University of Virginia Library

5. CHAPTER V.
GAMBLING IN FRANCE IN ALL TIMES.

CHARLES VI. and CHARLES VII. — THE early French annals record the deeds of haughty and idle lords, whose chief occupations were tormenting their vassals, drinking, fighting, and gaming; for most of them were desperate gamblers, setting at defiance all the laws enacted against the practice, and outraging all the decencies of society. The brother of Saint Louis played at dice in spite of the repeated prohibitions of that virtuous prince. Even the great Duguesclin gamed away all his property in prison.[38] The Duc de Touraine, brother of Charles VI., `set to work eagerly to win the king's money,' says Froissart; and transported with joy one day at having won five thousand

livres, his first cry was — Monseigneur, faites-moi payer, `Please to pay, Sire.'

Gaming went on in the camp, and even in the presence of the enemy. Generals, after having ruined their own fortunes, compromised the safety of the country. Among the rest, Philibert de Chalon, Prince d'Orange, who was in command at the siege of Florence, under the Emperor Charles the Fifth, gambled away the money which had been confided to him for the pay of the soldiers, and was compelled, after a struggle of eleven months, to capitulate with those whom he might have forced to surrender.[39]

In the reign of Charles VI. we read of an Hôtel de Nesle which was famous for terrible gaming catastrophes. More than one of its frequenters lost their lives there, and some their honour, dearer than life. This hôtel was not accessible to everybody, like more modern gaming salons, called Gesvres and Soissons; its gate was open only to the nobility, or the most opulent gentlemen of the day.

There exists an old poem which describes the

doings at this celebrated Hôtel de Nesle.[40] The author, after describing the convulsions of the players and recording their blasphemies, says: —

`How many very eminent gentlemen have there lost their arms and horses, their money and lordship — a horrible folly.'

In another part of the poem he says: —

`There young men become ruffians, dice-players, gluttons, and drunkards, haughty of heart, and bereft of honour.'

Still it seems that gaming had not then confounded all conditions, as at a later period. It is evident, from the history and memoirs of the times, that the people were more given to games of skill

and exercise than games of chance. Before the introduction of the arquebus and gunpowder, they applied themselves to the practice of archery, and in all times they played at quoits, ninepins, bowls, and other similar games of skill.[41]

The invention of cards brought about some change in the mode of amusement. The various games of this kind, however, cost more time than money; but still the thing attracted the attention of the magistrates and the clergy. An Augustinian friar, in the reign of Charles VII., effected a wonderful reformation in the matter by his preaching. At his voice the people lit fires in several quarters of the city, and eagerly flung into them their cards and billiard-balls.[42]

With the exception of a few transient follies, nothing like a rage for gambling can be detected at that period among the lower ranks and the middle classes. The vice, however, continued to prevail without abatement in the palaces of kings and the mansions of the great.

It is impossible not to remark, in the history of nations, that delicacy and good faith decline in

proportion to the spread of gambling. However select may be the society of gamesters, it is seldom that it is exempt from all baseness. We have seen a proof of the practice of cheating among the Hindoos. It existed also among the Romans, as proved by the `cogged' or loaded dice dug up at Herculaneum. The fact is that cheating is a natural, if not a necessary, incident of gambling. It may be inferred from a passage in the old French poet before quoted, that cheats, during the reign of Charles VI., were punished with `bonnetting,'[43] but no instance of the kind is on record; on the contrary, it is certain that many of the French kings patronized and applauded well-known cheats at the gaming table.

LOUIS XI. — Brantôme says that Louis XI., who seems not to have had a special secretary, being one day desirous of getting something written, perceived an ecclesiastic who had an inkstand hanging at his side; and the latter having opened it at the king's request, a set of dice fell out. `What kind of sugar-plums are these?' asked his

Majesty. `Sire,' replied the priest, `they are a remedy for the Plague.' `Well said,' exclaimed the king, `you are a fine Paillard (a word he often used); `*You are the man for me,' and took him into his service; for this king was fond of bon-mots and sharp wits, and did not even object to thieves, provided they were original and provocative of humour, as the following very funny anecdote will show. `A certain French baron who had lost everything at play, even to his clothes, happening to be in the king's chamber, quietly laid hands on a small clock, ornamented with massive gold, and concealed it in his sleeve. Very soon after, whilst he was among the troop of lords and gentlemen, the clock began to strike the hour. We can well imagine the consternation of the baron at this contretemps. Of course he blushed red-hot, and tightened his arm to try and stifle the implacable sound of detection manifest — the flagrans delictum — still the clock went on striking the long hour, so that at each stroke the bystanders looked at each other from head to foot in utter bewilderment.

`The king, who, as it chanced, had detected the theft, burst out laughing, not only at the astonishment of the gentlemen present, who were at a loss

to account for the sound, but also at the originality of the stunning event. At length Monsieur le Baron, by his own blushes half-convicted of lar-ceny, fell on his knees before the king, humbly saying: — “Sire, the pricks of gaming are so powerful that they have driven me to commit a dishonest action, for which I beg your mercy.&” And as he was going on in this strain, the king cut short his words, exclaiming: — “The *pastime which you have contrived for us so far surpasses the injury you have done me that the clock is yours: I give it you with all my heart.&” '[44]

HENRY III. — In the latter part of the sixteenth century Paris was inundated with brigands of every description. A band of Italian gamesters, having been informed by their correspondents that Henry III. had established card-rooms and dice-rooms in the Louvre, got admission at court, and won thirty thousand crowns from the king.[45]

If all the kings of France had imitated the disinterestedness of Henry III., the vice of gaming would not have made such progress as became everywhere evident.

Brantôme gives a very high idea of this king's generosity, whilst he lashes his contemporaries. Henry III. played at tennis and was very fond of the game — not, however, through cupidity or avarice, for he distributed all his winnings among his companions. When he lost he paid the wager, nay, he even paid the losses of all engaged in the game. The bets were not higher than two, three, or four hundred crowns — never, as subsequently, four thousand, six thousand, or twelve thousand — when, however, payment was not as readily made, but rather frequently compounded for.[46]

There was, indeed, at that time a French captain named La Roue, who played high stakes, up to six thousand crowns, which was then deemed exorbitant. This intrepid gamester proposed a bet of twenty thousand crowns against one of Andrew Doria's war-galleys.

Doria took the bet, but he immediately declared it off, in apprehension of the ridiculous position in which he would be placed if he lost, saying, — `I don't wish that this young adventurer, who has

nothing worth naming to lose, should win my galley to go and triumph in France over my fortune and my honour.'

Soon, however, high stakes became in vogue, and to such an extent that the natural son of the Duc de Bellegarde was enabled to pay, out of his winnings, the large sum of fifty thousand crowns to get himself legitimated. Curiously enough, it is said that the greater part of this sum had been won in England.[47]

HENRY IV. — Henry IV. early evinced his passion for gaming. When very young and stinted in fortune, he contrived the means of satisfying this growing propensity. When in want of money he used to send a promissory note, written and signed by himself, to his friends, requesting them to return the note or cash it — an expedient which could not but succeed, as every man was only too glad to have the prince's note of hand.[48]

There can be no doubt that the example of Henry IV. was, in the matter of gaming, as in other vices, most pernicious. `Henry IV.,' says Péréfixe, `was not a skilful player, but greedy of

gain, timid in high stakes, and ill-tempered when he lost.' He adds rather naively, `This great king was not without spots any more than the sun.'[49]

Under him gambling became the rage. Many distinguished families were utterly ruined by it. The Duc de Biron lost in a single year more than five hundred thousand crowns (about £250,000). `My son Constant,' says D'Aubigné, `lost twenty times more than he was worth; so that, finding himself without resources, he abjured his religion.'

It was at the court of Henry IV. that was invented the method of speedy ruin by means of written vouchers for loss and gain — which simplified the thing in all subsequent times. It was then also that certain Italian masters of the gaming art displayed their talents, their suppleness, and dexterity. One of them, named Pimentello, having, in the presence of the Duc de Sully, appealed to the honour which he enjoyed in having often played with Henry IV., the duke exclaimed, — `By heavens! So you are the Italian blood-sucker who is every day winning the king's money! You have fallen into the wrong box, for I neither like nor wish to have anything to do with such fellows.'

Pimentello got warm. `Go about your business,' said Sully, giving him a shove; `your infernal gibberish will not alter my resolve. Go!'[50]

The French nation, for a long time agitated by civil war, settled down at last in peace and abundance — the fruits of which prosperity are often poisoned. They were so by the gambling propensity of the people at large, now first manifested. The warrior, the lawyer, the artisan, in a word, almost all professions and trades, were carried away by the fury of gaming. Magistrates sold for a price the permission to gamble — in the face of the enacted laws against the practice.

We can scarcely form an idea of the extent of the gaming at this period. Bassompièrre declares, in his Memoirs, that he won more than five hundred thousand livres (£25,000) in the course of a year. `I won them,' he says, `although I was led away by a thousand follies of youth; and my friend Pimentello won more than two hundred thousand crowns (£100,000). Evidently this Pimentello might well be called a blood-sucker by Sully.[51] He

is even said to have got all the dice-sellers in Paris to substitute loaded dice instead of fair ones, in order to aid his operations.

Nothing more forcibly shows the danger of consorting with such bad characters than the calumny circulated respecting the connection be-tween Henry IV. and this infamous Italian: — it was said that Henry was well aware of Pimentello's manœuvres, and that he encouraged them with the view of impoverishing his courtiers, hoping thereby to render them more submissive! Nero himself would have blushed at such a connivance. Doubtless the calumny was as false as it was stupid.

The winnings of the courtier Bassompiérre were enormous. He won at the Duc d'Epernon's sufficient to pay his debts, to dress magnificently, to purchase all sorts of extravagant finery, a sword ornamented with diamonds — `and after all these expenses,' he says, `I had still five or six thousand crowns (two to three thousand pounds) left, *to kill time with, pour tuer le temps.'

On another occasion, and at a more advanced age, he won one hundred thousand crowns (£50,000) at a single sitting, from M. De Guise, Joinville, and the Maréchal d'Ancre.

In reading his Memoirs we are apt to get indignant at the fellow's successes; but at last we are tempted to laugh at his misery. He died so poor that he did not leave enough to pay the twentieth part of his debts! Such, doubtless, is the end of most gamblers.

But to return to Henry IV., the great gambling exemplar of the nation. The account given of him at the gaming table is most afflicting, when we remember his royal greatness, his sublime qualities. His only object was to *win, and those who played with him were thus always placed in a dreadful dilemma — either to lose their money or offend the king by beating him! The Duke of Savoy once played with him, and in order to suit his humour, dissimulated his game — thus sacrificing or giving up forty thousand pistoles (about £28,000).

When the king lost he was most exacting for his `revanche,' or revenge, as it is termed at play. After winning considerably from the king, on one occasion, Bassompiérre, under the pretext of his official engagements, furtively decamped: the king immediately sent after him; he was stopped, brought back, and allowed to depart only after giving the `revanche' to his Majesty. This `good

Henri,' who was incapable of the least dissimulation either in good or in evil, often betrayed a degree of cupidity which made his minister, Sully, ashamed of him; — in order to pay his gaming debts, the king one day deducted seventy-two thousand livres from the proceeds of a confiscation on which he had no claim whatever.

On another occasion he was wonderfully struck with some gold-pieces which Bassompiérre brought to Fontainebleau, called Portugalloises. He could not rest without having them. Play was necessary to win them, but the king was also anxious to be in time for a hunt. In order to conciliate the two passions, he ordered a gaming party at the Palace, left a representative of his game during his absence, and returned sooner than usual, to try and win the so much coveted Portugalloises.

Even love — if that name can be applied to the grovelling passion of Henry IV., intensely violent as it was — could not, with its sensuous enticements, drag the king from the gaming table or stifle his despicable covetousness. On one occasion, whilst at play, it was whispered to him that a certain princess whom he loved was likely to fall into other arms: — `Take care of my money,' said he to

Bassompiérre, `and keep up the game whilst I am absent on particular business.'

During this reign gamesters were in high favour, as may well be imagined. One of them received an honour never conceded even to princes and dukes. `The latter,' says Amelot de la Houssaie, `did not enter the court-yard of the royal mansions in a carriage before the year 1607, and they are indebted for the privilege to the first Duc d'Epernon, the favourite of the late king, Henry III., who being wont to go every day to play with the queen, Marie de Medicis, took it into his head to have his carriage driven into the court-yard of the Louvre, and had himself carried bodily by his footmen into the very chamber of the queen — under the pretext of being dreadfully tormented with the gout, so as not to be able to stand on his legs.'[52]

It is said, however, that Henry IV. was finally cured of gambling. Credat Judæus! But the anecdote is as follows. The king lost an immense sum at play, and requested Sully to let him have the money to pay it. The latter demurred, so that the king had to send to him

several times. At last, however, Sully took him the money, and spread it out before him on the table, exclaiming — `There's the sum.' Henry fixed his eyes on the vast amount. It is said to have been enough to purchase Amiens from the Spaniards, who then held it. The king thereupon exclaimed: — `I am corrected. I will never again lose my money at gaming.'

During this reign Paris swarmed with gamesters. Then for the first time were established Academies de Jeu, `Gaming Academies,' for thus were termed the gaming houses to which all classes of society beneath the nobility and gentility, down to the lowest, rushed in crowds and incessantly. Not a day passed without the ruin of somebody. The son of a merchant, who possessed twenty thousand crowns, lost sixty thousand. It seemed, says a contemporary, that a thousand pistoles at that time were valued less than a sou in the time of Francis I.

The result of this state of things was incalculable social affliction. Usury and law-suits completed the ruin of gamblers.

The profits of the keepers of gaming houses must have been enormous, to judge from the rents

they paid. A house in the Faubourg Saint-Germain was secured at the rental of about £70 for a fortnight, for the purpose of gambling during the time of the fair. Small rooms and even closets were hired at the rate of many pistoles or half-sovereigns per hour; to get paid, however, generally entailed a fight or a law-suit.

All this took place in the very teeth of the most stringent laws enacted against gaming and gamesters. The fact was, that among the magistrates some closed their eyes, and others held out their hands to receive the bribe of their connivance.

LOUIS XIII. — At the commencement of the reign of Louis XIII. the laws against gaming were revived, and severer penalties were enacted. Forty-seven gaming houses at Paris, which had been licensed, and from which several magistrates drew a perquisite of a pistole or half a sovereign a day, were shut up and suppressed.

These stringent measures checked the gambling of the `people,' but not that of `the great,' who went on merrily as before.

Of course they `kept the thing quiet' — gambled in secret — but more desperately than

ever. The Maréchal d'Ancre commonly staked twenty thousand pistoles (£10,000).

Louis XIII. was not a gambler, and so, during this reign, the court did not set so bad an example. The king was averse to all games of chance. He only liked chess, but perhaps rather too much, to judge from the fact that, in order to enable him to play chess on his journeys, a chessboard was fitted in his carriage, the pieces being furnished with pins at the bottom so as not to be deranged or knocked down by the motion. The reader will remember that, as already stated, a similar gaming accommodation was provided for the Roman Emperor Claudius.

The cup and ball of Henry III. and the chessboard of Louis XIII. are merely ridiculous. We must excuse well-intentioned monarchs when they only indulge themselves with frivolous and childish trifles. It is something to be thankful for if we have not to apply to them the adage — Quic-quid delirant reges plectuntur Achivi — `When kings go mad their people get their blows.'

LOUIS XIV. — The reign of Louis XIV. was a great development in every point of view, gaming included.

The revolutions effected in the government and in public morals by Cardinal Richelieu, who played a game still more serious than those we are considering, had very considerably checked the latter; but these resumed their vigour, with interest, under another Cardinal, profoundly imbued with the Italian spirit — the celebrated Mazarin. This minister, independently of his particular taste that way, knew how to ally gaming with his political designs. By means of gaming he contrived to protract the minority of the king under whom he governed the nation.

`Mazarin,' says St Pierre, `introduced gaming at the court of Louis XIV. in the year 1648. He induced the king and the queen regent to play; and preference was given to games of chance. The year 1648 was the era of card-playing at court. Cardinal Mazarin played deep and with finesse, and easily drew in the king and queen to countenance this new entertainment, so that every one who had any expectation at court learned to play at cards. Soon after the humour changed, and games of chance came into vogue — to the ruin of many considerable families: this was likewise very destructive to health, for besides the various

violent passions it excited, whole nights were spent at this execrable amusement. The worst of all was that card-playing, which the court had taken from the army, soon spread from the court into the city, and from the city pervaded the country towns.

`Before this there was something done for improving conversation; every one was ambitious of qualifying himself for it by reading ancient and modern books; memory and reflection were much more exercised. But on the introduction of gaming men likewise left of tennis, billiards, and other games of skill, and consequently became weaker and more sickly, more ignorant, less polished, and more dissipated.

`The women, who till then had commanded respect, accustomed men to treat them familiarly, by spending the whole night with them at play. They were often under the necessity of borrowing either to play, or to pay their losings; and how very ductile and complying they were to those of whom they had to borrow was well known.'

From that time gamesters swarmed all over France; they multiplied rapidly in every profession, even among the magistracy. The Cardinal

de Retz tells us, in his Memoirs, that in 1650 the oldest magistrate in the parliament of Bordeaus, and one who passed for the wisest, was not ashamed to stake all his property one night at play, and that too, he adds, without risking his reputation — so general was the fury of gambling. It became very soon mixed up with the most momentous cir-cumstances of life and affairs of the gravest importance. The States-general, or parliamentary assemblies, consisted altogether of gamblers. `It is a game,' says Madame de Sevigné, `it is an entertainment, a liberty-hall day and night, attracting all the world. I never before beheld the States-general of Bretagne. The States-general are decidedly a very fine thing.'

The same delightful correspondent relates that one of her amusements when she went to the court was to admire Dangeau at the card-table; and the following is the account of a gaming party at which she was present: —

`29th July, 1676.

`I went on Saturday with Villars to Versailles. I need not tell you of the queen's toilette, the mass, the dinner — you know it all; but at three o'clock the king rose from table, and he, the queen,

Monsieur, Madame, Mademoiselle, all the princes and princesses, Madame de Montespan, all her suite, all the courtiers, all the ladies, in short, what we call the court of France, were assembled in that beautiful apartment which you know. It is divinely furnished, everything is magnificent; one does not know what it is to be too hot; we walk about here and there, and are not incommoded anywhere: — at last a table of reversi[53] gives a form to the crowd, and a place to every one. *The king is next to Madame de Montespan, who deals; the Duke of Orleans, the queen, and Madame de Soubise; Dangeau and Co.; Langée and Co.; a thousand louis are poured out on the cloth — there are no other counters. I saw Dangeau play! — what fools we all are compared to him — he minds nothing but his business, and wins when every one else loses: he neglects nothing, takes advantage of everything, is never absent; in a word, his skill defies fortune, and accordingly 200,000 francs in ten days, 100,000 crowns in a fortnight, all go to his receipt book.

`He was so good as to say I was a partner in his play, by which I got a very convenient and agreeable place. I saluted the king in the way you taught me, which he returned as if I had been young and handsome --I received a thousand compliments — you know what it is to have a word from everybody! This agreeable confusion without confusion lasts from three o'clock till six. If a courtier arrives, the king retires for a moment to read his letters, and returns immediately. There is always some music going on, which has a very good effect; the king listens to the music and chats to the ladies about him. At last, at six o'clock, they stop playing — they have no trouble in settling their reckonings — there are no counters — the lowest pools are five, six, seven hundred louis, the great ones a thousand, or twelve hundred; they put in five each at first, that makes one hundred, and the dealer puts in ten more — then they give four louis each to whoever has Quinola — some pass, others play, but when you play without winning the pool, you must put in sixteen to teach you how to play rashly: they talk all together, and for ever, and of everything. “How many hearts?&” “Two!&” “I have three!&” “I have one!&” “I have

four!&” “He has only three!&” and Dangeau, delighted with all this prattle, turns up the trump, makes his calculations, sees whom he has against him, in short — in short, I was glad to see such an excess of skill. He it is who really knows “le dessous des cartes.&”

`At ten o'clock they get into their carriages: *the king, Madame de Montespan, the Duke of Orleans, and Madame de Thianges, and the good Hendicourt on the dickey, that is as if one were in the upper gallery. You know how these calashes are made.

`The queen was in another with the princesses; and then everybody else, grouped as they liked. Then they go on the water in gondolas, with music; they return at ten; the play is ready, it is over; twelve strikes, supper is brought in, and so passes Saturday.'

This lively picture of such frightful gambling, of the adulterous triumph of Madame de Montespan, and of the humiliating part to which the queen was condemned, will induce our readers to concur with Madame de Sevigné, who, amused as she had been by the scene she has described, calls it nevertheless, with her usual pure taste and good

judgment, l'iniqua corte, `the iniquitous court.'

Indeed, Madame de Sevigné had ample reason to denounce this source of her domestic misery. Writing to her son and daughter, she says: — `You lose all you play for. You have paid five or six thousand francs for your amusement, and to be abused by fortune.' If she had at first been fascinated by the spectacle which she so glowingly describes, the interest of her children soon opened her eyes to the yawning gulf at the brink of the flowery surface.

Sometimes she explains herself plainly: — `You believe that everybody plays as honestly as yourself? Call to mind what took place lately at the Hôtel de la Vieuville. Do you remember that robbery?'

The favour of that court, so much coveted, seemed to her to be purchased at too high a price if it was to be gained by ruinous complaisances. She trembled every time her son left her to go to Versailles. She says: — `He tells me he is going to play with his young master;[54] I shudder at the thought. Four hundred pistoles are very easily lost: ce n'est rien pour Adméte et c'est beaucoup pour

lui.[55] If Dangeau is in the game he will win all the pools: he is an eagle. Then will come to pass, my daughter, all that God may vouchsafe — il en arivera, ma fille, tout ce qu'il plaira à Dieu.'

And again, `The game of Hoca is prohibited at Paris *under the penalty of death, and yet it is played at court. Five thousand pistoles before dinner is nothing. That game is a regular cut-throat.'

Hoca was prodigiously unfavourable to the players; the latter had only twenty-eight chances against thirty. In the seventeenth century this game caused such disorder at Rome that the Pope prohibited it and expelled the bankers.

The Italians whom Mazarin brought into France obtained from the king permission to set up Hoca tables in Paris. The parliament launched two edicts against them, and threatened to punish them severely. The king's edicts were equally severe. Every of offender was to be fined 1000 livres, and the person in whose house Faro, Basset, or any such game was suffered, incurred the penalty of 6000 livres for each offence. The persons who played were to be imprisoned. Gaming was forbidden the French cavalry under the penalty of

death, and every commanding officer who should presume to set up a Hazard table was to be cashiered, and all concerned to be rigorously im-prisoned. These penalties might show great horror of gaming, but they were too severe to be steadily inflicted, and therefore failed to repress the crime against which they were directed. The severer the law the less the likelihood of its application, and consequently its power of repression.

Madame de Sevigné had beheld the gamesters only in the presence of their master the king, or in the circles which were regulated with inviolable propriety; but what would she have said if she could have seen the gamblers at the secret suppers and in the country-houses of the Superintendent Fouquet, where twenty `qualified' players, such as the Marshals de Richelieu, de Clairembaut, &c., assembled together, with a dash of bad company, to play for lands, houses, jewels, even for point-lace and neckties? There she would have seen something more than gold staked, since the players debased themselves so low as to circumvent certain opulent dupes, who were the first invited. To leave one hundred pistoles, ostensibly for `the cards,' but really as the perquisite of the master of

the lordly house; to recoup him when he lost; and, when they had to deal with some unimportant but wealthy individual, to undo him completely, compelling him to sign his ruin on the gaming table — such was the conduct which rendered a man recherché, and secured the title of a fine player!

It was precisely thus that the famous (or infamous) Gourville, successively valet-de-chambre to the Duc de la Rochefoucault, hanged in effigy at Paris, king's envoy in Germany, and afterwards proposed to replace Colbert — it was thus precisely, I say, that Gourville secured favour, `consideration,' fortune; for he declares, in his Memoirs, that his gains in a few years amounted to more than a million. And fortune seems to have cherished and blessed him throughout his detestable career. After having made his fortune, he retired to write the scandalous Memoirs from which I have been quoting, and died out of debt![56]

France became too narrow a theatre for the chevaliers d'industrie and all who were a prey to the fury of gambling. The Count de Grammont, a very suspicious player, turned his talents to account in England, Italy, and Spain.

This same Count de Grammont figured well at court on one occasion when Louis XIV. seemed inclined to cheat or otherwise play unfairly. Playing at backgammon, and having a doubtful throw, a dispute arose, and the surrounding courtiers remained silent. The Count de Grammont happening to come in, the king desired him to decide it. He instantly answered — `Sire, your Majesty is in the wrong.' `How,' said the king, `can you decide before you know the question?' `Because,' replied the count, `had there been any doubt, all these gentlemen would have given it in favour of your Majesty.' The plain inference is that this (at the time) great world's idol and Voltaire's god, was `up to a little cheating.' It was, however, as much to the king's credit that he submitted to the decision, as it was to that of the courtier who gave him such a lesson.

The magnanimity of Louis XIV. was still more strikingly shown on another gambling occasion. Very high play was going on at the cardinal's, and the Chevalier de Rohan lost a vast sum to the king. The agreement was to pay only in louis d'ors; and the chevalier, after counting out seven or eight hundred, proposed to continue

the payment in Spanish pistoles. `You promised me louis d'ors, and not pistoles,' said the king. `Since your Majesty refuses them,' replied the chevalier, `I don't want them either;' and thereupon he flung them out of the window. The king got angry, and complained to Mazarin, who replied: — `The Chevalier de Rohan has played the king, and you the Chevalier de Rohan.' The king acquiesced.[57]

As before stated, the court of the Roman Emperor Augustus, in spite of the many laws enacted against gambling, diffused the frenzy through Rome; in like manner the court of Louis XIV., almost in the same circumstances, infected Paris and the entire kingdom with the vice.

There is this difference between the French monarch and the Roman emperor, that the latter did not teach his successors to play against the people, whereas Louis, after having denounced gaming, and become almost disgusted with it, finished with established lotteries. High play was always the etiquette at court, but the sittings became less frequent and were abridged. `The

king,' says Madame de Sevigné, `has not given over playing, but the sittings are not so long.'

LOUIS XV. — At the death of Louis XIV. three-fourths of the nation thought of nothing but gambling. Gambling, indeed, became itself an object of speculation, in consequence of the establishment and development of lotteries — the first having been designed to celebrate the restoration of peace and the marriage of Louis XIV. The nation seemed all mad with the excitement of play. During the minority of Louis XV. a foreign gamester, the celebrated Scotchman, John Law, having become Controller-General of France, undertook to restore the finances of the nation by making every man a player or gamester. He propounded a system; he established a bank, which nearly upset the state; and seduced even those who had escaped the epidemic of games of chance. He was finally expelled like a foul fog; but they ought to have hanged him as a deliberate corrupter. And yet this is the man of whom Voltaire wrote as follows: `We are far from evincing the gratitude which is due to John Law.[58] Vol

taire's praise was always as suspicious as his blame. Just let us consider the tendency of John Law's `system.' However general may be the fury of gambling, *everybody does not gamble; certain pro-fessions impose a certain restraint, and their members would blush to resort to games the turpitude of which would subject them to unanimous condemnation. But only change the *names of these games --only change their *form, and let the bait be presented under the sanction of the legislature: then, although the *thing be not less vicious, nor less repugnant to true principle, then we witness the gambling ardour of savages, such as we have described it, manifesting itself with more risk, and communicated to the entire nation — the ministers of the altar, the magistracy, the members of every profession, fathers, mothers of families, without distinction of rank, means, or duties. . . . Let this short generalization be well pondered, and the conclusion must be reached that this Scotch adventurer, John Law, was guilty of the crime of treason against humanity.

John Law, whom the French called Jean Lass, opened a gulf into which half the nation eagerly poured its money. Fortunes were made in a few

days — in a few *hours. Many were enriched by merely lending their signatures. A sudden and horrible revolution amazed the entire people — like the bursting of a bomb-shell or an incendiary ex-plosion. Six hundred thousand of the best families, who had taken *paper on the faith of the government, lost, together with their fortunes, their offices and appointments, and were almost annihilated. Some of the stock-jobbers escaped; others were compelled to disgorge their gains — although they stoutly and, it must be admitted, consistently appealed to the sanction of the court.

Oddly enough, whilst the government made all France play at this John Law game — the most seductive and voracious that ever existed — some thirty or forty persons were imprisoned for having broken the laws enacted against games of chance!

It may be somewhat consolatory to know that the author of so much calamity did not long enjoy his share of the infernal success — the partition of a people's ruin. After extorting so many millions, this famous gambler was reduced to the necessity of selling his last diamond in order to raise money to gamble on.

This great catastrophe, the commotion of which

was felt even in Holland and in England, was the last sigh of true honour among the French. Probity received a blow. Public morality was abashed. More gaming houses than ever were opened, and then it was that they received the name of Enfers, or `Hells,' by which they were designated in England. `The greater number of those who go to the watering-places,' writes a contemporary, `under the pretext of health, only go after gamesters. In the States-general it is less the interest of the people than the attraction of terrible gambling, that brings together a portion of the nobility. The nature of the play may be inferred from the name of the place at which it takes place in one of the provinces — namely, Enfer. This salon, so appropriately called, was in the Hotel of the king's commissioners in Bretagne. I have been told that a gentleman, to the great disgust of the noblemen present, and even of the bankers, actually offered to stake his sword.

`This name of Enfers has been given to several gaming houses, some them situated in the interior of Paris, others in the environs.

`People no longer blush, as did Caligula, at gambling on their return from the funeral of their

relatives or friends. A gamester, returning from the burial of his brother, where he had exhibited the signs of profound grief, played and won a considerable sum of money. “How do you feel now?&” he was asked. “A little better,&” he replied, “this consoles me.&”

`All is excitement whilst I write. Without mentioning the base deeds that have been committed, I have counted four suicides and a great crime.

`Besides the licensed gaming houses, new ones are furtively established in the privileged mansions of the ambassadors and representatives of foreign courts. Certain chevaliers d'industrie recently proposed to a gentleman of quality, who had just been appointed plenipotentiary, to hire an hotel for him, and to pay the expenses, on condition that he would give up to them an apartment and permit them to have valets wearing his livery! This base proposal was rejected with contempt, because the Baron de — — is one of the most honourable and enlightened men of the age.

`The most difficult bargains are often amicably settled by a game. I have seen persons gaming whilst taking a walk and whilst travelling in their

carriages. People game at the doors of the theatres; of course they gamble for the price of the ticket. In every possible manner, and in every situation, the true gamester strives to turn every instant to profit.

`If I relate what I have seen in the matter of play during sleep, it will be difficult to understand me. A gamester, exhausted by fatigue, could not give up playing because he was a loser; so he requested his adversary to play for him with his left hand, whilst he dozed off and slept! Strange to say, the left hand of his adversary incessantly won, whilst he snored to the sound of the dice!

`I have just read in a newspaper,[59] that two Englishmen, who left their country to fight a duel in a foreign land, nevertheless played at the highest stakes on the voyage; and having arrived on the field, one of them laid a wager that he would kill his adversary. It is stated that the spectators of the affair looked upon it as a gaming transaction.

`In speaking of this affair I was told of a German, who, being compelled to fight a duel on account of a quarrel at the gaming table, allowed his adversary to fire at him. He was missed.

Thereupon he said to his opponent, “I never miss. I bet you a hundred ducats that I break your right or left arm, just as you please.&” The bet was taken, and he won.

`I have found cards and dice in many places where people were in want of bread. I have seen the merchant and the artisan staking gold by handfuls. A small farmer has just gamed away his harvest, valued at 3000 francs.'[60]

Gaming houses in Paris were first licensed in 1775, by the lieutenant of police, Sartines, who, to diminish the odium of such establishments, decreed that the profit resulting from them should be applied to the foundation of hospitals. Their number soon amounted to twelve; and women were allowed to resort to them two days in the week. Besides the licensed establishments, several illegal ones were tolerated, and especially styled enfers, or `hells.'

Gaming having been found prolific in misfortunes and crimes, was prohibited in 1778; but it was still practised at the court and in the hotels of ambassadors, where police-officers could not enter. By degrees the public establishments re

sumed their wonted activity, and extended their pernicious effects. The numerous suicides and bankruptcies which they occasioned attracted the attention of the Parlement, who drew up regulations for their observance, and threatened those who violated them with the pillory and whipping. The licensed houses, as well as those recognized, however, still continued their former practices, and breaches of the regulations were merely visited with trivial punishment.

At length, the passion for play prevailing in the societies established in the Palais Royal, under the title of *clubs or salons, a police ordinance was issued in 1785, prohibiting them from gaming. In 1786, fresh disorder having arisen in the unli-censed establishments, additional prohibiting measures were enforced. During the Revolution the gaming-houses were frequently prosecuted, and licenses withheld; but notwithstanding the rigour of the laws and the vigilance of the police, they still contrived to exist.

LOUIS XVI. TILL THE PRESENT TIME. — In the general corruption of morals, which rose to its height during the reign of Louis XVI., gambling kept pace with, if it did not outstrip, every other

licentiousness of that dismal epoch.[61] Indeed, the universal excitement of the nation naturally tended to develope every desperate passion of our nature; and that the revolutionary troubles and agitation of the empire helped to increase the gambling propensity of the French, is evident from the magnitude of the results on record.

Fouché, the minister of police, derived an income of £128,000 a year for licensing or `privileging' gaming houses, to which cards of address were regularly furnished.

Besides what the `farmers' of the gaming houses paid to Fouché, they were compelled to hire and pay 120,000 persons, employed in those houses as croupiers or attendants at the gaming table, from half-a-crown to half-a-guinea a day; and all these 120,000 persons were spies of Fouché! A very clever idea no doubt it was, thus to draw a revenue from the proceeds of a vice, and use the institution for the purposes of government; but, perhaps, as Rousseau remarks, `it is a great error in domestic as well as civil economy to wish to combat one

vice by another, or to form between them a sort of equilibrium, as if that which saps the foundations of order can ever serve to establish it.'[62] A minister of the Emperor Theodosius II., in the year 431, the virtuous Florentius, in order to teach his master that it was wrong to make the vices contribute to the State, because such a procedure authorizes them, gave to the public treasury one of his lands the revenue of which equalled the product of the annual tax levied on prostitution.[63]

After the restoration of the Bourbons, it became quite evident that play in the Empire had been quite as Napoleonic in its vigour and dimensions as any other `idea' of the epoch.

The following detail of the public gaming tables of Paris was published in a number of the Bibliothèque Historique, 1818, under the title of `Budget of Public Games.'

STATE OF THE ANNUAL EXPENSES OF THE GAMES OF PARIS. Under the present Administration, there are: —

• 7 Tables of Trente-et-un.
• 9 ditto of Roulette.
• 1 ditto of Passe-Dix.
• —
• 17

---

109



• 17 Forward.
• 1 Table of Craps.
• 1 ditto of Hazard.
• 1 ditto of Biribi.
• —
• 20

These 20 Tables are divided into nine houses, four of which are situated in the Palais Royal.

To serve the seven tables of Trente-et-un, there are: —

• 28 Dealers,
• at 550 fr. a month, making. . . . . . .15,400
• 28 Croupiers,
• at 380. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10,640
• 42 Assistants,
• at 200. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,400

SERVICE FOR THE NINE ROULETTES AND ONE PASSE-DIX.

• 80 Dealers,
• at 275 fr. a month. . . . . . . . . . .22,000
• 60 Assistants,
• at 150. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,000

SERVICE OF THE CRAPS, BIRIBI, AND HAZARD,

• 12 Dealers, at 300 fr. a month. . . . . 3,600
• 12 Inspectors, at 120 . . . . . . . . . 1,440
• 10 Aids, at 100 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,000
• 6 Chefs de Partie at the principal houses, at 700 fr. a month . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,200
• 3 Chefs de Partie for the Roulettes, at 500 fr. a month . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,500
• 20 Secret Inspectors, at 200 fr. a month4,000
• 1 Inspector-General, at . . . . . . . . 1,000
• 130 Waiters, at 75 fr. a month. . . . . 9,750
• Cards a month. . . . . . . . . . 1,500
• Beer and refreshments, a month. . . . . 3,000
• Lights. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,500
• Refreshment for the grand saloon, including two dinners every week, per month . . . . . . . .12,000
• Total expense of each month . . . . . 113,930

  ---

  110

  
  
  francs
• Forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113,930
• — — — — -
• Multiplied by twelve, is. . . . . . 1,367,160
• Rent of 10 Houses, per annum. . . . . 130,000
• Expense of Offices. . . . . . . . . . .50,000
• — — — — -
• Total per annum . . . . . . . . . . 1,547,160
• If the `privilege' or license is. . 6,000,000
• If a bonus of a million is given for six years, the sixth part, or one year, will be. . . . . . 166,666
• — — — — -
• Total expenditure . . . . . . . . . 7,713,826
• The profits are estimated at, per month,800,000
• — — — — -
• Which yield, per annum, . . . . . . 9,600,000
• Deducting the expenditure . . . . . 7,713,826
• — — — — -
• The annual profits are. . . . . fr. 1,886,174
• — — — — -

Thus giving the annual profit at £7860 sterling.

We omit the profits resulting from the watering-places, amounting to fr. 200,000.

One of the new conditions imposed on the Paris gaming houses is the exclusion of females.

Thus, at Paris, the Palais Royal, Frascati, and numerous other places, presented gaming houses, whither millions of wretches crowded in search of fortune, but, for the most part, to find only ruin or even death by suicide or duelling, so often resulting from quarrels at the gaming table.

This state of things was, however, altered in the

year 1836, at the proposition of M. B. Delessert, and all the gaming houses were ordered to be closed from the 1st of January, 1838, so that the present gambling in France is on the same footing as gambling in England, — utterly prohibited, but carried on in secret.