text:
Hoyle's Games Modernized/Roulette

The Roulette table, which is covered with a green padded cloth, and marked out as shown in Fig. 1, is divided into two portions, the Roulette, or Wheel as it is commonly called, itself being let into the centre of the table between these two portions.

Fig. 1 is an illustration of one-half of the table, the other half being marked in exactly a similar manner. It will be seen that the cloth is divided into three long columns of figures, marked from 1 to 36. At the bottom end of these columns there are three spaces, representing all the numbers in the first, second, and third column respectively. There are three similar spaces both on the right and on the left, marked 12 D, 12 M, 12 P, indicating the third (Dernière), the second (Milieu), and first (Première) twelve (Douzain) numbers.

On either side of the column of figures are further spaces to mark the Rouge (or Red numbers); Impair (or odd numbers), Manque (all numbers from 1 to 18 inclusive) on the one side; and the Noir (or Black numbers), Pair (or even numbers), and Passe (all numbers from 19 to 36 inclusive) on the other side; at the top of all is the space reserved for zero.

The Roulette, or Wheel, itself (Fig. 2) consists of a narrow circular ledge (A. A.) fixed in the table, and sloping downwards. Within this ledge is a brass cylinder (C. C.), suspended on a pin at its centre, and capable of being made to revolve by means of a cross-head or handle (H. H.).

The outer edge of the brass cylinder is divided into thirty-seven small compartments, numbered in irregular order from 1 to 36, and coloured alternately Red and Black; the 37th compartment being the zero.

The game is played in the following manner. A croupier—styled the Tourneur—calls out, "Messieurs, faites vos jeux," when the players place their stakes on that portion of the cloth which indicates the chance they wish to play upon. The tourneur then says, "Les jeux sont fait," and throws a small ivory ball round the inclined ledge (A. A.) in one direction and turns the cylinder in the opposite direction. When the ball is coming to rest the croupier calls out, "Rien ne va plus," after which no further stakes can be made. As the ball comes to rest it gradually slips down the ledge, and finally lodges in one of the compartments in the cylinder. The number of this compartment is the winning number, and upon its colour, figure, &c., depend the results played for. It is announced by the tourneur in this way, "Onze, noir, impair, et manque," which means that number 11, the Black, the uneven, and the manque (numbers 1 to 18) win. The losing stakes are first raked into the Bank, then the winnings are paid, after which the tourneur again says, "Messieurs, faites vos jeux," and the game proceeds as before.

There are no less than eight different methods of staking at Roulette. Besides the three even chances: Red, Black; Pair, Impair; Passe or Manque, one single number may be backed. This is called staking en plein. Or two numbers may be coupled (à cheval); or three numbers (transversale pleine); or four numbers (carré); or six numbers (transversale simple, or sixaine). In addition, the first, second, or third dozens of numbers (Douzaine Première, Milieu, or Dernière), and the first, second, or third column each of twelve numbers may be staked upon. The odds offered by the Bank against backing a single number en plein is 35 to 1, and the odds against the other chances in proportion: thus against either of two numbers appearing 17 to 1 is paid; against either of three numbers, 11 to 1; against either of four, 8 to 1, and so on; while obviously against each dozen, or column, 2 to 1 is paid; the Red, Black, Pair, Impair, Passe, or Manque being even money chances.

A player wishing to stake on any of the even chances, or the dozens, or the columns, places his money on the portion of the cloth marked out for that chance. To back a single number, the stake is placed where that number is painted on the cloth; to back both of two numbers, the stake is placed à cheval—that is, on the line between these two numbers. To stake on three numbers with one coin, the amount is placed on the border-line of the outside number of three numbers. Four numbers are backed when the coin is so placed that it touches all four numbers, and six numbers are combined in one bet by placing the stake on the outside of the line dividing these six numbers. Zero may also be staked upon by placing the coin in the zero area; also zero, 1, 2, 3 (quatre premières), by putting the stake on the outside of the line dividing zero from 1, 2, 3; or zero coupled with 1 and 2; or 2 and 3 in a similar manner. In the illustration (Fig. 1) an example is given of staking in all these various ways. It will be noticed that consecutive numbers on the table can only be staked upon in combination, not consecutive numbers on the Wheel. Thus to combine the three voisins, or adjacent numbers, 0, 26, 15 on the Wheel, three separate stakes would be required.

Any two dozens may be combined, or any two columns, by placing the stake on the line between the two; and the player, when successful, receives one-half of the amount risked. Also any two even chances, such as Rouge and Impair, whose position is adjacent on the cloth, may be combined with one stake by placing the coin on the dividing line between the two; the player is paid even money when both events turn up, and he only loses when neither event appears. But to bet on both Passe and Noir or Rouge and Manque at the same time, two separate states would be required.

The maximum stake allowed on the even chances is 6000 francs (£240)—on a single number 180 francs is the highest possible stake; the maximum stakes on the other chances are in proportion—thus 3000 francs on a dozen or column, and 720 francs on a carré of four numbers. In each case the minimum stake is 5 francs, except when two dozens or two columns are combined with one stake, when at least 10 francs must be risked.

Each table is presided over by two chefs-de-partie, who sit on elevated chairs on either side of the Wheel. There are four croupiers, who sit at the Banque (one being the tourneur), whose duty it is to pay out the winners and rake in the losings. In addition, there is a croupier sitting at either end of the table, who looks after the interests both of the players and of the Bank generally.

There being thirty-seven compartments in the Wheel, and as the odds of 35 to 1 only are paid on the winning number, it follows that on all stakes on numbers, or combination of numbers, the Bank has one chance in thirty-seven, or a percentage of slightly under 3 per cent. in its favour.

The percentage in favour of the Bank on all monies staked on the even chances, however, is only one-half of this amount. On the appearance of zero, all the money at stake is swept into the Bank, with the exception of that on zero itself—which is paid at the same rate as any other number—and the amounts on the even chances—Rouge, Pair, Manque, &c.: these stakes are placed on the lines on the outside of the table (see Fig. 1), and are then said to be in prison.

On the next coup, if the stakes happen to be on the winning chance, they are allowed to be withdrawn by the player. The reader will please notice that this is theoretically exactly the same thing as if the punter halved his stake with the Banker, and this he is allowed to do if he chooses. Should two zeros appear consecutively the stakes are placed still further over these lines; they are now doubly in prison, and have to be doubly released therefrom before the player gets his own money back.

Thus it will be seen that, theoretically, once in every thirty-seven spins the Bank wins half of all money staked on the even chances; on which chances, consequently, the Bank may be said to have a percentage of slightly under 1½ per cent. in its favour. This difference in the percentage in favour of the Bank is either unknown to, or totally disregarded by, the great majority of punters at Monte Carlo; but the player, by judicious methods of staking, to a great extent, can despoil the Bank of its higher percentage. An examination of the illustration (Fig. 1) will show that the following are Red numbers, viz. 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 12, 14, 16, 18, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 30, 32, 34, and 36. Thus Impair contains 10 Red numbers, and but 8 Black ones. The first column includes 6; the second column 4; and the third column 8 Red numbers. Thus a player staking on Black and Impair has no less than twenty-eight numbers in his favour, on eight of which he wins both his stakes, and on twenty he neither wins nor loses. Or a punter staking on the third column and Black, is guarded by twenty-six numbers, on four of which (the four Black numbers in column 3) he receives 1½ times his stakes, on eight (the eight Red numbers in column 3) he receives ½ times his stakes, and on the remainder he neither wins nor loses. Similar wagers can of course be made by combining Red and Pair, or the first column and Red, and so on. Now a player wishing to stake on a great many numbers (which is a very frequent occurrence, and is popularly known as "plastering the table"), instead of placing his money on the various transversales, carrés, and en pleins, by which method he loses all his money if zero appears, should rather stake the equivalent amount on Black and Impair, or Red and Pair, which, as explained, covers twenty-eight numbers. By this method he loses only one-half of his money if zero appears. Nothing is more usual than to see a player stake à cheval on two dozens. A more idiotic method of gambling cannot be conceived. The equivalent amounts (supposing the douze P and the douze M are selected) should be staked on Manque, and the transversale of 19 to 24. Now if zero appears half the stake on Manque is saved, but in the former case the entire stake would be lost!

Many similar instances of good and bad staking could be quoted, but the average player at Monte Carlo considers the percentage against him to be so insignificant that it is scarcely worthy of his notice. However, as its insignificance represents a gain of some hundreds of thousands of pounds sterling per annum to the Administration, it should be worthy of a passing thought at any rate.

Nearly every player at Monte Carlo has a system of some sort, generally played on the even chances. There are, however, systems for playing on numbers, dozens, &c., but these for the most part are of the most fantastic and insane order. The writer has actually known a player whose system was to back thirty-five out of the thirty-six numbers, on the principle that, having but two numbers against him, he would be very unlucky not to win one unit per coup!

Hundreds of people play on one particular number after the appearance of some other particular number, and are confident in themselves that, for example, 3 always turns up after 25; or 10 after 0. A very favourite stake is zero et les quatre premiers—that is, zero en plein, and zero coupled with 1, 2, 3. Another very general stake is les voisins de zéro—or zero and the numbers on either side of it on the Wheel. This is a simple bet to make by putting one coin à cheval between 0 and 3, one between 32 and 35, and one each on 26 and 15. The underlying idea of these zero bets is that the Bank cheats; that it wants zero to turn up; and that the tourneur is skilful enough to throw zero when he wishes. A more ridiculous assumption could not be made—in the first place, because the tourneur cannot throw the ball even to a particular section of the Wheel, much less into zero itself; and in the second place, because the gambling could not possibly be carried out in a more straight-forward manner than it is by the Administration at Monte Carlo. If the tourneur could throw the ball into any compartment he chose, he could, through his friends, ruin the Bank whenever he wished.

If I had space I could tell a story of how M. Blanc offered to give a certain player a year's practice at spinning the Wheel, and then to allow him to be his own croupier and stake as he chose. This is a fact; and yet I have often heard the following class of whispered conversation in the rooms: "Now's our time—there's a lot of money on the even chances—wait till the ball is spun and then bet on zero."

Some players back their age, when not too old—an eventuality that can occur only to the sterner sex. A sweet and blushing maiden of some fifty summers may be observed always to place her stake on No. 28—"Because it's my age, my dear, and to-day is my birthday!" Others back the number of their cloak-room ticket, or the number of the hymn for the day (if they should happen to have been present at church to hear it sung)—indeed everybody has a pet number; and why not? One number is just as likely to appear as any other. These are not systems in the true sense of the word, but they constitute a systematic method of staking, which is always advisable for play—be they ever so weird and fantastic—as they keep the player within certain limits, and prevent him from losing his head, and making wild plunges to retrieve all his losses by one lucky spin of the Wheel.

The more business-like systems are played on the even chances. Many are exceedingly ingenious, and on paper would appear certain to "break the Bank at Monte Carlo!"

The underlying principle of all such systems is to play a Martingale—that is, after each loss to increase the stake in various proportions until all previous losses have been recouped, and a profit is shown. The commonest and simplest to play is the "Montant et demontant," which consists in increasing the stake after a loss by one unit per coup until the player is one unit to the good. Thus if the first stake be lost, the next stake would be two units, which is also lost, as is the next one of three units. The player would now have lost six units in all. His next stake becomes 4, which, supposing it to be won, would leave him a net loser of two units. The stake would now be dropped to three units; for the object is to be but one unit to the good. Should this stake win, the game would be started all over again with one unit. On the other hand, if the 3 had been lost, the next stake would be 4, and so on. There are many other systems. The general principle of them all is exactly the same; the calculations and paper results being nothing more nor less than an ingenious method of juggling with figures.

The Fitzroy system aims at winning one unit per coup played. For the working of this system it is necessary to keep a column in which imaginary losses are written down: the player assuming that he loses one unit more and wins one unit less than he actually does. The stakes are increased by unity as in the "Montant et demontant" system, with the exception of the second stake, which (after a loss) is three instead of two units, until the imaginary losses column comes out clear. Here is an example of ten coups played on the Fitzroy system:—

Another very ingenious scheme is that known as the "Labouchere" system. To play this so many figures are written down that their total equals the "grand coup" that is being played for. Ten is the customary coup, and the figures 1, 2, 3, 4 are written down on a piece of paper. The method of play is to stake the sum of the extreme figures, and if a win is scored, these two figures are erased; while if a loss is incurred the amount of the stake is written down at the end of the row of figures, and the next stake is the sum of the new extremes. When all the figures have been erased the coup is made, and the player either begins a fresh game or retires from the table. Here is an example: 1, 2, 3, 4: first stake 5, which is lost. The row now reads 1, 2, 3, 4, 5; and the next stake (6) is won, the row reading, 2, 3, 4, ; the next stake (2+4) is lost, when we have , 2, 3, 4, , 6. The next stake is 8, which is won, and we read, , 3, 4, , ; the next stake being 7, which is won, the 4 and 3 are erased, when it will be found that the net profit is 10 units.

Example of a bad run at a "Labouchere" system. The "grand coup" is 10; so the starting figures are 1, 2, 3, 4. The player is supposed to stake on Red throughout. The dot shows which colour wins.

Showing 29 coups, of which the player wins 9, with a net loss of 890 units. The next stake would have to be 55 + 270 (325), i.e. if the game had been played with a one louis unit, a heavier stake than is allowed at Roulette.

Systems are very amusing and profitable to play, provided nothing abnormal occurs. But something abnormal will occur sooner or later, and the amounts staked and lost become colossal, and finally the maximum is reached: no higher wager can be made, so the system fails. The flaw in all systems is that the losses on an unfavourable run are out of all proportion to the gains on a favourable one. A "Labouchere" runs into hundreds in no time, and is in fact one of the most treacherous systems to play for this reason. Let the reader dissect the play of a Labouchere on such a run as that on p. 460, which is a far from uncommon one.

This tableau, in which the player only wins 9 out of 29 coups—or, say, one in three—may be said to be far out of proportion, as the player is "entitled" to win as many coups as he loses (leaving zero out of the question). Let it be noted at this point that zero does not affect a system played on the even chances in any degree whatsoever. Any system worthy of the name can withstand zero, even two or three zeros. It is the Bank's limit, and the limit alone, that proves the downfall of all systems. To resume. Of course a player "ought" to win two coups out of four, and so he will as a rule, and systems are devised so that a player may be a winner, even if he loses three and four times as many coups as he wins. A glance at those figures not yet erased in the example quoted will show that had the punter not been debarred from staking, owing to the Bank's limit, with three successive wins he would have got all his money back and been ten points to the good on the whole transaction, and still have only won twelve times against the Bank's twenty. What no system, played with a Martingale, has yet been able to accomplish, is to prevent the stakes becoming colossal when the series of losses turn up in some particular sequence or disposition.

The best method to keep the stakes within reasonable limits, and to guard against arriving at the Bank's maximum on an adverse run, is to employ a varying unit. Thus after a net loss of so many single units, operations are re-started with a double unit; if an equal number of double units are lost, the play is re-started with a triple unit, and so on; the same unit being employed until all previous losses have been retrieved, and a gain of one "single" unit made.

A "Montant et demontant" system can be played very easily in this manner, by increasing the unit employed after each complete loss of ten units—e.g. after a loss of 10 single units, the system is started afresh with a double unit; when 10 double units have been lost, or a net loss of 30, the system is started afresh with a 3 unit stake, and so on.

This system may be varied by changing the unit after successive losses of 10, 20, 30, 40, &c., and by staking sufficient to show a net win of the amount of the unit employed. Thus when playing with a double unit, to try and win 2; or if playing with a unit of 5, to try and win 5 units net.

Every system has its Waterloo—it will succeed for days, possibly weeks, and small gains be made; but finally the occasion must and will arrive when all previous profits and the system player's capital will be swamped. At the end of this article will be found a scheme devised by the writer whereby the punter puts himself into the position of the Banker as nearly as possible, and consequently is enabled to win such vast stakes as are lost by a system player in the ordinary course, when that particular sequence of events occur which demolishes his system.

Here is an example of a "Montant et demontant" played in the usual method, and played with an increasing unit after each net loss of 10 units. The player is supposed to stake on the Red throughout; and the dot indicates which colour wins.

Had the player lost 60 units, he would have re-started the system and played 4, 8, 12, &c.; and if this play showed a net loss of 100 units, 5, 10, 15, &c., would have been staked, and continued with until either the net loss was 150, or the net gain 1 unit, in which case the player would begin all over again with a single unit.

Another style of play is to bet on the prospect of the colour, or even chances, running in a particular way. Some people play for an intermittence of colour, consequently always stake on the opposite colour to that which turned up last. Others play for the run, and so always stake on the colour that last appeared. A very popular wager is to stake on the "Avant dernièr," or on the colour that turned up the last time but one. By this means there is only one combination of events by which the player loses, and this is if the colours go two of one kind, followed by two of the other; but the weak point about it is that the player may miss his first stake and his last one, although the series goes in his favour. Yet another common method of staking is to play "the card"—that is, to play in expectation of previous events repeating themselves. Thus if the previous throws have given three Blacks, followed by three Reds, the expectation is if three Blacks immediately occur, that three Reds will also occur. Such theories, of course, have absolutely no scientific basis, and, in the opinion of the writer, are only vexatious and a cause of trouble to the player, who should invariably stake on the chance that is most convenient to where he is sitting. He has an equal chance of winning, and by this means will save himself the trouble of reaching across the table, both to place his stake and to retrieve his winnings.

There may be, however, some reason in playing for a run on one colour or chance, but not staking until after this colour or chance has appeared. By this means the player, if he plays flat stakes, is square on all runs of two, wins one on all runs of three, two on all runs of four, and so on. He loses one unit on every intermittence, but against this he loses nothing at all on all runs of the opposite colour or chance.

Had this method of staking been followed in the example given on p. 460, it will be seen that the player would have won 2 units on Red and 4 units on Black, and the highest stake necessary on any coup would have been 3 units; and had it been adopted in the example given on p. 457, only 70 units would have been lost on the Red side, and the highest stake risked 16; while on the Black, 41 units would have been won, with 9 as the highest stake.

It is advisable, when playing a system, to play on both sides of the table at once. The calculations for both Red and Black are kept, and the differences staked on the Red or Black as the case may be. The writer has actually seen a player stake the full requisite amount demanded by his system on both Red and Black at the same time. This of course gives the same net result as staking the difference on one colour, provided zero does not turn up. If it does, however, the player loses one-half of two large stakes in the one case, instead of only one-half of a small stake in the other case.

The advantage of playing a system on both sides of the table at the same time is that double as much can be won with the same capital that is required for playing on one side only. Indeed, slightly less capital is required, for obviously the player must be winning something on one side to go against his loss on the other. The objection, of course, to this dual system of play is, that there is a double chance of striking an adverse run.

While on the subject of where to stake one's money, the reader, if a novice at Monte Carlo, is recommended to hand the amount of his wager to one of the croupiers to place on the table for him. This will ensure both the money being placed exactly as the punter desires, and the receipt of any winnings, without disputes on the part of other players. Unless one's French accent is above reproach, it is advisable to talk English to the croupiers. The writer, wishing to stake on Nos. 3, 12, and 15 on one occasion, handed the chef-de-partie three 5-franc pieces, saying, "Sur le 3, 12, 15, s'il vous plaît." After a short conversation on the subject the chef said in perfect English, "If monsieur will please speak English, I will see that his money is correctly staked."

title: Hoyle's Games Modernized/Roulette


text:
Hoyle's Games Modernized/Trente et Quarante

is played with six packs of cards on a table marked out as in the illustration (Fig. 3); this represents one-half of the table, the other half being marked out in an exactly similar manner. There are but four chances—Rouge, Noir, Couleur, and Inverse, which are played on in the following manner. The six packs of cards, having been well shuffled, are cut, and so many cards dealt out face upwards in a row until the sum of the pips (Aces, Kings, Queens, Knaves, and tens counting ten each, and the Ace one) exceeds 30 in number. Then a second row is dealt out in a similar manner, below the first one, until the number of the pips in this second row also exceeds 30. The top row is called "Black," the second or underneath row "Red," and the Red or Blacks win according to which row contains the fewer number of pips—e.g. whichever row of cards adds up nearest to 30.

The number to which each row adds up is called "the point," and it will be plain that the best point possible is 31, and the worst point possible 40. It is customary, when calling out the "point" of Black and Red to drop the "thirty" and say simply 2 and 6, which would mean that the point of Black amounts to 32, and the point of Red 36, in which case the Black or top row would win. The Black "point" is always called out first.

The other chance, the Couleur and Inverse, is decided by the colour of the first card turned up. If the colour of this card corresponds with the colour of the winning row, then Couleur wins; if it is of the opposite colour, then Inverse wins. Thus suppose the top or Black row of cards amounts to 35, and the first card in this row is a Black card, and the Red row amounts to 36, then Black and Couleur would win; had the first card in the Black row been a Red card, then Inverse would have won, being of the opposite colour to the winning row (Black).

The players wishing to back any particular chance place their stakes on that portion of the table reserved for Black, Red, Couleur, or Inverse, as shown in the illustration (Fig. 3). There are two chefs-de-parties employed to supervise the game, and four croupiers to receive the losing stakes and pay the winning ones, one of the croupiers also being the tailleur, or dealer of the cards. The tailleur calls the game by saying, "Messieurs, faites vos jeux," when the players stake on the different chances. He then says, "Les jeux sont fait. Rien ne va plus," after which no further stakes may be made. He then deals out the cards, and when both rows are complete he calls the result thus, "Deux, six, Rouge perds et Couleur gagne," or "Rouge perds et Couleur," as the case may be, meaning that the point of Black is 32 and that of Red 36, so that Black and the colour win; or Black wins and the colour loses. It should be noted that the "tailleur" never mentions the words "Black" or "Inverse," but always says that Red wins or Red loses, and that the colour wins or the colour loses. On the conclusion of each coup both rows of cards are swept into a small basket called the "talon," which is let into the centre of the table, and the game begins again. When the six packs of cards are exhausted, the "tailleur" says, "Monsieur, les cartes passent," when all the cards are collected out of the talons, re-shuffled and cut, and a fresh deal is started.

All four chances—Red, Black, Couleur, and Inverse—are of course even chances, and are paid as such by the Bank; but should the total (or point) of both rows of cards be exactly 31 each, the same procedure occurs as upon the appearance of the zero at Roulette—that is to say, the stakes are put en prison; then another deal is made, and those stakes which are on the winning chances are allowed to be withdrawn by the players. Or, as at Roulette, the stakes, at the players' option, may be halved with the Banker in the first instance.

Saving 31, all other identical points made by the Red and Black cause that deal to be null and void, the player being at liberty to remove his stake or otherwise, as he chooses. The condition of affairs (both rows coming to 31 each) which corresponds to the Roulette zero is called a "Refait," and is announced, as are all other identities of the points, by the word "après." Thus suppose the Black row counts up to 38, and the Red row to the same figure, the tailleur announces "Huit, huit après." If it happens to be a Refait, he says, "Un, un après," and the stakes are put into prison.

The Refait is said to occur once in 38 deals on the average; and if this were true, the Bank would have a slightly less advantage at Trente et Quarante than it has at Roulette. To arrive at the mathematical odds in favour of the Bank would involve an exceedingly complicated calculation, and it is doubtful if they have ever been exactly computed. At a glance it would seem that the odds against both rows being 31 each is 81 to 1; there being 10 possible points for each row, the chances against any named point appearing would seem to be 9 to 1, in which case, of course, the chances against both points being identical would be 9 × 9, or 81 to 1. But as the point of 31 can be formed in 10 ways—for the last card may be of any value, while the point of 32 can only be formed in 9 ways—for now the last card cannot be an ace; and to form a point of 33 the last card can be neither an ace nor a deuce, and so on with every point up to 40, which can only be formed in one way—viz. when the last card is a 10—it is obvious that 31 is the easiest possible point to arrive at, and the exact chances against its formation have, as far as the writer's information goes, never been calculated.

In actual play, however, the punter may insure against the Refait by paying a premium of 1 per cent. on his stake (at a minimum cost of five francs); thus it is safe to assume that for all practical purposes the percentage in favour of the Bank is exactly 2 percent. Thus it would seem that once in 38 is an underestimate of the appearance of a Refait.

The maximum and minimum stakes allowed at Trente et Quarante are 12,000 francs and 20 francs respectively. Much heavier amounts are to be seen at stake at this game than at Roulette. This probably arises from two facts: because the games are generally carried out in a quieter manner and the coups are more quickly played than is the case at Roulette, and because there is unquestionably a prevailing idea amongst the gamblers at Monte Carlo that the Bank's advantage is not so great at Trente et Quarante as it is at Roulette. The latter consideration is probably wrong; and, as far as the writer's experience goes, it is a very paying business to insure the stake at Trente et Quarante. If this really is so, it follows that the percentage in favour of the Bank is over 2 per cent., or something like 1 per cent. more than it is at Roulette.

Any system that is applicable to the even chances at the Roulette table can of course be played at Trente et Quarante; but for some reason or other it is unusual to see any system properly worked at this game, possibly because too large a capital would be required.

The almost universal method of play is to follow the "tableau"—that is, to follow the pattern of the card on which the game is marked. If there have been two Reds followed by two Blacks, ninety-nine people out of a hundred will stake on Red, in the expectation of two Reds now appearing, while if there is a run of one colour, thousands of francs will be seen on that colour, and not a single 20-franc piece on the other. Sometimes the colours do run in the most inexplicable manner at Trente et Quarante. The writer has played at a table where there were 17 consecutive Blacks, then 1 Red, to be followed by 16 consecutive Blacks. When such runs occur, the Banks of course lose heavily, and are constantly broken. To break the Bank in the true sense of the word is of course an impossibility. When a Bank gets into low water the chef-de-partie sends for some more money, which is "Ajouter à la banque," and to this extent only is it possible to "break the Bank at Monte Carlo."

The game of Trente et Quarante is sometimes called "Rouge et Noir."

The method of play on the even chances that will now be explained is based on the three following assumptions:—

First. That every system at present played is successful only for a certain time, when an adverse run, long enough to defeat the progression adopted, is almost certain to occur, whereby the Bank reaps a rich harvest.

Secondly. That only on rare occasions does the system show the desired profit, without the player having been at some period of the game a very heavy loser.

Thirdly. That the failure of systems is not due to zero, but to the Bank's maximum.

These conditions are assumed, though in the first two cases they undoubtedly are realities, and within the experience of every system player. The third one may be true or not; it is not vastly important.

Now as regards maxim No. 1, it may be taken for granted that for all practical purposes the system player makes his "grand coup" on not more than (say) twenty occasions, and on the twenty-first he meets such an adverse run that he loses his entire profits plus his entire capital; or say, for argument, he had already spent his profits and so loses only his entire capital. The proportion of the coup played for to the capital employed is generally some 2½ per cent.; consequently after twenty good days' play, and one bad one, a system player is a loser of 50 per cent. of his money. (This is a very low estimate.)

Now supposing a player had played stake for stake on the opposite chance to that played on by the system player, it is obvious that he would have lost on twenty days, and won on the twenty-first sufficient to recoup all his previous losses, with 50 per cent. profit.

The mathematician will say "No" to this—"the Bank will have reaped its zero percentage from each spin of the Wheel during the progress of the play." But why? A, who is playing the system, stakes 10 louis on Red; B (who is playing against him) stakes 10 louis on Black, and zero crops up. They are both put in prison, and A comes out safely, so B is now 10 louis worse off than A. But in a short time A and B again both stake 10 louis, and zero appears. But this time B comes out safely, in which case A must write this down as a losing coup, and his next stake will be say, for example, 15. To meet this B has only to add 5 louis to the 10 he has just retrieved out of prison—so his profit and loss account due to zero is exactly square, as far as it affects his transactions with A. And surely during the course of a game A and B will both get out of prison the same number of times. (And A does not fear zero—he only fears reaching the maximum—consequently B does fear for zero; he but awaits the time when his stake gets to the maximum.)

Is it not desirable to be B? He requires no capital—or very little—and yet is in a position to win all that A is eventually going to lose—as he most certainly must lose. To play on this method is exceedingly simple. All that has to be done is to take any system, and play it in reverse order to what it is designed to be played in. The effect of this is, in a word, to compel the Bank to play this system in its correct order against the punter. The writer has always employed a Labouchere to play on this method, and it is the simplest one by which to explain the procedure.

A reference to p. 456 will show that the Labouchere system, is played by writing down so many figures, so that their sum amounts to the grand coup—or stake being played for—and that it is usual to write down the figures 1, 2, 3, 4; so that the grand coup is 10 units. To play this system in the usual manner it is generally assumed that a capital of 400 or 500 units is required. By reversing matters in play the first important advantage gained to the player is that he needs but a capital of 10 units, and his grand coup becomes 400 or 500 units. Very well. The figures 1, 2, 3, 4 are written down, and the first stake is the sum of the extreme figures—5. This sum is lost; but now the 5 is not written down after the 4, but the 1 and the 4 are erased. The next state is again 5 (2 + 3), and is again lost, the 2 and 3 are erased and the player retires. Suppose this second stake of 5 had been won, then instead of erasing the 2 and 3, the figure 5 would be written down on the paper, so the row would read, 2, 3, , 5, and the next stake would be (5 + 2) 7. Should this be lost the 5 and 2 are erased, the next stake being 3. Suppose it is won, this figure is written down, and the row now reads, , 3, , , 3, and the next stake is 3 + 3 (6), and so on. But the moment all figures are erased, the player will have lost 10 units and must retire. This he will have to do a great many times, but finally such a run as the following will occur. The Red is staked on throughout—the dot indicating which colour wins.

This shows a run of 29 coups, of which the player wins 20 and loses 9.

He is 918 units to the good, and his next stake would be 348!

Assuming a player had been working a Labouchere on this run in the usual manner, on Black with a capital of 500 units, he would have had to retire after the 27th coup through lack of capital; and assuming him to have been playing with a 20-franc unit, he would have had to retire from Roulette on the 28th coup, and from Trente et Quarante after a few more coups if the bad sequence continued, no matter how large his capital had been.

It has been stated that the Bank beats the system player only on account of its limit. This is not quite true; it has also one more great advantage over the player, and this is the fact of its being a machine, while the punter is human; and although a player will stake his all to retrieve his previous losses, he will not—nature will not allow him to—risk his winnings to win still more.

This is a psychological fact that cannot be explained. It must be to the knowledge of most people who have visited Monte Carlo, that a player will stake as much as 500 francs to retrieve a loss of a single 5-franc piece. Yet the same player, having turned a 5-franc piece into as little as 50 francs, will refuse to adventure another stake, and retire from the gaming-table. When the player is having his bad run, the Bank cannot help playing their winnings to the maximum stake—they must do so; but the player on his good run is not compelled to play up his winnings, and really cannot be expected to do so. Theoretically he should, and I firmly believe there is a lot of money awaiting the player who has the patience to wait for such a run—which must come to him, equally as it must and does, we know, come to the Bank—and then play on and on until he is prohibited by the Bank from staking any higher. To play a system upside-down, or in reverse order, requires great patience and equanimity, until the favourable run occurs, when indomitable pluck and perseverance are the necessary qualifications.

The writer feels bound to take the reader into his confidence so far as to acknowledge that he himself has never had such pluck, but has always retired on winning between 200 and 300 units. But he has always watched the future run of the table, and on no less than five occasions would have reached the maximum stake and won over 1000 units. He has, however, always had the patience, and lost his petit coup time after time with perfect equanimity, and only wishes he had had the other qualifications as well.

Referring for one moment to the assumed fact No. 2 on which this method is based—that a player more often than not is in deep water before bringing off his grand coup; which he must be, owing to the losses being so disproportionate in magnitude to the gains—it might be a good plan to discover what the average highest loss of a system player is before the system shows a profit, and then to play the same system in reverse or upside-down order, making this figure the grand coup. Playing in this manner, a visitor will have a cheap and enjoyable visit to Monte Carlo, and may be assured of one of the most exciting little periods of his career when this favourable run of luck does come his way.

One final word of advice to all system players. Play on the chance that is most convenient to your seat at the table. It is as likely to win as any other. Never get flurried with your system or calculations. It is not at all necessary to stake on every coup. You are just as likely to win if you postpone staking until the day after to-morrow, as if you stake on the very next spin of the Wheel—the Rooms are open for twelve hours per diem, which should allow ample time for the number of coups you wish to play.

There may or not be such a thing as "luck." There can, however, be no harm in giving its existence the benefit of the doubt. If on some particular occasions you find you cannot do right, assume you are out of luck, and stop playing. Do not consider either that you owe a grudge to the Bank because you have lost, or that it is absolutely necessary to retrieve your fortune then and there! Postpone playing until the following day, or week, or year, when you may be in good luck, and can easily recoup yourself.

Always bear the clever gambler's great maxim well in mind: "Cut your losses—play up your gains!"

The writer's only object has been to try and explain how the games of chance are played at Monte Carlo, and to point out that the player is at a disadvantage on each occasion that he stakes, though that disadvantage may be increased or reduced by bad or good staking. It now remains for the reader to decide whether the pleasure he derives from gambling is likely to recompense him for his probable losses.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
User talk:152.26.59.252

I am not sure what you are adding to Talk:Football for Player and Spectator/Chapter 1. Here is a welcome banner to help you understand what we do here.

JeepdaySock (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

title: User talk:152.26.59.252


text:
User talk:Oleandr

JeepdaySock (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

title: User talk:Oleandr


text: User talk:66.58.172.100

title: User talk:66.58.172.100


text:
User talk:Fooziex

JeepdaySock (talk) 18:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

title: User talk:Fooziex


text:
User talk:Sandeep V Kulkarni

JeepdaySock (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sandeep V Kulkarni


text: Mexico, as it was and as it is/Letter 3

title: Mexico, as it was and as it is/Letter 3


text:
User talk:Springhill40

JeepdaySock (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

title: User talk:Springhill40


text: Mexico, as it was and as it is/Letter 4

title: Mexico, as it was and as it is/Letter 4


text: Mexico, as it was and as it is/Letter 5

title: Mexico, as it was and as it is/Letter 5


text: Mexico, as it was and as it is/Letter 6

title: Mexico, as it was and as it is/Letter 6


text: Mexico, as it was and as it is/Letter 7

title: Mexico, as it was and as it is/Letter 7


text: Mexico, as it was and as it is/Letter 8

title: Mexico, as it was and as it is/Letter 8


text: Mexico, as it was and as it is/Letter 9

title: Mexico, as it was and as it is/Letter 9


text: Mexico, as it was and as it is/Letter 10


text: Mexico, as it was and as it is/Letter 11


text: Mexico, as it was and as it is/Letter 12


text: Mexico, as it was and as it is/Letter 13


text: Mexico, as it was and as it is/Letter 14


text: Mexico, as it was and as it is/Letter 15


text: Mexico, as it was and as it is/Letter 16


text:
Page:Tracts for the Times Vol 1.djvu/151

 that which even pious Christians in these days have permitted themselves to adopt; much which she has recommended or enjoined would now be looked upon as formalism, or outward service: in our just fear of a lifeless formalism, we have forgotten that every Christian feeling must have its appropriate vehicle of expression; that the most exalted acts of Christian devotion, that our closest union with our, is dependant upon certain forms; that the existence of forms does not constitute formalism; that where the Spirit of is, there the existence of forms serves only to give regularity to the expression, to chasten what there might yet remain of too individual feeling, to consolidate the yet divided members "in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the  of , unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of ."

Yet, as in every case in which the current of prevailing opinions, either in faith or practice, has for some time set in one direction, there have not been wanting indications, that Christians have felt their system incomplete; that there was something in the tranquil piety of former days, which they would gladly incorporate into the zealous excitement of the present; that although religion is in one sense strictly individual, yet in the means by which it is kept alive, it is essentially expansive and social; that the only error here to be avoided, is a reliance upon forms; that the forms themselves, as soon as they are employed to realize things eternal, and to cherish their communion with their, become again spiritual and edifying.

It is accordingly remarkable in the present day to observe, in how many cases individuals have been led back by their own Christian experience to observances, in some respect similar to those which the Church had before suggested and provided for them. In the more advanced period of their Christian course, or amid the respite from the unceasing circle of active duty, which has granted them through an interval of sickness, they have seen the value of those rites, the scrupulous adherence to which they once regarded as signs of lifelessness. In either case they would willingly own, that the union provided by the Church is not only more ordered, and less liable to exception, than one which individuals could frame; but also, that, as being more comprehensive, it would more effectively realize their objects.


text: Mexico, as it was and as it is/Letter 17


text: Mexico, as it was and as it is/Letter 18


text: Mexico, as it was and as it is/Letter 19


text: Mexico, as it was and as it is/Letter 20


text: Mexico, as it was and as it is/Letter 21


text:
User talk:Дмитрий Кошелев

JeepdaySock (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

title: User talk:Дмитрий Кошелев


text: Mexico, as it was and as it is/Letter 22


text:
Page:Tracts for the Times Vol 1.djvu/152

 It is granted, then, that the proportion of the Fast Days enjoined by the Church will, to persons unaccustomed to observe them, appear over-large, and the variety of the occasions for which they are adapted, over-minute and arbitrary. The question however occurs, whether we ought to be influenced by such considerations to reject the entire system, or whether we ought not rather to be moved by the indications of a practical character evinced in some regulations, to make the trial of those, whose benefit we do not at present discern. Now it would seem plain that, in a practical matter, he who from the traces of wisdom or thoughtfulness in one regulation should infer the probable wisdom and reasonableness of others emanating from the same source, would act more wisely than one, who, on account of the apparent unreasonableness and superfluity of some provisions, should proceed to condemn the whole. For in practical matters, the great test of the expediency of any habit, for which we have not direct divine authority, is experience: they only who have tried a line of conduct, or narrowly watched its effects upon others, can speak with certainty as to its result. Of all the lesser courses of action, which tend so powerfully to form our moral habits, it would be impossible, probably, for one who had not tried their effect, to predict certainly what that effect would be; or if we could guess the nature of the effect, certainly we should not be able to foresee its degree and amount. With the exception of gross and flagrant sins, whose character and wages we know from authority, there is probably no one line of action, with regard to which we might not beforehand prove very plausibly to ourselves, that it would not have the effects, to which it is in fact tending, and which we afterwards perceive to have been its natural results. Yet such abstract reasonings about the possibilities or tendencies of things would not be listened to in any other case. When sick, men eagerly listen to the means, however improbable, by which any disease, resembling their own, was removed. Be it a poison, which they are bidden to take, yet if it be proved satisfactorily that, in cases like their own, that poison has been the messenger of health, they would not hesitate. They would listen to no abstract reasonings, that it was improbable that what had been an instrument of death could be their life; they would look to those, whom it had restored to health, and would do the like. The sight of one person, undeniably raised from death to


text: Mexico, as it was and as it is/Letter 23


text: Mexico, as it was and as it is/Journal of journey in the Tierra Caliente


text:
Page:Tracts for the Times Vol 1.djvu/153

 life, would affect men more than any à priori demonstration that the medicine was pernicious or deadly. Much more then, since this medicine has been recommended to us by the great Physician of our souls; since it has been beneficial, wherever it has not been substituted for all other means of restoring or maintaining our spiritual health. The only question is,—not whether Fasting be in itself beneficial, but—whether certain regulations concerning it tend to promote or to diminish its efficacy; and in this case, the testimony of those who have proved their value, is manifestly of primary importance; the preconceived opinions of such as have not tried them, are but mere presumptions. If then either in the regulations or the histories of those holy men, through whom these recommendations have become part of the system of our Church, we find indications that they themselves knew from experience the value of what they recommended, we have evidence of the value of their advice, which we may not, without peril of injury to our souls, neglect.

It was in part, by some such process as the preceding, that the writer of these pages was led to consider what one may be allowed to term the less solemn Fasts of the Church, those which Christians now ordinarily pay less regard to; for the first day of Lent, and the annual commemoration of our sufferings, are, I suppose, still very commonly observed. As the history of every mind is, under some modifications, the mirror of many others, it may to some be useful to see by what course of reflection or experience an individual was brought to feel the value of the regulations of the Church in this respect.

It will perhaps to some seem strange to find placed among the foremost of these advantages, the Protection thereby afforded—protection against one's self; protection against the habits and customs of the world, which sorely let and hinder one in systematically pursuing what one imagines might be beneficial. I speak not of course of any known duty; in that case the opinion or practice or invitations of the world were nothing; but with regard to those indefinite duties or disciplines, which one thinks may be performed as well at one period as at another, and which, on that very account, are frequently not performed at all, or at best occasionally only, and superficially. No thoughtful Christian will doubt of the


text: Mexico, as it was and as it is/Letter 24


text: Mexico, as it was and as it is/Journal of excursion to Tezcoco


text:
User talk:Murma174

JeepdaySock (talk) 19:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Please use my disc at w:frr:Benutzer_Diskussion:Murma174

title: User talk:Murma174


text: Mexico, as it was and as it is/Letter 25


text:
Page:Tracts for the Times Vol 1.djvu/154

 and duty of fasting, whatever he may understand by the term. "The bridegroom is taken away from us, and so we must fast in these days:" our Blessed has given us instructions how we ought to fast, and therefore implied that His disciples would fast: the Apostles were "in fastings often:" in fastings, as well as in sufferings for the Gospel, or by pureness, by knowledge, by all the graces which the  imparted, they approved themselves the Ministers of. "Our and ," says Hooker, "would not teach the manner of doing, much less propose a reward for doing that which were not both holy and acceptable in  sight." And yet, after all the allowances which can be made for that fasting, which is known to our only who seeth in secret, one cannot conceal from one's self that this duty is in these days very inadequately practised. It is, in fact, a truth almost proverbial, that a duty which may be performed at any time, is in great risk of being neglected at all times. The early Christians felt this, and appointed the days of our Blessed crucifixion and murder, the Wednesday and Friday of each week, to be days of fasting and especial humiliation. Those days, in which especially the bridegroom was taken away, the days, namely, in which He was crucified and lay in the grave, were besides early consecrated as Fasts by the widowed Church. Nor was it because they were in perils, which we are spared; because they were in deaths oft, that they practised or needed this discipline. Quite the reverse. Their whole life was a Fast, a death to this world, a realizing of things invisible. It was when dangers began to mitigate, when Christianity became, (as far as the world was concerned,) an easy profession, it was then that the peril increased, lest their first simplicity should be corrupted, their first love grow cold! Then those who had spiritual authority in the Church increased the stated Fasts, in order to recal that holy earnestness of life, which the recentness of their redemption, and the constant sense of their presence, had before inspired. Fasts were not merely the voluntary


text: Mexico, as it was and as it is/Letter 26


text: Mexico, as it was and as it is/Letter 27


text: Mexico, as it was and as it is/Letter 28


text: Mexico, as it was and as it is/Letter 29


text: Mexico, as it was and as it is/Letter 30


text:
User:MaxDawsonC

ABANDONED ACCOUNT

title: User:MaxDawsonC


text:
User talk:MaxDawsonC

ABANDONED ACCOUNT

title: User talk:MaxDawsonC


text: Mexico, as it was and as it is/Letter 31


text: Mexico, as it was and as it is/Letter 32


text: Mexico, as it was and as it is/Letter 33


text: Mexico, as it was and as it is/Appendix 1


text: Mexico, as it was and as it is/Appendix 2


text: Mexico, as it was and as it is/Appendix 3


text: Mexico, as it was and as it is/Appendix 4


text:
Page:Beowulf (Wyatt).djvu/38

14

 ofer hlēor-ber[g]an, gehroden golde, fāh ond fȳr-heard;ferh wearde hēold. Gūþmōd grummon,guman ōnetton, sigon ætsomne,oþ þæt hȳ [s]æl timbred, geatolīc ond gold-fāh,ongyton mihton; þæt wæs fore-mǣrostfold-būendum receda underroderum, on þǣm se rīca bād; līxte se lēomaofer landa fela. Him þā hilde-dēor[h]of mōdigra torht getǣhte,þæt hīe him tō mihton gegnum gangan;gūð-beorna sum wicg gewende,word æfter cwæð: “Mǣl is mē tō fēran;Fæder al-walda mid ār-stafumēowic gehealde sīða gesunde!Ic tō sǣ wille wið *wrāð werodwearde healdan.”

Strǣt wæs stān-fāh,stīg wīsode gumum ætgædere.Gūð-byrne scān heard hond-locen,hring-īren scīr song in searwum,þā hīe tō sele furðam in hyra gryre-geatwumgangan cwōmon.

title: Page:Beowulf (Wyatt).djvu/38


text: Beowulf (Wyatt)/Beowulf 04

title: Beowulf (Wyatt)/Beowulf 04


text: Page:SPRAYING PESTICIDES - NARA - 544246.jpg


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 27.djvu/849

 stout and fair race, but in their dress and general customs have assimilated themselves to the neighbouring peoples of Bajour. They have none of the vices of the Yusafzais. Their country is very hilly and difficult, but well cultivated in terraces. They number some 40,000, and their fighting strength is about 8000 men. British expeditions were necessary against them in 1852, 1878 and 1898.  UTOPIA, an ideal commonwealth, or an imaginary country whose inhabitants are supposed to exist under the most perfect conditions possible. Hence the terms Utopia and Utopian are also used to denote any visionary scheme of reform or social theory, especially those which fail to recognize defects inherent in human nature. The word first occurs in Sir Thomas More’s Utopia, which was originally published in Latin under the title De Optima Reipublicae Statu, deque Nova Insula Utopia (Louvain, 1516). It was compounded by (q.v.) from the Greek, not, and , a place, meaning therefore a place which has no real existence, an imaginary country.

The idea of a Utopia is, even in literature, far older than More’s romance; it appears in the Timaeus of Plato and is fully developed in his Republic. The idealized description of Sparta in Plutarch’s life of Lycurgus belongs to the same class of literary Utopias, though it professes to be historical. A similar idea also occurs in legends of world-wide currency, the best known of these being the Greek, and the medieval Norse, Celtic and Arab legends which describe an earthly Paradise in the Western or Atlantic Ocean (see ). Few of these survived after the exploration of the Atlantic by Columbus, Vasco da Gama and others in the 15th century; but in literature More’s Utopia set a new fashion. An ideal state of society is described in the writings of Hobbes, Sir Robert Filmer and J. J. Rousseau. In Bacon’s New Atlantis (1624–29) science is the key to universal happiness; Tommaso Campanella’s Civitas Solis (1623) portrays a communistic society, and is largely inspired by the Republic of Plato; James Harrington’s Oceana (1656), which had a profound influence upon political thought in America, is a practical treatise rather than a romance, and is founded on the ideas that property, especially in land, is the basis of political power, and that the executive should only be controlled for a short period by the same man or men. Bernard de Mandevil1e’s Fable of the Bees is unique in that it describes the downfall of an ideal commonwealth. Other Utopias are the “Voyage en Salente” in Fénelon’s Télémaque (1699); Etienne Cabet’s Voyage en Icarie (1840); Bulwer Lytton’s The Coming Race (1871); Samuel Butler’s Erewhon (1872) and Erewhon Revisited (1901); Edward Bellamy’s Looking Backward (1888); William Morris’s News from Nowhere (1890); H. G. Wells’s Anticipations (1901), A Modern Utopia (1905) and New Worlds for Old (1908). Many Utopias, such as the Fable of the Bees and Erewhon, are designed to satirize existing social conditions as well as to depict a more perfect civilization. There are separate articles on all the authors mentioned above. A large number of the more recent Utopias have been inspired by socialistic or communistic ideals; among these may be mentioned Freiland, ein soziales Zukunftsbild (1890) and Reise nach Freiland (1893), by the Austrian political economist Theodor Hertzka (b. Budapest, 1845), which portray an imaginary communistic colony in Central Africa.  UTRECHT, a town of northern Natal, 30 m. by rail E. by N. of Newcastle. Pop. (1904) 1315. It is the chief place in a district of the same name, originally settled in 1848 by emigrant Boers from Natal. They formed an independent community and in 1854 obtained, in exchange for a hundred head of cattle, formal cession of the territory from Panda, the Zulu king. In 1858 the district was united with the republic of Lydenburg, and in 1860, with Lydenburg, became part of the South African Republic. In 1903 it was, with the neighbouring district of Vryheid, annexed to Natal. The town of Utrecht is built in a hollow among the foothills of the Drakensberg. In the neighbourhood are extensive coal-fields.  UTRECHT, the smallest province of Holland, bounded S. by Gelderland and South Holland, W. by South Holland, N. by North Holland and the Zuider Zee and E. by Gelderland. It has an area of 534 sq. m, and a pop. (1905) of 276,543. It belongs chiefly to the basin of the Rhine; the Lower Rhine, which skirts its southern border, after sending off the Crooked Rhine at Wijk, becomes the Lek, and the Crooked Rhine in its turn, after sending off the Vecht at Utrecht to the Zuider Zee, becomes the Old Rhine. The north-eastern portion of the province is drained by the Eem, which falls into the Zuider Zee. The watershed between the Rhine and the Eem is formed by a plateau of sand and gravel hills which extend from the south-east corner on the Rhine to Zeist near Utrecht, and also northwards to Huizen on the Zuider Zee. On its western side the plateau declines into the clay lands (and in the north-west low fen) which characterize the western half of the province. The region of sand and gravel is covered with bare heaths and patches of woods, and the occupations of the scanty population are chiefly those of buckwheat cultivation and peat-digging, as in Drente. Amersfoort is here the only town of any size, but along the western edge of this tract there is a row of thriving villages, namely, Amerongen, Leersum, Doorn, Driebergen and Zeist. Bunschoten on the Zuider Zee is a fishing village; Venendaal, on the south-eastern border, originally a fen-colony, is now a market for the bee-keeping industry in the east. On account of the picturesqueness of this part of the province, many country houses and villa residences are found scattered about it. The western half of the province is flat and often below sea-level. Cattle-rearing and the making of cheese (of the Gouda description) and butter are here the chief occupations. Agriculture is practised along the Crooked Rhine, wheat, barley, beans and peas being the chief products, and there is considerable fruit-farming in the south-west. The development of towns, however, has here been restricted by the rise of Utrecht, the chief town of the province, as a commercial centre. A number of small old towns are found along the Rhine, the Lek and the Holland Ysel, such as Rhenen (or Reenen), Wyk-by-Duurstede, Yselstein, Montfoort. Rhenen was once the seat of an independent lordship, though afterwards joined to the bishopric of Utrecht. The ancient church has a fine tower (1492–1531). Wyk-by-Duurstede, originally a Roman settlement, was of some commercial importance as early as the 7th and 8th centuries, but decayed owing to Norman raids in the 10th century. The ruined castle of the bishops of Utrecht still remains. The lordship of Yselstein can be traced back to the younger brother of Gysbrecht IV. of Amstel, who bought lands and built a castle here before 1279. In the beginning of the next century it had grown to the size of a small town and was granted civic rights and surrounded with walls, and in the course of the following centuries was frequently attacked and even devastated. About 1377 Ystelstein descended to the house of Egmont, and in 1551 to the house of Orange, and by paying an annual contribution to the United Provinces remained an independent barony till 1795. The remains of the castle are picturesque. Montfoort owes its origin to a castle built by the bishop of Rhenen in 1170, which was frequently besieged in the 14th and 15th centuries. In 1833 it was bought by the government, and now serves as a reformatory for women. Vreeland on the Vecht has a similar origin in the castle built by Bishop Hendrik of Vianen in 1253–59 as a protection to the province against the lords of Amstel. The castle was demolished in 1529 when the province came under Burgundian rule. The province is traversed by the main railway lines, which all converge at Utrecht, and is also amply provided with navigable waterways.

The province represents the bulk of the territories once comprised in the ancient prince-bishopric of the same name, het Sticht (the see) of Dutch historians. The see was founded in 722 by St Willibrord, and the diocese thus formed, saving for a short time when it was an archbishopric, was subordinate to the see of Cologne. It covered all the northern Netherlands between the Scheldt and the Ems. The bishops, in fact, as the result of grants of immunities by a succession of German kings, and notably by the Saxon and Franconian emperors, gradually became the temporal rulers of a dominion as great as the neighbouring counties and duchies. Bishop Balderic (918–76) successfully defended the see against the Northmen, and received from the emperor Otto I. the right to coin money and all the land between the Leck and the Zuider Zee. The bishopric was weak, however, as compared with the neighbouring states, Holland, Gelderland and Brabant, from the mere fact of its ecclesiastical character. The bishop had no hereditary or dynastic interest in his land, and, as a temporal ruler, his

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 27.djvu/849


text:
Page:Tracts for the Times Vol 1.djvu/155

 of men, whose conversation was in heaven; they were adopted and enlarged in periods of ease, of temptation, of luxury, of self satisfaction, of growing corruption.

To urge that Fasts were abused by the later Romish Church, is but to assert that they are a means of grace committed to men; that they would subsequently be unduly neglected, was but to be expected by any one, who knows the violent vacillations of human impetuosity. It was then among the instances of calm judgment in our Reformers, that cutting off the abuses which before prevailed, the vain distinctions of meats, the lucrative dispensations, and, above all, the subtle poison of the intrinsic acceptableness of Fasting, and, (which was closely allied to it,) the monstrous doctrine of human merit, they still prescribed Fasting "to discipline the flesh, to free the spirit, and render it more earnest and fervent to prayer, and as a testimony and witness with us before God of our humble submission to His high Majesty, when we confess our sins unto Him, and are inwardly touched with sorrowfulness of heart, bewailing the same in the affliction of our bodies."

They omitted that, which might be a snare to men's consciences, they left it to every man's Christian prudence and experience, how he would fast; but they prescribed the days upon which he should fast, both in order to obtain an unity of feeling and devotion in the members of body, and to preclude the temptation to the neglect of the duty altogether. Nor is the interference in this matter any thing insulated in our system, or one which good men would object to, had not our unhappy neglect of it now made it seem strange and foreign to our habits. In some things we are accustomed to perform a duty, which is such independently of the authority of the Church, in the way in which the Church has prescribed, and because she has so appointed. We assemble ourselves together on the Lord's day, because has directed us by His Apostle not to forsake such assemblies; but we assemble ourselves twice upon that day rather than once, not upon any reason of the abstract fitness of so doing, but because the Church has prescribed it. And probably at an earlier period of our lives, perhaps even later, when indisposition or indolence or any prevailing temptation has beset us, there are few amongst us who have not owed


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Utopia

title: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Utopia


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Utrecht (Natal)


text:
Page:Ruffhead - The Statutes at Large, 1763.djvu/43

The TITLES of the STATUTES. hat in the King's Absence in France the Teste of the Writs be in the Name of the Lieutenant.

2. For Bullion to be brought to the Mint by Merchants of the West.

3. Touching Gilding and Silvering of divers Things.

ouching Appeals and Indidtments.

Touching Exigents against any in Lancashire.

3. Touching Protections for such as served the King in Normandy.

4. Touching the amending of Records.

5. For making of Sheriffs and Escheators.

6. Touching the Mint and Coinage at Calais.

7. Against: the Men of Riddefdale offending in Northumberland, and other Places.

8. Against Scholars of Oxford hunting by Night.

9. Abbots and other Religious Persons discharged of Collection of Dismes out of the County where they dwell.

10. Touching the Measure of Keels to carry Sea-Coals from Newcastle.

11. Against Washers and Clippers of Money.

12. Touching Rochester Bridge.

onfirmation of all Statutes not repealed concerning Gold and Silver.

2. Concerning the Exchanges in London.

3. Touching the Payment of Exchange.

4. For bringing of the Money received for the Exchange to the Tower.

5. Touching the Mint at Calais.

6. For good Allay in the Monies.

7. For the Weight of Nobles, Half Nobles, and Farthings of Gold.

8. For Commissioners to inquire of Counterfeiters and Makers of false Weights.

9. Touching Exchange to the Court of Rome.

10. For Relief of the Collectors of Dismes and Quinzismes.

11. Certain Roads about Abingdon shall be repaired.

ouching the Mints at York and Bristol.

2. That the Sheriff make Proclamation of the Statutes of Purveyors.

3. Against Riots by Irishmen.

4. Touching the Mint and Exchanges.

5. For the Gains of the Wars to be dedutcted for the Wages of such as were retained to serve the King.

6. The Statute of 9 H. 5. cap. 9. touching Security for Exchanges to be made by Merchants of the Court of Rome, revived.

onfirmation of Liberties granted to holy Church, and to Cities and Boroughs.

2. Touching the Privileges of the Hofpital of St. Leonard in York

3. That John Duke of Bedford, being in the King's Wars in France, be received by his Attorney to defend his Right in any Action.

4. For the Staple at Calais.

5. Concerning Shipping of Woolls, &c.

6. Against carrying of Gold and Silver out of the Realm.

7. Against Cordwainers using the Mystery of Tanners.

8. For expelling Irishmen.

9. For abolishing the Money called Blanks.

A Penalty on deceitful Workers of Gold and Silver Embroidery.

Concerning the Reverfal of Outlawries againft Perfons in the King's Service.

The Juistices to remove Nusiances in the Thames

10. Officers in the King's Courts.

11. For the Measure of Vessels of Wine,&c.

12. The Mint Matter shall keep the Allay of White Money according to the Indenture.

13. For the Price of Silver Plate, and for the Increase of White Money.

14. Touching Goldsmiths selling Harness of Silver.

15. For Punishment of Servants, &c. taking unreasonable Wages.

16. Against Nets and Engines in the Thames, and other Rivers.

17. Remedy for thofe in Reverfion, where the particular Tenants have loft by Default.

18. Persons indidcted of High Treason, escaping out of Prison, shall be adjudged Traitors.

gainst Chapiters and Congregations of Masons.

Against the carrying of Sheep into Flanders, and other Places beyond the Seas.

3. Against concealing of the King's Customs.

4. Touching the Transportation of Butter and Cheese.

5. Touching the River Lee running from Ware to Thames

1. Concerning the Duty of Sheriffs, and against the imbezilling of Writs.

2. For Protections of such as served in the King's Wars in Normandy.

3. Confirmation of an Act, 9 H. 5. cap. 4. for Amendments of Records.

4. Suits and Writs against certain Knights newly made, shall not abate.

5. Confirmation of the Statute 17 R.2. cap. 7. touching Transportation of Corn.

ouching Process upon Indictments in the King's Bench.

2. How long Time Panells in Assises shall be delivered to the Parties before the Sessions of the Justices.

3. Touching Wages of Husbandmen, and Punishment of Labourers taking more.

4. Concerning the Eledtion of Knights and Burgesses of the Parliament.

5. Concerning Sewers, with the Form of the Commission.

6. For shipping of Goods at Melcombe Regis, and conveying them to Calais.

OR the Liberties of the Clergy coming to the Convocation.

2. For the Staple of Denmark.

3. Touching Sewers.

4. Against Retainers, and giving of Liveries.

5. For a common Balance and Weight to be in every City, Borough, and Market Town, and againft the buying of Woollen Yarn.

6. Against casting of seditious and threatening Bills into Mens Houses.

7. Concerning the Elections of Knights of the Parliament.

8. Touching the Wages of Labourers and Servants.

9. An Act to repress forcible Entries.

10. Concerning Process upon Indidctments and Appeal's of Persons dwelling in foreign Counties. 11. For