Lottery for the Leverian Museum--Prosecution of unlicensed
lottery office-keepers--Suicide--Robbery of employers
--Sharp practice over a prize--Cheating by lottery
office-keepers--Complaint of a prisoner.
Sir Ashton Lever, who was born in 1729, and who died in 1788, was the
eldest son of Sir James Darcy Lever, whose seat was at Alkrington,
near Manchester. He was an ardent collector of specimens of natural
history, minerals, fossils, and shells, and his museum was famous. In
the May number of the _Gentleman’s Magazine_ for 1773, is a letter from
a gentleman who had visited it late in the previous year, and, from
his account, we find that, not only did he collect every legitimate
specimen of natural history he could lay hold of, but also any _lusus
Naturæ_ that came across his path; as, for instance, “A double-headed
Calf: A Pig with eight legs, two tails, one backbone, and one head:
a Leveret with seven legs, eight feet, and one head: A Kitten, a
perfect Polypheme, having one eye only, and that in the middle of
the head: a Pupp with two mouths and one head.” Stuffed birds, fish
preserved in spirits, reptiles, crustaceæ, fossils, marbles, medals,
and casts, all were in profusion, nor did he disdain comparatively
trifling curiosities, such as “A few pictures of birds in straw, very
natural, by Miss Gregg; a basket of flowers cut in paper,--a most
masterly performance; the flowers are justly represented, not the least
dot of the apices of the stamina wanting, or the least fault in the
proportion; every part is so truly observed, that it was new to me
every time I went to see it, and gave me great delight. This curious
basket of flowers was executed by Mrs. Groves. There are a number of
antique dresses of our own and other nations.... Here is a head of his
present Majesty, cut in Cannil Coal, said to be a striking likeness;
indeed, the workmanship is inimitable. Here, also, is a drawing in
Indian Ink of a head of a late Duke of Bridgewater, valued at 100
Guineas,” etc., etc.
This collection was costly, and Sir Ashton’s income could not
stand it. In 1774 he brought it to London, and christened it the
_Holophusikon_, and, having taken Leicester House, in Leicester
Square, formerly the residence of Frederick, Prince of Wales, and in
modern times, Miss Linwood’s Gallery of Needlework, Madame Wharton’s
_Posés Plastiques_--on its site now stands the “Empire Palace of
Varieties”--it filled sixteen rooms, and various passages and
staircases, and he advertised that they were on view, from ten to four,
“admittance 5_s._ 3_d._ each person.”
But, as his purse could not stand the drain upon it, he made up his
mind to part with his collection, applying to Parliament for power to
dispose of it by lottery. The committee valued it at £50,000, and he
offered it to the nation at a considerable reduction on this valuation,
but the trustees of the British Museum declined to purchase it. So he
got an Act of Parliament in 1784 (24 Geo. III. c. 22), by which he was
empowered to dispose of his museum by lottery, without being liable
to any penalty. Sum to be raised not to exceed £37,800, and number of
tickets 36,000. To advertise such sale by December 25, 1784, and before
he sell, etc., any tickets, with an account of the pieces composing
the museum, in the _London Gazette_. To consist of one prize, to be
determined by the lottery of 1785, if it consists of 36,000 tickets,
or upwards. If no lottery in 1785 that shall consist of 36,000 tickets,
then by a private lottery, after February 2, and before March 25, 1786,
under the inspection of ____, or any three of them, and the first
number to be the prize.
Here is an advertisement of his show, taken from a newspaper
advertisement, January 28, 1785:--
“SIR ASHTON LEVER’S Lottery Tickets are now on sale at Leicester House,
every day (Sunday excepted) from nine in the morning till six in the
evening, at one guinea each; and, as each ticket will admit four
persons, either together or separately, to view the Museum, no one will
hereafter be admitted but by the Lottery Tickets, excepting those who
have already annual tickets.
“This collection is allowed to be infinitely superior to any of the
kind in Europe. The very large sum expended in making it, is the cause
of its being thus to be disposed of, and not from the deficiency of
the daily receipts (as is generally imagined), which have annually
increased, the average amount for the last three years being £1833 per
annum.
“The hours of admission are from Eleven till Four.
“Good fires in the Galleries.”
The lottery was drawn, but poor Lever only sold 8000 tickets out of his
36,000, and the lucky winner was a Mr. James Parkinson, who erected,
for its reception, a curious building, called the “Rotunda,” on the
Surrey side of Blackfriars Bridge. Here the collection was exhibited,
until it was sold on July 18, 1806, the sale lasting sixty-five days,
and the lots numbering 7879. The “Rotunda” fell from its high estate,
and became a low music-hall, or “penny gaff.”
In 1787 (27 Geo. III. c. 41) was a State lottery which produced
£756,875. £500,000 was distributed in prizes, and it resulted in a
net profit to the Government of £243,925. As we have seen, an Act was
passed in 1782 compelling lottery-office house keepers to pay a £50
licence, but this did not prevent illegal practices. Sales of chances
still continued to be made by unlicensed persons, and other schemes
were prepared with so much ingenuity as to evade the Act. Accordingly,
in 1787, an Act was passed (27 Geo. III. c. 1) to render more effectual
the laws then in being for suppressing unlawful lotteries. The licensed
lottery office-keepers complained, and made a representation to the
Lords of the Treasury as to the nature and extent of the mischief
of these fraudulent proceedings. They stated that the sale of these
chances was equal to the whole of the State lottery, and that it
was impossible for them to find a market for the sale of the duly
authorized lottery tickets. In consequence of these representations,
proceedings were taken, under the Act of 1787, to have persons who sold
the illegal tickets apprehended and committed, under the third section,
as rogues and vagabonds. The convictions obtained effectually put an
end to the system, and it was never afterwards renewed.
Here is a specimen of one of these unauthorized lotteries, from
a handbill (1787) of Mr. John Clarke, who had just received from
the Grand Lottery Committee, held at the Royal Exchange, London,
the “Annual Gold Lottery Medal, given to the Author of the best
Plan, or Plans, for the Public to purchase in.” He “submits, with
the utmost deference and respect, his New Plans, for the present
Lottery, to the general perusal. _First Plan_ at Sixpence--_Second_
at Half a Crown--_Third_ at Five and Sixpence--_Fourth_ at half a
guinea--_Fifth_ at One Guinea.” And his scheme was, at 6_d._ If you
were participant in a prize of £20,000, you might receive an annuity
of £20, or a capital sum of £40. If £10,000 prize, annuity of £10, or
£30 money; if £5000, annuity of £5, or £25; £2000 prize, annuity of £2,
or £20; £1000, annuity of £1, or £15; £500, annuity of 10_s._, or £15.
If, however, you paid half a crown, on winning £20,000 you would get
an annuity of £100, or a capital sum of £200; and for a prize of £100,
an annuity of 10_s._, or £50. The other shares of five and sixpence,
half a guinea and one guinea, were based on the same scale, only each
doubled the other.
We read in the _Gentleman’s Magazine_ of this year of a suicide clearly
traceable to lottery speculation, and it gives what purports to be
“a copy of a paper left by the unhappy young gentleman who lately
shot himself with two pistols in Queen Street, Westminster,” wherein
he curses “the head that planned, and the heart that executed, the
baneful, destructive plan of a lottery.”
In this same year, during the debate on cap. 1 before quoted, a member
of Parliament, named Francis, said his own family furnished a striking
instance of the dreadful effects of a passion for gambling in the
lottery. He had given at different times, to a female servant, sums
of money, to the amount of two hundred pounds, to pay his tradesmen’s
bills; but, to his great surprise, he afterwards found that, regardless
of his character, or her own, she had risked the entire sum in insuring
in the lottery, and had lost it. He would have been glad had the loss
of money been the only one, for he would have taken it upon himself;
but the poor woman lost her life within a week after this discovery had
been made, dying broken-hearted and distracted.
In 1788 (28 Geo. III. c. 21) a State lottery, nominally for £480,000,
realized by tender the sum of £750,600, of which the net profit to the
Government was £256,958 9_s._ 8_d._
In this lottery, a guinea share of a ticket drawn, a prize of
£20,000, had been duly registered by Shergold and Co., who sold it,
and acquainted the holder, by letter, that it entitled him to £1500.
This lucky man, who lived in the country, attended his club the same
evening, and imparted the good news he had received. His joy, however,
was considerably damped by a person present, who assured him that
he would never be paid, that his prize was not worth a groat, and
that he himself knew one, at the beginning of the lottery, who had
half-a-guinea share in a prize of £20,000, and was entitled to £700,
but was glad to compromise it for £50. After reciting a variety of
circumstances to the same effect, and cunningly working up alarm to
the highest pitch, he at length told the owner of the prize that he
knew some of the proprietors in Shergold’s house, and he believed
he might be able to get some money where another could get none; he
would, therefore, venture to give £100 for the prize. This proposal
being rejected, he advanced to £200, thence to £300, and at last
to £600, which was accepted. He accordingly paid the money to the
_fortunate_ adventurer, got possession of the prize, immediately set
off for London, and received the £1500 without difficulty. Several
eminent lawyers, on considering the misrepresentations used in this
transaction, were of opinion that it was what is termed a catching
bargain, and advised the owner, who was cozened out of £900, to apply
to Equity for relief. He seems to have been afraid of the remedy, for,
though he took Counsel’s opinion, it does not appear that he followed
it into Chancery.
1789 had its lottery (29 Geo. III. c. 33), bringing in the Government
£771,562 10_s._, of which £500,000 was distributed in prizes,
leaving a net gain of £258,175 13_s._ About this time there were one
or two somewhat shady lottery office-keepers, notably Mr. Margray
and Shergold--of whom we shall hear more in 1791. In this lottery,
Margray, in his prospectus, says, “So that it may be said, without
any Exaggeration, that by an adventure of a guinea and a half, in
this Plan, a person may become possessed of Prizes of £18, up to
£30,000, considering at the same time, that the Subscription Money
is returned if drawn a Blank, or a Prize of Eighteen pounds, during
half the drawing of the Lottery: Adding to this the Security of the
Office, in which, on the same Spot, Business has been transacted for
upwards of Twenty Years with the strictest Honour and Integrity,” etc.
Shergold and Co. say in their prospectus, “The integrity and solidity
of Shergold’s House have been fully tried and proved. They give
clear, plain reference to eminent Bankers where any one can satisfy
themselves. They possess and have merited the public confidence in a
most eminent degree.”
[Illustration]
In 1790 was the usual lottery (30 Geo. III. c. 30), when £500,000 was
distributed in prizes, and the Government netted £277,606 3_s._ 1_d._;
and in 1791 another (31 Geo. III. c. 53), same amount given in prizes,
net Government profit £291,108 10_s._ 7_d._
In 1791, at Covent Garden Theatre, was produced a comedy called _The
School for Arrogance_, and the prologue was spoken by a news-hawker,
who, “_after sounding, and calling 'Great News!’ without, enters with a
postman’s horn, newspapers, cap, and livery_.”
“Great news! here’s money lent on bond, rare news!
By honest, tenderhearted, Christian Jews!
Here are promotions, dividends, rewards,
A list of Bankrupts, and of new-made Lords.
Here the debates at length are, for the week;
And here the deaf and dumb are taught to speak.
Here Hazard, Goodluck, Shergold, and a band
Of gen’rous gentlemen, whose hearts expand
With honour, rectitude and public spirit,
Equal in high desert, with equal merit,
Divide their tickets into shares and quarters.
And here’s a servant maid found hanging in her garters!
Here! here’s the fifty thousand, sold at every shop!
And here’s the _Newgate Calendar_, and drop.”
That portion relating to the lottery office-keepers is, evidently, “rit
sarcastical,” for both Shergold and Margray, who had brought their
honour and integrity before the public, were convicted of evading
the law, by a peculiar mode of dividing and insuring tickets; and in
Michaelmas Term, 1791, the question was argued, in the King’s Bench,
whether the sellers of their receipts were liable to be apprehended
and committed as vagrants under the Lottery Act of 1787, and the Court
decided that they were vagrants within the true intent of the Act.
One at least was committed to the Fleet, for here is his moan and
plaint from that place of confinement:--
“READER,
“Look to the following Caution, which
has been published by Order of the Stamp
Commissions.
SHERGOLD & CO., MARGRAY & CO., &C., &C., &C.
CAUTION TO THE PUBLIC.
“It is hoped that the following Affidavit of _Nicholas Williams_, late
of Exeter, Coal-dealer, will serve as a Caution to all Vendors of
illegal LOTTERY SHARES, not to offend against the Statute in future.
“In the Exchequer, between _Richard King_ and _Nicholas Williams_.
_Nicholas Williams_, late of the City of Exeter, in the County of
Devon, Coal-dealer, but now a Prisoner in His Majesty’s Prison of the
Fleet, and the Defendant in the above Cause, maketh Oath, and saith,
that about the 9th Day of October last, he, this Deponent, received
a Letter, dated the 7th Day of the said Month of October, signed _W.
Sherman_, which is now in the Defendant’s custody, including several
Pieces of Paper, with the Name _Shergold and Co._ written thereon;
which Pieces of Paper were therein described as Share Receipts, by
which this Deponent understood was meant legal Shares in the Irish
Lottery; and this Deponent was desired to sell the same, and for which
he was to be allowed £10 per cent. for his Trouble.
“And this Deponent further saith, that being ignorant that the said
Pieces of Paper were _illegal Shares of Lottery Tickets, and liable
to a Penalty of £50, for the Sale of each_, he, this Deponent, did
sell several such Pieces of Paper, signed _Shergold and Co._, and
for which Offence, the Commissioners of the Stamp Office, as this
Deponent had been informed and believes, ordered this Prosecution to
be commenced against him for £500 Penalties, incurred by such Sale, as
aforesaid. And this Deponent further saith, that on applying to the
House of the said _Shergold and Co. No. 50 Lombard St._ for Assistance
in bailing him from Prison, it was refused, and, therefore, he was
carried to Jail; and this Deponent now remains there, in Consequence
thereof, at the Mercy of the said Commissioners of the Stamp Office.
And this Deponent further saith, that he never knew the person of the
said _Shergold_ whose name is signed to the before mentioned Pieces of
Paper, nor does he believe that there is, in being, any such Person.”
His brother brokers sat heavily on this “Mrs. Harris,” and said and
published hard things concerning the peccant firms. In one handbill,
premising that the printer of a morning paper had been fined £100 for
inserting in his paper the advertisements of Shergold and Margray, and
noting that every printer throughout the realm was liable to a penalty
of £50 for inserting one of their advertisements, _inter alia_, it
says, “After the solemn Declaration of Lord Kenyon, upon the Bench,
that Shergold and Co. and Margray and Co., and all of their Description
were the most PROFLIGATE, the most INFAMOUS and the most ABANDONED of
Mankind”--“_Shergold and Co._ (and, when I mention one Impostor, I mean
all) sell a _Thing_--a Slip of Paper--a printed Scrap--for SIX GUINEAS,
which, according to fair and honest Calculation, is not worth SIX
PENCE: Here in the First Instance is a most _Infamous Fraud_. _Shergold
and Co._ pretend to have a real and responsible Existence:--Now it
is well known, that there are no such Persons living--no Person of
the name of _Shergold_, that dares to answer for the iniquitous
Transactions of that scandalous House. Consequently, assuming a false
Name, for illegal Purpose, is an _Infamous Fraud_.” And very much more
to the same purpose.