one hundred pounds on credit, he shall
not be bound to pay, and any contract to do so shall be void. In
consequence of this Act losers of a less amount--whether less wealthy
or less profligate--and the whole of the poorer classes, remained
unprotected from the cheating of sharpers, for it must be presumed that
nobody has a right to refuse to pay a fair gambling debt, since he would
evidently be glad to receive his winnings. No doubt much misery followed
through the contrivances of sharpers; still it was a salutary warning to
gamesters of the poorer classes--whilst in the higher ranks the 'honour'
of play was equally stringent, and, I may add, in many cases ruinous.
By the recital of the Act it is evident that the object was to check
and put down gaming as a business profession, 'to gain a living;' and
therefore it specially mulcted the class out of which 'adventurers' in
this line usually arise.

The Act of Queen Anne, by its sweeping character, shows that gaming had
become very virulent, for by it not only were all securities for money
lost at gaming void, but money actually paid, if more than L10, might be
recovered in an action at law; not only might this be done, within three
months, by the loser himself, but by any one else--together with treble
the value--half for himself, and half for the poor of the parish.
Persons winning, by fraudulent means, L10 and upwards at any game were
condemned by this Act to pay five times the amount or value of the thing
won, and, moreover, they were to 'be deemed infamous, and suffer
such corporal punishment as in cases of wilful perjury.' The Act went
further:--if persons were suspected of getting their living by gaming,
they might be summoned before a magistrate, required to show that the
greater portion of their income did not depend upon gaming, and to find
sureties for their good behaviour during twelve months, or be committed
to gaol.

There were, besides, two curious provisions;--any one assaulting or
challenging another to a duel on account of disputes over gaming, should
forfeit all his goods and be imprisoned for two years; secondly,
the royal palaces of St James's and Whitehall were exempted from
the operation of this statute, so long as the sovereign was actually
resident within them--which last clause probably showed that the entire
Draconian enactment was but a farce. It is quite certain that it was
inoperative, and that it did no more than express the conscience of t