Neue Rheinische Zeitung – The Agreement Debates

The Agreement Debates

[“Neue Rheinische Zeitung” No. 8, 8 June 1848]

Cologne
, 6 June. At the
Berlin
session of the Agreement Assembly on the 2nd, Herr
Reuter
moved that a commission be appointed to
investigate the causes of the civil war in Posen.

Herr
Parrisius
demands that this motion be debated immediately.

The President is about to put it to the vote when Herr
Camphausen
recalls
that Herr
Parrisius’s
motion has not yet been debated at all:

“Just as I, for my part, have to point out that the adoption of that” (Reuter’s)
“motion would entail the adoption of an
important political principle which,
after all, lays claim (sic!) to being examined beforehand in the sections.”

We are curious to learn the “important principle” contained in Reuter’s motion,
which
Herr Camphausen for the time being still keeps to himself.

While we must be patient in this regard, a cosy conversation ensues between the Chairman (Herr
Esser
, Vice-President)
and several “Voices” as to whether a debate on Parrisius’s motion is
permissible or not. Herr Esser argues with reasons such as the following, which
sound rather odd coming from the President of a soi-disant National Assembly: “
I thought to myself
that a discussion is permissible on anything the Assembly
resolves!”

“I thought to myself!” Man proposes, and Herr Camphausen disposes—by drafting standing orders
from which no one can make head or tail, and having his Assembly adopt them provisionally.

This time Herr Camphausen was gracious. He had to have the discussion. Without the
discussion Parrisius’s motion, Reuter’s motion, would perhaps have been
carried, i.e., an indirect vote of no confidence

would have been passed against him. And worse still, what would have become of
his “important political principle” without discussion?

So there is a discussion.

Herr
Parrisius
wishes the main motion to be debated immediately, so that
no time is lost and so that the commission might still be able to report before the address debate.
Otherwise people would pass judgment on Posen in the address without any knowledge of the facts.

Herr
Meusebach
speaks against it, though still fairly mildly.

Now, however, Herr
Ritz
rises, impatient to put an end to Reuter’s subversive motion.
He is a Royal Prussian Government Councillor and does not tolerate
assemblies meddling in his department, even if they are assemblies for agreement.
He knows only one authority that can do that, and that is the Supreme Presidium.
To him, nothing surpasses the official channels.

“What,” he exclaims, “gentlemen, do you want to send a commission to Posen?
Do you want to turn yourselves into an
administrative
or
judicial authority
? Gentlemen,
from the motion I cannot see what it is you want to do. Do you want to demand files
from the commanding general” (what a crime!) “or from the judicial authority”
(horrible), “even from the administrative authority?” (At the thought, the Government Councillor’s
mind stands still.) “Do you want the investigation to be conducted by a commission
which is improvised” (and has perhaps not passed a single examination) “into all of this,
on which no one yet has any clear ideas
?” (Herr Ritz probably only appoints
commissions to investigate matters on which everyone has clear ideas.)
“Such an important affair, where
you arrogate to yourselves rights
that are not due to you
…” (Interruption.)

What is one to say of this Government Councillor of the true genuine stamp, this son of the
green baize table, in whom there is no guile! He is like that provincial in the little picture by
Cham, who comes to Paris after the February Revolution, sees the posters headed
“République française”
and goes to the Procureur-General to denounce the sedition-mongers against the King’s
government. The man had been asleep all that time.

Herr Ritz, too, has been asleep. The thunderous words “Commission of Inquiry for Posen”
rudely shake him awake, and still dazed with sleep, the astounded man cries out: Do you want to
arrogate to yourselves rights that are not due to you?

Herr
Duncker
finds a commission of inquiry superfluous, “since the
Address Commission must demand the necessary information from the ministry”.

As if the commission were not there precisely to compare the
ministry’s “information” with the facts.

Herr
Bloem
spoke of the urgency of the motion. The matter must be
settled before the address is debated. People talk of improvised commissions.
Herr Hansemann had likewise improvised a cabinet question yesterday, and the vote was taken
all the same.

Herr
Hansemann
, who had probably been thinking about
his new financial plan throughout this whole unedifying debate, was rudely awakened from
his ringing dreams by the mention of his name. He obviously had no idea what they were
talking about. But he had been named and he had to speak. All that remained in his memory
were two points of connection: the speech of his superior Camphausen and that of Herr
Ritz
. From both he composed, after a few empty words about the address question, the following
masterpiece of eloquence:

“Precisely the fact that no one yet knows what all the commission will have
to do, whether it will have to send members from its midst to the Grand Duchy, whether it
will have to attend to this or that—
this proves the great importance of the
question before us
(!). To decide this now at once, here, means:
to bring one of the most important political questions to a decision in
an improvised manner
. I do not believe
that the Assembly will take this course; I have confidence that it
will be cautious, etc.”

How very greatly Herr Hansemann must despise the whole Assembly to toss such
conclusions at it! We want to appoint a commission that may perhaps have to go
to Posen, and perhaps not. Precisely because we do not know whether it will have to remain in
Berlin or go to Posen, for that reason this question, whether a commission should be
appointed at all, is of
great importance
. Because it is of great
importance, therefore it is one of the
most important political
questions!

What this most important political question is, however, Herr Hansemann for the moment
still keeps to himself, just as Herr Camphausen keeps his important political principle.
Let us be patient once again!

The effect of Hansemann’s logic is so devastating that everyone at once clamours for
the closure. The following scene now ensues:

Herr
Jung
asks for the floor against the closure.

The President
: It seems to me inadmissible to give the floor for that purpose.

Herr
Jung
: It is the custom everywhere to be allowed to speak against the
closure.

Herr
Temme
reads out § 42 of the provisional standing orders, according to which Herr
Jung is right and the President is wrong.

Herr
Jung
gets the floor: I am against the
closure, because the Minister had the last word. The word of the Minister is of the
greatest importance, because it pulls a large party to one side,
because a large party does not like to disavow a Minister …

A drawn-out, general Oho! Oho! A fearful uproar arises from the
Right.

Herr Judicial Commissioner
Moritz
from his seat: I move that Jung be called to order;
he has committed
personalities against the entire Assembly
(!)

Another Voice from the “Right” cries: I likewise move and protest
against it …

The uproar grows louder and louder.
Jung
tries his utmost, but
it is impossible to get through. He calls upon the President to secure him the floor.

President
:
Since the Assembly has judged, my function is
discharged
. (!!)

Herr
Jung
: The Assembly has not judged; you must first have a formal
vote taken.

Herr
Jung
has to retire. The uproar does not subside until he
leaves the tribune.

President
: The last speaker
appears
(!) to have spoken
against the closure. The question is whether anyone else wishes to speak for the closure.

Herr
Reuter
: The debate on closure or non-closure has already cost us
15 minutes; shall we not let it drop?

The speaker then goes back to the urgency of the commission to be appointed.
This forces Herr Hansemann to come forward again and at last to give information on his “most
important political question”.

Herr
Hansemann
: Gentlemen! It is a question of one of the
greatest
political questions
, namely, whether the Assembly wishes to embark upon a path
that
may bring it into essential conflicts
!

At last! Herr Hansemann, a consistent Duchâtel, has again correctly declared the question
to be a
cabinet question
. For him, all questions have only the one
significance that they are cabinet questions, and the cabinet question is of course
for him the “greatest political question of all”!

Herr
Camphausen
seems this time not to be satisfied with this simple and
abridged method. He takes the floor.

“It should be noted that the Assembly” (on Posen) “could already
have been informed if the deputy had been pleased to put an

interpellation
” (but one

wished
to convince oneself). “That would be the
quickest
way of obtaining
information” (but what kind of information?) “… I close with the
declaration that the whole motion is nothing more than that the Assembly is to decide
the question,
whether we should form commissions of inquiry for these or other purposes
;
I am in entire agreement that this question be
maturely weighed and examined
,
but not that it be brought up for discussion so suddenly here.”

So that is the “important political principle”—the question whether the Agreement Assembly
has the right to form commissions of inquiry, or whether it wishes to deny itself this right!

The French and English Chambers have from time immemorial formed such commissions (select
committees) for investigation (enquête, parliamentary inquiry), and decent
ministers have never had anything against them. Without such commissions, ministerial
responsibility is an empty phrase. And Herr Camphausen disputes this right for those assembled
for agreement!

Enough. Speaking is easy, but voting is hard. The closure is moved; people want to
vote; countless difficulties, doubts, quibbles and scruples of conscience arise.
But let us spare our readers this. After much toing and froing, the
Parrisius motion is rejected and Reuter’s goes to the sections. May its ashes rest in
peace!