[London,] 8 October 1852
28 Dean Street, Soho

Dear Cluss,

So necessary have your weekly letters become to me that I am
far from satisfied with your change of method and, out of
vexation at your silence, have likewise remained silent.

You'll have had my letter about Briningk.* We must— et nous
sommes dans le vrai°—repay the shameless Gottfried‘ in kind.
According to Imandt’s last report of the London guarantors’
meeting,” extracts of which appeared in the Wecker, Techow (now
departed for Australia) rose and said: ‘...those in particular who
had enjoyed Briiningk’s hospitality should be ashamed of themselves for spreading calumnies about Mrs von Bruningk.’ Kinkel,
of the unashamedly unruffled brow, protested his innocence,
although Imandt could have proved that he was lying. Willich sat
as though nailed to his seat.

As regards the second matter, that of remuneration,° I can do
nothing further since my informant, Biskamp (whom I would beg

a See previous letter. - > and we are in the right - © Kinkel - 4 See this volume,
pp. 161-62. - © ibid., p. 96.

you not to name) has settled in France and I have no correspondence with him. However, salary or no salary, this much is certain:

1. that Kinkel and Willich spent £200 and failed adequately to
account for it to the London guarantors’ congress;

2. Willich, on the pretext of meeting the cost of correspondence, remunerated himself for as long as he could;

3. that when Kinkel—proof of his purity in money matters—
arrived in Paris after his escape”** he immediately approached one
of the leaders of the Slav-German etc. revolutionary committee
there and informed him in confidence that it would be desirable if
the German democrats in Paris were to give him a welcoming
supper which he would then get the press to trumpet abroad. (As
in fact later happened.) To the remark: where is the money coming
from? Gottfried replied that it could be taken out of the
revolutionary committee funds. To the further remark that there
was no money in the exchequer but rather a considerable deficit,
Gottfried opined that the member (Bangya) to whom he was
speaking could advance it, he himself being so frightfully popular
in Germany that money would come flowing in. Subsequently this
same Kinkel got Bangya to advance him 500 fr. for his personal use
on the account of the revolutionary committee. His recu is still in
existence. He has not repaid it to this very day.

I have seen the regu. But Bangya insists on not being named,
likewise Hafner, who was also present. These people are right.
The object of Kinkel’s policy is by means of bare-faced denials
(that the man is lying is proved by the business with me” and with
Dr Wiss, whom he forced to make a public statement by asserting
that he had no connection with the ‘loan in his name’. See
New-Yorker Deutsche Zeitung and Wiss’ own statement therein.”
Cite this last fact), his object, 1 say, is to compel me to show my
hand and sy anp sy to discover whence I draw the information with
which to catch him out. This, he thinks, would draw my sting. Ga
ne va pas.

You'll be able to follow in the Kélnische Zeitung the proceedings
against our friends that opened on the 4th of this month in the
Gourt of Assizes. The jury is damn bad. It consists of big
Jandowners and big capitalists, viz: Regierungsrat von Münch-
Bellinghausen, Habling von Lanzenauer, Freiherr von Firstenberg, von Bianca, von Tesseler, vom Rath; Joest (the biggest
manufacturer—sugar—in Cologne); Herstadt (one of the leading

a receipt - > See this volume, pp. 149-50. - © That won’t do.

bankers in Cologne), D. Leiden (big capitalist). Finally Leven (wine
merchant) and Professor Krdusler.

Have my last two articles on the GENERAL ELECTION appeared in the
Tribune*? The first two caused a great stir here in England. Jones
reproduced them.”

Enclosed you will find:

1. Letter from Imandt.

2. Copy of an article from The Morning Advertiser of 6 October,
in which the luckless Ruge-Ronge endeavour to assert themselves.
The League here“ would now ask you to write by return a letter to
The Morning Advertiser (signed Dr Smyth or something Like THAT) in
which you make fun of the German tone srar which has neither
LONE nor star, and reassure The Morning Advertiser about the threat
to America presented by this soap- -bubble that has long since burst
there. (Copy to be sent to us.)?

3. A letter from Massol in Paris,**' which please return. Massol
is one of the cleverest of the older Frenchmen (those of the
forties), former St Simonist, Proudhonist, etc. The man and the book
he alludes to are Proudhon and his book on Bonaparte.*

It seems to me that you people should now go for Heinzen in
such a way as to torture him by pointing out how, since "47, this
oaf has systematically ignored every attack relating to matters of
aie ad (as, of late, that of Weydemeyer and subsequently your
own only to reappear a few months later as much of a
ae as ever, quasi re bene gesta:'

Your
K. M.

N. B. The morsel of erudition (striking in view of Heinzen’s
well-known ignorance) which he reveals in treating of the
historical development of marriage, was borrowed by the unhappy
man from G. Jung, Geschichte der Frauen, Part 1, Frankfurt am
Main 1850. Jung himself drew his material from:

C. Meiners, Geschichte des weiblichen Geschlechts, 4 vols. Hanover
1788-1800, and from:

aK. Marx, ‘Corruption at Elections’ and ‘Results of the Elections’. - b K. Marx,
‘The Elections in England.—Tories and Whigs’ and ‘The Chartists’ published in the
New-York Daily Tribune and reproduced in The People’s Paper, Nos. 22 and 23, 2
and 9 October 1852.-° ‘The German “Lone Star”’, The Morning Advertiser,
No. 19122, 6 October 1852. - 4 The London District of the Communist League -
€ P. J]. Proudhon, La révolution sociale démontrée par le coup d'état du 2 décembre (see
this volume, p. 166). - just as though nothing had happened

J. A. de Ségur, Les femmes etc., 3 vols. Paris 1803, and sprinkled
it with Hegelian-Young German sauce.

Meiners and Ségur drew on:

Alexander (W.), History of Women etc., 2 vols. London 1782, 3rd
ed.

Thomas (de l’Ac. frang), Essai sur le caractére etc. des femmes etc.,
Paris 1773.

For the manner in which the Hegelian school finally sums the
thing up—that old buffoon Ruge, now apparently in his dotage, is
too stupid to count—see:

Unger (J.), Die Ehe in ihrer welthistorischen Entwicklung. Vienna
1850.

This ‘bibliography’ will enable you not only to deprive the
unhappy Heinzen of all desire to pass off as new discoveries a few
platitudes filched from the socialists but also to provide the
German-American public, if interested in the subject, with the

sources where the material may be found. >

Works, First Russi Edition, Vol. XXV, 2 : : i
Moscow, 1984 Meee ARrae ay Published in English for the first

time