Naturally these particulars were not communicated to the Duc de FitzJames by his informant. They would have fully excused the burning of the village even if it had been done intentionally with the object of forcing the enemy out of that position. But there is no evidence of any such intention. That women and children were driven back into the fire is one of those infamous lies with which the French terrorise the population, and incite their hatred against us. In this way they cause the peasants to fly on our approach. The latter return, however, as a rule, a few days after the entrance of the Germans, and are astounded to find that they are better treated by them than by the French troops. When this sort of terrorism is not sufficient to force the inhabitants to flight, the Government sends a mob of armed civilians, sometimes supported by African troops, to drive the peasants from their homes at the point of the sword, and to burn down their houses as a punishment for their want of patriotism. The letter of ‘an imprisoned officer’ (Bouillon, September 9th) also contains more falsehood than truth. With respect to the treatment of the prisoners, Germany can call 150,000 better witnesses than this anonymous and mendacious officer, whose whole communication is merely an expression of the vindictive disposition which will for a long time to come inspire the vain and arrogant elements of the French people, by whom, unfortunately, that country allows itself to be ruled and led. From this spirit of revenge arises the certainty of further attacks on the part of France, for which Germany must be prepared. We are thus unquestionably compelled to think solely of the security of our frontier in concluding peace. It is true, as stated in the letter of this imprisoned officer, M. L., that there was a scarcity of provisions after the surrender of Sedan, not only for the prisoners, but also for the victors, who shared with them what they had. When their own stock was exhausted the prisoners also had to do without. L.’s complaint that he had been obliged to bivouac in the rain and mud furnishes the best evidence that he is no officer, and has not even followed the campaign up to that point. He is some hireling scribe who has never left his own room, and one must therefore assume that the man’s whole story of his imprisonment is an invention; as, had he been an officer in the field, he would have known that most of his comrades (that is certainly the case with the Germans) have spent at least thirty nights out of the forty or so that have elapsed since the beginning of the war under similar conditions. When it rained in the night they had to lie in the rain, and when the ground was muddy they had to lie in the mud. Only one who had not followed the campaign could have any doubt or manifest any surprise on that score. That M. L. prides himself on having retained his leather purse is the clearest proof that he was not plundered. There can hardly