However, Emily knew ‘how to cross her t’s’. The next day she wrote:
Dear Lord Newton2
Thinking over our talk yesterday I rather fear one point may not have been clear.
The idea of a possible private meeting was not his but purely my own very commonplace (though I think commonsense) suggestion.
I should regret any misinterpretation about that – though I incline to think there would be no difficulty should occasion arise.
Yours very truly
E Hobhouse
In his diary, where his tiny writing is difficult to read, Lord Newton talked of the problems he was having over the camps. Ministers from the different departments attended the meetings, each with their own view which was not always relevant. It was interesting that a trickle of internees was returning from the camps all the time and each was interviewed:
July 10: Heard from Gerard [US Ambassador in Germany]. Encloses very sharp note to German Govt on refusal to allow visits and also with ref to Ruhleben.
July 12: Conference about prisoners in [?]Grey’s room. R. Cecil, Curzon, [?]Walter Long, [?]Thorp, [?]Belfield, Hall etc. Inconclusive as usual. Curzon and Long knowing nothing about it, want to mix up civilians and military cases which would lead to hopeless confusion. Hall, as usual, will not consent to anyone going. Says he has about 100 submarine men, whom he cannot part with.
July 15: Visit from Pyke, who escaped from Ruhleben; seemed intelligent. Story very curious one. Six weeks military confinement, without artificial light …
July 17: Conference with five Cabinet ministers and WO [War Office] generals and Rumbold and I unable to get them to do right thing, mainly because R. Cecil had made a statement in House which would have to be contradicted. Crewe there in place of Grey.
From our point of view it is worth noting Newton’s entry for 21 July, which read: ‘Conv with BT [Basil Thomson, Metropolitan Police] about Miss Hobhouse. Told him I thought her quite harmless.’
No doubt disappointed at the loss of his quarry Basil Thomson recorded in his journal: ‘Lord Newton thought it would not be wise to lock her up. She was a silly mischievous old* woman but not disloyal to the country.’3
How Thomson got from the one statement to the other is an interesting mystery! Some years later Thomson found himself in prison but that is another story.
On 19 July Arnold Rowntree, the progressive Liberal MP for York saw Cecil at the Foreign Office and got him to agree to see Emily (about the camps). Cecil said she should make arrangements with Locock.4 Confident with this progress Emily tried to ring Locock five times but was unable to get through. Frustrated with ‘No – Write’, she sent in her scheme for the repatriation of internees with the request that it should be forwarded to Robert Cecil. Some authorities believe it never got to him but the scheme was similar to that finally adopted:
Civilian Camps In England and Germany5
Being that the main trouble in these camps is primarily mental, it is proposed that, in lieu of urging material reforms, camps should be abolished. Nothing is to be gained by keeping them but moral and mental decay.
There are three main categories of prisoners to be dealt with:
Those who wished repatriation
Those who merely wish release
Those of Military Age, trained and untrained.
(The problem also includes wives.)
In considering the merits of any Scheme, numerical difference can be conveniently ignored. In the first place, the State at present holding the larger number of prisoners has the greater burden and secondly, the State that recovers the greater of its nationals will have the heavier burden of maintenance.
The scheme we would propose is:
Men of 50 and over to have the choice of:
1. repatriation taking their wives etc; or
2. internment in a Neutral State, wives remaining here as now and receiving allowances; or
3. remaining in one small selected camp with employment (say Islington) – if really Anglicised (Men who have sons fighting for us, etc.)
Men of 45–50 medically unfit to have the same privilege of choice.
All men of Military age to be interned in a Neutral State under such conditions of freedom as will permit them to follow useful occupations.
Cost. Each Government to pay the Neutral State an agreed sum per head as is done for military convalescents.
Locock told Emily he would submit her plan to Cecil. Her ideas were generally accepted but Sir Horace Rumbold said a formal letter would be sufficient response. Others agreed ‘that the lady had already received enough attention’,6 – they just did not like her and possibly were afraid of her.
Dr Kaminski said the plan had been agreed in Germany. The Foreign Office thought Miss Hobhouse’s scheme ‘quite sensible.’ But Rumbold noted the practical difficulties of finding a neutral country willing to receive prisoners, and he pointed out problems of transport and security. Moreover, Cecil commented, an alternative route of exchange through the Vatican was under consideration. (Probably it was not. He liked to be on top of everything.) Further Foreign Office officials concluded that Emily’s views were doubtless ‘to some extent influenced by her well-known prejudices’.10
On 27 July Cecil was asked in the House of Commons whether there had been any progress in the negotiations. Cecil replied that the Foreign Office was working through American Ambassador Gerard in Berlin to propose repatriation for men over 50, and those over 45 who were ill; the remaining civilian prisoners as well as merchant seamen and retired officers should be interned in a neutral country. A letter to this effect had been submitted to the Germans ‘only five or six days or a week ago’. He promised that a White Paper on the correspondence would soon be published.
On 12 July Emily wrote to her brother Leonard in Manchester where he was doing summer work for the Manchester Guardian. He had just published his book Questions of War and Peace, pondering on the future of Europe. Good though it may have been, immediate peace did not enter into the equation:
Dear Leonard,7
The reason I wish so much to see you is not only sisterly and family in nature, but because I have recently been in Germany – Ruhleben Camp – Belgium, Berlin etc. and I thought it would be of interest and use to you and Mr Scott to hear some account thereof.
I have been and am, of course, very busy here with endless interviews etc and I do not know yet when I shall be free – the work seems to grow – and so I can’t yet see my way of getting to Manchester for a talk. If you or Mr Scott ever dash up to town [London] do let me know and come and see me.
For many reasons I want this kept quiet at any rate for the present so please tell only Mr Scott.
Yrs. E H
She followed this up with a letter on 15 July:
Dear Leonard,8
As the possibility of getting to Manchester recedes I want at least to lose no more time in writing about Ruhleben Camp for the information of the Guardian staff.
Ruhleben is an excellent camp – as camps go (and we know they are and must be, at the best, wretched affairs) – the men have really little to complain of. I ate the bread and found it good, for myself far preferable to Italian, Swiss or Westminster Palace Hotel bread. The rations are good in quality though certainly not excessive in quantity and deficient in fats but as all Germany is on short Commons that cannot be otherwise. Every kindness possible is shown to the internees – golf, cricket, football, tennis, Theatre, Cinema, YWCA hall, Catholic and English Churches and plentiful space for exercise, Arts and Crafts, shops, Canteen, Rooms for study, books, tools etc, etc.
Graf Schwerin who till just now has been Commandant is a perfectly charming old man and beloved of all. That is universal testimony. He gave them complete autonomy of which I regret to say I do not think they shew themselves in all respects worthy.
Compared with our Boer Camps it is a Paradise.
No – the trouble in Ruhleben is not primarily material, it is psychological and mental.
<
br /> For some reason men are less able to bear inaction and loss of freedom than women (probably because we never have been free) and civilians seem far less able to bear it than prisoners of war. Various reasons account for this – they have not like soldiers had their fling and cannot take it as ‘fortune of war’ – they are for the most part older men and less adaptable. They are not disciplined. They have a sense of unfairness that fate caught them thus. They are worried over families and businesses etc etc.
Much more I could say on that point, but it suffices to shew why mental trouble is brewing amongst them.
The English head of the camp said we must get away the men of 45 and over – he could not pull them through another winter – they were infecting all the camp – without them the younger men might brace themselves to face it to the end. Yet I feel for them too. It is having a most unwholesome effect. Morally as well as mentally the camp is very rotten.
All this has nothing to do with the treatment shown them which is kind and good and though they get up to 40 and 45 thousand parcels a month, in all this time only one or two have gone astray. Besides the large kitchens, there is a smaller one where they can have their private food cooked to their liking.
The German Government desire and have all along desired exchange – but their story is that our Government put difficulties in their way. Here I find our Government say they wish exchange but that the Germans put difficulties.
Lord Newton however told me the Germans were right about that but Kitchener refused. On both sides I fancy the naval and military people make the trouble so Lord Newton told me.
Now I come home and from the officials and non officials alike who have worked for the Civilian Camps here, Isle of Man etc. I find exactly the same state of affairs exists. As you can imagine the Germans are equally anxious about their civilians – 28,000 – as we are about ours – 3,700.
I find also that our Government is perfectly aware of the trouble though only Lord Newton is brave enough to give it some Voice.
They know that on both sides the camps are hot beds of lunacy – yet they say ‘Public Opinion’ ‘demands’ the line they are taking viz threats. If the Public shout for Reprisals and antagonize so that no agreement for Exchange can be made it means that hundreds of these poor fellows will go out of their minds.
Now Public opinion is only shouting because it is ill informed. Ruhleben has been used as a lever to rouse feelings against Germany and no one asks for the American or other reports concerning the condition in the Isle of Man where there are 22,000 and other places.
Reprisals are beginning here in the form of excluding the workers who have brought occupation and interest and comforts into the Camps and so saved the wits of many. In Ruhleben I saw many sad cases – an artist named Brakewell, never I gather strong in the upper story, was in a pitiable condition of lost control yet he was touched by my visit and asked about you and your books which he wanted to read.
Lord Devonport, whose son I saw there, quite understood the position now and if the minds of the interned men both here and there are to be saved ‘public opinion’ must be calmed down and soothed – not excited with distorted and unfounded stories.
So I am begging all the Press not to defeat their own aim which is the welfare of the internees, but to guide public opinion into reasonable paths.
Retaliation and Reprisals on both sides are beginning. I am not at liberty to say how on this side – on the German side I feel sure the removal of the kind and beloved Count Schwerin is intended as a reprisal.
I have had a long talk with Mr Beaumont who was 15 months in Ruhleben and who perhaps you know. Our opinions agreed except about the bread which he did not like. There is a party of fashionable fools here who are working semi-officially and who are doing much harm. They make me tired but they mean well.
To my mind the thing to consider is the good of the civilians both in Ruhleben and the Isle of Man and that can only be attained by great calmness in dealing with the subject.
All told, Civilians and War Prisoners we have only a bare 50,000 to look after, whereas all told, Civilians and War Prisoners, Germany has over 2 million to look after and is a blockaded country to boot.
I have much to tell you about Belgium but cannot now – I suppose you saw the official denial from Brussels to yr. attack?
Yrs in haste
E. Hobhouse
Continually interrupted while writing this.
So the correspondence went on. On 17 July Leonard wrote:9
I am interested in your account of Ruhleben. It is always worth while collecting impressions … [He had seen a man just back from the camp whose view was not so rosy as hers] … But I think even women would get on one another’s nerves and would probably do so if living for two years six in a horse box, unable to go in or out without making everyone sit up …
He apparently thought Emily was producing a prejudiced picture. It will be noted she hadn’t mentioned the accommodation at all. Why? It was not likely, though possible in the circumstances, to have been an oversight. It is more probable that she knew it was potential dynamite and did not want to detract from her message. It was a miscalculation that was to cost her.
She replied 23 July:10
…I quite agree six in a horse box for two years is trying – but if the Boer women had had such good accommodation they would not have died – as Ruhleben men don’t die. 14–16 in a Bell tent then mostly sleeping on the earth is as your informant would find a bit worse …
[She had read the reports and did not defend any tyrannies (An appalling report was shortly to come out about Wittenberg camp which Emily passed on her journey through Germany. It was written by the English doctors, one of whom contracted typhus. Certainly the Germans were not always good organisers!] …
Yes– indeed I have had a time of extraordinary interest and now am hard at work about these Camps. With the help of Press and some MPs I hope extinction of the Camps may be attained – broadly repatriation of the old men and Internment in a neutral state of those of Military age. I have drawn up the scheme for Lord Robert – but that is the broad basis. I hope it may succeed but it will probably cost me getting to Bude. Still no one deserves holidays.
Yrs EH
Anyhow work for that idea – then the Govt will call it ‘public opinion’ and be led by it.
On 25 July Leonard wrote:11
… don’t let us get into controversy, but you go your side of the street and I go mine. We both agree that the thing to do is to get the prisoners exchanged if possible, and, if not, to resist reprisals …
[He asked what she was going to do about a holiday at Bude.] We go there on 11th’ [August] … [Both his daughters were doing hospital work in Wimbledon, and tragically his wife’s nephew, Noel Hadwen, had been killed in the attack on 1 July.] … a good sort, and a promising career gone …
Emily had now submitted or proposed two articles to the Manchester Guardian, one on Ruhleben and one on Belgium and they had both been dismissed. Possibly the newspaper had been warned Emily might be subscribing to the German point of view.
It must have been a bitter disappointment to Emily, as she had expected the paper would respond positively. Her answer to Leonard on 2 August is quite bitter:
No dear Leonard12 – I did not in the least mind the refusal of my article – on the contrary I expected it … I am perfectly aware the Press today prefers to obscure the truth …
No I did not answer all your arguments about Ruhleben, nor fully, any – because controversy bores me and I have no time for it. I now enclose the general basis Scheme which we are working through. Practically all the London Press has promised me to support it and the Archbishop also – and others of sundry kinds.
So if the Press keeps its head at all there is a chance of success.
Notes
* They were, in fact, much of the same age. Newton was born in 1857, Emily in 1860 and Thomson in 1862.
1. JHB collection
2. Ib
id.
3. John Hall That Bloody Woman p. 256
4. Kaminski p. 317
5. Ibid. p. 318; JHB collection
6. Kaminski pp. 318–19; JHB collection
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid.
12. JHB collection
13
AUGUST 1916 – CLOAK AND DAGGER
E mily had been working on a new idea. On 2 August 1916, she arranged to meet with Randall Davidson, Archbishop of Canterbury. Randall Davidson was known to be interested in Ruhleben, and Emily hoped he would help not only with the exchange of internees but especially with starting peace talks. In her notes he described him and her visit:1
Friendly – kind eyes – well meaning. A small man rattling about in a big place; unable to fill it but wanting to do his duty. Listened about Ruhleben, said he was of my opinion – viz inclined to believe that Ruhleben was not so bad as painted and ours not so good as painted. Acknowledged that the Press had recently shown restraint. Had already spoken against Retaliation. Saw my point that apart from being unXtian [unChristian] and inhuman it was a fatal policy for our men. Took a long time telling me how he had been caricatured as ‘pro-Kaiser’ for his speeches against Reprisals. Feared to be thought nagging if repeated his views too often.
Promised to do what he could. Would see Lord Newton. I begged for strong utterance to give the leading note. If the tide of Militarism was rising as it seems, at least the Xtian [Christian] church should say ‘This cannot be tolerated; thus far and no further.’
Agent of Peace Page 16
