As regards the value of the evidence on the other side--the English, Belgian, and French Reports--I doubt if any careful reader requires persuasion as to their authenticity. In the case of the Bryce Report, the studied sobriety of its tone--to say nothing of the known integrity and judiciousness of its authors--carried instant conviction to the minds of all honest and thoughtful men, and that conviction was assuredly not disturbed by the vituperative description of it by the _Kölnische Zeitung_ as a “mean collection of official lies.” No attempt has ever been made to answer it. As regards the French Reports, which are not as fully known in this country as they might be,[3] I had the honour of working in collaboration with M. Mollard, a member of the French Commission of Inquiry, and I was greatly impressed with their scrupulous regard for truth, and their inflexible insistence on corroboration. My own methods of inquiry are sufficiently indicated in the chapter which follows, but I may add two illustrations of what, I think, may fairly be described as the scrupulousness with which the inquiries at General Headquarters were conducted. The reader may remember that in May of last year a report as to the crucifixion of two Canadian soldiers obtained wide currency in this country. A Staff officer and myself immediately instituted inquiries by means of a visit to the Canadian Headquarters, at that time situated in the neighbourhood of Ypres, and by the cross-examination of wounded Canadians on the way to the base. We found that this atrocity was a matter of common belief among the Canadian soldiers, and at times we seemed to be on a hot scent, but eventually we failed to discover any one who had been an actual eye-witness of the atrocity in question. It may or may not have occurred--we have had irrefragable proof that such things have occurred--and it is conceivable that those who saw it had perished and their testimony with them. But it was felt that mere hearsay evidence, however strong, was not admissible, and, as a result, no report was ever issued. In the other case a man in a Highland regiment, on discovering himself in hospital in the company of a wounded Prussian, attempted to assault the latter, swearing that he had seen him bayoneting a wounded British soldier as he lay helpless upon the field. He was positive as to the identification and there could be no doubt as to the sincerity of his statements. But as one Prussian Guardsman is very like another--the facial and cranial uniformity is remarkable--and there was no corroboration as to identity, no action was taken. As to the fact of the atrocity having occurred there could, however, be no doubt.