Letter to Friedrich Engels, November 10, 1852

Author(s) Karl Marx
Written 10 November 1852


First published considerably abridged in Der Briefwechsel zwischen F. Engels und K. Marx, Bd. 1, Stuttgart, 1913 and in full in MEGA, Abt. III, Bd. 1, Berlin, 1929
Published in English for the first time in Marx-Engels Collected Works, Volume 39


MARX TO ENGELS

IN MANCHESTER

[London,] 10 November 1852 28 Dean Street, Soho

Dear Engels,

Enclosed my wife's report[1] on yesterday's Robert Blum meeting.[2] She was with Imandt in the gallery of the Freemason's Tavern where it was held.

As far as Bangya is concerned, just hold on to Collmann's letter. Whenever he inquires after it, I shall say I kept forgetting to ask you to send it back. Had there been intentional deception on Bangya's part he would have supplied the incriminating evidence himself. So much is clear. Originally Bangya was accused of having betrayed the Paris conspiracy and later of double-dealing in the Cologne affair. In both instances the contrary has proved to be the case. According to Schneider's letter, Kothes' address would appear to have been betrayed by one of Kothes' own acquaintances. Finally, as regards our pamphlet,[3] Weerth will by now have made inquiries about Collmann's address and the thing will inevitably be cleared up. I have given Bangya a letter to Collmann in which I point out that, though his publication date for the pamphlet is contractually agreed, there is no contractual agreement forbidding us to publish the original manuscript—still in our possession—in Brussels or New York, should we so desire. Nor is there any contractual agreement forbidding publication in a fortnight of the 2nd part by another bookseller under a separate title if it is ready and of itself constitutes a complete whole, etc.[4]

Now for the Cologne affair. Had I been in Bürgers' etc. place, I should never have allowed Mr Becker to flaunt himself so brazenly and at the expense of everyone else as l'homme supérieur or to debase as he did the character of the whole proceedings, much to the delight of the democrats. To defend oneself is one thing but quite another to deliver an apologia for oneself at others' expense. Becker is one of the revolution's epigones, possessed of a great deal of cunning but little intelligence and well able to calculate just how he can trick his way up to become a great man. His talents remain those d'un infiniment petit.

As you already know, the government has, out of sheer desperation, resorted to heroic means, namely Goldheim's retrospective report,[5] only to find itself once again ensnared.

Goldheim's testimony furnished 2 data: 'Greif and 'Fleury'. I therefore instituted inquiries about Greif (to which end I myself engaged a Prussian informer). In this way I obtained his address and found out that he lived at 17 Victoria Road, Kensington. This, however, is Mr Fleury's house. Hence it was established that Greif lives with Fleury. It further transpired that Greifs official position here is not that of 'police lieutenant' but of attaché to the Prussian Embassy. Finally, that on Saturday, 6 November, he left here for a few weeks. Probably to go to Cologne. By his own account, he left because he was afraid of the Marxians, because Fleury had swindled him, etc.

So much was now clear: Greif was Fleury's superior and Fleury Hirsch's superior. And so, indeed, it has turned out.

On the other hand, Imandt and Dronke called on Fleury on Friday, 5 November, Kölnische Zeitung in hand. He, of course, feigned surprise, said he knew no one by the name of Greif, expressed his readiness to make any statement in the presence of a magistrate, but first wanted to consult his lawyer, made two appointments for Saturday, 6 November, one for 2 and the other for 4 o'clock, but took good care not to turn up and so gained for the police one more day on which we were unable to operate, apart from sending a few preliminary letters to Cologne. Finally, on Sunday, 7 November, Dronke and Imandt extracted from him a statement which you will see in the Kölnische.[6] I shall send you a copy but cannot at this moment lay hands on it. Having his statement safely in their pockets, they told him he was a spy, that Greif was living at his place, that we had known all about it and had been hoodwinking the police, whereas they had believed they were hoodwinking us. He, of course, continued to protest his innocence.

Finally I sent round some fellows (among them the tipsy General Herweg) to track down Hirsch's lodgings. It transpired that he also lived in Kensington, not far from Fleury.

One more thing before I go on. The whole of Goldheim's testimony becomes perfectly explicable if you consider that, 1. Goldheim was here on 30 October (Saturday) and, in company with Alberts, secretary at the Prussian Embassy, went to see Greif and Fleury; 2. that on the morning of that same 30 October our statement about the forthcoming revelations[7] appeared in 5 English papers; 3. that Fleury had arranged a rendez-vous with Imandt and Dronke for that same 30 October because Dronke was to take over French lesson for him instead of Imandt. 4. But that before Stieber made the revelations about London at his 2nd interrogation and immediately after his first interrogation on the subject of Cherval, etc., I had sent to the Kölnische Zeitung, the Frankfurter Journal and the National-Zeitung, a statement in which Stieber was already threatened with the disclosure of his letter to me.[8] Admittedly this statement did not appear in any of the papers. But both post office and police had incontestably taken note of it.[9]

This provides a highly prosaic explanation for Stieber's 'clair-voyance' and the omniscience of his police agents in London. Everything else Goldheim said was fabulae. I have conveyed such information as is necessary about these things to Cologne by diverse channels, together with Fleury's statement.[10]

But the best is yet to come. It was, of course, my intention to take out a WARRANT against Hirsch, for which purpose I made inquiries about his lodgings. But it was not till Saturday that I obtained the address. I felt sure that, if I could get the WARRANT against Hirsch, he would implicate Fleury, and Fleury Greif.

What happens? On Friday Willich, very secretively, betakes himself with Hirsch to the court in Bow Street where, in Schärttner's presence, he obtains from Hirsch what is purported to be a written confession in triplicate stating that some six months ago he and Fleury fabricated the spurious minutes, he then sends off the 3 documents, 1. to Göbel, the presiding judge at the Assizes, 2. to Schneider, 3. to the Kölnische Zeitung—and gives Hirsch the money to escape, indeed, even has him accompanied to the steamer, ostensibly so that he can confess in person in Cologne.

We all only heard of this through the inquiry we had set on foot about Hirsch, and partly, too, at Bow Street, where we went to take out the WARRANT. Schapper himself told Liebknecht that Willich had breathed not a word to him of all this. Thus, our intention of initiating proceedings of our own in London was thwarted by Mr Willich's sleight of hand. To what end? The answer is very simple if we reflect that for the past year he has been the merchant Fleury's homme entretenu and that in any case, therefore, some highly compromising things must have emerged had we had Fleury apprehended.

An instance, by the by, of the high esteem in which this man Fleury (I have never set eyes on him) is held by the democrats— Techow, leaving for Australia and already on board ship, wrote him a letter in which he commended him for having both heart and head in the right place.

The money Hirsch was given for his journey by Willich had undoubtedly been handed to the latter for this purpose by Fleury.

Hirsch has admitted that he tried to copy Liebknecht's writing and that he was working under the direction of the merchant Fleury (this cur is, besides, a man of substance and has married into a very respectable English Quaker family), just as Fleury himself was under the direction of Greif. This confirms in every particular what I deduced straight away from the content and dates of the original minute-book published in the Kölnische Zeitung, and which none of the lawyers has hitherto duly exploited.[11]

To my mind there is no doubt that the Cologne accused will all, without exception, be acquitted.

I should be grateful if you could write and tell Strohn that he would greatly oblige me if he could send me a few pounds forthwith. Of the £4.10/- received through you, nearly £3 has been spent on errands, informers, etc. Our impoverished League friends naturally took advantage of the many errands, appoint- ments, etc., to tot up pretty substantial faux frais de production

for beer, cigars, omnibuses, etc., which I, of course, had to make good.

You will be receiving Freiligrath's poems.[12]

Apropos, Reichenbach has issued a Lithographed Statement[13] to all American papers in which a dirty trick is played on Willich-Kinkel. It discloses that Kinkel claimed, inter alia, £200 for his journey alone. I shall get hold of the document and let you have it for the archives.[14]

Your

K. M.

Greetings to Weerth. Vehse left yesterday. Have already written to Frankfurt about our pamphlet.[15] Unless we write something, Becker will seize upon all this business ad majorem gloriam Beckeri.

  1. ↑ [Jenny Marx,] 'Der Volksbund für zerschiedene Welten in Poesie', Philadelphier Demokrat, 1 December 1852.
  2. ↑ The meeting in memory of Robert Blum in London on 9 November 1852 was organised by Arnold Ruge and his associates. Speeches were made by Ruge, Tausenau, Ronge and other bourgeois radicals and democrats
  3. ↑ K. Marx and F. Engels, The Great Men of the Exile.
  4. ↑ On Bangya's provocative role in the matter of publishing Marx's and Engels' pamphlet The Great Men of the Exile see Marx's article 'Hirsch's Con- fessions' (present edition, Vol. 12). The second part of the pamphlet (see Note 131) was probably not written, though the last lines of this work contain a definite hint that the account of German petty-bourgeois refugees' activities will be continued. Marx's pamphlet Herr Vogt, Chapter XII: 'Appendices', Section 6 'The War between Frogs and Mice' contains material on the activity of petty-bourgeois refugee organisations in 1852 (see present edition, Vol. 17, pp. 313-15)
  5. ↑ After the 'Original Minute-book' was exposed at the trial as a forgery (see Note 259), Stieber sent police lieutenant Goldheim to London. On his return Goldheim stated at the trial on 3 November 1852 that the book mentioned was not 'a minute-book', but a 'notebook', and that it was actually sold by H. Liebknecht, alleged to be the compiler of the minutes, to the Prussian agent Fleury and contained notes on communists' secret meetings at Marx's house. Goldheim asserted that he had seen a cash receipt in Liebknecht's own handwriting. He also spoke of a 'top secret meeting' at Marx's on 27 October 1852 in connection with the Cologne trial. On 4 November 1852 lawyer Schneider II proved that this evidence for the prosecution was also false. On this see Revelations Concerning the Communist Trial in Cologne (present edition, Vol. 11, pp. 429-35 and 438-39)
  6. ↑ On 14 March 1852 Louis Bonaparte decreed the conversion of the state five per cents. The holders of five per cent papers were offered reimbursement of their nominal value or their exchange for papers of the same nominal price but bringing in 4 V2 per cent revenue. The measure was carried out with the help of the banking houses. The decree was published in Le Moniteur universel, No. 74, 14 March 1852
  7. ↑ K. Marx and F. Engels, 'Public Statement to the Editors of the English Press'.
  8. ↑ See this volume, pp. 225 26.
  9. ↑ Marx wrote this statement on 21 October 1852; the text has not survived. Marx explains in Revelations Concerning the Communist Trial in Cologne why the German newspapers refused to publish it (see present edition, Vol. 11, p. 436)
  10. ↑ See this volume, p. 235.
  11. ↑ Marx gives these facts in Revelations Concerning the Communist Trial in Cologne (present edition, Vol. 11, pp. 442 and 451-52). Additional information about Hirsch's contacts with the Prussian police agents Greif and Fleury, and the role of the Prussian Embassy in London during the Cologne trial, is to be found in Herr Vogt, 'Appendices', Section 4 'The Communist Trial in Cologne' (see present edition, Vol. 17)
  12. ↑ F. Freiligrath, 'An Joseph Weydemeyer', I and II.
  13. ↑ October 1852 of a lithographed statement of accounts and of a statement by Reichenbach who was the treasurer of the so-called German-American revolutionary loan (see Note 27). Reichen- bach refused to be in charge of the funds because the idea of the revolutionary loan did not justify itself. Later Marx quoted extracts from Reichenbach's statement in Herr Vogt, 'Appendices', Section 6 'The War between Frogs and Mice' (see present edition, Vol. 17, p. 314)
  14. ↑ Manchester archives—documents of the Communist League, letters and other materials relating to the revolutionary activity of Marx and Engels kept at Engels house
  15. ↑ On Engels' advice Marx wrote to the Frankfurt journalist Ebner asking him whether it would be possible to publish the pamphlet on the Cologne Communist Trial there (see this volume, pp. 238-39 and Note 122). Marx's letter to Ebner has not been found