RISHOP MOORHOUSE DEFINES GAMBLING.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XIX, Issue 6566, 2 December 1882, Page 3 (Supplement)

RISHOP MOORHOUSE DEFINES GAMBLING.

Dr.. Moorjiouse, Bishop of Ifelhoiinie, lias dofinod tho difference between lotteries for charitable purposes and the Melbourne Cup lotteries. He said lately, in a conversation at Hamilton, Victoria, "that he regarded bazaar rallies, whon straightforwardly and honestly couducted, as an embodiment of the principle of ' co-operative purchase' auper•uidod to the principle of 'determination by lot, , both of which operations woro perfectly harmless aud legitimate. A numbar of persons combined together to purchase an article—there was nothing wrong in that. Having subscribed enough money to purchase it, they next proceeded to determine by lot which of them should enjoy the possession of that article, and this '»i a mode of deciding quite in accordance with Scripture precedent, ns witness tho case of Matthias. Some of tlie Bishop's hearers asked hin whether sweeps on the Melbourne Cup, or other ventures recognised .13 gamhlin:.'. could not be justilicd by tho same process of ratiocination ; but the Bishop distinctly answered ' No,' aud proceeded to .show the difference. Suid Ilia Lordship, there is no consideration giver, by the tamblcr. The man who risks his i-.ioney in that way, expects to win yours, and riiv turmi, without anything being given in return, whereas in a bazaar rallle, every owner of a ticket holds a beneficial interest in their common property, which is actually purchased. As everyone cannot be the possessor of the article, it is necessary to determine who shall take it, and there is no fairer way of deciding than by casting lots. The Bishop was next reminded that certain betting men averred that the principle of fire and life assurance was nothing but gambling, as a company would bet any of their customers 1000 to 5 that his house was not buuitdownduringtheensuing twelve months, or longer odds that he would not die during the same or any other period. Dr. Moorhouse mot tho argument by saying that people who paid fire or life insurances had a boncficial interest in the transaction. They were protected against loss by fire, and so received value for their payments ; the imount of their life policy was paid to their representatives, and tiio premiums resembled io many instalments lodged in a savings bank to be aft'-Twards returned with inte.rest. Dr. Monrhouse said that it w.ir a very common trick to bracket together a iium'icr of things that had n■-> real connection or analogy one with anoL.icr, aiul this was the (inly v.;>.v ho c"i:ld ncooui.t for some people , .-; 01-j ct-'j:i to ha>. \:'.r raiiling. The proc-iis?, howovc-r, was c-ntirely different from [rambling: aud tho fact th.-i't gambling was air.u-rtak-:i_ with a selfish ciijc.-t, whilst ha/nar raU'l'-s were got up for purposes wholly uns.j!(j.;h, also cunstituted a great distinction.