The Spy Who Painted the Queen (23 page)

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.

She was asked about the transmission of money to Hungary but was incredibly vague about the actual mechanics of it – her husband seemed to have dealt with the onward transmission to Hungary once the money arrived in a Dutch bank from London. She knew, she said, that the money was going to Hungary but, when pressed, said she hadn't thought it odd that money was being sent from Britain to a country with whom she was at war. She had never spoken to her brother about it or taken advice. ‘It seemed quite natural to me, because it was sent to relatives who wanted the money.' Asked how she knew they wanted money, she said she knew it from their letters. Bodkin pointed out that none of the letters asked for any, to which she said, ‘They did not say they were in want of money, but I made out from Mr De László's letters that he liked to make presents because he thought they wanted money. They did not ask for it.' She did remember a letter from Hungary asking not to send any more, but had continued to send it on when De László asked her because it was none of her business.

Asked whether De László was the only person for whom she acted as forwarding agent, she said yes. She was quite sure of this. She was also quite sure he was the only person for whom she used the privilege of the diplomatic bag. She was then asked if she knew an address in Schloss Liblin, Austria-Hungary, and recalled it was the address for an Englishman to whom she forwarded post on behalf of his mother in England. She knew neither the Englishman nor his mother but had been asked to act by friends. The letters were in English and she forwarded them openly. She didn't deal with any others. The letters and postcards out of Austria were from an Englishman, Victor Farrell, and there were two letters to him from his mother. These were perfectly legal.

After a few trivial questions, Madame van Riemsdyk withdrew.

After some discussion about the number of witnesses Sir John Simon planned to call (many) and the timing of the committee going forward (one committee member had a public engagement on Saturday and the president had to be in Liverpool on the Monday), Philip De László was finally called to be examined by Sir John Simon on some points relating to his statement that Sir John had already gone through, at length, in his opening speech.

First of all Sir John turned to some small slips that had been made in De László's printed statement, which he had drawn up in November 1918, and which had been presented to the committee. There was an error regarding the number of transactions that was easily cleared up, an error with the date of his second police interview (the one with Isaac), and a day's error in the date of the Horn incident which might have made it appear he had waited two days before going to the police. They were sorted out quickly. Apart from those, the statement was correct.

Simon took him through the Horn incident in some detail, establishing that, though it was over twenty-four hours before he went to the police, it was only twenty-four-and-a-half hours. He then turned to the individual charges. Had he ever felt or shown any disaffection or disloyalty towards His Majesty? Answer: no. He did not think that the severe mental conflict he had mentioned in the letter reprinted in
The Star
was inconsistent with his loyalty. The date of the letter was definitely 27 July 1914 and not as late as November 1914 as the authorities had appeared to think. The committee was reminded that war was not declared between Britain and Austria until 12 August, and a great deal of time was spent discussing the process of naturalisation and the timescales involved. Sir John pointed out that all naturalisations were investigated by ‘the Secret Service Department of Scotland Yard' (actually by Special Branch, which usually just checked for a criminal record for the applicant and referees and made some desultory enquiries locally).

The press campaign in Hungary to have De László stripped of his title and his work classed as ‘foreign' was gone over and De László assured the committee that he had had nothing to do with releasing the letter that had later appeared in
The Star.
De László explained he had specifically mentioned his five sons as being a reason for naturalisation as it would inspire sympathy among his own family. His sons were talked about; they had been brought up as British and had attended public schools. His eldest son had just finished at Rugby School, was applying to join the army and had been doing ‘war work' in his holidays with the knowledge of ‘the authorities'. He also played football! His brothers were also true British schoolboys.

Sir John then turned to the two interrogations at Scotland Yard, saying it wouldn't be proper to name all the persons who had been present. The interrogation transcript had only recently been released to De László and his legal representatives, and it was the first time De László had actually seen it. He had been asked about the letter in
The Star
and denied that he had written it. ‘At the time that you gave that answer were you endeavouring to answer accurately?' Sir John asked. De László replied, ‘I tried to do my best. I must have forgotten it.' He went on, ‘It was an honest mistake. I was overwhelmed.' The interviewer had claimed that the letter was written in November 1914, prompting the response that he could not have written it then because he was sending correspondence through the Dutch Legation and someone might have seen it ‘and gone home and told lies about it'. Mention of the Dutch bag had apparently created the impression that the letter had been written in wartime, said Sir John, something that was vehemently denied.

The questioning then turned to the two witnesses who had given statements about De László's behaviour in his studio, neither of whom were presented to the committee. No explanation for their non-appearance was given, but it gave De László the opportunity to say he had never spoken in a disloyal or disaffected way to any man or woman. It then turned to ‘trading with the enemy'. It was clear, said Sir John, from one of his letters, that De László knew that his mail might be censored. Had he, at any time, been warned by the censorship about sending money to Hungary? ‘Never', came the reply. It was only when he mentioned it casually to his brother-in-law that he realised it was wrong and stopped doing it. ‘So you were ultimately restrained, not by the vigilance of the authorities but by learning what the position was from your brother-in-law?' ‘Yes, that is so.' He had assumed that rule actually applied to sending money out of the country, which was why he had given Baron Mayendorff a cheque to be paid into a British account and the money transferred from an account abroad. He wouldn't have done it if he thought it was wrong.

Next came the business of using the diplomatic bag. De László was asked, ‘If you get a letter which has come through the Dutch Diplomatic Bag to the Dutch Embassy here in London, and it is sent to you by the ordinary post, have you any idea what you ought to do with it except receive it?' He responded, ‘No, I received it and never gave it any thought.' Regarding the use of the bag out of the country he said that Madame van Riemsdyk had suggested it; he had used it only four or five times. Sir John produced a telegram and a copy letter from Mr van Swinderen referring to an invitation for De László to visit him for lunch on 3 August 1916. He had gone to the embassy on that day and overheard van Swinderen talking on the telephone and saying to the person on the other end, ‘I cannot forward any letters more for you as Sir Edward Grey does not like it, he told me about it and I do not want to do it any more.' The message was not intended for De László but he had overheard it and van Swinderen had said, on putting the phone down, ‘I am so sorry, people bother me constantly for sending letters and I am tired and I do not want to do it more.' De László had immediately told van Swinderen he did not want to use the bag himself now, but van Swinderen had, apparently, said he would continue to do so. De László himself had refused this offer because ‘it is not the right thing to do'.