraham Montagu Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter Mabane, William Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Elliston, Captain George Sampson MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick) Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn Sir A. (C'thness)
Emmott, Charles E. G. C. MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr) Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield. Hallam)
Emrys-Evans, P. V. McConnell, Sir Joseph Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine,C.)
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard McCorguodale, M. S. Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East) Thompson, Sir Luke Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.
Soper, Richard Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles White, Henry Graham
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J Thorp, Linton Theodore Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Spencer, Captain Richard A. Titchfield, Major the Marquess of Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde) Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Stevenson, James Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L. Wills, Wilfrid D.
Stones, James Wallace, John (Dunfermline) Womersley, Sir Walter
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F. Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull) Worthington, Dr. John V.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Sutcliffe, Harold Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Templeton, William P. Waterhouse, Captain Charles Sir Victor Warrender and Dr. Morris-Jones.

Motion made and Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Ordered, "That The CHAIRMAN do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Captain Margesson.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Fourteen Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.