laws of Hungary at present in operation are printed
in G. Steinbach, Die ungarischen Verfassungsgesetze
(3d ed., Vienna, 1900). English translations of the
more important are in Dodd, Modern Constitutions,
I., 93-111. The standard treatise on the Hungarian
constitutional system is S. Rádo-Rotheld, Die
ungarische Verfassung (Berlin, 1898), upon which is
based A. de Bertha, La constitution hongroise
(Paris, 1898). In both of these works the Magyar
domination in Hungary is regarded with favor. A
readable book is A. de Bertha, La Hongrie moderne
de 1849 à 1901; étude historique (Paris, 1901). An
older treatise, in three volumes, is A. von
Virozil, Das Staatsrecht des Königsreichs Ungarn
(Pest, 1865-1866). Valuable works of more recent
publication include G. Steinbach, Die ungarischen
Verfassungsgesetze (Vienna, 1906); A. Timon,
Ungarische Verfassungs-und Rechtsgeschichte (2d
ed., Berlin, 1908); H. Marczoll, Ungarisches
Verfassungsrecht (Tübingen, 1909); and especially
G. von Ferdinandy, Staats und Verwaltungsrecht des
Königreichs Ungarn und seiner Nebenländer (Hanover,
1909). Worthy of mention is P. Matter, La
constitution hongroise, in _Annales de l'École
Libre des Sciences Politiques_, July 15, 1889, and
April 15, 1890. Excellent discussions for English
readers will be found in J. Andrássy, The
Development of Hungarian Constitutional Liberty
(London, 1908); C. M. Knatchbull-Hugessen, The
Political Evolution of the Hungarian Nation
(London, 1908); and P. Alden (ed.), Hungary of
To-day (London and New York, 1910). The
celebration, in 1896, of the thousandth anniversary
of the establishment of the Magyars in Europe was
made the occasion of the publication of a multitude
of more or less popular books devoted, as a rule,
to a review of Hungarian national development.
Among them may be mentioned: A. Vambéry, Hungary in
Ancient and Modern Times (London, 1897); R.
Chélard, La Hongrie millénaire (Paris, 1906); and
M. Gelléri, Aus der Vergangenheit und Gegenwart des
tausendjährigen Ungarn (Budapest, 1896).]
II. THE CROWN AND THE MINISTRY (p. 491)
*542. The Working Executive.*--The constitutional arrangements
respecting the executive branch of the Hungarian government are set
forth principally in Law III. of 1848 "concerning the Formation of a
Responsible Hungarian Ministry." The king attains his position _ipso
jure_, by reason of being Emperor of Austria, without the necessity of
any distinct act of public law. Within six months of his accession at
Vienna he is crowned monarch of Hungary at Budapest, in a special
ceremony in which is used the crown sent by Pope Sylvester II. upwards
of a thousand years ago to King Stephen. The new sovereign is required
to proffer Parliament an "inaugural certificate," as well as to take a
coronation oath, to the effect that he will maintain the fundamental
laws and liberties of the country; and both of these instruments are
incorporated among the officially published documents of the realm.
The entire proceeding partakes largely of the character of a
contractual arrangement between nation and sovereign.
As in Austria, the powers of the crown are exercised very largely
through the ministry. And, by reason of the peculiar safeguards in the
Hungarian laws against royal despotism, as well as the all but
uninterrupted absence of the king from the dominion, the ministry at
Budapest not only constitutes the Hungarian executive in every real
sense, but it operates on a much more purely parliamentary basis than
does its counterpart at Vienna. "His Majesty," says the law of 1848,
"shall exercise the executive power in conformity with law, through
the independent Hungarian ministry, and no ordinance, order, decision,
or appointment shall have force unless it is countersigned by one of
the ministers residing at Budapest."[690] Every measure of the crown
must be countersigned by a minister; and every minister is immediately
and actually responsible to Parliament for all of his official acts.
[Footnote 690: Law III. of 1848, § 3. Dodd, Modern
Constitutions, I., 94.]
*543. Composition and Status of the Ministry.*--The ministry consists of
a president of the council, or premier, and the heads of nine
departments, as follows: Finance, National Defense, Interior,
Education and Public Worship, Justice, Industry and Commerce,
Agriculture, the Ministry for Croatia and Slavonia, and the Ministry
near the King's Person. The last-mentioned portfolio exists by virtue
of the constitutional requirement that "one of the ministers shall
always be in attendance upon the person of His Majesty, and shall take
part in all affairs which are common to Hungary and the hereditary
provinces, and in such affairs he shall, under his responsibility,
represent Hungary."[691] All ministers are appointed by the king, (p. 492)
on nomination of the premier. All have seats in Parliament and must be
heard in either chamber when they desire to speak. They are bound,
indeed, to attend the sessions of either house when requested, to
submit official papers for examination, and to give "proper
explanations" respecting governmental policies. They may be impeached
by vote of a majority of the lower chamber, in which event the trial
is held before a tribunal of twelve judges chosen by secret ballot by
the upper house from among its own members. Inasmuch, however, as the
lower house has acquired the power by a simple vote of want of
confidence to compel a cabinet to resign, the right of impeachment
possesses in practice small value. The ministry is required to submit
once a year to the lower house for its examination and approval a
statement of the income and needs of the country, together with an
account of the income administered by it during the past twelve
months.[692]
[Footnote 691: Law III. of 1848, § 13. Dodd, Modern
Constitutions, I., 94.]
[Footnote 692: Law III. of 1848, § 37. Ibid., I.,
97.]
III. PARLIAMENT--THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM
*544. The Table of Magnates.*--The Hungarian parliament consists of two
houses, whose official designations are _Förendihaz_--Table, or
Chamber, of Magnates--and _Képviselöház_, or Chamber of Deputies. The
upper house is essentially a perpetuation of the ancient Table of
Magnates which, in the sixteenth century, began to sit separately as
an aristocratic body made up of the great dignitaries of the kingdom,
the Catholic episcopate (also, after 1792, that of the Orthodox Greek
Church), the "supreme courts," and the adult sons of titled families.
The reforms of 1848 left the Chamber untouched, though its composition
was modified slightly in 1885.[693] At the session of 1910-1911 it
contained 16 archdukes of the royal family (eighteen years of age or
over); 15 state dignitaries; 2 presidents of the High Courts of
Appeal; 42 archbishops and bishops of the Roman Catholic and Greek
Orthodox churches; 13 representatives of the Lutheran, Calvinist, and
Unitarian faiths; 236 members of the hereditary aristocracy (i.e.,
those of the whole number of the nobility who pay a land tax to the
amount of at least 6,000 crowns annually); 3 members elected by the
provincial diet of Croatia; and 60 life peers, appointed by the crown
or chosen by the Chamber of Magnates itself--a total of 387.[694] The
membership is therefore exceedingly complex, resting on the (p. 493)
various principles of hereditary right, _ex-officio_ qualification,
royal nomination, and election. In practice the upper house is
distinctly subordinate to the lower, to which alone the ministers are
responsible. Any member may acquire, by due process of election, a
seat in the lower chamber, and the privilege is one of which the more
ambitious peers are not reluctant to avail themselves. Upon election
to the lower house a peer's right to sit in the upper chamber is, of
course, suspended; but when the term of service in the popular branch
has expired, the prior right is revived automatically.
[Footnote 693: Law VII. of 1885 altering the
Organization of the Table of Magnates. Dodd, Modern
Constitutions, I., 100-105.]
[Footnote 694: The number is, of course, variable.
The old Table of Magnates was a very large body,
consisting of more than 800 members.]
*545. The Chamber of Deputies: the Franchise.*--By law of 1848, amended
in 1874, it is stipulated that the Chamber of Deputies, historically
descended from the ancient Table of Nuncios, shall consist of 453
members, "who shall enjoy equal voting power, and who shall be elected
in accordance with an apportionment made on the basis of population,
territory, and economic conditions."[695] Of the total number of
members, 413 are representatives of Hungary proper and 40 are
delegates of the subordinate kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and
Dalmatia. This kingdom possesses its own organs of government,
including a unicameral diet which exercises independent legislative
power in all internal affairs. Its forty deputies take part in the
proceedings at Budapest only when subjects are under consideration
which are of common concern to all of the countries of St. Stephen's
crown, such as questions pertaining to finance, war, communications,
and relations with Austria.[696]
[Footnote 695: Law V. of 1848 concerning the
Election of Representatives, § 5. Dodd, Modern
Constitutions, I., 105.]
[Footnote 696: On the status of the Croatian
kingdom see p. 507.]
The election of deputies is governed by an elaborate statute of
November 10, 1874, by which were perpetuated the fundamentals of the
electoral law of 1848. In respect to procedure, the system was further
amended by a measure of 1899. Qualifications for the exercise of the
suffrage are based on age, property, taxation, profession, official
position, and ancestral privileges. Nominally liberal, they are, in
actual operation, notoriously illiberal. The prescribed age for an
elector is twenty years, indeed, as compared with twenty-four in
Austria; but the qualifications based upon property-holding are so
exacting that they more than offset the liberality therein involved.
These qualifications--too complicated to be enumerated here--vary
according as they arise from capital, industry, occupation, or
property-holding. With slight restrictions, the right to vote is
possessed without regard to property or income, by members of the
Hungarian Academy of Sciences, professors, notaries public, (p. 494)
engineers, surgeons, druggists, graduates of agricultural schools,
foresters, clergymen, chaplains, and teachers. On the other hand,
state officials, soldiers in active service, customs employees, and
the police have no vote; servants, apprenticed workingmen, and
agricultural laborers are carefully excluded; and there are the usual
disqualifications for crime, bankruptcy, guardianship, and deprivation
by judicial process. In an aggregate population of approximately
20,000,000 to-day there are not more than 1,100,000 electors.
*546. The Magyar Domination.*--The explanation of this state of affairs
is to be sought in the ethnographical composition of Hungary's
population. Like Austria, Hungary contains a _mélange_ of races and
nationalities. The original Hungarians are the Magyars, and by the
Magyar element attempt has been made always to preserve as against the
affiliated German and Slavic peoples an absolute superiority of
social, economic, and political power. The Magyars occupy almost
exclusively the more desirable portion of the country, i.e., the great
central plain intersected by the Danube and the Theiss, where they
preponderate decidedly in as many as nineteen counties. Clustered
around them, and in more or less immediate touch with kindred peoples
beyond the borders, are the Germans and the Slavs--the Slovaks in the
mountains of the north, the Ruthenes on the slopes of the Carpathians,
the Serbs on the southeast, and the Croats on the southwest. When the
census of 1900 was taken the total population of Hungary (including
Croatia-Slavonia) was 19,254,559. Of this number 8,742,301 were
Magyars; 8,029,316 were Slavs; 2,135,181 were Germans; and 397,761
were of various minor racial groups. To put it differently, the
Magyars numbered 8,742,301; the non-Magyars, 10,512,258. The
fundamental fault of the Hungarian electorate is that it has been
shaped, and is deliberately maintained, in the interest of a race
which comprises numerically but 45.4 per cent of the country's
population.[697] So skillfully, indeed, have electoral qualifications
and electoral proceedings been devised in the Magyar interest that the
non-Magyar majority has but meager representation, and still less
influence, at Budapest.[698] Even in Hungary proper the electorate in
1906 comprised but 24.4 per cent of the male population over twenty
years of age; and, despite the disqualifications that have been
mentioned one-fourth of the men who vote are officials or employees of
the state.
[Footnote 697: It is but fair to say that in
Hungary proper the Magyar percentage in 1900 was
51.4.]
[Footnote 698: Of the 413 representatives of
Hungary at Budapest in 1909, but 26 were
non-Magyars, and after the elections of June, 1910,
but 7.]
*547. The Demand for Electoral Reform: the Franchise Reform Bill (p. 495)
of 1908.*--In recent years, especially since the Austrian electoral
reform of 1906-1907, there has been in Hungary an increasingly
insistent demand that the Magyar parliamentary hegemony be overthrown,
or at least that there be assured to the non-Magyar peoples something
like a proportionate share of political influence. As early as 1905
the recurrence of legislative deadlocks at Budapest influenced Francis
Joseph to ally himself with the democratic elements of the kingdom and
to declare for manhood suffrage; and in the legislative programme of
the Fejérváry government, made public October 28, 1905, the place of
principal importance was assigned to this reform. Fearing the swamping
of the popular chamber by the Slavs and Germans, the Magyars steadily
opposed all change, and for the time being the mere threat on the part
of the Government was sufficient to restore tolerable, if not normal,
parliamentary conditions. The Wekerle coalition cabinet of 1900
announced electoral reform as one of its projected tasks, but as time
elapsed it became apparent that no positive action was likely to be
taken. During 1907 and 1908 riotous demonstrations on the part of the
disappointed populace were frequent, and at last, November 11, 1908,
Count Andrássy, Minister of the Interior, introduced in the Chamber
the long-awaited Franchise Reform Bill.
The measure fell far short of public expectation. It was drawn, as
Count Andrássy himself admitted, in such a manner as not "to
compromise the Magyar character of the Hungarian state." After a
fashion, it conceded manhood suffrage. But, to the end that the Magyar
hegemony might be preserved, it imposed upon the exercise of the
franchise such a number of restrictions and assigned to plural voting
such an aggregate of weight that its concessions were regarded by
those who were expected to be benefited by it as practically
valueless. The essentials of the measure were: (1) citizens unable to
read and write Hungarian should be excluded from voting directly,
though they might choose one elector for every ten of their number,
and each elector so chosen should be entitled to one vote; (2) every
male citizen able to read and write Hungarian should be invested, upon
completing his twenty-fourth year and fulfilling a residence
requirement of twelve months, with one vote; (3) electors who had
passed four standards of a secondary school,[699] or who paid yearly a
direct tax amounting to at least twenty crowns ($4.16), or who
fulfilled various other conditions, should be entitled to two votes;
and (4) electors who had completed the course of secondary instruction,
or who paid a direct tax of 100 crowns (approximately $21), should (p. 496)
be possessed of three votes. As before, voting was to be oral and
public. In the preamble of the measure the cynical observation was
offered that "the secret ballot protects electors in dependent
positions only in so far as they break their promises under the veil
of secrecy." It was announced that the passage of the bill would be
followed by the presentation of a scheme for the redistribution of
seats.
[Footnote 699: Equivalent to the completion of
one-half of the course of secondary instruction.]
*548. Rejection of the Bill.*--According to calculations of the _Neue
Freie Presse_, the effect of the measure would have been to increase
the aggregate body of electors from 1,100,000 to 2,600,000, and the
number of votes to something like 4,000,000. The number of persons
entitled to three votes was estimated at 200,000; to two votes, at
860,000; to one vote, at 1,530,000; to no vote, at 1,270,000. An
aggregate of 1,060,000 persons in the first two classes would cast
2,320,000 votes; an aggregate of 2,800,000 in the last two would cast
1,530,000 votes. The number of persons participating in parliamentary
elections would be more than doubled, but political power would remain
where it was already lodged. The measure would have operated, indeed,
to strengthen the Magyar position, and while the Germans would have
profited somewhat by it, the Slavs would have lost largely such power
as they at present possess. Based as the scheme was upon a curious
elaboration of the educational qualification, it was recognized
instantly, both in the kingdom and outside, as an instrument of
deliberate Magyar domination. Among the Slavic populations the
prevalence of illiteracy is such that the number of persons who could
attain the possession of even one direct vote would be insignificant.
By the Socialists, and by the radical and Slavic elements generally,
the scheme was denounced as a sheer caricature of the universal,
equal, and direct suffrage for which demand had been made.
Upon the introduction of the bill parliamentary discord broke out
afresh, and through 1909 there was a deadlock which effectually
prevented the enactment of even the necessary measures of finance. In
January, 1910, the sovereign at last succeeded in securing a new
ministry, presided over by Count Hedérváry, and in the programme of
this Government the introduction of manhood suffrage was accorded a
place of principal importance. June 26, 1910, the Speech from the
Throne, at the opening of the newly elected parliament, announced that
a franchise bill would be submitted "on the basis of universal
suffrage and in complete maintenance of the unitary national character
of the Hungarian state." Various circumstances co-operated, however,
to impose delay and, despite the sovereign's reiterated interest in
the reform, no action as yet has been taken. The Hungarian franchise
remains the most illiberal and the most antiquated in Europe. The (p. 497)
racial situation seems utterly to preclude the possibility of a reform
that will be in all respects satisfactory; indeed, it seems almost to
preclude the possibility of reform at all. Yet, that the pressure will
be continued until eventually there shall be an overhauling of the
present inadequate system can hardly be doubted.[700]
[Footnote 700: On the question of the Hungarian
suffrage see S. Aberdam, La crise hongroise, in
_Revue Politique et Parlementaire_, Oct. 10, 1909,
and Les récentes crises politiques en Hongrie, in
_Revue des Sciences Politiques_, May-June and
July-Aug., 1912; G. Louis-Jaray, Le suffrage
universel en Hongrie, in _Questions Diplomatiques
et Coloniales_, February 16, 1909; R. Henry, La
crise hongroise, ibid., June 1, 1910; J. Mailath,
Les élections générales hongroises, ibid., Aug. 16,
1910, and The Hungarian Elections, in _Contemporary
Review_, Oct., 1910; F. de Gerando, Le radicalisme
hongroise, in _Revue Politique et Parlementaire_,
July, 1911; A. Duboscq, La réforme électorale en
Hongrie, in _Questions Diplomatiques et
Coloniales_, July 1, 1912; S. Huszadik, La Hongrie
contemporaine et le suffrage universel (Paris,
1909); and B. Auerbach, Races et nationalités en
Autriche-Hongrie (2d ed., Paris, 1910).]
*549. Electoral Procedure.*--Elections are conducted in each town or
_comitat_ (county) by a central electoral committee of at least twelve
members, chosen by the municipal council of the town or by the general
council of the _comitat_. The list of voters in each district is drawn
up by a sub-committee of this body. When an election is to be held,
the Minister of the Interior fixes, thirty days in advance, a period
of ten days during which the polling must be completed. As in Great
Britain, the elections do not take place simultaneously, and a
candidate defeated in one constituency may stand, and possibly be
successful, in another. All polling within a particular town or
_comitat_, however, is concluded within one day. Candidates may be
nominated by any ten electors of the district, and candidacies may be
declared until within thirty minutes of the hour (eight o'clock A. M.)
for the polling to begin.
Voting is everywhere public and oral. Each elector, after giving his
name and establishing his identity, simply proclaims in a loud voice
the name of the candidate for whom he desires to have his vote
recorded. If no candidate obtains an absolute majority, the central
committee fixes a date (at least fourteen days distant) for a second
polling, on which occasion the contest lies between the two candidates
who at the first balloting polled the largest number of votes. Prior
to a law of 1899 defining jurisdiction in electoral matters, Hungarian
elections were tempestuous, and not infrequently scandalous. Beginning
with the elections of 1901, however, electoral manners have shown
considerable improvement; though ideal conditions can hardly be
realized until oral voting shall have been replaced by the secret
ballot.[701] Any elector who has attained the age of twenty-four, (p. 498)
is a registered voter, and can speak Magyar (the official language of
Hungarian parliamentary proceedings) is eligible as a candidate.
Deputies receive a stipend of 4,800 crowns a year, with an allowance
of 1,600 crowns for house rent.
[Footnote 701: Seatus Viator, Corruption and Reform
in Hungary: a Study of Electoral Practice (London,
1911).]
*550. Parliamentary Organization and Procedure.*--The national
parliament assembles in regular session once a year at Budapest.
Following a general election, the Chamber of Deputies meets, under the
presidency of its oldest member, after a lapse of time (not exceeding
thirty days) fixed by the royal letters of convocation. The Chamber of
Magnates being convoked by the crown at the same date, all members
repair to the royal palace to hear the Speech from the Throne, which
is delivered by the king in person or by an especially appointed royal
commissioner.[702] The lower chamber then passes upon the validity of
the election of its members, though by law of 1899 the actual exercise
of this jurisdiction is committed in large part to the Royal High
Court.[703] The president and vice-president of the Chamber of
Magnates are appointed by the king from the members of that house; the
secretaries are elected by the house from its own members, by secret
ballot. The lower house elects, from its members, all of its
officials--a president, two vice-presidents, and a number of
secretaries. The presidents of the two houses are chosen for the
entire period of the parliament; all other officials are chosen
annually at the beginning of a session.
[Footnote 702: King Francis Joseph I. has been
absent upon this important occasion but once since
1867. Apponyi, in Alden, Hungary of To-day, 166.]
[Footnote 703: Ibid., 166-175.]
Each house is authorized, at its first annual session after an
election, to adopt an order of business and to make the necessary
regulations for the maintenance of peace and propriety in its
deliberations. The president, with the aid of sergeants-at-arms, is
charged with the strict enforcement of all such rules. Sittings of the
two houses are required to be public, but spectators who disturb the
proceedings may be excluded. The maximum life of a parliament was
raised, in 1886, from three years to five. It is within the power of
the king, however, not only to extend or to adjourn the annual
session, but to dissolve the lower chamber before the expiration of
the five-year period. In the event of a dissolution, orders are
required to be given for a national election, and these orders must be
so timed that the new parliament may be assembled within, at the most,
three months after the dissolution. And there is the further requirement
that, in the event of a dissolution before the budget shall have (p. 499)
been voted for the ensuing year, the convocation of the new parliament
shall be provided for within such a period as will permit the
estimates for the succeeding year to be considered before the close of
the current year.
*551. The Powers of Parliament: the Parliamentary System.*--In the
Hungarian constitutional system Parliament is in a very real sense
supreme. The king can exercise his prerogatives only through ministers
who are responsible to the lower chamber, and all arrangements
pertaining to the welfare of the state fall within the competence of
the legislative branch. Within Parliament it is the Chamber of
Deputies that preponderates. Aside from the king and ministry, it
alone enjoys the power of initiating legislation; and the opposition
with which the Chamber of Magnates may be disposed to meet its
measures invariably melts away after a show of opinion has been made.
By a simple majority vote in the lower chamber a minister may be
impeached for bribery, negligence, or any act detrimental to the
independence of the country, the constitution, individual liberty, or
property rights. Trial is held before a tribunal composed of men
chosen by secret ballot by the Chamber of Magnates from its own
members. For the purpose thirty-six members in all are required to be
elected. Of the number, twelve may be rejected by the impeachment
commission of the lower house, and twelve others by the minister or
ministers under impeachment. Those remaining, at least twelve in
number, try the case. Procedure is required to be public and the
penalty to be "fixed in proportion to the offense."[704]
[Footnote 704: Law III. of 1848 concerning the
Formation of a Responsible Hungarian Ministry, §§
33-34. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I., 97.]
The statement which has sometimes been made that the parliamentary
system operates to-day in the kingdom of Hungary in a fuller measure
than in any other continental country requires qualification.
Nominally, it is true, an unfavorable vote in the Deputies upon a
Government measure or action involves the retirement of a minister, or
of the entire cabinet, unless the crown is willing to dissolve the
Chamber and appeal to the country; and no Government project of
consequence can be carried through without parliamentary approval.
Practical conditions within the kingdom, however, have never been
favorable for the operation of parliamentarism in a normal manner. In
the first place, the parliament itself is in no wise representative of
the nation as a whole. In the second place, the proceedings of the
body are not infrequently so stormy in character that for months at a
time the essential principles of parliamentarism are hopelessly
subverted. Finally, and most fundamental of all, at no period in the
kingdom's history have there been two great parties, contending on (p. 500)
fairly equal terms for the mastery of the state, each in a position to
assume direction of the government upon the defeat or momentary
discomfiture of the other. From 1867 to 1875, as will appear, there
was but one party (that led by Deák) which accepted the Compromise,
and hence could be intrusted with office; and from 1875 to the present
day there has been but one great party, the Liberal, broken at times
into groups and beset by more or less influential conservative
elements, but always sufficiently compact and powerful to be able to
retain control of the government. Under these conditions it has worked
out in practice that ministries have retired repeatedly by reason of
decline of popularity, internal friction, or request of the sovereign,
and but rarely in consequence of an adverse vote in Parliament.
IV. POLITICAL PARTIES
*552. The Question of the Ausgleich.*--Throughout half a century the
party history of Hungary has centered about two preponderating
problems, first, the maintenance of the Compromise with Austria and,
second, the preservation of the political ascendancy of the Magyars.
Of these the first has been the more fundamental, because the
ascendancy of the Magyars was, and is, an accomplished fact and upon
the perpetuation of that ascendancy there can be, among the ruling
Magyars themselves, no essential division. The issue upon which those
elements of the population which are vested with political power (and
which, consequently, compose the political parties in the true sense)
have been always most prone to divide, is that of the perpetuation and
character of the Ausgleich. To put it broadly, there have been
regularly two schools of opinion in respect to this subject. There
have been the men, on the one hand, who accept the arrangements of
1867 and maintain that by virtue of them Hungary, far from having
surrendered any of her essential interests, has acquired an influence
and prestige which otherwise she could not have enjoyed. And there
have been those, on the other hand, who see in the Ausgleich nothing
save an abandonment of national dignity and who, therefore, would have
the arrangement thoroughly remodelled, or even abrogated outright.
Under various names, and working by different methods, the parties of
the kingdom have assumed almost invariably one or the other of these
attitudes.
*553. Formation of the Liberal Party.*--As has been pointed out, the
Compromise was carried through the Hungarian parliament in 1867 by the
party of Deák. Opposed to it was the Left, who favored the maintenance
of no union whatsoever with Austria save through the crown. The (p. 501)
first ministry formed under the new arrangement, presided over by
Count Andrássy, was composed of members of the Deák party, and at the
national elections of 1869 this party obtained a substantial, though
hard-won, majority. In 1871 Andrássy resigned to become the successor
of Count Beust in the joint ministry of foreign affairs at Vienna, and
two years later Deák himself, now an aged man, withdrew from active
political life. There followed in Hungary an epoch of political
unsettlement during the course of which ministries changed frequently,
finances fell into disorder, and legislation was scant and haphazard.
The Deák party disintegrated and, but for the fact that the Left
gradually abandoned its determination to overthrow the Ausgleich, the
outcome might well have been a constitutional crisis, if not war. As
it was, when, in February, 1875, the leader of the Left, Kálman Tisza,
publicly acknowledged his party's conversion to the Austrian
affiliation, the fragments of the Deák party amalgamated readily with
the Left to form the great Liberal party by which the destinies of
Hungary have been guided almost uninterruptedly to the present day.
Except for the followers of Kossuth, essentially irreconcilable, the
Magyars were now united in the support of some sort of union with
Austria, and most of them were content for the present to abide by the
arrangement of 1867. Before the close of 1875 Tisza was established at
the head of a Liberal cabinet, and from that time until his fall, in
March, 1890, he was continuously the real ruler of Hungary.
*554. The Liberal Ascendancy: Tisza, Szápáry, Wekerle, and Bánffy.*--The
primary policy of Tisza was to convert the polyglot Hungarian kingdom
into a centralized and homogeneous Magyar state, and to this end he
did not hesitate to employ the most relentless and sometimes
unscrupulous means. Nominally a Liberal, he trampled the principles of
liberalism systematically under foot. To the disordered country,
however, his strong rule brought no small measure of benefit,
especially in respect to economic conditions. He supported faithfully
the Compromise of 1867; but when, in 1877, the commercial treaty
between the two halves of the monarchy expired he contrived to procure
increased advantages for Hungary, and among them the conversion of the
Austrian National Bank into a joint institution of the two states.
Opposition to the Tisza régime arose from two sources principally, i.e.,
the Kossuth party of Independence, which clung still to the principles
of 1848, and the National party, led by the brilliant orator Count
Albert Apponyi, distinguishable from the Independence group, on the
one hand, by its provisional acquiescence in the Ausgleich and (p. 502)
from the Liberals, on the other, by its still more enthusiastic
advocacy of Magyarization. At Vienna, Tisza was regarded as
indispensable; but growing discontent in Hungary undermined his
position and March 13, 1890, he retired from office.
With the fall of Tisza there was inaugurated a period of short
ministries whose history it would be unprofitable to attempt to
recount in detail. The Liberal party continued in control, for there
had appeared no rival group of sufficient strength to drive it from
power. But the rise of a series of issues involving the relations of
church and state injected into the political situation a number of new
elements and occasioned frequent readjustments within the ministerial
group. The ministry of Count Szápáry, which succeeded that of Tisza
was followed, November 21, 1892, by that of Dr. Sandor Wekerle, and
it, in turn, after a number of the religious bills had been passed,
was succeeded, January 11, 1895, by a cabinet presided over by Baron
Bánffy. At the elections of 1896 the Liberals were overwhelmingly
triumphant, acquiring in the lower chamber a majority of two to one.
The Nationalist contingent was reduced from 57 to 35.
*555. The Era of Parliamentary Obstructionism.*--The period covered by
the Bánffy ministry (January, 1895, to February, 1899) was one of the
stormiest in Hungarian parliamentary history. At the close of 1897 the
decennial economic agreement with Austria came automatically to an
end, and despite its best efforts the Government was unable to procure
from Parliament an approval of a renewal of the arrangement. Through
two years successively the existing agreement was extended
provisionally for twelve months at a time. It was only during the
ministry of Széll, who took office in February, 1899, that a renewal
was voted, covering the period to 1907. In Hungary there is no
constitutional provision equivalent to Section 14 of the constitution
of Austria, but during 1897-1899 the utter breakdown of legislation at
Budapest drove Premier Bánffy to a policy of government by decree very
similar to that which was at the same time being employed at Vienna.
The Government had all of the while a substantial majority, but the
obstructionist tactics of the Independence group, the Apponyi
Nationalists, and the Clericals were of such a nature that normal
legislation was impossible. Under the régime of Széll (February, 1899,
to May, 1903), who was a survivor of the old Deák group,
constitutionalism was rehabilitated and the Liberals who had been
alienated by Bánffy's autocratic measures were won back to the
Government's support. Nationalist obstruction likewise diminished, for
the primary object of Apponyi's followers had been to drive Bánffy
from power.
The brief ministry of Count Khuen-Hedérváry (May 1 to September (p. 503)
29, 1903) was followed by a ministry presided over by Count István
[Stephen] Tisza, son of Kálman Tisza, premier from 1875 to 1890. The
principal task of the younger Tisza's ministry was to effect an
arrangement whereby the Hungarian army, while remaining essentially
Hungarian, should not be impaired in efficiency as a part of the dual
monarchy's military establishment. During parliamentary consideration
of this subject obstruction to the Government's proposals acquired
again such force that, under the accustomed rules of procedure, no
action could be taken. November 18, 1904, the opposition shouted down
a Modification of the Standing Orders bill, designed to frustrate
obstruction, and would permit no debate upon it; whereupon, the
president of the Chamber declared the bill carried and adjourned the
house until December 13, and subsequently until January 5, 1905. The
opposition commanded now 190 votes in a total of 451. When the date
for the reassembling arrived members of the obstructionist groups
broke into the parliament house and by demolishing the furniture
rendered a session for the time impossible. In disgust Tisza appealed
to the country, only to be signally defeated. The Government carried
but 152 seats. The Kossuth party of Independence alone carried 163;
the Liberal dissenters under Andrássy got 23; the Clerical People's
party, 23; the Bánffy group, 11; and the non-Magyar nationalities, 8.
Tisza sought to retire, but not until June 17, 1905, would the
sovereign accept his resignation.
*556. The Government's Partial Triumph.*--Incensed by the prolonged, and
in many respects indefensible, character of the parliamentary
deadlock, Francis Joseph resolved to establish in office an
essentially extra-constitutional ministry which should somehow
contrive to override the opposition, and likewise to set on foot a
movement looking toward the revolutionizing of Hungarian parliamentary
conditions by the introduction of manhood suffrage. Under the ministry
of Baron Fejérváry, constituted June 21, 1905, there was inaugurated a
period of frankly arbitrary government. Parliament was prorogued
repeatedly, and by censorship of the press, the dragooning of towns,
and the dismissal of officers the Magyar population was made to feel
unmistakably the weight of the royal displeasure. For awhile there was
dogged resistance, but in time the threat of electoral reform took the
heart out of the opposition. Outwardly a show of resistance was
maintained, but after the early months of 1906 the Government may be
said once more to have had the situation well in hand. Two events of
the year mentioned imparted emphasis to the profound change of
political conditions which the period of conflict had produced. The
first was the establishment, under the premiership of the Liberal (p. 504)
leader Dr. Wekerle, of a coalition cabinet embracing a veritable
galaxy of Hungarian statesmen, including Francis Kossuth, Count
Andrássy, and Count Apponyi. The second was the all but complete
annihilation, at the national elections which ensued, of the old
Liberal party, and the substitution for it, in the rôle of political
preponderance, of the Kossuth party of Independence. The number of
seats carried by this rapidly developing party was 250, or more than
one-half of the entire number in the Chamber.
*557. The Parliamentary Conflict Renewed.*--The Wekerle cabinet entered
office pledged to electoral reform, although in the subject it in
reality cherished but meager interest. In 1908, as has been related,
it was impelled by popular pressure to submit a new electoral
scheme;[705] but that scheme was conceived wholly in the Magyar
interest and did not touch the real problem. It very properly failed
of adoption. Meanwhile the ministry fell into hopeless disagreement
upon the question of whether Hungary should consent to the renewal of
the charter of the Austro-Hungarian Bank (to expire December 31, 1910)
or should hold out for the establishment of a separate Hungarian Bank,
and, April 27, 1909, Premier Wekerle tendered his resignation. At the
solicitation of the sovereign he consented to retain office until a
new ministry could be constituted, which, in point of fact, proved to
be until January 17, 1910. Added to the problem of the Bank was an
even more vexatious one, that, namely, of the Magyarization of the
Hungarian regiments. The extremer demands in the matter of
Magyarization emanated, of course, from the Independence party, though
upon the issue the party itself became divided into two factions, the
extremists being led by Justh and the more moderate element by
Kossuth. The coalition was disrupted utterly; the Wekerle ministry
dragged on simply because through many months no other could be
brought together to take its place. The year 1909 passed without even
the vote of a budget.
[Footnote 705: See p. 495.]
January 17, 1910, Count Hedérváry succeeded in forming a cabinet, and
there ensued a lull in the political struggle. At the elections of
June, the Government--representing virtually the revived Liberal
party--carried 246 seats, while the two wings of the Independence
party secured together only 85. The Clericals were reduced to 13 and
the non-Magyars to 7. Under the leadership of István Tisza there was
organized, at the beginning of 1910, a so-called "National Party of
Work," which by the emphasis which it laid upon its purpose of
practical achievement commended itself to large elements of the
nation. By the Hedérváry government it was announced that the (p. 505)
franchise would be reformed in such a manner as to maintain, without
the employment of the plural vote, the historical character of the
Magyar state; but the bitterness of Magyar feeling upon the subject
continued to preclude all possibility of action. The embarrassments
continually suffered by the Hedérváry ministry reached their
culmination in the winter of 1911-1912, at which time the relations
between Austria and Hungary became so strained that Emperor Francis
Joseph threatened to abdicate unless pending difficulties should be
adjusted. The question of most immediate seriousness pertained to the
adoption of new regulations for the military establishment, but the
electoral issue loomed large in the background. The retirement of the
Hedérváry cabinet, March 7, 1912, and the accession of a ministry
presided over by Dr. de Lukacs affected the situation but slightly.
The new premier made it clear that he would labor for electoral
reform, and issue was joined with him squarely upon this part of his
programme by the aristocracy, the gentry, the Chamber of Magnates, and
all the adherents of Andrássy, Apponyi, and Kossuth, with the
deliberately conceived purpose of frightening the Government, and
especially the Emperor-King, into an abandonment of all plans to
tamper with existing electoral arrangements. During the earlier months
of the ministry efforts of the premier to effect a working agreement
with the forces of opposition were but indifferently successful.[706]
[Footnote 706: For a brief account of Hungarian
party politics to 1896 see Lowell, Governments and
Parties, II., 152-161. For references to current
periodicals see p. 497.]
V. THE JUDICIARY AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
*558. Law and Justice.*--The law of Hungary, like that of England, is
the product of long-continued growth. It consists fundamentally of the
common law of the mediæval period (first codified by the jurist
Verböczy in the sixteenth century), amplified and modernized in more
recent times, especially since the reforms of 1867, so that what
originally was little more than a body of feudal customs has been
transformed into a comprehensive national code. Hungarian criminal
law, codified in 1878, is recognized to be the equal of anything of
the kind that the world possesses. Since 1896 there has been in
progress a codification of the civil law, and the task is announced to
be approaching completion. There are numerous special codes,
pertaining to commerce, bankruptcy, and industry, whose promulgation
from time to time has marked epochs in the economic development of the
nation.
The lower Hungarian tribunals, or courts of first instance, comprise
458 county courts, with single judges, and 76 district courts, (p. 506)
with two or more judges each. Both exercise jurisdiction in civil and
criminal cases; but the jurisdiction of the county courts in civil
cases extends only to suits involving not more than 1,200 crowns,
while in criminal cases these tribunals are not competent to impose
punishment exceeding a single year's imprisonment. The district courts
serve as courts of appeal from the county courts. Of superior courts
there are fourteen--twelve "royal tables," or courts of appeal, a
Supreme Court of Justice at Agram, and a Royal Supreme Court at
Budapest. The twelve contain, in all, 200 judges; the Royal Supreme
Court contains 92. All judges are appointed by the king. Once
appointed, they are independent and irremovable. Only Hungarian
citizens may be appointed, and every appointee must have attained the
age of twenty-six, must be of good moral character, must be familiar
with the language of the court in which he is to serve, and must have
passed the requisite legal examinations. Salaries vary from 3,840 to
10,000 crowns. Supreme administrative control of the judicial system
is vested in the Minister of Justice. The sphere of his authority is
regulated minutely by parliamentary statute. In the main, he
supervises the judges, attends to the legal aspects of international
relations, prepares bills, and oversees the execution of sentences.
*559. Local Government: the County.*--The principal unit of local
government in Hungary is the county. The original Hungarian county
instituted by St. Stephen about the year 1000, was simply a district,
closely resembling the English county or the French department, at the
head of which the king placed an officer to represent the crown in
military and administrative affairs. Local self-government had its
beginning in the opposition of the minor nobility to this centralizing
agency, and in periods of royal weakness the nobles usurped a certain
amount of control, first in justice, later in legislation, and finally
in the election of local officials, which in time was extended legal
recognition. At all points the county became substantially autonomous.
Indeed, by 1848 Hungary was really a confederation of fifty-two
counties, each not far removed from an aristocratic republic, rather
than a centralized state. For a time after 1867 there was a tendency
toward a revival of the centralization of earlier days. In 1876 laws
were enacted which vested the administration of the county in a
committee composed in part of members elected within the county, but
also in part of officials designated by the crown; and a statute of
1891 went still further in the direction of bureaucratic
centralization. More recently, however, the county has undergone a
slight measure of democratization.
Exclusive of Croatia-Slavonia, there are in Hungary to-day 63 (p. 507)
rural counties and 36 urban counties or towns with municipal rights.
In Croatia-Slavonia the numbers are 8 and 4 respectively. The urban
counties are in reality municipalities and are essentially separate
from the rural counties in which they are situated. The governmental
system of the county comprises a council of twenty, composed half of
members chosen by the electors for six years and half of persons who
pay the highest taxes, together with an especially appointed committee
which serves as the local executive. At the head of the assembly is
the _föispán_, or lord lieutenant, appointed by the crown. Legally,
the counties may withhold taxes and refuse to furnish troops, but
there is no popular representation in the true sense in the county
governments. The franchise is confined to the very restricted
parliamentary electorate. The subject races and the working classes
are unrepresented and the real possessors of power are the Magyar
landowners.
*560. Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia.*--To the kingdom of Hungary
proper are attached certain _partes adnexæ_ which enjoy a large
measure of political autonomy. Dalmatia, united to Hungary at the
beginning of the twelfth century, belongs _de jure_ to Hungary and _de
facto_ to Austria; Croatia and Slavonia belong both _de jure_ and _de
facto_ to Hungary.[707] Croatia and Slavonia, as Hungarian dominions,
have always possessed a peculiar status. They are inalienable portions
of the kingdom, and in all that pertains to war, trade, and finance
they are on precisely the same footing as any other part of the state.
In other matters, however, i.e., in religion, education, justice, and
home affairs generally, they enjoy a wide range of independent control.
The administration of common affairs is vested in the Hungarian
ministry, which must always contain a minister with the special
function of supervision of Croatian interests. In the parliament at
Budapest Croatia-Slavonia is represented by 40 members (sent from its
own diet) in the Chamber of Deputies and three members in the Chamber
of Magnates. These arrangements exist in virtue originally of an
agreement concluded between the Magyars and the Croats in 1868, and
they are closely analogous to the relationships established by the
Compromise of the previous year between Hungary and Austria. The
compact of 1868 was renewed upon several occasions prior to 1898, (p. 508)
since which time it has been intermittently under process of revision.
Among the Croats there has long been insistent demand for its
fundamental modification. The charge, in general, is that as at
present administered the arrangement operates all but exclusively to
the benefit of the Hungarians.[708] The Wekerle coalition ministry of
1906 promised a redress of grievances, but none was forthcoming, and
in more recent years, especially 1907-1908, riots and other
anti-Magyar demonstrations have been not uncommon in the territories.
[Footnote 707: Until 1848 the grand-principality of
Transylvania also enjoyed a considerable measure of
autonomy. In 1848 it was united with Hungary. In
1849 it regained its ancient independence, but in
1867 it was again joined with Hungary. By
legislation of 1868 and 1876 it was fully
incorporated in the kingdom, 75 seats being awarded
it in the Chamber of Deputies at Budapest in lieu
of its provincial diet, which was abolished.]
[Footnote 708: Under the agreement 44 per cent of
the Croatian-Slavonian revenue is retained for
local needs and the remaining 56 per cent is
devoted to common expenditures of the kingdom upon
the army, public works, and the national debt. It
is alleged, among other things, that this
apportionment is unjust, and, furthermore, that the
Hungarian authorities systematically divert local
funds to national uses.]
The local Croatian-Slavonian diet is a unicameral body consisting of
90 deputies elected by districts, and of dignitaries (ecclesiastics,
prefects of counties, princes, counts, and barons) to the number of
not more than half of the quota of elected members. The executive
consists of the three departments of Interior and Finance, Culture and
Education, and Justice. At the head of each is a chief, and over them
all presides an official known as the _Banus_. The _Banus_ is
appointed by the crown on the nomination of the premier. He is
_ex-officio_ a member of the Chamber of Magnates, and it is his
function to supervise all matters of administration in the provinces,
under the general direction of the Croatian minister, who constitutes
the vital tie between the central government at Budapest and the
dependent territories. Local government is administered in eight rural
and four urban counties.[709]
[Footnote 709: An English version of the statute of
1868 regulating the status of Croatia-Slavonia is
printed in Drage, Austria-Hungary, 767-783. For
extended discussions of the subject see Drage, _op.
cit._, Chap. ii; Geosztanyi, in P. Alden (ed.),
Hungary of To-day, Chap. ii; G. Horn, Le Compromis
de 1868 entre la Croatie et la Hongrie (Paris,
1907); G. de Montbel, La condition politique de la
Croatie-Slavonie dans la monarchie austro-hongroise
(Toulouse, 1909); and R. Gonnard, Entre Drave et
Save; études économiques, politiques, et sociales
sur la Croatie-Slavonie (Paris, 1911). See also R.
Henry, La Hongrie, la Croatie, et les nationalités,
in _Questions Diplomatiques et Coloniales_, Aug.
16, 1907; J. Mailath Hongrie et Croatie, ibid.,
Nov. 1, 1907.]
CHAPTER XXVII (p. 509)
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: THE JOINT GOVERNMENT
*561. The Ausgleich.*--The unique political relation which subsists
to-day between the Empire of Austria and the kingdom of Hungary rests
upon the Ausgleich, or Compromise, of 1867, supplemented at certain
points by agreements of more recent date. The fundamental terms of the
arrangement, worked out by the Emperor Francis Joseph, Deák, and Baron
Beust, were incorporated in essentially identical statutes enacted by
the Hungarian Parliament and the Austrian Reichsrath December 21 and
24 of the year mentioned. Between the demand of Hungary, on the one
hand, for independence (save only in respect to the crown), and that
of Austria, on the other, for the thoroughgoing subordination of the
Hungarian to an Imperial ministry, there was devised a compromise
whose ruling principle is that of dualism rather than that of either
absolute unity or subordination. Under the name Austria-Hungary there
was established a novel type of state consisting of an empire and a
kingdom, each of which, retaining its identity unimpaired, stands in
law upon a plane of complete equality with the other. Each has its own
constitution, its own parliament, its own ministry, its own
administration, its own courts. Yet the two have but one sovereign and
one flag, and within certain large and important fields the
governmental machinery and public policy of the two are maintained in
common. The laws which comprise the basis of the arrangement are the
product of international compact. They provide no means by which they
may be amended, and they can be amended only in the manner in which
they were adopted, i.e., by international agreement supplemented by
reciprocal parliamentary enactment.[710]
[Footnote 710: Drage, Austria-Hungary. Chap. 12; H.
Friedjung, Der Ausgleich mit Ungarn (Leipzig,
1877); Count Andrássy, Ungarns Ausgleich mit
Österreich von Jahre 1867 (Leipzig, 1897); L.
Eisenmann, Le compromis austro-hongroise (Paris,
1904). The Austrian and Hungarian texts of the
Ausgleich laws, with German versions in parallel
columns, are printed in I. Zolger, Der
staatsrechtliche Ausgleich zwischen Österreich und
Ungarn (Leipzig, 1911). English versions are in
Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I., 114-122, and Drage,
Austria-Hungary, 744-750, 753-766. In a speech in
the Hungarian Chamber November 23, 1903, Count
István Tisza sought to demonstrate that, properly,
there is no such thing as an Austro-Hungarian
Ausgleich--that the two instruments of 1867 are not
only of different date but are essentially
independent, each being revocable at will by the
power by which it was enacted. An able polemic in
opposition to the views of Tisza is to be found in
F. Tezner, Ausgleichsrecht und Ausgleichspolitik
(Vienna, 1907). Tezner is an Austrian publicist.]
I. THE COMMON ORGANS OF GOVERNMENT (p. 510)
*562. The Emperor-King.*--Of organs of government which the two
dominions possess in common, and by which they are effectually tied
together administratively, there are three: (1) the monarch; (2) the
ministries of Foreign Affairs, War, and Finance; and (3) the
Delegations. The functions and prerogatives of the monarch are
three-fold, i.e., those which he possesses as emperor of Austria,
those which belong to him as king of Hungary, and those vested in him
as head of the Austro-Hungarian union. In theory, and largely in
practice, the three sets of relationships are clearly distinguished.
All, however, must be combined in the same individual. The law of
succession is the same, and it would not be possible for Francis
Joseph, for example, to vacate the kingship of Hungary while retaining
the Imperial office in the co-ordinated state. But there is a
coronation at Vienna and another at Budapest; the royal title reads
"Emperor of Austria, King of Bohemia, etc., and Apostolic King of
Hungary"; and the relations of the sovereign with each of the two
governments are most of the time conducted precisely as if the other
of the two were non-existent. In the capacity of dual sovereign the
monarch's principal functions comprise the command of the army and
navy,[711] the appointment of heads of the joint ministries, the
promulgation of ordinances applying to the states in common, and the
giving of assent to measures enacted by the dual legislative body.
[Footnote 711: As an illustration of the
sensitiveness of the Hungarians in the matter of
their Austrian relations the fact may be cited that
in 1889, after prolonged effort, an arrangement was
procured in accordance with which the joint
sovereign, in the capacity of commander of the
armed forces, is known as Emperor _and_ King, not
as Emperor-King.]
*563. The Joint Ministries.*--By the Compromise of 1867 the three
departments of administration which most obviously require
concentration and uniformity were established upon a basis of
community between the two governmental systems. The first of these is
the ministry of Foreign Affairs. Neither Austria nor Hungary as such
maintains diplomatic intercourse with other powers; Under the
direction of the Foreign Minister (known, until 1871, as the Imperial
Chancellor) are maintained all relations with foreign governments,
through a diplomatic and consular service which represents in every
respect the monarchy as a whole. Commercial treaties, and treaties (p. 511)
stipulating changes of territory or imposing burdens upon the state or
upon any part of it, require the assent of both the parliament at
Vienna and that at Budapest.
The second common ministry is that of War. With respect to military
and naval administration there has been no little misunderstanding,
and even ill-feeling, between the two states. The instruments of 1867
vest the supreme command of the army and navy in the joint monarch,
yet the armed establishments of the states are maintained on the basis
of separate, even if approximately identical, laws, and each is placed
under the immediate supervision of a separate minister of national
defence. Each country maintains its independent arrangements for the
raising of the yearly contingent of recruits. It is only after the
quotas have been raised that the dual monarch can exercise his power
of appointing officers and regulating the organization of the forces.
The authority of the joint war minister is confined largely to matters
of secondary importance, such as equipment and the commissariat. Only
a close understanding between the ministries at Vienna and Budapest
can be depended upon, in the last analysis, to avert an utter
breakdown of the admittedly precarious military establishment.[712]
[Footnote 712: V. Duruy, L'Armée austro-hongroise,
in _Revue de Paris_, Jan. 15, 1909; M. B., L'Armée
autrichienne, in _Annales des Sciences Politiques_,
May, 1909; Com. Davin, La marine austro-hongroise,
in _Questions Diplomatiques et Coloniales_, Aug.
16, 1909.]
The third common ministry is that of Finance. Each of the two states
maintains an independent finance ministry and carries its own budget,
because, within certain limitations, the administration of fiscal
matters is left to the states in their separate capacities; but
questions of joint expenditure, the establishment of the joint budget,
and the examination of accounts are committed to a common ministry at
Vienna. The powers of the joint minister of finance are, in point of
fact, limited. Like the other joint ministers, he may not be a member
of either the Austrian or the Hungarian cabinet, nor may he have
access to the separate parliaments. His function is essentially that
of a cashier. He receives the contributions made by the two states to
the common expenses and hands them over to the several departments.
Until the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in 1908, it devolved
upon him, by special arrangement, to administer the affairs of these
semi-dependent territories.
*564. Fiscal and Economic Arrangements.*--In 1867 it was agreed that the
common expenditures of Austria and Hungary should be met, in so (p. 512)
far as possible, from the joint revenues, especially the customs,
and that all common outlays in excess of these revenues should be
borne by the states in a proportion to be fixed at decennial intervals
by the Reichsrath and the Hungarian Parliament. Other joint interests
of an economic nature--trade, customs, the debt, and railway
policy--were left likewise to be readjusted at ten-year intervals. In
respect to contributions, the arrangement hit upon originally was that
all common deficits should be made up by quotas proportioned to the
tax returns of the two countries, namely, Austria 70 per cent and
Hungary 30 per cent. As has been pointed out, the periodic overhauling
of the economic relationships of the two states has been productive of
frequent and disastrous controversy. The task was accomplished
successfully in the law of June 27, 1878, and again in that of May 21,
1887. But the readjustment due in 1897 had the curious fortune not to
be completed until the year in which another readjustment was due, i.e.,
1907. To the parliamentary contests, at both Vienna and Budapest,
by which the decade 1897--1907 was filled some allusion has been
made.[713] They involved distinctly the most critical test of
stability to which the Ausgleich has been subjected since its
establishment. During the period various features of the pre-existing
arrangements were continued in force by royal decree or by provisional
parliamentary vote, but not until October, 1907, were the economic
relation of the two states put once more upon a normal basis.
Throughout the decade the Emperor-King exercised repeatedly the
authority with which he is invested by law of 1867 to fix the ratio of
contributions for one year at a time, when action cannot be had on the
part of the legislative bodies. The ratio prevailing during the period
was Austria 66-46/49 per cent and Hungary 33-3/49 per cent.
[Footnote 713: See pp. 479-481, 502-504.]
By the agreement of 1907, concluded for the usual ten-year period, the
Hungarian quota was raised from the figure mentioned to 36.4 per cent.
The customs alliance, established in 1867 and renewed in 1878 and
1887, was superseded by a customs and commercial treaty, in accordance
with which each state maintains what is technically a separate customs
system, although until the expiration of existing conventions with
foreign powers in 1917 the tariff arrangements of the two states must
remain identical. Under the conditions which have arisen the customs
unity of the monarchy is likely to be disrupted in fact, as already it
is in law, upon the advent of the year mentioned. Thereafter
commercial treaties with foreign nations will be negotiated in the
name of the two states concurrently and will be signed, not merely by
the common minister of foreign affairs, but also by a special (p. 513)
Austrian and a special Hungarian representative.[714]
[Footnote 714: L. Louis-Jaray, Les relations
austro-hongroises et le nouveau compromis
économique, in _Questions Diplomatiques et
Coloniales_, Jan. 16 and Feb. 1, 1908; and Les
dispositions économiques du nouveau compromis
austro-hongrois, in _Revue Économique
Internationale_, March, 1908.]
*565. The Delegations: Organization and Sessions.*--All legislative
power of the Reichsrath and of the Hungarian Parliament, in so far as
it relates to the joint affairs of the states, is exercised by two
"delegations," one representing each of the two parliaments. The
Austrian Delegation consists of sixty members, twenty of whom are
chosen by the Herrenhaus from its own members, and the other forty of
whom are elected by the Abgeordnetenhaus in such manner that the
deputies from each province designate a number of delegates allotted
to them by law. The Hungarian Delegation consists likewise of sixty
members, twenty elected by and from the upper, forty by and from the
lower, chamber, with the further requirement that there shall be
included four of the Croatian members of the Chamber of Deputies and
one of the Croatians in the Chamber of Magnates. All members of both
Delegations are elected annually and may be re-elected. They must be
convoked by the Emperor-King at least once a year. Every device is
employed to lay emphasis upon the absolute equality of the two
Delegations, and of the states they represent, even to the extent of
having the sessions held alternately in Vienna and Budapest. The two
bodies meet in separate chambers, each under a president whom it
elects, but the proposals of the Government are laid before both at
the same time by the joint ministry. In the Austrian Delegation all
proceedings are conducted in the German tongue; in the Hungarian, in
Magyar; and all communications between the two are couched in both
languages. Sittings, as a rule, are public. In the event of a failure
to agree after a third exchange of communications there may be, upon
demand of either Delegation, a joint session. Upon this occasion there
is no debate, but merely the taking of a vote, in which there must
participate an absolutely equal number of members of the two
organizations.
*566. The Delegations: Powers.*--The members of the common ministry have
the right to share in all deliberations of the Delegations and to
present their projects personally or through deputies. They must be
heard whenever they desire. Each Delegation, on the other hand, has a
right to address questions to the joint ministry, or to any one of its
members, and to require answers and explanations. By concurrent vote
of the two bodies a joint minister may be impeached. In such a (p. 514)
case the judges consist of twenty-four independent and legally trained
citizens representing equally the two countries, chosen by the
Delegations, but not members thereof. The power is one very unlikely
to be exercised; in truth, the responsibility of the ministers to the
Delegations is more theoretical than actual.
The functions of the Delegations are severely restricted. They extend
in no case beyond the common affairs of the two states; and they
comprise little more than the voting of supplies asked by the
Government and a certain supervision of the common administrative
machinery. Of legislative power, in the proper sense, the two bodies
possess virtually none. Practically all law in the dual monarchy takes
the form of statutes enacted concurrently by the separate parliaments
of Austria and Hungary. The system is not ideal. It involves delay,
confusion, and an excess of partisan wrangling. Probably upon no other
basis, however, would even the semblance of an Austro-Hungarian union
be possible. The existing arrangement operates somewhat to the
advantage of Hungary, because the Hungarian Delegation is a body which
votes solidly together, whereas the Austrian is composed of mutually
hostile racial and political groups.
II. THE TERRITORIES OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
*567. Annexation of the Provinces, 1908.*--By the Congress of Berlin, in
1878, Austria was authorized, ostensibly in the interest of the peace
of Europe, to occupy and administer the neighboring provinces of
Bosnia and Herzegovina; and from that date until 1908, although the
provinces continued under the nominal sovereignty of the Sultan of
Turkey, their affairs were managed regularly by the Austro-Hungarian
minister of finance. The eventual absorption of the territories by the
dual monarchy was not unexpected, but it came in virtue of a _coup_ by
which the European world was thrown for a time into some agitation.
The revolution at Constantinople during the summer of 1908,
accompanied by the threatened dissolution of European Turkey, created
precisely the opportunity for which the authorities at Vienna had long
waited. October 5, Prince Ferdinand of Bulgaria proclaimed the
complete separation of Bulgaria from the Sultan's dominions and
assumed the title of king. Two days later Emperor Francis Joseph
proclaimed to the inhabitants of Bosnia and Herzegovina the immediate
extension of Austro-Hungarian sovereignty over them, alleging that the
hour had arrived when they ought to be raised to a higher political
level and accorded the benefits of Austro-Hungarian constitutionalism.
Among the population of the annexed provinces the Roman Catholic (p. 515)
element approved the union, but the Greek Orthodox and Mohammedan
majority warmly opposed it. The people of the provinces are Servian in
race, and in the interest of the Servian union which it was hoped at
some time to bring about Servia and Montenegro protested loudly, and
even began preparations for war. The annexation constituted a flagrant
infraction of the Berlin Treaty, and during some weeks the danger of
international complications was grave. Eventually, however, on the
understanding that the new possessor should render to Turkey certain
financial compensation, the various powers more or less grudgingly
yielded their assent to the change of status.
*568. The Constitution of 1910: the Diet.* At the time of the annexation
it was promised that the provinces should be granted a constitution.
The pledge was fulfilled in the fundamental laws which were
promulgated by the Vienna Government February 22, 1910. The
constitution proper consists of a preamble and three sections, of
which the first relates to civil rights, the second to the composition
of the Diet, and the third to the competence of the Diet. Under the
terms of the preamble the pre-existing military and administrative
arrangements are perpetuated. The civil rights section extends to the
annexed provinces the principal provisions of the Austrian
constitution in respect to equality before the law, freedom of
personal movement, the protection of individual liberty, the
independence of judges, freedom of conscience, autonomy of recognized
religious communities, the right of free expression of opinion, the
abolition of restrictive censorship, the freedom of scientific
investigation, secrecy of postal and telegraphic communications, and
the rights of association and public meeting.
The second section creates a diet of seventy-two elected and twenty
_ex-officio_ representatives, fifteen of the latter being dignitaries
of the Mohammedan, Servian, Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic
religious communities. The presidential bureau, consisting of one
president and two vice-presidents, is appointed annually by the crown
at the opening of the session. Each creed is regularly to be
represented in the bureau, the presidential office being held by a
Servian, a Mohammedan, and a Croat in annual rotation. To be valid,
the decisions of the Diet require the presence of a majority of the
members, except when ecclesiastical matters are under discussion. Upon
such occasions the presence of four-fifths of the Diet, and a
two-thirds majority, is required.
The third section excludes from the legislative competence of the Diet
all joint Austro-Hungarian affairs and questions pertaining to the
armed forces and to customs arrangements. The Diet is, however, (p. 516)
empowered to elect a national council of nine members and to
commission it to lay the views of the Diet before the Austro-Hungarian
Government. In all other matters, such as civil, penal, police and
commercial law, industrial and agrarian legislation, sanitation,
communications, taxation, the provincial estimates, the issue and
conversion of loans, and the sale or mortgaging of provincial
property, the Diet has a free hand. Government measures to be
submitted to the Diet require, however, the previous sanction of the
Austrian and the Hungarian cabinets, whose assent is also necessary
before bills passed by the Diet can receive the sanction of the crown.
*569. The Electoral System.*--Subsequent statutes regulate the franchise
and electoral procedure. First of all, the seventy-two elective seats
in the Diet are divided among the adherents of the various religious
denominations, the Servians receiving 31, the Mohammedans 24, and the
Catholic Croats 16. One seat is reserved for a representative of the
Jews. The seats are divided, furthermore, into three curiæ, or
electoral classes, eighteen being allotted to a first class composed
of large landed proprietors and the heaviest taxpayers, twenty to a
second class composed of urban electors, and thirty-four to a third
class composed of rural electors. The franchise is bestowed upon all
subjects of the crown, born in the provinces or possessing one year's
residential qualification, who are of the male sex and have completed
their twenty-fourth year. In the first of the three classes women
possess the franchise, although they may exercise it only by male
deputy. Candidates for election must have completed their thirtieth
year and must be of the male sex and in full enjoyment of civil
rights. Civil and railway servants, as well as public school teachers,
are not eligible. In the first and second classes votes are recorded
in writing, but in the third, or rural, class, voting, by reason of
the large proportion of illiterates, is oral. In the second and third
(urban and rural) classes the system of single-member constituencies
has been adopted. The provinces are divided into as many Servian,
Mohammedan, and Catholic constituencies, with separate registers, as
there are seats allotted to the respective creeds. For the Jews all
the towns of the two provinces form a single constituency.[715]
[Footnote 715: The texts of the organic acts of
1910 are printed in K. Lamp, Die Rechtsnatur der
Verfassung Bosniens und der Herzegowina vom 17
Februar 1910, in Jahrbuch des Öffentlichen Rechts
(Tübingen, 1911), V.; L. Geller,
Bosnisch-herzegowinische Verfassungs und politische
Grundgesetze (Vienna, 1910); and in Zeitschrift für
Völkerrecht und Bundesstaatsrecht, IV., No. 5. See
also F. Komlössy, Das Rechtsverhältniss Bosniens
und des Herzegowina zu Ungarn (Pressburg, 1911).]
PART VII.--THE LOW COUNTRIES (p. 517)
CHAPTER XXVIII
THE GOVERNMENT OF HOLLAND
I. A CENTURY OF POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT
Geographical juxtaposition, combined with historical circumstance, has
determined that between the two modern kingdoms of Holland and
Belgium, widely as they differ in many fundamental characteristics,
relations should be continuous and close. Both nations have sprung
from groups of provinces comprised within the original Low Countries,
or Netherlands. Following the memorable contest of the Dutch with
Philip II. of Spain, the seven provinces to the north achieved their
independence at the beginning of the seventeenth century and, under
the name of the United Provinces, built up a system of government,
republican in form though in operation much of the time really
autocratic, which survived through more than two hundred years. The
ten provinces to the south continued under the sovereignty of Spain
until 1713, when by the Treaty of Utrecht they were transferred to
Austria. They did not attain the status of independent nationality
until 1831.
*570. The French Domination, 1793-1814.*--The constitutional
arrangements operative in the Holland and Belgium of to-day are to be
regarded as products largely of the era of the French Revolution and
of the Napoleonic domination. Between 1795 and 1810 both groups of Low
Country provinces were absorbed by France, and both were forced quite
out of their accustomed political channels. The provinces comprising
the Austrian Netherlands were overrun by a French army early in 1793.
By decree of October 1, 1795, they were incorporated in the French
Republic, being erected into nine departments; and by the Treaty of
Lunéville, February 9, 1801, they were definitely ceded by Austria to
France.[716] February 1, 1793, the French Republic declared war upon
Holland. During the winter of 1794--1795 the Dutch provinces were (p. 518)
occupied, and by the Treaty of The Hague, May 16, 1795, they were
erected into a new nationality known as the Batavian Republic, under
the protection of France.[717] The constitution of the old republic
was thoroughly overhauled and the stadtholderate, long in the
possession of the house of Orange, was abolished. To the considerable
body of anti-Orange republicans the coming of the French was, indeed,
not unwelcome. May 24, 1806, the Batavian Republic was converted by
Napoleon into the kingdom of Holland, and Louis Bonaparte, younger
brother of the French Emperor, was set up as the unwilling sovereign
of an unwilling people. Nominally, the new kingdom was both
constitutional and independent; practically, it was an autocracy and a
dependency of France. King Louis labored conscientiously to safeguard
the interests of his Dutch subjects, but in vain. After four years he
abdicated, under pressure; whereupon, July 9, 1810, an Imperial edict
swept away what remained of the independent status of the Dutch people
and incorporated the kingdom absolutely with France. The ancient
provinces were replaced by seven departments; to the Dutch were
assigned six seats in the French Senate, three in the Council of
State, and twenty-five in the Legislative Body; a lieutenant-general
was established at the head of the administrative system; and no
effort was spared to obliterate all survivals of Dutch nationality.
[Footnote 716: L. Delplace, La Belgique sous la
domination française, 2 vols. (Louvain, 1896); L.
de Lanzac de Laborie, La domination française en
Belgique, 2 vols. (Paris, 1895).]
[Footnote 717: L. Legrand, La révolution française
en Hollande: la république batave (Paris, 1894).]
*571. The Settlement by the Congress of Vienna: the Constitution of
1815.*--With the overthrow of Napoleon the fate of both the Dutch and
the Belgian provinces fell to the arbitrament of the allied powers. In
the first Treaty of Paris, concluded May 30, 1814, between the Allies
on the one side and France on the other, it was stipulated that the
Belgian territories should be joined with Holland and that the whole,
under the name of the Kingdom of the United Netherlands, should be
assigned to the restored house of Orange, in the person of William I.,
son of the stadtholder William V. Already, consequent upon the Dutch
revolt which followed the defeat of Napoleon at Leipzig, William had
been recalled from his eighteen-year exile. December 1, 1813, he had
accepted formally the sovereignty of the Dutch provinces, and early in
1814 a constitution had been drawn up and put in operation. The desire
of the Allies, particularly of Great Britain, was that there should be
brought into existence in the Low Countries a state which should be
sufficiently powerful to constitute a barrier to possible aggressions
of France upon the north. The union of the Belgian with the Dutch
provinces, was intended furthermore, to compensate the Dutch in (p. 519)
some measure for their losses of colonial possessions to Great
Britain during the war. By the Final Act of the Congress of Vienna,
June 9, 1815, and by the second Peace of Paris, November 20 following,
the arrangement was ratified. With Holland and the Austrian
Netherlands were united in the new state the bishopric of Liège, the
duchy of Limburg, and the duchy (henceforth to be known as the
grand-duchy) of Luxemburg. The last-mentioned territory, while
included in the Germanic Confederation, was bestowed upon the Dutch
sovereign in compensation for German principalities ceded by him at
this time to Prussia.[718] March 15, 1815, William began his reign
under the new régime in Holland, and September 27 following he was
crowned at Brussels.
[Footnote 718: These ceded territories comprised
the ancestral domains of the house of Nassau which
lay in Germany--Dietz, Siegen, Hadamar, and
Dillenburg. The grand-duchy of Luxemburg was joined
with the Netherlands by a personal union only, and
in its capital, as a fortress of the German
Confederation, was maintained a Prussian garrison.
William dealt with the territory, however,
precisely as if it were an integral part of his
kingdom, extending to it the constitution of 1815
and administering its affairs through the agency of
Dutch officials. At the time of the Belgian revolt,
in 1830, Luxemburg broke away from Dutch rule and
there ensued in the history of the grand-duchy an
anomalous period during which the legal status of
the territory was hotly disputed. In 1839 the
Conference of London assigned to Belgium that
portion of the grand-duchy which was contiguous to
her frontiers and remanded the remainder to the
status of an hereditary possession of the house of
Nassau. In 1856 a separate constitution was granted
the people of the territory, and in 1867, following
the dissolution of the old Germanic Confederation,
the grand-duchy was declared by an international
conference at London to be a sovereign and
independent (but neutral) state, under the guaranty
of the powers. The connection between Luxemburg and
Holland was thereafter purely dynastic. Until the
death of William III., in 1890, the king of the
Netherlands was also grand-duke of Luxemburg; but
with the accession of Queen Wilhelmina the union of
the two countries was terminated, by reason of the
fact that females were at that time excluded from
the throne of the grand-duchy. A law of 1907,
however, vested the succession in the princess
Marie, eldest daughter of the reigning Grand-Duke
William; and upon the death of her father, Feb. 26,
1912, this heiress succeeded to the grand-ducal
throne. The head of the state is the grand-duke (or
grand-duchess). There is a council of state
nominated by the sovereign and a chamber of
deputies of 53 members, elected directly by the
cantons for six years. The state has an area of but
998 square miles and a population (in 1910) of
259,891. P. Eyschen, Das Staatsrecht des
Grossherzogtums Luxemburg (Tübingen, 1910).]
In fulfillment of a promise made his people, King William promulgated,
August 24, 1815, a new constitution, drafted by a commission
consisting of an equal number of Dutch and Belgian members. The
instrument provided for a States-General of two chambers, one
consisting of members appointed for life by the crown, the other
composed of an equal number (55) of Dutch and Belgian deputies elected
by the provincial estates. Bills might be rejected, but might not (p. 520)
be originated or amended, by this assembly. The suffrage was severely
restricted; trial by jury was not guaranteed; the budget was to be
voted for a number of years at a time; ministers were declared
responsible solely to the king; and, all in all, there was in the new
system little enough of liberalism. When the instrument was laid
before a Belgian assembly it was overwhelmingly rejected. None the
less it was declared in effect, and it continued the fundamental law
of the united dominions of William I. until 1830.
*572. The Belgian Revolution, 1830-1831.*--Friction between the Dutch
and the Belgians was from the outset incessant. The union was
essentially an artificial one, and the honest efforts of the king to
bring about a genuine amalgamation but emphasized the irreconcilable
differences of language, religion, economic interest, and political
inheritance that separated the two peoples. The population of Belgium
was 3,400,000; that of Holland but 2,000,000. Yet the voting power of
the former in the lower legislative chamber was no greater than that
of the latter, and in fact the Dutch were able all the while to
maintain in that body a small working majority. Administrative offices
were filled, in large part, by Dutchmen, and the attitude quite
commonly assumed (in a measure, without doubt, unconsciously) by the
public authorities strongly suggested that Holland was the
preponderating power and Belgium little more than so much subjugated
territory. The upshot was discontent and eventual rebellion. In 1828
the principal political parties of Belgium, the Catholics and the
Liberals, drew together in the "Union," the object of which was to
bring about the recognition of Belgian independence, or, in the event
that this should prove impossible of attainment, the establishment of
thoroughgoing Belgian autonomy, with no union with Holland save of a
purely personal character through the crown. Inspired by the success
of the July Revolution in France, and hopeful of obtaining French
assistance, the Belgians in August, 1830, broke into open revolt.
After a period of violence, a provisional government at Brussels,
October 4, 1830, proclaimed Belgium's independence and summoned a
national congress to which was committed the task of drawing up a
scheme of government. Aroused by the imminent loss of half of his
dominion, King William, after an ineffectual display of military
force, offered concessions; and the States-General went so far as to
authorize the establishment in the southern provinces of a separate
administrative system, such as at one time would have met the Belgian
demand. The day for compromise, however, had passed. The Belgian
congress voted overwhelmingly for the establishment of an independent
monarchy, adopted (February 7, 1831) a liberal constitution, and, (p. 521)
after offering the throne without avail to the Duke of Nemours, second
son of Louis Philippe of France, selected as king the German Prince
Leopold of Saxe-Coburg, who, under the title of Leopold I., was
crowned July 21 of the same year.
*573. The Independence of Belgium.*--These proceedings involved the
overturning of an arrangement which the Allies in 1815 had considered
essential to the security of Europe. Several considerations,
however,--among them the outbreak of insurrection in Poland,--induced
the powers to acquiesce with unexpected readiness in the dissolution
of the loose-jointed monarchy. December 20, 1830, a conference of the
five principal powers at London formally pronounced in favor of a
permanent separation, and when, in August, 1831, a Dutch army crossed
the frontier and inflicted upon the Belgians an overwhelming defeat, a
French force compelled the invaders to surrender the fruits of their
victory and to retire from the country. A treaty of separation was
drawn up by the London conference under date of November 25, 1831,
under whose terms there were recognized both the independence and the
neutrality of the new Belgian monarchy. William of Holland protested
and flatly refused to sign the instrument. The British and French
governments compelled him outwardly to acquiesce in the agreement,
although it was not until April 19, 1839, that he gave it his formal
assent. Embittered by his losses and chagrined by the constitutional
amendments to which his own people compelled him to submit, he
abdicated in 1840 in favor of his son.[719]
[Footnote 719: On the constitutional aspects of
Dutch-Belgian history in the period 1815-1840 see
Cambridge Modern History, X., Chap. 16
(bibliography, pp. 848-851); D. C. Boulger, History
of Belgium, 2 vols. (London, 1909), I.; Stern,
Geschichte Europas, IV., Chap. 2. General works of
importance include J. B. Nothomb, Essai historique
et politique sur la révolution belge, 3 vols. (4th
ed., Brussels, 1876); C. White, The Belgian
Revolution, 2 vols. (London, 1835); C. V. de Bavay,
Histoire de la révolution belge de 1830 (Brussels,
1873); L. Hymans, Histoire politique et
parlementaire de la Belgique de 1814 à 1830
(Brussels, 1869); J. J. Thonissen, La Belgique sous
le règne de Leopold Ier, 3 vols. (Louvain, 1861).]
*574. Constitutional Revision in Holland.*--After 1831 the
constitutional development of Holland and that of Belgium move in
separate channels.[720] In Holland the fundamental law of 1815 was
retained, but the modifications which have been introduced in it,
notably in 1840, 1848, and 1887, have so altered its character as to
have made of it an essentially new instrument. The revision of 1840
was forced upon the king by the Liberals, whose position was
strengthened by the fiscal chaos into which the nation had fallen (p. 522)
under the previous autocratic régime. The reformers got very much less
than they demanded. Instead of the ministerial responsibility and the
public control of the finances for which they asked they procured only
an arrangement to the effect that the budget should be submitted to
the States-General every two years and the colonial balance sheet
yearly, together with certain changes of detail, including a
curtailment of the civil list and a reduction of the membership of the
States-General in consequence of the loss of Belgium. Yet these
reforms were well worth while.
[Footnote 720: For that of Belgium see p. 534.]
During the reign of William II. (1840-1849) the demand for
constitutional revision was incessant. The king was profuse in
promises, but vacillating. In 1844, and again in 1845, a specific
programme of revision failed of adoption. By 1848, however, economic
distress and popular discontent had become so pronounced that the
sovereign was forced to act. The overthrow of Louis Philippe at Paris,
too, was not without effect. March 17 the king named a state
commission of five members which was authorized to draft a revision of
the constitution, and the resulting instrument, after being adopted in
an extraordinary session of the States-General, was promulgated
November 3. The revision of 1848 introduced into the Dutch
constitutional system many fundamental changes. Instead of being
appointed by the crown, members of the upper branch of the
States-General were thereafter to be elected by the provincial
estates; and in the choice of members of the lower house, direct
popular elections were substituted for indirect. The ministers of the
king were made responsible to the States-General, and the powers of
the legislative body were otherwise increased through the extension of
its authority over colonial affairs, provision for a regular annual
budget, and, most of all, recognition of the right to initiate and to
amend projects of legislation. Constitutional government in Holland
may be said virtually to have had its beginning in 1848.
*575. The Constitution To-day.*--Through several decades following the
accession of William III., in 1849, the political history of Holland
comprises largely a story of party strife, accentuated by the efforts
of the various political groups--especially the Liberals, the
Conservatives, and the Catholics--to apply in practice the
parliamentary system.[721] The death of Prince Alexander, June 21,
1884, occasioned a constitutional amendment to provide for the
accession of a female sovereign and the establishment of a regency,
and three years later a parliamentary deadlock compelled the king to
authorize a general revision of the fundamental law whereby the (p. 523)
number of citizens in possession of the franchise was more than
tripled. The constitution of Holland at the present day is the amended
instrument of November 6, 1887. It comprises more than two hundred
articles, being, indeed, one of the lengthiest documents of its kind
in existence. Like most European constitutions, it may be amended by
the ordinary legislative organs, though under specially prescribed
conditions. The first step in the amending process consists in the
adoption by the legislative chambers of a resolution affirming that
there is sufficient reason for taking under consideration the
amendment or amendments in hand. Following the promulgation of this
resolution the chambers are required to be dissolved. The newly
elected houses then take up the project for final disposition, and if
by a two-thirds vote they adopt it, and if the sovereign assents, it
goes into operation.[722]
[Footnote 721: Cambridge Modern History, XI., Chap.
23.]
[Footnote 722: Arts. 194-197. Dodd, Modern
Constitutions, II., 118. The text of the
constitution, in English translation, is printed in
Dodd, II., 80-119. An excellent annotated edition
of the instrument, in Dutch, is G. L. van den Helm,
De Grondwet voor het koningrijk der Nederlanden
(The Hague, 1889). An elaborate commentary is
contained in J. T. Buijs, De Grondwet, 3 vols.
(Arnheim, 1883-1888). One of the best expositions
of the Dutch constitutional system is L. de Hartog,
Das Staatsrecht des Königreichs der Niederlande
(Freiburg, 1886), in Marquardsen's Handbuch, though
this work antedates the amendments of 1887. More
recent is J. van Hamel, Staats-und Verwaltungsrecht
des Königreichs der Niederlande (Hanover, 1910).]
II. THE CROWN AND THE MINISTRY
*576. Status of the Sovereign.*--The government of Holland[723] is in
form a constitutional, hereditary monarchy. Until 1884 the royal
succession was vested exclusively in the direct male line of the house
of Orange-Nassau in the order of primogeniture. The death, however, in
the year mentioned, of the sole surviving male heir occasioned, as has
been stated, an amendment of the constitution authorizing the succession
of a female heir, in default of a male; and, upon the death of William
III., November 23, 1890, the throne accordingly passed to his only
daughter, the present Queen Wilhelmina.[724] In default of a legal
heir, the successor to the throne is to be designated by a law presented
by the crown and acted upon by a joint meeting of the legislative
chambers, each house containing for this purpose double its usual (p. 524)
number of members. In the event of the minority or the incapacity of
the sovereign a regency is established, and the regent is named by law
enacted by the States-General in joint session.[725]
[Footnote 723: The official title is "The Kingdom
of the Netherlands." In ordinary usage, however,
the term "Holland" is more commonly employed.]
[Footnote 724: Wilhelmina was at the time but ten
years of age. Until she attained her majority,
August 31, 1898, a regency was exercised by the
Queen-Dowager Emma. E. Lemonon, La succession au
trône néerlandais, in _Questions Diplomatiques et
Coloniales_, December 1, 1908.]
[Footnote 725: Arts. 20-21. Dodd, Modern
Constitutions, II., 84.]
The sovereign, at accession, is installed in a public joint meeting of
the two chambers in the city of Amsterdam, and is required to take
oath always "to observe and maintain the constitution;" whereupon the
members of the chambers solemnly pledge themselves "to do everything
that a good and loyal States-General ought to do." The person of the
monarch is declared inviolable. For the maintenance of the royal
establishment the constitution stipulates that, in addition to the
revenue from the crown lands, the sovereign shall be entitled to a
yearly income, to be paid out of the national treasury, together with
summer and winter residences, the maximum public expenditure upon
which, however, is restricted to 50,000 florins a year. At each
accession the amount of the annual stipend is fixed by law for the
entire reign. William II.'s civil list was 1,000,000 guilders, but at
the accession of William III. in 1849 the amount was reduced to
600,000, where it has remained to the present day. The family of
Orange is possessed of a large private fortune, most of which was
accumulated by William I. from a variety of commercial and industrial
ventures. The Prince of Orange, as heir apparent, is accorded by the
state an annual income of 100,000 florins, which is increased to
200,000 upon his contracting a marriage authorized by law.
*577. The Ministry.*--Associated with the sovereign is a Council of
State, consisting of the Prince of Orange (when above eighteen years
of age) and of a variable number of members appointed by the crown.
The number of members is at present fourteen. By the terms of the
constitution the sovereign is required to submit for discussion in the
Council of State all matters to be presented to the States-General,
and all general administrative questions of the kingdom and of its
colonies and possessions throughout the world.[726] Besides this
advisory Council of State there is a Council of Ministers, comprising
the heads of nine executive departments established by the sovereign.
Nominally the ministers are appointed and dismissed by the crown at
will, but actually the parliamentary system has acquired sufficient
foothold to impose upon the sovereign a considerable measure of
restriction at this point. All decrees and orders must be
countersigned by the head of one of the ministerial departments; and
it is expressly stipulated that responsibility for all royal acts
shall lie with the ministers.[727] The heads of ministerial (p. 525)
departments are privileged to occupy seats in both branches of the
States-General, but unless elected regularly as members they possess
only a deliberative voice in the proceedings of the chamber in which
they sit.[728]
[Footnote 726: Art. 75. Ibid., II., 94.]
[Footnote 727: Art. 54. Dodd, Modern Constitutions,
II., 90.]
[Footnote 728: Art. 94. Ibid., II., 99.]
*578. The Exercise of Executive Powers.*--Despite the liberalizing
tendencies which underlie Dutch constitutional history since 1815, the
powers of the crown are still enormous. Executive authority is vested
solely in the sovereign and the ministers, and there are not a few
acts of importance which the sovereign may perform quite
independently. The sovereign exercises supreme control over foreign
relations, declares war, concludes and ratifies treaties,[729] confers
titles of nobility, appoints to public offices, coins money, grants
pardons in cases of penalties imposed by judicial sentence, maintains
supreme control over the land and naval forces, settles certain types
of disputes arising between provinces, or between provinces and
communes or corporations, issues general administrative regulations,
recommends projects of law to the States-General, and approves or
rejects all measures adopted by that body. The sovereign is, however,
in no sense above the law. Many things may not be done at all, save
under the authority of a regularly enacted piece of legislation.
Dispensations from legal provisions, for example, may be granted by
the crown only under the authority of law. In still other respects the
sweeping grants of power contained within the constitution are
tempered by counter-balancing stipulations. Thus, the sovereign has
the right to coin money; but it is also prescribed that "the monetary
system shall be regulated by law."[730] And the crown has "supreme
control of the colonies and possessions of the kingdom in other parts
of the world;" but "the regulations for the conduct of the government
in the colonies and possessions shall be established by law."[731]
[Footnote 729: Save that treaties which provide for
modifications of the boundaries of the state, or
impose a public pecuniary obligation, or contain
any other provision touching legal rights, may not
be approved by the crown until after sanction shall
have been accorded by the States-General, unless
the power has been reserved to the crown by law to
conclude such a treaty. Art. 59. Dodd, Modern
Constitutions, II., 91.]
[Footnote 730: Art. 61. Ibid., II., 91.]
[Footnote 731: Art. 61. Ibid.]
III. THE STATES-GENERAL AND POLITICAL PARTIES
*579. The Chambers: Earlier Electoral Arrangements.*--Legislative power
within the kingdom is vested jointly in the sovereign and a States-General,
or parliament, of two chambers. The upper chamber consists of (p. 526)
fifty members elected in varying proportions by the "estates," or
representative assemblies, of the eleven provinces.[732] The term of
office is nine years, and one-third of the members retire triennially.
Male citizens who have attained the age of thirty, who are in full
control of their property, and who have not been disqualified by
judicial sentence, are eligible to membership, provided either that
they are among the heaviest payers of direct national taxes or that
they hold, or have held, one or more principal public offices
designated by law.[733]
[Footnote 732: The provincial quotas are as
follows: South Holland, 10; North Holland, 9; North
Brabant and Gelderland, 6 each; Friesland, 4;
Overyssel, Groningen, and Limberg, 3 each; Zealand,
Utrecht, and Drenthe, 2 each. Prior to the
constitutional revision of 1848 members of the
upper house were appointed by the king.]
[Footnote 733: Art. 90. Dodd, Modern Constitutions,
II., 98.]
The lower chamber consists of one hundred members elected directly by
the voters of the kingdom for a term of four years. Under the original
constitution of 1815 members of the lower house were chosen by the
provincial estates. Direct election was introduced by the
constitutional revision of 1848. During several decades the franchise,
based upon taxpaying qualifications, was narrowly restricted. After
1870 the Liberals carried on a persistent campaign in behalf of a
broader electorate, and by a constitutional amendment of 1887 the
franchise was extended to all males twenty-three years of age and
over, who are householders paying a minimum house-duty, lodgers who
for a time have paid a minimum rent, or who are possessed of "signs of
fitness and social well-being." The provisions relating to
householders and lodgers alone increased the electorate at a stroke
from approximately 100,000 to 300,000. The precise meaning and
application of the phrase "fitness and social well-being" were left to
be defined by law, and through upwards of a decade political
controversy in Holland centered principally about this question. The
coalition Catholic-Conservative ministry of 1888-1891 refused flatly
to sanction the enactment of any sort of law upon the subject. In 1893
the Liberal Minister of the Interior, Tak van Poortvliet, brought
forward a project whereby it was proposed to put upon the qualifying
phrase an interpretation of well-nigh the broadest possible character.
A man was to be regarded as fulfilling the educational requirement if
he were able to write, and the social requirement if simply he were
not a recipient of public charity. By the adoption of this scheme the
number of electors would have been raised to something like 800,000,
and Holland would have attained a reasonable approximation of manhood
suffrage. The Moderate Liberals, the Conservatives, and most of the
Catholics opposed the proposition, and the elections of 1894 (p. 527)
proved the supporters of the van Poortvliet programme to be in the
minority. The total strength of the "Takkians" in the new chamber was
46, of whom 35 were Liberals; that of the "anti-Takkians" was 54, of
whom 24 were Catholics.
*580. The Electoral Law of 1896 and the Question of Electoral
Reform.*--In the newly constituted ministry it fell to Samuel van
Houten, leader of a radical group that had opposed the van Poortvliet
project, to prepare an alternative measure. In the notable electoral
law of 1896 the compromise proposals of van Houten were definitely
accepted, and they constitute the essential features of the electoral
system at the present day. Under this arrangement the members of the
lower chamber are elected in one hundred single-member districts by
male citizens of the age of twenty-five and over, who meet any one of
the following qualifications: (1) payment of a direct tax of at least
one florin; (2) payment of a minimum rental as householders or
lodgers; (3) proprietorship or rental of a vessel of at least
twenty-four tons; (4) the earning of a wage or salary varying from 275
to 550 florins a year; (5) investment of one hundred florins in
government bonds, or of fifty florins in a savings bank; and (6) the
passing of an examination required for entrance upon a public office
or upon a private employment. By the reform of 1896 the number of
voters in the realm was increased to 700,000.
In 1905 there was created a royal commission of seven members to which
was assigned the task of considering and reporting proposals relative
to proportional representation, the salaries of members, and other
questions of constitutional revision. The Government, however,
reserved to itself specifically the right to bring forward proposals
relating to the actual extension of the franchise. The report of this
commission, submitted late in 1907, recommended, among other things,
the introduction of proportional representation and (by a vote of six
out of seven) the extension of the franchise to women. These
suggestions failed of adoption, but late in 1910 a new commission was
appointed, under the presidency of the Conservative premier Heemskerk,
and to this body was given power to propose changes in any portion
whatsoever of the governmental order. The successful operation of
proportional representation in adjoining countries, especially Belgium
and Sweden, renders it probable that the system will be adopted
ultimately in Holland. The future of woman's suffrage is more
problematical. Women already possess the right to vote in the
proceedings of the dike associations if they are taxpayers or if they
own property adjoining the dikes, and in June, 1908, the Lutheran
Synod gave women the right to vote in ecclesiastical affairs on a (p. 528)
footing with men. Since 1894 there has been a National Woman's
Suffrage Society, to which was added, in 1906, a Woman's Suffrage
League; and women are freely admitted to membership in the political
clubs maintained by the adherents of the various parties.
Any male citizen who has attained his thirtieth year, who is in full
possession of property, and who has not been disqualified by judicial
sentence, is eligible to a seat in the popular chamber. By
constitutional provision, members are allowed, in addition to
travelling expenses, a salary of 2,000 florins a year; and, under law
of May 4, 1889, members of the upper house who do not live in the
place of meeting receive a _per diem_ of ten florins during the
continuance of each session.
*581. The States-General: Organization and Powers.*--The constitution
requires that the States-General shall assemble at least once each
year and that its regular annual session shall be opened on the third
Tuesday in September. The sovereign may convoke an extraordinary
session at any time; but regular sessions are not dependent upon the
royal summons. The crown possesses the right to dissolve the houses,
separately or simultaneously; but a decree of dissolution must contain
an order for the election of the new house, or houses, within fourteen
days, and for the assembling of the houses within two months.[734]
Except in the event of a dissolution, a regular session is required to
extend through at least twenty days; but upon the expiration of the
twenty-day period the sovereign may terminate the sitting whenever in
his judgment "the interests of the state no longer require its
continuance."[735] The president of the upper house is appointed by
the crown from among the members for the period of one session. The
corresponding officer of the lower house is similarly appointed from a
list of three members submitted by the chamber. Each house appoints,
from non-members, its clerk and such other officials as may be
required; each examines the credentials of its newly elected members
and renders final verdict upon their validity; and each regulates the
details of its own procedure. Except when one-tenth of the members of
a chamber request the closing of the doors, or the president deems
such a step necessary, sessions are public. Neither house may take
action upon any matter unless at least half of its members are
present, and final action upon all propositions is taken by an
absolute majority of the members present. A portion of the business of
the States-General is transacted in joint sessions of the two houses.
In joint session the two are regarded as one chamber, under the
presidency of the president of the upper house. For the changing (p. 529)
of the order of royal succession or the appointment of an heir to the
throne, the constitution requires that the membership of each chamber
be doubled. In such an event there is added to the regular members of
each house an equal number of extraordinary members, elected in the
same manner as the regular members.[736]
[Footnote 734: Art. 73. Dodd, Modern Constitutions,
II., 94.]
[Footnote 735: Art. 103. Ibid., II., 100.]
[Footnote 736: Art. 83. Dodd, Modern Constitutions,
II., 96.]
In the proceedings of the States-General the lower chamber enjoys a
distinct preponderance. The upper chamber, indeed, is commonly
regarded as constitutionally the weakest body of its kind in Europe.
It possesses neither the power to initiate legislation, general or
financial, nor power to amend projects of law. Any measure which comes
before it must be accepted or rejected as it stands. Bills may be
originated either by the Government or by members of the lower
chamber, and it is required that the sovereign shall send all
recommendations, whether pertaining to laws or to other matters, to
the lower house, in a written message or by committee.[737] The
projects of the general financial laws must be presented annually to
the lower house in the name of the crown, immediately after the
opening of the regular session. No taxes may be levied save by law. In
addition to its powers of a purely legislative character, the
States-General is authorized to investigate, either as separate
chambers or in joint session, the executive conduct of public
affairs.[738] Under stipulated conditions, the States-General, by a
two-thirds vote, and with the assent of the crown, may amend the
constitution.[739]
[Footnote 737: Art. 110. Ibid., II., 101.]
[Footnote 738: Art. 95. Ibid., II., 99.]
[Footnote 739: See p. 523.]
*582. Political Parties: Election of 1903.*--Since the middle of the
nineteenth century political preponderance has alternated irregularly
between two principal party groups. One of these is the Liberals,
representative especially of the commercial towns, and falling into
the two general categories of Moderates and Progressives. The other is
the Conservatives, consisting largely of orthodox Protestants,
especially the Calvinistic peasantry, and supported, as a rule, by the
Catholics. In more recent times the Socialists have made their
appearance as a distinct political element, but thus far they have
cast in their lot regularly with the Liberals. Between 1871 and 1888
the Liberals were in power continuously; and, after a brief interval
covered by a Conservative-Catholic ministry, they regained control and
kept it throughout the decade 1891-1901. In 1901 a coalition ministry
was created, under the premiership of the Conservative Dr. Kuyper.
This lasted until 1903.
In the spring of the year mentioned the lower house rejected an (p. 530)
important measure relating to higher education upon whose enactment
the Kuyper ministry was determined. The Chamber was dissolved and in
June elections were held. Prior to the elections the Chamber contained
58 Ministerialists and 42 anti-Ministerialists (Liberals and
Socialists). The opposition elements were far from united. The
Socialists insisted upon an immediate amendment of the constitution to
provide for universal suffrage; the Progressive Liberals favored only
the eventual adoption of such an amendment; the Moderate Liberals were
opposed to it altogether. None the less, the result of the elections
was to terminate the Conservative majority and to replace it by a
slender but indubitable Liberal majority of four. The Conservatives
carried 48 seats; the Liberals 45; and the Socialists 7. The Kuyper
ministry forthwith resigned.
*583. The Political Situation Since 1909.*--The period from June, 1905,
to December, 1907, was covered by the two successive Liberal
ministries of Borgesius and De Meester. Each was essentially
colorless. Efforts to bring about an extension of the suffrage failed,
and during 1907 the Liberal majority virtually disappeared. The upshot
was that, February 8, 1908, there was created a new ministry, under
Dr. Heemskerk, whose members were drawn from the Conservatives. At the
general election of June 11, 1909, the Conservatives recovered
supremacy completely. Following the grouping which prevails at the
present day, the results of this election were as follows: (1)
Anti-Revolutionaries (largely rural Calvinists), 23 members; (2)
Historic Christians, 12; (3) Roman Catholics, 25--a total Conservative
quota of 60; (4) Free Liberals, 4; Union Liberals, 21; Liberal
Democrats, 8; Socialists, 7--a total Liberal contingent of 40.
Furthermore, while the Conservatives were compactly organized, the
Liberals were divided hopelessly among themselves and quite unable to
offer substantial resistance to their opponents. With a majority of 20
in the lower chamber and of 19 in the upper, with a popular vote in
excess by 80,000 of that of the Liberals, and with a ministry in
office which, if not brilliant, was at least popular, the
Conservatives came off from the campaign in a position to maintain
through an extended period, so far as may be foreseen, their control
of public affairs. Quite the contrary of the contemporary situation in
Belgium, the rifts which separate the various Liberal groups tend in
Holland to deepen, and the political impotence of Liberalism
consequently to be accentuated.[740]
[Footnote 740: On Dutch political parties see P.
Verschave, La Hollande politique; le rôle des
catholiques néerlandais depuis dix ans, in _Le
Correspondant_, April 10, 1908; Les élections
générales et la situation politique aux pays-bas:
l'organisation de la campagne électorale, ibid.,
Nov. 25, 1909; and La Hollande politique; un parti
catholique en pays protestant (Paris, 1910).]
IV. THE JUDICIARY AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (p. 531)
*584. Judicial Principles.*--The constitution guarantees various
fundamental personal rights, including those of petition, assembly,
free speech, and equality before the law in all matters pertaining to
the protection of person and property. It likewise undertakes to
guarantee the individual against partiality and arbitrariness in the
administration of justice. Except in unusual cases, prescribed by law,
no one may be taken into custody except upon a warrant issued by a
judge, stating specifically the reason for arrest. No one may be
removed against his will from the jurisdiction of the tribunal in
which he has a right to be tried. General confiscation of the property
of a person adjudged guilty may not be imposed as a penalty for any
offense. Save in exceptional cases, specified by law, or when in the
opinion of the judge public order and morals forbid, the sessions of
all courts are required to be public. Judgments must be pronounced in
public session. They must be accompanied by a statement of the
considerations upon which they are based, and, in criminal cases, by a
citation of the specific provisions of law upon which the sentence is
founded.[741]
[Footnote 741: Arts. 149-161. Dodd, Modern
Constitutions, II., 110-112.]
*585. The Courts.*--Justice is administered throughout the kingdom in
the name of the crown, and all judicial officers are appointed by the
crown. Within the constitution provision is made only for a supreme
tribunal known as the High Court (_Hooge Raad_) of the Netherlands,
sitting at The Hague. Minor courts exist by virtue of ordinary law.
The judges of the High Court, five in number, are appointed by the
crown from lists prepared by the lower house of the States-General.
The junctions of the High Court are of large importance. On appeal
from inferior tribunals it may annul any judicial proceeding, decree,
or judgment held by it to be unwarranted by law. It is charged with
the duty of seeing that suits are properly tried and decided, and that
judicial officials comply with the laws. Inferior judges are appointed
normally for life, but under conditions prescribed by law they may be
dismissed or relieved of their duties by decision of the High Court.
Finally, the High Court constitutes a tribunal before which, upon
charges brought by either the sovereign or the lower chamber, members
of the States-General, heads of the ministerial departments,
governors-general, members of the Council of State, and commissioners
of the crown in the provinces, may be prosecuted upon charge of
offenses committed in office. Such prosecution may be instituted (p. 532)
either during an official's tenure of office or after his retirement.[742]
[Footnote 742: Arts. 162-166. Dodd, Modern
Constitutions, II., 112-113.]
Of inferior tribunals there are three grades. At the bottom are the
cantonal courts, 106 in number, consisting each of a single judge and
taking cognizance of claims under 200 guilders, breaches of police
regulations, and other cases of a minor nature. Next are the district
courts, 23 in number, each consisting of three judges and exercising
within the _arrondissement_ jurisdiction in matters of more weight.
Still above the district tribunals are five courts of appeal, each
comprising a body of three judges. Trial by jury is unknown in
Holland.
*586. Local Government: the Province.*--The constitution of the
Netherlands is somewhat peculiar in that it prescribes at length not
merely the form and character of the national government, but also the
arrangements that shall prevail respecting the governments of the
provinces and the communes throughout the kingdom. Of provinces there
are eleven; of communes, 1,123. The importance of the province is
enhanced by the fact that the nation has sprung from a pure
confederation, the original autonomy of the federated provinces having
never been wholly obliterated under the present centralized régime.
Each province has its own representative body, or "provincial
estates," a unicameral assembly whose members are chosen directly for
six years by all inhabitants of the province who are entitled to vote
for members of the lower house of the States-General. Half of the
members retire every three years. The number of members varies,
according to the population of the province, from eighty in South
Holland to thirty-five in Drenthe. The assembly meets at least twice a
year. Its powers are extensive, although it can perform no legislative
act without the assent of the crown. It enacts ordinances, levies
taxes, prepares and submits to the sovereign an annual budget,
controls in certain respects the municipalities, and elects those
members of the upper branch of the States-General to which the
individual province is entitled.
For the exercise of executive authority within the province there are
two agencies. The provincial assembly appoints from its own members a
committee of six, known as the "deputed states," to which, in
accordance with conditions fixed by law, the daily administration of
affairs is intrusted. Furthermore the sovereign appoints and
establishes in each province a commissioner who is charged with the
execution of royal orders and with a general supervision of the acts
of the local authorities. This royal commissioner presides over the
deliberations of both the provincial estates and the committee of six,
possessing in the committee the power also of voting. He is (p. 533)
distinctly the chief magistrate of the province, and at the same time
the effective tie between the central and the provincial
governments.[743]
[Footnote 743: Arts. 127-141. Dodd, Modern
Constitutions, II., 105-108.]
*587. Local Government: the Commune.*--In all essential respects the
government of the Dutch communes is prescribed by the national
constitution, with the result that that government is characterized by
uniformity no less thoroughgoing than is the communal government of
France. Within each commune is a council of from seven to forty-five
members elected directly by the people of the commune for a term of
six years under franchise arrangements identical with those obtaining
in the election of members of the provincial estates, save that no
one, although otherwise qualified to vote for communal councillors,
may exercise the privilege unless he contributes a minimum amount
yearly to the communal rates. One-third of the members of the council
retire every two years. The council meets publicly as frequently as
business requires. It enacts by-laws, levies taxes, supervises
education, and represents the interests of the commune, if occasion
arises, before the sovereign, the States-General, and the provincial
estates. All of its legislative acts are liable to veto by the crown,
and the municipal budget requires regularly the approval of the
committee of the provincial estates. Executive authority within the
commune is vested in a burgomaster, or mayor, appointed by the
sovereign for a term of six years, and a board of two to six
_wethouders_, or aldermen, elected by and from the council. The
burgomaster presides in the council and, as a representative of the
royal authority, may suspend for a period of thirty days any measure
enacted.[744]
[Footnote 744: Arts. 142-148. Ibid., II.,
108-110.]
CHAPTER XXIX (p. 534)
THE GOVERNMENT OF BELGIUM
I. THE CONSTITUTION--THE CROWN AND THE MINISTRY
*588. The Constitution: Liberalism and Stability.*--The constitution of
the kingdom of Belgium was framed, consequent upon the declaration of
Belgian independence October 4, 1830, by a national congress of two
hundred elected delegates. It was promulgated February 7, 1831, and
July 21 of the same year the first independent Belgian sovereign,
Leopold I., took oath to observe and maintain it. Circumstances
conspired to give the instrument a pronouncedly liberal character.
Devised in the midst of a revolution brought on principally by the
autocratic rule of King William I., it is, and was intended to be,
uncommonly explicit in its definition of the royal prerogative. There
were Belgians in 1831, indeed, who advocated the establishment of a
republic. Against such a course various considerations were urged, and
with effect; but the monarchy which was set up, owing clearly its
existence to popular suffrage, is of the strictly limited,
constitutional type. "All powers," it is asserted in the fundamental
law, "emanate from the people."[745] The principles of liberalism are
the more in evidence by reason of the fact that the framers of the
constitution deliberately accepted as models the French instruments of
1791 and 1830 and were likewise influenced profoundly by their
admiration for the constitutional system of Great Britain.
[Footnote 745: Art. 25. Dodd, Modern Constitutions,
I., 130.]