Karl Marx

Parliamentary

["Neue Oder-Zeitung" No. 49, 30 January 1855]

London, 27 January. The tone and physiognomy of yesterday's sitting of the House of Commons showed exactly the level to which the English Parliament has sunk.

At the beginning of the sitting, about 4 o'clock in the afternoon, the House was crowded, because a scene was expected, a scandal; Lord Russell's explanation of his resignation. As soon as the personal debate was over and the substantive debate began—on Roebuck's motion—the indignant patriots hurried off to dinner; the House thinned out, and some voices called: "Vote, vote!" An awkward pause ensued, until the Secretary at War, Sidney Herbert, rose and addressed a long, well-composed lecture to empty benches. Then satiated members of Parliament gradually sauntered back to their seats. When Layard began his speech, at about
9.30
p.m., some 150 members were present. When he concluded, about an hour before the House rose, it was again full. The rest of the sitting, however, was entirely reminiscent of a parliamentary siesta.

Lord John Russell, whose entire merits can be reduced to a single one—routine in parliamentary tactics—did not deliver his speech, as is usual on such occasions, from the Speaker's table, but from the third bench behind the ministerial seats, where the malcontent Whigs sit enthroned. He spoke in a low, hoarse voice, slowly drawled, mishandling English pronunciation, as ever, and often alarmingly at war with the rules of syntax. (Nota bene: The speeches as they figure in the newspapers must by no means be confused with the speeches as they are delivered.) If ordinary rhetoricians make up for poor content by good delivery, Russell sought to excuse poor content by poorer delivery. The manner in which he spoke was, as it were, an apology for what he said.

And indeed, there was need of an apology! Last Monday, he had not yet thought of resigning, but on Tuesday, as soon as Roebuck gave notice of his motion, he had found resignation unavoidable. This is reminiscent of the lackey who had nothing against lying, but found his conscience wounded as soon as the lie was discovered. From what standpoint was he supposed to oppose the motion for a parliamentary inquiry, as was his duty as ministerial leader of the House? Because the evil was not great enough to require an inquiry! No one could deny the melancholy condition of the army before Sevastopol. It was not only painful, but horrible and heartbreaking. Or should he have asserted to Parliament that a committee of inquiry was useless because better means of redressing the evil were at work? This question was slippery, since Russell, not only as a member of the Ministry but specifically as President of the Privy Council, was directly responsible for the adoption of such means. He admits that he consented to the appointment of the Duke of Newcastle as "supreme" Secretary of State for War. He cannot deny that the precautions for provisioning, clothing, and medical care of the army should have been taken at least in August and September. What did he do during this critical period, according to his own confession? He travelled around the country, held little speeches to "Literary Institutions" and edited the correspondence of Charles James Fox. While he was travelling in England, Aberdeen was travelling in Scotland, and from August onwards no Cabinet council was held until 17 October. In this Cabinet council, Lord John, by his own account, proposed nothing worth communicating to Parliament. Lord John then again takes a full month to reflect, and then, on 27 November, addresses a letter to Aberdeen, in which he proposes to unite the post of Secretary of State
for
War with that of Secretary
at
War, and to transfer both to Lord Palmerston—in other words, to dismiss the Duke of Newcastle. Aberdeen refuses this. Russell writes to him again on 28 November in the same vein. On 30 November, Aberdeen replies, quite rightly, that his whole proposal amounts to replacing one man by another, Newcastle by Palmerston. But when the

Colonial Department was separated from the War Department, Russell had readily conceded the latter to Newcastle in order to bring one of his Whigs, Sir George Grey, into the Colonial Department. Aberdeen then asked Russell personally whether he wished to bring his proposal before the Cabinet council. Russell declined, as he says, "so as
not
to break up the Ministry". Thus, first the Ministry, then the army in the Crimea.

Measures to remedy the evil, Russell confesses, were
not
taken. All reform in the war administration is confined to the fact that the Commissariat has been placed under the Secretary of State
for
War. Nevertheless, although
no
measures of redress were taken, Russell remains calmly in the Ministry and makes no further proposals from 30 November 1854 to 20 January 1855. On that day—last Saturday—Aberdeen then communicates to Russell certain proposals for reforms in the war administration, which the latter finds insufficient, and submits counter-proposals in writing. Only three days later does he find it necessary to tender his resignation, because Roebuck gives notice of his motion and Russell is not inclined to share the responsibility with a Cabinet with which he has shared office and actions. He has heard—Russell explains—that Aberdeen was never resolved to appoint Palmerston as dictator in the War Department. If this is the case, he—Curtius—congratulates himself that he has not leaped in vain from the firm ground of the Ministry into the hollow chasm of the Opposition. After our Lord John has thus rolled far down the slippery slope, he demolishes the last ostensible pretext for his resignation by declaring: 1. that the prospects of the war are by no means such as to give cause for the prevailing despondency; 2. that Aberdeen is a great minister, Clarendon a great diplomat, and Gladstone a great financier; 3. that the Whig party consists not of place-hunters, but of patriotic enthusiasts; and finally, that he, Russell, will abstain from voting on Roebuck's motion, although he has ostensibly left the Ministry because a patriot can advance
nothing
against Roebuck's motion. Russell's speech was received even more coldly than it was delivered.

Palmerston rises in the name of the Ministry. His situation was droll. Curtius Russell resigns because Aberdeen does not wish to appoint Palmerston as war dictator. Brutus Palmerston attacks Russell because he deserts Aberdeen at the moment of danger. Palmerston relished this droll situation. It served him, as he is wont to do in critical moments, to laugh off the seriousness of the situation as a farce. When he reproached Russell for not having formed his heroic resolution

already in December, Disraeli—who, at least, makes no secret of his joy at the downfall of the Venetian constitution—laughed out loud, and Gladstone, who makes a speciality of solemnity, obviously muttered all the Puseyite prayer formulas so as not to burst out. Palmerston declared that the adoption of Roebuck's motion would mean the fall of the Ministry. If it were rejected, the Cabinet would take counsel concerning its own remoulding (including Palmerston's dictatorship).

Great sorcerer, this Palmerston! With one foot in the grave, he knows how to make England believe that he is a homo novus <new man> and that his career is only just beginning! For
twenty years
Secretary at War, and as such known only for his systematic defence of flogging and the sale of commissions in the army, he is allowed to pass himself off as the man whose mere name erases the faults of the system! The only English minister who has repeatedly been denounced in Parliament, and with particular gravity in 1848, as a
Russian agent,
he can pass himself off as the man who alone is capable of leading England into war with Russia. Great man, this Palmerston!

Next time, on the debate on Roebuck's motion, adjourned until Monday evening. The latter is framed with such skill that the opponents of the Ministry declared they would vote for it, although it is absurd, and the supporters of the Ministry declared they would speak for it, although they would vote against it. The sitting of the House of Lords without particular interest. Aberdeen added nothing to Russell's explanation except his surprise: Russell had taken the whole Cabinet by surprise.