Part II.—Some Details of the Forgeries.

The Berners Street bankruptcy.

No complete balance-sheet of the Marsh-Stracey bankruptcy appears to exist. The books of the firm seem to have baffled both the Commissioners and the assignees; and so artfully had Fauntleroy concealed his frauds, that even skilled accountants did not succeed in unravelling the whole of their mysteries. Contemporary newspapers furnish many important clues, but their statements, when not conflicting, are neither lucid nor exhaustive. Yet, although many details must remain obscure, it is possible to form a rough conception of the result.

The position of the bankrupts.

Since we know that the first dividend of 3s. 4d. in the pound (distributed to the creditors on the 7th of February 1825) absorbed a sum of £92,486, it is clear that Messrs Marsh, Stracey & Company required a grand total of £554,916 to pay twenty shillings in the pound. Practically these figures are substantiated by the preliminary accounts presented at the meeting of the Commissioners on the 18th of December 1824, which state that the claims against the firm—excluding any liability to the Bank of England—amount to £554,148.

This estimate, however, is the only one of any accuracy made at the time, for the assets expected to be realised fell very short of the original calculation. A second dividend of 3s. 4d. was received by the creditors on the 30th of August 1825, and between that date and the appointment of the official assignee a further sum of £46,243 was distributed. Thus the total of the first three dividends—which were equivalent to 8s. 4d. in the pound—amounts to £231,215.

The bankruptcy return of Patrick Johnson (official assignee), published in 1839, shows that assets were collected subsequently amounting to £160,930, and thus the creditor side of the Berners Street ledger appears to have reached a total of £392,150.

From this balance of £160,930—realised by the official assignee after the payment of the first three dividends—further distributions of 5d. and 1s. (being 9s. 9d. in the pound in all) were made respectively on the 23rd of December 1833 and the 9th of September 1835, and absorbed further sums of £11,560, 15s. and £27,745, 16s.

During September 1835 the claim of the Bank of England against Messrs Marsh, Stracey & Company was compromised for a payment of £95,000 in cash; and a further sum of £11,000 for the expenses of working the Commission of Bankruptcy from the 16th of September 1824 to the end of the year 1833 must also be deducted. Therefore a balance of £15,628—less any further costs—appears to have remained for payment of a final dividend. Although many of the newspapers state that this was made on the 7th of October 1837, unfortunately none of them give any particulars. Yet it may be conjectured that the unfortunate customers of the Berners Street Bank, after waiting for thirteen years, could not have received more than 10s. 6d. in the pound.

The following rough balance-sheet will explain the above account:—

Dr. Cr.

First div. 3s. 4d., Feb. 7, 1825, £92,486 0 First div., £92,486 0

Second div. 3s. 4d., Aug. 30, 1825, 92,486 0 Second div., 92,486 0

Third div. 1s. 8d., (paid before Dec. 28, 1832), 46,243 0 Third div., 46,243 0

Fourth div. 5d., Dec. 23, 1833, 11,560 15 Received by the official assignee at 84 Basinghall Street from Dec. 28, 1832, to Oct 7, 1837, 160,930 0

Fifth div. 1s., Sept. 9, 1835, 27,745 16 0

Bank of England, Sept. 1835, 95,000 0

Expenses of Administration up to Dec. 24, 1833, 11,000 0

Balance (including all costs from Dec. 24, 1833, to Oct. 7, 1837, and out of which the final dividend was made on Oct. 7, 1837,) 15,628 9

——————— ———————

£392,150 0 £392,150 0

——————— ———————

The private estates of the partners.

The private estates of Messrs Stracey and Graham paid twenty shillings in the pound before the end of 1833; and upon that of Mr Marsh, the senior partner, who appears to have been indebted to the firm for a loan of £73,000, excluding his overdraft on his private account, a distribution of 17s. 6d. had been made before 1834. Little was received on Fauntleroy’s estate, as it was claimed almost entirely by the creditors of the Berners Street Bank.

Losses under Fauntleroy’s management.

It is now possible to form an estimate of the extent to which Messrs Marsh, Stracey & Company were defaulters, and what were the losses under the Fauntleroy régime. The total receipts set against the claims of the creditors and the money stolen from the Bank of England, show a deficiency of £522,980. Thus:—

Dr. Cr.

Claims of the creditors (to pay 20s. in the £) £554,916 Total receipts £392,150

Gross loss of the Bank 360,214 Deficiency 522,980

———— ————

£915,130 £915,130

———— ————

How the losses were incurred.

Although it would be difficult, with any degree of accuracy, to apportion under the separate charges this adverse balance of over half a million pounds, and although much must be left to conjecture, it is possible to explain some of the ways in which this vast sum was dissipated. At the outset, the suggestion—arising out of one of the pleas of Fauntleroy, and believed at the time—that the overdraft on loans to two of the partners was responsible for a deficit of £100,000, is refuted by the fact that both Messrs Marsh and Graham refunded eventually their obligations to the full extent. In like manner, the belief that large sums were lost owing to the necessity of reinvesting constantly the various stocks sold by Fauntleroy in order to avoid detection, overlooks the fact that, on the other hand, these transactions must have afforded similar opportunities for making a profit. It is probable that many such losses did occur; but since we may believe that the Berners Street Bank prior to the forgeries was earning an income of £7000 a year, it is likely that such an astute manager as Henry Fauntleroy would be able to cancel many of these losses through reinvestment by the profits he earned on the immense capital he had secretly appropriated.

(a) Loss of £160,000 in building speculations.

(b) £90,000 lost by paying dividends on the stolen stocks.

Although the forger’s estimate of the result of his building speculations is extravagant, the newspapers of the 20th of December 1824 make it clear that the Berners Street house must have lost in this manner £160,000. It is certain also that immense sums were absorbed by the payment of dividends to the proprietors whose stocks had been stolen. Nearly £7000 per annum must have been required for this purpose from the year 1816, and the sum would accumulate at compound interest, until, as some say, an annual fund of £16,000 was required. Setting aside all excessive calculations, we have the great authority of the historian of the Bank of England that £9000 to £10,000 a year was thus expended during the progress of the forgeries. Further than this, notwithstanding that the partners in the bankrupt firm were not entitled to any fraction of profit, the testimony of almost the entire press credits each of them with receiving an income of over £3000. At the examination of William Marsh, reported in the newspapers of the 1st of March 1825, it was proved that he was indebted on his private account for an overdraft of £26,000. As there is no reason to believe that Mr Stracey or Mr Graham had enjoyed a smaller income, a further deficit of nearly £80,000 is the result. And finally, as will be shown, there is an overwhelming weight of evidence to prove that the iniquitous Henry Fauntleroy, during the nineteen years he was a partner, dissipated at least £100,000. In addition, the repayment of the capital of Sir James Sibbald (who died the 17th of September 1819), which formed a large portion of £64,000—the capital of the firm in 1814—would swell the adverse balance still further. Leaving this out of the question, the facts stated above explain the deficit of £430,000; and with the material at our disposal any further solution would involve a more elaborate use of the methods of conjecture.

(c) Loss of £80,000 through payments to Messrs Marsh, Stracey & Graham.

(d) Fauntleroy spent £100,000.

To what extent did Fauntleroy participate in the proceeds of his forgeries?

When Fauntleroy made his famous declaration from the dock, he was endeavouring to refute the extravagant assertion that he had spent a sum of over four hundred thousand pounds in riotous living; and thus, led to the opposite extreme, he made the mistake of attempting to convey an erroneous impression of his frugality. Thus the statement that he had never enjoyed any advantage beyond that in which all his partners had participated seems to hint economy; but as Mr Marsh had overdrawn his loan account by £70,000, the proposition is irrelevant to the argument. Then, again, he confesses that the Brighton villa cost £400, but he is not candid enough to admit the expenses of his other establishments. The stern reality—that a thief cannot justify the expenditure of one pennyworth of stolen property—never entered his mind. Utterly false, however, is his answer to the charges of profligacy—outrageous though they were.

“It has been cruelly asserted,” he declares, “that I fraudulently invested money in the Funds to answer the payment of annuities amounting to £2200 settled upon females. I never did make such investment.”

No single tenet in Father Garnet’s doctrine of equivocation puts greater stress upon the truth. Whoever made the necessary investments—and the forger was shrewd enough not to let the transaction appear in his own name—there is certain evidence that he provided lavishly for his mistress Maria Fox. The lie is merely concealed in subtle language.

“Neither at home nor abroad,” continues Fauntleroy, “have I any investment, nor is there one shilling secretly deposited by me in the hands of any human being.”

Such an assertion goes far beyond the sophistry of the most misguided seventeenth-century Jesuit, for the Commissioners of Bankruptcy were soon to discover that he had squandered thousands on his friend Mrs Disney. His one denial in unequivocal terms is a deliberate falsehood.

“Equally ungenerous and untrue it is,” the forger proceeds, “to charge me with having lent to loose and disorderly persons large sums of money which never have and never will be repaid. I lent no sums but to a very trifling amount, and those were advanced to valued friends.”

No doubt this last declaration had reference to the rumour that he had squandered money upon the notorious Mary Ann Kent, ‘Mother Bang’—who figures as ‘Corinthian Kate’ in Life in London—and its truth or falsehood must depend upon the exact definition of the term ‘large sums’ The criminal who had dealings with huge balance-sheets, naturally had a magnificent sense of proportion.

Fauntleroy’s expenditure.

Fortunately, there is evidence of some of the ‘prodigal extravagance’ that was laid at his door. The total loss of the Bank of England owing to the forgeries was £360,214, and the original claim of the directors against the Berners Street establishment was £250,000. So it seems that the balance was believed to have been spent wholly by Fauntleroy, and not placed to the credit of the partnership. The sworn testimony of Mr Wilkinson, an accountant employed by the assignees to examine the books of the bankrupts—although inclined to favour Messrs Marsh, Stracey & Company—supports this assumption in the most decisive manner. Thus, in spite of his defence, it would appear that during his management the forger appropriated for himself a sum of over £100,000. These figures, moreover, are endorsed by the fair-minded James Scarlett, who made the same statement as Wilkinson in his speech for the defendants in the case of Stone and Others v. Marsh, Stracey & Company, which was heard on the 2nd of March 1826. To disregard such unanimous testimony is impossible.

How did Fauntleroy spend the money?

(a) Domestic expenditure £2000 a year.

It is quite credible that for a period of seventeen years (from 1807 to 1824) a man of Fauntleroy’s habits should expend an average income of £5000. Had each of his three establishments—in Berners Street, in Brighton, and at Lambeth—cost him as much as his moderate estimate of one—and none of them could have been less expensive—the total reaches £1200 a year. In addition to this, it is known that he allowed an annuity of £400 to his wife. Thus, as he kept horses and carriages both at London and the seaside, his lowest annual domestic expenditure must have been at least £2000, or £34,000 over the period. Although the house at Fulham was one of his later extravagances, there were others that had taken its place previously.

(b) Freehold property £10,000.

The villa, land and furniture at Brighton, sold after his death, realised nearly £7000—the residence alone is said to have cost him this amount; and since he was the owner of a mews and six houses in Bryanston Square, and two other houses in York Street, his freehold property, on a moderate estimate, must have been worth £10,000.

(c) Maria Fox £10,000.

From the reports of the trial of Maria Fox at the Lewes Assizes in April 1827, we gather that Fauntleroy settled on his youthful mistress £6000, besides an annuity of £150, “of which the assignees,” said John Adolphus, her counsel, “through the advice of a worthy gentleman, Mr Bolland, were not so cruel as to deprive her.” Thus another £10,000 is added to the banker’s debt.

(d) Mrs J. C. Disney, £10,000.

During the month of December 1824 the London papers are full of insinuations with regard to Fauntleroy’s improper connection with a Mrs James C. Disney, and the letter from the lady’s husband, which appeared in the New Times on the 24th of December, substantiates unwittingly much of the truth of the story. It is certain that the creditors of Marsh, Stracey & Company recovered large sums from this Mrs Disney, who had been the recipient of Fauntleroy’s bounty to an extent exceeding the limits of platonic love, and according to The Times the amount refunded was £10,000. Although many reports state that she received twice this sum, it is sufficient for the purpose to accept the lesser figures.

Thus there is almost complete evidence that Fauntleroy’s expenditure under three heads—domestic expenses, freehold property, and the two mistresses above mentioned—absorbed a sum of £64,000. It is not unreasonable to suppose that the man who could squander this money in less than seventeen years, while his firm was in so dire a plight, was capable of spending double the amount. It is improbable that his various establishments cost him no more than £2000 a year; and if The Times of the 1st of December is to be believed, he confessed that he had enjoyed a very much larger income. The age of pinks and bloods was as extravagant as our own, and many luxuries of life were more expensive. Fauntleroy was a patron of ‘Corinthian Kate’; and if Pierce Egan is an authority, we may conjecture—in spite of her denial to Joseph Parkins—that the unfortunate banker found her an expensive luxury. Like the great man whom he took a pride in fancying he resembled, it is notorious that the forger had a weakness for what his contemporaries termed ‘ladybirds’ and was in this respect a dissipated and worthless fellow. Moreover, he was celebrated for his costly dinners and rare wines—there is the grisly story of the friend who urged him as a last request to tell where he purchased his exquisite curaçoa—and he seems to have denied himself no luxury. Although it is not possible to give a complete explanation of Fauntleroy’s expenditure during the years of his race to ruin, it is satisfactory to know some portion of the details, and they show, through all possible coats of whitewash, that he was guilty of the most prodigal extravagance.

The conduct of the partners.

Since the partners of the Berners Street Bank were censured for gross negligence in two courts of law, it is not surprising that their creditors should have treated them with intolerance. At first the public had regarded them as unfortunate dupes, and it was not until Fauntleroy had made his defence that a popular outcry arose. It seemed incredible that three men of the world should have thrown the heavy burden of managing a firm, weighed down by embarrassments, upon the shoulders of a youth of twenty-two, and equally preposterous that, in the face of losses reaching into hundreds of thousands, the young man’s colleagues should have remained easy, trusting, asleep. Yet, in spite of the onslaught of the London press, and the clamour of the noisy creditors, headed by Joseph Parkins and his fellows, beneath the roof of the ‘Boar and Castle’ and the ‘Freemasons’ Tavern,’ it is certain that Messrs Marsh, Stracey & Graham were innocent of all guilty complicity in their partner’s frauds. The statements that had aroused the storm against them proved to be baseless or exaggerated. It has been shown that the Berners Street Bank did not lose £270,000 in building speculations between 1810 and 1816, as Fauntleroy suggested, and to meet the loss that did occur a large sum was raised by the supporters of the firm, to which William Marsh contributed £40,000. Thus, considering the reticence of their manager, there was good reason why the partners should believe that they had weathered the financial panic which brought to ruin so many of their contemporaries.

Modern commerce estimates more accurately the value of youth than the age of Mr Walter the Second; and as young Fauntleroy, who was one of the smartest bank managers in London, accepted his responsibilities with zest and cheerfulness, it is not surprising that he became the autocrat of the firm. Moreover, the juggler who could deceive the clerks working at his elbow day by day would have no difficulty in satisfying the periodical curiosity of sleeping-partners. Fat profits rolled into their coffers, and, like many another good easy man, they did not pause to look a gift horse in the mouth. Fools they were, and must remain, but in the end the world ceased to suspect their honour.

Still, their credulity was remarkable. All three of them appear to have been the instruments of most of the frauds, attending at the Bank of England to make the transfer under the forged powers of attorney, and instructing brokers to dispose of the stolen stocks and bonds. In one particular, however, the conduct of Marsh and Stracey appeared dubious. On the day of Fauntleroy’s arrest the daughter of the former cashed a cheque for £5000, while the latter drew out over £4000 in the name of his father. The trick was discovered, and restitution made to the creditors.

The Bank of England’s claim.

As might be supposed, the Bank of England received little sympathy either from the press or from the people. The directors never disputed their obligation—as managers of the public debt—to refund to the rightful proprietors the whole of the stocks that had been stolen, but they made every effort to enforce their claim against the Berners Street firm—amounting to a quarter of a million—which they contended that Fauntleroy had placed to the credit of his house. It was soon made clear by law that Messrs Marsh, Stracey & Company were responsible to the stockholders, who had been defrauded by their managing partner, and thus were equally responsible to the Bank, whose debt was similar to that of the stockholders. The chief obstacle to the enforcement of the Bank’s claim lay in the fact that the proprietors of the stolen stocks were clients, and, as a natural consequence, creditors also of Marsh, Stracey & Company. Being aware that the directors were legally compelled to replace their missing Consols and Exchequer Bills, they raised a great clamour against the claim of the Bank, for naturally they perceived that if it was enforced the cash balances in their Berners Street pass-books would be diminished. This difficulty compelled the Bank to seek the consent of the Courts to permit them to claim from the bankrupts the lump sum that had been restored to the stockholders, so that it would not be necessary to bring forward reluctant persons to prove each separate debt. Lord Chancellor Lyndhurst ruled, however, that each transaction must be established to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Bankruptcy in the usual way, and thus the Bank was driven to depend upon the stockholders. Since the claim of half a million was compromised for a payment of £95,000, we may conclude that the majority of the Berners Street creditors were not disposed to assist the rival claimant to a share of their dividends.

The transfer of stock.

Much has been written of the lax methods of transferring stock in vogue at the Bank of England. As the frauds were so slovenly that Fauntleroy’s clerks had no difficulty in detecting their employer’s handwriting in the signature attached to the forged power of attorney produced at the trial, it is plain that the crimes could not have continued for so many years unless a most careless system had prevailed. The Berners Street swindle showed that it was possible for any applicant with whom the clerks at the Consols Office were acquainted to complete the transfer of another person’s securities, provided only that he possessed a knowledge of the exact value of the particular stock he wished to appropriate. A power of attorney seems to have been as readily acted upon as obtained, and no comparison of the real owner’s signature appears to have been made. This danger was pointed out subsequently at a meeting of the Court of Proprietors, and a shareholder made the wise suggestion that when any transfer was made immediate notice should be sent to the proprietor of the stock.

Yet checks and precautions did exist at the Bank of England in the days of Henry Fauntleroy. The purchasers of securities were recommended to protect themselves from fraud by accepting themselves—that is to say, by signing—all transfers of stock made to them, thus giving the officials of the Bank the opportunity of comparing the handwriting of the proprietor whenever necessary. Still, the investing public rarely complied with this regulation, and Fauntleroy must have been aware that there was no danger of detection on this account.

Although forgery of such a description is more difficult in these days, yet prudence should neglect no safeguard that does not impede the business of everyday life. A signature, however much resemblance it has to its original, may still be a forgery, and personal attendance might be simulated by a bold and plausible scoundrel. The most sure precaution is the one suggested on the 17th of September 1824 by the nameless proprietor, that whenever a transfer is lodged immediate notice shall be sent to the holder of the stock.

FAUNTLEROY AND THE NEWSPAPERS

1. The Morning Chronicle.

Under the leadership of the famous John Black, this paper had become a somewhat fat and stodgy production, savouring of the ‘unco guid’ It is fierce in its attacks upon Fauntleroy’s partners for their indolence and carelessness, and pleads that mercy shall be shown to the offender. Special prominence is given to the pious conversations alleged to have taken place in Newgate between the prisoner and his spiritual advisers Messrs Springett and Baker. Since this paper is not hostile to Fauntleroy, it is strange that it should publish (November 11) a vile communication from his enemy J. W. Parkins, an ex-Sheriff of London, in which the writer tries to show that the prisoner who is awaiting his trial has been a brutal husband. The first announcement that the Bank in Berners Street had suspended payment appears in the columns of the Chronicle on Monday, September 13.

2. The Morning Post.

Although the Morning Post makes a point of pluming itself on its humanity towards Fauntleroy, its attitude is wholly inconsistent and double-faced. Having copied from The Times a column of disgraceful news concerning the private vices of the dishonest banker, it turns round and upbraids its contemporary, a few weeks later, for supplying the information. Foolish letters upon all kinds of subjects from Fauntleroy’s bitter enemy, J. W. Parkins—Sheriff of London 1819-20—disfigure this paper constantly. The Post gloats over the scene at the Debtors’ Door, and is glad that there was no pardon.

3. The Morning Herald.

This journal is opposed to the death penalty for forgery, and inserts several letters, urging that the convict should be reprieved, but it admits, after the execution, that while the law remained unaltered there were no special circumstances in the case to warrant mercy. The report of the trial on November 1, which holds up to ridicule the absurd and indecorous conduct of ex-Sheriff Parkins previous to the meeting of the Court, furnishes a striking proof of his malice against his former friend Henry Fauntleroy. During April 1823 the notorious Parkins made a somewhat feeble attempt to assault Mr Thwaites of the Morning Herald in his office, which is the reason, no doubt, why the editor handles him so roughly.

4. The Times.

The attitude of the greatest paper in the world towards the unfortunate banker is a black record in its history. Although the man was a sensualist and a forger of the highest degree, it is not creditable to British journalism of those days that a leading newspaper should take infinite pains to rake up every scandal of his past life, and to prejudice the public mind against him before he was brought to trial. A more deliberate attempt to condemn a man unheard has never been made in the press. It is amazing that an editor of the calibre of Thomas Barnes should have printed the article of September 24 and the disgraceful letter signed “T.” of September 25, which compares Fauntleroy to Thurtell, the cut-throat. The reproof administered by James Harmer on September 27, although fully deserved, was not sufficient to restrain the licence of Mr Walter’s reporters. The Times proceeds to wrangle with the Brighton Gazette as to whether the banker had been a libertine, and on October 9 publishes a statement about his lenient treatment at Coldbath Fields prison, for which it is compelled to apologise to Mr Vickery, the Governor. More innuendoes follow concerning Fauntleroy’s moral character, and on October 19 (before his trial!) it is reported that the printers at the ‘One Tun’ tavern in Covent Garden were making bets as to whether he would be hanged.

Almost as repulsive are the leaders written after the culprit’s execution. “If forgery had not been capital before,” says this truculent journal, “the most humane legislators would have doubted whether, if carried to a similar extent, it should not be rendered capital in future.” Yet Samuel Romilly had been in his grave only six years, and James Mackintosh and William Ewart were left to continue his brave work. Finally, on December 4, comes a blast of thunder that Dennis or the editor of the Eatanswill Gazette might have envied. “We are not anxious to extend the narrative of Mr Fauntleroy’s life by a description of his personal habits, but, if provoked, we can lay before the public such a detail of low and disgusting sensuality, as would appear incredible to those who were not as degraded in body and mind as he was. This narrative would involve persons who hold themselves rather high, and who have presumed to talk big with reference to our accounts of their wretched friend and associate. Let them be quiet; if we find that in public or private (and we have channels of information they dream not of) they have the impudence to disparage our motives or deny our statements, we will hold up their names and actions to public scorn and astonishment and disgust.”

5. The Morning Advertiser.

This journal, then as now the organ of the licensed victuallers, is hostile to Fauntleroy, but moderate in the reports it publishes about him.

6. The New Times.

As might be expected, this paper deals some nasty raps at that from which its editor seceded. It is very critical of the conduct of Fauntleroy’s partners, with whose explanations before the Commissioners of Bankruptcy it is dissatisfied, but does not make the reckless charges against them that appear in some journals, such as the Sunday Times and Morning Chronicle.

7. The British Press.

Gives more complete information than any other paper of the details of Marsh, Stracey & Company’s bankruptcy. The reports of the proceedings before the Court of Commissioners, and of the meetings of the Berners Street creditors, which are criticised at large, throw much light upon the endless ramifications of the Fauntleroy forgeries. This journal alone makes an attempt to ascertain whether the statement of the criminal banker was endorsed by the books of his firm. “I declare,” says Fauntleroy in his defence, “that all the monies temporarily raised by me were applied, not in one single instance for my own separate purposes or expenses, but in every case they were immediately placed to the credit of the house in Berners Street, and applied to the payments of the pressing demands upon it.... The books will confirm the truth of my statement ... the whole went to the general funds of the house.”

The value of this assertion may be tested by reference to the columns of the British Press of the following dates:—September 20, 29, October 6, November 13, 15, 17, 22, 23, 30, December 10, 13, 17, 20, 28 (1824), January 17, 19, 20, February 2, March 1, 19, April 11, July 25, August 31 (1825).

For further particulars of the bankruptcy consult The Times, Morning Post, and Morning Chronicle of December 24, 1833; and September 10 and 11, 1835. Also John Bull, September 20, 1835; the Weekly Dispatch, September 17, 1837; and The Times, October 7, 1837.

8. The Examiner.

The statements in Fauntleroy’s defence are received with incredulity. “From what we hear and observe of the man,” says the Examiner, in a leading article, “we do not believe he would have risked his life to preserve a trading concern of which he had only a fourth share. We expect the truth will be that he began to forge to get money for himself, and was obliged to go on because bankruptcy would have led to his detection.” The leader proceeds to condemn the law of banking, and to attack the monopoly of the Bank.

9. The Observer.

The veteran Sunday journal—which at this period was the property of Wm. Clement, who owned also the Morning Chronicle, and afterwards Bell’s Life—takes the bulk of its reports, like most of the weekly papers, from the columns of the daily press.

10. The Sunday Times.

This hardy newspaper (which age cannot wither) condemns the criminal code that makes forgery a capital offence, and charges Messrs Marsh, Stracey and Graham with previous knowledge of their partner’s guilt. On October 10 appeared the famous letter from malignant ex-Sheriff Parkins, complaining that Fauntleroy or his partners had surrendered certain private documents which he had left at their bank in safe custody. In those days the Sunday Times was under the proprietorship of its founder, Daniel Harvey.

11. The Englishman.

A weekly paper, containing reports similar to those in the Observer.

12. Bell’s Weekly Messenger.

The leading article of December 5 expresses the hope that Mr Fauntleroy will be the last person executed for forgery. As a matter of fact the Berners Street frauds postponed this much-desired reform, and the illogical argument of George III. was revived in another shape—“If Dr. Dodd is pardoned, then the Perreaus have been murdered.” Captain John Montgomery would have been hanged on July 4, 1828, for forging bank notes, had he not cheated the gallows by the aid of prussic acid; Joseph Hunton, the Quaker, suffered death at Newgate on December 8 following, for issuing counterfeit bills of exchange; and Thomas Maynard, who had obtained money from the Custom House under a fraudulent warrant, was executed in the same place on the last day of the year 1829. After this date, although the capital penalty was not finally abolished until 1837, no other person was hanged for forgery in this country.

13. Bell’s Weekly Dispatch.

This newspaper, founded in 1801—five years after his Weekly Messenger—by John Bell, the printer of the British Poets, had now become the property of James Harmer the Old Bailey attorney, who was Fauntleroy’s solicitor. The scathing attacks upon Joseph Wilfred Parkins, which appear in this journal on October 3, October 10 and November 14, explain the reason of the ‘XXX Sheriff’s’ animosity towards the unfortunate banker. Some time before the arrest of the forger, Parkins, who had a law-suit pending, requested Fauntleroy to return a certain cheque for £6000 that he had drawn upon his firm a few years previously. The reply was that, as it could not be found, probably it had been destroyed. On the strength of this statement, Parkins swore in the witness-box on September 13, when his action was being tried, that the cheque in dispute had never been presented, but to his amazement and consternation the missing piece of paper was produced in Court. In consequence, he not only lost his case, but was called upon to stand his trial for perjury on December 20 following. By some means or other wily James Harmer, who happened to be solicitor for the defendants against whom Parkins was bringing his action, had discovered the cheque at the Berners Street Bank soon after Fauntleroy’s arrest, and perceiving its importance to his clients, had appropriated it. Naturally, this amusing piece of strategy was not relished by the choleric ex-Sheriff, who cast most of the blame upon the shoulders of the unhappy banker, and pursued him to the death without mercy.

The Weekly Dispatch made a great effort to save the doomed man, and the petition for reprieve which lay at its office received three thousand signatures. The Rev. Cotton, Ordinary of Newgate, comes in for some well-deserved censure for the tone of his ‘Condemned Sermon’

14. Pierce Egan’s Life in London.

This paper, started February 1, 1824, by the creator of Tom and Jerry, gives extracts, copies for the most part from other sources, and similar information to that contained in Pierce Egan’s account.

15. John Bull.

Naturally, Theodore Hook’s paper did not miss the opportunity of inveighing against The Times for its cruelty towards Fauntleroy, or of ridiculing the sanctimonious articles of the Morning Chronicle. Still, it is unjust to Mrs Fry’s friend and helper, the humane Mr Baker, whose work among the prisoners at Newgate merits the highest praise.

16. The Globe and Traveller.

Condemns the ‘mischievous law’ passed in 1708 to support the Bank of England’s monopoly, which prevented a private banking establishment from being controlled by more than six partners. The journal contends with truth that this legislation “forces a business of great responsibility, which should be of entire security, into the hands of small firms.” The law of 1825 altered all this.

17. The Courier.

Has a weakness for drawing attention to its own propriety, in comparison with that of its contemporaries. Its leader on the evening of the execution declares that, although it refrained from comment while there was a chance of mercy, it applauds the firmness of justice in refusing a reprieve when there was nothing in Fauntleroy’s case to merit such interference. The Courier was in the hands of Daniel Stuart—a great name in journalism—who was proprietor also of the Morning Post.

18. The Sun.

A somewhat feeble paper, though well printed and arranged, edited by John Taylor. It prides itself on never printing anything about Fauntleroy except the proceedings before the magistrates.

19. The Brighton Gazette.

Cudgels The Times lustily, and is indignant that a mere London paper should presume to know more about Mr Fauntleroy’s seaside residence than a journal published in Brighton. About two years later the Gazette has much to say about the beautiful Maria Fox (alias Forbes, alias Forrest, alias Rose), who had lived under the protection of the fraudulent banker. A retired lawyer named Barrow, who resided next door to the lady on the New Stein, accused her of keeping a disorderly house, and she was called upon to meet this charge at the Lewes Assizes. Although the fine advocacy of John Adolphus obtained a verdict of not guilty, the judge went out of his way to compliment the author of the prosecution. (Vide the Brighton Gazette, April 5, 1827; also September 14 and 21, 1826.)

20. The Rambler’s Magazine, or Frolicsome Companion. Printed and published by William Dugdale, 23 Russell Court, Drury Lane. April 1, 1827, pp. 180-182 (vide Trial of Maria Fox).

The learned ‘Pisanus Fraxi’—H. S. Ashbee—whose knowledge of this class of literature is unrivalled, gives no description of this particular publication. It may be a plagiarism of a magazine of about the same date, and bearing an almost similar title (which it appears to resemble), noticed in Catena Librorum Tacendorum, p. 327. Periodicals of this name are almost as numerous, between the years 1782-1829, as the Newgate Calendars. The Rambler’s Magazine makes two things evident: first, that Fauntleroy’s chère amie was a “fair and engaging woman”; and secondly, that Mr Barrow had much cause of complaint.

21. The Gentleman’s Magazine, November 1824 (part ii. p. 461); December 1824 (part ii. p. 580).

In the December number there is a trenchant letter from the Earl of Normanton, condemning the criminal code. “Philosophy would deem it an abuse,” says he, “to punish the crime of a Fauntleroy in the same manner as the crime of a Thurtell.” For the obituary notice of William Moore Fauntleroy, the brother of the forger, see the Gentleman’s Magazine, part ii. p. 1092, 1803.

NOTES ON THE FAUNTLEROY CASE

Note I.—Pierce Egan’s Account of the Trial of H. Fauntleroy. Knight and Lacey, 1824.

No one excelled the historian of the Prize Ring in this style of literature, and his two other similar works, the Life of Samuel Denmore Hayward (1822), and the Account of the Trial of John Thurtell (1824), will remain text-books for all time. Pierce Egan makes a note (p. 21) that Mr. Fauntleroy has never used a ‘slang expression’ during his imprisonment. The surprise indicated by this comment is natural, for, robbed of his italics, the author of Life in London would have been left as naked to his enemies as Cardinal Wolsey.

Note II.—The Newgate Calendar. Knapp and Baldwin (1824-28). Vol. iv. pp. 285-390.

Accepting the statement made by most of the daily newspapers, this account declares that Fauntleroy was hanged for defrauding his wife’s family. Although this statement was made by The Times on October 2, it was denied two days later in that paper, and the contradiction was published also in Bell’s Weekly Messenger, the Globe, and the Courier. Again, on December 4 The Times repeats once more that “Miss Frances Young is no relation to Mrs Fauntleroy.” Considering the bitter rivalry that existed between the various newspapers, and the jealous criticism that each journal bestowed upon the information of its contemporaries, it is certain that if the assertion made by The Times had been untrue—and if false it could have been disproved easily—its rivals would have exposed it with the greatest joy. Moreover, since Fauntleroy might have been charged with twenty other indictments, the public mind would have been shocked had his sister-in-law alone been selected as the instrument of vengeance.

Note III.—The Anatomy of Sleep. Edward Binns, M.D. Churchill (1842). p. 282.

Although such an escape was a physical impossibility to Fauntleroy, there is a rational explanation of the strange superstition—referred to in this book—that he did not die on the scaffold, but was resuscitated, and lived abroad for many years. At eight o’clock on the evening of his death the body was taken by the undertakers, Gale and Barnard, to their premises opposite Newgate prison, where the coffin was fastened down immediately by order of the relatives, who had reason to fear that the morbid—attracted by the notoriety of the criminal—would seek by means of a bribe to view the remains. The flames of rumour are set ablaze by a tiny spark, and the fact that no one outside the prison saw the dead body of the forger may have revived popular faith in a favourite belief. The haste, too, in sealing up the shell may have excited suspicion. For in later days it is certain that many persons cherished the idea that Fauntleroy, more lucky than Jack Sheppard or Dr Dodd, whose friends tried in vain to restore them to life, had survived his execution. Vide also Notes and Queries, First Series, viii. 270, ix. 445, x. 114, 233. Possibly that prince of inkslingers, G. W. M. Reynolds, may have had the Fauntleroy legend in his mind when he drew the picture of the resuscitated forger in the first part of his obscene and scurrilous romance, The Mysteries of the Court of London. Fauntleroy was buried in the cemetery at Bunhill Fields on Thursday, Dec. 2.

Note IV.—Old Stories Retold. By George Walter Thornbury (1867), p. 290.

Mr Walter Thornbury makes a brave and ingenious attempt to explain “the mystery still shrouding the great Fauntleroy swindle,” and “to conjecture for what purpose the dishonest banker preserved in a private box so carefully a suicidal statement of his own misdoings.” His conclusion is that Fauntleroy invented the lie so it should not be thought that he had been influenced by motives of greed, but that as time went on he began actually to credit the untruth, and, treasuring the paper for conscience’ sake, was for years “buoyed up by the secret excuse of an absurd and illogical revenge.” It is only a want of lucidity that prevented Mr Thornbury from unshrouding the mystery, for the explanation—the key of which he held in his hand—is a simple one. There was method in Fauntleroy’s seeming madness. The document found in his private box, which gave a list of his forgeries, and contained the footnote explaining that his motive was revenge against the Bank, was dated May 7, 1816. It is notorious that never in her history was the Old Lady of Threadneedle Street so unpopular as at this time. For nearly twenty years she had borne the odium caused by the suspension of cash payments, and by the alarming depreciation of paper money. In like manner, the panic which overthrew so many provincial houses in 1814, 1815, and 1816 was ascribed to her envied monopoly; and her consequent prosperity, owing to the demand for Bank of England notes, helped to increase the widespread jealousy. Never had forger a more splendid shield than Henry Fauntleroy. Although he had hoped and believed that the proceeds of his first frauds would enable his firm to weather the financial storm, yet if Nemesis should overtake him before he had struggled through the slough, he was justified in supposing that the Board of Directors might hesitate to prosecute a man who would be hailed as a popular champion. Indeed, had his crime been as paltry as that of Henry Savary, it is quite probable that the public would have regarded him as an intrepid enemy of the Bank’s monopoly, and that a like storm which compelled the financial legislation of 1819 and 1825 might have saved him from the scaffold. Fate compelled him to overreach himself, or the crafty story of revenge might have been believed.

Note V.—The History of the Catnach Press. By Charles Hindley (1886), p. 73.

But for the indefatigable researches of this author we should know little of the immortal Jemmy, who, it must be remembered, was the Alfred Harmsworth of his day.

Note VI.—Dic. Nat. Biog.

Like Pierce Egan and Charles Hindley, the writer of this monograph states that Fauntleroy was convicted for a fraud upon his sister-in-law, which is the more remarkable as The Times is cited as an authority. The name of the forger’s father was not Henry, but William; the arrest was made on September 10, not September 11; the warrant of commitment charged him with embezzling, not a thousand, but ten thousand pounds; the Berners Street Bank was not founded in 1782, but ten years later; the value of Miss Young’s stock was £5450; and Fauntleroy was committed for trial on October 19. There does not appear to be any authority for the assertion that the fraudulent transfers first began in 1815, and it would be more correct to say that Messrs Marsh, Stracey & Company announced the suspension of payment on September 13.

Note VII.—History of the Bank of England. By John Francis (1847). Vol. i. pp. 339-345.

The author of this work, relying upon the evidence of J. H. Palmer before a Committee of the House of Commons in 1832, estimates the loss of the Bank of England through the Fauntleroy forgeries at £360,000. Although these figures were correct at the time when the Governor made his statement, the Bank received £95,000 from Messrs Marsh, Stracey & Company during September 1835, in full discharge of their debt.1 Thus, as the gross loss to the Bank, according to John Horsley Palmer, was £360,214, the actual loss appears to have been reduced to £265,214.

Note VIII.—For particulars of the Berners Street Bankruptcy consult the following:—

(a) The Bank of England’s Case under Marsh & Co.’s Commission. By a Solicitor. (Lupton Relfe, 113 Cornhill. 1825.)

(b) The Bank of England’s Claim ... in reply to Mr Wilkinson’s Report upon the Facts. (Lupton Relfe. 1825.)

(c) Ryan and Moody’s Law Reports from 1823-1826. “Stone and Another v. Marsh, Stracey & Graham.” P. 364.

(d) Reports of Cases determined at Nisi Prius from 1823-1827. By Edward Ryan and Wm. Moody. “Hume and Another v. Bolland and Others.” P. 371.

(e) Cases in Bankruptcy from 1821-1828. By Thomas Glynn and Robert Jameson. “Governor and Company of the Bank of England in the matter of Marsh, Stracey, Graham and Fauntleroy.” Vol. ii. pp. 363-368, 446.

(f) The Report of Committee of Secrecy on the Bank of England’s Charter (1832). Vide Evidence of John Horsley Palmer (Governor). P. 9, and Appendix, p. 55.

(g) Returns as to Bankruptcies previous to the Act of Parliament, 1831. (1839.) Vol. xliii. p. 96.