The Spy Who Painted the Queen (24 page)

The hearing was adjourned.

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 correspondence. 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 László 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 attorney general interrupted him to refer to a letter from Madame van Riemsdyk dated 2 September 1916 in which she said, ‘Do not start at the size of this envelope. I have received so many letters for you during the last days that I could not possibly send them all as they came in.' She asked him to request that his family send fewer letters, but promised to continue sending his letters out that way. An excerpt from a letter from her, dated 7 May 1917, was read out, and it was pointed out that the letter was carrying a London stamp and postmark, proof that it had entered the country via the bag. When it was put to De László that he had been made aware that use of the bag was frowned upon on 3 August 1916, he said that he had not considered whether there was a problem with her continuing to use it, adding, ‘Both our consciences are clear. We did nothing wrong.' When asked why, if there wasn't a problem he had asked her not to use the bag herself, he said this was after his interview with the director of public prosecutions: ‘after I had all this complication and unpleasantness I must have asked my wife to write to Madame van Riemsdyk not to send because they do not like it here.' When it was pointed out that in her evidence Madame van Riemsdyk had denied receiving any request to stop using the bag, De László was able to score one point – he told the attorney general that he had seen a copy of his wife's letter requesting exactly that at his interview with Thomson!

The attorney general then turned to the question of De László's knowledge of the rights and wrongs of using the bag. Did censorship ever come to mind while he was doing it? De László denied this, but a letter he had written in October 1914 was produced in which he had referred clearly to censorship. He was then asked about an attempt to get a letter through to Sweden without going through censorship. This he declined to answer because it was, apparently, an effort made by his wife to use her maid as a courier that he had only recently found out about. He was reminded that he had communicated through Italy and through Switzerland, and admitted he had sent a postcard to Baron Mayendorff in Madrid via the American ambassador as well as having written to Mr Winthrop Bowen enquiring about using him as a means of forwarding letters. He was certainly well aware of the rules about censorship and use of the mail generally.

They then turned to the Bath Police visit in 1915. De László denied point blank that he had been issued any warning by Inspector Marshfield (despite Marshfield's statement). After many interruptions from ‘Soapy Simon', the president said, ‘It was not a warning against sending money, but it might have been to some extent a warning. At any rate the policeman thought the means of communication improper.'

De László was asked when he ceased sending remittance abroad, the answer being 2 June 1916, and he explained that it was because his brother-in-law had warned him that he should not be sending money out of the country during wartime. This, he said, was the first warning he had received. He denied that he had stopped sending it because Madame van Riemsdyk had warned him that things were becoming ‘rather complicated', and had asked him to send it via Blydensteins; in fact he did send one remittance that way before stopping of his own accord. He hadn't understood what she meant by becoming ‘rather complicated', and had made up his mind on his own following his brother-in-law's advice. When Baron Mayendorff had mentioned his family during a sitting and asked whether there was anything he could do to help, De László had explained that no money could leave the country and Mayendorff himself had offered to take a cheque he would pay into a British account he held and then transmit the amount from an account abroad. It was on receipt of a letter from his brother, complaining that the money had never arrived, that he had had a visit from the Metropolitan Police warning him about it. Six months later he had received another warning from the director of public prosecutions.