LTO THE EDITOS OF THE " SPECTATOR."]
SIE,—May I appeal to your courtesy for permission to correct two or three misunderstandings that have arisen from the letter of mine inserted in your issue of October 21st P (1) Though I wrote as President of the Wesleyan Union for Social Service, I had no wish or right to commit anyone but myself to the opinion I expressed. The question had not been.
brought before our council, and I wrote in my representative capacity because I felt that as an official of such a Union I must protest against any compromise with organized betting on the part of those who are known to be active Noncon- formists and leaders in social reform.
(2) I had no wish to attack the personal character of the proprietors of the Daily News, but to support what seemed to me the appeal of Sir Edwird Fry that they would purge their other newspapers of the evil influence involved in their pro- nounced incitements to betting. I did not suggest that they made money out of such newspapers by the admission of betting tips, and can believe the hints of some of your corre- spondents that the opposite is the case. They may be showing the highest form of courage in risking their reputation for consistency that they may gain some greater end, acquiescing in a smaller evil to avoid what they would consider an influence more dangerous to the public. Unfortunately that smaller evil is one which they are specially pledged to oppose, and which many refuse to recognize as less dangerous than any other.
(3) When I echoed your -word "hypocrisy," it was with reference only to the Daily News, as such, professing to dis- own all encouragements to gambling, but investing nearly £10,000 of its funds to support the Star. If it be thought too subtle to distinguish between "Daily News Ltd." and its personal proprietors, I will withdraw my acceptance of your word and substitute "inconsistency." I judge no man on such questions of casuistry ; in many things we all offend, and we all need one another's generous Christian considera- tion. But I still think the position of the Daily News on this question indefensible, and still think so highly of its chief proprietors as to expect of them, in all the enterprises which they control, a stricter consistency than we should demand from an ordinary newspaper company.—I am, Sir, &c., Burton House, Bath. FRANK RICHARDS.
P.S.—Since writing the above I have received a copy of the reply to Sir Edward Fry's pamphlet addressed by the newspaper proprietors concerned to the members of the Society of Friends. The reply, in my opinion, completely vindicates the personal integrity of the proprietors. The former proprietors of the Star still hold the preference shares, amounting to three times the value of the ordinary shares, whose holders have been named by Sir Edward Fry. The present proprietors are bound by contract to keep up the value of the paper, but have made arrangements to reduce— and, they hope, eventually abolish—the racing predictions. Sir Edward Fry, it seems, had made no inquiries of the proprie- tors before issuing his pamphlet. I should not have written to you at all if I had not inferred from his own words that he had done so, as I should certainly have also inferred from his character and from the long connexion of his family with the
Previous page
