◆ SpookStack

e first of the Foréign Office’; Miftakes is that since an exce; Uohally high standard Is right] demanded of persons in ti . Foreign Service, what they on duty 1s not all that mat- ters. ‘The personal misbehaviour of both these people was notorious. Why should it have other weakness in jthe Fortign Office case is the ddlay in fiving the present explaha- tiony. | They might have bgen given at any time after the selinquents had bolted; and it is at least satisfactory that the inane conclusion of the White Paper—explanation might have helped “the other side ”"—is now abandoned. How they managed been considered, in the case Of %) holt is of-little importance. Mactzan, irrelevant; or only as There ts a great deal to be sald Televant as, say, a ilability gto- im accordance with the spirit of migraine? Thirty years ao, there is little doubt, anybody guilty of personal misbehaviobr would have been discharged,” without any softhearted or soft- headed seeking for psychological or physical explanations, They would have rightly been judged not the sort of people whom the Foreign Office could employ. t it bé noted that positive vet- ting, that is to say, inquiry into pCople’s background and halts, ~-Seems-only to date back uftil 1952 — more than six monjhs after the disappearance, . * * * Nobody has explained why tt was not instituted earlier. There is no McCarthyism about It at all. For when Mr. MacmiLuan argues that notorious personal habits and indiscretions are not compatible with spying, surely he is thinking of former, - not of present days. It ts just such things which subject the Persons concerned to blackmail, They become open to pressure to give information on pain of exposufe ahd ruin. — Personal behaviour should be more than ever a criterion of fitness to be employed in the Foreign Scrvice; ang Mr. Macmittan’s speech\was ‘ at“Jeast reassuring for the igdi- catipn that it 1s now restored as - 8 er|terion. * : British justice for not clapping people in gaol on suspicion. But this does not excuse the fallure to relieve public anxlety earlierg nor the attempt to lull it, up tq the very moment of the White P4per, by, asserting that Macuean had alyays performed his duties “ sktisfactorily.” Of course, there are still obscure points. For example, if BurGrss and MACLEAN were “tipped off,” who was the tipper? One person, orlgi- nally named in the House of Commons, was exonerated yes~ terday. But there really was no reason why a great part of Mr. MAacMILtan’s speech, including nis references to Mrs. MACLEAN, could not have been delivered months ago. See 'The Foreign Office will recqver ftom this blow—for blow 14 is. Ith would be grossly unfalr to SS ~think that a few black sheep jake @ flock of goats; and pe. ali know the high quality pf ny in the Foreign Servite. Nor, as Mr. Macmtntan rightly contended, 18 there anything in the new methods of recruitment likely to lower the quality. We are not asking for a “closed shop.” What we are asking, and seem now to be’ getting, is a system Of. ensuring that shady scharacters, whatever .. “thir lity, shall not be employed fn ‘tke public service. If that can pe efsured, good will come outfot ‘evi, ae re a er ee ee