GREAT GAMBLERS AND HIGH PLAY.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIV, Issue 272, 14 November 1903, Page 5 (Supplement)

GREAT GAMBLERS AND HIGH PLAY.

SOME REMARKABLE CASES.

Not long ago there appeared in various daily journals a paragraph which brought the past once more to our notice, as the news it contained reminded us more of the romance of a bygone time than the sober, drab, dull century in which we live.

The paragraph was to the effect that in Buda-Pest National * Casino, whose members are said to belong chiefly to the aristocracy, a gentleman won a sum of about £96,000 in the course of a few hours. The game was baccarat, and the losers were Hungarian nobleman. Of the sum mentioned something like 1,600,000 kroner, or £64,----000 of our money, was stated to have been won from one unhappy person. Possibly in the rush of our modern life the paragraph largely escaped unnoticed. Yet, If the Press had existed iv the eighteenth century in the wide form it does to-day, there would have been many opportunities for a similar chronicle.

We do things very largely in these wonderful days; yet gambling seems hardly one of them. The vice of "playing extravagantly for money," as Dr. Johnson put it in his famous dictionary, is little known outside so-called smart society, and the expenses of smart living preclude the heavy stakes we read of in the past

Taking the eighteenth century as an example, we find politicians of rank, of foremost rank, kings, princes, yea, even divines, bitten by the habit of wagering, while gambling clubs flourished. The modern passion is for betting, which has truly permeated all ranks. The sums hazarded are, after all, comparatively small. As for dice, its devotees are few and far between, and cards are confined to a class.

Of great gamblers plentiful mention will be found in the erudite work of Theophilus Lucas, whose .claim to fame is based on the authorship of "Memoir's of the Lives of Famous Gamesters in the Reigns of Charles 11., James IL, William 111., and Anne." We have space only for a mention of two of these choice worthies. FAMOUS GAMESTERS. Colonel Panton was a picturesque and level-headed gamester. "His chief game," we are told, "was at Hazard, at which he got the most money; for In one night at this play he won as many pounds as purchased an estate of above £1500 per annum." With the proceeds he built Pantonstreet, called after him. Our shrewd old buck, having locked up his money so, is stated never to have played again to the date of his death In 1681. Robert Bourchier was quite a different personage. Life went all wrong with him, until at 24, he found himself a footman with an\)arl of Mulgrave. He married a wife, and gambled away her small dowry In one night. Eventually he played the noble Earl (many years after he had left the Earl's service) for £500 at one throw of the dice, and found himself on the right. Some other large sums he made were 15,----000 pistoles from Louis the Great, 16,000 pistoles of the Duke of Orleans, and a jewel worth 29,000 crowns (bought by the Venetian Republic) from the same nobleman. Bourohier's equipage and suite were on a most lavish scale. He is reputed to have given £3000 for a coich. He met William of Flanders, and the meeting caused the monarch a loss of £2500. Thereupon the Duke of Bavaria challenged Bourchier to a single throw for £15,000. Bourchier won once more, whereupon the Duke appears to have suggested that there was trickery. The gamester met this by an offer to play pitch and toss for one pitch, which became practically "double or quits." The Duke lost and —owed. It Is only fair to add that he paid his loss (£30,000) later, like a man, while the lucky winner presented him with the £3000 coach we have already mentioned. A STORY OF BEAU NASH. In Puritan times gaming naturally decreased, but to the late eighteenth century the votaries of chance were once more burning money at the shrine of their goddess. Many stories are told of the high play at.Bath during the Consulship of Beau Nash. The great Bathonlan befriended many a luckless gamester, and took many a beginner by the hand, and so saved him from the future which might have claimed him. We have room for but one anecdote.

A certain Duke having lost sums by play, Beau Nash engaged with him to double his losses or wins If either should amount to ten thousand guineas. For a time the nobleman refrained from gaming, but at length the inclination got the better of his reason. He had lost 8000 guineas, when Nash reminded him of the promise. The passion of gaming was on him; and he heeded not the warning, and promptly lost another 3000 guineas, and subsequently paid the 10,000 guineas forfeit to the Don of Bath. At the commencement of last century there were numerous gaming nouses, wuile the famous statesman, Charles James Fox, frequented the clubs. Of these the best known were White's, Almack's, the Cocoa Tree, and Crockford's. Mr Ashton gives us a very Ingenious extract from a paper of the period, which we give in full:— 5 April, 1805.—"The sum lately lost at play by a lady of high rank is variously stated; some say £200,000, • while others assert that it Is little short of £700 003." The chronicler naively adds: "Her Lord is very unhappy, and is still uudecided with respect to the best course to be adopted to the unfortunate predicament." ' HEAVY STAKES. The Bankruptcy Act of the period only applied to traders. In 1814 there is a mention of the brother of a noble marquis who lost £30,000 in one night. Many of the "great and good" of the period kept gaming houses —especially of ladies. Lord Robert Spencer made £100,000 to a marvellously short period of time. He, however, was strong-minded enough to retire with hill ill-gotten competence. History mentions the gaming propensities of the statesmen of the period, and how they would debate far into the morning to the House, only to Btray on to the clubs to gamble. A certain Sutton is stated to have made over £33,000 to one night's play from one unfortunate punter. And the vice, seems to have afflicted all. Large sums were won and lost, paid and received, with the utmost sangfroid. Space alone forbids a mention of many other famous high players of the past, while modern Instances are mostly confined to Monte Carlo. A passing reference to the railway boom of 18_5, and—as might naturally be expected—the subsequent railway, panic, dealt with so amusingly by Thackeray: of Lloyd's, the modern Stock Exchange, and the Chicago Wheat Pit the present public is well aware. Modern gaming Is of a more respectable form. We wonder at the past, but we think none the less to-day of the portly Bishop because he enters an office In the City and wagers the firm 15/ to £1000 that his house will not be destroyed by fire to the ensuing twelve months.