Blog

Part of my occasional series of newspaper articles from the Norwich Mercury from 200 years ago this week.

The year 1825 saw the Neal family – Mary, and her adult children Susan and William – at the centre of a grave accusation which was the attempted murder of shoemaker William Halls (or Hales) and his family through arsenic poisoning. Arsenic, readily available and difficult to detect in that era, was a feared agent of clandestine violence, and its alleged use in this case invoked particular societal horror. The crime was not only shocking for its malicious intent but also for its familial dimension, with a mother and her children implicated in a conspiracy against their neighbour and employer. The trial was held at the Great Yarmouth Quarter Sessions and presiding over the whole arrangement was Robert Alderson.

This is quite a long and interesting article from the newspaper, which I’ll quote in full:

“From its being generally known that the trial of the Neals for poisoning would be the first on Friday morning, the Court was crowded to excess, and the Recorder took his seat. Mary Neal, aged 42, Susan Neal, aged 21, and William Neal, aged 18, were placed at the bar, charged with having feloniously put a quantity of white arsenic into a boiler containing beef broth, with intent to cause the death of William Hales and his family. It appeared in evidence that Mr. Hales is a cordwainer, residing in Howard-street, Yarmouth.

His family consisted of himself, Mrs. Hales, three children, and a servant. On the day previous to that on which his family were taken ill, Mrs. Hales boiled a piece of beef in an iron boiler for dinner, of which they all partook, but they did not experience any illness from it. The liquor in which the beef was boiled remained in the boiler, as Mrs. Hales intended to make it into soup the following day for the family. The boiler was placed in a room under the keeping room, and in which Mr. Hales and his apprentices worked at their business. On the following morning the boiler was put upon the fire a short time before dinner, with the liquor in it, and when hot, Mrs. Hales took about a teacup full out of the boiler to taste, and gave her little boy (about three years of age) some at the same time. The servant was then ordered to put in the different ingredients to make it into soup.

In about ten minutes after Mrs. Hales had taken the liquor, the little boy complained of illness, she therefore took him up-stairs and laid him down on the bed. Mrs. Hales had scarcely done this when she herself was taken ill. Mr. Hales, with his other two children and servant girl, then sat down to dinner, having of course no idea of the cause of Mrs. Hales’ illness. They all at table partook of this soup, and shortly after they were seized with similar symptoms, which caused Mr. Hales to suspect they had been poisoned. He therefore immediately sent for a surgeon, who, on his arrival, administered proper antidotes, which had the desired effect, or a few hours more would have terminated their existence. The whole family were under the surgeon’s hands for some time, but Mrs. Hales and one of the children still retain the effects of the poison, and are very likely to do so. The surgeon took the remaining part of the soup out of the boiler, some of which he gave to a dog, which immediately ejected it: the remainder he submitted to Mr. Davies, an eminent chemist on the Quay, who, on analysing it, found it to be deeply impregnated with white arsenic. It was afterwards discovered that Mrs. Neal and her daughter had purchased a pennyworth of arsenic at the shop of Mr. Suthern, a chemist in Gaol Street.

They were in consequence, with Mr. Hales’ apprentice, immediately taken into custody, and on their examination before the Mayor, Mrs. Neal stated she was not troubled with rats or mice, nor did she know what arsenic was; but on her being confronted with the young man who sold her the poison, she could no longer conceal the fact, but she said she bought it to kill the mice with which her house was troubled; she, however, had previously stated that they had none in the house. On being questioned as to what they had done with the poison, an altercation ensued between the mother and daughter, as to the possession of it, the mother saying she gave it to the daughter, and the daughter saying she gave it to her mother; the daughter, however, at last informed the officer where he might find it, and on going to the house he discovered it on the top of the clock-case. On examining the paper in which it was enveloped, the chemist’s assistant stated that about one half of the quantity which Mrs. Neal and her daughter received had been taken out. Mrs. Neal stated that the part missing from the paper had been put on some bread and butter, and placed in different parts of the house, for the destruction of the mice.

Mr. Hales stated that he had been lately compelled to take Wm. Neal, his apprentice, before the Mayor, for misconduct at two different periods, and that his mother wished him to leave, but that he refused to give up his indenture. On the evening previous to the day on which the family were poisoned, Mr. Hales went to his club, leaving Wm. Neal in the kitchen alone, where he was asked, and where the boiler was placed with the liquor in it. The apprentice did not board or lodge with the family. Mr. Hales also stated that Mrs. Neal, the mother, had contracted a debt with him, for the settlement of which he had repeatedly pressed her, but he had as repeatedly been abused by her; and she had lately expressed her fears to a neighbour that he intended to summon her before the Court of Requests. The whole of the evidence against the prisoners being entirely circumstantial, the Recorder stated the law upon the case with his usual ability and perspicuity, and left it to the Jury to consider whether the prisoners at the bar were guilty or not guilty of the dreadful offence of which they stood charged.—The Jury deliberated for a short time, and returned a verdict of guilty against all the prisoners. Sentence of Death was therefore recorded. This trial commenced at half-past nine in the morning, and did not terminate until half-past six in the evening.”

The crime is one of the most infamous that took place in the town in the nineteenth century and it was followed widely with some considerable interest. The sentence was the final ever death sentence issued by the Great Yarmouth Sessions Court as it lost that power in 1835. And, in this case, it was decided to commute the sentences to transportation. They were held at the Tolhouse Gaol in Great Yarmouth and then sent to Australia for life on different ships.

Mary Neal, the mother, was assigned to the female convict ship Midas which sailed from London on 24 July 1825 carrying 108 convicts. The ship’s master was James Baigrie, and the surgeon superintendent responsible for the health of the convicts was Charles Cameron and he noted that Mary was “very much emaciated” and she unfortunately died en route on 5 October 1825. The fate of Susan Neal, the daughter, isn’t known but there’s a high chance that she also died during transportation.

William Neal, the son, was sent on the convict ship the Medway on 2 August 1825, arriving in Van Diemen’s Land (Tasmania) on 14 December 1825. He married Eliza (Clayton) Rowley on 31 December 31 1847, in Avoca, Tasmania. At the time of his marriage, his occupation was listed as a shoemaker which was the very trade he was learning as an apprentice under Mr. Hales, the man he was convicted of trying to poison. He and Eliza had several children and I do wonder whether he actually ended up having a better life with more opportunities than he might have had staying in Great Yarmouth.