Penalties on private lotteries--State lottery not
subscribed for--Lapse in State lotteries--Private
lotteries--Westminster Bridge lottery--State
lotteries--Discredit thrown on them--British Museum
lottery--Leheup’s fraud.
Once more came a wave of virtue against private lotteries, and in
1721, by the 36th sec. of 8 Geo. I. c. 2, was prescribed a penalty
of £500 for carrying on such lotteries, in addition to any penalties
inflicted by any former Acts; the offender being committed to prison
for one year, and thenceforward until such times as the £500 should be
fully paid and satisfied. Yet the Government themselves, the very same
year, brought out a lottery to raise £700,000 by 70,000 tickets at £10
each; 6998 prizes from £10,000 to £20; 63,002 blanks at £8 each, about
nine blanks to a prize, paid soon after being drawn. And there were
lotteries for the same amount and on the same terms in 1722, 1723, and
1724.
After that a curious thing in the history of lotteries happened, the
reason whereof may be that the offer was not sufficiently tempting. In
1726 a lottery was launched for raising a million, by 100,000 tickets
at £10 each, the prizes to be made stock at 3 per cent. But 11,093 of
these tickets were returned into the Exchequer unsold, and drawn in
prizes and blanks only £103,272 10_s._, whereby £7657 10_s._ was lost
to the Exchequer.
This may probably account for there being no other State lottery till
1731 (4 Geo. II. c. 9), when £800,000 was raised by 80,000 tickets of
£10 each, the blanks being entitled to £7 10_s._ each, and the whole
bearing interest at 3 per cent. This capital was merged (25 Geo. II.
c. 27) into the Consolidated Three per Cents., and this course of
converting into stock, instead of paying the money, was adopted in many
subsequent lotteries.
Once more they were prohibited by legislation, for “An Act for the more
effectual preventing of excessive and deceitful gaming” was passed in
1739 (12 Geo. II. c. 28), the first section of which dealt with private
lotteries. Yet the Government acted on Shakespeare’s dictum--
“That in the Captain’s but a cholerick word--
Which in the soldier is flat blasphemy;”
and, as we shall see, kept lotteries to themselves, whilst condemning
them as sinful in the hands of private speculators--which was perhaps
necessary, as in the _Gentleman’s Magazine_, 1739, p. 329, I find a
private lottery for £325,000, in which there were two prizes of £10,000
each (and in number 16,310), down to £10, whilst there were 48,690
blanks.
“THE STATE LOTTERY.”
This was a lottery drawn between December 10, 1739, and January 25,
1740, for building the first bridge over the Thames, in lieu of the old
Horse-*ferry--12,500 tickets at £5 each, not more than three blanks to
a prize. It really was drawn at Stationers’ Hall, but there is no doubt
but that the illustration is meant for the Guildhall. Below the design
are the following verses, which show the valuation put upon the lottery
even then:--
“The Name of a Lott’ry the Nature bewitches,
And City and Country run Mad after Riches:
My Lord, who, already, has Thousands a Year,
Thinks to double his Income by vent’ring it here:
The Country Squire dips his Houses and Grounds,
For tickets to gain him the Ten Thousand Pounds:
The rosie-jowl’d Doctor his Rectorie leaves,
In quest of a Prize, to procure him Lawn Sleeves.
The Tradesman, whom Duns for their Mony importune,
Here hazards his All, for th’ Advance of his Fortune:
The Footman resolves, if he meets no Disaster,
To mount his gilt Chariot, and vie with his Master.
The Cook-Maid determines, by one lucky Hit,
To free her fair Hands from the Pot-hooks and Spit:
The Chamber-maid struts in her Ladies Cast Gown,
And hopes to be dub’d the Top Toast of the Town:
But Fortune, alas! will have small Share of Thanks,
When all their high Wishes are bury’d in Blanks.
For tho’ they for Benefits eagerly watch’d,
They reckon’d their Chickens before they were hatch’d.”
“THE LOTTERY.”
This has connection with the same lottery, but a description would be
too long for these pages, so I only quote the three concluding lines
of the verses under the engraving, to show how, in the height of its
folly, they could moralize on the lottery--
“To Knaves and Fools the Wheels turn round;
The various kinds do come and go
With five to one ’tis Thro’ Bridge Ho.”[16]
“THE LOTTERY; or, The Characters of several in
genious, designing Gentlewomen, that have put into it.
A Noted lottery Pachter.”[17]
[16] Shooting the arches of London Bridge at high tide was always a
dangerous experiment.
[17] Pactor--a dealer, maker of bargains.
This was probably intended as a satire upon Cox, who kept a lottery
office near the Royal Exchange, and was a bookseller, which is shown in
his portrait (a very fat man, with his coat buttoned all down, and a
sash round his body), where in his sash is stuck a book, marked “Book
Sold.”
Up to the early eighteenth century, the only communication between
Westminster and the Surrey side of the river was by a ferry (still
commemorated in Horse-ferry Road), which was the property of the
Archbishop of Canterbury, and for the privilege of which he paid an
annual rent of twenty pence. The landing-place on the Surrey side was
close to the Episcopal palace. This ferry, however, was inconvenient,
and, in 1736, an Act of Parliament was procured (9 Geo. II. c. 29),
after much opposition on the part of the city of London, “For building
a bridge cross the river _Thames_, from the _New Palace Yard_, in
the city of _Westminster_, to the opposite shore in the County of
_Surrey_.” Commissioners for building the bridge were to be chosen, to
meet in the Jerusalem Chamber, June 22, 1736, and adjourn to appoint
in what manner and with what materials the bridge shall be built. No
houses to be erected thereon.
The result of their deliberations was another Act (10 Geo. II. c.
16) for explaining and amending the above. By this £700,000 was to
be raised by way of lottery, the residue of the money after payment
of the prizes to be applied towards the building of the bridge, and
tolls might be levied at the following rates:--“Every coach, etc.,
drawn by six horses, 2_s._; by four horses, 1_s._ 6_d._; by less than
four horses, 1_s._ For every waggon, etc., drawn by four horses, 1_s._
6_d._, and by less than four horses, 1_s._ For every horse, etc., not
drawing, 2_d._ For every foot passenger on Sundays, 1_d._, and on every
other day, ½_d._ For every drove of oxen, 1_s._ per score. For every
drove of calves, hogs, sheep, or lambs, 6_d._ per score.”
I have before me the originals of two schemes for the erection of
this bridge. One is “For raising £60,000 without any Tax upon the
Inhabitants of the City of _Westminster_, for the building a Bridge
cross the River of _Thames_, the Legs of Stone, and the Arches turn’d
with Bricks (made on purpose, like those us’d in the Dome of _St.
Paul’s_ which is 110 Foot wide) after the manner of the Brick-Bridge
of _Thoulouse_, the greatest Arch of which is 100 Foot span; and to
become a free Bridge, in twenty-one years, except a small Duty to
keep it in repair.” It was proposed to raise a loan of £60,000 at 5
per cent. interest on the security of the tolls to be levied, which,
it was calculated, would be repaid within the period specified, the
tolls being estimated to produce £6000 per annum. The other is “A
Plan of a Lottery to raise upwards of £100,000, free of all Expences
and Deductions, for Building a Bridge at _Westminster_,” and it was
proposed to have a lottery of £625,000, in 125,000 tickets at £5 each,
only three blanks to a prize, and to deduct 16 per cent. from all
prizes, which would amount to £100,000.
There was another Act passed in 1738 (11 Geo. II. c. 25) respecting
this bridge, which provided that the bridge should be built from the
wool staple at Westminster, of what materials the Commissioners should
think fit, and they were to account yearly. On January 29, 1739, the
first stone was laid by Henry, Earl of Pembroke, and the same year
another Act was passed (12 Geo. II. c. 33), which not only empowered
the Commissioners to make compulsory purchases of houses and land,
but allowed them to issue a lottery of £325,000, and to take 15 per
cent. of that sum, amounting to £48,750, for the purpose of building
the bridge. An Act confirming this was passed (13 Geo. II. c. 16),
and on December 8, 1740, the drawing of the Bridge Lottery began at
Stationers’ Hall. The total cost of the bridge, which took eleven years
and nine months to build, was £389,500, and it was opened on November
17, 1750.
There were State lotteries in 1743-4-5-6-7-8, for sums varying from
£1,000,000 to £6,300,000, all of which were converted into stock by
Acts of Parliament in the reign of George III. In 1751 the next State
lottery was authorized by Parliament (24 Geo. II. c. 2), £700,000
in tickets of £10 each; but, somehow, this did not go down with the
public. The _Gentleman’s Magazine_ for July, 1751 (p. 328), says,
“Those inclined to become adventurers in the present lottery were
cautioned in the papers to wait some time before they purchased
tickets, whereby the jobbers would be disappointed of their market and
obliged to sell at a lower price. At the present rate of tickets the
adventurer plays at 35 per cent. loss.”
This was further illustrated by some figures which appeared in the
_London Magazine_ for August, same year, giving the following odds
against winning, the chances being--
34,999 to 1 against a £10,000 prize.
11,665 ” ” 5,000 ” or upwards.
6,363 ” ” 3,000 ”
3,683 ” ” 2,000 ”
1,794 ” ” 1,000 ”
874 ” ” 500 ”
249 ” ” 100 ”
99 ” ” 50 ”
6 ” ” 20 ” or any prize.
In fact, such discredit was thrown upon this lottery, that a Mr.
Holland publicly offered to lay four hundred guineas, that four hundred
tickets, when drawn, would not, on an average, amount to more than £9
15_s._ each, prizes and blanks; and his offer was never accepted. As
Adam Smith observed, it was an incontrovertible fact that the world
never had seen, and never would see, a fair lottery.
Hone, in his “Every-Day Book,” gives the two following illustrations
of the drawing of this lottery. Unfortunately, I have been unable to
verify them, but it strikes me that the first one is of earlier date,
judging by the costumes, and that the halls in which the lottery is
drawn are totally different.
[Illustration]
[Illustration: Drawing of the Lottery in Guildhall, 1751.]
By an Act of Parliament (26 Geo. II. c. 22), passed in 1753, the
nation purchased for £20,000 the library and collection of Sir Hans
Sloane, and incorporated with it the library of Sir Robert Cotton, and
that known as the Harleian library, thus forming the nucleus of the
British Museum. The next thing was to find a house wherein to keep
this collection, and to raise money for the same, at the least cost.
This was done, in the same Act, by means of a lottery, the managers
and trustees of which were, singularly enough, the Archbishop of
Canterbury, the Lord Chancellor, and the Speaker, each of whom was
to have £100 for his trouble. The subscription to the lottery was
£300,000, in tickets of £3 each. £200,000 was to be distributed in
prizes varying from £10,000 to £10, and the remainder was to go towards
the purchasing of the Sloane collection and library, and the Harleian
library, finding suitable cases for the property acquired, house-room
and attendants. The lottery was to be drawn on November 26, 1753,
and all prizes were to be paid by December 31, 1754, when those not
presented would be forfeited.
And this Act is the only trace I can find of this lottery, although I
have had the willing and zealous aid of the officials of the British
Museum in searching after it.
In connection with this lottery was a gross fraud, into which the House
of Commons caused an inquiry to be made, and the committee eventually
reported that Peter Leheup, Esq., had privately disposed of a great
number of tickets before the office was opened, to which the public
were directed, by an advertisement, to apply; that he, also, delivered
great numbers to particular persons, upon lists of names which he
knew to be fictitious; and that, in particular, Sampson Gideon became
proprietor of more than six thousand, which he sold at a premium. The
House resolved that Leheup had been guilty of a violation of the Act
and a breach of trust, and the Attorney-General was instructed to
prosecute him. On June 9, 1855, he was found guilty, and sentenced to
pay a fine of £1000, which he could well afford, as it is said he had
made £40,000 by his rascality.
[Illustration]