ration. He feels
that when he wins, he is a rogue--and that when he loses, he is a
victim--no matter whether gambler, speculator or stock-jobber--he has
violated the _rule of right_, by acquiring property without an
equivalent; and he feels the degradation of the robber, who cries
"stand!" to the passenger on the highway, and extorts his purse, with
the pistol at his breast.

Of the fascinating charms of gambling, history has left us too many
records to make us insensible of the importance of the safe-guards which
society ought to erect, to defend itself from the poison of so
infectious a contamination. Who would believe, that the great
_Wilberforce_ was once a gambler! That even _Pitt_ once stood on the
brink of a gambler's hell. But Wilberforce was cured by _winning_ L2000
at _Holland-house_--and such was the pain he felt for those who had lost
their money, that it prevented all "his future triumphs in the infernal
regions." But in those regions, flourished the greatest statesmen and
wits of the age--who fell victims to the prevailing fascination of the
gaming-table. What destroyed _Charles James Fox_, as a statesman?
_Gambling!_ What brought the brilliant _Sheridan_ to the grave?
Intoxication, brought on by the ill-starred luck of the ruined gamester?
"_Holland-house!_" immortalized as the resort of genius, as well as for
its orgies of dissipation, is not less renowned to infamy, as having
been the "hell" of respectable gamesters.

There is a kind of democracy of crime, contended for by Mr. Freeman,
that has its charms to the ears of the groundlings. He is opposed to a
law that punishes _one_ class of gamblers only, instead of bringing
_all_, within the focus of its penalties! There is much truth in this.
Laws ought to be equal in their operation--but if they cannot be equal,
this is no reason why there ought to be no laws at all. This conclusion
is not warranted by any rule in logic or in government.

No man has a right to dispose of his property to the corruption of the
public morals. Mr. Freeman adduced the instance of a father having a
right to disinherit one son and prefer the other. This is not a parallel
case. The parallel would be a rich man leaving his fortune to found an
Institution of demoralizing tendency--say to teach you the art of
cheating! The laws would annul such a bequest. Society has an original,
inherent right to defend itself from all evil--and that gaming is an
evil, whether played with card