Karl Marx

THE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
ON THE ADDRESS '*°

London, February 7

The opening of Parliament was a lusterless ceremony. The
absence of the Queen and the reading of the Speech from the
Throne? by the Lord Chancellor’ banished every theatrical effect.
The Speech from the Throne itself is short without being striking.
It recapitulates the faits accomplis“ of foreign politics and, for an
estimation of these facts, refers to the documents submitted to
Parliament.* Only one remark created a certain sensation, the one
in which the Queen “trusts there is no reason to apprehend any
disturbance of the peace of Europe”. It in fact implies that
European peace is relegated to the domain of hope and faith.

In accordance with parliamentary practice, the gentlemen who
moved the Reply to the Speech from the Throne in the two
Houses had already been commissioned by the ministers with this
business three weeks before. In conformity with the usual
procedure, their Reply consists of a broad echo of the Speech
from the Throne and of fulsome praises that the ministers bestow
upon themselves in the name of Parliament. When Sir Francis
Burdett anticipated the official movers of the Address in 1811 and
seized the opportunity to subject the Speech from the Throne to a

a Victoria [Speech from the Throne on the opening of Parliament], The Times,
No. 24163, February 7, 1862.— Ed.

6 R. Bethell.— Ed.

¢ Accomplished facts.— Ed.

d The reference is to Convention, conclue a Londres, le 31 octobre 1861, entre
l’Espagne, la France et la Grande-Bretagne pour combiner une action commune contre le
Mexique and Convention entre la Grande-Bretagne et le Maroc relative a un emprunt a
faire a Londres par le Maroc; signée a Tanger, le 24 octobre 1861.— Ed.

€ Marx uses the English word and gives the German translation in brackets.—
Ed.

cutting criticism,? Magna Charta'*’ itself appeared to be imper-

illed. Since that time no further enormity of the kind has
happened.

The interest of the debate on the Speech from the Throne is
therefore limited to the “hints” of the official Opposition clubs
and the “counter-hints” of the ministers. This time, ‘however, the
interest was more academic than political. It was a question of the
best funeral oration on Prince Albert, who during his life found
the yoke of the English oligarchy by no means light. According to
the vox populi, Derby and Disraeli have borne off the academic
palm, the first as a natural speaker, the other as a rhetorician.

The “business” part of the debate turned on the United States,
Mexico, and Morocco.

With regard to the United States, the Outs (those out of office)
eulogised the policy of the Ins” (the beati possidentes‘). Derby, the
Conservative leader in the House of Lords, and Disraeli, the
Conservative leader in the Lower House, opposed not the Cabinet,
but each other.

Derby in the first place gave vent to his dissatisfaction“ over the
absence of “pressure from without”.© He “admired”, he said, the
stoical and dignified bearing of the factory workers. As far as the
millowners were concerned, however, he ought to exclude them
from his commendation. For them the American disturbance had
come in extraordinarily handy, since overproduction and glutting of
all markets had in any case imposed on them a restriction of trade.

Derby went on to make a violent attack on the Union
government, “which had exposed itself and its people to the most
undignified humiliation” and had not acted like “gentlemen”,
because it had not taken the initiative and voluntarily surrendered
Mason, Slidell and company and made amends. His seconder in
the Lower House, Mr. Disraeli, at once grasped how very
damaging Derby’s onslaught was to the Conservatives’ aspirations
to the Ministry. He therefore declared to the contrary:

“When I consider the great difficulties which the statesmen of North America

have had to encounter ... I would venture to say they have met these manfully and
courageously.” !

4 In his speech in the House of Commons of February 12, 1811.— Ed.

5 Marx uses the English words “Ins” and “Outs” here and below.— Ed.

¢ Blessed possessors.— Ed.

d E. Derby [Speech in the House of Lords on February 6, 1862], The Times,
No. 24163, February 7, 1862.— Ed.

¢ Marx uses the English phrase.— Ed.

f B. Disraeli [Speech in the House of Commons, February 6, 1862], The Times,
same issue.— Ed.

The Parliamentary Debate on the Address 169

On the other hand—with the consistency customary to him—
Derby protested against the “new doctrines” of maritime law.
England had at all times upheld belligerents’ rights against the
pretensions of neutrals. Lord Clarendon, it was true, had made a
“dangerous” concession at Paris in 1856.'**? Happily, this had not
yet been ratified by the Crown, so that “it did not alter the state of
international law”. Mr. Disraeli, on the contrary, manifestly in
collusion with the ministry here, avoided touching on this point at
all.

Derby approved of the non-intervention policy of the ministry.
The time to recognise the Southern Confederacy had not yet
come, but he demanded authentic documents for the purpose of
judging “how far the blockade is effective and therefore legally
' binding”... Lord John Russell, on the other hand, declared that the
Union government had employed a sufficient number of ships in
the blockade, but had not everywhere carried this out consistently.
Mr. Disraeli will permit himself no judgment on the nature of the
blockade, but demands ministerial papers for enlightenment. He
gives such emphatic warning against any premature recognition of
the Confederacy since England is compromising herself at the
present moment by threatening an American state (Mexico), the
independence of which she herself was the first to recognise.

After the United States, it was Mexicos turn. No member of
Parliament condemned a war without declaration of war,! but
they condemned interference in the internal affairs of a country
under the shibboleth of a “non-intervention policy”, and the
coalition of England with France and Spain in order to intimidate
a semi-defenceless country. As a matter of fact, the Outs merely
indicated that they reserve Mexico to themselves for party
manoeuvres. Derby demands documents on both the Convention
between the three powers and the mode of carrying it out. He
approves of the Convention because—in his view—the right way
was for each of the contracting parties to enforce its claims inde-
pendently of the others. Certain public rumours caused him to fear
that at least one of the powers—Spain— purposed operations going
beyond the provisions of the treaty. As if Derby really believed
the great power, Spain, capable of the audacity of acting counter to
the will of England and France! Lord John Russell answered: The
three powers pursued the same aim and would anxiously avoid
hindering the Mexicans from regulating their own political affairs.

In the Lower House, Mr. Disraeli defers any judgment prior to
scrutinising the documents submitted. However, he finds “the
announcement of the government suspicious”. The independence

170 | Karl Marx

of Mexico was first recognised by England. This recognition recalls
a notable policy—the anti-Holy-Alliance policy—and a notable
man, Canning. What singular occasion, then, drove England to
strike the first blow against this independence? Moreover, the
intervention has changed its pretext within a very short time.
Originally it was a question of satisfaction for wrong done to
English subjects. Now there are rumours about the introduction of
new governmental principles and the setting up of a new dynasty.
Lord Palmerston refers to the papers submitted, to the Conven-
tion that prohibits the “subjugation” of Mexico by the Allies or
the imposition of a form of government distasteful to the people.
At the same time, however, he opens a diplomatic loophole. He
has it from hearsay that a party in Mexico desires the transforma-
tion of the republic into a monarchy. The strength of this party he
does not know. He, “for his part, only wishes that there shall be
established some form of government in Mexico with which foreign
governments may treat”. He wishes, therefore, to establish a
“new” form of government. He declares the non-existence of the
present government. He claims for the alliance of England, France
and Spain the prerogative of the Holy Alliance to decide over the
existence or non-existence of foreign governments. “That is the
utmost,” he adds modestly, “which the government of Great
Britain is desirous of obtaining.” Nothing more!

The last “open question” of foreign policy concerned Morocco.
The English government has concluded a convention with
Morocco in order to enable her to pay off her debt to Spain, a
debt with which Spain could never have saddled Morocco without
England’s leave. Certain persons, it appears, have advanced
Morocco money with which to pay her instalments to Spain, thus
depriving the latter of a pretext for further occupation of Tetuan
and resumption of war.'*4 The British government has in one way
or another guaranteed these persons the interest on their loan
and, in its turn, takes over the administration of Morocco’s
customs houses as security. Derby found this manner of ensuring
the independence of Morocco “rather strange”? but elicited no
answer from the ministers. In the Lower House Mr. Disraeli went
into the transaction further: it was “to some extent unconstitution-
al”, since the ministry had saddled England with new financial
obligations behind Parliament’s back. Palmerston simply referred
him to the “documents” submitted.

a Marx uses the English words “rather strange” and gives the German
translation in brackets.— Ed.

The Parliamentary Debate on the Address 17]

Home affairs were hardly mentioned. Derby merely warned
members, out of regard “for the state of mind of the Queen”, not
to raise “disturbing” controversial questions like parliamentary
reform. He is ready to pay his tribute of admiration regularly to
the English working class, on condition that it suffers its exclusion
from popular representation with the same restraint and stoicism
as it suffers the American blockade.

It would be a mistake to infer from the idyllic opening of
Parliament an idyllic future. Quite the contrary! Dissolution of
Parliament or dissolution of the ministry is the motto of this year’s
session. Opportunity to substantiate these alternatives will be
found later.

February 12, 1862

Karl Marx