A current example of a conspiracy theory is the continuing attempt to paint Roger Hollis as a member of the so-called ‘Ring of Five’. There is, it should be said, not a shred of evidence that Hollis ever passed a single piece of information to the Soviets, nor that he had any contacts with Soviet intelligence officers or agents. But this doesn’t hinder the conspiracy theorists who will seize on any scrap of evidence to bolster the Hollis theory. As history shows, conspiracy theorists are inevitably on the right, if not the extreme right.
W. J. West would seem to fit into this mould. He has been heard to say that Lobster is funded with Moscow Gold. Although he is a very capable researcher whose books contain some fascinating titbits, West is incapable of putting together the material in a coherent fashion. Often the material is squeezed into a preconceived conspiracy theory. A prime example was an article in the Spectator (14 October ’89), ‘Proven Connection’.
West’s view of Hollis as a Soviet mole is partly based on the possible connections with Claud Cockburn who he sees as being a ‘Comintern Agent’. The two certainly knew each other in their university days. It is the view of the anti-Hollis faction that during his interrogation in 1969, as part of the investigations into a possible MI5 mole, Hollis had been less than candid about his relationship with Cockburn. Suspicions were aroused by his faltering reply to questions concerning Cockburn. Connections between Hollis and Cockburn are therefore eagerly sought after as evidence of Hollis’ supposed treason. Such a little nugget landed in West’s lap.
In the summer of 1963 Cockburn took up an offer from Richard Ingram to edit a special edition of Private Eye. It was the height of the Profumo Affair which, coinciding with Cockburn’s decision to put greater emphasis on politics in the satirical magazine, propelled Private Eye into mass circulation and national prominence. The format has stayed pretty much the same for the last twenty-seven years.
Alan Brien, who worked with Cockburn on Private Eye, wrote to the Spectator to inform West that whilst working on this special edition Cockburn had met clandestinely with Roger Hollis. West assumes that Hollis gave Cockburn confidential information about the Profumo Affair and quotes a passage from the 9th. August issue which mentions in-fighting between MI5 and Special Branch over the scandal. When I was researching the Profumo Affair for the book Honeytrap one of the places to look for material was obviously Private Eye. Unfortunately, I searched in vain. Although entertaining, it was clear that its coverage contained little of interest. (Private Eye’ s expert on the Profumo Affair was Christopher Booker not Cockburn. Of much more importance in that particular issue was a full-page on the still mysterious case of Hal Wolfe.)
West got it wrong. Hollis did contact Cockburn but it wasn’t about the Profumo Affair. The reason is contained in Cockburn’s autobiography I,Claud (Penguin 1967). Because of his reputation as editor of The Week in the 30’s and 40’s, Cockburn had been told to expect problems with the authorities.
‘There was, in fact, a bit of trouble, because I had disclosed as a matter of interest, the name and address of the head of MI5 … A source I had good reason to consider well- informed, arranged to meet me in an agreeably open space without microphones – not that I believed that there were any in the Private Eye office – and told me that there was a terrible row going on about the naming of this man. Some important people, it seemed, were insisting that I must be arrested ……’on principal’ ……To let Private Eye get away with publishing it would ….. ’cause jealousy’ in Fleet Street and thus injure MI5’s secret public relations. My informant urged me to go back to Ireland, while the going was still, possibly, good.’ (pp. 410/11)
Hollis was acting in his usual diplomatic fashion. He hated getting the politicians involved and putting MI5 in the spotlight, much preferring to deal with problems in a quiet way. The fact that he had met Cockburn and dealt with the matter with restraint is probably sufficient reason for his faltering in telling his interrogators about the incident some six years later. Who can blame him? In his eyes they were a ‘Gestapo’ whose paranoia had little time for truth.