◆ SpookStack

Kents, should be searches and ~ this was an additional reason Jor Gelaving the proposed interv. unlit" mid-June” when Mps .-Maclean, who was tien pregnant, was expected to be &way from home, I 2,5 now cies - Spite of the precautions taken by the authorities Mpelean “must have hecome aware, al some time before 1 Gisappearance, that he under investigation. One explanition may be that he observed that he was no longer receiving ‘certain types of secrel: papers. It is also pos- sible that he detected that ho was under observation, Or ne may have been warned, Searching inquiries Involving individual “Interrogations were Made into this last possibility. Insufficient evidence was obtai able form a definite coy gluston or to warrant prosecu- ion, that in Leave [2 Mactean’s absence did not i ed become »inawn lo the uthorities untii the mornin; of Monday, May 28, ® The Foreign Office is regu: jarly open for nornial bustness SR eg gturday | mornings but officers can from time to time obt in leave to take a week-end In} accordance with this prhc- tice \Maclean ‘applied for al u objaihed leave to be absent the f morning “of - ‘Saturda: May 26. % His absence therefore cused of remark until ‘the following day morning when he failed to fppear at the Foreign Ofc rgess was on leave and pander’ no obligation to report his"movements. 13 Immediately the was known all tole action was taken in the United Kingdem, and the French and other | Continental security authorities were asked to trace the whereabouts of the fugitives and if possible to intercept them. All British consulates in Western Europe were alerted and special efforts were made fight + to discover whether the fugitives had crossed the French froutiers On May 26 or 27, AS a result of these and other inguiries it was established thet Maclean and “Burgess togethes left, Tatstield by car for Southampton in the late eyen- ing of Friday, May 25, arrived at” Southampton at. midnight, caught the s.s. Falaiso for St. Malo, and di: port’ at 1145 the following morning, leaving suitcases and some of their clothing on board, Telegrams Nney were not seen on_ the trai from St. Malo to Pans, and \i has been reported that two wen, believed to be Maclean and Burgess, tooz a taxl to Rennes and there got fhe 18 p.m, train to Paris. Nothing more was seen jot them. 7 Since the disappearan various communicatio} hake been received from them by members Of their families. On June 7, “1951, "telegrams ostensibly from Maciean "were received by kis mother, Lady Maclean, ‘and his wile, “Mrs. Melinda Maclean, who were both Bind gat, Hine in the “United ingdom. itSe telegram to Lady Maclean jwas a short personal message, Signed by a nickname known only "within th?” immediate ‘famliy circle. It merely stated ‘that all was well. ‘That addressed! MRS. MELINDA | MACLEAN HER HUSBAND SENIT ‘REGRETS’ FOR HURRIED DEPARTURE Maclean was similar, exproasing regret for the unexpected depar- tule, and was signed “ Donald.” Both telegrams were despatched in Paris on the evening of June 6. Theirreceipt was ab once reported fo the security authorities. but btw: impossible to identify the}person or persons who had Banded them in. Not his The original telegraph forms showed, however,” that the messages had been written in a hand which was clearly nob Maclean's. ‘The charactcr'of the handwriting. and’ "some mis spelling. “suggested “Maat both telegrams had been written by a foreigner... V5 Oe dune 7, 1952 2 tel. ®) gram was’ reccived in London by Mrs.” Bassett, Burgess's motaer. Th’ coniamed “a short and ailectionate personal mes together with a sislement (a the sender was embarking on a Jong Mediterranean holiday, and Was ostensibly from Burgess himself, The “telegram had been hhanded in. at a post office in Rome earlier on the day of its receipt. As with the telegrams from Paris a Maciean’s family. tpere Was no possibility of identiffin: ‘he handwriting had the eee the person who had handed 1 in,