IS GAMBLING ON THE INCREASE?

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XIII, Issue 763, 20 October 1904, Page 6

IS GAMBLING ON THE INCREASE?

There is a present-day tendency to deplore the alleged growth of gambling, and this is a question which the faddist, from the Ecclesiastical big-wig down to the budding Sunday School superintendent, is continually harping upon. It might not be amiss if these well-meaning but somewhat tiresome people were to occasionally take a look into history and see whether their constantly reiterated assertions have any basis on fact, or whether they can be included with the general statements of the temperance partisans who quote statistics with a fluency which is only equalled by their wilful inaccuracy. As regards the origin of gambling, the effort to obtain money, or its equivalent, more easily than by the

sweat of the brow it is impossible to doubt that the ancients were strongly impregnated with the vice, if a well-defined phrase of human nature can be said to be a vice. There is no lack of documentary and pictorial evidence to prove that the Egyptians, “the Persians”— a generic term for all Asiatic nations of the period—and others, whose doings and traditions have been preserved, were gamblers to a man. As for the Romans it is well known that the amount of money won and lost in the Flavian Amphitheatre or in the great Circus was simply prodigious. Most of the games of chance which during the last two hundred years have found favour in the highest circles were imported from France. In London during the last two centuries the nobleman who did not shake the dice-box was looked upon as a scurvy fellow, while during the Georgian era the “ swells ” drank deep and played for immense stakes. Then baccarat caught on, and being a particularly easy game of which to learn the rudiments, found much favour with all classes. At the commencement of the nineteenth century the “ bloods ” at the clubs, would, when tired of other pursuits, gamble on drops of rain running down the window panes, upon which heap of sugar the first fly would settle, and upon many other equally idiotic chances. Probably the largest stake ever entrusted to a pure chance contingency was made by Colonel Mellish, well known in the world of fashion at the beginning of the last century. Never since the wofld began was there such a reckless manipulator of the dice, and it is recorded that he once staked £40,000 upon a single throw—and lost. Another celebrated gamester of a latter day was Mr George 1 ayne, who in a single night’s play once won £30,000 from Lord Albert Denison. Gambling in the Army was freely indulged in during the first half of the nineteenth century, and there were many scandals and resignations of commissions on account of the fatal fascination of the play. There have been from time to time enormous fortunes won and lost on the turf. O’Kelly, who owned the celebrated racehorse Eclipse, was the most persistent gamester of his time, and on leaving a large fortune to his nephew inserted the quaint proviso that the said nephew should forfeit £5OO for every bet he made on the Turf. i ’ ere have been many reckless plungers since, such as the Marquis of Hastings and others, who gambled fortunes away on the result of a single race. It is no more possible to stop gambling in some form or other than it would be for us to check the rotation of the earth or to alter the movement of the stars in their courses. It has existed since the world began, and will probably flourish till this old earth ceases to give signs of life. That there is any marked increase in the vice, however, is extremely problematical, and despite the assertions of the puritanical brigade to the contrary there are indications that our speculations of to-day are of considerably less magnitude than was the case in days gone by. Gamble we must in some shape or other, no matter whether it takes the form of betting on horse races, or speculating in stocks, shares, land, house property or what not, but when it is asserted that gambling is greatly on the increase at the present time we can but think there is no proof of the truth of this, but rather does it point the other way.