| Author(s) | Karl Marx |
|---|---|
| Written | 19 October 1851 |
To Engels in Manchester
[London,] 19 October 1851
28 Dean Street, Soho
Dear Engels,
A few days ago I received a letter from Dronke wherein ostensibly on account of his expulsion-he announces that he will be arriving in London on the 23rd or 24th of this month.[1] The question of subsistence will loom larger for him here than ever before.
A still more baleful piece of news is this: Of late my correspondence with Cologne has been carried on in such a way that letters for me are brought to Liege by Schmidt, a railway guard, and I, for my part, sent a letter to him in Liege under cover through a third person. Well, this man Schmidt was arrested and later released, but the investigation is still going on. This would seem to be a case of outright betrayal. In accordance with the arrangement, Pieper should, by the way, have long since sent news from Cologne, where the Rothschilds stopped for a day, and from Frankfurt. Instead, I see from one of Ebner's letters (from Frankfurt) to Freiligrath that, although he has already spent a week in Frankfurt, he has not yet been to see Ebner, to whom he was to deliver a letter from me. It is our great misfortune that our agents should always go about their business in so very slipshod a[2] manner, and invariably as though it were of secondary importance. The others are unquestionably better served.
Kinkel, to whom it seemed that the ground had been cut away under his feet by that boor Heinzen, and who in any case feels able to take the floor only when unanimously hailed as a saviour, did not hold a meeting in New York, nor did he sell any 'interest-bearing notes' on the future German republic.[3] In Philadelphia, on the other hand, as he writes and tells the emigration club, he sold 4,000 dollars' worth. Throughout Pennsylvania he found the inevitable crowd of light-loving German-Catholics.[4] All Kinkel did was to enter into the inheritance of Johannes Range. The latter was John.[5] He is Christ. This evening I shall be meeting Gohringer. The whole thing's the fault of Willich & Co. For at the urgent request of these oafs, he allegedly gave them the sum I owed him. I shall give him a promissory note payable in 4 weeks' time. I think he will agree to this. If not, let him go to court. I have, in the interim, every prospect of concluding the contract with the Dessau publisher[6] who will, of course, have to pay me a sum in advance.
Weerth is in Bradford again. Il importe[7] that you should write and ask him whether he can take a letter to Haupt in person. The entire calumny seems to me to emanate from 2 sources, on the one hand, Stechan-Dietz, on the other, Willich the beadle, who was the first person here to bruit it about among Scharttner's customers that Haupt might be a spy. For Willich associated regularly with Berthold, the ex-Prussian corporal. Haupt had managed to place this beast with a merchant in Hamburg. Berthold stole from the merchant and was charged by the police. Haupt, of course, gave evidence against the rascal, who may, perhaps, have shared the proceeds with his friend Willich. Whereupon the latter began to yelp about the betrayal of 'a poor, fugitive patriot'. If this story is made public, the 'noble' Willich will be all eyes. Now it would be important, not only for us to call on Haupt for an explanation regarding the suspicions overtly and covertly cast upon him, but for him, if innocent, to make a public statement, declaring that the whole business is based on Willich's calumny and at the same time hinting at the latter's association, maybe as partner, with the rascally Berthold. For Haupt doesn't yet know about this dirty trick of Willich's, which was the actual source of the suspicions cast upon him. If Weerth is willing, you could give him a letter to Haupt couched in these terms. La chose presse.[8] In his statement Haupt should also refer to 'Dietz' and the equivocal matter of the forcing of his desk.
Now, as regards Ewerbeck, you must let me have a line or two concerning yourself, at least up to the year 1845.[9]
Mr Louis Bonaparte's sudden about-face, whatever its consequences may be, is a master-stroke of Girardin's. As you know, this gent had allied himself in London with Ledru-Rollin and his paper[10] really became, for a time, as stupid as might be expected from an ally of Ledru's and Mazzini's. Unexpectedly he adopted the ploy of suffrage universel, determining Bonaparte in its favour with the aid of his articles, Dr Veron and personal entrevues.[11] In this way the royalist conspiracy was smashed. The fury of the normally so diplomatic Journal des Debats is the clearest proof of this. The whole lot were hand-in-glove, Faucher, Carlier, Changarnier, and even the noble Berryer and Broglie, who had ostensibly rallied to Bonaparte. At any rate the 'revolution' -in the sense of triggering it off-has been juggled away. With suffrage universel there can be no question of it. But Mr Girardin doesn't care for a revolutionary mise en scene. He has duped both royalists and professional revolutionaries, and it may even be asked whether he is not intentionally duping Louis Bonaparte. For suffrage universel once restored, who will guarantee Bonaparte revision, and revision once achieved, who will guarantee that it will turn out as he wants?^20^ Nevertheless, in view of the native stupidity of the French peasantry, the question arises whether the elu du suffrage universel[12] will not be re-elected out of gratitude for having restored the said suffrage, more especially if, BY AND BY, he nominates liberal ministers and with the help of ingenious pamphlets, puts the blame for all the mischief on the royalist conspirators, who kept him prisoner for 3 years. It will depend on his ingenuity. At all events, Bonaparte now knows that, with the parti de l'ordre,^267^ he's not in clover.
One of the most comical interludes in this game of intrigue is the melancholy mien of the National and the Siecle which, as every one knows, have for some considerable time been howling for suffrage universel. Now that France is in danger of being presented with it again, they cannot conceal their chagrin. For as the royalists had counted on suffrage restreint[13] for Changarnier's election, so they counted on the same for Cavaignac's. Girardin told them bluntly that he knew that beneath their republican horror of revision-with its prospect of re-election for Bonaparte-they were merely concealing their hatred of suffrage universel, which would exclude their man, Cavaignac, and their entire coterie. The National, poor thing, s'etait deja console du depart du suffrage universel.[14]
So much is certain. This coup will have thwarted the May 1852 uprising,[15] which at best might now break out earlier should one of the ruling coteries attempt a coup d'etat.
Your
K. M.