Kitabı oku: «Some Distinguished Victims of the Scaffold», sayfa 15

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.