Whimsical Wagers.

New Zealand Graphic, Volume XLV, Issue 20, 16 November 1910, Page 35

Whimsical Wagers.

WHITE’S BETTING BOOK. HOW ENGLAND’S LORDS AND DUKES GAMBLED. There is probably no more remarkable record of wagers in existence than the Betting Book of White’s Club in London. It contains the bets and wagers of nearly two hundred years—bets and wagers of a choice variety, born of the singular whims and caprices of several generations of members of this famous old club. In the second half of the eighteenth century the passion of making wagers reached its height; in those days the members of White’s were votaries of Chance. To-day, in the more sober twentieth century, bets are comparatively scarce. In the palmy days of White’s men would stake their guineas lavishly on an; chance that might occur to them, no matter how trivial it might seem. Neverfailing subjects for wagers were the duration of a person’s life, the increase of a lady’s family, and so forth; but, singularly enough, the Betting Book, which was published as a supplementary volume to the history of the club, contains very few wagers on legitimate matters of sport and athletics. However, here are two samples —from the early pages. In 1757, and long before the days of percussion caps, we observe Lord Eglintoun staked 100 guineas that “’He finds a man shall kill twenty snipes in twenty-three shots,” distrusting, obviously, his own ability to accomplish this feat. Lord Montfort' may be taken as a type of the reckless gamester of the period. In his day the gaming spirit at White’s was at its height. In the few pages of the early Betting Book that are preserved sixty wagers of his are recorded, aggregating £5500; and births, marriages and deaths were the events upon which nearly the whole of this sum depended. Sporting matters did not, evidently, tempt his lordship to such recklessness. In November of 1754 he made a wager which, alone of all the wagers in the book, is doubly flavoured with tragedy. “Lord Montfort

wagers Sir John Bland 100 guineas that Mr. Nash outlives Mr. Cibber.” So runs the register, Lord Montfort making a similar bet with another member. The subjects of this wager—Beau Nash, the "King of Bath,” and Colley Cibber, the actor and poet —were very old at this time. Below the entry in the Betting Book is the significant note, written in another hand: "Both Lord Montfort and Sir John Bland put an end to their lives before the bet was decided.” The first of these tragedies was the death of Lord Montfort, who committed suicide on New Year’s Day, 1755, having at last reached the end of his fortune He had spent a vast amount of moneyon his house, and had lived very extravagantly, and the final blow was dealt him by the deaths, on the same day, of the Earl of Albemarle and Lord Gage, who, presumably, paid him annuities. After this he became more reckless than ever, even going so far as to stake his life on the answer he should receive from the Duke of Newcastle in reply to his application for a Government ap pointment. He surprised the dilatoryduke by the eagerness with which he pressed for an answer to his request for the Governorship of Virginia or the Mastership of the Royal Hounds. At last the answer came—it was unfavour able. Immediately Lord Montfort aroused the suspicious of his friends by inquiring the easiest method of self-destruction, but he succeeded in quieting them. He spent his last evening at White’s. It was the last day of 1754. He ordered supper at the club, and played whist till 1 o'clock, seeing in the New Year for the last time. When Lord Robert Bertie, who was one of the party, drank a happy New Year to him, Lord Montfort was observed to pass his hands over his eyes in a strange manner. The next morning Lord Montfort sent for a lawyer and witnesses, and made his will. •'Would a man’s will hold good even if he shot himself?” he asked the lawyer, casually. " Certainly, your lordship,” was the answer. Thereupon he requested the lawyer to wait a minute, stepped into the next room and shot himself. Here is an edifying excerpt from one of the many letters of Horace Walpole, who was a member of the club: "One of the

youths at White’s,” he says, " has committed a murder, and intends to repeat it. He betted £ISOO that a man could not live 12 hours under water, hired a desperate fellow, sunk him in a ship by way of experiment, and both ship and man have not appeared since. Another ship and man are to be tried for their lives, instead of Blake, the assassin.” The first bet in the book as it exist-to-day is this: "Oct. ye 5, 1743.—1 jj rd Lincoln bets Lord Winchilsea 100 guinea, to 50 guineas that the Duchess-Dowager of Marlboro’ does not survive the Dutchess Dowager of Cleveland.” Below

it. under the same date, is a similar bet between Lord Montfort—who would bet with zest on any subject of the day—and Mr. Thomas Hervey, and before the year was out half-a-dozen bet- had been registered on this absorbing subject. The vitality of the Dowager-Duchess of Marlborougii—"old >arah” as she was familiarly called — was quite notable enough to induce the sport-loving members of White’s to risk their guineas on it. Two years before she had been very ill. lying two hour without speaking, but when she heard the dictum of the physician—" She must be blistered or

she’ll die ” —the old lady woke up and retorted, with emphasis, “ I won’t be blistered, and I won’t die!” Nor did she—until 1744 was nearly out. Here are two singular wagers:— “ Lord Montfort wagers Colonel Lyttleton that the custard dun outlives the black-breasted, rosecomb red.” This apparently refers to game-cocks. “A bets B 500 that B has never been a. far from London as C, nor ever will be as long as he lives.” Then follows a query: “Is this a proper bet or no?” Then a memorandum: “C has been within a league of the Canaries.” “ Mr. Meynell is desired to give his opinion upon this bett.” Below this, presumably in the handwriting of the referee, is: — “My opinion is that it is a propel bett.”

The bets recorded in the book during the first half of the nineteenth century differ, in many respects, from those of a century before. The most striking dif ference lies in the amount staked. 100 guineas and over being wagered only at rare intervals, and a guinea to 25 guineas being the range of the day. Though the increase of their friends’ families and the deaths of wellknown people were still favourite subjects for wagers with members in the days of the dandies, passing events received far more attention than formerly, and political bets were not uncommon. One of the most considerable bets of this period was this comprehensive sporting wager—dated May, 1815: —“Mr. Bouverie bets Mr. Butler 200 guineas to 15 that he does not name the winner of the Derby, the Oaks, and the new bishop.” In April of the same year—the year of Waterloo —“ Mr. Mills bets Mr. Raikes four ponies to one that hostilities commence between England and France on or before the 14th August, 1815,” and this bet is followed by one of 200 guineas between Sir Joseph Copley and Mr. Raikes to the same effect, Sir Joseph having previously betted Mr. Raikes 100 guineas to 25 that ■war broke out on or before May 29th. The unsettled state of things at this time, when the entente

was unknown, evidently provoked wagers galore. “Sir Berkeley Paget bets Lord Sefton 10 guineas that Buonaparte is not at the head of the French Government on the 22nd of April, 1816.” Waterloo definitely settled this wager, and also that of Mr. de Roos, who betted Mr. Fitzgibbon that Napoleon would be at the head of the French Government on April 20th, 1816. A great gamester of this period was Sir George Talbot, who in this April signed his 150th bet, having made his first wager at White's in January, 1809. This is the one with which he reached his 150: “Mr. Butler bets Sir George Talbot 20 guineas to one that he is not in the room at White’s with Napoleon in the course of the next two vears.”

The fallen fortunes of a certain baronet also attracted wagers. Lord Alvanley betted Sir Joseph Copley 5 guineas “that a certain baronet understood between them is very much embarrassed in his circumstances in three years from the date hereof,” and Sir Joseph was to be reckoned the loser if the baronet in question was observed to borrow small change of the chairmen or waiters. Possibly it was this same unfortunate baronet who was the subject of this wager: "Mr. Methuen bets Colonel Stanhope 10 guineas to one that a certain worthy baronet' understood between them does not of necessity part with his gold icepails before this day twelve months. The icepails being found at a pawnbroker’s wiil not entitle Colonel Stanhope to receive his 10 guineas.” More than a dozen bets were made on Lord Stewart marrying Lady Francis Vane Tempest within a certain time or before a given date. One of these, for its sporting flavour, merits quotation: “Mr. Brodrick bets 50 guineas with General Mackenzie on Sir John Shelley winning the Derby against Lord Stewart being married to Lady Francis Vane Tempest in six months from this day.” In 1831, when the Reform Bill was before Parliament, we have this specimen of the political bet: “Lord George Bentinck bets Mr. Henry Baring £5O that his anti-reforming man (whom he is to name to-night) does not' come in for Canterbury if he stands.” Below is

this note: “Notice has been given to Lord George that in case of defeat this will be considered personal.” The last bet in the book worth men-

tioning is this quaint affair, of 1856: “Mr. F. Cavendish bets Mr. H. Brownrigg two to one that he does not kill the bluebottle fly before going to bed.”