Agent of Peace

by Jennifer Hobhouse Balme

  The Times answered immediately:

  The truth about Louvain will be known as soon as the German lines are no longer in front of it, when it will be possible to visit it without receiving privileges from the enemy. In the meantime, on the evidence before us, we maintain the accuracy of the sentence which Miss Hobhouse quotes. No one imagines that Louvain was destroyed in the sense that the ‘Cities of the Plain’ [Biblical] were destroyed: and according to the Bryce report, ‘the burning of a large part of Louvain’ was ‘due to a calculated policy carried out scientifically and deliberately’ and according to the Belgian Commission of Inquiry which said the greater part of the town was prey to the flames. The fire burnt for several days. Further the writer said the rumour that some of the books had been removed has been disposed of.*

  A fierce argument ensued for not only had Emily taken on Britain’s most influential paper but indirectly the whole propaganda machine.

  Correspondence reflected the anger and distress of those who had lost their homes and livelihood.14 People were unshaken in their belief that the fires had been deliberately set and talked of the shooting of hostages – about which Emily knew, but had not mentioned in her articles. The number of hostages shot may also have been higher than Emily was led to believe.

  Emily replied she had read most of the ‘excellent authorities cited’:

  It is so bad to have the eighth part of your town destroyed and the eighth part of its inhabitants homeless, that only intense relief can result from learning that seven-eighths are left in tranquility. I use, of course, approximate figures.

  Far greater to my mind than the material havoc in the town and elsewhere in Belgium is the underfed condition of the industrial section of the community – some 5 million. These people are suffering in large numbers from a most serious outbreak of tuberculosis. The wonderful work of Mr Hoover and the Belgium Relief Committee has hitherto preserved them, but their needs are pressing, winter confronts us, and I would earnestly beg all who can to send money and clothing to help the sufferers in this special need.

  I am etc …15

  The British Foreign Office now realised it would soon have to deal with the subject of Miss Hobhouse in Parliament. It hastily opened a file and reviewed all it had done. It knew it had treated her shabbily, that in spite of her continued requests it had not seen her. But once again Emily was badly served. The Foreign Office Library, which was asked for a profile, only said she was the niece of Lord Hobhouse, had gone to South Africa (in the Anglo-Boer War) to distribute relief to the camps and when she went out again was sent home. No mention was made of her recommendations or of her campaign to get improvements in the camps and so save lives, nor of her efforts up and down the country to arouse public opinion which led in turn to the formation of a Ladies Commission who supported her findings. No one in the Foreign Office appears to have corrected, the omission although it was well known.16

  Here we should note that different Government departments were involved in 1901–02, then the War Office, in 1916 the Foreign Office. The Foreign Office was not involved in 1901–02, rather the Colonial Office.

  No doubt Foreign Office officials wondered how to defend their position, and found that when Emily said she was going to Italy for her health, she was also carrying out peace propaganda, and that when she said she was going to Holland to stay with friends she was also working for permanent peace. In both cases what she said was true and unless she was specifically asked for more information surely it could not be expected that she would give it.

  At last Emily was prepared to publish a report of her interview with German Foreign Secretary, Gottlieb von Jagow. Leonard Courtney’s biography says that Courtney had listened to Emily’s description of the interview ‘with eager interest’ and had advised her to publish it after affording Grey an opportunity to veto the publication if he desired.17 Emily was prepared to give the government this one last chance. She wrote via the Archbishop of Canterbury who thought his best course of action would be to send Emily’s letter with its enclosure privately to Viscount Grey so that he could get in touch with her if he thought it desirable.18 Presumably this was done but there is no record in the Foreign Office files.

  At the same time Emily wrote to the Archbishop on 10 October: ‘The point mentioned to you in confidence which I am under promise not to make known is still reserved.’19 We do not know if she received Jagow’s pencilled message of ‘Nein’ in answer to her request to be released from her promise, but she was prepared to go as far as she could without betraying his confidence.20 Theodor Kocher had written again to Romberg on 13 September: ‘Yesterday evening I received again a postcard with the remark: “I look forward with impatience to hear from you if I can be released from my promise as I think good would result from such a course.” I wanted to inform you about this.’21

  When Emily received no response from either Foreign Office she authorised The Nation to publish the following letter. It was published 21 October under the title:

  ‘A German official’s view of Peace’

  Sir,

  During my visit to Germany this summer, where I journeyed in the interests of our fellow-countrymen in Ruhleben Camp, opportunity arose to learn at first hand German points of view.

  Broadly speaking, studying the German people was strangely like seeing ourselves in a glass; every grade of political thought and every phase of human feeling that we are familiar with here is to be found reflected there; and the thought leaps to the mind – how alike we are!

  Yet one great exception there seemed to be – namely, that while the majority of English people appear to want to fight on, the majority of the Germans as clearly appear to wish for peace. From all ranks and sections I heard the same thing: ‘We do not wish to continue fighting, but if we must, we can.’

  I heard this most forcibly from the lips of a high official of the Foreign Office. He told me that Germany wished for peace, and was willing to enter into negotiations to that end, but he reiterated that he feared there was no such disposition on the part of English statesmen. He said he could not conceive that any country could gain anything by a continuance of the war.

  He reminded me of the fact – very real to them if not understood here – that twice Germany had plainly set forth to the world that she desired peace. He said the only reply to those statements of her willingness had been insults. He felt that under these circumstances it was for our side to make the next move.

  He showed that there was no idea of approaching the question of peace in Germany as victor, for he said these words: ‘We know England is not beaten. It is true Germany has had great victories, but she has also had great defeats; England may not have had great victories, but neither has she suffered great defeats. We know full well that England is not defeated.’

  He said that if the Allies would not speak of peace, then Germany must fight on. She could do so, because her desire for peace was not based on weakness or failing resources, but upon reason and humanity. They could fight on, if need be, for years.

  He spoke freely of the food supply of Germany. Though gravely affected by our blockade, the shortage is not such as will influence the question of peace. They would be content, he affirmed, to live very plainly as in the days before 1870.

  He dwelt on the horror, not solely for Germany, but for all Western Europe, of this extermination of its youth. He spoke much of the necessity for England and Germany to live in amity; race, kinship, interests all demand it.

  He showed me they were prepared to be moderate and reasonable in the proposals on their side, but such intricate matters I will not approach. This and much more he said to me.

  Sir, does it not seem as if negotiations might easily be opened? If the moral courage of the governments equalled the immortal military courage of their soldiers, private conversations between ministers might begin, and a basis for honorable peace be found by nobler, saner methods than those that shock the world to-day. – Yours &c, .

  Emily Hobh
ouse

  October 12th, 1916.

  (This letter should be viewed in conjuncture with the correspondence with Jagow 20–24 June from the German Foreign Office files.)

  The whole peace plan now became much clearer. It may be that Jagow talked as he did expecting Emily to pass the message on to her friends in England, but Emily of course saw much further. She saw it as an argument for peace and was anxious to grab any opportunity to further the peace process.

  The British press took a hard line. Some expected her to be interned. Other people were kinder, for instance an acquaintance, Marguerite Bennett, wrote of her and her husband’s ‘great admiration for your courageous stand in the interests of truth and a more sane outlook … I understand, feeling in the country is gradually becoming more temperate, in spite of the virulent tone of the press …’

  The Foreign Office deferred the situation to the Attorney General’s Office, whose advisors stated that Emily had broken no laws in going to Germany, though they were aware that the Foreign Office would have liked it otherwise! The law could, however, be amended so that people could not travel to enemy countries in time of war without permission.22

  The Foreign Office then decided it would divert the questions in the House from the disclosures in Emily’s letter to the safer ground of her passport and visas, because not only had it failed to interview Miss Hobhouse but it had also failed to consider the possibility of a negotiated peace.

  As could be expected, the government was successful. The first questions in the House of Commons came on 26 October, asking whether Emily had obtained permission from the Foreign Office to go to Belgium. Was Cecil aware she had gone to Germany and by whose permission?

  In the ensuing days Cecil cleverly wove a web round Fortress Foreign Office. It could let in whom it liked, and see whom it liked, and it did not like to see Miss Emily Hobhouse. This was made abundantly clear. It did not approve of her seeing a high-ranking German official, it did not approve of her going to the camp for internees, and it did not approve of her going to Belgium. She may have broken no laws but in its view she had violated the passport regulations and in that she was despicable. So with the flick of a pen and a few well-chosen words Cecil all but blasted Emily to obscurity.

  As a result of his last statement R.L. Outhwaite asked if the ‘Hon. gentleman [had] any reason to doubt the accuracy of The Times report; and, if that is so, is not all this fuss about Miss Hobhouse absurd?’23

  In the Lords a better mood prevailed, even though Lord Crewe, who took the questions, introduced a new violation – Emily had had no visa to stop in Switzerland. Some members then said they would have liked her interned. Lord Crewe was quick to point out she had not committed an indictable offence but that the law concerning visits to enemy countries would be altered.

  It was Leonard Courtney who spoke up for her.24 He said:

  … but I suppose the simple fact is that, having been brooding over the state of Europe and thinking probably of the possibility of getting a stop put to the horror which is overflowing the Continent, and thinking as some of us do, that there have been grave misunderstandings on both sides which want clearing up so as to bring about the restoration of Europe to peace, she was moved – as a friend of humanity, may I say, might easily be moved, whether man or woman – on her way back from Italy to this country to go from Berne into Germany to ascertain something which might be of use, not to Germany, not to her own country above all other countries, but which might be of use to her own country and to all Europe. Now that is the action, be it wise or otherwise – a noble act of supreme tenderness, or a foolish act of self-belief. That is the action for which you must arraign her – that having gone to Italy in discharge of her intention, having deceived nobody therein she, during her winter of absence was moved to try to get into Germany as she did, and ascertain some things which she thought might be useful for the restoration of international peace. That is her offence. It is not an offence against the law …

  The Midland Convention of the No-Conscription Fellowship passed a resolution on 5 November:25

  That this Convention desires to express its profound gratitude to Miss Emily Hobhouse for her courageous action in the cause of peace, and its sympathy with her in the hostility and misrepresentation now directed against her.

  Notes

  * In England, munitions workers had to give up their August bank holiday.

  * Under the 1919 Treaty of Versailles (part VIII, section II) Germany was required to supply the university with articles of similar value to those destroyed.

  1. Archives Bloemfontein

  2. JHB collection

  3. K.E. Markel to EH, 29 August 1916, JHB collection

  4. W.A.M. Goode to EH, 18 August 1916

  5. October 1916, Woman’s Dreadnought p. 567

  6. Strumm to Romberg, GFO files, Berne

  7. JHB collection

  8. The Herald, 21 October 1916

  9. Zuckerman, The Rape of Belgium p. 274

  10. JHB collection

  11. Newton, Retrospection p. 261

  12. JHB collection

  13. Swartz, The Union of Democratic Control p. 170

  14. The Times, 18–21 October 1916

  15. Ibid.

  16. TNA FO372/894

  17. Gooch, Life of Lord Courtney p. 660

  18. Archbishop of Canterbury to EH 10 October 1916, JHB collection

  19. EH to Archbishop of Canterbury, 13 October 1916, JHB collection

  20. GFO files, pencilled remark

  21. German Berne files

  22. TNA FO371

  23. Hansard, House of Commons debate, 1 November 1916 1698

  24. Hansard, House of Lords debate, 1 November 1916 377–8

  25. JHB collection

  15

  THE WEARY WORLD WAITS

  B oth in Britain and in Germany the guard was changing. In Britain, Asquith was replaced by David Lloyd George as Premier. Lloyd George had, since the beginning of the war, lost his radical tendencies. He had been very successful as Minister for Munitions and was far more forceful than his predecessor. Like many in Britain he believed in the ‘knock-out blow’. Many in his cabinet were Conservatives. The Liberals were divided or gone, and the nearly blind Viscount Grey, who had taken the country into war, resigned. Only Lord Robert Cecil remained, still as Minister for the Blockade and Undersecretary at the Foreign Office.

  In Germany the formidable Ludendorff and Hindenburg now had command of the army, though the Kaiser, in theory, retained overall responsibility. Ludendorff’s influence was felt everywhere, even in politics. The use and expansion of submarine warfare was now a major issue. Wilhelm II was not happy about it and, with Bethmann Hollweg, for a time managed to avert it. He told Bethmann Hollweg he was genuinely weary of the war and that to make peace ‘was a moral act appropriate to a Monarch who has a soul, and feels himself responsible to God, who has a feeling for his people and the enemy’s’.1

  Germany made a formal offer of peace on 12 December 1916. It was signed by the Chancellor. Gottlieb von Jagow, who had resigned in mid-November, possibly pushed by Ludendorff, said he helped craft it. It is a clumsy document stating all the territorial gains Germany had made and none of the concessions it might be prepared to make.2

  This peace offer was leaked to the press in the Netherlands before reaching Allied hands so there was no way that the matter could be kept from the public. US Ambassador Gerard, felt that the terms would be impossible for the Allies to accept as they would leave Germany ‘immensely powerful’ and ready to take up arms again at any time.3 Leonard Hobhouse, however, felt it was the beginning of the end. ‘Though,’ he added gloomily to his son: ‘one could never tell with a firebrand like Lloyd George.’4

  At about this time President Woodrow Wilson was asking the belligerents about their war aims with a view to offering mediation. This caused some consternation among the Allies who did not really want American interference. In any case they rejected the German peace initiativ
e. Wilhelm was then reported to have grown very angry, declaring Germany must fight to the end, annex Belgium, subdue France and so on.5

  Charles Trevelyan, a founder member of the UDC, was sending messages to America to encourage President Wilson. Wilson had come to believe the Germans were prepared for peace ‘without victory’ but changed his mind when the Germans announced they were going to greatly increase submarine warfare and bring it into the Atlantic.6 Germany hoped to starve Britain out. There were great losses with food shortages and so on felt in England. However, contrary to German expectations, Britain did not fall, and in April 1917 the Americans came into the war on the Allied side.

  Early in March Emily received the sad news from Isabella Steyn that her husband, the former President of the Orange Free State, had died. Emily said she greatly missed him:

  As one I so truly honoured and admired … [She was feeling much for South Africa that day] with the tidings of the loss of the transport in a channel fog with 615 poor Zulus on board … I do so hate this bringing over of those poor fellows … [she had heard that her friend General Smuts was on his way to London. He had been in command of the Imperial Army in Tanganyka, East Africa – formerly a German colony – and was to attend the Imperial War Conference in London] Fancy his sitting alongside Milner* … The wheel of time brings curious changes and one hardly knows where one is.’ 7

  When Jan Smuts arrived, Emily immediately implored him to work for a negotiated peace.8

  Victory is a Will o’ the Wisp enticing both sides to their doom … Be our help and saviour dear Oom in this grave and terrible hour. You can see more clearly than most … Every principle of humanity calls us to stop this slaughter. War is the wrong way of settling differences – and indeed it never settles anything for long. In the end you must come together and discuss matters and use reason and goodwill; therefore do that now before greater disaster and bloodshed occurs.