The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1868-06-20 00:00:00

THE CHARGE AGAINST MADAME
RACHEL.

On Monday, Madame Rachel (otherwise Rachel
Levison), of 47, New Bond-street, again appeared
before "Mr. Knox, at Marlborough-street, in London,
to answer a charge of obtaining money by false pre-
tences from Mrs. Mary Tucker Borradaile.
Mr. lligby Seymour and Mr. Sleigh, instructed by
Mr Froggatt, appeared for the prisoner; and Mr.
Williams appeared for the prosecution.
Before the case was resumed, Madame Rachel made
several complaints against those she had employed to
conduct her defence, from which Mr. Knox drew the
conclusion that she had now regularly instructed a
solicitor, and that the case should proceed in the
regular course.
Mr. Williams then said he should take the earliest
opportunity of putting Lord Ranelagh into the witness.
box, to show that Mrs. Borradaile had been the dupe
of the grossest conspiracy that ever came into a court
of justice. Mrs. Borradaile was then called by Mr.
Williams, and resumed her evidence in chief. She
said :

--- •
I saw the person who was represented to be Lord Ranelagh
twice at Madame Rachel's. This WM in May, 186!1 or about
that time. After the money had been advanced I used to
are Madame Rachel every slay, and I wrote letters at her
dictation. She handed use letters, and said they were from •
Lord Ranelagh. I began to receive le tern in 1866. and con-
tinued to do so up to this year. The last time tasked for my
money was four months ago. Madame Rachel always said
she had not my money, and that she always gave it to '• my
dear William and I said I should be glad if he would
return It. She said she would write and ask Cr it. I always
gave the letters I wrote to Madame Rachel. I remember on
one occasion, while in the back shop at Madame Rachel's,
she brought me a cigar, and said Lord Ranelagh bad sent it to
her. It was partly smoked. This was in the early part of
1867. I remember calling on Mr. Rendall, the chiropodist,
I think in February this year, and I had a conversation with
him. Mr. Ilaynes, a solicitor, was introduced to me by
Madame Rachel, and acted for me in selling out some pro-
! perty to pay her some money. The bill of costs is the one
Mr. Haynes sent me for the sum of £1.400. I never wrote
any letter in reference to this matter save anti except in the
presence, and at the dictation, of Madame Rachel, except one
to Messrs Lewis and Lewis.
- - • - ••

Mr. Seymour here handed a number of letters to the
Magistrate, who, having marked them, handed them to
Mrs. Borradaile, and she admitted that they were
written by her. Mr. Seymour then erosseexamined
Mrs. Borrodaile, who said : -
"

Captain Borradaile died in India. I came to England in
1861. I made the acquaintance of Madame Rachel in 1564.
I told her I had a claim to relationship with the family of
Lord Kensington. I told her I had a cousin a member of the
same family, named Edwardes. lie was a captain, but he is
now a colonel of the Guards. His Chrietian name is William.
I have never seen him at Madame Itachers. I have relations
in North Wales. Mr. Cope is only a relative by marriage.
In 1866 he was living in North Wales. I represented to him
that I was about to be married ; that was, I think, about
September, 1866. Previously to 1865 I had not seen my
cousin for three years. I did not see him in 1860. 1 saw Mr.
Cope his 1866, when he came to London. In 1805 Madame
Rachel told me that Lord Ranelagh desired to be introduced
to me; it might have been in June. I had money transactions
with Madame Rachel at the end of 1066. She did nit lend
me £5OO. There was not an unsettled account between us in
VW. I had made payments to her through my solicitor.
She had not lent money to me, nor paid money for me.
Madame Rachel never brought an action against me. She
put me into Whltecross-street Prison for debt due to her
in December, 1866. 3ladanie Rachel did not lend me £5OO to
pay cilla. I will uot swear the letter produced is in my hand.
writing. I will not swear one way or the other. My opinion
is that it is not. 1 did not borrow £5OO, and 11l said so in
a letter it is false. I was in Whltecross-street Prison five
weeks. Madame Rachel, before I was sent to Whitecross-
street, did not send me a debtor and creditor account—none '
at all. I received no account from Madame Rachel, I agi eed
with Madame Rachel to pay one thousand us hundred
li_s nits by yearly instalments of £l6O, in consequence of &tyke
tc that effect from Messrs. Lawless, Nelson, and Goodman.
my solicitors in Gracechurch-street I did not we Madame
Rachel the money, but I agreed to do it to get out of
Whitecross-street l'rison, I was put in there fur a delit I
never owed. Miulanie Rachel asked me to copy something
for her one day, saying it would make use clear of everything;
but I afterwards found that it bound me down to pay £1.650,
and she got the money from me in the way I tell you.
While in prison I did not agree at first to give Madame
Rachel a charge of £l5O a year in lieu oh the mortgage, but I
afterwards did.
A person from Messrs. Grindlay's produced an
order for the payment of 1:500 signed in the name of
Mary Tucker Borradaile.
Mrs. Borradaile : I will not swear the order lousy
handwriting, but I believe it is. I had been in com-
munication with Messrs. Lawless, Nelson, and Gooil-
man, and I offered Madame Rachel a charge kf £l5O
a year on my property for the purpose of paying off
Madame Rachel's mortgage on it. . I did not receive
' many letters from Messrs. Lawless, Nelson, and
Goodman. I will not swear I ilid not receive a letter
produced and give it to Mr. Haynes. lam afraid to
swear because I cannot recollect After the arrange-
ment about the £l5O I went to Madame Rachel's.
Mr. Cridland was my solicitor in 1866. I told every
one that the gentleman I saw was Lord Ranelagh. I
see Lord Ranelagh in court, and was never introduced
to any one else. Very little was said by either Lord
Ranelagh or myself on either of the occasions on which
I saw him. There are a sitting-room and shop at
Madame Rachel's. Madame Rachel was with her

daughter and a Russian lady, and she opened the
door leading from one place to the other, and said,
"This is the person who loves you ;" and I said, "Are
you Lord Ranelagh ? " and he then gave me his card.
It is the gentleman in court if there is not some one
very like him. I will not answer any question about
my first child. There was an estrangement between
me and my husband through some one's interference,
but I never said it was through Lord Ranelagh, but
afterwards Madame Rachel told me it was so.
Madame Rachel told me that it was Lord Ranelagh
who urged my husband to kill a man ill consequence of
the report circulated, but I never said anything about
Lord lianelagh in connection with this 'natter.
Mr. Seymour then read the following letters :

Dear Madame Rachel—l went to Mr. Cridland's yester-
day, and to my horror I found Lord itmelagh there, Ile
certainly was intoxicated, and made use of very had language,
and I lost my temper. As no one was present hut Mr.
it'dland, Lord EL, and myself, I know that I am safe in that
quarter, for it will never pass the office. I really thought
he would have struck me. If he had done so, Mr. Cridland
would have given him in charge. Lor,l R. told me there was
a" dear William" as well as a "door To:only." which was
vei y cowardly of him to expose my affairs. Ile might have
spared my feelings thus for, and all might have ended well ;
but when he mentioned William's name I called him a liar
and a thief. If Lord R. forgot that he was talking to a lady
by birth and position, I treated him as a cowardly, un-
mannerly vagabond. Let me implore you to give up my
letters, which will prevent my hieing subjected to any more
anuoyances.—l am, yours very truly.
MART T. BORRADAILE.

Saturday evening, 7, George-street, Feb. 8, 1881.
Dear Madame Rachel,—Let me implore of you to give me
my letters. All that Is in my power I will do for you in
return. I would give you £2,000, and indeed £lO,OOO if I
had It; indeed, I scarcely know what to do. I received such
letters this morning from Wales. lam nearly dibtracted.
I have written to-day to Mr. Cridland and to Mr. Haynes.
I have enclosed you the copies. It is to satisfy Mr. Cridlandl.
who writes every day to my brother by the morning post.
lie Cridland and Nlr. Flayneshave become very great friends.
I thought it advisable to write to both. You under-
stand the motive. You have children of your own. It is to
save toy I laughter's name, that her mother may not 4 e
Ic-
gea,le,l in the opinion of the world. You know it will not
do to have my name mentioned with Captain W. Edwardes'.
It would be ruin to myself sal my laughter. I still feel
assured you will not refuse giving me toy letters. I will
never give you cause to regret having done so. NVith kind
regards, I am, very sincerely yours, M. BOaltans.lLY.

7, George-street, Ilantiver-square, Feb. 20. 1060.
Dear Madame ltaclieL—l enclose you Mr. indland's letter,
whien I received thii morning. Vim know the meaning
of it. lave me the bon of letters and put an end to
all my misery, which has been killing are. ho shall not
be made the victim to serve other people. As you have kept
my confidence I shall repay you, as a lady ought to do, in
consequence of the annoyance you have been put to through
my unfortunate affairs. I have written to Mr. Cridland and
told him about the cruel affair that took lace between Lord
Ranehigh and my dear husband, and you will see that Mr.
Cria'land will keep it secret. I wrote it in haste: I only told
him the part you may remember that I told him 80111 C years
Paul when I returned from India—the unfortunate affair. If
Lord Ranelash had not mentioned William's name in the
presence of or. Cridland I ahould not have mentioned the
sad affair. By referring to the card enclosed you will see
that the dates are correct. With kind regards, yours very
truly. MARY TUCKER BORRAPAILE
The brewer's daughter has sent to tell are that Lord
Ranelagh is to give her away to-morrow.
- - -

The-following is a copy of the card alluded to

teas nutrried on the 2ml of Deer mber 1846. First
shild born the 20th 4 December, 1847, 444 Brompton ;
eecontl child born 17th October, 1849.

In another letter, dated the 20th of December, the
witness again begged the defendant to deliver her
letters.

Witness said she understood from Madame Rachel
that Captain Edwardes had left a box of letters for
her. She could not say where Captain Edwardes was
now. She did not know whether he was in London or
not. She had not seen him for three years. His name
is William Edwardes. She never troubled herself
about him. She did not know where he was. He
went down to Wales occasionally to see her brother-in-
law; he is now married to a lady named Douglas.
She had never written to him. She had written
letters beginning " Dear William," but believed she
was writing to Lord Ranelagh, whose Christian name
she knew was Thomas. These letters were written
at the request of Madame Rachel, who told her she
should have all her money and clothes returned.
Mr. 1). Seymour would now go back to September,
1866. He read the following letter :-
28, George- treet, linnover-npvre, Sept. 3.

My ow cl, Cr Willie ..,-11 you knew who I have suffered
since Saturday night on your ace u tone unkind ever,
never escape your lips t me Your brother.iii-law weir to
the Carbon Club to see Lod Ranelagh. They told him thai,
lie was out o town, and they had not seen him for a week.
My brother-in-law then went to No 7, New Burlington-streot,
and he went there yesterday and to-day. The servant
teld Ala his Lard** had bass out of tura ter Yuma winks,

and that all his letters had been sent to Lowther Castle.
Had it not been for her being so obliging, curse her, it would
not have given me so much trouble. Since Mr. Cope has mar-
ried my sister, he is quite a Webs' man, awl you would agree
with me, bad you seen the frantic manner he was running
about London looking for that invisible person who could
not be found—thanks to our lucky stars, and yet content, he
took us to Regent-street and bought a photograph of his
Lordship, whose nose he did not admire Poor fellow, he
put it into his pocket, that be might take it out when he
felt inclined, which he is quite welcome to do. My brother-
hi-law took me to Rachel, and she denied all knowledge of
any transactions between his lurdship and myself, and as
well she might. :kir. Cope made me promise most solemnly
that I should leave my present lodgings, as he was under the
impression that the people of the House and poor Rachel
were in league together In fooling me into a marriage with
his Lordship. Mr. Cope and my sister made me promise
over again and again that I would not see Rachel again, as
I had led them to suppose that she had been the promoter of
his Lordship's interfering with me. When my sister was at
Rachel's she woe furious with her. I wish you could have
, seen it all without being seen. Any one less interested than
I myself would have been highly amused, and it was a great
effort on my part to keep my gravity. I shall not sleep in
George-street to-night. I wished Mr. Cope and his sister
" Good-bye," and they returned to North Wales by the five
o'clock train.
With fond and de rest love, believe me vour affectionate
awl loving Moos' PARRApAILE.
P.S. They wOuld not leave town until they made me come
with them to Mr. Haynes, but, fortunately, he is not in
town.

Mrs norradaile had a relation by marriage named Cope,
who lived in Wales She had throughout thought
that the person she was corresponding' with was Lord
Ranelagh. When writing "dear William " she considered
she was writing to Lord Ranelagh. She never asked her family
whether they approved her marriage with Lord Ranelagh.
tier brother-in-law came to London and triad to find out Lord
Ranelagh. This was in September, 1566. Her brother bought
a photograph of Lord Ranelagh, and she wrote to "fleas
William " telling him his photograph halt been bought. That
letter was written at Madame Rachel's dictation. She knew
Mrs. Lilly went to Moon's along with Cope. She did not
recollect whether Cope said that Madame Rachel ought to
be prosecuted If she had comniitted any fraud on her. She
could not recollect whether she sail that. She could not be
any party to a charge of fraud against Madame Rachel, for
she was indebted to Madame Rachel in a large sum of
money.
-- • •

Mr. D. Seymour. —Was the following written from
dictation
Thursday evening, December 12th.
My own dear William,—You will sea by the enclosed that a
Mr. Smith, who told me that he was Lard Ranelagh's solicitor,
has been writing to my family, who are all furious to think
that I have been duped by a man who has disowned all know-
ledge of me, which is dishonourable and unmanly on his part,
for I have been a good friend to him. Now, my darling, my
affairs have come to a crisis, and I shall have to part with
pm, the consequence of your delay. Had you married me
as you declared you would the, more titan a year ago in the
presence of Frank and your three sisters, Mrs. Lily, and
Stephenson, I should not have written to Cheltenham to the
Plough Hotel to prepare our rooms. Remember what my
dear Florence said. I could not be in the same rooms with
Yost without being married. I shall wait till Saturday. It
will then be out of my power to do anything more for you.
With love, wishes, and kisses, ever your affectionate and
loving MARY MORRADAILK.

- ---
Mrs. Borradaile here paused for a moment, and
appeared to shed tears.
Mr. D. Seymour: Take your time, madam. Why
did you write that letter ?--Mrs. Borradaile : I wrote
it more from wanting something to do than anything
else.
Mrs. Borradaile cross-examined Mr. Smith wrote
to her friends, who were furious. Captain Edwardes
bail a brother. Could not say whether his name was
Frank, and Captain Edwardes had three or four sisters.
Lord Ranelagh never made a personal promise of
marriage, he only said so by letter. Madame Rachel
told her he said he would marry her.
Mr. D. Seymour : In this letter you say you had
been duped by some one to whom you had been a good
friend. Now was this William you were writing to,
and telling that you had beendup.d? --Mrs. Borradaile:
I shall not tell you.
The Magistrate Did you conceive you were writing
to Lord Ranelagh when you wrote this letter ?—Mrs.
, Borradaile : I did. I wrote to engage rooms at the
hotel tor myself and Lord Ranelagh. Every letter I
wrote I thought I wrote to Lord Ranelagh.
Mr. D. Seymour then read :
George-street, Hanover-square, Feb. 5, 1868.
Dear Sir,—l have not received from Madame Rachel the
box containiog letters which Captain W. Edwardes left at her
house for me. I shall feel obliged by your sending to
Madame Rachel and requesting her to give them to me
without delay.—Yours truly, MARY T. MORRADAILE.
J. Haynes, Esq."

•
Mrs. Borradaile said she wrote the letter believing
that Captain Edwardes had left a box containing her
letters with Madame Rachel. and had told her
solicitor, Mr. Cridland, no. When she wrote that
Edwardes had left the box she meant that Lord
Fanelagh had left it.
Mr. Seymour here intimated his wish to postpone
the further cross-examination, as he had only lately
been instructed, and was not in full possession of the
Case.
Mr. Williams would not object to this, provided the
evidence of the boy Minton was put on the notes.
James Minton, a lad, said he lived at 3, Aberdeen-place,
and became acquainted with Madame Rachel in January,
Ng, when he was in the service of an auctioneer. Was
engaged to manage Madame Rachel's correspondence,
and went of air evening to write letters. Be heard
of Mrs. Borradaile when at Madame Rachel's.
Wrote a letter at Madame Rachel's dictation to Mrs.
liorradaile. Ile recollected.. seeing a gentleman., several

times at Madame Rachel's who was called Edward.
Ile thought he .as Madame Rachel's son. On one occa-
sion a letter was put before him to copy. Ile copied
that letter eel handed it to Madame Rachel, who gave it to
Edward, who said it was written like a schoolboy, and that
he could write a better Madame Rachel took the letter
from witness and gave it to Edward. who put it into h:s
pocket Ile saw a report of the proceedings against Madame
Rachel a few (lays age, and seeing some letters, lie came to
that Court to state what he knew The person called Edward
was a tall young man about 20 years of age, and not at all
like Lord Ranelagh.
The Magistrate said: Up to this point nothing in the
evidence has appeared to implicate Lord Eanela,,h in
the least degree. I have, however, thought it but fair
to give his lordship an opportunity of making his state-
ment.

Lord Ranelagh I have only to repeat what I
stated on the previous occasion. I have no cognizance
of anything that has occurred between Madame
Rachel and Mrs. Borradaile. There have been no
money transactions in which I was concerned, and I
only heard of these matters in November, 1867, when
I had an intimation from Mrs. Borratialle. I imme-
diately put the matter into the bands of my solicitor,
who communicated with the relatives of Mrs. Borra-
daile, and since then I have had nothing to do with it.
I may here state that the story about looking into a
lady's bath is wholly unfounded.
Mr. Seymour: I will ask, as a member of the
public, whether you were introduced in May, 1866.
Lord Ranelagh I swear I never knew Mrs. Florra-
daile by sight, and only recollect seeing her at Mr.
Cridland's office.

The Magistrate : Mrs. Borradaile's statement is that
she saw you at Madame Rachel's, in 1866, and was in.
troduced to you.
Lord Ranelagh : I might have been at Madame
Rachel's and Madame Rachel might have named Mrs.
Borradaile to me ; but I only gave a passing glance,
and should not have known her again.
Mr. Sleigh I can only say we are too glad to give
Lord Ranelagh an opportunity of making his state-
ment.

-7The case was then adjourned on bail.
Mr. Lewis begged to be allowed to make a reply to
Madame Rachel's statement. He had only deferred
his answer at the time, as he did not wish to interfere
with the course of proceedings. The explanation was
of much importance to him.
The Magistrate would suggest that Mr. Lewis should
arrange with Madame Rachel's solicitor the time for
an ex]

['planation.