* * * * The Times of Wednesday published a
letter from Dr. Edward Lyttelton about the proposed taxation of betting which was•a model of brief and logical argument. He pointed out that the indictment of the proposal was based on two assumptions : (1) that betting was sinful and (2) that to tax betting would be either to encourage or condone it. As regards (1) Dr. Lyttelton said that no one had ever pretended:that betting was in essence sinful, though in its applications it might well be so. For example, if two men ended an argument by backing their respective opinions to the extent of 1s. nobody would pretend that a sin was committed. Thus there is a clear distinction between a thing which is sinful through all its stages because it is in essence sinful and a thing which is sinful only according to its results. Dr. Lyttelton next showed that there was and could be no evidence for saying that the State would be encouraging a wrong thing " by diminishing the money profits from its practice." "The notion," he added, " seems non- sensical." Rather the State encourages betting by refraining from taxing it. Dr. Lyttelton's opinion is important, as for twenty years he was Chairman of the Anti-Gambling League.
• * *
Previous page
