Temperance is restraint in use. Abstinence is entire avoidance, which is
the wise policy of those who lack the strength of temperance.
How necessary entire abstinence is to many, I well know. When the drink
passion sets in, it leads to an open grave. The drinker sees it, and
knows it, and, with open eyes walks into it. He who realises the danger,
would, as Charles Lamb said--
"Clench his teeth and ne'er undo them,
To let the deep damnation trickle through them."
For such there is no salvation save entire abstinence. Thousands might
have been saved but for the fanaticism of abstinence advocates who
opposed in Parliament every legal mitigation of the evil, thinking
the spectacle of it would force the legislature into prohibition. In
discussions, lectures, articles, I advocated the policy of mitigation,
and supported measures in Parliament calculated to that end,
encountering thereby the strong dissent of temperance writers who, not
intending it, connived at drunkenness as a temperance policy.
Is it true that moderation is dead? Have teetotalers extinguished it as
a rule of daily life? Bishop Hall, in his fine way, said, "Moderation
was the silken string running through the pearl chain of all our
virtues." Was this a mistake of the illustrious prelate? Is not
temperance a wider virtue than total abstinence? Is there no possibility
of establishing temperance in betting? Can no limitation be imposed
on betting? The public know denunciatory preaching does not arrest it.
Innumerable articles are written against it. Letters about it are not
lacking in the editor's post-bag. Yet not a mitigation nor remedy is
suggested, save that of prohibition, which is as yet impossible.
Betting is a kind of instinct, difficult to eradicate, but possible
to regulate. Games of hazard, as card-playing or dice, are naturally
seductive in their way. They are useful as diversions and recreation.
They exercise the qualities of judgment, calculation, and presence of
mind, as well as furnish entertainment. It is only when serious stakes
are played for that mischief and ruin begin.
But the seduction of card gambling--once widely irresistible--is now
largely limited by the growing custom of playing only for small stakes.
Family playing or club playing, professedly for money, is held to
be disreputable. Formerly, drinking which proceeded to the verge of
intoxication, or went beyond it, was thought "manly." Now, where the
effects are seen in the face, or in business, it is counted ruinous to
social or professional reputation. Drinking is far more difficult
of mitigation than betting, because the temptations to it occur
much oftener. The capricious habit of going in search of luck can be
restrained by common sense. Temperance in betting would be easier to
effect were it not for the intemperate doctrine of total abstainers. By
defaming moderation they rob the holy name of temperance of its charm,
its strength and its trust. By teaching that "moderation is an inclined
plane, polished as marble, and slippery as glass, on which whoever sets
his foot, slips down into perdition," they destroy moderation by making
it a terror. It brings it into contempt and distrust, and undermines
self-confidence and self-respect. Yet it is by moderation that we live.
Moderation in eating is an absolute condition of health--as the Indian
proverb puts it: "Disease enters by the mouth." A man who disregards
moderation in work, or in pleasure, or diet, seldom lives out half his
days. He who has no moderation in judgment, in belief, in opinion, in
politics, or piety, is futile in counsel, and dangerous in his example.
If the disparagement of self-control has not destroyed the capacity and
confidence of moderation in the public heart, temperance in betting is
surely possible.
Occasionally a minister of religion will ask me what I have to say about
betting. I answer, "It is difficult to extinguish it, but possible to
mitigate it." I give an instance from my own experience.
Years ago when I was editing the _Reasoner_, Dr. Shorthouse contributed
a series of instructive papers on the physiology of racing horses.
Out of courtesy to him I took a ticket in a sweepstake in which he was
concerned, but in which I felt no interest. Months after, I saw that
the owner of the prize was unknown. My brother, knowing I had a ticket,
found it among my papers, and I received L50. I invested the amount,
intending to use the interest in some future speculation, if I made any,
which was not in my way. To that L50 there is added now more than L50 of
accumulated interest, with which I might operate if so inclined. Were
I in the crusade against betting I should say, "Form societies for
Temperance in Betting, of which the rules shall be--
'"1.--No member may make any bet unless he is able, having regard to his
social obligations, to lose the sum he risks, and is willing to lose it,
if he fails to win.
'"2.--When he does win anything, he shall invest it, and bet with the
interest, and every time he wins, shall add the amount to the original
investment, which would give him a larger sum for future recreation in
that way."'"
There is a Church of England Temperance Society which has the courage to
believe in moderation, and which makes it a rule of honour to keep
clear of all excess. Thousands in every walk of life have been saved to
society under this sensible encouragement, and where an occasional act
of excess would have been counted venial, it is regarded as revolting as
an act of indecency.
I have known men in the betting ring who made up their mind that when
they acquired a certain sum they would retire, nor step again in the
treacherous paths of hazard--and they kept their resolution. But very
few are able to do this, having no trained will.
I am against extremes in social conduct, save where reason shows it to
be a necessity. If Betting Limited was approved by the public, betting
at hazard would become as socially infamous as petty larceny. In the
dearth of suggestions for the mitigation of an evil as serious as that
of drunkenness, I pray forgiveness for that I have made.
Previous to 1868, I assisted in establishing the _Scottish Advertiser_
conducted by Walter Parlane. It bore the following motto, which I wrote
for it:
"Whatever trade Parliament licenses, it recognises--and so long as
such trade is a source of public revenue, it is entitled to public
protection."
I still agree with the sentiment expressed. All I meant was a reasonable
protection of the interest which the law had conceded to the trade.
The predatory impudence of the monopoly privileges the trade has since
extorted against the public interests was in no man's mind then. No one
intended that the concession of just protection should be construed into
extortion. As respects compensation, the temperate party refused it. I
was not of their opinion. I agreed with them that the publicans had
no logical claim for compensation, but I would have conceded it as
the lesser of two evils, just as it was better to free the West Indian
slaves by purchase than to continue their lawful subjection. If to
maintain in full force the legalised machinery of drunkenness be only
half as dreadful in its consequences as temperance advocates truly
represent, it would be cheaper as well as more humane to limit it by
graduated compensation.