of a large proportion of dealers, wholesale merchants in the Stock
Exchange, and for them it is legitimate enough to sell according to their
judgment what they have not got and buy what they could not out of their
own means pay for. It is in their power to cut their losses always when
such begin to accrue, and many amongst them close the day with their
books “even.” That is to say, they have neither a “bull nor a bear open,”
to use the market phrase. They are mere traders, whose judgment of the
market tendencies guides them in taking the one course or the other for
the day only. It is altogether different, however, for the outsider, the
man amongst the public, whether he resides in the City, or at Land’s End,
or in Connemara. Such cannot operate with rapidity, and usually act upon
tips and prepossessions, which in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred
prove fatal to their peace of mind and injurious to their pocket.
Is it, then, impossible to induce the multitude amongst the people to
abandon this method of hunting after wealth without labour, for that is
our only hope? A change in the spirit of the people, a higher sense of
self-respect, a deeper regard for the community of interests which would
lead a man to treat his neighbour as a man to be helped, not injured,
would do more to put an end to this modern habit than any number of rules
and regulations. It has been suggested that gambling could be almost
entirely put an end to were sellers of shares to be compelled to hand
in the name of the possessor, or the numbers of bonds where bonds are
sold. Undoubtedly this would stop every kind of free-handed gambling,
except by way of options; but could any such regulation be established
that would apply to the irresponsible dealings of the outside gambler
through bucket-shops? I think not. Moreover, any such regulation would
in the long run be injurious to genuine holders of securities. Take
the example of Bank shares. It is almost forgotten nowadays that, as a
consequence of the banking panic of 1866, an Act, known as Leeman’s Act,
from the name of the man by whom it was introduced and carried through
Parliament, effectually stopped speculative dealing in Bank shares. These
are now consequently exclusively an investment security. They cannot be
sold without giving the numbers of the shares and the name of the holder
out of whose possession the shares are to come. There is consequently
never any “bear” account, that is to say, any account open in unspecified
shares sold for the fall, in Bank shares, and unquestionably this
immunity from attack has been most valuable in checking Bank scares when
credit has become strained. But what would happen supposing a crisis
arose through the failure of one or two important Banks? Would it be
possible for frightened shareholders to escape their liability and sell
out before the crisis became acute? No, it would not. The shares would
simply be unsaleable on any terms; there would be no market for them
at all, and each individual holder would be compelled to face his loss
without chance of escape. From a moral point of view this may be all
right—I am not objecting—but undoubtedly the acuteness of the disaster
would be concentrated to a cruel and most ruinous extent upon the then
existing groups of Bank shareholders.
Recently, when a panic threatened in Russian securities upon the Paris
Bourse, the official brokers there notified to the outside market that
they would not record sales of the bonds unless the numbers thereof were
handed in with the order. This at once stopped speculative selling, but I
doubt whether the consequence was not to weaken the market and to render
the credit of Russia suspect amongst the multitude who, speculatively or
otherwise, held this particular national debt. At any rate, the rule was
very soon abandoned, and dealings resumed on the old footing. In Germany
a number of restrictions and vexatious taxes have been placed upon Bourse
transactions, especially those of a speculative kind, without increasing
the health of the market or really diminishing the amount of gambling
done. The business is transferred to other markets, very largely to
London—that is all.
Again, it may be said that the English Government put an end to one form
of gambling, still prevalent on the Continent, with complete success.
Lotteries were put down by Act of Parliament, and the trade of the
lottery-ticket jobber summarily stopped. That is true enough, but there
is no analogy between a step of this kind and stopping gambling in
actually existing securities. If lottery loans themselves had not been
discontinued, it would have been impossible for any Government to stop
the pernicious dealing in lottery tickets. If we could stop all issues of
securities, wipe off the National Debt, Municipal debts, the intolerable
burdens of Colonial debts, and turn all joint-stock undertakings into
communistic organisations, there would be an end of Stock Exchange
gambling, at least in any form now familiar to the public; but short of
that I do not see how the legislature can interfere with effect without
creating other, and perhaps worse, evils than those it sought to abolish.
An example of legislative powerlessness has been furnished by recent
efforts at joint-stock company law amendment. The Act of 1900, which was
going to do so much to purify the atmosphere and limit the ravages of
the unscrupulous promoter and his “front page” guinea-pigs, has really
increased the mischief, as I have already pointed out. Gambling might
be diminished were the State to increase the taxes upon speculative
transactions, although I am doubtful; but any such increase would rather
tend to emphasise the absurdity of the Gaming Acts. Through these Acts
it is possible now for any speculator to repudiate his obligations, and
cases frequently arise in the Law Courts where losses are in this way
repudiated.
Possibly the law might be able to put down outside speculative agencies,
which do an incalculable amount of mischief, and yet even there
difficulties stand in the way. Are newspapers to be forbidden to insert
the advertisements of these “bucket-shops”? Will the Post Office refuse
to transmit their circulars? How far is it legitimate or safe, let alone
wise, for the State to interfere in order to protect the fool from the
consequences of his own folly? I cannot solve the problem; it perplexes
me much and often, but the longer I think things over the less am I
inclined to invoke the aid of the State in order to put an end to this
social canker.
The remedy must come, I repeat, from the people themselves: from better
instruction, from healthier views of what constitutes true success and
respectability. There is an emulation in extravagance which has spread
widely through all classes of society during the past two generations,
and has now culminated in a vicious recklessness that does more to whet
the appetite for gambling of all kinds than anything else. This spirit is
not perhaps so visible in the country village, at the rural parsonage,
or among the petty tradesmen in a small country town as elsewhere; not
so patent to the eyes of the onlooker. We do not need to go so far:
society in the West End of London is quite sufficient for illustration.
The habits there have grown in extravagance within my time to a degree
almost impossible to realise; and most people embraced in this word
“society,” as well as thousands who are pressing to get within the magic
circle, live beyond their means, struggle to eke out their inadequate
incomes—inadequate through the standard set up by gambling on the Stock
Exchange, often by ruining themselves.
Why cannot people exercise some moral restraint, or at least a trifle of
common-sense? No system of gambling in existence treats the public with
absolute fair play. The sharper is everywhere, but far less frequently
in evidence on the Stock Exchange than anywhere else. It is none the
less true that the mere charges of the market constitute a considerable
handicap against the outside player. Supposing a man is induced to buy
a security, the price of which at the date of his purchase is £1000.
According to the character of that security, he will pay from 25s. to £5
to the broker he employs to carry through the transaction. This charge is
really a very small payment for the work done—would be quite inadequate
payment at its highest, did the market transact investment business
alone. That money, however, is so much out of pocket at the start to be
set against expected profit. Then there is what is called the jobber’s
“turn.” The wholesale dealer in the market has always two prices. He buys
at one price and sells at another, the difference being his immediate
limit of profit. Assume such difference to be merely half-a-crown per
cent, and the stock bought will cost the outside buyer 50s. more than
he could have sold it at when the transaction was entered into. Say £5
altogether is thus against the outside buyer on the deal at the start.
The security purchased will therefore have to rise 5s. per cent before
he can get home, as the phrase is, without loss. If the profit, however,
does not come along within a fortnight or thereby, arrangements have
to be made to carry the transaction forward to a new account, as it
is called. This involves interest on the money, which cannot, on an
average, be less than 5 per cent per annum, or roughly another 50s. per
fortnightly account. In addition, there is probably a small charge,
representing £1 or 25s., made by the broker for arranging the fictitious
purchase and sale by means of which this continuation of the bargain is
effected. Let a speculative purchase be carried on in this way for a few
months, and it will become evident to everybody that a very considerable
rise must occur before the purchaser is able to sell at a profit after
meeting all charges. In three months he may be £20 to £25 to the bad,
assuming the price to remain where it was when he bought. If people would
reflect in this way, and make calculations before they plunged into a
gambling transaction of the sort, they would surely often hold their
hands.
With sales for the fall—sales of what a man does not possess—it is often
very much worse, especially if a man has sold a share or stock on which
dividends accrue from time to time. He may be saved the cost of interest
on money lent to him, but has to pay the dividend upon the stock he sold
each time that one is declared; and should selling for the fall have
been large enough to exceed the supply of shares available for lending
purposes, he may be called upon to pay a fine for failing to deliver what
he sold, and each fortnight the carry-over charges have to be deducted
from the price at which he sold, together with dividends when they come,
and fines for non-delivery when the “bear” is more or less “cornered.”
In this way it often arises that a man will not come out with a profit,
even should he round off his speculative sale by repurchasing 10 per cent
below the price he originally sold at. I give these brief illustrations
to help the outside mind, to warn people off from this method of trying
to make money, but my hopes are not profound that they will have much
effect. We shall require a world-enveloping credit cataclysm to lift
mankind out of its present vicious ruts on to a higher, a more altruistic
moral platform.
GAMBLING AMONG WOMEN
By J. M. HOGGE, M.A.
Betting has so long been associated with men that it is probable there
are still many people who have never considered the evil in its relation
to women. The attention of those, however, who have given some thought
to the problem of betting and gambling has been increasingly turned to
this phase of the question, and it is now certain that among women the
practice is spreading with alarming rapidity. As in the case of men, the
habit is not confined to any one class of society but has affected all,
so that at the one end of the social scale costly jewellery is sold to
cover bridge debts and at the other blankets are pawned to put money on a
horse.
If we turn to the evidence given before the Lords Commission we find
numerous side references to the practice. Here, for instance, is some
evidence given by Chief Constable Peacock of Manchester:—
_Q._ One of these slips (_i.e._ bookmakers’ slips) you have
given me is from a lady?
_A._ Yes.
_Q._ And it appears that she had 8s. on in one day?
_A._ Yes.
_Q._ In what position in life would she be?
_A._ She is only a working man’s wife.
_Q._ She puts in this slip with 8s., meaning that she has
invested that money on horses in one day?
_A._ Yes.
Again, Mr. Horace Smith, a well-known London magistrate, in his evidence
refers to the practice of bookmakers taking bets from women and children,
and also to the effect betting has on the honesty of women, giving
instances to prove his assertions. Asked if he thought that women as well
as men bet more than they used to, he replied that he had no doubt they
did, and that he had even had women bookmakers before him. Mr. Spruce, a
Leeds commission agent, also admitted the fact of the woman bookmaker.
This last statement may come as a surprise to many readers, but we are
able to give circumstantial proof of its truth in the following circular:—
Gentlemen in quest of reliable racing intelligence are invited
to communicate with Miss ——. Only those who are prepared to pay
well need apply, as Miss —— is not one of those who give away
Tips.
During the latter part of 1903 Flat Racing Season Miss
—— decided to commence business as a racing adviser, and
she at once met with conspicuous success, her selections
including—Grey Tick, Cesarewitch; Burses, 2nd Cambridgeshire;
Switch Cap, Manchester November Handicap.
Miss —— invites all sportsmen in quest of genuine racing
intelligence to join her list of regular wire subscribers.
Satisfaction guaranteed to all regular subscribers.
Those sportsmen who send for her wires can rely on winning
money. Her terms are, she believes, higher than those of
the ordinary Turf correspondent, but clients will be fully
satisfied that her wires are worth every penny charged. Those
sportsmen who require wires every day are requested to apply
elsewhere, as Miss —— cannot promise to send out more than two
or three selections every week. The source of her intelligence
cannot be divulged, but it may be mentioned that no other
racing adviser is in the same position as Miss —— to obtain
such genuine information.
This lady charges 10s. for a single wire and £5 for twenty.
Mr. Luke Sharp, the Official Receiver for Birmingham, Worcester, and West
Bromwich, replying to the Bishop of Hereford, drew attention to perhaps
the most deplorable phase of betting among women. This consists in the
collection of bets by agents calling on women for other weekly payments.
Here is what Mr. Sharp said:—
I had a conversation with one of my friends who is very much
interested in these matters with regard to some cases in
Worcestershire, and I wanted to get the particulars, as I did
not like to make a statement unless I could prove it, and I
will now read you his letter if your Lordship desire it. He
says: “I do not mention this in any way to incriminate the man
who I understand is carrying on a system of gambling, much as
I condemn such and consider it should be stopped. I simply
brought the matter before you to show how among the many ways
gambling is brought to the houses of the working classes. It
is done by agents who, while collecting the weekly payments on
some article purchased, also collect for the master who makes
a book, and so induce the women to place money on any race
taking place in any part of the kingdom. I consider something
should be done to put a stop to such.” That is about the worst
kind of gambling that I ever heard of.
Along with this evidence we must also take that of Mr. Robert Knight,
General Secretary of the Boilermakers’ Society, and a magistrate of
Newcastle, who says:—
Betting generally is largely on the increase; especially is
this noticeable amongst young men and women. Between the
hours of 11.55 and 3.15 a bookmaker was recently seen to take
236 bets from men, women, and children in South Shields....
Unrestrained by Act of Parliament, the bookmakers go from door
to door in the streets occupied by the working classes for
the purpose of inducing women to bet.... When the workmen are
at their work these bookmakers go round and visit the parts
where they live, get hold of the wives of the workmen when the
husband is at work, and get them to bet. Very often it does not
end in betting with spare money: a woman very often takes the
things of the house and pawns them to get the money to bet with.
There is still another reference to this practice in Mr. Knight’s
evidence, which we give in full:—
_Q._ With regard to the house-to-house betting, would you
include that in the prohibition (_i.e._ of street betting)?
_A._ I would. I think it has become a terrible evil—one of the
worst I know of.
_Q._ Do these bookmakers solicit the women or whoever opens the
door to them?
_A._ Yes; they go from house to house, and they get the women,
in the absence of their husbands, to bet, and I have known in
some cases where the money has been so short that the mother
has gone and taken some things out of the house and pawned them
in order to get money to bet with.
_Q._ Have you known of bad cases of women betting with their
husbands’ money, for example?
_A._ Yes.
_Q._ Do you know many cases of that kind?
_A._ Very many. In some cases the husband is not himself given
to betting, but on account of the visit of the bookmaker to the
house during the husband’s absence at work the wife has given
way to betting; and then by-and-bye the husband has got to know
that this has taken place, and I need not tell you the result:
it is extremely sad.
It will be agreed that this form of betting is particularly mean and
despicable, even if it be true to some extent that women when they gamble
are specially addicted to it. Indeed Mr. Tannett-Walker, who is connected
with a large engineering works near Leeds, gave it as his opinion, in his
evidence before the Commission, that they were “worse gamblers than men,”
and he went on to say:—
I think it is more serious, because, generally speaking, the
working man only bets with his pocket-money, as he calls it in
the working districts, and I think the woman very often risks
the money the husband gives her for household purposes; I think
she is much more reckless and excitable under loss than a man,
and therefore much more likely to go to the full extreme of all
the money she has in her pocket.
The present writer has had the privilege of receiving a large mass of
evidence from clergymen, the police, prison chaplains, officers of the
S.P.C.C., police court missionaries, district nurses, and others, bearing
on the prevalence of the habit, and it may be valuable to supplement with
outside testimony what has already been quoted from the Select Commission
on Betting and Gambling.
The Vicar of Jarrow-on-Tyne writes:—
My impression is that it is on the increase, but it is not easy
to tell. For the most part, it takes the form of lotteries
or sweepstakes, women putting in their sixpences, etc., and
winning a possible £20 or so. Now and then a woman may be seen
openly betting in the streets, but usually it is done quietly.
I have been told that women act as agents for the bookmakers.
Now and then a woman will come to her Communion whom I suspect
of betting, but, as a rule, I think they feel it on their
conscience more than people of the upper classes do.
The police court missionary at Newcastle-on-Tyne says:—
I have had considerable experience of evangelistic work in
slum parishes in Newcastle, and it is my opinion, from careful
observation, that there is a very great amount of betting and
gambling among women. I have known women sell the shoes and
stockings from off their children’s feet to get coppers to put
on their favourite horse.
From a pit village the vicar’s wife writes:—
The women are so terribly tempted by the men who come round to
their doors.
But possibly the following story, related by a navvy, may serve better
than numerous examples to exhibit the real inwardness of the betting
habit when it attacks the home through the housewife:—
I have my health and strength [he said], and I have always
plenty of work; the job I’m on now will last another six
months. It’s true I have seven children, but I make no trouble
of working for their support. We used to go to church when
we was first married, my wife and I; we lived at Southampton
then, and we both thought a deal of Canon Wilberforce. It was
him that tied the knot. Since we came North I have not gone to
any church: wife was taken up with the children. But I always
washed myself, and put on my Sunday suit when Sunday came
round; sometimes I’d take the kids for a bit of a walk into the
country, and sometimes I’d take a stroll round with a few of
my mates. Anyways I held up my head straight and thought I was
as good as any—my meaning is that I thought I had the right to
look any one in the face, for I believed till a week ago that
I did not owe any one a penny piece. It was Saturday even, and
up comes to me a bailiff chap, but I did not know then that he
was a bailiff; he shoves a paper into my hand, and I reads on
it “Judgment Summons. Personally served on the Defendant,” and
there below I sees my name written in. I said, “Take it away, I
never have aught to do with such things.” I had to take it in,
and I found it was an order for £1: 2: 3, that should have been
paid long before to a firm called a “Clothing Company,” trading
from a town twenty miles away. Not half a dozen words did I say
to any one that day, just sits dumb and dazed over the fire;
not a wink did I sleep, but by Sunday morn breakfast was over
I’d my plans made.
I gets a bit of lead pencil from one of the lads, turns the
children out of the room, spreads out a piece of paper, and
sits myself down. Then I says to the wife, “My lass, I never
have chastised thee, never; but now thou hast just got to bring
me every bill and every pawn-ticket, and thou hast just got to
think on, and to tell me of every penny I owe, and if I find
thou hast kept aught back, I shall feel fit to take off my belt
and to thrash thee with it to within an inch of thy life, and
if I have to go to gaol for it, I’ll go.”
By tea-time that Sunday I’d got that paper about covered
with figures, and reckoned up it come to £70. There were
two doctors’ bills, four coal-cart men, there were three
lots of goods from the “Clothing Company,” and four from the
“Furnishing Company,” and both these I were told firms of
peddling fellows whom I had never seen, because they are such
curs they never show their face at a door when the master’s in,
and when they have sold their goods (all on the weekly payment
system) to silly women, they go off home by train, so as the
husbands can’t follow them home and give them the horsewhipping
they deserve.
I found a deal of things that Lord’s Day. I went up to look at
the children’s beds and saw the blankets was gone off them, I
looks in the drawers and found them empty where they should
have been full of children’s clothing and bedding. I understood
that day why the two eldest girls were so long getting
themselves places; they had naught but what they stood up in.
Folks might say I should have looked into things a bit sooner,
but I were one that always said, “If the man earned the money
and turned it over to the wife, it were the wife’s place to lay
it out to advantage.”
We had not been living in that house above a twelvemonth, but
it all come about since we’d moved in. I could see nothing
wrong with the street when we took the house; it looked quiet
enough. It had not been built so long; the house was clean and
airy, and there was an extra room for the lads, that were the
chiefest thing we moved for.
How was I to know, when nobody telled me, that the women in
this was all a-cheating their husbands, and was just one a
bigger gambler than another.
As near as I can make out their practices was like this. They’d
all back horses with the money they should have kept in a safe
place against rent day, and them that lost would wait while
Monday when the packman come round, and they’d take a suit of
clothes or a pair of blankets on the weekly payment system.
Straight away they would carry them to the pawn-shop, so their
husbands having never set eyes on the stuff would never miss it
out of the house. I suppose they’d think they’d done a clever
thing when they had raised the money for the rent and a bit
over besides to back another horse.