Chapter X: Book VII: , “Residence in London,” contains the famous reference (2)

Across the lofty stone hall, and under the gate of the slaughter-house, the Sheriff and the Ordinary pass onward. There is a rush of chill, moist air through the open door, the bare wooden stairs reverberate with the tread of feet, and in another moment Fauntleroy, still supported by his friends, is standing upon the platform in the open street beneath the frowning wall of Old Bailey. Instantly every head in the dense crowd is uncovered. Yet this is not a token of respect for a dying man, but a time-honoured custom, so that the view of those in the rear may not be obscured. With eyes still closed, and his face turned towards Newgate Street, Fauntleroy moves under the cross-bar. Physical exhaustion is fast conquering him, and the officials hasten their task. In a moment the cap is slipped over his head, while Baker, accustomed to these scenes, speaks to him in earnest prayer. The halter is placed round his neck, and the loathly creature, whose expert hands have finished pawing their victim, glides swiftly from the scaffold. The Rev. Cotton continues to read from his book, but his eyes steal sideways furtively, and he throws a glance of meaning upon the man who has descended. An instant later, the Ordinary passes a handkerchief across his lips. It is the signal! There is a crash of falling timber, and to those in the street Fauntleroy appears to drop through the platform as far as his knees, and hangs swaying from the strong black beam which holds the cord that is gripping him by the throat. The bowstring of the unspeakable Turk is a more artistic but not a more cruel death.

The performance was an immense success, for a more stupendous throng had never gathered round the black walls of Newgate. Over one hundred thousand persons were said to have witnessed the entertainment, and reserved seats in the houses commanding a view of Debtors’ Door had been booked far in advance. At the ‘King of Denmark’ in the Old Bailey the sum of fourteen shillings was charged for a place; while at Wingrave’s eating-house and at Luttman’s, which were exactly opposite ‘the drop’ the price was as high as one pound. “Many respectable-looking females,” says the _Morning Post_, “were present at the windows, all attired in deep black.” A line of large waggons, hackney-coaches and cabriolets, all of which reaped a rich harvest, stretched from the corner of Giltspur Street and Newgate to Skinner’s Street, Snowhill, and every housetop was overflowing with holiday-makers.

It was a bitterly cold morning, with icy rain-storms and a chill mist, so the resolute thousands thoroughly deserved the enjoyment for which they set at defiance all the ills of the flesh. Most careful precautions were taken to avoid a repetition of the Haggerty-Holloway tragedy, when the mob saved James Botting--that worthy soul whose latter days were distressed by visions of ‘parties’ in nightcaps with their heads on one side--an infinite deal of trouble by trampling to death some fifty of its fellows. Six huge barriers stretched across Newgate Street at the corner of the prison, and there were two intermediate ones, to break the press, between that place and the scaffold; more were erected at the Ludgate Hill termination of Old Bailey, and within the barricade around the fatal platform were four hundred constables.

Sad to relate, the object-lesson was a failure in one instance, for Henry Norman, a fine-looking lad of fifteen, was charged at the Guildhall the next morning with picking a pocket, the owner of which was gloating over the spectacle of the strangled banker. It speaks highly for the integrity of our modern police force that, in these days of exclusive hangings, a nimble-fingered Robert has never tried to filch the watch of an impressionable Under-Sheriff. Or if he has, the public has not heard of it.

In these record-breaking times it is a common occurrence for a trusted attorney to embezzle half a million pounds, but before the achievements of Henry Fauntleroy all previous forgeries sink into insignificance. Poor Dodd surrendered all he stole, and Wynne Ryland’s fraud was, in its way, as artistic a performance as those of Thomas Chatterton, while a brief career of crime--as in the case of Henry Savary of Bristol, who was lucky enough to escape the gallows--ruined the brothers Perreau. James Bolland and John Rouvelett were low-born fellows; and although the public welcomed each as a first-class criminal, neither gained the same prestige as a forger of gentle birth. In a small way, Henry Cock, the lawyer, anticipated the Berners Street frauds, and two other cases bear some resemblance. Henry Weston, a man of good family and social position, who was hanged at the Old Bailey on the 6th of June 1796, disposed of stocks amounting to twenty-five thousand pounds in a similar manner to Fauntleroy; and Joseph Blackburn, one of the most respected of Leeds attorneys, who suffered a lingering death at York on the 8th of April 1815, committed innumerable frauds for a great number of years by transferring and altering the denominations of the old familiar blue stamps.

“Fauntleroy’s doom was so thoroughly recognised as well merited,” writes Mr Thornbury, sternly, about forty years after the event, “that although in 1832 every other kind of forger was exempted by law from the gallows, the hands of the hangman still hovered over the forger of wills and powers of attorney to transfer stock.” Yet, since the penalty was never inflicted, this argument appears superfluous.

Fauntleroy certainly is the prince of forgers, as truly as Jack Sheppard is the greatest of prison-breakers and George Barrington the finest genius among pickpockets. Although driven to crime in the first instance by moral cowardice and craving for self-indulgence, he must have possessed an almost Napoleonic confidence that his abilities would conquer misfortune. Too proud to surrender the terrible struggle, he refused to adopt the easy alternative of flight to France with his ill-gotten gains. When one tries to realise the stupendous task of manipulating figures of such magnitude for so many years, the brain reels. The regular payment of huge dividends lest the victims should become aware of their loss, the constant replacement of stock when discovery seemed to threaten, the repeated buying and selling in order to rob Peter to-day to pay Paul to-morrow, the daily juggling with the books, and adjustment of balances, added to the incessant vigilance lest the errors of a few figures should mean betrayal to partners or clerks--all these wonderful transactions show an example of mathematical legerdemain such as the world has seldom seen. When it is borne in mind that the man was playing for nearly ten years with sums amounting in the aggregate to half a million sterling, his title to the incomparable forger of all time cannot be challenged. But like many another who has contributed to the public amusement, his memory soon faded from the minds of all save his creditors. Scarcely had the curtain been rung down on the tragedy of Fauntleroy, when it rose again upon the entrancing drama of accommodating Miss Foote and wayward Mr ‘Pea-green’ Hayne.

Occasionally, but not often, we hear mention of the banker’s name, and there was a recent reference to it in one of the delightful novels of Anthony Hope.

“It is no longer a capital offence,” declares ribald Arty Kane, referring to forgery, and addressing charming Peggy Ryle; “you won’t be hanged in silk knee-breeches like Mr Fauntleroy.”

_Part II.--Some Details of the Forgeries._

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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, First div., £92,486 0
1825, £92,486 0 Second div., 92,486 0
Second div. 3s. 4d., Aug. Third div., 46,243 0
30, 1825, 92,486 0 Received by the official
Third div. 1s. 8d., (paid assignee at 84 Basinghall
before Dec. 28, 1832), 46,243 0 Street from Dec. 28,
Fourth div. 5d., Dec. 23, 1832, to Oct 7, 1837, 160,930 0
1833, 11,560 15 /
Fifth div. 1s., Sept. 9, /
1835, 27,745 16 /
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
----------- -----------

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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 Total receipts £392,150
20s. in the £) £554,916 Deficiency 522,980
Gross loss of the Bank 360,214
-------- --------
£915,130 £915,130
-------- --------

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: (_a_) Loss of £160,000 in building speculations.]

[Sidenote: (_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.

[Sidenote: (_c_) Loss of £80,000 through payments to Messrs Marsh, Stracey & Graham.]

[Sidenote: (_d_) Fauntleroy spent £100,000.]

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: How did Fauntleroy spend the money?]

[Sidenote: (_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.

[Sidenote: (_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.

[Sidenote: (_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.

[Sidenote: (_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.

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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.