GAMBLING AMONG WOMEN

ByJ. M. Hogge, M.A.

Betting has so long been associated with men that it is probable there are still many people who have never considered the evil in its relation to women. The attention of those, however, who have given some thought to the problem of betting and gambling has been increasingly turned to this phase of the question, and it is now certain that among women the practice is spreading with alarming rapidity. As in the case of men, the habit is not confined to any one class of society but has affected all, so that at the one end of the social scale costly jewellery is sold to cover bridge debts and at the other blankets are pawned to put money on a horse.

If we turn to the evidence given before the Lords Commission we find numerous side references to the practice. Here, for instance, is some evidence given by Chief Constable Peacock of Manchester:—

Q.One of these slips (i.e.bookmakers’ slips) you have given me is from a lady?A.Yes.Q.And it appears that she had 8s. on in one day?A.Yes.Q.In what position in life would she be?A.She is only a working man’s wife.Q.She puts in this slip with 8s., meaning that she has invested that money on horses in one day?A.Yes.

Q.One of these slips (i.e.bookmakers’ slips) you have given me is from a lady?

A.Yes.

Q.And it appears that she had 8s. on in one day?

A.Yes.

Q.In what position in life would she be?

A.She is only a working man’s wife.

Q.She puts in this slip with 8s., meaning that she has invested that money on horses in one day?

A.Yes.

Again, Mr. Horace Smith, a well-known London magistrate, in his evidence refers to the practice of bookmakers taking bets from women and children, and also to the effect betting has on the honesty of women, giving instances to prove his assertions. Asked if he thought that women as well as men bet more than they used to, he replied that he had no doubt they did, and that he had even had women bookmakers before him. Mr. Spruce, a Leeds commission agent, also admitted the fact of the woman bookmaker.

This last statement may come as a surprise to many readers, but we are able to give circumstantial proof of its truth in the following circular:—

Gentlemen in quest of reliable racing intelligence are invited to communicate with Miss ——. Only those who are prepared to pay well need apply, as Miss —— is not one of those who give away Tips.During the latter part of 1903 Flat Racing Season Miss —— decided to commence business as a racing adviser, and she at once met with conspicuous success, her selections including—Grey Tick, Cesarewitch; Burses, 2nd Cambridgeshire; Switch Cap, Manchester November Handicap.Miss —— invites all sportsmen in quest of genuine racing intelligence to join her list of regular wire subscribers. Satisfaction guaranteed to all regular subscribers.Those sportsmen who send for her wires can rely on winning money. Her terms are, she believes, higher than those of the ordinary Turf correspondent, but clients will be fully satisfied that her wires are worth every penny charged. Those sportsmen who require wires every day are requested to apply elsewhere, as Miss —— cannot promise to send out more than two or three selections every week. The source of her intelligence cannot be divulged, but it may be mentioned that no other racing adviser is in the same position as Miss —— to obtain such genuine information.

During the latter part of 1903 Flat Racing Season Miss —— decided to commence business as a racing adviser, and she at once met with conspicuous success, her selections including—Grey Tick, Cesarewitch; Burses, 2nd Cambridgeshire; Switch Cap, Manchester November Handicap.

Miss —— invites all sportsmen in quest of genuine racing intelligence to join her list of regular wire subscribers. Satisfaction guaranteed to all regular subscribers.

Those sportsmen who send for her wires can rely on winning money. Her terms are, she believes, higher than those of the ordinary Turf correspondent, but clients will be fully satisfied that her wires are worth every penny charged. Those sportsmen who require wires every day are requested to apply elsewhere, as Miss —— cannot promise to send out more than two or three selections every week. The source of her intelligence cannot be divulged, but it may be mentioned that no other racing adviser is in the same position as Miss —— to obtain such genuine information.

This lady charges 10s. for a single wire and £5 for twenty.

Mr. Luke Sharp, the Official Receiver for Birmingham, Worcester, and West Bromwich, replying to the Bishop of Hereford, drew attention to perhaps the most deplorable phase of betting among women. This consists in the collection of bets by agents calling on women for other weekly payments. Here is what Mr. Sharp said:—

I had a conversation with one of my friends who is very much interested in these matters with regard to some cases in Worcestershire, and I wanted to get the particulars, as I did not like to make a statement unless I could prove it, and I will now read you his letter if your Lordship desire it. He says: “I do not mention this in any way to incriminate the man who I understand is carrying on a system of gambling, much as I condemn such and consider it should be stopped. I simply brought the matter before you to show how among the many ways gambling is brought to the houses of the working classes. It is done by agents who, while collecting the weekly payments on somearticle purchased, also collect for the master who makes a book, and so induce the women to place money on any race taking place in any part of the kingdom. I consider something should be done to put a stop to such.” That is about the worst kind of gambling that I ever heard of.

Along with this evidence we must also take that of Mr. Robert Knight, General Secretary of the Boilermakers’ Society, and a magistrate of Newcastle, who says:—

Betting generally is largely on the increase; especially is this noticeable amongst young men and women. Between the hours of 11.55 and 3.15 a bookmaker was recently seen to take 236 bets from men, women, and children in South Shields.... Unrestrained by Act of Parliament, the bookmakers go from door to door in the streets occupied by the working classes for the purpose of inducing women to bet.... When the workmen are at their work these bookmakers go round and visit the parts where they live, get hold of the wives of the workmen when the husband is at work, and get them to bet. Very often it does not end in betting with spare money: a woman very often takes the things of the house and pawns them to get the money to bet with.

There is still another reference to this practice in Mr. Knight’s evidence, which we give in full:—

Q.With regard to the house-to-house betting, would you include that in the prohibition (i.e.of street betting)?A.I would. I think it has become a terrible evil—one of the worst I know of.Q.Do these bookmakers solicit the women or whoever opens the door to them?A.Yes; they go from house to house, and they get the women, in the absence of their husbands, to bet, and I have known in some cases where the money has been so short that the mother has gone and taken some things out of the house and pawned them in order to get money to bet with.Q.Have you known of bad cases of women betting with their husbands’ money, for example?A.Yes.Q.Do you know many cases of that kind?A.Very many. In some cases the husband is not himself given to betting, but on account of the visit of the bookmaker to the house during the husband’s absence at work the wife has given way to betting; and then by-and-bye the husband has got to know that this has taken place, and I need not tell you the result: it is extremely sad.

Q.With regard to the house-to-house betting, would you include that in the prohibition (i.e.of street betting)?

A.I would. I think it has become a terrible evil—one of the worst I know of.

Q.Do these bookmakers solicit the women or whoever opens the door to them?

A.Yes; they go from house to house, and they get the women, in the absence of their husbands, to bet, and I have known in some cases where the money has been so short that the mother has gone and taken some things out of the house and pawned them in order to get money to bet with.

Q.Have you known of bad cases of women betting with their husbands’ money, for example?

A.Yes.

Q.Do you know many cases of that kind?

A.Very many. In some cases the husband is not himself given to betting, but on account of the visit of the bookmaker to the house during the husband’s absence at work the wife has given way to betting; and then by-and-bye the husband has got to know that this has taken place, and I need not tell you the result: it is extremely sad.

It will be agreed that this form of betting is particularly mean and despicable, even if it be true to some extent that women when they gamble are specially addicted to it. Indeed Mr. Tannett-Walker, who is connected with a large engineering works near Leeds, gave it as his opinion, in his evidence before the Commission, that they were “worse gamblers than men,” and he went on to say:—

I think it is more serious, because, generally speaking, the working man only bets with his pocket-money, as he calls it in the working districts, and I think the woman very often risks the money the husband gives her for household purposes; I think she is much more reckless and excitable under loss than a man, and therefore much more likely to go to the full extreme of all the money she has in her pocket.

The present writer has had the privilege of receiving a large mass of evidence from clergymen, the police, prison chaplains, officers of the S.P.C.C., police court missionaries, district nurses, and others, bearing on the prevalence of the habit, and it may be valuable to supplement with outside testimony what has already been quoted from the Select Commission on Betting and Gambling.

The Vicar of Jarrow-on-Tyne writes:—

My impression is that it is on the increase, but it is not easy to tell. For the most part, it takes the form of lotteries or sweepstakes, women putting in their sixpences, etc., and winning a possible £20 or so. Now and then a woman may be seen openly betting in the streets, but usually it is done quietly. I have been told that women act as agents for the bookmakers. Now and then a woman will come to her Communion whom I suspect of betting, but, as a rule, I think they feel it on their conscience more than people of the upper classes do.

The police court missionary at Newcastle-on-Tyne says:—

I have had considerable experience of evangelistic work in slum parishes in Newcastle, and it is my opinion, from careful observation, that there is a very great amount of betting and gambling among women. I have known women sell the shoes and stockings from off their children’s feet to get coppers to put on their favourite horse.

From a pit village the vicar’s wife writes:—

The women are so terribly tempted by the men who come round to their doors.

But possibly the following story, related by a navvy, may serve better than numerous examples to exhibit the real inwardness of the betting habit when it attacks the home through the housewife:—

I have my health and strength [he said], and I have always plenty of work; the job I’m on now will last another six months. It’s true I have seven children, but I make no trouble of working for their support. We used to go to church when we was first married, my wife and I; we lived at Southampton then, and we both thought a deal of Canon Wilberforce. It was him that tied the knot. Since we came North I have not gone to any church: wife was taken up with the children. But I always washed myself, and put on my Sunday suit when Sunday came round; sometimes I’d take the kids for a bit of a walk into the country, and sometimes I’d take a stroll round with a few of my mates. Anyways I held up my head straight and thought I was as good as any—my meaning is that I thought I had the right to look any one in the face, for I believed till a week ago that I did not owe any one a penny piece. It was Saturday even, and up comes to me a bailiff chap, but I did not know then that he was a bailiff; he shoves a paper into my hand, and I reads on it “Judgment Summons. Personally served on the Defendant,” and there below I sees my name written in. I said, “Take it away, I never have aught to do with such things.” I had to take it in, and I found it was an order for £1: 2: 3, that should have been paid long before to a firm called a “Clothing Company,” trading from a town twenty miles away. Not half a dozen words did I say to any one that day, just sits dumb and dazed over the fire; not a wink did I sleep, but by Sunday morn breakfast was over I’d my plans made.I gets a bit of lead pencil from one of the lads, turnsthe children out of the room, spreads out a piece of paper, and sits myself down. Then I says to the wife, “My lass, I never have chastised thee, never; but now thou hast just got to bring me every bill and every pawn-ticket, and thou hast just got to think on, and to tell me of every penny I owe, and if I find thou hast kept aught back, I shall feel fit to take off my belt and to thrash thee with it to within an inch of thy life, and if I have to go to gaol for it, I’ll go.”By tea-time that Sunday I’d got that paper about covered with figures, and reckoned up it come to £70. There were two doctors’ bills, four coal-cart men, there were three lots of goods from the “Clothing Company,” and four from the “Furnishing Company,” and both these I were told firms of peddling fellows whom I had never seen, because they are such curs they never show their face at a door when the master’s in, and when they have sold their goods (all on the weekly payment system) to silly women, they go off home by train, so as the husbands can’t follow them home and give them the horsewhipping they deserve.I found a deal of things that Lord’s Day. I went up to look at the children’s beds and saw the blankets was gone off them, I looks in the drawers and found them empty where they should have been full of children’s clothing and bedding. I understood that day why the two eldest girls were so long getting themselves places; they had naught but what they stood up in. Folks might say I should have looked into things a bit sooner, but I were one that always said, “If the man earned the money and turned it over to the wife, it were the wife’s place to lay it out to advantage.”We had not been living in that house above a twelvemonth, but it all come about since we’d moved in. I could see nothing wrong with the street when we took the house; it looked quiet enough. It had not been built so long; the house was clean and airy,and there was an extra room for the lads, that were the chiefest thing we moved for.How was I to know, when nobody telled me, that the women in this was all a-cheating their husbands, and was just one a bigger gambler than another.As near as I can make out their practices was like this. They’d all back horses with the money they should have kept in a safe place against rent day, and them that lost would wait while Monday when the packman come round, and they’d take a suit of clothes or a pair of blankets on the weekly payment system. Straight away they would carry them to the pawn-shop, so their husbands having never set eyes on the stuff would never miss it out of the house. I suppose they’d think they’d done a clever thing when they had raised the money for the rent and a bit over besides to back another horse.Sometimes the Day of Judgment would seem to have come to one or another when county court summonses would come to their house, but so long as their husbands did not see the papers, they’d put off the day of reckoning a bit longer.My wife says they’d run round to one another’s houses and say, “I’m in a deal of trouble, will you oblige me to-day by taking a pair of blankets off the Clothing Company and pledge them for me, and I’ll pay you back when I can? And if you get into trouble some day, I’ll help you out if you’ll just oblige me this once.” My wife knew nothing about such ways afore we came to live in this street, but she were a quick learner, and got into it like a lad gets into his new sums when he gets put up a standard at school.It’s none so very hard when it’s put plain—horses, packman, pawn-shop, and a county court; and then over again, more horses, more packmen, more pawn-shops, and more county court.Sorry to trouble you with such a long yarn, but Iput it to you as a practical question, How am I to get out of this fix? If I go to gaol I lose my work, and rent’s running on, and grocery bills and coal bills are running on, for seven bairns can’t be fed on air, and I am told going to gaol does not clear off the whole of the bill to these pedlar fellows, but only a little bit of the back payments, and you may be taken again as soon as you come out for another bit. I put it to you plain, What is a man in my circumstances to do?

I gets a bit of lead pencil from one of the lads, turnsthe children out of the room, spreads out a piece of paper, and sits myself down. Then I says to the wife, “My lass, I never have chastised thee, never; but now thou hast just got to bring me every bill and every pawn-ticket, and thou hast just got to think on, and to tell me of every penny I owe, and if I find thou hast kept aught back, I shall feel fit to take off my belt and to thrash thee with it to within an inch of thy life, and if I have to go to gaol for it, I’ll go.”

By tea-time that Sunday I’d got that paper about covered with figures, and reckoned up it come to £70. There were two doctors’ bills, four coal-cart men, there were three lots of goods from the “Clothing Company,” and four from the “Furnishing Company,” and both these I were told firms of peddling fellows whom I had never seen, because they are such curs they never show their face at a door when the master’s in, and when they have sold their goods (all on the weekly payment system) to silly women, they go off home by train, so as the husbands can’t follow them home and give them the horsewhipping they deserve.

I found a deal of things that Lord’s Day. I went up to look at the children’s beds and saw the blankets was gone off them, I looks in the drawers and found them empty where they should have been full of children’s clothing and bedding. I understood that day why the two eldest girls were so long getting themselves places; they had naught but what they stood up in. Folks might say I should have looked into things a bit sooner, but I were one that always said, “If the man earned the money and turned it over to the wife, it were the wife’s place to lay it out to advantage.”

We had not been living in that house above a twelvemonth, but it all come about since we’d moved in. I could see nothing wrong with the street when we took the house; it looked quiet enough. It had not been built so long; the house was clean and airy,and there was an extra room for the lads, that were the chiefest thing we moved for.

How was I to know, when nobody telled me, that the women in this was all a-cheating their husbands, and was just one a bigger gambler than another.

As near as I can make out their practices was like this. They’d all back horses with the money they should have kept in a safe place against rent day, and them that lost would wait while Monday when the packman come round, and they’d take a suit of clothes or a pair of blankets on the weekly payment system. Straight away they would carry them to the pawn-shop, so their husbands having never set eyes on the stuff would never miss it out of the house. I suppose they’d think they’d done a clever thing when they had raised the money for the rent and a bit over besides to back another horse.

Sometimes the Day of Judgment would seem to have come to one or another when county court summonses would come to their house, but so long as their husbands did not see the papers, they’d put off the day of reckoning a bit longer.

My wife says they’d run round to one another’s houses and say, “I’m in a deal of trouble, will you oblige me to-day by taking a pair of blankets off the Clothing Company and pledge them for me, and I’ll pay you back when I can? And if you get into trouble some day, I’ll help you out if you’ll just oblige me this once.” My wife knew nothing about such ways afore we came to live in this street, but she were a quick learner, and got into it like a lad gets into his new sums when he gets put up a standard at school.

It’s none so very hard when it’s put plain—horses, packman, pawn-shop, and a county court; and then over again, more horses, more packmen, more pawn-shops, and more county court.

Sorry to trouble you with such a long yarn, but Iput it to you as a practical question, How am I to get out of this fix? If I go to gaol I lose my work, and rent’s running on, and grocery bills and coal bills are running on, for seven bairns can’t be fed on air, and I am told going to gaol does not clear off the whole of the bill to these pedlar fellows, but only a little bit of the back payments, and you may be taken again as soon as you come out for another bit. I put it to you plain, What is a man in my circumstances to do?

Faced with a similar question, what would the reader do? Circumstances like these indicate only too clearly why it is that there is a social problem. The heart of all happiness and integrity in life resides in the home, and when anything comes between the mutual understanding and confidence that alone makes home life possible, we may be sure that evils undreamt of before will find an entrance into the home.

The insidious nature of the evil is best illustrated from the fact that almost every week the newspapers record the downfall of some individual whom the public had thought above suspicion. Similar instances occur in the humbler walks of life. The present writer knows of instances in which cottages sometimes lent for religious services were also on occasion used as betting centres. Here is an extract from the letter of a reliable correspondent:—

A bookmaker made one woman in a street his friend. She would receive the money for him, and gradually entice many to join. In my own district there the most respectable looking home was used in this way. The owner, a widow woman, was perfectly clean andtidy, no gossip, and never talking at the door. She allowed her son first, and then she herself took it up, and just because in all other ways she was respectable, the other women were snared into thinking less of the sin.

Another feature which calls for comment is the fact that girls are either encouraged by their employers, or by their fellow-servants, to indulge in betting. Deaconess Clarkson of Durham mentions the case of a girl, sent to service from a “Friendless Girls’ Home,” failing to repay her monthly instalment for her outfit. On being asked the reason, the girl maintained that her mistress had persuaded her to put it on a horse.

This other instance would be ludicrous if it were not pathetic. The first night a young girl spent in service she was asked by the butler to give half-a-crown for the sweep. She asked why she should pay the sweep! but in order to avoid giving offence gave him the money. The parlour-maid “lifted” the sweep, amounting to 37s. 6d., when the girl understood what the butler had meant.

We saw from the evidence of Mr. Luke Sharp that this evil was not confined to the North, and it might be well to draw attention to a reference to similar practices elsewhere. Writing in theNineteenth Centuryrecently, a writer said:—

A typical Lancashire woman of the lower class told me that trade was very bad in her district, mostly because the women bet a shilling on nearly every race, and they take th’ bread out of th’ children’s mouths toobtain the shillings. That was a thing unknown in Lancashire fifteen years ago, as it was also for women to be seen drinking in the public-houses; and half-a-dozen fellow-travellers in the same carriage all confirmed her statement.

It might be interesting to give the actual figures for one instance in which a cottage in a working-class district in York was carefully watched for some fourteen hours, spread over five days. Those entering to make bets were as follows:—

It will readily be seen that a very significant proportion of those entering the cottage were women, boys, or girls.

So far we have dealt almost entirely with the prevalence of the practice among working women, and that for obvious reasons. In other classes of society there is, of course, as much betting on horses as among working women, and for larger amounts. In other ways, too, there is very much to be deplored. Dean Lefroy, speaking in Norwich Cathedral in June of 1904, created quite a sensation by a strong denunciation of bridge gambling. The condemnation elicited some facts, all proving the prevalence of the evil.

No more mean or despicable an outrage of the ordinary canons of hospitality can be conceived, than that so well illustrated in an extract from a recent address by Ian Maclaren:—

I want [he said] from this place to offer my protest against bridge parties, which are gathered together simply and solely not for playing a game but for winning money by gambling. Conceive of one case, and I only mention one. A young married lady is asked to go and stay in a country house by a lady older than herself, and an old friend of the family. Her husband cannot go with her, but she goes down to spend the week-end. Bridge is played, and, although she knows a little about it, she excuses herself as not being a sufficiently good player. It is pointed out that every one must play, and that no doubt she will do well enough. She has a suspicion that not only money is risked on the game, but that it is risked to a considerable amount. She is assured that it is nothing. At the close of the evening she discovers that she has lost £35. Of course far greater sums than that are lost, but that is a great deal for a young married lady, the wife of a professional man, to lose. She has not the money to pay. She goes home, and very properly tells her husband the whole story. He sends a cheque to the hostess, and he states distinctly in the letter that a woman who would ask a woman younger than herself, and specially under her charge, to play at bridge under such circumstances was doing nothing more or less than keeping a gambling-house.... I ask you whether you would like your wife to be involved in this vortex of gambling, and if you are prepared to face not the financial but the moral consequences?... I hope this appeal will lead you to consider the position, and take a firm stand against an insidious because a very fascinating and fashionable evil.

The incident referred to is no uncommon experience, and reveals feelings alien to the fine spirit of hospitality so common to British life, and incidentally exhibits the blighting effect of the greed of money upon the life of society.

The gaming-house proper is a more sordid consideration, which is only mentioned to show that its existence has not been forgotten. More often than not it is managed by a woman, and the police raids reveal over and over again that such houses are the very sink of crime and vice.

From what has been written it will be seen that the evil has spread very insidiously into all ranks of society. The working woman gambles with the wage of her husband, the society woman with her dress allowance or her husband’s income, the spinster with stocks and shares through her lawyer, and the honestly intentioned though ill-advised charitable lady with raffle tickets at church bazaars. By refusing to participate in those lotteries women have one very obvious way of discountenancing an immoral method of raising money.

Remedial measures for the evil are suggested in another article in this book, but we would draw attention to one other remedy which would scotch the evil among women, viz. a resuscitation of the ideals of home life. “The home,” said the late Mr. Moody, “was founded before the Church, and you in Britain stand more in need of homes than you do of churches.” The failure of home is the failure of the parents to realise its duties and itsresponsibilities. And the failure to recognise these is traceable to the failure to recognise the value of a home religion. There is no home problem where there is true religion, and there is no power which keeps more alive the best qualities of human kind. Without it there can be neither that affection nor respect which makes it possible for the children of the home to remain attached to it, and every child induced by the example at home to take up the practice of betting is a disintegrating factor in that happiness which alone can bring stability and respect to character. This article will not have been written in vain if it helps in any way to reinvigorate and refresh the home ideal.

ByCanon Horsley

When I jot down in 1905 my impressions and observations as regards betting (chiefly on horse races) as one of the causes of various forms of crime, and of the type of character that thinks little of crime, and readily commits it on the lightest temptation or provocation, I am at first surprised to see how little mention there is of it in a book entitledJottings from Jailthat I published in 1887, after ten years’ experience in Clerkenwell Prison. The moral I draw is not that I ignored it amongst the many causes of criminality and of crime, nor that I considered it unimportant in comparison with the far more common cause—that is intemperance; but rather that the evil has been increasing by leaps and bounds since that decade, beginning in 1876, which I spent in prison as a young student of criminology. Nor indeed is there so much as might be expected in my later bookPrisons and Provinces, although therein, when enumerating “ten desirable reforms” that stood out clearly in my retrospect, I find the following passage:—

5. The censorship of the press in the matter of publication of the unnecessary and corrupting details ofdivorce proceedings and suicides and of betting lists. Editors cannot be the moral prophets of the age while they keep a sporting prophet and while in bondage to advertisers and the lowest classes of their readers. Some crime is State-caused, much is paper-caused.

“Crime is condensed beer,” occurred to me as a dictum for which there was far too much justification; but “Crime is the fruit of betting,” neither seemed to me then, nor seems to me now, a tenable adage.

And yet how painfully the directness of the path from betting to bondage, from Epsom to the Old Bailey, was brought before me each month for those ten years. Before each session of the Central Criminal Court a procession of young postmen for trial, and destined in those days almost inevitably to penal servitude for their first crime, showed how good character, fair education, constant and honourable employment, and sobriety, had all been inoperative against the temptation to steal letters containing money. And why the theft? In almost every case it was that they had been led into betting on horse-races, had lost, and had been pressed for the money by the bookmakers under threats of exposure. This was an ever-recurring object-lesson on crime as a product of betting, but the most striking instance I recall was when three Chief Inspectors of Scotland Yard—Bishops in their profession—were charged and sentenced in consequence of their having allowed themselves to be drawn under the influence of some Turf criminals of the most dangerous type. Then indeed one thought, If those things are done in the green tree, what shallbe done in the dry? If these experienced men of the world, with professional knowledge of the tricks of the hangers-on of the Turf, can be drawn into the vortex, what can we expect of the average silly and ill-paid clerk, who has some excuse for his feverish desire to add to his inadequate income, though at the expense of others? And telegraph clerks again became prisoners through their special temptations. The straight tip for which a shilling had been paid passed through their hands and added them gratuitously to the ranks of the cognoscenti. Then later in the day came from the same Turf agent the straighter tip to the smaller circle of artisans and shopmen who had paid half-a-crown, and later still the straightest tip to the innermost circle of his customers who had paid ten shillings. Not all clerks would have sense and integrity enough not to think that here was a road to fortune made for them by the expert knowledge of some and the credulity of others. So too, after Derby Day, amongst the various crimes—pocket-picking, burglary, assaults, embezzlements—that kept dropping in after and in consequence of that day, attempts at suicide found their place. The first case that meets my eye in some old prison notes is: “Barman, 22, lost place for giving drink away; lost his savings (£80) at betting on horse-races; therefore ‘had the miserables’ and attempted suicide.” So a London coroner, interviewed on the subject of an epidemic of suicide, said: “I always look for suicides after the Derby. After that event you always find that a certain number of shop-assistants have absconded, and a number of otherpeople have committed suicide. They belong to a class of people—much too numerous nowadays—who want to get money without working for it. They fail, and then they go and jump into the river, or something of that sort. You will always find some suicides after Derby Week.” And it should be remembered that not only in London, but all over the world, does Derby Day represent the acme of interest and of temptation, and produce the maximum of evil sequelæ. And, again, it struck me forcibly that betting produced one of the most hopeless types of prisoner with which a prison chaplain could have to deal. The men habitually on the Turf seemed to be the very incarnation of cunning and suspicion and selfishness. They had one prayer and one creed: “Give me this day my brother’s daily bread,” and “Do everybody, and take care they don’t do you.”

What I have said will show that I was not, nor could be, ignorant of the existence of the vice as one of the chief causes of crime during the ten years, 1876-1886, when I was daily conversing with prisoners. But from all I have seen, read, and heard since, and not least from conferences with present-day prison officials, I am convinced that betting has so largely increased of late years that its effects are much more obvious in prison. I had many sad cases of the ruin of those who were dependent entirely on character for employment, but had lost that character through the embezzlement that betting losses had prompted. But when in 1902 I, as one of the Committee appointed bythe Rochester Diocesan Conference to investigate the question, had before me one of our Metropolitan police magistrates, to whose court come almost exclusively the labouring and the shop-tending classes, he made deliberately the very strong statement that, of recent years, he had hardly ever had a case of embezzlement before him which was not connected, either directly orau fond, with betting. Nor would he admit that this plea of betting was merely an excuse put forward without real cause. On the contrary, careful inquiry into the cases proved conclusively that the plea was a true one. And to the same Committee Mr. Hawke stated that the House of Lords’ Commission by evidence proved conclusively that a large proportion of the embezzlement of the country was due to betting with bookmakers and to professional betting. And here are a few typical cases that came close together in point of time. The first was the notorious one of the quiet bank clerk Goudie, who embezzled £170,000. He had got into the hands of bookmakers, and they had compelled him to go on by threats of exposure, after the common practice of their kind. The next is that of a labourer’s wife, charged with attempting suicide and stealing shoes. She had pledged them to endeavour to recover money lost on horse-races. The police constable seized the poison intended for herself and her children. Her husband was not aware of her betting. The third is that of a caretaker of a chapel near me, who had stolen £60 in bank notes, and set up the plea that he had got them at the Alexandra Park and the Epsom Races.Next comes a clerk who obtained fifteen guineas by a forged telegram. When only seventeen he made the acquaintance of a bookmaker who would continue business with him in spite of his father’s remonstrances. The judge commented on the fact that it was this same bookmaker whom he had now cheated, and by whom he was prosecuted and got twelve months’ hard labour. The next is a dispenser who embezzled £11 from the doctor who employed him. His downfall was accounted for by betting, and his solicitor offered to give the names of the bookmakers with whom he had been betting, in consequence of whose threats of exposure he had stolen to pay them. Another clerk embezzled £1. In his absence from the office the manager’s suspicions were aroused by a street loafer bringing a betting account for the clerk showing a large amount owing. He lost fifteen years’ good character, and got three months’ hard labour. And next comes a postman who, in the words of the Recorder, “had been engaged in a systematic robbery of the public service in order to engage in transactions on the Turf.” He got six months, but in my time would almost certainly have had five years’ penal servitude, as such offences on the part of postal officials were dealt with then with uniform severity. Had one to labour the point, a press-cutting agency would enable one to fill pages with typical cases arising in any week, especially during what is called the flat-racing season, when, as a friend of mine engaged on a London evening paper tells me, the circulation was found on inquiry toincrease by 50,000 per diem from the time of the Lincoln Handicap. The Lords’ Committee were told by Sir A. de Rutzen, after twenty-five years’ experience of the crime of London, that “more mischief was brought about by betting than by almost any other cause, especially street betting, which could very well be put down.... From personal knowledge, he could say that the evil arising from betting was as deep-seated as it was possible to be. In cases were persons were prosecuted for embezzlement and betting was mentioned as the cause, he was in the habit of making inquiries, which invariably confirmed the statements.” Another Metropolitan magistrate deplored that he entirely concurred with what Sir Albert had said, and added that where the crime had been one of fraud or embezzlement he had invariably found that betting had been at the bottom of it. Bankruptcy may be a misfortune, but is very frequently a social crime, and on this I would only refer to the evidence given before the Lords by Mr. Luke Sharp, Official Receiver for Birmingham, as to betting as a cause of bankruptcy, and would remark that, carrying my mind back over a series of years, I cannot remember a case of the bankruptcy of a trader known personally to me in which either drink or betting, and commonly both conjoined, was not the cause, although either or both were often unsuspected until the crash came.

I may add, although facts and figures are here more difficult—and, indeed, largely impossible to produce—that my fourteen years’ experience as aMetropolitan Guardian of the Poor, during ten of which I have been Chairman of a workhouse containing over 1300 inmates, is that betting now stands only next to intemperance amongst males as a cause of pauperism. The habit cannot be eradicated even in old age and the seclusion of an infirm ward, and bets are made in surreptitious pence when the larger sums and more frequent opportunities of yore are impossible. The fascination of drunkenness, which is decreasing, is great: that of betting, which is increasing by leaps and bounds, is greater. The evil effects of intemperance are to some extent confined to the individual; those of betting are rarely so confined.

ByA Bookmaker

So very much public attention has recently been called to betting, more particularly as applied to and in connection with horse-racing and the backing of horses, that I thought I would sit down and write a little of my experiences in respect thereto and give my unprejudiced views upon the subject. Yes!—an old bookmaker’s views—illustrated by facts and circumstances; bearing in mind that, as I believe, this is the first instance of a bookie’s confession of the “game,” and so is, I suppose, a novelty.

I am penning these few lines just as the matter comes across my mind and without any attempt at literary or even logical merit—a plain, unvarnished life-tale, as it were—and in so doing I hope to point out certain means that might improve the Turf business and free it from the fearful odium it is now in; and secondly—and let me say my main and principal reason for rushing into print is for the benefit of and a guide to small backers. By “small backers” I mean those who go in the cheap enclosures at race meetings, and more particularly Imean stay-at-home backers (or let me call them, as they would wish to be designated, “small sportsmen”), who make bets on horse-racing from say two or three shillings to a few pounds daily and habitually. The large backers can take care of themselves, but my advice equally applies to them, and they would do well to follow it.

I am getting an old man, and have been a betting man and bookmaker all my life, so to speak. My parents were poor people, but respectable. I had a National School education. When I was about twelve years of age I was turned out in the world as an errand-boy at 1s. 6d. a week in a general warehouse. I stayed there for a number of years, until at nineteen years of age I was a full-blown warehouseman earning £1 per week! I was a sharp, intelligent young fellow, kept my eyes and ears open, which, I can tell you, I have done all my life (you need to as a bookie, I can tell), and I soon made up my mind that the quid a week in a stuffy warehouse, long hours, hard work, and little prospect of “going ahead,” would not suit me. A lot of my chums used to “horse-race,” “put a bit on,” “get up sweepstakes,” and go to a race meeting now and again. In this way I was first introduced to a race-course, and was successful in winning a bit now and then, but as sure as faith losing it again, and more too. My first impression of a race meeting was a very bad one, for I could see that it was a vast assembly of “wrong uns” to the backbones—thieves, sharps, pickpockets, lowest of the low ruffians and scoundrels—my opinion is but little better ofthe present race meetings. My brother bookies would endorse my candid opinion, I am sure. The race meetings of the present time, of course, are far superior in comfort and convenience to the old meetings, but the same villainy and cheating is ever rampant; but let us call it now “refined rascality.”

Well, I was wide enough awake to soon see that “backing” was no good, but that bookmaker was the “game.” I soon found a way to start with a pal similarly inclined in views. I wasn’t going to stick at a quid a week when I could see ten times that sum easily to be made. At that time bookies were allowed to rig up in any costume they liked, so we had red waistcoats, white plush hats, blue and green parti-coloured coats, etc. etc.

I was soon “at home” at the “game.” I was sharp and cautious, with but little capital, so, for a time, our rule was “small bets only.” Lor! how the coin came in! seldom did we have a losing day. Well! to sum up my many years of experience, money has ever since rolled in. I have long since been in a position to take any bet you like, from half a sov. to thousands, “with pleasure,” and “thank you.” Money soon became no object to me, nor is it now. How comes it thus? One answer only. Because betting is a one-sided game, and is almost wholly against the backer. Thus the “bookmaker,” be he a ready-money bookie on the course or a S.P. bookie at home, is as certain in the long run to “cop” the backer’s coin as I am writing this. To be sure, the bookie attending the meetings can control his liabilities to a certain extent, which astarting-price bookmaker cannot do; but really it matters little—the bookmakers get the cash in the long run. Let me say that I am referring to substantial well-known bookmakers, and not to the crowd of penniless welshers who infest every race meeting held.

I am writing, as I have said, more particularly for the benefit of backers; they can adopt my advice or not, as they please. Now listen. I have attended every race meeting held in the land over and over again. I am as well known in sporting circles as any man could possibly be known, from the highest in the land to the lowliest, so to speak; my betting transactions amount to thousands and thousands—I really cannot say how much. I am known, and properly so, as a very wealthy man—money is nothing to me—and let me candidly and truthfully tell you that I have never known a backer of horses to permanently succeed. The backer is successful so long as his money, pluck, and luck lasts, or until ruin has overtaken him. He wins and loses—wins and loses. He is up and then down—up and down. Hope! hope! hope! prompts him to go on; and he goes on. He diligently studies all kinds of plans and systems; he also fools his money away with “tipsters,” who have been described as a set of race-course harpies; every system, all of them of course, certain and sure. He tries “1st favourites,” “2nd favourites,” “1st and 2nd favourites,” “newspaper tips,” “newspaper naps,” “jockey’s mounts,” and numbers of other plans and systems—some his own particular fancy, and some other people’s. Hegluts over sporting news, and talks of owners, trainers, and jockeys in a most familiar style, as though they were his own personal friends! He becomes acquainted with horses’ names and pedigrees, and eventually his mind is so full of Turf matters that business, his occupation, and employment become of second importance; he sacrifices home, comfort, occupation, and money—all! all! all! What for? In the hope of easily making money, but in the end for the benefit of the bookmakers. My experience is not an isolated one, but truthfully is that of every well-known bookmaker on the Turf.

Betting is a fascinating vice, and it is perfectly astounding to what an enormous extent it is rooted throughout the land. In every town, village, hamlet, warehouse, office, and workshop in the kingdom you will find the “backer” in thousands and thousands, all losing money—all in the net of the bookmaker. Can you blame the bookmaker for carrying on his money-making business? Why, every one’s answer is “Certainly not!”

Were the race meetings always to be held at the same place, the bookies’ business would practically be “all up.” For why? The local backers would soon all be “played out.” The very fact that the race meetings are changed daily and are miles and miles apart is a veritable god-send to the bookmaker, the trainer, the jockey, the owner, and the dozens of others depending for existence on Turf matters. We thus get daily hundreds, nay thousands, of new faces and fresh backers full of excitement and hope,having “splendid tips” and “certainties,” all ready and anxious to invest their cash with us, but, alas! the majority of whom go home with long faces and empty pockets, whilst the bookmaker and the “betting brigade” leave the scene of action with renewed energy, high glee, and above all cash ammunition for a fresh attack at another rendezvous.

This glorious state of things goes on day by day and year by year, particularly during the flat-racing season. Now, I think it is a bad week if during flat racing I do not clear a hundred or so per day on the average. Some days, but really very few indeed, I make a loss, but on other days the coin rolls in all round, and the average is as I have stated. I have made as much as £5000 in one day! How is that, eh? I am wise enough, of course, to make my book to win, not to lose. Still, with heaps of money in hand, with property here and there—with everything in abundance that I and mine may require or could possibly wish for—with grand country and town houses, with horses, carriages, every possible luxury, every wish and desire gratified, living up to the greatest state of expensive excitement every day (the bookie’s very existence compels a constant round of amusement and excitement or we are nowhere), still, mind you, I am not happy—sometimes far from it. Conscience will make itself heard. True! true! age is telling on me as even it is telling on many another bookie, and we cannot stifle the thought that the grave is in sight, and our last race will soon be run. Often and oftenam I troubled with thoughts of the past—memory will assert itself—and the questions arise:—Have I led a fair and upright life? Have I got my money and living in an upright, honourable manner? Have I not helped to ruin hundreds of good silly fellows? Visions of them crop up from time to time; I think of them with any but pleasant feelings. How many poor foolish backers whose money I have taken—taken as a business, of course—have lost homes, business, and all; whose wives and children have been turned into the streets through the father’s passion for betting? How many of them have found their way to gaol through betting, and how many have sought self-destruction?

Such must be the occasional thoughts of all old bookmakers. And for why? Because there is not one of us, past and present, who has not over and over again obtained our money by questionable means, even if our inclination was not to do so. We have been, and are compelled—yes, compelled!—to participate in trickery and deceit to the detriment of the backer; and so crops up the thought that the backers’ money in many instances is not obtained honourably. These facts make one feel uneasy. What does this mean? Why, I have in my time secretly paid away much money as contributions to effect certain ends favourable to the bookmaker and to the loss of the backers.

The “freemasonry” amongst certain people connected with racing matters is very strong indeed. Pray let me be very plain in making myself clear. I do not for a moment cast a slur upon or raise theslightest suspicion upon the host of honourable men of high position and standing whose names are identified with Turf matters. Certainly not; the reader’s own common-sense and knowledge must be exercised. But amongst certain actors at race meetings my accusation is levied. Indignantly denied! Of course it will be. We are all upright and honest until discovered to be otherwise. It is the being discovered that is so galling. I could relate to you most startling facts upon these points—incredible, you would say; scandalous, wholly unbelievable! Yet, my friends, true, true indeed! My mouth, however, is so far absolutely sealed. Think yourself how very easy such things could be arranged, and you will cease to marvel. Consider for a moment that all the principal actors at a race meeting are all personally known to each other—old chums, old acquaintances, travelling the country together and enjoying themselves, and you will fail to discredit the fact, viz. that it is so extremely easy to (as it is now termed) “engineer a great coup.”

What is the real meaning of this pretty modern expression? Why, in plain language, it is arranging “to win a race.” Listen! What think you? There are very many unfairly run horse-races. Take this statement as gospel from one who knows, but whocannotdivulge the secrets of the Turf. Listen again. Betting is simply a speculative business, two parties to a bet. Each tries to win the other’s money, and each party adopts the best expedient to do so. We all know whodoeswin in the long run, and I am penning this rigmarole toshow, if possible, to the small sportsman that the odds against him are so tremendous that it is next toimpossible for him to win—I mean in the long run—and I so write in the hope of inducing him to “turn the game up” once and for ever, which I am sure would save much frightful distress, save the wrecking of many a home, prevent much trouble, and would be to the happiness of thousands who now waste their hard-earned money in a wilful way and in impossible successful speculation.

I am not writing as a moralist or a sentimentalist, but in a purely business way; using common-sense to prove to misguided, foolish people that to invest their money in backing horses is a stupid, unwise, unbusiness-like mode of investing their cash, and is a way that means absolute loss, if not ruin, simply because thechances to win are so great against them, and the odds against them so fearful, that success is next to impossible. To convince a backer that such is the case, I know, is a most difficult task, and really for a bookmaker to do so seems a paradox and a right-down absurdity, but it is not so. If the small backer could be extinguished, the legitimate abused business of betting would be much relieved from the stigma now cast upon it through the misdoings of the small backer, who, in his hopeless task, runs himself into serious difficulties and causes trouble all round. The removal of the small sportsman would be of inestimable benefit, not only to himself (I want him to look at the matter in that light), but to the straight respectable bookmaker.

Now with regard to the monied or larger sportsman.He it is who is the friend of the bookie—the dear delightful investor whom the bookie so much loves—the regular attendant in Tattersall’s enclosures and in the members’ rings. Well, well, he can afford to lose, and is capable of taking care of himself. The bookie doesnotwish to lose him—oh dear no, certainly not; so he encourages him all he can; he makes him presents of nice morocco pocket-books, splendid purses, nicely bound S.P. diaries, Christmas and New Year remembrances in various ways, treats him whenever an opportunity occurs, and loves and plays with him whenever he can. Very many of these beloved sportsmen are men who have made money in trade or business—they are either in business still or are retired—who, having saved a competency to live upon, somehow or other find their way, one after the other, on to the race-course; they nearly always come into Tattersall’s at the different meetings; they go the round of them, and travel gaily from place to place; they get charmed with the free and open life and excitement. They decide, as a rule, firstly, to risk so many hundreds, but when it is gone they generally manage to find more money. Hope! hope! These gentlemen sportsmen talk about their wins but not their losses. Eventually, as usual, they “doit(their money) all in,” then they drop out one by one through want of money and, less often, through being wise in time to prevent absolute ruin. So we miss their dear delightful faces, but we keep their money.

We, the bookies, talk to each other about oursaid customers and friends. “What about So-and-So—oh, he’s a retired draper. Mr. So-and-So—oh, he’s a market gardener, got a fine business. Mr. So-and-So—the retired grocer. Mr. So-and-So—what, the solicitor? Dr. So-and-So—oh yes, the doctor. Mr. So-and-So—yes, the chemist,” and so forth; then we always laugh, and the oft-reiterated remark takes place, “Yes, he is doing it (his money) all in” (losing it).

Back to Index Next