March 9, 1776

The Old Bailey, the criminal court building in London, has seen many significant and scandalous trials. In 1775, it was the site of a forgery trial for Margaret Caroline Rudd, who had come to the court’s attention during a trial for two brothers, Robert and Daniel Perreau, who blamed Rudd as not only an accomplice, but the mastermind behind the forgery scheme. The account of Rudd’s trial on December 8, 1775, first published in London, was reprinted in the Pennsylvania Ledger in March 1776, split between the second and fourth pages of the newspaper because of its length. 

The opening sentence remarked that the “avidity of the public to hear this trial was such, that the galleries were crouded soon after day light.” In her own defense, Rudd wrote a memo, describing the motivations of the other people involved in her case. She also passed fifty notes to her lawyers throughout the proceedings. The account of her trial specifically mentioned that she “displayed the most astonishing composure ever seen on a similar occasion.” It was this composure, as well as her gender, which probably influenced the jury.  At the end of a very long day in court, the jury returned not guilty verdicts for all the indictments against Rudd. The Perreau brothers, on the other hand, were hanged.

The Pennsylvania Ledger: Or the Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, & New-Jersey Weekly Advertiser
Printed by James Humphreys, Jr.

An account of what passed at the Old Bailey, in the trial of Mrs. Margaret Caroline Rudd, on Friday the 8th inst.

THE avidity of the public to hear this trial was such, that the galleries were crouded soon after day light. A little before nine o’clock the Lord Mayor, Judges, and Aldermen being assembled, the Prisoner was called to the bar, and the business was opened by Mr. Justice Aston’s acquainting the prisoner with the opinion of the Judges respecting her case, which he did in an elegant speech, explaining the reasons on which that opinion was founded, which, in brief, were, her not having disclosed the whole of what she knew respecting the forgeries. She was then indicted for forging a bond of 5,300l. (penalty 10,600.) as from William Adair, Esq; to Robert Perreau, with an intent to defraud Sir Tho. Frankland, Mess. Drummond, and Mr. Adair. Mrs. Rudd said, Though my attendance here as a witness offered the means of making me a prisoner, as the majority of the Judges are of opinion I ought to be tried, I most chearfully submit to that trial, and plead Not Guilty. She was a second time indicted for a forgery for 6000l. a third time for 3100l. and a fourth for 7500l. She was now told, that if she chose to challenge any of the jury it must be before they were sworn; but she made no challenge. A chair was ordered, that she might sit when she thought proper. Mr. Lucas now explained the indictment, expatiated on her pretended friendship with Mr. Adair, and her skill in different hand writings. Mrs. Robert Perreau being called as an evidence, Serjeant Davy asked her, if Mrs, Rudd should be convicted, whether she did not think it would lead to an acquittal of her husband? She replied, that “she hoped her husband’s innocence would appear.” The council insisted on a positive answer to this question, when she said, “she hoped it would tend to acquit him.” He then objected to her being admitted an evidence, as she was interested in the event. The next council insisted on her inadmissibility, for the plain reason that an evidence should “not be subjected to any temptation to falsity.” Mr. Lucas, on the other side, argued, that it would be impossible to convict any offender, if persons who had an advantage in such conviction were denied to give evidence; and mentioned the cases of accomplices who saved their lives, and persons robbed, who recovered their property, by the conviction of the offender. Judge Aston said, Robert Perreau was not convicted of publishing the bond in question, but for uttering another; and he saw no objection to the competency of Mrs. Perreau’s evidence. Mr. Barron Burland concurred in opinion, observing, that her interest in the conviction of the prisoner, though it could not destroy the competency, yet might possibly lessen the credit of her testimony with the jury.

For the remainder see the last page.

Mrs. Rudd’s Trial concluded.

As soon as the evidence for the prisoner was closed, Mr. Justice Aston called on the prisoner to proceed to her defence, which she did in a few short remarks, taken down in writing, by way of memorandum, while at the bar. It was to the following purport:

“My Lord, and Gentlemen of the Jury,
I did not come here prepared this day to make my defence, as I was totally a stranger to what was intended to be sworn against me; nor should I now be a prisoner if I had not attended in the first instance as a witness, in a full and perfect confidence of protection. It was in a direct and chearful compliance with the law, that I have experienced the rigour of a long and severe confinement; and I have no doubt but you will make every reasonable allowance for a person so circumstanced. As to Mrs. Perreau, she evidently acts under a bias; her intentions are manifest; she swears to excuse her husband, and to obtain his pardon. Moody is the only person who has attempted to make any proof of the forgery; but he has given such loose, improbable, and contradictory evidence, that I do not fear any disagreeable consequence from any confidence you may place in so base and treacherous a man, whose evidence at the most goes no farther than to say, that the three letters produced are like my hand writing. That Catherine Hart has been employed in this business to swear away my life, in order to save the Perreaus, is too plain: but can you gentlemen, believe that I had 200l. to give her, or as she says, ten times that sum if necessary? Such a tale is too absurd to require any animadversion to disprove it. No one can seriously think that I could be so mad as to trust my life in the hands of so ignorant so base, and so indigent a wretch. As for Sir Thomas Frankland, he has made himself too ridiculous for me to observe on his evidence.
Gentlemen of the Jury,
You are honest men, and as such, and trusting to my own innocence, I think myself safe in your hands.”

Mr. Bailey, (Mrs. Rudd’s original council) swore that he remembered to have seen Mrs. Hart with her in Newgate, that he understood Mrs. Hart dictated every line Mrs. Rudd wrote; that he kept a copy of the scheme, but thought it too wild and romantic to be paid any regard to. That the next day he shewed that copy to Mr. Davenport, and in a word contradicted almost every thing that Christian Hart had sworn: Yet Mr. Bailey went to Hart’s house in the evening, saw the husband, and talked with him on the subject of those papers.—Isabella Wright saw Mrs. Hart in Mrs. Rudd’s room, but could not remember when, or how often; but she seemed rather to confirm Mr. Bailey’s evidence.

Several persons were now called to Mrs. Rudd’s character, the first of whom, a Miss Nightingale, deposed, that she knew Mrs. Rudd before she parted from her husband; that soon after she was in indigent circumstances but in October 1770, she had a considerable legacy left her by a friend, and was in the receipt of 600l. a year; and that she knew her to receive 7700l. from the hands of the trustee; but she refused to disclose the name of the testator or trustee.

Sir Richard Aston recapitulated the evidence with remarkable accuracy, missing only one little circumstance of which he was reminded of by Mr. Walsh, a juryman, who had during the trial attended with uncommon care to each matter related by the witnesses, frequently asking very sensible questions, and making pertinent observations. After Sir Richard had fully and most impartially gone through the long series of notes which he had taken, he observed to the jury; that there were two circumstances only for their consideration. The fact of forgery, and the fact of publication—With regard to the former; that the bond was forged was fully proved, but that the prisoner forged it rested only on presumption. Sir Richard observed, that where a person accused of forgery was innocent, but where it was proved that they held the forged instrument, it was incumbent on him or her to remove the suspicion arising from a concatenation of circumstances, by proving how he or she came possessed of the forged instrument; with regard to the publication he remarked, that Mrs. Perreau’s evidence was in part corroborated by Cassidy, who proved the impatience of Mrs. Rudd to see Mr. Perreau after his return from Sir Tho. Frankland; he further remarked, that the note had been obtained on the credit of the bond, had been fully established.—After pointing out the flat contradiction in the different evidence of Christian Hart, John Hart, Counsellor Bailey, and Arabella Wright, and shewing that, whatever party be foresworn, it did not materially affect the verdict, although it certainly gave the conduct of that side who were in the wrong a very bad appearance, he observed, that the whole matter was at the disposal of the jury, who would duly weigh each circumstance; and if they had any doubt in their minds of the validity of the proof of criminalty, they would naturally incline to the side of mercy. After being out about half an hour, they brought in their verdict—According to the evidence before us, Not Guilty.

The four other indictments against Mrs. Rudd, were then read over, and the verdict of not guilty returned immediately to each of them; she was in consequence discharged, amidst the loudest, and most extravagant plaudits ever heard.

The counsel for the prosecution were, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Murphy, and Mr. Howarth.—For the prisoner, Serjeant Davy, Mr. Davenport, and Mr. Cooper.

Mrs. Rudd was neatly dressed in second mourning. During her trial she wrote near fifty notes to her counsel, and displayed the most astonishing composure ever seen on a similar occasion.