◆ SpookStack

“ ges : # ' gqneral argument to mean that she used such influence as iF ‘ . Ppssessed to provide a ‘cloak for treachery.’ It is difficult t | Se how such a meaning could conceivably be drawn fron’ | Mr. Fairlie’s words, since on any view he was writing about -- , the period after Maclean and Burgess had disappeared, by . — {which time a ‘cloak for treachery’ was an impossibility. Of : Course it is unnecessary to insist that neither the Spectator nor our columnist nor anyone else imaginés that Lady Violet did“: ‘Th . pinnae he” ; chile: . -‘T have had no word of my husband,’ she concluded, “since ge , oF ever would do anything remotely dishonourable. No sug> |. disappeared,” The Observer, by this time active against t ce. cpestion of this sort was made, nor was it suggested that the ily Express, said that the Daily Telegraph's report hdd , Observer or any other ewspaper had attempted to influence “hi kepe fairly close to the content of the statement issued by t e! official decisions in this case. Mr. Fairlie’s general suggestion fainily through the Press Association, and it is chiefly for this : ‘Was, to repeat, that many of the people of influence who con- | reason that no protest was made to the Daily Telegraph by the * ‘stituted, in his terminology, the ‘Establishment’ determined . |. Maclean family, although there we unds for it’ To this: .through their connection and attitude what most. le were |, muy, a tnoug © were Bro : he ito think ‘about the Burgess and Maclean affair, jncluding the condescending exp lanation the Daily Telegraph replied ons: Subsequent actions of Mrs. Maclean.” “ a <The alle ations are therefore that: — or ie i ; Lady Violet, then, was singled out as one of those people.’ © say Mire Maclesn did net speak othe Daily Telesraph. 2 ‘The Observer was instanced as one of the newspapers which |) ‘(2) That the words attributed to her were invented by re-- ‘followed the same line. What did in fact happen? Lady Violet {. ’. ‘ writing a statement made through the Press Association:’ wide a letter to The Times complaining that a newspaper had, 4) ° Both thee allegations are totally untrue... an experi-” ‘invented an interview with Mrs. Maclean (and the following |) | wetle tse ‘day Mr. Randolph Churchill wrote to Tite Times tuning thay ;, enced and reliable member of the staff trendy Mrs. Maclean. no she pr bed an Brant violation of what may su 1 hope. r to the Telegraph to remind it that. Mrs. Maclean denied call” 4 thane * a rations! _ one ape ta blished what - a nd to | FlOwledge of the interview, the Telegraph replied that t be an interview on the previous night with the wike of Donald [ ornatist's telephone call was not only recorded by the new . Maclean, which in fact never took place. Mrs. Maclean has |: aper's switchboard but Ws s also confirmed by phe GPO - ‘signed a declaration in which she stated that at no time on the i . Sid not add, though this in fact was the case, that the conversa» ‘preceding day did she give such an interview. . 2”. This 4 “declaration Mrs, Maclean is prepared to confirm on oath.’ That _ds. Lady Violet plainly chose to believe Mrs. Maclean's donial ¢ “of the interview rather than the account of the réporter who * had conducted it. The Editor of the Daily Express, replying 3 Jn his own newspaper, said that ‘I have a full account of the: ‘telephone conversation between Mrs. Maclean and the Express | whe oe x “ feporter. I have complete faith in the reporter's integrity.” But} ™ why did Lady@Violet single out the Daily Express? On the’! sgme morning Js the publication of the Express’s interview— . Sply 16, 19S Bihere was a brief message by a diplomatle | 2. ~ icprrespondert fh the Daily Telegraph quoting Mrs. Mace es ‘ap saying that she was thinking of going to live in France ded. ~~ Switzerland for. the sake of greater f privacy for the. shildrert. 4 : Wot fel, “ tbe