In the Concordia of July 4, the German Manufacturers’ 
Association attempted to prove to me that its “learned men” were as 
well fitted to judge literary goods as the Association was to fake 
commercial ones. 

With reference to the passage from Gladstone’s budget speech 
of April 16, 1863, as quoted in the Inaugural Address of the 
International, the manufacturers’ organ (No. 10) stated: 

‘‘Marx has added the sentence lyingly, both in form and in content.” 

It thus declares that I fabricated the sentence in both form and 
content, with hair and bones. Even more: it knows exactly how I 
did so. The paper writes: “The fact that Gladstone mentioned 
this, etc., was utilised by Marx in order to have Gladstone say, etc.” By 
quoting the sentence from a work published before the Inaugural 
Address, the Tueory or Excuances, I exposed the crude lie of the 
manufacturers’ organ.* As the paper itself tells, it then ordered 
from London this work, which it did not know, and convinced 
itself of the facts of the matter. How could it lie itself out of the 
situation? See here: 

“When we stated that Marx had lyingly added the sentence in question to 
Gladstone’s speech, we did not claim, either in form or in content, that he himself had 
also fabricated it.” 

Here we obviously have a case of equivocation peculiar to the 
mind of manufacturers. For example, when a manufacturing 
swindler, in agreement with business colleagues, sends out into the 

world rolls of ribbon that contain, instead of the alleged three 
dozen ells only two dozen, then he has in fact lyingly added one 
dozen ells, precisely because he “has not fabricated” them. Why, 
moreover, should lyingly added sentences not behave just like 
lyingly added ells? ‘““The understandings of the greater part of 
men,” says Adam Smith, “are necessarily formed by their ordinary 
employments”,* the understandings of the manufacturer included. 

Through the Volksstaat, I extended the erudite materials of the 
manufacturers’ organ, not only with the quotation from the Theory or 
Excuances, but also with the pages from my work Capital concerning 
Gladstone’s budget speeches. Now, from the material with which I 
provided it, the paper attempts to prove that I did not quote the 
disputed passage from a “London newspaper”, but from the THeory 
or Excuances. The chain of arguments is another sample of 
manufacturers’ logic. 

I told the manufacturers’ sheet that the THeory or Exchanges quotes 
on page 134 exactly as I quoted, and it discovers—that I quoted 
exactly as the Tueory or Exchanges quotes on page 134. 

And further! 

“And the glosses too, which Marx bases on the contradiction contained in this 
version, are already contained in that book.” 

This is simply a lie. On page 639 of Capital, I give my glosses to 
the words in Gladstone’s speech: 

“While the rich have been growing richer, the poor have been growing less 
poor. Whether the extremes of poverty are less, I do not presume to say.” 

My remark on this is: “How lame an anti-climax! If the 
working-class has remained ‘poor’, only ‘less poor’ in proportion 
as it produces for the wealthy class ‘an intoxicating augmentation 
of wealth and power’, then it has remained relatively just as poor. 
If the extremes of poverty have not lessened, they have increased, 
because the extremes of wealth have.” '*° And these “glosses” are 
nowhere to be found in the Tueory or Excuances. 

“And the glosses too ... are already contained in that book, in particular also 
the quotation from Moliére given in Note 105 on p. 640 of Capital.” 147 

So “in particular also” I quote Moliére, and leave it up to the 
“learned men” of the Concordia to detect and communicate to the 
public the fact that the quotation comes from the Tueory oF 

Excuaness. In fact, however, I state expressly in Note 105, p. 640 of 
Capital that the author of the Tueory or Excuances “charactertses with 
the following quotation from Moliére”’ the “continual crying contradic- 
tions in Gladstone’s Budget speeches”. 

Finally: 

‘in the same way the statement of the LONDON ORPHAN ASYLUM about the 
rising prices of foodstuffs quoted by Marx appears on p. 135 of that book, though 

Marx bases his claim for its correctness not on that book, but on that book’s sources 
(see Capital, p. 640, Note 104)”. 

The Concordia advisedly forgets to inform its readers that “that 
book” gives no sources. What was it trying to prove? That I took 
from that “book” a passage from Gladstone’s speech without 
knowing its source. And how does the Concordia prove it? By the 
fact that I really did take a quotation from that book, and checked 
it with the original sources, independent of the book! 

Referring to my quotation from Professor Beesly’s article in The 
Fortnightly Review (November 1870), the Concordia remarks: 

“This article by Professor Beesly deals, in fact, with the history of the 
International, and as the author himself informs every enquirer, was written on the 
basis of material provided him by Marx himself.” 

Professor Beesly states: 

“To no one is the success of the association so much due as to Dr. Karl Marx, 
who, in his acquaintance with the history and statistics of the industrial movement in 
all parts of Europe, is, I should imagine, without a rival. I am LARGELY indebted to him 
for the information contained in this article.” @ 

All the material with which I supplied Professor Beesly referred 
exclusively to the history of the International, and not a word 
concerned the Inaugural Address, which he had known since its 
publication. The context in which his above remark stood left so 
little doubt on this point that The Saturday Review, in a review of 
his article,” more than hinted that he himself was the author of the 
Inaugural Address.* 

The Concordia asserts that Professor Beesly did not quote the 
passage in question from Gladstone’s speech, but only stated “that 
the Inaugural Address contained that quotation”. Let us look into this. 

* Professor Beesly drew my attention, in writing, to this quid pro quo. 

Review, Vol. XLVII, November 1, 1870, pp. 529-30.— Ed. 

Professor Beesly states: 

“The address [...] is probably the most striking and powerful statement of the 
workman’s case as against the middle class that has ever been compressed into a 
dozen small pages. I wish I had space for copious extracts from it.” 

After mentioning the “frightful statistics of the Blue Books”,'* 
to which the Address refers, he goes on: 

“From these appalling statistics the address passes on to the income-tax returns, 
from which it appeared that the taxable income of the country had increased in 
eight years twenty per cent, ‘an intoxicating augmentation of wealth and power’, as 
Mr. Gladstone observed, ‘entirely confined to classes of property’.” 4 

Professor Beesly sets the words: “as Mr. Gladstone observed” 
outside quotation marks, saying these words on his own behalf, 
and thus proves to the Concordia with the greatest clarity that he 
knows Gladstone’s budget speech—solely from the quotation in 
the Inaugural Address! As the London business friend of the 
German Manufacturers’ Association, he is the only man who 
knows Gladstone’s budget speeches, just as he, and he alone, 
knows: “Persons with an income under 150 pounds sterling, in 
fact, pay no income tax in England.” (See the Concordia, Nos. 10 
and 27.) Yet English tax officials suffer from the idée fixe that this 
tax only stops at incomes under 100 pounds sterling. 

Referring to the disputed passage in the Inaugural Address, the 
manufacturers’ paper stated: 

“Yet this sentence is nowhere to be found in Gladstone’s speech.” I 
proved the contrary with a quotation from the Times report of 
April 17, 1863. I gave the quotation in the Volksstaat in both 
English and German, since a commentary was necessary on 
account of Gladstone’s assertion that he would “look almost with 
apprehension and with pain upon this intoxicating augmentation of 
wealth and power, if it were my belief that it was confined to the 
CLASSES WHO ARE IN EASY CIRCUMSTANCES”. Basing myself on Wakefield, I 
declared that the “cztasses wHO ARE IN EASY CIRCUMSTANCES’ —an expres- 
sion for which there is no German equivalent—means the “really 
rich”, “the really prosperous portion” of the propertied classes. 
Wakefield actually calls the real middle class “He uneasy ciass’’, 
which is in German roughly “die ungemachliche Klasse’’.* 

The manufacturers’ worthy organ not only suppresses my