She was asked about the transmission of money to Hungary but was incredibly vague about the actual mechanics of it – her husband seemed to have dealt with the onward transmission to Hungary once the money arrived in a Dutch bank from London. She knew, she said, that the money was going to Hungary but, when pressed, said she hadn’t thought it odd that money was being sent from Britain to a country with whom she was at war. She had never spoken to her brother about it or taken advice. ‘It seemed quite natural to me, because it was sent to relatives who wanted the money.’ Asked how she knew they wanted money, she said she knew it from their letters. Bodkin pointed out that none of the letters asked for any, to which she said, ‘They did not say they were in want of money, but I made out from Mr De László’s letters that he liked to make presents because he thought they wanted money. They did not ask for it.’ She did remember a letter from Hungary asking not to send any more, but had continued to send it on when De László asked her because it was none of her business.
Asked whether De László was the only person for whom she acted as forwarding agent, she said yes. She was quite sure of this. She was also quite sure he was the only person for whom she used the privilege of the diplomatic bag. She was then asked if she knew an address in Schloss Liblin, Austria-Hungary, and recalled it was the address for an Englishman to whom she forwarded post on behalf of his mother in England. She knew neither the Englishman nor his mother but had been asked to act by friends. The letters were in English and she forwarded them openly. She didn’t deal with any others. The letters and postcards out of Austria were from an Englishman, Victor Farrell, and there were two letters to him from his mother. These were perfectly legal.
After a few trivial questions, Madame van Riemsdyk withdrew.
After some discussion about the number of witnesses Sir John Simon planned to call (many) and the timing of the committee going forward (one committee member had a public engagement on Saturday and the president had to be in Liverpool on the Monday), Philip De László was finally called to be examined by Sir John Simon on some points relating to his statement that Sir John had already gone through, at length, in his opening speech.
First of all Sir John turned to some small slips that had been made in De László’s printed statement, which he had drawn up in November 1918, and which had been presented to the committee. There was an error regarding the number of transactions that was easily cleared up, an error with the date of his second police interview (the one with Isaac), and a day’s error in the date of the Horn incident which might have made it appear he had waited two days before going to the police. They were sorted out quickly. Apart from those, the statement was correct.
Simon took him through the Horn incident in some detail, establishing that, though it was over twenty-four hours before he went to the police, it was only twenty-four-and-a-half hours. He then turned to the individual charges. Had he ever felt or shown any disaffection or disloyalty towards His Majesty? Answer: no. He did not think that the severe mental conflict he had mentioned in the letter reprinted in The Star was inconsistent with his loyalty. The date of the letter was definitely 27 July 1914 and not as late as November 1914 as the authorities had appeared to think. The committee was reminded that war was not declared between Britain and Austria until 12 August, and a great deal of time was spent discussing the process of naturalisation and the timescales involved. Sir John pointed out that all naturalisations were investigated by ‘the Secret Service Department of Scotland Yard’ (actually by Special Branch, which usually just checked for a criminal record for the applicant and referees and made some desultory enquiries locally).
The press campaign in Hungary to have De László stripped of his title and his work classed as ‘foreign’ was gone over and De László assured the committee that he had had nothing to do with releasing the letter that had later appeared in The Star. De László explained he had specifically mentioned his five sons as being a reason for naturalisation as it would inspire sympathy among his own family. His sons were talked about; they had been brought up as British and had attended public schools. His eldest son had just finished at Rugby School, was applying to join the army and had been doing ‘war work’ in his holidays with the knowledge of ‘the authorities’. He also played football! His brothers were also true British schoolboys.
Sir John then turned to the two interrogations at Scotland Yard, saying it wouldn’t be proper to name all the persons who had been present. The interrogation transcript had only recently been released to De László and his legal representatives, and it was the first time De László had actually seen it. He had been asked about the letter in The Star and denied that he had written it. ‘At the time that you gave that answer were you endeavouring to answer accurately?’ Sir John asked. De László replied, ‘I tried to do my best. I must have forgotten it.’ He went on, ‘It was an honest mistake. I was overwhelmed.’ The interviewer had claimed that the letter was written in November 1914, prompting the response that he could not have written it then because he was sending correspondence through the Dutch Legation and someone might have seen it ‘and gone home and told lies about it’. Mention of the Dutch bag had apparently created the impression that the letter had been written in wartime, said Sir John, something that was vehemently denied.
The questioning then turned to the two witnesses who had given statements about De László’s behaviour in his studio, neither of whom were presented to the committee. No explanation for their non-appearance was given, but it gave De László the opportunity to say he had never spoken in a disloyal or disaffected way to any man or woman. It then turned to ‘trading with the enemy’. It was clear, said Sir John, from one of his letters, that De László knew that his mail might be censored. Had he, at any time, been warned by the censorship about sending money to Hungary? ‘Never’, came the reply. It was only when he mentioned it casually to his brother-in-law that he realised it was wrong and stopped doing it. ‘So you were ultimately restrained, not by the vigilance of the authorities but by learning what the position was from your brother-in-law?’ ‘Yes, that is so.’ He had assumed that rule actually applied to sending money out of the country, which was why he had given Baron Mayendorff a cheque to be paid into a British account and the money transferred from an account abroad. He wouldn’t have done it if he thought it was wrong.
Next came the business of using the diplomatic bag. De László was asked, ‘If you get a letter which has come through the Dutch Diplomatic Bag to the Dutch Embassy here in London, and it is sent to you by the ordinary post, have you any idea what you ought to do with it except receive it?’ He responded, ‘No, I received it and never gave it any thought.’ Regarding the use of the bag out of the country he said that Madame van Riemsdyk had suggested it; he had used it only four or five times. Sir John produced a telegram and a copy letter from Mr van Swinderen referring to an invitation for De László to visit him for lunch on 3 August 1916. He had gone to the embassy on that day and overheard van Swinderen talking on the telephone and saying to the person on the other end, ‘I cannot forward any letters more for you as Sir Edward Grey does not like it, he told me about it and I do not want to do it any more.’ The message was not intended for De László but he had overheard it and van Swinderen had said, on putting the phone down, ‘I am so sorry, people bother me constantly for sending letters and I am tired and I do not want to do it more.’ De László had immediately told van Swinderen he did not want to use the bag himself now, but van Swinderen had, apparently, said he would continue to do so. De László himself had refused this offer because ‘it is not the right thing to do’.
The hearing was adjourned.
Day Four
Day four began with Sir John Simon saying he had dealt enough with the letters via Madame van Riemsdyk. He turned instead to those that had been passed to Hungary via Italy early in the war. On 17 August 1914 Lucy de László had written to Mrs Colucci in the then neutral Italy asking if she, as a neutral, would forward cor
respondence. Mrs Colucci had agreed and two letters had been forwarded by her. Under questioning, De László said he had known of Dr Colucci, who was an editor of the Italian art magazine Vita d’Arte, since 1909 when they had corresponded, but that he had never met him. He and Lucy had, however, met Mrs Colucci on a visit to Siena in early 1914. Led by his counsel, De László admitted that during his interrogation he had completely forgotten about Colucci – hence the confusion about Italy and a letter to someone whose name began with C. It was only when he returned home and saw a copy of Vita d’Arte that he remembered him and the letter. Lucy had written to Basil Thomson enclosing a copy of the magazine and explaining everything; unfortunately the attorney general was unable to produce them and a search was instituted.
Sir John then turned to De László’s arrest. It was explained who arrested him and when, that the police were waiting also at his studio and how he had been taken to Scotland Yard after handing over his keys. In typical ‘Soapy Simon’ style he described the detectives’ search as ‘An unpleasant experience and I have no doubt done with the thoroughness which is habitual with the London police.’ He then explained the schedule of interrogations De László had been subjected to and began to ask about the questions relating to the Horn incident. They went through the questions and answers at length, and De László agreed that he had given a full and honest account of events.
Sir John then mentioned the next question, about whether De László had lots of relatives in Hungary (to which De László had answered, ‘Yes, I still correspond with them through Holland. I have a brother and two sisters with whom I correspond’) and asked whether he had realised at the time that virtually the whole of his correspondence was passing under the eyes of the police – apart from the few letters that had gone through the Dutch bag. De László said he had absolutely no idea about this (which seems a little peculiar given that his latest biographer, working from his personal papers, suggests otherwise), leading Sir John to say, ‘A great many people think our secret service is not nearly as good as it really is’, adding that every letter De László received and sent was being opened, which he asked the attorney general to confirm.
Mr Justice Salter asked De László if he was aware of censorship generally, to which he replied yes, he had received letters marked ‘Opened by Censor’, but Sir John wanted to know more about the special supervision of the correspondence, which he knew involved letters being opened secretly and resealed. The attorney general was forced to concede that all correspondence to De László’s address was secretly opened (‘including Mrs László and, perhaps, the servants’) and that it was done by special order. Mentioning Mrs van Riemsdyk’s previous testimony, Sir John asked specifically whether MI5 (he actually named the organisation) had opened and examined all the correspondence between her and De László. He then proceeded to go through the interview transcript in detail, pointing out where, in retrospect, it was obvious that Basil Thomson’s questions were based on the correspondence that had secretly been read. He asked for copies of some of the correspondence to Madame van Riemsdyk, in particular the first letter sent by Lucy specifically requesting that no more correspondence be sent through the diplomatic bag. Unfortunately the attorney general was unable to produce them and Basil Thomson, who was observing the proceedings, had to be questioned (not publicly) about his recollection of the interview, though he couldn’t confirm exactly what correspondence he had had in front of him during the questioning. The loss of some of the evidence between the Home Office, MI5 and the Treasury solicitors was quietly played upon by Sir John and possibly influenced unfavourably the committee’s opinion of the efficiency of the investigators.
Sir John went through the interview sentence by sentence until Mr Justice Salter, in some exasperation it seems, interjected:
Sir John Simon, what is the good of going through this long and very proper roving enquiry to which Mr László was subjected at Scotland Yard? Considering the danger in which the country then stood one is glad to find how diligent the authorities were … I do not see quite how it helps us. The Crown have put on a piece of paper matters which they suggest to us we should enquire into and we are supposed to go into them. We do not care what questions Sir Basil Thomson put at all … I do not see what useful purpose is served by going through all this.
They had been hoping to get the enquiry over by the end of the day. Following a grovelling apology, Simon finally explained the purpose of his long series of questions – that he wanted to stress that the authorities knew all about De László’s sending money abroad and that his claim to retain his British citizenship rested on the fact he had been tested in the very strongest way already in the interrogations and not failed. After further apology he turned to the question of De László’s basic loyalty. Could he state in one sentence his feelings towards Britain and her intervention in the war? De László answered succinctly, ‘It was the bounden duty of England to come into this war.’ He was asked about Italy, which had reneged on its alliance with Germany and Austria-Hungary and attacked Austria, and said he was in favour of its intervention because its intent was to unite all Italian speakers. He did admit to having had bad feelings about the Russian alliance, in part because of Hungary’s long antagonism, but swore he had never said or done anything that was disloyal or disaffected towards the British Crown.
The attorney general then examined Mr De László. He expressed surprise that he had said he had no suspicion Basil Thomson knew about his correspondence. He had been visited by the police over his letters regarding Mayendorff and he also knew Mr Wyatt Williams had been through his correspondence in detail. He also pointed out that, in the course of the interview, De László had actually said, ‘I take it for granted that you know everything about me.’ He was also forced to admit that Thomson must surely have known about those matters that he had been warned about by the director of public prosecutions. He then turned to the matter of the naturalisation. De László agreed he had lived in London since 1907 and said that he had first instructed his solicitor to start the procedure on 13 July 1914, though he said he had made up his mind to do so in 1912 or 1913 – indeed he had told Baron Forster about it in 1913. When confronted by the grounds upon which he had asked to be naturalised (which were on the application memorial as ‘from a desire to continue and improve said business as an artist, so as to attain an honourable independence from such business, and to provide for his future years and sustenance’), he expressed amazement as he was quite clear, he said, that one of the chief reasons for his desire to become British was for the sake of his sons. It was pointed out that he had signed the memorial and taken an oath on it, and that it was the only ground upon which his naturalisation was based.
The questioning then turned to the Hungarian reaction to De László’s naturalisation. The attorney general referred to the letter that was reprinted in The Star newspaper, which De László agreed he must have written, though he quibbled somewhat about the exact translation. He did agree that, in general terms, it expressed his feeling at the time. Other letters were produced in which he had stated that it was on account of his sons that he had naturalised, and he conceded that they were one of his main reasons for doing so. When asked whether he had delayed naturalisation out of esteem for Emperor Franz Joseph he agreed that was the case, but that this was merely a postponement of the action. When he had been questioned by Thomson about the letter and denied writing it, it was because he was confused by so many questions. He denied ever having said that he might have wanted to recover his Hungarian nationality and denied, under close questioning, that he had helped Arpad Horn because he was Hungarian, but could not deny having told Thomson that he had not given Horn up immediately because he was worried about Hungarian opinion of him after the war. Was there, he was asked, a conflict between his duty as a British subject and his sentiment towards Hungary? De László’s reply was that his main concern was in giving up another man at all, regardless of nationality.
De Lászl�
� was then asked whether it was more important to him that the war ended quickly or that Britain won. He replied that Britain winning was most important, but was then questioned about his letter of July 1915 in which he had expressed the hope that his nephew would return from the war ‘victoriously’. This, he replied, was to help shield his unhappy sister and to offer her hope. ‘I wanted to say something nice to her, which would appeal to her from her point of view, as a mother of her only child.’ There was much discussion about the exact wording of the letter as, De László admitted, his German was not perfect. Though the word he used, seigereich, meant victorious, it could also, De László argued, mean successful. He admitted he had never lost all feeling for the land of his birth but denied the war had intensified his feelings towards it. Various letters to his sister were read out in which De László described his two nephews, in the Hungarian army, as ‘heroes’, sent money which he admitted would be used to help them and referred to meeting his family again in ‘the hour of delivery’. He was quite unable, when prompted by the attorney general, to point out any mention in any of his letters of his gratitude to, affection for or appreciation of, England.
The attorney general then turned to the use of the Dutch bag, forcing De László to say that he thought its use commenced ‘at the end of 1915’. The attorney general then produced a letter dated 25 March 1915 in which Madame van Riemsdyk’s daughter clearly said (to Mrs De László), ‘Mother will certainly ask my uncle about the forwarding of the letters’ and another, from van Riemsdyk herself, dated 14 June 1915, which said, ‘I am sending this through our Legation – it is the safest way – as we do not write secrets.’ A further letter, dated 18 June 1915, again clearly referred to the use of the bag. De László was reminded that in his interview with Thomson in August 1917 he had clearly said that use of the bag began ‘at the beginning of last year’, i.e. 1916. When pressed he admitted that he had also told Thomson that Madame van Riemsdyk had suggested it in a letter, though no such letter actually existed. He did stress that he had only sent four, at the most five, letters through the bag, but was quite unable to say how many he had received that way. His wife, he knew, had destroyed some. As far as he was concerned he had definitely ceased to send letters that way on 3 August 1916, but admitted that he had continued to receive them after that date.
The Spy Who Painted the Queen Page 19
