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.
[Illustration: 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."