THE SKETCHER.

Otago Witness, Issue 2391, 28 December 1899, Page 59

THE SKETCHER.

IHE LAST OF THE STATE LOTTERIES.

(The Field, October 16.) Of the popular taste for gambling in some form or other one may be reminded on Wednesday next, that being the anniversary of the last State lottery in England. In the interests of public morality, the Legislature stepped in and put an tnd fo this form of sxjeculation, and October 18, lf>26, saw the last of the series. It cannot, however, be affirmed that the suppression of the State lotteries has "caused the disappearance of that form of s-pecula-tion which is summed up in the word gambling. When an enormous crowd of persons assembled at the west door of St. Poul's Cathedral, in the year 1559, to witness the drawing of the first recorded English lottery, there were, of course, some g3ming hous-es in England, but neither the bookmaker, the bogus club, nor tho bucket shop had been invented, and tho&e who c<eshed to gamble had to content thciu&elves for the most part with the games of change then in vogue ; and now, at a time whe n there is something more than a rumour of war, it is curious to notice that origmnlly there do not appear to have been any \>nlawful games until the necessity arose for strengthening the army, when the exercise of archery and artillery was enjoined, and sundry games were stopped. The lottery, however, which like several "other amusements we adopted from abroad, came in handily as an outlet for British speculation. The Romans are said to have invented lotteries to enliven their saturnalia. Augustus €md Nero added some improvements, and Heliogabalus is said to have taken a new departure in varying the value of the prizes ? for, while one winner obtained half a dozen slaves, another had to remain content with six flies. " A lottery of this kind," said an old writer, " exhibited an excellent picture of the inequality with which Fortune distributes her favours." But : the same may be said of betting to-day. The readiness of the British public to gamble in connection with almost anything is manifest by the eagerness with which the first lottery in Queen Eliabeth's time was taken up. The undertaking was advertised two -years before it took place, and was described as " a proposal for a very rich lottery, general without any blankes, contaiiiing a great number of good prizes, as wel," added the promoters, with great discernment, "as ready money." There were 40,000 chances at 10s each, and the drawing, which was to have taken place at the house of Mr Dericke, the Queen's jeweller, eventually took place at the west door of St. Paul's Cathedral, as already mentioned. It began on January 11, 1569, and lasted until May 6. Lotteries in England appear to have been discontinued for some time, as we do not read of another until the year 1586, in the twenty-eighth year of Queen Elizabeth, when some " marvellous rich and beautifully armour " formed the prize or prizes, tho drawing again taking place at the west door of St. Paul's ; but, instead of lasting about four months, the proceedings were finished in three days. When lotteries were at their best they brought to the State a revenue of between £250,000 and £300,000, and, by way of doing evil that good might come, James I in 1619 authorised a lottery to be held at Reading for the purpose of raising a sum of money to lend, on certain specified conditions, to six poor tradesmen ; but it was one of the conditions of the benefit that neither of them should keep an inn or tavern, a calling which one would think would be productive of far less harm than the lottery authorised for their benefit. No more than 11 j r ears later — that is to say, in the reign of Charles I, a special license was granted to Sir Edward Stradling and John Lyde to hold several lotteries in aid of a project to bring water from Hoddesdon, in Hertfordshire, to London, but for tho privilege the promoters of the scheme were under a bond to pay the King £4000 a year. Again, in 1653, under the Commonwealth, the Grocers' Company advertised a lottery, which was announced to be drawn at their hall, in connection with benefiting some of their Irish property. As will easily be understood, in the reign of Charles II permission was readily conceded for the holding of lotteries, the relief of indigent Royalists being the usual plea put forward in their support; while during the same reign, the poorer classes frequently indulged in what were known as " twelvepenny lotteries." Although much can be said against these undertakings, it is only fair to state they appeared, so far as one can judge, to have been carried on with scrupulous fairness, and a certain Mr SharplyH, a London tailor, won about four thousand crowns "in fair plate," which prize was duly de- ) liveredj the profits of the lottery going, by

the special favour of King James, in aid of the planting of English colonies in Virginia. The King, the Duke of York (afterwards James II;, and many of the nobility of the day were present at a famous lottery held at the Sign of the Mermaid, close to the Royal Mews, in April, 1669, the relief of poor military officers being the immediate object of the undertaking. The prizes on that occasion were of every conceivable description, plate, some valuable editions of the Bible, advowsons, land, and jewellery forming the rewards of the lucky ticketholders j but, by this time, some of the bogus schemes which are not unknown at thf. present day had begun to be practised, and many cheating lotteries were organised, with the result that when Prince Rupert died in somewhat reduced circumstances in 1683, the lottery at which his jewels formed the chief prizes was not very keenly taken up ; and the whole thing would have fallen through unless the King himself, who was present to see fair play, and Mr Francis Child, the goldsmith of Temple Bar, had not vouched for the due delivery of the prizes. The demand of the public was complied with, and in the London Gazette of Octobsr 1, 1683, there appeared a lengthy notice in connection with the lottery, stating that the jewels had been valued and appraised by Mr Isaac Legrouch and two others, and that the biggest prize would be a large pearl necklace of the value of £8000, that no prize would be of less value than £100, and that Mr Child would see that the awards were duly handed over to the winners. It was during the reign of William 111 that it was deemed necessary to suppress lotteries as being public nuisances ; but the proverbial coach was driven through the words of the statute, and lotteries continued to flourish, although the proprietors of lotteries were forbidden to carry them on under a fine of £500, while each " adventurer " was to pay £20. For another hundred years lotteries flourished, but special care appears to have been taken of the undergratuates of Oxford and Cambridge, as by the act of 1778 no one might keep a lottery office at either place under a penalty of £20. The extent, however, to which the holding of lotteries had grown may be judged from the fact that prior to th«. passing of the statute there were upwards of 400 lottery offices in London alone. One of the repressing acts of Parliament, was passed in the reign of Queen Ar,ne — that is to say, in the year 1716, and perhaps one of the most curious lotteries ever held took place a year previous to the passing of the statute, when the proprietors of the Sion Gardens determined to dispose of the deer in theii park by way of lottery. Some interesting details ar.e missing, - but on the afternoons of Mondays, Thursdays and Saturdays the public were allowed in the gardens on payment of a shilling a head; the deer were killed, and the carcases were divided among those who took tickets. The shares appear to have ranged from 4s to 10rf ; the number of deer killed appears to have been divided into 16 lots, and the holder of a ten shilling ticket was entitled to one of the " prime cuts," the holders of the cheaper tickets coming in for the less valuable joints. This suggests that there was a kind .of distant connection between lotteries and hunting, and the association may be carried farther by stating that the building of Westminster Bridge was first suggested by the Duke of Grafton, who kept a pack of hounds in Surrey, and was so often kept waiting on his way to the covert side by the ferryman at Westminster. In the ninth year of George II an act was passed to authorise the building of a bridgo by lottery, and subsequently other lotteries T\ere authorised for the completion of the undertaking. About ten years afterwards lotteries were again attacked, and, to cut a long story short, the last State lottery was drawn, as already mentioned, on October 18, 1826. The price of the tickets was raised, in order to further the idea that there was a great demand for them, though, as a matter of fact, they hung very much on hand. The drawing was to have taken place on October 16, but the authorities gave permission for the drawing to be postponed till tho following Thursday, so that there might be a better chance of disposing of the unsold tickets. The expiration of the Stats lotterj- — that " old servant of the State," as it was called — was. made the subject of a great procession, in which men i.i livery — what we should now call sandwich men — a band, banners, a painted carriage representing a lottery wheel, a lottery carriage, surmounted by an imperial crown, and sundry men in showy uniforms carrying flags took part. Bills announcing the death of the lottery were distributed broadcast, and various broadsheets were published. Just, however, as previous eractments had failed to suppress lotteries, so, when State lotteries were put an end to, a number of private concerns struggled on for some time. Twenty-five years ago it was common enough to find that raffles for Twelfth cakes wefe organised at different confectioners' shops, while, as the police reports of to-day tell us, peo})le are occasionally proceeded against for holding what comes under the definition of a lottery. — Field.