"Neue Rheinische Zeitung" – The Debate on the Agreement

Debate on the Agreement

["Neue Rheinische Zeitung" No. 39, July 9, 1848]

Cologne
, July 8. At the same time as the news of the dissolution of the Hansemann Ministry, we receive the stenographic report of the sitting of the Agreement Assembly of July 4. In this sitting the first symptom of this dissolution, Herr Rodbertus’s resignation, was made known, and at the same time the break-up of the Ministry was significantly advanced by the two contradictory votes on the Posen Commission and the walkout of the Left.

The ministers’ announcements concerning Rodbertus’s resignation contain nothing new even in the stenographic report. We pass over them.

Herr
Forstmann
rose: He must protest against the expressions used by Herr Gladbach on June 30 about the “deputation of the most honourable men of the Rhineland and Westphalia”. <See
“The Berlin Debates on the Agreement”
, p. 182
>

Herr
Berg
: I already made a remark on a point of order the other day, that the reading out of the letter was out of place here and that it bored me. <See
“The Berlin Debates on the Agreement”
> (Shout:

Bores
us!) Good,
us
. I spoke for myself and
several others,
and the fact that we are being bored today by a belated remark does not cancel that observation.

Herr
Tüshaus
, rapporteur of the Central Division on the question of the Posen commission, delivers his report. The Central Division proposes that a commission be appointed to investigate all questions relating to the Posen affair, and leaves open the question of what means the commission should have at its disposal for this purpose.

Herr Wolff, Herr Müller, Herr Reichensperger II and Herr Sommer have proposed amendments, all of which are seconded and come up for discussion.

Herr
Tüshaus
adds a few remarks to his report, in which he speaks against the commission. The truth, as always, lies evidently in the middle this time too, and after long and contradictory reports one will only come to the conclusion that wrong has been done on both sides. That brings one exactly as far as one is now. One should at least have the government provide a detailed report first and then decide what is to be done next.

How does the Central Division come to elect a rapporteur who speaks against his own report?

Herr
Reuter
sets out the reasons which prompted him to move the appointment of the commission. He remarks finally that he in no way intended an indictment of the ministers; as a jurist he knows only too well that all previous ministerial responsibility is illusory as long as no law exists on this point.

Herr
Reichensperger II
rises. He protests his enormous sympathies for Poland, he hopes that the day is not far off when the German nation will discharge an old debt of honour to the grandsons of Sobieski. (As though this debt of honour had not long since been discharged by eight partitions of Poland, by shrapnel, hellstone and cudgelling!) “But we shall also have to maintain the calmest composure so that German interests always remain in the first place.” (German interests naturally consist in keeping as much of the territory as possible.) And Herr Reichensperger is especially opposed to a commission to investigate the facts: “This is a question which expressly <In the stenographic report: exclusively> belongs to history or to the courts.” Has Herr Reichensperger forgotten that he himself declared in the revolutionary debate that the gentlemen were there “to make history”? <See
“The Berlin Debate on the Revolution”
, p. 75
> He concludes with a juridical quibble about the position of the deputies. We shall return to the question of competence later.

But now Herr
Bauer
from Krotoschin, himself a German Pole, rises to defend the interests of his fraternity.

“I would have liked to ask the Assembly to draw a veil over the past and to concern itself only with the future of a people which justly claims our sympathy.”

How touching! Herr Bauer from Krotoschin is so overwhelmed with sympathy for the future of the Polish people that he would like to “draw a veil” over their past, over the barbarities of the Prussian soldiery, of the Jews

and German Poles! In the interests of the Poles themselves the matter is to be dropped!

“What is expected from such distressing discussions? If you find the Germans guilty, do you wish on that account to do less to safeguard their nationality, to ensure the security of their persons and their property?”

In truth, a magnificent frankness! Herr Bauer from Krotoschin admits that the Germans might possibly be in the wrong – but even so, German nationality must be supported at the expense of the Poles!

“I fail to see what the stirring up of the rubbish of the past can bring forth that is of benefit for a satisfactory solution of these difficult questions.”

Certainly nothing “beneficial” for the German-Polish gentlemen and their enraged allies. That is why they resist it so strongly.

Herr Bauer then seeks to intimidate the Assembly: Through such a commission the firebrand would again be thrown into their minds, fanaticism would again be stirred up, and a bloody clash could again occur. These philanthropic considerations prevent Herr Bauer from voting for the commission. But so that it should not appear that his constituents feared the commission, he cannot vote against it either. Out of consideration for the Poles he is
against
, out of consideration for the Germans he is
for
the commission, and to preserve his complete impartiality in this dilemma he does not vote at all.

Another deputy from Posen,
Bußmann
of Gnesen, regards his mere presence as proof that Germans also live in Posen. He wants to prove statistically that in his region “whole masses of Germans” live. (Interruption.) Moreover, the property is for more than two-thirds in the hands of the Germans.

“I believe, on the contrary, I am furnishing proof that we Prussians conquered Poland not only
through our arms
in 1815 (!?!), but that we have conquered it a second time through a 33-year peace, through our intelligence” (of which this sitting offers samples) “. (Interruption. The President calls upon Herr Bußmann to keep to the point.) I am not against reorganisation; the most sensible reorganisation, however, would be a municipal ordinance with the election of officials; this, and the Frankfurt resolutions on the protection of all nationalities, would offer the Poles every guarantee. I am, however, very opposed to the demarcation line. (Interruption. Another reprimand.) If I am to keep to the point, then I am against the commission because it is useless and inflammatory; besides, I do not fear it,

but shall be for the commission when it comes to
it… (Interruption: So he speaks in favour!) No, I speak against it… Gentlemen, in order at least to understand the reasons why the insurrection broke out, I will tell you in a few words…” (Interruption. Contradiction.)

Cieszkowski
: Do not interrupt! Let him finish!

President
: I once again request the speaker to keep strictly to the question.

Bußmann
: “I have spoken against the commission on the matter and have nothing further to say!”

With these furious words the indignant German-Polish lord of the manor leaves the rostrum and hastens to his seat amid the ringing laughter of the Assembly.

Herr
Heyne
, deputy for the Bromberg district, seeks to save the honour of his compatriots by voting for the commission. He cannot, however, refrain from casting malicious cunning, fraud, etc., in the faces of the Poles.

Herr
Baumstark
, likewise a German Pole, is again against the commission. The reasons are always the old ones.

The Poles abstain from the discussion. Only Pokrzywnicki speaks for the commission. It is known that it was precisely the Poles who always pressed for an investigation, whereas it now turns out that the German Poles, with one exception, all protest against it.

Herr
Pohle
is so little a Pole that he counted the whole of Posen as part of Germany and declared the border between Germany and Poland to be a “partition wall drawn through Germany”!

The defenders of the commission spoke in general at length and with little sharpness. Like their opponents, they too indulged in repetition upon repetition. Their arguments were for the most part of a hostile trivial nature and far less entertaining than the self-interested protestations of the German Poles.

We shall return tomorrow to the position of the ministers and officials in this question, as well as to the much-vaunted question of competence.