<!AMIJUN<; 



73 



cheating : and the reason assigned for the favour 

 whic-h gambling finds with tin- majority is not 

 inaptly stated r>y a writer in the tune of Queen 

 Anne. He says : 'I cannot attribute it to a prin- 

 riplc of mere avarice in many, though in most I 

 fear it i- ><i, luit rather think the contingency of 

 winning and losing and the expectations therefrom 

 in- diverting. I conceive there would be no plea- 

 Mi ir properly so called if a man were sure to win 

 always. It's the reconciling uncertainty to our 

 desires that creates the satisfaction.' Among the 

 old writers the subject of gaming appears to have 

 taken a wide scoj>e, and to have oeen mixed up 

 with games which might more properly l>e ranked 

 iimlcr the head of athletic exercises, as well as with 

 what our ancestors were pleased to regard as sport ; 

 and the same classification appeal's to have taken 

 place in some of the older statutes. Statutory 

 restrictions upon games and gaming go back as far 

 as the 12th year of the reign of Richard II., and 

 these were followed by the 17th of Edward IV. and 

 others which made certain games illegal ; but in 

 giving an outline of the chief statutes connected 

 with gaming it is unnecessary to go further back 

 than the year 1541, as the comprehensive Act 33 

 Henry VIII. chap. 9 prohibited tables, tennis, 

 dice, cards, bowls, dash, loggats, and other unlaw- 

 ful games when played under certain conditions. 

 This statute, however, like one of Edward III.'s 

 proclamations, had for its immediate object the 

 encouragement of archery, and professes to have 

 become law in consequence of a petition being pre- 

 sented by the bowmen of this country and those 

 imaged in the manufacture of implements of 

 archery. 



For some time there was no material alteration 

 in the laws affecting gaining ; but Charles II. 

 desiring to prevent his subjects from becoming 

 'lewd and dissolute,' an act was passed (16 Car. 

 II. chap. 7) to put down 'deceitful, disorderly, and 

 excessive gaming.' The statute enacted that all 

 persons winning by fraud over certain games and 

 amusements therein specified were to forfeit treble 

 the value of their winnings ; that every one losing 

 more than 100 on credit at the games before 

 mentioned was to be discharged from the obliga- 

 tion to pay it ; that all securities given for the 

 debt were to be void ; and that the winner was to 

 forfeit treble the sum he won in excess of 100. 

 This act of Charles II. 's is said to have been 

 passed in consequence of the vast sums of money 



won and lost over a match on the turf in which 

 two horses belonging to Mr Tregonwell Frampton 

 and Sir Charles Strickland respectively were the 

 competitors. Before the match came off' F ramp- 

 ton's trainer meeting Hesletine, who had charge of 

 Sir C. Strickland's horse, proposed to run a private 

 trial, and at Sir Charles's directions Hesletine 

 assented. Each jockey at the instigation of his 

 master carried 7 ID. more than the specified weight 

 under the idea that he had stolen a march on nis 

 opponent. Frampton's horse won the trial after a 

 nose race, and his party argued that as he won 

 with the worst of the weights he would achieve 

 an easy victory at even weights. The other side 

 argued that, as their horse was beaten so little 

 when handicapped with an extra 7 lb., he would 

 turn the tables in the race, which, however, ended 

 as the trial had done. So much money changed 

 hands that, as already mentioned, the above act 

 was passed. Passing over for the present the 

 statutes aimed at unlawful games, it is sufficient 

 to notice that by the first licensing act (25 Geo. II. 

 chap. 36) gaming-houses are forbidden ; but during 

 the long reign of George III. the government does 

 not appear to have troubled itself much about gam- 

 ing and gamesters, and we may pass on to the 8 and 

 9 Viet. chap. 109, the 18th section of which renders 



void all contract** by way of gaming and wagering. 

 The 16th and 17th Viet, put down betting- IIOIUM; 

 and the 31st and 32d Viet. chap. 52 (the Vagrant 

 Act ) enact* that every person betting, wagering, or 

 gaming in any open or pul>lic place with any table 

 or instrument of gaming shall lie deemed a rogue 

 ami vagalMind, and, upon conviction, shall be 

 punished as the act direct*. It was under thin act 

 that the proprietors of the ' Pari-mutuel were 

 piini*h<-<l (see BKTTIXI;). In spite of the statute* 

 forbidding gaming-houses they have been carried 

 on, and during the year 1889, "besides several other 

 cases, the police made raids upon the Field Club, 

 in Park Place, St James's, and another in Maiden 

 Lane, Strand, the proprietors of which were fined 

 500 each, substantial penalties being also inflicted 

 upon some of the officials. 



It has been mentioned above that the statute of 

 Henry VIII. made certain games illegal ; and so 

 long ago as the time of Edward IV. certain other 

 games, like ' Holy Bowls,' were unlawful. In 1618, 

 however, James I. made a declaration that the 

 dancing of men and women, leaping, May games, 

 and some other forms of amusement should be per- 

 mitted, and Charles I. allowed feasts of dedications 

 of churches, called wakes, to be indulged in ; but 

 the 18th Geo. II. chap. 34 put a stop to Roulet, or 

 Roly-poly, a game which could have no connection 

 with modern roulette, because the act speaks of 

 Roulet ' or any other game with cards or dice.' It 

 will be noticed that the statute passed in the time 

 of Henry VIII. was not repealed at the time 

 Queen Victoria came to the throne, and it was not 

 until the year 1845 that bowls, quoits, tennis, and 

 many other games of skill could legally be played 

 in any public alley or ground. In 1845, however, 

 it appears to have struck the ruling powers that it 

 was a little incongruous to retain in the statute- 

 book an act which both prohibited games of skill, 

 and ordered people to shoot with bows and arrows, 

 so in that year the 8th and 9th Viet. chap. 109 was 

 passed, and a great deal of the act of Henry VIII. 

 was repealed; and, to sum up, it maybe pointed 

 out that racing of all kinds, what are known as 

 athletic sports, all games like cricket, croquet, 

 quoits, &c., all of what are known as 'parlour 

 pastimes,' and most games at cards are now legal. 

 The exceptions are Ace of Hearts, Bassett, Dice 

 (except Backgammon), Hazard, Pharaoh (or Faro), 

 Passage, Roly-poly. It will be observed that 

 neither playing cards for money nor betting are 

 illegal per se ; they only become so when indulged 

 in under certain conditions. There is nothing un- 

 lawful in playing cards in a private house, or whist 

 in a club ; but to frequent a gaming-house is not 

 allowed. Again, a man does not break the law 

 because he makes a bet on credit in his house, on a 

 racecourse, or at Tattersall's if he is taken to be a 

 member ; but should he stake his money and make 

 his bet at the bar of a public-house or on the street 

 he renders himself liable to be proceeded against. 



Lotteries, which are first heard of in England in 

 1569, were for some time legal, and at last so many 

 private and cheating ones oecame mixed up with 

 the more honourable affairs that legislation became 

 necessary, and the 10th and llth \\ illiam III. chap. 

 17 was passed for the purpose of suppressing them 

 by declaring them public nuisances ; though there 

 was still a loophole, for lotteries might be carried 

 on ' under colour of patents or grants under the 

 great seal.' This act, however, did little or 

 nothing to check the evil, nor do subsequent 

 enactments appear to have l>een more efficacious. 

 State lotteries were altogether put an end to in 

 1826, from which year we hear very little of 

 lotteries, as the laws against them are now 

 strictly enforced. Raffles and sweeps are illegal, 

 being nothing more than lotteries ; yet every club 



