Another enemy, as inveterate as the Irishman himself, appeared in the person of a rough-and-ready sea-dog, ex-Admiral Sir Thomas Frankland—whom the Perreaus had swindled out of thousands of pounds—a lineal descendant of Protector Cromwell. More truculent even than his great ancestor—for surely Oliver never confiscated ruff or farthingale belonging to Henrietta Maria—he pounced upon Mrs Rudd’s clothes, and indeed upon all property that might help to repay his loans. Remaining loyal to his old friend the Golden Square apothecary—for the choleric gentleman was convinced that he was an innocent instrument in the hands of the woman—he seized anything that Daniel and his mistress happened to possess. In consequence of this brigandage there was a pitched battle between the employees of the admiral and the sheriff’s officers for the possession of the house in Harley Street, in which the former got the worst of the tussle. Running amuck at all who took the other side—Barrister Bailey, Uncle Stewart, the Keeper of the Lyon Records—each in turn received a broadside from the fiery old salt. Shiver-me-timbers Frankland—this Paul Pry of a lady’s wardrobe—wrought more good out of evil to the cause of Margaret Rudd than any other man, and his fair enemy was nothing loth to let him run to the top of his bent.
Nowhere was the diplomacy of Daniel Perreau’s mistress more remarkable than in the negotiations with her old servant, Mrs Christian Hart. Early in July there was an interview between the pair in Newgate: the handmaid compassionate and pliable; the prisoner full of subtle schemes against her enemies. Barrister Bailey was present, and a lengthy document was drawn up—a paper of instructions in the form of a narrative for the guidance of the faithful ‘Christy’—wherein was set forth the details of a wicked conspiracy, which the servant was to pretend that she had overheard, between old sea-dog Frankland and Mrs Robert Perreau to swear away Mrs Rudd’s life. Promising to learn her story and stick to the text, Mrs Hart went away with her manuscript; but, frightened by her husband or bribed by the admiral, in a little while she deserted to the other side. In no wise dismayed, Margaret Rudd retorted that ‘Christy’ had volunteered the story, and that the instructive document was a faithful copy of the woman’s narrative as dictated by herself, another copy of which she produced, attested by the faithful Bailey. Moreover, she alleged that the whole business was a thing devised by the Perreaus for the purpose of compromising their enemy, a most dexterous plot to make it appear that Mrs Rudd was endeavouring to create false evidence! Thus, even when the first scheme failed, she gained the effect desired by its very failure. Poor, persecuted woman, thought the big-hearted British public, and what a shocking old admiral!
A little later, the fair captive in Newgate triumphed over another enemy, one Hannah Dalboux, a second domestic. This Hannah had been nurse to the youngest of Daniel Perreau’s children since the mother had been put in prison. One morning in August the newspapers announced that the woman had refused to surrender the child, and that the woman’s husband had tried to thrash the inevitable Mr Bailey when he paid a visit with his client’s request. “The baby shall be given up when I am paid for its board and lodging,” was the sum and substance of Hannah’s ultimatum. All the same the child had to be delivered to its rightful owner, and husband Dalboux was locked up for the assault. A great opportunity, indeed, which Mrs Rudd did not neglect. All the journals were full of hints concerning the horrid old admiral, who had employed people to steal the lady’s baby as well as her petticoats—about the last two things in the world a swell mobsman would choose, unless they were accompanied by the proprietress. Yet the salient fact, remembered by the British public in a little while, was that this inveterate sea-dog was the prosecutor at Mrs Rudd’s trial.
The well-known anecdote told of her by Horace Walpole, must, if true, have reference to an incident that occurred during her imprisonment in Newgate.
“Preparatory to her trial, she sent for some brocaded silks to a mercer. She pitched on a rich one, and ordered him to cut off the proper quantity, but the mercer, reflecting that if she was hanged, as was probable, he should never be paid, pretended he had no scissors. She saw his apprehensions, pulled out her pocket-book, and giving him a bank-note for £20, said, ‘There is a pair of scissors.’ Such quickness is worth a hundred screams. We have no Joans of Arc nor Catherines de Medici, but this age has heroines after its own fashion.”
Whenever a Gordian knot presented itself the undaunted Mrs Rudd was always ready with a pair of scissors!
Like all other popular entertainers, the fair Margaret Caroline had rivals in the public favour. On the nineteenth of August, “one of the prettiest young women in England,” Jane Butterfield by name, was tried for her life at Croydon on a charge of poisoning a foully-diseased old man for whom she kept house. Paramour also to this rotten William Scawen was Miss Jane, debauched by him when a child. Although the poor girl was acquitted amidst tears and huzzas, she lost the fortune that should have come to her, for her protector, who had listened to the accusations of his Dr Sanxy—the instigator of all the proceedings against the innocent Jane—lived long enough, unhappily, to cross her out of his will. For a while all England forgot Margaret Rudd in its generous sympathy for the beautiful heroine of Croydon. Soon also the ubiquitous Elizabeth Chudleigh monopolised public attention, to the exclusion of everyone else, under her new rôle as Her Grace of Kingston; while the sex of the mysterious Chevalier D’Eon continued to be the subject of many wagers.
For six months Mrs Rudd remained a prisoner in Newgate—from the day of Robert Perreau’s condemnation on the 1st of June until the morning of her own trial on the 8th of December—using every endeavour so that she should not be brought to the judgment-seat. A few weeks after the close of the summer sessions—on the fourth day of July—she was summoned to Westminster Hall to listen to the ruling of Chief-Justice Mansfield, an unrivalled exponent of amazing decisions, with regard to her status as king’s evidence. Superfine, indeed, was the quality of Mansfield’s red tape:—“The woman did not confess that she was an accomplice, but an assistant by compulsion, therefore she may be presumed to be innocent, consequently there is no reason why she should not be tried! Only a guilty person can be admitted as a witness for the Crown!” Yet the great Chief-Justice had a more cogent reason still—one that is irrefutable: “Since the lady did not disclose all she knew, she has forfeited indulgence!” Quite proper, no doubt, in a legal sense, but foreign to the eternal ethics of British equity, that has permitted ‘burker’ Hare to escape the halter, believing that it is monstrous to ask a jury to try a prisoner from whom a confession has been extorted under promise of pardon. There was no false delicacy about the learned Mansfield’s interpretation of the law.
However, his lordship was the autocrat of all bigwigs, and none but the most stout-hearted ventured to challenge his decisions. When the case was argued by her counsel before three judges, sitting as a Court of Gaol Delivery in the middle of September, one Henry Gould, who feared a Chief-Justice as little as a Gordon riot, appears to have realised that the law must keep its faith. So he gave a flat contradiction to the ruling of the King’s Bench. “How can we know that the woman was cognisant of any other forgery than the one to which she has confessed unless we bring her to trial?” demanded this judge Gould. “And if we bring her to trial we break our word!” Nevertheless his two colleagues, remembering possibly the Mansfield temper and the Mansfield tongue, maintained the arguments of the Chief-Justice, and thus it was decreed that Mrs Rudd must go before a jury. Early in November twelve judges assented to this decision.
