a cotton-mill bet regularly, not merely on their own local races, but upon the innumerable races which take place in all parts of the country. Many of them have never been to a race-course in their life, and probably would be utterly unable to tell the difference between Ladas and a smart horse in a London hansom. Betting is no longer an affair of two or three important races, nor is there much betting on futures. The infinite rascality which has been practised at races has at last led the betting community to fight shy of future events. Hence the betting now is almost entirely done from day to day, not according to the deliberate judgment of the individual who fancies a horse, but according to what is known as the starting prices. This, although much fairer than the old system, leaving less margin for scratching and dodging and swindling in every direction, is absolutely indistinguishable from the gambling which goes on at Monte Carlo.

THE CREATION OF THE PRESS.

The

Betting to-day is the creation not so much of the race-course as of the newspapers. system is worked as follows. In a morning racing paper the prophet predicts that certain horses will win certain races. To the puddler, the ship builder, the grocer and clerk these horses are exactly what the red and black in the roulette table are to the habitués of a gaming house. They may receive a hint to back red thrice running, or to back black and red alternately, and they do it exactly on the same principle and in the same way as the man who backs a horse. Half a dozen races are to be run to-day. The prophet of my newspaper names for these races half a dozen winners. A workman at the next bench takes in another paper whose prophet names half-a-dozen different horses for the same races. I swear by my paper and its prophet, and my friend by his and his prophet. We each agree to put something -whether it is a shilling or half-a-crown or a pound depends upon the state of our exchequers

horses named by our prophets. If none of my horses have won I hand over the six shillings to my neighbour, and if he has been equally unfortunate he does the same to me, and the balance is even. No one has lost, there is only the shilling which we staked which is sacrificed. But supposing that one of my horses

has carried off a prize. Instantly reference is made to the quotation of the starting-price that always follows the announcement of the result of a race. The winner started, let us say, at ten to one. As I have won, my comrade must pay me ten shillings, which at ten to one is the extent of my gains, according to the starting-price. So it goes on from day to day all through the racing season, which is almost equivalent to all the year round. It is obvious that this is the roulette table over again. It is gaming pure and simple. The man who bets stakes his 'shilling exactly as the people at Monte Carlo stake their five-franc piece, and he receives his winnings according to a fixed system with which he has nothing to do. The startingprice represents the amount of gains which the croupier shuffles over to you at the green table.

AND THE POST OFFICE. From this brief statement as to betting as it goes on to-day, the one factor in the situation which has changed everything and practically universalised gambling is the newspaper, aided, no doubt, by the telegraph department of the Post Office. If we could imagine that the newspapers did not appear, and that all betting telegrams were intercepted en route, ninety-nine out of the hundred bets now made would not be made. Ninety-nine out of the hundred bets made today are directly due to the newspaper press and the telegraph department of the Post Office. They have not created the gambling instinct, but they have pandered to it, and done everything that the wit of man could devise in order to facilitate its exercise. The newspapers have become the effective machinery by which the whole system is carried on. Every newspaper proprietor, with one or two honourable exceptions, is in the position of the man who touts for Monte Carlo; and the telegraph operators and the whole brigade of sporting reporters are, morally speaking, on exactly the same level as the croupiers and other employés in M. Blanc's establishment.

and the recklessness of our plunging-upon the horses selected by our favourite tipsters. We do not care anything for the odds, not caring in many cases to look at the quotations in the betting list. We put the money on the horses named in our various newspapers and await the result. As soon as we leave work we rush to a newsboy and learn the result of our gamble. Supposing that we have each put a shilling on each of the half-dozen

JOURNALIST-TIPSTER.

If this be so, does it not seem obvious that the first stage in the crusade against gambling is to see whether or not the newspapers cannot be induced to desist from the publication of predictions as to the probable winner, and of the betting before the race, as well as the starting prices after the event? If this were done, betting would not be extirpated, but it would be diminished, and the constant and daily incentive to pernicious Ivice would be removed. There are several newspapers in the country which refuse to publish

the Leeds Mercury and the Daily Chronicle-who have never counted sporting men among their subscribers, and which circulate for the most part among respectable people who take life seriously and who are really anxious to promote the elevation of the mass. The Leeds Mercury

prophecies, but there are still honourable journalists who do not consider that they are rascals because they keep a tipster, but they are rascals all the same, although they may not know it. In fact, the Spectator roundly declares that journalist is synonymous with tipster.

THE SUPPRESSION OF THE PROPHETS.

As they seem to fail to see their rascality it might be well to see if it would be possible by means of the law to make them aware of that fact. The law at the If an present moment is strangely inconsistent. astronomer should cast a horoscope for a customer he is liable to be arrested by a policeman and clapped into jail as a rogue and a vagabond. But a respectable newspaper editor and a wealthy newspaper proprietor who engage a man to prophesy the winners of future events, which are only useful in so far as they promote gambling, to these men the law has nothing to say. In what precise manner the law should be altered in order to deal with the tipster, I do not at present venture to say. If we went on the line of prosecutions for indecent literature, it might equally be left to the jury to decide whether or not in any particular case the prophecy was part and parcel of the machinery of gambling. If it were, the person responsible for its production should be held liable, and due pains and penalties inflicted.

THE PUBLICATION OF THE ODDS.

The publication of odds before the event could be prohibited without difficulty. A bill has already been drafted which if passed would attain that result. It has secured the support of many members by no means remarkable for the fanaticism of their puritanism. Mr. Labouchere, for instance, is by no means a typical puritan, but he is as much in favour of suppressing the odds as Mr. John Hawke himself. Unfortunately this, which is the easiest of all methods to cope with the evil, has the disadvantage of being the least effectual. The great mass of betting to-day is done without reference to the quotation of odds for future events, it is done by starting prices and starting prices alone. Still the prohibition of the publication of such odds tends in the right direction, inasmuch as it would give a national expression that betting was a vice which the legislature and all who desired the welfare of the community should endeavour to repress. It is of course difficult for any newspaper to take the lead in this matter. All must do it if any do it, otherwise the only result of independent action of any single newspaper is to transfer a certain number of that newspaper's readers to its less scrupulous rivals. Here and there are newspapers of sufficiently high character-such as

long ago set an honourable example in this respect, and I am waiting to sce an equally honourable initiative taken in the London Press by the Daily Chronicle. Such an example will do more to reinforce the public sentiment in favour of making the rule universal than anything else that could be suggested.

STARTING PRICES.

That

If this fails there remains the next step, which is the prohibition of the publication of starting prices. Here we are on more difficult ground. The publication of the result of a race is a record of what is past, and it is argued by some that the starting prices are merely the final judgment of the best informed people as to the merits of the horses which compete in the race. may be so, but if it can be proved that the publication of such scientific information tends to establish a public gaming-house in every place where the paper reaches, there are many who would not hesitate to prohibit the publication of starting prices. It is possible, however, that it may be got at in another way. Wherever betting is carried on by professional bookmakers that "place" is an "illegal place" under the Betting House Act. The law as it stands at present, according to the recent decision obtained by the Anti-Gambling League, leaves no doubt upon that score, and when any starting price is recorded, that starting price is almost always an evidence that the law against betting has been violated.

THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE POST OFFICE. The question to be decided is therefore whether the Post Office Telegraph department is justified in despatching the starting prices, betting news, or anything which implies that betting has taken place publicly. When a telegram is handed in at the post office which on the face of it justifies the clerk in believing that it affords evidence of the commission of a misdemeanour, and is directly intended to facilitate the commission of similar offences elsewhere, the welfare of the community, which at present forbids the sending of obscene or profane words across the wires, would justify the refusal to transmit such telegrams to any other destination than the nearest police station. The American Government killed the Louisiana lottery by refusing to carry its circulars by post, and the British Post Office might go one better. We shall be told that the only result of such an interdict would be that telegrams would be despatched in cipher, and hence it is possible that the best method of proceeding against this curse of starting prices would be to vigorously follow up the line of attack which has already been begun by the Anti-Gambling League.

A SHORT WAY WITH BETTING.

The case of Bond v. Plumb, which was decided last December in the Queen's Bench Division, laid down the law in this matter which shows that we do not need new legislation so much as the vigorous enforcement of the present laws to cut up betting root and branch. This decision was to the effect that the Act of 1853

the Betting House Act-recognised two offences, and that both credit betting and ready money betting in illegal places are illegal, and that both the owner of such an illegal place and the doer are liable to be proceeded against under the Betting House Act. This is not new law, for the decision follows Sir James Fitzjames Stephen's digest, which gives an analysis of the first section of the Act in terms which leave no doubt on the subject.

What, then, is the natural and inevitable consequence? Simply this, that the Anti-Gambling League has ready to hand a sharp legal axe by which it may cut off the head of this evil by one quick blow. If every enclosure where professional bookmakers ply their trade is a betting house or place under the Act of 1853, and if, as the law declares, every such betting house is a common gaming house as defined by the 2nd section of 8 and 9 Victoria, then every opener, owner, occupier, manager, and user thereof concerned in any such enclosure can be convicted of a misdemeanour under the Act. Racing in England is absolutely at our mercy, and if the Jockey Club will not help us to clear out this Augean stable, and to suppress the gaming hell of modern England, we shall have to bring matters to a head by prosecuting the Stewards of the Jockey Club for their complicity in the betting that goes on publicly at Newmarket.

Now if this be the case, and it is a fact that notwithstanding the urgent entreaties of the sporting papers the appeal in the case of the Northampton bookmaker was not prosecuted, although notice of appeal was given, it would appear that the authorities have in their hands a weapon which indeed any private citizen can use against any racecourse on which betting takes place. But one blow well delivered at the Stewards of the Jockey Club might bring the whole system to the ground. Now it is well to have a giant's strength, but it may be tyrannous to use it as a giant. The Northampton decision, following in the decision of Bond v. Plumb in the Queen's Bench Division, shows that the anti-gamblers have this weapon well in hand, and are thoroughly determined to use it.

A PRECEDENT FOR THE PRESS.

Now let us see how this applies to the newspapers. By the Betting House Act of 1853, any person exhibiting a placard, or publishing or advertising any card, writing or sign, or inviting persons to resort to a betting house, may be fined £30 and costs or two months' imprisonment. Now as it has been judicially declared that a betting ring on a racecourse is a house or office which, under the

Betting House Act, is a common nuisance and a common gaming house, it follows that the advertisement of such a place renders the newspaper inserting such an advertisement liable to fine or imprisonment. Even if this were not sufficient to deal with the mischief, it affords us an indication of the readiness of the British legislature to punish publications which tend to advertise or facilitate gaming. That clause judiciously extended so as to meet the circumstances would make short work of starting prices, betting tipsters, and the publication of odds. THE PREMIER'S OPPORTUNITY.

I would appeal to Lord Rosebery under these circumstances, not merely as the Prime Minister of England, but as the winner of the Derby, and as a man who has close

personal knowledge and a predominant influence both on

the turf and in Parliament, to devote his serious attention to this subject. If he does nothing the law may take its course, and we may see the whole racing fraternity threatened with outlawry. To this I should have very small objection, provided that I believed in the long run public opinion would support so drastic a measure of dealing with the subject. But that is not my opinion. Safely and slow, they stumble who run fast, is the safest maxim in such circumstances as the present. It would be much better to get half a loaf and keep it than to snatch the whole, with the probability of having it knocked out of our clutches before we had had a chance to eat a crust. Lord George Bentinck prided himself more upon what he was able to do in reforming the turf than upon all his achievements in the House of Commons. I do not suppose that Lord Rosebery would take a similar view of the importance of racing and legislation, but assuredly at the present moment he lies under a peculiar obligation to see to it that some practical modus vivendi is arrived at whereby racing can be carried on decently and legally, while closing the great national gambling hell which is practically conducted by the British press with the active assistance of the Government telegraphs.

If the victory of Ladas should be the means of compelling its noble owner to realise the responsibility of his position and to deal with this question with a firm hand and a determination to cope with the British gaming hell with the same spirit with which his predecessors dealt with the lotteries and the gaming houses, then indeed will Ladas deserve to be regarded as St. Ladas in another than a turfite sense, and all Christian men and good citizens will have good reason to rejoice that Ladas carried off the Derby Stakes this year at Epsom.

LORD ROSEBERY AND THE TURF.

WITH REFLECTIONS ON BETTING.

MR. DALE, son of Dr. R. W. Dale, of Birmingham, who writes the monthly summary for the Sunday Magazine, thus comments upon the connection of Lord Rosebery with the turf:

The Prime Minister's victory in the Derby, though welcomed with enthusiasm by the crowd, seems to us a matter for serious regret. Every one who knows the actual condition of the people is aware that at the present moment betting is doing almost as much harm as drink. It produces a vast mass of crime. It drags down thousands of victims into utter misery and ruin. The turf, like those who live by it, is notoriously corrupt. Lord Rosebery is not supposed to bet himself. He would disdain any association with the sordid wretches who prey upon the folly and the credulity of their fellow-creatures. But he has to

take the system as it exists. He is under no illusion and knows that he is powerless to mend it. How can he fail to see that his name and his influence aggravate the evil? They invest what is disreputable with the semblance of honour. They serve to cloak and to mask the evil. He is the first Prime Minister to win the Derby: we trust that he may be the last.

away at a moment's notice-for example, on a death in his family. He holds so lightly to property that he is next door to having none. Yet of all gamblers he is the most desperate. In truth, men do not so much want to amass gain, by gambling, as to enjoy the exciting fluctuations of luck. If property were abolished to-morrow, I believe that men would invent a shell currency, like the Papuans, and gamble for that.

Geoffrey Mortimer, writing in the Free Review upon the betting craze, says:

An anti-betting organisation proposes to bring about a radical reform by legally arraigning the promoters and stewards of one of our great race meetings. This is a method of whole-measures-or-none, which permits no temporising with the British veneration for the race-horse. For horse-racing is one of our orthodoxies, and the oligarchy of the turf is an ancient and powerful institution. It is probable that a total

In Longman's

Magazine

Andrew

Mr. From Moonshine.] Lang

refers to the sub

ject of gambling

in alluding to George Moore's "Esther Waters." Mr. Lang says:

The extreme prevalence of that sordid folly proves two things. First, the poor very naturally want to escape from strikes, labour, and weariness into a paradise of hope. Gambling offers them "the key of the happy golden land," and sends the gleam of romance flitting before them, the rainbow with the buried treasure at its feet. Therefore the poor bet, and with infinitely more excuse than the rich. The habit is morally and financially ruinous, but if the world is to be cured of betting it will not be by the most powerful tracts, sermons, or moral novels appealing to the sentiments. People can only be mended by reason when instructed that the odds against a success worth winning are mathematically incalculable. This plain fact will convince the reasonable, but, unluckily, the reasonable are a very small minority, and perhaps are convinced already. The opium-eater knows the end of opiumeating, and the sporting footman, if he reflects, knows the end of backing horses; but the magical gleam is too much for them, is too much for all of us, for every mortal thinks that he himself is the exception to the general rules. The Socialist may say that property, among other evils, causes gambling. Men hope to increase their possessions, so they bet. But the Red Indian is a practical Communist: he gives all he has

[June 23, 1894.

suppression of betting would mean the ruin of horse-racing. am not prepared to

I

say offhand that this would be a grievous national calamity. But there are tens of thousands of Englishmen who would feel the solid earth heaving beneath them if it were seriously suggested that all betting on horses should be proscribed by law. We associate low trickery, brazen dishonesty, and ruffianism with the sport of racing; but it is well to remember that the Crown, the Church, the Army, the Navy,

all the potent respectabilities of the community, support the turf. The enthusiasm for racing, and staking chances on "events," descend through every grade from Marlborough House to the slums. In fact, racing is an integrant of our constitution; and the man who attacks it will not escape a charge of sedition.

The National Review says:

Whatever his shortcomings may be in other respects, Lord Rosebery has achieved the unprecedented and imperishable distinction of combining the Premiership with the Blue Ribbon of the Turf, both of which have fallen to him in the same year. Much political capital was anticipated from Ladas's triumph, and the Ministerialists were highly elated on learning the news, while the Opposition were proportionately depressed. It has certainly familiarised a large number of non-politicians with Lord Rosebery's name, and has greatly added to his reputation for good luck, which already stood high; he is more loudly cheered in the music-halls than he was a month ago, and the "man in the street" looks upon him with a friendly eye, as he does on every one associated with sport. On the other hand, the impression created by the Prime Minister's jocular speeches that he is a frivolous man has been deepened by his widely advertised association with the turf, and there has been a growl of deep resentment

from a section of the Nonconformists. This correspondence reveals in many letters the deep-rooted English Puritan feeling to which the Radical Party owes much of its prosperity, with its uncompromising and not altogether unwholesome detestation of the racing atmosphere. It is difficult, therefore, to say whether Lord Rosebery will gain or lose in political strength by the possession of Ladas; he will probably be more shouted for, but not more voted for. There is an outside chance of his losing some of the most zealous and fanatical supporters of his Party, but having made their protest, they will probably convince themselves that the Carnival of Rascality" on Epsom Downs is less wicked than the Established Church. Enthusiastic Gladstonians claim that Ladas is worth 100,000 votes to the Party, while equally sanguine Unionists expect to destroy the Premier's influence in Scotland.

THE UPPER CHAMBERS OF THE WORLD.

A WRITER in the Westminster Review on the position of the House of Lords gives the following valuable summary of the constitutions of the Upper Chambers of other States:

INDEPENDENT NATIONS.

The United States.-Senate: 2 senators for each State, elected by the State Legislatures for six years.

France. Senate: 300 members, elected for nine years, from citizens of at least forty years of age, one-third of them retiring every three years. The electoral body is composed of (1) delegates chosen by the Municipal Council of each commune; and (2) the Deputies, etc., of each Department. Life senatorsjwere gradually abolished by an Act passed in 1884.

Germany.-Bundesrath: 58 members appointed by the governments of the individual States for each session.

Belgium.-Senate: the constitution is being revised at the present time. The Senate, in the past, has been elected by the same voters as the House of Representatives, the number of senators (69) being one-half of that of the members of the Lower House. The members of the Senate have been elected for eight years, one-half of them retiring every four years.

Italy.-Senate, consisting of princes of royal blood, and an unlimited number of members appointed by the king for life, a condition of nomination being the holding of high State offices, eminence in science, etc., or the payment of 3000 lire ($600) in taxes. In 1890 there were 335 senators.

Spain. Senate: three classes of senators: (1) king's sons over twenty-one years of age; "grandees" having an income of 60,000 pesetas ($12,000); captains, generals, admirals, etc.; (2) about 100 senators nominated by the Crown, not to exceed 180, when included with the first class; (3) 180 senators, elected by the States, the Church, the Universities, and learned bodies for five years.

Portugal.-House of Peers: an Act of 1885 abolished the hereditary House by a gradual process, and substituted 100 life peers, appointed by the king, not including princes of royal blood, and 12 bishops. There are also 50 elective peers, 45 of whom are chosen indirectly by the administrative districts and five by various scientific bodies.

Netherlands.-First Chamber: 50 members elected by the Provincial States from among the most highly assessed inhabitants, or from high functionaries. They are elected for nine years, one-third of them retiring every three years.

Greece. No Upper Chamber. The only Chamber is the Boulé of 150 menibers, elected for four years.

Austro-Hungary.-The connecting link between the two portions of this empire is constituted by a body known as "the Delegations." This consists of a Parliament of 120 members, one-half chosen by the legislature of Germanic-Austria, twothirds of the members being elected by the Lower House, and one-third by the Upper House, the other half, similarly elected, representing Hungary. The Acts of "the Delegations" require confirmation by the representative assemblies of their respective countries. The delegates are chosen for one year. Denmark.-Landsthing: 66 members, 12 nominated by the Crown for life, and 54 elected by indirect universal suffrage for eight years.

Sweden. First House: 147 members elected by the provinces and municipalities for nine years.

Switzerland.-Ständerath: 44 members nominated by the Cantons, 2 for each Canton, for three years. The terms of nomination rest with each Canton.

BRITISH SELF-GOVERNING COLONIES.

Canada. Senate: the senators are appointed by the Governor-General, in the name of the Crown, for life, but they may resign, and seek election to the Lower House. At present there are about 80 senators.

New South Wales.--Legislative Council: not less than 21 members appointed for life by the Governor, as representative of the Crown. There are now over 70 members of the Council. Victoria.-Legislative Council: 48 members elected by the 14 provinces for six years, one-third of them retiring every two years. There is a small property qualification for electors.

New Zealand.-Legislative Council: 47 members nominated by the Crown for life. (There are two Maories in the Upper House.)

Queensland.-Legislative Council: 39 members nominated by the Crown for life.

six years.

South Australia.-Legislative Council: 24 members. Every three years the 8 members whose names are first on the roll retire, and their places are taken by 2 new members elected from each of the four districts into which the colony is divided. There is a small property qualification for electors. Tasmania.-Legislative Council; 18 members elected for A small property qualification is necessary to become an elector. Western Australia-Legislative Council: this colony was granted a responsible government by an Act of the Imperial Parliament passed in 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 26). Although the Council is at present named by the Governor, for the Crown, provision is made in the constitution for the members of it to be eventually elected.

Cape Colony.-Legislative Council: 22 members elected for seven years. The election is by such voters as receive £25 a year wages with board and lodging, or possess a real property qualification, or a salary of £50 per annum.

From the above abstract it is seen (1) That two Chambers are the rule. (2) That no nation, except Great Britain, any longer possesses a purely hereditary House.

Mr. Kidd's Criticism of "The Ascent of Man."

THE author of "Social Evolution" reviews Professor Henry Drummond's latest work in the Expositor. He recognises about it "a ring of greatness," but finds that, "although the book deals with scientific questions, its subject is not so much science as the poetry of science. It represents the soaring flights of a young and vigorous school of thought, which often rises into regions where the captive wing of science can almost certainly never hope to follow." "Much of what is characteristic" in the opening chapters, "and also to some extent in tho book as a whole, will be familiar to those who have read Fiske's 'Destiny of Man."" In his "glorification of the intellect at the expense of the body, Professor Drummond appears to be on rather doubtful ground." The chapter on "the Dawn of Mind" is "probably one of the least satisfactory in the book." He has confused throughout .... the facts connected with two totally distinct developments in life-namely, the parental development and the co-operative or social development." He is "not satisfactory in his treatment of sex." "The struggle for the life of others is not, as he seems at times to think, something apart and to which the struggle for life finally leads up... The struggle for the life of others is only a phase of the eternal rivalry of life." Mr. Kidd will not allow Dr. Drummond's contention that his basing social evolution on "ultra-rational" grounds puts the law of continuity to confusion.