The Spy Who Painted the Queen (13 page)

On the same day a letter from Madame van Riemsdyk, stating that she was forwarding something ‘by the ordinary route' was intercepted.

It was clear from this letter that de László had been communicating with Madame van Riemsdyk by some channel other than the ordinary post.

On the 4th August our Rotterdam agent reported that Adrienne Riemsdyk was known to have acted as intermediary for correspondence with Austria.

On the 8th August 1917, Mr Basil Thomson obtained from an informant whom he sent to de László with instructions to talk nothing but art to him, the report, of which a copy is attached. The informant found it impossible to confine de László to art, for he insisted on talking politics, and, in addition to displaying his usual antipathy to Russia, contended the USA did not intend to fight, and that the present was a splendid opportunity for Great Britain to make peace.

On the 14th August further information was received from a most reliable source from a sitter, who is employed in the Output Department of the Ministry of Munitions (a well-known public man who does not wish to appear). This gentleman reports that when having his portrait painted by de László in August 1917 he was asked two questions:

What was the output of munitions at the present time?

What was the consumption per week in France?

Matters which de László must have known to be within his knowledge.

At this stage it was decided that, in view of de László's opportunities for obtaining confidential information (he has painted the portraits of many well-known people, including Admiral Beatty and Lord Harding), of the fact that he was undoubtedly in correspondence by some route not supervised by the Censor, and that reports to the effect that he was an active enemy agent were in our possession, it would be dangerous to risk further delay, even with the object of securing definite evidence of espionage by him.

In these circumstances on the 15th August his premises were searched, and he was arrested and taken to Scotland Yard for examination. The scrutiny of his papers revealed the following facts:

He is the son of a Jew tailor of Budapest, and has a brother named Marcell and two or three sisters in Hungary. He married Lucy Guinness of Dublin by whom he has five sons. His bank books and income tax returns show that his income is about £12,000 a year, and that he has about £32,000 invested in England and America.

In addition he has money in German and Austrian securities and an account with the Bodin Credit Anstalt Bank, Vienna, which he seems to have been able to draw upon until the end of November 1914. A letter from a relation dated 17th June 1916 assures him that his property in Vienna is safe in the bank.

Some light is thrown upon his naturalisation by a press-cutting from the ‘Star' of November 1914, from which it appears that he had written to a Budapest newspaper to the effect that his naturalization had cost him ‘a severe mental conflict', but that, on account of his five sons, he ‘had to do it'. His sentiments may be deduced from the letter written to him by Count de Soissons on the 27th October 1916, which shows quite clearly that both the writer and the recipient are strongly pro-Hungarian in sentiment.

A letter from his brother-in-law, dated 17th August 1914 (Original which shows that de László blamed the Russians for the war and not the Kaiser).

Several other letters show that he corresponded with and helped with money and gifts, three young Hungarian prisoners of war, one of these, K de WERRES, was concerned with the notorious Rawson.

Other letters show that he subscribed to the Council of Loyal British Subjects of German and Hungarian birth, but took great care that his subscriptions should be anonymous.

The most important correspondence, however, appears to be that with Adrienne van Riemsdyk. A letter from her dated 19th October 1914 contains the following passages: ‘Your Hungarian friend has not been to see us so far – perhaps he went straight through to Pest'….‘Your two letters to Buda Pest have gone to Vienna by special courier.'

In October 1915, the same writer says, ‘I had just sent you, through our Legation in London, a fat letter … I am hereby sending a couple of letters I received this morning.'

Another letter from his brother in an enemy country, dated 17th June 1916, contains the passage …‘Your property in Vienna is still at the bank as it was before and you need not worry you will get it after the declaration of peace.'

A letter dated 1st February 1917, from ‘Daisy' the daughter of Madame van Riemsdyk, contains the following passages …‘I have asked Ferdie Michiels who has returned to his post at the Dutch Legation, London to take charge of it, to see that it arrives safely into my hands … he knows all about it. I have told him everything, and as he is very precise and an old friend I know he will do his best.' (It relates to a frontispiece for a book which de László was to draw for her, apparently.) This letter is important because it shows that, in addition to the Dutch Diplomatic Bag being used the legation personnel was also made use of for the transmission of de László's correspondence.

Another letter dated 9th February 1917, from Madame van Riemsdyk states … ‘I received your kind lines of January 2nd two days ago and forwarded your letters to Baron Forster and the Bishop. I have just received the enclosed letter for you, and I hope it will reach you safely.'

Three other letters are attached which, though written from The Hague, were posted in London with English stamps, and must have travelled to London by Diplomatic Bag. These letters are dated 21st February, 27th April and 22nd May respectively.

Another letter from de László's brother, postmarked London July 23rd 1917, and containing the passage ‘I have not received the £200 mentioned via Switzerland. You ought to enquire where they have got stuck.' This letter must also have arrived in this country by a similar route, and it indicates, in addition that de László was still apparently sending money to his brother in June 1917.

Not content with his channel of communication through Holland, de László evidently approached a Mr [Mrs was written in the original but amended to Mr] Winthrop Bowen, resident in New York, with a suggestion that she [
sic
] should act as an intermediary or him, for a letter from her [
sic
] dated 15th January 1915 which contains the following passages … ‘yes, by all means send me any letters you wish me to forward to the continent of Europe' was found.

A cheque, and a letter from Baron de Mayendorff of the Russian Embassy in Madrid, were also found, and these documents clearly show that de László's explanation to the Police about the money which he endeavoured to send to his brother through Madrid was untrue. To the Police he stated that the money was part of a sum of £1000 which the Baron owed him, whereas it is evident that he drew a cheque in favour of the Baron to place him in funds for the transmission of the sum of £200 to his brother.

Copies of the reports of the interrogation of de László at New Scotland Yard are attached. It will be seen from these reports that he admitted to assisting the escaped prisoner of war Horn, and gave a somewhat unconvincing reason for having done so.

He twice stated that he had no friends in Spain, and no correspondence with them, and he only admitted the Mayendorff correspondence when pressed.

He first of all admitted to having sent ‘five or six letters through the Dutch bag at the request of Madame van Riemsdyk, the last having been sent in August 1916, and all of them having been family letters'.

This he subsequently contradicted by admitting that he had corresponded with one Baron Forster, a member of the Upper House in Austria through the Dutch Bag. He admitted to having sent about seven letters to Baron Forster through the bag, but it seems highly probable that all the Forster letters, which from the replies we have seen must have been far more numerous, were sent through the bag.

He admitted also that he frequently wrote to Holland and to Hungary via the ordinary post, an admission which appears to be very significant. He admitted that the cheque for his brother had been taken by Mayendorff to Madrid, and denied having given the explanation recorded in the Police report of the 22nd February 1915, that the £200 was part of the £1000 owed him by Mayendorff. This denial cannot be believed, for the Police officer who reported it knew nothing of de László or his connection with Mayendorff.

He admitted having written a letter to Hungary explaining and excusing his change of nationality, and gave a very half-hearted denial of his alleged idea of resuming Hungarian nationality after the war – ‘I do not believe I have.'

He volunteered what appears to be the significant information that his brother, an Austrian Jew tailor, has seen, on at least three occasions, Count Andrassy, the then Austrian Premier. De László stated that it was in connection with his naturalization in England, but it may well have been in connection with other matters of far greater importance to Hungary at the present time. He also admitted that he probably sent four small photographs out through the Dutch bag, photographs that were acknowledged so recently as 5th August 1917. It seems highly probable, therefore, that his statement that his correspondence through the Dutch Bag ceased in August 1916 is untrue. It should also be noted that when questioned as to the number of letters which he had sent through the bag he admitted that certain envelopes might have contained two or three letters each.

Finally, on the 22nd August 1917, Mr Basil Thomson furnished a further report containing information submitted to him by a sitter to de László respecting the latter's propensity for talking politics in a strongly pro-Hungarian and anti-Ally strain.

At this stage of the case the question whether de László should be prosecuted for the breaches of the Defence of the Realm Regulations which he had committed was very carefully considered in consultation with the Director of Public Prosecutions, but it was decided that the actual offences were, in themselves, comparatively insignificant when compared to the other, and infinitely more serious offence which he was very strongly suspected of having committed, and it was essential in the interests of public safety that de László should be interned for the duration of the war.

To sum up:

It is clearly established that de László is a person of hostile origin who for some reason, probably connected to his position in artistic circles in this country became a naturalized British subject after the outbreak of war. Hearing soon afterwards that he was being bitterly assailed for this in Hungary he deemed it desirable to write an apologia which appeared in a Hungarian newspaper within a few months of the naturalization.

It is also clear that he is a person of hostile associations. He has corresponded freely, not only with members of his own family in Hungary, but also with a member of the Hungarian Upper House, he has sent large sums of money to his family in Hungary, he has assisted an escaped prisoner of war with money, and he has corresponded with, sent money to, and visited interned Hungarians in this country.

The reports which have been submitted by sitters, and the contents of letters which were found when his premises were searched leave no room for doubt that he is strongly pro-Hungarian in sentiment, and that whenever a suitable opportunity has occurred he has indulged in pro-Hungarian, anti-Russian and anti-Ally peace propaganda.

His prevarications on the subject of the despatch of money to Hungary, and with regard to the number of letters sent by him through the Dutch Diplomatic Bag, indicate that he is a person whose word is not to be trusted.

With regard to the graver suspicions we have against him we have his admission that he adopted two routes for the despatch of letters to Hungary, firstly the ordinary postal route, and secondly the Dutch Diplomatic Bag.

It is reasonable to suppose that he had some special reason for using the Bag for some letters and the ordinary post for others, and the route adopted by him in forwarding the more important letters to Hungary corresponds with that alleged to have been adopted by him in sending secret service reports out of this country.

It is also to be remembered that he volunteered the information that his brother in Vienna had had at least three interviews with Count Andrassy. Seeing that he is a struggling Jewish tailor in Pesht it is extremely improbable that he would have obtained access to a statesman in Andrassy's position unless he had information which Andrassy thought it worthwhile to receive personally.

Having regard to the whole of the circumstances of this case and, in particular, to the grave allegations made against him in the various secret service reports, it is impossible to regard de László's continued liberty in this country as other than a grave potential danger to the public safety and the defence of the realm, and his internment for the duration of the war is, accordingly, recommended.

NB Mr Basil Thomson is prepared to give evidence to the Advisory Committee on this case.

Dated: 19 Sept 1917

VG Kell

Competent Military Authority

O
N 21 SEPTEMBER
1917, Special Branch Inspector Fred Everest, accompanied by Detective Sergeant Kirchner, took the early train to Datchet, where De László had rented a house for the summer. At 7.45 a.m. he served upon Philip Alexius László de Lombas the copy of the detention order, signed by the home secretary. De László was allowed to eat his breakfast and then the warrant was handed to him to read. He was permitted to send telegrams cancelling his engagements and then, as Everest had been instructed, he was taken to his London address (from the station at Windsor, in an attempt to stop the neighbours gossiping) where he was allowed to hand over his keys and give his wife instructions about the conduct of his affairs. He was then allowed to have lunch, had his photograph taken by the policemen and was driven to Brixton Prison and interned. The Inspector reported, ‘Every courtesy compatible with duty was extended to him', which certainly appears to have been the case.