HYDE PARK INCIDENT

Evening Star, Issue 22444, 15 September 1936, Page 9

HYDE PARK INCIDENT

LONDON, September 14. A long queue formed outside the Old Bailey two hours before the court assembled to try M'Mahon. Many wellknown society women were among those privileged in the special gallery, and three women are among the jury. M‘Mahon pleaded not guilty to all three charges—unlawfully possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life, presenting a pistol near the King with intent to endanger peace, and wilfully producing a pistol near His Majesty s person with intent to alarm him. The under-sheriff, picturesquely dressed in a velvet jacket and knee breeches with lace frills, and two aidermen in blue robes and carrying posies of flowers preceded the crimson-robed judge. The Attorney-General outlined the case for the Crown, details of which were related in Bow Street. He said M‘Mahon made several statements, one of which was that he could easily have shot the King if he wanted to. The Attorney - General contended that M'Mahon’s offence amounted to presenting a weapon, while on the question of intent it was difficult to imagine any act more calculated to create a disturbance. It was unnecessary to inquire what was in the prisoner’s mind, still less to inquire whether His Majesty was alarmed. Intent to alarm was inherent in the act itself. The Judge directed a verdict of not guilty on the first two counts. Explaining the words “ May I love you?” written on a card the prisoner carried, the Attorney-General pointed out that May was the name of his wife. He added that the prisoner threw a loaded revolver at His Majesty as he was passing him. It either hit a leg of the horse or fell so near that more than one witness thought the leg was actually hit, but the point perhaps did not matter. An unlo, led chamber of the revolver was opposite the barrel, but this was a type of revolver in which the pulling of the trigger would turn the chamber, so that it would actually go off. However, perhaps the prisoner did not appreciate this. It may be, having left one chamber unloaded, he thought one pull of the trigger would not discharge the revolver. , THE EVIDENCE WAS REVOLVER THROWN ? LONDON, September 14. (Received September 15, at 1.30 a.m.) Samuel Green, retired journalist, gave evidence that he saw the prisoner look repeatedly at a postcard of the King in Coronation robes. Later he saw the' shadow of a hand —a backhand throw—then he saw a pistol at the horse’s hind legs. Later he picked up a newspaper which M'Mahon had carried. Cross-examined he admitted that all he saw was a shadow. Constable Flood gave evidence that he turned his horse to face the King as the procession passed. He heard a scuffle and saw accused overpowered by the police. He did not see the revolver thrown. Special Constable Dick said he saw the prisoner’s hand in the air and just managed to knock the arm. He then seized him. He could not say whether, when he knocked the arm, an object left it. Asked if he saw anything thrown Dick replied: “ Yes. It looked like a black object.” Mr St. John Hutchinson, K.C., counsel for M'Mahon, asked the judge if he was prepared to give an immediate decision on the Attorney-General’s submission. The judge said he would not decide till he had heard counsel. “It seems better to discuss the meaning of the Act when the evidence is disclosed,” he said. Mr St. John Hutchinson replied that he would make a submission to end the prosecution’s case. BARMAID’S EVIDENCE. The prosecution called Mary Blencowe, barmaid of the Two Brewers. She declared that the day before the alleged attempt M'Mahon said he was going away as “ something dreadful has happened.” Witness agreed that he said “ has happened,” not “ going to happen.” STRUCK PRISONER IN FACE. John Reeves, night porter at the Metropok Hotel, Brighton, gave evidence that he first saw the revolver lying in the roadway, though his wife saw the whole incident. When his wife said: 11 Look! An insult to the King,” witness went up to prisoner and said: “ You swine,” and struck him in the face. “He had his glasses on, but I hit him all the sarne.”-

TRIAL OF McMAHON Accused’s Statement in Court Approached by Foreign Power to Kill King Sentenced to Twelve Months’ Hard Labour Press Association—By Telegraph—Copyright

REVOLVER THROWN. Mrs Lily Yeoman gave evidence that when the King approached the prisoner pushed his way past her in a most agitated manner. She saw something bright in his hand. “ I did not associate anything with it. When I looked at the King I saw him staring at M'Mahon. My eyes were rooted on the object from the moment it left his hand until it hit the horse.” The Judge: But you have not told us anything about that. Did something leave his hand ? Mrs Yeoman: Yes. Counsel: Did it hit the horse? Mrs Yeoman: It dropped to the ground and the horse’s hoof kicked it further. Cross-examined, Mrs Yeoman admitted that M'Mahon could easily have fired it if he wished. He actually threw the revolver underarm. SECRET SERVICE OFFICER. Inspector Kidd gave evidence that when M'Mahon was remanded at Bow Street till July 24 he said: “ I shall be dead before then. I intended to shoot myself in front of the King, but lost my head.*’ * Inspector Sands said he had seen shorthand notes of M'Mahon’s statement. “I obtained the revolver because I was doing important work for the authorities. I showed* it to an officer in His Majesty’s service.” Mr St. John Hutchinson indicated that he was calling the officer in question, who was a secret service officer, M. 15. Mr St. John Hutchinson revealed that M'Mahon told Inspector Clarke the day before the incident that something was likely to happen, and arranged to meet him at a tea shop between noon and 1 p.m. the day the incident occurred. Mr St. John Hutchinson contended that it was of paramount importance that on the charge of attempting to endanger life M'Mahon was telling the police all about it the day before. Mr St. John Hutchinson then read M'Mahon’s letter to Sir John Simon. Inspector Sands admitted that M'Mahon had a grievance because he had been imprisoned for criminal libel, which the higher court quashed. Mr St. John Hutchinson read an extract from M'Mahon’s most recent petition to the King, emphasising that he had given valuable information to the C.I.D. and to the War Office, not for reward, but because, though he had suffered much, he desired to remain His Majesty’s loyal subject. Inspector Sands admitted that M'Mahon was in touch with M. 15. Mr St. John Hutchinson submitted that there was no evidence to go to the jury in regard to the charge of endangering life. M'Mahon threw the revolver in such a way that it could not hurt anyone. JUDGE'S DIRECTION TO JURY. The judge, in directing the jury on the first two charges, said; “The first count is presented with a view to discovering whether the evidence could satisfy a jury and whether in his acts the prisoner did, or in possessing a firearm, there was any intention to endanger life, really meaning the life of the King, or his entourage. As the evidence turned out, I do not think anyone could form that opinion, or is there sufficient evidence to give such a verdict. I rule that there is no evidence of presenting a firearm in the sense of the world used in the Act. Therefore it is your duty—and I am sure your pleasure—to find a verdict of not guilty.” SENSATIONAL DISCLOSURE. M'Mahon went into the box after lunch, and, speaking in a low voice, made a sensational disclosure that a foreign Power had asked him to do espionage at the end of October, 1935. It suggested to him to shoot the King at the Trooping of the Colour, for which he would receive £l5O (not £3,150). Arrangements were made for nine others to accompany him to enable him to - escape. M'Mahon immediately informed the War Office. ALLEGED DANGER IN FRANCE. The foreign Power had told him that if the plot failed the King would be shot in France. M'Mahon added that he had continually reported progress to the War Office, from which he received no remuneration. He took the money from the foreign Power and gave the numbers of the notes to the War Office. M'Mahon wrote on a piece of paper, which he handed to the judge, the jury, and the Attorney-General the name of a person at the embassy and the foreign Power to whom he was introduced, and added that, if necessary, he could give a description of the way he had entered the embassy room in which the discussions were held.

The atmosphere of the court was almost unbearable with suspense as the case began to take such an utterly unexpected twist. RINGING SIR JOHN SIMON. M'Mahon disclosed who the foreign embassy’s men were who dictated the letter which he sent to Sir John Simon. Three of them stood outside the telephone box when he rang up Sir John Simon. The reason they encouraged him to telephone was to show that he had a grievance so that, if captured, suspicions would not fall on anyone else. The drama mounted towards a climax when M'Mahon admitted that what the witnesses said about the incident were substantially true. “ I threw the pistol along the ground because 1 did not want to shoot,” he said. Mr St. John Hutchinson: Had you ever any intention to harm His Majesty? M'Mahon: No, sir. Bather to save him. Mr St. John Hutchinson: Was that the only way you could protect him? M'Mahon: Yes. Otherwise they might have carried out the act themselves. M'Mahon, continuing his evidence, said he was in touch with the War Office officials from 35 to 40 times. He said he was introduced to the foreign Power by an English member of a political body having the same objects as the foreign Government. He met a certain baron at the Embassy, where the officials spoke of the wrongs of Ireland, and suggested that their system of government was better. The baron mentioned certain parts of the Empire which would be handed over to them if the King were not in power, and suggested planning a sudden coup somewhere, adding that Britain would be less likely to interfere in foreign affairs if there were turmoil here. “ The attempt was twice rehearsed. I was to stand at the back of the crowd. Afterwards my position was changed to nearer the palace. I reported all this to the War Office.” M'Mahon continued that he was in constant touch with a War Office official and the police the day before the attempt was to be made. Inspector Clarke brought a man who was to follow him at M'Mahon’s request, as he did not wish to give his life for nothing. Actually, the police did not carry out the arrangement, and from early morning on the day of the incident M'Mahon was under the surveillance of the plotters. M'Mahon added that he did not disclose these things at the police station, as he thought the other plotters might hang about and be captured, but he told his solicitor that the plotters intended to make a second attempt on the King’s life during his holiday in Prance. The solicitor informed the authorities.

NO PRODUCT OF IMAGINATION. Cross-examining M'Mahon, the At-torney-General said there was no suggestion in M'Mahon’s letter to Sir John Simon of an alleged plot. M'Mahon replied: Why should there be? I wrote at the dictation of others. Asked why he did not disclose this before, M'Mahon said; “ I kept quiet in order to catch the men engaged in the plot. There was one of them in court this morning. The Attorney-General: But why didn't you tell us? M'Mahon: I did tell. That’s why His Majesty’s life was endangered because no one would pay any attention to me. The Attorney-General suggested that the plot was the product of imagination. M'Mahon, in dramatic fashion, said: “ 1 wish to God it were.” The Attorney-General recalled that M'Mahon told the court at Bow Street that he had intended to fling a paper at His Majesty, and said; “Your friends would not have given you £l5O for that.” M'Mahon replied: I am not here to crave mercy. I am here merely to tell the truth. I don’t care what you do with me. The Attorney-General suggested that M'Mahon demanded £I,OOO before he disclosed information regarding the plot. M'Mahon said: “ I simply wanted a guarantee that my wife would be looked after.” He had not mentioned a sum, and had not refused to make the information conditional on receiving money, but naturally he expected his wife to be cared for if he threw his life away. He even went to Mrs Baldwin to hand over information. The Attorney-General said; The authorities were satisfied in April that there was nothing in your story. M'Mahon; That’s their view. The very fact that I was able to do the thing after their knowing about it shows there is no safety for the King m his own country. The Attorney-General: The only danger to the King came from yourself. M'Mahon retorted; Yes; because of bungling officials. I am not pleading for mercy. I would be safer in prison than outside. I want to go to prison. Give me the heaviest possible sentence. Only by remaining in prison can I save my life from people I’ve given away. You did not want me to give evidence. The offer was made to me that if I pleaded guilty I would get off with a light sentence. Why was the offer made except to hide the bungling of others? The Attorney-General: Nobody wants to hide anything. Mr St. John Hutchinson, re-exam-ining, said: You gave certain information about the King going abroad directly after you were tried at Bow street. M'Mahon: Yes. Mr St. John Hutchinson: And have you told the truth? M'Mahon: As God is by judge. I had nothing to gain otherwise. The case for the defence closed and M'Mahon, wiping the perspiration from his forehead, left the box.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL’S ADDRESS. The Attorney-General, addressing the jury asked it to disbelieve the greater part of M‘Mahon’s story. “ The whole of the evidence is to the effect that he had real or imaginary grievances to which he wished to draw attention. A large number of things said to-day are inconsistent with what he said under oath in the police court. A man who treats the oath in such a way is wholly unreliable. The only issue before the jury is whether the revolver was produced to alarm His Majesty.

Mr St. John Hutchinson: The jury might think M‘Mahon muddleheaded, and not quite normal, but when he had a perfectly good story which would have enabled him to escape, at least lightly, why substitute for it a story which sounds like Oppenheim or Edgar Wallace? Because it is fantastic it is not necessarily untrue. Nobody denied that he was in touch with the War Office or was employed by a foreign P.ower. Nobody denied that four days before the incident he gave details to the War Office, and even the names of people whom the secret service could check. If he was telling the War Office nonsense would they have kept him running from last October to July? Mr St. John Hutchinson added: One of the most striking features of the case is that the police do not seem to have kept M'Mahon under observation. Would any police out of Bedlam have failed to keep a man under observation if he had said, “ 1 am going to be connected with a murderous attempt on the life of your King? ” A frightful tragedy might have resulted had M'Mahon been serious. He was entitled to think the police had at least one man following him. If that was done it would have been seen whether the story was true. I hope this case shows that it is worth while to watch a man 'whether you believe or disbelieve his story. The Judge, summing up, said a man’s intention might be gathered from an act performed. Therefore, if the jury believed the evidence of Mrs Yeoman that M'Mahon threw a loaded revolver at the feet of the King’s horse surely that act was calculated to alarm His Majesty. It was hard to see how anyone could reconcile the stories told to the court and at Bow street. The jury might reasonably say, if it thought so, that M'Mahon acted as he did without intention to alarm, but merely to deceive those employing him. On the contrary, if it thought he was trying to draw attention to his own grievances by taking steps which might reasonably alarm His Majesty the verdict should say so. The jury retired, and in 10 minutes returned with a verdict of guilty. JUDGE’S COMMENT. The Judge, in sentencing M'Mahon to 12 months’ hard labour, said he was satisfied that M'Mahon did not intend to harm the King, else he was bound to take the severest measures. The prisoner was one of those misguided persons who thought by notoriety to draw attention to his grievances. Luckily, the police, who had been criticised in this case, had been quick enough to save the misguided person from the consequences of his own acts. The judge added that he had to consider the seriousness of the prisoner’s offence. He was not going to make him a sort of fancied hero. No description would be further from the truth. “At the same time, allowing for the fact that there was no /evidence of intent to endanger life, I find it possible to pass a lower sentence than I otherwise should have done.” The judge also paid a tribute to the impartiality of the police. M'Mahon seemed to moisten bis lips, but gave no other sign of emotion as he awaited the sentence. M'Mahon, on hearing the sentence, turned swiftly and walked from the court. Mr St. John Hutchinson has not decided whether to appeal or not.