Letter to Paul Lafargue, September 9, 1880

ENGELS TO PAUL LAFARGUE

IN LONDON

Bridlington Quay, 9 September 1880

My dear Lafargue,

I had to write to you in haste the day before yesterday because we were due to leave at 9.30 for an excursion to Flamboro' Head where our two naturalists^[1] botanised in the sea. In case I didn't express myself clearly enough, let me summarise.

The more serious aspect of Grant's scheme is that he alone has the right to raise or lower the value of your shares, if not make them virtually worthless. To begin with, he is deducting 12% per annum for the first 4 guides. If the gross profit amounts to 15%, that leaves a net profit, the shareholders' dividend, of only 3%; if 20% it leaves 8%, etc. But with the generous salaries Grant proposes to pay the local directors, can one count on such profits? That seems to me exceedingly doubtful.

Let us suppose, however, that the gross profit amounts to 20% or even 25%. What will Grant do then? He will propose to borrow yet more money so as to launch the remainder of the guides. And he will claim that he can only obtain that money at 15% or 20%. Since he will have a ready-made majority, the vote will go his way. And since you and Jervis won't be able to obtain the money at a cheaper rate, you will get nowhere at all by opposing him. Well then, £3,000 at 12%, £3,000 at 20%, gives an average of 16%—just imagine how a business can function if it is saddled with interest at that rate before so much as a thought can be paid to dividends.

There is nothing to prevent Grant providing you with funds, as soon as there is a further need of them, at still higher interest, the rate of which will depend upon him alone. Since it is he who pockets the interest, at least the greater part thereof, it is in his interest to approach as closely as possible the rate of gross profit generated by the firm. He shares the interest only with the man who advances this money — the net profit he shares with all the other shareholders.

So in fact the value of your PAID UP shares goes down and down and Grant alone has the right to reduce it to nothing. In other words he pays the two of you for your literary property 1. £400; 2. £300 each the moment it suits him to get rid of you; 3. in virtually worthless shares carrying no dividend; total £ 500 each, always provided Grant does not find a way of avoiding payment of the £300 — which wouldn't be too difficult — by accusing you of breach of contract, in which case there would be a fine old lawsuit costing you much more than £ 300, even if you won.

Grant cannot invoke your letter. Even if it contains what he alleges, that letter ceases to be valid after the month during which you were bound by it.

Jervis' interest is not identical with yours. If he has neglected his affairs and is prepared to sacrifice the lot of them for £ 300 a year, that goes to show that they weren't worth the trouble of discussing. Jervis is staying in London. Once launched by Grant on this enterprise, it is in his interest to be launched by him on other enterprises, to act as his UNDERSTRAPPER until such time as he has enough money and enough financial contacts to do without him. You have an entirely different interest. You are going to Paris, you hope to find an assured existence in this enterprise. Ask yourself if such is to be found under the terms proposed by Grant.

It is likewise in the interests of your SOLICITOR, evidently another underling, to pay court to Grant. And this applies to everyone save yourself. All the more reason not to conclude anything in haste.

Jervis has undertaken to find the necessary capital; well and good, but this must obviously be on terms acceptable to you, and not on such as would deliver you over bound hand and foot to a moneylender of the first water.

You would do well to sound Bradshaw. The latter has a twofold interest in coming to an arrangement with you in respect both of this country and of the Continent. If only as a means of putting pressure on Grant. It would be better still to have a choice between the two. And Bradshaw cannot allow himself to go in for the sharp practices that are the other man's stock-in-trade. Unfortunately you can no longer have full confidence in Jervis, once he claims to have tired of the matter and advises you to accept forthwith.

That is, of course, the gloomier aspect of the affair. Grant may possibly have more generous intentions, but once the contract has been signed you will be at his mercy, of that you may be certain.

With a man like Grant I see no means of safeguarding oneself. You could insert a condition that all net profits must be used to pay off the £ 3,000 and that no dividends are distributed so long as the company is paying interest of more than 6% — they would either not accept it or find a way of deleting if at the first shareholders' meeting. And that would merely safeguard the first £ 3,000; as regards subsequent borrowings it would do nothing of the kind; it would be nonsensical to repay with one hand and borrow with the other.

My advice is try to manage without Grant and, if you can't, at least try to make him fear that you can do without him, so that he robs you a little less UNMERCIFULLY than he intended. He will rob you anyhow.

The weather here continues magnificent, sunshine all the time, bracing air, north-east breeze, sea-bathing already somewhat bracing, but this evening I fear I shall have to wear an overcoat as at Ramsgate. The visitors are quite different from those at Ramsgate. Here we have the SHOPKEEPER, the small manufacturer, the TRADESMAN from Leeds, Sheffield, Hull, etc., an atmosphere decidedly more provincial yet at the same time more solid than at Ramsgate; no 'ARRYS. What strikes you most is the fact that all the young girls are backfish^[2] between 14 and 17 years — what you call the ugly age, although there are some very pretty ones here. Of young girls fashioned to perfection there are none or virtually none. No sooner have they ceased to be backfish than they're put into long skirts and, so it would seem, get married. All the women of 18 and over that one sees are accompanied by their husbands and even by children. Nor did poor Beust, who casts tender glances at the backfish, succeed in initiating any amorous exchanges, however brief. Papa and mama, like the Prussians of Frederick II, are 'constantly on sentry go'.

My best wishes to Laura. The two herbalists^[3] send their compliments. The thing has been sent to Beust's father in Zurich. The newspapers will be returned to you. I don't know Marx's whereabouts, for I have not had word from him.

Yours ever,

F. Engels