THE COMMUNE AND ARCHBISHOP DARBOY 

Sir, 

The passage of the Address of the General Council of the 
International Working Men’s Association, On the Civil War in 
France, which gave the signal to shouts of moral indignation on the 
part of the London press, was this: “The real murderer of the 
Archbishop is Thiers.” 

From the enclosed letter, addressed to M. Bigot, the counsel for 
M. Assi at the Versailles Court-martial, by M. Eugéne Fondeville, 
who is ready to confirm his statements by affidavit, you will see 
that the Archbishop himself actually shared my view of the case. 
At the time of the publication of the “Address”, I was not yet 
informed of the interview of M. Fondeville with M. Darboy, but 
even then the correspondence of the Archbishop with M. Thiers 
revealed his strange misgivings as to the good faith of the Chief of 
the French Executive. Another fact has now been placed beyond 
doubt—viz., that at the time of the execution of the hostages the 
Communal government had already ceased to exist, and ought, 
therefore, no longer be held responsible for that event. 

I am, etc., 
Karl Marx 

London, August 29 

London, August 19, 1871 
Sir, 

I am taking the liberty of writing to you to inform you of the existence of 
certain documents relating to the events of the Commune and to ask you if you 
would kindly take advantage of the privileges of your profession and your capacity 
as defence counsel for one of the accused to have them produced in court. 

Around 15 April a Paris newspaper reproduced a letter written to The Times in 
which a certain person stated that he had visited the hostages at Mazas and accused 
the Commune of behaving barbarously towards them. Strongly desirous of 
ascertaining the truth of such assertions, I went to the prison where I became 
convinced of the contrary. That day I talked with Messieurs Darboy, Bonjean and 
Deguerry, and M. Petit, secretary to the Archbishop, who could give you some 
information on this subject, since he is alive. Subsequently I made frequent visits to 
them and a few days before the collapse of the Commune Messieurs Darboy and 
Bonjean entrusted me with some manuscripts the gist of which I give you below. 

Here is a brief résumé of the Darboy document. It is entitled ““My Arrest, my 
Detention, and my Reflections at Mazas”. From this it emerges that apart from his 
arrest, for which he blames the Commune, he places the full responsibility for his 
detention on the government of Versailles; he accuses it, above all, of sacrificing 
the hostages to reserve itself a sort of right to take reprisals in the future. In so 
doing he refers partly to his written requests and partly to the approaches made by 
his friends to M. Thiers, approaches and talks which led to nothing but refusals, 
notably that of M. Lagarde. He affirms that it was a question of exchanging the 
hostages not only for Blanqui, but also for the body of General Duval. He declares 
in addition that he was well treated and he praises at length the conduct of citizen 
Garau, the governor of Mazas. He already foresees his death and this is what he 
writes on the subject: “It is known that Versailles does not want either an exchange 
or a reconciliation; on the other hand, if the Commune had the power to arrest us, 
it does not have the power to have us set at liberty, because to set us at liberty 
without an exchange at this time would start a revolution in Paris that would 
overthrow the Commune.” 

As for M. Bonjean, he gave me a long treatise on agricultural economy which 
he had composed in prison, two letters for his family, and a kind of journal of his 
detention. Although this document is not as valuable from the point of view of the 
defence as that of M. Darboy, it proves that the hostages were treated humanely at 
Mazas. 

Since it is pointless to insist on the importance of such documents, I shall now 
explain to you under what circumstances I was deprived of them. 

Obliged to leave the Ministry of Public Works on the morning of Monday, 22 
May, I had to take refuge in the only establishment that. was open, in the Rue du 
Temple; it was there that I deposited my briefcase and my papers. On Thursday 
the 25th the Versaillese captured this quarter, and I wanted to put these 
documents in a safe place before going home. The owner of the hotel, whom I 
thought I could trust, gave me a wall safe in a room on the second floor, the key to 
which I took with me. Apart from the items mentioned above, I also deposited five 
letters from MacMahon which had been handed to me at the Prefecture of Police, 
many official documents, including a certificate saying that I was a delegate at 
Neuilly during the armistice of 25 April, two currency bills, a letter from London 
addressed to M. Thiers, and some photographs of various members of the 
Commune. 

On 27 May I sent two men to the Rue du Temple who were to bring me, 
together with my briefcase, the papers deposited in the safe. In answer to their 

request the owner of the hotel replied that since many of his neighbours had said 
several times that a member of the Commune had taken refuge at his place, he had 
thought it prudent to force open the safe and burn the papers. 

The briefcase was brought to me. It too had been forced open, and my private 
papers, such as the certificates and others, had been taken. Now despite the fact 
that the owner of the hotel confirmed to me personally that the documents had 
been destroyed, I am persuaded of the contrary, and the news that I have had 
from Paris assures me that the person to whom I confided them is still in possession of 
them, or handed them to the police a short time ago. 

I am sending you information to institute a search for the above-mentioned 
documents, and the customary salutations. The letter has been sent to Bigot on 19 
August 1871. 

E. Fondeville, 
Householder in St. Macaire