THE FALSE FRIEND.
As Von Bissing had arrested Edith Cavell in secret, so he sought to
judge her clandestinely. The trial took place before a court-martial on
October 7th and 8th, with that of thirty-four other prisoners. Before
this time Mr. Brand Whitlock, the American Minister, with his Secretary
of Legation, Mr. Hugh Gibson, and his legal adviser, M. de Leval, a
Belgian advocate, had stirred themselves actively on Miss Cavell’s
behalf. The story of how they were deliberately hoodwinked is one of
the most ugly features of the case.
For ten days Baron Von der Lancken, the German Political Minister, sent
no reply to Mr. Whitlock’s appeal for information, and for authority
to start the defence. Mr. Whitlock repeated his request on September
10th, but it was not until two days after this date that Baron Von
der Lancken replied to the appeal. He set forth in this letter the
only official statement ever made by the German authorities as to Miss
Cavell’s “crime.” It is worth reading in his own words:--
_She has herself admitted that she concealed in her house French and
English soldiers, as well as Belgians of military age, all desirous of
proceeding to the front._
_She has also admitted having furnished these soldiers with the money
necessary for their journey to France, and having facilitated their
departure from Belgium by providing them with guides, who enabled them
to cross the Dutch frontier secretly._
_Miss Cavell’s defence is in the hands of the advocate Braun, who, I
may add, is already in touch with the competent German authorities.
In view of the fact that the Department of the Governor-General_, as
a matter of principle, _does not allow accused persons to have any
interviews whatever, I much regret my inability to procure for Mr. de
Leval permission to visit Miss Cavell as long as she is in solitary
confinement._
Mr. Braun was a lawyer at the Brussels Appeal Court. As soon as the
American Legation received the intimation that he had been appointed as
the lawyer, Mr. de Leval wrote, asking him to come to the Legation. Mr.
Braun came as requested “a few days later.”
The time was now drawing close when the trial was to come on. Three
weeks had already been wasted since the American Embassy in London
first took the matter up, and nearly seven weeks had gone by since the
arrest. But when at last it appeared as though something was about
to be done, another excuse was produced. Mr. Braun’s news was that
although he had been asked to defend Miss Cavell by personal friends of
hers, he could not do so “owing to unforeseen circumstances.”
Mr. Braun stated that he had seen another Belgian lawyer, Mr. Kirschen,
who had agreed to undertake the defence. Another delay, while Mr. de
Leval got into touch with Mr. Kirschen. At last there was to be an
opportunity to obtain some details of the accusation. What had Miss
Cavell admitted? asked the American counsel. What were the documents
upon which the charge was based? What estimate had the lawyer formed of
the prospects of an acquittal?
To the astonishment of Mr. de Leval, the lawyer replied that under
German military rules he was not allowed to see his client before the
trial began. The prosecution had every opportunity of preparing its
case. The judges were fully informed of every circumstance that might
bias them against the prisoner. But the poor lonely woman in prison
could not even see her counsel in private, and all the documents were
withheld from his inspection.
[Illustration:
_Photo Copyright_] [_Farringdon Photo Company._
NURSE CAVELL WHEN A CHILD, WITH HER MOTHER AND ELDER SISTER.]
[Illustration:
[_Daily Mirror Photograph._
THE RECTORY, SWARDESTON, WHERE NURSE CAVELL WAS BORN.]
In these circumstances Mr. de Leval decided that he would attend the
trial himself. Unfortunately, he did not persist in this decision.
It is extremely doubtful, in view of what happened afterwards, if the
authorities would have permitted the presence of a neutral spectator
of the administration of German “justice.” What induced Mr. de Leval
to give way was the consideration of Miss Cavell’s interests. Mr.
Kirschen urged that the presence of an American at the trial would
prejudice the prisoner’s chances. The judges would feel they were under
supervision, and would be likely to be more severe in consequence. Mr.
Kirschen declared that there was not the least chance of a miscarriage
of justice, and promised to inform Mr. de Leval of every development of
the case.
We may judge of the value of his advocacy from the fact that he
afterwards broke all these promises except one. He did tell Mr. de
Leval when the trial was coming on. He never made any report of the
progress of the trial, although it took two days. He never disclosed
what the sentence was. He never informed the only powerful friends
of his unhappy client that she was to be executed unless outside
intervention came. And when Mr. de Leval tried to find him he had
disappeared.