Diamond jewellery stolen in 1851

Attested are English, German, French, Dutch and Spanish from witnesses; also Italian and Portuguese, according to himself (he said he picked most of those up himself, and spoke those languages fluently and could teach others); and (but that's not directly attested) Latin, Greek and Hebrew, in which his school had mandatory lessons. The school also had lessons in Old English, but it is not clear if he took those.

He was looking for a position as a language teacher before he committed the robbery. The diamond merchants even employed him in that position themselves for some time.

Would he have had trouble picking up Ladino? I don't think so. Is there evidence that he did? Not directly, no.

 

He had the base languages for it, and that's all it would have taken for the posthumous conversion.

 

This is a most interesting thread,thanks. (didn’t read all the newspaper articles and links) I also find myself wondering more about the thief (sounds that there’s also a interesting story there)

 

Yes, I can see that happening. We'll probably never know for sure though, because those with whom the claim originated didn't give their sources.

 

In those days most legit diamond trade in Antwerp, Amsterdam and London was in Jewish hands. In those centres the traders were Ashkenazim, not Sephardim. The Asschers are also Ashkenazim.
Our Dutch Sephardim are mostly academics, and what is termed as professionals, not traders. (Our Sephardim are too posh to trade.)

Thieves can have any background. Their only common denominator is a lack of conscience, or in some cases extreme poverty.
Someone whose children are starving wouldn't steal diamonds though. So the diamond thief was likely from the lack of conscience category.

Whether or not the thief spoke Ladino is not relevant to the London diamond trade.
Speaking Yiddish could help, but a German-speaker could understand a lot of Yiddish anyway, and could pick up the non-German words pretty fast.
Presumably London diamond traders who originated from the Austro-Hungarian empire could speak both English and German, as well as Yiddish.

Hebrew used to be a language for the synagogue and theological teaching and discourse, not for trade.

Having lived in Australia, I wonder who he was. Could you tell us?

 

That sounds like a parure where parts could be converted to form a whole jewel or broken down into several jewels.

This is the kind of parure I am thinking of, this one is 17th-18th century, but convertible parures were also made in the 19th century:



From the description:
.... Comprising of a brooch/pendant, a pair of earrings and a necklace, the whole set is embellished throughout with rose-cut diamonds in closed-back silver and silver-on-gold collet settings, accompanied by a fitted leather case. The “laça” brooch/pendant can be worn on its own or as a centre piece to the necklace, the double-bow surmount with realistic fluttering ends, suspending a detachable cross....

https://www.1stdibs.com/jewelry/nec...-parure-silver-gold-portuguese/id-j_11444542/

Some parures consist of a necklace that can be taken apart to form a brooch and earrings, or even have a construction so the necklace or bracelets can be converted into a tiara.

In those days ladies often wore matching bracelets on both arms, hence "two bracelets".

 

Hi Any - Rene posted a link earlier in this thread to a wikipedia article (that he wrote) about the thief, Edward Thonen:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Thonen

 

I think that's a bit harsh. He didn't have children, but more on point, he tried to take the jewellery and escape to America, starting a new life. He gave poverty as his reason, and the prosecutors believed him, recommending him to mercy. He was sent to jail in the end, but the sentence was relatively light.

Here are a few quotes from different points in the trial:

The prosecution:
On this account, and fully believing that up to the present time there was nothing prejudicial attaching to the prisoner's character, [we are] desirous, with a credible degree of feeling, of recommending the prisoner to mercy.

From his lawyer:
[...] a person of considerable attainments, and appeared to be one of those who endevour less to promote their own personal interest than the general welfare and advancement of mankind; for he had had communications with the government, with reference to the colonisation of distant parts of the world, and other matters of a similar character. (laughter) Up to the present time his character had been that of an honest person. No doubt, he had committed this offence under a sudden impulse, and it was exceedingly kind of the prosecutors to recommend him to mercy in the way they had done.

The thief himself:
That which has caused me to do this, your worship may learn from what I have to say on that point. I understand, can write, and converse in English, German, Italian, Spanish, French, Dutch, and Portuguese, and for the exercise of my abilities in all these languages I received 10s. per week, and on this small sum I had to keep myself in food, clothes, and lodging. I tried to get a better situation, and wrote to Lord Palmerston, who probably thought my letter the production of a madman's brain, and treated it as such, for I received no answer. I should like the copy of that letter, which is in the possession of the officer, read aloud to the court, as it will then give the magistrate some idea as to my general character, and, together with what I have already stated, may prove something in palliation of my offence.
The letter was then read. It was very lengthy, and contained a most extravagant proposal for the suppression of the slave trade on the coast of Africa, and offering to perform, single-handed, what the Government had been ineffectually trying for years. All he required was arms and ammunition and a free passage out for any one he required to assist him in the great enterprise.

The judge:
You appear to be a young man of extraordinary talent and ability, and I very much regret seeing you in your present unhappy position. It is a pity your abilities were not directed in a proper channel, where you would not have been thrown in the way of temptation, and where you also might have fought your way in the world.

Can we take them at face value? I don't know. This was a trial, and the worst guy in the world would have tried to paint himself as a saint. But it can't be dismissed either.

I see!

Thanks, I was about to post the link again.
He was one of the leaders of the Eureka Rebellion of 1854, in which he was killed.

 

Thanks, also for the photo and link

 

Ah thank you for that. My reading skills are terrible at the moment, writing only improving slightly. Brain fatigue. I should be resting, but this thread is too tempting.

Edit: Involvement in the Eureka Uprising, this gets more interesting by the minute.

 

I try but I can't feel sorry for that.

 

From reading your information and the Wiki page, I get the impression that he was rather impulsive and didn't have a developed sense of reality. His offer to suppress African slavery (and the assumption he would be able to) is bizarre. Today he would have been assessed for a personality disorder before sentencing. And yes, more than one personality disorder is associated with a lack of conscience.

 

He appears to have been quite a sympathetic figure. Suspect he was ingratiating, enthusiastic and idealistic.

Debora

 

Two completely different interpretations of the same basic facts. That's what I love history for.

Any may be right, in the sense that his ideas were unconventional at the very least, and while I don't think you need a medical condition for that, it certainly didn't help him succeed in life. I'm not qualified to diagnose anything, but I'm inclined to go with Debora's suggestion that this was idealism, enthusiasm, maybe naivety and impulsiveness, but not a sign of mental disorder.

 

To illustrate that he was not without conscience, here are some excerpts from the testimony. There's some impulsiveness here, but more of the kind you have when you're in distress.

Here is Thonen, explaining how he committed the robbery:

I don't know whether it is of any consequence to state when and how I took the diamonds. I may, however, state that when I went to the office on the Sunday morning I had not the slightest thought of committing this crime. I went there to write letters to my family and friends. While I was there I happened by chance to see the drawer half open, and the key of the iron safe there. I took it out and opened the safe, and took out the parcel. It was a great temptation, but I withstood it, and put it back again, expecting to get a situation at Eastbourne [as a language teacher]. On Monday evening I came again, opening the case, and took the diamonds out; and looking at them, hesitating whether I should take them or not. I said to myself, "No, I will not," and put them back and left the place.

He eventually came back on Tuesday (the next day) and took them anyway. And then:

On Wednesday morning I came to the office, and to my great surprise I saw on the table before the prosecutors the very package I had taken the diamonds from. I was in great terror all the time, fearing every moment it might be opened, and my crime discovered. I went out, and having discharged my lodgings, started by the Eastern Counties railway to Peterborough, that being the first place I could get to by the next train.

Of his upbringing, he said:

I was brought up as a merchant, but when I came to London in December last I was robbed of all the money I had in my possession at the time, amounting to £25, since which I have been with the prosecutors. I should not wish this to reach my poor old father's ears (here tears filled the prisoners eyes, and his voice assumed a most feeling tone) as he is now nearly seventy years of age, and it might be attended with fatal consequences to him.

A newspaper speculated years later:
Thonen was of a good family in Germany, and in the end of the year came over to London to seek his fortune. It was late in December when he arrived, and by the first day of the year he had not a penny to bless himself with. He had been robbed of everything he possessed – how robbed he never made known; very likely he was thrown among evil company by a weakness of character which his misfortunes made evident.

Again, I should stress that this "weakness of character" is the interpretation of a 19th century journalist, not a fact. I can see where they came from though.

 

A couple things puzzle me. Firstly, why a Christian would be hired by Jewish diamond merchants. That was/is a closed, closed world. And, secondly, how/why was he allowed unattended access to the business's offices (where he just happened to see the safe's key in "a drawer half open") on Sunday and again on Monday and again on Tuesday.

By way, if you haven't done so, I suggest you do a timeline of all the dates in the case. When completed, it might give you some new lines to explore.

Debora

 

Thonen was not the only Christian employed by them. But your assumption (that this was strange) may well be shared by others who were looking at the case before, explaining why Thonen became seen as a Jew. As to how he got the position, a bit is known about that:

In his plight the hotelkeeper in Finsbury Pavement came to him as a benefactor. The innkeeper recommended his protege to Birnstingl, Schwabacher, and Co., in Broad-street Buildings, as a man well up in languages – which is true; he could speak French, German, Dutch, Spanish, every European tongue – and the Broad-street firm added him to their mercantile staff. Considering his acquirements the salary of £1 a week was meagre enough, and the condition was that if he did not suit them he could be turned off at any time. And, despite his knowledge of languages, Thonen was not a suitable clerk, and at the end of the week was told so. He begged so hard, however, to be kept on at a nominal sum (the nominal sum was only 10s. a week) until he could get other employment, that the firm good-naturedly agreed to do so; and he was coming and going in the office, more or less a regular clerk, but still with his own hours, until the middle of April, when he began to make an appearance for a few hours a day only. A situation loomed for him, working as a schoolmaster at Eastbourne, and he was already doing some work in the private teaching of foreign languages.

From the testimony of Mary Anne Ettridge, servant to Mrs. Moxtay of 8 Broad Street Buildings:

I have the care of the chambers. On Easter Sunday [April 20th] prisoner came, about a quarter past one in the day, and rung the bell. I opened the door, and asked him what he wanted? He said he wished to go into the office; and, knowing him to be one of the clerks, I went up stairs and fetched the key for him. When I had unlocked the office door, he told me I need not wait for the keys, as he would ring the bell when he went away. I remained up stairs till near seven o'clock in the evening, and when I came down I found prisoner gone. I was standing at the door when I saw him came back again, and I reminded him that he had neglected to ring the bell. He said he forgot it. He went into the office and remained there about three-quarters of an hour, and when he was going away I told him it was rather an unusual thing for any of the gentlemen to come there on the Sunday. He made no reply but laughed it off. He came again on Tuesday evening after office hours. The door was open, and when I came down I found prisoner in the warehouse. While I was cleaning the office prisoner came from the warehouse and taking up an unlighted candle returned with it. I told prisoner to be sure to ring the bill before he left. He promised he would, and I then went up-stairs. I did not come down again till about nine o'clock, when I found the office door unlocked, and prisoner gone, without ringing the bell. He called again on a subsequent evening, after office hours, but I did not see him.

 

Here's the basic timeline:

· 19 April: A package of diamonds valued £450 is sealed at the office of Schwabacher, Birnstingl & Co., where Thonen, who is employed as their clerk at the time, enters the diamonds into their books.
· 20 April: Thonen goes to the office, to write letters to his family and friends. He is tempted to take the diamonds, but puts them back. He returns the following day, but again does not take them.
· 22 April (evening): Thonen finally takes out the diamonds. He reseals the empty package and puts it back into the strong room, to obfuscate the crime.
· 23 April (9-10 a.m.): Thonen pledges some of the jewellery to a pawnbroker in London, receiving £40.
· 23 April (morning): Thonen is last seen at the office, and is thought to leave for Eastbourne the following day. He finds the sealed package on his employer’s desk, and, worried that his crime may soon be discovered, decides to flee immediately.
· 24/25 April: Having taken the first train north to Peterborough, and from there to Liverpool, Thonen pays for a ticket on the Camillus (a steamer) to America.[43] The ship’s departure, scheduled for the 26th, will be delayed multiple times.
· 28 April: Schwabacher notices that the diamonds are missing, and alerts Scotland Yard. Inspector Haydon of the London police is charged with the case the same day. Thonen is soon suspected of the crime.
· Early May: Having sent an officer to Eastbourne, the police concludes that Thonen had left London a few days prior, but that he had not assumed his teaching position.
· 3 May: After multiple delays, the Camillus finally departs from Liverpool, with Thonen on board. Before embarking on the Camillus, Thonen had written letters to his family in Germany, to explain what he had done. These letters are later opened at the London Post Office, who hand them over to the police.
· 3 May: Information about the crime is forwarded to all stations of the Metropolitan Police. The media get involved.
· 4 May: The Camillus suffers a collision with the steamer Africa and has to turn back to port.
· 2/4 May:[44] Thonen sells some of the diamonds to a jeweller in Liverpool, acquiring a further £25 and a gold watch.
· 4 May: First reports of the robbery appear in newspapers. A few of them mention the reward of £50 that was offered for the return of the diamonds.
· 6-7 May (night): Inspector Haydon, having traced Thonen first to Peterborough and then to Liverpool, arrives in the city.
· 7 May (morning): Thonen boards the Sardinia (a sailing vessel) for New York.[45]
· 7 May (four hours later): Haydon is informed of Thonen's departure on board the Sardinia. He hires a steamer and pursues Thonen, overtaking him 60-80 miles offshore. Thonen is captured, and held at a prison in Liverpool overnight.
· 8 May: Thonen is brought back to London.
· 9 May: Thonen first appears before Alderman Wilson at Old Bailey.
· 13 May: Thonen is committed to Newgate Prison for trial.
· 15 May: Thonen pleads guilty. The judgement is respited until the next session.
· 26 May: Judgement respited again, until the next session.
· 16 June: Thonen is finally sentenced to one year imprisonment.
· 24 June: Thonen is transferred from Newgate to the house of correction.[46]


[43] Almost all contemporary sources state that the ship was called Camilla. This is wrong, as we will discuss below.
[44] The exact order of events is unclear. In his testimony, Thonen stated that he sold the diamonds after the Camillus had returned to port (May 4th). On the other hand, the jeweller who bought them stated that this happened on May 2nd, which is before the ship had even left.
[45] The Sardinia sailed for New York on 7 May 1851. See “Liverpool. May 7. Sailed. Sardinia for New York”, in: Morning Herald (London), 8 May 1851, page 8. https://search.findmypast.co.uk/bna...02408/18510508/076&stringtohighlight=sardinia; also, “Sailed for foreign ports”, in: Glasgow Chronicle, 14 May 1851, page 7. https://search.findmypast.co.uk/bna...03088/18510514/083&stringtohighlight=sardinia
[46] Thonen stayed at Newgate from 13 May until 24 June, at which time he was transferred to the „house of correction“, most likely Bridewell Prison in London. The prison-building programme of the 19th century had ensured that, by 1850, Newgate only held those who were awaiting their trial at Old Bailey, or who had been sentenced to death and were waiting for their execution. Compare Halliday, S.: „Newgate: London's Prototype of Hell“, 2008, page 162.

 

Thank you. All so interesting.

Debora

 

Isn't it? It has strong vibes of "Around the World in Eighty Days" -- including a brilliant detective. And the story went almost completely ignored for over 150 years. Thonen's diamond robbery was news until about 1900 (and then forgotten). His involvement in the Eureka Rebellion is obviously known in Australia, but the connection of the two events was not made, and while people have speculated about things like Thonen's involvement in the 1848/1849 revolutions in Europe (which cannot be proven), the truth is so much stranger.

The timeline above will be part of a detailed account we (I and Anne Young, a historian from Australia) are preparing.