In reply to these charges we offer the following observations. If M. de Chaudordy understood anything about war, he would not complain of the sacrifices which our operations have imposed upon the French people, but would, on the contrary, be surprised at our relative moderation. Moreover, the German troops respect private property everywhere, although they can certainly not be expected, after long marches and severe fighting, and after enduring cold and hunger, to refrain from securing as comfortable quarters as possible, or from demanding, or, if the inhabitants have fled, helping themselves to absolute necessaries such as food, drink, firing, &c. Moreover, instead of seizing private property, as M. de Chaudordy asserts, our soldiers have frequently done the reverse, and at the risk of their own lives, rescued for the owners works of art and other valuables which were endangered by the fire of the French guns. We have burnt down villages, but does our accuser know nothing of our reasons for doing so? Is he not aware that in those villages franctireurs have treacherously fired upon our people, and that the inhabitants have given every possible assistance to the murderers? Has he heard nothing of the franctireurs who recently left Fontaines, and who boldly stated that the object of their march was to inspect the houses in the neighbourhood which were worth pillaging? Can he bring forward a single well-established case of outrage committed by our soldiers such as those of which the Turcos and French guerillas have been guilty? Have our troops cut off the noses or ears of their wounded or dead opponents, as the French did at Coulours on the 30th of November? On the 11th of December, when 800 German prisoners should have been brought into Lille, only 200 of them actually arrived. Many of these were severely wounded, yet instead of affording them succour, the people of the town pelted them with snowballs, and shouted to the soldiers to bayonet them. The frequency with which the French have fired at the bearers of flags of truce is something unheard of. There is good evidence for the truth of the following incident, however incredible it may appear. On the 2nd of December, a German sergeant named Steinmetz, at the express desire of an officer of the Garibaldian troops, wrote a letter to his lieutenant in Mirecourt, stating that if our side took reprisals against Vittel or other places in the neighbourhood, the ears of fourteen Prussian prisoners, who had fallen into the hands of the guerillas in a surprise attack, would be cut off.
In many instances we have not treated those volunteers as soldiers, but that was only in cases where they did not act as soldiers, but on the contrary, followed the principles recommended by the Prefect, Luce Villiard, in the address issued by him through the Maires to the peasants of the Côte d’Or department. M. Villiard said: “The country does not demand that you should collect in large masses and openly oppose the enemy. It expects that every morning three or four resolute men amongst you shall leave your villages and select some good natural position from which you can fire upon the Prussians without risk. You must above all direct your fire against the enemy’s cavalry, and bring their horses in to the chief district towns. I will distribute premiums amongst you, and your heroic deeds shall be published in all the newspapers of the Provinces as well as in the Official Journal.”
We have bombarded open cities, such as Orleans, but is M. de Chaudordy not aware that they were occupied by the enemy? And has he forgotten that the French bombarded the open towns of Saarbrücken and Kehl? Finally, as to the hostages who were obliged to accompany the railway trains, they were taken not to serve as a hindrance to French heroism, but as a precaution against treacherous crime. The railway does not convey merely soldiers, arms, ammunition and other war material, against which it may be allowable to use violent measures: it also conveys great numbers of wounded, doctors, hospital attendants and other perfectly harmless persons. Is a peasant or a franctireur to be allowed to endanger hundreds of those lives by removing a rail or laying a stone upon the line? Let the French see that the security of the railway trains is no longer threatened and the journeys made by those hostages will be merely outings, or our people may even be able to forgo such precautionary measures. We forbear to deal any further with the charges of M. de Chaudordy. The European Cabinets are aware of the humane sentiments which inspire German methods of warfare, and they will easily be able to form a just estimate of the value of these charges. War, moreover, is and remains war, and it cannot be waged with velvet gloves. We should perhaps less frequently employ the iron gloves if the Government of National Defence had not declared a people’s war, which invariably leads to greater harshness than a conflict between regular armies.
Bohlen, who is still unwell, Hatzfeldt, who is indisposed, and Keudell, who received a command to dine with the King, were absent from dinner. Count Holnstein and Prince Putbus were present as guests. The first subject to be touched upon was the Bavarian Treaty, which Holnstein expected would be approved of by the second Bavarian Chamber, in which a two-thirds majority was necessary. It was already known that there were only some forty members opposed to it. It was also practically certain that it would not be rejected by the Upper House.
“Thuengen will doubtless be in favour of it,” observed the Chief.
“I believe so,” replied Holnstein, “as he also voted in favour of joining in the war.”
“Yes,” said the Minister, “he is one of the honest Particularists; but there are some who are not honest and who have other objects in view.”
“Certainly,” added Holnstein. “Some of the patriots showed that quite clearly. They omitted the words, ‘For King and Country,’ retaining only ‘Mit Gott.’”
Putbus then referred to the approaching holidays, and said it would be a good idea to give the people in the hospital a Christmas tree. A collection had been started for that purpose, and 2,500 francs had already been received. “Pless and I put down our names,” he said. “The subscription list was then laid before the Grand Duke of Weimar, and he gave 300 francs; and the Coburger, who was then attacked, gave 200. He would certainly have been glad to get out of it. He should at least have contrived not to give more than Weimar or less than Pless.” “It must certainly have been very disagreeable to him,” said the Minister. Putbus: “But why? He is a rich man!” The Chief: “Very rich!” Putbus: “Why, certainly, he has come in for an enormous forest which is worth over a million.” The Chief: “The Crown Princess secured that for him through all sorts of stratagems, which she also tried on with me. But I have done with him. He shall never get my signature again.” Putbus: “Besides, 200 francs! He ought not to feel it so much. It is not much more than fifty thalers. But it is just like him!” Putbus then said they intended to submit the list of subscriptions to his Majesty, whereupon the Chief remarked: “Then you will also allow me to join.” Putbus afterwards added that Weimar had “not shown himself over-generous in other matters. He established an ambulance for his regiment, where a couple of officers are now being cared for. He demanded payment for their keep from the Commandant, which of course only the doctors are entitled to do.” “But surely they have not given it to him?” said the Chief. Putbus: “Oh, yes; they have though, but not without making some remarks on the subject that led to a great deal of bad language on his part.”
It was then mentioned that a French balloon had fallen down near Wetzlar and that Ducrot was said to be in it. “I suppose he will be shot then,” said Putbus. “No,” replied the Chief. “The common jail. Ten years’ penal servitude. If he is brought before a court-martial nothing will happen to him. But a Council of Honour would certainly condemn him. So I have been told by officers.”