THE BISHOP OF MELBOURNE ON CHURCH LOTTERIES.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1149, 15 September 1883, Page 1

THE BISHOP OF MELBOURNE ON CHURCH LOTTERIES.

Dr Moorhouse, Bishop of Melbourne has defined the difference between lotteries for charitable purposes and the Melbourne Cup lotteries, He said lately, in a conversation at Hamilton, Victoria, ‘ that be regarded bazaar raffles, when straightforwardly and honestly conducted, as an embodiment of the principle of ‘ determination by lot,’ both of which operations were perfectly harmless and legitimate. A number ot 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 by lot which of them' should enjoy the possession of that article, and this was a mode of deciding quite in accordance with Scripture precedent, as witness the case of Matthias. Some of the Bishops hearers asked him whether sweeps on the Melbourne Gup, or other ventures recognised as gambling, could not be justified by the same process of ratiocination, but the Bishop distinctly answered ‘ No,’ and proceeded to show the difference. Said his Lordship, there is no consideration given by the gambler. The man wlm risks his money in that way expects to win yours, and vice versa , without anything being given in return, whereas in a bazaar raffle, every owner of a ticket holds a beneficial interest in their common property, which is actually pur~ chased. As everyone - cannot be the possessor of the article, it is necessarj 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 bub gambling, ns a company would bet any of their customers 1000 to 5 that his house was not burnt down during the ensuing twelve mouths, or longer odds that he would not di( daring the same or any other period , Dr Moorhouse met the argument by saying that people who paid fire o; life insurances had a beneficial iutercs in the transaction. They were protected against loss by fire, and so receive! value for their pay merits ; the amoun of their life policy was paid to thei representatives, and the premiums re sembled so many instalments lodge in a savings bank, to be afterward returned with interest. Dr Moorhous said that it was a very common trick t bracket together a number of thins that had no real connection or analog one with another, and this was tl only way he could account for son people’s objections to bazaar raffliuj The process, however, was entire different from gambling ; and the fa that gambling was undertaken with selfish object, whilst bazaar raffles we i got up for purposes wholly unselfis: ; also constituted a great distinction.”