Simpler Syntax 2007th Edition Peter Wculicover

Ray Jackendoff download

https://ebookbell.com/product/simpler-syntax-2007th-edition-
peter-wculicover-ray-jackendoff-83311874

Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.

Simpler Syntax 1st Edition Peter W Culicover Ray Jackendoff

https://ebookbell.com/product/simpler-syntax-1st-edition-peter-w-
culicover-ray-jackendoff-2389930

Python And Hacking Made Simple Project Syntax

https://ebookbell.com/product/python-and-hacking-made-simple-project-
syntax-5901168

The Joy Of Syntax A Simple Guide To All The Grammar You Know You
Should Know June Casagrande

https://ebookbell.com/product/the-joy-of-syntax-a-simple-guide-to-all-
the-grammar-you-know-you-should-know-june-casagrande-7141778

The Oxford Latin Syntax Volume I The Simple Clause First Edition
Impression 5 Harm Pinkster

https://ebookbell.com/product/the-oxford-latin-syntax-volume-i-the-
simple-clause-first-edition-impression-5-harm-pinkster-7406272
C Best Practices 45ish Simple Rules With Specific Action Items For
Better C Full Color Syntax Highlighting 2nd Edition Jason Turner

https://ebookbell.com/product/c-best-practices-45ish-simple-rules-
with-specific-action-items-for-better-c-full-color-syntax-
highlighting-2nd-edition-jason-turner-43159792

C Best Practices 45ish Simple Rules With Specific Action Items For
Better C Full Color Syntax Highlighting Jason Turner

https://ebookbell.com/product/c-best-practices-45ish-simple-rules-
with-specific-action-items-for-better-c-full-color-syntax-
highlighting-jason-turner-46150164

Simpler Living Second Editionrevised And Updated A Back To Basics

Guide To Cleaning Furnishing Storing Decluttering Streamlining
Organizing And More Jeff Davidson

https://ebookbell.com/product/simpler-living-second-editionrevised-
and-updated-a-back-to-basics-guide-to-cleaning-furnishing-storing-
decluttering-streamlining-organizing-and-more-jeff-davidson-49842278

Simpler Living Compassionate Life A Christian Perspective Henri Nouwen

Richard Foster Cecile Andrews

https://ebookbell.com/product/simpler-living-compassionate-life-a-
christian-perspective-henri-nouwen-richard-foster-cecile-
andrews-46897862

Simpler Living Jeff Davidson

https://ebookbell.com/product/simpler-living-jeff-davidson-4405274
Discovering Diverse Content Through
Random Scribd Documents
wagers. The Act in question was particularly aimed against hazard,
which had undoubtedly done a good deal of harm, lending itself as it
did to much trickery and foul play. Gaming-houses were now
rigorously repressed, but it was not long before gambling began to
rage in another form, many betting-houses being started.
The first institution of this kind appears to have opened its doors in
1847, the proprietors being Messrs. Drummond and Greville. About
1850, about four hundred of these houses (the vast majority not
very solvent), where regular lists of the prices were openly exhibited,
flourished, and an epidemic of gambling was declared to have
attacked even the poorest class, who were being offered facilities for
risking their hard-earned sixpences and shillings. The rise and fall of
the odds before any great race was eagerly watched by the keepers
of the betting-houses, and scenes of wild excitement occasionally
occurred. Many of the smaller betting-shops were simply traps for
the unwary. The stock-in-trade needed was merely a few flyblown
racing prints and some old ledgers. A room was soon hired, often in
some derelict tobacconist's shop, and business then commenced.
Most of these places existed in obscure and dirty thoroughfares; the
neighbourhood of Drury Lane being especially affected by those
indulging in this nefarious industry. Just before a big race meeting,
such as the Derby or Ascot, numbers of these betting shops would
burst into bloom for a short space of time. When the meetings
ended, the crowd coming to get paid would find the proprietor gone
and the place in charge of a boy, who, generally not at all
disconcerted, would announce that his master had gone out on
"'tickler bizness," and would not be back till late at night. His wife
also had gone out of town for her health till the winter. "Will he be
back to-morrow?" would cry the crowd. "No, he won't be here to-
morrow 'cos it's Sunday, and he always goes to church on Sunday," a
favourite reply which made even the losers laugh. "Will he be back
on Monday, then?" "Monday," would say the boy, reflecting, "No, I
don't think he'll be here on Monday—he's going to a sale on
Monday." After further inquiries and replies of this sort the crowd
would, for the time being, reluctantly disperse, murmuring
something about a "sell" instead of a "sale," to return again time
after time with the same ill-success, till eventually, realising that they
had been duped, the bell-pull was torn out and the windows broken,
the proprietor meanwhile doing a flourishing business in some other
locality. Various subterfuges were employed by betting-shopkeepers
to attract clients. One of these places grandiloquently styled itself
"The Tradesmen's Moral Associative Betting Club." The circular
issued by this beneficent organisation set forth that a number of
persons in business, realising the robberies hourly inflicted upon the
humbler portion of the sporting public by persons bankrupt alike in
character and property, had banded themselves together to establish
a club wherein their fellow tradesmen and the speculator of a few
shillings might invest their money with the assured consciousness of
meeting with fair and honourable treatment. In all probability the
clients of the Moral Associative Club found that, like other
institutions of the same sort, its idea was to receive the money of all
and close its career by paying none.
A man named Dwyer, who kept a cigar shop and betting-house in St.
Martin's Lane in 1851, was in the habit of laying a point or two more
than the regular odds, and in consequence did the largest business
of any list man in London. He was considered to be absolutely safe.
It was his custom to pay the day following a big race, but when Miss
Nancy won the Chester Cup, his doors were found to be closed; and
the house being broken into by an enormous crowd of infuriated
creditors, everything valuable was discovered to have been removed.
Dwyer, as a matter of fact, had bolted with about £25,000 of the
public's money. The occurrence of scandals such as this naturally
caused a considerable outcry for the suppression of the betting-
houses, which, it was declared, were demoralising the public, who,
even when they were not swindled, were led into risking sums which
they could not afford. A Bill for checking the evil was eventually
drafted, and in July 1853 was passed an Act entitled "An Act for the
Suppression of Betting-Houses," which inflicted on any one keeping
or assisting to keep any house, office, room, or place for the
purpose of betting, a penalty not exceeding one hundred pounds, or
imprisonment with or without hard labour for any time not exceeding
six calendar months.
 FOOTNOTES:
[4] No. 81 Piccadilly.

IV
Craze for eccentric wagers at end of eighteenth century—Lord
Cobham's insulting freak and its results—Betting and
gaming at White's—The Arms of the Club—The old betting-
book and its quaint wagers—Tragedies of play—White's to-
day—£180,000 lost at hazard at the Cocoa Tree—Brummell
as a gambler—Gaming at Brooks's—Anecdotes—General
Scott—Whist—Mr. Pratt—Wattier's Club—Scandal at
Graham's—Modern gambling clubs—The Park Club case in
1884—Dangers of private play.

Towards the end of the eighteenth century a curious mania for

making eccentric wagers seized hold of the bucks of the day. Unlike
many another craze this was not imported from France, but had its
rise and progress entirely in England. During the last illness of Louis
XIV., Lord Stair laid a wager on his death, which rather astonished
the French, who did not approve of such a form of speculation. At a
subsequent period bets about the most trivial incidents became quite
common in the West End of London. Not infrequently some
thoughtless wager would lead to considerable trouble.
Lord Cobham, for instance, once foolishly bet Mr. Nugent a guinea
that he would spit in Lord Bristol's hat without the latter, who had a
reputation for effeminacy, resenting it. The wager itself was
singularly lacking in refinement, and the moment chosen for carrying
it out was quite in keeping.
Lord Bristol being one day at Lady Cobham's talking to some ladies,
he chanced to lean over a chair holding his hat behind him, into
which Lord Cobham deliberately spat, at the same time asking Mr.
Nugent, who was present, for his guinea; after which he began to
make the most profuse apologies to the victim of the outrage, who,
remaining apparently quite unmoved, merely asked if his host had
any further use for his hat, and then resumed his conversation, and
every one considered the incident at an end. Lord Bristol being to all
outward appearance absolutely unruffled.
The next morning, however, both Lord Cobham and Mr. Nugent
received messages demanding satisfaction, to which they returned
the most humble answers. The incident, they declared, was all
merely a foolish joke, and they were quite ready to make all sorts of
submissive apologies.
Lord Bristol, however, would only assent to condone the insult if the
aggressors were ready to make a public apology in the Club-room at
White's, where he was prepared to receive it, and here, amidst a
crowd of members, Lord Cobham and Mr. Nugent publicly expressed
their regret.
As the eighteenth century waned. White's Club developed into a
great gambling centre; its members indeed professed a universal
scepticism and decided everything by a wager. There was nothing,
however trivial or ridiculous, which was not capable of producing a
bet. Many pounds were lost upon the colour of a coach-horse, the
birth of a child, the breaking off of a marriage, and even a change in
the weather.
A favourite mode of speculation was backing one man against
another, that is, betting that he would live the longest. People of all
classes were made the subjects of such bets. An actor was pitted
against a duke, an alderman against a bishop, a pimp against some
member of the privy council. Scarcely a remarkable person existed
upon whose life many thousand pounds did not depend. The various
changes in the health of any one who was the subject of heavy
betting naturally gave rise to many serious reflections in the minds
of the people who had wagered large sums on his life or death.
Some would closely watch all the stages of a total stranger's illness,
more impatient for his death than the undertaker who expected to
have the care of his funeral; others would be very solicitous about
his recovery, and send every hour to know how his health
progressed, taking as great care of him as any clergyman's wife who
has no other fortune than the living of her husband. Great
consternation was caused by an unexpected demise. Considerable
odds were laid upon a man with the constitution of a porter, who
was pitted against an individual expected to die every week. The
porter, however, unexpectedly shot himself through the head, and
the knowing ones were taken in.
The main supporters of gaming at White's at this time were George
Selwyn, Lord March, Fox, and Lord Carlisle.
The latter was of a rather more serious disposition than the others,
and had a wife and children to whom he was devoted. Though at
times a high gambler himself, he wrote several letters to Selwyn,
warning him of the dangers of hazard.
On one occasion Lord Carlisle won £13,000 from a peer, which he
never seems to have got, and again indulged in some disastrous
play in 1776, after which he wrote to George Selwyn to say that he
had never lost so much at five different sittings as on this occasion
in one night. A note by Selwyn in the letter puts the sum at £10,000.
In after-life Lord Carlisle entirely abandoned gaming, and settled
down into an exemplary country gentleman.
Another constant player for high stakes at White's was Sir Everard
Fawkener, the writer's great-grandfather, who held an important
office in connection with the Post Office. He played cards very badly,
and George Selwyn used to say that playing with him was as bad as
"robbing the mail."
In the hall of White's Club hangs a carved wooden copy of the
whimsical old coat of arms of the Club—the original painting of
which is at Arthur's. This was painted by Dick Edgecumbe after the
design had been concocted one wet day at Strawberry Hill by the
painter, George Selwyn, George (known as Gilly) Williams, and their
host Horace Walpole, who had the arms engraved.
The original arms were as follows:—
"Vert (for a card-table); between three parolis, proper, on a chevron
sable, two rouleaux in saltire between two dice, proper. In a canton
sable, a ball (for election), argent. Supporters, an old knave of clubs
on the dexter, a young knave on the sinister side; both accoutred
proper. Crest, issuing out of an earl's coronet (Lord Darlington's) an
arm shaking a dice-box, all proper. Motto alluding to the crest 'Cogit
amor nummi'.[5] The arms encircled with a claret bottle ticket by
way of order."

The old betting-book at White's contains many curious entries, the

first of which dates from 1743. A number of the earliest wagers are
concerned with the probabilities of the birth of children to well-
known ladies of the day, the duration of life to be enjoyed by certain
individuals, and the like.
On 21st March 1746, Mr. John Jeffries bets Mr. Dayrolle five guineas
that Lady Kildare has a child born alive before Lady Catherine
Petersham. A note is appended "miscarriages go for nothing."
On the 8th of October in the same year Lord Montfort bets Mr.
Greville one hundred guineas that Mr. Nash is alive on the same day
four years to come.
The Lord Montfort in question was a typical gamester of the time. In
the betting-book at White's no less than sixty wagers, amounting to
£5500, are recorded against his name. Most of these were about
births, marriages, and deaths. On sporting wagers, the nobleman in
question seems to have been content to risk only small sums. A true
gambler, he preferred to hazard his fortune, and, as it turned out,
his life, on the unforeseen.
On the 4th of November 1754, is entered the following: "Lord
Montfort wagers Sir John Bland one hundred guineas that Mr. Nash
outlives Mr. Cibber." This refers to two very old men, Colley Cibber,
the actor, and Beau Nash, the "King of Bath." Below the entry in the
betting-book, written in another handwriting, is the significant note:
"Both Lord M. and Sir John Bland put an end to their own lives
before the bet was decided."
The first of these tragedies took place on New Year's Day of 1755.
Lord Montfort's death and the circumstances of it attracted great
attention. He was considered one of the shrewdest men of his time,
and, as Walpole said, "would have betted any man in England
against himself for self-murder." Lord Montfort was of course
eventually ruined—at White's alone he lost a fortune at hazard. As a
last resource, he then eagerly applied (much to the surprise of the
dilatory Duke of Newcastle) for the Governorship of Virginia or the
Royal hounds. He got neither, and after spending the last evening of
the year 1754 at White's, where he sat up at whist till one o'clock,
went home in a strange mood, and shot himself next morning.
A tragic fate likewise befell Sir John Bland, who dissipated his entire
fortune at hazard. At a single sitting he at one time lost as much as
£32,000, though he recovered a portion of it before play was ended.
Sir John shot himself on the road from Calais to Paris.
Some of the wagers chronicled in the betting-book are decidedly
vague, the following for instance: "Mr. Talbot bets a certain
gentleman a certain sum that a certain event does not take place
within a certain time."
During the Napoleonic era several bets were made as to the chances
of the Emperor getting back to Paris at the close of the Russian
campaign, about ten to one being wagered on such an event
happening.
A curious bet, dated February 14, 1813, is the following: "Lord
Alvanley bets Sir Joseph Copley five guineas that a certain Baronet
understood between them is very much embarrassed in his
circumstances in three years from the date hereof; if one of his bills
is dishonoured, or he is observed to borrow small change of the
chairmen or waiters, Sir Joseph is to be reckoned to lose."
In 1797, hazard seems to have been allowed at White's, but it was
expressly laid down that no member should be permitted to keep a
faro bank. This rule was doubtless made to avoid the state of things
which had lately prevailed across the way at Brooks's.
As time went on gambling became a thing of the past within the
walls of White's, and the survivors of a reckless era in its history
sobered down into grave and somewhat crotchety old men, who,
from the stronghold of an accustomed seat, eyed younger members
with a freezing gaze. When the question of smoking in the morning-
room was raised their indignation knew no bounds, and even infirm
old members—fossils who Alfred Montgomery declared had come
from Kensal Green—tottered into the Club to oppose it. So given
were these relics of the past to wrapping themselves in a cloak of
exclusiveness that at one time the Club came almost to a standstill.
Within recent years, however, White's has taken a new lease of life,
and after an existence of one hundred and seventy-three years is
now in as flourishing a state as ever. The Club-house has been
enlarged and various alterations made—always, let it be said, with
due regard for the traditions of the past. Unfortunately, in the course
of time much connected with its former history has disappeared—it
does not, for instance, possess a set of old gaming counters, which
have a certain historic interest in these more sober days. The Club is
particularly anxious to acquire any relics connected with its past, and
also any representations of the Club-house (at the present time
under repair) as it existed before the alterations of 1853, when a
new façade replaced the old front.
Lower down St. James's Street, on the other side of the road,
another Club, in old days notorious for high play, still exists. This is
the Cocoa Tree, where very large sums once changed hands. During
the year 1780 no less than £180,000 was lost here in a single week.
In the same year Mr. O'Birne, an Irish gamester, won £100,000 at
hazard of a young Mr. Harvey of Chigwell, a midshipman, who, by
his elder brother's death, had suddenly come into a good estate.
"You can never pay me," said O'Birne. "I will sell my estate to do
so," replied the young man. "No," was the not ungenerous reply, "I
will win ten thousand and you shall throw for the odd ninety." The
dice were cast and Harvey won—still the evening cost him £10,000.
After Waterloo there appears to have been a revival of gaming in the
West End, many officers returning to England with long arrears of
pay at their command. This wave of gaming ruined Brummell. At
first he was not particularly devoted to play, and had extraordinary
luck when he indulged in it. At one sitting at whist at White's he won
£10,000 from George Harley Drummond, the banker. It is said that
this was the first game Drummond ever played at a Club; it was
probably his last, for it led to his withdrawal from the banking
business. But Brummell was not a man of large property, and when
later he began to play habitually, a few reverses were sufficient to
ruin a man of small means who matched his fortune against the
much longer purses of his friends.
Brummell had no illusions as to the ultimate fate of a gambler, and
once tied himself up against play, receiving a ten-pound note from
Pemberton Mills on condition that he should forfeit a thousand if he
played again at White's for a month. Nevertheless, a fortnight later
he was playing again. His friend did not claim the thousand but
merely said: "Well, Brummell, you may at least give me back my ten
pounds." Playing at hazard one night with Alderman Combe, whom
he playfully called "Mash-tub" because he was a brewer, the Beau,
having won a considerable sum, said, pocketing the cash: "Thank
you, Alderman; in future I shall never drink any porter but yours." "I
wish, sir," was the reply, "that every blackguard in London would tell
me the same."
In the end Brummell went under, owing, he declared, with all the
superstition of a gambler, to the loss of a lucky sixpence with a hole
in it, which he had picked up in the small hours of the morning in
Berkeley Square. He gave it away, by mistake, to a cabman, and
used to say that he supposed "that rascal Rothschild, or some of his
set, had got hold of it."
One of the greatest gamblers in the early part of the nineteenth
century was Lord Rivers, whose dashing play at Parisian tables had
earned for him the name of "Le Wellington des Joueurs."
During a portion of his career this nobleman was said to have won
nearly a hundred thousand pounds by gambling. As a card-player he
was cool and skilful, whilst at the same time quick to seize the
moment for exchanging caution for dash. At times, however, he was
careless—he once lost £3400 at whist by not remembering that the
seven of hearts was still in.
Crockford's eventually ruined him as it did many others—some it
could not ruin. Lord Sefton, for instance, is said to have lost no less
than £200,000 there. After his death the proprietor presented an
acceptance for £40,000 to his son, which was paid. At the beginning
of the nineteenth century young men-about-town were exposed to
every sort of dangerous temptation.
In 1813 a youthful commoner, heir to large estates, was
unpleasantly initiated into the mysteries of fashionable play by losing
nearly £20,000 at hazard at a West-End Club, it being the first time
he had ever played. His single antagonist was a noble Lord of
considerable experience, who by mere chance held the box so luckily
as to throw in seven times successively. A remark being made upon
so extraordinary a run of the dice, his Lordship insisted upon having
them cut up, to manifest that his success had been perfectly
honourable—and the bones, on dissection, were found perfectly
innocent.
Gambling flourished at all the fashionable clubs. Brooks's in
particular was noted for unlimited gambling during the first forty
years of its existence. The prevalence of gambling there is shown by
one of the old rules, which prohibited "gaming in the 'eating-room'
except tossing up for reckonings." The penalty for a breach of this
regulation was paying the whole bill of the members present.
Though a rule existed which forbade the members to stake upon
credit, it was more or less treated as a dead letter, Mr. Brooks being
generally ready to make any advance which the members might
desire. The result of such confidence in the solvency of his clientele
appears to have been disappointing, for after eight years Mr. Brooks
withdrew from the Mastership of the Club and died in very poor
circumstances. All things considered this was not surprising, for he
was a man
Who, nursed in clubs, disdains a vulgar
trade,
Exults to trust, and blushes to be paid.
During the gaming period losses and winnings amounting to five,
ten, or fifteen thousand pounds were not at all uncommon. Lord
Stavordale, before he was of age, having lost £11,000 one night,
struck a good run at hazard and got it all back. This, however, did
not satisfy his Lordship, who swore a great oath, saying, "Now if I
had been playing deep I might have won millions."
One member, Mr Thynne, retired in disgust in March 1772. According
to a note written opposite his name in the Club books this was
because he had "won only £12,000 during the last two months, and
that he may never return is the ardent wish of members."
At Brooks's, Charles James Fox found himself amidst the most
congenial facilities for ruin, and he did not let them pass. Fox, who
joined Brooks's when he was sixteen, once sat in the Club playing at
hazard for twenty-two hours in succession, when he lost £11,000. At
twenty-five he was a ruined man, though his father had paid
£140,000 for him out of his own property. In 1793 his friends raised
£70,000 to pay his debts and buy him an annuity—a proof of the
affection this curious character inspired.
It was at Brooks's that Lord Robert Spencer is said at one stroke to
have recovered his considerable fortune lost at play. General
Fitzpatrick and Lord Robert, having both come to their last shilling,
contrived to raise a sufficient sum of money to keep a faro bank,
which proved an extraordinarily lucky one. Lord Robert's share was
no less than £100,000, with which he retired from the gambling-
table for ever, and never played again.
Another well-known man of fashion lost at Brooks's £70,000 and
everything else which he possessed, including his carriage and
horses, which was his last stake. Charles Fox, who was present, and
partook of the spoils, moved that an annuity of £50 per annum
should be settled upon the unfortunate gentleman, to be paid out of
the general fund, which motion was agreed to nem. con., and a
resolution was entered into at the instance of the same gentleman,
that every member who should be completely ruined in that house
should be allowed a similar annuity out of the same fund, on
condition that they are never to be admitted as sporting members;
as in that case the society would be playing against their own
money.
The old betting-book at Brooks's is a most curious record. A certain
member, for instance, bets another five hundred guineas to ten that
none of the Cabinet will be beheaded within the following three
years. Another wagers fifty guineas that Mademoiselle Heinel will not
dance at the opera next year. The whole volume is most
characteristic of an age when all fashionable London lived in a vortex
of speculation.

The Gambling-Room at Brooks's.

From a Water-colour Drawing in the possession of the Club.
Faro, quinze, and macao were the favourite games at Brooks's, but
at one time whist for high stakes came into great favour. Two of the
best players at this were a couple of characters known as Tippoo
Smith and "Neptune"—the latter an old gentleman who had gained
his nickname owing to his having once thrown himself into the sea
under the false impression that he could no longer keep his head
above water.
At Brooks's are preserved a number of relics of the old gambling
days, including the faro table at which Fox played. This has a portion
cut away, in order, it is said, to give room for his portly form. A
complete set of the old gaming counters—the highest inscribed 500
guineas—is also here, whilst several prints and pictures (one of them
reproduced in these pages by the courtesy of the Committee) give a
good idea of a vanished day.
Brooks's was much frequented by a famous whist-player, General
Scott, the father-in-law of George Canning and the Duke of Portland,
who is said to have won about £200,000 at the game, of which he
was a past master.
The General, indeed, was a very shrewd man where all forms of
speculation were concerned, and once won a large wager at
Newmarket in the following way. Just as his horse was about to start
for a sweepstake, Mr. Panton called out to him, "General, I'll lay you
a thousand pounds your horse is neither first nor last." The General
accepted the bet and immediately gave directions to his rider; his
horse came in last, and he claimed the money. Mr. Panton objected
to payment, because the General had spoken to his rider; but the
Jockey Club held that the bet was laid not upon the chance of the
place in which the horse would come, if the rider was uninformed of
it, but upon the opinion, that he had not speed enough to be first,
nor tractability enough to be brought in last.
Nevertheless, the General, like most gamblers, had his moments of
generosity. He was playing one evening with the Count d'Artois and
the Duc de Chartres, at Paris, when a petition was brought up from
the widow of a French officer, stating her various misfortunes, and
praying relief. A plate was handed round, and each put in one, two,
or three louis d'or, but when it was held to the General, who was
going to throw for a stake of five hundred louis d'or, he said, "Stop a
moment, if you please, sir: here goes for the widow!" The throw was
successful, and he instantly swept the whole into the plate, and sent
it down to her.
General Scott was an excellent whist-player, and lived in a most
careful manner, which gave him a great advantage over his
contemporaries, many of whom were reckless to a degree, tossing
their money about in all directions, and borrowing from any one
when short of cash.
General Scott followed a regime which assisted him to keep all his
faculties in the very best condition for getting the most out of his
cards. His dinner usually consisted of a boiled chicken, washed down
with toast and water. His memory, coolness, and judgment were
remarkable. With players such as these, whist became almost a
religious function of a singularly profitable kind.
At the present day, when whist has fallen from its ancient high
estate, and rendered practically obsolete owing to the popularity of
bridge, it is difficult to realise the place which the game held in the
estimation of many of our forefathers.
At the beginning of the nineteenth century almost as large sums
were lost and won at whist as at the hazard-table, which was chiefly
the resort of those who, like Fox, complained that games of skill
afforded no excitement.
Many who were not entirely devoted to high play found their only
relaxation in whist. Such a one was Lord Camden's brother, Mr.
Edward Pratt, connected with the East India Company, whose sole
bond with humanity is said to have lain in whist.
By no means an avaricious man, Mr. Pratt spent little upon his
personal comfort, always living in the upper floor of a house owing
to its tranquillity, and regularly dining in a room by himself at a
tavern every day of the year, his only companion a solitary bottle of
port.
He was seldom heard to speak, but no circumstance, however
urgent, could prevail on him to break silence at whist, the favourite
amusement, or rather occupation of his life; and, at the conclusion
of each rubber, he could correctly call over the cards in the exact
order in which they were played, as well as the persons from whose
hands they fell, and enumerate various instances of error or
dexterity in his associates, with practical remarks. This extraordinary
exertion of the retentive powers was often doubted, and as often
ascertained by considerable wagers.
Abstinence from speech, however, was the favourite, habitual,
perhaps the affected, pleasure of his life; to such a pitch did he carry
this eccentricity that he deliberately chose to forego many little
satisfactions and comforts, rather than be at the trouble to ask for
them.
In his voyages to India, Mr. Pratt might have been compared to
some Eastern mystic, whose eyes and thoughts are immovably
riveted by inspiration, madness, or emptiness to the region of the
navel. When on voyages by sea it was his invariable custom to
present the appearance of one entirely engrossed by his own
thoughts, which, it was opined from his countenance, were of a
peculiarly morose character. He often doubled the Cape without
having scarcely uttered a word. During one voyage, when his ship
had been detained by a long and troublesome calm, the anxious and
dispirited crew were at last revived by the advent of the long-
wished-for breeze. Amidst general excitement, a miserably dressed
seaman on the topmast being at last able to proclaim the welcome
tidings of land, Mr. Pratt alone struck a discordant note, for whilst
the officers and ship's company were congratulating each other on
the approaching joys of being on shore, though his features were
observed to alter and somewhat unbend, no sound escaped his lips.
"I knew you would enjoy the sight of land," at length said the first
officer. "I saw it an hour before the careless ragamuffin aloft," were
the first, the last, and the only words Mr. Pratt uttered during the
voyage.
"A clear fire, a clean hearth, and the rigour of the game," was the
sole earthly aim of Mr. Pratt, as it was of the old lady who declared
that next to her devotions she loved a good game of whist. Players
of this sort were not lukewarm gamesters or half-and-half players
who have no objection to take a hand if one is wanted to make up a
rubber; affirming that they have no pleasure in winning, or that they
like to win one game and lose another. Keen antagonists, they never
desired an adversary who had slipped a wrong card, to take it up
and play another. They loved a thorough-paced partner and a
determined enemy. They took and gave no concessions; they hated
favours, never made a revoke, or passed it over in an adversary
without exacting the utmost penalty. They never introduced or
connived at miscellaneous conversation during the progress of a
game, for, as they emphatically observed, cards were cards. Whist
was their business and duty—the thing which they had come into
the world to do—and they did it.
In the early days of the nineteenth century a great deal of gambling
went on at Wattier's Club, No. 81 Piccadilly (now a private house),
which made a speciality of macao. This game is said to have been
introduced into England by French émigrés.
Wattier's was kept by an old maître d'hôtel of George IV., who, quite
a character in his way, prided himself upon the excellence of his
cuisine and wines.
The life of Wattier's was a short and merry one, for it only lasted
some twelve years, being closed in 1819, when for a time it became
a sort of common gambling-house. Byron, Beau Brummell, and
many other men of fashion frequented the Club, and, occasionally,
says tradition, solaced themselves for their losses by throwing
bottles of wine out of the window into the yard of the house just
across the way.
Some sixteen years later there was a good deal of high play at whist
at Graham's Club, and a scandal occurred. Lord de Ros being
charged with unfair play by the Satirist newspaper, against which he
brought an action for libel. Much curious evidence was given during
the trial, one witness admitting that he had won no less than
£35,000 in fifteen years at whist. Another—Captain Alexander—
estimated his winnings at about £1600 a year. Asked by Counsel how
long he had played on a certain occasion, he replied: "All night."
"After a slight dinner I suppose?" "As good a dinner as I can get." "A
small boiled chicken and a glass of lemonade perhaps?" The witness
for some reason considered this insulting and excitedly said: "I deny
the lemonade altogether—I never take lemonade"—a disavowal
which plunged the court into laughter. Considerable amusement was
also created by another witness who, being asked whether he had
ever seen anything suspicious about the prosecutor's play replied:
"Yes." "What course did you take?" "I always backed him," was the
answer.
In the end the peer, who was Premier Baron of England, lost his
case. He did not long survive the disgrace, and on his death in 1837
the following line was suggested by Theodore Hook as an epitaph—

Here lies England's Premier Baron patiently awaiting the last

trump.

Towards the middle of the nineteenth century gambling in Clubs

began to decline, though, as is always the case, intermittent fits of
private gambling were frequent at the West End. In the late
'seventies and early 'eighties, however, of the last century there was
some revival of gaming-clubs, or rather places called clubs.
A considerable number of these, started merely for the purposes of
play, sprang up in the West End; and the proprietors in many cases
realised large sums by cashing the cheques of players, a certain
percentage being deducted from the amount of the sum, which was
not infrequently handed over in counters. A clever proprietor would,
of course, know how much any particular client was good for, and
take care to run few risks. Where play was high and the members
rich a plentiful harvest was reaped.
The most fashionable Club of this sort was the Park Club, Park Place,
St James's, where, in 1884, there was a good deal of high play at
baccarat. The existence of what was virtually a gaming-club aroused
much comment, and, the matter reaching the ears of the authorities,
it was not long before action was taken.
As considerable misapprehension exists as to how the English law
views gaming, some account of the proceedings which followed may
not be out of place.
On the 17th of January 1884, Mr. St John Wontner attended at Bow
Street on behalf of Mr. Howard Vincent, the Director of the Criminal
Investigation Department, to apply for process against the Park
Club, Park Place, St. James's, under the provisions of the Gaming
Acts.
Mr. Wontner, referring to the section of the Act under which it was
proposed to proceed, said that the summons was applied for against
the proprietor, the secretary, the committee, and various members of
this Club, for keeping the premises as a common gambling-house,
where they habitually allowed baccarat to be played.
Attention was called to the comments of the Press on gambling, and
it was said that various complaints had been made to the police, in
consequence of which an inspector was instructed to intimate to the
proprietors of various Clubs that the practice of playing games of
chance was illegal, and proceedings would be taken were it to be
continued.
Play had been suspended at various Clubs, but in the ease of this
particular Club, Messrs. Lewis & Lewis, Solicitors, of Ely Place, had
communicated with the authorities to the effect that it was the
intention of those concerned to test the question, and expressed
willingness to answer any proceedings that might be instituted.
On the 1st of February 1884, at Bow Street, before Sir J. Ingham,
Jenks (proprietor), Dalton (secretary), and certain members of this
Club and its committee appeared to a summons charging them with
a contravention of the Gaming Act.
Mr. St. John Wontner prosecuted, Mr. Charles Russell, afterwards
Lord Russell of Killowen, and Mr. Poland, instructed by Mr. George
Lewis, defended.
The charge against the defendants was that they were concerned in
keeping a common gaming-house, and permitting a game of chance
to be played called "baccarat." For the prosecution Mr. Wontner
quoted some rules of the game. He said that the regulation bank at
this Club was fixed at £50, an open bank at £1000. As a rule, the
banks varied from £25 to £300, but were often larger. Mr. Wontner
quoted a printed description of the game of baccarat, and submitted
that it was purely a game of chance of a dangerous character, at
which excessive gambling took place. Playing cards for amusement
was not prohibited, but it was contended that excessive gambling
was punishable by law.
Sir J. Ingham inquired as to the definition of the word "excessive."
Mr. Wontner submitted that the Legislature had defined excessive
gambling as criminal, while moderate gaming was not. So the
proprietor of a place where excessive gaming was allowed, and who
received the profits, was guilty of the offence at common law of
keeping a gaming-house, and habitual users of the house were also
liable.
An ordinary Club-house, where the profits went to the members,
would be equally a gaming-house if excessive and habitual play were
allowed.
Mr. Wontner quoted several decisions, and referred to various Acts
dealing with gaming, dating from the reign of Henry VIII., when all
games except archery were declared illegal. A subsequent Act
repealed that Act, as far as games of skill went, but the old
enactment still held as to games, and he contended that whether
unlawful gaming went on in a house, the proprietor of which
admitted members on payment of subscription, or whether it took
place in an ordinary Club, the offence was just the same.
Inspector Swansen, of Scotland Yard, had had interviews with Jenks
as to particulars respecting the Club. Jenks told him the Club was
open in 1882, and he had bought the lease of the premises. He
explained the game of baccarat. After two o'clock the banks were
put up to auction. Each bank paid one per cent, and each player five
shillings for card-money up to 2 a.m. After that time, five shillings
until 5 a.m., when £1 an hour was charged, in order to make the
game prohibitory. The profits so derived went to the proprietor. One
per cent was also charged for cashing cheques. The rules of the Club
prohibited the introduction of any stranger to the card-room. The
profits realised were from the subscriptions and the card-money. The
kitchen had been a loss, and wine and cigars were sold at cost price.
On a subsequent occasion, Mr. Jenks told witness that members'
cheques were cashed, and one per cent was charged as an
insurance against bad cheques. He stated that he did not cash
cheques beyond a reasonable amount, which he estimated at £300.
In cross-examination by Mr. Russell, witness admitted that Jenks had
given all information freely. The Club, of which he was the proprietor,
consisted of from 200 to 300 members, comprising gentlemen well-
known in society.
The night steward of the Park Club was called, and gave evidence as
to the play in the card-room. Baccarat was not played there until Mr.
Jenks took possession of the Club. Play began about 4.30 in the
afternoon, and a break would be made about half-past seven for
dinner, after which play was resumed and kept up till two, three,
four, and sometimes eight o'clock in the morning. The average bank
would be about £100.
After further evidence had been taken, and speeches made for and
against the defendants, Sir James Ingham, in giving his decision on
the summons, said that Jenks was substantially charged with
keeping a house for unlawful gaming, and the other gentlemen were
substantially charged with aiding and assisting him in doing so. The
first question to determine was why and for what purpose Jenks
kept this house open. Was it an ordinary Club at which gambling was
casually introduced, or was it substantially a gaming-house? The
question could be answered by the evidence, as the profits arising
from the wines, spirits, and tobacco were admitted to be trifling,
while the profits from food were absolutely nothing, the kitchen
being carried on at a loss. The subscriptions received from 250
members at six guineas per year produced annually £1711, which
was subjected to very large deductions for rent, taxes, etc. It must
be clear to everybody that as a Club for social purposes, the
business would not be worth the care and attention which it would
require. What was the case with respect to gambling? Jenks received
one per cent upon all banks, and contributions from all players who
stayed after certain hours. Without going into particulars he
calculated on consideration of the number of games that would be
played ordinarily in the course of an evening, that Jenks must realise
from £45 to £50 per night, and that his annual profits must be
£10,000 to £12,000, or perhaps many thousands more. Therefore,
no one could doubt that the house had been kept and used for the
purpose of gambling, for its character as a social Club was absolutely
ancillary to its business as a gambling-house. The statute, however,
required that there should not only be gambling, but gambling at an
unlawful game, and the main question was whether the game of
baccarat was an unlawful game. It must be admitted that although a
great many games had been prohibited by the Legislature, baccarat
had not, and whether it was unlawful or not, must depend on other
considerations. Baccarat appeared to be a game of chance,
tempered by a certain amount of skill and judgment. Many games of
mixed chance and skill might be innocently played. It was important
to glance at the state of the old law. Sir J. Ingham then quoted from
Baker's abridgment on the subject of gaming for recreation and
common gaming-houses, "which promote cheating and other corrupt
practices, and incite to idleness and avariciousness persons whose
time might otherwise be employed to the general good of the
community."
The principle to be extracted was that gaming productive of the
above evils ought to be considered unlawful, and he (Sir James)
considered that the game of baccarat was not "a game played for
recreation, whereby a person is fitted for the ordinary duties of life."
A great deal had been said upon the subject of large and excessive
gambling, and the argument had been advanced that games which
would be large and risky and excessive for a man who was in the
position of a shop-keeper, would be nothing, trifles infinitesimal, in
the eyes of a man of large property. Granted that was so, still there
might be cases in which the law could be easily applied, and he
thought this was one. Referring to the rules of the Park Club, which
was to consist of noblemen, members of the learned professions,
officers of the Army and Navy, and gentlemen, Sir James observed
that a man at the game in question might lose, with consistent bad
luck, £1000 before dinner, and a considerable sum in addition
afterwards. Would there be any difficulty in saying that that was
large and excessive gambling in the case of members of the learned
professions, clergymen, bishops, great leading counsel of the day, or
even judges with the largest salaries, physicians, and so forth?
Gaming such as had been proved to exist would be large and
excessive for any of those classes of men, and still more so for
officers of the Army and Navy. He had no hesitation in saying, with
reference to the gentlemen composing the Club at Mr. Jenks's house,
that gaming had been large and excessive, and that it came within
the principle of the law laid down by Chief Justice Abbot in the case
of "King v. Rosier." But he considered the case did not stop there,
and proceeded to refer at great length to the Act of Queen Anne,
limiting gambling.
In conclusion, the learned Magistrate held that all the parties, with
the exception of Mr. Dalton (secretary), had been guilty of gaming.
He fined Mr. Jenks £500, the members of the committee £500, and
each of the players £100.
Notice of appeal was given.
The appeal was brought on May 26 and 27, and in giving judgment,
Sir Henry Hawkins (afterwards Lord Brampton), after saying that the
facts were undisputed—there was no profit except on the gaming,
though from the admirable printed rules one might well conclude
that the Club was a sociable Club, where a gentleman might dine
and have his rubber at whist, whilst not on any account allowed to
gamble. The rules in question were, however, nightly disregarded,
and looking at the nightly doings, it was impossible for any man in
his senses to doubt that the house was really opened and kept for
the purpose of gaming at the game of baccarat as its main and
principal object.
He now had to consider the illegality of the gaming and not merely
the illegality of the game—the common law did not prohibit the
playing at cards and dice, which were not unlawful games, but the
keeping of a common gaming-house was at common law an
indictable offence.
Sir Henry Hawkins, after some comments on what constituted a
gaming-house, went on to say that in his judgment it was not
necessary for a gaming-house to be a public nuisance, which the
Park Club was not:—a common gaming-house being itself a
nuisance, though the gaming there was limited to the subscribers
and members of the Club. The keeper of such a house could always
admit or exclude whom he chose, and the committee elected whom
they pleased, provided the list of members did not exceed 500. It
might be 5000 and yet still not be a public, but a common gaming-
house.
As to unlawful games—no games had been in so many words
declared by name unlawful, though the Legislature intended to cover
some games which, being lawful in themselves, were only unlawful
when played in particular places or by particular persons. The Act of
1845 enacted that a house is proved to be a common gaming-house
which is kept for playing any unlawful games and a bank is kept by
one or more of the players, exclusively of the others, or where the
chances of any game played are not alike favourable to all the
players.
He divided unlawful games into two classes:
First, those absolutely forbidden by name, to the gaming at which a
penalty is attached. This class included "ace of hearts," "pharaoh or
faro," "basset," and "hazard," and any other game with a die or dice
except backgammon.
Second, a number of games not altogether prohibited under penal
consequences, nor declared to be altogether illegal, but which,
nevertheless, have been declared unlawful by the Legislature,
because the keeping of houses for playing them, and the play in
them therein by anybody, were rendered illegal.
The unlawful games of the Acts of Henry VIII. were "bowls,"
"quoits," "dicing," "tennis," and "carding," most of which would seem
to have been games of mere skill. The Acts in question were all
repealed by 8 and 9 Vic.
The present unlawful games, then, were "ace of hearts," "faro,"
"basset," "hazard," "passage," "roulette," and every game of dice
except backgammon, and every game of cards which was not a
game of "mere skill." He was inclined to add any other game of
"mere chance."
The question was, did "baccarat" come within this category?—the
description of the game given by Mr. Russell satisfied him that it did.
Baccarat was a game of cards—a game of chance—and though, as
in most other things, experience and judgment might make one
player or banker more successful than another, it would be a
perversion of words to say it was in any sense a game of mere skill.
It was, therefore, in his opinion an unlawful game within the
meaning of the statute.
It was said that it was a modern game—assuming it to be so, it was
just what the Legislature intended to include in the phraseology of
one unrepealed section of the law of Henry VIII., which mentioned
"any new unlawful game hereafter to be invented."
With regard to excessive gaming since the repeal of the statutes of
Anne and George II., he did not think excessive gaming at any game
would in itself render the game unlawful, for excessive gaming per
se was not any longer a legal offence. Nevertheless, though
excessive gaming was no longer per se unlawful, the fact that it was
habitually carried on in a house kept for the purpose of gaming was
a cogent piece of evidence to be offered to a jury or other tribunal
called on to determine whether a house was a common gaming-
house so as to make the keeper of it liable to be indicted for a
nuisance at common law.
Seeing that Mr. Jenks was the occupier and kept the house open for
the purpose of gaming, at, amongst other games, baccarat, an
unlawful game within the meaning of the Statute, he was of opinion
that he was properly convicted.
As to the four members of the committee, the only question was
whether these appellants had the care or management of the house
—he thought they had—they could not but have been cognisant of
the rules and of the true character of the Club. The second rule of
the Club placed its internal management in their hands—he thought
there was abundance of evidence to warrant their conviction.
As to the three players, he found no evidence that they did more
than play at baccarat in the house, by which it might be that they
somewhat enhanced the profits, but they took no part in the
management. Adding to the profits was not a legal offence, as
assistance in conducting the establishment was—the conviction with
respect to the three players ought to be quashed.
Mr. Justice Smith followed, and his summing up entirely coincided
with that of Sir Henry Hawkins. This lucid judgment is of
considerable interest as affecting games played in English Clubs, and
did much to clear up all ambiguity as to how far a Club might allow
gambling. It put an end to all open baccarat, though the game was
shortly afterwards played for a time at "The Field Club," near St.
James's Street, an establishment which much resembled the defunct
Park Club in its diversions, members, and methods, but the police
soon interfered, and with its demise Club gambling at games of
chance has become a thing of the past, except in the low dens of
Soho, where faro intermittently calls for the intervention of the
authorities. Police raids upon bogus Clubs mainly frequented by
foreigners of a low class are often reported in the newspapers.
As regards respectable Clubs, a certain amount of bridge, usually for
very moderate stakes, is indulged in, but gambling for high stakes is
strongly discountenanced. Members inclined to indulge any
tendencies in this direction generally do so elsewhere than in a Club.
From time to time small Clubs in which there is some high play have
sprung up and had a brief existence. When bridge first began to
capture London, a bridge Club was started in the West End where
very high stakes were the rule. It lasted but a short time, owing
chiefly to the fact that a young and not very astute member lost a
very large sum, which created considerable scandal and broke up
the Club.
High bridge is now played in London mostly by wealthy people, well
able to take care of themselves. The outcry raised some time ago
about young girls being compelled to join in playing for large stakes
is not based upon any solid foundation of truth, for as a rule high
players are not fond of running the chance of drawing a novice as a
partner. A bad player spoils the game.
Though there is practically no gambling in West-End Clubs, a good
deal of baccarat and poker is occasionally played in private houses,
ladies being not infrequently amongst the players, and here gaming
assumes its most undesirable form. Temper as well as money is
generally lost, whilst the winners are exposed to a by no means
remote probability of never being paid. Private gambling is especially
dangerous to young men, and without doubt a thousand times more
harm is done by play of this sort than by all the properly conducted
public tables in the world.

FOOTNOTES:
[5] The love of money compels.

V
Talleyrand whilst at cards announces the death of the Duc
d'Enghien—"The curse of Scotland"—Wilberforce at faro—
Successful gamblers—The Rev. Caleb Colton—Colonel
Panton—Dennis O'Kelly—Richard Rigby—Anecdotes—
Strange incidents at play—Aged gamesters—A duel with
death—General Wade and the poor officer—Anecdote of a
caprice of Fortune—Stock Exchange speculation—A man
who profited by tips.
The history of card-playing is connected with many dramatic
incidents. If the story be true, one of the most striking of these was
when Talleyrand, who had been playing very late at "la bouillotte"
with the Duchesse de Luynes, suddenly laid down his cards, and in
his cold, impassive voice asked, "Has the Prince de Condé any other
grandchildren than the Duc d'Enghien?" Receiving an answer in the
negative he calmly said, "Then the house of Condé has come to an
end."
At that very moment the ill-fated Duc was being led out to be shot
at the château of Vincennes.
A grim historical interest is also generally supposed to be connected
with the nine of diamonds, which is known as "the curse of
Scotland," the reason assigned being that the Duke of Cumberland
wrote his sanguinary orders on the back of such a card in 1746.
Notwithstanding this popular tradition, the nine of diamonds had
been known as "the curse of Scotland" as far back as thirty years
before Culloden—perhaps because a somewhat similar design
formed the arms of Colonel Packer, who was on the scaffold when
Charles I. was executed. Another reason given is that there were
nine lozenges resembling diamonds in the arms of the Earl of Stair
who made the Union.
Cards have at times attracted the most saintly persons. The first
time the philanthropic Wilberforce was at Brooks's he joined in
playing faro—according to his own account—from mere shyness. A
friend of his, very much surprised, called out to him, "What,
Wilberforce, is that you?" George Selwyn, who was keeping the
bank, resented the interference, and said in his most expressive
tones, "Oh, sir, don't interrupt Mr. Wilberforce, he could not be better
employed."
Oddly enough, one of the most remarkable instances of a really
successful gambler was an English clergyman, the Reverend Caleb
Colton. A man of considerable learning, he was originally a fellow of
King's College, Cambridge, and curate of Tiverton. In 1812 he
created some slight stir with two poems entitled "Hypocrisy" and
"Napoleon." His literary reputation was further enhanced in 1818,
when the author had become Vicar of Kew, by the publication of a
volume of maxims called Lacon: or Many Things in Few Words. This
work, however, was not absolutely original, being in a great measure
founded upon Lord Bacon's Essays, Burdon's Materials for Thinking,
and the well-known aphorisms of La Rochefoucauld.

La Bouillotte.
From a scarce print after Bosio.
About this time Mr. Colton began to speculate, and, having dabbled
rather recklessly in Spanish bonds, his affairs became involved. This
frightened the reverend gentleman, and, though there appears to
have been no pressing reason for taking such a step, he absconded.
His affairs were subsequently put in order, after which Mr. Colton for
a time betook himself to America, eventually returning to Europe
and settling down in Paris. Here he took up his abode in the Palais
Royal, at that time the head-quarters of dissipation and amusement
—surely the queerest spot ever selected by an English clergyman for
his abode.
Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.

More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge

connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and

personal growth every day!

ebookbell.com