Letter to Karl Marx, October 21, 1858

Author(s) Friedrich Engels
Written 21 October 1858


First published abridged in Der Briefwechsel zwischen F. Engels und K. Marx, Bd. 2, Stuttgart, 1913 and in full in: Marx and Engels, Works, First Russian Edition, Vol. XXII, Moscow, 1929
Published in English for the first time in Marx-Engels Collected Works, Volume 40


ENGELS TO MARX

IN LONDON

Manchester, 21 October 1858

Dear Moor,

For the past fortnight I've been VERY MUCH PUT OUT OF THE WAY by sundry slings and arrows—a rumpus at my LODGINGS necessitating a move and all that entails and, for good measure, a mass of other tiresome happenings. I haven't even found new LODGINGS yet and am hardly likely to be out of the TROUBLE before the end of next week.

Much obliged for the stuff relating to Jones, Mazzini and Pyat, likewise the 'enthusiastic general'.[1] The latter seems to have surrendered entirely to the vulgar German-American day-dream; habeat sibi,[2] let him go hang. Quoad[3] Jones, I should say that Reynolds's is a bit short on FACTS and presupposes some degree of familiarity with preceding events. This turn things have finally taken is hardly surprising in view of the contemptible way Monsieur Jones has already long been behaving. But simply to throw oneself away like that! Duncombe did at least get his debts paid and a good position into the bargain.

Pyat and Mazzini, even by comparison with formerly, are distinguishing themselves by a surprising poverty of intelligence.

Prospects for Mr Rudolf Schramm seem exceedingly poor. Now as always, the corporal[4] is confiscating newspapers and, if the telegraphic despatches are to be believed, did not even swear an oath on the Constitution yesterday. At any rate, the joyous day-dream which the Prussian bourgeois have deluded each other into believing will very soon evaporate, but I agree with you when you say that this won't be the end of the affair.[5] However, I'm not yet clear as to what course it will take. I should say that the bourgeoisie has not yet got over 1848 and 1849 to such an extent as to summon up sufficient courage simultaneously to confront on the one hand the aristocracy and bureaucracy, and, on the other, proletarian unrest. However, it's possible that, so long as nothing is going on in France, the proletarian movement will for a time seem too slight a threat to be very intimidating; but in that case its

progress will have to be damned slow. If nothing happens in France—which, in view of the present state of the Crédit mobilier's[6] shares, is hardly to be expected—Prussia might, of course, see the formation of a movement similar to the one in Italy during the years 1846-48, with a proletarian background. But otherwise I'm afraid the bourgeoisie may come round again before it's too late.

The Russian affair is turning out very well.[7] There is unrest in the South now, too. Apropos. Could you obtain for me from Tchorzewsky, or whoever Herzen's agent is now, a few of his more recent publications? After all, these ought to contain something, e.g. his roRoca U3b Pocciu (Voices from Russia) and the KOROKOJH (Bell). Some material might be found in them, though hardly very much—but certainly now and again in the correspondents' reports, etc., etc.

My sources for the Central Asiatic stuff were Brockhaus' new volume Unsere Zeit[8] (partly copied from the Preußisches Wochen- blatt) and Petermann's geographical Mittheilungen.[9] The material is all derived from Russian state papers. If you like I could write an article about the Russian treaty with China[10] (what a slap in the face for England and France!) for Tuesday, or thereabouts,[11] i.e. if not prevented by my exodus. Let me know, and also send your further comments on the connection you suspect exists between the Elgin treaty and Pam.[12] Or perhaps you have already dealt with this yourself?

India is now quite outside my LATITUDE. From the military point of view nothing at all remains to be said. So desultory has everything become that it's not even possible to do a survey of one month's events. Altogether, I'm in a quandary about subjects for articles to send you.

What's the position about the manuscript for Duncker[13] ? Nows YOUR TIME. Come what may, there'll be a new ministry which will probably be rather more hesitant about making its début with the confiscation of a scientific work. I hope it has gone off. But let me know for sure, so that I can reassure Lupus too. Last Sunday he arrived at my place very much the worse for drink, but was safely escorted home. Since then his leg has been rather worse again; no doubt it took a knock.

For the past four weeks, trade here has been going through a sticky period during which the spinners have had their profits cut by '/ad per lb as a result of a fall in yarn and a rise in cotton. However, they are still doing good business and, if cotton again comes down a bit, as is quite possible, it will take only a minimal increase in demand to restore the situation. Moreover, there are signs here and there of moves by the workers to obtain higher wages and, if business continues good, these will gather force.

How are things going with your mater? Best regards to your wife and children.

Your

F. E.

  1. ↑ August Willich
  2. ↑ for all I care
  3. ↑ As for
  4. ↑ William, Prince of Prussia
  5. ↑ In view of the insanity of Frederick William IV of Prussia the question arose of appointing Regent his brother, Prince William of Prussia (later King and Emperor William I). The Prussian bourgeoisie hoped that the Regency would lead to liberal reforms and remove Manteuffel's reactionary ministry, although the reactionary measures taken by the Prince of Prussia in 1848 gave little ground for such hopes. Nevertheless, similar illusions about the advent of 'a new era' were widespread among liberal monarchist circles. Prince William was appointed Regent on 7 October 1858.—346, 348, 410, 470, 571
  6. ↑ In February and March 1856 Ernest Jones, the Chartist leader, attempted to reorganise the activities of the National Charter Association. Writing in The People's Paper, he suggested that the Association should no longer hold conferences or elect leaders, but that he, Jones, and James Finlen should be recognised for life as the only members of its Executive. Jones believed that this form of centralisation would make for greater efficiency. His proposals were endorsed by the majority of the Chartist members, but led only to a temporary increase in membership (to about 2,000 by the beginning of March 1856) and local activation of Chartist propaganda. At the same time, Jones' attempts to act as the Association's only leader caused serious discontent among Manchester Chartists. Marx and Engels, who maintained close ties with revolutionary Chartists, criticised Jones' efforts to galvanise the Chartist movement by such artificial measures, which, they predicted, could not ensure lasting success.— 32, 34
  7. ↑ Marx writes here about the revolutionary situation in Russia after her defeat in the Crimean war (1853-56). Fearing the growing peasant unrest, Alexander II's government was forced to start preparations for the abolition of serfdom. On 3 January 1857 a Secret Committee consisting of high government officials and headed by the Emperor was formed to discuss the peasant question. In January 1858 the Committee was made public and renamed the Chief Peasant Question Committee. To discuss the draft peasant reform, it was proposed to hold in St. Petersburg a congress of deputies of the Gubernia Landowners' Committees, called by Marx the 'convocation of notables' by analogy with the convocation of notables in France on the eve of the French Revolution. The congress took place in the autumn of 1859.—346, 349
  8. ↑ Unsere Zeit. Jahrbuch zum Conversations Lexikon, Bd. 2.
  9. ↑ Mitteilungen aus Justus Perthes' Geographischer Anstalt....
  10. ↑ Under the Aigun Treaty of 28(16) May 1858, the left bank of the Amur, from the confluence of the Shilka and the Argun to the sea, was recognised as Russian territory, while the question of the Ussuri Area, from the confluence of the Ussuri and the Amur to the sea, was left open until the final fixing of the frontier between Russia and China. Navigation on the Amur, Sungari and Ussuri was prohibited to all states except Russia and Ching China. The treaty thus returned to Russia the left bank of the Amur developed by the Russians in the seventeenth century and taken from it under the Nerchinsk Treaty of 1689. Besides, it thwarted the British diplomats' attempt to exacerbate Russo-Chinese relations and closed the Amur to West-European shipping. The treaty was ratified by Russia on 8 June 1858.—349
  11. ↑ F. Engels, 'Russia's Successes in the Far East'.
  12. ↑ See this volume, p. 347.
  13. ↑ K. Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. 13 194