Morning Post:
"I may say, I for One, would look with fear and apprehension when I consider this great increase of wealth if I
believed that its benefits were confined to the classes in easy circumstances.
This augmentation of wealth which I
have described, and which is founded on accurate returns is confined entirely to the augmentation of Capital, and
takes no account of the augmentation of wealth of the poorer classes."
Daily News:
"I may say that I for one would look with fear and apprehension when I consider this great increase of wealth if I
believed that its benefits were confined to the classes in easy circumstances.
This augmentation of wealth which I
have described, and which is founded upon accurate returns, is confined entirely to the augmentation of Capital, and
takes no account of the augmentation of wealth of the poorer classes."
Standard:
"I may say that I for one would look with fear and apprehension at this intoxicating increase of wealth if I were of
the opinion that it was confined to the classes in easy circumstances.
This great increase of wealth which I have
described, and which is founded on the accurate returns is confined entirely to the augmentation of Capital, and
takes no account of the poorer classes."
The eight newspapers cited here were, as far as I know, the only morning papers published in London at that time. Their
testimony is "convincing". Four of them --
The Times, The Morning Star, The Morning Advertiser, Daily Telegraph -- give
the sentence in exactly the form which Marx had "lyingly added". The augmentation described earlier as an intoxicating
augmentation of wealth and power "is entirely confined to classes of property". The four others -- Morning Herald,
Morning Post, Daily News and Standard -- give it in an "only formally more contracted" version, by which it is further
reinforced; this augmentation "is confined entirely to the augmentation of Capital".
The eight newspapers cited all have their separate complete staff of parliamentary reporters. They are thus the same
number of witnesses, fully independent of one another. In addition they are in their totality impartial, since they adhere to
the most diverse party tendencies. And both of the two versions of the irrepressible sentence are vouched for by Tories and
Whigs and radicals. According to four of them, Gladstone said: entirely confined to classes of property. According to four
others he said: entirely confined to the augmentation of Capital. Eight irreproachable witnesses thus testify that Gladstone
really uttered the sentence. The only question is whether this was in the milder version used by Marx, or in the stronger
version given in four of the reports.
Against them all, in isolated grandeur stands -- Hansard. But Hansard is not irreproachable like the morning papers.
Hansard's reports are subject to censorship, the censorship of the speakers themselves. And precisely for this reason "it is
the custom to quote according to Hansard.
Eight non-suspect witnesses against one suspect witness! But what does that worry our victory-confident Anonymous?
Precisely because the reports of the eight morning papers put "that notorious passage" in Gladstone's mouth, precisely
because of this, they "speak for" our Anonymous, precisely
by this they prove even more that Marx "lyingly added" it.
Indeed, nothing actually exceeds the "impudence" of the anonymous Brentano.
1891: Brentano vs. Marx
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1891bren/index.htm (7 of 22) [23/08/2000 18:00:19]
III
I
n reality, however, the ostentatious impudence we had to admire in Mr. Brentano, is nothing but a tactical manoeuvre. He
has discovered that the attack on the "lyingly added" sentence has failed, and that he must seek a defensive position. He has
found it; all that has to be done now is to retreat to this new position.
Already in his first reply to Marx (
Documents, No. 5
) Mr. Brentano hints at his intention, though bashfully as yet. The
fatal Times report compels him to do so. This report, it is true, contains the "notorious", the "lyingly added" passage, but
that is actually beside the point. For since it "fully coincides materially" with Hansard, it says "the direct opposite of that
notorious passage", although it contains it word for word. Thus it is no longer a question of the wording of the "notorious
passage", but of its meaning. It is no longer a question of denying the passage's existence, but of claiming that it means the
opposite of what it says.
And Marx having declared in his second reply that lack of time forces him to end, once and for all, his pleasurable
exchange of opinions with his anonymous opponent, the latter can venture to deal with even greater confidence with this
subject, which is not exactly proper at that. This he does in his rejoinder, reproduced here as
No. 7
of the documents.
Here he claims that Marx attempts to obscure the Times report, which materially fully coincides with Hansard, and this is
in three ways. Firstly by an incorrect translation of CLASSES WHO ARE IN EASY CIRCUMSTANCES. I leave aside
this point as absolutely irrelevant. It is generally known that Marx had a command of the English language quite different
from that of Mr. Brentano. But exactly what Mr. Gladstone thought when he used this expression-and whether he thought
anything-it is quite impossible to say today, 27 years later, even for himself.
The second point is that Marx "simply suppressed" a certain "relative clause" in the Times report. The passage in question
is previously cited at length in section II, p. 7. By suppressing this relative clause, Marx is supposed to have suppressed for
his readers the fact that the augmentation of wealth, as shown by the income tax returns, is confined to classes which
possess property, since the labouring classes do not fall under the income tax, and thus nothing may be learned from the
returns about the increase in prosperity amongst the workers; this does not mean, however, that in reality the labouring
classes remain excluded from the extraordinary augmentation of national wealth.
The sentence in the Times report runs, in Mr. Brentano's own translation:
"The augmentation I have described, and the figures of which are based, I think, upon accurate returns, is entirely
confined to classes of property."
The relative clause which Marx so maliciously "suppressed" consists of the words: "and the figures of which are based, I
think, upon accurate returns". By the persistent, since twice repeated, suppression of these highly important words, so the
story goes, Marx wished to conceal from his readers that the said augmentation was an augmentation solely of the income
subject to
income tax, in other words the income of the "classes which possess property".
Does his moral indignation at the fact that he had run aground with "mendacity" make Mr. Brentano blind? Or does he
think that he can make all sorts of allegations, since Marx will no longer reply in any case? The fact is that the incriminated
sentence begins, according to Marx, both in the Inaugural Address and in Capitol, with the words: "From 1842 to 1852
THE TAXABLE INCOME of the country increased by 6 per cent... In the eight years from 1853 to 1861, it has ..." etc.
Does Mr. Brentano know another "taxable income" in England apart from that subject to income tax? And has the highly
important "relative clause" anything at all to add to this clear declaration that only income subject to income tax is under
discussion? Or does he believe, as it almost appears, that people "forge" Gladstone's budget speeches, make "lying
additions" or "suppress" something in them if they quote them without, à la Brentano, also providing the reader with an
essay on English income tax in which they "falsify" income tax into the bargain, as Marx proved (
Documents, No. 6
),b and
as Mr. Brentano was forced to admit (
Documents, No. 7
). And when the "lyingly added" sentence simply says that the
augmentation just mentioned by Mr. Gladstone was confined to classes of property, does it not say essentially the same,
since only classes of property pay income tax? But of course, whilst Mr. Brentano creates a deafening hullabaloo at the
front door about this sentence as a Marxian falsification and insolent mendacity, he himself allows it to slip in quietly
through the back door.
1891: Brentano vs. Marx
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1891bren/index.htm (8 of 22) [23/08/2000 18:00:20]