MI5 in the Great War

by Nigel West

  Then anonymous informants connected him with a somewhat undesirable woman staying with the Hentschels named Marie or Maria, who was at Weymouth in 1908–9. Nothing came of that enquiry but much more important was information connecting him with Patricia both before and after her marriage, and with Karl Hentschel. It seems probable that then, for the first time, the meaning of the various references to ‘PH’ in ‘Richard’s’ correspondence with Parrott became known. It was also noticed that a German hairdresser, George Wittstruck, had taken over Parrott’s house at Sheerness, and had been missing ever since Parrott’s arrest. Enquiry was also made as to the address in Edinburgh Road, Devonport, with results already recorded. On 4 December 1912 Mrs Parrott was reported to have left Juer Street, and she moved to 73 Lower Richmond Road, Putney.

  The trial of Parrott took place in January 1913 and he adhered to the story that he had gone to Ostend to meet a lady, but he now admitted having met there a man, who explained that the lady could not come. The notes from Germany had been sent by Mrs Hentschel, wife of a German teacher at Sheerness, in repayment of a debt of £45, and with this sum Parrott had opened his deposit account. He explained ‘Richard’s’ questions of 1 November by saying they referred to a specimen newspaper article, which he was to write with the prospect of being engaged as a correspondent in compensation for the loss of his employment here.

  For the defence, counsel raised the points of Parrott’s excellent service on the Agammemnon and his integrity with regard to the plans of that ship; of his ignorance of anything worth communicating concerning ship construction; of the facts that the confidential books borrowed had been returned in 1911; and that Parrott declared he had not communicated them to anyone. The most damning admission Parrott had to make was that he had destroyed every scrap of paper he could that had come from the foreigner who was to employ him. He was found guilty, but as the judge took the view that he had been entrapped by a woman so the full penalty was not inflicted. He was condemned to four years’ imprisonment with a hope of reduction or remission of part of the sentence provided he made a full confession.

  Parrott appealed against the sentence but the appeal was dismissed. His family broke off relations with the Rileys, or the Rileys broke with them, in December 1918. Mrs Riley was a relative of Mrs Parrott.

  Concerning events during the period July 1912 to November of the same year, Parrott afterwards volunteered to Rayner some information: at the interview at Hamburg, Parrott arranged with ‘Richard’ for a lump sum in compensation for his dismissal from the navy. Half the sum was paid that day, the rest was handed over at Rotterdam by a stranger. Parrott was shadowed at Rotterdam to make sure that no British agents were following him.

  At Hamburg, he said he saw a gunnery expert who questioned him for an hour; and an engineer, a torpedo technician, and an executive expert who, with ‘Richard’, examined him for two hours. They considered the English were far ahead of the Germans in the details of ship instruments and they proposed to give Parrott a billet at Wilhelmshaven to do there the same class of work that he had been doing on the Agamemnon. Parrott agreed to this, provided he could arrange matters comfortably for his wife in England. Then he began negotiations for a public-house at Greenwich, and for the time being undertook a roving commission for the Germans.

  He had contrived to hide from the police diagrammatic sketches of torpedo directors, scott fire-directors, and a new mercury sight for rolling and pitching, and these he hoped to sell later on. His counsel was paid by the German embassy and he meant to work for the Germans on his release. He also told Rayner that the Germans were paying his salary to his wife, that they had set her up in lodgings and had launched his son Charles in life, and that they were nursing the connection, not so much on account of what they had received, as of what they hoped to get. Parrott, in preparation for future activity, was studying colloquial German.

  After Parrott’s imprisonment, a check had been kept upon the letters and movements of his family. His statement was both corroborated and modified by the correspondence of Mrs Parrott and Dorothea with ‘Richard’ to whom they had appealed for help; but the Germans did their best to evade interviews and reduce the help given to a minimum. But ‘Richard’ was compelled to give way: Fels at first sent £5, then ‘Richard’ sent £50 and finally, under veiled pressure from Parrott, he saw Mrs Parrott at Rotterdam, and arranged probably to pay her rent afterwards procuring for her son, Charles, access to the detective agency of Charles Brown at 13 New Oxford Street, a man already known to be in touch with the German Secret Service.

  In August ‘Richard’ refused to do more for her than he already promised, and about the same time, C. Brown was writing a dissatisfied letter to Charles Parrott, complaining of the boy’s leaving him without a word. But Mrs Parrott went on giving trouble: she began claiming repayment of old debts from the Rileys and ‘Richard’ intervened to protect them. He sent her £10 and promised the balance of £80 for their next meeting, which was to take place at Wesel on 7 November. For the journey he sent her £5 in connection with this meeting and it is worth noting that the date was fixed shortly after Karl Hentschel gave himself up as a spy. Mrs Parrott sent newspaper cuttings about the case for ‘Richard’ and acknowledged receipt of press-cuttings and of a photo. Charles Parrott, too, was summoned to see Charles Brown in connection with a case that was coining on in November.

  The Germans continued to send remittances to Mrs Parrott at the rate of £10 a month, and even after the outbreak of war ‘Doris’ wrote to ask for money.

  In February 1914 C. Brown supplied lodgers for Mrs Parrott. These, Parrott said, were a mere blind, and in reality German agents, for Mrs Parrott had contrived to keep her husband informed as to her connection with the Germans. By a transparent code she let him know that ‘Uncle Will’ was sending money, that Fred (Freidel Fels) had not been seen for three months, that Hentschel and Patricia were home for good and the Rileys had had no dealings with her since early December 1912 (the date of proceedings against Parrott). Only ‘Nellie’ had written asking her to sell ‘records’, which of course she had not got.

  In February, Parrott asked anxiously whether the ‘records’ had been recovered from ‘Cousin Nell’ and whether ‘Uncle Will’ had been heard of. And again in June, he repeated his enquiries about ‘Cousin Nell’ and ‘Uncle Will’. He also asked for news from Tabard Street. It has been shown that Nellie Riley continued intercourse with Fels after the rest of the family had apparently withdrawn from the game. Parrott’s reference to ‘records’ may mean that certain compromising documents belonging to him had been entrusted to her keeping. On the other hand there is another possible explanation. It was at this time he was assuring his wife that he would regain a position as good as that he had lost, and that he was studying German hard. He was bidding Charles write down all messages and questions for him and bring to their meeting a notebook and pencil so as to take down any messages sent in reply. The correspondence seems about as damning as anything could well be and it led to the Home Office Warrants being taken out on:

  – Frithjof Sørensen, Centrofte, Copenhagen. 16 April 1913 to 8 May 1913.

  – A. Hocke, 25T Carstensgade, Copenhagen, about September 1913.

  – Charles Brown, 13 New Oxford Street (for the second time).

  – Mrs Parrott, 73 Lower Richmond Road, Putney.

  – Any lodgers at her address, 22 April 1914.

  – Hermann Hillebrandt, 12 Queensthorpe Road, Sydenham, 30 April 1914.

  This last warrant was taken out because some of the notes sent to Mrs Parrott were traced to Hillebrandt who was said to travel much on the Continent. It was kept till 31 May, but confined to foreign letters. On 11 May, William Becker of 15 Barbarossastrasse, Berlin, wrote from 37 rue d’Hautevllle, Paris, to say he was returning to Berlin almost at once.

  MO5 were kept informed of Mrs Parrott’s removal and in June, when Parrott’s correspondence would by prison rules be beginning, MO5 asked for copies of all letters sent out
or received by him.

  In October he made the statement already discussed concerning his dealings with Karl Hentschel.

  When Mrs Parrott went abroad in November she was shadowed to Victoria Station. In consequence of the letters passing between husband and wife, it was suspected that traffic was again going on; Parrott’s cell was searched, without results, and he was transferred from Maidstone to Parkhurst Prison to get him beyond easy reach of his family. At an interview with her husband in prison, Mrs Parrott, who had not known in the early days of his connection with the Hentschels, pressed him to give all the information in his power in order to obtain remission of his sentence but he refused to admit having sold confidential books. Obviously, disclosure would have prejudiced his chances with the Germans.

  On about 19 December the authorities became aware that Mrs Parrott was getting correspondence through to ‘Richard’ unnoticed. Special observation was arranged with a view to detecting the channel and the daughter was seen to post a latter. Action was taken at the local post office and, as a result, enquiry was made about the occupier of Ulleswater, Watling Street, Devonport who, it was thought, might be Nellie Riley; but nothing that seemed pertinent came of the enquiry. It was ascertained that the house was occupied by John Mustchin of unknown nationality, his wife, and his daughter aged eight. ‘Cousin Nellie’ had written from that address to Mrs Parrott in September 1913 suggesting that George Parrott had betrayed himself in talk with George Wittstruck at Sheerness. Eventually, too, Parrott went to live at Ulleswater in Devonport.

  This raises the question as to whether by ‘Cousin Nell’, Nellie Riley was meant, whether it was not a pseudonym for Mustchin, or else the name of Mustchin’s wife, and finally whether this was not the safe place of hiding for Parrott’s documents and money.

  Observation was kept on Mrs Parrott and the children and her lodgers during February, and the posting of letters duly noted. Also the place of employment of Charles Parrott was ascertained. Mrs Parrott was in difficulties at that time and trying to obtain employment for her daughter in John Bull’s offices, no doubt in return for information of value to that paper.

  Then came Rayner’s revelations with Parrott’s half confessions – for he never did admit having given to Karl Hentschel more than the handbook of the 6-inch gun, declaring that Hentschel might have obtained the books he said he had obtained but, in that case, not from Parrott himself. Parrott, however, stuck to his statement that the person who at last persuaded him to enter into direct relations with Germans abroad was a highly-placed lady, aged about twenty-two, and that when ‘Richard’ met him at Ostend, and he had to confess to having been searched and deprived of ‘Richard’s’ address on 13 July, ‘Richard’, after some hesitation, made him memorise the name and address of a Graf or Grafin, who lived at Dusseldorf. That such a person existed and played a high and romantic part in German espionage, became known during the war.

  In March 1916, a certain Miss Alice Joyce applied for the address of the prison in which her favourite uncle, George Parrott, was confined. Her name was placed on check, and she was refused employment in Devonport Dockyard. The check was cancelled in August.

  As Parrott’s sentence was due to expire on 9 February 1917 it was decided that, in view of his record and known sentiments, he must be interned under the DRR and the order was confirmed on 22 January 1917. On 5 February 1919 Parrott was conditionally released and he was to report his address and his employment and any future change of address or employment to the Metropolitan Police. He went to his wife’s house in the Lower Richmond Road for a few days and then, on 10 February, he took up his abode at Ulleswater, Watling Street, Devonport. It was supposed that he had quarreled with his wife, and possibly Karl Hentschel’s revelations about Patricia Hentschel was the cause.

  A record was kept of the letters he received and tracings taken of envelopes. This was considered all that could be done safely, since any opening of letters would be carried out at Dartmouth by persons not expert, and Parrott was considered too clever not to notice tampering with his letters or observation directed against him.

  *

  The three cases treated above may be considered practically as one, at least at regards the requirements of the German Secret Service; the evidence thus collated and related with evidence from the case of Frederick Gould and William Klare goes to prove that Karl Hentschel exaggerated his achievements whether brought about through George Parrott or through other agents; that the most valuable books or other documents supplied by Parrott were conveyed abroad by Patricia Riley and by Parrott himself; that although Parrott underrated what he had supplied, it is nevertheless true that he was a valuable agent and that the Germans meant to retain his services if possible; that, probably his greatest services were rendered by word of mouth. The importance of his visits abroad may be gauged by the fact that they were undertaken at great and known risks; they were made reluctantly and under pressure from ‘Richard’, who dared not come to England.

  Concerning ‘Richard’, no definite knowledge was obtained of his personality, but he was evidently either a man of mark or a marked man. Probably, he was a high official of the German Naval Staff. Had he been identical with Theisen or Theisen’s underling, or Steinhauer, or Fels, Melville surely would at some time have noted it, for he had seen Theisen and his subordinate in June 1912, Steinhauer in 1903, and Fels, he saw in 1914.

  There is evidence in the case of Parrott of extreme vigilance on the part of the Germans from April 1912 onwards. Other spy cases had been a warning to agents, and Parrott knew when he was being watched. He used his motorcar more than once to get out of range. His telephoning from Sittingbourne while Sheerness Post Office was being watched is another instance of alertness. Finally, the Germans tried to evade observation by appointing Brussels as the place of meeting and, when this did not work, they adopted counter-shadowing at Ostend and elsewhere.

  MO5 doubted there being a woman in the case: the woman is there the whole time. The case centres round Patricia Hentschel’s love and despair, Parrott’s loyal and most efficient helper, ‘Richard’s’ hope. From the repeated references to Patricia in ‘Richard’s’ correspondence with Parrott, we see what a role she played in Parrott’s activities. Between September 1911 and February 1912 we do not know at all what Parrott contrived to do for the Germans, but he took documents abroad in May 1912, and he sent others in July 1912, and Patricia was said to have been connected with his own journey in July 1912. On the other hand after Parrott’s imprisonment, Patricia seems to have definitely broken with Hentschel, which would probably not have taken place had she still been acting for the Germans, which brought about the exposure of the whole system. From that exposure, the Rileys and Pellings never recovered.

  Karl Hentschel’s great achievement was his bringing such a person into the business, his fault that he fell too much in love with a fascinating woman, who knew how to retain her hold on men. Passionate jealousy wrecked him and he took to drink. He lost his wife’s affection owing to his own conduct and Mrs Riley’s report of his behaviour before marriage probably was not without weight. He certainly attributed some of the disaster to her and spoke of her as a wicked woman.

  As regards the minor characters in the case, George Pelling always disliked Hentschel and it would seem that if he supplied information he did it through Fels. Hentschel’s claim to have learned much through Emily is most probably false for the Pellings were still in the courting stage when Hentschel was in Australia, in the autumn of 1911 and after Hentschel’s return in 1912 he could not have obtained much information. Mrs Riley probably told the truth when she said she confined her intercourse with Tornow to efforts on behalf of her daughter, but she suppressed the truth about Fels and Theisen’s activities.

  There is no proof that Nellie and Edith Riley ever achieved anything for the Germans. Nellie was probably genuinely in love with Fels and the will was not lacking, but fear prevented her from acting. Edith did act as cover for Patricia on one occasion
. She was a flirt, undoubtedly, but she did not keep up correspondence with Fels, Schulz or with Fischer and it is probable that Philip Penrose, her fiancé, was until October 1913, honest in his belief in the trustworthiness of the Rileys, whom he had known intimately for a comparatively short time, and that when the exposure came, he acted hastily in self-defence.

  It is interesting to see how Karl Hentschel could not get on without Patricia, nor Patricia Hentschel without George Parrott, nor Parrott without her help as a carrier. Had the Germans been content with documents only, the necessary proofs against Parrott might never have been obtained.

  With regard to obtaining these proofs, the long drawn-out case of Hentschel demonstrates admirably the true value of the Home Office Warrant. Without it MO5 were absolutely in the dark as to what was going on; with it, they were able to watch proceedings, take preventive action, and at last to bring Parrott to book. One thing is noticeable; the omission to detect the letters passing out of England. Parrott, Mrs Riley, and the Riley girls, got their letters through unnoticed. It seems evident that the ingenious system of getting specimens of handwriting and then observing the posting of letters and taking action at the local post office, a system successful in the case of Heinrich Grosse and of Mrs Parrott, was not carried out at Chatham and Sheerness.

  Another noticeable feature is the betrayal to Mrs Parrott by the wife of a police sergeant of the fact that Parrott was being watched; Parrott’s counter of disguise and sending his bag away by a boy are worth recording. It seems clear that agents got to know the detectives and the measures they took. On the whole, observation fails as often as it succeeds.

  Karl Hentschel himself corroborated the Rileys’ statement concerning the object of Fels’ first visit to England: Fels, he said, had come over in the first instance to find him, had then introduced himself to the Rileys and had been introduced by them to George Parrott and it was in consequence of this visit that Hentschel had begun his blackmailing from Australia. The Rileys stated that Fels had come to trace Hentschel who had embezzled some £1,700 belonging to the German Secret Service.