The Spy Who Painted the Queen (20 page)

When asked about De László's attitude to Britain, Chamberlain said he had expressed a desire to get his sons into English public schools and that he had, indeed, helped him get the eldest into his alma mater, Rugby School. De László had also explained that, having lived in the freer atmosphere of Britain, it had become impossible for the couple to return to the more staid, oligarchic and narrow society of Vienna. As far as Chamberlain could tell, after the start of the war De László had held perfectly correct attitudes to the war as befitted a British subject, apart from an explicable hostility to the Roumanians that came naturally from his Hungarian origins. Apart from that, his attitude showed no sign of disaffection or hostility to His Majesty. On a more personal note he was quite happy to say that De László was a man of honour and that, ‘it is inconceivable to me that he should take the oath of allegiance meaning to betray it or that he, having taken it, should betray it'.

In a brief cross-examination by the attorney general, Chamberlain admitted that he would certainly be one of the last people De László would be likely to admit to having other than utterly correct sentiments. He also said he did not recall any hostility being expressed towards the Serbians. After that, the witness was allowed to withdraw.

The hearing turned back to De László's correspondence via van Riemsdyk but the mysterious sentence saying letters could not be sent through the post was forgotten, the attorney general merely referring to the obviously large amount of material passing to and fro. He then referred to a postcard sent to Irma De László by Lucy De László dated 5 February 1915 but clearly sent via Van Riemdsyk as it was posted in Holland. It mentioned lack of recent contact (De László's mother was ill and he was clearly worried) and advised that they were off to Bath for the cure. He then went on to explain that, while in Bath, De László had sent the telegram which originally excited the attention of the authorities. Sir John Simon then went on to make a fuss about the telegram, claiming that there must have been a mistake, but that ‘we are helping one another' so he would like to explain that De László had sent a previous one, when he had heard of his mother's death, and that this must have been the telegram referred to. He was, of course, quite incorrect, but he was to return to the subject later on.

The attorney general, quite confident he was talking about the correct telegram, stressed the importance of it, as the interview with Bath Police which followed was, quite clearly, a warning regarding communication with enemy countries. As he pointed out, however, De László was already aware there were problems because he had already acknowledged, in writing, that such correspondence was subject to censorship. In spite of this knowledge, both remittances and correspondence continued.

There was some difference of opinion on exactly when use of the diplomatic bag began, but it was certainly happening on 25 February 1915 when Madame van Riemsdyk wrote, ‘I have asked my brother, the Minister, to send it to you through our Legation in London. It will not get lost there and I hope you will receive it without delay.' Further letters followed in June, specifically referring to mail being sent through the legation, and others in September and October, which included drawings for De László's mother's grave and one referring to the number of letters being sent in one packet. A letter from Daisy van Riemsdyk of February 1917 referred to Mr Ferdi Michaels acting as contact point for correspondence within the legation. The attorney general said he was quite unable to explain why some letters went through the ordinary mail and some were sent through the legation.

The attorney general then considered the Mayendorff incident, where De László had given him a cheque for £200 and asked him to transfer the money to his brother in Hungary. When originally questioned by the Metropolitan Police, De László had said that Mayendorff had owed him £1,000 for a portrait and had written to him asking to send £200 of the money to Hungary. He had, in fact, given Mayendorff a cheque in that amount and Mayendorff, it was clear from the correspondence, had made more than one attempt to send it. In Mayendorff's last letter the curious phrases ‘to the address given' and ‘to the person indicated' had been used rather than a proper address or a name. The attorney general pointed these out, asking at whose instigation these phrases had been employed.

When interviewed by the Met Police, De László had said his last remittance to Hungary had been in February 1916 and he had then discontinued sending money because he was told it was forbidden. It was clear he had sent further money by Mayendorff as a means of getting round the prohibition. The interview with the Met Police was clearly a second warning but, as the attorney general pointed out, ‘no warning really is necessary. A British subject should know that such communications during war are unlawful … and nowhere does it appear that Mr De László consulted a solicitor or anyone at all.' There was considerable discussion over the number of transactions made abroad and the amounts sent, but it was clear De László had sent some £2,600 (£200,000 at contemporary values as calculated by the Bank of England inflation calculator) ‘for the ultimate benefit of an enemy country'.

De László's correspondence then came under closer examination, as did his dealings with various Hungarians interned in Britain. These included De Weress and Czeisner, about whom De László had already been interrogated, but also a Hungarian woman with a sick son and an internee who had written to him and to whom he had sent £4. In his written statement he said it had never occurred to him that by giving this assistance it could lead to his loyalty being questioned. Examining De László's correspondence, the attorney general quoted extracts to show he had not lost his love of his native country. One correspondent wrote of ‘your love for your romantic country' and Mr Guinness had written to him expressing his disapproval of De László's animosity to Russia (Britain's ally). The letter published in
The Star
was also quoted from, while in a letter of 11 March 1916 he had written to his sister expressing his pride in his nephews who were serving in the Austro-Hungarian army and in a later letter he had expressed the hope that his nephew would ‘return victoriously'. In July 1915 he had written ‘the beautiful feeling, for you, that you are doing your duty for your fatherland as a mother can console you, it is not permitted me, so I am doing it another way …'. Sir John Simon disputed some of the quotations, saying that because of the Austrian censorship De László was obliged to write in German, a language he spoke but did not write it well.

The attorney general turned next to the Horn incident. He read out Section 46a of DORA pointing out De László had broken it in two ways – by not giving information and by giving assistance in the form of money. He also mentioned what were, presumably, the two documents that Thomson's agent had discovered (MI5 had obtained more than two from the French and these could not be mentioned at all) and said that as far as this case went he placed no reliance upon them at all (they were ‘copies of copies of documents'), but felt they should be mentioned as they supplied the starting point for other investigations. Copies were with the papers should the committee wish to see them. He then gave examples of previous cases relating to communicating and trading with the enemy, pointing out that by his own admission De László had done both on numerous occasions. He dwelt at length on the letters, pointing out that in none of the many of them was there any ‘word, so far as I can see, of praise, or in the presence of blame, of exculpation of the country whose citizen he has become'. At heart, he suggested, De László remained Hungarian.

The first witness, Inspector William Marshfield of Bath City Police, was then called. He confirmed his identity and also that he had received a letter ‘from a Department of the War Office known as MI5' (though in fact the letter must have been from MO5g) and that he had visited the hotel on 22 February 1915. He said he had not seen the original telegram but that the text was embodied in the letter from MI5. He had first checked De László's certificate of naturalisation and noted the date. He read him the telegram and asked if he was the sender. Marshfield asked why he had not sent it through the proper channels and De László said that it had concerned the death of his mother and that he had sent it this way ‘because it would take a much longer time by any other route to send it'. De László had shown him various letters from prominent persons. He had reported the whole matter to MI5.

The president then asked a series of questions in reply to which Marshfield clarified that the issue was the sending of money to a neutral country (Holland) for onward transmission to an enemy country (Hungary), that the proper course was to send it direct by Thomas Cook (this was actually incorrect as Cook did not become the official intermediary until later, but an authorised intermediary had been required), and that De László, as far as he was concerned, seemed to know what the proper route was. Under cross-examination he repeated this point.

Matters then hung on the meaning of the telegram. Sir John Simon pointed out that it obviously referred to a previous message as no amount was quoted. He then mentioned a telegram of a few days earlier in which De László had transferred £200 to Holland and asked for the money to be transmitted to his brother – and also tried to arrange a meeting with Marczi László in Holland. Marshfield was, of course, unaware of any previous messages but he admitted the text made it appear so. He did state, however, that De László had not mentioned previous telegrams and neither had he. He said, ‘Mr De László … produced a number of documents showing that he was a gentleman of high standing, and when he gave the explanation that it was with reference to his mother's death, I thought possibly that was correct.'

Sir John Simon then produced a long letter that Lucy De László had received from the family breaking the news of his mother's death and proceeded to read extracts to the court. Marshfield was asked whether he had been shown this particular letter and agreed, ‘I might have been shown the letter, but I do not recall it.' He then withdrew.

Constable Isaac gave evidence that he had visited De László on 8 December 1916 and asked him if he had been sending money to his brother, receiving the answer yes. De László had said he had asked Baron Mayendorff to send him £200 from Madrid but had since found that this had not been done. He had previously sent money through van Riemsdyk, the last occasion being £500 in February previous. He had stopped sending money this way when told it was illegal. He had not been told to do anything about issuing warnings, only to obtain the facts. A slight discrepancy between what Isaac had noted and the dates on which money was sent was highlighted, in his usual unctuous fashion, by Sir John Simon (‘I am not in the least doubting your complete good faith'), and Isaac promised to locate his pocket book, in which his first notes had been made. Then the witness withdrew.

Constable Allen of Kensington CID was called regarding De László's appearance at his station to tell him the whereabouts of Arpad Horn. Allen had, of course, kept notes and a copy of his later report. He said De László had provided him with a detailed description and shown him the envelope with ‘Golden Cross Hotel' on it. The police had not known before this that Horn might be there. In a curious question, since it was surely one for the defence to ask, Bodkin enquired whether De László's information had contributed to the arrest and was answered ‘Yes'. It was established that De László had reported the conversation with Horn outside the legally stipulated twenty-four-hour time limit and that there was an error in the date of the conversation as provided by De László in his statement.

The hearing ended for the day.

Day two began with an agreement between prosecution and defence that there was no need for the policeman who had searched De László's house to be called as a witness. Sir John Simon, who throughout the whole day was tiresomely long-winded, apologetic, smarmy and insistent upon reading huge extracts from the correspondence, raised a point (though not a complaint) that some documents De László claimed had been removed had not been returned. The attorney general countered that the documents were there, in a box as yet unsearched by Sir John's team, who had been invited more than once to do so. As no complaint was pressed they moved on to the report of Mr Wyatt Williams and the two reports of the Advisory Committee on Internment, which were handed over to the court. Sir John Simon then moved on to De László's defence. He was, he said, going to claim that, whatever infringements of rules and regulations relating to correspondence there had been, his client had always acted with candour and openness when his attention had been called to them by the authorities. De László wished to claim that:

… his errors, such as they are, were errors committed in good faith and that from beginning to end there is nothing in his conduct which is inconsistent with or was in any way a violation of the duty as he understood it, and he desires to continue to discharge it, of a British Subject.

He went on to explain, at length, that it was De László's wish for the hearing to be held in public ‘in order that his real actions should be known, and that the gravity of the case should be put at its true weight'. He also wished it to be stressed that permission to have the case heard in public was not granted because his client ‘holds a famous position in art, or because he is … a man of wealth and good connection'. The whole point of bringing the case in public was, he stressed:

the most enormous contrast between the real extent and gravity of the materials which the Authorities offer for your consideration … and the terrible and dreadful rumours and whispers, not merely spoken from mouth to mouth, but actually published in some of our newspapers as to the case which the Crown has to make against this gentleman.