The National Lottery A Critique of State Sponsored Gambling

The National Lottery
A Critique of State Sponsored Gambling

By George Curry

©1996 The Christian Institute

Revd George Curry is Vicar of St Stephen's, Elswick, an inner city parish. George is a regular contributor to both local and national radio and TV current affairs programmes. He helped to edit An English Prayer Book and is author of Church Worship. He is married to Kathryn and they have four daughters

Contents

Introduction

A lottery: what is it?

Lotteries: what impact have they had?

The lottery: what should Christians do?

Bibliography

References

Appendix

How the Lotteries Compare

"A lottery is a taxation,
Upon all the fools in Creation;
And Heav'n be prais'd,
It is easily rais'd,
Credulity's always in fashion;
For, folly's a fund,
Will never lose ground,
While fools are so rife in the Nation."

A song from "The Lottery", a farce by

Henry Fielding (1707-54)

first performed 1 January 1732
Drury Lane Theatre, London

Valuation put upon the Lottery in 1739-40

"The Name of a Lott'ry the Nature bewitches,
And City and Country run Mad after Riches:
My Lord, who already, has Thousands a Year,
Thinks to double his Income by vent'ring it here:
The Country Squire dips his Houses and Grounds,
For tickets to gain him the Ten Thousand pounds:
The rosie-jowl'd Doctor his Rectorie leaves,
In quest of a Prize, to procure him Lawn Sleeves.
The Tradesman, whom Duns for their Mony importune,
Here hazards his All, for th' Advance of his Fortune:
The Footman resolves, if he meets no Disaster,
To mount his gilt Chariot, and vie with his Master.
The Cook Maid determines, by one lucky Hit,
To free her fair Hands from the Pot-hooks and Spit:
The Chamber-maid struts in her Ladies Cast Gown,
And hopes to be dub'd the Top Toast of the Town:
But Fortune, alas! will have small share of Thanks,
When all their high Wishes are bury'd in Blanks.
For tho' they for Benefits eagerly watch'd,
They reckon'd their Chickens before they were hatch'd."

Source: John Ashton, A History of English Lotteries (1893) p61f

Introduction

The National Lottery: what are we to make of it? Many, it seems, agree with the National Heritage Secretary, Mrs Virginia Bottomley, and see it as nothing more than 'a harmless flutter.' (1) Some though, like The Daily Telegraph columnist Boris Johnson, consider it 'a tax on stupidity.' (2) However, and this surely comes as no surprise considering the revenues at present generated, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr Kenneth Clarke, and the chief executive of Camelot, Mr Tim Holley, are both convinced that the National Lottery is nothing less than 'a great British success story.' (3)

Certainly, from the business and economic point of view, it is difficult to gainsay Messrs Clarke and Holley. For, since winning the contract to run the lottery, Camelot has selected over 30,000 retail outlets across the United Kingdom, (4) installed the essential equipment, and trained some 91,000 staff in its use. It has spearheaded the creation of computer software capable of handling 400,000 transactions a minute. And it has set up a nationwide computer network that is bigger than that of the four main High Street banks put together. (5)

This is no mean achievement. In fact, as the American lottery analyst Terri La Fleur has shown, the United Kingdom National Lottery is now not just the world's largest (see Table 1) and the world's most efficient (see Table 2), but also the world's leading lottery when it comes to contributing monies to good causes and central government coffers (see Table 3). In the first full financial year of operation ticket sales of £5.2 billion generated £1.4 billion for good causes and £677.4 million in tax revenues. (6) By 12 June 1996, some eighteen months after its inception in November 1994, the sum raised for good causes passed the £2 billion mark. (7) Evidently, Fitzherbert, Giussani and Hurd, of the Directory of Social Change in London, are justified in asserting that the National Lottery 'has been a success beyond the dreams of both its promoters and its detractors.' (8)

In what follows we shall attempt a critique of this late 20th century wonder. Inevitably some opinions expressed will not meet with universal approval, even among Christians, but that does not mean that the exercise is superfluous. Indeed, we want to suggest that it is incumbent upon serious-minded Christians, and especially those who are concerned about the spiritual state of the nation, to examine the character and impact of the National Lottery upon it. For, whether we like it or not, the Lottery is at present very popular. Camelot, for example, assess that 90% of the adult population have bought a ticket at least once and that 68% play regularly. (9) At the same time, Fitzherbert and his colleagues are of the opinion that the lottery 'has been absorbed with enthusiasm into the daily life of the country.' (10)

There are three questions we shall seek to address. First, what is a lottery? Secondly, what impact have lotteries had? And thirdly, what should Christians do next?
Top

A lottery: what is it?
According to Ewen, the English word 'lot' is ultimately derived from the Teutonic root hleut. (11) There is ample evidence that the word was adopted by the Romance vernaculars (eg French, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish) that developed out of popular Latin. Hence, most western European languages today have words either the same as, or not too dissimilar to, the English word 'lot'. (12) This in itself is an interesting phenomenon, bearing in mind that Latin already had its own words sors, sortis, meaning 'a lot', and sortiri, meaning 'to cast lots'. From these words we derive the words sort, sortition, and sortilege. In England. the Anglo-Saxon and Old English word hlot evolved into its present form, 'lot', by the 13th century, as did the allied verb hleotan, meaning 'to cast lots'.

Philologists appear divided as to the etymology of the word 'lottery'. Some favour an Italian origin, citing the word lotteria as the source. (13) Others, argue for a Flemish origin, giving the word lotterie as the immediate root. Yet others, such as the New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1993), point to a Dutch origin. Ewen informs us that the earliest recorded use of the word, in its Flemish form, is 1443. (14) Apparently it replaced the older form loterne and was used to describe those lottery adventures permitted or sanctioned by the Duke of Burgundy in such towns as Ghent, Utrecht, Bruges and L'Ecluse between the years 1443-49.

These lotteries clearly predate the 16th century Lotto of Florence, which is often cited as the precursor of the modern day lottery. Ashton, who questions an Italian birthplace, tells us that the Lotto was used by Venetian and Genoese merchants for the disposal of stale goods and those valuable items for which there was no purchaser. (15) However, Gillodt discovered that the earliest lottery for which records exist was held in L'Ecluse, Flanders, in 1444-45. (16) The burgher-masters apparently received ducal approval for it on 29 August 1444, with the first draw being held on 9 May 1445. Its purpose was to raise money to improve the walls of the town and its fortifications. (17)

Before we delve further into the evolution of the lottery as we know it today we need to establish that a distinction must be drawn between modern lotteries and ancient practices of casting the lot. We say this for the simple reason that some people somewhat simplistically argue that, for example, the Jewish custom referred to in the Bible gives some justification for the modern day activity we are exploring. In support of this notion some also appeal to the fact that the Haggadah, the free Rabbinical commentary on the Hebrew Scriptures, 'extends the use of the lot to many instances of biblical history.' (18) For example, the choice of the 70 elders mentioned in Numbers 11.24 is described by Moses placing '72 slips in an urn: on 70 of them the word "elder" was written, while two were blank, and six were selected for each tribe.' (19) Moreover, the Jerusalem Talmud records that a similar lot was drawn by Moses to select the 273 from the 22,273 first-born Israelites for whom the 5 shekels ransom price was to be paid. (20)

Ewen, who as far as we know was not wedded to biblical ethics, helpfully reminds us that the 'origin of sortition, the casting and drawing of lots, is lost in the maze of unwritten history.' (21) Although speaking generally, his comment is not out of tune with that found in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible where we are reminded that there is in Scripture 'no clear indication as to the actual nature of the lots used by ancient Israel.' (22) Something similar can be said about the use of the Urim and Thummim, for, as Motyer says, 'almost everything... about this provision remains unexplained.' (23)

However, we do recognise from the occurrence in the Bible of the Hebrew words goral (a lot) and chebel (a portion) and the Greek words kleros (a lot) and lagchano (to cast or obtain by lot) that lots appear to have been cast for four reasons in biblical times. First, for the selection of the goat to be sacrificed as a sin offering and of the goat to be sent as a scapegoat into the desert by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement. (24) Secondly, for the division of the promised land amongst the tribes of Israel. (25) Thirdly, for the appointment of individuals to office or service. (26) And fourthly, to ascertain guilt or blame. (27) In some instances the practice is directly sanctioned by God. In others we are merely given a description of what happened at a particular point in time, apparently with divine approval. This explains why Augustine of Hippo observed in the late 4th century, in relation to Proverbs 16.23, which states, "the lot is cast in the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord", that some forms of casting the lot cannot be declared 'evil'. (28)

Thomas Aquinas, the greatest of the 13th century scholastic theologians, (29) informs us that the Church Fathers condemned the casting of lots in regard to decisions for the actions an individual should take. He also asserts that 'the results of casting lots needs be ascribed either to chance or to some directing spiritual influence.' (30) We, therefore, need to proceed with caution. For, as Aquinas argues, there are four ways in which we may sin when we resort to casting lots. First, he says, if there is no necessity to cast lots we offend God. Secondly, if there is a necessity, but we conduct ourselves without due reverence, we sin. Thirdly, as indicated above, he avers that we err if we employ this practice in regard to secular business. And fourthly, Aquinas says, church elections should be led by the Holy Spirit, and therefore it would be sinful to cast lots. (31) Incidentally, it is worth noting at this point that some Protestant theologians, and especially those of a Reformed persuasion, believe that the inauguration of the age of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost has rendered the practice of casting lots obsolete. They cite Romans 8.14 and Galatians 5.18 in support of their argument. (32)

The Christian church has always condemned those forms of lot casting associated with seeking to know the future or hidden things by magical and questionable means. For example, the Roman or Latin practice of sortes involved drawing from a collection of small rods or plates, which were usually strung together, a rod or plate upon which there was an inscription. This would then be read and interpreted so as to provide an answer to the question put by the enquirer. (33) This kind of practice the early Church Fathers consistently opposed.

Apart from being concerned with possible demonic influence and the growth of superstition, another reason why the early church frowned upon the sortilege practices of the first and second centuries is that the origin of many of the then games of chance lay in various methods of divination. (34) This, in part, explains the admonition of Clement of Alexandria in which he states that 'the game of dice is to be prohibited, and the pursuit of gain, especially by dicing.' (35)

Tertullian is alleged to have said even more bluntly that 'if you call yourself a Christian when you are a dice-player, you say you are what you are not, for you are a partner with the world.' (36) In his treatise De Spectaculis, in which he gives advice to the Christian faithful about the amphitheatre, he explicitly states that the 'forms of madness, with which the circus rages' are forbidden them. (37) Incidentally, included in the madness to which Tertullian refers is a form of betting somewhat akin to a raffle or lottery. (38) In response to the question, Why are such activities forbidden?, Tertullian replied, because they do 'not square with true religion or with duty toward God.' (39)

Paton informs us that 'games of chance are as old and as widespread as humanity.' (40) Whilst Ashton, a little more succinctly, asserts that 'gambling is inherent in man.' (41) That the National Lottery is a game of chance and a form of gambling we should be in no doubt. People do not play to seek guidance. Nor do they play to make a donation to charities. They play for money. And the outcome is nothing less than a matter of chance. Herein lies a number of essential points of difference between modern lotteries and ancient practices of casting the lot.

We are now in a position to explore further the evolution of this comparatively modern invention.

Some may be inclined to think that the peoples of this realm were slow to embrace this form of gambling and that lotteries have never been popular until now. But such assumptions are not necessarily correct. It is true that the first English lottery did not take place until 1568-69; more than a century after the first adventures recorded in Flanders. And it is also true that the Great Elizabethan, or Queen's Lottery as it has been called, was no great success. Indeed, it was a failure. (42) But that does not mean that some from these shores had no interest in them.

The records show that, although the winner of the L'Ecluse lottery of 1446 was the wife of a Venetian, the adventurers, as the players were known, included a Londoner, one Ritchaerd Buerch, a merchant, and an Aberdonian, a certain David Blaber, a coopman. (43) They also show that, after a somewhat hesitant start, lotteries were extensively adopted in England during the 17th century. Numerous private schemes sprang up, the aim of which was to benefit both corporations and individuals. But they quickly fell into disrepute.

Efforts were made to suppress them in 1621. However, these proved ineffectual, with the result that by 1699 it was felt necessary to introduce a General Prohibition. (44) Despite this, private lotteries were still run in the early 18th century. This in turn necessitated the enforcement of the existing Act of Parliament to suppress them again in 1709. And so the 18th century became a century in which lotteries were in the main under state-control. (45) In fact, by 1776 state run lotteries had become an annual event. They were especially popular during the reign of George III. The records show that from 1769-1826, a period of less than 60 years, some 126 state lotteries were held, 110 while George III was monarch and 16 whilst George IV was on the throne. (46)

By the beginning of the 19th century, public interest in lotteries had waned. Sentiments expressed over a century before, during the reign of William III, were increasingly voiced again. Lotteries were seen as 'common and publick nuisances.' (47) This time the 'virtuous wave' or 'show of virtue', as Ashton calls it, (48) was not short-lived. In 1807 William Wilberforce and his colleague Henry Thornton committed themselves to doing what they could to further the cause of abolition. Pollock informs us that it was after the Abolition of the Slave Trade on 24 February 1807 that Wilberforce turned to his friend and cried playfully, 'Well, Henry, what shall we abolish next?' The reply was: 'The Lottery, I think!' (49)

In 1808 a Committee of the House of Commons was appointed to enquire as to how the evils attending lotteries might be remedied by laws. (50) When it reported the Committee declared:

"In truth, the foundation of the lottery is so radically vicious, that your Committee feel convinced that, under no system of regulation which can be devised, will it be possible for Parliament to adopt it as an efficient source of revenues, and at the same time divest it of all the evils and calamities it has hitherto proved so baneful a source." (51)

But it was not until 9 July 1823 that provision was finally made for its discontinuance three years later in 1826.

In the meantime, year on year, at the time of the introduction of the Annual Lottery Bill, its detractors used the opportunity afforded to urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to discontinue it as a means of raising revenue. (52) For example, in 1818 a certain Mr Parnell protested against questions of justice and morality being sacrificed to expediency. In making his point he suggested somewhat ironically the following epitaph be placed on the then Chancellor's tomb:

"Here lies the Rt Hon Nicholas Vansittart, once Chancellor of the Exchequer; patron of Bible Societies, the builder of churches, a friend to the education of the poor, an encourager of Savings Banks, and - a supporter of Lotteries!" (53)

By 1826 placards and sandwich boards appeared declaring that 'all lotteries end for ever on 18 July' of that year. However, the draw for the last lottery was, for a number of reasons, delayed some three months until 18 October 1826. (54) On that date state lotteries in the United Kingdom were laid to rest (see Table 4). But, as we know now, they were not on that date, contrary to expectation, actually laid to rest for ever. For some 168 years later, in November 1994 to be precise, a state lottery in the form of The National Lottery was resurrected.

It is one thing to abandon or outlaw a lottery. It is quite another to kill-off interest in get-rich-quick-schemes. Thus since 1826 the 'State's attitude to gambling has been one of disapproval coupled with limited permission.' (55) Sometimes that disapproval has been expressed clearly, as it was in Queen Victoria's Proclamation in 1860 for the encouragement of piety and virtue and for the preventing and punishing of vice, profaneness and immorality. The godly queen's strict charge and command was that all:

"judges, mayors, sheriffs, justices of the peace, and all other ...officers and ministers, both ecclesiastical and civil ...be very diligent and strict in the discovery and effectual prosecution and punishment of all persons who be guilty of dissolute, immoral, or disorderly practices; and that they also take care also effectually to suppress all public gaming houses ...and to suppress all gaming whatsoever, in public or private houses, on the Lord's Day". (56)

However, most of the time the emphasis has been on regulation, the extent of which appears to be directly related to both the perceived evils associated with the form of gambling in question and the general moral and spiritual mood of the nation. This latter point can be illustrated from the findings of three Royal Commissions in the 20th century.

The 1932-33 Royal Commission on Lotteries and Betting was critical of lotteries. It declared that:

"In the history of public finance lotteries take their place among the expedients which are resorted to when other and more reputable methods of finance have failed." (57)

However, due to the fact that lotteries were being widely run at that time, it also recommended a relaxation of the law so as to permit small lotteries for charitable and philanthropic purposes. In 1934 the Betting and Lotteries Act thus 'legalised lotteries once again under very strict conditions.' (58) The way was being prepared for the events of 1992-94, and the pill was sugared with the expressed sentiment that the motive for participation in these lotteries would be benevolence rather than the hope of personal gain.

The 1949-51 Royal Commission on Betting, Lotteries and Gaming was more ambivalent. It felt that the state should not provide any form of gambling facility and believed that a national lottery would increase the total volume of gambling. But it cast doubt on whether such a lottery would lead to an excess of gambling. The Commission felt that the evils associated with lotteries in the 18th century were primarily a direct result of the intensive advertising campaigns run at the time. (59) Incidentally, one of the leading lights in such campaigns at the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th century was a certain Mr T Bish, the best-known lottery office-keeper in Cornhill, London, and, according to Ashton, 'especially noted for his varied powers of advertising, before whom our most celebrated advertising firms must "hide their diminished heads".' (60)

By 1978 the ground for the resurrection of a state lottery in the United Kingdom was more fully prepared. The Royal Commission chaired by Lord Rothschild that year was unequivocal. It recommended that a national lottery should be created to finance good causes. Moreover, it also justified this recommendation by arguing that it is not wrong for the state to promote a form of gambling that is popular, socially harmless and exists to raise money for good causes. (61) If you will pardon the pun, by now the die was cast.

A number of private members' bills followed. Inevitably they did not meet with success, due to either a lack of time or support. But shortly after the second reading on 17 January 1992 of a bill sponsored by Ivan Lawrence, the government published a White Paper advocating a single national lottery to raise money for good causes. (62) It was included in the Conservative Party election manifesto of April 1992 and was published as a Bill in December of the same year. The rest, as they say, is history. Once again the United Kingdom has a form of state sponsored gambling. Week by week, whether we like it or not, to quote the legal definition of a lottery (after Webster 1883), 'a distribution of prizes by lot or chance' (63) is made.
Top

Lotteries: what impact have they had?

In passing we have alluded to the fact that lotteries have been condemned in the past as 'publick nuisances.' We need now to explore both why this was so and whether, despite its current level of popularity, the National Lottery may in time come to be denounced, as it was in Georgian times, as something unworthy of a civilised society because, like its precursors, it has inevitably 'developed into a voluntary taxation appealing to the national taste for gambling, and fostered by the Government, in order to help out the annual supplies.' (64)

European history is unequivocal: lotteries have at sometime or other fallen into disrepute. When left in private hands, unworthy motives, corruption and double-dealing soon rear their ugly heads. Even Ewen, who, as we shall see, argued in 1932 for a well designed scheme to benefit worthy causes, admits that in the 15th century the Duke of Burgundy exploited lotteries as a means of raising revenues. (65) They were first prohibited in Belgium in 1526, and then again in 1830. (66) In this country they ran into trouble during the reign of Charles II because the chances of winning were heavily weighted against the public. At one point this was a particular problem in Norwich, where, in the early 1660s, the mayor petitioned the king to empower magistrates to limit lotteries. It was not until 1665 that his petition was granted. (67) The General Prohibition, to which we referred earlier, was introduced on 29 December 1699 because,

"several evil-disposed persons, for divers years past, have set up many mischievous and unlawful games, called lotteries, not only in the Cities of London and Westminster, and in the suburbs thereof, and places adjoining, but in most of the eminent towns and places in England, and in the Dominion of Wales, and have thereby most unjustly and fraudulently got to themselves great sums of money from children and servants of several gentlemen, traders and merchants and from other unwary persons, to the utter ruin and impoverishment of many families, and to the reproach of the English Laws and government." (68)

Just over one hundred years later, in 1808, the committee of the House of Commons, set up to see how far the evils attending lotteries could be remedied by law, heard evidence not just of forgeries and fraud but also of a silk-dyer left penniless by her foreman because of his addiction; of a woman who robbed her father of his hard-earned savings to pay for her habit; of mothers who neglected their children; and of men who became gamblers, amassed debts, indulged in quarrels and assaults, and who turned to drunkenness and idleness. These social evils were attributed, at least in part, to the lottery. (69) A case of madness was recorded in 1767 (70) and a suicide a decade later in 1777. (71)

Thus, lottery fever in time gave way to lottery misery. That is why lotteries were banned in the United Kingdom in 1826, in France in 1832 and then again in 1836, and in Sweden in 1841. Yet, by 1992, every country in the European Community had a national lottery except the United Kingdom. (72) That fact in itself was another pressure that lead to the introduction of the present lottery in 1994. The fear was that, after the completion of the single market, foreign lotteries would become increasingly available this side of the English Channel. (73)

Some like to concentrate on the benefits of the lotteries. State sponsored lotteries in this realm have provided funds in the past to repair harbours (1569), (74) to colonize Virginia (1612 etc), (75) to supply fresh water to London (1635, 1660), (76) to build Westminster Bridge (5 lotteries 1737-1741), (77) to establish the British Museum (1753), (78) to encourage the fine arts, (79) and also to assist churches, hospitals and schools. (80) And overseas they have been used 'to pay for the Sydney Opera House and the Barcelona Olympics.' (81) It is for this reason that, by '1992 national or state lotteries were being held on a regular basis in no less than 116 countries.' (82)

Ewen calls such gains 'valuable achievements' and argued back in 1932 that:

"very little harm can be traced to any lottery or sweepstake organized under sound auspices, and that any evil resulting has been completely outweighed by the benefits."

He even went on to opine that:

"the principle might be usefully employed in the furtherance of other schemes of national value, which lie neglected for want of finance." (83)

In the 1990s the government faced a dilemma. On the one hand the demands for increased expenditure on health, education and in other areas were acutely felt. But at the same time, on the other hand, the electorate expressed an unwillingness to fund such increases through tax rises. A National Lottery was seen as a way of enabling the government to square the circle. (84) And so, to use Cummins and Whelan's words, 'the government's decision to set up a lottery was simply the result of a more than usually chronic need for extra revenues.' (85) Thus it has come to pass that those who espouse views similar to Ewen's now have their way, with the result that some 28% of lottery revenues are being directed to 'good causes'.

These are classified under one of five heads:

the arts;
sport;
national heritage;
projects to mark the millennium; and,
charities;
each of which receives 20% of the good causes monies raised.

The collective term of 1993 National Lottery Act for this 'good causes' money is the National Lottery Distribution Fund. However, as there is no central grant-making organisation and as grants for good causes cannot come directly from those involved in running (Camelot) or regulating (OFLOT) the lottery, (86) monies are handed out to groups by one or other of eleven distributing bodies. These are listed on Table 5.

A number of issues arise at this point. First, is the proportion of money given to good causes high enough? Table 6 shows how the revenues are used. The lion's share, 50%, is reserved for prizes but it is only just over 25p of every pound spent on tickets that reaches a good cause. Some think the proportion for prizes is too high and the amount for good causes too low. In reply, the experts say that the National Lottery would never have been as successful as it is had the arrangement been different. To generate sales, and thus income, it is argued, the number of prizes and the size of the jackpot itself need to be as high as they are. Notwithstanding that, it remains the case that, from time to time complaints about the proportion of revenue directed to good causes are aired in the media (87) and elsewhere.

Secondly, are the good causes supported really good causes? Christians tend to view monies for a youth club mini-bus, for a city swimming pool, or for football club facilities, as morally neutral issues. Can the same be said of grants to the West Midlands Anti-Deportation Campaign; the Leicester Lesbian, Gay and Bi-sexual Centre; the Gay London Policing Group; and the Scottish Prostitutes Education Project?

Certainly the Prime Minister feels that such awards do not in his 'judgment reflect the way Parliament and the public expected lottery money to be spent.' (88) But Christians know that there is something of far greater importance than either the mind of Parliament or public opinion, namely God's law. Surely Christians cannot turn a blind eye to the insidious rewriting of the moral code book of our land. Let us be under no illusions, that is what is happening. And the National Lottery is but another tool in the hand of the libertine. He is prepared to use it to further his cause. Hence, a pathetic justification for the grants mentioned above includes the trite comment that 'lesbians and homosexuals are among those who purchase lottery tickets'. (89) Is there no place for morality and principles in public life today? Must pragmatism always rule the day?

Thirdly, who decides which good cause should be supported with a grant? Cummins and Whelan sum up the situation well. The men and women, they say:

"who sit on the various bodies which disburse the funds are in a highly influential position. Their decisions as to which requests meet with a favourable response will, inevitably, reflect their own interests, assumptions and prejudices." (90)

Coupled with this, we need to remember that the elite group which tends to dominate official committees and commissions in British public life has tended to be self-selecting. (91) It is very difficult, if not impossible, to find a solution to these problems that will prove universally acceptable. Nonetheless these facts ought to make us at least aware, if not fearful, that this late 20th century experiment with a national lottery will probably, like its ignominious precursors, never be free of such justified criticisms.

Fourthly, who pays for the good causes? On at least three notable occasions this question has come to the fore. First, when a grant of £78.5m was made to the Royal Opera House, London. Secondly, when the Sadler's Well Foundation received £30m. And, thirdly, when £12.5m was paid for the Churchill papers. Each caused media speculation that it is the poor who pay for the amusements and interests of the wealthy. (92) Table 7, which is based on information from the government Family Expenditure Survey for January-March 1995, shows, contrary to some expectations, that poorer families are not the biggest purchasers of lottery tickets.

The table, however, does not take into account scratch cards as they only became available in March 1995. But Table 8 does show that the proportion of total leisure expenditure by the poorest lottery-playing families is in fact strikingly high. So, although there is no statistical information to hand to substantiate the fear that the poor are maintaining the pleasures of the rich, a situation has emerged that is of concern to Christians. The poor are squandering (too large) a proportion of their limited resources - much of which is provided by taxpayers - on a morally questionable pastime. In fact the Central Statistical Office has assessed that, of all families that play the lottery regularly, those families spend more money on it than they do on bread, newspapers and toiletries. (93) And David Sawers has shown, admittedly before the National Lottery was established, that:

"the appeal of lotteries is principally to the lower socio-economic groups (C2, D, and E) who have half of the average participation in the arts, while those in the higher socio-economic groups (A, B and C1), who seldom buy lottery tickets, have twice the average participation in the arts." (94)

And fifthly, is the distribution of grants for good causes fair? Inevitably, comparisons are made. It is early days, but regional trends have emerged as Table 9 illustrates. But probably of greater concern is the information tabulated on Table 10. This indicates that there is justification in asserting, at least when it comes to National Heritage and the Arts, that the most disadvantaged areas of the country are failing to get a reasonable share of lottery monies.

There is much that is not new with these concerns. Although not necessarily expressed in precisely the same terms, it remains true that lotteries in the past, especially those of the 18th century, were dogged by similar questions. But other concerns can be expressed. On the downside, lotteries have been consistently criticised for two main reasons.

First, lotteries are said to encourage gambling. Ewen acknowledges this charge but protests in reply that, although,

"the lottery is often blamed for exciting the spirit of speculation and leading people into gambling habits, ...the whole evidence points rather to the fact that a suitably designed scheme for the benefit of a worthy object tends to guide the irresponsible gambling instincts into well-defined and safe-channels, with advantageous results to the public." (95)

His argument contradicts the findings of the 1808 House of Commons Committee on Laws Relating to Lotteries. The advice given to the House then, at a time when national lotteries were very much a part of everyday life, was that:

"A spirit of adventure must be excited amongst the community, in order that the Government may derive from it a pecuniary resource. That spirit is to be checked at a certain given point, in order that no evils may attend it - the latter object has not hitherto been attained; with all the pains which have been bestowed upon it. Your Committee are of the opinion, that its attainment is impossible." (96)

In time we shall be able to assess whether this advice still holds true some 200 years after it was first given. But in the meantime, we acknowledge that it is still early days to discern accurately the social impact of the National Lottery. Tondeur reminds us that 'gambling in Britain has been growing even excluding the National Lottery' and to illustrate the point informs us that,

"In the period 1990-95 the number of fruit machines has increased by over 50,000 to 2,750,000. Their £3 maximum pay out was increased to £10 fairly recently. Even before this the average profit per machine was £14 per week." (97)

Notwithstanding that, a Mintel survey published in November 1995 shows that the National Lottery had encouraged 17% of those interviewed to participate in further forms of gambling. (98) And, interestingly, since the start of the lottery in November 1994, Gamblers Anonymous has reported an increase of 17%, and rising, in the number of calls for advice it receives.

Fitzherbert acknowledges that 'it is too early to know what the long-term effects of the lottery will be on overall levels of gambling', but believes that 'the conditions for a substantial increase have been put in place.' (99) There is already to hand evidence that children under 16, to whom it is illegal to sell them, find it easy to buy both lottery tickets and scratch cards. A survey by Devon Trading Standards Department found that 50% of the children in their study (12 out of 24) were successful in buying cards. Whilst, from a much more substantial survey of 1500 children aged 12-15 years, Dr Sue Fisher of Plymouth University has demonstrated that, in the week prior to the survey, 23% of the 12-13 year old boys and 29% of the boys aged 14-15 spent some of their own money on the lottery. The comparative figures for girls were 14% and 23% respectively. (100) These findings are said to be of particular concern because scratch cards are deemed to be especially addictive.

There can be little doubt that the advent of the National Lottery has proved the prelude to the demise of an hitherto established public policy. A policy, that is, which was on the statute book and accepted by successive governments until the present one. In a sentence, that policy was that there would be 'no stimulation of gambling beyond existing demand'. (101) However, in the face of intense competition from the National Lottery, lobby groups associated with other forms of gambling sought for and secured adjustments to the pre-existing controls on the promotion of gambling. As a result, a number of changes have been recently introduced affecting football pools, betting shops, and charity and other small lotteries.

The Football Pools are now:

[1] allowed to advertise in the press and on television;

[2] the minimum age of participants has been reduced from 18 to 16;

[3] roll-over prize money is permitted; and,

[4] betting levy payments (32.5% to 27.5%) (102) have been reduced.

Betting shops can now:

[1] be open to the street;

[2] offer refreshments and seating;

[3] have fruit machines; and,

[4] open on Sundays.

At the same time, charity and other small lotteries maximum expenses have been increased from 25% to 30% and maximum proceeds are up from £180k to £1m. (103)

If the American experience is anything to go by, in time lottery addicts will emerge. Dr Valerie Lorenz, of the National Center for Pathological Gambling in Baltimore, Maryland, informs us that:

"Ten years ago a female compulsive gambler was a rarity ...Lottery addicts were virtually unheard of. Teenage compulsive gamblers were non-existent, and compulsive gamblers among senior citizens were also a rarity a mere decade ago. Yet today all of these compulsive gamblers abound in every state, at every Gamblers Anonymous meeting, at professional treatment programs, and in the criminal justice system." (104)

According to Dr Emanuel Moran, a consultant psychiatrist and Chairman of the National Council on Gambling, 'addiction tends to develop over months or years and is driven by habit'.(105) Hence he advocates that 'strict controls are necessary because excessive gambling leads to social, psychological and psychiatric problems'. (106) In June 1995, The Times reported that lottomania had affected 2 women from London. They became convinced that they had won the lottery jackpot and that their neighbours were trying to deprive them of their winnings. Needless to say, both women needed hospital treatment. Dr Doyle, a consultant psychiatrist, believes that such delusions will become more common.(107) Whether he is proved right or not we shall have to wait and see. In the meantime, we can safely conclude that the National Lottery has had a detrimental effect upon our culture. Gambling is now far more prominent in the social fabric of society.

The second main criticism made of lotteries is that they represent a questionable way of raising revenues for good causes and central government coffers. Professor Stephen Hawking puts the argument in these terms:

"I object to the National Lottery because it encourages gambling and because it takes money from those who are least able to afford it, but who are desperate to escape their situation. It is pretty shabby of the government to exploit their weakness. I am not impressed by the argument that it raises money for good causes. If we think things are worth supporting then we should be prepared to pay for them out of the tax coffers. Gambling profits are a sleazy way of doing it. If that is acceptable, why not run the health service on the profits of state brothels?" (108)

And Boris Johnson argues that:

"there is something distasteful in the spectacle of the government squirting millions of pounds hither and thither over the cultural landscape, until the drains are overflowing with gold, when it is currently borrowing £750 million a week to finance its spending." (109)

Cummins and Whelan are in no doubt that 'governments have always regarded lotteries as a milch cow to finance public expenditure.' (110) There appears to be justification for thinking this even of the present government for, as Table 6 illustrates, the current National Lottery is expected to raise for the government over the 7 year period of its licence almost £13 billion. This sum includes the £8.96 billion for good causes that will not need to be raised by other forms of taxation.

We conclude our brief perusal of this second major criticism of lotteries with the words of a song written by the 18th century playwright Henry Fielding for his farce, The Lottery, which was first performed on 1 January 1732 at the Drury Lane Theatre, London. The lyrics of the song surely still provide an amusing yet succinct, and potentially controversial, summary of what a lottery actually is:

"A lottery is a taxation,
Upon all the fools of Creation;
And Heav'n be prais'd,
It is easily rais'd,
Credulity's always in fashion;
For, folly's a fund,
Will never lose ground,
While fools are so rife in the Nation."

Top

The lottery: what should Christians do?

Calvin, in his commentary on Hebrews, reminds us that 'there is no place for us among God's children, except we renounce the world'.(111) Moreover, as Christ makes clear, a Christian's calling is to function as salt and light whilst living here in the world.(112) This lays demands upon Christians, included amongst which must be the need [1] to think clearly, and, [2] to act in a way that is consistent with the precepts and principles enshrined in God's written Word. With regard to the National Lottery, therefore, it is possible to argue that two fundamental questions arise for Christians.

First, what does God want Christians, as individuals, to do? We suggest three things.

Christians need to remember that covetousness and greed are natural inclinations of the human heart.

The apostle Paul reminds us that covetousness belongs to our earthly nature and that it is a form of idolatry.(113) Thomas Aquinas, in an examination of avarice in his Summa Theologiae, asserts that 'it is the part of avarice to go too far in getting'. He develops the point by highlighting what happens in an individual's heart and how greed affects our relationships with others. With regard to the individual, avarice is, he says, a restlessness that 'engenders anxiety and undue worry in a person' for 'a covetous man shall not be satisfied with money'. However, in relation to others it is apparent, the great scholar says, that 'in order to acquire wealth the man of greed employs now force, - which entails now violence; now deceit'. In other words inter-personal relationships suffer, becoming marked by falsehood, fraud and treachery.(114)

The Greek philosopher, Aristotle, made a similar point in his Ethics centuries before. Of meanness, he says that it,

"is both incurable...and more innate in men than prodigality; for most men are fonder of getting money than of giving. It also extends widely, and is multiform, since there seem to be many kinds of meanness."(115)

It should not surprise us, therefore, that the National Lottery is popular. It appeals to our selfish nature, which in itself is far more complex than we often appreciate. This has been demonstrated down the millennia by Christian preachers. More latterly sociologists and others have sought to define and examine the reasons why people gamble. Downes and his colleagues, for example, cite the following motives:

[i] a desire to protest against one's own budgetary constraints;

[ii] a protest against the rationality that governs too many of life's pleasures;

[iii] an attempt to escape ethical constraints;

[iv] a hankering for a thrill to alleviate anxiety and boredom;

[v] a desire to compete and assert oneself;

[vi] the challenge of tackling a short-term problem;

[vii] a desire to give expression to notions of luck and superstition; and

[viii] a desire to associate with others in an event.(116)

In the world of English literature, many novelists have either alluded to or explored the detrimental effects of gambling on human character. Paton,(117) for example, draws our attention to the following: The Fortunes of Nigel by Sir W Scott (1822); The Virginians by W M Thackeray (1859); Amelia by H Fielding (1751); Kidnapped by R L Stevenson (1886); The Fall of the Staincliffes by A Colbeck; and, Esther Waters by G Moore (1894). To Paton's list we can add The Tenant of Wildfell Hall by A Bronte (1848) and Oscar and Lucinda by Peter Carey (1988).

Moreover, statistics can be amassed to illustrate the destructive consequences for those who do not put to death (118) but give rein the natural inclinations of their heart. In the decade 1895/96 to 1906/7 it is assessed that in England there were, due to gambling, 156 suicides or attempted suicides; 719 cases of theft/embezzlement; and 442 bankruptcies.(119) All this serves to remind us that, as the Scriptures say, 'the heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure',(120) and that 'the hearts of men...are full of evil and there is madness in their hearts while they live'.(121)

Christians need to be clear in their own minds that gambling is wrong.

Unlike Protestants, members of the Church of Rome have tended to have a more permissive attitude to gambling. This, to a large extent, it seems is attributable to the influence of Thomas Aquinas. He is said to have 'permitted gambling, provided it was not motivated by covetousness, characterized by unfairness (loaded dice) or used to exploit the young and psychologically immature'.(122) However, if we take as our definition of gambling that provided by the Social and Industrial Commission of the Church Assembly (the precursor of the General Synod) of the Church of England in 1950 then it is difficult, if not impossible, to conclude that gambling, including lotteries, undermines a number of important biblical principles. The Commission defines gambling as:

"an agreement between two parties whereby the transfer of something of value from one to another is made dependent on an uncertain event in such a way that one party will gain and the other lose."(123)

William Temple gives four reasons why gambling is wrong in itself. We list them, not necessarily in Temple's words, followed by a brief comment.

[i] Gambling glorifies chance rather than God.

To make chance the arbiter is to subvert the God-given moral order and, thus, the stability of life. For, according to the Bible, God is a God of order who leaves nothing to good fortune. He provides all that his people need. We are not to trust our so-called luck. Rather, we are to rely fully on God's providence.

[ii] Gambling, despite what its defenders claim, runs counter to the biblical principle of stewardship.

Before God we are not proprietors and owners but caretakers and stewards of all that we have. What we possess is not our own. It belongs to God. We have it on trust. Gambling involves needlessly risking what belongs to God. In due time we will be called to render an account to him for our stewardship.

[iii] Gambling glorifies the principle of self-interest.

It seeks to profit from someone else's loss. In so doing it is anti-social. The pleasures had by the winner are had at the cost of frustration, pain and misery to the loser(s). A spirit of self-interest cannot cast out selfishness. It runs contrary to our calling which is to deny ourselves and to love our neighbour. And,

[iv] Those who promote gambling appeal to human covetousness.

It exalts the baser instincts of people and undermines those nobler qualities of reason, skill, justice and responsibility. Covetousness is condemned both by the Ten Commandments and by the teaching of Jesus. (124)

Some people, including members of the mainline Christian denominations, argue that, though addictive and problem gambling should never be condoned, recreational gambling is acceptable. However, as Cross reminds us, 'the morality of gambling, considered as a species of recreation, is debated.'(125) Simply stated, the argument for recreational gambling is often expressed in the following terms: there is nothing wrong with a flutter from time to time.(126) Sometimes, it is also said that such is allowable so long as what an individual loses is what he can afford to lose.(127) Others justify gambling as a recreation with the argument that a person should be allowed to dispose of his money as he pleases.(128)

These arguments, however, appealing though they may seem, represent little more than special pleading. The substantive issue is the rightness or wrongness of gambling per se. And as we have seen, all forms of gambling vitiate certain fundamental biblical principles and thus the created moral order itself.

Moreover, it should not be forgotten that all acts need to be judged not just by their effects in specially selected circumstances, but also by their general tendency. History shows that where gambling has been not just been controlled and regulated, but also promoted as a socially acceptable pastime, then it has had a detrimental effect upon the spiritual and moral state of society. As Hartland reminds us, 'gamblers are proverbially superstitious folk.'(129) And,

Christians must set a good example.
Sadly they have not always done so. Paton reminds us that 'the gambling habit infected the purity of the early Christians' and that 'instruments of gambling' were 'found in their tombs'.(130) It was reported in the Newcastle Chronicle in 1931 that a certain clergyman had raised £80 towards a parish debt by means of a sweepstake.(131) And in the same year The Observer recorded that the Vicar of St Agatha's, Sparkbrook, is reported to have said that 'he has always looked upon a bet on the Derby as a national duty.'(132)

Nonetheless, Christian preachers from the beginning have consistently denounced it as worldly and taught that God's people are not to lay up for themselves treasures in here on earth, but treasures in heaven. (133) In 1529 Hugh Latimer preached two 'Sermons on the Card' with the intent of deterring Christians from gaming.(134) Over a century later, in 1660, Jeremy Taylor famously did something similar. In fact, Taylor raises a question that leads one to challenge Aquinas' permissive attitude to gambling. In his 'Sermon on the Cards' he asks:

If a man be willing or indifferent to lose his own money and not at all desirous to get another's, to what purpose is it that he plays for it? If he be not indifferent, then he is covetous or a fool: he covets that which is not his own, or unreasonably ventures that which is.(135)

But, to return to the point, in a late 20th century culture increasingly saturated with the gambling habit, it can be vigorously argued that it is necessary to impress upon professing Christians once again the need to keep themselves 'from being polluted by the world.'(136)

A number of practical issues arise. For example:

Should Christians play the National Lottery?
In the light of what has already been said, the answer to this question must be in the negative: Christians should not purchase lottery tickets or scratch cards. However, we recognise that more than a few may take issue with this conclusion because, to use the words of Cross on the subject of gambling, 'some hold it to be always illicit, but the majority of Christians regard it as permissible, though highly open to abuse.'(137)

Those who do adopt a permissive attitude have traditionally insisted on three conditions being fulfilled; namely:

[i] that the gamble does not concern anything unlawful;

[ii] that the stake is not excessive; and,

[iii] that the end is something other than avarice, for example recreation.(138)

In reality, though, it is surely better to be guided and ruled by the principles enunciated in the Scriptures. Failure to submit to them means, in effect, that one has put oneself outside the practices of the church that is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. The wisdom of Temple and Taylor, for example, summarised above, surely frees one from fruitless quibbles about whether the size of a stake is excessive or not, and from futile attempts to placate one's conscience with the dubious notion that one's motives are totally devoid of any hint of avarice.

Should Christians apply for grants from one or other of the 11 distributing bodies?

This question is, perhaps, felt most keenly by those Christians who unreservedly disapprove of the National Lottery and who have never bought a ticket. Notwithstanding that, all whose responsibilities include the care of listed church buildings will find the temptation to apply for a grant appealing. Tondeur encapsulates the tension in these words:

"The fact that the National Heritage Fund is being swamped with Lottery money has brought a further dilemma to the Church. Many Church of England churches, for example, would previously have applied to the Fund for money for restoration. To do so now means they are in effect taking Lottery money, and in many cases, the Lottery is something they are strongly opposed to. Depending upon one's point of view however, pragmatism, greed or lack of faith has generally won over principle, and churches are likely to be some of the major recipients of National Heritage funding."(139)

We must, of course, beware of adopting an holier-than-thou attitude. But, as we tiptoe through this potential ethical minefield, we must surely say again that it is incumbent upon us to keep our minds fixed on first principles, and to do so in a spirit of love and humble dependence upon God. Thus, it is probable that a mature response to this question also entails a consideration of those principles enunciated in the next paragraph.

Should Christians knowingly accept lottery monies as donations and gifts?

This is another difficult matter over which professing Christians disagree. Certainly it is one that can lead to much heart searching. Inevitably, the problem assumes a different character if the source of the donation is not known. But if the donor informs one that their gift is the fruit of a gambling flutter, many sincere Christians feel that if they were to accept it they may either be compromised or put themselves in the way of being potentially compromised at some unknown time in the future. However, it can be argued that the answer to this question should do justice to the following important biblical principles:

[i] would an acceptance of monies raised from gambling cause my/our Christian brother(140) to stumble? See Romans 14, but especially verses 19-21.

[ii] would an acceptance of monies raised from gambling undermine my/our witness in the world? See 1 Corinthians 10.23-11.1, but especially 10.32. And,

[iii] would my/our acceptance of monies raised from gambling cohere with the biblical injunction to keep oneself from being polluted by the world? See James 1.27.

Of course, it should also be said, these principles may not be used to undermine the freedom a believer has in Christ. But, at the same time, nor should an individual believer use his freedom either as a pretext for licence or as a stick with which to beat the weaker brother. Another concern that one will wish to bear in mind relates to giving offence to the donor by turning down the gift. All in all though, it is difficult not to conclude that believers will find it very difficult to accept lottery monies without causing offence to some people both within as well as outside the church. Great caution is, therefore, needed. But at all times we must never forget that ultimately we all stand or fall before our Maker. In the last analysis, it is he, and he alone, who is the Judge.

The second fundamental question that the National Lottery raises for the Christian is, What sort of society does God want us to help create? Lord Beaconsfield said of gambling that it is 'a vast engine for national demoralization.'(141) Cyril Garbutt, one time Bishop of Southwark, illustrates the former Prime Minister's point. The Church's main objection to lotteries, he says,

is that the system of gigantic sweepstakes encourages expectations which in the vast majority of cases are not fulfilled. It engenders an unhealthy strain and excitement and encourages a spirit of gambling and attempting to get something for nothing. Legislating will never stop gambling, but it may increase it.(142)

Statistical evidence to prove conclusively that the National Lottery has led to an increase in gambling may not be to hand yet, but anecdotal, circumstantial and empirical evidence does not appear to be in such short supply. In May 1996, for example, it was reported that the new Channel tunnel rail link, is also attracting the attention of trans-Atlantic high-rollers. American entrepreneur Donald Trump is said to be considering plans to establish a multi-million pound casino and leisure complex on wasteland near the site of the future international station at Ebbsfleet. According to consortium spokesman David Donahue, the New York property developer is part of a group of 'stratospherically rich Americans and Arabs' planning to transform the 16 kilometre stretch of derelict industrial land from Ebbsfleet to east London's Royal Docks into what has been described as 'Las Vegas on Thames'. The development hopes to play on what is perceived as a dramatic change in attitudes to gambling in Britain after the success of the National Lottery.(143)

If Christians wish to see society embrace the kingdom and biblical values of righteousness, truth, justice and godliness then they have no choice but to pray and work for change. There are basically two options open to them.

First, they can argue for the laws on gambling and the National Lottery to be amended. Cummins and Whelan believe that the National Lottery represents 'the further politicisation of the charitable sector'; by default, if not intent, it has been, in effect, nationalized. They argue, correctly in my view, that this trend 'is to be deplored, as it weakens one of the pillars of civil society',(144) namely, the spirit of voluntarism, with all that implies in terms if self-sacrifice, the willingness to serve and the freedom to accept responsibility, ...the very mainspring of charitable endeavour.(145)

They offer two, two-pronged, solutions:

Either, the government's monopoly powers to run lotteries should be scrapped and the lottery sector opened up to competing lotteries, both charitable and for-profit, whilst at the same time the National Lottery Distribution Fund should be scrapped and the 28p in the pound it receives used to pay off the national debt.

Or, the National Lottery should be scrapped altogether and the government's powers limited to maintaining a regulatory framework for private lotteries, whilst at the same time the present ban on for-profit lotteries could be maintained but all restrictions on charitable lotteries lifted.(146)

Tondeur, speaking from a more overtly Christian perspective, lists 9 recommendations for change:

[1] roll-over jackpots should be abolished;

[2] jackpot layouts should be capped;

[3] the minimum age for players should be increased from 16 to 18;

[4] detailed research on the extent of problem-gambling should be carried out;

[5] the fair distribution of lottery grants should be ensured;

[6] grants should be allowed for revenue as well as capital projects;

[7] the amount going to charities should be increased;

[8] the lottery should be run on non-profit lines; and,

[9] the regulatory body Oflot should be strengthened.(147)

Some may object that these recommendations do not go far enough and that, in effect, they tacitly endorse the principle of a National Lottery. In reply, Tondeur, without conceding the principle, acknowledges that 'the Lottery is not going to go away'(148) and therefore Christians must do all they can to bring biblical values to bear upon it. Certainly, it seems to us that, at the least, his recommendations need careful consideration. But we are also of the opinion that the suggestions made by Cummins and Whelan should be taken very seriously, for they are not all that far removed from the second option open to Christians.

Secondly, Christians can work for the lottery to be abolished. My own view is that Christians should be at the forefront, arguing and demonstrating that, despite the introduction of the present National Lottery, little, if any, evidence has come to hand to gainsay the wisdom of the House of Commons Committee that reported in 1808. The 'decided opinion' of that Committee was 'that the pecuniary advantage derived from a State Lottery, is much greater in appearance than reality.' Why did its members entertain such a conviction? Because,

"by the effects of the lottery...idleness, dissipation and poverty are increased, the most sacred and confidential truths are betrayed, domestic comfort is destroyed, madness often created, crimes...are committed, and even suicide itself produced. ...Such have been the constant and fatal attendants upon State Lotteries, and such your Committee have good cause to fear will be the invariable attendants so long as they are suffered, under whatever checks or regulations, to exist. ...No mode of raising money appears to your Committee so burthensome, so pernicious, and so unproductive; no species of advantage is known, where the chances are so great against the adventure; and none where the infatuation is more powerful, lasting, and destructive."(149)

Now is surely the time for Christians to commit themselves wholeheartedly to the radical transformation of society. Our survey has shown that two issues need to be addressed. One, the attitude of individuals to gambling; and, two, the removal from the socio-economic culture of the nation those values and practices that contradict an humble trust in the providence of Almighty God. Such a commitment will surely entail, amongst other things, unreservedly working for the dismantling of state-sponsored gambling.
Top

Bibliography

T Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Vols 34 & 40, Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1972
Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics, OUP, 1980
J Ashton, A History of English Lotteries, Leadenhall Press, 1893
D Atkinson & D Field (eds), New Dictionary of Christian Ethics and Pastoral Theology, IVP, 1995
Clement, The Writings of Clement of Alexandria, T & T Clark, 1909
C Ewen, Lotteries and Sweepstakes, Heath Cranton, 1932
D Cornish, Gambling: A Review of the Literature, (Home Office Study No. 42), HMSO, 1978
R Cummins and R Whelan, Making a Lottery of Good Causes, IEA, 1995
J Douglas (ed), The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, IVP, 1980
D Downes, B Davies, M David, P Stone, Gambling, Work and Leisure, Routledge & Keegan Paul, 1976
S Ferguson & D Wright (eds), New Dictionary of Theology, IVP, 1988
L Fitzherbert, C Giussani & H Hurd, The National Lottery Yearbook, DSC, 1996
J Hastings (ed), Dictionary of the Bible, Vol 3, T & T Clark, 1906
J Hastings (ed), Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, Vol 6, T & T Clark, 1913
S Johnson et al, The National Lottery, Barclays de Zoette Wedd Research, 1994
Jubilee Policy Group, All in a Good Cause?, Jubilee Centre, 1993
H Latimer, Sermons by Bishop Latimer, Parker Society, 1844
V Lorenz, State Lotteries and Compulsive Gambling, Journal of Gambling Studies, Vol 6(4)
Royal Commission on Lotteries and Betting 1932-33, Cmd 4341
Royal Commission on Betting, Lotteries and Gaming 1949-51, Cmd 8190
Royal Commission on Gambling 1978, Cmd 7200
Tertullian, De Spectaculis, Heinemann, 1984
K Tondeur, What Price the Lottery?, Monarch, 1996
Top

References

(1) eg The Times, London, 26 August 1995
(2) The Daily Telegraph, London, October 1995
(3) The Times, London, 5 June 1996
(4) The plan is to peak at 35,000 outlets by the end of 1996. See The Times, London, 5 June 1996
(5) Information given out by Camelot in June 1996 (cf The Times, 6 June 1996, p4)
(6) J Ashworth, The Times, Wednesday 5 June 1996
(7) Announced by the National Heritage Secretary on the BBC Radio 4 programme Today, 12.6.96
(8) L Fitzherbert, C Giussani & H Hurd (eds), The National Lottery Yearbook 1996 edition (London, Directory of Social Change, 1996) p8
(9) cf The Times, 6 June 1996, p4
(10) op cit, p8
(11) C L'Estrange Ewen, Lotteries and Sweepstakes (London, Heath Cranton, 1932) p24
(12) eg Dutch Loten & Lootnen; French Lot; German Los; Italian Lotta; Swedish Lotta & Lott
(13) see eg Chambers English Dictionary (Cambridge & Edinburgh, Chambers & CUP, 1988) p845
(14) op cit, p24
(15) J Ashton, A History of English Lotteries (London, Leadenhall Press, 1893) p3f
(16) Both Ashton and Ewen refer to M Gillodt's dissertation in La Flandre, Bruges, 1867. Ewen supplies the information quoted, op cit, p25
(17) C L'Estrange Ewen, op cit, p25
(18) L Rabinowitz, Lots, in C Roth & G Wigoder (eds), Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem, Keter, 1972) p511
(19) idem
(20) idem. cf Ewen, op cit, p19, who refers to a comment by Professor Blau in the Jewish Encyclopaedia.
(21) op cit, p19
(22) J Hastings (ed), Dictionary of the Bible (Edinburgh, T & T Clark, 1906) Vol 3, p152f
(23) J A Motyer, Urim and Thummim, in J D Douglas (ed), The Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Leicester, IVP, 1980) part 3, p1612f
(24) Leviticus 16.7-10
(25) Numbers 26.55; 33.54; 34.13; 36.2
(26) 1 Sam 10.20f (Saul); 1 Chron 24.4f (priests); 25.8 (singers); Lu 1.9 (Zechariah); Acts 1.26 (Matthias)
(27) Jos 7.14 (Achan); 1 Sam 14.42 (Jonathan); Jon 1.7 (Jonah)
(28) quoted by Aquinas in Summa Theologiae (London, Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1972) Vol 40 p65 (2a2ae95.8)
(29) A Vos, Thomas Aquinas, in S B Ferguson and D F Wright (eds) New Dictionary of Theology (Leicester, IVP, 1988) p682
(30) op cit, Vol 40 p65-67
(31) idem
(32) see eg G Keddie, Dawn of a Kingdom (Welwyn, Evangelical Press, 1988) p110, note 9
(33) see Ewen, op cit, p20
(34) see J L Paton, Gambling, in J Hastings (ed) Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics (Edinburgh, T & T Clark, 1913) Vol 6 p163ff
(35) Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, Bk III chapter XI in The Writings of Clement of Alexandria, trans W Wilson (Edinburgh, T & T Clark, 1909) p325
(36) see eg D H Field, Gambling, in D J Atkinson & D H Field (eds) New Dictionary of Christian Ethics and Pastoral Theology (Leicester, IVP, 1995) p402 and K Tondeur, What Price the Lottery (Crowborough, Monarch, 1996) p137
(37) Tertullian, De Spectaculis, xvi. See eg Tertullian, Apology and De Spectaculis, trans T R Glover and Minucius Felix, Octavius, trans G H Rendall (London, Heinemann, 1984) p273
(38) ibid, p272f (De Spectaculis, xvi)
(39) ibid, p231 (De Spectaculis, i)
(40) op cit, p163
(41) op cit, p2
(42) see Ewen, op cit, pp29 & 32
(43) Ewen, op cit, p25
(44) Ewen, op cit, p32
(45) idem
(46) Ewen, op cit, pp199ff
(47) Ashton, op cit, p51
(48) idem
(49) J Pollock, Wilberforce (Oxford, Lion,1986) p212
(50) Ashton, op cit, p156
(51) 2nd Report from the Committee on Laws relating to Lotteries, 1808, p10
(52) Ashton, op cit, p216
(53) Ashton, op cit, p221
(54) Ashton, op cit, p265-7
(55) Jubilee Policy Group, All in a Good Cause? The Case Against a National Lottery (Cambridge, Jubilee Centre, 1993) p3
(56) see copy of proclamation in News Digest (Newcastle, The Christian Institute) No.3, 1994
(57) paragraph 457
(58) R Cummins and R Whelan, Making a Lottery of Good Causes, (London, IEA Health and Welfare Unit, 1995) p2
(59) paragraph 380
(60) Ashton, op cit, p127
(61) paragraph 13.59
(62) March 1992
(63) see Ewen, op cit, p25
(64) Ashton, op cit, p89
(65) Ewen, op cit, p27. He pocketed a third of all takings. The present government levy is 12%, see Table 6.
(66) Ewen, op cit, p32
(67) Ewen, op cit, p108
(68) Ashton, op cit, p50
(69) Ashton, op cit, p157ff
(70) Ashton, op cit, p73
(71) Ashton, op cit, p89
(72) Jubilee Policy Group, op cit, p4
(73) idem
(74) Ewen, op cit, p29
(75) Ashton, op cit, p28
(76) Ewen, op cit, p89ff
(77) Ewen, op cit, p145ff
(78) Ashton, op cit, p69
(79) The article Lottery in The Compact Encyclopaedia (London, Gresham, ) Vol IV, p240 makes the point that lotteries held by art-unions after the abolition of 1826 were 'permitted from their supposed good effects in encouraging art.'
(80) Ewen, op cit, p354
(81) Cummins and Whelan, op cit, p6
(82) idem
(83) Ewen, op cit, p8
(84) Cummins and Whelan, op cit, p9
(85) op cit, p20. cf the Jubilee Policy Group, op cit, p5
(86) Fitzherbert et al, op cit, p14
(87) eg Boris Johnson, op cit
(88) The Times, 12 June 1996
(89) idem
(90) op cit, p16
(91) Cummins and Whelan, op cit, p6
(92) Fitzherbert et al, op cit, p8
(93) Tondeur, op cit, p29
(94) Cummins and Whelan, op cit, p21. The information is from D Sawers, Should the Taxpayer Support the Arts? (London, IEA, 1993) p35
(95) Ewen, op cit, p8
(96) op cit
(97) op cit, p117
(98) Tondeur, op cit, p29
(99) Fitzherbert et al, op cit, p292
(100) Fitzherbert et al. op cit, p296
(101) Fitzherbert et al. op cit, p292
(102) Tondeur, op cit, p100f
(103) Fitzherbert et al, op cit, p292
(104) Journal of Gambling Studies, Vol 6. p383
(105) quoted by Tondeur, op cit, p96
(106) Fitzherbert et al, op cit, p293
(107) quoted in Tondeur, op cit, p47
(108) quoted in the Radio Times, 17-23 February 1996, p12
(109) op cit, p21f. The source is an article by B Johnson, How to Fritter £400 million, in The Daily Telegraph, 27 April 1995
(110) op cit, 17f
(111) Calvin Tract Society's mid 19th century edition, p285
(112) Matthew 5.13-16
(113) Colossians 3.5
(114) op cit, Vol 41, pp241ff especially p263 (2a2ae118.8)
(115) Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics (Oxford, OUP, 1980) iv.1, p84
(116) D Downes, B Davies, M David & P Stone, Gambling, Work and Leisure (London, Routledge & Keegan Paul, 1976) p24-26
(117) Paton, op cit, p163ff
(118) see eg Romans 8.13
(119) Paton, op cit, p163ff
(120) Jeremiah 17.9
(121) Ecclesiastes 9.3
(122) D H Field, Gambling, in D J Atkinson & D H Field (eds) New Dictionary of Christian Ethics and Pastoral Theology (Leicester, IVP, 1995) p402. See Aquinas, op cit, Vol 34, p263 (2a2ae32.7)
(123) Report of the Social and Industrial Commission of the Church Assembly, Gambling: An Ethical Discussion (London, Church Information Board, 1950) p7
(124) W Temple, Essays in Christian Politics and Kindred Subjects (London, 1927)
(125) Gambling, in F Cross & E Livingstone (eds), Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (London, OUP, 1974) p
(126) This appears to be the view of the National Heritage Secretary
(127) Paton, op cit, mentions this argument
(128) Ewen, op cit, p357
(129) E Hartland, Games, in J Hastings (ed) Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics (Edinburgh, T & T Clark, 1913) Vol 6 p171
(130) op cit, p163ff
(131) The Newcastle Chronicle, 9 February 1931. Quoted by Ewen, op cit, p366
(132) The Observer, 12 April 1931. Quoted by Ewen, op cit, p366
(133) Matthew 6.19f
(134) Sermons by Hugh Latimer, (Cambridge, The Parker Society, 1844) pp3-24
(135) quoted in D H Field, op cit, p402
(136) James 1.27
(137) op cit
(138) idem
(139) Tondeur, op cit, p89
(140) The term 'brother' is used here, and elsewhere, in the biblical sense. It is an epicene word used in its generic sense and is therefore gender inclusive, ie it refers to both men and women.
(141) quoted in Paton, op cit, p165
(142) The Sunday Times, 3 May 1931
(143) R Thomas, The Missing Link, in The Geographical Magazine, London, May 1996, p52
(144) op cit, p18
(145) op cit, p14
(146) op cit, p24f
(147) Tondeur, op cit, pp146-159. Recommendations 8 & 9 are incorrectly numbered 9 & 10 on p157.
(148) op cit, p160
(149) op cit.
Top

Appendix

How the Lotteries Compare:

Table 1: World's Largest

Source: Terri La Fleur (June 1996)

Table 2: World's Most Efficient

Source: Terri La Fleur (June 1996)

Table 3: Highest Contributors