[London,] 1 February 1865 

Dear Frederick, 

Enclosed letter from Strohn to be returned; write to me and Let 
me know your thoughts about the publishing business at the same 
time.!° 

This ‘Siebold’ is the Siebold of champagne fame, no doubt about 
rHat. I really am rather afraid that he did not merely find my 
reception of his bubbly enthusiasm very dry, but rHat HE CAUGHT SOME 
QUEER WORDS AT GUMPERT’S DOOR, AS | TOLD YOU AT THE TIME. At all events, it 
is nice of the fellow and quite typical of wine-salesman politics to 
go straight from us to Karl Blind and run as his messenger to 
Hamburg. Has Blind perhaps also placed an order for ‘sparkling 
wines’ and granted his most gracious protection to scum- 
scoundrelism as well? I hope for the sake of bubbly’s good 
reputation that Siebold is no such vena scum, although there was 
no mistaking that while one of his eyes was sparkling with 
enthusiasm, the other had an eye to business. Regarding Freiligrath, I 
FEEL sure that he is much too cautious to agree publicly in any way to 
collaborate (in partibus* it goes without saying) with Blind. 
However, I shall TRY To ASCERTAIN THE FACT. At all events, it is very good 
that Strohn has so gratifyingly baulked Ruge and Blind. I sent off 

@ to all appearances (In partibus infidelium—literally: in parts inhabited by 
unbelievers. The words are added to the title of Roman Catholic bishops appointed 
to purely nominal dioceses in non-Christian countries). 

a few sarcastic marginalia to him earlier today,'!! intended 

specifically for Meissner, concerning the nobile par* of antagonistic 
brothers. 

You must excuse the scraps of English in my epistle as there was 
a SITTING OF THE council yesterday which lasted until one o'clock. 
( ‘Liquor’ and ‘smoke’ are banned from these ‘sittings’.) The first 
thing was the answering epistle from Lincoln, which you may find 
in tomorrow’s Times''* and certainly in The Daily News and The 
Star? In the reply to the London Emancipation Society''? (which 
counts among its members such illustrious figures as Sir Charles 
Lyell and the ‘Voice of World History’, alias K. B.‘), published in 
yesterday’s Evening Star, the old man drily dismisses the fellows 
with two formal clichés, exactly as he had done in his earlier 
answer to the Manchester branch of the Emancipation Society; 
whereas his letter to us is in fact everything we could have asked 
for, and, in particular, the naive assurance that the United States 
could not involve itself directly in ‘propagandism’. At any rate, it 1s 
the only answer so far on THE PART OF THE OLD MAN that is more than a 
strictly formal one. 

Secondly, a delegate was there from the Poles (aristocrats), who 
have links with the ‘Literary Society’,'* through whom these 
gentlemen conveyed their solemn assurance, with an eye to the 
forthcoming meeting on Poland, that they are democrats and that 
every Pole is now a democrat, since the aristocracy has dwindled 
away to such a degree that they would be mad not to recognise the 
impossibility of restoring Poland without a peasant rising. Whether 
or not these fellows believe what they say, at all events, the last 
lesson they had does not seem to have been entirely wasted on 
them.” 

Thirdly, there were statements from various Trades unions about 
their joining. Ditto from an association in Brussels which is 
promising to organise branches throughout Belgium.'” 

I then handed over an issue of the Daily St. Louis Press which 
had arrived just yesterday containing leader about our ‘Address To 
THE Workingmen™ and an excerpt from it which had obviously been 
arranged by Weydemeyer. 

But now the most remarkable thing of all. 

Cremer, our Honorary General Secretary, had received a written 
invitation for the ‘Council’, as well as a private visit, from a 
Provisional Committee which is meeting privatim at the London 
a noble pair (Horace, Satires, II, HI, 243) -> The Morning Star - © Karl Blind - 

4d K. Marx, ‘Inaugural Address of the Working Men’s International Association’. - 
¢ St.-Louis Daily Press, No. 22, 10 January 1865. 

Tavern next Monday. Object: monster MEETING for MANHOOD SUFFRAGE. 
Chairman: — Richard Cobden! 

The point is this: as E. Jones told us previously, these fellows 
have been a complete failure in Manchester. They have therefore 
adopted 4 BROADER PLATFORM, in which REGISTRATION ‘FOR PAYING POOR-RATE’ 
figured instead of manhood suffrage, however. That is what is stated 
in the printed circular sent to us. However, since various 
indications made it clear to them that nothing less than manhood 
SUFFRAGE Can attract any CO-OPERATION WHATEVER ON THE PART OF THE WORKING 
ciasses, they have announced they are prepared to accept the 
latter. A big demonstration in London would lead to similar ones 
in the provinces, write the provincials ‘yet once again’, having ‘all 
ready’ realised that they are not able ro set THE BALL A-GOING. 

The next question raised yesterday was this: should our society, 
LE. council, agree to what these fellows want (they include all the 
old same City agitators such as Sam. Morley, etc.) and send a few 
delegates to attend the transactions of their provisional committee 
as ‘watchmen’? Secondly, if these fellows pledge themselves directly 
to the slogan of manhood suffrage and the public meeting is being 
called under this slogan, should we promise our support? The 
latter is, you see, just as crucial to these fellows as it was in the 
American business.’'? Without the Trades Unions, NO MASS MEETING is 
possible, and without us, the rrapes unions are not to be had. This is 
also the reason why these gentlemen have come to us. 

Opinions were very divided, for which Bright’s latest silly tricks 
in Birmingham were much to blame.* 

On my motion, it was decided that: 1) the delegation should be 
sent (in my motion, I excluded foreigners from it; but Eccarius and 
Lubez were elected on to it as ‘Englishmen’ and silent witnesses) 
just as ‘observers’ '!; 2) so Far aS THE MEETING IS CONCERNED, we should 
act with them firstly if manhood suffrage is proclaimed directly and 
publicly in the programme, and secondly if people selected by us are 
included on the permanent committee, so that they can keep an eye 
on those fellows and compromise them in the event of fresh 
treachery, which, as I made plain to all of them, is at any rate 
intended. I am writing to E. Jones about the matter today.” 

Your 
K. M.