"BETTING NEWSPAPERS AND QUAKERISM."

"But I put betting on quite another basis,' he continued, ' for am faced with the undoubted fact that millions of good Christian people, of whose Christianity there can be no doubt, think it right to fake strong drinks in moderation, but I never heard of an earnest Christian worker who indulged in betting. Therefore under careful restrictions it may be well to supply drink; . . . but I would make no compromise on betting. As you know, I make the exclusion of betting forecasts from its columns a condition of my connexion with the Daily News.' "—(Interview with Mr. George Cadbury, Sunday at Home, February, 1909.) WE most sincerely hope that the following will be our last words on this controversy. Though anxious to spare our readers more discussion of a matter which, no doubt, wearies them as greatly as it wearies us, we felt that we could not, without risk of being misunderstood, refuse to deal with the official defence, and to deal with it at length. That duty is here performed.

We have received a pamphlet entitled "A Reply (addressed to members of the Society of Friends) to a Pamphlet,

by Sir Edward Fry, entitled Betting Newspapers and Quakerism,' a Letter addressed to Members of the Society of Friends." The pamphlet, which bears the date October, 1911, is signed by "The Friends against whom Sir Edward Fry's criticisms have been directed," that is, the members of the Cadbury and Rowntree families concerned with the

Star, the Morning Leader, and the two Northern news- papers, the Northern Echo and the Sheffield Independent. In fact the pamphlet is the long-delayed defence of the anomaly

of Mr. Cadbury's two voices. It tries to explain the

attitude of those whose morning voice, the Daily News, bids us avoid the social and moral evils of betting, and whose evening voice, the Star, assails our ears with furious

incitements to betting, and tells us how we may make our fortunes by following Captain Coe's Finals. The best answer to the cataract of sophistries which the pamphlet contains is to be found in the words which we have placed at the head of this article.

The defence, in effect, comes to this. The Friends criticised by Sir Edward Fry hold that it is essential for the welfare of

the nation that a certain political policy—i.e., the policy of the

political party which they support—shall prevail. They further hold that it cannot prevail without the aid of daily newspapers. Finally they hold that daily newspapers cannot

exist—except, apparently, the Daily News, which is an ex- ception—unless they publish betting news and incitements to

betting in the form of "tips." Therefore we reach this astounding conclusion that what they term in another context " the purposes of God " cannot be made to prevail in the State except through the sporting prophecies of Captain Coe and Old Joe. Captain Coe and Old Joe thus become the very pillars of the moral commonwealth, the helpers and ser- vants of the Highest Good. One may throw all one's heart

and soul into the good cause, but it would all be of no avail if there were not an underground partnership kept up with

Captain Coe. While the Friends are preaching and teaching above, he, the ardent toiler below, is making their work of practical value and giving it strength and substance. That is a conclusion which, one might imagine, would appal " the Friends criticised." Yet it is the conclusion which must be drawn from the line of defence which they have so light- heartedly chosen to adopt.

To put the argument concisely once more : No betting tips, no Liberal papers; no Liberal papers, no triumphant Liberal Party ; no triumphant Liberal Party, no moral

improvement of the nation. It was betting tips also, we are in _effect told, that prevented a bloody and wicked war with our neighbours. They enabled us to possess an anti-militarist Press. In the same way betting tips saved the Commons, kept the Lords from oppressing us, and prevented our Press

from being monopolized by greedy millionaires. There is, indeed, almost no limit to the good works of Captain Coe and Old Joe. They hover over us like ministering angels.

Among other remarkable statements which the pamphlet contains is an account of the wonderful record of the Star in regard to matter s of social morality, a record so good ap- parently that it quite blots out the betting tips even for those who think betting is on quite another basis than drink, and who made "the exclusion of betting forecasts" from the Daily News a condition of having any connexion with that paper. The Star is against opium and for social purity and temper-

ance, was opposed to the South African War, and stands for peace in general. It opposes the policy of the National Service League, helped to expose the Congo horrors, and

protects native races. Curiously enough, however, we are not told what line the Star took about the slavery in the cocoa

plantations. We have never arraigned Mr. George Cadbury over this matter, for we believe his action there, though it required some explanation, was well meant and was inspired

by good motives. At the same time we are bound to say that we are a little shaken in this view by the general arguments of the pamphlet. Its arguments might

just as well be applied to the case of Portuguese slavery. One cannot help an uneasy feeling that if the maintenance of sound Liberal principles appeared to be involved in the

maintenance of slavery in the cocoa plantations it might have gone hard with the slaves. But there is yet another cause which we know from Mr. Cadbury's interview and from other sources that he has specially at heart. We look in vain for any statement that the Star has ever done anything to combat the evils of betting—the matter on which, reinem., her, Mr. George Cadbury " would make no compromise."

At first this seems a strange situation; but a moment's reflec. tion will show that the Star could clearly give no support to a campaign against betting. Mr. Cadbury and the mem- bers of the Rowntree family concerned may speak with two voices in betting and anti-betting papers, but the Star itself could not publish betting tips on one page and a demand

for the abolition of such tips on the opposite page. These are heights "above the rise " even of Mr. Cadbury's casuistry. The

Star is necessarily muzzled on this question. How strange is it that this fact, the fact that a paper controlled by Mr. Cadbury dare not speak out on what he considers a great

national evil, about which he can make no compromise, has never revealed to him what he is doing, and how totally different his case is from that of the newspaper proprietor who thinks betting no great harm and inciting to betting no sin, and holds that those who bet immoderately have nobody to thank but themselves for their degradation and ruin. Such are the results which come from building on a foundation of paradox and—worse than paradox—of hypocrisy.

It is difficult to find the patience required to follow the

floundering and inept sophistry of the Friends criticised by Sir Edward Fry when they attempt to show that it was quite impossible for the Star to exist without betting tips. We refuse altogether to credit this view. In the first place we may ask, if the Daily News can exist without betting tips, why not the Morning Leader and the Star and the two Northern papers? A certain amount of their circulation would be lost, no doubt, but this is merely a question of pounds, shillings, and pence; and throughout the pamphlet there is the assumption—no

doubt the sincere assumption—that the proprietors did not go into the business to make money, and that in fact money is no consideration. Perhaps we shall be told in reply that, though it is true that they did not want to make money, they did want to get a circulation, because they could not influence readers to sound Liberal principles unless there were readers,

and plenty of them. Therefore once again Captain Coe and Old Joe's Finals become the sine qua non. Here is the fallacy in its crudest form. We do not believe for one moment that the readers who are obtained in this way are of the slightest value to a paper which wants to spread true opinions and pious opinions. No one who has watched the readers of the Star in the street can fail to see that the paper is bought

with feverish eagerness by people who want to see either the state of the betting, or what horse has won, or, again, what horse they are recommended to stake their money on. When these facts have been obtained the paper is cast aside. Circu- lation obtained through betting tips is of no political value. If this is not so, then we reach the absurdity that a half- penny paper's political influence dies away when the flat racing season is over. We cannot even attend to political questions unless Captain Coe and Old Joe will lead us by the hand.

The pamphlet concludes with a paragraph which makes one's blood run cold, so astounding is its unconscious hypocrisy :-

"May we point out in conclusion that no campaign against & widespread evil can be successful unless that evil is dealt with in its relation to the wider social problem ? Men have begun to understand the appalling conditions under which; not only the 'submerged tenth' but vast numbers above them live. They know how great are the numbers who cannot obtain the necessary food for physical efficiency, with whom life is so hard a battle that the spiritual nature is inevitably stunted. They know the housing conditions under which families are herded together, so that de- cency becomes well-nigh impossible and the vast numbers that are born apparently foredoomed to a worthless, if not to a degraded, life. In a century from now, probably less, our descendants will look back with amazement upon the fact that in the wealthiest country in the world this condition of things was tolerated. They will say that if the Church had pos- sessed any real sense of human brotherhood the thing could not have lasted for a year. All this and more is being burnt in upon the thought and conscience of the men and women who take life earnestly?'

How is it possible that any man who knows anything of the

life of the poor in this country and of the world of the slums can have brought himself to think that betting papers, read as they are by the slum population, can help to save the submerged tenth P It is quite possible that "in a century from now, probably less, our descendants will look back with amazement upon the fact that in the wealthiest country in the world this condition of things was tolerated." We hope so ; but will they not also look back with amazement upon the fact that our leading philanthropists thought it good policy to encourage Captain Coe and Old Joe in order to bring sweet- ness and light, health and thrift, into the homes of the very poor ? Lowell in the "Bigelow Papers" makes one of his characters talk about " civilization going forward on a powder cart." Apparently the members of the Cadbury and Rowntree families concerned think that social reform and moral purity would go forward on a mobile gambling table. In this appal- ling paragraph what are we to say of the unctuous hypocrisy of the attack upon the Church ? Let us turn the phrase round and see how the people concerned like it : "Posterity will say that if the Cadburys and Rowntrees had possessed any real sense of human brotherhood the thing could not have lasted for a year. All this and more is being burnt in upon the thought and conscience of the men and women who take life earnestly."

Is it too late to appeal to Mr. Cadbury not to continue doing what he himself believes is the wrecking of thousands

of lives of young men and of many a home by the publication of incentives to betting? We do not expect him to take advice from the Spectator, which he no doubt honestly con- siders an infamona and worldly print, given over to the policy

of the National Service League, the defence of the House of Lords and the Union and other Satanic policies. Con- sidering how strong a hold party politics evidently have upon him, one may excuse him for thinking that nothing good can

come from a man of blood. But if he hardens his heart against us when we tell him he is playing a hypocritical and unfaithful part, and one which will ultimately lie very heavy on his conscience, he should have no objection to taking in a quite different spirit admonition from a member of the

Society of Friends like Sir Edward Fry. It has always been the custom of the Friends to admonish each other, and for Friends to take that admonition with a good grace. Sir Edward Fry's intervention, if Mr. Cadbury would only see it, is a positive godsend to him. It enables him to get out of the sorry position into which be

has got himself without loss of dignity and without yielding to the blood-stained Spectator. He may be sure that if he will now put himself right and will take the course which Sir Edward Fry marks out for him, not one word of triumph or of reproach will ever fall from the Spectator. On

the contrary we shall be the first to acknowledge the nobility of his action. There is nothing more moving, nothing more honourable, nothing greater, than when a man possessed of enormous wealth and of the power which comes with wealth admits that he has made a mistake and does his best to put it right. The greater a man's wealth and worldly position, the more difficult it no doubt is for him to own a fault and put his pride aside ; but also the more splendid is his triumph when he does it. Will not Mr. Cadbury add to the benefits which we fully admit be has already bestowed upon the nation by giving us the example of a great act of renunciation ? If he will, he will have done something infinitely more worth doing, some- thing far more philanthropic, something much more worthy of that Christian society of which he is a member, than the build- ing of a thousand Bournvilles or the maintenance of innumer- able Liberal newspapers. What the nation lives by is character, and what tho Quakers stand for most in the national life is

character; but character is best shown by putting oneself in the right, no matter what the sacrifice of pride involved. Of the sacrifice of money we say nothing, for we honestly believe that Mr. Cadbury does not care for that. The amount involved is so small indeed compared with his enormous wealth that nobody but a most unfair antagonist would ever dream of thinking that this could weigh with him for a moment. All that really lies between him and an easy conscience is a matter of pride. We cannot believe, in spite of this astounding pamphlet, that in the end he will let pride prevail.