Chapter IV: Part 4

I have gone into the matter just a little because of a vicious
and, I think, wholly unwarranted attack in the papers, in which
Mr. George Edwardes, of London, is made to say quite improbable
things as coming from de Graaf, and perhaps made our work just a
little more difficult. Whether this be the case or not, I am
sure you will be glad to know that the commander here has given
ample evidence of desire to meet Mr. Ives and myself in every
request we have had to make of him.

I have, etc.,
H. W. HARRIS, American Consul-General.

The "entire freedom" allowed to English in Frankfort until the reprisal order was made out is a fact that should be emphasised. It bears out the idea that it was British action which brought about the general internment order in Germany. Moreover, the reports as to ill-treatment and deaths produced the same kind of effect on the other side as they did on this. Of course, there were grave hardships on both sides, and, indeed, Sir Edward Grey allowed (vide p. 79) that "the régime ... through its hurried organisation, could not fail to contain a certain number of defects at the outset."

The régime, like some other steps taken in this war, was too hurriedly arranged in response to newspaper agitation. The _Cologne Gazette_, complaining that Germans are treated like pariahs in England, asks if Englishmen in Germany are "to enjoy for ever a life of gods unmolested." (_Daily Chronicle_, October 29, 1914.) The old demand for "reprisals," leading to counter-reprisals and a crescendo of cruelty.

In Austria no general internment order was made. The _Daily Chronicle_ correspondent, writing in January, 1915, from Vienna, spoke of the freedom of all foreigners there, even when the subjects of enemy Governments. All such subjects, his host reminded him, "enjoy full, or nearly full liberty, whereas in Great Britain and France Austro-German subjects have either been clapped into prison, or at any rate confined in a camp or barracks."

CIVILIAN AND MILITARY PRISONERS COMPARED.

"Confinement in a camp or barracks" sounds a small thing. It is really, wherever it occurs, a rather terrible thing. The universal experience is that civilians suffer under this restraint more than soldiers, and consequently are more "difficult" to deal with.[17] There are, I think, various fairly obvious reasons for this difference. To the soldier the prison camp is an escape from worse horrors, the soldier is inured to a large measure of monotony, he is also inured to military control and certain peculiarities of the military manner. To the civilian the prison camp is a change from freedom to confinement, from comfort to hardship, often from prosperity to ruin. The civilian's life has been one of varied activities, and becomes one of almost unrelieved monotony. He is in most cases quite unused to military control, and feels himself degraded to a kind of servitude. Used to a separate and individual life, he is forced into contact, day and night, with others not of his own choice, and often antipathetic to him. He finds himself deprived of every vestige of privacy, and his thoughts revolve often round chances gone, work lost, hopes vanished, a wife living in penury, and a future altogether dark. If anyone will try to picture such a life continued not for weeks or months only, but for _years_, he will, I think, feel that hysteria, loss of mental balance and actual insanity are consequences that are only too likely to follow.

Civilian control for civilian prisoners seems in general to be desirable. Military control was practically withdrawn from Ruhleben in the autumn of 1915. At a few camps here, such as the one at Cornwallis Road, it is practically absent, and I feel this is one reason why, writing in March, 1916, the U.S. Attaché was able to report that there had at this camp been no attempts at escape.

There was much that was harsh and bad in the earlier days of internment in Germany, but the official U.S. reports certainly make us aware of cordial German co-operation in improving matters. The unofficial account, moreover, of Dr. Cimino ("Behind the Prison Bars in Germany") astonishes me chiefly by the amount of politeness which it reveals in the German official.

There will always be stupid officials, and complete military authority is a very dangerous thing. This obvious conclusion should be recognised as applying (to some extent at least) to both sides. It is a rather dreadful thing to be under more or less hostile restraint, whether one be German or British. "Even if ideal conditions prevailed, one could not remove the unavoidable feeling of restraint and the sorrow of separation of men from their wives and families. There is in all the camps a feeling of gloom which one visitor said 'haunted him for days.' It is scarcely surprising that feelings of resentment should arise. Many of the men have lived in this country for twenty or thirty years; some have come over here as young children, some are even unable to speak German; very many have married British wives and have come to regard themselves as citizens of this country. The visit of someone who is not in authority over them, but who will listen to their troubles and give them a kind word of encouragement, has done very much to lighten the bitterness of confinement." So write the Emergency Committee in their second report on their work for the assistance of Germans, Austrians and Hungarians in distress. Dr. Siegmund Schulze, who has worked for a similar organisation in Berlin, writes: "It appears that those who have recently expressed their opinion in the British Parliament have taken the complaints of a few dissatisfied prisoners as a basis for their general opinion. We can quite understand these complaints, because we notice among all prisoners that the longer the imprisonment lasts, the greater is the feeling of dissatisfaction.... It is noteworthy that in the English utterance even the trustworthiness of neutral reports is doubted; for example, the statements of the American Ambassador are regarded as pro-German, therefore distorted. Frl. Dr. Rotten and I have heard a great number of neutral opinions on the prisoners camps; I have myself discussed the conditions of the detention camp with neutrals who have visited them, and ascertained the truth as to their reports. Our verdict can only be that there is absolutely no question of any conditions which would constitute an infringement of international law, or which could imperil the health of the soldiers.... Moreover, I have in Ruhleben formed my own opinion as to the condition of the prisoners. I acknowledge that the depressed state of mind in which the prisoners must naturally be after more than six months' imprisonment has an effect upon their reports, and that many prisoners are in a state of suppressed rage. On the other hand I cannot but say that after the removal of certain insanitary conditions there have been absolutely no substantial complaints made by the prisoners. Much as I regret the position of the prisoners, among whom I have many personal acquaintances, I must, on the other hand, say that the accommodation and also the behaviour of the officers is, on the whole, as humane as possible under the difficult conditions. The American Attaché, Mr. Jackson, who formerly visited the detention camps in England, and has now again visited the German detention camps, has confirmed to me the assertion which he made to the Commandant of the Ruhleben Camp, viz., that if he were obliged to choose where, among the countries now at war, he would be interned, he would certainly choose Ruhleben.... Without doubt, as is now apparent everywhere, an imprisonment extending over a long period, say, for instance, a year, means far more for men of the present generation than one could have thought. I consider it possible that many prisoners who are detained for such a long time will return to their homes with an essential deterioration of their mental condition." These last are very grave, and indeed terrible words, words that I fear only too accurately represent the facts, but yet, as Dr. Schulze continues, "We ought not to conclude from this that we are justified in making reproaches against the other country in respect of the treatment of prisoners, but rather conclude that we should work energetically towards the termination of the war."

The mental suffering (_stagnant_ suffering) caused to civilian prisoners (in Britain, as elsewhere) is, I fear, very far from being understood. The following few sentences may give some glimpses--I was going to say "enlightening glimpses," but, alas, they are only glimpses into the darkness: "Our visitors in talking to the men in the camps receive from them many kinds of requests; of these by far the most frequent and urgent is that their wives and families may be visited. For one reason or another, letters from home very frequently do not reach the prisoners, and often for weeks or months together they receive no word of their families." The report goes on: "One man's wife was at the point of death when he left her and her young children; another's wife with several children was addicted to drink, and was only kept from it by her husband's influence; in other cases children were left behind with no mother to care for them." (The quotations are from the second report of the Friends' Emergency Committee, January, 1915.) To imagine the anguish of these cases, whether in Germany or in Britain, is to shrink as from a blow. Many will feel that the policy of general internment was unavoidable. But we may surely show generous sympathy where an unavoidable policy has brought great misery upon thousands who were innocent. Such sympathy, as we shall see later, always assists reciprocal sympathy on the other side.

SOME REPORTS ON RUHLEBEN.

I will now turn to the consideration of reports on individual camps for civilians. The most important German civilian camp, of course, for us, is that of Ruhleben. If I cite a Report on the Meeting of the Camp Committee held there on February 4, 1915, a good deal as to the general management of the camp will become plain. [Miscel. No. 7 (1915) p. 67.]

The following minutes of a meeting of the select committee of
the camp committee and of the overseers,[18] which was called by
Baron von Taube on February 2, were read by the Secretary:

At 6-30 p.m., Baron von Taube received a select committee of the
camp committee in the presence of the assembled overseers of the
latter. Messrs. Powell, Fischer, Jones, Blakely, Cocker,
Overweg, Asher, Hallam, Russel, Aman, and Jones were present;
also[19] Messrs. Delmer, Butcher, Stern, Scholl, Mackenzie,
Horn, Klingender, Butterworth, and Hatfield.

Having greeted the assembled members, the Baron proceeded to say
that he thought it would be best if only three or four delegates
from the camp committee were to discuss matters directly with
the overseers. He expressed his views and compared the
management of the camp with the administration of a town of
10,000 inhabitants. Too many participants might only render the
work of the overseers more arduous. He therefore suggested that
at the meetings of the overseers, the select committee of the
camp committee should consist of from three to four gentlemen
with deciding votes. The suggestion was accepted. Thereupon the
Baron informed the meeting that Messrs. Butcher, Klingender, and
Stern had been proposed. In reply to this, Mr. Delmer, chairman
of the camp committee, said that from among the eight men whose
names had been submitted, three or four should from time to time
be chosen as delegates according to their special knowledge and
the business to be transacted. After a short discussion it was
agreed, upon the proposal of Mr. Powell, that three or four
gentlemen should, as delegates from the camp committee, take
part in a general meeting of overseers to be held once a
fortnight. At these meetings a strict account of the work of the
overseers during the interval should be rendered. On the
proposal of the chairman, Mr. Delmer, it was further agreed that
delegates of the camp committee should have the right at all
times to require the overseers to furnish explanations of any
incidents affecting the interests of the camp. A motion of the
chairman, which was also approved by the Baron, was to the
effect that, in order to spare the overseers' committee time and
trouble, any incidents occurring in the camp should be
thoroughly sifted and investigated by the camp committee, and
then reported to the administration as soon as possible by a
single competent deputy through the overseers.

The presiding overseer welcomed a further motion by the
chairman, Mr. Delmer, which was as follows: In the interests of
the necessary reciprocity, a delegate of the overseers should
attend the meetings of the camp committee.

Mr. Klingender drew attention to the two points contained in the
camp committee's letter to Baron von Taube. The Baron said he
agreed with the contents of the letter.

At the conclusion the chairman (Mr. Delmer) remarked that the
camp committee had been formed with a view to beneficial
co-operation with the overseers, and for the advancement of the
existing organisation, and that it intended loyally to carry out
this principle, of which words the Baron graciously took note.
The chairman (Mr. Delmer) then expressed his hearty thanks in
the name of the assembled members of the camp committee to the
Baron for his presence and for the consideration he had kindly
given to the arrangement, whereupon the Baron said that he would
be very pleased personally from time to time to take part in the
meetings of the camp committee.

Baron von Taube then closed the meeting.

The secretary announced that he had laid a copy of the minutes
before the Baron, who had kindly accepted and signed it, and
had, with his own hand, written on it the words, "Have taken
note of the minutes and agree on all points."

The chairman greeted Mr. Fischer, overseer of hut 3, who was
present as delegate of the overseers. The meeting proceeded to
discuss the following matters:

LATRINES FOR INVALIDS.--At the last meeting the camp committee
had requested a member to procure information on this matter.
Mr. Fischer reported that the small latrine between huts 3 and 4
(which was formerly intended for women) should be used for this
purpose. A door with a lock would be put in. Permits would
probably be issued by the doctor or his representative. The
overseers had for a long time striven to obtain permission for
the sick to use the water closets, but these for the most part
were not in the premises which were at the disposal of the
military authorities, and therefore could not, even on payment,
be opened. He would again inquire if it were not possible to
obtain a closed water closet for the sick.

POSTAL MATTERS.--Questions concerning the postal regulations
and the censoring of letters were brought up. A member expressed
his intention of obtaining precise information and of reporting
thereon.

OUTBREAK OF DIARRHOEA.--It was announced that 78 cases had
occurred at hut 1.[20] Mr. Fischer was asked whether the number
of cases in each hut was known to the overseers. He replied that
they had furnished a report on the previous day. It was
suggested that in such a case the overseers might with advantage
seek the assistance of the delegates of the camp committee, and
especially in the present case, as the overseers were much
occupied with other work, and could not collect complete
statistics.

BREAD.--The question of the quality of the bread was raised; it
was alleged that bread insufficiently baked and bread which
consisted of remains insufficiently ground together was
sometimes distributed. As 2,000 of the prisoners were penniless,
the question was one of great importance. Mr. Fischer said that
bread of inferior quality, if returned immediately, would be
exchanged.

YOUTHS UNDER 17 YEARS OF AGE.--It was alleged that not all the
prisoners under 17 years of age had yet taken the necessary
steps to obtain their release. The meeting, however, thought
that it was the presence of young sailors, for whose release
repeated application had been made, that had produced this
impression. These sailors, however, were in quite a different
position from the civilian prisoners. Civilian prisoners under
17 were released. The overseers had the matter under
consideration.

WASHING.--Mr. Whitwell had taken cast-off clothing from the
rubbish-box. He had had them washed, and found that they were
still serviceable. In his opinion, the whole of the camp washing
could be done by two machines costing about 60M. each. Mr.
Fischer observed that the overseers had given this matter their
attention, but that great difficulties would arise if any
proposals adverse to the concessions granted by the military
authority to private concerns were to be made.

The meeting was then adjourned.

We may next cite an unofficial statement:

STATEMENT RESPECTING CONDITIONS AT RUHLEBEN COMMUNICATED TO HOME
OFFICE BY TWO RELEASED CIVILIANS ON MARCH 18, 1915.

Mr. John P. Bradshaw, of Ballymoney, co. Antrim, and Mr. William
David Coyne, of Ballyhaunis, co. Mayo, both British subjects,
arrived in England on the March 15, having just been released
from detention at Ruhleben on account of their unfitness for
military service.

The following statement has been made by them to the Home
Office:

They were examined by the Camp Doctor, and released as unfit for
military service.

A fortnight ago all who considered themselves unfit were invited
to send their names in with a statement of the grounds of
unfitness.

A week later all were asked to state where they would go if
released from Ruhleben, but few of the real British subjects
were anxious to be released now unless they can leave Germany
because of the bitterness against England.[21]

Since March 7 a very important change has taken place in the
food supply to the prisoners; thanks to investigations by
Rittmeister von Müller, the caterer has been dispensed with. It
is believed in the camp that the United States authorities
prompted these investigations.

The German authorities provide bread which is of better quality
than formerly. The allowance is over half a pound per man per
day, i.e., more than the civilian population is allowed, but it
is believed that a regulation has been made, though not yet
brought into force, to reduce the bread allowance to correspond
with that allowed to persons outside the camp. Bread is no
longer purchaseable at the canteen.

The Government allows 60 pfennige (just over 7d.) per head for
the rest of the food. The canteen committee buys 100 grammes of
meat (gristle, bone, etc., included) per man per day. Pork is
much used, then comes mutton, and, more rarely, beef.

The meat is cooked in the soup and each man is given a piece
about the size of a cutlet with his soup at midday. The spare
pieces are divided amongst the men from the last barracks to be
served; the barracks take it in turn to be last.

On one day a week dinner consists of a piece of sausage and rice
and prunes.

A piece of sausage is now served with the evening tea or coffee.
This sausage is bought out of the savings under the new system.

The rest of the savings on the catering and the profit on the
sales at the canteen go towards providing clothes, etc., for the
poorest men in the camp.

The meat is inspected by two of the prisoners, one a veterinary
surgeon and the other a butcher; it is cooked by ships' cooks
who are interned, and served by men chosen from among the
prisoners. The food is said to be well cooked and the meals
quite appetising, at any rate when compared with the previous
régime.

The two men named above received all parcels sent to them.
Formerly parcels took about four weeks to reach the camp from
England, but now they arrive in ten to twelve days.

The officials are scrupulously honest as regards money owned by
or sent to the prisoners, except that they pay out in paper or
silver, whereas they took in gold. Money is paid out to those
prisoners who have an account at the rate of 20M. per fortnight,
but an extra 20M. can be obtained for the purchase of boots,
clothes, etc., if shown to be necessary.

The correspondence regulations are now that one postcard with
nine lines of writing may be sent each week, and two letters,
each of four pages of notepaper may be sent per month. In
addition, business letters may be sent to any reasonable extent.

A dramatic society has been started and recently gave its first
performance, Shaw's "Androcles and the Lion." Admission was
free, but seats cost from 20 to 40 pfennigs, not according to
the position of the seat, but according to the means of the
purchaser.

Baron von Taube and Graf von Schwerin make a point of being
present at all entertainments organised by the prisoners, and
make a short speech of thanks at the end. Since the trouble over
the food has been settled the relations between the officials
and the prisoners have greatly improved.

A month ago all British colonial subjects were re-arrested and
interned. [Miscel. No. 7. (1915). P. 81.]

We now come to the official U.S. report of June 8, 1915, with accompanying letters. [Miscel. No. 13 (1915)]

_Mr. Page, United States Ambassador at London, to Sir Edward
Grey._ (Received June 15.)

The American Ambassador presents his compliments to His
Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and has the
honour to transmit, herewith enclosed, a copy of a letter he has
received from the Embassy at Berlin, dated the 8th inst.,
enclosing a report made by Mr. G. W. Minot upon the conditions
at present existing in the British civil internment camp at
Ruhleben.

Mr. Gerard has added a postscript expressing the hope that this
report may be published together with his covering letter.

American Embassy, London,
June 14, 1915.

The need for publication was obvious in view of the character of the rumours circulated in this country, but, unfortunately, when published as a Government White Paper, such a report falls into but few hands, while newspaper extracts from the White Papers can, in general, scarcely be described as selected without bias.

ENCLOSURE 1.

_Mr. Gerard to Mr. Page._

American Embassy,
Berlin, June 8, 1915.

Sir,--I have the honour to transmit to you herewith a triplicate
copy of a report made by Mr. G. W. Minot upon conditions at
present existing in the British civil internment camp at
Ruhleben, Spandau. In connection with this I beg to say that the
devotion to duty and uniform kindness of all the camp
authorities has been wonderful and the relations of our Embassy
with them always most agreeable. It is impossible to conceive of
better camp commanders than Graf Schwerin and Baron Taube.--I
have, etc.,

JAMES W. GERARD.

The last sentence is noteworthy. Commendation of the Camp Commanders could not be more emphatic.

ENCLOSURE 2.

_Mr. Minot to Mr. Gerard._

June 3, 1915.

Sir,--I have the honour to submit to you the following report
upon various improvements which have taken place in the civil
internment camp for British prisoners at Ruhleben-bei-Spandau
since the month of November, 1914:

Of the 4,500 British civil prisoners interned in Germany,
approximately 4,000 are at this date held at Ruhleben, the
remaining 500 being scattered in small detachments in various
other internment camps. The German Government have arranged
that these detachments shall be absorbed by Ruhleben, so that
within a few months all the British civil prisoners interned in
Germany will be in Ruhleben. The difficulty of enlarging the
facilities of Ruhleben and the necessary precautionary measures
of quarantining have made the process of combination a long one,
but there is every reason to believe that it will soon be
completed.

The increase in the number of prisoners at Ruhleben has
necessitated substantial additions to the barracks, most of
which were overcrowded at the beginning of the war. Eight new
barracks of one storey have been erected (four being already
occupied), affording accommodation for 120 men each. These
barracks are substantially built of wood, with well-set floors
and large windows. The roofs have been waterproofed with tarred
paper, and the walls stained to resist the rain.[22] In the four
new barracks which are now occupied a small room for the guard
has been added, but in the new barracks this has been considered
unnecessary, as it is hoped that the guards in the barracks at
night may shortly be dispensed with. The last new barracks has
been built with a special view towards housing convalescent or
delicate persons. Partitions have been erected so as to cut up
the barrack into small divisions, and two water-closets have
been installed. A new washhouse for these barracks has been
erected, with shower baths and washing troughs.

The construction of the new barracks, the transfer of some
hundred persons to Dr. Weiler's sanatorium, and the release of
about a hundred persons have made it possible largely to reduce
the crowded conditions of the "obens," or lofts, of the old
barracks. Twenty per cent. of the occupants of these "obens"
have been removed, and it is estimated that when the new
barracks are fully occupied another 55 per cent. will be removed
from the obens, so that only a quarter of the original occupants
will be left there.

The most signal improvement which has been effected in the last
two months has been the permission afforded the prisoners to use
the ground encircled by the race-track for the hours from 8 a.m.
to 12 noon and from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. The space thus gained is
approximately 200 yards by 150 yards, and affords a splendid
field for all kinds of games. Materials for the various sports
have been provided by the camp, including the laying out of a
football field and a small golf course. This ground has provided
a chance for every interned prisoner to take part in some form
of good out-of-door exercise or for those who so desire to move
out their chairs to the field to watch the games. Permission to
use the grandstands from 8 a.m. to 8-30 p.m. has further been
obtained. As the stands are of modern brick and cement
construction, a large enclosed hall is formed underneath the
tiers of seats. In this hall a stage has been erected and a
complete theatre installed with scenery, dressing-rooms,
orchestra, etc. Performances, varying from Shakespeare to
musical shows, are given practically every night. The betting
boxes have been boarded up to afford small rooms for study,
musical practice, etc. In other parts of this building space has
been allotted for a carpenter's shop, a tailor's shop, barber
and cobbler's shop. The grandstand tiers have been turned over
to the educational department for schools and lectures, which
are systematically conducted. Black-boards and other materials
have been provided for the department.

A favourable account of Dr. Weiler's sanatorium follows. About this sanatorium individual expressions of opinion have varied.

Mr. Minot's report next gives a list of improvements effected at Ruhleben, under such headings as _Laundry_, _Whitewashing_, _Beds_, _Dentist_, _Business Post_, etc. The report then proceeds:

It can be seen from the above that very considerable
improvements have been effected at Ruhleben. Graf Schwerin,
Baron Taube, and the other camp authorities have done everything
in their power to bring about these improvements, and have been
materially helped throughout by the camp captains.

The effect produced has been a general improvement in the
physical and moral condition of the camp. In general the health
of the prisoners can be said to be excellent, practically no
cases of contagious or infectious diseases, barring a mild
epidemic of German measles, having occurred. The improvement in
the food and the increased possibilities of the purchase of
additional nourishment from the outside, have nearly silenced
all complaints.

The work is still constantly progressing, and it is fair to
state that the conditions are steadily, if slowly, improving.

I am submitting to you, herewith, a plan of Ruhleben, upon which
are marked the various buildings and locations mentioned in this
report. I have further included a selection of programmes of the
various entertainments, sports, etc., which have taken place in
the camp.--I have, etc.,

G. W. MINOT.

The following two extracts are also of some significance. The first is from the _Times_, the second is from the _Daily Telegraph_ of June 18, 1915. The suspension of correspondence was due to some demonstration on the part of the prisoners.

Sir,--It may perhaps interest some of those who are feeling
anxious about the treatment of their relatives at Ruhleben to
hear that we have direct evidence of kindly action and
consideration for the prisoners on the part of the German
authorities at a date later than that at which the regular
postal communication was suspended.--I am faithfully yours,

A PARENT OF A PRISONER.

February 17.

We received the following from the Press Bureau last night:

"A statement recently appeared in a letter to an organ of the
Press to the effect that it was inadvisable to send parcels to
civilian prisoners interned at Ruhleben in view of the heavy
charges made on delivery.

"Information has now been received from the United States
Ambassador at Berlin that no such charges have been made for the
delivery of parcels at Ruhleben, but for a short time certain
prisoners who had been temporarily released and sent to a
sanatorium were charged duty on parcels sent to them there. This
matter was, however, satisfactorily adjusted in a very short
time, and duty is no longer charged on parcels to such
prisoners."

In the early autumn of 1915 civilian self-government was fully established at Ruhleben. Writing on October 16, Mr. Page remarks: "The administration of the camp to-day is entirely in the hands of the prisoners themselves. There are no guards in the barracks, and all internal arrangements, including discipline, are in the hands of the camp and barrack captains." [Miscel. No. 3 (1916), p. 4.]

A CONTROVERSY.

White Paper Miscel. No. 3 (1916) is in many ways rather important to the student of internment. It affords some evidence of the kind of mental friction developing in all internment camps, and it makes clear that prisoners' statements often need to be subjected to impartial outside investigation. There is not space, however, to enter fully into details here. The paper opens with a report on Ruhleben camp "compiled by a British subject recently released," and forwarded by Sir Edward Grey to Mr. Gerard through Mr. Page. It is complained that the distance from the new barracks to the wash-houses is "in some cases over 200 yards." Mr. Page points out by reference to a scale map that "in every case the wash-houses are nearer than 60 yards from the barracks, and not at a distance of 200 yards, as stated. The barracks which are not diagrammed on this map have their own washing appliances." Mr. Page writes further: "The open space beneath the central tribune has not been, as stated in the report transmitted by the British Foreign Office, used for every conceivable purpose, but has been enclosed entirely for recreation purposes, religious services, lectures, debates, etc.... I cannot see how the introduction of [the] cinema show has in the least affected the comfort of the hall." "With regard to whitewashing, this was done in all of the barracks at the expense of the camp fund, and not, as stated, at the cost of those interned at the barracks. Extra whitewashing, borders, etc., were naturally paid for at the private expense. No measures were taken for exterminating mosquitoes for the reason that it has been found impossible to procure petroleum in Germany for the purpose." Three internees who tried to escape were in consequence imprisoned, and are stated in the report transmitted by the British Foreign Office to be starving. Mr. Gerard writes: "I visited Messrs. Ettlinger, Ellison and Kirkpatrick at the Stadtvogtei-Gefängnis about three weeks ago, and heard from them that they had no complaint to make about the food. They are now allowed to receive parcels and money from the outside, and are no longer in solitary confinement. The limitation of exercise to half an hour seems regrettable, but owing to their attempt to escape, I fear that it will be impossible to obtain a change until their sentence expires."

The report forwarded to Mr. Gerard says:

It would be of material benefit to the interned if a
representative of the United States Embassy could call at the
Camp fortnightly, and receive complaints direct from prisoners,
without the inevitable presence of the captains [i.e., the
internees' own captains] in the room.

Mr. Gerard replies:

A representative of this Embassy has visited the camp at
Ruhleben (with the exception of the time when the camp was first
formed) certainly on an average of more than once a fortnight,
and it has been possible for any prisoners to speak to him
without the presence of the captains. For the past few months
the camp has been visited once a week if not more often. In
addition to this Mr. Powell, sometimes accompanied by other
captains of the camp, has visited this Embassy regularly once a
week for consultation with me.

"I wish again to reiterate," says Mr. Page, "that Count Schwerin, Baron Taube and the other officers in charge of the camp, are all kindly and considerate gentlemen, who do everything within their power to help the prisoners."

But the real quarrel was not with Count Schwerin or Baron Taube (of whom all seem to speak well), but with the English captains and their management. The financial statements and the distributions effected by the captains are adversely criticised by the released British subject. He adds, somewhat acidly:

It would be a kindness to the captains and to the camp if the
Government could convey to them a message informing them that
they are public men holding important and responsible positions,
and that public men must allow criticism and seek to profit by
it.

Here we get to the root of the matter. The original "Camp Committee" was (to quote Mr. Gerard's words) "disbanded by the order of the military authorities in February last (1915), because of its refusal to co-operate with the captains and its insistence upon publishing notices and minutes of its meetings after it had been forbidden to do so."[23] This "Camp Committee" continued to object to the financial arrangement and the general administration of Mr. Powell and the other captains, and pressed their objections upon the Ambassador on August 23, 1915. "I thereupon suggested that perhaps the best way would be to refer the matter to a general election. To this the 'Camp Committee' demurred, and upon my asking what suggestion they had to proffer appeared to consider that they, a self-constituted body, should be given charge of the camp by me. This proposition I naturally rejected, especially as the members of this self-appointed committee were, although very estimable gentlemen, _personæ non gratæ_ both to the majority of the prisoners and to the military authorities.... A final decision of the question as to whether the present government of Ruhleben is representative or not is to be found in the election of September 15, 1915, when every one of the captains at that time in authority was re-elected. The occasion was caused by the decision of the military authorities to withdraw the soldiers from the camp, and the captains therefore considered it desirable that they should appeal to the camp for decision as to whether it was wished that they should continue the government or not. I cannot see that any further proof is required as to whether the captains represent the feelings of the majority of the camp."

One cannot help asking oneself, was the critic a member of the disbanded "Camp Committee"? The United States Ambassador on more than one occasion proved himself capable of speaking very decidedly to the German authorities of things he disapproved of. In this case, too, he speaks (though not to the German authorities) with some decision:

A properly heated and lighted recreation and assembling room is
certainly extremely desirable for the damp and cold winter time.
A new barrack has been sanctioned by the military authorities
for the purpose, and I will do my best to press the work. I
might venture to suggest that if so many private individuals had
not occupied necessary space by election of private clubs the
military authorities would be more willing to grant permission
for the erection of further buildings intended for public good.
Further, if the very men, such as the "camp committee" (who are
all members of the "summer house" club), had devoted some of the
energies which they expended upon the erection of the club for
their own private use to the construction of a public
sitting-room, the building might already be in use.

The British tax-payer is paying a large sum in wages because the
Ruhleben prisoners are unwilling to do the fatigue work of the
camp. The captured British soldiers who have been fighting in
the trenches are compelled to do work in work camps, are often
not properly clothed, do not receive an allowance from the
British tax-payer of 5M. a week, cannot buy food at less than
cost price, nor go to a sanatorium (at the expense of the
British tax-payer) when sick; have not the benefit of expert
dental and optical treatment, have no public libraries,
lectures, schools, debates, or camp newspapers, have not seven
tennis courts, three football fields, athletic games, cricket,
golf and hockey, are not amused by dramas, comic operas and
cinema shows, and above all are not paid extra wages for doing
their own work to make themselves comfortable. All of these
advantages and more which the Ruhleben prisoners enjoy have been
largely the result of the effort of the camp administration
which this commentator criticises.

These rather strong words of Mr. Gerard's display a not unnatural irritation against a critic whose facts prove unreliable and whose mental attitude suggests a somewhat querulous bias, but it is only fair to remind ourselves that after long internment all suffer from nerve strain and many suffer very severely. Under these circumstances complete reasonableness is probably more than any of us would be capable of.

SHORT RATIONS.

At Ruhleben there are (with the exception of some negroes) English only. The English receive many packages. The German authorities have been tempted to rely on those packages increasingly. That is the state of things revealed in Dr. A. E. Taylor's report of June 14, 1916. [Miscel. No. 21 (1916).]

A review of the present ration of the prisoners of war indicates
that it is the aim of the 'Kriegsernährungsamt' to supply a
ration which shall be physiologically adequate, though
professedly containing little more than enough to cover minimal
requirements; and it is believed that the official prisoners'
ration contains as much as the daily food of many millions of
German subjects. There is no question that the official prison
ration is an adequate ration from the standpoint of animal
nutrition. In addition to this allotted camp ration the
prisoners possess the food sent in from abroad as addenda.

In the case of the Russian prisoners, these extra food stuffs
sent in from abroad are small in amount; in the case of the
French, moderate; in the case of the English, large. In all the
prison camps that I have visited it is the practice to prepare
food for the number of men in the camp, irrespective of
nationality, in accordance with the menu of Professor Backhaus.
As a rule, the British prisoners take little or none of the
food, and their share is eaten by prisoners of other
nationalities. In Ruhleben the state of affairs at present
existing has convinced the interned civilians that the situation
is, so to speak, reversed: that the German authorities seem to
regard the foodstuffs sent in from abroad as the regular diet of
the interned men, and the camp allotments as the addenda.

It is not surprising that "the interned men are deeply dissatisfied with the present state of affairs." The German authorities, finding that at least half the total number of the interned at Ruhleben subsist largely upon private packages, have made a "sharp reduction in the amount of foodstuff allotted to the camp." I have no wish to defend this proceeding, but it must be allowed that to the Government of a blockaded country there is a great temptation to cut down supplies when this will not be a danger to the prisoners themselves.

Both reports of Dr. Taylor [Miscel. No. 18 (1916) and Miscel. No. 21 (1916)] are important studies of the question of nutrition, and his short discussion (No. 18, p. 4) of the psychological aspects of monotonous diet and the nutritional effects of internment is worth careful attention. "A diet that would be tolerated if the subject were at liberty may become intolerable under conditions of imprisonment. There is a large personal equation operative in this direction. The soldier imbued with a high sense of his value to his country and of the justice of his cause will endure a monotonous diet that would not be endurable in the prisoner overwhelmed with disappointment and crushed with sorrow." These considerations are obviously of general application.

SOME COMPARISONS.

Mr. Gerard, in a note of June 28, 1916 [Miscel. No. 25 (1916)], animadverts strongly on the bad accommodation still provided at Ruhleben. The letter is rather strikingly different in tone from his other reports on Ruhleben.

It is intolerable that people of education should be herded six
together in a horse's stall, and in some of the lofts the bunks
touch one another. The light for reading is bad, and reading is
a necessity if these poor prisoners are to be detained during
another winter. In the haylofts above the stables the conditions
are even worse.[24]

Bishop Bury's account ("My Visit to Ruhleben," p. 30) reads:

I don't know whether it was our internment at Newbury,[25] the
race-course for Reading, or our using race-courses, such as
Kempton Park, for the training of our own men, which caused
Ruhleben to be chosen in November, 1914, as a suitable place for
civilians' internment.... Without any description of mine it may
be easily understood what they had to suffer until proper
arrangements were made.... The loose boxes are now properly
fitted with bunks, some being larger than others. The large
corridor, with its stone floor, gives air and space, the lofts
particularly being extremely well adapted now for their present
purpose. I prefer the lofts to the boxes, because they have
corridors out of which one can look, whereas the windows in the
boxes are usually far above the ground. I went to tea more
frequently in the boxes, and on one occasion we sat down sixteen
in number--rather a crowd--but we were quite comfortable.

Bishop Bury has seen something on both sides, and his impressions are for that reason all the more important. We must not forget, too, that he lived a week with the prisoners at Ruhleben. It is also only fair to remember that no one has been invited to spend a week in any camp on this side. Bishop Bury also tells us "that when, a little time ago, the authorities proposed to relieve the overcrowding and construct another camp at Havilburg which could accommodate 600 men, the men at once petitioned that this idea might not be carried out, as they preferred, after this length of time to stay where they are." (l.c., p. 40.)

One caution must, however, be given to the readers of Bishop Bury's book. The conditions of the camp during the excitement and interest of his visit could not be the normal conditions. The frightful monotony of the long confinement does not obtrude itself in his book. Yet there is no doubt, I fear, that internment everywhere (at Ruhleben, as elsewhere) is becoming "intolerable." To live, as at Alexandra Palace, day and night, for _years_ in a great hall with more than a thousand others must become almost destructive to any sensitive nature. But (to quote Dr. Siegmund Schulze once more) "We ought not to conclude from this that we are justified in making reproaches.... in respect of the treatment of prisoners, but rather conclude that we should work energetically towards the termination of the war."

Dr. Cimino, very, and very naturally, anti-German as he is, writes:

The only real suffering we experienced at Ruhleben was from the
cold.... The fact is that he (Count Schwerin) was as
kind-hearted an old soldier as ever fondled an English wife, and
loved his English prisoners.... He used to take part in our
daily life as much as possible.... As to the concerts, he was
always present, _et pour cause_; he was passionately fond of
music.... at the end of the concert he would make his little
speech, and we filed out. But one night we gave him a rousing
cheer, and the whole crowd struck up, "For he's a jolly good
fellow." ("Behind the Prison Bars in Germany," p. 95).[26]

As to the food question, we must not forget that the blockade against Germany and the pressure upon neutrals have been continually increased in stringency. Up to October, 1915, Mr. Gerard could write as follows of Ruhleben:

The food material is excellent and the cooking, as I have
stated, is attended to by the prisoners themselves, those doing
the cooking receiving payment from the British fund, with the
exception of 150M. weekly allowed for cooks' wages by the German
authorities. The prisoners are given, if they choose, a
bread-card, and are allowed to purchase extra bread--the
Kriegsbrod, which we all use in Germany and which is quite
palatable--at the price of 55 pfennige a loaf. Food also, as I
have stated, can be purchased in the canteen at prices very much
less than food can be purchased in Berlin, and at very much less
than cost.--[Miscel, No. 3 (1916)].

The low price at the canteen, was, however, I take it, owing to the existence of the camp fund contributed to by the British Government.

Lord Newton spoke in the House of Lords on February 22, 1917, on the question of prisoners of war. The following extract is from the _Daily Telegraph_ report:

There was nothing to be gained by exaggerating the conditions of
prisoners in Germany or elsewhere. There was neither sense nor
truth in representing, as was constantly done, that Ruhleben was
a sort of unspeakable hell upon earth, and that a British
internment camp was a kind of paradise compared with it. He
deplored the hardship that these men underwent, but it was a
great mistake to suppose that these civilians at Ruhleben were
undergoing greater hardships than those being endured by our
military prisoners. Like anyone who ventured to state the facts,
he would no doubt be accused of being a pro-German, but
certainly the conditions at Ruhleben had greatly improved
recently. These conditions had improved, not on account of any
action on the part of the German Government, but rather on
account of their inaction. They had permitted the British there
to organise on their own lines and make the conditions
tolerable. Anyone could satisfy himself as to the conditions,
because there were men who had arrived here recently who could
give the fullest information. In addition, they were able to
form their own opinions to a certain extent from independent
testimony, for example, the visit of Bishop Bury. He could not
understand why this prelate had been subjected to so much attack
on the part of certain persons in this country. He went to
Germany by permission of the German Government. He went to
Ruhleben, lived in the camp, and was able to see what the
conditions were. He reported exactly what he saw, and was
thereupon denounced as not only being an inaccurate person but
obviously pro-German.

ABSENCE ON LEAVE.

The following private testimony is also of interest: "A nephew of mine who is interned at Ruhleben has been let out for a fortnight's visit to some people whose son is interned in England, and who has been befriended here. My nephew met with the most overwhelming kindness, and his letters are most interesting and touching." The "reprisals of good," which we shall consider more fully presently, are, after all, the most practical measures in the world. There have been several other absences on leave, and a good many men have been released permanently. Moreover, at Christmas, 1916, most of the British officials in the camp were given three days leave in Berlin.

PRISONERS' ACTIVITY.

We may well be proud of the organising capacity of the British prisoners at Ruhleben and of the resolute determination of so many to make the very most of every slender opportunity, and to turn difficulties into a stimulus for ingenuity. The following is from the _Manchester Guardian_, February 23, 1916:

A letter from Mr. Walter Butterworth, dated January 22, and
written from his internment quarters at Ruhleben, Germany, has
been received by the Chairman of the Manchester Art Gallery, Mr.
F. Todd. After a reference to newly added pictures in the
Manchester Gallery and to the death of his friend, Mr. Roger
Oldham, Mr. Butterworth continues: "You will perhaps like to
hear a little about art matters in Ruhleben. We really have some
activity in arts and crafts. A great crowd of musicians are
here, including some composers and many excellently equipped
executants. We have actors in plenty, not without a sprinkling
of professionals. Professors, journalists, and lecturers are our
nearest approximation to workers in the literary field. There is
no stint of craftsmen, who produce very clever work in wood,
metals, etc. With provision tins they make the most astonishing
things, including tackle for our physics and chemical
departments, for weighing, testing, measuring, etc. With only
tins and wire a man made an amazing electrical clock, which has
kept faultless time for over a year. Other men made a handloom
for demonstration purposes, which wove cloth before our eyes at
a meeting of Yorkshiremen, at which I presided.

Turning to the fine arts of painting and sculpture, I did not
know we had any sculptors until this month, except one clever
young artist who models heads in clay. But this month we have
had a great deal of snow, and two men who have hitherto been
resting came forward, and, like Michael Angelo on a famous
occasion began to model in snow. But our designers and painters
are the most numerous and active (after the musicians). They
have a shed, in which art exhibitions are held periodically.
Many portraits are drawn and a few painted. One artist is just
completing a portrait of me in pastels. There is an endless
outpouring of theatre posters, caricatures, humorous drawings,
skits on the camp, etc."

Six students at Ruhleben passed the London University Matriculation examination in December, 1916. One of them took the Edinburgh papers as well later on. (_Observer_, August 26, 1917.) These are remarkable cases, for the strain of prolonged internment seems most of all to affect the power of concentrated attention.

The case of another successful student is recorded in the _Daily News_ of June 2, 1918:

The distinction--probably unique--of graduating for the degree
of Doctor of Music of Oxford University while a prisoner in
enemy hands has been achieved by Mr. Ernest Macmillan, a young
man with Edinburgh connections. Mr. Macmillan, who is the son of
a clergyman in Toronto, was studying music in Germany when the
war broke out, and since then he has been interned as a civil
prisoner at Ruhleben. His answer to examination papers and his
"exercise" (or composition) were sent from Ruhleben to Oxford.

That such things are possible at Ruhleben is a great tribute to English spirit and endurance. We must also not forget that they would clearly be wholly impossible if the Germans were actually barbarians.

A FRIENDLY ENEMY.

When Bishop Bury during his visit in November, 1915, asked what he might be allowed to say at Ruhleben, General Friedrich replied: "Please do all you can to hearten and cheer up your fellow countrymen. Appeal to their patriotism, speak to their manhood. You and they will have no one between you. There will be no official of the camp; no one to listen to you, no one to come between yourself and them. We trust you entirely with them, and you will understand, I am sure, that we do not wish to diminish anyone's sense of nationality who is imprisoned or interned in Germany." ("My Visit to Ruhleben," p. 21.) The words, says Bishop Bury, "seemed to come straight from the heart of the speaker." Some readers will be sceptical; but at least _the words were acted on_. The Bishop spoke about the armies and the war to the men, and told them of his own experiences in the war area, "just as I should have told them to my own countrymen in this country." At his last address the British flag was run in on a cord and "God Save the King" was sung. The Bishop had no time to propose the omission of the second verse, but one is proud to know that those Englishmen, even amidst their excitement, spontaneously omitted it. The whole scene revealed what was finest on both sides. Bishop Bury told the German Staff that at the meeting "we all sang 'Send him victorious.' They smiled indulgently."