| Author(s) | Karl Marx |
|---|---|
| Written | 4 January 1881 |
MARX TO CHARLES LONGUET
IN PARIS
[London,] 4 January 1881
Dear Longuet,
With the immense agglomerate of old newspapers it would take me too much time to find out The Eastern Post which contains the contro- versy of the General Council (inclus, its Communard members) with the illustrious Bradlaugh.[1] However, I suppose Lessner will have the Post ready at hand. This, however, is for you the least important thing. That Bradlaugh denounced the Communards, that he repro- duced the worst calumnies, as you told him then in the Post,[2] of such papers as the Liberté, the Soir, that he fell foul of the manifesto of the General Council on 'The Civil War in France',[3] etc., this will hardly damage him in the eyes of the Paris bourgeoisie. Still the thing may be shortly hinted at as characteristic of the man. In an answer of the General Secretary of the General Council (it was Hales, but that man must not be honoured by naming him) to Bradlaugh (in The Eastern Post, September 1871),[4] he said amongst other things:
'...The wanton destruction of private dwellings (by Thiers' bombardment) was the work of Mr Bradlaugh's friends... Rochefort has been sentenced under the Republic to transportation for life for a press offence. Fancy Mr Bradlaugh being transported for life for his utterances![5]
The important thing is that Bradlaugh was denounced by the General Council (extracts of whose sittings were reported by The Eastern Post) as a Courtesan of Plön-Plön (he was at London then) and because of his suspect relations in Paris.[6] In the sitting of the General Council of December 19, 1871 I (informed by the Frenchman, who wrote under the name Azamouth or another Turkish name, and who was informed by a lady — probably the Brimont, present at social gathering later on referred to) denounced a recent trip of Brad- laugh's to Paris, where he associated with Détroyat and Emile de Girardin. In his honour the latter gave a dinner where equivocuous, i. e. Bonapartist, ladies assisted and where Bradlaugh rendered him- self ridiculous by the boastful display of his pretended London influence.
If Bradlaugh says that the Brimont was a great patriot, at the time he made her acquaintance, he may be fully believed. Before the battle of Sedan all Bonapartists were so far patriots that they wished victory to their Emperor.[7] After the battle of Sedan they still re- mained patriots, because, from their standpoint, France could only be saved by Louis Bonaparte's restauration, even if that restauration must be accomplished by the aid of Bismarck.
It is self-understood that you must not name me. As to the details of Bradlaugh's intimacy with the Brimont, Blanc[8] is the man to furnish them.
In his controversy with the General Council Bradlaugh got the help — of the Soir (Paris journal). In the Council's sitting of January 2, 1872 Serraillier communicated:
'He had read an article in Le Soir written in defence of Bradlaugh. It said he (Brad- laugh) had honoured the Journal (Le Soir) by contributing to it and was a safe governmental man, and had nothing to do with demagogic intrigues.'
When Gladstone dissolved Parliament (the occasion on which he was overthrown by Disraeli), Bradlaugh's lecturing room was decorat- ed by immense placards with the inscription 'Farewell to Iconoclast, the People's Redeemer! Welcome to the great dreadnaught of St Stephen's!' But he had counted without his host. He was not el- ected member of Parliament, despite his public begging letters (for a good testimonial) to Bright and other leaders of the 'great liberal party', who replied in a very cool way. It was also no use boasting of having dined with a life-Bishop (of the church of England).
In the last election[9] Bradlaugh was happier for this reason: He was one of the noisiest demagogic supporters of Gladstone's pro-Russian campaign against Disraeli — in fact one of the most turbulent tools of the Party who wanted to get in 'Place and Pelf again, coûte que coûte.[10]
Moreover, no constituency was to be hazarded in the impending, de- cisive electoral battle. The prudery of the Whig and radical party had to be thrown overboard. Now Bradlaugh's election at Nort- hampton was not safe, despite the strong contingent of shoemakers in that town who belong to his 'sect'; but these shoemakers had before voted for him like one man, and he had failed. But then there was another liberal candidate, difficult to place, because notorious for his affaires véreuses en matière de finances[11] and moreover damaged by some scandals of another sort (des gifles refus).[12] This man was Labouchere. He is one of the three proprietors of The Daily News, hence the part- ner of that gros bonnet[13] of the liberal party—the pietist capitalist Sa- muel Morley. Difficult as it was to carry through either Bradlaugh or Labouchere, it was feasible to do so by making a couple of them. Sa- muel Morley's — the pietist's — public recommendation (by printed letter) of the atheist Bradlaugh secured him the religious element of Northampton, while Bradlaugh secured to Labouchere the infidel shoemakers of that town. Thus both together passed as members for Northampton.
The utter meanness of Bradlaugh shines most in the manoeuvres by which he has succeeded to oust all the other popular preachers of free thought (the scientific preachers address themselves to other couches sociales[14] ) such as Mrs Law, who wanted not to be his personal séides,[15] by appropriating to himself all the funds of the party. He even suc- ceeded to have all lecturing halls in London shut to them, while he built out of the party's funds a lecturing hall for his own personal use. Mrs Law etc. were so confined to lecturing in the provinces. If it inter- ests you (but I think it is not worth while entering into details), you can have full information on this point from the persons concerned.
Salut
K. M.
(Verte)[16]
Can you give me some information on a person named E. Fortin who has written me several letters addressing me as: Mon cher maître. His demand is very 'modest'. While he studies the Capital he pro- poses to make monthly résumés which he is kind enough to be wil- ling to send over to me monthly, whereupon I shall correct them monthly, elucidating the points he might have misunderstood. In this quiet way, when he had done with the last monthly résumé, and I sent it back corrected — he would have a manuscript ready for publication and — as he says — inundate France with torrents de lumière.[17]
Now I shall — even for mere want of time — not answer to his call, but at all events I must reply to his letter. He may be a well- intentioned man. Before writing him I should like to have some infor- mation. He resides at present at Beauvais, 22, rue de la Porte de Paris.