The “Missing Word Competition”: its rise and fall.
Lotteries being universally known to be illegal in England and
Scotland, no attempt has been made to revive them in their old form,
since their illegality has been definitely pronounced; but very many
ways of evasion of the law have been practised, sometimes with much
temporary success. Sometimes they developed into downright swindles,
and then they cured themselves; and this has been the fate of most of
the so-called “competitions.” But the greatest of these modern-times
lotteries, and one which permeated the land throughout its length and
breadth, was the “Missing Word Competition” which was so rife in 1892.
It was eagerly taken up by several weekly periodicals, but,
undoubtedly, the favourite competition was in _Pearson’s Weekly_. For
some time the public did not “catch on” to the scheme, and for the
first nine months their interest in it was comparatively languid,
the sum subscribed by the one shilling entrance fees only averaging
about £500 weekly; but, during the next three months (fifty-three
competitions being issued in all), the competition waxed fierce, and
when it was stopped, the proprietor of the magazine was in receipt,
for the competition in the number for December 10, 1892, of nearly
£24,000, which represented nearly half a million entries. No one doubts
but that these amounts were fairly divided amongst the winners, the
proprietor of the paper recouping himself by the enormously increased
circulation of his periodical. In the case of _Pearson’s Weekly_, its
normal circulation was about 350,000 a week; at the end of 1892 it
stood at 1,050,000 copies. Nor was this all. The correct solution of
the puzzle was not at once inserted in _Pearson’s Weekly_. Oh dear, no!
if you were impatient to know your fate, you had to buy next Thursday’s
_Society News_, which thus got a fictitious circulation, to the great
benefit of the conjoint proprietor’s pocket. And it became of such
importance, that as much as £350 a week was paid in salaries to persons
employed in dealing in various ways with the selections sent in.
It was, for a time, a veritable _furore_, which seized in its grip all
sorts and conditions of folk, the old as well as the young, and formed
such a topic of conversation as to be absolutely sickening. The _modus
operandi_ is best described by the paper itself. Let us take an extract
from _Pearson’s Weekly_ of December 10, 1892, the competition therein
contained being the one over which there was much litigation.
“The correct word in this competition will be found in the number of
_Society News_, which is on sale at all newsagents first thing on the
morning of Thursday, December 15. Full particulars will appear, as
usual, in _Pearson’s Weekly_ of the following Saturday.
“MISSING WORD COMPETITION. NO. 53.
“On the third column of page 331 is a paragraph about an experiment
with camphor. The last word is omitted. Readers who wish to enter this
competition must cut out the coupon below, fill in this word, together
with their names and addresses, and send it with a postal order for one
shilling, to reach us, at latest, by first post on Monday, December 12,
the envelope marked 'Word.’
“The correct word is in the hands of Mr. H. S. Linley, chartered
accountant, 124, Chancery Lane, London, W.C., enclosed in an envelope,
sealed with our seal. His statement with regard to it will appear with
the result of the competition in the issue for the week after next. The
whole of the money received in entrance fees will be divided amongst
those competitors who fill in the word correctly. It is hoped that
competitions will be posted to Temple Chambers, London, E.C., as early
in the week as possible. Members of the same family may compete, if
they like, and any one may send as many attempts as he or she chooses,
provided that each is accompanied by a separate coupon and a sufficient
remittance. All postal orders must be made payable to _Pearson’s
Weekly_. Coupons also appear in _Society News_ and the _Companion_,
which entitle purchasers to enter for _Pearson’s Weekly_ Missing Word
Competition, on payment of the usual shilling.”
In the place indicated (third column of p. 301) we find the
following paragraph, at the end of which the “missing word” has to
be interpolated: “Here is a little experiment which is well worth
showing to your friends. Procure a bit of ordinary camphor, and from
it break off tiny pieces. Drop these upon the surface of some pure
water, contained in any kind of vessel, and they will immediately
begin to rotate and move about, sometimes continuing to do this for
several hours. The water must be quite clean; for if a drop of oil,
or any grease, is in it, the experiment will not work. But, provided
that nothing of this sort gets in, the little pieces of camphor will
twirl about in a manner that is extremely ----.” No fewer than 472,574
coupons were sent in for this competition, accompanied by remittances
to the value of £23,628 14_s._
No very large sums were made at these competitions (except on one
occasion). Sometimes the successful competitor did not realize much
more than a sovereign; at other times, judging from the experience
of one gentleman, they might get £8 9_s._ 3_d._, as in the “awkward”
competition, or £13 4_s._ 6_d._, as in the following, when the missing
word was “evolved”:--
“Most of our readers will have noticed the fortune-telling automatic
machine in the railway stations and at street corners, and will
remember that the face of it is covered with various coloured
triangles. It is, in short, a handy roulette table, and certain people
have taken to dropping a penny in the slot, and betting upon what
coloured triangle the finger of the gipsy girl will rest. It would seem
as though a new form of gambling had been ----.”
Although the sums won were not large, in comparison with the lotteries
of old, yet the price of the ticket--one shilling only--was not
ruinous, and, as there were no limits to the number of coupons, any one
might send as many as he or she pleased, and if you plunged a bit, and
were lucky, the prize represented a sum well worth having. This was the
plan adopted by one person (Mr. Andrew Tuer), who won the largest sum
on record; but it must be confessed that, previous to this stroke of
luck, he was from £150 to £200 “to the bad.”
The competition was in _Pearson’s Weekly_ for December 3, 1892, and
finished up with a paragraph which dealt with the capacity of a
brick for absorbing water, and engendering consequences which, if
undetected, might be ----. The correct missing word was “awkward,” on
which the record-breaker had plunged seventy-five times, and as each
correct answer was entitled to a prize of £8 9_s._ 3_d._, he netted
a total of £634 13_s._ 9_d._--not altogether an unmixed blessing, as
he states in a letter to the _Star_ of December 21, 1892. “As soon as
my success became known, letters poured in from everywhere--letters
of abuse, letters from persons wanting to beg and borrow, and foolish
letters--all from women these--asking me for the 'tip’ for next week.”
While these competitions were in their infancy, no one heeded them
much; but when they spread as a great social cancer--when every one
was getting tainted with the fever of speculation, and the principal
streets of London were literally strewn with _Pearson’s Weekly_, not
bought to read, but to tear out the coupon page and then throw the
rest away--it was felt necessary that something should be done in the
matter. At first there was a little difficulty, arising not only in the
glorious uncertainty of the law on the matter, but from the fact that
most of the periodicals publishing these competitions were printed and
published within the precincts of the city of London, and the _patres
conscripti_ hesitated to commence litigation of which no man could
foresee the issue.
At last one was found outside the sacred pale, and its prosecution was
understood to be a test case; and on December 13, 1892, at Bow Street
Police Court, before Sir John Bridge, the chief magistrate, Mr. Henry
Reichardt, the proprietor, publisher, and editor of _Pick-Me-Up_,
and Messrs. Wertheimer and Lea, the printers, appeared to answer six
summonses for alleged infringements of the Lottery Acts. The summonses
were: (_a_) for publishing in a certain paper called _Pick-Me-Up_ a
scheme for the sale of chances and shares in a lottery known as “The
Missing Word Competition,” contrary to the statute 4 Geo. IV. c. 60,
sec. 41; (_b_) for selling certain chances in a lottery known as the
“_Pick-Me-Up_ Missing Word Competition,” contrary to the same Act;
(_c_) for publishing in the said paper a scheme for certain chances
in a lottery known as “The Weekly Art Competition,” contrary to the
same Act; (_d_) for the sale of certain chances in such lottery; (_e_)
for keeping open at No. 11, Southampton Buildings, a lottery, namely,
drawing by certain lots and coupons in a lottery known as “The Missing
Word Competition” of the same paper, contrary to 42 Geo. III. c. 119,
sec. 2; and (_f_) for suffering to be played and drawn, by means
of coupons, a lottery called “The Weekly Art Competition,” contrary
to the same statute. In this latter competition it was requisite to
send in lists of what the competitors thought were the best pictures
in a particular issue of the paper in question, with, of course, the
inevitable shilling.
The proceedings were taken at the instance of the public prosecutor.
The offence was proved, and the defence was that these competitions
were no lotteries. The magistrate, however, thought differently, and,
in giving his decision, said that if the scheme was one of risking
money, or gaining it by chance, then, undoubtedly, it was a lottery. On
the other hand, if it was carried out by skill and judgment, it would
not be one. The question whether it was chance or judgment must depend
upon a proper construction of the facts of the case. With reference
to the missing word competition, a good deal was to be said for the
contention as to the question of chance or judgment depending on the
selection of a particular word, or only of a proper word, which latter
would require skill. The defendants did not pretend to say that they
called for the selection of the proper word, or the word which would
be suitable to complete the sentence. Therefore, on that ground, he
thought that this case, as regarded the missing word competition, came
within the scope of the Act. With regard to the “Art Competition” the
case appeared to be slightly different, as it might be said that the
competitors might have to exercise judgment in deciding whether they
were artistic or not; but, looking at the whole case, it seemed to him
that persons were induced to stake their money upon chance, and he
must therefore convict, but should only impose the nominal penalty of
a shilling fine upon each summons. An appeal against this decision was
talked of, but never acted on.
Now, then, dismay fell upon the other culprits. Mr. Pearson
discontinued his competitions, and the money he had in hand was
impounded, and paid into the Bank of England for safe custody. Then
arose a curious state of things. Of course Mr. Pearson could not claim
the money--he had no right to it--nor could it be paid to the winners,
because it had been decided to be illegal. No one could keep it,
because it was not theirs, nor could it be confiscated, or given, as
some suggested, to hospitals and charities. The only remedy seemed to
be for some of the prize-winners to enter suits in Chancery against
Mr. Pearson for the payment of what they considered their due; and this
was done in two instances, which were tried on February 8, 1893, in the
High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, before Mr. Justice Stirling,
who, at the end of a long and elaborate summing up, thus delivered
himself:--
“As regards the defendant Pearson, no imputation is, or can be, made
on his good faith and honesty. He appears to have carried through a
large number of competitions without any interference, and the abrupt
termination of the competition in question was brought about by the
criminal proceedings against another person, to which I have already
referred. He is in some difficulty, through having destroyed the
coupons of the unsuccessful competitors, but no claim is now made to
the fund by any person except those represented by the plaintiff, and
the defendant Hearn. Under these circumstances, it would seem the best
and simpler course that the fund should be returned to the defendant
Pearson, who will then be able to defend himself, by means of it,
against any legal claims, and to dispose of the surplus in such way
as he may deem himself, in honour, bound to apply it. If, however,
this course should not commend itself to him, I am willing, in this
particular case, and without establishing a precedent, that the fund
should remain in Court, whereby there will accrue a benefit, in the
first place, to the legal profession, and, ultimately, I hope, to the
public, in whose favour it may be fairly expected that there will
result, at some date more or less remote, an extinguishment of some
portion of the National Debt.”
The finale to this lottery took place on March 27, 1893, when the
case of “Matthews _v._ Pearson” came before Mr. Justice Stirling in
Chambers. It was ordered, by consent, that the sum of £3566 4_s._,
paid into Court in this action, being the amount contributed to the
missing word competition, No. 7, in _Pearson’s Society News_, should be
paid out to the defendant Pearson, on his undertaking to pay the costs
of all parties to the action, as between solicitor and client. It is
understood that Mr. Pearson will pursue the same course with reference
to this fund as in the previous cases, viz. will pay the prize-winners
the amount due to them, less a deduction for costs.
It is said that Mr. Pearson has honourably fulfilled his pledge to the
public.
And now to wind up with an anecdote.
It was where two roads bisected, and a matter-of-fact policeman was on
the kerb, keeping watch on the four ways.
Then there appeared upon the scene a “Salvation Army Man,” who, after
a little time, gathered an audience of two or three girls and boys.
To them he addressed the message of salvation, inviting the juveniles
to “come and be washed,” etc.; and, at the end of this exordium, he
blossomed forth emphatically, emphasizing each paragraph with one fist
in the other palm. “HE spake the WORD, and Peter spoke it” (_pause_).
“And Paul spoke it” (_pause_), “Have you read the WORD?” (_pause_). “Do
you know the WORD?” (_long pause_).
And then came the inevitable policeman who, ungently pushing the
preacher on the shoulder, said gruffly, “You get away, young man; you
know it ain’t right. We can’t have no 'Missin’ Word Competitions’ 'ere.
You know they’re illegal, so just stow it.”
[Illustration: NO LUCK!]
“Throw Physic to the Dogs” for me.
The best composing draught’s a Fee;
For sinking Chest, low pulse, or Cold,
There’s no Specific equals Gold.
INDEX.
A
Aarones, Joseph, 86
Abolition of Irish lotteries, 130
Adam’s Adelphi Lottery, 80
Adelphi Lottery, 80
Alterations in drawing tickets, 130
“Altogether!” 191
Anecdote by Theodore Hook, 311
Anecdotes of luck, 204, 205, 213, 214
Anecdotes of the lottery, 327
_Annual Register_, 87
Apophoreta gifts, 3
Armour lottery, 24
Armouth and the lottery of 1568, 23
Art Union Act, 331
Attempts to put down lotteries, 217, 221
B
Baddeley, Richard, 34, 42
Baker, Robert, and lottery gambling, 159
Baker’s evidence before the Commission, 301
Ballad of 1826, 274
Banks, Miss Sophia, 85
Bank of England, fraud on the, 97
Bartholomew, Christopher, and insurance, 306
Bennet, Secretary, 35
Bennett, Captain Edward, 34
Bish, T., 127, 145
---- on the last lottery, 283
Bish’s enigmatical handbill, 169
---- lottery alphabet, 162
---- poetic effusions, 152, 180, 182, 191, 214, 218, 222, 261
---- “Public Prizes,” 174
Blue-coat boys and the lottery, 79, 82
Book lottery, 44
Bowyer’s lottery, 139
Boydell lottery, 133
---- Shakespeare winner, 138
Branscomb, James, 127
Branscomb’s agencies, 129
Brighthemston and the lottery of 1568, 23
British Museum, formation of, 69
Business of the offices of the lottery, 321
C
Cale, Nathaniel, 35
“Caleb Quotem,” 236
“Captain Bobadil,” 237
Chances of winning, 67
Child, Francis, 45
City Lottery, 149
Clarke, John, 108
Corbett, Francis, 32, 33, 39
Counterfeiting lottery tickets, 86, 87
“Cowslip,” 231
Cox’s Museum lottery, 75
Crosland, Sir John, 34
Curious handbills, 218, 219
---- lotteries, 88
D
D’Aguilar, Baron, 131
_Daily News_, extract from, on lottery superstition, 213
De Duras, Marquis, 42
Death of the State lottery, 276
“Dennis Brulgruddery,” 198
Denny, Daniel, 87
Des Marces, Sir Anthony, 33, 34, 42
Dethier’s “Twelfth Cake Lottery,” 331
“Dialogue,” a, 245
Disposal of “Missing Word Competition” money, 350
Drawing of the lottery, description of, 312, 319
Drebbel, Cornelius, 29
Dupuy, Lawrence, 33, 34, 42
E
Earliest lottery ticket, 85
East Greenwiche and the lottery of 1568, 23
End of the lottery, 258
England, first lottery in, 5
----, number of lotteries in, 42
English slave-ransom lottery, 32
“Enigma,” an, 187
Epitaph suggested for Vansittart, 221
---- on the last lottery, 285
Evil of lotteries, 40
Extravagant prices for tickets, 74
Eyck’s lottery, 4
F
“Farmer Acres,” 226
Fielding’s song of the lottery, 1
Finochelli, Francisco, 33
First lottery in England, 5
Fishing vessels lottery, 31
Footman’s plan to spend expected prize, 311
Foreign lotteries, 331
“Fortune’s Ladder,” 165
“Fortune’s Train,” 218
G
Gage, George, 30
Gambling lottery, 33
_Gentleman’s Magazine_, 61, 66, 72, 103, 109
“Gently over the Stones,” 188
Glasgow lotteries, 330
“Gretna Green,” 214
Guinea lottery, 71
Gurney, Rev. W., and lottery gambling, 157
H
Hale, Pagen, 73
Hambleton, Colonel, 30
Handbills, 162, 180, 189
Harefield lottery, 25
Hastings and the lottery of 1568, 24
Hazard’s poetical handbills, 175
Historic lottery, 139
Holland’s wager, 67
Holophusikon, 104
Hone’s account of the last lottery, 267
Hook, Theodore, 311
Hornsby and Co., 119
I
Illegal insurance checked, 125, 130, 131
Insurance of lottery numbers, 296, 306
Insuring lottery tickets, 120
Irish Land Lottery, 31
---- lotteries abolished, 130
---- religious lotteries, 335
Islington miser, the, 131
J
“Jerry Sneak,” 262
“Jolly Dick,” 234
K
Killigrew, Thomas, 41
Knight, Sir John, 35, 36
L
“Lady Betty Modish,” 230
“Lady Mary Mousetrap,” 235
Last lottery, 265
---- ----, epitaph on, 285
“Last of the lotteries,” 280
Launston and the lottery of 1568, 23
Leheup’s fraud, 70
Lever, Sir Ashton, 103
Lever’s lottery, 106
“Little Goes,” 287
L’Ocha di Catalonia, 33
_London Magazine_, 66
London water supply lotteries, 29, 30
“London and the Lottery,” 182
Loseley House, lottery record in, 5
Loss to the public by lotteries, 301
Lots, early history of, 2
Lottery alphabet, 162
---- anecdotes, 327
---- drawing, description of, 319,
---- frauds, 79, 81
---- gambling, Parliamentary inquiry, 156
Lottery handbills--
A Prize for Poor Jack, by Jack Junk, 214
A Valentine, 173
Altogether, 191
An Enigma, 187
Bill of lottery in Queen Elizabeth’s reign, 5
Caleb Quotem, 236
Captain Bobadil, 237
Cook-maid, 279
Cowslip, 231
Cox’s Lottery, 77
Dennis Brulgruddery, 198
Farmer Acres, 226
Freeholds and Fortunes, 152
Fortune’s Ladder, 165
Fortune’s Train, 218
Gardener, 280
Gently over the Stones, 188
Green-grocer, 280
Gretna Green, 215
Jerry Sneak, 262
Jolly Dick, 234
Kitchen-maid, 279
Lady Betty Modish, 230
Lady Mary Mousetrap, 235
London and the Lottery, 182
Master and Man, 189
Miss Vixen Vinegar, 233
Mrs. Pry, 263
Mother Goose, 228
Queen Dollalolla, 232
Public prizes, 174
Sam Swig, 229
Shakespeare’s “Seven Ages,” 200
Sir Gaby Guttle, 227
Sir Simon Slenderwit, 264
Sir William Courteous, 261
Sweethearts and Gold, 176
The Doubt, 177
The Lottery Alphabet, 162
The Persian Ambassador, 184
The Philosopher’s Stone, 163
The Race of Fortune, 247
The Tradesman, 154
The Wish, 248
Three Royal Weddings, 222
Twenty Thousand, 180
Ways and Means, 219
Lottery numbers, insurance of, 296
---- office agencies, 129
---- ---- keepers, 293
---- ---- ---- licensed, 90
---- ---- ----, prosecution of, 114
---- record in Loseley House, 5
---- superstition, 213
---- ticket, the earliest, 85
---- ---- advertisement in _Post-Boy_, 210
---- tickets, 238
---- ----, counterfeiting, 86, 87
---- ----, insurance of, 120
----, the last, 265
---- wheels, description of, 312, 318
Lotteries, attempts to put down, 217, 221
Lotteries, curious, 88
----, derivation of, 3, 4
---- disconnected from loans, 91
----, discontinuance of, 258
----, earliest records of, 4
---- introduced into England, 5
----, loss by, 301
----, method of starting, 147
----, Parliamentary inquiry into, 156
----, suppression of, 50, 107
----, suspension of, 29
----, unauthorized, 108
Louth and the lottery of 1568, 23
Lucky lottery tickets, 205
Lyttleton’s resolutions in the House of Commons, 224
M
Maimed soldiers’ lottery, 32
Mainwaring, Everard, 29
Marcelli, Simon, 33
Margray, Mr., 112
Marriage portions by lottery, 56
“Master and Man,” 189
Military officers’ lottery, 45
“Miss Vixen Vinegar,” 233
Missing Word Competition, 339
Mitford’s (Miss) lottery ticket, 205
Morocco men, 298, 302
“Mother Goose,” 228
“Mrs. Pry,” 263
N
Noah, Samuel, 86
Norwich and lotteries, 40
O
Ogilby’s book lottery, 44
P
Parker, Michael, 29
Parkinson, James, 107
Parliamentary inquiry into lotteries, 156
_Pearson’s Weekly_ competitions, 339
Penalties on private lotteries, 59
Penny lottery, 48
“Percy Anecdotes,” 212
“Persian Ambassador,” 184
Peyto, Sir Edward, 30
“Philosopher’s Stone,” 163
Physician’s Fortune, 327
_Pick-Me-Up_ and Missing Word Competition, 346
Pickett, Alderman, 154
Pigot Diamond Lottery, 128
Pleydell, Captain William, 32
Pointz, Sir Robert, 30
Posies, 17, 19
Posie by Alice Crewe, London, 18
---- Dorothie Hawes, Cheapside, 19
---- Nicholas Martin, Exon, 18
---- Sibbel Cleyon, 19
---- Sir George Speake, Whitlackington, 19
---- Sir Thom. Woodhouse, Warham, 19
---- Thomas Chamberlayne, Horsted Teynes, 19
---- William Dorghtie de Westholme, 19
_Post-Boy_, advertisement in, for lottery ticket, 210
Pounteney, Mrs., 93, 101, 102
Praying for success in lotteries, 74
Price (or “Patch”), Charles, 91
Pricking Book Lottery, 41
Prince Rupert’s jewels lottery, 45
Prisoner’s complaint, 114
Prize, sharp practice over, 110
Prize-winners, 118
Prosecution of lottery-office keepers, 114
---- for insuring lottery tickets, 304, 305
“Public Prizes,” 174
Q
“Queen Dollalolla,” 232
R
Radcliffe and the Lottery of 1568, 23
Raffling, 334
Raine’s Charity, 55
Regulations for lottery drawing, 83
Religious lotteries, 335
Richardson, Goodluck, and Co., 118
Roche, Captain James, 33, 34
Roman lottery, 3
Royal Fishing Company, 41
---- Oak Lottery, 33
Rudge, Edward, 30
S
Sale of ticket twice over, 73
Salvation Army man and “Word Competition,” 351
“Sam Swig,” 229
Saunder, Henry, 29
----, Sir Nicholas, 29
Servants and the lottery, 298
Shakespeare lottery, 135
Shakespeare’s “Seven Ages,” 200
Sharpliffe and the Virginian lottery, 29
Shergold and Co., 110, 112
“Sir Gaby Guttle,” 227
“Sir Simon Slenderwit,” 264
“Sir William Courteous,” 261
Southfleete and the Lottery of 1568, 23
Spaniard’s luck, 204
_Spectator_ on lucky numbers, 208
State lotteries, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 59, 60, 66, 71, 72,
75, 89, 107, 110, 118, 120, 126, 145,
189, 197, 204, 238
----, method of, 89
Story of a footman, 310
Suicides caused by the lottery, 89, 109, 310
Suppression of lotteries, 50, 54, 60, 107
Suspension of lotteries, 29
“Sweethearts and Gold,” 176
Sweet-stuff lotteries, 336
Sydenham lottery, 52
T
Tassie, the winner of the Boydell Shakespeare, 138
Ticket sold twice over, 73
_Times_ on “Little Goes,” 287
“The Doubt,” 177
“The Race of Fortune,” 247
“The Wish,” 248
Theft of tickets, 75
Thornton’s Royal Botanical Lottery, 193
“Three Royal Weddings,” 222
Tomkins’s picture lottery, 252
Tontine lottery, 334
Topsham and the lottery of 1568, 23
Twelfth Cake Lottery, 331
“Twelfth Night Characters” handbills, 225
“Twenty Thousand,” 180
“Two Gold Finches,” 197
Tuer (Andrew) and the Missing Word Competition, 344
U
Unauthorized lotteries, 108
V
Valentine, a, 173
Vansittart’s suggested epitaph, 221
Virginia lottery, 28
W
“Ways and Means,” 219
Wells and the lottery of 1568, 22
“Wheel of Fortune,” 335
---- handbill, 48
Westminster Bridge lottery, 65
Williamson, Joseph, 35, 42
Winchester and the lottery of 1568, 22
Winners of prizes, 118
Y
Yermouth and the lottery of 1568, 22
[Illustration: £10,000 PRIZE!
“My dancing days are over!”]