at the outbreak of the war.25 After a protracted correspondence an agreement was also reached for the reciprocal exchange of such diplomatic and consular representatives as were detained in the two countries.

An arrangement was early made between the British and AustroHungarian Governments by which male subjects under the age of seventeen and over fifty, together with physicians, clergymen, invalids, without regard to age, and of course women and children, were reciprocally released. Misc. No. 35 (1916) [Cd. 8352]. The controversy in regard to the age limit of persons capable of military service, which prevented for many months an agreement between the British and German Governments, did not arise between England and AustriaHungary. It appears that in other respects the policy of the British Government concerning the treatment of Austro-Hungarian nationals in England was marked by exceptional leniency owing to the liberal treatment by the Austro-Hungarian Government of British subjects in that country.25

The policy of the British Government in the beginning was to interfere as little as the public safety permitted with the liberty of enemy aliens. Only suspects, those likely to prove dangerous in case they were left at large, and persons likely to become a public charge, were arrested and interned. Naturally, in consequence of the excitement and general confusion, many persons were hastily arrested and sent off to concentration camps on unfounded suspicion, only to be subsequently released.26 According to a statement made in the House of Commons by the Prime Minister in May, 1915, about 19,000 Germans and Austro-Hungarians were then interned in various camps, leaving some 40,000 still at liberty.

There was no thought at first of interning the entire enemy alien population, but in consequence of various acts of the Germans, such as the bombardment of West Hartlepool, Scarborough, and Whitby; the dropping of Zeppelin bombs on undefended towns; the use of

25 Correspondence between His Majesty's Government and the United States Ambassador Respecting the Release of Interned Civilians, etc. Misc. No. 8 (1915), [Cd. 7857], pp. 2-3.

258

Compare Williams, "Treatment of Alien Enemies," Quarterly Review, Oct., 1915, p. 425; see also Phillipson, International Law and the Great War, p. 88. 26 See the London Weekly Times of July 4, 9, and 11, 1915.

asphyxiating gases; the reports of ill-treatment of British prisoners, and the like, public opinion in England was gradually aroused, and it was turned to wrath by the sinking of the Lusitania in May, 1915. The growing indignation against the Germans manifested itself in various forms, such as the exclusion of persons of German origin from the commercial exchanges, 27 the boycotting of German shops, maltreatment of unoffending individuals, and the like. The sinking of the Lusitania caused a wave of indignation to sweep over England which was speedily followed by mob outbreaks in various parts of the United Kingdom and in the overseas Dominions, in which many German houses and shops were wrecked or looted. In the east end of London, especially, the damage done by the rioters was very great. In Liverpool the value of property destroyed was estimated at $2,000,000. In various other places the losses reported were large. In the town of West Ham the riots lasted for several days and the damage done was estimated at a half million dollars. Mr. McKenna stated in the House of Commons that 257 persons, of whom 107 were police or special constables, were injured in the riots at London. In some communities the rioters made no distinction between unnaturalized Germans and British subjects of German origin,28 but proceeded on the assumption that once a German, always a German. Occasionally also native-born British subjects were made the object of attack through mistake, and instances were reported of the destruction of houses belonging to persons of English, Swiss, and Russian nationality, who bore Teutonic names.

In Victoria, British Columbia, the sinking of the Lusitania was followed by an outbreak against German establishments, and the city had to be put under martial law. At Johannesburg a series of violent anti-German demonstrations took place, which culminated in the wrecking, wholly or in part, of some fifty German and Austrian houses and the destruction of their contents. The total damage done was estimated to exceed $1,000,000. At Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, Pretoria, Maritzburg, Kimberley, Bloemfontein, and other places serious disorders took place and considerable damage was done. The occur

27 London Times, May 11, 1915, p. 10.

28 Ibid., May 13, 1915, p. 9.

rence of these outbreaks was deeply deplored by the great majority of the English people, although, in view of the strong provocation occasioned by the barbarities of the German army and navy, they were regarded as the natural manifestations of an outraged public opinion.

In consequence of the intense anti-German feeling throughout the empire, a widespread popular demand was made for the internment of the entire German population, partly in their own interest, since it was impossible to protect them against mob violence so long as they remained scattered or isolated among the English population, and partly in the interest of the national defense, since they constituted a danger to the realm so long as they were left at large. Popular meetings were held in various places at which addresses were made and resolutions adopted calling on the government to adopt vigorous measures. At a meeting at the Mansion House, called "to formulate a protest by the women of Great Britain and Ireland," a resolution was adopted demanding that steps be taken "to free the country from the menace of the alien enemy in our midst."

On the same day a great public demonstration was held in which thousands of the general public are said to have stood in a drenching rain and cheered speeches calling for the internment of the Germans. The following resolution was then adopted:

Thousands of citizens of London, gathered together at a mass meeting, unanimously protest against any kith and kin of German mutilators, poisoners, and murderers of men, women, and children being any longer allowed to be at large in the English islands, and, fearing riots, fires, and spread of disease germs and poisoned water, hereby unanimously demand that the government take immediate steps to intern or deport all alien enemies, male or female, whatever their nationality, naturalized or otherwise.

Deputations from the Stock Exchange, the Baltic Exchange, Lloyds, and the Corn Exchange, after meeting on the steps of the Royal Exchange, marched to the House of Commons and presented a petition to the Attorney General, which called attention to "the grave danger that exists by allowing alien enemies to remain at large in the country." The popular demand for wholesale internment of the enemy population was so great that the government was compelled to yield, and

on May 13, 1915, the Prime Minister announced that the government had decided upon a measure of general internment. He said:

At this moment some 40,000 unnaturalized aliens, of whom 24,000 are men, are at large in this country. The government proposes that all adult males of this class should, for their own safety and that of the country, be segregated and interned. If over the military age, they should be repatriated. The government recognizes that there may be cases calling for exceptional treatment. Women and children

in suitable cases should be repatriated, but there no doubt will be many cases in which justice and humanity will require that they be allowed to remain.

An official body, judicial in character, will be set up to deal with claims for exemption, and as soon as the military and naval authorities have provided the necessary accommodations, those who have not secured exemption will be interned. In the case of naturalized aliens, who in law are British subjects, numbering about 8000, the prima facie presumption should be the other way, but exceptional cases established to the satisfaction of the advising body will be specially dealt with. There must be powers of internment in cases of proved necessity or danger.

It will be seen from the Prime Minister's announcement that naturalized British subjects of enemy origin were also to be subjected, in exceptional cases, to internment. In accordance with this announcement, an Order in Council was issued in June empowering the Home Secretary to intern any person, when, in view of his "hostile origin or association, it seemed expedient to do so for the public safety." Under this order British subjects of hostile origin or association could be arrested and interned in detention camps without due process of law and without the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus, and many were in fact so arrested and imprisoned. There was some protest against the validity of the order,29 but it was sustained by a decision of the Court of Appeal in Zadig's Case.30

In accordance with the announcement of the Prime Minister on May 13, practically the entire enemy population, as well as the majority of naturalized British subjects of enemy origin, including also several

29 See the criticism in the London Solicitors Journal and Weekly Reporter, Vol. 60, p. 233, and the London Weekly Times of July 18, 1916.

30 A. C. 260 (1917). Lord Dunfermline dissented in a long opinion. The London Times severely criticized this decision. The decision is also criticized by the Law Quarterly Review of July, 1917, p. 205.

thousand friendly aliens, were arrested and sent to concentration camps in various parts of England and in the Isle of Man. It was stated in the House of Commons on December 14, 1915, that the number of enemy aliens then interned amounted to 45,749. Of these, 32,274 were civilians and 13,475 were described as "naval and military men.31 Complaint was made in Parliament as late as February, 1917, however, that 4294 enemy aliens, including 287 men of military age, were still uninterned and that Germans were still carrying on business in London.32 Exemptions were granted in exceptional cases, a special internment committee having been appointed to pass upon applications from persons who for one reason or another claimed that they were entitled to be left at liberty. 33 Many persons who were entitled to be repatriated preferred to be interned in concentration camps rather than be sent back to their native country where, in view of their long absence, they would have been virtual strangers and without means of support. Others preferred internment to being left at large in England where they would be exposed to mob outbreaks and maltreatment, against which the local authorities were often powerless to protect them, especially in the case of those who lived in isolated places. So far as possible, work was provided at the camps for those desiring it; tools, materials, and instructors in the handicrafts were furnished, educational

31 Sir Herbert Samuel stated in the House of Commons in July, 1916, that at the outbreak of the war there were about 75,000 Germans and Austro-Hungarians living in England. At the time of his statement, all but 22,000, he said, had either been interned or repatriated. Of these, 10,000 were women, 4000 were friendly aliens, and 1500 were aged people, leaving 6500 to whom exemptions had been granted. London Weekly Times, July 7, 1916. According to a London press dispatch of November, 1916, there were then 32,000 German civilians interned in England, 23,000 of whom were in the Isle of Man camp.

32 London Weekly Times, February 23, 1917.

33 Sir John Simon, speaking near the end of July, 1915, of the work of this committee, stated that it had received 14,117 applications for exemption from internment. These came mostly from Poles, Czechs, Italians and Alsatians. In view of the somewhat lenient treatment accorded to British subjects by the AustroHungarian Government, the committee was disposed to show special consideration to the subjects of that country, and particularly to the above mentioned races, since their sympathies were understood to be more or less on the side of the Entente Allies. Sir John stated that the applications of more than 6000 such persons had been granted, and that most of them had been repatriated. Solicitors Journal and Weekly Reporter, July 31, 1915, p. 672.