To prevent the monopoly of tickets in the State Lottery, and the consequent upheaval of rates, it had been enacted that persons charged with the delivery of tickets should not sell more than twenty to one person. This provision was evaded by the use of pretended lists, which defeated the object of Parliament, and injured public credit, insomuch that in 1754 more tickets were subscribed for than the holders of the lists had cash to purchase, and there was a deficiency in the first payment. The mischief and notoriety of these practices occasioned the House of Commons to prosecute an inquiry into the circumstances, which, though opposed by a scandalous cabal that endeavoured to screen the delinquents, ended in a report, by the committee, 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 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. Upon report of these and other illegal acts, the House resolved that Leheup was guilty of a violation of the Act and a breach of trust, and presented an address to his Majesty praying that he would direct the Attorney-General to prosecute him in the most effectual manner for his offences. An information was accordingly filed, and, on a trial at bar in the Court of King’s Bench, Leheup, as one of the receivers of the last lottery of three hundred thousand pounds, was found guilty (1) of receiving subscriptions before the day and hour advertised; (2) of permitting the subscribers to use different names to cover an excess of twenty tickets; and (3) of disposing of the tickets which had been bespoke, and not claimed, or were double charged, instead of returning them to the managers. In Trinity Term, Leheup was brought up for judgment, and fined a thousand pounds, which was at once paid. This was one of the grossest miscarriages of justice known with regard to the lottery frauds, as in the course of the evidence given it was discovered that the defendant had amassed by his trickery over forty thousand pounds for his own share. Another instance of the horrible effect these instruments of gambling had on the public mind is found in the madness of many successful speculators, as well as in the continuous suicides of the unsuccessful. On November 5, 1757, Mr Keys, a clerk, who had absented himself from business ever since the 7th of October, on which day was drawn the ten-thousand-pound prize, supposed to be his property, was found in the streets raving mad, having been robbed of his pocket-book and ticket.
The very small parts into which shares were divided more than a hundred years ago is shown by the following advertisement, published in several papers of November 1766:—
DAME FORTUNE presents her Respects to the Public, and assures them that she has fixed her Residence for the Present at CORBETT’S State Lottery Office, opposite St. Dunstan’s Church, Fleet Street; and, to enable many Families to partake of her Favours, she has ordered not only the Tickets to be sold at the lowest Prices, but also that they be divided into Shares at the following low Rates,—viz.:—
| £ | s. | d. | |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Sixty-fourth | 0 | 4 | 0 |
| Thirty-second | 0 | 7 | 6 |
| Sixteenth | 0 | 15 | 0 |
| An Eighth | 1 | 10 | 0 |
| A Fourth | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| A Half | 6 | 0 | 0 |
By which may be gained from upwards of one hundred and fifty to upwards of five thousand Guineas, at her said Office No. 30.
As another instance of the superstition prevalent during the lottery mania we will give the following anecdote, which though old will bear repetition. A gentlewoman whose husband had presented her with a ticket, put up prayers in the church, the day before drawing, in the following manner: “The prayers of the congregation are desired for the success of a person engaged in a new undertaking.” Lottery tickets were often presented by gentlemen to ladies, and it is recorded that a lady falling in love with an actor, finding that the many letters of passionate admiration she sent him passed unnoticed, accompanied one of them with a gift of four lottery tickets. Whether they were successful, either as regards moving his obdurate heart or providing him with a prize, we are unfortunately not able to say. Anyhow, it doesn’t much matter, as the recipient of the favours died shortly afterwards; and most likely the unknown lady consoled herself with another and more willing lover, or else with a lottery.
Between 1770 and 1775 the tricks of the insurers occupied a great deal of attention, and almost left the ordinary office-keepers unnoticed. The two businesses were, however, pretty well mixed up by this time. An important trial took place at Guildhall for the purpose of deciding the legality of insuring on March 1, 1773, the Lord Mayor being plaintiff, and Messrs Barnes & Golightly defendants, but on account of an error in the declaration the plaintiff was nonsuited. On June 26, 1775, a cause came on in the Court of Common Pleas, Guildhall, between a gentleman, plaintiff, and a lottery office-keeper, defendant. The cause of the action was, that the gentleman, passing by the lottery office, observed a woman and a boy crying, on which he asked the reason of their tears. They informed him that they had insured a number in the lottery on the overnight, and upon inquiry at another office, found it to have been drawn five days before, and therefore wanted their money returned. The gentleman taking their part was assaulted and beaten by the office-keeper, and the jury, after hearing the evidence, gave a verdict in favour of the gentleman with five pounds damages.
In 1775 some of the Bluecoat boys appointed to assist in the drawing of the State Lottery were tampered with for the purpose of inducing them to commit a fraud. These attempts were successful in one instance that became known, and doubtless in many others that did not. This discovery led to certain regulations, which were carried out with great vigour. On the 1st of June a man was brought before the Lord Mayor for attempting to bribe the two boys who drew the Museum Lottery at Guildhall to conceal a ticket, and to bring it to him, promising that he would at once return it. His intention was to insure it in all the offices with a view to defraud the keepers. The boys were so frightened at the proposition that they gave notice to the managers of the lottery, and pointed out the delinquent, who was, however, discharged, as there was no law by which to punish him. On the 5th of December another of the boys engaged to draw the numbers in the State Lottery at Guildhall was examined before Sir Charles Asgill relative to a number that had been drawn out the Friday before, on which an assurance had been made in almost every office in London. The boy confessed that he was prevailed upon to conceal the ticket No. 21,481, by a man who paid him for so doing; that the man copied the number; and that the next day he followed the man’s instructions, and put his hand into the wheel as usual, with the ticket in it, and then pretended to draw it from among the rest. The instigator of the offence had actually received £400 of the insurance-office keepers. Had all of them paid him, the whole sum would have amounted to £3000; but some of them suspected a fraud had been committed, and caused the inquiry which led to the boy’s confessing both the temptation and his folly. On the next day the man who insured the ticket was examined. He was clerk to a hop-factor in Goodman’s Fields; but not being the person who had persuaded the boy to secrete the ticket and pretend to draw it in the usual manner, and no evidence appearing to connect him with the actual seducer, the prisoner was discharged, though it was ascertained that he had insured the number already mentioned ninety-one times in one day. In consequence of the circumstances which led to this examination, the Lords of the Treasury inquired further and deliberated on the means of preventing a recurrence of such transactions. The result of their conference was the following order, which was, however, but privately circulated, and was never published in any periodical, book, or newspaper until after the abolition of Lotteries:—
Order of December 12, 1775.
A DISCOVERY having been made that WILLIAM TRAMPLETT, one of the Boys employed in drawing the Lottery had, at the Instigation of one CHARLES LOWNDES, (since absconded) at different Times in former Rolls, taken out of the Number Wheel THREE numbered Tickets, which were at THREE several Times returned by him into the said Wheel, and drawn without his parting with them, so as to give them the Appearance of being fairly drawn to answer the purpose of defrauding by insurance: