LOTTERIES [To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.]
SIR,—In your issue of May 23rd you classify lotteries as " try- ing to get something for nothing by gambling." This is, maybe, one way of looking at it, but do not all Stock Exchange transactions come under the same heading ? The average person, with a moderate salary, has no opportunity of making any money and takes a sporting chance in a lottery ; if lucky; he is pleased ; if unlucky, he does not moan or groan but tries again. The point is that the ordinary person has no hope whatsoever of getting even a moderate fortune except through lotteries. Insurance itself is a form of gambling with death. The thing that astonishes one is that practically every person one meets is in favour of lotteries, and yet a few people in Par- liament are able to obstruct them in their desire. Supposing it were possible to get the signature of every person in England for and against lotteries, there is no doubting that the " Ayes " would preponderate. Whether a percentage of the takings goes to the hospitals or to the relief of taxation or to any other thing does not matter—that is for the decision of the promoters—but why the poor or moderately poor person should be deprived of the chance which every rich man can get by going to Monte Carlo and so on is beyond the under- standing of the man in the street.
Frankly, things seem to get worse instead of better at home. The liberty of the subject seems to be interfered with in a way that was unknown before the War, and I, for one, am glad I do not have to live there.—I am, Sir, &c., G. S. Dar-es-Salaam.
Previous page
