| Author(s) | Karl Marx |
|---|---|
| Written | 28 October 1852 |
MARX TO ENGELS IN MANCHESTER
[London,] 28 October 1852 28 Dean Street, Soho
Have received the money and, today, a parcel with the letter.[1] In my last to you and Weerth[2] I deliberately refrained from mentioning anything which, had the letter been opened, might have further enlightened the Prussian government as to the steps we have taken against them. Today I shall give you a detailed account. I believe we have laid a countermine that will blow the whole governmental humbug sky high. Those Prussians shall see
qu'ils ont à faire à plus fort.[3]
On Monday Schneider II will be receiving via Düsseldorf (addressed to a merchant, an acquaintance of Freiligrath's) a letter from me,[4] the content of which is briefly as follows: 1. In 1847,[5]
when I was in Brussels, Cherval was admitted into the League[6] in London by Mr Schapper and at the latter's suggestion. Not, therefore, in 1848 by me in Cologne. 2. From the late spring of 1848 to the summer of 1850 Cherval lived continuously in London, as his HOUSEKEEPERS can testify. Hence, he did not spend this period in Paris as a propagandist. 3. Not until the summer of 1850 did he go to Paris. The papers found on him and the statements he made before the Paris Assizes prove that he was Schapper-Willich's agent and our enemy.
That Cherval was a police spy is borne out by the following: 1. His miraculous escape (along with Gipperich) from prison in Pa- ris immediately after sentence. 2. His unmolested stay in London although a common criminal. 3. Mr de Rémusat (I have authorised Schneider to name him if necessary) tells me that Cherval offered him his services as an agent for the Prince of Orleans; thereupon he, Rémusat, wrote to Paris and was sent the following documents (to be kept for a few hours, so that copies might be made; these he showed me), from which it emerges that Cherval was first a Prussian police spy and is now a Bonapartist one. The Prussian police reject his demand for money on the grounds of double emploi[7] and the fact that he is being paid by the French.[8]
Finally, I provided Schneider with a few simple explanations on points of theory which will enable him to distinguish between the Schapper-Willich documents and our own and to show how they differ.
Besides the letter to Schneider II sent off by you,[9] the same document went via Frankfurt am Main (where it was posted by old Ebner who obtained a regular receipt) to the lawyer, von Hontheim; this was on Tuesday.[10] The same package contained: 1. A letter from Becker to me, with both London and Cologne postmarks, from which it emerges that our correspondence was primarily con- cerned with the book-trade.[11] 2. Two enclosures from Daniels to me in Becker's letter, which relate solely to his manuscript.[12]
3. Two excerpts from Hirsch's minutes.[13] 4. An excerpt from The People's Paper in which by good fortune Cherval actually gives his address. 5. Letters from Mr Stieber (in his own hand) to me[14] at the time of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung; see p. 3 of this letter.
On Tuesday evening a letter from Schneider arrived with an occasional traveller; from this it transpires that his first, sent by
post, was intercepted. However, he received a registered letter from here, written to him at my request by Dronke, in which he was told that 6-8 weeks ago Hentze was over here at Willich's, that Willich was entertained by him and that Willich himself boasted that he had given Hentze instructions about how to proceed against us. Schneider writes that all the lawyers are convinced that the documents are bogus, and he urgently asks for proof of this and, in particular, of the fact that Mrs Daniels never wrote to me.
For want of money nothing could have been done on Wednesday, but luckily your £2 arrived. I therefore went to the [Great] Marlborough Street POLICE COURT (BEFORE MR WINGHAM, MAGIS- TRATE OF THE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT, who asked for an account of the affair and furieusement declared himself for us and against the Prussian government) where I had two things authenticated:
1. The handwriting of Rings and Liebknecht; according to Schneider II's letter they signed nearly all Hirsch's minutes. As you know, Rings is barely able to write and as a taker of minutes was therefore a splendid choice on Hirsch's part.[15]
2. I got the landlord of the pub where we hold our meetings to testify that, since March, the' SOCIETY OF DR MARX' (I'm the only one the fellow knows), some 16-18 strong, has been regularly foregathering once a week and no more, namely on Wednesdays, and that neither he nor his WAITER[S] have ever seen us put pen to paper. The stuff about Wednesdays was also testified by a neighbour of his, a German baker and householder.
Both documents, bearing the seal of the POLICE COURT, have been written out in duplicate. The first copy of the same I sent via [...] to G. Jung who, by a stroke of good fortune, wrote to me 3 days ago saying that he was living in Frankfurt am Main, and giving his address. Jung will take the things to Cologne himself or send them by express delivery. The letter he received is addressed to Schneider II and contains, besides the documents mentioned and authenticated by the police court: a) A copy of the first letter to Schneider[16] along with 2 more copies of excerpts from Hirsch's minutes, b) Excerpt from a letter from Becker to myself, the reverse side of which fortunately bears London and Cologne postmarks. To quote Becker's own words (the bit I have sent contains no more than this):
'Willich is sending me the funniest letters; I do not reply, but this does not prevent him from describing his latest plans for a revolution. He has appointed me to revolutionise the Cologne garrison!!! The other day we laughed till the tears came. His idiocy will spell disaster for x people, for a single letter would suffice to guarantee the salaries of a hundred Demagogue judges for three years. As soon as I have completed the revolution in Cologne he would have no objection to assuming the leadership for all subsequent operations. Very kind of him! Fraternal greetings. Your Becker.'[17]
c) Three letters from Bermbach to me which reveal the nature of our correspondence and one of which (that of March) also contains an answer to my letter[18] about Hirsch, the denunciation of Mrs Daniels and the consequent searching of her house. This letter proves that she did not correspond with me. d) Copy of the letter from Stieber. e) Instructions to Schneider, in which I inform him among other things that the authenticated documents (or duplicate) will be sent on Thursday (28 October) by registered post from London direct to his address, and that he will at the same time receive the certificate of registration via Düsseldorf from W., the merchant. So if the government detain it this time, we can show that we have caught them au flagrant délit[19] while they, for their part, will have deprived the defence of nothing more than a duplicate.
In the Advertiser next Saturday (30 October) you will find a short statement on the infamous articles in The Times[20] and The Daily News. It will be signed: 'F. Engels, F. Freiligrath, K. Marx, W. Wolff.' Also in several weeklies.[21]
This time, I think, the Prussian government will be discredited in a manner not even they have ever experienced, and will see for themselves that the people they are dealing with are not blundering democrats. Through Stieber's intervention they have saved our fellows. Even Bermbach's arrest is a stroke of luck. For otherwise his letters could not have been sent over there. He would have strenuously objected for fear of being placed in temporary custody. Now that he's in jug everything's ALL RIGHT.
Père Barthélémy, born for the galleys, will make the acquain- tance of Van Diemen's Land this time for a change.[22] One of this fellow's dirty tricks is his persistent refusal to admit the facts, thereby implicating the seconds yet further. However, 2 have already stated that they were Cournet's seconds. As the gallows loom larger, no doubt the 3rd will forswear his dévouement[23] and likewise admit to having been a second.
A few days ago the guarantors met at Reichenbach's, all being present save for Kinkel and Willich who have been more or less expelled. Reichenbach, Löwe of Calbe, Imandt, Schimmelpfennig, Meyen, Oppenheim. Reichenbach, and the rest along with him, resolved to return the money to the donors. Reichenbach stated that their main reason was as follows:
'Willich and Kinkel are engaged in downright escroquerie.[24] Thousands of notes bearing his (Reichenbach's) signature are still circulating in America and they are disposing of them at a discount through their agents, pocketing the proceeds and using them for private purposes.'
Only the winding up of the whole filthy business would provide him with the pretext for exposing in public the escroquerie being perpetrated in his name, and forestalling any further embezzle- ment. You can see what those respectable citizens Willich and Kinkel have come to. Des escrocs... voilà le dernier mot![25]
Best regards to Weerth.
Your
K. M.
Safe addresses down here in my next.[26]
'No. 177 of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung contains a news item from your correspondent in Frankfurt am Main dated December 21 in which a base lie is reported to the effect that being a police spy I went to Frankfurt to try to discover the murderers of Prince Lichnowski and General Auerswald. I was in fact in Frankfurt on the 21st but stayed only one day and as you can see from the accompanying certificate I was engaged in purely private business on behalf of a lady from here, Frau von Schwezler. I have long since returned to Berlin and resumed my work as defence counsel. I would refer you moreover to the official correction in this matter that has already appeared in No. 338 of the Frankfurter Oberpostamts-Zeitung of December 22[27] and in No. 248 of the Berlin National-Zeitung. I believe that I may expect from your respect for the truth that you will print the enclosed correction in your paper without delay and that you will also give me the name of your slanderous informant in accordance with your legal obligations, for I cannot possibly permit such a libel to go unpunished, otherwise I shall regretfully be compelled to proceed against your editorial board.
'I believe that in recent times democracy is indebted to no one more than myself. It was I who rescued hundreds of democrats who had been charged from the nets of the criminal courts. It was I who even while a state of siege was proclaimed here persistently and fearlessly challenged the authorities (and do so to this very day), while all the cowardly and contemptible fellows (the so-called democrats) had long since fled the field. When democratic organs treat me in this fashion it is scarcely an encouragement to me to make further efforts.
'The real joke, however, in the present case lies in the clumsiness of the organs of democracy. The rumour that I went to Frankfurt as a police agent was spread first by that notorious organ of reaction, the Neue Preussische Zeitung, in order to undermine my activities as defence counsel that gave that paper such offence. The other Berlin papers have long since corrected this report. But the democratic papers are so inept that they parrot this stupid lie. If I had wished to go to Frankfurt as a spy it would certainly not be announced beforehand in every newspaper. And how could Prussia send a police official to Frankfurt which has enough competent officials of its own? Stupidity has always been the failing of the democrats and their opponents' cunning has always brought them to victory.
'It is likewise a contemptible lie to say that years ago I was a police spy in Silesia. At that time I was openly employed as a police officer and as such I did my duty. Contemptible lies have been circulated about me. If anyone can prove that I insinuated my way into his favour let him come forth and do so. Anyone can make assertions and tell lies.— I think of you as an honest, decent man and so I expect from you a satisfactory answer by return of post. The democratic papers are generally in disrepute here because of the many lies they publish. I hope that you are a man of a different stamp.
'Berlin, December 26, 1848'[28]
Respectfully yours,
Stieber, Doctor at Law, etc., Berlin, Ritterstrasse 65.
'I herewith certify that last week Dr Stieber travelled to Frankfurt and Wiesbaden on my behalf in order to settle a private lawsuit.
Widow of the late President von Schwezler von Lecton, Dame of the Order of Louise.'
Seal
Now I would ask you to write the following message to Schneider, and dispatch it without delay by the 3rd route to Cologne indicated in your letter.[29]
'While it is true that Stieber bought the 14-16 documents belonging to the Willich-Schapper clique, he did at the same time steal them. For he incited a certain Reuter to steal in return for cash. It was some time since Reuter had actually been a 'police official' but he had OCCASIONALLY been a SPY paid à la tâche[30] by the Prussian embassy. He had never belonged to a communist society, not even the public German Workers' Society in London.[31] Reuter lived in the same house as Dietz, secretary and archivist to the Willich-Schapper central authority.[32] Reuter broke into Dietz's bureau and handed over the papers to somebody, either Stieber or Schulz. The affair came out long before proceedings began in the Cologne Court of Assizes. For while under arrest in Hanover, Stechan was confronted by the examining magistrate with several letters he had written to Dietz in the latter's capacity as secretary to the refugee committee presided over by Schapper.[33] As everyone knows, Stechan then escaped from prison. Once in London, he wrote to Hanover demanding those letters so that he could proceed against Reuter in the English courts:
'1. For forced entry and theft. '2. For false evidence. For he maintains that in his letter—which has now also been placed before the Cologne jurymen by Stieber—the words "530 talers, 500 for the leaders" are an interpolation for which the police were responsible. At the time, all he had sent to London was 30 talers, nor had he said a word about leaders.
'Needless to say, the Hanoverian court did not accede to Stechan's demand. The said Reuter stole all the documents by breaking into Dietz's bureau. Dietz and the Schapper clique did not find out about the matter until Stechan arrived here.'
I have this moment received your parcel, my dear Engels. So there is no need for you to copy out the above. I shall send it myself direct, in one of the envelopes I have received.
Tell Weerth that he is now permanently assured of one of the 'ministerial' appointments put at my disposal by Stieber, if he doesn't prefer the post of ambassador to Paris that was intended for him.[34]
Your
K. M.
If you have important things to tell me, address the letter to: A. Johnson, Esq., (Bullion Office, Bank of England).