THE LORD BISHOP OF BRISTOLMy Lords, I rise to call attention to the issue of advertisements of large money prizes to be drawn for under cover, or supposed cover, of a sanction by the Board of Trade (Art Union Drawings) at a carnival to be held in Bristol in the month of June in the interest of the funds of the Bristol Royal Infirmary. As your Lordships are no doubt aware, in 1846 an Act had to be passed for legalising Art Unions,, for it was found that they came under the provisions of the Act against lotteries and other illegal games, and under that Act there was given to the members, subscribers, and contributors protection from pains and penalties so long only as their proceedings were carried on in good faith for the encouragement of the Fine Arts. That is the great point—they were only protected from pains and penalties so long as their proceedings were carried on for the encouragement of the Fine Arts. There was no possibility of partnership with any other object.
The Bristol Royal Infirmary was very seriously in debt, and it was proposed to hold a great carnival for six days in the month of June next, of which I was asked to become a patron, and I gladly consented to do so. When I give my name for such a purpose I always stipulate that there shall be no raffles and that nothing alcoholic shall be sold. Shortly after I accepted the patronage I had a paper placed in my hands in one of our tramway carriages in Bristol, from which I will quote two paragraphs—
It has been disclosed that one of the methods will be the holding of a summer carnival at the Clifton Zoological Gardens on a scale never 32 before attempted, and the arrangements for this are now afoot. One of its most unique features will be the combination of the Art Union drawing of the Bristol Fine Arts Academy (usually held annually as an independent enterprise) with the proposed Royal Infirmary carnivals The idea emanated from Mr. Samuel White, who is known to have the interests of the Royal Infirmary keenly at heart, and also is a supporter of the Fine Arts Academy. The scheme having heartily commended itself to Sir George White and Sir William Henry Wills, the respective presidents of these two institutions, received also the prompt approval of the Board of Trade, who are the Government Department responsible for the supervision of Art Union drawings.Further on there appeared this statement—It is an important part of Mr. White's scheme that any prize-winner who is not perfectly satisfied with his prize will be free to elect to hand the work of art over to Mr. White, who will buy it back from the winner at the cash price for which it had already been purchased from the artist.I at once wrote to the infirmary committee to say that that, in my judgment made this Art Union drawing simply a drawing for money prizes, and therefore, in my opinion, illegal. I stated that that being so, I must withdraw from the position of patron. I then wrote a second letter to say that this had become known, and I was receiving communications from Nonconformists and Church people urging me to go further still. Finally, I wrote to tell them that as I could not get the slightest indication of any willingness to reconsider the matter, there was nothing left to me but to put myself at the head of those in Bristol who were anxious to make a very solid protest against this. We agreed upon a letter which we should write to the newspapers. But, first of all, I must read to your Lordships the actual sanction given by the Board of Trade. It was addressed to the hon. secretary of the Fine Art Union, and is as follows—Sir,—In reply to your letter of February 18th, submitting to the consideration of this 33 Department a scheme for the drawing for prizes in the Bristol Art Union during the coming year, I am directed by the Board of Trade to inform you that they are prepared to approve of the necessary alterations in the rules and regulations to enable the drawing to take place in the manner proposed. For this purpose they approve of the subscription being 20 per cent. of the sums received for admission tickets to the carnival, entitling the purchasers to participate in the drawings under the scheme, instead of the subscription of one shilling prescribed by the rules, subject to the guarantee of a minimum prize fund of £1,000. They further approve of a drawing for prizes being held on each day of the carnival at the gardens of the Bristol, Clifton, and West of England Zoological Society, instead of one drawing being held in the year at the Exhibition Rooms.The plan was to use the Art Union for the funds of the infirmary, making the two interests into one, and giving one-fifth to art and four-fifths to the infirmary,and I contend that this constitutes an unlawful creation of a partnership. I will now read to your Lordships the letter which we sent to the newspapers—Sir,—We have been hoping that the committee of the Royal Infirmary would withdraw the proposal to give the money value of pictures drawn at the approaching carnival in aid of the funds of that deserving institution. We now feel obliged to give public expression to the dismay which we feel at the prospect of its being carried out. While at the same time we recognise the great generosity of Mr. Samuel White's offer"——may I say that the Messrs. White have been most generous to me in helping me in Church extension matters, and they have rendered much assistance to the poor people of Bristol generally—we cannot but regard the drawing for pictures on so very large a scale as that indicated under the cover of the name of an 'Art Union Drawing' as a misuse of the Act of Parliament; and we are surprised that the Board of Trade has sanctioned it. Under the Act the lottery must be in good faith for the encouragement of the Fine Arts, and, apart from the offer to buy back at cost price pictures drawn, we feel a strong moral objection to the proposed lottery for the funds of the Royal Infirmary. The farther proposal to give the money value of a picture in the place of the picture itself to anyone who professes to be not perfectly satisfied with the prize he has drawn convert the drawing into a money lottery. Considering the terrible curse which betting and gambling and all forms of staking money on chance are known to be, and the breaking down of moral character which they entail in so many cases, we do earnestly protest against this part of the proposal being carried out.That letter was signed by myself, by the Dean of Bristol, the two archdeacons, 34 and four of the leading Nonconformist ministers. That, so far as we know, had no effect. Then a Question was asked in the House of Commons, and it was clear from the Answer that the Board of Trade had begun to see that this was going much too far, and had communicated to the Art Union that the offer to redeem the prizes for a money prize must be withdrawn, and withdrawn it was.I did not propose to do any more. But then came a flood of advertisements announcing money prizes to be given at this drawing. This was clearly the action of a third body not controlled by the Board of Trade and not protected by their sanction. The advertisements did not mention pictures at all, and only announced prizes of £250, £100, and so on. We began to find that Bristol was flooded with these advertisements, and especially the tramcars, of which the Messrs. White are the managers. I have in my hand a green bill on which there are two red lines, the one announcing "Bristol Carnival Week" and the second containing the words "To raise £50,000 for the, Bristol Royal Infirmary," and the bill proceeds to state that the minimum prizes on the Monday will be £400, on the Tuesday £200, on the Wednesday £100, on the Thursday £100, on the Friday £100, and on the Saturday £100. There was also a statement that season-tickets for the six days, for £1,000 in prizes, could be had at the reduced rate of 10s. 6d.; but from first to last the word "picture" is not even remotely alluded to in the Bill. How it can conceivably be legal I do not know. Here is a yellow circular with the same red lines on the front page. Inside there is a list of pictures, and opposite is stated the value of the prizes in money. I have here the season-ticket which is to be sold, and is to convey all these privileges. There is upon it in comparatively small letters "Bristol Art Union," but the heading is "Bristol Royal Infirmary Carnival." There are set forth on the tickets the minimum prizes for the week—£1,000: Monday, £400; Tuesday, £200; Wednesday, £100; Thursday, £100; Friday, £100; and Saturday, £100. It is announced on the ticket that it is a ticket of admission to the carnival once each day, and for one share each day in 35 the prize drawings; and the word "drawings" does not mean drawings for pictures, but drawings for prizes. Again the word picture is not mentioned. Then I have the actual card which, I believe, the Art Union has put up—
Bristol Art Union Drawings in connection with the Bristol Carnival week, June 26th to July 1st, 1905. Monday, 1st prize, £250,and then there is printed at the bottom the name of the picture. I have here a few of the tickets with which we are supplied by the thousand in the tramway carriages of Bristol. There are some twenty of them, but I have only found one on which the word picture is mentioned at all. The only reference is to money. One ticket states—This ticket will not give you a picture, but a carnival ticket may.That is the only case in which I have found any mention of picture on these various tickets. One of these tickets read—Don't argue about methods, but help the infirmary by buying a ticket for the carnival.I do think it is time somebody put a stop to people being told that they are not to argue about methods, but are to take part in this gamble to help an infirmary. Here is another ticket—Help the infirmary and buy a chance in £1,000 or more at the same time.Another one reads—The prize fund will be £10,000 if £50,000 worth of carnival tickets are sold. Buy now.Now I come to exceedingly cruel advertisements. You will laugh at the first—He won't be happy till he gets it! The £250 first prize. Buy his ticket now.The next one reads—Mother will be pleased if you win the £250 prize.There you have an appeal to the child to give pleasure to its mother by staking its savings in this way.Occupying the position I do in Bristol, I am sure your Lordships will readily understand my feeling strongly on this matter. I wrote to the noble Marquess the President of the Board of Trade a fortnight ago; the letter reached the Board of Trade the day after the noble Marquess was taken ill. I feel convinced that the Board of Trade, on seeing this 36 notice on your Lordships' Paper, sent some messenger to Bristol, because there appeared in the tramway carriages a second ticket, the red line in this case reading—
Sixty picture prizes.Up to that time the red line had announced £10,000 in prizes. But, my Lords, the money advertisement was not taken down. The one announcing sixty picture prizes had been put up by the side of it, and the result of the intervention of the Board of Trade has been to make people understand that the carnival has two attractions—£10,000 to be drawn for in money prizes, and sixty picture prizes. As a matter of fact, the Board of Trade can only deal with the Art Union; there is a third body issuing these advertisements by the thousand, over whom, as I understand, the Board of Trade have no control at all; and, if that is so, it is their own doing, because they have let this thing; go out of their hands by the very large and, as I think, unwise concessions which they have made.I think I have said enough about these advertisements to show that it is contrary to public morals that this sort of thing should be allowed to go on. If the answer of the Board of Trade is that the Board is powerless to deal with the situation, then the logical answer of this House will be that the Board of Trade ought also to be rendered powerless to create such a situation; and if the answer is that the only remedy is a prosecution, then I hope this House will take the view that not we in Bristol, but those who created the situation, should enter the action. I am perfectly certain that the Board of Trade must have been heartily sick of this whole thing long ago, and wishes it had never been so foolish as to abate by one single jot the stiff restrictions contained in the rules. If nothing is done there certainly will be a rush, unless charity organisations are less wide-awake than I think they are, of applications to the Board of Trade to do the same thing for other towns which have infirmaries in debt. I do at least expect this from the Board of Trade, that they will give to the House this assurance, that this experiment, which, has led to such disastrous results, will, never be made again.
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDMy Lords, before the representative of His Majesty's Government answers the Question which has been put to him by my right rev. brother, I desire briefly to supplement what he has said with reference to this case. I venture to do so because for more than forty-two years I have been personally very closely associated with the municipal life of the city of Bristol, and during the whole of that period, both in regard to the management of this great institution and kindred institutions, I have been led to admire the dignity and highmindedness of those who have conducted the municipal affairs of that city. Having still this close connection with the city of Bristol, I feel that the leading citizens do well to be angry at this gambling project. I venture to say that it is a danger to the standard of public morals that this should take place.
I need hardly say more than what has already been said by the Bishop of Bristol as to the opinion of the most highly-respected citizens of Bristol on this matter. Not only have the representatives of the Church of England taken action, but Nonconformist feeling has also been aroused. I hold in my hand a letter from the leader of the Nonconformist bodies in Bristol, the Rev. Arnold Thomas. I might also quote other persons. The Dean of Bristol has felt himself obliged to withdraw from his connection with the infirmary as vice-president. Again, I find that Sir Edward Fry, formerly a Lord Justice of Appeal, who is universally known and honoured, has also withdrawn his support from the infirmary in consequence of this. I do not venture to say what his view may be on the legal question, but I have here some very strong words of his on the moral aspect of the matter which I will read to the House, because the opinion of Sir Edward Fry on a question of this kind is no ordinary opinion. He says—
There are two evils which stare us in the face in our country to-day—gambling, and the association of frivolity and vanity with works of charity, and to license such a project as that of the Bristol Infirmary is to foster both these evils.I venture to think that words of that kind from such a quarter deserve to be 38 carefully weighed by the Board of Trade. I was not aware that the assent of the Board of Trade had been finally and formally given, but I venture to plead that if it has been it ought not to have been, given. I have no doubt at all that it must have been given in perfect good faith, but I venture to say that it was given on imperfect information. I cannot conceive its having been given except on inadequate and misleading information. Unfortunately, this great institution has fallen into hands different from those that used to manage it, and here we have the first fruits in this immense carnival with bills such as the Lord Bishop has described flaunted all over Bristol—bills such as we have been in the habit of receiving through the post from such places as Hamburg and Middelburg, but such as I have never seen before in any respectable portion of English life.I would venture to draw your Lordships' attention a little more closely to the Act of 1846. It is an Act which a mere layman like myself may fairly claim to understand, and, as I understand it, it simply exempts Art Unions under certain conditions from the operation of the Lotteries Act. It is an Act giving privileges and exemptions on certain conditions. Under it drawings for works of art may be allowed amongst bona fide members of the Art Union. The persons who take part must be members of the Art Union, and the exemption is then to continue—
only so long as their proceedings are carried on in good faith for the encouragement of the Fine Arts.Further, they must have obtained a Charter, and it is provided in the Act—that whenever it shall appear that any such association is perverted from the purposes of this Act"—the purposes being the encouragement of the Fine Arts in good faith—the fact is to be certified to His Majesty, and it shall be lawful to revoke or annul the Charter.It seems to me—of course, I express my opinion with no little hesitation in the presence of noble and learned Lords—that the Art Union of Bristol has imperilled its Charter by this gambling project. This cannot be described as anything less than a barefaced gambling project, 39 and I cannot but feel that the Board of Trade must have acted on improper information. Therefore, before the noble Duke answers for the Government, I venture to appeal to him to give the matter further and fresh consideration under the advice of the highest legal authority. I desire to associate myself with everything that the Lord Bishop of Bristol has said as to the deplorable results of a scheme of this kind flung into the life of a great city, and I do trust that something may be done so that the persons who have obtained the management of this affair shall not snap their fingers at an Act of this kind and go shameless, apparently, and unrepentant in face of the best sentiment of that great city.
§ THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Duke of MARLBOROUGH)My Lords, the right rev. Prelates have certainly an advantage over me, inasmuch as they are better acquainted than I am with the local opinion and views on this question. I could not help feeling, in listening to the right rev. Prelate who raised this question, that he regarded the Board of Trade not in a very kindly or friendly light, and he seemed to have in his mind the impression that the Board of Trade had connived with the local authorities at Bristol in carrying out what he considered was an illegal act.
§ THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHI am glad to hear the right rev. Prelate disclaim any idea that the Board of Trade desired to associate themselves with a body of Bristol gentlemen in carrying out any kind of lottery coming under the Lotteries Act. The right rev. Prelate has stated the story pretty amply to your Lordships, and I do not think I need go over the history of the case except to allude to one or two brief points in connection with it. As the right rev. Prelate pointed out, at the beginning of this year the Art Union at Bristol reminded the Board of Trade that there was going to be a carnival in that city, 40 the proceeds of which were to be devoted to the Bristol Royal Infirmary, and they asked the permission of the Board of Trade to make an arrangement with the carnival committee, the arrangement being this, that 20 per cent. of the entrance money taken at the carnival should be given to the Art Union. Those people who bought entrance tickets were not only to get admission to the carnival but they were to be entitled also to use those tickets as tickets for the pictures which had to be raffled for. That proposal was made to the Board of Trade, and after due consideration the Board gave their consent to it. I do not know the local opinion on this matter, but I should assume that the Art Union said that the arrangement would be one which would bring very prominently before the notice of the people in that locality the advantages of the Art Union, and that a certain amount, perhaps an increased amount, would go to the Art Union; and in so far as these considerations are worth anything, they must have been of benefit to the Art Union. The public would not in any way suffer; because not only would they, after paying their shilling, get the advantage of admission to the carnival, but they would have the additional privilege of drawing possibly a favourable number in the lottery, it being remembered that the lottery was for prizes in the shape of pictures. I understand that the right rev. Prelate considers that arrangement to be an illegal one.
§ THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHThese prizes which were to to be raffled for were picture prize, the product, I presume, of artists in and around the town of Bristol, and therefore it was perfectly clear that the aim of the Art Union was a bona fide aim, and it was not their desire in any way to associate themselves with the carnival committee in carrying out a proceeding which could in any way be termed illegal. That was the condition of affairs to which the Board of Trade assented. They did so, believing that they were perfectly within the law in doing so, and 41 I am informed that they have no reason to alter their view upon that point. The Board of Trade, believed that the arrangement between the carnival committee and the Fine Art committee was in good faith and for the encouragement of the Fine Arts. Then, as the right rev. Prelate reminded your Lordships, this happened. A munificent gentleman, for reasons best known to himself, suggested that if anybody die not like winning a picture he would keep the picture himself and give the money value thereof to the individual who won the prize. Then at once objections were raised. Many persons pointed out that if that course was carried into effect, the proposal to redeem these picture prizes by money would be illegal, and I understand that the right rev. Prelate joined in that protest. This came to the knowledge of the Board of Trade and they at once suggested that the proposal which this munificent gentleman had made should be withdrawn. There was considerable correspondence in the matter. The Fine Art Union replied that the gentleman was not a member of their society, and that therefore they could take no action in the matter, and they denied responsibility. However, as the right rev. Prelate has informed the House, the offer was eventually withdrawn; but he forgot to tell the House that the offer was withdrawn as the direct result of the strong representations made by the Board of Trade itself.
§ THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHMatters were in this condition when further complications arose, as we have been reminded to-night, by the fact that many peculiar advertisements were published, presumably by the carnival committee. His Majesty's Government certainly join with the right rev. Prelate in deploring those advertisements. I think they were very silly ones. I cannot believe that they could have been in any way likely to add to the sources of revenue of the carnival committee. The advertisements were brought to the notice of the Board of 42 Trade, who saw that people in Bristol were trying to advertise money prizes instead of picture prizes. At once strong representations were made by the Board of Trade, and these people were told that their action was irregular and that they must alter their advertisements and put them in correct form. A reply was received by the Board of Trade stating that new posters had been issued in which full prominence was given to the fact that the prizes were picture prizes and not money prizes. Although I can quite understand the right rev. Prelate disapproving of many of the incidents connected with this affair, I think he ought to look with a favourable view upon the action which the Board of Trade have taken in this matter, unless, of course, he objects to the fact that the Board of Trade allowed the Fine Art Union to make any agreement at all with the carnival committee. But, in doing that, I understand they were acting legally within their powers under the Act.
The right rev. Prelate will no doubt wish to know exactly the attitude of the Board of Trade at the present, moment on this matter. I understand that they have invited the Art Union to disclaim, the injudicious act of the carnival committee, and as the Board of Trade think that the Art Union has to a certain extent been the victim of the carnival committee, they do not consider that there is enough evidence to warrant their cancelling the authority which they gave them. But, as the right rev. Prelate pointed out, it is open to anyone who desires to get a decision upon this matter to go to the local Courts of Law and ask whether the advertisements which have been issued by the carnival committee do or do not constitute an infringement of the law. The right rev. Prelate suggested that the Board of Trade should do this. The Board of Trade do not consider that their duties, extend thus far, and if local feeling in Bristol is very strong on this matter, I think the Board of Trade will be wise in leaving it to those who are more conversant with these matters, and who feel the more strongly about them, to bring any action they deem necessary.
§ LORD DAVEYMy Lords, it was not my intention to take part at all in this debate, but there were some observations in the noble Duke's reply which I cannot allow to pass without some comment. I did not understand the right rev. Prelate to have suggested, and I am sure he would disclaim any such idea, that the Board of Trade connived with the unfortunate and ill-advised committee of this carnival in setting up the wholly illegal lottery which they appear to have done. But I must point out to the noble Duke that it was solely in consequence of the regulations issued by the Board of Trade that the committee of the carnival were able to do it. It was the Board of Trade which alone enabled them to do it, because the regulations of the Board of Trade authorised the committee of the Art Union to allow persons who were not members of the Art Union to compete for their prizes.
§ LORD DAVEYThat is so. The Board of Trade allowed persons who merely paid their gate-money to go into the Zoological Gardens to compete for these prizes. They had no power to do that, in my mind. That a man who pays gate-money to be admitted to a carnival at which a public lottery is advertised to take place should be supposed thereby to be a contributor or subscriber to an Art Union within the meaning of the Act is a supposition which I should not have thought would have entered into the head of any person. I do not in the least degree suggest that the Board of Trade saw the consequences of what they were doing; but still their action in allowing persons who, in my judgment, were in no sense either members, subscribers, or contributors, to compete for prizes has led to what seems to be admitted by the noble Duke himself to be unfortunate and illegal proceedings.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY)The right rev. Prelate has no right of reply, but he may make an explanation.
THE LORD BISHOP OF BRISTOLThe noble Duke said that in consequence of strong representations by the Board of Trade an answer was received that posters calling special attention to the fact that the prizes were to be pictures were issued. That is quite true, but those posters were put up side by side with those announcing £10,000 prizes in money, so, as I pointed out, there is now a double attraction. The objectionable tickets to which I have called attention are still being circulated, and it appears to me that the Board of Trade have practically done nothing by their last step.
§ EARL SPENCERI would appeal to the noble Marquess the Leader of the House as to whether this matter should not be referred back to the Board of Trade. I think it is clear from the remarks of my noble and learned friend that they seem, no doubt unwittingly, to have done something irregular. A great Department ought to be very careful in a matter of this kind, and I think it would be as well that it should be referred back to them to see whether, after all, they have not connived at what is an illegality.
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE)My Lords, I think the noble Duke, in the course of his speech, admitted very frankly that these proceedings had been of a most irregular and improper description. With a very worthy object in view the Bristol Art Union appears to have entered into an ill-advised association with another body which, actuated no doubt by philanthropic motives, seems to have, if a layman may express a view, gone perilously near breaking the law. I gather from the noble Duke that the matter has been, to some extent at any rate, corrected, because it has now been decided that the persons who win these prizes are to receive works of art and not money.
§ LORD DAVEYBut they are no members of the society.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEThe right rev. Prelate however suggested to us that the parties concerned were, in spite of the remonstrances which had been addressed to them by the Board of Trade, persisting in their irregular conduct. If that is so, I have no doubt that my noble friend will represent to the Board of Trade what has fallen from noble Lords during the course of this debate, and that the matter will be looked into further as suggested by the noble Earl opposite.