Roger Outing.  (IBNS 1464)

Forgery became a significant problem for the Bank of England during the first three decades of the 19^th Century.  Two principal factors contributed to this.  Firstly, the quality of Bank of England notes was not all that high.  Private bank notes of the same period were often more sophisticated in their production than Bank of England notes.  However this issue of quality of production can be over emphasised.  It should not be forgotten that the forger is not usually concerned with a perfect reproduction but merely one that will pass the casual inspection normally encountered in everyday financial transactions.  A more significant factor was the fact that between 1797 and 1825 the Bank of England circulated £1 and £2 denominations for the first time.  This meant that banknotes achieved a far wider circulation than had previously been normal.  It was this wider circulation, especially of the £1 note, that provided the additional opportunities for banknote forgeries to be placed into circulation.

A complicating social issue of the period was that banknote forgery was a criminal offence that was punishable by death or by transportation to Australia.  To appreciate both the injustice and the inefficiency of this requires an appreciation of the mechanics commonly used to place forged banknotes into circulation.  The individuals who passed the note into circulation, whilst by no means innocent, were not the principal felons of the case.

Forgery Production

Fig. 1 and Fig 1a show the front and back of a contemporary forgery of a Bank of England £1 note.  This example has been certified as a forgery by the Bank of England with multiple “Forgery” overprints and a reverse endorsement of  “Bank of England 27^th August 1818 A Devonshire”.  The quality of printing is not noticeable different from a genuine note.

The circulation of forged banknotes normally requires a chain of distribution – just like any legitimate retail activity.  The preparation of a forged printing plate requires the expertise of a reasonably skilled engraver.  Once the plate was prepared it would usually be passed to a printer – perhaps someone with a legitimate printing business.  Once printed the notes would be passed in bulk to another individual who acted as wholesaler.  The wholesaler would then sell off small parcels of the notes of perhaps ten or twenty at a time.  This person could either pass the notes off into circulation or sell them on in singles or pairs to further individuals.

Forged notes were sold, in small quantities or individually, for 20% to 40% of their face value.  The further down the distribution chain that you made your purchase the more you paid.  It seems perverse but the passing of forged currency actually requires the investment of real money and so the profits realised by individuals are not as high as might first be imagined.

All the significant risks were taken by the individual who attempted to pass the forged note into circulation – known as ‘uttering’ in legal terms.  The engraver, the printer and the intermediate distributors, who were actually the major instigators of the crime, normally avoided any personal involvement in passing off forged notes. The small time criminals at the end of the distribution chain took the risks.  It was these individuals who suffered the death penalty or transportation if they were lucky.

No matter how many such individuals were punished for passing off the forged notes the production and distribution chain still remained.  And so the forgeries continued despite the draconian efforts at law enforcement.

It should be observed that there are recorded cases of ‘solo’ banknote forgers who operated the whole chain of production and distribution on their own.  These individuals were exceptional and limited cases who produced and circulated very low volumes of forged notes.  

Analysis of Forgeries

The 19^th century problem of forgery of Bank of England notes has often been commented upon.  What has been previously missing from the discussion has been any precise analysis of the volume of forgery that actually took place.  This is remedied by Tables 1 & 2, which present an analysis of Bank of England forgeries from 1806 to 1830 and a comparison with the legitimate Bank of England circulation.  Detailed examination of these Tables reveals the full statistical details of the 19^th Century Bank of England forgery problem.

It is emphasised that these Tables only give details of forged notes that were actually presented to the Bank of England.  Presumably some forgeries were not so presented but no estimates as to their numbers can be made.

Tables 1and 2 indicate the principle facts.  For the whole of the 25-year period under review there were 256,450 Bank of England forgeries to a total face value of £350,176.  This gives an annual average of 10,258 banknotes forgeries per year to an average face value of £14,007 per year.  These average figures conceal some massive variation.  At the height of the crisis, in 1820, there were 29,083 forged notes presented with a total face value of £33,682.  By 1830 just 613 forged notes, with a face value of £2,109, were presented.  The forgery crisis disappeared when the circulation of Bank of England £1 notes ended in 1825. 

Analysis of Table 1 indicates that 84% of the forgeries over the 25-year period were of £1 notes.  During the critical 1816-1820 period forged £1 notes formed 92% of all forgeries.  This is an overwhelming preponderance.  It is clear that the £1 notes that were the major target for the forgers. 

It is of interest that small quantities of forged £1 and £2 notes were still being presented for payment in the 1860 and 1870’s – more than 30 years after they were last issued by the Bank.  These examples must presumably have been old forgeries, which had lain dormant in individual savings before being presented for payment.  This indicates that some individual Bank of England notes remained in passive circulation for quite long periods of time. This phenomenon of delayed presentation of forgeries is an issue that present day collectors might sensibly bear in mind.

Bank of England Concerns

Table 2 gives a comparison between numbers of forged notes and total Bank of England circulation.  It is readily apparent that forged notes were a very small fraction in comparison to the legitimate circulation.  Note that the final column in Table Two quotes fractions of a single percentage point.  In 1820 forgeries made up just 0.14% of the total Bank of England circulation of £24.3 million.  This is a minute proportion, which begs the question, what was the problem?  Such a small proportion of forged currency could not be significantly undermining the national economy or even the day-to-day business of the Bank.  So why the crisis?

What concerned the Bank was the potential for forgeries to undermine public confidence in Bank of England notes.  If public confidence was significantly eroded then the Bank could experience real difficulties in maintaining its banknote circulation.  It was still the accepted banking theory at this period that the circulation of banknotes was absolutely essential to the viability of any bank – including the Bank of England.  The Bank had no monopoly of banknote issue and provincial banks of issue were found in every major town outside London. Bank of England notes, which had a practical monopoly in London, had only a limited circulation outside London.  As far as the Bank of England was concerned it was fighting for its reputation and perhaps for its very existence. 

In order to protect itself from forgeries the Bank of England pursued the rigorous enforcement of the criminal code.  With no public prosecution agencies (the London Police were not formed until 1829) the Bank was obliged to take on the criminal prosecutions on its own account – almost in the manner of a private prosecution.

The Criminal Code

In the 21 years preceding 1797, when £1 and £2 notes were first introduced, there were just 4 (or perhaps 5) executions for banknote forgery.  In the 21 years after 1796 there were 313 executions for banknote forgery.  This clearly establishes that there was a marked increase in the application of the death penalty for banknote forgery. This did not always meet with the universal approval that might be expected.

By 1817 it was noticeable that juries were becoming increasingly reluctant to convict for banknote forgery offences and a short digression into the criminal code will illuminate why this was happening.  There were three separate and specific criminal offences, with varying punishments, to be considered:

1. Forgery of banknotes – death penalty

2. Knowingly uttering forged banknotes – death penalty

3. Knowingly possessing forged banknotes – transportation

Offences 1 and 2 were capital offences (e.g. punishable by death) whilst offence number 3 was punishable by transportation. 

It was common practise for the Bank of England to prefer two alternative charges against a defendant – one a capital offence (usually number 2 above) and the other the lesser, non-capital offence of ‘knowingly possess’ (number 3 above).  If the defendant pleaded ‘guilty’ to the non-capital offence then the Bank dropped the capital offence and the offender was sentenced to transportation.  If the defendant pleaded ‘not guilty’ the Bank proceeded with the capital offence and then the defendant was, quite literally, on trial for their life.   Defendants were essentially being given a choice between certain transportation or the risk of death by hanging.  Given this legal background juries were becoming increasingly reluctant to convict for the capital offences relating to banknote forgery.

Collectors Today

Present day collectors cannot legitimately acquire any forgery of a Bank of England note.  Possession of such a forgery is a criminal offence – no matter how old the note.  The only reliable way to discover whether or not a particular banknote is a forgery is to take it to the Bank of England.  If it is a forgery it will be seized by the Bank and therefore lost to the collector.  Understandably, not many collectors take their old notes to the Bank!

It is likely that some 19^th Century Bank of England notes, especially the £1 and £2 denominations, currently in collectors hands will be forgeries.  Not many forgeries have been so conveniently endorsed as the piece shown in Fig. 1 There is no reliable way, outside the Bank of England, of identifying which are forgeries.  These notes are so rarely encountered that very few collectors will have the expertise to distinguish between genuine and forged. 

Variable Quality

The situation is compounded by the fact that at this time the Bank of England used copper plates to print their notes.  Copper plates are subject to significant wear when used for volume printing.  Notes produced towards the end of a printing run might well have minor blemishes in comparison with notes from the beginning of a run.  Also the Bank was printing at such a volume that five printing plates were required each day just for the £1 notes.  Multiple plates introduced more potential for variation.  Given this situation it becomes apparent that mere variation from a common norm might not be conclusive indication of forgery. 

During the criminal trials during the relevant period the Bank appears to have relied upon formal evidence as to the validity or otherwise of the signatures – all notes being hand signed at this time.  It is questionable whether or not the expertise to validate these signatures exists at the present day.

The Bank of England was fully aware of these issues.  The Royal Society of Arts recommended, after detailed consideration, that steel printing plates be employed.  At much the same time Perkins Bacon arrived in London from the USA and made well-founded proposals for printing from hardened plates.  Bacon’s ideas were rejected and he went on the established the security printing company of Perkins, Bacon & Petch.  The Bank of England prevaricated to the point of indifference and took no action.

George Cruikshank

  Whilst the Bank of England were very busy doing very little George Cruikshank, then a young and little known artist, produced one of the most vivid and well known propaganda images of 19^th Century London.  Shown in Fig. 2 is George Cruikshanks ‘Anti-Hanging Note’ and it is worthy of detailed consideration.

Shown at Fig. 2a is the parody of the Bank of England Britannia vignette where Britannia is now shown, quite literally, eating babies!   The sailing ships around this vignette denote the punishment of transportation, which many offenders suffered. 

The illustration shown at Fig. 2b is the gruesome depiction of eleven bodies, male and female, hanging from a gibbet which forms the principle image on the note.  The text here reads:  

“Promise to Perform (the hangings) during the issue of banknotes easily imitated, and until the resumption of cash payments or the abolition of the punishment of death.”

The note is signed by “J. Ketch” which was the popular name given to the public hangman.  Cruikshanks’s note does not carry any actual denomination or indication of value.

This note was a wonderful piece of social propaganda that served to crystallise public opinion around the social issue of the inappropriate and ineffective use of the death penalty.  Shortly afterwards the penal code was revised and possession of forged currency was no longer punishable by death.

Many years later in 1876 George Cruikshank gave his personal recollection of his ‘Anti-Hanging Note’.  At this time, some 56 years after the event he waxed lyrical stating that his note, “put a stop to punishment of death for such an offence (banknote forgery)” and further that it,  “has been the means of savings thousands of men from being hanged.”  George Cruikshank was over stating his case.  There is no doubt that his ‘Anti-Hanging Note’ did play a part but it was not the principal causal influence.  We must return to the criminal process to find the true cause.

Jury Decisions

Between September and December 1917 there were a series of forgery trials at the Old Bailey – England’s premier criminal court.  It was noticeable that juries were becoming increasingly questioning and challenging of evidence presented by the Bank of England.  In particular in December 1817 a jury acquitted two separate defendants after declaring that they were not satisfied that the notes produced in Court were forgeries.  Whether this was due to the high quality of the forgeries or was merely a legal nicety to allow the jury to acquit is now beyond our assessment. 

These jury decisions were the crucial turning point.  From this time the Bank of England brought no further charges for capital offences relating to banknote forgery.  The lesser charge of “knowingly possess forged banknotes” (punishable by transportation only) was henceforth usually preferred.  It would appear that the Bank of England was not willing to take the risk of a succession of juries publicly declaring that forgeries on the Bank of England could not be reliably identified. This episode marks a significant victory for the jury system of criminal trials.

When George Cruikshank printed his satirical ‘Anti-Hanging Note’ in 1818 he did so some months after these critical jury decisions.  The note itself was not the direct cause of a change in prosecution policy.  The undoubted success and popularity of George Cruikshank’s note was due to the fact that the note was both capturing and amplifying strong public sentiments that already existed. 

Mr. Hone’s Shop

Cruikshanks original note was produced in 1818 and it is known that demand was so great that at least two printing plates were produced.  A Mr. Hone sold the notes from his shop in Ludgate Hill and realised over £700. Several thousands of notes must have been printed, although the precise number is not known. Comparatively few examples appear to have survived to the present day.

What is less well known is that during the 1840’s there was a further re-printing of the Cruikshank note, this time by the Bankers Magazine.  Copies of the note were circulated as an insert to the Bankers Magazine.  Whether these copies were run of from a surviving printing plate or whether the Bankers Magazine produced a fresh printing plate is not known.  Reliably distinguishing between the original printing of 1818 and the later reproductions of the1840’s is extremely difficult.  The item illustrated at Fig. 1 is known to be an 1840’s reproduction from the Bankers Magazine – as the author personally removed it from a copy of the magazine.  

The Inimitable Note

Throughout the 19^th Century there was an on-going search for a note that could not be forged. A wide range of devices and concepts were proposed and considered, but few if any were ever taken up by the Bank of England.  Parliamentary Commissions sat and deliberated – for years in some cases.  Submissions of proposals for banknotes that could not be imitated were invited on four or five separate occasions.  All were ponderously considered by a variety of official Commissions that then, as now, were principally devices for ensuring dynamic inactivity.  No external proposals were ever accepted by the Bank of England.

If fairness to the Bank there was perhaps some justification for their inactivity.  In 1870, for example, the Bank received just 70 forged notes to a total face value of £1,360.  Incidence of banknote forgery, so critical in the 1820’s had become a very minor problem indeed.  This was because the smallest denomination was now £5. This ensured that circulation was primarily in commercial and business circles, where the parties would be known to each other, and opportunities for successfully presenting a forgery were limited.  It is only when banknotes are of small denomination and circulate in everyday retail activities where anonymity of individuals provides the circumstances in which forgeries can be passed.

These various and varied experimental and trial notes, produced throughout the 19^th Century, do occasionally become available to collectors.  Fig. 3 shows one such example.  This is a proposed £10 note designed by John Leighton and submitted by Henry Bradbury to the Society of Arts.  It bears a seated Britannia holding a trident, with a seated lion, surmounted by a royal crown.  The title ‘Bank of England’ is embellished by roses and the note is dated of January 1^st 1856.  The overall visual image is very different to the standard Bank of England banknote.  Such experimental items present a wonderful and fascinating example of ‘what might have been’. 

The author is currently attempting to catalogue the various experimental and trial pieces of this period.  If you have any information, especially descriptions or copies of examples, please contact RogerOuting@BankNotes4U.Co.Uk

Sources

1.  Statistical date for Table 1 is derived from the evidence given by Mr. Palmer, on behalf of the Bank of England, in answer to question 7578 of the Parliamentary Committee of 1875.  (As quoted in, “Some Theoretical Views on the Bank Note Circulation between 1827-1913” by E. L. Coppieters – a 1952 Phd thesis at London School of Economics).

2.  “Returns for Prosecutions and Convictions for Forging Notes of the  Bank of England” by James Macintosh, 1818.

3.  “The Story of Paper Money” by Yasha Beresiner and Colin Narbeth, 1973.

This article was first published in the Journal of the International Bank Note Society.

List of Illustrations.

1.    Bank of England £1 contemporary forgery of 1818.

2.   George Cruikshank ‘Anti-Hanging’ Note.

2a.  Close-up of ‘Britannia’ vignette.

2b.  Close up of hangman’s gibbet.

3.    Experimental Bank of England

Table 1.  Forgeries Presented to the Bank of England 1806 to 1830