THE M'MAHON TRIAL.

Evening Star, Issue 22445, 16 September 1936, Page 8

THE M'MAHON TRIAL.

Few people with an atom of faith in the intelligence of an embassy and of the powers that lie behind it will be disposed to credit the story told by George M'Mahon at the trial held as a sequel to his arrest in connection with the sensational incident' at Hyde Park Corner. The circumstances should be so strongly fixed in the public mind that a recapitulation of the details is unnecessary. Evidence was heard on the last of three counts —that of producing a pistol near the King’s person with intent to alarm him—and the accused was sentenced to twelve months’ hard labour, the judge remarking that he was satisfied M'Mahon did not intend to harm the King, or else he would have felt bound to take the severest measures. Thus ended a case which probably should have proceeded along more conventional lines than it did. It is conceivable in these restless days that a band of anarchical conspirators, in fanatical promulgation of a “ principle,” might indeed plot the assassination of a monarch, and such is the political insanity in certain quarters which might almost be deemed an underworld that even a king so popular in an international sense as our own cannot be regarded as positively immune. However, it is straining human credulity to breaking point to suggest that an official embassy (that of Germany has been mentioned) would entertain for a moment such a ludicrous and profitless machination. Those people in London who have had a better opportunity to follow the case closely and also to analyse the mentality of the accused than wo who Jive on the other side of the world are obviously not impressed by the sensational story of venomous espionage that has been told. Even from the summarised evidence that has been cabled it is easy to discern between the trial proceedings and the information that was given in the lower court inconsistencies that lead to the suspicion that consideration of the plight in which he had placed himself had caused a change of front in M'Mahon. His counsel at the trial asked why, when he had a perfectly good story that would have enabled him to escape, at least lightly, he should substitute for it a story which sounded like Opponheim or Edgar Wallace. The difference, of course, is that, whereas the original explanation attributed to M'Mahon certain unstable qualities which he may have been loath to acknowledge, the second, if accepted, would have raised him to the pedestal almost of a national benefactor and would-be saviour of His Majesty. Naturally he would prefer the latter interpretation of his actions. Counsel for the accused in the lower court remarked yesterday that, following his reports to the authorities while his client was in prison, the King’s holiday in Franco was cancelled. Almost certainly he rates too highly the importance of the information he gave, because it was made clear at the time that His Majesy’s change of holiday venue was due to the trouble in Spain and the fear of resultant complications in France, as well as to concurrent industrial troubles felt internally in that country. King Edward’s subsequent democratic demeanour in certain European capitals does not suggest fear of attempted assassination by representatives of a foreign Power.