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
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 H
erbert 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.
The next witness was Adrienne van Riemsdyk, who confirmed her name, address and that her husband was head of the archives at The Hague and her brother the foreign minister. She had known De László for ten or twelve years; he had painted members of her family and they had become great friends. Her daughter Daisy, who referred to De László as ‘uncle’, had married a British officer. Simon produced letters from the De Lászlós from early in the war (which she had voluntarily sent to England for the committee) in which it was specifically mentioned that enclosed letters to the family were sent ‘open’ as they had to pass the censorship. Some of the early ones she had forwarded to Hungary in the diplomatic bag. She had done this on her own initiative and had later suggested to the De Lászlós that they use the same method. All the early letters had come through the ordinary post and she hadn’t read them because they had been censored. They were always marked as having been opened. On being questioned, she said the letters were written in German and agreed that De László’s German was eccentric.
After a while, one or other of the De Lászlós had expressed concern about letters being delayed or going missing and she had suggested using the bag. She had consulted her brother, who was reluctant but had agreed on the basis that she read the letters and act as censor! Though it was unpleasant reading private letters she had done so (with the exception of the letter about his mother’s death which she had merely glanced at out of respect), and none contained anything but family matters. She had sent a letter to London relating to De László’s mother’s illness through the bag for the first time because of its importance.
Various letters were then examined to try and establish which might have arrived in the bag and which by normal mail before the questions moved on to transmission of money. Sir John Simon went through the normal method of payment – De László would send a draft on his London account with London and Westminster Bank to her, which she would cash and then send a draft from her bank to Hungary. De László would write to her through the normal post telling her and she would reply in the same way, usually quoting the amount sent. She had never thought there was anything wrong in doing it and would have stopped if she had. She was puzzled when the payments ceased. She had written about money via the bag on at least one occasion, when she had received a large sum of money but no instruction on where it was to be forwarded to and presumed the letter had been mislaid in the normal mail. She was aware that other people were trying to use the bag for private correspondence and had written to De László at one point asking him to request his family not to send so many letters for her to forward as it might cause a problem for her brother. She never, she said, concealed treacherous correspondence for anyone.
When asked, Adrienne said she knew the Dutch minister in London, Mr van Swinderen, very well. Between January and July 1916 she had received four or five letters from De László via the bag and she believed she had told him to approach van Swinderen about doing so. No one in Holland had complained about the practice and she didn’t know why he ceased using the bag and reverted to the normal mail.
On cross-examination by Sir Archibald Bodkin, Madame van Riemsdyk insisted that she had suggested being the postbox for the De Lászlós but was challenged with two letters, one sent by Lucy De László in which she mentioned their attempt to send letters via Italy, and one from De László himself in which he ‘took the liberty’ of enclosing two letters for her to forward. It was only when presented with this letter, and the fact that no correspondence from her suggesting she be used as an intermediary could be found, that she admitted the original idea came from De László. She continued to say that it was her idea to act as intermediary for letters from the family, although no correspondence could be found for that. She said forwarding the letters by ‘special courier’ was the first time she had used a diplomatic bag and that she had checked with her brother and he had asked her to read and censor them. She didn’t check the letters from his family because they had been cleared by the Austrian censor, but put them in a fresh envelope addressed to London and expected the British censor to check them. She only read material that came via the bag.
Madame van Riemsdyk said she had sent by bag, and had thus read, a letter from the family that she accompanied with a note to De László saying, ‘I trust you have good news now and feel happy again about your loved ones.’ Why ask that question, said Bodkin, if you had read the letters and knew their content? She insisted she read them all properly rather than just skimming through them. When another letter was produced using a similar phrase regarding the contents, she was again probed about whether she actually read them. She insisted she did, but included such phrases as a means of disguising the fact, as she didn’t want De László to know she did so.
Madame van Riemsdyk was asked if she had ever met De László’s brother Marczi (the answer being no), and whether she knew he was liable to be called up, to which she replied that she knew, from the letters, that it was possible. She was given a letter from De László dated 7 September 1915 and asked to read the first line, which she translated as, ‘Thank you for the good news and also for the news about Harkanczi, I am happy with his friendship. I am pleased but do not want to make more use of his friendship.’ She said, however, that it might have implied De László did not want to abuse the friendship. When Simon complained she was being asked to translate, Bodkin snapped, ‘She knows both languages.’ She admitted that she did not know who
Harkanczi was – she certainly didn’t know he was a Hungarian officer named Jason Harkanczi. She did not recall any letters in which De László had asked Harkanczi to use his influence to keep Marczi on home service and away from the front, prompting Bodkin to say that the reason she didn’t remember the contents was because she never read them, which she denied.
Bodkin then asked about her procedure when the letters arrived; she had struggled somewhat with the translation and had earlier said she sent them on the same day. Bodkin said, ‘So that when the post came in you sat down to read them and decipher (he was referring to De László’s handwriting) them, and translate them to yourself and send them on the same day?’ She agreed that this is what she did. He then asked to refer to another letter in which Marczi mentioned a letter from his brother to Harkanczi and another to Baron Forster. Did she remember any letters to Harkanczi or any such name? The answer was no, but she did remember letters, two or three, to Forster. She was asked whether she knew when De László stopped using the diplomatic bag and was unable to provide a date, though she had continued to use it until he was interned. De László had never asked her to stop using the bag or explained why he had stopped. She had continued to use the bag long after he had stopped. Bodkin produced a letter from Daisy van Riemsdyk dated 25 May 1915 in which she said, ‘Mother will certainly ask my Uncle about the forwarding of the letters.’ What did this mean? She was quite unable to assist.
The Spy Who Painted the Queen Page 18