[...] the existing government, begins the social upheaval of England.

We come finally to the Chartists, to the politically active section of the English working class. The Charter they demand, with its 6 points, contains nothing but the demand for universal suffrage and the conditions without which universal suffrage would be illusory for the working class, such as the ballot, payment of members of Parliament, annual renewal of Parliaments, etc. But universal suffrage is synonymous with political power for the proletariat in England, where the working class constitutes the great majority of the population, has developed a sharp class consciousness in a long, if hidden, civil war with the capitalists, and where even in the Country there are no longer any peasants, but only land-lords, industrial capitalists (farmers) and hired labourers. The introduction of universal suffrage in England would therefore be an immeasurably greater socialist measure than anything on the Continent that has been honoured with this name.

Its inevitable result here is the political rule of the working class.

I shall report another time on the new revival and reorganisation of the Chartist party. I have to do here only with the election just closed. |

 To be a voter for the English Parliament requires, in the Boroughs, having a house rated at £10 for the poor rate, and, in the Counties, being a freeholder of 40 shillings or a leaseholder of £50. It follows automatically, therefore, that the Chartists could officially take only a small part in the electoral battle just run. To explain their actual participation, I must call to mind a peculiarity of the English electoral system:

Nomination day and Declaration day! Show of hands and poll!

When the candidates for the parliamentary seats have appeared on the election day

315

Karl Marx

and have publicly harangued the people, they are first chosen by the show of hands, and every hand has the right to rise, the hand of the non-elector as well as that of the elector. He for whom the most hands rise is declared nominated by the chairman, the Mayor. Thus far, then, unrestricted universal suffrage. But now the medal shows its reverse side. The nomination by the show of hands was mere ceremony, a purely formal courtesy towards “the sovereign people”. The courtesy ceases as soon as privilege is threatened. For if the candidates of the privileged voters are not appointed by the show of hands, their candidates demand that the poll be gone to. Only the privileged electors can take part in the poll, and whoever carries off the majority of the votes here || is declared duly elected. The first election, the nomination by the show of hands, is a show satisfaction, granted for a moment to public opinion in order, the moment after, all the more tellingly to convince it of its powerlessness.

Is it believed that the nomination by the show of hands, this dangerous formality, was invented to mock universal suffrage and to make an aristocratic joke of the mob, the “rabble” (expression of Secretary of War Beresford)? One would be mistaken. The old Germanic custom was able to propagate itself undisturbed by tradition because it gave the English class parliament a cheap and harmless semblance of popularity. The ruling classes derived from it the self-satisfaction that the popular mass participated, more or less passionately, in their factional interests as in national affairs. Only since the bourgeoisie took up a position independently beside Tories and Whigs did the working masses step forward on the nomination days in their own name beside official England. But in no year did the contrast between show of hands and poll, between the day of nomination and the day of declaration, appear so principled, so serious, so threatening and so comprehensive over the whole surface of the country as in this last election, in the election of 1852.

And what a contrast! To be nominated by the show of hands sufficed to be defeated at the poll. To get through at the poll sufficed to be || greeted by the people with rotten apples and stones. The duly elected members of Parliament had all the trouble, initially, of securing their own parliamentary skins. On the one side the majority of the people, on the other the twelfth part of the total population and the seventh part of the male inhabitants. On the one side enthusiasm, on the other bribery. On the one side parties disavowing their own distinguishing marks, Liberals affirming their conservatism, Conservatives their liberalism; on the other side the people,

316

Fragment of the German-language manuscript for two articles

affirming itself. On the one side a worn-out machine, spellbound in its vicious circle, not stirring from the spot, and the impotent wearing away of all the official parties upon one another; on the other the advancing mass of the nation, threatening to break through the faulty circle and smash the official machine.

I shall not pursue this contrast between nomination and poll, between the threatening election demonstration of the working masses and the meek election manoeuvre of the ruling classes, over the whole surface of the country. I single out one borough from the mass, where the contrast concentrates in a focal point: the election of Halifax.

Here there faced one another Edwards (Tory), Frank Crossley (Manchester man), Sir Charles Wood (Whig; Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Russell Cabinet, brother-in-law of Lord Grey), and finally Ernest Jones, the most talented, most consistent and most energetic among the leaders of the Chartist party.

Since Halifax is a factory town, the Tory had no chance. The Manchester man Crossley had coalesced, stood and fell with the Whig. The serious struggle therefore took place only between Sir Charles Wood and Ernest Jones, between the Whig and the Chartist.

Sir Charles Wood —

From the speech of Ernest Jones I give a more complete extract, since you will find it in none of the large London class papers (the speech follows).

Do you not hear through this speech the approaching thunder of revolution? What Jones predicted occurred. Ernest Jones was nominated by 20,000 votes, the Whig Sir Charles Wood and the Manchester man Crossley were elected by 500 votes. |

317