The Sun.
London, England, 1834-03-19 00:00:00

LOTTERIES.

Sir R. INGLIS, in rising to bring forward his motion
respecting the Glasgow Lottery, said it was almost unne-
cessary for him to state the grounds upon which it was
founded. He could scarcely believe that any of the mem-
bers of that house would be parties to the revival of lot-
teries in this country, and in condemning the system, the
noble lord (Althorp) had made use of very strong lan-
guage, for he said, while advei ting to the Glasgow Lot-
tery, that the transaction was connected with fraudulent
proceedings. In all former cases, where it was proposed
to make sale of private procerty by way of lottery, refer-
ence was made to the existing law, but here there was
nothing whatever of the kind. The words of the bill
merely were, that its object was making improvements
in the line of way from the Cross of Glasgow to the
Monteith road. The noble lord (Althorp) did not impute
any fraud to the company, the contractors, or agents ;
neither (lid he (Sir R. Inglis) yet the transaction itself
was fraudulent. All he meant to contend for was that
no such lottery as this could be sustained. The parties,
therefore who had confederated to obtain this hill were
responsible for all the consequences which might result
from a measure which the legislature had by law pre-
vented. But the great object he had in view was not so
much to punish the parties for improper conduct as to
prevent the recurrence of any similar proceeding. It was
no later than within the last week that he bad heard the
hon. member for Dublin say that the lottery scheme would
be a good mode of raising money for the Dublin Ship Canal,
and another hon. member suggested the like mode in the case
of the Thames Tunnel. The only apology ever made for
lotteries was that they were rendered necessary as a means
of raising money for the exigencies of the state ; but he
altogether protested against the principle in a case where
no benefit was conferred upon the nation in its fiscal elm •
racier. In an article which lie had seen in an Irish paper
he found that the hon. member for Leominster (Mr. Bish)
lamented that the lottery system was abolished. He (Sir
R. Inglis) maintained that it was a system which proved
most injurious to the morals of the country. He had not
called the attention of the house to the Glasgow Lottery
till April, 1833. His object was to prevent the system
from being taken up in future. At that time he had been
strongly appealed to on behalf of the parties who were
engaged in the transaction, and a case of ad misericor-
diam was made out to show that those parties would be
utterly ruined by any legislative interference to prevent
the plan. lie yielded to the appeal, more particularly as
he was told that when the drawing was over the whole
plan would cease. A second lottery, however, wasdrawn,
and now came a third ; so that the house would see that
he did not call for its interference without good and sub-
stantial grounds. The hon. baronetconcluded
by moving
that a select committee be appointed to inquire into the
origin and present state of a lottery, purporting to be car-
vied on under the authority of parliament, and entitled
the Glasgow Lottery, and into any other lotteries, foreign
or otherwise, of which, since the legal discontinuance of
state lotteries, schemes, tickets or shat e•t, had been circu-
lated in the United Kingdom.
Mr. SINCLAIR seconded the motion, and said that
lotteries were regarded in Scotland with the greatest pos-
sible aversion.

thshuiesp
supposed
gsaeiridat c tthehoranti.nhvgeoe
gentleman
lvvtelaedsmiann
implicatedt this i s t qlueecshit
ni,aoi Bra.
though he assured the house-that he had no more to do'
honan d
tbhaero
agentsnet had o
f acquittedany smitvigl‘hihrtt.hpel3osbisSiilblillythfbaenelt
,ratnlsie'etciourn.tracTtohres,
Stil, however, from the speech of the hon. baronet it
ftrhanundnumlepnatnyt
in-
tention to commit a fraud, but he had not acquitted the
oflic.-keepers, and he (Mr. Bish) was one of those keepers.
He solemnly declared that he had nothing to do with the
bringing in of the bill, or with getting it passed through
any of its stages. It received the Royal assent on the
Ist July, 1831, and it was only in the February following
he hid heard any thing of the Glasgow lottery. He was
at Leominster at the time, and could not possibly have
been more surprised had he heard that St. Paul's church
bad walked to Tower-bill than lie was at hearing of this
Glasgow lottery.—(A laugh.) So little had he to appre-
hend from the motion of the hon. baronet from the very
first, that he had given him notice of his intention to
second it; but at the same time lie told him that be
thought the measure was not called for, and he bad to
complain that the hon. baronet had not informed him
what course lie intended to pursue, though knowing that
be (Mr. Bish) was a member of that house. The hon.
baronet, however, did not profess to know that he (Mr.
Bish) had been a lottery contractor. Upon this he would
only say that lie had spent a great deal of money to no
purpose, if the lion. baronet was not aware of a fact
which was well known to all the world.—(A laugh.)
As a lottery office keeper he had never shrunk from any
investigati9n, and he was sure that those who were
engaged in the same pursuit with him would be equally
ready to meet any inquiry, and he had no doubt that they
would come out of it with credit to themselves and the

f

ggiu" '
country. It was said that this bill bad bees 'l' tog•
through the house. Now let the house see who tile' ob
glers were. The two first on the list were Mr. "tition
and Mr. Archibald Campbell—men of the highest that!.
and character; and the two next were Mr. Dix"' ;sort
right hon. baronet was down at the
time member for Glasgow, and Sir Michael Sbaw S The
—men equally well known for honour and integritY'Digbt':
during the progress of the bill by which the lottery tae
io
sanctioned, and why did be not take that °P:rbuaving '
expressing his dissatisfaction with ir, instead into the
skirmish upon the subject every time he came but yet
house. He himself was a very humble member'se ousbi:
he was a member of Parliament, and he had
_;hostel
right to express his sentiments as any, the most tu._at to,
tic member there; and he must take leave to rig, I°_,,, to;
hon. baronet (Sir R. Inglis) had forfeited his yet; they
him—(Cries of ~ Oh," mingled with laughter)
el_sulP.
hon. bironet had pledged his word to him that b "_.0,4
give him notice when he intended to bring this qU.eroiti7:
forward, and then when he did bring it forward he ul°
Ott
give him notice.—(A laugh.) He was of opinion e‘„ ,
lotteries had no more to do with morality than he hal rt ~,,
do with the Caliph of Bagdad, and that the govern:P:74 .
had, by abolishing them, sacrificed four millions wi h!. ;
house every
extracrse.—C
giving four pennyworth of morality. He would refer
_.7,
a letter from a friend of his, whom be would not dces.ll..
nate as a moral character, but who svas as respe
soak''
a man as any he addressed. This letter contained .11','
general reflections on gaming, which, if well found!!
owould go to prove that the noble lord (the Chance: ,
thfatthhe Exchequer) opposite was the greatest gatnblecr
from a letter containinseveral eke uPen,tl
g remarks
chances of trade and
..
Withsome reflections upon • the he°
their uncertainty, b 0
which was
A laugh.) The hon. member here res ;
a reduction of the inference that, inaslnue.ad
the farmers' crops
upon their bring • cue
spared by grubs and insects, his o f s
tions must of necessity be more of the natu
,° r
depended on the chance of rain, 11-
gambling transaction than that of any lottery.offireeekr,ol
or stock.broker.—(Loud laughter.) In fact,- con t 7 ,Jli
the hon. member, the spirit of speculatio ervade:it ; .
occupations and callings from the highest to the lo".,-64c`
and the lottery-office keeper was quite in as fair w,03'111.
get to heaven as any other person. He saw oar) Iv- 1
for the inquiry proposed by the hon. baronet.
Sir R. INGLIS rose in explanation, and obseti.reit, c
that the bon. member for Leominster had accused mis," ':.
of having violated his word. (The member for estop i
ster here made some motion, which caused irol,,slitt
the occasion referred to by him
laughter for some minutes.) Now the bon. Ito. i
ought not to have done so, because be had exPr'''„iol
frained on
into the question of the Glasgow lottery, because /.0 iv'
not given the hon. member notice of his intento_ajoi
conformity to a voluntary promise on his part. idle... se'
reserved his motion expressly for one of those dayslitto
which the house was accustomed to go into a Oota. the
of su'pply, and the particular occasion referred to by ~,,..,
hon. member was one when lie merely rose W claim
tli;l:
noble lord's (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) at
to the subject when he should bring it forward. ~_ 0/
Mr. 13ISH said that the occasion to which he refs
was not that first alluded to by the hon. baronet, but eft,
in which he had made a speech, as reported in the itiel
of some length, on the Glasgow lottery, withoutlPP-
him of his intention beforehand. , ;au tlitt
Mr. ROEBUCK expressed himself as of aPine's-r•es 0
this patticular lottery was illegal, and that I -06 the
general were extremely immoral. He should suPP
motion for the Committee of Inquiry. u„, doubt
Mr. WARBURTON said there could be lotted
whatever that the clause by which the Glasgow ley
from gebo
was justified had been smuggled into
anthe Gogegego:l the
provements Bill. He was appointed to
salary or emolument—namely, one of the Coom",d, 10
for the Exchequer Loan. An application was .4"
the commissioners for a loan on the securityof „r
sea-tr.ill
property, to which they could not accede, asstenten 0
noble lord opposite, from which, however, he der_isvie‘olo::
slid not appear to be sufficient. Certain g.OO
cordingly then came forward and offered he°. %coot,
was accepted. Mr. Monteith was one of those gies:e 1040;
and he therefore stood in the condition of a Paronereys
security in addition, and thiq, being considered a_utieuteor
cipally interested in disposing of the Glasgow P. was tl°
the valuation upon which the Exchequer lost
.00 the
vanced ; and as that name was also prominea,
____ rwas to
proceedings repecting the Glasgow bill, there tu
Jr
them on every possible opportunity..
additional reason why the matter should be
reasonssifted f'
teries generally, he could only say that
bottom. Now had he not stated sufficient .„, 10t,
ex twining into the case ?—(Near.) With regar.u_i;d to
if be ar„,„,,
bring them back again, the very course he waulitbel
was that adopted in this instsnce, of baying a 11;1 SY/
speare, a player, that
" All the world's a stage, layers I" hst
And all the men and women merely p .4 t
so the hon. member for Leominster seemed to tng,
oht to /18
as all the world was a lottery, so all the Pe"le Ou; hie
lottery-officekeepers. (A laugh.) Let the h
teo' tog
ever, recollect what havoc these ',Reties used
s,
...,h,,,ir
amongst the small means of servants and otberon;
of tb;
stead of vesting their hard earned "ving' and Oreille/5)
banks now established, were tempted to thro
and ebeer';s
upon the sixteenth of a lottery ticket.--(Bear this ma
He certainly should with great satisfaction see. the roe
carefully examined into, and he would support s
It was said y
the
motion for that purpose. 'tope' J
papers relating to this Glasgow lottery Yercowcorteer.of
he certainly was of opinion that the pera""s ode °t. setae(
in it would not have had recourse to
d obtainedIn tie
tf
Mr. SPRING RICE had had occasion tnoartrovii, :Pei
rid of their property, if they could hove . In fae,
specula fished,
fu,
terms for the repayment of the Exchequer to ha en bill if Ica;
they came forward and offered to grand"
the terms, wb
affoArldre.
Treasury would concede something of cceptiog' for
offer the Treasury did not feA warranted ht 11. bject
fan' Pt eso'
afforded to
RinOtelrlelsLteLdYansdaigdrtehe,alyt this was a
00,,y.03-4
inquiry. Lotteries in general were only
B_°,.or soodi
the people, and they were very 6014
thata the g°;iestil
motion, as it was certainly,
Lord ALTHORP merely rose to say e the Pr- to
in his cpiniouu, a top to °l?P_°: cecestari.ef ,
went had not the slightest intention to
ascertain whether steps could be taken to p ,
-herefore, beggio
further proceedings in this lottery. ele,
vterruneot wet
of
the house to dispel all notion that the
of a corarai° 1
Ake,
any way opposed to the ap ntpointme
i., r-
inquiry. ct attentiveisr the
Mr. O'CONNELL had rearm theeamber for Bath' 00
thought, differently from the . toilet to
the law officers of the crown
webreeGlasgove lottery-00"J
taking any proceedings against te
one for inquirY, ovis
merely .
keepers. The case vies ter heeat6ol
• for Leominster
_0
although, had the hon. Mei:Elbe'
thought hin3leirrilah
of the contractors, he might have _ ~,jr pool A
in complaining if any breach of the contra girlie
yet as he had disclaimed all participation it!
l'oealiti.,o
orderlieabotuot
ssaocikll et
their
not be injured. All the remarks as to the l'n.vered It'd
gambling and of lotteries, which had been 011°-: but
_,':"(
such profusion around him, were perfectlY trueiu. Prof
naot the house, in contemning the poor ser/an: it eight 0( I,
sixteenth share of a lottery ticket, WWI/ '°„pediosl4 i
the gambling-houses and of the nefarious Pr°— des" i
e tioo' to c
stock-jobbers,
who hid only to concoct oat pd War, e
bloody insurrection or f 6 $0 ;
cent, rise or fall upon millions? In fact' 9 the Pebot '.
best, the biggest, and most credible lie WA words ~,
who made his fortune the quickest ; and nano .
at bey, e
these wholesale gamblers bad been uttered i to
be :
He would support the motion.
eta
° 'oo t
to reply to 1080
Mr. OSWALD was understood e
eei .0,
stations of Sir Robert Inglis,
irtho.usands in.
the stbbarp;3estb:el:va-lehtfos°llrf"oor t'
11 but he was v
relative to the passing of the bi ,
suobh.l
perfectly understood. ...ambling' a -el
Mr. CURTEIS said other modes of b ,0 _ -
' allowed' , e
that carried on at Worse-racing, was
_room 0 ,
therefore, could not ate why these were pro, ore!„.4
such an outcry raised against lotteries.
Parliament
"- ,
and to give sow r_ery I
which the bill had been smuggled through P _to ,
not creditable to either house. orrSOXer 4,.. ,
After a few words from Lord w• couln3itle
motion was agreed to, and the following
F.
pointed : lionsillYolooel
Inglis, Sir R. 11. How*, Lord vi,roo, 'J. p
It Pcel, Sir Fremantle, Sir T. 8.00,0,e' f.
W.
Althorp, Viscount Grey, Sir G. Glailstl
Goulburn, H. Finch, G. Shavi' Rt. 1-I°P.
Rice, T. S. Oswald, J. jo-eY, sir W.
Herries, J. C. Nicholl, J. flOre' C.
Ridley, Sir M. W. Ord, W. PciVs' ton, ft
Bish, T. Sinclair, G. Warhbuj
Somerset, Lord G. Ewing, . 0 Was, •
Baring, A. Willoughby, sir . P e
Lincoln, Lord did °et ° • e °l' 4°
Sir ROBERT INGLIS said he be coulailttek cifrhg
the name of Mr. Bish on the list of t" hut as t"ebor
ground that be bad been a contractor ; 'Lo, be t,,
mittee might require his assistance as o not
olde°,,, 14
it would be better that his name should notraed ltil
After a few words from Mr. Ctloseet itt,e,
bill
SCROPE, Mr. Bish was added to the c0r0....5. . _
WEIGHTS AND MEASUBirLAug is je
Lord EBRINGTON moved for leave to.Tof bring he
to amend and render more effectual two A.`o, 0011°
..
!WO ola
of his late Majesty Geo. IV., for estau a
A 0 as
. lot" tiefr-
in weights and measures. tilde 00
Mr. WARBURTON thought the n ,
_ad
extend the provisions of his bill to lb eterta 0
bject to laceo

F~

Ile thought also that it would be expedient to appoint a
committee up stairs to inquire into the causes of the
diversity which still prevailed in many parts of the
country, in order to provide a remedy for them.
isle,E.
p
TENNANT concurred in the motion.
JEPHSON said some measure was required to
make the Acts of Gen. IV. more effectual. He knew
Mr.
several counties where no standard weights were kept.
R. WALLACE agreed on the proposition for a
committee up stairs, and also in the suggestion of the hon.
member for Bridport to extend the provisions of the bill
to Scotland and Ireland. Much had been said about the
repeal of the
cemented h Union, but be should like to see the Union
-V weights and measures—(Laughter)—and
every other measure which would place the two countries
on the same foiding.
Lord EBRINGTON said he bad not sufficient local
anowledge to extend the provisions of the bill to Ireland
and Scotland.
Leave was then given to bring in the bill.
The LAW OF LIBEL.
SOLICITOR-GENERAL, in rising to move for
a select committee to consider the present state of the
at.v clf libel, and to report their opinion to the house, '
rid) that in bringing under the consideration of the
ann" a aubject of such vital importance, he begged to
a•
ve it understood that lie was 'not indulging in any
tirful theory of his own. He was only anxious to have
npkgn"tion fairly brought before the house, and to have
fade With
as might be deemed necessary or expedient
ade with the advice and by the assistance of a select
ofnil.:ai,tt.e. The startling incongruities of the present law
' ei had been long felt and acknowledged. The subject
bad b
• o,,,een made a matter of complaint, but never yet of
soapio any way which could lead to the effect of a
the practical reform of existing errors and abuses. In
existing law of libel there were many matters of
"Mee
with the public
Preseaffecting those personsconnected
be Ail classes of his Majesty's subjects were liable to
itataeffeetted by the operation of this law;
.but.such
.was the
lion °` k'ciet now-a-days, that in considering this ques-
tion to eh
house might almost exclusively direct its atten-
o„ --ose individuals engaged in our periodical publi-
in 1--a* They very frequently bad occasion to feel the
picatinvenience and injustice of this law. In the first
thete was the penal nature of. the law as affecting
publication
heeu a. A man, after a decision in the case had
ntade, was declared to be guilty, although he might
onsei,e4u3toitted no moral offence which would justify the
aftiirj,nation of the term. Undoubtedly an author might
01' ' and properly be declared to be guilty if he violated
0e Principles of fair discussion. That no man could
at. In like manner so might the publisher who,
either Want i,,n his own person, or by his agents, or from
e; °L due care, gave circulation to libellous matter. ••••o:,kszear, hear.
) The interest of the public required
Pubtlishheea. n"nuld be held responsible for what he
parties • But the law as it stood involved all
the
puoncation guilt who might he concerned in the
albeit they might he perfectly unacquainted
wit
e libellous matter. Now, this decidedly was a
grievance, and occasionally worked great injustice. The
question, however, was, how was this to he remedied ?
neY would have to inquire whether, consistently with
itfetY to the public, and with security to private character,
trl alteration with respect to the operation of the law upon
such parties as were not cognizant of the libellous matter
!alight not be made. The subject was full of difficulty,
arid
,would merit the most patient consideration, for it was
evident that if one man might sell a publication, and
sot be held in any way responsible tor ita content
Means would be afforded by which libels might easis,
ly be circulated, and all parties concerned, the author and
the conscious publisher included, would escape punish
ent. This was a course obviously unsafe. But was
there not some middle course? Might not there be
'Otte such expedient as this made use of—might they
not do
away with the extreme severity and unfairness
°I the law by declaring that the simple act of publish-
ing, or assisting in the publication, should not consti-
iiLte a crime, but that it should be further necessary that
"e prosecutor should bring some proof of knowledge of
4's Publication upon the part of the accused, or of malice
kisome shape or form? Perhaps if some distinction of this
no were drawn, the ignorant and the innocent might be
suffered to escape untouched by the law, while the original
autli°, and the conscious publisher would be still ex-
posed to Punishment, Tnis,- too, would be a matter for
tgconsideration of the committee. Another subject of
orievance was, that authors
and publishers were subjected
ttbttnueh hardship from the want of a good definition of
woul,dwenf libels To restrict libel within narrow limits
bbelio-e"e to foster and encourage the circulation of
definit.s matter ; and on the other side, if they made the
e ion very large, it would subject those connected with
the
press to infinite inconvenience, and manifold
libellat'amnything that
Pas and injuries. Learned judges had described a
of an • might prove injurious to the feelings
Wherlid. any
beac.orreTC'tiB W" manifestly absurd. If it were
diffiteing or publisbainrigo. author could be for a moment safe in
]'here was, accordingly, extreme
all' in
furnishing a definition of libel in the fist
Pthe consideration of the committee. He could not (be
roceeded to say) be expected in the present instance to go
into details, to which, no doubt, the committee might
hetieficiallv address themselves. There was one pointttio
Which at the same time he felt it necessaryt"vgt6 Tuld t„!_larlY ; it was one of
.the most important
nwei bly ccme under their consideration. He meant in what
klatiner, how, and to what extent, truth should
inbe brought
under the consideration of the jury, whether criminal
°r civil proceedings. Now, as the law stood in ctiminal
r°ceetlings, the ti uth of the libel coold nut be taken
Ito consideration at all, while in civil cases the al
legation of truth could he brought fat ward, and if
Proved was conclusive. Now, he thought there was error
on both sides. In the first case, malice was implied from
the libel, and certainly, therefore, the consideration of
truth or falsehood, as a matter of palliation, should not
altogether be excluded. He was not prepared to say to
what extent it would be well to admit the consideration of
truth ; he did not know how far it would be advisable in
criminal proceedings for attempts to destroy private elm-
rjeter to admit truth as a palliation, much less a justifica-
tion of the libel. It was d,fficult to go to the extent that
piereurvyidinedanonlityad a right to publish anything of any body,
it were true. It had been suggested that
spotizesautci:i rule as this should be established—tbat if the
n charged as libellous should be proved to be
trthu.e,.that ahould be an answer to the implied malice. As
tatielaw at present stood, a libel carried with it the impu.
e n of malice. It was in vain for a defendant to Pined
a of the publication, and that he never entertained
maiiacilicion of it containing libellous matter. If a man
person, illy
published that which was not true of another
In man was was fit that he should he punished for so doing.
Which Y eases it might not be right to publish matter
li was true, but it never could he justifiable to pub-
po, what Was not true. Some such rule as that which
sh ad adverted to might possibly be adopted, and it was a
thisoiet worthy of inquiry. At present he was inclined to
ik that if a jury should find that a defendant had
Published a libel innocently that was to say, for a
good purpose, or without express
malice--.the evidence
of the truth of the publication should protect him from
the implied malice.—(Hear, hear.) an proceeding by
limple action the consequences resulting from the present
law were really absurd. If the defendant could succeed in
Preuying the libel to be true, no matter how injurious or
crel it might be, or how malicious soever the motives
,!light be which prompted its publication, the person li-
V4ied
h could obtain no redress. Was it right that a person
ad Sustained the most serious injury to which he -au'd be the deprivation of his character
-a..ehould
obtain.sbpeosedveatin:y,
redress, because the fact
tvl'i':ll' had been published, and which perhaps had occurred
at
a - earl period of life, and under circumstances which
poliated
its
„Il,e would enormity,maepnptiaorentwo could be proved to be true?
circumstances which would prove
incoovenieueens two
the existing law, as regarded
ritninal proceedi and those by both
simple action.
ong
since
ers ngs
a cused of publishing a libel which
alleged thatair cerotnainwindaicvidual had been convicted of for-
gu,t,ry in France. The proceedings of the French court by
we"rich the prosecutor had been condemned to the galleys
ana:ouProduced, and the defendant's counsel was very
• jtid , 3 that they should be read in evidence, but the
this was
course refused to permit that to be done. Now
but na a ease in which it might have been excusable,
bats,, to have published the fact of the prosecutor
b4,ragh.cummitted forgery. Suppose the individual had
ce„,pau"ut to obtain a situation as confidential agent to a
ineiyidUY, in which want of integrity on the part of the
tune
that
holding it would have been the greatest misfoi -
of th, faaet could happen to the proprietors, the publication
ful stud I,,t„°,f his previous conduct would have been a use. stute of nary able act. Was it then, he asked, a wholesome
of guilty 'which would compel a jury to find a verdict
admitted in
such a ?At events it must be
• ti,a, ease , b
itiquired ." this was a point which ought to
should unto ; and therefore he proposed that it
colmaa,tee'e"ine the subject of investigation by the
aPPoint on, •f
the house should think proper to
would
btr, He would now mention a case which
law us is'ingly exemplify the inconvenience of the libel
~,..,,,Iregardd proceedings by simple action. The trail.
to which he wus about to refer occurred many
ti)car:. time aAoa but it had made a deep impression on his oiled
e , and therefore he bad no doubt that be should