Letter to Karl Marx, March 13, 1867

Author(s) Friedrich Engels
Written 13 March 1867


First published in Der Briefwechsel zwischen F. Engels und K. Marx, Bd. 3, Stuttgart, 1913
Published in English in full for the first time in Marx-Engels Collected Works, Volume 42


ENGELS TO MARX[1]

IN LONDON

Manchester, 13 March 1867

Dear Moor,

The reason I have not written to you is in part that all manner of things have prevented me, but in part also it was deliberate, as I wanted to let the date pass when 'the book'[2] was due to be completed, and now I hope that it is ready. So, when will you be going to see Mr Meissner? When you do, I will give you an authorisation to collect the fee for my last pamphlet.[3]

Apropos the latter, by now the Lassallean gentlemen will have had time enough to convince themselves how right I was about the effect of universal suffrage and the power it would give the aristocracy in the countryside.[4] The Lassallean gentlemen failed to get 2 men through; the two Saxon workers' candidates[5] who did get through are very dubious and appear to be rather of Wuttke's ilk. As a whole, incidentally, the elections did show that in Germany they are not remotely susceptible to the kinds of pressure that can be applied to them in France, and that is already to the good.[6] I am also convinced that the more bureaucratic meddling there is, the worse each fresh election in Germany will turn out for the government, and that 15 years of government-controlled elections such as we have had in France are impossible in our country.

But what a fine lot we have in the noble House,[7] to be sure! They may pull a wry face but they won't offer much protest as they are bartering away the few lousy safeguards still contained in the Prussian constitution for the indirect annexation of the 6 million people in the little states, who have de facto already been annexed and mediatised without any constitution at all.[8] Au fond,[9] it is quite immaterial what nonsense the fellows contrive; with the philistines in their present mood of Bismarckolatry, they represent bourgeois public opinion and will only do what the latter wants. The worthy burgher seems determined to avoid any further 'conflict'. The movement—both at home, where it is now bestirring itself once more, and in Europe—will soon enough leave all this ordure behind and turn to the real issues of the day.

Scoundrel Schweitzer offered himself for election here, there and everywhere, but got nowhere. I have been sent 2 pamphlets about him from Barmen, of which one enclosed and the other, shorter one, to follow; I do not have it with me. The enclosed obviously bears the mark of the Hatzfeldt lot.

Stieber is again creating in the Volks-Zeitung over Eichhoff's pieces in the Hermann, Koller is also mentioned. See Hermann.[10]

The moderate result of universal suffrage in Germany has, in any case, contributed to the sudden popularity of HOUSEHOLD SUFFRAGE in official circles here. It would be splendid if HOUSEHOLD SUFFRAGE got through as a result, there would soon be a good many changes here and the movement would get going.

TRADE HERE is still stagnant to an exceeding degree. India and China have been swamped by the consignments from the manufacturers, 20,000 people are on STRIKE in Stockport, SHORT TIME is spreading and, if this does not change soon, in May we shall have a superb crisis of overproduction. That can only benefit the radical reform movement.

The Diplomatic Review is excellent this time.[11] Provided old D. Urquhart gets hold of FACTS, he is ALL RIGHT; but Beust's curious manoeuvres had already aroused my suspicions. Notwithstanding the fact that the Saxons (vide Mr von Seebach in the Crimean War) have always been in cahoots with the Russians, notwithstanding the fact that Beust sent that ostentatiously rude despatch to the Russians during the Danish war, I do, nevertheless, find it difficult to decide whether the Russians have actually bought the fellow or whether they have got him gratis and without being aware of it. It almost seems to me that the boundless vanity of that little Saxon shit suffices to explain the whole affair — the Russians naturally KNOW HOW TO IMPROVE THE OCCASION.

As an exercise in vulgar democracy, I have recently...[12]

  1. ↑ Part of this letter was published in English for the first time in Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Selected Letters. The Personal Correspondence, 1844-1877, Boston, Toronto, 1981.
  2. ↑ the first volume of Capital
  3. ↑ F. Engels, The Prussian Military Question and the German Workers' Party
  4. ↑ See present edition, Vol. 20, pp. 74-75.
  5. ↑ A. Bebel and R. Schraps
  6. ↑ This is a comment on the elections to the constituent North German Reichstag which took place in Germany in February 1867. Two Saxon constituencies elected August Bebel, who became the first ever working-class representative in the German parliament and the lawyer Reinhold Schraps, the candidate of the Saxon People's Party. Wilhelm Liebknecht had been in prison for three months until the middle of January and was therefore unable to organise an election campaign and to win the elections.
  7. ↑ A reference to the constituent North German Reichstag convoked on the basis of universal suffrage that had been proclaimed by Bismarck. The Reichstag held its sessions from 24 February to 17 April 1867; it approved the creation of the North German Confederation and its constitution, which became valid on 1 July 1867.
  8. ↑ As a result of its victory over Austria in 1866, Prussia was able to embark on the unification of Germany under its aegis. Besides its direct annexation of certain territories (see Note 355), it compelled Austria to agree to the disbandment of the German Confederation, and also succeeded in signing alliance treaties with 17 North German states (north of the Main) which had fought in the war on its side; later on Saxony and other German states joined alliance treaties. This form of union prepared the ground for the formation of the North German Confederation.
  9. ↑ At bottom
  10. ↑ The weekly Hermann, No. 426, 2 March 1867, reprinted from the Volks-Zeitung Stieber's statement which refuted the report published in the Hermann, No. 424, to the effect that in January 1860 he had attempted to bribe its editorial board in order to prevent the further publication of an article by Wilhelm Eichhoff exposing Stieber's activities as an agent provocateur during the Cologne Communist trial. Under this statement of Stieber's the editors placed a statement by R. Hirschfeld, the owner of the print-shop where at that time the weekly had been printed. Hirschfeld's statement cited facts showing Stieber's attempt to bribe the editorial board in January 1860. On 8 March 1867 the Volks-Zeitung carried a new statement by Stieber, in which he again denied his attempt.
  11. ↑ D. Urquhart, 'Fall of Austria, and Its Consequences to the World', The Diplomatic Review, Vol. XV, No. 3, 6 March 1867.
  12. ↑ The end of this letter is missing.