MI5 in the Great War

by Nigel West

  The misunderstanding and consequent failure of the observation led to explanations with the Chief Constable of Kent, who requested that in future all available information should be given to the police at the time of asking for observation. MO5 replied with the suggestion that the letter, of which they had already in the first place given the gist, was purposely worded so as to mislead and begged for enquiry about Mr Parrott. The police reported that he was a Chief Warrant Officer in the navy, and in charge of the range at Sheerness; that he had a wife and daughter, aged twenty-one, and owned a two-seater car in which he toured the country when on leave.

  ‘Richard’s’ next letter pointed to a rendezvous at Ostend on 5 April. William Melville, Superintendent Grey of Chatham Dockyard and Sergeant Hibbard of Sheerness were in observation from early morning on the 5th. But Parrott got away with his wife in his car on the afternoon and was lost sight of. Melville crossed to Ostend and continued observation on the 6th and 7th but without result. He concluded that the appointment had been cancelled by wire.

  It has been said that Mrs Riley had noticed she had been shadowed abroad about three weeks previously: she would have warned Parrott, and it is extremely probable that he was aware of the observation of his house on the 6th and motored to Sittingbourne to put off his journey by wire.

  Superintendent Grey reported that Parrott had gone motoring again on Saturday the 6th, his movements on Sunday the 7th could not be traced, and on Monday he was seen in Sheerness Dockyard. A description of Parrott’s car was obtained and forwarded to the Chief Constable of Kent with a request for any information as to his movements in the car or suspicious circumstances. When it became certain that Parrott was selling secrets, the naval authorities at Chatham and Sheerness were informed of the facts and the Civil Engineer in charge of the dockyard promised to take special precautions.

  Parrott went abroad early in May and he evidently took some plan with him. He does not seem to have been shadowed on this occasion but subsequently, when meetings were proposed for Whitsun, 22 June and 29 June, special measures were taken. He was kept under observation from 24 to 30 May and 2 June. He was seen to visit the Britannia Hotel and the Conservative Club at Sittingbourne. From 3 to 14 June he was kept too busy at Sheerness to be able to leave, and observation began again on 14 June.

  Regan reported that he had motored out of sight to Rochester; that his appointment would end in August; and that his daughter was to be married in the first week of August. Parrott was consulting timetables, and expressing great annoyance at not being able to get away. Neither he nor his family were seen to send any wire.

  Observation was also kept at Dover on 22 June but Parrott was not seen. Regarding the proposed meeting with ‘Richard’, on 29 June, much discussion arose as to the means of preventing it. The Law Officers of the Crown refused permission to arrest on the facts and letters laid before them, but suggested that the Admiralty should act ultra vires and arrest and search on their own warrant. The Admiralty declined such high-handed action under the Official Secrets Act. A way out was found by assigning to Parrott duties that would prevent him leaving Sheerness during the weekend. Regan and the local police were also detached to keep observation but had nothing special to report, beyond the fact that Parrott appeared to be under some form of arrest in his own home and was entertaining a party of naval men on Sunday. Some enquiry was made about the motorcar in which the party arrived but nothing useful was ascertained.

  Copies of correspondence connected with Parrott were given to the DPP immediately after, as it became known that Parrott had communicated documents and was preparing to meet ‘Richard’ again, a fresh consultation took place between MO5, the Admiralty and the DPP. The Admiralty agreed to allow Parrott to be treated as a civilian; the DPP agreed to allow search of his premises on suspicion, provided he sent the telegram accepting the meeting; for this together with evidence already available, would constitute the grounds for the ‘reasonable suspicion,’ required by the Official Secrets Act.

  Notice was received that Parrott had applied for, and been granted, fourteen days’ leave as from 13 July, and had given as his address during that period as 6 Edinburgh Road, Plymouth, which was the address of his father-in-law, G. Crouch. But the GPO reported that at 6.50 p.m. on 11 July, a wire signed ‘Seymour’ and addressed to Richard Dinger, Furbringaratrasse, Berlin, accepting a meeting for Saturday, had been handed in at Sittingbourne.

  Superintendent Tett was instructed to keep observation and on the afternoon of 13 July, two boys called at Chatham Dockyard with a message for Gunner Beaton [sic] of HMS Fervent to the effect that Parrott expected to see him that night at ten o’clock. This was thought to be a blind, as there was no one of that name or standing on HMS Fervent. On the other hand, Gunner Deacon, of HMS Fervent but attached to the Actaeon, was Parrott’s prospective son-in-law.

  On the evening of 13 July Parrott went by rail to Sittingbourne accompanied by a young woman who was afterwards anonymously reported to be Patricia Hentschel. At Dover, he was stopped as he was going on board. He stated that he was a civilian: he was searched and documents in his bag showed his identity, address and profession. Moreover, the piece of the letter bearing Dinger’s address was found on him and he then admitted his identity and status: he was, he said, going to see a lady and begged that his wife should not be informed. He was allowed to continue to Ostend but William Melville followed him and saw a suspicious meeting take place between him and a foreigner who obviously feared detection. The meeting lasted about one and a half hours and Parrott returned to England by the next boat. Melville gave a somewhat vague description of the agent, that he was a man of about thirty-five to forty, with dark hair and moustache, height about 5 feet 9 inches, which did not tally with Parrott’s description.

  On receipt of Grey’s report Parrott was recalled from leave, and asked for an explanation. He admitted the fact of his journey, which was taken in order to meet a young lady. He declared his ignorance of the King’s Regulations forbidding an officer to go abroad without leave. Pending the Admiralty’s decision, he was confined to barracks. It was decided not to prosecute under the Official Secrets Act but to interrogate him concerning the motive of his trip, the personality of Dinger and his connection with the man, the telegram and arrangements for the meeting. He was, if he adhered to his lies, to be confronted with the reports of the two detectives. Parrott maintained he had gone abroad to see a lady whom he had once met accidentally here and from whom he had concealed his real name; she had given him the address of Dinger, and suggested he should write there to propose a meeting at Ostend in July; he had wired to her under his assumed name, Seymour, but no one came to meet him at Ostend. He had lied about his status to Inspector Grey, whose position of authority he had not at first known. He strenuously denied that he had met and talked with a foreigner at Ostend, but he admitted some part of Melville’s statement about his visit to that town.

  As Chief Gunner, Parrott would take seniority among warrant officers and seniority over midshipmen; he was in receipt of the full pay and allowances of warrant officers which amounted to £255 12s. 6d. per annum, he was entitled to a pension of £98 11s. 3d. a year and had been selected for promotion to commissioned warrant officer.

  On receipt of Parrott’s answers, another meeting of government departments was held and the Attorney-General again refused to take action under the Official Secrets Act. The Admiralty therefore decided that Parrott should be dismissed the navy. He was perturbed, but showed no surprise and on being asked he asserted he had no confidential Books in his possession. He left the Royal Naval Barracks on 15 August and MO5 asked for supervision of his movements and copies of the local papers.

  Turning now to the question of what he achieved during this period: a very important point of the investigation was concerned with ascertaining what confidential books had been issued to Parrott. This list is not now accessible, but certain books had been issued to him from Chatham at his request on 16 January and return
ed on 17 February 1911 and a second batch of books was issued on 27 February and returned on 11 March 1911. Since then none had been asked for, or issued from, Chatham and none had ever been issued from Sheerness. If then the registers of the issue of confidential books could be trusted, the most dangerous period of Parrott’s activities was limited to the time of his intercourse with Karl Hentschel. On the other hand, ‘three nice novels’ were mentioned on 6 July, and Parrott himself insisted on the carelessness with which books were kept and mentioned many different ways of gaining access to them. Then we know that Patricia Hentschel conveyed two (or else one), books abroad for him and there is a possibility that this occurred between Hentschel’s departure for Australia in June 1912, and Patricia’s departure in July of the same year. But Parrott’s vivid description of the photographing of books abroad is that of an eyewitness. Hence we may conclude that he sent books via Hentschel and via Patricia and that he carried over something himself, but that he did not procure the greatest prizes obtainable.

  It is possible that when first he began to obtain confidential books for wrong purposes, Parrott used legitimate means of borrowing them but that when he acted independently, this was too dangerous. As his education in villainy progressed he adopted some of the methods he revealed to Rayner. Negative evidence, however, goes to prove that the signal code, the Annual Report of Torpedo School and the Report of Manoeuvres, for which ‘Richard’ offered £500, were probably not among the books sent abroad. As remarked previously, such money payments as we know of do not represent a quarter of the value of these books and the Germans were asking for them elsewhere.

  Parrott, during this period, seems to have received a monthly salary and £50 special payment for two documents. We do not know what the price of the ‘three nice novels’ was to be. But, whether the documents were of much value or not, as an expert and trusted Gunnery Officer, Parrott could give very valuable information by word of mouth. This no doubt accounts for ‘Richard’s’ insistence on personal interviews abroad, as ‘Richard’ himself dared not set foot in England. Parrott described him as a man of about fifty and of forceful personality. He had a large head and a square-cut beard. He had been in the army and was a teetotaller.

  Observation was continued on Parrott after his dismissal from the navy and Chatham Dockyard reported that on 23 August that he had moved to 32 Juer Street, Park Road, Battersea, where he was renting four rooms. Reports were also received about Parrott’s son, a Shipwright Artificer in Sheerness Dockyard, and his son-in-law. His daughter had been quietly married to Warrant Officer Francis Joseph Deacon on 24 August.

  Early in September, the case had become public and there was great agitation in Chatham. It was officially stated that Parrott had fallen under suspicion of communicating information to a foreign power, and his services had therefore been dispensed with. This agitation was referred to by Frederick Gould in his letters to Heinrich Schmidt.

  The address in Battersea was placed on check and a letter was intercepted from G. Couch, from 6 Edinburgh Road, Devonport, referring to the long delay in settling Parrott’s case. It was discovered that Couch was Parrott’s father-in-law, and a pensioned petty officer who had served as coxswain to many admirals-in-charge of the dockyard, and was considered a very respectable man.

  Then Parrott received orders to review a public-house at Witham and Uxbridge and about the same time Mrs Riley wrote begging Parrott to call as she had a message for him. (‘Richard’, it will be remembered, had written to her that Parrott was to communicate with him.) After this invitation, intercourse began again between Parrott and the Germans. As the letters from abroad were sent via August Klunder they were intercepted, although the precaution had been taken of addressing them to G. Couch, c/o P. Williams, tobacconist, 136 King’s Road, Chelsea.

  A meeting, to be arranged by coded telegram, was proposed to take place at Brussels, but eventually ‘Richard’ agreed that it would be wiser to await the decision in Parrott’s case. Parrott, however, was not to be afraid of Karl, with whom arrangements had been made. From ‘Richard’s’ letter it would appear that at first Parrott had hoped for a revision of his case. That hope died out and he went to Rotterdam to fetch certain documents and to come to terms with the Germans. There was some discussion about the documents returned; Parrott received back three, and ‘Richard’ declared he had never had more. A sum (£5 for £500) had been granted in order that Parrott might set up in a bar. He was to go to Hamburg, via Grimsby, and to take with him any documents he still had that might be useful. Parrott obeyed the summons and was at Hamburg on 18 October and there received part of the money promised. As it was too dangerous to send the balance by post, he was bidden to go to Rotterdam on the last week of October to receive the balance, of which £100 would be brought by hand. He was to post the receipt abroad. Again ‘Richard’ referred to Patricia who, as he had heard from Mrs Riley, was on her way home. In close connection with this statement, ‘Richard’ added that he was expecting soon to receive from Parrott ‘good news for our business’.

  Several letters followed in November and Parrott was sent to Portsmouth and Devonport to verify rumours about mobilisation of the Second and Third Fleet. Then he was thanked for his prompt answer and was ordered north to the Firth of Forth to supply answers to a list of other questions, with £10 enclosed for travelling expenses. He was to act on his own responsibility and report abroad at once on hearing rumours of mobilisation. Between the end of September and early November 1912, Parrott had gone abroad at least three times and had received a sum of £500 probably, and one of £10.

  Observation was at first kept upon his house but it failed, for Parrott had been warned through the wife of Police Sergeant McKinley who lived in the same street. Parrott manoeuvred and arrangements were made, most likely by Fels, for his disguise. Hence he got abroad repeatedly, unnoticed by Regan. However, Regan saw him return from the journey to Grimsby and watched his movements. He was calling for letters at the tobacconist’s shop. Later on Regan ascertained that a journey had taken place via Folkestone and Flushing on the Cronje-Nassau; this knowledge came to hand at least a fortnight after the event.

  Meanwhile the Admiralty was kept informed and, with their consent, a HOW was taken out for Deacon’s correspondence as it was known that Parrott was writing to him and that Parrott’s son Charles was living at Deacon’s house. Nothing to incriminate Deacon transpired but, after Hentschel’s revelations, his case was examined in October 1913. He had not always been a satisfactory officer, but between December 1911 and December 1912, he had improved remarkably and had earned a recommendation for promotion. In 1913 the Deacons kept aloof from the Parrotts and did not write to them, but in 1914, when Karl Hentschel’s case was still fresh and enquiries connected with it were in progress, MO5 placed Francis Deacon on the SWL, heading ‘Watch’ and recommended that in view of his relationship with Parrott he be removed from his station. It will be remembered that Hentschel detailed he had received certain books in manuscript from the Actaeon, the Torpedo School to which Deacon was attached. Parrott subsequently told Rayner he could ruin his son-in-law by holding up his finger, and the mysterious message to Gunner ‘Beaton’ (probably a mishearing for ‘Deacon’) on the eve of Parrott’s journey in July 1912 might have some bearing on this accusation. It is quite likely, however, that Parrott was revenging himself for Deacon’s studied neglect after his fall. In 1917 it was stated officially that there was nothing to connect Deacon with Parrott’s treachery.

  Meanwhile, enquiry was being made into George Parrott’s financial position. In April, May, and June 1911 he had deposited sums of £100, £10, and £20 in the Conservative Club Building Fund. In July 1911 he had bought a car for £30 and in July of the following year, he had exchanged this car for another and had bought a motorcycle, the whole transaction amounting to about £63. His deposits had been made in gold, and a considerable sum had been withdrawn, apparently to purchase the motorcar and cycle. In February 1912 he opened both a current
and a deposit account with the London Westminster & County Bank. On 10 February he had deposited £50 paid in ten £5 notes, and all his deposits were made in cash or notes. A note for £20, which he deposited in May 1912, was traced to T. F. Melik Dadaeff, who went abroad via Victoria Station on 26 April 1912.

  Other notes were traced to Johann Frederic Wilhelm Woolff, Post Langen, Berlin, and to Paul Wilscheck & Co., Berlin. Since 1895, Paul Wilscheck had been director of an institution making investments on behalf of officers and officials.

  Immediately ‘Richard’s’ letter of special instructions was intercepted, arrangements were made for the arrest and search of Parrott. He was arrested as he left Williams’ shop with the unopened letter in his hand so it could, therefore, be produced in court. Parrott was charged on 18 November with having communicated to another, information calculated to ‘be useful to an enemy’.

  The facts of his journey to Ostand and East Kant on 13 July, and its bearing on his subsequent connection with a German agent were examined. The interesting news came from a firm of private detectives, S. Street & Co., of the Edgware Road, which was acting for Parrott. The steward of the Grimsby Line proved his journey to Hamburg; the stewardess of the Cronje-Nassau swore to at least three journeys made to Rotterdam, she believed, at the end of the summer; and evidence was given concerning the notes paid into his bank by Parrott. He was committed for trial and no notice was taken of an attempt to upset the finding on a technical point. Counsel for the defence had called attention to the fact that the Attorney-General’s fiat had not been given until a witness had been called.

  Meanwhile, MO5 pursued their enquiries. Parrott had not made use of his return ticket from Grimsby, which was found at the search of his house. It was thought he might have been travelling in Scotland in search of information. His photo was circulated to various important centres, but no one had seen him in those parts recently.