{London,] 19 October 1851 
28 Dean Street, Soho 

Dear Engels, 

A few days ago I received a letter from Dronke wherein— 
ostensibly on account of his expulsion—he announces that he will 
be arriving in London on the 23rd or 24th of this month.“ The 
question of subsistence will loom larger for him here than ever 
before. 

A still more baleful piece of news is this: Of late my 
correspondence with Cologne has been carried on in such a way 
that letters for me are brought to Liége by Schmidt, a railway 
guard, and I, for my part, sent a letter to him in Liége under 
cover through a third person. Well, this man Schmidt was arrested 
and later released, but the investigation is still going on. This 
would seem to be a case of outright betrayal. In accordance with 
the arrangement, Pieper should, by the way, have long since sent 
news from Cologne, where the Rothschilds stopped for a day, and 
from Frankfurt. Instead, I see from one of Ebner’s letters (from 
Frankfurt) to Freiligrath that, although he has already spent a 
week in Frankfurt, he has not yet been to see Ebner, to whom he 
was to deliver a letter from me. It is our great misfortune that our 
agents should always go about their business in so very slipshod a 

@ Caroline von Westphalen 

manner, and invariably as though it were of secondary impor- 
tance. The others are unquestionably better served. 

Kinkel, to whom it seemed that the ground had been cut away 
under his feet by that boor Heinzen, and who in any case feels 
able to take the floor only when unanimously hailed as a saviour, 
did not hold a meeting in New York, nor did he sell any 
‘interest-bearing notes’ on the future German republic.**” In 
Philadelphia, on the other hand, as he writes and tells the 
emigration club, he sold 4,000 dollars’ worth. Throughout 
Pennsylvania he found the inevitable crowd of light-loving 
German-Catholics.*% All Kinkel did was to enter into the 
inheritance of Johannes Ronge. The latter was John.? He is Christ. 

This evening I shall be meeting Gohringer. The whole thing’s 
the fault of Willich & Co. For at the urgent request of these oafs, 
he allegedly gave them the sum I owed him. I shall give him a 
promissory note payable in 4 weeks’ time. I think he will agree to 
this. If not, let him go to court. I have, in the interim, everv 
prospect of concluding the contract with the Dessau publisher,” 
who will, of course, have to pay me a sum in advance. 

Weerth is in Bradford again. [1 importe’ that you should write 
and ask him whether he can take a letter to Haupt in person. The 
entire calumny seems to me to emanate from 2 sources, on the 
one hand, Stechan-Dietz, on the other, Willich the beadle, who was 
the first person here to bruit it about among Scharttner’s 
customers that Haupt might be a spy. For’ Willich associated 
regularly with Berthold, the ex-Prussian corporal. Haupt had 
managed to place this beast with a merchant in Hamburg. 
Berthold stole from the merchant and was charged by the police. 
Haupt, of course, gave evidence against the rascal, who may, 
perhaps, have shared the proceeds with his friend Willich. 
Whereupon the latter began to yelp about the betrayal of ‘a poor, 
fugitive patriot’. If this story is made public, the ‘noble’ Willich will 
be all eyes. Now it would be important, not only for us 
to call on Haupt for an explanation regarding the suspicions 
overtly and covertly cast upon him, but for him, if innocent, to 
make a public statement, declaring that the whole business is based 
on Willich’s calumny and at the same time hinting at the latter’s 
association, maybe as partner, with the rascally Berthold. For 
Haupt doesn’t yet know about this dirty trick of Willich’s, which 
was the actual source of the suspicions cast upon him. If Weerth is 
willing, you could give him a letter to Haupt couched in these 

a the Baptist - > Friedrich Suchsland (see this volume, p. 475) - © It’s important 

terms. La chose presse.* In his statement Haupt should also refer to 
‘Dietz’ and the equivocal matter of the forcing of his desk. 

Now, as regards Ewerbeck, you must let me have a line or two 
concerning yourself, at Jeast up to the year 1845.° 

Mr Louis Bonaparte’s sudden about-face, whatever its consequ- 
ences may be, is a master-stroke of Girardin’s. As you know, this 
gent had allied himself in London with Ledru-Rollin and his 
paper‘ really became, for a time, as stupid as might be expected 
from an ally of Ledru’s and Mazzini’s. Unexpectedly he adopted 
the ploy of suffrage universel, determining Bonaparte in its favour 
with the aid of his articles, Dr Véron and personal entrevues. In 
this way the royalist conspiracy was smashed. The fury of the 
normally so diplomatic Journal des Débats is the clearest proof of 
this. The whole lot were hand-in-glove, Faucher, Carlier, Changar- 
nier, and even the noble Berryer and Broglie, who had ostensibly 
rallied to Bonaparte. At any rate the ‘revolution’—in the sense of 
triggering it off—has been juggled away. With suffrage universel 
there can be no question of it. But Mr Girardin doesn’t care for a 
revolutionary mise en scéne. He has duped both royalists and 
professional revolutionaries, and it may even be asked whether he 
is not intentionally duping Louis Bonaparte. For suffrage universel 
once restored, who will guarantee Bonaparte revision, and revision 
once achieved, who will guarantee that it will turn out as he 
wants?" Nevertheless, in view of the native stupidity of the 
French peasantry, the question arises whether the elu du suffrage 
universel will not be re-elected out of gratitude for having 
restored the said suffrage, more especially if, sy ano sy, he 
nominates liberal ministers and with the help of ingenious 
pamphlets, puts the blame for all the mischief on the royalist 
conspirators, who kept him prisoner for 3 years. It will depend on 
his ingenuity. At all events, Bonaparte now knows that, with the 
parti de Vordre?*’ he’s not in clover. 

One of the most comical interludes in this game of intrigue is 
the melancholy mien of the National and the Siécle which, as every 
one knows, have for some considerable time been howling for 
suffrage universel. Now that France is in danger of being presented 
with it again, they cannot conceal their chagrin. For as the royalists 
had counted on suffrage restreint, for Changarnier’s election, so 
they counted on the same for Cavaignac’s. Girardin told them 
bluntly that he knew that beneath their republican horror of 

4 The matter is urgent.-> See this volume, pp. 475, 478.-¢ La Presse - 
4 interviews - ¢ electee of universal suffrage - ' limited suffrage 

revision—with its prospect of re-election for Bonaparte—they 
were merely concealing their hatred of suffrage universel, which 
would exclude their man, Cavaignac, and their entire coterie. The 
National, poor thing, s‘était déja consolé du départ du suffrage 
universel? 

So much is certain. This coup will have thwarted the May 1852 
uprising,*” which at best might now break out earlier should one 
of the ruling coteries attempt a coup d’état. 

Your 
K. M.