that the estates were separate—that Mr. Bates was not
really a partner in the navy agency—that people did
not know that "Halford and Co." were really Strahan
and Co. Mr. Hannen combated this view. Mr.
Commissioner Evans had no difficulty in deciding that all
the assets must be treated as belonging to one firm only.
At an adjourned examination meeting in the case of the
same parties on the 11th inst., Mr. Turquand presented
a report on their affairs. The bank was one of the
oldest on record, dating its origin from the early part of
the reign of Charles the Second. In 1813, Robert
Snow, William Sandby, and John Dean Paul, formed
the partnership. On the death of Mr. Sandby in 1816,
the partners were indebted to the bank in a sum of
£29,000. Sandby's share was paid off by his executors
in 1826; but at that date the debt due by Paul and
Snow had increased to £53,600. This debt was to be
gradually liquidated; and at the death of the late Sir
John Dean Paul the amount had been reduced to
£28,500, and farther reduced at the date of the
bankruptcy to £23,500. In December, 1851, the respective
members of the firm may be considered to have been
perfectly solvent as recently as four years back. At
that period—namely, December, 1851—the books show
an admitted deficiency of £65,542; which was increased
to £110,000 by an advance on the Mostyn colliery, but
unencumbered property was possessed by Mr. Strahan
worth £100,000 and by Sir John Paul worth £30,000.
It was not until 1852 that their connection with the
Gandells commenced, and the advances made to those
people to carry out their railway and drainage schemes
in France and Italy were undertaken for no other profit
than a half per cent commission on all payments made,
and the expectation of recovering a debt of £1800 which
had been considered bad. They were rapidly, however,
drawn into the common and fatal course of increasing
their loans in order to avoid the necessity of facing the
loss already incurred, until, after their credit had been
pledged in every possible way, their private property
sold, and their customers plundered, they found the
amount to have increased to nearly half a million
sterling. The actual deficiency of the bank is stated at
£652,593; and of this sum £483,000 is involved in the
transactions with the Gandells and the Mostyn collieries.
The estimated assets are placed at £127,670; and if
these should be realised, a distribution may be hoped of
nearly 4s. in the pound. After the reading of the
report, an adjournment took place to the 11th of
March.

The convict bankers, Strahan, Paul, and Bates, have
been removed to the Millbank Penitentiary. Mr.
Bates has presented a memorial to the Queen, appealing
for mercy on account of the peculiar position which he
held in the firm of Strahan and Co. He sets forth the
history of his connection with the house. He is in his
sixty-sixth year, and has a wife and five young children
dependent upon him. In the year 1820 he was
appointed a junior clerk in the house of "Snow, Paul,
and Paul;" in 1837 he rose to the confidential position
of ledger-clerk, with an income of £520 and free
apartments in Norfolk Street; in 1841 he was invited to
become partner in the firm of "Strahan and Co."—that
is, he was to be called partner, and accept the responsibilities
of the position; but he was only to receive £800
a year, and to continue his former duties. He had no
important control over the business—in any considerable
matters he had to refer persons to the other partners.
In 1848 he got his allowance raised to £1000; he never
received any further advantage, and he continued to
live economically in his free apartments. In 1852 persons
named Gandell began to obtain advances from the
bank, without Bates's concurrence or knowledge; these
advances were increased; when Bates knew of them he
remonstrated, but in vain, for early in 1854 the Gandells
had got £100,000 advanced to them. Bates told Sir
John Paul that one advance of £40,000 would prove the
ruin of the house. In December 1853 he advised that
the bank should stop payment; but his partners said
they could rely on their resources. Bates was not
aware that Dr. Griffith's Danish Bonds had been sold in
March 1854, till after the event; Sir John Paul assured
him that they should be replaced. From May 1854 to
May this year Bates was mostly in Paris, engaged in
endeavouring to obtain money from the Gandells, and
he took no active part in the business of the bank.
When, in April last, he told Dr. Griffith that his £5000
of Danish Bonds were safe in the bank, he believed that
they were—that the former bonds had been replaced by
others bought in Dr. Griffith's name. On the 28th
April, Bates left London for Paris, and returned on the
9th May; he had no intimation before he left England
that his partners were about to raise money on the
securities of their customers; a large sum was thus
raised whilst he was absent. When Strahan and Paul
tendered in the Bankruptcy Court the list of securities
disposed of, Bates assented to it, but not as a participant
in the operation. Affidavits had been prepared and
signed by Strahan and Paul, which they proposed to
swear to, but were not permitted, in which they stated
the position Bates held, and distinctly admitted that
they alone had dealt with the securities. In conclusion,
the petition represents—"That your petitioner was not
cognizant of, or in any manner, directly or indirectly,
privy or assenting to any act of selling, pledging,
converting, or using, any of the said securities of the
customers of the bank, and deposited with them for
safe custody. That your petitioner most humbly submits
that, under the circumstances hereinbefore set
forth, he is not guilty of the crime of which he has been
convicted. And your petitioner humbly prays and
implores your Majesty, to take into your gracious
consideration the facts and circumstances above set forth,
and to extend to your petitioner, now hastening to the
close of a life which up to this fatal event had been one
of unsullied honour and integrity, your Majesty's most
gracious pardon." The jury who tried this case have
addressed a petition to the Queen, stating that, having
carefully considered Mr. Bates's petition, they firmly
believe that, had its contents been proved at the trial,
they would have acquitted Bates. They regret that the
statements in the petition were withheld from their
consideration; and in order that justice may be done,
they pray that the truth of the allegations may be
inquired into, and that if they prove correct, her Majesty
will grant the prayer of Bates.

At York, on the 11th inst., the Rev. W. D. Beresford,
an elderly man, was indicted for Uttering, at Bradford,
on the 4th of November, 1848, a Forged Endorsement
of a Bill of Exchange for £100. The case excited
much interest from its being known that the prisoner
was a clergyman, highly connected, and next heir to a
peerage. It appeared that at the latter end of October,
1848, the prisoner called at the Bradford Banking
Company's Bank at Bradford, and produced a bill of
exchange for £100, drawn on S. Hibbert and Co., of
Billiter Square, London, by Marcus Beresford, which he
asked the manager of the bank to discount. He gave
his own name as the Rev. Mr. Beresford. The manager
said he would discount the bill if endorsed by any
one whom he knew. The prisoner said he had been on
a visit at Manningham Hall, near Bradford, to Mr.
Kay, and asked if that gentleman's endorsement or
that of his son would suffice, and the manager replied
that he would be perfectly satisfied with either. A day
or two afterwards he called at the bank, and asked if
there was any letter there addressed to him. One had
arrived addressed to him. Out of this letter he took
the bill he had before produced, which purported to
be endorsed by John Cunliffe Kay, and handed it to the
manager. The manager looked at the endorsement
doubtfully, and said it did not look like his handwriting,
which the prisoner seeing, said Mr. Kay was ill
in bed, and had endorsed the bill in bed, which would
account for its appearance. The manager then cashed
the bill, deducting 14s. for commission and interest.
This signature was a forgery, Mr. Kay having positively
declined to do so when asked by the prisoner. Mr. Kay's
signature had been imitated from a letter the prisoner
had obtained from him in answer to one from him.
Having obtained the money, the prisoner had not since
been heard of until last summer, when Mr. Kay
accidentally met him in Regent's Street, London, and gave
him into custody. These facts were proved in evidence,
and, in addition, the way in which the prisoner obtained
a signature of Mr. Kay's to enable him to imitate it. It
was as follows:—Mr. J. Cunliffe Kay stated that his