rose to call the attention of the House to a question of the highest constitutional importance. They were already apprized of the merits of this case. It had before been under discussion, in consequence of the motion made by his hon. friend (Mr. Wynn). To get rid of his hon. friend's motion for a new writ, a committee had been appointed to investigate the question. On the report of that committee, his hon. friend had moved, "That the appointment was neither naval nor military." This motion was met in a most singular manner. The previous question had been moved and carried upon it, and that gave him an opportunity of bring- ing the subject again under the consideration of the House. Since that period, a petition had been presented through him from the electors of Rochester, imploring the House again to take into consideration a question, in the decision of which their elective franchises were so much concerned. The history of the transaction was this: Sir T. Thompson was a comptroller of the navy. In consequence of arrangements with his majesty's government he gave up this situation, and became treasurer of Greenwich hospital. By the 6th of Anne it was enacted, that if any member of that House accepted a place of profit from the Crown, his election should become void. What were the exceptions to this enactment? The sole exception was that of naval or military appointments. The only question therefore was, whether the appointment of treasurer of Greenwich hospital was a naval or military commission. This no man could contend. Why, then, had not sir T. Thompson vacated his seat? Because the House had assumed, by its decision, the gigantic and unconstitutional power of repealing the law—not in a bold and open manner, but by meeting the motion which had been made on the subject by the previous question. It was not a question of privilege, but a question of law, which law ought to be strictly construed. If any leaning were to be allowed in the construction of it, that leaning ought to be in favour of the people. The true meaning of the law, however, was so evident, that he who ran might read. He had understood, that the perseverance of sir T. Thompson in retaining his seat was justified by analogy; and this analogy was drawn from the office of governor of Greenwich hospital. He denied that there was any analogy between the two offices. The appointment of governor of Greenwich hospital bore the colour of a commission; but would any one say that the appointment to the treasurership of Greenwich hospital was a step in a naval man's profession? What said the only precedent in the case? it was that of captain Baker, who was appointed treasurer of Greenwich hospital in 1736, and who, although a naval man like sir T. Thompson, vacated his seat in parliament in consequence. Why should not sir T. Thompson vacate his seat? Was it because the good of the subject was concerned No. Was it because the privileges of that House were implicated? No. It was because the influence of the Crown would be affected —an influence which it was the duty of the House of Commons most jealously to watch over and control. It was a curious-fact, that the first commission in the army vacated a seat in that House, though the first commission in the navy did not. The former was signed by the King, the latter only by the lords of the admiralty. This marked the jealousy of former times on this subject. But the appointment of sir T. Thompson to the treasurership of Greenwich hospital was signed by the King. The course which he meant to take was, in the first place, to make the motion which had been made by his hon. friend, and if he succeeded in that, then-to move for a new writ for Rochester. The hon. gentleman concluded accordingly by moving, "That the appointment of treasurer of Greenwich hospital is not a commission in the army or navy."

contended, that the hon. gentleman had put an erroneous construction on the 6th of Anne. It had been the practice of parliament to decide that governors of such places as Greenwich hospital should not vacate their seats in that House in consequence of their appointments, and why should the treasurer? As to the decision of a former parliament on the subject, that was not to be taken as the law of parliament. The parliament had recognized the right of the person nominated as master or governor to hold his seat in the House after such appointment, because the situation was considered as a military one. It was known, however, that the master or governor of Greenwich hospital had no military duty to perform. He had to take care of and superintend the concerns of the hospital. The business of the treasurer was nearly of the same nature, and that office was therefore as much a military appointment as that of governor. On this ground, therefore, he should oppose the motion. If the hon. member had confined himself merely to the question of moving a new writ, he would have given it a direct negative; but as he had chosen to put the present question, he should meet it by moving the previous question.

The House then divided: For the original motion, 69; Against it, 68; Majority, 1.—A new writ was then ordered for Rochester.

expressed his regret at being obliged to bring forward a question of such magnitude and importance as that concerning Lotteries, at a time when it could not obtain a fair discussion. At any time the question was one of importance, as it affected the morals of the people, but at present it was particularly so, from the number of evils which had flowed from it. He was aware in introducing the subject that motions similar to that which he intended to move, had been negatived at a period when our finances were in a favourable state, but he was prepared to combat any argument to be drawn from that circumstance; for no consideration of financial advantage should induce the sanction of a measure so pregnant with mischief to the morals of the people. He knew that there were considerable advantages derived from this measure; but admitting that they were much greater, they would not be sufficient to outweigh the evils by which they were produced. But even as a measure of finance, lotteries were impolitic, and their profit to the exchequer bore no proportion to the expense (coming from the public) by which they were to be collected into it. The annual nett profit from the lotteries, at their estimated revenue, was not more than 558,245l. He would then beg of the House to bear in mind what sum of money the public were obliged to pay before this much was collected into the exchequer. He was certain that he estimated it very low, when he stated that a million of money was drawn from the pockets of the public. Suppose 60,000 tickets were voted for the lottery; of these he would calculate that only 40,000 were sold to the public, at 25l. each, and they often exceeded that sum, from their being sold in eighths and sixteenths, yet even by this calculation a million of money would be drawn from the public. When such was the case, he would ask, was it not an absurd and shortsighted policy to raise money by means so injurious to the public in a pecuniary point of view?—The real fact was, that the loss to the public by lotteries was much more than what he had stated. Besides his objection to lotteries in a financial view, he strongly objected to them from the bad system of illegal insurances to which they gave rise. It might be said that methods were taken to prevent this abuse. But what were those methods? The enactment of severe laws, which gave rise to abuses even greater than those which they were intended to prevent. By these laws an encouragement was given to one of the worst species of human depravity—perjury. Informers lived upon those laws which were enacted to guard against illegal insurances, and still the evil had not ceased to exist. In 1814, 160 persons were committed for doing illegal insurances, and in 1815, 155 persons were committed for the same offence. Out of these he could enumerate many instances where some persons of respectability had been imprisoned on the testimony of wretched informers, who made a trade of such informations. The first case was that of a very respectable excise officer, se Mr. Thomas Croxon, who on the information of a woman of infamous character, had suffered imprisonment for two months, for the alleged crime of having made illegal insurances. This man had enjoyed an unblemished character for twenty-seven years in which he had been in office, and so strong an opinion had the board of excise of his innocence, that immediately on the expiration of his imprisonment he was restored to his former situation, and the arrears of his salary from the day of his commitment paid up. Here was a case which would show how much exposed the liberty of every man was which might be taken away on the testimony of any wretched informer who might attempt it. It was a fact that no less than sixteen persons had been committed to prison on the oath of the same woman who had sworn against Mr. Croxon, and she herself had been since sentenced to transportation for an infamous offence. The next case was that of a man named Davis, who kept a grocer's shop in Carnaby market. This man, on the testimony of two informers, had been torn from his family, and imprisoned two months, and so great an effect had the circumstance on his wife, that she died a few days after he had been liberated from prison. The third case was that of Martha King who kept a confectioner's shop near Holborn. Information had been sworn by an informer against her, for doing an illegal insurance in the lottery. To avoid prosecution she went to the country; and after a short time, wishing to return to her business, applied to know how the information could be quashed, when she was informed that the only way was to pay 3l. to the informer, as that was the usual fee. The House would see, from these cases, whether there did not exist an evil calling loudly for redress, and more than sufficient in its bad effects to outweigh every advantage which could be derived from lotteries. The very means which went to prevent illegal insurances, were in their effects worse than the toleration of those insurances. He admitted that those abuses did not now exist to the extent to which they had gone in former times, when the days of drawing were so many; but still the system now adopted, of having the lotteries at different times of the year, kept up the irritation of the public mind. Another objection was, the number of offices which were created by lotteries. Many of those offices were literally sinecures. There were four persons with 500l. a year each; five with 350l.; one with 300l.; one with 230l.; two with 200l.; and six with from 100l. to 150l. These were under the title of lottery commissioners, very few of them had scarcely any thing to do. He would ask whether, in times like the present, such offices should be suffered to exist? No gentleman, unles he happened to be in a foolish mood, and had loose money in his pocket, would have any thing to do in the lottery. No gambler, who knew what he was about, would venture any money in it. It might be said too, that nine-tenths of the people who engaged in state lotteries would not have any thing to do with other kinds of gambling; a very small proportion indeed would have recourse to little-goes. The legislature had no right to tamper with great public principles. The advantages derived from state lotteries were rather nominal than real; and in the long run, more would be gained than lost by the abolition of such an enemy to the industry of the people even in a pecuniary point of view. The report of the committee in 1808 expressly stated, that the lottery ought not to be resorted to as a financial resource. There was certainly no means of taxation more burthensome to the people, and none more disgraceful to the government. Having troubled the House with these remarks, he would conclude with submitting the following Resolutions:

1st. " That by the establishment of state lotteries, the government of this country has encouraged and provoked a spirit of gambling, which, degrading the character of the people, and weakening their habits of industry, must abate the moral strength of the state, and ultimately diminish its financial resources.

2dly. "That such lotteries have further been attended with peculiar evils, which the severest regulations have failed to extinguish, and which have been repressed only by laws whose provisions are arbitrary and unconstitutional, and their enforcement liable to the greatest abuse.

3dly. "That this House, therefore, will no longer authorize the establishment of state lotteries, under any system of regulation whatever."

rose to second the motion. It appeared, from what had occured in the reign of king William, that the evil of lotteries was created by government itself. By a statute passed in the 10th of that reign, they were abolished; but in the 8th of queen Anne it was thought that they would furnish an easy mode of raising money, and they were therefore introduced as one of the articles in the ways and means. A noble political writer; had declared, that arbitrary gevernments resembled the devil in many respects; they were first the tempter, and then the tormentor. Nothing could apply more strongly to the whole system of the lottery; and as it had always produced so many evils, and tended more than any other means of taxation to corrupt the public morals, he trusted that the House would not permit it to be continued.

thought, that if the system of the lottery were so exploded in the opinion of the people as bad been represented, the hon. mover might have spared himself the trouble of the motion he had made; this, however, appeared not to be the case, at least the last lottery had proved more profitable to the contractors than any preceding; the question, therefore, must be argued at once on the evils that were supposed to result from the system. He should be at a loss to point out any mode of raising money that was not attended with some evils; and if the hon. gentleman could do so, he should feel much obliged to him. He thought the lottery could not be called illegal, nor the purchasing of tickets gambling; for the purchaser knew the disadvantages under which he bought the ticket, and also considered himself as contributing to the necessities of the state. The profits of the office-keepers had not been inordinate; for though a ticket which cost 16l. was sold for 20l., yet so many remained unsold, and so great was the expense of advertisements, that the profits on the whole seldom exceeded 6 or 8 per cent. for the money advanced. The real objections to the lottery were the collateral evils of in- surance and little-goes that arose out of it these evils were at a great height when the lottery was 40 days in drawing; but they were almost entirely remedied now that only four days were allotted for drawing. As to private lotteries, they, instead of being promoted, were entirely set aside by the competition of state lotteries. The severe penal laws against gambling had not been rendered necessary in consequence of the state lottery, but would have been enacted though no such lottery had existed. Cases of doubt, and perhaps hardship, must sometimes arise from the very nature of the witnesses that appeared in prosecutions of this sort; but of all the witnesses who had hitherto been brought forward, not one had been indicted on account of his oath. As to the evils which it was said were occasioned to the lower classes, he thought that, from the price of the lowest share (30s. for a 16th), they could not very generally speculate in the purchase; and the penal laws, instead of opposing them, were made almost entirely for their protection. But the papers laid on the table presented a better prospect than usual of the effect of those laws; for though there had been more informations in 1815 than in 1814, there had been much fewer convictions, and he hoped that the extending instruction of the lower classes would, in a short time, enable them to see and avoid any evils that they might at present be supposed to experience.

knowing the private virtues of the chancellor of the exchequer, was surprised at the levity with which he had treated this subject. He (sir Samuel) was of opinion that whenever that House voted a lottery, they voted, that many who were then deserving characters, should become unprincipled gamblers. This opinion he supported by a reference to the Report of 1808. He pointedly condemned those infamous arts, by which the industrious mechanic, the faithful servant, and the laborious apprentice, were lured to speculate in the lottery, to their destruction. The right hon. gentleman hoped in time the progress of education would put down the evil. How was this to be expected? The poor, from the instruction they received, would learn to read those disgraceful puffs which appeared all over the town, and would thus be more likely to be deluded. He thought it most injurious to the public that five or six lotteries should be drawn in every year Could the right hon. gentleman believe the spirit of gambling would exist to the same extent in the country, which it now did, if there were no state lotteries? Would foreign lotteries or little-goes spread the same snares for the unwary to which they were now exposed? Would these be advertised at the corner of every street? Would it be possible to pass through no village in the nation without seeing their placards posted to tempt the thoughtless, by the hope of gaining prizes of 20 or 30,000l.? He believed, the great increase of crime which had been remarked of late years was in a great measure caused by the state lotteries. At the commencement of the present reign, the convictions averaged 400 a-year. The number was now swelled to 1,400. A very few years ago they did not exceed 990. This he believed to proceed from the source he had named. To the lotteries he attributed that rapid accumulation of crime, which, in a few years, had increased the number of convictions as five to fourteen. He could not agree with the chancellor of the exchequer that the present mode of drawing the lottery prevented insuring. In the last year there had been 116 convictions, and 137 prosecutions. If there was a decrease in the number of convictions, he contended it could not prove in this particular instance a corresponding diminution of crime. This he showed had been ably explained by the committee of 1808. The crimes committed in consequence of the establishment of state lotteries, would in his opinion be cheaply bought off for 600,000l. per annum. Instead of doing this, we excited these crimes to gain the paltry sum he had mentioned. We ought not thus to expose the poor to temptation, and then punish them for falling into the snare.

objected to lotteries, as tending to encourage direct gambling more than any other circumstance whatever. There could be no excuse for a lottery, because it was in itself a vicious transaction. It tended to the destruction of domestic happiness, by tempting the subject to deviate from those habits of sober industry, which persevered in, could not fail of bringing their possessor comfort. If it were now proposed for the first time, he was sure no man would be found to support it. He anxiously hoped that an end would be put to it. The progress of education he feared would not stop the evil; he even feared this might augment it. He thought it was therefore fit that the temptation now held out, should no longer be suffered to seduce the poor from the path of honest industry. He should never forget the statement once made by the late member for Bedford of the cases of distress which had come to his knowledge originating in the lottery. He hoped the period was not far distant, when this part of our financial system would be done away, and that it would not again be in the power of a member of that House to make another statement like that to which he had referred.

described the lotteries to be the source of incalculable mischief to the community, and put it to the right hon. gentleman opposite, if his saving banks could be of any use, while the poor were thus induced to gamble away their savings.

appealed to the House whether it was consistent to abolish the lottery after having voted the sum to be raised by it. Lotteries were not now attended with such pernicious effects as in former times. His right hon. friend, he was sure, would be happy to abolish them, if any other means could be pointed out for raising the money that they yielded.

expressed his conviction, that the system of gambling was most injurious amongst the lower orders. Of 22 young convicts, who were now in Newgate, and whom he had an opportunity of examining, not less than 18 had commenced' the career of vice, by gambling for trifles in the streets. That spirit of gambling, he believed, was nurtured by the number of lottery puffs which were carried through the town, and which awakened those mischievous feelings, that, probably, would not otherwise have been excited.

opposed the resolutions. He conceived that much of the mischief of lotteries would be done away if they were not let out to contractors, but managed by a government office. The system of puffing might be then dispensed with.

believed, that much of the immorality by which this country was disgraced, arose from the custom which prevailed, of raising money, by any means, good, bad, or indifferent The lottery was one of those impolitic expedients.

said, from what had been stated, it clearly appeared, that the lottery depended almost entirely on the lower classes of the people becoming the purchasers of shares: than which nothing could lead to more deplorable consequences. It was observed, that if there were no lottery in this country, the people would embark their money in foreign lotteries. But surely the right hon. gentleman would not assert, that foreign lotteries could create such an immense body of mischief, as those that were authorized in Great Britain. The motion had his cordial support.

replied. He observed that he had chosen to bring on the question on a substantive resolution rather than on the lottery bill, because he had no hopes of putting an end to the system on his first attempt. He thought a resolution, therefore, would be the best method of bringing on a general discussion on the subject. He said, that by far the greater part of lottery tickets were sold in sixteenths as appeared in evidence before the committee upon this subject, which circumstance served to show that the poor were the principal victims of this abominable system. As to the profits derived by the state from the existence of lotteries, he thought the assertion that the revenue obtained 200,000l. a year from postage, publications, and other means connected with the system, rather formed an argument against it, because it was so much taxation upon the public for the support of immorality. He understood that Mr. Hesse, the secretary to the lottery commissioners, had employed persons as informers after those persons had been detected in perjury.

The House divided: For the Resolution, 21—Against it, 47.