26 ON THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPORTS. 



UnFortunaielv fmgular again ! I can no more 

 agree with the one party, who feek by legal 

 ihackles to reftrain, than with the other, wiio 

 pretend to afFert liberty ; whilfl; they intend it 

 for themfelves, or for the t'lch exclufively. 

 The rich can have no juft right to rifk their 

 property in games of chance, which is not 

 common to the poor. Such is the theory ; in 

 the application, I deem our apologiils equally 

 wide of the mark. The evil coniequences of 

 gambling are a thoufand times greater in a rich 

 man, commonly called a gentleman, than they 

 can poffibly be in the poor: the example of the 

 rich is much more widely contagious, he is lefs 

 liable to controul, he can obtain more credit, 

 and can do infinitely greater mifchiefs, both to 

 his own, the families of other men, and the 

 public in general. 



The prefent fufs about the game of Faro 

 chicfiy, fupremcly ridiculous in my opinion, 

 has given rife to the foregoing refleclions. Why 

 not quadruple all the penalties, or even fend 

 the delinquents on the favourite excurhon to 

 Botany Bay, or at lead to the penitentiary 

 ceils ? It would be but an experiment ; and I 

 think we have beep engaged, fome four or five 

 years, in trying experiments. With refpe6l to 

 ihofe legal Heps, fo frequently taken of late, 

 I fiiould conceive that they can have no other 

 effe6i, either upon higli or low gambling, than 



merely 



