8th April 1878
Reference Numbert18780408-428
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

ActionsCite this text | Print-friendly version | Report an error
Navigation< Previous text (trial account) | Next text (trial account) >

428. SARAH RACHEL LEVERSON (58) was indicted for unlawfully obtaining from Cecilia Maria Pearse two necklaces and other articles by false pretences. Other Counts for attempting to obtain 500l., and for inducing her to execute an agreement for the payment of money.

MESSRS. POLAND and STRAIGHT conducted the Prosecution; and MR. DAY, Q. C., with MESSRS. BESLEY and ROBERT WILLAMS, the Defence.

CECILIA MARIA PEARSE . I am the wife of Mr. Godfrey Pearse, of 40, Ebury Street, Pimlico—I am twenty-three years of age—I am daughter of Signor Mario—I have resided abroad up to the time of my marriage—my marriage took place in 1872—in the latter part of 1876 I was calling frequently on a doctor who lived in the neighbourhood of Duke Street, Grosvenor Square, and in the course of passing along Duke Street I observed a perfumer's shop—there was over the shop "Arabian Perfumer to the Queen"—I went into the shop and for the first time saw the defendant—my first purchase was of some tooth-powder—she served me with it and I ultimately bought some violet powder—she said she had something far more harmless than violet powder and far better for my skin—she said it would be a wash which would cleanse my skin and keep it in a healthy state—she showed me something in a bottle at that time—she said it came from the East—the price she asked was a pound for the bottle—I did not take it then because I did not know what it was, but on the next occasion I purchased a bottle of the wash—she told me I should have to purchase more bottles as it would be a process—I purchased bottles to the extent of 3l. or 4l.—she called the use of the wash enamelling—when she mentioned enamelling I said I would not be painted—she said it had the same relation to her wash as that of a painter to his painting, or a doctor and his prescription—she said it was not paint or anything approaching paint—she said "Do you know Lady Dudley?"—I said I did—she asked me if I thought she was painted, and I said "No"—she said Lady Dudley had used her washes fifty times, and that, she was finishing her process with Lady Dudley at that time—she said, as to the use of these things, that the effect would be like that of a Turkish bath—I was to write to her and put "enamelling" or a "little enamelling" in my note—she said her fee was a thousand guineas, and that the process would take some months—all this was said before I went to Rome—she said on one occasion a lady who had left the shop had told her I

was Signor Mario's daughter, and I said it was so—she said she had heard I could sing; she had been told so by persons who had heard me in society—I saw in the shop in Duke Street a bust of the great Rachel the tragedienne—I asked if she was any relation of hers; she said she was—I saw a portrait of Rachel as well—I then went to Rome about the end of February, 1877, and came home the 25th or 26th of May—before going away to Rome I wrote this letter to the prisoner. (Read: "I was not able to leave on the 5th, but I shall start on the 17th. Could you see me on Friday or Saturday morning? If at all events you could send me a little enamelling, it would spare you sending any to Rome. If you can please try to see me about this matter, if you are not too ill. Address me as ' Mrs. Pearse, 40, Ebury Street, ' without putting your name to the letter.—C. M. P.—Please burn this letter.") That I wrote before going to Rome—I did not, to the best of my recollection, see her again—on returning home I found she had changed her shop from Duke Street to 153, Great Portland Street—at that time I was not acquainted with Mrs. Crossman Turner, but I received a letter from her, which I destroyed—in consequence of the receipt of this letter I went to Mrs. Turner's house at St. John's Wood, and it was arranged I should meet her at 153, Great Portland Street—at that time I was not aware the prisoner was the mother of Mrs. Turner—when I went to meet her some time in June, 1877, it was my second visit to Great Portland Street—I then ascertained, for the first time, that the defendant was Mrs. Turner's mother—on the first occasion of going to Portland Street Mrs Turner was not there—I had no conversation then with the defendant about enamelling—we never spoke about that any more, but I bought another bottle of wash, which I paid for—I remember asking why she did not apply the process to herself, and she said, "Oh, when you are about 60 your skin will be in such a healthy and purified state that you will look as young as you do now"—I asked why she did not apply it to herself—she said, "Are you aware how old I am?"—I said I was not, and then she said she was 85—that was what took place at the first interview at Great Portland Street—at the next meeting I met Mrs. Turner, and there was then some conversation about giving a concert, and I was invited to sing—my husband knew of this invitation by Mrs. Turner to sing at this concert for the Turkish Compassionate Fund—it was an invitation by Mrs Turner—the prisoner asked me not to mention to my husband who she was, she said she had been locked up five years through a conspiracy some years ago, that she had cleared her name before the public, but that she would rather I should not mention that I knew her—in the course of conversation with reference to the concert, the name of Mr. Arthur Sullivan was mentioned, and she said she knew of me through him—the name of Lady Coutts-Lindsay was mentioned, and reference was made to a concert at Stafford House—she asked me if I knew the Duchess of Sutherland—I said I did and I would write to her—the question of the Turkish concert was discussed—there was also a question of getting up a concert for my father—Mrs. Turner, who was on the stage, said that she knew more about the artistes and could get persons to help—it has never taken place—it was to be in two or three months—while that concert was under conversation, Madame Rachel said she was using her influence to obtain patronage and subscriptions—Her Majesty sent a subscription to the fund for my father, and I mentioned it to Madame

Rachel, and she said she was not astonished, for it was through her influence that the Queen sent it—she said she brought her influence to bear upon the Queen through ladies of honour near the Queen—she showed me a letter—she said a good lot of things about the concert—I recollect the first occasion when the sum of 500l. was mentioned—after using the washes an eruption came out—that was about the end of December, 1877—in the intervening period from June to December I occasionally used these washes—I paid her altogether, from the first I saw of her, about 20l.—in buying these washed I believed the statement she made as to the effects the wash would have in clearing and cleansing my complexion—I believed the statement that these washes were used by ladies whose names she mentioned—after this rash came out upon my face I went to Madame Rachel, and called her attention to the state of my face—she said I was in a terrible state, that all the pores of my skin were open, and that unless I let her finish her process at once I should be ruined for life—I said to her, "I must go to my doctor"—she said it would do me no good, that it was not a matter of the constitution, but entirely that of the skin—she said she had studied the skin for more than 30 years, and that doctors brought ladies there to her to be cured of any rash or marks on the skin or complexion, consequently she was the only person who could save me from being disfigured—she then said, "You know my fee is a thousand guineas, but for you, as you are a friend of my daughter's, I will make it 500"—I said, "It is impossible; I cannot do it"—she said, "Very well, you will be sorry in after life; and I warn you, you are in such a state that if you put even cold cream or water on your face you will be disfigured for life"—that ended the interview, and I went away—in consequence of a letter I received from the defendant I went and saw her—a sum of 200l. was then mentioned—she said she could not bear to see me in the terrible state I was, but if I would let her finish the process she would take 200l.; that Lady Dudley had given her 2000l. for the same thing, so of course it was worth while my giving 200l.—on that occasion I wrote this letter (produced) to the defendant, not at her dictation—I wrote that from my house—it was the same day—I wrote that letter on December 21st, 1877. (Read: "Dear Friend, I have ascertained that by the first or middle of February I can have the 200l. Now will you promise me faithfully to finish me for that sum? if not, alas, I must throw up the whole thing. Please send me a small pot of cream, for I have very little to last till February. Please give Jane an answer, as I hardly know what I have to do for that sum; so if you say frankly you won't, I must of course stop what I have begun to realise the same. I cannot promise any more.—Yours, C. M. P. Please send me Gye's letter. If you consent to finish me for that sum, I will give you 100l. the first day I see you, and the other 100l. the day you tell me I am finished. Is that right?") In order to carry, out what I promised in that letter I went to several money-lenders for the purpose of raising the money, but found I could not do it without my husband's signature—I then wrote a letter to the defendant—that was two or three days after the other letter—I wrote to say that I could not pay more than 50l.—I sent it by my maid Orsolina, an Italian, who brought back a message that I was to go and see the defendant—I went with my maid—she then began by asking if I could not in any way give her the 200l.—I said "No"—she then suggested I

should draw the sum from my father's fund at Coutts's—I said that would be robbing my father, and I got up to leave the room—she said, "You use too strong a term"—she thought over the matter for a time, and then she said she would do it for 50l.—there was a conversation as to how the money was to be obtained—I said I did not know how I could manage it, unless I pledged my jewels—she said she had jewels in the next room brought to her by Lady Dudley's maid, that there had been a reward offered for them of 1000l., that there were diamonds as big as the top of her thumb—she stated the value of them to be 8, 000l.—as to my jewels, the matter ended there—as I was going down, a woman, who was coming up met me—when I got to the bottom of the stairs I heard Madame Rachel say that it was Lady Dudley's maid—she had a room in Great Portland Street on the first-floor—it was like an ordinary drawing-room, but on the table there were bottles and things—I cannot say what other rooms were occupied by her—on the day following, Saturday, in the morning, about ten o'clock, I went to Great Portland Street, and took my jewels. (The jewels were produced.) that is the case in which I put them, and the jewels produced are mine—most of them were my mother's—I saw Madame Rachel—I said I had brought my jewels, and that later I would bring her the 50l.—she said they were in trustworthy hands—she again remarked that I was in a terrible state—the rash was still out upon me—my husband had noticed the state of my skin—she said the bath she would give me would take it away—she had not said anything about a bath before, but she pulled it from under the table, and said that I was to have a bath there and then—it was a tin bath, an ordinary hip-bath—she refused to do anything to take away the rash until she saw the jewels—I had a bath, and my maid was present—I handed my jewels over into the custody of the defendant—at that time I believed the rash upon my face was a serious matter—I believed the defendant had the power to cure that rash—I still believed the statement that she made as to her having treated other ladies whose names she mentioned—I believed the statement she made on the preceding day that she had 8,000l. worth of Lady Dudley's jewels in her possession—I believed the woman I had seen coming up the stairs was the Countess of Dudley's maid, and it was my belief in those matters which induced me to hand over my jewels—I was also under apprehension as to the condition of my skin at the time—Madame Rachel said Lady Dudley had sent her jewels instead of the money for finishing her; or for the finishing process—I dressed and went away then immediately, leaving the jewellery—on the Monday I went again—I was to have met Mrs. Turner on the Monday, and I wrote to her—she (Madame Rachel) said, "Would you like to have your jewels back?"—I said, "I would"—she then said she knew of a lady who would give the 50l. to her, that I might take my jewels back with me, and the lady would look to me for the money; but to do that I should have to write her a letter—I wrote that letter—she dictated me the letter that I would bring her my jewels for her to raise a sum of money on—I said I had better put in 50l., and I did then put in 50l.—after that I left the letter with her, and when I got home I sent my maid with this letter. (Read: "Monday. Dear Mrs. Leverson, thinking it over, it is better that you sent me back my box, for I have seen a man who will give me the money on Wednesday. I will bring the 45l. I owe you. Please do not put them in pawn, as I wish to do that myself. If you send the box

by bearer, I will send you the money. Yours affectionately, C. M. P.") I sent 5l., and my maid came back without the 5l. and without the jewels—in consequence of what the maid said I went on the following Saturday to the prisoner—I saw her, and asked why she had not sent the jewels—she told me she had pledged them—I was very angry, and then she said I need not be afraid over jewellery worth 50l. when she had jewellery worth thousands in her charge—she then gave the name of the gentleman who had the jewellery, Mr. Sheldrake—she then dictated to me a letter to send to Mr. Sheldrake, the pawnbroker, and to begin it either "Dear Mr. Sheldrake," or "Dear Sir," I can't remember which. This is the letter. (Read: "Dear Sir,—Madame Rachel has informed me that she has placed in your care my jewels, of which I have the list of memorandum; and she also assures me I can have them when applying to you at an hour's notice within six months, by forwarding to you the amount I authorised her to get. I hope to have, by the end of the month, the money, and Madame Rachel assures me of every care you will take of them; and also all secrecy and the respectability of your firm. Address me under cover here, 153, Great Portland Street. C. M. Pearse.") This (produced) is the list of my jewels, which I had enclosed in the jewel box when I gave it to the prisoner. (This stated "I deposit with Madame Rachel in her care" various articles of jewellery "instead of 50l. ") I inquired on that occasion, if the 50l. were paid, if I could get my jewels back—she replied that they could be—I asked for a receipt for the 50l. which she had received in connection with my jewellery—she asked me to write a receipt for the money I had promised her—she opened a book with printed forms in it, which she placed before me—she told me to fill up one—I objected to a printed form—she said it did net matter, for it was only a receipt, no one saw it—upon that I signed it—I was going to put 50l.—she asked me to put 200l., but I objected—she then asked me if I would put down 50l.—my maid witnessed my signature to the document (The document bore the signature of A. M. Pearse, and the name of Orsolina Palmiera as witness.) She gave me no receipt for the 50l.—I sent my maid for it, but she came back without it—before that I had not mentioned the subject to my husband, but I mentioned it to him that night—at that time I had remaining some of the wash I had bought at Madame Rachel's—it was afterwards handed by me to my husband and analysed, but I do not know by whom—my husband, accompanied by my maid, went to see Madame Rachel on the Sunday—I went on the Sunday week and saw the defendant, at 153, Great Portland Street—there was was not a very long interview—she denied she had dictated the letter to the lady, and said I owed her 150l. beyond what I paid her—she went into a variety of matters—my husband said he should go for his solicitor; but I do not think he mentioned a name—the defendant said she should be very pleased to meet me in Court, if I dare appear, and that she had letters that would incriminate me—my husband said he could not discuss the matter, that he should take proceedings—she abused us all the way downstairs, calling us names—that very day Mr. Lewis was communicated with—I have written other letters to Madame Rachel than those produced, from time to time, on various subjects, especially with reference to the concert.

Cross-examined by MR. DAY. I went first to the shop in Duke Street at the end of December, 1876—before that I had been visiting my doctor for

four years, and since December, 1876, I have frequently seen my doctor; about once a fortnight, when I have been in London, having suffered in health for some years—I was living in Pimlico in December, 1876, the doctor was living near Grosvenor Square, and sometimes I passed the prisoner's shop—it was not quite in my way—I went in to buy some tooth powder—I had not heard of her name before; I knew the name as being the same as the great French tragedienne—I had not heard of her wares at all—I was passing the shop and I went in to buy this tooth powder—her name had never been mentioned to me—I found the tooth powder was very good, but not better than any other—I went afterwards and bought some violet powder that is used for children after bathing, and things of that sort; not for ornamentation necessarily—I had been in the habit of buying such powder ever since my childhood; washes I had never used before, powder I had used—I used to buy the powder anywhere—the powder was very good—I think on my second visit there was some talk about the wash—I did not buy it then—I think it was talked of the day that she recommended the violet powder—the third time I went in would have been less than a fortnight—I went to buy the wash, she called it enamelling, and that it would cleanse the skin—whenever enamelling was spoken of, I understood some liquid which would clean and cleanse the skin; that is all it was—it was not to leave any coat of plaster on the face—it was explained that the enamelling had nothing to do with any paint, pigment, or powder—I then bought a bottle of liquid which was to be used for the whole body—before going to Rome I don't remember exactly how many bottles I had; perhaps three or four—a bottle would last several times; it was not all put in, about two or three tablespoons were to be put into one bath—there was no label on the bottle—I was to use it whenever I liked, occasionally—I continued that till I went to Rome in February, I think—the effect of the washes was nothing particular; beneficial rather—I did not notice anything particular—I asked her for something that would remove hair—she said she would give me some; she did not do so or caution me as to the use of it—I had only one bath at her house—the effect of the washes I think was satisfactory, but I did not notice any difference—(looking at a letter) this is my writing, I was not staying at Grove Hall in Staffordshire while I was using Madame Rachel's washes—I was at Market Drayton in Shropshire—my friends there said I looked quite "lovely"—the defendant had given me some powder to put on my arms and neck when I went to a ball, and she told me to write to tell her what effect I produced—before I went to Rome I was on very friendly terms with Madame Rachel—I wrote her a number of letters and post-cards—I was not short of money at that time—on December 8, 1876, probably I owed her money—the post-cards were written in French. (They were put in and read. The first was to this effect, translated: "I have not the 5l. to-day, but hope to come and see you next week." The next bore date December 19, "I will be with you to-morrow (Wednesday) at half-past eleven." Another dated December 26, "I will be with you on Thursday." Also a letter dated Jan. 5, 1877: ("Luton, Jan. 5, 1877. Dear Madame Rachel,—I am so sorry to hear you have been ill, and waited outside your door the other day three-quarters of an hour in vain, but I hope you will be able to finish me on Thursday. I have my 5l. at last. I will be at your door at half-past ten, so if you are not there that means you are still ill, I will come away, but hope that will not be

the case. Au revoir till Thursday.") I was very anxious at that time to see Madame Rachel—I believe it was for the purpose of getting more of these washes to complete the cleansing process—I had not been able to pay her the 5l. between Dec. 8 and Jan 5. (Two other letters were put in and read, one dated Jan. 19 from Luton, stating she would come to see her on Tuesday, and the other from London, Jan. 23: "I have to leave England on 5th Feb., and would like to be made beautiful for ever before I leave.") Madame Rachel had been ill for a considerable time, and I had not seen her most likely for a month before writing that letter—the expression "beautiful for ever" was her expression, I used it—I was in Paris on 19th Feb.—I don't think I was at Market Drayton then—I don't think this envelope (produced) is my writing—I could not take my oath of it—I have no notion whose writing it is—this letter of 19th August is mine, but not this dated from Market Drayton on 19th Feb.—I had not mentioned to any one at Market Drayton that Madame Rachel dealt in these things—I was stopping at Chesney, not at Hodnet Hall. This letter is mine. ("Rome, April 6, 1877. Dear Madame Rachel,—I am in want of some more pink powder, and also a little red powder and some cream. Could you send me them here? My address is Madame Pearse, 4, Corso Prima Piazza. I hope you are now quite well, and can get about again. Please let me know if you can send me these things.") At that time I was in Rome—I had to act in some private theatricals—I wanted cream and two sorts of powder for use in the private theatricals—my father told me so—they are things which can be purchased in Rome, but I thought it better to send to London for them, as she had said they were harmless—I am a foreigner when in Rome—my father was living there at the time—he had been living there for two years—I don't think my father could have told me where to get innocuous cream in Rome—Madame Rachel never answered my letter nor sent the things—my father gave me his cream and I used it for three performances without experiencing any ill results from the use of it—when I returned to London from Rome I went to see Madame Rachel—most likely I went to see her at once, most likely not—I have no recollection of how soon I went to see her after I returned—it was probably early in June—I went there to buy washes—I had no letter from Madame Rachel during my absence in Rome—I cannot remember whether I saw an advertisement that she had removed to Great Portland Street—I don't remember what occurred at the first interview with her in Portland Street—she never did anything else for me except to supply me with washes and powders for my personal decoration—sometimes she would apply these washes to my face to show me how to use them—she never removed any spots from my face—I was to put the wash into a bath—she said sometimes I might use it in a bath and sometimes without—I was to use it on a sponge and it would dean my face as if I was to use some acid—that was not to remove hair or spots—I do not remember "black spots" or any slight spots alluded to—she had spoken about removing hair from my arms, not from the face—she said these washes would have the same influence upon everything—I saw Mrs. Turner at the defendant's house—I had heard that she was a distinguished vocalist—I have heard some of my friends say that she is a pretty fair artiste—she performs at Her Majesty's Theatre—to the best of my belief I paid Madame Rachel about 20l. in all, but how I paid it, whether in large or small instalments, I don't remember—I have

paid for some washes singly as I got them—on the occasion of the second visit which I paid to Madame Rachel, after I came from Rome, she spoke to me about her having undergone five years' imprisonment—she said that her daughter was upon the stage, and that for her sake she did not wish the relationship between them to be known—she said that she had been imprisoned as the result of a conspiracy—I knew in June or July that she had been imprisoned—she did not go into the matter very fully—she said that they wanted to obtain 30,000l. from her; that not being able to get it a conspiracy was entered into against her, and in the result she was locked up for five years; that the Home Office was taking it up to prove her innocence—she was talking for three hours, and at the end of the conversation that is all I know about it—she produced letters from many ladies referring to the matter, but I did not read them—she showed a very strong feeling against a solicitor, Mr. George Lewis—I cannot say that she very often mentioned his name—she told me that some people wanted to get 30,000l. from her, but she never explained it to me—I did not suppose that it had anything to do with the washes—she said she did not wish her daughter's name to be mixed up with the affair—I continued to deal with her on the strength of the document from the Home Office—I saw the beginning of it, but I do not know what it was—it being from the Home Office led me to believe it was truthful—it was about this time that the conversation took place about my father—Mrs. Turner said she knew the artistes were ready to come forward to sing as a sort of tribute to my father's name—I understood that a daughter-in-law of the defendant's was at the Royal Academy of Music—I understood that she and Mrs. Turner were engaged in getting up a concert, and a great many letters passed between me and Mrs. Turner on the subject. This letter is my writing. (Read: "Wednesday, February 11.40, Ebury Street. My dear Madame Rachel. Should I not hear from you am I to understand that I am to go to you on Saturday at 11 o'clock at 29, Duke Street. I hope to go and see Mrs. Turner next week to arrange about the concert, but everyone thinks I had better put it off for February, as in November we could not make so much. I fear if the Albert Hall were chock full it would not bring altogether 400l., as most of the boxes and stalls are private property.") (Another letter dated July 19th stated that she had heard from Mr. Gye, who thought it was too late in the season to do anything now, referring to the concert.) I believe it was Mrs. Turner's idea to write that letter—my idea of "finishing" was when this process was over—she told me three or four months as the time for it to be used—I believe I used some in June and July—the rash had not then come out—it came out at the end of December, 1877—I had used this wash in its pure state to my face and no rash came out—I don't remember saying before the Magistrate, "I rarely used the wash, and when I did the rash came out"—rashes did now and then come out on me, but I can't say whether it was from her washes or anything else—I don't think, except the measles, I ever had any rash before dealing with Madame Rachel—I never had a rash like that which broke out at the end of December—before that date I had merely little spots and blotches, and that sort of thing—I went down to Luton about this time—I wrote this letter dated July 30th, 1877:—"Dear Madame Rachel,—I write to remind you that I shall be with you on Wednesday between 11 and 12. Did you get

Gye's letter all right?—Yours, C. M. Pearse."—I also wrote this dated August 2nd, from Luton:—"Dear Madame Rachel,—I find no letter from Mrs. Turner; if you see her tell her to write to me to The Elms Dartmouth, Devonshire. I had an accident coming up. One of the bottles you gave me I let fail and broke it. The other is all safe. Perhaps at Dartmouth I will take sea baths. Do you think they will do harm to my skin? Let me know at 40, Ebury Street, if you can see me on Friday afternoon between three and four, so that you may touch my face for the last time, as when I come back perhaps I shall be improved enough to be finished off. I will be up in the morning, and hope to hear from you.—Yours, very sincerely, C. M. Pearse. "She told me there were different processes—I really cannot explain more than I have—the "touching" was with the wash to cleanse the skin—she said when I was finished I should have a receipt from her which I could have made up at any chemist's, and which I could throw into my bath at ordinary times, and which would keep my skin in the healthy state she had got it into—she had most likely touched me several times before that—she was always saying that she wanted to touch it up herself—she told me if I went to a doctor's for one illness he would not always give the same medicine, but various medicines, and it was the same with her washes, which were not always the same—I really don't know whether what she gave me was anything different—she used to tell me to touch myself with the same thing that I put into my bath—I wrote this letter from The Elms:—"Dartmouth, August 10th. Dear Madame Bachel—Give me your views how you are getting on? It is lovely here, and we are enjoying ourselves a good deal. I heard from papa, who is very well, and very poor. However, he is in hope of better times. My face improves every day, and I hope you will find it so when I return. Write soon.—Yours sincerely, C. M. P. "My face had very much improved—I was anxious about her health—she always said she was ill whenever I saw her—sometimes I had difficulty in seeing her on that account—I wrote this letter:—"Thursday, 15th. Dear Madame Rachel—I will be up in London for one day before going to Staffordshire. Can you see me on the morning of the 21st (Tuesday), between 11 and 12 o'clock? Please let me know, either here or at 40, Ebury Street. I leave here on the morning of the 20th. If you cannot see me on Tuesday I must put it off for another fortnight, but I hope you can see me. Please let me know. From yours very sincerely, C. M. P. "I also wrote these:—"40, Ebury Street, Monday, August 20th. Just arrived from Dartmouth. So sorry not to have heard from you. Please telegraph to me if I am not to come to-morrow.—From yours affectionately. If I don't hear from you I shall be with you between one and two o'clock. "—"August 30th, 1876. Dear Friend—I hope to hear from you soon. I am pretty well, and very admired, thanks to you. I will leave here Sunday, 9th September. Will you be in London about that time? If so, I will come next day after I arrive, Monday, or any other day that suits you best. Write and tell me how you get on. Have you seen Mrs. Turner yet? It is bitterly cold here, but fine. With very kind regards, I am, yours sincerely, C. M. Pearse. "I wrote a great number of letters in September, October, and November, asking to see her—I used to write to thank her, because she always used to ask me whenever anything was said about my being admired, to let her know, and naturally thinking that she was helping me for my father, I

wrote those things to please her—it was not in consequence of the wash that I was admired, it was some powder she gave me to put on my arms and neck. (Letter read: "Dear Madame Rachel,—I find I won't be up in town till the 19th, so won't see you until the 20th. I made a great sensation at the ball, and was considered quite lovely, thanks to you. I have received a most kind letter from Mr. S. He wishes to see me personally about the concert, and encourages me to every hope of realising a good sum by it. Please write to me at the above address if you have any news. Have you seen Mrs. Turner, and has she seen C.—Yours most sincerely, C. M. P.") There are many letters which I have written to Madame Rachel addressing her as "Dear friend," and "Dear Madame Rachel," and subscribed. I also wrote several letters to Mrs. Turner on the same subject, in which I urged her to exert herself on the matter—the first conversation about any fixed sum was the day that I had the rash out; I spoke to Madame Rachel, and something was said about the price I was to pay for finishing—I don't think that at that time I was under my doctor—I have not seen him for some time, two or three months, but I am seeing him now—Madame Rachel did not say that I had better have a medical certificate that I was well in health before she performed the process—she did say that she would prefer my having a medical certificate to see whether the application of the wash had done me any harm—I don't know why—it was not when the rash came out that she said she would like me to have a medical certificate—upon my oath it was not—it was before the rash came out—when the rash came out she said I was not to go to a doctor on any account—she looked me all over with a sort of little microscope thing, and said that all the pores of my skin were open—she said I must only use cold water, as anything else might ruin me—she told me not to use anything except cold water, not even soap—it was not then that she suggested I had better have a medical certificate—I had a bath when I took the jewels—I saw the bath prepared—I don't know what was put in—to me, it seemed only bran and water—I have no reason to suspect that anything else was put in—the rash was on my face, arms, and neck, and that necessitated a bath, so she told me, to cure it—I kept my face perfectly dry—I did what she told me—the action of the bran and the water was to be to bring the rash down—there was no requirement for me to take a number of baths—at this time my jewelers was in the house—I have sometimes obtained money upon jewellery, but I never authorised Madame Rachel to pawn these—she told me she had pledged the jewellery—I heard at the police-court that it was in my name—she has sold small things for me, in connection with acts of charity, and handed me over the money—she has sold things for me twice for a charity I am interested in—I entrusted her with things to sell that she sold for me, and handed over the money—one occasion was probably as late as last December—the letter to the pawnbroker was written on the Saturday at her house—the one relating to the jewellery was written a week before—the printed form was filled up in my own handwriting—I thought she could not read—I never saw her write—the jewels were taken to Madame Rachel's on a Saturday—the letter of January 5th was written, I believe, on the day I had my bath—it was written from my own house—(Two letters referring to the proposed concert were here read)—the last time I saw the defendant was the day I wrote the letter to the pawnbroker; that was on the Saturday—there had not been any

arrangement that the jewels should be put in pawn before I wrote the letter marked "E"—I wrote a letter to the prisoner, which was to be placed in the hands of the lady who was to give the 50l.—I don't know what has become of that letter, it was to tell her that I was bringing her the jewels for her to raise a sum of money—she said this lady would know me personally, and would take my own security, and that I was to give back the 50l. and I might take my jewels home—I understood she was to go and see the lady who would give her the 50l. and send back my jewels; that conversation was on the Monday after the Saturday when I had the bath—no arrangement had been made before the Monday for pawning the jewels—I call giving them to the lady putting them in pawn—I had not seen a man before that about advancing the money—that was incorrect—I never had conversation with Madame Rachel about the loss of any jewellery—my husband was on the jury in the detective trial, and she spoke to me about the detective trial, not about the jewellery—she never said anything to me about jewellery, except on the occasion when I objected to pawning my own jewellery—I had heard of Lady Dudley's jewellery being stolen, but I and never had any conversation with the prisoner on the subject—Lady Dudley's jewellery being in her back-room was no business of mine—I was astonished to hear that Lady Dudley's jewels were in Madame Rachel's house; and then she explained that they had been brought by Lady Dudley's maid because Lady Dudley had to pay her 2,000l. for finishing her—that was the day I pledged my jewels to the pawnbroker, and she said "You make such a fuss about jewels worth 50l., when I have jewels in my house worth thousands"—she said 1, 000l. reward had been offered for them—I said my husband was on the detective trial, and I could not dine with her—she then jumped up and screamed, said she knew Froggatt, who was one of the prisoners, and that he was one of the conspirators, with Mr. George Lewis, against her—nothing was said about jewels in connection with that trial—I went with my husband to her after telling him about this, and my husband understood then that my acquaintance was only of three or four months' duration—subsequently, after going to Madame Rachel, my husband had a further explanation from me, and then we went together, a week after, on the Sunday.—I believe at that interview my husband mentioned Mr. George Lewis's name, just as we were going out of the door—the defendant did not then say that nothing would give her greater pleasure than to meet Mr. George Lewis in a Court of law—she did not say she was willing to return the 50l.—she said that Mr. Lewis wanted to hang her, and she said a good deal all the way down stairs, but I believe she was abusing us, and not Mr. Lewis.

Re-examined. When I wrote the letters to Madame Rachel my father was in want of money, and I wished the concert to be a pecuniary success for him—I said the things about being admired to please her—when I wrote about having seen a man, I was anxious on the subject—the proceeds of little articles which prisoner disposed of for me went to an English charity—with regard to all the other letters I wrote, I wrote them on account of her wish to know how the washes acted.

GODFREY PEARSE . I am the husband of the last witness—I am a stockbroker, and live at 40, Ebury Street—I was not at all aware that my wife was in the habit of going to Madame Rachel, either in Duke Street or Great Portland Street—my wife made a communication to me

on a Saturday in January, in consequence of which I went to Madame Rachel's at Great Portland Street on the Sunday, the next day—I said to her "I have heard you have some jewels and some letters of my wife's. I insist upon your returning them to me at once"—she refused entirely, and said "So far from my owing your wife anything she owes me a large sum of money"—she showed me a letter in which the sum of 200l. was named—nothing further passed on that occasion except that she tried to talk about the use that she had been to my wife—I saw her again on the Tuesday or Wednesday—I told her from what I had further heard it was just what I had supposed, namely, a fraud, and I again demanded all the jewels and the letters—she then said that she was never alone, and that she had a witness who was listening, to prove that on the former occasion I had promised to pay her—she again tried to talk about the services which she had rendered to my wife, but I would not listen to that tale—I said that if she considered she had fairly earned 10l. for the things which she had supplied to Mrs. Pearse, I would give her 10l. as the seller of messes—she then said that if I would bring my wife she was sure that she would make me believe that it was all right—I went away, saying that I would bring her—on that occasion she said that she had a witness to prove that on the former occasion I had promised to pay her 200l., or any other sum which my wife might owe her—after that interview I had a letter purporting to come from her—I believe I burned it—I saw her again on the following Sunday—I took my wife with me—there was a repetition of her former statements with reference to the services which she had rendered, and she made an offer to go on with the process—I refused, and then said that that was the last time that she would have a chance of treating with me—I said I should go to a solicitor—I did not mention his name; I had no one in my mind at that time—she said I could not do so because the letters which she held of my wife's were such as could not be produced—she gave me to understand that I should not dare to have them published, and added that she had been on the most intimate terms with my wife for nearly two years, knew all my friends, and all the members of my family and a great deal of their personal affairs—when we were going downstairs she said she would make the City ring with it—she said she knew every friend I had—there was nothing further then—I saw her again before I went to Mr. Lewis—I saw her the morning after I saw Mr. Lewis—one of my clerks told me she had been sitting in the office an hour—she then showed me Mr. Lewis's letter, and said "What is this about Lady Dudley's jewels?" and that it was very unfair mentioning this, as it was said in confidence—I said that the whole thing was now in Mr. Lewis's hands—she then said she would give up all the letters conditionally if I went up to Great Portland Street—she said that Mr. Lewis had made up his mind to ruin her, hang her, I think she said; and that she would do anything rather than face him—I saw her again either that evening or the next—when she spoke about giving me the letters I said I would go and see her—I said I had come for the letters—she said "What, give them up and put myself in the hands of that man?"—I stated she must trust to my word that no further steps should be taken if the letters were given up—it ended in my going away without anything—she refused to give the letters up—she said they were "compromising"—she said "I have got letters of your

wife's that you dare not have brought forward,"and added that the letters were compromising to my wife—she said I should not dare to prosecute her, as she would make the City ring with it—nothing further passed then, and I determined to prosecute—I received from my wife a bottle containing some stuff; that was about five weeks ago—I gave it to my family chemist—I gave it into the hands of Mr. Saunders—at the end of last year I noticed a rash on my wife's face, a rash which I had never seen before, and I spoke to her at the time.

Cross-examined by MR. DAY. One bottle was taken to Godfrey and Cooke's and one to the family chemist—I found them both in the same cupboard—I never looked into the cupboard to see how many bottles there were—my wife brought one bottle from the cupboard, that went to Godfrey and Cooke—they are supposed to have had both bottles—I had never seen the bottles before—when I saw them I did not observe any label—there was no label of directions—when I went up for the letters the prisoner said "What, give myself up and put myself into the hands of that man?"—I understood her to refer to Mr. Lewis—she would not part with the possession of the letters until she knew that Mr. Lewis would not prosecute her—she said she should want the letters if she were prosecuted, and therefore she would not trust them to Mr. Lewis—she became violently abusive, and on one occasion said that there was nothing she desired so much as to meet Mr. George Lewis in a Court of law, but on another occasion she said she would rather meet the devil—I think I went to her house five or six times—I did call on Mr. Grossman Turner—I went with my wife at her request as a matter of civility to persons whom she thought had been of great service to her, but I never went to Mr. Turner's after I went to Madame Rachel—I left a card at his address that I should be at my office at a certain time—he had been to me several times of his own accord—there was a difficulty about getting the jewels—the prisoner said they were pawned, and if I let her have a fortnight I could have them—the prisoner gave me the pawn-ticket—my wife was not then aware that the jewels were pawned—it was probably on my second interview that I got the pawn-ticket, when Mr. George Lewis's name was mentioned—my wife told me on the Saturday before we went together that she was not aware that they had been pawned—she had told me about the letter she had written from dictation, and from what she told me I was certain they had been pawned—she thought they were in the hands of a gentleman—she mentioned the name of Mr. Sheldrake. Re-examined. She said she knew that the things had gone to a Mr. Sheldrake—this (produced) is the pawn-ticket the prisoner gave me—it has on it the name of Mr. Robert Attenborough, 40, Duke Street, Manchester Square.

SABINA PINNEY . I am living in service at Kentish Town Road—in the month of August I entered Madame Rachel's service and continued with her until the 21st of January in the present year, at 153, Great Portland Street—my wages were 11l. a year—Madame Rachel occupied the first floor and kitchen downstairs—the first floor comprised three rooms, one room in the front and two at the back—the front room was used as a shop—the back rooms were a bedroom and a sitting-room—I slept in the back room on the first floor, Madame Rachel slept in the sitting-room—she invariably resided there by herself—she had a little child with her—in the room which was used as a shop there were powders and washes exposed

for sale—sometimes I used to help her make up the washes—starch and fuller's earth and something out of a paper, which I don't know what it was, used to be put into a small bottle and then water was added—I got the water from the ordinary water-tap of the house—Madame Rachel told me that those washes were made for the ladies to put on their faces—she said that sometimes the washes would bring out a rash—I thought she told me that to prevent my using any myself—she said it would make the ladies good-looking—she mentioned names of ladies who she said had used the washes—she told me that she was sixty-three years of age—she could read, but said she had hurt her thumb and so she could not write—I know Mrs. Turner—she was in the habit of calling upon her mother from time to time—Madame Rachel told me once that Mrs. Pearse was poor—I have seen Mrs. Pearse there—I cannot remember upon how many occasions, but several times—she was accompanied by her maid—I never saw Madame Rachel put any wash on Mrs. Pearse's face—I remember the bottles that she used to give Mrs. Pearse—some of the bottles contained hair-wash, pearlash and water mixed up together—I have helped mix it—I don't know what Mrs. Pearse was charged for them—some of the bottles of pearlash and water were charged one guinea for—the skin wash was the same price—I only used to help to make up those two—I have seen the skin-wash given to Mrs. Pearse—I remember on more than one occasion seeing bottles of the skin-wash handed to Mrs. Turner in the presence of Mrs. Pearse—Mrs. Turner never took them away with her—I do not remember the prisoner naming Lady Dudley to me—I remember the occasion when Mrs. Pearse brought her jewellery—I remember preparing the bath that Mrs. Pearse had—hot water and bran were put into it, and nothing else that I know of—I was not present when Mrs. Pearse had her bath—I left her and Madame Rachel and the servant—I saw the Jewellery after Mrs. Pearse had gone away—I saw Madame Rachel wearing some of that jewellery, three lockets and a necklace—she told me they were a Christmas present from Mrs. Pearse, and I said they were very nice ones—on the occasion of the visits of Mrs. Pearse to Madame Rachel I have heard conversations between them—I heard the words "Write this to-day, darling," and I have been sent to fetch the ink—I remember Mr. Pearse coming on the Sunday, and the next Monday with his wife.

Cross-examined by MR. DAY. I was present the first and second time, but was not in the room, and did not hear what was said—I went in August and I left on January 21—I think the rash was talked about just before Christmas—I did not notice any rash on Mrs. Pearse when she had the bath—I noticed it once, that was not long before she had the bath—it was before I saw the rash on Mrs. Pearse that Madame Rachel told me it sometimes caused a rash—it was the starch and fuller's earth that was likely to bring out a rash—I suppose the hair wash was safe—I did not use it, Madame Rachel did, and she used it to the child; it was generally used in the family, and found very beneficial—I never used the starch and fuller's earth, Madame Rachel did—I did not attend to the shop very much—I don't remember what name was given to the hair wash; it was called perfume—there were circulars, I never read them, I can't read very well—labels were fixed to the bottles with her name and address on them—I have put them on—there was no name to the liquid—she used to tell me what labels to put on the different bottles—she used to make up other things,

and sell powders, tooth powder, and paint, and violet powder—she gave me some glycerin once when my hands were chapped, it did them good.

ORSOLINA PALMIERA (Interpreted). I am maid to Mrs. Godfrey Pearse—I understand a little English—I remember going with Mrs. Pearse to 153, Great Portland Street, I there saw the prisoner—at that time there was a rash on Mrs. Pearse's face—it was in December—I heard something said in regard to the rash by Mrs. Pearse, who asked "What is the cause of all this rash upon my face?" and the prisoner said "If you don't bring the money to be finished, you will be ruined for all your lifetime"—Mrs. Pearse was very angry with Madame Rachel, who said the best thing she could do was to get some money out of the bank belonging to her father, but Mrs. Pearse declined—the prisoner said "I want you to bring me 60l."—Mrs. Pearse said "As I cannot get the money, the only thing I can do is to bring my jewels"—the prisoner then said she had jewels belonging to the Countess of Dudley, with diamonds as big as her thumb—the conversation was in English, but I understood enough to follow it—it was "Mrs. Pearse, I have got in my house jewels of the Lady Dudley, brought to me by that lady's maid"—the day after the conversation about the jewels I went again with my mistress to Madame Rachel—I took the jewels—on that occasion Mrs. Pearse had a bath at the suggestion of the prisoner—she said "You have got a rash all over your face, don't you see? I will give you a bath, and the rash will go"—I assisted Mrs. Pearse in having her bath—I did not hear Madame Rachel say anything more then—on the following Monday I received a letter from my mistress—she and I went together in a cab to Great Portland Street, and saw the prisoner—she asked Mrs. Pearse to address a letter to her—she said "I will give it to a lady who will advance you 50l., and then you can have your jewels back"—she then dictated a letter to Mrs. Pearse in the same way as she would do to a child just going to school—after we got home I took a letter from Mrs. Pearse to Madame Eachel and 5l.—I asked her for Mrs. Pearse's jewels, and she said "Mrs. Pearse was shama (foolish)"—I went again on the Saturday with Mrs. Pearse to Madame Rachel's, and on that occasion she made Mrs. Pearse write a letter to a gentleman; and she also made Mrs. Pearse write her name to something in a book—I went again alone to Madame Rachel's before going with Mrs. Pearse—I asked her for the counterpart of the receipt from the book—she said no, she would not give it to me—the next day, on the Sunday morning, I went to Madame Rachel's with Mrs. Pearse—I remember trying some of the wash myself, and Mary, a servant then in the employ of Mrs. Pearse also tried some—a rash came out upon my arm, the same as came on Mrs. Pearse's face—Mary had it oftener than I had, because whenever Mrs. Pearse threw away the bottles she always made use of some—Mary had the rash come out all over her face.

Cross-examined by MR. DAY. On the 25th of this month I shall have been 11 months in England—I was engaged in Rome—that was my first visit to England—when I first came I did not know English at all—I do not remember when I first went to Madame Rachel's—I really do not remember—I remember that before the month of January I had been there several times—I cannot tell you whether it was five, six, seven, or eight times—I have not been 20 times—I observed

the rash on Mrs. Pearse in December, but I had seen it before—it was at the end of December that I particularly noticed the rash—I perceived a slight rash on Mrs. Pearse's face, but I did not notice it so much—I don't remember when I first noticed it—the rash came out on my arm—I did not apply it to my face when I saw Mrs. Pearse was so ruined (ruinata)—a bottle of the same stuff was given to me by Madame Rachel—she gave me a bottle and said "It is for you"—to see what effect it would have upon me I put it on my arm from the wrist up—the rash came out two or three days after—the rash did not last very long, as I did not use a great deal of it—I applied it twice—the rash came out in about four or five days—it was after Mr. Pearse had been to Madame Rachel's that I applied it—Mary is not here—she is an Englishwoman—she was housemaid—I do not know when she first used it—she used the stuff left in the bottles thrown away by Mrs. Pearse—I cannot tell you when Mary first used these washes—after Mr. Pearse had been to Madame Rachel's Mary left—I do not remember the date of her leaving—she had not left before Mr. Pearse went to Madame Rachel's—I cannot tell you when Mary first used these bottles—I did not pay any great attention to it—I know she used some bottles, because she took them to her room—I have seen the rash on Mary's face, it came out now and then during the time Mary was in the service of Mrs. Pearse; she had a rash upon her face after she took the bottle to her room—sometimes she did not have the rash upon her face—all the time I knew her she was subject to a rash upon her face—I saw a rash on her face in June, July, August, and September; sometimes e little more, sometimes a little less—she seemed always to have a rash on her face—I cannot say whether more rash came out after using the wash—I don't know what they cost—sometimes she used to put them on one side when they were almost full—Mrs. Pearse wrote a letter in my presence in English—I did not know the contents—I only knew she was writing to a lady—the prisoner said "You write this letter to the lady, she will advance 50l., and then I will return your jewellery"—Mrs. Pearse speaks Italian very well—the letter was written in the room at Madame Rachel's where all the bottles were—the letter was left with her—I took a letter once from Mrs. Pearse to Madame Rachel, but I do not remember the time—I once took her 5l. and then I took a letter also—that was not the letter I described as written just like a child who was going to school, because Mrs. Pearse wrote that herself—it was when I took the 5l. and asked for the jewellery—there was one letter on Monday and one on Saturday—on the Monday I went for the jewels—on Saturday I asked for the receipt, not for the jewels—I spoke to her in English—I said "Will you, if you please, give me the receipt out of the book?"—my mistress told me to ask for the receipt—the contents of the letter was asking for the receipt—I did not read the letter—I don't read English—I had taken letters frequently—I said at the police-court "I have been many times to the defendant's. I used to take letters; but I had no conversation with her"—I remember going to Madame Rachel's, but I don't remember how many letters I took—I never went to fetch things for my mistress from Madame Rachel's—my mistress only took one bath at Madame Rachel's.

Re-examined. I mentioned before the Magistrate all the conversations with Madame Rachel that I have stated to-day—it was on tho day I took the 5l. and the letter that Madame Rachel gave me the bottle for myself

—I had not used the wash before that—I seldom spoke with Mr. Pearse; if he asked me for anything of course I gave it to him, but I always conversed with Mrs. Pearse.

ISABELLA SCOTT . I am lady's-maid to the Countess of Dudley—I have been so for many years—I attended at the Marlborough Street Police Court—up to that time I had never seen the defendant, nor been to her places of business—I never took nor sent her any jewellery—about three years ago I had charge of the Countess of Dudley's jewels at the Pad-dington railway station; they were worth many thousands of pounds—perhaps 20,000l.—15,000l. at all events—I beg to say that they were stolen from me most assuredly, and not disposed of in any other way as has been stated—they have never been recovered—Lady Dudley uses no washes of any kind—I don't include in that soap and water, which are the only washes she uses—Lady Dudley is unwell; she if suffering from a very bad cold at present.

CHARLES SHELDRAKE . I am an assistant to Mr. Attenborough, pawnbroker, 39, Duke Street, Grosvenor Square—I produce certain articles of jewellery contained in a box—they were placed on deposit with me on the afternoon of the 9th January by the prisoner—she brought the jewels to our shop and said that she wanted a loan of 50l. upon them—she said she brought them for Mrs. Pearse, and when I asked her to sign the agreement she said she could not write—she put her mark to the paper, and gave me the name and address of Mrs. Pearse, 40, Ebury Street. (The agreement was produced and read, containing a list of the jewellery, and setting out that a loan of 50l. was advanced on the same at the rate of 15 per cent. per annum, to be repaid by or before the 9th July, 1878, or the jewels to be absolutely forfeited.) I do not think that the jewels would realise more than 50l. if we had them for sale—a few days after the advance of the 50l. I received the letter F, the envelope of which I destroyed.

THOMAS SAUNDERS . I am manager to Messrs. Godfrey and Cooke, 30, Conduit Street—I received a bottle, which I gave to Mr. Senior.

HAROLD SENIOR . I am an analyst—I received a bottle containing some stuff from Mr. Saunders, the last witness—I analysed its contents—it was a 6 oz. bottle—there were 10 grains of a lead compound, 50 grains of day-like earth, common fuller's earth, 160 grains of starch, 15 grains of hydrochloric acid, and 2, 400 grains of water, making 2, 635 grains, or about six fluid ounces.

Cross-examined by MR. DAY. There are at least 30 compounds of lead—in this case part of it was in solution, and part of it was at the bottom of the bottle—the lead in the solution was chloride of lead—as to the insoluble portion of the lead, I cannot say exactly in what form it was, but it was in an insoluble form—altogether I had to analyse not more than 2 oz.—that would be about a third of a 6 oz. bottle—the lead not in solution was very small in quantity—there was not a great deal of difference as to the proportions—the soluble was 3.8 grains, the insoluble 5.3 grains, making 9.1 grains—there was more insoluble than soluble—from what I analysed that would be the proportion of a 6 oz. bottle—the smaller quantity was soluble, and the larger quantity was chloride of lead—the larger quantity I would define as an insoluble form of lead, but I found chloride of lead as well as hydrochloric acid—Godfrey and Cooke have two shops, in Conduit Street and St. George's Place—the firm has now

been established about 200 years—they have a great number of very valuable nostrums—I distinguish hydrochloric acid from chloride of lead in this way: in the first place the solution which was separated was distinctly acid; but chloride of lead would be neutral in solution—Goulard water is sold as a wash, and sold by Godfrey and Cooke—I don't know exactly how much load there is in Goulard water, quite ten times as much as this—it is used for women's skin occasionally—the defendant applied to have some of the wash for analysis by Professor Redwood—I declined, because there was none left, the quantity I had beings small; hut I offered to submit my analysis to any qualified person—Professor Redwood is the very best authority on that point.

Re-examined. My analysis has his authority—there is no hydrochloric acid in Goulard water—I mot Professor Redwood, and I supplied him with the details of my analysis.

DR. THOMAS BOND . I live at 50, Parliament Street, Westminster—I am F. R. C. S. and surgeon to the Westminster Hospital; lecturer also on forensic medicine at the hospital—I have heard the evidence of the last witness—if a wash of the description mentioned were applied to a lady's face it would cause great roughness of the skin, and I believe it would bring out an eruption if applied sufficiently often—the hydrochloric acid would produce the roughness of the skin—a wash of this description is a stimulating wash, and also irritating, and it cannot be applied to a lady's face unless she has a very bad skin disease—it certainly cannot properly be applied to a lady's neck—it would not have the effect of removing the hair—the intrinsic value of a bottle of stuff of this sort would be 6d. at the outside—Goulard water is a very common lotion.

Cross-examined by MR. DAY. For internal administration one would take about 15 minims of dilute hydrochloric acid, which would contain rather over a grain of hydrochloric acid—that is about the dose, the ordinary dilution of the acid—about 6 grains in an 8 oz. bottle would be a tonic to be drunk—it could not well be taken in a more concentrated form than that I have given—if 6 grains were in 8 ounces of water as a drink you would drink about one-sixth of it—in that way it is recommended as a drink in hot weather, but not so strong, I think—I should give about half a drachm, or about 3 grains in a pint for a person to drink as a refreshing draught—I don't know whether acetic acid is frequently used by ladies for the purpose of decoration—I have no doubt that all the "toilette vinegars" sold in London are acetic acid—hydrochloric acid is irritating, but acetic acid is soothing—fuller's earth, with starch in combination, would not be irritating—hydrochloric acid, with starch in combination, would not be soothing.

Re-examined. I have tried a little of this composition upon myself—the second application caused a tingling; the day after there was a perceptible roughness of the skin, and the fingers had a grani-exfoliated look—I did not experiment any further with it—that would be the precursor of a rash; that is my opinion—if the lotion was continued the irritation would increase, and eventually cause a rash—supposing the composition to consist of fuller's earth, starch, and water, I should not expect any irritation then—if lead was added to that it would not cause irritation—I am not sure what effect chloride of load would produce—I attribute the irritation to the presence of free hydrochloric acid—I personally use no cosmetic—I am of opinion that soap and water forms

the best wash—the quality of the skin varies very much in different persons.

GEORGE HENRY LEWIS . I am a member of the firm of Lewis and Lewis, of Ely Place—on the 24th of January in the present year I was consulted by Mr. and Mrs. Pearse on this case—I ultimately instituted proceedings against the defendant at the Marlborough Street police-court on summons—before the committal of the prisoner I acted for Mr. Pearse, but the Treasury took up the proceedings—Mr. Blanchard Wontner, who is now instructing Mr. Day, defended the prisoner at the police-court—I recollect at the third hearing Mr. Wontner making a statement with reference to Lady Dudley—he said that he did so at the request of the prisoner, and he desired to state that Lady Dudley had never been in Madame Rachel's shop, neither had the prisoner any acquaintanceship with her ladyship, and in unqualified terms he wished it to be known that Madame Rachel had never in any way attended upon or supplied any washes to Lady Dudley, and that statement Mr. Wontner repeated a second time after Lord Dudley arrived in Court—Mr. Wontner also, at the same time, made a further statement of the prisoner's explanation of her conversation with Mrs. Pearse with reference to the Dudley jewels—he stated that Madame Rachel denied that she had ever stated to Mrs. Pearse that the Countess of Dudley's jewels had been brought to her house—her explanation of the Countess of Dudley's name being mentioned arose in this way, that Mr. Pearse was upon the Jury in the detective case, and that Madame Rachel said to Mr. Pearse that one of the persons accused could give information with reference to the Countess of Dudley's jewels.

Witness for the Defence.

THEOPHILUS REDWOOD . I am professor at the Institute of Pharmacy to the Pharmaceutical Society, and have been so more than 30 years—I have studied chemistry all my life—I have been in consultation with Mr. Senior—we conferred together as to the probable mode in which the lotion of Madame Rachel was made—we made an analysis—we found 10 grains of carbonate of load, 50 grains of fuller's earth, 160 grains of starch, 24 grains of hydrochloric acid, and six ounces of distilled water, making up a 16-ounce mixture—two of the constituents would enter into combination to form the chloride of lead—part would remain as free hydrochloric acid—as to the effect of such a mixture applied to the skin, so far as the lead is concerned, it would be the same as that produced by extract of load, which acts as an astringent and desiccant, and is commonly used for allaying irritation on the surface of the skin—the fuller's earth possesses detergent properties—starch is an absorbent, and is frequently used—salts of lead are frequently used as lotions, perhaps none more frequently, and I do not consider their use dangerous—as to the lotion I have described, the result to be looked for would not be the bringing out of a rash upon the skin—I applied it to my own arm—I did not find any such result—as it dries, the starch and fuller's earth and chloride of lead tend to whiten the skin—the result was only the effect of whitening of the skin as the lotion dried—I am 68 years of age—in a 6 oz. bottle of Goulard water there would be about 30 grains of lead—as to the effect upon the skin, in connection with the chloride, I judge by inference in saying that its effect would be the same as that of the acetate—what is called toilet vinegar is a mixture of acetic acid,

diluted with water, and scented—the mixture would not perhaps be so strong as Rim ell's vinegar—toilet vinegar would probably have a stronger action than the lotion about which we have heard—I know pearl white, which is a name for carbonate of lead—it is habitually used by ladies for whitening the skin—it frequently is applied as a powder—it is quite insoluble—it is not put on the face to cool it, rather to whiten it—the deposit would be whitehead—it is put on the face to produce a temporary effect—the undue or continued use of cosmetics of that description are more or less injurious—anything which fills up the pores of the skin is injurious—the use of the ordinary violet powder is much better left alone—soap and water and nothing else is the best—I do not consider pearlash with ordinary water a dangerous hair wash, unless it is very strong—I believe the best hair wash is an alkaline solution of that kind—I frequently conduct analyses for the Government in poisoning cases—hydrochloric acid is a liquid—it could not exist as a powder to be shaken out of a paper. Cross-examined by MR. POLAND. A wash of that description would not in the slightest degree remove hair—dilute acetic acid rather softens the skin—hydrochloric acid is not used as an application to the skin—I am unable to say, therefore, how it would affect the skin—I have no experience of its effects—I applied it to my arm—I am not prepared to say that the application of wash to a delicate lady's skin would not produce a rash, but I should be very much surprised to find that it did—I have never known it applied to a lady's skin; there are certain idiosyncrasies, some persons possess a skin which would be irritated by almost any application, especially if any irritation were anticipated—imagination has often much to do with it—I don't mean to say that imagination would produce a rash on my face, but I believe the mere application of soap and water would do so with some persons—soap is an alkaline which would act on and irritate the skin quite as much as the dilute hydrochloric acid referred to, and for that reason many persons cannot use soap—I don't mean that a lady, under those circumstances, would bring out a rash—soap is an irritant, and imagination with a slight irritant may produce much that an irritant without the imagination would not—I can understand a beneficial effect from a wash of this kind where there is an ammoniacal emanation from the skin, the acid would neutralise that—I agree with the Countess of Dudley's maid that soap and water only are the best things—this lotion might be properly used in a skin disease, or where an abnormal state of the skin existed—this lotion would not act as an irritant if there were any ammoniacal effect on the skin.

Re-examined. Ammoniacal exhalations of the skin are not at all an uncommon thing—it is to neutralise those symptoms that the application of this wash or toilet vinegar would be useful and beneficial.

By the COURT. This lotion is not quite calculated to keep the bloom of youth upon the skin, quite the reverse—no cosmetics ever preserve the bloom of youth nor make you look as young at 60 or 85 as at 24.

By MR. WILLIAMS. The skin is very likely to be influenced by the imagination, in the form of blushing, turning pale, and changing colour under the influence of passion—the application of this lotion to the skin would not be likely to produce any irritation if applied to the arm of a servant girl—I cannot say it would not, but I should be very much surprised if it did—lead and hydrochloric acid combine in certain proportions; any chemist could tell what would be the proportions—the result

is as certain as a sum in arithmetic—hydrochloric acid is muriatic acid—it is frequently used in combination with nitric acid for certain diseases of the liver, as a foot bath it has an astringent effect on the feet—it is not to be found in water—it would be impossible to get 15 grains of it from ordinary water from a tap.

MRS. PEARSE (Re-examined). I do not remember whether the name of "Rachel" was over the door in Duke Street; I believe it was in Great Portland Street—my attention was attracted in the first instance by seeing "Arabian perfumer to the Queen." GUILTY .

She also PLEADED GUILTY to having been before convicted, in September, 1868, at this Court.— Five Years' Penal Servitude .

View as XML