CHAPTER V.
Penalties on private lotteries--State lottery not subscribed for--Lapse in State lotteries--Private lotteries--Westminster Bridge lottery--State lotteries--Discredit thrown on them--British Museum lottery--Leheup’s fraud.
Once more came a wave of virtue against private lotteries, and in 1721, by the 36th sec. of 8 Geo. I. c. 2, was prescribed 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. Yet the Government themselves, the very same year, brought out a lottery to raise £700,000 by 70,000 tickets at £10 each; 6998 prizes from £10,000 to £20; 63,002 blanks at £8 each, about nine blanks to a prize, paid soon after being drawn. And there were lotteries for the same amount and on the same terms in 1722, 1723, and 1724.
After that a curious thing in the history of lotteries happened, the reason whereof may be that the offer was not sufficiently tempting. In 1726 a lottery was launched for raising a million, by 100,000 tickets at £10 each, the prizes to be made stock at 3 per cent. But 11,093 of these tickets were returned into the Exchequer unsold, and drawn in prizes and blanks only £103,272 10_s._, whereby £7657 10_s._ was lost to the Exchequer.
This may probably account for there being no other State lottery till 1731 (4 Geo. II. c. 9), when £800,000 was raised by 80,000 tickets of £10 each, the blanks being entitled to £7 10_s._ each, and the whole bearing interest at 3 per cent. This capital was merged (25 Geo. II. c. 27) into the Consolidated Three per Cents., and this course of converting into stock, instead of paying the money, was adopted in many subsequent lotteries.
Once more they were prohibited by legislation, for “An Act for the more effectual preventing of excessive and deceitful gaming” was passed in 1739 (12 Geo. II. c. 28), the first section of which dealt with private lotteries. Yet the Government acted on Shakespeare’s dictum--
“That in the Captain’s but a cholerick word-- Which in the soldier is flat blasphemy;”
and, as we shall see, kept lotteries to themselves, whilst condemning them as sinful in the hands of private speculators--which was perhaps necessary, as in the _Gentleman’s Magazine_, 1739, p. 329, I find a private lottery for £325,000, in which there were two prizes of £10,000 each (and in number 16,310), down to £10, whilst there were 48,690 blanks.
“THE STATE LOTTERY.”
This was a lottery drawn between December 10, 1739, and January 25, 1740, for building the first bridge over the Thames, in lieu of the old Horse-*ferry--12,500 tickets at £5 each, not more than three blanks to a prize. It really was drawn at Stationers’ Hall, but there is no doubt but that the illustration is meant for the Guildhall. Below the design are the following verses, which show the valuation put upon the lottery even then:--
“The Name of a Lott’ry the Nature bewitches, And City and Country run Mad after Riches: My Lord, who, already, has Thousands a Year, Thinks to double his Income by vent’ring it here: The Country Squire dips his Houses and Grounds, For tickets to gain him the Ten Thousand Pounds: The rosie-jowl’d Doctor his Rectorie leaves, In quest of a Prize, to procure him Lawn Sleeves. The Tradesman, whom Duns for their Mony importune, Here hazards his All, for th’ Advance of his Fortune: The Footman resolves, if he meets no Disaster, To mount his gilt Chariot, and vie with his Master. The Cook-Maid determines, by one lucky Hit, To free her fair Hands from the Pot-hooks and Spit: The Chamber-maid struts in her Ladies Cast Gown, And hopes to be dub’d the Top Toast of the Town: But Fortune, alas! will have small Share of Thanks, When all their high Wishes are bury’d in Blanks. For tho’ they for Benefits eagerly watch’d, They reckon’d their Chickens before they were hatch’d.”
“THE LOTTERY.”
This has connection with the same lottery, but a description would be too long for these pages, so I only quote the three concluding lines of the verses under the engraving, to show how, in the height of its folly, they could moralize on the lottery--
“To Knaves and Fools the Wheels turn round; The various kinds do come and go With five to one ’tis Thro’ Bridge Ho.”[16]
“THE LOTTERY; or, The Characters of several in genious, designing Gentlewomen, that have put into it. A Noted lottery Pachter.”[17]
[16] Shooting the arches of London Bridge at high tide was always a dangerous experiment.
[17] Pactor--a dealer, maker of bargains.
This was probably intended as a satire upon Cox, who kept a lottery office near the Royal Exchange, and was a bookseller, which is shown in his portrait (a very fat man, with his coat buttoned all down, and a sash round his body), where in his sash is stuck a book, marked “Book Sold.”
Up to the early eighteenth century, the only communication between Westminster and the Surrey side of the river was by a ferry (still commemorated in Horse-ferry Road), which was the property of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and for the privilege of which he paid an annual rent of twenty pence. The landing-place on the Surrey side was close to the Episcopal palace. This ferry, however, was inconvenient, and, in 1736, an Act of Parliament was procured (9 Geo. II. c. 29), after much opposition on the part of the city of London, “For building a bridge cross the river _Thames_, from the _New Palace Yard_, in the city of _Westminster_, to the opposite shore in the County of _Surrey_.” Commissioners for building the bridge were to be chosen, to meet in the Jerusalem Chamber, June 22, 1736, and adjourn to appoint in what manner and with what materials the bridge shall be built. No houses to be erected thereon.
The result of their deliberations was another Act (10 Geo. II. c. 16) for explaining and amending the above. By this £700,000 was to be raised by way of lottery, the residue of the money after payment of the prizes to be applied towards the building of the bridge, and tolls might be levied at the following rates:--“Every coach, etc., drawn by six horses, 2_s._; by four horses, 1_s._ 6_d._; by less than four horses, 1_s._ For every waggon, etc., drawn by four horses, 1_s._ 6_d._, and by less than four horses, 1_s._ For every horse, etc., not drawing, 2_d._ For every foot passenger on Sundays, 1_d._, and on every other day, ½_d._ For every drove of oxen, 1_s._ per score. For every drove of calves, hogs, sheep, or lambs, 6_d._ per score.”
I have before me the originals of two schemes for the erection of this bridge. One is “For raising £60,000 without any Tax upon the Inhabitants of the City of _Westminster_, for the building a Bridge cross the River of _Thames_, the Legs of Stone, and the Arches turn’d with Bricks (made on purpose, like those us’d in the Dome of _St. Paul’s_ which is 110 Foot wide) after the manner of the Brick-Bridge of _Thoulouse_, the greatest Arch of which is 100 Foot span; and to become a free Bridge, in twenty-one years, except a small Duty to keep it in repair.” It was proposed to raise a loan of £60,000 at 5 per cent. interest on the security of the tolls to be levied, which, it was calculated, would be repaid within the period specified, the tolls being estimated to produce £6000 per annum. The other is “A Plan of a Lottery to raise upwards of £100,000, free of all Expences and Deductions, for Building a Bridge at _Westminster_,” and it was proposed to have a lottery of £625,000, in 125,000 tickets at £5 each, only three blanks to a prize, and to deduct 16 per cent. from all prizes, which would amount to £100,000.
There was another Act passed in 1738 (11 Geo. II. c. 25) respecting this bridge, which provided that the bridge should be built from the wool staple at Westminster, of what materials the Commissioners should think fit, and they were to account yearly. On January 29, 1739, the first stone was laid by Henry, Earl of Pembroke, and the same year another Act was passed (12 Geo. II. c. 33), which not only empowered the Commissioners to make compulsory purchases of houses and land, but allowed them to issue a lottery of £325,000, and to take 15 per cent. of that sum, amounting to £48,750, for the purpose of building the bridge. An Act confirming this was passed (13 Geo. II. c. 16), and on December 8, 1740, the drawing of the Bridge Lottery began at Stationers’ Hall. The total cost of the bridge, which took eleven years and nine months to build, was £389,500, and it was opened on November 17, 1750.
There were State lotteries in 1743-4-5-6-7-8, for sums varying from £1,000,000 to £6,300,000, all of which were converted into stock by Acts of Parliament in the reign of George III. In 1751 the next State lottery was authorized by Parliament (24 Geo. II. c. 2), £700,000 in tickets of £10 each; but, somehow, this did not go down with the public. The _Gentleman’s Magazine_ for July, 1751 (p. 328), says, “Those inclined to become adventurers in the present lottery were cautioned in the papers to wait some time before they purchased tickets, whereby the jobbers would be disappointed of their market and obliged to sell at a lower price. At the present rate of tickets the adventurer plays at 35 per cent. loss.”
This was further illustrated by some figures which appeared in the _London Magazine_ for August, same year, giving the following odds against winning, the chances being--
34,999 to 1 against a £10,000 prize. 11,665 ” ” 5,000 ” or upwards. 6,363 ” ” 3,000 ” 3,683 ” ” 2,000 ” 1,794 ” ” 1,000 ” 874 ” ” 500 ” 249 ” ” 100 ” 99 ” ” 50 ” 6 ” ” 20 ” or any prize.
In fact, such discredit was thrown upon this lottery, that a Mr. Holland publicly offered to lay four hundred guineas, that four hundred tickets, when drawn, would not, on an average, amount to more than £9 15_s._ each, prizes and blanks; and his offer was never accepted. As Adam Smith observed, it was an incontrovertible fact that the world never had seen, and never would see, a fair lottery.
Hone, in his “Every-Day Book,” gives the two following illustrations of the drawing of this lottery. Unfortunately, I have been unable to verify them, but it strikes me that the first one is of earlier date, judging by the costumes, and that the halls in which the lottery is drawn are totally different.
[Illustration]
[Illustration: Drawing of the Lottery in Guildhall, 1751.]
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 with it the library of Sir Robert Cotton, and that known as the Harleian library, thus forming the nucleus of the British Museum. The next thing was to find a house wherein to keep this collection, and to raise money for the same, at the least cost. This was done, in the same Act, by means of a lottery, the managers and trustees of which were, singularly enough, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord Chancellor, and the Speaker, each of whom was to have £100 for his trouble. The subscription to the lottery was £300,000, in tickets of £3 each. £200,000 was to be distributed in prizes varying from £10,000 to £10, and the remainder was to go towards the purchasing of the Sloane collection and library, and the Harleian library, finding suitable cases for the property acquired, house-room and attendants. The lottery was to be drawn on November 26, 1753, and all prizes were to be paid by December 31, 1754, when those not presented would be forfeited.
And this Act is the only trace I can find of this lottery, although I have had the willing and zealous aid of the officials of the British Museum in searching after it.
In connection with this lottery was a gross fraud, into which the House of Commons caused an inquiry to be made, and the committee eventually reported that Peter Leheup, Esq., had privately disposed of a great number of tickets before the office was opened, to which the public were directed, by an advertisement, to apply; that he, also, delivered great numbers to particular persons, upon lists of names which he knew to be fictitious; and that, in particular, Sampson Gideon became proprietor of more than six thousand, which he sold at a premium. The House resolved that Leheup had been guilty of a violation of the Act and a breach of trust, and the Attorney-General was instructed to prosecute him. On June 9, 1855, he was found guilty, and sentenced to pay a fine of £1000, which he could well afford, as it is said he had made £40,000 by his rascality.
[Illustration]