THE NEMESIS OF CANT.
AFEW days ago it was officially announced that the King will take a public part in horse-racing, and will run horses under the Royal colours. The King's decision was perhaps guided by the fact that the late King had bequeathed his stable to him, and thus implied a wish. However that may be, we do not regret the announcement. For ourselves, indeed, we like a good horse and a good race, and hold that the desire of the people of this country to see such noble creatures as well-trained thoroughbreds well matched and well ridden competing on the Downs is most natural and per se perfectly innocent. The King's liking for horse-racing is not conspicuously ardent, and probably he will not care to do more than concern himself with the time-honoured and most reputable meetings. This will be all to the good. Horse-racing has a good and most useful side—it is neces- sary for testing the stamina of the different strains in thoroughbreds—as well as a degrading side, and there can be no misunderstanding about the King's opinions when it is found that he encourages the good side, and, by with- holding his patronage, discourages the bad. He will emphasise the value of the sport, and have nothing to do with its deplorable accretions. We can believe, however, that some persons who hold that horse-racing is altogether bad might much regret the King's decision, and in that case it would be quite possible for them to make known their opinions without any sort of disrespect to the Throne. We half expected to find, for instance, some regretful comments on the subject in the Daily News. It would have been quite in keeping with the policy of the Daily News in excluding all betting news and information about horse-racing if it had taken this line. We cannot say what the opinions of the editor on the King's decision may be; possibly be agrees with us. But let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that he is burning to lead a movement for the purpose of praying the King to reconsider his decision, and to refrain from touching what is held to be in all circumstances an accursed thing. Is there anything to prevent the editor from so acting? We believe that there is, and if we inquire into it we shall see what a Nemesis visits those who make use of cant.
The men who own the Daily News partly own the Star, and the Star publishes as many incitements to betting as any paper in England. The Star is a kind of public gaming- house. It is, indeed, worse. It does not merely keep open doors so that those may walk in who wish; it incites those who had no thought of walking in by telling them how easily they may win money. No doubt the members of the Cadbury and Rowntree families who support this institution argue with themselves that if they did not "run" the Star as a betting paper somebody else would, and that meanwhile their influ- ence in other respects is much more pious than any one else's would be likely to be. We deny that the influence of the Star—and we quote in evidence Sir Edward Fry's letter which we published last week—is wholesome in any respect ; but let us, nevertheless, give the owners full credit for deluding themselves by an honest assumption (if there be such a thing) of superior virtue. The members of the Cadbury and Rowntree families and the Daily News, who jointly control the Star, have persuaded themselves into so nice a conviction of their own righteousness, we suppose, that they really do not see any incongruity in holding the views they notoriously hold as to betting, and yet " running " the Star on its present lines. At first these irreconcilable facts were known to few outsiders. Now that they are known at large, Nemesis at once visits the office of the Daily News. Suppose, then, that the editor had wished to protest against the King's decision to patronise horse-racing, could he have done so without exciting ridicule in every one who knows that the owners of the Daily News, and the Daily News itself in its corporate capacity, are in another manifestation among the chief supporters of that sort of gambling which devastates poor homes, turns children into the streets, and breaks the hearts of toiling wives P Judging by what we know of human nature, we do not see how he could possibly have done it.
Let us suppose another case. We hope that before long a Bill may be brought before Parliament to make it illegal to publish betting " tips." The Bill would be dear to the
heart of the Daily News. But could it support it with any authority and with the real weight of sincerity so long as it is part owner of the Star in its present form P Of course it could not. The most the owners of the Daily News could say without being exposed to ridicule would be that they rejoiced in a compulsory change in the conduct of newspapers which made it no longer necessary for them to meet competition by publishing incitements to gambling. This would be making a virtue of a necessity, but nothing better. The Daily News is in fact fighting against all that it reprobates with its arms tied. This too is the Nemesis of cant. The most worldly paper in England would enjoy a better chance of having its arguments against gambling considered by its readers than the Daily News can look for. It is understood in English law that you cannot seek relief in Court unless you come with clean hands. Under the present conditions the Daily News would come into the Court of public opinion with unclean hands, and could not honestly be surprised if the judges rejected its plea.
A short time ago the Spectator denounced " poisonous literature," and begged the circulating libraries to do what they could in their trade to check what is in effect the sale of very inferior articles. But suppose the owner of the Spectator had owned another paper which published strong advice to read this very poisonous literature, and even supplied expert information as to what would be found the very nastiest and most poisonous. What would have been said of his candour P What weight would have been allowed to his word? You may call all kinds of sophistry to your aid, but if you have placed yourself in such an equivocal position as that, you must put up with the Nemesis of cant. Your influence is gone.
In the case of Messrs. Cadbury's slave-grown cocoa we always said, and still hold, that they were acting with sincerity, if slowly, and we bare publicly defended them from the attacks made upon them, in our opinion unjustly, in this respect. It was a question whether firm and steady pro- tests to the Portuguese Government, politely conveyed, would not serve the interests of the slaves better than the sudden disruption of the whole trade. Messrs. Cadbury in answering the question in their own way acted, we believe, sincerely. Yet even so it cannot be pretended that their influence and authority were not injured. The "tips " of the Star, however, and what is perhaps more significant still, the extension recently to certain Northern papers in the same ownership of incitements to betting which formerly did not exist, are another matter altogether.
The Daily News, as we have mid, meets our strictures with
silence. In this it is wise. Silence is the canter's only weapon. We wish we could believe that silence only means that the " tips " are to be brought to an end soon, and that there is, therefore, no need or place for words. But here again there is a difficulty. The man who believes in his superior virtue has a peculiarly obstinate form of pride. He has so long been secure in his conviction of virtue that he resents criticism as slander, and feels that to give way and acknowledge his error would be to encourage the im- pertinence of the worldlings. We should not mind being considered impertinent if we could cause the incitements to betting to cease among a class which is specially liable to be utterly ruined by them. If the owners of the Daily News and of the Star could put their pride in their pocket, and do what we admit is more difficult for them to do than it would be for ordinary men, no one would acknowledge their courage more heartily than ourselves. Alas ! before the owners of the Daily News close their gaming-house they must conquer themselves. They must rid themselves of the cant which paralyses all their efforts for good in many directions. J. R. Lowell accurately described the creed of the "pious editors" of his country years ago, and no one will deny that he saw deeply into the human heart :— " I du believe in prayer an' praise To him that hez the grantin
0' jobs,—in every thin' thet pays, But most of all in CANTIN' ; This cloth my cup with mercies fill, This lays all thought o' sin to rest, I don't believe in princerple, But 0, I du in interest."
The big type in the word "cantin' " is not ours.
Previous page
