motto or watch-word with which Voltaire concluded many of his letters, was, not" Crucify the wretch," but Ecrasez l'infame, "Crush the wretch." In looking over those letters, many years ago, I could not find evidence that he meaned the ellipsis to be filled up with the name of our adorable Saviour. The word is an adjective, but often used as a substantive. In most of the instances I thought it probable, from the connexion, that the term superstition was intended; and we need not be told that the miserable man wished that term to be understood as synonymous with religion or Christianity. A FRIEND. ENCOURAGEMENT OF LOTTERIES BY THE ART-UNION For the Christian Observer. It was not without an arduous and protracted struggle of nearly half a century, that Lotteries were abolished by the British legislature; and great was the joy in the breasts of all good men, when in the year 1823 this signal national triumph of principle over cupidity was completed. One of the chief arguments of the defenders of State Lotteries was, that if the passion for gambling could not obtain legal vent, it would gratify its desires through more exceptionable channels. The object, it was contended, was good-to increase the public revenue; or in the case of private Lotteries, such as the Skinner-street Lottery, to encourage national improvements and other laudable designs; and no person was oppressed by it, as the subscription was voluntary. But truth and Christianity at length prevailed; the sin and evil of legislative raffling were acknowledged; no palliations or apologies were admitted; and the nation nobly determined no longer to do evil that good may come. Since this period there have been many attempts to revive this national curse; but, by the blessing of God, they have all been frustrated. On one occasion, by some chicanery, a bill passed parliament, without its object being detected, which was to authorise a raffle or lottery for some houses; but the national indignation was justly excited upon the scheme being discovered. The love of gambling is not, however, extinct; and accordingly the legislature was obliged, in 1836, to pass a bill to prohibit the advertising of foreign lotteries in her Majesty's dominions. The raffles which have grown up to so serious an extent in our watering-places, are, in almost every respect, except pecuniary amount, worse than the abolished State Lotteries. The latter were only occasional, once or twice a year; the former are constantly recurring, and tend to engender and keep alive a spirit of gambling. The State Lotteries were also under strict control, and were conducted fairly, as to the number of tickets, the stipulated amount of prizes, and the impartiality of the drawing; but the latter being private, and subjected to no responsibility, present temptations to every kind of fraud.* * Not indeed that the State Lotteries were honest cheating. The contractor paid so much money to government, and was bound to give a certain amount of prizes; but the whole ma nagement of the concern was open to An article intrinsically worth two or three sovereigns is perhaps valued at five; forty half-crown shares are proposed; but there is no adequate check against the jugglers selling many more tickets; nor is the honesty of the drawing efficiently guaranteed; so that by trickery the prize can be secured to one of the parties or a confederate. Sometimes it is believed no drawing whatever takes place; the ticket holders being merely told upon application that their ticket came up a blank. In other instances the drawing is protracted for months, perhaps to the close of the season; and the tempting baits and puffs attract successive visitors, many of whom have probably left the place, and never hear any more of the matter, especially as they are perhaps ashamed of the transaction, and may have subscribed in a feigned name. But even when the movement is rapid, the concern is of course so managed by various artifices as to be for certain in favour of the projectors, and as certainly against the public. There seems no reason to doubt that these lotteries, or raffles as they are called, are illegal, and ought to be suppressed as public nuisances. If the thing is right in principle, let us have it on a large scale, and for the national benefit. Let us first revive the old State Lotteries ;'let us next have lotteries for erecting bridges, and market-houses; making new streets and roads, and, above all, building new churches. The following might serve as the form of an advertisement: "It is proposed to build a church (site, description, and plan annexed) for £5000 to be raffled for by 500 sub zette; but this was resisted; for it was chiefly by deceptive puffing that the public were induced to purchase tickets. The following was one among innumerable tricks. The tickets were divided into two classes, the drawing of the one class determining that of its counterpart. The contractors sold only one half of the tickets, retaining in their hands each counterpart. Thus, if the counterparts were arranged in thousands, if they sold No. 1, they would not sell No. 1001; if they sold No. 1050, they would not sell No. 50. By this means they secured half the prizes; and though the public lost by their moiety of the tickets at the retail price, the contractors gained by theirs at the wholesale. For example; if a Lottery were to consist of 6000 whole tickets, at £20 each; and the prizes which government required to be given to the public amounted to £70,000; then if the whole number of tickets was sold, the receipts would be £120,000; out of which £70,000 being returned in prizes, the gross gain would be £50,000; to cover the sum paid to government for the contract and the expenses of working, leaving the contractors such net profit as might happen. But to sell 6000 tickets at £20 each might be impracticable; and if only half that number sold, the contractors would have to pay £70,000; and would receive only £60,000, with their chances of prizes on 3000 unsold tickets, the value of which, by probabilities, would be £35,000; but by keeping the duplicates they turn probabilities into certainty, and clear £25,000 without risk. If, when the 3,000 have sold, the demand should be so brisk as to render sure the sale of a certain calculable portion of duplicates, the contractors will still be secure; and their gross gains will mount, according to the sales, towards the maximum of £50,000. It may be said that there is nothing unfair in this duplication, as it matters not to the purchaser of a ticket who holds the duplicate; but the unfairness is, that it restricts the market to half the professed number of tickets; thus enhancing the price, and enabling the contractor to get his duplicate for less than its value, while he makes his counterpart pay for both parties. A large number of tickets unsold, would, in the ordinary course, be a heavy risk and probable loss to the contractor; but by duplicating them as above, he makes sure, and throws the loss on the public. This note might appear superfluous, as State Lotteries are abolished in England; but as zealous exertions are being made to introduce German tickets, it may be well to inform the unwary reader of the juggling which pervades such transactions. scribers of £10 each, the winner having the absolute property in the concern, which may be disposed of in whatever manner he pleases, and each subscriber being entitled to an engraving of the church gratis." The latter boon is unexceptionable, being only a portion of the money paid back again; the allotment also of a sitting in the church to each subscriber, numbered in the order of subscription, would be fair and honourable; but the prize to be drawn for is a gambling speculation, and the law of the land would prohibit it; though the law has slept when irritated by the petty violation of toy and trinket raffles. An effort is however being made to revive the lottery principle in a new form, and upon a very large scale, by what is called "Art Union Associations.' The one in London consists already of more than two thousand subscribers; and others have been formed in Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Norwich, Bath, Bristol, &c.; and it is intended "to include, if possible, every town of importance in the United Kingdom." The scheme is as follows. The price of a ticket is £1. 1s.; the number is unlimited; and any person may purchase as many as he pleases. Every member, says the published plan (or more correctly every ticket holder, for as it is a lottery it is fairest to describe it in the usual lottery terms,) is " entitled to one chance of obtaining some work of art at the annual distribution "-distribution is an unjust word; there is no "distribution ;" it should be called "drawing." The committee regulate the number and amount of the prizes; and "the drawers of those prizes," it is added, "are entitled to select, each for himself, works of art of equivalent value" from several of the public exhibitions. In addition to the prizes, each ticket-holder, whether his ticket prove a prize or blank, will receive a copy of an engraving paid for out of the general fund. Here we have every element of a lottery. The following is the scheme for the present year. "The first 30 names drawn will be each entitled to a proof of the engraving for 1840, on plain paper; Nos. 31 to 60, inclusive, to a proof of the engraving on India paper; 61 to 70, each, a work of art at the price of ten pounds; 71 to 80, each, a work of art at the price of fifteen pounds; 81 to 90, each, a work of art at the price of twenty-five pounds; 91 and 92, each, a work of art at the price of thirty pounds; 93, 94, 95, 96, and 97, each, a work of art at the price of fifty pounds; 98, a work of art at the price of sixty pouuds; 99, a work of art at the price of eighty pounds; 100, a work of art at the price of one hundred pounds; 101, a work of art at the price of one hundred and fifty pounds; 102, a work of art at the price of two hundred pounds." It will of course be said, and it is not doubted, that the primary design of the institution is to encourage the fine arts; but what lottery scheme that was ever proposed to the legislature had not a good object? To raise a portion of the public revenue in a popular manner, and by voluntary donations, was a good object; and many of the plans of public improvement which might be aided by lotteries have been eminently good objects. To build churches is an excellent object; and the raffling for the grand prize would secure large funds. But bad means are not sanctified by good ends. A lottery is gambling in one of its worst forms. It may be said that the ticket-holders do not care about their paltry sovereigns, or inordinately covet prizes; their wish is to promote art. But if this be their wish, why not promote art without gambling? The London subscriptions last year amounted to £2244. Now the Association can only promote art to this extent; and it might do so without a lottery. A subscriber of one pound is justly entitled to only a two thousand two hnndred and forty-fourth part of the beneficial interest. If he wishes to obtain the two hundred-pound prize, he wishes to pocket one hundred and ninety-nine sovereigns belonging to his neighbour; he "makes haste to be rich "-rich in money or in pictures and statues is the same in principle—and therefore, says an inspired writer, "sha!l not be innocent." 66 'But my neighbour agrees to take chances with me." The same may be said respecting dice, or any other kind of gambling. If gambling be not morally wrong, that is another question; but if it be, it is not made right because pictures, not bank-notes, are the stakes besides, the pictures are convertible into money; and probably have been often sold where the winner valued the money more than the prize. If the proceeding be evil in principle, it is not rendered unexceptionable by being hitherto upon a comparatively small scale; but, moreover, it is a rapidly growing evil; and may probably in a few years exceed in extent the largest state lottery ever drawn in England. There will also be the collateral gambling of the old lotteries; such as ensuring tickets, betting upon them, and the like. And, not least, there will be many openings for fraudulent persons to tamper with the drawing, as soon as the scheme becomes sufficiently known and popular to make it worth while for sharpers to avail themselves of it. At present it is in the hands of honourable men, who sincerely wish to encourage the fine arts; but there is no possible security against future abuses. But the main objection is, that it appeals to the love of gambling, which, when fostered, becomes one of the strongest and most direful passions of the human breast. The plan of engraving a work of art, a copy of which is presented to each of the subscribers, is eminently good;-it is upon the same principle as the Parker Society for books; but the drawing for prizes is fraught with evils. It would not be a reasonable scheme to allot a picture of a certain value to each member in the order of subscription; for a hundred years would elapse before each member would get (after deducting moderate expenses) an eighty-pound work; nor could one be allotted, unless the recipient paid his subscription for the hundred years in advance; otherwise he might take off his name, and his neighbours would not get their prizes, after paying for his. And this very circumstance shews how deeply the principle of gambling enters into the whole speculation. One plan however may be suggested, which would encourage the arts, and also give the members a fair return. The number of members being large, the annual engraving is, or may be made, nearly equal in value to the subscription; for a picture ordinarily sold at a guinea, may be very well got out for so large a number of persons, free from pub. lisher's profits, at a few shillings each copy. This would leave, as at present, considerable sums for purchasing pictures. Let these be purchased, and sold peremptorily by auction among the subscribers; and the price be carried to the fund for buying new pictures. Each subscriber would thus have an equivalent for his subscription; partly in his engraving, and partly in his privilege of purchasing pictures, at much less probably than their cost; while the arts and artists would be equally benefitted. If a person reply, "I could not afford to give even forty or fifty sovereigns for a hundred, or hundred and fifty, sovereign picture;" why then should he covet it for a single sovereign? The proceeding cannot be defended; though many honourable, and some religious men, have allowed themselves to be seduced by its plausible attractions. PHINEAS. ON THE SUBSTITUTION OF "SUBTILE" FOR "SUBTLE" IN THE SCOTCH FAMILY BIBLE. For the Christian Observer. THE substitution of "subtile" (Genesis iii. 1) for "subtle," pointed out last month in our Appendix (page 817) as occurring in the sam. ple sheet of the proposed Scotch Family Bible, is the worse for being, as it evidently is, an intended correction; thus shewing the blunders to which the printing of the Holy Scriptures will be exposed, when every editor or printing-office reader is allowed to use his own judg ment, or want of judgment, in spelling and punctuation; not to mention more weighty matters. Our English words "subtle " and "subtile," notwithstanding their common etymology and original synonysm, have become by usage-the authoritative "norma loquendi "-two distinct words; the former meaning astute, crafty, intriguing; the latter thin, attenuated, aerial. An ordinary compositor has a general knowledge of common words; but if a word extends beyond his philosophy, he usually considers that his author has miswritten or mis-spelt. He is very apt, for instance, to turn immigration into emigration; imminent into eminent; esoteric into exoteric; neology into theology; and subtle into subtile, and subtile into subtle. Thus he will make a scientific writer say that hydrogen gas is a subtle fluid; whereas, though it is remarkable for tenuity, it is guiltless of craft; and will make a political writer declare that Mr. O'Connell is subtile, whereas, though abundantly crafty, he is a man of no attenuated or aerial dimensions. Such errors are not of much consequence in common books; and in newspapers and magazines they are inevitable; but the intelligent reader instantly perceives the mistake; and the ignorant might not understand the distinction if it were pointed out; but in printing the Holy Scriptures they involve matters of infinite importance; and when, in addition to the ordinary errors of the press, we have the ranker crop which may arise from conceit and halflearned criticism, our Bibles will present a strange medley of incongruities. The word "subtle " used formerly to be spelt subtil (or subtill), and the old spelling subtil has kept possession of our authorized Bibles. When however a corrector of the press looks for subtil in modern dictionaries, he finds no such word; and he is therefore obliged either to leave the old spelling, or to make choice between the two words subtle and subtile. Some editors have considered that it was better to adopt the modern spelling; and accordingly in two Bibles now before us-that of the venerable Scott, and the recent "Treasury Bible" of Mr. Bagster-and doubtless in many others, the word is spelt subtle; CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 37. G |