On Thursday 23 September 1875 a man called Thomas Stockdale was a greengrocer who rented a large double fronted house on Greasbrough Street, Thornhill, Masbrough. The house was so large that members of his extended family also lived in it. Consequently in at the house at the time was Thomas (aged 27) his wife, Emma (27) and his daughter Charlotte (2). His father-in-law James Brunt (63) his wife Susannah (63) their daughter Margaret (18) and an unnamed granddaughter (3). Also at the house was Elizabeth Jenkinson (25) the other married daughter of James Brunt, her husband Thomas Jenkinson and their son, also called Thomas (3). Not only did the families live together, but they also ate together around a large table in the dining room. That day Mrs Brunt had made a delicious broth for dinner using a large saucepan, consisting of a sheep’s head, leeks, parsnips, turnip and pearl barley. However it was not long into the meal before little Charlotte Brunt became ill, but as fruit was sold at the house, no one took much notice of it and just assumed she had eaten too much. However shortly afterwards other members of the family started to be violently sick. Not only were all the members of the family gravely ill, but also a neighbour who worked for Thomas Stockdale named Francis Duke. He had been given some of the broth before the family sat down to eat. As soon as the children were taken poorly, Mrs Brunt went to his house, but he had eaten a whole basin full and was already vomiting.

Mr John Branson the surgeon of Masbrough quickly attended the family and he immediately applied emetics and a stomach pump to all those who were ill. So serious was their condition that he stayed the whole of the afternoon and far into the night, and did not leave until nine of them were out of danger. Sadly, Thomas Jenkinson, the son of Elizabeth died about 6 pm and his death was reported to the Rotherham coroner. At that time surgeon Mr Branson was unable to give a reason for the illness of the family, as Mrs Brunt told him that nothing but the best ingredients had been used in the meal. When the news became known in the area of Masbrough, it caused great consternation and several suggestions were put forward to account for the condition of the victims. At first it was suggested that perhaps the sheep’s head was not as fresh as it should have been, but although wild stories circulated no one really knew. An inquest was held on Friday 23 September 1875 at the Phoenix Hotel, Masbrough before the coroner Mr D Wightman on the child Thomas Robert Jenkinson. The coroner took evidence on the identification of the child, but then told the inquest that he could do little until a post mortem had been done on the body. In order for this to be completed, he then postponed the formal enquiry until Monday 27 September.

At the second inquest Mr William Henry Pearce, surgeon of Rotherham stated that he had undertaken a post mortem on the deceased child along with Mr Branson. He found the stomach and bowels congested as if from an irritant poison. He arranged for these items to be placed in a glass jar and sealed in front of Police Inspector Hey, who then took them to Mr William Baker an analytical chemist from Sheffield. Mr Pearce told the inquest that there were no marks of violence upon the child, nor anything else which might have contributed to his death. The other surgeon, Mr Branson confirmed his colleagues findings and reported that thankfully the other nine people involved in the accident were now making good progress and were expected to survive. The coroner at this point said to Mr Branson:

‘I must say there is a great deal of credit due to you for the very prompt steps you took in this matter. I have it on very high authority  from Mr Baker who told me this morning, that he had very little doubt but for your prompt action, a good number of these people would have died. I am very happy to tell you here that I consider your conduct has been extremely satisfactory’.

However it was the analytic chemist Mr Baker who next gave evidence, that finally revealed what the poisonous substance had been. He told the coroner that he had received from Inspector Hey the glass jar containing the stomach and bowels of the deceased child. Mr Baker had also been handed a large saucepan containing some of the broth and a basin containing vomited matter. Incredibly the analyst informed the coroner that those items all contained a large amount of arsenic and that there was enough to poison twenty persons. However he admitted that he could not account for how the arsenic had got into the boys stomach in the first place.

Finally the mystery was solved with the evidence of the next witnesses. Mrs Susannah Brunt who told the inquest that she made a broth in a large saucepan, which the day before, had been used for washing purposes. She said that, as was usual the family’s clothes had been boiled or soaked in a large second hand tub. Some of the clothes had then been transferred into the large saucepan, although Mrs Brunt swore that she had cleaned the pan out well before making the meal. The coroner asked her what she had used to clean the pan, but she admitted that it was only cold water. A man named Thomas Waller from Masbrough then told the inquest that a few weeks previously he had been asked by Mrs Emma Stockdale to get her a large tub for washing the families clothes in. Waller said that he was a coal miner but had previously worked at Beatsons Glass Works where he knew such tubs were sold for 9d. Although Waller found such a tub on the glass works premises and had the permission from the manager Mr Thornton to buy it, it was not quite empty. He asked another man to empty it for him, which he did, before washing out the tub in cold water. Waller admitted to the coroner that after it had been washed, he noted that there was some white residue left in it. Mary Ann Brunt, the wife of James Brunt’s son George told the court that her husband was a glass blower at the glass works and she had first used the tub for washing the week before. She had often seen such large tubs at her neighbours houses and when not used for washing they were often used to catch rain water in. Only since the accident had she been told that such tubs were used to keep arsenic and potash in at the glass works. The Rotherham Superintendent of Police Mr Gillot asked her if she used soap powder in the boiling of the clothes and she said that she did. He then told the coroner that Mr Baker had commented that the action of the soap had caused the arsenic to act more keenly than it would have normally done.

The coroner in summing up told the jury that he did not think it necessary to call any more witnesses before them, as there was little doubt as to how the child and the other persons came to be poisoned. It was obvious how it had got into the broth and evident that there was no criminal intention meant. However he condemned the selling of such tubs, and stated that he intended to write to the glass works about such indiscriminate sales. The coroner concluded that no doubt the firm would know about the case from the reports in the newspapers and may have already stopped selling such dangerous tubs. The jury returned  verdict that the child had been ‘poisoned by arsenic, inadvertently administered in a broth’. They added an appendage that:

‘the said jurors further say that the indiscriminate selling of casks which have contained arsenic by the firm of Messrs Beatson and Co., is dangerous and ought to be discontinued’.

 Thankfully we are more aware of how dangerous such substances such as arsenic is today, but to the Victorians it was often used by women as cosmetics to enhance their complexion. It was freely available to buy over the counter of chemists shops. Little did Mrs Brunt realise that she was risking the life of her nephew for such a pitiful amount of money. No doubt it would make her reflect on her ‘bargain’ and the huge cost it had made on her family.