◆ SpookStack

3 Mr. MacLedij-ds the son of a ‘ofmermenbinet hinister, SitBoenadd \lacLean. Young MacLean joined the diplomatic service in 1935. He f counsellor in 1938 at 35. He was tere in Washington during the Vorld War II period. “In May, 1950," said the recent tritish government white paper on he case, “while serving at Her Majesty's embassy at Cairo, Mr, MacLean was gullty of serious mis- ‘conduct and suffered a ferm of “reakdown which was attributed to verwork and excessive drinking. “Until the breakdown, his work ‘ad remained eminently satisfactory ind there was no ground whatso- ‘ver for doubting his loyalty. After ecuperation and leave at home he vag passed medically fit, and in Oc. ober, 1950, was appointed head of he American department of the ‘orelgn Office which, since it does ‘ot deal with the major probiems of \nglo-American relations, appeared o be within his capacity.” (The opposition is likely to make sharp point of this when the louse of Commons debates the case ext month. * INQUIRY (Also, Capt. Henry Kerby, Con- ervative member of Parliament, as demanded a@ full scale public iquiry into the case. He said both \en were “known as drunks and “x Berverts for years’ to a great jany persons. He also claimed the ‘oreign Office wag deliberately cov- ting up sordid details.) -~ Guy Francis de Moncy Burgess, “ho became & second secretary in Vashington in 1950, was much bet- *t Known here than his partner in splonage, This was because of the umber of times he. was arrested we reckless driving. *— Mr. Burgess came to Washington ‘ith a black mark’ against him. ‘arly in 1950, British security of- ‘cers informed the Foreign Office nat in Jate 1949 while on a holiday oroad Mr. Burgess had talked in- ‘iscreetiy about secrets that he had Ificial knowledge of. “For thtg he was severely rep- imanded,” said the British white iper, adding that “apart feem this ipse his service up‘to the tlme of. is Spoolgtment fa ashington was tlistactory,” q ! 7 | But his work here proved un- atisfactory. Again, he drew a rep- Hniana-” This, time for leaving con- fidential papers unattended. In May, 1951, he was recalled to London and asked to resign, on the promise of belng booted out if he didn't. “It was at this point,” said the British government, “that he (and MacLean) disappeared.” That was Friday, May 25, 1951. Did a “third man” heip theie getaway? Just 16 months before that, Brit- Ish authorities had received reports of a security leak, WHITE PAPER The white paper takes up the story from there: “In January 1949, the security authorities received a report that certain Foreign Office information - had jeaked to the Soviet authorities some years earler. The report amounted to little more than a hint and it was at the time impossible to attribute the Jeak to any particu- lar individual. “Highly secret but widespread and protracted inquiries were be- gun, ... The field of suspicion had been narrowed by mid-April 1951 to two or three persons. By the be- ginning of May, MacLean (was) principal suspect. Even at that time, there was no legally admis- sible evidence. “Arrangements were made to en- sure that information of exception- al secrecy and importance should not come Into his hands. Meantime, security authorities arranged to in- vestigate his activities and con could be used as evidence, ... “On May 25 the then Secretary of State. Herbert Morrison, sanctioned a proposal that the securits: suthor- ities should question MacLean, Such questioning might produce no con- i minnt ont fession or voluntary statement suf- ficient to support a prosecution, but might serve only to alert him... . “In that event he would have been free to make arrangements to leave the country and the authori- ties would have had no legal power to stop him. Everything therefore depended on the interview. The security authorities were anxious to be as fully prepared as was hu- manly possible. . : “They were also anxious that MacLean's house at Tatsfieid, Kent, should be searched. This was an additional reason for delaying the Proposed interview until mid-June when Mrs, MacLean, who was then Pregnant, was expected to be away from homie, so _ “It is now clear that In spite of the precaullons taken by the author- ities, MacLean must have become aware that he was under investiga- tion. One explanation may be that ha observed that he was no longer rectiving_ gertain papers.” wo ee ad een types of secret’**-* > oe » Cc “It is also possible that he de- tected that he was unde? dnsetva- tion. Or he may have been warned. “Searching enquirles involving ° individual interrerations were made into this last possibility. In- | Sufficient evidence was obtainable, to form a definite conclusion or: to warrant prosecution.” Did « “Third Man" warn them? On May 28, 1951, Mr. MacLean falied to show up for work. The British authorities went into action. They found that Messrs. MacLean and Burgess had left Tatsfield by ear for Southampton in the late evening of Friday, May 25, had arrived at Southampton at mid- night, caught the S. S. Falaise for St. Malo and disembafked there at 11:45 the next morning, Jeaving suitcases and some clothing on board. . TRACED The manhunters traced the pair to Paris. There they lost sight of them. They turned their attention to Mr. McLean's family and Mr. Burgess’ mother in England for possible contacts with the missing men.., On June 7, 1951, telegrams sent from Paris were received by Mac: Lean’s mother and his wife, Me linda. The first was signed with an affectionate nickname known only to the family. All was well, . The other, expressing regret at the sudden departure was signed “Donald.” Here the “third man" enters the picture again. @ The original telegraphic forms suggested, by handwrit- ing and misspellings, that the telegrams had been written by a foreigner. ® Similarly, a telegram received from Rome by Burgess’ mother on theme of being foreign and was certainly not that of Burgess,” the white paper said. ‘This one, short and affectionate said Burgess was leav- {ng for a long Mediterranean. holi- day. - The white paper continues: “Accordingly to information given to the Foreign Office In confidence by Mrs. Dunbar, Mr. MacLean’s mother-in-law, who was then living with her daughter at Tatsfield, she received on Aug. 3, 1951, two regis- tered letters posted in St. Gallen, Switzerland, on Aug. 1. One corn tained a draft on the Swiss Bank Corp., London, for the .sum of £1000 payable to Mrs. Dunbar; the other, a draft payable te Mrs. Dunbar for the same sum, drawn by the Union Bank of Switzerland on the Midland Bank in London. “Both drafts remitted by a Robert. Becker, whose address was: (Continued on ‘Fage—5e) _