Oxford Martyr 1
Over a year ago we promised that we would let blog readers know when two new books on Edward Oxford, one of Victorian Bethlemâs most famous patients, were published. We have - admittedly, in passing - already alerted readers to the publication of one of them, and now we provide a partial review of it, with the intention of devoting a second post to the other. Paul Murphyâs Shooting Victoria âdocumentsâ, in the words of the author, âthe important if unwitting parts the Queenâs seven assailants played in the great love story between Victoria and Victoriansâ, Murphyâs thesis being that she âconverted each episode of near-tragedy into one of triumphant renewal for her monarchy, each time managing to strengthen the bond between herself and her subjectsâ.1 Oxfordâs was the first attempt on her life, in 1840, but Murphyâs trawl through the transcripts of the subsequent trial gives rise to considerable doubt concerning its seriousness - doubt encapsulated in a question put by the defence to a medical witness:

âSupposing a person in the middle of the day, and without any suggested motive, was to fire a loaded pistol at Her Majesty passing along the road in a carriage, and that such person afterwards remained on the spot, declaring that he was the person who had fired - nay, even took pains to have it known, and that afterwards he entered freely into discussion, and answered questions put to him on the subject, would you refer such conduct to a sound or unsound state of mind?â2
Oxfordâs defence against the capital charge of treason rested on two propositions: that the guns he used were loaded with powder but not shot, and that he was insane at the time of the shooting. The juryâs acceptance of either proposition âwould result in Oxfordâs acquittalâ, as Murphy writes, but âthe consequence of acquittal for unloaded guns differed dramatically from the consequence of an acquittal for insanityâ.
âIf [the jury could not dismiss the possibility that] Oxford had no balls in his pistols, he would walk from the Old Bailey a free man. If, on the other hand, he was acquitted on the ground of insanity, he would be subject to confinement at the Queenâs pleasure - confinement that could last for decades, if not a lifetimeâ.3
Though the indications that Oxford was of unsound mind were inconclusive, so was the evidence that his pistols were ever loaded. With the benefit of one hundred and seventy years' worth of hindsight, it seems more likely that he was attempting an extremely ill-advised publicity stunt. The jury initially returned this delphic verdict: âWe find the prisoner, Edward Oxford, guilty of discharging the contents of the two pistols, but whether or not they were loaded with ball has not been satisfactorily proved to us, he being of unsound state of mind at the timeâ.4
Arguably, this amounted to a finding of âNot guiltyâ in law (there being no English equivalent of the Scottish âNot provenâ), there clearly having been doubt in the minds of members of the jury concerning whether Oxfordâs guns had been loaded. Over against the protests of the defence, however, the presiding judge ruled that the jury must return to their deliberations to formulate a clearer verdict. Uncertainty about Oxfordâs ammunition was not reflected in their second, equally confused attempt: âGuilty, he being at the time insaneâ. Since âby law no one could be simultaneously found insane and guilty of a crimeâ, the judge obtained the agreement of the jury to record the verdict as âNot guilty on the ground on insanityâ.5
As has already been noted, the fact that acquittal took place on this ground was fateful for Oxford - it meant decades, if not a lifetime, of confinement (first at Bethlem, then at Broadmoor) at Her Majestyâs Pleasure. There is in fact much more to Oxfordâs subsequent life than this, as Murphy goes on to recount later in his book, and as anyone familiar with the story will know. For the time being, however, we will leave him in the position in which he found himself in the wake of his trial: as a hapless living martyr to the sentiments of the British establishment, which was outraged by the prospect of him being (in the words of the prosecuting attorney) âlet loose upon society to endanger the life of Her Majesty or her subjectsâ,6 whether he had committed a treasonable offence, or not.
Naturally, there is also much more to Murphyâs book. Oxfordâs case is but the first, paradigmatic case out of seven he recounts which turned out to Victoriaâs advantage - not just because she escaped unharmed on each occasion, but because âshe [and, in his lifetime, her husband Albert] refused to hide or allow any visible sign of heightened securityâ in the aftermath of these incidents, thereby demonstrating âthat absolute trust existed between them and their subjects, andâŚthat no would-be assassin could ever come between themâ.7
To be continued.