Karl Marx

Neue Oder-Zeitung.  
No. 303, July 3, 1855.  
Midday Edition

X. London, June 30. (Items of Various Contents.)  

As Lord Grosvenor refuses voluntarily to withdraw his Sunday Trading Bill, wall posters appear today in the most frequented streets of London inviting to another monster demonstration in Hyde Park for tomorrow afternoon. The House was childish enough to reply to Grosvenor’s question whether the sudden change of mind of the majority was inspired by the mob in Hyde Park with vehement No! No!

In passing, in reply to a question from a Tory peer, Panmure let fall that the ministers have issued a proclamation in the name of the Queen to the army, in which they announce to certain corps and certain regiments — those in the theatre of war — not only for the period of their present service, but for several months retroactively, a considerable increase of pay and an augmentation of pensions. This announcement has for the present been made in the name of the Queen, while the House of Commons was sitting, and without the ministers communicating it to the House in any way. The ministers thus arrogate to themselves a right which constitutionally belongs exclusively to the House of Commons, namely that of fixing the troops’ pay. They must indeed appear before the House in a few weeks or days to have the promised increases voted. But the proclamation has rushed ahead of the vote of the House. If the House rejected the demand it would come into conflict with the army. This is the reply to the verdict of the Roebuck Committee that the ministry is responsible for the sufferings of the army. This is a step in the direction indicated by Prince Albert.

Bouverie's Bill, which yesterday passed its second reading in the House of Commons, is important for English commercial legislation. Up to now, in England anyone who possessed a certain share in the profits of a commercial firm was regarded as a partner and was therefore responsible with his entire property for the commercial liabilities of the firm. According to Bouverie's bill, introduced in the name of the ministry, this legal function is to be abolished. Even more important is his bill on joint-stock companies. Up to now, each member of such a company was liable not only for the amount of his share, but with his whole property for the total obligations of the company. According to the one bill, liability is restricted to the amount of the shareholdings of the individual members, but only in companies whose total capital is at least £20,000, whose contract is signed by holders of shares to the amount of at least £15,000, and where a deposit of at least 20 per cent on the total capital has been paid in. The mere necessity for such laws proves to what extent the legislature has so far been in the hands of high finance, which succeeded in subjecting commercial contracts, within the first commercial nation of the world, to the most absurd and arbitrary juridical restrictions. The new bill pretends that its principle is “to place labour and small capitalists on a footing of equality (in commercial law) with big capital.” And how is this carried out? By the fact that share capitals below the amount of £20,000 are excluded from the benefit of the one law and remain subject to the old restrictions. That big capital, not content with the superior economic weapons with which it combats the competition of the small, in England also, in addition, takes refuge in juridical privileges and exceptional laws, is proved by nothing more striking than English legislation on joint-stock companies and commercial partnerships in general. Until a few years ago, for example, a bank was not allowed to have more than 6 partners. It was a long time before joint-stock companies obtained the right to sue or be sued in the name of their board of directors. But in order to share in this privilege, they must be registered or incorporated, and a law of 1837 stipulates that the Crown may incorporate only upon a report from the Board of Trade, so that it is, in fact, left to the grace of the Board of Trade whether a company is incorporated or not. Banks, charitable and mutual aid societies, etc., remain entirely excluded from the operation of the new bill.

A daily paper today gives the following parliamentary statistics: the number of electoral constituencies is 327. Of these 327, there are dependent on election magnates: 9 on 1 magnate, 8 on 4, 7 on 1, 6 on 3, 5 on 8, 4 on 26, 3 on 29, so that 297 electoral constituencies are controlled by 72 magnates. There remain 30 so-called “independent” electoral constituencies. The House of Commons numbers 654 members, of whom 594 are elected from the 297 dependent constituencies. Among these 594, one counts 274 persons who are directly related to the peerage or belong to the aristocracy.