The Spy Who Painted the Queen

by Phil Tomaselli

  He then set out the basic facts of De László’s life including some details of his internment in 1917. He detailed some of the prominent persons he had painted including King George V, King Edward VII and Queen Alexandra, the Kaiser, President Roosevelt and the Emperor Franz Joseph. It was explained he had married Miss Guinness in 1900 and that, after living in Brittany, Budapest and Vienna, they had settled in London in 1907. He had, the attorney general conceded, ‘a genius for portrait painting’.

  Turning to the naturalisation itself, the attorney general said that in his defence statement De László offered four grounds for wishing to be naturalised: one was his marriage, one was his work, the third the similarity between the British and Hungarian constitutions and the fourth the traditional hospitality of Britain towards artists. He seemed to admit that there was evidence De László had had the intention of naturalising long before the start of the war, though he did point out that Britain had declared war on Austria-Hungary on 12 August 1914 and the application wasn’t sent to the Home Office until three days later. The oath of allegiance wasn’t sworn until 2 September.

  The attorney general then read extracts of letters showing that the naturalisation had caused problems in Hungary, including the one that had been published in a Hungarian newspaper, and subsequently republished in the British newspaper The Star, which De László had written to his family saying, ‘It has cost me a severe mental conflict, but on account of my five sons I had to do it.’ The Hungarian newspaper commented he should be stripped of his Hungarian title and removed from the Hungarian Senate of Fine Art.

  The attorney general and Sir John Simon traded quotes from the letters regarding the gifts of money sent to his family at some length before turning to the question of the correspondence being sent otherwise than through the post. Simon pointed out that De László had told the authorities about this, but the attorney general added darkly, ‘there were other sources of information also’ and De László had used ‘a secret and unusual manner, namely through the Dutch Embassy Bag’. Madame van Riemsdyk’s part was explained, as was her relationship with the Dutch foreign minister, as well as how Mrs De László had tried to get letters through Italy and how, following a letter from her to Madame van Riemsdyk bemoaning their difficulties, De László himself had written asking her to forward letters. Sir John Simon pointed out that these letters were sent through the normal post and the attorney general said he was merely showing how the use of the bag had eventually come about. He then produced a letter dated 13 October 1914 which contained a sentence, ‘I send them open as they have to pass the censor here’, which proved De László was aware of the censorship from early in the war. He then read a letter from Mr Winthrop Bowen in New York from January 1915 in which he said:

  By all means send me any letters you wish me to forward to the continent of Europe. Be sure and seal all letters and put them in a larger envelope … I will post them myself and not trust a servant to do it … just send me any letters you wish remailed.

  Though there was later evidence that De László hadn’t used this route, he said, it remained pertinent that he had considered it. Mail to the USA was not censored at that time.

  The attorney general then turned back to Madame van Riemsdyk, explaining the usual method was to write to her enclosing a letter or postcard for forwarding and for her to then forward the replies and for De László to reimburse her. He read out a couple of her messages and Sir John Simon pointed out that one referred to the use of the diplomatic bag and both had been sent by postcard. The attorney general then read out a letter of 2 September 1915 in which van Riemsdyk explained that the size of the envelope was because she had received so much correspondence for him and the number of mail boats had been so reduced that she simply couldn’t transmit them individually. Her brother had also put her under pressure to reduce the amount being sent in the bag so, she asked, could he request his people not to send so many letters? She added the line, referring to the letters to him, ‘it would be no good my sending on the letters by post’. No one seemed able to explain why it wasn’t possible to send them in the normal mail and, unfortunately, there was then an interruption in the flow of evidence when, with the permission of the president, the defence called Austen Chamberlain, chancellor of the exchequer, to give evidence of De László’s character.

  Chamberlain was giving evidence under subpoena (the only way a minister of the Crown could attend, though if he had been a private citizen he would have given evidence voluntarily), and it was asked whether he could give his evidence on the first day because of his extremely busy schedule. He explained, under questioning, that he had known De László for a number of years, that he had painted his portrait in 1913 and that they had had a number of friendly and open conversations. He was sure that the subject of naturalisation had come up during the sittings.

  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 arres
t 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

  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.