DLA165-0002  Transcription

Horatio William Bottomley, ‘The Peace Which Passeth Understanding: A False Foundation—Lest We Forget—The Laszlo Paintbrush’, John Bull, 5 July 1919,

[Page 10 of original publication]

Whitewashing De Laszlo.

"We must remember we are now practically at peace." That was the dangerous and preposterous attitude of Mr. Justice Salter in the Laszlo case. God forbid it should be also that of the nation and the Empire ! But it is a mental view against which we, the People, must be on our guard; otherwise we shall have fought and suffered in vain. The case of this Society petted painter is a solemn warning to us to be wary of those in high places who are now ready to whitewash the Hun and forget all the offences and infamies of the last four-and-a-half years—because "we are now practically at peace "! It must make the average decent British citizen sick to see how the fashionable personages hurried to the Law Courts to bolster up the case of this Hungarian traitor who, when it suited him, became naturalised — and, when it suited him, broke and defied the laws of the country whose protection he sought and on whose money he waxed rich. I have no sentiment where my country's interests are concerned, and I say without hesitation that Laszlo played the traitor, defied the laws made to safeguard and protect us in the war with the despicable Hun, and that the verdict of the Naturalisation (Revocation) Committee is a scandalous miscarriage of Justice.

Rich, and a Society Darling.

Let us look at the facts as dispassionately as is possible. Laszlo — assisted by Mr. Balfour, Lord Lee, Lord Devonport and Mr. Guinness — became naturalised after the murder at Serajevo which precipitated the war the Central Powers were determined to provoke. It cost

[Page 11 of original publication]

him "a severe mental conflict." He had been thinking of it for six years, and he timed his transfer of allegiance well. According to the Home Secretary (Cave), he became naturalised. "from a desire to continue and improve his business as an artist" and to save his sons from military service under Hungarian law. His motives were purely selfish; but no sooner had he taken the oath of allegiance to the British Crown than he began to break the King's laws. And so grave were his offences in the eyes of the Government that for the safety of the realm he was interned. Now I have said more than once that a British subject who so offends in war time as to involve imprisonment, should be brought to trial forthwith and punished with the utmost rigour of the law. But Laszlo, who was until July, 1914, the subject of an enemy country, was the darling of Society and the rich. Which meant that he was quietly interned and as quietly released, on the score of ill-health, and sent to the comfortable quarters of a Convalescent Home at Notting Hill. It was argued on his behalf by Sir John Simon that his offences were "noble," that he had done nothing more than comfort an escaped prisoner, succour his relations - enemies of the country - dodge the Censor by getting his letters included in a sacrosanct diplomatic postbag, and so forth. If there was no crime in all this, why was he interned "in the interests of the safety of the realm " ? And remember this - Laszlo, for whom Mr. Chamberlain, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Lord Lee, an ex-member of the Government, were ready to proclaim his honour and his innocence, was not interned in a panic. For months he had been violating his oath and breaking the law before the police to their credit - took action; and what happened then? "After a careful inquiry extending over many days" the Internment Committee decided in the interests of national safety that this person should be put under lock and key. But that was not the end of it. Lord Cave (then Sir George Cave, Home Secretary) confirmed the order for internment. Later on, in December, 1917, the Home Secretary reconsidered the case, and the result was that Laszlo remained a prisoner!

Denaturalised and Deported.

It would occur to the ordinary common intellect of the average man that a naturalised enemy who had so offended as to bring down upon himself the punishment of internment, should at the close of the war be denaturalized and deported. But we have to remember that Laszlo is rich, with influential friends. And so we have the farce of one member of the Government, the Attorney-General, eloquently explaining the dishonourable conduct of this man, and another member of the Government, Mr. Chamberlain, standing in the witness box with his hands on his heart, if not tears in his eyes, proclaiming his integrity and honour. What a game! But that is not the worst of it. Laszlo, as I have said, had no difficulty in securing certain Society sycophants to vouch for him, and even to secure the testimony of eminent artists (thus giving the lie direct to Lord Weardale, that " a certain section of the artistic world" were involved in a jealous conspiracy against Laszlo) as to his immaculate loyalty. But why was the evidence of those who were prepared to depose to disloyal utterances not brought forward? Is it not a fact that Mrs. Max Muller (nee Wanda Maria Heiberg), wife of our Consul in Budapest down to the outbreak of war, had given statements on this point; and is it not also a fact that Mr. Henry Vincent Higgins, C.V.O., as familiar a figure in Society as he is prominent in the management of Covent Garden Opera, was prepared to testify to certain conversations—in the one case in the August of 1915, and in the other in the Autumn of the same year? The failure of the Attorney- General to call these witnesses needs some explanation. Laszlo's counsel pretended to put to the painter, in a rather mysterious way, these names, and he made play with the fact that they had not come forward. Whose fault was that? Surely not the witnesses'. It leaves an ugly impression. While Laszlo, ennobled by the Austrian Emperor and a member of our own Victorian Order, was able to parade those who were ready to make oath of his loyalty, and thereby to denounce the conduct of the Home Office and the Police for securing his internment, neither of these two material witnesses was called by the Crown. There is always a fountain of sentiment ready to be turned on where a Hun is concerned, and Sir John Simon, who claimed for this breaker of British laws that he is " one of the greatest artists the world has ever seen," was outmatched  by Sir Charles Mathews, the Director of Public Prosecutions, who thought it consistent with position and his duty to the State to declare that Laszlo had erred from " noble motives."

Comforting the Enemy.

I have no hesitation in saying that if any poor German in this country had done what rich Laszlo did, there would be little of this slobbery sentiment forthcoming. Doubtless the nobility of motive was the sending of hundreds of pounds to relatives, who, the Attorney- General tells us, were " not badly off for money." I have a plainer phrase for it—" comforting the enemy." If every naturalised German and Hungarian had thus broken the law and helped to finance the foe, it would have meant a weakening of that pressure by blockade which was brought to bear on the Hun, and ultimately was the prime factor of victory. Yet this man, who of his wealth sent money into enemy territory, erred only from " noble motives.'' Was it a noble " British " motive which made him write a letter in which he expressed the hope that one of his nephews, fighting against the Allies, would return " victoriously " from the war? I have an uglier word for it. This man, who was " proud " in 1912 of becoming " a noble of Hungary," was in 1914 ready to become a citizen of the British Empire. This man, who was " greatly attached to the country of his birth "—" an enthusiastic Hungarian " —suddenly changes his enthusiasm and attachment, and on the outbreak of war swears allegiance to King George 1

The Prime Minister's Promise.

When he was cajoling votes last December, the Prime Minister promised that every interned Hun should be kicked out of the country and no enemies allowed to enter it again. What value is to be attached to such a promise—after this farce? Mr. Justice Salter, Lord Hambledon, and Judge Radcliffe, sitting in the High Court, in all the dignity of lounge suits, counsel making pretence of judicial proceedings by wearing their wigs, the jury-box packed with Society women, and no evidence taken on oath! 1 wonder how many British readers who followed the case have realised that there was nothing really judicial about the Inquiry. The whole thing was a sorry farce, and the result is that a man who so offended against the law in the agonising years of war that he was interned, has now been confirmed in his British citizenship. Laszlo was anxious to make the best of both worlds. He succoured an Austrian escaped from Donington Hall, and postponed denouncing him to the police, fearing what would be said in Hungary. And he actually delayed becoming a British citizen out of regard for that old reprobate, the late Austrian Emperor, who ennobled him only two years before the war. He defied " Dora," which every decent Britisher had to respect [SDL NOTE:  “Dora” is the Defense of the Realm Act of 1914]; he attempted to communicate with the enemy through five countries—Spain, Holland, Switzerland, Italy, America; he violated a diplomatic postbag; he sent expressions of sympathy to the enemy. And yet to-day, after this solemn farce of a pseudo trial, the claim of the State that the continuance of his naturalisation " is not conducive to the public good" is denied; and the man who for our safety was sent to Brixton Prison, is to continue to share with you and me—with every patriotic and loyal subject of the King—the priceless boon of British citizenship. Laszlo knows in which country his bread is buttered. If we had lost the war he might have found refuge in his native land—where, according to the Attorney-General “his affection and sympathies are”- and have renounced the British naturalisation which cost him "a severe mental conflict." But a farcical Court has declared him to be truly British. And now, if he chooses, he can bring an action against me for calling him a traitor! But then the jury box would contain twelve honest men who love their country and honour their King, and who would not be influenced by any considerations of sycophancy and toadyism towards a social upstart, however well placed he may be with those of high estate.

Editorial Note:

Following an editorial criticising the terms and value of the Versailles treaty, the editor, Horatio William Bottomley, returns to a previously published article on the de László case.

StdeL

19/07/2023