ABSTRACT
In September 1794 two members of the radical London Corresponding Society (LCS) were arrested for plotting to assassinate George III with a poisoned arrow from an air-gun disguised as a walking stick. Much was made of this so-called ‘Pop-Gun Plot’ in the loyalist press, but confusion ensued as to the truth of the allegations and the intentions of the alleged perpetrators, two artisans – Peter Lemaitre and George Higgins. Had they ‘imagined the king’s death’ and thus committed treason, or did no such conspiracy exist? 1 The evidence was unclear and confused and the truth of the event obscured by the murky manoeuvrings of the government, in the famous Treason Trials of 1794. 2 This episode and the context of loyalist and government fear and paranoia within which it may be set illustrate the difficulties for both contemporaries and historians in establishing popular attitudes to the monarchy during the turmoil of the French Revolution. It is also not easy to gain a sense of the people, from what appears to be ‘a multitude of individuals with a multitude of experiences’ and political views. 3 That 1790s radicalism was a diverse movement with a fragmented ideology has been argued by John Dinwiddy, Mark Philp and others. Neither radicals nor loyalists adhered to clear and consistent ideologies. 4 Radicalism reflected a variety of views about what was wrong with the British state and what should be done about it. 5 Moreover, anti-monarchist sentiment may or may not have reflected a desire for regicide and the establishment of a republic. Indeed, radicals who called for reform of government may still have remained loyal to the monarch, or at least indifferent.
