The plot was averted. The target later said that General H. "came in, bringing an extraordinary document which this boy had intended making me sign. It was in connection with the Fenian prisoners."

Queen Victoria?

V. good, Mozart! Yes, February 29, 1872, Victoria, accompanied by her sons Prince Arthur and Prince Leopold, a lady-in-waiting and John Brown, her faithful servant, were returning to the palace and had just gone through the gates.

A 17-year-old Irish Nationalist named Arthur O'connor tried to kidnap the queen with the notion of forcing her to sign a document freeing all Fenian prisoners.

Her son Prince Arthur and her servant John Brown grabbed O'Connor, who dropped a pistol.

O'Connor, whose gun wasn't even loaded, and who was found to be mentally defective, was jailed for a year and given 20 strokes of the birch. Prince Arthur received a gold pin for his bravery. Brown was thanked publicly, with a gold medal and an annuity of £25.

That wasn't a bad pension in those days.

This was one of seven assassination attempts on Queen Victoria. She was only injured in one of them, when she was hit in the face with a cane. The man, who wouldn't give a reason for the attack, was transported overseas for seven years. The gueen had a black eye.

quote:

Originally posted by babthrower:

This was one of seven assassination attempts on Queen Victoria. She was only injured in one of them, when she was hit in the face with a cane. The man, who wouldn't give a reason for the attack, was transported overseas for seven years. The gueen had a black eye.

And one led to the rules on insanity as a defence and to a strange verdict which we kept for many years. The accused was one M'Naghten (otherwise spelt McNaghten )and it was his case that gave English law the 'M'Naghten Rules', the rules which set out the legal definition of insanity. The verdict was 'Guilty, but insane". The judges intended the verdict to be the logical 'Not Guilty but insane' but Her Majesty was incensed that anyone who had intended to kill her should be declared not guilty of anything, whatever their mental condition . So she refused to accept any such provision and, as a result, we had this strange verdict instead, pronounced up until the 1960s when the law on insanity was revised. We now use 'Not Guilty, by reason of insanity'.