SIR,—Veracity does not appear to be the strong suit either
of your columnist or of your sup' porters. Mr. Colm Brogan writes that he 'remembers a broadcast given by myself on the 'blind spots shown in literary judgement by men she plainly thought were magisterial authorities. Not one of the people whose errors of taste she quoted had any claim whatever to literary understand' ing or sensibility. . . . They belonged to tilt Establishment.' (My italics.) Those I quoted in my broadcast included Coleridge, Byron, Swinburne,, William Morris, Bernard Shaw, Carlyle, A. J. Balfour, at father and Augustine Birrell. It is interesting to know that in Mr. Brogans judgement 'not one of these had any clam' whatever to literary understanding or sensi° bility,' and still more surprising to learn that Byron, Coleridge, Swinburne, William Mortis and Bernard Shaw, etc., 'belonged to the Establishment.
To comment on the taste of Mr. Brogans letter or on that of Mr. Muggeridge would be 'painting the lily.' But you, Sir, have made it plain that 'taste' is not a quality to which You attach importance.
When, in your leading article, I find myself acquitted of 'dishonour,' I experience much the same sensations which you yourself may perhaps have felt when last week the Spectate was granted absolution from its honourable past at the hands of Mr. John Gordon of the Sunday Express. Your leading article, so far from 'clearing the air,' evades the real issue. That issue is the action of Mr. Fairlie in making against mYselt and others charges of so serious a nature that I was advised by experienced members of your own profession to seek legal advice because in their view his words were clearly actionable' The expert legal authority whom I consulted confirmed their opinion that Mr. Fairlie's first article was actionable beyond a doubt. For three successive weeks he has failed 10 produce a shred of evidence to support his charges. He has refused to answer questioug. He has changed his ground, skidding in his own mud—on which you are now endeavour' ing to spread a sugar-coating. May 1 now ask you, Sir, whether you sur port his charges (1) that 1 'moved into action at the time of the disappearance of Burgess and Maclean' (i.e., in May, 1951); (2) that with others I played a part in exerting 'subtle and powerful pressures'; (3) in 'creating all attitude of mind'; (4) in 'bringing pressure to bear in 1951 and 1952 to discount' the more sensational stories about Burgess and Mac' lean'? I ask you what part I played in creating this attitude of mind, and when, how and an whom I 'brought pressure to bear,' either 1° 'discount the more sensational stories' or for any other purpose? You yourself have blandly asserted that 'Mrs. Maclean was not harried or persecuted by the press' (my words were 'by certain mein. bers of the press'). In your article you evade all mention of the evidence, published after careful verification by the Observer and amplified by Mr. John Connell in his letter. Do you really believe their testimony to be a tissue of fabrications?
And can you describe such actions as those of 'journalists who acted . . . in the best tra- ditions of a free and unfettered press'?
Whether Mrs. Maclean was, or was not, a Communist in July, 1952, is non-proven.
But in this country neither Communism, nor suspected Communism, nor even ex - Com- munism, is as yet classified as a crime (as at least one of your supporters has good reason to know). If and when thcy are recognised as crimes, they should be dealt with by the law and not by lynch-law.
By its defence and condonation of private persecution without public trial, and by the mud that it has flung at those who have con- demned and will continue to condemn such methods, the Spectator can claim to be the first weekly journal in this country to offer its readers a few sips of the pure milk of McCarthyism.—Yours faithfully,
VIOLET BONHAM CARTER
21 Hyde Park Square, W2
*
Previous page
