VarItaMtntitrp Vaptirl.

THE EXCHEQUER BILLS FORGERY.

THE Commissioners on the Exchequer Bills Forgery (the Earl of Devon, Mr. Robert Mitford, and Mr. Henry J. Stephen,) begin by accounting for the length of their investigation, from their anxiety to be accurate, the having to hunt for evidence, and the having to exa- mine one hundred and sixty witnesses, some of them at great length. They explain that they did not construe their instructions to extend to inquiry into the genuineness of the bills ; for the bills, all but twelve, were referred to them by Parliament as "forged"; nor into the "manner of the issue" as respected the internal arrangements of the Exchequer Bill Office, which had already been the subject of inquiry and report- " Considering then the manner of the issue' of the bills, as regarded the guilty parties themselves, and the subsequent ' circulation, deposit, and pos- session ' of them, and' the case of every holder or owner,' to be the only proper subject for oar inquiry, we proceeded first to the examination of some official persons, from whom it was at once ascertained (the fact indeed being otherwise sufficiently notorious) that no other officer except Beaumont Smith had in- curred any suspicion of being connected with the fraud, and from shorn we also received such further explanations of a general kind as were necessary for our subsequent guidance. We then examined in succession the various parties whom we judged likely, from the notices in the schedule, to be connected with the bills, as present claimants, prior holders, or otherwise ; endeavouring to pursue our course continually from the claimants upwards, until we reached the original sources of the fraud : the result of which was, that when we came to examine the earlier parties, we were able to check their evidence by the aid of the information previously obtained. At length arriving at that point where it became necessary to add the last link to the chain, we judged it, after some deliberation, desirable to obtain the testimony of Ernest Rapallo, the person who had been apprehended as a party to the forgeries, and discharged from prison only in consequence of his consent to give evidence against his confede- rate Beaumont Smith. On the service of our summons upon this person at Calais, where we found him to be resident, he immediately obeyed it, (receiving only the assurance, that as far as the law might permit, we would endeavour to secure to him the usual immunities of a witness); and on his attendance we obtained from him some particulars necessary to complete the general outline of the history of the fraud, with such account as he thought fit to give of the property acquired from it by the confederates ; and received his consent to our examination of such remnants of that property as were still under his con- trol in this country. The tendency of his evidence was in some respects unfa- yourable to certain of the parties examined before us, but in general it did not bear against them more strongly than the statements received from them- selves."

The Commissioners add, that in one case a solicitor was employed ; but in no other did the witnesses avail themselves of legal assistance ; and in all they observed perfect propriety. "In conducting the examinations, the peculiar character of the inquiry in- duced us also to swerve occasionally from the strict law of evidence, as appli- cable to the trial of issues arising in the common law courts. Thus we re- ceived, without hesitation, the statements of parties as witnesses in their own behalf; and where a correspondence was offered in evidence, for the purpose of explanation Only, or with reference to points of subordinate importance, we deemed it proper to allow the party to put in copies of his own letters as made by himself, or his clerk, without producing, or proving any endeavour to pro- cure, the originals."

They describe the nature of the fraud and the mode in which it was carried out- " That fraud related exclusively to the species of Exchequer Bills called Supply Bills, which, as is well known, have been latterly issued from the Ex- chequer twice in every year, under the authority of successive acts of Perlis.

ment. The periods of the issue are March and June; and each bill is either paid off or exchanged (at the option of the bolder) at the office of the Pay-

masters of the Exchequer at the expiration of about a year from its date, the precise period for bringing them in with a view to such payment or exchange being first publicly advertised. It follows of course from this that there are two exchanges of Exchequer Bills in every year, the first in March and the second in June.

" These instruments have a blank left for the name of the payee ; and, ex- cept where that blank is filled up, (which is rarely the case,) they pass by mere

delivery, like a bank-note ; and, as in the case of a bank-note, the title of a person who gives valuable consideration for them without notice or suspicion of fraud, is complete, although they should have been fraudulently obtained by the party from whom he receives them.

" The hills of each successive issue are numbered in regular progression, and in no instance are there two in the same issue which bear the same number.

They are also signed with the name of the Comptroller-General of the Exche- quer, (though that signature might, by the established custom which prevailed at the time of the fraud in question, be subscribed either by himself or by the Deputy-Comptroller-General) ; and, as the principal check against for- gery, it is the practice in issuing these instruments always to cut them from a counterfoil, by comparison with which their genuineness may at any time be ascertained.

" The bills which are the subject of our inquiry under the Act of Parliament (being 377 in number, of which 365 are in the schedule to the Act itself, and twelve have been referred to us since the act passed) all purport to be bills of the description above stated; and all emanated through E. Rapallo, from Beau- mont Smith. The former is a foreigner, but was long resident in this country;

and during that period, viz. from the spring of 1836 to the middle of 1841, was in the habit of receiving from Smith, then senior clerk in the Issuing-office of the Exchequer, instruments purporting to be Exchequer Bills, for the purpose of raising money upon them. The bills now the subject of inquiry are of the number of those so received, and, being among the later issues, were still in cir- culation at the time of the discovery of the fraud ; the remainder having, as it would seem, been all destroyed (after they had served the purpose) by the par- ties who issued them. * s "The bills now the subject of inquiry all purport to be of the issues of March and June 1841, and are made out in every case for the sum of 1,000/. They are, as to the paper, stamp, and every other particular, genuine, with the exception only of the signature ; and that is, in every instance, an imitation, more or less successful, of the signature of the late Deputy-Comptroller-

General. • •

"Each of the bills in question is also a duplicate agreeing in number, as well as other particulars, with some other bill; which last has, in many instances, been compared with the counterfoil, and in every such instance has been found to coincide. All the other bills received from Smith were also (as there is ground to believe) duplicates: and the reason for so managing the forgery is evident, for an instrument bearing a wrong number was likely to encounter immediate detection, while, on the other hand, the danger of the alternative plan arose only in the event of duplicates happening to come into possession of the same party. "There were, however, other precautions to which it was equally necessary for the contrivers of the fraud to attend. In raising money on these instru- ments, it was essential to abstain from sale ; because, when thus brought into general circulation, there would not only be a great risk of their falling into the hands of persons who had duplicates, but there was a certainty of their

being carried at the regular periods of exchange to the office of the Paymasters, where the duplicates would of course make their appearance, and lead infallibly to detection. The plan adopted, therefore was to raise the money in every case by the deposit ef the bill upon loan, anebefore the next period of exchange

came round, to redeem it by payment of the money, or to substitute for it an- other forged bill of more recent date. This method, it is true, made it neces- sary to repay in every case (sooner or later) the amount of the money pro- cured, as well as to pay the interest due upon the loan; but the advantage in the mean time derived was the present use of large sums of money, which the confederates endeavoured to employ with advantage in extensive speculations in the Stock-market, actuated probably i by the hope of realizing (after the re- payment of every loan) large fortunes n the result. In carrying this scheme into effect, the mode of operation was as follows. At the commencement of the transactions, and for some years afterwards,

Rapallo delivered over the bills received from B. Smith to Angelo Solari,

another foreigner resident in this country, between whom and Rapallo there had existed long previously some connexion and Solari performed the service

of raising money upon the bills. This he effected in part through connexions

formed by the assistance of Messrs. William and James Morgan, stockbrokers. They introduced him (at a time when their own acquaintance with him, ac-

cording to their evidence, was but slight and recent) to the banking-houses of Messrs. Ransom and Co. and Jones Loyd and Co.; and from the former he obtained large sums of money from time to time on the deposit of bills pur-

porting to be Exchequer Bills, but which, in fact, had been received from Smith. He obtained, besides, similar loans from Messrs. Price and Co., bankers ; but the precise medium of his introduction to them does not appear. He formed, also about the same period, a connexion with Messrs. William and James Morgan themselves ; in the course of which he obtained, through their agency as brokers, very numerous, frequent, and large advances, the dates and amounts of which, and the average rates of interest charged by the lenders (exclusive of any commission to Messrs. William and James Morgan) are set forth in the account, pp. 315 to 321. The nature of these dealings (which are explained at large in the evidence of Mr. W. Morgan, Mr. E. Morgan, and Mr. Cook, pp. 339 to 355,) may be compendiously stated as follows. Solari brought them from time to time instruments purporting to be Exchequer Bills (but, in fact, received from Smith); and on the deposit of these in their own names, as the apparent borrowers (according to the usual custom of stockbrokers employed to procure loans) they obtained large sums of money, out of which, as from time to time directed by Solari, they purchased for him Foreign Bonds or Shares, or paid losses incurred by him in the Stock-market. They also, from time to time, paid over to him large sums of money, and paid off the principal and in- terest which became due on the loans • and received from him, on the other hand, large sums of money, and sold Foreign Bonds for him and credited the same to his account. For these services they charged the usual commission OT brokerage, so far as the stock transactions were concerned, and were entitled by agreement, as Mr. W. Morgan asserts, to have also received a commission on the loans; but this latter commission was, in point of fact, never charged or paid, owing, as he alleges, from a laxity in the mode of carrying on the ac- count. These dealings lasted until the death of Solari, which took place in October 1840 after which Rapallo himself (who had previously done business with Messrs. ?W. and J. Morgan for some time as Solari's deputy during his

illness) was introduced to them by hi a widow aud executrix as her friend, whom she wished to continue the transactions carried on by her husband : and between Rapallo, as her agent, and Messrs. W. and J. Morgan, the same course of dealing was from that time accordingly pursued that has been already de- scribed in relation to Solari ; and it terminated only on the public discovery of the fraud, which took place, as hereafter more particularly stated, in October 1841. During the whole of these transactions with Solari and Rapallo, Messrs. W. and J. Morgan profess themselves to have had no knowledge whatever (beyond the slight introduction of Solari above noticed) of the mode of life, property, or connexions of either of these parties, and to have received no specific ac- count from them of the person or persons for whom they were acting ; though it is stated by Mr. W. Morgan that he was told at the outset by Solari that he had a friend who was a large capitalist, and who would lend him money.' They also admit that they were never employed either by Solari or Rapallo to buy or to sell an Exchequer Bill ; and allege that they themselves believed the whole of the bills on which the loans were obtained to belong to the rich friend of whom Solari had spoken, but of whose name they were never in- formed. This latter statement of course implies that they also believed the confidence reposed in Solari by his rich friend to have been transferred, upon his death, to his widow ; for they profess to have considered Rapallo as having always acted in the capacity of her agent only.

"Messrs. W. and J. Morgan, however, were not the only parties with whom Solari and Rapallo carried on this kind of connexion. They had a similar ac- count with Mr. W. Mariner, who held at the time the situation of Secretary to the National Brazilian Mining Company, and who had done business at a former period on the Stock Exchange. Mr. Mariner having some acquaint- ance, as he states, with Solari, (though without knowledge of his pursuits, ex- cept that he had speculations in the Funds,) applied to him, as he alleges, for part of his brokerage business, and was accordingly employed by him from April 1838, to obtain loans on the deposit of Exchequer Bills; and Mr. Mariner accordingly entered into arrangements on the subject with Mr. F. T. De Berckem, a stockbroker and member of the Stock Exchange, by whose in- tervention (as agent nominally for Mr. Mariner, but with knowledge that the latter was employed by Solari and Rapallo) all the loans were procured, Mx. Mariner and Mr. De Berckem dividing the remuneration, which was at the re- gular and customary rate of half per cent per annum, between them. Through this channel, in addition to that of Messrs. W. and J. Morgan, Solari, and after him Rapallo, succeeded in depositing from time to time, with different parties, large masses of the bills received from Smith ; and conducted at the same time, through the same medium, extensive speculations, by way of purchase and otherwise, in the Stock and Share Markets. The nature of all these dealings will be fully collected from the accounts, pp. 356 to 358, and 417 to 425, and Mayo's evidence, pp. 325 to 329; but they are so similar to those which have been already desenbed, in the case of Messrs. Wil- liam and James Morgan, that to dwell upon them longer in this place would only lead to wearisome repetition. The most material points of dif- ference seem to be, that Messrs. Mariner and De Berckem charged com- mission on the Exchequer Bill loans, as well as on the Stock transactions ; and that though they profess to have known nothing of Solari except as above stated, nor of Rapallo except as the agent of Solari, they represent the former as giving a somewhat more specific account of his position than he is stated to have done to Messrs. W. and J. Morgan, and to have as- serted that he was connected with parties in Madrid and Paris, who were carrying on a large speculation in Spanish and other Stocks.' Messrs. Mariner and De Berckem admit, however, that they were never employed in any instance by Solari or Rapallo to sell an Exchequer Bill ; and that they never received any information as to the manner in which the bills deposited were procured. "These transactions of the confederates with Messrs. W. and J. Morgan on the one hand, and Messrs. Mariner and De Berckem on the other, would appear to have constituted the principal means by which they carried the fraud into effect. We find that the advances procured by Messrs. W. and J. Morgan amounted in the aggregate from first to last to about 420,000/., and those by Messrs. Mariner and De Berckem to about 465,0001.; and that there were bills in the hands of these parties or their depositories at one and the same period of time (namely, at the discovery of the fraud) to the amount of 330,0001.; of which bills to the amount of 161,000/. had come from Rapallo to the hands of W. and J. Morgan, and bills to the amount of 161,000/. to those of Messrs. Mariner and De Berckem. It is also important to remark, that among the transactions to which the 161,000/. relates, there is one which involved de. posits to a very large amount simultaneously ; for it appears on the evidence of Mr. W. Morgan, that on the 13th October 1841, Rapallo being then indebted to him in the amount of 70,0001. and upwards, applied to him for further ad- vances, to the extent of 60,000/. more, which Mr. Morgan consented to pro- cure, and, in fact, procured accordingly. There is, however, no proof that Messrs. W. and J. Morgan and Messrs. Mariner and De Berckem, though both so largely concerned with bills proceeding from the same source, had, as re- gards those bills, any knowledge of or connexion with each other."

The Report here refers to the evidence for some minor considerations affecting the claims. Two circumstances are mentioned : Messrs. W. and J. Morgan and Messrs. Mariner and De Berckem had, some time be- fore the discovery of the fraud, bills placed in their hands bearing a wrong date of interest- " Mr. De Berckem's clerk, (Mr. Mayo,) who discovered it, had a conversa- tion on the subject with other persons, the particulars of which are stated in the evidence, and which may have had the effect, very naturally, of lead- ing both the clerk and his employer to consider the circumstance as immaterial. As to Mr. Mariner, he states a conversation between himself and Rapallo on the subject ; and that in answer to his own observation, that it was 'a very curious thing,' Rapallo remarked that 'they often made mistakes up at the office.' He asserts, however, that he conceived no suspicion or dissatisfaction at the circumstance. On the other hand, it is alleged by Rapallo, that Mr. Mariner was 'in a very great rage' on this occasion, and wanted to write to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to complain of it as an official irregularity, but that he was prevailed upon not to do so by a representation which Rapallo inade him that he might be deprived of the agency if there was any stir about it.'"

The other ease is, that some bills deposited by Mr. De Berckem with Messrs. Bennisou and Lennard as security for loans, happened to be negotiated ; eleven different bills being returned to the depositor on pay- ment of the loan : he discovered great anxiety, and paid Mr. H. De Berckem, his brother, who was also his clerk, 501. as a reward for tra- cing and recovering the bills.

"We may now pass from the manner in which the fraud was carried on to the circumstances which attended its discovery. On the 19th October 1841, Mr. De Berckem employed a person to borrow 10,0001. for him on the deposit of Exchequer Bills, for three months, at 6 per cent; and this appeared so re- markable in all its circumstances to a member of the Stock-Exchange, to whom application was made for the loan, and who had just lent money on a similar deposit at 4 per cent, that he conferred upon it with several parties ; and after reflecting on the whole that had come to his knowledge, thought it right to enter into communication on the subject with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This led to further inquiry, and to the discovery that certain bills deposited by Mr. De Berekem on loan in 1839 (and of which the numbers had been pre- served by the lender) were forgeries. Under these circumstances, Mr. De Berckem was sent for by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and gave up some of the bills then in his hands ; and these being ascertained, by comparison with the counterfoils, to be forged, Mr. Smith was, on the 25th October following, taken into custody ; from which period it may consequently be considered that the existence of the fraud became fully known to the public."

After the fraud became known, some of the holders kept back their bills from examination at the Exchequer Bill Office, and others sent theirs for payment to the Bank : but the Commissioners are disposed to attribute that conduct to an indiscreet mode of endeavouring to assert or secure the rights of the holders. The Commissioners then make special reports on each of the thirty- one cases of holders, chiefly with a view to trace the mode of obtaining

possession. That point is also illustrated graphically by a table, after the fashion of a genealogical tree, showing how the bills passed from Rapallo to other hands. They then submit their " findings or conclu- sions " with respect to the several parties ; whom they classify for the purpose- " Class L As to the first class, consisting of the whole of the.parties above mentioned, with the exception of those that will be hereafter particularized, we certify, that we find them upon the evidence to have become respectively the

holders of the bills with which they are connected in the usual course of bum- nese, and without knowledge or suspicion that they were other than genuine,

or had been improperly obtained by any person whatever, and under circum- stances which warrant no inference of their having acted with want of proper caution.

" Class IL As to the second class, consisting of the following parties, viz. Sir James Shaw, Bart., and Messrs. R. and W. Hichens and Harrison, we find them to have become respectively the holders of the bills with which they are connected in the usual course of business, and without knowledge or sus- picion that they were other than genuine, or had been improperly obtained by

any person whatever. But circumstances appear upon the evidence which tend

to raise some doubt upon the question whether these parties have acted or not with want of proper caution. If that question were left to our judgment, we should decide that there is not, upon the whole, sufficient ground for such an imputation against either of them ; but we think it right, nevertheless, to ad- vert specifically to the circumstances here referred to.

"They consist of particulars in the conduct of the party with whom they were dealing, which may be thought calculated, in a greater or less degree, to have suggested some suspicion to their minds; and these particulars may be distributed into the following heads- " 1. The number, frequency, and large amounts of the deposits from time to time made with them respectively by the same party, and the large quantities of bills so deposited, which were in pledge at the same period of time. "2. The instances in which the burrower submitted to pay interest con- siderably exceeding 5 per cent per annum. "3. The long periods for which the loans were allowed by the borrowers to remain current, having regard to the rate of interest charged upon them as

compared with the rate of interest charged on the Exchequer Bills themselves." [These reasons receive some minute explanation, and also some considerable qualification : for instance, Messrs. lichens and Harrison showed that they

had made at the same time other perfectly regular loans at a rate of interest equal to that paid on the bills, though exceeding that current at the Bank ; and that they had lent money on Exchequer Bills not the subject of this in- quiry, for long periods, at 41 and 5 per cent.) "Class III. As to the third class, consisting of Messrs. Ransom and Co., Messrs. Price and Co., Mr. John Wray Scott, Mr. H. Tomkins, and Mr. L. Levy, we also find them upon the evidence to have become respectively the holders of the bills with which they are connected in the usual course of busi- ness, and without knowledge or suspicion that they were other than genuine, or had been improperly obtained by any person whatever. But circumstances exist in the case of all these parties which appear to us to occasion more diffi- culty upon the question with regard to want of proper caution than arises with respect to the second class; and we feel too much doubt upon that question as concerns the class now under consideration to be able to submit to your Ma- jesty any opinion of our own upon the subject. "The points of remark which occur with respect to the individuals of this class respectively, are as follow- " As regards Messrs. Ransom and Co. and Messrs. Price and Co., it is to be observed that the deposits made with them are of the same general cha- racter in point of number, frequency, and amount, as with the parties in the second class, but subject to this substantial difference, that the advances to se- cure which these deposits were given were not made to a broker, but to Solari,

a person of whose condition or pursuits little was known, and who, though re-

presenting himself in the case of Messrs. Ransom and Co. to be acting chiefly for another party, kept the name of that party constantly concealed; and after the death of Solari they were made (in the case of Messrs. Price and Co.) to Rapallo, to whom the suspicion that the dealings of Solari might naturally tend to excite, ought as naturally to have been transferred. The loss occasioned by

deposit in preference to sale is also more strongly exemplified in the accounts of both these parties than in those of Class IL An occasional charge of interest at 6 and 7 per cent also occurs in the case of Messrs. Ransom and Co. during

the year 1840. The occurrence, however, is but rare ; and they have proved on the evidence of Mr. R. lichens, that these charges did not exceed what was charged at the time by the house of Meyers. R. and W. lichens and Harrison.

"2. As regards Mr. John Wray Scott and Mr. H. Tomkins, it appears to us, that as far as those circumstances are concerned which relate to the extent

of the deposits and the loss sustained by the borrower from having recourse to deposit instead of sale, they are substantially in the same position as the parties in the second class: but we think it right, nevertheless, to point out, that during a continued course of dealing, (which comprised in the case of Mr. Scott, nearly two years, and in the case of Mr. Tomkins ten months,) there are very numerous instances of interest paid to them at 51, per cent, and that for very considerable periods of time together, as will appear more fully upon the tables exhibited by them. The difference between this and 5 per cent was the remu- neration payable to themselves as brokers, and it might naturally have occurred

to them that as Mr. De Berckem, the party with whom they were dealing, was

a broker, he would probably charge in turn (as, in fact, he did) 6 per cent in every one of these instances to his principal; and there can be no doubt, upon

the evidence, that 6 per cent upon the deposit of Exchequer Bills for periods of such duration was beyond the common rate of interest in the money-market." [It is added, that Mr. Scott and Mr. Tomkins were young in business.)

"3. As regards Mr. Levy, also, we feel it our duty to observe, that we have no doubt the interest paid to him, from 5 to 61 per cent, as stated in his evidence, p. 127, exceeded the current rate at the time. This is sufficiently apparent from a consideration of the charges made at the same date. by Messrs. R. and W. lichens and Harrison. Indeed, Mr. Levy himself is anxious to have it understood that these rates of interest were not charged by him, but spontaneously offered by Mr. De Berckem's clerk. On the other hand, however, it is proper to remark that the transactions of Mr. Levy, now in evidence before us, are by no means of the same extensive character as those of the other parties above particularized.

"Class IV.—We now arrive at the consideration of the fourth and last class ; in which we place William Mariner, Francis Towneley De Berckem, William and James Morgan, and Edward Lloyd Morgan; for of Repair) it is of course unnecessary to say any thing further. "With respect to William Mariner, Francis Towneley De Berckem, and William and James Morgan, it is our duty to state, that the evidence in rela- tion to them, and even that part of it (singly considered) which consists of their own statements, (some of the most prominedt results of which are noticed in the early part of this Report,) has impressed our minds with a doubt whether, at the time when the bills with which they are respectively connected, and which now form part of the subject of our inquiry, came to their hands, they did not at all suspect that such bills had been obtained by Rapallo through the medium of some fraud. And on the other hand, we entertain no doubt that, supposing any of them to have been without such suspicion, he is at least chargeable with want of proper caution in having become the holder of the bills under the circumstances detailed in the evidence.

"With respect to Edward Lloyd Morgan, we collect that he had no personal interest in any of the transactions in question, and negotiated the several bills which he received from the firm of William and James Morgan in the capacity of their clerk or agent only ; though, as between him and the several parties to whom he delivered the bills, he was the ostensible negotiator. His subordinate position with respect to the firm, and the filial relation in which he stood to the senior partner, entitle him in some measure to more favourable construction than the members of the firm themselves. But he was, by his own admission, so well acquainted with the nature and extent of their dealings with Solari and Rapallo, and negotiated so many bills which he knew at the time to have been received from those parties respectively, that we feel our- selves obliged to express the same doubt with regard to him that we have above expressed with regard to his employers. There is, however, one case differently circumstanced from the rest : we mean Case I., in which the firm of William and James Morgan appear to have had no concern whatever, and in which he acted entirely on the private account of Mr. Cook. In this par- ticular case, we feel no difficulty in pronouncing Edward Lloyd Morgan clear from all imputation either of fraud or negligence."

Of the total number of bills, (377,) 57 are the subject of no claim, having been either not negotiated or returned to Mr. De Berckem. Of those in respect of which there are claims, 15 in the hands of Messrs. Morgan are the subject of only a partial demand, for 2,3661, which they allege to be the balance in their favour on the general account with Rapallo : but the :Commissioners enter into some calculations of the account to prove that even that claim cannot be sustained. Subjoined is a list of the claimants, showing the number of bills for which they claim payment ; each bill, the reader will remember, pur- porting to be for 1,0001. Claimants. No. of Bills. Claimants. No. of Bills.

Messrs. Bell and Steward 3 Messrs. Hoare - 24 Major James Anderson 15 Mr. Charles Keyser 14 Mews. Currie aud Co. and Mr. Henry Mr. Samuel Richard Heseltine 2 Carrie 10 Mr. George Edward Cooper 2 David Neves Henriques, Esq 1 Messrs. Benuison and Lennard 3 Mr. Thomas Boys 1 Bauk of England 8 Messrs. R. and W. Hicheus and Harri- Messrs. Coutts and Co. 39 son 9 Sir James Shaw. Bart 40 Henry Maynard, Esq 1 Messrs. Ransom and Co. 21 Mr. Lewis Levy 16 Commercial Bank of London 10 Mr. Edward Sherman 15 Zachary Nash. Esq. 2 Joseph Price Vickery, Esq 5 John Blake, Esq 1 Thomas Jones M,irgrare, Esq. (for Henry Barnewall. Esq 1 E. R. Talmo, Esq.) 1 Mr. William Dobson. 2 Thomas Browne, Esq. 2 Messrs. William and James Morgan

Messrs. Price and Co 26 (for J. B. Nails. Esq.) 6

Mesta. Wolfe. Brothers, and Co 2 The same in their own right; the bills George Buster Clapcott, Esq 5 mentioned above 15 The Loudon Joint Stock Bank 18 Bills. Amount. Claimed 320 • £320.000 Unclaimed 57 57,000 _ 377 £377.000 • Subject to the deduction on the bills held by Messrs. Morgan.