Legation in Sofia, who stated that the officer had done everything possible for our men. Further inquiry was promised (_Manchester Guardian_, November 8, 1917). The charges of the prisoners are in this case not considered as necessarily true or unbiased. Ought not similar caution to be observed against whomsoever the charges may be made?

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 2: It is fair to add that the International Red Cross in January, 1915, visited camps at Holyport, Dyffry, Dorchester, Southend, Portsmouth, and Queensferry. They did not visit the Isle of Man, where even then about 4,600 civilians were interned, and they were evidently, if somewhat innocently, hoping for the release of civilians (First Series, p. 25). The reports are quite satisfactory as far as they go, and the delegates considered that the prisoners, and especially the military prisoners (_surtout les militaires_), were treated well. The feeding is, however, criticised rather adversely in the case of Portsmouth (both military and civilian) and at Queensferry (civilian). (_La nourriture est elle bien ce qu'elle doit etre_?) Removal from boats at Southend to _terra firma_ is recommended. The eternal soup, which seems to have been the lot of prisoners in all countries, must become fearfully wearisome.

The preserved fish, etc., of later days may become even more trying.]

[Footnote 3: Bishop Bury (_My Visit to Ruhleben_) writes: "Again I was conscious of just the same spirit of privation-extraordinarily pathetic it was-about people and places...." (p. 79) It is to be feared that some who "profess and call themselves Christians" can see nothing pathetic in the sufferings of an enemy people.]

[Footnote 4: _Comite International de la Croix Rouge, Premiere Serie._]

[Footnote 5: The number of prisoners now (October, 1917) in Germany is probably nearly three times as great.]

[Footnote 6: _Comite International Rapports_ (Premiere Serie, p.

31).]

[Footnote 7: l.c., p. 60.]

[Footnote 8: Reporting on March 9, 1916, Mr. Jackson wrote that, though, "owing to its situation and character," it could never be made "an entirely satisfactory camp," yet "there had been a marked improvement in its general 'atmosphere.'" (Misc. 16 [1916].)]

[Footnote 9: Dr. Ella Scarlett-Synge (M.D., D.P.H.) visited this camp on December 17, 1915. She reports: "The prisoners of war are housed in well-built, well-drained barracks having excellent ventilation. Each man has an iron bedstead with two blankets (or a thick quilt), a straw mattress, good pillow and sheet...."]

[Footnote 10: These indulgences can also be paralleled on this side. A writer from a British internment camp says, during "a great sports week": "There are already a lot in hospital with broken legs and arms."]

[Footnote 11: It is astounding how extremely rare are responsible accounts of the worser ill-deeds by those who have actually suffered them. These stories have almost always been heard from someone else. (Cf. pp. 156, 157.)]

[Footnote 12: "The Common Cause." October 16, 1914.]

II.

CIVILIAN PRISONERS.

RESIDENT ENEMY NATIONALS.

A few extracts from Dr. J. M. Spaight's important work, "War Rights on Land," will be useful as an introduction to this section. "Resident enemy nationals," runs Dr. Spaight's marginal summary, "are not interfered with" (l.c., p. 28). The text proceeds: "The treatment of resident enemy nationals has undergone a great change for the better in modern times. Ancient theory and practice regarded them as enemies, individually, and admitted the right to arrest and imprison them. The last instance of this rigorous rule being put in force is Napoleon's detention of British subjects who happened to be in France when war broke out in 1803. Present usage allows enemy nationals to depart freely, even when they belong to the armed forces of the other belligerent." The State has the right to detain such subjects, but usage is against it. Again, "'Present usage,' says Professor LeFur, 'does not admit of the expulsion _en ma.s.se_ of enemy subjects resident in a belligerent's territory, save when the needs of defence demand such expulsion....' The bad precedent set by the Confederate Government in 1861, when it ordered the banishment of all alien enemies, has not been followed in subsequent wars. France and Germany allowed enemy subjects to continue to reside in their respective territories during the war of 1870-1, but the former country was led by military exigencies to rescind the general privilege so far as Paris and the Department of the Seine were concerned, at the end of August, 1870. A Proclamation was then issued by General Trochu which enjoined 'every person not a naturalised Frenchman and belonging to one of the countries at war with France' to depart within three days, under penalty of arrest and trial in the event of disobedience. The incident is instructive as showing usage [viz., non-interference with resident enemy nationals] in the making; for though there were 35,000 in Paris alone, and their expulsion was clearly justifiable as a measure of defence, the general opinion in Europe was that they were harshly treated, and a sum of 100 million francs was claimed, as part of the war indemnity, in respect of the losses they sustained in being driven out. It shows, as Hall observed, that public opinion 'was already ripe for the establishment of a distinct rule allowing such persons to remain during good behaviour' (_Hall, International Law_, p. 392). The usage has been strengthened by the precedents set in the Russo-Turkish War in 1877-8, the Chino-j.a.panese War of 1894, and the Russo-j.a.panese War, in all of which enemy residents were suffered to remain."

ORIGIN OF GENERAL INTERNMENT.

How did it come about that this more humane usage was in the present war departed from? The average Englishman, I fear, a.s.sumes that all the blame is in this case due to the enemy. The following correspondence should make the matter clearer. [See Miscel. Nos. 7, 8 (1915).]

_Memorandum communicated by American Emba.s.sy,_

October 17, 1914.

The American Emba.s.sy has the honour to submit the following copy of a telegram which has just been received from the Secretary of State at Washington relating to civilian prisoners in the United Kingdom and Germany:

There are a very few English civilians in Germany who have been placed in prison or in prison camps-about 300. The German Government is informed that a great number of German civilian prisoners-over 6,000-are in prison camps in England.

Department is requested by Amba.s.sador, Berlin, to suggest that liberty, so far as possible, be allowed alien enemies detained by war.

_Mr. Page, United States Amba.s.sador in London, to Sir Edward Grey._ (Received Oct. 31.) American Emba.s.sy, London, October 30, 1914.

Sir,-I have the honour to transmit herewith enclosed the attached copy of an open telegram I have received from the Minister at Copenhagen relating to reports on the imprisonment of German subjects in England.

Inasmuch as the Minister at Copenhagen has dispatched this to the Secretary of State at Washington, it seems probable that I shall receive definite instructions from him to transmit it to you, but in view of the desirability of an early consideration of the matter I now venture to submit this copy of the telegram for your information.

I have, etc., WALTER HINES PAGE.

Copy of Telegram received October 29, 1914.

Following telegram sent to Department to-day (by the Amba.s.sador at Berlin):

The Foreign Office requests this Emba.s.sy to find out through the American Emba.s.sy in London whether the reports concerning the imprisonment of German subjects in England are well founded.

Unless a reply is received from the British Government before November 5 that all Germans who have not rendered themselves especially suspicious have been released, the German Government will be obliged to take retaliatory measures, and accordingly arrest all male British subjects in Germany between 17 and 55 years. American Minister, Copenhagen.

Copy of Telegram received from Berlin by the American Emba.s.sy, November 3, 1914.

Are Germans over 45 being arrested wholesale in England? If arrests are only of those under 45, I may be able to keep English over that age out of jail. Will not British Government allow all over 45 to leave? That is the legal military age here, and no one over that age can be compelled to serve.

_Sir Edward Grey to Mr. Page, United States Amba.s.sador in London._

Foreign Office, November 9, 1914.

Your Excellency,

I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Excellency's note of the 30th ult., and of subsequent notes informing me of the att.i.tude likely to be adopted by the German Government with regard to the measures that have been taken in this country for the detention of German subjects of military age.

The decision of His Majesty's Government in this respect being clearly irrevocable, the communications which you were good enough to transmit did not appear to call for an immediate reply, although, as your Excellency is aware, the German Government threatened, and have since carried out, reprisals against British subjects in Germany.

At the same time, I hope in due course, when the measures taken here have a.s.sumed a definite form, proper consideration having been given to reasonable claims for exemption as regards particular categories of persons, to address your Excellency further on the subject, with a view of obtaining the release at least of British subjects in Germany who correspond to those categories.

I may state at once that no Germans over the age of 45 are being arrested.[13]

I should, however, be glad if your Excellency would endeavour to bring home to the German Government that His Majesty's Government are faced with a problem which does not apply to the same extent in Germany.

There are, roughly, 50,000 Germans resident in this country, and the presence of such large numbers of the subjects of a country with whom Great Britain is at war must necessarily be a cause of anxiety to the military authorities who are concerned with taking adequate measures for the defence of the realm.[14]

In detaining persons who might, in certain eventualities, become a source of danger to the State, His Majesty's Government are only acting in accordance with the dictates of a legitimate and reasonable policy, and they would be clearly lacking in their duty to the country if they neglected to safeguard its interests by allowing the continuance of possible risks to the public safety.

In proceeding as they have done they have only had this one consideration before them, and it has never once been their intention to indulge in a domestic act of hostility towards German subjects as such, or in any way to inflict hardship for hardship's sake on innocent civilians.