30. K. Marx. Elections. - Financial Clouds. - The Duchess of Suther land and Slavery
London, Friday, January 21, 1853
The re-elections consequent upon the new ministerial arrangements are finished. Ministers have suffered a defeat, Mr. Sadleir, one of the Lords of the Treasury, and hitherto considered the chief of the "Irish Brigade," having been beaten by Mr. Alexander, who was elected by a majority of six votes. Mr. Alexander owes his election to a coalition of the Orangemen [30]° and the Catholics. On the other hand, Ministers were victorious at Oxford University, where the poll lasted fifteen days and the struggle was extremely animated. Gladstone carried the day by a majority of 124 against Dudley Perceval, the candidate of the High Church[301] Party. To amateurs of Hudibrasian[3] logic[302] we can recommend the leaders of the two contending journals in this struggle, The Morning Chronicte and The Morning Herald.
Yesterday, after a long debate, the Directors of the Bank of England again raised the minimum rate of discount from 2V2 to 3 per cent. This circumstance had an immediate effect upon the Paris Bourse, where all sorts of securities had to submit to another decline.—- But if the Bank of England should succeed in checking speculation at Paris, there will remain open another outlet for the drain of bullion: the imports of corn. The last harvest both in England and on the Continent is estimated at one-third below the average. Besides, there exists some doubt as to the quantity of food available for consumption until next harvest, in consequence of the delay in sowing the seed caused by the wet state of the soil. Therefore, large imports of grain are arranged for, and will continue to keep the course of exchange unfavorable for England. The gold ships from Australia cannot keep pace with the sudden augmentation of grain imports.
In one of my late letters I mentioned the speculation going on in iron.[3] The first raising of the rate of discount, by the Bank, from 2 to 2V2 per cent., had already had its effect upon this branch of trade. Scotch pigs, for the last fortnight selling at 78 shillings, on the nineteenth of this month dropped down to 61 shillings. The Railway Share market, too, will probably be depressed since the raising of the rate of interest, by forced sales of shares hitherto deposited as securities for loans, and the commencement of these operations has already taken place. My opinion, however, is that the drain of bullion is not caused by exportation of gold alone, but that the brisk home trade, especially in the manufacturing districts, has a full share in it.
During the present momentary slackness in political affairs, the address of the Stafford House Assembly of Ladies to their sisters in America upon the subject of Negro slavery,b and the "Affectionate and Christian address of many thousands of the women of the United States of America to their sisters, the women of England," upon white slavery, have proved a godsend to the press. Not one of the British papers was ever struck by the circumstance that the Stafford House Assembly took place at the palace and under the presidency of the Duchess of Sutherland, and yet the names of Stafford and Sutherland should have been sufficient to class the philanthropy of the British aristocracy—a philanthropy which chooses its objects as far distant from home as possible, and rather on that than on this side of the ocean.
The history of the wealth of the Sutherland family is the history of the ruin and of the expropriation of the Scotch-Gaelic population from its native soil. As far back as the tenth century, the Danes had landed in Scotland, conquered the plains of Caithness, and driven back the aborigines into the mountains. Mor-Fear Chattaibh,0 as he was called in Gaelic, or the "Great Man of Sutherland," had always found his companions in arms ready to defend him at the risk of their lives against all his enemies, Danes or Scots, foreigners or natives. After the revolution which drove the Stuarts from Britain,[303]
private feuds among the petty chieftains of Scotland became less and less frequent, and the British Kings, in order to keep up at least a semblance of dominion in those remote districts, encouraged the levying of family regiments among the chieftains, a system by which these lairds were enabled to combine modern military establishments with the ancient clan system in such a manner as to support one by the other.
Now, in order to distinctly appreciate the usurpation subsequently carried out, we must first properly understand what the clan meant. The clan belonged to a form of social existence which, in the scale of historical development, stands a full degree below the feudal state; viz., the patriarchal state of society. " Klaen" in Gaelic, means children. Every one of the usages and traditions of the Scottish Gaels reposes upon the supposition that the members of the clan belong to one and the same family. The "great man," the chieftain of the clan, is on the one hand quite as arbitrary, on the other quite as confined in his power, by consanguinity, etc., as every father of a family. To the clan, to the family, belonged the district where it had established itself, exactly as, in Russia, the land occupied by a community of peasants belongs, not to the individual peasants, but to the community. Thus the district was the common property of the family. There could be no more question, under this system, of private property, in the modern sense of the word, than there could be of comparing the social existence of the members of the clan to that of individuals living in the midst of our modern society. The division and subdivision of the land corresponded to the military functions of the single members of the clan. According to their military abilities, the chieftain entrusted to them the several allotments, cancelled or enlarged according to his pleasure the tenures of the individual officers, and these officers again distributed to their vassals and under-vassals every separate plot of land. But the district at large always remained the property of the clan, and, however the claims of individuals might vary, the tenure remained the same; nor were the contributions for the common defense, or the tribute for the laird, who at once was leader in battle and chief magistrate in peace, ever increased. Upon the whole, every plot of land was cultivated by the same family, from generation to generation, under fixed imposts. These imposts were insignificant, more a tribute by which the supremacy of the "great man" and of his officers was acknowledged than a rent of land in the modern sense, or a source of revenue. The officers directly subordinate to the "great man" were called "Taksmen," and the district entrusted to their care, "Tak." Under them were placed inferior officers, at the head of every hamlet, and under these stood the peasantry.
Thus you see, the clan is nothing but a family organized in a military manner, quite as little defined by laws, just as closely hemmed in by traditions, as any family. But the land is the property of THE DUCHESS AT HOME.
B Y DR- CKARXKI M A R X .
» How canst thou say to thy aürrr : Sut er, let me . the notf out of thine eve, and perceive** not
f Under t h * * a j» e l' f t* a hypocrisy of " Chorea *. s ^ t e " a system of oppression u carried on this gloriously free country, that equals in Hidred atrocity the alavery of the American Sooth We give a« a fitting Uliutratioa, the • lowing historical statement, showing how the unarUna-family got then-wealth T h e Ducbest of Sutherland b«re aJluded to, is the iaLAcaU^ •'Coaolees-Duehnes *' sn*ther-in law
, the présent Duchess. H o w (he präsent nat« improved on the lessons of the Countess Duchess, the reader may have occasion to see ^ v c ' ba.ve done with the latter.] The history o( the wealth of the Sutherland r ü* u the history of the ruin and of the espro-Lriatioa of the Scotch Gaelic population from its
live »oil. As far back aa the tenth century, the D* ne* had tanded in Scotland, conquered the Laint of Caithness, and driven back the abori-rine» into the mountains. Mheor-Thair Chattaibh, Jj he »•* csll«d. in Oaelic, or the " Great Man of Sutherland. " had always found hia companions in arms ready to defend him at the hak of their H»e* against all his enemies, Danes or Scots, {ereiineri or natives. After the revolution which drove the Stuarts from Britain, private feuds among ihf petty chieftains of Scotland became less and t c frequent, and the British Kings, in order to jittp up at least a semblance of dominion in these remote districts, encouraged the levying of family regiments among the chieftains, a system by which these Joird» were enabled to combine modern military establishments with the ancient elm» system io such a manner aa to aupport one by the other.
N A < ÎQ order to distinctly appreciate the usur-ps.,., .jhesqnenüy carried out, we mast first BMperly understand what the Cima meant. The {^belonged to a form of social existence which, m the teal* of historical development, stands a full degree below the feudal state ; râu, the peiiwrraai sut« of society. " A***«." ia Oaelic, means children. £*ety one of the usages and traditions of the Scottish Gaels reposes upon the supposition that th« neat hers of the c f « belong to one and the same faauly. The *' great man,'' the chieflian of the Clan, is on one hand quite as arbitrary, on the other quite as confined in his power, by consanguinity, « c , aa every father of a family. To the Clan, to the family, belonged the district where it had established itself, exactly as in Russia, the land occupied by a community of peasants belongs, tot to the individual peasants, out to the Community Thus the district was the common property of the family. There could be no more question, under this system, of private property, in the modern sente of the word, than there could be of comparing the social existence of the members of the Clan to that of individuals living in the midst of our modern society. The division and subdi vision of the land corresponded to the military function« of the single members of the Clan. According to their military abilities, the chieftain entrusted to them the several allot menu, cancelled or enlarged according to his pleasure the tenures of the individual officer, and these officers again distributed to their vassals and under-vassal* every separate plot of land. But the district at large always remained the property of the elan, and. however the claims of individuals might vary, the tenure remained the same ; nor were the contributions for the common defence, or the tribute for the Laird, who at once was leader in battle and chief magistrate in peace, ever increased. Upon the whole, every plot of land waa cultivated by the same family, from generation to generation, under axed imposts. These imposts were insignificant. more a tribute by which the supremacy of the — grent *—* " and of hit officers waa acknowledged, than a rent of land in a modern sense, or a source of revenue. The omcers directly subordinate to the •' erraf ««« " were called ** Tmksme*," and the district entrusted to their care, " Tmk" Under them were placed inferior omcers, at the head of every hamlet, and under these stood the peasantry.
Thus you see, the Clan is nothing hut a family organised in a military manner, quite as little defined by laws, juat as closely hemmed in by traditions, as any family. But the land is the «rap*rf* • / Mr /mmitf. in the midst of which differences of rank, in spite of consanguinity, do prevail as well as in all the ancient Asiatic family communities.
The first usurpation took place after the expulsion of the Stuarts, by the establishment of the family Regiments. From that moment, po» became the principal source of revenue of the Greer Mm*. the Mhoir-Fhcar-Chattaibh. Entangled in the dissipation of the Court of London, he tried to squeeac as much money as possible out of his officers, and they applied the same system to their inferiors. The ancient tribute was transformed into fixed money contracta. In one respect these
of her generosity she slotted <* the expelled natives
about 6,000 acres, two acres per family.
These
».000 acres had been lying v--*te until then, and
brought no revenue to the proprietors.
The Coun-
tess was prnervas rasve* re seil (At mere at Is. fid. en «n
average, to the claa-men who for centurie* pact had
shed their blood for her family.
The whole of the
unrightfully appropriated clan land she divided into
twenty-nine large sheep farms, each of them in-
habited by one single family, mostly English farm-
Ubourers; and in 1821. the 15.000 Gaels had already
been seperseded by 131.000 sheep.
A portion of the aborigines had been
thrown
upon the sea-shore, and attempted to live by
fish-
ing.
They became amphibious, and. as an English
author says, lived half on land and half on water,
and after all did not half live upon both.
Sitmondi, in his " Stud** SmttmUs," observes with
regan
to this expropriation
of the Gaels from
Sutherlandshire—an example, which,
by-the-by,
was imitated by the other "great men " of Scot-
land:
" The large extent or seignorial domains is not
a
circumstance peculiar to
Britain.
In
the
whole
empire of Charlemagne, in
the
whole
accident,
entire provinces were usurped by the warlike chiefs,
who had them cultivated for their own account by
the vanquished, and sometimes by their own com-
panions in arms.
Daring the ninth and tenth cen-
turies the Counties of Maine, Anjou, Poitou,
were
for the Counts of these provinces rather three large
estates than principalities.
Switaerland which in
so many respects resembles Scotland, was at that
time divided among a small
number of 5rtf»rurc.
If the Counts of Kyburg. of Lantxburg, of Mats-
burg, of Gruyères had been protected
by
British
laws, they would have been in the same position as
the Earls of Sutherland ; some of them would per-
haps have had the urn« taste for improvement as
(he Marchioness of Stafford, and more than one
republic might have disappeared from the Alps in
order to make room for flocks of sheep.
Not
the
most
despotic
monarch in
Germany
would
be
allowed to attempt anything of the sort."
Mr.
Lock,
in his
defence of the Countess
of
Sutherland, (1820J replies to the
above as fol-
l o w s : —
M Why should there be made an exception to the
rule adopted in every other ease, just for this
par-
ticular ente ?
Why should the absolute authority
of the landlord] over his land he sacrificed
to the
public Interest and to motives which concern the
public only ? "
And why then should the slaveholders in the
Southern States of North America sacrifiée
their
private interest to the philanthropic grimaces of her
Grace, the Duchess of Sutherland ?
The British aristocracy,
who have everywhere
superseded man by bullocks and sheep, will, in s
future not very distant, be superseded in turn
by
those useful animals.
The process of ctfenrme esrofer, which, in Scotland,
we have just now described, was carried out in
England in the sixtenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth
centuries.
Thomas Moras already complains ol it
in the sixteenth century.
It was performed in
Scotland in the beginning of the nineteenth, and in
Ireland it is now ia full progress.
The noble Vis.
count Palmers ton, too, some years ago cleared of
men his property in Ireland, exactly in the manner
described above.
If of any property it ever was true that it was
reseery, it is literally true of the property of the
British aristocracy.
Robbery of the
Church-pro-
perty, robbery of commons, fraudulent
transforma-
tion, accompanied by murder, of feudal and patri-
archal property into
private
property—these
are
the
titles of British aristocrats to their
posses-
sions.
And what services in this latter
process
were performed by a servile class of lawers you may
see from an English lawyer of the last century, Dal-
rymple, who, in his " History of Feudal Property,"
very naively proves that every law or deed concern-
ing property waa interpreted by
the lawyers,
in
England, when the middle class rose in
wealth,
in favour of the middle rarst —in Scotland, where the
nobility
enriched
themselves,
in
favour
of the
aeei/ify—in either ease it was iaterpre cd in a sense
hostile to the sweaur.
The above Turkish reform by the Countess of Sutherland was justifiable, st least, from s Malthu-sien point of view. Other Scottish noblemen went further. Having superseded human beings by sheep, they superseded sheep by game, and the pasture grounds by forests. At the head of these was the Duke of Athol. " After the conquest, the Norman Kings afforested large portions of the soil of England, in much the aame way as the landlords here are now doing with the Highlands." ( R. Somer's Letters on the Highlands, IS4.8.)
As for the large number of the human beings ex-
pelled to make room for the game of the Duke
of
Athol. and
the sheep of the Countess of Suther-
land, where did they Ay to, where did they And a
home ?
in the United Statt e/ A/erf A 4mcrtra. The enemv of British Wages Slavery has a right to condemn Negro-Slavery ; a Dweheaa of Sutherland, a Duke of Athol, a Manchester Cotton-lord— never ! KAXL M A R X .
Part of a page from The People's Paper containing an abridged version of Marx's article "Elections.— Financial Clouds.— The Duchess of Sutherland and Slavery"
the family, in the midst of which differences of rank, in spite of consanguinity, do prevail as well as in all the ancient Asiatic family communities.
The first usurpation took place, after the expulsion of the Stuarts, by the establishment of the family regiments. From that moment, pay became the principal source of revenue of the "Great Man," the Mor-Fear-Chattaibh. Entangled in the dissipation of the Court of London, he tried to squeeze as much money as possible out of his officers, and they applied the same system to their inferiors. The ancient tribute was transformed into fixed money contracts. In one respect these contracts constituted a progress, by fixing the traditional imposts; in another respect they were a usurpation, inasmuch as the "great man" now took the position of landlord toward the "taksmen" who again took toward the peasantry that of farmers. And as the "great man" now required money no less than the "taksmen," a production not only for direct consumption but for export and exchange also became necessary; the system of national production had to be changed, the hands superseded by this change had to be got rid of. Population, therefore, decreased. But that it as yet was kept up in a certain manner, and that man, in the 18th century, was not yet openly sacrificed to net revenue, we see from a passage in Steuart, a Scotch political economist, whose work was published ten years before Adam Smith's where he says (Vol. 1, chap. 16):
"The rent of these lands is very trifling compared to their extent, but compared to the number of mouths which a farm maintains, it will perhaps be found that a plot of land in the highlands of Scotland feeds ten times more people than a farm of the same extent in the richest provinces.
That even in the beginning of the 19th century the rental imposts were very small is shown by the work of Mr. Loch (1820), the steward of the Countess of Sutherland, who directed the improvements on her estates. He gives for instance the rental of the Kintradawell estate for 1811, from which it appears that up to then, every family was obliged to pay a yearly impost of a few shillings in money, a few fowls, and some days' work, at the highest.[13]
It was only after 1811 that the ultimate and real usurpation was enacted, the forcible transformation of clan property into the private property, in the modern sense, of the chief. The person who stood at the head of this economical revolution was a female Mehemet Ali,
James Steuart, An Inquiry into the Principles of Political Œconomy.—Ed. James Loch, An Account of the Improvements on the Estates of the Marquess of Stafford, in the Counties of Stafford and Salop, and on the Estate of Sutherland.—Ed.
who had well digested her Malthus—the Countess of Sutherland, alias Marchioness of Stafford.
Let us first state that the ancestors of the Marchioness of Stafford were the "great men" of the most northern part of Scotland, of very near three-quarters of Sutherlandshire. This county is more extensive than many French Departements or small German Principalities. When the Countess of Sutherland inherited these estates, which she afterward brought to her husband, the Marquis of Stafford, afterward Duke of Sutherland, the population of them was already reduced to 15,000. My lady Countess resolved upon a radical economical reform, and determined upon transforming the whole tract of country into sheep-walks. From 1814 to 1820, these 15,000 inhabitants, about 3,000 families, were systematically expelled and exterminated. All their villages were demolished and burned down, and all their fields converted into pasturage. British soldiers were commanded for this execution, and came to blows with the natives. An old woman refusing to quit her hut was burned in the flames of it. Thus my lady Countess appropriated to herself seven hundred and ninety-four thousand acres of land, which from time immemorial had belonged to the clan. In the exuberance of her generosity she allotted to the expelled natives about 6,000 acres—2 acres per family. These 6,000 acres had been lying waste until then, and brought no revenue to the proprietors. The Countess was generous enough to sell the acre at 2s. 6d., on an average, to the clan-men who for centuries past had shed their blood for her family. The whole of the unrightfully appropriated clan-land she divided into 29 large sheep farms, each of them inhabited by one single family, mostly English farm-laborers; and in 1821 the 15,000 Gaels had already been superseded by 131,000 sheep.
A portion of the aborigines had been thrown upon the seashore, and attempted to live by fishing. They became amphibious, and, as an English author says, lived half on land and half on water, and after all did not half live upon both.
Sismondi, in his Etudes Sociales, observes with regard to this expropriation of the Gaels from Sutherlandshire—an example, which, by the by, was imitated by the other "great men" of Scotland:
"The large extent of seignorial domains is not a circumstance peculiar to Britain. In the whole Empire of Charlemagne, in the whole Occident, entire provinces were usurped by the warlike chiefs, who had them cultivated for their own account by the vanquished, and sometimes by their own companions in arms. During the 9th and 10th centuries the Counties of Maine, Anjou, Poitou were for the Counts of these provinces rather three large estates than principalities. Switzerland, which in so many respects resembles Scotland, was at that time divided among a small number of Seigneurs. If the Counts of Kyburg, of Lenzburg, of Habsburg, of Gruyères had been protected by British laws, they would have been in the same position as the Earls of Sutherland; some of them would perhaps have had the same taste for improvement as the Marchioness of Stafford, and more than one republic might have disappeared from the Alps in order to make room for flocks of sheep. Not the most despotic monarch in Germany would be allowed to attempt anything of the sort."[3]
Mr. Loch, in his defense of the Countess of Sutherland (1820), replies to the above as follows:
"Why should there be made an exception to the rule adopted in everv other case, just for this particular case? Why should the absolute authority of the landlord over his land be sacrificed to the public interest and to motives which concern the public only?"
And why, then, should the slave-holders in the Southern States of North America sacrifice their private interest to the philanthropic grimaces of her Grace, the Duchess of Sutherland?
The British aristocracy, who have everywhere superseded man by bullocks and sheep, will, in a future not very distant, be superseded, in turn, by these useful animals.
The process of clearing estates which, in Scotland, we have just now described, was carried out in England in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries. Thomas Morus already complains of it in the beginning of the 16th century.[b] It was performed in Scotland in the beginning of the 19th, and in Ireland it is now in full progress. The noble Viscount Palmerston, too, some years ago cleared of men his property in Ireland, exactly in the manner described above.
If of any property it ever was true that it was robbery,[c] it is literally true of the property of the British aristocracy. Robbery of Church property, robbery of commons, fraudulous transformation accompanied by murder, of feudal and patriarchal property into private property—these are the titles of British aristocrats to their possessions. And what services in this latter process were performed by a servile class of lawyers, you may see from an English lawyer of the last century, Dalrymple, who, in his "History of Feudal Property", very naively proves that every law or deed concerning property was interpreted by the lawyers, in England, when the middle class rose in wealth, in favor of the middle class—in Scotland, where the nobility enriched themselves, in favor of the nobility-—in either case it was interpreted in a sense hostile to the people.
The above Turkish reform by the Countess of Sutherland was justifiable, at least, from a Malthusian point of view. Other Scottish noblemen went further. Having superseded human beings by sheep, they superseded sheep by game, and the pasture grounds by forests. At the head of these was the Duke of Atholl.
"After the conquest, the Norman Kings afforested large portions of the soil of England, in much the same way as the landlords here are now doing with the Highlands." (R.Somers, Letters from the Highlands, 1848.)
As for a large number of the human beings expelled to make room for the game of the Duke of Atholl, and the sheep of the Countess of Sutherland, where did they fly to, where did they find a home?
In the United States of North America. The enemy of British Wages-Slavery has a right to condemn Negro-Slavery; a Duchess of Sutherland, a Duke of Atholl, a Manchester Cotton Lord—never!
Signed: Karl Marx
Endnotes
[30] [Editorial note 30: text not recovered from the source scan.]
[301] Orangemen—members of the Orange Society (Order), a Protestant terrorist organisation founded in Ireland in 1795 and employed by the authorities, Protestant landlords and the clergy against the Irish national liberation movement. The name was derived from William III, Prince of Orange, who suppressed the Irish uprising of 1689-91 for restoration of the Stuart dynasty. The Order had especially strong influence in Ulster, Northern Ireland, with a mainly Protestant population. Contrary to the will of the landlords and both Catholic and Protestant higher clergy, when the Tenant-Right League (see Note 298) was active in Ireland, there were cases of rapprochement between rank-and-file Protestant Orangemen and Catholics on the basis of their common support for the League's agrarian demands.
[3] Serfdom was abolished in the territories along the left bank of the Rhine annexed to France during the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars, as were the privileges of the nobility and the clergy, and the church estates.
[302] See Note 217.
[3] Serfdom was abolished in the territories along the left bank of the Rhine annexed to France during the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars, as were the privileges of the nobility and the clergy, and the church estates.
[303] Hudibras—the title character of a satirical poem by the English poet Samuel Butler written in 1663-78. Hudibras was distinguished for his inclination to absurd reasoning and disputes and for his ability to prove the most absurd propositions by means of syllogisms. The poem was directed against the hypocrisy and religious bigotry of the English bourgeoisie,
[13] The Historical School of Law—a trend in German historiography and jurispru-dence which emerged in the late eighteenth century. The representatives of this school—Gustav Hugo, Friedrich Karl Savigny and others—sought to justify feudal institutions and the privileges of the nobility on the grounds of the inviolability of historical tradition. For a criticism of this trend see Marx's works: The Philosophical Manifesto of the Historical School of Law and Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Law. Introduction (present edition, Vols. 1 and 3). Legitimists—supporters of the Bourbon dynasty, which represented the interests of the big hereditary landowners. By the "first generation of French Legitimists" Engels means royalist writers and politicians who were vehemently hostile to the French Revolution, being particularly outraged when, in 1792, the monarchy was overthrown. After the restoration of the Bourbons, in 1815-30, the Legitimists formed a Right-wing political party which continued to be active even after 1830, when the dynasty was overthrown a second time.
[3] Serfdom was abolished in the territories along the left bank of the Rhine annexed to France during the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars, as were the privileges of the nobility and the clergy, and the church estates.