Some Distinguished Victims of the Scaffold

(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.