“There were many who did not blush to buy these honours, and to disgrace

their posterity with them, forgetting that the ancient laws of the

republic deprived of the rights of citizenship, and declared infamous

those who accepted titles from foreign powers.

“That the dismemberment of Poland, by Austria, Prussia, and Russia, did

not destroy it, Lelevel’s faithful history proves. Not only Kosciusko’s

struggles, and the revolution of 1831, suppressed mainly through the

perfidy of Louis Philippe, acting in combination with the generous

confidence of Skrzynecki, but the previous educational efforts of

Czartoryski at the university of Wilna, and the energy with which the

Poles repulsed the archduke Ferdinand from Warsaw in 1809; and generally

fought for Napoleon, in the vain confidence that he would restore their

republic. It may be that had Napoleon justified their long cherished

hopes, and kept the faith he promised by the agents whom he sent to

Warsaw to negotiate for assistance, previous to his Russian campaign,

the result of that extraordinary movement would have been far different,

and when he fell back into Lithuania, he would have found himself

sustained; but his cold-blooded evasions, when he had passed through

Warsaw, after it had risked Alexander’s fury for his sake, had finally

convinced the Poles that they should ‘put no trust in princes;’ and they

left him to the elements which were as humane as himself. The

republicanism which is to be established by autocracy is as futile as

the reforms which come from the same quarter; and Napoleon Bonaparte’s

history is as clear a lesson upon the former pretence, as Joseph II.’s

was upon the latter.”

We must leave, however, the history of Poland, so illustrative of our

subject, in order to come to the history of Hungary. There is no

complete work on this subject extant in the English language. In the

Spring of 1850, there was republished in Boston, by Ticknor, Fields and

Co., from the London edition, a pamphlet by J. Toulmin Smith, called

“Parallels of the Constitutional History of England and Hungary,” which

should be studied by those persons who fancy and assert that

Anglo-Saxons are the only people to whom constitutional liberty is

natural. In the May of the same year, there appeared also in the

Christian Examiner of Boston, an article upon Hungary, referring to a

recent publication of A. de Gerando, _De l’Esprit publique en Hongrie

depuis la Revolution Française_, and intended to rectify the false

statements made in an article in the N. A. Review of January, 1850,

where the Hungarian movement of 1848–9, as well as all the past history

of Hungary, were vilified. This article in the Examiner, which exhibited

a wonderful familiarity with the Hungarian language and literature, as

well as a profound and accurate knowledge of the history of modern

Europe in general, and an extraordinary acquaintance with the periodical

literature of the day, and the influences under which each individual

contributor to it had written, when the subject matter touched the

politics of Hungary, contains a masterly treatment of the

misrepresentations which despotism makes of the history of freedom; and

this part of the subject was pursued still farther in two successive

articles in the same periodical, one published in November, 1850, and

the other in March, 1851, from which also may be gathered an authentic

account of the actual transactions in Hungary during 1848–9. All three

articles, together with those in the N. A. Review which called them

forth, would make a valuable volume, if for nothing else, to show the

difference between writing history as a gossip, and writing it as a

critic.

We confine ourselves now to extracting a portion of the first article,

which carries the history up to the time that the war between Hungary

and Austria began. It was from the same article, that Mr. Secretary

Webster quoted the Hungarian statistics with which he illustrated the

speech he made at the congressional dinner given at Washington in honour

of Kossuth, January, 1852.

“The Hungarian nation has been distinguished, from its first appearance

in history, for uniting to a passionate love of liberty a scrupulous

reverence for law. The Magyars did not enter the plains of Dacia an

undisciplined rabble. From the first, they possessed a fixed form of

government, and were distinguished for their subordination to their

leaders and their laws. To these habits of discipline in which the

Magyars were trained,[8] to their love of order, and regard for law, it

is to be ascribed, that they did not pass away, like the common hordes

of barbarian adventurers, but established a permanent kingdom in the

country they invaded. To these qualities, not less than to their

courage, is to be ascribed their successful maintenance of their

constitutional rights against all the attacks of a power before which

the liberties of so many other nations have fallen.

“The ancient institutions of the Magyars were eminently democratic.

Their chief ruler was elected by the votes of the people. For the first

century after their establishment in the country, he received only the

title of _Vezér_, or leader. In the year 1000, they bestowed the title

of king on Stephen, of the family of Arpad, the leader under whose

guidance they had entered Pannonia. The power of the king was, however,

strictly limited. The consent of the people was necessary to give

efficacy to every royal act. The excellent prince who first filled the

throne of Hungary had no disposition to infringe the liberties of the

people. On the contrary, he endeavoured to guard them against the

encroachments of future sovereigns. He framed a code of laws, founded on

the ancient institutions of the Magyars, which have ever since been

regarded as of the highest authority. These statutes were drawn up for

the guidance of his son Emeric, whom he educated as his successor in the

kingdom. The enlightened and humane spirit in which these decrees are

composed gives a very high idea of the civilization and political

advancement of Hungary at this period. We find in them an express

recognition of the principle of universal equality:—”_Omnes homines

unius sunt conditionis._“[9] It is in the following terms that he

prescribed the duty of a king towards his subjects:—

“‘Let them be to thee, my son, as brothers and fathers; reduce none of

them to servitude, neither call them thy servants. Let them fight for

thee, not serve thee. Govern them without violence and without pride,

peacefully, humbly, humanely. Remembering that nothing elevates but

humility, that nothing abases but pride and an evil will.

“‘My son, I pray thee, I command thee, to show thyself propitious, not

only to thy kindred, not only to princes, to leaders, to the rich, not

only to thy country people, but likewise to strangers, and to all that

come unto thee. Be patient with all, not only with the powerful, but

with those lacking power. Bear ever in thy mind this precept of the

Lord:—I will have mercy and not sacrifice.’”[10]

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

“‘If thou art mild and just, then shalt thou be called a king, and the

son of a king; but if thou art proud and violent, they will deliver thy

kingdom to another.’”[11]

“This right was exercised in the reign of his immediate successor.

Emeric, the son of Stephen, died before his father. The people elected,

after the death of Stephen, chiefly through the influence of his widow,

her brother, Peter, a German prince. They had reason to repent their

choice of a foreigner, who had no comprehension of the nature of free

institutions. He was deposed in the third year of his reign. The grounds

of his expulsion were, that he had banished and put to death many,

without observing the due forms of law; that he had _bestowed important

offices in the kingdom upon foreigners_; that he had _prevented the

states from holding their diet and their accustomed assemblies_. After

this experience of foreign rule, the Hungarians returned to the House of

Arpad, and chose their kings from this family, until its extinction, in

the person of Andrew III., in 1301. The princes of this dynasty, with

few exceptions, were just and patriotic kings, who understood the origin

and true objects of government, and held their power for the benefit of

the people, not for their own selfish aggrandizement. There are traits

recorded of many of them, which prove them to have been the worthy

successors of St. Stephen. ‘The republic is not mine,’ said Gèza II.,

‘it is I who belong to the republic. God has raised me to the throne, in

order that I may maintain the laws.’ In 1222, Andrew II. issued the

celebrated code of statutes known by the name of the ‘Golden Bull,’ by

which the decrees of St. Stephen were confirmed, and some new laws added

to them, designed to secure yet further the liberties of the people. The

Golden Bull has been termed a charter of aristocratic privileges. It was

so, in the same sense that the great charter of English liberties may be

called so. The Golden Bull corresponds very closely to the Magna Charta

of King John, both in its provisions, and as regards the class of

persons whose liberties it was designed to protect. The privileges of

Magna Charta were expressly restricted to _freemen_. The provisions of

the Golden Bull were, in like manner, considered as applicable only to

the class of _nobles_, as those possessed of the rights of citizenship

were called in Hungary. At the period when these edicts were

promulgated, the rights of the lowest class of the people were very

little considered in any part of Europe. But the recognition of the

principles of just government in the laws of a country is of infinite

value, however the circumstances of the time may allow only of their

partial application.

“We will here transcribe some of the most important of the ancient laws

which, in Hungary, guarded the liberties of the subject from the

encroachments of the prince. These laws have never been repealed, but

repeatedly confirmed. It is to these, the fundamental laws of the

kingdom of Hungary,—to whose observance and maintenance the kings of

Hungary are bound by their coronation oath,—that the Hungarians have

constantly appealed in their long struggle against royal usurpation; and

it is by these that the cause between them and their sovereign is to be

judged.

“By the constitution of Hungary, the power of making laws belongs to the

king and the people conjointly:—

“‘The king, having convened the people, shall ask them whether such or

such laws are pleasing to them or not. If the people answer, _Yes_,

these decrees shall pass into laws. But it will most commonly happen,

that the people (_populus_) will themselves decide unanimously on many

things which they think conducive to the public welfare. If the prince

shall accept these decrees, they shall, in like manner, have the force

of law.

“‘It is to be known, in the first place, that the laws bind the prince

who has made them, at the request of the people; according to the maxim,

‘Suffer the law which thou hast made thyself.’

“‘The king is bound to answer, in the presence of the Lord Palatine of

this kingdom, to all those who have any complaint to make, or any cause

to plead against him.

“‘It is decreed that the king shall observe the peace, and cause it to

be observed; _neither shall he make war, nor introduce any foreign

troops into Hungary, and the parts which are annexed to it, without the

knowledge and consent of the states of the kingdom_.’

“The king was not allowed, even under the most urgent circumstances, to

raise subsidies or contributions without the consent of the diet. It was

even provided, that if any particular county should, by its own motion,

and without the consent of the whole kingdom, offer the king any subsidy

or contribution, the nobles of that county, being by this act convicted

of treason and perjury, should lose the rights and privileges of the

nobility, and be denied all intercourse with the other counties. It was

likewise interdicted to the king, to employ foreigners in the offices of

the state, or to give them the command of garrisons in Hungary.

“No Hungarian could be tried out of the kingdom, even if the king had

with him the ordinary judges of the kingdom. Nor could any one be

condemned without being cited and convicted according to the forms of

law.

“Our readers may judge, by these provisions of the Hungarian

constitution, whether it was indeed a mere heap of feudal rubbish, or

whether it is worthy of a place beside the old constitution of England,

which, with all its imperfections, we revere as the source from which

our wider liberties have sprung.

“If Hungary had continued under the government of upright and wise

kings, it would, doubtless, at the present day, have been one of the

most powerful states in Europe,—powerful, not only by extent and wealth,

but by the character of the people whose love of freedom, and generosity

united, would have developed a very high order of civilization. All that

was contrary to justice and sound policy in their institutions would,

under a government disposed to further their efforts for improvement,

long since have been reformed, and they would have kept pace with, if

they had not surpassed, the most enlightened nations of Europe in social

and political progress. But, early in the sixteenth century, they passed

under the sway of a dynasty, the most selfish and unprincipled that ever

controlled the destinies of a nation. This dynasty has for three hundred

years pursued one undeviating system of policy,—a system of perfidy and

cruelty, transmitted, with the sceptre, from father to son. Never have

the Austrian kings of Hungary given a thought to the prosperity and

advancement of the nation confided to their charge. Their only aim has

been to reduce it to absolute subjection, and to obliterate every trace

of its ancient liberties. When foreign wars have threatened the safety

of the empire, the Austrian government has been lavish of concessions

and promises, to be retracted and forgotten the moment the return of

peace left the king of Hungary at leisure to turn his forces against the

liberties of his own subjects. The Hungarians, on their part, have

displayed towards their perfidious rulers all the generosity and loyalty

that could have been due to the most patriotic princes. A hundred times

deceived, they have again trusted, again to become victims of new

perfidy. Through a course of three centuries, the Hungarians have been

alternately pouring out their blood and treasure in wars, whose honour

and profit were not for them, and, in the intervals of outward

tranquillity, maintaining a struggle for national existence with their

own king. Thus the season of peace was for them the period of greatest

danger; the prosperity of the prince was the misfortune of the people.

“Ferdinand of Austria was invested with the sacred crown of St. Stephen

on the 1st of November, 1527. He took the oath of allegiance to the

constitution of Hungary, and voluntarily added words of assurance to the

assembled people, of his love for the Hungarian nation, and his respect

for the laws. He did not owe his election to the throne of Hungary to

the preference of the nation, but to the cruel circumstances in which it

found itself placed. The designs of the Archdukes of Austria on this

kingdom had long been manifest, and had, hitherto, been effectually

repelled. But after the death of Louis II., in the fatal battle of

Mohács, it was judged impracticable to maintain, in addition to the war

in which they were already engaged with the Turks, a contest with the

Austrian pretender to the crown. It was decided to convert one of their

enemies into an ally, by voluntarily accepting him as their king. This

measure was effected chiefly through the instrumentality of some

powerful nobles, and did not receive the approbation of the great body

of the nation. None of the desired results were obtained by it. The

German troops pillaged the country more mercilessly than the Turks had

done, and extended their ravages through parts of the kingdom where

these could never have penetrated. Nor did the Hungarians find, in the

Austrian alliance, that protection against their Ottoman enemies which

they had promised themselves. It was no part of the Austrian policy to

succour Hungary; its aim was rather to weaken and impoverish it, by

whatever means. The victories which the emperors of Germany gained over

the Turks, by Hungarian money and arms, brought no advantage to the

Hungarian nation. The Turks were allowed to make constant predatory

incursions into Hungary, in time of supposed peace. All representations

to the king on this subject were unheeded. He would neither remonstrate

with the Sultan on these infractions of the treaties, nor suffer the

Hungarians themselves to enter into any composition with the Turks. Thus

they maintained, alone, a constant border warfare, while, at the same

time, they were forced to support large bodies of foreign troops, more

cruel and more destructive than the Turks themselves. To such

destitution were the common people reduced, that parents even sold their

children to the infidels to save them from starvation. The contributions

in money, extorted by the Austrian government in one year, exceeded the

amount of the tribute which had been exacted by the Turks in ten. Such

was the condition of Hungary for the space of nearly two hundred

years.[12]

“The Archdukes of Austria were not content to wear the crown of Hungary

by the election of the people. It was their aim, from the first, to make

it the absolute property of their house. Ferdinand I. had already

declared the crown hereditary, but he did not succeed in having this

claim allowed by the nation. In order to secure the succession to his

son, he caused him to be crowned in his own lifetime. His successors for

one hundred and fifty years were forced to take the same precaution. In

every case the form of election by the people was observed, and the

prince was required to take the coronation oath which bound him to

maintain the Hungarian constitution. Thus the monarchy remained elective

until the time of Leopold I. This prince had been crowned at Presburg in

1655, during the life of his father. Before his coronation, the

conditions upon which he was to receive the crown were offered him,

according to custom. He accepted and swore to them, and caused a diploma

to be made of them and inserted in the public acts. All these

conditions, like his predecessors, he had constantly violated; and at

length, in 1687, at the close of a successful war with the Turks, of

which, as usual, Hungary had borne the expense and the suffering, he

felt himself strong enough to carry into effect the long-deferred

project of his house. He knew, however, that he was to encounter no

slight obstacle in the resistance of the Hungarian nobles, the

patriotism and courage of many of whom he had already proved. He

provided against this difficulty beforehand. Immediately before he

summoned the diet that was to sanction this change in the constitution

of the kingdom, the discovery of a fabulous conspiracy against the

government gave him an excuse for ridding himself of all those whose

courage or patriotism might offer hindrance to his designs. A court was

opened at Debreczin, presided over by Caraffa, a name more infamous than

that of Jeffreys, and here, under the most horrible tortures, numberless

victims perished. The trials were conducted secretly; the public never

knew of what the sufferers were accused, or on what evidence they were

condemned. A yet more terrible tribunal was established at Epéries.

Caraffa repaired thither, and to this bar were dragged, from every part

of the kingdom, all whose virtue rendered them suspected, or whose

wealth offered a temptation to the cupidity of their judges.[13] A

scaffold was erected in the midst of the city, where, from March to

December, the executioners were kept constantly at work. The following

passage from the _Histoire des Revolutions de Hongrie_[14] will give the

reader some idea of the horrors of this time:—

“‘There were seen in this city thirty men, dressed in green, all

executioners, or servants of executioners, employed in administering the

torture, in beheading, breaking on the wheel, and quartering. Dragoons

traversed the country, to seek for persons of condition, whether

Catholics or Protestants. These were seized, some in the church, some in

the streets, others in their houses, wherever they could be found. It

was in vain that some alleged their innocence, and that others had

recourse to the amnesty which they had received for past offences. They

were cast into dungeons, and underwent the torture, ordinary and

extraordinary, to compel them to avow the crime of which they were

accused, and to declare their accomplices.... The sons, brothers, and

relations of those who were thus tortured cast themselves at the feet of

Caraffa, to conjure him to follow, at least, some rules prescribed by

the laws of the country, or any others which are in use among

Christians.’”

“Caraffa referred them to the court of Vienna. Here they found a

gracious hearing, and received promises of mercy for their friends; but

the executions continued, and when the petitioners returned to Epéries,

it was to find those whose pardon they thought they had obtained already

dead, or to have their remonstrances unheeded by the judges, who had

been furnished with private instructions.

“It was under these circumstances, that Leopold summoned the diet of

Hungary to crown ‘the most serene Archduke Joseph, as their _hereditary_

lord and king.’ It was not in the power of the Hungarians to disregard

this summons. The troops of the emperor occupied all the fortified

places of Hungary and Transylvania, and the scaffold at Epéries remained

standing even to the day of the coronation. Yet, with all this, the diet

did not yield without a remonstrance. In their reply to the king’s

demand, they first set forth the grievances of the nation, and demanded

the withdrawal of the foreign troops. They then expressed their

willingness to elect the Archduke Joseph according to the ancient forms,

but declined to acknowledge him as their hereditary king. The court now

made use of every art to win the diet to consent. Every thing was

promised. The patriotic members were bribed with assurances of the

speedy redress of the grievances of the nation; the selfish with the

promise of office and emolument for themselves. But there were among

them still men who were not to be blinded by falsehood, and who were

unassailable by motives of fear or interest. Among the most

distinguished and the most influential was the Count Drascowich, who

held the office of _Judex Curiæ_, Grand Judge of the kingdom. This

nobleman fell suddenly dead on quitting a banquet where he had just

received a letter from the hands of a messenger from the king. The

servants of Austria saw in his death the just judgment of Heaven on the

head of the opposer of the will of royalty. The Hungarians gave it

another interpretation.

“The diet at length succumbed to the wishes of the king. But his triumph

was only partial. The states yielded their consent only on conditions

from which they firmly refused to depart. They stipulated, first, that

in case of the failure of male heirs of the house of Hapsburgh, the

Hungarian nation should recover its rights over the crown, and the

kingdom should become once more elective. The second condition was, that

the king should still be obliged to take the oath to maintain the

constitution, and that the people of Hungary “should preserve, under the

hereditary monarchy, all the privileges, immunities, rights, customs,

and liberties, which they had enjoyed under the elective monarchy.” The

emperor assented to these stipulations, requiring only the exception

from the chapter of their privileges of the thirty-first article of the

Golden Bull, which gave to the nobles the right of armed resistance,

without incurring the penalties of treason, in case of an open attack on

their liberties by the king. This article was rescinded. On the 9th of

December, 1687, the ceremony of the coronation took place. Thus did the

crown of Hungary become hereditary in the House of Hapsburgh.

“Charles III., the successor of Joseph, had no son. By the terms of the

act of the diet of Presburg, of 1687, the crown must therefore become,

at his death, once more elective. This prince had reigned with somewhat

more moderation than his predecessors. He had, indeed, like them,

infringed the laws and trifled with the interests of Hungary, but his

government had been less insupportably cruel than theirs. This

comparative clemency of the reigning prince, and yet more, the dread of

the civil wars which would result from a contested succession, induced

the Hungarian nation to give their consent to the Pragmatic Sanction, by

which the right of succession was assured to the daughters of Charles

and their descendants. By the term of the Pragmatic Sanction, the

succession was to be transmitted _in the order of primogeniture_, and

without division of the kingdom. It was accepted by the Hungarians only

on the same conditions that were attached to the act of 1687. The sacred

crown of Hungary was not to be carried out of the kingdom, and no prince

was to assume it until he had taken the oath to observe and maintain the

laws, customs, privileges, etc., of the kingdom. This instrument was

guaranteed by all the principal powers of Europe. Hungary alone was

faithful to the engagement. We need not dwell here on that celebrated

scene, better known than any other passage in Hungarian history, where

in the place of labored harangues, the flash of sabres, and the emphatic

words, ‘_Vitam et sanguinem_,’[15] answered the appeal of the betrayed

and deserted queen.

“Maria Theresa was the first of her house who can be said to have

ascended the Hungarian throne by the free choice of the nation. In her

reign, for the first time since the accession of the House of Austria, a

sentiment of loyalty to their sovereign sprang up in the breasts of the

Hungarian people. They entertained for their queen that affection which

generous minds feel towards those whom they have benefited. Maria

Theresa was not insensible to the devotion of her people. But the

gratitude of the woman could not overcome the selfishness of the despot.

She expressed her sense of her obligations to the Hungarians in every

way in which she could do so without any sacrifice of her convenience,

or of the schemes of absolute dominion never lost sight of by any

sovereign of the Austrian dynasty. She pursued these schemes with a

prudence unknown to her predecessors. She avoided giving any violent

shock to the national feeling of the Magyars by a direct attack upon

their institutions; she won them by fair words and lavish encomiums,

which a generous and confiding people, unused to even so much

consideration for their rights as they received from her, accepted as if

they had been substantial benefits. Even in the promotion of measures

really advantageous to the kingdom, Maria Theresa took care to bring

herself a step nearer to the accomplishment of her designs. She put

forth decrees of her own authority, without the concurrence of the diet;

as, for example, those regulating the urbarial relations, which the

nobles, in consideration of their manifest justice and expediency,

accepted, notwithstanding the illegal manner of their promulgation.

“Joseph II., the son and successor of Maria Theresa, was a man of more

activity of intellect and greater individuality of character than often

fall to the lot of princes in modern times. He possessed, together with

these qualities, an obstinate and imperious temper. He had been

carefully educated by a Hungarian tutor, a man of extensive learning and

enlightened views, and had thus acquired certain philanthropic and

liberal ideas, which, engrafted on his original disposition, and forced

to reconcile themselves with his schemes of usurpation, made him a

strange compound of tyrant and reformer. From the commencement of his

reign, he declared his intention of governing by his own absolute

authority. He disdained to receive the crown from the Hungarian nation,

and refused to take the oath of fidelity to the laws. His reign was one

continued contest with the Hungarian people. He decreed the entire

subversion of their ancient constitution and laws, which he would

replace by model institutions of his own. He gave the Hungarians three

years in which to learn the German language, at the expiration of which

time no man could hold an office or serve his country in any capacity

who had not made himself master of that tongue. The Hungarians resisted,

by petitions, by remonstrances, and by the refusal of subsidies. At

length they spoke a language to which he was forced to listen. The

contest ended, as all former contests of this sort had ended, in the

defeat of the usurper. Joseph was forced to cancel the work of his whole

reign. He revoked all his decrees, and declared that the kingdom was to

be regarded, in respect to its political institutions, as standing in

the same position as when he began his reign. He announced his intention

of assembling the diet. He promised to submit to the ceremony of

coronation, and to take the oath of allegiance to the Hungarian

constitution. He restored the regalia of Hungary to the charge of the

nation. But he was not destined to wear these emblems of royalty by

their gift. On the day when the sacred crown of St. Stephen was received

at Buda, in the midst of universal acclamations and the roar of cannon,

the monarch lay dead in his palace at Vienna.

“Leopold, the brother of Joseph, warned by the example of his

predecessor, began his reign with voluntary assurances to the Hungarian

people of his earnest intention to govern according to the laws. He

immediately convened the diet, the first which had been called for

twenty-five years. He was solemnly crowned according to the ancient

customs, and took the oath to maintain the constitution. But this was

not deemed by the nation a sufficient guarantee for the safety of their

institutions. The diet, accordingly, passed a number of decrees,

defining the powers and duties of the king, and the rights of the

nation. These decrees contained nothing new. All the articles already

made part of the law of the kingdom. But the diet deemed it essential,

in view of the danger which the liberties of Hungary had so recently

incurred, that these statutes should be once more solemnly confirmed by

the diet, and receive the royal sanction. Of these acts we will cite

some of the most important:

“‘Articles 2 and 3. Within six months after the death of the king, his

successor shall be crowned at Presburg, and shall take the oath to

observe the laws, liberties, and privileges of the kingdom.’

“‘Art. 10. Hungary is a free and independent kingdom, in no way

subordinate to any other people or kingdom, and is to be governed by

its lawfully crowned king, not according to the customs of the other

hereditary dominions, but according to its own laws, rights, and

customs.’

“‘Art. 12. The right of making, repealing, and interpreting the laws

belongs to the lawfully crowned king, and to the states of the realm

in the diet assembled, conjointly; and this right cannot be exercised

except in the diet of the nation. The king shall never attempt to

govern by edicts or patents, which, moreover, it shall not be lawful

for any authorities to receive, except where such patents are merely

designed for the more effectual publication of ordinances legally

enacted.’

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

voted by the diet.’

“It was likewise decreed, that the diet was for the future to be

assembled every three years, and oftener, if the public welfare demanded

it. The right of free discussion was likewise asserted. The sacred crown

of the kingdom was to be kept in the castle of Buda, and never to be

taken thence without the consent of the diet.

“Thus, in 1790, the fundamental laws of the kingdom of Hungary were

solemnly reënacted by the diet, and confirmed by the king.

“But the diet of 1790 did not confine its labours to the confirmation of

the ancient laws, or the defence of nationality. From this period we are

to behold the Hungarian nation under a new aspect. Hitherto we have seen

the nobility of the country successfully contending for the preservation

of their chartered rights and privileges against the usurpations of

Austria. We are now to see them engaging with equal energy and

resolution in a yet nobler contest. The attack which Joseph II. had made

on the constitution of Hungary had, in the course of the discussions

which it excited, turned the attention of the nation back upon the

earlier periods of their history, and roused inquiry into the original

nature and design of their institutions. In this investigation it was

impossible for the Hungarians not to become aware that these

institutions had not only been tampered with and defaced by Austrian

policy, but that many abuses had been suffered to creep into them, with

the connivance of the nation itself, whether from the example of

neighbouring countries, or the exigencies of barbarous times. They

perceived, moreover, that many customs which, in their origin, had been

reasonable and convenient, were now wholly unsuited to the needs of the

age, and were inconsistent with the prosperity and advancement of the

nation. They became sensible, above all, that the position in which the

privileged classes stood with regard to the great body of the people was

an unjust one, and wholly at variance with those principles of liberty

and universal equality which lay at the foundation of their political

constitution. With a people possessed of so high a sense of honour as

the Magyars, to perceive this injustice was to resolve to repair it. Of

this liberal movement in Hungary, whose first public demonstration was

made in the diet of 1790, De Gerando thus speaks:—

“‘From this time they (the patriots of Hungary) declared that, in a

modern state, liberty ought to be the portion, not of a few, but of all.

They asserted that the old word _privileges_ ought to be abolished, to

be replaced by a word applicable to all,—_rights_. This comprehension of

their epoch led them to accomplish an unexampled act, to give to the

world the new spectacle which now meets our eyes;—an aristocracy

demolishing, of its own accord, stone by stone, the aristocratic

edifice; a nobility, under the eyes of an inert government, taking the

initiative in pronouncing the word of civil equality, and pursuing its

task with order and perseverance, in spite of all obstacles.’—_De

l’Esprit Public en Hongrie_, p. 96.

“The conduct of the Hungarian reformers is rendered yet more worthy of

admiration by the fact, that no discontent on the part of the peasants

themselves had called the attention of the nobles to the question of

their wrongs. The reformers of Hungary were led by their own sense of

justice, without any external impulse, to undertake the work of the

emancipation and elevation of the people. But, while it was conceded by

all that a change must take place in the relations between the people

and their manorial lords, the manner in which this change was to be

effected was matter for grave consideration. The most ardent reformers

proposed the immediate abolition of the urbarial dues, without

compensation to the proprietor, declaring it to be a simple reparation

of an ancient injustice. Others were of opinion that such an act would

be inconsistent with the rights of property, since the dues paid by the

peasant were simply a form of rent for the use of the land. The subject

was submitted to a committee, who were instructed to report upon it at

the next assembly of the diet. Other committees were appointed to report

on the reform of the administration, on the education of the people, on

the liberty of the press, and on the national grievances.

“The same diet passed many laws renewing and confirming the ancient

laws, which established entire freedom of religious faith.

“Leopold, on closing the diet, renewed his assurances to the nation, of

his intention to govern according to the constitution. He did not live

long enough either to give proof of his sincerity, or to disappoint the

expectations of the nation. He died in February, 1792, and was followed

to the tomb by the deep regrets of his people.

“The moderation which he had shown in his short reign had done much to

appease the minds of his Hungarian subjects, and they were prepared to

receive his son and successor with very different feelings from those

with which they had looked forward to his own accession to the throne.

The first acts of the young prince seemed to justify their confidence.

He convened the diet at Buda within sixteen days after his father’s

death, and offered the assembled states the assurance of his intention

to respect their institutions and laws.

“‘I will myself,’ said he, ‘be the most diligent guardian of the

constitution. Rest assured that my will shall always be subjected to the

law, and that, in all my aims, I will be guided only by justice, honour,

and confidence in the Hungarian people.’[16]

“The royal propositions addressed to the diet confirmed the favourable

impressions with which the nation already regarded their young king. The

first two articles interpreted the diploma of the coronation in a manner

favourable to the constitution. The king then called the attention of

the diet to the subjects left undecided at their last meeting, and

concluded with a request for subsidies and the augmentation of the army.

The diet, eager to express its confidence in the sovereign, immediately

voted the increase of the army, and a subsidy of four millions to be

paid by the nobles. This done, they were proceeding to transact the

business of the nation, when the king suddenly dissolved the diet. The

most important affairs, and among them the contemplated reform, were

left uncompleted. He did not fail, however, to renew his promises of

governing according to the constitution:—

“‘I go from you richer than I came among you; but not by reason of the

subsidies I have received from you. These belong to the state, not to

me. That which I call my own, that in the possession of which I place my

happiness, is your affection. The kingdom I have received by

inheritance, but this love and mutual confidence is my own work and

yours. I will never cease from my sincere and zealous exertions for the

good of our common fatherland.... Bear to your fellow-citizens the

solemn assurance that, always mindful of my pledged faith, I will be the

true guardian and fulfiller of the laws.’[17]

“The diet was summoned again in November, 1796. The expenses of the war

with France forced the king to ask his Hungarian subjects for supplies.

On this occasion he dispensed with all circumlocution. The royal

propositions simply contained a demand for troops and money. In addition

to the subsidies which had been voted at the last diet, the Hungarians

had testified their affection for their young king by large voluntary

offerings. The sum of the contributions in money and produce, which had

in this way been furnished to the king since the last assembly of the

diet, amounted to more than fourteen millions of guldens.

“The diet of 1796 again acceded to the demands of the king. They granted

him large supplies in money, and fifty thousand recruits for the army,

on the condition that these should be incorporated only into Hungarian

regiments, and should be commanded by Hungarian officers. The diet had

trusted that, when they had fulfilled the wishes of the king, he would

show himself ready to listen to the ‘representations’ of the nation.

These expectations were disappointed. The diet was dissolved before any

thing had been done for the interests of the country. It was summoned

again in 1802. Peace had been declared; the hopes of the nation revived.

The king, in his opening speech, informed the diet that, peace being

established, he was now ready to advise with them on matters touching

the public welfare. He expressed his sense of the generosity of the

Hungarian nation, and assured them that the recollection of their

devotion would never be extinguished in his heart. ‘And now,’ said he,

‘that peace is concluded, I wish to bestow my cares on this country,

which, by its extent, its resources, and the noble character of the

people, is the chief bulwark of the empire.’ This was the preface to a

declaration that the royal treasury was empty, and that it concerned the

Hungarian honour that the crown should not be left without defence.

‘Peace,’ said he, ‘can be maintained only by a state of preparation for

war.’ The demands of the king were again granted, but no longer in the

same spirit of affection and loyalty as formerly. Distrust began to take

possession of the nation, as they saw their grievances unattended to,

and the most important reforms delayed. A number of measures which had

been discussed and accepted by the diet were prevented from passing into

law, for want of the royal sanction. The diet separated with a feeling

of deep dissatisfaction. The same scenes were repeated in the diets of

1805 and 1807. The confidence of the Hungarians in their king was

shaken, but appeals to Hungarian honour and loyalty had not yet lost

their effect upon them. They again voted the required supplies, again

presented their grievances, and again saw the consideration of them

deferred.

“But though the Hungarians had so little reason to place confidence in

their king, their loyalty was still capable of standing a severe proof.

Napoleon, who was aware that the war against France was very unpopular

in Hungary, and that great dissatisfaction prevailed in regard to the

Austrian policy, addressed a proclamation to the Hungarian nation (May,

1809.) He offered to establish them as an independent kingdom, if they

would withdraw their allegiance from the emperor of Austria, and assist

the French in the overthrow of that empire. But the high sense of honour

of the Hungarians shrank from what had the appearance of treason. It was

not in the season of danger that they would desert their king. The

proposals of Napoleon were rejected.

“The return of peace, in 1815, left the Hungarians at leisure to devote

themselves to the internal improvement of their country, and to

prosecute the reforms begun in 1790, of which the enlightened portion of

the nation felt more and more the necessity. The Hungarians had now

reason to expect some proof, on the part of their king, of that

affection and gratitude, of whose expression he had been so lavish in

the season of danger. But the return of peace gave the Austrian cabinet,

likewise, opportunity to unfold its plans. Francis, now feeling himself

firmly seated on his imperial throne, resolved thenceforth to reign in

Hungary without the assistance of the diet. The convention of this

assembly having been delayed beyond the prescribed time, the counties

addressed letters to the king, representing the urgent wants of the

nation, and declaring that the public welfare absolutely demanded the

convocation of the national assembly. These letters remained unanswered.

The circulars which the _congregations_, or county assemblies, addressed

to each other were seized and suppressed. While affairs were in this

position, the empire was threatened with new disturbances on the side of

Italy. It was necessary to strengthen the army and replenish the

treasury. As formerly, it is in Hungary that these supplies are to be

sought, but it is not, as formerly, by the free gift of the people that

they are to be furnished. The emperor, by the advice of his cabinet,

resolved to levy the required supplies by his own absolute authority.

There were not wanting in the royal council men who had courage and

firmness enough to oppose the opinion of the majority and the wishes of

the king. Német, who held the office of _Director causarum regalium_ in

Hungary, expressed himself with true Magyar frankness. He declared in

the royal presence, that the king would violate the constitution of

Hungary and his own royal oath, if he suffered himself to be led by his

Austrian counsellors to these rash and illegal measures. ‘Do you

forget,’ exclaimed the king, ‘that I am emperor and king, and that your

head is at my disposal?’ ‘I know it well,’ replied the Hungarian, ‘but

the liberty of my country and the honour of my king are dearer to me

than my life.’ The counsel of injustice and aggression prevailed. The

levying of recruits was ordered, and the increase of the impost to four

millions of florins. Hungary did not submit quietly to this invasion of

her rights. The counties refused compliance. Imperial commissioners were

then appointed, who were to carry into effect the royal commands. It was

in vain. The news spread rapidly through the country, and everywhere

excited the most lively indignation. All possible embarrassments were

thrown in the way of the commissioners. They could with great difficulty

obtain horses for their journeys. At their approach, the public

functionaries laid down their offices and disappeared. This passive

opposition was encountered everywhere. In some counties it took a yet

more decided character. In the end, Francis was forced to yield, as

Joseph had been; he had outraged the feelings of his subjects to no

purpose. However reluctantly, he found himself constrained to convene

the diet in 1825.

“At the opening of the diet Francis endeavoured, by a conciliatory

speech, to appease the resentments of the assembly. But the members were

not satisfied. They required the names of the traitors who had misled

the king by their counsels. One of the magnates being prosecuted for the

freedom of his expressions, all the deputies supported him, and declared

that he had expressed the sentiments of all. The prosecution was

withdrawn. The deputies then addressed to the king a representation of

the grievances of the nation. To the long list of ancient griefs were

now added the recent attempt to levy money without the consent of the

diet, and the acts of violence committed by the royal commissioners.

Francis, in his reply, began with reproving the deputies for bringing

forward their own grievances, before considering the royal proposition

on the subject of the impost. He declared that he would protect the

faithful subjects who had executed his will. At the same time, he

expressed regret for what had occurred, but justified it by the plea of

necessity. In conclusion, he left the question of the impost to the

decision of the diet. This body, before acceding to his demands,

required and obtained of the king a renewed confirmation of the

fundamental laws of the kingdom. He bound himself never more to raise

money without the concurrence of the diet, and engaged to convoke this

assembly every three years. On their part, the states voted to raise the

amount of the impost to four millions.

“The national assembly, dissolved in 1827, was to be convoked anew in

1830. This was not done without great reluctance on the part of the

Austrian cabinet, which perceived with apprehension the effect that the

events which took place in France in July of that year had produced on

the Hungarians. But it was necessary to raise subsidies; and it was no

time to revolt the minds of the people, at the moment when the country

was resounding with enthusiastic expressions of its sympathy with the

triumph, in a neighbouring state, of the cause of constitutional rights

over despotism. The diet was therefore convened. But the king, at the

same time, gave notice that, after a short session devoted to the

consideration of the most urgent affairs, it would be dissolved, to be

convened again the following year. The diet met on the 11th of

September. The king required the raising of recruits, and, the late

events having somewhat lessened his confidence in the success of

arbitrary measures, he accompanied his demand with all those flattering

expressions which the Austrian kings of Hungary were accustomed to

bestow so liberally on their subjects as often as they stood in need of

them, and which had but too much effect on a people highly sensitive on

the point of national honour, and devotedly loyal, whenever their duty

to their country did not come in collision with their deference for

their king. The diet acceded to the royal demands. It voted the

recruits, with the usual stipulation, that they should be placed in

Hungarian regiments, and should be commanded by Hungarian officers. The

king replied evasively, that the Hungarians should be placed in these

regiments, in preference to any other inhabitants of the empire. The

diet refused to vote for the raising of the recruits without some more

positive assurance. The emperor had recourse to the Palatine, and

desired him to use his personal influence to overcome the resistance of

the diet.

“The Archduke Joseph, called to the dignity of Palatine in 1796, at the

age of twenty, had filled his difficult post of mediator between the

king and the people with great discretion. If he had been the

independent king of Hungary, the nation might have found in him one of

the wisest and most patriotic of its princes, and, under the auspices of

an administration, prudent, and, at the same time, liberal, might have

followed, with sure steps, the path of political reform, and have taken,

once more, a high place among the powers of Europe. As it was, placed as

mediator between a people jealous of its liberties, and a sovereign

watchful for an occasion to subvert them,—a sovereign to whom he owed,

at the same time, the respect of a subject and the affection of a

brother,—Joseph was forced to guide himself by a system of compromises,

and, not unfrequently, to play on the generous feelings which he knew so

well how to excite. The Hungarians, on their part, knew, or believed,

that the regard which the Archduke Joseph had displayed for their

interests had lessened his favour with the imperial court. He had, then,

suffered for them. They repaid him with an enthusiastic affection, and

the Palatine not seldom won from their gratitude concessions which he

would in vain have expected from their compliance. On the present

occasion, called upon by the court for aid in an attempted encroachment

on the rights of Hungary, he felt that it was on this attachment for his

person that he could alone rely for success. He addressed the diet in a

speech skilfully framed, which concluded with these words:—‘Let, then,

the states, in remembrance of thirty-five years of services, of efforts

consecrated to this kingdom, which I proudly regard as my country, and

in consideration of my position as mediator between the king and the

nation,—let the states, I say, consent to show me some manifestation of

their gratitude, by withdrawing their motion.’ These words did not fail

of their intended effect. The recruits were voted; the condition was

withdrawn. In three days, the king dissolved the diet.

“But the nation was no longer to be trifled with. The necessity for

reform was, every day, more strongly and more extensively felt. The

interval between the dissolution of the diet of 1830 and the assembling

of that of 1832, was not lost by the patriots of Hungary. They employed

it in determining on the measures of reform to be introduced at the next

diet, and in concerting their plan of action. The condition of the

peasantry was felt to be the subject which most urgently demanded

attention. One of the most zealous advocates of the cause of the people

was found in Count Széchényi, one of the large landed proprietors of the

kingdom. He prepared the way for the reception of the question of the

emancipation of the peasantry, by a series of works, which had a great

effect in enlightening the public mind.

“The Austrian cabinet, in the mean time, had not been idle. Having been

reluctantly compelled to convene the diet, it took its own measures to

put a check on the designs of the liberal party. It gave orders to its

agents to leave no arts unemployed, and to spare no expense, to defeat

the election of the liberal candidates.[18] These efforts were vain. The

spirit of liberty and the virtue of the people resisted all attempts.

The chamber of deputies was almost wholly composed of liberal members.

“The Austrian cabinet, too prudent to enter into open contest with a

movement which was evidently becoming national, affected to adopt the

views of the liberal party, hoping, by an apparent and partial

acquiescence, to allay the excitement of the public mind, and to

restrain and direct a movement which it could not suppress. The royal

propositions, therefore, embodied some of the principal measures of

reform projected by the liberals. Among the most important of the

subjects to which the attention of the diet was called, were the

creation of the urbarial code, delayed since 1790, the reform of the

judiciary, and a more equitable division of the imposts.

“Notwithstanding the enthusiasm for liberty which pervaded the Hungarian

people, and the generous ardour with which her enlightened patriots

approached the work of reform, it is not to be supposed that measures,

involving important changes in the constitution of the country, were

passed without encountering opposition. This opposition sprang from two

very different sources. It arose, on the one hand, from the conservative

spirit of the elder magnates, old Magyar patriots, who regarded the

institutions of their country with a superstitious affection, and in

whose eyes it was a sacrilege to lay a finger on one stone of this

venerable edifice. The organ of this party, composed of men who had been

the patriots of twenty years before, and to whom it is impossible to

refuse our respect, was Dessewffy. ‘In my youth,’ cried the venerable

noble, ‘I defended my country against the usurpations of Austria; in my

old age, I will defend her against the ingratitude of her sons.’ The

other and more dangerous source of opposition which the plans of the

reform party encountered, arose from the influence of the Austrian

cabinet. This government, true to its constant principle, _Divide et

impera_, while it gave apparent countenance to one party, lent its real

support to the other. It was not ill pleased to see these impracticable

Hungarian magnates engaged in a contest for their institutions with

their own countrymen, and those forces divided which had hitherto been

concentrated in the defence of Hungarian nationality against Austrian

encroachment. Thus, while affecting to take the initiative in the

reforms contemplated by the liberal members of the diet, the Austrian

government opposed the success of these measures with all the weight of

its influence. It was no longer as in those times when the monarchs

found their interest in raising the condition of the common people. In

this nineteenth century, it is not the king who shields his prerogatives

against the encroachments of an ambitious nobility; it is king and

aristocracy who tremble together, before the advance of a new power,

which threatens them both with extinction.

“But the cause of liberty was not without its advocates in the upper

house. The younger magnates,[19] with the exception of those who held

places under the government, shared warmly in the liberal spirit of the

time, and, with the generous ardour of youth, were ready to make any

sacrifice which the welfare of their country demanded. At their head was

the noble Széchényi, who supported the cause of freedom and justice with

the double power of eloquence and reason. It was he who gave the first

blow to the peculiar privileges of the aristocratic class. He brought

forward a project for a suspension bridge between Pest and Buda. He

proposed that all who passed this bridge, whether peasant or noble,

should be subjected to the toll. This question assumed importance from

the principle involved in it. The exemption from all public charges was

one of the most cherished privileges of the nobles. It was a question in

which their pride was more concerned than their pecuniary interest.

Széchényi knew how to combat the pride of the Magyars by calling on

their generosity.

“‘Do you call it a privilege,’ said he, ‘to be debarred from

contributing to the advancement of your country? Is it a privilege to be

obliged to devote your wealth only to your own selfish gratification,

while your country languishes in perpetual poverty? Will you build

houses, and plant trees, and lay out walks through your grounds, while

the country has neither roads, nor public buildings, nor navigation, nor

commerce? After all, what is the question before you? Are you called to

sacrifice your constitution to a foreign power? No; it is yourselves who

are to pronounce the decision. The right to give ourselves laws, the

right to restrain our own liberties, is not that, in itself, the highest

liberty!’

“The measure was carried. The diet then proceeded to pass several other

laws, which touched yet more nearly the prerogatives of the aristocracy.

The constitutional right of the noble to be exempted from arrest, except

on a charge of high treason, was abolished. The judicial power was taken

from the lord of the manor. The peasant received the right of

instituting a suit against a noble, and even against his own manorial

lord. It was especially to the improvement of the peasantry that the

diet of 1832–36 devoted its energies. The right of free migration, which

had been repeatedly adjudged to the peasant by former diets, and had as

often fallen into disuse, was confirmed. The amount of land which he had

a right to hold for his own use was increased; the vexatious exactions,

known by the name of the little tithes, abolished; and the _robot_, or

soccage labour, reduced to fifty-two days in the year. The most

important measure was that which decreed to the peasant the right of

redeeming the _tized_ (tithes) and _robot_ (_corvées_ or soccage-work),

by means of contracts passed between him and the manorial proprietor,

and of thus becoming the owner of the soil he tilled.[20] In addition to

these important measures, the diet of 1832 passed several bills for

internal improvements. This diet was not, however, content with

providing only for the material wants of the country. The friends of

reform had long been desirous of establishing a system of public

instruction. They had repeatedly called the attention of the government

to this subject, but always without effect. The representations offered

by the present diet were not more successful. The education of the

people was too dangerous a power to be trusted in the hands of

reformers; and the Austrian cabinet, emboldened by the support of the

conservative party in the upper house, felt itself strong enough to

venture on open acts of opposition to the views of the liberal party.

This conduct of the government called forth the liveliest indignation in

the chamber of deputies.

“‘The government,’ said Bezerédy, ‘sins against its own conscience in

refusing to permit us to secure instruction to our children and our

fellow-countrymen. But patience has its limits. Let the government look

to its acts. Its conduct forces the nation to rely on itself. I call

upon you, then, I call upon the whole nation, to unite in paying to our

country this most necessary duty; to unite in fulfilling a sublime, a

holy work, that of elevating the people.’

“‘Let us thank the government,’ said Deák, ‘let us thank the government.

There are among us those who cherish, if not a full confidence, at least

a hope, that the government is not hostile to the welfare of our

country. But all the answers of the court have been calculated to dispel

these illusions. Let us, then, thank the government, for illusion is the

worst of evils. We ask of the government neither money nor counsel; we

make no attempt on the royal prerogative; we simply ask to be allowed to

frame a law for the moral and material development of the people. And

the government interferes to prevent us. But what will it gain by this

interference? In more than one heart will be planted the bitter

conviction, that the Austrian government dreads the prosperity of

Hungary, and labours to repress it. False calculations! Can there be

more short-sighted policy than to excite in us such bitter feelings, at

the very moment of the dissolution of the diet, that we may communicate

to our constituents these feelings, which will, in three years, again

animate the representatives of the country? It is not necessary to be a

prophet, to predict that this policy of the government will favour the

development of the national faculties more than all polytechnic

institutions.’

“The diet separated in May, 1836. The result of its labours fell short

of the wishes and plans of the reformers, yet they must be regarded as

having gained a signal victory. This victory was not achieved without

cost. Every triumph of truth and justice has had its martyrs.

“It was during the sitting of the diet of 1832–36, that the name of

Kossuth was heard for the first time. He attended the diet as scribe for

some of the deputies. He had learned the art of short-hand writing, in

order the better to qualify himself for making reports of the

discussions in the diet. These reports he lithographed and circulated as

a newspaper. The government declared the publication of the proceedings

of the diet in this way to be illegal.[21] Kossuth then organized a

society of young men, composed chiefly of the scribes who attended the

deputies; these copied the journal by hand, and it was then transmitted

to the subscribers through the post, in the form of a letter. These

letters were seized in the post-office, and destroyed. This infringement

of their rights only served to rouse the indignation of the people, and

to give celebrity to the journal. The papers were thenceforth carried by

the county messengers, and delivered at the doors of the subscribers.

After the closing of the diet, Kossuth continued to edit his journal,

giving, in the place of the deliberations of the diet, the discussions

in the county assemblies. This journal being interdicted by the

government, Kossuth made application to the county of Pest, and was

formally authorized to continue it.

“The censorship of the press has never existed by law in Hungary, but,

since the awakening of liberal ideas in that country, the Austrian

government has exercised a censorship of the most formidable kind. It

could not attack the publisher or author by process of law; but by a

sudden act of arbitrary power, it cut off from the world the utterer of

dangerous doctrines, and smothered his voice in the silence of the

dungeon. Since the beginning of the present century, not less than forty

Hungarian patriots had met this fate. It was thus that Kossuth was now

dealt with. He was seized in the middle of the night, and consigned to a

dungeon in Buda. The government arrested, at the same time, the leaders

of a debating society, formed by some young men, who met for the purpose

of political and literary discussions. Among these was Lovassy, a young

man of brilliant talents and an ardent patriot. When the amnesty of 1840

restored him to liberty, he was no longer to be recognized; the horrors

of the dungeon had deprived him of reason.

“Another victim of the vengeance of the government was the Baron

Wesselényi. This nobleman was born of a family which had already made

sacrifices to liberty. His ancestor, the Palatine, had defended the

liberties of Hungary against the encroachments of Leopold, and would

have lost his life on the scaffold, if he had not found refuge in

Transylvania. The father of Wesselényi had sustained in his castle, for

a whole day, the attack of a regiment of dragoons sent against him by

Joseph II. His mother was a noble woman, who early impressed on his mind

the principles of justice and benevolence. Wesselényi had long been an

object of fear to the Austrian government. He possessed large estates

both in Hungary and Transylvania; this gave him a right to sit in the

diet of both kingdoms.

“The Transylvanians, not less attached to their liberties than the

Hungarians, had seen them even more boldly infringed. The constitution

of that kingdom requires that the king shall summon the diet every year.

During the war with Napoleon, its convention had been suspended, and,

after the return of peace, the Austrian cabinet still continued to

govern the kingdom as a province of the empire. The dissatisfaction of

the people was great. They watched with deep interest the movements of

the patriots in the sister kingdom. They had seen these succeed in

forcing from the government the restoration of their political rights,

after a suspension of thirteen years. The news of the revolution of

July, in Paris, which seemed at that time an event full of good augury

for all who were engaged, whether openly or silently, in a struggle for

their rights, spread rapidly through the country, and added to the

popular excitement. It was then that Wesselényi appeared on the scene.

He was a man peculiarly fitted to guide and control a popular movement.

He possessed a vigorous intellect, improved by the highest degree of

cultivation, invincible firmness, and a disinterestedness which his

enemies have never impugned. He was not less endowed with all those

qualities which possess a peculiar influence over the popular mind. To

the prestige of high birth, he added the advantages of wealth, an

imposing person, and a captivating eloquence. He possessed Herculean

strength,—a gift held in high respect by a simple and martial

people,—and an intrepid, almost reckless courage, which shrank from no

form of danger, now leading him to brave the vengeance of a despotic

government, now to put off alone at midnight in a frail boat, to save

from the waters of the Danube the victims of an inundation.[22]

Wesselényi might as easily have roused the Szeklers and Magyars of

Transylvania to armed insurrection, as to a constitutional vindication

of their rights. But while he called them to action, he restrained their

enthusiasm within the bounds of law. He passed rapidly through the

country, haranguing the congregations. He turned the excitement and

unfixed purposes of the people to a single point. He brought the

different counties into communication with each other, and led them to

combine to demand the restoration of their political rights. The people

rose at his summons, and the counties unanimously demanded of the king

the convocation of the diet. The government did not venture to refuse

the demand. The convocation of the diet was proclaimed. Wesselényi had

gained a victory over the Austrian cabinet; but one which they would not

fail to make him expiate. With this ardent and fearless temper, he was

not long in offering them an occasion. During the diet of 1832–36, at

the time when the government was endeavouring, through its emissaries,

to misrepresent the views of the liberal party, and to excite the

jealousies and prejudices of the nobles in opposition to reform,

Wesselényi, in the county meeting of Szathmár, detailed and explained

the measures which were contemplated by the reform party. In the course

of his speech, he spoke bitterly of the injustice which the people

suffered from the privileges of the aristocracy, and the check which the

prosperity of the nation received from the policy of the government.

Some of his expressions were pronounced to be treasonable, and he was

condemned to three years’ imprisonment. It was immediately after his

noble exertions during the inundation, and while his name was on all

lips, that this decree was carried into execution. Three years’

imprisonment in an Austrian dungeon is a sentence whose terrors, in this

country, cannot be easily comprehended. On a vigorous frame and

energetic temperament, like Wesselényi’s, the damp and squalor of the

dungeon, the privation of light and air, seem to act even more

powerfully than on frailer and more elastic constitutions. In a year and

a half, their work was done on Wesselényi. The government had no longer

anything to apprehend from him. Blind and decrepit, he was permitted to

leave his dungeon, on parole, to repair to Gräfenberg. He was finally

released by the amnesty of 1840.

“‘It is with a noble serenity,’ says De Gerando, ‘that Wesselényi has

borne the persecutions which have followed him. Proscribed for many

years, broken by moral and physical pain, he has been able at length to

return to his country, and it is to her that, prematurely old through

suffering, he consecrates his last wishes and his last thoughts.’[23]

“The diet was again convened in 1839. The Austrian cabinet had returned

to its old policy. The royal propositions contained no allusion to the

topics which chiefly occupied the public mind. The royal speech at the

opening of the diet concluded with these words:—

“‘As we have no greater desire than to testify to you, by our entire

confidence, a love equal to that of our ancestors of glorious memory,

so, likewise, we do not doubt, in any manner, of the zeal of our

faithful states, nor of their eagerness to show themselves the worthy

sons of those who have assured to the Hungarians the reputation of a

generous nation. Among the subjects of which we shall treat with you,

there is one which has its guarantee in the noble Hungarian character,

since it tends to maintain the army in a condition worthy of its honour

and glory.’

“This prefaced, after the ancient fashion of the Austrian kings of

Hungary, a demand for subsidies.

“The first of the royal propositions demanded the reinforcement of the

army; the second, supplies for its support. The only point affecting the

interests of the country to which it called the attention of the diet,

was the regulation of the course of the Danube.

“The liberal party did not, however, lose ground in the diet of 1839.

Some new advantages were acquired for the peasant, and the privileges of

the nobles were still further retrenched. The diet was dissolved on the

3d of May, 1840. The government, convinced by the result of this diet,

of the strength of the liberal party, returned once more into the path

of concession. At the closing of the diet, an amnesty for political

offences was proclaimed. The prosecutions were stopped, and the

prisoners set at liberty. Among these was Kossuth. He left his dungeon,

with his bodily frame wasted and enfeebled, but with his mental

faculties unimpaired and his energy unsubdued. He was released in May,

1840. On the 12th of July, of the same year, appeared the first number

of the _Pesti Hirlap_. It was published by the bookseller Heckenast. The

name of the editor was concealed. Never, since the rise of periodical

literature, did journalist exercise such a power as that swayed by the

unknown editor of the _Pesti Hirlap_. He attacked wrong and injustice in

whatever quarter they showed themselves. He not only maintained a

contest with the government for the constitutional liberties of the

kingdom, but brought to light all malpractices which took place in the

administration of public affairs throughout the country. Abuses to which

the diet had in vain attempted to bring a remedy, fell before the

attacks of the _Pesti Hirlap_. The minute knowledge which the editor

displayed of the affairs of every part of the kingdom,—the vigilance

from which it seemed that nothing could be hid,—above all, his rigorous

justice,—inspired both admiration and fear, and gave a force to his

judgments which nothing could withstand. In six months after its first

publication, this journal numbered eleven thousand subscribers. These

were of all classes and of all races. It was sought with equal eagerness

by the Slaves and the Germans, as by the Magyars.

“But with the increased diffusion of liberal opinions, the opposition to

them strengthened, and was gradually assuming a more selfish character.

It became apparent that the advocates of reform would not be content

with merely removing the most flagrant abuses. When the untitled

nobility had laid down all the privileges which separated them from the

common people, it was not to be supposed that the nation would see with

indifference the enormous influence exerted in the state by a few

families.[24] Already some of the liberal party had recalled the fact

that the chamber of magnates was an innovation introduced under the

Austrian administration, and there were many indications that the titled

aristocracy would be called on to make some sacrifices in their turn.

Experience has shown, again and again, that men who are capable,

individually, of making the greatest sacrifices, become selfish and

tenacious as members of an order. The interests of the magnates of

Hungary, and those of the emperor of Austria, became every day more

closely intertwined. There were still, however, among them noble

examples of patriotism and disinterestedness. Széchényi was still true

to the principles of his youth. The name of Batthyányi has been already

consecrated by martyrdom.

“The diet was again convened for 1843. The Austrian cabinet had now

abandoned the idea of intimidation, and returned to the line of policy

it had adopted in 1832. The royal propositions called the attention of

the diet to some of the principal measures of reform demanded by the

liberal party. The charge of defeating them was left to the upper house.

The two parties in the state, that adverse and that favourable to

reform, were already known by the names of the government party and the

opposition. Among the opponents of reform were found all who held

offices by the appointment of the crown, and likewise—with regret it

must be spoken—the dignitaries of the Church, who gave their influence

and their votes constantly on the side of the Austrian government.

Meanwhile, the same means were put in requisition, as in the case of the

former diet, to defeat the election of the liberal candidates. Money was

not spared. All the influence of the government and of the conservative

magnates was called into exercise. But without effect. The voice of the

nation pronounced itself, with decision, for the liberal side. The party

of reform had, as before, a very large majority in the lower house. New

victories were obtained for the cause of freedom. The most important

measure which was passed during this session of the diet was that which

gave the peasant the right to become the possessor of landed property,

without restriction. The law of 1836 had given him the power of

acquiring the property of the land which he held as tenant, by means of

contracts between himself and the manorial lord. The act of 1843

permitted him to become the owner, by purchase, of noble property, as if

himself noble. The advocates of this bill took the ground, that, by

their ancient constitution, the peasant possessed this right, and that

it was but a revival and confirmation of a law already existing, though

long unrecognized. While this question was under debate, one of the

members proposed, as an amendment, that this right should be extended

only to such peasants as understood the Hungarian language; but he was

instantly reminded by his colleagues, that ‘the law gave all the

inhabitants of Hungary the title of Hungarians, and that all, having

equally shed their blood for the defence of the country, had a right to

share in the same advantages.’ The act was passed without any condition.

It was likewise carried in the upper house, where it owed its success

chiefly to the exertions of Count Széchényi.

“Another very important measure, which likewise originated at the second

table, was carried during the diet of 1843. This was a law by which all

public functions were rendered accessible to the non-nobles.

“The liberal party could not, however, yet succeed in obtaining the

passage of a law for the equal distribution of the taxes. It was in vain

that Széchényi exerted all his eloquence. The victory was still delayed.

But, in the mean time, in anticipation of the law, great numbers of the

liberal party caused themselves to be inscribed on the list of those

subject to taxation. ‘There is not a county,’ says De Gerando, ‘in which

the liberals have not, in crowds, given this proof of their

patriotism.’[25]

“The chamber of deputies attempted several other measures of reform,

which were lost through the opposition of the upper house. Among these

were, the abolition of the _aviticitas_, and the introduction of trial

by jury. The states likewise passed some decrees favourable to Hungarian

commerce;[26] these having, with some difficulty, passed the upper

house, were by the government ‘deferred to the next diet,’—a common

mode, with the Austrian cabinet, of disposing of measures to which it

does not venture to give a direct veto.

“The liberal members of the diet had not succeeded in carrying all their

measures, but, during the short time they had been in session, they had

rendered great service to the country, and they were confident of

obtaining yet greater victories at the next convention of the national

assembly, which was to take place in 1847.

“The government in 1845, finding all its attempts to arrest the progress

of the liberal party unsuccessful, resolved to renew the attempt which

had been made in the time of Joseph, and attack the liberty of Hungary

in its very stronghold,—the municipal governments. Hungary has been,

from the earliest times, divided into counties, each of which possesses

an independent administration; so that the kingdom may be said to be

composed of a number of small states, united by a federal compact, and

represented, by their deputies, in the general diet of the nation. Each

of these counties is presided over by a Föispán, or supreme count, who

is usually one of the large landed proprietors of the county. Under him

is an Alispán (Viscount), on whom the principal business of the county

devolves. The salaries of these officers are, on the true republican

principle, very moderate. The honour of serving the country is regarded

as sufficient recompence. The law provides, that, in case of neglect of

duty on the part of the Föispán, the king may, _at the instance of the

county_, oblige him to resign his office into the hands of an

administrator, to be named by the king. The government made the absence

of some of these magistrates from the counties over which they presided

the pretext for a general displacement. This was done without the

consent of the counties, and even in cases where the Föispán had

resigned his other offices for the purpose of devoting himself to the

affairs of his county. The new administrators brought with them a

complete set of under officers, and, instead of receiving the moderate

stipend awarded by the county to its chief magistrate, had very large

salaries from the Austrian government. It was the intention of the

cabinet, by this illegal measure, to overrule the elections, as it had

already done in Croatia.[27] The appointment of these administrators

excited an indignation, which their conduct did not tend to allay. It

was in vain, however, that the counties presented remonstrances to the

king against the mal-administration of these functionaries. All

complaints were disregarded, and this new encroachment on their rights

was added to the list of grievances for whose redress the nation was to

combat at the next meeting of the diet.

“In June, 1847, the opposition party issued a programme of the measures

which they intended to advocate at the next meeting of the diet. They

begin with declaring that, in giving their opposition or their support,

they shall have regard, not to persons, but to acts; that they shall

disapprove of those acts of the government only which are, in their form

or their essence, illegal, or which are calculated to affect injuriously

the interests of the country. They proceed to recount some of the most

serious of the long-neglected grievances of the nation:—

“‘Our heavy grievances, so many times exposed, after a long course of

years, in which we have asked, urged, waited, have remained even to this

day without a remedy. They have become more bitter, because our

legitimate complaints, so often heard, have never produced any result.

It is for this reason that confidence and hope begin to fail.

“‘In the mass of our grievances there are some on which the opinion of

the whole nation is unanimous, including the men who are now members of

the Hungarian government. Nevertheless, the government does not seek to

remedy the evil; we cannot see, on their part, any intention of

relieving it.... In addition to our complaints of long standing, we find

new grievances in recent acts of the government. We have no need to

relate them in full; the public consultations of the counties, their

representations and their circulars, have already fully exposed and

registered them.... In this alarming situation of our country, we must

strive to increase and strengthen the legal guarantees of our

constitutional existence. We regard the responsibility of the government

as one of these guarantees. This belongs to the very nature of

constitutional government, and will form the best defence of the

Hungarian government against the pernicious influence of foreign

elements.

“‘Among the constitutional guarantees we count publicity. This we will

maintain, with all our force, in regard to every branch of public life.

We regard as a constitutional guarantee, and as a necessary means to our

future national development, the liberty of the press, limited by

suitable laws. We shall therefore insist upon the abolition of the

censorship, which has been introduced contrary to law.

“‘We regard it as legal, equitable, and as important for the increase of

the national strength and the security of our independence, that

Transylvania and Hungary should be fully and legally united; that the

two nations may be restored to each other, and the claims of kindred and

the long-expressed wishes of both countries satisfied.

“‘But we shall not regard our mission as accomplished when we have

fortified the guarantees of our constitutional existence. We believe

ourselves called to labour continually for the accomplishment of all

just reforms. We therefore resolutely declare, that we shall remain, for

the future, on the ground on which the history of the last years has

made the name of opposition synonymous with that of reform....

“‘In conformity with all that precedes, while we regard it as our

indispensable duty to guard the right of the initiative, we also hold it

our duty openly and clearly to point out the principal questions whose

prompt solution we believe necessary for the good of the country:—

“‘1. The equal distribution of the public burdens. We regard it as our

principal duty to lighten the burdens of the people, who have hitherto

been alone subjected to taxation. We wish in this respect, also, to

strengthen our constitutional guarantees. We desire that the diet

should decide as to the disposition of the impost.

“‘2. Participation of the non-nobles, of the inhabitants of the royal

cities, and of the free districts, in legislative and municipal

rights.[28]

“‘3. Equality before the law.

“‘4. The abolition of the urbarial dues, with indemnity to the landed

proprietors. We think it desirable that steps should be taken to

render the redemption of these universal, through the assistance of

the state.

“‘5. Security given to credit and property by the abolition of the

_aviticitas_.

“‘We shall labour strenuously to call into life all that can tend to the

material and intellectual development of the country. We shall endeavour

to give to popular education, that powerful engine of national

development, such a direction as shall form able and patriotic citizens,

that the people may, by this means, likewise attain to personal

independence....

“‘While labouring for the accomplishment of these ends, we shall never

forget the relations which, by the terms of the Pragmatic Sanction,

exist between Hungary and the hereditary states of Austria. But at the

same time, we shall hold fast to the tenth article of 1790, by which the

royal word, sanctified by an oath, guaranteed to our nation that Hungary

is a free country, independent in its whole system of legislation and of

administration, and that it is not subordinate to any other country.’

“The events which took place in France and Austria in the spring of 1848

gave to the cause of liberal principles a speedier triumph than its

advocates had anticipated for it. Ferdinand, in the midst of a crumbling

empire, was in no condition to refuse the demands of his people.

Immediately after the revolution of the 13th of March in Vienna, the

opposition party in Hungary issued a proclamation, headed, ‘_Mit kiván a

magyar nemzet?_’—‘What asks the Magyar nation?’

“This manifesto sets forth twelve points of reform:—

“‘1. We ask freedom of the press, and the abolition of the censorship.

“‘2. A responsible ministry at Buda.

“‘3. Annual diet at Pest.

“‘4. Equality before the law, both as regards religious and civil

rights.

“‘5. A national guard.

“‘6. An equal distribution of the public burdens.

“‘7. Abolition of the urbarial relations.

“‘8. Trial by jury.

“‘9. Representation on the principle of equality.

“‘10. A national bank.

“‘11. The army shall be required to take the oath to the constitution;

the Magyar troops shall not be taken out of the country; the foreign

troops shall be withdrawn.

“‘12. Union with Transylvania.’[29]

“To these articles, at the suggestion of Vahot, was added, the release

of prisoners confined for political offences.[30]

“It is to be observed that these demands for equality before the law,

and an equal distribution of the taxes, were not made by those who

suffered by the existing injustice,—until these reforms were carried,

these had no voice in any public matter,—but by the very persons whose

privileges were to be abrogated.

“These measures of reform were rapidly passed by the diet. A deputation

of Hungarian nobles then proceeded to Vienna, to lay them before the

king, and obtain his sanction.

“On the 19th of March, placards, affixed to the walls of Pest, announced

to the people that the royal assent to their demands had been obtained.

A copy of a letter was given, addressed by the Palatine to Count

Batthyányi, empowering him to form the long-desired Hungarian ministry.

This announcement seemed to give the final pledge of the reality and

permanence of their newly gained freedom. The people were satisfied.

They had never had any other desire than to live quietly under just and

equal laws. They believed their end accomplished. A partaker in the

scenes of the 15th to the 19th of March, writing while the hopes of the

people were still fresh, and before they had even a foreboding of the

terrible disenchantment which was to follow, speaks thus:—

“‘That which in Italy has cost streams of blood, that to which, in

France, hundreds and hundreds of men fell as sin-offerings, that which

Germany must buy with blood, and again blood,—that have we Hungarians,

who have been decried, through all Europe, as a seditious, lawless,

turbulent people, gained without any disturbance of the public order.

Our victory was no victory of force, but a victory of right,—a victory

of intelligence. Our revolution was a revolution against disorder, to

obtain the highest good of a free people,—order.’[31]

“Another eyewitness thus describes the effect produced on the people of

Pest by the announcement of the royal assent:—

“‘It would be impossible to describe the joy which everywhere manifested

itself. With deeply penetrated, devout hearts, we hastened to the

church, to give thanks to the Omnipotent for this speedy bloodless

accomplishment of our transformation. The church, when we entered, was

filled with people, the sight of whose deep, enthusiastic devotion

elevated the heart with a sublime feeling. When we left the church, I

felt as if newly born, newly baptized.’[32]

“But this apparent triumph of their rights did but hasten the crisis

which Austria had been for years preparing for the Hungarian nation.[33]

While they were returning thanks to God for their freedom, redeemed

without blood, Jellachich was receiving his orders from the Austrian

cabinet.

“On the 24th of March, only five days after the date of the letter to

Count Batthyányi, which had excited so much joy and gratitude among the

people, the Palatine Stephen, son of the old, beloved Palatine Joseph,

and who was himself possessed of the affection and confidence of the

Hungarian people, addressed to the emperor a letter, in which he set

forth the ‘three measures’ through which ‘alone’ he ‘hoped to accomplish

anything in Hungary.’

“The first measure was to withdraw all the military force from the

country, and to ‘abandon it to entire devastation,’ (dieses der

gänzlichen Verwüstung zu überlassen,) to ‘pillage and fire,’ while the

government was to look passively on. The second measure was to make an

attempt upon Count Batthyányi, the President of the Hungarian ministry,

and, through his means, ‘to save all that is to be saved.’ The third

measure was to recall the Palatine, and to send a royal commissioner,

invested with extraordinary powers, with a considerable armed force, to

Presburg, who should repair to Pest, after the dissolution of the diet,

and there carry on the government with a strong hand, in such a manner

as circumstances may require.’[34] The Austrian cabinet adopted each of

these measures in turn. The first was already in progress of

preparation. Until their plans were matured for carrying the third into

execution, it was necessary still to temporize. The good faith of the

Hungarian ministry was not to be tampered with, but their credulity

might be practised upon. They were, for a time, not less deceived than

the rest of the nation.

“On the 11th of April, Ferdinand gave in person, at Presburg, his solemn

sanction to the laws which had been promulgated in March. On the 10th of

the following month, he issued a proclamation, addressed to the

rebellious Croats and Servians, in which Jellachich was denounced as a

traitor, and deprived of his banship, and all his military employments.

In this proclamation, Ferdinand himself exposes the futility of the

accusations which had been brought against the Hungarians as oppressors

of the other races. He upbraids the rebels with their treason, in the

following terms:—

“‘We have been deceived in you,—in you, Croats and Slavonians, who, for

eight hundred years, under the same crown, sharing the destinies of

Hungary, _have owed to this bond the constitutional freedom which you

alone, among all Slavonian people, have been through a course of

centuries in a condition to retain_.

“‘We find ourselves deceived in you,—_you, who have not only always

shared equally in all the rights and privileges of the Hungarian

constitution_, but also, by the favour of our illustrious ancestors, in

reward of your spotless fidelity, have been invested with greater

privileges than any other subjects of our sacred Hungarian crown.

“‘We have been deceived in you to whom the last diet of Hungary and its

dependent states granted, agreeably to our royal will, a brotherly share

in all the benefits of constitutional freedom and equality before the

law. The right of constitutional representation has, with you, as in

Hungary, been extended to the people, so that not only the nobility, but

also the other inhabitants, and the frontier regiments, through their

deputies, may take part, as well in the general legislation as also in

your municipal assemblies, and thus you yourselves, through your own

immediate action, can forward your own prosperity. Hitherto the noble

has had little share in the public burdens; henceforward the uniform

distribution of the same among all the inhabitants, without distinction

of class, is established by law, and thereby an oppressive burden has

been taken from your shoulders.

“‘Your nationality and municipal rights, in regard to which an attempt

has been made, by malicious, false reports, to inspire you with

apprehensions, are not in any way threatened; on the contrary, they have

been extended and strengthened, secured against all attacks; for _the

use of your mother tongue has not only been secured to you by law in

your schools and churches, for all future time, but has also been

introduced into your public assemblies, in place of the Latin, hitherto

in use_.

“‘Calumniators have endeavoured to persuade you that the Hungarian

nation wishes to suppress your language, or to hinder its further

development. _We ourselves assure you these reports are entirely false._

“‘_For eight hundred years have you been united with Hungary; during all

this time, the legislature has acted with a regard to your nationality;

how could you, then, believe that this same legislature would now show

itself hostile to your mother tongue, which it has protected for eight

hundred years?..._

“‘The law is holy, and must be holy. _We have sworn by the living God,

that we will preserve the integrity of our Hungarian crown, that we will

maintain and obey the constitution and the laws, and cause others to

obey them._’

“This proclamation had the effect of confirming the Hungarians in their

false security. It had no other effect. Jellachich continued to raise

troops, and complete his preparations for the invasion of Hungary. The

other agents of Austria in Southern Hungary incited the peasants with

the hope of the rich plunder of the Hungarian towns and villages. The

work of devastation began immediately after the promulgation of this

edict.

“On the opening of the diet, on the 5th of July, the Palatine, in the

name of the king, expressed his reprobation of the rebels in Croatia and

Slavonia, who, as he said, had even dared to use the royal name, and to

resist the laws under the pretext that they were not the free expression

of the royal will. He assured them that it was his majesty’s desire that

the representatives of the nation should consider it their first duty to

take the necessary measures for restoring the tranquillity of the

country, for preserving the integrity of the Hungarian kingdom, and for

maintaining the sacred inviolability of the law. With this view, he

recommended them to bestow their earliest attention _on the defence of

the country and the state of the finances_. He declared that the king

regarded with signal displeasure the audacious conduct of those who had

ventured to assert that any act of disobedience to the law could be

pleasing to his Majesty.

“In the mean time the southern provinces of Hungary were already a prey

to fire and massacre,[35] while the Austrian generals looked quietly on.

It was not until the 11th of July, that the nation was roused to a sense

of its danger, and, on the motion of Kossuth, ordered a levy of men to

defend the country against invasion.

“In August, the Austrian cabinet threw off the mask: the imperial troops

began to march towards Zágráb, and to place themselves under the command

of Jellachich. In their reply to the remonstrances of the Hungarian

diet, the ministry at Vienna now spoke openly of the Croatian and

Servian rebels as the brothers in arms of the imperial army.

“On the 4th of September, the emperor addressed a letter to the same

Jellachich whom, not two months before, he had denounced as a traitor,

in which he speaks of the ‘_indubitable proofs of fidelity and

attachment which the Freiherr von Jellachich had repeatedly displayed

since he has been named Ban of Croatia_.’

“The Hungarians made yet one more attempt to avoid an open collision

with the Austrian government. On the 9th of September, a deputation of

one hundred and sixty Hungarians, at whose head was Pazmandy, the

president of the chamber of deputies, repaired to Vienna, to entreat the

emperor of Austria to show himself the king of Hungary, and ‘to

contribute to the rescue of the fatherland by throwing the weight of his

royal authority into the scale.’ The king drew from his pocket a written

paper, and read them, in an indifferent voice, a cold and evasive

answer.

“The deputation returned to Pest, to announce to the Hungarian people,

that they were to rely only on themselves. On the same day, Jellachich,

at the head of the imperial forces, passed the Drave.

“It was thus that the war between Hungary and Austria began. From this

period, the eyes of the world have been turned upon Hungary. Our readers

have yet fresh in their recollection the scene of this war, in which the

Hungarians extorted admiration even from their enemies. It is not our

intention to retrace them here. We have designed only, in this rapid

sketch, to place in a condensed form before those of our readers who had

not, previous to the breaking out of the late contest, directed their

attention towards Hungary, such a statement of the antecedent relations

of that country with Austria as shall enable them to form an equitable

judgment of the events of which they have been witness, and of those

which the next decade is to develop.”