by Nigel West
Negotiations with Charles were satisfactorily terminated, Patricia’s living was thereby assured, and Mrs Riley was bidden to inform Parrott of these facts. Then she was asked to tell Parrott to write to the Germans about his affairs, and accordingly she sent somewhat urgently for Parrott, who had been dismissed by the Royal Navy. The news of Parrott’s dismissal was wired out to Hentschel from Berlin and £30 monthly promised for Hentschel’s silence.
The next series of letters shows that Charles and Patricia must have separated and that ‘T’ was keeping in touch with Charles, while Mrs Riley had lost sight of him. In October Mrs Riley was expecting trouble with Charles, because Patricia and Edith were coming home. ‘T’ then wishes to see Charles’ letters, and thinks that Charles will certainly stay in Australia: if a meeting with Mrs Riley seems advisable he will arrange for it to take place after Patricia’s return. A month later ‘T’ asked anxiously whether Patricia was coming home, and in January her letters showed that she would start on her journey the following month.
After Patricia’s return in February 1913 there was an interval in the correspondence of many months and then, as already stated, came the news of the sudden death of Fels. With this letter Mrs Riley’s direct connection with German agents ceased altogether.
The correspondence with Germany which had died out during 1913, revived after the return of Karl Hentschel from Australia. Mrs Riley was informed that matters which would have been of interest to Fels must now be sent to Fischer and addressed to Mrs Mary Kennedy at Brauerstrasse 1/2 in Potsdam.
But for a moment Hentschel’s outbreak acted as a check. The girls had noticed that the house was being watched, and postponed a journey to Flushing to meet Fels, who had now assumed the alias A. Schulz. But in the first part of December they contrived to slip abroad, apparently unnoticed, and agreed with Schulz that he should obtain employment for them with Charles Fischer. Fischer then offered them a salary of £1 a month, with a capitation fee of £10 for every Commissioned or Warrant Officer, needing money, whom the Germans should succeed in inveigling into the service through the agency of the girls. Special fees were also to be given for special orders, and Pelling was asked to renew with Fischer the work she had begun with Fels.
It seems that the girls prepared to accept these terms, but as some of their communications passed unseen, it is not certain that they supplied any names. They wrote to many young men in the services and in the Merchant Marine, but there is no evidence of these men giving them information. That, however, was not in the bond. What seems more conclusive is that no money was intercepted on its way to them, and that in June 1914 Schulz asked Nellie for a definite answer as to what they proposed to do about ‘Ch. F’s’ affairs. There is evidence too that the girls were seeking other and honest employment.
Nellie, meanwhile, had written to Fels about the Hentschel case, attributing his release to the prudence of certain authorities. But for a time and until Hentschel had left England, she begged Fels not to write to her. As soon as she thought Fels had left Europe however, she raised the embargo on letters, and suggested that Fels should come to England. Instead, however, of his coining over, Nellie went abroad to see Fels, meeting him at Brussels on 9 and 10 May. Later he refused to come to England claiming he was too busy, but he held out hopes of another meeting abroad. This letter contained the question about work for ‘Ch. F’, and Nellie may not have answered it. The war came to break off the correspondence. These are the facts as far as can be ascertained from correspondence. They do not seem very incriminating but it is to be noted that no letters from England were intercepted.
Action in the Rileys’ case began in February 1912, when the detectives went to Ostend, and saw Theisen, but not Mrs Riley. Later on the attestation papers of Drummond Hay, a son of Mrs Riley’s, who had been farming in Australia then returned to England and enlisted, were forwarded to MO5. He seems to have been turned out of the army.
In November 1912, after the arrest of Parrott, anonymous information began to come in against the Rileys and their connection. Patricia is said to have gone with Parrott, to Sittingbourne, on his journey of 13 July 1912. Karl Hentschel was said to have met Parrott at Ostend (this was false but Parrott said that William Klare was there) and the address of his relations-in-law in Chatham was supplied. In April 1913 the Admiralty was told of possible treachery among their personnel. MO5 informed them that the letter obviously applied to Mrs Riley and Hentschel. But it was supposed that the publicity of the Parrott case, and an interview which Melville had with Mrs Riley in February in connection with that case, and also the fact that Hentschel had gone to Australia, would act as deterrents, and safeguard British secrets.
In June 1913 Mrs Riley was living with Emily Pelling and Patricia Hentschel at 88 Pagitt Street in Chatham, a house evidently rented by George and Emily Pelling. MO5 was interested at that time in preventing her from taking a situation as cook in the household of an officer or dockyard official. They were also making enquiries about her artificer son-in-law. The police stated that he had not visited Pagitt Street since December 1912, but could not supply his name, which was eventually discovered in Melville’s report of February 1914.
The Admiralty trace showed that George Pelling had served in the Actaeon from 1 March to 8 August 1911. The police identified Pelling as Mrs Riley’s son-in-law, an artificer serving in a torpedo boat, HMS Cheerful, stationed off Harwich with the 8th Flotilla. In December 1913, Mrs Pelling was placed on the PSL.
When Nellie took up correspondence with Fels and Schulz, and a definite offer of work was made to herself, her sister and George Pelling, an enquiry was asked for about the whole family. The reply came that Edith was engaged to Penrose, and Nellie was visited by Captain Fels. Then came information about, Mr Riley. The photograph of Fels was obtained, and the members of the group with whom he was photographed were identified as George Pelling, Emily Pelling, Nellie and Edith Riley. At the same time information was obtained about John George Riley, a clerk in the ASG and employed in the headquarters office at Cairo.
The letters contain repeated references to Edith’s ill-health. She does not seem to have been able to work for her living, but she maintained an affectionate correspondence with various young men belonging to the services, and to the Merchant Marine. Enquiries were made as to the identity of some of these, but without result.
MO5 endeavoured to obtain the removal of Pelling and Penrose from their posts, on account of their connection with the Rileys, Hentschel and Fels. Pelling was put on the SWL under the heading ‘Search’. Patricia meanwhile had changed her name to Howarth.
While the case about Hentschel was still pending she made an effort to suppress any evidence of her own connection with espionage. There was one letter which caused anxiety and that was the duplicate sent via Otto Kruger in March 1912, in which she had applied for her husband’s re-engagement in the German Secret Service.
In February ‘Gerald’ wrote from Brighton, that Mrs F (or Mrs R, probably) had just assured him by letter that a certain communication had been destroyed, no one had ever called to make enquiries about it, and no incriminating evidence would ever be forthcoming from that quarter. ‘Gerald’ added that it would be too risky to forward that letter, and he took the precaution of posting his own under cover to Edith Riley. Enquiry failed to elicit any information about ‘Gerald’ who had written from Brighton.
It seems that Penrose’s suggestion that Mrs Riley should be interviewed in order to enable her to prove her own innocence was to have been acted upon, but eventually the interview was indefinitely postponed, as the party was being broken up by Karl’s departure, Patricia’s leaving for Weybridge, and Pelling’s prospective removal. As for Nellie, Edith and Penrose, it was impossible to deal with them without revealing too much inside knowledge. Penrose was, however, as we have seen, submitted to a severe interrogation concerning his relations with the Rileys, and failure to report the visits of Fels.
In April the police reported that Mrs Ri
ley had moved to 10 Elm Avenue in Chatham, and a HOW was taken out for this address. She was also placed on the SWL heading ‘Search’. An entry on the SWL states that she had been on the Arrest List since 1911 and was transferred to Search on 29 July 1914. During April Mrs Riley had been in great trouble as she had to appear in court because she was being sued for non-payment of a debt.
The following month Nellie Riley was shadowed on her journey to Brussels, and the man she met was identified as Captain Fels. In order to assist the police, the photograph of Fels with the Rileys was circulated, and it was suggested that for the actual shadowing none of the local police should be employed, but Sergeant Andrews was to watch for her coming and going at Dover. She was followed from Chatham and pointed out to the police at Charing Cross: she was then followed to Dover, and pointed out to Sergeant Andrews there. Sergeant Andrews pointed her out to Fitzgerald, who followed her to Brussels. At the same time enquiries were being conducted as to the truth of various statements made by Karl Hentschel about the family. He had accused Mrs Riley of going to see George Parrott when the latter was under arrest at Chatham, and of reporting afterwards to the German Secret Service abroad. The allegation was false as regards Chatham, but it was ascertained that Mrs Riley had visited Parrott in prison, at Brixton on 6 September 1912. There is no record of Mrs Riley’s journey abroad in connection with that visit.
After Nellie’s visit abroad, action was taken against George Pelling. An interrogatory was drawn up on lines similar to that of Penrose, but it does not seem to have been used. As he was nearing his pension, he was merely transferred from Harwich to the Mediterranean. Hentschel had also stated that the Rileys were in the habit of going to the Royal Naval Barracks on visiting days, but the Chatham police denied this.
Further information was procured about John Riley, Patricia’s father, from the Detection Branch of the Constabulary at Maidstone, the city John Riley had left about twenty-five years before. As the result of finding that the dockyard police had no photograph of the Riley girls, Major Kell suggested that, as a matter of routine, copies of photographs of known suspects circulated to officers at the Ports should also be circulated to officers at the dockyards, with a view to preventing such persons from obtaining information in those areas. Nellie and Edith Riley were placed on the SWL, heading ‘Search’.
In March 1915 information was received that Karl Hentschel, who had gone abroad in 1914, was returning. This revived interest in the Rileys. It was ascertained that Mr and Mrs Riley had moved to Mortlake in about October 1914, and that Nellie and Mrs Pelling and a much younger sister were living at 44 Ewart Road, Chatham.
Quiet observation was to be kept from time to time. A year later action under DRR 14B was being contemplated against Mrs Riley, Mrs Pelling and Mrs Hentschel, but as there was no case against them since the outbreak of war, the authorities were content with taking out Home Office Warrants for the whole family, and casual observation was asked for, especially with regard to visitors.
The police reported that Mrs Riley and her daughters, Mrs Pelling, Nellie, Edith and two younger ones together with Patricia’s two children, were living at 53 Rosslyn Avenue in Barnes. The HOW taken out on 27 February was cancelled on 17 November 1917.
Nothing auspicious was discovered until Philip Penrose was found to be working at the Woolwich Arsenal, and Edith to be frequently visiting Chatham and bringing back strange stories from there. The ensuing enquiry showed that Penrose was living in the same house as the son of a German who was fighting against the British. He was eventually discharged from the Arsenal, and Major Kell thought that a Prohibition Order should be made out against the Rileys, but this does not seem to have been done.
As a result of the HOW on the Riley family, a warrant was taken out for the letters of Sergeant-Major George Barnes of 34 Boundary Road, Chatham, who wrote about some enquiry into the loss of papers. This warrant was cancelled in March 1917.
In that month Nellie Riley was supposed to be corresponding with Grandjean at Lausanne, and a warrant was taken out for the correspondence of Mrs or Miss Riley, but without results so it was cancelled in September 1918.
*
A great part of the evidence concerning George Parrott has been dealt with necessarily in the study of Karl Hentschel’s case; there remain for discussion his work as an independent agent, and the investigation connected with it. For the events between March and December 1911, our sources of knowledge are several statements made to the authorities and to private persons by both Hentschel and Parrott. In so far as they relate to the Hentschels and Rileys, these statements have been examined already.
As regards Parrott’s entry into direct relations with the German Secret Service, he declared in a signed statement that it took place under pressure from Mrs Riley towards the end of 1911. She compelled him to be introduced to Fels to whom he spoke once only and for a moment at the railway station at Chatham.
Talking to Rayner, a fellow prisoner, Parrott’s tale varied somewhat. He told Rayner the early history of his connection with Hentschel and declared that up till February 1911 he had received £85 from that agent. On leaving the German Service, Hentschel sold his connection to Charles Wagener for £1,000, and this exposed Parrott to blackmail. Mrs Riley proceeded to blackmail him for small sums and the Germans wrote to him twice, but he ignored their letters. In July 1911, Fels wrote to him from the Ship Hotel at Queensborough and Parrott went to see him, but refused to work for him. On mentioning that the Hentschels owed him £45, however, Fels immediately refunded the money. Then Parrott asked what they wanted; Fels said: the Signal Code, and offered £1,000 for it, but Parrott does not seem to have taken the bait.
Parrott met Fels again at Mrs Riley’s, when George Pelling was there courting Emily Riley, and he still refused to work for Fels. But he met him also at the Shakespeare Hotel in Dover, where Fels was posing as a commercial traveller; moreover Parrott knew Fels’ postbox in England. Eventually, a £20 note seems to have decided Parrott to move. He says this was given to him by a woman named Roma, possibly a pseudonym for ‘Richard’.
Parrott thought ‘Richard’ and ‘Tornow’ were the same person but the description he gave of ‘Richard’ does not tally with Melville’s description of Tornow or Theisen. The truth seems to be that Fels and Mrs Riley paved the way and brought pressure to bear; Parrott was not very difficult to persuade and the rewards were put at a high enough figure to tempt him. The direct connection seems to have begun on 30 September 1911, on which day Parrott went to Sittingbourne and proceeded with a stranger to Dover, saying that he was going to Paris or Ostend.
Early in December 1911 ‘Richard’ was arranging a meeting with Parrott at some regular place of call which needed no specifying, and expressing pleasure at meeting ‘so soon’. In this letter he already made use of the cover under which all further communication was carried out, namely, that of an intrigue with a married woman. He sent his letter via Otto Kruger to 87 Alexandra Road, Sheerness, and addressed it to ‘Mrs Seymour’. The letter was so worded as to make it appear that ‘Richard’ would call at that address at 3 p.m. on the 16th and spend the night there. It will be remembered that in December 1911, Steinhauer was on a tour of inspection in England but it is probable that the meeting-place intended by ‘Richard’ was Ostend. Next, ‘Richard’ promised to extract Parrott from certain difficulties, Hentschel’s attempts at blackmail. This letter proves that Parrott was then writing to ‘Richard’ but through some channel which was never identified, for not one of Parrott’s letters has been preserved.
In March ‘Richard’ made arrangements for meeting ‘where we met last time,’ and the times and routes given showed this to be almost certainly Ostend. ‘Richard’ was then, he said, expecting news of ‘PH’ (Patricia Hentschel). The rendezvous was fixed for 6 April, and Parrott was to indicate in his acceptance whether a camera would be required. The meeting was accepted, but it is not certain that Parrott went to it. On 25 April, ‘Richard’ offered £60 for documents
No. 1 and 2, and promised to bring the ‘little balance on the 4th’.
Parrott certainly went to this meeting, for ‘Richard’ mentioned his return journey and suggested another meeting at Whitsun to which Parrott was asked to bring a nice novel, and asked to be allowed to keep the coloured photograph which he had received from Parrott at the last meeting.
Then a meeting was proposed for 22 June at Brussels but Parrott could not go, so the 29th was proposed instead; but this also fell through, owing to special measures taken by the Admiralty. Then he was told that up to 14 August, he must go to Ostend but, after that date, to Rotterdam and he must first send a wire to show whether he was bringing anything.
Parrott went to Ostend and met a gentleman who called himself the Chief of the Staff. At this meeting scouts were posted to warn ‘Richard’ of possible intruders and at a sign from one of them he shifted his place. One of these scouts was William Klare. At parting, ‘Richard’ gave Parrott a note for £25.
On 6 July ‘Richard’ acknowledged receipt of ‘three nice novels’ received that day and appointed a meeting for the 14th. He gave the address: Richard Dinger, Furbringerstrasse, Berlin.
The wording of ‘Richard’s’ first letter misled the authorities who expected him at Sheerness, whereas it is almost certain the rendezvous was at Ostend. At the request of MO5, observation was to be kept at Sheerness on Mrs Seymour and ‘Richard’. ‘Mrs Seymour’ did not exist, and ‘Richard’ did not appear. It was ascertained however, that the occupant of 87 Alexandra Road was a Mr Parrott.