Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:37:22.709Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Failure of British Counter-Espionage against Germany, 1907–1914

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Nicholas Hiley
Nicholas Hiley
Affiliation:
Darwin College, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Modern British counter-espionage effectively began in April 1907, when a joint conference of naval and military officials, formed the previous year to consider ‘the Powers Possessed by the Executive in Time of Emergency’, recommended both an immediate strengthening of the laws against espionage, and a War is Office investigation of ‘the question of police surveillance and control of aliens’. These recommendations were to prove an important initiative, and did much to determine the course of British counter-espionage before 1914, yet at the time they probably seemed little more than an airing of old grievances unlikely to find new support, for they were among the last remnants n. of the abortive ‘Emergency Powers Bill’ which the War Office intelligence department had been advocating to strengthen home defence ever since the invasion scare of 1888. The 1906 joint conference had in fact hoped to further the cause of this great legislative package, with its radically new powers of access, requisition and seizure but, faced with the Liberal administration's commitment to the ‘continuous principle’ that a full-scale landing was impossible, had been forced instead to confine itself to the purely naval and military aspects of home defence. As its report confessed in April 1907, in the prevailing climate of opinion the only hope for the great ‘Emergency Powers Bill’ was as a series of ‘small and independent measures’.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 28 , Issue 4 , December 1985 , pp. 835 - 862
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 P[ublic] R[ecord] O[ffice, London], ADM 116/3408, ‘Report of conference of representatives’, Apr. 1907, p. 9.

2 Hansard, House of Commons debates, 4th series, vol. 153, 8 03. 1906, col. 665 (Haldane)Google Scholar: P.R.O., ADM 116/3408, ‘Report of conference’, Apr. 1907, p. 9. For the general history of the ‘Emergency Powers Bill’ before 1906 see Hart, Liddell Centre for Military Archives, King's College London, Edmonds papers, iv, 3Google Scholar, ‘Confidential/Emergency Powers’, 13 Nov. 1908, pp. 1–3, and ‘Precis of papers’ pp. 8–12; iv, 4, ‘The powers possessed by the executive in times of emergency and war’; by Edmonds, J. E. [1908], pp. 14–24Google Scholar.

3 Globe, (25 Apr. 1907), p. 5 col. 3, ‘Peaceful invasion’ by ‘Dum spiro spero’. This correspondence in the Globe was firmly linked with fears that the Liberal government's ‘Territorial and Reserve Forces Bill’, which had just passed its second reading, would fatally weaken home defence.

4 Globe, (29 Apr. 1907), p. 5 col. 4, ‘Peaceful invasion’ by Heath, Lt-Col. J. M.Google Scholar.

5 Globe,(2 May 1907),p. 8 col. 4, ‘Peaceful invasion’ by ‘Quem deus vult perdere’.

6 Globe, (7 May 1907), p. 5 col. 2, ‘German espionage’ by ‘Lieutenant volunteer artillery’. For an interesting discussion of the Globe correspondence see Truth, (8 May 1907), pp. 1134–5, ‘The terrible Teuton’.

7 Army and Navy Gazette, (11 May 1907), p. 435 cols. 1–2: Globe, (29 Apr. 1907), p. 5 col. 4, ‘Peaceful invasion’ by Heath.

8 P.R.O., WO 32/8873/, Morning post cutting dated 6 05 1907, and Thwaites, W. to Geeichen, A.E.W., 7 May 1907Google Scholar.

9 Ibid., Gleichen to Cockerill, 7 May 1907; Cockerill to Gelichen, 7 May 1907; Cockerill to Gleichen, [undated but porbably late May 1907] Gleichen to Cockerill, 3 June 1907. The main drawbacks with the ‘Official Secrets Act, 1889’ were the need to consult the attorney general before making an arrest, and the fact that ‘Even where there is moral certainty that a man is a spy… the Act does not provide for a search warrant being issued to ransack his house for incriminating documentary evidence’: Edmonds papers, IV, 4. ‘Powers possessed by the executive’ by Edmonds, [1908], P.9Google Scholar. I am grateful to the Trustees of the Liddell Hart Centre for permission to quote from the Edmonds papers.

10 For a consideration of the German plans see Kennedy, P. M., ‘The development of German naval operations plans against England, 1896–1914’, English Historical Review, (01. 1974), pp. 48–76Google Scholar, and the same author's ‘Riddle of the sands’, The Times, (3 Jan. 1981), p. 7.

11 Gooch, G. P. and Temperley, H. V., British documents on the origins of the war, 1899–1914, vi (London, 1930), 115Google Scholar, Capt. Dumas to F. Lascelles, 3 Feb. 1908. For a useful review of the 1908 and 1914 invasion studies see Gooch, J., ‘The bolt from the blue’, in his book The prospect of war: studies in British defence policy 1847–1942 (London, 1981), pp. 11–14Google Scholar.

12 Cockerill, G., What fools we were (London, 1944), p. 18Google Scholar.

13 It is difficult to determine the precise date upon which Edmonds was transferred to MO 5. Edmonds himself suggested in his memoirs that it was late in 1906 [Edmonds papers, III, 5, ‘Memoirs’, ch. xx, p. 1] and this has been accepted by some writers [French, D., ‘Spy fever in Britain, 1900–1915’, Historical Journal xxi, 2 (1978), 356Google Scholar: Fergusson, T. G., British military intelligence, 1870–1914 (London, 1984), p. 221]Google Scholar. Other sources however give the date as 1907 [e.g. Falls, C., ‘Sir James Edward Edmonds’, Dictionary of national biography 1951–1960 (London, 1971), p. 328Google Scholar: Felstead, S. T., German spies at bay (London, 1920), p. 72]Google Scholar, and it is quite certain that Cockerill did not relinquish command of the subsection until 1 Jan. 1908 [P.R.O., ADM 116/3408, Edmonds, to Brigstocke, C. R., 16 01 1908: Edmonds papers, vii, 3Google Scholar, paper headed ‘Intelligence directory’ [1908?], p. 4]. The answer would seem to be that, in keeping with normal practice, Edmonds transferred late in 1907 and worked alongside Cockerill until assuming full control in Jan. 1908.

14 Edmonds, J., ‘The German general staff’, Journal of the Royal United Services Institution, xcix (1954), 54CrossRefGoogle Scholar: P.R.O., CAB 16/8, Committee of imperial defence sub-committee on ‘Foreign espionage’, minutes of first meeting, 30 Mar. 1909, p. 2.

15 Edmonds papers, vii, 3, paper headed ‘Intelligence directory’ [1908?], pp. 1–3; ii, 3, ‘Memoirs’, pp. 6–8.

16 Ibid, III, 5, ‘Memoirs’, p. 1: Edmonds, J., Military operations in France and Belgium 1914, 1 (London, 1925), 3Google Scholar.

17 Edmonds papers, iv, 1, ‘Intelligence in European warfare’ by Edmonds, J., (01. 1908), pp. 13–14Google Scholar.

18 War office list 1908 (London, 1908), p. 46Google Scholar: Diary of Maj.-Gen. J. S. Ewart, entries for 11 Sept. and 6 Nov. 1906, in the Ewart papers held by Sir Hector Monro, M.P. (with Sir Hector's permission this collection was consulted at the Scottish record office (Edinburgh), Ewart microfilms RH4/84, reels 1–4): Edmonds papers, iii, 5, ‘Memoirs’, p. 1.

19 Nicolai, W. (trans. Renwick, G.), The German secret service (London, 1924), p. 52Google Scholar: Steinhauer, G., Steinhauer: the Kaiser's master spy (London, 1930)Google Scholar, passim. Accurate information concerning Steinhauer is scarce, and his 1930 ‘autobiography’ was in fact compiled by the Australian journalist Sidney Felstead in 1929–30 [Felstead, S. T., In search of sensation (London, 1945), pp. 209–20]Google Scholar. That book can only be used where corroborative evidence exists, but seems nevertheless to have been accepted as accurate by MI 5 [Kell papers (Frost), lecture of June 1939 probably by E. Holt Wilson, p. 7 – I am grateful to Mr Robin S. Frost for allowing me access to these papers]. From the available evidence it appears that Steinhauer did control the German agents in the United Kingdom before 1914, although only ‘a kind of super-policeman’ whose real name was apparently Reimer [Felstead, , In search of sensation p. 210Google Scholar: Kell papers (Simpson), Kell, C. R., ‘Secret well kept: an account of the work of Sir Vernon Kell’ (n.d.), p. 143Google Scholar – I am grateful to Mrs S. Simpson for allowing me access to these papers].

20 Steinhauer, , Steinhauer, pp. 51–2Google Scholar.

21 Edmonds papers, iii, 5, ‘Memoirs’, p. 1.

22 Ibid. pp. 1–3. Some of these individuals were already well known to the police. The photographer at Sheerness, for example, was a man named Franz Losel, reported to Edmonds on 13 Jan. 1908 but already investigated by Scotland Yard in 1904 and brought to court for spying in 1905: P.R.O., CAB 16/8, minutes of first meeting, 30 Mar. 1909, p. 6, and Appendix, I, ‘Cases of alleged German espionage’,13 04 1909, p. 16Google Scholar: British journal of photography, 18 Aug. 1905, p. 657, ‘Commercial & legal intelligence’.

23 P.R.O., CAB 16/8, minutes of first meeting, 30 Mar. 1909, p. 2; FO371/263/file 41789, pp. 530–2, ‘Reconnaissances by German officers’ by Col. Trench, 15 Dec. 1907.

24 Edmonds papers, iii, 5, ‘Memoirs’, pp. 2–3 [to which Edmonds later added a fourth category of ‘postes restantes spy centres for receipt of letters to agents’, although this does not seem to have been part of the original classification]. One of the sources Edmonds used in this work was a book written by a former French agent: Edmonds papers, vii, 3, paper headed ‘MO5’ with translated passages from Lajoux, E., Mes souvenirs d'espionnage (Paris, 1905)Google Scholar.

25 Edmonds papers, iv, I, ‘Intelligence in European warfare’ by Edmonds, , 01. 1908, p. 8Google Scholar.

26 P.R.O., CAB 16/8, Appendix, I, ‘Cases of alleged German espionage’, 13 04 1909, p. 13Google Scholar: Edmonds papers, iii, 5, ‘Memoirs’, p. 2.

27 P.R.O., CAB 16/8, minutes of first meeting, 30 Mar. 1909, p. 3, and Appendix, I, ‘Cases of alleged German espionage’, 13 04 1909, p. 13Google Scholar. MO5 was, however, allowed the use of ‘a few detectives to enquire into particular cases’: Ewart Papers, ‘Memoirs’, p. 918.

28 Morning Post, (3 Feb. 1909), p. 7 cols. 4–5, ‘Aliens in England’: P.R.O., CAB 16/8, Appendix, I, ‘Cases of alleged German espionage’, 13 04 1909, p. 18Google Scholar [giving the Morning Post article as the only source of information in this case].

29 Kell papers (Simpson), ‘Intelligence systems/Germany’ by Edmonds, J., 9 02 1909 [written 1908], pp. 4, 5, 7–8Google Scholar.

30 Ewart papers, diary entry for 29 May 1908, and ‘Memoirs’, p. 918: Edmonds papers, III, 5, ‘Memoirs’, pp. 3–4. It was later alleged that on one occasion before 1914 even Steinhauer's agents were instructed to reconnoitre the east coast ‘for a suitable landing-place in the event of an invasion’, an order which was apparently part of the same deception: Steinhauer, , Steinhauer, p. 48Google Scholar.

31 P.R.O., CAB 16/8, minutes of third meeting, 12 July 1909, p. 10: Edmonds papers, III, 5, ‘Memoirs’, p. 4: Ewart papers, diary entry for 12 July 1909, and 'Memoirs', p. 946. Ewart was supported by the director of military training, Brig.-Gen. Murray, but the secretary of state for war, Haldane, R. B., felt ‘inclined to regard the plans as not being genuine, and as being possibly concocted by the French’: P.R.O., Cab 16/8, minutes of third meeting, 12 07 1909, p. 10Google Scholar.

32 Ewart papers, ‘Memoirs’, p. 918.

33 On one occasion the War Office received a letter which a German officer had sent to his girl-friend in Bournemouth, ‘begging her to flee with him, as England would shortly be invaded’.Edmonds seems to have been impresseed, but Haldane suggested mischievously that it was perhaps ‘the apparatus of the white-slave traffic’: Edmonds papers, III, 5, ‘Memoirs’, p. 4.

34 Edmonds papers, III, 5, ‘Memoirs’, p. 2.

35 P.R.O., CAB 16/8, Appendix I, ‘Cases of alleged German espionage’, 13 Apr. 1909, pp. 13, 15, 16, 18: Queux, W. Le, Spies of the Kaiser (London, 1909), p. xiGoogle Scholar. Haldane was apparently shown this file of bizarre reports, but not surprisingly ‘returned them without comment’: Queux, Le, Spies of the Kaiser, p. xiGoogle Scholar.

36 Answers, (8 Aug. 1908), p. 336 col. 3, ‘The foreign spy danger’.

37 Weekly news, (27 Feb. 1909), p. 6 col. I, ‘Foreign spies in Britain’, and (6 Mar. 1909), p. 6 cols. 1–2, ‘Spies of the Kaiser’. The Weekly news was a penny paper with a large circulation in the industrial north, and ran the first episodes of Le Queux's novel on 13 Mar. 1909, pp. 1–2; 20 Mar. 1909, pp. 1–2; 27 Mar. 1909, pp. 1–2.

38 Edmonds papers, III, 5, ‘Memoirs’, p. 5.

39 Hansard, House of Commons debates, 4th series, CXCII, 13 July 1908, col. 393 (Haldane replying to Col. Lockwood).

40 Maurice, F., Haldane 1856–1915 (London, 1937), p. 256Google Scholar. It seems impossible to date Haldane's change of heart with any accuracy. There have been suggestions that it came in 1908, and Edmonds ascribed it to a particular report from the Mayor of Canterbury – apparently dated 16 May 1908 – but there is no supporting evidence. As we have seen, Haldane was still suspicious of such stories months later, and over the May 1908 report even the police expressed ‘doubts as to this man's credibility’: Falls, C., ‘Sir James Edward Edmonds’, loc. cit. p. 328Google Scholar: Edmonds papers, III, 5, ‘Memoirs’, p. 5: P.R.O., CAB 16/8, Appendix I, ‘Cases of alleged German espionage’, p. 14 and footnote.

41 P.R.O., CAB 16/8, ‘Terms of reference’, 25 Mar. 1909, p. (i), and report on ‘Foreign espionage’, 24 July 1909, p. (iii).

42 Edmonds papers, III, 5, ‘Memoirs’, p. 5: P.R.O., CAB 16/8, minutes of first meeting, 30 Mar. 1909, pp. 1–2. Present at this meeting were Haldane, Ewart, Brig.-Gen. A. J. Murray (director of military training), R. McKenna (first lord of the Admiralty), Rear-Admiral A. E. Bethell (director of naval intelligence), H.J.Gladstone (home secretary), S. Buxton (postmaster-general), Sir E. Henry (commissioner of police), Viscount Esher, Sir C. Hardinge (permanent under-secretary at the Foreign Office), and Sir G. H. Murray (permanent secretary to the Treasury).

43 Hankey, Lord, The supreme command 1914–1918 (London, 1961), I, 116Google Scholar. Maurice Hankey was at this time naval assistant secretary to the committee of imperial defence.

44 P.R.O, CAB 16/8, minutes of first meeting, 30 Mar. 1909, pp. 2–5 (‘Evidence of Colonel J. E. Edmonds’), and Appendix I, ‘Cases of alleged German espionage’, 13 Apr. 1909, p. 15: Edmonds papers, III, 5, ‘Memoirs’, p. 5. According to Edmonds he was advised to ‘lay stress on the anarchist [demolitions] motive’, by which sabotage was meant – although that word did not appear until 1910 or have wide usage before 1914. It is significant that the subcommittee met shortly after a widely publicized army manoeuvre at Hastings on 17 March, which Haldane attended, where Germa n spies were supposed to have blown u p railway bridges and tunnels and troops had to move against the invaders in motor cars. Then, while the subcommittee was sitting, a further military exercise was held at Scarborough on 24 April, on the supposition that the town had been invaded and that ‘As previously ordered secret agents have destroyed the rail bridges…and road bridges’, once again forcing the defending troops to move by car: Daily Mail, (17 Mar. 1909), p. 6 col. 4 and p. 7 col. 3; (18 Mar. 1909), p. 3 col. 1; North Riding Record Office (Northallerton), DC/SCB7, Scarborough town clerk's office file on ‘Auto mobilisation’, 19 Apr. 1909.

45 Churchill College Archives Centre, Cambridge, Esher papers, ESHR 2/12, ‘Journals 1909–1914’, entry for 30 Mar. 1909 (I am grateful to the Trustees of the Churchill College Archives Centre for permission to quote from papers in their possession): P.R.O., CAB 16/8, minutes of first meeting, 30 Mar. 1909, pp. 4–5. Secret military organizations of German waiters were a recurring feature of spy fiction in this period.

46 Hankey, , Supreme command, I, 116Google Scholar.

47 P.R.O., CAB 16/8, minutes of first meeting, 30 Mar. 1909, pp. 3, 6–7; Appendix I, ‘Cases of alleged German espionage’, 13 Apr. 1909, p. 13; report on ‘Foreign espionage’, 24 July 1909, p. (iii): Edmonds papers, III, 5, ‘Memoirs’, p. 3: Kell papers (Simpson), W. A. Adam to Gleichen, 15 Jan. 1909 (sending copy of MO 5's map to MO 2 (c)), and ‘List of red dots on map’ (Jan. 1909?). The map seems to have been less selective because it apparently recorded 103 suspicious incidents in Jan. 1909, whilst the catalogue contained only 76 individual cases in Mar. 1909.

48 P.R.O., CAB 16/8, minutes of second meeting, 20 Apr. 1909, pp. 8–10; minutes of third meeting, 12 July 1909, pp. 10–11; report on ‘Foreign espionage’, 24 July 1909, pp. (iii)–(iv); Ewart papers, diary entries for 28 Apr. 1909 and 12 July 1909, and ‘Memoirs’, p. 939. The working party – or ‘small Committee’ as Ewart called it – comprised Bethell, Ewart, Hardinge, Sir G. Murray, Henry and Major F. Lyon (military assistant secretary to the committee of imperial defence).

49 Army Quarterly, 1, 2 (Jan. 1921), 333, ‘Intelligence’.

50 Ewart papers, diary entry for 11 Aug. 1909, and ‘Memoirs’, pp. 953–4: Edmonds papers, III, 5, p. 5. For information about Cumming see his service records in P.R.O., ADM 196/20, p. 123 and ADM 196/39, p. 1210, and Hiley, N. P., ‘The failure of British espionage against Germany, 1907–1914’, Historical Journal, XXVI, 4 (1983), 877–8Google Scholar.

51 Where possible Kelt's biography has been built up from the Army list and War office list, but the main source remains C. R. Kell, ‘Secret well kept’ – the typescript account of his career written by his wife after his death in 1942, of which there are copies in both sets of Kell papers, and at the Imperial War Museum, London, on microfilm PP/MCR/120, SVK/1. Along with additional information from Lady Kell this formed the basis of Bulloch's, JohnMI5 (London, 1963)Google Scholar.

52 Kell, C. R., ‘Secret well kept’, p. 140Google Scholar: The Times, (7 Apr. 1942), p. 6 col. 4 (obit, by G. M[acdonogh].): Star, (30 Mar. 1942), p. 2 cols. 2–3, ‘Star man's diary/Gift from the enemy’ (quoting ‘a life-long friend’ of Kell).

53 Star, (30 Mar. 1942), p. 2 cols. 2–3.

54 House of Lords Record Office, Lloyd George papers, F/9/2/16, ‘Reduction of estimates for secret services’ by Churchill, W. S., 19 03 1920, p. 2Google Scholar: Kell, C. R., ‘Secret well kept’, pp. 119–20Google Scholar. The date of Kell's retirement is taken from the Army list, but he seems in fact to have joined the bureau some weeks before this – on 23 Aug. 1909 according to one source: Bulloch, , MI5, p. 15Google Scholar.

55 Bulloch, , MI5, p. 29Google Scholar; Kell papers (Frost), lecture of June 1939, p. 4 (‘History’).

56 Newman, B., Spies in Britain (London, 1964), p. 162Google Scholar: Kell, C. R., ‘Secret well kept’, p. 119Google Scholar. Newman is an unreliable source, but he did know both Edmonds and Kell, and there is some confirmation for his story of a trial period: Newman, B., Speaking from memory (London, 1960), PP. 62, 93Google Scholar.

57 Hinsley, F. H. et al. , British intelligence in the second world war (London, 1979), 1, 16Google Scholar (but see Hiley, ‘Failure of British espionage’, loc. cit. p. 878 note 34, for a caution about this source): Edmonds papers, v/3/30, carbon copy of letter to Spectator (n.d.); 11/1/65a, ‘Copy of a letter from Brig. Sir Eric Holt Wilson, 17–7–42’. The two recent books by Nigel West on the early work of the British secret service show striking ignorance of naval, military and political institutions of this period, contain little of value before 1920, and in their assertions that Kell headed MO5 and that Cumming was attached to the Admiralty in 1910 are quite wrong: West, N., M.I.5: British security service operations 1909–1945 (London, 1981), pp. 33–48Google Scholar, ‘The early days’: West, N., M.I.6: British secret intelligence service operations 1909–1945 (London, 1983), pp. 3–7Google Scholar, ‘Early days: 1909–1914’.

58 P.R.O., CAB 16/8, Appendix IX, ‘Additional cases of alleged German espionage’, 23 June 1909, p. 42: Bulloch, , M.I.5, p. 29Google Scholar: Savage, P., Savage of Scotland Yard (London, 1934), p. 91Google Scholar. Kell seems also to have been assisted by ‘an ex-Scotland-Yard detective named Middleton’: Ewart papers, ‘Memoirs’, pp. 939–40.

59 P.R.O., HO 45/10892/357291, W. J. Pringle to V. G. W. Kell, 2 Jan. 1918.

60 Lowe, C., ‘About German spies’, Contemporary review, 01 1910, p. 45Google Scholar.

61 P.R.O., CAB 4/5/2/181B, report on ‘Treatment of aliens in time of war’, 14 Aug. 1913, Appendix III (General staff memorandum, 20 Apr. 1910), p. 37. According to Maurice Hankey the question of aliens was investigated because ‘espionage and sabotage are more likely to be undertaken by persons of alien than of national birth’: Hankey, , Supreme command, I, 115Google Scholar.

62 Ewart papers, diary entry for 27 Apr. 1910, and ‘Memoirs’, p. 966.

63 P.R.O., HO 45/10629/199699/3, C. E. Troup to Churchill, 14 Oct. 1911: Ewart papers, diary entry for 27 Apr. 1910, and ‘Memoirs’, p. 966. In the counties chief constables were apparently ‘allowed a good deal of discretion’: P.R.O., CAB 4/5/2/181B, minutes of second meeting, 31 Mar. 1911, p. 10.

64 P.R.O., CAB 4/5/2/181B, minutes of first meeting, 7 July 1910, p. 8, and report on ‘Treatment of aliens’, 14 Aug. 1913, pp. 2–3; HO 45/10629/file 199699/1, memorandum by Troup for Churchill, 31 Oct. 1910; [Troup's secretary?] to Kell, 1 Nov. 1910; ‘Confidential return of aliens’ form (1910); file 199699/4, Kell to Troup, 6 Mar. 1913: Edmonds papers, III, 5, ‘Memoirs’, p. 7.

65 This course was urged by Edmonds and accepted by Ewart, : Edmonds papers, 111, 5, ‘Memoirs’, p. 3Google Scholar : Ewart papers, ‘Memoirs’, p. 938. One particularly inauspicious case came in September 1910, when a German officer named Siegfried Helm was arrested in the act of sketching the defences at Portsmouth. He was held in military detention whilst the head of MO5 persuaded the attorney general and director of public prosecutions to invoke the 1889 Official Secrets Act, but when he was turned over to the civil authorities the local magistrates went against all advice and allowed him out on bail – finally discharging him altogether in November 1910: The Times, (8 Sept. 1910), p. 4 col. 5; (16 Sept. 1910), p. 7 col. 4; (21 Sept. 1910), p. 7 col. 2; (29 Sept. 1910), p. 9 col. 5; (4 Oct. 1910), p. 6 col. 3; (15 Nov. 1910), p. 5 col. 5: P.R.O., FO 371/906/file 32731, p. 274, memorandum by F. A. Campbell [?], 5 Sept. 1910; file 32740, p. 288, memorandum by F. A. Campbell [?], 7 Sept. 1910.

66 The assistant was Capt. Frederick Clarke, who retired to join Kell on 4 Jan. 1911. The legal adviser was Moresby, Walter: Kell, C. R., ‘Secret well kept’, p. 122Google Scholar.

67 The Times, 19 Aug. 1911, p. 9 col. 3: P.R.O., FO 371/1126/file 32404, p. 307, report by Det.-Sgt. A. W. Martin, 22 July 1911; p. 319, chief constable of Plymouth, to ‘Capt. K’;, 12 05 1911; p. 321Google Scholar, report from Martin, ‘in answer to questions in circular from V. G. W. K., dated August 10th’, 11 08 1911Google Scholar (mentioning 10 Aug. report clearly sent to Kell): Fitch, H. T., Traitors within (London, 1933), pp. 106–11Google Scholar: Kell, C. R., ‘Secret well kept’, pp. 121–2Google Scholar: Bulloch, , MI5, pp. 33–5Google Scholar. Kell's handling of the case is detailed in P.R.O., FO 371/1126/file 33522.

68 Marder, A. J., From the Dreadnought to Scapa Flow, vol. 1 The road to war, 1904–1914 (London, 1961), 242–4Google Scholar: Churchill College Archives Centre, Cambridge, Grant Duff papers, AGDF 2/1, pp. 82–5, Hankey to A. Grant Duff [copy], 26 July 1911 (also available at Imperial War Museum on microfilm DS/MISC/77). Henry had voiced his fears for the magazines at the second meeting of the ‘Foreign espionage’ subcommittee in 1909: P.R.O., CAB 16/8, minutes of second meeting, 20 Apr. 1909, p. 9.

69 Grant Duff papers, AGDF 2/1, p. 85, Hankey to Grant Duff [copy], 3 Aug. 1911: Churchill, W. S., The world crisis 1911–1918 (London, 1938 ed.), 1, 34–5Google Scholar. Churchill's ideas on the danger from sabotage probably came from Ewart, who two years earlier had warned him that war ‘might be preceded by the arrival of a number of men charged with the execution of demolitions’: P.R.O., WO 106/47A, Ewart, to Churchill, , 29 11 1909, question 6Google Scholar.

70 Churchill College Archives Centre, Cambridge, McKenna papers, MCKN 4/4, C. E. Madden to R. McKenna, 28 July [1911].

71 P.R.O., WO 32/7187, memorandum by Churchill, 31 July 1911, and note of action taken, 1 Aug. 1911: Grant Duff papers, AGDF 2/1, pp. 85–6, Hankey to Grant Duff [copy], 3 Aug. 1911: Churchill, R. S. (ed.), Winston S. Churchill, vol. II, Companion Part 2, 1907–1911 (London, 1969), pp. 1105–6Google Scholar, Churchill to George V, [midnight] 31 July 1911.

72 Ewart papers, diary entry for 28(?) August 1911, and ‘Memoirs’, p. 1015: P.R.O., WO 32/7187, note of action taken, 31 July 1911, and draft letter to Freeth, 31 July 1911; Freeth to Macready, 3 Aug. 1911. Freeth was in fact Kell's brother-in-law: Kell, C. R., ‘Secret well kept’, p. 116Google Scholar.

73 Hansard, House of Commons debates, 5th series, vol. 29, 18 08 1911, cols. 2251–60Google Scholar, and 22 Aug. 1911, col. 2280: Churchill, , World crisis, 1, 36Google Scholar: P.R.O., ADM 1/8264, Troup to W. Graham Greene, 23 Oct. 1911; HO 45/10629/199699/3, minute by Troup, 14 Oct. 1911, approved by Churchill, 15 Oct. [1911]. The home ports defence [sub] committee of the committee of imperial defence had begun a classification of vulnerable points in August 1909, under Hankey's chairmanship. Such preparations continued up to 1914, with the Admiralty in 1913 assigning an officer to this project full-time [Hankey, , Supreme command, 1,116Google Scholar: P.R.O., CAB 17[28, ‘List of points selected by the admiralty and the war office’, 23 Feb. 1910: Aston, G., Secret service (London, 1930), pp. 25, 55–6Google Scholar]. The MO(t) investigation of espionage in South Wales is detailed in P.R.O., ADM 1/8264, and the general conclusion, as noted by Duff, Grant, was that in 09 1911 ‘the Germans reconnoitred the district…with the intention of wrecking mines on the out break of war’Google Scholar: Grant Duff papers, AGDF 2/1, diary entry for 30 Jan. 1912.

74 The Times, 9 Aug. 1914, p. 3 col. 4 (statement by Marie Kronauer), and detailed reports of Ernst's trial carried Sept–Nov. 1914. It is clear that Kronauer recruited Ernst as an agent in 1910, but a number of conflicting accounts have appeared about his subsequent discovery. All contain the same basic elements, and Felstead – who got information both from MI5 and the Special Branch – may have the authentic version in his story of police following two German naval officers to Ernst's shop in May 1911, when they had come to London in the Kaiser's retinue. This event was suspicious, but does not seem to have prompted an immediate check on his correspondence, for Det.-Insp. Savage, who was closely involved with the Grosse case, recalled that Ernst was investigated ‘as a direct consequence of Heinrich Grosse's arrest’ on 4 Dec. 1911, with his significance being realized ‘immediately after’. An apparently well-informed report in 1914 stated that the interception of his correspondence began ‘about Christmas of 1911’, and this agrees with the earliest surviving intercepted letter – sent to Ernst on 6 Jan. 1912: Felstead, , In starch of sensation, pp. 88–9Google Scholar: Savage, , Savage, p. 97Google Scholar: Daily Express, (20 Oct. 1914), p. 1 cols. 3–5, ‘The Kaiser's master spy’: P.R.O., CRIM 1/151, Exhibit 7.

75 Churchill, R. S. (ed.), W. S. Churchill, 11, 3, 1496–7Google Scholar, Churchill to R. B. Haldane, 15 Jan. 1912.

76 P.R.O., CAB 15/6/16, C. W. Mathews to secretary of war cabinet, 13 June 1919, p. 4, section (8). For the full conclusions of the 1912 report see appendix. It seems that this document was eventually put aside when it became clear that a public statement would destroy the system of intercepted correspondence. In Feb. 1912, for instance, the check on Ernst's correspondence revealed a spy on board H.M.S. Foxhound, but Churchill nevertheless decided ‘that the case is not of sufficient importance to justify the disclosure of the means by which his correspondence with a foreign agent was detected’, and the man was not brought to trial: P.R.O., CRIM 1/151, Exhibit 10, letter to F. Ireland posted in Berlin under cover to Ernst, 12 Feb. 1912; FO 800/87, P. 301, Greene to Grey, 23 Feb. 1912: The Times, 24 Feb. 1912, p. 10 col. 4, and 30 Mar. 1912, p. 6 col. 3.

77 Bywater, H. C. and Ferraby, H. C., Strange intelligence: memoirs of naval secret service (London, 1931), p. 220Google Scholar: Fitch, , Traitors within, pp. 119–21Google Scholar: Kell papers (Simpson), ‘Security intelligence in war’ by W[ilson], H[olt]., 1934, p. 16Google Scholar. A number of accounts imply that Ernst handled the correspondence of all German spies in Britain, but Kell described him merely as ‘one of their principal distributing agents’: Kell papers (Frost), talk given to ‘Scottish chief constables’, 26 Feb. 1925, p. [6].

78 Steinhauer, , Steinhauer, p. 50Google Scholar.

79 Kell, C. R., ‘Secret well kept’, pp. 122Google Scholar(naming Capt. Reginald Drake, who retired to join Kell on 17 April 1912), 136 (naming Capt. Eric Holt Wilson): Edmonds papers, II/1/65a, ‘Copy of a letter from Brig. Sir Eric Holt Wilson, 17-7-42’.

80 P.R.O., WO 33/579, ‘Special military resources of the German empire’, Feb. 1912, pp. 50–1, 53.

81 P.R.O., WO 33/693, ‘Intelligence series/Home defence/(Germany)’, printed Aug. 1914, p. 8.

82 P.R.O., CAB 17/90, ‘Notes on the work of counter-espionage’ and ‘Notes on the work and methods of foreign secret service agents’, Oct. 1912.

83 P.R.O., H045/10629/199699/5, Kell to Troup, 11 Dec. 1913; CAB4/5/2/181 B, Appendix v, p. 47, ‘Summary of results of informal alien registration to July 1913’: E[dmonds], J. E.., ‘Brigadier Sir Eric E. B. Holt Wilson’, Royal Engineers Journal LXIV, 3 (09 1950), 344Google Scholar: Kell papers (Simpson), ‘Security Intelligence in war’ by W[ilson], H[olt]., 1934, p. 17Google Scholar. Unfortunately there had been no detailed registration in Hertfordshire, Middlesex or Surrey, and no attempt was made to introduce the register in the city of London or metropolitan police district – where 56 per cent of the alien population lived: P.R.O., HO 45/10629/199699/5, list headed ‘Home Office letter’ and signed by Kell, , 26 01 1914Google Scholar; CAB 4/5/2/181B, report on ‘Treatment of aliens’, 14 Aug. 1913 P. 3 and Appendix v, p. 47.

84 P.R.O., CAB 15/1, minutes of second meeting, 17 Oct. 1911, p. 2 (‘Initiation of the precautionary stage of defence’), and ’Interim report’, p. 6 (‘The precautionary stage of defence’).

85 P.R.O., WO 32/5966, ‘(Provisional) War Book’, Aug. 1912, p. 45 (MO5/‘Precautionary stage’), no. 2; CAB 15/5, ‘War Book 1914’, 30 June 1914, pp. 84 (War Office p. 13 – section II, 21 (B) espionage), 173 (Home Office p. 3 para. 13), 180 (Home Office p. 10 – section II, 21 (B) espionage).

86 P.R.O., WO 33/688, ‘A war book for the War Office, 1914’, p. 54 (MO5/‘Precautionary stage’) No. 57 (2a); CAB 15/5, ‘War Book 1914’, 30 June 1914, p. 297 (post office p. 9 section 11 precautionary part 19, postal censorship, No. 1).

87 P.R.O., WO 33/688, ‘A war book for the War Office, 1914’, p. 58 (MO5/‘War stage’), no. 64, ‘Staff’.

88 Kell papers (Simpson, ‘Security Intelligence in war’ by W/ilson/, H/olt/., 1934, p. 15Google Scholar. Two other precautions were also taken. First, warnings were issued in the navy about approaches from spies to dissatisfied seamen, men in debt, or those who had been severely punished, with the result that all such letters were passed on to MO(t). Secondly, British agents carried out a ‘systematic observation’ of those places in Rotterdam, The Hague, Ostend, and other towns where agents were known to meet their contacts on one occasion employing a private detective for this work: Kell papers (Frost), lecture of June 1939, pp. 5–6: P.R.O., FO 371/1909/file 8694, F. H. Villiers to Grey, 26 Feb. 1914.

89 Thompson, W. H., Guard from the Yard (London, 1938), p. 43Google Scholar. The principle of watching without arresting endured, and although between 1911 and 1914 four spies detected through the interception of Ernst's correspondence were brought to trial, in each case MO(t) waited until there was a second, independent source of information before making an arrest – thus protecting their main operation. In Feb. 1914, for example, police arrested Frederick Gould – probably the most important German agent in Britain before the war – after incriminating papers had been found in a house he vacated in Dec. 1913, yet a letter to ‘F. Gould’ had been discovered in Ernst's, correspondence as early as 11 1912Google Scholar: The Times, (5 Mar. 1914), p. 4 col. 1: P.R.O., CRIM 1/151, Exhibit 48A, letter with enclosure posted in Berlin 16 Nov. 1912.

90 Felstead, S. T., German spies at bay (London, 1920), p. 5Google Scholar. Felstead's book is probably the closest we shall ever get to an official history of counter-espionage from 1914 to 1918, being written with information from both MI5 and the Special Branch: Felstead, , In search of sensation, pp. 85–8Google Scholar: Churchill College Archives Centre, Hall papers, 1/3, R. J. Drake to W. R. Hall, 1 Nov. 1932.

91 Churchill, W. S., World crisis, 1, 155–7, 167, 170Google Scholar: Churchill, R. S. (ed.), W. S. Churchill, 11, 3, 1988–9Google Scholar, Churchill to George V, 28 July 1914: P.R.O., CAB 17/102B, ‘Report on the opening of the war’, 1 Nov. 1914, p. 4.

92 Troup, E., The home office (London, 1926 edn), pp. 240–1Google Scholar: P.R.O., WO 32/9098, ‘Police war circular’, 30 July 1914.

93 Kell, C. R., ‘Secret well kept’, p. 140Google Scholar: Kell papers (Frost), lecture of June 1939, p. 4 (‘History’): P.R.O., WO 33/688, ‘A war book for the War Office, 1914’, p. 56 (MO5/ ‘Precautionary stage’), no. 58(1), noting addition of officers in ‘scheme for secret service’; WO 32/10776, ‘Historical sketch of the directorate of military intelligence during the Great War, 1914–1919’ [1921], p. 13.

94 Kell papers (Simpson), ‘Security intelligence in war’ by W[ilson], H[olt]., (1934), pp. 16–17Google Scholar: Kell papers (Frost), lecture of June 1939, p. 7. The advance warning seems to have come from Churchill, who perhaps feared organized sabotage as soon as the British delivered their ultimatum to Germany: Churchill, , World crisis, 1, 170–1Google Scholar.

95 Felstead, , German spies, pp. 8–10Google Scholar: The Times (13 Aug. 1914), p. 3 col. 3, and (15 Aug. 1914), p. 3 col. 2: Pulling, A. (ed.) Manual of emergency legislation (London, 09 1914), p. 51Google Scholar (‘Aliens Restriction Order (No. 1), 1914’).

96 Kell papers (Simpson), ‘Security intelligence in war’ by W/ilson/, H/olt/., (1934), p. 17Google Scholar: P.R.O., CAB 15/6/16, Mathews to secretary of war cabinet, 13 June 1919, p. 4: Felstead, , German spies, p. 22Google Scholar. Some doubt has recently been thrown on the story that the arrests in Aug. 1914 broke a functioning German spy network [ French, D., ‘Spy fever in Britain, 1900–1915’, Historical Journal, xxi, 2 (1978), 364–5Google Scholar]. Whilst it cannot be proved that the men detained formed a single coherent system of espionage, there is no doubt that a large proportion were known German agents whose arrest destroyed the pre-war organization. Of the relevant officials working in Aug. 1914 this opinion is known to have been held by the head of MO(t), the deputy head of MO(t), the head of MO5, the director of military operations, the first lord of the admiralty, the assistant commissioner in charge of the Special Branch, the director of public prosecutions, and the home secretary: Kell papers (Frost), p. 5 of manuscript by Kell relating to ‘“Spies” in the Great War’ (n.d.); Kell papers (Simpson), ‘Security intelligence in war’ by W/ilson/, H/olt/., (1934), p. 17Google Scholar; Macdonogh, G., ‘Military intelligence’, Journal of the Royal Artillery, XLVIII (1921/1922), p. 401Google Scholar; Callwell, C. E., Experiences of a dug-out (London, 1921), p. 134Google Scholar; Lloyd George papers, F/9/2/16, Churchill, W. S., ‘Reduction of estimates’, 19 03 1920, p. 2Google Scholar; Thomson, B., Queer people (London, 1922), pp. 34–5Google Scholar; P.R.O., CAB 15/6/16, Mathews to secretary of war cabinet, 13 June 1919, p. 4; Hansard, House of Commons debates 5th series vol. 65, 5 Aug. 1914, col. 1986 (McKenna on the ‘Aliens Restriction Bill’).

97 Pulling, (ed.), Manual of emergency legislation, pp. 519–20Google Scholar, ‘Espionage/Statement issued by the Home Office’, 8 Oct. 1914. The ‘Aliens restriction order (No. 1)’ of 5 Aug. 1914 had forbidden aliens to have ‘firearms, ammunition or explosives’: ibid. p. 54.

98 Hansard, House of Commons debates, 5th series, vol. 66, 9 Sept. 1914, cols. 564–5 [report from Sir E. Henry read by McKenna].

99 Cmd. 536 (1920 Session, vol. XXII), ‘Report…on the service of the metropolitan special constabulary 1914’ by Ward, E., 1 08 1919, pp. 2, 5Google Scholar: Clarke, B., ‘War-time work of Britain's special contabulary’, Great War, X (London, 1918), 358Google Scholar.

100 P.R.O., HO 45/10729/255193/45, Troup to R. Brade, 27 Aug. 1914. The full history of this frenetic internment campaign, which had detained 10,500 civilians by 22 Sept. 1914, remains to be written. John Bird's recent thesis on the ‘Control of enemy alien civilians’ adds little that is new, and contemporary official memoranda remain the best source: P.R.O., WO 32/5368, ‘Chronological statement of facts connected with the arrest and internment of alien enemies’, sent by Byrne, J. to Belfield, H., 12 11 1914, p. 7Google Scholar: Bird, J. C., ‘Control of enemy alien civilians in Great Britain 1914–1918’, unpublished Ph.D. thesis (London; 1981)Google Scholar.

101 Kell, C. R., ‘Secret well kept’, p. 112Google Scholar.

102 House of Lords Record Office, London, Blumenfeld papers, MCK/1, McKenna to Blumenfeld, 29 Sept. 1914: Blumenfeld, R., R.D.B.'s procession (London, 1935), pp. 317–18Google Scholar.

103 Hansard, House of Lords debates, 5th series, vol. 18, 25 Nov. 1914, col. 145 (Haldane on “The spy peril’): P.R.O., MEPO 2/1643, unsigned C.I.D. report ‘re augmentation to strength of Special Branch’, 20 11 1914, p. 2Google Scholar(showing 114 as full strength of Special Branch); WO 32/10776, ‘Historical sketch’ [1921], p. 13.

104 Army Quarterly, 1, 2 (01 1921), ‘Intelligence’, p. 334Google Scholar.

106 National Maritime Museum, London, Oliver papers, OLV/12, ‘Recollections’ by Oliver, H. F., 11, 95Google Scholar. Oliver was director of the naval intelligence division from Sept. 1913 to Oct. 1914, which helps date this episode to 1914.

106 Speech at Liverpool on 21 September 1914; James, R. R. (ed.), Winston Churchill: His complete speeches, III, 1914–22 (London, 1974), p. 2338Google Scholar.

107 Churchill to Grey, 22 November [1911], printed in Churchill, R. S. (ed.), Winston S. Churchill, II, companion part 2 (London, 1969), p. 1343Google Scholar. The following year Churchill stated that he had sought legal advice in the same month, but he seems to have been mistaken: Grey papers; P.R.O., FO 800/87, pp. 377–91, ‘Memorandum on the general naval situation’, 26 August 1912, p. 10.

108 Churchill to Haldane, 15 January 1912, printed in Churchill, R. S. (ed.), Winston S- Churchill, II, companion part 3 (London, 1969), p. 1496Google Scholar.

109 Churchill, W. S., ‘Memorandum on the General Naval Situation’, 26 08 1912Google Scholar, Grey papers, loc. cit.

110 The conclusions were quoted by Churchill, in his ‘Memorandum on the general naval situation’ of 08 1912Google Scholar: P.R.O., FO 800/87, P. 382 They were clearly considered very secret, for they were added to the printed text in typescript and as an afterthought the references to Kell and Cumming were heavily crossed out. They were obviously written before 26 August 1912, and probably after 17 April 1912 as Mathews later mentioned in this context Captain Reginald Drake, who retired to join MO(t) on this date: P.R.O., CAB 15/6/16, C. W. Mathews to secretary of war cabinet, 13 June 1919, p. 4.