Volume Ii Part 10 (2/2)

They exercise the qualities of judgment, calculation, and presence of mind, as well as furnish entertainment. It is only when serious stakes are played for that mischief and ruin begin.

But the seduction of card gambling--once widely irresistible--is now largely limited by the growing custom of playing only for small stakes.

Family playing or club playing, professedly for money, is held to be disreputable. Formerly, drinking which proceeded to the verge of intoxication, or went beyond it, was thought ”manly.” Now, where the effects are seen in the face, or in business, it is counted ruinous to social or professional reputation. Drinking is far more difficult of mitigation than betting, because the temptations to it occur much oftener. The capricious habit of going in search of luck can be restrained by common sense. Temperance in betting would be easier to effect were it not for the intemperate doctrine of total abstainers. By defaming moderation they rob the holy name of temperance of its charm, its strength and its trust. By teaching that ”moderation is an inclined plane, polished as marble, and slippery as gla.s.s, on which whoever sets his foot, slips down into perdition,” they destroy moderation by making it a terror. It brings it into contempt and distrust, and undermines self-confidence and self-respect. Yet it is by moderation that we live.

Moderation in eating is an absolute condition of health--as the Indian proverb puts it: ”Disease enters by the mouth.” A man who disregards moderation in work, or in pleasure, or diet, seldom lives out half his days. He who has no moderation in judgment, in belief, in opinion, in politics, or piety, is futile in counsel, and dangerous in his example.

If the disparagement of self-control has not destroyed the capacity and confidence of moderation in the public heart, temperance in betting is surely possible.

Occasionally a minister of religion will ask me what I have to say about betting. I answer, ”It is difficult to extinguish it, but possible to mitigate it.” I give an instance from my own experience.

Years ago when I was editing the _Reasoner_, Dr. Shorthouse contributed a series of instructive papers on the physiology of racing horses.

Out of courtesy to him I took a ticket in a sweepstake in which he was concerned, but in which I felt no interest. Months after, I saw that the owner of the prize was unknown. My brother, knowing I had a ticket, found it among my papers, and I received 50. I invested the amount, intending to use the interest in some future speculation, if I made any, which was not in my way. To that 50 there is added now more than 50 of acc.u.mulated interest, with which I might operate if so inclined. Were I in the crusade against betting I should say, ”Form societies for Temperance in Betting, of which the rules shall be--

'”1.--No member may make any bet unless he is able, having regard to his social obligations, to lose the sum he risks, and is willing to lose it, if he fails to win.

'”2.--When he does win anything, he shall invest it, and bet with the interest, and every time he wins, shall add the amount to the original investment, which would give him a larger sum for future recreation in that way.”'”

There is a Church of England Temperance Society which has the courage to believe in moderation, and which makes it a rule of honour to keep clear of all excess. Thousands in every walk of life have been saved to society under this sensible encouragement, and where an occasional act of excess would have been counted venial, it is regarded as revolting as an act of indecency.

I have known men in the betting ring who made up their mind that when they acquired a certain sum they would retire, nor step again in the treacherous paths of hazard--and they kept their resolution. But very few are able to do this, having no trained will.

I am against extremes in social conduct, save where reason shows it to be a necessity. If Betting Limited was approved by the public, betting at hazard would become as socially infamous as petty larceny. In the dearth of suggestions for the mitigation of an evil as serious as that of drunkenness, I pray forgiveness for that I have made.

Previous to 1868, I a.s.sisted in establis.h.i.+ng the _Scottish Advertiser_ conducted by Walter Parlane. It bore the following motto, which I wrote for it:

”Whatever trade Parliament licenses, it recognises--and so long as such trade is a source of public revenue, it is ent.i.tled to public protection.”

I still agree with the sentiment expressed. All I meant was a reasonable protection of the interest which the law had conceded to the trade.

The predatory impudence of the monopoly privileges the trade has since extorted against the public interests was in no man's mind then. No one intended that the concession of just protection should be construed into extortion. As respects compensation, the temperate party refused it. I was not of their opinion. I agreed with them that the publicans had no logical claim for compensation, but I would have conceded it as the lesser of two evils, just as it was better to free the West Indian slaves by purchase than to continue their lawful subjection. If to maintain in full force the legalised machinery of drunkenness be only half as dreadful in its consequences as temperance advocates truly represent, it would be cheaper as well as more humane to limit it by graduated compensation.

CHAPTER x.x.xVIII. PENAL CHRISTIANITY

Predatory Christianity would not be far from the mark. Christianity is of the nature of a penal settlement where independent-minded persons are made to expiate the sin of thinking for themselves. There can be no real goodwill in any one who is not for justice and equality. No cause can command respect, or can claim a hearing from others which is not based on absolute fairness. Many well-meaning Christians never inquire whether the great cause they have at heart fulfils this condition. In the past this omission has been a lasting cause of alienation from their views.

Between 1850 and 1860 there sat in St. Bride's Vestry, London, a group of Christian churchwardens who twice a year sent agents to seize property from my house in Fleet Street, because I refused to pay t.i.thes.

Yet there are people who tell us without tiring, of the depravity of the French revolutionists and atheists who laid, or proposed to lay hands upon Church property. Yet these Christian officers, acting under the eye of an opulent rector in the wealthiest capital in the world, seized clocks and bales of paper on the premises of heretics, in the name of the Church! Did not this disqualify the Church as ministers of consolation? The greatest consolation is justice. Is it not spiritual effrontery to despoil a man, then invite him to the communion table?

In our day by predatory acts, they confiscate Nonconformist property to maintain Church schools. Can it be that heaven recognised agents engaged in petty larceny? Are they intrusted with the keys of heaven? May the priest be a thief? Can a man expect to be admitted at the Golden Gate with a burglar's pa.s.sport in his hand? There exist penal laws against all who do not stand on the side of faith, which Nonconformists as well as Churchmen connive at, profit by, and maintain. Is not this destructive of their spiritual pretensions? Can they preach of holiness and truth without a blush? No higher criticism can condemn Christianity, as it is self condemned by resting on predatoriness. No person who does not stand on the Christian side can leave property for promoting his views, as a Christian can for promoting his. No Christian conscience is touched at this disadvantage imposed upon the independent thinker. No sermon is preached against it. No Christian pet.i.tion is ever set up against it. Neither the Church conscience nor the Nonconformist conscience is stirred by the existence of this injustice. It would cease if they objected to it. But they do not object to it.

There are prelates, priests, clergymen, and Nonconformist ministers personally to be respected, who in human things I trust. But for their spiritual vocation, is it possible to have respect or trust? To tender consolation with one hand while they keep the other in my pocket is an act never absent from my mind. I belong to a Secular party who seek improvement by material means; but were there any body of Christians upon whom that party imposed legal disadvantages in its own interest, and kept them there by silence or connivance, Parliament would hear from me pretty frequently until the insulting privileges were annulled. Any pretension to having principles worthy of acceptance, or regard, or even respect, would be impertinence in us so long as we were unfair to others.

I caused to be brought into Parliament a Bill in which Sir Philip Manfield took the leading interest, ent.i.tled:--

Civil and Religious Liberty Extension.

<script>