London, Thursday, 19 December 1861

19 Dec. 1861.
Dear Engels,

You know how the business with Dronke came about. I did not write to him about the bill, but wrote to spur him on. Of course I had to take the opportunity to inform him of the crisis in which I found myself, and which, as a result of the American affair, he, like everyone else, was bound to discover and did. Following this communication, he came to me, and so the arrangement was made, which would never even have occurred to me had it not been expressly stated in your letter that you would accept the bills if I could get them discounted through Freiligrath “or somebody else”. So much by way of exonerating myself from any semblance of indiscretion.

With F., as I knew beforehand, nothing can be done. The only customer he had was the tailor, and he had already lost him at the time of the Tribune affair, because two of his clerks, on his recommendation, obtained clothing items worth £70 and decamped without paying for them. Besides, my relations with F. were so changed that even the discounting of the Tribune bills at Bischofsheim’s he was unwilling to let me effect himself. But regardless of his willingness, he cannot, all the less so as the latent bankruptcy of his bank is notorious throughout London.

Simultaneously with this letter to you, I have informed Dronke that owing to a misunderstanding I entered into the transactions with him and therefore request that they be regarded as null and void. At the same time I have written to him that if he can discount the bills on my own personal security, without any intervention of other persons, it would be agreeable to me. I had to write this to him, because I see no way out and am indeed in the gravest danger.

His address for private correspondence is: 49, Oldhall Street, Liverpool. According to what Dronke said (though I believe he is still in Newcastle and not in Liverpool at all), he would only try to arrange the matter with his own banker.

Unfortunately, I could not prevent myself from acquainting my wife with the contents of your letter, insofar as it related to the bill transaction. And news of this kind invariably brings on a kind of paroxysm.

As for the war with America, it is possible that Pam may succeed in bringing it about, but not easily. He must have a pretext, and it does not seem to me that Lincoln will give him one. Part of the Cabinet—Milner Gibson, Gladstone, more or less Lewis—cannot be so befooled as John Russell.

Considered in and for themselves, the Americans have not erred, either materially or formally, according to the English maritime law in force among them. As to the question of material right, the English Crown lawyers themselves have decided in this sense. Since Pam wanted a pretext, they have therefore seized upon an error in forma, a technicality, a legal quibble. But even this is false. In English maritime law, two things are to be distinguished: whether a neutral ship carries belligerent goods and persons, or contraband of war, the latter consisting either of things or persons. In the latter case, the ship with its cargo and persons is to be seized and brought into a port for adjudication. In the former case—if there is no doubt that the goods (which with persons is intrinsically impossible) have not passed into the possession of the neutrals—the belligerent goods or persons are liable to confiscation on the high sea, while the ship, etc., goes free. This jurisprudence—apart from the authorities—has been consistently upheld by England, as I have assured myself by looking through Cobbett’s Register for all the squabbles with the neutrals since 1793.

On the other hand, since the English Crown lawyers have restricted the question to an error in forma, and have thus conceded to the Yankees the right to confiscate any English ship carrying belligerents and to haul it into a port for adjudication, the Yankees can very easily—and in my opinion they will—declare that they are satisfied with this concession, that in future they will not violate the form in the confiscation, etc., and for the nonce will deliver up Mason and Slidell.

If Pam absolutely wants war, he can of course bring it about. In my opinion, that is not his purpose. Should the Americans act in the way I have supposed, Pam will have furnished stupid John Bull with fresh proof that he is “the truly English minister”. The fellow will then be able to allow himself anything. He will take the opportunity to:
1) impose on the Yankees the recognition of the Paris Declaration concerning the rights of neutrals, etc.;
2) under this pretext, what he has not ventured to do hitherto, call upon and induce the English Parliament to sanction the renunciation of the old English maritime law, signed by Clarendon on his (Pam’s) instructions behind the back of the Crown and without the foreknowledge of Parliament.

Pam is old, and since Catherine II the Russians have sought to push through the declaration issued at Paris. Two things still remain for them: the sanction of the English Parliament, and the accession of the United States. Both will be achieved on this occasion. The war spectacle seems to me merely theatrical paraphernalia, in order to represent to stupid John Bull the definitive renunciation of his own maritime laws in Russia’s favour as a victory gained over the Yankees through the pluck of the “truly English minister”.

Collateral reasons for the war spectacle would be: diversion from Poland (since even fellows like Conningham of Brighton are demanding in public meetings the stoppage of further payments of the Dutch-Russian loan) and diversion from Denmark, where at this very moment Russia is busy pushing aside the heir presumptive they themselves installed, the Glücksburg.

It is, of course, possible that the Yankees will not give way, and then Pam, by his previous preparations and rodomontades, will be forced into war. However, I would wager 100 to 1 against it.

Salut
DKMI