A certain n.o.ble lord, who had been for years an experienced NURSE of the dice, and who knew how to NICK the MAINS or THROW CRABS, as well as the best leg in England, held the bow. The commoner commenced by backing the n.o.ble lord IN. The n.o.ble lord threw OUT. He then backed the n.o.ble lord OUT, and the n.o.ble lord threw in. He backed the n.o.ble lord OUT again, who threw five to the main. The commoner betted the odds deeply at the rate of three to two. The n.o.ble lord threw the FIVE. The commoner, uneasy, changed about, and backed the n.o.ble lord IN for a large stake,--the n.o.ble lord then threw OUT. The commoner now rose in a rage, and insinuated broadly that he was cheated, robbed, and it could not be fair play. Of course much indignation was shown by the n.o.ble lord, and it was with difficulty that a fight was prevented; but his lordship, nevertheless, condescended to demonstrate that he played his own money at the time, and what he lost found its way into the bank, with which "he was not at all connected." This reasoning satisfied the suspicious young commoner (poor easy man!); an apology was given; and peace was restored.
DIAMOND CUT DIAMOND.
A party of players were a.s.sembled to throw for a stake, which was enormous. It was, however, agreed that the LOWEST throw should win.
The players threw until one of them turned up two aces. All but one had thrown, and shouts of applause greeted the lucky caster, when the last who was to throw exclaimed--"Hold! I"ll try and beat that." . . .
Rattling the dice, he turned down the box on the table, and on lifting it up displayed the two dice ONE UPON THE TOP OF THE OTHER, and both aces! He was therefore declared the winner.(34)
(34) Menageana.
A TENDER MOTHER.
A French lady had an only child, a handsome young man, much addicted to gaming. He lost at one sitting L40,000, and being dest.i.tute of other resources, he joined a company of strolling players. They chanced some time afterwards to pa.s.s a short time at Worcester, near which his mother, who was considerably advanced in years, resided. The lady, though highly displeased with her son"s life, yet, hearing of his performance, could not resist a wish to see him; and for this purpose she went thither incog. He supported the princ.i.p.al character in "The Gamester."
The feelings of the mother were so excited at the pa.s.sages which closely applied to her son"s conduct, that she exclaimed aloud, "Ay, there he is--the--the beggar--the scoundrel! Always the same--no change in him!"
The delusion so increased at the fifth act, when Beverley lifts his hand to kill the child, that the lady in a most distressing tone cried out--"Wretch that thou art, don"t kill the child--I"ll take it home with me!"
TWO MASTERS OF THE ART.
A Frenchman who had become notorious for the unerring certainty with which he won from all who ventured to play with him, at length found himself unable to induce persons to sit down to the table with him, there being not the slightest chance of winning against his play. After being thus idle for some time, an Englishman, who had heard of his triumphs, expressed his readiness to enter the lists against him. They sat down, and played for three hours without intermission, and at the end of that time were exactly in the same position as when they begun.
They at length paused to take some refreshment. "Sare," said the Frenchman, in a sort of whisper, to a party who accompanied his antagonist, "your friend is a very clever man at de cards--deuced clever, sare." "He is a very clever fellow," observed the Englishman. "I shall try him again," said Monsieur; and as he made the observation he proceeded to the room in which they had been playing, and which was fixed on as the scene of their continued contest. He had scarcely quitted the place when the other made his appearance, and observed that the Frenchman was the most skilful player he had ever met with. The parties again met, and the cards were again produced. The game was renewed at eleven o"clock, and continued without intermission till six o"clock on the following morning, at which time they found, to the surprise of each other, that they were still as they began. "Sare,"
said the Frenchman, "you are the best player I ever met with." "And you, Monsieur," returned the other, "are the only gentleman I ever played with, from whom I could win nothing." "Indeed, sare!" said Monsieur, hesitatingly. "It is a fact, I a.s.sure you." "Sare, I am quite astonished at your skill." "And I"m not less so at yours, Monsieur." "You"re de most skilfullest man at de cards in England." "Not while you are in it, Monsieur," replied the Englishman, with a smile. "Sare, I CHEATED, and yet could not win from you!" remarked the Frenchman, hurriedly and with much emphasis, feeling it impossible any longer to conceal his surprise at the circ.u.mstance of being unable to play a winning game with the Englishman. "And, Monsieur, I did the same thing with you, and yet you are no loser!" remarked the other, with corresponding energy of tone.
The problem was thus solved: both had been cheating during the whole night, and were exactly equal in dexterity, both being unconscious of the dishonest practices of each other; and the result was that each got up from the table with the same amount of money as he had when he sat down. The cheats cordially shook hands, apparently much gratified that they had at length ascertained how it had happened that neither could pluck the other.
CHAPTER VI. THE GAMING CLUBS.
On the subject of Clubs Mr Cunningham in his "Clubs of London," and Mr Timbs in his "Club Life in London," have said pretty well everything that we want to know, and by their help, and that of other writers, I shall endeavour to give an account of the gambling carried on in such places.
1. ALMACK"S.
"The gaming at Almack"s," writes Walpole to Horace Mann, "which has taken the pas of White"s, is worthy of the decline of our empire, or commonwealth, which you please. The young men of the age lose ten, fifteen, twenty thousand pounds in an evening there. Lord Stavordale, not one-and-twenty, lost L11,000 there last Tuesday, but recovered it by one great hand at Hazard. He swore a great oath--"Now, if I had been playing DEEP I might have won millions!" His cousin, Charles Fox, shines equally here and in the House of Commons."
Among the rules of the establishment, it was ordered "that every person playing at the twenty-guinea table do not keep less than twenty guineas before him," and "that every person playing at the new guinea table do keep fifty guineas before him." That the play ran high may be inferred from a note against the name of Mr Thynne, in the Club-books:--"Mr Thynne having won ONLY 12,000 guineas during the last two months, retired in disgust, March 21st, 1772." Indeed, the play was unusually high--for rouleaus of L50 each, and generally there was L10,000 in specie on the table. The gamesters began by pulling off their embroidered clothes, and putting on frieze great coats, or turned their coats inside out for luck! They put on pieces of leather (such as are worn by footmen when they clean knives) to save their laced ruffles; and to guard their eyes from the light, and to keep their hair in order, wore high-crowned straw hats with broad brims adorned with flowers and ribbons; they also wore masks to conceal their emotions when they played at quinz.(35) Each gamester had a small neat stand by him, to hold his tea, or a wooden bowl with an edge of ormolu, to hold the rouleaus of guineas.
(35) Quinze, the French for fifteen. This is a game at cards, in which the winner is he who counts fifteen, or nearest to that number, in all the points of his hand. Three, five, or six might play at it. Two entire packs of cards are used, so disposed that the spades and clubs are on one side, and the hearts and diamonds on the other. The entire art of the game consists in making fifteen; below that number the party loses.
2. THE COCOA-TREE CLUB.
This club was remarkable for high if not for foul play. Walpole, writing to Horace Mann in 1780, says:--"Within this week there has been a cast at Hazard at the Cocoa-tree (in St James"s Street) the difference of which amounted to one hundred and fourscore thousand pounds! Mr O"Birne, an Irish gamester, had won one hundred thousand pounds of a young Mr Harvey of Chigwell, just started into an estate by his elder brother"s death. O"Birne said,--"You can never pay me." "I can," said the youth, "my estate will sell for the debt." "No," said O"Birne, "I will win ten thousand,--you shall throw for the odd ninety." They did, and Harvey won!"
3. GRAHAM"S CLUB.
This gaming club is remarkable for a scandal which made some noise at the time of its occurrence, and one version of which a writer in the Times has been at some pains to rectify. In Mr Duncombe"s "Life" of his father occurs the following account of this curious transaction.
"In Graham"s Club there was also a good deal of play, and large sums were lost and won among the n.o.blemen and gentlemen who were its members.
An unpleasant rumour circulated in town in the winter of 1836, to the effect that a n.o.ble lord had been detected in cheating by means of marked cards. The presumed offender was well known in society as a skilful card-player, but by those who had been most intimate with him was considered incapable of any unfair practice. He was abroad when the scandal was set afloat, but returned to England directly he heard of it, and having traced the accusation to its source, defied his traducers.
Thus challenged, they had no alternative but to support their allegation, and it took this shape:--They accused Henry William Lord de Ros of marking the edges of the court cards with his thumb-nail, as well as of performing a certain trick by which he unfairly secured an ace as the turn-up card. His accusers were ---- ----, who had formerly kept a gaming table; Mr ---- ----, also a professional gambler; Lord Henry Bentinck, and Mr F. c.u.mming. Lord Henry appears to have taken no very active part in the proceedings; the other three had lost money in play with Lord de Ros, and, as unsuccessful gamblers have done before and since, considered that they had lost it unfairly.
"Lord de Ros, instead of prosecuting the four for a libel, brought an action only against c.u.mming, which permitted the others to come forward as witnesses against him. The cause came on in the Court of King"s Bench before Lord Denman. The plaintiff"s witnesses were Lord Wharncliffe, Lord Robert Grosvenor, the Earl of Clare, and Sir Charles Dalbiac, who had known and played with him from between 20 to 30 years, as a very skilful but honourable Whist player. The evidence of Mr Lawrence, the eminent surgeon, proved that Lord de Ros had long suffered under a stiffness of the joints of the fingers that made holding a pack of cards difficult, and the performance of the imputed trick of legerdemain impossible. For the defence appeared the keeper of the house and his son; two or three gamblers who had lived by their winnings; one acknowledged to have won L35,000 in 15 years. Mr Baring Wall, one of the witnesses, swore that he had never witnessed anything improper in the play of Lord de Ros, though he had played with and against him many years; another witness, the Hon. Colonel Anson, had observed nothing suspicious; but the testimony of others went to prove that the aces and kings had been marked inside their edges; and one averred that he had seen Lord de Ros perform sauter la coupe a hundred times. The whole case wore much the look of a combination among a little coterie who lived by gambling to drive from the field a player whose skill had diminished their income; nevertheless, the incidents sworn to by some of them wore a suspicious significance, and a verdict was given against Lord de Ros, which he only survived a short time."
On this statement the Times" reviewer comments as follows:--
"If many old scandals may be revived with impunity, there are some that cannot. Mr Duncombe the younger has. .h.i.t on one which affects several gentlemen still living, and his injurious version of it cannot be neutralized or atoned for by an apology to one. We call attention to it in the hope that any more serious notice will be rendered needless by the simple exposure of its inaccuracies.
"It is difficult to conceive a more inexcusable misstatement, for the case was fully reported,(36) and the public judgment perfectly coincided with the verdict. Lord de Ros was not abroad when the scandal was set afloat. He went abroad after the scene at Graham"s had set all London talking, and he returned in consequence of a peremptory call from his friends. He was most reluctantly induced to take the required steps for the vindication of his character; and it is preposterous to suppose that any little coterie would have dreamt of accusing a man of his rank and position with the view of driving a skilful player from the field. His accusers were not challenged. Neither were they volunteers. They became his accusers, because they formed the Whist party at which he was first openly denounced. They signed a paper particularizing their charge, and offered to refer the question to a tribunal of gentlemen, with the Duke of Wellington or Lord Wharncliffe to preside. Would a little coterie, who lived by gambling, have made this offer? Or would Lord de Ros have refused it if he had been the intended victim of a conspiracy? Lord Henry Bentinck signed the paper, appeared as a witness, and took quite as active a part in the proceedings as any of the four, except Mr c.u.mming, who undertook the sole legal liability by admitting the publication of the paper.
(36) The Times of February 11 and 13, 1837.
"The evidence was overwhelming. Suspicions had long been rife; and on no less than ten or twelve occasions the marked packs had been examined in the presence of unimpeachable witnesses, and sealed up. These packs were produced at the trial. Several witnesses swore to the trick called sauter la coupe. It was the late Sir William Ingilby who swore that he had seen Lord de Ros perform it from 50 to 100 times; and when asked why he did not at once denounce him, he replied that if he had done so before his Lordship began to get blown upon, he should have had no alternative between the window and the door. Of course, every one who had been in the habit of playing with Lord de Ros prior to the exposure would have said the same as Sir Charles Dalbiac and Mr Baring Wall.
With regard to the gentlemen whose names we have omitted we take it for granted that the author is not aware of the position they held, and continue to hold, or he would hardly have ventured to describe them so offensively. He has apologized to one, and he had better apologize to the other without delay.
"The case was complete without the evidence of either of the original accusers, and the few friends of Lord de Ros who tried to bear him up against the resulting obloquy were obliged to go with the stream. When Lord Alvanley was asked whether he meant to leave his card, he replied, "No, he will stick it in his chimney-piece and count it among his honours.""
Having read through the long case as reported in the Times, I must declare that I do not find that the evidence against Lord de Ros was, after all, so "overwhelming" as the reviewer declares; indeed, the "leader" in the Times on the trial emphatically raises a doubt on the subject. Among other pa.s.sages in it there is the following:--
"In the process of the trial it appeared that the most material part of the evidence against Lord de Ros, that called sauter la coupe,--which, for the sake of our English readers we shall translate into CHANGING THE TURN-UP CARD,--the times and places at which it was said to have been done could not be specified. Some of the witnesses had seen the trick done 50 or 100 times by Lord de Ros, but could neither say on what day, in what week, month, or even year, they had so seen it done. People were excessively struck at this deviation from the extreme punctuality required in criminal cases by the British courts of law."
"The disclosures," says Mr Grant,(27) "which took place in the Court of Queen"s Bench, on the occasion of the trial of Lord de Ros, for cheating at cards, furnished the strongest demonstration that he was not the only person who was in the habit of cheating in certain clubs; while there were others who, if they could not be charged with direct cheating, or cheating in their own persons, did cheat indirectly, and by proxy, inasmuch as they, by their own admission, were, on frequent occasions, partners with Lord de Ros, long after they knew that he habitually or systematically cheated. The n.o.ble lord, by the confession of the t.i.tled parties to whom I allude, thus cheated for himself and them at the same time."
(37) Sketches in London.
Lord de Ros was at the head of the barons of England. He was the son of Lord Henry Fitzgerald, and Lady de Ros, who inherited in her own right that ancient t.i.tle, which dates from the reign of Henry III. He had studied at Eton and Oxford, and afterwards on the Continent, and there was not a more accomplished man in Europe. He possessed an ample fortune, was a member of several of the clubs--White"s, Boodle"s, Brookes", and Graham"s, and one of the best Whist players in England.
It appears that at Graham"s Club, at the commencement of the season, and before Lord de Ros came to town, whispers were circulated of unfair play, and various persons were supposed guilty. A determination was therefore formed that the club should be dissolved and reconstructed, leaving out the names of certain persons to whom suspicion attached. The main object of the master of the club, and of some of those who attended it for the purpose of professional gain, was that its character should be cleared. Not long after Lord de Ros came to town he received an anonymous letter, cautioning him against continuing to play at Graham"s, and intimating to him, if he did so, that measures would be taken which he would have reason to regret. Of course his Lordship disregarded the threat; he attended the club for several days more a.s.siduously than before, and continued to play until the end of the season, in the beginning of July. In September the Satirist newspaper published a distinct charge of unfair play against Lord de Ros, whilst the latter was at Baden, and he returned to England and commenced an action for libel against the newspaper.
He was charged with being in the habit of marking the cards, the effect being to create a very slight and almost imperceptible indentation, and to make a ridge or wave on the back, so that a practised eye would be able, on looking at the right place, knowing where to expect a mark, to discern whether the ace was there or not. He was also charged with cheating by reversing the cut--that is, when the cards had come to him, after having been cut by his adversary, instead of putting the bottom card at the top, keeping the bottom card at the bottom, by some shuffling contrivance when he dealt. Another witness said:--
"When he took up the two parcels of cards, after the operation of cutting the pack by his right-hand adversary, he was always attacked with a hacking cough, or what I may properly denominate, especially from the result it produced, a "king cough," because a king or an ace was invariably its effect. The cough always came on at the most convenient moment to distract the attention of the other players, and was evidently indulged in for the purpose of abstracting their attention from the table and from the manoeuvre he was about to perform. However, I never saw him "slip the card," and I never had cognizance of its execution, but certain it was that the ace or the king, which was at the bottom of the pack prior to the cut, invariably found its way to the same position after the cut, and hence was the turn-up card. With regard to the operation of dealing, his Lordship delivered the cards particularly slow, examining every card minutely towards its corners, as if looking for some mark."
Many curious facts came out during the trial.
It was Mr Brooke Greville who admitted that he was a considerable winner at play--having "no hesitation in saying that he had won L35,000 in the course of 15 years," chiefly at Whist; that he had followed play as an occupation, at Graham"s Club. He lost, however, L14,000 at Brighton in 1828, a considerable portion of it to Lord de Ros; but this loss he made up in three or four years (that is, won L14,000 in that time), and, excepting that reverse, he was generally fortunate at play."
A Captain J. Alexander, half-pay R. N., declared that he had won as much as L700 at a time, having, however, to pay half to another partner; his winnings might be L1600 a-year. "I began to play," he said, "about 25 or 28 years ago, and, expecting that I should be asked the question, I have looked into my accounts, and find that I am about L10,000 better than as though I had not played. That is a yearly average of L500." He had, however, lost about L1000 during the previous year.
This Captain Alexander was asked how many hours he played before dinner, and he answered--"From three to five hours"--adding, however, that "he HAD played ALL NIGHT." Then the counsel said, "I suppose you take but a slight dinner?" He replied:--
"Why, I generally make as good a dinner as I can get." The learned counsel continued:--
"A small boiled chicken and a gla.s.s of lemonade, perhaps?" This seemed an offensive question, and the captain said,--
"I believe never, and (with increased earnestness of manner) mind, I DENY THE LEMONADE ALTOGETHER; I never take lemonade. (Laughter, in which the n.o.ble lords on the bench joined involuntarily.)