HL Deb 26 April 1956 vol 196 cc1291-324

4.20 p.m.

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

LORD CHORLEY

My Lords, I am asking your Lordships for a Second Reading of this small Bill—small, but not, I think, without importance. I feel that in a way it is rather appropriate that we should be discussing this matter at the present time, because, possibly emboldened by the success of this Small Lotteries Bill in another place, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken upon himself to conduct part of the country's finances on the basis of what might in a general way be described as the lottery principle.

I do not wish to take up too much of your Lordships' time, especially as, rather to my surprise, I find that there are quite a number of your Lordships who wish to take part in the debate, and that there is apparently opposition to the Bill's very modest provisions. The Bill, of course, is a Private Member's Bill, and its existence proves, if any further proof is needed at this stage, that the institution of the Private Member's Bill (about which, quite recently, a useful study by a university teacher has appeared) still serves a useful purpose. Although it is a Private Member's Bill, it has been received with what I think I may quite properly describe as rather more than benevolent neutrality from Her Majesty's Government. The Home Office have given a great deal of assistance to the promoters, for which we are grateful; and, of course, the Bill has been favourably received in another place, where its provisions were extended, rather than diminished, during its passage through the House.

I make bold to say that the Bill has received the overwhelming support of the great mass of the community. Almost all the Members of another place have received a considerable mass of correspondence from their constituents supporting it, and I understand that there has been remarkably little opposition. I appreciate, of course, that there are a number of people who take the view that gambling in any form is altogether immoral and is to be condemned out of hand. In regard to gambling on a large scale, and particularly in regard to what one might call commercial gambling— gambling for the purpose of making a profit out of it, which involves encouraging people to go beyond moderate "flutters"—I am entirely in agreement with that point of view. But I cannot agree that this Bill falls into that sort of category: obviously it does not; it has been especially designed on the very reverse principle.

All of us, I think, or nearly all, have a natural tendency to gamble up to a point, and if we keep that tendency in control and do not indulge it beyond moderation, it seems to me that it is a propensity of which none of us need be ashamed. All our natural propensities may be used for good or evil ends. A gambling propensity may be used to make life rather fuller and more colourful than it is to many of us, and provided that we exercise the propensity with self-discipline, and in a moderate way, I am quite sure that it does not do any harm. Of course, on the sort of scale which we often see it indulged, gambling is one of the most evil things—a breaker of families and a destroyer of family life, just as drink is if it is over-indulged. The two propensities are similar. They may give great pleasure and enjoyment, provided they are indulged in moderation; but if overindulged, they may lead to great evil, squalor and even crime.

I hope that this does not sound like the beginning of a sermon, especially as I have the honour to be followed, I believe, by the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury. I must admit, quite frankly, that the half-crown that I put on Oxford at the Boat Race (and which, I regret to say, during the last few years I have almost invariably lost, but which I live in hopes of getting back in the succession of victories during years which I hope are not too far away) does give an additional pleasure to that most delightful of our annual sporting events. If I may say so, I sometimes think that the fanatical contenders for a particular moral line often do as much harm, if not more, to the very cause which they wish to support—the cause of general morality—as those who ignore moral constraint. We saw perhaps the best example there ever was of that in the attempt to enforce prohibition in the United States, which was carried on over a number of years and undoubtedly led to a distinct degeneration in the general moral climate of that great country.

I do not wish to go into the history of lotteries. It has been inquired into, and the whole matter has been investigated by two Royal Commissions within quite a short time. The present state of the law is undoubtedly complicated, and even more uncertain than complicated. That was shown by both Royal Commissions, that of 1932–33 and that of 1949–51. It is a pity, I think, that the Government have not been able to find time themselves to take up the recommendations of the 1949–51 Royal Commission, in particular, which made a number of valuable contributions to this problem.

The anomalies and uncertainties lead to a great deal of heartburning among many well-intentioned and admirable citizens, because the policy of enforcement varies a great deal from one part of the country to another—from one police authority to another—so that while the organisers of a whist drive in one area may be left quite alone to get on with this harmless activity, in some other neighbouring area they may find themselves brought up before the magistrates. Similarly (and this has been a particular matter of heartburning over the last years), the societies which have come into existence, particularly since the end of the war, when the organisation of football clubs has become such an expensive business, to provide finance for some of the weaker football and other games clubs have continually found themselves in difficulties with the police, while other clubs in the district, where perhaps the chief constable does not think it wise to bring prosecutions, have been left alone. This situation cannot but give rise to a great deal of feeling among the people who are prosecuted when they see others are not, and it undoubtedly brings the administration of the law into contempt; and that, I am sure all your Lordships will agree, is a had thing in the general interests of the community.

The Statutes enacting this complicated and somewhat unintelligible system of law—if system it can be called—go hack a very long way. I think they go back to the time of Henry VIII who was, believe, not so much worried by the moral aspects of lotteries—after all, he was an adept at what has been called the greatest of all lotteries, that of choosing one's wife. I think he was more concerned to prevent young men from frittering away their time in indulging in lotteries, time which, in his view, could be more profitably spent in the practice of arms. The Statute of 1541 which appears to be the earliest of these Statutes was reinforced from time to time, and particularly in the Victorian period I do not think it can be seriously contended that the law had not become absurdly puritanical. It made criminal a number of quite harmless forms of gaming which I am sure very few of your Lordships would regard with such dis-favour as to think that they merited the sanction of a criminal prosecution. That people who have indulged in these really quite harmless activities should be brought before criminal courts and, in effect, branded as criminals, is quite absurd.

This feeling became more widespread during the present century, during the years after the First World War. It became the general view in the community that the law in relation to lotteries had been tightened up beyond all reason. I think it is fair to say that that view received the support of the Royal Commission of 1932–33 and also of the more recent Royal Commission to which I have referred. The earlier of the Royal Commissions made certain recommendations for the alleviation of the situation, some of which, as your Lordships will recollect, were enacted in the Betting and Lotteries Act, 1934, the main object, or one of the main objects, of which was to enable societies to raise funds for charitable or other purposes connected with the work for which they had been formed. I do not wish to go into the provisions of that Act. On the whole, it has worked well and has enabled a great deal of mild and quite harmless gambling to be carried on, which has given a great deal of pleasure and, so far as I know, has led to no harmful effects.

The particular matter on which I wish to concentrate is the fact that advantage was taken of this Statute by numerous societies and, particularly in more recent years, as I have said, by the societies of supporters of football clubs, to raise money for the financing of those clubs. But a number of prosecutions, and at least one decision of the High Court in a fairly recent case (I think it was the year before last) have shown that the law is still, in my contention, unreasonably rigid.

The decision I have particularly in mind is one relating to the Torquay United Football Supporters' Club. The case may have attracted the attention of some of your Lordships: it caused a great deal of comment at the time when it was decided in the Queen's Bench Division. The case had been regarded as a test case and the decision showed that the holding of these small lotteries in support of football clubs of this kind—a practice which had become widespread all over the country—amounted, after all, to a criminal offence. That, I think, was a great shock to many of the promoters of these schemes. The result has been, partly, a return to the use of football pools for raising the money required. It is significant that, if one damns this sort of natural propensity in one way, it immediately finds a way round in another way; and the way round is often worse. The football pool is, I submit, equally a gamble. It is one which is much more consuming of time and money and in many ways less satisfactory than the small type of lottery which it has tended to replace.

In my submission to your Lordships, the result has also been to make it clear that it is necessary that the law should be amended further so that provision may be made for this quite harmless form of gambling. That is the reason why this Bill has been introduced into Parliament. Its object is quite simple and not at all ambitious. It is simply to return to what I think most of us believed was covered by the provisions of the 1934 Act, and to enable societies such as those I have mentioned to hold these small lotteries for the purpose of obtaining quite modest sums of money for the support of their clubs and societies, but to do so only subject to quite a number of stringent safeguards which. I hope noble Lords will agree with me, are entirely adequate to keep the whole business under effective control. At the same time, advantage has been taken by the promoters of this Bill to make it clear that small card parties, and other small gaming parties which are held purely for the purposes of entertainment, and in no sort of way for private gain, are also to be deemed legal, a matter which has often been so much in doubt that, as I have said, even the holding of the village whist drive has from time to time been held to be an offence. I think that is all I need say by way of general introduction to the provisions of the Bill.

I will now ask your Lordships to look shortly at the Bill and some of the main clauses which it contains. The matter is well summarised in the Explanatory Memorandum, which shows that the Bill authorises small lotteries and small gaming parties subject to the stringent conditions to which I will refer in a moment and which are, in fact, based on the recommendations of the Royal Commission of 1949–51. If the Bill becomes law, these lotteries will be lawful only for societies which register with the local authority and the purpose of which is either to promote or assist charitable, cultural or athletic or other purposes not connected with private gain"— I think the last few words are perhaps the most essential point of all: it is the lottery or gaming which becomes a commercial adventure which, in my submission to your Lordships, does so much harm. If your Lordships will then look further on, you will see how modest are the provisions of the Bill. No prize is to exceed £100 and no ticket is to be sold at more than 1s. The value of all the tickets to be sold is not to exceed £750, so that, by the time the expenses have been taken off—and your Lordships will see that they are not to exceed 10 per cent. of the proceeds—the amount which will be available for the charity or football club as the case may be, will be quite a small sum, not more than £600 or so.

There are a number of other provisions of rather less importance. For instance, Clause 1 (2) (f) says that the price of all tickets shall be the same. A wise addition which was made at the final stages in another place is that tickets are not to be sold by children under sixteen years of age. Clause 1 is undoubtedly the kernel of the Bill. The latter part of it is taken up with what I may properly describe, I think, as pretty stringent regulations for keeping the whole thing within the bounds of decency. Clause 2 makes the administrative arrangements for the registration with the local authorities of the societies coming under the Bill. Naturally, the provisions there are somewhat detailed in character. Clause 3 requires returns to be made by the promoters so that the whole thing will be above board and everybody will be able to see what is going on. Your Lordships will 11 see that Clauses 1, 2 and 3 are principally concerned with the lotteries in question.

Then in Clause 4 we find the other aspect of this Bill to which I have referred—namely, the exemption of some card parties and gaming parties when carried on purely for purposes of entertainment and in no sense for private gain. To some extent I think that clause was amended towards the end of the passage of the Bill through another place, in order to permit of a game called "Housey-Housey," with which I personally am not altogether familiar, to be played within the provisions of this clause. Your Lordships will see that in some of the later subsections there are consequential provisions designed to prevent places where this sort of game is being carried on from becoming common gaming houses. Finally, in Clause 5, there are some supplementary provisions of a rather technical character with which I thin I need not take up your Lordships' time.

My Lords, those, shortly, are the pros visions of this Bill. I suggest that it is a modest measure which in the end will make for decency in the conduct of this type of activity rather than give rise to anything which could possibly be called a public scandal. On the whole:, it will serve a useful purpose in putting into law the recommendations of a Royal Commission of men of considerable eminence who gave a great deal of thought and time to the survey of the whole of this problem, and it will be to the advantage of the whole country that this Bill should become law. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Chorley.)

4.42 p.m.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTER-BURY

My Lords, this Bill concerns a subject upon which probably our personal experiences are quite different, and most of us have prejudices of one kind or another which make an objective judgment difficult. It is also one in regard to which moral theologians find many perplexities. However, I shall not concern myself with their questions. I shall not discuss whether gambling is wrong in itself; indeed, I find it difficult to know what that means, since you can never find gambling by itself. It always requires the participation in it of at least two people; in other words, it is a social activity, and the Bill is meant in a small way to affect our social life. It is tine effect which it may have which we, as reasonable people, have to try to estimate and evaluate.

There is almost universal agreement that while some manifestations of the gambling instinct are widely regarded as allowable or even desirable, yet, as the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has said, this instinct is, or is easily liable to become, a disturbing factor in social life; and that almost all its organised operations involve elements or possibilities of real social evil. Often, there is disagreement among the churches as to the quality or extent of the social evil involved. Generally speaking, the Church of England and the Free Churches, and the Lambeth Conferences which represent the whole Anglican Communion throughout the world, consider the degree of social evil involved to be so high that they resist any legislative encouragement of gambling and seek to extrude, it altogether from church activities.

The Roman Catholic Church, on the other hand, employs the gambling instinct for its own church purposes very freely, and I think approves of large-scale national lotteries and sweepstakes, such as the Irish Sweepstake. But the Roman Catholic Church is, of course, just as aware as we are that a degree of social evil is involved and that it may become serious. Thus a Roman Catholic Archbishop, not long ago, in a pastoral letter called for an end to all games of chance for the raising of funds for church purposes, urging that they should be free from the taint—note the words "from the taint"—of gaming for chance. Everyone would agree that there is little positively right about gambling, and, if not wrong in itself, it presents undesirable and sometimes disastrous social features.

It is, my Lords, against that background that this Bill must be considered; and we must be as clear as we can what kind of contribution this Bill will make to the health and happiness of our social order. We shall not forget that, as the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has said, gambling does in fact often bring real family degradation and spiritual ruin to many individuals and to their families; no social worker could ever be forgetful of that fact. But no doubt your Lordships will be thinking, rather as I think the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, was, of the ordinary citizen well able to look after himself, who is very well content to buy a bit of amusement in this way with the chance of a little unearned increment thrown in to make it more amusing. The usual question is: "What is the harm in it?" Indeed, the noble Lord said that it does no harm. But the prime question is: "What is there to be harmed?" Let me in a few sentences say what it is that is liable to be harmed. A nation depends for its health upon the constructive spirit of its people. A constructive spirit is occupied positively with the good to be achieved, and the spirit of a people is to be found in the nature of their ordinary activities and their constant ways of thinking; it is to be found also in the incentives to which they most readily respond. Anything which to a serious degree debases what I will call this spiritual coinage of a people is dangerous and debilitating.

This Bill about small lotteries certainly does not add anything very significant to the value of the nation's spiritual coinage, nor does it attempt to do anything to check its spiritual devaluation—it does not pretend to. These small lotteries are designed to win support for purposes which people otherwise will not take the trouble to support in sufficient numbers —charitable purposes, athletic sports, cultural activities presumed to be good (but how is anybody to tell that?) and apparently any other purposes of any kind whatsoever, good or bad, which do not involve private gain or commercial undertakings. May I say in passing that there seems something a little odd about carefully excluding purposes of private gain from this Bill, when a lottery by its nature exists only by offering to its supporters chances of private gain. It is strange that there seems nothing in this Bill to exclude purposes of dubious social value or purposes socially undesirable. I do not discover any means of checking the value of these "other purposes". But, of course, the intention of the Bill is to encourage people to support desirable causes which they would not be so easily induced to support otherwise.

A speaker in another place said, very movingly—and the noble Lord no doubt had this in mind: In my own constituency, many small village clubs, sporting clubs, garden clubs, horticultural clubs and all those causes which are so important in village life and which are a good moral influence have found their finances knocked endwise when such lotteries as these were found to be illegal. No doubt this Bill is one answer. But it does in fact make use of and put into circulation what is in some degree a debased coinage, as will be obvious when it is contrasted with what I would call the gold standard by which those who care for admirable causes such as these take trouble to interest others to care for and support them too; or, if not to care for them, at least to give a subscription as an exercise of social duty discharged without thought of reward or gain.

As I read this Bill I wonder whether it has not been chiefly inspired by the managerial class, if I may so call it; by organisers of clubs and enterprises who find the task of money-raising very difficult and who are trying to take a short cut to solvency by the risky methods of inflation. I wonder whether it is not a Bill devised chiefly by the middle-aged, too young to dream dreams and too old any longer to see visions. There has been no demand or support for this Bill from youth organisations or those who speak for young people. Young people can, and still do, respond to the simple idea that if things are worth doing, they are worth doing for their own sakes. All education tries to teach them that simple truth. It seems a pity to encourage them—as this Bill does—always to look for a prize, and one awarded not on merit but by pure chance, for well-doing.

The Bill seems, rather appropriately, to trust to luck that no one will attempt to exploit its provisions in any undesirable way. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, spoke if its "stringent conditions." I cannot find them. It imposes singularly few restraints. Any purpose which is not for private gain or of a commercial nature is allowed. Any "society" not thus excluded can apply for registration. The local authority does not appear to have any discretion about registering a society, and if the application is in due form and £1 is paid, then, so far as I can see, the local authority must register the society. The society fixes the opening and closing date of each lottery which it runs, and, I suppose, can start a new one as soon as the old one closes and thus run a perpetual lottery. For the purpose of the Bill a society includes: an association of persons, by whatever name called. How many make "an association"? I find in the Bill that there must be a promoter and also two members to certify the required return. Will two other members suffice, making five in all? Can fifty like-minded enthusiasts register themselves as ten different societies, each promoting its own lottery? The Bill provides that no tickets may be sold by a person under sixteen years of age; but, so far as I can see, tickets may be sold to any member of the public. Does that mean that children of school age may, along with the rest of us, be invited at any time, by any enthusiast over the age of sixteen, to buy a ticket? No wonder the Youth Department of the British Council of Churches and the Council itself has asked that no children or young persons under the age of eighteen shall be in any way concerned in the organisation, sale, purchase or possession of tickets under this Bill!

It is to be noted that local authorities, apparently, will have no knowledge of what lotteries are actually in operation at any given time. They will not know that until they receive a return from each lottery promoter, and that need not be until three months after the lottery has ended; so that at any given moment the local authority will not know how many lotteries are actually in progress in its area, each trying, or being able to try, to sell up to 15,000 tickets—the maximum fixed by the Bill. There may be quite a lot, all competing to secure shillings from as many people as possible. There is an arrangement by which local authorities control flag days for charitable purposes so that they do not clash with one another or become a nuisance to the public. If promoters of these small lotteries are to be encouraged to do what is now illegal and will become legal—to seek to sell their tickets to the general public—ought not the local authority to have power to control them as it controls flag days, to protect the general public from being unduly exploited by endless small lotteries, or even to protect ordinary citizens from ardent aldermen wishing to organise lotteries in relief of rates?

My Lords, this title of "Small Lotteries" is very misleading. The noble Lord has said that they are small and therefore quite harmless. Each may be small, although already they are not so small as they were when the Bill first appeared; but if one is to judge their total social effect one must aggregate them, and I believe the Bill should requite local authorities to make an annual return of the number and proceeds of all lotteries in their area. Thus aggregated they are certainly not small. A chief constable stated in The Times two years ago that: Taken in the aggregate small lotteries probably amount to the equivalent of running one Irish Sweepstake each week in this country. If the true standard is to do things for their own sakes because they are worth doing, and without bribery, if the general spiritual currency of the community is to some extent debased by taking this line of least resistance, it is no answer to say that each person has only a few of these debased coins in his pocket at any one time. The whole coinage has been debased.

On such grounds I should maintain that, in the general interest, this Bill should be rejected. But there is a wider reason which makes it in my view mote important that the Bill should not proceed. This Bill might, perhaps, have crept through as a small, even if a rather small-minded, Bill; but, as we have been reminded, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has now raised the same general principle on a far larger scale. I know that the Chancellor says that his premium bonds are not a gamble, but there will be all the paraphernalia of a national lottery —the sale of what are the equivalent of tickets, quarterly drawings (which already some would make monthly drawings), publication of winning numbers, the recurrent excitement to see whether one has a winning ticket and all the rest of it. How long will the general public (or, shall I say, future Chancellors of the Exchequer) be aware of some tenuous argument about when is a gamble not a gamble, or remember that because they are only gambling with the interest, they are not really gambling at all?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury is reported as saying this—and with the first half of it I entirely agree: … it is utterly in the national interest that the sort of people who are spending money without a thought of saving should get the idea that they are doing a service to the nation and to themselves and have a flutter at the same time. And Mr. Davies, who first promoted this Bill, said of it in another place: if a person can combine a flutter with charity, he gives more generously and regularly. So whether it is the duty of supporting good causes or the duty of saving for one's own benefit and for the nation's good, there must be a "flutter" attached to make duty palatable.

The Chancellor has compelled us to consider the matter on a national scale. We all agree that we are engaged in a great struggle to preserve, to restore, to re-create, the economic stability and the spiritual capital of this people. The Government know, as well as all the rest of us, that we can regain stability and strength only by unremitting exercise all through the nation of the old-fashioned but essential virtues: integrity of character, strict honesty, the duty of honest work honestly rewarded, thrift, saving and the like. We all know that, at present, calls to such virtues fall on barren soil—not enough people listen when they are told that it is their duty to work or their duty to save. So what? The Government's duty, surely, is by every means in their power to restore the true coinage without which we cannot endure as a great people. They have chosen instead not a dazzling but a rather second-rate expedient, which may attract savings but which adds nothing to the spiritual capital of the nation, and which insinuates on a large scale this, as I should say, undignified and unedifying adulteration of public duty by motives of private gain.

And it comes, my Lords—if I may keep you for a few moments longer—at a peculiarly inappropriate time. We live in a Welfare State. The whole basis of it is responsible citizenship, and particularly responsibility in the use of money. To make this Welfare State viable spiritually and economically every citizen must develop a sense of responsibility superior, as I would say, to that required under any other order of society that has ever existed. Chance, in the sense of the unforeseeable or the uncontrollable, does, of course, enter into every occupation and often decides whether a State, a society, or a company pays its way and whether individuals are in prosperity or adversity. But the whole endeavour of our society is that each in his own place shall earn and contribute and control his share by the exercise of his own reasoned responsibility. Private gain divorced from responsibility, whether in management or workers or anywhere else, is anti-social. The Government's great concern must be that money gained shall be truly earned and that money earned shall be used reasonably, thoughtfully and for the general good.

The Chancellor's action and this Bill both contradict that social principle, and do so now of all times, when our existence and influence as a nation depend upon it. The Bill might be regarded as a small and, therefore, unimportant thing; but it is now caught up into this far wider context of concern. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, too, talks of his premium bonds as being "too small to corrupt." Once more there is this misleading emphasis on smallness. It is as though an athlete in training said that a chocolate was too small a thing to injure his training, and then proceeded to eat chocolates the whole day long. When everybody is making seductive offers all round, fresh offers of the same kind, from the Government of premium bonds, or from this Parliament in this Bill, become of serious concern for the training and disciplined spirit of the nation. Bad currency always drives out good. A long succession of small gambles, always tending to grow larger or more numerous, added on to the commercial gambles as a whole, cannot make a nation great. They can only make it flabby or, shall I say, fluttering in spirit.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer will no doubt go his own way. But the Government have now undertaken to deal by legislation with the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Betting and Gambling, and your Lordships know that the Royal Commission did not recommend any change in the Lottery Laws. Surely, on every ground, this Bill must now await the general review which the Government have promised, in which the undoubted anomalies to which the noble Lord referred will be dealt with, and any necessary relaxation from an over-Puritanical spirit will no doubt be deliberately made.

If the Chancellor of the Exchequer can claim to prejudge the issue for his own purposes, this Bill cannot claim the same right. It is no longer a small one. It must now be considered along with all other similar matters. The Bill utters this coinage—what I have called this slightly debased coinage—in maximum denominations of £100, the Chancellor of £1,000 and the football pools of £75,000, But it is all the same spiritual currency, and its value for the public health should be considered by the Government and by Parliament as a single problem. No doubt, the general public will require that a place, a substantial place, be left in the national life for the gambling instinct to express itself, and I should accept the fact. But when the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the promoter of this Bill suggest that their measures are too small to corrupt, they bear witness that large indulgence of the gambling instinct may easily corrupt the life of the nation. But small and large are matters of proportion, and can only be wisely considered when all the elements of the problem are brought together in the general review now promised by the Government. For this reason, also, I suggest that it would be improvident to proceed with this Bill until that general review can take place.

5.0 p.m.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, for speaking before him, but let me assure him that I am only following what I understood was to be the order of speakers. I will not stand between him and the House for long, but I rise as an unrepentant supporter of this Bill, in spite of the most impressive and widely-phrased declamation of the most reverend Primate. My reason for supporting this Bill is that I believe that no great moral issue is raised by this Bill. It is doing nothing new. It is making no extension of gambling. It is simply putting right what all of us, with one: or two exceptions, have in this House and outside indulged in for years——the mild "flutter" in aid of the horticultural society, in aid of the hospital, or in aid of the local church, welcomed by those who received the benefits of such a "flutter". We are putting right the result of the Maynard Williams judgment of 1954.

I do not feel that it is appropriate today, and I am not competent to go into the wider issues raised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget, as did the most reverend Primate. We shall have chances later on of going into that question—I use the word "chances" with some hesitation after the speech we have just heard. Perhaps then there will be noble Lords who will take issue with the most reverend Primate on his analysis of the motives and results of the proposals which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has put forward and which I think will command a certain measure of support throughout the country. The most reverend Primate started his speech by saying that an objective judgment on gambling was difficult because it was difficult to define gambling. I cannot disagree with that, because we all live to some extent by the hazard, the chance, the gamble of life. What a dreary and dull thing life would be if it were lived according to the law of certainty! I do not know whether the most reverend Primate carries life insurance for the benefit of his dependants when he dies. Some of us do. That is a form of gambling. It is the acceptance by a life insurance house of a hazard on the life of the individual they insure. They assess all the chances of someone living to a particular time. They medically examine him and try to get the chance a little more on their side than on his.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

My Lords, the noble Lord asked me whether I was insured: yes, I am. In my speech I said that there were chances and that the great endeavour of man was to control his chances reasonably. One fact of which I am certain is that I shall die. Therefore, I try to meet that certainty as reasonably as I can.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

My Lords, let me say only that the company that accepts an insurance of the most reverend Primate is having a gamble on how long he is going to live. They hope to win. I sincerely hope that they will lose, but it is their hope that they will win. The most reverend Primate went on to say that the authoritative bodies of the churches generally reject gambling. The authoritative bodies of the churches may generally reject gambling, but lower down in the ranks they do not. They enjoy the church raffle. There are great benefits—the new nave is built, the church is repaired. I really think it is hypocritical for the authorities at the top to say that they reject these things while farther clown the ranks they are only too glad to take advantage of them.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

My Lords, "hypocritical" is a very hard word. I always thought it was the duty of leaders to lead and not to depend on what people were saying down below. I have yet to learn that vox populi has to be accepted as vox dei.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

My Lords, I was not saying that the most reverend Primate was hypocritical. I said that the authoritative church attitude is hypocritical if the authorities go to their councils and condemn gambling and yet do not issue a letter or directive, or whatever the church hierarchy issues, to the authorities lower down to say that no more church raffles should be encouraged and that there should be no more summer fetes where the cake is raffled.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt again, but the noble Lord has asked for it. The church authorities do issue directions, but, thank heaven! the Church of England is a fairly tough and responsible body and knows that not all its orders will be obeyed.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

My Lords, if orders are made and not obeyed, it is not for me to comment on the discipline which exists in the Church of England. The most reverend Primate then said that the national spirit, the coinage of our national life, is all important and must not be debased. I entirely agree. He said that the "gold standard" is tarnished by this Bill. With great respect, I think that that is an exaggeration. The Bill legalises something which has been common practice for many years, and to say that our spiritual life is being debased thereby is something which ordinary men cannot really understand. The most reverend Primate asked whether this is a "middle-aged" Bill. He made an assumption, unsupported by any facts or argument, that it was the managerial class which was behind this Bill and that there was no demand for it by youth. I do not know the figures, but I think we should find that as many people under thirty-five enjoy of mild "flutter" as those over thirty-five. There has been no sort of Gallup Poll of the ages of the populace who enjoy their mild "flutter." I could not quite understand that statement, because it was completely unsupported by any factual evidence.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

My Lords, that is partly true. I gave it as my opinion, and it has whatever merit there is in that, but I did support it with one small bit of evidence. So far as I know, no youth organisations or persons who speak for youth had ever asked for this Bill.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

My Lords, and so far as I know no youth organisation has protested against this Bill, except the Church youth organisation which the most reverend Primate mentioned; and, so far as I know, there have not been any supporting resolutions from old age pensioners or any particular opposition by old age pensioners. I do not think that we can really say that sections of the population support or oppose the Bill. I think we must keep a sense of proportion. I regret that the wider issues of gambling in relation to the spiritual life of the nation, and of the introduction by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the new premium bonds, should have been introduced in the debate on this small measure, which does nothing new and which only legalises what all of us enjoy. I think the objection to this Bill is impractical. Sometimes, quite rightly, the Church tells us of our many and manifold sins of omission and commission. Nevertheless, today nine-tenths of the people, if it is a debasing of the spiritual life of the country, enjoy a slight degree of debasement. I suggest that those in authority in the churches should give some credit for self-control of the ordinary member of the family and of the population. People can exceed in gambling; people can exceed in drink; people can exceed in many different directions to the detriment of themselves, their spirit and the nation in general. Sometimes we hear of empty churches and of the decline of the church. I sometimes think it is because those in authority are out of touch with nine-tenths of the people of this country.

5.21 p.m.

LORD AMMON

My Lords, it is more than fifteen months since I took any share in your Lordships' deliberations, and I have come down to-day in disobedience of doctor's orders because of what I feel is the moral danger of this Bill. Neither I nor, I think, the most reverend Primate, would be prepared to say that one is guilty of a wicked deed if one takes part in a small lottery. But what I am concerned about, in particular, is the danger to our young people. The future belongs to the young people, and it will be determined very much by their character. It is for that reason that I am going to ask your Lordships to reject this Bill.

I should like to digress for a moment to answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, who said that no instructions had been issued from headquarters with regard to this matter. Fortunately, If have here a publication, which I had not expected to use, issued on behalf of both the Anglican and the Free Churches. It says: As a way of raising money they (lotteries) are wasteful and pernicious … pernicious because of the unholy alliance between altruism and self-seeking. For this attempt to bribe people to subscribe to charities by an appeal to self interest there is nothing to be said. It is an insult to charity and a source of offence because it tends to blunt men's consciences. That is an official statement issued on behalf of both the Anglican and the Free Churches. By happy coincidence I, as a member of the Free Church, am to-day following the most reverend Primate, who spoke earlier on this matter.

Having said that, I want us to give a little more thought to this matter than we appear to have done. In a letter to The Times some time ago the Bishop of Willesden said this: The effect of such reversal to extend existing facilities for gambling will tend to the degradation of charity and the debasement of sport. It encourages cupidity rather than charity … and will multiply the number of people who have no interest in sport for sport's sake. That, so far as I am concerned, is the basis of the opposition to this Bill. It will have a deleterious effect on our young people, and we shall reap the reward later on. I think the noble Lord who introduced the Bill described it as a "little Bill." But that is how these things start. Then, when they have started like that and made some impression, we find them difficult to stop. It will be most difficult to make young people believe that there is quite a difference between this sort of gambling and that in the wider field. After all, the whole case was given away by the mover of the Bill when he agreed that certain wrongs had resulted from this to the social life of the country. It began in this degree, first of all, and it is because of that, I think, that we have responsibility placed upon us.

I speak with some little knowledge on this matter, because I have for many years been concerned with work among young people; and I was for several years on the management committee of one of the probationers' homes. Again and again we found that the beginning of trouble was the gambling instinct among these young people. They get that, and then they get to bigger things; and then they see the huge prizes offered by the pools. Now that gambling is being given this air of respectability it will make things much more difficult. Two or three Bills similar to this have been introduced in the past few years. Two of them were talked out in another place, and this one got through on a narrow majority of only twenty-four in a small House. It is worth noting that in the debate on a former Bill of this sort the then Home Secretary said: Are we to legislate at the level of he present day 'decline in the standard of morals and integrity in our community life'? That Home Secretary has now undertaken higher office.

I want to remind noble Lords that again and again we have discussed in this House moral issues concerning the health and well-being of young people—in the language of to-day, juvenile delinquency. Anybody who is in touch with these young people will know that the gambling instinct is one of the starting points—putting a "bob" on a horse. First, they do it, and it seems all right; and then they read of the enormous prizes offered by the pools. All these things are lowering. When they get the idea that they can do better in this way than by honest hard work, then we are going a long way to making things more difficult in the future. That is all I can say at the moment. As I say, I have come to this House to make my protest. I feel that I should offer some apology because, having been away for so long, it is unfortunate that I should find myself in opposition to my noble friend Lord Chorley. However, I am bound to say that I shall ask the House to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill as and when the time comes.

5.29 p.m.

EARL WINTERTON

My Lords, it affords me, and I am sure all your Lordships, great pleasure to see the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, back among us. I should like to say, as a political foe of his of the old days and as an old and personal friend, how glad we are to see him here to-day. And although I am a supporter of the Bill, I thought that he put the case against the Bill with a moderation which was singularly lacking from the speech of the most reverend Primate. I want to tell the most reverend Primate that I, as a supporter of the Government and a friend of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, resent his bringing into the debate on this Bill a discussion on premium bonds, which in any other assembly in the world would have been out of order.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

The noble Lord who moved the Second Reading himself referred to premium bonds.

EARL WINTERTON

It is true that h referred to premium bonds, but he did not take the opportunity to make the attack upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer which the most reverend Primate made. I think it was unfortunate.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

I am sorry to interrupt again, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself indicated that a number of people would be severely injured and hurt by his actions. He was prepared for that. Would he really complain if I make reference to a topic which is common to his action and the action of this Bill?

EARL WINTERTON

That, if I may say so, is a matter of opinion. The most reverend Primate occupies a position of great eminence in this country, but he must not suppose that when he takes part in debates in your Lordships' House he is not open to criticism.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

Oh, no.

EARL WINTERTON

I think that his whole contention, that there is a close connection, a moral connection, a Christian connection, between this small Bill and premium bonds, is, frankly, ridiculous. That is my description of it.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

Does the noble Earl deny that premium bonds are a lottery?

EARL WINTERTON

I should prefer to make my speech my own way. I am not prepared to discuss premium bonds on this occasion, because I think it is an inappropriate time to do so. Really, I must be permitted occasionally to make a sentence without interruption from the most reverend Primate. Sometimes when the most reverend Primate interrupts, I rather regret we are not back in another place with a Speaker. All I said was that I think it is a ridiculous argument to connect this mild little Bill with premium bonds. All that it does really is to clear up the law. That is the principal object of the Bill, because in many parts of the country what this Bill authorises already takes place without any interference from anybody. It is only under some police administrations that the lotteries with which this Bill deals are prevented. I should have thought that it was a perfectly' harmless Bill from that point of view.

On the general question of gambling, of course the most reverend Primate is entitled to his opinion, as are the rest of us. If I might have his attention for a moment, I was rather interested in one piece of unconscious humour on his part. He was tackled by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye to explain why church raffles were encouraged in so many churches, and why the Church authorities did nothing about it. He informed us that the Church of England was a very tough body and was incapable of imposing discipline on any of its members. That is quite true, otherwise the Dean of Canterbury would not still be the Dean of Canterbury.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

If the noble Earl will trail his coat like this, I must intervene again to point out that I stated in this House, at great length, some years ago the fact, which Sir Winston Churchill supported in another place, that there is no law in this country under which the Dean can be excluded from his office.

EARL WINTERTON

If I may pay a compliment to the most reverend Primate, I remember his delightful and extremely eloquent speech—which is what we expect from him—on the occasion of that debate. But he did mention, in the course of that debate, that the Dean of Canterbury had abased and compromised his position. All I say is that it could not be said of any other Church that I have heard of, that a person who so behaved could not be subject to any penalty. That disposes of that matter.

I would say that the most reverend Primate was like a man who uses a bulldozer to remove a small twig. To listen to his speech—to which the House always listens with the closest attention, because, if he will allow me to say so with the greatest respect and without impertinence, he is one of the most eloquent speakers I have heard in fifty years of public life—one would have thought that this was a gigantic question, the very summit of moral questions: that the whole social life of the country depended on our not passing a Bill of this kind. I really do not think that is so. I should have thought there were many other questions much more worthy of the head of the Church of England. I should have thought, especially this week, that the Church might have drawn attention to the appalling persecution of fellow-Christians behind the Iron Curtain. I noticed that in the recent Church conferences most of the attention was drawn to questions such as gambling and not to other evils which are far greater in the world to-day than the form of gambling with which this Bill deals. For those reasons, I hope this Bill will be passed.

I think it is a sensible little Bill. I agree that there is a great deal of hypocrisy in this country about gambling and a great deal of inequality as between different aspects of it. "Inequality" is not a very happy term, but while some forms of gambling are bad, other forms, I think, do not do much harm. I would say, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, that I really cannot think that anyone would be led on the downward path and become a confirmed gambler through the provisions of this harmless little Bill. I should have thought it much more likely in the case of a man who gambled on the turf or on the football pools. The truth is that we have had in this country for a long time a state of affairs which is ridiculous, and I am glad that Her Majesty's Government, with commendable courage—because the Bill is going to meet with a good deal of opposition from different quarters—are going to take in hand and consider the recommendations of the Royal Commission. It may well be—and we have yet to hear the answer of the Government—that the Government feel that it is inadvisable to pass this Bill because of the general principle involved; the principle of dealing with the recommendations of the Royal Commission. If that is not so, I hope the Government will give this Bill its blessing.

5.36 p.m.

LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH

My Lords, it is not necessary for me to attempt to come to the aid of the most reverend Primate, whose speech, when it is read carefully, I think will be seen to have been a carefully thought out and balanced statement. What is the object of this Bill? Either it is to increase the facilities for gambling, or else it is to aid charitable objects. I think few of us would wholeheartedly subscribe to the proposition that it is desirable to increase the facilities for gambling, which are already quite abundant in this country, many of them well organised—and another, with all respect to the noble Earl who has just spoken, is apparently on its way. That is not at all an irrelevant consideration to the discussion this afternoon. If, on the other hand, the object of this Bill is to assist charitable purposes, I would say, in the first place, that that is far from being the whole of its content, because, as it stands at the present moment, it enables lotteries to be conducted for the benefit of any society, no matter what its objects are. Its objects might, in fact, be quite uncharitable and quite detrimental to the community. But if this Bill is passed into law, it will have ample legal facilities to conduct as many lotteries as it pleases. So that this is not a pure case of assisting charitable objects.

After all, it seems rather strange that if people want to undertake some purpose which is beneficial to the public, or even one which is beneficial to some private society and not beneficial to the public at all, they should not have sufficient public spirit to be able to subscribe the money which is necessary for that purpose but have to depend upon cajoling other people into supporting it by taking part in a lottery on the chance that they will win a prize. With all respect to the noble Earl who has just spoken, that seems to me to raise an issue of fundamental moral importance. I admired very much the speech which he made in this House comparatively recently when we were discussing a matter relating to foreign policy, in which he made a spirited protest about the neglect of the moral issues which were involved in certain questions; and I think moral issues ought not to be neglected in this case either. It is a matter which deserves consideration: whether the result of this Bill is not simply to increase to a large extent the facilities for gambling, without serving any other useful purpose at all. On that account, I am going to support my noble friend, Lord Ammon.

5.40 p.m.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, I find myself in some difficulty, because all my sympathies are with those who oppose the Bill and against those who have spoken in favour. Nevertheless, I propose to support the Bill. The most reverend Primate based the case against the Bill on the effect on our social life and on his objection to gambling generally. I should like to say at once that I—and, I imagine, a great many in this House—am utterly opposed to gambling and am completely out of accord with the speeches which have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and by the noble Earl, Lord Winterton. I do not think that a "flutter" is a good thing. I agree with all the sentiments that the most reverend Primate and the noble Lords, Lord Ammon and Lord Douglas of Barloch, have expressed, but I fail to co-relate those sentiments with this Bill. I do not believe for a moment that a single person will be induced to play bridge or whist over and above those who already play those games. This Bill will give no encouragement to anybody to play whist who does not already do so. Nor, in my view, will it increase in any way the number of lotteries that take place.

EARL WINTERTON

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but he said I was in favour of gambling. I have not said a word in favour of gambling. I myself do not gamble. I said there were differences between different forms of gambling. Probably I did not make that point clearly.

LORD SILKIN

Of course, I accept that. The point I wish to make is that this Bill will not in any way increase the amount of whist-playing or the number of lotteries that take place. For instance, I would refer to Paragraph 147 of the Report of the Royal Commission, which deals with whist drives. Among other things, it says: Although whist drives are illegal, proceedings are not normally taken against their promoters. It goes on to say that, in actual fact, the police have been given instructions not to prosecute. Therefore people can play whist in an organised way with impunity. The same applies to these small lotteries. There have been odd prosecutions but, in fact, we know that these lotteries are taking place under the very noses of the police and people in authority. So long as one complies broadly with the kind of conditions that are laid down in the Bill, no prosecution will take place. If anybody wants to run a lottery for the purposes of a church or of any other charity, he will do so and take the risk of the police interfering. Probably the chances of the police interfering will be very slight indeed.

The effect of this Bill is that, whereas people who take part in organised games of whist or in these small lotteries are, as the law stands at present, criminals and liable to prosecution, they will, if this Bill is carried into law, not be so. It is desirable that if a thing is permitted with impunity and carried on with impunity, the people who do it should not be regarded as criminals and run even the very slight risk of prosecution. Nobody can suggest for a moment that if we do not pass this Bill the amount of gambling that will take place which this Bill covers will in any way be reduced. I submit that neither will it be increased if the Bill is passed. It will leave matters exactly as they are, except that people will no longer be regarded as criminals and possibly liable to prosecution.

There is one small point which the most reverend Primate made about the Bill. No doubt it could be remedied in Committee. I agree with him that it would be wrong if we accepted, under the guise of a charitable organisation, any undertaking, any society, so long as it was not run for gain. But I myself do not understand Clause 1 in that sense. I imagine the most reverend Primate is referring to Clause 1 (1) (c). I take paragraph (c) to mean that it must be a purpose which is broadly covered by paragraphs (a) and (b) and which is covered by what the lawyers describe as the doctrine of eiusdem generis. If I am wrong in that —and I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will be able to tell me whether or not that is so—then it is a matter which quite properly can be dealt with and amended in the Committee stage. But, subject to that, with every sympathy for and in full agreement with what all the noble Lords and the most reverend. Primate have said about the ethics of gambling, I fail to understand how this Bill can affect the matter in any way. Incidentally, I cannot resist one final word to the noble Earl, Lord Winterton. He rebuked the most reverend Primate for being irrelevant; but. I wonder what the Dean of Canterbury has to do with this Bill.

LORD REA

My Lords, may I suggest that he was regarded either as a gamble or as a small lottery?

5.47 p.m.

LORD KINNAIRD

My Lords, I did not intend to take any part in this debate but I was moved by an omission from the speech of the most reverend Primate, in that while he referred to the Church of England and to the Free Churches, he did not mention the Church of Scotland. Since the most reverend Primate has brought up the question of the premium bonds, I should like to say that the late Convener of the Church and Nations Committee of the Church of Scotland has written to the papers to say that he views with very great regret the fact that the Government are making themselves responsible for the lottery bond—I thought that was interesting as a man speaking with authority—and that the Church of Scotland have sent an injunction to all their congregations saying that they disapprove of all lotteries that are raising funds for the benefit of the Church. So the Church of Scotland has spoken definitely with regard to lotteries that are arranged in any form for the benefit of the Church. That has been made clear. Otherwise, it is a matter of private opinion. I am not saying whether I approve or not; we, all have our private opinions; but I think that when we find a Government sanction being given we have to consider the matter very carefully.

5.49 p.m.

THE EARL OF HALIFAX

My Lords, before my noble friend replies, may I add one word. I have not had the opportunity of hearing all your Lordships' discussion, and in particular I regret that I had to miss the contributions made by my two noble friends who sit immediately below me. I confess to finding myself in some difficulty in this matter. I am not, I hope—indeed, I know that I am not—any more virtuous than any other noble Lord. I enjoy a "flutter," when it conies my way, as much as anybody else does, and I certainly have no scruples whatever about taking part in a village whist drive raffle, or in any other raffle on an even larger scale.

Although I do not discuss the ethics of gambling, I have always supposed that the two essential features of reprehensible gambling, which I have no doubt the noble Lord opposite who moved the Second Reading was right in not finding in this Bill, are, first, the feature that leads people to commit themselves to a larger financial extent than they can afford; and secondly, the feature that tends to lead them to attach an undue value to money for its own sake. I do not find those two elements in this proposal; therefore I am not greatly shocked by it. On the other hand, I do not think that anybody—certainly not I—listened to the speech of the most reverend Primate, speaking with the responsibility that is bound to attach to anything that he says both in his personal and representative capacity, without being a good deal affected and moved by it.

Apart from the argument that lie developed on merits, I was impressed with the argument that he advanced towards the end of his speech, in which he said that he thought that there was a strong case for asking the Government to allow this matter to stand over and be brought up as part of a general review, in the light of the consideration that they intend to give to the whole question later. To me, too, that would seem to be a not unreasonable conclusion of this immediate discussion. We could then look at the matter in the light of what might be the general considerations so given. That is all I want to say, beyond adding my appeal to that of the most reverend Primate, that if it were thought possible that course might be followed.

5.52 p.m.

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT)

My Lords, this Bill is a Private Member's Bill, and naturally your Lordships will look to the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, for guidance upon some of the technical points that have been raised and for help in the Committee stage on any doubts which may be in your Lordships' minds. But I think it would be right for the Government to express some opinion on this Bill, and I should now like to put their views to your Lordships as briefly as I possibly can. As will be within your Lordships' memory. Parliament has discussed the whole question of gambling on two or three occasions in recent months. In February last we had a most interesting debate on the Report of the Royal Commission, initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. In a way, I am sorry that although we had excellent speeches from the Bishops of Carlisle and of Sheffield, we were prevented, through circumstances of which we are all aware, from hearing the Archbishop's advice on that occasion. The most reverend Primate has to-day given us a speech of great importance and one to which the country will obviously lend a keen and interested ear. I should rather have wished that the first half of the most reverend Primate's speech had been available to the House at the time of the major debate on gambling two months ago.

With much of the first half of the most reverend Primate's speech I found myself in agreement. That is purely a personal opinion, because I do not happen to like gambling. On the second half of his speech—a most remarkable second half, in which he succeeded, if I may say so with great respect, in making a Second Reading speech on a Bill which is not to be published until to-morrow—I would only say that on the question of premium bonds there are, I think, many noble Lords here who will, when the time comes, be happy to take a few twigs to his bulldozer and do battle with him on that matter. It seems to me that that matter is not germane to the much smaller issue which is before the House to-day and upon which I think the most reverend Primate has, with some justification, been taxed as attaching a little more importance than it really merits.

During the course of the debate on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I ventured to suggest what the Government felt might be a practical basis for legislation on this whole subject when a suitable opportunity occurred. Of course, my suggestions were based almost entirely on the suggestions of the Royal Commission. It was generally agreed in the course of that debate that there is bound to be gambling in this country and that we may as well face it. Therefore, if there is bound to be gambling, the law about it had better be clear, it had better be sensible, it had better be understood and, most of all, it had better be obeyed. We came to the conclusion that at the moment the law concerning gambling generally in this country is none of those things. I was impressed afterwards at the widespread approval, both in the Press and in the country, of the arguments used in your Lordships' debate, even by those who were fundamentally opposed to gambling and whose conscientious objections were naturally aroused. The general fears of your Lordships' House were towards uncontrolled gambling rather than towards gambling as such, and that view has, I think, been widely reflected in the country and has evoked remarkably little protest—at least, nothing like the protest that we thought at the time might arise.

This question raises the very small matter of lotteries. It occupied a separate chapter in the Report of the Royal Commission. It is indeed true that the Royal Commission made no suggestions for reforming this very small branch of the law. The reason for that has been made clear since. There have been two cases which have cast considerable doubt on the law, upon which the Royal Commission made no recommendation. It is fairly obvious that if those two cases had occurred before the Report of the Royal Commission, they might well have advised in a different way. All that remains is for me to say that this Bill seeks to put these doubts out of the law and to put the matter in order.

I can advise the. House, I hope fairly, that the Bill is generally a workmanlike and practical Bill and will succeed in doing what its sponsors set out to do. It sets out to bring the law back into repute. Let us face the fact, as several noble Lords have said in the course of the debate, that the law on this particular subject has been broken time and time again, in all innocence by many people. There can he little doubt that Members of your Lordships' House have on numerous occasions broken this law. This goes back to the fundamental principle of the debate on the Motion of Lord Silkin: that if we are going to have a law, let us have one that we can understand and one that we can obey. That is the principle behind this small Bill, and it is one which I think your Lordships can well accede to this afternoon.

I deliberately say nothing about the ethics of gambling. I think that is not my duty. Your Lordships have received much conflicting advice in the course, of the debate. I content myself with saying that I think this is a necessary amendment of the law, which need not wait for the major reforms which we contemplate, because it is separate and disconnected from those reforms. It will succeed in bringing the law into repute. If we are going to have a law for gambling, we want it to be a law that we can all understand and obey. Upon that basis alone—I go no further—I, for one, would, I am afraid, vote against the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, in the Lobby should he see fit to take this matter to a Division.

5.59 p.m.

LORD CHORLEY

My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, particularly those who have supported my Motion. I should like also to thank the most reverend Primate for the admirable—I do not quite know whether to call it a sermon, which he delivered to us, and also my noble friend Lord Ammon, whom I am sure everybody, particularly myself, is glad to see back here taking part in our discussions, even at the cost of his opposition to the Motion which I have put before your Lordships. If I may just take up one matter with him, I understand that he proposes to divide the House on this Motion. If I understood him correctly, he said that the Bill was passed through another place by a small majority. Of course, that is not true; it was unopposed on both the Second and the Third Readings. I would appeal to him, as an old House of Commons man and as one who appreciates the constitutional position, not to attempt to override a decision reached in another place by what was, in effect, an uncontested vote; because so far from there being a small majority, on both Second and Third Readings, as I say, the passage of the Bill was uncontested.

The most reverend Primate has contributed a speech with much of which I found myself in agreement. But I thought it was rather unrealistic. After all, we are confronted by a situation in this country in which this type of "flutter" goes on and has always gone on. It was going on in the great days of Queen Elizabeth I and in the eighteenth century. The object of this Bill is to regulate the situation and to ensure that, in these particular matters, it does not get out of hand. I believe that the most reverend Primate is setting his sights too high. If we try to get 100 per cent. we may get nothing; if we are content with 75 per cent. we may get it all. That, very largely, is the difficulty with alcohol. It is a poison. Taken in reasonable quantities, it is very pleasant; but if one takes too much, it may kill. It is the same with gambling.

I believe that it is unstatesmanlike, as well as a quite impracticable policy, to take the view that all gambling, even its mildest manifestations, is so wrong that one must oppose it:. It is easy to pour scorn upon the idea of money being brought in for charities and other desirable objects in this way. Years ago, when the great brewer, Carlberg of Copenhagen, left his brewery and his fortune to the University of Copenhagen, some people shook their heads. Yet the university has done most valuable work through money obtained from that brewery, which is engaged in manufacturing what is undoubtedly a poison but one which, taken in small quantities, is a very pleasant beverage. Taken in large doses, alcohol leads to squalor and the break-up of families and other evils of which we all know. One cannot put it beyond that.

The most reverend Primate took the point that all kinds of societies might be established for most undesirable objects. I do not think that could be so. I agree with the interpretation of my noble friend Lord Silkin. The purpose here is within the general ambit: charitable purposes … participation in or support of athletic sports or games or cultural activities: If the object were to make any kind of society eligible for inclusion within the ambit of the clause, there would have been no point in mentioning charitable purposes, sports, or cultural activities. Obviously there are other activities

Resolved in the affirmative, and Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

which, in a general way, fall within classes of that kind, which it is desirable should be indicated in a later clause of the Bill. That is my understanding of the matter, and I adopt the view suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. I feel that that is all I can usefully add. I thank noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, and I hope that if the noble Lord, Lord Amnion, insists on dividing the House, your Lordships will give the Bill its Second Reading.

On Question, Whether the Bill shall be now read 2a.

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 47; Not-Contents, 5.

CONTENTS
Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor). Cilcennin, V. Digby, L.
Furness, V. Fairfax of Cameron, L.
Salisbury, M. (L. President.) Goschen, V. Fraser of North Cape, L.
Hailsham, V. [Teller.] Haden-Guest, L.
Cholmondeley, M. Soulbury, V. Jeffreys, L.
Kenswood, L.
Albemarle, E. Aberdare, L. Lloyd, L.
Buckinghamshire, E. Amulree, L. Macpherson of Drumochter, L.
Listowel, E. Balfour of Inchrye, L.
Lucan, E. Boyd-Orr, L. Mancroft, L.
Morley, E. Brassey of Apethorpe, L. Rea, L.
Munster, E. Burden, L. Remnant, L.
Onslow, E. Carrington, L. Rennell, L.
St. Aldwyn, E. Chesham, L. Silkin, L.
Shaftesbury, E. Chorley, L. [Teller.] Waleran, L.
Winterton, E. Clitheroe, L. Winster, L.
Congleton, L. Wolverton, L.
Bridgeman, V. Craigmyle, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Canterbury, L. Abp. Halifax, E. Ammon, L. [Teller.]
Douglas of Barloch, L. [Teller.]
Kinnaird, L.