{London,}] 28 October 1852 
28 Dean Street, Soho 

Have received the money and, today, a parcel with the letter.* In 
my last to you and Weerth 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 
quils ont a faire a plus fort’ 

On Monday Schneider If will be receiving via Dusseldorf 
(addressed to a merchant, an acquaintance of Freiligrath’s) a letter 

4 See this volume, pp. 218-20. -> ibid., p. 217.-° that they’re up against 
somebody stronger 

from me,” the content of which is briefly as follows: 1. In 1847,°% 

when I was in Brussels, Cherval was admitted into the League* 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 Housexeerers 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” and the fact that he is being paid by the French.” 

Finally, | 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,° the same 
document went via Frankfurt am Main (where it was posted by old 
Ebner who obtained a regu) to the lawyer, von Hontheim; this 
was on Tuesday.° The same package contained: |. 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. 2. Two enclosures from Daniels to 
me in Becker’s letter, which relate solely to his manuscript.” 
3. Two excerpts from Hirsch’s minutes.” 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” 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 

athe League of the Just - > double employ -* See this volume, pp. 217 and 
218. - 4 receipt - © 26 October 

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 Potice Court (wrrore Mr Wincuay, MaAGIS- 
TRATE OF THE Metropolitan District, who asked for an account of the 
affair and furteusement 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.*” 

2. I got the landlord of the pub where we hold our meetings to 
testify that, since March, the‘ Soctery or 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 warrer[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 Pouce 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?” 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 !39 judges for three years. As soon 

g* 

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.” 27! 

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 272 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 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“ and The 
Daily News. It will be signed: ‘F. Engels, F. Freiligrath, K. Marx, 
W. Wolff.’ Also in several weeklies. 

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. 

Pere Barthélemy, born for the galleys, will make the acquain- 
tance of Van Diemen’s Land?” this time for a change.” 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* 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, Léwe of Calbe, Imandt, Schimmelpfennig, 

section ‘Prussia’, The Times, No. 21243, 11 October 1852.-4 K. Marx and 
F. Engels, ‘Public Statement to the Editors of the English Press’. - ¢ loyalty 

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 escroquerie2 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 ... voila le dernier mot? 

Best regards to Weerth. 

Your 
K. M. 

Safe addresses down here in my next.‘ 

‘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 224 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 

4 swindling - > Swindlers ... that’s all there is to be said. - © The text of Stieber’s 
letter to Marx is in Mrs Marx’s hand. - ¢ The letter has 21. The newspaper of 22 
December carried a news item datelined ‘Frankfurt, 21. Dec. Berichtigung’. 

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. 

Respectfully yours, 
Stieber, Doctor at Law, etc., 

‘Berlin, December 26, 1848’ 275 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. 4 

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.° 

‘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 occasionaty been a spy paid a la tache by the 
Prussian embassy. He had never belonged to a communist society, 
not even the public German Workers’ Society in London.” Reuter 
lived in the same house as Dietz, secretary and archivist to the 
Willich-Schapper central authority.2% Reuter broke into Dietz’s 

job 

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.” 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.?” 

Your 
K. M. 

If you have important things to tell me, address the letter to: 
A. Johnson, Esq., (Bullion Office, Bank of England).