Sut,—The writer of your 'Political Commen- tary,' Mr. Fairlie, has
stated that 'at the time of the disappearance of Maclean and Burgess, "the right people" moved into action,' bring- ing 'subtle but powerful pressures to bear' which, he says, may be 'traced in the columns of . . . The Times and the Observer.' This is a serious allegation, conveying the impres- sion that certain people and newspapers sought to shield men suspected of treason. Your Com- mentator cites no verifiable evidence, such as quotations from the papers he accuses. These are the tactics of what is called a 'smear' campaign. Can you approve of defamatory innuendoes unsupported by facts?
Your Commentator seems not to have looked up the files of the papers he mentions, His singling out of Lady Violet Bonham Carter for particular attack suggests that he confused what was printed at the time of the disappearance of the diplomats with The Timer's publication of her letter fourteen months later. In that letter she was exposing the persecution of the Maclean family by the reporters of the Daily Express, and that paper's publication of a demonstrably false interview with Mrs. Maclean. The Observer supported Lady Violet's stand and reported further details, including the Daily Express's unwillingness to publish any letters of denial and protest.
Do you consider that this action deserves your Commentator's insinuations? Would he suggest that we have not defended less eminent victims of misrepresentation than the Maclean family? Or would he say that we ought not to have defended she Maclean family because it is eminent?
Your Commentator, replying to Lady Violet, advances a new suggestion that Mrs. Maclean never sought to cut herself off from the press, but was being guided by skilled advisers, That
may be true. But he also says she 'never com- plained, to any individual journalist. She cer- tainly complained to our reporter who questioned her. Moreover, it was not only Mrs. Maclean who was being pestered and who ineffectually complained.
As you support your Commentator's asser- tions that Mrs, Maclean was not harried by pressmen, may I remind you of some of the allegations that we published on July 27, 1952, which we carefully verified and which were never denied?
`The Maclean family have been troubled by several newspapers for more than a year. Mrs. Maclean's home in Kent, and Lady Maclean's flat in London. have been vir- tually besieged. Mrs. Maclean's two boys, aged eight and six, have been followed to school and questioned about their father, even though they do not know he has dis- appeared.
'Bribes have been offered to the Maclean servants for information. Mrs. Sylvia Streatfield, a village woman employed by Mrs.. Maclean as 'a daily help, states that she was offered £250 for "any good story" about her. employer. A, man, introduced as his "friend" by a porter, penetrated into Lady Maclean's home and there offered money to Mr. Donald Maclean's brother. Andrew, for information about his vanished brother's boyhood,' If you want further examples of 'harrying,' I would refer you to the rest of that article. If you doubt its accuracy; members of the Maclean family and other witnesses are avail- able for questioning. I am assuming you would not consider such molestation `by the press was justified or made excusable by Mrs. Maclean's subsequent presumed defection to the Soviet Union.
But perhaps your Commentator's main pur- pose was something different—to put forward his picture of an 'Establishment' of influential people wielding power in this country and secretly defending or helping one another. His suggestion amounts to saying that the higher• echelons of our public life are a racket. Here again, is he doing anything more than some rather wild and libellous `smearing'—unless he , can produce evidence?—Yours faithfully,
DAVID ASTOR
The Observer Editor
Previous page
