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 the Nineteenth Century recently, 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 to obtain 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:—
| Men. | Women. | Boys. | Girls. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| First day | 84 | 4 | 12 | 3 |
| Second day | 97 | 6 | 26 | 10 |
| Third day | 109 | 7 | 33 | 6 |
| Fourth day | 72 | 4 | 13 | 5 |
| Fifth day | 29 | 1 | 12 | 2 |
| 391 | 22 | 96 | 26 |
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.