Karl Marx

From Parliament

[“Neue Oder-Zeitung” No. 335, July 21, 1855]

London, July 18. The stormy, noisy, clamorous night sitting of the House of Commons on July 16 was necessarily followed by a reaction of lassitude, exhaustion, and enervation. The Ministry, conversant with the secrets of parliamentary pathology, counted on this ill-humour to prevent any vote on Roebuck’s motion, and not only the vote, but the debate itself. No member of the Ministry spoke before midnight, shortly before the close of the sitting, although for a moment a pause occurred in the House inviting the ministers to make statements, and in spite of repeated calls from all sides of the House. The Cabinet persisted in stoic silence and left it to the representatives of the Marquis of Exeter, the representative of Lord Ward, and similar deputies of peers among the Commons to sink the honourable House into that tedious slough which Dante, in his Inferno, makes the eternal residence of the indolent. There were two amendments to Roebuck’s motion before the House, General Peel’s amendment and that of Colonel Adair, both moved by warriors, both losing themselves in flank marches. Peel’s amendment demands that the House vote the “previous question”, i.e. neither for nor against the main motion, rejecting any answer to Roebuck’s question. Colonel Adair demands approval of the “policy which devised the expedition to Sevastopol” and a call “to persevere in this policy”. He thus parries Roebuck’s censure of the poor execution with praise for the good origin of the Crimean expedition.

The Cabinet refrained from any declaration as to which of the amendments it would make its own. It appeared to want to feel the pulse of the House, in order to take refuge either with General Peel in a question without an answer, or with Colonel Adair in an answer without a question. At length the House seemed sunk in that half-slumber which Palmerston was lying in wait for. Now he sent forward the most insignificant member of the Cabinet, Sir Charles Wood, who declared Peel’s amendment to be the ministerial one. Palmerston, supported by the cry of “Vote! Vote!” from the benches friendly to him, rose and “hoped the House would come to a decision forthwith”. He believed he had burked Roebuck <(from: to burk – suppress) suppressed> and had even robbed him of the honour of a “great debate”, a parliamentary tournament. But not only Disraeli opposed the vote. Bright, with that massive earnestness which distinguishes him, rose:

“The Government has evidently wished to spirit away the question before the House, and has therefore refrained from any statement until midnight. The subject is the most important that has ever been laid before the House of Commons. If the debate were to last a whole week, it could only redound to the advantage of the country.”

Palmerston, thus forced to accept the adjournment of the debate, had to abandon his original plan of campaign. He has suffered a defeat.

Roebuck’s speech had the great merit of brevity. He summed up, simply and clearly, not as an advocate but as a judge, as befitted him as chairman of the Committee of Inquiry, the motives of his verdict. He evidently had to contend with the same difficulty which prevents the allied fleet from entering the harbour of Sevastopol—with the sunken ships, the Aberdeens, Herberts, Gladstones, Grahams, etc. Only over them could he reach Palmerston and the other surviving members of the Coalition Cabinet. They barred the way to the present Cabinet. Roebuck sought to dispose of them with compliments. Newcastle and Herbert were to be praised for their zeal in office, ditto Graham. For the rest, their sins arising from lack of insight had been punished by their expulsion from Downing Street. The only point was to visit the unpunished sinners. That was the real tendency of his motion. He attacked Palmerston specifically, not only as an accomplice, but particularly as the administrator of the militia. In order to force his motion into the traditional parliamentary bounds, Roebuck evidently blunted its point. The arguments on the part of the ministerial seconds were of so feeble a substance that the soporific form in which they were developed had a positively agreeable effect. The evidence is incomplete, cried some. You threaten us with ostracism, the others. The matter is long past, opined Lord Cecil. Why not retrospectively condemn Sir R[obert] Peel? Every member of the Cabinet is in general responsible for the steps of the Cabinet, but no one in particular. Thus the “liberal” Phillimore. You endanger the French alliance, you constitute yourselves a jury over the Emperor of the French! Thus Mr Lowe (of The Times), and in his wake Sir James Graham. Graham, as the man of clear conscience, declares himself dissatisfied with General Peel’s purely negative motion. He insists on a “guilty” or “not guilty” from the House. He is not content with the “not proven” with which Scottish courts dispose of ambiguous criminal cases. Do you really wish to restore the antiquated and unparliamentary “impeachment”? The press, public opinion, is to blame for everything. It forced the ministers into the expedition, at an unsuitable time, with insufficient means. If you condemn the Ministry, you condemn the House of Commons, which stood behind it! Finally, Sir Charles Wood’s apology. If Roebuck himself excuses Newcastle, Herbert, and Graham, how can he inculpate us? We were nothing, and we are responsible for nothing. Thus Wood, in his “nothing-penetrating sentiment”.