Launching a lottery--“The City” Lottery for houses--Poetic
handbills thereon--Parliamentary Committee on the
lottery--Report and evidence.
By the 47 Geo. III. sess. 2, c. 9, July 25, 1807, another lottery was
legalized. £700,000 was given in prizes, and a profit resulted of
£308,888 18_s._ 5_d._ And here we may note the method of starting a
lottery, which is taken from a newspaper cutting of February 15, 1807.
“On Thursday morning, the gentlemen who had given in their proposals
for the ensuing lottery, waited upon the Minister to receive his
answer. To the former lists were added those of Messrs. Walsh and
Nesbit, and they then stood as follows:--
“Messrs. Bish and Co.; Messrs. Cope and Co.; Messrs. Richardson, Swift,
and Co.; Messrs. Hensley, Pulley, and Co.; Messrs. Towgood and Co.;
Messrs. Walsh, Nesbit, and Co.
“Lord Grenville opened a sealed paper, which mentioned the lowest price
at which Government would dispose of the lottery, namely, at the rate
of £16 10_s._ per ticket. Upon examination of the several biddings,
it was found that the five former lists had offered each the sum of
£16 2_s._ 6_d._ per ticket, and Walsh and Nesbit £16 1_s._ 1_d._ per
ticket; consequently, the proposals falling short of the lowest sum
which Government had determined to take, the gentlemen were informed
that none of these would be accepted. It was suggested, on the part
of the Minister, that the contractor for the late lottery took it at
several shillings above the prices now proposed; and, from the present
appearance of things, it was likely to turn to a beneficial account.
This was answered by saying that the City Lottery (as it was called),
being about to be drawn, would materially affect the next regular
lottery by diminishing the sale of tickets.
“The conversation terminated without any future day being proposed for
a fresh bidding.
“If no proposition should be made equal to the sum expected by
Government, it is, we understand, intended that the tickets should be
sold to the public at the bank.”
That they did come to terms is evident, for I find in another newspaper
cutting of March 22, 1807, that the present price of--
Whole tickets £19 17_s._ 0_d._
Half ” £10 3_s._ 0_d._ = 20 6 0
Quarter ” 5 3 0 = 20 12 0
Eighth ” 2 12 0 = 20 16 0
Sixteenth ” 1 6 6 = 21 4 0
“The City Lottery,” alluded to above, was a large affair, which took
three drawings, the first of which, consisting of house property valued
at over £100,000, at Temple Bar and Snow Hill, the approaches to both
places having been improved. The scheme of the first drawing is as
follows:--
SCHEME.
First drawn ticket a capital, substantial Freehold
Dwelling House, with extensive warehouses and manufactory,
valued at--
£10,000.
Being No. 44 in SKINNER STREET.
2nd draw, a ditto. No. 13, Skinner St., on lease at £250
per annum.
3rd ” ” ” 46 ” not occupied.
4th ” ” ” 10 ” on lease £225 per annum.
5th ” ” ” 5 ” on lease £185 per annum.
6th ” ” ” 16 ” not occupied.
7th ” ” ” 47 ” ” ”
8th ” ” ” 2 ” on lease £200 per annum.
9th ” ” ” 27 ” ” £180 ”
10th ” ” ” 3 ” not occupied.
11th ” ” ” 12 ” ” ”
12th ” ” ” 1, Pickett Street, Temple Bar,
not occupied.
13th ” ” ” 8 ” ” ”
14th ” ” ” 9 ” ” ”
15th ” ” ” 3 ” ” ”
16th ” ” ” 2 ” ” ”
17th ” ” ” 6, Skinner Street, on lease £150 per annum.
18th ” ” ” 7 ” not occupied.
19th ” ” ” 1 ” on lease £155 per annum.
20th ” ” ” 11 ” ” £120 1_s._ ”
21st ” ” ” 28 ” at the corner of Green
Arbour Court in the Old
Bailey, on lease £105
per annum.
22nd ” ” ” 14 ” on lease £89 3_s._ 4_d._
per annum.
The next drawing took place on April 26, 1808, of which twenty lots,
amounting in value to £104,000, were prizes ranging from the Grand
Hotel, No. 9, Skinner Street, appraised at £25,000, to property worth
£2500. The third and last portion, valued at £101,500, was disposed of
on December 4, 1808, the chief prize being premises said to be worth
£15,700, and the lowest a house put down at £500.
[Illustration: ONE OF THE CAPITAL PRIZES.]
Bish naturally burst into verse on this occasion--his earliest effort
in this direction, as far as I am aware, but the pioneer of countless
rhymes.
“FREEHOLDS AND FORTUNES.
_By_ PETER PUN.
_Tune_--'Drops of Brandy.’
Dame Fortune is full of her tricks,
And blind, as her portraits reveal, sir;
Then the best way the Goddess to fix,
Is by putting a spoke in her wheel, sir;
Her favours the Lott’ry unfolds,
Then the summons to Bish’s don’t scorn, sir;
For, as _her_ Cornucopia _he_ holds,
He’s the lad for exalting your horn, sir.
_Rum ti iddity, etc._
With Poverty who would be known,
And live upon orts in a garret, sir;
Who could get a good _house_ of his own,
And fatten on roast beef and claret, sir;
In the _City_ Scheme this you’ll obtain,
At Bish’s where all folks _pell-mell_ come;
By a Ticket a _Free_-hold you’ll gain,
And it cannot be more _free_ than _welcome_.
_Rum ti iddity, etc._
This House, when you once realize it,
Upholders will look sharp as lynxes,
For an order to _Egyptianize_ it,
With Catacomb fal-lals and sphynxes.
Chairs and tables, a _mummy_ like crew,
With Crocodile Grooms of the Stole, sir,
Sarcophagus _coal_ scuttles too,
And at Bish’s you’ll fill them with _cole_,[22] sir.
_Rum ti iddity, etc._
For, when you’re thus furnish’d in state,
And a pretty establishment got, sir,
Ten to one but it pops in your pate,
You’ll want sticks to be boiling the pot, sir;
Then to Bish’s away for supplies,
For _mopusses_[23] they are so plenty,
You may chuse a _Ten Thousand_ Pound prize,
And, if you don’t like it, a Twenty.
_Rum ti iddity, etc._
Then Bish for my money, I say,
The likes of him never was known, sir;
As _Brulgruddery_ says in the play,
'_That man’s the philosopher’s stone, sir_.’
Then what shall we do for this man,
Who makes all your fortunes so handy?
Buy his Tickets as fast as you can,
And drink him in _Drops of Brandy_.
_Rum ti iddity, etc._”
[22] A slang term for money.
[23] A slang term for money.
Pickett Street owed its name to Alderman Pickett, who, in 1789,
propounded a plan for making it; and between the years 1795 and 1811,
Acts of Parliament were obtained, and, at an expense of over £250,000,
the houses were pulled down, the street widened, and the site let for
long terms to contractors for the new buildings. But, unfortunately, as
Leigh Hunt observed, “They turned out to be on too large a scale,” the
lease-holders being fast ruined, for they had soon expended £850,000
on the buildings, which, since 1802, had remained unlet. At last they
hit upon a plan to release themselves, which was to obtain an Act
of Parliament to enable them to dispose of their interest in their
property, and also other property in Skinner Street and Fleet Market,
by means of a lottery.
“THE TRADESMAN.
The man who depends on the profits of trade,
When debts are collected and bills are all paid,
May think himself happy to find he stands clear,
With Credit still good at the end of the year;
Or, should his endeavours, and constant attendance,
Obtain in the end but a small independence,
’Tis more than is likely, while many as willing,
Strive hard all their lives, and can ne’er save a shilling.
How diff’rent the Chance of the Lott’ry from this,
By vent’ring a trifle, you scarcely can miss:
Your business is done, you may rise beyond bounds,
Possess’d of Ten, Twenty, or Five Thousand Pounds.
Some ground would you gain, with No Land Tax to pay?
’Tis time to look out, and get rich while you may;
New Houses you’ll have, when in April they deal
Estates at Guildhall, from the City’s Rich Wheel.”
[Illustration]
The usual Lottery Act was passed on June 30, 1808 (48 Geo. III. c.
139), but it was only for £600,000--for a reason given below--and the
net profit thereon was £146,527.
This year a Committee of the House of Commons was appointed, to inquire
how far the evils attending lotteries had been remedied by the laws
passed respecting the same, and to report their observations thereon,
as well as upon such further measures as might be necessary by way of
remedy. Pending the completion of the evidence, the committee reported
resolutions to the House, of which the following is the first--the
others being more or less stringent.
“That (if it was thought expedient to continue State Lotteries) the
number in each year should be limited to two lotteries of not more
than 30,000 tickets each; that the number of days allowed for drawing
should be reduced from ten to eight; that the number of tickets to be
drawn each day should be uncertain, and left to the discretion of the
Commissioners of Stamp Duties, and kept secret till the close of the
drawing each day, care being taken, as the lottery proceeded, not to
leave too great a number undrawn on the latter days of drawing, but
that one moiety or upwards, be drawn on the four first days thereof.”
In the report of this Committee, various instances were adduced of
the most serious evils arising from lotteries, by most respectable
witnesses, some of which are so striking, that mention must be made
of them. One case, which was attested by the Rev. W. Gurney, is
particularly interesting, as it shows to what an amazing extent this
kind of gambling will carry persons, who, had it not been for the
temptations held out by lotteries, might have lived with comfort and
respectability, but who, from these kinds of speculations, have been
reduced to the most abject state of poverty and distress.
“I knew,” said Mr. Gurney, “a widow in a good line of business as a
silk dyer, which, I suppose, brought her in about £400 a year, clear.
She kept a very good house, and I was in habits of intimacy with
the family. The foreman she had was in the habit of insuring in the
lottery; he was led astray by an acquaintance, and he and his mistress
insured to the amount of £300 to £400 in a night, although the foreman
had only £30 a year wages. It appeared, on his decease, he had insured
immense sums of money within the last year of his life. I found that
he had expended upwards of 100 guineas in the lottery, purchasing one
ticket at £16, and insuring away the rest. It came up a blank at last,
and I verily believe the disappointment was the cause of his death. He
died insolvent, and I acted as his executor, and paid three or four
shillings in the pound to his creditors. He had received a great many
bills for his mistress which he had never accounted for, and was the
ruin of her also. She was not able to pay three shillings in the pound,
was obliged to go into an almshouse, and died there in four or five
months. They would send all the plate she possessed to raise money to
carry on an insurance, which had, perhaps, begun at a low rate. The
gentleman who drew the foreman into this practice was also ruined by
it. His wife had an annuity of £400 per annum settled upon her; he sold
her life-interest, and she was obliged to live afterwards upon charity,
while her husband, who had formerly kept his carriage and lived in
a good house in Queen Square, spent the last hours of his miserable
existence within the rules of the Fleet Prison.”
Various other instances of a similar kind were mentioned in the
Appendix to the Report of the Committee, where the parties, formerly in
respectable circumstances, were reduced to misery and distress. What,
however, served to mark the evil of lotteries the stronger is--that it
was not only the unsuccessful adventurer that was ruined by the failure
of his speculation, but there were many cases where a successful
speculator had reason to deplore his first connection with this species
of gambling.
Robert Baker, Esq., deposed that “he remembered one very strong
instance of distress arising out of the transactions in the lottery
four or five years ago. It was the case of a journeyman who belonged
to a Club, which Club purchased a ticket which came up the great
prize. The share of this man was £100, or thereabouts; he had been an
industrious working man previously, and he was persuaded by his friends
to invest the money in the Stocks, in the joint names of himself and
wife, in order to prevent his making away with it. He did so, but
soon fell into habits of idleness after he became possessed of the
money; and he wanted his wife to join in the transfer of it. This
occasioned quarrels, which proceeded to assaults; he changed his habits
of industry to those of drunkenness and idleness, he destroyed all his
domestic comfort, and was the ruin of the peace of his family.”
Many other cases of a similar description are given in this Appendix.
In some of them, mothers had neglected their children, and left them
destitute of the common necessaries of life, while the money by which
those necessaries could have been purchased, had been gambled away
in the insurance of certain numbers in the Lottery. In other cases,
the wife had robbed an industrious and careful father of the small
and hard-earned savings of many months, and even of many years; and
he, instead of finding his little treasure in the drawer in which it
was deposited, and which he was about to increase by another small
addition, found that the whole had been gambled away in lottery
speculations, and every article of his clothes, which were not likely
to be immediately wanted, had been pawned, in order to recover the
former loss. In other cases, children had robbed their parents,
servants their masters; suicides had been committed, and almost every
crime that can be imagined had been occasioned, either directly or
indirectly, through the baneful influence of lotteries.
[Illustration]
The Committee, in the course of their Report, declared that, “the
foundation of the lottery system is so radically vicious, that your
Committee feel convinced that under no system of regulations which
can be devised will it be possible for Parliament to adopt it as an
efficacious source of revenue, and, at the same time, divest it of all
the evils of which it has, hitherto, proved so baneful a source.”