| Author(s) | Karl Marx |
|---|---|
| Written | 1 June 1854 |
MARX TO FERDINAND LASSALLE[1]
IN DÜSSELDORF
London, 1 June 1854 28 Dean Street, Soho Dear Lassalle,
I have been seriously ill these past 2 or 3 weeks and, on top of that, the 3 children[2] went down with the measles, from which they have only just recovered, so that the whole house has been turned into a hospital. I did not start going out again until 2 days ago and, since my head was the worst affected and all conversation exhausted me, I have seen no visitors during this time. The result is that I have heard little or nothing of the émigrés' activities and intentions. As you will be aware, Mazzini is in Switzerland incognito. From letters from Washington I gather that the émigrés are, as always, dreaming ambitious dreams. The confidential reports sent to America by the gentlemen here percolate back to me through a channel in Washington.[3]
In my next I may be à même[4] to send you the detailed information you ask for on the doings of the émigrés.
Weerth is at present in California. It is rumoured that he is on the point of marrying a certain Miss Worbs or Worms, of Hamburg, the daughter of one of his former principals.
Even The Times has been poking some mild fun at the 'Cologne TRICKERS' in London who bellow from a hundred throats—bellow at the English:
'Softly sounding through my mind Many a delightful chime'[5]
or else,
'Lonely I am not alone'[6]
and more in similar vein.
As regards the 'Palmerston',—he is presently straining every nerve to gain complete control of the War Office, though he has a rival in the Duke of Newcastle, a Peelite—, only the first few of the articles I wrote for the Tribune have been printed here as pamphlets.[7] I myself prevented further publication, as pamphlets by Urquhart were appearing alternately in the same series of 'Political Fly-Sheets'[8] and I do not wish to be numbered among the followers of that gentleman with whom I have only one thing in common, viz. my views on Palmerston, but to whom in all other matters I am diametrically opposed, as became apparent at our very first meeting.[9] He is a romantic reactionary—a Turk, and would gladly guide the West back to Turkish standards and structures. I have not sent you these few short pamphlets as the cost of posting small parcels is disproportionately high. As for the substance of the matter, you are perfectly right to abide by your opinion until wholly unequivocal facts cause you to change it. What has gone to make up my own view is not this or that isolated fact—each isolated fact admitting of a variety of interpretations— but the concatenation of all the steps taken by this man, the whole context of his activities since 1829. In it I have discovered a consistent plan that assumes various and often seemingly contradictory forms but is always directed towards the same goal, a plan uniformly executed with the same supreme disdain. As regards the specific points you raise, my comments are: 1. Pacifico Expedition.[10] In a work by one of Palmerston's former secretaries at the embassy in Athens—1836—namely the Diplomatic History of Greece by Mr Parish, you will find to begin with proof that, from 1830 onwards, Palmerston did all he could to turn Greece into a Russian province. In the end the Pacifico Expedition dropped her into Russia's lap. At the same time it also gained Palmerston popularity in England, thereby enabling him to further Russia's interests in the same year by concluding with Brunnow a treaty on the Danish succession, a treaty that was not made effective until 1852.[11] If, having done all the MISCHIEF he wanted, Palmerston gave way to France over this affair—the Greek one—, his compliance was simply 'diplomacy' vis-à-vis the English people. Papers hostile to him were already beginning to point out that in 1840 he had turned England into the ally of Russia and into the antagonist of France.
2. Recognition of the coup d'état.[12] Necessary to get Bonaparte into his toils. Similarly, in connection with the Spanish troubles, he brought the Quadruple Alliance into being earlier in order to get Louis Philippe into the mire.[13]
3. The instruction of 19 June 1839—wholly justifies my view. It was not London but Paris which suggested that in no circumstances should Russia be allowed to carry out the Treaty of Unkiar-Skelessi[14] (which, by the by, was of Mr Palmerston's making). The proof—a dispatch from Soult to the Baron de Bourqueney, 30 May 1839. Similarly 17 June 1839, etc. Palmerston, who made as if to believe that the Sultan wished to see the Treaty of Unkiar-Skelessi put into effect and the Russians in Constantinople, sent a dispatch to Earl Granville in Paris on 19 June, enclosing his 'PROPOSED INSTRUCTIONS' of even date 'TO THE ADMIRAL, SIR ROBERT STOPEORD', in which, among many other ambiguous and inane proposals, he also instructed the Admiral if necessary 'TO FORCE THE PASSAGE OF DARDANELLES'. Soult, with great bon sens[15] (see dispatch from Earl Granville to Viscount Palmerston, Paris, 28 June 1839), drew Palmerston's attention to the fact that it was not the Sultan but Russia who was their enemy, that this forcing of the Dardanelles was inane and that it would suffice if the English and French ambassadors in Constantinople were to ask the Sultan — who desired nothing better—to permit the entry of the United Fleets into the Dardanelles. To this Palmerston could raise no objection, but put forward a proposal even more inane, whereupon Soult wrote:
'The NOBLE LORD would seem to resign himself WITH GREAT FACILITY TO THE CONTINGENCY OF A RUSSIAN OCCUPATION OF CONSTANTINOPLE.' And so it goes on, Palmerston always thwarting French action against Russia while seeming to rage against Mohammed Ali, until Brunnow arrives in London, and the two of them conclude the treaty of 1840, subsequently ratified in the Dardanelles treaty of 1841, which was no more than a European sanction of the Treaty of Unkiar-Skelessi.[16]
I should be greatly obliged to you if you would write to me often and at length about conditions in Germany, particularly Prussia.
Your
K. M.