According to the marriage register, the two witnesses at the ceremony were Charles Cross and Joseph Bell. Bell at this time was a clerk at the Admiralty, while Charles Cross was a local government official. Whether they were acquaintances of the bride or groom is not immediately apparent. However, it is noteworthy that both eventually married daughters of Henry Freeman Pannett, a one-time associate of William Melville.73
It has been claimed that Sigmund Rosenblum adopted the name Reilly from his father-in-law’s middle name.74 If this was indeed the case, why had Margaret not declared this middle name on her 1895 marriage certificate? If Reilly was her father’s middle name, then it would have been given to him at baptism. His baptismal records show, however, that this was not the case.75 Why then did Margaret introduce the name Reilly into the official record when she married Sigmund Rosenblum?
The answer lies in the fact that Rosenblum wanted a new, legitimate identity, not merely the assumption of a nom de plume as he had used on many occasions in the past. If he was to return to Russia in the future, his new identity would need to be a watertight one that would be able to stand up to official scrutiny. This would best be achieved by acquiring a British passport. Obtaining a passport through official channels would have been no simple matter for Rosenblum. The easiest way, theoretically, would have been to apply for naturalisation on the grounds that he had married a British subject. Having been resident in England for less than three years at this point, he could not have applied for citizenship on residential grounds. If, having gained naturalisation, he then applied for a British passport, under the regulations it would have been issued with ‘Naturalised British Subject’ emblazoned on it.76
This would have been useless to Rosenblum as it would indicate quite clearly to anyone examining it that he had previously been a citizen of another country and was not British by birth. Furthermore, by adopting this approach, the passport would have been issued under the name Rosenblum, which again would have defeated the whole object of seeking a new identity. Rosenblum therefore needed a British passport in a new name, indicating the holder to have been born in Britain. Obtaining such a passport was motivated purely by the need to provide a new identity in Russia or in Russian-held territory. Although returning to Russia had been on his mind for some while, he certainly had every intention of retaining his British connections and wished, in due course, to adopt the Reilly identity legi-timately under English law by Deed Poll. This was why Margaret included the name Reilly on their marriage record. Should the question ever be raised in the future as to why they wished to adopt the name Reilly, they could fall back on the claim that it was her father’s name and produce the marriage certificate. It was not unusual for Jews either to anglicise their surnames or to change them completely. The story that it came from his father-in-law was therefore a justification or validation for using the name Reilly, not the origin of it.
In terms of manufacturing a new identity, who better to assist than William Melville? Prior to Sigmund and Margaret’s marriage, Melville had found a suitable Irish identity for Rosenblum to use – Sidney Reilly. A comprehensive search through Irish records of birth from their inception in 1864 (when the civil registration of births, deaths and marriages began in Ireland) found only one Sidney Reilly in the whole of Ireland.77 Interestingly, the child died soon after birth. More intriguingly, research conducted during the spring of 2003 into the family tree of William Melville revealed that his first wife Catherine’s maiden name was Reilly. According to family records, her father came from the same Mayo village as Michael Reilly, the father of the deceased infant Sidney.78 The provision of a new identity was not something Melville would have provided for any common-or-garden informer who was simply supplying émigr? ‘tittle-tattle’.
In late August 1898, according to Margaret, Sigmund went to Spain for an unspecified period, well supplied with money.79 Spain was a major terrorist centre during the 1890s and had witnessed a number of notable outrages. The previous August the Spanish Prime Minister, Canovas del Castillo, had been assassinated in Santa Agueda by the anarchist Angiolillo and in July 1896 twelve people had been killed in a bomb explosion in Barcelona. The Spanish government had made specific proposals to the British government for closer police co-operation to combat anarchism and had also referred a number of requests for action or further investigation to Melville through the appropriate diplomatic channels.80
While Sigmund was away in Spain, Margaret ‘liquidated’ the Manor House in Kingsbury.81 Initially acquired as an out-of-town retreat for Hugh Thomas, the house was now surplus to their requirements. On his return from Spain, Sigmund settled into a life of leisure at 6 Upper Westbourne Terrace, Paddington, typically giving the address a more prestigious tone by re-styling it 6 Upper Westbourne Terrace, Hyde Park, London.82 Ever the gambler, he also took to horse racing (apparently with disastrous consequences) and set about enlarging his collection of objets d’art, at Margaret’s expense.83 Robin Bruce Lockhart has stated that within a few months of their marriage, Margaret sold 6 Upper Westbourne Terrace, putting the proceeds into a joint bank account and together they moved to St Ermin’s Chambers in Caxton Street, Westminster.84 The house was the property of the church commissioners, from whom Hugh Thomas had leased it since 1891, and Margaret could not possibly have sold it. Church records show that the Rosenblums moved out of the property in June 1899 and that a new lease was given to the incoming tenant, Ormonde Crosse.85
Rather than heading for the bright lights of Westminster, documentary evidence strongly suggests an alternative scenario. According to Foreign Office passport records, a passport was issued in the name of S.G. Reilly on 2 June 1899, shortly before their departure from Upper Westbourne Terrace.86 Margaret also alluded to the issuing of a passport in a meeting she had in Brussels with the British vice-consul on 29 May 1931 when she was attempting to renew her current passport.87 According to the minute of the meeting, she stated that a passport had been issued in the name of ‘Sidney Reilly and wife’ in 1901. Study of the original document clearly suggests that the officials considering the matter questioned this claim. The date 1901 has been underlined and a question mark placed by it. This scepticism is born out by an examination of Foreign Office passport records that indicate the only passport issued to an S.G. Reilly between 1898 and 1903 was on 2 June 1899 (No. 38371). Although the 1899 register does not refer to Margaret, she may have travelled with him on the same document. Prior to the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914, passports were single sheets of paper, without photographs, and were issued for single journeys. It was common practice for a wife travelling with her husband to have her name entered on a passport issued under her husband’s name.