THE FRIENDS AND BETTING.
[To DID Berzon 07 TRH "STEC-MORI Six,—You take such a wise and judicious course in dealing with the attempt to force Home Rule on Ireland and with the matter of the "betting" in, as it is called, the "Cocoa Press," that I enclose the Friend of the 29th ult, and the 5th inst. containing reports of the Society of Friends' Yearly Meeting 'in London, when there were discusteus on these subjects, to which I trust you may be able to refer in your columns. Miss Gertrude Pica's letter in the Friend of the 5th inst. is so 'explicit that I hope you. may find space for it.
In explanation of the reference on p. 379 of the issue of the 29th ult, to the Dublin Epistle, I may say that at the Yearly Meeting of "Friends" in Ireland held in Dublin several weeks ago, in its epistle to the Yearly Meeting in London there was a paragraph expressing regret that the " Cocoa Press," owned by members of the Society of Friends, continued to publish inducements to betting.
I am greatly pleased with the letter from Mr. William Bellows (one of the too few Unionist Friends in England) in your issue of the 23rd tilt., commenting on the deplorable fact that the majority of members of our Society of Friends in England are such determined supporters of the present Govern- ment that they seem to set conscience and peace principles on one side, and will not do or say the least thing to prevent what "An Irish Friend" (Spectator, April 11th) believes may be so near—viz., civil war, with all its awful consequences. If it did not affect their polities they would long ere this have bestirred themselves against it. No wonder Lord Ebury wrote the pungent and excellent letter you inserted on the 30th ult. The message of sympathy from London Yearly Meeting to Irish Friends is more of an empty compliment than would have been the case if that Meeting, or many of its leading members, had used their undoubted influence in earnestly endeavouring to avert Home Rule and the dreadful conse- quences which, from experience of Ireland, we are convinced
will result from it.—I am, Sir, dux, Z.
The letter from Miss Gertrude Pita referred to above ia as follows
:-
"NEWSPAPERS AND SETTING.
To the Editor of the Friend.
Dieu FarinvD,—The sitting of Yearly Meeting devoted to the question of betting, held on May 27th at Devonshire House, left me and many of my friends with a feeling of grave dissatisfaction. I have been asked by some of them to write this letter.
It is no doubt easy for us in Ireland to look at the subject calmly. We haven° connexion with the newspaper in question. We are not bound by ties of friendship or relationship to its owners. We realize the great difficulties of those who are. No personal consideration, however, should be allowed to enter into this question, which is one of principle. The position, on the one side, of denouncing gambling as a great national evil, and on the other hand of running the Star, the best authority on betting, is perfectly untenable. The Star is not only the best authority on betting, but the paper that, through its valuable tips, incites to betting. I venture to say that were the whole subject put to a room full of ordinary business men, who do not profess the high standard that Friends profess, they would not have found it possible to excuse the position that so many Friends took at Yearly Meeting, the position that it is admissible to do evil that good may come. I do not believe that if a leading member of the Church of England who had always stood for teetotalism bought a par- ticularly attractive public-house in which people were pressed to drink, and in order that he might promulgate views which he hoped would help them morally, I do not believe that such a man would have any sympathy from Friends. Yet, this is a parallel Case.
All through the meeting the Committee upheld the principle that, as none of us is perfectly consistent in' every detail of our lives, we should not blame others, which is much as to say that we cannot uphold any definite standard of right or wrong. It was also stated that however wrong the action may have been, and still is, it is impossible now to do otherwise, which is not the stand our fathers would have taken. .
The question is a vital one for us. It is a question of morality. It me a question of our standing for the right, and it is a question of our influence for good both inside and outside the Society. From the tone of the meeting I gathered that Friends do not realize how much harm our uncertain position hi doing to our Society. No one outside it can understand the point of view. _ I have not heard anything uncharitable said, but many wish that Friends could rise above personal feeling, and that a very clear pronouncement could be made, which would tell the world that the Society of Friends, as a religious body, absolutely dis- sociate themselves from the action of certain Friends and from any connexion with gambling in any form. The question has become a public one, and I think until we have publicly made our views known we should drop the_ phrase, 'Our Message to
Previous page
