[London,] 7 May 1870 

Dear Frep, 

All sorts of interesting things have happened here this week. 
But the English post is too inquisitive at the moment, and I don’t 
feel the call to worry it indirectly with news. So, about this, later by 
word of mouth. 

The Marseillaise did not arrive today. Possibly it has been 
confiscated. Last Wednesday * we informed them by telegraph that 
they would receive the General Council resolution’ on Thursday 
in the original French; they should not translate it from English. 
This telegram naturally came immediately to the attention of the 
Paris police, and Pietri does not, perhaps, want our proclamation 
one day before the plebiscite. 

The absurd Reuter-Havas telegrams have finally given us the 
long-awaited opportunity to declare publicly in the Paris press that 
the so-called Lonpon French Brancn does not belong to the 
International.°*° : 

Yesterday and the day before The Standard published two lousy 
articles against the International, dictated directly from the French 
Legation, as, ditto, the article in the London French paper 
L International. 

All London papers have received instructions from Bruce—and 
naturally obey them like the born dogs they are—not to mention a 
word in their columns about the steps the English police have taken 
very quietly in past weeks with regard to Flourens and the 
International General Council (they make a hope ponce out of the 
two). 

Ten thousand cops of The Standard mentioned have been sent to 
France. Is this, also, a method of payment, or has the Société du 10 
Décembre**’ suddenly learned English? 

Last Tuesday the rumour was spread in London that we were 
going to be arrested in our meeting room. As a result press 
REPORTERS, for once hungry for news, were in attendance. 

a 4 May - > K. Marx, Concerning the Persecution of the Members of the French Sections. 
Declaration of the General Council of the International Working Men’s Association 
(present edition, Vol. 21). 

In England, at a moment of panic the fellows immediately 
forget their own laws, and allow themselves to be carried away by 
the press, which is partly ignorant, and partly lies with intent. 

To be nice to the police, let us assume that everything reported 
by Grandperret, Reuter and the Journal officiel is gospel truth. 
Even so, the English Government could do nothing, apart, at the 
most, from making fools of themselves. 

There can, d’abord* be no question of the extradition of 
Flourens— Gaulois says it has been demanded.™ There is only one 
Extradition Treaty between France and the United Kingdom, that of 
1843. In 1865 the French Government declared it would 
denounce it after 6 months, since it was practically unworkable 
because of the English Laws oF Evidence. As a result, in 1866 some of 
the formalities regarding evidence were changed, without any 
change in the content of the treaty. This specifies very precisely 
the crimes that lead to extradition, including murder (parricide, 
INFANTICIDE, and murder by poison) and attempted murder, 
notabene, attempts in the sense qu'il y avait un commencement 
d’exécution, ‘rue DIRECT CONSEQUENCE OF WHICH WOULD PROBABLY BE THE DEATH 
OF THE INDIVIDUAL WHOSE LIFE WAS ATTACKED’. 

Under this treaty Beaury, for instance, could not be extradited 
had he fled to England, Iet alone Flourens. 

The only question is whether a_ foreigner here could be 
sentenced by an English court for complicity IN A CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT 
THE CRIME OF MURDER ABROAD. 

Before 1828 nobody—Englishman or foreigner—could be prose- 
cuted here for murder COMMITTED OUT OF THE United Kingdom. English 
duellists made use of this. Secr. 7 or 9, Gro. IV stipulated, 

‘THAT IF ANY OF H. M.S “SUBJECTS” SHOULD BE CHARGED WITH MURDER OR WITH ANY