Chapter XII: Swindles and Hoaxes (1)

It is of course only natural that as soon as advertising became general, that portion of the community which regards the other portion as its oyster, was not slow to discover the advantages which were soon to accrue in the way of increased facilities for publishing new dodges, or of giving extended scope to those which were old, but had so far attained only limited circulation. This has been so conclusively shown by specimens already given, and references made, that there is no necessity to discuss the question anew, and therefore we will at once plunge into the thick of those advertisements which have special qualifications for treatment different from that given to the milder classes of rogues and scoundrels. The first transaction which calls for attention is in connection with Queen Anne’s farthings. No popular delusion has perhaps made more dupes than that relating to these coins. Innumerable people believe that there never were but three farthings of this description, two of which have found their way in due course to the British Museum, the third only being still abroad; and it is also believed that the Museum authorities would give a very large sum for the possession of the missing token. Now there are no less than six distinct varieties of Anne’s farthings known to exist, and specimens of them are not at all rare. Some of them may be procured at the coin-dealers, for ten or twelve shillings; but there is one variety, struck in 1713, which is extremely rare, and would bring from £5 to £10. There is also a small brass medal or counter of Queen Anne, about the size of a farthing, of which there are hundreds. A publican once procured one of these, and placed it in his window, ticketed as “_the_ real farthing of Queen Anne.” Credulous persons came from far and near to view this wonderful curiosity, and the owner turned his deception to good account.

Sometime about the first quarter of this century, a man in Ireland received twelve months’ imprisonment for secreting a Queen Anne’s farthing. He was shopman to a confectioner in Dublin, and having taken the farthing over the counter, he substituted a common one for it. Unfortunately for him, he told his master how he had obtained it, and offered it to him for sale. The master demanded the treasure as his property, the shopman refused to give it up, was brought into the Recorder’s Court, and there received the above sentence. When rogues fall out, honest men know what they have lost. It is wrong to assume that because thieves quarrel, their natural enemies “get their own.” At all events, experience has never taught us so, and the proverb, as generally read, is wrong.

Numerous are the instances of people having travelled from distant counties to London, in order to dispose in the best market of the supposed valuable farthing. The custodian of the medals in the British Museum used to be besieged by applicants from all parts of the country, offering Queen Anne’s farthings and imitations of them for sale, and of course the dealers in coin even now receive a liberal share of the same annoyance. Whence the treacherous fable originally sprung has never been satisfactorily explained. It is certain that Anne’s farthings never were very common, though of one variety, coined in 1714, not less than from 300 to 500 must have been put in circulation. But the others were mere patterns, and were never struck for currency: all of them were coins of great beauty, and for this reason, as well as on account of their being the only copper coins struck in the reign of Queen Anne, it is probable that they were soon hoarded and preserved as curiosities, thereby acquiring an imaginary value, which grew rapidly as soon as some sharp fellow saw how useful the figment might be made. But the immediate cause of the popular fallacy concerning the scarcity and great value may be found in the fact, that at the end of the last century a lady of Yorkshire having lost one of these coins, offered a large reward for it. Probably it was valuable to her as a souvenir of some departed friend; but the advertisement, and the comparative scarcity of these farthings, gradually led to the report that there was only one such token in circulation, and that the unique coin was of course of almost priceless value. Long before this, however, advertisements in reference to Anne’s farthings had found their way into the papers. So far as we can discover, the first of these appeared in the _General Advertiser_ of April 19, 1745, and ran as follows:--

WHEREAS about seven years ago an Advertisement was published in some
of the Daily Papers offering a Reward for a Queen Anne’s Farthing
struct in the year 1714.

_This is to inform the_ CURIOUS

That a Farthing of Queen Anne of that year of a very beautiful dye may
be seen at the Bar of the Pensylvania Coffeehouse in Birchin Lane. The
impression is no ways defaced but as entire as from the Mint.

This, probably, just at the time when a furor was in existence with regard to the farthings, must have given a fillip to the business at the Pennsylvania Coffee-house; and must have done a great deal to spread the belief that a Queen Anne’s coin was much more desirable than the wonderful lamp of Eastern story, or the more modern but quite as powerful four-leaved shamrock. That in 1802 the fiction was still lively is shown by an advertisement which appeared in the February of that year. This was disguised so as to appear like an ordinary paragraph:--

The Queen Anne’s farthing, advertised to be disposed of in Pall Mall,
proves to be an original. There were only _two_ coined in that Queen’s
reign, and not _three_ as has been erroneously stated. That which was
sold by the sergeant from Chatham for £400, was purchased by a noble
viscount, curious in his selection of coins, &c. Seven Hundred guineas
was the price asked for the one advertised last week. Five hundred was
offered for it and refused. The owner lives at Lynn, in Norfolk. The
offer was made by the son of a baronet, who wants to complete his
collection.

Attention and credulity were so excited by the above paragraph, and many others of the same tendency, that no one thought of doubting that a Queen Anne’s farthing was worth more than a Jew’s eye; nor was it till some time after that the whole was discovered to be a fabrication, intended either to impose upon the credulity of the public, or, what is more likely, to enhance the value of such a coin to the holder, who was quietly waiting to realise. Whether he did so or not does not appear, but it is more than likely that he did not allow his opportunity to slip, but hooked one of those unconsciously greedy people who are always falling victims to their own selfishness as much as to the sharpers, and who, as soon as they are deluded, look for sympathy and redress to those very laws they were prepared to outrage when anything was apparently to be got by so doing. The belief that Queen Anne’s farthings are very valuable still obtains among the vulgar, notwithstanding the many times its absurdity has been exposed; and there is no particular reason for imagining that it will become at all exploded until some fresher but quite as illogical a fiction is ready to supply its place.

One of the most notorious swindlers of the early part of the present century was Joseph Ady, who used to profess that he knew “something to your advantage.” As he did not deal in advertisements, perhaps he has no right here; but as about 1830 he was constantly being referred to in newspaper paragraphs, and was a feature of the time among sharpers, he is entitled to passing notice, if only as a newspaper celebrity. At the period we mention, “Ady was a decent-looking elderly man, a Quaker, with the external respectability attached to the condition of a housekeeper, and to all appearance considered himself as pursuing a perfectly legitimate course of life. His _métier_ consisted in this. He was accustomed to examine, so far as the means were afforded him, lists of unclaimed dividends, estates or bequests waiting for the proper owners, and unclaimed property generally. Noting the names, he sent letters to individuals bearing the same appellatives, stating that, on their remitting to him his fee of a guinea, they would be informed of ‘something to their advantage.’ When any one complied, he duly sent a second letter, acquainting him that in such a list was a sum or an estate due to a person of his name, and on which he might have claims worthy of being investigated. It was undeniable that the information _might_ prove to the advantage of Ady’s correspondent. Between this _might be_ and the unconditional promise of something to the advantage of the correspondent, lay the debatable ground on which it might be argued that Ady was practising a dishonest business. It was rather too narrow a margin for legal purposes; and so Joseph went on from year to year reaping the guineas of the unwary--seldom three months out of a police court and its reports--till his name became a byword; and still, out of the multitudes whom he addressed, finding a sufficient number of persons ignorant of his craft, and ready to be imposed upon--and these, still more strange to say, often belonging to the well-educated part of society.”[36] In all the police cases we have come across, in which Ady was concerned, he seems to have considerably “sat upon” the magistrates, the “great unpaid” of the City being quite unable to hold their own with him, notwithstanding the disadvantage at which Joseph was placed.

The claims for precedence of the two most important advertising swindles of the present day are so equally divided, that it is hard to say which has caused the greater amount of ruin among credulous persons who have invested their last few coins in the hope of the certain success, or which has returned most profit to the exchequers of its wily promoters. The two claimants are the Turf-Circular and the Home-Employment swindles, both of which have been allowed full play. We will give the “home-employment” arrangement preference of treatment, as it appeals to wider sympathies, the victims being mostly credulous only, and not selfishly and idiotically greedy for other folk’s goods; and being, as well, mostly poor hard-working women, and not a few children. One of the most notorious of these advertisers flourished half-a-dozen years ago. He used to insert a small notice in the daily papers, informing those who had leisure that he could find ample remunerative employment for them, and directing applications to be made by letter at a given address, enclosing a stamped addressed envelope. Then the swindle commenced, the reply being as follows:--

GROVE HOUSE, TOTTENHAM ROAD.

ISLINGTON, LONDON, N.

_In reply to your application as per my Notice_ (Leisure Time, _&c._,
_&c._,) _I very respectfully inform you that it has now become
impossible to describe my Advertisement on employing leisure time
fully in the Newspaper in which the little abridged notice appeared,
owing to the enormous charge demanded for inserting it, namely £2 16s.
for each time it appears. So that in consequence I am compelled,
reluctantly, to trouble my correspondents to forward their envelope
for the purpose of an extended explanation, which I think cannot be
clearer done than my forwarding in print, as under, a copy of the
intended announcement, which after reading, and you deciding on
sending for the packet, please deduct from the number (eighteen) the
three Penny Postage Stamps you will necessarily have used, and only
enclose (fifteen) which trifling outlay I think you, like others, will
have no cause to regret._

_Yours faithfully_,

EVERETT MAY.

THE UNDER WILL BEST EXPLAIN:--
LEISURE TIME.--FOUR GUINEAS PER WEEK.--HOW TO REALISE
THIS AT YOUR OWN HOMES.

MR EVERETT MAY, of Kingsland, begs to apprise the Public that he is
sending off as rapidly as possible by every post his far-famed Packet,
the contents of which will show the many plans of getting money most
honourably by either sex employing leisure hours at their own homes.
£2 to £6 weekly may be most certainly realised by all industrious
persons, without five shillings outlay or any risk, by following the
easy, respectable and clear instructions. Sent by Mr Everett May, of
Grove House, Tottenham-grove, Kingsland, London, N. This is no
visionary theory. The Present Season highly suitable. Enclose eighteen
penny stamps, and you will receive post free punctually per return
THIS PROVED BOON TO THE INDUSTRIOUS OF BOTH SEXES.

But to remove any doubt that sceptical persons may entertain as to the
truth of the above, I here insert the under six letters received, with
hundreds of others. The parties are very respectable and each
well-known in the towns they reside.

Calverton, near Nottingham.

Dear Sir,--I beg to inform you that your packet came quite safe, and I
was surprised and highly pleased with its contents. Like others who
doubted the truth, I was ready to conclude it was only to catch those
foolish enough to try it. But I have now proved otherwise, and can
testify that you are no other than a true and faithful man. The
contents of your indeed famed packet are well worth twenty times as
much, and whoever the party may be receiving it will have no cause to
repent. Yours very truly,

SETH BINCH.

Another--Spettisbury, Blanford, Dorset.

Dear Sir,--I beg to inform you that the Packet ordered arrived safely,
and allow me to tender you my sincere thanks for it. Your plans for
getting money so honourably are indeed excellent. Anyone having a
doubt may most certainly remove such doubt. Hoping you may long
continue in your good work is the earnest wish of your obedient
servant,

W. OAKLEY.

Then follow the remaining four letters, which have an astonishing family likeness to the two chosen, and as these six were only inserted to show what the careful May would have done had he been able to launch into lavish expenditure in the interests of his clients, he gives a statement after the last epistle:--

_Such is the exact copy of the advertisement I intended to have placed
before the public by inserting in the Newspapers had the charge not
been so high, but as I now do so by this circular I can add a few more
of my correspondents’ approval letters, in furtherance of a still more
convincing proof of the value of this esteemed Money Making Packet._

After this he gives a string of letters, which must have demanded great ingenuity on the part of their writer, if only on account of the number of signatures he must have invented. Occasionally he breaks down, however, and has to fall back on initials. We should like to reproduce a lot of these expressions of gratitude as forms to be used at any time when thanks are required for any great benefit, but space will not allow of it, and we must be content with two, which are redolent of truly Christian thankfulness:--

Short Heath Road, Erdington, near Birmingham, December 13th, 1867.

Mr. May, Dear Sir,--I have received your Packet, and am at a loss how,
adequately, to express to you what I think about it--suffice it to say
that I consider your Packet to be an inestimable boon to the
unemployed of every class. Thousands will, doubtless, make money by
it. It professes only to be a guide to the employment of leisure
hours, but in reality it is a guide to the employment of a whole life,
and an easy path to opulence. “Whoever receives it will have no cause
to regret.” “It is worth twenty times as much.” “Anyone having a doubt
may most certainly remove such doubt.” I heartily re-echo these
testimonials, and recommend your Packet to every unemployed person,
this is no more than I am in equity bound to do. I am, Dear Sir,
faithfully yours,

THOMAS JONSON, JUN.

1, Vincent Terrace, Frome, October 5th, 1867.

Dear Sir,--I have carefully examined the contents of your excellent
Packet, and am astonished and delighted with them. He or she would
indeed be difficult to please who could not select from so extensive a
stock some profitable employment congenial to their taste. The
instructions are explicit, and the minute details in each case fully
and clearly explained. A person of moderate industry and perseverance,
furnished with your Packet may attain, if not a fortune, at least a
very comfortable living. It ought to be widely known, and I for my
part shall not fail to recommend it. I admit I answered your
advertisement merely from a curious desire to know what was the latest
dodge (pardon the word) for hoaxing the public, and I am now heartily
glad I did answer it, though ashamed of the motive that induced me to
do so. I am, Dear Sir, faithfully yours,

JOSEPH JOHNSON, Schoolmaster.

The poor gulls, after reading these effusions, which all play on the same strings of wonder, satisfaction, and gratitude, are of course anxious to participate in the benefits of lucrative employment, and off go the stamps. If the mischief ended there, the matter would not be so bad; but these advertising scoundrels have various courses open to them. If they judge that nothing more is to be obtained from the sender, they calmly pocket the stamps and take no further notice. In the event of continued “annoyance,” or threats of exposure, they will send forth a circular which states that a packet was posted, and must have been lost or stolen in transit. This circular speaks of the post-office, and other institutions, in the most disparaging manner, and of the transactions of its writers as not only just, but infallible. One of them winds up thus:--

_Another matter I wish to inform you upon, namely, an error prevails
regarding the punctual and prompt conveyance of Packets by the Post
Office. This is at times impossible. If the letter mails are heavy,
Packets are sometimes left until the following day. So that I cannot
guarantee it will be delivered at your residence by return, but you
may fully expect it by the second if not by the first mail, postage
free, well packed, and secure from observation. These remarks may
appear trifling, but they are really necessary, and while on the
subject I will name another, also of importance, it is this--several
of my correspondents when applying for these particulars send only
their name and address on a stamped envelope, and when ordering the
Packet enclose their name and omit the address, and this not being
retained by me renders it impossible to forward it. So that a distinct
name and address is, in the second instance, absolutely necessary. It
is required for no other object than to enable me to promptly forward
the order, which I can do to any address in the United Kingdom._

The correspondent who dates from a good address, or whose letter looks promising, is likely to be despoiled still more. The stamps are acknowledged, and at the same time information is tendered that a special order for the peculiar fancy goods upon which the income is to be made has just come in; and that if the intending employée will send a fee, say five shillings, for registration, and a deposit, say five pounds, for security, she will receive a packet containing the work--which is very easy--and ample instructions. A little delay enables these wandering tribes to change both names and addresses, and to appear in greater force than ever in the advertisement columns. No wonder the writers we have quoted show such gratitude for the receipt of promised parcels! But we did know two real people who got what they bargained for. One, who only paid the eighteenpence, obtained, after a good long time, and the expenditure of many threats, some scraps of brown paper, which were said to be patterns for pen-wipers, “the manufacture of which would be found to yield a lucrative profit, if a market could be found for them.” There is much virtue in an _if_ in this case. The paper went on to say that there were many shopkeepers who would be glad to sell them on commission, “the article being extremely rare.” It is noticeable that the circular received on this occasion was printed, with blanks left for description of the patterns and the name of the work for which they were to be used. A man of imaginative mind might in the course of the day have run through a considerable list of trades; and as the reference to the demand for the article and the sales by commission would be the same in all the notices, the demand upon truth was evidently not particularly excessive. The other successful applicant was a lady who began by writing out of mere curiosity, and who gradually got on until she had parted with not much less than ten pounds. A sharp letter from a solicitor brought no answer to him, but succeeded in sending the long-expected parcel to his client. It was heavy, and accompanied by a short letter, which said:--

BIRMINGHAM, October 7, 1869.

MADAM,

We beg to inform you that some little delay has been caused by the
failure of a company to whom we entrusted the manufacture of a large
quantity of articles. We have now however great pleasure in forwarding
you a sample of an enamelled leather child’s button boot, with lasts
and leather for you to follow model. As soon as we receive from you
specimen equal to pattern we shall be glad to afford you constant
employment.

Yours obediently,

VENTNOR AND MORRIS.

The parcel contained some old odd lasts, a really well-made little boot, and some queer bits of leather, which the cleverest man in the world could have done nothing with; a shoemaker’s knife, an awl, and a lump of cobbler’s wax! This expedient enabled the swindlers to tide over the time till a new name and a fresh address were decided on. It is worthy of note--and we shall refer to it a little further on--that the statement of one of these scoundrels would lead to the impression that extra prices are charged for these swindling advertisements. If larger prices are charged to men because their advertisements are fraudulent, no amount of false logic or forensic oratory can dispose of the fact that the proprietors of the papers are accessories in any robbery or swindle that is committed; and the insertion of such advertisements, knowing them to be traps for the unwary, at a price which denotes the guilty knowledge of the proprietors, is as gross a breach of the trust reposed in them by the public as was ever committed by smug, well-fed, Sabbath-observing sinners. There is, unfortunately, but too much reason to believe that extra prices are charged for these fool-traps, and that in the most pious and pretentious papers. At the time of the baby-farming disclosures which led to the execution of Margaret Waters, one paper openly accused another--a daily of large circulation--with charging three or four hundred per cent. over the ordinary tariff price for the short applications for nurse children which were then usual. Perhaps the accusation was not worth disproval--at all events it remains uncontradicted till this day. These murderous advertisements presented no particularly destructive features, they simply said in each case that a nurse child was wanted at a certain address; and sometimes an offer would be made to take a baby altogether for a lump sum. This is one of a lot taken from a leading daily paper:--

ADOPTION.--Child Wanted to NURSE, or can be LEFT ALTOGETHER. Terms
moderate. Can be taken from birth. Address ----.

Sometimes the terms were mentioned, and, as a rule, the sum named showed that even the tender mercies experienced by Oliver Twist and his friend Dick at the farming establishment inhabited by them could hardly have been expected by the most confiding of parents. Thus:--

A RESPECTABLE Woman wishes to adopt a CHILD. Premium £6. Will be taken
altogether and no further trouble necessary. Apply ----.

As some of these establishments may be still in existence, we refrain from republishing the addresses. These specimens, as advertisements, simply call for no comment at our hands, and so we will get on with the more pronounced, though less guilty, swindlers. Here is a specimen which doubtless gave the postman some extra work:--

GENTLEMEN having a respectable circle of acquaintance may hear of
means of INCREASING their INCOME without the slightest pecuniary risk,
or of having (by any chance) their feelings wounded. Apply for
particulars by letter, stating their position &c. to W. R. 37, W----
Street C---- Square.

To such an advertisement as this--one of exactly the same kidney--which appeared in _Lloyd’s_, under the head of “How to make Two pounds per Week by the outlay of Ten Shillings,” and asking for thirty stamps in return for the information, the following belongs. It is sent in reply to the letter enclosing the fee, and is too good a specimen of the humour possessed by these rogues to be passed over:--

“First purchase 1 cwt. of large-sized potatoes which may be obtained for the sum of 4s., then purchase a large basket, which will cost say another 4s., then buy 2s. worth of flannel blanketting and this will comprise your stock in trade, of which the total cost is 10s. A large-sized potato weighs about half-a-pound, consequently there are 224 potatoes in a cwt. Take half the above quantity of potatoes each evening to a baker’s and have them baked; when properly cooked put them in your basket, well wrapped up in the flannel to keep them hot, and sally forth and offer them for sale at one penny each. Numbers will be glad to purchase them at that price, and you will for certain be able to sell half a cwt. every evening. From the calculation made below you will see by that means you will be able to earn £2 per week. The best plan is to frequent the most crowded thoroughfares, and make good use of your lungs, thus letting people know what you have for sale. You could also call in at each public-house on your way and solicit the patronage of the customers, many of whom would be certain to buy of you. Should you have too much pride to transact the business yourself (though no one need be ashamed of pursuing an honest calling), you could hire a boy for a few shillings a week who could do the work for you, and you could still make a handsome profit weekly. The following calculation proves that £2 per week can be made by selling baked potatoes:--

“1 cwt. containing 224 potatoes sold in two evenings at
1d. each, £0 18 8
Deduct cost, 0 4 0
-------
£0 14 8
3
-------
Six evenings’ sale, 2 4 0
Pay baker at the rate of 8d. per evening
for baking potatoes, 0 4 0
-------
Nett profit per week, £2 0 0.”

Many and most curious are the answers received from time to time by persons with sufficient faith to make application to these advertisers, the foregoing being by no means unique. One reply received in return for half-a-crown’s worth of stamps, which were to have purchased much wisdom in the way of money-saving, was this: “Never pay a boy to look after your shadow while you climb a tree to see into the middle of next week.” A man who would send his money to such evident scamps, could hardly see into the middle of anything, no matter where he chose his vantage-ground. Fortunately for the interests of the community at large, these tricksters now and again are made to feel that there is justice in the land. Twenty years ago, a City magistrate did good service by exposing a man who lived abroad in splendour at the expense of the poor governesses he managed to victimise through the advertising columns of the _Times_. This rascal used, by means of the most specious promises, to drag young girls to a foreign land, and there leave them to become a prey to other villains, or to make their way back accordingly as circumstances permitted. But as at the present time there are streams of foreign girls decoyed to London under all sorts of pretexts for the vilest purposes, the least said as to the criminality of one single individual among the shoals of scoundrels who live by means of advertisements the better. Since Mr Fynn was unmasked many other hawks have been captured, and only recently two have found their way into the obscurity of penal servitude under circumstances worthy of mention. _Place aux dames_: we will give precedence to Mistress Margaret Annie Dellair, though her retirement was subsequent to that of the other claimant on our attention. The difference of date is, however, extremely small. Mrs Dellair lived at Croydon, and for a long time lived in peace and plenty on the post-office orders, or rather the cash received in exchange for them, obtained by means of the following advertisement:--

HOME EMPLOYMENT.--Ladies in town or country wishing for Remunerative
EMPLOYMENT in Laces, Church Needlework, &c., should apply at once to
M. D., Fern House, West Croydon, enclosing a directed envelope.
Reference to ladies employed by permission.

This must have been a fruitful source of income to M. D., who seems to have considered that people were calmly content to part with their money, as she made no attempt to put off the day of reckoning which was bound to arrive. So in due course Mrs Dellair found herself charged with fraud before the Croydon bench, and ultimately she appeared at the bar of the Central Criminal Court in April of the present year. Her mode of procedure, described during the trial, was this. Applicants in due time, after sending in their stamped and addressed envelopes, received circulars, stating that the work which the sender was able to furnish comprised braiding, point lace, tatting, church needlework, and Berlin wool. The needlework was to be done at the ladies’ homes, and they were never to earn less than eightpence or a shilling per hour. To secure employment the applicants were informed that the payment of one guinea “for registration fee, materials, and instruction,” was required, half of which sum was to be returned when the employment was resigned. Post-office orders were to be made payable at the office, Windmill Street, Croydon, to Margaret Dellair. “There is,” says a writer at the time commenting on this case, “something quite admirable in this calm repudiation of the anonymous, in this wearing of the heart upon the sleeve, on the part of Mistress Dellair. The bait she threw out was swallowed with avidity by many young ladies--some with more money than wit, others painfully anxious to secure bread-winning employment; others less solicitous about procuring work for themselves than inquisitive to discover, for the benefit of society in general and their friends in particular, whether the transaction was _bonâ fide_. Then the curtain rose on the second act of the drama. Some ladies sent post-office orders to Windmill Road; others took the train to Croydon, and had personal interviews with the benevolent recluse of Fern House--a little cottage near a wood--who did not fail to represent that she was extensively employed by some eminent firms of church furnishers in the metropolis.” One young lady having sent her guinea, received, after a lapse of some weeks, and after repeated communications on her part, ten toilet-mats, with the materials for braiding them. There was not enough braiding, and so she wrote for more, but received no reply. Then she finished the mats with materials purchased by herself, and despatched the articles to Croydon; but neither reply nor payment was forthcoming. After many more weeks Mrs Dellair wrote to say that she was in ill-health. Seeing, however, that the advertisement was continued in the papers, the defrauded young lady wrote to Fern Cottage, demanding the return of ten shillings, being one-half of the sum she had disbursed for “registration fee, materials, and instruction.” No answer was returned, of course; and the victim not only lost her money, but her time and her labour, to say nothing of postage, worry of mind, and other incidental expenses. One of the principal witnesses against Dellair was the Croydon postmaster, who stated that he had known her a year and a half. She had been in the habit of bringing post-office orders to his office to cash. She had brought between three and four hundred orders since July 1872, principally for guineas, but there were some for half-crowns and some for half-guineas. They were brought principally by her daughter, but sometimes by a servant. On the 30th of October 1873 a post-office order (produced) was brought to him, and the payee’s signature was that of the prisoner. He paid the money to the person who brought it. The house at which the prisoner lived was a small private house, called Fern Cottage, and there was no show of business kept up there. On cross-examination by prisoner’s counsel, the postmaster stated that the fact of so many orders being cashed by Mrs Dellair excited his suspicion. He, however, knew that she was getting her living by sending parcels of needlework by post, and since he had ascertained that fact, he did not think it so extraordinary. Mrs Dellair was in the habit of purchasing postage stamps in large quantities of him. She sometimes purchased ten shillings’ worth, and once or twice had bought them to a larger extent. At the trial the entire seat in front of the jury-box was filled by young women who attended to prosecute, some of whom had been prudent enough to ask for references, but imprudent enough to part with their guineas, although the testimonials received were not quite satisfactory. Some applicants had interviews with Dellair at Croydon, and then she gave the names of one or two eminent firms as her employers, but at the trial representatives of these firms swore that she was totally unknown to them. One of the most peculiar points in this trial was the line taken by the counsel for the defence, who argued that although the victims of his client might be deserving of sympathy, they had parted with their guineas in a foolish and careless manner, and the real question was whether the accused was guilty of a fraudulent pretence or not. The advocate raised the curious point in favour of his client, that although she had avowedly four hundred transactions with different persons, it was extraordinary that she had not been discovered and prosecuted before; but he forgot how much more extraordinary it was that for her defence the prisoner was unable to bring forward out of her four hundred clients a single witness who could swear to receiving remunerative employment from her. The defence was original, and originality in defence has a good deal to do with success when a case is being tried by a common jury; but it did not succeed, and Mrs Margaret Annie Dellair was found guilty. The woman was an impudent and abandoned swindler, who had been systematically preying for years upon a class that can, of all classes, the least afford to be cheated--decently-educated young women of small means, who fill respectable positions, and whose consequent need of employment which will enable them to earn a little something above their ordinary salaries is always pressing and frequently imperative. Before sentence was passed an inspector from Scotland Yard stated that the prisoner and her husband had formerly lived at Finchley under another name; that they had afterwards kept a shop in Bloomsbury under the title of “Fuller & Co.,” where they advertised to give “remunerative employment” both to young ladies and young gentlemen; that in May 1872 the husband was sentenced at the Middlesex Sessions to five years’ imprisonment for fraud; that on his conviction the woman removed to Fern Cottage; and that after her arrest, and its consequent publication in the papers, upwards of eighty letters had been received by the police complaining of her dealings. All that Margaret Annie Dellair could do when she was called up for sentence was to plead that she had been left in an all but penniless condition with seven young children; that she had tried in vain to obtain an honest livelihood by keeping a stall in a bazaar; and that her crime was caused by a desire to avert starvation from her innocent offspring. A good deal of sympathy was of course expressed by the public--especially by those who have nothing to lose--not for the victims, but for the victimiser. The interest taken in criminals nowadays, when they have the slightest claims to be out of the common order, would be regarded as quite overdrawn if described in a novel.

The other delinquent was not so interesting, and being only a man, did not find any hearts to bleed for him even among those who had not been deceived. His practices were provincial, his advertisement, of which the following is a copy, being inserted in the Warwickshire and London papers:--

HOME EMPLOYMENT.--Ladies (several) wanted to COPY manuscript SERMONS
for supply to the clergy. Reasonable terms. Apply by letter only to R.
H., 39, New-buildings, Coventry.

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.