|
Eliza Fenning – hanged for attempted murder. |
Elizabeth
Fenning (always known as Eliza) was an attractive 20
year old girl who worked as the cook in the household of Robert and Charlotte
Turner in London's Chancery Lane. Robert Turner was a law stationer and
employed a housemaid, Sarah Peer, and two male apprentices, all of whom “lived
in.”
On the 21st of March 1815, Eliza prepared rump steak, potatoes and dumplings
for lunch. Robert Turner's father, Haldebart, had come to dine with his son and daughter in
law that day and soon after eating the dumplings, the whole family were
suffering severe stomach pains and vomiting.
Eliza and Roger Gadsden, one of the apprentices, were in similar
condition in the kitchen having eaten some of the dumplings. They were all
attended by the doctor and made full recoveries.
Mr. Turner senior suspected that they had been poisoned as a packet of arsenic
kept in his desk drawer had recently gone missing. Arsenic and other poisons
were freely available in those days and were often bought for killing vermin.
He asked the doctor to examine the contents of the pan in which Eliza had
cooked the dumplings. As he thought, it contained arsenic, and Eliza was
arrested on the 23rd of March and charged with attempted murder.
She was taken before a magistrate and committed for trial at the Old Bailey at
the April Sessions, being remanded in custody to Newgate prison next door in
the meantime.
Trial.
She
was tried before the Recorder of London on the 5th of April 1815.
Mrs. Charlotte Turner told the court that she suspected that Eliza had been seeking vengeance on the
family after she had discovered her in the room of two of the apprentices one
night in a partly dressed state and threatened to dismiss her. Charlotte told the court that Eliza had
remained sullen and disrespectful towards her after this. She also said that Eliza had asked to be
allowed to make some yeast dumplings for the family on several occasions. On
Monday, the 20th of March, she came into the dining room and said the brewer
had brought some yeast so on the Tuesday morning, Charlotte agreed to the
dumplings being made and directed that they were to be mixed with milk and
water. Charlotte testified that Eliza
was alone in the kitchen while the dumplings were being prepared. About three
o'clock, the family sat down to lunch and the dumplings were brought to the
table. Charlotte remarked to Sarah Peer that “they were black and heavy,
instead of white and light.” She told the
court that after only eating less than a quarter of the dumpling “she felt an
extreme burning pain in her stomach, which increased every minute.” It became
so bad she was obliged to leave the table and go upstairs. Other members of the family recounted similar
stories in evidence.
The Turners kept a packet of arsenic in an unlocked drawer in the office, to
control the mice that infested it, which the court was told was clearly
labelled as poison. It was determined by
the judge
that Eliza could read and write and
would, therefore, have been able to know what was written on the packet.
William Thisselton, who had arrested Eliza, told the
court that he had asked her whether she suspected there was anything in the
flour. She said she had made a beef steak pie that day with the same flour that
she had made the dumplings, and she said she thought it was in the yeast, she
saw a red sediment at the bottom of the yeast after
she had used it.
The next person to give evidence was Mr. John Marshall, the surgeon who
attended the family on the evening of the 21st of March. He testified that he arrived at their house
at about 8.45 p.m. and found Mr. and Mrs. Turner very ill, with symptoms such
as would be produced by arsenic. He also said that he found Eliza ill and
showing the same symptoms. The following
morning Mr. Haldebart Turner showed Mr. Marshall the
dish the dumplings had been made in which the surgeon
washed out with a tea kettle of warm water. He let it stand and then subside
and then decanted off the liquid in which he found half a tea spoon of white
powder which he determined was arsenic.
This was the extent of the prosecution case against Eliza.
It should be remembered that there was no defence team in those days and Eliza
was not represented by counsel. She simply made a statement to the court
herself. She told the judge, “My lord, I am truly innocent of all the
charge, as God is my witness; I am innocent, indeed I am; I liked my place, I
was very comfortable; as to my master saying I did not assist him, I was too
ill. I had no concern with the drawer at all; when I wanted a piece of paper I
always asked for it.” She called 4
witnesses who swore to her previous good character.
The
Newgate Calendar tells us that the Recorder summed up to the jury as follows,
"Gentlemen, you have now heard the evidence given on this trial, and the
case lies in a very narrow compass.
There are but two questions for your consideration, and these are,
whether poison was administered, in all, to four persons, and by what hand such
poison was given. That these persons were poisoned appears certain from the
evidence of Mrs Charlotte Turner, Haldebart Turner,
Roger Gadsden, the apprentice, and Robert Turner; for each of these persons ate
of the dumplings, and were all more or less affected - that is, they were every
one poisoned. That the poison was in the dough of which these dumplings were
composed has been fully proved, I think, by the testimony of the surgeon who
examined the remains of the dough left in the dish in which the dumplings had
been mixed and divided; and he deposes that the powder which had subsided at
the bottom of the dish was arsenic. That the arsenic was not in the flour I
think appears plain, from the circumstance that the crust of a pie had been
made that very morning with some of the same flour of which the dumplings were
made and the persons who dined off the pie felt no inconvenience whatever; that
it was not in the yeast nor in the milk has been also proved; neither could it
be in the sauce, for two of the persons who were ill never touched a particle
of the sauce, and yet were violently affected with retching and sickness. From
all these circumstances it must follow that the poisonous ingredient was in the
dough alone; for, besides that the persons who partook of the dumplings at
dinner were all more or less affected by what they had eaten, it was observed
by one of the witnesses that the dough retained the same shape it had when
first put into the dish to rise, and that it appeared dark, and was heavy, and
in fact never did rise. The other question for your consideration is, by what
hand the poison was administered; and although we have nothing before us but
circumstantial evidence, yet it often happens that circumstances are more
conclusive than the most positive testimony. The prisoner, when taxed with
poisoning the dumplings, threw the blame first on the milk, next on the yeast,
and then on the sauce ; but it has been proved, most satisfactorily, that none
of these contained it, and that it was in the dumplings alone, which no person
but the prisoner had made. Gentlemen, if poison had been given even to a dog,
one would suppose that common humanity would have prompted us to assist it in
its agonies : here is the case of a master and a mistress being both poisoned,
and no assistance was offered. Gentlemen, I have now stated all the facts as
they have arisen, and I leave the case in your hands, being fully persuaded
that, whatever your verdict may be, you will conscientiously discharge your
duty both to your God and to your country." After a few minutes deliberation the jury
returned a verdict of guilty.
After her conviction, Eliza was returned to Newgate where she wrote to her
fiancée. "They have, which is the
most cruellest thing in this world, brought me in guilty". She went on, "I may be confined most
likely six months at least". However, on the following day (the last day
of the Sessions) the Recorder sentenced her to be hanged by the neck until she
was dead. Journalists in court recorded, "She was carried from the dock
convulsed with agony and uttering frightful screams." Eliza was taken back
to Newgate and put in the condemned cell. At this time many crimes, including
attempted murder, still carried the death penalty. However, Eliza could have had
her sentence commuted to transportation to the colonies. Attempted murder
remained a capital offence up to 1861.
There was considerable public disquiet over the verdict and sentence and
various appeals were made for clemency to the Prince Regent, the Home Secretary
and the Lord Chancellor, but all were rejected and the morning of Wednesday, the 26th of July
1815, was set for her execution. In 1815, William Hone had started the
“Traveller” newspaper, in which he campaigned to save Eliza.
Execution.
During
the early hours of the Wednesday morning, the large portable gallows was
brought out of Newgate and made ready outside the Debtor's Door. It was normal
for prisoners to be hanged in groups for unconnected crimes although this was
to be the only triple hanging of 1815, a year in which 12 people were executed
at Newgate. (Click here for a typical execution scene at Newgate at that
time). Long before 8 o'clock, hoards of people were thronging the streets and
jostling for the best positions from which to witness the executions.
Eliza was led from the condemned cell into the Press Yard around 8.00 a.m.
where her hands were pinioned. She was dressed in a white muslin gown with a
high waist, tied with a fashionable ribbon, a white muslin cap, and wearing a
pair of high laced lilac boots. This was her wedding outfit and she was to have
been married on this day, instead she was to be hanged. From the Press Yard, it
was a short walk to the steps of the scaffold. The Reverent Horace Cotton, the
Ordinary of Newgate, accompanied her and asked her if she had anything to
communicate to him in her final moments. She told him :
"Before the just and Almighty God, and by the faith of the Holy Sacrament
I have taken, I am innocent of the offence with which I am charged." She
proceeded up the steps of the gallows and the large crowd who had come to see
her die fell silent. She stood calmly while the Reverent Cotton intoned prayers
for her. John Langley, the hangman, drew the traditional white cotton nightcap
over her head. Owing to the size of her muslin cap, he was unable to get it on.
He then tried to bind a muslin handkerchief over her face but it proved too
small. Then he pulled out his own dirty pocket handkerchief to tie over her
face. This disgusted her, "Pray do not let him put it on, Mr.
Cotton!" she implored. "Pray make him take it off. Pray do, Mr.
Cotton!" "My dear, it must be on. He must put it on," Cotton
told her. So she now stood silently, with her arms bound, while the dirty
handkerchief was tied over her face. Then Langley placed the rope around her
neck. She continued to wait stoically, pinioned and noosed, praying with the
Ordinary while the other two criminals who were to hang with her, 51 year old
Abraham Adams, convicted of sodomy and 24 year old William Oldfield, who was
"guilty of an odious crime" – the rape of a nine year old girl, were
prepared. Oldfield had apparently asked permission to hang beside her. As the
noose was placed around his neck, Oldfield continued to rave and chant prayers.
Just before the drop fell, she told Dr. Cotton once again that she was
innocent.
At around 8.30 a.m., when the preparations were complete, Langley withdrew the
pin releasing the trap and giving the prisoners a drop of about 12-18 inches.
It was reported that Eliza died easily, "almost without writhing". Click here for an artist's impression of the hanging. In those
halcyon days, the sentence of the court meant what it said - not an execution
that was all over in 15 seconds and carried out in such a way as to minimise
the prisoner's emotional and physical suffering.
After her execution, the following paragraph appeared in a London evening paper :-
"We should deem ourselves wanting in justice, and a due respect for government,
if we did not state that, in consequence of the many applications from the
friends of this unhappy young woman who this day suffered the sentence of the
law, a meeting took place yesterday at Lord Sidmouth's
office, at which the Lord Chancellor, the recorder, and Mr Beckett were
present. A full and minute investigation of the case, we understand, took
place, and of all that had been urged in her favour by private individuals; but
the result was a decided conviction that nothing had occurred which could
justify an interruption of the due course of justice. So anxious was the Lord
Chancellor in particular to satisfy his own mind, and put a stop to all doubts
on the part of the people at large, that another meeting was held by the same
parties last night, when they came to the same determination, and in
consequence the unfortunate culprit suffered the penalty of the law."
Her father had to pay 14s. 6d. (72p) as "executioner's fees" before
he could obtain his daughter's dead body for burial. She was buried 5 days
later, on the 31st in the churchyard of St George the Martyr in London, and her
funeral was attended by several thousand people, such was the feeling of
injustice done to her.
Comment.
Writing
190 years after the event, even with the benefit of the newly released trial
transcript, it is difficult to be sure whether Eliza was guilty or not. What is interesting is that a lot of people
at the time had serious doubts about her guilt, including if the above report
is to be believed, the Lord Chancellor.
Eliza was one of 6 women hanged nationally in 1815 so the execution of a
woman was hardly a rare event. Four of
these women were executed for murder and one for arson. Generally there did not seem to be any great
public sympathy for women who had been sentenced to death. Admittedly Eliza’s looks and youth may have
brought forth some, but many of the women hanged at this time were young.
The evidence against Eliza was circumstantial (as it usually was at this time)
and principally given by people who were at least somewhat hostile to her.
It is unlikely that Eliza was having an affair with one of the apprentices (as
alleged by Mrs. Turner) as she was engaged and due to be married. Unless we
accept that Eliza had a wish to take revenge on Mrs. Turner for reprimanding
her, by poisoning the family, what motive for the crime is left? Eliza risked
her own life by eating a dumpling, if she knew it contained arsenic and also
became ill, she almost certainly would not have known how much arsenic would be
required to kill the family - how many people would?
Was Mrs. Turner jealous of Eliza's good looks and wanted rid of her, for fear
of her husband having an affair with her?
It has also been alleged that Robert Turner had become mentally unbalanced and
decided to kill the whole family but we have no proof of this.
Obviously at this remove, we will never know who put the arsenic in the
dumpling pan or at what stage in the proceedings. Was it put in there at the cooking stage or
afterwards - the pan was not examined until the following day. Neither do we
know whether the doctor was brow beaten into finding arsenic by Mr. Turner to
protect his son’s reputation. Was Eliza simply a convenient scapegoat?
There may even be a simpler explanation altogether - food poisoning! We do know
that refrigerators hadn't been invented in 1815 and that deaths through food
poisoning and gastro-enteritis were common place at that time due to the poor
standards of public hygiene.
It is noteworthy that since poisons have been very strictly controlled (from
the 1920's onward), the number of murders by poisoning has reduced to virtually
nil and it is now a very rare crime.
