And whereas Tickets have been brought to be entered for Certificates, that have been altered from Blanks to Numbers intituled to Benefits (which Tickets have been detected) The Managers do hereby give Notice, that the same is declared Felony by the Act.

It is worthy of notice that sharpers of a description other than the promoters of lotteries were anxious to get all they could out of the ventures, and so winning numbers were very often fabricated; and in more than one instance the utterers being detected, were with the forgers tried and cast for death. A notable instance of this kind of fraud was made public in 1777, in the January of which year two Jews, Joseph Arones and Samuel Noah, were examined at Guildhall before the Lord Mayor, charged with counterfeiting the lottery ticket No. 25,590, a prize of £2000, with intent to defraud Mr Keyser, an office-keeper, who had examined the ticket carefully, and had taken it into the Stock Exchange to sell, when Mr Shewell happened to come into the same box, and hearing the office-keeper’s offer, asked to look at the ticket, as he recollected buying one of the same number a day or two before. This very fortunately led to the discovery of the fraud, and the two Jews were committed to take their trial. The number was so artfully altered from 23,590 that not the least erasure could be discerned. Arones was but just come to England, and Noah was said to be a man of property. In the February the two were tried at the Old Bailey for forgery and fraud. Their defence was that Arones found the ticket, and persons were produced to swear to the fact, which they did positively and circumstantially, that the prisoners were discharged. At the same sessions Daniel Denny was tried for forging, counterfeiting, and altering a lottery ticket with intent to defraud; and being found guilty, was condemned. In later days the small cards given on race-courses—and a few years back in the streets—by turf bookmakers to their customers were very successfully imitated, sometimes the number of a ticket which was known to be held by a winner being counterfeited, while at others the brazen-visaged presenter would simply depend upon his ability to “bounce” the layer of odds into the belief that the entry was wrong as to the amount or name of horse. In these latter cases the ingenuity exhibited was great—was in fact of the kind which judges are in the habit of instancing as worthy of better application. As if judges—and juries too, when they have sense—did not know that the only outlet for ability nine times out of ten in certain conditions of society is in a criminal direction. The kind of skill which brings a man to the Central Criminal Court is not likely to find much of an opening so far as money-getting is concerned, and from the ingenuity of the great bank-forgers of 1873, down to that of Counsellor Kelly and Jim the Penman of watch-robbery recollection, there is a wide field of skill for which virtue has small market, and which therefore turns to vice for its reward. We say this without any wish to be regarded as encouragers of crime in any shape or form, but because we consider the words of the judge humbug, and the leaders in certain papers which always break out upon such occasions as we have referred to as cant of the most flagitious character. There is hardly a man now languishing in prison for being ingenious who will not tell you that ingenuity has been his bane, not alone because he yielded to temptation, but because he found the market overstocked with people quite as clever as himself who had additional advantages. This simply proves that the ability which looks so great when it has been devoted to the purposes of robbery is of a very small order after all, and shows itself in its true light when in its proper channel. What, if estimated at their proper value, were the qualifications of the American forgers or the English burglars? Are there not scores of confidential clerks and dozens of skilled mechanics who could have done as well or better than either if they had chosen so to do? Yes, decidedly. Yet in both cases, as well as in many others, the judge and jury, the public and the press, affected to be horror-struck at such a waste of talent. But, as they say in the novels, this is a digression.

In 1736 an Act was passed to build Westminster Bridge by means of a lottery, and by means of advertisement the following scheme was submitted to the public:—

LOTTERY 1736, for raising 100000l. for building a Bridge at Westminster, consisting of 125000 Tickets at 5l. each.

Prizes 1of20000l.is20000l.
2„10000„20000
3„5000„15000
10„3000„30000
40„1000„40000
60„500„30000
100„200„20000
200„100„20000
400„50„20000
1000„20„20000
28800„10„288000
30616Prizes, amounting to 523000
94384Blanks.
First Drawn1000
Last Drawn1000
125000 525000

The Prizes to be paid at the Bank in 40 Days after Drawing, without Deduction. N.B. There is little more than Three Blanks to a Prize.

Other lotteries were granted for the same purpose before the bridge was completed. Its structure must have been as rotten as the system on which it was built, as for many years before it was pulled down it was a disgrace to the neighbourhood; and as it was anything but old when it was demolished, it must have gone to decay almost as soon as it was opened. Almost every imaginable article was at this period disposed of by raffle or lottery, and Horace Walpole, writing about one for an organ, says: “I am now in pursuit of getting the finest piece of music that ever was heard; it is a thing that will play eight tunes. Handel and all the great musicians say, that it is beyond anything they can do; and this may be performed by the most ignorant person; and when you are weary of those eight tunes, you may have them changed for any other that you like. This I think much better than going to an Italian opera or an assembly. This performance has been lately put into a lottery, and all the royal family choose to have a great many tickets rather than to buy it, the price being I think £1000, infinitely a less sum than some bishoprics have been sold for. And a gentleman won it, who I am in hopes will sell it, and if he will, I will buy it, for I cannot live to have another made, and I will carry it into the country with me.” As Walpole lived for sixty years after this, he must have lived to see much more wonderful instruments built, and possibly offered as prizes in lotteries. In June 1743 the price of lottery tickets rose from £10 to £11, 10s., the prizes being in no way increased, and a hint to the unwary was published, in which it was shown that adventurers “gamed at 50 per cent. loss; paying at that price 2s. 6d. to play for 5s.; the money played for being only three pound, besides discount and deductions.” The practice of giving £1000 each to the first and last drawn tickets led to a curious difficulty in 1774. On the 5th of January, at the conclusion of drawing the State Lottery at Guildhall, No. 11,053, as the last-drawn ticket, was declared to be entitled to the thousand pounds, and was so printed in the paper of benefits by order of the commissioners. It was, beside, a prize of a hundred pounds. But after the wheels were carried back to Whitehall, and there opened, the ticket No. 72,248 was found sticking in a crevice of the wheel. And, being the next-drawn ticket after all the prizes were drawn, was advertised by the commissioners’ order as entitled to the thousand pounds, as the last-drawn ticket; “which affair,” we are told by the Gentleman’s Magazine, “made a great deal of noise.” The State Lottery of 1751 met with much opposition from the press, and an article in the London Magazine gives the following computation of its chances:—

IN THE LOTTERY 1751 IT IS

69998to2or34999to 1 against a£10000Prize
69994to6or11665to 1 against a5000or upwards
69989to11or6363to 1 against a3000
69981to19or3683to 1 against a2000
69961to39or1794to 1 against a1000
69920to80or874to 1 against a500
69720to280or249to 1 against a100
69300to700or99to 1 against a50
60000to10000or6to 1 against a20or any Prize.

The writer then goes on to say: “I would beg the favour of all gentlemen, tradesmen, and others, to take the pains to explain to such as any way depend upon their judgment, that one must buy no less than seven tickets to have an even chance for any prize at all; that with only one ticket it is six to one, and with half a ticket twelve to one, against any prize; and ninety-nine or a hundred to one that the prize, if it comes, will not be above £50; and no less than thirty-five thousand to one that the owner of a single ticket will not obtain one of the greatest prizes. No lottery is proper for persons of very small fortunes, to whom the loss of five or six pounds is of great consequence, besides the disturbance of their minds; much less is it advisable or desirable for either poor or rich to contribute to the exorbitant tax of more than two hundred thousand pounds, which the first engrossers of lottery tickets, and the brokers and dealers, strive to raise out of the pockets of the poor chiefly, and the silly rich partly, by artfully enhancing the price of tickets above the original cost.” The first price of tickets in this lottery was ten pounds. On their rise a Mr Holland publicly offered in an advertisement to wager four hundred guineas that four hundred tickets when drawn did not amount to nine pounds fifteen shillings on an average, prizes and blanks. As might have been expected, his challenge was never accepted. On the 11th of the next month (November) the drawing began, and notwithstanding the public-spirited efforts of individuals, societies, and papers which did not receive any benefit in the way of advertisements, to check the exorbitancy of the ticket-mongers, the price rose steadily and ultimately to sixteen guineas a ticket. All means were tried by the disinterested to cure this infatuation by writing and advertising; and on the first day of drawing, it was publicly averred that near eight thousand tickets were in the South Sea House, and upwards of thirty thousand pawned at bankers, &c., that nine out of ten of the ticket-holders were not able to go to the wheel, and that not one of them durst stand the drawing above six days. These dealers seem to have had an awkward knack of selling the same ticket to two buyers, or disposing of more than the proper fractional parts of one ticket, in the hope of its turning up a blank, thus “going for the gloves” in a style imitated in modern days by votaries of Tattersall’s and other betting institutions with much success. This arrangement, with others of a similar nature, led to the establishment of insurances offices, which, at first an ostensible protection by guaranteeing special numbers, and thereby preventing fraud on the part of sellers, became in time greater swindles than those they were supposed to prevent.