By Latraror It is nearly 600 years since the first anti-gambling bill was passed in England. Unless it has been repealed by the new Act now becoming law, portions of the Act of 141 are still in force. This act Prohibited the keeping for gain of house for playing at games such 's_bowls or tennis or games of cards and dice. It made it an of fence for artificers, servants and others to play such' games at all, except at Christmas time. In Scotland in 1621 the Scottish Par-Aiament imposed heavy penalties fon excessive gambling and prohibited the playing of cards or dice in inns or (save where the master of the family played) in private houses, Apparently the Scots were con-inst the material consequences of gambling. The English motive was not 30 much moral as prac~ tical, It was found that time spent on certain games prevented men from bulting in their time at archery and other military. exercises, Brielly it might find a modern equivalent if Colonel Fergus Graham induced the Municipal Council to prohibit the playing of contract bridge and billiards in order that volunteering recruit ment might improve. first recorded State in 1566 but it created no sort of stir. The assumption is that by that date lotteries were well known, The actual drawing took place in 1569, The prizes included money, plate and tapestry. The proceeds went to improvement of naval ports and other public works, Subsequent lotter-les were promoted for various Purposes: in ald of the English Plantations in Virginia in 1612, to finance schemes for bringing fresh water to London (1627; 1631) to repair fishing fleets damaged by the Spaniards (1640). Until 1826 public lotteries were regularly run in England. Their proceeds went many remarkable projects, such as the building of Westminster Bridge (1739) the purchase of collections to form the nucleus of the British Museum (1753), ¥rom 1776. the lottery was institution voted annually by Par-Hament, so the schemes authorized by the Lotteries Act 1823 were the last. "In the 18th Century heavy gambling was mainly an aristocratic trait, Some of the Acts of that period dealing with gambling expressly exempted from prohibit tion games when played in royal palaces. Towards the end of the century the City of London. grew perturbed at the influence of the State Lotteries on the people's thrift and started petitioning' the House of Commons. It is not sur prising, considering the reputations for gambling which men like Charles James Fox, Sheridan and the rest acquired, that the City Fathers took half a century to win their point. The truth seems to be that if was not unfit the 19th training. The arrow-makers and bowyers maintained this principle firmly but it must be suspected that their interest was not entirely patrio tic. Later on, th less athletic sport of "shovegroat" which may recognized to-day as halfpenny" was banned in the City of London and elsewhere. An ternative name to "shovegroat was "slidethrift"; it sounds expressive.
Lord Palmerston's Committee of 1844 took on the whole a sensible view of the whol subject and the Gaming Act of 1845, by removing betting from the operation of the criminal law, and making betting contracts unenforceable Jaw simplified matters although by the eventual growth of institute ions unforeseen at the time, complications and uncertainties began later to develop and with them anomalies and abuses. "Pleading the Gaming Act" was the way which the Victorian was couraged to get out of meeting what often was a debt of honour. The device gave rise to the entirely fictitious story of the man who, sued by his wife for alimony, pleaded the Gaming Act on thi ground that marriage was a Jottery or, alternatively, that his! marriage contract was' illegal be-i cause he had been married on a Sunday—a dies non, Any idea of turning this piece of fiction i into reality must be discouraged. It would not have a chance.
The reckless gaming of the 18th Century found reflection in the England of Good Queen Victoria's days. The Queen, mindful of the scandals surrounding the turf experiences of George IV, was hostile to her eldest son's love of racing. Im the Jong run, the Prince of Wales close association with ra ing, strengthened the popularity of the Royal House and led directly to those better habits which made the Jockey Club as far above reproach as one of Her Majesty's Courts of Justice. Nevertheless betting in the Victorian era was heavy and led to spectacular exploits. The story of the Marquis of Hastings has been often told. He inherited estates worth £20,000 a year and, on his majority' the accumulation of £240,000 was the fruit of a twelve years' minority. Yet in six years he had come to complete grief—not by racing as so many have imagined but by cards and dice. His own explanation was "Money with me oozes away; in fact, it positively melts". He ved in an age of spendthrifts and is disaster was not really attributable 10 racing or gambling even. He would plumbed the depths anyhow. mest Benzon, the butt of the music-halls and, probably, the "Man Who Broke the Bank at /Monte Carlo", was one of the most picturesque of the Victorian gamblers. He was known as the "Jubilee Plunger"—not to be con fused with the "Jubilee Juggins' an American named Walton who in a thirteen months' career ruined himself by backing Archer's mounts. Ernest Benzon in two
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.