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._