CHAPTER III.
The Virginia lottery of 1612--Private lottery--Licence for lottery to supply London with water--Two other schemes--Lottery in behalf of fishing vessels--Irish Land Lottery--One for redeeming English slaves--One for poor maimed soldiers-- Gambling lottery, concession for--“Royal Oak” Lottery--Evils of lotteries--“Royal Fishing Company” Lottery--Patentees.
The next public lottery of which we hear was that of 1612, when “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 casualitie, 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 threescore thousande 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 with sundry graue discreet Cittizens.”
In 1612, one Cornelius Drebbel wrote a letter in Latin to Prince Henry, complaining that the Lord Mayor had refused him permission to hold a lottery; that he had no other means of subsistence, and he begged the Prince to use his influence with the Lord Treasurer (Salisbury) for leave to have one beyond the jurisdiction of the city. He also wrote to the Lord Treasurer, enclosing a scheme of the proposed conditions of his lottery.
In 1620 the holding of lotteries was suspended by Order in Council; but on March 31, 1627, a licence was given to Michael Parker and Everard Mainwaring to raise money by means of a lottery, to be employed in carrying out the object indicated in the grant of same date to Sir Nicholas Saunder, Henry Saunder, and Michael Parker, which gave them power to convey water by a covered aqueduct from certain springs near Hoddesdon, in co. Herts, and to disperse the same through the streets and houses, paying to the Crown a rent of £4000 per annum. And again, on February 11, 1831, Parker and Mainwaring obtained a licence to set forth lotteries for raising money for bringing springs of water to London. It is said, though I can find no warrant for it, that the first lottery with money prizes was drawn in 1630.
There was another scheme for bringing water to London, for in 1637 the Regent and Professors of the _Musæum Minervæ_ petitioned the King for money, and proposed several schemes for raising the same, the third of them being, “By the Lottery granted to George Gage and others for bringing a river to London, much money was collected, but, the undertaking failing, the money remains _in deposito_, to be disposed to Sir Edward Peyto and Colonel Hambleton upon the like project. It is proposed that either this money be employed for the building of an academy, or that another lottery may be granted for that purpose.”
Yet another water scheme. “Jan. 14, 1689. Warrant to pass the Privy Seal appointing Sir Robert Pointz, K.B., and Edward Rudge, alderman of London, for the just carriage and managing of the lottery authorized by the King for the use of the aqueduct undertaken by Sir Edward Stradling, Sir Walter Roberts and others.”
On February 9, 1640, the Earl of Pembroke sent a remonstrance to the King about the damage the “Dunkirkers and other subjects of the King of Spain” had done to the English _busses_, or fishing vessels, and suggesting that “towards the cost of setting out their busses the next summer, they pray a grant of a standing lottery, as the Virginia Company had in 1612, to be managed by the most discreet of their association;” and this his Majesty, Charles I., was graciously pleased to grant.
In 1653, according to the _Perfect Account of the Daily Intelligence_, November 23 of that year, a lottery was held, and this is the
“ADVERTISEMENT
_At the Committee for Claims for Lands in Ireland._
Ordered, That a Lottery be at Grocers Hall, London, on Thursday, 15 Decem. 1653, both for Provinces and Counties, to begin at 8 of the clock in the forenoon of the same day; and all persons concerned therein are to take notice thereof.”
There was a lottery scheme August 7, 1660, which was granted. “The Petition of Capt. Thomas Gardiner to the King, to empower him to hold a lottery in England and Wales for three years, for ransom of English slaves in Tunis, Algiers, or the Turkish galleys, or for any other charitable use, paying in a third of the profits, and reserving the rest for his expenses, and repair of his fortunes, ruined by loyalty.”
In November, 1660, Captain William Pleydell petitioned “for leave to sell by lottery, during one year, some plate which he and others have procured, in order to gain relief for himself, and to obtain £10 each per annum for 12 poor maimed soldiers, named, of Lord Cottington’s life-guard, who live by begging in the street.”
[Illustration]
This was a comparatively worthy object, although the “relief for himself” might be capable of a very broad construction; but Charles II. was liberal in his concessions. There was one man, Francis, or Francisco, Corbett who was groom of the Privy Chambers to the Queen, who obtained a licence for a gambling lottery--possibly something like _roulette_ at Monte Carlo, called _L’Ocha di Catalonia_. On November 23, 1661, an order was made forbidding a lottery carried on by Francisco Finochelli, as being the same with the _L’Ocha di Catalonia_, for which the sole licence was granted to Francisco Corbett, of whom we shall hear more; but it is best to proceed chronologically, if possible.
We next hear of him in connection with the famous “Royal Oak Lottery,” for on August 25, 1663, when a licence was granted to Captain James Roche, Adjutant of the Guards, and Francis Corbett to set up and exercise the lotteries of the Royal Oak and Queen’s Nosegay, in any place in England and Wales; none else to set up the same, or any lottery that approaches it, except Sir Anthony Des Marces, Bart., and Lawrence Dupuy, to whom a similar licence has already been granted. Meanwhile, Corbett and Finochelli had become partners, as we see by the docket on the memorial of August 28 of same year, of one Simon Marcelli, of money transactions between Captain Roche, Francis Corbett, and Jean Francisco Finochelli, relative to the lottery of the Royal Oak set up at Smithfield Fair. Captain Roche furnished £95, on condition of not giving the company the patent till repaid; but, the sum being paid, he gave up the patent.
Corbett must have found the lotteries profitable, for on December 3 of the same year, a grant was made to Francis Corbett of licence to set up lotteries of a new invention, called the Royal Oak and Triomfo Imperiale, in any city in the kingdom, permitting no others to exercise the same except Sir Anthony Des Marces, Lawrence Dupuy, and Captain James Roche, to whom a similar privilege is given, on paying five shillings weekly to the poor where the lotteries are. But as soon as he got the concession, Corbett seems to have sold out; for there is a petition of Sir Anthony Des Marces, Bart., Lawrence Dupuy, and Richard Baddeley, for a licence to exercise the lottery of the Royal Oak and all others in England, Wales, and Ireland, as they had purchased the other partners’ interests, spent large sums of money thereon, and were checked in the exercise of them. Yet, still later on in the same month, in order to obtain this licence, they had to sign an indenture by which they agreed to pay a certain sum yearly to Sir John Crosland and Captain Edward Bennett, in consideration of the services of Secretary Bennet in procuring for them the licence. On that indenture being signed came at once, the warrant for them to set up the lotteries of the Royal Oak and L’Ocha di Catalonia, applying the whole profits to support the fishing trade only, _the patentees receiving fit recompense for their trouble_. So that we see that there were small “Panama scandals” in those days. Indeed, this lottery seems to have been a swindle; for, in a letter, January 6, 1664, from Nathaniel Cale, who had been Mayor of Bristol, to Joseph Williamson, secretary to Sir Henry Bennet, and afterwards keeper of State Papers, he says he “will forward any lottery at the Bristol fair, except the Royal Oak, which broke half the cashiers in Bristol, when last there.” Yet, on the 11th of the same month, he writes to the same that he has prevailed with the Mayor, Sir John Knight, to allow the Royal Oak Lottery during the eight days of the fair; and, perhaps, the leave may be extended. But he has a prejudice against it; for, at its last being there, many young men ruined themselves, and his own son lost £50.
The sequel to this story is told later on. On February 14, 1664, Sir John Knight wrote to Williamson that he had received his letters in behalf of the Royal Oak Lottery men, who have spent three weeks there. Last year they were there five months, and the cry of the poor sort of people was great against them, because, not being allowed by the great seal, they were clear against law. Will tolerate them some longer, but thinks they will soon be warped out. Nathaniel Cale writes that the Mayor has granted fourteen days to the Royal Oak, and then will grant more.
It would be impossible to close the notice of this lottery without quoting from a very rare little 12mo book,[14] as it gives us the inner life of the scheme; and, besides, is amusing. The indictment, as the wont of such documents, is cumbrous and heavy, and was terrible. The first witness called was Captain Pasthope, who was examined by one of the managers.
[14] “The Arraignment, Trial, and Condemnation of Squire Lottery, _alias_ Royal Oak Lottery.” London, 1699.
“_Man._ Sir, do you know Squire _Lottery_, the prisoner at the Bar?
“_Pasthope._ Yes, I have known him intimately for near 40 years; ever since the Restoration of King _Charles_.
“_Man._ Pray, will you give the Bench and Jury an Account of what you know of him; how he came into _England_, and how he has behav’d ever since?
“_Pasthope._ In order to make my Evidence more plain, I hope it will not be judg’d much out of form, to premise two or three things.
“_Man._ Take your own method to explain yourself; we must not abridge or direct you in any respect.
“_Pasthope._ In the year 60 and 61, among a great many poor Cavaliers, ’twas my hard fate to be driven to Court for a Subsistence, where I continued in a neglected state, painfully waiting the moving of the waters for several months; when, at last, a Rumour was spread that a certain Stranger was landed in _England_; that, in all probability, if we could get him the Sanction of a Patent, would be a good Friend to us.
“_Man._ You seem to intimate as if he was a Stranger; pray, do you know what Countryman he was?
“_Pasthope._ The report of his Country was very different; some would have him a _Walloon_, some a _Dutchman_, some a _Venetian_, and others, a _Frenchman_; indeed, by his Policy, cunning Design, Forethought, etc., I am very well satisfied he could be no _Englishman_.
“_Man._ What kind of Credentials did he bring with him to recommend him with so much advantage?
“_Pasthope._ Why, he cunningly took upon him the Character of a _Royal Oak Lottery_, and pretended a mighty friendship to antiquated Loyalists; but, for all that, there were those at Court that knew he had been banish’d out of several Countries for disorderly Practices, till at last he pitch’d upon poor easy credulous _England_ for his Refuge.
“_Man._ You say, then, he was a Foreigner, that he came in with the Restoration, usurp’d the Title of a _Royal Oak_, was establish’d in Friendship to the Cavaliers, and that for disorderly Practices he had been banish’d out of several Countries; till, at last, he was forc’d to fix upon _England_ as the fittest _Asylum_. But, pray, Sir, how came you so intimately acquainted with him at first?
“_Pasthope._ I was about to tell you. In order to manage his Affairs, it was thought requisite he should be provided with several Coadjutors, which were to be dignify’d with the Character of _Patentees_; amongst which number, by the help of a friendly Courtier, I was admitted for one.
“_Man._ Oh! then I find you was a _Patentee_. Pray, how long did you continue in your Patentee’s Post? and what were the Reasons that urg’d you to quit it at last?
“_Pasthope._ I kept my Patentee’s Station nine years, in which time I had clear’d £4000, and then, upon some Uneasiness and Dislike, I sold it for £700.”
Francisco Corbett seems to have regretted the sale of his portion of this lucrative lottery, for, in 1663, he petitioned for a share, at least, in the lottery granted him by his Majesty, of which he was deprived by the interposition of others during his late absence; also for restoration to his place as groom of the Privy Chambers to the Queen, into which another had intruded, and for payment of some part of a pension promised him by his Majesty. We hear of him once more in a petition to the King written in Italian, probably in 1664, in which he said he was ill, on his journey to Paris, and too ill on his arrival to see Madame. His Majesty promised him favour, if, owing to the impediments that Sir Henry Bennet makes to his game, he cannot profit by his promised letter of change. Had received no profit, and failed to obtain the money he hoped for in Paris, and begged that he might return to throw himself at his Majesty’s feet; but what became of him, I do not know.
That these lotteries were an acknowledged evil is well shown by the Domestic State Papers. Take, for instance, “July 11, 1663.--The King to the Mayor, Sheriffs, etc., of Norwich. Is informed of the ill consequences resulting from the frequency of lotteries, puppet-shows, etc., whereby the meaner sort of people are diverted from their work. Empowers him and his successors, magistrates of the city, to determine the length of stay of such shows in the city, notwithstanding any licences from his Majesty, or the Master of Revels.”
In 1664 this permission was relaxed, for Secretary Bennet wrote to the Mayor of Norwich, that, although the King had given authority to the magistrates of that town to allow or disallow the keeping of shows, games, and lotteries, in order to avoid abuses happening by their licentious exercise; but now he signified his pleasure that no lotteries are to be allowed, except as appointed by Sir Anthony Des Marces, to whom the management of the same is granted for the benefit of the Royal Fishing Company.
Yet we find Court favour superseding this arrangement, for the same year a warrant was made out for a licence to Thomas Killigrew to set up a lottery for three years, after the expiration of the three years’ lottery granted to the Royal Fishing Company, called the Pricking Book Lottery, on rental of £50, to be paid to the said company. But Killigrew could not wait, and wrote offering £600 at once, or £650 in two payments, for the Pricking Book Lottery, of which Sir Anthony Des Marces had the power of disposal, and suggested that it was about the best offer he could expect.
However, there were others in the field hankering after this profitable gamble, for there is a letter from some person unknown to Killigrew, asking him to prevail with Sir Henry Bennet that some friends may have liberty from Sir Anthony Des Marces and Co. to use the Pricking Lottery, paying £200 a year as long as Sir Anthony has the management of it; which, excepting £100 fine, is as much as the Fishing Commissioners ever offered. The reasons why they offered no more were--that there were never more than eight lotteries in England, and they were licensed by the Master of the Revels, and let at such rent as from £25 to £30 a year. Another person offered to give Sir Anthony £1000 for the reversion of the two unexpired terms in the lottery.
I fancy all this lusting after the profits of lotteries was noticed in high places, for there is a proclamation dated from Whitehall, July 21, 1665, forbidding any persons to use or exercise lotteries in Great Britain or Ireland, except Sir Anthony Des Marces, Louis Marquis de Duras, Joseph Williamson, Lawrence Dupuy, and Richard Baddeley, to whom the sole right of managing them is granted, in order to raise a stock for the Royal Fishing Company. But Sir Anthony was not content with this concession. He petitioned in 1666, together with his partners, for a grant for seven years of all lotteries in Scotland, and the foreign plantations. It seems possible that the interests of these patentees, or monopolists, was sold; for, on February 25, 1667, the Marquis of Blanquefort and George Hamilton petitioned the King for the sole licence of holding lotteries in his Majesty’s dominions, giving as a reason that the Royal Company to whom it was granted, in 1664, for three years now expired, were indifferent to the renewal of their licence. And this must evidently have been arranged, for, on the same date, a warrant was issued giving them the sole licence of all sorts of lotteries in the kingdom of England and Ireland and the plantations for seven years.