The lottery wheels--Anecdotes connected with the
lottery--The Glasgow lotteries--Advertising
foreign lotteries--“Art Union” Act--Dethier’s
“Twelfth Cake Lottery”--Tontines--Raffling--Pious
lotteries--Sweet-stuff lotteries for children--
Hamburg lotteries
The place where the tickets were manipulated by the managers was
afterwards changed from Whitehall to Somerset House, and the
accompanying illustration shows the manner of conveying the lottery
wheels from Somerset House (or Place, as it was then called) to
Cooper’s Hall, in 1808. There were four sledges employed, two carrying
the wheels containing the tickets, and the other two the cases for the
wheels. They were escorted by a detachment of Life Guards, dismounted,
who had to do police duty, there being no police, as we know them, in
those days.
Here, too, may be found room for two or three anecdotes _re_ the
lottery, which have no appointed place.
[Illustration]
“Dr. B____, a physician at _Lime_ (Dorset), a few days since, being
under pecuniary embarrassment, and his house surrounded by bailiffs,
made his escape by a window into a neighbour’s house, from whence
he fled to London. The furniture was seized, and the sale actually
commenced, when it was stopped by a letter, stating that the doctor,
on his arrival in London, found himself the proprietor of the £20,000
prize. We guarantee the truth of this fact” (_Times_, December 27,
1797).
“The £20,000 prize, drawn on Friday, is divided amongst a number
of poor persons: a female servant in Brook Street, Holborn, had a
sixteenth; a woman who keeps a fruit-stall in Gray’s Inn Lane, another;
a third is possessed by a servant of the Duke of Roxburghe’s; a fourth
by a Chelsea carrier of vegetables to Covent Garden; one-eighth belongs
to a poor family in Rutlandshire; and the remainder is similarly
divided” (_Times_, March 19, 1798).
“MANSION HOUSE. A lady named _Free_, who had come up from the country
to try her fortune in the lottery, came to complain to the Lord Mayor
that she had been deprived of her property, the sixteenth share of a
£30,000 prize, by the misconduct of those engaged in conducting the
drawing. She stated that she chose the ticket No. 17,092.
“THE LORD MAYOR.--You had some particular reason, then, for selecting
that number?
“The complainant replied it was true, she had: she wished to have a
ticket with the number of the year in which she was born; and, finding
she could not get that precise number, she took one of 17,000, instead
of 1700, as the most fortunate approach. So, indeed, it turned out to
be, for she was sitting in the hall when the lottery was drawn, and
heard her number distinctly cried out as one of the £30,000 prizes;
and, with her own eyes, she distinctly saw the officer stamp it.
Nevertheless, another ticket had been returned as the prize.
“The LORD MAYOR doubted, from the manner in which the tickets were well
known to be drawn, whether the complainant’s anxiety had not made her
mistake a similar number for her own.
“The complainant.--Oh no! my lord, it is impossible I can be mistaken,
though other people say that I am. I shall not give up my claim on the
word of lottery-office clerks. If there’s any mistake, it is on their
part; I trust to my own senses.
“The LORD MAYOR observed that there was scarcely any trusting even to
the senses on such occasions, and asked her whether she did not almost
feel the money in her pockets at the same time she fancied she heard
her number announced.
“The complainant assured his lordship that she heard the announcement
as calmly as could be expected, and that she by no means fainted away.
She certainly made sure of having the property; she sat in the hall,
and went out when the other expectants came away.
“Mr. Cope, the marshal, who stated that he was in attendance officially
at the drawing, to keep the peace, declared that he heard all the
fortunate numbers announced, and he was sorry to be compelled to state
his conviction that this, belonging to the lady, was not one of them.
“The LORD MAYOR said he was afraid the complainant had deceived
herself. He dismissed the application, recommending her to go to the
Stamp Office, and apply to the Commissioners, who would do anything,
except pay the money, to satisfy her” (_Times_, November 3, 1826).
Although lotteries were declared illegal after that of 1826, the good
people of Glasgow did not think that it applied to them when municipal
improvements were in question, and went into them gaily, until stopped
by an Act in 1834 (4 and 5 Geo. IV. c. 37), passed July 25, 1834, the
preamble of which states the case thus: “WHEREAS an Act passed in the
First and Second Years of the Reign of His Present Majesty, intituled
_An Act to amend certain Acts passed in the Reign of his late Majesty,
King George the Fourth, for opening a Street from the Cross of_
Glasgow _to_ Monteith Row: And, whereas Lotteries have been drawn, and
advertised to be drawn, under colour of the said Act, called _Glasgow_
Lotteries; And, whereas it is expedient to prohibit the drawing of any
further, or other Lottery, after the Lottery announced and advertised
to be drawn as a Third and final _Glasgow_ Lottery in _July_ in this
year,” etc.--it was enacted that any further addition to the lottery
advertised to be drawn in July in that year, or any further continuance
of such lotteries, was illegal.
On August 13, 1836, was passed an Act (6 and 7 Geo. IV. c. 67) which
had been found necessary, “to prevent the advertising of Foreign and
other illegal lotteries,” and the penalty for advertising them was full
costs of suit and a fine of £50, one-half of which was to go to the
informer.
The laws respecting lotteries then slumbered until September 5, 1844,
when was passed an Act (7 and 8 Vict. c. 109) “to indemnify Persons
connected with Art Unions, and others, against certain Penalties.”
Certainly, the _Art Union of London_ and similar institutions were
clearly lotteries, but as they were for a good purpose, and not
for money-making, this short Act was passed whereby art unions and
the members thereof, and other persons, were discharged from all
suits, etc., to which they might be liable, touching the purchase
or distribution of works of art by chance, previous to the periods
mentioned in the Act.
The guardians of the law did not go to sleep, as we see by the
following lottery for Twelfth Cakes, when, on December 26, 1860, Louis
Dethier, a Frenchman, appeared before Mr. Henry, at Bow Street, to
answer a summons under the Act (42 Geo. III. c. 119) for keeping an
office at the Hanover Square Rooms for the purpose of carrying on a
lottery, “under the name, device, and pretence of a distribution of
Twelfth Cakes.”
A police inspector deposed that he went to the Hanover Square Rooms
on November 6, and saw the defendant there, with another person and
four clerks, who were engaged in selling tickets for the proposed
distribution of Twelfth Cakes. On the walls were bills and placards
similar to one produced, which was as follows:--
“Dethier’s Second Extraordinary Distribution of Twelfth Cakes.--£10,000
worth of Twelfth Cakes will be drawn for on 10 successive days, £1000
each day, commencing Wednesday, December 26, 1860 (Sunday excepted).
20,000 tickets now on sale for each day’s draw, at 1_s._ each, can be
obtained at the chief office, Hanover Square Rooms, open from 9 a.m.
to 7 p.m. The following is a list of prizes for each day’s draw:--1
at £25; 50 at £5; 100 at £2; 250 at £l; 300 at 10_s._; 500 at 5_s._;
total, 1201 prizes, amounting to £1000 for each day. All prizes to be
delivered on the following morning after each day’s draw, from 9 to
12 a.m. The successful numbers will be advertised each day in the
morning papers. L. Dethier, son of the late proprietor of the Great
Northern Hotel, King’s Cross, and late Cook to the Emperor of Russia,
begs to return thanks for the kind patronage he received at the last
distribution, during the Exhibition of 1851, which gave such general
satisfaction (see the public press of that period), and trusts the
nobility and gentry will render him the same patronage as upon that
occasion. L. D. having just arrived from the Continent, where he has
purchased a large quantity of goods, of the best quality, and the
most _recherché_ description, for beautifying this splendid and most
magnificent display of Twelfth Cakes, feels assured that this will meet
with general approbation. The Hanover Square Rooms will be open (free)
for inspection from Wednesday, December 19, 1860, to January 6, 1861.
Tickets sent to any part of the United Kingdom on receipt of 13 postage
stamps. Post Office Orders made payable to L. Dethier, Old Cavendish
Street, W.”
The case against Dethier was clearly proved; but it was ultimately
agreed that the lottery should be stopped at once, and that, in the
event of this condition being fulfilled, the prosecution should be
allowed to drop.
But the lottery, as already described, was not its only form--take the
“Tontine,” for instance. This was a scheme by which an annuity, after
a certain rate of interest, is granted to a number of people, divided
into classes, according to their respective ages; so that the whole
annual fund of each class is regularly divided among the survivors of
that class, until at last it falls to one, and, upon the extinction
of that life, reverts to the power by which the Tontine was erected.
It has a singular name, which is derived from its projector, Lorenzo
Tonti, a Neapolitan, who first proposed his scheme in 1653, but did not
then succeed in launching it.
This form of lottery is now, I believe, illegal in England, as is also
“raffling,” which is dependent on the casting of three dice. It is very
old, as Chaucer uses the word “rafles,” and as a gambling transaction.
Dryden thus speaks of it (_The Mock Astrologer_, act iii.)--
“_Wild._ What is the ladies’ game, Sir?
“_Lop._ Most commonly they use rafle. That is, to throw in with three
dice, till duplets and a chance be thrown; and the highest duplet wins,
except you throw in and in, which is called _raffle_; and that wins
all.”
There is no manner of doubt as to the illegality of raffling, yet it is
most prevalent; and at the seaside the evening used not to be complete
without a raffle at the Assembly Rooms, or Library, where also you
could, for a consideration, have a dip in the “Wheel of Fortune,” which
was a lottery pure and simple, as is also every sweepstake, a form of
gambling which is most unblushingly and openly indulged in, and which
sometimes, as in the case of the Bycullah Sweep, assumes enormous
proportions. Nay, piety itself does not disdain the lottery when funds
are needed for any purpose. No one sees any harm in a sawdust tub at a
bazaar, who would shudder at taking a lottery ticket; and I have heard
of such a thing as a pious raffle, on the strict quiet, of the unsold
things from a bazaar, or fancy fair, got up for the benefit of some
religious purpose.
In Ireland they go still further, and I suppose there are few of us
who have not been pestered to take tickets in the religious lotteries
which are freely drawn in the “distressful counthry.” There is a
great sameness in all the Irish schemes, and it is useful to note the
lowness of the price of the ticket, which brings it within the reach
of all, and the bait held out to persons to tout for and sell them. “A
complimentary Ticket is presented with each book of Twenty Tickets;
and, IN ADDITION, each person purchasing, or selling Two Books (Forty
Tickets), will be presented with a Free Ticket for the Special 'ALL
PRIZE’ DRAWING.”--“Every Holder of an 'All Prize’ Ticket is certain to
win a Prize.”
In my estimation, these pious lotteries are on a par with, even if
they are not worse than, the prize-packets of sweets, a lottery which
deludes the very babes; and, though always unfair, gives them a zest
for gambling which they might not otherwise obtain. Of these swindles,
perhaps the following is the last “up to date”:--
“NORTH LONDON POLICE COURT.--Egidio Fabrizi, an Italian confectioner
of Balls Pond-road, Islington, was summoned for keeping premises for
the purposes of a lottery not authorized by Act of Parliament. The
evidence of the police was that the Defendant sold certain sweet-stuff
'turnovers,’ some of which contained money; and, at the time of the
visit of Police-sergeant 35 J, there were fourteen or fifteen lads in
the shops, buying the sweets, in the hope--as admitted--that they
might get a prize. The 'turnovers’ were a halfpenny each, and one
lad, who purchased two, got a penny in one, and nothing in the other.
A boy named James Dewis, who made the purchase, said he and others
frequently bought the sweets, in the hope of getting prizes.--By Mr.
Lushington (Magistrate): There was not a halfpenny-worth of sweet-stuff
in the turnovers--the real value was about four for a halfpenny; but
the value was made up when they got pence.--The Defendant (to whom
the evidence was interpreted) said he was not aware he was acting
illegally. He bought the turnovers from Barrett’s, and they told him
how to sell them. Other shopkeepers in the same neighbourhood sold the
same sort of sweets.--Mr. Lushington convicted the Defendant as a rogue
and a vagabond, and ordered him to pay a fine of twenty shillings, or
fourteen days in default” (_Standard_, April 24, 1893).
But, as if we had not enough of our own sins to answer for, the
foreigner must needs try to dip his hand in the rich “Englander’s”
pocket, and see if some of John Bull’s fabled wealth cannot be made
subservient to him. All sorts of baits have been tried to allure him;
sometimes it would be an ancient castle, or schloss, that was dangled
before his eyes; sometimes it would be like a swindle I have before me,
referring to German Municipal loans.
First of all comes, by post, the scheme of the lottery.
Some silly mortal swallows the bait, send 18_s._, and receives in
return a letter of regret, and a ticket for a lottery in which the man
was never asked to join--leaving a balance in hand of 10_s._, which,
one might safely swear, would never be forthcoming if applied for.
To such proportions did this swindle grow, that the Post Office
authorities had to step in and protect those silly sheep, who were
offering their fleeces to the shearer, by refusing to cash the money
orders; and it must have been effective, as I have not heard of any
foreign lotteries lately.