On Murder (Oxford World's Classics)
Page 22
APPENDIXES
MANUSCRIPT WRITINGS
A. Peter Anthony Fonk
[This untitled manuscript fragment is in the National Library of Scotland, MS 4789, fos. 56–62. The date of the manuscript is conjectural, but 1825 seems the most plausible, as the paper is watermarked 1824 and 1825, and in the essay itself De Quincey describes Peter Fonk’s father as ‘still living in 1825’. The present transcription does not record De Quincey’s deletions, except in one instance where the meaning requires that the deleted word ‘distraction’ be retained. It is given in angle brackets (< >). Superscript letters appear in regular type (‘Mr’ appears as ‘Mr’, for example; ‘22nd’ as ‘22nd’). Underlined words are italicized. De Quincey wrote two footnotes for this essay but did not indicate where in the manuscript they were to appear. They are given below where he seems most likely to have intended their insertion. In the manuscript, the paragraph ending ‘but to that inn he never more returned’ is followed by the paragraph beginning ‘On the 19th of December’ (pp. 145–6). Between the two paragraphs, however, De Quincey inserted a request that the compositor move the paragraph beginning ‘On the 19th of December’ to a position immediately following the paragraph ending ‘suspicions as to the guilty author of the catastrophe’. In the present transcription, De Quincey’s instructions have been followed. For details of the manuscript, and a complete transcription, see The Works of Thomas De Quincey: Volume Six, ed. David Groves and Grevel Lindop (London, 2000), 279–93. Peter Anthony Fonk was a German businessman sentenced to death in 1822 for the murder of William Coenen, though at the time of writing the judgment had not yet received the Royal ratification and ‘may be considered as still in suspense’ (p. 150). Frederick Burwick identifies the source of De Quincey’s narrative as the Conversations-Lexicon, published by Brockhaus of Leipzig, in 1824 (‘De Quincey and the Aesthetics of Violence’, Wordsworth Circle, 27 (1996), 77–82).]
PETER ANTHONY FONK was a merchant at Cologne;* and has become the object in some measure of an historical interest, in consequence of the long criminal process depending against him for the murder of William Coenen of Enfeld.* This process began as early as the year 1816, and was not finally closed until the 9th of June 1822, on which day Mr Fonk received sentence of death. The whole affair may be regarded as amongst the most remarkable events of our times, both for the extensive and profound interest which it excited on the continent, an interest fully justified by the inextricable perplexity of the circumstances, and also by the relation it bore to a question much agitated in modern Germany on the comparative merits of the French and German systems of criminal judicature: whether in short the French mode by public pleadings and oral examinations, wound up by a sentence grounded upon the individual opinions of the Jury, or the German mode by secret investigations terminating in a sentence of professional judges under predetermined rules of law, may be considered upon the whole as most favorable to the purposes of justice. A single case would seem to determine little either way: but, from the immense body of pamphlets which this particular case occasioned, it is perhaps justly regarded as having fixed an epoch in the history of that question.
Mr Fonk, the son of a rich merchant who was still living in 1825, and very respectably connected, was born in 1781; and originally was a partner in a firm at Amsterdam; but in 1809 he came to Cologne, and there married the daughter of a considerable tobacconist, Mr Foveaux, of a family well-known at that place. In 1815, conjointly with Schröder an apothecary at Enfeld Mr Fonk established a manufacture of brandy and liqueurs. The manufacturing part of the concern was superintended by Schröder; and the capital for this purpose, about 6000 dollars, was furnished by him. But the whole mercantile management, the sale of the brandy (in part by smuggling), the current disbursements and receipts &c. were conducted by Fonk. Spite of the great profits however, (which, in less than 18 months, by Fonk’s own admission amounted to 20,000 dollars) misunderstandings and jealousies arose between the two partners. Schröder was represented by Fonk as having appropriated too large a share of the profits; but on the other hand it seems that Schröder suspected Fonk of having deceived him with regard to the real amount of the profits. At length, with the consent of Fonk, Schröder dispatched to Cologne a young merchant of the name of William Coenen, with a commission to compare the account delivered by Fonk with Fonk’s books and papers. It was Schröder’s intention that in this examination Coenen should have the assistance of one Elfes, a former servant of Fonk’s. This Elfes in fact it was that had first raised Schröder’s suspicions, by making known that Fonk had instructed him to report a lower price for the superior brandies than had actually been obtained, and also that he had been made acquainted with other dishonest practices of his by Hahnenbein Fonk’s book-keeper. It was not extraordinary therefore that Elfes, on first presenting himself at Fonk’s door (Nov. 1, 1816), was dismissed with indignation: but Coenen, though ungraciously received, was permitted to enter upon his duties. This person went to work in a spirit of determined mistrust, in which he was strengthened by the disclosures of Hahnenbein; and in various letters to his own friends and to Schröder he expressed himself in the most contemptuous terms possible of Fonk’s behaviour — which he described as very unequal, at one time smooth and fawning, at another cold and repulsive. He began his examination by comparing the entries of Fonk with the acquittances; and found, to his great astonishment, that they tallied exactly with his report to Schröder. This part of his task he had closed on the 6th of November; and next he proceeded to demand from Fonk the inspection of his ledger and his day-book, in which (by Hahnenbein’s account) there was evidence to a fraud of not less than 8000 dollars. Fonk replied to this demand with great violence, peremptorily refusing to comply; and that same day he set off for Neuss*— with the view of making some compromise with Schröder apart from Coenen’s interferences. Schröder however, instructed and put on his guard by Coenen, declined his proposals; and on the 8th of November came himself to Cologne, whither Fonk also returned on Saturday the 9th between 11 and 12 in the forenoon. Immediately after his arrival, Coenen laid before him a proposal to this effect—that he (Fonk) should allow 18 thousand dollars more for the profit on the brandies, but on the other hand should appropriate the entire profit of that part of the stock not yet sold, and should have a considerable proportion of the utensils and machinery ceded in full property to himself. Upon this proposal a conference ensued between the parties; and this was held in Fonk’s house as no room could be procured in either of the two inns to which they applied: and here it must be mentioned that, on the road thither, Hahnenbein pretends to have observed some signs of a secret understanding between Fonk and Coenen. In this conference Fonk agreed to make an allowance of 8 thousand dollars more on account of the profits: but this agreement was not finally concluded, because Schröder wished previously to consult Coenen in private. About 8 o’clock the party separated, and a second conference was fixed for the next morning (Sunday Nov. 10) as early as 9 o’clock. Coenen and Schröder went home to their inn, and, were there joined by Hahnenbein. At 10 o’clock the party broke up; and, upon Hahnenbein’s preparing to move homewards, Coenen took his hat to accompany him—and to meet his unhappy and still mysterious end. He parted with Hahnenbein in the middle of the old market place, and turned back to the street in which his inn was situated not more than 30 paces off: but to that inn he never more returned.