“DIABOLICAL OUTRAGES AND ATROCIOUS ATTEMPTS”: THE MEDIA, THE MONARCHY, AND THE ASSASSINATION ATTEMPTS ON QUEEN , 1840-1882

by Rachel Hamilton

Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the Honours Program in History, University of Prince Edward Island

April 16, 2021

ii

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ...... iii

Introduction ...... 2

Part One: A Media Monarchy ...... 6

Part Two: Seven Assassins, Eight Attempts, and One Unshakable Queen ...... 19

Part Three: Reporting “Diabolical Outrages and Atrocious Attempts” ...... 32

Reading the News...... 32

Radical Threats ...... 33

Gender and the Press ...... 41

Sensational Reportage ...... 60

Conclusion: It’s In All The Papers...... 83

Appendices ...... 88

A. Newspapers ...... 88

B. The Assassins ...... 89

Bibliography ...... 91

iii

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the History Department at the University of Prince Edward Island for sponsoring a subscription to the British Newspaper Archive, which allowed me to access most of the primary source material for this research. My thanks also to Dr. Richard Raiswell for providing access to the 19th Century UK Periodicals Series.

Thank you to my panel readers – Dr. Susan Brown, Dr. James Moran, and Dr. Wendy

Shilton – for their time and interest in my thesis.

Thanks to my family for listening to endless stories about “dastardly villains” and “insane assassins.”

Finally, I would like to extend my deepest thanks to Dr. Susan Brown for her supervision of this project, enthusiasm for my research, and unwavering support.

2

Introduction

“It is with deep regret that we have to announce another attempt (happily unsuccessful) on the life of our Gracious Queen,” announced the editors of John Bull to its readers in 1849.1

The paper was referring to the fifth of what were to be eight assassination attempts on Queen

Victoria, made by seven would-be assassins between 1840 and 1882. At the time, the attacks shocked Britain and were the subject of significant and sustained coverage in all sectors of the press, from the conservative Times to the radical Northern Star and Leeds General Advertiser.

When reflecting on these events, historians often refer to the assassination attempts as fascinating anecdotes but fail to consider their greater cultural and historical value. This essay seeks to address this omission and explore the significance of these events through the press attention they garnered.

Following the scandalous and lackluster reigns of George IV and William IV, the monarchy had fallen somewhat into disrepute, and it became increasingly evident that the monarchy had to adapt if it wanted to weather the political turbulence of the nineteenth century.

As a result, the British monarchy evolved into a more constitutional and populist institution during the . Although and Prince Albert are usually credited with this modification in the monarchy’s role, historian John Plunkett argues that there was another key actor that helped facilitate this evolution – the press.2 The Victorian era witnessed unprecedented developments in the press through technological advancements and expanding audiences.3 Plunkett argues that this new media landscape played a pivotal role in the British monarchy’s transformation as the press and the monarchy developed a symbiotic relationship

1 “Diabolical Attempt To Assassinate The Queen,” John Bull, 21 May 1849, p. 16. 2 John Plunkett, Queen Victoria: First Media Monarch (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 1. 3 Plunkett, Queen Victoria: First Media Monarch, 3-5. 3 and the monarchy became a “media monarchy.”4 While Plunkett and other historians have considered the press’s presentation of a variety of royal events to understand this phenomenon, the press coverage of the assassination attempts has yet to be analyzed in this manner, a fact which has undermined and concealed the importance of these events in the monarchy’s transformation. This essay argues that the press coverage of the attacks on Queen Victoria reveals insights into the Victorian monarchy’s populist and constitutional evolution and the media’s crucial role in this change.

The first section of this essay considers historiographical approaches in the study of the monarchy and the media, as well as John Plunkett’s definition and characterization of the “media monarchy.”5 It also outlines the key developments in Victorian journalism, including the democratization of the press, technological advancements, and changes in visual and written discourse. The section concludes with an overview of the various newspapers that have been used in this research. (Additional information on these newspapers can be found in Appendix A.)

Part two analyzes the eight assassination attempts and the seven would-be assassins who made the attacks. Since the purpose of this essay is not to conduct an exhaustive review of the details of the assassination attempts, but to study the ways that the press reported on these events, this section is limited to providing the necessary background context for understanding the press coverage that forms the core of this argument. (Further details about the assassins and their attempts can be found in Appendix B.) Some of these threats are better characterized as attacks or assaults rather than direct attempts to murder the sovereign. However, they have been collectively referred to by historians as assassination attempts and, while acknowledging the

4 Plunkett, Queen Victoria: First Media Monarch, 14. 5 Plunkett, Queen Victoria: First Media Monarch, 1. 4 variation in the extent of the threat each of these occurrences presented to Victoria, this essay will refer to the eight attacks as assassination attempts.

Part three, “Reporting ‘Diabolical Outrages and Atrocious Attempts,’” focuses on the press coverage of the assassination attempts, the themes that emerge from these reports, and what these accounts indicate about the press’s role in facilitating the monarchy’s constitutional and populist transformation. This section opens with a brief consideration of the press’s relationship with its readers, followed by an analysis of the Victorian monarchy’s relative immunity from radical and republican threats and the media’s handling of the few radical linkages in the assassination attempts. Instead of focusing on political or radical motivations, the press emphasized matters of gender and used sensational frameworks to cultivate public interest in both the attempts and royal news in general. Although her gender sparked controversy upon her accession to the throne, Victoria’s femininity quickly became perceived as an asset that made her relatable, safe, accessible, and popular. Press reports of the assassination attempts highlighted

Victoria’s gender through discussions of her feminine qualities, maternal image, resolution in the face of these attacks, and merciful intercessions in the assassins’ sentences. This depiction cultivated a feeling of intimacy and attachment between the people and their sovereign.

Meanwhile, the gendered representation of the men involved in the attempts underscored

Victoria’s femininity and validated her role in the public sphere. Consequently, the press’s portrayal of Victoria and the various male actors in terms of prevailing gender norms helped facilitate the monarchy’s populist transformation by making Victoria relatable and accessible to the public.

Accounts of the assassination attempts were also sensationalized to appeal to readers, allowing the press to cultivate interest in royal news and create bonds of connection between 5 itself and its readers. The press depicted the assassination attempts through melodramatic devices that were familiar to readers, including dramatic descriptive language and popular tropes of imperiled heroines, scheming villains, and gallant protectors. Similarly, the press focused on the assassins’ mental health in accordance with advancing scientific and medical understandings of mental illness and the public fascination with insanity. These devices furthered public interest in the monarchy and played a central role in creating an imagined community of readers with

Victoria at the centre.6

In Queen Victoria: First Media Monarch, Plunkett writes, “the following pages tell the story of how Queen Victoria was made into the hero of her own life; and, indeed, of the

Victorian Age itself.”7 This essay will use the assassination attempts as a case study for analyzing how the press helped make Victoria “the hero of her own life,” and played a crucial role in facilitating the Victorian monarchy’s constitutional and populist transformation.8

6 Plunkett, Queen Victoria: First Media Monarch, 7. 7 Plunkett, Queen Victoria: First Media Monarch, 11. 8 Plunkett, Queen Victoria: First Media Monarch, 11. 6

Part One: A Media Monarchy

“We are often told that it is a mistake to study the history of kings and queens, because the subject is at best elitist, at worst boring,” writes historian David Cannadine.1 For decades, scholars of British history paid significant attention to the monarchy, and monarchical biographies dominated the field.2 These biographies were written “in sacred rather than scholarly terms,” apotheosizing the subjects and extolling them for their virtues – both real and invented.3

By the mid-twentieth century, however, scholars began to view the monarchy as an antiquated institution that had already been the undeserving subject of too much study and contributed nothing to an understanding of the people who lived under its rule.4 As a reaction against elite biography, the study of “history from below” – or the history of the common people – dominated historical inquiry for the latter half of the twentieth century.5 An understanding of the middle- and working-class experience is essential to the history of any era. However, as historian Richard

Williams points out in his book The Contentious Crown: Public Discussion of the British

Monarchy in the Reign of Queen Victoria, this approach to history is no better than an exclusive study of the monarchy.6 Williams and Cannadine both suggest that, to truly understand an era in

British history, the monarchy and the people must be studied together.7 Moving beyond biographies, a social history approach to studying the British monarchy will not only allow historians to continue analyzing the monarchy but will also provide insights into popular values,

1 David Cannadine, “From biography to history: writing the modern British monarchy,” Historical Research lxxvvii (2004): 291. 2 Cannadine, “From biography to history,” 294. 3 Cannadine, “From biography to history,” 296. 4 Richard Williams, The Contentious Crown: Public Discussion of the British Monarchy in the Reign of Queen Victoria (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 1997), 1. 5 Williams, 1. 6 Williams, 266. 7 Cannadine, “The context, performance, and meaning of ritual: the British monarchy and the ‘invention of tradition’, c. 1820-1997,” in The Inventions of Tradition, ed. E. Hobsbawm and T. Ranger (: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 102-104.; Williams, 1-2. 7 opinions, and beliefs, particularly in relation to how the public viewed the monarch, their powers, and their role.8

Richard Williams devotes his book to a study of public opinion of the Victorian monarchy, seeking to explain how the monarchy went from an almost contemptible, far-too- expensive establishment to an institution that was highly venerated by the time of Victoria’s death.9 Williams traces the evolution of public criticism of and support for the monarchy through primary sources including newspapers, speeches, pamphlets, and diaries.10 Throughout his analysis, Williams illuminates popular opinions regarding gender, power, and politics.11

Similarly, in his article “The context, performance, and meaning of ritual: the British monarchy and the ‘invention of tradition’, c. 1820-1997,” David Cannadine argues that a study of the monarchy’s public rituals, ceremonies, and pageantry reveals deeply held social values and meanings that “may change profoundly depending on the nature of the [historical] context.”12

Maintaining that rituals are invented and manipulated to influence the public’s understanding of and support for monarchical power, Cannadine explains that the resurgence of royal traditions and ceremonies during the Victorian era cultivated popular support for the monarchy and secured its position in British society.13 Both Williams and Cannadine argue in favour of an approach to monarchical study that integrates popular perceptions and values. As Williams explains, this approach will bring the monarchy back into historical inquiry, since “[m]odern British history can no longer be history with the monarchy left out.”14

8 Cannadine, “The context, performance, and meaning of ritual,” 104-105.; Williams, 1-7. 9 Williams, 4. 10 Williams, 2. 11 Williams, 5-7, 266. 12 Cannadine, “The context, performance, and meaning of ritual,” 105. 13 Cannadine, “The context, performance, and meaning of ritual,” 104-107. 14 Williams, 266. 8

Building on Cannadine and Williams’s approach to monarchical study, John Plunkett’s work on Queen Victoria focuses on her representation in the media. In his book Queen Victoria:

First Media Monarch, Plunkett studies the symbiotic relationship between the press and the monarchy and how it made Victoria the “first media monarch.”15 Plunkett argues that a new media landscape played a pivotal role in the British monarchy’s transformation into a more constitutional and populist institution – that is, a monarchy which no longer exercised the same degree of direct political intervention and was more accessible to the public.16 This transformation not only allowed the British monarchy to both survive and thrive in the nineteenth century, but also established the framework for the monarchy’s popular support in British society today.17 As Plunkett explains, several developments in the Victorian press coincided with

Victoria’s reign and made her image more accessible to her people.18 The repeal of the Stamp

Act in 1861 democratized the press by reducing the costs for producing and purchasing newspapers, giving the working-class unprecedented access to written material, including news coverage of their monarch.19 Meanwhile, developments in printing illustrations gave the illiterate and semi-literate masses access to visual depictions of their monarch and royal events.20 Of course, these developments in the press would have had significantly less meaning for the monarchy if the monarch herself had not been assuming a more public role. Unlike her predecessors, Victoria assumed a remarkable number of public engagements and went to great lengths to make herself accessible to the public – particularly before Prince Albert’s death.21

Plunkett calls Victoria and Albert’s willingness to place themselves before their people their

15 Plunkett, Queen Victoria: First Media Monarch, 1. 16 Plunkett, Queen Victoria: First Media Monarch, 14. 17 Plunkett, Queen Victoria: First Media Monarch, 245. 18 Plunkett, Queen Victoria: First Media Monarch, 4. 19 Plunkett, Queen Victoria: First Media Monarch, 4. 20 Plunkett, Queen Victoria: First Media Monarch, 5-6. 21 Plunkett, Queen Victoria: First Media Monarch, 14. 9

“civic publicness.”22 Notably, this civic publicness was more than a mere public role that

Victoria and Albert adopted. Indeed, it was a part of a conscious and deliberate effort to make themselves more accessible to their people and build a base of popular support.23 Instead of replicating the grandeur and pageantry of royal ceremonial occasions, Victoria and Albert’s civic publicness highlighted their ordinariness as a bourgeois family, making them more relatable to their public.24 Victoria’s ubiquitous public presence gave the expanding press more content for royal reportage, and this increasing royal press coverage cultivated a collective intimacy between

Victoria and her subjects.25 While the average citizen did not have a personal relationship with the monarch, the extent to which the media printed stories about court events and royal tours, births, and weddings caused many citizens to feel emotionally connected with and personally invested in their monarch.26

Unsurprisingly, not all royal press coverage was complimentary.27 The democratization of the press allowed more non-mainstream groups, including radicals and republicans, to produce their own newspapers and spread their views. However, given the threats and revolutions

European royal families faced during the Victorian era, Plunkett notes that the Victorian monarchy faced remarkably little serious resistance.28 Furthermore, when it came to Victoria herself, even the radical press was restrained in its criticism.29 One of the central factors in the

Victorian monarchy’s immunity to serious threats was Victoria’s gender.30 When she first

22 Plunkett, Queen Victoria: First Media Monarch, 10-12. 23 Plunkett, Queen Victoria: First Media Monarch, 14. 24 Plunkett, Queen Victoria: First Media Monarch, 40-41. 25 Plunkett, Queen Victoria: First Media Monarch, 7-8. 26 Plunkett, Queen Victoria: First Media Monarch, 7-10. 27 Plunkett, Queen Victoria: First Media Monarch, 8. 28 Plunkett, Queen Victoria: First Media Monarch, 52-53. 29 Plunkett, Queen Victoria: First Media Monarch, 5. 30 Plunkett, Queen Victoria: First Media Monarch, 29-35. 10 assumed the throne, Victoria’s gender sparked significant public debate, and Victoria had to negotiate a safe and acceptable public role for herself while contending with the gender norms of her time.31 Although some welcomed the young, female queen after a century of decadent,

Hanoverian kings, many feared that Victoria’s gender would make her vulnerable to the manipulation of self-interested, corrupt politicians who hoped to further their own political and personal agendas.32 Similarly, many voiced concern that, when she married, Victoria’s husband would control her and rule both her and the nation.33 Others were apprehensive about the propriety of a young, single woman meeting with male politicians and embarking on public events and tours.34 Despite these initial debates and anxieties, however, Victoria’s gender blunted criticism and radical critiques of the monarchy.

During the Victorian era, the cult of chivalry dictated that middle- and upper-class men treat women – at least those of their own class or above – with a courtesy and respect that was reminiscent of the romanticized medieval knights.35 In keeping with these values, had a newspaper criticized a respectable woman, particularly the Queen who was beloved for her domestic and feminine virtues, that paper would have faced substantial criticism. Even the radical Reynold’s Weekly Newspaper noted that “‘the sex of the sovereign more than her virtues, has closed many a quiver full of arrows that might have been discharged with fatal accuracy.’”36

Middle-class women, meanwhile, were expected to remain in the private sphere, acting as the

31 Dorothy Thompson, Queen Victoria: Gender and Power (: Virago Press, 2008), 30. 32 Thompson, 29. 33 Thompson, 32-33. 34 Plunkett, Queen Victoria: First Media Monarch, 33. 35 John Plunkett, “A media monarchy? Queen Victoria and the radical press, 1837-1901,” Media History ix (2003): 14. 36 Reynold’s Weekly Newspaper, 1851, quoted in Plunkett, “A media monarchy? Queen Victoria and the radical press, 1837-1901,” 14. 11 moral guardians of the home and raising their children.37 Victoria’s “domestic virtues” and maternal image made her public and political roles more acceptable and calmed the public’s concerns about having a woman on the throne.38 An early marriage and motherhood meant that, by the 1840s, Victoria was presented to the public as the mother of the royal household, the

British nation, and the empire. This maternal image not only downplayed any sensuality in

Victoria’s femininity so that she was not an object of sexual desire, but also reconciled her gender with her public role.39 Furthermore, the press’s reinforcement of Victoria’s maternal image encouraged her subjects to see her as both their ruler and a maternal figure in their own lives.

While Plunkett’s book focuses on the press’s role in Victoria’s “media making,” he notes that Victoria was not a passive figure in this process. On the contrary, Victoria and her household actively shaped and influenced the press’s depiction of her character by presenting the public with carefully constructed images highlighting her maternity and domesticity.40 Gone were the days of the decadent and dissipated courts of George IV and William IV.41 Instead, the Victorian monarchy presented itself as a middle-class institution through respectable images of parental guidance, the nursery, and bourgeois family life.42 As Dorothy Thompson writes, this

“atmosphere of middle-class family virtue surrounded the throne, to such an extent…that it has sometimes obscured the reality of royal life and experience.”43 The press’s reproduction of these domestic images created an imagined community in which the public identified with and felt

37 John Tosh, Manliness and Masculinities in Nineteenth-Century Britain: Essays on Gender, Family and Empire (London: Routledge, 2016), 76. 38 Plunkett, Queen Victoria: First Media Monarch, 213. 39 Plunkett, Queen Victoria: First Media Monarch, 33. 40 Plunkett, Queen Victoria: First Media Monarch, 11. 41 Thompson, 4-5. 42 Thompson, 42, 45. 43 Thompson, 42. 12 connected to the royal family. By highlighting her domesticity, as well as by engaging in civic publicness, Victoria deliberately attempted to influence how both the public and the media viewed her.44 Consequently, the media and the monarchy had a reciprocal relationship in

Victoria’s “media making.” However, becoming a “media monarch” and a public celebrity meant that Victoria had to contend with the sense of intimacy that the press cultivated and the public’s desire to have access to the details of her public and private life.45 As a result, the media became the mediator between Victoria and her subjects, giving readers the royal reportage that they craved. Together with Victoria’s civic publicness and domestic image, Plunkett argues that the press’s mediation of this extensive royal news facilitated the creation of a more populist and constitutional monarchy.

Between 1840 and 1882, Victoria was the victim of eight assassination attempts. In most biographies of the sovereign, these attacks are briefly addressed as isolated and sensational occurrences and passed over for discussions of Victoria’s political role or relationships.46 By treating them as mere anecdotes, however, biographies have downplayed the cultural significance of these threats. The assassination attempts received sustained coverage in the

British press and were widely reported on by mainstream, radical, satirical, working-class, Irish nationalist, and women’s newspapers and periodicals. Despite the press’s interest in these attacks, Plunkett’s study of the “media monarchy” neglects them. This essay seeks to draw more attention to the highly publicized accounts of the assassination attempts, analyzing how the reports of these threats fit into a new media landscape and factored into the greater narrative of the monarchy’s populist and constitutional transformation. One might assume that, given their

44 Plunkett, Queen Victoria: First Media Monarch, 11. 45 Plunkett, Queen Victoria: First Media Monarch, 3. 46 Elizabeth Longford, Victoria RI (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1964), 188-189, 212, 239, 240-241, 490-491, 560. 13 varying perspectives on the monarchy, Victorian papers would differ widely in their expressions of loyalist sentiments. However, the press demonstrated remarkable cohesion in its condemnation of the attacks and declarations of loyalty to Victoria. While the magnitude of loyalist sentiments differed, the message was always the same – Victorian papers viewed the attacks as outrageous and cowardly.

The press coverage of the assassination attempts demonstrates dominant themes in

Victorian journalism and highlights the reciprocal relationship between the media and the monarchy. The condemnation of republican or radical motivations by mainstream and radical papers alike demonstrates the relative security the Victorian monarchy enjoyed in the public sphere. Reports of the attacks also reinforced Victorian gender norms, focusing on Victoria’s domestic virtues and feminine qualities, while praising Prince Albert, , Prince

Arthur, and the other men who intervened as chivalrous heroes.47 Reflecting the rise of sensational journalism, the press printed melodramatic depictions of the events and enthusiastically recounted details of the assassins’ mental states.48 In addition, the news coverage illustrates the symbiotic relationship between the media and the monarchy in making Victoria the

“first media monarch.”49 These gripping accounts provided a common cultural reference point and presented a carefully cultivated depiction of Victoria that appealed to a populace otherwise divided by class, gender, and status. Furthermore, the reports also highlight the roots of celebrity culture and the public’s belief that they have a right to the intimate details of a celebrity’s public and private matters. Victoria’s popular persona, however, extended well beyond celebrity, and

47 Thompson, 91. 48 Joel H. Wiener, “How New Was the New Journalism?,” in Papers for the Millions: the New Journalism in Britain, 1850s to 1914, ed. Joel H. Wiener (New York: Greenwood Press, 1988), 54. 49 Plunkett, Queen Victoria: First Media Monarch, 1, 11. 14 was part of the invention of a more populist monarchy and the reconceptualization of the sovereign’s role in national life.

Before delving into a study of specific Victorian newspapers and their press coverage of these attacks, it is necessary to consider several significant developments in Victorian journalism. One of the most notable changes was the reform and eventual elimination of the stamp taxes. First instituted in 1819, the Stamp Act imposed a tax on printed paper, making producing and purchasing newspapers a costly endeavour.50 Intended to limit the cheap and radical presses, the Stamp Act made it almost impossible for these papers to afford production costs.51 In response to mounting public pressure, a reform on these “taxes on knowledge” was passed in 1836, lowering the tax but significantly increasing the extent to which the law was enforced.52 When the Stamp Act was finally repealed in 1861, it not only allowed more radical and non-mainstream papers to be produced, but also democratized journalism and gave the working-class in particular access to a variety of newspapers and periodicals.53 This change spurred diversification in printed material for the upper-class as well.54

Technological changes had significant implications for the Victorian press. As the nineteenth century progressed, the development of the telegraph, typewriter, and telecommunications meant that information could be transmitted more quickly over longer distances.55 This made journalism more efficient, more competitive, and more demanding.56

50 Richard Altick, The English Common Reader: A Social History of the Mass Reading Public 1800-1900 (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1998), 321. 51 Altick, 321. 52 Altick, 390. 53 Altick, 341, 380. 54 Altick, 351, 358. 55 Lucy Brown, “The Growth of a National Press,” in Investigating Victorian Journalism, ed. Laurel Brake, Aled Jones, and Lionel Madden (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1990), 137. 56 Brown, 137. 15

Since news could be received almost instantaneously, and typewriters made it possible for reports to be written more rapidly, newspapers were expected to cover more news as quickly as possible.57 Furthermore, telecommunications allowed for greater accuracy in reporting since, instead of relying on other papers’ accounts, newspapers could gain more immediate access to sources. The invention of the telegraph in 1844 and advancements in other forms of telecommunications empowered provincial papers, since they no longer had to rely on receiving and reprinting news from the London papers, but could access newsworthy information directly.58 As a result, provincial and non-mainstream papers could craft their own reports of events, presenting their perspectives on the news.

Technological changes also contributed to developments in the press’s reproduction of visual images. Illustrations are particularly powerful because they communicate with semi- literate and illiterate audiences and can sometimes convey concepts more effectively than words.

Until the 1820s and 30s, most papers used copperplates to print graphics.59 Since copperplates could only print approximately a thousand impressions, they were relatively costly to produce and were often restricted to the more expensive papers.60 Moreover, because the plates were so expensive, papers rarely commissioned illustrations for special events, instead relying on stock images.61 Cheaper processes such as lithography and wood carvings, however, made a significant difference in the realm of illustrations.62 Not only could wood carvings reproduce two

57 Brown, 138. 58 Brown, 134.; “Invention of the Telegraph,” Library of Congress: Samuel F.B. Morse Papers at the Library of Congress, accessed March 13, 2021, https://www.loc.gov/collections/samuel-morse-papers/articles-and- essays/invention-of-the-telegraph/. 59 Plunkett, Queen Victoria: First Media Monarch, 5-6. 60 Plunkett, Queen Victoria: First Media Monarch, 5. 61 Plunkett, Queen Victoria: First Media Monarch, 5. 62 Plunkett, Queen Victoria: First Media Monarch, 6. 16 or three hundred thousand impressions, but they cost much less to produce.63 Newspapers of varying genres could then afford to commission wood carvings depicting special events – including Victoria’s coronation and royal tours – rather than relying on stock illustrations.64 As illustrations became more common, the news became more accessible, more immersive, and more immediate for a greater proportion of the population.65

When studying the press, it is necessary to consider the audience for whom a specific paper was intended. Many of the technological developments in the Victorian press democratized the media and made it accessible to an ever-growing audience, some of whom were experiencing growing leisure time.66 New audiences provided a growing market for an expanding range of papers with a variety of perspectives. For example, The Times had a politically conservative stance as a mainstream newspaper, while Reynold’s Weekly Newspaper took a radical approach to the news.67 It is imperative for historians to be aware of these distinctions so that they do not risk misinterpreting a single paper as being representative of an entire society’s views. By sampling reports from a variety of papers, this essay seeks to draw upon a wide spectrum of evidence to gain a deeper understanding of the cultural significance in the reports of the assassination attempts.

One of the most crucial components in the study of the press is a careful analysis of the discourse a newspaper and its writers employed. Instead of taking the words on the page for

63 Plunkett, Queen Victoria: First Media Monarch, 6. 64 Plunkett, Queen Victoria: First Media Monarch, 6. 65 Lorraine Jansen Kooistra, “Illustration,” in Journalism and the Periodical Press in Nineteenth-Century Britain, ed. Joanne Shattock (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017), 111. 66 Altick, 5, 306.; Joel H. Wiener, “British and American Newspaper Journalism in the Nineteenth Century,” in Journalism and the Periodical Press in Nineteenth-Century Britain, ed. Joanne Shattock (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017), 270. 67 Brown, 135.; Edward Royle, “Newspapers and Periodicals in Historical Research,” in Investigating Victorian Journalism, ed. Laurel Brake, Aled Jones, and Lionel Madden (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1990), 52. 17 granted and merely focusing on the larger story they tell, historians must consider the specific language an author uses and its socially constructed meanings. Discourse not only refers to the specific words that are used, but also the thoughts, values, and associations people have and make with those words.68 When deconstructing discourse, historians consider why an author used a particular word, what it meant in the cultural context, and what its usage in the source signifies. They might also ask how a word’s usage reflected or attempted to influence social values. The importance of discourse is particularly apparent when comparing newspapers from different genres, as it gives historians insights into the unique values and perspectives those newspapers held and promoted to their readers.

Often, the study of the press focuses on the producers of the news. However, Victorian readers were not passive receptors of the news, absorbing and accepting every word they read.

On the contrary, the relationship between the press and the reader was symbiotic. As reader reception theory highlights, readers actively interpret and assign meaning to what they read, and words provide “interpretative frameworks through which readers [make] sense of the world.”69

Commercially viable publications sought to balance their choices and presentation of newsworthy events with readers’ appetites. Thus, while the Victorian press was shaped by its producers, it was also shaped by its consumers and their interests.

These aspects of the Victorian press – technological developments, the democratization of the press, written and visual discourse, and multiple audiences – influenced the reportage of the assassination attempts, shaping the ways that the information was disseminated to and

68 John Tosh, The pursuit of history: aims, methods, and new directions in the study of modern history (New York: Longman, 2006), 263-264. 69 Adrian Bingham, “Reading Newspapers: Cultural Histories of the Popular Press in Modern Britain,” History Compass 10, no. 2 (Feb. 2012): 142. 18 interpreted by the public. Different newspapers and periodicals approached the news with unique perspectives, and these perspectives were reflected in their reports of the attacks. To obtain a more accurate understanding of the journalistic representation of Victoria and the assassination attempts she faced, this essay will analyze news coverage from a variety of metropolitan and provincial Victorian newspapers representing multiple political perspectives and social classes.

These include mainstream (The Times), radical (Northern Star and Leeds General Advertiser;

Reynold’s Weekly Newspaper), working-class (Blackburn Standard), middle-class (John Bull), and Irish nationalist (Freeman’s Journal) newspapers. Other papers that will be considered include illustrated (Penny Illustrated Paper), satirical (Cleave’s London Satirist and Gazette of

Variety; Punch; The Penny Satirist) and women’s (Le Belle Assemblée; The Lady’s Newspaper

& Pictorial Times) periodicals. An analysis of these papers’ reports of the attacks on Queen

Victoria not only illustrates dominant patterns and themes in Victorian journalism, but also highlights the media’s role in the monarchy’s populist and constitutional transformation, and the implications that transformation had for the public’s understanding of and relationship with their monarch.

19

Part Two: Seven Assassins, Eight Attempts, and One Unshakable Queen

Between 1840 and 1882, Queen Victoria faced eight attempts on her life from seven would-be assassins. These attempts sparked great public interest, and the press provided extensive coverage of the attempts and the subsequent hearings and trials. The prisoners’ respective backgrounds, supposed motivations, and mental states also received significant attention. The structure and discourse of these reports reveal patterns in Victorian journalism and highlight the symbiotic relationship between the press and the monarchy. Before exploring this press coverage, however, it is necessary to provide the basic details of each attempt.

Although Victoria was not the first British sovereign to face assassination attempts, her civic publicness was likely a factor in the number of attacks she faced. Victoria’s willingness to adopt a public role and place herself before her subjects not only ingratiated herself to them but helped cultivate a collective intimacy between Victoria and the populace.1 In order to further and maintain this popular support, Victoria had to continually assert her presence in the public sphere, validating the people’s interest in and support of her role. At the same time, however,

Victoria’s commitment to assuming a wide array of public engagements made her more vulnerable to potential attackers and attempts on her life. Victoria’s civic publicness provided the press with a rich source of material for royal reportage.2 However, this expanding media attention provided an incentive for the assassins who longed for the notoriety that an attack on the sovereign would generate. Despite the threats she faced, Victoria refused to be deterred from the public sphere, demonstrating her strength and resolve. Indeed, Victoria’s dedication to her people and determination to maintain her civic publicness directed her actions in the aftermath of

1 Plunkett, Queen Victoria: First Media Monarch, 10-12. 2 Plunkett, Queen Victoria: First Media Monarch, 10-12. 20 these attempts, compelling her to continue to embark on royal tours and engagements and make herself available to her subjects. Thus, while Victoria’s ubiquitous public presence made her more vulnerable to attacks and assassination attempts, her resiliency was widely lauded in the press as a sign of her commitment to her people.

The first attempt on Victoria’s life occurred on June 10th, 1840. Edward Oxford, a

“respectably attired” eighteen-year-old, shot at Victoria and Albert as they passed him in their carriage on Constitution Hill, a processional route through that leads to Buckingham

Palace.3 Oxford fired two consecutive shots from separate pistols, both of which were loaded with bullets.4 Apprehended at the scene, Oxford was charged with high treason. The defence argued that Oxford suffered from hereditary insanity, a claim which was supported by extensive testimonies from witnesses who knew Oxford’s grandfather, father, and Oxford himself.5 In addition, it was said that Oxford was prone to violent rages and that his mental state caused him to yearn for the notoriety that would come from being known as the man who attempted to kill the Queen.6 Found not guilty “on the grounds of insanity,” Oxford was sentenced to Bethlehem

Royal Hospital (Bedlam) for life.7 Most were content with his sentence and relieved at the revelation that no sane man would attempt to assassinate the Queen. Some, however, feared that the penalty was too lenient, and that others would copy Oxford’s actions, hoping to be cared for by the state in an institution or jail.8 Two years later, these voices were proven right.

3 Barrie Charles, Kill the Queen! The Eight Assassination Attempts on the Life of Queen Victoria (Gloucestershire: Amberley Publishing, 2012), 5.; “High Treason,” Blackburn Standard, 17 June 1840, p. 2. 4 “London, Thursday, June 11, 1840,” The Times, 11 June 1840, p. 4. 5 “Image of Oxford with the two pistols,” Blackburn Standard, 1 July 1840, p. 2.; “The Late Atrocious Attempt To Assassinate The Queen And Prince Albert,” The Times, 13 June 1840, p. 6. 6 “The Attempt to Assassinate Her Majesty,” Blackburn Standard, 15 July 1840, p. 2. 7 “The Attempt to Assassinate Her Majesty,” Blackburn Standard, 15 July 1840, p. 2. 8 “High Treason,” The Times, 18 June 1842, p. 8. 21

During the eventful summer of 1842, John Francis made two attempts on Victoria’s life.

As Victoria and Albert rode up Constitution Hill on the evening of May 29th, Francis pulled a pistol from his jacket, levelled it at the carriage, but did not shoot.9 After the carriage passed,

Francis returned the pistol to his coat, lamenting, “‘I wish it had been done.’”10 There were only two witnesses to the attempt – an older gentleman who felt it would be too much effort to contact the police, and a young man who reported the incident the following day.11 Although Francis’s first attempt went practically unnoticed by the public, two of Victoria’s equerries saw him.12

Certain that, being unsuccessful, the “rascal would try again,” Victoria and Albert consulted the

Prime Minister, Sir .13 Together, they decided that Victoria and Albert would take their evening ride the follow day, as usual, to lure the assassin back.14 It is notable that, instead of keeping her within the protection of the palace after this threat, Victoria was immediately permitted to return to the public sphere. Refusing to retreat or be deterred from public life because of these attacks, Victoria’s willingness to put her own life at risk demonstrates her awareness of the significance of her public role and the need to present herself to her subjects.

Cognizant of the imminent danger, however, Victoria refused to allow her ladies-in-waiting to accompany her, demanding that they remain at the palace.15 She stated adamantly, “‘I must expose the lives of my gentlemen, but I will not those of my ladies.’”16 As predicted, Francis returned to Constitution Hill on May 30th and discharged a pistol at the royal carriage.17

9 “Attempt on the Life of Her Majesty,” The Times, 1 June 1842, p. 6. 10 Charles, 26.; “From the Evening Papers,” The Times, 1 June 1842, p. 7. 11 “From the Evening Papers,” The Times, 1 June 1842, p. 7. 12 Longford, 211-212. 13 Longford, 212. 14 Charles, 26.; Longford, 212. 15 Longford, 212. 16 Queen Victoria, quoted in Longford, 212. 17 “Attempt on the Life of Her Majesty,” The Times, 1 June 1842, p. 6. 22

Immediately seized by undercover policemen, Francis was charged with high treason.18 The defence argued that Francis’s pistol had not been loaded with a ball, and that his actions had been spurred by a desire for notoriety.19 It was also stated that his poverty drove him to his desperate actions, as Francis hoped to be cared for by the state in a jail or an institution.20 Despite the uncertainty about whether Francis’s pistol had contained a bullet, the jury found Francis guilty of high treason and sentenced him to be hanged, drawn, and quartered.21 Upon hearing this verdict,

Francis was “intensely agonized,” and fainted “into the arms of one of the turnkeys.”22 While some were satisfied with Francis’s sentence, hoping that it would discourage further threats on the sovereign, the public was outraged. Forty-eight hours before the execution, Victoria and the

Privy Council interceded, and Francis’s sentenced was altered to deportation to for life

– a fate which, some argued, was worse than death.23

In addition to Francis’s attempts, the summer of 1842 brought a third threat to the

Queen’s life. On July 3rd, 1842, John William Bean attempted to shoot at Victoria’s carriage with a pistol as she returned to after attending church at the Chapel Royal.24

Bean, who suffered from a physical deformity, had run away from home several months earlier and was looking for employment.25 Having secured no position, Bean grew frustrated and wrote to his parents that, if he could find no occupation, he would “resort to desperate means.”26 After

Francis’s failed attacks, Bean was heard saying what a pity it was that Francis had missed, and

18 “Attempt on the Life of Her Majesty,” The Times, 1 June 1842, p. 6. 19 “High Treason,” The Times, 18 June 1842, p. 8. 20 “High Treason,” The Times, 18 June 1842, p. 8. 21 “High Treason,” The Times, 18 June 1842, p. 8. 22 “High Treason,” The Times, 18 June 1842, p. 8.; “Trial of John Francis for Attempting to Shoot the Queen,” Freeman’s Journal, 20 June 1842, p. 3. 23 “The Convict Francis,” The Times, 4 July 1842, p. 4. 24 “The Supposed Attempt Upon Her Majesty’s Life,” The Times, 5 July 1842, p. 5. 25 “The Supposed Attempt Upon Her Majesty’s Life,” The Times, 5 July 1842, p. 5. 26 “The Supposed Attempt Upon Her Majesty’s Life,” The Times, 5 July 1842, p. 5. 23 that someone should try again.27 Like his predecessors, Bean made his attempt on Constitution

Hill.28 However, because he misloaded the pistol, there was “the click of a pistol-hammer against the pan, but…no explosion.”29 In fact, had it not been for Charles Dassett, who was standing beside Bean at the time, the event may have passed unnoticed. Upon hearing the click, however,

Dassett seized Bean, exclaiming, “This boy wants to have a pop at the Queen!”30 Dassett took

Bean to two different constables, both of whom laughed and refused to arrest Bean, underscoring the perceived public security of the monarchy at the time.31 Although Dassett lost hold of Bean in the crowd, he reported the offense to the police and provided a description of the would-be assassin.32 The following day, Bean was arrested and charged with attempting to “vex, harass, and alarm” and assault the Queen, as well as with attempting to disturb the public peace.33 Bean pleaded not guilty.34 Since there was only a single witness, the defence argued that no threat had been made.35 Convinced by Dassett’s testimony, however, the jury found Bean guilty of attempting to alarm Victoria and disturb the public peace.36 Bean was sentenced to a public lashing and eighteen months in jail.37 Notably, Bean’s attempt received significantly less press attention than the other threats. However, since it coincided with the announcement of Francis’s reprieve, it is possible that Francis’s news overshadowed Bean’s attack.38

27 “Trial of Bean For Assaulting Her Majesty the Queen,” The Times, 26 August 1842, p. 6. 28 “The Supposed Attempt Upon Her Majesty’s Life,” The Times, 5 July 1842, p. 5. 29 “Central Criminal Court,” Northern Star and Leeds General Advertiser, 27 August 1842, p. 2. 30 “Trial of Bean For Assaulting Her Majesty the Queen,” The Times, 26 August 1842, p. 6. 31 “Trial of Bean For Assaulting Her Majesty the Queen,” The Times, 26 August 1842, p. 6. 32 “Trial of Bean For Assaulting Her Majesty the Queen,” The Times, 26 August 1842, p. 6. 33 “Trial of Bean For Assaulting Her Majesty the Queen,” The Times, 26 August 1842, p. 7. 34 “Trial of Bean For Assaulting Her Majesty the Queen,” The Times, 26 August 1842, p. 6. 35 “Trial of Bean For Assaulting Her Majesty the Queen,” The Times, 26 August 1842, p. 6. 36 “Trial of Bean For Assaulting Her Majesty the Queen,” The Times, 26 August 1842, p. 6-7. 37 “Trial of Bean For Assaulting Her Majesty the Queen,” The Times, 26 August 1842, p. 7. 38 “The Supposed Attempt Upon Her Majesty’s Life,” The Times, 5 July 1842, p. 5. 24

After facing three threats on her life within the span of two months, Victoria urged Sir

Robert Peel to amend the law under which these would-be assassins were charged.39 Under the existing legislation, armed attempts to assault, frighten, or alarm the sovereign were treated as high treason, making it “very difficult to secure a conviction.”40 On July 12th, 1842, Peel introduced an amendment to the treason acts, stipulating that armed attempts to assault or alarm the monarch would be treated as “a High Misdemeanour.”41 Offenders would be “transported beyond the seas for the term of seven years, or…be imprisoned, with or without hard Labour,” and receive up to three public or private whippings.42 Although Bean was not tried under this new law, it was applied to the next would-be assassin, William Hamilton.

Unlike the previous assassination attempts, William Hamilton’s attack on May 19th, 1849 represented a more serious threat to the royal family, as three of Victoria’s children – Victoria,

Princess Royal; the Prince of Wales (the future Edward VII); and Princess Helena – were with her at the time.43 As the royal carriage turned onto Constitution Hill to return the royal party home from the Queen’s birthday celebration, Hamilton fired a pistol at Victoria.44 “Instantly arrested,” Hamilton was charged with a misdemeanour for attempting to alarm the Queen.45 To the court’s shock, Hamilton pleaded guilty.46 Although no motive was formally identified, the trial judge believed that Hamilton was acting from an “unfortunate desire of notoriety” and that, being on the brink of poverty, he hoped to be cared for by the state in an asylum.47 Hamilton was

39 Charles, 49. 40 Charles, 49. 41 , s. 2, accessed March 14, 2021, https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/5- 6/51/section/II/enacted. 42 Treason Act 1842, s. 2. 43 “Alleged Attempt To Assassinate The Queen,” The Times, 21 May 1849, p. 5. 44 Longford, 239. 45 “Alleged Attempt To Assassinate The Queen,” The Times, 21 May 1849, p. 5. 46 “Alleged Attempt To Assassinate The Queen,” The Times, 21 May 1849, p. 5. 47 “Central Criminal Court,” The Times, 15 June 1849, p. 7. 25 sentenced to transportation for seven years.48 Luckily for Hamilton, Victoria interceded and removed the punishment of flogging from his sentence – a fate which, it was said, he particularly dreaded.49

Despite the trial judge’s ruling that Hamilton acted out of personal rather than political motives, the attack elicited much excitement when it was revealed that Hamilton had not only been a member of a Chartist Club in Pimlico, but that he had also been involved in the French

Revolution of 1848.50 First organized in 1838, Chartism was a radical British political movement that created a “People’s Charter” to promote parliamentary reforms to benefit the working- class.51 The charter included demands for “male suffrage, annual elections, secret ballots,” reconfiguring electoral districts, salaries for public officials, and removing property requirements from qualifications for electoral candidates.52 Mobilizing tens of thousands of supporters, the

Chartists presented petitions to the government advocating for these changes in 1838, 1842, and

1848.53 The extent of the radical movement’s popular support fostered significant anxiety among the ruling elite, particularly as the Chartists prepared to present their third petition.54 In April

1848, a Chartist meeting in Kennington Common attracted approximately 150,000 supporters.55

Meanwhile, Chartist leaders claimed that nearly six million individuals signed the third petition – an exaggeration of the 1.97 million signees.56 Fortunately for the establishment, Chartism

48 “Central Criminal Court,” The Times, 15 June 1849, p. 7. 49 “Central Criminal Court,” The Times, 15 June 1849, p. 7. 50 “Alleged Attempt To Assassinate The Queen,” The Lady’s Newspaper & Pictorial Times 126, 26 May 1849, p. 286-287. 51 Clifford Backman, Cultures of the West: A History – Volume 2: Since 1350 3rd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), 725. 52 Backman, 725-726. 53 John Walton, Chartism (London: Routledge, 1999), 19. 54 Malcolm Chase, Chartism: A New History (New York: Manchester University Press, 2007), 301. 55 Chase, 302. 56 Chase, 312. 26 collapsed after the 1848 petition failed.57 While not necessarily republican in nature, Chartism presented a serious, real, and credible threat to Britain’s political stability, and the ruling elite remained wary of those who, like William Hamilton, had been connected with the movement.58

The French Revolution of 1848, meanwhile, “forced [King] Louis-Philippe to abdicate, and a new constitutional republic was established.”59 Because of Hamilton’s connection with these causes, some wondered if his actions were indicative of more significant political threats to the monarchy.60 However, no revolution – Chartist or republican – followed Hamilton’s attempt.

Despite fears of politically motivated violence, the royal family continued with public engagements and refused to retreat from public life. Although concerns about political threats eventually faded away, the attacks on Victoria continued. In June 1850, Victoria’s uncle, the

Duke of Cambridge, was dying.61 Out of duty to her ailing relation, Victoria took the Prince of

Wales, Princess Alice, and Prince Alfred to visit the Duke of Cambridge on June 27th.62 As they started their return to Buckingham Palace, Robert Pate approached the royal carriage and hit

Victoria on the head with his walking stick.63 Breaking the wire rim of her bonnet, the blow was severe enough to cause a significant gash on Victoria’s temple and she was rendered unconscious for several seconds.64 Quickly regaining consciousness, however, Victoria immediately began to assure the crowd that she was well.65 To prove that she suffered no ill-effects, Victoria attended a performance of the Royal Italian Opera that evening. Her presence inspired a great

57 Walton, 34. 58 Chase, 312.; Thompson, 94. 59 Backman, 729. 60 “Alleged Attempt To Assassinate The Queen,” The Lady’s Newspaper & Pictorial Times 126, 26 May 1849, p. 286-287.; Longford, 240. 61 Longford, 240. 62 “Attack Upon Her Majesty The Queen,” The Times, 28 June 1850, p. 8.; Longford, 240. 63 “Attack Upon Her Majesty The Queen,” The Times, 28 June 1850, p. 8. 64 “Central Criminal Court,” The Times, 12 July 1850, p. 7.; Longford, 240. 65 Longford, 240. 27 demonstration of loyalty, and the audience interrupted the second act for a jubilant singing of

“God Save the Queen.”66 Public displays of loyalty were also evident in the responses of the witnesses and bystanders to Pate’s attack. After Pate struck the Queen, the indignant crowd surged towards him, and one infuriated bystander broke Pate’s nose.67

Pate was a gentleman and an ex-officer of the Royal Hussars.68 As a “gentleman assassin,” Pate’s social class caused a sensation. The upper-class was shocked that one of their own could be capable of such actions, while the lower-class was eager to see how the courts would deal with this “respectable” assassin.69 Pate was charged with assaulting the Queen with intent to alarm her and break the public peace.70 Maintaining that Pate was mentally unstable, the defence argued that Pate was not responsible for his actions.71 Since Pate had handled his own financial affairs, however, the jury ruled that he was sane.72 Pate was found guilty of assault and sentenced to transportation for seven years.73 Notably, however, the trial judge removed the public whipping from the sentence as a sign of respect for Pate’s family’s status.74 This sparked massive outrage in the radical and working-class presses, which widely condemned the blatant demonstration of “one law for the rich and one law for the poor.”75

After facing six attempts on her life within a decade, Victoria had a reprieve of nearly twenty-two years. During that interval, she had two more children, lost her beloved Albert to typhoid, retreated into a seclusion that sparked significant public debate, and began an infamous

66 “Her Majesty’s Reception at the Royal Italian Opera,” The Times, 28 June 1850, p. 8. 67 “Dastardly Attack Upon the Queen,” Northern Star and Leeds General Advertiser, 29 June 1850, p. 21. 68 “Central Criminal Court,” The Times, 12 July 1850, p. 7. 69 “Attack Upon The Queen,” Reynold’s Weekly Newspaper, 30 June 1850, p. 1. 70 “Central Criminal Court,” The Times, 12 July 1850, p. 7. 71 “Central Criminal Court,” The Times, 12 July 1850, p. 7. 72 “Central Criminal Court,” The Times, 12 July 1850, p. 7. 73 “Central Criminal Court,” The Times, 12 July 1850, p. 7. 74 “Central Criminal Court,” The Times, 12 July 1850, p. 7. 75 “The Conviction of Pate,” Blackburn Standard, 17 July 1850, p. 2. 28 friendship with Albert’s former equerry, John Brown.76 As her seclusion stretched on, Victoria’s popularity declined.77 Meanwhile, the Prince of Wales’s involvement in the Mordaunt divorce proceedings in 1870 further sullied the royal family’s reputation and popularity.78 However, the monarchy’s declining popularity reversed in December 1871, when the Prince of Wales contracted typhoid.79 Unlike his father, the Prince of Wales rallied and made a full recovery.80 A service of Thanksgiving was held at St. Paul’s in February 1872, marking one of Victoria’s first major public appearances since Albert’s death.81 At long last, it appeared that the Queen was finally returning to public life. On February 29th, however, this return was threatened when young Arthur O’Connor made an attempt on Victoria’s life.82 Just as Victoria was about to alight from her carriage at Buckingham Palace, O’Connor scaled the gates and approached the carriage.83 After going to the wrong side and seeing the Queen’s lady-in-waiting, Lady Churchill,

O’Connor ran around the back of the carriage to find Victoria.84 Thrusting a broken pistol at the

Queen with one hand, he held out a petition in the other.85 O’Connor’s petition demanded that

Victoria release the Fenian prisoners, clear their records, and not go back on her word by claiming that she signed the petition under duress.86 It also stated that O’Connor should be shot –

“as a true Republican” – rather than hanged.87 In what was reported as a gallant defence of his mother, Prince Arthur elbowed O’Connor out of the carriage, and John Brown tackled him to the

76 Longford, 291-293, 377-378, 389, 392, 403-404, 575-587. 77 Longford, 480-488. 78 Longford, 488. 79 Longford, 488-489. 80 Longford, 489. 81 Longford, 490. 82 “Attack On The Queen,” The Times, 1 March 1872, p. 9. 83 “The Attack Upon the Queen,” The Times, 2 March 1872, p. 10. 84 “Attack On The Queen,” The Times, 1 March 1872, p. 9. 85 “The Attack Upon the Queen,” The Times, 2 March 1872, p. 9. 86 “The Attack Upon the Queen,” The Times, 2 March 1872, p. 9. 87 “Outrage Upon the Queen,” Blackburn Standard, 6 March 1872, p. 4. 29 ground.88 O’Connor was charged with a misdemeanour for presenting a pistol at the Queen with intent to alarm her.89 Much to his family’s distress, he pleaded guilty to the charges.90 The defence argued that, since O’Connor was mentally incompetent, his plea should be disregarded, and a trial was arranged to determine if that was the case.91 Multiple doctors testified to confirm his insanity.92 Since the attempt had clearly been premeditated, however, the jury ruled that

O’Connor was sane and upheld his admission of guilt.93 O’Connor was sentenced to transportation for seven years, up to three of which could be hard labour, as well as up to three public or private whippings.94 Upon hearing this part of the sentence, O’Connor’s mother shrieked in distress.95

Unfortunately for Victoria, age did not insulate her from these threats and, at the age of

62, she faced the eighth and final attempt on her life. On March 2nd, 1882, Victoria and Princess

Beatrice arrived at Windsor station from London. As they left the station for Windsor Castle,

Roderick Maclean emerged from the jubilant crowd and shot a pistol at the Queen’s carriage.96

Maclean was instantly seized by the throng, and two overzealous Eton boys pummelled Maclean over the head and shoulders with their umbrellas, eager to defend their sovereign.97 While this attempt sparked some public debate about whether Victoria should have increased protection and security, others used the attack as an opportunity to advocate for stricter gun control.98 Maclean

88 “The Attack Upon the Queen,” The Times, 2 March 1872, p. 9. 89 “Central Criminal Court,” The Times, 11 April 1872, p. 11. 90 “Central Criminal Court,” The Times, 11 April 1872, p. 11. 91 “Central Criminal Court,” The Times, 11 April 1872, p. 11. 92 “Central Criminal Court,” The Times, 11 April 1872, p. 11. 93 “Central Criminal Court,” The Times, 12 April 1872, p. 11. 94 “Central Criminal Court,” The Times, 12 April 1872, p. 11. 95 “Central Criminal Court,” The Times, 12 April 1872, p. 11. 96 “Attempt To Assassinate The Queen,” The Times, 3 March 1882, p. 5. 97 “Attempt To Assassinate The Queen,” The Times, 3 March 1882, p. 5. 98 “The Attempt To Shoot The Queen,” The Times, 4 March 1882, p. 10. 30 was charged with attempting to intimidate the Queen.99 A note found in Maclean’s pocket indicated that the act was premeditated – “I should not have done this crime had you, as you should have done, paid the 10s. per week.”100 The note also condemned “that old lady Mrs. Vic., who is an accursed robber in all senses.”101 Arguing that Maclean was insane, the defence proved that he had been placed in a mental institution in 1880.102 Unsurprisingly, the jury found

Maclean not guilty of high treason because of insanity.103 Like Oxford nearly 42 years earlier,

Maclean was sentenced to an asylum, and the final chapter in the saga of the assassination attempts on Queen Victoria reached an end.

For Victoria, however, there was still one matter to resolve. The Queen was greatly disturbed by the fact that Maclean had been found “not guilty” because of his mental state when it was obvious he had made a direct attempt on her life – “‘Insane he may have been, but not guilty he most certainly was not.’”104 At Victoria’s urging, the Trial of Lunatics Act 1883 changed the law to stipulate that, rather than being found “not guilty” because of insanity, an individual who was mentally incompetent but guilty of an offense would be found “guilty but insane.”105 Many parliamentarians felt the change was trivial, but Victoria was adamant – eight attempts on her life were eight attempts too many.

The seven assassins – Edward Oxford, John Francis, John William Bean, William

Hamilton, Robert Pate, Arthur O’Connor, and Roderick Maclean – failed in their attempts to murder, assault, or frighten their sovereign. However, those who longed for notoriety met with

99 “Trial of Maclean,” The Times, 20 April 1882, p. 11. 100 “The Attempt To Shoot The Queen,” The Times, 4 March 1882, p. 10. 101 “The Attempt To Shoot The Queen,” The Times, 4 March 1882, p. 10. 102 “Trial of Maclean,” The Times, 20 April 1882, p. 11. 103 “Trial of Maclean,” The Times, 20 April 1882, p. 11. 104 Queen Victoria, quoted in Charles, 132. 105 John R. Hamilton, “Insanity Legislation,” Journal of Medical Ethics 12, no. 1 (Mar., 1986): 13. 31 success, and most of the assassins received significant and sustained attention in the press, reflecting the new media-oriented aspect of the monarchy’s role. The press coverage of these attacks reveals dominant themes in Victorian journalism, including the shock of republican threats, the reinforcement of gender norms, and the rise of sensational reportage. Considered together, the reports highlight the creation of a “media monarchy” and the symbiotic relationship between the media and the monarchy. The press brought these attempts to the attention of any

Briton who had access to a newspaper and could read or had someone to read to them. In so doing, the press brought the Queen into the lives of her people and furthered the cultivation and promotion of the monarchy’s populist image.

32

Part Three: Reporting “Diabolical Outrages and Atrocious Attempts”

Reading the News

It is difficult to overstate the importance of the media’s role in the public sphere. Scholars of socialization have noted that the media not only decides what information is presented to the public, but frames the dissemination of this information to influence how the public understand and interpret it.1 Through their statements of loyalty after the assassination attempts, the press – including radical papers – shaped public opinion to deplore the assassins and favour the Queen.

The fact that the attempts were consistently and continually referred to as “diabolical,”

“atrocious,” and “dastardly,” while the assassins were called “cowardly,” “nefarious,” “ruffians,” and “miscreants,” was no accident.2 On the contrary, these words were deliberately used to influence public opinion so that readers would receive the news “with a feeling of burning indignation.”3 However, while the press contributed to the formation of public opinion, it also had to anticipate and respond to public opinion in order to keep its readership engaged. Papers were aware of what their audiences wanted to read and attempted to deliver the desired content.

For example, The Times focused attention on public displays of loyalty for its conservative, middle-class readers, while working-class and radical papers were more interested in the sensational aspects of the attacks and reported on the assassins’ motivations and mental states.

Reflecting its readers’ political beliefs, the working-class Blackburn Standard wrote that “the town council is far too liberal and radical,” while the radical Northern Star and Reynold’s Weekly

1 Timothy O. Lenz and Mirya Holman, American Government 2nd ed. (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2018), 197. 2 “Atrocious Attempt To Assassinate The Queen And Prince Albert,” Le Belle Assemblée, 1 June 1840, p. 605.; “Attack Upon Her Majesty The Queen,” Blackburn Standard, 3 July 1850, p. 2.; “Great Aggregate Meeting of the Citizens of Dublin To Address The Queen,” Freeman’s Journal, 22 June 1840, p. 3.; “The Conviction of Pate,” Blackburn Standard, 17 July 1850, p. 2. 3 “Attack Upon Her Majesty The Queen,” The Times, 28 June 1850, p. 8. 33

Newspaper never missed an opportunity to comment on the “privileged rich and the unprivileged poor.”4 Ladies’ papers, meanwhile, often approached the news with a more refined and delicate tone – “Scarcely was our ink dry, in making mention of the kind and gracious condescension of our beloved Queen, when the…news last night reached us.”5

The press coverage of the assassination attempts reflects dominant themes in Victorian journalism, including a cautious handling of republican threats, the reinforcement of gender stereotypes, an emphasis on sensational coverage, and the cultivation of strong bonds between readers and the monarchy. Through its dramatic representations of monarchical life and royal events, the press allowed its readers to feel involved in the sovereign’s life, thereby deepening popular support for the monarchy and facilitating its transformation into a populist institution.

Radical Threats

Although one might assume that the assassination attempts were politically motivated, only a minority of the assassins were affiliated with radical causes. This reflects the reality that, during the Victorian era, the monarchy faced few republican and radical threats.6 As historian

Dorothy Thompson explains, there was an “attachment to an hereditary monarchy” in Britain and, although many identified as democratic radicals, few suggested abolishing the monarchy.7

Furthermore, those who wanted to end monarchical rule generally believed that the monarchy would fade away when the time was right.8 Thompson writes that, during the Victorian era, republicanism or anti-monarchical sentiments were typically expressed in three ways – a very

4 “The Darwen Observer,” Blackburn Standard, 18 March 1882, p. 8.; “Whig Patronage,” Reynold’s Weekly Newspaper, 21 July 1850, p. 3. 5 “The Attempt On The Life of Her Most Gracious Majesty,” Le Belle Assemblée, 1 June 1842, p. 485. 6 Thompson, 90. 7 Thompson, 90-91. 8 Thompson, 101. 34 small movement for pure republicanism, a larger call for an alternate (male) ruler, and widespread demands for reform of the monarchy’s extravagant expenditures.9

Arguably, the greatest republican threat to the Victorian monarchy occurred just before

Victoria first ascended the throne following a long succession of flawed, decadent, and often unpopular Hanoverian kings.10 After the lackluster reigns of George IV and William IV, a minority of the public contended that the monarchy was no longer a relevant institution and should be abolished.11 However, as has already been discussed, the fact that the new monarch was a respectable, virtuous woman who was free from scandal largely silenced calls to end monarchical rule.12 During the first half of Victoria’s reign, the predominant radical movement was Chartism. Advocating for political rights and representation for the disenfranchised working-class, the movement focused its criticism on the “landowning aristocracy, the great industrialists and financers…[and] the structures of privilege, represented by the educational and military institutions which perpetuated the control of the ruling social groups.”13 Tens of thousands of working-class individuals identified as Chartists, and the movement’s supporters even extended into the upper echelons of Victorian society. Some Chartists suggested abolishing the monarchy along with the aristocracy. However, Prince Albert’s support for improving working and living conditions for the working-class made it even more imperative for Chartism to divorce itself from republican calls for ending monarchical rule.14 Still, the Royal Family viewed Chartism as a serious threat and, in anticipation of the 1848 petition and meeting in

9 Thompson, 97-98. 10 Thompson, 91. 11 Thompson, 91.; Williams, 10. 12 Thompson, 91-93. 13 Thompson, 93. 14 Williams, 11, 20. 35

Kennington Common, the “frantically worried” royals fled to Osborne on the Isle of Wight.15

After the Chartists’ third petition for political reform failed in 1848, however, the radical movement faded away.16

Richard Williams identifies 1850-1860 as an era of “dormant” republicanism, and there were virtually no threats to the monarchy during that time.17 However, republican feelings re- emerged in the 1860s as Victoria retreated into seclusion. When Albert died in 1861, it was expected that Victoria would withdraw from public life for a period of mourning but return after an appropriate interval.18 However, as her seclusion stretched on into the decade, there were increasing calls from all classes for Victoria to step aside and allow the Prince of Wales to assume the throne.19 Victoria’s civic publicness at the beginning of her reign set a precedent for the monarch’s visibility, and Victoria’s refusal to resume her public duties placed the monarchy’s security in serious peril. Upon her return to the public sphere in the 1870s, however, these challenges to her rule ended.20 Consequently, republican movements had little traction during the Victorian era, and those radical campaigns that did gain prominence, such as

Chartism, were not overtly anti-monarchical.

Initially, it appeared that the would-be assassin Edward Oxford was aligned with a republican cause. Not only had Oxford been quoted as saying that “he did not think it right that a country like should be governed by a woman,” but the documents and costumes from a secret society – “Young England” – were found among his possessions.21 A list of rules and

15 Longford, 244-245. 16 Walton, 34. 17 Williams, 25. 18 Thompson, 105. 19 Thompson, 105. 20 Thompson, 117. 21 “The Late Atrocious Attempt To Assassinate The Queen And Prince Albert,” The Times, 12 June 1840, p. 6.; “Trial of Oxford for High Treason,” The Times, 10 July 1840, p. 5. 36 regulations suggested that this secret society had republican aspirations.22 Although it was eventually proven that “Young England” was only a figment of Oxford’s imagination, there was nothing imaginary about William Hamilton or Arthur O’Connor’s political motives and connections. Hamilton was a member of “a low Chartist club,” and had been “confined in Paris for having taken part in the insurrection of June [1848].”23 O’Connor supported Fenianism – but was not, notably, a member of a Fenian organization – and presented a petition to Victoria demanding that she free the Fenian prisoners.24 Although one might assume that mainstream papers would emphasize the assassins’ political connections to discredit radicals, whereas radical papers might take a stronger stance condemning the would-be assassins, both genres of the press chose to downplay the political aspects of these threats, particularly as more information about the assassins became available. Certainly, in their initial reports, mainstream papers were concerned by the assassins’ political affiliations. However, they quickly minimized the radical threats, likely in an attempt to abate public fears about the relevance and size of such groups or to discourage others from copying the assassins’ actions. Radical papers also curtailed discussions of the assassins’ political affiliations, motived by a desire to distance themselves from the assassins so that they would not be accused of inciting or supporting attacks on the monarchy.

When the press discovered William Hamilton’s political connections, mainstream papers including The Lady’s Newspaper & Pictorial Times and The Times reported with fear that his attempt appeared to be “political rather than personal.”25 Aside from these two reports, however,

22 “Trial of Oxford for High Treason,” The Times, 10 July 1840, p. 5. 23 “Alleged Attempt To Assassinate The Queen,” The Lady’s Newspaper & Pictorial Times 126, 26 May 1849, p. 286.; “Alleged Attempt To Assassinate The Queen,” The Times, 21 May 1849, p. 5. 24 “Attack On The Queen,” The Times, 1 March 1872, p. 9. 25 “Alleged Attempt To Assassinate The Queen,” The Times, 21 May 1849, p. 5. 37

Hamilton’s political connections were consistently glossed over in favour of other aspects of the attack. For example, the middle-class John Bull focused on the public’s response, writing, “A mob of persons…soon collected on the spot and, unless the police had timely arrived, the fellow would have had violent hands laid on him by the crowd.”26 The working-class Blackburn

Standard, meanwhile, highlighted a comical occurrence during the trial, when the owner of

Hamilton’s old and dirty gun asked the court if his “valuable” weapon might be returned to him.27 By the time Hamilton was sentenced, his radical affiliations were all but forgotten.

Press coverage of Arthur O’Connor was similarly muted in its references to the would-be assassins’ political connections. When The Times first reported the attack, it included a full transcript of O’Connor’s petition demanding the release of the Fenian prisoners.28 His connection with the Irish rebels sparked concern, but these fears were quickly put to rest when it was revealed that O’Connor was “not, and never was, in any way connected with

Fenianism…but that he [was] simply mad.”29 O’Connor’s mental health minimized the political threat he presented and, in the following reports, most newspapers paid more attention to his

“irregularly shaped” head and “fits of passion” than his Fenian connections.30 When mention had to be made of O’Connor’s politics – it was, after all, an essential part of his attempt – the working-class Blackburn Standard dismissed it with a passing comment that O’Connor

“muttered something about ‘English tyranny and Irish Fenians.’”31 Therefore, if the press

26 “Examination At The Home Office, Yesterday,” John Bull, 21 May 1849, p. 16. 27 “Shooting At The Queen,” Blackburn Standard, 20 June 1849, p. 3. 28 “The Attack Upon The Queen,” The Times, 2 March 1872, p. 9. 29 “Miscellaneous,” John Bull, 9 March 1872, p. 13. 30 “Central Criminal Court,” The Times, 12 April 1872, p. 11. 31 “Outrage Upon The Queen,” Blackburn Standard, 6 March 1872, p. 4. 38 coverage is any indication, O’Connor’s support for Feminism was generally disregarded and treated as an unimportant factor in the attack, rather than a reason for public concern.

Conservative newspapers for both middle- and working-class readers consistently minimized the political threats in the relevant assassination attempts. This may have been because the papers did not want to risk planting ideas in potential assassins’ minds. After all,

John Francis’s defence claimed that the extensive press coverage devoted to Edward Oxford had fuelled Francis’s “hope to render himself notorious” and inspired him to make his attack.32

Considering most readers of the mainstream press would have been at least moderately pro- monarchy, perhaps these papers also wanted to avoid agitating their readers and leading them to believe that the political threats were more serious than they appeared. However, the mainstream press had to balance its marginalizing of Chartism and Fenianism with the need to generate public interest in the attempts to sell newspapers and fulfil commercial goals. Thus, although it avoided publicizing the political movements affiliated with the attacks, the conservative, mainstream press’s coverage of these threats to the monarchy still created a sensation around the assassination attempts.

Like its mainstream counterparts, the radical press also downplayed the political aspects of Hamilton and O’Connor’s attacks. The Northern Star, a radical, Chartist newspaper, printed two reports on Hamilton’s attempt. The first provided a biographical account of the would-be assassin, while the second was a brief paragraph summarizing the trial and Hamilton’s sentence.33 Condemning Hamilton’s comments about “petticoat government” as “remarkable” and “disrespectful,” the Northern Star was very deliberate and measured in its coverage,

32 “High Treason,” The Times, 18 June 1842, p. 8. 33 “The Late Outrage On The Queen,” Northern Star and Leeds General Advertiser, 2 June 1849, p. 15.; “Trial of Hamilton For Firing At The Queen,” Northern Star and Leeds General Advertiser, 16 June 1849, p. 24. 39 avoiding anything that might cause it to be accused of providing sympathy or support.34 The fact that Hamilton was a Chartist made it all the more imperative for the Northern Star, the journalistic organ of the Chartist movement, to distance itself and its cause from the would-be assassin.

Similarly, the radical press deplored O’Connor’s actions. With great indignation,

Reynold’s Weekly Newspaper reported that O’Connor showed “no regret for his outrageous act, asserting that he considered himself quite justified in having endeavored to procure the release of the Fenian prisoners.”35 In the same article, the radical paper noted with approval that, following the attack on the Queen, several clergy arranged a loyalist, pro-monarchy meeting for the

“working men of South London” at the Surrey Chapel Mission hall.36 Meanwhile, the Irish nationalist Freeman’s Journal also condemned O’Connor’s actions, reporting with an air of relief that he had “[no] connection whatever with any Fenian or other political organization.”37

For the radical press, Hamilton and O’Connor’s radical political connections were deeply problematic, as they risked affiliating radical causes with attacks on the monarch’s life. Although radical papers often advocated for overthrowing the aristocratic elite, few went so far as to support abolishing the monarchy outright.38 Indeed, radical critiques of the royal family tended to focus on demands for financial reform of extravagant expenditures, rather than calls for a revolution.39 Reports of the assassination attempts had to reflect those priorities. It is notable that, instead of vocally denouncing the assassins and disassociating themselves, radical papers

34 “The Late Outage On The Queen,” Northern Star and Leeds General Advertiser, 2 June 1849, p. 15. 35 “Attack Upon the Queen. Arrest of the Offender. His Examination at the Police Court,” Reynold’s Weekly Newspaper, 3 March 1872, p. 1. 36 “Attack Upon the Queen. Arrest of the Offender. His Examination at the Police Court,” Reynold’s Weekly Newspaper, 3 March 1872, p. 1. 37 “The Case of O’Connor,” Freeman’s Journal, 4 March 1872, p. 3. 38 Thompson, 90-91, 93. 39 Thompson, 98. 40 expressed their outrage in the context of the general attack and downplayed radical connections.

Perhaps the radical press felt that minimized discussions of the relevant political affiliations, rather than specific statements of denunciation, would better avoid piquing suspicions of connections with the assassins.

Press coverage of Victoria frequently encouraged readers to feel intimately connected with their monarch, and public outcries against the assassination attempts were shaped by this personal and emotional investment in the monarchy.40 The radical press’s readership shared in the collective intimacy between the people and their sovereign and demanded royal reportage in their own newspapers. As historian John Plunkett writes, the producers of the radical press were often frustrated with having to dedicate so much attention to the monarchy and royal tours and events, since such coverage removed attention from radical values and principles.41 However, these reports were deemed necessary because readers demanded them – “there was a commercial need to provide…readers with coverage of the latest royal tour or visit.”42 Because of their emotional investment in the monarchy, readers of the radical press joined with mainstream audiences in reviling the assassins and their attempts to murder the Queen. Consequently, the radical press also dismissed the political aspects of these attempts to avoid alienating its readers and to assure them that the assassins were not connected with the newspapers’ – or readers’ – causes.

It is not unreasonable to assume that there would have been political motivations behind attempts to assassinate a queen. Upon closer examination, however, only two of the would-be assassins had serious political motives or connections. Even then, radical and mainstream papers

40 Plunkett, Queen Victoria: First Media Monarch, 7-8. 41 Plunkett, Queen Victoria: First Media Monarch, 7-8. 42 Plunkett, “A media monarchy? Queen Victoria and the radical press, 1837-1901,” 13. 41 alike consistently downplayed these political threats in favour of other aspects of the attempts, particularly representations of gender and sensational depictions of the would-be assassins.

Gender and the Press

Gender norms in Victorian Britain have been characterized by the concept of “separate spheres,” with women being mostly limited to the private sphere, while men were the masters of the public sphere. According to Victorian middle-class gender norms, women were presented as the “civilizing influence” of the home and were virtuous, “pure, gentle, self-sacrificing, emotion[al], and given to piety.”43 Men, meanwhile, were “naturally worldly, physical, assertive, rational, and self-controlled.”44 The revival of romantic notions of chivalry also became prominent in gender norms of masculinity.45 Although these ideals did not reflect the realities of working-class and even some middle-class lives, they nonetheless served as important cultural references points in Victorian society. As historian James Curran notes, these social conceptions of and values associated with masculinity and femininity were reinforced by mainstream, radical, working-class, and ladies’ papers.46 The news coverage of the assassination attempts reinforced gender norms through the press’s portrayal of Victoria and the male figures involved in the events, but the press’s employment of gender norms also highlights themes related to the “media monarchy.” Central to Victoria’s media making was her depiction as a relatable public character that fit within her citizens’ understandings of femininity. Historians John Plunkett and Dorothy

Thompson note that the cultivation of an almost bourgeois image of the monarchy, with Victoria as a doting middle-class wife and mother, countered public perceptions of and concerns about

43 James Curran, “Media and the Making of British Society, c. 1700-2000,” Media History 8, no. 2 (2002): 138. 44 Curran, 138. 45 Plunkett, “A media monarchy? Queen Victoria and the radical press, 1837-1901,” 14. 46 Curran, 138. 42 the monarchy’s political nature.47 By focusing on her maternal qualities, the reports of the assassination attempts helped Victoria’s subjects feel intimately connected with her.

Furthermore, Victoria’s gender also allowed her to be imbued with “idealised meanings,” and the press suggested that her strength represented the strength of the British nation.48 Meanwhile, the men who endeavoured to protect the Queen during the assassination attempts were presented according to masculine gender norms, particularly the ideal of chivalry, and were championed as

Victoria’s heroes. In stark contrast, the male assassins’ deviant and savage masculinity was highlighted in their portrayals as intemperate, idle, and immoral savages who demonstrated a remarkable lack of self-control and self-possession.49

The press’s emphasis on Victoria’s gender in coverage of the assassination attempts was in many ways an extension of dominant themes and debates in the media commentary on the reign of a female monarch. When Victoria first assumed the throne, some feared that, as a woman, she would be vulnerable to manipulation.50 However, Victoria’s gender quickly came to be perceived as a moralizing force that allowed the monarchy to counter the corruption of political parties, in contrast with the legacies of the partisan George IV and William IV.51 By responding to her subjects’ desires for a more public, sensitive, and representative monarch, and by presenting an image of herself that was what the people both wanted and needed at the time,

Victoria built a strong base of popular support that helped facilitate the creation of a more populist monarchy. The emphasis on Victoria’s feminine traits, including her vulnerability in the public sphere, also served to highlight the atrocity of the attacks she faced. As The Lady’s

47 Plunkett, Queen Victoria: First Media Monarch, 40-41.; Thompson, 42. 48 John Plunkett, “Of Hype and Type: The Media Making of Queen Victoria 1837-1845,” Critical Survey 13, no. 2 (2001): 15. 49 Tosh, Manliness and Masculinities in Nineteenth-Century Britain: Essays on Gender, Family and Empire, 73. 50 Thompson, 30. 51 Thompson, 17. 43

Newspaper & Pictorial Times noted, “To strike a woman under any circumstances is revolting; but to use a bludgeon against the [sovereign]…is an atrocity for which we can find no words of sufficient vehemence.”52 Victoria’s femininity, maternal qualities, self-possession, and mercy not only made her more relatable and deepened the collective intimacy between the public and the sovereign, but also emphasized the “diabolical” nature of the attacks, helping to secure her position as a Queen – and as a woman.53

The Victorian press emphasized the outrageous nature of the attacks by highlighting the

Queen’s feminine attributes. After Edward Oxford’s attempt in 1840, the Irish nationalist

Freeman’s Journal quoted Lord Milltown, who called Victoria the “‘most innocent and the most virtuous and most beautiful young and gentle sovereign that had ever ruled the destinies of an empire.’”54 The Times described the Queen as “young, and beautiful, and good,” while Le Belle

Assemblée noted that Victoria’s purity and morality won her a deep loyalty from her people that had not been seen since the days when George IV’s much-beloved daughter, Charlotte, was

Princess of Wales.55 Similarly, during the summer of 1842, after it was revealed that Victoria had refused to allow any of her ladies to join her when John Francis was baited for his second attempt, Victoria was lauded for her feminine “magnanimity.”56 The following year, after Robert

Pate’s attack, the working-class Blackburn Standard wrote that Victoria’s “virtues, even more than her illustrious rank entitle her to the love and veneration of every creature in this realm.”57

Many papers also emphasized the fact that the attack had occurred after Victoria “performed a

52 “Atrocious Assault Upon Her Majesty,” The Lady’s Newspaper & Pictorial Times 183, 29 June 1850, p. 353. 53 “Attempt On The Life Of The Queen,” Northern Star and Leeds General Advertiser, 4 June 1842, p. 11. 54 “Great Aggregate Meeting of the Citizens of Dublin To Address The Queen,” Freeman’s Journal, 22 June 1840, p. 3. 55 “Atrocious Attempt To Assassinate The Queen And Prince Albert,” Le Belle Assemblée, 1 June 1840, p. 609.; “Central Criminal Court, Monday, June 22,” The Times, 23 June 1840, p. 6. 56 “High Treason,” The Times, 18 June 1842, p. 7. 57 “Attack Upon Her Majesty The Queen,” Blackburn Standard, 3 July 1850, p. 2. 44 duty of kindness to a sick relation.”58 Not only had she, as a woman, been subject to an atrocious attempt on her life, but that attack occurred while she was on a mission of mercy.59 Additionally, in 1872, the Blackburn Standard praised Victoria for her “marvelous serenity and composure” throughout Arthur O’Connor’s attempt.60 In the same way, when Roderick Maclean made his threat on the Queen in 1882, Victoria’s “same brave spirit” enabled a woman of her age and infirmity to be undaunted, much to the press’s awe.61 Consequently, Victoria’s goodness, grace, selflessness, and other virtues allowed her to appear more feminine – and more innocent – after each assassination attempt.

Victoria’s domesticity was central to her gendered depiction and contributed to the popular trope of Victoria as the mother of the nation. Emphasizing the middle-class domesticity of the Victorian monarchy made the institution more acceptable and more justifiable, further solidifying the monarchy’s place in Victorian society. In addition, since Victoria’s maternal image suggested that she took a personal interest in her subjects’ well-being, it encouraged her people to adopt a reciprocal interest in her as well. Victoria’s maternal role was frequently referenced in her depiction during the assassination attempts. Although only a few months pregnant in June 1840, when Edward Oxford made his attempt on her life, the Freeman’s

Journal referred to Victoria as “that young wife and expectant mother.”62 Similarly, when the

Blackburn Standard suggested that Oxford’s attack was really a Whig plot to overthrow the

Tories, the paper condemned the Whigs for attempting to “murder Queen Victoria and ‘the

58 “Attack Upon Her Majesty The Queen,” Blackburn Standard, 3 July 1850, p. 2. 59 “Attack Upon Her Majesty The Queen,” Blackburn Standard, 3 July 1850, p. 2. 60 “Outrage Upon The Queen,” Blackburn Standard, 6 March 1872, p. 4. 61 “The Attempt On The Queen’s Life,” The Times, 7 March 1882, p. 6. 62 “Great Aggregate Meeting of the Citizens of Dublin To Address The Queen,” Freeman’s Journal, 22 June 1840, p. 3. 45 unborn Prince of Wales.’”63 Even before she had given birth to her first child, the media making of Victoria’s maternal image was already underway. In 1842, meanwhile, Victoria’s maternal nature was presented not in relation to her children, but in the way she cared for her mother.

When the Duchess of Kent heard of John Francis’s second attempt, she immediately went to

Buckingham Palace to see her daughter. The Times wrote that the Duchess was “deeply affected, and fell upon Her Majesty’s neck, shedding a flood of tears.”64 As the Freeman’s Journal continued, Victoria “gaily caressed her Royal mother, and assured her that she had not sustained the slightest alarm or inconvenience, and that there were no grounds for alarm.”65 In this instance, Victoria’s maternal nature was depicted as extending to even her own mother. This episode told Victoria’s subjects that she would comfort and mother them as well, holding them in their fears and reassuring them of her wellbeing.

When William Hamilton made his attack in 1849, three of Victoria’s children were in the carriage with her. The press noted with great satisfaction that, immediately after the attack,

Victoria turned “to the royal children as if to calm their fears.”66 Similarly, in 1850, Victoria was again in the company of several of her children when Robert Pate made his attempt, a fact which was reported with indignation in nearly all of the papers. The Lady’s Newspaper & Pictorial

Times was particularly outraged that Victoria’s children were exposed to a brutal assault on their mother.67 Furthermore, the paper added that Victoria was “yet in a delicate state of health,” having given birth to Prince Arthur less than two months earlier.68 The attack was an assault on

63 “The Pot Boy And The Whigs,” Blackburn Standard, 24 June 1840, p. 3. 64 “The Late Attempt On The Queen’s Life,” Northern Star and Leeds General Advertiser, 13 June 1842, p. 1. 65 “Attempt on the Queen’s Life,” Freeman’s Journal, 2 June 1842, p. 2. 66 “Alleged Attempt To Assassinate The Queen,” The Lady’s Newspaper & Pictorial Times 126, 26 May 1849, p. 286. 67 “Atrocious Assault Upon Her Majesty,” The Lady’s Newspaper & Pictorial Times 183, 29 June 1850, p. 353. 68 “Atrocious Assault Upon Her Majesty,” The Lady’s Newspaper & Pictorial Times 183, 29 June 1850, p. 353. 46

Victoria as both a queen and a mother. However, just as she had consoled her children after

Hamilton’s attempt in 1849, Victoria immediately turned to the crowd, assuring her people that she was uninjured and there was no reason for them to be concerned.69 Likewise, when Roderick

Maclean tried to assassinate Victoria in 1882, her maternal role was again central in her depiction. Upon hearing Maclean’s shot, Princess Beatrice “uttered a loud scream.”70 Victoria’s calm demeanour, however, comforted her daughter, and the princess quickly collected herself.

Additionally, Victoria demonstrated a maternal concern for her people by immediately inquiring

“if any injury had been sustained by anyone” – a fact which impressed even the radical

Reynold’s Weekly Newspaper.71 Victoria’s maternal, domestic image remained a key aspect of her public depiction throughout her reign. The press coverage of the assassination attempts portrayed Victoria was a mother to her children in the private sphere and to the nation in the public sphere. Reports of the attacks brought these two spheres together. Thus, Victoria’s presentation as a maternal figure gave her people insights into both her public and private life, furthering the sense of intimacy cultivated by the press and the creation of a populist monarchy.

Although the media construction of Victoria’s feminine virtues and maternal role reinforced dominant gender stereotypes, one aspect of the press coverage suggested that

Victoria’s behaviour was somewhat exceptional, especially in comparison with the other women mentioned in the reports of the assassination attempts. During the Victorian era, middle-class women were sometimes presented as hysterical and neurotic, unable to cope with any strain.72

Victoria, on the other hand, consistently maintained her resolve and self-possession while the women around her were panicked and afraid. In some ways, this furthered Victoria’s maternal

69 “Attack Upon Her Majesty The Queen,” The Times, 28 June 1850, p. 8. 70 “Attempt To Shoot The Queen At Windsor,” Reynold’s Weekly Newspaper, 5 March 1882, p. 1. 71 “Attempt To Shoot The Queen At Windsor,” Reynold’s Weekly Newspaper, 5 March 1882, p. 1. 72 Alison Winter, “Mesmerism and Popular Culture in Early Victorian England,” History of Science 32 (1994): 5. 47 image, suggesting that she was the ultimate mother, always maintaining her composure and calming her people. However, it also illustrates another aspect of public femininity. John

Plunkett writes that women – particularly female monarchs – are often invested with virtues and ideals to serve as national symbols.73 Thus, Victoria’s strength may have been deliberately highlighted in the press coverage of the assassination attempts to reinforce the political stability and resolution of Britain and its empire.

When describing the attacks, the press often reported that female bystanders screamed or expressed distress.74 Victoria, however, consistently maintained her composure. After Oxford’s attempt, Victoria was complimented for displaying her “usual calmness,” while following

Francis’s attack she was said to be “perfectly calm and collected, although somewhat flushed.”75

It was claimed that Victoria was unaware of Bean’s threat, but she “[retained] the most perfect composure of manner” after Hamilton fired his pistol.76 Victoria’s demeanour after Pate’s assault particularly exemplified her strength. Although she was rendered unconscious by his blow, she attended the Royal Italian Opera that night, “the mark of the ruffian’s violence plainly visible on her forehead.”77 As the cast and audience sang “God Save the Queen,” Victoria stood at the edge of the royal box alone – a testament to her independent resolve and resiliency.78 Both mainstream and working-class papers, including The Times and the Blackburn Standard, felt that her appearance was “equally touching and graceful,” reassuring the people of her strength and the

73 Plunkett, “Of Hype and Type: The Media Making of Queen Victoria 1837-1845,” 15. 74 “Attempt To Shoot The Queen At Windsor,” Reynold’s Weekly Newspaper, 5 March 1882, p. 1. 75 “Attempt On The Life of Her Majesty,” The Times, 1 June 1842, p. 6.; “The Late Attempt On The Queen’s Life,” Northern Star and Leeds General Advertiser, 13 June 1842, p. 1. 76 “Alleged Attempt To Assassinate The Queen,” The Lady’s Newspaper & Pictorial Times 126, 26 May 1849, p. 286. 77 “Attack Upon Her Majesty The Queen,” Blackburn Standard, 3 July 1850, p. 2. 78 “Attack Upon Her Majesty The Queen,” Blackburn Standard, 3 July 1850, p. 2. 48 strength of the British nation.79 However, Victoria’s appearance at the opera immediately following a violent attempt on her life also exemplifies the emphasis she placed on her civic publicness. Notably, it was at Victoria’s urging that her physicians allowed her to attend the opera that evening, highlighting Victoria’s own agency in her creation as a populist sovereign.80

Amply aware of the symbiotic relationship between the monarchy and the media, Victoria actively engaged in the construction of her popular character and, in this case, her public image as a rational, collected, and resilient sovereign.

Similarly, after Arthur O’Connor’s attempt in 1872, not only did Victoria “[display] a calmness and courage worthy of her great position,” but she was also said to be “the only unexcited person in the little group.”81 In 1882, even the radical Reynold’s Weekly Newspaper could not help but laud the Queen for her “wonderful self-possession, showing no alarm” at

Roderick Maclean’s attack.82 While her ladies-in-waiting “were more alarmed at the excitement which prevailed,” Victoria simply “bowed her gracious acknowledgements” to the “heartfelt cheer of those assembled .”83 Even when those around her were panicked and terrified, Victoria was consistently depicted as being calm and determined. If Victoria’s diaries are any indication, it appears that the press’s representation was accurate, and Victoria remained remarkably collected throughout these attacks. In fact, the only time Victoria wrote of feeling fear was in

1872, when O’Connor appeared in her carriage window, giving her “a terrible fright.”84

79 “Attack Upon Her Majesty The Queen,” Blackburn Standard, 3 July 1850, p. 2.; “Attack Upon Her Majesty The Queen,” The Times, 28 June 1850, p. 8. 80 Charles, 63.; Longford, 188-189, 212, 239, 240-241, 490-491. 81 “Outrage Upon The Queen,” Blackburn Standard, 6 March 1872, p. 6.; “The Attack Upon The Queen,” The Times, 2 March 1872, p. 9. 82 “The Attack Upon The Queen,” The Times, 2 March 1872, p. 9. 83 “Attempt To Shoot The Queen At Windsor,” Reynold’s Weekly Newspaper, 5 March 1882, p. 1. 84 Victoria, Queen of Great Britain, The Letters of Queen Victoria, ed. George Earle Buckle (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 198. 49

However, Victoria’s public presence allowed the press to endow her with national ideals so that she became a symbol of Britain’s strength, thereby inspiring her people to embody that virtue within themselves.

Reports of the assassination attempts also emphasized Victoria’s feminine compassion through her displays of mercy for John Francis and William Hamilton when they faced their sentences. Rather than being quietly delivered to the assassins, Victoria’s intercessions were carefully and deliberately orchestrated so that the press – and the public – would laud her for her benevolence. In its comments on John Francis’s death sentence, the radical Northern Star attacked Victoria directly – “Talk not to us of ‘the Queen’s magnanimity’” – and stated that, if

Victoria did not intercede, “the bloody deed [would] stick to her name through life, and blot her escutcheon in death!”85 Meanwhile, Le Belle Assemblée, a ladies’ journal, appealed to Victoria’s feminine empathy, hoping that Providence would “endow the Queen with more than ordinary sagacity.”86 When Victoria intervened, the Northern Star changed its tune, praising the

“clemency of Her Majesty, whose benevolent wishes were consulted by the privy council.”87 In the same way, after William Hamilton made his attack in 1849, Victoria’s mercy was displayed when she removed the public flogging from his sentence. Both mainstream papers like The

Times and working-class publications including the Blackburn Standard noted with contentment that it “was her Majesty’s express desire that the punishment of flogging should not be inflicted.”88 Highlighting Victoria’s active role and personal intercession in altering the assassins’ sentences, the press suggested that Victoria’s mercy ensured she would govern her

85 “Most Abominable,” Northern Star and Leeds General Advertiser, 25 June 1842, p. 20. 86 “The Attempt On The Life Of Her Most Gracious Majesty,” Le Belle Assemblée, 1 June 1842, p. 487. 87 “Reprieve of Francis the Convict,” Northern Star and Leeds General Advertiser, 9 July 1842, p. 3. 88 “Central Criminal Court, June 14,” The Times, 15 June 1849, p. 7.; “Shooting At The Queen,” Blackburn Standard, 20 June 1849, p. 3. 50 subjects fairly and prevent abuses of power – even against those who made attacks on her person. In this regard, the press coverage of Victoria’s intercessions indicated that the public could rely on Victoria’s grace, composure, maternal guidance, and compassion to counter male political leaders when they failed to represent public opinion or were overzealous in their exercise of power, authority, or justice. This representation of Victoria as protecting the interests of the nation further facilitated the monarchy’s populist transformation.

The press coverage of the assassination attempts proves that the British people felt connected to their monarch because they understood her through the gender norms of the time.

However, this connection was also strengthened by the continuity and dependability in Victoria’s depiction. Despite the fact that these attacks spanned more than four decades, Victoria’s portrayal remained remarkably consistent. The assassination attempts merited significant attention because they were so extraordinary, but Victoria’s character – real or constructed – was the thread that connected the attempts with the larger narrative of her reign. Whether her roles as daughter, wife, or mother were most prominent in these attacks, the continuity in Victoria’s depiction throughout her different stages of life demonstrates how she became both a populist sovereign and, as John Plunkett indicates, “the hero of her own life.”89

The Victorian press also reinforced traditional gender norms through its representation of the men who intervened during the attempts – Prince Albert, John Brown, Prince Arthur, Charles

Dassett, and the Eton boys. These men were portrayed as heroes, exemplifying chivalry, courage, strength, and perseverance in their selfless and heroic defence of the Queen. Through its depiction of these male heroes, the press not only furthered male gender stereotypes, but also

89 Plunkett, Queen Victoria: First Media Monarch, 11. 51 helped reconcile the paradox of having a woman as the monarch. The fact that Victoria required strong, masculine protectors reinforced her femininity and proved that a female queen was not a threat to gender norms – if anything, it strengthened them.

Prince Albert was often ridiculed by the press for everything from his accent, to his interests, to his virtually unprecedented social station as a male consort to a female queen.90

However, when it came to Edward Oxford’s attack on the Queen, Albert was Victoria’s gallant defender. When Albert saw Oxford, the prince “caught [Victoria] in his arms” and “ordered the horses to drive on as if nothing had occurred.”91 The press suggested that Albert’s presence of mind and attention to his wife saved them both from Oxford’s attempt. Although Le Belle

Assemblée reported that the prince supposedly “looked very flushed in the face,” Albert was generally portrayed as being calm and collected throughout the ordeal.92 His willingness to throw himself between Victoria and her assailant was widely applauded, and even the radical Northern

Star noted with satisfaction that he “placed himself between her Majesty and the assassin, so that had the second shot taken effect, his Royal Highness would have been the victim, not her

Majesty.”93 Albert’s selfless chivalry was compounded by the fact that he risked his own life in his defence of the Queen. While Albert was acting as a husband protecting his wife, in this instance he was also the Prince Consort defending the monarch. This emphasis on Albert’s courage and gallantry is also evident in visual representations of the events. The Penny Satirist shows a severe-looking Albert holding his arms in front of Victoria to shield her from Oxford’s pistol, while Victoria peeks from behind his hands in a child-like manner (Fig. 1).94

90 Thompson, 37, 40, 51, 88. 91 “London, Thursday, June 11, 1840,” The Times, 11 June 1840, p. 4. 92 “Atrocious Attempt To Assassinate The Queen And Prince Albert,” Le Belle Assemblée, 1 June 1840, p. 606. 93 “Attempt To Murder The Queen,” Northern Star and Leeds General Advertiser, 13 June 1840, p. 5. 94 “Edward Oxford, Firing At The Queen And Prince Albert,” The Penny Satirist 4, no. 166, 20 June 1840, p. 1. 52

Fig. 1 – “Edward Oxford, Firing At The Queen And Prince Albert,” The Penny Satirist, 20 June 1840, p. 1.

Similarly, in Cleave’s London Satirist and Gazette of Variety, Albert is starting to stand, as if preparing to leap out of the carriage or spring in front of his wife (Fig. 2).95 One outstretched arm holds a seemingly unaware Victoria in her seat, while he shields himself with his other arm.96

Cleave’s approach is more dramatic than The Penny Satirist’s and, as a result, makes Albert appear even more heroic. In both illustrations, Victoria is dressed entirely in white, suggesting an innocence and child-like aspect to her character, while Albert was her stalwart – if rather skinny

– protector. As Albert’s tenure as Prince Consort continued, and he began to adopt a more active and useful role, the press’s criticisms gradually eased.97 However, it is possible that Albert’s

95 “The Late Attempted Assassination Of The Queen and Prince Albert, By Edward Oxford,” Cleave’s London Satirist and Gazette of Variety 3, no. 36, 20 June 1840, p. 1. 96 “The Late Attempted Assassination Of The Queen and Prince Albert, By Edward Oxford,” Cleave’s London Satirist and Gazette of Variety 3, no. 36, 20 June 1840, p. 1. 97 Thompson, 40-42. 53 manly depiction in the context of Oxford’s assassination attempt also contributed to the press’s new understanding of and respect for his character.

Fig. 2 – “The Late Attempted Assassination Of The Queen and Prince Albert, By Edward Oxford,” Cleave’s London Satirist and Gazette of Variety 3, no. 26, 20 June 1840, p. 1.

Despite his starring role in the press coverage of Oxford’s attempt, Albert was reduced to a glorified bystander in Francis, Bean, Hamilton, and Pate’s attacks. The only other instance in which Albert gained any attention was following William Hamilton’s attempt. Having “been out on horseback, [Albert] was slightly in advance when the occurrence took place.”98 Although The

98 “Atrocious Assault Upon Her Majesty,” The Lady’s Newspaper & Pictorial Times 183, 29 June 1850, p. 353. 54

Lady’s Newspaper & Pictorial Times noted that “His Royal Highness with great emotion congratulated her Majesty on the escape she had had” upon her arrival at Buckingham Palace, it was clear that Albert had missed his opportunity to resume his valiant role – much to the press’s disappointment.99

After Albert’s death in 1861, Victoria retreated into seclusion and mourning. However, her friendship with Albert’s former equerry, John Brown, was a source of solace, even as it prompted significant gossip about the true nature of the friendship.100 Some went so far as to suggest that Victoria and Brown were secretly married and had a child.101 Regardless of whether

Brown actually assumed Albert’s husbandly role, he adopted Albert’s position as a courageous defender of the Queen during Arthur O’Connor’s attack. When O’Connor approached Victoria’s carriage in 1872, “[h]e was immediately seized by the Queen’s personal attendant, Brown, and given in charge to the police.”102 Brown was summoned to testify at the trial proceedings – a fact which, to the radical Reynold’s Weekly Newspaper’s delight, caused “a sensation in court.”103

Likely aware of the associations the public would make with Brown’s character and not wanting to prompt more gossip, mainstream papers like The Times adopted a more circumspect approach, simply reporting that John Brown testified that he “seized [O’Connor] by the neck.”104 In their coverage of the trial proceedings, both The Times and Reynold’s Weekly Newspaper mentioned

Brown’s testimony, highlighting his immediacy in capturing O’Connor and protecting the

99 “Atrocious Assault Upon Her Majesty,” The Lady’s Newspaper & Pictorial Times 183, 29 June 1850, p. 353. 100 Thompson, 61-64. 101 Thompson, 85. 102 “Outrage On The Queen,” John Bull, 2 March 1872, p. 13. 103 “Attack Upon the Queen. Arrest of the Offender. His Examination at the Police Court,” Reynold’s Weekly Newspaper, 3 March 1872, p. 1. 104 “The Attack Upon the Queen,” The Times, 2 March 1872, p. 9. 55 sovereign.105 Brown defended the Queen when she faced a potentially violent attack, and his noble act could not be ignored.

Meanwhile, Prince Arthur, Victoria’s seventh child, also helped protect his mother from

O’Connor’s attack. The working-class Blackburn Standard reported that “Prince Arthur had the satisfaction of rendering considerable assistance in the defense of his mother…when the Prince interposed his arm and averted [the pistol].”106 These sentiments were echoed in by the

Freeman’s Journal, which reported that “[t]he Prince promptly sprang from the carriage and helped to hold down the fellow.”107 Like John Brown, Prince Arthur was called upon to testify at the trial, and Prince Leopold confirmed his brother’s part in preventing the attempt – “I also saw

[O’Connor] pushed by Prince Arthur.”108 The language describing Brown and Prince Arthur’s involvement is not as adulatory as Albert received in 1840. However, the fact that the press reported on their roles indicates how highly chivalry was valued in the mid-nineteenth century, and how the press represented this aspect of masculinity. Placing themselves in danger to protect the Queen, both John Brown and Prince Arthur exemplified gallantry, strength, and bravery. The publicity dedicated to their actions not only inspired the public to follow in their footsteps, but also suggested that Victoria’s femininity and status as monarch made her worthy of their intervention. Instead of making her appear domineering, the emphasis on her male defenders’ valour helped make Victoria into a more vulnerable public figure – and, therefore, a more acceptable public woman.

105 “Attack Upon the Queen. Arrest of the Offender. His Examination at the Police Court,” Reynold’s Weekly Newspaper, 3 March 1872, p. 1.; “The Attack Upon the Queen,” The Times, 2 March 1872, p. 9. 106 “Outrage Upon The Queen,” Blackburn Standard, 6 March 1872, p. 6. 107 “The Outrage on the Queen,” Freeman’s Journal, 2 March 1872, p. 4. 108 “The Attack Upon the Queen,” The Times, 2 March 1872, p. 9. 56

In addition to Albert, John Brown, and Prince Arthur, there were also commoners who interceded on behalf of their Queen, including Charles Dassett in 1842 and two Eton boys in

1882. Like those who were members of Victoria’s inner circle, the press portrayed these commoners as valiant heroes. In 1842, when John William Bean made his attempt on Victoria,

Charles Dassett “wrestled the pistol from the prisoner” and seized him.109 The event went largely unnoticed and, when Dassett grabbed Bean, the few bystanders told Dassett to let the “hump- backed boy go free.”110 Even the two constables Dassett approached merely laughed and refused to take his appeal seriously.111 Although Dassett eventually lost hold of Bean, he went directly to the police station to report the incident and provide a description of the assassin. The fact that he was the only witness highlighted the heroic nature of his act. As the radical Northern Star wrote, the attempt “would have gone unnoticed had not one boy seen it,” and, as the conservative Times added, Bean never would have been punished.112 Since there were no other witnesses, some questioned Dassett’s honesty. The Times, however, eagerly attested to Dassett’s integrity, stating that “his testimony varied in no degree from the evidence given in our paper of yesterday.”113

Dassett’s devotion to his monarch ensured that all assassins – whether obvious or inconspicuous

– were brought to justice, and this perseverance won him significant praise from papers as politically diverse as The Times, the Freeman’s Journal, and the Northern Star.114

Forty years later, commoners again played a notable role in seizing a would-be assassin.

In 1882, after Roderick Maclean shot at Victoria, he was “belaboured over the head and

109 “The Supposed Attempt Upon Her Majesty’s Life,” The Times, 5 July 1842, p. 5. 110 “The Supposed Attempt Upon Her Majesty’s Life,” The Times, 5 July 1842, p. 5. 111 “The Supposed Attempt Upon Her Majesty’s Life,” The Times, 5 July 1842, p. 5. 112 “Suspected Attack Upon The Queen,” Northern Star and Leeds General Advertiser, 9 July 1842, p. 16.; “The Supposed Attempt Upon Her Majesty’s Life,” The Times, 5 July 1842, p. 5. 113 “The Supposed Attempt Upon Her Majesty’s Life,” The Times, 5 July 1842, p. 5. 114 “Suspected Attack Upon The Queen,” Northern Star and Leeds General Advertiser, 9 July 1842, p. 16. 57 shoulders with an umbrella by an Eton boy.”115 It was later confirmed that two young men –

Gordon Chesney Wilson and Leslie Murray Robertson – were responsible for the vigorous defence of the monarch.116 Applauded for their enthusiasm for Victoria and determination to defend her, the Eton boys’ act was widely noted in the press. The Times even commented on

Victoria’s reception of Wilson and Robertson at Windsor Castle to thank them for their services.117 However, because of the boys’ youth, as well as the manner in which they practically lynched Maclean, some papers treated the events with a more comical lens.118 A poem, Flora

Etona!, was circulated throughout the working-class and satirical papers, praising “the Eton lad/

Who punched [Maclean’s] head!”119 In the final stanza, the poem says, “What shall be done with him – the wretch?...Young Eton gave the tone – Just punch his head!”120 Epitomizing the comical aspect of the Eton boys’ overzealous chivalry, the poem also demonstrates how Wilson and Robertson were treated patronizingly for their almost childlike allegiance to the Queen. Still, most were impressed with the way the Eton boys “rushed up to the prisoner,” and the loyalty they exhibited so unquestioningly.121 Thus, gallantry and bravery played a crucial role in the media depiction of the men who sought to protect Victoria from would-be assassins.

These men – Prince Albert, John Brown, Prince Arthur, Charles Dassett, Gordon

Chesney Wilson, and Leslie Murray Robertson – were represented in the press coverage of the assassination attempts according to male stereotypes of chivalry, valour, perseverance, strength, and integrity.122 Their depiction proved that Victoria was a woman worth protecting,

115 “Attempt To Assassinate The Queen,” The Times, 21 May 1849, p. 5. 116 “The Queen,” The Times, 9 March 1882, p. 9. 117 “The Queen,” The Times, 9 March 1882, p. 9. 118 “The Attempt On The Queen’s Life,” Reynold’s Weekly Newspaper, 23 April 1882, p. 1. 119 “Flora Etona!” Punch 85, 18 March 1882, p. 130. 120 “Flora Etona!” Punch 85, 18 March 1882, p. 130. 121 “Dastardly Attempt To Shoot The Queen,” Blackburn Standard, 4 March 1882, p. 5. 122 Tosh, Manliness and Masculinities in Nineteenth-Century Britain, 65, 67, 88. 58 underscoring the collective intimacy the people felt with their sovereign and reinforcing loyalist sentiments. However, Victoria’s assassins were also male, and their behaviour towards their sovereign – and a lady – was juxtaposed with this chivalry. Coverage of Robert Pate emphasized the fact that he hit “a lady on the face with a whip,” while Edward Oxford was reported as having “observed that he did not think it right that a country like England should be governed by a woman.”123 William Hamilton was also condemned for having stated “that it was not right to serve under petticoat government.”124 Oxford and Hamilton’s disrespectful comments focused on

Victoria’s gender as the central quality that made her unfit to rule Britain. In an indirect way, the expression of such sentiments helped to silence and discredit critiques of Victoria’s femininity, since it linked similar views to the statements expressed by the assassins.

In contrast to the admirable masculine qualities exhibited by Victoria’s defenders, the portrayal of the assassins as cowardly and weak men who were unable to exercise self-control or self-discipline adhered to conceptions of deviant masculinity.125 The press often attempted to focus on particular attributes that exemplified this deviance and highlighted the failure to measure up to standards of masculine chivalry. For the “deluded” Edward Oxford, the

“eccentric” Robert Pate, the “unhappy maniac” Arthur O’Connor, and the “unsound” and

“suicidal” Roderick Maclean, this factor was insanity.126 The assassins’ mental health will be discussed at length later in this essay. However, in the context of gender norms, the assassins’ mental instability was held in contrast to the highly valued masculine ideals of respect,

123 “The Late Atrocious Attempt To Assassinate The Queen and Prince Albert,” The Times, 12 June 1840, p. 6.; “The Position Of The Leading Counsel,” The Times, 12 July 1850, p. 5. 124 “The Late Outrage On The Queen,” Northern Star and Leeds General Advertiser, 2 June 1849, p. 15. 125 Tosh, Manliness and Masculinities in Nineteenth-Century Britain, 69, 73. 126 “Special Telegrams,” Freeman’s Journal, 9 April 1872, p. 3.; “The Attempt On The Queen’s Life,” Reynold’s Weekly Newspaper, 23 April 1882, p. 1.; “The Position Of The Leading Counsel,” The Times, 12 July 1850, p. 5.; “Trial Of Oxford For High Treason,” The Times, 10 July 1840, p. 5. 59 rationality, and self-control, and the insane assassins were often described as “sullen,” “sulky,” and arrogant.127 The assassins’ lack of self-control was also highlighted in claims that the attacks had been caused by a “momentary,” “sudden,” or “uncontrollable impulse.”128 Providing a stark comparison to the strong, virile, masculine hero, reports of John William Bean highlighted his physical deformity, noting that he was no more than four feet tall because of his humped back.129

John Francis and William Hamilton’s poverty and “morbid” desires for notoriety were contrasted with masculine ideals of self-control and humility.130 In the pro-monarchy papers, Hamilton’s radical affiliations and O’Connor’s Fenian connections were also highlighted as factors which explained the assassins’ debased masculinity and lack of chivalry.131

The Victorian press reinforced gender stereotypes and norms through its coverage of countless royal events, including the assassination attempts. The press presented Victoria in adherence with female gender norms, highlighting her virtues, maternal qualities, and clemency, and also invested her with national values. Her male defenders, meanwhile, were presented as chivalrous heroes. By reinforcing these gender stereotypes, the Victorian press not only made

Victoria and the individuals around her more relatable to her subjects, but also furthered the progression towards a truly populist monarchy. However, before readers would consume these reports highlighting conventional gender norms, the press had to capture readers’ attention and

127 “Alleged Attempt To Assassinate The Queen,” The Lady’s Newspaper & Pictorial Times 126, 26 May 1849, p. 286. 128 “Central Criminal Court,” The Times, 12 April 1872, p. 11.; “The Position Of The Leading Counsel,” The Times, 12 July 1850, p. 5. 129 “Suspected Attack Upon The Queen,” Northern Star and Leeds General Advertiser, 9 July 1842, p. 16. 130 “Alleged Attempt To Assassinate The Queen,” The Times, 21 May 1849, p. 5.; “High Treason,” The Times, 18 June 1842, p. 8.; “The Attempt On The Life Of Her Most Gracious Majesty,” Le Belle Assemblée, 1 June 1842, p. 487.; Tosh, Manliness and Masculinities in Nineteenth-Century Britain, 69. 131 “Alleged Attempt To Assassinate The Queen,” The Lady’s Newspaper & Pictorial Times 126, 26 May 1849, p. 286.; “Arthur O’Connor,” Freeman’s Journal, 12 March 1872, p. 3. 60 draw them in to the story. For the Victorian press, the secret to seizing readers’ attention lay in sensational and melodramatic reportage.

Sensational Reportage

The Victorian era witnessed a democratization of the press as publishers and editors sought to appeal to a broader range of readers, particularly women, the working-class, and audiences with varying political opinions. Historian Joel Wiener writes that this change in newspaper audiences created a demand for sensational reportage filled with the shocking details of crime, gossip, and scandal.132 These new audiences wanted news that was exciting, titillating, and enthralling – something that was more like a story or a novel than a bland news report.133

The popular appetite for sensational news extended beyond the mere content of reports to include increased demand for images and graphics, more accessible language, and eye-catching headlines. These developments facilitated the emergence of “new journalism” in the 1880s, but the roots of sensational reportage appeared earlier in the Victorian era.134 Demonstrating this tendency towards sensational news, press coverage of the assassination attempts invoked melodramatic literary devices and emphasized the assassins’ mental health and “mad men” personas. By reporting on royal news through this sensational lens, the press presented readers with interesting and exciting stories that fit within a familiar cultural framework, thereby making the news about the assassination attempts more accessible to a growing audience. In so doing, the press also made the monarchy more accessible to readers, creating the foundation for the bonds of connection that formed between the people and their sovereign. While the extent of

132 Wiener, “How New Was the New Journalism?” 54. 133 Wiener, “How New Was the New Journalism?” 54. 134 Anne Humphreys, “Popular Narrative and Political Discourse in Reynold’s Weekly Newspaper,” in Investigating Victorian Journalism, ed. Laurel Brake, Aled Jones, and Lionel Madden (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1990), 35.; Wiener, “How New Was the New Journalism?” 54. 61

Victoria’s public role gave the press significant material on which to report, it was the sensational presentation of this news that captured readers’ attention and left them wanting to read more about their monarch and the attempts on her life.

The sensational aspect of Victorian reportage is abundantly evident in the press’s melodramatic depiction of the assassination attempts. Melodrama was a plot device that crossed into journalism from the literary and theatrical spheres.135 During the Victorian era, newspapers and periodicals increasingly printed short stories, poems, and serialized stories, many of which employed melodrama.136 According to historian Anne Humphreys, the typical melodramatic plot followed a hero who was truly good but had not realized his virtue.137 The hero developed by encountering obstacles, usually in the form of a threatening villain. Since melodrama often included moral commentaries, the hero epitomized integrity, while the villain was an evil adversary.138 Heroes and villains were invariably male, and women were usually vixens or victims.139 Melodramatic stories always had a happy ending that provided readers with a sense of closure.140 Since melodramatic tales were so popular with readers, journalists began adopting aspects of melodrama in their reportage.141 This led to an inevitable blurring of the boundaries between fiction and factual news coverage, and accuracy was sometimes sacrificed for a more compelling and exciting story.142 Melodrama played a prominent part in press accounts of the assassination attempts, which used dramatic discourse to describe imperiled women, heroic rescuers, dastardly villains, and the inevitable happy ending. By employing these devices in the

135 Humphreys, 39. 136 Humphreys, 35. 137 Humphreys, 39. 138 David Amigoni, Victorian Literature (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2011), 192. 139 Humphreys, 43. 140 Humphreys, 39. 141 Humphreys, 35. 142 Humphreys, 35. 62 coverage of the assassination attempts, the Victorian press made its royal reportage more familiar, more accessible, and more relatable to an ever-growing audience.

The emphasis on melodrama is evident in the language the press used to the describe the assassination attempts. Instead of merely reporting that there had been an attack on the Queen, the assassins and their actions were described as “diabolical,” “atrocious,” “cowardly,” “odious,”

“nefarious,” and “outrageous.”143 This made the events sound more exciting and captured the reader’s attention. In the same way, reports often opened with a dramatic statement such as: “It is with deep regret that we have to announce another attempt (happily unsuccessful) on the life of our Gracious Queen.”144 After William Hamilton’s attack, John Bull, a middle-class newspaper, highlighted the melodrama of the enraged onlookers, writing that “a mob of persons…soon collected on the spot, and unless the police had timely arrived, the fellow would have had violent hands laid on him by the crowd, who shouted, ‘tear him to pieces,’ ‘kill him,’ and other threatening cries.”145 Similarly, when describing the public’s response to Robert Pate’s attack, the working-class Blackburn Standard wrote that “one person, unable to restrain his resentment, dealt [Pate] a blow in the face which drew blood at once,” adding, “but for the timely arrival of the police, he would have been still more roughly handled.”146 The assassins’ sentences were also described according to this melodramatic framework. The Times stated that John Francis was “intensely agonized…fainting into the arms of one of the turnkeys” when his sentence was delivered.147 Similarly, when Arthur O’Connor’s sentence was read, John Bull reported that “his

143 “Atrocious Attempt To Assassinate The Queen And Prince Albert,” Le Belle Assemblée, 1 June 1840, p. 605.; “Attack Upon Her Majesty The Queen,” Blackburn Standard, 3 July 1850, p. 2.; “Great Aggregate Meeting of the Citizens of Dublin To Address The Queen,” Freeman’s Journal, 22 June 1840, p. 3.; “The Conviction of Pate,” Blackburn Standard, 17 July 1850, p. 2. 144 “Attempt To Assassinate The Queen,” The Times, 21 May 1849, p. 5. 145 “Attempt To Assassinate The Queen,” The Times, 21 May 1849, p. 5. 146 “Attack Upon Her Majesty The Queen,” Blackburn Standard, 3 July 1850, p. 2. 147 “High Treason,” The Times, 18 June 1842, p. 7. 63 mother, who was standing near the dock, uttered a loud shriek.”148 This sensational flair in descriptions of the assassination attempts and the actors involved made the events more exciting for the reader, generating popular interest in the stories and whetting audiences’ appetite for more reports of these “atrocious” attempts.

Melodramatic tales usually included an imperilled young woman who required a heroic rescuer.149 Unsurprisingly, in accounts of the assassination attempts, Victoria was given this role.

Although the press coverage highlighted Victoria’s strength, she was invariably presented as the female victim.150 As noted earlier, the press often used Victoria’s feminine qualities and maternal image to emphasize both the atrocity of the attacks and Victoria’s innocence. In addition, the press also used a sensational framework to accentuate Victoria’s portrayal as the “damsel in distress.” After Edward Oxford’s attack, The Times quoted Irish MP Daniel O’Connell’s statement, “What matters it to them [those who sought to acquit Oxford] that a Queen, young, and beautiful, and good, be assaulted with deadly design – that her life be attempted at her own door?”151 Similarly, after Robert Pate assaulted Victoria in 1850, the working-class Blackburn

Standard decried this attack on “a young and defenceless woman.”152 The Lady’s Newspaper &

Pictorial Times stressed Victoria’s vulnerability by reporting that Pate’s attack occurred when she was “yet in a delicate state of health, in company with her children, and immediately after a visit of sympathy to the sick.”153 In the same way, the middle-class John Bull condemned Arthur

148 “Law and Police,” John Bull, 13 April 1872, p. 7. 149 Amigoni, 192. 150 Humphreys, 43. 151 “Central Criminal Court, Monday, June 22,” The Times, 23 June 1840, p. 6. 152 “Attack Upon Her Majesty The Queen,” Blackburn Standard, 3 July 1850, p. 2. 153 “Atrocious Assault Upon Her Majesty,” The Lady’s Newspaper & Pictorial Times 183, 29 June 1850, p. 353. 64

O’Connor for attacking Victoria in 1872, “just at the moment when she once again [felt] herself equal to appearing among her people” after her seclusion.154

Melodramatic depictions of Victoria’s male rescuers also underscored her defenceless nature. For example, when Prince Albert shielded Victoria from Edward Oxford’s pistol in 1840,

The Times reported that he courageously “caught [Victoria] in his arms.”155 The Northern Star’s revelation that Albert’s chivalrous actions could have left him as the victim heightened the sensation of his valorous role.156 Depictions of Victoria as an imperilled victim and her male protectors as gallant heroes adhered to themes in popular Victorian melodrama, thereby serving as a familiar framework of storytelling and plot development for readers.

The most striking example of melodrama in reports of the assassination attempts is the assassins’ portrayals as dastardly and evil villains. The press made no attempt to disguise its disdain for the would-be assassins and painted them in a deeply condemnatory light. The mainstream, conservative Times described Edward Oxford as a “bloodthirsty miscreant.”157 Le

Belle Assemblée, a middle-class women’s journal, noted with outrage that Oxford was very forward, and had dared to whistle at a woman in the park shortly before making his attack.158

Highlighting the threatening nature of John Francis’s appearance, Le Belle Assemblée reported that he had “a foreign cast of countenance” and a “peculiar, roving eye.”159 The Times called

John William Bean “wicked” and “wanton,” adding that he was of “turbulent and seditious mind.”160 To highlight William Hamilton’s malevolence and depravity, both The Lady’s

154 “John Bull,” John Bull, 2 March 1872, p. 8. 155 “London, Thursday, June 11, 1840,” The Times, 11 June 1840, p. 4. 156 “Examination and Committal Of The Prisoner,” Northern Star and Leeds General Advertiser, 13 June 1840, p. 5. 157 “London, Thursday, June 11, 1840,” The Times, 11 June 1840, p. 4. 158 “Atrocious Attempt To Assassinate The Queen And Prince Albert,” Le Belle Assemblée, 1 June 1840, p. 608. 159 “The Attempt On The Life of Her Most Gracious Majesty,” Le Belle Assemblée, 1 June 1842, p. 486. 160 “Trial of Bean For Assaulting Her Majesty The Queen,” The Times, 26 August 1840, p. 6-7. 65

Newspaper & Pictorial Times and The Times reported with indignation that “the Royal children” were in the carriage with Victoria when he fired his pistol.161 Reporting on Robert Pate’s attack,

The Lady’s Newspaper & Pictorial Times could “find no words of sufficient vehemence” to describe the villain whom the radical Northern Star called “the dastardly perpetrator of this unprovoked attack.”162 As for Pate’s defence of insanity, The Times maintained that he was “only just as mad as the indulgence of evil passions and a curse of moral depravity.”163 Underscoring the inhumanity of Pate’s wicked assault, the Northern Star reported that Pate “remained unmoved to the last” during his trial and “seemed to be but little concerned at the situation he found himself in.”164 After Arthur O’Connor made his attack in 1872, the Irish nationalist

Freeman’s Journal reported with disgust that O’Connor’s torn tie “seemed to cause him more concern than any other feature of his strange situation.”165 John Bull, a middle-class and pro- monarchy paper, added that O’Connor was “no ordinary character,” while The Times called him

“cunning” and “miserable.”166 Illustrating the dark aspects of Roderick Maclean’s personality in

1882, papers as diverse as the conservative Times and the radical Reynold’s Weekly Newspaper reported that Maclean had destructive tendencies and had once paid several young boys to put stones and pennies on railway tracks so that he could watch a train crush the objects.167 The

Times also printed a medical expert’s opinion that the “dastardly” assassin’s insanity might have

161 “Alleged Attempt To Assassinate The Queen,” The Times, 21 May 1849, p. 5.; “Atrocious Assault Upon Her Majesty,” The Lady’s Newspaper & Pictorial Times 183, 29 June 1850, p. 353. 162 “Atrocious Assault Upon Her Majesty,” The Lady’s Newspaper & Pictorial Times 183, 29 June 1850, p. 353.; “Dastardly Attack Upon The Queen,” Northern Star and Leeds General Advertiser, 29 June 1850, p. 21. 163 “Attack Upon Her Majesty The Queen,” The Times, 28 June 1850, p. 8. 164 “The Assault On The Queen,” Northern Star and Leeds General Advertiser, 13 July 1850, p. 17. 165 “The Outrage On The Queen,” Freeman’s Journal, 2 March 1872, p. 4. 166 “Central Criminal Court,” The Times, 12 April 1872, p. 11.; “Miscellaneous,” John Bull, 9 March 1872, p. 13. 167 “The Attempt To Shoot The Queen,” The Times, 4 March 1882, p. 10.; “The History of Maclean,” Reynold’s Weekly Newspaper, 23 April 1882, p. 1. 66 left him without any form of “moral restraint.”168 The assassins were the unquestionable villains of the assassination attempts, and the press capitalized on the darker aspects of their personalities and behaviours to emphasize the despicable nature of their attacks on the Queen and appeal to popular enthusiasm for stories of sensational villains.

Despite his malevolence, the melodramatic villain sometimes recognized the error in his ways, expressing remorse and accepting responsibility for his actions.169 In line with this theme, when an assassin expressed regret for their attack on the Queen and the consequences of their attempts, the press described their repentance through a sentimental lens. In 1840, The Times reported sympathetically that Edward Oxford was deeply distressed at how his actions had

“sacrificed” his mother’s reputation and “life.”170 After John Francis was convicted and sentenced to death, part of the reason the press rallied to his aid was because of his remorse. As the Irish nationalist Freeman’s Journal noted with pity:

“Never has there appeared in the prison of Newgate a convict more completely prostrated by the circumstance and result of a trial for a capital offence…he never meant to kill or even injure her Majesty, and…all he sought in letting off the pistol was the notoriety to which other persons had attained.”171

Similarly, John William Bean was treated more leniently by The Times after he stated, “‘I hope I shall turn out a good boy.’”172 Arthur O’Connor also received compassion when he claimed that

“the scales had been removed from his eyes, and he saw the effects of what he had done.”173 The metaphor of having “scales” over his eyes suggested that, rather than being an inherent villain,

O’Connor had been temporarily blinded by a wicked impulse. While this revelation did not

168 “Attempt To Assassinate The Queen.” The Times, 3 March 1882, p. 5.; “Trial of Maclean.” The Times, 20 April 1882, p. 11. 169 Amigoni, 77. 170 “The Late Atrocious Attempt To Assassinate The Queen And Prince Albert,” The Times, 13 June 1840, p. 6. 171 “The Conduct Of Francis After His Conviction,” Freeman’s Journal, 21 May 1842, p. 1. 172 “The Supposed Attempt Upon Her Majesty’s Life,” The Times, 5 July 1842, p. 5. 173 “Central Criminal Court,” The Times, 12 April 1872, p. 11. 67 excuse his behaviour, it evoked sympathy. The assassins could not undo their actions. However, their remorse redeemed them slightly, and the press treated these expressions of regret with compassion and sentimentality.

One of the most crucial aspects of melodrama was that virtue must triumph and the story must have a favourable ending, leaving audiences with a sense of closure.174 This theme is evident in the coverage of the assassination attempts. After each attempt, the assassin was found, imprisoned, and sentenced accordingly. Oxford and Maclean were placed in mental institutions, while Francis, Hamilton, Pate, and O’Connor were sentenced to transportation, and Bean was imprisoned.175 Papers often quoted the trial judges’ statements that “the jury have found you guilty….and there can be no reasonable doubt that they have come to a right conclusion.”176

Sometimes, newspapers supplemented these comments with their own support for the sentence.

For example, in 1849, the working-class Blackburn Standard rejoiced that William Hamilton had been “righteously sentenced.”177 By reporting on the assassins’ sentences, the press provided audiences with a sense of closure. Readers could fold up their newspapers with satisfaction after reading accounts of the trial proceedings because the law prevailed, the assassin was locked up or sent far away, and Victoria was safe in her palace. However, because of this emphasis on a just ending, there was significant public outcry when it appeared that justice had not triumphed, as was the case when John Francis and Robert Pate’s sentences were revealed.

174 Amigoni, 192.; Humphreys, 39. 175 Charles, 19, 35, 53, 63, 80, 109, 132. 176 “Central Criminal Court Trial Of Pate For Assaulting The Queen,” Reynold’s Weekly Newspaper, 14 July 1850, p. 5. 177 “The Conviction Of Pate,” Blackburn Standard, 17 July 1850, p. 2. 68

Although the jury had been unable to determine whether Francis’s pistol had been loaded with a bullet, he was sentenced to be hanged, drawn, and quartered.178 The public was enraged by this extreme sentence. As the infuriated, radical Northern Star wrote:

“A LIFE is to be taken, as a warning to others not to attempt to shoot at the Queen’s carriage wheel. A youth is to be strangled and beheaded because he fired a bulletless pistol in the direction of the Queen’s carriage! And yet we are a Christian people! and the Queen herself is ‘HEAD OF THE CHURCH under CHRIST’!!...what should we have done to him had he shot a bullet through the Queen’s head?”179

The Northern Star was not alone in its frustration. As a women’s paper, Le Belle Assemblée took a gentler approach, but it still maintained that Francis never meant any harm and entreated

“gracious Providence to rule the decision of Her Majesty’s ministers aright.”180 Many papers expressed similar sentiments, reflecting a desire to see virtue triumph. These newspapers were not suggesting that Francis should be let free – on the contrary, it was the weight of the sentence, rather than the guilty verdict itself, that caused the press and the public’s anger. Finally, two days before Francis’s execution was scheduled to occur, it was announced that Victoria and the Privy

Council had reduced Francis’s sentence to transportation for life. Upon hearing this news, the press and the public rejoiced together in their gracious sovereign who had shown mercy and ensured a more just ending.181

While readers expressed outrage at a sentence they felt was too harsh, they also objected to sentences that appeared to be too mild. When Robert Pate was convicted, the trial judge removed a public flogging from the sentence out of respect for Pate’s family’s status.182 While

The Times’ middle-class readers likely found satisfaction in this result, working-class and radical

178 “High Treason,” The Times, 18 June 1842, p. 8. 179 “Most Abominable,” Northern Star and Leeds General Advertiser, 25 June 1842, p. 20. 180 “The Attempt On The Life of Her Most Gracious Majesty,” Le Belle Assemblée, 1 June 1842, p. 487. 181 “Reprieve Of Francis The Convict,” Northern Star and Leeds General Advertiser, 9 July 1842, p. 3. 182 “The Position Of The Leading Counsel,” The Times, 12 July 1850, p. 5. 69 papers were outraged that Pate was treated so leniently. Condemning the “great partiality and prejudice” in the trial, the radical Reynold’s Weekly Newspaper wrote, “England, we are all told, is the land of freedom; yes, we reply, so free that the laws are made for, not by her people, and administered upon a broad distinction between the privileged rich and the unprivileged poor.”183

Working-class papers including the Blackburn Standard exclaimed with fury that the “exemption of ‘respectability’” was a “declaration that there is one law for the rich and another for the poor.”184 Notably, it was the “exemption of ‘respectability,’” rather than the lessening of the sentence itself, which sparked such outrage.185 Despite their protests, however, Pate’s sentence remained unaltered, meaning readers never received the closure of a fair conclusion. The happy ending was only half-realized, and it left a bitter sensation of injustice for the working-class and radical presses’ readers.

The Victorian press made extensive use of a range of melodramatic tools in its coverage of the attacks on Queen Victoria. Whether heightened descriptive language, the portrayal of innocent victims, gallant heroes, or wicked villains and their subsequent remorse, or the necessity of a favourable outcome, melodrama made the reports of the assassination attempts more interesting, more relatable, and more appealing to the reading public.

Readers were especially captivated by detailed accounts of the four assassins who claimed to be insane. Edward Oxford allegedly had “hereditary insanity,” while Robert Pate was said to be of “unsound mind.”186 Physicians explained that Arthur O’Connor suffered from both

183 “Whig Patronage,” Reynold’s Weekly Newspaper, 21 July 1850, p. 3. 184 “The Conviction Of Pate,” Blackburn Standard, 17 July 1850, p. 2. 185 “The Conviction Of Pate,” Blackburn Standard, 17 July 1850, p. 2. 186 “Central Criminal Court, July 11,” The Times, 12 July 1850, p. 7.; “Trial of Oxford for High Treason,” The Times, 10 July 1840, p. 5. 70 hereditary insanity and “reasoning insanity,” while Roderick Maclean was diagnosed with melancholia, delusions, and homicidal mania.187 These assassins were tried in accordance with the principles outlined in the Criminal Lunatics Act, which was passed in 1800 after James

Hadfield attempted to assassinate George III in the Drury Lane Theatre.188 The Criminal

Lunatics Act stipulated that a convict who was found to be insane should be institutionalized for life, although the sovereign could order their release if it was proven that the individual was no longer a threat to the public.189

The defence of insanity became more clearly codified under criminal law during the early

Victorian era.190 Additionally, as developments occurred in medical and scientific knowledge of mental health, physicians were increasingly called upon to act as expert medical witnesses and explain whether an accused’s physical traits or behaviours adhered to these new understandings of mental illness.191 As medical advancements made it clear that “a person can be insane with regard to certain subjects but not entirely without reason,” doctors and medical authorities were left to determine where the line lay between “eccentricity and bereft of reason,” and on which side of this division an accused’s behaviours fell.192 Consequently, criminal trials involving questions of insanity became both more scientific as lawyers and medical experts attempted to prove or disprove an accused’s mental state, and more sensational as witnesses testified to the accused’s previous patterns of behaviour. Debates about an accused’s insanity in trial

187 “Central Criminal Court,” The Times, 12 April 1872, p. 11.; “Trial of Maclean,” The Times, 20 April 1882, p. 11. 188 Richard Moran, “The Origin of Insanity as a Special Verdict: The Trial for Treason of James Hadfield (1800),” Law & Society Review 19, no. 3 (1985): 489. 189 Moran, 513. 190 Moran, 487-488. 191 Peter Bartlett, “Legal Madness in the Nineteenth Century,” The Society for the Social History of Medicine 14, no. 1 (2001): 107.; Frank R. Freemon, “The Origin of the Medical Expert Witness: The Insanity of Edward Oxford,” The Journal of Legal Medicine 22 (2001): 361, 368-373. 192 Freemon, 351-352. 71 proceedings provided the press with a rich and endlessly riveting source of material to exploit and feed the growing popular fascination with mental health.193

For a time, Victorians were captivated by the “science” of phrenology, or the study of the shape, imperfections, and bumps of the head.194 It was thought that, by mapping these contusions and oddities, one could uncover an individual’s personality traits and characteristics, including insanity.195 Meanwhile, scientific developments moved studies of mental illness away from

“moral” causes to consider biological factors in the development of insanity.196 Deepening understandings of insanity cultivated a popular interest in the “mad man,” a cultural fascination which arguably reached its zenith during the Jack the Ripper murders.197 Public intrigue with mental health carried over into the other realms. The depiction of mentally-ill villains in literature and on the stage, epitomized in Robert Louis Stevenson’s The Strange Case of Dr.

Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, furthered the sensational aspect of mental health.198 Press coverage of the

“insane” assassins reflected this popular interest in mental health. Although the media reported on the doctors who examined the assassins and recorded their verdicts, it was the backstories and physical manifestations of the assassins’ insanity – particularly their unusual actions and behaviours – that garnered the most press attention. As the criminal trials proceeded for Oxford,

Pate, O’Connor, and Maclean, expanding understandings of mental health and the public obsession with insanity combined in sensational depictions of the mentally-ill assassins. This

193 Bartlett, 108.; David V. James et al, “Attacks on the British Royal Family: The Role of Psychotic Illness,” Journal of American Academy Psychiatry Law 36, no. 1 (2008): 65. 194 R. Smith, “The Victorian controversy about the insanity defence,” Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 81, (February 1988): 70.; John D. Wright, The Victorians: From Empire and Industry to Poverty and Famine (London: Amber Books Ltd, 2018), 53. 195 Wright, 53. 196 Freemon, 354.; Wright, 52. 197 Judith Walkowitz, City of Dreadful Delight (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1992), 191-192. 198 Walkowitz, 206. 72 sensational approach allowed the press to appeal to a wider audience by presenting these

“insane” assassins in a familiar framework that was accessible to readers, generating greater interest in the assassination attempts – and the news in general.

Public enthusiasm for the assassins’ biographies and the diagnoses of their mental states reflected developments in knowledge of the origins of mental illness and how it was exhibited.

The press highlighted the extraordinary details of these backstories to make them more dramatic and more appealing to readers. Since Edward Oxford suffered from “hereditary insanity,” the press reported on testimonies about Oxford’s father and grandfather’s strange behaviours.199 The radical Northern Star explained that Oxford’s father had the unusual habit of “riding his horse into the parlour of his father-in-law’s house.”200 The Times added that Mr. Oxford threatened to murder his wife and commit suicide when she attempted to break off their engagement before they were married.201 Oxford’s own unusual behaviour began during childhood, and his mother explained that he often cried or laughed for no reason.202 She believed that Oxford’s mental illness was partly the result of her husband’s treatment of her during her pregnancy, as he would beat her and make strange faces at her.203 In Robert Pate’s case, his mental challenges manifested later in life and were sparked by a traumatic experience. Pate’s father explained that his son had always been slightly odd.204 However, while he was stationed in Dublin with the Royal Hussars,

Pate’s horse and dog were bitten by a rabid dog.205 The consequent deaths of his animals exacerbated Pate’s insanity, and The Times quoted Pate’s former colonel, who testified that he

199 “The Attempt Upon The Life of Her Majesty,” The Times, 17 June 1840, p. 6. 200 “The Attempt Upon The Life of Her Majesty,” The Times, 17 June 1840, p. 6. 201 “Trial of Oxford for High Treason,” The Times, 10 July 1840, p. 5. 202 “Trial of Oxford for High Treason,” The Times, 10 July 1840, p. 5. 203 “Trial of Oxford for High Treason,” The Times, 10 July 1840, p. 5. 204 “Central Criminal Court, July 11,” The Times, 12 July 1850, p. 7. 205 “Central Criminal Court, July 11,” The Times, 12 July 1850, p. 7. 73 had “never seen [Pate] so excited” as when his beloved animals died.206 For Arthur O’Connor, his family claimed that he had an hereditary “predisposition to insanity,” as his “grandfather and his aunt had been inmates of a lunatic asylum.”207 His family testified that O’Connor’s quarrelsome and jaded temperament worsened after a high fever when he suffered from consumption.208 A blow to the head and the amputation of one of his toes further aggravated his unusual personality.209 Roderick Maclean’s family, on the other hand, stated that his mental troubles began when he fell and gashed his head severely as a boy.210 Maclean explained, “If I pull my hair only softly over the place where the cut is, I can feel a curious sensation down that side of my head; it is like a slight shock from a galvanic battery, you understand, pins and needles sensation.”211 Thus, reports of the insane assassins reveled in their bizarre and unusual behaviours, capitalizing on the sensation of their peculiarities to grab readers’ attention. At the same time, the reports were also grounded in contemporary theories and reveal Victorian understandings of mental illness, its physical manifestations, and its various causes, including heredity and shocks in the womb or later in life.

If the press coverage is any indication, readers’ enthusiasm for dramatic tales of insane villains left them eager to learn how the assassins’ insanity manifested itself. The public wanted the details of the assassins’ strange and unusual behaviours, and the press delivered that to them, appealing to their interests and keeping them engaged in the larger saga of the assassination attempts. The Times reported that Edward Oxford had such a disruptive and unusual tendency

206 “Central Criminal Court, July 11,” The Times, 12 July 1850, p. 7. 207 “Central Criminal Court,” The Times, 12 April 1872, p. 11. 208 “Central Criminal Court,” The Times, 12 April 1872, p. 11. 209 “Central Criminal Court,” The Times, 12 April 1872, p. 11. 210 “The History of Maclean,” Reynold’s Weekly Newspaper, 23 April 1882, p. 1. 211 “The History of Maclean,” Reynold’s Weekly Newspaper, 23 April 1882, p. 1. 74 towards smiling and laughing that it frequently disrupted guests at the Hog-in-the-Pond public house, where he had previously been employed.212 Oxford was also said to have a “high nervous temperament” and “turbulent disposition, and [was] quite unable to control or repress the violence of his passions.”213 Almost every paper from the mainstream Times to the working-class

Blackburn Standard noted that Oxford was “wild” and “subject to violent paroxysms of rage, and upon the most trifling offence given to him by his sister, would throw anything at her which came in his way.”214 In addition to threatening his mother with a gun, it was said that he threatened to stab female servants at a public house.215 Furthermore, the Blackburn Standard wrote that Oxford had a habit of “going on to the roof of the house and throwing things at persons passing.”216 Sensational coverage of Oxford’s history and actions underscored popular conceptions of the violent and erratic madman.

Robert Pate’s behaviours were neither as violent nor as interesting as Oxford’s. However,

Pate’s social class was critical in his depiction, and his upper-class status meant that he was held to a different – and perhaps more lenient – standard of “insane” behaviour. Pate believed “he had been hunted about Dublin streets by people, and he had seen the same people at the barracks, and he had even seen them about the hotels in London.”217 While he was still serving with the Royal

Hussars, he claimed that the mess cooks were attempting to poison him and that he had “bricks in his bowels.”218 After moving to London, Pate hired the same cab each day, requested to drive along the same route, and asked to leave the cab at the same places.219 Edward Lee, the cab

212 “Central Criminal Court, Monday, June 22,” The Times, 23 June 1840, p. 6. 213 “Pot Boy Plot,” Blackburn Standard, 15 June 1840, p. 2. 214 “Image of Oxford With The Two Pistols,” Blackburn Standard, 1 July 1840, p. 2. 215 “The Attempt Upon The Life of Her Majesty,” The Times, 17 June 1840, p. 6. 216 “Pot Boy Plot,” Blackburn Standard, 15 June 1840, p. 2. 217 “Central Criminal Court, July 11,” The Times, 12 July 1850, p. 7. 218 “The Conviction Of Pate,” Blackburn Standard, 17 July 1850, p. 2. 219 “Central Criminal Court, July 11,” The Times, 12 July 1850, p. 7. 75 driver, explained that “in all weathers, rain, hail, or snow, [Pate] used to get out and walk through the furze bushes, and he did so when it was quite dark.”220 In addition, a neighbour testified that Pate sang so loudly in his apartments that he disrupted the other tenants.221 Given

Pate’s tamer behaviours, it is hardly surprising that the working-class Blackburn Standard believed that he was no more insane than “any sensible man.”222 Still, for an individual of the upper-class, Pate’s behaviours were unusual and strange, echoing the figure of the elite villain in popular melodrama.

In the case against Arthur O’Connor, the defence argued that O’Connor was not so much insane as he was of unsound mind at the time of the attack. To determine if this was possible, medical experts examined O’Connor’s strange mannerisms and physical characteristics. The press reported the physicians’ testimonies that O’Connor suffered from chronic “headache[s], restless nights, and chills.”223 He was said to be excessively quarrelsome, particularly with his siblings, and was given to “paroxysms or exacerbation of insanity.”224 One of the doctors who examined O’Connor believed that his mental incompetency manifested itself through an inability to reason.225 Another doctor suggested that O’Connor’s mind affected his body’s biological functioning, and his constitution was “rather that of a girl.”226 Despite the defence’s attempts to make the case for his insanity, the jury were unconvinced and found O’Connor to be sane. The press, it seems, were similarly disillusioned, as this focus on physical and biological questions of insanity was much less sensational than bizarre behaviours.

220 “Central Criminal Court, July 11,” The Times, 12 July 1850, p. 7. 221 “Central Criminal Court, July 11,” The Times, 12 July 1850, p. 7. 222 “The Conviction Of Pate,” Blackburn Standard, 17 July 1850, p. 2. 223 “Central Criminal Court,” The Times, 12 April 1872, p. 11. 224 “Central Criminal Court,” The Times, 12 April 1872, p. 11. 225 “Central Criminal Court,” The Times, 12 April 1872, p. 11. 226 “Central Criminal Court,” The Times, 12 April 1872, p. 11. 76

For Roderick Maclean, however, his insanity could not be doubted. Not only did Maclean have a certificate to prove his insanity, but he had been incarcerated for a year at the Somerset

County Lunatic Asylum.227 Maclean’s sensational behaviours provided further evidence of his insanity. Maclean admitted to suicidal tendencies, stating that he once went to Beachy Head and intended to “commit suicide by leaping over, because he had no money.”228 Additionally,

Maclean had a history of conspiratorial thoughts and claims. Maclean believed “every one in

England” sought to “injure, annoy, and vex [him] on every opportunity.”229 He was also convinced that “millions of people” wore blue ties as a means of “open defiance and publicly annoying [him] on every possible occasion.”230 Maclean thought he had a “supernatural power from on high, and that this power was expressed in the numerals 4, 14, 44, 440, and so on.”231

Furthermore, Maclean was convinced that he was “related to the Royal Family.”232 Finally, perhaps the most outrageous of Maclean’s beliefs was that, after his attempt on Victoria, he heard the voice of God say, “‘Fear not, my help is near, and my power will shield you still.’”233

Thus, the press presented these signs and symptoms of insanity through a sensational framework to appeal to the popular fascination with mental health. In so doing, the press left readers eager for the next installment in these cases.

In addition to the assassins’ strange behaviours, the press coverage also considered the assassins’ physical attributes and whether they corresponded with the popular literary and dramatic persona associated with insanity and criminality.234 The typical insane villain of the

227 “The Attempt To Shoot The Queen,” The Times, 4 March 1882, p. 10. 228 “The History of Maclean,” Reynold’s Weekly Newspaper, 23 April 1882, p. 1. 229 “Trial of Maclean,” The Times, 20 April 1882, p. 11. 230 “Trial of Maclean,” The Times, 20 April 1882, p. 11. 231 “Trial of Maclean,” The Times, 20 April 1882, p. 11. 232 “Trial of Maclean,” The Times, 20 April 1882, p. 11. 233 “Trial of Maclean,” The Times, 20 April 1882, p. 11. 234 Walkowitz, 218. 77 period was tall, dark, “arrogant,” and usually had “mustaches.”235 In line with this stereotype, the press emphasized Edward Oxford’s dark nature. The Irish nationalist Freeman’s Journal described Oxford as having a sullen countenance and wild, almost foreign look.236 Adhering to this account, an illustration from The Penny Satirist (Fig. 3) highlights Oxford’s menacing features.237 His eyes are large, glaring, and somewhat mischievous – a fact which is furthered by his thick brow.238 Reflecting the popular study of phrenology, and the idea that the shape of and contusions on one’s head were indicative of personality traits and insanity, Oxford’s forehead is particularly pronounced in the illustration.239 His rounded features add to his youthfulness, but his jaw is clenched in determination and “obstinacy.”240 In Cleave’s London Satirist and Gazette of Variety, an illustration of Oxford (Fig. 4) presents a more threatening depiction. Oxford is slight and angular, with pointed features that make him look much older.241 The artist’s liberal use of shadows underscores Oxford’s intimidating nature.242 His brow is dark and his cheeks have an usual shape, as if they were filled with air.243 The Oxford of The Penny Satirist looks discontent, but the Oxford of Cleave’s looks conniving. Despite the differences in their depictions, however, the press clearly attempted to use Oxford’s face, head, and other physical characteristics as proof of his criminal and intimidating nature.

235 Walkowitz, 218. 236 “Attempt To Murder The Queen And Prince Albert,” Freeman’s Journal, 13 June 1840, p. 4. 237 “Edward Oxford, alias Young England,” The Penny Satirist 4, no. 166, 20 June 1840, p. 1. 238 “Edward Oxford, alias Young England,” The Penny Satirist 4, no. 166, 20 June 1840, p. 1. 239 “Attempt To Murder The Queen And Prince Albert,” Freeman’s Journal, 13 June 1840, p. 4.; “Edward Oxford, alias Young England,” The Penny Satirist 4, no. 166, 20 June 1840, p. 1. 240 “Attempt To Murder The Queen And Prince Albert,” Freeman’s Journal, 13 June 1840, p. 4.; “Edward Oxford, alias Young England,” The Penny Satirist 4, no. 166, 20 June 1840, p. 1. 241 “Portrait of Edward Oxford, the attempted Regicide,” Cleave’s London Satirist and Gazette of Variety 3, no. 39, 11 July 1840, p. 1. 242 “Portrait of Edward Oxford, the attempted Regicide,” Cleave’s London Satirist and Gazette of Variety 3, no. 39, 11 July 1840, p. 1. 243 “Portrait of Edward Oxford, the attempted Regicide,” Cleave’s London Satirist and Gazette of Variety 3, no. 39, 11 July 1840, p. 1. 78

Fig. 3 – “Edward Oxford, alias Young England,” The Penny Satirist 4, no. 166, 20 June 1840, p. 1.

Fig. 4 – “Portrait of Edward Oxford, the attempted Regicide,” Cleave’s London Satirist and Gazette of Variety 3, no. 39, 11 July 1840, p. 1. 79

Robert Pate’s description, meanwhile, fit his upper-class status, and he was said to be

“respectably dressed” and have the “appearance of a gentleman.”244 Reynold’s Weekly

Newspaper added that Pate was “slightly-bald headed,” lacked a “military appearance,” and had a “somewhat vacant” expression.245 The paper also reported that Pate’s “face and forehead

[were] indicative of intelligence,” echoing the medical and cultural interest in phrenology 246

Additionally, in line with portrayals of the popular figure of the elite madman, Pate was described as appearing respectable and upright, but capable of atrocious and violent actions.247

The one give away of his villainous nature, as the press noted, was that Pate had “mustachios.”248

As had occurred with Oxford and Pate, when physicians attempted to prove Arthur

O’Connor’s madness, they referenced his “irregularly shaped” head, which had “some indications of insanity about it.”249 Despite the fact that six doctors concluded that O’Connor was of unsound mind, the jury found him to be sane. The Lancet, a medical journal, reported that there was nothing “in his appearance, manner, or conversation that would lead to the impression that he was a person of unsound mind.”250 Meanwhile, the radical Reynold’s Weekly Newspaper stated that O’Connor had “nothing of the physique of the stage assassin…His eyes had a brightness which was hardly consistent with [his] levity and callousness of manner.”251 This overt comparison between O’Connor and the “stage assassin” indicates that the press – and, as a likely extension, the public – evaluated the assassins and their mental states based on their

244 “Attack Upon The Queen,” Reynold’s Weekly Newspaper, 30 June 1850, p. 1. 245 “Attack Upon The Queen,” Reynold’s Weekly Newspaper, 30 June 1850, p. 1. 246 “Attack Upon The Queen,” Reynold’s Weekly Newspaper, 30 June 1850, p. 1. 247 Walkowitz, 206-207. 248 “Attack Upon The Queen,” Reynold’s Weekly Newspaper, 30 June 1850, p. 1. 249 “Central Criminal Court,” The Times, 12 April 1872, p. 11. 250 “The Attempt To Intimidate The Queen,” The Lancet, quoted in The Times, 12 April 1872, p. 8. 251 “Attack Upon The Queen. Arrest Of The Offender. His Examination At The Police Court,” Reynold’s Weekly Newspaper, 3 March 1872, p. 1. 80 resemblance to dramatic characters from popular melodrama. In fact, the dominance of the

“stage assassin” as a cultural reference point may have influenced the jury’s rejection of the medical experts’ testimonies and their unanimous and immediate conclusion that O’Connor was sane.

Roderick Maclean was described as thin, “unclean and unshaven,” and “wretchedly clad.”252 In the Penny Illustrated Paper’s depiction of Maclean (Fig. 5), he is dirty, has an unkempt moustache, and wears tattered, old clothes.253 The illustration highlights Maclean’s dark nature, thereby creating an association between

Maclean and other Victorian villains. His eyes are downcast, and he wears a particularly sullen and brooding expression.254 Appearing threatening and menacing, with his hand in a fist, a high railing protects the courtroom from this dangerous assassin.255

Fig. 5 – “Maclean’s Committal On The Charge Of High Treason,” Penny Illustrated Paper, 18 March 1882, p. 10.

252 “Attempt To Assassinate The Queen,” The Times, 3 March 1882, p. 5. 253 “Maclean’s Committal On The Charge Of High Treason,” Penny Illustrated Paper, 18 March 1882, p. 10. 254 “Maclean’s Committal On The Charge Of High Treason,” Penny Illustrated Paper, 18 March 1882, p. 10. 255 “Maclean’s Committal On The Charge Of High Treason,” Penny Illustrated Paper, 18 March 1882, p. 10. 81

Evidence of the assassins’ insanity was key to the sensational tone of the press coverage of the assassination attempts. Reports of these insane assassins both reflected and reinforced growing medical and popular understandings of the causes of mental illness and methods of diagnosing it through physical attributes and behaviours. In addition, accounts of the mentally ill assassins were coloured by references to the stage assassin so familiar to Victorian readers.

Notably, the two assassins who were the least extraordinary – Robert Pate and Arthur O’Connor

– had their defences rejected and were found guilty. Edward Oxford and Roderick Maclean, however, provided the press with almost endless accounts of unusual and bizarre behaviours, and they better matched the part of the insane assassin. Perhaps it is not surprising that their defences were accepted. Regardless, press coverage of the assassins who claimed mental illness adopted a sensational framework that allowed the press to appeal to popular themes in the public understanding of mental health. In so doing, the press also generated greater public interest in the assassins and their attacks on the sovereign. Furthermore, although the defences of mental incapacity suggested an absence of political motives, the dramatic depictions of these assassins’ insanity underscored their threat to Victoria and Victorian society – and that made them worthy of being a “sensation.”

Sensational reportage, expressed through melodrama and an emphasis on the assassins’ mental health, was an essential aspect of the press’s portrayal of these attacks on Queen Victoria.

While the employment of melodramatic devices helped the press fit the narratives of the assassination attempts within popular themes of storytelling and drama, the emphasis on the assassins’ insanity allowed the press to depict the assassins through the lens of popular assumptions and perceptions of mental illness. This sensational reportage was designed to capture the reader’s interest and keep them engaged as each of the sagas of the assassination 82 attempts unfolded in the press. In this sense, the press’s dramatic depictions of the attacks are indicative of a greater commercial agenda that necessitated maintaining reader interest in order to generate revenue. However, by presenting this royal reportage through a sensational framework, the press helped make the monarchy and royal events more accessible to the reading public, highlighting and solidifying Victoria’s role as a “media monarch.” As a queen, Victoria’s role, private life, and experiences were markedly different from those of her people. Through this sensational reportage, however, the press took remarkable events involving the monarchy and made them relatable and understandable to the public. Sensationalism provided a familiar narrative framework that fostered a connection between readers, the press, and their sovereign, leaving the public wanting more stories about royalty, royal events, and Victoria. Consequently, sensational reportage not only helped newspapers solidify their connections with their readers, but it also gave them a part to play in connecting the people with their monarch.

83

Conclusion: It’s In All the Papers

During Queen Victoria’s reign, the British monarchy became a “media monarchy,” adopting a changing role in the context of a new media landscape and developing a symbiotic relationship with the press.1 Unlike her predecessors, Victoria assumed a remarkable number of public engagements, tours, and appearances.2 Aware that the monarchy’s place in British society was no longer as secure as it had been previously, the Queen and her advisors recognized the importance of making the sovereign publicly available to the people. Victoria’s civic publicness

– and the monarchy’s populist transformation – both relied on and benefitted from the expanding press.3 The diversification of the media meant that more papers than ever before were covering royal news, while Victoria’s public engagements provided the press with substantial material for royal reportage.4 Adopting a mediating role between the monarchy and the public, the press’s presentation of exciting and fascinating details of royal events cultivated a collective intimacy between the people and the sovereign.5 As part of this mediation, the press began to pull back the veil that separated the monarchy from the public, giving readers unprecedented access to royal news.6 While this meant that the monarchy lost some of its “mythic” appeal, the press helped endow the monarchy with a new, populist image – an image that ultimately allowed the monarchy to not only survive but to thrive when European crowns were crumbling.7 As Plunkett explains, “the media making of the monarchy was crucial to its nineteenth century formation.”8

1 Plunkett, Queen Victoria: First Media Monarch, 1-3. 2 Plunkett, Queen Victoria: First Media Monarch, 14. 3 Plunkett, Queen Victoria: First Media Monarch, 6. 4 Plunkett, Queen Victoria: First Media Monarch, 3-5, 10-14. 5 Plunkett, Queen Victoria: First Media Monarch, 8-10. 6 Plunkett, Queen Victoria: First Media Monarch, 3. 7 Plunkett, Queen Victoria: First Media Monarch, 52-53. 8 Plunkett, Queen Victoria: First Media Monarch, 3. 84

Although Plunkett and other historians have considered how the media and the public responded to a wide variety of events throughout Victoria’s reign, the eight assassination attempts on the Queen have been largely overlooked in these studies of media representation.

However, as this essay has sought to prove, the press coverage of the attacks on Victoria serves as a revealing case study for understanding the “media monarchy” and the creation of a new, populist role for the sovereign. One might expect that attempts on the Queen would be politically motivated and that the press would highlight the possibility of these threats, but radical and republican motivations were only present in two attempts. In both cases, the press consistently downplayed these political affiliations. Instead, the media’s sensational reports of the attacks emphasized matters of gender in relation to Victoria, her male defenders, and the would-be assassins, as well as melodramatic narratives and questions of the assassins’ mental health.

In its coverage of the assassination attempts, the press highlighted Victoria’s gender by focusing on her feminine virtues, maternal nature, strength and self-possession in the face of the assassination attempts, and the compassion and mercy she demonstrated towards the assassins.

Attention to these characteristics presented Victoria as a more relatable and accessible public figure, cultivating a bond of connection between the sovereign and her people by allowing them to understand her through the gender norms of her time. Additionally, Victoria’s image as a maternal, caring sovereign helped shift the public’s perception of the monarchy away from its political role by downplaying political and partisan connections while emphasizing Victoria’s constitutional power and populist role as mother of the nation. Reports of male actors as heroic defenders underscored Victoria’s femininity and suggested that a female sovereign would not threaten conventional gender norms. Meanwhile, depictions of the assassins’ deviant masculinity made their attempts appear more “diabolical,” and their statements against the Queen ultimately 85 served to discredit critics of a woman on the throne.9 In an age where men aspired to the ideal of chivalry, Victoria’s gender silenced most republican arguments against the monarchy. This made it more difficult for the press to criticize the sovereign as well. Consequently, a focus on

Victoria’s femininity helped facilitate the monarchy’s transformation by making her into a more acceptable – and populist – sovereign.

The media’s sensational depiction of the assassination attempts through the use of melodramatic devices and a preoccupation with the assassins’ mental health cultivated readers’ eagerness for the next installment of royal news. In addition, this sensational approach enabled the monarchy’s populist transformation by making it more relatable, accessible, and attractive to the reading public. Melodramatic frameworks were both familiar and popular with the press’s readership. The stories of imperilled heroines, evil villains, and heroic protectors helped readers understand each actor’s role in the attacks and furthered popular support for Victoria as both a victim and a monarch. Meanwhile, the focus on the assassins’ mental instability both reveals contemporary assumptions and understandings of mental health, and uncovers how the press capitalized on the public fascination with mental illness to appeal to readers. By employing popular and captivating frameworks, the media cultivated a connection between itself and its readers, fostering interest in the assassination attempts and royal news in general.

Notably, there was a downside to this media attention, as it gave would-be assassins new motivations for attacking the Queen. As the monarchy distanced itself from its former political role and became the subject of increasing media attention, politically motivated threats were replaced with assassins who acted from a “desire for notoriety.”10 Aware of the press attention

9 “London, Thursday, June 11, 1840,” The Times, 11 June 1840, p. 4. 10 “The Position Of The Leading Counsel,” The Times, 12 July 1850, p. 5. 86 devoted to the monarch, some of the assassins wanted to take advantage of this media fervour around the monarchy to win their own moment in the spotlight and place in history. Thus, while the Victorian monarchy’s evolution and media making secured it from political threats, it increasingly subjected the monarch to attackers who sought their own version of fame.

The Victorian monarchy’s populist and constitutional transformation allowed an institution that was beginning to teeter on a precipice of uncertainty to become one of the most secure royal households of its time. Indeed, Victoria played a central role in this transformation.

Press coverage of the assassination attempts points to instances in which Victoria consciously and deliberately shaped her public image to facilitate this change, such as her attendance at the

Royal Italian Opera after Robert Pate’s attack.11 However, the press also played a central role in the monarchy’s evolution, helping to root it in popular support and cultivating a sense of connection between Victoria and her people. It is important to note that, aside from the pro- monarchy papers, the Victorian press may not have been purposely seeking to solidify the monarchy’s place in society or convince readers of its relevance and importance. Editors and publishers sought their own commercial advantage by expanding their coverage of royal news and, by presenting it within a culturally popular framework, the media assisted in the monarchy’s transformation. While sensational news caught the public’s attention, sustained royal reportage maintained public interest in the sovereign. This validated and reinforced Victoria’s role as monarch, furthering the collective intimacy that was such an essential part of her populist support. Through the image the press presented of Victoria, which itself was an interpretation of the image Victoria projected of herself, the people felt that they knew her or could relate to her.

11 “Attack Upon Her Majesty The Queen,” Blackburn Standard, 3 July 1850, p. 2. 87

The press coverage of the eight assassination attempts is an overlooked aspect of the story of Queen Victoria’s reign and civic publicness, the monarchy’s evolution during this period, and the press’s role in facilitating this change. The media’s focus on matters of gender and sensational reportage in accounts of the attacks on the Queen demonstrates both how the press created an interest in royal news, and how it cultivated a connection between its readers and the monarchy. Consequently, as is evident through the press coverage of the assassination attempts, the media played a crucial supporting role – if not a starring part – in the British monarchy’s constitutional and populist transformation during the Victorian era.

88

Appendix A – Newspapers Title of Publication City Classification Dates Blackburn Standard Lancashire, England Working-class, conservative 1835-1840, 1845-1869,

1872-1873, 1875-1882

Cleave’s London Satirist and London, England Working-class, satirical 1839-1844 Gazette of Variety

Freeman’s Journal Dublin, Ireland Irish nationalist 1837-1924

John Bull London, England Middle-class, conservative, 1820-1892 pro-monarchy

Le Belle Assemblée or Bell’s London, England Middle-class, pro-monarchy, 1806-1847 Court and Fashionable news and fashion magazine Magazine Addressed Particularly to the Ladies

Northern Star and Leeds Leeds, Yorkshire, England Working-class, radical 1838-1852 General Advertiser

Penny Illustrated Paper London, England Working-class, illustrated 1861-1913

Punch London, England Middle-class, satirical 1841-2002 Reynold’s Weekly London, England Working-class, radical 1850-1929 Newspaper

The Lady’s Newspaper & London, England Lower-middle-class 1847-1863 Pictorial Times

The Penny Satirist London, England Satirical 1837-1846

The Times London, England Middle-class, conservative 1785-present 89

Appendix B – The Assassins

Name Date of Method of Charge Plead Defence Verdict Sentence Notes Attempt Attempt Edward Oxford June 10, 1840 Shot two loaded High Treason Not guilty Hereditary Not guilty Sentenced to Created a fictional pistols at Victoria insanity because of Bedlam for life republican club and Albert insanity called “Young England” John Francis May 29 & 30, May 29 – Aimed a High Treason Not guilty Poverty and Guilty Sentenced to be Public outcry 1842 pistol but did not desire for hanged, drawn, caused his fire notoriety and quartered sentence to be changed May 30 – Shot one Later changed to pistol at Victoria’s transportation to carriage Tasmania for life John William July 3, 1842 Shot a pistol at Misdemeanour – Not guilty No attempt Guilty Sentenced to Copycat of Bean Victoria’s carriage attempting to assault had been public whipping Francis the Queen and break made and 18 months in the public peace jail William May 19, 1849 Shot a pistol at Misdemeanour – Guilty None Guilty Sentenced to 7 Member of a Hamilton Victoria’s carriage attempting to injure years Chartist club in and alarm the Queen transportation Pimlico and and break the public involved in the (also called John or peace Flogging removed French James Hamilton) from sentence by Revolution of Victoria 1848 Robert Pate June 27, 1850 Hit Victoria on the Assault Not guilty Insanity Guilty Sentenced to 7 The “gentleman head with a years assassin” walking stick transportation

Flogging removed because of his family’s status Arthur February 29, Held a pistol to Misdemeanour – Guilty Insanity Guilty Sentenced to 7 Not believed to be O’Connor 1872 Victoria and presenting a pistol at years personally presented a the Queen with (Family transportation, 3 of connected with petition intent to alarm her attempted to which were hard the Fenians demanding that have this labour, and up to 3 she free Fenian changed) whippings prisoners 90

Roderick March 2, Shot a pistol at High Treason Not guilty Insanity, Not guilty Sentenced to Had many Maclean 1882 Victoria’s carriage poverty, and because of Broadmoor sensational and hunger insanity Criminal Lunatic conspiratorial (also called Robert Asylum for life thoughts and Maclean) claims

91

Bibliography

Primary Sources:

Periodicals: Blackburn Standard “Pot Boy Plot.” Blackburn Standard, 15 June 1840, p. 2.

“High Treason.” Blackburn Standard, 17 June 1840, p. 2.

“The Pot Boy and the Whigs.” Blackburn Standard, 24 June 1840, p. 3.

“Image of Oxford with the two pistols.” Blackburn Standard, 1 July 1840, p. 2.

“The Attempt to Assassinate Her Majesty.” Blackburn Standard, 15 July 1840, p. 2.

“Shooting At The Queen.” Blackburn Standard, 20 June 1849, p. 3.

“Attack Upon Her Majesty The Queen.” Blackburn Standard, 3 July 1850, p. 2.

“The Conviction of Pate.” Blackburn Standard, 17 July 1850, p. 2.

“Outrage Upon the Queen.” Blackburn Standard, 6 March 1872, p. 4-6.

“Dastardly Attempt To Shoot The Queen.” Blackburn Standard, 4 March 1882, p. 5.

“The Darwen Observer.” Blackburn Standard, 18 March 1882, p. 8.

Cleave’s London Satirist and Gazette of Variety

“The Late Attempted Assassination Of The Queen and Prince Albert, By Edward Oxford.” Cleave’s London Satirist and Gazette of Variety 3, no. 36, 20 June 1840, p. 1.

“Portrait of Edward Oxford, the attempted Regicide.” Cleave’s London Satirist and Gazette of Variety 3, no. 39, 11 July 1840, p. 1.

Freeman’s Journal

“Attempt To Murder The Queen And Prince Albert.” Freeman’s Journal, 13 June 1840, p. 4. 92

“Great Aggregate Meeting of the Citizens of Dublin To Address The Queen.” Freeman’s Journal, 22 June 1840, p. 3.

“The Conduct His Francis After His Conviction.” Freeman’s Journal, 21 May 1842, p. 1.

“Attempt On The Queen’s Life.” Freeman’s Journal, 2 June 1842, p. 2.

“Trial of John Francis for Attempting to Shoot the Queen.” Freeman’s Journal, 20 June 1842, p. 3.

“The Outrage on the Queen.” Freeman’s Journal, 2 March 1872, p. 4.

“The Case of O’Connor.” Freeman’s Journal, 4 March 1872, p. 3.

“Arthur O’Connor.” Freeman’s Journal, 12 March 1872, p. 3.

“Special Telegrams.” Freeman’s Journal, 9 April 1872, p. 3.

John Bull “Diabolical Attempt To Assassinate The Queen.” John Bull, 21 May 1849, p. 16.

“Examination At The Home Office, Yesterday.” John Bull, 21 May 1849, p. 16.

“John Bull.” John Bull, 2 March 1872, p. 8.

“Outrage On The Queen.” John Bull, 2 March 1872, p. 13.

“Miscellaneous.” John Bull, 9 March 1872, p. 13.

“Law and Police.” John Bull, 13 April 1872, p. 7.

Le Belle Assemblée

“Atrocious Attempt To Assassinate The Queen And Prince Albert.” Le Belle Assemblée, 1 June 1840, p. 605-608.

“The Attempt On The Life Of Her Most Gracious Majesty.” Le Belle Assemblée, 1 June 1842, p. 485-487.

93

Northern Star and Leeds General Advertiser “Attempt To Murder The Queen.” Northern Star and Leeds General Advertiser, 13 June 1840, p. 5. “Examination and Committal Of The Prisoner.” Northern Star and Leeds General Advertiser, 13 June 1840, p. 5.

“Attempt On The Life Of The Queen.” Northern Star and Leeds General Advertiser, 4 June 1842, p. 11.

“The Late Attempt On The Queen’s Life.” Northern Star and Leeds General Advertiser, 13 June 1842, p. 1.

“Most Abominable.” Northern Star and Leeds General Advertiser, 25 June 1842, p. 20.

“Reprieve of Francis the Convict.” Northern Star and Leeds General Advertiser, 9 July 1842, p. 3.

“Suspected Attack Upon The Queen.” Northern Star and Leeds General Advertiser, 9 July 1842, p. 16.

“Central Criminal Court.” Northern Star and Leeds General Advertiser, 27 August 1842, p. 2.

“Trial of Hamilton For Firing At The Queen.” Northern Star and Leeds General Advertiser, 16 June 1849, p. 24.

“Dastardly Attack Upon the Queen.” Northern Star and Leeds General Advertiser, 29 June 1850, p. 21.

“The Assault On The Queen.” Northern Star and Leeds General Advertiser, 13 July 1850, p. 17.

Penny Illustrated Paper “Maclean’s Committal On The Charge Of High Treason.” Penny Illustrated Paper, 18 March 1882, p. 10.

Punch “Flora Etona!” Punch 85, 18 March 1882, p. 130.

94

Reynold’s Weekly Newspaper “Attack Upon The Queen.” Reynold’s Weekly Newspaper, 30 June 1850, p. 1.

“Central Criminal Court Trial Of Pate For Assaulting The Queen.” Reynold’s Weekly Newspaper, 14 July 1850, p. 5.

“Whig Patronage.” Reynold’s Weekly Newspaper, 21 July 1850, p. 3.

“Attack Upon the Queen. Arrest of the Offender. His Examination at the Police Court.” Reynold’s Weekly Newspaper, 3 March 1872, p. 1.

“Attempt To Shoot The Queen At Windsor.” Reynold’s Weekly Newspaper, 5 March 1882, p. 1.

“The Attempted Assassination Of The Queen.” Reynold’s Weekly Newspaper, 12 March 1882, p. 3. “The Attempt On The Queen’s Life.” Reynold’s Weekly Newspaper, 23 April 1882, p. 1.

“The History of Maclean.” Reynold’s Weekly Newspaper, 23 April 1882, p. 1.

The Lady’s Newspaper & Pictorial Times “Alleged Attempt To Assassinate The Queen.” The Lady’s Newspaper & Pictorial Times 126, 26 May 1849, p. 286-287.

“Atrocious Assault Upon Her Majesty.” The Lady’s Newspaper & Pictorial Times 183, 29 June 1850, p. 353.

The Penny Satirist “Edward Oxford, Alias Young England.” The Penny Satirist 4, no. 166, 20 June 1840, p. 1.

“Edward Oxford, Firing At The Queen And Prince Albert.” The Penny Satirist 4, no. 166, 20 June 1840, p. 1.

The Times

“London, Thursday, June 11, 1840.” The Times, 11 June 1840, p. 4.

“The Late Atrocious Attempt To Assassinate The Queen And Prince Albert.” The Times, 13 June 1840, p. 6. 95

“The Attempt Upon The Life of Her Majesty.” The Times, 17 June 1840, p. 6.

“Central Criminal Court, Monday, June 22.” The Times, 23 June 1840, p. 6.

“Trial Of Oxford For High Treason.” The Times, 10 July 1840, p. 5.

“Attempt on the Life of Her Majesty.” The Times, 1 June 1842, p. 6.

“From the Evening Papers.” The Times, 1 June 1842, p. 7.

“High Treason.” The Times, 18 June 1842, p. 7-8.

“The Convict Francis.” The Times, 4 July 1842, p. 4.

“The Supposed Attempt Upon Her Majesty’s Life.” The Times, 5 July 1842, p. 5.

“Trial of Bean For Assaulting Her Majesty the Queen.” The Times, 26 August 1842, p. 6.

“Attempt To Assassinate The Queen.” The Times, 21 May 1849, p. 5.

“Central Criminal Court.” The Times, 15 June 1849, p. 7.

“Attack Upon Her Majesty The Queen.” The Times, 28 June 1850, p. 8.

“Her Majesty’s Reception at the Royal Italian Opera.” The Times, 28 June 1850, p. 8.

“Central Criminal Court.” The Times, 12 July 1850, p. 7.

“The Position Of The Leading Counsel.” The Times, 12 July 1850, p. 5.

“Attack On The Queen.” The Times, 1 March 1872, p. 9-10.

“The Attack Upon the Queen.” The Times, 2 March 1872, p. 9-10.

“Central Criminal Court.” The Times, 11 April 1872, p. 11.

“The Attempt To Intimidate The Queen.” The Lancet, quoted in The Times, 12 April 1872, p. 8.

“Attempt To Assassinate The Queen.” The Times, 3 March 1882, p. 5.

“The Attempt To Shoot The Queen.” The Times, 4 March 1882, p. 10.

“The Attempt On The Queen’s Life.” The Times, 7 March 1882, p. 6.

“The Queen.” The Times, 9 March 1882, p. 9. 96

“Trial of Maclean.” The Times, 20 April 1882, p. 11.

Other: Treason Act 1842, s. 2. Accessed March 14, 2021. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/5- 6/51/section/II/enacted.

Victoria, Queen of Great Britain. The Letters of Queen Victoria, edited by George Earle Buckle. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2016.

Secondary Sources: Altick, Richard. The English Common Reader: A Social History of the Mass Reading Public 1800-1900. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1998. Amigoni, David. Victorian Literature. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2011.

Backman, Clifford. Cultures of the West: A History – Volume 2: Since 1350 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013.

Bartlett, Peter. “Legal Madness in the Nineteenth Century.” The Society for the Social History of Medicine 14, no. 1 (2001): 107-130. Bingham, Adrian. “Reading Newspapers: Cultural Histories of the Popular Press in Modern Britain.” History Compass 10, no. 2 (Feb. 2012): 140-150.

Brown, Lucy. “The Growth of a National Press.” In Investigating Victorian Journalism, edited by Laurel Brake, Aled Jones, and Lionel Madden, 133-140. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1990. Cannadine, David. “From biography to history: writing the modern British monarchy.” Historical Research lxxvii (2004): 289-312. Cannadine, David., “The context, performance and meaning of ritual: the British monarchy and the ‘invention of tradition’, c. 1820–1977.” In The Invention of Tradition, edited by E. Hobsbawm and T. Ranger, 101-164. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. Charles, Barrie. Kill the Queen! The Eight Assassination Attempts on the Life of Queen Victoria. Gloucestershire: Amberley Publishing, 2012.

Chase, Malcolm. Chartism: A New History. New York: Manchester University Press, 2007.

Curran, James. “Media and the Making of British Society, c. 1700-2000.” Media History 8, no. 2 (2002): 135-154. 97

Freemon, Frank R. “The Origin of the Medical Expert Witness: The Insanity of Edward Oxford.” The Journal of Legal Medicine 22 (2001): 349-373.

Hamilton, John R. “Insanity Legislation.” Journal of Medical Ethics 12, no. 1 (Mar., 1986): 13- 17.

Humphreys, Anne. “Popular Narrative and Political Discourse in Reynold’s Weekly Newspaper.” In Investigating Victorian Journalism, edited Laurel Brake, Aled Jones, and Lionel Madden, 33-47. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1990.

“Invention of the Telegraph.” Library of Congress: Samuel F.B. Morse Papers at the Library of Congress, 1793 to 1919. Accessed March 13, 2021. https://www.loc.gov/collections/ samuel-morse-papers/articles-and-essays/invention-of-the-telegraph/.

James, David V. et al. “Attacks on the British Royal Family: The Role of Psychotic Illness.” Journal of American Academy Psychiatry Law 36, no. 1 (2008): 59-67.

Kooistra, Lorraine Jansen. “Illustration.” In Journalism and the Periodical Press in Nineteenth- Century Britain, edited by Joanne Shattock, 104-125. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017.

Lenz, Timothy O. and Mirya Holman. American Government 2nd ed. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2018.

Longford, Elizabeth. Victoria RI. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1964.

Moran, Richard. “The Origin of Insanity as a Special Verdict: The Trial for Treason of James Hadfield (1800).” Law & Society Review 19, no. 3 (1985): 487-519.

Plunkett, John. “A media monarchy? Queen Victoria and the radical press, 1837–1901.” Media History ix (2003): 3–18.

Plunkett, John. “Of Hype and Type: The Media Making of Queen Victoria 1837-1845.” Critical Survey 13, no. 2 (2001): 7-25. Plunkett, John. Queen Victoria: First Media Monarch. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. Royle, Edward. “Newspapers and Periodicals in Historical Research.” In Investigating Victorian Journalism, edited by Laurel Brake, Aled Jones, and Lionel Madden, 48-59. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1990. Smith, R. “The Victorian controversy about the insanity defence.” Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 81 (February 1988): 70-73.

Thompson, Dorothy. Queen Victoria: Gender and Power. London: Virago Press, 2008. 98

Tosh, John. Manliness and Masculinities in Nineteenth-Century Britain: Essays on Gender, Family and Empire. London: Routledge, 2016. Tosh, John. The pursuit of history: aims, methods, and new directions in the study of modern history. New York: Longman, 2006. Walkowitz, Judith. City of Dreadful Delight. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1992.

Walton, John. Chartism. London: Routledge, 1999.

Wiener, Joel H. “British and American Newspaper Journalism in the Nineteenth Century.” In Journalism and the Periodical Press in Nineteenth-Century Britain, edited by Joanne Shattock, 263-280. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017.

Wiener, Joel H. “How new was the new journalism?” In Papers for the Millions: the New Journalism in Britain, 1850s to 1914, edited by Joel H. Wiener, 47-71. New York: Greenwood Press, 1988. Williams, Richard. The Contentious Crown: Public Discussion of the British Monarchy in the Reign of Queen Victoria. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 1997. Winter, Alison. “Mesmerism and Popular Culture in Early Victorian England.” History of Science 32 (1994): 317-343.

Wright, John D. The Victorians: From Empire and Industry to Poverty and Famine. London: Amber Books Ltd, 2018.