The baths of Tusnad--The state of affairs before 1848--Inequality
of taxation--Reform--The existing land laws--Communal
property--Complete registration of titles to estates--Question of
entail.
I mixed exclusively in Hungarian society during my stay at the baths of
Tusnad. With Baron ---- and Herr von ---- I talked politics by the hour.
The Hungarians have the natural gift of eloquence. They pour forth their
words like the waters of a mill-race, no matter in what language. My
principal companion at Tusnad spoke French. The true Magyar will always
employ that language in preference to German when speaking with a
foreigner; but as often as not the Hungarians of good society speak
English perfectly well. The younger generation, almost without
exception, understand our language, and are extremely well read in
English literature.
I had so recently left Saxonland, where public opinion is opposed to
everything that has the faintest shade of Magyarism, that I felt in the
state of Victor Hugo's hero, of whom he said, "Son orientation était
changée, ce qui avait été le couchant était le levant. Il s'était
retourné." The transition was certainly curious, but I confess to
getting rather tired of the mutual recriminations of political parties;
respecting each other's good qualities, they are simply colour-blind.
After the Saxons had been allowed to drop out of the conversation, I led
my Magyar friend to talk of the state of things before 1848, and to
enlighten me as to the existing condition of laws of property. My
Hungarian--who, by the way, is a man well qualified to speak about legal
matters--showered down upon me a perfect avalanche of facts. Leaving out
a few patriotic flashes, the substance of what he told me was much as
follows. I had especially asked about the recent legislation on the land
question.
"In the old time, before '48, the State, the Church, and the Nobles were
the _sole_ landowners. The holding of land was strictly prohibited to
all who were not noble; but to the peasants were allotted certain
tracts, called for distinction 'session-lands.' For this privilege the
peasant had to give up a tenth part of the produce to the lord, and
besides he had to work for him two, and in some cases even _three_, days
in the week. The _robot_, or forced labour, varied in different
localities. The lord was judge over his tenants, and even his bailiff
had the right of administering twenty-five lashes to insubordinate
peasants. The _time_ of the forced labour was at the option of the lord,
who might oblige his tenant to give his term of labour consecutively
during seed-sowing or harvest, at the very time that the peasant's own
land required his attendance. It may easily be imagined that this was a
fruitful cause of dispute between the lord and his serfs.
"But the most glaring act of injustice under the old system was that
_all the taxes_ were paid by the session-holding peasantry, while the
nobles were privileged and tax-free. They absolutely contributed nothing
to the revenue of the country in the way of direct taxes!
"This peculiarity of the Constitution made it the interest of the Crown
to _preserve_ the area of the tax-paying peasant-land against the
encroachments of the tax-free landlord. It often happened that on the
death or removal of a peasant-holder the lord would choose to absorb the
session-land into the _allodium_, which, being tax-free, resulted in a
loss to the imperial revenue. To prevent this absorption of
session-lands by the landlord, and also to accommodate the burdens of
the peasantry, which had become almost intolerable in the last century,
owing to the tyranny of the feudal superiors--to prevent this, I repeat,
a general memorial survey with a view to readjustment took place in 1767
by command of Maria Theresa.
"This very important settlement, which came to be known as the
'URBARIAL CONSCRIPTION,' laid down and defined the rights and
services of the peasants, and the amount of land to be held by them. The
nobles henceforth were obliged to find new tenants of the peasant class
in the event of the 'session-lands' becoming vacant. Likewise their
unjust impositions on the serfs were restricted, and the _rights_ of the
latter, in respect to wood-cutting and pasturage on the lord's lands,
were established by law.
"This was all very well as far as it went," said my friend; "but the
inequality of taxation and the forced labour were crying evils not to be
endured in the nineteenth century. Our people who travelled in England
and elsewhere came back imbued with new ideas. We in Transylvania assume
the credit of taking the lead in liberal politics. Baron Wesselényi was
one of the first to advise a radical reform, and others--Count Bethlen,
Baron Kemeny, and Count Teleki--were all agreed as to the necessity of
bringing about the manumission of the serfs. It is an old story now. I
am speaking of the third and fourth decades of the century, and
political excitement was at white-heat. The extreme views of Wesselényi
raised a host of opponents among his own class, who regarded the
prospect of reform as nothing short of class suicide. Everything else
might go to the devil as long as they retained their privileges; the
devil, however, is apt to make a clean sweep of the board when he has
got the game in his own hands, but these noble wiseacres could not see
that. In other parts of the country good men and true were working up
the leaven of reform. The great patriot Széchenyi, as long ago as 1830,
when he published his work on 'Credit,' had shown his countrymen their
shortcomings. He had proved to them that their laws and their
institutions were not marching with the spirit of the age; that, in
short, the 'rights of humanity' called for justice. What this truly
great man did for the material improvement of his country could hardly
be told between sunrise and sundown. You practical English were our
teachers and our helpers in those days, when bridges had to be built,
roads to be made, and steam navigation set up in our rivers. English
horses were brought over to improve the breed in Hungary, and English
agricultural machinery still turns out treasure-trove from our fields.
But beyond all this, what we saw and admired in England's history was
her constitutional struggles for liberty; the efforts made by freedom
within the pale of the law; her capacity, in short, for self-reform. You
see how it is, my dear sir, that everything English is so popular with
us in Hungary."
I bowed my acknowledgments, and begged my friend to proceed with his
narrative of events.
"Well, to go back to our own history," he continued, in a tone which had
in it a shade of melancholy, "you see from 1823 to the eve of 1848 the
Diet had been tinkering at reform in a half-hearted sort of way, but the
Paris revolution let loose the whirlwind, and events were precipitated.
I need not tell you there was a standing quarrel between us and the
reactionary rulers in Vienna. It was the deceitful policy of Austria to
bring about a temporary show of agreement between us. The Archduke
Stephen was appointed Viceroy, assisted by a council composed entirely
of Hungarians. Now mark this turning-point in our history. The first Act
of this Diet, presided over by Count Batthyanyi, was to abolish at one
sweep the class privileges of the nobility. Roundly speaking, eight
millions of serfs received their freedom by that Act! Nor was this all,
the important part remains to be told--and I do not think foreigners
always realise it--the Act further enforced that the session-lands held
by the peasants became henceforth _their freehold property_. Half, or
nearly half, the kingdom thus, by the voluntary concession of the
nobles, became converted from a feudal tenure, burdened with duties,
into an absolute freehold.
"Like every sudden change, the result was not unmixed good. The Wallacks
especially were not prepared for their emancipation; they thought
equality before the law meant equality of goods."
I now inquired how the working of the land laws was carried out, and to
this my friend replied:--
"As a lawyer I can give you an exact statement in a few words. The
disturbed state of the country after the war of independence, which
followed immediately upon the emancipation of the serfs, prevented for a
while the effective realisation of the great reform of '48. However, in
1853 several imperial decrees were promulgated, by means of which the
changed system was worked out in detail. 'Urbarial courts' were
instituted to inquire into the amount of compensation due to the lords
of the manors who had lost the tithes and the 'forced labour' of the
former serfs. To meet this compensation 'State urbarial bonds' were
created and apportioned; they bear five per cent. interest, and are
redeemable within eighty years, with two drawings annually. The fund for
this compensation is raised by a special tax on every Hungarian subject;
not only the freed peasant pays towards the fund, but the lord himself,
and those who never had any feudal tenants.
"The peasants had also to receive their compensation for the loss of
pasturage and the right of cutting wood on the lord's demesne. In lieu
of these privileges they received allotments of forest and pasturage as
absolute property. The land thus acquired by the peasants is in fact
_parish property_, or in other words, communal property. This is the
only instance in which the parish appears as landowner, for all other
peasant property, with the exception of the parish buildings, such as
the school, is the property of the respective peasants. The parish
authorities regulate the usage of the common pasturage and common
forest. The sale or cutting down of the latter is subject to the
permission of the county authorities."
I now proceeded to question my friend about the laws respecting the
transfer of land, and especially about the registration of titles of
estate. To these inquiries he replied as follows:--
"Land in Hungary is the absolute property of that person, or corporate
body, who appears as owner in the registry. A limitation of claim to
ownership does not exist with us; indeed it is contrary to the law. The
_Avitische Patent_ of 1854 prescribed further that every one should be
regarded as the rightful owner who actually held the property in
1848--_i.e._, the _status quo_ of 1848 to be accepted as the basis. The
_Urbarium_ of Maria Theresa was, in short, the stand-point in all these
arrangements, whether it was the sessional lands of tenants formerly
held in hereditary use, now freehold, or the _allodium_ of the noble.
Immediately succeeding the _Avitische Patent_, the _registration of
land_ was made law, in conformity with which all estates had been
surveyed and entered on the registry as belonging to those owners who
possessed the same in consequence of the above-named patent."
"But how about disputed inheritance-lands held by mortgagees, and other
contingencies always arising in regard to estates?" I asked.
"I am sorry to say that dreadful cases of injustice were caused by this
enactment. Whole families were reduced to beggary, and the greatest
rascals obtained possession by this law of enormous estates, simply
because they happened to hold the land in 1848, and the rightful owner
did not advance his claim within the prescribed time. The evil could
not be redressed, and in 1861, when the Hungarian Constitution was
reinstated, the Diet of that year was obliged to accept and confirm the
_Avitische Patent_, and the registration of land as directly following
it. The grievances are past, but the benefit remains to us and our
children. In Hungary at the present time the transfer of land is as
simple as buying or selling the registered shares of a railway company.
The registry forms the basis of every transaction connected with landed
property, and, as we lawyers say, what is not entered there _non est in
mundo_. Mortgages must be set down against the registered title.
Contracts of leases are also entered, and in the case of farms being
taken, caution-money, amounting generally to a quarter's rent, must be
deposited with the authorities."
"One more question. Are there no entailed estates amongst your
aristocracy?"
"Very few, indeed, even among the richest aristocracy. An Act of
entailment can, it is true, be founded, but it is rarely permitted,
being looked upon with disfavour for reasons of political economy. Such
an Act would require in any case the special permission of the sovereign
and of Government; and then the estate is placed under a special court.
Without special permission from this court neither an alteration of the
Act can take place, nor is sale or mortgage allowed. Hungarian law also
interposes some restrictions in the case of a testator, who must leave
by will at least half his property to his children. And with regard to
women, the law with us is specially careful to preserve a woman's legal
existence after marriage."