SIR,-Mr, Fairlie is right in believing that it would have
been in his own self-interest to withdraw the base and baseless charges against myself and others which he has proved him- self unable to support by one jot or tittle of evidence.
Let me remind him, and you yourself, Sir, of his words : 'At the time of the disappear- ance of Burgess and Maclean the right people moved into action. Lady Violet Bonham Carter was the most active and the most open.' Since my activity was 'open,' it should be easy to define. I ask again: What action did I 'move into'? And on what occasion, and on whom, did I join with others in bringing 'subtle and powerful pressures to bear'? From these words only one inference can be drawn by readers—of whom not one in 10,000 will recall the terms and content of my letter to The Times (written in July, 1952; not, as he states, 'at the time' of the disappear- ance of the missing men).
That inference is that through membership of a certain 'stratum' I used such influence as I possessed to provide a cloak for treachery. It is this innuendo which, in the words of the Waiden of All Souls, makes his article not only 'patently vicious' but also potentially harmful.
Mr. Fairlie now says that he never sug- gested that I attempted to use 'influence affect- ing official decisions.
He does not answer my second question- i.e., whether he can point to any word in my letter to The Times relating, directly or in- directly, to the guilt or innocence of the missing men—because he cannot do so. He says that he does not approve of the 'hounding of the family or relations of malefactors, proved or suspect. I must therefore assume that it is not my letter that he has in mind. What, then, is he suggesting?
He says that he is `talking about the subtle influence of the Establishment' (a fictitious body which, according to Mr. Fairlie, runs this country, and of which he has nominated me a member) 'in creating an attitude of mind to the whole question of the disappearance of Burgess and Maclean . . . and because they knew so many of the right people, a great deal of pressure was brought to bear in 1951 and 1952 to .discount the more sensational stories about Burgess and Maclean.'
I ask Mr. Fairlie to state what part I played in creating this attitude of mind, and how and on whom I brought pressure to bear to dis- count these stories. And I demand an answer.
Mr. Fairlie asks me a question, verging on the farcical, to which I will give him the straightest of straight answers. 'Is she quite sure that she never sought to bring pressure to bear on the Express newspapers on pre- cisely this question? Is she quite sure that it was not due to any intervention on her part that the attitude of the Daily Express became a matter, not just of editorial concern, but of managerial and perhaps even proprietorial concern ? '
The only communication that has ever passed between myself and the proprietor, Lord Eeaverbrook, is recorded verbatim in the Published Minutes of Evidence given before the Royal Commission on the Press dated March 18, 1948, when I had the pleasure of examining him as a witness. My only contacts
with the manager, Mr. Robertson, were (1) a visit paid with the Chairman of the Royal Commission and some colleagues to the Ex- press office in 1949, and (2) a telephone con- versation in July, 1952, when I informed him of the persecution of the Maclean family by Express reporters which had come to my knowledge. He asked for dates and details, and for these I referred him to Lady Maclean. He said he would look into the matter and would telephone to me without delay. I never heard from him again, and the letter I subse- quently wrote to the Express was suppressed. This is the measure of influence I exerted on the Express newspapers.
Mr. Fairlie appears to be as ignorant of the world and of the people who inhabit it— whether 'right people' or wrong ones—as he is of Foreign Office methods of recruitment (of which I had eight years of personal ex- perience).
But what both he, and you yourself, Sir, appear to ignore is the past record of meticu- lous accuracy and respect for truth of the Spectator. In asserting that 'Mrs. Maclean was not harried by the press' (twice in my letter I referred to 'certain members of the press'), you ignore the fact that the incidents quoted in my letter to The Times and published with others in the Observer were never challenged, either in that newspaper or 'The Times. You dismiss the condemnation they evoked from journalists of the experience and distinction of Arthur Mann and the late Wilson Harris, who for twenty years as Editor of the Specta- tor upheld its high tradition of integrity and decency.
Mr. Fairlie can• claim two victims from his field-day — that tradition and yourself as its trustee.—Yours faithfully,
VIOLET BONHAM CARTER
21 Hyde Park Square, W2 [No such 'condemnation' was made by Wilson Harris, nor, at least in his letter to The Times, by Mr. Arthur Mann. Wilson Harris's attitude was that there had been a violation of decent standards if Mrs. Maclean's story as retailed in Lady Violet's letter to The Times was correct. But' he sensibly did not assume that it must be correct; 'truth, no doubt, lies somewhere' was his final verdict on the case; 'everyb'ody must form his own opinion where.' This caution appears to have been prompted by the suspicion that Mrs. Maelean might have 'been lying. It is now abundantly clear that Mrs. Maclean was lying. Wilson Harris, had he lived, would have been the first to welcome the vindication of the journalists concerned.— Edi tor, Spectator.]
Previous page
