London, Wednesday, 25 January 1865

125 Jan. 1865.

Dear Frederick,

Enclosed letters

1) from Weydemeyer.
2) from Schily.
3) from Liebknecht. I must have all 3 back.
4) from Schweitzer, and 5) Wish about Vogt, which I also wish to have back.

For the understanding of letters 2), 3) and 4) the following: I do not know whether you receive the “Soc. Dem.” (or have subscribed to it). (Should it be neither one nor the other, then Bender, who has ordered 6 numbers on speculation, can always send you one from here.)

In the “Socialdem.” there was a correspondence from the ass Moses Hess, in which he related that we had approached L’Association (the journal of the Paris Associations) to bring our Address in translation (the reverse was true, Massol had offered this to Schily), and to join our Association; but that they had declined, because we had originally turned to Tolain, etc., who were Plon-Plonists. Tolain himself had admitted this, etc.

I found this Wish the day after my return from Manchester. So I wrote a furious letter to Paris and to Berlin. From Schily’s and Schweitzer’s letters it follows that the whole thing is owing to the asininity of Hess (perhaps coupled with a little malice) and the asininity toute pure of Liebknecht.

The affair caused a great scandal in the Committee here yesterday. Le Lubez, entirely for Tolain, declared the whole thing to be a calumny, since fellows like Horn (Einhorn, rabbi) and the bag of piss Jules Simon (of “La Liberté”) are on the Committee of L’Association. Nevertheless, on my motion it was resolved not to send the 500 cards of membership to Paris until Schily sends further reports from Paris.

The Society is going ahead splendidly here. At its soirée, at which I was not present, about 1,200 persons; (they would have had 3 times as many had the hall been large enough), which has brought about £15 sterling into our very exhausted exchequer.

Letters of adhesion have come from Geneva and from different parts of England.

For the Poles a meeting will take place in the course of February (especially to raise money for the new emigration, for which reason Lord Townshend is to act as chairman), organised by the (English) Polish League, the Polish Society here, and our Association.

What do you say to Lassalle’s “legacy” as depicted by Liebknecht? Is it not his own Sickingen who seeks to compel Charles V to “place himself at the head of the movement”?

Yesterday, at Schweitzer’s stormy request (and also to make up for having blown him up, instead of Liebknecht, for the blunder in the Soc. Dem.), I sent him an article about Proudhon. You will find in it that some very bitter blows, supposedly applied to P., fall upon our “Achilles”’ back and were intended to do so.

Apropos. Every secretary of our Association will receive next week a pack of cards of membership (of course of the “Association”, not of the “Committee”), which he is to dispose of. (1s. for the annual subscription, 1d. for the card.) You must place a few in Manchester. There won’t be many. But write to me how many I can send you approximately for this purpose. It is in fact one of the ways and means of the Association.

My compliments to Mrs. Burns. Will she, perhaps, become a member? Ladies are admitted.

Yours truly
K. M.

P. S. I have left in your house in Dover Street a pair of winter boots (shoes), likewise a newly knitted pair of stockings, therefore probably also the 2 silk handkerchiefs. I mention this only so that you may “occasionally” drop a word to your landlords and they may see that they are being watched.

Prof. Tindal has succeeded, by a very ingenious experiment, in splitting the sun’s rays into a heat ray, which even melts platinum, and a cold, completely heatless light ray. This is one of the finest experiments of our days. |

P.S. II

Liebknecht has also sent me a note in which the editorial board urgently asks for a contribution from you. They mean initially either the Yankee War or the Prussian Army Reform, since their paper is read by all persons of rank more than any other Berlin paper.

Now, as regards the Yankee war, you have already explained to me that it does not suit the Soc. Dem.

As far as the Prussian Army Reform is concerned, the paper would be very good for that. The only question, for me, is this: Would the explanation of this question not place you in a one-sided conflict with the Progressists, undesirable at this moment and on this point, since the King has declared he will not yield on any point, thus indeed making this question a constitutional flashpoint? Or can you, in accordance with your military view, treat the question in such a way that you hit both sides on the head, which would be the most desirable thing at any rate. Since I have now directly sent an article to the paper (with my signature), you too can appear there. And you should do it as long as there is still an organ for it.