The Household and the Incident
Elizabeth Fenning (always known as Eliza) was an attractive and petite girl who worked as the cook in the household of Robert and Charlotte Turner in London’s Chancery Lane. Eliza’s age is variously given as 20, 21, and 22 years.
Robert Turner was a law stationer and also employed a housemaid, Sarah Peer, plus two male apprentices, Roger Gadsden and Thomas King, all of whom “lived in.”
Eliza had worked for the Turners for some seven weeks before the poisoning incident occurred.
On the 21st of March 1815, Eliza prepared rump steak, potatoes, and dumplings for the family’s lunch to be served at 3 p.m. She had made a beefsteak pie for the servants’ lunch, the crust of which had been made from the same flour as the dumplings and was eaten by them without any ill effects.
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 began suffering severe stomach pains and vomiting.
Eliza and Roger Gadsden were in similar condition in the kitchen, having also eaten some of the dumplings. Roger had started to eat a dumpling, but Eliza persuaded him to stop on the basis that they had not risen.
He was well enough to go to Lambeth and fetch Mr. Turner senior’s wife, Margaret, to come to the family’s aid. The victims of the poison were all attended that evening by the family doctor, John Marshall, and all made full recoveries.
Suspicion and Arrest
Mr. Turner suspected that they had been poisoned, as a packet of arsenic kept in an office drawer had recently gone missing.
Arsenic and other poisons were freely available in those days and were often bought for killing vermin.
The following day he asked the doctor to examine the contents of the pan in which Eliza had cooked the dumplings. As he thought, there was a strong suspicion that it contained arsenic.
Eliza was arrested on the 23rd of March by William Thisselton and charged with attempted murder.
She was examined before a magistrate at Hatton Garden on Thursday the 30th of March and committed for trial at the Old Bailey at the April Sessions, being remanded in custody to Newgate Prison in the meantime.
The Old Bailey Trial
She was tried before Sir John Sylvester, the Recorder of London, at the Sessions on Tuesday the 11th of April 1815, on four counts of administering poison with intent to murder.
Mrs. Charlotte Turner told the court that she suspected 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, which Charlotte had not ordered, 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 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 their evidence.
Evidence and Testimony
The Turners kept a packet of arsenic in an unlocked drawer in the office to control the mice that infested that room, 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 in the packet. Also kept in the same drawer was scrap paper used for fire lighting. Eliza regularly went to the drawer to get paper for this purpose, according to Sarah Peer.
Roger Gadsden told the court that:
“Tuesday, the 21st of March, I went into the kitchen between three and four in the afternoon; I had dined at two (on the beefsteak pie). I observed there a plate on the table with a dumpling and a half; I took a knife and fork up, and was going to cut it to eat it; the prisoner exclaimed, Gadsden, do not eat that, it is cold and heavy, it will do you no good. I ate a piece about as big as a walnut; there was a small quantity of sauce in the boat; I put a bit of bread in it, and sopped it up, and ate it; this might be twenty minutes after three.”
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 beefsteak pie that day with the same flour she had used for the dumplings, and she thought it was in the yeast — she saw a red sediment at the bottom of the yeast after she had used it, or alternatively in the milk that Sarah Peer had purchased.
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 teaspoon of white powder, which he determined was arsenic.
It had been noted that the knives the family had used at lunch were blackened. Dr. Marshall was asked, “Will arsenic, if it is cut with a knife, produce on the knife the colour of blackness?” to which he answered, “I have no doubt of it.”
He examined the remains of the yeast but found there was no arsenic in it. This was the extent of the prosecution case against Eliza.
Forensic Limitations and Lack of Defense
The forensic evidence of arsenic was scant at best, there being no reliable chemical means of detecting arsenic prior to the development of the Marsh test in 1836.
It should be remembered that there was no defense team in those days, and Eliza was not represented by counsel. She simply made a statement to the court herself:
“My lord, I am truly innocent of all the charges, 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 four witnesses who testified to her previous good character.
The Judge’s Summing Up and Verdict
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…
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…
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. The trial transcript recorded the verdict and sentence as:
“Guilty” — “Death, aged 20.”
Imprisonment and Sentence
After her conviction, Eliza was returned to the Female Felons’ Side at Newgate, where she wrote to her fiancé:
“They have, which is the most cruellest thing in this world, brought me in guilty. I may be confined most likely six months at least.”
However, on Friday the 14th of April (the last day of the Sessions), the Recorder sentenced Eliza (and 13 others) 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 one of the female condemned cells.
At this time, many non-fatal crimes, including attempted murder, still carried the death penalty under Lord Ellenborough’s Act 1803 (a precedent seen in other cases such as William Griffith on Anglesey in 1830).
Attempted murder remained a capital offence in Britain until 1861. However, condemned prisoners frequently had their sentences commuted to transportation to the penal colonies.
Public Outcry, Appeals, and Execution
While in Newgate, Eliza maintained her absolute innocence in letters to her family and fiancé, William Oldfield.
A huge public campaign arose on her behalf. Many citizens, including influential reformers and chemists, pointed out that Eliza had eaten the dumplings herself and suffered the same violent poisoning symptoms as the rest of the household, which made a deliberate murder plot highly improbable.
Petitions with thousands of signatures were delivered to the Home Secretary, Lord Sidmouth, pleading for a reprieve. However, the authorities refused to commute the sentence, fearing that yielding would undermine the authority of the judiciary.
On the morning of Wednesday, 26 July 1815, Eliza Fenning was led out through the Debtor’s Door of Newgate Prison dressed entirely in white, wearing a muslin bridal gown that had been made for her wedding.
She was publicly executed on the gallows alongside two men by hangman John Foxton, using the short drop.
She continued to protest her innocence to the very last moment.
Burial, Public Fury, and Aftermath
A vast and sympathetic crowd, estimated at tens of thousands, gathered outside Newgate, and deep murmurs of grief and anger swept the spectators as she was executed.
Her body was returned to her parents and buried in the churchyard of St George the Martyr in Bloomsbury on 31 July 1815.
An estimated 10,000 to 20,000 mourners escorted her coffin through the streets in an extraordinary public demonstration against what was widely seen as a judicial murder.
The execution of Eliza Fenning became one of the most famous miscarriages of justice in 19th-century Britain, frequently cited by legal reformers and abolitionists as a prime example of the dangers of capital punishment on purely circumstantial evidence.
Decades later, public hangings outside Newgate were abolished entirely following the execution of Catherine Wilson in 1862 and Michael Barrett in 1868.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who was Eliza Fenning?
Eliza (Elizabeth) Fenning was a 20-year-old cook employed by law stationer Robert Turner in Chancery Lane, London, who was convicted and executed in 1815 for attempting to poison the household with arsenic-tainted yeast dumplings.
Did anyone die in the Chancery Lane poisoning?
No. All members of the Turner household, as well as Eliza Fenning and a house apprentice who ate the dumplings, suffered severe vomiting and abdominal pain but made full recoveries.
Why was Eliza Fenning sentenced to death if no one died?
Under Lord Ellenborough’s Act 1803, administering poison or attempting murder with malice aforethought was a capital felony carrying a mandatory death sentence, even if the victim survived. Attempted murder remained a capital crime in England until 1861.
Why is the execution of Eliza Fenning considered a notorious miscarriage of justice?
Eliza ate the dumplings herself and became gravely ill alongside the family, which strongly suggested accidental contamination rather than an intentional murder attempt. Furthermore, she had no legal representation at her trial, the forensic evidence was primitive and unverified, and substantial evidence pointed toward an unbalanced relative of the family who later reportedly confessed to the deed on his deathbed.
Where and when was Eliza Fenning executed?
She was publicly hanged outside the Debtor’s Door of Newgate Prison on the morning of Wednesday, 26 July 1815, dressed in a white bridal gown, before a massive crowd of sympathetic onlookers.
Support the Archive
If you have found this article useful and would like to help preserve and maintain this historical archive, please consider supporting the site.