"Capt. H. of the Guards, the nephew of the Banker, who a short time since lost 13,000 guineas at one sitting, at Backgammon, to an Irish Gambler, revenged himself last week for this loss, by winning the enormous sum of 45,000 Guineas, at Billiards, in one night, of Mr. B. S. of the Guards. It is said that £25,000 of the money was paid him the next day."—(Times, March 16, 1796.)
"It is said to be the intention of some of the leading circles in the Fashionable World, to abolish the tax of Card-money,[4] as an imposition upon hospitality. This would prove the return of good sense, inasmuch as it tends to substantiate the truth—that when one person invites another to partake of the conviviality of his house, he should not lay an impost upon him, even more exorbitant than that which he would pay, were he to attend a Tavern Club. When a friend is invited, it is an insult to friendship to make that friend pay for his entertainment."—(Times, Dec. 17, 1794.)
"The tabbies at Bath are in a state of insurrection, in consequence of an example set by Lady Elcho, who neither visits, nor receives, company that pay for Cards: the laudable reformation is adopted so generally, that many of the Dowagers, who have so long fed upon Card-money, are turning their thoughts to some more creditable means of earning their livelihood."—(Times, March 22, 1796.)
"We hope the Ladies in London, who stand upon a nice point of honour, will follow the example of the Bath Ladies, and exclude the odious, and pitiful, custom of taking card-money at their houses. It is a meanness, which no persons who pretend to the honour of keeping good company, ought to allow. We are afraid that many a party is formed, rather to derive benefit from the Card tables, than for the sake of hospitality."—(Times, March 24, 1796.)
"We hope, now that the business of informations against the Gambling Houses has found its way into the Court of King's Bench, that we shall hear of some effectual measures being taken to suppress them. What other than the most unworthy considerations could have suffered these houses to be open night after night, in defiance of every law, and to the destruction of young women, whose parents are so profligate, as to take them thither. If certain Mammas have no regard for their reputation, surely they should consider that their daughters are yet to be provided for.
Dividing the Spoil, St. James's.—1796.
"We state it as a fact, within our own knowledge, that two Ladies of Fashion who keep open houses for Gaming, at the West End of the Town, have lately paid large douceurs, to ward off the hand of justice."—(Times, Apr. 23, 1796.)
"The Gambling-houses in and about Oxenden St., live in a stile of unprecedented luxury, and dissipation. It was stated some time ago, in the Court of King's Bench, that their dinners amounted to £150,000 per annum."—(Times, May 27, 1796.)
These two illustrations are almost Hogarthian in their contrast, and preach a homily, better than pages of text would do, on the similarity of plunder. St. James, with Lady Archer and Lady Buckinghamshire quarrelling over gold, bank notes, a sword, and an Order. One other lady, probably Lady Mount Edgcumbe, scrutinising a bill—whilst the fourth, with a pile of gold, and notes, before her, looks calmly on. The artist (who, unfortunately, is anonymous,) shows what very little difference there is between that, and the woman of St. Giles—who, to the accompaniment of Gin, are dividing their spoil, a pipe, a foot rule, a razor, &c.—little things reft from working men—on a very common deal table.