The Spy Who Painted the Queen (22 page)

It was treated, and plainly treated, as a case where naturally the authorities wanted to know why he had been in communication with Hungary, what is it all about, it is my mother who is dying, here is the letter from Mrs Rothschild, read it; and the policeman goes away and naturally says that the man he interviewed was perfectly frank and candid …

De László, it was implied, had clearly misunderstood the nature of Marshfield's visit and that ‘it was in these circumstances that he month by month with the greatest openness and greatest regularity by means of the ordinary post and under the very nose and eyes of the Authorities continues to send those sums to his relatives in Hungary'. No mention was made that Inspector Marshfield had said in his evidence, quite clearly (and repeatedly), that in his opinion De László knew what the correct route for sending money should have been.

Sir John continued to labour the point, reading extracts from letters from February 1915 about the sending of money, and concluded, in his best ‘Soapy' style:

While I trust I would be the last to speak without fair consideration of the Authorities, one knows that they had a great deal to do, and very much more serious spies to follow than Mr De László. I am entitled, on Mr De László's part, to say: ‘You really knew that in February 1915 I was sending £200 out of this country to Hungary. Why, if you please, did you not take some effective steps to stop me?' Instead of which, there follows, in March, £200; April, £100; May, £200; June, £300; July, £300; November, £300 and December £500.

He again stressed that the reason payments ceased was because De László received a warning from an unofficial source that it was illegal and promptly stopped. He then turned to the use of the Dutch bag. Towards the end of 1915, having used the normal post previously, De László became concerned that he had not heard from his family for some time and, fearing disaster, had telegraphed Madame van Riemsdyk. It was she who suggested he use the bag, as her brother, the Dutch minister for foreign affairs, had approved him doing so. She had, herself, used the bag to send him letters (including one which described the death of his mother), but was now suggesting he use it. Between then and August 1916, De László readily admitted sending six or eight letters via the bag, though each envelope may have contained more than one letter for his family. The letters were not individually enclosed in addressed envelopes so Madame van Riemsdyk could read them if she wished. Perhaps tellingly, Sir John was obliged to state that these envelopes were taken by hand and so did not pass through the postal system.

Sir John then explained, in detail, the money that De László had sent to his family through van Riemsdyk, including a dowry for his niece, and reminded the committee that he had stopped of his own accord when he was told it was wrong by his brother-in-law. On the matter of Baron Mayendorff he explained that De László had thought the problem with sending money abroad lay in the fact that it depleted the funds in Britain and so had given the baron a cheque for £200 on the understanding that the money be held or spent in London and a similar sum transmitted from abroad. He said that it was Mayendorff's idea to do this and that, of course, Mayendorff was a gentleman and one of Britain's allies. He rather cavalierly dismissed the phrase in Mayendorff's letter advising that the money transfer hadn't worked ‘to the address given' and explained that, as far as could be discovered, the money had been returned to Mayendorff's bank and had never reached Hungary. He explained how De László had stopped using the diplomatic bag having heard Mr van Swinderen discussing the matter on the telephone, and produced the letter inviting De László to lunch that provided the date the conversation took place.

Sir John then turned to the interventions by the authorities following their ‘discovery' of De László's behaviour (at least their discovery through overt sources, MI5 having, of course, been aware of them all the time). He explained how De László had co-operated thoroughly with the police officer from Paddington who had come to ask him about sending money to Hungary and claimed he had even told him about his use of the bag, though there is no mention of this in the statement DC Isaac made at the time. He had given full information to Mr Wyatt Williams and provided him with access to all his accounts and had happily signed an undertaking provided by the director of public prosecutions not to transmit more funds – though he had voluntarily ceased doing so long before.

The Horn incident was then described, though no one seemed to notice, or care, that here De László, in his written statement, seemed to contradict things he had said previously. Sir John read out the statement including the lines, concerning the initial letter presented by Horn's maid, ‘I am here in great distress. I am a Reserve Officer of the Hungarian Army.' De László also admitted that, in the course of their conversation, Horn told him that he had been captured by the British while making his way home (presumably to take up his place in the Hungarian army) and had been interned ever since. Horn also told him, ‘I am one of the three men who have escaped from internment.' The rest of the story followed the previous one – he had gone home, realised the seriousness of the situation, gone back to the studio next morning, had his maid find the torn-up envelope, done his morning sitting and then gone to the police. No one asked why he hadn't telephoned the police. It was held up as a shining example of De László's loyalty, and it was pointed out that the police would not have caught Horn without De László's intervention. It wasn't mentioned that Horn had had over twenty-four hours in which he might have escaped, and it was hardly to De László's credit that he hadn't.

Simon then read the portion of De László's statement relating to the letter Thomson had shown him and the allegations of spying:

I believe this is only one of many silly slanders aimed at me, but even if there was any such paper I can only say that I have never been in touch, to my knowledge, with anyone connected with enemy secret service; but I would point out that an artist in my position is particularly liable to intrusion. I am bound, from the nature of things, to receive any person approaching me in the matter of my art, and I can readily see that the secret service of Germany might imagine that if they could gain access to my studio they might meet persons there from whom news and gossip might be gathered. I have never seen the document referred to, nor has any charge been made against me relating to it; but if it does exist I, with all my strength, repudiate the inference which has been said to have been put upon it that I am in any way whatsoever in touch with enemy agents.

He went on to read De László's explanation of how his money in Hungary had been seized because he was a British subject and how, in Britain, he had been forced to suffer internment and to abandon his trade, leading to substantial losses. He said he had been subject to attacks in Parliament and to unsourced rumours that he was powerless to counter, which had done him irreparable harm. Since he moved to Britain in 1907 all his investments had been made there and he had invested £33,000 in war loans and £4,650 in Treasury securities. He had done work for the Red Cross and other funds, raising £4,500. He pleaded that revocation of his naturalisation would punish his wife and family. He did not wish to complain about his internment, which had been forced upon the authorities by feeling in England caused by Germany's conduct. He admitted that he had made mistakes but that his conscience was clear and he had never acted disloyally to the country of his adoption.

With De László due to give evidence the next day, there was some discussion of the legal points the committee wanted clearing up and the hearing adjourned to next morning.

Day three of the hearing began with some remarks from Sir John Simon about De László's generosity towards his family, describing his kindness in helping his niece with her education and assisting his late mother. Simon agreed his motivation in sending money abroad ‘would not in itself affect the rule and regulation which had been made to restrict the sending of money out of the country'. This didn't stop Simon from quoting, at considerable length, from several letters thanking De László for his kind assistance in a variety of matters, ending by saying, ‘I think My Lord these extracts are quite to show what was the real character of the relation between this prosperous and famous artist and his more obscure relations in Hungary.' In other words, his generosity
was
something to be taken into account despite the rules and regulations.

He went on then to examine the business of the telegram sent from Bath in 1915. The attorney general had claimed that De László had been somewhat dishonest in his statement about the telegram by saying it related to the death of his mother. Quite simply, he said, the De Lászlós had been so overcome with grief they had misinterpreted the question and assumed he was talking about a telegram they had sent a few days earlier, which actually did refer to the chance of a meeting in Holland to discuss his mother's death. Quoting extensively from the report of Mr Wyatt Williams, the Home Office inspector, he pointed out that Williams had noted the original telegram and had himself deduced that there had been confusion between the two. Again, no mention was made of Inspector Marshfield (who had carried out the interview) and the fact that he had said quite clearly (and repeated) that in his opinion De László knew what the correct route for sending money should have been.

Simon then turned to the correspondence abroad. It was clear from an analysis of the letters, he said, that all outgoing letters between August 1914 and the end of 1915 had gone out in the normal mail, under the eyes of the censors. It was only for a period of about five months that, at Madame van Riemsdyk's suggestion, the Dutch diplomatic bag was used to send letters abroad and then only on five or six occasions (he forgot to mention De László had said six or eight). As soon as he had discovered, by accident, that the foreign secretary disapproved of this, De László had voluntarily stopped. He then went through some of the letters and pointed out that one of them stamped as having been ‘Passed by Censor' made explicit reference to Madame van Riemsdyk acting as intermediary for letters to Baron Forster (though he seems to have forgotten that this could be perfectly legal if done correctly). He also read out some of the letters to the family, known to have passed through the bag, emphasising their perfectly harmless nature. He then pointed out that the undertaking that the director of public prosecutions had made De László sign made no mention at all of communicating with his relatives, merely committing him not to send any more money to them, even though the authorities were perfectly aware that he had been writing to them.

Simon then read some of the correspondence with Baron Forster, pointing out that it dealt only with family matters, and queried a previous comment that it contained nothing favourable about Britain, his adopted country, pointing out that it would have to pass through enemy censorship so it was wise to restrict the contents. He did point out one, probably erroneous, pro-British piece of propaganda that De László had sent. On the back of a newspaper clipping about some work he had done raising funds for the Red Cross had appeared an article on how well captured Zeppelin crews were treated – this at a time when German propaganda was saying exactly the opposite.

Simon then went on at some length to point out that the legislation under which the committee was sitting did not automatically remove citizenship from someone who was found to have breached the defence regulations but that it was for the committee to decide whether it was in the national interest for them to do so, adding that he hoped De László's noble motives in transgressing would be taken into account and that ‘to be inspired by an upright and noble motive and to admit your errors, these my lord, are among the qualities which we would be proud to associate our own civilization'.

Mr Herbert Ernest Fass, a first-class clerk at the Treasury, was called next. On being questioned about regulations on sending money to enemy territory he said the rules for Austria-Hungary were more lenient than those for Germany but that as far as he knew no permission had ever been granted (except in the case of a few Austro-Hungarians who had been interned) for remittances to family members who were not of British descent. The usual amount of a monthly remittance would have been about £10, and this was only allowed where a case of real hardship could be shown. All money had to be sent through a recognised intermediary. Sir John Simon, cross-examining, asked whether, assuming the correct authority had been received, the sister of the Dutch foreign minister would be acceptable, and received the answer yes. It was established that, in 1915, use of Thomas Cook as an intermediary was only advised, not mandatory, and was mainly for the convenience of the censor. It was established that the censorship people knew the rules about transmitting money and that no letters from or to De László mentioning such transmissions had ever been received by Fass or his Treasury department. In addition, though the rules were interpreted strictly, there was a certain amount of leniency granted to Austria-Hungary, in part because of its treatment of Britons trapped there.

Simon stated that part of the defence was based on the fact that the censorship was under the control of the military and that it had allowed letters to pass, and Fass agreed, at least to the point of acknowledging the censorship was under military control. When pushed, Fass agreed reluctantly that sending money abroad to relatives was ‘trading with the enemy' only in as much as it was covered by the Trading with the Enemy proclamation.

Re-examined by Sir Archibald Bodkin, Fass agreed no one could send money abroad without the necessary authority. Bodkin asked him about the efficiency of the censorship, pointing out it was a large organisation which employed ‘masses' of women, and Fass agreed that he knew of cases where errors had occurred and letters had been overlooked. Bodkin pointed out that the three postcards Simon had shown him were dated two or three weeks apart and said that it was quite likely that each would have been examined by a different person so might have slipped through. The president then asked about the terms of the proclamation and where people might find out about them. Bodkin pointed out that the proclamation explaining who to approach was on the walls of every public building. Fass did agree that, in most cases, the method was brought to the attention of individuals by the censorship when it caught people breaking the rules, giving Simon the opportunity to point out that this had never happened to De László.