Letter to Friedrich Engels, February 1, 1865

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

To Engels in Manchester

[London,] 1 February 1865

Dear Frederick,

Enclosed letter from Strohn to be returned; write to me and let me know your thoughts about the publishing business at the same time.

This ‘Siebold’ is the Siebold of champagne fame, no doubt about that. I really am rather afraid that he did not merely find my reception of his bubbly enthusiasm very dry, but that he caught some queer words at Gumpert’s door, as I told you at the time. At all events, it is nice of the fellow and quite typical of wine-salesman politics to go straight from us to Karl Blind and run as his messenger to Hamburg. Has Blind perhaps also placed an order for ‘sparkling wines’ and granted his most gracious protection to scum-scoundrelism as well? I hope for the sake of bubbly’s good reputation that Siebold is no such venal scum, although there was no mistaking that while one of his eyes was sparkling with enthusiasm, the other had an eye to business. Regarding Freiligrath, I feel sure that he is much too cautious to agree publicly in any way to collaborate (in partibus [to all appearances], it goes without saying) with Blind. However, I shall try to ascertain the fact. At all events, it is very good that Strohn has so gratifyingly baulked Ruge and Blind. I sent off a few sarcastic marginalia to him earlier today, intended specifically for Meissner, concerning the nobile par of antagonistic brothers.

You must excuse the scraps of English in my epistle as there was a sitting of the Council yesterday which lasted until One o'clock. (‘Liquor’ and ‘smoke’ are banned from these ‘sittings’.) The first thing was the answering epistle from Lincoln, which you may find in tomorrow’s Times and certainly in The Daily News and The Star. In the reply to the London Emancipation Society (which counts among its members such illustrious figures as Sir Charles Lyell and the ‘Voice of World History’, alias K.B.), published in yesterday’s Evening Star, the old man drily dismisses the fellows with two formal clichés, exactly as he had done in his earlier answer to the Manchester branch of the Emancipation Society; whereas his letter to us is in fact everything we could have asked for, and, in particular, the naive assurance that the United States could not involve itself directly in ‘propagandism’. At any rate, it is the only answer so far on the part of the Old Man that is more than a strictly formal one.

Secondly, a delegate was there from the Poles (aristocrats), who have links with the ‘Literary Society’, through whom these gentlemen conveyed their solemn assurance, with an eye to the forthcoming meeting on Poland, that they are democrats and that every Pole is now a democrat, since the aristocracy has dwindled away to such a degree that they would be mad not to recognise the impossibility of restoring Poland without a peasant rising. Whether or not these fellows believe what they say, at all events, the last lesson they had does not seem to have been entirely wasted on them.

Thirdly, there were statements from various trades unions about their joining. Ditto from an association in Brussels which is promising to organise branches throughout Belgium.

I then handed over an issue of the Daily St. Louis Press which had arrived just yesterday containing leader about our ‘Address to the Workingmen’ and an excerpt from it which had obviously been arranged by Weydemeyer.

But now the most remarkable thing of all.

Cremer, our Honorary General Secretary, had received a written invitation for the ‘Council’ as well as a private visit, from a Provisional Committee which is meeting privatim at the London Tavern next Monday. Object: Monster meeting for Manhood Suffrage. Chairman: — Richard Cobden!

The point is this: as E. Jones told us previously, these fellows have been a complete failure in Manchester. They have therefore adopted a broader platform, in which registration ‘for paying poor rate’ figured instead of Manhood Suffrage, however. That is what is stated in the printed circular sent to us. However, since various indications made it clear to them that nothing less than Manhood Suffrage can attract any co-operation whatever on the part of the working classes, they have announced they are prepared to accept the latter. A big demonstration in London would lead to similar ones in the provinces, write the provincials ‘yet once again’, having ‘all ready’ realised that they are not able to set the ball a-going.

The next question raised yesterday was this: should our Society, i.e. Council, agree to what these fellows want (they include all the old sham city agitators such as Sam. Morley, etc.) and send a few delegates to attend the transactions of their provisional committee as ‘watchmen’? Secondly, if these fellows pledge themselves directly to the slogan of manhood suffrage and the public meeting is being called under this slogan, should we promise our support? The latter is, you see, just as crucial to these fellows as it was in the American business. Without the Trades Unions, no mass meeting is possible, and without us, the Trades Unions are not to be had. This is also the reason why these gentlemen have come to us.

Opinions were very divided, for which Bright’s latest silly tricks in Birmingham were much to blame.

On my motion, it was decided that: 1) the delegation should be sent (in my motion, I excluded foreigners from it; but Eccarius and Lubez were elected on to it as ‘Englishmen’ and silent witnesses) just as ‘observers'; 2) so far as the meeting is concerned, we should act with them firstly if manhood suffrage is proclaimed directly and publicly in the programme, and secondly if people selected by us are included on the permanent committee, so that they can keep an eye on those fellows and compromise them in the event of fresh treachery, which, as I made plain to all of them, is at any rate intended. I am writing to E. Jones about the matter today.

Your
K. M.