1787–1889 by Gay Evans

Between the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, poison became one of the most feared methods of murder in Britain. Arsenic, widely available in homes, farms, medicine, and industry, offered a silent and difficult-to-detect way of killing. Unlike knives or guns, poison left little immediate evidence, allowing murderers to act within ordinary domestic settings. Four Derbyshire cases from 1787 to 1889 reveal not only the devastating consequences of poisoning but also changing attitudes towards crime, justice, and punishment during this period.

CASE 1 – concerned the murder of John Grundy in Dale Abbey. John, a tailor, lived with his wife Mary and his younger brother Thomas, who worked with him. Over time, rumours spread of an improper relationship between Thomas and Mary. Seeing his brother as an obstacle, Thomas bought arsenic under the pretence of killing rats and mixed it into John’s meal of hashed mutton. While Thomas and Mary attended Shipley Wakes together, John unknowingly ate the poisoned food and died in agony the following day. Suspicion quickly fell on Thomas after his nervous behaviour and attempted escape. Eventually, he confessed that both he and Mary had planned the murder. Thomas was executed, and in his final statement he blamed his downfall on his immoral relationship with Mary. She was cleared of the crime after 20 people from the village testified in her favour.

CASE 2 – took place in Parwich in 1807 and involved William Webster, who poisoned several members of the Dakeyne/Dakin/Daykin family. Webster hoped that Thomas Dakin would die, freeing him from debt. He had two previous attempts to poison him, which were unsuccessful, then at the third try, he added arsenic to the tea consumed by the household. Two women, Elizabeth Dakin (his wife) and Mary Roe (his sister-in-law), died, while several others, including his four children, became seriously ill. At his trial, Webster was convicted and sentenced not only to execution but also to dissection under the Murder Act of 1752. His case demonstrates both the brutality of poisoning and the harsh punishments imposed on convicted murderers.

Case 3 – centred on Hannah Bocking, a sixteen-year-old girl from Litton. Driven by jealousy and resentment toward Jane Grant, who worked in a household where Hannah had once served, Hannah obtained arsenic from a local pharmacy by claiming it was needed for rats. She baked the poison into a spice cake and gave it to Jane, who soon died in severe pain. Before her death, Jane identified the cake as the source of her illness. During the trial, Hannah showed little remorse until after her conviction, when she confessed fully. She was sentenced to death and became one of the youngest women executed in Derby. Her body was also ordered for dissection, reflecting the belief that punishment should continue even after death.

CASE 4 – occurred in Swanwick in 1889 and involved the death of eight-year-old Kate Horton. Shortly before dying, Kate repeatedly told her sister and neighbour that her father, George Horton, had given her “blue medicine” from a bottle. Medical examination later confirmed that she had been poisoned with strychnine. Evidence suggested financial motives, as Kate’s life had been insured for more money than the cost of her funeral. Witness testimony also revealed that George Horton had spoken coldly about wanting to “get rid” of his children. Although the police never discovered where the poison had been obtained, Horton was convicted and executed, but not dissected due to a change in the law in 1832.

These cases also illustrate the development of law enforcement and public attitudes toward crime. Before the establishment of professional police forces in 1829, (1856 in Derbyshire), investigations relied heavily on parish constables, witness statements, coroners’ inquests, and confessions. Scientific methods such as fingerprinting and DNA analysis did not yet exist, making prosecutions dependent on circumstantial evidence and testimony.

The widespread availability of arsenic contributed greatly to these crimes. Before 1851, anyone could purchase it easily, often under the excuse of killing rats. Arsenic was used in medicine, farming, manufacturing, wallpaper, and household products. Growing fears about accidental and deliberate poisonings eventually led to the Arsenic Act of 1851, which restricted sales and required sellers to record purchases.

Together, these four cases reveal how poison transformed ordinary homes and communities into places of fear and suspicion. They also show how society responded with increasingly strict laws, harsher punishments, and greater regulation. Above all, they remain powerful reminders of the destructive effects of greed, jealousy, revenge, and desperation in human relationships.

Gay Evans 2026