Chapter VI: Preface: To the Seventh Volume (5)

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1902-1903.
Notice by Austria of intention to end, in 1904, the
Customs Union which formed part of the Ausgleich, or
Federation Compact of 1867.
Language struggle in Austria.

The difficulties between Austria and Hungary, concerning a
renewal of the Ausgleich, or federation compact of 1867, which
created the dual empire,—some account of which is given in
Volume VI. of this work,—were compromised in 1900 by an
agreement which extended the Ausgleich temporarily until 1907.

See, in Volume VI.
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1899-1900.

It was stipulated, however, in the agreement, that if no
permanent settlement of the questions involved should have
been reached by the end of the year 1902, either party to the
_Ausgleich_ should be free to dissolve the Customs Union
that formed part of it after 1904, provided that said party
should have formally denounced the compact prior to January 1,
1902. The formal notice or denunciation was given accordingly
by Austria, whose government gave notice that it would end the
Customs Union unless better terms from Hungary could be
secured. In Hungary the Independence party led by Ferencz
Kossuth, the son of Louis Kossuth, was eager for the break,
desiring no union with Austria beyond that of the two crowns
on one head. The tariff question seemed insoluble, because
Hungary wanted protection for its agriculture, which Austria
believed to be greatly disadvantageous to herself.

{36}

The prime ministers of the two Governments came to an
agreement which was submitted to the two parliaments early in
1903, but obstruction in both bodies prevented any effective
action. On other questions the antagonism was no less
pronounced. The Hungarian Independence party was resolute in
determining to separate the Hungarian from the Austrian army,
making it distinctly Hungarian, under Hungarian officers and
using the Hungarian word of command. This drew from the
Emperor, in September, a public announcement that he must and
would hold fast to the existing organization of the army. At
length, in December, Kossuth agreed, for his party, to abandon
obstruction on condition that Parliament should proclaim, as a
principle, that "in Hungary the source of every right, and in
the army the source of rights appertaining to the language of
service and command, is the will of the nation as expressed
through the legislature." But though obstruction from the
Independence party ceased then it was continued by a Catholic
party, on grounds of personal hostility to the Protestant
Premier, Count Tisza, and the Government, deprived of
authority to recruit the army, kept in service the men whose
term had expired.

An almost equal deadlock of legislation prevailed in Austria,
where the struggle over language questions between Czechs and
Germans went fiercely on; while Croatia was full of rebellious
spirit, excited by the Magyarizing policy of its Hungarian
governor.

Twice, during 1903, the Hungarian administration underwent a
change, the Szell Ministry giving way in June to one headed by
Count Kuen Hedervary, he, in turn, being displaced by Count
Tisza in October. The latter was a son of Koloman Tisza, who
had formerly held the reins in Hungary for many years.

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1903-1904.
Concert with Russia in submitting the Mürzsteg Programme
of reform in Macedonia to Turkey.

See (in this Volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1903-1904.

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1904.
Paralysis of Government in both divisions of the dual empire.

Legislation in both Austria and Hungary was paralyzed
throughout 1904 by obstructive oppositions which nothing could
pacify. In Austria it was the battle of Czech against German
for language rights; but, in the end, the German Premier, Dr.
Körber, lost the support of his own race, by allowing Italian
law-classes to be formed in the University at Innsprück, with
a faculty of their own. He resigned on the last day of the
year, and was succeeded by Baron Gautsch.

In Hungary the obstruction was maintained by a combination of
three parties,—the Independence Party of Ferencz Kossuth,
which is irreconcilable in its repudiation of the union with
Austria, the Liberal-Conservative Separatists, so-called, led
by Count Apponyi, and a Catholic People’s Party, under Count
Zichy. The extraordinary attitude of these practical
anarchists, as they would seem to be, is indicated by a
performance at the opening of the session of the Hungarian
Parliament on the 13th of December, 1904, which is described
in the _Annual Register_, as follows:

"They entered the House before the usual time of meeting,
assaulted the police when they endeavored to prevent some of
the members from mounting the President’s platform, tore down
the woodwork, destroyed the furniture, and finally had
themselves photographed, with the ex-Premier Baron Banffy at
their head, in the midst of the ruin they had wrought. This
extraordinary scene was described by M. Kossuth as ‘a symbol
of the political maturity of the Magyars, who, after asserting
their rights, refrain from excesses;’ and by Count Apponyi as
‘an evidence of the importance attached to continuity of legal
right in Hungary.’ When the broken furniture was removed and
the House was restored to something like its former
appearance, the members returned; but all the attempts of the
Government to speak were howled down by the Opposition." The
Opposition which accomplished this paralysis of Government in
Hungary numbered, in its three divisions, only 190 members,
out of 451.

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1904-1909.
Effects in Europe and on the Triple Alliance of the
Russo-Japanese War.

See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1904-1909.

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1905.
Action with other Powers in forcing financial reforms
in Macedonia on Turkey.

See (in this Volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1905-1908.

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1905.
Hostility to the Serbo-Bulgarian Customs Union.

See (in this Volume)
BALKAN STATES: BULGARIA AND SERVIA: A. D. 1902.

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1905-1906.
Continued deadlock, seated mainly in Hungary.
Resignation of Count Tisza.
The Fejervary Ministry.
Dissolution of the Hungarian Parliament.
Kossuth and his allies take office.
Universal male suffrage adopted in Austria.

The deadlock of political forces in the Dual Empire was
prolonged through another year, Hungary being the main seat of
the block. Elections for the Hungarian Diet, in January, went
heavily against the Ministry of Count Tisza and strongly in
favor of that section of the Opposition which bore the name of
the Independence Party and which was led by Ferencz Kossuth.
Count Tisza resigned, and the Emperor-King endeavored to make
terms with Kossuth, Apponyi, and Andrassy under which the
Government might be carried on with parliamentary support.
This proved impracticable, especially by reason of the
insistent demand of the Opposition for a separation of the
Hungarian from the Austrian part of the imperial army, and the
determination of the sovereign not to yield to that demand.
Count Tisza and his colleagues were kept in office until June,
despite a heavy vote of censure in the Diet, and then the
Emperor appointed as Premier General Baron Fejervary, who
commanded no more support than his predecessor had done. The
majority in the representative chamber denounced the Ministry
as unconstitutional, and issued a manifesto, calling on the
people to withhold taxes and military service from this
simulacrum of Government, which had no lawful claim to either.
This was accepted as good counsel by great numbers of people,
and grave embarrassments resulted from the non-payment of
taxes.

{37}

In the August number (1905) of _The American Review of
Reviews_ Count Albert Apponyi, leader of one of the parties
united more or less in the Hungarian Opposition, gave the
Hungarian side of the political issues with Austria. In part,
he wrote: "The writer had the honor of delivering at St.
Louis, at the Arts and Science Congress of last year, a short
historical account of our relation with the Austrian dynasty.
There are to be found the chief facts, which show:
(1) That our forefathers called that dynasty to the Hungarian
throne, not in order to get Hungary absorbed into an Austrian
or any other sort of empire, but, on the contrary, under the
express condition of keeping the independence and the
constitution of the Hungarian kingdom unimpaired;
(2) that this condition has been accepted and sworn to by all
those members of the dynasty (Joseph II. alone excepted) who
ascended the Hungarian throne;
(3) that, nevertheless, practical encroachments on our
independence, followed by conflicts and reconciliations, have
been at all epochs frequent;
(4) but that a juridical fact never occurred which could be
construed into a modification of that fundamental condition of
the dynasty’s title to Hungary. …

The physical person of the ruler is, in truth, the same in
both countries, but the juridical personality of the King of
Hungary is distinct and, as to the contents of its
prerogative, widely different from the juridical personality
of the Emperor of Austria. Hungary is the oldest
constitutional country on the European Continent. The royal
prerogative in her case is an emanation of the
constitution,—not prior to it,—and consists in such rights as
the nation has thought fit to vest in her king. In Austria, on
the other hand, the existing constitution is a free gift of
the Emperor, and has conferred on the people of Austria such
rights as the Emperor has thought fit to grant to them. The
title of ‘Emperor of Austria-Hungary’ … [sometimes used] is
simply nonsense. The time-hallowed old Hungarian crown has not
been melted into the brand-new Austrian imperial diadem. That
imperial title does not contain, to any extent, the Hungarian
royal title. The Emperor of Austria, as such, has just as much
legal power in Hungary as the President of the United States
has. He is, juridically speaking, a foreign potentate to us.

"On these fundamental truths, no Hungarian—to whatever party
he may belong—admits discussion. … The Liberal party,
vanquished at the last elections, does not in the least differ
from the victorious opposition as to the principles laid down
in these pages; it only advocated a greater amount of
forbearance against the petty encroachments which practically
obscured them. That policy of forbearance became gradually
distasteful to the country; seeing it shaken in the public
mind, the recent prime minister, Count Tisza, formed the
unhappy idea of gaining a new lease of power on its behalf by
a parliamentary _coup d’état_. The rules of the House
were broken, in order to prevent future obstruction, chiefly
against military bills. This brought matters to an acute
crisis. The parliament in which that breach of the rules had
taken place became unfit for work of any sort, the country had
to be consulted, and down went the Liberal party and the
half-hearted policy it represented with no hope for revival.

"The army question, with its ever-recurring difficulties, is a
highly characteristic feature of the chronic latent conflict
between the Austrian and the Hungarian mentality. It amounts
to this, that, as we are a nation, we mean to have an armed
force corresponding to our national individuality, commanded
in our language, and serving under our flags and emblems. It
would be unnatural for any nation, and would be, in fact, an
abdication of the title of ‘nation,’ to renounce such a
national claim. The Austrians, on the other hand,—and,
unhappily, their influence is still prevalent in this
question,—not yet having abandoned the idea of a pan-Austrian
empire, uncompromisingly adhere to the present military
organization, which makes the German language and the imperial
emblems prevalent throughout the whole army, its Hungarian
portion included."

In September, 1905, the Emperor-King summoned the chiefs of
the opposing coalition to Vienna and renewed his endeavor to
make terms with them; but his own conditions, relative to the
army, to the language of command and service in it, to the
tariff relations between Austria and Hungary, and to other
matters of dispute, were apparently as uncompromisable as
theirs, and only intensified the bad feeling in the country.

A little later the Fejervary Ministry announced a programme of
policy which offered concessions and many excellent measures,
but all save one of them were scorned. That one was a proposal
of universal suffrage, with direct secret balloting, which in
both Hungary and Austria had now become a subject of wide
popular demand. The agitation for it became clamorous in the
later months of the year, especially in the Austrian towns.
But the leaders of the Hungarian Opposition were supposed to
be personally hostile to universal suffrage. "As
representatives of the most educated, wealthy, and powerful
race in the kingdom, they have long enjoyed absolute political
control. But universal suffrage," says a contemporary
journalist, "would so increase the non-Magyar elements in
Parliament as to deprive the Magyar leaders of much of their
ascendency. At present these leaders are strong enough to
defeat the King’s magnificent programme, announced by Baron
Fejervary. But such a defeat would place them in an
embarrassing position. They would have definitely assumed an
attitude which belies their name of Liberal."

The Fejervary programme was well planned to be troublesome to
the opponents of the Government. While not surrendering to
their demand for the Magyar language of command in the
Hungarian part of the Imperial army, it proposed that the men
who do not speak that language should be trained in it as far
as possible. And it included a number of other most important
measures: for compulsory free education; for compulsory
insurance of workmen; for small farm grants to the peasantry;
for the conversion of mortgage debts that weigh on small
landowners, and for various taxation reforms. Evidently the
Opposition endeavored to keep public attention and public
feeling focused on the claim for a distinct Hungarian army,
with the Magyar language for its word of command. Kossuth, the
dominating leader of the coalition against the Government,
defined the argument for this claim. No mention, he said, is
made of any common army in the agreement on which the Dual
Empire is founded. The Hungarian Constitution vests in the
Emperor of Austria, as King of Hungary, "all those things
which refer to the commanding and administration … of the
Hungarian army."

{38}

But the Constitution does not hint that the Hungarian army
should be commanded in German. It has not specifically
forbidden such a thing, but in another part of the
Constitution it is provided that the language of public
services in Hungary shall be Hungarian. And is not the army a
"public service"? he asked. Besides, he explained: "A century
ago the Hungarian magnates, generally, paid for their own
soldiers, and ours was not, in the beginning, a State army.
When the combination with Austria came about, the officers
were of all nations, and the Austrians brought in many of
their own. To tell the truth, our own Hungarians were too
lazy—there is no other word for it—to take the trouble to
reorganize and start a Hungarian army, so they left it to the
Austrians for the time being. It was for this reason, and with
the consciousness of this defect, that Article XI. expressly
left the language of command to be determined,
constitutionally, later. But we also expressly confined it
within the limits of our own Constitution … and we spoke of a
Hungarian army, not a common one."

The year 1906 opened with the discords of the situation in
Hungary rather heightened than lessened, and on the 19th of
February the Emperor dissolved the Hungarian Parliament,
announcing that he did so for the reason that the parties of
the Opposition had "persistently refused to take over the
Government on an acceptable basis without violating the Royal
rights as by law guaranteed." Disturbances on the occasion
were prevented by strong forces of soldiery and police. Two
days later the Austro-Hungarian tariff and a commercial
treaty, both of which had been refused ratification in
Hungary, were promulgated as of force, pending future action;
and by various other arbitrary measures the Emperor-King
assumed the right to prevent a governmental collapse. This
attitude on the part of the sovereign appears to have produced
a change of attitude among his opponents; for early in April
M. Kossuth and Count Andrassy entered into an arrangement with
him for the formation of a Ministry by themselves and their
associates of the Coalition, with the understanding that the
army question should be put aside until after the election of
a new Parliament, to meet in May. At that session they
promised to pass the budget, the new international commercial
treaties, to maintain in every way the existing condition of
things between Austria and Hungary, to permit the passage of a
bill providing for universal manhood suffrage, and then for
Parliament to terminate its labors, allowing the election of a
new one under the universal suffrage system, the Cabinet to be
re-formed conformably to the desires of the parliamentary
majority. Thereupon the Emperor-King requested Dr. Alexander
Wekerle, a former Hungarian Prime Minister, to form a Cabinet,
including in it Kossuth, Apponyi, Andrassy, and Zichy. At the
election, held soon after, the Independence party won about
250 out of 400 seats. The new Parliament was opened on the 22d
of May.

In Austria, the grand event of 1906 was the franchise reform,
which extinguished the whole system of class representation
and established a representative Parliament on the broad basis
of a manhood vote. "Every male citizen who had completed his
twenty-fourth year and was not under any legal disability was
entitled to be registered as a voter after one year’s
residence. Every male, including members of the Upper House,
who had possessed Austrian citizenship for at least three
years and had completed his thirtieth year, was eligible for
election as a deputy; but members of the Upper House elected
to the Lower could not sit in both at once. Voting was to be
direct in all provinces. In Galicia, however, every
constituency would return two deputies, each voter having one
vote, so as to permit of the representation of racial
minorities, the population being composed of Poles and
Ruthenians. Voting was to be obligatory under penalty of a
fine wherever a provincial Diet should so decide. This Bill
was passed, in the face of the opposition of the Conservative
and aristocratic members of both Houses and of the extreme
representatives of the various nationalities, mainly through
the influence of the Emperor. He regarded it as the only way
to get rid of Parliamentary obstruction, and the best means of
stimulating loyalty to the dynasty."

Two changes of Ministry occurred in Austria during 1906, Baron
Gautsch, as Premier, giving way to Prince Hohenlohe in April,
and the latter resigning in June, to be succeeded by Baron
Beck. Count Goluchowski, who had been Austro-Hungarian
Minister of Foreign Affairs since 1895, resigned in October,
because of ill-feeling against him in Hungary, and was
succeeded by Baron Aehrenthal.

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1906 (January-April).
At the Algeciras Conference on the Morocco question.

See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1905-1906.

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1907.
Effects of universal and equalized suffrage in Austria.

Elections were held in Austria a few months after the passage
of the law which introduced equal and universal male suffrage,
and the character and disposition of the elected Reichsrath,
which met in June, 1907, afforded indications of some
remarkable effects from the extension and equalizing of the
franchise. It was expected, of course, to popularize the
Reichsrath, and break the domination of the upper classes in
that body; but, according to reports, it has done much more.
Prior to 1896, the members of the Abgeordncten or lower house
of the Reichsrath, then numbering 353, were all divided into
four sections, elected by four classes of people, as follows:
85 elected by the owners of large landed estates, 22 by
chambers of commerce and manufactures; 115 by town taxpayers
assessed for five florins of annual tax, and by doctors of
universities; 131 by country taxpayers assessed for five
florins yearly. In that year the membership was enlarged by an
addition of 72, who were to be representatives of the whole
people, elected by universal male suffrage, while the old
classified representation remained as before. The new law has
swept away the whole system of a classified representation,
and the representative house is now leveled to one footing, as
a body of deputies from the people at large.

The most conspicuous effect of this in the elections appears
to have been a sudden break of the power which the German
element in the much-mixed population of the Austrian dominion
has been able to exercise hitherto. Hence, it must be the fact
that the Germans hold far more than their proportion of the
property which the old system represented, and derived from
that, formerly, a weight in the Reichsrath which their numbers
cannot give them on the equalized vote.

{39}

Altogether, in the various Cisleithan states—the two Austrias
proper, Bohemia, Moravia, Galicia, Silesia, Salzburg, Tyrol,
Styria, Carinthia, Carniola, Istria, Dalmatia—they form a
little more than one third of the total population, the other
two thirds being mainly Slavonic, in many divisions,
principally Czech, Polish, and Slovene.

Ten years ago the Austrian Reichsrath was offering a spectacle
of factious disorder so violent that it drew the attention of
the world, and was made entertaining as well as interesting by
Mark Twain, then a resident for some months at Vienna and
writing descriptions of the scenes of tumult that went on
before his eyes.

See in Volume VI. of this work
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1897 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

The specially bitter race quarrel was over a language question
between the Germans and the Czechs. The Czechs had succeeded
in forcing the government to give their own tongue its
rightful public use in Bohemia, where the German had displaced
it officially for along time past. The determination of the
Germans in the Reichsrath to undo this change practically
paralyzed that legislature for a number of years, and seemed
to be driving the realm of the House of Austria to inevitable
wreck.

Indeed, some factions of the Germans made no concealment of
their wish for such a wreckage, out of which the German Kaiser
at Berlin might pick the pieces that it pleased him to take.
They have never doubted the sympathy and countenance of their
kinsmen in the neighboring empire, and that has emboldened
them to an attitude which a minority, in other circumstances,
would hardly take.

Within the last few years there has been a quieting of the
antagonism; but most observers of the state of things in
Austria have looked for serious troubles to arise, whenever
the great personal influence of the present Emperor is
withdrawn by his death. The imperial dominion of the Austrian
archdukes could not be dissolved and its parts redistributed
without subjecting the peace of Europe to such a trial as it
never yet has gone unbrokenly through. If the Germans lose
disturbing power in the Reichsrath, as the late elections are
said to indicate that they will, and if racial factions give
place to political parties, as a consequence of the equalized
and universalized suffrage, then Austria may possibly be
welded into a nation, and her neighbors may not be tempted to
quarrel over her dismembered remains.

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1907.
Final negotiation of a new financial Ausgleich.
Adjustment of the vexed questions of tariff, joint debt,
and revenue quotas.

The long struggle toward a readjustment of the
_Ausgleich_ or Agreement of 1866 between Austria and
Hungary, on its financial side, was brought to a close on the
8th of October, 1907, by the signing of a new agreement that
day. It continued the common customs arrangement until 1917,
and provided that commercial treaties concluded with foreign
powers must be signed by the representatives of both Austria
and Hungary—a concession by Austria to Hungary. Hitherto the
Austrian Minister of Foreign Affairs had conducted such
negotiations. On its part, Hungary made the minor concession
of conforming its stock exchange laws to those of Austria.
Previously, excise duties had been common to both states;
henceforth they were to be left to each state to be determined
and levied. In the joint fiscal burden, Hungary’s contribution
was increased from 34.4 per cent to 36.4 per cent. Provision
was made for a court of arbitration, composed of four Austrian
and four Hungarian members, who must chose a ninth member as
chairman.

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1908-1909.
Hungarian politics.
The State Bank question.
Split in the Independence party.
M. de Justh, a new party leader.
Attitude of M. Kossuth.
Deadlock returned.

The complete deadlock of legislation in Hungary from 1904 into
1906 was overcome but partially, and not for long, by the
patched-up coalition which started the wheels of Government
anew, under Dr. Wekerle, in April, 1906, as related above. In
the course of the next two years the Wekerle Ministry
accomplished some useful legislation, besides achieving the
ratification of the important tariff and commerce agreement
which settled long-troublesome disputes with Austria; but its
very slight coherent energy was exhausted soon,—too soon for
its promise of universal suffrage to be fulfilled.
Practically, it seems to have been at the end of its
capabilities for some time before the spring of 1909, when, in
April, it resolved to resign, and began an effort to escape
from office which went on through the year without success.
The Crown could induce no one to take from Dr. Wekerle the
impossible task of government, and kept that unfortunate
gentleman in his powerless place.

In Austro-Hungarian politics a new contention had now been
developed, which divided the Independence party, led hitherto
by M. Kossuth and Count Apponyi, so that it acquired on the
new question a third more extreme sectional chief, in the
person of the President of the Chamber, M. de Justh. The
followers of M. de Justh were demanding the transformation of
the existing joint State Bank into two autonomous banks,
connected in operation, but distinctly Hungarian in one
organization and Austrian in the other. This demand was
opposed in Austria as determinedly as the obnoxious demand for
army use of the Hungarian language in Hungarian regiments, and
the Crown would give sanction to neither. Apparently, neither
Kossuth nor Apponyi would act with M. de Justh on the bank
question, and the Independence party lost, consequently, its
advantage as the largest of the various parties in the
Chamber.

In November, when a test of numbers occurred at a conference
of the party, the following of M. de Justh was found to be
largely in the majority. A resolution demanding the separate
Hungarian State Bank was adopted by 120 votes against 74,
despite a declaration by M. Kossuth that he would quit the
party if it took that stand. According to a Press report of
what occurred at the conference, the burden of Kossuth’s
speech to the conference was "that without his name and his
leadership the party would never have obtained the majority,
and that many of those who were about to vote against him owed
their seats in Parliament to his recommendation. His speech
was indeed a scarcely-veiled threat that when deprived of the
support of his name his opponents would find themselves
forsaken by their constituents. The defeated minority
proceeded forthwith to constitute itself as the ‘Independence,
1848, and Kossuth party,’ as distinguished from the
‘Independence and 1848 party,’ over which M. de Justh now
reigns supreme."

{40}

Immediately after his triumph at the party conference M. de
Justh resigned the presidency of the Hungarian Chamber and
presented himself for reelection. In that test he suffered
defeat, the combined forces of the Andrassy Liberals, the
Clerical People’s party, and the Kossuth group casting 201
votes against 157. The Croatian Deputies abstained, owing, it
is said, to a promise made to them by Dr. Wekerle that, if
they remained neutral, he would deliver Croatia from the
oppressive rule of the Ban, Baron Rauch. The political
situation in Hungary was thus more than ever confused.

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1908-1909.
The "Greater Servia Conspiracy."
Alleged treasonable movement of Servians in Croatia.
The Agram trials.

The following telegram to the newspaper press, from Agram,
Austria, October 5, 1909, reported the conclusion and the
result of a long prosecution which had drawn wide attention
and excited deep feeling in many parts of Europe for a full
year:

"After a trial lasting seven months, sentences were handed
down to-day in the cases of fifty-two school teachers,
priests, and other persons charged with connection with what
is known as the ‘Greater Servia conspiracy.’ The prisoners
were accused of high treason in participating in a movement
for the union of Croatia, Slavonia, and Bosnia to Servia, even
carrying the propaganda among the troops of the
Austro-Hungarian army. Thirty of the accused are condemned to
terms of rigorous imprisonment varying from four to twelve
years, and twenty-two were acquitted. The persons condemned
have given notification of appeal."

On the 31st of December it was announced from Vienna that all
but two of the condemned had been set at liberty pending their
appeal, this being consequent on the revelations of forgery in
the documents on which they were convicted.

See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1908-1909 (OCTOBER-MARCH)
at close of article.

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1908-1909.
Arbitrary annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Violence to the Treaty of Berlin.
The European disturbance and its settlement.

See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1808-1809 (OCTOBER-MARCH).

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1909.
The language quarrel in Austria.

"Amid deafening uproar from the Czech Radicals, the Austrian
premier has submitted to the Chamber [February 3, 1909] two
bills for the regulation of the Bohemian language question.
The bills, which in present circumstances appear to have
little chance of becoming law, divide Bohemia into 239
judicial and 20 administrative districts. Of the former, 95
are German, 138 Czech, and the remainder mixed, while of the
administrative districts five are German, 10 Czech, and five
mixed. In the German districts German is to be the predominant
language, and in the Czech districts Czech, while in the mixed
districts, which include Prague, the two languages are placed
on an equal footing. Provision is, however, made for the use
of either language if necessary throughout the whole
province."

NEW YORK EVENING POST.

A telegram to the same journal from Vienna, March 10,
reported:

"The Lower House of the Austrian Parliament, which closed on
February 5, after a scene of extraordinary turbulence arising
from old racial ill-feeling between the Germans and the
Czechs, reopened to-day with every promise of a continuance of
the disorders. The galleries of the House were crowded with
partisans of the two factions, and as soon as the ministers
appeared hostile shouts came from the Czech and radical
benches, drowning the cheers of the members of the Left party
and the Poles.

"Premier von Bienerth, amid an incessant tumult, declared the
nineteenth session opened, saying he hoped the work would be
crowned with success and the proceedings not disturbed. His
statement sounded ironical in face of the unbroken uproar."

The following is a later Press despatch, November 2, from
Vienna:

"The Emperor has accepted the resignations of the two Czech
Ministers in the Austrian Cabinet, and has sanctioned the laws
adopted by the Diets of Upper and Lower Austria, Salzburg and
Vorarlberg, to establish the unilingual German character of
those provinces. In the name of the Czech people the Czech
National Council addressed yesterday a telegram to the Emperor
begging that the laws might not be sanctioned, since, runs the
telegram, they affect the honour of the Czech people and must
cause constant racial strife both in the provinces and in
Vienna, ‘which is not only the capital of Lower Austria, but
is also the capital of the whole empire and of all its races.
These laws are a dangerous beginning of constitutional changes
in your Majesty’s glorious empire.’ A copy of the telegram was
sent to the Polish leader, Dr. Glombinski, with an 'expression
of the deepest regret that members of the Polish party should
have supported as Ministers these anti-Slav laws.’"

A revival of turbulent obstruction to legislative proceedings
in the lower house of the Austrian Reichsrath led, at last, in
December, to the enactment of rules which so enlarge the
powers of the speaker as to enable him to suppress factious
obstruction and to suspend deputies who outrage the decencies
of behavior in the Chamber. The measure was limited in its
operation to a year, but is expected to be prolonged.

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1909 (December).
Alleged plan of a Federated Triple Monarchy.

"There has been circulated in Paris a curious document, full
of figures, supposed to be based on authentic information.
This document relates to the plan attributed to Prince Lentur
and Count d’Aehrenthal to change the dual monarchy of
Austria-Hungary into a triple monarchy. Croatia,
Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Dalmatia, according to the scheme,
would be united into an independent and constitutional
kingdom, corresponding to the old Illyria. The double state,
Austria-Hungary, would be changed into a three-fold
Austria-Hungary-Illyria. A Slav nation would thus stand side
by side with the Teutonic nation of Austria and the Magyar
nation of Hungary. Its extent would be a good deal smaller, a
little more than one-third, of the other two, and its
population about a quarter of the Hungarian and one-sixth of
the Austrian. According to this document, which is declared to
have strong claims to be considered authentic, this change
would no doubt be followed by a further one. Bohemia and
Moravia would also want home rule. The monarchy would thus
become a kind of Federal state. Hungary alone would remain
standing strong and united as the centre and leader of this
federation."

_New York Evening Post,
December 29, 1909._

{41}

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1909-1910.
The Hungarian situation.

Late in December, Dr. de Lukacs, who had served in the former
Szell Ministry, was persuaded by the Crown to undertake the
formation of a Government which might hope to secure some
measure of parliamentary support, and on the 4th of January he
was formally appointed Prime Minister; but his undertaking
ended on the 11th, when he resigned, and Count Khuen Hedervary
was heroic enough to accept the apparently hopeless task. The
Hedervary Ministry suffered defeat on the 28th of January,
when a vote of no confidence was carried by M. de Justh, and
the King thereupon prorogued the chamber until March 24. A
majority of the members, however, remained in session until
they had adopted a resolution declaring the Government to be
unconstitutional and forbidding the payment of taxes to it.
Such is the Hungarian situation at the time this record of
events goes to print—February, 1910.

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1910.
The Archduke Franz Ferdinand,
Heir Apparent to the thrones.

Since the tragically mysterious death (January 30, 1889) of
the Emperor’s only son, Rudolph, the heir apparent to the
several Hapsburgh crowns has been the Archduke Franz
Ferdinand, son of the Emperor’s brother, the late Archduke
Karl Ludwig. In order to contract a morganatic marriage, some
years ago, he renounced the right of his children to the
imperial and regal succession; but it is believed that he will
force the regularizing of his marriage and the annulling of
his renunciation, as he is reputed to be a man of strenuous
will. According to report, also, he is strongly
anti-democratic and reactionary, and extremely likely to give
trouble as a sovereign to this democratic generation.

----------AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: End--------

AUTOCRAT:
Title denied to the Czar by the Third Duma.

See (in this Volume)
RUSSIA: A. D. 1906-1907.

AZAD-UL-MULK.

See (in this Volume)
PERSIA: A. D. 1905-1907.

AZEFF:
The Russian police spy and agent provocateur.

See (in this Volume)
RUSSIA: A. D. 1909 (JANUARY-JULY).

AZUL, Party of the.

See (in this Volume)
PARAGUAY.

B.

BABISM.

See (in this Volume)
PERSIA: A. D. 1908-1909.

BACON, Robert:
Secretary of State.

See (in this Volume)
UNITED STATES: A. D. 1905-1909.

BADEN: A. D. 1906.
Introduction of universal suffrage.

See (in this Volume)
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: GERMANY: A. D. 1906.

BAEYER, Adolf von.

See (in this Volume)
NOBEL PRIZES.

BAGDAD RAILWAY, The.

See (in this Volume)
RAILWAYS: TURKEY: A. D. 1899-1909.

BA HAMED, Late Grand Wazeer of Morocco.

See (in this Volume)
MOROCCO: A. D. 1903.

BAHIA HONDA:
Coaling and naval station leased to the United States.

See (in this Volume)
CUBA: A. D. 1903.

BAHIMA, The.

See (in this Volume)
AFRICA: ITS COLONIZABILITY.

BAILEY, L. H.:
On Country Life Commission.

See (in this Volume)
UNITED STATES: A. D. 1908-1909 (AUGUST-FEBRUARY).

BAKHMETIEFF, Madame:
Her humane work in Macedonia.

See (in this Volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1902-1903.

BAKHTIARI, The.

See (in this Volume)
PERSIA: A. D. 1908-1909.

BAKU: Destruction of Oil Industry.

See (in this Volume)
RUSSIA: A. D. 1905 (FEBRUARY-NOVEMBER).

BALDWIN ARCTIC EXPEDITION.

See (in this Volume)
Polar Exploration.

BALFOUR, Arthur J.:
Becomes Prime Minister of England.

See (in this Volume)
ENGLAND: A. D. 1902 (JULY).

BALFOUR, Arthur J.:
His puzzling attitude on Mr. Chamberlain’s declaration for
preferential trade with the Colonies.
Correspondence on Mr. Chamberlain’s resignation.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1903 (MAY-SEPTEMBER).

BALFOUR, Arthur J.:
In the "Dreadnought" debate of 1909.

See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: NAVAL.

BALFOUR MINISTRY:
Its resignation.

See (in this Volume)
ENGLAND: A. D. 1905-1906.

----------BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: Start--------

BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1903-1907.
Complaint of European non-action by Christian subjects
of Turkey.

See (in this Volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1903-1907.

BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: Bosnia: A. D. 1908.
Arbitrary annexation to Austria-Hungary.

See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1908-1909 (OCTOBER-MARCH).

BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: Bulgaria:
The influence of Robert College.

See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: TURKEY, &c.

BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1901.
The Bulgarian committee which directs revolutionary operations
and assassinations in Macedonia.

See (in this Volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1901.

BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1903.
Alleged promotion of revolt in Macedonia.

See (in this Volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1902-1903.

BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1905-1908.
Barbarities of Bulgarian bands in Macedonia.

See (in this Volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1905-1908.

BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1908.
The race struggle in Macedonia.

See TURKEY: A. D. 1908 (MARCH).

BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1908-1909.
Independence of Turkey declared and won.

See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1908-1909 (OCTOBER-MARCH).

BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1909.
Prince Ferdinand assumes the title of King.

On the acquisition of complete Bulgarian independence, Prince
Ferdinand was said at first to be intending to assume the
title of Tsar; but that intention, if it had been formed, was
changed, and he took the title of King.

{42}

BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: Bulgaria and Servia: A.D. 1905.
Customs Union Convention between the two States.
Anger and Hostility of Austria.
Dictatorial demands on Servia.
The frontier closed to trade.

"Servia and Bulgaria, in July, 1905, signed a Customs
Convention, creating a customs union and breaking down the
tariff barriers between the two countries. The age is the age
of union in business, in finance, in every department in life.
… Not only has the Customs Convention between the two
countries, which is, after all, but the first step towards a
real zollverein, demonstrated the trend of international
development, but it has enabled the world to see clearly the
relations existing between the small Balkan States—unprotected
by any guarantee of neutrality—and their great neighbours. It
has been made clear that, despite all the many protestations
in Vienna of goodwill to the Balkan States, Austria does not
wish to see real progress in that part of Europe. And what is
true of Austria is true also of Russia. …

"True to her unvarying policy, Austria no sooner heard of the
Customs Convention than she set to work to destroy it,
claiming that it damaged her commercial interests. By her
unjust attempts at coercion, plain and undisguised, Austria
brought into being a political bond between Bulgaria and
Servia which was not in existence at the time of the signature
of the Customs Convention. …

"In the past Servia has fallen more and more completely under
the domination of Austria; her geographical position and her
internal troubles made her an easy prey for Vienna, and had it
not been for the desire of Russia to share the dainty morsel,
Servia would in all probability have gone ere this to join the
Servian provinces of Bosnia and Hersegovina as an integral
part of the Austrian Empire. Her commerce is almost solely
with Austria or Hungary, and her finances are under the
control of a French-Austrian syndicate. It might therefore
well seem incredible that the small State, bound thus hand and
foot to the oppressor, should dare to oppose her desire for
liberty to the Austrian desire for gain, political,
commercial, or financial. But just as under the Turkish rule
the Servians began to fight for freedom in small bands, so the
Customs Convention with Bulgaria represents the first blow for
economic and political freedom. … While the Convention
represents an effort on Servia’s part to free herself from the
thrall of Austria, it was not directed against that country.
It seeks rather to open up new markets and new means of
export, for which there was sufficient reason in the fact that
there was no increase in the export of Servian goods to
Austria during the last few years, some of which even showed a
decrease. Commercial development demanded that new markets
should be sought and a new route via Bulgaria to the Black Sea
ports be opened up. …

"On January 8th the Austrian Minister in Belgrade presented a
note from his Government making it a condition that in order
that the negotiations for a commercial treaty should not be
suspended, the Servian Government should engage not to bring
the Customs Union before the Skouptchina before the conclusion
of the treaty. At the same time he indicated the disastrous
results of refusal on Servia’s part. The Servian Cabinet
accepted the Austrian proposals as to the postponement of the
presentation of the Customs Union to the Skouptchina, and
promised also to consider the modification of the Convention
in so far as these modifications were not contrary to the
nature of the Customs Union. The Austrian Minister recommended
a change of the reply, because his Government would not accept
it as it stood. On the Servians refusing to make any change,
he gave them till the afternoon of the next day to repent,
with the alternative that the treaty negotiations would be
broken off and the frontiers closed. … Servia insisted upon
maintaining her dignity as a nation, while expressing her
readiness to meet Austria in every possible economic way.
Furious at the Servian refusal, the Viennese authorities
ordered the closing of the frontiers to Servian cattle, pigs,
and even fowls. This last restriction was contrary to the
existing treaty of commerce between the two countries which
does not expire till March 1st, 1906. The cattle and pigs were
excluded under the arbitrary veterinary convention, it having
been found that a pig had died of ‘diplomatic swine fever,’ a
contagious disease, prevalent when Servia opposes Austrian
desires. The cool indifference with which Austria ignored her
treaty obligations with Servia led to a profound feeling that
it was hardly worth making sacrifices in order to obtain a new
commercial treaty, which could be as equally well ignored.
Patriotic fervour waxed great in Servia, and the people
prepared to make a good fight for their liberty. But it was
never overlooked that the relations with Austria were of great
and vital importance."

_Alfred Stead,
The Serbo-Bulgarian Convention and its Results
(Fortnightly Review, March, 1906)._

BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: Herzegovina: A. D. 1908.
Annexation to Austria.

See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1908-1909 (OCTOBER-MARCH).

BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: Montenegro: A. D. 1905.
Prince Nicholas’s Constitution, and his operation of it.

"When Prince Nicholas heard that the Czar had promised his
people a Constitution, he, disciple of Russia in all things,
determined to outdo Nicholas II., and, as a matter of fact,
granted his little country [December, 1905] a more liberal
Constitution than that which Russia enjoys. In Russia certain
things were not to be discussed in the Duma. In Montenegro,
everything could be discussed. When this principle began to be
put in practice, however, although in the most loyal and
respectful manner, the Prince took offence and began to
imprison politicians who dared to ask for information about
the financial condition of the principality. As a consequence,
he made himself unpopular among what in Russia would be called
the ‘intelligencia,’ but, being a man of far stronger
personality and more striking genius than the Czar of Russia,
he is still feared and obeyed. He is, in fact, an old soldier
with all the old soldier’s preference for barrack discipline
as the only method of rule, and in thinking that he understood
what is meant by the words ‘constitutional government’ he
deceived himself, for he does not understand, and being an old
man surrounded by flatterers, he is perhaps less able to
understand now than he would have been thirty years ago.

"If he had been more adaptable, and had taken greater pains to
instruct his people in the methods of parliamentary
government, the constitutionalist movement might have been a
success, but unfortunately he withdrew from Cettinje in a
‘huff’ when the Skupschina passed some criticisms on the
government, and declined to coöperate with the deputies,
though they were all very anxious to have his advice. It is
stated, on the other hand, however, that the Skupschina
interpreted in too large a sense the Constitution that had
been granted to them."

_Special Correspondent New York Evening Post,
Cettinje, December 15, 1908._

{43}

BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1908-1909.
With Servia against Austrian annexation of Bosnia
and Herzegovina.

See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1908-1809 (OCTOBER-MARCH).

BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: Roumania: A. D. 1866-1906.
Development of the country under King Charles I. and
his admirable Queen.

"The efforts of King Charles have been principally devoted
towards internal improvement. Railways have increased and
improved since the State purchased them in 1886, at an outlay
of 237,500,000 francs. Then there were 1,407 kilometres; in
1903 these had increased to 3,177. In the Dobrudja, given to
Roumania after the war with Turkey, the King has created a
great commercial port at Constantza, whence the grain and
petroleum of Roumania can flood the market. From here will
radiate a Roumanian merchant marine, which will bear the
Roumanian flag to all parts of the world. Agriculture has been
carefully cherished, and to-day the country is one of the
principal grain-exporting countries of the world, and the lot
of the peasant, formerly so low, has been improved. An
educational system has sprung into being, owing much to the
direct support and inspiration of the Royal family. The
finances have been put on a stable footing, and although the
nation has already acquired a sufficiency of debt, the future
is not at all dangerously beset. Thanks to the discovery of
extensive petroleum fields, Roumania has been strengthened and
raised from the position of a country relying solely on the
rain and sun for its prosperity; while thanks to the King’s
indefatigable efforts and unceasing watchfulness, the
petroleum industry has been protected from becoming the
monopoly either of the ruthless Standard Oil Trust or of the
politically guided and government-supported German Bank. Had
King Charles done nothing else for Roumania, his determined
and wise action in this question would have earned him all
praise. But whether it be in the question of the Danube, with
its international Commission, or of the transformation of the
twelve enormous Crown lands, dispersed over the kingdom, into
national and social models, to see and follow—a work due
principally to M. Kalindero—the King’s interest in all things
which directly or indirectly touch Roumania is unabated.

"And what manner of man is this, who has thus created a
European State out of the remnants of a land cursed by a
Turkish rule and Phanariot sway? First and foremost he is
always a Hohenzollern, swayed by his obedience to duty, and
based upon that Hohenzollern saying: 'It is not enough to be
born a prince, you must show that you are worthy of the
title,' and second, he is ever a true Roumanian, who has
caught much of the inspiration of those great former Roumanian
leaders and warriors. His youth was one of discipline and
healthy education, while the influence of his father on his
character can never be overestimated. Every inch a king, he
never forgets that he is always also a man—personal
animosities never cloud his national judgment. An
indefatigable worker and on an organised plan tending towards
definite ends, King Charles devotes his whole time to his
never-ceasing task. By his marriage to Princess Elizabeth of
Wied’ [known in literature as Carmen Sylva] ‘a marriage so
non-political as to make it a political event of the first
importance,’ he brought to Roumania a queen who made herself
beloved of all, and speedily became the centre of all
charitable ideas and works."

_Alfred Stead,
King Charles I. of Roumania
(Fortnightly Review, July, 1906)._

BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1902.
Oppression of the Jews.
Appeal of the United States to the signatories
of the Treaty of Berlin.

On the 11th of August, 1902, Mr. John Hay, Secretary of State
in the Government of the United States, addressed a
communication to the American Ambassadors and Ministers in
Great Britain, France, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia,
Italy, and Turkey, whose governments were parties to the
Berlin Treaty of 1878, directing that it be read to the proper
ministers in the governments of those countries. The
communication related to the treatment of the Jews in
Roumania, which had long been a matter of deep concern to the
United States, not only from sympathy with the persecuted
people, but also because of the state in which it drove them
as emigrants to this land. An abridgment of Secretary Hay’s
despatch, published at the time, renders its substance as
follows:

"As long ago as in 1872 this country protested against the
oppression of these Jews under Turkish rule. The Treaty of
Berlin it was supposed would cure this wrong by the provisions
of its forty-fourth article, which prescribed that ‘in
Roumania the difference of religious creeds and confessions
shall not be alleged against any person as a ground for
exclusion or incapacity in matters relating to the enjoyment
of civil and political rights, admission to public
employments, functions and honors, or the exercise of the
various professions and industries in any locality whatsoever.
These prescriptions, however, have, in the lapse of time, been
rendered nugatory as regards the native Jews of Roumania.
Apart from the political disabilities of the Jews in that
country, and their exclusion from the liberal professions,
they are denied the inherent rights of man as a breadwinner in
the ways of agriculture and trade. They are prohibited from
owning land or from cultivating it as common laborers; they
are debarred from residing in the rural districts, and many
branches of petty trade and manual production are closed to
them in the cities. They have become reduced to a state of
wretched misery. The experience of the United States shows
that the Jews possess in a high degree the qualities of good
citizenhood. No class of immigrants is more welcome to our
shores when coming equipped in mind and body, but when they
come as outcasts, made doubly paupers by physical and mental
oppression in their native land, their migration lacks the
essential conditions which make alien immigration either
acceptable or beneficial. Many of these Roumanian Jews are
forced to quit their native country, and the United States is
almost the only refuge left to them. They come hither unfitted
by the conditions of their exile to take part in the new life
of this land, and they are objects of charity for a long time.
Therefore the right of remonstrance against the acts of the
Roumanian Government is fairly established in favor of this
Government. This Government cannot be a tacit party to what it
regards as an international wrong. It is constrained to
protest against the treatment to which the Jews of Roumania
are subjected. The United States is not a signatory to the
Treaty of Berlin, and cannot, therefore, appeal
authoritatively to the stipulations of that treaty, but it
does earnestly appeal to the principles consigned therein,
because they are the principles of international law and
eternal justice."

{44}

BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1907.
Agrarian and anti-Semitic riots.

Serious riotings of the peasants of Roumania, in both Moldavia
and Wallachia, occurred in April, 1907. Before the rising
could be suppressed more than 100,000 troops were employed;
the capital, Bucharest, was in a state of siege, and martial
law was proclaimed throughout the country. At first the
character of the uprising seems to have been purely agrarian.
The peasants demanded land at low prices and tried to throw
off the yoke of the middlemen, who are mostly Jews. As the
revolt spread, villages, farms, and even some towns were
plundered and destroyed by wholesale. Hundreds of peasants
were killed, and in several sections a state of real war
existed for more than a week. King Charles issued a
proclamation to his people promising the redress of their
grievances. The Conservative ministry resigned on March 24 and
a Liberal government was at once formed under the presidency
of Dr. Sturdza.

BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: Servia: A. D. 1901-1903.
Royal Constitution-making and unmaking.