The appeal to the vanity of men of "rank and education"[332] in order to shame them out of their love of play is as futile in its effects as it is wrong in principle; for it tends only to nourish in them feelings of self-conceit, and to induce them to think rather of the deficiencies of the low-born men, whose money they are eager to win, than to consider their own dereliction of duty, in playing for large sums, with any one. At the gaming-table, a community of feeling levels all the artificial distinctions of rank; and the rude plebeian who covers the high-born noble's stake is just as good, for all intents and purposes of play, as that noble himself. The condescension of the noble to play with a costermonger for the sake of winning his money, is fully compensated by the other's willingness to afford him a chance. The annals of gaming sufficiently show that rank is no guarantee of a gamester's honesty; and in the case of Lord De Ros _versus_ Cumming, tried before Lord Denman, 10th of February, 1837, it would appear that the rank of the fraudulent gamester screened him for several years, with one party at least, from being denounced. Sir William Ingilby, in his examination, stated that he had seen Lord De Ros perform the trick of reversing the cut, and thus secure himself an ace or a king for the turn-up card, at least fifty times; and that he first observed his lordship do it "about four, five, or six years ago." When asked why he did not denounce Lord De Ros after he had become aware of his fraudulent tricks, he gives the following answer: "I did not mention the matter publicly for this reason:--I considered that if an obscure and humble individual like myself, not possessed of his rank, were to attempt to go up to a peer of the realm, who held a high station in society, and who at the same time was regarded by all his associates, and by the world in general, as a man of unimpeachable character, and say, 'My lord, you are cheating;' if, I say, I, that humble individual, had addressed Lord De Ros in these terms,--if I had denounced a peer of the realm, and a man of such general popularity, I should instantly have gathered around me a host of persons; and I take it, as a matter of course, I should have had no choice between the door and the window." Notwithstanding that the honorable baronet was aware of the fraudulent practice of the right honorable peer, it seems that he still continued to play with him; but it does not appear that he was particularly attentive to his lordship's trick of reversing the cut,--_sauter la coupe_,--when he had him for a partner.[333] If Sir William Ingilby's fears were well founded, it seems reasonable to conclude that those who would have "pitched him out of the window," for exposing the fraudulent tricks of a peer, must have been persons of similar character to the party denounced; and that their conduct in such a case would not have been influenced by a regard for the honour