A History of Advertising from the Earliest Times.

by Henry Sampson

R. H. was Robert Hemmings, who was eventually tried at the Warwick Assizes of last March, and whose modus operandi was then described. Several young ladies seeing the advertisements, and wishing for employment, wrote to the address given, in answer to which they received the “Prospectus of the Private Office for the Supply of Sermons and Lectures to Clergymen and Public Speakers.” In this highly-titled and pretentious document, clergymen “who find the composition of sermons too heavy a tax on their ingenuity, are invited to subscribe for manuscript sermons, arranged according to the three schools of thought in the English Church. The High Church section is subdivided into Ritualistic and moderate Anglican. The subscription for three sermons weekly is four guineas per annum, payable in advance. The same sermon will not be sent to any two clergymen within twenty miles of each other.” It also states, that the business of the office rendering necessary the employment of copyists, it has been decided to employ ladies only, the reason being that home occupation to gentlewomen of limited income is such a great desideratum of our times. Then it goes on to say that “the ordinary avenues for respectable women desiring to replenish their scanty purses are so overstocked that the limited number we are able to employ will gladly welcome the opportunity of turning a fair handwriting to a profitable account. The remuneration paid will be 2d. per 100 words. To avoid the possibility of unscrupulous persons obtaining valuable sermons on pretence of copying, a guarantee of 10s. will be required from each copyist before MSS. are sent, to be returned when she may discontinue working. Applicants for employment should enclose 2s. 6d. on account of their deposit, which will either be returned or a notification of engagement sent. In the latter case the balance must then be remitted, in order that the first parcel may be supplied. All communications to be sent to Mr Robert Hemmings, 39, New-buildings, Coventry.” One young lady resident in London, who gave evidence, sent the half-crown, and then received a letter stating that she would be employed on forwarding a post-office order to Birmingham for 7s. 6d. She did not do so, but many other ladies were not so wise. The prisoner having obtained the money, ceased to communicate with the applicants. The jury found the prisoner guilty, and the judge sentenced him to twelve months’ imprisonment with hard labour.

A more fortunate rogue was one who came into notice at the Sussex Assizes four or five years back. Justice may or may not have overtaken him since, for these fellows have so many and such various aliases that unless you happen to see one tried and hear him sentenced, there is no way of telling who he is or what he may have been. The object of our care at the present moment was known at Bognor in Sussex as Henry Watkis, though as he admitted to one more name, the suggestive one of Walker, even there, it would be difficult to say what might be his name in London or any other large town. He used to advertise to procure situations in London daily and weekly papers, and some complaints having been made to the police, he was taken into custody on a warrant, and appeared at the Chichester Quarter Sessions. From a newspaper report of the time we take some of the following particulars of what must be considered a decided miscarriage of justice.

Watkis lived at 6 Jessamine Cottages, Bognor, and when the superintendent of police from Chichester searched his cottage, he found under the stairs 530 letters, consisting of testimonials, replies to, and drafts of advertisements; and in another part of the house he found about 150 envelopes, apparently sent for replies, from which stamps had been cut. When Watkis was apprehended, he acknowledged that he was the person who had been advertising in the name of “B. C., Post-office, Chichester,” by which it seems that he had still another alias, though not in Bognor. On that day he sent a lad to the Chichester post-office, and a large bundle of letters, addressed as above, was brought back from the office. In the course of a few days after Watkis’s apprehension, between seven and eight hundred letters were received at the post-office all directed in the same way. Evidence was given that advertisements were inserted in the Daily Telegraph and Lloyd’s in consequence of orders received in letters signed “Hy. Watkis,” and “Hy. Walker.” About 500 letters were received at Chichester, addressed “X. Y. Z,” in accordance with one of the advertisements, and a very large number were also received at Emsworth under still a fresh set of initials. Altogether nearly 20,000 letters are supposed to have been sent to the two offices for the accused. It was proved that 34s. worth of stamps, all singles, had been sold by Watkis. At the conclusion of the address for the prosecution, the deputy recorder ruled that there was no case to go to the jury as far as the law was concerned. There was no proof that Watkis had, either on his own part or on that of others, no such situations to offer as had been advertised. The jury were not satisfied without hearing the evidence that the prisoner was not guilty. The deputy recorder said they had placed him in a very difficult position, and he must tell them again that the indictment could not be maintained in point of law. Therefore they would be doing a very irregular thing to go into the case. It was for them to find a verdict in accordance with the ruling of the court on the point of law. After some discussion the jury returned into court, and the foreman, in answer to the usual question, said, “If we are obliged to say not guilty, we must; but the jury wish to express a strong opinion.” By advice of the deputy recorder, however, this opinion was not recorded, and the prisoner was accordingly discharged.

We will wind up this portion of our list of swindles with an advertisement of the same order, which succeeded in realising a good income for its promoter:—

LADIES and EDUCATED WOMEN are respectfully invited to consult Mrs. EGGLESTON’S SERIES of 60 HOME and other NEW EMPLOYMENTS, which are beginning to attract a large share of public interest for their marked superiority over very unremunerative pursuits usually engaged in.—Enclose an addressed stamped envelope to Mrs Eggleston, ——, Ramsgate, for prospectus.

Sixty different businesses to choose from for home employment! Dollseye and leather-apron weaving was doubtless among them; and in sorting out those occupations most suited to her various correspondents, Mrs Eggleston doubtless passed a pleasant time at the seaside, even if she did not lay up riches against the time she returned to London.

Turf-swindlers are next upon our list, and no one will doubt that these gentry are well deserving of attention, the more so as, partly by themselves, and partly by means of the shortsightedness peculiar to the public, which causes it to form judgments on subjects it does not understand, welchers and thieves who advertise the most impossible “certainties” have been in numerous instances taken to represent the respectable and honourable turfite. We know it is the custom now to assume that a man is bound to be dishonourable if he be professionally connected with racing in any capacity; and any effort made to contradict wholesale and thoughtless accusations is supposed to be the outcome of self-interest, or the blind devotion of quixotry. Men who are cool and calculating enough when discussing ordinary subjects, become almost rabid when the turf is mentioned; and in most articles which have been written on the subject of sporting advertisements, it is assumed that the scheming concocters of baits for fools are fair representatives of the bookmaking class, and all are alike denounced. Surely it would be as just to assume that the baby-farmers and promoters of home employment whose effusions we have quoted were fair representatives of ordinary commerce, as that the “discretionary-investment” promoter is in any way connected with the legitimate bookmaker. We have no wish here to argue for or against betting; but we cannot help noticing that even in Parliament—which is never supposed to legislate upon what it does not understand!—notorious thieves have been taken to represent the principal advertising bookmakers, and long arguments as to the equity of the Betting-House Act framed on the assumption. During the present year there has been considerable discussion in the House of Commons with reference to the Act which was passed in 1853, Scotland being at the time exempt from its operation. The effect of leaving the “land of cakes” in the position of one who is known to be too virtuous to need protection was not visible for some years; for though the Act of Sir Alexander Cockburn had the effect of clearing away the numerous betting-offices, which were undoubtedly at the time public nuisances and open lures to men whose speculative disposition was in inverse proportion to its means of gratification, the better-class agents, whose business was carried on through the post only, continued to flourish or decay, according to circumstances, until 1869. The attention of the police being then drawn to numerous advertisements which appeared in the London and provincial papers on the subject of betting, a raid was made on a large establishment near Covent Garden: books and papers, clerks and managers, were seized and conveyed to Bow Street; and though the employés were ultimately discharged, the proprietor was ultimately fined heavily, the decision of the magistrate being eventually endorsed by the judges to whom the case was referred on appeal. A flight of betting men resulted, the resting-place of some being Glasgow, and of others Edinburgh; from both of which places they put forth their advertisements as before, safe in the knowledge that so far, at all events, the law was on their side. The extension of the Act of 1853 was of course only matter of time; but the first two or three efforts failed signally, principally on account of the blind animosity of the promoters of the measure, which caused them to frame bills which, for intolerance and hopeless stupidity, have perhaps never been equalled. Another cause was a feeling that, while one form of betting was allowed at Tattersall’s and the chief sporting clubs—a form which had shown itself equal to ruining several peers and hundreds of young men of less degree—it was impolitic to over-legislate with regard to the half-crowns and half-sovereigns of working men and small tradesmen, and to say to them, while yet the terrible “plunging” years were fresh in memory, “Dukes and marquises only shall ruin themselves at will, you, the common people, must be saving as well as industrious.”

At last Mr Anderson, one of the members for Glasgow, introduced his Extension Bill (1874), and though his arguments were eminently ridiculous, as he assumed that every advertiser was a swindler, his legislative attempt was a much greater success than any former effort had been in the same direction, and his bill, with a few modifications, eventually became law. As an instance of the feeling to which this measure gave rise, we quote part of a criticism upon it from the most able of the sporting papers which make the turf their principal study, the Sportsman, the first journal that refused the advertisements of swindlers whose intentions were evident, a method of self-abnegation which might be studied to advantage by many virtuous newspapers, which, while they weep over the iniquity of sporting advertisements, are strangely oblivious as to the character or effect of those which appear in their own columns. It must be remembered that the “ring” and Tattersall’s betting—of which mention is made in the following—is not interfered with by law, because nothing is staked before the decision of the race but “honour.” This, being often deeply mortgaged, is found insufficient for the demand when settling-day arrives.

Says the writer in the Sportsman, after demolishing several of the charges made against ready-money betting: “Take the case of those who bet in the ring, or at Tattersall’s, or in the clubs. What guarantee is there between the contracting parties that there shall be no element of fraud, and consequently no immorality in the transaction? And what guarantee is there that one or other of the contracting parties who is induced to bet is not a person who cannot afford to lose? There is an inducement to bet on either side: on the side of the layer and on the side of the backer, and will any one acquainted with the subject be prepared to say that in scores of cases there is not on both parts a total inability to pay in the event of loss? What man is there who, having seen much of the ring, cannot recall many instances of layers betting to such an extent that they could never pay if the fates were against them, and of backers ‘having’ the ring all round without a sovereign in their pockets? Nay, cannot even the general public who are not initiated into such mysteries remember numbers of men who have ruined themselves and others under the system in which Mr Anderson ‘does not feel there is any immorality,’ because in it ‘the element of fraud is not introduced,’ and because under it ‘people who cannot afford to lose’ are not induced to bet? The result of his bill will be that he will drive men from one style of betting, in which they lose or win, knowing the extent of their gains or their losses, to another, under which they may be drawn into hopeless speculation, and perhaps concomitant fraud, simply because they are not called on for ready money. We do not propose to follow Mr Anderson through his ingenious and amusing descriptions of the advertisements of tipsters and ‘discretionary-investment’ people. He was good enough to introduce ourselves as a striking example of the facility with which such persons could foist their schemes on the public, and of the large profits which were derived by certain newspaper proprietors from them. He had the honesty to acknowledge that we had refused to take any further announcements with respect to ‘discretionary investments,’ and that we had persistently cautioned our readers to have nothing to do with them.... As for tipsters, who merely offer to give information for a shilling’s worth of stamps, what immorality can there be in that which is not to be found in the ‘selections’ of the daily newspapers? Even the Times, in a roundabout ‘respectable’ way, now and then indicates horses which, in the opinion of its sporting writer, will win certain races, and there is hardly a daily paper in town or country which has not its regular ‘prophet,’ who from day to day lifts up his voice or his pen and offers inducements to the public to bet. Can any one of such journals say to us, ‘I am holier than thou, because I sell my prophecies for a penny, and thou insertest the advertisements of men who want a dozen stamps for theirs’? But the whole policy of objecting to certain classes of advertisements is absurd. If the proprietor of a newspaper were to inquire, even superficially, into the bona fides of all the announcements he makes every day, his journal could not be conducted. If he were even to confine his attention to the examination of the prospectuses of joint-stock companies—and this will appeal to Mr Anderson—he would be in the Bankruptcy Court in six months. Suppose the directors of any one of hundreds of bubble concerns which every year carry away the public with ‘bogus’ announcements were to appear before the manager of the Times with their prospectuses, what would they think if he said, ‘Gentlemen, before I insert this you must prove to me that it is not a gross swindle;’ and how would they proceed to do so?”

We admit to a weakness for reading the sporting papers, and can therefore vouch for the truth of what the Sportsman says about its own action. It would have been well, however, if other papers had been as careful, for we happen to know that all the contemporaries of the journal from which we have quoted did not come out with quite such clean hands. Some not only continued to insert the advertisements, despite numerous complaints, but actually doubled the usual tariff price to the thieves. This seems to have been a pretty general proceeding when the discretionary movement was at its height, all papers which continued to insert the specious swindles after the exposures had begun being very careful to be well paid for their trouble. As in these days the plain truth is often the most desperate of libels, we must refrain from particularising; but we should think that no one in his sober senses will dispute the evident fact that such newspaper proprietors as took double pay from men because they knew they were assisting them in robbery, were morally far and away more guilty than the robbers themselves. If any apology is needed for our going so far into the betting subject, it will be found in the almost total ignorance, as well as the blind prejudice, which is every day manifested about the difference between the commission agents and their greatest enemies, the advertising welchers.