Manchester, 3 March 1860 
6 Thorncliffe Grove, Oxford Road 

Si, 

I have received your letter of 22 February and would first 
tender you my best thanks for your acceptance of my brief. 

I fully endorse the manner in which you propose to handle the 
case. Should the count I mention be dismissed on formal grounds, 
its ventilation is, nevertheless, of the utmost importance, at any 
rate so far as the public is concerned. 

By way of a commentary on the enclosures sent herewith* and 
as a final exposé of the facts at my disposal, I am taking the liberty 
of making a few additional observations, but should, perhaps, first 
point out that, since I have not got a copy of my letter to you of 
13 February,° the numbering corresponds to that of the counts set 
out in my last letter of 24 February.’ 

ad IV. ad vocem Cherval. 

You will have seen from your copy of the Revelations Concerning 
the Communist Trial in Cologne that Mr Karl Schapper was one of 
the two leaders of the section of the ‘Communist League’™ 

C, Vogt, Mein Prozess gegen die Allgemeine Zeitung, Geneva, 1859. - > ‘blameless in 
life and clear of offence’ (Horace, Odes, I, xxii, 1) - © The Daily Telegraph - 4 See this 
volume, p. 95. - © ibid., pp. 40-45. - f ibid., pp. 59-75. - 8 Re IV, Concerning 

inimical to me in 1850 whom I accused of wrongly construing the 
purpose of the then still extant secret society which ought, I felt 
sure, to disseminate opinions but steer clear of any kind of 
conspiratorial activity, and that I therefore publicly accused Messrs 
Schapper and Co., not only through the medium of counsel at the 
Cologne court,* but also in the above-named pamphlet, afterwards 
published in Switzerland and America, of having provided Stieber 
and his agents with pretexts for their police machinations, thereby 
bringing about the prosecution of my friends in Cologne. 

While the admission of his errors before a magistrate could not 
but be a blow to Mr Schapper’s self-esteem, I knew him to be a 
man of honour (he was proof-reader to the Neue Rhevnische 
Zeitung in 1848/49), and I therefore wrote to him from here, 
asking him to swear an affidavit to this effect before a London 
magistrate.” He at once proved equal to my expectations. (See 
Enclosure a) Translation: Enclosure f. 1.) 

Like myself, Mr Schapper has for many years eschewed all 
political agitation. 

Schapper’s affidavit also clears up the obscurities that may have 
remained in respect of my relations with the wretched Cherval, 
regarding which, by the by, the National-Zeitung could not have 
been in doubt had they done no more than skim through the reports, 
published in all the leading Prussian papers, of the public proceedings 
at the communist trial in Cologne (October and November 1852). 
It was their bounden duty to do so before making such 
calumnious allegations against me. It was all the more their 
bounden duty in as much as they themselves repeatedly referred to 
the said trial in their leading articles. Schapper’s affidavit proves 
that Cherval was never connected with me, but only with my then 
opponents. As regards Cherval, I have this to add: 

From an oid letter, which I wrote to Friedrich Engels in 
Manchester (28 October 1852) and which he has kept, I would cite 
the following passage: 

‘That Cherval was a police spy is borne out by the following: 

‘Firstly, his miraculous escape from prison in Paris ey 
after sentence; 

‘Secondly, his unmolested stay in London, although a common 
criminal; 

‘Thirdly, Mr de Rémusat (I have authorised Schneider II to 
name him if necessary) tells me that Cherval offered him his 
services as agent to the Princes of Orleans. Thereupon, he wrote 

« Karl Schneider I] - > See this volume, p. 78. 

5* 

to Paris and was sent the following documents (of which a copy 
was shown me) from which it emerges that Cherval was first a 
Prussian police spy and is now a Bonapartist one.’* 

The contents of the passage cited above will be corroborated by 
the lawyer, Mr Schneider IT from Cologne, should you consider it 
necessary to summon him to Berlin as a witness. The Monsieur de 
Rémusat mentioned in the excerpt from the letter to Engels was, if 
I am not mistaken, a minister under Louis Philippe, or at any rate 
one of the most outstanding deputies of Louis Philippe’s day, and 
one of the most eminent writers of the so-called doctrinaire party 
of that time. 

ad I} (ad vocem funds for the journal Volk) 

I am sending vou, Enclosure b (translation Enclosure f, 2), my own 
affidavit concerning the source of the money placed at the Volk’s 
disposal by me.'?° 

Since I have to stay in Manchester for some time, as my legal adviser 
in the libel action against the London Daily Telegraph lives up here, I 
had to swear the affidavit before a Manchester Justice or THE Peace. In 
accordance with English law, therefore, it bears no stamp. 

ad I, I have nothing further to add. 

ad III, I would remark: 

As regards my ‘connection’ with the ‘secret police’, I could have my 
brother-in-law, the erstwhile Prussian Minister, von Westphalen, 
called as a witness. However, my wife, his sister, wishes to avoid this 
family scandal if it is at all possible to do so. That is something I must 
leave entirely to your discretion. 

Enclosure b) (translation: Enclosure f, 3) contains an affidavit by 
G. Miller, chairman of the public German ‘Workers’ Educational 
Society’ in London.’ It is the only working men’s association (save for 
the secret society, the ‘Communist League’ already mentioned, which 
was disbanded at my behest in November 1852) to which I be- 
longed in London since my arrival there (September or August 
1849) until my resignation from the same (mid-September 1850) 
which was publicly announced in various German papers ° (including 
the then still extant Londoner Deutsche Zeitung‘). It is, in fact, the only 
German working men’s association with which I have had anything 
whatever to do during my time of residence in London. Now, at its 
anniversary banquet (6 February 1860, the very day the National- 
Zeitung’s articles were reproduced in the London newspaper, the 

@ See present edition, Vol. 39, p. 222. - > K. Marx and F. Engels, [Statement on 
Resignation from the German Workers’ Educational Society in London], - © Deutsche- 
Londoner Zeitung 

Daily Telegraph) that same association voted a unanimous resolution 
backing me and censuring Vogt, although I had kept aloof from it 
for ten years. 

Its president had this resolution drawn up in legal form in 
London, as you will see from the enclosure. 

ad V. 1 enclose herewith (under Enclosure d) the article the Daily 
Telegraph paraphrased from the National-Zeitung; likewise the reply 
from the Daily Telegraph's (Berlin) correspondent in response to my 
complaint (under Enclosure e), of which I provided a translation in 
my letter of 24 February." 

I now consider it to be quite unnecessary for the name of my friend 
Ferdinand Fretligrath to be mentioned at al) during the course of the 
lawsuit, with the sole exception of the letter to F. Engels dated 
19 November 1852, enclosed in my letter to you of 24 February.’ I 
consider that letter essential if the facts are to be established in court. 

In addition to the supplementary information which you will find 
below, this letter contains the following enclosures: 

Enclosure a) Schapper’s affidavit, b) my own affidavit; 
c) G. Müller’s affidavit; d) Daily Telegraph of 6 February, p. 5, 
column 1, article headed “Tue Journauisric Auxiiaries or Ausrria’; €) 
Daily Telegraph of 13 February, p. 2, column 6, headed Germany. 
(From OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT), FRANKFORT ON THE Maing, Fepr. 8; f) 
translation of the three affidavits; g) The Knight of the Noble 
Consciousness, published in New York, December 1853. h) Letter from 
Flocon, member of the Provisional Government, Paris, 1 March 
1848°; i) letter from Lelewel, Brussels, 10 February 1860°; k) 1. letter 
from L. Jfottrand, Brussels, 19 May 1849° and 2. letter from the 
same, Brussels, 25 February 1848; 1) 1 copy of Zwei politische Prozesse. 
Verhandelt vor den Februar-Assisen in Kéln, Cologne 1849 '*°; m) letter 
from Ernest Jones. London, 11 February 1860 fn) letter from the 
Sheffield Foreign Affairs Committee,” 6 May 1860, Sheffield*; o) 
letters from David Urquhart. Glasgow. December 9, 1854; p) 
translations of enclosures m), n), and o). 

The only document that I still have to send you is a letter from 
the editor of the New-York Tribune"— which I expect to receive any 
day now—concerning my relations, from mid-1851 until the 
present, with this, the leading American English newspaper.’ 

I remain, Sir, your very obedient Servant, 

Dr Karl Marx 
a See this volume, p. 75.- > ibid., pp. 59, 73 and 83. -¢ See Herr Vogt, present 

edition, Vol. 17, p. 320.-4 ibid., p. 322.-¢ ibid, pp. 320-21. -f ibid. p. 
323. - 8 ibid., p. 315. - § Charies Dana -' See Vol. 17, pp. 323-24. 

Supplementary Information 

Needless to say, the only points in Vogt’s lampoon which I shall 
touch on in the action against the National-Zeitung are those 
actually incorporated by that newspaper in its leader, whether 
simply as they stood, or in the shape of comments; also, in regard 
to the National-Zeitung, only such points as are punishable by law. 
All else must be kept in reserve against such time as, the 
proceedings being concluded, I can reply to Vogt in writing." 

Hence the only purpose of this supplementary information is 
the following: 

1. To provide some additional observations on those passages in 
the National-Zeitung which, though quite irrelevant to the actual 
case for the prosecution, might possibly be of use in replying to 
defence counsel. 

2. Being myself the son of a lawyer (the late Justizrat Heinrich 
Marx of Trier, for many years batonnier of the barreau” there, 
noted for his integrity of character no less than for legal ability), I 
know how important it is for a conscientious lawyer to be quite 
clear about his client’s character. In addition, you will perceive that 
certain points given in ad 2 might be used to advantage during the 
proceedings. 

ad 1) The passage from the National-Zeitung, quoted under III 
in my letter of 24 February (No.37 of the National-Zeitung, 
column 2, line 65 from the top et seq.), goes on: 

‘To fill in the picture Vogt publishes among other documents a long letter by 
Techow, a former lieutenant, dated August 26, 1850,4 in which’, etc. 

Now for a start there is nothing, not a single line, in that 
letter—though anyone who had read only the Nat.-Zeit. and not 
Vogt’s lampoon might easily be tempted to think there was— 
about what the Nat.-Zeit., aping Vogt and in concert with him, had 
just before maintained, 1.e. ‘the compromising of people at home in 
Germany in order to extort money from them by threats of 
denunciation’, or ‘connections with the secret police in France and 
Germany’, and so forth. 

What Techow really says, amounts to no more than this: that he 
went drinking with myself, Engels and Schramm (now dead, 
then — 1850— manager of the Revue’ brought out by Engels and 

* Marx means his Herr Vogt.- > President of the Bar - © See this volume, p. 
69. - 4 See also Marx’s Herr Vogt, present edition, Vol. 17, pp. 75-99. - © Mein Prozess 
gegen die Allgemeine Zeitung, Geneva, 1859. -! Neue Rheinische Zeitung. Politisch- 
Ghonomische Revue 

me in Hamburg), and took in deadly earnest the pranks we played 
upon him while he sought to impress us as an exceedingly serious 
and self-important emissary from a secret society in Switzerland.'”” 
This applies to the theoretical part of his letter, notably the account 
of his conversation with us (it never took place in that form) which 
evinces the strangest misapprehensions and the most comical 
misrepresentations. No one, I assume, would expect me, a man 
who, for over fifteen years, has been publishing his views in 
German, French and English, to concern myself seriously with an 
account of my theory written by an ex-leutenant who has spent no 
more than a few hours of his whole life in my company and at a 
wine tavern at that. Mr Techow’s deviousness and mauvaise foi* are 
clearly discernible from the fact that he had earlier written to me 
and Engels from Switzerland, attacking Willich (see Enclosure g: The 
Knight of the Noble Consciousness, pp. 3-4”), while later, in his letter, 
which was never published, he did not hesitate to disseminate 
Willich’s delusions (at that ime Willich was actuated by the most 
absurd delusions about the importance of his own person and the 
snares laid for him by imaginary rivals) and his slanderous 
allegations against myself, although the tiniest glimmer of common 
sense would have told him that a few days spent in London 
consorting exclusively with those who were then our enemies did 
not entitle him to pronounce a verdict one way or the other. 

So far, I have discussed only what one might describe as the 
theoretical part of Techow’s letter (reproduced in Vogt‘—whether 
tampered with or not I can’t, of course, say—on pp. 142 et seq.). 

I now come to the most incriminating part of the letter, in which 
he speaks of the duel between my friend Conrad Schramm, now 
dead, and Willich. Had the National-Zeitung reprinted the letter, I 
would have enclosed one from Schramm, written Jong after the 
duel, in which he reproached me with letting myself be influenced 
by Willich because I had advised him [Schramm], albeit vainly, not 
to fight. 

Here I need do no more than refer you to Enclosure g, pp. 5-9." 
(When this appeared in New York in December 1853 they, Willich 
and C. Schramm, were both in America.) 

As regards the pamphlet (Enclosure g), I consider it necessary to 
‘tell you something about how it came into being. 

4 bad faith - > See present edition, Vol. 12, pp. 485-87. -¢ Mein Prozess gegen die 
Allgemeine Zeitung - ° K. Marx, The Knight of the Noble Consciousness, present edition, 
Vol. 12, pp. 489-96. 

In December 1852, just a few weeks after the end of the 
communist trial in Cologne, I sent the ms. of my Revelations 
concerning that trial to Basle—to Schabelitz, the publisher. 
Having delayed publication for months, S. made such blunders 
over dispatching it that the entire consignment destined for 
Germany was confiscated at the Baden border. In the event, I sent 
the ms. to the United States of North America where it appeared 
in Boston in March 1853, first in serial form.in the Neu-England- 
Zeitung, and then as a pamphlet in its own right. 

The appearance of the Revelations in America coincided with 
that of Mr Willich himself who, together with Kinkel, had gone 
there to drum up a revolutionary loan*' since, according to the view 
published by Kinkel in the German American papers at the time, 
‘revolutions are as easily made as railroads’, always provided ‘the 
necessary cash’ is in hand.* It was this kind of balderdash against 
which I took a decided stand. After the appearance of the 
Revelations in America, Willich allowed at least four months to 
elapse before publishing a rejoinder in the New York Criminal- 
Zeitung.” 

It contained the self-same calumnies and balderdash as 
Techow’s letter (indeed, in his letter sent to Switzerland in 1850, 
Techow was merely repeating what Willich had whispered in his 
ear when he was in London, and what Willich was to publish in 
New York in 1853). It was all the more essential that I should 
answer, in that my articles in the New-York Tribune had earned me 
a publicly recognised position in the English-American Press. 
Meanwhile, I had decided that I should deal with the matter 
pertinently if in a jocular vein, as indeed I did in The Knight of the 
Noble Consciousness. Needless to say, Techow could have replied, as 
could Willich. However, they deemed it wiser to remain silent and 
not to break that silence in the seven years since that time. 

What insidious inanity, therefore, on the part of the National- 
Zeitung (intent only on avenging itself for the criticism I bestowed 
on it in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung in 1848/49°), to foist on the 
public as authentic truth tittle-tattle that had long since been publicly 
refuted. 

* G. Kinkel, ‘Denkschrift über das deutsche Nationalanlehn zur Férderung der 
Revolution’, New-Yorker Staats-Zeitung, 2 March 1852. - » A. Willich, ‘Doctor Karl 
Marx und seine “Enthüllungen”’, Belletristisches Journal und New-Yorker Criminal- 
Zeitung, Nos. 33 and 34, 28 October and 4 November 1853. - © This presumably 
refers to the following articles: K. Marx, “The Berlin National-Zeitung to the Primary 
Electors’, K. Marx and F. Engels, ‘Speech from the Throne’, and F. Engels, ‘The 
Debate on the Law on Posters’. 

When Vogt’s book arrived in London, by the by, I sent it with 
an accompanying letter to Mr Techow in Australia and shall no 
doubt be able to place his reply before the public in four months’ 
time. 

Incidentally, the following account of how the letter came to be 
published is typical of Vogt. 

For in a letter from Paris dated 6 February 1860 Schily, a 
lawyer, writes: 

‘This letter’ (i. e. Techow’s) ‘passed through different hands before reaching 
mine, where it remained until, following my expulsion from Switzerland (summer 
of 1851), it came into the possession of Vogt via Ranickel (a working man who had 
connections with Willich). For I had been unable to put my papers in order, having 
been picked up quite unexpectedly, without prior notification or an expulsion 
order, in the streets of Geneva, where I had been sent into forced residence, and 
forcibly conveyed via sundry lock-ups to Basle, whence I was sent on my way. My 
papers were put in order for me by friends and in this Ranickel had a hand, which 
is how he came into possession of that document. I later wrote to Ranickel from 
London, asking for the document, but did not get it. As a man specially trusted by 
Willich (he once shared his lodgings at Besancon), he may well have had other 
intentions or instructions... Ranickel is now said to have a_ highly successful 
établissement as a book-binder, and to number among his clientéle the gouvernement 
of Geneva (the head of which is Fazy, Vogt’s patron). Not content with idolising 
Willich, Ranickel acted as Vogt’s informer, 

Such is the honest manner in which Mr Vogt acquired Techow’s 
letter. 

I would ask you not to mention Schily’s name, should this point 
be raised, since Vogt, qua Bonapartist agent, is powerful enough 
to have Schily banished from France. 

I need say nothing further on this score save that, no sooner 
had Willich published (in 1853)* the balderdash now reproduced in 
Techow’s letter, than there instantly—before, indeed, I could 
possibly have been notified in England—appeared in the self-same 
New-Yorker Criminal-Zeitung, a devastating riposte” written by 
Joseph Weydemeyer (former Prussian Lieutenant of artillery, 
subsequently co-editor of the Frankfurt Neue Deutsche Zeitung, 
presently Derpury-Survryor in the State of Iowa‘) who was in 
Frankfurt am Main and a member of the ‘Communist League’ 
throughout the time of the rift in London and the Communist 
trial in Cologne. The said statement was also signed by 

4 in his article ‘Doctor Karl Marx and seine “Enthillungen”’ - » J. Weydemeyer, 
A. Cluss, A. Jacoby, ‘An die Redaction der New-Yorker Criminal-Zeitung. 
7. November 1853’, Belletristisches Journal und New-Yorker Criminal-Zeitung, No. 37, 
25 November 1853. - © See this volume, pp. 115-16. 

Dr A. Jacobi, now a general practitioner in New York, who was 
himself among the accused at Cologne, but was acquitted. 

As regards the following passage, No. 37 of the National-Zeitung, 
column II, line 31 from top et  seq.: 

‘They’ (i.e. myself and co.) ‘continued the work of the Rheinische Zeitung among 
the refugees. In 1849 this paper had counselled against any participation in the movement 
and had also constantly attacked all the members of Parliament, etc.’ 

allow me to make the following observations: 

It is perfectly correct that, unlike the National-Zeitung, the Neue 
Rh. Zeit. never sought to make a milch cow of the revolution; 
rather that paper was kept on its feet only at considerable financial 
sacrifice and at great personal risk to myself, until such time as 
suppressed by the Prussian government. The absurd allegation, 
particularly so when coming from the Nattonal-Zeitung, that ‘in 
1849 the Neue Rh. Zeit. had counselled against any participation in 
the movement’, is best refuted in the columns of the paper itself. 
As to the manner in which I conducted myself during the 
revolution, I would refer you to Enclosure |) (Zwei politische 
Prozesse etc.). 

Similarly, it is true that the Neue Rhein. Zeit. always dealt with 
Mr Vogt and the other windbags of the Frankfurt National 
Assembly ironically and in accordance with their deserts. Come to 
that, as he himself admits in his pamphlet, by 1846 Vogt was 
already a naturalised Swiss citizen, i.e. a national of a foreign state, 
and hence should have had absolutely no say in Germany. That 
the Neue Rhein. Zeit. ‘attacked all’ the members of Parliament is 
incorrect. It was on the most amicable terms with many members 
on the extreme Left. The extent to which even Vogt and Co. 
sought to curry favour with the newspaper almost up to the time 
of its demise is plainly evident if only from the fact that, when 
they founded the March Association,’’* they sent out a circular 
throughout the length and breadth of Germany in which the 
public was strongly recommended to subscribe to ‘good’ and ‘the 
best’ newspapers, the ‘good’ being accorded one asterisk and ‘the 
best?’ two. The Neue Rhein. Zeit. was honoured with ‘two 
asterisks’.* No sooner had this scrap of paper come into my hands 
than I wrote a short leader in the Neue Rhein. Zeit. (1 believe it 
was an issue in March 1849) protesting against this unsolicited 
patronage on the part of people whom I esteemed neither 
for their personal character nor for their political intelligence.” 

* See also Marx’s Herr Vogt, present edition, Vol. 17, p. 104. - K. Marx, “The March 
Association’. 

ad 2) In 1842 (at the age of twenty-four) I was editor-in-chief of 
the old Rheinische Zeitung which, subject first to single, and then to 
double censorship, ended up by being compulsorily closed down by 
the Prussian government (spring, 1843). One of the men with 
whom I was working at the time was Mr Camphausen, Prime 
Minister of Prussia after the March revolution. The old Rhein. Zeit. 
can be said beyond all doubt to have disrupted the power of the 
censorship in Prussia. (I would observe in confidence—not, of 
course, for public consumption—that after the ‘Rhein. Zeit.’ had been 
closed down, overtures were made to me by the Prussian 
government through the medium of Geheimer Revisionsrat [Privy 
Auditor Councillor] Esser, a friend of my father’s. Esser, I should 
explain, was taking the waters with me at Kreuznach, where I 
married my present wife. After this communication, I left Prussia 
for Paris.) 

In Paris I published the Deutsch-Franzdsische Jahrbticher in 
company with Friedrich Engels, Georg Herwegh, Heinrich Heine, 
and Arnold Ruge. (I later broke with Herwegh and Ruge.) At the 
end of 1844 I was expelled from Paris (by Guizot) at the 
instigation of the Prussian Embassy there and left for Belgium.'”” 
The standing I enjoyed amongst French radicals during my stay in 
Paris can best be gauged from Enclosure h), a letter from Flocon of 
| March 1848, recalling me to France in the name of the 
Provisional Government, and annulling Guizot’s expulsion order. 
(In confidence: While in Paris in the summer of 1844, after the 
bankruptcy of the publisher (Julius Frébel) of the Deutsch-Franzés. 
Jahrbicher, I received from Dr Claessen, on behalf of Camphausen 
and other Rhein. Zeit. shareholders, a letter—enclosing 1,000 
talers—describing my services in such glowing colours that, for 
this very reason, I shall not enclose it.) 

I lived in Brussels from the beginning of 1845 to the beginning 
of March 1848, when I was again expelled and returned to France 
on the strength of Flocon’s letter. In Brussels, besides unpaid 
contributions to sundry radical newspapers in Paris and Brussels, I 
wrote the Critique of Critical Criticism in collaboration with 
Fr. Engels (a book about philosophy, published by Rutten, Frank- 
furt am Main, 1845), Misére de la Philosophie (book on economics, 
published by Vogler in Brussels and by Frank in Paris in 1847),” 
Discours sur le libre échange (Brussels 1848),° a work in two volumes 
on latter-day German philosophy and socialism“ (not published; 
4 The Holy Family, or Critique of Critical Criticism - > The Poverty of Philosophy - 
© ‘Speech on the Question of Free Trade’ - 4 K. Marx and F. Engels, The German 
Ideology. 

see my preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, 
F. Duncker, Berlin 1859), and numerous pamphlets.’*° During the 
whole of my stay in Brussels I gave unpaid lectures on ‘political 
economy’ at the Brussels German Workers’ Educational Society.’*! 
These were about to appear in book form when publication was 
interrupted by the February Revolution.’ Typical of my standing 
among the radicals (of very varying complexions) in Brussels is the 
fact that, in the public société internationale,’ I was committee 
member for the Germans, Lelewel (an old man of eighty, veteran 
of the Polish Revolution of 1830/31 and learned historian) for the 
Poles, Imbert (later gouverneur of the Tuileries in Paris) for the 
French, and Jottrand, a Brussels lawyer, former member of the 
Constituent Assembly'*’ and leader of the Belgian radicals, for the 
Belgians, who was also chairman. From the two letters written to 
me by Jottrand, now an old man (Enclosures k, I, and k, 2), as also 
from Lelewel’s letter (Enclosure i), you will see what my 
relationship with these gentlemen was during my stay in Brussels. 
Jottrand’s letter (Enclosure k, 2) was written after a dispute I had 
had with him at a public meeting on 22 February 1848, following 
which I had notified him of my resignation from the société 
internationale'** He wrote me the second letter, when I founded 
the Neue Rhein. Zeitung in Cologne. 

My second period of residence in Paris lasted from March until 
the end of May 1848.'*° (In confidence: Flocon offered to help 
myself and Engels finance the founding of the N. Rh. Z. We 
refused because, as Germans, we did not wish to take subsidies 
from a French government, even if friendly.) 

From May 1848 until the end of May 1849 I was editor of the 
Neue Rh. Zeit. in Cologne. From Enclosure |) you will see that I was 
elected one of the three chairmen of the Rhenish-Westphalian 
democrats. (In confidence: When I arrived in Cologne, I was 
invited by a friend of Camphausen’s to go to him in Berlin. I 
disregarded the insinuation.) 

In Paris from June 1849 till August 1849. Expelled under 
Bonaparte’s presidency. 

From the end of 1849'*" until now, 1860, in London. Publications: 
Revue der Neuen Rh. Zeitung* in Hamburg, 1850, The Eighteenth 
Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (in New York, 1852), Diplomatic 
Revelations of the 18th Century (London, 1856), Critique of Political 
Economy, Ist instalment, Duncker, Berlin, 1859, etc. Contributor to 
the New-York Tribune from 1851 up till the present. For as long as I 

a Neue Rheinische Zeitung. Politisch-ckonomische Revue 

remained a member of the German Workers’ Society (end of 1849 to 
September 1850) I gave unpaid lectures. 

From Enclosure o (it is confidential) you will see how I came to 
make David Urquhart’ acquaintance. From that time onwards I 
have contributed to his Free Press. I agree with him in matters of 
foreign policy (opposition to Russia and Bonapartism), but not of 
internal policy, in which I support the Chartist Party (which opposes 
him). For 6 years now I have contributed gratis to the latter’s 
publications (in particular the People’s Paper). (See Enclosure m.) 

My anti-Palmerston articles* written for the New-York Tribune in 
1853, have been repeatedly reprinted in pamphlet form in 
England and Scotland, to the tune of 15-20,000 copies. 

You will see from Enclosure n, which was sent me in 1856 at the 
behest of the Sheffield club by the secretary of one of the 
Urquhartite clubs, which are concerned solely with diplomacy, how 
I stand with the Urquhartites, despite our differences over internal 
policy. 

The letter in Enclosure n stems from Ernest Jones, barrister-AT-LAW 
in London, acknowledged leader of the Chartist Party, also 
recognised poet. 

Translations of Enclosures 0, n, and m will be found in Enclo- 
sure p. 

A typical example of the kind of tittle-tattlke about me 
disseminated by certain German quarters in London will be found 
in the letter from my friend Steffen” (formerly Prussian lieutenant 
and teacher at the Divisional School, at present in Boston) quoted 
on p. 14 of Enclosure g, “The Knight of the Noble Consciousness’. 

Despite ten years of unremitting attacks on myself, I have never 
burdened the German public with a single word of my life story. 
Vis-a-vis my lawyer, in a case such as the present one, I considered 
it indispensable. 

As regards the Italian war,’ I should add that my views on the 
subject are absolutely in accord with those expressed by my friend 
Fr. Engels in the well known pamphlet Po and Rhine, published 
by Fr. Duncker in Berlin in 1859. The manuscript of the said 
work was sent to me by Engels before it was dispatched to 
Berlin. 

We are in favour of a free and independent Italy and in 1848 
said as much in the Neue Rh. Zeit., in terms more forthright than any 
other German paper, and the same goes for Hungary and Poland. 
But we do not wish Bonaparte (in collusion with Russia) to make 

4 Lord Palmerston -» See present edition, Vol. 12, pp. 504-05. 

104 39. Marx tu Collet Dobson Collet. 7 March 1860 

Italian freedom or the question of any other nationality a pretext 
for ruining Germany.