◆ SpookStack

ee ‘ ggneral argument to mean that she used such influence as s| . Ppssessed to provide a ‘cloak for treachery.’ It is difficult | how such a meaning could conceivably be drawn fr Mr. Fairlie’s words, since on any view he was writing about the period after Maclean and Burgess had disappeared, by : course it is unnecessary to insist that neither the Spectator nor _ Our columnist nor anyone else imagines that Lady Violet did OF ever would do anything remotely dishonourable. No sug- gestion of this sort was made, nor was it suggested that the Observer or any other newspaper had attempted to influence . official decisions in this case. Mr. Fairlie’s general suggestion - was, to repeat, that many of the people of influence who con- stituted, in his terminology, the ‘Establishment’ determined through their connection and attitude what most-people were ito think about the Burgess and Maclean affair, including the Subsequent actions of Mrs, Maclean.” ‘ ° Lady Violet, then, was singled out as one of those people. i The Observer was instanced as one of the newspapers which ‘followed the same line. What did in fact happen? Lady Violet . wrefe a letter to The Times complaining that a newspaper ha ar an interview with Mrs. Maclean (and the followin; day Mr. Randolph Churchill wrote to The Times naming tha ! 1 ;, to the Telegraph to remind it that Mrs, Maclean denied‘all ” neWspaper as the Daily Express). Drawing attention to wha she described as ‘a flagrant Violation of what may still, I hope, 1 ie called the ethics of journalism,’ Lady Violet complained . be an interview on the previous night with the wife of Donald (Maclean, which in fact never took place. Mrs. Maclean has signed a declaration in which she stated that at no time on the . ;pteceding day did she give such an interview. . |". This? declaration Mrs, Maclean is prepared to confirm on oath.’ Tha: is, Lady Violet plainly chose to believe Mrs. Maclean’s donial “of the interview rather than the account of the reporter. wh x had conducted it. The Editor of the Daily Express, replying 3 ‘in his own newspaper, said that ‘I have a full account of the: telephone conversation between Mrs. Maclean and the Express _feporter. I have, plete faith in the reporter's integrity.’ But | ‘why iolet single out the Daily Express? Oo the’! did Lad; sgme morning Js the publication of the Express’s interview—_ Sply 16, 1 there was a brief message by a diplomaifc ! iebrres| “HH the Daily Telegraph quoting Mrs. Mach ‘ap’ saying that she was thinking of going to live in France Switzerland for the sake of greater privacy for the childr oe twhich time a ‘cloak for weachery’ was an impossibility. Of > 11” Both these allegations are totally untrue... an experi ‘. . . amational newspaper published what purported to |. I; yt } "have had no word of my husband,” she concluded, “since ge} disappeared.’ The Observer, by this time active ‘against the ily Express, said that the Daily Telegraph's report hdd ; ‘kept fairly close to the content of the statement issued by the’ family through the Press Association, and it is chiefly for this | ) Teason that no protest was made tu the Daily Telegraph by the * \: Maclean family, although there were grounds for it.’ To this = ‘ condescending explanation the Daily Telegraph replied on i } following day: . ” 4 4 ‘The allegations are therefore that: HY “(1) Mrs. Maclean did not speak to the Daily Telegraph. ‘(2) That the words attributed to her were invented by re-': writing a statement made through the Press Association, _ enced and reliable member of the staff rang up Mrs. Maclean,” | fram whom he obtajned the statement already quoted,” ft | _ When the Editor of the Observer, Mr, David Astor, wrote nowledge of the interview, the Telegraph replied that t urnatist’s telephone call was not only recorded by the new aper's switchboard but was also confirmed by the GPO it. Gid not add, though this in fact was the case, that the conyersa»"