IS COLONEL LAWRENCE WORLD’S ARCH-SPY?

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 580, 5 February 1929, Page 9

IS COLONEL LAWRENCE WORLD’S ARCH-SPY?

BACK FROM AFGHANISTAN PAPER CONDEMNS SECRECY (Australian and K.Z. Press Association) (United Service) LONDON, Monday. “Aircraftsman Shaw,” otherwise Colonel T. E. Lawrence, of Arabian fame, perseveres in his role of mystery. On arriving in England to-day from Afghanistan he avoided would-be interviewers by landing at Plymouth in a naval pinnace before the other passengers, although he had travelled as an ordinary third-class passenger. Many people, including journalists, awaited Colonel Lawrence’s arrival at Paddington station, London, but he crossed the rails to another platform, engaged a taxicab and was driven by a roundabout route to his flat in Kensington. There he refused to be interviewed. The “Daily News” recalls the fact that the Afghan authorities put a

price on Colonel Lawrence's head as the world's arch-spy. It urges Parliament to demand the truth about him. The paper says: “It is no secret that with Lawrence as a figurehead Britain is credited abroad with maintaining a subtle, allseeing secret intelligence service in <he East. We have been assured he is no more than ‘Aircraftsman Shaw,’ but why should this most distinguished man, who held a high and important position in the British Army at the time of the war and whose exploits are known all over the world, be allowed to serve as a simple Air Force mechanic? “It is a curious and extremely irregular proceeding whatever the explanation may be. W,e are certain it is not in the interests of the discipline of the service or in the interests of the public that Lawrence should continue to masquerade as ‘Aircraftsman Shaw’ when his real identity is notorious and his activities a matter of undesirable speculation in almost every country in the world.” WITHDRAWING JFGATION QUESTION IN COMMONS TRIBUTE TO SIR F. HUMPHRYS British Official Wireless Reed. 11.20 a.m. RUGBY, Monday. Lieut.-Colonel Howard-Bury, Conservative member for Clielmsford, asked the Foreign Secretary in the House of Commons to-day about reports that the British Minister, Sir Francis Humphrys, and his staff were to be withdrawn from Kabul, and whether, in view of the importance of maintaining a British Minister there, and the facility with which, in case of danger, he could be withdrawn by air, he would continue to maintain the Legation and staff at Kabul. Sir Austen Chamberlain replied. “The facts are that subordinate members of the Legation staff and other persons, both British and foreign, whose continued presence at Kabul is not essential, have been, and are being withdrawn. The question of the withdrawal of the British Minister and his staff must depend on circumstances, and I cannot make any statement anticipating the decision that may finally be taken on this question, but I must point out that the removal by air of even a small number of per sons may very well prove to be by no means an easy matter. “I take this opportunity to express. on behalf of his Majesty’s Government, its admiration for the courage and fortitude which Sir Francis Humphrys and his staff have displayed in circumstances of great difficulty and danger. “A similar tribute is due to Lady Humphrys and the other ladies who were withdrawn some time ago.”