Chapter IX: Part 9

The wrongs of Poland are due not wholly to the House of Austria. Prussia and Russia were indeed the principal aggressors. Frederic the Great undoubtedly first projected the partition, but his first step was to gain Austria, because he was aware that Russia was so sure of the whole of the prey, she would oppose dismemberment. The emperor Joseph I. went to Neiss, to negotiate with him upon the subject. Two years after, a second interview took place, and the map of Poland was laid out before them, when the limits of the respective portions were adjusted, the largest share being assigned to Russia, in order to secure her concurrence. The Austrian and Prussian troops entered Poland on the pretence of preventing the plague, and Maria Theresa first presented her vague claims on certain Polish districts, on the specious pretext of protecting them from Russia and Prussia. The Austrian troops first occupied sixteen towns of the county of Zips; and upon this, Frederic proposed to Catherine the dismemberment; and the respective portions were specified at St. Petersburgh, in February, 1772. “Maria Theresa felt or _affected to feel_,” says Coxe, “great scruples of conscience, in participating in the disgrace of this infamous transaction; but she was not the less exorbitant in her demands, and extended her claims almost to the half of Poland.” She afterwards made a merit of yielding something, but retained Red Russia, Galicia, and parts of the palatinates of Cracow, Sandomir, Lublen, Bezk, Volhynia, and Podolia, a fertile and extensive country, with a population of ten millions and a half, and the valuable salt mines of Wieliczka, whose revenue to the republic was 90,000 pounds a year. This territory was consolidated and annexed to the Austrian dominions under the ancient appellation of the kingdoms of Galicia and Lodomeria.

The plunder of these countries by Maria Theresa’s troops was immense. Even Catherine of Russia reproached the Court of Vienna for the exactions of their troops, and extorted from the emperor a humiliating disavowal of their conduct. When we read of the wagon-loads of gold, among which were the spoils of churches, candelabras of the size of a grown man, of solid gold, carried into Austria, we are led to ask, whence came this prodigious wealth? and this question leads us to remember that from time immemorial there had been a land trade extending into Persia and other rich Asiatic territories, and that the constitutional law, prohibiting Poles from engaging on either side in a sectarian war, had made the fertile plains of Poland the granary of Europe, during the terrible religious wars that raged over the West of Europe in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Poland, too, from its constitutional laws of toleration, was the asylum for the persecuted merchants and mechanics of the Jewish and Protestant sects, driven for many centuries from other more bigoted countries.

In giving an account of the state of the several parts of Poland, after the partition, Lelewel, having enumerated oppressions common to all of them, makes the following remarks:

“There was, however, this difference between the Austrian government and the Prussian, that the latter, more fond of peace, more economical, favoured the propagation of knowledge, augmented the number of primary schools, carried instruction to the poorest, and tolerated the manifestations of national sentiments, that the Poles did not know how to repress. Without speaking of liberty, the Prussian government respected individual liberty and property. Justice was equally administered to nobles and peasants, without distinction of class; both were subjected to military service. No exception was made except in favour of the Jews. At Warsaw they were permitted to have a national theatre; the polytechnic society, founded by some patriots for the end of conserving the Polish nationality, was authorised by the king of Prussia. It was not so in Galicia. There the emperor proclaimed the liberty of the peasants, forgetting or ignoring that long before the fall of Poland, the quatriennial or constituent diet had guaranteed it to them. But he erected it into a principle that everything belonged to the emperor, property and persons, and that he could dispose of them according to his good pleasure, as of things that were his. Occupied by continual wars with France, the emperor exhausted his estates, and especially Galicia, by exactions. Whoever could bear arms, whether Gipsies, Jews, or Christians, were enrolled, and forced to serve as soldiers, under German counts and barons. His enormous imposts not only took away their money, but forced them to give up their landed property. To repair the immense losses of his campaigns, he had recourse to paper money of which he reduced the value afterwards, or suppressed it altogether; and he circulated copper money qualified with silver, and forced it to be received as silver. In short, it was an odious spoliation and a degrading slavery. In order to attach the magistrates and principal inhabitants to himself, he sold to them titles of counts and barons; as the price of this imperial complaisance they were obliged to pay very dear.

“There were many who did not blush to buy these honours, and to disgrace their posterity with them, forgetting that the ancient laws of the republic deprived of the rights of citizenship, and declared infamous those who accepted titles from foreign powers.

“That the dismemberment of Poland, by Austria, Prussia, and Russia, did not destroy it, Lelevel’s faithful history proves. Not only Kosciusko’s struggles, and the revolution of 1831, suppressed mainly through the perfidy of Louis Philippe, acting in combination with the generous confidence of Skrzynecki, but the previous educational efforts of Czartoryski at the university of Wilna, and the energy with which the Poles repulsed the archduke Ferdinand from Warsaw in 1809; and generally fought for Napoleon, in the vain confidence that he would restore their republic. It may be that had Napoleon justified their long cherished hopes, and kept the faith he promised by the agents whom he sent to Warsaw to negotiate for assistance, previous to his Russian campaign, the result of that extraordinary movement would have been far different, and when he fell back into Lithuania, he would have found himself sustained; but his cold-blooded evasions, when he had passed through Warsaw, after it had risked Alexander’s fury for his sake, had finally convinced the Poles that they should ‘put no trust in princes;’ and they left him to the elements which were as humane as himself. The republicanism which is to be established by autocracy is as futile as the reforms which come from the same quarter; and Napoleon Bonaparte’s history is as clear a lesson upon the former pretence, as Joseph II.’s was upon the latter.”

We must leave, however, the history of Poland, so illustrative of our subject, in order to come to the history of Hungary. There is no complete work on this subject extant in the English language. In the Spring of 1850, there was republished in Boston, by Ticknor, Fields and Co., from the London edition, a pamphlet by J. Toulmin Smith, called “Parallels of the Constitutional History of England and Hungary,” which should be studied by those persons who fancy and assert that Anglo-Saxons are the only people to whom constitutional liberty is natural. In the May of the same year, there appeared also in the Christian Examiner of Boston, an article upon Hungary, referring to a recent publication of A. de Gerando, _De l’Esprit publique en Hongrie depuis la Revolution Française_, and intended to rectify the false statements made in an article in the N. A. Review of January, 1850, where the Hungarian movement of 1848–9, as well as all the past history of Hungary, were vilified. This article in the Examiner, which exhibited a wonderful familiarity with the Hungarian language and literature, as well as a profound and accurate knowledge of the history of modern Europe in general, and an extraordinary acquaintance with the periodical literature of the day, and the influences under which each individual contributor to it had written, when the subject matter touched the politics of Hungary, contains a masterly treatment of the misrepresentations which despotism makes of the history of freedom; and this part of the subject was pursued still farther in two successive articles in the same periodical, one published in November, 1850, and the other in March, 1851, from which also may be gathered an authentic account of the actual transactions in Hungary during 1848–9. All three articles, together with those in the N. A. Review which called them forth, would make a valuable volume, if for nothing else, to show the difference between writing history as a gossip, and writing it as a critic.

We confine ourselves now to extracting a portion of the first article, which carries the history up to the time that the war between Hungary and Austria began. It was from the same article, that Mr. Secretary Webster quoted the Hungarian statistics with which he illustrated the speech he made at the congressional dinner given at Washington in honour of Kossuth, January, 1852.

“The Hungarian nation has been distinguished, from its first appearance in history, for uniting to a passionate love of liberty a scrupulous reverence for law. The Magyars did not enter the plains of Dacia an undisciplined rabble. From the first, they possessed a fixed form of government, and were distinguished for their subordination to their leaders and their laws. To these habits of discipline in which the Magyars were trained,[8] to their love of order, and regard for law, it is to be ascribed, that they did not pass away, like the common hordes of barbarian adventurers, but established a permanent kingdom in the country they invaded. To these qualities, not less than to their courage, is to be ascribed their successful maintenance of their constitutional rights against all the attacks of a power before which the liberties of so many other nations have fallen.

“The ancient institutions of the Magyars were eminently democratic. Their chief ruler was elected by the votes of the people. For the first century after their establishment in the country, he received only the title of _Vezér_, or leader. In the year 1000, they bestowed the title of king on Stephen, of the family of Arpad, the leader under whose guidance they had entered Pannonia. The power of the king was, however, strictly limited. The consent of the people was necessary to give efficacy to every royal act. The excellent prince who first filled the throne of Hungary had no disposition to infringe the liberties of the people. On the contrary, he endeavoured to guard them against the encroachments of future sovereigns. He framed a code of laws, founded on the ancient institutions of the Magyars, which have ever since been regarded as of the highest authority. These statutes were drawn up for the guidance of his son Emeric, whom he educated as his successor in the kingdom. The enlightened and humane spirit in which these decrees are composed gives a very high idea of the civilization and political advancement of Hungary at this period. We find in them an express recognition of the principle of universal equality:—”_Omnes homines unius sunt conditionis._“[9] It is in the following terms that he prescribed the duty of a king towards his subjects:—

“‘Let them be to thee, my son, as brothers and fathers; reduce none of them to servitude, neither call them thy servants. Let them fight for thee, not serve thee. Govern them without violence and without pride, peacefully, humbly, humanely. Remembering that nothing elevates but humility, that nothing abases but pride and an evil will.

“‘My son, I pray thee, I command thee, to show thyself propitious, not only to thy kindred, not only to princes, to leaders, to the rich, not only to thy country people, but likewise to strangers, and to all that come unto thee. Be patient with all, not only with the powerful, but with those lacking power. Bear ever in thy mind this precept of the Lord:—I will have mercy and not sacrifice.’”[10]

“He recognizes the right of the people to depose an unworthy prince:—

“‘If thou art mild and just, then shalt thou be called a king, and the son of a king; but if thou art proud and violent, they will deliver thy kingdom to another.’”[11]

“This right was exercised in the reign of his immediate successor. Emeric, the son of Stephen, died before his father. The people elected, after the death of Stephen, chiefly through the influence of his widow, her brother, Peter, a German prince. They had reason to repent their choice of a foreigner, who had no comprehension of the nature of free institutions. He was deposed in the third year of his reign. The grounds of his expulsion were, that he had banished and put to death many, without observing the due forms of law; that he had _bestowed important offices in the kingdom upon foreigners_; that he had _prevented the states from holding their diet and their accustomed assemblies_. After this experience of foreign rule, the Hungarians returned to the House of Arpad, and chose their kings from this family, until its extinction, in the person of Andrew III., in 1301. The princes of this dynasty, with few exceptions, were just and patriotic kings, who understood the origin and true objects of government, and held their power for the benefit of the people, not for their own selfish aggrandizement. There are traits recorded of many of them, which prove them to have been the worthy successors of St. Stephen. ‘The republic is not mine,’ said Gèza II., ‘it is I who belong to the republic. God has raised me to the throne, in order that I may maintain the laws.’ In 1222, Andrew II. issued the celebrated code of statutes known by the name of the ‘Golden Bull,’ by which the decrees of St. Stephen were confirmed, and some new laws added to them, designed to secure yet further the liberties of the people. The Golden Bull has been termed a charter of aristocratic privileges. It was so, in the same sense that the great charter of English liberties may be called so. The Golden Bull corresponds very closely to the Magna Charta of King John, both in its provisions, and as regards the class of persons whose liberties it was designed to protect. The privileges of Magna Charta were expressly restricted to _freemen_. The provisions of the Golden Bull were, in like manner, considered as applicable only to the class of _nobles_, as those possessed of the rights of citizenship were called in Hungary. At the period when these edicts were promulgated, the rights of the lowest class of the people were very little considered in any part of Europe. But the recognition of the principles of just government in the laws of a country is of infinite value, however the circumstances of the time may allow only of their partial application.

“We will here transcribe some of the most important of the ancient laws which, in Hungary, guarded the liberties of the subject from the encroachments of the prince. These laws have never been repealed, but repeatedly confirmed. It is to these, the fundamental laws of the kingdom of Hungary,—to whose observance and maintenance the kings of Hungary are bound by their coronation oath,—that the Hungarians have constantly appealed in their long struggle against royal usurpation; and it is by these that the cause between them and their sovereign is to be judged.

“By the constitution of Hungary, the power of making laws belongs to the king and the people conjointly:—

“‘The king, having convened the people, shall ask them whether such or such laws are pleasing to them or not. If the people answer, _Yes_, these decrees shall pass into laws. But it will most commonly happen, that the people (_populus_) will themselves decide unanimously on many things which they think conducive to the public welfare. If the prince shall accept these decrees, they shall, in like manner, have the force of law.

“‘It is to be known, in the first place, that the laws bind the prince who has made them, at the request of the people; according to the maxim, ‘Suffer the law which thou hast made thyself.’

“‘The king is bound to answer, in the presence of the Lord Palatine of this kingdom, to all those who have any complaint to make, or any cause to plead against him.

“‘It is decreed that the king shall observe the peace, and cause it to be observed; _neither shall he make war, nor introduce any foreign troops into Hungary, and the parts which are annexed to it, without the knowledge and consent of the states of the kingdom_.’

“The king was not allowed, even under the most urgent circumstances, to raise subsidies or contributions without the consent of the diet. It was even provided, that if any particular county should, by its own motion, and without the consent of the whole kingdom, offer the king any subsidy or contribution, the nobles of that county, being by this act convicted of treason and perjury, should lose the rights and privileges of the nobility, and be denied all intercourse with the other counties. It was likewise interdicted to the king, to employ foreigners in the offices of the state, or to give them the command of garrisons in Hungary.

“No Hungarian could be tried out of the kingdom, even if the king had with him the ordinary judges of the kingdom. Nor could any one be condemned without being cited and convicted according to the forms of law.

“Our readers may judge, by these provisions of the Hungarian constitution, whether it was indeed a mere heap of feudal rubbish, or whether it is worthy of a place beside the old constitution of England, which, with all its imperfections, we revere as the source from which our wider liberties have sprung.

“If Hungary had continued under the government of upright and wise kings, it would, doubtless, at the present day, have been one of the most powerful states in Europe,—powerful, not only by extent and wealth, but by the character of the people whose love of freedom, and generosity united, would have developed a very high order of civilization. All that was contrary to justice and sound policy in their institutions would, under a government disposed to further their efforts for improvement, long since have been reformed, and they would have kept pace with, if they had not surpassed, the most enlightened nations of Europe in social and political progress. But, early in the sixteenth century, they passed under the sway of a dynasty, the most selfish and unprincipled that ever controlled the destinies of a nation. This dynasty has for three hundred years pursued one undeviating system of policy,—a system of perfidy and cruelty, transmitted, with the sceptre, from father to son. Never have the Austrian kings of Hungary given a thought to the prosperity and advancement of the nation confided to their charge. Their only aim has been to reduce it to absolute subjection, and to obliterate every trace of its ancient liberties. When foreign wars have threatened the safety of the empire, the Austrian government has been lavish of concessions and promises, to be retracted and forgotten the moment the return of peace left the king of Hungary at leisure to turn his forces against the liberties of his own subjects. The Hungarians, on their part, have displayed towards their perfidious rulers all the generosity and loyalty that could have been due to the most patriotic princes. A hundred times deceived, they have again trusted, again to become victims of new perfidy. Through a course of three centuries, the Hungarians have been alternately pouring out their blood and treasure in wars, whose honour and profit were not for them, and, in the intervals of outward tranquillity, maintaining a struggle for national existence with their own king. Thus the season of peace was for them the period of greatest danger; the prosperity of the prince was the misfortune of the people.

“Ferdinand of Austria was invested with the sacred crown of St. Stephen on the 1st of November, 1527. He took the oath of allegiance to the constitution of Hungary, and voluntarily added words of assurance to the assembled people, of his love for the Hungarian nation, and his respect for the laws. He did not owe his election to the throne of Hungary to the preference of the nation, but to the cruel circumstances in which it found itself placed. The designs of the Archdukes of Austria on this kingdom had long been manifest, and had, hitherto, been effectually repelled. But after the death of Louis II., in the fatal battle of Mohács, it was judged impracticable to maintain, in addition to the war in which they were already engaged with the Turks, a contest with the Austrian pretender to the crown. It was decided to convert one of their enemies into an ally, by voluntarily accepting him as their king. This measure was effected chiefly through the instrumentality of some powerful nobles, and did not receive the approbation of the great body of the nation. None of the desired results were obtained by it. The German troops pillaged the country more mercilessly than the Turks had done, and extended their ravages through parts of the kingdom where these could never have penetrated. Nor did the Hungarians find, in the Austrian alliance, that protection against their Ottoman enemies which they had promised themselves. It was no part of the Austrian policy to succour Hungary; its aim was rather to weaken and impoverish it, by whatever means. The victories which the emperors of Germany gained over the Turks, by Hungarian money and arms, brought no advantage to the Hungarian nation. The Turks were allowed to make constant predatory incursions into Hungary, in time of supposed peace. All representations to the king on this subject were unheeded. He would neither remonstrate with the Sultan on these infractions of the treaties, nor suffer the Hungarians themselves to enter into any composition with the Turks. Thus they maintained, alone, a constant border warfare, while, at the same time, they were forced to support large bodies of foreign troops, more cruel and more destructive than the Turks themselves. To such destitution were the common people reduced, that parents even sold their children to the infidels to save them from starvation. The contributions in money, extorted by the Austrian government in one year, exceeded the amount of the tribute which had been exacted by the Turks in ten. Such was the condition of Hungary for the space of nearly two hundred years.[12]

“The Archdukes of Austria were not content to wear the crown of Hungary by the election of the people. It was their aim, from the first, to make it the absolute property of their house. Ferdinand I. had already declared the crown hereditary, but he did not succeed in having this claim allowed by the nation. In order to secure the succession to his son, he caused him to be crowned in his own lifetime. His successors for one hundred and fifty years were forced to take the same precaution. In every case the form of election by the people was observed, and the prince was required to take the coronation oath which bound him to maintain the Hungarian constitution. Thus the monarchy remained elective until the time of Leopold I. This prince had been crowned at Presburg in 1655, during the life of his father. Before his coronation, the conditions upon which he was to receive the crown were offered him, according to custom. He accepted and swore to them, and caused a diploma to be made of them and inserted in the public acts. All these conditions, like his predecessors, he had constantly violated; and at length, in 1687, at the close of a successful war with the Turks, of which, as usual, Hungary had borne the expense and the suffering, he felt himself strong enough to carry into effect the long-deferred project of his house. He knew, however, that he was to encounter no slight obstacle in the resistance of the Hungarian nobles, the patriotism and courage of many of whom he had already proved. He provided against this difficulty beforehand. Immediately before he summoned the diet that was to sanction this change in the constitution of the kingdom, the discovery of a fabulous conspiracy against the government gave him an excuse for ridding himself of all those whose courage or patriotism might offer hindrance to his designs. A court was opened at Debreczin, presided over by Caraffa, a name more infamous than that of Jeffreys, and here, under the most horrible tortures, numberless victims perished. The trials were conducted secretly; the public never knew of what the sufferers were accused, or on what evidence they were condemned. A yet more terrible tribunal was established at Epéries. Caraffa repaired thither, and to this bar were dragged, from every part of the kingdom, all whose virtue rendered them suspected, or whose wealth offered a temptation to the cupidity of their judges.[13] A scaffold was erected in the midst of the city, where, from March to December, the executioners were kept constantly at work. The following passage from the _Histoire des Revolutions de Hongrie_[14] will give the reader some idea of the horrors of this time:—

“‘There were seen in this city thirty men, dressed in green, all executioners, or servants of executioners, employed in administering the torture, in beheading, breaking on the wheel, and quartering. Dragoons traversed the country, to seek for persons of condition, whether Catholics or Protestants. These were seized, some in the church, some in the streets, others in their houses, wherever they could be found. It was in vain that some alleged their innocence, and that others had recourse to the amnesty which they had received for past offences. They were cast into dungeons, and underwent the torture, ordinary and extraordinary, to compel them to avow the crime of which they were accused, and to declare their accomplices.... The sons, brothers, and relations of those who were thus tortured cast themselves at the feet of Caraffa, to conjure him to follow, at least, some rules prescribed by the laws of the country, or any others which are in use among Christians.’”

“Caraffa referred them to the court of Vienna. Here they found a gracious hearing, and received promises of mercy for their friends; but the executions continued, and when the petitioners returned to Epéries, it was to find those whose pardon they thought they had obtained already dead, or to have their remonstrances unheeded by the judges, who had been furnished with private instructions.

“It was under these circumstances, that Leopold summoned the diet of Hungary to crown ‘the most serene Archduke Joseph, as their _hereditary_ lord and king.’ It was not in the power of the Hungarians to disregard this summons. The troops of the emperor occupied all the fortified places of Hungary and Transylvania, and the scaffold at Epéries remained standing even to the day of the coronation. Yet, with all this, the diet did not yield without a remonstrance. In their reply to the king’s demand, they first set forth the grievances of the nation, and demanded the withdrawal of the foreign troops. They then expressed their willingness to elect the Archduke Joseph according to the ancient forms, but declined to acknowledge him as their hereditary king. The court now made use of every art to win the diet to consent. Every thing was promised. The patriotic members were bribed with assurances of the speedy redress of the grievances of the nation; the selfish with the promise of office and emolument for themselves. But there were among them still men who were not to be blinded by falsehood, and who were unassailable by motives of fear or interest. Among the most distinguished and the most influential was the Count Drascowich, who held the office of _Judex Curiæ_, Grand Judge of the kingdom. This nobleman fell suddenly dead on quitting a banquet where he had just received a letter from the hands of a messenger from the king. The servants of Austria saw in his death the just judgment of Heaven on the head of the opposer of the will of royalty. The Hungarians gave it another interpretation.

“The diet at length succumbed to the wishes of the king. But his triumph was only partial. The states yielded their consent only on conditions from which they firmly refused to depart. They stipulated, first, that in case of the failure of male heirs of the house of Hapsburgh, the Hungarian nation should recover its rights over the crown, and the kingdom should become once more elective. The second condition was, that the king should still be obliged to take the oath to maintain the constitution, and that the people of Hungary “should preserve, under the hereditary monarchy, all the privileges, immunities, rights, customs, and liberties, which they had enjoyed under the elective monarchy.” The emperor assented to these stipulations, requiring only the exception from the chapter of their privileges of the thirty-first article of the Golden Bull, which gave to the nobles the right of armed resistance, without incurring the penalties of treason, in case of an open attack on their liberties by the king. This article was rescinded. On the 9th of December, 1687, the ceremony of the coronation took place. Thus did the crown of Hungary become hereditary in the House of Hapsburgh.

“Charles III., the successor of Joseph, had no son. By the terms of the act of the diet of Presburg, of 1687, the crown must therefore become, at his death, once more elective. This prince had reigned with somewhat more moderation than his predecessors. He had, indeed, like them, infringed the laws and trifled with the interests of Hungary, but his government had been less insupportably cruel than theirs. This comparative clemency of the reigning prince, and yet more, the dread of the civil wars which would result from a contested succession, induced the Hungarian nation to give their consent to the Pragmatic Sanction, by which the right of succession was assured to the daughters of Charles and their descendants. By the term of the Pragmatic Sanction, the succession was to be transmitted _in the order of primogeniture_, and without division of the kingdom. It was accepted by the Hungarians only on the same conditions that were attached to the act of 1687. The sacred crown of Hungary was not to be carried out of the kingdom, and no prince was to assume it until he had taken the oath to observe and maintain the laws, customs, privileges, etc., of the kingdom. This instrument was guaranteed by all the principal powers of Europe. Hungary alone was faithful to the engagement. We need not dwell here on that celebrated scene, better known than any other passage in Hungarian history, where in the place of labored harangues, the flash of sabres, and the emphatic words, ‘_Vitam et sanguinem_,’[15] answered the appeal of the betrayed and deserted queen.

“Maria Theresa was the first of her house who can be said to have ascended the Hungarian throne by the free choice of the nation. In her reign, for the first time since the accession of the House of Austria, a sentiment of loyalty to their sovereign sprang up in the breasts of the Hungarian people. They entertained for their queen that affection which generous minds feel towards those whom they have benefited. Maria Theresa was not insensible to the devotion of her people. But the gratitude of the woman could not overcome the selfishness of the despot. She expressed her sense of her obligations to the Hungarians in every way in which she could do so without any sacrifice of her convenience, or of the schemes of absolute dominion never lost sight of by any sovereign of the Austrian dynasty. She pursued these schemes with a prudence unknown to her predecessors. She avoided giving any violent shock to the national feeling of the Magyars by a direct attack upon their institutions; she won them by fair words and lavish encomiums, which a generous and confiding people, unused to even so much consideration for their rights as they received from her, accepted as if they had been substantial benefits. Even in the promotion of measures really advantageous to the kingdom, Maria Theresa took care to bring herself a step nearer to the accomplishment of her designs. She put forth decrees of her own authority, without the concurrence of the diet; as, for example, those regulating the urbarial relations, which the nobles, in consideration of their manifest justice and expediency, accepted, notwithstanding the illegal manner of their promulgation.

“Joseph II., the son and successor of Maria Theresa, was a man of more activity of intellect and greater individuality of character than often fall to the lot of princes in modern times. He possessed, together with these qualities, an obstinate and imperious temper. He had been carefully educated by a Hungarian tutor, a man of extensive learning and enlightened views, and had thus acquired certain philanthropic and liberal ideas, which, engrafted on his original disposition, and forced to reconcile themselves with his schemes of usurpation, made him a strange compound of tyrant and reformer. From the commencement of his reign, he declared his intention of governing by his own absolute authority. He disdained to receive the crown from the Hungarian nation, and refused to take the oath of fidelity to the laws. His reign was one continued contest with the Hungarian people. He decreed the entire subversion of their ancient constitution and laws, which he would replace by model institutions of his own. He gave the Hungarians three years in which to learn the German language, at the expiration of which time no man could hold an office or serve his country in any capacity who had not made himself master of that tongue. The Hungarians resisted, by petitions, by remonstrances, and by the refusal of subsidies. At length they spoke a language to which he was forced to listen. The contest ended, as all former contests of this sort had ended, in the defeat of the usurper. Joseph was forced to cancel the work of his whole reign. He revoked all his decrees, and declared that the kingdom was to be regarded, in respect to its political institutions, as standing in the same position as when he began his reign. He announced his intention of assembling the diet. He promised to submit to the ceremony of coronation, and to take the oath of allegiance to the Hungarian constitution. He restored the regalia of Hungary to the charge of the nation. But he was not destined to wear these emblems of royalty by their gift. On the day when the sacred crown of St. Stephen was received at Buda, in the midst of universal acclamations and the roar of cannon, the monarch lay dead in his palace at Vienna.

“Leopold, the brother of Joseph, warned by the example of his predecessor, began his reign with voluntary assurances to the Hungarian people of his earnest intention to govern according to the laws. He immediately convened the diet, the first which had been called for twenty-five years. He was solemnly crowned according to the ancient customs, and took the oath to maintain the constitution. But this was not deemed by the nation a sufficient guarantee for the safety of their institutions. The diet, accordingly, passed a number of decrees, defining the powers and duties of the king, and the rights of the nation. These decrees contained nothing new. All the articles already made part of the law of the kingdom. But the diet deemed it essential, in view of the danger which the liberties of Hungary had so recently incurred, that these statutes should be once more solemnly confirmed by the diet, and receive the royal sanction. Of these acts we will cite some of the most important:

“‘Articles 2 and 3. Within six months after the death of the king, his
successor shall be crowned at Presburg, and shall take the oath to
observe the laws, liberties, and privileges of the kingdom.’

“‘Art. 10. Hungary is a free and independent kingdom, in no way
subordinate to any other people or kingdom, and is to be governed by
its lawfully crowned king, not according to the customs of the other
hereditary dominions, but according to its own laws, rights, and
customs.’

“‘Art. 12. The right of making, repealing, and interpreting the laws
belongs to the lawfully crowned king, and to the states of the realm
in the diet assembled, conjointly; and this right cannot be exercised
except in the diet of the nation. The king shall never attempt to
govern by edicts or patents, which, moreover, it shall not be lawful
for any authorities to receive, except where such patents are merely
designed for the more effectual publication of ordinances legally
enacted.’

“‘Art. 19. The impost shall never be levied by the king, but freely
voted by the diet.’

“It was likewise decreed, that the diet was for the future to be assembled every three years, and oftener, if the public welfare demanded it. The right of free discussion was likewise asserted. The sacred crown of the kingdom was to be kept in the castle of Buda, and never to be taken thence without the consent of the diet.

“Thus, in 1790, the fundamental laws of the kingdom of Hungary were solemnly reënacted by the diet, and confirmed by the king.

“But the diet of 1790 did not confine its labours to the confirmation of the ancient laws, or the defence of nationality. From this period we are to behold the Hungarian nation under a new aspect. Hitherto we have seen the nobility of the country successfully contending for the preservation of their chartered rights and privileges against the usurpations of Austria. We are now to see them engaging with equal energy and resolution in a yet nobler contest. The attack which Joseph II. had made on the constitution of Hungary had, in the course of the discussions which it excited, turned the attention of the nation back upon the earlier periods of their history, and roused inquiry into the original nature and design of their institutions. In this investigation it was impossible for the Hungarians not to become aware that these institutions had not only been tampered with and defaced by Austrian policy, but that many abuses had been suffered to creep into them, with the connivance of the nation itself, whether from the example of neighbouring countries, or the exigencies of barbarous times. They perceived, moreover, that many customs which, in their origin, had been reasonable and convenient, were now wholly unsuited to the needs of the age, and were inconsistent with the prosperity and advancement of the nation. They became sensible, above all, that the position in which the privileged classes stood with regard to the great body of the people was an unjust one, and wholly at variance with those principles of liberty and universal equality which lay at the foundation of their political constitution. With a people possessed of so high a sense of honour as the Magyars, to perceive this injustice was to resolve to repair it. Of this liberal movement in Hungary, whose first public demonstration was made in the diet of 1790, De Gerando thus speaks:—

“‘From this time they (the patriots of Hungary) declared that, in a modern state, liberty ought to be the portion, not of a few, but of all. They asserted that the old word _privileges_ ought to be abolished, to be replaced by a word applicable to all,—_rights_. This comprehension of their epoch led them to accomplish an unexampled act, to give to the world the new spectacle which now meets our eyes;—an aristocracy demolishing, of its own accord, stone by stone, the aristocratic edifice; a nobility, under the eyes of an inert government, taking the initiative in pronouncing the word of civil equality, and pursuing its task with order and perseverance, in spite of all obstacles.’—_De l’Esprit Public en Hongrie_, p. 96.

“The conduct of the Hungarian reformers is rendered yet more worthy of admiration by the fact, that no discontent on the part of the peasants themselves had called the attention of the nobles to the question of their wrongs. The reformers of Hungary were led by their own sense of justice, without any external impulse, to undertake the work of the emancipation and elevation of the people. But, while it was conceded by all that a change must take place in the relations between the people and their manorial lords, the manner in which this change was to be effected was matter for grave consideration. The most ardent reformers proposed the immediate abolition of the urbarial dues, without compensation to the proprietor, declaring it to be a simple reparation of an ancient injustice. Others were of opinion that such an act would be inconsistent with the rights of property, since the dues paid by the peasant were simply a form of rent for the use of the land. The subject was submitted to a committee, who were instructed to report upon it at the next assembly of the diet. Other committees were appointed to report on the reform of the administration, on the education of the people, on the liberty of the press, and on the national grievances.

“The same diet passed many laws renewing and confirming the ancient laws, which established entire freedom of religious faith.

“Leopold, on closing the diet, renewed his assurances to the nation, of his intention to govern according to the constitution. He did not live long enough either to give proof of his sincerity, or to disappoint the expectations of the nation. He died in February, 1792, and was followed to the tomb by the deep regrets of his people.

“The moderation which he had shown in his short reign had done much to appease the minds of his Hungarian subjects, and they were prepared to receive his son and successor with very different feelings from those with which they had looked forward to his own accession to the throne. The first acts of the young prince seemed to justify their confidence. He convened the diet at Buda within sixteen days after his father’s death, and offered the assembled states the assurance of his intention to respect their institutions and laws.

“‘I will myself,’ said he, ‘be the most diligent guardian of the constitution. Rest assured that my will shall always be subjected to the law, and that, in all my aims, I will be guided only by justice, honour, and confidence in the Hungarian people.’[16]

“The royal propositions addressed to the diet confirmed the favourable impressions with which the nation already regarded their young king. The first two articles interpreted the diploma of the coronation in a manner favourable to the constitution. The king then called the attention of the diet to the subjects left undecided at their last meeting, and concluded with a request for subsidies and the augmentation of the army. The diet, eager to express its confidence in the sovereign, immediately voted the increase of the army, and a subsidy of four millions to be paid by the nobles. This done, they were proceeding to transact the business of the nation, when the king suddenly dissolved the diet. The most important affairs, and among them the contemplated reform, were left uncompleted. He did not fail, however, to renew his promises of governing according to the constitution:—

“‘I go from you richer than I came among you; but not by reason of the subsidies I have received from you. These belong to the state, not to me. That which I call my own, that in the possession of which I place my happiness, is your affection. The kingdom I have received by inheritance, but this love and mutual confidence is my own work and yours. I will never cease from my sincere and zealous exertions for the good of our common fatherland.... Bear to your fellow-citizens the solemn assurance that, always mindful of my pledged faith, I will be the true guardian and fulfiller of the laws.’[17]

“The diet was summoned again in November, 1796. The expenses of the war with France forced the king to ask his Hungarian subjects for supplies. On this occasion he dispensed with all circumlocution. The royal propositions simply contained a demand for troops and money. In addition to the subsidies which had been voted at the last diet, the Hungarians had testified their affection for their young king by large voluntary offerings. The sum of the contributions in money and produce, which had in this way been furnished to the king since the last assembly of the diet, amounted to more than fourteen millions of guldens.

“The diet of 1796 again acceded to the demands of the king. They granted him large supplies in money, and fifty thousand recruits for the army, on the condition that these should be incorporated only into Hungarian regiments, and should be commanded by Hungarian officers. The diet had trusted that, when they had fulfilled the wishes of the king, he would show himself ready to listen to the ‘representations’ of the nation. These expectations were disappointed. The diet was dissolved before any thing had been done for the interests of the country. It was summoned again in 1802. Peace had been declared; the hopes of the nation revived. The king, in his opening speech, informed the diet that, peace being established, he was now ready to advise with them on matters touching the public welfare. He expressed his sense of the generosity of the Hungarian nation, and assured them that the recollection of their devotion would never be extinguished in his heart. ‘And now,’ said he, ‘that peace is concluded, I wish to bestow my cares on this country, which, by its extent, its resources, and the noble character of the people, is the chief bulwark of the empire.’ This was the preface to a declaration that the royal treasury was empty, and that it concerned the Hungarian honour that the crown should not be left without defence. ‘Peace,’ said he, ‘can be maintained only by a state of preparation for war.’ The demands of the king were again granted, but no longer in the same spirit of affection and loyalty as formerly. Distrust began to take possession of the nation, as they saw their grievances unattended to, and the most important reforms delayed. A number of measures which had been discussed and accepted by the diet were prevented from passing into law, for want of the royal sanction. The diet separated with a feeling of deep dissatisfaction. The same scenes were repeated in the diets of 1805 and 1807. The confidence of the Hungarians in their king was shaken, but appeals to Hungarian honour and loyalty had not yet lost their effect upon them. They again voted the required supplies, again presented their grievances, and again saw the consideration of them deferred.

“But though the Hungarians had so little reason to place confidence in their king, their loyalty was still capable of standing a severe proof. Napoleon, who was aware that the war against France was very unpopular in Hungary, and that great dissatisfaction prevailed in regard to the Austrian policy, addressed a proclamation to the Hungarian nation (May, 1809.) He offered to establish them as an independent kingdom, if they would withdraw their allegiance from the emperor of Austria, and assist the French in the overthrow of that empire. But the high sense of honour of the Hungarians shrank from what had the appearance of treason. It was not in the season of danger that they would desert their king. The proposals of Napoleon were rejected.

“The return of peace, in 1815, left the Hungarians at leisure to devote themselves to the internal improvement of their country, and to prosecute the reforms begun in 1790, of which the enlightened portion of the nation felt more and more the necessity. The Hungarians had now reason to expect some proof, on the part of their king, of that affection and gratitude, of whose expression he had been so lavish in the season of danger. But the return of peace gave the Austrian cabinet, likewise, opportunity to unfold its plans. Francis, now feeling himself firmly seated on his imperial throne, resolved thenceforth to reign in Hungary without the assistance of the diet. The convention of this assembly having been delayed beyond the prescribed time, the counties addressed letters to the king, representing the urgent wants of the nation, and declaring that the public welfare absolutely demanded the convocation of the national assembly. These letters remained unanswered. The circulars which the _congregations_, or county assemblies, addressed to each other were seized and suppressed. While affairs were in this position, the empire was threatened with new disturbances on the side of Italy. It was necessary to strengthen the army and replenish the treasury. As formerly, it is in Hungary that these supplies are to be sought, but it is not, as formerly, by the free gift of the people that they are to be furnished. The emperor, by the advice of his cabinet, resolved to levy the required supplies by his own absolute authority. There were not wanting in the royal council men who had courage and firmness enough to oppose the opinion of the majority and the wishes of the king. Német, who held the office of _Director causarum regalium_ in Hungary, expressed himself with true Magyar frankness. He declared in the royal presence, that the king would violate the constitution of Hungary and his own royal oath, if he suffered himself to be led by his Austrian counsellors to these rash and illegal measures. ‘Do you forget,’ exclaimed the king, ‘that I am emperor and king, and that your head is at my disposal?’ ‘I know it well,’ replied the Hungarian, ‘but the liberty of my country and the honour of my king are dearer to me than my life.’ The counsel of injustice and aggression prevailed. The levying of recruits was ordered, and the increase of the impost to four millions of florins. Hungary did not submit quietly to this invasion of her rights. The counties refused compliance. Imperial commissioners were then appointed, who were to carry into effect the royal commands. It was in vain. The news spread rapidly through the country, and everywhere excited the most lively indignation. All possible embarrassments were thrown in the way of the commissioners. They could with great difficulty obtain horses for their journeys. At their approach, the public functionaries laid down their offices and disappeared. This passive opposition was encountered everywhere. In some counties it took a yet more decided character. In the end, Francis was forced to yield, as Joseph had been; he had outraged the feelings of his subjects to no purpose. However reluctantly, he found himself constrained to convene the diet in 1825.

“At the opening of the diet Francis endeavoured, by a conciliatory speech, to appease the resentments of the assembly. But the members were not satisfied. They required the names of the traitors who had misled the king by their counsels. One of the magnates being prosecuted for the freedom of his expressions, all the deputies supported him, and declared that he had expressed the sentiments of all. The prosecution was withdrawn. The deputies then addressed to the king a representation of the grievances of the nation. To the long list of ancient griefs were now added the recent attempt to levy money without the consent of the diet, and the acts of violence committed by the royal commissioners. Francis, in his reply, began with reproving the deputies for bringing forward their own grievances, before considering the royal proposition on the subject of the impost. He declared that he would protect the faithful subjects who had executed his will. At the same time, he expressed regret for what had occurred, but justified it by the plea of necessity. In conclusion, he left the question of the impost to the decision of the diet. This body, before acceding to his demands, required and obtained of the king a renewed confirmation of the fundamental laws of the kingdom. He bound himself never more to raise money without the concurrence of the diet, and engaged to convoke this assembly every three years. On their part, the states voted to raise the amount of the impost to four millions.