Agent of Peace (22 page)

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 Leonard
12
– 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.

*
      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
.    Ibid.

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

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.'

Later we passed to speak of my interview with von Jagow. He refused to believe that Alsace-Lorraine had been offered to the French. I told him I knew it not from von Jagow's lips but from two high authorities but I told him what von J had conveyed to me, his general attitude of moderation and reason … I spoke of the right hand of fellowship held out by Germany if we would take it. I went further and told him, and him only, of that which I had promised von Jagow. He said that the fact I had put the seal on his lips, nullified its importance; no step could be advanced.

Said a thing told Confidentially was of no use unless told to the person responsible. I said that the knowledge would, I hoped, have strengthened any effort he could make. He said, ‘No; it would not'. Rather urged me to reconsider if I could conscientiously relax my promise in any degree. Said the letters I left behind were of great importance. [In Switzerland perhaps, – there is no indication as to what these letters were unless they were the correspondence with von Jagow.] Spoke at length on this point and repeated himself a good deal. Wished me to be clear that nothing advanced without my permission to unseal his lips.

As Emily came away from the meeting she realised she had to get a message to Jagow to ask him to release her from her promise. Her promise was not to divulge that he was willing to talk peace (on the grounds that Britain could take it as a sign of weakness). She will have considered her options, and, although nothing is written, I believe decided that the best approach would be through the German section at the American Embassy. To go through her contacts in Switzerland or the Netherlands would take too long.

By a letter
2
we know she went to the German section of the Embassy and was well received. We can only surmise that she was able to arrange for a message to be sent either to the German Minister in Switzerland, Baron von Romberg, or to Jagow himself.

What neither she nor the Embassy knew was that as all cables passed through British hands messages could be intercepted, and the name Miss Hobhouse would have raised a red flag. That this happened could explain Cecil's unexpected statements in the House of Commons both on the exchange of internees and the acceptable procedure for starting peace talks. The thought of her Embassy visit could also account for his virulent attacks on Emily herself in October. The Foreign Office did not appreciate interference from
anyone
.

While Emily was at the Embassy the suggestion was probably made that she write to the US Ambassador, Dr Walter Hines Page, with a request that the President intervene in the process of getting the internees repatriated. She wrote a good and sincere letter but we know that this move may not have been entirely necessary at that time, so it could have been partly as a ‘cover' for her visit. If news of this letter got back to the Foreign Office they would not have cared for that either.

She wrote:
3

August 5th 1916

Yr Excellency,

Will you allow me, on the broad basis of humanity, to write to you quite privately and unofficially and even without introduction?

It has been suggested to me in the course of my work for the release of Civilian Prisoners in the camps of England and Germany, and even urged by various prominent persons, that the President of the United States is the one Personage who could take the matter up with success and by appealing simultaneously to the two Governments bring them into agreement by a promise to himself.

As the President is beyond our reach. I was counselled to ask your Excellency if you would in private capacity or not as seems to you best, bring this request before him …

[She proceeded to outline what she hoped could happen.]

Indeed the moment seems ripe for such action – Salvation in lieu of Destruction, a refreshing thought and the whole question would thus be lifted to a higher plane and like the Red Cross removed from the Spirit of War. About 35,000 men are concerned; and this seems but a small number in contrast with the vast figures of the Military, but their fate affects also thousands of women and children – their wives and families …

Should apology be needed for this appeal I hope and believe you will grant it when I tell you that I solemnly promised the men at Ruhleben and the German Government to leave no stone unturned to obtain the release of both sets of prisoners.

The United States was not yet at war with Germany. Like many peace activists Emily had great faith in the abilities of the Americans to take a dispassionate view and help in the international field.

On 9 August 1916 she wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury the confidential draft of which read:
4

Your Grace,

I have thought long and seriously but cannot feel I should do right to relax my promise on the point we discussed. At any rate not at present. Opportunity is offering itself by which to ask if the prohibition can be removed.

I pray it may be, for words fail to express how strongly I feel that we are all wrong to continue this slaughter, and as in the end Negotiation must be resorted to. How desirable – nay how urgent to begin at once.

All that your Grace pointed out to me was exceedingly helpful and I am very grateful for it; nevertheless I cannot abandon my belief that the knowledge of a fact bearing written [in] it such a disposition of goodwill and readiness on the other side cannot fail to be an inward strength to anyone placed in a position to plead with the Government and to lead the Nation in the highest paths. It may lack legal importance apart from full disclosure but does it not contain spiritual value of greater import?

Your Grace – I have mixed these two years with the peoples of Holland, Italy, Switzerland, Germany, France and Belgium – besides our own country, and everywhere the same ‘darkness covers the earth and thick darkness the people.'

All alike grope for the Light to arise and shine and there is but one Light to illumine Humanity – the Love Eternal which comprehends and embraces all nations alike.

I am jealous for our Country that she should be the exponent of this Love that she should initiate a great moral and spiritual act such as would make her ‘blessed amongst nations'. Without this it seems to me that our righteousness is as rags.

My hope in telling you what I did was just this – that the knowledge that our opponent would support and forward such effort would give irresistible power – and multitudes at home and abroad would rise up and call you blessed.

If I presume on pressing this point I beg your Grace to pardon me – realizing that it is the outcome of a passionate desire not merely to hasten Peace but still more – see it attained by the power of the Spirit rather than by the murderous Powers now at work.

I have the honour to be

Yrs obediently

Emily Hobhouse

In a PS she said she had heard from Lord Beauchamp (a former Cabinet Minister) to whom she had spoken to about the Civilian Camps that he would be glad to assist the Archbishop in any way over the question of internees.

At the parliamentary session on 10 August, Commander Wedgewood commented to Cecil in the House of Commons that the British people wished ‘to get rid of' the more than 20,000 Germans interned in Britain in exchange for the 4,000 British in Germany. Cecil answered that negotiations were stuck on the issue of numbers, as Britain wished to keep the exchange of men of military age equal. This stand was supported by Grey stressing military considerations.

However, the previous day, 9 August, Lord Newton had written to Emily:
5
‘We are negotiating with the German Gov. for the exchange of civilians. If this should happily be effected or if they were interned in neutral countries, then camps here would naturally cease to exist.'

Emily noted on the back of her press cutting: ‘The exchange question seems to be going along satisfactorily so I'd better not include that in the message.' This would seem to refer to her reply to Lord Newton's letter. She was not fooled by Cecil's remarks, which may however have annoyed Newton, who was dealing with the sensitive negotiations.

While at the American Embassy Emily would have talked about Belgium. A few days later she had a letter from Herbert Hoover, the future US President, who was running the Belgian food programme.
6
Unlike the Foreign Office officials Hoover was anxious to see her, and as he passed her hotel each evening, offered to visit her there on any evening
convenient to her
. (Notes of that interview follow later, and the letter appears as Plate 6.)

Emily's first published article was on the Leader page of the
Daily News
, 8 August 1916. It was published anonymously and was entitled ‘Life in Germany – from a correspondent'. It was introduced as follows:

The writer passed through Germany within the last few weeks. The record, which does not agree with the evidence generally received as to the internal condition of Germany, is offered only as a personal impression.

The aspect of Germany is so different from the picture usually painted, that it was almost a shock to see the tranquil condition of the country and the calm confidence of the people. The wide plains were waving with corn, promising well up to that midsummer moment – the harvest upon which so much depends for the coming year. Everywhere haymaking was proceeding apace with what looked like a heavy crop. Down the Rhine Valley the cherries were ripening, and men and women (chiefly women) were climbing the trees and gathering the fruit. Later one saw the barrows in Berlin piled with these cherries, and heard that the stones of all fruit were to be saved and collected this year and the kernels crushed for oil. This economical form of natural housekeeping has great attractions for the frugal mind, and one wonders why one needs a war to prevent waste and inculcate economy.

A beautiful sight it was in the long midsummer evenings to see a Zeppelin sailing aloft … Surely Zeppelins will shortly be vehicles possessed by all for sky trips, opening new worlds, a precious means of closer intercommunication safeguarded by Hague Rules from evil-practices.

Share and Share Alike

Germany is living very carefully in these days, the strain falling heaviest during these final weeks before the harvest is gathered; then the national larder will be better filled. The blockade policy has certainly caused privation, and privation spells suffering for many innocent people; but not of a nature or magnitude to influence the war. Indeed the Social Democrats assert that had the distribution of food been taken in hand earlier, and luxurious waste prohibited at first, there need have been no scarcity today. Their scheme of food distribution submitted to the Government over a year ago was at the time disregarded, now it is recognized as a necessity and point by point is being adopted. What a marvellous leveller this must prove, when in matters of food all must share and share alike. The rich it is true can obtain variety by the purchase of luxuries, but necessaries are now being strictly regulated for the good of all. A man may not have a pound of butter and his neighbour none, each must have four ounces (now further reduced to three ounces a week) and must make that serve for table and cooking. The housewife is learning, she says, to cook as the English do, namely to grill steaks and chops, and in all things to return to the simpler habits which satisfied the country before 1870.