Letter to Karl Marx, April 10, 1853

Author(s) Friedrich Engels
Written 10 April 1853


First published 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


ENGELS TO MARX

IN LONDON

[Manchester,] Sunday, 10 April [1853]

Dear Marx,

I return herewith Cluss' letter.[1] And there, it seems, the matter will have to rest until we have before us the whole of Hirsch's document,[2] and also his first statement[3] which Weydemeyer has retained (do you know anything more about this?). The Bangya business isn't very nice; however, au bout du compte,[4] it is better to settle it now than later. According to what you write you have full proof against Bangya to hand now, and, of course, there is also Zerffi to vouch for the Greif business.[5] Knowing as we do now what is coming, we have time to prepare a proper answer.[6] I shall look out Bangya's and the fictitious Collmann's letters.[7] So far as I am concerned, the pamphlet[8] can be printed in America.

Some of the things in Hirsch's statement are perfectly correct, e.g. concerning your letter from Manchester.[9] At the same time, of course, he does his fair share of lying and keeping things under his hat. For instance, he forgets to say that he followed you to Manchester, clearly not by accident, and that, meeting us one Sunday in the Bury New Road with another loafer, he called out quite loudly as he went by: 'Good morning, Marx!' You will recall that we wondered who it might be; ce fut notre cher Hirsch.[10] Likewise the affair of Mrs Daniels' letter and the domiciliary visit.[11]

It is curious how many spies à la Cooper[12] seem to be turning up just now. Chenu, Cherval, Hirsch. It's a good thing Hirsch now testifies that Bangya was never able to report anything about you except personal tittle-tattle.

Inquiries must be made about the persons mentioned. Lanckoronski is clearly none other than the 'Count L.' denounced by you as a Russian agent in the Kossuth-Bonaparte article.[13] As far as Bangya is concerned, we are fully covered by Kossuth and Szemere and, if he possessed a manuscript of Szemere's,[14] why not one of ours?[15] It's an excellent thing that we have always kept everything that came our way.

Apropos. Not long ago Dronke made a terrible fuss about my not providing him AT A MOMENTS NOTICE with the Reichenbach circular[16] and now, in the parcel of American papers, I find it reproduced at least ten times. Couldn't the lazy devil have searched it out himself?

Pour revenir.[17] I don't believe anything can be done publicly for the time being, i.e. until we've had a thorough examination of the documents; preliminary steps, no more—for instance, finding out where the document came from, the present whereabouts of Hirsch and what he is doing and, if necessary, confronting the fellow in order to extract another written statement from him. I shall also take immediate steps to find out more about the business of Fleury and the theft[18] ; unfortunately my informant, a personal acquaintance of his, is ill. Mind you send me without delay the requisite personal description, etc., etc.

Today I have leafed through most of the American papers sent to me. Much is very amusing but, when there's such a pile of them, it's a very trying and stultifying job. By comparison, Cluss' letters are a delight. I see that the Revelations are already appearing in the Neu-England-Zeitung[19] ; it's really too bad of Weydemeyer not to have got them into the Criminal-Zeitung. The least he can now do is to catch up with the main content—drop him a heavy hint to that effect by the next STEAMER, otherwise it may never occur to him.

I have not yet read the pile of (New York) Demokrats in which Weydemeyer publishes his articles; I'm saving them up for this evening.

Between ourselves, I am now pretty well convinced that it was, after all, Monsieur Bangya who betrayed Kothes' address.[20] It's a good thing nobody knows about it.

If the business of Hirsch and Bangya becomes any more involved, there'll be another job for us to do when you come up.

What are your prospects of a visit? I am counting on seeing you here in May at the latest.

You will have had my Friday's letter[21] and with it £3. Warm regards to your wife.

Your

F. E.

  1. ↑ Cluss' letter to Marx of 24 March 1853
  2. ↑ W. Hirsch, 'Die Opfer der Moucharderie. Rechtfertigungsschrift', Belletristisches Journal und New-Yorker Criminal-Zeitung, Nos. 3-6, 1, 8, 15 and 22 April 1853.
  3. ↑ W. Hirsch, 'Erklärung [of 12 January 1852]', Belletristisches Journal und New-Yorker Criminal-Zeitung, No. 7, 29 April 1853.
  4. ↑ after all
  5. ↑ See this volume, pp. 242-45.
  6. ↑ K. Marx, 'Hirsch's Confessions'.
  7. ↑ See this volume, pp. 239, 256 and 258.
  8. ↑ K. Marx and F. Engels, The Great Men of the Exile.
  9. ↑ Bangya which Marx presumably wrote in Manchester during the period from the end of May to the second half of June 1852 while he and Engels were working on The Great Men of the Exile
  10. ↑ It was our dear Hirsch.
  11. ↑ Trie 'Original Minute-book' (see Note 259) presented by Stieber to the jury mentioned letters allegedly written to Marx by Mrs Daniels, the wife of one of the accused. On 25 October 1852, the Kölnische Zeitung, No. 273, published a statement made by King's Counsel Müller, father of Mrs Daniels, denying that Mrs Daniels had corresponded with Marx and declaring Stieber's 'Original Minute-book' a 'mystification'
  12. ↑ Harvey Birch, the main character in Fenimore Cooper's novel The Spy
  13. ↑ K. Marx, 'Movements of Mazzini and Kossuth.—League with Louis Napoleon.—Palmerston'.
  14. ↑ B. Szemere, Graf Ludwig Batthyâny, Arthur Görgei, Ludwig Kossuth.
  15. ↑ K. Marx and F. Engels, The Great Men of the Exile.
  16. ↑ 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). Reichenbach 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)
  17. ↑ To return.
  18. ↑ Hirsch asserted in his confessions that the documents of the Willich-Schapper group had been stolen not by Reuter, as was pointed out by Marx and Engels, but by Fleury (see, in particular, present edition, Vol. 11, pp. 390 and 406, and this volume, pp. 226-27)
  19. ↑ Revelations Concerning the Communist Trial in Cologne in the Neu-England-Zeitung, see notes 261 and 359
  20. ↑ See this volume, pp. 232 and 239.
  21. ↑ Engels' letter to Marx of 8 April 1853 has not been found