4. Spinning The Toils
The Germans have asserted that Edith Cavell's arrest, trial, and punishment were necessary as a warning, especially to others of her sex, that enterprises conducing to the disadvantage of their army were punishable with death. It is sufficient commentary upon this claim to remember that Baron von Bissing caused the English nurse to be arrested in secret and tried
in camera, when publicity was a prime necessity if her case was to act as a warning to others.
The arrest took place on August 5, but the fact was carefully concealed--and the significant reason is not far to seek. Germany had agreed that all British civil subjects in Belgium, so long as the German army occupied the country, were under the protection of the United States Minister. Baron von Bissing's paramount duty was to notify Miss Cavell's arrest without delay to Mr. Brand Whitlock, the American Minister in Brussels.
This obviously honourable course found no place in von Bissing's villanous scheme of vengeance. If he could avoid it, he had no intention of allowing his English prisoner the benefit of neutral protection. But news of the arrest did in due course reach the American Legation, and Mr. Whitlock at once commenced to make inquiries, in which he was assisted by Mr. Hugh Gibson, his secretary, and Maitre G. de Leval, a Belgian advocate and legal adviser to the Legation.
On August 31 Mr. Whitlock wrote to Baron von der Lancken, the German Political Minister in Brussels, asking whether it was true that Miss Edith Cavell had been arrested. If so, the reasons for the arrest were requested, and the German judicial authorities were asked to allow M. de Leval to interview the prisoner and make arrangements for her defence.
Baron von der Lancken having vouchsafed no answer to the American Minister, Mr. Whitlock reiterated his request on September 10, which elicited a reply that was delivered on the 21st. It was ominously suggestive that the Baron had dated his letter September 12, obviously a crafty subterfuge to palliate the delay, which was all part and parcel of a treacherous intention to deceive those who had the temerity to desire that justice be done to Nurse Cavell.
The Baron's letter stated that the accused admitted that she had facilitated the departure from Belgium of British, French, and Belgians of military age. Her defence was in the hands of Advocate Braun, who was in touch with the competent German authorities. The missive ended with the statement that for M. de Leval to be permitted to visit Miss Cavell, so long as she was in solitary confinement, would be contrary to the principles of the Department of the Governor-General.
Promptly the American Legation wrote to M. Braun, requesting him to attend at the Legation in order that he might afford details of the accusation made against his client, and further to consort arrangements for her defence.
Although time was now pressing, seven weeks having elapsed since the arrest, Braun wasted several more days before he put in an appearance at the Legation, which certainly indicated no energetic interest in the unfortunate prisoner. This casual attitude became understandable as by degrees the German plot disclosed itself. It was amazing with what a web of deception the Department of the Governor-General considered it necessary to weave about one poor weak woman, evasions, chicanery, and callousness summing up a cold-blooded villany of purpose without parallel in the annals of any nation subscribing to the most elementary principles of humanity, leaving justice altogether out of the question.
Braun's next tardy step was to inform the American Legation that 'owing to unforeseen circumstances' he was unable to act further on behalf of Miss Cavell, whose personal friends had besought his assistance; but he had arranged for M. Sadi Kirschen, another Belgian lawyer, to defend the prisoner.
There was thus a fresh delay while M. de Leval got into communication with Kirschen, a meeting with whom provided but very cold comfort. The legal adviser to the American Legation was astounded to learn that the prisoner's new advocate was ignorant of the details of the charges against her; for the German military code did not permit him to see his client before the trial, and he was not allowed to inspect any documents in connexion with the case.
When M. de Leval announced that he himself would attend the trial, Kirschen strongly deprecated any such course. He asserted that the judges would not approve of the presence of a neutral spectator, and they might show their annoyance by delivering a judgement more severe than otherwise would be the case. M. de Leval, not desiring to prejudice the prisoner in any way, did not persist in his intention to be present at the trial. He had to rely upon Kirschen's statement that the tribunal would act with fairness, and that a miscarriage of justice was a very remote possibility. Kirschen further explained that these trials of suspects generally developed so slowly that, as the charges against Miss Cavell were disclosed, he would be able to elaborate the best possible defence.
In view of later events it is evident that Kirschen was but a cog in the wheel of German 'rightfulness'; but at the time there was nothing in his demeanour or his expressions of opinion to cause one to suspect his genuineness. But it goes without saying that if M. de Leval had evinced the utmost determination to attend the trial, the Department of the Governor-General would have found means to prevent the presence of an unbiased spectator of their clandestine and insincere method of 'justice.'