ENGLISH SECRET SERVICE METHODS EXPOSED

New Zealand Tablet, 9 December 1920, Page 39

ENGLISH SECRET SERVICE METHODS EXPOSED

DRAMATIC INTERVIEW. The other week one of England’s numerous agentprovocateurs was effectively exposed in Dublin. England has always denied she employed such wretches, and it was, therefore, necessary to make the exposure under circumstances that convicted her beyond the possibility of denial. Her agent was, therefore, left to expose himself before a gathering of American, French, Italian, Irish and English ‘ journalists, whom he imagined were Sinn Fein leaders. He had asked to meet them in order to offer them his inner knowledge as a paid English secret service agent, and he was told that if lie came at a certain hour he would meet people who would take a special interest in him. Ho did. He met the representatives! of 'leading European and American journals, and they listened in dissembled horror and disgust while the, villain madefollowing the instructions of his English Government employers—his vile proposals.

Less than two years ago this scoundrel was sentenced at Belfast Assizes to live years’ penal servitude for fraud. His record of crime, extending over 32 years, was read by the judge, who declared that, in the interests of the community, he could not give him a lesser sentence. Yet, before a sixth of the sentence had been served, the prison doors were opened and this felon who had preyed upon society for 32 years walked forth free. No prisoner convicted as he was could be released in less than three years and nine months unless by special action of the English Government. What were the special and extraordinary reasons for the felon’s release?

He was released to join the English secret service and to act for it as an agent-provocateur. He is not the only criminal who was specially released for the same purpose. If there were any public spirit, morality or intelligence leftin England, it would demand a return of the number of habitual criminal released before the expiry of their sentences by order of the English Government during the past two years; it would demand the reason for their release, and it would demand why these releases are being surreptitiously made. These criminals have been released, clad in fine raiment, furnished in some instances with bank accounts and sent around to act the part of agenls-provoca-teur in Ireland and also in certain parts of Great Britain—particularly in the great labor, centres. ’This is English Government even in England in 1920. No doubt, the English people are worthy of it. The effort of his employers to hush up the exposure was apparent in the English press. One of the journalists present at the exposure was the special correspondent of Lord Northcliffe's lluihj Mall. He telegraphed a lull account of it to that paper. The paper suppressed it. Its managing director has just issued a book on Propaganda. This is one instance of how English propaganda is worked, on the one hand by the Lie, on the other by the Suppression of the Truth. " In obedience to the wishes of its Government the English press, with few exceptions, suppressed the story of the exposure of the English Government-employed felon. But all Continental Europe and all America knows the story now. We believe the English Government is the only Government in the world which has released felons from gaol to act as agents-provocateur. We are aware England made the charge against Russia when she was at enmity with that country, lint she was able to produce no proof of such infamy. Yell, Ireland has produced convincing proof against England of the crime against all civilisation and all decency—Francis Hardy, thief, forger, felon, employee of the English Government, and associate of its officials in Ireland.

, The following record of Hardy, taken from the Belfast News Letter of December 9, 1918, was read out by Mr. Griffith in his presence before the Irish and foreign journalists at the dramatic exposure of this secret service agent of England :

“Frank Handling, alias Hardy, alias Saville, a middleaged man of respectable appearance, was put forward for sentence and in reply to his Lordship said his real name was Hardy. ‘His Lordship (Judge Gordon) said the prisoner had had several other names. He had sent in a statement admitting that he had been engaged for some months past in a series of frauds, including a number of cases in Waterford totalling £B2 4s; in Carlow, of £ls; Lisburn, £l2; Portstewart, £10; Derry, £10; Liverpool, £25; Leeds, £ls; Cardiff, £ls; Plymouth, £l2; Portsmouth, £8; WolverhampIPi 1 ’ w!, another place involving sums amounting to £250. Did that statement disclose all the frauds the prisoner had committed in the last few months?

v- v “The prisoner said it did. For . two and a-half years he had rendered good, honest service- at the Ministry of Munitions and had got right on his feet when he was suddenly handed a month’s pay in lieu of notice. He insisted on knowing the reason for his dismissal and was told that at intervals the Ministry sent a list of all its employees to Scotland Yard, and that in consequence of Scotland Yard furnishing his past record the Ministry had decided to. dismiss him. Attempts were made by Superintendent Thomas of the police and the L.C.J., who took up his case to get him icinstated, but these failed, and then, said the prisoner, he got fairly desperate and would have committed murder if it had come his way. He acted with a recklessness for which there could be no excuse, but he asked his Lord--ship to deal with him mercifully and he would undertake to pay 20s in the £ to every one of those whom he had clot lauded, spreading the payments over a series of years. ... • be prisoner’s speech from- the dock, which was politely listened to by the Judge, occupied nearly a quarter of - an hour. , . His Lordship said ho had had prisoner’s record betoic him. Prisoner talked about getting an opportunity of repaying the money, but as a matter of fact he began ns career of crime 32 years ago. In 1886 he got six weeks or forgery at Devon Assizes; in 1890 he was imprisoned lor six weeks for stealing a bicycle and neglecting his family, and in the same year at Plymouth he got three months ror larceny and embezzlement. In. 1896 he <rot I- , months at Winchester Assizes for . stealing securities and forgery; in 1897—apparently just immediately after he came out—he got 18 months at the London Assizes for Iraud. He then got seven years at Surrey Assizes in 1899 tor forgery, and another seven years in 1910 for forging a bill of exchange and for stealing, a cheque book. In •ice ol this it was useless to accept any promise'from him. He would not be doing his duty if he left the prisoner to go on in that course, defrauding people at will, and he therefore sentenced him to five Years’ penal servitude which would cover all the offences to which the prisoner had pleaded guilty.” Hardy (says the Freeman’s Journal), during the redtal grew pale, his mouth twitched, and his hands shook. V lien lie had finished reading Mr. Griffith turned to aim and said: “You were released from Marvboro’ Gaol tor this work. You came here with suggestions which we all understand. Yesterday the country was flooded with leaflets offering rewards for secret information regarding outrages and murders supposed to have been committed by the Republican Army. There arc scores of men like you going about the country suggesting outrages and assassinations to country boys. “You are a scoundrel, Hardy, but the people who employ you are greater scoundrels. A boat will leave Dublin to-night at nine o’clock. My advice to you is—catch that boat and never return to Ireland. You may use your peculiar talents as you like in your own country. I have nothing more to say.” Hardy, crushed and frightened, said in a piteous tone that he had never done anything against Sinn Fein. He could not leave Dublin that night. Mr. Griffith waved him off and he walked quickly from the room. That night he caught the boat for England (says Youiui Ireland for September 25). English Ex-Convict. J.r Fefit Fa vision publishes from its correspondent in Dublin, under a double column heading, with a fine portrait of Mr. Arthur Griffith who, he says, strikingly resembles M. Merrh'eim, an, interesting account of the "dramatic exposure of the English ex-convict. Ike correspondent says he was present at the supposed “secret meeting of Sinn Fein leaders” which listened to the denunciation of the ex-convict by Mr. Griffith. When Mr. Griffith read the man’s record and denounced him as a liar and a scoundrel (adds the correspondent) the English ex-convict made a move as if to draw a revolver, but Mr. Griffith laughingly remarked that it was useless to indulge in play-acting.

Chesterton has recently plunged the sword of his cm i--11,011 sense ridicule into Mr. Hoc-king’s latest suggestion that marriage should he a union to last as long & as it pleased the parties to it. As Chesterton rightly says: “Every one of their arguments leads direct to promiscuity and leaves no kind of use or meaning in marriage of any kind." Marriage is an indissoluble contract raised by our Lord to a Sacrament. But the liberals, ministerial and lay of the present day want to degrade it into a sort of respectable-seeming free love. The fundamental idea of a responsibility undertaken is scoffed at. It is the apotheosis in reality of what ruined every government of antiquity. _ . : r 3 - ,