announced that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders had discharged Mr. Pocock from service on the Select Committee on Asiatics in Transvaal and appointed Mr. Jooste in his stead; and has further discharged Col. Stallard from service on the Cattle Improvement Bill and appointed Mr. Friend in his stead.

I move—

I want to remind hon. members that during the general election a great deal of attention was paid to this question, not merely by candidates, but more especially by the public and by the electors. On the Witwatersrand I know that no public meeting was complete without a number of questions on this subject. The interest which was then aroused has been very considerably intensified by an act of the Minister of Justice, who has made a certain journalist, Mr. Louw, very famous, and it aroused so much attention that if one were to judge by the amount of space devoted to it in the press, in the form of letters and other matter, one would be justified in saying that this was a most popular question. I am not dealing with the question from the ethical point of view, because we all have different conceptions of ethics. What is conceived to be right by some people is conceived to be wrong by others; what is conceived to be right at one period of history is conceived to be wrong at another period. At any rate, I am too diffident to set myself up as one to decide what is right and what is not right. I think that is a question perhaps beyond Parliament, unless it be left to some of our members who are experts in morality. What I want to deal with is the question of the establishment of a state lottery as a practical proposition in South Africa. I submit that so long as you have conditions here or anywhere else where you have on the one hand idle rich, and on the other hand idle poor, so long as you have conditions under which large numbers of the people have no security, and no assurance that their children after them are going to have an opportunity of making good, so long will it be reasonable to expect that people will be anxious to become rich quickly. They will always be looking out for an opportunity knowing that economic conditions are such as not to make it possible for them to become wealthy, except by means of a special opportunity. Thousands of people in this country, as everywhere, will always jump at the chance of having a little flutter in the hope of acquiring wealth, or of being able to place themselves and their children in better economic circumstances. It is futile, I submit, to take up the line that this, that or the other is to be illegal. If you can show that it is in the interests of the community to make something illegal, then probably the law will have its way, but if the law attempts to prevent people from doing something which, in the eyes of the public, is not immoral, and if the law says: “If you do that we are going to charge you and fine you, as being guilty of an offence,” you will find that you will have the unfortunate position that the law is disregarded and evaded. However anxious the Minister may be, or however energetic he may be in attempting to put down this form of gambling, he knows perfectly well, and hon. members know well, that the Minister has no hope of success. You are attempting to put down something which, in the eyes of the public, is not wrong, and the law fails in its attempt, and it not only brings that particular law into disrepute, but it brings the administration of justice generally into disrepute. But there is another reason for the introduction of this motion, and why it seems to be almost impossible and impracticable to expect the law to be able to prevent people from participating in lotteries. For my part, I do not see any difference in buying a ticket in a lottery and in putting money on a race. I am not going to speak against horse-racing, but horse-racing, in my opinion, leads to much greater gambling and much greater loss of money than buying a ticket in a lottery. Because, when a person puts his money on a racecourse he probably loses, and, in the effort to recoup himself, may continue putting money on and lose in the end. Take another direction—the stock exchange. I think hon. members who have had experience of the stock exchange—personally I have not—will agree that it is just as much a gamble as a lottery or a horse-race; possibly the speculative element is even stronger. The ordinary citizen who wants to get rich has no control of the administration of these affairs; he has no way of knowing whether he will win or lose, and there again experience is that, having lost money, people want to recoup themselves, and only lose more heavily in the end. In a lottery a person puts in a small sum of, say, half-a-crown—he may buy half-a-dozen tickets—but whatever happens he cannot lose very much. It cannot be considered a gamble in the same way as horse-racing or the stock exchange. My hon. friend (Maj. van der Byl) tells me the latest form of gambling is politics. Some hon. members know what a gamble it is to fight an election. In spite of the fact that efforts are being made by the Minister of Justice, lotteries galore are going on utilized for divers purposes; some run by private individuals for charitable purposes; others in the interests of the church, of of hospitals, or of political parties, as we found was the case recently when, in the course of evidence given, it was found a lottery had been run by the South African party, possibly by some hon. member of this House. Lotteries have been run in the interests of the Nationalist party; they have been run by the Labour party—tell not in Gath—in one case where a magistrate had found it was a heinous offence to buy or sell lottery tickets, the political party upon which his position depended had been raising funds by means of lotteries. This shows how difficult it is to take any action to stop them. The most effective and reasonable way to deal with the matter would be to say they exist and do no harm, and there is no reason why they should not be legalized. That would be the sensible course. There have been cases where judges, in court, have had a little flutter by buying a lottery ticket; and as to the House of Assembly, I am sure if every hon. member in this House who had bought a lottery ticket would vote for the resolution, we should have an overwhelming majority in favour of it. I think all the Minister should require is that such lotteries should be carried on honestly, with suitable guarantees to the public as to the integrity of their methods of operation. I fail to see why, when a rich man can have a flutter on the stock exchange, the poor man should not have his little flutter by means of a lottery, and so have his chance of improving his economic condition. Personally, I feel it should be in the form of a state lottery. I do not thing it is a matter for socialism, but there would be greater control and security by means of state administration. I have another objection—although not an insuperable one—to private enterprise, because there is a danger that if these matters get into private hands, concessions may be given out to persons under undesirable conditions. If the matter is controlled in the sense of giving it out to private individuals to run it under state control, there might be some corruption attaching to it. I would prefer to see the lottery legalized and operated by the state. For the information of hon. members, in other countries lotteries are recognized by the state, and a considerable amount of profit accrues to state funds. In some of the states of Australia—I think in two states—lotteries are being run under state control; in some cases for charitable purposes, and in other cases simply as a business matter from which the state derives some benefit. I know of one case where a lottery in Tasmania is being run evidently in the interests of charitable institutions, and we know perfectly well of the amount of money taken out of South Africa annually to buy lottery tickets outside of the Union of South Africa. What is more, those who are successful in winning a lottery become very popular people. I remember an incident in this city where a particular gentleman, quite unknown and quite unimportant, happened to win the Calcutta sweep. I was in a theatre one evening, and there were more important people than myself there on that occasion. Everybody was paying attention to a particular box in the house until the winner of the Calcutta sweep came into the theatre. I felt very sorry both for the people in the particular box I refer to, and for the performers. The attention of the people in the theatre was devoted to the gentleman who had won the sweep. I am sure, in any case, that the Minister would never entertain the idea of prosecuting every individual who bought a lottery ticket. He would be too busy to attempt such a thing. So long as that state of affairs exists, I think it is much more reasonable and desirable to legalize the thing rather than to take any action in the matter, spasmodically or systematically, as the case may be. I feel that by legalizing these lotteries you will be raising the status of them rather than lowering the status, and you will not be encouraging gambling to any greater extent than exists at present. People will be satisfied to take tickets, and I also think it would result in a certain amount of money being saved. In any case, a substantial sum of money which goes out of South Africa at the present time would be retained in the Union and spent here among the people generally. I submit that once that is done, that arrangement should be accompanied by another arrangement, under which a percentage of the profits of these lotteries should be utilized for useful purposes. That is why I submit that the profits to be derived from the carrying out of such lotteries should be utilized in the interests of providing radium for the principal hospitals in the country. In spite of all the efforts that are taking place, there is a tremendous amount of distress, want and misery in this country. I think every Saturday you have street collections. The fact that you have such collections is a definite indictment of the present position. It is an indication that there is so much want existing that people have to get about and button-hole others in the streets to raise money for the relief of distress. You have charitable institutions which are collecting hundreds of thousands of pounds for the relief of distress. I think it would be desirable, in the establishment of lotteries if you decided that the revenue derived therefrom should not go to the exchequer. In fact, I think the Minister of Finance would resent receiving monies which had been raised by means of a lottery. The revenue, therefore, should be utilized in the interests of relieving distress in this country. A portion should also be utilized in the interests of providing radium for the hospitals. We know that there is a great deal of distress, misery and suffering in South Africa. In the absence of any action taken by the Minister of the Interior, I should like to see the money raised from the source I have mentioned utilized in the purchase of radium. The Rand Daily Mail and the Cape Times are two newspapers that have done yeoman service in the interests of securing a supply of radium for the hospitals. Unfortunately, their appeals, although they have not fallen on deaf ears, have not had the result they would have liked. My resolution is not only to bring about a state of affairs under which something which is continually being used can be purchased, but also to bring about a state of affairs as a result of which the large sums of money at present going out of South Africa would be kept in the country, and a large proportion of them utilized for the relief of distress and the purchase of radium for the hospitals. If you adopt this motion, you will be giving effect to three of the great principles to which we all subscribe, namely, faith, hope and charity.

I second the motion. Last session I would not have been able to second it, but this session I can do so because it is being dealt with as a non-party matter. I am glad that is so, because I have come to the conclusion that the more matters that are dealt with on non-party lines, the more we shall arrive at the real merits of the case, and the better it will be for this country. I have looked in the Encyclopedia Brittanica, that storehouse of all the things which hon. members and myself do not know, and I find that this lottery idea was originated by the Roman emperors. These Roman emperors had the very pleasant custom of distributing gifts to the guests at their banquets by means of lotteries. They did not have to pay for the tickets, which made it all the more pleasant. At those banquets they used to give such gifts as chariots, female slaves and country houses. I commend this very pleasant custom to the mayors of our larger cities, to make their entertainments still more pleasant than they are. I do not expect that they would be able to give away country houses, and there would be considerable practical difficulties in regard to the gift of female slaves, but a chariot in the form of a Ford sedan would be very acceptable. Then I find in the Encyclopedia that the Italian republics of the sixteenth century made use of lotteries to encourage the sale of their merchandise, and various other European countries took up the idea. One by one they used to run state lotteries. Great Britain herself ran her first lottery in 1569. I suppose the members of the British parliament did not get what they considered to be their fair share of the prizes, because they started to prohibit all lotteries in 1698. I say “all”, but they made an exception of one, the Royal Oak lottery. All those people who object to lotteries always keep one or two exceptions up their sleeve. The British Government for 125 years ran state lotteries, and they made an average annual income from those state lotteries of £350,000. They prohibited lotteries once more in 1824. In spite of that, the city of Glasgow, for another eight years, ran its own state lottery. Although state lotteries have been abolished, and although all lotteries are suppressed in England, last year the London stock exchange ran a lottery of £3,000,000, the biggest lottery ever run in the world. In Calcutta they run a lottery every year. If I am not mistaken, Calcutta is still in the British Empire. There have been state lotteries in America since 1776. They started to prohibit them in 1833, and it took them until 1890 finally to prohibit lotteries, and even now Louisiana runs a lottery, but they do it in a British possession—Honduras. I find further that Belgium and Sweden have suppressed lotteries, probably in the same way that the Minister of Justice tries to suppress lotteries in the Union. The countries which are still running state lotteries are Holland, Italy, Spain, Denmark and the German states. Dealing with lotteries pure and simple, and not state lotteries, I find that those hon. members who are opposed to state lotteries are not against them because they are state concerns, but because they think that lotteries are wrong. In the Transvaal in Law 7/1890 I find the following definition of a lottery—

Thus we see there are two elements—there must be a subscription and chance. Surely, there can be no objection to the subscription part, especiallly as they are voluntary subscriptions, because nobody is forced to subscribe. This, indeed, is one of the few subscriptions that are really voluntary. Many subscriptions are supposed to be voluntary, and judging by the laughter of hon. members, it would be interesting if they could tell us how many of their subscriptions are entirely voluntary. Again, churches and such other good institutions could not exist without subscriptions. What is the objection is the element of chance? The principle of allowing chance to decide important issues is well established right throughout our lives and even in the Bible. Correspondents have pointed out in the daily papers many instances in the Bible where chance was permitted to determine important issues. One instance was where, on the death of Judas, a new apostle had to be elected, and it was done by lot. On another occasion the lot fell on Jonah and he was cast out of the boat. I must also refer to the partnership between Jacob and Laban, which is of importance because it is a very strong argument in favour of state lotteries. They agreed to farm their sheep together and Jacob was to get all the speckled lambs. I suppose Jacob thought that most of the lambs would be speckled, but he wanted to make quite sure, so he put speckled rods in the drinking water and we are told that most of the lambs fell to Jacob. Now if that lottery had been run under state control Laban would have had a fairer chance. Why does the Minister of the interior allow the result of many elections to be decided by lot? In the Precious Stones Act there is a clause providing that in the allotment of claims the Governor-General may draw lots to decide to whom the claims shall go. Why does the Minister of Mines allow that? Each man has to pay 2s., and he does not, get that back even if he does not draw a claim. So here we have the elements both of subscription and chance. I find the most serious example in our law in the Procedure and Evidence Act. What are more precious to us than life and honour? Yet, when a man has to stand his trial for murder when it may mean all the difference in the world to him who the men are who will sit on the jury, the choice of nine men for the jury is decided by lot. Surely if chance can decide on questions of life or death, shame or honour, what objections can there be to its determining who shall receive a prize, say, of £2,000? There are two aspects of the matter—the moral and the economic. From the moral aspect, I understand, there are some people who think it is a sin if one person gets a large sum of money from other persons without earning it. It has been pointed out again and again in the newspapers until it has become a commonplace that there is no difference between a lottery, and gambling on the racecourse, the stock exchange, or in the commercial world in general. I can see no difference in morality, and if there is a difference, it is all in favour of the lottery, for in a state lottery no “speckled rods” would be allowed and nobody is ruined as often happens on the stock exchange, on the racecourse, and even in commerce. Nobody is ruined in a lottery because very few people buy more than one ticket, say of 10s., as people obtain almost as much pleasure from the possession of one lottery ticket as from the possession of several tickets. As to the economic aspect, it comes down to this, that in a lottery a large number of people each lose a small amount of money which they cannot do very much with, while a few individuals get a very large sum which they usually put to very good purposes. In Pretoria, the other day, a policeman won a lottery prize of £7,000. Really the prize was won by his wife, but they were married in community of property. He went around and paid all his creditors, paid off his bond, and put the balance into a building account, leaving enough over for his wife to buy a sedan motor car and the policeman to buy one bottle of champagne. He told me it was the first time he had tasted champagne, but it was not as good as Cape brandy as it did not have any “bite.” That man used that £7,000 in a much better and more economic way than the 17,000 or 18,000 losers would have spent their individual half-sovereign. That man has still the £7,000, and the others would not have had it. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) made use of the point that large sums of money leave the Union to be invested in illegal lotteries overseas. Surely it would be much better if that money were to stay in this country, and go into revenue. I know the Minister of Finance is against a State lottery. If I am not mistaken, he has rather a contempt for the sporting spirit of the Transvaal, and probably will say he will not touch one penny of revenue from such a tainted source. If he says so, or even thinks it, I want to know why he allows our children to be educated from money gambled on the racecourse. He allows it, and the Transvaal Provincial Council alone is taking £300,000 annually from gambling on the racecourse and uses it on our children. I submit in a non-party matter, and one of morality, even the Minister of Finance should be consistent, and that is not consistent. He is still less consistent; he does not only allow people to gamble on the racecourse, but goes further and runs a gambling den, through his provincial administration—I refer to Tattersalls. I must say, the Transvaal Tattersalls is a very well-conducted gambling den. The Minister saves quite a lot of subsidy by allowing our children to be educated from these sources, and there are the hospitals. One has heard from people who know that bookmakers never lose; they may win, or just come out square, but never lose. My submission is the Minister of Finance is cleverer than the bookies. If I may say so with respect, he is a super-bookie, because he always wins. In every bet there is a winner and a loser, but the Minister always shares with the winner; he never shares with the loser. That is why I am so anxious for him to try his hand at a State lottery. The State would benefit by it. The Minister not only makes a profit out of gambling, but builds up a reserve. That reserve of the Transvaal Tattersalls has always been a mystery. It has a reserve fund of £10,000. Whose money is it? Does the Auditor-General know about it? I do not think it belongs to the provincial administration; I was in that administration for four years, and never could get my hands on it, and if it belongs to that administration, why do they not use it? There are roads in my division crying to be made, and men in my division crying to-day to make them. If the money belongs to the Government, why do they not use it? I gave the Government the other day the names and addresses of over one hundred men who are out of work in my constituency; the Government had to dismiss them because of want of funds, but that £10,000 can provide work for my men, and hundreds can be employed when we have a State lottery. Are we so moral that we say we must allow our people to starve rather than run a lottery? Hon. members who speak against the motion will tell this House that they will allow these men to starve rather than use this money. We have seen that at different times different nations have held different ideas about this lottery business, but we see Holland, Italy, Spain and Denmark, some of them the best and most frugal countries, running state lotteries. Why cannot we do that? The British Government ran one for 125 years; why can’t we run it for five? We 148 members are sent here to help to make such laws as the people who sent us here want us to make, and it must be admitted that at least 70 per cent. of our voters want a State lottery. Is it not our duty to give it to them? I can hear the hon. members for Bethlehem (Mr. R. A. T. van der Merwe), Potchefstroom (the Rev. Mr. Fick), Wonderboom (Dr. van Broekhuizen) and Potgietersrust (the Rev. S. W. Naude) say, we are the leaders of our people—each in his own small way, of course— and as leaders of the people, it is our duty to lead and to teach them what kind of laws we want. What is the best way of leading? Is it not to go on ahead ourselves, and what better way to teach than by our own example? If 75 hon. members, a bare majority, assure you they have never taken part in a lottery, a raffle or any other sinful thing of that kind, I will vote against the motion; if they do not do so, it means that we are like sign-posts pointing a way we do not go ourselves. I want to put one question to each hon. member who speaks against this motion, or intends to vote against it, and I ask each to reply in turn fairly and clearly. “Have you, as a leader in your division, left off buying lottery tickets, yes or no?”

My experience is when an hon. member starts quoting scripture, it is the time to scrutinize the matter very closely. I do hope the House will not adopt this motion. My main reason against a lottery is for the simple economic reason that it creates nothing.

Have you taken a ticket ?

I took a ticket in the Labour party sweep, and did not get anything. It is transferring money from one citizen’s pocket to another. As for creating more wealth by this method to relieve the necessities of the poor, it is an unsound economic policy. The hon. member for Brits (Dr. H. Reitz) has killed this motion by his witty speech. He has told us that England, America, France and Germany have all tested lotteries and have all turned them down. Only a few lesser countries like Denmark—

Holland, Germany, Italy and Spain, all out of the schedule.

Those countries are all in the schedule. Joking apart, some of the greatest countries in the world have tested lotteries, weighed them in the balance, found them wanting and turned them down. I think that when we have these great examples before us we should pause before we establish lotteries and encourage the gambling spirit. I must confess that I feel somewhat insincere in opposing the motion because I admit that I have taken lottery tickets. I agree with my hon. friend opposite that there is possibly not a single man here who has not done so, but there is a subtle distinction between the State doing a thing and a private individual doing it. I go to a racecourse about once in ten years, but I would not like the State to organize races, or to run horses. With regard to the action taken by the myrmidons of the Minister of Justice in officiously interfering with harmless little sweeps. There are in England sweeps of considerable magnitude like the London stock exchange, and to my knowledge no police officer has ever interfered. It sounds inconsistent, but I agree that a majority of the people of this country favour sweeps. Yet it will be a great mistake for the State to run them and to encourage gambling; because it is a gamble, and there is this subtle moral difference between the State encouraging the people to gamble, and private persons gambling. My own solution is to leave the motion alone, and to advise our youthful and energetic Minister of Justice not unnecessarily to poke his nose into private sweeps. As to the idea that we are going to save money by promoting sweeps, I don’t believe it. People are always saying “Look at the vast amount that goes to Delagoa Bay.” It is, in my opinion, an infinitesimal fraction of our national income. I hope the Minister of Justice will, for once, justify himself and turn down the motion.

I am afraid that the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) refused to argue the only point in connection with this motion that the majority of this country are concerned with. He declined to face the ethical or moral side of the question which therefore renders his argument useless. I am sorry that the hon. member for Brits (Dr. H. Reitz) also did not realize the serious side of the matter. I want to deal with it from that point of view. I think if we disabuse our minds of the impression created by the light-hearted way the hon. member for Brits dealt with the subject, we shall arrive at a more correct view. I should like to show that other countries have found it necessary from bitter experience to prohibit lotteries. I wish to go, shortly, into the history of lotteries in various countries. Gambling is so widespread a practice, and so many high-minded people indulge in it as an occasional amusement, that general opinion hesitates to pronounce it wrong in itself, although the danger of the gambling habit is admitted. At the banquets of aristocratic Romans the object was amusement, and this amusement was also indulged in by the Emperors. In the Italian republics of the sixteenth century the lottery principle was applied to encourage the sale of merchandize. The first lottery in France was sanctioned in 1539 by Francis I., and in 1656 a state lottery was started for the building of a bridge in Italy. This system of raising money became very popular in France, and gradually assumed an important place in the Government budget. There were also lotteries for the benefit of religious and charitable purposes. In 1836 lotteries were suppressed in France, but in 1844 they were again allowed for the assistance of charities and the fine arts. In 1830 lotteries were suppressed in Belgium, in. 1841 in Sweden, and in 1865 in Switzerland, but in 1911 they still figured in the state budgets of Austria, Hungary, Prussia and the German States, Holland, Spain, Italy and Denmark. From time to time it became the tendency to discourage private and indiscriminate lotteries, and even state lotteries. In England the earliest lotteries sanctioned by Government were in 1569 for such purposes as the repair of harbours, and the purposes of the Virginia company in 1612. In 1698 lotteries were prohibited in England. In spite of this prohibition the British Government from 1709 down to 1824 annually raised considerable sums in lotteries authorized by special Act of Parliament. Through the efforts of Lord Lyttleton and others a strong public opinion was formed against lotteries, and in 1826 they were finally prohibited in England. The Glasgow lotteries were suppressed by an Act of 1834. The last lottery prominently before the public in England was suppressed in 1860. In 1776 a national lottery was instituted in America, and before 1820 at least 70 Acts were passed authorizing lotteries for various public purposes. In 1883 they were prohibited in New York and Massachusetts and gradually in the other States, until they survived only in Louisiana, where they were also stopped in 1890. In 1899 lotteries were prohibited in Alaska, and in 1900 in Hawaii and in 1902 in Porto Rico. A state lottery was first established in the Netherlands in 1444. The question I want to put to the House is this, are we dealing fairly with the interests of South Africa if we ignore the experience of these other countries, which have had state lotteries and have found it necessary to prohibit them. Should we not be guided by the experience of those countries? Only a very small number of the nations of the world still allow state lotteries. Now we come to a few other points. Let us not take gambling as it is defined by some hon. members. If two brothers have to divide a farm, and they agree upon a division and they do not know who shall take the one part or who the other, and they cast lots, that is not the kind of thing we are discussing this afternoon and neither is there anything wrong in that. The gambling we now speak of in connection with this motion is where a person invests money or something of value on a chance of winning a great deal more without being able to acquire knowledge or information to increase his chances of winning it. That is the gambling we talk of here, where one is dependent upon absolute chance. I would like to refer to the opinions of eminent men—

These statements are those of people who have given their considered opinions. Let me refer the House to the fact that the British Parliament found it necessary to appoint a commission to investigate the question of state lotteries, and afterwards a select committee. The commission reported in 1808—

In spite of this scathing denunciation, is the House going to treat this matter light-heartedly. We should consider not only our own particular views, but rather the well-being of those people in the country who are actuated by conscience and religious principles. I give a few statements from the select committee’s report delivered in 1924—

Money is a trust and to spend it carelessly, whether on betting or on extravagant amusement, is always wrong. Mr. Ramsay MacDonald has written an essay in which he rightly laid stress on the indubitable fact that the bleakness and drudgery of working class life in too many instances account for the attractiveness of gambling—

Men of high standing gave evidence on that select committee, and with years of experience regarding this matter, there is no justification for our disregarding it. The particular danger is that a national habit of this kind may undermine and destroy the character which we are seeking to build up. Is there any father who would bring up his children with any other idea of supporting themselves than working for a livelihood? Who would send their children out to gamble for a living? How can we suggest that is the way they must find support? Let me put it to the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) that he left the ethical and moral side alone. He said because gambling goes on therefore we should legalize it. There are husbands who beat their wives; should we therefore legalize wife-beating? No, we must rather try to stop this immoral principle. The hon. member for Troyeville has also suggested that this is an effective method of raising money for purposes of state. I say that a country which finds a place in its budget for revenue derived from state lotteries would sacrifice the respect of the other nations of the world.

After the devastating speech of the hon. member who has just spoken I feel somewhat diffident about moving the amendment standing in my name. I should like to say that, in the course of this debate, we have had two delightful incidents. One was the most humorous speech by the hon. member for Brits (Dr. H. Reitz) which we all enjoyed, and the other was the delightful manner in which the Prime Minister broke the rules of the House and with frantic gesticulations explained to his colleagues how he lost his way home. The amendment is a slight modification of the motion. The mover of the motion asked outright for state lotteries. I am asking you to accept an amendment in the form of premuim bonds and lotteries under state control, I think it is going too far to suggest that the state should run lotteries. I think it is infra dig. for the state to run a lottery itself. On the other hand, I think a lottery under state control is something which every one is asking for in this country. When I say “under state control” I am referring to such lotteries as the Tasmanian sweepstake In the first place, you must recollect that gambling exists. It exists right throughout our life. I do not want to elaborate the question of the stock exchange which has been referred to, but I think we all realize the existence of the spirit of gambling and its ramifications. Enormous sums of money are won and lost on the stock exchange. There is no more justification for that form of gambling, than for gambling under a properly controlled lottery. In fact I think that one would get a better chance of winning money in a lottery than on the stock exchange. There are very few men who have not at one time or another taken tickets in lotteries. One hon. member of this House last year sold us all tickets on the July handicap. The sweepstake was in support of the S. A. P. funds in Durban, and the hon. member was so fortunate that he won the first prize of £100 in the sweep itself, and an additional prize of £10 for selling himself the first prize ticket. That is an apt illustration of the existence of the gambling spirit, and the way it permeates even this august assembly. To take a little wider view of the gambling spirit which is prevalent, and of the money which is going out of this country. It has been suggested that it is only the merest trickle. I would describe it as a wide river. Large sums of money are going out to Delagoa Bay, for the Calcutta sweep, the stock exchange sweep, the Tasmanian sweep and sweeps of all descriptions running right throughout the world. Money is going out of this country in support of every one of these sweeps. One very solid argument in favour of a controlled sweepstake is that it would keep the money in our own country. Only a small fraction of the money which goes out of the country ever comes back. There is another factor in this connection, namely, the amount of swindling and roguery that is going on. This country is flooded with bogus sweep tickets, and there is a regular industry in selling bogus sweep tickets. The buyer has no chance at all. He is purchasing a ticket in a swindle and apparently there is no redress for him because he cannot claim the return of his money which has been lost in a gamble. That alone is an argument worth consideration, in connection with the idea of controlling, in some form, the gambling which I say unhesitatingly is a necessity in our modern life. It has been said that only one or two minor countries are running sweepstakes. Take our own country. It is quite correct, as stated by the hon. member for Brits that the provincial authorities are receiving to-day £225,000 a year in taxation raised directly by gambling. There is a fax of five per cent. on every bet which any man strikes in this country with a bookmaker, and they also take seven and a half per cent. on every bet made with the totalisator. If that is not countenancing and legalizing gambling, I should like any hon. member of this House to tell me what it is. Take Natal. I quote from a speech of Mr. C. F. Clarkson, a member of the Executive Council of the Provincial Council—

That shows a considerable amount of support in our own country for some form of state-controlled lottery. Germany to-day, not through her central government, but through her various states, is carrying on a very widespread system of state lotteries. Here is one of the circulars which shows that every state almost is running a state lottery. I think hon. members will agree that it is hard to describe Germany as one of the smaller states. Denmark is also running state lotteries. A speech was made by the Hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr). He said that we in South Africa might be content to abide with the wisdom based on the experience of our two mother countries, Great Britain and Holland. In the House of Commons on December 18th, the Home Secretary was asked by the member for Chichester whether the Government proposed to adopt the same attitude towards the Derby sweepstakes as was laid down by his predecessor on May 27th. The reply was—

That is the position in England regarding lotteries. They have received a certain amount of Government endorsement. I want the Government to control a lottery of that nature and derive some benefit from it.

Why go any further than that?

I am not going any further. My motion is for premium bonds and certain lotteries under Government control. I will not go any further into these things than by quoting Great Britain and Germany because I consider I am quoting two of the biggest countries in the world. To say that we should not adopt the system of any form of lottery because other countries have dropped it, is not quite correct, I have quoted two or three of the biggest countries who are actually conducting lotteries or countenancing such lotteries. The Irish Free State has recently legalized a scheme of five lotteries annually, controlled by the Government. There is doubtless a certain amount of opposition to such a suggestion. There is the position of the church. Apparently the church takes up a very strong and active opposition. I have a paper here, The Tribune, in which I am very strongly taken to task for daring to introduce a motion of this nature. It says that the attitude of the church towards gambling is one of unswerving hostility and it quotes a resolution that lotteries are economically and morally injurious to the best interests of the people. There are many other extracts of a similar nature. When I think of the number of church bazaars it has been my lot to open, I cannot help dwelling on the amount of money which has been swept into the coffers of the church as the result of lotteries or shall I say sweepstakes to indicate that this is one of the little sins that the hon. member for Brits suggested they keep up their sleeve. I cannot conceive that their opposition is genuine when the practice is always made of running sweepstakes at a bazaar for the purpose of gain; thus the opposition of the churches is not entirely consistent. Then we are told that commerce is against state lotteries, because the money that would be spent on the purchase of lottery tickets is withdrawn from circulation. However, we need not take that argument very seriously, for, after all, if lotteries are conducted in your own country, the money goes back into circulation and commerce is not the loser. Outside those who object to state lotteries, 60 per cent. or 70 per cent. of the people in the country are in favour of them. We claim to be a democratic country and democracy means government by the people for the people. Surely then, we have some mandate to give effect to the wishes so loudly expressed by the people. I was very much struck during the last general election, when the Prime Minister made a tour. At his first meeting he was asked if he were in favour of state lotteries, and he was most emphatically against them, but by the time he addressed his last meeting of the tour, his reply was couched in a very pianissimo note; no doubt in the interval he realized how insistent was the demand for state lotteries. The Tasmanian sweep is run under Government control, and in one year it paid to the Government £334,937, it being the higgest item in the country’s revenue, as compared with £290,000 received from hydroelectric schemes, and £124,000 paid in land tax. I do not suggest that the money obtained from state lotteries or premium bonds should go into the general revenue, but be devoted to hospital work, the relief of poverty and other laudable objects. From that point alone, the proposal is well worth consideration. It is time the present state of affairs was brought to an end. We must recognize that the gambling instinct does exist in human nature, and we cannot do better than follow the wishes of the people by allowing a limited number of lotteries to be run under the control of the State, so that needy people will benefit from the share which the Government will receive. I propose the following amendment—

seconded the amendment.

I want to say a few words on this great question. I regard it as such because, as the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) said, a section of the public want lotteries. I want to tell the other side that particularly in the Free State and the Transvaal that section is very much smaller. The question we should ask is what is of the greatest importance to the public. The hon. member for Troyeville made an appeal yesterday for a section of the people whom he represents, although I do not concede that he ought to have spoken in that spirit, but here we have to do with a matter which concerns the whole people, viz., whether we should institute state lotteries. I, personally, am absolutely opposed to the state taking part in lotteries. In this connection I should like to quote what the hon. member’s leader in England, Ramsay MacDonald, says on the matter. I think that he regards MacDonald as a great man and statesman, but what does the latter say about lotteries? I find this—

I hope that they will take this to heart when the Labour party again get up a lottery—

This is what I should like to bring to the notice of hon. members. He says that a lottery by a party is a threat to any political party, and then it is certainly a much greater danger for a Government to establish a state lottery, but he goes further, and says—

What is the position to-day in South Africa? There is undoubtedly a gambling spirit amongst a section of the people, and everyone who loves South Africa very much deplores that spirit. We admit that the totalisator is also a kind of lottery. I am opposed to it, and if a motion is introduced against the totalisator I shall certainly support it. We must ask ourselves whether the legislation we introduce is a blessing and useful to the people, or detrimental. Every law which creates gambling is certainly injurious to our people, and, therefore, I feel I must speak these words of warning. What is the greatest calling of people on earth! Is it to encourage gambling, or to teach the people that great foundation on which the state is built, viz., to eat your bread “in the sweat of your brow,” and not to build your future on luck. In farming matters, in business, and in public affairs, we judge a man by his brain. We should, e.g., never put a gambler at the head of the Government, and the business man and the farmer do not ask for luck, but for brains, energy and capacity. That is the criterion by which a man is judged, and, therefore, it must also be the criterion for the future of our people. If we want to trust our future to the throw of dice, then we are criminal and immoral. Gambling is absolutely wrong in principle. I should like to quote what a select committee in England says about it. The Minister of Finance, Mr. McKenna, in answer to a question whether he was opposed to lotteries and premium bonds on ethical grounds replied—

Therefore. I feel that we must look at the experience of other countries, and listen to the words of men like McKenna. He said it was a danger to the English people. There are, unfortunately, people in our country who have become rich quickly, who obtain something quickly without having to do anything for it. In 1808 there was another parliamentary committee that came to the following conclusion—

Here we come a hundred years later and want to introduce it here. We, as representatives of the people, ought rather to pass laws for the salvation and blessing of the people, but if we were to pass this Bill, we should trifle with our national existence. I admit that speculation has greatly increased of recent times. I just want to quote what Hoover said in connection with the collapse of the New York stock exchange—

I agree with this so far as South Africa is concerned. Work, not state lotteries, is the only way to success.

All work, no play?

If the hon. member wants to find his pleasure in gambling it is his business, but it is a different matter if the state were to encourage it. What moral influence would it have if the state were to give the lead in the direction of lotteries? It would be a curse to the country. The hon. member for Brits (Dr. H. Reitz) tried in a humorous way to defend the matter. It is very easy to do so in that way. He quoted the Bible in support of his case. That is easy enough, but I do not now want to stand on the Bible, but on the ethical moral point of view, and to ask what is in the interests of the country. I am convinced that, regarded from that standpoint, Parliament will never ask the state to conduct lotteries or the other things. Our state must set an example to the country in respect of morals and ethics. If this motion is passed, it will do us much harm, and when we look at other countries we must say we cannot allow lotteries to be introduced here. Holland has been quoted. When I was in Holland the last time, in 1921-’22, I enquired into the matter, and I can assure hon. members that professors, doctors, unbelievers and churchmen said with one voice that lotteries were absolutely pernicious to the people. That is the view that I heard on all sides. I am not standing here as a minister of religion to oppose the matter, but as a son of the people, and the motion must be rejected in the interests of the people. The salvation of our country lies not in lotteries, but in industries and business. The brain and the mind must be used to build up our people, and the motion cannot possibly be passed.

What the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) said, I think, boils itself down to this: that the people are asking for it. The only way of getting the views of the people on the subject is by way of correspondence, and while there has been some in the papers, there is a very rooted objection amongst hon. members against a lottery, and, personally, I am inclined to agree with them. I fancy that lotteries strike at the root of thrift, and it is our duty as members of Parliament to encourage thrift. If I thought lotteries would encourage thrift, I would support them, but I do not think they do. I am also opposed to the principle of leaving them in the hands of the state. I think the state has got quite enough to do. If the state undertook lotteries, there would be lots of jobs and lots of pals, and, in fact, more jobs for pals than ever. The hon. gentleman who seconded the motion killed it by ridicule. I would be prepared to support premium bonds rather than lotteries, and I am sorry that the hon. member who moved the amendment did not stop at the words “bonds.” I beg to propose, as an amendment to the amendment—

If the motion is carried by the House as amended according to the amendment proposed, and with the excision of the words I propose should be omitted, it will read: “that in the opinion of this House the Government should take into immediate consideration the desirability of the issue of premium bonds.” I think the Minister of Finance will admit that in some countries premium bonds have assisted largely in the payment of state debts. I happen to know, from a gentleman in Johannesburg, who has worked out a complete scheme for the payment of the debt of this country by premium bonds, that this is possible. I understand that, by this system, the Government gets money raised by means of premium bonds, and allocate a certain portion of interest to those bonds. That interest is not paid to the owners of the bonds, but is accumulated, and paid out to the various people who draw prizes. The Government obtains a fair sum, and utilizes the proceeds it secures for the liquidation of the state debt. According to the scheme drawn up by a financier in Johannesburg, we can liquidate the state debt within a period of less than 100 years. Premium bonds would encourage thrift, and, at the same time, alleviate the taxpayers’ burden. I believe there is a large percentage of the people who favour premium bonds, and I think I may claim the support of a large number of members who declared themselves in favour of such bonds when they were candidates at the general election. Under this scheme the individual does not lost his capital, and part of the interest goes to assist the state.

I second the amendment. The hon. member who has just proposed this amendment is perfectly right. A very large number of candidates during the recent elections pronounced themselves in favour of premium bonds. The amendment is the lesser evil. The argument that a great deal of money is going out of this country annually, and that the establishment of state lotteries would prevent the exit of that money, is, I think, worth nothing. The man who is gambling is going to take his chance everywhere. It does not matter to him whether he sends his money to Tasmania or Calcutta, or anywhere else. A similar amount, or somewhere near it, will continue to go out of the country if state lotteries are established. I shall be very sorry indeed to see the Government of this country associated with a state lottery. It is perfectly true that Governments in various parts of the world are associated with them. Australia has been instanced as one of those countries, but the position is not quite as has been stated. Twenty-five years ago state lotteries in Australia were a very much greater factor than they are today, and to-day the only lottery held in the whole of the Commonwealth is that of Tasmania. In that country lotteries have been reduced in number during the past quarter of a century. It has been stated to-day that a great amount of gambling goes on on the racecourse, and we are asked why should we stick at state lotteries. Why not start a casino if your object is to make money? The Government would get more advantage from a casino than from state lotteries. The argument that because we have horse-racing and gambling, totalisators, etc., we should also permit state lotteries is worth nothing at all. I hope the day is far distant when the Government will associate itself with a state lottery. From a commercial point of view it would take away a lot of security and place in front of young people a temptation they cannot withstand. On more than one occasion when young men have found themselves in trouble, in the dock, they have stated that they have gone to a racecourse to recover what they have lost. How much more readily will they go to the state lottery? I am offering my support to the amendment of the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) in favour of premium bonds. It is common knowledge in our own country that people hold premium bonds of the French Government, but what you are getting for the gamble is really something like the difference between 3 and 5 per cent. I support this as the lesser evil.

Why support it at all ?

The amendment should commend itself to the House in preference to the motion.

I do not intend to repeat the usual arguments for and against state lotteries. I wish to state the position I have taken up in the past and the views I still hold. It is, however, a unique experience for one in my position, when people clamour to thrust on a treasurer sums of money in this way; the position is positively embarrassing. As a rule, the experience of treasurers is quite different; it is difficult to convince the public that they should part with their superfluous cash for the purpose of initiating schemes supposed to be in the interests of this country. But here people voluntarily come forward and offer the treasurer various ways of raising money. I am aware there is a large volume of public opinion in this country in favour of state lotteries. In the Transvaal resolutions have been passed asking the Government to agree under the provisions of the South Africa Act, to institute such lotteries. Similar resolutions have been passed in Natal. I have always taken up the position that it is impossible for the Government to agree, because it would be against the conception of the vast majority of the people of this country as to the proper way of raising revenue for public purposes. I know the supporters of the scheme and I know that if the conscience of the people, as a whole, is once aroused; if the opposition to this scheme is once mobilized, they will be surprised at the result. I doubt if any future Parliament will be prepared to take into consideration the establishment of such proposals in view of the constitution of our people. State lotteries would not conduce to strengthen the economic structure of the country and the stability of the people. People say: if we are not in favour of state lotteries why not have premium bonds by means of which the public debt of this country could be reduced. But the very same objection which applies to the one applies to the other. People say that capital remains intact, but, after all, the prizes which are to be given and taken from the pockets of various other people permit only a very small proportion of the people who participate actually sharing in the profits. People speak of this as a method of thrift, but it would be better for them to invest in safe, gilt-edged securities. They would thus retain both interest and capital attaching to the investment. We can consider ourselves fortunate that we are not yet compelled to raise money in this country by such dubious means. If we do require revenue for public purposes, there are other and better methods of obtaining it from the people of this country; it has not yet become necessary to resort to means of this nature which sap the character of the people by holding out hopes of getting rich quickly without working. I think that will be found to be the view of the Parliament of this country.

I support every word the Minister of Finance has said, and I am very glad that he took up such a strong attitude against the motion. I agree with him that to give the impression that we are in such an economic position that we must resort to such doubtful means as that suggested in the motion, to get revenue will not be aceptable to the majority of our people. I want to congratulate the hon. member for Brits (Dr. H. Reitz) on his speech. From his point of view he defended the matter well. He went back to the early times in the history of the world, but he did not let it appear from his speech that the great countries in Europe who have adopted this system subsequently abandoned it. Some of those countries possibly need more revenue than South Africa, yet they no longer to-day use such means of getting it. My greatest objection to the motion, however, is that it doesn’t agree with the views of our people. There is a spirit of late among a section of our people, and especially among the young children to attach great value to bets. There is a gambling spirit not only here, but throughout the whole world, but when it is expected that the Government should approve of this kind of legislation to get revenue, I think it will have a very bad moral effect on the people. I am astonished at the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson). He is against state lotteries, but in favour of premium bonds. As the Minister has shown, there is really no difference in principle between the two. From every point of view the House will very certainly be expressing the sound view of the people if it rejects both the motion and the amendment.

I am quite prepared to vote against state lotteries for the reasons given by the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige). I am convinced that state lotteries will be more of a blessing than a curse to the people, but on the other hand, I do not agree with speakers like the Minister of Finance, who think that premium bonds are altogether wrong. The difference in principle is much too great; I might almost say that the principles are opposed to each other. Premium bonds mean actually the encouragement of thrift, state lotteries increase extravagance. Premium bonds mean the accumulation of riches, smaller or greater; state lotteries mean the spending of riches. I am glad that the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson) and the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) introduced the amendments, which I can cordially support, because I cannot associate myself with the amendment of the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson). State lotteries lead to the desire for gambling being encouraged in the people. I cannot understand the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) when he says that the lotteries conflict with the spirit of the people, when he in the same breath states that there is a strong gambling spirit in our people.

I do not want that spirit to be officially strengthened by the Government.

If the hon. member means that, then I agree with him. The question, however, is whether the spirit is becoming strong from day to day. I think no one dare deny it. In families where formerly they never thought of such things, I notice to-day that the wife—possibly on the quiet—or the husband, or both, buy lottery tickets. If the lotteries are legalized while to-day things are being done on the sly, the desire will be encouraged, and I am strongly opposed to that. Premium bonds, however, encourage thrift.

Why not loan certificates ?

I am strongly in favour of them, but do the people buy them? The premium bonds give exactly what the people want, viz., over and above a little interest an encouragement in the form of a large prize which may possibly be drawn. The sleeping, half- asleep or half-awake spirit of gambling is not fed in this way, but led along right lines. Premium bonds put the brake on the gambling spirit, and lead it on right lines for the benefit of the people. The hon. member for Brits (Dr. H. Reitz) spoke in his well-known humorous way about evils which are being removed, but his arguments were not at all convincing. I have drafted an amendment which is about the same as that of the hon. member for Yon Brandis, but I want the advantages which the state will obtain to be used for irrigation purposes.

The end justifies the means?

No, but hon. members will be more inclined to vote for my amendment. I move, as a further amendment to the amendment proposed by Mr. Gilson—

I just want to quote from Prof. J. P. Dalton, of the Witwatersrand, who says that he has come to the conclusion that premium bonds are the best and most advantageous, and the most economic and thrifty way, but he is quite opposed to state lotteries.

There being no seconder, this amendment dropped.

I agree with the Minister of Finance that we cannot support the motion on economic grounds. Just as little as, e.g., we permit bets on the race-course for the purpose of getting revenue for the state, although the object is not to get revenue from races, we, nevertheless, get revenue when races take place. I am, therefore, not going to support the motion on economic grounds, or because the state can get revenue in that way, but I support the motion subject to an amendment I will propose for another reason. I agree with the first part of the speech of the hon. member for Barberton (Col. D. Reitz) where he said that he was not in favour of state lotteries. I also do not support the institution of a state lottery, but I am in favour of a lottery under state supervision or control. We have this afternoon heard all the hon. members who are concerned about the morals of the public, and who are afraid that if we permit lotteries we shall so cultivate the gambling spirit in the people, that we shall never be able to kill it again. I have, however, never yet heard the hon. member for Wonderboom (Dr. van Broekhuizen) or any other member who shares his views, object to the frightful gambling, yes, robbery, which takes place on race-courses.

You must have lost.

No, I do not support races, because, if I do, I always lose. I have never yet heard the people who are so concerned about the well-being of the public saying a word against the way robbery goes on on some of our race-courses under the name of betting. You cannot find greater gambling. The hon. member for Vereeniging (Maj. K. Rood) surprised me, because he tried to justify bets on races. I am certain that hon. members cannot mention a single case where a man has been ruined by buying lottery tickets, while I know of twenty cases, some of them respectable friends, who have been ruined by betting on the race-course. I know of a young attorney who used his clients’ money for bets. He lost everything and ended in gaol. That cannot take place with an ordinary lottery. Bets on races are merely another name for permitted lotteries against which hon. members have never yet said a word, while that is the kind of lottery which encourages a man to risk his last penny to win back in that way what he has lost. When I hear the protest of my hon. friends about that kind of gambling, legalized gambling, then I will agree with them, and believe that they are serious in their protests against lotteries. The hon. member for Barberton astonished me when he said that he was opposed to lotteries, and concerned about the morals of the people who would be ruined if lottery tickets were sold, but in the same breath he attacks the Minister of Justice for suppressing certain illegal lotteries on the Witwatersrand. What does the hon. member want? He wants illegal lotteries to take place, and the Minister not to suppress them. That is still worse than what is here proposed. Hon. members will possibly ask why I wish lotteries to be put under Government control. The reason is that we may not tolerate illegal lotteries. There is a possibility of the public being defrauded by illegal lotteries. I do not know whether hon. members are aware that there are no less than five lotteries in the Transvaal alone. They have doubtless heard of the Delagoa Bay lottery, and they think that they are tickets from Lourenço Marques which are sold here. That is not the case, because, in reality, it is a lottery in the Union which is drawn at Johannesburg, and it is merely called the Delagoa lottery. Thousands of tickets are sold every month in the Transvaal, and when the prizes are announced it is said that they are drawn in Delagoa Bay. But, besides this lottery in Johannesburg, there are other lotteries in the Transvaal which are merely reprinted from the other lottery. The Delagoa lottery is an honest concern, that is not so in the case of the other lotteries. One can buy tickets till you are blue, but you will never win a prize; a drawing does not even take place, and the people who sell the tickets pocket the money. This is where the public throws away its money without knowing it, and hence we think that the Government should take steps to put lotteries under supervision or control. The Minister can use the whole police force to stop lotteries in the Transvaal, and yet will not succeed. We feel that it is not only in the interests of the public, but necessary for the Government to keep supervision over lotteries. That is the only way to find a satisfactory solution. One hon. member said that lotteries were a great evil. They are, but drink, for instance, is also an evil, and yet more than half of the hon. members in this House are against prohibition. To-day we have placed the consumption of drink under supervision, and the state controls the traffic. That is the best way of guarding against the evil as much as possible, and we know that if we were to prohibit drink the evil would become worse. That is also the reason why we want the state to control lotteries. I am not in favour of state lotteries, but I want lotteries to be allowed under proper and strong supervision of the state, For that reason I move, as a further amendment—

seconded.

I think that the most interesting thing about the present discussion is that a motion of this sort should come from the socialist benches. After all, when you think of a lottery and its result, it is a most extraordinary thing that labour or socialist men should bring forward such a motion. I always understood the Labour party was against the present scheme of things; that a few men, capitalists, have a lot of money, and many people, the proletariat, have little. The essence of a lottery is that many people, most of whom probably cannot affard it, subscribe for tickets in order that very few may win a large prize— in order that the few may become rich at the expense of the many. I can understand an hon. member of the hide-bound Conservative party making such a proposal, but for the life of me not a man who says he is a socialist or Labour man. What is the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) to do with the prize-winners of this very scheme? He will get on a tub or platform and call them the idle rich, and say: tax the money they will win; tax the income from the prizes they have won much more highly than the income of the wage-earner. He will say it is unearned income. Now, I want to make plain that my attitude all along has been one of uncompromising opposition to such a proposal. I will admit that if a plebiscite were taken in my own constituency a very large majority would vote for a state lottery. In the present state of public opinion on the Rand the vast majority would vote for it. The average man in the street cannot see why we should not have some legalized form of lottery. On my election platforms I have always made clear that I would never vote for a state lottery, and I hope that the majority of hon. members will not tolerate the idea. The scheme is attractive on the surface; they say money in going out of the country; that the Delagoa and Calcutta sweeps, sweeps in Rhodesia and others take thousands out, and if we only had lotteries in South Africa, you would keep that money there, and possibly make a nice little profit. Some hon. members have tacked on to the motion that an allocation of the proceeds be made to hospitals, the relief of distress, or an irrigation proposal. If the proposal is good it requires no such bolstering up, and if bad it will not be made good by allocating the proceeds to such objects however laudable they may be. I ask the House to discuss this proposal on its merits, apart from any proposed allocation of the proceeds. Do not let the issue be clouded by the allocation of any funds to any particular object. Take the object proposed by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge), the relief of distress. The Government has got to do that in any case. He may as well say: “Pay the money into the Consolidated Revenue Fund.” What are the arguments in favour of the proposal? It is stated it will stop money going out of the country. That is probably true. At the present time quite an unjustifiable amount of money goes out of the country for foreign lotteries. You may say, of course, that a large amount comes back, because one is always reading of some fortunate South African recipient of a prize, so that particular argument can be carried too far. But the real reply is that we should see that that money does not go out of the country. Efficiently administer the postal law, so that the postal service cannot be used as it is, I believe, to-day as a vehicle for the propagation of these foreign lotteries. I have received pamphlets advertising lotteries overseas, and I suppose that if I get them other people get them. Surely it is not beyond the wit of our postal service to see that that service is not used in this way, and surely it is not beyond the power of our Department of Justice and our police to see that something more efficient is done in the way of putting down these foreign lotteries. Many of them are nothing more than common swindles. I wonder if anyone has taken the trouble to find out what is paid in prize money in proportion to the amount spent on tickets in some of these foreign lotteries. If that calculation were made, hon. members would be amazed to find the proportion taken from the ticket-holders. Many of these foreign lotteries are extremely dishonest. People say: “Why not have our own home-brand of lotteries?” The proposal is specious. It meets with an enormous amount of public support, and yet I say that the worst day’s work that could ever be done by the people of South Africa would be to bring lotteries to their door. If the state were to run a lottery, or to allow lotteries to be run, we should have in this country, what we have had before. I am old enough to remember the days of Philips’ sweeps before the Boer war. The gambling in Johannesburg to-day is a trifle to what it was in the days when Philips’ sweep was run. What goes on to-day would be mild indeed compared with what would go on if we had a state lottery. Every post office would sell tickets, or, if a lottery is in private hands, the runner of the lottery would have offices in every town. All sections of the population would be invited to give not of their superfluity, but of the money they need for other things to buy these lottery tickets. What we need in this country is a spirit of thrift. This is one of the most thriftless and one of the most shiftless countries in the world. Our post office saving bank shows that the amount standing to the credit of depositors is the veriest trifle compared with those in various other countries, and any proposal to open the door wider for thriftlessness, it is the Government’s duty to discountenance. No Minister could make other than the speech made by the Minister of Finance this afternoon. If there were a turn in the wheel of political fortune the same speech would be made by any other Minister of Finance. No Government can afford to endorse such a proposal as that made by the hon. member of Troyeville. It is said that gambling does exist, and that it will never be stopped, and we are, therefore, asked to encourage people to gamble more instead of trying to stop it. I have heard the same argument in connection with liquor legislation. People will drink; therefore, impose no further restrictions on drink. The same argument has been used with regard to prostitution. As sober-minded legislators we should try to put a stop to evils which exist rather than open the door wider for more. I speak as a representative of Johannesburg, and if there is one thing more than another needed on the Rand to-day, it is not more facilities for gambling, but less. It is pointed out that there is gambling on the race-course, and I quite agree as to the scandals that arise from gambling on horse-racing, but my remedy is to lessen, not increase the facilities for gambling. I also agree with the Minister of Finance that there is no particular virtue in the proposal for premium bonds. What is the essence of the premium bond scheme? A bond earns interest, shall we say at 5 per cent., and of that half is paid to the investor, and the other half is allowed to accumulate into a fund which is dealt with in the same way as money used in the lottery. In other words, in order to have a gamble, people are told that a certain amount of the interest instead of being paid to them, will be used to form a prize fund. Where is the difference between that and a lottery?

The capital is safe.

Precisely, but a portion of the interest is used to provide prizes. You might as well have a lottery. The vice of it is this: it will not satisfy your gambler who wants a flutter. He will not put down £100 to get a prize of £2 10s. You will never compete with the Rufe-Naylor sweeps by means of premium bonds, and they could, therefore, only run in competition with our ordinary state loans. We do not want to resort to these questionable methods of raising public funds. I hope the time will never come in this Parliament of South Africa when we will seriously consider the state lottery in any shape or form.

I have listened attentively to those who have supported the motion and the amendments before the House. I know it is a popular proposal in certain circles. The tendency nowadays is no longer to get rich and make money in the usual manner and way, but to accumulate it easily, and to get rich as quickly and as easily as possible. It must not be done by use of the brain, the intelligence and of the body, but by chance, by the casual obtaining of money. This is not the prescribed way, but another way which we have made for ourselves. I listened to the mover. He says that state lotteries must be allowed, and the money used for charitable purposes to improve the conditions of suffering humanity. The state accumulates much money! And then he uses what I call an argument admiseri corriam of the old Romans. He uses the pity argument as to what is to be done with the money. This reminds me of the old scholastic days when the attitude was held that the end justifies the means. If only you had an exulted aim, then it did not matter what means you used. That is a theory which some people possibly agree to, but which is not easy to depend. Although some members have used that argument, I am very glad that so much has not been made of the material profit that the state will receive. It is unfortunate now-a-days that people can only measure happiness in terms of pounds, shillings and pence. Everything that brings that in means happiness, and the reverse represents unhappiness. There are people who regard it absolutely only from the material standpoint, consequently, the mover said that he was not dealing with the moral side of the question at all. That was possibly wise of him. I have the greatest respect for the material which can be very valuable and elevated, and can be usefully employed. As a philosopher and theologian, I take up the attitude that the life of the material is forced, and I find in that the way to bring the matter into conjunction with the spirit. But I never lose sight of what may be the first consideration. A thing is either good or bad. If it is good, then we must not only be able to defend it, but it must be such that I can say that people ought to do that thing because it is something good. Coming to this state lottery, I ask myself the question whether it actually is something good. Does the state really gain so much? I always heard that one can only get something back when you have lost it. The state has never yet lost anything, but the hon. members who introduced the motion represent matters as if the state must get something back that it has lost. I ask myself the question whether the state actually will gain. Will the character and life of the people be raised in consequence? There is a tendency amongst us to collect money in the easy manner. This deprives us of all our initiative. It makes a kind of tame person of us who sits and awaits his happiness to see if it will not find him. It prevents us doing work, taking off our jacket, and it prevents our people regarding life from an exulted point of view, so that the people in time can no longer continue on the prescribed route. I have made these few observations, but I actually want to say something else. Mention has been made of the church by members on both sides of the House. I shall be false to my conscience and convictions if I do not say a few words about it. I listened with interest to the amusing speech of the amusing member for Brits (Dr. H. Reitz), but I ask whether his speech was anything more than humorous? Can we say anything more about it? I heard in what a frivolous way he quoted the Bible. He spoke of chance, and showed his way of regarding chance. Chance and intelligence with the finest calculation and intelligence added as in the case of Jacob and the speckled animals, he still regards as pure chance. The hon. member made me think of Koetsveld, who wrote on various subjects, and when he was finished said that he was now going to write on music. He added the excuse that he knew nothing about it, but he consoled himself with the thought that there were many people who also wrote on subjects of which they knew nothing. If hon. members talk about these things, then they must take account of us. It is not pure chance that he was born, that he lives here and knows his Creator. The Creator has given us a method of life. He said plainly, and humanity has been following him for 4,000 years, that man shall eat his bread in the sweat of his brow. Chance and necessity are twin sisters, but they have no place in our ordinance of life. We must tell people, who talk in the way we have heard this afternoon, that when we talk of the Christian church they must not think about what takes place in different congregations. It will be daring in any Government to go directly against the views of the church. The call of the church is to maintain the social, moral and religious life of the nation. The church is in its own territory there, and has full authority. I do not say that the authority must not bother themselves about it, but the church speaks with authority on the subject. It is daring for the state to take the field against the church in church matters. We must understand what the life of the church is. The church is not a heterogenous collection of people. It is people who stand in a certain relation to their Creator, and who live according to the view which that Creator has made known by revelation. We can talk as we will about a lottery, but we must respect the views of those people who want to follow the method of life which the Christian church believes in. We are not in Russia, but are living in a Christian country, and hon. members cannot go directly against Christian principles. I am, therefore, very glad that the Minister of Finance has taken up the attitude he did in explaining and saying that he could not accept the motion and the amendments.

It is gratifying to notice that hon. members on the other side of the House are, at last, beginning to realize that the churches of this country are awake in national matters, and that their opinion in such matters are entitled to consideration. The last hon. member who spoke expressed the hope that no Government in this country would act in any manner contrary to the churches’ wishes. I hope that pious opinion will be carried out when national matters in regard to natives are considered by the House. I am entirely in favour of the motion for the reasons given by the hon. member for Brits (Dr. H. Reitz), and I do not wish to elaborate them in detail. There was one argument, however, which has been raised by certain members who opposed the motion, which, if correct, must lead to some startling results. It has been said by the hon. member for Vereeniging (Maj. K. Rood) that the real reason why we should not adopt state lotteries as a national policy is because they are immoral. Legally, it has been laid down that the characteristic of every class of gambling transaction is that a person makes a sacrifice in the hope of receiving a benefit, but the reception of the benefit depends upon operations of chance, and not upon the exercise of his own skill and judgment. The essential element in a lottery, therefore, is the element of chance. But surely, if it is to be laid down in this House that every lottery is immoral, then we shall have logically to deduce that every operation and transaction of our present day life, if it depends upon chance, is immoral. One of the commonest transactions of life is the ceremony of marriage. Can any hon. member name any ceremony wherein the element of chance is greater than in the ceremony of marriage? It seems to me that if the statements of hon. members who oppose this motion on the ground that a lottery is immoral, are correct, that there are only three moral members in this Legislature, for there are only three members in this House, so far as I know, who are unmarried! That would be the only logical deduction to make. Many of my friends on the opposite benches have exhorted me to get married. I cannot imagine for a moment that they would exhort me to do something that was immoral. It seems to me that if that objection to the present motion is correct, the logical deduction from it will lead to a very absurd state of affairs, and therefore that objection must fall to the ground. I commend once again the very excellent reasons that have been given by the hon. member for Brits (Dr. H. Reitz) to the House, as a reason why hon. members should adobt this motion.

I do not think that any further arguments can be used, but there is one point which has not been touched upon, that if the Government were to put its imprimata on state lotteries, it would have such an effect on the poor white question that we may as well give up the hope of its ever being solved. I am convinced that if state lotteries are introduced we can give un trying to solve the poor white question. The two things cannot exist next to each other. A large number of arguments have been used and one was that races are permitted. One hon. member mentioned how much money was made out of them, but did not say much about the money which was lost. I have during recent years had quite a lot to do with young fellows who have burnt their fingers at the races. We all know of dozens of cases where young people have been ruined by racing. I hope the day is not far distant that the Government will put a brake on the racing system. I go so far as to say that it ought to be totally abolished. An hon. member quoted from an authoritative book like the Encyclopaedia Brittanica. He had to go back to the middle ages to find examples of countries that had state lotteries, and most of them were so conscious of the detriment that they abolished them. We know that state lotteries were brought up repeatedly before congress in the United States, but were rejected every time, and unanimously. In the House of Commons the same thing happened, there also a motion to that effect was repeatedly rejected. Are we then, as a young country, not to look to the mighty countries who undoubtedly must surely have strong reasons for not adopting state lotteries. A few hon. members also argue that so much money is going out of the country. Well, neither the bankers nor the post office, nor the police can find out how much money is going out of the country, nor do they know whether more money goes out than comes in from the countries where the lotteries take place. We must all admit that undeserved money which one makes in the world is immoral. People are made venturesome. That is the way on the diggings. Month after month the digger draws a blank until one day he finds a diamond, yet he has a farm to which he can return, but the diamond-fever has hold of him and he cannot get away. I fear that a state lottery will have a similar pernicious influence on the less privileged section of our people. To a great extent it will be the same thing with state lotteries as with prostitution. We have the evil in our country; as someone said: “It is the oldest profession in the world,” and it would, in my opinion, be absolutely immoral to give such evils the imprimata of the State. I should be surprised if the Nationalist Government, which has already done so much good, spoilt its name by giving its authority to state lotteries. I am certain that the Government will not allow the proposal to be put on the statute book.

I move—

seconded.

I think that it will be much better for the country if the matter be talked out and disposed of once and for all now. Let us vote about it, otherwise it will be put at the bottom of the order paper and we shall never hear of it again. Then my constituents in Brits will not know what has happened to the matter.

Motion put and agreed to.

I called for a division. I have not withdrawn it.

Did the hon. member get up ?

Oh yes, sir.

If an hon. member calls for a division, I will allow it, but in this case the request was withdrawn.

The other hon. member (Dr. H. Reitz) also called for a division.

That hon. member withdrew the division, and no objection was taken,

Debate to be resumed on 28th February.