The
London
Monster By Jan Bondeson and Dennis Mohr
I
n 1790, nearly a century before Jack the Ripper haunted the streets of London, another predator held sway. The Monster, as this mysterious miscreant was soon dubbed, used to walk up to a beautiful, well-dressed lady, insult her with coarse and earthy language, and then stab her in the thigh or buttocks. He struck at regular intervals, wounding several young and attractive women in the London streets: in a ‘sextuple event’ on January 19, his tally was not less than six victims. Since this kind of sadistic behaviour was unheard-of at the time, there was general outrage among the Londoners and the capital’s female world was in a turmoil.
Throughout the first half of 1790, the newspapers were full of the Monster’s latest outrages. Long-defunct papers like the World, the Argus and the Diary did much to emphasise the sense of an elusive outside threat, and the need for vigilante action. The police were roundly criticised for their failure to capture the Monster, and it was even hinted that they were deliberately sheltering the culprit, a gentleman of wealth. In early April, a £100 reward was posted for the capture of the Monster, by the Lloyd’s insurance broker John Julius Angerstein. Large posters were pasted up all over London to announce that a bloodthirsty, inhuman Monster was on the prowl, attacking young and beautiful women in the streets. These posters accomplished what the newspapers had started, namely, to create a veritable mass hysteria. Both the police and various amateur Monster-hunters were out in force. Innocent men were beaten up by the mob after being pointed out as the Monster by mischievous people, and the fashionable ladies did not dare venture out into the streets without wearing copper petticoats or other forms of protective clothing. The Monster attacks continued throughout April and May, although it was notable that the descriptions of the culprit varied greatly, regarding height, dress, complexion, and hair colour. The Monster-hunters suspected that the fiend was wearing several coats, one on top of the other, and that he
A cartoon published at the height of the Monst er-mania, showing a lad protective gear being y wearing saved from the myster y assailant’s rapier.
made use of a collection of wigs and false noses to disguise his appearance. Mr Angerstein disagreed, pointing out that there was good reason to suspect that more than one of these wretches were infesting the streets. Some ladies faked Monster attacks to gain sympathy and compassion: his propensity to attack only young and beautiful ladies made it highly fashionable to pose as one of his swooning, tearful victims, basking in the newspaper publicity and receiving visits from manly, muscular Monsterhunters eager to obtain a description of the mystery assailant. At this stage, some newspaper journalists, aghast at the Monster they had helped to create, suggested that the attacks might well be the handiwork of some inept pickpockets, who were aiming to cut open the ladies’ skirt pockets, but stabbed the flesh instead. Such calls for moderation were lost in the general hubbub: it was instead speculated that the Monster was a master of disguise, an insane nobleman bent on maiming every beautiful woman in London, or even a supernatural being who could move round the streets at great pace, and make himself invisible to evade
HAUNTED MAGAZINE
7
