The Sun.
London, England, 1868-06-16 00:00:00

I

4i

,_......,.. ~
crr,
K.; --4,:;_-_,•• .
*- e 4
; 1-, „,
. -/.:4-1
lat&V>

s

At the Marlborough-street Police-court the magistrate
ivas engaged in investigating the charges made by Mrs.
Borradaile against " Madame Rachel " (otherwise Rachel
Leverson). Mrs. Borradaile was examined, and said she
saw the person who was supposed to be Lord Ranelagh
mice, about May 1866. After that she advanced money
:o the accused, and wrote letters by her dictation. She
tsked Rachel for the money back about four months ago.
Mr. Haynes, a solicitor, was introduced by the defen-
3ant, and arranged the sale of some property belonging
:o complainant, that she might give the money to
the defendant. The solicitor sent her a bill for costs
amounting to £1,400.—1n cross-examination by Mr. D.
Seymour, Q.C., the complainant stated that the
lefendant said she would introduce Lord Ranelagh in 1866.
She denied borrowing £5OO from the defendant. Rachel
put her into Whitecross-street prison for debt due to her
in December 1866. Agreed to pay £1,600 by instalments
to get out of prison, though the accused did not
tend her the money. With reference to Lord
lianelagh the complainant said : " 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 ono
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 in consequence of the report circulated, but I
never said anything about Lord Ranclasesh in connection
with this matter." Mr. Seymour next read letters
purporting to have been written by the complainant, to
show that they could not have been written at the instigas
Lion of Mredame Rachel. In the first of them Mrs.
Borradaile says she went to Mr. Cridland's, and found Lord
Ranelagh intoxicated, and goes on to say : " really
thought he would have struck me. If he had done so
Mr. Cridland would have given him in charge. Lord R.
told ins there was a ' dear William' as well as a ' dear
Tommy,' which was very cowardly of him to expose my
affairs. He might have spared my feelings thus far, 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 posi-
tion, I treated him as a cowardly, unmannerly vagabond.
Let me implore you to give up my letters, which will pres
vent my being subjected to any more annoyances." The
next letter, dated February 8, 1868, implores the defendant
to give the complainant her letters, and says that she
would give £2,000, or even £lO,OOO, for them, and this
letter also finishes with mysterious words : "It is to
satisfy Mr. Cridland, who writes every clay to my brother
by the morning post. Mr. Cridland and Haynes have
become very great friends. I thought it advisable to write to
both. You understand the motive. You have children of
your own. It is to save my daughter's name, that her
mother may not be degraded in the opinion of the world. You
know it will not do to have my name mentioned with Capt.
W. Edward es'. It would be ruin to myself and my daughter."
In the third letter, which bears the date of February 20,
the complainant again asks for her letters, arid says that
she has written to Mr. Cridland, and informed him about
" the cruel affair between Lord Ranelagh and her
husband." Other letters, asking again for the letters,
wgre read, after which the cross-examination was
proceeded with. She had written letters beginning with
" 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 would have all her money and
clothes returned. Afterwards the counsel for the defen-
dant referred to and read a letter written on September 3,
1866, which contained the following significant passage
"My brother-in-law took me to Rachel, and she denied all
knowledge of any transactions between his lordship and
myself, as well she might." The following letter Mrs.
Borradaile said she wrote more from wanting something to
do than anything else :—" My own dear William, you will
see by the enclosed that a Mr. Smith, who told me that he
was Lord 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 knowledge 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
you, the consequence of your delay. Had you married
me as you declared you would do, more than 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
-ooms with yon without being married. I shall wait till
Saturday. It will then be out of my power to do any.
thing more for you. With love, wishes, and kisses, ever
your affectionate and loving Mary Borradaile."—Lord
Ranelagh was next sworn, and said : "I have only to repeat
what I stated on the previous occasion. I have no
cognisance of anything that has cccurred between Madame
Rachel and Mrs. Borradaile. There have bee no money
transactions in which I was concerned, and I only heard of
these matters in November 1867, when I had an intim°,
tion from Mrs. Borradaile. I immediately put the matter
into the hands of my solicitor, who communicated with the
relatives of Mrs. Borradaile, 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." In
answer to Mr. Seymour, his lordship said ' that he
recollected seeing the complainant at Mr. Cridland's office.
- The case was then adjourned, the defendant being
released on bail.