Chronicles of Newgate, Vol. 2: From the eighteenth century to its demolitionGriffiths, Arthur
History
Chronicles of Newgate, Vol. 2: From the eighteenth century to its demolition
Griffiths, Arthur
Criminals -- Great Britain; Newgate (Prison : London, England); Prisons -- England; Punishment -- Great Britain
The crime of poisoning has always been viewed with peculiar loathing
and terror in this country. It will be remembered that as far back as
the reign of Henry VIII a new and most cruel penalty was devised for
the punishment of the Bishop of Rochester's cook, who had poisoned his
master and many of his dependents. Sir Thomas Overbury was undoubtedly
poisoned by Lord Rochester in the reign of James I, and it is hinted
that James himself nearly fell a victim to a nefarious attempt of the
Duke of Buckingham. But secret poisoning on a wholesale scale such
as was practised in Italy and France was happily never popularized
in England. The well-known and lethal aqua Toffania, so called after
its inventress, a Roman woman named Toffania, and which was so widely
adopted by ladies anxious to get rid of their husbands, was never
introduced into this country. Its admission was probably checked by
the increased vigilance at the custom houses, the necessity for which
was urged by Mr. Addison, when Secretary of State, in 1717. The cases
of poisoning in the British calendars are rare, nor indeed was the
guilt of the accused always clearly established. It is quite possible
that Catherine Blandy, who poisoned her father at the instigation of
her lover, was ignorant of the destructive character of the powders,
probably arsenic, which she administered. Captain Donellan, who was
convicted of poisoning his brother-in-law, Sir Theodosius Broughton,
and executed for it, would probably have had the benefit in these
days of the doubts raised at his trial. A third case, more especially
interesting to us as having passed through Newgate, was that of Eliza
Fenning, who was convicted of an attempt to poison a whole family by
putting arsenic in the dumplings she had prepared for them. The charge
rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, and as Fenning, although
convicted and executed, protested her innocence in the most solemn
manner to the last, the justice of the sentence was doubted at the
time. Yet it was clearly proved that the dumplings contained arsenic,
that she, and she alone, had made the dough, that arsenic was within
her reach in the house, that she had had a quarrel with her mistress,
and that the latter with all others who tasted the dumplings were
similarly attacked, although no one died.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account