A household at the Tower of London, being poisoned from within.

In 1691, members of the household of Thomas Dymock, Keeper of the Lions at the Tower of London, began falling violently ill.

Dymock himself was poisoned. His first wife, Jane, was secretly given poison while already sick and later died. Months afterwards, his new wife, his daughter and a maid became ill after eating gruel from the same kitchen. The household cat ate what remained and also died.

At the centre of the case was Edward Francis, a Black servant in Dymock’s household. His case appears to be the earliest surviving Old Bailey record of black-on-white violent crime, involving a Black man accused of deliberately trying to kill a white Englishman.

The surviving evidence is unusually detailed. Francis confessed to obtaining rat poison and introducing it into food and drink. According to Dymock’s testimony, he also admitted that he hoped Dymock’s death might secure his liberty.

The eventual punishment was unexpectedly slight.

Thomas Dymock held the unusual position of Keeper of the Lions at the Tower of London, where the royal menagerie had housed exotic animals for centuries.

Among the people attached to his household were African servants.

In December 1687, a notice appeared in the London Gazette concerning a sixteen year old Black boy who had run away from Dymock. The boy was described as wearing several coats, grey stockings and a silver collar engraved with Dymock’s name and the Lion Office. Two guineas were offered for his return.

The boy was not named, so it cannot be proved that he was Edward Francis. Historians have nevertheless suggested that the identification is likely.

If so, Francis had already attempted to escape Dymock’s household several years before the poisoning began.

Francis later admitted obtaining rat poison during the summer of 1691. He said another Black man named Tom, living near Mincing Lane, had told him that the substance would make people sick and cause vomiting.

Francis began putting it into food and drink consumed by Thomas Dymock and his wife Jane. Jane was already ill. Her condition worsened and she died in July 1691, being buried at the Chapel of St Peter ad Vincula before later being reinterred at St Vedast Foster Lane.

Thomas Dymock survived, but the poisoning continued.

In October 1691, Dymock married Rebecka Way and on the 10th January 1692, he asked Francis to warm some ale. After drinking it, Dymock became seriously ill.

Rebecka, Dymock’s daughter Ann and a maid named Johanna Lickfield then ate some watery gruel intended for Thomas. They also became sick. Lickfield later said the gruel seemed unusually hot or burning in her mouth and feared that she might never fully recover.

The household cat then ate what remained of the food, and also died. The possibility of deliberate poisoning could no longer be ignored.

According to his later testimony, Francis admitted using rat poison and confessed that he had also poisoned members of the household during the previous year. Dymock asked whether Francis had put the poison into his food intending to kill him. Francis reportedly answered yes.

Dymock then asked:

“Did you think to get your liberty by killing me?”

Again, Francis reportedly answered yes.

Francis was arrested and taken before Robert Lucas, Constable of the Tower.

On 16 January 1692, Francis was formally examined.

His confession survives among the City of London Sessions papers held by the London Metropolitan Archives, alongside evidence from Thomas and Rebecka Dymock and Johanna Lickfield.

Francis admitted obtaining the poison and using it against members of the household. The records describe him variously as Dymock’s “blackamoor servant”, “Servant the Black” and later, at the Old Bailey, “Edward Francis the Black.”

Francis apparently could not write his own name. At the bottom of his confession, he left his mark. It is one of the few physical traces of him that survives.

The outcome of the case is one of its strangest features. Francis was not convicted of murder or attempted murder.

He was convicted only of a misdemeanour and fined ten groats.

He remained imprisoned until the fine was paid. By June 1692, it had been settled, and the surviving Old Bailey record notes the discharge of:

“Edward Francis the Black.”

The result is difficult to reconcile with the seriousness of the allegations. Jane had been poisoned and later died. Thomas Dymock had been poisoned. Rebecka had been poisoned. Ann had been poisoned. Johanna Lickfield had been poisoned badly enough to fear lasting injury.

The household cat had died. Francis had admitted administering the poison. Yet the case ended with a fine.

Unfortunately, the most important Old Bailey proceedings from February and March 1692 are missing, so we do not know exactly how the prosecution was argued or why Francis escaped a more serious conviction.

Jane’s death could not be proved to have resulted from poisoning. Francis’s own formal confession also appears to have been less explicit about an intention to kill than Dymock’s account of their confrontation.

There may also have been a practical consideration. Francis appears to have been treated as Dymock’s property. Executing him would have destroyed something Dymock considered valuable.

Whether this affected the outcome is unknown.

Modern accounts tend to place Francis within the history of slavery and resistance in Restoration London.

There is clear evidence for that context. The runaway associated with Dymock wore a silver collar bearing his master’s name, and Dymock’s own question about Francis obtaining his “liberty” suggests that Francis was not simply an ordinary servant free to leave.

The word “resistance”, however, can make the case sound more abstract than it was.

Francis poisoned Thomas Dymock. He poisoned Rebecka. He poisoned Ann. He poisoned Johanna Lickfield, and he likely poisoned Jane, who later died.

The historical context is important, but so are the people who ate and drank what Francis had prepared for them.

After paying his fine in June 1692, Edward Francis largely disappears from the historical record.

We do not know whether Dymock took him back into the household. We do not know whether he was sold, freed or escaped, where he went or when he died.

Thomas Dymock lived for another twelve years. His 1704 will mentioned his widow Rebecca and his daughters Ann and Elizabeth.

Edward Francis was not mentioned.

For a brief period, however, the records preserve him in unusual detail: a Black servant at the Tower of London – possibly the same runaway once pursued through London wearing a silver collar, rat poison obtained from a rat-catcher; a dying woman; another household poisoned; a dead cat – and an alleged admission that killing his master might secure his liberty.

What appears to be the Old Bailey’s earliest surviving record of black-on-white violent crime ends not with execution or a lengthy prison sentence, but with a misdemeanour, a fine of ten groats and a discharge from custody.

After that, Edward Francis the Black simply disappears from the record.

The central documents survive in the City of London Sessions papers at the London Metropolitan Archives, including The Examination and Confession of Edward Francis of 16 January 1692 and testimony from Thomas Dymock, Rebecka Dymock and Johanna Lickfield.

The case has been reconstructed by Simon P. Newman in Freedom Seekers: Escaping from Slavery in Restoration London. Historic Royal Palaces has also published research on Francis and Black life at the Tower.

The surviving Old Bailey proceedings of June-July 1692 record Francis’s release. The crucial proceedings from February and March are missing.

By Raging Dissident.