1
10
1
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/e95ce5b0d4707d075ea8ac9646ffc583.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=QBc9XT4BTwrxJI9LwVXamWz8GQ1tAKIWjj-eeKSL2RJZSVCptcgEPV84MRgEcnJzlZ4S7Te4EbocwwEz6WJ1IeAq1iGsOP%7EZdV8TpnohD0ed2NHnVpiladXEOXUZzVU-hEspxaURGa-guJ9O75-qS-BsFugaTy0p0UyXgUS9DyblT7-z1U842w3xY8N%7EUrm8W0x4lT9HeJhElGMU%7EoOo3NSvGeIcETshpVaCp-UZn5HQDdRHmPMe7l0TaiBbIDflHEcbiRRdp1N7m-jyaQm3oLe35tcJ7xWaS6XyD5uR5jndJq5tIKlPYxWYTqvr7V0oYWnWtVqvGbS0vguEXSzKVw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
ac4a0e305bbbbdd55b6e72258a5ef967
PDF Text
Text
AUSTRIA
IN
P»/
z
•
■
18 6 8.
BY
EUGENE
OSWALD.
Reprinted from the “ English Leader.”
TRÜBNER & CO, PATERNOSTER ROW.
1868.
�LONDON:
printed at
Hie
victoria press
83a,
(for
the emplotment of women),
farbingdon street, e.c.
�AUSTRIA IN
1868A
I.t
If there is a subject on which it is high time the friends of justice
and freedom—the Liberals of Europe, if there must be a party name,
or the party of progress—should revise their former opinions, that
subject is that of Austria. And it is not an inconsistent reversion
of a former judgment, by ignoring the evidence hitherto before us,
which we recommend; it is a reconsideration of it by the light of
new and altered facts, and in the greater clearness of aspect which
recent changes, by repressing gloomy shadows, have, at last,
allowed us. He who was an opponent to Austria, because he was a
friend of freedom, is not hereby required to be a friend of freedom no
longer. He is invited, on the contrary, to discover in the new
turn which things have taken in Austria the possibility of a new
element being added to the cause of freedom. We say the possibility,
we wish we could at once use a stronger term. But our feeling, after
so many disappointments, is not one of certitude, is one barely of
hope, and even this wants, sometimes, faith to prop it up against
doubt. Still, this is the position which, we believe, we plainly see
before us. Austria was formerly a bulwark of Conservative
despotism in Europe. Severely chastened, she promises now to be a
bulwark against the aggressive despotism of Russia. She was the
former because she misunderstood her own position, and began by
repressing the energies of her own people. She promises to be the
latter, because she seems to have arrived—at a late hour, it is true—
at feeling her own mission, and she begins by calling forth the vitality
that is in her populations. Grievously battered by successive storms,
heavily burdened by the acts of her former captains, with but little
confidence expressed in her by those who surround her, the old ship
starts on her new voyage. But many of the causes which threatened
disaster formerly have been removed, her course is now steered by
the firm hand of a clear-sighted helmsman, and if the crew do but
keep up a good heart and a good understanding among themselves
a long career may be yet before her, and she may protect old
* In this reprint of the following chapters, which originally appeared in the
weekly paper, the English Leader, only a few verbal alterations have been made,
and two or three footnotes and documents have been added.
t Austria, a Constitutional State: a Short Sketch of the Rise, Progress, and
Development of Constitutional Life in the Austrian Dominions, London i Dulau
& Co. pp. 100.
B
2
�4
dominions and discover new ones, a blessing to herself and others.
If!
We of the present generation, when, youthful and hopeful, we took
our stand under the banner of freedom, and began a long and
chequered march, did not set out as friends of Austria. She was
to us a dark and frowning image, an image to be broken ere the goal
of that young army of 1848 could be reached. But if it is grievous
as life wears on to lose many of the rosy illusions for whose realisation
we longed, is it not a gracious, and a rare, experience to see depart
from us the darkening shadow of hatred 1 We have hated Austria—
the State, though not the Austrian people. We have now done with
our hatred, and we are not the poorer for that.
We have hated Austria. And was that hatred a mere heirloom,
and a thing which had come to us from our reading the outpourings
of French republicanism, of Protestant antagonism ? No doubt, on
such historic basis, on the recollections of the French Revolution, or
of the philospher-king, Frederic II., or of the Thirty Years’ war,
stood many a one unconsciously when he joined in the chorus :
Delenda est Austria. But was there not ample reality about us in the
doings which the generation immediately before us witnessed, and
which we witnessed ourselves 'I Did not Austria stand before us,
soulless, cold, with a mighty shadow and a leaden weight, an
oppressor, together with the Bourbons, in Italy; an oppressor,
together with Prussia, in Germany ; an oppressor, together with
Prussia and Russia, in Poland ; an oppressor, on her own account,
in Hungary, and in oppressive league with the enemies of freedom
in Switzerland 1 So she appeared to us, and when we were startled
by the moan from Silvio Pellico’s dungeon, or listened indignantly
to La Fayette’s prison tale, no voice but that of sweet, thought
lulling music came on the side of Austria; or, now and then, though
the hand of Government rested heavily on literature, the lyre of an
anonymous poet, like Anastasius Grün, broke through the stillness,
*
saying but too plainly—“Yes, you are right; this beautiful Austria
of ours is a prison, and a place of gaolers, and therefore hateful.”
But it added, “ It need not be so ; over these beautiful lands, these
broad rivers, these waving forests, the life of freedom may yet be
shed; the night may give way to the day, and her people may be
happy, and render others happy, if she only learn her own interests
and keep to them.” If 1
And so, though all is not yet as it might be, the day has broken,
and Austria, having released the spasmodic grasp at the throat of
others, feels the new life flowing through her, and with it comes a
new mission—which was, indeed, long present before her, but could
not be clearly perceived, because oppression dims the eye of the
oppressor. Ard our hatred is gone, and we look hopefully on the
new brother, thinking his life may be of a new—and to most of us
unexpected—value to himself, and to all of us, if he but cure him
* Count C. von Auersperg.
�5
self of those severe wounds which the contest has left all over his
body. If!
But the conversion of the friends of freedom to new views towards
Austria is, as yet, by no means complete, and as far as it goes, it has
made progress but slowly. And so far-reaching are the decrees of
fate, so inevitable the consequences of ill-deeds, so interwoven the
destinies of men and States, that when in 1866, for the first time
since many a long day, Austria came forth, as against Prussia, as the
champion of justice, by upholding the Bund, which, forbidding war
between the members of the Confederation, was one of the guaran
tees of European peace, and in defence against the most atrocious
double-dealing, the most shameless swindle attempted—and now,
alas ! carried out—by Prussia against the inhabitants of SchleswigHolstein, whom she pretended to free that she might swallow them
better, substituting herself as King Stork for King Log—even in that
hour, and with that most righteous cause, Austria succumbed. For
Prussia, who had just come forward in the vilest service to Russia
as her hangman’s assistant against the poor Poles, opening her
territories for Alexander’s bands to capture the fugitives, Prussia,
most perfidiously, called up another righteous cause to her help ;
and the conscience of mankind was divided, and in many an honest
breast the feeling for Italy against Austria overlaid the feeling for
Austria against Prussia. Might she lose there and win here !—such
was the wish of many, and it was a natural and a legitimate wish.
Still, almost general were the sympathies with Italy, spare those for
Prussia, till the luck of Austria went down in that terrible evening
sun of Sadowa, and Prussia, the successful seceder from her federal
bond, was applauded by those whose cry of condemnation against
the American seceders could never rise high enough; and the
Hohenzollern, under the dictates of his unscrupulous statesmen,
filched from the lips of honest and short-sighted enthusiasts the cry
of Unity, to use it in order, by his aggrandisement, to bring about
the disruption of the Fatherland.
Deprived of her Italian possessions, which had driven her into
the abyss, expelled from that Germany which she had led for five
hundred years, and often misled, and often neglected, and which she
had, in the face of Prussian intrigue, unsuccessfully endeavoured, in
1863, to reform, shorn of most of her prestige while acquiring a new
and unexpected one on the sea, shaken in her very foundations,
bleeding from many wounds, yet not without a ray of hope, though
even that is overclouded with shadows (for had not Albert conquered
at Custozza, he whose daughter, in the promise of youth, has just
been burnt to death; had not Maximilian prepared the victory of
Lissa, he who nobly dying expiated dearly his misjudgment ?) Austria
bestirred herself setting her house in order.
She had tried it before, over and over again, these last nineteen
years ; and the memoire which we cite at the head of these observa
tions gives us the record of her attempts. It is not cheerful reading,
this account of the long travail of constitutional life in Austria ; but
�6
to him who will understand the present, it is useful, nay necessary.
Manifold and sometimes violent were the experiments to cure the
“ sick man; ” and it required indeed no slight robustness in the
impatient patient to outlive the tentative doctors of Centralisation,
of Federalism, of Dualism. It is in the latter that we see Austria
now settled. The Magyars have gained their cause, for which they
struggled for so many years, with a persistency admirable, though
not free from national selfishness. The other populations of the
empire might before this have consolidated the building of their
political freedom, had the Magyars chosen to throw their lot in with
them. Yet it is not to be wondered that they stood out from what
would appear to them but the shifty quicksands of experimentalising,
as compared with the firm rock of their Golden Bull, their Pragmatic
Sanction, their Coronation Preamble of 1790, their Laws of 1848,
their Continuity of Right. They have gained their point, and—
though some clever writers are willing to taunt them with their being
no literary people —they have fulfilled their special mission among
*
the nations of the continent, by proving what can be achieved by a
firm, and it may be a stubborn, adherence to existing law—existing
though all the scaffolds in the world should take the place of its
judgment-seats, and all the inkstands flood the writing on its parch
ments. They have achieved what the more moderate, and the great
bulk of that nation of aristocrats required ; and there is satisfaction
in seeing this firmness of national character rewarded, though its aims
are not quite—-or rather are far away of what the democratic sympa
thisers in Great Britain have fancied them to be, or what the words
of Kossuth, trying to be “ all things to all men,” would have led one
to believe, when in one of the brilliant hues of the many-coloured
rainbow of his splendid eloquence he identified himself with the
republicans of France against that Louis Bonaparte, whom, an
emperor, he followed in so docile a manner. And it must not be
overlooked, but mentioned in their praise, that the Magyars, as the
hour of their victory drew near, gave more heed to the moderate
councils of Deák, Pulszky, Eotvos, and others, and that by agreeing
to the common treatment, between Vienna and Pesth, of many
affairs, they have indeed, on their side, made important concessions
to the general interests of the empire, so far’ overcoming their
national egotism. In what way they will further tend remains to
be seen. In their hands, in a great measure, the fate of Austria now
lies. If, judging sanely of their own position, surroundings, and
numbers, they go hand in hand with the German population of
the empire, and if both together know how to conciliate by justice
the different other races, the great Danube State, the wedge between
Russia and Europe, may yet be saved from the threatening danger of
Panslavism. If, on the other hand, they burrow deeper into the isola
tion of their Magyarism, they are indeed in a position to cut Austria’s
throat—and their own.
Cornhill. August: “The Pageant in Pesth.'
�7
IL
Already there lies before us a most important outcome of the yielding
of the emperor to the voice of the people on this side, and on that
of the Leitha, the little frontier river between Germany and Hun
gary. Those legislative steps have been taken at Vienna and Pesth
which seal the doom of the unfortunate Concordate.
*
Many of our
readerswill recollect the unfavourable impression produced in 1855
by this unlucky compact with Rome, by which Austria, enormously
exaggerating the respect due to the Church of the great majority
of her inhabitants, and in her then pursuit of a thoroughly reaction
ary policy, striving to be the Catholic-Conservative power par
excellence, gave up to the Papal Court and its hierarchy so much of
the rights of the State, so much of the rights of the individual. By
so doing she created an atmosphere of priestly influence and
interference, which gradually became unbearable, not to the Pro
testants and Confessors of the Greek, or Orthodox Jaith alone, but
also to very many of the Roman Catholics themselves. Well, and
with rare eloquence was this compact denounced by Kossuth, him
self a Protestant, yet once acknowledged as leader by a nationality
chiefly Catholic. Still we should put too great a blame on Austria
for this mistaken step, were we to look at it as an isolated fact.
It must not be forgotten that it belongs to a period of general
continental reaction against the spirit of 1848, a period which saw
the priest and the dogma called in on every side, to help the
corporal and the bayonet to uphold the tottering thrones. This
revival of priestly influence, long prepared by literary agencies, and
showing its head openly in the Sonderbund of Switzerland, tenta
tively in most countries of Europe, in Belgium especially, nay in
England herself, had received, in 1849, a mighty impulse by what
the eloquent and learned historian, Edgar Quinet, trying to arrest
the calamity, aptly called the crusade against the Roman Republic.t
The fall of Rome, which the enthusiasm of Mazzini and the heroism
of Garibaldi could no longer delay, carried the shortsighted victors
farther than they, or some of them, had intended, and the note
paper of the then President of the Republic, Louis Bonaparte’s
letter to “ mon cher Edgar,” proved a very inefficient drag in the
course of Papal ascendancy. Events being turned from one direc
tion, irresistibly rolled into the opposite one, and the temporal
power being re-established, offered its help to all the secular powers.
* Whilst this reprint passes through the press, news arrives of the Upper
House of the Austrian Reichsrath having, amidst great public rejoicing, adopted
the Bills on Public Schools, and on Civil Marriage—bills which virtually and by
regular legislative proceedings put an end to the Concordate.
t “La Croisade Autrichienne, Française, Napolitaine, Espagnole, contre la
République Romaine.” Par E. Quinet, représentant du peuple. 4me éd. Paris :
Chamerot.
�8
A politico-priestly odour went through the world.
*
The late King
of Prussia, burying in mysticism his originally bright gifts, and tend
ing to his own insanity, and to the stupefaction of his subjects, saw
with a well-pleased eye the activity of Protestant Pietists—the sort
of people who represent to worthy Lord Shaftesbury the modern
German mind, and give him so much satisfaction—and was not
wholly averse to the perambulations of the Jesuits. One of the first
acts of Louis Napoleon’s new power, after the subversion of the
constitution, was to hand over the national pantheon to the Roman
Catholic clergy, who thenceforth, and till 1859, proved stout allies,
and were treated as such. What wonder that Austria, which but
once, under Joseph II., and during the short reign of Leopold II.,
had seen her sovereign free from priestly influence, should offer to
grasp the hand of Rome, or be seized by her grip. Perhaps even
a greater thought than one of mere internal reaction was among the
motives of Baron Bach, the then leading spirit of the Hofburg :
“ Hungary lies at the feet of your majesty,” were the words with
which the Russian Prince Paskiewitch had announced to his master
at St. Petersburgh the result of the help vouchsafed to the House of
Hapsburg. And this dangerous protector is a member of the
Orthodox Greek Church. Might not the Court of Vienna hope
that, by making itself the chief champion of Roman Catholicity,
it could gain in a possible collision the sympathies of Catholics in
Europe—and in the Russian Empire, in Poland, for instance 2 If
so, the arrow overshot its aim : the loss of sympathies at home and
abroad greatly outbalanced any possible advantage in the direction
indicated. But we cannot wonder at the conduct of the Vienna
government, for without such far-reaching motives, even the govern
ments of two of the smaller states that have always been in the van
of German progress—though the Prussian scribes have tried to
obscure the fact—fell into the snare: Baden, which by sustaining
temporary Prussian conquest and occupation, and driving into exile
one man in every 120, had been rendered pliable enough for a little
while, to give way under repeated pressure/and so had Wurtemberg,
without such excuse, and by we know not what freak of popular
weakness. It is true such victory did not last long, and, in i860,
rhe estates of Wurtemberg, by formally asking again for the convo
cation of the German Parliament—not meaning thereby the sham
of Bismarkia—and those of Baden, by annulling the Concordate,
again inaugurated the German movement for freedom which, in
1849, had been suppressed by the Prussian cannon. The turn of
Austria has now come. We must indeed not expect her, as some
members of Messrs. Whalley and Murphy’s Society might wish, to
take a position hostile to Catholicism ; and no doubt, by doing so,
her Government would act both unwisely and unjustly ; for the
Roman Catholics are the majority of her population, both in the
whole empire and in each of the two parts—the Cis-Leithian
* Very full details in the pious W. Menzel’s “ Geschichte der letzten vierzig
Jahre.” 3rd edition. Stuttgardt, 1865. Tom ii., pp. 384-392.
�9
countries and Hungary, taken separately. They are credibly stated
to form 70-39 per cent, of the whole population. This, without
counting the United Greeks, that is, those who are in some sort
connected with Rome, having, in exchange for the concession of
the marriage of priests and the Eucharist in both forms, acknow
ledged the supremacy of the Pope. These form 9-87 per cent, of the
whole population. The members of the not united or Orthodox
Greek Church, again, are 8'44 per cent. The confessors of both
forms of the Greek Church—18’21 per cent, of the whole population
—are chiefly found in the South Slavonic portions of the empire, in
Croatia, Slavonia, and parts of Hungary. The Protestants—9-33
per cent. —inhabit principally Transylvania (Unitarians) and parts
*
of Hungary, though a considerable fraction are also left, the rem
nants of once powerful Churches, in Austria proper and Bohemia.
The terrible converting process to which the Hussites and other
Protestant Czechs, or Slavonians of Bohemia, have been subjected
in the fifteenth and seventeenth centuries has led them, of course,
back to the Roman Church, to which it is well known the Poles, or
Slavonians of Galicia, likewise in their great majority belong; and
these two facts, coupled with strong dialectic differences, are of
political importance, as they may go some way towards counteract
ing the machinations by which both the West Slavonians and the
South Slavonians are to be drawn together into what appears to
some enthusiasts-)- a bond of loving brotherhood, but to others the
meshes of the Russian net. In the Tyrol the people are nearly to
a man (and woman) Roman Catholic. Sincerely religious, and a
trifle bigoted, they have even to be weaned by Government from
expressing their dislike of Protestants by the upholding of inadmis
sible restrictions. Under such circumstances, it is natural enough
to expect that considerable regard will still have to be shown to the
Roman Catholic religion by the Austrian Government. But that
government, in unison with the Vienna Reichsrath and the Pesth
Diet, is on the good road to that equality of rights of all religious
* We take these figures as to the number of different Churches from Reden’s
“ Staatshaushalt und Abgabenwesen des Oesterreichischen Kaiserstaats,” Darm
stadt, 1853, pp. 1,024. The numbers of the population there given have, no
doubt, increased since the period to which this very comprehensive work refers,
but the proportions cannot have essentially changed.
f The two ladies, amongst others, Miss Mackenzie and Miss Irby, who have
just published the results of their travels, for which they were prepared by the
Pan-slavist agitators of Prague and Vienna. “The Turks, the Greeks, and the
Slavons. ” Bell & Daldy, 1867, pp. 688.
In this connection may also be mentioned Dr. Humphrey Sandwith’s “Notes
on the South Slavonic Countries, in Austria and Turkey in Europe.” (Black
wood & Sons, 1865, pp. 66.)--The Author knows more about Turkey than
about Austria, but he is willing enough to include, in favour of the Slavonians,
the latter in his condemnation of the former. It is perhaps fair to suppose that,
had he lived to see Austria turning into a new path, his views might have been
modified. Compare also “The Serbian Nation and the Eastern question,” by
Vladimir Yovanovitch. (Bell & Daldy, 1863.) The author is unjust to the
■Turks, quoting against them pretended words of the Koran which he cannot have
read.
�IO
professions which has become, in our days, the unabateable claim—
or, at least, the ideal—of the political philosopher. Let the dead
body of the Concordate be buried out of sight in as decent and
decorous a manner as maybe; its departed spirit will-no longer
vex the soul of any friend of freedom and justice.
III.
The pamphlet which we mentioned at the head of these articles,
and whose title we again cite below, betrays its origin by a number
*
of Germanisms. These occur rather in the manner of viewing and
illustrating matters, than in mere verbal peculiarities, and need
repel no reader. This German, or, we should say, Austrian origin
does, in our eyes, no harm to the value of the mémoire, and we
rather like that this origin should be so manifest to the reader as
almost to lift the pamphlet out of its sphere of anonymous produc
tions, and give it somewhat of the stamp of tangible responsibility.
It is highly desirable that the public should learn more about
Austria from Austrian sources, or from the friends of Austria, and in
this view we were glad to see in the ably conducted new weekly,
The Chronicle, a series of articles proceeding evidently from very
unusual knowledge of the case, and others during the last year in
Macmillan's and the Cornhill, though some of the contributions in
the latter be tinged by the personal disappointments of a minor
diplomatist. What an English author, conversant by a long stay
with Austria, has said of her, is certainly in a great measure true.
“ The chief sources from which we have obtained information
respecting her, have been those inimical to herself. And again
“We were in reality ignorant of her true condition, of her necessi
ties, of her difficult and peculiar position towards her various peoples,
and of the real motives which guided her.”t
This want, then, of more direct information, or, at any rate, of
evidence for the accused, is to some extent supplied in the pamphlet
before us. Not fully ; further elucidations in the same direction
will from time to time become desirable ; and even now it would
help one greatly to get out of a state of bewilderment which so
many attempts at constitutional organisation leave behind, were the
author to draw up a little collection of documents, which at the side
of the historic account would state, as nearly as might be in the
words of the charters and resolutions themselves, the actual condi
tion of things, omitting that which has. been abrogated, and filling
* “Austria, a Constitutional State : a Short Sketch of the Use, Progress, and
Development of Constitutional Life in the Austrian Dominions.” London : Dulau
& Co., Soho Square, 1867.
•¡•“Prussian Aggression and Englands Interests.
London: E. Stanford,
Charing Cross, 1866.
�II
up the picture with such geographical and statistic detail as would,
in such connection, be very welcome to the foreigner.
On this present state of things we will hear our author, premising,
however, that the reader has to represent it to himself as preceded
by these sevenfold successive different conditions.
(a) Before 1848 Absolutism, practically pur et simple on this side
of the Leitha, with an occasional and almost nominal activity of pro
vincial estates unconnected with each other, and totally without
practical influence; but on the other side of the Leitha, the full
activity of [the Hungarian Diet, then simply an oligarchic body, pro
tecting the privileges of the nobility ; Metternich the master.
(p} In Vienna, in Hungary, everywhere, the revolutionary fever of
1848, resulting in much bloodshed, abolition of old rights, aspira
tions after new ones, but practically leaving behind it the great
result of freeing the cultivator of the soil from the remainders of
serfdom; nobody in particular governing, everybody wishing to
govern.
(p) The octroyed constitution of March 4th, 1849; a dead-born
child wishing to grow great by abolishing the authority of Hungary ;
granting centralised parliamentary institutions which never acted ;
a baby Hercules strangling himself with the serpents he wanted to
kill; Baron Bach the nurse.
(ff) After the great catastrophe of 1859, the establishment of the
Reichsrath, or rather its change, or “ enlargement ” by decree
of 5th March, i860, from a Council of State into a semi-parliamen
tarian assembly drawn from the revivified provincial diets, and with
small powers to be exercised by its eighty members, some appointed
by the emperor for life-time, others selected by him out of a list of
candidates, three for each seat, to be proposed by the diets; as
sembly meeting, so constituted, yet demanding financial and other
reforms ; obtaining the change of the character of the Reichsrath
from a consultative into a “ deliberative and consulting ” body.
(Imperial Rescript of 17th July, i860.) Counts Goluchowski and
Rechberg the inefficient soothers of the patient.
(e) The period of the diploma of 20th October, i860, extending
the numbers of the Reichsrath, and especially its functions, re-es
tablishing the Hungarian Parliament, though not yet all its privileges ;
creating a restricted Reichsrath for affairs respecting the Cis and
Transleithan countries ; attempting a reorganisation of the consti
tution of the estates of non-Hungarian crown lands, not without
a good by-taste of feudalism ; steering a middle course between
federalism, that means in Austria the almost complete autonomy,
under feudal leaders, of the single provinces, and centralism, that
is the bureaucratic negation of local individuality ; satisfying no
one, erecting nothing tangible but loud agitation in Hungary, de
claring in unmistakable Magyar, not elsewhere intelligible, that they
would not go to Vienna, happen otherwise what might; the father
and would-be manager of the chaos, Count Goluchowski, a Pole.
(/) Out of which chaos sprung the imperial patent of February
�12
26th, 1861, parliamentary again, interpreting itself as being the fulfil'
ment of the October diploma, and as being its counterpart also ; the
position of Hungary remaining essentially the same; that of the
other provinces being by the influence of German liberals modified,
in a sense unfavourable to the federalistic, feudal, and Slavonic
views ; the constitution of the Reichsrath somewhat assimilated to
the English model, an upper and lower house created, the members
of the lower house no longer nominated by the emperor, but elected
by the provincial diets, which were confined, however, in their
choice of delegates, being bound to elect a certain proportion from
among the supposed representatives of the different interests or
localities, according to a principle on which the provincial estates them
selves were made to rest, and which was not quite an innovation;
*
the new “ Reichsrath”—after the abolition of the old one, restricted
and not restricted—being called together, expecting to be joined by
the Hungarians; Hungarians declining, as usual, won’t go anywhere,
stand by Pragmatic Sanction ; Reichsrath turned into a special and
restricted Reichsrath, meaning this time for the treatment of all
non-Hungarian affairs ; this, in all essentials still, or again, the new
constitution, auctore Chevalier Von Schmerling ; Reichsrath meeting
now, 1867, again, but no longer expecting Hungarians. But this is
anticipating—
(o) The Hungarians still standing out, not coming to Vienna,
though Transylvania, that is, the non-Magyar portion thereof—
Germans and Roumains—did send deputies, the Reichsrath at
Vienna gained indeed control over the finances (not sufficient to
end the financial troubles), and the principle of ministerial responsibilityf—the former of which principles the Prussian Chamber has
* At the same time each crown-land was furnished with special regulations in
respect to the number of representatives, and the mode of their election by the
different classes of electors ; the boundaries of the country districts being carefully
defined. The various classes of electors were divided into three categories :—1st.
The large landed proprietors. 2nd. Citizens of towns and market-places, inclu
ding members of the Chambers of Commerce. 3rd. Inhabitants of country
districts, including voters in their own right having a so-called votum virile. The
two first categories were direct voters, the third category were indirect voters ;
they had to choose a voter for every 500 inhabitants. Thus many citizens were
entitled to a double vote; as, for instance, a member of the Chamber of Com
merce could vote in that capacity as well as in that of a ratepayer, so that already
a greater regard was paid to the principle of the “representation of interests”
than “ class'representation,” as was formerly the case. Taking the diet of Lower
Austria as an example, we find it composed of two ecclesiastics (the Archbishop
of Vienna and the Bishop of St. Polten), the rector of the university, fifteen depu
ties from among the large landowners, twenty-four from towns and market-places,
four from the Chamber of Commerce, and twenty from the country districts.
The qualification for an elector of the first category was the payment of 200 florins
annually in direct taxes. For the second category, 20 florins in Vienna and
10 florins in the other towns. Members of the Chambers of Commerce, clergy
men, professors, and officials, were voters without regard to the payment of
taxes^n
of May, then, Minister von Schmerling declared himself authorised
to inform the members of both Houses that the declaration made in the House of
Representatives on the 2nd of July, 1861, by the ministry to hold themselves
�13
just lost by means of the North German Bismarkian hoax, while she
could never gain the latter—and thus, already five years ago, a
French writer could say, and be reprimanded for it, that there was
more liberty in Austria than in France. But neither the State in
her integrity, nor the government itself, nor the advantages gained
by the liberal party, could gain consistency and duration, while the
Hungarians, allying national with aristocratic feeling, and with whom
for a while the Slavonians, both feudal and generally destructive,
joined, continued to stand out, deaf to every consideration but those
drawn from their own valuable privileges. As to the rejection of the
proffered gifts, there was no doubt among them, they divided only
whether they should reject them by an address to the emperor—
or rather king—or should pass them by with a resolution. The
speech of Dedk, the great leader of the moderates, will be long
remembered, and is noteworthy as containing the substance of the
Hungarian grievances against Austria (13th May, 1861).
“In former times,” he said, “the disputes between the sovereign and the
Hungarian nation arose from two parties giving different interpretations to the
laws, the validity of which was recognised by both. At present the Austrian
government is trying to force Hungary to accept a constitution as a boon, in lieu
of those fundamental laws to which she is so warmly attached. On the side of
Hungary are right and justice, on the other side is physical force. During the
last twelve years we have suffered grievous wrongs. The constitution which we
inherited from our forefathers was taken from us; we were governed in an
absolute way, and patriotism was considered crime.
Suddenly his majesty
resolved‘to enter the path of constitutionalism,’ and the diploma of the 20th
of October, i860, appeared. That document encroaches on our constitutional
independence, inasmuch as it transfers to a foreign assembly (the Reichsrath) the
right to grant the supplies of money and men, and makes the Hungarian government dependent on the Austrian, which is not responsible for its acts. If
Hungary accepted the diploma of the 26th October, she would be an Austrian
province.. The policy of the Austrian government is a direct violation of the
Pragmatic Sanction, the fundamental treaty which the Hungarian nation in 1723
concluded with the reigning family.* We must therefore solemnly declare that
*
responsible to the Reichsrath for the maintenance of the Constitution and for the
exact fulfilment of the laws, had been given with the express sanction of the
emperor ; that his majesty had consented to the principle of ministerial responsi
bility ; and that the decree of the 20th of August, 1851, enacting that the ministry
should be responsible solely and exclusively to the monarch, had been revoked.
With this declaration another corner-stone was inserted in the constitutional
edifice which considerably strengthened the moral power and authority of the
House.
7
* The Pragmatic Sanction is the fundamental political contract with respect
to the succession to the throne which the Hungarian nation in 1723 concluded
with the King, of Hungary, the ancestor of the present reigning family. The
Hungarian nation gave the female line of the Hapsburgs the right to reign in
Hungary on condition that the future sovereigns of that line should govern accord
ing to the existing laws of the country, or according to the laws which might in
future be made. The Emperor Joseph II., who was never crowned in Hungary
governed that kingdom absolutely; but its inhabitants never recognised him as
their lawful sovereign. Maria Theresa was the first “king” who in virtue of
the Pragmatic Sanction ascended the throne of Hungary, and she faithfully ful
filled the conditions of that bilateral treaty. Leopold II., the second Hungarian
king, who ascended the throne on the death of Joseph II., signed an inaugural
diploma, took the usual coronation oath, and, besides, sanctioned the 10th
�i4
we insist on the restoration of our constitutional independence and self-govern
ment, which we consider the fundamental principles of our national existence.
We can on no account allow the right to vote the supplies of money and men to
be taken from us. We will not make laws for other countries and will share our
right to legislate for Hungary with no one but the king. . . We will neither
send deputies' to the present Reichsrath nor take any share in the representation
of the empire.” At a subsequent sitting of the Hungarian Diet, Count Julius
Andrassy (now Hungarian minister), made a still more determined speech in
defence of Hungarian independence. ‘ ‘ The nationalities inhabiting the empire,
he said, “ must choose between centralization and federation. Centralization and
absolutism must necessarily go hand in hand. If the principle of duality is
recognised, and Austria has a free constitution, a union between the empire and
Hungary may easily be effected. The Hungarian nation refuses to have anything
to do with the promulgated constitution of the 26th of February. The position
of Austria as a great power is better secured by the principles of duality than by
the principles of unity. The Hungarians will continue to insist on the restoration
of the laws of 1848.”
IV.
The Radical-Magyar party had insisted and carried that the title of
“ Imperial Royal ” should not be given in the address to the king,
who was simply called i£ your majesty,” consistently with the Magyar
doctrine, which did not admit the validity of his predecessor s abdi
cation, and the present emperor’s accession, and with the Hungairan axiom, Princefs est qui jurat, qui jurata serz'ctt et qui coronatus
esl, an axiom which is worthy of a free nation, and pleasing to an
imaginative one.
With a royal rescript, dated the 3°th Julie> the address was
returned—
“We consider it to be our first duty,” said the emperor m this rescript, “ in
order to preserve the humble respect that is due to our royal person and our royal
hereditary rights-a respect which the throne and its dignity demand by good
right, and which has been set aside in this address of the States and representa
tives by their discarding the forms legally used, to reject the address which, in
violation of the royal prerogatives, is not addressed to the hereditary King of
Hungary.”
The Hungarian Parliament gave way on this point, and the form of
the address in which it had been proposed by Deak being restored, it
was adopted unanimously, and received by the emperor from the
Article of the Laws of 1790, which guaranteed to Hungary all her constitutional
rights and privileges. Francis I., in his inaugural diploma, guaranteed the
maintenance1 of the rights, liberties, and laws of the nation, and m the 33rd year
S his reign (1825) hi solemnly recognised the validity of the above-mentioned
both Ardfle of the Laws of /790. King Ferdinand V. (the ex-Emperor Ferdi
nand I., of Austria) gave similar guarantees in his mauguial diploma, and
besides sanctioned the Laws of 1848. The male line of the Hapsburgs was
extinct in 1740 (Charles VI. died in that year), and Hungary would have been at
liberty to elect her own king had not the Pragmatic Sanction been concluded m
1723 7 By the Pragmatic Sanction Hungary and. Austria aie united m the
“person” of the sovereign, but there is no trace in the Hungarian laws of a
“real” union between the two countries.
�*5
hands of the two presidents. Our author summarises as follows the
answer which, after some wrangling between the October men and
the February men'—distinctions little observable from here and at
this time—was given by Minister Schmerling’s advice :—
The emperor does not insist on amalgamation, and grants internal autonomous
administration, but requires dynastic, military, diplomatic, and financial unity
with the rest of the empire. . . The emperor will spontaneously restore the
Hungarian Constitution under the conditions necessary to the development of the
whole empire. He recognises the laws of 1848, concerning the abolition of the
privileges of the nobles, the corvées and feudal burdens, the general admissibility
to public employments and to the possession of landed property—that relating to
the electoral rights of the lower classes ; but he cannot sanction the laws of 1848,
which are hostile to the rights of the non-Magyar population of the Hungarian
counties and to the Pragmatic Sanction, and must be modified before the negotia
tions are entered into about the Coronation Diploma. The Diet is requested to
bestow its attention upon this revision; it is besides requested to send provisionally
deputies to the present sittings of the council of the empire—according to the
fundamental law of the 26th of February—in order to protect the influence of the
country upon the general affairs which are to be debated and settled in the course
of August.
The answer of the Hungarians was so energetic and thorough a
11 non possumus " that the pope might have envied it. Received
with much emotion, the Imperial rescript was handed for reply to
Deàk, who produced a voluminous document, asserting with great
judicial knowledge the rights of Hungary, declaring to “hold fast
the constitutional independence of the country and the Pragmatic
Sanction, without any exception whatever,” and rejecting the Impe
rial Diploma of October i860, and the intended application to
Hungary of the patent of the 26th of February, 1861; solemnly
protesting “ against the exercise on the part of the Reichsrath of any
legislative or other power in regard to Hungary,” and reiterating the
declaration “that they will not send any representatives to the
Reichsrath, whose acts and ordinances referring to Hungary, or its
annexed parts, must be regarded as unconstitutional and not
binding.” Received with rapturous approval, the proposed address
was immediately adopted in the Lower House by an immense
majority, in the Upper House unanimously and without any
alteration.
The emperor’s unfavourable reply was followed by many resigna
tions of high Hungarian officials.
“On the 22nd of August the royal rescript, dated the 21st,
decreeing its dissolution, was read in the Diet. The plan of opposi
tion adopted by the Hungarians was that of passive resistance by
the non-payment of taxes. In consequence of this, and in order to
quell the demonstration of the comitats, the committee meetings of
the latter were closed by the military. General Count Palffy was
appointed Governor of Hungary, the country placed under martial
law, and a sort, of military dictatorship established. Soldiers were
billeted on the inhabitants, the taxes were sullenly paid, but no out
break occurred, although the feeling of discontent was stronger than
�i6
ever. In an autograph letter the emperor made known his intention
of restoring the Hungarian Constitution, promising at the same time
to keep intact the rights and liberties of the people, and to convoke
the Diet and the municipalities of the kingdom in accordance with
the terms of the October Diploma; but the six months within which
the Diet was to be re-convoked passed without any change being
made in the situation. The Cabinet of Vienna determined to break
the spirit of the nation by applying to the countries beyond the
Leitha the worst maxims of the Bach period. The passive resist
ance of the Hungarians, however, continued up to the time of the
reconciliation effected by Baron von Beust’s ministry.”
Under such circumstances, the Vienna “ Reichsrath ” and the
constitutional laws establishing it could not, as we have observed, gain
much consistency. In vain the emperor, struggling against the
resisting force of circumstances and men, spoke to his Vienna
Parliament these solemn words—
I consider it to be my duty to my peoples to declare the General Constitution
in accordance with the diploma of the 20th of October, i860, and with the
fundamental laws of the 26th of February, 1861, to be the “ inviolable foundation
of my united and indivisible empire,” and I on this solemn occasion swear
faithfully to observe it and to protect it with my sovereign power, and I am
firmly resolved energetically to oppose any violation of the same, as I shall
consider it as an attack on the existence of the monarchy, and on the rights of all
my countries and peoples.
The Slavonic agitation increased these difficulties, thus resumed
by our author :—“ Owing to the agitation prevailing in Hungary,
the issue of writs for new elections, as prescribed by the Patent of
26th February, 1861, could not have led to any result. Conse
quently, of the 343 members who ought to have attended, 85
deputies of Hungary were absent from the Reichsrath; so were,
from analogous reasons, the 9 deputies from Croatia and Slavonia,
and the 20 Lombardo-Venetians, and even of the remaining 203
members of the Germano-Slavonian provinces all were not present.
The Reichsrath thus lost much of its importance and its influence,
because it represented only those countries the affairs of which
belonged to the sphere of the restricted Reichsrath, and as such it
was also shortly after regarded by the Government. By strict right
this assembly was incompetent, especially in regard to financial
matters, which could only be legally and constitutionally settled by
the co-operation of a complete Reichsrath in which all the kingdoms
and countries of the empire were fully represented.”
At last, on the occasion of a visit of the emperor to Pesth, in the
winter of 1864-65, a journey which he is said to have undertaken con
trary to the wish of his ministers, signs of the feasibility of an arrange
ment with the Hungarians appeared. Schmerling had thought, we
know not on what ground, that only with Ultra Liberals of Hungary,
was such an arrangement possible. But the Conservative Count
Majlath was named chancellor. The Conservatives and moderate
Liberals together inclined to a compromise.
�Il
“ Ever since the dissolution of the Hungarian Diet,” says our
author, “and the retirement of Vay and Szesen, close relations had
been kept up between the Hungarian Old Conservatives and the
Federalist section of the Reichsrath. They showed, on the other
hand, great attention to Francis Deák, and endeavoured to come to
an understanding with him as a leader of the moderate Hungarian
Liberals. About Easter, 1865, a highly conciliatory article appeared
in his organ at Pesth, which was speedily followed by three letters
from Pesth, published in the Debaite, setting forth authoritatively the
programme of the moderate Hungarian Liberals. The Debatte,
speaking in the interest of the Old Conservatives, claimed for these
letters a careful and candid perusal, which they obtained from a very
wide circle, and so contributed materially to prepare the way for a
reconciliation. The principal points laid down in those letters were
that without the retirement of M. von Schmerling no good under
standing between Hungary and Vienna could be dreamt of, and
that Deák and his friends were generally in favour of a conciliatory
policy. They then pointed out that the Hungarians took their stand
upon the Pragmatic Sanction, and that to leave so firm a standing
ground would be impossible. The leading principles enunciated by
the writer were, that a central parliament was impossible; that a
separate Hungarian ministry was indispensable; and that the
countries east and west of the Leitha must be considered as two
aggregations of lands having a parity of rights.”
But it was thought that no compromise could be effected while the
Vienna Reichsrath, with its claim to comprise all parts of the
monarchy, was in activity. An Imperial “patent,” of September
20, 1865, suspended its activity. From this lengthy document we
will quote the concluding passages—
Until the fundamental laws of the different provinces are brought into accord,
the great and promising idea of a general and constitutional representation of
the empire cannot be properly realised.
In order to redeem my imperial promise, and to avoid sacrificing the reality to
the form, I shall endeavour to come to an understanding with the legal repre
sentatives of my peoples in the Eastern parts of the empire, and shall propose to the
Hungarian and Croatian Diets to accept the diploma of the 20th of October,
i860, and the fundamental law relative to the representation of the empire, which
was published with the patent of 26th February, 1861.
. It being legally impossible to make one and the same ordinance an object of
discussion in the one part of the empire, while it is recognised as a binding law in
the other parts, I am compelled to suspend the law relative to the representation
of the.empire, at the same time especially declaring that I reserve to myself the
right, before I come to a decision, of submitting to the legal representatives of my
other kingdoms and countries, whose opinions will receive the consideration due
to them, the results of my negotiations with the representative bodies of the
Eastern kingdoms, should they be in accordance with the law which provides for
the maintenance of the unity, power, and influence of the empire.
I regret that this measure, which is absolutely necessary, will lead to an inter
ruption of the constitutional action of the lesser Reichsrath, but the organic con
nection and equal value of the various parts of the fundamental law, on which is
based the action of the Reichsrath, renders it impossible that one part of it can be
jn force while the other is in abeyance.
C
�i8
Previous to this, Chevalier Schmerling had been replaced as head
of the Austrian Cabinet by Count Belcredi, the friend of the Slavonic
federalists.
The considerations of the compromise with Hungary and the
representation of Parliamentary life in Austria we must reserve for
our next article.
V.
In our preceding article we brought the history of the Austrian
constitution and the re-establishment of the Hungarian institutions
down _ to the appointment of Count Belcredi, and the issue of the
imperial patent of September 20th, 1865, by which the exercise of
the Austrian constitution of October, i860, and February, 1861,
was suspended until it could be, after due constitutional delibera
tion, accepted by the Hungarian Diet.
A doubt is allowed whether this step was so “ absolutely neces
sary ” as the imperial patent declared it to be. It certainly was far
from being considered so by a great part of the people, and a great
number of leading politicians. It gave very great satisfaction, no
doubt, to the Czechs of Bohemia, who knew the presiding minister,
Count Belcredi, to be favourable to their particularist tendencies,
and who promised to themselves all sorts of successes as the result
of the new discussions into which the as yet new-born constitutional
life of Austria was to be drawn. A similar feeling existed in Galicia,
the Poles for once finding themselves on common Slavonic ground
with the Bohemian Czechs.
*
An assembly of German deputies at Vienna, in October, expressed
* By no means a common thing. The Poles find as little sympathy among the
Czechs as do the Germans or the Hungarians. Some valuable testimony to that
effect has just been offered to the English public : a well-informed writer in the
Westminster Review for October, who looks forward to the destruction of Austria
in the interest of the Slavons, and who, in his dislike to Germans and Magyars,
almost lifts the visor of anonymity, to show a Russian countenance, says of the
Poles:—“Whose last insane insurrection, we may say in passing, the Czech
politicians from the first condemned ” (W. R., vol. Ixiv., new series, p. 454). Such a
passage is worth volumes of writing and hours of talk ; it shows at once the great
necessity, on which we have before insisted, of Germans and Hungarians standing
firmly together, in view of the threatened Slavonic upheaving, whilst sharing in a
spirit of justice all civil freedom with their fellow subjects. Yet so much was it
the fashion but a few months ago in English liberal circles to greet with a welcome
any movement hostile to Austria, that a very well-meaning man, while the
Hungarian difficulty was not yet quite decided, said to the present writer that
“ the Hungarians ought to make common cause with the Czechs against Austria.’’
Any combination, however impossible or unnatural, was wished for or welcomed
which would seem to lead forces against the German civilising element. And as
yet it is hardly acknowledged that it is by the Austria of to-day that the Poles
receive the fairest measure, while oppressing Prussia is extolled, and oppressing
Russia ogled with.
�19
themselves unanimously against the suspension of the constitution,
and when the different provincial diets were convoked, for their
action was not suspended, it became clear that the step which Count
Belcredi had caused the emperor to take was by no means generally
approved on this side of the Leitha. Seven of them, representing a
population of about four and a half millions, expressed, either in
resolutions or addresses, dissatisfaction with the September Act,
which dissatisfaction was most decidedly pronounced in the ad
dresses of the Diets of Lower Austria and Vorarlberg. That of the
latter was couched in such violent and disrespectful language that it
was not received by the crown. The Diets of Galicia, the Bukowina,
Bohemia, and of the seaboards of Istria, Trieste, etc., acted quite
contrary to the former, and voted addresses expressing gratitude for
the September manifesto. The Diet of Dalmatia likewise voted an
address approving of it, but regretting the suspension of the Reichsrath. In the Diets of Moravia and Carniola, neither motions nor
addresses to express thanks or dissatisfaction were carried. The
Diet of Tyrol did not enter into any discussion of the September
manifesto. It simply received it in silence. The diets (including
Dalmatia) which in their addresses to the throne expressed approval
of the September Act, represented a population of upwards of ten
and a half millions.
The “ silence ” of the Tyrol Diet is not a little significant. It
was bought by Count Belcredi making concessions to the bigoted
feeling which pervades too much the otherwise excellent population
of that interesting country. Baron Schmerling had at last ordered
—what was but a long over-due fulfilment of a privilege conferred
by the constitution of the German Confederation, of which the
Tyrol formed a part—that Protestants had a right to acquire landed
property and settlement in that Catholic country. Count Belcredi
supplemented or interpreted this declaration so as to forbid the
formation of Protestant communities, unless the consent, in every
case, of both the government and the diet could be obtained, and
he exemplified his meaning by refusing permission to the Protestants
of Meran to constitute themselves as a community. By such acts,
and by the favour shown in Bohemia to the Czechian language over
the German, the language of the intelligent and industrious minority,
the presiding minister showed that he looked for his support to the
feudal chiefs, the Slavonic populations, the Ultramontane priests.
With all that, he was not prepared to make to the Hungarians the
large sacrifices which they required ; and the suspension of the
constitution, effected, it was said, to render an agreement with
Hungary more possible, gave hardly more satisfaction on the other
side of the Leitha than on this. The Hungarian press even regretted
the suspension of the activity of the “ restricted Reichsrath,” which
ought to have continued its activity while the négociations with
Hungary were being carried on. And indeed the argument in the
imperial rescript as to its “ being legally impossible to make one
and the same ordinance an object for discussion in the one part of
c 2.
�20
the empire, while it is recognised as a binding law in the other
parts,” seems to us but to be a narrow and pedantic lawyer’s view.
The restricted or lesser Reichsrath might, it still appears to us, have
further transacted the business of the non-Hungarian countries.
The .emperor’s advisers had, however, as we have shown, prevailed
on him to declare that “ the organic connection and equal value of
the various parts of the fundamental law, on which is based the
action of the Reichsrath, renders it impossible that one part of it
can be in force while the other is in abeyance.” But even this kind
of homage paid to the Hungarians by temporarily suspending for
their sake the recently acquired constitutional rights of the non
Hungarian populations, failed to conciliate the proud Magyars, deaf
at that time to any consideration drawn from the general weal of the
empire, and bent exclusively on the re-establishment of their pecu
liar institutions and practical independence. Count Belcredi, how
ever, by no means meant to go the length of their desires, and they
by no means meant to accept the diploma of October, i860, and
February, 1861, even though they were no longer to be imposed on
them, but submitted to their discussion and approval. “No com
mon representation at Vienna” continued to be their battle-cry,
after their Parliament had been restored as well as before. They
simply continued to demand their own constitutional liberties, from
which demand they knew not to separate the other of having the
partes annexes, especially the unwilling Croatia, and the but halfwilling Transylvania, restored to their control; showing again that
curious compound of love of freedom for themselves and of dominion
over others which, we fear, is a characteristic of the Magyar race.
These demands, the “ Continuity of Rights,” and the “ territorial
integrity of the Crown of St. Stephen,” were formulated in extra
parliamentarian conference at Pesth, November 11, and the imperial
government showed compliance at once with the second demand
while it prepared itself partially to give way to the first; the direction
of the public mind in Hungary passing in the meanwhile more and
more from the hands of the Old-Conservative party, on whose sup
port the emperor had counted, and one of whose chiefs, Count
Majlath, had found a place in the ministry, into that of M. Deak
and the stern defenders of Hungarian constitutional doctrine. On
December 14, 1865, the Hungarian Diet was opened at Pesth by
the emperor. In the conciliatory speech from the throne, he said
that a contradiction existed between the view of some Austrian states
men, who asserted that Hungary had forfeited all her constitutional
rights by the insurrection of 1848-49, and the claim of the Hunga
rians to have all reform carried out on the basis of historical rights.
This contradiction could only be reconciled by the Pragmatic
Sanction, which both parties had taken as their point of departure.
He recognised the necessity of the self-government of Hungary, so
far as it did not affect the unity of the empire and the position of
Austria as a great power. He wished to re-establish the integrity of
the Hungarian crown, and, in order to effect this, steps had been
�21
taken that Transylvania and Croatia should be represented in the
Diet at Pesth.
The first task before the Diet was to take into consideration those
questions which concerned all the provinces. The emperor wished
the Diet to keep in view, as their principal aim, the unity of the
empire and the position of Austria as a great power.
The second object of the Diet was to be the revision of the laws
of 1848, which had to be modified, since they were incompatible,
not only with the unity of the empire, but also with the rights of the
sovereign.
After these questions the Diet was to discuss the programme of
the coronation of the Emperor of Austria as King of Hungary. He
hoped that the confidence between the nation and the king would
be increased, and that the great work of discentralising Austria and
Hungary would give satisfaction to all the nationalities composing
the empire.
Thus the royal speech set aside for ever that dangerous doctrine
which had occasioned so much bitterness and rendered all sincere
understanding impossible—the doctrine of the “ forfeiture of rights ”
—choosing as a starting point the mutually admitted basis of the
Pragmatic Sanction. The emperor recognised in his speech the
political and autonomous independence of Hungary and its depen
dencies, and declared that the crown would keep intact all clauses
of that compact referring to the integrity of the Hungarian crown,
laying particular stress, however, on the requirements of the empire
as a great power, and on the necessity for a combined constitutional
management of those affairs which concerned the whole realm.
Upon this clear legal foundation the pending political questions had
to be settled.
The draught of the address in reply to the emperor’s speech from
the throne did not come on for discussion in the Lower House of
the Diet until the month of February, 1866. Like M. Deák’s
addresses of 1861, it was very firm in tone. It contained 58 long
paragraphs and was remarkably loyal, expressing confidence in the
sovereign, and congratulating his majesty on the constitutional senti
ments contained in the speech from the throne and his recognition
of the continuity of rights. But it pleaded for the letter of the law
as regarded the old constitution. It rejected the October Diploma
and the February Patent as bases of negotiation, and expressed
great satisfaction that the monarch had acknowledged the Pragmatic
Sanction as the point of departure, pointing out that the safety of
Austria and the independence of Hungary were not antagonistic. It
announced that a special bill would be prepared for the settlement
of matters common to Hungary and the rest of the monarchy, and
declared the. readiness of the Diet to negotiate with the other
provinces while reserving the independence of each. It stated that
it was the desire of the Diet to bring about the real restoration of
the constitution, and expressed a hope that his majesty would
speedily be crowned as King of Hungary. It thanked his majesty
�22
for having summoned the Croatian and Transylvanian deputies to
the Diet at Pesth, and demanded that the Hungarian crown should
be fully reintegrated by the reincorporation of Dalmatia and Fiume
with Hungary. It solicited an amnesty for political offenders, and
demanded the re-establishment of municipal autonomy and the nomi
nation of a Hungarian ministry. There were other passages in the
address which seemed intended to admit of compromise, particularly
as to the necessary unity in the treatment of affairs common to the
whole empire. The draught of the address was adopted almost
unanimously.
The Upper House was not satisfied with the address voted by the
Lower House, and the magnates decided by a majority of 83 (136
against 53) to present a separate address, which, however, in prin
ciple coincided with that of the Lower House.
On February 27, deputations from both Houses presented addresses
to the emperor at Ofen. In reply his majesty said, he hoped the
magnates, faithful to their traditional mission, would throw the whole
weight of their wisdom and impartiality into the scale for the reali
sation of his paternal intentions, and that the Lower House would
follow the course pointed out in the speech from the throne, in order
to combine the attainment of their own constitutional rights with
an arrangement equally satisfactory to the other nationalities. His
majesty then abruptly left the audience room, and the deputation
withdrew in surprise without pronouncing the usual Eljens.
On the 28th February, M. Deâk moved in the Lower House at
Pesth the appointment of a commission of 67 members (52 Hunga
rians and 15 Transylvanians) to arrange the mode of treating the
affairs common to Hungary and Austria, thus taking the first step
towards arriving at an understanding.
A few days afterwards, on the 3rd of March, an imperial rescript
in reply to the addresses of both Houses was read in the Diet, in
which the emperor expressed his satisfaction at the acknowledgment
made by the Diet that certain affairs were common to Hungary and
Austria j he also said he expected that further négociations would
lead the Diet to acknowledge the necessity for a revision of the laws
passed in 1848. The rescript then stated that the 3rd Article of
the Laws of 1848, establishing a separate ministry for Hungary,
could not be maintained consistently with a proper treatment of
common affairs, and that Article 4 of the Laws of 1848, stipulating
that the Diet could not be dissolved by the government before the
budget had been voted, could not be carried out. The rescript
further announced that an immediate re-establishment of the
Comitates was impossible, and finally referred to the laws of the
year just mentioned, relative to the National Guard, in which body
the emperor thought some modifications necessary. In conclusion,
his majesty repeated that the re-establishment of the laws of 1848
was impossible without their previous revision.
This rescript, which left the hopes of the Hungarians unfulfilled,
gave rise to another address of both Houses of the Diet, deploring
�23
not only the rejection of all their requests, but also the suspension,
of those laws which required no modification. It stated that if his
majesty did not intend an absolute government, a constitutional
state of affairs must be practically re-established. The various points
of the imperial rescript were controverted in these addresses, and
the re-establishment of a parliamentary and legal municipal govern
ment again demanded. Hungary, it was stated, required a real
constitutional rule, the establishment of which was by no means a
political impossibility.
This address was unanimously adopted by the Lower House, but
by the Upper House with the very small majority of only 106 against
102 votes. On the 26th of April the address was received by the
emperor, who expressed a hope that the Diet would accelerate the
arrangement of those matters upon which depended the tranquillity,
power, and prosperity of the whole monarchy as well as of Hungary.
This was the position of the constitutional struggle when the war
with Prussia and Italy broke out. With the beginning of the
fighting, June 27th, the Diet of Pesth was prorogued, and Austria,
on this side of the Leitha and on that, was without any parliamentary
activity when the terrible crush of Sadowa fell on her, and Austria’s
difficulty became Hungary’s opportunity.
VL
Whether, and how much, the appearance on the theatre of war
of a Hungarian legion under General Klapka, in the service of
Prussia, and the rumours of a Prussian prince offering himself as a
candidate for the Hungarian crown, had to do with disposing the
Austrian government to large concessions to Hungary, we are not
in a position to decide. . On the whole, we are inclined to think
that the influence of these facts, though not null, was not consider
able. The legion, even on paper, never surpassed 4,000 men j and
it did not get into actual conflict. Whether it would have been in
creased from out of the ranks of the army, and whether there was
any party prepared to accept the offer, never formally made, of the
Prussian prince, remains doubtful. Still, both circumstances might
appear ominous storm-signals, and should not be passed over in
even this succinct account of constitutional struggles in the Austrian
*
monarchy.
But what became of immediate importance, was a conference of
the principal members of the Hungarian Lower House, held at
the house of Baron Kemengi in Pesth, while yet the question was
undecided whether Vienna should be defended against the Prussian
* The author of “ Austria, a Constitutional State,’’ mentions neither circum
stance.
�24
hosts. In the name of his colleagues, M. Deak published on July
17, 1866, their sentiments, which under the force of circumstances,
became, not disloyal, but most grave demands. {i A considerable
part of the country,” said M. Deak, in the Pesti Naplo, “ is inun
dated by hostile armies ; only Hungary is yet free. But Hungary
is dead. If not everything, at least much can be done with Hun
gary. Still, by herself, she can do nothing, for her hands are bound.
What alone can make them free and breathe life into her is a par
liamentary government. If Hungary can yet do anything for the
monarchy, it will be when her liberty of action has been restored to
her, when a government is placed over her which is the emanation
of the national will, in which the nation finds a guarantee of its
territory and its rights.”
.On the next day, July 18, the patriotic leaders were negotiating
with the government at Vienna respecting the concession of a
ministry for Hungary.
During this critical time, the municipalities of Vienna, Salzburg,
Glatz, etc., petitioned the emperor to convoke the Reichsrath and
to put again in force the February Constitution, but, instead of
granting their wishes, martial law was proclaimed at Vienna in order
to prevent discussion of the internal condition of the empire. When
peace was concluded, numerous meetings of deputies from the
German provinces took place, at Aussee, in Styria, and at Vienna
they declared themselves in favour of the system of dualism, with a
joint parliamentary treatment of the common affairs, but against all
federalistic tendencies, as well as against the conclusion of a com
promise with Hungary made by the separate Diets of the different
countries, since such a compromise was only admissible through the
united representation of the countries of the monarchy not linked
with the Hungarian crown.
At length, on October 14, the emperor convoked all the provin
cial Diets for November 16, with the exception of those of Hungary
and Transylvania ; the former of which, however, was likewise con
voked on October 30, to meet on the same day at Pesth.
On the same October 30, an important change took place in the
councils of the emperor. Count Mensdorf resigned the portfolio
of the foreign affairs, which passed into the hands of Baron Beust,
until then minister of Austria’s faithful ally, the King of Saxony.
At the same time, the Hungarian Count Maurice Esterhazy, who
passed as the representative of a reactionary policy, left the cabinet.
The helm of affairs was, however, intrusted to Count Belcredi, who
continued secretary for home affairs, and his tendencies, which wre
have before characterised as Slavophile, to which we might have
added bureaucratic, swayed for a while longer the general course of
the constitutional question, on which as yet Baron Beust could
exercise but little influence.
These changes were considered not sufficiently thorough ; they
awakened not the full measure of confidence required. The Diets
resumed their sessions with discordant recriminations, and, as before,
�25
Centralists, Dualists, and Federalists uttered their watchwords unharmoniously, barrenly.
Even the Hungarian Diet was not satisfied, though much was done
to meet half-way the demands of the nation. The emperor-king,
by a rescript to the Diet, of November 17, declared that in resuming
the thread of negotiations with the Diet, on the basis of the terms
mentioned in the last speech from the throne, the principal object
to be accomplished was the constitutional settlement of the connec
tion of the different parts of the monarchy, and the speedy re
establishment of the autonomous rights of Hungary. The emperor
regretted the prorogation of the Diet just at the time when the Sub
Committee of the Commission of 67 * had drawn up a project with
reference to the discussion and the treatment of common affairs,
which his majesty recognised as a fitting basis for the establishment
of the constitutional compromise.
The rescript also indicated
points as to which it appeared requisite that the special attention
of the representatives should be directed, the maintenance of the
unity of the army with unity of command, its organisation, and also
the rules regulating the terms of service and recruitment. The
regulation, according to uniform principles, of the customs, of the
indirect taxation, of the State monopoly system, and of the public
debt and State credit. “ If,” continued the rescript, “ the delibera
tions of the Diet succeed in removing the obstacles connected with
the unity of the monarchy, which must be upheld, then the con
stitutional wishes and demands of Hungary put forward in the
addresses of the Diet will be fulfilled by the appointment of a re
sponsible ministry, and by the restoration of municipal autonomy.
The system of the responsibility of the government will be intro
duced not only in Hungary but in all parts of the monarchy. The
detailed application and realisation of the principles referring to
common affairs, as well as to modifications to be introduced in the
laws of .1848, will be carried out through responsible ministers, to
be appointed in agreement with the estates and representatives in
Diet assembled.”
. In conclusion, the rescript expressed a hope that the Diet would
give its serious attention to these subjects with due regard to the
requirements of. the day, thereby accelerating the secure establish
ment of a constitutional organisation throughout the whole realm.
Thus, the country, after a struggle of 19 years, stood at last upon
the threshold of the fulfilment of its wishes.
But the Hungarians demanded the full measure of their right, and
an unconditional surrender preceding any requisite modification
of their constitution or the laws of 1848, which modifications they
showed themselves willing to introduce after having gained their
legal point.
On the motion of M. Dedk it was decided in the Lower House,
by 227 against 107 votes, to reply by an address to the royal
* This means not a Committee appointed in 1867, but one consisting of 67
members.
�26
rescript of the 17th of November, which had not been able to allay
the apprehensions entertained by Hungary, notwithstanding the
promises and the acknowledgments of the national rights contained
therein, since the request of the Diet for an immediate and complete
re-establishment of the constitution had not been complied with.
The address, while drawing attention to the dangers arising from
disunion at home and complications abroad, which might happen
by some unforeseen incident, contained a request to his majesty to
grant to the Diet means and opportunities for effecting a satisfactory
compromise, and also the prayer not to render reconciliation impos
sible by postponing the re-establishment of a legal basis for public
affairs. It also promised to consider the question of common
affairs as the committee of 67 should have brought forward their
report, and the Diet were in a position to pass resolutions in refe
rence thereto having the force of law. It also asked that those
persons upon whom penal sentences had been passed, or who were
exiled for political offences, should be amnestied, and expressed
great satisfaction that the emperor intended to introduce in his
other provinces also the principle of ministerial responsibility.
There was then a dead lock; the emperor demanding first the
modification of the laws before their re-establishment, the Hunga
rians requiring first their re-establishment before they could be
modified.
Meanwhile, voices friendly to Hungary were heard from the
German constitutionalists in the Diets of the Crown lands on this
side of the Leitha.
“ The Diet,” says the Carinthian address, “ firmly adheres to the
legal continuity of the Constitution of the 26th of February, 1861,
and has the conviction that it will not be an impediment to an
arrangement with Hungary, because all alterations which do not
affect the existence of the empire as a whole can be effected in a
constitutional manner, and because the interests of the western
countries offer no impediment to the recognition of the autonomy
of Hungary in those points which are not necessarily common to the
whole State. The joint parliamentary settlement of the common
affairs, with a responsible ministry, is not only an indispensable
preliminary condition for the constitutional liberty of the empire,
but also an absolute necessity for its continuance. Without any
further delay a parliamentary government must undertake, with the
support of the constitutional co-operation of the Reichsrath, to call
into life such an organisation and such public institutions as will
secure personal as well as civil and political liberty, and by a
popular and economical government promote and durably establish
the prosperity of the country.”
At last Baron von Beust, accompanied by the Hungarian Court
Chancellor, paid a visit to Pesth, conferring with the leading men
of the country, with a view to an immediate settlement. Personal
contact went far to smooth the way to such consummation. Yet the
step immediately following gave little satisfaction. Baron Beust had
�27
gained an influence over and above that belonging to his department
of foreign affairs, as his chief was still Count Belcredi. A compro
mise of their views seemed to be found in the convocation of an
extraordinary Reichsrath. The government resolved not to summon
the late members, but to proceed to new elections. Consequently,
by an imperial patent, dated 2nd January, 1867, the Diets of the
crown lands on this side of the Leitha were dissolved and new
elections to those Diets ordered; the Diets were severally to
assemble on the nth of February, and the communication of the
imperial patent and the election of members to this extraordinary
assembly of the Reichsrath were to form the only subjects to be
submitted to them. The government, it was stated in the patent,
had initiated negotiations upon the basis of the patent of the 20th
of September, 1865, with the representatives of the countries
belonging to the Hungarian crown for the settlement of opposing
claims with regard to the constitutional institutions of the monarchy.
With the intention of attaining as speedily as possible a complete
solution which should do justice to all parties, the government had
determined to ask the co-operation of the representatives of the
other countries, in order that the rights and claims of the non-Hungarian crown lands might be discussed in a common assembly,
constantly keeping in view the leading idea of securing the existence
of the monarchy as a whole. The extraordinary Reichsrath was to
meet at Vienna on the 25th of February, 1867, the discussion of the
question of the constitution to form the sole subject of its delibera
tions.
This plan caused much dissatisfaction, especially among the
German population, who, under Count Belcredi’s management,
expected to see themselves outvoted by the Slavonians. This dis
satisfaction, increased by an unconstitutional imperial rescript, re
organising the army on anew basis of a general duty of bearing arms,
bore Baron Beust into the highest power.
The difference of opinion between Count Belcredi and Baron von
Beust as to the way of proceeding was, that the count, who was less
favourable to the Hungarian claims, held that the arrangement with
Hungary should be submitted for approval to the non-Hungarian
nationalities, assembled in an extraordinary Diet, before being
adopted by the government, while Baron von Beust maintained that
such a mode would occasion further delays ; also, that the Hunga
rians would not like to see what they considered their rights called
in question. Moreover, the German provinces had to a great extent
abstained from taking part in the elections, so that the extraordinary
Reichsrath would not, after all, possess the commanding influence
which was expected of it. Baron von Beust’s view prevailed. The
empeior accepted the resignation of Count Belcredi, and appointed
Baron von Beust to succeed him as President of the Council.
Events now moved more rapidly, and no longer with an uncertain
step.
The extraordinary Reichsrath was abandoned, and the ordinary
�28
Reichsrath, in accordance with the February constitution, convened
for the 15th of February. Count Andrassy at the same time strongly
urged, on the part of Hungary, the adoption by the government of
the constitutional course of submitting the Hungarian propositions,
in so far as they concerned the empire at large, to an ordinary Cis
Lei than representative assembly.
On the 6th of February, the committee of 67 members of the
Hungarian Diet concluded their labours on the affairs common to
the whole monarchy. On the 18th an imperial rescript ordered the
obnoxious, decree about the army to stand over for parliamentary
consideration. At the same time the Hungarian constitution wras
restored, amid expressions of the unbounded delight of both Houses.
On the . 24th, Count Andrassy announced to the Diet his appointment
as President of the Ministry. On the 18th, also, all the Diets of the
non-Hungarian lands were opened. The emperor’s message an
nounced the repeal of the suspension of the constitution by the
patent of the 20th of September, 1865, the abandonment of the
convocation of the extraordinary Reichsrath, and the return to a
constitutional course ; it contained, at the same time, the assurance
that nothing was further from his majesty’s intentions than to
curtail the rights granted by the decrees of i860 and 1861, and
requested them to proceed at once to the election of members to
the constitutional Reichsrath, which was to meet on the 18th of
March for the ordinary despatch of business. It stated that by so
doing, in correct appreciation of his majesty’s intentions, they would
contribute what lay in their power to put an end to a constitutional
crisis that had already lasted far too long.
The resistance of the Slavonic population of Bohemia, Moravia,
and Carniola, who were unwilling to co-operate with the Germans,
the dissolution of their Diets, followed by a victory of the ministry
in the parliamentary campaign of the newly-elected Bohemian Diet,
delayed the opening of the Reichsrath by the emperor till the 22nd
of May last; and on the 8th of June, 1867, Francis Joseph was
crowned at Pesth, and peace, and a rational prospect of harmony,
re-established throughout the monarchy, a general amnesty also
taking place. Here closes our account of the constitutional travail
of Austria, and we may fitly wind it up with the following words
from one who knows Baron Beust, the author of the brochure on
“ Austria,” which we have repeatedly used and mentioned.
Baron von Beust possesses the liappy talent of allying himself with all those
parliamentary capacities disposed to enter on his own path. He does not think
of going backwards by oppressing nationalities. Nor does he dream of reversing
an august and solemn declaration which its author intends maintaining in its full
entirety—that is to say, the principle of legal equality of all the peoples of
Austria. Baron von Beust aims chiefly at one thing for the present,—an amicable
entente between all the parties concerned ; and he tries to maintain it by promo
ting a common deliberation, which is the first step to be taken by people holding
contrary opinions. The Prime Minister of Austria, in his efforts to arrive at that
result, does not decline the assistance of any one, to whatever party or nationality
he may belong, in order to conciliate all opposing claims and obliterate the
�*9
obstinate hatred of race. Francis Joseph, duly appreciating the eminent talents
of his minister and the services already rendered by him to the State, has just
given him a special mark of his confidence by raising him to the rank of Chancellor
of the Empire, the highest dignity that can be bestowed upon an Austrian states
man, and which has been in abeyance since the late Prince Metternich’s time;
while the people, judging of their sentiments as expressed by the press, seem to
be unanimous in their approval of the emperor’s act.
By placing themselves on the ground of the constitution of February, the
government have acknowledged its obligatory force for everything not expressly
abrogated by the Hungarian compromise. The revision of the constitution will
put an end to the contradictions existing between the Common Law of each of
the two great divisions of the empire. When accomplished, the work will no
doubt be capable of improvement; but an important fact will henceforth be
existent, the consequences of which cannot fail to be felt through the whole
empire : for the first time the whole of Austria will possess a legal basis to develop
her constitutional life. Time and peace, confidence, the force of interest, and,
above all, the goodwill of men, must work the rest.
VII.
And so Austria has settled down, into dualism, and the two rival
schemes of centralisation and federalism have been discarded. The
empire is now virtually divided into two halves, linked together by
having the same sovereign, and an arrangement for settling, in the
somewhat cumbersome form of parliamentary delegations, certain
affairs agreed upon as demanding treatment in common. This latter,
in so far as it is a concession on the side of Hungary, is the result
of the labours of the committee of sixty-seven members mentioned
above.
A look to the map will show that in speaking of the division by
the river Leitha we use rather an artificial term. That river, a small
tributary of the Danube, on its south side, divides but for a short dis
tance the archduchy of Austria from the kingdom of Hungary.
The real and complete line of demarcation between the western
and eastern halves of the monarchy is—with one exception, to be
mentioned immediately—the old boundary of the German Confedera
tion. But the western, or non-Hungarian half, besides the countries
formerly belonging to that confederation, includes now also the very
important provinces of Galicia and the Bukowina,which can hardly,
strictly speaking, be said to be this side of the Leitha, but stretch from
the northernmost part of the old German provinces, Austrian Silesia,
eastward, lying m a vast arch around the northern frontier of
Hungary.
. And now that this solution of dualism, towards which so many
influences tended, has been adopted, we hear-it sometimes sneered
at, the statesman who has carried it out blamed for having effected a
compromise, in which all his part consisted in giving way—which
when we consider the result arrived at by the sixty-seven committee,
�3°
is not correct—and the concessions to Hungary pointed out as so
many retrogressions into the middle ages.
We have not space to discuss the value of such views in detail.
We will, for the sake of argument, admit that dualism is not the best
possible solution that could be conceived. But could a better one
have been carried out ?
At any rate, the governors and people of Austria—and we here
comprise Hungary in this term—may feel again firm ground under
them, instead of the shifting quagmire of contradictory experiments
and plans which have filled the history of these last eighteen years.
And if we look at their actual doings since the early part of last
year, it seems that they are willing, on the whole, to avail them
selves, in order to march forward, of such new bases. The tenden ■
cies both of the Vienna Reichsrath and of the Hungarian Diet lie
in a liberal direction. The Concordate has fallen in Hungary, is
manifestly doomed in Vienna. The reforms in criminal jurisdiction
and in constitutional guarantees voted by the Vienna assembly are
very cheering, and if we are inclined to suspect that the formalism
of a pattern constitutionality does perhaps pre-occupy that assembly
too much, this is an evil which it shares with almost every parlia
mentary body which has sat on the continent for these last forty
years ; and we even see progress in that the desire of producing the
most perfect paper constitution has cost much less time, and interfered
much less with actual current business than it did, for instance, in
the parliament of Frankfort, and of Vienna itself in 1848.
As to the treatment of common affairs, the recent financial settle
ments about the share of the burden to be borne by Hungary
certainly seemed calculated to impress one with a notion that the
Magyars were more willing to accept the profitable portion of their
connection with Austria than a due proportion of the cost of its
existence. But we are willing to admit that, were we, in common
with other writers in the English press, more fully informed of the
details, this affair might present itself in a somewhat different light.
We, for our part, hope that in the course of time the separation
between Hungary and the western half of the monarchy will not
grow wider, but that, on the contrary, the links now uniting the
two parts will be drawn more firmly by the consciousness of pressing
mutual interests and a growing goodwill.
How the Roumane and Slavonic populations in the countries
annexed to Hungary will reconcile themselves to their position,
remains to be seen. We confess that we should have been glad if
the Magyar nation had possessed the magnanimity of not insisting
on retaining or re-grasping their hold on Croatia—a country which
evidently, in the great majority of its inhabitants, is unfavourable
to that special connection which is a necessity neither for Austria
nor for Hungary, while it cannot be said that the Magyar language,
imposed on the Slavonian deputies at Pesth, is, as Latin, the former
official language, was, a neutral ground, or as German would be, a
great link with the civilisation of an extensive part of Europe. The
�Si
day seems yet distant for these countries when the language difficulty
can be solved by that mutual fairness and accommodation which
Switzerland practises, enjoys, and does not boast of.
A similar difficulty exists yet for the western half of the monarchy,
in the local and race feeling of the Czechs in Bohemia and parts of
Moravia. The population of the former kingdom is in its majority,
though not in its most active and enterprising portion, Slavonian,
the Germans forming a strong minority.
*
Now, the Slavo-Bohemians or Czechs are endeavouring, on the strength of historical tradi
tions, to set up a claim to a position for Bohemia, similar to that of
Hungary. On considering whether such claim is allowable, one
important difference strikes us as paramount. The whole of the
Magyar population is contained within the boundaries of Hungary
and Transylvania, and no foreign power has supported their claims,
or can easily use them as part of its diplomatic machinery. The
Czechs, on the other hand, present themselves as part of a whole
which lies outside of Austria ; their tendencies are connected or
identified with Panslavism; they lean upon Russia, f The acropolis
of the Magyars is Buda-Pesth, within the monarchy; but the
Czechs have their kebla in the czar’s dominion—Moscow and St.
Petersburg are their Mecca and Medina. While, therefore, the
local diet should continue to exercise, as it does, its functions ;
while no right belonging to any other subject of the monarchy is
denied to a Bohemian ; and while it is necessary for every Austrian
statesman to show all due regard to the Slavonic populations who
form so large a part of the empire, it is on the other hand perfectly
intelligible that Count Belcredi’s pampering of Czech race feeling
should have been felt a great evil, and that Baron Beust should show
himself firmly decided not to allow Bohemia to be made an Austrian
Ireland,, with its Fenian head-centres in Russia.^ The comparison
into which we have just been drawn, may be applied to one or two
other points. Austria can as little give up Bohemia as England can
* The statements of the Czechs and Germans differ, of course ; three-fifths for
the former and two-fifths for the latter is probably correct.
f Let us remind our readers of the speeches recently delivered by M. Rieger,
and other Czechs, on the occasion of the so-called Ethnographical Congress, or
gathering of Panslavistic agitators, at Moscow. Among the popular poets of the
Czech school, Czelakovsky openly leads towards Russia. “ La Bohême historique,
pittoresque et littéraire.” Paris, 1867. p. 288, etc.
J The following passage from the Daily News, referring to a speech of Baron
Beust’s, is worth quoting
The Austrian chancellor mentions, among the
difficulties with which he has to deal, the disloyal and anti-national spirit of the
Panslavist enthusiasts in Bohemia. With just severity he condemns the infatua
tion of the silly dupes who complain of the destruction of their national traditions,
while they are conspiring to sell their birthright to an alien power. But M. de
Beust consoles himself with the persuasion that this Bohemian fanaticism is but a
passing discontent ; he promises to maintain their rights in common with those of
all their fellow-subjects, under the safeguard of constitutional’liberty and equal law.
It is by the peaceful fruits of liberty, and the harmonious development of the
interests of all the nationalities that acknowledge his sceptre, that the Emperor
Francis Joseph will avenge the defeat of Sadowa. All Liberal Europe will wish
M. de Beust success in his good work.”
\
\
\
�32
give up Ireland. A look on the map proves it, and it is not the
least of the evil consequences of the war of 1866, that a province in
which German influence ought to be beneficially felt, and which
extends so far into Germany, should by the weakening of Austria,
and by the dissolution of the old confederation, be so much more
exposed to the anti-German influences of Russia ; it is not the least
among the wrongs committed by Count Bismarck against the German
nation and Europe that in his unscrupulous efforts for the aggran
disement of Prussia, he has not hesitated to commence in Bohemia
a Czech agitation, and by his incendiary proclamations to try to
induce the Bohemians to set up again the throne of St. Wenceslas.
*
The difficulties under which Austria labours are thus still very
considerable ; and we can, in the scope of our present observations,
but glance at, though we must not omit to mention, her financial
embarrassments, the legacy of the profligate rule of former years
which did not disdain, in the midst of profound peace, to sink deeper
and deeper into public debt, while neglecting to develop the natural
resources of such rich countries as compose the Austrian monarchy.f
But, on the other hand, Austria has a great mission, in the fulfil
ment of which it behoves liberal Europe no longer to impede, but
rather, in the general interest, to favour her. Hers is the task to
preserve and to increase civilisation along the shores of the Danube,
and to see that the great river, from its sources down to the mouth,
from the Black Forest to the Black Sea, belongs to European
civilisation; hers the task to be an arbiter, and, in gentle bonds, a
connecting power between the different nationalities filling that broad
expanse of country, and which cannot evolve out of themselves a
substitute to such power, whilst, unconnected, they must fall a prey
to Russia. Interposed between the steppes of the Euxine, and the
kingdom of Greece which is meant to rise in Russian dependency,
she may yet preserve for Europe the Dardanelles, and prevent the
Christian rajah from being led, by the watchword of their emanci
pation from Turkish yoke, under the yoke of Russia, to their own
and Europe’s great and lasting detriment.
' * Compare on the side of the Bohemian agitators : “ Expose et défense de la
Politique suivie en ce moment par la Diète Bohême.” Paris, Victor Groupy. 1867.
“ Le Royaume de Bohême et l’Etat Autrichien.” Prague, Grégi. 1867. “ La
Bohême Historique, Pittoresque et Littéraire,” par Joseph Friczet Louis Leger.
Paris, Librairie Internationale. 1867.—472 pp. If any set of English democrats
find themselves impelled to espouse the cause of the Czechs, we would request
them not to exclusively dwell on the name of John Huss, whose memory is a
friendly connecting link between the German Protestants and the Czechs, but
also to bear in mind the fact that Czechian Bohemia has furnished to absolutistic
Austria its most numerous and some of its worst satellites. The authors of “La
Bohême Historique ” do not deny it ; they excuse it with the necessity of making a
living—en somme, ilfallait vivre. One feels inclined to reply, with Voltaire—Je
rHen vois pas la nécessité.
+ See, on this characteristic of Prince Metternich’s long administration, some
excellent remarks, not unmixed with prejudice against the Jews, in Wolfgang
Menzel’s “ Geschichte der letzten vierzig Jahre.” 1865. Vol. I. pp. 23-25.
�33
Vili.—CONCLUSION.
If we are to heed a few shortsighted writers, the destruction of the
Austrian monarchy is still, and speedily, required for the re-estab ■
lishment of German unity. Curiously enough they are some of the
same people who habitually designate the disruption of Germany,
by thè war of 1866, as the foundation of its unity. These gentlemen
forget the text from which they are to preach. German unity by
federation existed until the summer of 1866, in a form, indeed, far from
being perfect. Reform was needed, not destruction, and moreover
*
it was in course of progress. But every effort in that direction had
been defeated by Prussia, unless it tended to the subjugation of Ger
many to her. So the last endeavour of Austria, by the Congress of
Frankfort in 1863, which would have led to a real, though not a
radical reform, but for the protests of Prussia, and the intrigues of the
Grand-Duke of Baden, who fancies himself to speak as a pater patrice,
when he plays but the part of a son-in-law of His Prussian Majesty.!'
Germany’s federal consolidation, then, striven for by many
patriots, and latterly by Austria, was destroyed by Prussia and her
* So the patriotic poet Count Platen ;
Wohl that Erneurung unserem Reiche noth,
Doch nicht Zerstörung, tief im Busen
Trug es den edelsten Keim der Freiheit.—Ode xxxiii.
This noble poet has been scurvily treated by M. Julian Schmidt, in that pon
derous pro-Prussian pamphlet, which he calls a history of modern literature.
Was it because it might be foreseen that, had Platen lived to witness, he would
have been certain to oppose the Prussian aggression ?
f The Prussian faction by no means embraces all Prussian liberals, though
many of them have been misled by the glitter of arms and the dizziness of power.
One of the foremost and purest of them, M. Jacoby, said last year to the Prussian
second chamber—“ A united, a politically unified Germany, so hopes the draft of
your address, will be the result of this war. I cannot share this hope. I believe,
rather, that the exclusion of Austria, that is, the expulsion of millions of our
German brothers from the common assembly does not unite Germany, and that
the plan which the policy of the Prussian cabinet has been pursuing for so long a
time, and which now brings two-thirds of the population under Prussian dominion,
leads us farther away from the desired aim of German unity than the late Diet of
Frankfort.” . . . “It is possible that this may respond to the specific
interests of Prussia ; but from the point of view of liberty, I cannot regard as a
strengthening of German unity the strengthening of the dynastic power of Prussia
by the violent acquisition of German territories. If in Prussia the recent system
of government continue—and up to the present time there is hardly anything to
be seen of a change—then your reformation of Germany will be to her former
divisions and powerlessness what death is to disease.”—Diplomatic Review,
October 3, 1866. The same distinguished politician, in a later speech, voting
against that hoax which calls itself the Constitution of the North German Con
federation, says, ‘ ‘ Germany, united in political freedom, is the surest guarantee
for the peace of Europe ; united under Prussian military power, Germany is a
standing danger for neighbouring nations, and we are at the beginning of an epoch
of wars, which threatens to throw us back into the saddest time of the middle
ages, when might was substituted for right.”—English Leader, May 25th, 1867.
D
�34
faction. Let that result, for the present, be accepted. German
unity may perhaps be re-established, and on a sounder basis than
before, but not now. And certainly the means suggested is not
desirable ; that of sowing discontent in the German-Austrian part of
the monarchy, and, by directing the attention of the discontented
towards Berlin, as a North Star, to make the countries on this side
of the Leitha ready to fall by insurrection and intrigue into the lap
of Prussia, as the Two Sicilies fell into that of Sardinia, seven years
ago. Such a plan seemed to have—we do not say it had—some
chance of success, immediately after the war, when discontent was
very rife in most parts of the Austrian monarchy. But the liberal
policy of Baron Beust at home, and the wretched part played in the
north by that friend of the English Reform League, Count Bismarck,
who has already sacrificed Luxemburg, must have obliterated any
such desire where it ever existed in Austrians.
*
Its success, moreover, would be only opening the door to new
difficulties ; it would expose directly all the countries on the other
side of the Leitha, and Galicia, to Russian influence; and granting
that Vienna and Salzburg were contented to be ruled from Berlin—
which is granting a good deal—there would be an immediately
increased striving of the Czechs towards union with Russia. For
after all, they have had many centuries of connexion with Vienna,
while no link, but bare force, devoid of all historical tradition, would
connect Prague with Berlin. Similarly, in the south, Trieste would
be attracted to Italy. Thus while Russia would step into the centre
of Germany and of Europe, for such is the north-western frontier of
Bohemia, Germany would definitively cut herself off from the
Adriatic. Beautiful fruits of a longing for unity !
Peace, no doubt, is very desirable for Austria. But is it, under
the present conditions, possible for any length of time ? Austria is,
during the present peace, continually being undermined, on the
upper and lower, if no longer on the middle, Danube ; on the one
hand by Prussia and the faction of political Unitarians, on the other
by Russia and those Slavonians who are friendly to her.
It thus becomes necessary for her to advance, by alliance or con
quest, to the mouths and to the sources of the Danube.
The Prussian prince in Roumania has been placed there only to
keep the seat warm for Russia. He might well arrive there with his
carpet-bag only ; it was sufficient for his mission. His part is about
played out. The last thing he maybe used for is to create dissatisfaction
among those Roumanes—or Wallachians—which inhabit portions of
Transylvania. Not having always been very well treated by the
* In this connection the writer on “ Dualism in Austria,” in the Westminster
Review of last October, refers to the pamphlet, 44 Der Zerfall Oestreichs, von einem
Deutsch Oestreicher.” One is astonished at a writer so acute not doubting the
authenticity of that anonymous publication. Probably his great pro-Slavonic
tendencies prevented him from seeing the strong probability of this being one
more of the many productions of Count Bismarck’s active literary staff. As such
we shall consider it until the writer chooses to unmask himself.
�35
Magyars, they may be supposed to be open to an application of the
nationality doctrine. This is a nostrum which can well be used
for preparing Russian dominion. To avert this danger, and sub
stituting the better for the worse, knowing herself to be the better,
Austria will have to strive to put her influence in the place of
Russia’s, in that revolution which seems imminent.
An enlightened policy will likewise lead her to attach, in friendly
relations, the principality of Servia to her.
If, without her acting to bring it about, the dissolution of the
Turkish Empire come to pass, the provinces of Bosnia and Herze
govina, the background, so to speak, of Croatia and Dalmatia, ought
to be seen gravitating towards the Austrian monarchy ; and perhaps
such a tendency will also manifest itself in Bulgaria.
On the upper Danube, Austria ought to connect herself in friendly
alliance with the South German States, and thus to strengthen her
German element. Much seems lost there already; notwithstanding
the evident aversion of the immense majority against Prussian rule,
the excellent strategy of Count Bismarck has won a good deal
of ground in that direction. Stirring up patriotic feeling against
France, connecting the renewal of the Zollverein treaties with those of
military alliance, and making the adoption of the latter a conditio
sine qua non of the former, also availing himself of much of the old
leaven of distrust against Austria, Prussia has indubitably gained
advantages in that direction, from which it may be difficult for
Austria to dislodge her. Yet we have abundant evidence before us
that no love for Prussian rule pervades those southern populations,
*
* We may here extract the following from the private letters of an English
military gentleman, formerly an officer in the Austrian service, who is at present
travelling and observing in the lands of the Danube. Writing from Bucharest,
he says :—“I have been doing my best to ascertain the real situation of affairs in
this province. Everything is at a standstill. There exists great discontent
amongst all parties. My firm belief is that the present prince will abdicate in
favour of some other member of his family, and that he was never intended to
last. .A short.time since he told the English consul that he was not the right
man in the right place. Why shoidd a prince say that to a foreign consul ?
Until the country is in the hands of a strong power there will never be any pro
gress. The parties are so numerous and equal in strength that no minister can
count on a majority for any length of time. Every one does his best to cheat the
others. I enclose you a description of a review ; it was first-rate. Very few of
the National Guard have any uniform. They seem to have a good class of
officers ; the greater part, I hear, foreigners. Anybody is to be bought.” . . .
This about Wallachia. From another letter as to Moldavia we extract“ I will
now give you my ideas of the present state of Moldavia, which is worse than that
of Wallachia. All parties are agreed on one point—that they have los-t greatly
by the present government, which has done nothing for them. The Russian party
is the. strongest. That I cannot understand why Russia should work against the
Prussian prince, unless it is an understood thing that Moldavia is at a future
period, to belong to Russia, that is to say, the Moldavians are to revolt against
the prince and demand to be placed under the protection of Russia, with a prince
of their own. This plan would be supported by the majority of the Moldavians.
If the Austrian party in Wallachia was properly supported, the province must fall
into the hands of Austria ; the Hungarians all do their best to get it attached to
the crown of Hungary.”
�3<S
and the Liberal tendency of present Austrian politics may recover
lost ground.
*
When thus the position of Austria is strengthened again, and con
stitutional freedom preserved in the south, the re-establishment of
German unity may be thought of. It will have to be brought about
by a strong Austria, anti-Russian, in alliance with Prussia, freeing
herself from Russia, to which she at present leans.f No doubt the
principle of manifoldness in unity—in which the chief value of
Germany to European civilisation consists—will have to be re
spected, Prussia will have to disgorge some of her ill-gotten gains,
to relax, for instance, her grasp on unwilling Hamburg, to restore
the freedom of that ancient republic of Frankfort, where her parti
sans can well nigh be counted on one’s fingers.
And as her ambition must have some satisfaction, it may, in the
inevitable struggle with Russia, be directed to that power’s Baltic
provinces with their German populations. Let her harp there on
the string of the nationality principle, it will be more than appealing
to a race-feeling; it will be regaining outlying family members to a
higher political existence.
In such a struggle there is a chance, not a slight one, for the re* Vide, among others, the Suddeutsche Presse, published since October ist, at
Munich, by Julius Froebel, an old leader of the German Liberals, himself not
hostile to Prussia. Much evidence in this direction may also be gathered from
the Hermann, a German weekly paper, published in London.
The most Prussianised part of South Germany appears to be Baden. Yet, in the
appeal just made by the government, the people have in the elections for the socalled customs-parliament given unmistakable signs that they do not approve of
the doings of the Grand-Duke and the Prussian faction. In the weekly paper,
Die Vereinigten Staaten von Europa, published at Berne, a correspondent from
Baden says with reference to the appointment of a Prussian officer as Baden war
minister :—“ Our elections for the customs parliament were a protest against govern
ment, and its submissiveness to Prussia. Now they answer by a provocation.
If things continue in this way, the Grand-Duke, who is under the influence of his
consort, stakes his throne, and will lose it even more certainly than were he to
cede it to Prussia. We fear the French government, but we hate Prussia. We
want to be German ; never will we consent to be Prussian. Anything rather than
that.” March Sth, No. io. —Wurtemberg has just elected 17 members for the
Customs Parliament: not one candidate favourable to the Prussification of Ger
many, was successful.
J The Berlin correspondent of the Times says:—“Manyof the Liberal prints
are even so unreasonable as to taunt Count Bismarck with not calling Russia to
account, when a moment’s reflection must tell them that no Prussian Cabinet,
whatever its bearings, -would, in the actual condition of Europe, be rash enough
to quarrel with the Czar.”—Times, December 17th, 1867. This shameful sub
missiveness may indeed be a necessity for Prussia, aggrandized by rending Germany
into pieces and excluding Austria from the Confederation : for a federally united
Germany no such necessity would exist.
I11 this reprint we are enabled to refer the reader to the documents revealing the
remarkable endeavour made by Prussia to re-connect herself, by a federal bond,
with Austria, and to the dignified manner by which it was met by Baron Beust,
vide “The Austrian Redbook.” (Dulau &Co., 1868.) Part I., pp. 3,4, 53, 55,
and 84 to 93.
The liberal admirers and disciples of Count Bismark may still preach the wis
dom of the exclusion of Austria; they now stand rebuked by their half-repentant
master. It is true he wished Russia to join in the league.
�37
establishment of Poland, of which Austria, strengthened in other
quarters, might offer a nucleus.
This federative Germany, strong for defence, too enlightened to
be dangerous to any civilised power, and not by undue centralisa
tion favouring the projects of ambition, would enter into friendly
relations with Scandinavia, and thereby guard for Europe the second
key of her seas, the Sound, now ill-protected in the hands of weak
Denmark. She would, freed from the desire of accumulation,
guarantee to Switzerland and Holland their existence, at present
threatened. She would revert to the principle of respect for the
smaller communities, “these feeble states,” in the words of Sir
James Mackintosh, “these monuments of the justice of Europe, the
asylum of peace, of industry, and of literature, the organs of public
reason, the refuge of oppressed innocence and persecuted truth.” *
We have been carried far into a future, perhaps never to be real
ised. Is this a dream ? If so, it seems still better to strive after its
realisation than to pretend to enjoy the horrible nightmare of
Prussian functionarism and barrackdom. It may be, in parts at
least, even more easy to be realised than Kossuth’s dream of a
Danube federation under Magyar Hegembny. At the Danube we
now see only the alternative of accepting Austria or Russia. We
have made our choice.
* The trial of John Peltier, Esq., for a libel against Napoleon Buonaparte.
London, 1803. p. 88.
�EXTRACTS
FROM THE AUSTRIAN RED-BOOK.—CORRESPONDENCE OF
THE IMPERIAL ROYAL MINISTRY FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS.
On the Prussian Proposal for re-establishing a Federal
Connection with A ustria.
From the introduction :
... In looking back to the relations of Austria towards Germany in the year
following the war of 1866, the fact must not lightly be passed over that, under
the impression of the danger of a European war, many a serious glance was
directed, in Berlin, as well as in Munich, towards that Austria whose connection
with Germany the Treaty of Prague had severed a few months previously.
Intimations followed with respect to new federal arrangement, which, however,
were too vague, and guarded the interest of the one side too partially, to allow of
Austria sacrificing to them that freedom of action she has exchanged for the rights
and duties of the period closed by the dissolution of the Germanic Confédéra
tion.............
BARON BEUST TO COUNT TRAUTTMANNSDORFF AT MUNICH.
Vienna, April 6, 1867.
“ I neither could nor would express any opinion as to the relations between
Prussia and South Germany, by which any degree of responsibility could be
attached to the imperial cabinet for a further infringement of the stipulations of the
Treaty of Prague, already restricted by the August Treaties of Alliance. We do
not wish to influence in any direction the considerations that may be entered into
at Berlin and Munich in this matter. I was forced, on the contrary, to character
ise the question of an alliance of Austria with a new German Bund, under the
direction of Prussia, as a simple question of interest, and one, indeed, of the highest
order. Neither passions, nor feelings, nor historical recollections—whether those
of 1866 or those of a thousand years past—shall influence our future resolutions,
but our consideration will be in the first instance the security, and in the second
the interest, of the Austrian monarchy. Even in favour of its former German
allies, the empire can no longer enter into relations which would impose upon us
obligations and burdens, unless the fullest compensatory returns are made. If
friendship towards Austria, and the wish to be useful to her, can be traced in the
language and the acts of the German governments, such tokens will at all times
find an echo with us, and this may contribute to pave the way for happier relations
in future than at present exist. But we require very solid guarantees against ten
dencies which are not only not friendly but dangerous to us, and no services must
be required from us which would not be fully compensated by counter-services of
equal value. I have not concealed from Count Bray that in the position which
the South-German States have now taken up with regard to Prussia—and with
which position we are far removed from wishing to quarrel—such guarantees and
counter-services could not be offered us in Munich, but only in Berlin; and that
we, therefore, would be compelled mainly to keep our eyes fixed upon Prussia,
should it ever come to pass that we could believe in a serious honestly meant
alliance with Germany, advantageous to both parties, and for which we ought to
sacrifice our present liberty.”
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
�39
BARON BEUST TO COUNT WIMPFFEN IN BERLIN.
Vienna, April 17, 1867.
•
•
•
■
•
•
•
... 111 will not keep from your Excellency the fact that Baron Werther some
days ago mentioned to me the wish, just as Count Bismarck did to you, for the
re-establishment of a grand Germano-Austrian alliance. I heard from him
words even which seemed to imply that Austria ought to regain her lost position in
Germany. But what other answer could I give to this than putting the question
—Whether they intend in Prussia to return to the former Confederation ? They
must doubtless understand in Berlin that this question is of serious bearing, as it is
Prussia s business in this respect to leave unproductive generalities aside, and to
tell us upon what foundation the desired new alliance should rest, sp that Austria
might find therein as good guarantees for her security, her influence, and her
interest, as she had in the former Confederation, and better ones than previously
existed for her peace and concord with Prussia. . . .
BARON BEUST TO COUNT WIMPFFEN IN BERLIN.
Vienna, April 19, 1867.
... “ What Count Tauffkirchen stated further upon this latter point was,
however, not the clearest part of his communications.
“ He spoke of a guarantee of our German possessions. He gave us to under
stand that probably every desirable security against possible dangers would also
be offered temporarily for our non-German provinces. He mentioned Russia as
the third party to the alliance, and was of opinion that security would of itself be
assured by the conclusion of a treaty by the three powers. Finally he pointed
out—as had already been earlier done from Munich—that a friendly alliance of
Prussia with Austria afforded the South-German States the possibility of main
taining a larger measure of independence, and that an international alliance of
Austria with the North-German and South-German Confederations might still
ultimately form the turning-point towards closer treaty relations of a permanent
nature, which might replace the former State-Bund with advantage to Austria as
well as the German nation.”
Count Tauffkirclien was not indeed able to declare himself prepared to reply
to all these questions, or to weaken thq doubts and objections brought under his
notice. He only expressed his regret to be obliged to assume from my words
that Austria declined the proposals he had brought with him from Berlin. Baron
Werther upon his part repeated to me the expression of his opinion in a precisely
similar sense.
I cautioned them, however, strongly against its employment,
begging them at the same time not to speak of Austria as declining Prussian
proposals, as the explanations thereby rendered necessary could not operate
otherwise than disadvantageously ; that it was desirable to keep the future open ;
and that it remained a fact that Austria would always entertain the wish of being
able to offer her hand in order to secure a reconciliation with Prussia and
Germany.
•
•••»..
�40
BARON BEUST TO COUNT TRAUTTMANNSDORFF AT MUNICH.
Vienna, May 15, 1867,
,
s•
,•
•
s•
•
•
In accordance therewith I have once more expressed myself to Count Bray
with all sincerity as to the position in which we stand towards facts, past or
future, incompatible’with the Treaty of Prague. I explained to him that con
siderations of opportuneness might easily for the present determine His Majesty
the Emperor’s government to ignore such facts, and that this government readily
allowed the German sympathies which it has retained to influence its attitude,
so long as it was not compelled to consider the interests of its own country in
danger. The demand, on the other hand, that the imperial cabinet should give
its assent to the Alliance treaties which it has hitherto accepted in silence, and
to still greater violations of the Treaty of Prague, I characterized distinctly as
impossible of fulfilment, and pointed out that, in her present position, Austria,
on the contrary, must carefully guard against forfeiting in any way, either by
word or deed, the right of appealing at a suitable time to the arrangements of
that treaty.
“ Further, I have not concealed from Count Bray that I am unable to under
stand how it could have been believed that we could be induced to change our
attitude by the vague terms of the Munich programme that an alliance with
Austria ought to be concluded or prepared for. If, by the word alliance,
according to the sense generally used in international language, is to be under
stood a provisional covenant for definite aims, it must be objected that such aims
are not stated, and at present probably cannot be stated. But if a permanent
federal relation is thought of, by which the Imperial Government should
abandon its liberty, not for any settled course of action, but indefinitely and for
ever, and which, upon the other hand, was to form one of the main elements of
the political re-organization of Germany, we ought to be in the first place
solemnly released from the obligation not to take part in that re-organization;
and, in the second, it must not be overlooked that one great power cannot
subordinate itself to another, cannot serve foreign interests, and cannot bind
itself in advance to conventions arrived at without its participation. I doubt
whether they have been enabled at Munich to offer us a position of equal
standing with Prussia in a new general German Bund; but if this is not the
case, the men at the helm of the Austrian State are compelled to fall back upon the
complete freedom they have exchanged for their former rights in the Bund.
•
*
•
•
•
-I
=.
Printed at the Victoria Press (for the Employment of Women), S3a., Farringdon Street, E.O.
W. W. Head, Proprietor.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Austria in 1868
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Oswald, Eugene
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 40 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Includes bibliographical references. Reprinted from 'English Leader'. Printed at the Victoria Press (for the Employment of Women). The Victoria Press was founded by Emily Faithfull and arose from the Society for Promoting the Employment of Women, a group of Victorian feminists who sought to provide new avenues for women's work in the printing industry.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Trubner & Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1868
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5245
Subject
The topic of the resource
Austria
History
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (Austria in 1868), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Austria-History
Conway Tracts