“Lord Dartrey, afterwards Lord Cremorne, and his lady, with a

gentleman, were at the inn at the time when the duel was fought. They

went into the garden, and endeavoured to prevent the duel; Mr Rowlls

desired his Lordship and others not to interfere; and, on a second

attempt of his Lordship to make peace, Mr Rowlls said, if they did

not retire, he must, though reluctantly, call them impertinent. Mr

England, at the same time, stepped forward, and took off his hat; he

said—‘Gentlemen, I have been cruelly treated; I have been injured in

my honour and character; let reparation be made, and I am ready to have

done this moment.’ Lady Dartrey retired. His Lordship stood in the

bower of the garden until he saw Mr Rowlls fall. One, or two, witnesses

were called, who proved nothing material. A paper, containing the

prisoner’s defence, being read, _the Earl of Derby_, _the Marquis of

Hertford_, _Mr Whitbread, jun._, _Col. Bishopp, and other gentlemen_,

were called to his character. They all spoke of him as a man of

_decent, gentlemanly deportment_, who, instead of seeking quarrels,

was studious to avoid them. He had been friendly to Englishmen while

abroad, and had rendered some service to the military at the siege of

Newport.

“Mr Justice Rooke summed up the evidence; after which, the jury

retired for about three-quarters of an hour, when they returned a

verdict of _Manslaughter_.

“The prisoner, having fled from the laws of his country for twelve

years, the Court was disposed to show no lenity. He was, therefore,

sentenced to pay a fine of one shilling, and be imprisoned in Newgate

for twelve months.”

We have a terrible instance in a man, otherwise amiable in all

relations of life, of the infatuation for the Turf. Lord Foley, who

died July 2, 1793, entered upon the Turf with an estate of £18,000 a

year, and £100,000 ready money. He left it with a ruined constitution,

an incumbered estate, and not a shilling of ready money!

Here are three paragraphs from the _Times_ about this date relative to

racing:

_17th April 1794._ “Poor _Newmarket_ is completely done up! The Spring

meeting boasts so few bets in the calendar of gambling, that the

chance will not pay post chaise hire to the black legs. Thus falls the

destructive sport of the Turf—and, as that is the case, it would do

honour to his Majesty to change the _Kings Plates_ into rewards for the

_improvement of Agriculture_.” This suggestion has been carried out in

the present reign.

_25th May 1795._ “The Duke of Queensberry was a principal loser at

Epsom Races. The noble Duke had his vis-a-vis, and six horses, driving

about the course, with two very pretty _emigrées_ in it. The Duke was

in his cabriolet. The Duke of Bedford, Lords Egremont and Derby were,

also, on the course. Several carriages were broken to pieces; and one

Lady had her arm broken.

“There was much private business done in the _swindling way_ at the

last Epsom Races. One black legged fellow cleared near a thousand

pounds by the old trick of an E.O. Table. Another had a _faro table_,

and was on the eve of _doing business_, when he was detected with

a _palmed card_: almost the whole of what may be justly styled the

‘vagabond gamblers’ of London were present.

“Mr Bowes, half brother of the Earl of Strathmore, was robbed of a

gold watch, and a purse containing 30 guineas, at Epsom races, on

Thursday last. Many other persons shared a similar fate, both on the

same evening, and Friday. Upwards of 30 carriages were robbed, coming

from the races.”

_8th Sep. 1797._ “Never, since _racing_ was patronised by the _Merry

Monarch_, has the Turf been so much on the decline as at this period.

His Grace of Bedford is the only person who retains a considerable

stud. Lord Grosvenor has disposed of nearly the whole of his, with the

reserve of two, or three, capital horses, and some few brood mares.”

CHAPTER XIV

Match between Mrs Thornton and Mr Flint—Its sequel—Daniel Dawson

poisons horses—Origin of Bookmaking—Turf frauds—The “Ludlow”

scandal—The “Plenipo” fraud—Reports of Select Committee on Gaming,

1844.

The singular contest which took place between Mrs Thornton[51] and Mr

Flint in 1804 was the talk of its time. An intimacy existed between the

families of Col. Thornton and Mr Flint, the two ladies being sisters.

In the course of one of their rides in Thornville Park, the lady of

Colonel Thornton and Mr Flint were conversing on the qualities of their

respective horses; the difference of opinion was great, and the horses

were occasionally put at full speed for the purpose of ascertaining the

point in question; old Vingarillo, on whom the lady rode, distancing

his antagonist every time. Which so discomforted Mr Flint, that he was

induced to challenge the lady to ride on a future day. The challenge

was readily accepted, and it was agreed that the race should take place

on the last day of the York August meeting 1804. This curious match was

announced in the following manner:—

“A match for 500 gs., and 1000 gs. bye—four miles—between

Colonel Thornton’s Vingarillo and Mr Flint’s br. h. Thornville by

Volunteer—Mrs Thornton to ride her weight against Mr Flint’s.”

On Sunday, August the 25th, this race took place, and the following

description of it appeared in the _York Herald_:—

“Never did we witness such an assemblage of people as were drawn

together on the above occasion—100,000, at least. Nearly ten times the

number appeared on Knavesmire than did on the day when Bay Malton ran,

or when Eclipse went over the course, leaving the two best horses of

the day a mile and a half behind. Indeed, expectation was raised to the

highest pitch, from the novelty of the match. Thousands from every part

of the surrounding country thronged to the ground. In order to keep the

course as clear as possible, several additional people were employed;

and, much to the credit of the 6th Light Dragoons, a party of them,

also, were on the ground on horseback, for the purpose, and which,

unquestionably, was the cause of many lives being saved.

“About four o’clock, Mrs Thornton appeared on the ground, full of

spirit, her horse led by Colonel Thornton, and followed by two

gentlemen; afterwards appeared Mr Flint. They started a little past

four o’clock. The lady took the lead for upwards of three miles, in

most capital style: her horse, however, had much the shorter stroke of

the two. When within a mile of being home, Mr Flint pushed forward, and

got the lead, which he kept. Mrs Thornton used every exertion; but,

finding it impossible to win the race, she drew up, in a sportsmanlike

style, when within about two distances.

“At the commencement of the running, bets were 5 and 6 to 4 on

the lady; in running the first three miles 7 to 4 and 2 to 1 in

her favour. Indeed, the oldest sportsman on the stand thought she

must have won. In running the last mile the odds were in favour of

Mr Flint. Never, surely, did a woman ride in better style. It was

difficult to say whether her horsemanship, her dress, or her beauty,

were most admired—the _tout ensemble_ was _unique_. Her dress was a

leopard-coloured body, with blue sleeves, the rest buff and blue cap.

Mr Flint rode in white. The race was run in nine minutes and fifty-nine

seconds.

“Thus ended the most interesting race ever ran upon Knavesmire. No

words could express the disappointment felt at the defeat of Mrs

Thornton. The spirit she displayed, and the good humour with which she

bore her loss, greatly diminished the joy, even of the winners.”

This exhibition of herself seems to have fired her ambition, for we

read in the _Morning Post_, Aug. 20, 1805:

“Mrs Thornton is to ride 9 st. against Mr Bromford, who is to ride 13

st. over the York Course, four miles; to run the last race on Saturday

in the next August meeting, for four hogsheads of Coti Roti p.p. and

2000 guineas h. ft.; and Mrs T. bets Mr B. 700 gs. to 600 gs. p.p.;

the 2000 gs. h. ft. provided it is declared to the Stewards four days

before starting, Mrs T. to have the choice of four horses.

“Mr B. to ride Allegro, sister to Allegranti.

“_N.B._, Colonel T., or any gentleman he may name, to be permitted to

follow the lady over the course, to assist her in case of any accident.”

But, on the eventful 24th Aug., for some reason or other, Mr Bromford

declined the race, paid forfeit, and the lady cantered over the course.

Later in the day she really had a race, which is thus described in the

_Annual Register_:

“Afterwards commenced a match, in which the above lady was to ride

two miles against Mr Buckle, the jockey, well known at Newmarket, and

other places of sport, as a rider of the first celebrity. Mrs Thornton

appeared dressed for the contest in a purple cap and waistcoat, nankeen

coloured skirts, purple shoes and embroidered stockings; she was in

high health and spirits, and seemed eager for the decision of the

match. Mr Buckle was dressed in a blue cap, with a blue bodied jacket,

and white sleeves. Mrs Thornton carried 9 st. 6 lb., Mr Buckle 13 st. 6

lbs. At half-past three they started. Mrs Thornton took the lead, which

she kept for some time; Mr Buckle then put in trial his jockeyship,

and passed the lady, which he kept for only a few lengths, when Mrs

Thornton, by the most excellent horsemanship, pushed forward, and came

in, in a style far superior to anything of the kind we ever witnessed,

gaining her race by half a neck; and, on her winning, she was hailed

with the most reiterated shouts of congratulation.

“A sad disturbance took place, in the stand, in the afternoon, in

consequence of a dispute between Mr Flint (who rode against Mrs

Thornton last year) and Colonel Thornton, respecting £1000. Mr Flint

had posted the Colonel on Thursday, and the Colonel recriminated on

Friday. This day, Mr Flint came to the stand with a new horse whip,

which he applied to the Colonel’s shoulders with great activity, in

the presence of a crowd of ladies. All the gentlemen in the place,

indignant at this gross and violent outrage, hissed and hooted him. He

was arrested by order of the Lord Mayor and several magistrates, who

were present, and given into custody of the City runners, until he can

find bail, himself in £1000, and two sureties in £500 each. Colonel

Thornton is also bound over to prosecute the party for the assault.”

The sequel to this story is told in the same Magazine, 5th Feb. 1806.

“In the Court of King’s Bench, an application was made on behalf of

Colonel Thornton, for leave to file a criminal information against Mr

Flint, for challenging him to fight a duel, and horse-whipping him

on the race ground at York last summer, &c. The quarrel arose out of

a bet of 1500 guineas which Mr Flint claims to have won of Colonel

Thornton by the race he rode against Mrs Thornton, whose bets were

adopted by her husband. Whereas Colonel Thornton maintains that,

of the bet alluded to, £1000 was a mere nominal thing, intended to

attract company to the race, and that nothing more than 500 guineas

were seriously intended by the parties. After a full hearing of the

whole case, Lord Ellenborough was of opinion, that the case before the

Court was one in which their Lordships ought not to interpose with

its extraordinary power. On the contrary, he conceived it would be

degrading its process to interfere in favour of such parties in such a

cause. Colonel Thornton had chosen to appeal to the Jockey Club, and

should have abided by their decision. He had, however, not found them

exactly fitting his notion of justice; and, therefore, for every thing

that had happened since, he must have recourse to the ordinary mode of

obtaining redress, namely, by preferring a Bill of Indictment at the

Sessions of the County. The other judges being of the same opinion,

the rule was discharged.” Flint afterwards became very poor, and was

manager at a horse bazaar at York, where he met with his end, according

to the Coroner’s jury’s verdict—“Died from taking too large a dose of

prussic acid as a medicine.”

We now come to a piece of rascality on the turf, which ended in a man

being hanged. The first heard about it is reported in the _Annual

Register_, 6th May 1811. “An occurrence has taken place at Newmarket,

which is the subject of general consternation and surprise among the

frequenters of the Turf. Several horses were entered for the Claret

Stakes, and, as usual, were taken out in the morning for exercise.

They all drank, as we understand, at one water trough. Some time after

they had been watered, six of them were observed to stagger, and then

to roll about in the greatest agony. One is since dead. On examining

the watering trough, it was found that the water had been poisoned.

The horses were the property of Mr Sitwell, Sir F. Standish, and Lord

Kinnaird. Suspicion has attached upon one of the jockies.”

_22nd July, 1812._ “Daniel Dawson was arraigned at the Cambridge

Assizes, on an indictment, with numerous counts, viz., for poisoning

a horse belonging to Mr Adams, of Royston, Herts, and a blood mare

belonging to Mr Northey, at Newmarket, in 1809; and, also, for

poisoning a horse belonging to Sir F. Standish, and another belonging

to Lord Foley in 1811, at the same place. He was tried and convicted on

the first case only.

“The principal witness was Cecil Bishop, an accomplice with the

prisoner. He had been, for some time, acquainted with Dawson, and

on application to him, had furnished him with corrosive sublimate

to sicken horses. He went on to prove that Dawson and he had become

progressively acquainted; and, that, on the prisoner complaining that

the stuff was not strong enough, he prepared him a solution of arsenic.

Witness described this as not offensive in smell; the prisoner having

informed him that the horses had thrown up their heads, and refused

to partake of the water into which the corrosive sublimate had been

infused. The prisoner complained that the stuff was not strong enough;

and, on being informed that if it was made strong it would kill the

horses, he replied that he did not mind that; the Newmarket frequenters

were rogues, and if he (meaning witness) had a fortune to lose they

would plunder him of it. The prisoner afterwards informed witness

he used the stuff, which was then strong enough, as it had killed a

hackney and two brood mares.

“Mrs Tillbrook, a housekeeper at Newmarket, where the prisoner lodged,

proved having found a bottle of liquid concealed under Dawson’s bed,

previous to the horses having been poisoned; and that Dawson was out

late on the Saturday and Sunday evenings previous to that event, which

took place on the Monday. After Dawson had left the house, she found

the bottle, which she identified as having contained the said liquid,

and which a chemist proved to have contained poison. Witness also

proved that Dawson had cautioned her that he had poison in the house

for some dogs, lest anyone should have the curiosity to taste it. Other

witnesses proved a chain of circumstances which left no doubt of the

prisoner’s guilt.

“Mr King, for the prisoner, took a legal objection that no criminal

offence had been committed, and that the subject was a matter of

trespass. He contended that the indictment must fail, as it was

necessary to prove that the prisoner had malice against the owner of

the horse, to impoverish him, and not against the animal. He also

contended that the object of the prisoner was to injure and not to

kill. The objections was overruled without reply, and the prisoner was

convicted.

“The judge pronounced sentence of death on the prisoner, and informed

him, in strong language, he could not expect mercy to be extended to

him:” and the man was duly hanged.

Another gruesome episode of the Turf was the suicide of Mr Roger

Brograve early in June 1813, owing to losses by betting. He was the

brother of Sir George Brograve, and had been a captain in the 2nd

Dragoons, and for some years had betted heavily. Originally, he had a

competent, if not a splendid fortune, but, at the previous Newmarket

meeting, he had lost heavily, and he was known to have lost £10,000 on

the Derby. This he could not meet, and he shot himself. Hundreds of

similar cases might be given, but this one must serve as an example.

That large sums were wagered and lost and won at this time we may learn

from the fact that in 1816 no less a sum than £300,000 is said to have

been paid and received at Tattersall’s in the betting settlement on

that year’s Epsom races.

Of the origin of bookmaking, Mr Dixon (The Druid) has written so well

in _The Post and the Paddock_, that I cannot do better than copy him

_verbatim_:

“Betting between one and the field was the fashion which Turf

speculation assumed in the days of powder and periwigs, and Ogden (the

only betting man who was ever admitted to the Club at Newmarket),

Davies, Holland, Deavden, Kettle, Bickham, and Watts, ruled on the

Turf ‘Change. With Jem Bland, Jerry Cloves, Myers (an ex-butler),

Richard (the Leicester Stockinger), Mat Milton, Tommy Swan of Bedale

(who never took or laid but one bet on a Sunday), Highton, Holliday,

Gully, Justice, Crockford, Briscoe, Crutch Robinson, Ridsdale, Frank

Richardson, and Bob Steward, etc., the art of bookmaking arose, and,

henceforward, what had been more of a pastime among owners, who would

back their horses for a rattler when the humour took them, and not

shrink from having £5000 to £6000 on a single match, degenerated into

a science. All the above, with the exception of two, have passed away,

like the Mastodons, never to return. Nature must have broken the mould

in which she formed the crafty Robinson, as he leant on his crutch,

with his back against the outer wall of the Newmarket Betting Rooms,

and, with his knowing, quiet leer, and one hand in his pocket, offered

to ‘lay agin Plenipo.’

“The two Blands, Joe and ‘Facetious Jemmy,’ were equally odd hands.

Epsom had fired up the latter’s desire to come on to the turf, and

he descended from his coachman’s box at Hedley for that purpose, and

sported his ‘noble lord’ hat, white cords, deep bass voice, and vulgar

dialect, on it, for the first time, about 1812. He did not trouble

it much after he had ‘dropped his sugar’ on Shillelah, though that

_contretemps_ did not completely knock him out of time. His acute

rough expressions, such as ‘_never coomed anigh_,’ and so on, as well

as his long nose, and white, flabby cheeks, made him a man of mark,

even before he got enough, by laying all round, to set up a mansion in

Piccadilly. Joe, his brother, had, originally, been a post boy, and

rose from thence to be a stable keeper in Great Wardour Street; but,

the great hit of his life was his successful farming of turnpike gates,

at which he was supposed to have made about £25,000. ‘Ludlow Bond’ was

not so coarse in his style as this _par nobile_, but ambitious and

vain to the last degree. It was the knowledge of this latter quality,

on the part of Ludlow’s real owners, ‘the Yorkshire Blacksmith & Co.,’

which induced them to put him forward as the ostensible owner of the

horse, as no one would back a horse which was known to be theirs. Bond

liked the notoriety which this nominal ownership conferred on him, and

was, no doubt, a mere puppet, without exactly knowing who pulled the

strings. Discreditable as the affair was, he always gloried in it; in

fact he was so determined not to let the memory of it die out, that he

christened a yearling which he bought from the Duke of Grafton, ‘Ludlow

Junior.’ At times he appeared on the heath on a grey hack, and went

by the nickname of ‘_Death on the Pale Horse_’ and, shortly after the

Doncaster outburst, he came on in a handsome travelling carriage, with

two servants in livery in the rumble.

“Mr Gully, although he did great execution at the Corner in Andover’s

year, may be styled a mere fancy bettor now, and, as a judge of racing

and the points of a horse combined, he has scarcely a peer among his

own, or the younger generation of turfites. His fame at the Corner was

at its zenith a quarter of a century ago, when he was a betting partner

with Ridsdale. Rumour averred that they won £35,000 on Margrave for the

St Leger (1832), and £50,000 on St Giles for the Derby; and it was in

consequence of a dispute as to the Margrave winnings, that the Siamese

link between them was so abruptly dissolved. Their joint books also

showed a balance of £80,000 if Red Rover could only have brought Priam

to grief for the Derby. There was a joke too, soon after this time,

that Mr Gully and his friend Justice descended on to Cheltenham, and

so completely cleaned out the local ring there, that the two did not

even think it worth while stopping for the second race day. One of the

lesser lights was found wandering moodily about the ring on that day,

and remarked to a sympathiser that he was ‘looking for the few half

crowns that Gully and Justice had condescended to leave.’”

In the second quarter of this century the Turf was getting in a

scandalous condition. A fair race was hardly known for the St Leger,

and, in 1827, Mameluke was got rid of by a series of false starts.

In 1832 was the Ludlow scandal, just alluded to. This horse was the

property of a man named Beardsworth, who was such a rogue that no one

would bet on or against his horse, so it was apparently purchased by

Ephraim Bond, the keeper of a gambling house, called the Athenæum

Club, in St James’s Street. In reality it was owned by four people,

Beardsworth, Bond and his brother, and a mysterious fourth party, whose

name was not divulged. Ludlow was beaten by Margrave, a horse owned by

Gully, the ex-prize fighter, who boldly accused Squire Osbaldistone of

being the unknown fourth owner of Ludlow. The consequence was a duel,

in which both combatants had very narrow escapes; Gully especially, for

his opponent’s bullet went through his hat and ploughed a furrow in his

hair.

In 1834 Plenipotentiary, or as it was called for brevity, Plenipo,

the favourite for the St Leger, was undoubtedly “nobbled,” either by

his owner, Batson, or his trainer, George Paine, either of which were

capable of any dishonourable conduct.

There were, afterwards, many minor Turf scandals, but they culminated

in the Derby of 1844 which is known as Running Rein’s Derby, which ran

as a three-year-old, being in reality four years. As this fraud was

the subject of an action, its story may be well told in the following

synopsis of the trial.

IN THE EXCHEQUER.

_July 1._

_Before Mr Baron Alderson._

WOOD _v._ PEEL.

This action, which excited the most lively interest in the _Sporting

World_, arose out of the late Derby race at Epsom, in which a horse

belonging to the plaintiff, called Running Rein, had come in first. It

was alleged, however, that this horse had not been truly described,

that he was not of the age which qualified him to run for the Derby,

and that he ought not, therefore, to be deemed the winner of the race.

Colonel Peel, the owner of Orlando, the second horse, had claimed the

stakes, on the ground that Running Rein was not the horse represented;

and Mr Wood, the owner of Running Rein, brought this action against the

Colonel.

Mr Cockburn, who conducted the plaintiff’s case, gave the pedigree of

Running Rein, and his whole history. Among other things, Mr Cockburn

mentioned that, in October 1843, Running Rein won a race at Newmarket;

that he was objected to on the score of age, but, eventually, the

stewards had decided in his favour. The horse was, originally, the

property of Mr Goodman; and, Mr Cockburn said, it was because suspicion

attached to some transactions of Goodman, and because certain parties

had betted heavily against Running Rein, that opposition was raised

against Mr Wood receiving the stakes. He made a severe attack on Lord

George Bentinck, who, he asserted, was the real party in the cause.

Witnesses for the plaintiff described the horse at various periods of

its career: it was of a bay colour, with black legs, and a little white

on the forehead; its heels were cracked, and in 1842 it broke the skin

on one leg, which left a scar. George Hitchcock, a breaker of colts,

employed to break Running Rein in October 1842, was cross-examined to

this effect:

“I know George Dockeray, the trainer. I never said to him, ‘Damn it,

this colt has been broken before; here is the mark of the pad on his

back.’ I showed him the mark, but I never said those words, or any

words to that effect. I don’t know why I showed him the mark. It was

not big enough for the mark of a pad, and it was not the place for the

saddle to make it. I told Lord George Bentinck the same. The mark of

the pad never wears out. I recollect being asked, in the presence of Mr

Smith, what had I there? and I recollect answering, a four years’ old.

I have not the slightest doubt of it. Mr Smith struck me for it. I did

not say afterwards that I had forgotten all about the horse whipping,

and that the marks of the pad had worn out. I never said, either, that

somebody had behaved very well to me.”

At an early period of the examination of witnesses, Mr Baron Alderson

expressed a wish that he and the jury should see the horse; and Mr

Cockburn said he had no objection. On the cross-examination of William

Smith, a training groom residing at Epsom, it came out that the horse

had been smuggled out of the way, that it might not be seen by the

defendant’s agents. The Judge, animadverting on this, and on the

evident perjury of the witness, said it would be better that the horse

should be seen by him and other parties. The Solicitor-General, who

appeared for the defendant, was anxious that the horse should be seen

by veterinary surgeons. To which the other side objected, maintaining

that the mark of mouth, by which alone these surgeons could judge of

the age of a horse, was a fallible criterion.

On the conclusion of the evidence for the plaintiff, the

Solicitor-General, in addressing the jury for the defence, denounced

the case as a gross and scandalous fraud on the part of the plaintiff.

The case of the defendant was, that the horse was not Running Rein at

all, but a colt by Gladiator, out of a dam belonging originally to

Sir Charles Ibbotson; and that it had the name Running Rein imposed

upon it, being originally called Maccabeus, and having been entered

for certain stakes under that designation. But his allegations were

against Goodman, not against Mr Wood: the former had entered into a

conspiracy with other persons to run horses above the proper age. The

Gladiator colt had been entered for races, under the name of Maccabeus,

before Goodman purchased him; and to run these races while the colt was

in training for the Derby, for which he was entered as Running Rein,

Goodman hired an Irish horse, which he disguised as Maccabeus, though

a year older than that horse. The Gladiator colt, the _soi distant_

Running Rein, when he ran for the Derby in 1844, was four years old,

the race being for three-year-old horses. After hearing some evidence

in support of these statements, the case was adjourned till the

following day.

The next day, when Mr Baron Alderson took his seat on the Bench, a

conversation ensued between Mr Cockburn and the Judge, respecting the

production of the horse. Mr Cockburn asserted that it had been taken

away without Mr Wood’s knowledge, and thus it was out of his power to

produce it; he felt it would be vain to strive against the effect which

must be produced by the non-production of the horse, after the remarks

of the learned judge on that point. After some more conversation,

however, the case proceeded, and two witnesses for the defence were

examined, whose evidence went to prove that Running Rein was, in fact,

the Gladiator colt. Mr George Odell, a horse dealer at Northampton,

said he could swear to that fact; the colt had two marks on one leg.

Mr Baron Alderson remarked—“Now, if we could see the horse, that

would prove the case. Who keeps him away? It is quite childish to act

in this manner.”

Mr Cockburn now stated that Mr Wood was convinced that he had been

deceived, and gave up the case.

Mr Baron Alderson then briefly addressed the jury with much warmth, and

in a most emphatic manner; directing them to find a verdict for the

defendant, observing:

“Since the opening of the case, a most atrocious fraud has been proved

to have been practised; and I have seen, with great regret, gentlemen

associating themselves with persons much below themselves in station.

If gentlemen would associate with gentlemen, and race with gentlemen,

we should have no such practises. But, if gentlemen will condescend to

race with blackguards, they must expect to be cheated.”

The jury found for the defendant, and the effect of their verdict was

that the Derby Stakes went to Orlando, and that Crenoline should be

considered the winner of the Two-Year-Old Plate at Newmarket, run the

previous year.

This ought to have been sufficient roguery, one would think, for one

race, but it was not. A horse named Ratan was so evidently “nobbled,”

that two men connected with it, Rogers and Braham, were warned off all

the Jockey Club’s premises.

And yet another case. A horse named Leander ran in this race, and so

injured its leg that it was shot. Shortly afterwards, it was suspected

that it was four instead of three years old, and on its being exhumed,

_the lower jaw was missing_. The resurrectionists, however, cut off the

head, and veterinary experts confirmed the previous suspicions. For

this, the owners, Messrs Lichtwald, were for ever disqualified from

racing. This case occupied much time before the Select Committee of the

House of Lords.

The Select Committee on Gaming in the Commons in 1844 report

that “Your Committee have some evidence to show that frauds are,

occasionally, committed in Horse racing, and in Betting on the Turf;

but they feel difficulty in suggesting any remedy for this evil, more

stringent, or more likely to be effectual, than those already in

existence.”

The House of Lords reported in similar terms, but they added: “The

Committee have inquired into certain transactions which have, lately,

been brought before the Courts of Law, arising from the fraudulent

practices of Individuals substituting other horses for those named in

stakes which are limited to horses of a certain age, and thus obtaining

the advantages arising from running, at even weights, Three-year-olds

against Two-year-olds, and Four-year-olds against Three-year-olds. The

success, however, which has attended the prosecutions instituted for

the Recovery of the Stakes thus unjustly won, and the rules which the

Committee are led to believe will be, hereafter, strictly attended to,

as to the examination, by competent persons, of all horses which may be

objected to, render it unnecessary for them to make any further comment

upon this part of their inquiry.”

But the Commons Committee reported on another subject, the

Gaming-houses in race towns, and the Gaming-booths on the courses.

“The suppression of Gaming-houses in race towns, and in other places

out of the Metropolitan Police District, is to be effected under the

common law, and under the enactment of Statutes different from the

Metropolitan Police Act. Much laxity and neglect have, hitherto,

prevailed in this respect; and your Committee think that the attention

of Magistrates might, usefully, be directed to this matter. But, if

it should be found that the powers given by the existing law are

insufficient, your Committee would recommend that additional powers

should be conferred.

“Your Committee have found that it is the practice on some race

courses to let out ground for the erection of Gaming-booths, during the

races, in order that the high rents paid by the keepers of these booths

may be added to the fund from whence prizes to be run for are to be

given; and some of the witnesses examined have stated that certain race

meetings, which they have named, could not be kept up, if this practice

were to be discontinued.”

CHAPTER XV

Gambling on Race Courses—E.O. tables—Description of Race

Courses—Evidence before the Committee—Description of the

betting-rooms at Doncaster in 1846—Beginning of tipsters and

betting-rooms.

This system of gambling on race courses began the previous century. In

Canto I. of _The Gambler’s, A Poem_, Lon. 1777, we read:

“But, chief, we see a bricking, sharping sort,

_Span farthing_, _Hustle Cap_, their joy and sport;

The sport of infancy! ‘till riper age

Mature the man, and call him to the stage.

In each shoot forth the dawning seeds of vice,

The growing Jockey, or the man of Dice.

Some prick the Belt, self tutor’d, young in sin,

Anxious to take their wond’ring fellows in.

Here, a surrounding groupe of little Squires,

As chink the brazen belts, Chuck farthing fires:

While _Sçavoir-vivres_ early signs betray

Of bold adventures, and the rage of play.

These, haply shall some future bard engage,

The hopeful _Kelly’s_[52] of the rising age.

But, when maturer years confirm the sin,

And opening minds suck the dear poison in,

Adieu, _Span farthing_! _Hustle Cap_, farewell!

With nobler passions, nobler views, they swell:

Dice, tennis, Cards, inferior sports succeed,

And the gay triumph of the High bred Steed.”

Complaints of racecourse gambling began early in the present century.

In the _Gentleman’s Magazine_ for 1801 (p. 327) we read: “Mr Urban—As

the quarter sessions will take place in most parts of England in

the course of the present month, I wish, through the medium of your

extensively circulated Magazine, to submit to the serious consideration

of the County Magistrates, the absolute necessity for adopting some

vigorous measures, in order to check the career of those infamous

swindlers, who are in the constant habit of attending our fairs and

races with E.O. tables, &c. It is an alarming fact that there is

scarcely a fair, or a race, of the least celebrity, which is not

infested with these villains, many of whom clear £500 annually by

plundering the unsuspecting rustics, who attend such places, of their

property.”

Goldsmith, in his life of Beau Nash, tells us that E.O. was first set

up at Tunbridge, in the reign of George I., and was introduced into

Bath by Nash: and, as the game was a very popular one, I give the

following description of it, as found in Rice’s _History of the British

Turf_:

“The E.O. table was circular in form, and, though made in various

sizes, was, commonly, four feet in diameter. The outside edge formed

the counter, or _depôt_, on which the stakes were placed, and was

marked all round with the letters E.O. from which the game took its

name. The interior of the table consisted of a stationary gallery, in

which the ball rolled, and an independent round table, moving on an

axis, by means of handles. The ball was started in one direction, and

this rotary table turned in the other. This part was divided into forty

compartments of equal size, twenty of which were marked E. and twenty

O. The principle was pretty much as that of roulette without a zero;

but the ingenuity of the proprietors appears, at an early date in the

history of these tables, to have supplied this defect. At first the

game was played on the same terms as hazard then was, viz., whoever

won, or threw in three times successively, paid, when gold was played

for, half a guinea to the proprietors of the table. This, however,

as might have been expected, was too simple and unsophisticated a

method of procedure to last. The game was too fair; but, as it was

very popular, it must be made profitable to the man of business, who

could not be expected to travel from race meeting to race meeting

all over the country, for half guineas in cases of exceptional luck.

Accordingly, he became obliged to take all bets offered either for E.

or for O., and made two of his forty spaces into ‘bar holes.’ The name

sufficiently explains the utility of the device to the keeper of the

table. If the ball fell into either of these ‘bar holes,’ he won all

the bets on the opposite letter, and did not pay to that on which it

fell. Unfair tables, having the compartments of one letter larger than

another, abounded; but there seems to have been little necessity to

cheat at the game, as, with a proportion of two in forty, or five per

cent., in his favour, the keeper should have reaped a heavy harvest of

profit from his venture. The gentlemen who had played the game at the

time when the occasional half guinea was thought enough to remunerate

the proprietor, could hardly have liked the innovation, regarding the

five per cent. ‘pull’ against them as ‘a circumstance which, in the

long run, would infallibly exhaust the _Exchequer_’ much more than the

breeches pockets of the young squires.

The booths at Ascot Heath, and the taverns in Windsor, were, at

race time, great haunts for the keepers of the E.O. tables, some of

whom were respectable men in their calling, and might be trusted to

give twenty, or even more, shillings for a guinea; but the majority,

gambling for twopenny pieces and sixpences, were little, if anything,

better than the thimble-rig and prick-the-garter gentry of that, or

the three-card practitioners of our own, time. Ascot, indeed, was,

then, a race meeting of the first importance, and the week was a fair

of the most attractive character to the Berkshire landlords and their

tenantry. The Oatlands Stakes was transferred to Newmarket from Ascot,

after a memorable race, when a hundred thousand pounds changed hands;

and we read that the Turf was a barren and dreary prospect—for the

losers. ‘Horses are daily thrown out of training, jockeys are going

into mourning, grooms are becoming E.O. merchants, and strappers are

going on the highway.’”

In the _Quarterly Review_ for 1834, a description is given of gambling

at races, as it then was. “Doncaster, Epsom, Ascot, Warwick, and most

of our numerous race grounds and race towns are scenes of destructive

and universal gambling among the lower orders, which our absurdly

lax police never attempt to suppress; and yet, without the slightest

approach to an improperly harsh interference with the pleasures of the

people, the roulette and E.O. tables which plunder the peasantry at

these places, for the benefit of travelling sharpers (certainly equally

respectable with some bipeds of prey who drive coroneted cabs near St

James’s), might be put down by any watchful magistrate.”

The Commons Select Committee on Gaming in 1844 tells us a great deal

about the gambling at Doncaster, during race meetings. A Mr Richard

Baxter was the witness, and he said:

“The extent to which gambling has been carried on, both upon the

course, and in the town of Doncaster, has varied at different periods.

Twenty years ago, in 1824, was my first acquaintance with the matter: I

went, as a stranger, to live in Doncaster, and I found that there were

40 or 50 houses, and men stationed at the doors, and passing up and

down the streets, not only, by word, inviting the passers by to go into

those houses, but putting into their hands cards (one of which I have

here)—

TO NOBLEMEN AND GENTLEMEN.

ROULETTE.

Bank. £1000.

_At Mason’s (the Tailor), Scott Lane._

—explanatory of the game that was going on there, and, without any

secrecy, or reserve, stating the name of the party at whose house the

game was carried on.

“Being a stranger in the town, I went into almost all the houses, and

found them playing, in some with dice, and in some with balls, at the

different games, the names of all of which I do not know: but gambling

was going on to this extent, and no check to it, whatever, was put by

the local authorities. At the same time, upon the race course, the

thimble men were in hundreds, with their tables, as well as by the

roadsides on every approach to Doncaster, playing, and cheating the

people out of their money, as fast as they could induce them to play.

As I was a stranger in the place, I did not think it becoming in me,

at that time, to interfere; and, for two years following, I did no

more than speak upon the subject to the mayor and the magistrates, and

the gentlemen of the town, urging them to take some means to repress

this systematic gambling; but, in the year 1827, which was the third

year, finding that the authorities would take no notice of it, I laid

an information against one of the gambling houses, against Henry

Oldfield, who is a very noted character in gambling. I brought the

owner of the house, who is a very respectable tradesman in the town;

I brought the sister of the owner and his servants; I brought the man

who attended at the door, and invited people publicly, ‘Roulette and

Hazard going on upstairs’; I brought a gentleman, a respectable surgeon

of the town, who had been in the room, and played there. Those parties

I brought before the magistrates, they were examined upon oath. The

owner of the house denied all knowledge of the object for which the

room was let; the gentleman, who had been present, owned that he had

played, but denied his knowledge of the name of the game at which he

played; and, the result was, that the magistrates refused to convict.

No further step was taken in that year; but, in the following year,

without again speaking to the authorities, I represented the matter

to the neighbouring gentry, and the present Lord Fitzwilliam, Mr

Beckett Denison, one of the Members for the West Riding; Mr Childers,

the Member for Malton; and, perhaps, 20 or 30 other gentlemen, in the

neighbourhood, and in the town, joined in an association, professedly,

to repress gambling in the town. The rules of the association were,

that application should be made to the local authorities, and such

legal means taken, as could be made available to induce the authorities

to repress gambling. This was most respectably supported and published.

The consequence was, that we had an _émeute_ in the town: the

inhabitants assembled at a public meeting, a gentleman, who is, now,

one of the Borough Magistrates, was put into the chair, and a regular

set of speeches made against the Anti-Gambling Association, and all

parties concerned. I thought it my duty to go to the meeting; and, of

course, you may suppose, was very warmly received. I told them, very

candidly and freely, my mind upon the subject. They heard me for a

certain length of time; but, finding the chairman refused to let me go

on, I left the meeting, and had the honour of being pelted down the

street on my way home, as a recompense for the advice I had taken the

liberty of tendering them. The consequence of this _émeute_ was, that

our association fell to pieces. I am sorry to say, that the members who

composed it did not choose, in the face of the unpopularity which it

occasioned, to take any further step in it.

* * * * *

“The extent of gambling in Doncaster for the last two or three years

has been from six to twelve of the lower gambling houses and three

of the higher gambling houses. The distinction between the one class

and the other consists in this: that the lower gambling houses are

kept by men who hire a little front shop, open to the street, for the

purpose of taking mere passers-by; the higher gambling houses, many of

them houses of their own, which they have built in Doncaster, for the

purpose of gaming; a third class hire rooms of respectable tradesmen

in the town, and occupy them; and the popular opinion is, that there

are clubs, and knots of gentlemen attached to each of those houses, who

regularly go and play there. Oldfield, against whom the information was

laid in 1827, was the keeper of one of the higher gambling houses, and

I need scarcely state to the Committee that, popular as gambling is in

the town, very strong remarks are made and a very strong feeling exists

in the place, that, if the lower gambling houses are suppressed, it is

unfair to the common people that the higher gambling houses should be

permitted to continue; and, when an information is laid against the

low gambling houses, it is always matter of crimination; ‘Why did you

not lay it against the gentlemen’s houses? you are laying it against

the houses of the poor people, but you will not lay it against the

houses of the gentlemen.’ Another circumstance connected with the races

I may mention as a great public nuisance is, that the betting room,

which is a building erected simply for the purpose of betting, is open

on a Sunday, to the public, as on any other day, and during the time

of Divine service in the evening more people, I am sorry to say, are

assembled at the betting rooms than at church; and there is a continual

crowd filling half the street in front of the betting rooms the whole

of the Sunday evening. A representation on the subject was made to

the Chief Magistrate at the time, and the only answer we got to the

representation to him was that he would communicate with the parties

and endeavour to have it closed: it was closed during the morning and

afternoon services, but it was open to the public, as before, during

the evening service, and hundreds of those who are called gentlemen

were assembled there betting, and all the affairs of the races going on

quite as publicly as on any other evening of the week.

“1024.—With regard to gambling on the race course, whether by

thimble-riggers, or by roulette, or any other kind of gambling, whether

in booths or not, are the Committee to understand that that has of late

years entirely ceased to exist?—That has been suppressed.

“1025.—By the interference of the police?—Yes.”

A Mr John Rushbridger, who had charge of the ground at Goodwood, on

which the races were held, was examined, and he deposed that there were

only two gambling booths on the course, which paid £125 each for the

privilege; whilst refreshment booths were only charged 10s. or 15s.

They endeavoured, as far as possible, to keep thimble-riggers off the

course.

The Clerk of the Course at Egham said there used to be eighteen

gambling booths on the course, but now there were only fourteen,

which produced a rental of £240; but a portion of the grand stand was

let for gambling purposes, and that brought in a further sum. The

thimble-rigmen were allowed on the course, as far as the distance-post,

and formerly used to pay for the permission.

A Timothy Barnard was examined, and said he speculated in race courses.

At Egham he paid the Lord of the Manor £300 for the race course, and

cleared £240 by the gambling booths. He gave £600 for Epsom course, but

could not give £300 if he were deprived of the privilege of letting

gaming booths, because they were the mainstay of the other booths, such

as the publicans’ booths; many having their liquors and wines of them,

and therefore the publicans would not give near as much for the ground,

except for those booths. They made the thimble-riggers pay 5s. or 10s.

to be allowed on the course; they were given a little ticket which they

were obliged to wear in their hats, or their tables would be taken from

them.

In _Bentley’s Magazine_ for 1846 we get a good account of the working

of the betting rooms at Doncaster. The subscription was a guinea, and

the number of subscribers was from 1000 to 1200. “The rent paid by the

proprietary for the premises is said to be £500 per an.; but this is

reduced in its amount by the circumstance of the rooms being let off

for trading, or warehouse purposes, during ten months of the year; and

taking this reduction at the reasonable sum of £150, it would leave

£350 as the rent from the estimated subscriptions of £1050, which would

give a clear surplus of £700 per an., which alone would be a large

return of profit. But other sources of income and annual return are

open to the proprietary, by the sale of wine, spirits, soda water, and

divers refreshments, which are in almost constant demand in the great

room throughout each evening, and partially so in the day. The prices

at which these articles are sold are by no means so moderate as they

might be, even to secure a fair and liberal compensation for their

outlay, and must, on the most moderate calculation, yield £100 clear at

least in the week.

“But the _El Dorado_ or grand source of income and wealth to the

proprietors arises from the prolific revenue of the play or gaming

tables, of which there are usually six in constant nightly operation

during the racing week. The proprietors of the Subscription Betting

Rooms are not ostensibly connected in the co-partnership of the banks,

or in the business of the tables, but they are nevertheless largely

interested in the successful issue of the week, as will be shown. In

the first instance it should be stated that the sum of £350 or £400 is

_paid down_ to them by the party contracting for the tables and for the

privilege of putting down the banks. This is all clear profit, paid in

advance and without any contingency; and in addition to this apparently

large sum, so paid for the mere privilege of finding capital, there is

a stipulation also on the part of the proprietors of the rooms that

they shall receive a considerable part or share of the whole clear

profits, or gains, of the week accruing from the tables, and this

without the risk of a single shilling by them under any unlooked-for

reverse of fortune.

* * * * *

“The play tables at the Betting Rooms, are, as before noted, six,

or seven, in number, and of variety in the games played thereat. The

roulette tables attract the crowd, as well as for the reason that the

game opens to the player many modes of proportionate risk, as that it

affords him opportunity to play smaller sums on any one event, than he

can at hazard. At the former game, the lowest stake is half a crown;

at the latter, nothing less than the regal coin of a sovereign is

permitted. The pull, or percentage, of roulette against the player,

being, however, nearly five times that of hazard, the small stakes

played realise as large a result to the bankers. It requires all

the vigilance of a player to guard his interests at this game; for,

generally speaking, there is much confusion in the distribution of

money staked by the many adventurers, on the numbers, and other points

of speculation attaching to the game; and dispute, not infrequently,

arises between two or three different claimants for the produce of some

fortunate, or winning result. These contested claims often arise from

inattention in the player to the exact position of his money on the

board, but are, sometimes, occasioned by the attempt of some sharping

knave to possess himself of something which does not belong to him.

The officials at the table, too, are most dexterous in their practical

avocations,—more particularly so in the principle of drawing the money

from the losing points of the game, immediately the winning number,

&c., is called. The rapidity with which this operation is performed, is

most remarkable, and gives immense additional advantage to the bank;

for, it very often happens that, in the general sweep, the adroit

croupiers rake off much more than they are entitled to; while, on the

other hand, they can never, under any circumstances, be called upon to

pay more than the loss attaching to the event.”

Doncaster is now, I believe, very much purified, but Sir George

Chetwynd describes the gambling that went on there in 1869. “How

changed is Doncaster now, from what it was in those days! Then, after

dinner, you would go to the subscription rooms and back horses for

the Cesarewitch and Cambridgeshire at 100 to 1 to win large stakes,

and even small bookmakers thought nothing of starting £20,000 books.

After making their bets, people used to go into an inner room where

hazard was being played. Hour after hour the game continued in full

swing at a table crowded with punters, with green, black, red and white

ivory counters before them denoting £10, £5, £25, and £1. There was

an impressive stillness in the room, only broken by the voice of Mr

F. Hall, one of the croupiers, who, rake in hand, gave vent to such

utterances as, ‘The Castor is backing in at seven, gentlemen. I’ll take

on the nick.’ Then came the rattle of the dice, the bang on the table

of the box, the quick announcement of the point, and the raking in of

the counters on the losing columns, by the two croupiers, one of whom

looked like a respectable tradesman, or a magistrate’s clerk. Behind

the players stood the proprietor, a tall, handsome man, with carefully

trimmed white beard and moustache, more like a general than the keeper

of a hell; his countenance immovable, except when it relaxed, as he

replied courteously to any one who addressed him.

“He is dead, so is one of the croupiers, so are half the players, old

and young, whom I first saw at the table twenty years ago, when, for

the first time, I was initiated into the mysteries of hazard, how to

dash down a ten, or dribble a four, as if, really, there was skill

about a game which consists in rattling two dice in a box, and winning,

or losing by the points they declare when rolled out on the table.”

We have seen how disreputable the Turf had become in 1844. If anything,

it became worse. A class of men sprung up, called “tipsters,” men

who pretended to have exclusive and particular stable information

which they were willing to impart to their dupes, say (to quote the

advertisement of one of the fraternity), Single events, 3s. 6d. Derby

or Oaks, 5s. each: yearly subscription, 21s.; half yearly, 10s. 6d.

That these men made a profitable business of it, there can be no

doubt, for the sporting papers were full of their advertisements, some

of them of great length: and, then, also began that curse attending

horse racing, the betting shop—which afforded a fatal facility to

all classes, to gamble, and which led to crime, and its attendant

punishment.

In 1852, these houses had become such a crying scandal, that a

public meeting was held on 18th June, at the Literary and Scientific

Institution in Aldersgate Street, over which Sir Peter Laurie presided,

to adopt measures for the suppression of betting houses in the City of

London, and a resolution was moved, and carried unanimously, that a

petition be presented to Parliament for their suppression. In the same

year, at a meeting of the Aldermen at the Guildhall, the foreman of the

Inquest of Farringdon Ward Without, handed in a presentment, which he

said related to a subject of great importance in the City of London;

the gambling and betting houses in the Ward, by which great mischief

was done. Facilities were given at these houses, of which there were

a great number in the Ward, for betting, from sums of threepence, or

fourpence upwards; and by these means, many servants and boys, who

certainly had no money of their own to bet with, were induced to lay

wagers that too often led them into a career of crime.

_The Druid_ says: “The great list era, and all its attendant

Ripe-for-a-jails, as _Punch_ termed them, began with Messrs Drummond

and Greville, who ‘kept an account at the Westminster Bank’ in 1847.

Up to that time ‘sweeps,’ where every subscriber drew a horse for

his ticket, had been amply sufficient to satisfy the popular thirst

for speculation on a Derby, or St Leger eve; and, although, in one

instance, we ascertained that our ticket horse was a leader in a

Shrewsbury coach, instead of being ‘prepared,’ it was satisfactory to

know that there was, at least, fair play. Stimulated by the example of

D. and G., the licensed victuallers took it up—and a nice mess they

made of it—till the licensing magistrates stepped sternly in. From

1850 to the end of 1853, the listers were in their glory; and, at one

period, about four hundred betting houses were open in London alone, of

which, perhaps, ten were solvent.”

CHAPTER XVI

Betting Houses—Their suppression in 1853—Bookmakers and their

Clients—Defaulters—Dwyer’s swindle—Value of Stakes.

In _Chambers’ Edinburgh Journal_ of 24th July 1852, is an excellent

article on “BETTING HOUSES.” It says: “‘Betting Shop’ is vulgar, and we

dislike vulgarity. ‘Commission Office,’ ‘Racing Bank,’ ‘Mr Hopposite

Green’s Office,’ ‘Betting Office,’ are the styles of announcement

adopted by speculators, who open, what low people call, Betting Shops.

The chosen designation is, usually, painted in gold letters on a

chocolate coloured wire gauze blind, impervious to the view. A betting

office may display on its small show board, two bronzed plaster horses,

rampant, held by two Ethiopian figures, nude; or it may prefer making a

show of cigars. Many offices have risen out of simple cigar shops. When

this is the case, the tobacco business gives way, the slow trade and

fast profession not running well together. An official appearance is

always considered necessary. A partition, therefore, sufficiently high

not to be peered over, runs midway across the shop, surmounted with a

rail. By such means, visions are suggested to the intelligent mind, of

desks, and clerks. In the partition is an enlarged _pigeon_ hole—not

far off, may be supposed to lurk the hawk—through which are received

shillings, half crowns; in fact, any kind of coin or notes, no sum

appearing inadmissible. The office is papered with a warm crimson paper

to make it snug and comfortable, pleasant as a lounge, and casting a

genial glow upon the proceedings.

“But the betting lists are the attraction—these are the dice of the

betting men; a section of one of the side walls within the office

is devoted to them. They consist of long slips of paper—each race

having its own slip—on which are stated the odds against the horses.

Hasty and anxious are the glances which the speculator casts upon

betting lists; there he sees which are the favourites, whether those

he has backed are advancing, or retrograding, and he endeavours to

discover, by signs and testimonies, by all kinds of movements and

dodges, the knowing one’s opinion. He will drop fishing words to other

gazers, will try to overhear whispered remarks, will sidle towards any

jockey-legged, or ecurial-costumed individual, and aim more especially

at getting into the good graces of the betting office keeper, who,

when his business is slack, comes forth from behind the partition, and

from the duties of the pigeon hole, to stretch his legs, and hold turf

converse. The betting office keeper is the speculator’s divinity.

* * * * *

“There are various kinds of betting offices. Some are speculative,

May-fly offices, open to-day, and shut to-morrow—offices that will

bet any way, and against anything—that will accommodate themselves to

any odds—receive any sum they can get, small or large; and, should a

misfortune occur, such as a wrong horse winning, forget to open next

day. These are but second rate offices. The money making, prosperous

betting office is quite a different thing. It is not advisable for

concerns which intend making thousands in a few years, to pay the

superintendents liberally, and to keep well clothed touters—to conduct

themselves, in short, like speculative offices. They must not depend

entirely upon chance. Chance is very well for betting men, but will

not do for the respectable betting office keepers, who are the stake

holders.

“The plan adopted is a very simple one, but ingenious in its

simplicity. The betting office takes a great dislike in its own mind

to a particular horse, the favourite of the betting men. It makes bets

against that horse, which amounts, in the aggregate, to a fortune; and

then it _buys_ the object of its frantic delight. This being effected,

the horse, of course, loses, and the office wins. How could it be

otherwise? Would you have a horse win against its owner’s interest?

The thing being settled, the office, in order to ascertain the amount

of its winnings, has only to deduct the price of the horse from its

aggregate bets, and arrange the remainder in a line of, perhaps, five

figures. Whereupon the betting men grow seedier and more seedy: some of

the more mercurial go off in a fit of apoplectic amazement; some betake

themselves to Waterloo stairs on a moonless night; some proceed to

the diggings, some to St Luke’s, and some to the dogs; some become so

unsteady, that they sign the wrong name to a draft, or enter the wrong

house at night, or are detected in a crowd with their hand in the wrong

man’s pocket. But, by degrees, everything comes right again. The insane

are shut up, the desperate transported, the dead buried, the deserted

families carted to the workhouse; and the betting-office goes on as

before.”

The scandal, however, grew too grave to be ignored, and the

Government took the matter up. On July 11, 1853, the Attorney-General

rose in his place in the House of Commons, and said, he would now beg

to move for leave to bring in a Bill for the suppression of betting

houses, and, in doing so, he considered it was not necessary for him to

make any lengthened statement on the subject, as the evils which had

arisen from the introduction of these establishments were perfectly

notorious, and acknowledged upon all hands. The difficulty, however,

which arose in legislating upon this subject, was the disinclination

which was felt against interfering with that description of betting

which had so long existed at Tattersall’s and elsewhere, in connection

with the great national sport of horse racing. But these establishments

assumed a totally different aspect—a new form of betting was

introduced, which had been productive of the greatest evils. The

course, now, is to open a house, and for the owner to hold himself

forth as ready to bet with all comers, contrary to the usage which had

prevailed at such places as Tattersall’s, where individuals betted with

each other, but no one there kept a gaming table, or, in other words,

held a bag against all comers. The object, then, of this Bill, was to

suppress these houses, without interfering with that legitimate species

of betting, to which he had referred. It would prohibit the opening of

houses, or shops or booths, for the purpose of betting; and, inasmuch

as it appeared that the mischief of the existing vicious system

seemed to arise from the advancing of money, in the first instance,

with the expectation of receiving a larger sum on the completion of a

certain event, it was proposed to prohibit the practice, by distinct

legislative enactment. The mischief arising from the existence of

these betting shops was perfectly notorious. Servants, apprentices,

and workmen, induced by the temptation of receiving a large sum for

a small one, took their few shillings to these places, and the first

effect of their losing, was to tempt them to go on spending their money

in the hope of retrieving their losses; and, for this purpose, it not

unfrequently happened that they were driven into robbing their masters

and employers. There was not a prison, nor a house of correction

in London, which did not every day furnish abundant and conclusive

testimony of the vast number of youths who were led into crime by the

temptation of these establishments of which there were from 100 to 150

in the metropolis alone, while there were a considerable number in the

large towns of the provinces. He believed this bill would have the

effect of suppressing most of them; or, at all events, of preventing

the spread of an evil which was admitted on all hands. It had been

suggested that the more effectual course would be the licensing

of these houses; but, for his own part, he believed that would be

discreditable to the Government, and would only tend to increase the

mischief instead of preventing it. He trusted and believed that the

Bill which he now sought to introduce would have the desired effect,

and he hoped the House would offer no objection to his bringing it in.

Leave was given, and the Bill was so in accord with the feeling of the

House, that it went through all its stages without debate, and received

the Royal Assent on 20th Aug. 1853, under the title of “An Act for

the suppression of Betting Houses,” 16 & 17 Victoria, cap. 119: it

became operative on 1st Dec. 1853. Its principal clause is Sec. iii.,

which deals with the penalty on owner or occupier of Betting House.

“Any Person who, being the Owner, or Occupier of any House, Office,

Room, or other Place, or a Person using the same, shall open, keep,

or use the same for the Purposes hereinbefore mentioned, or either

of them; and any Person, who, being the Owner, or Occupier, of any

House, Room, Office, or other Place, shall, knowingly, and wilfully,

permit the same to be opened, kept, or used by any other Person for

the purposes aforesaid, or either of them; and any Person having the

Care, or Management of, or in any Manner assisting in conducting the

business of any House, Office, Room, or Place opened, kept, or used

for the Purposes aforesaid, or either of them, shall, on summary

Conviction thereof, before any Two Justices of the Peace, be liable

to forfeit and pay such Penalty, not exceeding One Hundred Pounds, as

shall be adjudged by such Justices, and may be further adjudged by such

Justices, to pay such Costs attending such conviction, as to the said

Justices shall seem reasonable; and, on the Nonpayment of such Penalty

and Costs; or, in the first instance, if to the said Justices, it shall

seem fit, may be committed to the Common Gaol, or House of Correction,

with, or without, Hard Labour, for any Time not exceeding Six Calendar

Months.”

The effect of this Act was to shut up, for the time, the betting

houses, but nobody can deny that there is as much of this ready money

betting now as ever there was, and there is no difficulty in getting “a

little bit on,” if one wants to, without attending races and betting

with the professional bookmakers there to be found. Children can lay

their pennies and errand boys their sixpences, and, throughout the

length and breadth of the country, the curse of betting permeates every

rank, and, I am sorry to say, spares neither sex.

The police do something, in occasionally obtaining convictions, and

magistrates have strained the interpretation of the word “Place” which

occurs in the Act to its very limit—indeed it has only lately (July

1897) been settled that the betting ring at a race course is not a

“Place” within the meaning of the Act. A bookmaker, named Dunn, was

fined £1 for betting at Kempton Park race meeting. He appealed, and the

magistrate’s decision was reversed. The judges inquired into what was

the real intention of the Legislature. This is sufficiently apparent

from the preamble, which states that “a certain kind of gaming has, of

late, sprung up, by the opening of places called betting houses,” and

we are justified in assuming that it was this “kind of gaming,” and no

other, which Parliament intended to suppress. Furthermore, when once

this fact is appreciated, the use of the words “house, office, room, or

other place” is no longer misleading, because “place” means something

_ejusdem generis_, a “house, office, or room.” It was impossible to

maintain that an open race course, or an open enclosure upon a race

course, is a “place” of the same kind as a “house, office, or room,” or

that the people who use it for betting claim to hold it against all the

world, as they would in the case of their own offices.

As a rule, the higher class professional bookmakers are a very

respectable lot of men, and are scrupulously honest in their dealings,

which is more than can be said for some of their clients, even titled

ones. Such men as Davis, Steel, and Fry dealt in vast sums, and no

matter how hard hit, never once failed to meet their losses; and some

of them have died rich. Gully is said to have left about a quarter of a

million behind him, Davis’s fortune at his death is variously stated at

£50,000 or £150,000, and Swindells died worth £145,000.

As to these men’s clients let Sir George Chetwynd tell a tale. “I

should like Fry, Steel, Emerson, Baylis, and others, to publish their

list of bad debts during the last few years. People would be astonished

at the amount owed to these men, yet they rather condone the fact of

being owed money, by hardly ever applying the remedy of making the

loser a defaulter, and all sorts of people are going about to race

courses, now owing the Ring money, the creditors hoping, some day, to

recover a portion of it. The most disgraceful part of it is, that some

of these defaulters are owners of race horses, gentlemen riders, and so

forth. Personally, I have no pity for book makers who do not post a man

for owing them money, after they have given him a reasonable time for

payment. If this were done, a healthier tone would be given to betting;

there would not be so much reckless plunging as there is, and it would

be far better for backers and layers. I recollect once, on the day

the Two Thousand was run for, some years ago, I was standing talking

to Henry Steel, for whose judgment I have a great respect, and whom I

have always found most straightforward in all his dealings. By his side

was his trusty partner, Peech. All of a sudden, I saw the latter make

hurriedly off in a bee line through the scattered crowd that thronged

the bird cage, and, on asking Steel what was up, he laughed, and said,

‘Oh, nothing, Sir George, it’s only Bill after a bit of old’; meaning

that he had seen a man who had owed him money for some years, and had

gone to give him a gentle reminder of the fact.”

My readers may not be aware of the awful punishment that awaits

defaulters, and I cannot do better than give that knowledge in Mr

Rice’s words.

“What unfair play and loaded dice did at night, defaulting

bettors—‘welshers,’ as they are now called—practised by day. The best

legitimate Meetings, as well as the minor country side ventures, were

infested with the rogues. They dressed well, wore frilled shirts and

‘flash’ rings, and were, perhaps, better able to pay their way about

than honest men. The Chichester ‘extortioners,’ with their guinea bed

for a single night’s lodging, were unable to keep these gentry away

from the Ducal meeting; and the unmerciful dealings of mine hosts at

Doncaster, Windsor, Warwick, and Newmarket, who enjoyed, in those days,

an unenviable notoriety for the extravagance of their charges, were,

likewise, powerless to clear their coffee rooms from the welshing

community.

“Measures were taken to reduce the evil. To begin with, the Messrs

Tattersall issued a code of new rules and regulations, to be observed,

in future, by all subscribers to the betting room at the Corner. A

subscription of two guineas per annum was fixed. Gentlemen desirous

of subscribing were to give a week’s notice, in writing, to Messrs

Tattersall and Son, submitting references for their approval.

Non-subscribers might be admitted on payment of a guinea; and, the room

being under the sanction of the Jockey Club, all the members were to

be obedient to any suggestions made by the Senate of the Turf, from

time to time. Lastly, special attention was called to the forty-first

rule of the Jockey Club, which enacted that any bettor adjudged to be a

defaulter by the Stewards, should not be permitted to go on the Heath

at Newmarket, and they should be excluded from the betting rooms there,

and at Tattersall’s.

“This step in a right direction was followed, a few months later, by

the action of the Trustees of the Grand Stand at Ascot, who gave notice

that all defaulters in respect to stakes, forfeits, or bets on horse

racing, would be peremptorily excluded during any Meeting on the Heath

at Ascot; and, if any one in default, did gain admission, on being

pointed out to the Noble Master of Her Majesty’s Buckhounds, or to the

Clerk of the Course, he would, if necessary, be expelled by force,

unless he were able to show that he had discharged all his obligations.

“At Goodwood, a similar active policy was pursued; no person, being

notoriously a defaulter upon bets on horse racing, would be permitted

to ‘assist’ at the Meeting. A contumelious defaulter having obtained

admission to the Enclosure, he received peremptory orders to quit; and

the example set by the Stewards of Ascot and Goodwood was promptly

taken up by the better class of country Meetings; and notices were

posted, that if any person notoriously in default, as to either

forfeits, or bets, gained admittance, he should be peremptorily

expelled. At Doncaster, it was requested that all parties who had

claims for bets, would not fail to notify the same to Mr Butterfield,

Land Steward to the Corporation, prior to the races, at his office,

or at the Grand Stand. Lord Eglinton, who had taken a prominent part

in the endeavour to stamp out this evil, wrote to the Town Clerk: ‘It

gives me much pleasure to find that the Corporation of Doncaster have

passed the Resolutions. Defaulters have become so numerous, and so

audacious in their proceedings, that it is absolutely necessary that

the strongest measures should be adopted against them.’ The Corporation

of Doncaster, at their meeting, when his Lordship’s letter was read,

resolved, unanimously, that the Town Clerk be requested, immediately,

to confer with the proprietors of the Betting Rooms, and that Lord

Eglinton be permitted to purify those rooms, as well as the Stand and

Enclosure.

“But to the influence and exertions of Lord George Bentinck, the

‘legitimates’ owed the clearance of the Turf from the hordes of

welshers and other non-payers that infested it. This ‘pleasing reform

of the Turf’ was brought about by his active measures; and it was

admitted, that had he not persevered to the utmost, even his powerful

influence would have been blighted, and the host of rotten sheep left

to infect the sound constitution of the remaining flock. But such was

the effect of the sharp remedies employed, that, for some time after,

it was safe to make a bet with any man whom you might meet in the

Betting Ring at respectable Race Meetings, so effectually was the Turf

ridded of the pests that had infested it.”

Probably, the greatest defaulter of modern times was a man named

Dwyer, who kept a cigar shop in St Martin’s Lane. He, generally, gave a

point or two more than the current odds at Tattersall’s, and, in 1851,

he was doing, by far, the largest business of any “list man” in London.

Owing to the promptitude and regularity of his payments, he gained a

high reputation for solvency, and not only retained and increased his

_clientèle_ among the half-crown and shilling public, but had attracted

the custom even of men of good standing in the ring. His humble patrons

believed him to be every whit as safe as “Leviathan” Davis, and their

confidence was largely shared by racing men of a higher calibre.

All went well till the Chester Meeting of 1851, the Cup being, then,

the greatest betting handicap in the Calendar; so much so that, in that

year it was calculated that upwards of _a million sterling_ changed

hands over that one race. Dwyer laid very heavily against the winner

_Miss Nancy_. It had always been his custom to pay up on the day after

a great race; and, consequently, at an early hour on Friday, the first

of May, crowds of the lucky backers of Nancy made their way to the

familiar cigar shop in St Martin’s Lane, to receive their winnings

in exchange for the tickets they held. Conceive their consternation

when they found the shutters up, and the door closed, with other

unmistakable signs that the bank had suspended payment. The news spread

fast, and there was soon a mob of some thousands blocking up all the

approaches to the cigar shop.

By and by it oozed out that a notice had been fastened to the

shutters to the effect that Mr Dwyer would meet his friends and

creditors that evening at the White Swan, Chandos Street, in order

to make arrangements for discharging the claims against him. Of

course, that hostelry was immediately besieged by a clamorous crowd,

but the landlord assured them that he knew nothing of Dwyer or his

whereabouts—all he could tell them was that, late on the previous

evening, two gentlemen, who were perfect strangers to him, had called

and engaged his “long-room” for a meeting of Mr Dwyer and his friends

on the following day. Meanwhile, the cigar shop had been broken into,

and the worst fears of the unfortunate victims were confirmed when they

found that every scrap of furniture that was worth anything had been

removed from the house during the night. The excitement in London that

evening was tremendous—nothing else was talked of among sporting men

but Dwyer’s collapse, and it was afterwards found that he had bolted

with £25,000 of the public’s money. The rogue was never found.

The largest sum ever won by a horse was made by _Donovan_, who, in his

lifetime, carried off stakes to the value of £55,354, 13s.; but the

largest amount of “public money” ever won without betting by an owner

in a single season is £73,858, 10s., won by the Duke of Portland in

1889; whilst Lord Falmouth, who did not bet, won nearly £212,000 in

eleven years, from 1873 to 1883, and in 1884 he sold his whole stud for

at least £150,000. Count Lagrange also won in stakes in five years,

from 1876 to 1880, £73,000.

These sums, with the exception of the Duke of Portland’s winnings,

were made before the era of enormous stakes had begun; and, according

to a writer (_Rapier_) in the _Illustrated Sporting and Dramatic News_

in 1892, 2559 horses ran flat races for £486,556, which sum was won by

947 competitors. These figures give us some insight into the enormous

interests involved in horse racing, entirely leaving out the millions

which must change hands in betting.

CHAPTER XVII

The Lottery—Its etymology and origin—The first in

England—Succeeding ones—Prince Rupert’s jewels—Penny

Lottery. Suppression and revival—Rage for them in Queen Anne’s

reign—Lotteries for public purposes—Leheup’s fraud.

I have written very fully on the Lottery in England,[53] but, in

this History of Gambling in this country, it is necessary to go over

the ground again, though, of course, at much less length. Some claim

that the Romans introduced the lottery, in their _Apophoreta_, but

these were simply presents given to guests at their departure after

a banquet, and sometimes they were so disposed as to create great

merriment. The fourteenth book of Martial consists of an introductory

epigram and 222 distiches, each describing and designed to accompany

one of these presents which range from nuts to works of art and slaves.

So we may dismiss its Roman origin and examine into the generally

accepted (because never questioned) theory of its Italian birth. That

the Venetian and Genoese merchants did sometimes use the _Lotto_ as a

means of getting rid of their wares, is true—but the very name shows

its northern derivation, for the Latin word for a lot is _Sors_. The

Anglo-Saxon for “to cast lots” is Hleot-au. In Dutch it is Lot-en,

Loot-en, and in Swedish, Lotta. Indeed, the first record I can find of

any lottery is that of the widow of Jan van Eyck, which took place at

Bruges on 24th February 1446, the town archives recording a payment to

her for her lottery.

The first _public_ English lottery was projected in 1566, but was not

drawn until 1569. Only one authentic record of this lottery is believed

to be in existence, and it is carefully preserved in the muniment room

at Losely House, Artington, Surrey.[54] It is printed in black letter,

and is five feet long by nineteen inches wide, so that I can only give

the preamble to it.

“A verie rich Lotterie Generall, without any blancks, contayning

a number of good prices, as wel of redy money as of plate, and

certaine sorts of marchaundizes, having been valued and priced by the

comaundement of the Queene’s most excellent majestie, by men expert and

skilfull; and the same Lotterie is erected by her majestie’s order,

to the intent that such commoditie as may chaunce to arise thereof,

after the charges borne, may be converted towardes the reparation of

the havens and strength of the Realme, and towardes such other publique

good workes. The number of lots shall be foure hundreth thousand, and

no more; and every lot shall be the summe of tenne shillings sterling

onely, and no more.”

And the bill, which was printed in 1567, winds up thus: “The shewe of

the prices and rewardes above mencioned shall be set up to be seene

in Cheapsyde in London, at the signe of the Queene’s Majesties’ Arms,

in the house of M. Dericke, goldsmith, servant to the Queene’s most

excellent Majestie.”

But people fought so shy of the scheme that the proclamation had to be

backed by the recommendation of the Lord Mayor, and, this proving of

no avail, the Queen issued another on 3rd January 1586, postponing the

drawing on account of the slack subscription, and, this not succeeding,

the Earl of Leicester and Sir William Cecil, as Lords of the Council,

on July 12, 1558, sent a circular to all the authorities in the

Counties of Kent, Sussex, Surrey, Southampton, and the Isle of Wight,

begging them to do all in their power to get subscribers.

By the terms of the lottery, the subscribers were to be anonymous,

their subscriptions being accompanied by a “devise or poesie.” Many of

these remain in a little black letter book at Losely, and I give two or

three from various shipping places.

“Yermouth haven, God send thee spede,

The Lord he knoweth thy great nede.”

“In good hope, poor East Greenwiche, God send us to remain,

And of some good lotte to have the gaine.”

“Draw Brightemston[55] a good lot,

Or else return them a turbot.”

“From Hastings we come,

God send us good speed;

Never a poor fisher town in England,

Of y^e great lot hath more need.”

At last, the Lottery was drawn, in 1569, as we learn from Holinshed.

“A great lotterie being holden at London, in Poules Church Yard, at

the west dore, was begun to be drawne the eleventh of Januarie, and

continued daie and night till the sixt of Maie, wherein the said

drawing was fullie ended.”

Stow, in his _Annales_, tells us of the next Lottery, 1585: “A lotterie

for marvellous rich and beautifull armor was begunne to be drawne at

London in _S. Paules_ Churchyard, at the great West gate (an house

of timber and boord being there erected for that purpose) on _S.

Peter’s_[56] day, in the morning, which lotterie continued in drawing

day and night, for the space of two or three dayes.”

As far as I can learn, the next public lottery was that of 1612,

and I quote once more from the _Annales_: “The King’s maiestie in

speciall favor for the present plantation of English Colonies in

_Virginia_, granted a liberall Lottery, in which was contained five

thousand pound in prizes certayne, besides rewardes of casualtie, and

began to be drawne in a new built house at the West end of _Paul’s_,

the 29th of June 1612. But, of which Lottery, for want of filling

uppe the number of lots, there were then taken out and throwne away

three score thousand blanckes, without abating of any one prize; and

by the twentith of July all was drawne and finished. This Lottery

was so plainely carryed, and honestly performed, that it gave full

satisfaction to all persons. _Thomas Sharpliffe_, a Taylor, of London,

had the chiefe prize, _viz._ foure thousand Crownes in fayre plate,

which was sent to his house in very stately manner: during the whole

tyme of the drawing of this lottery there were alwaies present diuers

worshipfull Knights and Esquiers, accompanied by sundry graue discreet

Cittizens.”

There were three lotteries granted for the supply of water to the

Metropolis, in 1627, 1631, and 1689, and a petition to hold a lottery

for the same purpose in 1637, but this, I think, was not granted. There

were many licences granted for various schemes, and there was one,

called the Royal Oak lottery, for granting assistance to old Royalists,

which seems to have been a swindle. Indeed, this may be said to have

been the case with a good many of the Lotteries in Charles II.’s time,

till, when Prince Rupert died, and his jewels were to be disposed of

by lottery, the public would not subscribe unless the King consented

to see that all was fair, as we see by the _London Gazette_, September

27—October 1, 1683:

“These are to give Notice, that the Jewels of his late Highness Prince

_Rupert_, have been particularly valued and appraised by Mr _Isaac

Legouch_, Mr _Christopher Rosse_, and Mr _Richard Beauvoir_, Jewellers,

the whole amounting to Twenty Thousand Pounds, and will be sold by

way of Lottery, each Lot to be Five Pounds. The biggest Prize will be

a great Pearl Necklace valued at £8000, and none less than £100. A

printed Particular of the said Appraisement, with their Division into

Lots, will be delivered _gratis_ by Mr _Francis Child_, Goldsmith,

at Temple Bar, _London_, into whose hands, such as are willing to be

Adventurers, are desired to pay their Money, on, or about, the first

day of _November_ next. As soon as the whole sum is paid in, a short

day will be appointed (which ‘tis hoped will be before _Christmas_) and

notified in the _Gazette_, for the drawing thereof, which will be done

in his Majesty’s Presence, who is pleased to declare, that he, himself,

will see all the Prizes put among the Blanks, and that the whole shall

be managed with all Equity and Fairness; nothing being intended but the

Sale of the said Jewels at a moderate Value.”

In another _London Gazette_ of Nov. 22/26, 1683, we are told how this

Lottery will be drawn, and, as it is rare to have an English sovereign

mixed up in such a speculation, I transcribe it:

“As soon as the Money is all come in, a day will be prefixed, and

published for the drawing thereof, as has been formerly notified. In

the morning of which day His Majesty will be pleased, publickly, in

the Banquetting House, to see the Blanks told over, that they may not

exceed their Number, and to read the Papers (which shall be exactly

the same size as the Blanks) on which the Prizes are to be written;

which, being rolled up in his presence, His Majesty will mix amongst

the Blanks, as may, also, any of the Adventurers there present that

shall desire it. This being done, a Child, appointed by His Majesty,

or the Adventurers, shall, out of the Mass of Lots so mixed, take out

the number that each Person adventures for, and put them into boxes

(which shall be provided for the purpose) on the covers whereof, each

Adventurer’s Name shall be written with the number of Lots He or She

adventures for; the Boxes to be filled in succession as the Money was

paid in. As soon as all the lots are thus distributed, they shall be

opened as fast as may be, and the prizes then and there delivered to

those that win them; all which, ‘tis hoped, will be done and finished

in one day.”

There was a Lottery, in which the subscription was a penny, and the

Capital prize was One Thousand Pounds, drawn on 19th Oct. 1698, at the

Dorset Garden Theatre, near Salisbury Square, Fleet Street, but when

William III. came to the throne, it was seen that the Lottery was a

very profitable thing, and the Government took it unto itself for its

own purposes. In 1694, £1,000,000 was raised by Lottery, and in 1697,

£1,400,000—but in 1699, by 10 and 11 Will. III., c. 17, lotteries were

suppressed, the preamble to the Act stating, “That all such Lotteries,

and all other Lotteries, are common and publick nuisances, and that

all grants, patents, and licences for such Lotteries, or any other

Lotteries, are void and against Law.”

It must have been about this time (for in 1698-9 three expeditions

sailed from Scotland to Darien) that Ward wrote in _The London Spy_ a

description of the Lottery fever in London:

“The _Gazette_ and _Post-Papers_ lay by Neglected, and nothing was

Pur’d over in the _Coffee Houses_, but the _Ticket-Catalogues_; No

talking of the _Jubilee_, the want of Current Trade with _France_,

or the _Scotch_ Settlement at _Darien_; Nothing Buz’d about by the

Purblind _Trumpeters_ of _State News_, but _Blank_ and _Benefit_. _My

Son had Five Pound in such a Lottery, but got nothing; my Daughter_,

says another, _had but Five Shillings, and got the Twenty Pound Prize_.

People running up and down the Streets in Crowds and Numbers, as if one

end of the Town was on Fire, and the other were running to help ‘em

off with their Goods. One Stream of _Coachmen_, _Footmen_, _Prentice

Boys_, and _Servant Wenches_ flowing one way, with wonderful hopes of

getting an estate for three pence. _Knights_, _Esquires_, _Gentlemen_

and _Traders_, _Marry’d Ladies_, _Virgin Madams_, _Jilts_, etc.; moving

on _Foot_, in _Sedans_, _Chariots_, and _Coaches_, another way; with a

pleasing Expectancy of getting Six Hundred a Year for a Crown.

“Thus were all the _Fools_ in Town so busily employed in running

up and down from one _Lottery_, or another, that it was as much as

_London_ could do to Conjure together such Numbers of _Knaves_ as might

Cheat ‘em fast enough of their _Money_. The Unfortunate crying out,

_A Cheat, a Cheat, a Confounded Cheat, nothing of Fairness in’t_. The

Fortunate, in opposition to the other, crying, _’Tis all Fair, all

Fair; the Fairest Adventure that ever was drawn_. And thus, every Body,

according to their Success, Expressing variously their Sentiments; tho’

the Losers, who may be said to be in the Wrong of it, to venture their

Money, yet, were they most Right in their Conjectures of the Project,

and the Gainers, who were in the Right of it, to hazard their Money,

because they won, were most Wrong in their opinion of the matter. For

I have much ado to forbear believing that _Luck in a Bag_ is almost

as Honest as _Fortune in a Wheel_, or any other of the like Projects.

Truly, says my Friend, I confess I cannot conceive any extraordinary

Opinion of the Fairness of any _Lottery_, for I am apt to believe that

whenever such a number of _Fools_ fall into a _Knave’s_ hand, he will

make the most of ‘em; and I think the _Parliament_ could not have given

the _Nation_ greater Assurances of their especial Regard to the Welfare

of the _Publick_, than by suppressing all _Lotteries_, which only serve

to Buoy up the mistaken Multitude with Dreams of Golden Showers, to

the Expence of that little Money, which, with hard Labour they have

Earn’d; and often to the Neglect of their Business, which doubles the

Inconveniency. The _Gentry_, indeed, might make it their Diversion, but

the _Common People_ make it a great part of their Care and Business,

hoping thereby to relieve a Necessitous Life; instead of which, they

plunge themselves further into an Ocean of Difficulties. What if one

Man in Ten Thousand gets Five Hundred Pounds, what Benefit is that to

the rest, who have struggled hard for _Fool_’s Pence to make up that

Sum, which, perhaps, falls to one who stood not in need of _Fortune_’s

Favours.”

But the State Lotteries began again in Queen Anne’s reign, for an Act

(8 Anne, c. 4) was passed in 1710 authorising a loan of £1,500,000 by

means of a lottery of 150,000 tickets at £10 each. The money was to be

sunk, and 9 per cent. was allowed on it for 32 years, and the prizes

were annuities from one of £1000 to 14s. a year, which latter was given

as a consolation to every holder of a blank.

Luttrell tells us how greedily they were taken up. “21st Jan. 1710.

Yesterday, books were opened at Mercer’s Chapel for receiving

subscriptions for the Lottery, and ‘tis said, above a Million is

already subscribed; so that, ‘tis believed, ‘twill be full by Monday

7 night.” And he also tells us that “Mr Barnaby, who lately belonged

to the 6 Clerk’s Office, has got the £1000 per ann. ticket in the

lottery.” This lottery was drawn by blue coat boys from Christ’s

Hospital, and from this time, until 1824 (except from 1814 to 1819),

there was no year without a State Lottery.

There were Lotteries for everything, and to show how numerous they were

take the advertisements in one paper, taken hap-hazard. _The Tatler_,

Sep. 14/16, 1710: “Mr Stockton’s Sale of Jewels, Plate, &c., will be

drawn on Michaelmas Day.—The Lottery in Colson’s Court will be drawn

on the 21st inst.—The Sale of Goods to be seen at Mrs Butler’s, &c.,

will certainly be drawn on Tuesday, the 19th inst.—Mrs Povy’s Sale of

Goods is put off to Saturday, 23rd inst.—Mrs Symond’s Sale of Goods

will begin on Wednesday, the 20th of this instant.—Mrs Guthridge’s

Sixpenny Sale of Goods, &c., continues to be drawn every Day.”

The prizes did not always fall to those who needed the money, as Swift

writes to Stella about a son of Lord Abercorn. Aug. 29, 1711: “His

second son has t’other day got a prize in the Lottery of Four Thousand

Pounds, besides two small ones of two hundred pounds each; nay, the

family was so fortunate, that my Lord bestowing one ticket, which is

a hundred pounds, to one of his servants, who had been his page, the

young fellow got a prize, which has made it another hundred.”

In 1721 private Lotteries were prescribed, by the 36th sec. of 8

Geo. I., c. 2, which imposed 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.

The first Westminster bridge was partially built through the

instrumentality of a lottery, the drawing of which began on Dec. 8,

1740, at Stationers’ Hall; and 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 Sir Robert Cotton’s

library with it. Montague House was selected for their reception, and

a lottery to provide for its purchase was got up; the subscription to

which was £300,000 in tickets of £3 each. The Managers and Trustees of

this Lottery were The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord Chancellor,

and the Speaker, each of whom was to have £100 for his trouble.

In connection with this lottery was a gross fraud, and on 19th April

1755, Peter Leheup, one of the receivers of the Lottery was tried at

the King’s bench and found guilty, 1st, of receiving subscriptions

before the day and hour advertised; 2nd, of permitting subscribers to

use different names to cover the maximum of 20 tickets allowed to each

holder; and 3rd, of disposing of the tickets which had been bespoke and

not claimed, or were double-charged, instead of returning them to the

managers. For these _laches_ he was, on the following 9th of May, fined

£1000, which he immediately paid into Court.

In a lottery of 1767 a lady residing in Holborn was presented with a

ticket by her husband, and so anxious was she for its success, that on

the Sunday previous to the drawing, the clergyman gave out that “the

prayers of the congregation are desired for the success of a person

engaged in a new undertaking.”

CHAPTER XVIII

Blue coat boys tampered with—The two trials—Insuring

tickets—Curious Lotteries—Lever Museum and Pigot diamond

lotteries—Little goes—Stories of winning numbers—Decline of

Lotteries—The last—Its epitaph—Modern lotteries.

Twice in the year 1775 were the blue coat boys, who drew the tickets

from the lottery wheels, tampered with; and the following accounts are

taken from the _Annual Register_ of that year:

“1 June. A man was carried before the Lord Mayor, for attempting to

bribe the two Blue Coat boys, who drew the Museum[57] lottery, to

conceal a ticket, and bring it to him, promising he would, next day,

let them have it again, when one of them was, it seems, to convey it

back privately to the wheel, but without letting go his hold of it,

and then produce it as if newly drawn; the man’s intention being to

insure it in all the offices against being drawn that day. But the boys

were honest, gave notice of the intended fraud, and pointed out the

delinquent, who, however, was discharged, as there is no law in being,

to punish the offence.”

“5 Dec. By virtue of a warrant from Sir Charles Asgill, was brought

before the magistrate, at Guildhall, the clerk of an eminent hop factor

in Goodman’s Fields, upon suspicion of being concerned with a person,

not yet apprehended, in defrauding a lottery office keeper, near the

‘Change, of a large sum of money. This matter being undertaken by the

Commissioners of the Lottery, the Solicitor of the Treasury appeared

against the prisoner, and for him attended, as Counsel, Mr Cox.

“The first witness examined was the lottery office keeper, he said,

that about a fortnight ago, the prisoner insured No. 21,481 six times

over for the subsequent day of drawing; that the conversation he had

with the prisoner at that time, and the seeming positiveness there

appeared in the latter, that the ticket would come up, caused him

to enquire at other lottery offices, when he found the same number

insured, in the prisoner’s name, at all the principal offices about

the ‘Change; that the ticket was drawn the first hour of drawing the

subsequent day. This, with his former suspicion, alarmed him, and he

immediately went to Christ’s Hospital, and saw the boy who drew the

ticket; that he interrogated him, whether he had clandestinely taken

that number out of the wheel, or whether he had been solicited to do

so, which the boy positively denied; that, observing that he answered

rather faintly, he importuned him to divulge the truth, which, after

some hesitation, produced an acknowledgment of the fact.

“The next witness was the Blue Coat boy. He said that, about three

weeks ago, the person who is not in custody, and whom he had known

before he went to the Hospital, took him to a Coffee House, where they

breakfasted together; that he wanted to know of the witness, whether

it was possible to get a ticket out of the wheel; to which the latter

answered, No. That being, afterwards, solicited for the same purpose,

by him, to secrete a ticket, he, at length, promised to do so; that,

accordingly, he took two at one time out of the wheel, gave one to the

person who called it over, and put the other in his pocket; that the

person who induced him to do it was then in the gallery, and nodded

his head to the witness to signify when was a proper time; that, after

the witness came out of the hall, he gave the ticket to the person who

sat in the gallery, and who was then waiting for the witness in the

Guildhall Yard; that the next time the witness drew the lottery, the

person before mentioned returned him the ticket, which the witness

put in the wheel, and drew out the same day; that he did this three

several times, and received from the person for whom he did it, several

half guineas; that he has heard the prisoner’s name mentioned by him,

but never heard the latter acknowledge any connection between them in

insurance; and, never before, saw the prisoner.

“The prisoner acknowledged he insured the ticket 79 times for one day.

The mother of the person who was not apprehended, was next examined;

she proved an acquaintance between her son and the prisoner; but denied

any remembrance of ever hearing the latter mention anything relating to

insurance. The prisoner was discharged.

“It is said that the person who absconded, got about £400 by the above

fraud; and would have got £3000, had he been paid in all the offices

where he insured.”

But, that such a fraud should not be perpetrated again, the Lords

of the Treasury, on 12th Dec. 1775, issued an Order, of which the

following is an extract:

“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, for preventing the like wicked practices in

future, that every boy, before he is suffered to put his hand into

either wheel, be brought by the proclaimer to the managers on duty,

for them to see _that the bosoms and sleeves of his coat be closely

buttoned, his pockets sewed up, and his hands examined_; and that,

during the time of his being on duty, _he shall keep his left hand

in his girdle behind him, and his right hand open, with his fingers

extended_: and the proclaimer is not to suffer him, at any time, to

leave the wheel, without, first, being examined by the Manager nearest

him.”

They also “requested of the Treasurer of Christ’s Hospital, not to

make known who are the twelve boys nominated for drawing the lottery,

till the morning before the drawing begins; which said boys are all to

attend every day, and the two who are to go on duty at the wheels, are

to be taken promiscuously from amongst the whole number, by either of

the secretaries, without observing any regular course, or order; so

that no boy shall know when it will be his turn to go to either wheel.”

_À propos_ of insuring lottery tickets, Horace Walpole writes to the

Countess of Ossory, 17th Dec. 1780: “As folks in the country love to

hear of _London fashions_, know, Madam, that the reigning one amongst

the _quality_, is to go, after the opera, to the lottery offices, where

their Ladyships bet with the keepers. You choose any number you please;

if it does not come up next day, you pay five guineas; if it does,

receive forty, or in proportion to the age of the _tirage_. The Duchess

of Devonshire, in one day, won nine hundred pounds. General Smith, as

the luckiest of all mites, is of the most select parties, and chooses

the numeros.”

On Jan. 6, 1777, two Jews were brought before the Lord Mayor, charged

with counterfeiting a lottery ticket; but, as they brought plenty of

false witnesses, they were acquitted. But one, Daniel Denny, was not

so lucky on Feb. 24, the same year, for he was convicted of the same

crime. The _Annual Register_ for this year says:

“The following is a true state of the different methods of getting

money by lottery office keepers, and other ingenious persons, who have

struck out different plans of getting money by the State Lottery of

1777.

“First, His Majesty’s Royal Letters Patent for securing the Property of

the purchasers.

“Secondly, A few office keepers who advertise ‘By authority of

Parliament’ to secure your property in shares and chances.

“Thirdly, Several schemes for shares and chances, only entitling the

purchasers to all prizes above twenty pounds.

“Fourthly, A bait for those who can only afford to venture a shilling.

“Then come the ingenious sett of lottery merchants, viz. Lottery

magazine proprietors—Lottery tailors—Lottery stay makers—Lottery

glovers—Lottery hat makers—Lottery tea merchants—Lottery snuff and

tobacco merchants—Lottery handkerchiefs—Lottery bakers—Lottery

barbers (where a man, for being shaved, and paying threepence, may

stand a chance of getting ten pounds)—Lottery shoe blacks—Lottery

eating houses; one in Wych Street, Temple-bar, where, if you call for

six penny worth of roast, or boiled beef, you receive a note of hand,

with a number, which, should it turn out fortunate, may entitle the

eater of the beef to sixty guineas—Lottery oyster stalls, by which the

fortunate may get five guineas for three penny worth of oysters. And,

to complete this curious catalogue, an old woman, who keeps a sausage

stall in one of the little alleys leading to Smithfield, wrote up,

in chalk, _Lottery sausages_, or, five shillings to be gained for a

farthing relish.”

In 1782 an Act was passed, whereby lottery office keepers were to pay a

licence of £50, under a penalty of £100 if they did not do so.

Sir Ashton Lever disposed of his Museum by lottery in 1758 by Act of

Parliament, and another Act was procured to dispose of, by lottery,

a large diamond, the property of the deceased Lord Pigot, valued at

£30,000. This lottery was drawn on Jan. 2, 1801, and the winner of

the prize was a young man, name unknown. It was, afterwards, sold at

Christie’s on May 10, 1802, for 9500 guineas. It was again sold, and is

said to have passed into the possession of Messrs Rundell and Bridge,

the Court jewellers, who are reported to have sold it to an Egyptian

Pasha for £30,000.

But, in the latter part of the eighteenth century, a system of private

lotteries, called “little goes” had sprung up, and they are thus

described in the _Times_ of 22nd July 1795:

“Amongst the various species of Gaming that have ever been practised,

we think none exceeds the mischiefs, and calamities that arise from

the practice of private lotteries, which, at present, are carrying on,

in various parts of the town, to very alarming extents, much to the

discredit of those whose province it is to suppress such nefarious

practices, as they cannot be ignorant of such transactions. ‘The little

go,’ which is the technical term for a private lottery, is calculated

only for the meridian of those understandings, who are unused to

calculate and discriminate between right and wrong, and roguery and

fair dealing; and, in this particular case, it is those who compose the

lower order of society, whom it so seriously affects, and, on whom,

it is chiefly designed to operate. No man of common sense can suppose

that the lottery wheels are fair and honest, or that the proprietors

act upon principles anything like honour, or honesty; for, by the art,

and contrivance, of the wheels, they are so constructed, with secret

springs, and the application of gum, glue, &c., in the internal part of

them, that they can draw the numbers out, or keep them in, at pleasure,

just as it suits their purposes; so that the ensurer, robbed and

cajoled, by such unfair means, has not the most distant chance of ever

winning; the whole being a gross fraud, and imposition, in the extreme.

We understand the most notorious of these standards of imposition, are

situated in Carnaby Market, Oxford Road, in the Borough, Islington,

Clerkenwell, and various other places, most of which are under the very

nose of Magistracy, in seeming security, bidding defiance to law, and

preying upon the vitals of the poor and ignorant.

“We hope the Magistrates of each jurisdiction, and those who possess

the same power, will perform their duty on behalf of the poor, over

whom they preside, and put a stop to such a growing, and alarming

evil, of such pernicious and dangerous tendency; particularly as the

proprietors are well-known bad characters, consisting of needy beggars,

desperate swindlers, gamblers, sharpers, notorious thieves, and common

convicted felons; most of whose names stand recorded in the Newgate

Calendar for various offences of different descriptions.”

_11th Aug. 1795._ “On Friday night last, in consequence of searching

warrants from the parochial magistrates of St James’s Westminster,

upwards of 30 persons were apprehended at the house of one M’Call, No.

2 Francis Street, near Golden Square, and in the house of J. Knight,

King Street, where the most destructive practices _to the poor_ were

carrying on, that of _Private Lotteries_ (called Little Goes). Two

wheels, with the tickets, were seized on the premises. Upon examination

of those persons, who proved to be the poor deluded objects who had

been there plundered, they were reprimanded, and discharged.

“The wives of many industrious mechanics, by attending these nefarious

houses, have not only been duped out of their earnings (which ought to

have been applied to the providing bread for their families), but have

even pawned their beds, wedding rings, and almost every article they

were possessed of, for that purpose.”

Here are two anecdotes of the winners of the great prize, which was,

usually, £20,000, from the _Times_:

_27th Dec. 1797._ “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, upon his arrival in London, found himself the proprietor of the

£20,000 prize. We guarantee the truth of this fact.”

_19th Mar. 1798._ “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; 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.”

In 1802, old Baron d’Aguilar, the Islington miser, was requested, by

a relation, to purchase a particular ticket, No. 14,068; but it had

been sold some few days previously. The baron died on the 16th of March

following, and the number was the first drawn ticket on the 24th, and,

as such, entitled to £20,000. The baron’s representatives, under these

circumstance, published an advertisement, offering a reward of £1000

to any person who might have found the said ticket, and would deliver

it up. Payment was stopped. A wholesale linen draper in Cornhill (who

had ordered his broker to buy him ten tickets, which he deposited in a

chest), on copying the numbers for the purpose of examining them, made

a mistake in one figure, and called it 14,168 instead of 14,068, which

was the £20,000 prize. The lottery being finished, he sent his tickets

to be examined and marked. To his utter astonishment, he then found

the error in the number copied on his paper. On his demanding payment

at the lottery office, a _caveat_ was entered by old d’Aguilar’s

executors; but, an explanation taking place, the £20,000 was paid to

the lucky linen draper.

Although these lotteries were a great source of revenue to Government,

and, consequently, relieved the taxpayer to the amount of their profit,

it began to dawn upon the public that this legalised gambling was

somewhat immoral; and, in 1808, a Committee of the House of Commons was

appointed, to inquire how far the evil attending lotteries had been

remedied by the laws passed respecting the same; and, in their Report,

they said 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 which it has, hitherto, proved so baneful a

source.”

Yet they continued to be held; but, when the Lottery Act of 1818 was

passing through the House of Commons, Mr Parnell protested against it,

and, in the course of his speech, suggested that the following epitaph

should be inscribed on the tomb of the Chancellor of the Exchequer:

“Here lies the Right Hon. Nicholas Vansittart, once Chancellor of the

Exchequer; the patron of Bible Societies, the builder of Churches, a

friend to the education of the poor, an encourager of Savings’ banks,

and—a supporter of Lotteries!”

And, in 1819, when the lottery for that year was being discussed, Mr

Lyttleton moved:

1. That by the establishment of State lotteries, a spirit of gambling,

injurious, in the highest degree, to the morals of the people, is

encouraged and provoked.

2. That such a habit, manifestly weakening the habits of industry, must

diminish the permanent sources of the public revenue.

3. That the said lotteries have given rise to other systems of

gambling, which have been but partially repressed by laws, whose

provisions are extremely arbitrary, and their enforcement liable to the

greatest abuse.

4. That this House, therefore, will no longer authorise the

establishment of State lotteries under any system of regulations

whatever.

Needless to say, these resolutions were not passed, but the Lottery was

on its last legs, for, in the Lottery Act of 1823, provision was made

for its discontinuance after the drawing of the lottery sanctioned in

that Act. Yet this was not adhered to, and a “last lottery” was decreed

to be drawn in 1826. Its date was originally fixed for the 18th of

July, but the public did not subscribe readily, and it was postponed

until the 18th of October, and, on that day it was drawn at Cooper’s

Hall, Basinghall Street. Here is an epitaph which was written on it:

In Memory of

THE STATE OF LOTTERY,

the last of a long line

whose origin in England commenced

in the year 1569,

which, after a series of tedious complaints,

_Expired_

on the

18th day of October 1826.

During a period of 257 years, the family

flourished under the powerful protection

of the

British Parliament;

the Minister of the day continuing to

give them his support for the improvement

of the revenue.

As they increased, it was found that their

continuance corrupted the morals,

and encouraged a spirit

of Speculation and Gambling among the lower

classes of the people;

thousands of whom fell victims to their

insinuating and tempting allurements.

Many philanthropic individuals

in the Senate,

at various times, for a series of years,

pointed out their baneful influence,

without effect;

His Majesty’s Ministers

still affording them their countenance

and protection.

The British Parliament

being, at length, convinced of their

mischievous tendency,

His Majesty GEORGE IV.

on the 9th of July 1823,

pronounced sentence of condemnation

on the whole race;

from which time they were almost

NEGLECTED BY THE BRITISH PUBLIC.

Very great efforts were made by the

Partisans and friends of the family to

excite

the public feeling in favour of the last

of the race, in vain:

It continued to linger out the few

remaining

moments of its existence without attention,

or sympathy, and finally terminated

its career unregretted by any

virtuous mind.

In 1836 an Act was passed “to prevent the advertising of Foreign and

illegal lotteries,” but circulars still come from Hamburg and other

places. In 1844 an Act was passed “to indemnify persons connected

with Art Unions, and others, against certain penalties.” Still there

were minor lotteries and raffles, and the law was seldom set in force

against them, any more than it is now when applied to charitable

purposes; yet in 1860 one Louis Dethier, was haled up at Bow Street

for holding a lottery for £10,000 worth of Twelfth Cakes, and was only

let off on consenting to stop it at once, and nowadays the lottery is

practically dead, except when some petty rogue is taken up for deluding

children with prize sweets.

CHAPTER XIX

Promoters and Projectors—Government loans—Commencement of Bank

of England—Character of a Stock Jobber—Jonathan’s—Hoax _temp._

Anne—South Sea Bubble—Poems thereon.

We are apt to think that company promoters and commercial speculation

are things of modern growth, but _Projectors_ and _Patentees_ (company

promoters and monopolists) were common in the early seventeenth

century; and we find an excellent exposition of their ways and

commodities in a poetical broadside by John Taylor, the Water poet,

published in 1641. It is entitled _The complaint of M. Tenter-hooke

the_ Proiector, _and Sir Thomas Dodger, the_ Patentee.

Under the title is a wood-cut, which represents a _Projector_, who

has a pig’s head and ass’s ears, screws for legs, and fish hooks for

fingers, bears a measure of coal, and a barrel of wine, on his legs

respectively, tobacco, pipes, dice, roll tobacco, playing cards, and a

bundle of hay slung to his body, papers of pins on his right arm, and

a measure for spirits on his left arm, a barrel and a dredger on the

skirts of his coat. With his fish hook fingers, he drags bags of money.

This is Tenter-hooke, who is saying to his friend Sir Thomas Dodger,

who is represented as a very well dressed gentleman of the period:

“I have brought money to fill your chest,

For which I am curst by most and least.”

To which Sir Thomas replies:

“Our many yeares scraping is lost at a clap,

All thou hast gotten by others’ mishap.”

_If any aske, what things these_ Monsters _be

‘Tis a_ Projector _and a_ Patentee:

_Such, as like Vermine o’re this Lande did crawle,

And grew so rich, they gain’d the Devill and all._