Engels in Neue Rheinische Zeitung September 1848

Freedom of Debate in Berlin

by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels

Neue Rheinische Zeitung No. 105

Cologne, September 16. Ever since the beginning of the crisis
the counter-revolutionary press keeps alleging that the deliberations of
the Berlin Assembly are not free from interference. In particular, the
well-known correspondent "G" of the Kolnische Zeitung, [75] who also discharges
his duties only "temporarily pending the appointment of a successor", [76]
refers with obvious fear to the "8,000 to 10,000 strong fellows" in the
Kastanienwaldchen who "morally" support their friends of the Left. The
Vossische, [77] Spenersche [78] and other newspapers have set up a similar
wail, and on the 7th of this month Herr Reichensperger has even tabled
a motion frankly demanding that the Assembly be removed from Berlin (to
Charlottenburg perhaps?).

The Berliner Zeitungs-Halle [79] publishes a long article in which
it tries to refute these accusations. It declares that the large majority
obtained by the Left was by no means inconsistent with the former irresolute
attitude of the Assembly. It can be shown

"that the voting of the 7th could have taken place without conflicting
with the former attitude even of those members who previously voted always
for the cabinet, that it was indeed from their point of view in perfect
harmony with their former position...." The members who came over from
the centre parties "had labored under a delusion; they imagined that the
ministers carried out the will of the people; they had taken the endeavors
of the ministers to restore law and order for an expression of their own
will, i.e., that of the majority of deputies, and had not realized that
the ministers could accede to the popular will only when it did not run
counter to the will of the Crown, and not when it was opposed to it".

The Zeitungs-Halle thus "explains" the striking phenomenon of the sudden
change in the attitude of so many deputies by ascribing it to the notions
and delusions of these deputies. The thing could not be presented in a
more innocent way.

The paper admits, however, that intimidations did occur. But it
says,

"if outside influences did have any effect, it was only that they partially
counterbalanced the ministerial misrepresentations and artful temptation,
thus enabling the many weak and irresolute deputies to follow their natural
vital instinct...."

The reasons which induced the Zeitungs-Halle thus morally to justify the
vacillating members of the centre parties in the eyes of the public are
obvious. The article is written for these gentlemen of the centre parties
rather than for the general public. For us, however, these reasons do not
exist, since we are privileged to speak plainly, and since we support the
representatives of a party only as long and in so far as they act in a
revolutionary manner.

Why should we not say it? The centre parties certainly were intimidated
by the masses on September 7; we leave it open whether their fear was well
founded or not.

The right of the democratic popular masses, by their presence,
to exert a moral influence on the attitude of constituent assemblies is
an old revolutionary right of the people which could not be dispensed with
in all stormy periods ever since the English and French revolutions. History
owes to this right almost all the energetic steps taken by such assemblies.
The only reason why people dwell on the "legal basis" and why the timorous
and philistine friends of the "freedom of debate" lament about it is that
they do not want any energetic decisions at all.

"Freedom of debate" -- there is no emptier phrase than this. The
"freedom of debate" is, on the one hand, impaired by the freedom of the
press, by the freedom of assembly and of speech, and by the right of the
people to take up arms. It is impaired by the existing state power vested
in the Crown and its ministers -- the army, the police and the so-called
independent judges, who depend, however, on every promotion and every political
change.

The freedom of debate is always a phrase denoting simply independence
of all influences that are not recognized in law. It is only the recognized
influences, such as bribery, promotion, private interests and fear of a
dissolution of the Assembly, that make the debates really "free". In times
of revolution, however, this phrase becomes entirely meaningless. When
two forces, two parties in arms confront each other, when a fight may start
any moment, the deputies have only this choice:

Either they place themselves under the protection of the people,
in which case they will put up occasionally with a small lecture;

Or they place themselves under the protection of the Crown, move
to some small town, deliberate under the protection of bayonets and guns
or even a state of siege, in which case they will raise no objections when
the Crown and the bayonets dictate their decisions to them.

Intimidation by the unarmed people or intimidation by an armed
soldiery -- that is the choice before the Assembly.

The French Constituent Assembly transferred its sessions from
Versailles to Paris. It would be quite in character with the German revolution
if the Assembly of conciliation were to move from Berlin to Charlottenburg.

Neue Rheinische Zeitung Index