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