NURSE CAVELL

Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 146, 21 June 1924, Page 15

NURSE CAVELL

FURTHER LIGHT ON TRIAL

Almost all that it is possible to know about the trial and execution of Nurse Cavell by the German authorities in Belgium during the war period has been told. Even the dramatic circumstances which brought about her hasty execution may already be considered as fairly complete. It is based mainly on the correspondence exchanged between Sir EdwaTd Grey and Mr. Page in the summer of 1915; on the journal published in 1917 by Mr. Hugh Gibson, Secretary to the TJnited States Legation in Brussels; and on the testimony of the British heroine's defender, Maitre Kirschen ("Devant les Conseils de Guerre Allemands," Brussels, 1919). Up to now, however, writes Emile Cammaerts in the "Daily Telegraph," the responsibility for Miss Cavell's execution had not been clearly established, some publicists maintaining that it rested mainly on Governor Yon Biasing, the Kaiser's representative in Belgium, while others discriminated between, the action of the civil and military authorities, and pointed out that General Yon Sauberzweig, Military Governor of Brussels, had played a far more important part in the tragedy. Mr. Gibson showed that both the American and the Spanish Legations in Brussels had succeeded in obtaining the temporary support of Baron Yon der Lancken, the Governor-General's political counsel, and that the latter had failed to move Yon Sauberzweig. Maitre Kirschen is still more emphatic in his denunciations of the Military Governor of Brussels. 'Two new documents, published by M. Fernand Passelecq in the "Revue Genertle" (Brussels), leave no doubt as to the soundness of both Mr. Gibson's and Maitre Kirschen's conclusions. The first is a confidential report sent, by Yon der I Laracken to Under-Secretary of State | Yon Jagow in December, 1915; the second a letter written by Yon Sauberzweig himself in July, 1919, to a high official attached to the office instituted in Germany "for the defence of the Germans before enemy tribunals." It will Ibe remembered that at the time public opinion in Allied" countries was urgently I demanding the punishment of German [ war criminals, and the latter were mak- ; ing desperate efforts to shirk their rei sponsibilities and prepare their defence.

Before referring to the documents published by the "Revue Generale," it may be useful to remind the reader that | during the war Belgium was subjected to a civil as well as to a military administration. The latter was all-powerful behind the lines, in Flanders and Hainault, while in the rest of the country it was supposed only to interfere when ifie interests of the German army were concerned, and in case of "military necessity." In spite of the rank he held in the army, Governor Yon Bissing really represented the civil administration, as well as did many of his subordinates, among whom Baron Yon der Lancken played a prominent part. Beside these, Major-General Yon Sauberzweig acted i independently as Military Governor of Brussels, and, according to German law, his authority could not be superseded \in matters pertaining to his administration, such as the execution of the sentences passed by the German War Tribunal. There were other cases besides the Cavell trial over which the two administrations came into sharp conflict, Yon der Lancken endeavouring to Germanise Belgium by obtaining some support among the disaffected elements of the population, and Yon Sauberzweig relying entirely on terrorism. Yon der Lancken's letter to the Un-der-Secretary of State affords an excellent example of the resentment felt by the civil administrators against the rough-and-ready methods of their military colleagues. In this confidential report, the Governor-General's political adviser, who was at the same time the secret agent of the German Government in Belgium, accuses Yon Sauberzweig of uselessly exasperating the Belgian people by a series of vexatious and brutal measures, thus neutralising the efforts of the civil authorities. "All the detailed arrangements of the peace authorities can be made ineffective if any isolated general is allowed to carry out plans , which are brought back straight from the battlefields." The letter includes a particularly interesting reference to the Cavell affair. "The Cavell alfair is known to your Excellency in all its details. Its effect has confirmed what I had foretold M. . Yon Sauberzweig during that night interview which I had with him. It has nevertheless not shaken, indater days, his opinion concerning the opportunity of . the execution. He has, it is true, given me assurances that he would henceforth submit to my approval all his political ordinances, but he has not, unhappily, up to this day, followed this line 8f conduct." The night interview alluded to can only be the conversation which Yon der Lancken had with Yon Sauberzweig on the night of 11th October, and which lasted until 2 o'clock in the morning. According to Me. Kirschen, the Gov-ernor-General obtained the power to pardon after the death of Miss Cavell, and no' further executions took place without his approval. The same writer records that Yon der Lancken, being urged by the Spanish Minister to telephone direct to the Kaiser, had remarked that he was not, like the Marquis de Villalobar, a personal friend of his sovereign. When, a few days later, the German political counsellor expressed his regret that he had not followed the advice given to him, the Minister remarked that he had lost a splendid opportunity to become such a friend.

If any further proof should be required of Yon Sauberzweig's responsibility, it can be found in the message he sent from Cassel a few weeks before his death to the office for the Defence of Germans before Enemy Tribunals: "Late on the evening before the execution Baron Yon der Lancken presented to mo a petition for mercy, which, as far as I can remember, had been handed to him by the American Charge d'Affaires. Lancken urged that the petition should be transmitted to His Majesty, who would take the decision. I replied that, after much thought, I had already taken the decision, and that I should not reconsider it. . ... Other petitions reached me after the execution had taken place."

The two principal arguments which Yon Sauberzweig puts forward for his defence are: (1) That his first duty was to defend his comrades fighting at the front, whose lives had been endangered by Miss Cavell's action ; and (2) that Miss Cavell was an English subject— " if she had been a Belgian, I should not, perhaps, at.first have waived aside any idea of pardon. As she was Knghsli, and as, according to.reports which reached me, .she had boasted of her crime, .I had no reason l o recommend her to His Majesty's mercy." Yon Sauberzweig is also at great pains to show that the. verdict of the German military court could not be considered as ; illegal, and appends to his letter an extract from the " Kolnische Zeitung (Bth June, 1919), mentioning some comments made by Mr. Justice Darling on the case. These arguments do not diminish the heavy responsibility which he ii'sumed by refusing tin; petition, ignoring the iidvice of his own colleague, and hastening the execution in order to crush the efforts of tho«e who were fiehtins co desperately to wv ß Miss Cavcll a lilt.