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.]