Dick England returned to London, where he shortly disagreed with the lieutenant. The latter joined the worthy before described, Captain O'Kelly, who was also at enmity with Dick England; and the latter took an opportunity of knocking their heads together in a public coffee-room, and thrashing them both till they took shelter under the tables. Dick had the strength of an ox, the ferocity of a bull-dog, and 'the cunning of the serpent,' although what the latter is no naturalist has ever yet discovered or explained.

The lieutenant determined on revenge for the thrashing. He had joined his regiment, and he 'peached' against his former friend, disclosing to the officers the circumstance of the dice at Spa, before mentioned; and, of course, upset all the designs of Dick England and his associates. This enraged all the blacklegs; a combination was formed against the lieutenant; and he was shot through the head by 'a brother officer,' who belonged to the confraternity.

The son of an earl lost forty thousand pounds in play to Dick England; and shot himself at Stacie's Hotel in consequence—the very night before his honourable father sent his steward to pay the 'debt of honour' in full—though aware that his son had been cheated out of it.

But the most extraordinary 'pass' of Dick England's career is still to be related—not without points in it which make it difficult to believe, in spite of the evidence, that it is the same 'party' who was concerned in it. Here it is.

In the Gentleman's Magazine, in Gilchrist's Collection of British Duels, in Dr Millingen's reproduction of the latter, the following account occurs:—

'Mr Richard England was put to the bar at the Old Bailey, charged with the "wilful murder" of Mr Rowlls, brewer, of Kingston, in a duel at Cranford-bridge, June 18, 1784.

'Lord Derby, the first witness, gave evidence that he was present at Ascot races. When in the stand upon the race-course, he heard Mr England cautioning the gentlemen present not to bet with the deceased, as he neither paid what he lost nor what he borrowed. On which Mr Rowlls went up to him, called him rascal or scoundrel, and offered to strike him; when Mr England bid him stand off, or he would be obliged to knock him down; saying, at the same time—"We have interrupted the company sufficiently here, and if you have anything further to say to me, you know where I am to be found." A further altercation ensued; but his Lordship being at the other end of the stand, did not distinctly hear it, and then the parties retired.

'Lord Dartrey, afterwards Lord Cremorne, and his lady, with a gentleman, were at the inn at the time the duel was fought. They went into the garden and endeavoured to prevent the duel; several other persons were collected in the garden. Mr Rowlls desired his Lordship and others not to interfere; and on a second attempt of his Lordship to make peace, Mr Rowlls said, if they did not retire, he must, though reluctantly, call them impertinent. Mr England at the same time stepped forward, and took off his hat; he said—"Gentlemen, I have been cruelly treated; I have been injured in my honour and character; let reparation be made, and I am ready to have done this moment." Lady Dartrey retired. His Lordship stood in the bower of the garden until he saw Mr Rowlls fall. One or two witnesses were called, who proved nothing material. A paper, containing the prisoner's defence, being read, the Earl of Derby, the Marquis of Hertford, Sir Whitbread, jun., Colonel Bishopp, and other gentlemen, were called to his character. They all spoke of him as a man of decent gentlemanly deportment, who, instead of seeking quarrels, was studious to avoid them. He had been friendly to Englishmen while abroad, and had rendered some service to the military at the siege of Newport.

'Mr Justice Rooke summoned up the evidence; after which the jury retired for about three quarters of an hour, when they returned a verdict of "manslaughter."

'The prisoner having fled from the laws of his country for twelve years, the Court was disposed to show no lenity. He was therefore sentenced to pay a fine of one shilling, and be imprisoned in Newgate twelve months.'

This trial took place in the year 1796, and the facts in evidence give a strange picture of the times. A duel actually fought in the garden of an inn, a noble lord close by in a bower therein, and his lady certainly within HEARING of the shots, and doubtless a spectator of the bloody spectacle. But this is not the point,—the incomprehensible point,—to which I have alluded—which is, how Lord Derby and the other gentlemen of the highest standing could come forward to speak to the character of DICK ENGLAND, if he was the same man who killed the unfortunate brewer of Kingston?

Here is ANOTHER account of the matter, which warrants the doubt, although it is fearfully circumstantial, as to the certain identity:—

'Mr William Peter le Rowles, of Kingston, brewer, was habitually fond of play. On one occasion he was induced—when in a state of intoxication—to play with Dick England, who claimed, in consequence, winnings to the amount of two hundred guineas. Mr le Rowles utterly denied the debt, and was in consequence pursued by England until he was compelled to a duel, in which Mr le Rowles fell. Lord Dartrey, afterwards Lord Cremorne, was present at Ascot Heath races on the fatal occasion, which happened in 1784; and his evidence before the coroner's inquest produced a verdict of wilful murder against Dick England, who fled at the time, but returned twelve years afterwards, was tried, and found guilty of manslaughter only. He was imprisoned for twelve months. England was strongly suspected of highway robberies; particularly on one occasion, when his associate, F—, was shot dead by Col. P— on his return from the Curragh races to the town of Naas. The Marquis of Hertford, Lords Derby and Cremorne, Colonels Bishopp and Wollaston, and Messrs Whitbread, Breton, &c., were evidences in the trial.'(145)

(145) The Gaming Calendar, by Seymour Harcourt.

It may seem strange that such a man as Dick England could procure such distinguished 'witnesses to character.' The thing is easily explained, however. They knew the man only as a turf companion. We can come to no other conclusion,—remembering other instances of the kind. For example, the case of Palmer, convicted for the poisoning of Cooke. Had Palmer been on his trial merely for fighting a fatal duel; there can be no doubt that several noblemen would have come forward to give him a good character. I was present at his trial, and saw him BOW TO ONE, AT LEAST, OF OUR MOST DISTINGUISHED NOBLEMEN when the latter took his seat near the judge, at the trial. There was a TURF ACQUAINTANCESHIP between them, and, of course, all 'acquaintanceship' may be presumed upon, if we lay ourselves open to the degradation.

The following is a curious case in point. A gentleman of the highest standing and greatest respectability was accosted by a stranger to whom he said—'Sir, you have the advantage of me.' 'Oh!' rejoined the former, 'don't you remember when we used to meet at certain parties at Bath many years ago?' 'Well, sir,' exclaimed the gentleman, 'you may speak to me should you ever again meet me at certain parties at Bath, but nowhere else.'

MAJOR BAGGS.

This famous gamester died in 1792, by a cold caught in 'a round-house,' or place of detention, to which he had been taken by Justice Hyde, from a gaming table.

When too ill to rise out of his chair, he would be carried in that chair to the Hazard table.

He was supposed to have been the utter ruin of above forty persons at play. He fought eleven duels.

THE DUC DE MIREFOIX.

The Duc de Mirefois was ambassador at the British Court, and was extremely fond of chess. A reverend gentleman being nearly his equal, they frequently played together. At that time the clergyman kept a petty day-school in a small village, and had a living of not more than twenty pounds a-year. The French nobleman made uncommon interest with a noble duke, through whose favour he obtained for his reverend protege a living of about L600 per annum—an odd way of obtaining the 'cure of souls!'

A RECLAIMED GAMBLER'S ACCOUNT OF HIS CAREER.

'Some years since I was lieutenant in a regiment, which the alarm and policy of administration occasioned to be quartered in the vicinity of the metropolis, where I was for the first time. A young nobleman of very distinguished family undertook to be my conductor. Alas! to what scenes did he introduce me! To places of debauchery and dens of destruction. I need not detail particulars. From the lures of the courtesan we went to an adjoining gaming room. Though I thought my knowledge of cards superior to those I saw play that night, I touched no card nor dice. From this my conductor, a brother officer, and myself adjourned to Pall Mall. We returned to our lodgings about six o'clock in the morning.

'I could think of nothing but Faro's magic centre, and longed for the next evening, when I determined to enter that path which has led so many to infamy, beggary, and suicide. I began cautiously, and for some time had reason to be satisfied with my success. It enabled me to live expensively. I made golden calculations of my future fortune as I improved in skill. My manuals were treatises on gaming and chances, and no man understood this doctrine better than I did. I, however, did not calculate the disparity of resisting powers—my purse with FIFTY guineas, and the Faro bank with a hundred thousand. It was ruin only which opened my eyes to this truism at last.

'Good meats, good cooking, and good wines, given gratis and plenteously, at these houses, drew many to them at first, for the sake of the society. Among them I one evening chanced to see a clerical prig, who was incumbent of a parish adjoining that in which my mother lived. I was intoxicated with wine and pleasure, when I, on this occasion, entered a haunt of ruin and enterprising avarice in Pall Mall. I played high and lost in proportion.

'The spirit of adventure was now growing on me every day. I was sometimes very successful. Yet my health was impaired, and my temper soured by the alternation of good and bad fortune, and my pity or contempt for those with whom I associated. From the nobleman, whose acres were nightly melting in the dice box, there were adventurers even to the UNFLEDGED APPRENTICE, who came with the pillage of his unsuspecting master's till, to swell the guilty bank of Dame N— and Co. Were the Commissioners of Bankruptcy to know how many citizens are prepared for them at those houses, they would be bound to thank them.

'Many a score of guineas have I won of tradesmen, who seemed only to turn an honest penny in Leadenhall Street, Aldgate, Birchin Lane, Cornhill, Cheapside, Holborn, the Borough, and other eastern spots of industry; but I fleeced them only for the benefit of the Faro bank, which is sure, finally, to absorb the gain of all. Some of the croupiers would call their gold GIFTS OF THE WISE MEN OF THE EAST; others termed their guineas COCKNEY COUNTERS!

'One night I had such a run of luck in the Hazard room, which was rather thinly attended, that I won everything, and with my load of treasure collected from the East and West, nay, probably, some of it from Finchley Common and Hounslow Heath, I went, in the flush of success, to attack the Faro bank.

'It was my determination, however, if fortune favoured me through the night, never to tempt her more. For some hours I proceeded in the torture of suspense, alternately agitated by hope and fear—but by five o'clock in the morning I attained a state of certainty similar to that of a wretch ushered into the regions of the damned. I had lost L3500 guineas, which I had brought with me from the Hazard table, together with L2000 which the bank advanced me on my credit. There they stopped; and, with an apathy peculiar to themselves, listened to a torrent of puerile abuse which I vented against them in my despair.

'Two days and two nights I shut myself up, to indulge in the most racking reflections. I was ruined beyond repair, and I had, on the third morning, worked myself up to resort for relief to a loaded pistol. I rang for my servant to bring me some gunpowder, and was debating with myself whether to direct its force to my brain or my heart, when he entered with a letter. It was from Harriet ——. She had heard of my misfortunes, and urged me with the soul and pen of a heroine, to fly the destructive habits of the town, and to wait for nine months, when her minority would expire, and she would come into the uncontrolled possession of L1700. With that small sum she hoped my expenses, talents, and domestic comfort, under her housewifery, would create a state of happiness and independence which millions could not procure in the mad career which I had pursued.

'This was the voice of a guardian angel in the moment of despair. In her next, at my request, she informed me that the channel of her early and minute information was the clerical prig, her neighbour and admirer, who was related to one of the croupiers at ——, and had from him a regular detail of my proceedings.

'Soothed by the magic influence of my virtuous Harriet, instead of calling the croupier to account, I wrote to the proprietors of the bank, stating my ruined condition, and my readiness to sell my commission and pay them what I could. These gentlemen have friends in every department. They completed the transfer of my lieutenancy in two days, and then, in their superabundant humanity, offered me the place of croupier in an inferior house which they kept near Hanover Square. This offer I declined; and after having paid my tradesman's bill, I left London with only eleven guineas in my pocket. I married the best of women, my preserver, and have ever since lived in real comfort and happiness, on an income less than one hundred pounds a year.'

A SURPRISE.

A stranger plainly dressed took his seat at a Faro table, when the bank was richer than usual. After some little routine play, he challenged the bank, and tossed his pocket-book to the banker that he might be satisfied of his responsibility. It was found to contain bills to an immense amount; and on the banker showing reluctance to accept the challenge, the stranger sternly demanded compliance with the laws of the game. The card soon turned up which decided the ruin of the banker. 'Heaven!' exclaimed an old infirm Austrian officer, who had sat next to the stranger—'the twentieth part of your gains would make me the happiest man in the universe!' The stranger briskly answered—'You shall have it, then;' and quitted the room. A servant speedily returned, and presented the officer with the twentieth part of the bank, adding—'My master requires no answer, sir,' and went out. The successful stranger was soon recognized to be the great King of Prussia in disguise.



CHAPTER XIII. THE LOTTERIES AND THEIR BEWILDERMENTS.

If we are to believe Pere Menestrier, the institution of Lotteries is to be found in the Bible, in the words—'The LOT causeth contentions to cease, and parteth between the mighty,' Prov. xviii. 18. Be that as it may, it is certain that lotteries were in use among the ancient Romans, taking place during the Saturnalia, or festivities in honour of the god Saturn, when those who took part in them received a numbered ticket, which entitled the bearer to a prize. During the reign of Augustus the thing became a means of gratifying the cupidity of his courtiers; and Nero used it as the method of distributing his gifts to the people,—granting as many as a thousand tickets a day, some of them entitling the bearers to slaves, ships, houses, and lands. Domitian compelled the senators and knights to participate in the lotteries, in order to debase them; and Heliogabalus, in his fantastic festivities, distributed tickets which entitled the bearers to camels, flies, and other odd things suggested by his madness. In all this, however, the distinctive character of modern lotteries was totally absent: the tickets were always gratuitous; so that if the people did not win anything, they never lost.

In the Middle Ages the same practice prevailed at the banquets of feudal princes, who apportioned their presents economically, and without the fear of exciting jealousy among the recipients, by granting lottery tickets indiscriminately to their friends. The practice afterwards descended to the merchants; and in Italy, during the 16th century, it became a favourite mode of disposing of their wares.

The application of lotteries by paid tickets to the service of the state is said to have originated at Florence, under the name of 'Lotto,' in 1530; others say at Genoa, under the following circumstances:—It had long been customary in the latter city to choose annually, by ballot, five members of the Senate (composed of 90 persons) in order to form a particular council. Some persons took this opportunity of laying bets that the lot would fall on such or such senators. The government, seeing with what eagerness the people interested themselves in these bets, conceived the idea of establishing a lottery on the same principle, which was attended with such great success, that all the cities of Italy wished to participate in it, and sent large sums of money to Genoa for that purpose.

To increase the revenues of the Church, the Pope also was induced to establish a lottery at Rome; the inhabitants of which place became so fond of this species of gambling, that they often deprived themselves and their families of the necessaries of life, that they might have money to lay out in this speculation.

The French borrowed the idea from the Italians. In the year 1520, under Francis I., lotteries were permitted by edict under the name of Blanques, from the Italian bianca carta, 'white tickets,'— because all the losing tickets were considered BLANKS;—hence the introduction of the word into common talk, with a similar meaning. From the year 1539 the state derived a revenue from the lotteries, although from 1563 to 1609 the French parliament repeatedly endeavoured to suppress them as social evils. At the marriage of Louis XIV. a lottery was organized to distribute the royal presents to the people—after the fashion of the Roman emperor. Lotteries were multiplied during this reign and that of Louis XV. In 1776 the Royal Lottery of France was established. This was abolished in 1793, re-established at the commencement of the Republic; but finally all lotteries were prohibited by law in 1836,—excepting 'for benevolent purposes.' One of the most remarkable of these lotteries 'for benevolent purposes' was the 'Lottery of the Gold Lingots,' authorized in 1849, to favour emigration to California. In this lottery the grand prize was a lingot of gold valued at about L1700.

The old French lottery consisted of 90 numbers, that is, from No. 1 to No. 90, and the drawing was five numbers at a time. Five wheels were established at Paris, Lyons, Strasbourg, Bordeaus, and Lille. A drawing took place every ten days at each city. The exit of a single number was called extrait, and it won 15 times the amount deposited, and 70 times if the number was determined; the exit of two numbers was called the ambe, winning 270 times the deposit, and 5100 times if the number was determined;—the exit of three numbers was called the terne, winning 5500 times; the quaterne, or exit of four numbers, won 75,000 times the deposit. In all this, however, the chances were greatly in favour of the state banker;—in the extrait the chances were 18 to 15 in his favour, vastly increasing, of course, in the remainder; thus in the ambe it was 1602 against 270; and so on.

The first English lottery mentioned in history was drawn in the year 1569. It consisted of 400,000 lots, at 10s. each lot. The prizes were plate; and the profits were to go towards repairing the havens or ports of this kingdom. It was drawn at the west door of St Paul's Cathedral. The drawing began on the 10th of January, 1569, and continued incessantly, DAY AND NIGHT, till the 6th of May following.(146) Another lottery was held at the same place in 1612, King James having permitted it in favour of 'the plantation of English colonies in Virginia.' One Thomas Sharplys, a tailor of London, won the chief prize, which was '4000 crowns in fair plate.'

(146) The printed scheme of this lottery is still in the possession of the Antiquarian Society of London.

In 1680, a lottery was granted to supply London with water. At the end of the 17th century, the government being in want of money to carry on the war, resorted to a lottery, and L1,200,000 was set apart or NAMED for the purpose. The tickets were all disposed of in less than six months, friends and enemies joining in the speculation. It was a great success; and when right-minded people murmured at the impropriety of the thing, they were told to hold their tongues, and assured that this lottery was the very queen of lotteries, and that it had just taken Namur!(147)

(147) This town was captured in 1695, by William III.

At the same time the Dutch gave in to the infatuation with the utmost enthusiasm; lotteries were established all over Holland; and learned professors and ministers of the gospel spoke of nothing else but the lottery to their pupils and hearers.

From this time forward the spirit of gambling increased so rapidly and grew so strong in England, that in the reign of Queen Anne private lotteries had to be suppressed as public nuisances.

The first parliamentary lottery was instituted in 1709, and from this period till 1824 the passing of a lottery bill was in the programme of every session. Up to the close of the 18th century the prizes were generally paid in the form of terminable, and sometimes of perpetual, annuities. Loans were also raised by granting a bonus of lottery tickets to all who subscribed a certain amount.

This gambling of annuities, despite the restrictions of an act passed in 1793, soon led to an appalling amount of vice and misery; and in 1808, a committee of the House of Commons urged the suppression of this ruinous mode of filling the national exchequer. The last public lottery in Great Britain was drawn in October, 1826.

The lotteries exerted a most baneful influence on trade, by relaxing the sinews of industry and fostering the destructive spirit of gaming among all orders of men. Nor was that all. The stream of this evil was immensely swelled and polluted, in open defiance of the law, by a set of artful and designing men, who were ever on the watch to allure and draw in the ignorant and unwary by the various modes and artifices of 'insurance,' which were all most flagrant and gross impositions on the public, as well as a direct violation of the law. One of the most common and notorious of these schemes was the insuring of numbers for the next day's drawing, at a premium which (if legal) was much greater than adequate to the risk. Thus, in 1778, when the just premium of the lottery was only 7s. 6d., the office-keepers charged 9s., which was a certain gain of nearly 30 per cent.; and they aggravated the fraud as the drawing advanced.

On the sixteenth day of drawing the just premium was not quite 20s., whereas the office-keepers charged L1 4s. 6d., which clearly shows the great disadvantage that every person laboured under who was imprudent enough to be concerned in the insurance of numbers.(148)

(148) Public Ledger, Dec. 3, 1778.

In every country where lotteries were in operation numbers were ruined at the close of each drawing, and of these not a few sought an oblivion of their folly ill self-murder—by the rope, the razor, or the river.

A more than usual number of adventurers were said to have been ruined in the lottery of 1788, owing to the several prizes continuing long in the wheel (which gave occasion to much gambling), and also to the desperate state of certain branches of trade, caused by numerous and important bankruptcies. The suicides increased in proportion. Among them one person made herself remarkable by a thoughtful provision to prevent disappointment. A woman, who had scraped everything together to put into the lottery, and who found herself ruined at its close, fixed a rope to a beam of sufficient strength; but lest there should be any accidental failure in the beam or rope, she placed a large tub of water underneath, that she might drop into it; and near her also were two razors on a table ready to be used, if hanging or drowning should prove ineffectual.

A writer of the time gives the following account of the excitement that prevailed during the drawing of the lottery:—'Indeed, whoever wishes to know what are the "blessings" of a lottery, should often visit Guildhall during the time of its drawing,—when he will see thousands of workmen, servants, clerks, apprentices, passing and repassing, with looks full of suspense and anxiety, and who are stealing at least from their master's time, if they have not many of them also robbed him of his property, in order to enable them to become adventurers. In the next place, at the end of the drawing, let our observer direct his steps to the shops of the pawnbrokers, and view, as he may, the stock, furniture, and clothes of many hundred poor families, servants, and others, who have been ruined by the lottery. If he wish for further satisfaction, let him attend at the next Old Bailey Sessions, and hear the death-warrant of many a luckless gambler in lotteries, who has been guilty of subsequent theft and forgery; or if he seek more proof, let him attend to the numerous and horrid scenes of self-murder, which are known to accompany the closing of the wheels of fortune each year:(149) and then let him determine on "the wisdom and policy" of lotteries in a commercial city.'

(149) A case is mentioned of two servants who, having lost their all in lotteries, robbed their master; and in order to prevent being seized and hanged in public, murdered themselves in private.

The capital prizes were so large that they excited the eagerness of hope; but the sum secured by the government was small when compared with the infinite mischief it occasioned. On opening the budget of 1788, the minister observed in the House of Commons, 'that the bargain he had this year for the lottery was so very good for the public, that it would produce a gain of L270,000, from which he would deduct L12,000 for the expenses of drawing, &c., and then there would remain a net produce of L258,000.' This result, therefore, was deemed extraordinary; but what was that to the extraordinary mischief done to the community by the authorization of excessive gambling!

Some curious facts are on record relating to the lotteries.

Until the year 1800 the drawing of the lottery (which usually consisted of 60,000 tickets for England alone) occupied forty-two days in succession; it was, therefore, about forty-two to one against any particular number being drawn the first day; if it remained in the wheel, it was forty-one to one against its being drawn on the second, &;c.; the adventurer, therefore, who could for eight-pence insure the return of a guinea, if a given number came up the first day, would naturally be led, if he failed, to a small increase of the deposit according to the decrease of the chance against him, until his number was drawn, or the person who took the insurance money would take it no longer.

In the inquiry respecting the mendicity of London, in 1815, Mr Wakefield declared his opinion that the lottery was a cause of mendicity; and related an instance—the case of an industrious man who applied to the Committee of Spitalfields Soup Society for relief; and when, on being asked his profession, said he was a 'Translator'—which, when TRANSLATED, signifies, it seems, the art of converting old boots and shoes into wearable ones; 'but the lottery is about to draw, and,' says he, 'I have no sale for boots or shoes during the time that the lottery draws'—the money of his customers being spent in the purchase of tickets, or the payment of 'insurances.' The 'translator' may have been mistaken as to the cause of his trade falling off; but there can be no doubt that the system of the lottery-drawing was a very infatuating mode of gambling, as the passion was kept alive from day to day; and though, perhaps, it did not create mendicity, yet it mainly contributed, with the gin-shops, night-cellars, obscure gambling houses, and places of amusement, to fill the PAWNBROKERS' shops, and diminish the profits of the worthy 'translator of old shoes.'(150)

(150) This term is still in use. I recently asked one of the craft if he called himself a translator. 'Yes, sir, not of languages, but old boots and shoes,' was the reply.

This reasoning, however, is very uncertain.

The sixteenth of a lottery ticket, which is the smallest share that can be purchased, has not for many years been sold under thirty shillings, a sum much too large for a person who buys old shoes 'translated,' and even for the 'translator' himself, to advance; we may therefore safely conclude that the purchase of tickets is not the mode of gambling by which Crispin's customers are brought to distress.

A great number of foreign lotteries still exist in vigorous operation. Some are supported by the state, and others are only authorized; most of them are flourishing. In Germany, especially, lotteries are abundant; immense properties are disposed of by this method. The 'bank' gains, of course, enormously; and, also of course, a great deal of trickery and swindling, or something like it, is perpetrated.

Foreign lottery tickets are now and then illegally offered in England. A few years ago there appeared an advertisement in the papers, offering a considerable income for the payment of one or two pounds. Upon inquiry it was found to be the agency of a foreign lottery! These tempting offers of advertising speculators are a cruel addition to the miseries of misfortune.

The Hamburg lottery seems to afford the most favourable representation of the system—as such—because in it all the money raised by the sale of tickets is redistributed in the drawing of the lots, with the exception of 10 per cent. deducted in expenses and otherwise; but nothing can compensate for the pernicious effects of the spirit of gambling which is fostered by lotteries, however fairly conducted. They are an unmitigated evil.

In the United States lotteries were established by Congress in 1776, but, save in the Southern States, heavy penalties are now imposed on persons attempting to establish them.

I need scarcely say that lotteries, whether foreign or British, are utterly forbidden by law, excepting those of Art Unions. The operations of these associations were indeed suspended in 1811; but in the following year an act indemnified those who embarked in them for losses which they had incurred by the arrest of their proceedings; and since that time they have been TOLERATED under the eye of the law without any express statute being framed for their exemption. It is thought, however, that they tend to keep up the spirit of gambling, and therefore ought not to be allowed even on the specious plea of favouring 'art.'

PRIVATE lotteries are now illegal at Common Law in Great Britain and Ireland; and penalties are also incurred by the advertisers of FOREIGN lotteries. Some years ago it became common in Scotland to dispose of merchandise by means of lotteries; but this is specially condemned in the statute 42 Geo. III. c. 119. An evasion of the law has been attempted by affixing a prize to every ticket, so as to make the transaction resemble a legal sale; but this has been punished as a fraud, even where it could be proved that the prize equalled in value the price of the ticket. The decision rested upon the plea that in such a transaction there was no definite sale of a specific article. Even the lotteries; for Twelfth Cakes, &c., are illegal, and render their conductors liable to the penalties of the law. Decisive action has been taken on this law, and the usual Christmas lotteries have been this year (1870) rigorously prohibited throughout the country. It is impossible to doubt the soundness of the policy that strives to check the spirit of gambling among the people; but still there may be some truth in the following remarks which appeared on the subject, in a leading journal:—

'We hear that the police have received directions to caution the promoters of lotteries for the distribution of game, wine, spirits, and other articles of this description, that these schemes are illegal, and that the offenders will be prosecuted. These attempts to enforce rigidly the provisions of the 10 and 11 William III., c. 17, 42 George III., c. 119, and to check the spirit of speculation which pervades so many classes in this country may possibly be successful, but as a mere question of morality there can be no doubt that Derby lotteries, and, in fact, all speculations on the turf or Stock Exchange, are open to quite as much animadversion as the Christmas lotteries for a little pig or an aged goose, which it appears are to be suppressed in future. Is it not also questionable policy to enforce every law merely because it is a law, unless its breach is productive of serious evil to the community? If every old Act of Parliament is rummaged out and brought to bear upon us, we fear we shall find ourselves in rather an uncomfortable position.

We cannot say whether or not the harm produced by these humble lotteries is sufficient to render their forcible suppression a matter of necessity. They certainly do produce an amount of indigestion which of itself must be no small penalty to pay for those whose misfortune it is to win the luxuries raffled for, but we never yet heard of any one being ruined by raffling for a pig or goose; and if our Government is going to be paternal and look after our pocket-money, we hope it will also be maternal and take some little interest in our health. The sanitary laws require putting into operation quite as much as the laws against public-house lotteries and skittles.'

No 'extenuating circumstances,' however, can be admitted respecting the notorious racing lotteries, in spite of the small figure of the tickets; nay this rather aggravates the danger, being a temptation to the thoughtless multitude. One of these lotteries, called the Deptford Spec., was not long ago suppressed by the strong arm of the law; but others still exist under different names. In one of these the law is thought to be evaded by the sale of a number of photographs; in another, a chance of winning on a horse is secured by the purchase of certain numbers of a newspaper struggling into existence; but the following is, perhaps, the drollest phase of the evasion as yet attempted:

'Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast.'—Rev., chap. xiii.

'NICKOLAS REX.—"LUCKY" BANQUETS.

'HIS SATANIC MAJESTY purposes holding a series of Banquets, Levees, and DRAWING ROOMS at Pandemonium during the ensuing autumn, to each of which about 10,000 of his faithful disciples will be invited. H. S. M. will, at those drawing-rooms and receptions, NUMBER a lot of beasts, and distribute a series of REWARDS, varying in value from L100 to 10s. of her Britannic Majesty's money.

'Tickets One Shilling each, application for which must be made BY LETTER to His S. Majesty's Chamberlain, &c. &c. The LAST DRAWING-ROOM of this season will be held a few days before the Feast of the CROYDON STEEPLECHASES, &c. &c.



CHAPTER XIV. THE LAWS AGAINST GAMING IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES.

1. ANCIENT ROME.

In ancient Rome all games of chance, with the exception of five which had relation to bodily vigour, were absolutely prohibited in public or private. The loser could not be sued for moneys lost, and could recover what he might have paid, such right being secured to his heirs against the heirs of the winner, even after the lapse of 30 years' prescription. During 50 years after the loss, should the loser or his heirs neglect their action, it was open to any one that chose to prosecute, and chiefly to the municipal authorities, the sum recovered to be expended in that case for public purposes. No surety for the payment of money for gambling purposes was bound. The betting on lawful games was restricted to a certain amount, beyond which the loser could recover moneys paid, and could not be sued for the amount. A person in whose house gambling had taken place, if struck or injured, or if robbed on the occasion thereof, was denied redress; but offences of gamblers among themselves were punishable. Blows or injuries might be inflicted on the gambling house keeper at any time and anywhere without being penal as against any person; but theft was not exempted from punishment, unless committed at the time of gambling—and not by a gambler. Children and freedmen could recover their losses as against their parents and patrons.

Cicero, in his second Philippic, speaks of a criminal process (publicum judicium) then in force against gamblers.

The laws of ancient Rome were, therefore, very stringent on this subject, although, there can be no doubt, without much effect.

2. FRANCE.

At the time of the French Revolution warlike games alone conferred the right of action, restricted, however, in cases of excessive losses; games of strength and skill generally were lawful, but were considered as not giving any right of action; games of mere chance were prohibited, but minors alone were allowed to recover moneys lost.

By the present law of France no judicial action is allowed for gambling debts and wagers, except in the case of such games as depend upon bodily skill and effort, foot, horse, and chariot races, and others of the like nature: the claim may be rejected if the court considers it excessive; but moneys paid can never be recovered unless on the ground of fraud. The keepers of gaming houses, their managers or agents, are punishable with fine (100 to 6000 francs) and imprisonment (two to six months), and may be deprived of most of their civil rights.

3. PRUSSIA.

By the Prussian Code all games of chance, except when licensed by the state, are prohibited. Gaming debts are not the subjects of action; but moneys paid cannot be sued for by losers. Wagers give a right of action when the stakes consist of cash in the hands of a third person; they are void if the winner had a knowledge of the event, and concealed it. Moneys lent for gambling or betting purposes, or to pay gambling or betting debts, cannot be sued for. Gaming house keepers and gamblers are punishable with fine; professed gamblers with imprisonment. Occasional cheating at play obliges to compensation; professed swindlers at play are punishable as for theft, and banished afterwards. Moneys won from a drunken man, if to a considerable amount, must be returned, and a fine paid of equal value.



4. AUSTRIA.

In Austria no right of action is given either to the winner or the loser. All games of chance are prohibited except when licensed by the state. Cheating at play is punished with imprisonment, according to the amount of fraudulent gain. Playing at unlawful games, or allowing such to take place in one's house, subjects the party to a heavy fine, or in default, to imprisonment.



5. ITALY.

The provisions of the Sardinian Civil Code are similar to those of the French, giving an action for moneys won at games of strength or skill—when not excessive in amount; but not allowing the recovery of moneys lost, except on the ground of fraud or MINORITY, a provision taken from the OLD French law.

6. BAVARIA.

By the Bavarian Code games of skill, and of mixed skill and chance, are not forbidden. The loser cannot refuse to pay, nor can he recover his losses, provided the sport be honestly conducted, and the stakes not excessive, having regard to the rank, character, and fortune of the parties. In cases of fraudulent and excessive gaming, and in all games of mere chance, the winner cannot claim his winnings, but must repay the loser on demand. In the two latter cases (apparently) both winner and loser are liable to a fine, equal in amount,—for the first time of conviction, to one-third of the stakes; for the second time, to two-thirds; and for the third time, to the whole: in certain cases the bank is to be confiscated. Hotel and coffee-house keepers, &c., who allow gambling on their premises, are punished for the first offence by a fine of 50 florins; for the second, with one of 100 florins; for the third, with the loss of the license. The punishment of private persons for the like offence is left to the discretion of the judge. UNLAWFUL games may be LEGALIZED by authority; but in such case, fraud or gross excess disables the winner from claiming moneys won, renders him liable to repayment, and subjects him to arbitrary punishment. IMMORAL wagers are void; and EXCESSIVE wagers are to be reduced in amount. Betting on indifferent things is not prohibited, nor even as to a known and certain thing—when there is no deception. No wager is void on account of mere disparity of odds. Professed gamblers, who also cheat at play, and their accomplices, and the setters-up and collectors of fictitious lotteries, are subject to imprisonment, with hard labour, for a term of from four to eight years.

Although, therefore, cheating gamblers are liable to punishment in Bavaria, it is evident that gambling is there tolerated to the utmost extent required by the votaries of Fortune.

7. SPAIN.

Wagers appear to be lawful in Spain, when not in themselves fraudulent, or relating to anything illegal or immoral.

8. ENGLAND.

In England some of the forms of gambling or gaming have been absolutely forbidden under heavy penalties, whilst others have been tolerated, but at the same time discouraged; and the reasons for the prohibition were not always directed against the impropriety or iniquity of the practice in itself;—thus it was alleged in an Act passed in 1541, that for the sake of the games the people neglected to practise ARCHERY, through which England had become great—'to the terrible dread and fear of all strange nations.'

The first of the strictly-called Gaming Acts is one of Charles II.'s reign, which was intended to check the habit of gambling so prevalent then, as before stated. By this Act it was ordered that, if any one shall play at any pastime or game, by gaming or betting with those who game, and shall lose more than one hundred pounds on credit, he shall not be bound to pay, and any contract to do so shall be void. In consequence of this Act losers of a less amount—whether less wealthy or less profligate—and the whole of the poorer classes, remained unprotected from the cheating of sharpers, for it must be presumed that nobody has a right to refuse to pay a fair gambling debt, since he would evidently be glad to receive his winnings. No doubt much misery followed through the contrivances of sharpers; still it was a salutary warning to gamesters of the poorer classes—whilst in the higher ranks the 'honour' of play was equally stringent, and, I may add, in many cases ruinous. By the recital of the Act it is evident that the object was to check and put down gaming as a business profession, 'to gain a living;' and therefore it specially mulcted the class out of which 'adventurers' in this line usually arise.

The Act of Queen Anne, by its sweeping character, shows that gaming had become very virulent, for by it not only were all securities for money lost at gaming void, but money actually paid, if more than L10, might be recovered in an action at law; not only might this be done, within three months, by the loser himself, but by any one else—together with treble the value—half for himself, and half for the poor of the parish. Persons winning, by fraudulent means, L10 and upwards at any game were condemned by this Act to pay five times the amount or value of the thing won, and, moreover, they were to 'be deemed infamous, and suffer such corporal punishment as in cases of wilful perjury.' The Act went further:—if persons were suspected of getting their living by gaming, they might be summoned before a magistrate, required to show that the greater portion of their income did not depend upon gaming, and to find sureties for their good behaviour during twelve months, or be committed to gaol.

There were, besides, two curious provisions;—any one assaulting or challenging another to a duel on account of disputes over gaming, should forfeit all his goods and be imprisoned for two years; secondly, the royal palaces of St James's and Whitehall were exempted from the operation of this statute, so long as the sovereign was actually resident within them—which last clause probably showed that the entire Draconian enactment was but a farce. It is quite certain that it was inoperative, and that it did no more than express the conscience of the legislature—in deference to PRINCIPLE, 'which nobody could deny.'

After the lapse of many years—the evil being on the increase—the legislature stirred again during the reign of George II., and passed several Acts against gaming. The games of Faro, Basset, Hazard, &c., in fact, all games with dice, were proscribed under a penalty of L200 against the provider of the game, and L50 a time for the players. Roulette or Roly Poly, termed in the Act 'a certain pernicious game,' was interdicted, under the penalty of five times the value of the thing or sum lost at it.

Thus stood the statute law against gaming down to the year 1845, when, in consequence of the report of the select committee which sat on the subject, a new enactment was promulgated, which is in force at the present time.

It was admitted that the laws in force against gaming were 'of no avail to prevent the mischiefs which may happen therefrom;' and the lawgivers enacted a comprehensive measure on the subject. Much of the old law—for instance, the prohibition of games which interfered with the practice of ARCHERY—was repealed; also the Acts of Charles II., of Queen Anne, and a part of that of George II.—Gaming houses, in which a bank is kept by one or more of the players, or in which the chances of play are not alike favourable to the players—being declared unlawful, as of old. Billiards, bagatelle, or 'any game of the kind' (open, of course, to legal discussion), may be played in private houses, or in licensed houses; but still, in the case of licensed houses of public resort, the police may enter at any time to see that the law is complied with. 'Licensed for Billiards' must be legibly printed on some conspicuous place near the door and outside a licensed house. Billiards and like games may not be played in public rooms after one, and before eight, o'clock in the morning of any day, nor on Sundays, Christmas Day, Good Friday, nor on any public fast or thanksgiving. Publicans whose houses are licensed for billiards must not allow persons to play at any time when public-houses are not allowed to be open.

'In order to constitute the house a common gaming house, it is not necessary to prove that any person found playing at any game was playing for any money, wager, or stake. The police may enter the house on the report of a superintendent, and the authority of a commissioner, without the necessity of an allegation of two householders; and if any cards, dice, balls, counters, tables, or other instruments of gaming be found in the house, or about the person of any of those who shall be found therein, such discovery shall be evidence against the establishment until the contrary be made to appear. Those who shall appear as witnesses, moreover, are protected from the consequences of having been engaged in unlawful gaming.'(151)

(151) Chambers's Cyclopaedia, Art. Gambling.

The penalty of cheating at any game is liability to penal servitude for three years—the delinquent being proceeded against as one who obtains money under false pretences. Wagers and bets are not recoverable by law, whether from the loser or from the wager-holder; and money paid for bets may be recovered in an action 'for money received to the defendant's use.' All betting houses are gaming houses within the meaning of the Act, and the proprietors and managers of them are punishable accordingly.

The existing law on the gaming of horse-racing is as follows. Bets on horse-races are illegal; and therefore are not recoverable by law. In order to prevent the nuisance which betting houses, disguised under other names, occasioned, a law was passed in 1853, forbidding the maintenance of any house, room, or other place, for betting; and by the new Metropolitan Traffic Regulation Act, now in force, any three persons found betting in the street may be fined five pounds each 'for obstructing the thoroughfare'—a very odd reason, certainly, since it is the BETTING that we wish to prevent, as we will not permit it to be carried on in any house, &c. These LEGAL reasons are too often sadly out of place. Any constable, however, may, without a warrant, arrest anybody he may see in the act of betting in the street.

The laws relating to horse-racing have undergone curious revisions and interpretations. 'The law of George II.'s reign, declaring horse-racing to be good, as tending to promote the breed of fine horses, exempted horse-races from the list of unlawful games, provided that the sum of money run for or the value of the prize should be fifty pounds and upwards, that certain weights only might be used, and that no owner should run more than one horse for the same prize, under pain of forfeiting all horses except the first. Newmarket, and Black Hambledon in Yorkshire, are the only places licensed for races in this Act, which, however, was also construed to legalize any race at any place whatever, so long as the stakes were worth fifty pounds and upwards, and the weights were of the regulated standard. An Act passed five years afterwards removed the restrictions as to the weights, and declared that any one anywhere might start a horse-race with any weights, so long as the stakes were fifty pounds or more. The provision for the forfeiture of all horses but one belonging to one owner and running in the same race was overlooked or forgotten, and owners with perfect impunity ran their horses, as many as they pleased, in the same race. In 1839, however, informations were laid against certain owners, whose horses were claimed as forfeits; and then everybody woke up to the fact that this curious clause of the Act of George II. was still unrepealed. The Legislature interfered in behalf of the defendants, and passed an Act, repealing in their eagerness not merely the penal clauses of the Act, but the Act itself, so far as it related to horse-racing. Now, it was supposed that upon the Act of the thirteenth of George II. depended the whole legality of horse-racing, that the Act of the eighteenth of George II. was merely explanatory of that statute, which, being repealed, brought the practice again within the old law, according to which it was illegal. By a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas it was decided, however, that the words of the eighteenth of George II. were large enough to legalize all races anywhere for fifty pounds and upwards, and that the Act was not merely an explanatory one. Upon this basis rests the existing law on the subject of horse-racing. Bets, however, as before stated, on horse-races are still as illegal as they are on any of the forbidden games—that is to say, they are outside the law; the law will not lend its assistance to recover them.'(152)

(152) Ubi Supra.

The extent to which gambling has been carried on in the street by boys was shown by the following summary laid before the Committee of the House of Commons on Gaming, in 1844:—

Boys apprehended for gaming in the streets—

Convicted. Discharged. 1841.... 305.... 68.... 237 1842.... 245.... 66.... 179 1813.... 329.... 114.... 185 —— —— —— 879 278 601

Only recently has any effectual check been put to this pernicious practice. It is however enacted by the New Gaming Act, that—'Every person playing or betting by way of wagering or gaming in any street, road, highway, or other open and public place to which the public have or are permitted to have access, at or with any table or instrument of gaming, or any coin, card, token, or other article used as an instrument of gaming or means of such wagering or gaming, at any game or pretended game of chance, shall be deemed a rogue and vagabond within the true intent and meaning of the recited Act, and as such may be punished under the provision of that Act.'

On this provision a daily paper justly remarks:—'A statute very much needed has come into force. Persons playing or betting in the streets with coins or cards are now made amenable to the 5th George IV., c. 83, and may be committed to gaol as rogues and vagabonds. The statutes already in force against such rogues and vagabonds subject them, we believe, not only to imprisonment with hard labour, but also to corporal punishment. In any case the New Act should, if stringently administered, speedily put a stop to the too common and quite intolerable nuisance of young men and boys sprawling about the pavement, or in corners of the wharves by the waterside, and playing at "pitch-and-toss," "shove-halfpenny," "Tommy Dodd," "coddams," and other games of chance. Who has not seen that terrible etching in Hogarth's "Industry and Idleness," where the idle apprentice, instead of going devoutly to church and singing out of the same hymn-book with his master's pretty daughter, is gambling on a tombstone with a knot of dissolute boys? A watchful beadle has espied the youthful gamesters, and is preparing to administer a sounding thwack with a cane on the shoulders of Thomas Idle. But the race of London beadles is now well-nigh extinct; and the few that remain dare not use their switches on the small vagabonds, for fear of being summoned for assault. It is to be hoped that the police will be instructed to put the Act sharply in force against the pitch-and-toss players; and, in passing, we might express a wish that they would also suppress the ragged urchins who turn "cart-wheels" in the mud, and the half-naked girls who haunt the vicinity of railway stations and steamboat piers, pestering passengers to buy cigar-lights.'

END OF VOL. I.