by Nigel West
Captain Drake then wrote cancelling the orders for 14 June. He suggested that Knight should be warned of the dangers he was running and pressed to make a frank statement; he was to be told that he had been discharged for absence from work without leave and the facts regarding his trip to the Admiralty were to be put before him. The police were warned of Knight’s lie about the £5 and Gray was told to have no further confidential talks with the man.
The DPP decided that arrest was possible only if Knight should try to go abroad: he could not be prosecuted for communications with a foreign agent in view of his having made a partial confession of the transaction. But if he attempted the journey and incriminating documents were found on him, his defence would fall to the ground; if there were no such documents he could be warned and discharged.
On 16 June, Knight was seen by the Superintendent of the dockyard and the gist of Captain Drake’s letter was explained to him but he declined to make a statement.
The precautions which had been taken on 14 June were renewed for 21 June, but Knight did not move. He was drinking heavily. The £5 note received by Knight was eventually traced back to a Mr Emile Bunge, a traveller largely connected to the Argentine who had received it from the Banco Espanol on some date subsequent to 3 April 1914. At the time of tracing, Bunge was in Germany and receiving his correspondence forwarded daily through the Banco Espanol. Then came news of Knight’s connection with Bubenheim. Knight was placed with Bubenheim on the Search List but there is no record of what happened.
For a moment interest in him revived in November 1914, as a letter, which was eventually traced to Edward Frank Knight of Hayling Island, was at first attributed to E. J. Knight. In July 1917, there was another false scare connecting E. J. Knight with a visit to Ostend in conjunction with Victor Tewel. It was then ascertained that E. J. Knight had left Gillingham about two and a half years previously, and a former neighbour stated that he joined the army at the beginning of the war. Knight seems to have been in communication with the German Secret Service abroad, both directly through Herpers, and indirectly through Bubenheim and the question arises how he got in touch with Bubenheim. There are various possibilities connected with Herpers, Kolbe and the Rileys.
(a) W. Herpers first appeared as an organising agent at Portsmouth; it was on his recommendation that William Klare was taken on. Assuming that the name covers one definite personality when Knight got in touch with Herpers, the latter might have handed on the name to his successor, Francis Bubenheim.
(b) More probable is the second possibility, that the three Kolbes cover the identities of Theisen, Steinhauer and Fels, the chief agents dealt with in these reports. The description of the Kolbes given by Bubenheim do not exactly tally with the appearance of Theisen, Steinhauer and Fels, but descriptions of the same individual vary according to their origin and moreover it is not necessary absolutely to trust Bubenheim.
It seems possible that Kolbe Junior stands for Fels, who was said to be an aviator, who frequently came over to England before the Karl Hentschel fracas, but avoided coming after that affair. It will be remembered that in April and May 1914, he refused to come to England to meet Nellie Riley, so too in June Kolbe Junior found it impossible to come to England to see Bubenheim’s drawings of the Short hydroplane.
If Kolbe Junior and Fels were identical, Knight might have been brought to his notice by the Rileys who knew Chatham Dockyard intimately. On the other hand it is possible that the Rileys were directly acquainted with Bubenheim. The following trace is slender but worth mentioning; while at 67a Adelaide Road, Shepherds Bush, Bubenheim was lodging with a Mrs Grandjean, a widow, who had been in occupation since 1913. She had another male lodger whose name was not known. She left the house in about July 1915. In March 1917, Nellie Riley was stated to be corresponding with a Sergeant Grandjean at Lausanne but nothing was obtained from the check on this correspondence. It is however, interesting that a James E. B. Gray of Aldershot, who may be identical with James Gray of Farnborough received from Vevey a letter signed E.L.S.G. Had this letter been traced and the identity of the recipient verified interesting results might have followed.
Bubenheim and Knight therefore both seem to have somewhat more importance than would appear at first sight. It is singular that both these men simultaneously should appear to be playing a double game. It is impossible to say whether they really meant to betray the Germans or not, both had come down in the world, both were rascals, and both were in need of money and receiving money secretly from Germany after embarking upon and indeed persevering in face of discouragement in negotiations with the British Secret Service. The consequence is that both fell under strong suspicion of having been put up to the job by the Germans, who had suffered severely in the course of the winter of 1913–14.
To sum up from the point of view of German espionage: in the case of Bubenheim, Knight and Gray, we seem to have the nucleus of a fresh organisation with its base in London and built, it is possible, partly out of the shattered organisation that had Chatham and Rochester for its centre. The arrangements made for the arrest of Knight are to be compared with those for shadowing Nellie Riley. They show an advance in method due no doubt to the enhanced appreciation of the difficulties of recognising and shadowing suspects. The tricks of George Parrott and Frederick Gould had not been wasted.
*
The second group of German agents to come under investigation upon the outbreak of war consisted of Adolf Schroeder (alias Frederick Adolphus Gould-Schroeder or Gould, alias Gouldstein, alias Gould-Schivner) and Stephen Horvath.
The duration and intricacy of the investigation of the Adolf Schroeder/Frederick Gould case, the peculiar interest attaching to the man himself, and the heavy penalty inflicted upon him render it one of the most important of the pre-war cases.
There is a mystery about Gould. He impressed those in authority as one better born and educated than his circumstances would seem to warrant; he had been accustomed to command and he could hold his own in the society of gentlemen. But he was a liar, a falsifier, a blackmailer, a spy. He called himself a good and faithful Prussian and his correspondence shows that he could bully and sneer but did not cringe. He had a suspicious temper with men of the humbler class. While in London he associated with reputable adventurers, but at Rochester, for the purpose of spying, he sought out and made friends with naval men of excellent character. He seems always to have been fond of drink but the police never had occasion to complain of the management of his business. In his family life, too, there are the same contrasts. To his wife and eldest son he was callous, but he remained faithful to the artistic, clever Jewess who took her place, and he was an affectionate father to the nine children she bore him.
As regards his antecedents everything about him is uncertain, even his parentage and the date of his birth. A kind of legend grew up about him. It was stated, for instance, that he was the son of the German attaché and that his mother was an English woman, but on Schroeder’s marriage certificate, the name and occupation of the father are given as Carl Ludwig Schroeder, upholsterer, and Schroeder’s injured wife declared that her mother-in-law was a typical German. Jessie Schroeder of 62 Thornhill Road was one of the witnesses of the marriage.
Search for Schroeder’s birth certificate was ineffectual but that does not prove his foreign origin, for it was not until 1874 that the deposit of such documents at Somerset House was made compulsory. Gould stated repeatedly that he was born in Germany in 1854, and that he came to England in 1858, but in 1884 he gave his age as twenty-six. The independent testimony of a school-fellow, Carl Bernhard Reimers, corroborates Gould’s next statement: that he went to the German school in the Savoy. After that, investigation founders in the quicksand of conflicting accounts. He is said to have returned to Germany, or alternatively to France, in 1868 to complete his education. When the Franco-Prussian war broke out, he joined the German Army and served in it three years, as he told his wife, or else twelve years, retiring with the Iron Cross and a captai
ncy, as he stated when he was applying for a post in 1903.
In this application, he said that he returned to England in 1882 and was employed with a firm of engineers until 1886. He then travelled in Canada for two years, came back to England in 1900, and, after an unsuccessful venture in business, became an agent in the Secret Service. As such he travelled over the greater part of Europe, but the risks proving too great, he retired from the service and returned to commercial life. Most of this statement is false and it leaves the years between 1888 and 1900 unaccounted for. On the other hand, the wife’s story passes over in silence the years between 1873 and 1884.
On 11 October 1884 Adolf Frederick Schroeder married Elizabeth Fenton at Holy Trinity Church, Islington. He described himself as a clerk and, according to his wife, he was employed as a furrier’s traveller. On 23 September 1887, Mrs Schroeder had a deed of separation drawn up on account of her husband’s conduct with Mrs Maud Sloman, whose real name was Rebecca Sloman. She was the daughter of Professor Sloman, a well-known entertainer, and herself performed in public as a whistler. After the separation Schroeder stole and falsified his wife’s marriage certificate, substituting the name, Rebecca Solomans, and the date, 11 July 1887, for the original entries. The police furnished a paper drawn up from birth certificates bearing the name and date of birth of six children born of this union between March 1891 and September 1901.
There were besides three elder children: a married daughter, Clara Abbott, Henry and Maud. In the entry of September 1901 the surname appears as Gould Schroeder. If the birth certificates were of British origin this would tend to show that the family was established here from 1891 onwards.
After his conviction Schroeder stated that he was first employed by Steinhauer in 1890 for espionage against Russia and France; he was to get in touch with necessitous officers and obtain information about hasty mobilisation, armaments, etc. From 1895 to 1908 he said that he directed his activities against Great Britain, naval information being his objective. Letters found in the house in Merton Road, bearing the date 1897, showed that he had than assumed the rank of captain, and that he was engaged in some vague dealings with a brewery not unconnected with friends in Paris. He was also corresponding with the notorious Captain Stephens, who was employed first by the French Secret Service, and then from May 1898 till March 1899 by our own, after which he returned to the French Service.
Schroeder was brought to the notice of our Intelligence Department by the ‘O’ and ‘A’ letters written from Paris in 1898. A German named Schroeder, alias Gould, is said to have signed the deed for the sale of the Ryde Hotel which the French staff were to acquire for the purpose of spying in England, but the scheme fell through. He is also said to be trying to levy blackmail on ‘A’ (Captain Stephens) and to have reported to Berlin that ‘A’ was a French agent in London. Then Schroeder quarrelled with Stephens, but when Gould-Schroeder transferred his quarters to London they became great friends. In 1902, or early in 1903, he told C. B. Reimers that he was an agent for the Germans and that he had taken the name of Gould.
The next record of him comes from a letter-book which was found at Rochester and handed over to the police in 1914. From this it appears that in May and September 1903 he was at Manchester working as agent for a firm of index-card makers, and was at the same time engaged in the exportation of rifles to Hamburg. His correspondent in that city was a man named Herr Moritz Magnus. At the end of September he quarrelled with Stockalls and came to London where he found employment with the Baby Arc Lamp Company. He took up his residence at Earlsfield and was known to his friends as Captain or Major Schroeder or Captain Gould.
Between 1900 and 1908 he was frequenting Mooney’s in the Strand and a public-house in St Martin’s Lane where music-hall artists went to gather. More interesting is the evidence of his work for Steinhauer. On 7 October Gould wrote to Steinhauer giving the names and addresses of two necessitous British officers, both of whom had retired long before 1904, who had promised to give information about naval and military matters. Following this up, a week later he acknowledged receipt of Steinhauer’s letter, but complained of bad remuneration and declined to act unless £8 were sent him by return.
If we may believe Pierre Theisen, it was in 1904 that the German Secret Service for the navy was created. Its office was at Potsdam and its activities were mainly directed against Great Britain. Jacobs was head of this service and Steinhauer’s subordinate, who afterwards worked his way up, and had an office at Rotterdam. Theisen had met him at Brussels. Melville, who was afterwards MO5’s agent, had met Steinhauer, then a police official, in 1901 and had been struck with his foreknowledge, possibly obtained through Gould, of Captain Stephen’s career.
In 1907 or 1908 Gould spent a month at Leith where he passed as a cigar merchant of the name of Gould-Schivner. He spent money freely on entertaining naval men and he was even photographed with a group of artificers from a torpedo-boat then in port for repairs. He received money by registered post and many telegrams purporting to come from his wife. He was very talkative and an ardent Freemason. In 1908 the Germans seem to have initiated a more vigorous campaign of spying in this country and Gould was probably not very useful in London. For this reason, perhaps, he was encouraged to move to Rochester where, on 24 July, he acquired the license of the Queen Charlotte Hotel, taking possession in the following October. The venture was not a success financially or from the point of view of espionage. Though Mrs Gould appeared at concerts given in the men’s quarters of the naval barracks and once performed at a reception given by the Commander-in-Chief to officers of the Japanese Mission, the Goulds obviously could not gain access to the society of officers nor was their hotel of a class to attract them. On the other hand, it was nearer to naval and military quarters than any other public-house and was much frequented by the rank and file. A Lodge of the order of Buffaloes was formed and called the ‘Sir Frederick Gould Lodge’, and the meetings were held in the Queen Charlotte.
The police noticed that Gould was superior to his work and viewed him with suspicion, meanwhile the Germans gradually dropped him. In March 1911 Gould was borrowing £10 to pay Knight and it was doubtless owing to the desperate state of his finance that Gould wrote the letter which first brought him to the notice of MO5. This letter is dated 13 December 1911 and it is addressed to Steinhauer, Allee zur Sanasouoi 4, Potsdam. The Home Office Warrant placing a check on Steinhauer’s correspondence had been taken out in October 1911, consequently Gould’s letter was intercepted. From this point onward direct touch with Gould was maintained through his correspondence.
The embarrassment caused to the German Secret Service by the arrest and indiscretion of Grosse was Gould’s opportunity for forcing their hand. He wrote complaining of Steinhauer’s insulting letter of September, and of the way in which he himself had been shelved, and he threatened to reveal both to the Kaiser and the authorities here, the bungling of Steinhauer and of the Marine-Amt. He hinted that although he had always been a good Prussian, if he were not re-employed he would change sides. He could give information here identifying Petersen with Steinhauer and he could show that he had been given the same address at Ostend as had been given to Schulz. Steinhauer replied, but there is no record of the letter, and on 9 February 1912, Mrs Gould intervened. She reminded Steinhauer of Gould’s excellent and discreet services, urged him to arrange for an interview, and pointed out the wonderful opportunities she and her husband enjoyed at Rochester.
Steinhauer must have yielded, for Gould wrote proposing a meeting at Crefeld-am-Rhein and wired on the same day to say he was coming. He wrote for money and sent two other wires urging a reply. All three wires he endorsed with a false name and address. Steinhauer answered the first telegram on 5 May and appointed Cuxhaven as the rendezvous, and subsequently sent a £10 note. Having obtained Gould’s address (the HOW for Gould’s letters was taken out on 3 May), and direct evidence of his intended treachery, MO5 called upon the Rochester police for help. Early in January steps had been
taken to extend the work of the bureau by getting in touch with the police of the boroughs and cities, and on 29 April, the Home Secretary’s letter of introduction had been sent to Mr Arnold, Chief Constable of Rochester. He had replied stating his willingness to help and asking for an interview. On 6 May Captain Drake went to Rochester and laid before the Chief Constable his suspicions concerning Gould. Mr Arnold supplied a description of Mr and Mrs Gould which was afterwards verified by Regan. He sent by post a specimen of the handwriting of Gould’s son, Joseph, then in the Royal Engineers, as well as confirmation of Gould’s intended journey abroad. This had been obtained by a ruse: a policeman had served him with a jury summons, whereupon Gould had declared he was expecting to be called away on business at any moment. Gould was then placed on the SWL under the heading ‘Arrest’.
MO5 wrote asking for photographs of Gould, specimens of his handwriting, which were supplied in due course, and any other details that might occur to the police. They asked Mr Arnold to inform them as soon as Gould left Rochester, and to inquire into the identity of Captain Bront or Pront of the SS Westria. On 5 May the police forwarded a photograph of Mrs Gould, with the statement that Gould had come to Rochester on 3 October 1908 from some address in Putney, and that his real name was said to be Gouldenstein. Captain Bront or Pront and the SS Westria were unknown in the port of Chatham. In reply Captain Drake explained that MO5 believed these names and addresses to be merely a cover used by Gould in communication with a foreign agent. This is a typical instance of the care taken throughout the investigation to keep the police interested in the case and informed of all those circumstances which could be communicated to them, without always revealing the very precise nature of the knowledge in the possession of MO5, of the source from which it has derived.
