"Neue Rheinische Zeitung" – Conciliation Debates

Conciliation Debates

[Neue Rheinische Zeitung No. 35, July 5, 1848]

Cologne, July 4. We come today to the conciliation session of June 28. The Assembly has a new President, new rules of procedure, and new ministers confronting it. One can therefore imagine how great the confusion is.

After protracted preliminary debates on procedures and other matters, the deputy Gladbach finally obtains the floor. The Prussian soldiery forcibly disarmed in Spandau a few days ago the irregulars of the 6th Company of the Free Corps, who were returning from Schleswig-Holstein and whose company had been disbanded on account of republican sentiments; some of them were even arrested. It had absolutely no legal ground and no legal authority. Legally, the military cannot undertake such actions on its own initiative at all. But most of these irregulars were Berlin barricade fighters, and the gentlemen of the Guards had to take revenge on them.

Herr Gladbach interpellated the ministry concerning this act of military despotism.

The Minister of War, Schreckenstein, states he knows nothing about it and must reserve the right to call for a report on it from the competent authority.

So that is what the people pay a Minister of War for: that on the 28th in Berlin he still knows nothing of what, on the 25th, three hours from Berlin, in Spandau, the military has undertaken, and that, three hours from Berlin, almost before his eyes, Guards lieutenants occupy railway stations and take away from the armed people the weapons that belong to them, the weapons they have captured on the battlefield, without even honouring the Herr Minister of War with the dignity of a report! But of course, Herr Lieutenant-Colonel Schlichting, who performed this heroic exploit, acted according to

“instructions” which he probably receives from Potsdam,
and to which place he probably also reports!

Tomorrow, the well-informed Minister of War pleads, tomorrow I shall perhaps

be able to give an answer! [See
Berliner Vereinbarungsdebatten, pp. 180-83]

There follows an interpellation by Zacharias: The ministry has promised a legislative proposal on the civic guard. Will this proposal be based on the principle of general arming of the people?

The new Minister of the Interior, Herr Kühlwetter, replies: There certainly is a law on the civic guard, but it has not yet been discussed in the ministry, and he therefore cannot say anything more specific about it.

So the new ministry has been cobbled together so hastily, has reached so little understanding on the guiding principles, that even the burning question of the arming of the people has not yet been debated at all!

A second interpellation by the deputy Gladbach concerned the definitive appointment of mayors and other officials by the authorities hitherto charged with this. As the entire previous administration is continuing only on an interim basis, it will also only be able to fill the emerging gaps on an interim basis, until the legislation has laid down how and by whom the various officials are to be appointed. Nevertheless, mayors and other officials have been appointed definitively.

The Minister Kühlwetter declares himself in agreement with Herr Gladbach on the whole and will only allow provisional mayors to be appointed.

A further interpellation by Herr Gladbach, concerning the suspension of the many officials who are hated by those under their administration, some of whom, especially in the countryside, were driven out in the first revolutionary enthusiasm, is skilfully made to vanish by the President, Herr Grabow.

After some procedural transactions, the interpellation of the deputy Dierschke concerning the Köslin address and its forwarding by the governments and Landrat offices came to the order of the day. But the deputy had totally forgotten that his motion was on the order of the day and had therefore also failed to bring the necessary papers to support it. He thus had no choice but to launch into a few general phrases about reaction, to receive a most unsatisfactory answer from the minister, and then to be told by the President that he would probably be satisfied.

He still has a second interpellation to put: Whether the ministers

intended to counteract the reactionary attempts of the
nobility and the party of officials.

Here, too, he appears to have forgotten the papers. Once again, instead of facts, he adduces declamatory phrases and can think of nothing better to demand of the ministry than that it issue a proclamation against reaction.

Herr Kühlwetter naturally replies that the sentiments of the estate owners and officials are none of his concern, only their actions; these people have the same freedom as Herr Dierschke, and, moreover, Herr Dierschke should cite facts. He dismisses the silly idea of an “edict” against reaction with due loftiness. Herr Dierschke now cites as a fact that in his district, Ohlau, the Landrat said that the National Assembly would not come to an agreement until it was cemented together with grapeshot, and that its deputy (Dierschke himself) expressed the view that it was a trifling matter to hang a minister.

From this, the Chairman concluded that Herr Dierschke had also declared himself satisfied in regard to the second interpellation, and Herr Dierschke found no objection to this.

Herr Hansemann, however, does not declare himself satisfied. He reproaches the speaker for having departed from the question. He “leaves it to the judgement of the Assembly to what extent it considers it appropriate to raise personal accusations against officials if evidence is not at the same time adduced for them.”

With this proud challenge and amid resounding bravos from the Right and the Centres, Herr Hansemann sits down.

The deputy Elsner moves an urgent motion. A commission is to be appointed immediately to investigate the situation of the spinners and weavers and of the entire Prussian linen manufacture.

Herr Elsner tells the Assembly in a short, striking report how the old government sacrificed the linen industry in every individual case to dynastic and legitimist interests, or rather whims. Spain, Mexico, Poland, Cracow served as proof.

Fortunately, the facts were striking and hit only the old government. Therefore, difficulties were raised from no quarter; the government placed itself in advance at the disposal of the commission, and the motion was adopted unanimously.

There follows the interpellation of d’Ester concerning the shorn Poles.

D’Ester declares that he wants information not just about the fact itself, but specifically about the

measures taken by the ministry against this procedure. For
that reason he is addressing himself not to the Minister of War, but to the whole
ministry.

Herr Auerswald: If d’Ester does not wish the specific case to be answered, then
“the ministry has no
interest
” in going into it.

Indeed, the ministry has “no interest” in going into the question! What news!
In fact, one usually puts interpellations precisely on questions in which going into is
what “the ministry” has absolutely
“no interest” in
! Precisely
because
it has no
interest in answering them, precisely for that reason, Herr Minister-President, one interpellates
the ministry.

The Herr Minister-President must, moreover, have thought that he was not among superiors, but among his subordinates. He attempts to make the answering of a question dependent upon the interest that the ministry, rather than the Assembly, has in it!

We attribute it solely to the inexperience of the President, Herr Grabow, that he did not call Herr Auerswald to order on account of this bureaucratic arrogance.

The Minister-President gave the assurance, besides, that the shearing of the Poles would be vigorously counteracted, but he could communicate further details only later.

D’Ester agrees very willingly to the adjournment, but wishes to be told the day on which Auerswald intends to answer.

Herr Auerswald,
who must be hard of hearing, replies: I believe that there is nothing in my statement indicating that the ministry does not wish to come back to it later (!); he cannot yet determine the day.

Behnsch
and
d’Ester
however declare expressly that
they also demand clarification about the fact itself.

Then follows
d’Ester’s
second interpellation: What is the meaning of the armaments in the Rhine Province and
especially in Cologne, and whether it has perhaps become necessary to cover the
French frontier?

Herr
Schreckenstein
replies: With the exception of individual reservists, no troops have been sent to the Rhine for months. (Quite true, valiant Bayard, but there had already been far too many there for a long time.)
All
fortresses are being fortified, not just
Cologne [See
“Köln in Gefahr”], so that the fatherland
may not be placed in danger.

So if troops are not placed in the forts in Cologne, where they have nothing whatever to do and are very poorly quartered, if the artillery is not issued with rifles, if the troops are not provided with

eight days’ bread in advance, if the infantry is not supplied with live cartridges, the artillery not with grapeshot and ball cartridge, then the fatherland is in danger? According to Herr Schreckenstein, therefore, the fatherland is only
out
of danger when Cologne and other large towns
are
in danger!

Moreover, “all movements of troops must be left solely to the insight of a military man, the Minister of War, otherwise he cannot be responsible”!

One thinks one is listening to a young girl whose virtue is being assailed, and not to the Prussian pro tem <for the time being> Bayard without fear and reproach, Baron of the Empire Roth von Schreckenstein, of terror-inspiring name!

When the deputy Dr. med. d’Ester, who is truly a dwarf beside the mighty Baron of the Empire Roth v. Schreckenstein, asks the said Schreckenstein what this or that measure is supposed to mean, the great Baron of the Empire imagines that the little Dr. med. wishes to deprive him of the free disposition of the troops, and that then he would no longer be able to be responsible!

In short and to the point: The Herr Minister of War declares that one must not hold him

to account
, otherwise he cannot be
responsible
at all.

Besides, what weight does the interpellation of a deputy carry against the “insight of a military man, and even of a Minister of War”!

D’Ester
declares himself, to be sure, not satisfied, but draws from Schreckenstein’s
answer the conclusion that the armaments were undertaken for the protection of the French
frontier.

The Minister-President
Auerswald
objects to this
inference.

If
all
frontier fortresses are being fortified, then surely
all
frontiers will be “covered”. If
all
frontiers are covered, then surely the

French
frontier will also be “covered”.

Herr Auerswald accepts the premisses and “in the name of the State Ministry” does not accept the conclusion.

We for our part “accept in the name” of common sense that Herr Auerswald is not merely hard of hearing.

D’Ester
and
Pfahl
protest immediately.
Reichenbach
declares that
Neisse, the most important fortress of Silesia facing east, is not being fortified at all and is
in the most wretched condition. When he gives details about this, the Right, supported by
the Centres, starts a frightful din, and Reichenbach has to
leave the tribune.

Herr
Moritz
:

“Count Reichenbach has given
no
reason why he has taken the floor (!). For
the same reason
, I think, I can also take the floor (!!).
I consider it unparliamentary and, up to now, unheard of in the history of parliaments,
in such a manner ... (great agitation) to cause embarrassment to the ministry,

to bring up matters that do not belong before the public ... we are not sent here
to place the fatherland in
danger.” (Terrible outburst. Our
Moritz has to descend from the tribune.)

The deputy Esser I stills the tumult by an exposition of § 28 of the standing orders that is as thorough as it is pertinent.

Herr
Moritz
protests that he did not wish to correct a fact, but merely
“wished to speak for the same reason as Count Reichenbach”! The conservative side takes up his cause and imposes a loud bravo upon him, against which the extreme Left, meanwhile, drums.

Auerswald
:

“Whether it is appropriate to discuss such details concerning the defensive capability of the Prussian state
in particular or as a whole?”

We note, firstly, that the talk was not about the defensive capability, but about the defencelessness of the state. Secondly, that the inappropriate thing is that the Minister of War is arming against the interior and not against the foreign enemy, not that one reminds him of his duty.

The Right finds it dreadfully tedious and shouts for closure. The President declares amid all sorts of noise that the matter is settled.

On the order of the day is a motion by Jung. Herr Jung finds it appropriate to be absent. Wonderful representation of the people!

Now comes an interpellation by the deputy Scholz. It reads verbatim:

“Interpellation to the Minister of the Interior, whether he is in a position to give information or disposed to answer concerning the

inappropriate introduction of constables in the districts.”

President
: I ask first of all whether this interpellation is
understood.

(It is not understood and is read out once more.)

Minister
Kühlwetter
: I really do not know what information is required of me.
I do not understand the question.

President
: Is the interpellation seconded? (It is not
seconded.)

Scholz
: I withdraw my motion for the time being.

We too “withdraw” for today after this priceless scene, “unheard of in the history of parliaments”.