Part 23
Suspicion having been directed against her,—how is not clearly known—she was subjected to espionage and in consequence she was arrested August 15, 1915, and thrown into prison at St. Giles. This did not cause her any apprehension as she anticipated no more than a short imprisonment. She did not imagine, in fact, no one dreamed that the German authorities would with premeditation shoot a woman for pitying and showing mercy to the helpless.
Mr. Brand Whitlock, the American Minister to Belgium, who at that time represented (and until the United States entered the war continued to represent) British interests in Belgium, felt an intense sympathy with Miss Cavell and at once took up the matter of securing for her a fair and proper trial. He wrote a letter to Baron von der Lancken, the German Civil Governor of Belgium, stating that he had been urged by telegraph to take charge of the defense and requested that Mr. de Leval, councilor for the American Embassy, be allowed to see and confer with Miss Cavell. This letter was not answered. Mr. Whitlock again wrote more urgently. None too promptly the German Civil Governor finally made reply, refusing to permit anyone to see Miss Cavell as the Department of the Governor General “as a matter of principle does not allow an accused person to have any interviews whatever,” stating also that Miss Cavell had confessed her guilt and that her defense would be conducted by Mr. Braun.
THE GERMAN WAY
For some reason not ascertained, Braun could not undertake the defense, and it was turned over to Mr. Kirschen, a Rumanian, practising law in Brussels. Mr. de Leval thereupon wrote to Mr. Kirschen, as he stated in his narrative later:
“I put myself in communication with Mr. Kirschen, who told me that Miss Cavell was prosecuted for having helped soldiers to cross the frontier. I asked him whether he had seen Miss Cavell and whether she had made any statement to him, and to my surprise found that the lawyers defending prisoners before the German Military Court were not allowed to see their clients before the trial, and were not shown any document of the prosecution. This, Mr. Kirschen said, was in accordance with the German military rules. He added that the hearing of the trial of such cases was carried out very carefully, and that in his opinion, although it was not possible to see the client before the trial, in fact the trial itself developed so carefully and so slowly, that it was generally possible to have a fair knowledge of all the facts and to present a good defense for the prisoner. This would especially be the case for Miss Cavell, because the trial would be rather long, as she was prosecuted with thirty-four other prisoners.
“I informed Mr. Kirschen of my intention to be present at the trial so as to watch the case. He immediately dissuaded me from taking such attitude, which he said would cause a great prejudice to the prisoner, because the German judges would resent it and feel it almost as an affront if I was appearing to exercise a kind of supervision on the trial. He thought that if the Germans would admit my presence, which was very doubtful, it would in any case cause prejudice to Miss Cavell.
“Mr. Kirschen assured me over and over again that the Military Court of Brussels was always perfectly fair, and that there was not the slightest danger of any miscarriage of justice. He promised that he would keep me posted on all the developments which the case would take and would report to me the exact charges that were brought against Miss Cavell and the facts concerning her that would be disclosed at the trial, so as to allow me to judge by myself about the merits of the case. He insisted that, of course, he would do all that was humanly possible to defend Miss Cavell to the best of his ability.”
The trial began Thursday, Oct. 7. Some opinion of the value of Mr. Kirschen’s assurance made “over and over again that the military court of Brussels was always perfectly fair,” etc., may be formed from the facts that Miss Cavell was not allowed to have a defender of her friends’ choosing, that she had no record of the evidence, oral or documentary, to study in preparation for her defense, that she was kept in solitary confinement for over nine weeks without opportunity to consult even with her legal advisers, during which time she was subjected to repeated cross examinations, and statements said to have been made by her confessing guilt were transmitted by the German authorities to the lawyer who subsequently was to defend her.
The trial was conducted in German, a language she did not understand and which had to be interpreted to her. As a commentator said, “It obviously was impossible to place any adequate scheme of defense with a lawyer whom she saw for the first time when the trial began, a lawyer who had had no opportunity of studying the documents of the prosecution. That Mr. Kirschen did the best he could under the conditions is possible, though his subsequent conduct did not give assurance of the devotion and profound interest to be expected of a conscientious lawyer charged with an obligation that appealed at once to his humanity and his chivalry.”
SENTENCED TO DEATH
The fullest account of the trial was that given in M. de Leval’s report to Mr. Whitlock. It was as follows:
“Miss Cavell was prosecuted for having helped English and French soldiers, as well as Belgian young men, to cross the frontier and to go over to England. She had admitted by signing a statement before the day of the trial, and by public acknowledgment in Court, in the presence of all the other prisoners and the lawyers, that she was guilty of the charges brought against her, and she had acknowledged not only that she had helped these soldiers to cross the frontier, but also that some of them had thanked her in writing when arriving in England. This last admission made her case so much the more serious, because if it only had been proved against her that she had helped the soldiers to traverse the Dutch frontier, and no proof was produced that these soldiers had reached a country at war with Germany, she could only have been sentenced for an attempt to commit the ‘crime’ and not for the ‘crime’ being duly accomplished. As the case stood the sentence fixed by the German military law was a sentence of death.
“Paragraph 58 of the German Military Code says:
“‘Will be sentenced to death for treason any person who, with the intention of helping the hostile Power, or of causing harm to the German or allied troops, is guilty of one of the crimes of paragraph 90 of the German Penal Code.’
“The case referred to in above said paragraph 90 consists in—
“... conducting soldiers to the enemy....’
“The penalties above set forth apply, according to paragraph 160 of the German Code, in case of war, to foreigners as well as to Germans.
“In her oral statement before the Court Miss Cavell disclosed almost all the facts of the whole prosecution. She was questioned in German, an interpreter translating all the questions in French, with which language Miss Cavell was well acquainted. She spoke without trembling and showed a clear mind. Often she added some greater precision to her previous depositions.
“When she was asked why she helped these soldiers to go to England, she replied that she thought that if she had not done so they would have been shot by the Germans, and that therefore she thought she only did her duty to her country in saving their lives.
“The Military Public Prosecutor said that argument might be good for English soldiers, but did not apply to Belgian young men whom she induced to cross the frontier, and who would have been perfectly free to remain in the country without danger to their lives.
“Mr. Kirschen made a very good plea for Miss Cavell, using all arguments that could be brought in her favor before the Court.
“The Military Public Prosecutor, however, asked the Court to pass a death sentence on Miss Cavell and eight other prisoners among the thirty-five. The Court did not seem to agree, and the judgment was postponed.”
WHITLOCK ATTEMPTS TO SAVE HER
The duplicity of the German authorities was later demonstrated. The political departments of the Governor-General of Belgium had given the American Legation positive assurance that it would be fully informed of developments in the case. As late as 6.30 o’clock on Monday evening, three days after the trial, the Legation was positively informed by Conrad, of the political department, in answer to direct inquiries, that sentence had not been pronounced. Conrad renewed his previous assurances that he would not fail to inform the American officials as soon as there was any news. _At this time sentence of death already had been pronounced._
[Illustration:
© _Underwood & Underwood._
Mr. Brand Whitlock,
American Ambassador to Belgium during the war.]
At 8 o’clock that evening M. de Leval learned through private but reliable sources that Miss Cavell had been sentenced to death at 5 o’clock that afternoon, and that she would be shot at 2 o’clock the next morning. Thus the fact of her sentence was kept as secret as possible, the officials denying it, and her accusers were evidently so fearful that even at the eleventh hour a plea for mercy might prevail that they had her shot, in the night, within nine hours of her conviction.
When, at 8 o’clock, M. de Leval was informed of the sentence and impending execution, there remained but six hours in which to attempt to save Miss Cavell’s life. He hurried to Mr. Whitlock, who was ill, unable to leave the house, but who wrote an impassioned note to Baron von der Lancken, the Civil Governor:
My dear Baron:—I am too ill to present my request to you in person, but I appeal to the generosity of your heart to support it and save this unfortunate woman from death. Have pity on her.
Yours sincerely, BRAND WHITLOCK.
THE LAST PLEA FAILS
With this letter and a plea for clemency addressed to the Governor-General, M. de Leval and Mr. Hugh Gibson, First Secretary of the Legation, went to the Marquis de Villalobar, the Spanish Minister, to beg his coöperation. He most heartily joined them and the three went to the house of the Civil Governor. Mr. Gibson reported the interview and its negative results to the American Minister:
“Baron von der Lancken and all the members of his staff were absent for the evening. We sent a messenger to ask that he return at once to see us in regard to a matter of utmost urgency. A little after 10 o’clock he arrived, followed shortly after by Count Harrach and Herr von Falkenhausen, members of his staff. The circumstances of the case were explained to him and your note presented, and he read it aloud in our presence. He expressed disbelief in the report that sentence had actually been passed, and manifested some surprise that we should give credence to any report not emanating from official sources. He was quite insistent on knowing the exact source of our information, but this I did not feel at liberty to communicate to him. Baron von der Lancken stated that it was quite improbable that sentence had been pronounced, that even if so, it would not be executed within so short a time, and that in any event it would be quite impossible to take any action before morning. It was, of course, pointed out to him that if the facts were as we believed them to be, action would be useless unless taken at once. We urged him to ascertain the facts immediately, and this, after some hesitancy, he agreed to do.
“He telephoned to the presiding judge of the court-martial and returned in a short time to say that the facts were as we had represented them, and that it was intended to carry out the sentence before morning. We then presented, as earnestly as possible, your plea for delay. So far as I am able to judge, we neglected to present no phase of the matter which might have had any effect, emphasizing the horror of executing a woman, no matter what her offense, pointing out that the death sentence had heretofore been imposed only for actual cases of espionage and that Miss Cavell was not even accused by the German authorities of anything so serious. I further called attention to the failure to comply with Mr. Conrad’s promise to inform the Legation of the sentence. I urged that inasmuch as the offences charged against Miss Cavell were long since accomplished, and that as she had been for some weeks in prison, a delay in carrying out the sentence could entail no danger to the German cause. I even went so far as to point out the fearful effect of a summary execution of this sort upon public opinion, both here and abroad, and, although I had no authority for doing so, called attention to the possibility that it might bring about reprisals.
THERE COULD BE NO APPEAL
“The Spanish Minister forcibly supported all our representations and made an earnest plea for clemency.
“Baron von der Lancken stated that the Military Governor was the supreme authority (‘Gerichtsherr’) in matters of this sort; that appeal from his decision could be carried only to the Emperor, the Governor-General having no authority to intervene in such cases. He added that under the provisions of German martial law the Military Governor had discretionary power to accept or to refuse acceptance of an appeal for clemency. After some discussion he agreed to call the Military Governor on the telephone and learn whether he had already ratified the sentence, and whether there was any chance for clemency. He returned in about half an hour, and stated that he had been to confer personally with the Military Governor, who said that he had acted in the case of Miss Cavell only after mature deliberation; that the circumstances in her case were of such a character that he considered the infliction of the death penalty imperative; and that in view of the circumstances of this case he must decline to accept your plea for clemency or any representation in regard to the matter.
“Even after Baron von der Lancken’s very positive and definite statement that there was no hope, and that under the circumstances ‘even the Emperor himself could not intervene,’ we continued to appeal to every sentiment to secure delay, and the Spanish Minister even led Baron von der Lancken aside in order to say very forcibly a number of things which he would have felt hesitancy in saying in the presence of the younger officers and of M. de Leval, a Belgian subject.
“His Excellency talked very earnestly with Baron von der Lancken for about a quarter of an hour. During this time M. de Leval and I presented to the younger officers every argument we could think of. I reminded them of our untiring efforts on behalf of German subjects at the outbreak of war and during the siege of Antwerp. I pointed out that, while our services had been rendered gladly and without any thought of future favors, they should certainly entitle you to some consideration for the only request of this sort you had made since the beginning of the war. Unfortunately, our efforts were unavailing. We persevered until it was only too clear that there was no hope of securing any consideration for the case.”
[Illustration:
© _Underwood & Underwood._
The Final Tribute to Edith Cavell
The funeral procession entering Westminster Abbey before being taken to the Cathedral in Norwich for interment.]
EDITH CAVELL’S LAST HOURS
M. de Leval had made application on Sunday evening that he and the British chaplain, the Rev. H. Sterling Gahan, might be permitted to see Miss Cavell in jail. This was at first refused, but on Monday evening, after the sentence of death had been passed, Mr. Gahan was allowed to visit her. Mr. Gahan subsequently wrote a simple and moving statement of what took place:
“To my astonishment and relief I found my friend perfectly calm and resigned. But this could not lessen the tenderness and intensity of feeling on either part during that last interview of almost an hour.
“Her first words to me were upon a matter concerning herself personally, but the solemn asseveration which accompanied them was made expressly in the light of God and eternity. She then added that she wished all her friends to know that she willingly gave her life for her country, and said: ‘I have no fear nor shrinking; I have seen death so often that it is not strange or fearful to me.’ She further said: ‘I thank God for this ten weeks’ quiet before the end.’ ‘Life has always been hurried and full of difficulty.’ ‘This time of rest has been a great mercy.’ ‘They have all been very kind to me here. But this I would say, standing as I do in view of God and eternity, I realize that patriotism is not enough. I must have no hatred or bitterness towards anyone.’
“We partook of the Holy Communion together, and she received the Gospel message of consolation with all her heart. At the close of the little service I began to repeat the words ‘Abide with me,’ and she joined softly in the end.
“We sat quietly talking until it was time for me to go. She gave me parting messages for relations and friends. She spoke of her soul’s needs at the moment and she received the assurance of God’s Word as only the Christian can do.
“Then I said ‘Good-bye,’ and she smiled and said, ‘We shall meet again.’
“The German military chaplain was with her at the end and afterwards gave her Christian burial.
“He told me: ‘She was brave and bright to the last. She professed her Christian faith and that she was glad to die for her country.’ ‘She died like a heroine.’”
VON BISSING’S DEFENSE
It is not surprising that the secrecy, the precipitate haste and the early morning hour of the execution gave rise to many sensational reports, among others that Miss Cavell fainted on the way, and was shot to death by the commanding officer as she lay unconscious. But it seems to be certain that the execution was carried out in the usual military way and without any aggravating incident. It was, however, quite in keeping with the brutal and conscienceless procedure throughout that the place of burial was kept secret, so that none of the friends of the martyred nurse could pay even the tribute of a tear at her grave. One needs but to look at the photographed face of von Bissing, the German Governor-General of Belgium responsible for the vindictive killing of Miss Cavell, to see the outward signs of a despicable soul. The only charitable thought with which one can review his acts is that his mind was already diseased and corrupted by the illness that not long after sent him to the final accounting for his Belgian infamies which—with the exception of Germany—roused the whole world to execration.
It is worthy of note in this connection that in a talk with Mr. Karl Kitchen, a writer for the New York _World_, Von Bissing expressed great astonishment that an American newspaper man thought it worth while paying a visit to Brussels over “such an affair.” He was unable to understand “why the world is interested in the case. When thousands of innocent people have died in the war, why should anyone become hysterical over the death of one guilty woman?” And he admitted in the talk that the authorities had hurried on the execution not because Miss Cavell had helped fugitives to escape, but because they wanted to make her an example to awe the Belgians. He said:
“A few years in prison is not sufficient punishment for an offense of this kind. For punishment in a case of this nature is meted out to deter others from committing the same offense. If the Cavell woman had been sent to prison she would have been released in two or three years—at the end of the war. Amnesty is usually granted to all prisoners convicted of offenses of this nature, espionage, and so forth, when peace is made.
“The Cavell woman was not charged with espionage. The charge of aiding the enemy’s soldiers to escape which was made against her was sufficiently serious. Her death was deplorable—but I do not see why it should occasion such hysteria in America.”
That was von Bissing’s self-justification. Baron von der Lancken’s plea was more _naïve_. As the execution was purely a military affair, he, the Civil Governor, did not interfere. “It would have been a breach of etiquette if he had done so!” It counted nothing with these official exponents of Kultur that Miss Cavell had been the compassionate and skillful nurse of numbers of wounded German soldiers in the Brussels hospitals. That offered them no reason for treating her with leniency.
[Illustration:
_Drawn by Joseph Cummings Chase._
1st Lieut. George W. Puryear
The first American officer to escape from a German prison. While making his escape he was shot at six times, but by running directly at the guard who was shooting at him, and thus confusing his aim, he avoided being hit. He was captured July 26, 1918, and reached Switzerland, after swimming the Rhine.]
[Illustration:
© _Underwood and Underwood._
Memorial in Norwich, England, Dedicated to Edith Cavell]
It was the worse for Germany that etiquette and native savagery put clemency aside in this case. As the London _Times_ declared, “The late Miss Cavell’s death came like a trumpet call to the British nation. It showed once again the real character of the enemy this country is fighting. To the soldiers in Flanders it gave a fresh battle-cry and to civilians at home it served to re-emphasize the need of greater effort and great sacrifice. Before leaping for the trenches for a charge the soldiers shouted: ‘For Miss Cavell.’”
The King and Queen of England wrote to the aged mother of Miss Cavell expressing their sympathy with her and their horror of the deed that took her daughter from her. There was a great memorial service in St. Paul’s, the church itself and the churchyard around it being crowded by every class. The nation was thrilled. The French also made the cause their own. From Allies and neutrals the world over came messages of sympathy and indignation. Nowhere, perhaps, was the emotion deeper than in the United States. The American people were aroused in many ways. Their national dignity was offended, because their representatives had been slighted when attempting to save the Englishwoman. But this resentment counted for little as compared with the genuine wrath at an act of barbarous inhumanity to a woman.