Agreement Debates of July 7, 1848

Cologne, July 12. Only late yesterday evening did we receive the report of the
No. 44, July 14, 1848
Neue Rheinische Zeitung. Sitting of the Agreement Assembly of July 7. The stenographic
reports, which formerly always arrived here only 24 hours later than the letter reports, are being delayed more and more, instead of being ready earlier. How easily this procrastination could be remedied is shown by the speed with which French and English newspapers bring the reports of their legislative assemblies. The English Parliament often sits until 4 o’clock in the morning and already four hours later *The Times* brings the stenographic report of the sitting, printed and finished, to all parts of London. The French Chamber rarely opened its sittings before 1 o’clock, closed between 5 and 6, and by 7 the *Moniteur* had to deliver a proof of the stenographic proceedings to all Paris newspaper offices. Why cannot the worthy State Gazette be ready just as quickly?
Let us now pass to the sitting of the 7th, the sitting in which the Hansemann ministry was baited. We pass over the protests submitted right at the beginning, the motion by d’Ester for rescinding the decision taken on the 4th towards the end of the sitting (this motion remained on the order of the day), and several other motions placed on the order of the day. We begin straight away with the interpellations and unpleasant motions which rained down upon the ministry today.
First Herr Philipps rose. He interpellated the ministry as to what measures have been taken to protect our frontiers against Russia?
Herr Auerswald: I consider this question not suitable to be answered in the Assembly.
We heartily believe Herr Auerswald on that. The only answer he could give would be: none at all, or to be precise: the transfer of several regiments from the Russian frontier to the Rhine.
What surprises us is that the Assembly lets Herr Auerswald’s amusing answer, this appeal to the *car tel est notre bon plaisir*, pass so lightly with a few ‘hisses’ and a few ‘bravos’.
Herr Borries moves that the class tax for the lowest bracket for the last half of 1848 be remitted and that all coercive measures for the recovery of arrears from the first half of the same bracket be suspended forthwith. The motion is referred to the appropriate committee.
Herr Hansemann rises and declares that such financial matters must be deliberated very thoroughly. Incidentally, one could wait all the more readily as he would bring forward several finance laws for debate next week, including one relating to the class tax.
Herr Krause interpellates the Finance Minister: whether it would be possible to exchange the mill and slaughter tax and the class tax for an income tax by the beginning of 1849?
Herr Hansemann has to rise again and declare irritably that he has already said once that he would bring forward the finance laws next week.
But with that his cup of suffering is not yet emptied. Only now does Herr Grebel rise with a long motion, every word of which must have been a stab through Herr Hansemann’s heart:
“Considering that to justify the projected forced loan the mere statement that the treasury and finances are exhausted is by no means sufficient;
Considering that for the discussion of the forced loan itself (against which Herr Grebel protests as long as a constitution fulfilling all promises has not been established) the inspection of all books and vouchers of the state budget is necessary, Herr Grebel moves:
that a commission be appointed to inspect all books and vouchers concerning the administration of the finances and the treasury from 1840 to the present and to report on them.”
But even worse than the motion is Herr Grebel’s statement of reasons. He speaks of the many rumours about the squandering and unlawful use of the state treasury that are alarming public opinion; he demands, in the interest of the people, to know where all the money has gone that it has paid during 30 years of peace; he declares that as long as this clarification is not provided the Assembly cannot vote a single groschen.
The forced loan has caused an enormous sensation, the forced loan condemns the entire financial administration up to now, the forced loan is the penultimate step towards state bankruptcy. The forced loan surprised all the more as we were accustomed always to hear that the financial situation was excellent and that the state treasury spared us the necessity of a loan even in the event of a major war. Herr Hansemann himself had calculated in the United Diet that the state treasury must amount to at least thirty millions. This was also to be expected, since not only had the same high taxes as in the war years continued to be paid, but the amount of taxes had continually increased.
Then suddenly came the news of the intended forced loan, and with it, with this painful disappointment, confidence immediately sank to zero. The only means of restoring confidence is the immediate and unreserved presentation of the state’s financial situation.
Herr Hansemann did try to sweeten the bitterness of his communication about the forced loan by a humorous speech, but he nevertheless had to admit that a forced loan would produce an unpleasant impression.
Herr Hansemann answers: It goes without saying that when the ministry demands money it will also provide all necessary explanations as to where the money paid in up to now has gone. Just wait until the finance laws I have already mentioned twice are submitted.
As for the rumours, it is not true that there were enormous sums in the state treasury and that they were reduced in recent years. It is natural that in the last years of distress, in the present political crisis combined with an unprecedented stagnation of business, a flourishing financial condition could turn into a precarious one. “It has been said that the forced loan would be a precursor of state bankruptcy. No, gentlemen, that it shall not be; on the contrary, it shall serve to revive credit” (it shall! it shall! as if the effect of the forced loan on credit depended upon Herr Hansemann’s pious wishes!).
How unfounded such apprehensions are is shown by the rise in government securities. Wait, gentlemen, for the finance laws which I hereby promise you for the fourth time.
(So the credit of the Prussian state is so ruined that no capitalist will advance it money even at the most usurious interest, that Herr Hansemann sees no other way out than the last desperate expedient of bankrupt states, the forced loan – and at the same time Herr Hansemann speaks of rising state credit because the funds, to the same extent that one moves away from March 18, have laboriously crawled up 2–3 per cent! And how the funds will tumble as soon as the forced loan is seriously implemented!)
Herr Behnsch insists on the appointment of the proposed finance investigation commission.
Herr Schramm: The relief of distress from state funds was not worth mentioning, and if freedom costs us money, it has at least cost the government nothing so far. On the contrary, the government has rather spent money to prevent freedom from entering its present stage.
Herr Mätze: To what we knew, that there is nothing in the state treasury, we now learn in addition that for a long time there has been nothing in it. This news is fresh proof of the necessity of appointing a commission.
Herr Hansemann has to rise again: “I have never said that there is nothing and was nothing in the state treasury; on the contrary, I declare that in the last 6–7 years the state treasury has considerably increased.” (Compare Herr Hansemann’s memorandum to the United Diet and the speech from the throne, and one will now really no longer know where one stands.)
Cieszkowski: “I am in favour of Grebel’s motion because Herr Hansemann has always made us promises and every time financial matters are brought up here refers to his forthcoming explanations that never arrive. This hesitating is all the more incomprehensible as Herr Hansemann has been a minister for over three months now.
Herr Milde, Minister of Trade, finally comes to the aid of his hard-pressed colleague. He implores the Assembly not to appoint the commission. He promises the greatest frankness on the part of the ministry. He assures them that one should survey the situation precisely. Only for the moment should the government be allowed to act, for it is just engaged in steering the ship of state out of the difficulties in which it presently finds itself. The Assembly would certainly lend a helping hand in this. (Bravos.)
Herr Baumstark also tries to give Herr Hansemann a helping hand to some extent. But the Finance Minister could not have found a worse and more tactless defender: “He would be a bad finance minister who sought to conceal the state of the finances, and if a finance minister says that he will make the necessary submissions, we must either take him for an honest man or for the opposite!! (Excitement.) Gentlemen, I have insulted no one; I said if a, not if the finance minister”!!!
Reichenbach: Where are the fine days of the great debates, of questions of principle and cabinet questions? In those days Herr Hansemann desired nothing more ardently than to break a lance, and now that the opportunity is there, and what is more in his own field, now he evades it! Indeed, the ministers are forever making promises and laying down principles solely in order to break them a couple of hours later. (Excitement.)
Herr Hansemann waits to see whether a defender will rise for him. But there is no one to speak for him. Finally, he sees with horror that Deputy Baumstark is rising, and so that the latter does not again declare him an “honest man”, he hastily takes the floor himself.
We expect that the tormented lion Duchâtel, pricked with needles, tugged at by the whole opposition, will at last rise in the full plenitude of his power, that he will crush his opponents, that in a word he will pose the cabinet question? Alas, nothing is to be seen any longer of the former firmness and boldness, and the old greatness has vanished, like the state treasury in hard times! Bowed, broken, misunderstood, the great financier stands there; it has come to such a pass with him that he must condescend to give reasons! And what reasons at that!
“Anyone who has occupied himself with finances and with the many figures (!!) occurring in them will know that a discussion of financial questions cannot be thoroughly debated on the occasion of an interpolation; that tax questions are so comprehensive that they have been discussed in legislative assemblies (Herr Hansemann is thinking of his brilliant speeches in the erstwhile United Diet) for days, nay for weeks.”
But who is demanding a thorough discussion? What was asked of Herr Hansemann was, firstly, an explanation, a simple yes or no, on tax questions; secondly, his assent to a commission of inquiry into the previous administration of the state treasury, etc., and when he refused both, attention was drawn to the contrast between his earlier promises and his present reticence. And precisely because “discussions about finances and the many figures occurring in them” require time, it is for that very reason that the commission should begin its work immediately!

“If, moreover, the financial matters have not been brought forward earlier, there is a good reason for it in the fact that I believed it would be more favourable for the situation of the country if I waited a little longer. I had hoped that the tranquillity of the country, and with it the state credit, would improve somewhat; I wish that this hope may not be disappointed, and in my conviction I did well not to introduce these laws earlier.”

What revelations! Mr Hansemann’s finance laws, which were surely intended to strengthen the state credit, are thus of such a character that they threaten the state credit! Mr Hansemann thought it better to keep the financial situation of the country secret for the time being! If the state stands thus, it is irresponsible of Mr Hansemann to make such a vague statement, instead of immediately disclosing the state of the finances and crushing all doubts and rumours by the facts themselves. In the English Parliament such a tactless utterance would have been immediately followed by a vote of no confidence.

Mr Siebert: Hitherto we have done nothing. All important questions, as soon as they were ripe for solution, were broken off and pushed aside. As yet we have taken no decision that contained anything whole; we have not yet accomplished anything whole. Shall we do the same today, shall we again, on the strength of promises, postpone the question? Who guarantees us that the Ministry will still remain at the helm for eight days?

Mr Parrisius moves an amendment, calling upon Mr Hansemann to submit the necessary documents on the financial and treasury administration from the year 1840 onwards to a committee of examination of 16 members, to be elected forthwith, within fourteen days. Mr Parrisius declares that this is a special mandate of his constituents: they want to know what has become of the state treasure, which in 1840 amounted to over 40 million.

This amendment, even sharper than the original motion, will surely stir up the exhausted Duchâtel? Now surely the question of confidence will be raised? On the contrary! Mr Hansemann, who was opposed to the motion, has absolutely no objection to this amendment with its insulting time limit! He merely remarks that the matter will take an astonishing amount of time, and expresses pity for the poor committee members who will have to undertake this laborious task.

There is some more talk about the vote, during which a few more unpleasant words for Mr Hansemann fall. Then the vote is taken, the various reasoned and unreasoned motions for the order of the day are rejected, and the Parrisius amendment, joined by Mr Grebel, is adopted almost unanimously. Mr Hansemann escaped a decisive defeat only through his lack of resistance, only through the self-abnegation with which he accepted the Parrisius insult. Bent, broken, annihilated he sat there on his bench, a leafless trunk arousing the pity of even the coarsest scoffers. Let us recall the words of the poet:

It ill beseems Germania’s sons
With heartless, wretched wit
To jeer at fallen greatness!

The second half of the session tomorrow.

Neue Rheinische Zeitung. No. 45, 15 July 1848

** Cologne, 14 July. We come today to the second half of the conciliation session of the 7th inst. After the debate on the finance committee, so painful for Mr Hansemann, there followed a series of small tribulations for the ministers. It was the day of urgency motions and interpellations, the day of challenges and ministerial distress.

Deputy Wander moved that every civil servant who caused a citizen to be unjustly arrested should be obliged to make full compensation and, in addition, serve four times as long in detention as the person he arrested. The motion, as not urgent, goes to the specialist committee. Justice Minister Märker explains that the adoption of this motion would not only fail to tighten the existing legislation against civil servants who make unlawful arrests, but would even weaken it. (Bravo.)

The minister of justice merely forgot to remark that under the existing laws, and particularly the old Prussian laws, it is scarcely possible for a civil servant to arrest anyone unlawfully. The most arbitrary arrest can be justified under the paragraphs of the most venerable General State Law.

We draw attention, incidentally, to the highly unparliamentary method that the ministers have grown accustomed to. They wait until the motion is referred to the specialist committee or the section, and then they speak on it. They can then be sure that no one can answer them. That is what Mr Hansemann did with Mr Borries’s motion, and that is what Mr Märker does now. In England and France, the ministers, if they ever attempted such parliamentary improprieties, would have been called to order in quite a different manner. But in Berlin!

Mr Schulze von Delitzsch: Motion, calling on the government to submit forthwith the drafts of organic laws already completed or soon to be completed to the Assembly for discussion in the sections.

This motion again contained an indirect censure of the government for slackness or deliberate delay in presenting the organic laws that complement the constitution. The censure was the more sensitive since two draft laws, including the civil militia law, had been presented that same morning. The president of the ministry, therefore, with a little energy, ought to have decisively rejected this motion. But instead, he merely utters a few general phrases about the government’s endeavour to meet the just wishes of the Assembly in every way, and the motion is adopted by a large majority.

Mr Besser interpellates the minister of war concerning the lack of a service regulation. The Prussian army is the only one lacking such a regulation. Hence in all army units, down to the companies and squadrons, the greatest diversity of opinions prevails on the most important service matters, and particularly on the rights and duties of the various ranks. Thousands of orders, decrees and regulations do exist, but precisely because of their countless number, their confusion and the contradictions prevailing in them, they are worse than useless. Moreover, each such document is compounded and rendered unrecognisable by as many different additions, explanations, marginal glosses and glosses to the marginal glosses as intermediate authorities it has passed through. This confusion naturally works to the advantage of the superior in all acts of arbitrariness, while the subordinate only bears the disadvantage. Hence the subordinate knows no rights, only duties. Formerly a service regulation existed, called the pigskin regulation, but in the twenties it was taken away from its private owners. Since then no subordinate may cite it in his favour, while the higher authorities may continue to cite it against subordinates! The same applies to the service regulations for the Guards Corps, which were never communicated to the army, never made accessible to subordinates, but according to which they are nevertheless punished! The staff and general officers, of course, only derive advantage from this confusion, which permits them the greatest arbitrariness, the harshest tyranny. But the subaltern officers, the non-commissioned officers and soldiers suffer as a result, and it is in their interest that Mr Besser interpellates General Schreckenstein.

How astonished Mr Schreckenstein must have been when he heard this long ‘pen-pushing’, to use the popular expression of the year thirteen! What, the Prussian army has no service regulation? What nonsense! The Prussian army, upon my honour, has the very best regulation in the world, which is also the shortest and consists of only two words: “Obey orders!” If a soldier of the “unthrashed” army receives blows, kicks or rifle-butt thrusts, if an underage lieutenant just out of the cadet house pulls him by the beard or the nose and he complains: “Obey orders!” If a drunken major, after dinner, for his special amusement, has his battalion march up to its belly into the swamp and form square there, and a subordinate dares to complain: “Obey orders!” If officers are forbidden to visit this or that café and they permit themselves a remark: “Obey orders!” That is the best service regulation, for it fits all cases.

Of all ministers, Mr Schreckenstein is the only one who has not yet lost his courage. The soldier who served under Napoleon, who for thirty-three years did Prussian pipe-clay service, who has heard many a bullet whiz by, will surely not be afraid of conciliators and interpellations? And least of all when the great “Obey orders!” is in danger!

Gentlemen, he says, I must know better. I must know what is to be changed. This is a matter of pulling down, and the pulling down must not pull down, because building up is very difficult. The military constitution was made by Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, Boyen and Grolman, it comprises 600,000 armed and tactically trained citizens, and offers every citizen a secure future so long as discipline exists. But I shall maintain this, and that is enough said.

Mr Besser: Mr Schreckenstein has not answered the question at all. But it appears from his remarks that he believes a service regulation would weaken discipline!

Mr Schreckenstein: I have already said that I shall do what is in keeping with the times for the army and what serves the benefit of the service.

Mr Behnsch: We must at least demand that the minister answers us yes or no, or declares that he does not wish to answer. Hitherto we have only heard evasive phrases.

Mr Schreckenstein, annoyed: I do not consider it serviceable to enter further into this interpellation.

The service, always the service! Mr Schreckenstein still believes he is a divisional commander speaking to his officer corps. He imagines that even as minister of war he need only take into account the service, but not the legal position of the various army ranks towards one another, and least of all the position of the army towards the state as a whole and towards its citizens! We are still under Bodelschwingh; the spirit of old Boyen continues to reign uninterrupted in the ministry of war.

Mr Piegsa interpellates concerning the maltreatment of Poles in Mielzyn on 7 June. Mr Auerswald declares that he must first await full reports. So a whole month of 31 days after the incident, Mr Auerswald is still not fully informed! Marvellous administration.

Mr Behnsch interpellates Mr Hansemann: whether, when presenting the budget, he will present an overview of the administration of the Maritime Trading Company since 1820 and of the state treasure since 1840. Mr Hansemann declares, amid resounding laughter, that he will be able to answer in eight days!

Mr Behnsch interpellates again concerning support for emigration by the government. Mr Kühlwetter answers that this is a German affair and refers Mr Behnsch to Archduke John.

Mr Grebel interpellates Mr Schreckenstein concerning the military administrative officials who are also Landwehr officers, who enter active service during Landwehr exercises and thereby deprive other Landwehr officers of the opportunity to train themselves. He moves that these officials be released from the Landwehr. Mr Schreckenstein declares that he will do his duty and even consider the matter.

Mr Feldhaus interpellates Mr Schreckenstein concerning the events of the 18th...

June

on the march from Posen to Glogau, and concerning the measures taken to punish this barbarism. Mr Schreckenstein: The thing did take place. The report of the regimental commander has been submitted. The report of the general command, which ordered the stages, is still missing. I cannot yet say, therefore, whether the marching order was exceeded. Moreover, a staff officer is being judged here, and such judgments are painful. The “High General Assembly” (!!!) will, it is to be hoped, wait until the reports have arrived. Mr Schreckenstein does not judge this barbarism as barbarism; he merely asks whether the major in question “obeyed orders”? And what does it matter if 18 soldiers perish miserably on the highway like so many head of cattle, so long as orders are obeyed! Mr Behnsch, who had put the same interpellation as Mr Feldhaus: I withdraw my now superfluous interpellation, but I demand that the Minister of War set a day on which he will reply. Three weeks have already passed since the incident, and the reports could long since have been here. Mr Schreckenstein: Not a moment has been lost; the reports from the general command were demanded forthwith. The President wants to skip over the matter. Mr Behnsch: I merely ask the Minister of War to reply and to set a day. President: Does Mr Schreckenstein wish to. –
Mr Schreckenstein: It is not at all foreseeable when that will be. Mr Gladbach: § 28 of the regulations imposes on ministers the obligation to determine a day. I likewise insist upon it. President: I ask the minister once more. Mr Schreckenstein: I cannot set a specific day. Mr Gladbach: I stand by my demand. Mr Temme: I am of the same opinion. President: Will the Minister of War, say in a fortnight. –
Mr Schreckenstein: Quite possible. As soon as I know whether orders were obeyed, I shall reply. President. In a fortnight, then. Thus does the Minister of War do “his duty” towards the Assembly! Mr Gladbach still has an interpellation to address to the Minister of the Interior concerning the suspension of disfavoured officials and the provisional, merely temporary filling of vacated posts. Mr Kühlwetter replies very inadequately, and the further remarks of Mr Gladbach are crushed, amid the muttering, shouting and drumming of the Right, at last outraged by so much impudence, after valiant resistance. A motion by Mr Berends, that the Landwehr called up for internal service be placed under the command of the Civic Guard, is not recognised as urgent and is thereupon withdrawn. Thereupon begins an agreeable discussion on all manner of quibbles connected with the Posen Commission. The storm of interpellations and urgent motions is over, and, like the gentle rustling of the zephyr and the sweet murmuring of the meadow brook, the last conciliatory strains of the famous sitting of 7 July die away. Mr Hansemann goes home with the consolation that the blustering and drumming of the Right has wound a few scant flowers into his crown of thorns, and Mr Schreckenstein, well pleased with himself, twirls his moustache and murmurs:
“Obey orders!”