RANDOM NOTES

Dominion, Volume 31, Issue 242, 9 July 1938, Page 10

RANDOM NOTES

Sidelights On Current

Events

(By Kickshaws.)

It seems that All Black enthusiasts do not worry about Tom and Harry, but Dick is another matter altogether.

Well, well; we wish Bradman every success’ with his Board instead of his bat.

Motorists, it is suggested, should cultivate the habit of walking as if they were driving a car. The old girl over there is just backing to the shop window she passed by mistake and that elderly fellow with the whiskers is jacking himself up to remove chewing gum from the sole of his boot. * ♦ •

“Would you be so kind as to tell me what persons are entitled to be addressed as ‘esquire’?” asks “Susan.” [The title "Esquire” was not recognised until the reign of Richard 11. It was confined to the younger sons of peers and their eldest sous, the eldest sons of barons and knights. This has now been extended to include any man entitled to a coat of arms..' All persons who hold or have held His Majesty’s commission, sons of peers during their fathers’ lives, younger sons of peers after their fathers’ death, the eldest song of peers’ younger sons and their eldest sons, eldest sons of baronets and knights, persons bearing arms and the title by letters patent. Esquires of the Bath and their eldest sons, barristers, Justices of the Peace, mayors, while in office, holders of superior office under the Crown, attorneys in colonies where the function of counsel aud attorney are united.]

Argument on the part of the New Zealand Bowling Association as re whether players might be permitted to wear "greys” or "cream” and the proper costume, or just braces and trousers, shows that in that sport at least sartorial nicety is as important ag the game itself. A similar argument has raged for years on the matter of correct wear for the pastime of bathing. Our grandmothers or our greatgreats solved the problem by never bathing at all. Our great-great-grand fathers did so either completely encased or with nothing on at all, depending upon the time and the place. Gradually this problem solved itself with less and less. There may be sound common sense in wearing as little as possible in the water. One may well ask, though, why do cricketers wear so much? The white flannel trousers certainly sparkle nicely in the sun, but they must get enormously in the way.

The modern tendency in sport has been to adapt the clothes to the pastime. There was a time when women allegedly enjoyed a game of tennis in long skirts and curiously-flounced blouses and coats. There was a time when men played cricket in kneebreeches and beaver hats. The only man who was really clad suitably for the occasion was the fellow who went in for jousting. Only a tin-opener could have fixed him. This pastime has no modern counterpart. Comparison, therefore, is impossible. Nevertheless, whereas the farmhand rides into battle with the steers in dungarees and open shirt, the fox hunter would never dream of entering the fray unless he was exquisitely dressed for the parr. One might even go a step further and add that the British Empire was won by men in stuffy red coats and tightlyfitting knee-breeches. Admittedly, a change has now been made. Meanwhile, we can well understand the additional merit that a game of bowls derives from "creams,” rather than risk a win in sock suspenders, braces, aud, shall we say, shorts.

We note that the Auckland local bodies have deferred consideration as regards a suggestion to finance hospitals by lotteries. Organised lotteries for raising money for public purposes are no innovation. Queen Elizabeth started the idea. Money was so tight, that she paid as much as 12 per cent, interest to keep her fighting ships at sea. So great was the pressure for cheaper money, that in 1567 she issued a Royal Proclamation headed, “A Proposal for a Verie Rich Lottery General without any Blankes.” This lottery, moreover, was drawn 'in St. Paul's Cathedral on January 11, 1569. The drawing continued day and night until May 6, which gives some idea as to whether the scheme was attractive. Prizes up to £5OOO were offered. As some 400,000 tickets drew prizes, one person in 17 was sure of winning something. Tickets were ten shillings each. It has been estimated that a similar lottery held to-day in Britain, could easily sell 50,000,000 tickets.

Whatever the merits or demerits of taxation by games of chance, it is a /act that but for this method of raising money the British Museum would never have come into being. The trustees of this edifice, in fact, were the Lord Chamberlain and the Archbishop of Canterbury. It was at this period that Britain went lottery mad. Tickets for lotteries with prizes of £30,000 were given as bonuses to Government loan subscribers. Barbers gave away £lO lottery tickets with every threepenny shave. A plate of beef at a restaurant carried with it the chance to win sixty guineas. Five guineas might lie Avon by eating a plate of oysters. A farthing’s worth of sausages might win five shillings. Doctors attended the drawing of tickets at the Guildhall to. Jet the blood of ticket holders overcome by their emotions. Some idea of the popularity of taxation by lottery may be had from the fact that when this method was abolished in 1826 in Britain, the Government had to find other ways of providing £300,000 a year for the revenues.

There are always two sides to everything, and the fact that lotteries were abolished in Britain in 1826 suggests that the other side eventually assumed an importance that was ignored in the days when that country went lottery mad. As a method of raising money for a specific purpose, lotteries suffer from the fact that overhead expenses are high. Moreover, a huge sum is collected, only to be redistributed again. At the time when lotteries were largely advertised in Ireland a few years ago the proceeds were earmarked for the hospitals. Certainly, the hospitals benefited greatly. The following figures show, however, that as a method of raising money for hospitals the system was expensive. On the Derby, for example, one year £2,759,696 was subscribed ; £1,900,544 was distributed in prizes. The hospitals received £691,424. Overhead expenses were four times the money received for the hospitals. Even in New Zealand it _requires about £150.000 to raise £60,000 for specific purposes. ♦ * *

Ask not why Laura should persist To lure with smiles and dimples: A woman, like a botanist, Delights in culling simples. —Old rhyme.