◆ SpookStack

“pregnant, Kent#, should be searched na (his. was an additional reason for delaying the proposed interview until mid-June” when xs. Maclean, who was tHen was expected to be away from home, 1 It is now clear that in spite of the précautions taken by the authorities Maclean. “must have econe aware, ab some time before his uisappearauce, ihat he was under investivatior. One explanation may be that he observed that he was no longer Tecelving certain bypes of secret papers. It is also pos. sible that he detected that he Was under observation, Or he niay have been warned, Searching inquiries invelving individual interrogations were made into this last possibility, Insufficient evidence was obtains able to form a definite con. clusion oY tO Warrant prosecu- mn. Leave | i} Maclean's absence did not ~~ become. known to the authorities imntil the morning. of Monday, May 38. The Foreign” Office is regu+ larly open {for normal business on Saturda mornings but officers can from time to time out in leave to take a week-end In} accordance with this pr§cs tice [Maclean applied for’ a d obtained leave to be ahsent the * mornin of - Satur May 26. vee da His absence therefore caviséd nofremark until the following Mdnday morning when he failed to"pPppear at the Foreign Office. urgess was on leave and unger no obligation to report his "movements. :| 3 Immediately the flight °* was known all possinle action was taken in the United Kingdem, and the French and ether Continental security authorities were asked to trace the whereabouts of the fugitives and if possible to Intercept them. All British consulates in Western Burope were alerted and special efforts were made to discover whether the fugitives had crossed the. French frontiers On May 26 or 27, As a result of these and other inquiries it was established thet Maclean and Burgess togethes . left. Tatstield by car fof Southampton In tae’ late eyen- ing of Friday, May 25, arrived at Southampton at midnigtit, cattght the s.s. Palaise tor St. Malo, and disembarked at that port at 11.45 the following morning, leaving suitcases and some of their clothing on board, Telegrams ey were not seen on the traik from St. Malo to Paris, and \t has been reported that two iden, believed to he Maclean and. Burgess, took a taxi to tat that Rennes and there got fhe 18 pom, train to Paris. - seen pot Nothing more ‘was them. Since the disappearant << various communications e been received fram them by members af thei families. On Jline 7, 1951, telegrams ostensibly from Maclean were received by his mother, Lady Maclean, and his. wife, Mrs. Melinda Maclean, wha were both i time in the United Kingdom. . The telegram to Lady Maclean iwas & Short personal message, isigned. by a nickname known only within tha immediate ‘family circle. It merely stated ‘that all was well. ' That addresseal Mrs. MRS. MELINDA | MACLEAN HER HUSBAND SEN ‘Rearets’ FOR HURRIED GEPARTURE - Maclean was similar, expressing regret for the unexpected depar- tute, and was. signed “ Danald.” Both telegrams were despatched in Paris on the evening of June 6. Their receipt Was ab once reported fo the security authorities, but bt. was impossible to identily thefperson or persons who had Banded them in. Not his The original Relegrapa forms shawed, however, that the niessages had been written in a hatid which was clearly not Maclean's. The character of the handwriting, and “some mis- spelling, sugeested that beth tclegrams had been written by & foreigner. 15 On Jitne 7, 1951, a tolp. “F Sram wah received in onda by Mrs. Bassett, Burgess’ s mother, Th conluined ao sherg and allectianate personal niessava together with a statenvent tint the sender was embarking 6h a Jong. Mediterratean holiday, ang Was oslensibly from Burgess himself, ; The telegram had been handed in. ab a post office in Rome earlier on the day of its receipt. AS with the telegrams from Paris to Maclean's family. t ere Was nO possibility af identiffin the person who had handel 4 in. -The handwriting had the ‘ - ae ni