Sporting and Dramatic ..AND.. LICENSED VICTUALLERS' GAZETTE. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED THE WEEKLY STANDARD. Thursday, May 7, 1896. TURF GOSSIP.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume VI, Issue 302, 7 May 1896, Page 4

Sporting and Dramatic ..AND.. LICENSED VICTUALLERS' GAZETTE. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED THE WEEKLY STANDARD. Thursday, May 7, 1896. TURF GOSSIP.

THE NATIONAL ANTI - GAMBLING LEAGUE. This meddlesome body, to put it very mildly, has started on the war-path again at Home, notwithstanding their crushing defeat when they tackled the Jockey Club stewards at Newmarket. But they want funds to get going. Well, as there is nothing particularly exciting in connection with the organisation, and no fat billets to be offered, we are afraid that the funds will be slow in coining in. “ Ranger,” of the Illustrated Sporting and Dramatic News remarks, in his comments on the Anti-gamblers, as they term themselves : — “ Anybody who has followed the proceedings of the self-styled National Anti-Gambling League will hardly be surprised to learn that they are sending round the hat. What is styled “ An Appeal to the Nation,” has recently appeared in the columns of several journals, asking pecuniary public support for the organisation. The list of signatories to this appeal is headed by the Bishop of London, and includes several more or less influential dignitaries of various religious bodies throughout the country. It is somewhat surprising that these gentlemen should have been persuaded to attach their names to statements which they cannot know to be true, and many of which they have obviously accepted on hearsay. I should be glad to know on what statistics they rely, when saying that betting and bookmaking are steadily increasing. Or what they mean when they state that the trade of professional betting men has been allowed till recently to grow quite unchecked. If they knew that the man Miibourne was not to be believed on his oath, it was clearly inconsistent with the high tone of morality that they arrogate to themselves, to bring him forward as a witness in support of their case. If, on the other hand, they knew he was to be believed, it was equally inconsistent with their professions to suborn him to resume the, from their point of view, vicious and detestable practice of betting, which he asserted on oath that he had discontinued for some time previously. In either case the actions were not those of an association in any way worthy of public support. As to arousing public opinion, much has been done. But hardly in the direction that the signatories to the appeal appear to imagine. The real aim and object of the so-called League is now pretty well known, and the voice of the public, whenever it has had an opportunity of doing so, has emphatically pronounced against it and all its works. While upon the subject it may be as well to recall the fact that in the Newmarket prosecution of the stewards of the Jockey Club a year ago, the Anti-Gambling League employed a man named Milbourne to go to Newmarket and make ready-money bets with certain bookmakers in the Ring for the purpose of subsequently using his betting transactions as evidence. I notice that the Bishop of London states that the funds of the League “ are administered with economy.” It came out in evidence that a portion of these funds were given tn Milbourne to bet with. “ The society,” • —the document goes on to say—“ has already done much by its unselfish educational labours to arouse and improve public opinion.” Well, the Milbourne

episode may have been educational it was certainly instructive to a good many people—but it could hardly be called unselfish. It was about as selfish an action as was well possible, to induce a reformed character to return to the paths of wickedness simply to serve the ends of the Anti-G-ambling League. What reliance is to be placed upon their further observations can be to some extent gathered from the following clause in the appeal: I We have satisfied ourselves that the National Anti-Grambling League would in no way trespass on the liberty of the subject, nor meddle to the slightest extent with the sports of the country.' The italics are mine. I can only say that if the Bishop of London, Lord Nelson, Lord Halifax, and other less notable individuals who are responsible for this appeal have really, as they say, satisfied themselves that the Anti-G-am bling League does not propose to meddle to the slightest extent with the sports of the country, they must be persons very easy to satisfy, and they can have taken very little trouble to make themselves acquainted with the actions of the Anti-Gambling League during the past twelve months.”